title: Quaestiones in Epistolas Pauli

author: Hugh of Saint Victor

source_edition: Migne, Patrologia Latina, vol. 175, coll. 431C–634A

source_text:
## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS.

[0431C] *Paulus* nomen appellativum est apud Hebraeos, et Graecos, et Latinos, non tamen eadem terminatione [n: (Rom. I)]. Apud Hebraeos dicitur *mirabilis* vel *electus;* apud Graecos *quietus;* apud Latinos *modicus.* Quod nomen proprie impositum est Paulo in notam geminae virtutis, vel triplicis, quas praedictae interpretationes insinuant; vel Paulus dictus est Apostolus, a Paulo Sergio proconsule, quem convertit apud Cyprum; vel binominis erat.

QUAESTIO I. Quaeritur quomodo Paulus dicat servum, cum alibi dicat: *Non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis iterum in timore [n: (Rom. VIII)]*. Et alibi: *Jam non est servus, sed filius [n: (Galat. IV)]*. Et Dominus in Evangelio: *Jam non dicam vos servos, sed amicos [n: (Joan. XV)]*. Nunquid Paulus non erat amicus? Solutio. [0431D] Duo genera timoris duo faciunt genera servorum: scilicet servilis et filialis. Paulus itaque servus timore filiali erat, et non servili: quae servitus non tollit libertatem, vel amiticiam, sed potius ponit.

QUAESTIO II. Cur Paulus dicat Christum factum ex [0432C] semine David, cum nos confiteamur natum de Virgine? Solutio. Ut notaret Christum non more aliorum hominum conceptum, sed sola operatione Spiritus sancti de Virgine, absque virili semine: unde alii homines alios generare possunt, sed non facere.

QUAESTIO III. Quomodo ipsa incarnatio facta sit? Solutio. Ipsum Dei Verbum dico carnem factum, id est hominem: non tamen mutatum, vel conversum in hominem vel carnem, sed carne (ut mortalibus appareret) indutum; sic enim illa unio facta est, quod nec divina natura mutata est in humanam, nec humana in divinam: nec nova natura, vel nova persona facta est ex duabus naturis, sed ineffabiliter unitae duae naturae sunt in Christo: ut assumens [0432D] totum quod habuit per naturam, conferret assumpto per gratiam, et totum, quod erat assumpti per naturam fieret assumentis per dignationem; unde totum dicitur. Deus, totum homo, et vicissim homo Deus, et Deus homo, quod in substantiis hominis non contingit.

[0433A]QUAESTIO IV. Quomodo hic dicatur, totum Deus, et totum homo, cum illae duae naturae non sunt partes illius personae. Solutio. Propter similitudinem hoc dictum est, quia duae naturae sic sunt unitae in Christo, ut partes in toto, sed differenter. Non enim sicut totum habet esse ex conjunctione partium, sic persona Christi ex unione humanitatis et divinitatis habet esse, nil enim novum habet esse utraque natura. Quod autem naturae illae non sint partes personae, inde constat, quod altera illarum praedicatur de persona, ut cum dicitur: Christus est divina natura. Item nomina naturarum de se praedicantur, ut cum dicitur: Deus est homo et homo est Deus: quod non contingit in toto integrali et ejus partibus.

QUAESTIO V. Quomodo imago ad essentiam tantum [0433B] referatur, cum relative tantum de Filio dicatur. Solutio. Imago essentiam quandoque significat divinam, et tunc communiter de tribus personis praedicatur: significat etiam relationem, et tunc de solo Filio dicitur.

QUAESTIO VI. Quid non sit in substantia hominis, quod in substantiis Christi. Solutio. Quia nec caro est anima, nec anima est caro; nec homo est caro, vel anima, sicut Deus est homo, et homo est Deus, et Christus est utrumque. Quod inde contingit, quia major est unio inter Deum et hominem quam inter carnem et animam. Non enim anima unita carni totum, quod habet per naturam, confert ei, cum ipsa non sit capax multorum quae sunt animae, sicut Deus unitus homini totum se infundit [0433C] ei.

QUAESTIO VII. Quid est quod dicatur, cum dicitur: Homo est Deus et Deus est homo, vel Christus est Deus, Christus est homo. Solutio. In responsione hujus quaestionis moderni doctores inter se dissentiunt. Alii enim dicunt quod idem de se praedicatur, scilicet: haec persona Christus; quod mirum est, cum aliud Deus, aliud homo significet; et aliud filius hominis, aliud Filius Dei, ut auctoritas dicit. Quod etiam mihi videtur falsum esse, quia hoc nomen Deus idem significat, cum dicitur: homo est Deus, et: Christus est Deus, et: Pater est Deus. Si dicatur, non sequitur, quod idem Deus, homo et Christus, et Deus Pater sit. Item homo et Deus nomina [0433D] appellativa sunt; quomodo ergo significant hanc personam proprie, vel quando, vel a quo facta est impositio talis? Item Christus est homo, et virgo [Verbum] est homo, nonne idem praedicatur de utroque? Si dicatur non: ergo non sunt ejusdem naturae, cum nomen naturae non sit utrique commune secundum eamdem significationem. Alii dicunt quod cum dicitur: homo est Deus, non praedicatur hoc quod significatur hoc nomine Deus, sed esse unitum Deo personaliter; et cum dicitur: Deus est homo, praedicatur habere hominem unitum in personam. Sed secundum hoc nec homo vere est Deus, nec Deus vere est homo. Alii dicunt quod cum dicitur: homo est Deus, praedicatur persona divinae naturae de persona humanae naturae; et cum dicitur: [0434A] Deus est homo, persona humanae naturae praedicatur de persona divinae naturae: eadem tamen est persona divinae et humanae naturae, scilicet Christus; alius tamen intelligitur cum dicitur: homo, et cum dicitur: Deus. Hi concedunt plane quod Christus est duae res, quarum una est simplex, et altera composita; una aeterna, et altera temporalis; et quod Christus sit compositum quoddam secundum humanitatem ex carne et anima, et quiddam simplex fit secundum divinitatem, et quod divinitas non sit pars hujus personae, sed sit ipsa persona, caro autem et anima tantum sint partes.

QUAESTIO VIII. An Christus sit bis genitus. Responsio. Bis natus, et bis genitus est: semel ab aeterno ex substantia Patris, iterum in tempore Virgine. [0434B] Habet itaque duas nativitates, duas generationes, duas filiationes, aeternam et temporalem, non tamen duo filii est, vel duo nati, sed unus et idem Filius Dei, et filius hominis, non tamen eadem filiatione.

QUAESTIO IX. An persona sumpserit personam, an natura personam, an natura naturam. Solutio. Persona non est assumpta, ergo nec persona personam, nec natura personam assumpsit. Quod autem persona naturam assumpserit, omnes concedunt; an natura naturam, dubitatur a quibusdam: sed, procul dubio, natura divina assumpsit humanam, non in unitatem naturae, sed personae, id est sic facta est unio, quod assumens et assumptum essent una persona, non una natura, quod licet auctoritas manifeste [0434C] saepe hoc dicat, multi negant dicentes: si id quod est assumptum est persona, quomodo persona non est assumpta? Nos autem dicimus: licet assumpta sit persona, non tamen Deus assumpsit personam hominis, sed naturam, quia non est factus alterius personae quam prius fuerat, sicut factus est alterius naturae quam fuit, suam retinens; assumendo enim humanitatem, non amisit divinitatem. Ideo conceditur quod natura, non persona, est assumpta, non solum a persona, sed a natura. Illae auctoritates, quae dicunt Verbum tantum incarnatum, alias personas tantum excludunt, non naturam divinam.

QUAESTIO X. Quid sit praedestinatio? Responsio. [0434D] Gratiae praeparatio. Quandoque etiam dicitur praedestinatio ipsius gratiae appositio.

QUAESTIO XI. Item quaeritur, de quo sit facta praedestinatio: an de persona, an de natura? Solutio. De persona, non secundum divinam naturam, sed secundum humanam. Potest etiam dici quod natura praedestinata est vel homo assumptus, ut ita sublimaretur, ut quo altius attolleretur, non haberet.

QUAESTIO XII. An simpliciter debeat concedi Christum esse creaturam, vel factum. Solutio. Non concedendum sine determinatione tali, secundum carnem: ne videamur consentire haereticis dicentibus, Christum esse factum secundum utramque naturam, et propter etiam implicitam negationem [0435A] hujus nominis, creatura: quia id dicitur creatura, quod coepit esse et non semper fuit. Non enim sequitur, si secundum humanitatem Christus non semper fuit: ergo non semper fuit; sicut bene sequitur, si secundum Divinitatem semper fuit, ergo semper fuit.

QUAESTIO XIII. An Christus secundum humanitatem sit Filius Dei? vel Deus? Quod sic volunt probare, secundum quod est homo, est praedestinatus, ut sit Filius Dei: sed illud est, quod ut sit, praedestinatus est secundum quod homo, ergo secundum quod homo est, Filius est Dei. Solutio. Non est verum si secundum hominem est praedestinatus, ut sit Filius Dei: ergo secundum hominem est Filius Dei, nisi secundum sit personae expressivum. Si [0435B] autem notat causam, vel conditionem, non est verum, ut in hoc apparet simili: Iste secundum quantitatem peccati poenitet ut sit salvus, ergo secundum quantitatem peccati fit salvus.

QUAESTIO XIV. An secundum quod homo sit persona. Solutio. Dicunt quidam: Si, secundum significet causam, vel conditionem, secundum quod est homo, non est persona; dicentes: Si secundum quod est homo, est persona, ergo tertia in Trinitate, vel alia; sed non est alia, ergo tertia in Trinitate, et sic secundum quod est homo est Deus. Rursus, secundum quod est homo, non est personali proprietate discretus a Patre vel Spiritu sancto, sed sola filiatione, quam habuit ab aeterno. Alii dicunt quod, in quantum est homo, est persona. Unde bene sequitur, [0435C] si est homo, est persona, et illam consequentiam: si est persona, est persona tertia in Trinitate vel alia, dicunt falsam. Non enim totum positum ponit partem, sicut remotum removet, sed pars posita ponit totum. Pars autem remota nec ponit, nec removet totum. Quod autem id, quod est assumptum, sit persona, constat, cum Augustinus dicat quod id quod suscepit et quod est assumptum est una persona.

QUAESTIO XV. An anima Christi sit Deus? Solutio. Non est concedendum simpliciter, ne videamur consentire illis qui dicebant Verbum tantum carnem assumpsisse, et Verbum ipsum loco animae carnem vegetare. Ideo etiam non dicitur anima, Deus, quia magis redundat nomen animae in naturam [0435D] quam in personam.

QUAESTIO XVI. An concedendum sit, Homo ille fuit ab aeterno? Solutio. Si per pronomen, ille, demonstretur persona, verum est hominem illum ab aeterno fuisse; si autem natura humana, non est verum, Homo ille fuit ab aeterno.

QUAESTIO XVII. An anima Christi sit persona? dicunt quidam, quod non, dum est conjuncta carni: sed separata est persona. Alii dicunt, quod Christi anima est persona eadem cum Verbo.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XVIII. An sit universale quod significatur hoc nomine Christus? Quod videtur: quia praedicatur de pluribus, cum dicitur, homo est Christus, et Deus est Christus. Solutio. Non oportet, ut ideo [0436A] concedatur cum utrobique praedicatio non sit conformis, licet etiam sint duo, quae praedicantur de pluribus secundum quosdam, non tamen est id quod praedicatur de pluribus. Item volunt probare, quod est id quod praedicatur de pluribus, quia persona, quae dicitur de assumente, dicitur etiam de assumpto. Solutio. Persona est quasi nomen comprehensivum, duo enim, vel plura una sunt persona. Sunt tamen quidam qui concedunt quod significatum hujus nominis, Christus, est commune pluribus: et significat quantum hic terminus, persona divinae et humanae naturae, non tamen Christus est universale, sed duo singularia secundum istos.

QUAESTIO XIX. An homo assumptus sit Deus. Solutio. [0436B] Multi dicunt quod non, quibus auctoritas plane contradicit. Dicit enim Apostolus quod in ipso habitat plenitudo divinitatis [n: (Col. II)]. Et Ambrosius: Quidquid habet Filius Dei per naturam, et filius hominis per gratiam. Item Dominus de se loquens: *Data est mihi omnis potestas in coelo,* etc. [n: (Matth. XXVIII)] Si habet omnipotentiam, est omnipotens; si est omnipotens, est Deus. Item Joannes apostolus dicit de eo, quod *accepit spiritum non ad mensuram [n: (Joan. III)]*, secundum eos qui negant hominem assumptum esse Deum, datus est ei spiritus ad mensuram, cum non habeat quidquid Verbum, cui personaliter unitur.

QUAESTIO XX. Utrum homo ille possit dimittere peccata cum sit omnipotens? Solutio. Homo ille [0436C] potest dimittere peccata, non quia homo, sed quia Deus, sicut potest mundum redigere in nihilum, si vellet.

QUAESTIP XXI. An creatura aequatur Creatori, cum anima Christi, vel homo assumptus totum habet per gratiam quod Deus per naturam? Solutio. Non est aequalis creatura Deo, quia aliud est esse sapientiam, aliud sapere per sapientiam, aliud habere aliquid per naturam: aliud per gratiam.

Item sic objicitur: Dictum est quod quidquid habet Verbum per naturam, habet homo per gratiam: sed Verbum habet aeternitatem per naturam, ergo homo eamdem per gratiam, et si hoc est, homo ipse est aeternus. Solutio. Hic terminus, aeternus, notat [0436D] negationem. Illud enim proprie dicitur aeternum, quod semper fuit, et non coepit esse, unde quia aeternum non simpliciter praedicat personam divinae naturae, sed etiam talem designat negationem, non est homo dicendus aeternus. Vel potest sic dici, homo ille est aeternus Deus, non est aeternus homo.

QUAESTIO XXII. An homo assumptus sit adoptivus filius, an filius naturalis. Volunt quidam probare quod filius adoptivus sic per solam gratiam praedestinatus est, ut sit Filius Dei, ergo filius est gratiae, et sic adoptionis, ergo adoptivus. Solutio. Per solam gratiam esse Filius habet non gratiae sed naturae, id est, non filius adoptivus, [0437A] sed filius naturalis est homo assumptus, non per naturam sed per gratiam, per quam habet quidquid possidet.

QUAESTIO XXIII. Quomodo Apostolus ostendat erga Romanos affectum, ut dicit expositor, agendo Deo gratias, cum pro omnibus bonis, quae dat Deus tam bonis quam malis agendae sint gratiae Deo. Solutio. Non solum agit gratias respectu donorum, sed potius respectu Romanorum, scilicet, quia dona collata sunt eis. Cum autem aliquis agit gratias pro donis malis collatis, hoc facit tantum respectu donorum, non eorum, quibus conferuntur.

QUAESTIO XXIV. Dicit expositor, quod Apostolus in Romanis non laudat fidem, sed facilitatem fidei, quae videtur non esse laudanda, quia qui [0437B] facile credit, facile decredit. Solutio. Duplex est facilitas; altera, quae provenit ex levitate animi; et haec indigna laude; altera, quae provenit ex vigore animi, et multo intuitu rationis, et haec laude digna.

QUAESTIO XXV. Dominus prohibet in Evangelio jurare per coelum vel per terram [n: (Matth. V)]; Apostolus non per creaturam, sed per Creatorem, quod plus est, jurat cum dicit: *Testis est mihi Deus [n: (Rom. I)]*. Unde videtur transgressor esse praecepti, et sic ad mortem peccare. Solutio. Prohibet Dominus, quod est malum, scilicet jurare falsum, vel verum sine necessitate; suasit verum loqui; indulsit juramentum cum sit necessarium, in quo tria debent esse: judicium, quantum ad discretionis utilitatem; [0437C] justitia, quantum an sit faciendum; veritas, quantum ad cognitionem. Si unum horum defuerit, reatus perjurii incurritur.

QUAESTIO XXVI. Quid sit jurare per Deum. Solutio. Sensus est: Sic mihi prosit Deus, vel non, vel sicut est veritas in Deo, sic in isto; quam si evacuat quantum in ipso est, veritatem Dei annihilat, illis Deum fidejussorem constituens: si autem non est verum, Deum quodammodo incarcerat.

QUAESTIO XXVII. Item quid sit per creaturam jurare? Solutio. Per Deum, qui fecit eam. Unde dicit Augustinus quod qui falsum jurat per lapidem, perjurus est.

QUAESTIO XXVIII. Utrum juramentum sit bonum, [0437D] an malum, an indifferens: si enim bonum est, non est prohibendum; si malum, nullo modo faciendum; si indifferens est, quomodo semper a malo? Solutio. Ipsum non est malum, sed tamen occasio mali; unde consulit ipsum Dominus vitare, ne ejus assiduitate perjurium incurramus.

QUAESTIO XXIX. Quomodo Apostolus ostendat affectum suum erga Romanos dicendo: *Desidero videre vos ut aliquem fructum habeam in vobis [n: (ibid.)]*, cum magis videatur suam utilitatem, quam illorum attendere? Solutio. Non quaerit propriam utilitatem, quantum illorum, dum eos desiderat fructificare in bonis operibus, ut et ipse ex profectu eorum aliquid utilitatis consequatur.

[0438A]QUAESTIO XXX. Si verum est, sicut multi sentiunt, quod non plus valet voluntas cum opere, quam voluntas sine opere, quomodo dicit Apostolus: Desidero videre vos ut aliquem fructum habeam in vobis; cum plus meriti non haberet ex opere, quam habuit ex sola voluntate? Solutio. Nobis autem videtur majus bonum esse opus cum voluntate, quam solam voluntatem sine opere. Sed dicunt illi: Ideo desiderabat venire, ut cum opere cresceret voluntas, et majus fieret meritum. Quid dicent de passione Christi? Nunquid non amplius patiendo meruit, quam prius solo desiderio? Non enim possunt dicere ejus voluntatem in passione augmentatam esse, ut sic cresceret meritum.

[0438B]QUAESTIO XXXI. Quomodo dicat se Apostolus debitorem esse Graecis, et Barbaris: nonne gratis praedicavit illis? ergo non ex debito. Solutio. Non dicit, quod aliquid debeat illis ex merito illorum, sed ex injuncto officio debet evangelizare illis; et ex sola gratia quantum ad illos praedicavit, hoc igitur debitum non tollit gratiam, ut alibi dicit. *Necessitas mihi incumbit evangelizare [n: (I Cor. IX)]*. Quae necessitas non tollit voluntatem, sicut istud debitum non aufert gratiam.

Item videtur, quod in eis erat, unde hoc eis debuit; ex lege naturae, qua debuit illis, quod vellet sibi fieri. Solutio. Concedimus, naturali lege tenebatur, ut illos luce veritatis illuminaret, non tamen simpliciter concedendum est, quod hoc eis [0438C] deberet.

QUAESTIO XXXII. Item quando dicitur: *Justus ex fide vivit [n: (Hebr. X)]*, quaeritur cur efficacia justitiae fidei, et non charitati attribuitur; cum fides sit alicubi ubi nulla justitia; charitas nusquam sine justitia. Ad hoc respondent aliqui dicentes. Charitas et justitia idem sunt, et ideo neutrum causa alterius. Vel aliter: licet charitas causa sit justitiae, tamen convenienter fides, quae est charitatis causa, dicitur esse causa justitiae; quia quidquid est causa causae, causa est et effectus. Et est sciendum, quod aliud est credere Deum esse, quae est fides cognitionis; aliud est credere Deo, quae dicitur fides consensus; aliud credere in Deo, quae dicitur fides fiduciae; aliud credere in Deum, quod est per fidem, [0438D] et dilectionem in Deum tendere. Item aliud est, quod creditur; aliud, quo creditur; utrumque nomine fidei saepe designatur. Item illud, quo creditur quandoque charitate informatur, et tunc tantum secundum quosdam dicitur virtus; quando autem sine charitate est, informis est qualitas; nec est virtus, nec justificat. Aliis videtur, quod ubicunque est fides, etiam cognitionis, quantum in se est semper justificat: ejus tamen effectus quandoque ex abundantia mali impeditur. Fides est virtus, qua creduntur quae non videntur: vel certitudo rerum invisibilium ad religionem pertinentium supra opinionem, et intra scientiam. Charitas justificat, et fides, et gratia, et Deus: ergo quatuor justificant. [0439A] Solutio. Non ideo verum est, quod quatuor, quia hoc esset seorsum: in fide enim et per fidem charitas justificat, et in charitate, gratia, et per gratiam Deus.

QUAESTIO XXXIII. Quomodo pluraliter dicat, invisibilia Dei, cum Deus sit simplex, et unus, nec aliquid sit in Deo, quod non sit Deus, nec aliquid dicatur hic invisibile Dei, quod non sit Deus? Solutio. Quod unum est et simplex in natura, non ut unum et simplex venit in nostram notitiam, sed ut multa: et hoc raro deprehenditur, cur scilicet ita veniat, quia oculus interior nondum valet ad illam simplicitatem, et ineffabilem unitatem attingere, quae est Deus, ut eum, sicut est, intelligat. Unde cum intelligit Deum bonum, sapientem, omnipotentem, [0439B] et hujusmodi, quasi plura venit in mentem, quod unum est in natura. Ex quo altior oritur quaestio: utrum ea quae sicut plura a ratione hominis intelliguntur, in seipsis, sive in Deo aliqua discernantur differentia. Non substantialiter, vel personaliter inter se differunt: veluti rationes rerum aeternae, quae in mente Dei fuerunt, constat quod aliquo modo differunt, quo tamen modo non est certum.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XXXIV. Item quia dicitur: Sempiterna quoque virtus ejus, et divinitas, potest quaeri: Haec duo, virtus Dei et divinitas, cum sint invisibilia, quomodo discernantur ab invisibilibus? Non enim congrue dici potest, animalia vivunt, et homines, et equi, cum homines et equi sint animalia. Solutio. [0439C] Nomina, quae de Deo dicuntur, quaedam significant quid non sit Deus, ut immortalis et immensus, aeternus et infinitus. Quaedam notant quid sit in Deo, ut sapiens, bonus: quaedam insinuant sua praedicatione quid sit Deus, ut bonitas et sapientia. Ne quis ergo existimaret illa tantum a creatura Dei intellectu conspici: quae indicant quid non sit Deus, ut immensus: subjunxit sempiterna quoque virtus, etc. Aliter secundum alios: per invisibilia intelligitur Pater: per virtutem Filius: per divinitatem Spiritus sanctus. Secundum hoc videtur quod philosophi summae Trinitatis per ea, quae facta sunt, habuerunt notitiam. Sed Augustinus super Exodum dicit, quod philosophi ad notitiam tertiae personae [0439D] non pervenerunt, sed tantum περὶ τοῦ αγάθου, id est Patre, et περὶ νόον, id est, de Filio philosophati sunt. Ad hoc dicunt quidam quod illam distinctionem, quam fides catholica confitetur summae Trinitatis, non habuerunt, nec habere potuerunt, nisi per revelationem. Quatuor enim modis cognoscitur Deus, duobus modis interius, scilicet per naturalem rationem: quam notat Apostolus secundum quosdam, dicens: *Quod notum est Dei, manifestum est in illis [n: (Rom. I)]*, et per divinam inspirationem, quam ibi notat Apostolus: *Deus enim illis manifestavit [n: (ibid.)]*. Duobus modis exterius per facturam quemadmodum insinuat Apostolus, dicens: *Invisibilia Dei [n: (ibid.)]*, et per Scripturam, qui modus satis patet. Voluit itaque Deus in quibusdam latere, ut fides haberet [0440A] meritum, et in quibusdam apparere, ut infidelitas non haberet excusationem. Nota, in magnitudine universitatis notatur divina potentia, in pulchritudine sapientia, in utilitate bonitas, unde constat, quod non solum in universis, sed in singulis relucet quaedam imago et vestigium Trinitatis. Nihilominus caute inspiciendum est, quando similitudines inducuntur, vel ad identitatem essentiae demonstrandam, vel personalem distinctionem insinuandam, vel ut ostendatur quod incarnatio ad solum Filium pertinet, quamvis ipsa sit opus Trinitatis.

QUAESTIO XXXV. Cur Pater per invisibilia intelligatur potius, quam Filius, vel Spiritus sanctus, eum et ipsi sint invisibiles? Solutio. Quia Pater nusquam legitur specie visibili apparuisse, sicut Filius in homine [0440B] assumpto, et Spiritus sanctus in specie columbae, et in linguis igneis.

QUAESTIO XXXVI. Cur Filius per virtutem? Solutio. Quia ipse est virtus Patris operativa, per quam facta omnia sunt.

QUAESTIO XXXVII. Cur Spiritus sanctus per divinitatem significatur? Solutio. Ut ostendatur communiter a Patre et Filio procedere, commune nomen obtinet quasi proprium. Vel per invisibilia intelligitur Spiritus sanctus, unde pluraliter dicitur invisibilia propter diversitatem donorum. Per virtutem Pater, ad cujus proprietatem solet referri potentia. Per divinitatem, seu Deitatem intelligitur Filius, sic enim diversi diversa sentiunt.

QUAESTIO XXXVIII. Quaeritur de eo quod dicit [0440C] Apostolus de philosophis, quod essent inexcusabiles: *Quia cum cognovissent Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt [n: (ibid.)]*. Nam videntur excusationem habuisse: non enim tanta collata est eis gratia, ex qua Deum glorificare potuerunt. Nunquid enim Deum glorificare potuerunt sine charitate? Nunquid potest quis charitatem habere sine fide? Nunquid ex illo gradu cognitionis, quem habuerunt diligere potuerunt? Solutio. Ideo inexcusabiles fuerunt, quia non fecerunt quantum potuerunt.

QUAESTIO XXXIX. Item quaeritur, si fecissent quantum potuissent, an digni essent salute, si exissent ab hac vita in tali statu. Nam quis dignus salute sine fide, vel quis cum charitate perire potest? [0440D] M. P. Abelardus ait, quod erant digni salute, id est ut daretur eis unde salvarentur; quia si fecissent quantum possent, nunquam permitteret eos Deus transire sine fide. Alii dicunt quod ideo inexcusabiles, quia ex illo gradu cognitionis potuerunt diligere: et statim ex hoc statu fides daretur eis. Sed secundum hoc fides ex charitate, non charitas ex fide. Tertii vero sentiunt, quod nullo gradu cognitionis diligere potuerunt? si tamen fecissent quod possent, statim daretur eis fides, ex qua Deum diligerent, et sic glorificarent. Quibus objicitur: Nunquid fidem mereri potuerunt? Forsitan dicent: Quod, tametsi fidem non possent mereri, tamen ex eo, quod habebant, idonei et apti ad fidem suscipiendam potuerunt fieri. Sed quomodo sciunt, quod [0441A] ex hoc idonei fierent; vel si idonei, quomodo sciunt, quod fides daretur eis? Nonne Tyrii et Sidones idonei fuerunt? non tamen facta est praedicatio. Solutio. Nos autem credimus, quod Deum glorificare potuerunt ex parte, etsi nondum perfecte, si enim Deo attribuerent quod acceperant, et ejus gloriam et non suam quaererent, Deum secundum aliquid glorificarent: in quo Deum diligerent, etsi non perfecte possent.

Objicitur. Ex illa cognitione, quam habebant, poterant saltem ex parte Deum diligere: ergo ex charitate hoc poterant, quam habebant, vel quam non habebant; sed non ex ea, quam non habebant: ergo ex ea, quam habebant, et sic habebant dilectionem Dei, et sic digni salute. Solutio. Concedendum [0441B] est quod Deum diligere poterant ex charitate, quam habebant; non tamen simpliciter dicendum est quod Dei habuerunt dilectionem: sicut iste infirmus et debilis portat lapidem ex fortitudine, quam habet; nec tamen dicendum est simpliciter hunc esse fortem, vel habere fortitudinem. Non enim concedimus quod illi, qui in mortali peccato sunt, nullum bonum opus possunt facere, ut quidam sentiunt, sed multa faciunt bona, licet ad salutem insufficientia propter majus malum quod habent.

QUAESTIO XL. An ratio naturalis aliquid possit per se sine adjutorio gratiae? Solutio. Dicunt quidam quod ratio naturalis multa potest per se, ut apparet in philosophis, qui soli rationi innixi multa non solum in comprehensione veritatis circa creaturas, [0441C] sed etiam circa Creatorem cognoverunt, scilicet quod Deus est, et unus est, et quod trinus est. Sed ad hanc cogitationem non videntur pervenisse sine gratiae adjutorio. Unde Apostolus: Quod notum est Dei manifestum in illis est; statimque subjungit: Deus enim manifestavit illis.

QUAESTIO XLI. Quomodo ergo sine gratia si Deus manifestavit illis, nonne hoc gratia? Ad hoc respondent quidam sic: Deus dicitur manifestasse, quia tales fecit creaturas, ut ex illis posset ipse Creator cognosci. Unde subjungit: Invisibilia enim Dei, etc.

QUAESTIO XLII. Item si ratio naturalis tantum valet, ut ad hunc gradum cognitionis sufficiat, [0441D] quaeritur in quo fuit efficacior ante peccatum quam modo; vel quomodo nunc infirmior quam tunc? Sicut enim tunc cognovit, quod Deus est, et unus est, et trinus; ita et nunc. Et sicut modo incarnationis mysterium non potest comprehendere sine adjutorio gratiae, ita nec tunc quod mysterium absconditum est in Deo, qui fecit omnia, ut dicit Apostolus, quasi nil inservit creaturis, ex quo hoc cognosci posset. Solutio. Ratio ante peccatum facilius et perfectius comprehendit, quod modo cum magna difficultate, et minus perfecte, et a longe speculatur: multa etiam novisset tunc quae modo non cognoscit. Objicitur iis qui dicunt quod ratio naturalis aliquid possit per se: Nonne oculus exterior nil videre potest sine illustratione lucis supervenientis [0442A] sibi, vel radii solis, vel alterius a oculus interior nil potest per se sine illustratione lucis, quae illuminat omnem hominem in hunc mundum venientem. Ratio ergo naturalis sine gratia quid potest, cum talis lux sit ex gratia? Ad quod respondent quidam sic: In prima creatione est exposita, et proposita interiori oculo illustratio summae lucis: quo ad usque et ad quem finem per se ex tali expositione, et propositione sine aliqua gratia superveniente pervenire valeret: quae illustratio non fuit de substantia rationis, nec de ejus natura, sed de dono ejus gratuito. Tamen potest dici quod naturaliter videt; quia, cum natura data est aptitudo et idoneitas videndi exposita illa luce: de qua sermo praecessit. Itaque sine omnimoda gratia nil potest videre [0442B] oculus mentis: potest tamen bene sine gratia superveniente alia ab illa, quae collata est cum natura, quae superveniens gratia maxime solet dici gratia.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XLIII. *Tradidit illos Deus in desideria cordis sui, et in passiones ignominiae, et in sensum reprobum.* Ex his auctoritatibus, et multis aliis, ut est illud: *Dedit illis spiritum compunctionis, ut videntes non videant, et audientes non audiant. [n: (Rom. XI)]*. Et illud: *Induratum est cor Pharaonis [n: (Exod. VII)]* Et illud: *Quem vult indurat, cujus vult miseretur [n: (Rom. IX)]*. Ex his et aliis quampluribus quaedam mala videntur fieri Dei operatione. Augustinus etiam multa coacervat in unum ad hujusmodi rei probationem. Postmodum infert. Ex quibus manifestum [0442C] est Deum operari in cordibus hominum, in bonis inclinando ad bona pro misericordia, vel in malis inclinando ad mala judicio suo quandoque occulto, quandoque manifesto, semper autem justo. Item: *Nonne justum est, ut qui in sordibus est, sordescat adhuc? [n: (Apoc. XXII.)]* A quo est hoc justum? nonne a Deo, a quo omne justum? Itaque Deus videtur operari hoc. Item peccatum illud, quod est poena praecedentis peccati a quo est? omne justum est a Deo, et illud peccatum est poena justa. Itaque videtur originem habere a Deo. Solutio Ad hoc quidem respondent dicentes omne peccatum esse a Deo, non solum quod est poena alterius, sed etiam quod est tantum culpa, concedentes furtum, latrocinium, [0442D] adulterium esse a Deo, juxta illud prophetae: *Non est malum in civitate, quod non faciat Deus [n: (Amos. III)]*. Quia etiam ratione tali conantur idem probare. Omnis essentia est a Deo, sed voluntas mala et actio mala peccatum sunt, et essentiam habent: unde colligitur quod peccatum sit a Deo secundum horum opinionem. Quibus sic objicitur. Facere peccatum quid est, nisi peccare? Quid est facere adulterium, nisi facere adulterari? facere furtum, nisi furari? Unde si conceditur, quod faciat peccatum, sequitur quod Deus peccet. furetur, adulteretur, occidat: quod non solum nefas est dicere, sed etiam cogitare. Illud quod objicitur de voluntate mala et actione non bona, quod aliquid sunt, et sic a Deo. Sic solvitur. Peccatorum aliud est secundum [0443A] se, aliud secundum aliud. Peccatum secundum se, est quaedam inordinatio, ut privatio justitiae; et ipsa nihil est nisi absentia justitiae, unde non est a Deo, cum nihil sit. Non enim Deus est auctor ejus, quod nihil est. Voluntas mala, et actio non bona peccatum est secundum aliud, scilicet secundum inordinationem, et haec aliquid sunt, et peccata dicuntur non ex eo quod habent, sed ex eo quod non habent: ideo enim peccata sunt, quia non habent ordinem vel modum. Illud prophetae, scilicet quod dicit: Non est malum in civitate, quod non faciat Deus, de malo adversitatis, num de malo perversitatis intelligitur. Vel forsitan nec etiam cogimur de malo adversitatis hoc intelligere, si diligentius inspexerimus hujus Scripturae circumstantiam. Sic enim [0443B] habetur in propheta: Non est malum in civitate, quod non notum faciat Dominus servis suis prophetis. Item objiciunt de potestate peccandi, quia a Deo est: et ipsa peccatum est, et sic peccatum est a Deo ut videtur. Solutio Nihil est hoc, quia potestas peccandi nec peccatum est, nec sufficiens causa peccandi sine voluntate.

QUAESTIO XLIII. Rursus sic quaeritur. An omnis voluntas sit a Deo, cum nil sit, quod non habeat esse a Deo? Solutio. Non est concedendum, quod omnis voluntas sit a Deo, cum nil sit, quod non habeat esse a Deo: hoc enim esset tam bona quam mala. Idem de actione intelligitur. Cum enim dicitur actio mala vel voluntas, magis redundat locutio in qualitatem, quam in essentiam.

[0443C]Quare etsi habeat id unde esse dicitur a Deo, cum tamen ejus qualitas non sit ex eo, non est dicendum malam actionem vel voluntatem esse ex Deo. Nota quod inordinatio dicitur esse qualitas malae actionis, propter modum responsionis similem; vel qualitas large accipitur pro eo quod assignatur quale aliquid sit, vel quale non sit. Item haec propositio: Essentia hujus actionis est a Deo, dupliciter intelligitur: vel quod ipsa sit a Deo, vel id, unde habet esse sit a Deo. Alii vero dicunt non omne peccatum esse, a Deo; sed secundum illud solum, quod est poena alterius, fit operatione Dei; dicentes: Si ad solam permissionem referatur quod dicitur, Tradidit illos Deus in reprobum sensum, generaliter de omni posset hoc dici peccato quod Deus operatur [0443D] illud; sed nunquam dicitur Deus tradere aliquem in aliquod peccatum, nisi illud, quod est poena peccati. Item, si ad gratiae subtractionem referatur, ex hoc patet quod Deus illud operetur, cum gratiam subtrahat. Item cum necessario illud sequatur ex gratiae subtractione, quis est causa illius nisi subtractor? ut si domus haberet aliquod fulcimentum sine quo stare non posset, si quis fulcimentum auferret, quis fieret causa ruinae, nisi ille qui sustulit fulcimentum? Vel si aliqui essent in navicula in mari, si quis eam submergeret, cum sine ea homines vivere non possent, quis est causa mortis nisi submersor? His itaque similitudinibus conantur asserere quod Deus operatur quaedam peccata, si non [0444A] omnia. Sed non videtur esse simile inter domum, quae nil potest mereri, et hominem, cujus culpa offertur id sine quo stare nequit. Sed similitudo convenientior esset ubi si domus casura esset, et si quis manum supponeret, et eam ne caderet sustineret, si post modum ratione exigente, manum retraheret, non quidem esset causa quare domus rueret, sed quare non prius cecidit causa fuit. Sicut si quis nudus esset, et alter ei vestes daret, et ille vestitus deinde offenderet eum cujus vestibus est indutus ita ut vestes rationabiliter tolleret, et sic nudus moreretur, quis causa mortis? nonne ipse qui nudus moritur? Et si quis, causa exigente, alicui doctrinam subtrahat, cui prius exhibuit, hoc facit non aliquid operando, sed potius non operando quod operabatur. [0444B] Sic quoque dicimus quod Deus subtrahendo gratiam, culpa nostra exigente, nec ipse causa est quare subtrahatur gratia secundum nos: nec hoc fecit aliquid operando, sed non operando quod prius operabatur. Sic itaque nulla ratione concedendum est quod operatione Dei fiat peccatum, sive sit poena peccati, sive non; hoc ergo, quod dicit Augustinus, Deum operari in cordibus hominum, vel inclinando ad bonum, vel ad malum, operari dicitur vel similitudine dictionis hujus verbi *subtrahere,* quod construitur cum accusativo, quasi significaret aliquid agere; vel, quod melius est, *operari* accipitur pro operari, vel non operari, ut ibi: *Quod enim operor non intelligo [n: (Infra, c. 7)]*. Aliter enim si sic non acciperetur, facere malum, et non facere bonum, [0444C] non essent partes operari. Et illud: *Reddet unicuique secundum opera sua,* scilicet pro eis quae fecit, et pro eis quae non fecit, cum ea facere debuerit. Illud autem quod dicitur: *Qui in sordibus est, sordescat adhuc [n: (Apoc. 22, infra, c. 2)]*, sic intelligitur: justitia non est ex qualitate sordidationis, sed ex judicio Dei, quo illud fit. Unde, si dicatur justum, non justitia quae in ipso est, sed in regula Dei, non quod ipsum sordescere sit a Deo, vel quod Deus faciat illud. Similiter de quolibet peccato quod est poena peccati praecedentis. Quod enim talis poena dicitur justa, hoc non est ex qualitate sui, sed judicio Dei.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XLV. Utrum poena ipsa, quae etiam [0444D] culpa est, sit a Deo. Quod videtur, quia omne justum est a Deo, et omnis poena talis est justa. Itaque videtur quod talis poena sit a Deo. Solutio. Non oportet hoc dicere: cum ex qualitate sui non habeat ut sit justa, sed ex lege Dei, ut jam dictum est: Scriptum enim est: *Deus mortem non fecit, nec laetatur in perditione viventium [n: (Sap. I)]*. Vel, etiamsi concedatur quod poena sit a Deo, non tamen culpa, licet idem sit poena et culpa. Non enim a Deo habet quod culpa est, etsi aliquo modo habeat a Deo quod sit poena. Cum enim poena aliquid sit in se, propter tria dicitur esse a Deo, scilicet propter materiam ejus, quam Deus facit, ut materiam ignis; et propter naturam, scilicet quod res talis non potest esse in re tali quin patiatur: quae natura est a Deo, et propter judicium [0445A] Dei, quo talis poena tali culpae infligitur. Non tamen Deum esse causam illius poenae dicimus; hoc enim esset dicere quod Deus fecisset culpam illius poenae, quia non est causa corruptionis; quae si non esset, non pateretur quidquam qui punitur. Itaque hujusmodi poena, quae aliquid est, propter tria dicitur a Deo esse. Propter materiam, et naturam et judicium. Secundum vero duo, scilicet culpam et corruptionem, non est a Deo. Illa autem poena quae peccatum est, propter duo dici potest quod sit a Deo, scilicet propter judicium Dei, et propter naturam, quae est quod nemo potest sic peccare, quin ipso puniatur. Culpa vero et corruptio nullo modo est a Deo. Non est ergo dicendum quod operatione Dei vel impulsu aliquis in peccatum praecipitetur; [0445B] nec in illud etiam quod est poena; sed Scripturae quae videntur hoc sentire, vel ad permissionem, vel ad gratiae subtractionem referendae sunt. Quidam etiam referunt eas ad viae apertionem, quia nequitia intus concepta nequit exire, nisi ei via aperiatur, ut Nabuchodonosor prius malitiam intus conceperat, et Deus exponendo ei gentem Judaicam, viam ei aperuit, et sic ille malitiam exercuit, quam prius intus clausam habuit. Alii vero referunt ad viae clausionem, quia Deus omnes alias vias, ne exire liceat, clausit, ut non habeat eliam per quam exeat. Hinc dicitur aliquem praecipitare in peccatum, quia non claudit hanc viam per quam exit, sicut caeteras per quas non egreditur. Unde constat quod Deus non est causa quare per hanc prodeat, sed ipse qui [0445C] exit; sed cur non per aliam egrediatur Deus causa est, et cur etiam potius per istam, quam per aliam, ex utroque est; cur deterius non peccet, Deus auctor est; cur vero tantum, et non minus, ex ipso est. Veluti, si quis esset in turre, volens seipsum per fenestram praecipitare, et aliquis alius omnes fenenestras clauderet praeter unam, et ille per illam praecipitaret se. Ecce quod non per aliam: ille, qui claudit caeteras, causa est, quod per istam, non ille, qui claudit; sed ipse, qui praecipitavit se. Quod autem potius per istam, quam per aliam, ex utroque est. Sunt etiam qui ad occasionem eas referunt, veluti Domino intrante Hierusalem tota civitas commota est, et malitia prius concepta, accepta occasione, excitata est ad invidiam; et sic ad persequendum. [0445D] Itaque vel ad permissionem, vel ad subtractionem gratiae, vel ad viae apertionem, vel viae non clausionem refertur, secundum quosdam quod dicitur: *Tradidit illos in desideria cordis, et in passiones ignominiae,* etc. [n: (Rom. I.)] Nos autem magis dicimus universa, quam ad unum aliquod singulorum, etsi non omnia ubique concurrant; semper tamen tria, scilicet permissio, et gratiae subtractio, et viae non clausio concurrunt; viae vero apertio, et occasio non in omnibus reperiuntur.

QUAESTIO XLVI. Quomodo dicatur Deus tradere eos in passiones ignominiae, cum non solum ibi nil patiantur, sed etiam delectentur. Solutio. Propter effectum; quia enim poena aeterna sequitur, peccati [0446A] hujusmodi passiones vocantur. Vel etiam in praesenti vita patiuntur. Non enim possunt sic peccare, quin patiantur, quin natura laedatur, corrumpatur, et aliquo bono privetur, et foedetur; et sic verum est jam eos in praesenti pati.

QUAESTIO XLVII. Quaeritur iterum quid mali inferat reprobis, tradi in reprobum sensum, cum non sint poenituri. Qui enim excaecantur, ut ponant lucem in tenebras, et tenebras in lucem, videntur minus peccare per talem excaecationem, cum nihil faciunt contra conscientiam; unde quod majus est peccatum in se, minus est ei, a quo fit, cum minus fiat contra conscientiam. Itaque cum isti minus contra conscientiam peccent propter sensum reprobum, videtur eis prodesse sic excaecari. Solutio. Talis necessitas [0446B] ignorantiae non habet excusationem, quia provenit ex perversa voluntate.

QUAESTIO XLVIII. Quomodo Deus non peccet operando in cordibus eorum, ut inclinentur ad malum. Solutio. Si praedicta ad memoriam revocentur, patet responsio: hoc enim faciendo non immittit malitiam.

QUAESTIO XLIX. Quomodo defendi possit, quin Deus crudeliter agat damnando istum, qui omni sibi subtracta gratia relictus sibi non potest non peccare: si enim non vitat, quod vitare non potest, quae culpa est illi? vel si ideo damnatur, videtur quod injuste agatur cum illo. Solutio. Ista impossibilitas est inexcusabilis, quae ex culpa et vitio propriae voluntatis processit; quia prius se praecipitavit, licet [0446C] modo nolens peccet; Deus tamen ipsum juste pro peccatis damnat. *Justum est enim ut qui in sordibus est, sordescat adhuc [n: (Apoc. XXII)]*.

QUAESTIO L. Quomodo Deus non consentiat peccantibus, cum malum sciat, et prohibere possit, et expositor dicit. Consentire est non corrigere cum possis. Solutio. Deus multis modis corrigit, et arguit peccantes, tum naturali ratione, tum lege scripta, tum per ministros suos, tum per propria, vel aliena flagella: unde nullo modo dicendus est consentire peccantibus.

QUAESTIO LI. Utrum aequaliter peccent facientes et consentientes. Solutio. In hujusmodi, quae variari possunt secundum diversas causas, generale judicium [0446D] dari non potest: secundum enim intentionem judicandum est de talibus.

[n: (Rom. 3)] QUAESTIO LII. *Secundum duritiam, est impoenitens,* etc. Quaeritur quid sit poenitere. Solutio. Poenitentia est compunctio mentis de praeteritis, et propositum de futuro, vel dolor, quia fecit propositum quod amplius non est facturus. Quid est enim aliud poenitere vere, quam commissa deflere, et amplius deflenda ex proposito non committere? Dicitur etiam poenitentia satisfactio pro peccatis. Unde sacerdos dicitur poenitentiam injungere. Item poenitentia alia sera, alia infructuosa. Infructuosa, quae non prodest: ut illa Judae, et insensatorum dicentium. *Nos insensati* etc. [n: (Sap. V.)], Sera, quae tarde fieri solet cum tempus non sit. Dicitur itaque: Vere [0447A] poenitens est, qui corde conteritur, et ore confitetur, et condignam exhibet satisfactionem.

QUAESTIO LIII. *Cum dicitur in die irae,* etc. Quaeritur de die judicii, quare dies irae dicatur potius quam misericordiae; sicut enim mali audituri sunt: *Ite in ignem aeternum,* ita boni audituri sunt: *Venite, benedicti Patris mei,* etc. [n: (Matth. XXV.)] Solutio. In eo quod dies irae dicitur, consulitur nobis, ut diem illum semper timeamus, et timendo aeternum incendium caveamus. Nota quod dies dicitur non pro tempore, sed pro manifestatione. Item notandum quod omnes ad judicium venient tam boni quam mali. Bonorum, alii ut judicent scilicet valde boni; alii ut judicentur, ut minus boni. Item malorum, alii jam judicati sunt, quorum damnatio [0447B] jam certa est; alii adhuc judicandi, quorum damnatio incerta est.

QUAESTIO LIV. Quomodo intelligendum sit de sanctis quod judicabunt malos. Ad quod quidam respondent quod hoc nihil aliud est, nisi quod excellentia gloriae eorum apparebit quanta poena sint digni qui eos sunt persecuti, vel non imitati. Vel ideo dicti judices sunt, quia in ipso judicio manifestabuntur eis rationes aeternae, secundum quas fiet judicium, et singulorum merita, de quibus fiet judicium. Juxta illud Danielis: *Sedit judicium et aperti sunt libri [n: (Dan. VII)]*, scilicet rationum et meritorum: illi ergo quorum poena, vel gloria non adeo patet, judicandi sunt in die judicii.

[0447C]QUAESTIO LV. Quaeritur iterum circa illud *secundum cor impoenitens* de peccato in Spiritum sanctum, quid sit, et quare dicatur irremissibile. An quia non potest dimitti; an ideo quia nunquam dimittetur, cum tamen possit; an quia vix, et raro, et difficile dimittatur. Solutio. Dicunt quidam quod peccatum in Spiritum sanctum est ex invidia divinae derogare bonitati: cujus peccati tanta est labes, quod qui sic peccant nunquam possint poenitentiae humilitatem subire. Alii dicunt quod desperatio vel impoenitentia dicitur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum. Alii quod facibus invidiae seminare discordias inter fratres. Illis autem qui dicunt hoc peccatum posse dimitti, sic objicitur: Si hoc est possibile, quod talis culpa dimittatur, hoc proposito nullum [0447D] sequitur impossibile; sed veritas dicit quod *hoc peccatum non dimittitur neque in hoc saeculo neque in futuro [n: (Matth. XIV)]*; sed si dimitteretur, falsum esset ipsum non dimitti: quod est impossibile, quia Veritas mentiri non potest. De hoc peccato nullus certus est: hoc tamen scitur, quod si quis peccaverit, nunquam consequetur veniam.

QUAESTIO LVI. Quomodo *unicuique secundum opera sua reddat,* cum hujus opera sint bona, et mala intentio. et illius mala opera, et bona intentio, cum ex affectu imponatur nomen operi, nunquid pro bonis operibus damnabitur, quia mala est intentio, vel pro malis salvabitur, quia bona est intentio? Solutio. Non sufficit intentio in omnibus ad hoc ut bona dicantur opera, sed semper exigitur ut bona [0448A] sint ei a quo fiunt: si enim bona sint opera in se, et mala intentio, punitur pro mala intentione, non pro bonis operibus; nec remunerabitur pro eis, quia inutilia ei facta sunt per malam intentionem. Ad hoc vero, ut mala sint ei opera, non exigitur mala intentio; potest enim bona et mala esse intentio, operibus malis existentibus: qualiscunque fuerit intentio ex quo mala sunt opera, nocet ei qui fecit ea: in his autem quae sunt indifferentia, id est, quantum in se nec bona nec mala, judicium debet referri secundum intentionem.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO LVII. Quomodo secundum opera propria reddatur unicuique, cum iste bona per totam vitam operatur, et in fine cadit, et alter mala per totam vitam operatur, et in fine surgit, per poenitentiam; [0448B] nonne qui bona operatus est damnabitur, et qui mala salvabitur? quomodo ergo secundum opera? Solutio. Opera cujuslibet dicuntur, cum quibus exit ab hac vita, quibus solis retribuet Deus; ea vero bona quae egit qui in fine cecidit mortificantur, et fiunt non sua per superveniens malum. Ita illius qui male vixit, et in fine per poenitentiam surrexit, per bona supervenientia mala quae fecit fiunt non sua; vel etiam judicium fit respectu operum, ut puniatur minus, quia bona fecit, vel minorem habebit gloriam, quia peccavit.

QUAESTIO LVIII. Quaeritur item quomodo secundum opera, cum iste habeat voluntatem male operandi, nec facultatem perficiendi; alter voluntatem bene operandi, nec facultatem implendi. Solutio. [0448C] Opera eorum dicuntur ex quo sunt in eorum voluntatibus, nec in eis remanet quin fiant. Unde Dominus in Evangelio: *Qui viderit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam, jam moechatus est in corde suo [n: (Matth. V)]*; nec tamen dicimus quod tantum puniatur modo quantum puniretur pro operibus ipsis impletis, sed sicut pro operibus, etsi non tantum pro sola voluntate puniretur.

QUAESTIO LIX. Quaeritur de puero non baptizato quomodo fiat ei retributio secundum opera sua, cum statim moriatur antequam aliquid agat. Solutio. Opera parentum ejus in ejus conceptione et nativitate ipsius fiunt, et pro eis damnabitur tanquam ea actualiter egerit. Item de puero baptizato dicimus quod [0448D] pro gratia baptismatis salvatur sine propriis meritis.

QUAESTIO LX. Quaeritur de eo qui patitur pro Christo, et non operatur, quomodo ei secundum opus tribuatur? Solutio. Opera et pro passionibus et operibus accipiuntur, ut factum pro facto et non facto accipitur: cum fit quod non debet fieri, peccatum dicitur; quando vero non fit quod debet fieri, delictum est.

QUAESTIO LXI. Cum culpa sit temporalis, et poena aeterna, quomodo reddet secundum opera? Solutio. Culpa malorum, quantum in ipsis est, aeterna est, in voluntate enim eorum fuit semper in malo manere: unde justo Dei judicio in aeternum punientur. Vel etiam mala voluntas, et reatus culpae, et impoenitentia cordis in ipso aeterna erunt. Unde Dominus [0449A] dicturus est ad eos: *Discedite a me omnes qui operamini iniquitatem [n: (Luc. I)]*. Non dicet qui operati estis, sed qui operamini. Non poenitere enim peccatum est, et ipsi non possunt poenitere. Itaque in aeternum peccabunt, et sic pro culpa aeterna erit poena sempiterna.

QUAESTIO LXII. Item cum boni plus quam meruerint sint accepturi, et mali minus quam possint secundum justitiam, puniantur, quomodo secundum opera? Solutio. Non est comparatio inter meritum et praemium, sed est sensus: qui plus meruit, plus accipiet, et qui minus, accipiet minus, secundum qualitatem et quantitatem: meritum enim unius et praemium modo est aequale et dissimile, modo est simile et inaequale cum merito et praemio alterius, ut duo martyres, vel duo confessores, qui ejusdem [0449B] et aequalis meriti et praemii sunt, aequales et similes sunt in justitia et gloria; si autem unus martyr et unus confessor aequales sunt, dissimiles tamen sunt secundum qualitatem, quia iste martyr et ille confessor, etc.

QUAESTIO LXIII. Quaeritur circa id quod dicitur: *Tribulatio et angustia in omnem animam,* etc. [n: (Rom. II.)] Nunquid in anima sola punietur homo, et non etiam in corpore? Quare ergo dicit, in omnem animam, et non in corpus, cum in utroque peccavit. Solutio. Quaedam sunt peccata animae, pro quibus ipsa punietur tantum, ut ira, invidia, infidelitas, de qua specialiter agit Apostolus in hoc loco: ideoque mentionem facit de poena animae, non poena corporis. Sunt etiam quaedam peccata corporis, pro quibus [0449C] ipsum punietur, ut gula, luxuria, homicidia, contentiones, quae corporis ministerio exercentur; unde constat quod in utroque punientur, juxta illud: *Duplici contritione contere eos [n: (Jerem. XVII)]*.

QUAESTIO LXIV. Quaeritur de glorificatione corporis quid homini vel animae conferat, cum sola beatitudo hominis sit visio Dei, cujus sola anima capax est, unde videtur nil conferre gloriae, quae erit in corpore. Solutio. Glorificatio corporis ad augmentum gloriae et gaudii ipsi animae erit. Nam valde gloriabitur, cum viderit corpus prius adeo infirmum et imbecille sic solidatum, ut nullam amplius laesionem sustinere valeat.

QUAESTIO LXV. Quaeritur cum animae gloria sit Deum contemplari, et ipsius visione frui, et in ipso [0449D] omnia cognoscere: erit enim *Deus omnia in omnibus [n: (I Cor. XV)]* existens speculum omnis creaturae, sicut omnis creatura modo speculum est Dei; cum hoc, inquam, sit, quomodo glorificatio corporis ei convenire dicetur, ut ejus augeatur beatitudo. Solutio. Hanc glorificationem jam in ipso Deo cognoscet, et contemplatio erit pars beatitudinis ejus.

QUAESTIO LXVI. Cum dicit Apostolus: *Non est acceptor personarum Deus [n: (Act. X)]*, quaeritur quid sit personas accipere. Nonne dicit Apostolus: *Cui honorem, honorem; cui timorem, timorem [n: (Rom. XIII)]*. Nonne majorem reverentiam debemus exhibere uni quam alteri? Solutio. Ille personas accipit, qui pro aliquo, quod hominis est hominem veneratur, et [0450A] aliis praefert, quod non facit Deus. Cum enim timorem vel honorem iis qui in dignitate sunt constituti exhibemus, non facimus hoc, nisi propter Deum, cujus gerunt personam, vel cujus sunt ministri.

QUAESTIO LXVII. *Factores legis justificabuntur.* Quaeritur an impletio legis justificet, quod sic videtur ex iis cum legisperitus quaereret a Domino: *Quid faciens vitam aeternam possidebo?* Dominus respondit: *Quid scriptum est? quomodo legis? Et ille: Diliges Dominum Deum tuum ex toto corde tuo, et ex tota anima tua; et ex tota mente tua, et proximum sicut te ipsum, et Dominus ait illi: Hoc fac, et vives [n: (Luc. X)]*. Ecce mandatum legis observatum confert vitam aeternam. Unde legitur quod justificat lex impleta [n: (Rom. II)]. Idem in alio loco, cum adolescens [0450B] ait ad eum: *Quid faciens vitam aeternam possidebo?* Et Dominus ad eum: *Honora patrem et matrem; non occides, non furtum facies, non moechaberis, non falsum testimonium dices, non concupisces uxorem proximi tui,* nec rem. Et ait *adolescens: Haec omnia* ab adolescentia *mea custodivi.* Et Dominus *intuitus est eum, et dilexit [n: (Matth. XIX; Exod. XX; Marc. X; Luc. XVIII)]*: quod non fecisset, nisi justus esset ex observatione mandatorum Dei. Quod autem subditur: *Si vis perfectus esse [n: (Matth. XIX)]*, etc., ad perfectionem pertinet justitiae. Item Paulus: *Mandatum legis, quod erat ad vitam, inventum est mihi ad mortem [n: (Rom. VII)]*. Item Beda: Lex suo tempore custodita non solum bona temporalia, sed etiam aeterna conferebat; unde manifestum est quod lex impleta [0450C] justificat. Sed Apostolus asserit, quod lex neminem ad perfectum perduxit, dicens *ex operibus legis non justificatur omnis caro, et si ex lege justitia, tunc Christus gratis mortuus est [n: (Galat. II)]*: et multa alia in hunc modum. Ideoque quidam dicunt quod praecepta illa quorum impletio confert justitiam, sunt praecepta Evangelii, etsi in lege sunt scripta. Qui enim facit ea, homo evangelicus statim efficitur; nec est homo legis. Hi etiam dicunt, quod praecepta illa secundum quod in lege intelliguntur impleta, non justificant immediate, sed solummodo faciunt idoneum ad fidem Christi suscipiendam, per quam solam habetur salus: dicunt enim quod qui ostendit exterius se Deum diligere et proximum, etsi interius non diligat corde, quantum in lege est, legem [0450D] custodit; ipsa manum quidem, et non animum reprimit. Cui solutioni sic objicitur: Si per observationem illorum praeceptorum tantum exterius factam, fiant idonei et digni, ut fidem Christi recipiant, fides non ex gratia, sed ex meritis datur. Item si idonei, quomodo sciunt quod recipient; unde non videntur convenienter solvere quaestionem superiorem. Quae est enim major perfectio quam diligere Deum toto corde, et proximum sicut semetipsum. Ideoque dicimus quod impletio praedictorum praeceptorum justificat immediate, non tamen lex, quae non sufficit, sed infirma est sine gratia, ad sui ipsius impletionem; nec dat gratiam, nec Christi fidem aperte demonstrat, sine qua praecepta legis [0451A] non implentur: demonstrat quidem patriam, sed non ostendit viam, qua eundum est, nec quo. Unde Apostolus: Ex operibus legis non justificatur omnis caro.

Sed dicet aliquis. Haec auctoritas manifeste contradicit tuae solutioni. Nonne contraria sunt, justitiam esse impletione praeceptorum legalium, ut superius asseruisti, et neminem operibus justificari? Solutio. Opera legis vocat Apostolus, quae fiunt solo timore, quem immittit lex, ex quibus non est justitia. Notandum est quod lex pluribus modis dicitur: quandoque enim lex vocatur liber Moysi, quandoque caeremoniae et legales observantiae, quandoque decem praecepta in duabus tabulis conscripta, quandoque liber psalmorum, quandoque etiam lex dicitur [0451B] quaecunque observatio, ut cum dicitur: Haec est lex hujus, vel illius rei. Naturalis etiam ratio lex vocatur. In Novo etiam Testamento pluribus modis accipitur lex; unde lex fidei, lex spiritus, lex gratiae, lex carnis, lex membrorum, lex peccati, lex mortis.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO LXVIII. Quaeritur de circumcisione, cui praecepta sit, et quare, et quare in partibus genitalibus et non in aliis, et quare maribus et non feminis, et quam efficaciam habuit, et quare ei baptismus successit. Est autem circumcisio amputatio illius pelliculae quae praeest in virilibus; unde et illa pellicula praeputia appellatur; ex quo gentes praeputiatae dicuntur, eo quod sint absque putatione, id est caesione. Praecepta autem primum est Abrahae; unde [0451C] ipse et tota ejus familia circumcisa est. Nec est facta haec praeceptio communiter omnibus vel generaliter, sed tantum Judaeis. Unde dictum est: *Anima, quae circumcisa non fuerit, peribit de populo suo [n: (Gen. XVII)]*. Populus Dei populus Judaeorum est. Praecepta autem haec est ratione, voluit enim Deus populum suum ab aliis secerni, et eorum corda et a vitiis, et a concupiscentiis circumcidi, et ut hoc in exterioribus ostenderet, praecepit eos in carne circumcidi: et in partibus genitalibus potius quam in aliis. Nam cum duo sint, per quae maxime consortium contrahitur inter aliquos, scilicet connubium et victus, in utroque voluit Deus populum secerni, unde victum prohibuit gentibus communem, videlicet [0451D] carnem porcinam. Circumcidi quoque in genitalibus jussit, ne partes illas sanctificatas, cum immundis mulieribus commistione aliqua polluerent, et ut carnes tanquam portam nativitatis nostrae corruptas a vitiis reservarent. Et feminae gentiles videntes cunctos mares praecisos eorum matrimonia evitarent. Solis maribus ideo praecepta est, quod nullus, qui sine peccato esset, ex virili semine nasciturus erat; ex femina vero erat.

QUAESTIO LXIX. Quaeritur item cujus fuerit efficaciae? Et dicunt quidam, quod ejusdem fuit, cujus et nunc baptismus, nisi quod non mittebat ad regnum. Sed si hoc est, ergo in circumcisione erat peccatorum remissio; ergo justitia, et sic ex lege, quod negat Apostolus. Solutio. Dicimus quod in circumcisione [0452A] non erat omnium peccatorum remissio, sed tantum originalis; sed in baptismo fit omnium remissio, et insuper fit virtutum collatio. Utrum autem hanc omnimodam efficaciam habuit baptisma ante passionem solet quaeri. Et dicunt quidem quod non. Potest tamen dici, quod post Christi mortem illis, qui ante crucem purificati sunt, ipsius baptismatis sacramento tantum collatum est, quantum et illis, qui post baptizati sunt.

QUAESTIO LXX. Deinde quaeritur quare circumcisioni successit baptisma. Solutio. Propter tria: propter suavitatem, propter decorem, propter ipsius circumcisionis imperfectionem. Durum quippe erat circumcidi, et honestius aquis ablui quam cultro caedi: generalius etiam est baptisma non solum manibus, [0452B] sed etiam feminis conveniens, et tam Judaeis quam gentilibus.

QUAESTIO LXXI. Quaeritur quomodo dicat hic Apostolus *circumcidi prodesse,* cum in sequentibus dicat: *Si circumcidamini, Christus vobis nihil prodest [n: (Galat. V)]*. Solutio. Hoc dictum est secundum statum diversorum temporum. Tempore enim legis profuit ipsam observare; tempore gratiae non prodest secundum litteram, imo obest.

QUAESTIO LXXII. Quaeritur de quo statu dicetur: *Quid igitur est amplius,* etc. Solutio. De priori, in quo Judaei erant ante incarnationem Domini.

QUAESTIO LXXIII. Item quaeritur quid ad rem pertineat quod dicit, cum illi, quibus scribebat, non essent in illo, sed in statu fidei. Responsio. Ne nos, [0452C] qui de gentibus credidimus, contra Judaeos superbiremus.

QUAESTIO LXXIV. Quaeritur an homo assumptus sit mendax? Videtur quod sic, quia est homo: et omnis homo mendax. Mendax enim dicitur quis, non quia mentiatur vel peccet, sed quia mutabilis est, *et nunquam in eodem statu permanet [n: (Job XIV)]*, et per peccata potest diffluere. Quod totum etiam de homine assumpto quidam praesumunt asserere, quod sic conantur affirmare. Si homo assumptus potuit a Verbo non assumi, potuit peccare; sed potuit non assumi, ergo potuit peccare: quod videtur, si antecedens concedatur: sed omnes concedunt, quod potuit non assumi. Solutio. Non est concedendum [0452D] quod homo ille potuit peccare: cum enim dicitur homo ille, per ille, notatur personalis proprietas, in qua impossibile est eum peccare; sed in consequentia, cum dicitur, si homo ille potuit non assumi, potuit peccare, non intelligitur illa personalis proprietas, sed sine illius respectu natura humana datur intelligi. Item alia via volunt idem probare. Christus cum venit in Hierusalem, potuit ire in Galilaeam, et si iret tunc in Galilaeam, nunc non pateretur; et si non pateretur, non impleret imperium Patris, cujus imperio passus est: sed potuit tunc non pati in Hierusalem, et inobediens esse, et sic peccare. Solutio. Potuit sic quidem non ire Hierusalem. Potuit ergo non implere praeceptum Patris: hoc non sequitur si enim non pateretur tunc, quod [0453A] possibile erat; unde ait: *Potestatem habeo ponendi animam meam, et iterum sumendi eam [n: (Joan. X)]*: si hoc, inquam, esset quod tunc non pateretur, non esset imperium Patris eum tunc pati ibi; sed haec duo simul esse impossibile est: quod Pater praecepisset eum tunc pati, et quod ipse tunc non pateretur: haec est communis solutio.

QUAESTIO LXXV. Quaeritur de hac hypothetica: *Si iniquitas nostra justitiam Dei commendat,* etc. Utrum sit vera, et an consequens necessario ex antecedente consequatur, et qualiter intelligatur. Solutio. Iniquitas nostra commendat justitiam Dei: duobus modis intelligitur: vel quod, ex qualitate sui, Dei justitiam commendabilorem faciat, quod falsum est; et secundum hanc intelligentiam vera esset consequentia: [0453B] si hoc esset, iniquus Deus esset, qui puniret peccata. Potest etiam intelligi, quod ex comparatione nostrae injustitiae commendabilior apparet justitia Dei, et hoc verum est; sed secundum hanc intelligentiam non est vera consequentia, nec consequens sequitur ex antecedente: nunquam enim falsum sequitur ex vero.

QUAESTIO LXXVI. Quaeritur qualiter intelligendum sit *quid adhuc ego tanquam peccator judicor?* cujus vox est an conversi, an non conversi? Si conversus loquitur, non judicatur tanquam peccator; si nondum conversus loquitur, Deus in illius mendacio nondum glorificatur. Solutio. Vox est conversi, et iterum lapsi.

QUAESTIO LXXVII. Quaeritur an Deus velit malum [0453C] fieri, cum ipse malis nostris utatur ad bonum et ad gloriam suam, sicut abutimur bonis ejus ad contumeliam nostram. Solutio. Non vult malum fieri. Non enim est concedendum, quod velit malum fieri, vel velit non fieri: si enim vellet malum fieri, auctor esset mali, cum ipso volente aliquid fieri, non sit aliud quam ipso auctore. Item si vellet non fieri, et tamen fieret, aliquid ejus voluntati resisteret. Sunt tamen, qui dicunt quod Deus malum fieri velit, sed secundum hos voluntas dicitur pluribus modis scilicet pro permissione, pro beneplacito, pro praeceptione et prohibitione. Vult mala fieri, id est, permittit, non quod sit auctor eorum.

QUAESTIO LXXVIII. Utrum bonum sit malum esse? [0453D] Solutio. Bonum dicitur pluribus modis: bonum expediens, bonum qualitate sui, etc. Similiter malum multipliciter dicitur scilicet quod nocet, quod corrumpitur: pravus actus et prava voluntas, quae est peccatum privatio omnis boni; quaelibet inordinatio peccatum dicitur. Cum ergo dicitur bonum est malum esse, diligenter videndum quid nomine boni vel mali intelligatur.

QUAESTIO LXXIX. Cum dicit: *Causati sumus omnes esse sub peccato,* etc. Non videtur esse argumentum necessarium ad demonstrandum Judaeos non praecellere gentiles; quia utrique fuerunt sub peccato etiam mortali: potuit enim evenire quod hi essent sub minore, et illi sub majore peccato: unde magis digni et idonei ad gratiam suscipiendam quam caeteri [0454A] videntur. Solutio. Si utrique fuerunt sub peccato, scilicet mortali, quod notat Apostolus, qui dicit sub peccato quasi depressi et servi: constat quod nec illi meruerunt gratiam, sed poenam. Quare si gratia eis confertur, scilicet fides et caetera dona, hoc non est ex meritis eo rum, sed ex sola bonitate Dei: ergo quantum in ipsis est, nec praecellunt. Non negamus tamen quin illi, qui sub majore peccato fuerunt, essent minus idonei ad gratiam percipiendam: cum quibus misericordius actum est quam cum aliis, qui sub minore peccato fuerunt. *Ubi autem abundavit delictum, superabundavit et gratia [n: (Rom. V)]*, etsi gratia horum non esset major quam illorum in semetipsa, tamen superabundavit gratia, secundum quantitatem hominum. Non est [0454B] in hoc loco discutiendum utrum Judaei majori peccato subjecti essent quam gentes.

QUAESTIO LXXX. Non videtur esse verum, quod dicitur: *Non est intelligens, aut requirens Deum.* Nam multi in populo illo Dei intelligentiam habuerunt, scilicet quod unus, quod Creator, et omnipotens: si enim ideo dicitur non intelligens, quia perfecte non intellexit, sic et homines gratiae, quia nondum perfecte intelligunt nisi per fidem, non intelligentes dici possunt. Solutio. Non intelligens quis dici potest, qui etsi cognoscat Deum in majestate, non tamen cognoscit eum in humilitate et pietate. Vel non intelligens Deum perfecte quis dicitur, qui, etsi aliquam notitiam habeat, non tamen per charitatis [0454C] experientiam; vel non intelligens Deum perfecte, scilicet quia ipse solus Creator omnium, insuper et auctor totius justitiae est, quod Judaei non intelligunt: suam justitiam constituentes, justitiae Dei non sunt subjecti; imo quodammodo se faciunt Deum, cum dicant se propria virtute sine gratia Dei justificari, se auctores justitiae asserentes, quod Deus potest facere. Unde Apostolus dicit, quod *in Evangelio revelatur justitia Dei, non hominis (Rom III)*. Et alibi: *Nunc autem sine lege justitia Dei manifestata est [n: (ibid.)]*. Et si quandoque legatur justitia hominis, ut David saepe dicit *justitia mea:* sic intelligatur oportet, quae est hominis accipientis, et eadem Dei dantis est.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO LXXXI. Quaeritur de eo quod dicitur: [0454D] *Quaecunque lex loquitur, iis, qui in lege sunt, loquitur,* etc. Nunquid etsi ad Judaeos loquitur, ideo omnia ad Judaeos pertinent; quia ad Judaeos dicta sunt. Solutio. Sic intelligendum est: Ita loquitur eis quod ea, quae loquitur, ad eos pertinent. Quod iterum videtur esse falsum: multa enim dicuntur de gentibus in lege. Unde oportet intelligere quaecunque loquitur sine determinatione et distinctione, ex qua sit certum, an ad gentes fiat sermo: ita quod de gentibus his, inquam, loquitur, quae sunt ex lege, ita quod ad eos pertinet quod dicitur. Cui sententiae sic objicitur. Nonne David, et alii multi justi erant, et tamen erant in lege, et si hoc est, quomodo ad eos pertinet, quod dicitur, non est intelligens. Solutio. Esse in lege duo notat, scilicet quaerere justitiam [0455A] ex lege, et ex toto ei inniti, ut illi, qui ex timore eam exterius observant, et secundum hoc David, caeteri justi non erant in lege. Non enim ex ipsa lege justificari quaerebant, sed ex fide Christi adhuc futuri; et sic erant homines Evangelii, non legis. Dicuntur etiam esse in lege illi, quibus lex data est, et qui opera legis faciunt: et secundum hoc David, et illi consimiles in lege erant, quia eis data est lex, et eam custodiebant propter eos quibus lex erat necessaria, ne exemplo eorum legem contemnerent. Notandum est tria genera hominum esse scilicet homines legis naturalis, legis scriptae et gratiae. Homines legis naturalis dicuntur qui solam legem naturalem habent, nec aliquid superadditur. Homines legis scriptae sunt illi, quibus lex scripta est data, [0455B] nec habent aliquid superadditum. Homines gratiae sunt quibus data est ipsa gratia. Vel aliter: Homines legis naturalis dicuntur, qui ex suis viribus quaerunt justificari; homines legis scriptae dicuntur, qui legi innituntur, existimando quod lex justificet. Homines gratiae dicuntur, qui non aliunde, nisi sola gratia quaerunt justitiam et salutem.

QUAESTIO LXXXII. Cum dicitur: Quoniam ex operibus legis non justificatur omnis caro, quaeritur de Moyse, et David, et aliis justis, qui fuerunt tempore legis, an sunt ex operibus legis justi: quod videtur, quia ex charitate ea fecerunt. Solutio. Sola fide futuri ita quod non ex operibus legis justi erant illi antiqui. Nota quod opera legis secundum quosdam dicuntur, quae cum lege sunt instituta, et cum lege [0455C] terminata scilicet caeremonialia, quae non fuerunt instituta ad justificationem, sed ad futurorum significationem; secundum autem alios opera legis dicuntur, quae fiunt solo timore, et non amore: de quibus constat quod non justificant: unde dicitur lex manum cohibere, et non animum.

QUAESTIO LXXXIII. Quare opera legis cum charitate facta non justificant sicut opera Evangelii, nonne moralia praecepta impleta justificant? Ex his videtur quod opera legis justificant. Solutio. Non quidquid praecepto legis tenemur facere, dicitur opus legis; sed illud quod cum lege est institutum, et cum lege terminatum. Vel quod melius est: opera legis sunt, ad quorum impletionem sufficit lex, quae fiunt [0455D] solo timore temporalis poenae, quae neminem justificant.

QAEESTIO LXXXIV. Quaeritur quae sit differentia inter opera legis et Evangelii; quia si opera Evangelii solo temporalis poenae timore fiant, non justitiam alicui conferunt, sicut nec opera legis. Solutio. Ad opera legis non pertinent nisi exteriora tantum: unde lex manum prohibet. Ad opera Evangelii etiam interiora, ut affectus et motus interiores, in quibus consistit justitia.

QUAESTIO LXXXV. Quaeritur de eo quod dicitur: *Per legem cognitio peccati,* etc., cujus peccati cognitio facta sit per legem? Pluribus enim modis dicitur peccatum, quandoque culpa, quandoque poena peccati. Unde dicitur Deus peccata nostra portare, [0456A] id est, poenam pro peccato: quandoque hostia pro peccato, unde *Christus factus est pro nobis peccatum [n: (II Cor. V)]*, id est hostia pro peccato. Dicitur etiam quandoque satisfactio pro peccato, vel poenitentia pro peccato injuncta: quaelibet etiam inordinatio cujuslibet rei dicitur peccatum. Unde dicitur citharoedus peccasse, si semper oberrat eadem chorda. Item peccatum opus peccati, et reatus peccati dicitur: qui secundum quosdam alius est a culpa, secundum alios idem quod culpa. Quaeritur igitur cujus peccati cognitio facta sit per legem? Solutio. Dicunt quidam quod illius, quod est in voluntate, peccati cognitio facta sit per legem, quia ante legem peccatum, quod est in opere, tantum credebatur esse peccatum et concupiscentia ignorabatur esse [0456B] peccatum.

QUAESTIO LXXXVI. Quaeritur iterum quare lex non justificet, cum ita peccatum manifestet. Quid enim aliud facit Evangelium nisi quod manifestat peccatum, docens quid sequendum, quid vitandum: quod et lex facit? Item quod lex ad perfectum ducat volunt quidam probare verbis Domini, qui de praecepto legis respondit adolescenti: *Hoc fac, et vives [n: (Luc. X)]*. Item: *Diliges Dominum Deum tuum,* etc. [n: (Matth. XIX.)] Hoc est praeceptum legis, sed hoc observatum justificat, ergo lex ad perfectum ducit. Item dicit Beda: Lex observata suo tempore, non solum conferebat temporalia, sed etiam aeterna. Solutio. Ut omnibus hujusmodi quaestionibus fiat responsio dicimus, quod lex dicitur mandatum sine gratia, [0456C] quod nunquam confert salutem; Evangelium autem mandatum dicitur cum gratia, quod justificat, et ad vitam perducit aeternam.

QUAESTIO LXXXVII. *Nunc autem sine lege justitia est,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo utrumque verum sit, justitiam Dei sine lege manifestari, et a lege et prophetis testificari? Solutio. Apostolus dicit justitiam Dei esse sine lege, non manifestari sine lege.

QUAESTIO LXXXVIII. Item cum dicitur: *Justitia Dei per fidem Jesu Christi,* quaeritur de fidei hac virtute, utrum aeque possit haberi a bonis et a malis? Solutio. In responsione hujus quaestionis moderni dissentire videntur. Alii enim dicunt quod haec virtus fidei tantum a bonis habetur, et nullo [0456D] modo a malis: ipsa enim est quae per dilectionem operatur. Ideoque, inquiunt, ubi non est dilectio, nec fides. Aliis autem videtur, quod a bonis et a malis habetur aequaliter. Quid enim aliud est fidem habere, nisi credere ea quae credenda sunt? Sed omnia quae credit iste bonus, credit et iste malus, quomodo ergo non habet eamdem fidem, maxime cum Augustinus dicat quod fides potest haberi sine charitate, et Apostolus: *Si,* inquit, *habuero omnem fidem, ut montes transferam, charitatem autem non habeam, nihil sum [n: (I Cor. XXXI)]*: quomodo hoc diceret, si fides sine charitate haberi non possit?

QUAESTIO LXXXIX. *Justificati gratis per gratiam Christi.* Quomodo dicat *gratis per gratiam?* nonne sufficeret gratis vel per gratiam? Videtur quod alterum [0457A] superfluat. Solutio. Gratis dicit, id est sine omni merito nostro, per gratiam, id est per gratuita dona sua. Saepe etenim multa nobis confert per gratiam quidem, non tamen sine omni merito nostro: quod tamen non fit sine gratia ipsius.

QUAESTIO XC. *Per redemptionem, quae est in Christo Jesu,* etc. Quaeritur cur Deus per mortem suam hominem redemerit, quem solo verbo liberare potuit? Solutio. Quamvis alius modus esset possibilis Deo, nullus tamen erat convenientior nostrae miseriae: quia et in eodem nobis contulit remedium, et humilitatis et dilectionis praebuit exemplum. Remedium in hoc consideratur, quia diabolus misit manum in eum, qui immunis erat a peccato: in quo quidquam quod suum erat non invenit. Ideo merito [0457B] eos, quos quodam jure tenere videbatur, amisit, credentes in eum, qui per mortem suam omnibus obtemperantibus sibi factus est causa salutis: non enim pro se, sed pro nobis passus est nobis concedens merita sua, ut pro eis nobis fieret, quod sibi fieret, si indigeret. Ad humilitatem autem provocavit nos in hoc, quod de secreto sinu paternae majestatis descendens sic se exinanivit, ut formam servi acciperet [n: (Philipp. III)]. Ad charitatem in hoc nos invitavit: quia cum sit Dominus gloriae, talis, et tantus, et taliter pro impiis et peccatoribus mortuus est. Nota quod si solo verbo hominem redimeret, nulla injuria diaboli fieret. Vel si Deus per angelum genus humanum reformaret, non ideo angelo salus homimis ascribenda esset. Multa enim Deus per angelos [0457C] operatur, quae tamen non angelis sunt, sed Deo tribuenda: ideo autem per se non per alium nos redemit, quia nullius alius tanta possent esse merita, ut sufficerent ad totius mundi redemptionem.

QUAESTIO XCI. Quaeritur an Deus potuit facere convenientiorem modum redemptionis? Si dicatur quod non potuit, videtur quod potentia Dei terminum habeat, et non sit immensa: si dicatur quod potuit, quomodo iste convenientissimus est? Solutio. Licet in hoc terminum habeat, non tamen simpliciter concedendum quod terminum habeat. Vel licet iste modus nostrae miseriae sit convenientissimus, non tamen est necesse, quod sit convenientissimus absolute.

[0457D]QUAESTIO XCII. Quaeritur cui pretium nostrum sit datum, an diabolo, an Deo? Solutio. Deo datum, non diabolo est: quia nulla injuria facta est diabolo, quia non erat nisi tanquam carcerarius, nec etiam vellet illud recipere, ut hominem perderet: nolenti autem dandum non erat, ne ei injuria fieret.

QUAESTIO XCIII. Quaeritur a quo sit homo redemptus? Solutio. A diabolo, a peccato, a tormento. Insuper est reconciliatus Deo et haec est gemina efficacia sanguinis Christi.

QUAESTIO XCIV. Quaeritur in quo potestas diaboli per mortem Christi diminuta est. Sicut enim ante potestatem habuit tentandi bonos et malos: sic et modo. Solutio. Non secundum essentiam, sed secundum [0458A] efficaciam diminuta est: quia non potest praevalere quantum ante, maxime quia vires resistendi datae sunt homini, et quanto homo est fortior ad resistendum, tanto hostis ad impugnandum debilior.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XCV. Quaeritur cum dicitur *ad ostensionem justi,* etc., de antiquis justis, qui in inferno tenebantur, an peccata eis essent dimissa per fidem et poenitentiam: et si dimissa erant, quare in inferno tenebantur: sine enim peccatorum remissione non erant justi. Solutio. Omnia dimissa peccata erant eis per fidem et dilectionem, sed omnimodum effectum remissionis consecuti sunt. Duplex est remissionis effectus, scilicet, carere poena, et frui gloria, alterum tantum ante mortem Christi habebant: [0458B] quia poenam actualem non sentiebant, alterum nondum acceperant, quia non videbant Deum. Item opponitur: Nonne justi erant et sic digni gloria? quare ergo non dabatur eis id quo erant digni? Solutio. Justitia eorum non erat tanta, quae sufficeret ad vitam obtinendam sine morte Christi, nec etiam eorum peccata dimissa simpliciter, nisi sub quadam exspectatione et sponsione futuri, qui pro eis satisfaceret. Unde Apostolus dicit Christum mortuum non solum propter remissionem praesentium, sed etiam praecedentium delictorum; *quia ipse est agnus, qui occisus est ab origine mundi [n: (Hebr. IX)]*.

QUAESTIO XCVI. Utrum Deus posset eos damnare aeterna poena, cum essent justi, et justos juste punire non posset: quod enim injustum est, Deus [0458C] facere non potest: et si eos punire non potuit, in quo eos sustinuit? Solutio. Necessarium erat ut pro originali peccato satisfieret, et cum ipsi satisfacere non possent, nisi alius pro eis satisfaceret, Deus juste eos punire posset. Non tamen oportet concedere quod justos puniret. Hoc enim esset post mortem Christi: non enim simpliciter nisi in comparatione mortis Christi justi dicendi sunt: non enim habebant tantam actualem justitiam ex qua possent juste exigere vitam aeternam, sicut nec nos sine morte Christi: justos tamen eos vocat Scriptura, quia tantum habebant quantum Deus exigebat, quia quod eis deerat, Christus erat suppleturus.

[0458D]QUAESTIO XCVII. Cum dicitur: *Per quam legem factorum?* etc., quaeritur cur lex Mosaica, lex scripta dicatur, lex factorum, et non Evangelium: sed lex Evangelii lex gratiae, et lex justitiae: sicut enim illa habet opera, sic et ista. Solutio. Lex Mosaica dicitur factorum, quia ea quae facienda sunt tantum jubet, et non confert gratiam, per quam impleantur quae jubentur: ideoque littera occidens mandatum sine gratia appellatur. Evangelium vero jubet quidem quae facienda sunt: sed insuper confert gratiam, per quam quae jussa sunt impleantur. Vel ideo: lex scripta lex factorum appellatur, quia homines legis totam justitiam suam in operibus legis constituebant: lex autem fidei vel gratiae sic dicitur, quia homines gratiae totam summam et efficaciam [0459A] salutis suae in sola gratia constituunt: scientes, quod sicut nemo salvatur ex justitia operum: sic nemo justificatur ex operibus justitiae. Non enim ex bonis operibus justitia, sed ex justitia bona opera.

QUAESTIO XCVIII. *Nonne et gentium,* etc. Probat Apostolus quod Deus est gentium, quia earum est creator. Sed sic videtur, quod sit Deus lapidum. Solutio. Est quidem Deus creator lapidum, sed aliter est creator gentium, quas creavit ad imaginem et similitudinem suam: unde merito gentium dicitur, tanquam ab eis vere colendus.

QUAESTIO XCIX. Utrum opera, quae praecedunt fidem, sint penitus inutilia, an ad aliquid prosint; videtur enim quod nil prosint, quia tota vita infidelium est peccatum. Solutio. Bona opera, quae fiunt [0459B] ante fidem, etsi non prosint ad vitam promerendam, valent tamen ad suscipiendam, ut quibusdam videtur, ut apparet in Cornelio.

QUAESTIO C. *Legem ergo destruimus per fidem? Absit: sed legem statuimus.* Quaeritur quomodo hoc sit verum cum alibi dicat: *Si ea, quae destruxi, iterum reaedifico, praevaricatorem me constituo: et legi per legem mortuus sum [n: (Galat. II)]*. Ibi dicit se legem destruxisse: hic dicit quod eam non destruit, sed statuit. Solutio. Destruere legem duobus modis accipitur. Unde hic Apostolus dicit, quod legem non destruit, id est non ostendit legem inutilem esse in suo tempore, et nil valere, nec spiritualiter implendam esse. Alibi dixit, quod eam destruxit, id est post veritatis impletionem debere cessare secundum [0459C] carnalia praedicavit.

QUAESTIO CI. *Credidit Abraham Deo, et reputatum est illi ad justitiam [n: (Rom. IV)]*. Quaeritur cur dicat *reputatum est,* quasi non esset vera justitia quam habuit per fidem, sed aliquid quod reputatum est ad justitiam: si enim deberes mihi equum, non convenienter dicerem: Da mihi equum, et reputabo illum pro equo; sed congrue dicere valerem: Da mihi asinum, et reputabo eum pro equo. Solutio. Si homo non peccasset, haberet omnimodam justitiam, quae consistit in omnimoda praeceptorum Dei impletione, ut nil omnino concupisceret contra rationem, et ut Deum ex toto corde diligeret, sed post peccatum, et propter peccatum homo non potuit hanc perfectam justitiam [0459D] habere, cui merito debetur aeterna beatitudo: sed Deus per gratiam suam dat homini fidem, quam item per eamdem gratiam reputat pro illa perfectione: ac si justitiae perfectionem haberet.

QUAESTIO CII. *Ei autem, qui operatur, merces non imputatur,* etc. Quaeritur de quibus operibus hic agat: utrum de interioribus, an de exterioribus. Exteriora sunt ut vestire pauperes, et caetera hujusmodi, quae multi non operantur, licet habeant tempus operandi, ut viri contemplativi, unde videntur indigni salute, si de hujusmodi operibus hic fiat sermo. Opera interiora sunt, ut credere, amare, orare, quae omnibus communia sunt fidelibus, quia sine iis non est salus, de quibus si hic agitur, quomodo fides sine operibus reputatur ad justitiam ei, [0460A] qui non habet tempus operandi? Solutio. De operibus exterioribus agit, quae exiguntur ab iis, qui habent facultatem ea faciendi, et illis, qui non habent facultatem ea faciendi, voluntas reputatur pro facto.

QUAESTIO CIII. *Secundum propositum gratiae Dei,* etc. Hic solet quaeri de gratia, et merito. Videtur enim sic totum ex gratia, quod meritum nil conferat; vel si aliquid ex merito, quod non totum ex gratia. Quod autem totum sit ex gratia, Scripturae testantur. Unde Apostolus: *Quid habes quod non accepisti? [n: (I Cor. IV.)] Gratia Dei sum, id quod sum [n: (I Cor. XV)]*. Et illud: *Gratiam pro gratia [n: (Joan. I)]*. Quid ergo dicendum? Dicere, quod meritum nihil sit, error est Manichaeorum, sicut asserere totum esse ex libero arbitrio, error est Pelagianorum. Solutio. [0460B] Cum dicitur totum ex gratia esse, meritum non excluditur, cum meritum sit ex gratia. Ideoque videndum est quid gratia Dei operetur in nobis sine nobis, et quid operetur in nobis non sine nobis. Gratia itaque praeveniens quae dicitur etiam operans, sanat liberum arbitrium, liberando illud a jugo peccati: et hoc facit in nobis sine nobis: deinde voluntas sanata non est otiosa, nec in vacuum Dei gratiam accipit, quod operatur non per se, sed cum gratia, imo gratia Dei cooperatur libero arbitrio: unde cooperans dicitur; et idem opus vel meritum dicitur esse ex gratia et voluntate: non enim seorsum operatur, sed simul. Unde licet totum sit ex gratia, non est consequens quod nihil sit ex merito, vel ex libero arbitrio, veluti si quis inveniret parvulum in luto [0460C] jacentem et impotentem surgere, et erigeret eum, deinde manum ejus teneret, ut ambularet, ipsa ambulatio esset ex utroque, sicut ipsa erectio ejus tantum ab inventore et non ex parvulo, sic: ex gratia praeveniente est tantum, quod bonum volumus, sicut ex gratia subsequente, non dico tantum, sed etiam ex libero arbitrio per gratiam sanato et deliberato, quod bonum operamur.

QUAESTIO CIV. *Beati, quorum remissae sunt iniquitates.* Quaeritur de peccato originali quid sit, de quo doctores subobscure disserunt. Alii enim dicunt, quod peccatum originale est reatus aeternae poenae, id est debitum et obnoxietas, qua addicti sumus poenae: sed secundum hoc originale peccatum non [0460D] est culpa, sed poena. Sed quod sit culpa, auctoritates testantur, quod concedere oportet. Alii autem dicunt quod originale peccatum sit fomes peccati: concupiscentia, vel concupiscibilitas: lex membrorum, lex carnis, languor naturae, tyrannus qui habitat in membris nostris: vitium innatum, quod parvulum facit habilem concupiscere: adultum concupiscentem: his, et aliis nominibus peccatum originale nuncupatur.

QUAESTIO CV. Quare originale vocetur quaeri solet. Solutio. Quia ex vitiosa nostrae originis conditione trahitur.

QUAESTIO CVI. Item quaeritur quare posteris imputetur? Responsio. Quia parentum concubitus non [0461A] fit sine libidine, nec filiorum conceptus sine peccato.

QUAESTIO. CVII. Quomodo in baptismo deleatur? Solutio. Ex toto secundum reatum mitigatur, et debilitatur secundum actum vel affectum. Alii vero dicunt, quod originale peccatum est privatio cujusdam originalis justitiae, quam haberet homo, si non peccasset: ideoque quia privatur justitia, privatur et gloria, nec aliam poenam sustinebunt, qui pro solo originali peccato punientur, nisi quod visione Dei semper carebunt. Item cum anima non sit ex traduce, sed sola caro, quaeritur quomodo hoc peccatum per carnem trahatur: non enim ipsa sine anima potest habere culpam, quae non est, nec esse potest nisi in rationali creatura: quod enim non [0461B] est capax justitiae, nec peccati.

QUAESTIO CVIII. Quomodo ergo in propagatione prolis a parentibus transit per carnem, quod non potest esse in sola carne sine anima? Solutio. Peccatum dicitur transire, quia ejus causa transit, quae est pollutio et immunditia quaedam, quam invenit anima in carne cum ei infunditur, et ex qua polluitur: unde cum sola anima concupiscat, non tamen anima dicitur concupiscere, quia anima ex carne concupiscit.

QUAESTIO CIX. Utrum unquam anima sit talis, qualis a Deo est creata: si enim munda creata est a Deo, et ex quo fuit carni conjuncta et copulata fuit immunda, sequitur quod nunquam talis est, qualis a Deo creata est. Solutio. Potest concedi quod nunquam [0461C] fuit omnino talis, qualis a Deo creta est, veluti si dedissem tibi pomum mundum, et tu exciperes manibus immundis: illud verum esset, nunquam te tale pomum habere quale tibi dedi.

QUAESTIO CX. Quaeri solet quare animae mundae a Deo creatae reatus originalis peccati imputetur. Dicunt doctores hanc quaestionem insolubilem esse; potest tamen dici, non esse injustum quod animae non habenti justitiam non detur gloria: hoc enim est reatui originalis peccati subjacere, quod est originali justitia privari. Quid ergo mirum si talis culpa tali puniatur poena?

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CXI. *Et signum accepit circumcisionis, et signaculum justitiae,* etc. De circumcisione [0461D] superius dictum est. Quaeri autem hic potest utrum Abraham aliquid utilitatis consecutus sit ex circumcisione. Solutio. Dicunt doctores quod per eam tantum ostensus est esse justus, non effectus. Nunquid ergo in posteris majorem habuit efficaciam, quam in ipso Abraham? Quod videtur, cum ipsis sit data in remedium saltem originalis peccati; ipsi autem Abrahae non est data nisi in ostensionem justitiae.

QUAESTIO CXII. Item quaeritur utrum ex circumcisione dabatur remissio originalis peccati illis parvulis qui nullo alio tenebantur, quomodo per illam non justificabantur, et sic ex lege. Solutio hujus quaestionis patet ex praedictis.

QUAESTIO CXIII. Quaeritur de parvulis, qui ante [0462A] octavum diem, quo fiebat circumcisio, obierunt, utrum damnabantur, an salvabantur. Solutio. Idem judicium est de illis non circumcisis, quod est de non baptizatis, scilicet quod damnantur solo originalis peccati reatu. Si autem quaeratur de illis parvulis qui moriebantur statim ut nati fuerunt, ante circumcisionem, forsitan fide parentum subventum est illis.

QUAESTIO CXIV. *Non enim per legem promissio,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo dicat Apostolus: *Christo* non *est facta* promissio per legem, *sed per justitiam fidei;* nonne in lege et per legem facta est promissio, scilicet in David ipsi Christo? Item: Quid est promissionem fieri Christo per justitiam fidei? Solutio. Non sic dicit Apostolus, quod promissio non sit [0462B] facta per legem, sed per justitiam fidei; sed sic, quod promissio non est facta, ut esset haeres mundi per legem, sed per justitiam fidei.

QUAESTIO CXV. Item quaeritur quomodo Abrahae sit facta promissio per justitiam; nunquid merito fidei ipsius? sed si merito fidei ipsius Abrahae facta est promissio, eodem merito et ipsius promissionis impletio, quomodo ergo sola gratia? Solutio. Non sic construi debet littera: Promissio facta est per justitiam fidei; sed sic. Promissio facta est Abrahae, ut esset haeres mundi per justitiam fidei: per quam et ipse pater credentium factus est, et credentes filii Abrahae, id est justi et haeredes efficiuntur. Expositor aliter dicit hic quam nos.

QUAESTIO CXVI. Quia dicitur: *Lex iram Dei operatur.* [0462C] Quaeritur quomodo hoc sit intelligendum. Nonne lex bona, et ira mala? Quomodo quod bonum est operatur quod malum est. Nonne cujus effectus malus est, ipsum quoque malum? Quomodo ergo talis causa talem habet effectum. Solutio. Lex non immediate, et ex qualitate sui, et tanquam causa efficiens iram operatur, sed quasi per occasionem; quia si lex non esset data, ira non esset tanta, quae aucta est per legis praevaricationem. Multa enim dicuntur aliqua efficere, non quia ea efficiant, sed quia sine eis non fierent; unde et Christus dictus est *positus,* non solum *in resurrectionem* per causam, sed etiam *in ruinam [n: (Luc. II)]* per occasionem. Et Apostolus dictus est, non solum *odor vitae,* sed [0462D] etiam *odor mortis [n: (II Cor. II)]*. Juxta eamdem rationem evigilare circa similia oportet.

QUAESTIO CXVII. Quomodo probet Apostolus legem iram operari, dicens: *Ubi enim non est lex, nec praevaricatio?* Quia nec hoc videtur verum esse. Nonne ubi non est lex, potest esse legis naturalis, vel Evangelii praevaricatio? Quomodo ergo verum ubi non est lex, nec praevaricatio? Si autem sic exponatur, ubi non est lex, nec legis praevaricatio, eodem argumento probatur, quod ubi non est Evangelium, nec est Evangelii praevaricatio. Solutio. Nomine legis saepe Apostolus designat mandatum sine gratia; nomine autem Evangelii semper intelligitur mandatum cum gratia: unde constat verum, ubi non est lex, id est mandatum sine gratia, nec praevaricatio. [0463A] Item ubi est mandatum cum gratia non est praevaricatio, sed mandati impletio.

QUAESTIO CXVIII. Item cum dicitur: *Qui contra spem in spem credidit.* Quaeritur de fide Abrahae, quam hic laudat Apostolus: quae reputatur illi ad justitiam: quae vel cujus rei fuerit? Si enim diligenter verba Apostoli et Geneseos considerantur, videtur quod fides illa, qua credidit Deo prolem promitti sibi, reputata sit illi ad justitiam; si autem hoc est, et aliqua fides praeter fidem Christi, est fides justificans. Si autem dicatur, quod tunc habuit fidem Christi, quaeritur an duae fides justificent, vel quare potius justitia dicatur esse ex illa, quam ex ista? Solutio. Apostolus commendat fidem Abrahae, qua credidit omnia quae credenda erant: qua fide inter caetera [0463B] credidit Deum esse veracem in promissione prolis.

QUAESTIO CXIX. Quomodo generatio Isaac dicatur esse contra naturam? Quid est natura? Nonne vis quaedam Creaturarum a Creatore insita, per quam similia ex similibus procreantur atque propagantur? Nonne ibi natura operata est? Nonne quaedam contemperies fuit in operibus parentum in actu et ex commistione carnis? quomodo contra naturam? Solutio. Cum Auctor naturae operatur in natura praeter solitum cursum naturae, id est non secundum causas inferiores, sed secundum superiores, tunc dicitur aliquid fieri contra naturam, sed magis proprie diceretur supra naturam.

QUAESTIO CXX. *Plenissime sciens quod quaecunque [0463C] promisit Deus, potens est et facere.* Dicit expositor quod multo divinae virtutis intuitu sciebat Deum omnipotentem esse, et Apostolus plenissime sciens, etc., quod videtur obesse fidei; quia fides non habet meritum, cui ratio humana praebet experimentum. Item si sciebat eum esse Deum, quid magnum, si credidit ipsum esse omnipotentem; vel si nescivit esse Deum, quomodo ei credidit? Solutio. Ille intuitus divinae virtutis, quem Abraham habuit, non erat e ratione humana, sed de fidei constantia: per quem adeo certus fuit, ac si plenissime sciret, vel videret.

QUAESTIO CXXI. Quod autem quaeritur quid magnum fuerit, quod credidit Deum esse omnipotentem, cum illud non solum boni, sed etiam mali credant? [0463D] Dicimus quod tunc illud credere magnum erat, quando pene universus orbis in cultura daemonum errabat, nec adhuc fides unius Dei praedicata, vel Scripturis manifeste declarata fuerat sicut modo.

QUAESTIO CXXII. *Non solum autem scriptum,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo dicat Apostolus, hoc esse scriptum propter Abraham, quod fides reputata est ad justitiam? nunquid ex eo quod in Scripturis laudatur, vel a nobis imitatur, aliquam consequitur utilitatem? Solutio. Non hoc dicit Apostolus forsitan quod hoc ei prosit, sed sic intelligendum est: Non solum autem, etc., id est, hoc scriptum est non solum ut ostendatur unde ipse Abraham fuit [0464A] justus, sed ut demonstretur nobis etiam in quo solo possumus justificari, scilicet in gratia fidei, et non alibi.

QUAESTIO CXXIII. *Traditus est propter delicta nostra,* etc. Dicit auctoritas. Quaeritur a quo traditus est? Et certum est quod a Deo Patre, a Juda et a Judaeis, et a Pilato. Sed quaeritur utrum illud quod factum est a Deo, et a Judaeis fuerit bonum, an malum? Si dicatur bonum, ergo Judaei fecerunt bonum. Si autem dicatur malum, ergo Deus fecit malum. Item: Nonne Judaei tantum malum fecerunt, et Deus tantum bonum? quomodo ergo idem fecerunt Deus et Judaei? Solutio. Opus vel factum Judaeorum aequivoce accipitur pro actu et pro passione, actus Judaeorum malus tantum; passio [0464B] Christi, quae secuta est ex actu illorum, bona fuit. Ideo doctores quandoque Deum, et Judaeos uniunt, et eodem facto vel opere, propter passionem Christi, quae evenit tam ex Judaeorum actione quam Dei, quandoque distinguunt propter actuum diversitatem. Si autem quaeratur an Judaeorum opus fuerit bonum, distingue sic: Actus illorum malus, passio quam intulerunt bona fuit.

QUAESTIO CXXIV. Item quaeritur cur Apostolus sic distinguat, dicens: *Christum traditum propter delicta nostra, et resurrexisse propter justificationem nostram,* cum utrumque et passio, et resurrectio et a peccatis liberet, et justificet? Solutio. Etsi utrumque illorum sit causa, non tamen figura.

QUAESTIO CXXV. *Non solum autem, sedet gloriamur [0464C] in tribulationibus [n: (Rom. V)]*, etc. Quomodo Apostolus glorietur in tribulationibus quae sunt amarae, nec propter se expetendae. Solutio. Non propter tribulationes ipsas, sed propter earum effectum gloriandum est in illis. Sed objicitur quod eadem ratione gloriandum sit in peccatis non propter se, sed propter bonum, quod saepe, ut humilitatem efficiunt, unde Propheta: *Priusquam humiliarer, ego deliqui [n: (Psal. CXVIII)]*. Solutio. Tribulationes ex qualitate sui cooperantur interiori gratiae ad patientiam consequendam, peccata vero non; sed Deus sua pietate de malis nostris facit aliquid bonum provenire.

QUAESTIO CXXVI. Cum ait Apostolus: *Spes autem non confundit.* Quaeritur de spe quid sit, et an habeatur sine charitate? Solutio. Spes est certa exspectatio [0464D] futurorum bonorum quae in hoc differt a fide, quod fides est de praeteritis, praesentibus et futuris, tam bonis quam malis; spes autem tantum de futuris et bonis. Videtur autem quod non habeatur sine charitate: sine enim bonis operibus et bona vita, quae non est sine charitate, sperare futura bona non est spes, sed potius praesumptio, ut dicit Augustinus. Item videtur idem asserere Augustinus quod spes praecedat charitatem. Solutio. Alia est spes veniae, alia spes est gloriae; prima habetur etiam a malis, secunda forsitan nonnisi a bonis.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CXXVII. *Charitas Dei diffusa est,* etc. Quaeritur, an eadem sit charitas, qua nos Deus diligit, et qua nos Deum diligimus? Solutio. Sunt qui [0465A] dicunt quod eadem est, quibus obviat Augustinus hunc locum exponens et dicens, quod hic agitur de charitate, qua nos diligimus Deum, veluti ibi, *Deus charitas est [n: (I Joan. IV)]*, agitur de charitate qua nos diligit Deus: quod non diceret, si eadem esset. Item alibi dicit: Charitatem voco motum mentis ad diligendum Deum propter se, et proximum propter Deum. Deus non est motus, ergo est charitas, quae non est Deus. Item charitas potest augeri et minui, Deus autem non potest, ergo est charitas, quae non est Deus. Est itaque firmiter tenendum quod nomen charitatis aequivoce dicitur de Deo, cum dicitur Deus charitas est, et de quadam virtute, cum dicitur, quaedam virtus est charitas, vel charitas Dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris. Apostolus [0465B] Paulus fere ubique hoc nomine designat virtutem, quae Deus non est, sed ex Deo. Joannes eodem nomine significat ipsum Deum. Hoc autem quod Augustinus dicit quod charitas fraterna, qua diligimus invicem, est Deus. Concedimus, dicentes quod Deus charitas facit nos etiam diligere invicem, sed charitate mediante, sicut facit nos credere fide mediante; a quo enim est fides ab eodem est charitas, ut dicit Augustinus. Sed objicitur: Deus charitas est in nobis, et etiam charitas, quae est virtus; ergo duae charitates sunt in nobis, vel duabus charitatibus diligimus Deum. Solutio. Non ideo duae sunt. Sicut sol nos illuminat et radius solis, ergo duo nos illuminant, non sequitur, quia hoc esset seorsum, et separatim: sol enim per radium, et Deus per charitatem [0465C] virtutem nos illuminat sive illustrat.

QUAESTIO CXXVIII. Item quaeritur an semel habita charitas possit amitti? Et dicunt quidam quod non potest, quia scriptum est: *Charitas nunquam excidit [n: (I Cor. XIII)]*. Solutio: Hoc dictum est de perfecta charitate, vel ideo dictum est, quod charitas nunquam excidit, quia habetur in praesenti et in futuro.

QUAESTIO CXXIX. Charitas est fons ille de quo dictum est: Fons aquae tuae sit tibi proprius, et non communicet tibi alienus. Quaeritur qui sunt alieni, nisi reprobi, et qui sunt audituri: *Ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum [n: (Matth. XXV)]*, etc. Sed multi de numero talium diligunt ad tempus, et sic alieni de fonte [0465D] hoc communicant. Solutio. Alieni dicuntur secundum praescientiam, de quibus modo non loquitur, sed secundum praesentem injustitiam, omnes scilicet qui non diligunt modo, sive sint electi, sive non, et hi ut sic non communicant fonti dilectionis.

QUAESTIO CXXX. Quomodo hoc sit verum, quod dicitur: *Christus mortuus est pro impiis.* Nonne pro illis tantum mortuus est Christus, quibus sua mors prodest? sed non prodest nisi piis, ergo pro piis tantum mortuus est. Videtur itaque, quod non pro impiis mortuus sit. Solutio. Mortuus est pro impiis, id est pro dilectione eorum qui prius erant impii, et per fidem facti sunt pii, et ita verum est quod mors Christi facta pro impiis est, et quod non prodest nisi piis.

[0466A]QUAESTIO CXXXI. *Reconciliati sumus Deo per mortem Filii ejus.* Quaeritur quomodo hoc verbum sit intelligendum. Nunquid ante mortem nobis tanquam peccatoribus erat iratus, juxta illud: *Odisti omnes, qui operantur iniquitatem [n: (Psal. V)]*; et per mortem Filii sit nobis placatus, et coepit tunc primum amare? Sed si hoc est, quomodo elegit nos ante mundi constitutionem? Nunquid non diligens elegit; vel quomodo non placatus pro nobis tradidit Filium? Solutio. Ira Dei dicitur non animi passio, sed vindicta justa, et cum talis ira finitur, quod factum est per mortem Christi, Deus dicitur nobis placari, et nos ei reconciliari; nec tamen, quia reconciliavit amavit; sed quia amavit, reconciliavit. De justitia illa, qua Christus vicit, superius dictum [0466B] est, et de modo redemptionis. Nec oportet acta agere: tantum verba Augustini breviter ponantur, quibus eam plane exprimit. Ait itaque: Haec est justitia, qua Christus vicit diabolum. Diabolus amator potentiae, et desertor justitiae, Christum, in quo nihil dignum morte invenit, occidit. Unde justum est ut illi quos tenebat liberi dimitterentur, credentes in illo, qui sine ullo merito malo occisus est. Noluit itaque contra amatorem potentiae uti potentia, sed contra desertorem justitiae voluit uti justitia, ut nos informaret qualiter contra eumdem hostem nobis sit pugnandum; videlicet non potentia, sed potius justitia, et sic victores erimus.

QUAESTIO CXXXII. *Propterea sicut per unum,* etc. Quaeritur quare potius dicat per unum virum quam [0466C] per unam mulierem intrasse peccatum in mundum, cum peccati initium fuerit potius in muliere quam in viro? Solutio. Consuetudinis tenuit ordinem, ut Augustinus dicit, quia posteritas non a muliere, sed a viro solet nominari. Vel ideo quia vir et mulier una caro sunt; ideoque quidquid factum est ab illo vel illa, ad primum hominem dicitur pertinere. Vel aliter, si vir non peccasset, forsitan aliam sociam ei providisset Deus, de qua innocentes, et sibi conformes genuisset, vel merito ipsius peccata uxoris dimisisset; sed quia peccavit, per ipsum non immerito peccatum intrasse in mundum dicitur.

QUAESTIO CXXXIII. Item quaeritur cur per hominem et non per diabolum dicatur intrasse peccatum, [0466D] cum prius fuerit in illo, et per illum intraverit etiam in primum hominem, unde scriptum est: *Invidia diaboli mors* intravit in mundum [n: (Sap. II)]. Solutio. Aliter per diabolum, aliter per hominem peccatum intravit. Sola enim imitatione, et non propagatione per diabolum. Non sola imitatione, sed etiam propagatione intravit per hominem. Sciendum est Pelagianos dixisse originale peccatum sola imitatione et non propagatione intrasse per Adam: quod si verum esset, non hominem, sed diabolum peccati auctorem dixisset: unde etiam dicebant, quod in baptismo originale peccatum parvulis non dimittitur, quia secundum eos in nascentibus nullum contrahitur: sed fides catholica hoc non tenet, sed hoc praedicat, hoc Scripturae testantur, quod, sicut [0467A] Christus, praeter imitationis exemplum, illuminationem et justificationem intrinsecus occulte operatur, ex qua sola gratia parvulos regeneratos qui eum nequeunt imitari, suo inserit corpori; sic Adam, praeter imitationis exemplum, tabe suae concupiscentiae corrupit omnes ex se per concupiscentiam nascituros.

QUAESTIO CXXXIV. Quaerit Julianus sic: Non peccat qui creat, non peccat qui generat, non peccat qui generatur: per quas ergo rimas inter tot praesidia innocentiae fingis originale peccatum ingressum. Cui Augustinus sic respondet: Apostolus dicit: *Per unum hominem peccatum in hunc mundum inravit [n: (Rom. V)]*, quid quaerit apertius? quid quaerit nculcatius? quid quaerit planius? quid quaerit rimam, [0467B] ubi habet apertissimam januam?

QUAESTIO CXXXV. Item quaeritur utrum peccatum originale sit ex voluntate, an ex natura: si ex voluntate, mala est voluntas; si ex natura, mala est natura. Cui respondet Augustinus: Omne malum opus processit de mala voluntate tanquam de radice, ipsam autem malam voluntatem nullum malum praecessit, sed nata est prius in angelo, post in homine, quorum uterque bonum opus Dei erant, et sic in bono ortum est malum, quod non habuit causam efficientem, sed causam deficientem.

QUAESTIO CXXXVI. Item quaeritur utrum peccatum originale sit ex voluntate. Solutio. Est quidem ex voluntate primorum parentum, unde et ipsum potest dici voluntarium.

[0467C]QUAESTIO CXXXVII. *In quo omnes peccaverunt,* etc. Nondum eramus, quomodo ergo qui nondum eramus, potuimus peccare? Solutio. In ipso omnes peccavimus, id est in ipso factum est unde omnes peccaremus. Vel sic: Ab ipso causam peccati traximus; vel sic: Omnes rei sumus illius peccati, quod ipse commisit.

QUAESTIO CXXXVIII. Quaeritur etiam quomodo nos omnes in Adam unus homo fuimus? Solutio. Id est ex eo, qui unus homo erat, per propagationem descendimus.

QUAESTIO CXXXIX. Quaeritur iterum, quomodo ex illa parva massa, quae fuit in Adam, tot et tanta descendere potuerunt, vel quomodo in tot partes tam parva particula dividi potuit, ut cujuslibet corpus inde materialiter constet. Quae quaestio solet fieri de illis *septem panibus,* quibus tot millia hominum Dominus satiavit sine alicujus rei additione [n: (Matth. XV)]. Solutio. Lege propagationis hoc factum fuit. Illa enim particula quae fuit in lumbis Adae, ex quo separata fuit in filii ejus generatione, in seipsa est aucta et multiplicata in perfectam hominis staturam: ex qua iterum separata est parva particula in secunda generatione, quae in seipsa est iterum aucta et multiplicata: de qua iterum ita multiplicata est separata alia, et sic deinceps lege propagationis crevit in tantam multitudinem sine additamento extrinseco, vel ciborum mutatione in ipsam. Constat [0468A] quia Deus potest de una atomo facere quantumlibet pondus.

QUAESTIO CXL. Si itaque una atomus sic multiplicaretur in seipsa in aliquid magnum, in quo essent infinitae atomi, quaeritur an illa esset omnes istae, vel una de numero aliarum, vel utrum illae sint illa una. Solutio. Non oportet concedere quod illa sit omnes istae, sed quod sit multiplicata et aucta in istas; nec quod omnes istae sint illa, sed ex illa, vel fuerunt in illa, sicut illud granum crevit in arborem, nec est arbor illud, sed ex illo, vel materialiter in illo. Diligenter notandae sunt hujusmodi locutiones. Notandum plura esse genera mutationum; quandoque mutatur essentia in essentiam sine mutatione accidentium, ut in sacramento altaris; [0468B] quandoque fit mutatio proprietatum sine mutatione essentiae, ut cum de aqua factum est vinum; quandoque fit mutatio secundum solam quantitatem in majus, ut in septem panibus. Qualiter autem virga Moysi sit mutata in serpentem, an secundum solas proprietates tam substantiales quam accidentales, an secundum essentiam non est mihi certum.

QUAESTIO CXLI. Scriptum est: *Deus mortem non fecit.* Item: *Mors et vita a Deo est [n: (Sap. I)]*, quod videtur esse contrarium: nil enim temporale est a Deo, quod ipse non fecerit; quomodo ergo mortem fecit, et non fecit? Solutio. Deus mortem non fecit, id est causam mortis videlicet peccatum; poenam vero illam quae mors dicitur secundum quosdam fecit Deus: et ipsa inter opera bona enumeratur, [0468C] quia justa; et omne justum a Deo.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CXLII. *Sed non sicut delictum, ita et donum.* Quaeritur quomodo dicat Apostolus, donum Christi abundare in plures, quam delictum Adae: non enim plures salvati sunt per gratiam Christi, quam sint delicto Adae damnati. Solutio. Ista superabundantia gratiae non est attendenda in numero personarum; sed ipsis quibus prodest donum Christi, plus confert in bono, quam delictum Adae obsit illis, quibus obest in malo; quia ex Adam non omnis damnatio, sed illa sola, qua puniuntur illi qui soli originali subjacent, praeter quam puniuntur illi qui delicta propria addiderunt; gratia vero Christi non solum liberat a peccato originali, sed etiam a superadditis, promovens in justificationem, et tandem in vitam aeternam.

QUAESTIO CXLIII. An actualia peccata sint ex peccato Adae? Quod videtur quibusdam, quia ex fomite proni sumus ad peccandum. Solutio. Pronitas talis non est causa efficiens, etsi sit causa sine qua non fieret, ut quibusdam placet; sed nec exigitur, cum nec in diabolo, nec in primo homine ante lapsum fuerit, et tamen fuit in eis peccatum sine ipsa: non enim ipsa causa peccati, sed peccatum causa ipsius fuit.

QUAESTIO CXLIV. Quaeritur an alia peccata actualia Adae posteris imputentur? Solutio. Apostolus dicit in *unius delicto,* non ait delictis, *multi sunt constituti peccatores:* in quo innuit, quod non plura, sed unum solum imputatur.

[0469A]QUAESTIO CXLV. Quaeritur an etiam peccatum Evae nobis imputetur? Solutio. Nota verba Apostoli dicentis in unius delicto, non ait duorum, vel si imputatur propter rationes praedictas, dicit per unum hominem peccatum intrasse in mundum, vel in unius delicto.

QUAESTIO CXLVI. Quaeritur an actualia peccata proximorum parentum posteris imputentur? Quod videtur, quia Dominus ait: *Ego sum Dominus Deus tuus zelotes: visitans iniquitatem patrum in filios in tertiam et quartam generationem [n: (Exod. XX)]*, etc. Solutio. Peccata parentum etiam proximorum non imputantur filiis, nisi ipsi peccata patrum per imitationem sua faciant; nec tunc puniuntur, quia parentes, sed quia ipsi peccaverunt. Juxta aliam Scripturam: [0469B] *Filius non portabit iniquitatem patris [n: (Ezech. XVIII)]*, etc., repugnantiam autem, quae videtur inter has duas auctoritates, doctores satis elucidant.

QUAESTIO CXLVII. Si autem quaeratur qua ratione peccatum primorum parentum, et non proximorum imputetur. Solutio. Quia illud nos spoliavit; caetera peccata aliorum nos tanquam nudos et spoliatos invenientia non potuerunt nobis aliquid auferre: originale enim peccatum, ut jam dictum est, tantum privat originali quadam justitia.

QUAESTIO CXLVIII. Homo ex se et per se ante peccatum peccare potuit; proficere vero ex se et per se sine adjutorio gratiae non potuit, ergo pronior erat ad malum quam ad bonum; sed nondum erat, [0469C] nisi talis qualem Deus eum fecerat: ergo Deus fecit eum proniorem ad malum quam ad bonum. Solutio. Ante casum homo non erat pronus ad peccatum; nec Deus talem fecit hominem ut esset pronus ad peccandum, sed talis pronitas postea ex peccato infuit; nec etiam potestatem peccandi habuit ex Deo, sed ex sua nihilitate; non ex bono, quod acceperat, sed ex ejus termino; non quia tantum, sed quia non plus acceperat, sicut jam superius dictum de eodem est.

QUAESTIO CXLIX. *Sicut per unius inobedientiam,* etc. Quaeritur an homo prius de bono, quod habuit ante lapsum sine additione aliorum, gratiae potuerit obedire et praeceptum sibi datum implere? Si dicatur, quod potuit: ergo, ex eo quod tunc habuit potuit [0469D] proficere: quod negatur fere ab omnibus. Item si concedatur, quod non potuit obedire sine adjutorio gratiae, quae ergo ejus culpa fuit, si non fecit quod non potuit facere sine gratia, et gratia non est collata, nec ejus culpa fuit, quare non sit collata. Solutio. Non peccavit, quia non fecit quod facere non potuit; sed quia non fecit cum posset.

QUAESTIO CL. Item quaeritur an Christus obediendo Deo Patri aliquid meruerit? Volunt quidam probare quod non meruerit aliquid, quia nec secundum humanitatem, nec secundum divinitatem. Deus, inquiunt, non potest aliquid ab aliquo accipere; vel per aliquid, quod faciat, aliud non prius debitum [0470A] acquirere: ergo non potest aliquid mereri. Similiter secundum quod est homo, est bonus et diligit; sed non potest non esse bonus, vel non diligere: ergo ex necessitate bonus est vel diligit, quomodo ergo potest mereri? Solutio. Mereri geminam habet significationem: dicitur enim quis mereri cum per bonum opus efficitur dignus aliquo, quo prius non erat dignus, secundum quam significationem videtur nobis, quod nec secundum divinitatem, nec secundum humanitatem Christus aliquid meruit, etiam in ipsa morte. Dicitur etiam aliquis mereri cum aliquod bonum facit, quod sit dignum remuneratione, secundum quod Deus dicitur etiam mereri, cum nobis beneficia praestat pro quibus tenemur eum in aeternum laudare, et Christus secundum [0470B] humanitatem in sua passione meruit nobis introitum aeternae vitae. Prius quidem nobis multa meruit; sed sola passio non solum pretiosa, sed pretium mundi fuit.

QUAESTIO CLI. *Lex subintravit, ut abundaret,* etc. Quaeritur an lex sit causa mali, quod videtur; quia est causa abundantiae delicti. Solutio. Ut quandoque est causativum, sicut eo ad forum, ut emam togam; quandoque operativum, ut posuit hominem in paradiso, ut custodiret, etc.; quandoque est consecutivum, ut exivit foras ut moreretur; quandoque etiam notat occasionem, ut lex subintravit, ut abundaret peccatum. Judaei enim abundantiorem peccati occasionem acceperunt ex lege, quae fuit bona non causa mali; sed vitium eorum hujus mali causa [0470C] fuit, sicut si accipiam occasionem invidendi de scientia illius; quae non est causa doloris mei, sed vitium meum.

QUAESTIO CLII. *Ubi abundavit delictum, superabundavit et gratia.* Nonne in Judaeis superabundavit delictum, quia legis praevaricatio; nec tamen superabundavit et gratia, quia excaecati sunt. Quomodo ergo est verum, ubi abundavit delictum, superabundavit et gratia? Solutio. Non dicit: Ubicunque abundavit delictum, superabundavit et gratia; sed ubi indefinite, quod est intelligendum quantum ad eos, qui crediderunt, in quibus priusquam crederent, abundavit delictum; quia praeter caetera peccata eis inerat legis praevaricatio: sed gratia omnia dimisit; insuper fidem et charitatem contulit, non [0470D] quantum ad eos, qui in peccatis suis mortui sunt, in quibus abundavit delictum, et non gratia.

QUAESTIO CLIII. *Quid ergo dicemus: Manebimus in peccato, ut gratia abundet? [n: (Rom. VI.)]* Circa haec quaeritur, quid sit manere in peccato. Solutio. De peccato non poenitere, vel quodam torpore mentis perseverando in peccato gratiam exspectare.

QUAESTIO CLIV. *Quicunque baptizati estis in Christo,* etc. Quaeritur quae peccata dimittantur in baptismo? Solutio. Dicit Augustinus quod non solum praeterita vel praesentia, sed etiam futura.

QUAESTIO CLV. Sed quaeritur, quomodo futura [0471A] peccata, quae nondum sunt, de quibus nullus poenitet, nec pro eis adhuc tenetur, quia nec pro eis adhuc aliquis est reus, quomodo, inquam, dimittuntur? Solutio. Ideo dicuntur futura peccata in baptismo dimitti, quia per gratiam ibi datam caventur, vel ideo quia facilius postea ille qui hoc sacramentum percipit, consequitur veniam.

QUAESTIO CLVI. An ficte accedenti peccata dimittantur? Solutio. Augustinus dicit quod solvitur hesterna dies, et quidquid erat supra fraternum odium in ipsa hora baptizandi; sed redeunt statim quia non poenitet.

QUAESTIO CLVII. Quaeritur quomodo verum sit quod dicit Augustinus? Nonne ex quo non poenitet membrum est diaboli? quomodo ergo est membrum [0471B] Christi? Et si hoc est, quomodo dimissa sunt ei peccata? non habet fidem, non habet spiritum Christi; ergo non est membrum Christi, nec ei dimissa sunt peccata. Solutio. Dicunt quidam quod verba Augustini praedicta sic sunt intelligenda. Solvitur hesterna, etc., id est baptismus talem habet efficaciam etiam in eo qui corde non contrito accedit, quod nisi in ipso fictio remaneret, omnium offensarum consequeretur veniam, et postea poterit consequi si de fictione sua voluerit poenitere.

QUAESTIO CLVIII. *Vetus homo noster crucifixus est,* etc. Quaeritur, an idem sit homo vetus, et homo exterior, et homo novus, et homo interior? Solutio. Non idem, quia homo exterior dicitur quod habemus commune cum animalibus, homo interior quod [0471C] commune possidemus cum angelis. Vetus autem homo pertinet ad utrumque; non enim solus homo exterior, sed etiam interior vetus est por culpam, de quo vetere in praesenti capitulo agendum.

QUAESTIO CLIX. Quaeritur itaque quid sit vetus homo? Dicunt quod fomes peccati sic vocatur; sed verius est quod pars vetustatis dicatur ipse fomes. Nobis autem videtur quod vetustas intelligitur secundum duo, scilicet culpam et poenam. Poena autem, alia est aeterna, alia temporalis; culpa vero, alia originalis, alia actualis. Item culpa originalis consistit in ipso fomite, et ejus actu et reatu utriusque. Rursus culpa actualis, alia venialis, alia mortalis. Venialis vero in tribus consistit, scilicet [0471D] consensu, actu et reatu utriusque. Similiter mortalis tribus modis eisdem intelligitur. Ecce undenarius numerus transgressionis, in quo attenditur vetus homo; binarius enim unus in poena, ternarius unus in culpa originali, alter in culpa veniali, tertius in culpa mortali, et sic tres ternarii culparum cum binario poenarum undenarium constituunt. Videndum est ergo secundum quid vetus homo sit crucifixus. Secundum poenam aeternam ex toto deletus est in iis, qui sunt Christi; secundum poenam temporalem debilitatus est et mitigatus. Similiter secundum culpam mortalem nihilominus deletus est penitus; secundum autem venialem mitigatus; non plenarie adhuc ablatus, porro secundum reatum [0472A] originalem ex toto non imputatus; secundum actum vero et fomitem originalem sic crucifixus, ut non dominetur.

QUAESTIO CLX. Quaeritur an in Abraham fomes peccati fuerit crucifixus per mortem Christi? Dicunt quidam quod per fidem mortis Christi tunc futurae in ipso etiam fuit debilitatus.

QUAESTIO CLXI. Item quaeritur an in ipso Apostolo sic fuerit debilitatus et crucifixus, ut motibus ejus nunquam consentiret. Quomodo enim motibus non consensit, quando venialia commisit. Item venialia quae commisit, nonne erant voluntaria et sic voluit ea? quomodo ergo fomes peccati non traxit Apostolum ad peccati consensum. Solutio. Apostolus, licet voluntarius commiserit, non tamen peccatum voluit. [0472B] Non enim dicitur peccatum voluntarium, eo quod id aliquis voluerit; sed quia ex voluntate aliqua processit. Nec fomiti consensit. Nam consentire est ex deliberatione et industria quod motus suggesserunt facere: quod etiam videtur esse mortale sic consentire.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CLXII. *Ut obediatis concupiscentiis.* Quaeritur quid intersit inter obedire concupiscentiis, et inter exhibere membra peccato. Solutio. Obedire concupiscentiis est mente consentire carnalibus delectationibus. Exhibere membra peccato, ut sint arma iniquitatis, hoc est ipsam iniquitatem opere implere.

QUAESTIO CLXIII. Unde quaeritur cur post primum prohibeat secundum, prohibendo enim non obedire [0472C] concupiscentiis, prohibet etiam exhibere membra peccato; qui enim non consentit, non operatur. Solutio. Ideo post consensum prohibet et opus, ut si quandoque contingat mente consentire, tamen talis consensus non procedat in actum, sed potius amputetur. Quidam vero per obedire concupiscentiis intelligunt, operationem; per exhibere membra peccato, consensum; et sic convenienter post operationis prohibitionem, sequitur consensus prohibitio.

QUAESTIO CLXIV. *Peccatum non dominabitur vobis, quia non estis sub lege, sed sub gratia.* Nonne multis, qui sunt sub gratia, dominatur peccatum? Quomodo ergo verum est: Peccatum non dominabitur, etc. Solutio. Vobis, qui gratiae estis obedientes, [0472D] jam data est potestas, qua potestis resistere peccato ne regnet. Unde constat si quando resumat vires ut dominetur, hoc fit vitio nostro.

QUAESTIO CLXV. *Humanum dico propter infirmitatem.* Quaeritur, quid vocet Apostolus humanum, scilicet leve, et ad faciendum facile, quod fit adultae justitiae et non perfectae. Solutio. Ipse ostendit subjungens: Sicut exhibuistis membra vestra servire immunditiae et iniquitati ad iniquitatem, ita nunc exhibere membra vestra servire justitiae in sanctificationem. Quod est breviter et aperte dicere: Eo amore servite justitiae, sicut prius sine coactione sola delectatione servivistis immunditiae. Quod ideo dicitur humanum, quia plus debetur justitiae quam [0473A] peccato: nullus enim unquam sic dilexit peccatum, ut pro eo non timeret mori. Sed cum simus proni ad malum, quod fit sine labore et omni difficultate, insuper cum magna suavitate et immmoderata delectatione, ad bonum vero tardi et pigri, quod non fit nisi cum magno labore, et ingenti difficultate, et saepe modica vel nulla delectatione; quia iter virtutum arduum et durum, arctum et angustum.

QUAESTIO CLXVI. Sed quaeritur quomodo dicat Apostolus esse humanum tanto amore, tantaque delectatione servire justitiae, quanto prius servivimus iniquitati, cum hoc videatur esse perfectum et consummatum? Solutio. Est quidem verum quod quando videmus aliquem amore servire justitiae, dicimus quod perfectus est, maxime in hoc tempore [0473B] quando defecit sanctus: tamen quantum ad ipsam veritatem, imperfectus est, nisi etiam pro justitia non solum caetera, sed ipsam quoque mortem contemnat. Adultae [adulterinae] ergo justitiae, et non perfectae est amore facere praeceptum cum proposito moriendi pro Christo, etsi nondum tantam habeat charitatem vel constantiam ex qua possit ipsam mortem sustinere, et iste gradus sufficit ad salutem, et exigitur; quia sine eo nullus est dignus gloria. Perfectae vero justitiae et consummatae est tantum virtutem habere, quae sufficiat ad tolerandam mortem pro veritate et amore justitiae. Primum gradum habuisse visus est Petrus quando dicebat: *Et si oportuerit me mori tecum, non te negabo [n: (Matth. XXVI)]*. Nondum vero habuit secundum, [0473C] quem consecutus est per adventum Spiritus sancti.

QUAESTIO CLXVII. *Vivente viro mulier alligata est lege viri [n: (Rom. VII)]*, etc. Quaeritur de David et caeteris justis, an lege vivente, id est statum habente, tenerentur legem servare, et an dicendi sunt adulteri, quia fuerunt cum alio, id est cum Christo, in quem credebant, et a quo justificari quaerebant? Solutio. Lex quidem justo posita non est, quae est quasi paedagogus parvulorum; tamen David cum caeteris justis tenebantur legem custodire propter illos, quibus lex erat necessaria ne eorum exemplo eam transgrederentur. Nec quia cum Christo erant per fidem et dilectionem, dicendi sunt adulteri: sed [0473D] si sacramentis legalibus contemptis, jam sacramenta Novi Testamenti introducere praesumerent, tunc adulteri viderentur.

QUAESTIO CLXVIII. *Cum enim essemus in carne passiones peccatorum,* etc. Quaeritur quid vocet passiones, an primos motus, an aliquid aliud. Solutio. Potest dici, quod concupiscentias innatas, quae sunt causa peccati, et in iis qui non sunt in Christo, etiam mortale peccatum. Vel primos motus, qui non imputantur renatis; quos ideo vocat passiones, quia naturam laedunt, et aliquo bono privant.

QUAESTIO CLXIX. *Quid dicemus? Lex peccatum est? Absit!* Quaeritur an ipsa lex faciat peccare, vel doceat, et sic sit malum. Solutio. Non est [0474A] mala, sed bona; nec est causa peccati, etsi videatur occasio.

QUAESTIO CLXX. *Nam concupiscentiam nesciebam,* etc. Quaeritur de qua concupiscentia hoc dicat Apostolus. Et dicunt doctores, quod de qua prohibetur in Decalogo. De qua iterum quaeritur quae illa sit? Nomine enim concupiscentiae quandoque significatur vitium concupiscentiae, scilicet fomes peccati; quandoque primus motus, qui dicitur propassio; quandoque secundus motus, qui dicitur passio, vel delectatio; quandoque consensus; quandoque exterior conatus; quam ergo prohibet lex dicens: *Non concupisces? [n: (Ibid.)]* Solutio. In responsione hujus quaestionis moderni doctores dissentiunt. Alii enim dicunt, quod primos motus prohibet lex; alii vero [0474B] dicunt quod consensum; alii sic exponunt: Non concupisces, id est scito concupiscentiam malam, et quantum potes devita, et ita secundum hoc nihil prohibetur. Sed quidquid continetur in Decalogo, vel praeceptum est, vel prohibitio: unde oportet, ut aliquid prohibeatur cum dicitur: Non concupisces. Illis, qui dicunt, quod consensus prohibeatur, sic objicitur, Apostolus dicit: *Facio quod nolo, si autem hoc est: consentio legi non faciendo, sed nolendo (ibid)*.

QUAESTIO CLXXI. Quaeritur ergo quid illud sit, quod lex prohibet, et Apostolus nolens faciebat? sed isti dicunt quod consensum lex prohibet, sed constat quod Apostolus non consentiebat quia si consentiret concupiscentiae, nullo modo legi consentiret, [0474C] sed contra eam ageret. Augustinus autem ostendit aperte quid sit, quod Apostolus nolebat, et tamen faciebat. Motum scilicet concupiscentiae sentiebat, sed tamen non consentiebat, imo non sentire volebat. Unde liquet quod primos motus concupiscentiae lex prohibet.

QUAESTIO CLXXII. Sed quaeritur iterum cur Deus prohibuit quod nemo unquam vitare potuit? Videtur enim lex non solum inutilis, sed etiam irrationabilis, cum interdicat quod est impossibile vitare. Propter hanc rationem nolunt praedicti doctores, quod lex primos motus prohibeat. Quibus objicitur sic: Nonne lex praecepit diligere Deum ex toto corde? Sed hoc praeceptum, ut dicit Augustinus, [0474D] nemo in praesenti potest adimplere: si ergo aliquid praecipitur, quod non valet hic a quoquam fieri, quid mirum si quid prohibetur quod non potest vitari?

QUAESTIO CLXXIII. Quaeritur ergo quare Deus vel prohibuit quod non potest vitari, vel praecepit quod non valet adimpleri. Videtur enim crudelis, vel non aequus. Solutio. Ut superbum humiliaret, et caecum illuminaret, et sic dignum ad gratiam suscipiendam praepararet. In hoc quod prohibuit quod nemo potest vitare, et praecepit quod nullus facere potest, ostendit quae sit perfectio divinae justitiae, et quid juste Deus ab homine exigere possit. Insuper qualis homo fuerit ante peccatum, scilicet talis qui sine omni difficultate gratia adjuvante nihil concupisceret, [0475A] et Deum ex toto corde diligeret: et qualis per culpam effectus, scilicet infirmus, carnalis impotens non concupiscere; vel Deum perfecte diligere. Quid ergo restat nisi ut homo amplius de se non praesumens ad gratiam confugiat, et dicat: Domine, responde pro me, ego enim infirmus sum. Itaque non crudeliter, sed magna dispensatione praecepit Deus quod non potest fieri nisi a solo mediatore.

QUAESTIO CLXXIV. Quaeritur ubi lex sic prohibeat generaliter concupiscentiam, non enim invenitur, ubi lex faciat prohibitionem nisi de re vel uxore proximi. Solutio. In speciali intelligitur generale.

QUAESTIO CLXXV. Quaeritur unde contingat ut nitamur in vetitum, et id quod prohibetur amplius [0475B] placeat, et dulcius fiat ex ipsa prohibitione? Solutio. Natura humana sic creata est, ut naturaliter appetat libertatem: quae per prohibitionem videtur minui, et in servitutem redigi; unde quantum potest, statim facta prohibitione, resistit nitens contra.

QUAESTIO CLXXVI. Quaeritur in qua persona loquatur Apostolus dum dicit: *Ego autem carnalis sum [n: (Rom. VII)]*, in propria, an generali? Nam si in sua persona loquatur, quomodo dicit se esse carnalem, cum esset spiritualis? si autem in generali loquitur, ut omni justo et injusto cujuslibet temporis conveniat quod dicit, quomodo injusto convenit odire malum, et velle bonum, et legi Dei consentire? Solutio. Augustinus dicit quod in propria persona loquitur [0475C] dicens, se carnalem propter motus quos sentiebat, et idem erat spiritualis, non consentiens illis motibus inordinatis. Non autem negari potest quin dicat quaedam, quae propriae personae non conveniant, ut illud: *Vivebam aliquando sine lege [n: (ibid.)]*. Sunt qui dicunt quod in generali persona justi loquitur; sed justo quomodo convenit: *Ego autem mortuus sum? [n: (Ibid.)]* Nos autem dicimus quod sic loquitur Apostolus, quod quaedam conveniant homini legis naturalis, quaedam homini legis scriptae, quaedam homini legis gratiae; quid autem cui conveniat, diligenter notandum; nostri autem propositi est quaestiones prosequi, non litteram exponere.

QUAESTIO CLXXVII. *Quod enim operor non intelligo,* [0475D] etc. Quaeritur quomodo dicit se non intelligere quod operatur, cum per legem peccatum cognoverit? Solutio. Non intelligo, ponitur pro non approbo.

QUAESTIO CLXXVIII. At quando dicit: *Non enim quod volo, hoc ago;* quaeritur quomodo dicat se nolle quod agit; nonne quod facit est peccatum, et omne peccatum est voluntarium, et ita videtur velle, quod dicit se nolle? Solutio. Triplex est velle scilicet naturae, culpae et gratiae; unde idem potest velle secundum carnem, et nolle secundum mentem.

QUAESTIO CLXXIX. *Si autem quod nolo, hoc ago,* etc. Quaeritur, quidnam sit illud, quod Apostolus dicit se nolle, et tamen facit, lege prohibente? [0476A] Solutio. Concupiscere: lex enim prohibet concupiscere, et Apostolus vult secundum mentem non concupiscere, et tamen secundum carnem concupiscebat.

QUAESTIO CLXXX. Sed quaeritur quomodo dicat se facere, et non operari: idem enim si facit aliquid, illud operatur, et si non operatur, nec facit. Nunquid affirmatio et negatio simul vera de eodem? Solutio. Facit secundum carnem, et non operatur secundum mentem.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CLXXXI. Quaeritur an consequens sit ipsum non operari simpliciter, si non operatur secundum mentem; sicut consequens est, et si facit secundum carnem, et simpliciter facit. Solutio. Est quidem verum, quod ad affirmationem determinatam [0476B] sequitur simplex affirmatio fere semper, sed negationem determinatam non solet sequi simplex negatio; unde oportet vim facere in pronomine cum dicitur: *Ego non operor [n: (ibid.)]*, quasi ego interior, in quo veritas hominis consistit, quia imago Dei; et sic negatio, quae videtur esse simplex, non est simplex, sed potius determinata.

QUAESTIO CLXXXII. *Sed quod habitat in me peccatum.* Quaeritur quomodo peccatum quod nihil est, sed tantum privatio boni, dicatur habitare in aliquo. Solutio. Hoc nomine, peccatum significatur fomes peccati, quae lex carnis, vel lex membrorum dicitur, sicut consensus vel operatio, lex mortis appellatur.

QUAESTIO CLXXXIII. *Scio, quod non habitat in [0476C] me,* id est *in carne mea, bonum.* Quaeritur utrum universaliter de omni bono an indefinite de quodam bono dicat, quod non habitat in carne? Sed de omni bono quomodo hoc potest dicere, cum caro etiam corrupta et languori subjecta sit opus Dei, nec omni bono privata, maxime cum malum non sit res per se existens, nec potest esse nisi in re bona. Unde consequens est ut ubi nullum bonum est, nec aliquod malum sit; et ubi aliquod malum est necessario sit et aliquod bonum. Solutio. De sanitate sive naturae integritate dicit, quod non habitat in carne: unde congrue probat quod peccatum est fomes peccati, quod privatio sanitatis, vel integritatis naturae est; in carne habitat: ubi enim non est sanitas [0476D] et debet esse, ibi est ejusdem privatio, quam Apostolus significat dicens: Non bonum habitat in carne.

QUAESTIO CLXXXIV. *Velle adjacet mihi,* etc. Quaeritur de illa voluntate, quam Apostolus dicit sibi adjacere, quid ipsa dicenda sit? Solutio. Nihil aliud quam affectus animae naturalis, qui ex creatione est in anima, et quo anima naturaliter vult bonum; sed hic affectus semper caret effectu, nisi a gratia Dei adjuvetur.

QUAESTIO CLXXXV. *Velle adjacet mihi, perficere autem non invenio; quoniam malum adjacet mihi.* His verbis videtur Apostolus insinuare, quod si malum non adjaceret, non solum velle sibi adjaceret, sed etiam perficere inveniret, cum nil impediret ad [0477A] bonum, vel impelleret ad malum. Sed in hoc ipso insinuat primum statum primi hominis ante peccatum, cui adjacebat velle, bonum, sed malum non adjacebat, unde non poterat dicere, velle adjacet mihi, perficere autem non invenio, quia malum adjacet mihi. Utrum autem illud bonum, quod naturaliter volebat, posset perficere sine additamento majoris gratiae, posset quaeri. Nonne illud velle, quod habuit Adam ante peccatum, multo intensius erat quam illud naturale velle quod habent pagani nunc? sed magna et multa bona faciunt (etsi non sunt digna vita aeterna, quia sine fide facta) pagani ex naturali affectu quem habent: quomodo ergo Adam ante peccatum ex majore voluntate non potuit, nec ad modicum proficere, ut omnes fere asserunt? [0477B] Item si Deus majorem gratiam non conferret, sed in illo statu, in quo eum creavit, sineret, nonne posset exigere juste Deus ab homine, ut pro bono jam collato eum perfecte diligeret, sed Deus non posset juste exigere, quod homo non posset reddere: et sic videtur quod homo ante peccatum ex bono jam percepto posset proficere, quod multi negant.

QUAESTIO CLXXXVI. Sed dicet aliquis, nonne Deus modo juste potest exigere ab homine, quod homo non potest reddere ut jam superius dictum est? Nisi enim Deus juste posset exigere ut nil concupisceret contra rationem; et ut Deum ex toto corde diligeret, non praecepisset homini utrumque. Simili modo videtur quod homo ante peccatum non posset totum reddere, quod Deus juste poterat exigere. [0477C] Solutio. Homo ante peccatum per nullam culpam infirmus vel impotens effectus est; ideo facile poterat reddere quod Deus poterat exigere: post peccatum, et per peccatum talis effectus est, quod non valet solvere omne debitum, quod tamen Deus potest exigere, et ab iis exigit, qui de se praesumunt, et ad gratiam non confugiunt. Sciendum quod littera haec ab illo loco: Ego carnalis sum, usque ad illum, *nihil ergo damnationis [n: (Rom. VIII)]*, etc., et de homine legis, et de homine gratiae solet legi, et qualiter de homine gratiae debeat, vel possit exponi secundum Augustinum dictum est. Qualiter autem de homine legis legatur diligentur intuendum est. Homo autem legis dicitur, qui per legem instructus cognoscit per peccatum, cui nolens resistere, [0477D] vincitur et succumbit, et fomiti consentit, qui dicitur carnalis non solum fomitem sentiens, sed etiam ei consentiens. Cum ergo consensus sit rationis.

QUAESTIO CLXXXVII. Quaeritur quomodo homini legis conveniat, *volo bonum, odi malum, jam* non ego operor *illud, et consentio legi Dei.* Solutio. Licet consensus sit rationis, tamen quia carnalitas eam ad consensum traxit, non rationi sed carni ascribitur.

QUAESTIO CLXXXVIII. *Ut justificatio legis impleretur in nobis [n: (Rom. VIII)]*. Quaeritur quid vocet justificationem legis, cum ex lege non sit justitia. Solutio. Justificationem legis vocat non quam lex conferebat, [0478A] sed quam lex praecipiebat et promittebat, quae in nobis impletur per gratiam Christi, qui legem plene et perfecte implevit, et nobis gratiam implendi dedit, et quod minus agimus: ipse supplet, et pro nobis respondet.

QUAESTIO CLXXXIX. An idem sit ambulare secundum carnem, et esse secundum carnem, et sapere ea quae carnis sunt. Solutio. Non est idem. Nam ambulare secundum carnem, est opere implere ea, quae caro concupiscit. Esse secundum carnem, est consentire concupiscentiis, vel esse dispositum in carnalibus. Sapere ea quae sunt carnis, est delectari in talibus quae caro summa judicat, vel non percipere ea quae sunt Dei. Duobus enim modis dicitur quis carnalis, scilicet vita et doctrina, vel qui [0478B] carni indulget, vel qui divinam potentiam naturis rerum alligat, id est qui credit quod Deus nil possit facere, nisi quod videt in natura rerum. Similiter ambulare secundum spiritum, est ea quae sunt spiritus, opere implere. Esse secundum spiritum, est consentire spiritui, vel esse dispositum secundum spiritualia. Sentire ea quae sunt spiritus, est delectari in spiritualibus, secundum quae tria dicitur quis vere spiritualis. Dicitur etiam spiritualis per intelligentiam aliquis, et est aliquis spiritualis vita, et non intelligentia; alius intelligentia, et non vita; alius utroque modo; alius neutro, etc.

QUAESTIO CXC. *Vos autem in carne non estis,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus dicat eos non esse in carne, cum pro superba eorum altercatione reprimenda [0478C] eis scripserit. Solutio. In spiritu et non in carne dicit eos, quia secundum carnem non ambulabant, vel, quod melius est, inter Romanos erant quidam spirituales, et perfectae fidei: propter quod dicit: Vos non estis in carne. Erant et alii inter se altercantes, et imperfectae fidei, ad quos respiciens subjungit: *Si tamen Spiritus Dei habitat in vobis [n: (ibid.)]* quos hortatur ad perfectionem.

QUAESTIO CXCI. *Si autem Christus in vobis est.* Quaeritur quid sit Christum esse in aliquo, vel spiritum Christi? Solutio. Augustinus dicit: Christus in homine, fides est in corde. Sed secundum hoc in quocunque fides et Christus; sed in malo est fides ergo et Christus, vel Spiritus Christi est in malo. Idem enim est Christum, vel spiritum Christi esse [0478D] in aliquo, sed spiritus Christi non est in aliquo nisi in quo est dilectio. Solutio. Non omnis, in quo est fides, habet fidem in corde; nam in corde non dicitur fides esse, nisi cum cordi sedet et placet, id est nisi ubi per dilectionem operatur, et secundum hoc idem est, Christum esse in aliquo, et fidem Christi in corde ipsius esse.

QUAESTIO CXCII. *Corpus quidem mortuum est propter peccatum.* Quaeritur propter quod peccatum corpus sit mortuum, id est necessitati moriendi subjectum. Solutio. Propter reatum originalis culpae: sed cum talis, imo omnis culpa in baptismo sit dimissa, quaeritur cur talis poena pro tali culpa inflicta non tollitur. Solutio. Licet culpa pro qua talis poena [0479A] infligitur sit dimissa, tamen talis infirmitas remanet, ne homines ad susceptionem illius sacramenti magis pro utilitate temporalis commodi properarent, quam pro fide et amore futurae vitae et sic non prodesset animae in Christo renasci. Vel *corpus est mortuum propter peccatum [n: (Rom. VIII)]* vitandum. Talis enim spiritus est humanus, ut nisi infirmitatibus esset obnoxius, supra modum extolleretur et sic non salvaretur, quod sine humilitate nequit fieri. Non igitur crudeliter, sed misericorditer; nec ex impotentia, sed ex magna dispensatione non aufertur nostra mortalitas cum caeteris poenalitatibus in baptismo.

QUAESTIO CXCIII. *Non enim accepistis spiritum servitutis,* etc. Quaeritur an idem sit spiritus timoris, [0479B] et spiritus adoptionis? Solutio. Idem spiritus propter varios effectus diversis vocatur vocabulis. Nota quod munus et auctor muneris eodem dicitur nomine.

QUAESTIO CXCIV. Quaeritur quomodo Romanis loquens dicat: Non iterum accepistis spiritum servitutis, iterum in timore, etc. Non enim illis prius datus est spiritus servitutis sicut Judaeis. Solutio. Iterum, non notat iterationem in eisdem personis factam, sed in diversis, quasi diceret: Judaeis quidem datus est in legis datione spiritus servitutis in timore, et iterum *vobis est datus spiritus non timoris, sed adoptionis.* Timor, alius est mundanus, alius servilis, alius initialis, alius filialis. Mundanus est timor secundum quosdam, quando bonum dimittimus vel malum agimus, retenta tamen voluntate [0479C] bona propter pudorem aliorum, ne viles habeamur, qui secundum eosdem etiam humanus dicitur. Secundum vero Cassiodorum, mundanus timor est quando timemus pericula carnis, vel perdere bona mundi, propter quod delinquimus, et iste timor malus est, et in primo gradu cum mundo deseritur: quem Dominus prohibet, dicens: *Nolite timere eos, qui occidunt corpus [n: (Matth. X)]*. Servilis secundum priores est, qui prohibet manum a malo opere, retenta mala voluntate.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CXCV. De quo potest quaeri, an sit donum Spiritus sancti; quod si est, bonus est; sed videtur malus, cum propter poenam faciat servire. Solutio. Iste bonus est bonum habens effectum, scilicet, cohibere a malo opere; hoc autem, quod mala [0479D] voluntas remanet, non est ex ipso, sed ex hominis vitio. Secundum alios vero timor servilis est, quo timetur gehenna: quo fit bonum, sed non bene: qui dicitur initialis secundum priores et secundum etiam secundos est initium sapientiae: qui praeparat locum sapientiae, et ducit ad charitatem. Dicitur etiam alio modo timor initialis, cum quod durum erat, incipit amari, et iste est quasi medius inter servilem et filialem, aliquid habens de utroque. Secundum utramque sententiam filialis timor est, non quo timetur poena, sed ne offendatur sponsus, vel discedat, ne offendamus, ne Deo careamus: qui comes est perfectionis.

QUAESTIO CXCVI. Quis autem horum fuerit in [0480A] Christo solet quaeri? Quod autem mundanus, cum sit malus non fuerit, constat: similiter nec servilis vel initialis, cum neuter posset esse in charitate perfecta: ergo vel filialis, vel nullus videtur fuisse in illo, sed filialis est, quo timemus offendere; sed nunquid Christus offendere vel separari timuit? Solutio. Filialis timor fuit in Christo non secundum effectum, quem habet in praesenti in nobis, sed secundum illum quem habet in angelis vel habebit in futuro in sanctis; sed secundum reverentiam, quae est mista cum subjectione dilectio, unde Apostolus: *Et exauditus est pro sua reverentia [n: (Hebr. V)]*. Item nonne Christus timuit poenam, scilicet mortem, *unde coepit Jesus pavere [n: (Marc. XIV)]*: quo ergo timore? nunquid filiali, cum nullus alius fuerit [0480B] in eo? Solutio. Timore naturali coepit pavere, qui non est contentus in praedicta divisione; quia aeque in bonis et malis est: qui dicitur naturalis, non quia cum natura sit concretus, sed ex corruptione inolevit quodammodo in natura: quem cum caeteris poenalitatibus Christus suscepit.

QUAESTIO CXCVII. Timor servilis datus est in lege, sed timor servilis secundum Augustinum est, quo timetur gehenna: ergo timor gehennalis datus est in lege: sed nonne gehennalis cohibet non solum manum, sed etiam animum; lex autem manum tantum, et non animum? Item, dicit Augustinus, quod timor servilis nunquam est cum charitate, sed nonne omnis, qui timet poenam aeternam habet timorem gehennae? sed aliquis qui habet charitatem inchoatam, [0480C] adhuc timet poenam, et sic videtur, quod servilis timor sit in charitate. Has quaestiones moveo, non ut solvam, sed ut lectorem ad quaerendum mecum excitem.

QUAESTIO CXCVIII. Quaeritur adhuc de timore servili utrum faciat servum Christi, an diaboli. Solutio. Nec Dei, nec diaboli, sed poenae servum facit; quia quodammodo libertatem tollit, et opus quod vult propter poenam facere non sinit.

QUAESTIO CXCIX. *Cohaeredes autem Christi,* etc. Quaeritur an Christus sit haeres, et si est, secundum quam naturam, videtur enim, quod secundum divinitatem non sit dicendus haeres, cum haereditas sit aliquo decedente firma successoris possessio: sed nec Pater decedit, nec Filius ei succedit, quia uterque [0480D] ab aeterno: quomodo ergo haeres? Solutio. Sic quidem inter nos haereditas habet esse per successionem; sed non sic in Deo: *Filius* enim, *quia habet esse a Patre, et omnia, quae habet, a Patre habet [n: (Joan. I)]*; non autem e diverso: ideo Filius haeres Patris est: secundum humanitatem vero accepit haereditatem, secundum plenitudinem, de qua nos omnes accepimus.

QUAESTIO CC. Quaeritur quid sit esse cohaeredes Christi. Solutio. Ejusdem haereditatis participes. Sed secundum hoc videtur falsum nos esse cohaeredes; quia possessio gentium, Christi est haereditas. Unde: *Postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam [n: (Psal. II)]*: cujus haereditatis non sumus participes, [0481A] et sic non sumus cohaeredes. Solutio. Haereditas Christi, secundum quam nos sumus cohaeredes, est vita aeterna, non gentium possessio.

QUAESTIO CCI. *Si tamen compatimur.* Quaeritur quomodo Christo jam non patienti sit compatiendum. Solutio. Duobus modis Christo compatimur, vel ejus dolores, quos pro nobis sustinuit ad memoriam revocando, et sic ei compatiendo condolere, vel ad similitudinem ipsius cum ipso, et propter ipsum tribulationes sustinendo. Compassio, quandoque nomen est naturalis affectus, quandoque consensus ipsius qui est virtus.

QUAESTIO CCII. *Non sunt condignae passiones hujus temporis,* etc. Quaeritur an merita sanctorum sufficiant ad futuram vitam consequendam: si enim veram [0481B] habent justitiam digni sunt corona; sed quod vere justi sint patres Novi Testamenti, ipse Apostolus insinuat, dicens: *De reliquo reposita est mihi corona justitiae, quam reddet mihi justus judex: non solum autem mihi, sed et omnibus, qui diligunt adventum ejus [n: (II Tim. IV)]*. Hic autem videtur dicere quod tribulationes, quas sustinent sancti, non sufficiunt ad futuram gloriam, quae est revelanda, promerendam: hoc est enim passiones non esse condignas ad futuram gloriam. Solutio. Non negat Apostolus quin merita sanctorum ad consequendam gloriam sufficiant, sed ad tam excellentem gloriam promerendam non sunt condigna; quia Deus ex sua gratia superaddet plus quam meruerunt merita nostra, quod est breviter dicere, nostra merita minima sunt [0481C] respectu praemiorum. Vanitati enim creatura subjecta est. Nota triplicem esse vanitatem: prima est mutabilitatis, secunda est mortalitatis, tertia est iniquitatis, et homo est omnis vanitas, id est, omni vanitati subjectus.

QUAESTIO CCIII. *Non volens, sed propter eum, qui subjecit eam in spe.* Quaeritur quid creatura subjecta vanitati non velit: si malum non vult, voluntas bona est: sed tunc nihil est quod sequitur. Sed propter eum, etc.; si autem bonum non vult, peccat cum debeat velle bonum. Solutio. Voluntas pluribus modis dicitur; quandoque enim dicitur naturalis affectus, ut ibi, non quod volo, ago; quandoque consensus illius, secundum quod dicitur voluntas damnanda vel remuneranda; quandoque horror carnis, ut ibi: [0481D] *Non sicut ego volo, sed sicut tu [n: (Matth. XXVI)]*, et hoc modo hic accipitur, et est sensus: Licet amara sit poena, quam sustineo, tamen delector eam sustinere propter Christum.

QUAESTIO CCIV. *Omnis creatura ingemiscit,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo hoc verum sit, cum lapis sit creatura, nec tamen ingemiscat? Solutio. Omnis, hic non colligit singula generum, sed genera singulorum, et est sensus: Omnis creatura, id est homo, in quo est omne genus creaturarum. Tres enim sunt species creaturae, scilicet corporalis, et animalis, et spiritualis: quae omnes sunt in homine, et sic omnis creatura ingemiscit in homine.

QUAESTIO CCV. *Non solum autem illa, sed et nos,* etc. [0482A] Nonne nomine creaturae intelliguntur boni? quomodo ergo distinguit Apostolus inter apostolos primitias Spiritus habentes, et inter creaturam quasi ipsi boni non essent? Solutio. Qua ratione inter creaturam et filios Dei, licet filii Dei sint creatura, distinguit inter creaturam et apostolos, quamvis ipsi sint creaturae, distinctionem faciens quae attenditur non in diversitate alterius qualitatis, sicut glossae diligenter inspectae declarant.

QUAESTIO CCVI. *Spes, quae videtur, non est spes,* etc. Quaeritur quid sit, quod nomine spei significatur, cum dicitur: Spes quae videtur, et a quo removetur; cum dicitur: Non est spes. Ei, quod non est spes quomodo nomen spei convenit, vel aptatur? Solutio. Sicut aequivoce dicitur fides id, quo creditur et id quod creditur; [0482B] sic aequivoce spes, id quo speratur, et id quod speratur, appellatur. Et sic spes, quae videtur, id est res sperata, non est spes, qua speramus, scilicet virtus illa. Vel aliter, spes, quae videtur, id est illa quae est de re visibili, non est spes nostra, scilicet, cujus jam merito salvi facti sumus.

QUAESTIO CCVII. *Ipse spiritus postulat pro nobis gemitibus inenarrabilibus.* Quaeritur, cum Spiritus nullo indigeat, nec aliquas angustias patiatur, quomodo dicatur postulare vel gemere. Solutio. Quod ipso auctore faciunt sancti, Spiritui attribuitur: postulat ergo, vel gemit, quia facit nos postulare, vel gemere.

QUAESTIO CCVIII. An Spiritus aliquod postulet, et non obtineat? Nonne quoties aliquid petimus ex charitate, [0482C] ipse Spiritus postulat in nobis; sed saepe petimus pro illo, qui jacet in crimine. nec exaudimur, et sic videtur, quod Spiritus quo docente oramus, non exaudiatur. Solutio. Duae sunt species justae orationis, vel cum petimus quod est petendum, vel cum petimus ubi est petendum; quandoque autem petimus ubi est petendum: nec tamen quod est petendum, et Spiritus tunc docet qualiter sit petendum, sed non docet quid est petendum, et ideo non obtinemus. Quotiescunque autem petimus quod est petendum et ubi est petendum, obtinemus.

QUAESTIO CCIX. *Scimus quoniam diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum.* Nonne quidam ad tempus diligunt, et postea cadunt et sic damnantur? His [0482D] autem non omnia cooperantur in bonum, et ita videtur, quod diligentibus Deum non omnia cooperantur in bonum. Solutio. Non dicit simpliciter, quod diligentibus Deum omnia cooperantur in bonum, sed *diligentibus et vocatis sanctis secundum propositum:* quidam enim diligunt, nec tamen vocati sunt sancti secundum propositum, sicut quidam sunt praeordinati ad vitam, nondum tamen diligunt, et neutris omnia cooperantur in bonum, sed diligentibus et vocatis sanctis secundum propositum.

QUAESTIO CCX. Item quaeritur quomodo propria peccata talium cooperentur eis in bonum. Solutio. Humiliores et doctiores resurgunt.

[0483A]QUAESTIO CCXI. Sed nonne, si non cecidissent, sed tunc bonum fecissent, meliores essent quam modo sint; ut haec corrupta si haberet cum iis bonis, quae nunc habet, etiam virginitatem, nonne altioris gradus et majoris meriti esset? Solutio. Est quidem verum si Maria Magdalene cum tanta devotione haberet etiam virginitatem, majoris meriti esset, sed ad perfectionem quamdam casus ipsius cooperatus est, et forsitan si non tam turpiter cecidisset, nunquam medicum coelestem tantum dilexisset: non tamen peccatum est, ut gratia abundet.

QUAESTIO CCXII. Item quaeritur quomodo malorum peccata cooperentur bonis in bonum. Solutio. Nihil fit in mundo, quod aliquid utilitatis non conferat [0483B] bono universitatis, et sic omnia bona, vel mala propria, vel aliena cooperantur bonis in bonum.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CCXIII. An omnia damnandis cooperentur in malum? Quod mala ipsorum, eis noceant constat: sed utrum bona, quae quandoque faciunt, cooperentur eis in malum, potest quaeri quod videtur: quia scriptum est: *Melius est viam veritatis non agnoscere, quam post agnitam, retroire [n: (II Petr. II)]*. Solutio. Damnandis non omnia cooperantur in malum; quia pro bonis, quae quandoque faciunt, minus punientur. Quod autem dicitur: Melius est, etc. Non de iis damnandis, qui aliquando justi fuerunt, dictum est de haereticis.

QUAESTIO CCXIV. *Quos praescivit, et praedestinavit.* Quaeritur an praescientia sit causa praedestinationis, [0483C] sicut praedestinatio causa est vocationis, vocatio causa justificationis, et justificatio magnificationis, quod videtur secundum suppositum ordinem: sed cum utrumque sit aeternum, quomodo unum potest esse causa alterius? Solutio. Licet utrumque sit aeternum, tamen unum potest esse causa alterius; sicut Filius et Spiritus sanctus, cum uterque sit aeternus, tamen Filius causa est Spiritus sancti; sic, secundum quosdam, praescientia pertinet ad scientiam, et sic ad Filium; praedestinatio ad electionem; electio ad voluntatem, quae pertinet ad proprietatem Spiritus sancti: ideoque sicut Filius est causa Spiritus sancti, sic et praescientia causa est praedestinationis, quam naturaliter, non tempore praecurrit.

[0483D]QUAESTIO CCXV. An idem sit in Deo praescientia, et praedestinatio? Ad cujus quaestionis solutionem sciendum est quod divina usia cum sit una et simplex; tamen propter varios effectus diversa sortitur vocabula; dicitur enim sapientia, scientia, praevidentia, providentia, dispositio, praedestinatio. Sed sapientia et scientia de omnibus est praeteritis, et praesentibus, et futuris bonis et malis, et praevidentia de eisdem; providentia de gubernandis, quae quandoque accipitur pro praevidentia dispositio de faciendis; praedestinatio de salvandis, et sic in Deo quantum ad essentiam idem est praescientia et praedestinatio.

QUAESTIO CCXVI. An praescientia esset in Deo, si [0484A] nulla essent futura? Quod non, sic volunt probare. Si nulla essent futura, Deus non praesciret aliqua futura, etsi hoc esset, praescientia non esset in Deo; sed praescientia est divina scientia, et ipsa est Dei essentia, et sic videtur, si nulla essent futura, quod Deus non esset; quod absit! Solutio. Praescientia non simpliciter significat divinam essentiam, sed circa eam designat relationem respectu futurorum: unde ista locutio, si nulla essent futura, praescientia non esset in Deo; duobus modis intelligitur. Si enim dicatur: Si nulla essent futura, praescientia non esset in Deo, id est, si nulla essent futura, subjecta divinae scientiae nulla essent, unde ipsa diceretur praescientia, verus est intellectus. Si autem sic intelligatur: Si nulla essent futura, praescientia non [0484B] esset in Deo, id est, scientia, qua praescit futura, falsa est intelligentia.

QUAESTIO CCXVII. An praescientia Dei sit causa futurorum, an futura praescientiae? Nulla essent futura, nisi Deus praevidisset; et sic videtur, quod praescientia sit causa futurorum. Unde Augustinus universas creaturas, non quia sunt, ideo novit Deus; sed jam sunt, quia novit. Sed cum aeque sciat bona et mala, videtur quod praescientia causa tam malorum quam bonorum sit. Sed dicit Origenes: Non propterea aliquid erit, quia id Deus scit futurum, sed quia futurum est illud, praescit Deus: hoc videtur esse contrarium illi superiori sententiae Augustini. Solutio. Quandoque accipitur notitia pro beneplacito, et tunc est causa futurorum; sed tantum bonorum: [0484C] sic quod Augustinus superius accepit: quandoque vero solam notitiam, vel cognitionem significat, et tunc non est causa futurorum; sed aeque se habet ad bona et ad mala; et sic Origenes accepit, et sic nec praescientia causa est futurorum, sed nec futura praescientiae, nisi dicatur causa sine qua non sit.

QUAESTIO CCXVIII. An praescientia necessitatem eveniendi inferat rebus futuris? Quod videtur, quia si Deus praescivit aliquid futurum, illud non potest non evenire; et si hoc est, necessario eveniet quidquid praescivit. Item videtur, quod Dei praevidentia posset falli; quia si illud, quod est praevisum, potest aliter evenire quam evenit, potest aliter quam sit praevisum evenire, ut si Deus aliquem hodie lecturum [0484D] praevidit: conceditur ab omnibus, quod talis aliquis, qui hodie est lecturus, potest non legere, et sic aliter quam sit praescitum potest contingere. Solutio. Communis haec est, haec et similia possunt per conjunctionem et disjunctionem exponi; sensus conjunctionis hic est: Si Deus praevidit, necesse est evenire, id est, non potest simul esse utrumque, ut Deus praevideat et non eveniat, et sic est verum. Disjunctionis sensus hic est: Hoc futurum non potest aliter evenire quam eo modo quo evenit, et quam sit praevisum, et hoc est falsum. Item si aliter eveniret quam est praescitum, non falleretur divina providentia; quia tunc hoc non esset praevisum, sed aliud quod tunc eveniret. Praedictae solutioni sic objicitur: Si Deus aliquid praevidit, illud eveniet; [0485A] haec hypothetica est necessaria: unde si antecedens est necessarium, et consequens; sed antecedens est necessarium, quia quod est praescitum, non potest non praescitum esse, et sic videtur quod quidquid futurum est, quadam necessitate sit futurum. Quod etiam videtur aliter posse probari: Deus ab aeterno Verbo aeterno suo dixit de quolibet futuro, quia erit; sed impossibile est Deum mentiri: sed si illud quod dixit futurum non eveniret, consequeretur quod Deus esset mendax, et ita necessario eveniet quod futurum est; unde Augustinus: Sicut necessarium est fuisse quod fuit, sic necessarium est fore quod futurum est. Et alibi de Deo loquens: Cujus, inquit, voluntas necessitas est, quia, si voluerit, necessario erit. Solutio. Sunt nonnulli, qui [0485B] concedunt quod Deus potest non praevidisse, quod ab aeterno praevidit: et ideo dicunt quod antecedens praecedentis hypotheticae non est necessarium, et ideo nec consequens. Sed qualiter verum sit, quod dicunt, non video. Item secundae objectioni respondeant, quomodo Deus non sit mendax, si illud, quod futurum praedixit, non eveniat; vel quomodo voluntas Dei sit necessitas; vel quomodo verum sit, quod dicit Augustinus, necessarium est fore, quod futurum est. Nos autem Augustinum sequentes, dicimus geminam necessitatem esse, unam, quae attenditur secundum causas inferiores, quae quandoque impeditur a superioribus; et alteram, quae intelligitur secundum causas superiores, quam impossibile est non impleri. Eorum autem quae futura sunt, quaedam [0485C] aeque eveniunt, et secundum causas superiores, et secundum causas inferiores, quaedam tantum secundum causas superiores: quidquid autem futurum est quoad necessitatem, quae intelligitur secundum universitatem causarum, non potest impediri quin eveniat. Usus autem loquendi formatus est secundum causas inferiores, quia magis nobis notae sunt. Unde saepe dicimus, quod aliquid potest esse, et idem potest non esse, quia causae istae utrumque permittunt; secundum causas vero superiores unum tantum potest esse, scilicet quod Deus vult, quod disponit, quod ab aeterno praescivit, et Verbo suo futurum praedixit, et nullo modo potest impediri quin eveniat: ad has causas Augustinus respiciens, dixit necessario fore quod est futurum.

[0485D]QUAESTIO CCXIX. Item quaeritur an scientia Dei possit augeri vel minui. Quod possit, volunt probare sic: Deus scit hunc lecturum, sed potest non legere: ergo Deus potest nescire hunc lecturum. Vel sic: Iste non est lecturus; sed potest legere: ergo Deus potest scire istum lecturum, qui non est lecturus: sed potest fieri ut legat, ergo potest a Deo sciri quod non sit. Solutio. Scientia Dei immutabilis est, nec potest augeri vel minui: tamen concedunt nonnulli, quod Deus potest scire quod nescit, et nescire quod scit, et plura scire quam sciat, nescientes respondere praedictis objectionibus. Nos autem dicimus quod Deus non potest scire quod nescit, nec nescire quod scit, nec plura scire quam scit; quia si [0486A] aliqua quae nunquam fient inciperent fieri, non tamen inciperent a Deo sciri, qui ab aeterno omnia perfecte novit, non solum quae quandoque fiunt, sed quaecunque possunt fieri: scit enim et quibus causis possunt fieri, et qualia essent, si fierent. Non enim modo pleniorem habet scientiam de mundo, quam habuit ab aeterno: nec modo minorem scientiam de iis, quae nunquam fient, cum possent fieri, quam haberet si fieret. Tamen magna quaestio est utrum aliquid tale sit in sola possibilitate, quod nunquam sit actu: quod enim non habet in Deo causam, quomodo potest prodire in actum? Sed de hoc alibi dicendum est quod modo ex accidenti tetigimus. Praedictis autem objectionibus respondentes, dicimus quod haec, Deus scit hunc lecturum, ponit quod iste [0486B] sit lecturus et quod hoc sciat Deus: et ideo ex quo non est lecturus, non est concedendum quod Deus sciat hunc lecturum, non quia Deus aliquid nesciat: sive enim legat, sive non legat, non ideo plus vel minus scit vel non scit Deus. Idem judicium de similibus. Notandum etiam, quod cum dicitur, quod ille qui est lecturus, potest non legere, vel qui non est lecturus potest legere, hoc dictum est secundum causas inferiores; si autem ad causas superiores respiciamus, quod futurum est determinate erit, et non alterum, nec poterit non evenire: tamen quia usus formatus est secundum causas inferiores, quae neutrum cogunt, sed utrumque permittunt, dicimus, quod utrumque potest esse et non esse, cum tamen in veritate verum sit, futurum unum, et non [0486C] alterum.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CCXX. An numerus praedestinatorum possit augeri, vel minui? Idem quaeritur de numero reproborum. Quod sic volunt probare. Deus potest non apponere gratiam cui apponit, quod si faceret, praedestinatus damnaretur; et potest apponere cui non apponit: quod si faceret, reprobus salvaretur. Et sic qui praedestinatus est, potest damnari, et qui reprobus est, potest salvari: et aliquis potest transire de numero praedestinatorum ad numerum reproborum, et e converso. Solutio. Hoc ad similitudinem praedictorum solvunt secundum conjunctionem et disjunctionem. Nos autem dicimus, quod est possibile secundum causas inferiores, forsitan impossibile [0486D] est secundum causas superiores. Item non videtur esse consequens, Deus potest hunc salvare vel damnare, ergo hic potest salvari vel damnari. Non enim posse Dei sequitur posse nostrum, ut si Deus potuit aliter redimere genus humanum, quod ideo genus humanum posset aliter redimi, quam per mortem Filii Dei: et si hoc Deus habuit in sua potestate, quod homo ideo habeat in sua potestate aliter salvari, nonne Deus potest, si vellet, salvare Judam? Nunquid ideo Judas potest salvari? Notandum est, quod causae inferiores dicuntur, quas Deus in prima rerum conditione creaturis indidit, secundum quas similia ex similibus nascuntur, ut ex tali grano talis arbor vel fructus procedat. Causae vero superiores dicuntur divina potentia, voluntas, dispositio et praedestinatio: [0487A] quae quandoque cum inferioribus, quandoque sine ipsis operantur: quae semper habent effectum, inferiores vero non semper; imo quandoque a superioribus impediuntur.

QUAESTIO CCXXI. *Conformes fieri imaginis Filii sui,* etc. Quaeritur cur Filius dicatur imago Patris. Solutio. Quia simillimus ejus, et quia est ejusdem essentiae.

QUAESTIO CCXXII. Sed cum Spiritus sanctus sit aeque similis Patri, cum sit ejusdem substantiae, quare Filius et non Spiritus sanctus dicitur imago Patris? Solutio. Quia imago magis pertinet ad proprietatem generationis quam processionis: ea enim, quae generantur, solent esse similia magis, quam ea quae procedunt.

[0487B]QUAESTIO CCXXIII. An Filio sint duae imagines, quia est imago increata secundum quod Deus, et imago creata secundum quod est homo. Solutio. Non ideo duae imagines, quia in Christo imago increata, et imago creata non sunt duae imagines, sed una: sicut est Filius Dei et filius hominis; non tamen duo filii, sed unus Filius Dei et filius hominis.

QUAESTIO CCXXIV. *Quos vocavit, hos et justificavit,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo distinguit Apostolus inter vocare et justificare, cum vocando, justificet. Solutio. Per vocationem intelligit charitatis infusionem; per justificationem gratiam subsequentem et conservantem.

QUAESTIO CCXXV. *Quos praedestinavit, et vocavit,* etc. Quaeritur an omnes vocati sunt praedestinati, [0487C] quod videtur, quia vocatio est effectus praedestinationis. Sed aliqui sunt vocati, qui non sunt electi, quia scriptum est: *Multi sunt vocati, pauci electi [n: (Matth. XXII)]*; sed soli electi sunt praedestinati; ergo non omnes vocati sunt praedestinati. Solutio. Vocatio alia est communis, quae fit praedicatione exterius, et etiam quandoque interius per inspirationem: alia est specialis, quae fit secundum propositum, secundum quam nullus vocatur nisi electus et praedestinatus. Secundum autem communem vocationem dictum est: Multi sunt vocati, pauci vero electi.

QUAESTIO CCXXVI. *Quis accusabit adversus electos?* Nullus, quia quod Deus non vult, alius non potest. Sed quaeritur quid sit Deum aliquem accusare? Solutio. Deum accusare, est permittere [0487D] hominem in peccatum cadere. Diabolum vero accusare, est per tentationem in peccatum dejicere, et dejiciendo accusabilem facere.

QUAESTIO CCXXVII. Quaeritur quomodo Christus interpellet pro nobis. An voce, an tantum mente et desiderio? an alio modo? Solutio. Christum pro nobis interpellare, est per merita suae obedientiae in sua humanitate exhibitae Deo Patri, nos ei per fidem et dilectionem reconciliare adhaerentes.

QUAESTIO CCXXVIII. Quaeritur etiam an sancti, quorum patrocinia postulamus pro nobis interpellent, et quomodo? Solutio. Sanctos pro nobis interpellare non est aliud quam Deum pro meritis eorum bonos affectus, quos habemus in eos propter Deum [0488A] remunerare, et ideo nihil interest, sive nos audiant sive non audiant.

QUAESTIO CCXXIX. *Quis separabit nos a charitate Dei,* etc. Quaeritur an Apostolus erat tantae perfectionis, ut non posset peccare mortaliter; si enim non potuit separari a Deo, nec potuit peccare mortaliter: hoc enim separari. Sed cum alibi dicat: *Ne magnitudo revelationum exstollat me, datus est mihi stimulus carnis meae [n: (II Cor. 12)]*: innuit quod si potuit extolli, potuit peccare etiam mortaliter, et sic separari. Solutio. Nullus alius ab eo poterat separare Apostolum; ipse tamen poterat seipsum separare, quia in hoc meruit, quod potuit transgredi, et non est transgressus. Cum enim Christum ante Neronem confessus est, tunc potuit eum negare, si [0488B] vellet: quod ergo nec vita, nec mors potuit, ipse potuit.

QUAESTIO CCXXX. Quaeritur quomodo causa faciat martyrem, et non poena, cum nullus sit martyr sine poena, sicut nec sine causa. Sicut enim poena sine causa non sufficit ad coronam martyrii, sic nec causa sine poena. Solutio. Quod dicitur, causa facit martyrem et non poena, scilicet tantum intelligendum est. Sed dicet aliquis, quod eadem ratione potest dici, poena facit martyrem non causa, ut intelligeretur tantum. Responsio. Causa sine poena prodest; poena sine causa non solum non prodest, sed obest; et hoc quod poena prodest, quando prodest, hoc habet ex causa, ideo potius hoc dicitur quam illud.

[0488C]QUAESTIO CCXXXI. *Tristitia mihi magna est, continuus dolor cordi meo [n: (Rom. IX)]*. Quaeritur quare Apostolus dicat se dolere, quod prius cum errantibus errans persequebatur Ecclesiam: cum enim magnum commodum provenerit ex illa persecutione, non est ei dolendum, sed gaudendum de ipsa? Solutio. Non dolebat Apostolus de bono, quod est consecutum de malo suo, sed de peccato, quod ipse commisit, pro quo dolere semper bonum est.

QUAESTIO CCXXXII. *Optabam ipse anathema esse a Christo pro fratribus.* Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus optaverit separari a Christo, an secundum gloriam, an secundum justitiam. Si secundum gloriam, [0488D] videtur plus dilexisse fratres quam Deum, quod nullo modo faciendum est; si secundum justitiam optavit separari, hoc non potuit sine peccato et sine offensa Dei, quod rationabiliter ab aliquo non potest optari. Solutio. Non optavit separari a Christo sic vel sic, sed his verbis ostendit mirabilem affectum suum, quem habuit erga Judaeos, quo genere locutionis usus est Moyses dicens: *Aut dele me de libro vitae, aut dimitte eis hanc noxam [n: (Exod. XXXII)]*. Vel potest dici, quod uterque tam Moyses quam Apostolus praeposuit in desiderio suo et optatione salutem tantae multitudinis propriae saluti, nec in hoc dilectionem Dei postposuerunt; imo Dei gloriam et honorem propriae saluti praeferentes, malentes Dei gloriam magnificari in tot salvatis, quam [0489A] diminui in uno salvato; et haec perfectio excedit omnem perfectionem, quia major non potest excogitari.

QUAESTIO CCXXXIII. *Quid ergo dicemus? Nunquid iniquitas apud Deum?* Quaeritur an Deus sit iniquus reprobando, et indurando, et tandem damnando istum qui non potest bene operari sine gratia praedestinationis, maxime cum ipsam praedestinationem non possit promereri? Solutio. Nulla nimirum est apud Deum iniquitas. Ut autem pateat nullam iniquitatem esse apud Deum, videndum est quid sit praedestinatio et quid ejus effectus, et quid reprobatio et ejus effectus. Praedestinatio est gratiae praeparatio: nomine gratiae hic significantur bona gratuita, quibus in praesenti justificamur, vel in futuro [0489B] coronamur; sed quod praeparatio significat videndum est. Dictum est superius quod divina usia cum sit una et simplex, propter varios effectus rerum diversa sortitur vocabula: de quibus unum est praedestinatio. Praeparatio itaque non est aliud quam ipse Deus praeparans, et discernens, et statuens, et propenens, vel eligens in semetipso, ut haec, vel illis in tempore conferat dona, et hoc propositum vel haec praeparatio causa est futurorum bonorum, quibus adoptamur in filios Dei. Ecce dictum est, quid sit praedestinatio, et quid ejus effectus, scilicet vocatio, justificatio, et magnificatio. Sed nunquid reprobatio est aliquid quod ab aeterno fuerit in Deo, vel ipse Deus: quod sit causa futurorum malorum sicut praedestinatio bonorum? Quod [0489C] si conceditur sequitur, quod Deus sic causa est, et auctor malorum. Unde sciendum est quod reprobatio non aliquid ponit; quia non est aliud Deum aliquem reprobare, nisi non eligere, et non praedestinare, bona gratuita non praeparare. Cujus effectus est indurare: quod non est aliud, nisi gratiam non apponere, qualis causa talis est effectus. Nulla autem est iniquitas vel injustitia, si Deus non det aliquid illi, cui nil debet. Non itaque Deus iniquus in eo, quod aliquem reprobat vel indurat.

QUAESTIO CCXXXIV. Quaeritur autem cur Deus non omnes reprobavit, vel cur non omnes praedestinavit; sed quosdam praedestinavit et quosdam reprobavit. Solutio. Si omnes praedestinaret, lateret [0489D] divina justitia, quia nesciretur quod juste deberetur culpae; si omnes reprobaret, non appareret bonitas Dei. Judicavit autem melius esse Dei sapientia bonum et malum esse, quam tantum bonum, quamvis ipsa non fecerit nisi bonum.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CCXXXV. Quaeritur autem quare potius elegerit Jacob quam Esau; similiter de quolibet electo, et reprobo idem potest quaeri. Non enim potest dici, quod propter futura merita bona vel mala alter sit electus, et alter sit reprobatus: sic enim quod est temporale, causa esset ejus quod est aeternum. Item si dicatur quod Jacob sola gratia sit electus, Esau propter originale peccatum sit reprobatus, quaeritur quare propter idem peccatum Jacob non sit reprobatus, vel quare Esau ex eadem [0490A] gratia non sit electus? Solutio, si tamen solutio debeat dici ostendere aliquid esse insolubile. Dicunt sic factum esse quia Deus voluit fieri; si autem quaeratur quare sic voluit, stulta est quaestio, quia divinae voluntatis quaeritur causa, cujus nulla est; imo ipsa omnium est causa prima et principalis. Sed B. Hieronymus dicit quod Deus nihil fecit, quia vult, sed quia ratio est sic fieri. Ideoque non incongrue potest sic quaerit cur hoc voluerit, et responderi: Quia judicia Dei abyssus multa. [n: (Psal. XXXV)]. Possumus tamen dicere, salva secretorum reverentia et absque supercilio assertionis, quod ideo potius elegit Jacob quam Esau, quia praescivit majorem utilitatem provenire bono universitatis ex electione Jacob quam Esau. Sed dicet aliquis: Ergo [0490B] id, quod est temporale, causa est ejus; quod est aeternum, scilicet bonum, quod praevidit tunc futurum, causa est praedestinationis. Ad quod dicimus, quod hoc non est verum; ad illud tamen respicit causa, scilicet aeterna ratio, ut enim illud eligeret, ex quo major utilitas bono universitatis proveniret: ratio erat et haec aeterna, quae respicit ad illud bonum temporale ex electione Jacob futurum.

QUAESTIO CCXXXVI. Sed iterum quaeritur cur major utililas provenit ex electione Jacob quam Esau? Solutio. Quia magis commendatur gratia ex electione Jacob quam Esau. Item quaeritur quare magis commendatur ex electione Jacob quam Esau. Solutio. Quia minor erat natu. Si enim major natu eligeretur, videretur quod privilegio nativitatis hoc [0490C] fieret.

QUAESTIO CCXXXVII. Quaeritur quare Jacob non fuerit prior natu et Esau posterior, ut sic saltem Esau eligeretur? Solutio. Hoc est quaerere cur Jacob non sit Esau, et e converso: et ideo est quaestio sine ratione.

QUAESTIO CCXXXVIII. Ex his, quae in tempore fiunt, oritur eadem difficultas: quare enim huic magis quam illi Deus conferat gratiam solet quaeri, cum sint indifferentes, et neuter possit gratiam promereri, sine qua non potest salvari. Videtur enim non esse mihi imputandum si non facio quod sine gratia non possum facere, cum gratia non sit collata mihi, sed magis illi qui non confert mihi necessariam [0490D] gratiam, cum non possit sine detrimento suo. Solutio. De gratia diversi diversa sentiunt. Quidam dicebant Deum non posse facere, nisi quod facit: quod non esse verum constat. Alii dicunt: Quoddam seminarium virtutis (quod radicem charitatis vocant) in isto est, ex quo aptus est ut gratia sibi collata vitam aeternam promereatur: quod quia in illo non est, nec charitatem, nec vitam aeternam et promereri potest. Sed quia hoc contra Ecclesiam est, omnino praetermittatur. Alii dicunt quod Deus suam gratiam omnibus communiter proponit quam qui apprehendit, salvabitur; qui non apprehendit, damnabitur, velut si quis tibi in turre bonum cibum praeparaverit, et dicat: Ascende ut cibum capias: sed quia tu sine scala, vel aliquo hujusmodi [0491A] auxilio ascendere non potes, idcirco dicunt: Alia gratia opus esse, ut ad illam superiorem ascendas. Item ad illam apprehendendam alia, et ad illam alia, et sic usque ad infinitum. Sed hi totum gratiae attribuunt, et nihil merito relinquunt. Sunt alii qui dicunt gratiam propositam etiam porrigendo homini, ut ipse eam apprehendat, sine qua apprehensa erigi non potest, veluti si cui existenti in puteo funis demittatur, sine quo non potest a puteo exire; si vero manum ad funem porrigat et apprehendat, extrahitur, et aliquid ex homine est, licet meritum absque gratia esse non possit. Sed quia haec sententia dividit inter meritum et gratiam, quod aliquid boni sit ibi ex homine, saltem quod manum erigit et funem apprehendit, quod quia [0491B] sine gratia fieri nequit, haec quoque sententia cum praedicta est cavenda. Potest autem dici quod gratia Dei aeque bono et malo, id est praedestinato et reprobo proponitur, quam tamen unusquisque non apprehendit vel trahentem sequitur; imo ille, cui gratiae radius infunditur, oculos claudit; et sic radium quo tangitur repellit, unde et ipsi merito gratia subtrahitur, quia ipse se subtrahit. Est enim in gratia quemadmodum in solis radio, qui se oculo ingerit, quo oculus tactus visum exercet. Est enim oculus talis naturae ut per illum visus exerceatur, si solis radio percutiatur, sine quo visio non est in oculo: nisi tamen talis naturae esset, etiam tactus radio non videret, ut paries vel lapis non videt, etsi radio solis perfundatur; sic anima [0491C] habet potentia promerendi naturaliter, quam tamen non potest exercere, nisi splendore gratiae perfundatur. Cum vero tangitur, movetur et meretur unde totum est ex gratia, sic tamen ut non excludatur meritum, veluti si puer qui nondum gradi potest ab aliquo ducatur, et graditur quidem. quod tamen per se non posset, nec etiam alio ducente, nisi haberet naturalem potentiam gradiendi: tamen totum ex ducente dicitur esse, quod graditur; sic ad hoc ut anima promereatur duo exiguntur et gratia, et naturalis potentia: tota tamen auctoritas promerendi solius est gratiae, quia naturalis potentia nil ponit sine gratia.

QUAESTIO CCXXXIX. *Quoniam in hoc ipsum excitavi [0491D] te, ut ostendam in te virtutem meam,* etc. Quaeritur an Deus mentem hominis inclinet ad hoc, ut homo deterior efficiatur? Solutio. Pharao in illa excaecatione non est deterior effectus quam prius esset; sed per signa foris proposita, malitia quae prius in mente concepta erat, excitata est, et in opus erupit, sicut invidia Judaeorum Domino cum tanta gloria intrante in Hierusalem erupit, et scelus jam conceptum maturavit. Vel excitare Dei nihil est aliud, nisi justo judicio praecipitari permittere: de hac quaestione in praemissis dictum est diligentius.

QUAESTIO CCXL. *Cui vult miseretur, et quem vult indurat.* Quaeritur an voluntas Dei sicut est causa miserationis, sic sit causa indurationis: quod videtur, [0492A] cum Apostolus dicat: Cui vult, etc. Solutio. Voluntas Dei non est causa, nisi ejus quod est aliquid; induratio non ponit aliquid, sed potius removet; tamen ut Apostolus ostendat quod Deus juste potest dare cui vult, et non dare cui vult non dare: non enim necessitate facit Deus, sed sola voluntate. Quod autem causa boni sit, constat, unde Apostolus superius: *Non est volentis, nec currentis, sed miserentis Dei [n: (ibid.)]*.

QUAESTIO CCXLI. Sed potest quaeri quomodo velle non sit volentis, cum nemo hoc possit sine voluntate. Solutio. Voluntas bona et hominis est, sed tanquam accipientis; et Dei, sed tanquam dantis et auctoris.

QUAESTIO CCXLII. *An non habet figulus potestatem [0492B] luti,* etc. Quaeritur: ad quid inducatur haec similitudo; nunquid Deus format *aliud vas in honorem, aliud in contumeliam?* Vel nunquid ex Deo habet esse contumeliosum? Solutio. Quod vas aliud est in honorem ex Deo est; quod vero contumeliosum est, ex ipso vase est. Tamen bona est similitudo, quia sicut vas aliud in honorem, aliud in contumeliam facit figulus: sic dicitur Deus formare aliud vas in honorem, aliud in contumeliam; vel quod melius est, ideo dicitur Deus formare aliud in honorem, et aliud in contumeliam; quia Deo auctore habent esse etiam illa quae sunt vasa irae vel contumeliae, non tamen ex Deo esse habent vasa contumeliae, sed proprio vitio.

QUAESTIO CCXLIII. Quaeritur quid sit scribi in libro [0492C] vitae secundum praescientiam. Solutio. Esse praescitum et praeordinatum ad vitam, sicut scribi secundum justitiam est esse in statu in quo si exiret ab hac vita, salvaretur. Sunt itaque quidam scripti secundum praescientiam, et non secundum justitiam, ut illi, qui nondum virtutem habent, tamen sunt praeordinati ad vitam. Quidam vero scripti sunt secundum justitiam et non secundum praescientiam, ut qui charitatem habent, praevisi tamen ad mortem. Quidam vero scripti sunt secundum praescientiam et secundum justitiam, ut illi, qui charitatem habent, et sunt praedestinati ad vitam. Quidam vero nec secundum praescientiam, nec secundum justitiam, ut illi, qui nunquam boni fuerunt nec [0492D] praedestinati sunt. Ea vero, quae sunt ibi scripta secundum justitiam et non secundum praescientiam, dicuntur inde deleri; quae vero secundum praescientiam ibi scripta sunt, nunquam inde delentur.

QUAESTIO CCXLIV. Quaeritur an illi quae scripti sunt in libro vitae secundum meritum, et non secundum praescientiam, scripti sint per dispositionem. Solutio. Potest dici quod scripti sunt per dispositionem propter meritum, non tamen simpliciter secundum dispositionem; quia si hoc esset, non possent inde deleri, cum tali determinatione potest dici per dispositionem propter meritum, quod Deus disposuit sicut omne bonum.

QUAESTIO CCXLV. Quaeritur qualiter sit intelligendum, quod dicitur de hac auctoritate: *Major serviet [0493A] minori [n: (Gen. XXV)]*, hoc est de praescientia. Solutio. Sensus est, hac Scriptura ostenditur quod Deus erat praescius futurorum.

QUAESTIO CCXLVI. *Justitiam autem, quae ex fide est,* etc. Quaeritur quid sit justitiam esse ex fide. Solutio. Hoc est justitiam esse per gratiam, quia non solum ex gratia venitur ad fidem, sed etiam post fidem gratia necessaria est, ut fides bonis operibus adimpleatur, quorum adimpletio justitia dicitur.

QUAESTIO CCXLVII. Similiter quaeritur quomodo sit illud intelligendum, quod de hac dicitur auctoritate, *Jacob dilexi, Esau odio habui [n: (Malach. I)]*, hoc est de judicio. Solutio. Hac prophetia ostenditur impletum esse, quod fuerat Dei in praescientia. Nota, [0493B] quod haec auctoritas: Jacob dilexi, Esau odio habui, potest exponi de aeterna praedestinatione unius, et de reprobatione alterius, vel de temporali gratia appositione, vel ejusdem subtractione: unde glossa illa, in Jacob nihil invenit diligendum, nisi misericordiae suae donum, sic intelligitur, id est ex sola gratia Deus disposuit conferre Jacob gratiam in tempore unde salvaretur. Et illa glossa: In Esau nihil odiendium nisi originale peccatum, id est praescivit propter originale peccatum non esse conferendam Esau gratiam, per quam salvaretur in tempore.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CCXLVIII. Dicit aliquis: Quare propter originale peccatum gratia non est collata Esau, cum sit collata Jacob, licet peccatum originale habuerit? [0493C] Solutio. Quia gratia eadem utique est proposita, sed Esau se gratiae subtraxit: et oculum suum clausit, et Jacob gratia peccatum delevit, quia gratiae cessit: eam trahentem secutus est, Deo omnia operante et disponente pro arbitrio justissimae voluntatis suae.

QUAESTIO CCXLIX. *Ut ostenderet divitias gloriae,* etc. Quaeritur an tormenta malorum prosint bonis in futura vita? Solutio. Dicunt quod prosunt, quia nunquam sineret Deus mala esse, nisi aliquam utilitatem bono universitatis conferrent.

QUAESTIO CCL. Quaeritur quae utilitas proveniat ex eo bonis, quod vident malos puniri. Nunquid ideo Deum amplius diligunt vel laudant; vel nunquid in poena malorum delectantur. Solutio. Non in poena malorum, sed justitia Dei delectantur, et propria [0493D] gratia magis elucescit ex comparatione malorum, maxime cum vident se ab eisdem poenis sola misericordia liberatos. Sed dicet aliquis: Licet mali non punirentur, nonne boni scirent se ab eisdem poenis liberari sicut modo? Solutio. Forsitan non ita efficaciter, et in hoc ipso minus diligerent. Item si nullus damnandus esset, nonne Deus redderet bonis pro meritis suis? Et sic videtur, quamvis omnes salvi essent, non minus bonum esset, quam modo si imo amplius bonum esset; quia boni magis gauderent de salute eorum tunc, quam modo faciant de eorum damnatione. Item boni in futuro aut compatientur malis, aut non compatientur; si compatientur, quomodo beati: si non compatientur, crudeles. Solutio. [0494A] Augustinus hanc quaestionem sic solvit: Magis bonum erat esse bona et mala, quam tantum bona, ut Deus laudaretur ex diversitate ipsa mirabilius.

QUAESTIO CCLI. *Sectando legem justitiae,* etc. Cum lex non justificet, quaeritur quomodo dicatur lex justitiae. Solutio. Quia quaedam praeparatio est ad justitiam, ideo lex justitiae dicitur.

QUAESTIO CCLII. *Offenderunt in lapidem offensionis* -de quo quia Dominus in Evangelio: *Qui ceciderit super lapidem istum, confringetur; super quem vero ceciderit, conteret eum [n: (Matth. XXI)]*, quaeritur quid sit cadere super lapidem. Solutio. Deum offendere imprudenter, sicut conteri a lapide a Christo aeternaliter puniri: unde petra scandali et lapis offensionis [0494B] dictus est Christus, quia humilis, ideo habilis in quem offenderent superbi.

QUAESTIO CCLIII. *Testimonium perhibeo, quia zelum, seu aemulationem Dei habent,* etc. [n: (Rom. X.)] Quaeritur an zelus iste bonus sit, et quid sit, et quis ejus effectus? Quod autem bonus sit, inde constat, quia Apostolus ad commendationem Judaeorum hoc dicit, et expositores dicunt etiam, quod est dilectio Dei: sed si hoc esset, viderentur habere aliquid, quod esset dignum vita aeterna; sed nonne digni erant morte, qui Christum occiderunt? Quomodo ergo zelum Dei, id est dilectionem habebant? Item si bonus erat, bonum habebat effectum, sed nonne ejus effectus erat, quod ex illo zelo fecerunt? Sed peccatum [0494C] mortale hoc erat scilicet persecutio martyrum, et Christi occisio: quomodo ergo bonum malum efficiebat? Solutio. Zelus ille bonus fuit affectus in Deum, quo parati erant facere quod conscientia eorum dictabat esse faciendum propter Deum: non tamen erat tantus, ut eos faceret dignos vita aeterna, nec charitas, nec dilectio Dei simpliciter debet dici: si tamen quandoque dilectio Dei vocetur, hoc ideo fit, quia in Deum eum habebant: ejus autem effectus fuit non persecutio martyrum, vel mors Christi, sed vitatio contemptus Dei. Sic enim in arcto erant positi, quod sive Christum occiderent sive non, mortaliter peccarent: non tamen si Christum non occiderent, in hoc ipso peccarent; sed quia non occidendo Deum contemnerent: saepe enim per unum [0494D] peccatum vitatur aliud.

QUAESTIO CCXLIV. Item Christum occidendo non faciebant contra conscientiam; imo illud, quod credebant esse faciendum propter Deum: quomodo ergo peccabant? Solutio. Licet contra conscientiam non facerent, tamen mortaliter peccabant, quia excaecati erant: fecerunt enim quod conscientia eorum deberet eis dictare non esse faciendum.

QUAESTIO CCLV. *Suam justitiam volentes constituere,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo justitia legis dicatur Judaeorum. Solutio. Quia in hoc, quod credebant eam suis viribus adimplere, suam justitiam fecerunt, sed non secundum scientiam, id est non secundum bonum affectum illum exercebant, ut [0495A] judicio rationis erat exercendus, et in hoc errabant.

QUAESTIO. CCLVI. *Finis legis Christus.* Quaeritur quomodo Christus sit finis legis et consummatio, cum legis justitia sit sine gratia adjuvante, nec habebant apud Deum meritum. Solutio. Christus non dicitur finis, vel consummatio legis secundum hoc, quod a Judaeis servabatur, sed quia spiritualiter eam in se, et in suis adimplet.

QUAESTIO CCLVII. *Quae autem ex fide est justitia, sic dicit: Ne dixeris,* etc. *In corde tuo quis ascendet in coelum,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus hanc auctoritatem induxerit: nam de Deuteronomio sumpta est, ubi Moyses in alio sensu ea utitur: prohibebat enim Judaeis ne dicerent, Quis ascendit in coelum, [0495B] ut nobis legem afferret, vel quis mare transivit ut legem transportaret, vel quis descendit in infernum ut eam nobis educeret, quia verbum prope est in corde tuo, id est legem in praesenti habere. Solutio. Convenienter est inducta, licet Apostolus litteralem sensum Moysi hic per eam non exprimat: potest enim fieri, ut sicut Judaeis ad litteram illud peccatum est, ita in eo figuraliter nobis sit praeceptum, ne nos quaeramus. Quis ascendit, etc., unde Apostolus sub tali sensu verba Moysi inducit, competenter etiam inducit de ea Moysen loquentem.

QUAESTIO CCLVIII. Sed dicet aliquis: Si Moyses loquitur de justitia fidei in lege, videtur quod in lege fuerit justitia fidei, et sic lex vere justificabat. Solutio. Non sequitur, si in lege sit sermo de justitia [0495C] fidei, quod ideo ipsa fuerit in lege, nec etiam recipiendum est quod Moyses loquatur de justitia fidei, nisi loqui pro significare accipiatur. Nam hoc dicendo figurat justitiam fidei prope, id est non longe a natura animorum; quia, ut dicit glossa, rationi consentaneum est credere.

QUAESTIO CCLIX. *Prope est verbum in ore tuo, et in corde tuo.* Quaeritur quomodo hoc sit verum. Nonne multa credimus, quae ratio non cavit, unde scriptum est: *Fides non habet meritum, cui ratio humana praebet experimentum.* Solutio. Si quis consideret quomodo omnia de Christo prius in lege et prophetis praedicta sint, et quomodo impleta signis, et prodigiis approbata sint, quam verus, quam sanctus et pius, et quam potens in opere et sermone [0495D] ipse in propria persona fuerit, quid restat, nisi ut proclamet: *Testimonia tua credibilia facta sunt nimis? [n: (Psal. XCII.)]* Et nullo modo ratio permittitur nec ad modicum dubitare: vel ideo rationi consentaneum dicitur; quia loqui, et credere de eo, quod ad salutem animae attinet, ipsi rationi placet, imo hoc prae omnibus appetit.

QUAESTIO CCLX. *Corde creditur ad justitiam.* Dicit glossa quod caetera potest homo nolens; credere autem non potest nisi volens. Sed hoc quomodo verum est? Nonne sperare, et diligere nemo potest nisi volens? Quomodo ergo dicit, caetera potest etiam nolens, cum haec sint alia, quam credere? Solutio. Per caetera intelligit exteriora. Sed iterum videtur [0496A] falsum quod exteriora faciat aliquis nolens: si enim nullo modo vellet, quomodo faceret? Solutio. Velle, ponitur pro approbaret: saepe enim multa facimus quae non approbamus.

QUAESTIO CCLXI. *Omnis enim quicunque invocaverit.* Quaeritur quomodo hoc sit verum, cum multi invocant, nec tamen salvantur, unde Dominus ait: *Non omnis, qui dicit, Domine, Domine, intrabit in regnum coelorum [n: (Matth. VII)]*. Nonne hoc dicere, est nomen Domini invocare? Solutio. Invocare est intus vocare, id est ad honorem Dei et propter Deum vel desiderare notitiam, quod non fit sine fide, spe et charitate.

QUAESTIO CCLXII. *Non possunt credere, quia praedixerat Isaias,* etc. Quaeritur de hac prophetia, an [0496B] propheta voluerit impleri quae dixit? Quod si voluit, videtur voluisse ut excaecatio Judaeorum fieret: nam in excaecatione Judaeorum adimpleta est prophetia. Solutio. Non est concedendum, quod vellet Judaeos excaecari, quamvis voluit suam prophetiam adimpleri, sicut Christus voluit esse verum quod ait Petro: *Antequam gallus cantet, ter me negabis [n: (Matth. XXVI)]*: non tamen voluit Petrum negare: multa enim sic conjuncta sunt, ut unum non possit fieri sine altero, tamen possumus velle unum sine altero.

QUAESTIO CCLXIII. *Domine, quis credit auditui nostro,* etc. Legitur in Evangelio de Judaeis, qui *non crediderunt, ut sermo Isaiae impleretur [n: (Joan. XII)]*: unde sic objiciunt: Quae culpa Judaeorum, quod non [0496C] crediderunt, cum necesse esset prophetiam impleri, et sic necesse fuit eos non credere? Solutio. Deus praedixit per prophetam peccata Judaeorum, sed non fecit: non enim praescientia eorum infert eis necessitatem, secundum illud, ut cum dicitur, non crediderunt, ut sermo, etc., tantum notat quod illa prophetia impleta est in caecitate Judaeorum, et quod ipsa est praedicta antequam impleta.

QUAESTIO CCLXIV. Quaeritur quomodo Judaei non credendo in Christum peccaverunt, cum scriptum sit: *Propterea poterant credere* non quia *dixit Isaias: Deus excaecavit oculos eorum, et induravit cor [n: (ibid.)]*, vel si peccaverunt non credendo in Christum, ergo poterant credere, et non crediderunt: et si hoc est, [0496D] quomodo hoc verum est. Propterea non poterant credere quia Deus excaecavit, etc. Quomodo simul verum poterant credere et non poterant credere? Item videtur penes Deum causam incredulitatis eorum constituere, dicens: Propterea non poterant, quia dixit Isaias: Deus excaecavit oculos, etc. Solutio. Verum est quod non poterant credere, sicut dicit Evangelium, et tamen non credendo peccaverunt; quia ad illam impossibilitatem ex vitio propriae voluntatis pervenerunt, et ideo talis impossibilitas non habet excusationem. Verum est ergo utrumque, quod non poterant credere, et quod poterant credere, sed non secundum idem: poterant natura, et non poterant culpa: tales enim facti sunt, ut haberent possibilitatem non solum credendi, sed etiam Deum [0497A] facie ad faciem videndi: et ideo dicitur, quod poterant natura credere; sed quia per culpam tales effecti sunt, quod justum erat apud Deum non misereri eis, ideo dictum est, quod culpa non poterant credere. Consimilis locutio habetur de angelis bonis: et quod mutabiles natura, immutabiles gratia sunt; hoc autem, quod dicitur, Deus excaecavit, etc. sic intelligendum est, id est permisit excaecari non impertiendo malitiam qua fierent deteriores, sed non conferendo gratiam qua fierent meliores.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

Notandum est, quod dicitur, Credere non poterant, quia nolebant: haec expositio videtur esse nimis communis; nam idem de omnibus, qui in peccatis ad mortem sunt, potest dici, unde secundum hanc expositionem nihil speciale de excaecatis dicitur. [0497B] Solutio. Potest dici quod excaecati merentur, ut non velint credere, et ut Deus non misereatur eis: quod non faciunt omnes mortaliter peccantes. Similiter quod subditur: *Dum superbi,* etc., nimis communiter et simpliciter dici videtur: nam et hoc de omnibus generaliter dici potest. Solutio. Quia et dum causale accipiendum est: nam per superbiam, et caetera vitia merentur ut injustum sit, Deum eorum misereri.

QUAESTIO CCLXV. Quaeritur quomodo haec prophetia sit inducta, nonne illis qui de praesenti statu erant, loquebatur, et tamen adhuc prophetia non erat adimpleta, et si hoc est, quomodo hac auctoritate arguit eos, qui tunc erant, de eo quod adhuc futurum erat, quomodo ad praesentes tunc pertinuit. [0497C] Nam haec vis videtur esse probationis, quod omnes audierunt verbum Christi, qui id mundo erant, et ideo arguendi sunt, quasi audientes et non credentes. Item si prophetia nondum erat adimpleta, quomodo verbo temporis praeteriti potest uti in sensu praesentis temporis? si enim in sensu futuri temporis accipitur, ridicula esse videtur probatio Apostoli. Solutio. Praesentibus loquebatur, sed non propter praesentes tantum; imo etiam propter omnes futuri status hanc prophetiam induxit, et bene illius temporis praesentes arguit, quia licet eorum tempore non erat prophetia adimpleta, erat tamen in eis inchoatum, quod praedixerat prophetia futurum. Nota quod quaedam Scripturae videntur velle, quod Israel [0497D] non cognovit; aliae videntur velle, quod cognovit Christum, quae videntur esse contrariae: sed non sunt, quia de diversis intelliguntur. In illo enim populo erant quidam cognoscentes, alii non cognoscentes.

QUAESTIO CCLXVI. *Si autem gratia, jam non ex operibus,* etc. [n: (Rom XI)]. Quaeritur si totum ex gratia, quid ex meritis, vel si quod ex meritis, quomodo totum ex gratia? Solutio. Totum est ex gratia, licet aliquid sit ex meritis, quia ipsa merita sunt ex gratia. Videtur tamen quod ex meritis praecedentibus sit justitia, ut in Cornelio cujus oratio obtinuit hoc, ut praedicatione Petri converteretur, ut fidem susciperet: quae fides est ex gratia, quare ex operibus est consecuta gratia. Solutio. Non est dicendum [0498A] quod gratia vel justitia sit ex operibus; quia hoc esset, quod ex operibus sine gratia justificaretur quis: quod esse non potest. Quod autem Cornelius oravit, ut fidem susciperet, hoc ex gratia praecedente fuit: pro qua etiam gratia major, utpote gratia justificans, est collata. Non enim sine omni gratia fuit, quando in unum Deum credidit et, ut dicunt doctores, fidem incarnationis habuit, sed nondum sciebat Verbum Dei incarnatum, quod postea Petri praedicatione cognovit. Nota, quod compunctio alia est invidiae, qua quis compungitur et dolet, et alienis bonis tabescit; alia culpae qua quis torquetur in propria conscientia, ut Judas, qui laqueo se suspendit pro scelere suo. Alia est compunctio gratiae, qui vel inchoantium est, qui de malis poenitent, [0498B] ut abstineant, vel perfectorum, qui Deum ex dilectione verentur.

QUAESTIO CCLXVII. Hoc, quod quaerebat, Israel non est consecutus. Quaeritur quomodo hoc sit verum: nonne exteriorem justitiam quaesivit, sed illam obtinuit: ergo quod quaerebat, hoc consecutus est. Solutio. Hoc ideo dicitur, quia fine, quo faciebant, caruerunt: volebant enim apud Deum reputari justi, quod eis non accidit.

QUAESTIO CCLXVIII. *Ut non audiant usque ad hodiernum diem.* Quod Judaei hujus temporis excaecati sint, hoc plane habemus, et sancti in multis locis idipsum dicunt, persecutionem Christi excaecationis causam constituentes, et magis quod Jacobum justum occiderunt. Sed non videtur rationi consentaneum, [0498C] quod ideo praesentes Judaei puniantur, cum scelera multis displiceant, quae patres eorum commiserunt. Solutio. Non immerito etiam moderni Judaei excaecantur, quia si daretur facultas eis, quod patres eorum fecerunt Christo, idem et Christi membris facerent, etiamsi fieri posset ipsi capiti.

QUAESTIO CCLXIX. *Ministerium meum honorificabo,* etc. Quaeritur quid sit officium honorificare. Solutio. Ille ministerium suum honorificat, qui supra quam ex officio suo debeat impendit aliquid, ut Paulus, qui ex officio tantum gentibus praedicare debebat, plus fecit, etiam Judaeis praedicando. Sed cum Paulus crederet aliquos ex Judaeis sua praedicatione converti posse ad fidem, et sciret hoc pro [0498D] Deo esse faciendum, si non faceret, peccaret: quapropter hoc facere debebat, quomodo ergo dicit se suum officium honorificare, cum et id debebat, quod superadditur? Solutio. Aliud est officii debitum, aliud occasionis: supra debitum officii Paulus Judaeis praedicabat, et sic ministerium honorificabat; tamen debebat eis praedicare quantum ad debitum occasionis, cum sciret pro Deo esse faciendum.

QUAESTIO CCLXX. *Si enim amissio eorum, reconciliatio est mundi,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo infidelitas Judaeorum, et excaecatio fuerit causa salutis gentium, nunquid gentes non salvarentur, nisi Judaei excaecarentur. Nonne Deus posset aliter gentes salvare? Solutio. Infidelitas eorum non erat causa efficiens, quare gentes salvarentur, tamen ex eo quod [0499A] illi excaecati verbum praedicationis repulerunt, Apostoli occasionem acceperunt praedicandi gentibus. et sic secuta est salus gentium, Deo suam dispositionem implente per mala, de quibus elicit bonum effectum.

QUAESTIO CCLXXI. *Si delibatio sancta, et massa; et sit radix sancta, et rami,* etc. Quaeritur de hac consequentia, an sit vera? Nonne antecedens potest esse verum sine consequente, quomodo ergo consequentia vera? Solutio. Consequens utriusque hypotheticae etsi simpliciter proferatur, non tamen simpliciter est intelligendum, sed cum tali determinatione naturaliter: etsi enim rami sint fracti, tamen naturaliter boni sunt: et illi pauci, qui conversi sunt ad fidem, si ita constantes fuerunt; patet quod illi qui in fine convertentur, erunt constantes.

[0499B]QUAESTIO CCLXXII. Sed cum gens Judaeorum in Scripturis dicatur saepe durissima, quomodo hic dicitur naturaliter sancta, quasi habens habilitatem sanctitatis? Solutio. De sanctitate, qua intelligitur inconstantia fidei agit Apostolus; non de habilitate, quam haberent ad sanctitatem.

QUAESTIO CCLXXIII. Quaeri potest quid est delibatio? Respondetur. Gustus particulae alicujus rei ad experimentum totius massae. Massa autem est multitudo convertendorum post mortem Antichristi. Judaei naturales rami dicti sunt; quia de patriarchis nati, in quibus origo fidei fuit, et de quibus Christus natus est secundum carnem. Nota quod natura dicitur consuetus cursus naturae, contra quem Deus saepe operatur. Dicitur etiam quandoque natura divina [0499C] dispositio, contra quam nihil facit Deus; sed omnia juxta eam agit.

QUAESTIO CCLXXIV. *Sine enim poenitentia, id est sine mutatione sunt donum, et vocatio Dei.* Mutat quandoque Deus sententiam, sed non consilium. Quid est mutare sententiam? aliquid agere, quod non videbatur acturus; vel non agere, quod videbatur acturus.

QUAESTIO CCLXXV. Dicit expositor quod mali, dum faciunt contra voluntatem Dei, ab eis impletur voluntas Dei: sed si ab eis impletur voluntas Dei, nonne implent ipsi voluntatem Dei? et si hoc est, quomodo contra voluntatem Dei faciunt? Solutio. Voluntas dicitur duobus modis, praeceptio [0499D] Dei, et ipsius dispositio. Dum ergo faciunt contra praeceptum Dei faciunt quod disposuit Deus fieri: saepe enim bona per malos fiunt; semper autem ex malis, quae mali faciunt, Deus aliquid boni elicit.

QUAESTIO CCLXXVI. *Qui audit Patrem, venit ad Filium* Nemo enim venit ad Filium, nisi Pater traxerit eum [n: (Joan. VI)]. Quaeritur ergo quid sit Patrem trahere ad Filium? Solutio. Ex dispositione quae est ex Patre ad Filii cognitionem venire, ut ab eo salvetur: Pater trahit ad Filium, cum Pater revelat Filium esse aequalem sibi.

QUAESTIO CCLXXVII. *Omnia conclusit Deus sub peccato ut omnium misereatur.* Quaeritur quomodo hoc sit intelligendum: nonne concludit sub peccato malum est? quomodo Deus hoc facit, vel quomodo [0500A] hoc causa est boni? Solutio. Deus conclusit omnia peccato, id est, permisit concludi, et haec est occasio boni, non causa efficiens.

QUAESTIO CCLXXVIII. Quaeritur an hoc modo potius quam alio Deus sit operatus salutem nostram. scilicet concludendo omnia sub peccato? Solutio. Sic placuit Deo, ut videntes se non posse justificari humiliarentur, et gratiam quaererent, et sic totum Deo ascriberent. *O altitudo divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei,* etc. Solet hic distingui triplex genus causarum. Aliae sunt formales, aliae sunt judiciales, aliae finales, aliae secundum quas aliae per quas, aliae propter quas res fiunt. Per judicia causae judiciales; per consilia, causae finales; per quas formales, vel per sapientiam et scientiam formales.

[0500B]QUAESTIO CCLXXIX. De superiore exclamatione solet quaeri. Videtur enim minus consulte Apostolus exclamare de excaecatione Judaeorum et introitu gentium, dicens: O altitudo divitiarum sapientiae et scientiae Dei! cum ipse super hoc sciret reddere causam, unde dicit: *Nolo vos ignorare mysterium [n: (ibid.)]*, etc., et postea subdit: *Conclusit Deus omnia sub peccato ut omnium misereatur [n: (ibid.)]*. Quod si ideo exclamat, quia sub hoc perfecte humana intelligentia rationem reddere non sufficit, simile ratione de aliis multis exclamandum erat? Solutio. Potius de illo quam de alio exclamat, quia citius ibi in reddendis rationibus erratur, et peccatur ad mortem.

QUAESTIO CCLXXX. *Quoniam ex ipso, et per ipsum, [0500C] et in ipso sunt omnia.* Quaeritur an peccata in quantum sunt sint a Deo: si enim omnia, ergo peccata, vel peccata non sunt de numero omnium. Solutio. Nonnulli dicunt, quod peccata in quantum sunt, habent esse a Deo. Sed Augustinus de natura boni dicit, tantum ea, quae sunt naturaliter, debere intelligi, cum dicitur omnia esse ex Deo, non peccata, quae naturam corrumpunt, non ergo peccata sunt ex Deo aliquo modo.

QUAESTIO CCLXXXI. Quaeritur an omnia quae habent esse ex Deo, debeant dici esse de Deo. Solutio. Sola ea quae habent esse de substantia Dei, debent dici de Deo ut Filius, et Spiritus sanctus sic sunt ex Deo Patre, quod de ipso, quia de essentia ejus [0500D] sunt ei consubstantiales. Creaturae vero sunt ex Deo, non de substantia Dei, sed de nihilo. Nota, quod per triplicem praepositionem scilicet ex, per, in, hic insinuatur trinitas personarum, per idem pronomen identitas naturae significatur, quae tota est in singulis personis: dicens enim, ex quo, intelligit Patrem, per quem, Filium; in quo, Spiritum sanctum.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CCLXXXII. Quaeritur autem quomodo per hoc, quod dicit, ex quo omnia, intelligit Patrem, cum sicut omnia sunt ex Patre. sic ex Filio et Spiritu sancto? Solutio. Propter auctoritatem principit, quia sic omnia habent ex Patre esse, quod ipse non habet ex alio; Filius autem, et Spiritus sanctus licet sint unum principium omnium creaturarum, habent tamen principium, sive auctorem ipsum Patrem, [0501A] a quo habent esse: et hoc ipsum, quod sunt principium omnium, a Patre habent, sicut omnia alia quae possident. Dicit expositor in Trinitate esse summam omnium originem, perfectissimam pulchritudinem, beatissimam delectationem, originem ad Patrem, pulchritudinem ad Filium, delectationem ad Spiritum sanctum referens: et sic haec tria origo, pulchritudo et delectatio sunt determinata, quia determinate singula ad singulas personas, ut jam dictum est, referuntur. Sed quia rursus tota Trinitas omnium rerum summa origo, perfectissima pulchritudo, beatissima delectatio est, eadem tria dicuntur infinita. Et hoc est, ut arbitror, quod dicitur, quod praedicta tria et a se invicem sunt determinata, et in se sunt infinita.

[0501B]QUAESTIO CCLXXXIII. Item dicitur in Patre unitas, in Filio aequalitas, in Spiritu sancto unitatis et aequalitatis concordia: sed cum eadem unitas, et aequalitas et concordia sit trium, quaeritur quare dicatur unitas in Patre, et aequalitas in Filio, et in Spiritu sancto concordia? Solutio. Salva secretorum reverentia dicimus, quod in Patre ideo dicitur unitas, quia sicut unitas est principium numerorum, sed ipsa non habet esse ab alio numero, sic et Pater, cum sit omnium causa, non habet causam. Aequalitas vero dicitur esse in Filio, quia in eo est prima distinctio, et discretio, et prima pluralitas, et secunda personalis unitas, quae ut ostendatur indifferens, et indispar ab ipso Patre, nomine [0501C] aequalitatis non inconvenienter signatur, in quo declaratur qui sic Filius habet esse a solo Patre, quod nec Pater est, nec diversus ab eo in natura, sed in omnibus aequalis et consubstantialis illi. Spiritus sanctus vero ideo unitatis et aequalitatis concordia vocatur, ut insinuetur sic Spiritus sanctus esse ab utroque, quod utrique est aequalis, hoc dico salva fide catholica, quorum verborum occultam intelligentiam mallem ab alio audire, quam aliquid de tenuitate mea super his dicere.

QUAESTIO CCLXXXIV. Item legitur: Omnia unum propter Patrem, omnia aequalia propter Filium, omnia connexa propter Spiritum sanctum. Quaeritur ergo quomodo haec verba sint intelligenda? Nonne eadem unitate unum sunt tres personae, vel [0501D] aequalitate aequales, vel concordia concordes? Solutio. Omnia sunt unum propter Patrem, id est tres personae unum sunt, naturalem unitatem eamdem habentes, quae solet referri ad Patrem, licet sit communis tribus personis: simili modo intelligendum est de aequalitate et concordia: aequales enim sunt tres personae propter ineffabilem et naturalem aequalitatem, quam habent sic connexi. In creaturis praelucet vestigium Trinitatis, quia ostendunt in se unitatem, et speciem, et ordinem tenere, quia unumquodque et unum aliquid est, et aliqua specie formatur, et aliquem ordinem tenet, unde dictum est: *Omnia fecit in numero, et pondere, et mensura [n: (Sap. XI)]*. Numerus enim ad unitatem, pondus ad ordinem, mensura ad speciem pertinet. De quolibet [0502A] enim verum est, quod ex quo incipit esse, statim cadit sub numerum quia vel unum est, vel plura. Pondus ad ordinem ideo dicitur pertinere; quia singula ordinem tenent secundum naturam ponderis. Duo enim sunt genera ponderum: unum, quod tendit deorsum, ut natura plumbi; alterum quod tendit sursum, ut oleum. Item ordo consideratur secundum locum et tempus: unde et angeli secundum affectiones et delectationes [dilectiones.] majores vel minores ordines suos sortiuntur; species vero rerum, quod quidam modus est earum, et mensura.

QUAESTIO CCLXXXV. Quaeritur item an Spiritus sanctus a se procedat, vel mittatur sicut a Patre et Filio. Solutio. Duplex est processio, vel missio Spiritus [0502B] sancti, aeterna et temporis: secundum aeternam processionem tantum a Patre et Filio, non a se procedit; temporaliter etiam a seipso procedit, quia temporalis ejus processio Trinitatis est operatio. Eodem modo intelligendum est de temporali Filii processione vel missione. Sicut enim semetipsum pro nobis sanctificavit et non tradidit, sic et semetipsum misit, id est suam missionem vel incarnationem (quod idem est operatus est). Aeterna autem processio Filii a Patre, non missio, sed generatio debet dici.

QUAESTIO CCLXXXVI. Quaeritur praeterea quomodo Spiritus sanctus sit amor, quo Pater diligit Filium, et Filius Patrem. Nonne idem est Patri diligere, et esse, et eo quo habet esse, et diligere? Si [0502C] ergo Pater diligit Spiritu sancto, quomodo non habet esse a Spiritu sancto? Solutio. Non dicitur, quod Pater diligat Spiritu sancto, sed quod Spiritus sanctus sit amor, quo Pater diligit Filium; quia Spiritus sanctus est natura divina, et Pater diligit divina natura; si autem hoc termino, amor quo Pater diligit Filium, significetur personale idioma, non est verum quod Spiritus sanctus sit amor, quo Pater diligit, sicut Spiritus sanctus non est Pater.

QUAESTIO CCLXXXVII. Dicit Hilarius: Sicut impium est duos deos praedicare Patrem et Filium, ita Deum singularem praedicare, sacrilegum est. Item dicit expositor, secundum substantiam singulariter [0502D] uni, de Trinitate loquens, quod videtur esse contrarium. Solutio. Singularitas aliquando excludit pluralitatem personarum, et secundum hoc sacrilegum est Patrem, et Filium Deum singularem praedicare. Quandoque singularitas ponitur pro unitate, et sic accipitur, cum dicitur secundum substantiam singulariter uni.

QUAESTIO CCLXXXVIII. *Non plus sapere, quam oportet sapere,* etc. [n: (Rom. XII.)] Quaeritur quis plus sapit quam oportet. Nemo enim tantam in hac vita habet cognitionem, quin majorem habere possit, et quin etiam plus desiderare debeat: quomodo ergo praecipit Apostolus, non plus sapere quam oportet sapere, quasi quis possit investigando de Deo plus comprehendere quam sit necesse? Solutio. Investigationem [0503A] veritatis non prohibet Apostolus, sed ne quis per investigationem nimiam incidat in dubitationem eorum, quae firmiter et indubitanter credi oportet. Vel ne quis sibi, quod sapit, superba praesumptione ascribat, quod est ex scientia superbire: hoc enim non est sapere, sed desipere.

QUAESTIO CCLXXXIX. *Qui miseretur in hilaritate,* etc. Quaeritur ergo an Deus aliquem puniat sine misericordia, hoc est, tantum puniat quos punit, quantum puniri meruerunt. Quod videtur, quia *judicium sine misericordia ei, qui non facit misericordiam [n: (Jac. II)]*. Sed iterum est scriptum: *Universae viae Domini misericordia, et veritas [n: (Psal. XLII)]*. Unde videtur, quod nec etiam malos puniat sine misericordia, juxta illud: *Nec accendit omnem iram suam* [0503B] [n: (Psal. LXXVII)], id est non punivit eos quantum meruerunt; quia plus juste si vellet. Solutio. Neminem punit Deus sine misericordia, quia nullum punit quantum promeruit, et tamen judicium sine misericordia ei, qui non miseretur, quia non amplius corrigitur ad hoc ut vitam aeternam consequatur. Est itaque verum, quod sicut bonis plus boni ex gratia conferet Deus in futuro quam meruerunt, sic malis minus mali quam meruerunt, et in utroque justus et misericors est Deus.

QUAESTIO CCXC. Quaeritur cur potius, judicium sine misericordia, etc., dicat de hoc quam de alio, cum de quolibet criminali hoc dici posset. Solutio. Ideo de isto dictum intellige, quia sunt multi in hunc errorem lapsi: quod credunt sibi sufficere ad [0503C] consequendam vitam aeternam, aliis non nocere, et a malo declinare, quamvis sua pauperibus non largiantur, vel opera misericordiae non exhibeant: quem errorem hic patenter reprimit Apostolus.

QUAESTIO CCXCI. *Gaudete cum gaudentibus,* etc. Quaeritur utrum gaudendum sit de temporali prosperitate, ut de abundantia divitiarum alicujus. Solutio. Cum dentur bonis et malis, et saepius malis quam bonis, non videtur esse gaudendum si dentur alicui; nec dolendum, si auferantur: Deus autem semper in donis suis laudandus est.

QUAESTIO CCXCII. *Flete cum flentibus,* etc. Quaeritur de fletu, quem praecepit Apostolus, an rationabilis est, cum de adversis quae bonis vel malis [0503D] contingunt, potius gaudendum sit quam dolendum? Sunt enim adversa vel ad majorem coronam bonis, vel ad correctionem malis. Legitur etiam quod imprudenter flebant de morte martyrum, cum potius esset gaudendum quam flendum, si rationem vis doloris admitteret. Solutio. Alius fletus est pietatis, alius compassionis: ille, qui pietatis est, quasi naturae est, et secundum quosdam non meretur; ille vero, qui compassionis est, meretur. Compati enim debemus infirmitatibus fratrum, ut illos lucremur, quorum salutem desiderare debemus, et operam dare ut salventur.

QUAESTIO CCXCIII. *Nulli malum pro malo reddentes, et diligite inimicos.* Quaeritur quomodo sancti non reddant malum pro malo, cum scriptum sit: [0504A] *Clamant sancti: Vindica, Domine, sanguinem nostrum [n: (Apoc. VI)]*. Et illud: *Loetabitur justus cum viderit vindictam [n: (Psal. XXXVII)]*; ergo cum aeque boni et mali volunt se vindicari a Domino in quo discernuntur. Solutio. Boni non laetantur de poena sicut mali, sed de judicio Dei.

QUAESTIO CCXCIV. Quaeritur utrum Christus observet quod Apostolus omnibus supra praecepit, ut nullis malum pro malo reddat. Volunt sic probare, quod Christus non observet. Malus meruit malum pro malo reddi sibi: nisi ergo reddat illi malum Deus, non reddet ei, quod promeretur. Item aliquid reddit ei Deus pro malo ergo bonum vel malum; si non malum ergo bonum, et sic malum meruit bonum. Item, nonne Deus reddit poenam pro culpa, et [0504B] sic malum pro malo? Solutio. Nec bonus judex, nec Deus malum reddit pro malo; quia hoc esset, quod mala intentione vindictam exerceret: unde diligenter cavendum est ne hoc in praedictis omnibus inferatur.

QUAESTIO CCXCV. Quaeritur an ex dictis justitia, qua aliquis suspenditur pro furto, et hujusmodi sit Evangelii. Quod videtur, cum Ecclesia tradat eum principi, et omnis justitia Ecclesiae esse debeat, quod ibi docetur. *Ecce duo gladii hic [n: (Luc. XXII)]*. Quod si Ecclesiae est, ut videtur, quomodo negari potest, quin justitia Evangelii gravior sit justitia legis, cum lege praeceptum sit *dentem pro dente, oculum pro oculo [n: (Matth. V)]*; hic autem caput hominis pro capra [0504C] detur. Solutio. Haec nullo modo justitia Evangelii est, ut homo pro equo vel bove occidatur, nec in toto Evangelio hoc praeceptum invenitur, nec id facit, sed tantum permittit Ecclesia.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CCXCVI. *Providentes bona non tantum coram Deo, sed etiam coram hominibus,* etc. Quaeritur quid sit providere bona coram Deo. Solutio. In cordis secreto, id est facere ea quae conscientia dictat facienda esse pro Deo.

QUAESTIO CCXCVII. Sed cum Deus requirat a nobis ut etiam bona coram hominibus provideamus, quomodo dividit inter hoc et illud. Solutio. Sensus est Praecipit Apostolus ut etiam bona faciamus ita circumspecte, ut infirmi non scandalizentur, sed [0504D] bonum exemplum proficiendi accipiant, et in hoc ipso reprimit quorumdam superbam praesumptionem, qui non curant de scandalis infirmorum, considerantes tantum quid liceat, non quid expediat.

QUAESTIO CCXCVIII. *Si esurierit inimicus tuus, ciba illum,* etc. In lege scriptum est: *Diliges amicum, et odio habebis inimicum [n: (ibid.)]*. Quod videtur esse, illi praecepto contrarium: *Diligite inimicos vestros [n: (ibid.)]*, et huic: Si esurierit inimicus, ciba illum. Solutio. Non est praeceptum in lege habere inimicos odio, sed permissio, et est secundum quosdam consilium, non praeceptum diligere inimicos in Evangelio, et sic nulla est contrarietas. Quod intelligens David ait: *Si reddidi retribuentibus mihi [0505A] mala, decidam merito ab inimicis meis inanis [n: (Psal. VII)]*.

QUAESTIO CCXCIX. *Non est potestas nisi a Deo,* etc. [n: (Rom. XIII.)] De potestate bonorum constat, quod sit a Deo, de potestate malorum quaeritur an sit a Deo. Si est a Deo, bona est, quia Deus auctor tantum bonorum; sed malorum potestas quomodo bona, cum per ea fiant mala, quae etiam dicitur iniqua et injusta saepe in Scriptura. Contra, quod malorum potestas sit a Deo Scriptura testatur quomodo ergo mala? Solutio. Malorum potestas bona est, et a Deo; sed tamen dicitur mala pro malitia abutentium ea, sicut lex quidem bona, sed tamen occasio mali, et lux solis, et multa similia.

QUAESTIO CCC. Quaeritur quid vocet potestatem. [0505B] Solutio. Dicunt quidam, quod Dei ordinationem, ex qua quidem aliis praeesse habent. Alii dicunt, quod ipsas personas in sublimitate constitutas ut reges, et principes, quibus obediendum est in omnibus, quae ad potestatem pertinent. Si autem aliquid percipiunt, quod si contra Deum, non sunt audiendi.

QUAESTIO CCCI. Quaeritur an potestas peccandi sit a Deo. Quod sic probatur: Potestas Pilati, qua potuit crucifigere Salvatorem, erat a Deo, sicut habetur in Evangelio [n: (Joan. XIX)]: ergo potestas peccandi est a Deo. Item, contra Deus ex eo quod est omnipotens non potest peccare: ergo posse peccare non est posse, nec potentia peccandi est potentia, sed impotentia. Solutio. Potentia peccandi dicitur [0505C] quaedam: vis faciendi aliquid, quod non potest fieri sine peccato, vel quaedam dignitas, ex qua licite aliquis potest facere id quod non fit sine peccato: ut potestas Pilati bona quidem fuit, scilicet ex Deo: ex qua habuit potestatem crucifigere Christum, sicut ex regia potestate potest aliquis exercere tyrannidem, et sub specie potestatis ordinatae in subditos saevire: non tamen Christum crucifigere, vel tyrannidem exercere potentia est, sed potius impotentia, quae saepe potentia peccandi vocatur, quae inest ex defectu, vel termino boni: quae etiam si in primo homine ante peccatum fuit.

QUAESTIO CCCII. *Qui diligit proximum, legem implevit,* etc. Quaeritur an dilectio proximi, et dilectio [0505D] Dei sint eadem. Si non sunt eadem, quomodo dilectio proximi est plenitudo legis? quomodo tota lex restauratur in dilectione proximi? quomodo tria praecepta primae tabulae ad Deum pertinentia implentur dilectione proximi? Item, si eadem est haec et illa, cur divisim aliud praeceptum datum est de dilectione Dei, et aliud de dilectione proximi? Solutio. Dilectio nomen est virtutis, et sic potest dici, quod eadem est dilectio, qua diligimus Deum et proximum, et est nomen motus mentis, et sic alia est dilectio Dei, alia proximi, et major est dilectio Dei, et minor dilectio proximi, cum dilectio Dei in dilectione proximi contineatur: qui enim Deum diligit consequens est, ut proximum diligat, et e diverso; ideoque alterum pro utroque [0506A] mandato ponitur. Est enim dilectio proximi motus mentis in proximum propter Deum: ergo quomodo potest esse dilectio proximi sine dilectione Dei? Est enim dilectio proximi materia quaedam in qua exercetur dilectio Dei, quae amplius latet, cujus effectus in dilectione proximi apparet. Dilectio Dei est motus mentis in Deum propter ipsum.

QUAESTIO CCCIII. Sed cum dilectio Dei sit dignior, quam dilectio proximi, quare Apostolus potius commemoravit dilectionem proximi, quam dilectionem Dei, dicens ipsam esse legis impletionem? Solutio. Quia dilectio proximi in vita quotidiana et moribus magis apparet.

QUAESTIO CCCIV. Quaeritur an dilectio proximi possit esse sine dilectione Dei. Quod videtur, quia [0506B] aliquis potest diligere proximum non propter Deum, sed propter aliquid aliud. Solutio. Non est concedendum, quod aliquis diligat proximum, nisi diligat eum propter Deum: aliter enim diligere non est diligere, sed potius odire; quia *qui diligit iniquitatem, odit animam suam [n: (Psal. X)]*; et sic nec alium diligit, qui se odit.

QUAESTIO CCCV. Quaeritur item an debeamus diligere mutuo propter vitam aeternam: quod si conceditur videtur, quod faciamus propter commodum nostrum, et sic sumus mercenarii. Dicit enim Ambrosius, qui spe et desiderio coelestis patriae servit, mercenarius est. Solutio. Propter vitam aeternam diligendus est proximus, nec ideo aliquid praefertur Deo, quia ipse est vita aeterna: et in ipso non est [0506C] aliquid extra ipsum praeter ipsum, ideoque verba praedicta Ambrosii a suo loco extendere non convenit; quia contra usum Ecclesiae sonare videntur: videtur tamen hoc insinuare, quod si quis cogitans, vitam aeternam aliquid scorsum praeter Deum esse, bona faceret, suum attendens commodum tantum, non quia Deus hoc vellet fieri, mercenarius dicendus esset.

QUAESTIO CCCVI. Quaeritur an omnes aequaliter diligendi sint. Solutio. Dicunt quidam, quod secundum affectum aequaliter omnes diligendi sunt, sed non secundum effectum, imo alii plus, alii minus, juxta hoc quod scriptum est: *Ordinavit in me charitatem [n: (Cant. II)]*. Aliis videtur quod etiam secundum [0506D] affectum alii aliis praeferendi sunt, ut meliores minus bonis, et parentes alienis. Ordinatur itaque charitas secundum affectum et effectum: quod pluribus modis fieri potest, quandoque debet esse impar affectus, quandoque par affectus, et impar effectus, et e converso.

QUAESTIO CCCVII. Quaeritur ubi sit datum praeceptum, vel doctrina qualiter homo seipsum debeat diligere. Solutio. Quando homo docetur qualiter Deus sit diligendus, in hoc ipso docetur qualiter homo seipsum debeat diligere. Quid est enim se diligere, nisi bonum suum amare? sed quod est bonum hominis, nisi Deus? Qui ergo diligit Deum, in hoc ipso diligit seipsum; et in quantum diligit Deum, in tantum diligit seipsum.

[0507A]QUAESTIO CCCVIII. Quaeritur an homo debeat tantum diligere proximum, quantum seipsum. Quia scriptum est: *Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum [n: (Matth. XXII)]*. Solutio. Sicut similitudinem notat, non quantitatem, secundum quosdam, cum dicitur: Dilige proximum tuum sicut teipsum, id est ad quod teipsum, id est ad hoc, ut habeat Deum, et quantum potes operam da, ut illa faciat, per quae salvetur. Quae autem in superioribus de charitate jam dicta sunt, non oportet repetere. Non enim omnia ubique vel possunt, vel debent dici.

QUAESTIO CCCIX. *Infirmum autem fide,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo infirmum accipiat. Solutio. Non secundum constantiam, sed secundum cognitionem fidei hic intelligit infirmum.

[0507B]QUAESTIO CCCX. *Qui infirmus est, olus manducet. Unusquisque autem in suo sensu abundet.* Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus suadeat illum, qui cibos discernit sibi esse derelinquendum, cum malum sit cibos discernere, et hunc mundum, et hunc immundum putare, cum potius a tali errore esset retrahendum, hoc enim ei concedere videtur, cum hoc sit eum in errore fovere. Solutio. Permittit minus malum fieri ut majus malum devitetur: majus enim malum esset contra conscientiam edere, quam cibis quibusdam abstinere, cum ab eis abstinendum esse putet: quisquis enim contra conscientiam facit, peccat.

QUAESTIO CCCXI. Quaeritur utrum ille, qui sic cibos discernit, peccet. Nonne vivit secundum doctrinam Apostoli? si et hoc est, quomodo peccat? Solutio. [0507C] Non hic docet Apostolus quod tanquam bonum sit agendum, sed quod minus malum sit, ostendit: minus enim malum est bono zelo errare, quam contra conscientiam manifeste peccare: quare ne majus peccatum incurrat, ferendus est potius quam irritandus. Sunt autem quaedam quae etiam in Novo Testamento prohibentur, ut ne quis sanguine animalium vescatur, vel suffocatis utatur. A quibusdam etiam abstinemus, quia non est necesse eis uti, ut a carne equina, non quia aeque bona esset ad vescendum, ut bovina; sed quia opus non est. A quibusdam abstinemus, quia noxia sunt ut serpens, bufo et hujusmodi: quae quidem venenosa sunt, ideo vescentes interimentia.

[0507D]QUAESTIO CCCXII. Quaeritur quomodo cibos discernebant. Nunquid aliquam immunditiam in his magis quam in illis constituebant, propter quam eis vesci recusarent? Si hoc est: culpam mediante creatura in Deum refundebant, et sic peccabant ad mortem. Quod si ad mortem peccabant, qualiter jubet Apostolus eos in morte tolerari? Solutio. Errabant et peccabant, sed venialiter, non ad mortem, non enim ideo a cibis quibusdam abstinebant, quod crederent aliquam immunditiam illis inesse, sed quia sub lege positi abstinere ab eis consueverant, grave illis consuetudinem deponere.

QUAESTIO CCCXIII. Quaeritur ad quos spectet quod hic dicit Apostolus. Solutio. Ad praelatos videtur pertinere quod dicit, *Infirmum autem suscipite [assumite* ] [0508A] [n: (Rom. XIV.)] Item quaedam videtur dicere in hoc capitulo quae ad infirmos pertinere videntur, ut illud: *Qui non manducat, manducantem non spernat, et qui manducat, manducantem non judicet [n: (ibid.)]*: his enim verbis infirmos instruere videtur.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CCCXIV. *Suo Domino stat, aut cadit.* Videtur Apostolus, cum id dicit, omne judicium de bono nobis auferre: nam, cum ex intentione et sola charitate homo sit bonus, quae hominis judicio non subjacent, quomodo possumus aliquem bonum judicare? Solutio. Ecclesia de manifestis tantum judicat, et non de occultis: non enim judicat quod charitas in aliquo sit, quia tunc judicaret esse, quod nesciret esse, sed quod signa charitatis, quae in eo sint, ostendunt in eo esse charitatem. Similiter, [0508B] cum judicat, vel condemnat aliquem, non judicat quod criminis, de quo accusatur, reus sit, sed quod ei signa in accusatione ejus concurrunt, propter quae in eum justam dat sententiam. Si objiciatur quod testes falsi sint, quibus convincitur, et accusatio falsa, quia de crimine sibi imposito non tenetur, dicimus quod accusatio vera et testes veri sunt, etsi criminis illius reus non sit; quia vera dicitur accusatio, id est irreprehensibilis, cum fiat ordine judiciario. Similiter dicimus quod Ecclesia damnat reum, licet crimen in eo non sit super quo accusatur, quia reum ibi convictum judiciario ordine accipimus.

QUAESTIO CCCXV. Dubia in meliorem partem vertenda sunt, ut dicit expositor. Quaeritur ergo quomodo [0508C] ambigua debemus in meliorem partem vertere: nam cum aeque ambigo de bono, an ipsum sit bonum, sicut de malo, an sit malum, non minus indiscrete agere videor judicando illud esse bonum, quam judicando esse malum; sed cum neutrum sit mihi definitum et certum, neutrum debeo definire: quomodo ergo intelligere debemus quod dicitur, ambigua in meliorem partem vertere? Solutio. Credere, judicare vel vertere, accipitur hic pro optare: hoc enim consulit Apostolus ut cum ambigua fieri videmus, ea bona intentione, et non mala fieri optemus: nam qua intentione fiant, cum id a nobis sciri non possit, non debemus judicare quod scire non possumus.

[0508D]QUAESTIO CCCXVI. Item expositor dicit: Qui malum putat malum, fallitur; sed qui malum putat bonum, non fallitur: nonne malum, esse malum est verum? et malum esse bonum, est falsum? Quomodo ergo qui putat id quod verum est fallitur, et qui putat id quod falsum est non fallitur? Solutio. Sine praejudicio melioris sententiae dicimus hoc esse sic intelligendum: Qui malum putat esse malum, fallitur, a cursu suo tardatur, quia eum contemnit et spernit, vel saltem eum minus diligit. Qui autem malum putat bonum, non fallitur, id est in via morum non offenditur, nec tardatur, quia in eo quod credit eum bonum, amplius eum diligit, et sic quodammodo errando proficit. Notandum quod sunt quaedam manifeste bona, quaedam manifeste mala [0509A] de quibus judicare licet, etsi nesciamus quo animo fiant. Sunt autem et media, quae bona et mala esse possunt, de quibus judicare periculosum est, et a Domino prohibitum: et haec in meliorem partem debemus vertere, ut dicit beatus Hieronymus: Si vides sacerdotem super mulierem manum levantem, dic quod ad benedicendum hoc facit. Quae auctoritas juxta superiorem expositionem intelligenda est. De bonis tamen manifestis raro judicare possumus, cum pene nulla justus facere possit, quae non faciat malus, ut miracula, signa, et hujusmodi. Jejunat, orat, et caetera hujusmodi, quae signa sunt boni. *Unusquisque in sensu suo abundet [n: (ibid.)]*, id est permittatur in conscientia sua, si non est ad mortem, ne gravius peccet ab ea revocatus.

[0509B]QUESTIO CCCXVII. *Omnes stabimus ante tribunal Christi,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus dicat: Stabimus omnes, cum alibi scriptum legatur: *Sedebitis super sedes duodecim, judicantes duodecim tribus Israel [n: (Matth. XIX)]*. Si sancti in hora judicii sedebunt, quomodo stabunt? vel si stabunt, quomodo sedebunt? Solutio. Stare dicuntur pro reverentia summi judicis, sedere dicuntur quasi et ipsi judicaturi.

QUAESTIO CCCXVIII. *Nihil commune nisi ei, qui existimat quid commune esse.* Videtur Apostolus innuere quantitatem reatus assignandam esse secundum quantitatem, et qualitatem conscientiae, ut si quis veniale peccatum credat mortale, contra conscientiam committens, ad mortem peccet: etiam [0509C] stramen levando de terra si levaverit conscientia dictante, id esse peccatum ad mortem. Et sic videtur hinc posse haberi omne peccatum, quod contra conscientiam est, esse ad mortem. Nam quicunque contra conscientiam suam agit, etiam veniale committendo, videtur Deum contemnere; quia se praeponit Deo. Solutio. In veniali peccato, quod sit contra conscientiam, alii peccant ad mortem, alii venialiter: nam si quis contra conscientiam committat sic veniale: quod credat se aeternaliter puniendum, si illud commiserit, ad mortem peccat, et Deum contemnit. Si autem ex infirmitate aliqua dictante sibi conscientia, quod pro eo non est damnandus, quamvis cum illo exierit, venialiter peccat; nec se [0509D] Deo praeponit, nec Deum contemnit. Si quis objiciat quod contra conscientiam peccat, et sic placet peccatum commissum, et sic ad mortem peccat; quia ad mortem peccat, testante auctoritate: *Omnis, cui placet peccatum,* etc. Solutio. Placere, pro in usum ducere accipitur: et quicunque aliquod veniale in usum ducit, reus est mortis, ut dicit Augustinus.

QUAESTIO CCCXIX. *Bonum est homini non manducare carnem, et non bibere vinum,* etc. Hieronymus contra Jovinianum hoc argumento utitur: Bonum est non bibere vinum, ergo malum est bibere: quod si malum est bibere vinum, peccat omnis, qui bibit vinum, et falsa videtur Apostoli sententia: *Scio, et confido in Domino Jesu, quia nihil est commune per ipsum [n: (Rom. XIV)]*. Solutio. Bibere vinum secundum [0510A] Hieronymum dicitur malum per occasionem, quia ex vini potatione facile nascitur luxuria: et est sensus argumentationis: si ex abstinentia vini malum vitatur, ex potatione vini facile occasio mali sumitur. Dicit ergo Apostolus: Bonum est homini non manducare, etc., id est, per abstinentiam carnium, vel vini, vel cujuslibet alterius cibi vitare ne proximus offendatur, bonum est. Item potuisset dixisse Apostolus de faba, et pisis, et similibus.

QUAESTIO CCCXX. *Omne, quod ex fide non est, peccatum est.* Quaeritur quomodo fides hic accipiatur, an pro judicio conscientiae, an pro fide catholica. Ideo considerandae sunt quaestiones secundum utramque sententiam. Omne igitur, quod fit contra fidem, id est judicium conscientiae, peccatum est. [0510B] Judicium conscientiae est, quo credimus aliquid faciendum propter Deum, contra quod non est faciendum, ut si quis etiam credat hominem interficiendum si possit: et si non fecerit, peccat etiam ad mortem, ut dicunt quidam. Aliis autem videtur non esse ad mortem, nisi ipse, qui hoc credit propter Deum faciendum esse, mortaliter se peccare putat, et non faciat.

QUAESTIO CCCXXI. Quaeritur igitur, cum iste hac intentione hominem justum occidat, cum hoc facere debeat, an hoc agendo mereatur? Quisquis enim pro Deo agit, quod pro Deo agendum putat, meretur, sed iste pro Deo agit, quod pro Deo agendum credit: ergo ex hoc meretur. Quod autem hoc agere debeat, inde constat; quia si dimittit, mortaliter [0510C] peccat. Solutio. Aliqui verisimiliter dicunt, quod hic se in arctum misit et ita sive procedat, sive recedat, labitur: ut si quis ante se ignem videat, retro praecipitium aquae sentiat, utrobique periculum incurrat. Aliis autem videtur, quod ibi duo sunt, error et zelus: quod autem erroris est, malum est; quod vero zeli, bonum est, et meritum habet. Est enim voluntas bona, id vero in quo exercetur, malum; in hoc itaque peccat, in illo meretur.

QUAESTIO CCCXXII. Omnis vita infidelium peccatum, ut dicit expositor. Sed nonne etiam infideles agunt quaedam bona ut agros seminare, domos aedificare, parentes pascere: quae etsi non sunt digna vita aeterna, tamen laudabilia sunt, et nullo modo [0510D] peccata: quomodo ergo omnis vita infidelium peccatum? Solutio. Infideles vocat contra fidem agentes, non fidem non habentes.

QUAESTIO CCCXXIII. Nunc autem aliam partem quaestionis prosequamur secundum quod fides pro fide catholica accipitur. Dicens itaque Apostolus: *Omne, quod ex fide non est, peccatum est [n: (Act. X)]*, videtur sentire, quod nullus non habens fidem aliquid faciat, quod sibi prosit: quod videtur non esse verum, cum Cornelius nondum habens fidem orans exauditus sit, et alibi scriptum sit: *Qui fideliter rem Babylonis administrant, merebuntur quandoque a Babylone liberari.* Solutio. Apostolus id intendit dicere quod nulli fidem non habenti prosit aliquid ad vitam aeternam consequendam, nisi ad fidem accedat: [0511A] imo secundum quosdam omnia tali etiam bona obsunt; quia malis admista bona nocere solent, et tanto magis offendit quis, quanto magis abutitur virtutibus. Unde Augustinus: Meliora minima bona sunt, quam maxima, cum admiscentur malis.

QUAESTIO CCCXXIV. Quaeritur hic, cum omne quod ex fide non est peccatum sit, an Judaeus peccet Christum esse Deum dicendo, cum coactus hoc dicat: hoc enim dicendo videtur mentiri, cum contra conscientiam loquatur; unde ad mortem peccare videtur id dicendo. Solutio. Non bene sonare videtur auribus fidelium, quod Judaeus dicendo Christum esse Deum ad mortem peccet; nec nos hoc dicimus, licet id quidam asserere videantur; quia mentiri est fari quod conscientiae judicium dictare [0511B] debet non esse dicendum. Vel mentiri est proprie dicere falsum cum intentione fallendi: unde ubi non est falsum, nec mendacium, potest tamen aliquis esse reus mendacii etiam verum dicendo. Nulla virtus vera est, nisi quae formatur agnitione aeternae veritatis; nec etiam in optimis moribus, ut in philosophis apparet, qui optimis moribus viguerunt, tamen falsa virtute nituerunt, quia aeternae veritatis caruerunt cognitione.

QUAESTIO CCCXXV. *Etenim Christus non sibi placuit. [n: (Rom. XV.)]* Quaeritur quomodo hoc sit intelligendum. Nonne una est voluntas Patris et ipsius Filii? quomodo ergo potuit placere Patri, et non sibi? Quod autem Patri in omnibus placuit, nemo est qui ambigat. Solutio. Non sibi placuit secundum [0511C] carnis infirmitatem, cujus afflictionem non respuit, juxta quod alibi dicit: *Non veni facere voluntatem meam [n: (Joan. VI)]*, id est, non venit implere affectum illum quem habuit a natura carnis, sed illum subjiciebat imperio rationis, quae ratio in omnibus divinae voluntati obediebat.

QUAESTIO CCCXXVI. *Gentes autem super misericordia,* etc. Deus quodammodo se promissione Judaeis alligavit; ad gentes vero sola misericordia transivit: utrumque tamen ex gratia fecit, et quod se illis promisit, et quod ad istos transivit. Dicitur tamen propter promissa Judaeis veritas; gentibus vero misericordia, quia sola gratia et non promissione Dei facta ad illas venit, et eas assumpsit.

## I. IN EPISTOLAM AD ROMANOS. (cont.)

[0511D]QUAESTIO CCCXXVII. Sed nonne promissio facta est gentibus, cum Dominus dicat in Osee: *Vocabo plebem meam non plebem meam [n: (Osee II)]*. Item Isaias: *Laetamini gentes cum plebe ejus [n: (Rom. XV)]*. Item: *Laetare sterilis, quae non paris [n: (Gal. IV)]*, etc. Solutio. Promissio non est facta gentibus, ita quod ad illas sit directa promissio non enim aliqua scripta eis data sunt de ipsa promissione. Vel non est eis facta promissio, quod Christus ad eas veniret, et in propria persona praedicaret: solum enim ad Judaeos venit, et eis praedicavit. Unde Apostolus dicit eum ministrum fuisse circumcisionis.

QUAESTIO CCCXXVIII. *Erit radix Jesse, et qui exsurget regere gentes,* etc. Quaeritur quare radix Jesse dicatur. Solutio. Quia David ab eo processit, [0512A] qui rex constitutus est, et potestate sua multos protexit, sicut arbor radicibus suis, vel ramis, et frondibus protegere solet.

QUAESTIO CCCXXIX. Quaeritur etiam qualis ista prophetia fuit, cum Isaias post mortem Jesse esse incoeperit? Nunquid enim prophetia futuro pro praeterito utitur, sicut e converso saepe? Solutio. Haec prophetia est de futuro, et est sensus: Erit radix Jesse, etc., id est Jesse dicetur radix, et ex ea radice erit qui exsurget, scilicet Christus.

QUAESTIO CCCXXX. *Proficiscar per vos in Hispaniam,* etc. Quaeritur an mentiebatur Apostolus, cum diceret per Roman se iturum in Hispaniam, et constet, quod tunc cum hoc diceret, illud non fecerit. Neque enim tunc Romam venit. In Hispaniam forsitan, [0512B] ut putat Hieronymus, navibus transvectus est: unde dicitur, Mare depraedabitur: quod pro solo Paulo dictum fuisse Hieronymus commemorat: nam Hispanos mari circumdatos diabolo depraedatus est, ad Christum convertendo. Solutio. Mentiri est, ut dicit Gregorius, falsum dicere intentione fallendi: quod quia Paulus non fecit, nec eum mentitum fuisse dicimus. Hoc enim dixit, quia se proficisci posse sperabat: verba tamen, quae dicebat, falsum significabant; non tamen secundum intentionem mentitus est: sic enim facere disposuerat, quia ita in re fore credebat.

QUAESTIO CCCXXXI. *Secundum revelationem mysterii temporibus aeternis taciti,* etc. [n: (Rom. XVI.)] [0512C] Quaeritur quomodo vocet tempora aeterna dicens, temporibus aeternis. Solutio. Tempora aeterna vocat omne id quod praecessit creationem mundi a creatione angelorum, ut volunt quidam. In quibus temporibus erat successio, non tamen decessio. Ideo miro modo erat quaedam immutabilitas ibi, et sic quaedam aeternitas; et quaedam mutabilitas, et sic quaedam temporalitas. Omnes tamen fere dicunt angelos non creatos ante mundi creationem. Ideo forsitan tempora aeterna vocat, ac si diceret quod mysterium fuit tacitum, et absconditum ab origine mundi.

QUAESTIO CCCXXXII. *Soli sapienti Deo,* etc. Quaeritur an per hoc nomen Deus hic intelligatur, Trinitas, an persona Patris. Solutio. Augustinus dicit [0512D] quod hoc nomen Trinitatis est, secundum quosdam nomen est Patris: sed secundum hoc videtur, quod solus Pater sit sapiens, quod est contra fidem, itaque sciendum, quod solus quandoque exclusivum est personae, quandoque naturae tantum.

QUAESTIO CCCXXXIII. Cum autem dicitur, Deus Trinitas, sapientia, sapiens, quaeritur qua sapientia, an ingenita, quae est Pater; an genita, quae est Filius; an sapientia a Patre et Filio procedente, quae est Spiritus sanctus; an sapientia, quae nec ingenita nec genita, nec procedens. Solutio. Hoc nomen Trinitas tantum significat, quantum tres personae, vel Pater, Filius et Spiritus sanctus: et Pater quidem sapiens est sapientia ingenita; Filius sapientia [0513A] genita; Spiritus sanctus sapientia procedente a Patre, et Filio. Et sapientia ingenita, et sapientia genita, [0514A] et procedens, non tres sapientiae, sed una naturaliter sapientia.

## II. IN EPISTOLAM I AD CORINTHIOS.

[0513]

[0513A]QUESTIO I. *Paulus vocatus Apostolus,* etc. [n: (I Cor. I.)] Haec Epistola, quae destinatur Corinthiis, non sicut in corpore epistolarum secundo loco disponitur, sic secundo loco ab Apostolo scripta est. Utraque enim epistola Corinthiis missa ante scripta est, quam [0513B] illa, quae est ad Romanos. Quod inde patet, quia in Epistola ad Romanos dicit, se Romam profecturum postquam collectam ab Achaicis factam pauperibus, qui sunt Hierosolymis, assignaverit. De qua collecta facienda in istis mentionem facit. Sed hoc non est factum sine rationali causa, quod illa ad Romanos in corpore epistolarum aliis praeponitur, sed propter dignitatem Romanorum. Vel potius quia in illa primum vitium tollitur et destruitur, quod est superbia. Corinthii vero ab Apostolo ad fidem conversi, sed postea multifariam a pseudoapostolis subversi et seducti, errabant in virtutibus sacramentorum, et maxime in virtute baptismatis, putantes ipsum a malo collatum, nullam habere virtutem, majorem a meliori, minorem a minus bono. [0513C] Minus etiam de Apostolo sentiebant, et contemptui habebant: qui in verbis humanae sapientiae ad eos non venerat, sed in simplicitate fidei propter parvulorum informationem. De resurrectione etiam non bene sentiebant, dicentes eam jam factam esse: aliqui etiam inter eos omnino negabant. Quidam etiam legem cum Evangelio quasi ad salutem necessariam tenere volebant. In conjugio etiam peccabant, sicut in multis aliis, et schismata faciebant: in quibus eos Apostolus corrigere intendit. Postquam enim in nobis superbia succisa est, restat ut etiam alia vitia succidamus. Ex his itaque apparet, quae sit hujus epistolae materia, quae intentio, quis modus et ordo agendi. Est autem specialis hujus [0513D] epistolae materia, status Corinthiorum, in quo tunc erant, cum eis scripsit Apostolus ab Epheso. Intentio vero est eos a contentionibus ad unitatem fidei revocare. Modus vero talis, quia instruit, corripit, confirmat, laudat secundum personarum qualitates. Ordo talis: salutationem more scribentium epistolas praemittit, ne in exordio eos increpasse videatur. Deinde de bonis praeponit, ut eis alii conformentur, et sic ad contentionem arguendam venit. Inchoat itaque a salutatione dicens, Paulus, nomine humilitatis utens contra superbiam; Apostolus, nomen est dignitatis et officii.

QUAESTIO II. *Per voluntatem Dei,* etc. Quaeritur quid hic vocet voluntatem Dei? Dicitur enim aliquando voluntas Dei ipsius consilium, aliquando [0514A] praeceptum, aliquando dispositio,, aliquando approbatio, aliquando permissio. Solutio. Voluntatem Dei vocat ipsius beneplacitum.

QUAESTIO III. *Gratia vobis, et pax a Deo.* Quaeritur quid sit gratia Dei? Solutio. Gratia Dei dicitur, [0514B] Deus gratis dans, et gratia id est inspiratio divina, scilicet operatio Dei, ex qua movetur animus ad diligendum Deum et proximum.

QUAESTIO IV. *Exspectantibus revelationem,* etc. Quaeritur utrum omni justo reveletur statim post mortem ejus de ejus salute. Videtur enim quod non: nam cum ista revelatio sit plena cognitio, quae est aeterna beatitudo, videtur si hoc concedatur, quod nullus sit in poenis purgatoriis: simul enim in poena, et gloria quis esse potest? Solutio. Perfecti statim ad cognitionem summi boni transeunt, in quo est aeterna beatitudo. Minus autem perfecti antequam ad aeternam beatitudinem perveniant, per poenas purgatorias transeunt, certi tamen de sua [0514C] tandem requie. Quod autem poenae purgatoriae sint, manifestat Augustinus, dicens: Mitissima poena purgatoria gravior est qualibet poena temporali, quae apud nos est: non possunt itaque simul esse poena et gloria in igne tali.

QUAESTIO V. Quaeritur quomodo sit intelligendum, quod legitur: *Tremebunt angeli in die judicii;* si enim tunc tremor erit in eis, quomodo beati? Solutio. Tremor iste notat venerationem superioris potentiae, non quod poena timoris possit ibi esse, ubi aeterna beatitudo. Notandum quod non omne peccatum mortale dicitur crimen, sed illud solum, quod est dignum accusatione et damnatione.

QUAESTIO VI. *In diem adventus Domini,* etc. Quaeritur an Dominus sit venturus in die ad judicium; [0514D] quia saepe tempus adventus ejus dies vocatur. Solutio. Tempus adventus Domini, dies nuncupatur non pro aeris illuminatione, sed pro occultorum revelatione: omnia enim quae modo latent, tunc patebunt. Nescitur vero an die, an nocte venturus sit? Non enim tamen nomine diei, ut supra, sed etiam nomine noctis designatur tempus judicii, ut in Evangelio scriptum est: *Media nocte clamor factus est, ecce sponsus venit [n: (Matth. XXV)]*; sed nox dicitur propter nimiam sui occultationem: dies judicii dicitur propter discretionem bonorum et malorum.

QUAESTIO VII. *Hoc autem dico, quod unusquisque vestrum dicit: Ego sum Pauli,* etc. Quaeritur an verum dicat Apostolus dicens, Hoc autem etc. cum [0515A] nullus eorum hoc diceret. Non enim in veris apostolis gloriabantur, sed in pseudo. Unde in sequenti dicturus est. *Haec autem, fratres, transfiguravi in me, et in Apollo [n: (I Cor. IV)]*. Solutio. Verum dicit Apostolus, et est sensus verborum: Hoc autem dico, quod unusquisque, etc., id est hoc, quod dico, simile est illi quod unusquisque vestrum dicit. Noluit autem illos, in quibus gloriabantur propriis designare vocabulis, ne videretur illis invidere; et ut in majoribus ostendat in minoribus non esse gloriandum.

QUAESTIO VIII. Dicit Augustinus quod potestatem baptizandi Christus sibi retinuit, quam, si vellet, servis suis dare potuit. Quaeritur igitur quae sit illa potestas, quam Christus sibi retinuit, et servis potuit [0515B] dare, et tamen non dedit. An sit potestas exterius corpora tingendi; sed hanc dedit apostolis, quibus ministerium baptizandi contulit; si autem potestatem baptizandi vocat interius animas abluendi, potestatem hanc solus Deus habere potest, cujus solius est se animabus infundere, et maculas peccatorum abstergere: quomodo ergo hanc servis suis dare potuit? Solutio. In responsione hujus quaestionis multi laborant, nescientes quid nomine potestatis Augustinus significaverit. Nos autem dicimus quod potestatem vocat dignitatem: qua invocatione nominis Christi, vel totius Trinitatis datur baptismus: quam dignitatem potuit dare servis suis praecipuis, ut eorum nomine designaretur baptismus, et diceretur baptismus Pauli, baptismus [0515C] Petri, et tantam vim haberet baptismus nominibus eorum designatus, quantam habet nomine ipsius Christi designatus: hanc tamen eis dare noluit, ne quis spem poneret in homine.

QUAESTIO IX. *Aut in nomine Pauli baptizati estis,* etc. Quid in nomine Pauli sit baptizari, solet quaeri. Solutio. In nomine Pauli non sunt baptizati fideles; quia illi, qui baptizantur, non jubentur credere in Paulum, sed in Christum, nec nomen Pauli invocatur super eos vel super elementum, ut fiat sacramentum, sed nomen Christi qui solus baptizat in Spiritu.

QUAESTIO X. *Ne in sapientia verbi evacuaretur crux Christi.* Quaeritur quomodo per sapientiam verbi [0515D] evacuaretur crux Christi. Solutio. Sapientia mundi, quae dicitur sapientia verbi, quia nulla virtute, sed sola verborum compositione commendatur, opinatur naturale ingenium ad cognoscendum, et liberum arbitrium sufficere ad recte vivendum. quod si esset, crux Christi evacuaretur, id est Christus gratis mortuus esset.

QUAESTIO XI. *Perdam sapientiam,* etc. Nonne omnis sapientia a Deo? quomodo ergo dicitur: Perdam sapientiam *sapientium?* Nunquid Deus id, quod ab ipso est, perdit? Solutio. Sapientia ipsorum in ipsis non est sapientia Dei; quoniam eam sibi ascribunt, et ea abutuntur: unde dum summa comprehendere putant, evanescunt in cogitationibus suis, et sic ex eorum sapientia damnationem sibi incurrunt. Falsa [0516A] itaque opinio eorum, qua credebant Deum non posse aliquid facere contra solitum cursum naturae, et qua opinati sunt liberum arbitrium sufficere ad salutem, sapientia sapientium vocatur a propheta, quam Deus destruit faciendo contra eam, secundum rationes superiores, operando salutem nostram in medio terrae.

QUAESTIO XII. *Mundus per sapientiam non cognovit Deum.* Quaeritur quomodo hoc sit verum quod hic dicit, cum alibi scriptum sit de sapientibus mundi: *Cum cognovissent Deum, non sicut Deum glorificaverunt [n: (Rom. I)]*: quomodo utrumque est verum, mundus non cognovit, et cum cognovissent Deum? etc. Solutio illud: Cum cognovissent Deum, etc., intelligitur de possibilitate cognoscendi. Hoc autem [0516B] mundus non cognovit Deum, de actu cognitionis accipitur. Vel potius illud, cum cognovissent Deum, de paucis sapientibus et excellentioribus intelligitur. Hoc autem, mundus non cognovit, de omnibus, vel majori parte exponitur. Unde hic dicit mundus: quo nomine universitas, vel major pars intelligi solet. Vel mundus, id est sapientes mundi, et si Deum cognovissent secundum opera restaurationis, in potentia, non in pietate; in majestate, non in humilitate. Notandum esse theophanias in creaturis, id est divinas apparitiones, ut in mundo, cujus magnitudo summam Dei potentiam demonstrat; plenitudo vero vel pulchritudo mundi, Dei sapientiam demonstrat; utilitas autem mundi, benignitatem Dei insinuat: in potentia Pater, in sapientia Filius, in [0516C] benignitate Spiritus sanctus intelligitur

QUAESTIO XIII. *Qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur,* etc. Quaeritur quid sit in se, vel ex se gloriari. Solutio. In se, vel ex se gloriatur, qui esse putat ex se, quod ex Deo est, et ideo laudem sibi attribuit, qui quantum in se est, Deo aufert quod suum est: solus enim Deus auctor bonorum est. Unde consequens est, quod quicunque dicit aliquid boni esse ex se, quodammodo se facit Deum. In se etiam gloriatur, qui licet sciat esse a Deo quod habet, tamen finem illius, quem deberet ad Deum referre, ad se retorquet.

QUAESTIO XIV. Quaeritur etiam quid sit in Domino gloriari. Solutio. In Domino gloriatur, qui sola gratia [0516D] Dei se dignum gloria arbitratur.

QUAESTIO XV. *Et ego non veni ad vos in sublimitate sermonis, aut sapientiae,* etc. [n: (I Cor. II.)] Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus dicat, se non venisse ad Corinthios in sapientia, sed praedicasse eis Christum, et hunc crucifixum: tanquam minus difficile sit ad intelligendum, quod Deus in carne assumptus mortuus sit, quam Deum esse in essentia unum, et trinum in personis? Solutio. In Christo duae sunt naturae, humana et divina: quae vero sunt secundum naturam humanam, magis nobis affinia sunt quam illa, quae secundum naturam divinam sunt: quare a nobis facilius creduntur et intelliguntur. Ea vero quae secundum divinam naturam, ut de tribus personis, et eadem essentia et hujusmodi, remotiora [0517A] sunt, et ideo ad intelligendum difficiliora. Unde bene dixit se non venisse ad eos in sapientia cum de morte Christi eis dissereret; quia illa minora, et non illa sublimiora praedicavit.

## II. IN EPISTOLAM I AD CORINTHIOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XVI. Nonne ad hoc, ut aliquis sit perfectus, exigitur ut Deum unum et trinum credat? et sic videtur Apostolus imperfectam doctrinam illis tradidisse, non praedicans illa sublimiora, et sic decepisse. Solutio. Fides duobus modis dicitur, vel quando simpliciter proponitur quid credendum sit: vel quando discretio eorum, quae creduntur, distincte ostenditur, quid credendum sit, et qualiter, et quare. Sic autem Apostolus generaliter sine discretione singulorum articulorum, proposuit eis quid credere deberent. Sic enim oportet in primis [0517B] credentes initiare, postea proficientes perficere.

QUAESTIO XVII. *Sapientiam loquimur inter perfectos.* Quaeritur quos vocet perfectos hic Apostolus. Sunt enim alii perfecti in fide, et cognitione; alii perfecti in cognitione, et minus in fide; alii perfecti in fide, et minus in cognitione. In fide et cognitione perfecti sunt, ut apostoli; in cognitione perfecti, et minus in fide, ut quidam clerici, qui minus constantes sunt in fide quam rustici; in fide et non cognitione, ut complures rustici, qui parum de cognitione attigerunt, et tamen perfecte credunt. Solutio. Videtur nobis, quod sapientiam loquebatur Apostolus inter perfectos cognitione, quia illi, qui sola fide sunt perfecti, videntur incapaces altiorum: tamen merito fidelibus talibus saepe multa revelantur: [0517C] et ideo secundum quosdam perfectis fide loquitur.

QUAESTIO XVIII. *Neque principum hujus saeculi quae destruitur [qui destruuntur].* Quaeritur quomodo sapientia philosophorum destruatur, cum ipsa videatur esse comprehensio veritatis. Solutio. Destruitur, cum falsa vel nulla esse demonstratur: putabant enim, ut jam dictum est, quod Deus nil contra naturam facere posset. Itaque inter magna, et multa, quae vere comprehenderunt, multa falsa asserebant, et illam veritatem, quam ex Deo habuerunt, non Deo, sed sibi attribuerunt, unde sapientia eorum versa est in tenebras.

QUAESTIO XIX. *Quam nemo principum hujus saeculi.* Quaeritur primo quos vocet principes saeculi? Solutio. Vel sapientes mundi, vel daemones, vel etiam [0517D] legisperitos.

QUAESTIO XX. Quaeritur ergo secundo quomodo verum sit, quod nullus daemonum eum cognoverit, cum scriptum sit de illis, qui dicebant: *Jesu fili David, quid venisti ante tempus torquere nos? [n: (Matth. VIII.)]* Et iterum: *Et erant multa daemonia exeuntia, et clamantia, quoniam hic est Filius Dei, et non sinebat ea loqui; quoniam sciebant eum Filium esse Dei [n: (Marc I)]*. Solutio. Dicti sunt daemones scivisse propter suam existimationem: qui potius existimabant Deum esse Christum quam veraciter scirent: sic enim Deus diabolum semper dubium reliquit, ut semper post humilia aliqua alta faceret, et post sublimia ad humilia rediret: unde post illud insigne [0518A] miraculum de Lazaro, cum diabolus prorsus putaret Deum esse, permisit se capi, ligari, flagellari: Unde iterum diabolus purum hominem eum esse arbitrabatur; sed ipso jam ducto ad praesidem, et ipsis Judaeis in malo confirmatis aliquo modo ei revelatum est, quod per eum jus suum perderet, et persuadere voluit Pilato per uxorem, ut eum dimitteret.

QUAESTIO XXI. Item quaeritur tertio de Judaeis quomodo verum sit, quod eum non cognoverunt, cum de eis scriptum sit in parabola evangelica: *Ecce haeres; venite, occidamus eum [n: (Marc. XII)]*. Et alibi: *Quia per invidiam tradiderunt eum [n: (Matth. XXVII)]*: sed si cognoverunt, et tamen occiderunt, incredibilis crudelitas in eis fuit. Item, si sciebant eum esse Deum, sciebant eum immortalem, et sic non posse [0518B] mori: quomodo ergo ejus mortem quaerebant, si ipsum non posse mori sciebant? Solutio. Dicunt quidam Judaeos cognovisse Christum, quod negare non potuerunt. Vel in veritate aliqui eorum cognoverunt ipsum esse illum qui in lege et prophetis promissus erat. Non autem ipsum esse Deum credebant, quod tamen eum, quem sciebant esse justum, occiderunt, invidia erat. Cujus est talis natura, ut contra sua bona quaerat aliena incommoda: divini ergo consilii dispensationem penitus ignoraverunt.

QUAESTIO XXII. *Ut sciamus, quae donata sunt nobis.* Quaeritur quid sit scire ea, quae data sunt nobis. Solutio. Scire a quo sunt data, et non esse ingratum datori: ille enim dicitur vere habere qui scit unde habet: ille non habere, qui nescit unde habeat, et ingratus [0518C] est ei, a quo habet: nemo enim donis Dei est beatus, qui danti est ingratus.

QUAESTIO XXIII. *Spiritualibus spiritualia comparantes.* Quaeritur quos vocet spirituales: alii enim vita, et non intelligentia sunt perfecti; alii intelligentia, et non vita. Solutio. Quos superius perfectos nuncupavit, hic dicit spirituales.

QUAESTIO XXIV. Quaeritur quem dicat animalem. Est enim animalis secundum vitam, et secundum intelligentiam. Solutio. Terrenae sapientiae intentum vocat animalem, qui terrena considerans, quae Dei sunt stulta reputat.

QUAESTIO XXV. *Spiritalis vero omnia discernit, quae ad salutem sunt necessaria, et ipse a nemine judicatur. [0518D] Nequit enim animalis intelligere, quid faciat, vel quare.* Opponitur. Petrus a Paulo est reprehensus, ergo spiritalis a spiritali judicatur. Solutio. Spiritalis a nemine judicatur, id est, damnabilis, et damnatione dignus a nullo ostenditur: licet enim in aliquo peccet, non tamen hoc damnabile est illi.

QUAESTIO XXVI. *Non potui vobis loqui quasi spiritualibus,* etc. [n: (I Cor. II)]. Nonne Apostolus spiritalis erat tam vita quam scientia, et sic potuit loqui spiritualia, quod et faciebat? Unde superius: *Sapientiam inter perfectos loquimur [n: (I Cor. II)]*, quomodo ergo dicit, Non potui vobis loqui tanquam spiritalibus? Solutio. Non hoc dicit, quin facultatem docendi majora intrinsecus haberet, sed quia ipsi congrui auditores non erant, saepe tamen permistis perfectis [0519A] et imperfectis eadem dicuntur, etsi non eodem modo intelligantur.

QUAESTIO XXVII. *Ego plantavi, Apollo rigavit, sed Deus nunc incrementum dedit.* Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus dividat inter se, et Deum, et Apollo, cum Paulus, vel Apollo nil faciat, nisi ex Deo et per Deum, et sic quidquid vel Paulus, vel Apollo operatur, et Deus operetur. Solutio. Dividit Apostolus, ut ostendat quid Deus per ipsum Paulum, et per Apollo, et per se operatur: Apostolus enim praedicando ad fidem Christi operabatur, quod et Deus fecit per Paulum. Frustra enim Apostolus extra loqueretur, nisi Spiritus sanctus intus esset, operando, et mentem moveret.

QUAESTIO XXVIII. *Qui rigat, et qui plantat, unum [0519B] sunt.* Quaeritur quomodo unum, cum sint tam in substantia quam in accidenti divisi? Solutio. Unum sunt, id est indifferentes. Neque enim Paulus plus confert ex eo quod Pauli est, quam Apollo ex eo quod Apollo est. In collatione enim donorum non plus facit iste quam ille: solus enim Deus dona confert, plus tamen laborat Paulus quam Apollo, et majus donum confertur per officium Pauli quam Apollo, quia per fidem, quae ex praedicatione est, venit ad baptismum. Vel per sacramenta ipsa non plus confertur ex isto quam ex illo, vel per hunc quam per illum.

QUAESTIO XXIX. *Dei enim sumus adjutores,* etc. Nunquid Deus indiget aliquo? Quomodo ergo apostoli erant adjutores Dei. Solutio. Ideo dicti sunt adjutores Dei, quia per illos operatur Deus, licet illud [0519C] idem per se operari posset.

QUAESTIO XXX. *Ut sapiens architectus fundamentum posui,* etc. Quaeritur quid dicat fundamentum. Solutio. Fidem Christi, quae per dilectionem operatur, quam consecuti sunt ex praedicatione ipsius Pauli: hoc fundamento manente, nemo perire potest, licet aliquae maculae adhaereant, quae per ignem purgantur. Quamvis enim hic aliqua mundana desiderio possederunt, haec Deo tamen non praetulerunt, sed Deum omnibus. Deum autem praeferre omnibus est, si daretur optio vel electio moriendi vel Christum negandi, malle mori quam Christum negare. Super hoc fundamentum alius id, alius illud aedificat.

QUAESTIO XXXI. Quaeritur, quid per *lignum, fenum, [0519D] et stipulam intelligatur?* Solutio. Dicunt quidam quod per haec tria intelligitur peccatum veniale: sed haec quomodo super hoc fundamentum aedificant, cum potius quodlibet peccatum pertineat ad destructionem quam ad aedificationem. Item quomodo haec aedificans salvus erit quasi per ignem, cum fides sine operibus mortua sit. Item *si quis habuerit omnem fidem, ita ut montes transferat, charitatem non habeat, nihil prodest [n: (I Cor. XIII)]*: ergo si non est salus sine charitate quomodo potest aliquis salvari, sola haec tria, super hoc fundamentum aedificans?

QUAESTIO XXXII. Aliter alii dicunt quod per lignum, fenum, stipulam intelliguntur bona opera, sed imperfecta. Secundum quam sententiam quaeritur quomodo bonum opus sit arsurum, vel quomodo [0520A] detrimentum patiatur? Solutio. Non opus bonum, quia bonum; sed quia imperfectum a sua imperfectione purgabitur, et praecipue quibusdam affectionibus carnalibus, quas habent talium aedificatores, quae videntur peccata venialia esse.

QUAESTIO XXXIII. *Omnia vestra sunt; vos autem Christi; Christus autem Dei,* etc. Quaeritur secundum quam naturam nos sumus Christi, hoc est, an ipsius sumus secundum humanam naturam, an secundum divinam. Solutio. Potest dici quod ipsius sumus non solum secundum naturam divinam, secundum quam noster est Creator, sed etiam ipsius sumus secundum humanam naturam, secundum quam est noster Redemptor; ipse autem secundum utramque naturam Dei Patris est, a quo habet quidquid [0520B] habet; sed aliter et aliter: secundum enim quod Deus est, habet per naturam omnia, quae Patris sunt; et omnia eadem habet secundum quod est homo, sed per gratiam: haec est norma rectae fidei.

QUAESTIO XXXIV. *Nihil mihi conscius sum,* etc. [n: (I Cor. IV)]. Quaeritur quomodo dicat Apostolus se sibi in nullo conscium esse, et tamen in hoc non justificatum esse: et Joannes in Epistola sua dicat: *Si non reprehenderit nos conscientia nostra, jam fiduciam habemus ad Deum [n: (I Joan. III)]*. Et ipse Paulus alibi: *Gloria nostra haec est, testimonium conscientiae nostrae [n: (II Cor. I)]*: quare nos justos esse debemus putare, et inde gloriam nos habere, si nos non reprehendat conscientia nostra. Quae est enim major perfectio justitiae, quam tam puram conscientiam [0520C] habere? Solutio. Potest aliquid semper nos latere: ideoque ad hoc quod veram justitiam habeamus, non sufficit, quod conscientia nostra nos non remordeat: tamen gloriari inde possumus, quod nostra conscientia munda est, et pura.

## II. IN EPISTOLAM I AD CORINTHIOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XXXV. Item quaeritur, quomodo Apostolus non esset sibi conscius, cum sciret se non esse sine peccato. Unde Joannes: *Si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, mendaces sumus, et veritas in nobis non est [n: (I Joan. I)]*. Et puer, cujus vita est unius diei super terram [n: (Job II)], non sit sine peccato. Unde ipse ait: *Et facio quod nolo [n: (Rom. VII)]*. Solutio. Apostolus tantae perfectionis erat, quod quidquid conscientia sua sibi dictabat esse faciendum, [0520D] hoc faciebat. Unde si quandoque ut homo, vel per ignorantiam, vel subreptionem, vel fragilitatem peccasset, totum sicut stipulam vis divinae dilectionis consumpsit.

QUAESTIO XXXVI. *Nolite ante tempus judicare,* etc. Aliud est judicare de ambiguis, quod est prohibitum, quia damnabile: aliud est suspicari, quod est humanae infirmitatis, qua nemo forsitan caret. Sed cum Apostolus prohibeat judicare, et ipse Dominus idem in Evangelio prohibeat, quid est quod alibi Dominus dicit: *Attendite a falsis prophetis, qui veniunt ad vos in vestimentis ovium [n: (Matth. VII)]*. Qualiter etiam discerni possunt, ipse subdit, dicens: *A fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos [n: (ibid.)]*. Hinc videtur innuere quod de talibus debeamus judicare. Solutio. [0521A] Aliud est malos discernere, ut caveantur; aliud judicare damnatione dignos: quos nescimus definite an sint boni an mali.

QUAESTIO XXXVII. Item, quomodo falsi prophetae possint ex operibus discerni, quaeritur, cum omnia eadem faciant, quae et boni: per fructus enim opera intelliguntur. Solutio. Virtute perseverantiae probantur, et discernuntur falsi a veris.

QUAESTIO XXXVIII. Quaeritur an verum sit quod dicit Apostolus: *Jam saturati estis [n: (I Cor. IV)]*, cum ironice loquatur: quod non videtur, cum contrarium sit verum. Solutio. Quoties tale genus locutionis advenerit, quantum ad superficiem vocis, et primam significationem locutionis, falsum est quod dicitur: ipse tamen, qui loquitur, non mentitur; [0521B] sed potius verum dicit, quod contigit ex natura tropi.

QUAESTIO XXXIX. *Non ut confundam vos.* Nonne bonum est facere verbo, ut peccator confundatur, et erubescat de culpa sua, et sic corrigatur: quomodo ergo dicit Apostolus: Non *hoc dico,* ut confundam vos? Solutio. Confusio est duplex. Est confusio, quae ad mortem est, ex qua pejores efficiuntur aliqui, et est confusio, quae est correctionis, cum erubescit ex correctione de peccatis, ut amplius abstineat homo.

QUAESTIO XL. *Veniam ad vos in virga, an in charitate?* Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus dividat, dicens, an in virga, an in charitate. Solutio. Nomen charitas, hic ex adjuncto restringitur circa suavia et delectabilia, [0521C] quae ex charitate fiunt; quandoque autem charitas omnia significat, spera, et suavia, quae ad salutem pertinent.

QUAESTIO XLI. Dicit expositor quod illis, qui puniuntur per poenam illatam, minuitur peccatum: sed quaeritur quomodo hoc sit verum, cum inviti poenam illatam sustineant, et in hoc sint contrarii justitiae, et sic magis peccent, et sic peccatum eorum augetur in hoc, quod puniuntur. Solutio. Potest de talibus dici, quod saltem peccata, in quae caderent, si amplius viverent, per poenam, quam patiuntur vitant: si enim voluntarie poenam sustinerent, etiam peccatum jam commissum dimitteretur.

[n: (I COR. V)]. *Judicavi tradere hujusmodi hominem [0521D] Satanae,* etc. Ex hoc loco Apostoli accipit Ecclesia sententiam anathematis, id est separationis; fit autem separatio nunc de notis personis, et manifestis, nunc de ignotis; sed sive de his, sive de illis, prius provocandi coram Ecclesia sunt. Quidam etiam diutius exspectandi, et saepius admonendi secundum personarum, et peccatorum diversitatem et qualitatem, ut si rex per cujus iram strages imminet Ecclesiae. Postquam vero separati fuerint, si noti sunt nullo modo communicandum est eis: si ignoti, si communicet quis ignoranter, non peccat; si vero suspicetur, si sine scandalo vitare possit, vitet; si non potest, communicet. Haec autem vindicta debet fieri causa communis utilitatis, et ejus, et aliorum.

[0522A]QUAESTIO XLII. Quaeritur ergo, an excommunicare aliquem, bonum sit, quod videtur, quia justum. Solutio. Bonum, id est expediens est, non tamen in se, et ex qualitate sui bonum est: cum autem tale quid dicitur justum, sic intelligitur, id est pro merito retributum, non quod sit qualitate justitiae informatum.

QUAESTIO XLIII. Similiter an esse excommunicatum sit bonum, quaeritur. Solutio. Juxta rationem praedictam videtur esse bonum, quia non solum caeteris, sed etiam illi, excommunicatio videtur expedire: si enim resisteret admonitioni Ecclesiae, peccaret.

QUAESTIO XLIV. Quaeritur autem, si contingat illum excommunicari, qui non meruit, sed odio vel [0522B] invidia praelati percutitur quis sententia excommunicationis, utrum debeat resistere, an cedere. Solutio. Si sine scandalo resistere potest, resistat, et tumorem sui praelati bono zelo reprimat; si sine scandalo non potest, cedat, et pro Deo patienter sustineat: unde sententia praelati semper timenda, non semper tenenda. Cum aliquis excommunicatur, in potestatem traditur Satanae, ut ejus carnem vexet, ut sic tandem resipiscat: nec tamen semper Satanas vexat. Callidus enim hostis uni parcit, ut multos acquirat, vel ut ipsum sibi conservet.

QUAESTIO XLV. *Expurgate velus fermentum,* etc. Quaeritur quid vocet vetus fermentum? Solutio. Inanem gloriationem, vel vitae vetustatem, quae per [0522C] novitatem vitae est purganda.

QUAESTIO XLVI. *Non possunt tales Christo lucrari,* etc. De glossa hoc est. Quaeritur: Cum humana mens sit prona ad malum magis quam ad bonum, et maxime cum suadetur ei ad consueta redire, quare Apostolus conversis nuper ad fidem concessit mensam, et colloquium cum gentibus habere commune, cum facilius Christiani ad idololatriam suasione gentilium accederent, quam gentiles Christianorum admonitione ad fidem? Solutio. In primitiva Ecclesia conversi ad fidem charitate ferventes non facile poterant a fundamento avelli: quod Apostolus cognoscens, ei consortium tantum concessit gentilium.

QUAESTIO XLVII. *Si is, qui frater nominatur inter [0522D] vos, est fornicator,* etc. Cum tanta multitudo sit modo in Ecclesia, quaeritur an contra praeceptum Apostoli faciamus, cum cibum sumimus cum talibus: an omnes tales ab Ecclesia sint ejiciendi, et falce anathematis praecidendi. Solutio. Ita quidem esset faciendum, si posset fieri sine scandalo: sed tamen quia tanti, et tot potius schisma facerent, quia correctionem et emendationem respuunt, tolerantur: et ideo nihil aliud restat, nisi ut Rachel ploret filios suos. Notandum quod fornicationum alia est corporalis, alia spiritualis: corporalis est omnis usus illorum membrorum praeter legitimum; spiritualis est, quae a Deo animam separat, et tanquam sponsam sponso aufert.

QUAESTIO XLVIII. *An nescitis quoniam sancti de hoc [0523A] mundo judicabunt? [n: (I Cor. VI.)]* Hic ostendit Apostolus, quod licet sanctis de rebus saecularibus judicare: sed si hoc est, quomodo postea subjungit: *jam omnino delictum in vobis, quod judicia habetis inter vos [n: (Ibid.)]*: si licet judicare, quomodo hoc delictum est? Solutio. Licet sanctis causas habere sub disciplina, sed non licet inter se contendere.

QUAESTIO XLIX. Quaeritur quomodo hoc verum sit, quod liceat sua repetere, cum Dominus dicat: *Si quis abstulerit tibi tua, noli repetere? [n: (Luc VI.)]* Solutio. Sua repetere etsi non sit malum, tamen est occasio mali: ideo Dominus consulit non repetere sua propter contentiones vitandas. Hoc est quod Apostolus ait: *Omnia mihi licent, sed non omnia expediunt [n: (I Cor. X)]*.

[0523B]QUAESTIO L. Quaeritur qualiter sancti in futuro sint judicaturi? et dicitur non solum melioris facti comparatione, sed etiam auctoritate et potestate. Unde non immerito quaeritur quae sit illa potestas, quia scriptum est: *Pater non judicat quemquam, sed omne judicium dedit Filio [n: (Joan. V)]*. Solutio. Sicut dicit Daniel: *Sedit judicium, et aperti sunt libri scilicet aeternarum rationum, secundum quas fiet judicium, et libri conscientiarum, de quibus fiet judicium [n: (Dan. VII)]*. His libri aeternarum rationum, et conscientiarum erunt aperti, et manifesti iis, qui cum Domino sunt judicaturi. Et haec occultorum revelatio secundum quosdam est eorum potestas, et auctoritas: secundum alios ideo dicti sunt sancti cum Domino judicaturi: quia eorum comparatione mali [0523C] damnabiles apparebunt. Unde quod judicabunt sancti nationes, legitur.

QUAESTIO LI. Quaeritur an sit praeceptum, an consilium, an permissio, hoc quod dicit de judiciis? Est autem consilium de summis, ut illud: *De virginibus praeceptum non habeo; consilium autem do [n: (I Cor. VII)]*. Praeceptum de mediis, ut: *Non occides, non adulterabis [n: (Exod. XX)]*, etc., permissio de infimis, ut de cibo sumendo. Videtur autem quod sit praeceptum: si enim mea non repeto, illum in errore foveo, qui abstulerit: quare causa utilitatis communis debeo repetere: quare ex praecepto repeto; quia omne malum ex praecepto fugiendum est. Solutio. Permissio est repetere; consilium autem non repetere. Apostolus ergo ostendit quid licet infirmis; [0523D] Dominus autem ostendit quid conveniat perfectis, scilicet non repetere: contendere autem, et lites exercere ante judicem, praecipue infidelem, omnino delictum est.

QUAESTIO LII. *Qui adhaeret meretrici, unum corpus efficitur.* Quaeritur de hac unitate quae sit, et secundum quid sit intelligenda. Solutio. Notat quod tales non solum unum corporali sunt conjunctione, sed in libidinis ardore, et hoc turpissimum est, sic unum corpus effici cum meretrice, qui unus spiritus deberet esse adhaerens Deo.

QUAESTIO LIII. *Erunt enim,* inquit, *duo in carne una.* Quaeritur quomodo hanc auctoritatem, quae est de illa conjugali copula, quae sancta est, inducat [0524A] Apostolus ad hanc turpem copulam ostendendam, quae est inter fornicantem et meretricem, cum nullo modo illa, quae ibi est copula, hoc esse possit. Solutio. Sensus est: Si in illa copula conjugali unum corpus efficitur amborum, multo magis haec una caro efficitur propter majorem vitii delectationem.

QUAESTIO LIV. *Portate Deum,* etc. Quid est Deum portare? Solutio. Sobrie, et juste, et pie vivere. Deum ergo portant qui in ipso bene vivunt: hoc enim est ejus imaginem et formam justitiae induere, sicut Deum conculcant, qui male vivendo eum negant; deponunt vero Deum, qui in charitate tepescunt et laxiores ac remissiores efficiuntur.

## II. IN EPISTOLAM I AD CORINTHIOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO LV. Dicit glossa: Gravius est in Deum peccare quam in proximum; sed nonne qui in proximum [0524B] peccant, Deum offendunt? quomodo ergo distinguitur et hoc, et illud? Solutio. In Deum peccare, est per contemptum in his rebus, quae ad ipsum specialiter pertinent, ut in sacramentis, et fide, et similibus Deum offendere. In proximum peccare, est ipsum aliqua injuria laedere, quod est minus grave quam primum. Vel in Deum peccare, est interius mentem violare. In proximum, exterius hominem verbo vel exemplo laedere: non ergo omnis, qui eum offendit, in Deum peccare dicitur.

QUAESTIO LVI. *De quibus autem scripsistis mihi,* etc. [n: (I Cor. VII.)] De conjugio tripliciter agit, secundum praeceptum, secundum permissionem, secundum consilium, quae singula diligens lector in suis locis distinguat. Quid sit conjugium videndum est, [0524C] quae causa efficiens, quae causa propter quam contrahitur, quae sint legitimae personae, et quae sint bona conjugii. Est itaque conjugium vel matrimonium maritalis conjunctio maris et feminae, inter legitimas personas individualem vitae consuetudinem retinens. Haec definitio tantum conjugio convenit fidelium. Secundum alios: Conjugium est potestas legitime commiscendi, et ex legitimo consensu contracta. Causa efficiens est consensus materialis per verba de praesenti expressus. Consensus, qui in anima est, coram Ecclesia debet demonstrare, sine quo non est conjugium, unde legitur: Matrimonium non facit copula corporum, sed voluntas animarum. Causa propter quam contrahitur, est procreatio [0524D] prolis, et vitatio fornicationis. Legitimae personae sunt: quas non impedit vel votum continentiae, vel sanguis, vel ordo, vel dispar cultus, vel conditio, vel frigiditas naturae. Tria sunt bona conjugii: Fides, proles, sacramentum scilicet inseparabilitas, quae duplex est, sacramenti et ipsius matrimonii: hoc enim bonum tertium scilicet sacramentum non ipsum est conjugium, licet ipsum sit sacramentum, sicut et illud: sed utrum ejusdem rei utrumque sit, potest quaeri quod hic solvere postponimus causa brevitatis, cujus vestigia sequimur: in sacramentis enim et sententiis majorum, haec diligentius prosequimur.

QUAESTIO LVII. *Haec autem dico secundum indulgentiam.* Quaeritur quid sit, vel vocetur indulgentia? [0525A] Solutio. Indulgentia est concessio laxioris vitae; quam licitum sit, quod esset illicitum et peccatum, ubi nulla concessio esset. Commistio enim carnalis viri et feminae peccatum esset, nisi statum conjugatorum suscepisset, et sic per concessionem illicitum fit licitum, quae solet fieri causa gravioris peccati vitandi.

QUAESTIO LVIII. *Volo autem omnes vos esse sicut meipsum.* Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus dicat se velle omnes castos, cum sciret quod Deus non vult? si enim hoc esset, quomodo generis humani fieret propagatio? Solutio. Conditio est implicita quasi dicat volo, et bonum est, vel mihi placeret omnes tales esse: forsitan si omnes boni essent, qui modo sunt, de illis impleretur numerus praedestinatorum.

[0525B]QUAESTIO LIX. *Vir non dimittat,* etc. Quaeritur an vir uxorem dimittere possit, si convicta de adulterio fuerit? Solutio. Potest eam dimittere. Item, an ille, vel illa altero vivente alii copulari possit, quaeritur. Dicunt quidam, quod non potest.

QUAESTIO LX. Quaeritur an conjugium maneat adhuc scilicet post divortium; si maneat, tunc vir habet potestatem corporis suae uxoris, et e converso. Solutio. Manet, et potestatem habet; sed non potest uti hac potestate, nisi reconciliatio facta fuerit.

QUAESTIO LXI. Quaeritur au inter infideles, vel inter fidelem et infidelem sit matrimonium: quod non videtur, cum scriptum sit: quod nullum conjugium, quod in Deo factum non fuerit, ratum sit. Solutio. [0525C] Dicunt, quod conjugium est inter infideles, ut inter Priamum et Hecubam, et inter Philippum et Herodiadem. Unde Joannes arguebat Herodem de adulterio; quia non licet ei habere uxorem fratris sui [n: (Matth. XIV)]: quod si ibi fuit adulterium et conjugium, ut dicit Chrysostomus.

QUAESTIO LXII. *Quod si infidelis discedit, discedat.* Quaeritur, si inter fidelem et infidelem est conjugium, quomodo Apostolus dicat: *Si voluerit discedere, discedat infidelis, et fidelis, alteri copuletur [n: (I Cor. VII)]*, cum superius dicat, quod dimissa innupta maneat: si enim verum conjugium, quomodo solvi potest? si non est conjugium, quomodo persuadet simul manere, cum omnis copula praeter legitimam sit fornicaria? Solutio. Fidelis potestatem habet [0525D] in corpore infidelis, sed non e converso; quia, sicut legitur, injuria Creatoris solvit jus matrimonii: fidelis ergo potest manere, et discedere. Quia etiam debitum illud, quod debuit, ante solutum est; sed potestatem quam habuit, non amisit. Infidelis vero discedens, si alii se conjunxerit, adulterium committit.

QUAESTIO LXIII. De conjugiis antiquorum solet quaeri, an vera essent conjugia, quomodo unus plures uxores habens ad singulas lege maritali se habebat. Quomodo erat legitimus ibi consensus, individualem vitae consuetudinem retinens. Solutio. Dicunt quidam quod non erant conjugia, sed vicem conjugii obtinebant. Alii vero dicunt, vera conjugia fuisse inter aliquos, et esse inter Judaeos et infideles: [0526A] qui enim dicit, quod talium conjugium non est ratum, non negat esse conjugium, sed non esse ratum asserit.

QUAESTIO LXIV. Quaeritur an majus bonum sit conjugium quam virginitas. Et videtur quod sic; quia majores angustiae, et dolores, et labores sunt in conjugio quam in virginitate, et merces unicuique secundum suum laborem reddetur. Solutio. Non est consequens, si major labor hic quam ibiquod ideo major gloria. Est enim virginitas majus bonum in se quam conjugium. Quidam tamen conjugati non sunt minoris meriti quam quaedam virgines.

QUAESTIO LXV. *Nolite fieri servi hominum.* Superius dixit: *Servus vocatus es? non sit tibi curae* [0526B] [n: (I Cor. VII)]: quomodo ergo hic prohibet ne simus servi hominum? Solutio. Monet, ne hominibus propter homines serviatur: quod fit, quando spes salutis in ipsis ponitur, ut illi, qui dicebant: *Ego sum Pauli, ego autem Apollo [n: (I Cor. I)]*.

QUAESTIO LXVI. *Qui autem fornicatur, in corpus suum peccat,* etc. Ex his verbis videtur fornicatio gravior caeteris peccatis: ubi enim major delectatio et major contemptus, sic et major offensa. Solutio. Quaedam delectatio ex poena inflicta pro originali peccato inest membris nostris: quae licet sit major in delectatione caeteris peccatis, non tamen omnibus aliis peccatis major in reatu vel culpa esse videtur. Item volunt probare auctoritate Hieronymi, quod fornicatio gravior sit caeteris peccatis. Dicit [0526C] enim: Quanta praecessit in opere delectatio, tanta debet sequi in satisfactione mentis amaritudo, et sic videtur quod ubi major delectatio, ibi sit major culpa. Solutio. Hoc, ut arbitror, non dicitur in comparatione omnium aliorum; sed in quolibet genere juxta quantitatem delectationis intelligitur quantitas criminis.

QUAESTIO LXVII. *Unusquisque primum donum habet,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo hoc sit verum, cum multi sunt, quibus nihil collatum est, unde salvari possint? Solutio. Non loquitur, nisi de fidelibus, quorum sunt diversi gradus, ut continentia, conjugium, virginitas: in quibus possunt salvari, quasi diceret: Qui continere noluerit, descendat ad conjugium [0526D] sibi a Deo concessum, ut in eo salvetur.

QUAESTIO LXVIII. *Praeterit enim figura.* Quaeritur quomodo hoc verum sit, cum scriptum sit: *Terra in aeternum stat [n: (Eccle. I)]*. Solutio. Non dicit praeterit mundus; sed figura mundi, id est forma et species, quam modo habet, mutabit in formam meliorem: si tamen alicubi legatur, quod mundus transeat, hoc intelligendum est secundum formam, non secundum substantiam, quae semper erit.

QUAESTIO LXIX. *Qui non jungit, melius facit.* Propter majorem promerendi habilitatem. Sed quaeritur, qualiter major habilitas promerendi sit in virginitate, quam in conjugio: cum major pugna sit hic, quam ibi? Si enim major difficultas merendi in conjugio, videtur esse majus praemium. Solutio. In virginitate [0527A] cum minore labore major profectus, et ideo major promerendi habilitas. In conjugio magnus labor, et parvus profectus: in quo gradu magnum est saltem stare.

QUAESTIO LXX. *Puto autem, quod et ego spiritum Dei habeam.* Quaeritur quem spiritum Dei dicat se Apostolus habuisse, ut acquiescerent Corinthii suo consilio? Si enim dicimus charitatem, non sufficit. Charitatem enim habere poterat, et non scientiam sicut plurimi; si descientia, non sufficit: multi enim scientiam habent, sed vita eorum non respondet verbis. Unde consilium talium merito potest improbari. Solutio. Per spiritum Dei utrumque intelligit scientiam et charitatem; quia in utroque excellebat Apostolus. Unde et consilio ejus acquiescendum [0527B] erat.

QUAESTIO LXXI. *Scientia inflat,* etc. [n: (I Cor. VIII.)] Per se sine charitate, non ex qualitate sui; sed per occasionem, sicut lex, iram operatur. Sed de charitate videtur idem posse dici. Multi enim in profectu charitatis, et aliarum virtutum permanentes quandoque superbiunt, et sic corruunt. Sicut ergo occasio delinquendi ex scientia sumitur, sic ex charitate sumi videtur, quod non est concedendum. Ex charitate enim nullus occasionem mali sumit. *Non* enim *agit perperam; non inflatur [n: (I Cor. XIII)]*. Solutio. Scientia res talis est, quod inflat: et tamen a Deo est, sicut divitiae occasionem mali praebent, et tamen a Deo sunt; sicut etiam ligna habilia sunt ad comburendum, non tamen comburuntur nisi ignis apponatur; [0527C] sic etiam scientia nunquam inflat nisi cor hominis accendatur. Charitas vero nunquam sic accendi potest? charitatem enim habere, et superbire quis potest?

QUAESTIO LXXII. *Idolum nihil est.* Quaeritur quomodo hoc sit verum, cum quolibet artificiale sit aliquid. Augustinus dicit: Materia est a Deo, sed stultitia hominum formam dedit. Sed iterum cum scriptum sit: *Omnia substantia, omnis forma, omnis conjunctio, et omnis compago fit a Deo:* quomodo forma idoli non sit a Deo, cum sit aliquid? Origenes dicit: *Idolum nihil est,* id est nullius rei, quae sit, habet similitudinem. Vel idolum nihil est, id quod putant esse idolum, id est personam ex simulacro et [0527D] spiritu praesidente: Vel (quod melius est) idolum nihil est, in mundo, id est in rebus mundi nullam habet potestatem, ut eas mutet in melius vel deterius. Unde idolothyta quantum in ipsis est, licet comedere; sed non coram infirmo, ne ille hoc faceret cum veneratione idoli.

## II. IN EPISTOLAM I AD CORINTHIOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO LXXIII. *Nullus est Deus nisi unus.* Nonne Pater Deus, et Filius Deus est, et Spiritus sanctus est Deus, et Pater non est Filius, vel Spiritus sanctus? quomodo ergo nisi unus est Deus? Item Pater est Deus ingenitus, et Filius est Deus genitus, quomodo ergo unus est Deus? Solutio. Unus est Deus in natura, non in persona: quis autem sit sensus horum verborum, Deus unus in natura, non in persona? Magna quaestio inter modernos. Ut autem [0528A] loquar quod sentio, videntur mihi plures sapere haeresim Sabellianam, ignorantes multiplicem significationem hujus vocabuli, unus, vel unum, vel etiam singulus, vel substantia. Haec tria enim vocabula aliter in theologia, aliter in communi usu loquendi accipiuntur, de quibus per se agendum est.

QUAESTIO LXXIV. Quaeritur an Pater noster dicendus sit Filius, vel Spiritus sanctus? Solutio. Non simpliciter, ne intelligatur persona ingenita: potest autem cum determinatione tali, scilicet secundum gratiam regenerationis: tota enim Trinitas communiter per gratiam suam nos regenerat in filios adoptionis.

QUAESTIO LXXV. Item quaeritur an Deus Trinitas sit Pater ille, qui aeternaliter Pater est, an alius. [0528B] Solutio. Non ille, nec alius, sed unus, et idem cum eodem.

QUAESTIO LXXVI. Quaeritur an angeli dicendi sint dii, sicut sancti homines dii dicuntur, sicut illud: *Ego dixi: Dii estis, et filii excelsi omnes [n: (Psal. LXXXI)]*. Solutio. Non sunt dicendi dii angeli, ne videantur esse colendi ea servitute, quae latria dicitur. Tribus modis dicitur Deus, substantive, ut Trinitas; per adoptionem, ut sancti; nuncupative, ut dii gentium.

QUAESTIO LXXVII. *Nam conscientiam eorum, cum sit infirma, polluitur.* Quaeritur quomodo dicat conscientiam eorum esse pollutam: nam si hoc pro Deo se facere credebant scilicet cum veneratione idolothyta comedere, nonne, si hoc dimitterent, [0528C] peccarent, cum omne, quod ex fide non est, peccatum sit? Unde etiam Paulus, si non persequeretur Ecclesiam, tunc quando eam pro Deo persequendam esse credebat, peccaret. Solutio. Quia hoc faciebant creaturae, ut Creatori, propter ignorantiam excusationem non habebant: adeo enim perversa mens eorum erat et excaecata, ut imaginem ligneam vel lapideam Deum esse putarent, unde convenienter dicit Apostolus: *Conscientia eorum, cum sit infirma polluitur [n: (I Cor. VIII)]*, non quod propter Deum polluitur. Nota quod licet praedicatori a subjectis necessaria sumere, tamen sine scandalo hoc faciat.

QUAESTIO LXXVIII. *Nunquid cura est Deo de bobus?* [0528D] [n: (I Cor. IX.)] Nonne cura est Deo de omnibus? et si de omnibus quomodo non est ei cura de bobus? Solutio. Alia est providentiae cura, quae generaliter habetur de omnibus, alia est cura praeceptionis, quam non habet Deus de bobus. Non enim dat praecepta hominibus, ut eos, qualiter boves nutrire debeant, doceat; hanc enim curam de solis hominibus habet.

QUAESTIO LXXIX. *Factus sum Judaeis tanquam Judaeus.* Quaeritur quomodo tanquam Judaeus? an vere Judaeus? Solutio. Vere usus est ritibus Judaeorum, ut dicit Augustinus; non dispensatorie, ut dicit Hieronymus. Dispensatorie autem fieret, si malum esset, et tamen fieret ad tempus causa majoris boni, scilicet, ut per illud simulatitium ad veram [0529A] Christi fidem converterentur. Diversi autem fuerunt in hoc duae illae columnae Ecclesiae: non tamen dicimus alterutrum mentitum fuisse, cum credere: hoc vel illud non sit periculum fidei: de qua controversia dicetur in sequentibus.

QUAESTIO LXXX. *Omnes eamdem escam spiritatem manducaverunt [n: (I Cor. X)]*. Quaeritur, quomodo eamdem? Solutio. Idem significantem, vel idem efficientem. Ejusdem enim efficaciae erat ille sibus cujus iste, ut volunt: quaedam tamen sacramenta Veteris Testamenti ex sacramentis Novi Testamenti suam virtutem et efficaciam habent: sicut ex corpore Christi, quod est sacramentum, manna fidelibus sumptum habuit suam virtutem.

QUAESTIO LXXXI. *Neque tentemus Christum sicut [0529B] quidam eorum.* Tentat Deus, ut probet; tentat diabolus, ut dejiciat; tentat homo, ut exploret et sciat. Est itaque triplex tentatio. Prima est probationis, quae bona est, ut illa Job. Secunda est deceptionis, quae est experientia mentis ad decipiendum. Tertia est diffidentiae et desperationis, ut illa Judaeorum dicentium: *Nunquid poterit Deus parare mensam in deserto? [n: (Psal. LXXVII.)]* Quaeritur igitur, quomodo Judaei dicantur tentasse Christum, cum solum Deum Patrem et Deum Trinitatem coluisse videantur. Solutio. Ideo dicti sunt Judaei tentasse Christum, quia praecedentia omnia Christum figurabant; hinc est quod haec tentatio potius dicta est esse Christi quam Patris, licet non sit magis Filii quam Patris, licet dicatur.

[0529C]QUAESTIO LXXXII. *Et perierunt ab exterminatore,* id est, ab angelo percutiente eos extra terminos promissae patriae. Si autem quaeratur an angelus ille fuerit bonus an malus, respondemus quod mali quandoque puniuntur a bonis, quandoque a malis; boni vero non puniuntur nisi a malis.

QUAESTIO LXXXIII. *In quos fines saeculorum devenerunt.* Nunquid autem in adventu Christi saecula sunt finita; si autem non sunt finita, quomodo finis est saeculorum? Solutio. Sunt in nobis finita, quia cum diversi status praecesserunt vitae, in quibus omnibus variatio et quaedam exspectatio adventus Christi fuit, nos vero alium vitae statum non exspectamus, quia inter hanc vitam et futuram nihil est [0529D] medium, his autem qui adhuc Messiam exspectant, nondum finis saeculorum advenit, ut miseris Judaeis.

QUAESTIO LXXXIV. *Fidelis Deus, qui non patietur,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo dicat Deum non permittere aliquem tentari supra id quod potest, cum multi ex tentatione cadant, et a Deo separentur, et sic a diabolo superentur, et ita plusquam possunt sustinere tententur. Solutio. Quandiu cum Deo sunt non patitur eos tentari supra id quod possunt. Quod autem aliquid cedunt ex illis, est, quia nolunt resistere tentationi cum possint; unde justum est ut adeo tententur, culpa eorum exigente. Permittit autem Deus aliquando aliquem tentari causa probationis, et ad conservationem virtutum: quae tentatio providentiae [0530A] est ut Paulum, cui *datus est stimulus carnis [n: (II Cor. XII)]*, ad humilitatis conservationem.

QUAESTIO LXXXV. *Calix benedictionis, cui benedicimus, nonne communicatio sanguinis Christi est.* Quaeritur de hujus sacramenti nomine, quare dicatur eucharistia. Solutio. Sacramentum corporis et sanguinis Christi dicitur propter sui excellentem virtutem eucharistia, id est bona gratia, in quo sacramento non solum augmentum virtutis et gratiae, sed ipse sumitur qui est fons et origo totius virtutis et gratiae. In quo sacramento sunt tria: scilicet visibilis species panis et vini, et corpus et sanguis Christi, et gratia spiritualis. Primum est sacramentum secundi, secundum est res primi et sacramentum tertii, tertium est virtus primi et res secundi. [0530B] Primum itaque est tantum sacramentum, secundum est et sacramentum et res, tertium vero tantum res. Habet ergo sacramentum primum res duas, unam signatam et contentam, scilicet verum corpus et sanguinem Christi; alteram signatam, et non contentam, scilicet unitatem Ecclesiae.

QUAESTIO LXXXVI. Quaeritur item quare post sacramentum typici agni Dominus dederit discipulis suis sacramentum corporis et sanguinis sui? Solutio. Ut ostenderet sacramenta legalia, inter quae praecipuum erat sacramentum agni Paschalis, debere cessare, et sacramentum novae legis substitui: inter quae primum locum tenet eucharistia: ideo etiam ut hoc sacramentum arctius imprimeret, [0530C] atque tenacius memoriae discipulorum commendaret.

QUAESTIO LXXXVII. Deinde quaeritur cur sub alia specie, et non sub propria, hoc sacramentum dederit? Solutio. Ut fides haberet meritum, quae est de invisibilibus, quia fides non habet meritum, cum ratio humana praebet experimentum; et ne obhorreret oculus quod tenet manus, et ne ab incredulis nobis insultaretur.

QUAESTIO LXXXVIII. Item quaeritur cur sub hac specie potius quam sub alia. Solutio. Quia res hujus speciei expressam habet similitudinem cum utraque re hujus sacramenti quia sicut panis ex multis granis, et vinum ex multis uvis, sic corpus Christi materiale ex multis membris, et spirituale ex multis [0530D] fidelibus constat. Et sicut in pane, et vino plena et principalis refectio corporum est, sic in hoc sacramento plena et principalis est refectio animarum, quia per edulium carnis venitur ad gustum divinitatis.

QUAESTIO LXXXIX. Item quaeritur: cum totus Christus sumatur sub utraque specie, quare non sub una tantum, sed sub duplici sumatur? Solutio. Ideo sub duabus speciebus, ut ostendatur quod totum hominem assumpserit, ut totum hominem sanaret; corpus enim propter corpus, animam propter animam assumpsit, et panis in carnem, et vinum in sanguinem mutatur. Ideo utique sub duabus speciebus sumitur, ut animae et corporis in [0531A] Christo susceptio, et utriusque liberatio in nobis significetur.

QUAESTIO XC. Item cum caro et sanguis sit sub utraque specie, quaeritur an substantia utriusque speciei mutetur in carnem et sanguinem Christi? Solutio. Licet utrumque sit sub utraque specie, tamen sola substantia panis in solam carnem, et sola substantia vini in solam substantiam sanguinis mutatur. Nec debent dici duo sacramenta, sed unum. Neque ideo dicitur iterari sacramentum, quia benedictio non repetitur super eamdem speciem. Neque aliae substantiae in sacrificium veritatis debent offerri, quia de aliis non potest consecrari corpus et sanguis Christi, quam de grano frumenti in panem redacto, et de vino.

[0531B]QUAESTIO XCI. Quaeritur cur aqua cum vino ponatur in calice Domini. Solutio. Aqua populum significat: unde nec vinum, quo significatur Christus debet offeri sine aqua, quia Christus non est passus nisi pro populo, nec aqua sine vino ullo modo; quia populus non est redemptus nisi per Christum.

QUAESTIO XCII. Quaeritur autem an irritum fiat sacrificium si aqua praetermittatur. Solutio. Si quis non intendens haeresim introducere, oblivione vel ignorantia aquam praetermiserit, non videtur esse irritum: unde nec Ecclesiae Graecorum aquam apponunt. Aqua vero sola nullatenus potest offeri in sacrificium, nec panis nisi de frumento, id est tritico, nec granum nisi redactum in panem.

[0531C]QUAESTIO XCXIII. Solet autem quaeri an aqua cum vino mutetur in sanguinem. Solutio. Dicunt quidam quod mutatur; nobis autem videtur, quod non mutatur: quod a magistro Acardo accepimus.

QUAESTIO XCIV. Quaeritur an Judas corpus Domini acceperit intincta buccella. Solutio. Non tunc, sed prius cum caeteris.

QUAESTIO XCV. Quaeritur de accidentibus, quae remanent specie, sapore, et pondere, et forma, in quo subjecto sunt. Solutio. Multi doctores in hoc consentiunt, quod sunt sine subjecto, sicut substantiae carnis et sanguinis sunt ibi sine hujusmodi accidentibus.

## II. IN EPISTOLAM I AD CORINTHIOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XCVI. Solet etiam quaeri de fractione [0531D] et partitione, quae est ibi, in qua re fiat; quia non est alia substantia quam substantia carnis et sanguinis, quae integra manet. Solutio. Corpus Christi integrum manet in semetipso, et tamen frangitur et dividitur in sacramento.

QUAESTIO XCVII. Quaeritur an malus verum corpus Domini et verum sanguinem sumat. Solutio. Utrumque vere sumit, sed malo suo; quia indigne - indignus est enim qui aliter sumit, quam Christus instituit, vel qui est in mortali peccato.

QUAESTIO XCVIII. Item quaeritur utrum Christus quotidie immoletur. Solutio. Qui semel occisus est in ara crucis, immolatur quotidie in memoriam ipsius passionis in sacramento, nec repetitur ex sua infirmitate, sed nostra, qui quotidie peccamus, et venialium [0532A] remissionem consequimur, et augmentum virtutum si digne participamus. Opponitur de hoc quod Augustinus dicit, quod bonus sacramentum, et rem sacramenti accipit; malus vero tantum sacramentum, et non rem sacramenti, et jam superius dictum est, quod malus accipit verum corpus et verum sanguinem: ergo non solum sacramentum, sed etiam rem sacramenti malus accipit, quod indubitanter credendum est. Solutio. In praedictis verbis Augustinus sacramentum, verum corpus et verum sanguinem Christi vocat rem gratiam spiritualem, quam solus bonus et non malus accipit.

QUAESTIO XCIX. Quaeritur quale corpus Christus dederit discipulis suis, mortale, an immortale? si mortale, quomodo potuit sine laesione dentibus teri [0532B] vel frangi; si immortale, ergo dedit tale quale nondum erat. Solutio. Sane dicimus quod tale dedit quale voluit, cui nihil erat impossibile. Asserunt quidam tamen quod mortale dedit, quod nos sicut non asserimus, ita non negamus.

QUAESTIO C. Quaeritur quae sit hujus sacramenti virtus? Solutio. Venialium peccatorum remissio, perfectio virtutum, et est institutum in augmentum virtutum, et in medicinam quotidianae infirmitatis.

QUAESTIO CI. Quaeritur an quotidie sit communicandum. Solutio. Augustinus, inquit, quotidie Eucharistiam accipere nec laudo, nec vitupero: si quis tamen est in affectu peccandi, magis gravatur ex perceptione, quam purificatur; et si quis peccato [0532C] mortali mordeatur, lacrymis satisfaciat; et si de caetero non peccandi voluntatem habeat, securus accedat.

QUAESTIO CII. Quaeri solet an pravi sacerdotes hoc sacrificium conficere queant? Solutio. Licet aliqui sint vita pravi, si intus sint nomine et sacramento, creduntur quod vere consecrant: qui autem excommunicati sunt, et de haeresi manifeste notati, non videntur hoc posse. In hoc sacramento tria oportet servari, scilicet formam, ordinem et intentionem: formam a Domino institutam; ordinem, ut sit sacerdos; intentionem, ut intendat hoc facere.

QUAESTIO CIII. Quaeritur an corpus Domini a brutis animalibus tangatur vel sumatur? Solutio. Nullo modo vel a mure, vel ab alia bestiola sumitur.

[0532D]QUAESTIO CIV. Quid ergo sumit mus, qui manducat? Solutio. Deus novit, forsitan nisi accidentia, quae ibi sunt.

QUAESTIO CV. *Nolite manducare propter illum, qui judicavit, et propter conscientiam* scilicet infirmi, etc. Quaeritur quomodo dicat: Nolite manducare propter infidelem, vel infirmum fidelem, nonne melius esse propter utrumque manducare, quam abstinere? nam si abstinet, offenditur infidelis. Infirmus vero sibi potius relinquendus est, ut jam superius dictum: *Qui infirmus est, olus manducet [n: (I Cor. XIV)]*. In hac enim existimatione, qui putat te idolum venerari, si idolo consecrata comedis, ipse sibi est relinquendus: licet enim te peccare manducando existimet, tamen non cum veneratione idoli comedis, [0533A] nec ipse hoc putando a fide avertitur, imo zelo fidei credit te errare in hoc quod comedis, et ideo indignatur. Solutio. Melius est ipsum, qui manducavit abstinendo instruere, quam comedendo in errore fovere. Item si comederes coram infirmo fratre, ipse scandalizaretur, et ex scandalo periret. Ideo abstinendum est potius, quam edendum.

QUAESTIO CVI. *Sive manducatis, sive bibitis,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo possit impleri, ut omnia ad gloriam Dei facimus cum multa naturaliter faciamus, quae non ideo facimus, ut Deo placeamus? Solutio. Sic omnia opera nostra circumspecte fiant, ut nihil contra Deum fiat.

QUAESTIO CVII. *Sicut et ego omnibus per omnia placeo.* Alibi dicit: *Si adhuc hominibus placerem, Christi [0533B] servus non essem [n: (Galat. I)]*. Nunquid omnibus per omnia placens servus Christi non erat? Solutio. Quod dicit: Si adhuc hominibus placerem, sic intelligitur: Si hominibus placerem quantum in me est, ut causam, et finem ponerem in homine, servus Christi non essem. Qui autem placet propter veritatem, non ipse, sed magis ipsa veritas placet.

QUAESTIO CVIII. *Si quis videtur contentiosus esse, nos talem consuetudinem non habemus, neque Ecclesia Dei.* Hic habemus auctoritatem quod consuetudines sanctae Ecclesiae tenendae sunt, etsi rationem ignoremus quare ab illa sic constitutae sunt: Deus enim suam Ecclesiam in his quae ad ipsum pertinent non permittit errare. Nota: Ecclesia dicitur convocatio fidelium, et domus in qua convenitur ad Eucharistiam [0533C] percipiendam, non solum ad mortis Christi commemorationem, sed etiam ut Christo moribus et vita conformemur.

QUAESTIO CIX. *Vir imago et gloria est Dei, mulier vero imago et gloria est viri,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo vir sit imago Dei et non mulier, cum in Genesi scriptum sit de utroque, quod facti sunt ad imaginem Dei? [n: (Gen. I.)] Solutio. Alia est imago communis viro et mulieri, de qua agitur in Genesi; alia est illa, quae soli viro et non mulieri convenit. Prima consistit in potentia naturali cognoscendi Deum; secunda in hoc intelligitur quod, sicut ex Deo omnia, sic ex uno homine omnes homines. Vel moraliter accipiendum: ut per virum, intelligatur ratio; per [0533D] mulierem sensualitas, et secundum hoc vir et non mulier, est imago Dei.

QUAESTIO CX. *Oportet haereses esse,* etc. De auctoritate Ecclesiae. Quaeritur qui dicendus sit haereticus? Solutio. Haereticus proprie est, qui alicujus temporalis commodi, et maxime gloriae, vel principatus sui causa, falsas, et novas, et pravas sectas, et a veritate alienas invenit, vel ab aliis inventas tenet, sequitur et defendit.

QUAESTIO CXI. *Probet autem seipsum homo,* etc. Si quis in mortali peccato est non accedat, sed dicat: *Domine, non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum [n: (Matth. VIII)]*. Quid est ergo aliquem seipsum probare nisi videre, an conscientia sua mordeat se de mortali, et si est in proposito manendi adhuc in [0534A] peccato? Sacerdos autem eum, qui est in peccato mortali, non tamen manifesto debet monere, ne accedat; non tamen ipsi communionem subtrahere potest. Si autem publica fama vel crimen accuset, nullo modo accedat, ne ei sacerdos det. Si enim vel gratia sui, vel pecunia convictus dederit tali, quantum in se est, Christum occidit: quod est valde timendum.

QUAESTIO CXII. *Divisiones autem gratiarum; idem autem spiritus,* etc. [n: (I Cor. XII.)] Cum opera Trinitati sint indivisa, quaeritur cur gratias Spiritui sancto, ministrationes Filio, operationes Patri attribuat? Solutio. In gratia maxime apparet benignitas, quae ad proprietatem Spiritus sancti pertinet: ideo gratias Spiritui sancto attribuit. In ministrationibus [0534B] vero sapientia lucet, quae ad Filium solet referri. In operationibus potentia, quae specialiter Patris est: ideo operationes ad Patris auctoritatem refert.

QUAESTIO CXIII. *Alii datur sermo sapientiae,* etc. Notandum, quod accipitur aliter sapientia, et scientia hic quam ibi: *O altitudo divitiarum scientiae et sapientiae Dei [n: (Rom. XI)]*. Cum enim dicit: O altitudo divitiarum scientiae, et sapientiae Dei, sapientiam, et scientiam, vocat divinam essentiam. Cum autem dicit, alii datur sermo sapientiae; *alii sermo scientiae,* sapientiam, vocat cognitionem de aeternis, scientiam vero, cognitionem de humanis.

QUAESTIO CXIV. *Haec operatur omnia unus atque idem Spiritus.* Quaeritur quare Pater non dicatur donum, [0534C] sicut Filius vel Spiritus sanctus, cum det seipsum, sicut et aliae personae: nemini enim datur Filius vel Spiritus sanctus sine Patre. Solutio. Propter auctoritatem principii, ne intelligatur esse ab alio, qui est a nullo.

QUAESTIO CXV. *Sicut enim unum corpus,* etc. Quaeritur an soli boni istis donis participent? an etiam mali? Quod autem etiam mali haec habeant dona Spiritus: inde liquet, quod in Evangelio legitur, quia dicent ad Dominum in die judicii: *Domine, nonne in nomine tuo prophetavimus, et daemonia ejecimus? [n: (Matth. VII)]* quibus dicet Dominus: *Amen dico vobis: Nescio vos,* etc. [n: (Matth. XXV.)] Item Joannes evangelista cum videret quemdam, qui non sequebatur Dominum, ejicere daemonia in nomine [0534D] Christi, voluit prohibere; cui Dominus ait: *Noli prohibere, qui non est mecum contra me est [n: (Marc. IX)]*. Ex quibus patet quod et mali his donis saepe utuntur, et sic videtur, quod sint de corpore Christi, et sint ejus membra; sed iidem, cum sint mali, sunt membra diaboli. Solutio. Non dicit Apostolus quod omnes habentes dona Spiritus sancti in unitate corporis consistant; vel Ecclesia large accipitur, scilicet multitudo omnium sacramentis Ecclesiae participantium. In quibus sunt quaedam putrida membra, et grana multa cum paleis, quae dicuntur esse in corpore, sed non de corpore. Unde Joannes: *A nobis exierunt, sed non de nobis erant [n: (I Joan. II)]*. Nota, quod Apostolus dicit omnia membra corporis, cum sint multa, unum corpus sunt. Hoc dico propter [0535A] quosdam nolentes concedere, quod partes omnes alicujus totius simul junctae recipiant nomen totius, cum etiam dicatur in symbolo Athanasii, anima et caro sunt unus homo.

## II. IN EPISTOLAM I AD CORINTHIOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CXVI. *Si habuero omnem fidem, charitatem autem,* etc. [n: (I Cor. XIII.)] Hic Apostolus manifeste ostendit quod fides, et caetera dona non possunt haberi sine charitate. Quaeritur ergo imprimis, de qua fide hic agatur, an de fide catholica, an de alia? sed non de alia, quia per aliam non possunt montes transferri de loco ad locum, sicut per hanc, de qua hic agit: ergo de fide catholica hic agit: unde constat, quod ipsa potest haberi sine charitate, et sic a malis potest haberi, quod multi negant. Est autem, secundum hos, fides catholica, fides operans [0535B] per dilectionem. A quibus quaeri potest an unum vocent? an duo fidem per dilectionem operantem, hoc autem totum unum esse non potest? Qui enim fidem sic habet, non solum credit, sed etiam diligit. Haec autem duo in malis esse non possunt, sed quantum in fide est simpliciter hoc totum, in malo etiam in diabolo esse potest. Quid enim credit iste bonus quod non credit iste malus. Nonne iste malus, vel etiam diabolus, credit quod Christus mortuus est, et a morte resuscitatus, et caetera quae credenda sunt, quae ad fidem sunt necessaria. Sed objicitur secundum hoc, quod diabolus habet fidem catholicam, et sic fit catholicus. Solutio. Catholicus duobus modis dicitur, et qui catholice vivit, vitam Christi imitando: et catholicus dicitur, qui omnia [0535C] credit credenda, sive habeat charitatem, sive non. Concedunt quidam quod etiam diabolus secundum aliam acceptionem possit dici catholicus, quod nostris auribus graviter sonat, maxime cum illa cognitio, quod ille habet de Christo, magis sit ex naturae subtilitate, quod ex Christianae fidei inspiratione.

QUAESTIO CXVII. *Charitas est fons proprius bonorum,* etc. Quaeritur, an charitas possit haberi ab iis qui sunt damnandi. Nonne ipsi sunt alieni, qui non communicant fonte proprio bonorum. Solutio. Ideo charitas dicitur fons proprius bonorum, quia nemo potest simul charitatem habere, et malus esse.

QUAESTIO CXVIII. *Charitas nunquam excidit,* etc. [0535D] Quaeritur an charitas semel habita nunquam amittatur. Nam, si nunquam excidit, et nunquam amittitur, ergo ii qui damnandi sunt, aliquando charitatem habere non possunt. Solutio. Ideo charitas dicitur nunquam excidere, quia habetur hic et in futuro, in praesenti vero habita amittitur, et amissa iterum recuperatur.

QUAESTIO CXIX. *Scientia destruetur,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo dicat scientiam destrui in futuro. Nunquid non habebimus cognitionem in futuro earum rerum, quarum nunc habemus? Habebimus quidem, et multo majorem quam habeamus in praesenti: quomodo ergo scientia destruetur? Solutio. Dicunt quidam quod scientia destruetur a sua partialitate et imperfectione, ut non sit partialis et imperfecta. Sed [0536A] hoc est eam augeri et perfici, et non destrui, quia eodem modo potest dici de charitate, quod ipsa sit destruenda. Sicut enim imperfecte cognoscimus: ita imperfecte diligimus, et cum venerit quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est.

Solutio. Dicunt quidam, quod non scientia, sed modus ejus aenigmaticus et umbratilis destruendus est. Sed iterum eadem ratione et charitas videtur esse destruenda: cujus modus scilicet imperfectionis in futuro est evacuandus. Ad hoc respondetur quod verum est quod modus imperfectionis tolletur a charitate, sed non omnis modus. In futuro enim diligetur propter se, et propter Deum proximus, sicut in praesenti diligitur. Alii etiam dicunt quod actus scientiae in futuro destruetur. Charitas vero, [0536B] quae nunc est, nec ejus actus, nec quidam modus in futuro destruetur: fides autem, et spes ex toto evacuabuntur: scientia vero ex parte destrueter: cujus actus et modus non erit.

QUAESTIO CXX. Sed est alia quaestio, quae nos magis urget: verum est, et negari non potest quin charitas in praesenti sit comparatione futuri imperfecta, sed Apostolus probat tali argumento, quod prophetiae evacuabuntur, et quod scientia destruetur: *Ex parte scimus, et ex parte prophetamus: cum autem venerit, quod perfectum est, evacuabitur quod ex parte est:* cum ergo charitas ex parte est, consimili argumento ipsa evacuabitur, cum venerit quod perfectum est. Solutio. Nos autem dicimus quod [0536C] alia ratione dicitur scientia, vel prophetia ex parte, alia ratione charitas imperfecta. Ex eo enim quod quidam cognoscunt, quidam non cognoscunt, prophetia vel doctrina habet locum in hoc praesenti, ubi alius alium docet et instruit. In futuro vero ubi omnes erunt docibiles Dei, quando omnes a maximo usque ad minimum cognoscent Deum plene et perfecte, tunc doctrina hominum non habebit locum: quando nemo dicet fratri suo: Cognosce Deum. Ideoque scientia, id est doctrina, evacuabitur. Charitas autem non sic dicitur ex parte esse. Non enim ideo habet esse, quia quidam diligunt, et quidam non diligunt: imo multo verius erit quando omnes diligent perfecte. Nota, aenigma est obscura similitudo, et sicut in praesenti omnis creatura est quasi [0536D] quoddam speculum, in quo videtur Deus: sic in futuro ipse Deus erit speculum omnis creaturae, in quo omnia videbuntur verius, quam in semetipsis. Hinc est secundum quosdam quare scientia sit destruenda: quia umbratilis iste modus cognoscendi, quem nunc habemus, plena cognitione accedente non erit.

QUAESTIO CXXI. Charitati non possunt fides et spes deesse: fides vero et spes sine charitate esse possunt. Dicunt tamen quidam, ut supra dictum est, quod fides sine charitate esse non potest: quorum error hic destruitur. Cum enim dicit: *Si habuero omnem fidem, ita ut montes transferam, charitatem autem non habeam, nihil sum:* innuit manifeste, quod fides etiam perfecta potest haberi sine charitate. [0537A] Et expositor in praedictis verbis manifeste eos arguit dicens, quod fides et spes sine charitate esse possunt.

QUAESTIO CXXII. De spe vero quaeri potest quomodo ipsa sine charitate esse possit. Nonne spes est fiducia futurorum bonorum ex praecedentibus meritis veniens? Haec autem non potest esse sine charitate. Itaque videtur quod sine charitate spes esse non possit. Item si spes est, ut aliis videtur, exspectatio futuri commodi, jam praesumptio erit potius quam spes, si certus sum quod remunerabit, licet sint nulla merita. Ad hoc responderi potest, quod duplex est spes: remunerationis, et promerendi: spes vero promerendi sine charitate non esse potest, spes autem remunerationis (non) potest haberi sine [0537B] charitate.

QUAESTIO CXXIII. *Qui loquitur lingua, non hominibus loquitur, sed Deo [n: (I Cor. XIV)]*. Quaeritur quid sit loqui lingua? Solutio. Alii dicunt quod loqui lingua est loqui parabolice; alii lingua incognita. Augustinus dicit quod prolatio signorum, quae spiritus in spiritu hominis informat, dicitur esse loqui lingua. Unde Apostolus ait: *Spiritus loquitur mysteria [n: (Ibid.)]*. Idem enim dicit loqui lingua, et loqui spiritu. Spiritus sanctus in primitiva Ecclesia formabat ad conversionem fidelium signa coelestium secretorum in mentibus fidelium, et prolationem talium vocat loqui linguis Apostolus. Notandum vero quod illi qui linguis loquebantur, quandoque intelligebant, quandoque non intelligebant. Sed dicet [0537C] quis: Si ille, qui loquitur lingua, intelligit quod dicit, jam hoc est non loqui lingua, sed prophetare. Solutio. Licet ipse intelligat, nisi ipse aliis exponat, non prophetat, sed tantum loquitur lingua. Nota quaedam fieri in Ecclesia ad solum decorem, non adeo ad necessitatem: inter quae continetur loqui linguis.

QUAESTIO CXXIV. *Eritis loquentes in aera,* etc. Ex his verbis arbitrantur quidam quod loqui linguis sit loqui diversis generibus linguarum, sed non est hoc verum: imo ad hoc inducit Apostolus istud, ut ostendat, loqui linguis sine interpretatione parvam habere utilitatem, sicut loqui omnibus generibus linguarum potius confusionem quam aedificationem [0537D] faceret his, qui nullam eorum intelligerent.

QUAESTIO CXXV. *Si nesciero virtutem vocis.* Quaeritur quid vocet virtutem vocis. Solutio. Vocis significationem, vocat vocis virtutem.

QUAESTIO CXXVI. Quaeritur etiam quare hujusmodi locutio lingua fieri dicatur. Solutio. Ideo hoc fit quia quod in lingua est, in voce et in prolatione est: quod vero in corde est, in intellectu est: quia in corde intelligentia est: unde quia haec locutio tantum in prolatione est, et non in intelligentia, ideo lingua fieri dicitur: spiritu etiam, et non mente. Est enim spiritus vis animae inferior mente, in qua imagines rerum confuse comprehenduntur. Est enim visibilium imaginaria et confusa comprehensio, sine discretione proprietatum eorum, quae [0538A] comprehenduntur: qualis fuit illa Pharaonis de vaccis et spicis visio: ipse enim tantum imagines videbat. Joseph vero in intellectu de his habuit Dei revelationem.

QUAESTIO CXXVII. Quaeritur quid verba sic prolata significent: quando quis sic lingua loquitur, ut hoc exemplum ponamus: *Exit qui seminat seminare semen suum.* Nam si haec est vocis significatio, ipsa vera fuit: quaeritur ergo, si id ea dicitur, quod ea proprie significatur: si dicatur ita esse, infertur, ergo quoddam falsum ea significatur. Ad hoc respondent quidam dicentes: Non est vocis significatio quaerenda in hujusmodi, sed rerum tantum, quod pertinet ad allegoriam. Alii dicunt, ut licentius loquantur, quia proprie quidem falsum significat: [0538B] non tamen ea falsum dicitur: quia non ibi dictum terminatur: non enim est finis locutionis illa prima vocis significatio, sed secunda, quae allegorica dicitur. Potest autem dici, quod locutio ipsa neque verum neque falsum significat: res enim ibi tantum significant verum, quod ibi mystice intelligitur. Nec nego quin ibi sit vocis significatio, sed tantum incomplexe, quia haec vox, homo, significat hominem, et sic de caeteris; sed non significant complexe; non enim conjuncte significant, ut verum vel falsum significetur, sed ut res significent illas: quibus verum significatur. Vel potest dici, quod propositio ipsa ex rerum proprietate, quae significantur: ad illud significandum quod mystice intelligitur [0538C] assumitur, ut haec vox, semen, verbum Dei significat, ex proprietate rei quam significat.

## II. IN EPISTOLAM I AD CORINTHIOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CXXVIII. *Christus mortuus est pro peccatis nostris,* etc. [n: (I Cor. XV.)] Quaeritur an Christus secundum carnem moriendi habuit necessitatem? Quod autem habuit moriendi necessitatem, videtur velle auctoritas super locum illum. Quemadmodum *statutum est hominibus semel mori: post hoc autem judicium: sic Christus semel oblatus est [n: (Hebr. IX)]*; sic, id est eadem necessitate et jure naturae; quo caeteri moriuntur. Item dicit auctoritas, *quia voluit oblatus est [n: (Isai. LIII)]*. Igitur sola voluntate, quomodo ergo necessitate? Solutio. Constat quod in Christo nulla erat causa moriendi, quia nullum peccatum: tamen, ut volunt quidam, inter [0538D] caeteras poenalitates, etiam necessitatem moriendi voluntarie suscepit, et sic haec necessitas non impedit voluntatem, quam, sicut quando voluit, accepit: sic eam, quando voluit, deposuit: si enim, inquiunt, aliquod majus beneficium non esset collatum carni assumptae, necessario subjaceret legi naturae: quam etiam necessitatem quidam intelligunt per mortalitatem.

QUAESTIO CXXIX. *Ego sum minimus apostolorum,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus se dicat minimum apostolorum, cum majoris meriti sit meritis aliorum: plus enim omnibus loboravit. Solutio. Hoc dicit secundum priorem statum, non secundum praesentem, in quo non minimus apostolorum fuit, sed maximus. Sed objicitur: Non enim [0539A] dicit: Ego fui minimus, sed *ego sum minimus apostolorum:* igitur cum non sit inter minimos, sed potius inter primos, videtur quod mentiatur, et sic ad mortem peccare: quia *os, quod mentitur, occidit animam [n: (Sap. I)]*. Solutio. Sensus est: Ego sum minimus apostolorum, id est me aliis non praefero, sed potius alios mihi: nimirum, omnia enim peccata sua, praeterita vel praesentia, occulta vel manifesta, habebat ante oculos suos: aliorum vero simplicitatem et innocentiam consideravit, et sic secundum hanc considerationem humiliora de se sentiebat: sicut enim superbus si qua bona habet, illa semper attendit, et aliorum infirmitates, unde se solum magnum arbitratur, alios vilipendens: sic humilis suas infirmitates sine intermissione videt, bona vero [0539B] aliorum perpendit: hinc est quod sancti, cum sint majores, se humiliores sentiunt, nec est fallens opinio, quia bona, quae habent, non sua, sed Dei munera esse judicant, mala vero, quibus subjacent, sua esse sciunt.

QUAESTIO CXXX. *Gratia Dei sum id quod sum,* etc. Quaeritur de qua gratia loquatur. Siquidem de gratia Dei operante, et cooperante, sive gratia praeveniente, et gratia subsequente, jam in superioribus dictum est: gratia enim praeveniens, vel operans eadem est: quae operatur in nobis sine nobis, scilicet praeparando, et sanando liberum arbitrium, ut bonum velit, quam notat Apostolus dicens: Gratia Dei sum id quod sum: gratia vero subsequens, vel [0539C] cooperans una et eadem est, quae operatur in nobis, non sine nobis, subsequendo, et adjuvando, ne frustra velimus, quam notat Apostolus dicens: *Et gratia ejus in me vacua non fuit, quia omnibus plus laboravi: non autem ego, sed gratia Dei mecum.* Ex hoc itaque, quod dicit: *Ego sum id quod sum gratia Dei,* destruitur error Pelagianorum, qui dicebant liberum arbitrium ad salutem promerendam sufficere. Item ex eo quod supponit, *et gratia ejus in me vacua non fuit,* hominem ostendit ex libero arbitrio aliquid posse, quod quidam haeretici negant dicentes, quod homo nil promereri potest. Apostolus vero demonstrat hominem ex se quidem nil posse, sed tantum ex gratia superveniente: oportet enim hominem gratia praeveniri: deinde liberum arbitrium, [0539D] jam a gratia praeventum ipsi gratiae cooperari debet: cujus natura talis est ut relucere et cooperari possit, sicut radio solis oculus tactus videre potest. Quod ergo homo operatur, ex gratia est cui cooperatur. Quaedam enim gratia, ut jam dictum est, operatur sine adjutorio hominis, quia compungit mentem, et excitat, homo vero sine gratia, nec consentire potest gratiae, nec aliud quidquam efficere, sed gratiae trahenti et ducenti innititur, et sic gratia adjutus promeretur. Ex quo patet quod non tantum gratia est, quando homo aliquid boni facit, sed etiam ex libero arbitrio, licet totum sit opus gratiae, vel per se, vel cum homine operantis. Sunt itaque quaedam ex sola gratia, quaedam ex gratia et homine.

[0540A]QUAESTIO CXXXI. *Si resurrectio mortuorum non est, nec Christus resurrexit.* Quaeritur de hypothetica an sit vera, et quomodo sit intelligenda. Solutio. Vera est, et sic intelligitur: Si impossibile esset mortuos resurgere, ut quidam haeretici dicebant, nec Christum surrexisse est possibile; vel si sancti non essent resurrecturi, nec verum esset quod Christus resurrexit; quia totum quod fecit in carne, moriendo, patiendo, resurgendo, pro nobis fecit.

QUAESTIO CXXXII. *Si Christus non resurrexit, inanis est fides nostra.* Quaeritur quomodo dicat Apostolus inanem esse fidem nostram: et *miserabiliores sumus omnibus hominibus [n: (I Cor. XV)]*, si non erit resurrectio mortuorum vel corporum. Nam cum [0540B] anima immortalis, et ipsa sola capax sit visionis Dei, et sic sola habere beatitudinem possit, nonne beati esse possumus sine corporum resurrectione? Et ad idem:

QUAESTIO CXXXIII. Quaeritur ad quid erit corporum resurrectio, cum eis ibi opus non erit, ubi Christus erit omnia in omnibus, nec ipsa beatitudinem suscipere possint, quae erit solius animae? Solutio. Videndum est diligenter quid dicatur, et secundum quid. Quod enim ait: Miserabiliores sumus omnibus hominibus, non secundum animam, sed secundum corpus dicit. Hic enim majorem miseriam aliis passus est Apostolus. Est autem corporum resurrectio, ut et secunda gloriemur stola: claritas enim illa, [0540C] quae in corpore erit: ad augmentum beatitudinis ipsius erit, ut quod prius habuit ad miseriam, jam habeat ad gloriam et decorem. Probat Apostolus resurrectionem mortuorum per resurrectionem Christi: quae ideo tantum facta est, ut resurrectio corporum crederetur, et fieret: *Cum tradiderit regnum Deo et Patri [n: (Ibid.)]*, id est cum Ecclesiam, in qua modo regnat per fidem, per cognitionem, quam habuit de Filio, ad Patris cognitionem et visionem perducet.

QUAESTIO CXXXIV. *Donec ponat omnes inimicos sub pedibus ejus.* Quaeritur quomodo dicat quod oportet Christum regnare: *Donec ponat,* etc. [n: (Ibid.)] Nonne in aeternum regnabit, et praecipue inimicis subditis? Solutio. In locis similibus, donec, ponitur [0540D] pro in aeternum: si enim tunc, quando habet adversarios, regnat, constat quod regnabit omnibus sibi subjectis, et sic in aeternum regnabit.

QUAESTIO CXXXV.-- *Tunc, et ipse Filius subjectus erit illi, qui subjecit sibi omnia.* Quaeritur secundum quam naturam Filium subjectum Patri dicat. Nam si secundum divinam, eo minor erit: quod falsum est, quia secundum divinitatem aequalis est Patri. Item si secundum humanam hoc sit dictum, tunc secundum eam omnia sunt subjecta ei: et secundum humanam est Dominus omnium: quare et Creator, et sic secundum eamdem videtur esse aequalis Patri; secundum quam minor eo est: unde legitur: Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem; minor Patre secundum humanitatem. Solutio. Potest [0541A] hoc sane intelligi secundum utramque naturam, scilicet divinam et humanam, secundum humanam omnia sunt subjecta ei, secundum quam ad aequalitatem Patris sublimatus est, dum verbo consubstantiali Patri, in unam personam, humana natura unita est, secundum quam plenitudinem donorum et ipse accepit; de qua *plenitudine nos omnes accepimus [n: (Joan. I)]*, et sic ei subjecti. Item secundum divinam naturam quidam sic intelligunt, quod subjectus est Filius Patri, quia ab eo habet esse, a quo habet quidquid habet. Juxta illud: *Doctrina mea non est mea [n: (Joan. VII)]*. Item: *Pater major me est [n: (Joan. XIV)]*. Quod nonnulli secundum divinam naturam intelligi volunt. In hujusmodi verbo notatur distinctio, quia Filius a Patre, non Pater a Filio [0541B] est; unde Pater principium Deitatis dicitur, quia a nullo est, et ab ipso tam Filius, quam Spiritus sanctus est. Est enim Pater principium, non de principio Filius principium de principio; Spiritus sanctus ab utroque procedens, sed hujusmodi nonnisi convenienti et loco et tempore dicenda sunt, ne infirmi scandalum incurrant.

QUAESTIO CXXXVI. *In dispari claritate erit par gaudium.* Quaeritur si dispar claritas, quomodo gaudium par possit esse? Nonne juxta quantitatem claritatis, erit quantitas gaudii! Nonne ipsa claritas erit ipsum gaudium? Item si unus altero beatior, alter altero majus gaudium habebit, quomodo ergo par gaudium erit? Item gaudium omnium nonne [0541C] erit singulorum? quomodo ergo in dispari claritate erit par gaudium? Si idem nummus omnibus dabitur, quomodo dispar claritas? si par gaudium erit, ergo gaudium Petri erit gaudium Martini. Solutio. Aliud est gaudium experientiae, aliud voluntatis; ut gaudium Petri renumerationis est, et experientiae, Martino vero non experientiae, sed affectus est. Tantum enim placet illi bonum Petri, quantum ipsi Petro, non tamen in se sentit, et experitur tantam beatitudinem, quantam Petrus sentit. Est itaque differens beatitudo secundum quantitatem, licet sit eadem secundum qualitatem. Veluti ergo de sanitate alicujus convalescentis ex infirmitate, tantum gaudeo, quantum ipse, affectu, et si non experientia, quia sanitatem in me non sentio, quam ipse experitur. [0541D] Sicut duo eodem lecto conteguntur, alter tamen plus calet: sic in una visione Dei, unus intensius gaudebit, quam alter. Sed nullus inferior, nulli majori invidebit, nec majus gaudium superioris sibi desiderabit, quia unusquisque tantum habebit, quantum volet, alioquin non esset beatus. Ibi vita sine morte, notitia sine errore, amor sine offensione. Ibi videbitur finis desideriorum nostrorum scilicet Deus sine fine, amabitur sine fastidio, laudabitur sine fatigatione.

QUAESTIO CXXXVII. *Seminatur corpus animale,* etc. Quaeritur an corpus ab anima, an anima a corpore habeat animalitatem, id est sensualitatem? Solutio. Nec corpus animalitatem, nisi-ab anima habere potest; nec animalis, id est, sensualitatem [0542A] habens, esset anima non corpori conjuncta. Videtur itaque animalitas nosci ex utriusque conjunctione, anima tamen sola sentit per corpus, corpus vero ea suscipit, non etiam sentit. Prius enim homo sic creatus est, ut ex creatione passibilis esset, nunquam tamen pateretur, nisi peccasset. Unde et dictus est immortalis fuisse ante peccatum, quia poterat non mori, poterat enim non peccare, quia si non peccaset non moreretur.

## II. IN EPISTOLAM I AD CORINTHIOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO CXXXVIII. Solet item quaeri, cum dictus sit mortalis, et quodammodo immortalis homo ante peccatum, an utrumque habuit ex natura, an neutrum, an alterum tantum. Solutio. Salva reverentia secretorum, sine praejudicio melioris sententiae dicimus quod naturaliter fuit homo ante peccatum mortalis et passibilis; [0542B] beneficio vero ligni vitae fieret immortalis: unde doctores non dicunt simpliciter illum tunc fuisse immortalem; sed addunt quodam modo, et determinant quomodo: mortalem vero simpliciter eum pronuntiant fuisse, juxta hoc dictum est: Primus homo factus est in animam viventem, id est in animam, quae corpus vegetaret et vivificaret, non sicut cibis non indigeret.

QUAESTIO CXXXIX. *Haec autem dico, fratres, quod caro et sanguis regnum Dei possidere non possunt; neque corruptio incorruptelam.* Quaeritur igitur quae corpora habituri sumus. Solutio. Eadem corpora, quae nunc habemus: post resurrectionem habebimus, sed immutata non secundum substantiam, sed [0542C] secundum qualitatem: haec dissolubilia; illa vero indissolubilia; sed bonorum impassibilia, malorum vero passibilia: unde ipsa tanquam in morte perpetua erunt. Quod autem indissolubilia erunt, decet Apostolus, dicens: Caro, et sanguis regnum Dei non possidebunt [n: (Ibid.)]. Quod autem impassibilia corpora habituri sunt, insinuat Apostolus, dicens: *sed omnes immutabimur [n: (Ibid.)]*.

QUAESTIO CXL. *Canetenim tuba,* etc. Quaeritur, quid nomine tubae significetur? Solutio. Dicunt doctores, quod aliquod evidens et praeclarum signum, sic vocat Apostolus, quo mysterium futurae resurrectionis implebitur: quae tuba alibi vocatur clamor, alibi vox archangeli vel vox Christi.

[0542D]QUAESTIO CXLI. Quaeritur etiam de voce tubae, an futura sit materialis? Solutio. Patet quod vox materialis erit ministerio angeli facta; quia sicut per tubam convocabatur populus Judaeorum ad festum vel ad bellum, sic tunc ad judicium vocabuntur, vel aliquod evidens signum, quo idem fiat, quod voce fieri solet.

QUAESTIO CXLII. *Absorpta est mors in victoria.* Quaeritur quae mors, et in qua victoria sic absorpta? mortis enim nomine quandoque diabolus, qui est auctor mortis, quandoque peccatum, quod separat a Deo, quandoque dissolutio animae et corporis significatur. Solutio. Potest sane intelligi et de diabolo, et de peccato, et dissolutione animae et corporis. Constat quod in victoria Dominicae resurrectionis sit absorptus [0543A] diabolus: ne dominetur, sicut ante, quando timore mortis compellebantur homines ad quodlibet scelus; nunc autem sancti mortem contemnunt: maxime autem in futura generali omnium resurrectione omnis mors absorbebitur, quando hoc mortale induet incorruptelam.

QUAESTIO CXLIII. *Virtus vero peccati lex.* Qualiter hoc sit intelligendum: ex his, quae dicta sunt, super epistolam ad Romanos, facile potest perpendi: lege enim data, et carnalis concupiscentia invaluit, et praevaricatio accessit. Lex enim prohibendo auget concupiscentiam, nisi Spiritus sanctus infundat charitatem.

QUAESTIO CXLIV. *Itaque fratres stabiles estote, et immobiles.* Quaeritur in quo haec duo differunt. Solutio. [0543B] Stabiles in fide, ne per se moveantur pede superbiae; immobiles in tentationibus, ne manu peccatorum impellente fidem deserant. Tria sunt genera tentationum: unum violentum, aliud fraudulentum, tertium violentum et fraudulentum. Primum fit per apertas persecutiones; secundum per falsos fratres et haereticos; tertium fiet per Antichristum. Omne [0544A] genus autem tentationum immittit diabolus: unde et leo dictus est aperte saeviendo, draco occulte et latenter seducendo: unde scriptum est: *Sub lingua ejus labor, et dolor [n: (Psal. X)]*.

QUAESTIO CXLV. *De Apollo notum facio vobis, quod multum rogavi eum, ut veniret ad vos, sed non fuit voluntas ejus, ut nunc veniret [n: (I Cor. XVI)]*. Quaeritur uter irrationabiliter egerit, an Paulus rogando, ut iret? an Apollo non acquiescendo quia videtur aut hic non rogasse quod decuit, aut ille omisisse quod facere debuit? Solutio. Verum est quod uterque rationabiliter egit, quia Apostolus rogavit, ut hoc faceret; unde Apollo, quia sic petebatur, videbat magis dimittendam Apostoli petitionem, quare [0544B] non acquievit.

QUAESTIO CXLVI. *Salutate invicem in osculo sancto.* Quaeritur quare adjecit, sancto? Solutio. Est osculum lasciviae, est osculum proditionis, ut Judae, est osculum sanctitatis et concordiae, ut quod interius appareat, scilicet vinculum charitatis, etc. De hoc ergo dicit, ut caetera excludat.

## III. IN EPISTOLAM II AD CORINTHIOS.

[0543]

[0543C] *[n: (II COR. I.)] Paulus apostolus,* etc. Haec est secunda epistola, quae Corinthiis destinatur. Scribit autem aliquando duas, aliquando unum epistolam tantum Apostolus; sed nec, cum unam, aliquid diminutum et imperfectum, nec cum duas aliquid superfluum dicit, ut hic videri potest. Nam haec epistola, quae sequitur, consummatio et confirmatio est praecedentis. In hac enim secunda, monet eos corrigi, qui nondum per praecedentem epistolam erant correcti. Notat eos, quod in eleemosynis erant parci. Correctum fornicatorem praecipit recipi. Unde patet quae hujus materia epistolae sit, quae etiam intentio. Est autem materia specialis status Corinthiorum, in quo tunc erant. Intentio vero ad unitatem et integritatem fidei revocare. In hoc autem [0543D] statu speciali generalem Ecclesiae statum signat, et informat, et omnes ad unitatem fidaei invitat. Praemittit more suo, et aliorum scribentium epistolas, salutationes eorum, quibus scribit, captando benevolentiam: unde et dicit, Paulus apostolus, conjungendo nomen humilitatis et nomen dignitatis, ut dignitatis excellentiam humilitas comes temperet, sine qua omnis virtus cassa et inanis. Item Jesu Christi, Jesus est nomen personae. Fuerint autem plures hoc nomine dicti, ut Jesus Nave, Jesus magnus sacerdos, sed et omnes nuncupative. Christus vero solus substantive, quia et nomen, et rem habuit: qui Salvator mundi vere fuit. Interpretatur enim Jesus *Salvator.* Christus vero nomen personae, [0544C] quod utramque complectitur naturam. Est enim nomen officii, ut sacerdos, miles, et interpretatur *unctus.* In Veteri Testamento duae ungebantur personae, regalis et sacerdotalis; Christus vero unctus est unctione regali, qui secundum divinam naturam suos regere potuit; secundum vero naturam humanam offerendi potestatem accepit, qui semetipsum obtulit Deo Patri: unde ex officio regali et sacerdotali Christus dicitur. Voluntas Dei multis modis accipitur, ut jam superius dictum est, et iterum dicere non erit superfluum. Dicitur enim voluntas Dei ipsa dispositio, et beneplacitum. Unde: *Omnia quaecunque voluit fecit [n: (Psalm. CXXXIV)]*. Dicitur etiam voluntas Dei, consilium, vel praeceptum: unde dicitur: *Deus vult omnes salvos fieri [n: (I Tim. II)]*, id est, [0544D] consulit et praecipit ea facere: per quae salventur, ut sunt prohibitio, vel permissio, et si qua hujusmodi.

QUAESTIO I. *Cum ego voluissem hoc, nunquid levitate usus sum?* Quaeritur ergo utrum Apostolus mentitus fuerit, promittendo se venturum, cum non venerit: ipse enim dixit, veniam, et non venit: ergo apud ipsum erat est, et non, id est, affirmatio et negatio de eodem, et sic mendacium, et sic reus mendacii. Solutio. Mendacium est falsa vocis significatio cum intentione fallendi: unde qui dicit falsum, quod putat verum: non est judicandus mendax, cum potius fallatur, quam fallat. Quicunque vero cum intentione fallendi verum dicit vel falsum, reus est [0545A] mendacii: unde colligitur, quod aliquis dicens verum, reus est mendacii, sive mentitur: et quod aliquis dicit falsum, non tamen mentitur vel reus est mendacii.

QUAESTIO II. Quaeritur autem de iis, qui pie mentiuntur, an mendacii rei sint, ut obstetrices illae Aegyptiae? Nam ex intentione fallendi falsum pronuntiabant. Solutio. Qui sic mentiuntur peccant, et dum vitae aliorum provident, contra conscientiam suam agentes, veritatem offendunt, et animae propriae periculum incurrunt.

QUAESTIO III. Item de iis quaeritur qui joco falsum dicunt. Solutio. Aliquando sic jocari malum est, aliquando non; si vero ex consuetudine, sic peccatum est.

[0545B]QUAESTIO IV. *Aliis quidem odor mortis in mortem,* etc. [n: (II Cor. II.)] Quaeritur an odor mortis sit bonus an malus, cum Apostolus dicat se esse odorem, aliis in mortem, aliis in vitam: si enim bonus quomodo in mortem. Item si malus, quomodo bonus Deo? Solutio. Apostolus non erat nisi odor bonus, et tamen hoc odore bono alii moriebantur, id est, occasionem per invidiam sumebant, sicut lex bona, et tamen occasio mali quia praevaricationis.

QUAESTIO V. *Non quod sufficientes simus,* etc. [n: (II Cor. III)]. Hic quaeritur quomodo dicat Apostolus, quod sufficientes non sumus aliquid a nobis cogitare, cum mala ex nobis et cogitare, et facere possimus. Item cum quaedam naturaliter possimus facere, quae neque ad praemium neque ad poenam [0545C] sunt, haec autem sunt illa quae a prima creatione data sunt nobis, ut digitum erigere, curvare, deponere, et hujusmodi. Solutio. Apostolus hic agit de bonis illis, quae meritum habent apud Deum, quae nullo modo possunt sine gratia superveniente et juvante fieri. Unde *Misericordia ejus praeveniet me [n: (Psal. LVIII)]*, *et misericordia ejus subsequetur [n: (Psal. XXII)]*. Gratia enim praevenit voluntatem, ut velit, et subsequitur, ne frustra velit. Unde Apostolus hic destruit errorem illorum, qui dicebant initium boni naturaliter non posse esse sine gratia, sed boni consummationem esse ex nobis: in hoc quod dicit, sed sufficientia nostra ex Deo est. Ex libero enim arbitrio facultatem bene operandi habemus, non tamen hac facultate uti possumus nisi [0545D] gratia adjuvante. Est enim liberum arbitrium per culpam ita depressum, ut potentia sua uti non possit, nisi erigatur a gratia et adjuvetur, sicut cum potestatem equitandi habeam, non tamen hujus potentiae exercitium habere possum absque equo.

QUAESTIO VI. *Littera occidit, spiritus autem vivificat,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo littera dicatur occidere: nunquid talia praecipit, quae observata occidant? quomodo ergo stabit quod alibi dicit Apostolus, quod *lex sancta est, et mandatum sanctum, bonum et justum,* si praecepta occidant? Item si dicatur quod littera sine spiritu, id est sine gratia, occidat, idem de Evangelio dici posse videtur. [0546A] Item si dicatur littera ideo occidere, quia non possunt omnia ad litteram ibi observari: non pereat, qui ea observaverit. eodem modo dici potest de Evangelio. Nam si hoc, *nisi manducaveritis carnem Filii hominis, et biberitis ejus sanguinem,* etc. [n: (Joan. VI)], ad litteram observatur, id est, ut littera sonat, ut sic manducare, et bibere intelligamus, hic, sicut alibi, stultum et damnabile est. Solutio: Littera sine spiritu occidit, id est, sine gratia, quia occasio mortis est, sicut scientia absque charitate inflat. Littera vero Evangelii non absque spiritu est. Vel ut alibi jam dictum est: *Per litteram, sive legem, intelligitur mandatum sine gratia:* quod semper occidit: quia concupiscentiam augens superaddit praevaricationem. Per Evangelium, [0546B] mandatum cum spiritu, id est gratia, intelligitur: unde Apostolus vocat legem *ministrationem mortis:* Evangelium, *ministrationem justitiae.*

QUAESTIO VII. *Et non sicut Moysi ponebat velamen,* etc. Quaeritur de velamine, an excaecet. Solutio. Aliud est velamen figuratum, quod est lectio Moysi: quod figuratum est per velamen, quod Moyses loquens filiis Israel posuit super faciem suam. Aliud est velamen caecitatis, quod est positum super cor Judaeorum: utrumque velamen aufertur per Christum. In cujus rei figura velum templi scissum est in passione Christi.

QUAESTIO VIII. *Nos autem omnes revelata facie gloriam Dei speculantes, in eamdem imaginem transformamur,* [0546C] etc. Quaeritur quid gloriam, et quid imaginem vocet? Solutio. Gloriam Dei, quam speculamur, et imaginem, in quam transformamur, idem vocat, scilicet Christum, qui est gloria, et imago Dei increata, sicut vir est gloria, et imago Dei creata.

QUAESTIO IX. *Qui est imago Dei invisibilis [n: (II Cor. IV)]*. Quaeritur cur Filius dicatur imago Patris. Solutio. Ut ostendatur sic esse ex Patre, ut per omnia ei similis et aequalis ostendatur.

QUAESTIO X. Si autem quaeratur cur Spiritus sanctus, cum sit ex Patre, et similis et aequalis per omnia, non dicatur imago Patris sicut Filius. Respondetur quia imago, aequalitas, et similitudo magis pertinent ad proprietatem Filii, quam ad [0546D] proprietatem Spiritus sancti. Ea enim quae nascuntur, non quae procedunt, solent esse similia. Notandum quod ad imaginem et aequalitatem sequitur similitudo: quia ubicunque imago, vel aequalitas est, ibi est similitudo, sed non convertitur. Item nec imago infert aequalitatem, nec infertur ab ea, quia et imago sine aequalitate, et aequalitas sine imagine esse potest.

QUAESTIO XI. Habentes eumdem spiritum fidei. Dicit expositor super hunc locum, quod tempora variata sunt, non fides, quia quidquid nos credimus, et illi antiqui crediderunt, et e diverso. Unde sic objicitur: Abraham credidit Christum nasciturum, et nos credimus natum: sed aliud est esse [0547A] nasciturum, aliud natum: ergo aliud credidit ille, et aliud nos? Solutio. Quidquid credimus nos, et antiqui, etc., id est, res eaedem subjectae sunt nostrae fidei, et illorum: non tamen sequitur quod idem, quod est modo praeteritum, esse in tempore eorum praeteritum; vel quod tunc futurum, modo sit futurum. Item si opponitur: Abraham credidit Christum nasciturum, sed modo falsum est Christum nasciturum: ergo Abraham credidit falsum. Solutio. Ut nobis videtur, quid interpretatur quale. Cum enim dicitur: Abraham credidit Christum nasciturum, sensus est, fidem habuit de Christi nativitate, quae tunc futura erat; sed in assumptione, cum dicitur, modo falsum est Christum nasciturum, sensus est: nativitas Christi non est futura: unde [0547B] ex illis duabus nullo modo sequitur Abraham falsum credidisse.

QUAESTIO XII. *Sed licet is, qui foris est, noster homo.* Quaeritur an duo homines sint homo exterior, et homo interior, et an idem sit homo exterior, et homo vetus, et homo interior, et homo novus. Solutio. Sicut homo vetus, et homo novus, non sunt duo homines, sed unus, licet secundum aliud vetus, secundum aliud novus dicatur, sic homo exterior, et homo interior non duo homines, sed unus et idem secundum diversa sic dictus est. Nec idem est homo vetus, et homo exterior; nec idem est homo novus, et homo interior. Vetus enim homo consistit in culpa, et poena, quae duo non solum inveniuntur in homine exteriore, sed etiam in homine interiore. Homo [0547C] vero novus intelligitur secundum justitiam et gloriam: quae duo etiam ad hominem interiorem pertinent. Homo vero exterior dicitur, quidquid habemus commune cum brutis: homo interior, quod nobis commune est cum angelis.

## III. IN EPISTOLAM II AD CORINTHIOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XIII. *Qui dedit nobis pignus spiritus,* etc. [n: (II Cor. V)]. Quaeritur quomodo Spiritus sanctus dicatur pignus, et cujus rei sit arrha? Solutio. Spiritus sanctus amor est, et ex amore, quem habemus erga Deum, certi sumus de promissione ipsius; et quia hanc certitudinem habemus ex Spiritu sancto, ideo Spiritus sanctus quasi arrha, et pignus nobis datus est a Deo. Est autem pignus certitudo rei creditae, vel promissae, vel credendae. [0547D] *Scientes ergo timorem Domini hominibus suademus.* Timor in quinque species dividitur, ut jam in epistola ad Romanos dictum est, nec opus est recedere.

QUAESTIO XIV. *Sive enim mente excedimus,* etc. Quaeritur qui sint mentis excessus. Solutio. Duo sunt excessus, vel pavor, vel intentio ad superna: ita ut quodam modo a memoria labantur inferiora. In hoc mentis excessu fuerunt omnes sancti: quibus arcana Dei mundum excedentia revelata sunt.

QUAESTIO XV. *Pro omnibus mortuus est Christus.* Quaeritur quomodo pro omnibus mortuus sit Christus: cum ejus mors non omnibus prosit: damnandis enim non prodest, sed tantum electis. Solutio. [0548A] Secundum Hieronymum sic intelligitur, pro omnibus salvandis. Universitas enim quandoque restringitur, et hoc modis pluribus. Quandoque enim colligit signum universale singula generum, quandoque genera singulorum, quandoque neutrum, sed partem majorem, vel digniorem ipsius universitatis. Vel secundum Augustinum, mortuus est pro omnibus Christus, quia hoc ejus mors promeruit, ut per ipsum omnes salvarentur, nisi in ipsis remaneret: sufficiens enim erat ad omnium salutem.

QUAESTIO XVI. *Deus erat in Christo mundum reconcilians sibi.* Quaeritur quomodo Pater in Filio, vel Filius in Patre dicatur esse: vel quomodo illud [0548B] sit intelligendum: *Qui videt me, videt et Patrem [n: (Joan. XIV)]*. Solutio. Ideo alter in altero esse vel videri dicitur, quia una est substantia eorum naturaliter. Quod addo, ut haeresim Sabellianam excludam. Ibi est unitas, ubi nulla diversitas, sed omnimodo indifferentia, et aequalitas, et identitas. Unde Hilarius ait: Pater videtur in Filio propter unitam naturae similitudinem: sic enim detestamur pestem Arianorum, quod nihilominus exsecramur insaniam Sabellianorum, sic Deum trinum confitemur, quod unum, et sic unum, quod trinum. Multi enim in diebus nostris sunt Sabelliani, quantum ad intellectum, qui confitentur tres personas: sed cum dicitur, quod tres personae sunt una substantia, non aliud intelligunt, quam Sabellius intellexit: [0548C] quod inde contingit, quia non animadvertunt multiplicem hujus nominis, *substantia,* significationem. Dicit enim Hilarius quod cum dicitur: Pater et Filius sunt una substantia, talis locutio habet et fidei conscientiam, et fraudem paratam. Deinde aperit utrumque dicens: Si singularem Deum Patrem, et Filium significes, falsa est intelligentia: si autem dicas ideo Patrem et Filium unam substantiam, vel unum simpliciter, ut intelligas unum, par et indifferens, per omnia aequale, ex nulla parte dissimile, vera est intelligentia. Quibus verbis manifestissime distinguit, inter unitatem personalem, et unitatem naturalem: Pater enim et Filius unum sunt in natura, non in persona.

[0548D]QUAESTIO XVII. *Ecce nunc dies salutis,* etc. [n: (III Cor. VI)]. Quaeritur cur tempus gratiae dies salutis dicitur, cum etiam in tempore legis naturalis et scriptae multi salvarentur? Solutio. Ideo dies salutis hoc tempus gratiae dicitur, quia in hoc tempore hostia oblata est, per quam solam introitus patet in regnum, per quam etiam illi, qui praecesserunt, salutem meruerunt. Unde etiam tempus gratiae dicitur, propter majores vires nobis datas per fidei, et dilectionis manifestationem: unde et vires diaboli sunt imminutae, et quia nunc omnia gratis, non causa alicujus terreni commodi fiunt, et quia illa, quae in aliis temporibus sunt promissa, hoc tempore sunt adimpleta.

[0549A]QUAESTIO. XVIII. *Charitate non ficta,* etc. Quaeritur quae charitas dicatur ficta. Solutio. Quae non perseverat, vel quae non est sufficiens ad salutem, vel simulata, scilicet aliquod signum dilectionis exterius ostensum, cum intus non sit in corde, et haec charitas non est charitas.

QUAESTIO XIX. *Quasi morientes, et ecce vivimus.* Quaeritur juxta haec quomodo jugum Domini sit suave, et onus leve, cum sancti tot et tanta dura et difficilia patiantur, et quomodo laborantes et onerati ad se venientes requiem inveniant, cum non a labore ad requiem, sed potius a requie ad laborem videantur transire. Solutio. Sanctis gravia et aspera sustinentibus adest Spiritus sanctus, qui in exterioris hominis corruptione interiorem hominem revocat, [0549B] de die in diem, et gustata requie spirituali, spe futurae beatitudinis omnia aspera relevat, et sic in tot duris levius est onus Christi. Omnia enim saeva et immania, facilia et prope nulla facit amor Dei et Domini nostri Jesu Christi.

QUAESTIO XX. *Ut fiat aequalitas, sicut scriptum est: Qui multum non abundavit,* etc. [n: (II Cor. VIII.)] Quaeritur an minores qui (quasi provinciales) ministrant stipendia militibus Christi, sint illis in meritis aequales: quod videtur Apostolus velle dicens, ut fiat aequalitas. Solutio. Ista aequalitas non est pietatis, sed quia utrique sustentant, et sustentantur ab invicem. Minores enim majores in carnalibus sustentant, et sustentantur in spiritualibus. Et majores minores, id est spiritales, carnales sustentant in [0549C] spiritalibus, et sustentantur in carnalibus ab eisdem.

QUAESTIO XXI. *Providemus enim bona non solum coram Deo,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo dividat Apostolus, scilicet coram Deo, et coram hominibus, cum non possit fieri coram Deo, nisi etiam fiat coram hominibus? Nec tamen semper exigitur opus exterius, videlicet cum deest facultas. Semper autem exigitur, ut munda sit conscientia. Solutio. Ut Apostolus ostendat conscientiam non posse esse mundam, nisi etiam bona provideantur coram hominibus, ideo distinguit inter haec duo.

QUAESTIO. XXII. Quaeritur: Quid est providere bona coram Deo? Solutio. Sic mentem aptare, ut [0549D] nihil fiat contra Deum, quod fieri nequit, nisi scandalum vitetur fratrum exterius, vel ideo dividat inter praedicta, ut ostendat quaedam esse quae licet fieri quantum ad Deum pertinent, quia in se bona sunt, quamvis aliter videatur hominibus, ideoque possunt praetermitti. Quod ergo expedit et decet, illud fiat quod expedit nobis ad meritum, quod decet ad exemplum caeteris. Ergo propter conscientiam bona providere debemus coram Deo. Propter famam providemus etiam bona coram hominibus: qui enim conscientiae fidens famam negligit, crudelis est, quod facit qui non curat, an quod facit placeat, an displiceat, et propter scandalum fratrum nihil dimittit.

QUAESTIO XXIII. *Qui parce seminat, parce et metet.* [0550A] [n: (II Cor. IX.)] Quaeritur de pauperibus, qui parce seminant, vel nihil, an ideo parce et ipsi metent. Solutio. Non parce seminat ille qui parum largitur, si animus promptus sit dare, si plus haberet. Parce ergo seminare dicendus est, qui parvam habet dilectionem, sive plus, sive minus det: et hic parce metet, id est, parvam percipiet retributionem in vitam aeternam.

QUAESTIO XXIV. *Non enim audemus nos inserere,* etc. [n: (II Cor. II.)] Id est, non usurpamus nobis potestatem, sed potestate nobis a Deo data utimur. Quaeritur itaque quid sit usurpare potestatem. Solutio. Ille usurpat sibi potestatem, qui non electus, vel non vocatus, sumit sibi honorem, qui ingerit se, et non accepta potestate vult dominari.

[0550B]QUAESTIO XXV. *Nos autem non in immensum gloriamur.* Quaeritur: Quid est in immensum gloriari? Solutio. Plusquam debet, et in eo quod non debet quis gloriari, quod facit ille qui extendit se in id in quod jus non habet. Abuti autem potestate est adulari, et vitia peccantium palpare. Uti potestate est peccantes arguere, et caetera quae ad aedificationem pertinent facere.

QUAESTIO XXVI. *Qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur.* Quaeritur quid sit in Domino gloriari, cum alibi dicat: *Absit mihi gloriari, nisi in cruce Domini nostri Jesu Christi [n: (Galat. VI)]*. Et illud: *Non solum gloriamur in spe filiorum Dei, sed etiam in tribulationibus nostris [n: (Rom. V)]*. Nunquid idem est in Domino, et in cruce Domini, et in tribulationibus gloriari? [0550C] Quid est gloriari? Solutio. Gloriari est gaudere laude, et gloria se dignum judicare. In Domino gloriari est totam fiduciam non sibi, sed Domino tanquam auctori attribuere, et in Christo exsultare gaudio spirituali. In cruce Domini gloriari duobus modis potest intelligi. Ille enim recte in cruce Domini gloriari dicitur, qui cum gaudio, et spe futurae vitae imitatur Domini passionem, et hoc est gloriari in tribulationibus. Dicitur etiam aliquis gloriari in cruce Domini, qui non judicat se dignum salute, nisi per passionis Dominicae meritum, dicens cum apostolo Petro: *Quia non est aliud nomen sub coelo in quo oporteat nos salvos fieri [n: (Act. IV)]*, haec dico absque praejudicio melioris sententiae.

[0550D]QUAESTIO XXVII. *Aemulor enim vos Dei aemulatione,* etc. [n: (II Cor. XI.)] Quaeritur: quid est aemulatio? Solutio. Aemulatio est motus mentis in bonum vel in malum propter alienum statum. Quando est in bonum, tunc est amoris; quando est in malum, tunc est livoris.

QUAESTIO XXVIII. Quaeritur item: quid est aemulari Dei aemulatione? Solutio. Diligere ad honorem Dei, vel ea aemulatione quam Deus inspirat.

QUAESTIO XXIX. *Despondi enim vos uni viro virginem castam exhibere Christo.* Quaeritur de hac desponsatione Apostoli cum non omnes qui sunt in Ecclesia sint virgines, ut conjugati, quomodo ergo potest eos qui non sunt virgines exhibere virginem, quasi unam, insuper castam? Solutio. Duplex est virginitas: [0551A] corporis et mentis: carnis virginitas est corpus intactum, mentis virginitas est integritas hominis interioris incorrupta. Haec autem exigitur ab omni fideli, sine qua illa quae est carnis non prodest. Virgo autem una omnes dicuntur propter unitatem integrae fidei, solidae spei, sincerae dilectionis. Casta, non habens aestum malae voluntatis.

QUAESTIO XXX. *Satanas transfigurat se in angelum lucis,* etc. Quaeritur an periculosum sit credere Satanam esse angelum lucis, cum ea dicit, vel facit, quae congruunt bonis. Solutio. Si tunc quando dicit vel facit ea quae conveniunt, non est error periculosus; cum autem suas fallacias incipit ducere ne quis post eum eat, opus est vigilantia: quod non fit sine Deo.

## III. IN EPISTOLAM II AD CORINTHIOS. (cont.)

[0551B]QUAESTIO XXXI. [ *In fame, et siti,* etc. Quaeritur ubi est promissio Dei dicentis: *Primum quaerite regnum Dei, et haec omnia adjicientur vobis [n: (Matth. VI)]*. Videtur enim promissio titubasse, cum Apostolus dicat se laborasse in fame, et siti, frigore et nuditate. Solutio. Novit ille medicus, cui semel nos totos commisimus, et a quo promissionem praesentis vitae et futurae habemus, quando haec adjutoria apponat, vel subtrahat sicut nobis expedire judicat?

QUAESTIO XXXII. *Per fenestram in porta a fratribus.* Quaeritur an hoc factum sit laudabile, an dignum reprehensione: quod videtur quibusdam, quia Dei auxilio non est liberatus. Solutio. Ante non est necessarium suffragium Dei quam defecerit humanum auxilium; nec debet aliquis exspectare [0551C] Dei auxilium, dum habet quod faciat, ne videatur tentare Deum.

QUAESTIO XXXIII. *Et sic effugi manus ejus.* Quaeritur an Apostolus fecerit fugiendo, ut bonus pastor, an ut mercenarius. Nonne lupo veniente oves deseruit, et fugit? et sic videtur quod non bonus pastor, sed mercenarius fuerit. Solutio. Quando aliquis pastor specialiter a persecutoribus quaeritur, licet ei cedere, et rabiem persecutorum declinare, et fugiendo utilitati totius gregis se custodire, et interim caeteri qui ita non requiruntur, conservis suis cibaria praebeant. Cum autem, omnium commune instat periculum, ii, qui aliis indigent, non deserantur ab iis quibus indigent.

QUAESTIO XXXIV. *Sive in corpore, sive extra corpus, [0551D] nescio, Deus scit,* etc. [n: (II Cor. XII.)] Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus dubitaverit an in corpore, an extra corpus sit raptus cum nemo in hac vita existens Deum sicuti est videre possit; unde dicit Moysi: *Non videbit me homo, et vivet [n: (Exod. XXXIII)]*. Item si extra corpus sit raptus, ita scilicet quod anima separata a corpore fuerit, nunquid corpus ejus interim fuit mortuum? Item si intellectuali visione Deum vidit, tunc eum vidit vere, et illam cognitionem habuit, in qua summa est beatitudo et sic in beatitudine fuit; sed beatitudo semel habita nunquam amittitur; aut si jam susceptam Deus ei abstulit, videtur quod injuste Deus egerit. Solutio. Utrumque contingere potuit: vel quod anima a corpore [0552A] separata Deum in se viderit vel anima, libera a sensibus corporis in ipso corpore sic Deum contemplaretur; et quoniam alterum istorum recte contingere potuisset dubitando dicit Apostolus sive in corpore, sive extra corpus. Unde quodcunque horum fuerit, salva erit auctoritas illa: *Non videbit me homo, et vivet,* quia utroque modo exuisse hominem potuit. Si autem extra corpus fuit, tunc corpus mortuum fuit, et ab anima separatum, et iterum anima redeunte vivificatum. Cum autem plenam Dei cognitionem habuit, et sic in beatitudine fuerit, si iterum eidem eadem gloria subtracta fuit, non est mirum, nec incredibile, quia sic Deus servo suo dilectissimo beatitudinem et gaudium futurum, quod accepturus erat praeostendere potuit, [0552B] ut firmius in ejus dilectione et servitio perduraret, et tempus ipsum recipiendi vehementius desideraret: quemadmodum in monte transfiguratus gloriam humanitatis tribus discipulis suis ostendit.

QUAESTIO XXXV. Per tertium vero coelum, et paradisum, in quem raptus est, idem intelligit, videlicet plenam divinitatis intelligentiam, vel cognitionem. Nota de tribus coelis quadripertitam sententiam. Secundum primam sententiam primum coelum est aereum, unde aves coeli. Secundum est firmamentum, unde et vocavit firmamentum coelum. Tertium est empyreum, quod statim ex quo factum angelis est repletum, ubi angeli, et animae sanctae fruuntur contemplatione Dei. Secundum secundam sententiam primum coelum est corporalis visio, qua [0552C] coelum, et terra, et omnia oculis conspicua cernuntur. Eadem visione quandoque Dei munere videntur quaedam, ut Elisaeus currus ignitos [n: (IV Reg. II)], et Balthasar manum scribentem, in pariete, *mane, thecel, phares [n: (Dan. V)]*. Secundum coelum est visio imaginaria, vel spiritalis, qua videntur non corpora, sed imagines eorum: sicut solent in somnis, vel in exstasi, ut Pharao spicas [n: (Gen. XLI)], et Petrus discum [n: (Act. X)]. Tertium visio intellectualis, qua non corpora, nec imagines corporum videntur, sed incorporalia, et immaterialia instinctu mentis conspiciuntur, ut substantia, Deitas et omnis animae affectio. Tertia sententia tres coelos triplicem angelorum hierarchiam secundum Dionysium vocat. Prima in ascensu est quae continet angelos, et archangelos, [0552D] et virtutes. Secunda potestates, principatus et dominationes; tertia thronos et cherubim, et seraphim. Hanc itaque tertiam hierarchiam in ascensu, et primam in descensu, vocat Apostolus tertium coelum, sive paradisum: ad quod cum dicit se raptum, ostendit quod Deum vidit immediate facie ad faciem. Quarta sententia est, quod primum coelum dicitur cognitio coelestium corporum, secundum coelestium spirituum, tertium cognitio Deitatis.

QUAESTIO XXXVI. *Scio hujusmodi,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo hominem raptum dicat sive in corpore, sive extra, cum homo in corpore et anima subsistat, quomodo ergo dicit hominem posse extra corpus rapi. Solutio. Veritas hominis ibi consistit, ubi est [0553A] imago, et similitudo Dei. Unde est illud: Mens cujusque, ipse est quisque. Nomine itaque hominis, vocat hominem interiorem.

QUAESTIO XXXVII. *Datus est mihi stimulus carnis meae angelus,* etc. Quaeritur a quo sit ei datus stimulus iste, an a Deo, an a diabolo. Si a Deo, quomodo angelus Satanae dicitur, quasi ab eo missus? Item si a diabolo missus, quomodo verum est quod sequitur: *Ne magnitudo revelationum extollat,* etc. Nunquid ideo Satanas per angelum missum a se Apostolum colaphizabat, ne in superbiam extolleretur? Solutio. Et a Deo, et a diabolo missus est ille qui Apostolum vexabat, sed propter aliud a Deo, et propter aliud a diabolo. A Deo ideo missus est, ne magnitudo revelationum extolleret eum. A diabolo ideo, ut eum ad [0553B] defectum traheret. A Deo etiam ideo missus est, ut virtus in infimitate perficeretur.

QUAESTIO XXXVIII. *Propter quod ter Dominum rogavi,* etc. Diabolus expetivit Job tentandum, et exauditus est [n: (Job I)]. Apostolus petivit ut angelus Satanae recederet ab eo, et non est exauditus. Ubi est ergo divina justitia? Nunquid justum fuit diabolum exaudiri, et non Apostolum? Solutio. Deus eos quos sanare disposuit, non semper exaudit ad voluntatem, sed ad sanitatem. Quosdam vero iratus quandoque exaudit ad voluntatem, ut diabolum.

QUAESTIO XXXIX. Item cum sciret Apostolus hanc infirmitatem sibi datam ad profectum, et ad humilitatis conservationem, quaeritur an rationabiliter petierit [0553C] ut ab eo talis tentatio recederet. Solutio. Licet hoc sciret, tamen humane casum ex afflictione timebat, [0554A] et sic ex timore humiliabatur; humilitas vero expellebat morbum superbae elationis, et hac dispensatione divinae providentiae, datus est ei stimulus ille.

QUAESTIO XL. *Et non egerunt poenitentiam,* etc. Quaeritur an poenitentia sit necessaria emendanti mores in melius; et quibus modis agitur poenitentia. Solutio. Non sufficit mores in melius mutare, et a malis recedere, nisi per poenitentiae dolorem, et humilitatis gemitum, et cordis contriti sacrificium satis fiat de culpa. Item notandum est quod tribus modis agitur poenitentia: ante baptisma, et post baptisma, pro gravioribus, et quotidie pro levioribus et crebris, juxta illud: Vitasti grandia, vide ne opprimaris arena.

QUAESTIO XLI. *Oramus Deum, ut nihil mali faciatis* [0554B] [n: (II Cor. XIII)]. Hic innuit Apostolus quod sola gratia Dei declinatur a malo, dicendo: Oramus, etc. Nil enim valet exterior plantatio et irrigatio sine interiori incremento: quod dat Deus sola gratia. Quaeritur ergo cur in sacris Scripturis saepe praecipitur nobis et declinare a malo, et facere bonum: cum ad neutrum istorum sufficiat liberum arbitrium, cum solius gratiae opus sit proprium tam hoc quam illud. Solutio. Voluntas nonnihil facit, sed sola non facit. Ideo cum praecipitur, ut fiat hoc vel illud, liberum arbitrium debemus agnoscere; cum autem oratur, gratiae beneficium postulatur. De gratia et libero arbitrio jam in superioribus dictum est, et similiter quid per se gratia sine voluntate operetur, [0554C] et quid sine illa non operetur; nec opus est ut eadem iterum repetantur.

## IV. IN EPISTOLAM AD GALATAS.

[0553]

[0553C] *[n: (Galat. I.)] Paulus apostolus,* etc. Hanc Epistolam Apostolus mittit Galatis: qui de Gallia venientes, in quamdam Graeciae provinciam Graecis se miscuerunt. Unde provincia illa prius Gallograecia dicta est, deinde Galatia. Unde cum Graeci acuti ingenii sint, hi stulti, et ad intelligendum tardiores, ut indociles Galli habentur. Hi prius ab Apostolo in fide, [0553D] et in doctrina evangelica sunt instructi, postea a pseudoapostolis multis modis sunt subversi, ut crederent gratiam Christi sine lege Moysi non sufficere ad salutem. Unde patet quae sit materia specialis, scilicet status Galatarum in quo tunc erant; generalis autem materia, communis status Ecclesiae. Intentio vero Apostoli in hac Epistola est Galatas versutiis pseudocircumventos ad veritatem fidei catholicae et doctrinae evangelicae revocare. Modus talis: salutem praemittit, ubi contra detractores, et de operibus legis gloriantes, de sua dignitate, et Christi gratia breviter tangit: commendans personam suam, quando pseudo deprimebant. Post salutationem de levitate eos redarguit: post personam suam latius commendat. Deinde legem Moysi improbat: [0554C] docens eam non esse tenendam post Christum, quia non solum non proficit ad salutem et justitiam, sed etiam officit. Post commendat Evangelium et fidem Christi, quae sufficit ad salutem.

QUAESTIO I. *Qui dedit semetipsum pro peccatis nostris, ut eriperet nos de praesenti saeculo,* etc. Cum mundus sive saeculum sit opus Dei qui bonorum [0554D] tantum auctor est, quaeritur hic quomodo totus in maligno positus sit mundus, vel quomodo saeculum dicatur nequam. Solutio. Non solum loca, sed etiam tempora et instrumenta malorum trahunt infamiam eorum, quae in eis fiunt: unde dies pessimi, et tempora periculosa dicuntur. Saltus quoque pleni latronibus, mali dicuntur; et gladius, quo sanguis effunditur, et calix, quo venenum propinatur; et sic mundus, vel saeculum malitiae nomen sortitur propter ea quae in eo fiunt.

QUAESTIO II. *Sed licet nos, vel angelus evangelizet vobis praeter id,* etc. Nonne multa erant, quae nondum eis Evangelizavit quae sunt credenda et tenenda parvulis, qui lacte simplicis doctrinae sunt nutriendi? Solutio. Non ait plusquam accepistis, sed praeter [0555A] id, inquit, per quod intelligit contrarium. Unde promittebat se venire ad quosdam, ut impleret ea quae eis deerant.

QUAESTIO III. *Si adhuc hominibus placerem,* etc. Quaestio, quae solet hic fieri, in prima Epistola ad Corinthios soluta est. Sed dicet aliquis: Quidquid alibi dictum sit, vellem audire, quomodo utrumque verum sit, *si adhuc hominibus placerem, Christi servus non essem;* et illud: *Placete omnibus per omnia [n: (I Cor. X)]*. Ipse non vult placere hominibus, ut sit servus Christi. Nobis autem praecipit ut omnibus hominibus placeamus. Nunquid non vult nos non esse servos Christi, cum utrumque non possimus, et illis placere, et Christi servi esse? Unde scriptum est: *Dissipavit ossa eorum, qui hominibus placent* [0555B] [n: (Psal. XXV)]. Eadem quaestio nascitur ex verbis Domini diversis. Alibi enim dicit: *Luceat lux vestra coram hominibus [n: (Matth. V)]*; et alibi: *Nolite justitiam vestram coram hominibus facere [n: (Matth. VI)]*. Solutio. Nihil aliud monemur, sive ex verbis Domini, sive ex verbis Apostoli, nisi ne finem bonorum operum in laude hominum ponamus, et ne eamdem quasi pro mercede bonorum operum optemus.

QUAESTIO IV. *Persequebar Ecclesiam Dei,* etc. Quaeritur an Apostolus persequendo Ecclesiam Dei peccaverit, cum zelum legis habuit, idque faciendo crederet propter Deum esse faciendum. Nam quisque tenetur, ut illud faciat, quod conscientia dictat [0555C] esse faciendum propter Deum, et ita si non faceret, videtur Deum offendere per contemptum. Item, Ecclesiam persequi, malum esse quis dubitet? Solutio. Dicunt quidam, sive hoc sive illud faceret, peccaret. Alii vero dicunt quod zelus ille, quem habuit Apostolus, erat bonus, sed opus illud malum fuit, et erroris, scilicet persecutio Ecclesiae.

QUAESTIO V. *Neminem autem aliorum apostolorum vidi, nisi Jacobum fratrem Domini.* Quare Jacobus minor filius Alphaei frater Domini dicatur solet quaeri. Solutio. Dicunt nonnulli quod ideo frater Domini dictus est, quia fuit filius Joseph de alia uxore, qui pater Domini putabatur: sed hoc non est ratum, cum Joseph virgo esse credebatur; alia ergo quaerenda [0555D] est solutio. Sciendum itaque quod Maria mater Domini, Joachim et Annae filia fuit, quae nupsit Joseph, et ita fuit Joseph putativus pater Domini. Mortuo autem Joachim, Cleophas frater Joseph eamdem Annam accepit uxorem, et genuit ex ea filiam quam vocavit Mariam, quae nupsit Alphaeo, qui genuit filios, scilicet Jacobum, Joseph, Simonem et Judam. Mortuo autem Cleopha, quidam Salomas eamdem Annam duxit, et ex ea filiam genuit nomine Mariam, quae nupsit Zebedaeo: et habuit ex eo filios Jacobum, qui dictus est Major, et Joannem evangelistam. Tres igitur viros Anna habuit, et tres filias. Nunc videndum est quare Jacobus Alphaei et minor dictus est frater Domini. Minor dictus est ad comparationem alterius, qui prius adhaesit Domino, [0556A] et ideo major vocatus est, non secundum tempus nativitatis, sed conversionis. Frater autem Domini dictus est secundum quosdam, quia filius materterae ejus erat, vel propter similitudinem sanctitatis ejus, vel potius quia nepos fuit patrui Christi, id est Cleophae. Hebraei enim germana consanguinitate ex parte patrum conjunctos fratres vocant. Notandum quod quatuor modis in Scripturis fratres dicuntur. Natura, ut Esau et Jacob; gente, ut omnes Judaei fratres inter se dicuntur; cognatione, ut omnes illi qui sunt de eadem familia; cum ex una radice turba diffunditat, ut Abraham, et Loth, et Jacob, et Laban Scriptura vocat fratres. Affectu fratres omnes Christiani, ejusdem gratiae participes, eumdem Patrem coelestem habentes.

[0556B]QUAESTIO VI. *Cogis gentes judaizare [n: (Galat. II)]*, etc. De hac reprehensione quaeri solet an fuerit vera, an dispensatoria, et an peccaverit Petrus, et vere reprehensibilis fuerit? Solutio. In responsione hujus quaestionis illa duo praeclara lumina Hieronymus et Augustinus videntur dissentire. Hieronymus dicit quod reprehensio illa dispensatoria, et non vera fuit, et quod Petrus non peccavit, nec reprehensibilis fuit. Augustinus vero asserit quod vera fuit reprehensio, nec simulatoria, et quod Petrus vere reprehensibilis fuit; nec secundum veritatem Evangelii ambulavit; non in hoc, quod infirmus factus est infirmis, sed quia suo exemplo cogebat gentes judaizare: alioqui consequens erit falsum scripsisse Paulum, quod nullatenus credendum est. [0556C] Item de abolitione legalium post Christum, nihilominus idem magistri duo non idem sentiunt. Hieronymus enim dicit quod post Christum mortiferae sunt illae legales observantiae. Augustinus dicit quod licuit Judaeis tunc in primitiva Ecclesia eas observare, tantum non ponerent spem in eis. Ante enim Christi adventum videntur fuisse necessariae; in ipso confinio legis et gratiae indifferentes, si in eis non poneretur spes; nunc autem sunt mortiferae. Nota quod dispensatio est inferioris status concessio causa vitandi scandali, in qua minus fit malum, ut majus vitetur. Salva reverentia secretorum, B. Augustini sententiam praeferimus sententiae B. Hieronymi super praedicta reprehensione et legis abolitione. [0556D] Unde objectionibus B. Hieronymi sic respondemus. Prima est: Christus est finis legis, id est consummatio et plenitudo legem implens, et consummans in se, et in suis. Non tamen ita quod lex post Christi adventum per nullum temporis curriculum licite a quoquam fieret. Item, *lex et prophetae usque ad Joannem.* Venerande senex Hieronyme, responde mihi sensu puro, qualiter est hoc intelligendum, lex et prophetae usque ad Joannem? Nunquid sic, quod post Joannem non licuit legem servare? Quod videtur secundum tuam disputationem. Sed nonne Christus etiam post Joannem legem servavit, vetus pascha celebrando? Nunquid Christus fecit quod non decuit? Est itaque intelligendum sic: *lex et prophetae usque ad Joannem,* id est a Joanne gratia Novi Testamenti [0557A] incoepit et praedicari et exhiberi: etex tunc Vetus Testamentum coepit cessare. Item tunc temporis non erat haeresis legales observare caeremonias, licet modo esset, maxime si quis crederet gratiam non sufficere ad salutem sine lege. Item si sunt observandae, salutem afferunt. Nonne quaedam observamus, quae salutem non conferunt, sed pro nostro arbitrio eis possumus uti, et non uti?

QUAESTIO VII. *Ex operibus legis non justificabitur homo, nisi per fidem Christi.* Quaeritur quomodo fides justificet et non opera, cum Deus reddat unicuique secundum opera sua. Nonne ex quo habet esse meritum et praemium, corona et justitia? Si ergo corona est ex operibus, videtur quod justitia sit ex eisdem. Solutio. In Epistola ad Romanos disputatum [0557B] est pro modulo nostro de hac quaestione: hic modo sufficiat dicere: fides ideo dicitur justificare, quia ex certitudine invisibilium aeterna bona diliguntur; dilectio autem justificat. Ex fide ergo dicit nos justificari, quia ipsa prima est, ex qua impetrantur caetera. Nec cum dicit nos ex fide justificari, opera bona frustrantur, sed ideo hoc dicit, quia ipsa opera sunt ex gratia fidei.

QUAESTIO VIII. *Si ea, quae destruxi, iterum reaedifico, praevaricatorem me constituo.* Sed dicet aliquis: Nonne fidem quam impugnabat destruxit, et iterum eam reaedificat praedicando, et sic videtur esse praevaricator? Solutio. Qui rem falsam, quae destrui potest, destruit, si eam iterum reaedificat, praevaricator est. Fides autem non potest destrui, licet [0557C] possit impugnari. Licet itaque Paulus prius conaretur nostram fidem destruere, et iterum reaedificare, non tamen praevaricator fuit.

QUAESTIO. IX. Item opponitur de eodem sic: *Si ea, quae destruxi, iterum reaedifico.* Ecce manifeste dicit se destruxisse legalia; alibi vero dicit: *Legem ergo destruimus? Absit! sed legem statuimus [n: (Rom. III)]*. Quomodo ergo verum est utrumque? Solutio. Duobus modis dicitur quis legem destruere. Ille legem destruit, qui eam in statu suo ante Verbi incarnationem dicit inutilem, nec a Deo datam asserit, et hoc modo legem Paulus non destruebat. Ille etiam dicitur legem destruere, qui eam ostendit post Christi adventum secundum carnalia non esse tenendam, [0557D] et hoc modo Paulus legem destruebat dicens: *Si circumcidamini, Christus nihil vobis proderit.*

QUAESTIO X. Nunquid Christus peccati minister, cum lex bona sit, et mandatum bonum, justum, et sanctum? quomodo Christus si legem ministrat, et peccatum? Nunquid Deus, quando legem dedit, peccatum ministravit? Solutio. Lex quidem bona, tamen occasio peccati: juxta quam rationem minister legis dicitur minister peccati.

## IV. IN EPISTOLAM AD GALATAS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XI. *Per legem enim legi mortuus sum,* etc., id est per auctoritatem legis eam dimisi: sed per quam auctoritatem, quaeritur. Solutio. Moyses dicit: *Suscitabo vobis prophetam de fratribus vestris, quem sicut me audietis [n: (Deut. XVIII)]*. Et Hieremias: *Consummabo testamentum novum domui Israel.* Et David: [0558A] *Et holocaustum pro peccato non postulasti: tunc dixi: Ecce venio [n: (Psal. XXXIX)]*. Ex hoc etiam quod in lege scriptum est: *Odio habebis inimicum tuum [n: (Matth. V)]*, cum nullus cum odio inimici possit salvari, constat quod lex neminem justificat. Ideoque ab ea ad gratiam quae justificat fugiendum est. Et quia lex tantum manum, et non animum cohibebat de exterioribus agendo, et omnes cultores suos sub maledictione constituebat, liquet quod per ipsam ipsi moriendum est, ut in Deo vivatur.

QUAESTIO XII. *Qui dilexit me, et tradidit seipsum pro me,* etc. Revoca quaestionem illam ad memoriam, quomodo Pater, Filius, et Judas conveniant in traditione Filii, super Epistolam ad Romanos secundum posse nostrum pertractatam. Si enim per [0558B] legem justitia, ergo Christus gratis mortuus est: sed Christus non est gratis, id est sine causa, sive utilitate, mortuus: ergo ex lege non est justitia. Lector, auctoritatem revoca ad memoriam quoties opus fuerit tibi probare quod ex lege non est justitia: hoc dico, quia sunt auctoritates quibus videtur quod possit ostendi quod ex lege sit justitia: sicut in superioribus ostensum est.

QUAESTIO XIII. *Quis vos fascinavit non credere veritati,* etc. Quaeritur quid sit fascinatio. Solutio. Magica ludificatio, qua oculis hominum ostenduntur aliter quaedam quam sint: fascinus, vel fascinatio vocatur: vel vulgo fascinatio, quod nocet infantibus. Oculi enim quorumdam dicuntur visu urere, et hic actus fascinatio existimatur. Sic invidia non solum [0558C] invido nocet aliena felicitate tabescenti, sed iis etiam in quibus aliqua bona incipiunt esse. Unde scriptum est: *Fascinatio nugacitatis obscurat bona [n: (Sap. IV)]*.

QUAESTIO XIV. *Qui ex fide sunt, benedicentur: qui ex operibus legis sunt, sub maledicto sunt.* Quaeritur quid sit esse ex fide, quid sit esse ex operibus legis. Solutio. Illi sunt ex fide quorum esse pendet ex fide, id est qui per fidem tendunt ad verum esse, et qui per fidei gratiam quaerunt justificari. Et soli a Deo aeternae vitae benedictionem consequentur. Ex operibus autem legis esse dicuntur, qui ex eis quaerunt justificari; ideoque sub maledicto sunt, tanquam legis transgressores.

QUAESTIO XV. *Maledictus omnis qui non permanserit [0558D] in omnibus quae scripta sunt in libro legis, ut faciat ea.* Quaeritur an Deus in lege praecepit aliquid quod non possit adimpleri? Si dicatur nihil, quomodo omnes, qui sunt ex operibus legis, sub maledicto sunt? Item, si Deus praecepit aliquid homini quod ipse non vellet facere, videtur Deus injustus et crudelis. Solutio. Dicunt quidam quod nihil praeceptum est in lege quod homo non possit adimplere. Contra quos dicit expositor, quod multa praecepit Deus, quae omnia nullus potuit adimplere. Unde apostolus Petrus: *Cur tentatis Deum, nobis imponere jugum, quod neque nos, neque patres nostri portare potuimus [n: (Act. XV)]*.

QUAESTIO XVI. *Maledictus omnis qui pendet in ligno.* Quaeritur an Christus sit sub hac universitate maledictionis [0559A] contentus? Sed ille est qui super omnia est Deus benedictus in saecula; per quem tollitur omnis maledictio, et qui benedixit nos omni benedictione in coelestibus. Ipse enim semen Abrahae promissum, in quo fit omnium gentium benedictio. Quomodo ergo iste potest esse maledictus? Solutio. Alia est maledictio culpae, quae longe est a Christo: alia est poenae, quam Christus voluntarie suscepit, factus pro nobis maledictum, sive peccatum, id est hostia pro peccato: ut omnium maledictionem tam culpae quam poenae de medio tolleret. Potest etiam dici quod maledictus fuit Christus maledictione culpae, non vere, sed secundum opinionem hominum: unde tanquam peccator cum iniquis reputatus est.

[0559B]QUAESTIO XVII. *Si enim ex lege haereditas, non ex promissione.* De hac consequentia quaeritur an vera sit. Ad sui veritatem requirit ut sint opposita haereditatem esse ex lege, et ex promissione: alioquin non sequeretur, si ex lege, non ex promissione. Quid est ergo, haereditatem esse ex lege: quid est esse ex promissione? quid etiam vocat haereditatem? Solutio. Haereditatem, vocat aeternam vitam: esse ex lege, est esse ex operibus legis, ad quorum impletionem homo videtur sibi sufficere, nec gratia Dei indigere, quod est ex meritis esse haereditatem. Ex promissione vero esse haereditatem, hoc est, esse ex gratia. Vide ergo, quod esse ex lege, et promissione sunt opposita. Unde alibi dicit Apostolus: *Si ex operibus, jam non ex gratia [n: (Rom. XI)]*, id est, si ex debito, [0559C] non ex gratia.

QUAESTIO XVIII. *Quid ergo lex?* Cum priores sancti, qui ante legem fuerunt, fuerint per gratiam fidei justi, et promissionem sint consecuti, quaeritur quare lex sit data? et quid utilitatis contulerit? Solutionem hujus quaestionis Apostolus ponit dicens: *Propter transgressionem lex posita est,* quod duobus modis potest intelligi, scilicet propter transgressionem cohibendam, ut saltem timore cessarent homines transgredi, ut quandoque idem facerent voluntarie; vel propter transgressionem lex posita est, id est, ut faceret homines transgredi, et sic humiliarentur, et medicum quaererent, et gratiae auxilium implorarent. Data est ergo ut superbos humiliaret, et infirmitatem proderet, [0559D] et duris in flagellum et in signum futurorum.

QUAESTIO XIX. Quaeritur cur statim post hominis casum lex non sit data? vel quare ipse Filius illico non venerit? vel quare tot homines perire permiserit? Solutio. Magno consilio hoc factum est, ut post hominis casum non illico lex daretur, vel Filius mitteretur. Nisi enim superbia hominis prius vires experiretur sui arbitrii, libertati sufficientiam arrogaret, et legem superflue datam, et Filium frustra venisse judicaret. Nec omnes, qui tunc fuerunt, perierunt: sicut nec omnes qui modo sunt, fiunt salvi. Itaque hoc factum est, ut homo morbum infirmitatis suae agnosceret, et gratiam sibi necessariam imploraret. In lege enim naturali relictus est sibi, [0560A] ut sic vires naturae experiretur, et convictus est de ignorantia, et confessus est, quia defecit lumen oculorum suorum: adhuc tamen credebat se habere virtutem, qua possit implere quidquid necessarium ad salutem erat. Unde et dicebat: *Non deest qui impleat, sed deest qui jubeat.* Quasi diceret: Cognitione, non virtute indigeo. Data est itaque lex, quae ignorantiam illuminaret, sed infirmitatem non adjuvaret: quae peccatum detexit, sed non consumpsit, qua data invaluit morbus, et aucta est concupiscentia, non legis, sed naturae vitio, et instantia diaboli, ut ita cognita utriusque legis insufficientia, et sua infirmitate, clamaret ad medicum, et quaereret gratiae auxilium: et sic multiplicatis infirmitatibus acceleraverunt ad medicum, qui veniens in forma [0560B] servi sanavit vulnera languidi. Hic est enim Samaritanus ille qui ad vulneratum, qui incidit in latrones, appropinquavit, et vulnera ejus alligavit: quem sacerdos, et levita, id est lex et sacerdotium, pertransierunt [n: (Luc. X)]: quia *lex ad perfectum neminem perduxit [n: (Hebr. VII)]*. Hic est Elisaeus, qui post missum baculum non effectivum salutis, venit ad suscitandum mortuum filium Sunamitis [n: (IV Reg. IV)]. Hic est Angelus magni consilii, qui descendit in piscinam, et mota aqua sanabatur unus [n: (Joan. V)]. Hic est omnipotens sermo, qui a regalibus sedibus venit, dum medium silentium omnia tenerent [n: (Sap. XVIII)]. Nota tria esse silentia. Primum silentium est ignorantia languoris, quod fuit sub lege naturali. Secundum silentium est desperatio salutis, [0560C] quod fuit sub scripta lege, et hoc silentium est medium. Tertium silentium est adeptio sanitatis: quod erit in gloria aeternae beatitudinis. Dum itaque omnia medium silentium tenerent, id est, de salute desperarent: summi Regis Filius de lumine coeli ad tenebras mundi vel inferni descendit. Et veniens locutus est pacem, dedit gratiam, proposuit misericordiam, promisit veniam. Et sic rupto medio silentio coeperunt aegroti pura fide, et vera confessione, quasi magnis clamoribus flagitare remedium, et accelerare ad medicum, per quem aegroti sanarentur, et vulnera curarentur.

QUAESTIO XX. *Lex posita est in manu Mediatoris.* Quaeritur cur Christus dicatur Mediator? Solutio. [0560D] Quia mediat nos, id est reconciliat Deo.

QUAESTIO XXI. Sed cum non solum Filius nos sibi reconciliet, sed etiam Deus Pater, sicut dicit Apostolus: *Deus erat in Christo, mundum reconcilians sibi [n: (II Cor. V)]*, quaeritur cur solus Filius dicatur Mediator Dei et hominum. Solutio. Tota Trinitas virtutis usu nos sibi reconciliat: sed solus Filius impletione obedientiae, et sacramentorum susceptione nos justificat et reconciliat. Unde non immerito solus Mediator dicitur.

QUAESTIO XXII. Cum Christus Deus, et homo, Dei et hominum mediator sit, quaeritur secundum quam naturam, an secundum divinam, an secundum humanam, an secundum utramque sit Mediator. Solutio. Auctores dicunt quod non est mediator secundum [0561A] quod est Deus, sed tantum secundum quod homo, per mortalitatem nobis appropinquans, Deo per justitiam.

QUAESTIO XXIII. *Sed conclusit scriptura omnia sub peccato.* Quaeritur quid vocet scripturam. Solutio. Legem, quam alibi vocat litteram, hic appellat Apostolus scripturam: quia tantum jubet, non adjuvat: aegrotum, qui sibi sanus videbatur, de morbo convincit, et sic ostendendo peccata, et non auferendo concludit omnia sub peccato. Data est ergo lex, ut gratia quaereretur: et gratia collata est, ut per eam lex impleretur: huic consonat quod alibi dicit: *Conclusit Deus omnia in incredulitate, ut omnium misereretur [n: (Rom. XI)]*.

QUAESTIO XXIV. *Quicunque in Christo baptizati [0561B] estis, Christum induistis.* Quaeritur de illo, qui ficte accedit ad baptismum, an sit in Christo baptizatus, et Christum indutus. Quod si dicatur sic, consequitur quod Christo sit conformis: si autem non est baptizatus, si poenituerit de sua fictione, poterit baptizari, sed hoc ei non conceditur: constat ergo quod si baptizatus. Solutio. In Christo baptizari, et Christum induere duobus modis intelligitur, vel sacramenti perceptione, quod commune est bonis, et malis; vel sanctificatione interiori, et vitae conformitate, quod solis bonis convenit.

## IV. IN EPISTOLAM AD GALATAS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XXV. Quaeritur quomodo Christus sit indumentum sanctorum, et anne sancti sint indumentum Christi? Solutio. Christus dicitur indumentum sanctorum, et sancti etiam indumentum [0561C] Christi. Sed aliter et aliter. Christus enim dicitur indumentum sanctorum per obumbrationem Spiritus sancti, ab aestu vitiorum eos protegens: sancti vero indumentum Christi, quasi ipsum intra se habentes, et circumdantes. Etiam ipsum sua sancta conversatione honorant: sicut mali male vivendo, blasphemant.

QUAESTIO. XXVI. *Si vos Christi, ergo Abrahae,* etc. Christus dicitur semen Abrahae, et fideles dicuntur semen Abrahae. Unde quaeritur an secundum eamdem significationem et Christus et fideles dicantur semen Abrahae? Solutio. Christus semen Abrahae est corporaliter, quia de ejus stirpe natus: fideles semen Abrahae spiritualiter sunt, id est justi per [0561D] fidem, sicut ille fuit.

QUAESTIO XXVII. *Sub elementis mundi eramus servientes [n: (Galat. IV)]*. Si ergo Judaei etiam sub elementis serviebant, in quo a paganis distabant? Solutio. Judaei sub elementis Deo, non ipsis elementis serviebant: pagani vero non Deo, sed ipsis elementis cultum divinum exhibebant.

QUAESTIO XXVIII. *Ubi venit plenitudo,* etc. Quaeritur cur adventus Salvatoris dicatur plenitudo temporis? Solutio. Ideo quia hoc tempore adimplentur quae praecedentibus temporibus erant praenuntiata, et magis proprie videretur dictum tempus plenitudinis, quam plenitudo temporis, et finis saeculi idem dicitur.

QUAESTIO XXIX. *Misit Filium suum,* etc. Quaeritur [0562A] unde et quo missus est Filius. Audi: *A Patre exivi, et veni in mundum [n: (Joan. XVI)]*.

QUAESTIO XXX. Sed dicet aliquis: Nonne *in mundo erat, et mundus per eum factus est [n: (Joan. I)]*. Nunquid missus est illuc, ubi prius erat. Solutio. Prius erat in mundo per potentiam, et essentiam, sed coepit aliter esse in mundo visibilis factus per servilis formae susceptionem. Sicut ergo quando a Patre exivit, Patrem non deseruit; sic in mundum venit, in quo prius erat. Quare autem missio Filii, vel Spiritus sancti, cum sit opus Trinitatis, Patri attribuatur, jam in praecedentibus dictum est.

QUAESTIO XXXI. *Factum ex muliere.* Cum sit natus de virgine Dominus, quaeritur cur Apostolus factum de muliere asserat? Solutio. Usus est Hebraicae [0562B] locutionis modo ponentis mulierem pro femina, ut Eva in Genesi nondum passa concubitum mulier vocatur. Nota quod expositor dicit quod Creator, qui semper erat, factus est, ut creatura esset; quia factus est homo, ut fieret quod non erat; non ut periret quod erat; hoc dico propter quosdam, qui negant eum aliquid factum esse.

QUAESTIO XXXII. *Factum sub lege, ut eos, qui sub lege erant, redimeret,* etc. Nonne per mortem suam redemit tam eos, qui sub lege erant, quam eos, qui sine lege erant? Quomodo ergo dicit Apostolus Christum sub lege factum, ut eos, qui sub lege erant, redimeret, quasi per legis observationem eos redemerit? Solutio. Factus est sub lege, ut eam impleret, et impletam cessare faceret; et sic etiam [0562C] Judaeos a legis praevaricatione redimeret. Nisi enim legem observaret, in qua facta est promissio, quis crederet quod ipse esset semen Abrahae promissum Abrahae, in quo non solum Judaei, sed etiam omnes gentes benedicerentur?

QUAESTIO XXXIII. *Ut adoptionem filiorum reciperemus.* Quid vocat adoptionem; an bona gratuita ad praesentem justitiam, an ad futuram gloriam pertinentia, per quae efficimur filii? Solutio. Quidam distinguendum putant inter filios adoptionis et filios gratiae, ego autem arbitror eosdem esse.

QUAESTIO XXXIV. *Misit Deus spiritum Filii sui,* etc. Nota Trinitatem hic manifeste significari. Sunt quidam, qui dicunt, quod sicut aeterna Verbi generatio [0562D] a solo Patre est, sic et temporalis ipsius missio; quia secundum hos Patrem Filium mittere, est ipsum a Patre esse, et nobis in carne assumpta apparere. Similiter asserunt de Spiritu sancto, quod sicut aeterna ipsius processio a Patre, et Filio, et non a semetipso est, sic et temporalis: sed Augustinus manifeste dicit quod tam Filii quam Spiritus sancti temporalis missio opus est Trinitatis; unde ipsius Filius dicit se missum a Spiritu sancto.

QUAESTIO XXXV. *Clamantem: Abba, Pater.* Quaeritur, cur Apostolus duo vocabula idem significantia posuerit; videtur enim alterum superflue poni. Solutio. Ideo hoc facit, ut duos populos una fide conjunctos innueret. Hebraicum enim nomen Judaeos, Graecum vocabulum gentilem populum significat; [0563A] eadem utriusque vocabuli significatio unitatem fidei et Spiritus figurat.

QUAESTIO XXXVI. *His, qui natura dii non sunt.* Hic innuit quod una natura est Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. Si enim Filius non est natura Deus, ergo nec colendus, nec adorandus. Sed opponitur sic nobis: Nonne humanitas Christi colitur et adoratur? nec tamen natura est Deus. Solutio. Quod est assumptum adoratur non propter se, sed propter assumentem; non ergo solam et nudam, sed Deitati unitam adoramus Salvatoris humanitatem.

QUAESTIO XXXVII. *Imo cogniti sitis a Deo.* Nonne Deus omnia ab aeterno novit? Quomodo ergo dicitur Deus tunc quasi primum nos cognoscere, quando incipimus in ipsum credere? Solutio. Tropica locutione [0563B] quod Deo auctore agimus, ipsi attribuitur; unde dicitur: Postulat pro sanctis, quia facit eos postulare, sic cognoscere nos, quia praestat nobis sui cognitionem et quiescere, quia facit nos in seipso conquiescere.

QUAESTIO XXXVIII. *Quomodo convertimini iterum ad infirma, et egena?* Galatae prius legem non tenebant, quomodo ergo dicit: *iterum convertimini ad egena,* etc. Solutio. Ut ostendat legalem observationem post Christi adventum distare parum, vel nihil ab idololatria. Vel ideo hoc dicit, quia non solum legem servare volebant, sed ad pristinos etiam errores convertebantur; sic duplici errore a pseudo circumventi erant.

QUAESTIO XXXIX. *Et septimae decadis septimum, [0563C] qui jubilaeus dicitur.* Quid est hoc quod dicit expositor? nonne quinquagesimus annus jubilaeus dicebatur in lege? quomodo ergo septimae decadis septimus annus jubilaeus dictus est? nam septimus septimae decadis est sexagesimus septimus. Solutio. Filii Israel aliquando captivitate pressi non potuerunt servare annum jubilaeum suo ordine. Sexagesimo sexto autem anno data est licentia redeundi a Cyro, et Dario, et ex parte redierunt, et sexagesimum septimum annum coluerunt pro jubilaeo. Sed dicet aliquis quod antequam septuaginta anni essent impleti, non sunt reversi de captivitate. Solutio. Non quidem generaliter et ex toto sunt reversi ante annum septuagesimum; tamen in anno [0563D] sexagesimo sexto, ut praediximus, quibusdam indulta est licentia redeundi, quod significatur per Alleluia, quod canitur in Sabbato post Parasceven, qui sexagesimus sextus dies est septuagesimae. Sed quoniam adhuc quidam detinebantur in captivitate, sequitur tractus, qui est signum laboris, sicut alleluia est signum laetitiae. Sequenti autem Sabbato canitur etiam secundum cum primo Alleluia praefigurans generalem reversionem Judaeorum quae est completis annis septuaginta.

QUAESTIO XL. *Si potuisset fieri, eruissetis,* etc. Nonne illud fieri potuit quod ait Apostolus? Solutio. Sacra Scriptura illud dicit non posse fieri, quod juste non fit; unde Job ait: *Utinam possem me occidere [n: (Job X)]*. Et Dominus ad Loth: *Non possum [0564A] quidquam facere, donec illo introeas [n: (Gen. XIX)]*. Non posse se dixit, quod sine dubio poterat per potentiam, sed non per justitiam.

QUAESTIO XLI. *Abraham habuit duos filios.* Nonne de Cetura post mortem Sarae plures filios habuit? Quomodo ergo dicit Apostolus eum duos habuisse quasi non plures quam duos? Solutio. Si plures quam duos, ergo duos; non enim dicit tantum duos, sed tamen potius de his quam de aliis dicit, quia Scriptura de istis singula prosequitur, innuens aliquid egregium praefigurari.

QUAESTIO XLII. *Haec autem sunt duo testamenta.* De hac et consimilibus locutionibus quaeritur quomodo verae sint. Nonne aliud est figura, aliud veritas; aliud significans, aliud significatum? quomodo [0564B] ergo nomen veritatis praedicatur de nomine figurae, cum dicitur: Haec sunt duo Testamenta, et *petra erat Christus? [n: (I Cor. X.)]* Solutio. Hoc verbum, esse, in hujusmodi locis, ponitur pro significare.

QUAESTIO XLIII. Item cur sacra Scriptura in tali loco utatur verbo substantivo, potest quaeri. Nonne planius esset, si diceretur: Haec autem significant duo testamenta, et petra figurabat Christum? Solutio. Vocum est significare, rerum est esse proprie. In theologia vero non solum voces habent significationem, sed etiam res in aliarum rerum ponuntur significationem, id est quaedam res aliis rebus significantur. Quoties ergo Scriptura sacra vult ostendere, quae res quam rem habeat significare, non dicit: hoc significat illud; sed hoc est illud, ut petra [0564C] erat Christus; si enim diceretur petra significat Christum, videretur quod hujus nominis petra, et non hujus rei petrae demonstraretur significatio.

QUAESTIO XLIV. Nota quod superius dicit, quod Ismael natus est secundum carnem; Isaac non secundum carnem, sed per repromissionem, sed nonne Isaac sicut Ismael natus est commistione utriusque sexus? quomodo ergo non est natus secundum naturam vel secundum carnem? Solutio. Ismael natus est usitata lege naturae, scilicet ex naturalium causarum concursu; generatio vero Isaac non naturae, sed divinae virtutis, et gratiae fuit operatio. Tali enim commistioni, quae in tali aetate esse potuit inter Abraham senem, et Saram vetulam et [0564D] sterilem natura non concedit filios; sed quod natura negavit, gratia contulit.

QUAESTIO XLV. Sed quomodo tunc qui secundum carnem natus est, persequebatur eum qui secundum spiritum, vel repromissionem natus est; sic et nunc. Quaeritur: Ubi hoc inveniatur quod Ismael persequeretur Isaac. In Genesi enim legitur, quod major cum minore ludebat [n: (Gen. XXI)]. Quid ergo mali fecit? quid peccavit? quomodo ludendo tantum eum persequabatur? Solutio. Lusum majoris cum minore intellexit Sara esse delusionem. Unde et indignat ait: *Ejice ancillam, et filium ejus. [n: (Ibid.)]* Et Apostolus talem delusionem vocat persecutionem. Ita et nos magis persequuntur delusores, quam aperti persecutores.

QUAESTIO XLVI. *Si circumcidamini, Christus vobis [0565A] nihil proderit. [n: (Gal. V.)]* Nonne circumcidit Apostolus Timotheum? Ergo decepit eum, et fecit ut Christus nihil prodesset? Solutio. Hoc dicit de iis qui quaerebant justificari ex circumcisione; et ideo se circumcidebant, et sic a gratia exciderunt, quam credebant insufficientem esse. Illis autem, qui eam ex quadam reverentia susceperunt, non tamen ponentes spem in ea, non erat perniciosa secundum Augustinum, secundum vero Hieronymum omnibus suscepta nocuit, nisi fieret dispensatio. De qua controversia superius plenius dictum est.

## IV. IN EPISTOLAM AD GALATAS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XLVII. *Testificor omni circumcidenti se, quoniam debitor est universae legis faciendae.* Nunquid si universam legem impleat, etiam sic poterit justitiam consequi? Quod videtur ex his verbis, sed [0565B] alibi manifeste habetur quod ex lege non est justitia. Item, nonne omnis homo tenetur, ut legem impleat, saltem secundum spiritum? Quid est ergo quod omnis circumcidens se hoc debet, non alius? Item: Nonne omnis tenetur, ut diligat proximum sicut seipsum? sed qui diligit proximum, totam legem adimplet. Nonne ex his videtur, quod omnis tenetur universam legem adimplere? Quid est ergo quod dicit: Testificor omni homini circumcidenti se, etc. Solutio. Qui ex circumcisione vel ex lege quaerit justificari, tenetur ad hoc, ut justitiam habeat, vel dignus sit vita, ut impleat quidquid praecipitur in lege, scilicet ut nihil concupiscat; et Deum ex toto corde diligat, in quibus duobus consistit perfecta justitia; quam, si quis haberet, non indigeret gratia [0565C] fidei, sicut nec angeli Dei, quae nulli concessa est in praesenti, nisi soli Mediatori Dei et hominum: unde necesse est, ut si quis vult justificari vel beatificari, ad solam gratiam confugiat; si enim in lege quaerit justificari, hoc exigitur ab eo quod non potest ab homine solvi.

QUAESTIO XLVIII. *In Christo Jesu neque valet circumcisio, neque praeputium.* Dicit expositor quod iis qui sunt in Christo Jesu sunt vitia fugienda, virtutes appetendae; media vero nec fugienda, nec appetenda, in quibus ponit circumcisionem. Unde videtur quod ipsa non prodest, neque obest; sed superius dictum est quod circumcisio non solum non prodest, sed etiam obest. Et Apostolus dicit: *Si circumcidamini, Christus vobis non proderit.* Si ergo [0565D] aufert nobis Christum, multum obest. Solutio. Circumcisio simpliciter suscepta, quod in ea non ponatur causa salutis, videtur esse indifferens, et sic non prodest, nec obstet; si autem hac intentione, et hoc animo, ut ex ea quaeratur salus, obest percepta.

QUAESTIO XLIX. *Omnis lex in uno sermone impletur: Diliges proximum tuum sicut teipsum.* Cum duo sint praecepta dilectionis, Dei scilicet et proximi, quaeritur quomodo in dilectione proximi omnis lex impleatur? Solutio. In dilectione proximi continetur dilectio Dei; quis enim potest diligere proximum propter Deum, nisi diligat Deum? Item nemo potest diligere proximum sicut seipsum, nisi diligat [0566A] se; nullus autem se diligit, nisi Deum diligat: quid est enim se diligere, nisi bonum suum amare? bonum autem verum et summum est Christus. Alioquin qui diligit iniquitatem, odit animam suam.

QUAESTIO L. Quaeritur quis sit proximus? Solutio. Omnis homo. Tenemur ergo ex praecepto omnem hominem diligere et exhibere officia pietatis omni indigenti.

QUAESTIO LI. *Sicut temetipsum,* etc. Quaeritur an debemus proximum quantum nosmetipsos diligere? Quod videtur, cum dicatur, sicut temetipsum. Solutio. Sicut non est quantitatis, sed qualitatis, hoc quidem tenemur aliis facere, quod volumus secundum rationem ab aliis nobis exhiberi. Nota: Cum utrumque praeceptum de dilectione in utroque [0566B] contineatur, saepe ponitur unum potius quam duo, si enim utrumque simul poneretur, videretur quod alterum sine altero haberetur, vel posset haberi.

QUAESTIO LII. *Caro concupiscit adversus spiritum.* Quaeritur quomodo dicatur caro concupiscere, cum sola anima concupiscat. Solutio. Quod anima facit ex carne, hoc carni attribuitur, sicut auris dicitur audire, oculus videre, cum anima haec per hujusmodi instrumenta agat.

QUAESTIO LIII. Cum ergo secundum substantiam idem sit anima et spiritus, quo anima concupiscit adversus spiritum; nunquid adversus semetipsam? Solutio. Carnem concupiscentem vocat delectationem carnalem, quam anima habet ex carne. Nomine autem Spiritus significat delectationem spiritualem. [0566C] Et propter has duas delectationes homo interior divisus est, et diversa sortitur vocabula. Secundum enim inferiorem delectationem, nunc caro, nunc homo, nunc anima vel animalis, vel carnalis dicitur; secundum vero superiorem dicitur spiritus, vel spiritualis, vel novus homo.

QUAESTIO LIV. *Si spiritu ducimini, non estis sub lege.* Quaeritur quid est esse sub lege? Solutio. Timore poenae, non amore justitiae abstinere ab omni malo opere, hoc est esse sub lege. Ut ille dicitur esse sub lege, qui ex ea quaerit justificari, qui debitor est universae legis implendae.

QUAESTIO LV. *Manifesta autem sunt opera carnis, quae sunt fornicatio,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus [0566D] inter opera carnis enumeret quaedam quae non sunt vitia carnis, sed potius animae, ut ira, invidia, etc. Solutio. Nomine carnis totum significat hominem, qui secundum se vivendo in haec cecidit. Credere enim omnia vitia ex carne esse, error est, ne diabolus, qui carnem non habet, ab his videatur immunis.

QUAESTIO LVI. *Fructus autem spiritus sunt charitas.* Dicit expositor quod Apostolus opera spiritus vocat fructus, quia propter se petenda sunt. Sed Augustinus dicit quod virtutes propter solam beatitudinem petendae sunt, propter se autem nihil amandum, nisi summum bonum, cujus fruitio nos beatos efficit. Quid ergo dicendum? quid tenendum? Solutio. Virtutes petendae sunt propter se, quia possessores [0567A] suos sincera delectatione delectant, sed non tantum propter se, sed etiam propter beatitudinem, quae est finis supremus.

QUAESTIO LVII. *Si praeoccupatus fuerit homo in aliquo delicto [n: (Gal. VI)]*, etc. Quaeritur quid sit praeoccupari, et quid vocet delictum. Solutio. Praeoccupatur, qui ideo cadit in aliquod delictum, sive peccatum, vel quia ignorat quod agendum sit vel dimittendum, vel cum cognoscit, sed tamen infirmitas ad peccandum impellit. Delictum est boni desertio, sicut peccatum mali perpetratio, vel delictum est quod ignoranter fit; peccatum quod a sciente, indifferenter tamen unum pro altero ponitur.

QUAESTIO LVIII. *Unusquisque onus suum portabit,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo utrumque sit verum. [0567B] *Alter alterius onera portate,* etc., et hoc, quod hic dicit: Unusquisque onus suum portabit? Solutio. Alia sunt onera participandae infirmitatis, de quibus superius egit; alia sunt reddendae Deo rationis de actibus nostris, de quibus hic agit. Verum est itaque quod in praesenti debemus subvenire invicem; et qui fortiores sunt aliorum infirmitates sustinere; et tamen in futuro unusquisque onus suum portabit, id est pro peccato suo et non pro peccato alterius.

QUAESTIO LIX. *Operemur bonum ad omnes,* etc. Quaeritur an praecepto teneamur officia pietatis impendere etiam inimicis? Quod videtur, cum Apostolus dicat: Operemur bonum ad omnes; et Dominus [0568A] in Evangelio: *Diligite inimicos vestros; benefacite iis qui oderunt vos [n: (Luc. VI)]*. Sed Augustinus ait: Diligere inimicos non est tantae multitudinis, quantam credo exaudiri in Dominica oratione, ubi dicitur: *Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris [n: (Matth. VI)]*. Et Gregorius ait: Sufficit non odisse inimicos, id est salutem eorem velle; et si opera misericordiae non eis impendantur. Solutio. Praecepto tenemur omnium salutem velle; sed impendere etiam officia pietatis inimicis quantum ad infirmos, et minus perfectos, consilium est, quantum ad perfectos praeceptum. Diligenter ergo notandum est quid secundum consilium, quid secundum praeceptum dicatur.

QUAESTIO LX. Item quando constat, quod bonum [0568B] sit benefacere malis, et peccatoribus, et impiis, quid est quod dicit Scriptura: *Da misericordi, et ne suscipias peccatorem, et impiis, et peccatoribus redde vindictam, et benefac humili, et ne dederis impio [n: (Eccles. XII)]*. Solutio. Sensus praedictarum auctoritatum est ut nulli peccatori ideo benefacias, quia peccator est, sed quia homo, id est nullius culpam debemus fovere, sed naturam. In unoquoque diligamus quod Deus diligit, et odiamus quod ipse odit; si autem non possumus omnibus tam bonis quam malis subvenire, famulis Dei bona, quae possumus, debemus impendere; unde Apostolus: *Maxime autem ad domesticos fidei.*

## V. IN EPISTOLAM AD EPHESIOS.

[0567]

[0567C] *[n: (Ephes. I.)] Paulus, apostolus,* etc. Hanc Epistolam scribit Ephesiis, quos in fide Paulus non fundavit, sed ab Joanne apostolo fundatos confirmavit, qui firmiter in fide et bonis operibus perstiterunt, quos hortatur ut in bonis proficiant, scribens eis a Roma de carcere. Est itaque materia apostoli in hac epistola status Ephesiorum, in quo tunc erant. Intentio vero, eos in bonis habitis confirmare, adulteriora provocare, nec non ad humilitatem actionemque gratiarum informare. Modus agendi talis est: more suo salutationem praemittit; deinde agit gratias, exponens multiplicia Dei beneficia, tum generi humano, tam ipsis apostolis, tum ipsis Ephesiis per solam gratiam collata. Deinde Christi dignitatem et praelationem ostendit. Postea ad patientiam [0567D] et charitatem eos invitat, unitatem fidei et Ecclesiae commendans, et dona gratiae enumerans, tandem ad certamen exhortans, contra principes tenebrarum militiae Christianae armaturam describit.

QUAESTIO I. *Benedictus Deus, qui benedixit nos,* etc. Cum benedici dicatur de Deo et de homine, quaeritur an eodem modo dicatur, et secundum eamdem significationem. Solutio. Aliter, et aliter de utroque. [0568C] Nam Deus ab homine benedicitur, cum dignis laudibus extollitur; homo vero a Deo benedicitur, cum Deus ei munera gratiae suae impertitur.

QUAESTIO II. Dicit expositor quod Apostolus hic ponit duas praeordinationes: unam de praesenti justitia, alteram de futura corona. Sed cum una sit Dei praedestinatio, quae est ipse Deus, quaeritur quomodo duae dicantur? Solutio. Non ideo duae dicuntur, quin una sit; sed quia duos habet effectus, scilicet per praesentem justitiam, et futuram gloriam. Cui solutioni sic objicitur: Si numerus praedestinationum assignandus est secundum numerum effectuum, jam erunt infinitae praedestinationes, cum sint infiniti praedestinationis effectus. Solutio. Omnes justitiae, quia numero et non specie differunt, [0568D] unus effectus dicuntur esse, sic et omnes coronae, quia non specie, sed solo numero discernuntur, unus effectus praedestinationis dicuntur. Quoniam vero praesens justitia et futura gloria non solum numero, sed etiam specie differunt, non incongrue duo effectus praedestinationis dicuntur. Notandum quod multa sunt hujusmodi, quae cum sint plura numero, et unum specie, simpliciter non plura, sed [0569A] unum secundum usum loquendi dicuntur, ut fides mea et fides illius cum duae sint numero, non tamen duae simpliciter, sed una dicuntur; quia una sunt specie; sic de herba, de voce, de intellectu, visu et multis aliis, littera, figura, elemento, vocali, differendum est.

QUAESTIO III. *Sicut elegit nos, ut essemus sancti,* etc. Dicit Pelagianus quod eos quos Deus ab aeterno elegit, ideo eos elegit, quia praesciebat eos futuros bonos et per liberae voluntatis arbitrium, non quia eos erat sanctificaturus. Sed hanc ejus haeresim destruit Apostolus cum dicit: Elegit nos, ut essemus sancti, *et immaculati;* non dicit quia futuri eramus sancti; sed ut essemus. Si enim hoc esset quod dicit Pelagianus, justificatio nostra causa [0569B] esset divinae electionis, non divina electio causa nostrae justificationis, et sic quod est temporale causa esset ejus quod est aeternum, non e converso: quod non potest esse.

QUAESTIO IV. *In quo habemus redemptionem,* etc. Quaeritur an idem vocet redemptionem et remissionem peccatorum? si idem videtur, quod alterum superflue positum sit. Solutio. Redemptionem, pretium illud, per quod redempti sumus, vocat, per quod datur facultas nobis redeundi; remissio vero peccatorum, quae nobis confertur in baptismo, effectus est ipsius redemptionis.

QUAESTIO V. *Instaurare omnio, quae in coelis sunt,* etc. Cum Christus pro angelis non sit mortuus, quaeritur quomodo ea quae sunt in coelis per Christum [0569C] sint restaurata? Solutio. Ideo hoc dicitur, quia qui per gratiam salvantur, supplent numerum angelorum diminutum; vel per ea quae in coelis sunt, intelligit animas, quae jam sunt in coelo; per ea quae in terris sunt, sanctos adhuc in hac vita degentes.

QUAESTIO VI. *Signati estis Spiritu sancto, qui est pignus haereditatis.* Quaeritur quomodo Spiritus sanctus dicatur pignus haereditatis nostrae; nonne pignus est illud quod ad tempus pro aliquo pretio datur, et iterum cum pretium solvitur, illud aufertur? nunquid ergo Spiritus a nobis aufertur, cum ipsa haereditas nobis datur? Solutio. Pignus hic ponitur pro arrha, quae est de ipso pretio, nec aufertur cum pretium solvitur; unde quidam codices habent arrham, non pignus.

[0569D]QUAESTIO VII. *Constituens ad dexteram suam,* etc. Deus spiritus est, nec corporis forma finitur, vel concluditur: quomodo ergo dicitur Filius sedere ad dexteram Patris, cum Pater non habeat latus dextrum vel sinistrum, quia non habet corpus? Solutio. Per dexteram Dei in sacra Scriptura quandoque significatur aeterna beatitudo, quandoque aequalis divinae naturae, quandoque judiciaria potestas. Est enim Christus ad dexteram Patris, quia in Patris majestate manet aequalis, et quia *Pater non judicat quemquam, sed omne judicium dedit Filio [n: (Joan. V)]*. Per dexteram ergo Dei vel per manum, vel brachium, vel digitum, vel oculum, vel aurem, et similia, nihil corporale debet intelligi, sed totum spiritualiter.

[0570A]QUAESTIO VIII. *Supra omne nomen, quod nominatur non solum in hoc saeculo,* etc. Nonne novem sunt ordines angelorum? Angeli, archangeli, virtutes, potestates, principatus, dominationes, throni, cherubin, seraphin, et non sunt plures iis, qui in praesenti omnes nominantur. Quomodo ergo dicit: Constitutum super omne quod nominatur non solum in hoc saeculo, *sed etiam in futuro,* quasi aliqui sint in futuro nominandi, qui in praesenti non nominantur. Solutio. Quorumdam angelorum denominationes datae sunt eis secundum officia quae nobis exhibent in praesenti, ut angeli, archangeli, virtutes, potestates, principatus, dominationes; ideo dicuntur nomina in praesenti, quia hoc modo eorum denominatio spectat ad praesens. [0570B] Unde in futuro evacuabuntur, quando Christus tradet regnum Deo et Patri, quando Deus *erit omnia in omnibus.* Quorumdam vero angelorum denominationes ad futurum statum spectant, ut throni, cherubin et seraphin; unde nec in futuro evacuabuntur, sed super omnes hos ordines supercoelestium spirituum sublimata est humanitas Salvatoris.

QUAESTIO IX. *Et ipsum dedit caput super omnem Ecclesiam.* Quaeritur secundum quam naturam, scilicet divinam an humanam, Christus sit caput Ecclesiae. Solutio. Potest dici quod secundum divinam, secundum quam caput, principium, et auctor est omnium fidelium. Cui solutioni sic objicitur: Eadem ratione potest dici quod sit caput lapidis, et omnis creaturae, quorum est auctor; et nihil diceretur [0570C] de Ecclesia. Ideo dicimus, quod Christus proprie secundum humanitatem est caput Ecclesiae.

QUAESTIO X. Quare Christus dicitur caput Ecclesiae. Quare dicitur caput esse, non inconvenienter potest quaeri. Solutio. Ideo Christus caput Ecclesiae dictus est, quia sicut in capite hominis plene sunt omnes sensus carnales, scilicet visus, auditus, odoratus vel olfactus, gustus et tactus; sic in Christo est plenitudo omnium sensuum spiritualium, scilicet plenitudo gratiae, *de cujus plenitudine nos omnes accepimus [n: (Joan. I)]*, unde et membra dicimur, quasi aliquem sensum non omnes habentes, sicut caetera membra corporis unum solum sensum habent; nullum habet omnes praeter caput.

QUAESTIO XI. *Eramus natura filii irae (Ephes. [0570D] II)*, etc. Deus est auctor naturae; si ergo natura sumus filii irae, videtur quod Deo auctore hoc sumus. Solutio. Natura tribus modis accipitur in sacra Scriptura, scilicet pro illo integro et interrupto bono, in quo conditus est homo, secundum quam acceptionem dicitur quod omnis creatura Dei bona est. Dicitur etiam natura corruptio peccati, in qua concipitur, et cum qua nascitur omnis homo, et sic accipitur hic cum dicitur: Eramus natura filii irae. Vitium enim inolevit pro natura: quia ergo pro culpa originalis peccati, cum quo nascimur, digni sumus gehenna, ideo dicimur natura filii irae. Accipitur etiam natura pro reliquiis illius boni naturalis, quae remanserunt in nobis post peccatum, et sic [0571A] accipitur, ubi legitur quod *Gentes naturaliter faciunt ea, quae legis sunt [n: (Rom. II)]*.

QUAESTIO XII. *Mihi omnium sanctorum minima data est gratia [n: (Ephes. III)]*. Cum Apostolus non esset minimus in numero omnium sanctorum, imo inter apostolos unus de primis esset, quomodo verum dicat se minimum omnium nominando. Solutionem hujus quaestionis quaere super illum locum: *Ego sum minimus apostolorum,* in prima Epistola ad Corinthios.

QUAESTIO XIII. *Investigabiles divitias Christi,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus intellexit vel evangelizavit, si investigabiles sunt divitiae. Investigabiles enim res dicuntur, quae non possunt comprehendi. Solutio. Quae natura sua investigabiles, per gratiam [0571B] et revelationem sancti Spiritus factae sunt vestigabiles non solum Apostolo, sed etiam caeteris fidelibus, quos ipsa unctio docet de omnibus.

QUAESTIO XIV. *Sacramenti absconditi,* etc. Quaeritur, quae dicantur abscondita. Solutio. In mundo causae absconditae sunt omnium quae naturaliter fiunt. In solo autem Deo absconditae sunt causae omnium, quae per gratiam fiunt. De his duobus generibus causarum jam in superioribus aliquantum dictum est.

QUAESTIO XV. *Ut innotescat principibus, et potestatibus in coelestibus per Ecclesiam,* etc. Quaeritur an mysterium incarnationis fuerit revelatum super coelestibus essentiis ante ipsius impletionem. In solutione hujus quaestionis videntur contrarii Hieronymus [0571C] et Augustinus. Dicit enim beatus Hieronymus, angelicas dignitates ad purum non intellexisse supra memoratum sacramentum; unde sic quaerunt: *Quis est iste, qui venit de Edom? [n: (Isa. LXIII.)]* Et alibi: *Quis est iste rex gloriae? [n: (Psal. XXIII.)]* Beatus vero Augustinus dicit, quod non latuit angelos mysterium regni coelorum; unde littera diversis exponitur modis, Ut innotescat, etc. Haec autem contrarietas, quae videtur esse inter praedictos doctores sic potest solvi: illis, qui majoris dignitatis sunt, revelatum est praedictum sacramentum; aliis vero non ad purum, ut dicit beatus Hieronymus. Quod autem angeli crescant quotidie in cognitione, ex iis quae in mundo fiunt multi consona voce asserunt doctores. [0571D] Unde nos quasi pro certo hoc habemus, cum canonica Scriptura hoc videatur manifeste innuere.

## V. IN EPISTOLAM AD EPHESIOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XVI. *Ex quo omnis paternitas in coelis, et in terra nominatur.* Ex hoc loco habemus, quod non solum Deus Pater noster est, sed et angeli, et homines patres nostri dicuntur. Sed alibi dicit Dominus: *Unus Pater est vester, qui est in coelis [n: (Matth. XXIII)]*. Si ergo unus est, quomodo plures? vel si plures, quomodo unus? Solutio. Sicut Deus, qui solus vere est, et solus vere bonus est, essentiae et bonitatis suae nomen caeteris impertit, ut ipsa quoque et esse, et bona dicantur; ita et ipse, qui solus vere Pater est omnium creatione, et fidelium regeneratione, paternitatis nomen caeteris concessit. Sciendum est ita, quod Deus Trinitas omnium Pater est [0572A] creatione et fidelium regeneratione. Deus vero ingenitus solus Pater est Unigeniti per naturam. Angeli vero patres nostri dicuntur auctoritate exempli, ratione beneficii, cura, et providentia. Homines vero patres et natura, et auctoritate exempli et ratione beneficii; et cura, et providentia.

QUAESTIO XVII. *Quae sit latitudo, et longitudo, et sublimitas.* Quae sit latitudo dilectionis, quae longitudo aeternitatis; quae sublimitas potentiae, quod profundum scientiae, secundum hoc, quod de Deo exponitur, talis potest esse intelligentia.

QUAESTIO XVIII. *Scire etiam supereminentem scientiae charitatem Christi.* Si charitas Christi supereminet scientiae, quomodo potest sciri? si non potest sciri, quomodo orat Apostolus, ut eam sciant discipuli? [0572B] Solutio. Quae scientia humana non potest comprehendi, per gratiam ex parte cognoscitur, quod ut fiat Apostolus orat.

QUAESTIO XIX. *Ut impleamini in omnem plenitudinem Dei,* etc. Nonne minus habebimus quam ipse Deus? quomodo ergo possumus impleri in omnem plenitudinem Dei? quomodo potest aliquis habere plenitudinem Dei, et non esse plenus Deus et aequalis Deo? Solutio. Sensus est, ut sitis pleni Deo, non plenus Deus. Hoc est in plenitudinem omnem impleri; in praesenti habere plenitudinem virtutum, et in futuro plenitudinem gloriae; non enim optat Paulus alicui plenitudinem divinae naturae conferri, sed ut simus pleni Deo in praesenti et in futuro.

[0572C]QUAESTIO XX. *Unus Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma [n: (Ephes. IV)]*. Quomodo intelligantur? Solutio. Unus Dominus Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus in natura, non in persona. Una fides non in numero, sed genere, quia similis in omnibus, sicut omnium idem volentium dicitur esse eadem voluntas. De fide jam dictum est. Unum baptisma dicitur, quia aequale est, et ejusdem essentiae a quocunque detur, et ideo etiam quia non potest reiterari.

QUAESTIO XXI. *Dedit dona hominibus.* David dicit? *Accepisti dona in hominibus [n: (Psal. LXVII)]*; si dedit, quomodo accepit? vel si accepit, quomodo dedit: Solutio. Tanquam Deus dedit; accepit non solum in semetipso secundum quod est homo, sed etiam in membris suis, in quibus est, de qua acceptione [0572D] agit Propheta: unde dicit: Accepisti dona in hominibus.

QUAESTIO XXII. *Quae dona dedit ascendens.* Quaeritur quae dona dederit ascendens. Solutio. Spiritum sanctum, et dona etiam, quae non sunt Spiritus sanctus, quae cum dat etiam in ipsis dat Spiritum sanctum, non seorsum dat Spiritum sanctum, et dona ejus, quae non sunt ipse, sed dando Spiritum sanctum dat dona; et dando dona Spiritus sancti donat ipsum. Hoc dico propter eos qui nolunt concedere Spiritum sanctum dari, cum sit immutabilis, sed dona ejus tamen. Tunc enim dicitur Spiritus sanctus nobis dari a Patre, et Filio, et etiam a semetipso, cum cordibus nostris per charitatem hanc virtutem [0573A] infundit ad hoc, ut diligamus Deum et proximum.

QUAESTIO XXIII. Cum Christus sit Deus et homo, quaeritur secundum quam naturam dedit dona? Solutio. Secundum eam dedit, ut dicit expositor, secundum quam ascendit, et descendit, et sic secundum quod est homo dedit; quia divinitas, quae est ubique, nec descendit, nec ascendit. Sed hoc videtur esse contrarium praedictis, ubi asserui, quod tanquam Deus dedit, non tanquam homo. Cum ergo legitur, quod tanquam homo vel secundum humanitatem dedit, sic intelligi debet, qui est homo, non quia est homo, sed quia est Deus.

QUAESTIO XXIV. An Deitas descendit, et quomodo. Item dicit alia expositio, quod Christus secundum [0573B] Deitatem descendit, et secundum humanitatem ascendit, quod videtur contrarium superioribus. Dictum enim quia divinitas quae ubique est, nec descendit, nec ascendit, hic autem dicitur quod Deitas descendit: quid ergo tenendum est? Solutio. Cum dicitur quod Deus descendit, hoc intelligitur de descensione incarnationis, qua Deus factus est homo. Cum dicitur quod homo descendit, hoc debet intelligi de descensione ad inferos, quae fuit tantum secundum animam, non secundum corpus, quod jacuit in sepulcro, nec secundum Deitatem, quae ubique erat.

QUAESTIO XXV. *In virum perfectum,* etc. Quaeritur qua perfectione. Solutio. Nec perfectio potest intelligi vel de toto Christo, id est corpore et capite, vel [0573C] de singulis membris. Christus enim in se consummatus, in aliis crescit et proficit, sed in futuro tandem perficietur, ut nec viribus, nec numero aliquid superaddatur. Unusquisque etiam tunc erit vir perfectus, tam virtutum consummatione quam corporis statura. Unde sequitur: *In mensuram aetatis plenitudinis Christi.* Unusquisque enim in ea perfectione resurget, in qua erat, vel ad quam perventurus erat, cum esset triginta annorum; non enim omnes erunt ejusdem magnitudinis vel illius, cujus Christus erat de hac vita exiens.

QUAESTIO XXVI. *Irascimini, et nolite peccare,* etc. Permittit Apostolus irasci, quod non potest vitari, sed Dominus prohibet irasci dicens: *Quicunque [0573D] irascitur fratri suo, reus est judicio [n: (Matth. V)]*. Unde videtur quod illud quod Dominus prohibet, Apostolus permittat. Item dictum est superius: quod nihil prohibetur in Novo Testamento, quod non possit vitari, sicut nec aliquid praecipitur, quod non possit impleri; quod non videtur esse verum, si Dominus prohibet irasci, et nullus possit vitare irasci. Solutio. Primus motus irae, qui non est in potestate nostra, permittitur ab Apostolo: Dominus autem non prohibet primum motum, qui dicitur propassio, sed voluntatem, et propositum nocendi alteri. Aliud itaque permittitur ab Apostolo, et aliud prohibetur a Domino, quod potest vitari gratia adjuvante.

QUAESTIO XXVII. Quae sint portae mortis et vitae. Nota quod concupiscentia, et timor mundi duae sunt [0574A] portae mortis, per quas intrat diabolus; sicut timor et amor Dei sunt portae vitae, per quas intrat Christus. Uterque stat ad ostium; et Christus pulsat, et diabolus: sed hostis expellitur, Christus introducitur.

QUAESTIO. XXVIII. *Nolite contristare Spiritum sanctum,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo quis possit Spiritum sanctum contristare, cum impassibilis sit nec tristitiae passionem possit in se suscipere. Solutio. Quodam tropo usus est in theologia satis usitato; quo ea, quae Deo auctore in nobis fiunt, ipsi attribuuntur; quia illi ergo, quos implet charitate, sicut gaudent de profectibus aliorum, sic contristantur de lapsibus cadentium, dicit Apostolus: Nolite contristare Spiritum sanctum, id est eos in quibus habitat [0574B] Spiritus sanctus per charitatem.

QUAESTIO XXIX. Donate *invicem,* etc. Dicit Scriptura: Nisi dimittamus conservis nostris, quod Deus repetit dimissa; sed quaeritur quomodo Deus repetit? Nunquid iterum puniet Deus pro peccatis pro quibus jam satisfactum est per cordis contritionem, et oris confessionem, et per dignos fructus poenitentiae. Nunquid bis puniet in idipsum? Solutio. Ad hoc, ut aliquis faciat dignos fructus poenitentiae, exigitur ut de caetero non peccet mortaliter; unde quicunque post poenitentiam peccat, inutilem sibi priorem satisfactionem reddit.

QUAESTIO XXX. Quid bis punire in idipsum? Bis autem punire in idipsum est pro peccato per poenitentiam deleto, nec repetito, in alia vita iterum punire, [0574C] quod Deus non facit. Si aliquis autem poenitens affligitur pro aliquo peccato et iterum idem repetat; si in hac vita vel in alia pro illo iterum puniatur, hoc non est bis punire in idipsum.

QUAESTIO XXXI. *In odorem suavitatis [n: (Ephes. V)]*, etc. Si mors Christi fuit Deo suavis odor, ergo mortem ejus libenter accepit; ergo non peccaverunt Judaei, qui illum crucifixerunt; quia id fecerunt, quod bonum erat, et Deo placuit. Solutio. Actio Judaeorum mala erat, nec Deo placebat id quod fiebat ab eis; sed passio Christi bonum fuit, et salutis nostrae causa.

QUAESTIO XXXII. *Dies mali sunt,* etc. Nonne dies habent esse ex Deo auctore, sicut scriptum est: *Tuus [0574D] est dies, et tua est nox? [n: (Psal. LXXIII.)]* Quomodo ergo dicuntur mali? Solutio. Pro malitia, et miseria hominum dicuntur dies mali; alioquin quantum ad horarum spatia ordinati sunt, et boni.

QUAESTIO XXXIII. *Nemo carnem suam odio habuit,* etc. Nonne viri sancti carnem oderunt, persequuntur, crucifigunt et mortificant, non nutriunt, nec fovent? quomodo ergo verum est, Nemo carnem suam odio habuit? Solutio. Sancti non carnem, sed carnis vitium oderunt, et persequuntur.

QUAESTIO XXXIV. *Propter hoc relinquet homo patrem.* Quaeritur quomodo hoc ad Filium Dei pertineat, qui nunquam Patrem deseruit, sed semper cum eo inseparabiliter permansit? Solutio. Quia Filius in forma, qua patri aequalis est, nobis non [0575A] apparuit, dictus est Patrem deseruisse vel reliquisse; nunquam tamen ab eo recessit: in mundum venit, et Patrem non deseruit.

QUAESTIO XXXV. *Qui uxorem suam diligit.* Quaeritur de qua dilectione hic agat; si enim de dilectione, qua diligimus nos mutuo propter Deum, sensus est: Qui diligit uxorem suam, *seipsum diligit,* id est facit quod sibi utile est: secundum hoc ita posset dicere de quolibet proximo. Solutio. Hoc ideo dicit Apostolus, quia magis instat viro providere uxori quam alii: unde si propter Deum acquirit ei necessaria, et regit, et se diligit, id est, facit quod sibi utile est; quia inde meretur apud Deum.

QUAESTIO XXXVI. *Servi, obedite dominis vestris [n: (Ephes. VI)]*. Hic quaeritur an liceat Christiano servum [0575B] habere, cum hoc Apostolus permittat. Catholica quoque, et maxime Gallorum Ecclesia hoc recipit. Solutio. Melius esset hujusmodi servitutem non exigere, nec Ecclesia quasi bonum recipit, sed quasi malum tolerat.

QUAESTIO XXXVII. *Filii, obedite parentibus vestris; et vos, patres, nolite ad iracundiam provocare filios.* Quaeritur quare Apostolus praecipiat parentibus ut [0576A] filios diligant, et filiis ut parentes honorent, cum natura ad se mutuo diligendos compellat. Solutio. Naturalis amor non habet meritum, nisi propter Deum fiat: ideo praecipit ut se propter Deum diligant, et sic meritum habeant.

## V. IN EPISTOLAM AD EPHESIOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XXXVIII. *Non est nobis colluctatio contra carnem.* Nonne sancti pugnant contra carnem et sanguinem, contra malos homines, vel contra vitia, quae ex carne et sanguine oriuntur? quomodo ergo dicit: *Non est nobis colluctatio,* etc.? Solutio. Non est nobis colluctatio tantum contra carnem et sanguinem, sed etiam contra daemones.

QUAESTIO XXXIX. *Adversus mundi rectores.* Nonne Deus, qui mundum condidit, mundum gubernat, et regit, ut idem sit conditor et rector? quomodo ergo [0576B] daemones vocat Apostolus mundi rectores. Solutio. Hic nomine mundi signat mundi amatores. Hic est mundus, qui totus in maligno positus est: hic est mundus, in quo non reperitur nisi concupiscentia carnis, concupiscentia oculorum et superbia vitae: hunc mundum vocat Apostolus tenebras, subjungens *harum tenebrarum,* et alibi dicens: *Fuistis aliquando tenebrae; nunc autem lux in Domino [n: (Ephes. V)]*.

## VI. IN EPISTOLAM AD PHILIPPENSES.

[0575]

[0575C] *[n: (Philip. I.)] Paulus et Timotheus,* etc. Hanc epistolam scribit Apostolus Philippensibus, qui sunt Macedones. Sunt enim Philippi metropolis civitas in Macedonia, quae est quaedam provincia in Graecia, quam aedificavit Philippus pater Alexandri, vocans eam nomine suo. Hi autem accepto verbo praedicationis ab Apostolo firmi in fide fuerunt, nec pseudo receperunt. Hos ergo munit contra duplex bellum, scilicet tribulationum et pseudopraedicatorum. Est itaque intentio Apostoli in hac epistola cohortari Philippenses ad patientiam contra tribulationes, et ad constantiam contra pseudoapostolos. Modus talis: more solito salutem praemittit. Deinde gratias agit pro eis, implorans eis majora bona, ut virtutibus crescentes ad perfectionem perveniant. Deinde [0575D] ad patientiam tribulationum monet exemplo suo, et Christi. Postea ut sibi caveant a versutiis pseudoapostolorum. Tandem admonitionem mortalem interserit, et prope finem de gratia, quam sibi Romani per Epaphroditum miserant, se gaudere dicit.

QUAESTIO I. *Quid enim? dum omni modo sive per occasionem, sive per veritatem Christus annuntietur.* Quaeritur quomodo permittat Apostolus malis praedicare evangelicam doctrinam cum alibi scriptum sit: *Peccatori dixit Deus: Quare tu enarras justitias meas [n: (Psal. XLIX)]*? etc. Item: *Non est speciosa laus in ore peccatoris [n: (Eccli. XV)]*. Item: Cujus vita despicitur, restat ut praedicatio ejus negligatur. Solutio. In hujusmodi praedicator increpatur propter se, non propter alios. Non enim sibi prodest, sed aliis quod praedicat: [0576C] unde laus Dei in ore peccatorum non est speciosa. Tolerandi ergo sunt mercenarii. Unde Dominus: *Super cathedram Moysi sederunt Scribae et Pharisaei: quae dicunt facite [n: (Matth. XXV)]*, etc. Itaque praedicatores, qui pro veritate praedicant, diligendi sunt; mercenarii, qui ex occasione et temporali commodo veritatem annuntiant, permittendi sunt; fures et latrones, sive lupi cavendi, imo fugiendi sunt.

QUAESTIO II. *Quid eligam, ignoro,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus dubitet utrum eligat, an manere in carne, an dissolvi et esse cum Christo [n: (Philipp. I)], cum sciat quod quanto pugna fortior, tanto corona major. Nonne sciebat majoris meriti esse pugnare quam quiescere? Solutio. Affectus ad utrumque trahebat: idcirco dicit se ignorare quid [0576D] eligat. Dubitat ergo Apostolus ex affectu, non ex ignorantia. Sed tunc quaeritur: Quomodo dicat multo melius esse dissolvi et esse cum Christo. Solutio. Melius, hic ponitur pro suavius et securius.

QUAESTIO III. *Vobis donatum est non solum, ut in eum credatis, sed etiam ut pro ipso patiamini,* etc. Quaeritur an ipsum pati sit bonum, et an sit donum Dei? quod si est, appetendum est. Solutio. A quo est fides credentium, ab eo est tolerantia patientium. Poena autem ipsa in se non est bona, nec propter se appetenda, nec inter dona Dei debet enumerari. Pati tamen pro Christo bonum est et desiderandum; quia magnum habet meritum. Nec Apostolus dicit simpliciter: Vobis donatum est pati; [0577A] sed sic: Vobis donatum est pro Christo pati.

QUAESTIO IV. *Qui cum in forma Dei esset [n: (Philipp. II)]*. Quaeritur quid hic notet forma. Solutio. Forma aliquando ponitur pro repraesentatione, aliquando pro veritate rei, ut hic: Qui cum in forma Dei esset, id est in veritate divinae essentiae et in aequalitate substantiae; sicut enim homo hominem, canis canem gignit , sic Deus Deum genuit per omnia aequalem, non imparem: unde et Filius dicitur esse hoc, quod Pater est et quoniam hoc potest secundum personam, et naturam intelligi, Augustinus ostendit hujus dicti intelligentiam, dicens: Ideo Filius dicitur id quod Pater est, quia sicut Pater est Deus, sic et Filius, et sicut Pater est omnipotens, sic et Filius, et sicut Pater est immutabilis, sic et [0577B] Filius. Ideo enim unum, et summe unum sunt Pater et Filius, quorum nulla est diversitas naturae vel voluntatis. Utrumque ergo dicit Scriptura, quod Filius est aequalis Patri, et quod Pater major est Filio, sed hoc secundum formam servi, illud autem secundum formam Dei.

QUAESTIO V. *Et habitu inventus est ut homo,* etc. Quot modis aliquid habetur? Solutio. Quatuor modis aliquid alicui accedit, ut habeatur, vel sic ut mutet et non mutetur, ut sapientia; vel sic ut mutet et mutetur, ut cibus; vel sic ut nec mutet nec mutetur, ut annulus; vel sic ut non mutet sed mutetur, non a sua natura, sed a quadam priori forma, ut vestis, quando induitur; non mutat hominem, sed mutatur; non a natura sua, sed accipit speciem et formam, quam [0577C] dejecta non habuit, secundum quam comparationem et similitudinem intelligitur incarnatio: sic enim forma servi accessit ad formam Dei, ut eam non mutavit vel convertit, sed ipsa forma servi est mutata, non a natura sua, sed in excellentiorem et digniorem statum, quam prius fuerat. Hoc ergo totum, quod Augustinus dicit de habitu, ideo adducit ut ostendat, quod quando Verbum caro factum est non est mutatum vel conversum in hominem; sicut nec homo mutatur in vestem, quando ea induitur. Hoc autem, quod quidam addunt de suo, quod sicut homo quando induitur veste sua, non fit aliquid; sic nec Deus, quando formam servi accepit, factus est aliquid: hoc, inquam, non habent ex verbis Augustini, [0577D] nec alterius sancti, cum sit falsum: si enim in omnibus volunt tenere similitudinem adductam de veste, oportet eos concedere, quod sicut homo non fit vestis, quando ea induitur; ita nec Deus homo, quando forma se servi induit, factus sit. Si enim Christus non est nisi id quod fuit ab aeterno, nullum esse habuit commune cum matre: ergo non consubstantialis matri; quia nullum substantiale dicitur de utroque. Dum enim dicitur: Christus est homo, et Virgo mater Domini est homo, non idem significatur, hoc nomine, homo, secundum hos novos haereticos. De his plenius dictum super Epistolam ad Romanos.

[0578A]QUAESTIO VI. *Qui humiliavit semetipsum factus obediens,* etc. Quaeritur an Christus aliquid meruit. Solutio. Nobis, non sibi meruit. Nos enim per ejus meritum facti sumus digni vita aeterna; ipse vero per mortem suam sibi non acquisivit aliquid, quo prius dignus non erat. Dici tamen potest: Vere per humilitatem passionis meruit claritatem resurrectionis, scilicet impassibilitatem et immortalitatem. Non dico quod Christus, nisi moreretur, immortalis et impassibilis non fieret; sed dico quod tale meritum tali praemio erat dignum.

QUAESTIO VII. Quaeritur quomodo simul in eadem anima potuerit esse summa beatitudo et tristitia: ante enim passionem haec duo fuerunt in Christo. Quod enim ibi fuerit beatitudo secundum mentem [0578B] ex quo fuit homo, credendum est: alioquin, quomodo esset verus Deus, non video. Item quod ibi fuerit tristitia constat, cum ipse dicat: *Tristis est anima mea usque ad mortem [n: (Matth. XXVI)]*. Solutio. Sicut in Paulo fuit vis inferior et vis superior, sic in Christo fuit vis inferior, animae scilicet motus, vel affectus quidam, qui mortem horrebat: ratio tamen superior in sua beatitudine libera vigebat. Non enim affectus carnis in ipso, sicut in caeteris, rationem impediebat in aliquo, ut minus divinitate contemplaretur.

QUAESTIO VIII. Item quaeritur quomodo majorem beatudinem non habuit post resurrectionem, quando immortalitatem et impassibilitatem induit? Solutio. Non tunc habuit plus quantum ad mentem, sed quod [0578C] prius habuit, tunc quietius possedit, sicut rex quietius et securius regnum suum possidet cessantibus infestare inimicis.

QUAESTIO IX. *Propter quod donavit,* etc. Nonne prius habuit nomen, quod est super omne nomen? Quomodo ergo dicit, Propter quod donavit? non solum enim secundum quod Deus est, datum est ei hoc nomen ab aeterno secundum naturam, sed etiam secundum quod est homo a sui conceptione datum est illud homini assumpto secundum gratiam. Solutio. Tunc res dicitur fieri, quando innotescit: quod enim prius habuit, tunc primum post resurrectionem hominibus et daemonibus innotuit.

QUAESTIO X. Item quaeritur cui datum sit hoc nomen, [0578D] an Deo, an homini? Solutio. Augustinus dicit quod homini et non Deo datum est nomen *quod est super omne nomen [n: (Philipp. II)]*, scilicet ut sit Deus et Filius Dei per gratiam non participationis, sed unionis, et totum habeat homo assumptus per gratiam, quod habet Deus genitus per naturam. Per gratiam itaque homo habet, ut sit filius, non filius gratiae, sed filius naturae. Aliter dicit Ambrosius quod Deo non homini datum est nomen, quod est super omne nomen.

QUAESTIO XI. Sed nunquid Augustinus, et Ambrosius, super hoc contraria sentiunt? Solutio. Alia est donatio gratuita, de qua Augustinus; alia naturalis, [0579A] de qua loquitur beatus Ambrosius. Datum est homini, ut sit Deus per personalem unionem statim in sui conceptione: quando enim Deus factus est homo per dignationem, et homo factus est Deus per gratiam, non Deus adoptivus, sed Deus naturalis, Deus aeternus, Deus omnipotens. Deo autem genito datum est ab aeterno esse Deum per naturam. Itaque nulla est in intelligentia contrarietas inter doctores veritatis.

QUAESTIO. XII. *Qui spiritui servimus Deo,* etc. [n: (Philip. III.)] Quaeritur qua servitute. Nota quod servitus, quae soli Deo debetur, dicitur latria; unde et idololatra, qui Dei culturam exhibet idolis, et abominatio dicitur idololatria, et domus idolium, et sacrificium idolothytum. Sed servitus, qua per charitatem [0579B] jubemur servire invicem, Graece dulia dicitur: utraque vero servitus sermone Latino nuncupatur.

QUAESTIO XIII. *Hebraeus ex Hebraeis, secundum legem Pharisaeus.* Quaeritur unde dicti sint Hebraei. Solutio. Hebraei dicuntur ab Heber, non ab Abraham, ut visum est beato Augustino aliquando, quod postea retractavit: quod inde patet, quia ipse Abraham est Hebraeus in quodam loco dictus: quod non esset, si hoc nomen ab ipso derivatum esset. Item Abraham interpretatur *pater multarum gentium;* Hebraei, *transeuntes.* Constat ergo verum esse quod Hebraei non ab Abraham dicti sunt, sed ab Heber: qui solus in divisione linguarum Hebraicam retinuit [0579C] linguam.

QUAESTIO XIV. *Secundum justitiam, quae in lege est.* Quaeritur quomodo dicat se conversatum secundum justitiam, quae in lege est, sine querela, cum alibi dicat se cum aliis in desideriis carnis, dum esset in lege, ambulasse, unde et filium irae se nominat? Solutio. Utrumque verum est, et quod secundum desideria carnis ambulavit, et tamen secundum justitiam, quae in lege erat, quae timore poenae, non amore servire facit; quae manum, non animum comprimit, conversatus sit sine querela: talis erat justitia in lege.

## VI. IN EPISTOLAM AD PHILIPPENSES. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XV. *Non habens justitiam meam,* etc. Nonne Deus legem dedit, et ei obedire praecepit? [0579D] quomodo ergo justitiam, quae est ex lege, dicit suam? Solutio hujus quaestionis in superioribus continetur. Dum enim erat in lege quaerens ex operibus legis justificari: in hoc quod credebat propriis viribus posse adimplere ipsam legem, justitiam legis suam faciebat.

QUAESTIO XVI. *In fide ad cognoscendum,* etc. Hoc de fide non habente tempus operandi intelligitur, sed diligere nonne est opus fidei? Sed fides sine dilectione, postquam aliquis est adultus, nunquam valet. Quomodo ergo dicit expositor quod hoc debet intelligi de fide non habente tempus operandi, quod ipsa valeat ad Deum cognoscendum, et ad alia? Solutio. Hoc ideo dicitur, ne quis putet [0580A] sufficere hoc ad salutem, scilicet credere, et habere fidem sine operibus, cum habet bene operandi facultatem.

QUAESTIO XVII. *Quorum nomina sunt scripta,* etc. Quaeritur quid sit liber vitae. Solutio. Liber vitae est praedestinatio Dei, in qua omnes salvandi scripti sunt, vel saltem per solam praedestinationem, vel etiam per justitiam et praedestinationem.

QUAESTIO XVIII. *Gaudete in Domino semper [n: (Philipp. IV)]*, etc. Dicit expositor quod gaudium in saeculo, et gaudium in Deo contraria sunt, nec in eodem simul esse possunt. Sed nonne aliquis est qui divisus est, et partim gaudet in saeculo, et partim in Domino, sicut partim diligit mundum, et partim diligit Deum? Solutio. Illo gaudio dicitur [0580B] quilibet gaudere, quod in illo cognoscitur praeponderare, et illam partem hominis interioris quam occupat gaudium mundi, non tenet gaudium quod est in Domino, quia non possunt esse in eodem circa idem.

QUAESTIO XIX. *Petitiones vestrae innotescant apud Deum,* etc. Nonne Deus omnia plene et perfecte novit antequam eveniant? quomodo ergo dicit Apostolus, Ut petitiones innotescant apud Deum? Solutio. Sensus est: Petitiones vestrae adeo sint vehementes et non tepidae, ut dignae sint exaudiri et impleri. Cum enim adimplentur, nobis innotescunt, quod ad Deum perveniunt.

QUAESTIO XX. Dicit expositor quod angeli offerunt [0580C] orationes nostras Deo: ideo quaeritur qualiter haec oblatio sit intelligenda. Solutio. Salva reverentia secretorum, dicimus quod ab angelis nostras orationes Deo offerri, nihil aliud est quam per eos dignas fieri, ut a Deo exaudiantur. Item angeli medii sunt inter nos et Deum: sicut enim divina secreta nobis annuntiant, sic ea, quae apud nos hic aguntur, Deo nuntiare dicuntur.

QUAESTIO XXI. Sed cum Deo sua perfectio ad omnia cognoscenda sufficiat, quaeritur ad quid angeli ei aliquid nuntiant? Solutio. Non ut eum doceant, sed ut aeternam et incommutabilem veritatem ejus consulant, et ut sciant quid sibi sit faciendum, quid, et quibus et quando sit annuntiandum.

[0580D]QUAESTIO XXII. *Non quaero datum, sed fructum,* etc. Quaeritur quid distet inter datum et fructum. Solutio. Datum vocat id quod datur, ut cibus, nummus, vestis. Fructus vero intentio datoris: quae ideo dicitur fructus, quia secundum eam opus judicatur utile et fructiferum. Vel fructum vocat mercedem ipsam. Unde opus bonum dicitur flos, ex quo fructus aeternae vitae nascitur. Nota quod per corvum, qui pavit Eliam, intelligitur donum, ubi opus bonum fuit sine intentione bona. Per viduam, quae eumdem prophetam pavit, intelligitur fructus; ubi fuit bonum opus cum intentione bona.

## VII. IN EPISTOLAM AD COLOSSENSES.

[0581]

[0581A] *[n: (Coloss. I)] Paulus apostolus,* etc. Hanc epistolam scribit Apostolus ad Colossenses, qui sunt Asiani: quibus non ipse Apostolus praedicavit, sed ejus discipuli, scilicet Archippus et Epaphras. Sed Archippus ministerium in eos acceperat; Epaphras vero ex eis oriundus fuit, et ab Apostolo instructus doctrinam Archippi confirmavit. Postea vero pseudoapostolis supervenientibus, et carnales observantias praedicantibus, in dubium illis venerat quibus esset credendum. Unde Apostolus, cujus auctoritas celebris erat, quasi medius judicat, quae pars potius sit tenenda, scribens eis ab Epheso. Intentio itaque Apostoli est in hac epistola confirmare Colossenses in ea fide et doctrina, quam a discipulis ejus acceperunt, et non in aliquo praeter [0581B] Christum spem ponendam esse docet. Modus tractandi talis est: more solito salutem praemittit; deinde gratias agit de bonis eorum, fidem et dilectionem eorum commendans. Orat ut perficiantur in Christo, cujus beneficia, et secundum utramque naturam primatum commendat, et post ministerii sui dignitatem commemorat, et monet ne per philosophiam, vel legis caeremonias seducti a Christo recedant. Tandem omnes simul, et separatim, scilicet sexus, et aetates, et conditiones moraliter instituit. In fine monet Archippum sollicitum esse ministerii sui.

QUAESTIO I. *Gratias agentes,* etc. Dicit expositor quod hic incipit Apostolus ostendere quod lex [0581C] non prodest, sed nocet. Nonne lex bona, et a Deo data, et non solum non nocuit, sed profuit in statu suo? quomodo ergo verum est quod non prodest, sed nocet? Solutio. Verum est quod lex ante gratiam profuit; sed post gratiam inutilis fuit. Cui solutioni sic objicitur: Nonne lex modo perhibet testimonium veritati, et per illam illuminamur in cognitione Deitatis? ergo etiam nunc tempore gratiae nobis prodest lex. Quomodo ergo verum est: Lex non prodest, sed nocet? Solutio. Lex lecta, et spiritualiter intellecta prodest, et non nocet: secundum vero litteram observata non prodest, sed nocet.

QUAESTIO II. *Qui dignos nos fecit in partem sortis sanctorum.* Quaeritur quid vocet sortem, cujus [0581D] participes facti sumus. Solutio. Futuram haereditatem, quae sorte, id est divina gratia et voluntate, sine meritis datur, hic vocat Apostolus sortem.

QUAESTIO III. Item quaeritur quomodo sine meritis futura haereditas detur sanctis, cum per fidem, et dilectionem, et bona opera eam mereantur. Solutio. [0582A] Sine meritis praecedentibus fidem intelligendum est, non sine subsequentibus: quae sunt ex gratia, et ideo non excluduntur, cum dicitur quod sola gratia datur futura gloria. De his jam diximus superius.

QUAESTIO IV. *Transtulit nos in regnum Filii.* Quaeritur quid dicat *regnum Filii Dei.* Solutio. Regnum coelorum, vel Filii, pluribus modis accipitur, scilicet pro futura gloria, ut ibi: *Adveniat regnum tuum [n: (Matth. VI)]*; vel pro praesenti Ecclesia, ut ibi: *Cum tradet regnum Deo et Patri [n: (I Cor. XV)]*; vel pro fide Christi, ut ibi: *Regnum Dei intra vos est [n: (Matth. XII)]*; vel pro sacra Scriptura, ut ibi: *Auferetur a vobis regnum coelorum, et dabitur genti facienti fructum [n: (Matth. XXI)]*.

[0582B]QUAESTIO V. *Filii dilectionis suae.* Nonne Spiritus sanctus est dilectio, qua Pater diligit Filium, et Filius Patrem, et Christus est filius dilectionis? Videtur ergo, quod sit filius Spiritus sancti: quod fides non recipit. Solutio. Dilectio communiter accipitur pro divina natura, sive substantia, sive essentia, cum dilectionis filius esse praedicatur. Est enim Filius naturae, substantiae, et essentiae Patri consubstantialis, et coessentialis. Quid autem dilectio significet, cum dicitur: Spiritus sanctus est dilectio, qua Pater diligit Filium, et e diverso alibi expositum est. De redemptione item, et imagine, et de eo quod Christus dicitur caput Ecclesiae, jam dictum: nec oportet, ut acta agamus.

[0582C]QUAESTIO VI. Quaeritur autem an Christus secundum humanitatem fuerit caput sanctorum incarnationem praecedentium. Videtur quod sic: sed qui nondum secundum humanitatem erat, quomodo potuit esse caput eorum? Vel si, quomodo potuerunt habere, quod nondum caput erat? Solutio. Christus etiam secundum humanitatom potest dici caput eorum qui fuerunt ab Abel, quia per fidem futuri omnes salvati quotquot salvati sunt. Nota quod Christus ejusdem naturae esse cum Patre praedicatur, ubi filius dilectionis esse ostenditur. Ubi vero imago, non solum ejusdem substantiae identitas, sed etiam personalis proprietas insinuatur. Ubi primogenitus omnis creaturae esse dicitur, ibi Patri coaeternus asseritur. Ubi [0582D] quod omnia per ipsum condita sunt legitur, omnipotentia ipsius declaratur. Ubi dicitur quod *omnia in ipso constant [n: (Coloss. I)]*, immensitas ejus manifestatur, cujus aeternitas in Joanne insinuatur, ubi scriptum est: *In principio erat Verbum [n: (Joan. I)]*; et personalis proprietas cum subjungitur: *Et Verbum erat apud Deum [n: (ibid.)]*; et substantiae identitas, [0583A] cum dicitur: *Et Deus erat Verbum [n: (Joan. I)]*. Est itaque Filius Patri coaeternus, consubstantialis, coomnipotens; alius in persona, idem cum Patre omnium creaturarum principium.

QUAESTIO VII. *Et ipse,* Christus scilicet, *est caput Ecclesiae.* Dicitur quod Ecclesia coepit primo ab Abel, qui primus fuit justus, sed nonne Adam fuit justus? Creditur enim quod post lapsum per poenitentiam, et fidem sit justificatus: quare ergo non dicitur Ecclesia incoepisse ab Adam? Solutio. Ab Adam maculam originalis peccati contraxit Ecclesia, ab Abel nullam, et ideo ab Abel melius incoepisse dicitur quam ab Adam; quia Scriptura de peccato Adam, et non de justitia facit mentionem, et de justitia Abel, et non de peccato. Christus [0583B] ergo semper caput omnium, qui fuerunt ab initio, sicut eorum, qui secuti sunt eum: per quem solum accessum habemus ad Patrem.

QUAESTIO VIII. *Videte, ne quis vos decipiat per philosophiam, et inanem fallaciam [n: (Coloss. II)]*, etc. Nonne cognitio rerum naturalium, quam tradiderunt philosophi, utilis fuit ad Dei invisibilia cognoscenda? Per visibiles enim rerum visibilium formas, quarum doctrina docetur in mathematica, venitur ad invisibiles rerum visibilium causas, quas docet physica: per quas venitur ad cognoscendas invisibiles substantias, et invisibilium substantiarum invisibiles naturas. Quomodo ergo Apostolus talem cognitionem vocat inanem fallaciam? Solutio. Apostolus non reprehendit philosophos de [0583C] hoc, quod naturas rerum inquirebant; sed de hoc, quod potentiam Dei cum sit infinita, sub causis naturalibus coarctare conabantur, dicentes Deum nihil facere contra naturam. Unde Deum creaturam fieri, virginem parere, mortuum revivere, dicebant esse impossibile. Hunc ergo errorem eorum jure reprehendit Apostolus: non veram, quam habebant, de naturis cognitionem.

QUAESTIO IX. *In quo habitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis.* Cum una et simplex plenitudo divinitatis sit, quomodo dicat omnis plenitudo divinitatis, cum omnis soleat colligere multitudinem? Solutio. Omnis plenitudo divinitatis dicitur, ut I otetur: quod omni modo inhabitandi ibi est, etiam personaliter. Vel aliter: Omnis plenitudo dicitur ut insinuetur [0583D] quod in ipso est plenitudo non solum scientiae, sed etiam potentiae et bonitatis. In quo destruitur error eorum qui dicunt quod homo assumptus habet omnem scientiam per gratiam, quam habet Verbum per naturam, sed non omnem potentiam.

QUAESTIO X. *Plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter.* Cum divinitas sit incorporea, quaeritur quomodo possit habitare corporaliter in Christo. Solutio. Corporaliter dicit, id est, completive, solide et veraciter, respiciens ad legales figuras, quae fuerunt umbra futurorum, quarum corpus, id est, impletio et veritas est Christus. Vel aliter: Corporaliter non significat naturam rei existentis, sed potius [0584A] modum existendi. Sicut enim corpus sic habet esse naturaliter in uno loco, quod simul non potest esse in alio: sic plenitudo divinitatis habet esse in homine assumpto: quo modo in nulla alia est creatura. In omni creatura est per essentiam, in justis per gratiam, in solo Christo secundum personalem proprietatem. Hoc est ergo Deitatem habitare in Christo corporaliter, id est personaliter. Sicut corpus est in pluribus locis, simul non corporaliter sed spiritualiter. Hoc dicens non nego veritatem, et essentiam corporis Dominici esse simul in pluribus altaribus, sed per hoc insinuo quod modum illum existendi non habet communem corporibus aliis, vel ex natura corporis, sed potius communem cum spiritu, non creato, sed increato. Utrumque [0584B] mirum, et verum; quod spiritus creatus alicubi est corporaliter, et corpus Christi sacramentale in pluribus locis spiritualiter.

QUAESTIO XI. *Delens chirographum decreti, quod erat contrarium vobis,* etc. Quaeritur quid vocet decretum, quid chirographum. Solutio. Decretum nominat vel ipsam legem Moysi, vel Dei praeceptum, quod primo homini dedit in paradiso, dicens: *De ligno scientiae boni et mali ne comedas [n: (Gen. II)]*; chirographum utriusque decreti violati memoriam: omnium autem culparum chirographa deleta sunt fuso sanguine sine culpa.

QUAESTIO XII. *Quae sunt umbra futurorum, corpus autem Christi.* Quaeritur quomodo distinguatur umbra, corpus, spiritus. Solutio. Aliud est umbra, [0584C] aliud corpus, aliud spiritus: quae tria aliis nominibus dicuntur figura, res, veritas, ut idem sit umbra et figura; idem corpus et res; idem spiritus et veritas. Legales caeremoniae umbra, et figura futurorum dicebantur. Sacramenta gratiae corpus, sive res illarum umbrarum vel figurarum sunt: spiritus vel veritas dicitur gratia spiritalis scilicet quam conferunt sacramenta Novi Testamenti, et significant: sacramenta vero Veteris Testamenti, tantum gratiam spiritualem significant, et non conferunt: et haec differentia inter haec et illa sacramenta. Item sciendum est quod illa, quae tempore legis fuerunt praecepta, nunc tempore gratiae non sunt praecepta; sed tantum veritatis testimonia, unde tunc peccatum erat non [0584D] observare etiam unum. Nunc autem non est peccatum ea non custodire; imo qui custodit, offendit.

QUAESTIO XIII. *Mortificate membra vestra [n: (Coloss. III)]*, etc. Quaeritur quid, vel quae vocet membra, quae sunt mortificanda. Nunquid oculus, manus, pes sunt mortificandi? Solutio. Membra hic vocat Apostolus concupiscentiam membrorum, sicut ipse subjungit, et exponit *fornicationem,* etc.

QUAESTIO XIV. *Avaritiam, quae est idolorum servitus,* etc. Nonne aliud est avaritia, aliud idololatria? quomodo ergo avaritiam vocat idolorum servitutem? Solutio. Ideo avaritiam comparat idololatriae, quia non est dispar malitia. Sicut enim idololatra colit truncum, sic avarus nummum. Et sicut idololatra nititur auferre Deo honorem suum, sic avarus res [0585A] quas Deus communiter pro omnibus creavit, sibi usurpat soli.

QUAESTIO XV. *Exspoliantes veterem hominem,* etc. Quaeritur quid hic vocet veterem hominem. Solutio. Dicitur quandoque vetus homo Adam primus homo, qui peccando se, et totam posteritatem suam induit tunica vetustatis. Dicitur quandoque vetus homo, quilibet homo, qui portat imaginem terreni; quandoque vero dicitur vetus homo ipsa vetustas, quae consistit in culpa et in poena; quandoque vetus homo habitus vitiorum nuncupatur, ut hic, secundum expositorem.

## VII. IN EPISTOLAM AD COLOSSENSES. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XVI. *Et induite novum hominem.* Quaeritur similiter quid hic vocet novum hominem? Nam novus homo quandoque dicitur Christus, a quo [0585B] est omnis novitas; quandoque novus homo dicitur quilibet in Christo renovatus; quandoque etiam habitus virtutum; quandoque specialiter mens rationis. Sed superius, quod homo interior vocatur, mens, dictum est; hic autem dicitur quod mens interior dicitur novus homo: quod videtur esse contrarium, cum aliud sit novus homo, aliud interior, ut jam ostensum est. Solutio. Dicit expositor quod novum hominem vocat rationalem mentem, nec est contrarium ad id quod superius dictum est, quod mens interior homo dicitur: idem enim propter diversas proprietates diversa sortitur vocabula.

QUAESTIO XVII. *Qui renovatur in agnitionem Dei secundum imaginem ejus,* etc. Item quaeritur quomodo [0585C] mens dicatur renovari secundum imaginem Dei, cum ipsa sit imago Dei, nunquid renovari potest secundum seipsam? Solutio. Eadem est imago quae renovatur, et illa secundum quam renovatur, sicut dicimus aliquem mortuum esse secundum corpus, id est corpore non secundum spiritum. Mens itaque secundum semetipsam, id est in semetipsa renovatur. In Epistola tamen ad Ephesios dicitur, quod ipsa renovatio fit secundum Deum: ideo secundum Deum, ne secundum creaturam esse dicatur. Per talem enim renovationem Deo consimilis et conformis efficitur: ideo secundum ipsam esse dicitur. Nota quod haec imago, quae in cognitione Dei renovatur, aeque in viro et in femina invenitur: quae alia [0586A] est ab illa, de qua superius dictum est: *Vir est imago Dei, et mulier viri.*

QUAESTIO XVIII. *Donantes vobis metipsis, si quis adversus aliquem habet querelam.* Hoc idem praecepit Dominus, dicens: *Debitoribus vestris dimittite [n: (Matth. VI)]*, sed quid est quod a nobis dimitti possit? quod est debitum, quod a nobis possit exigi ab illo, qui nobis injuriam intulit? Solutio. Hoc est dimittere injuriam illatam, pro nobis nullo modo satisfactionem propter injuriam postulare: quaedam alia super hoc alibi a nobis dicta sunt.

QUAESTIO XIX. Dicit expositor quod qui ab illicitis abstinet laudem habet; qui vero a licitis temperat, laudem et praemium quasi diceret: Ille vitat poenam, hic etiam meretur coronam. Sed nonne etiam ille, [0586B] qui abstinet ab illicitis, non solum laudem, sed etiam mercedem habet? Solutio. Qui abstinet ab illicitis semper vitat poenam, sed non semper meretur coronam, nisi tunc tantum, quando tentatur et impugnatur.

QUAESTIO XX. *Omnia in nomine Domini facite.* Per omnia, non intelligit nisi bona, quae sunt a nobis facienda. Unde quaeritur an omnia facienda praecipiat propter Deum fieri. Nunquid ex praeceptis constringor dare pallium meum pauperi, quem indigere video, et sciam hoc Deo placere. Nam si dimitto, videor contemnere: quod scio illum velle fieri. Solutio. Sic debet intelligi: Omnia facite in nomine Domini, id est nihil contra Deum faciatis, et in bonis non gloriam vestram, sed Dei quaeratis. Non [0586C] tamen in omnibus quae agimus meremur; quia quaedam sunt indifferentia, ut sedere, stare, spiritum ducere, manum claudere, oculos aperire, et hujusmodi. Quaedam vero talia sunt, quae sic habent meritum, si fiant; et non sint peccatum, si non fiant, ut pallium dare pauperi, et omnia vendere, et dare pauperibus: quod perfectorum est, qui nudi Christum sequuntur.

QUAESTIO XXI. *Dicite Archippo: Vide ministerium quod accepisti in Domino, ut illud impleas [n: (Coloss. IV)]*. Quaeritur an subditi praelatos monere possint. Solutio. Ecce auctoritas, ut subditi praelatos moneant, ne pigri sint in praevidendis his, quae ad salutem spectant.

## VIII. IN EPISTOLAM I AD THESSALONICENSES.

[0585]

[0585D] *[n: (I Thess. I.)] Paulus et Silvanus,* etc. Hanc epistolam scribit Apostolus Thessalonicensibus. Thessalonica metropolis est Macedoniae, quae est provincia Graecorum. Thessalonicenses ergo sunt Macedones, sive Graeci, qui ab Apostolo conversi, et nec per tribulationes, nec per pseudopraedicatores potuerunt moveri a fidei veritate. Hos collaudat Apostolus, [0586D] quia tantae fidei imbiberant spiritum, ut spe etiam futurorum a civibus suis non credentibus pericula devoto animo pro nomine Christi sustineret. Erant tamen aliqui inter eos otiosi, et curiosi; aliqui etiam minus recte de resurrectione sentientes, et ideo nimis de amicorum morte tenere dolentes. Hos ergo corrigit Apostolus in hac epistola, et monet perfectos [0587A] non cedere adversis, et pseudoapostolis, et ut alios corrigant. Scripsit autem ab Athenis. Et est intentio Apostoli in hac Epistola pravos et incorrectos corrigere, et bonos ad perseverantiam, aliorumque correctionem cohortari. Modus talis, more suo salutem praemittit: qua praemissa de bonis eorum gratias agit, commemorans non fidem et opera, sed etiam conversionis modum et malorum sustinentiam ut ad perseverandum provocet; de suis quoque laboribus, et Evangelii veritate, et prudenti inter eos conversatione, et quanto affectu desideret eos videre interserit. Deinde pravos, ut a luxuria, et otio, et curiositate contineant, obsecrat, et mortuos resurrecturos confirmat. Circa finem est moralis instructio. Dicit itaque Paulus et Sylvanus, etc. [0587B] Timotheus, etc. Nota quod mos erat Apostoli eos in salutatione sibi adjungere, qui secum apud illos vel fuerant, vel futuri erant.

QUAESTIO I. *Deo vivo et vero,* etc. Quaeritur quare dicat, vero. Solutio. Unus est naturaliter Deus; multi participatione: ad quorum differentiam dicitur verus Deus, utpote si ex se non aliunde Deus est. Alii enim non ex eo quod sunt, dii sunt, sed ex eo quod acceperunt.

QUAESTIO II. *Pervenit enim ira Dei super illos. [n: (I Thess. II)]*. Quaeritur quomodo propter peccata sua ira Dei, et poena super eos pervenerit, id est ante mortem. Nunquid poena aeterna allevatur per poenam temporalem? si enim non allevatur, videtur Deus immisericors, qui hic punit, et ibi. Item, si allevatur [0587C] aeterna per temporalem, videtur quod talis poena non procedat ex ira Dei, sed ex misericordia; et ideo non ira, sed misericordia dicenda. Solutio. Magna quidem Dei misericordia est per poenam temporalem vocare ad poenitentiam; sed ipsi nolentes poenitere, Dei misericordiam vertunt sibi in iram, et poena inflicta, quae potuit esse salutis medium, fit illis aeternae poenae initium.

QUAESTIO III. *Festinamus videre faciem vestram cum multo desiderio,* etc. Dicit expositor in quo mala eis fierent; sed quaeritur quomodo ex praesentia Doctoris fierent mala discipulis: cum potius bona quam mala ex ea fieri videantur: unde ipse desiderabat videre eos propter utilitatem praesentiae [0587D] suae, scilicet ut eos confirmaret, et ea quae deerant, superadderet. Solutio. Major corona, et laudabilior victoria, si starent immobiles, absente magistro: tamen Apostolus humane timuit ne caderent, et ideo ad eos venire desiderabat.

QUAESTIO IV. *In adventu ejus,* scilicet Domini. Quaeritur in quo adventu. Solutio. Triplex est adventus Domini, unus in carnem, unus in spiritu, unus in carne. In carnem venit factus homo. In spiritu venit quando Spiritum suum spiritui nostro infudit, ipsum sanans et justificans. In carne veniet in judicio. Occulte etiam venit unicuique in morte, vel ut eos purget, vel ut januam regni aperiat: malis, ut eos puniat.

QUAESTIO V. *Ut non contristemini sicut caeteri, [0588A] qui spem non habent. [n: (I Thess. IV)]*. Quaeritur an contristari et flere pro morte amicorum sit peccatum, cum Apostolus dicat: Ut non contristemini? Solutio. Necesse est ut cum mors occupat dilectum, ut contristet dilectionis affectum; non ergo culpa, si contristemur necessitate amittendi; si consolamur spe recipiendi: unde Apostolus non dicit simpliciter, ut non contristemini, sed ait, ut non contristemini sicut caeteri, qui spem non habent, quasi diceret: Licet contristari, sed cum spe.

QUAESTIO VI. Quaeritur quomodo Dominus flebat Lazarum mortuum continuo, eo jubente, victurum? Solutio. Non mortuum, sed mortem, quam non meruit peccando, deflebat: ad quam Lazarus, et miserias mundi iterum erat revocandus: et inde Dominus [0588B] est motus

QUAESTIO VII. Quaeritur an orationes, eleemosynae, sacrificia altaris, omnibus prosint, pro quibus fiunt. Solutio. His solum prosunt praedicta post mortem, qui ita vixerunt ante mortem ut digni sint, ut haec utilia sint eis post mortem: his enim, qui sine fide per dilectionem operantem ab hac vita exierunt, non prosunt; quia hic viventes salutis pignore caruerunt, scilicet ad salutem.

QUAESTIO VIII. Cum Christus omnia possit, quaeritur cur fidelibus suis non donaverit statim immortalitatem, ut omnino mortem nunquam experirentur. Solutio. Si hoc fieret, carni quidem daretur quaedam felicitas, sed fidei minueretur fortitudo. Nemo tunc ad Christi gratiam propter futuram [0588C] vitam festinaret; sed tamen propter mortis molestiam fugiendam, et sic quodammodo delicate crederetur in Christum. Ubi igitur tunc esset gloriosus triumphus martyrum?

QUAESTIO IX. *Et eos qui dormierunt.* Quaeritur, cum Christum, qui jam vivit, dicat mortuum, cur fideles mortuos non mortuos, sed dormientes appellat? Solutio. Ideo dicit Christum mortuum, et surrexisse, ut, dum hoc audimus, idem speremus, scilicet nos resurrecturos per virtutem Deitatis. Electos vero ideo dicit dormientes; quia nemo tam facile potest excitari a sommo, quam facile eos omnes excitabit Deus a sommo mortis.

QUAESTIO X. *In voce archangeli,* etc. De hac voce [0588D] quaeritur, an materialis erit. Solutio. Dicunt quidam quod materialis erit ministerio angelorum formata, sicut illa materialis fuit, quae audita est baptizato Domino, quae ideo dicitur Dei; quia efficaciam ei dabit Deus, ut per illam mortui resurgant. Alii dicunt, quod aliquod evidens signum erit. De incerto ambigua solutio. Omnia enim futura in novissimo, nobis incerta.

QUAESTIO XI. *Deinde nos, qui vivimus.* Quaeritur quomodo dicat Apostolus, quod illi *primi resurgent, qui* jam dudum *mortui* fuerunt, et deinde illi, qui tunc vivi inventi fuerint, cum ipse alibi dicat; quod resurrectio erit *in ictu oculi et in momento [n: (I Cor. XV)]*; ubi nec prius, nec posterius sit aliquid, sed omnia simul? Solutio. Potest dici, quod ideo simul [0589A] fieri dicitur mortuorum resurrectio, quia parva mora erit.

QUAESTIO XII. Quaeri autem solet utrum illi, quos vivos inveniet Christus, sint morituri, an sine morte ad immortalitatem transituri? Solutio. De hoc nihil certum habemus; videtur tamen quibusdam, quod in ipso raptu moriantur, et reviviscant, cum alibi dicat Apostolus: *in Christo omnes vivificabuntur [n: (I Cor. XV)]*, et alibi: *quod seminas, non vivificatur, nisi prius moriatur [n: (ibid.)]*. Nec incredibile hoc videri debet, cum in momento, et in ictu oculi, communis et generalis resurrectio futura esse credatur.

QUAESTIO XIII. *Rapiemur obviam Christo in aera.* Quaeritur an id de omnibus dicatur? Solutio. Boni quasi leves Christo occurrent in aera; mali vero [0589B] quasi ponderosi non obviam in aera Christo, sed terrae, quam semper amaverunt, adhaerebunt. Nota quatuor esse genera eorum, qui ad judicium venient; quidam enim venient, ut judicent tantum, ut valde boni, non ut judicentur, de quorum salute constat. Alii sunt minus perfecti, de quorum salute nondum constat; hi venient ad judicium, ut judicentur. Sic malorum duo sunt genera; alii venient ad judicium, ut judicentur, ut minus mali de quorum damnatione non constat. Alii vero, non ut judicentur; [0590A] quia jam judicati sunt, quia de eorum damnatione jam certum est. Quare ergo venient? nunquid ut judicent? absit! Quare ergo? ut audiant cum diabolo. *Ite, maledicti in ignem aeternum [n: (Matth. XXV)]*, etc. De modo judicii jam dictum est in prima epistola ad Corinthios; quomodo scilicet sancti judicaturi, an sola comparatione, an etiam potestate.

QUAESTIO XIV. *Dies Domini sicut fur in nocte ita veniet [n: (I Thess. V)]*, etc. Cum nemo sciat, an die, an nocte Dominus venturus sit ad judicium, quaeritur quomodo Apostolus tempus adventus Domini vocet diem. Solutio. Dies in tali loco non ponitur pro illuminatione aeris sicut alibi; sed pro revelatione, id est manifestatione, quia tunc omnia manifestata erunt. Sciet enim unusquisque, quare se, vel alium [0590B] Dominus salvet vel damnet.

QUAESTIO XV. *Sine intermissione orare.* Quaeritur quomodo hoc praeceptum Apostoli impleri possit. Quis enim potest semper orare? Nonne oportet quandoque dormire? Solutio. Sic intelligitur: Sine intermissione certarum horarum. Vel per orationem intelligitur sanctum desiderium, et pius affectus, et sic justus nunquam desinit orare, nisi desinat justus esse; qui enim semper bene agit, semper bene orat.

## IX. IN EPISTOLAM II AD THESSALONICENSES.

[0589]

[0589C] *Paulus, et Silvanus [n: (II Thess. I)]*, etc. Hanc Epistolam scribit Apostolus Thessalonicensibus. Orta enim apud eos graviori tribulatione monet eos ad patientiam, ostendens justum Dei judicium, ut boni gloriam consequantur, mali poenam. Et quia in prima epistola quaedam dicit de Adventu Domini et de resurrectione mortuorum, unde putabatur dies Domini instare; nunc alteram scribit epistolam, in qua significat, licet obscure (nec enim aperte potest), de abolitione regni Romani, de Antichristi apparentia, et damnatione, et de quorumdam fratrum inquietudine. Scribit etiam non instare diem Domini sicut occasione prioris Epistolae quibusdam videtur. Est itaque intentio Apostoli in hac epistola, bonos et quietos ad patientiam movere, et inquietos [0589D] corrigere; et quae obscure dixerat in priori epistola, hic aliquatenus aperire. Modus talis, primo salutat, deinde gratias agit de bonis eorum; postea monet ad patientiam, et ad constantiam; inde asserit, quod adventum Christi praeveniet Antichristus, et aliqua adventus Antichristi signa licet obscure denuntiat, agens de abolitione Romani regni et de interfectione Antichristi. Circa finem vero, ut curiosos atque otiosos corripiant, obsecrat.

QUAESTIO I. *In flamma ignis dantis vindictam iis, qui non noverunt Deum.* Quaeritur, an Dominus in [0590C] igne circumdatus venturus sit ad judicium? Solutio. In flamma ignis dicitur venturus, quia terribilis impiis apparebit, ut eos exurat atque cruciet. Ignis quidem ejus adventum praecedet, quo elementa solventur, ut renoventur.

QUAESTIO II. Quaeritur quomodo vivi reservabuntur illi, quos vivos inveniet Dominus. Solutio. Sicut tres pueros in camino fornacis, ignis non laesit; sic ille ignis praecedens adventum judicis bonos non laedet.

QUAESTIO III. Quaeritur quas poenas animae impiorum nunc patiuntur apud inferos, an materiales, an tantum conscientiae tortiones? Solutio. Creditur, quod poenas materiales, ut ignem et frigus patiantur. Unde dicitur: Transibunt *de aquis nivium ad [0590D] calorem nimium [n: (Job. XXIV)]*.

QUAESTIO IV. Item quaeritur quomodo his poenis torquentur, cum res spirituales a corporeis contingi nequeant. Solutio. Fieri potest ut per ea puniantur, a quibus non continguntur, velut quis horrorem magnum ex aliquo viso vel imaginato contrahit, etsi ab illo non contingatur.

QUAESTIO V. Item resumptis corporibus, cum illa deinceps immortalia futura sint, quomodo in illis punientur, cum dissolvi nequeant? Solutio. Erunt quidem corpora malorum immortalia, sed passibilia, [0591A] id est talia in quibus mali patiantur, sine tamen laesione naturalis quantitatis, vel essentiae ipsorum corporum.

QUAESTIO VI. *Nisi venerit discessio primum [n: (II Thess. II)]*, etc. Quaeritur: quomodo quod dicit de discessione fiet? Solutio. Hoc quatuor modis potest intelligi, vel de terreno Romano imperio vel de spirituali imperio Romanae Ecclesiae, vel de fide, vel de Antichristo. Cum alia translatio dicit Refuga. Nota quod legitur quod Antichristus nascetur in Babylone de tribu Dan. Juxta quod Jacob ait: *Fiat Dan coluber in via, et cerastes in semita [n: (Gen. XLIX)]*. Qui cum primum se manifestabit veniet Hierosolymam, et circumcidet, se dicens: Ego sum Christus Judaeis promissus.

[0591B]QUAESTIO VII. *Qui extollitur super omne, quod dicitur Deus,* ut dii gentium vel sancti; *aut quod colitur,* ut Deus Trinitas. Sed quaeritur quomodo poterit se extollere super Deum trinitatem? Nonne haec erit maxima ejus superbia et extollentia quod dicet se Christum esse, et ita Deo aequalem, non enim majorem se dicet; quomodo ergo extollitur super omne quod colitur Deus? Solutio. Ut mihi videtur in hoc intelligitur haec extollentia, quod ille iniquus, *homo peccati, filius perditionis,* venerationem et culturam soli Deo Trinitati debitam, faciet sibi exhiberi et non Deo. Legitur quod sicut in Christo habitavit plenitudo divinitatis, ita in Antichristo plenitudo malitiae, et omnis iniquitatis, et, ut ita dicam, plenitudo diabolitatis erit.

[0591C]QUAESTIO VIII. Unde potest quaeri an erit homo simpliciter, an diabolus personaliter eum assumet, ut Deus hominem. Solutio. Non potest diabolus sic hominem assumere, ut sibi personaliter unitus sit; erit ergo purus homo, quem tamen diabolus sic possidebit, ut omni virtute nequitiae suae, et omni iniquitate impleat, ut prorsus deditus illi et devotus nihil velit, nihil possit nisi quod diabolus vult et potest.

QUAESTIO IX. *Mysterium jam operatur iniquitatis.* Dicit expositor, quod in Nerone et in aliis malis occulte operatur jam diabolus, qui in Antichristo aperte saeviet. Unde quaeritur quomodo occulte operetur in Nerone. Nonne Nero Christum negavit, et [0591D] aperte eos, qui Christum praedicabant, persecutus est? Solutio. Ideo dicitur in Nerone operari occulte; quia hoc fecit Nero fraudulenta quorumdam suggestione. Vel, quod melius est, ideo dictus est diabolus operari occulte in Nerone, non quia manifesta esset illa persecutio, sed quia illa est umbra, et figura, et imago quaedam illius, quae fiet per Antichristum quae multo gravior erit omnibus, quae praecesserunt. Regnabit enim tribus annis, et dimidio; et sedens in papilione in monte Oliveti interficietur virtute Spiritus sancti per Michaelem, ut ipsum Dominum vel alium angelum, ut dicunt doctores.

QUAESTIO X. *Quem Dominus destruet illustratione adventus sui* etc. Nonne Antichristus prius interficietur [0592A] antequam Dominus veniat ad judicium? Ex libro enim Danielis intelligitur, quod concedentur electis quadraginta duo dies ad poenitentiam post mortem Antichristi. Quanto vero post venturus sit Dominus, penitus nescitur non solum ab hominibus, sed etiam ab angelis. Quomodo ergo dicit apostolus: Illustratione adventus sui (cum ante adventum sit interficiendus) destruet illum Dominus? Solutio. Interficietur quidem, ut creditur, ante adventum Domini Antichristus corporis, et animae solutione; Dominus tamen destruet illum jam resuscitatum cum toto corpore, illustratione adventus sui damnando, et in ignem aeternum mittendo, dicens illi et aliis reprobis: *Ite, maledicti, in ignem aeternum [n: (Matth. XXV)]*.

[0592B]QUAESTIO XI. *Secundum operationem Satanae,* etc. Dicit expositor, non tamen sine sensu, ut phrenetici, qui culpam non habent de malis quae agunt. Unde potest quaeri, si totum faciet Antichristus diabolo instigante et cooperante, et quodammodo compellente, quare ei imputetur potius quam phreneticis, vel si phrenetici hoc faciunt diabolo instigante, quare eis non imputatur. Et quomodo sunt sine culpa de malis quae agunt, potius quam ille iniquus? Solutio. Phrenetici, qui sunt sine sensu magis dicendi sunt aliquid pati quam aliquid agere; et mala fiunt potius per eos quam ab ipsis; quoniam ipsi non sunt auctores, cum voluntatem ad hoc non applicent. Antichristus vero sic diabolo instigante omnia faciet, quod voluntatem suam omnem et [0592C] sensum ad eumdem applicabit; et ideo ei omnia imputabuntur ad poenam aeternam.

QUAESTIO XII. *Signis, et prodigiis mendacibus,* etc. Quaeritur de signis illis, quae per diabolum faciet Antichristus, an ideo dicta sint mendacia, quia non vera ut videntur, sed phantastica erunt; id est quia mortales sensus per phantasmata decepturus est, vel ideo dicta sunt mendacia, quia Dei permissione ad mendacium trahent? Solutio. Videtur nobis verisimile esse, quod omnia signa illa, quae diabolus poterit facere, et Antichristus faciet vere. Illa vero, quae diabolus non habet in sua potestate, nec ille iniquus faciet vere, sed per solam magicam artem deludet oculos mortalium ut videatur facere, quae [0592D] vere non faciet. Unde Apostolus dicit: Cujus adventus erit in omni virtute, quantum ad ea, quae vere faciet, et in omni seductione, quantum ad ea quae non vere faciet. Omnia tamen valent ad seductionem impiorum. Quae autem sunt illa, quae diabolus poterit et quae non potestati ejus subjacent, non est nostrae parvitatis evolvere.

QUAESTIO XIII. *Mittet illis Deus operationem erroris, ut credant mendacio, ut judicentur,* etc. Quaeritur autem de illis qui signis et prodigiis illius iniqui permoti credent ipsum esse bonum, et Dei Filium: an habeant aliquam excusationem? Si enim ei non divinum cultum exhibebunt, cum conscientia eorum dictet eis, ipsum tanquam Deum adorandum, ad mortem peccabunt, et ita videntur inexcusabiles [0593A] esse. Solutio. Apostolus dicit quia non receperunt claritatem veritatis, ut salvi fierunt, id est Christum prius manifeste praedicatum, mittet illius Deus operationem erroris, ut credant mendacio et judicentur: ubi satis docet quod propter praecedentia peccata non habebunt excusationem, etsi arbitrentur se obsequium praestare Christo, id est vero Deo, credendo in Antichristum

QUAESTIO XIV. Dicit Augustinus quod posse habere fidem, vel charitatem, natura fidelium est: habere fidem, vel charitatem, gratia Dei. Unde potest quaeri quomodo hoc debeat intelligi. Nonne quod naturale est, nobis in nostra facultate est? sed cum habere fidem, vel charitatem sine gratia non possumus, quomodo posse habere fidem, natura [0593B] est fidelium? Solutio. Posse habere fidem, id est potentia habendi, naturalis est; sed hujus potentiae usum habere, solius gratiae est, et non naturae.

QUAESTIO XV. *Qui non vult operari, non manducet* [0594A] [n: (II Thess. III)]. Quaeritur de quo opere hic agatur. Si enim de exteriori, quomodo praecipit ne manducet qui non vult operari? Multi enim digni sunt manducare, licet non operentur. Solutio. Augustinus dicit quod Apostolus vult servos Dei corporaliter operari, ut non compellantur egestate, necessaria petere; non tamen male agunt, qui opera exteriora pro spiritualibus postponunt cum habeant unde vivant, quia *Maria optimam partem elegit [n: (Luc. X)]*. Illi vero, qui curiositati dediti operari nolunt, reprehenduntur; non qui minora bona pro majoribus deserunt.

QUAESTIO XVI. *Si quis non obedierit verbo nostro per Epistolam, hunc notate, et non commisceamini cum illo, ut confundatur.* Dicit ita Apostolus, quod ille [0594B] qui admonitioni Ecclesiae resistit excommunicandus est. Unde quaeri potest qualiter id faciendum est. Et certum quod magna discretione faciendum est, ne Ecclesia detrimentum incurrat, nec levi causa talis vindicta exercenda est.

## X. IN EPISTOLAM I AD TIMOTHEUM.

[0593]

[0593C] *Paulus apostolus [n: (I Tim. I)]*, etc. Hanc Epistolam scribit Apostolus Timotheo, qui fuit filius cujusdam mulieris fidelis patre gentili procreatus: et cum non esset circumcisus, et ipse esset gentilis, et de eo darent bonum testimonium fratres, qui erant in Listris et Iconio, hunc voluit Paulus proficisci secum: et ideo eum circumcidi propter Judaeos qui in locis illis erant. Eratque eruditus tam divinis Scripturis quam liberalibus artibus. Hunc Apostolus episcopum creavit: ideo eum, relictum in Asia instruit in hac Epistola de officio episcopali, scilicet quomodo pseudoapostolis resistat et quomodo Ecclesiam instruat, quales presbyteros vel diaconos ordinet; quales viduas honoret, et quomodo in Ecclesia se habeat, vel quomodo eam regat. Et est intentio [0593D] Apostoli in hac Epistola instruere Timotheum de episcopalis dignitatis officio. Modus talis: primo salutat eum; deinde monet ut pseudo resistat; postea instruit de episcopali officio, docens quales debeat ordinare presbyteros et diaconos. Deinde quales viduas recipere debeat; postea de modo correptionis instruit eum; in fine autem monet ut vitet profanas novitates.

QUAESTIO I. *Dei patris Salvatoris nostri,* etc. Cum Filius frequenter dicatur in Scriptura Salvator, qui solus pro salute nostra mortuus est, non Pater, non Spiritus sanctus, quaeritur cur Apostolus salutem nostram ad Deum Patrem referat, dicens hic: Dei Patris Salvatoris nostri. Solutio. Deus pater in hoc, quod dignatus est nobis Filium suum mittere, et Spiritum sanctum in sacramentis Novi Testamenti [0594C] tribuere, auctor est salutis nostrae et ideo Salvator dicitur.

QUAESTIO II. *Et Jesu Christi spei nostrae.* Item quaeritur quare spem specialiter ad Filium referat, dicens, et Jesu Christi spei nostrae, cum in totam Trinitatem speremus et credamus. Solutio. Ideo spem nostram ad Christum, quia ipse a mortuis resurrexit, et ad coelos ascendit, referimus; quia per ejus resurrectionem speramus ad gloriam resurrectionis futurae pertingere.

QUAESTIO III. *Gratia, misericordia et pax,* etc. Quaeritur cur praeter solitum, Apostolus in hac salutatione tria ponat dicens, gratia, misericordia, et pax. Solutio. Novem praecedentes Epistolas scripsit communiter ad Ecclesias. Hanc autem specialiter Timotheo [0594D] coepiscopo; ideo tria ponit. Per misericordiam idem intelligens, quod in aliis per gratiam scilicet remissionem peccatorum; per pacem tranquillitatem et praelibationem futurae vitae; per gratiam vero intelligit donationem Spiritus sancti, qua armantur ministri Christi.

QUAESTIO IV. *Ut non intenderent fabulis,* etc. Quaeritur quid hic per fabulas intelligat Apostolus? nunquid legis verba, et divina eloquia sic vocat in hoc loco? et alibi dicit: *Profanas et aniles fabulas devita [n: (I Tim. IV)]*. Solutio. Fabulas hic dicit doctrinam illorum, qui legem cum gratia praedicant esse necessariam. Vel fabulas hic dicit traditiones, quas Judaei non scriptas tenent, et alter in alterum transfundit loquendo, quas deuterosin vocant: ubi dicunt, et credunt duas uxores Deum primo creasse, ex quibus [0595A] hominum texunt genealogias infinitas parientes infructuosas quaestiones. De quibus traditionibus a sacris Scripturis alienis, Dominus dicit in Evangelio: *Quare irritum fecistis mandatum Dei propter traditiones vestras? [n: (Matth. XV.)]*.

QUAESTIO V. *Finis autem praecepti est charitas, de corde puro, et conscientia bona, et fide non ficta.* Hic definit Apostolus charitatem, ut dicit expositor. Unde potest quaeri quae sit definitio hic data, an hoc finis praecepti? an hoc de corde puro, et conscientia bona, et fide non ficta? Solutio. Definitio charitatis est, esse de corde puro, et conscientia bona, et fide non ficta.

QUAESTIO VI. Item potest quaeri an haec definitio conveniat omni charitati. Quod si concedatur, nullus [0595B] est habens charitatem, qui non sit perfectus, quia legem consummans et perficiens; quia charitas finis est praecepti, id est perfectio et consummatio. Si enim finis ponitur pro consummatione in hoc loco. Alibi autem ponitur pro consumptione, ut cum dicitur, panis finitur. Alibi pro termino, ut cum dicitur: Hic finitur ager. Item, quis potest habere cor purum et conscientiam bonam sine charitate? nonne cordis munditia, et bona conscientia procedit ex charitate? quomodo ergo charitas procedit de corde puro? Solutio. Videtur mihi quod hic definitio perfectae et consummatae charitatis assignatur, et ita non convenit haec definitio imperfectae charitati. Primum datur dilectio, quae cor mundat, et ex qua bona [0595C] opera fiunt, et ex quibus nascitur bona conscientia, tandem corde mundato, et bona conscientia comparata perficitur charitas et consummatur, quae est finis praecepti. Haec dico sine praejudicio melioris sententiae.

QUAESTIO VII. *Bona est lex, si quis ea legitime utatur.* Quaeritur quid sit legitime uti? Solutio. Ut dicit expositor, ille utitur legitime lege, qui eam spiritualiter intelligens per eam cognoscit morbum, et quaerit medicum, et qui scit eam ad tempus datam, et deserit eam propter Christum. Notandum quod injustus legitime utitur lege, cum intelligit quare data sit, et ejus timore fugit ad gratiam Christi, ut fiat justus. Justus autem legitime utitur lege, cum eam terrendo imponit injustis.

[0595D]QUAESTIO VIII. *Lex non est posita justo.* Nonne David et alii justi, qui sub lege erant, tenebantur legem custodire, quomodo ergo lex non est justo posita? Solutio. Lex non imponitur justo, ut ei dominetur, et eum timore coerceat, et justus non est sub lege, sed potius cum ipsa, tanquam legis amicus.

QUAESTIO IX. *Quia ignorans feci,* etc. Dicit expositor quod istud, quia potest causam notare vel consecutionem. Ssd quaeritur quomodo ignorantia, quae culpa est, possit esse causa divinae misericordiae. Solutio. Est quaedam ignorantia ex infirmitate: ex qua si quis zelo bono agat contra Deum, ex affectu, quem habet, meretur ab illa ignorantia liberari.

[0596A]QUAESTIO X. *Venit in hunc mundum peccatores salvos facere,* etc. Quaeritur de parvulis, qui sunt nati ex parentibus baptizatis, an pertineant ad peccatores, propter quos salvandos venit Jesus in mundum. Hi enim peccatum actuale non habent, et originale quomodo contrahere possunt a parentibus, quod ipsi non habent; quia est eis dimissum. Solutio. Sciendum est quod originale peccatum sic dimittitur in baptismo, non ut omnino non sit, sed ut culpa non sit. Manet vero corruptionis vitium etiam in baptizatis, qui generant, non ex eo quo sunt renati, sed ex vetustate corruptionis, per quam transit culpa originalis in parvulos: unde et ipsi indigent remedio. Unde et ipse medicus ait: *Parvulos sinite venire ad me [n: (Marc. X)]*.

[0596B]QUAESTIO XI. *Quorum ego primus sum.* Nonne Cain et Saul priores Paulo fuerunt? quomodo ergo Paulus inter peccatores primus? Solutio. Primus erat Paulus non ordine temporis, sed magnitudine iniquitatis. Cui solutioni sic objicitur: Nonne Paulus peccavit per ignorantiam, et multi alii scienter? sed majus peccatum est peccare scienter quam per ignorantiam: non ergo Paulus primus erat inter peccatores magnitudine iniquitatis, cum alii, maxime illi, qui peccaverunt in Spiritum sanctum, multo pejores sint Paulo etiam secundum statum primum, in quo fuit blasphemus, persecutor, contumeliosus. Solutio. Paulus magnitudinem delictorum suorum considerans omnibus peccatoribus judicavit se pejorem, [0596C] licet in oculis Dei aliter fuit.

QUAESTIO. XII. *Regi autem saeculorum immortali, invisibili, soli Deo, honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum. Amen.* Dicit expositor quod homo assumptus a Verbo ex eo tempore rex est saeculorum, ex quo assumptus est a Verbo; sed si homo assumptus non est homo, nec Deus, nec persona, ut quidam ausi sunt profiteri, quomodo homo assumptus ex quo est assumptus, et non ante, rex est saeculorum? Nos autem dicimus quod homo assumptus a Verbo est homo et Deus: ipsum Verbum a quo assumptus est, et coepit in tempore esse rex saeculorum, quando videlicet coepit assumi a Verbo. Quando enim coepit esse Deus homo, coepit et homo esse Deus, sicut multae auctoritates protestantur.

[0596D]QUAESTIO XIII. *Qui omnes homines vult salvos fieri [n: (I Tim. II)]*. Cum Deus sit omnipotens, et divinae voluntati nullus resistere possit, quomodo non omnes salvi fiunt, cum Deus omnes velit salvos fieri? Vel nunquid voluntas ejus est, ut reprobi salventur? Ambrosius sic solvit: Deus vult omnes salvos fieri, si ipsi velint. Sed nonne multi volunt salvi fieri, qui tamen non salvantur? quomodo ergo verum est, Deus vult omnes salvos fieri? Ideoque alii sic exponunt: Deus vult, etc., placeret ipsi, si omnes salvarentur, vel omnes, id est de omni genere hominum aliqui. Vel sic: Omnibus gratiam offert, per quam si volunt salvari possunt. Sed haec solutio quomodo vera? Nonne multi sunt et fuerunt, qui ne verbum quidem praedicationis audierunt? Vel omnes vult salvos fieri, [0597A] id est facit sanctos velle, ut omnes salvi fiant. Vel sic: Vult omnes salvos fieri, id est nullus fit salvus, nisi ipse velit. Simili modo intelligitur illud: *Qui illuminat omnem hominem [n: (Joan. I)]*, id est nullus illuminatur, nisi ab ipso, et omnes in Christo vivificantur, juxta eumdem modum oportet intelligi. Sic de ambiguo diversae sententiae dantur.

QUAESTIO XIV. *Unus mediator Dei, et hominum homo Christus Jesus.* De mediatore jam superius ex parte dictum est. Hic autem illud sufficiat intueri quod dicit expositor, quod in quantum est homo, est medius, non in quantum Verbum. Sed nonne inter angelos, et Deum Patrem, et etiam inter Spiritum sanctum medius est in quantum est Verbum, licet aliter inter angelos et Deum Patrem, et aliter in Spiritum [0597B] sanctum medius sit et Patrem? Solutio. Bene concedi potest quod, in quantum est Verbum, medius inter rationales creaturas et Deum Patrem est; sed non est medius inter Deum Trinitatem, et homines in quantum Verbum est, sed in quantum est homo similis Deo in justitia, hominibus in mortalitate. Si enim in quantum est Verbum, esset medius inter homines et Deum Trinitatem, jam aliquid esset medium inter seipsum et aliud, quia verbum inter se et homines; quod non est concedendum. Dicet aliquis: Jam Christus non est mortalis, quomodo ergo est medius inter homines mortales, et Deum immortalem, cum ideo medius dictus sit; quia similis est hominibus per mortalitatem, et Deo per justitiam? Solutio. Adhuc nos Christus Deo Patri tanquam [0597C] mediator optimus reconciliat per id quod pro nobis fecit in diebus carnis suae, id est mortalitati.

## X. IN EPISTOLAM I AD TIMOTHEUM. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XV. *Adam non est seductus, sed mulier.* Quaeritur uter plus peccaverit, an Adam, an Eva? Solutio. Dicunt doctores, quod mulier non solum peccavit; sed etiam virum peccare fecit. Cui solutioni sic objicitur: Adam est seductus, quia non credidit verum esse, quod hostis persuasit; mulier vero est seducta credens verum esse, quod serpens dicebat; et sic consequens est quod ille scienter, et illa per ignorantiam peccavit; sed gravius est scienter peccare, quam per ignorantiam. Unde consequens est quod plus peccaverit vir quam mulier. Solutio. [0597D] Ignorantia illa non habuit excusationem, quia ex culpa processit, dubitando enim respondit dicens. *Ne forte moriamur [n: (Gen. III)]*. Vir autem cogitavit de Dei misericordia, et poenitentia; et ideo minus peccavit.

QUAESTIO XVI. Quaeritur quomodo verum sit, quod non est seductus? Nonne credidit commissum esse veniale, quod erat mortale? Ergo et ipse aliquo modo est deceptus. Solutio. Non est seductus prior, et in eo, in quo mulier, ut dicit auctoritas. Sed nunquid non est seductus, si prior non est seductus, et in eo in quo mulier? Si enim quis non est vulneratus in capite, ergo non est vulneratus? Nunquid ad negationem determinatam sequitur simplex negatio? Solutio. Doctores Novi Testamenti quandoque dicunt [0598A] aliquod non fuisse, quod Scriptura Veteris Testamenti non dicit fuisse. Unde quia scriptura Geneseos loquens de seductione mulieris, nihil dicit de aliqua seductione viri, ideo Apostolus dicit: Adam non est seductus, sed mulier. Juxta eumdem modum loquendi, alibi idem Apostolus, quod Melchisedech non habuit principium, neque finem, non patrem, non prolem asserit, cum tamen in veritate principium, et finem, et patrem, et forsitan prolem habuerit, sed quia scriptura sic inducit eum, ut nec de ejus genealogia, nec nativitate, nec morte aliquid dixerit, ideo Apostolus asserit omnia praedicta non habuisse, Et Ambrosius dicit quod vir cum prima muliere benedicitur, et non cum secunda, quasi diceret: In sacra Scriptura legimus benedictionem viri cum [0598B] prima muliere, sed non legimus, ubi Deus benedicat virum cum secunda.

QUAESTIO XVII. *Salvabitur autem mulier per filiorum generationem.* Si generatio filiorum salvet, quid faciet continens vel virgo? nunquid non salvabitur, quia non habet filios? quid est quod alibi ait Apostolus: *Beatior autem erit, sive vidua, sive virgo, si sic permanserit?* Solutio. Non ponit causam salutis in filiorum generatione; sed potius in fide et dilectione, unde subjungit: *Si permanserit in fide et dilectione.* Et est sensus, et si mulier fuerit causa peccati, tamen salvabitur non solum continens, vel virgo, sed etiam nupta, etsi nunquam a filiorum generatione cessans, sed per filiorum generationem incedens ab hoc mundo exierit, si tamen permanserint [0598C] in fide et dilectione. Vel augmentum salutis valebit ei, si filii ejus per doctrinam, et industriam ipsius permanserint in fide et dilectione, Vel mystice potius intelligitur. Mulier typus est carnis, quae alibi signatur per turturem. Adam est figura rationis, quae per passerem figuratur. Filii sunt bona opera, quae per pullos turturis intelliguntur, qui in nido Catholicae fidei tantum vivunt; extra non vigent, imo conculcantur, quia bona opera non prosunt paganis, Judaeis, haereticis, schismaticis. Unde dicit hic: Si permanserit in fide et dilectione, scilicet filii mulieris, pulli turturis, bona opera.

QUAESTIO XVIII. *Si quis episcopatum desiderat, bonum opus desiderat [n: (I Tim. III)]*, etc. Sed iste ambitiosus [0598D] desiderat episcopatum, nunquid potest inferri, ergo desiderat bonum opus? Solutio. Episcopatus est intentio super suam, et aliorum vitam, et sic nomen est operis, quod desiderat bonus, qui intermissa, sed non relicta, Rachele decora facie, cum Jacob intrat ad Liam oculis lippam, propter filiorum fecunditatem, de monte contemplationis cum Moyse descendit ad campos actionis, Non enim sic debet quisquam esse otiosus, ut in eodem otio non cogitet utilitatem proximi, nec sic actuosus, ut contemplationem Dei non requirat. Episcopatus etiam nomen est dignitatis, quam desiderat ambitiosus, qui vult potius praeesse quam prodesse.

QUAESTIO XIX. *Unius uxoris virum,* etc. Quaeritur an monogamus debeat dici, et possit ordinari, qui [0599A] ante baptismum habuit uxorem; et ea dimissa renatus est in Christo et post fidelem duxit. Solutio. Dicit Hieronymus quod talis non est bigamus, et quod potest ordinari; cui jam novo nec stupra, nec alia imputantur. Sed Augustinus dicit, quod monogamus non est, nec debet ordinari, licet ei non obsit, quod prius fecerat; propter mysterium quod in ordinandis servari debet; quod in praedicto non potest servari.

QUAESTIO XX. Sed nunquid Hieronymus, et Augustinus, in solutione praedictae quaestionis contraria sentiunt? Solutio. Hieronymus dicit quod talis monogamus est quantum ad meritum, nec est peccatum si ordinetur. Augustinus vero dicit, quod monogamus non est quantum ad vim sacramenti, nec potest [0599B] ordinari, ubi sacramentum monogamiae servetur; nec exigitur, ut in quolibet ordinando servetur, alioquin virgo non possit ordinari, cum non sit unius uxoris vir. Ecclesia est convocatio multorum ad unius Dei cultum.

QUAESTIO XXI. *Magnum pietatis sacramentum,* etc. Quaeritur quid hic dicatur sacramentum. Quandoque enim sacramentum dicitur rei sacrae signum, ut sacramentum baptismi et altaris, quandoque dicitur aliquid occultum et secretum, sive mysterium. Solutio. Sacramentum vocatur Christus secundum deitatem occultus, qui causa est totius religionis, et verae culturae. Quis enim unquam fuit pius et devotus in fide, nisi sacramenti hujus prius percepta cognitione?

QUAESTIO XXII. *Quod manifestatum est in carne,* etc. [0599C] Quaeritur de qua manifestatione hic agatur. Solutio. De illa, quae facta est praedicatione, virtutibus, et signis in carne assumpta ostensis.

QUAESTIO XXIII. *Justificatum in spiritu.* Nonne sermo praecessit de Verbo Dei? hoc autem non est justificatum, sed potius ab aeterno justum natum. Solutio. Cum sermo fit de Christo, diligenter intuendum est quod dicatur, et secundum quid; hoc ergo, justificatum in spiritu, intelligitur Christus secundum assumptum hominem, secundum quem immunis est ab omni peccato, omnimodam habens justitiam.

QUAESTIO XXIV. *Apparuit angelis.* Hic habemus auctoritatem, quod angeli proficiunt in scientia per [0599D] ea, quae fiunt in Ecclesia, quod jam superius super locum; ut multiformis sapientia innotescat, etc., diligenter prosecuti sumus, et expositor idem testatur in hoc loco.

QUAESTIO XXV. *Nihil rejiciendum, quod cum gratiarum actione percipitur [n: (I Tim. IV)]*. Quaeritur an hoc sit contrarium legali doctrinae, quae discernit quosdam cibos, dicens alios mundos, alios immundos? Solutio. In lege quaedam animalium dicta sunt immunda non natura, sed significatione: ut si de porco, et agno requiratur, utrumque mundum in natura, quia omnis creatura bona est; in significatione tamen agnus mundus est, porcus immundus.

QUAESTIO XXVI. *Pietas ad omnia utilis est, promissionem [0600A] habens vitae, quae nunc est,* etc. Quaeritur quid vocet promissionem praesentis vitae; nam de promissione futurae constat. Solutio. Temporalium sufficientiam et spiritualium abundantiam. Utrumque enim Deus promittit cultoribus. Sufficientia temporalium promittitur, ubi dicitur; *Primum quaerite regnum Dei et haec omnia adjicientur vobis [n: (Matth. VI)]*. Abundantia spiritualium ubi scriptum est: *Quicunque haec, vel illa reliquerit propter me, centuplum accipiet [n: (Matth. XIX)]*, id est in praesenti spiritualium bonorum jucunditas temporalium bonorum affluentiam tantum excedit, quantum centenarius unitatem superat.

QUAESTIO XXVII. *Quae data est tibi per prophetiam,* etc. Quaeritur, quid vocet prophetiam? Solutio. [0600B] Prophetiam vocat electionem sanctorum qui elegerunt eum in pontificem. Vel potius Spiritus sancti inspirationem, per quam cognovit Apostolus ipsum esse dignum episcopatu.

QUAESTIO XXVIII. *Cum impositione manuum.* Quid ea est? Solutio. Impositionem manuum vocat verba mystica, quibus confirmatur ad hoc opus electus, auctoritatem accipiens, conscientia sua teste, ut audeat vice Domini sacrificia offerre.

QUAESTIO XXIX. *Dignus est operarius mercede sua [n: (I Tim. V)]*, etc. Quaeritur, an id, quod a plebe datur praedicatori, sit debita merces et condigna; et an peccet, si pro ea praedicat, et an qui hoc facit vendat Evangelium. Solutio. Quis audeat dicere non esse mercedem, quod ipsa veritas vocat mercedem? [0600C] Non tamen pro tali mercede debet praedicare, sed ut aeternam mercedem accipiat a Domino. Necessitatis itaque est accipere unde vivitur, charitatis est praebere, imo debitum, ut qui accipiunt spiritalia, ministrent carnalia. Praedicator debet accipere, ut praedicet; non praedicare, ut accipiat.

QUAESTIO XXX. *Peccantes vero coram omnibus argue.* Huic videtur esse contrarium, quod Dominus dicit in Evangelio: *Si frater tuus peccaverit in te, corripe eum inter te et ipsum solum [n: (Matth. XVIII)]*. Nunquid tam bonus discipulus discordat a tam bono Magistro? Solutio. Utrumque verum est, et aliquando illud, quod Dominus ait proprio ore scilicet quando tu solus sis, faciendum est; culpa enim occulta [0600D] secreto debet argui, ut Joseph justus fecit de Maria, solus suspicans adulterium; alioquin, si aliter feceris, eris proditor, non corrector. Aliquando etiam faciendum est, quod Veritas dixit ore Pauli scilicet quando palam peccatur. Publica enim offensa publica indiget satisfactione.

QUAESTIO XXXI. *Modico vino utere.* Quaeritur quomodo id consuluit. Solutio. Speciale dat consilium, ut semetipsum salubri regat doctrina, prudenter enim vult Deus serviri sibi, non ut nimia abstinentia debiles fiant, et post medicorum suffragia requirant sui.

QUAESTIO XXXII. *Languens circa quaestiones, et pugnas verborum [n: (I Tim. VI)]*, etc. Quaestio erat, an aliquis esset servus, cum omnes ex eisdem patribus [0601A] sint orti, et omnes Christus redemerit. Item pugna verborum liberaverit, quia Dominus dicit: *Si Filius vos liberavit, vere liberi estis [n: (Joan. VIII)]*, quae et similia videntur dissentire a doctrina apostolica, quae hortatur servos subjectos esse dominis suis, et similiter verbis Domini dicentis: *Reddite ergo quae sunt Caesaris Caesari,* etc. [n: (Luc. XX.)] Sic autem solvenda est talis controversia verborum; hoc, si Filius vos liberaverit, vere liberi estis, intelligendum est de spiritali libertate, non de carnali. Paulus autem loquitur de libertate et servitute carnali quam non tollit spiritalis.

## X. IN EPISTOLAM I AD TIMOTHEUM. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XXXIII. *Radix omnium malorum est cupiditas.* Alibi dicit Scriptura: *Initium omnis peccati est superbia [n: (Eccle. X)]*. Hic autem, quod avaritia vel [0601B] cupiditas. Si enim avaritia habetur species pro genere, quomodo utrumque verum est? si enim superbia initium est omnibus peccati, ergo cupiditatis; et si cupiditas radix est omnium malorum, ergo super biae; et sic idem causa est et effectus ejusdem. Solutio. Cum dicitur quod radix omnium malorum est cupiditas, vel omnis peccati initium superbia, si genera singula intelliguntur, falsum est, si autem genera singulorum, verum est. Nullum enim genus peccati est, quod non quandoque ex superbia, quandoque ex cupiditate nascantur. Nam sunt aliqui qui divitias cupiunt, ut per eas ad culmen honoris pertingere valeant; sunt alii, qui ideo dignitatem appetunt, ut ditiores fiant.

QUAESTIO XXXIV. *Solus potens.* Nonne angeli potentes [0601C] sunt, unde et virtutes, et potestates vocantur? Solutio. Solus Deus potens per naturam ex eo quod est; angeli vero per gratiam ex eo quod acceperunt, potentes sunt.

QUAESTIO XXXV. *Qui solus habet immortalitatem,* etc. Nonne animae et angeli etiam per naturam sunt immortales? Solutio. Solus Deus habet immortalitatem, id est immutabilitatem, quia nec potuit, nec potest, nec poterit peccare. Hanc immortalitatem non habent nec angeli, nec animae sanctorum, licet enim sint immortales per gratiam, tamen mutabiles per naturam vere esse creduntur.

QUAESTIO XXXVI. *Qui lucem habitat inaccessibilem.* Propheta dicit: *Accedite ad eum, et illuminamini [n: (Psal. XXXIII)]*: nonne ipse Deus est ipsa lux, quam dicitur inhabitare? quomodo monemur accedere [0602A] ad hanc lucem, si ipsa est inaccessibilis? Solutio. Nemo ex se accedit ad eam, sed cui datur dono ejus.

QUAESTIO XXXVII. *Quem nemo hominum vidit, nec videre potest.* Nonne Abraham vidit Deum, et Moyses, et caeteri patres? Quomodo ergo verum, quod nemo Deum vidit unquam? Item, nonne et nos ejus visionem speramus? Sed quomodo, si nemo potest eum videre? Solutio. Deus in natura sua est invisibilis oculo carnis illae vero visiones sanctis patribus in creatura subjecta exhibitae sunt. Unde Moyses post figuras illas, in quibus Deus videbatur, ait: *Domine, ostende mihi faciem tuam [n: (Exod. XXXIII)]*. In futuro autem videbitur Deus a mundo corde, et nunc videtur a sanctis angelis.

[0602B]QUAESTIO XXXVIII. *Devitans profanas vocum novitates,* etc. Quaeritur an omnes vocum novitates sint vitandae. Solutio. Non, quia non omnes sunt profanae, ut hoc ipsum nomen Christianum, homousion, mandatum novum, et testamentum novum, et canticum novum, novitates vocant non profanas, sed sacras, et religioni congruentes. Hypostasis autem tempore haereticorum notabat profanam novitatem, quo nomine haeretici utebantur, nunc in significatione personae, nunc in significatione substantiae, ad deceptionem simplicium, ut si concederent Trinitatem esse hypostasim unam, inferrent: Ergo sunt una persona; sin autem dicerent Patrem, Filium et Spiritum sanctum esse tres hypostases, concluderent: Ergo sunt tres substantiae. Nunc autem [0602C] hoc vocabulum non notat profanam novitatem, quia redactum est ad significationem personae. Unde concedimus modo simpliciter Trinitatem esse tres hypostases, et non unam; quod non erat concedendum sine determinatione olim, quando adhuc retinebat multiplicem significationem.

QUAESTIO XXXIX. *Et oppositiones falsi nominis scientiae,* etc. Quaeritur quid vocet Apostolus scientiam falsi nominis. Nunquid logicam? sed si hoc est, quomodo Augustinus vocat dialecticam scientiam scientiarum, quae non solum facit scientem, sed etiam demonstrat scientem? Solutio. Ut arbitror, scientiam falsi nominis vocat artem sophisticam, cujus oppositiones devitandae sunt a piis et mansuetis: quia non valent, nisi ad subversionem simplicium.

## XI. IN EPISTOLAM II AD TIMOTHEUM.

[0601]

[0601D] *Paulus apostolus [n: (II Tim. I)]*, etc. Jam a mundo transiturus hanc secundam epistolam scribit a Roma de carcere, Timotheo infirmitatibus et adversitatibus fatigato, ut constanter laboret in Dei gratia sibi credita, exhortans eum ad martyrium multis modis, [0602D] et ut perseveret in officio rectae praedicationis, et sancta operatione: et praedicens quid futurum sit in novissimis temporibus et de suo obitu. Et est intentio Apostoli in hac epistola exhortari Timotheum ad sui officii diligentem exsecutionem, et ad palmam [0603A] martyrii, et quaedam adhuc addit de episcopali officio. Modus talis: primo salutat, deinde gratias agit de bono quod habet, ubi suum videndi eum desiderium ostendit: postea monet ad praedicandum, et ad patientiam martyrii, suo exemplo et aliis modis: inde dicit quales futuri sint in novissimis diebus: tandem de tempore resolutionis suae instanti.

QUAESTIO I. *Non dedit nobis Deus spiritum timoris.* Quaeritur de quo timore hoc dicatur. Solutio. De timore quem expellit amor Dei.

QUAESTIO II. *Quae data est nobis ante tempora saecularia,* etc. Quando aliquid nobis nondum existentibus potuit dari? Solutio. Data est, id est praevisa dari: unde non dicit simpliciter data est, sed addidit in Christo Jesu.

[0603B]QUAESTIO III. Item quaeritur cur non dicat sempliciter *ante tempora,* sed addit, *saecularia.* Nonne omnia tempora sunt saecularia? Ad quorum ergo differentiam dicit saecularia? Solutio. Dicunt quidam angelos creatos esse ante mundi creationem, et spatia illa, quae erant a creatione angelorum, usque ad creationem mundi, vocat Apostolus alibi tempora aeterna, ad quorum differentiam dicit hic tempora saecularia. Sed dicet aliquis: Nonne tempus notat mutabilitatem, et aeternitas immutabilitatem? Quomodo ergo possunt aliqua tempora esse aeterna? quomodo simul esse mutabilia et immutabilia? Solutio. Sic praedicti doctores hoc intelligunt: In illis spatiis, quae dicuntur tempora aeterna, erat successio, et nulla decessio: et sic quaedam immutabilitas, [0603C] et secundum hoc quaedam aeternitas. Huic sententiae videtur Hieronymus consonare. Fere autem omnes doctores dicunt creatos angelos non ante, sed cum mundo; sed quid secundum illos per tempora aeterna debeat intelligi, videat et inquirat qui eorum opinionem sectatur. Mihi autem priorum sententia videtur potior, salva reverentia secretorum: hoc dico, nil temere asserendo.

QUAESTIO IV. *Nemo militans Deo implicat se negotiis saecularibus [n: (II Tim. II)]*, etc. Nonne viri activi Deo militant, et tamen implicati sunt saecularibus negotiis? quomodo ergo dicit Apostolus: Nemo militans Deo, etc. Solutio. Negotia vocat saecularia cum animus occupatur cura colligendae pecuniae: [0603D] quod nemo potest simul facere, et Deo militare. Viri autem activi non ad hoc exterioribus vacant: ut pecuniam colligant: sed ad hoc tantum, ut sibi, et aliis necessaria provideant.

QUAESTIO V. *Ex semine David secundum Evangelium meum, in quo laboro usque ad vincula.* Quaeritur de qua tribu erant Christus et Maria. Sed ex hoc loco nota Christum ex David natum: sicut in principio ait: *Ex semine David secundum carnem.* Et Gabriel archangelus de eodem: *Dabit ei Dominus Deus sedem David patris sui [n: (Luc. I)]*. Haec dico propter eos qui nolunt matrem Domini esse ex semine David, qui de tribu Juda erat: sed de tribu Levi tantum fuisse, et propter Joseph virum Mariae, qui erat de familia David, Christum dicunt dictum ex [0604A] semine David: et Origenes (ut dicitur) sic sensit. Alii dicunt, quod et nobis videtur, Mariam etiam de stirpe David processisse, et ita, de stirpe Juda, non solum de stirpe Levi. Nam duae tribus, regalis et sacerdotalis, permistae erant, et ideo non est mirum Virginem traxisse originem de utraque tanquam verum Regem, et Sacerdotem paritura. *Nolite verbis contendere.* Inter servos Dei non debet esse contentio, sed collatio, et modesta veritatis inquisitio.

QUAESTIO VI. *Dicentes jam resurrectionem factam.* Quaeritur de qua resurrectione dicat Apostolus: an de illa, quae est mentium: an de illa, quae est corporum? Nam si de illa, quae est mentium, quae fit in baptismate, hoc dicatur, quomodo illi, qui hanc dixerunt [0604B] jam factam esse, subverterunt quorumdam fidem, cum hoc sit verum et credendum? Item si de resurrectione corporum hoc dicebant, quomodo per hoc aliquorum fidem subvertebant, cum constet omnibus hoc falsum esse? Solutio. Potest hoc de utraque resurrectione intelligi: per hoc enim quod dicebant jam resurrectionem mentium factam esse, nec aliam corporum futuram esse, decipiebant scilicet quia subdole resurrectionem corporum negabant. Vel etiam in hoc fidem subvertebant, quod dicebant resurrectionem corporum factam esse: inde sumentes occasionem erroris sui, quod scriptum est in Evangelio: *Multa corpora sanctorum surrexerunt, et apparuerunt in sancta civitate [n: (Matth. XXVII)]*, [0604C] negantes generalem resurrectionem, quam exspectamus, futuram.

QUAESTIO VII. *In magna domo sunt non solum vasa aurea, et argentea,* etc. Quaeritur quos intelligit per vasa aurea, et argentea, et quos per vasa lignea, et fictilia? Solutio. Per vasa aurea, et argentea intelligit praedestinatos; per vasa lignea et fictilia, reprobos. Vel per vasa aurea intelliguntur boni, sive sint praedestinati, sive non; per vasa lignea et fictilia, mali, sive sint ad vitam praesciti, sive reprobi. Et sic secundum hanc sententiam de utrisque quaedam sunt ad honorem, quaedam ad contumeliam. Secundum vero priorem ad honorem tantum sunt vasa aurea et argentea; ad contumeliam vero lignea et fictilia. *Stultas quaestiones, et sine disciplina devita,* [0604D] etc. Hic innuit non omnes quaestiones vitandas esse, sed illas tantum, in quibus nullus est fructus. *Habentes speciem pietatis: virtutem ejus negantes.* Tales multi sunt in hoc tempore, quales hic describit Apostolus, qui se, non Deum, diligunt: habentes nomen et habitum sanctitatis, cum intus sint pleni omnium immunditiarum. Virtutem pietatis vocat charitatem, de qua scriptum est: *Fortis est ut mors dilectio [n: (Cant. VIII)]*: hanc necessario praecedit mundi contemptus.

QUAESTIO VIII. *Omnes qui volunt pie vivere in Christo, persecutionem patientur [n: (II Tim. III)]*. Nonne Ecclesia habet tempus pacis in quo multi pie vivunt, nec tamen persecutionem patiuntur? Solutio. Sancti pluribus modis patiuntur, ut in corde et corpore: [0605A] nunc a diabolo, nunc a malis hominibus, nunc a concupiscentiis suis; quibus etiam est persecutio infirmorum conversatio. Hi enim dicunt cum Apostolo: *Quis infirmatur, et ego non infirmor? quis scandalizatur, et ego non uror? [n: (II Cor. XI)]*. Non sunt itaque sine persecutione pie viventes in Christo, etiam tempore pacis.

QUAESTIO IX. *Cursum consummavi [n: (II Tim. IV)]*, [0606A] etc. Nonne ad cursus consummationem adhuc restabat acrior et crudelior inimicus, scilicet Neronis gladius? Quomodo ergo verum erat Paulum consummasse cursum ante passionis triumphum! Solutio. Hoc dicit non re plena, sed spe certa. Qui enim fecit eum victorem in certamine, jam certum et securum per revelationem eum reddiderat de consummatione.

## XII. IN EPISTOLAM AD TITUM.

[0605]

[0605B] *Paulus servus Dei [n: (Tit. I)]*, etc. Hanc epistolam scribit Tito relicto Cretae episcopo, ex humilitate, et simplicitate nimis patienti, a Nicopoli, de episcopali officio imperiose et potestative tractando, praescripta ei sua auctoritate utili. Debet enim pontifex habere maternam pietatem, et paternam severitatem: ut sit fortis superbis, et suavis modestis: nec habens timoris angulum, nec elationis supercilium. *Urat et luceat:* unde in veste legalis pontificis erat coccus bis tinctus, qui habet speciem ignis. Ignis autem duo facit: urit, et lucet; ita et pontifex gladio praedicationis, scilicet ignito eloquio, urere debet mordaci increpatione, et metuenti comminatione: et lucere blandis, fovendo et delectabilia promittendo. Ideoque de manna dicitur, quod indurabatur [0605C] ad ignem, et liquescebat ad solem. Et baculus pontificalis ab inferiori pungit, et in summo ad anteriora extenditur in se rediens: quia ecclesiasticus doctor gladio verbi pungere debet, id est aspere arguere peccantes, quod est ex inferiori natura, et correctos in anteriora dirigere, ita tamen ut ad propriam conscientiam sui consideratione redeat, si forte in se habeat quod aliis improperando annuntiat. Forma itaque baculi hoc figurat, quod pontifex rebelles pungere, et mites ad se trahere debeat, unde quidam ait: *Curva trahit mites pars, pungit acuta rebelles.*
Est ergo intentio Apostoli in hac Epistola instruere Titum de episcopali officio, atque monere, ut id imperiose tractet, et haereticos vitet. Modus talis: [0605D] Primo salutat, deinde instruit eum de episcopali officio, docens eum quid agere debeat, et quales episcopos per civitates constituere: deinde qualiter diversos vel sexu, vel aetate, vel conditione instruere debeat: postea monet eum de vitandis haereticis.

QUAESTIO I. *Quam promisit ante tempora saecularia,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo vitam aeternam promisit Deus ante omnia tempora, cum nondum essent homines, quibus promitteret? Solutio. Promisit, id est in seipso aeterno immutabiliter proposuit, ut in tempore vitam aeternam iis, quos jam praedestinavit, daret.

[0606B]QUAESTIO II. *Sine crimine,* etc. Non ait sine peccato: quia, ut dicit auctoritas, nullus quantumcunque pie vivat, etsi dignus nomine justi sit, est sine peccato. Sed dicet aliquis: Nonne in baptismate, et per veram poenitentiam fit plenaria omnium peccatorum remissio? Quod si est, imo, quia ita est, constat quod iste baptizatus, et vere poenitens est absque peccato. Quomodo ergo verum est, Nullus est sine peccato? Solutio. Cum dicitur, Nullus est sine peccato, sic intelligitur: Nullus quantumcunque sit bonus, potest transigere hanc vitam sine peccato; potest tamen vivere sine crimine, id est graviori peccato, et querela, id est peccato tali, quod est dignum accusatione, et damnatione, ut adulterium, homicidium, furtum, et similia.

[0606C]QUAESTIO III. *Cretenses semper mendaces,* etc. Quaeritur, cur Apostolus doctrinae suae, cui inest divina auctoritas, intersevit verba Gentilis et infidelis auctoris, et loquens Atheniensibus ait: *In ipso vivimus, movemur et sumus [n: (Act. XVII)]*; et alibi ait: *Inveni aram, in qua scriptum est, Ignoto Deo, quae de scripturis ethnicorum sumpta esse certum est [n: (ibid.)]* Solutio. Licet divinae auctoritati, unde voluerit, assumere testimonium veritatis, quod necessarium esse judicavit. Non enim propterea omnia alia, quae ibi sunt approbat, et vera esse judicat. In cujus rei figura Hebraei spoliaverunt Aegyptios auro, et argento et aliis, quae erant necessaria ad divinum cultum. Et in lege praeceptum est Judaeis, ut si mancipium gentile emerent, ejus pili raderentur, et unguium [0606D] incrementa abscinderentur, deinde ad usus domesticos assumeretur. Sic vanis et superfluis Gentilium superstitionibus abrasis et decisis, quod purum repertum fuerit assumendum est ad ministerium domus Dei. Notandum est quod divini auctores hujusmodi testimonia ponunt in alia significatione, quam sint posita a suo auctore, ut illud: *Expedit, ut unus homo moriatur pro populo, [et non] quam tota gens pereat [n: (Joan. XI)]*; aliter intellexit Caiphas, aliter evangelista. Ille enim cujus potentia et virtute locuta voce hominis est asina velut organo, usus est Caipha in praedictorum verborum prolatione.

[0607A]QUAESTIO IV. *Confitentur se nosse Deum, factis autem negant.* Nota, quod quidam confitentur Deum verbis tantum, alii etiam factis; quidam Deum tantum factis negant, quidam et verbis, et factis, qui Deum verbis et factis, confitentur, boni sunt. Qui autem negant et verbis et factis, infideles sunt; qui autem verbis confitentur, et factis negant, an dicendi sunt confitentes, an negantes simpliciter? Solutio. Audi. *A fructibus eorum cognoscetis eos [n: (Matth. VII)]*, non ait a verbis. Omnes itaque mali Deum factis negant; omnes antichristi sunt, qui Christum negant vita. Antichristus nondum venit, et tamen jam multi antichristi sunt in mundo.

QUAESTIO V. *Haereticum hominem post unam, et secundam correptionem devita [n: (Tit. II)]*, etc. Haereticum [0608A] vocat, qui per legem, legem impugnat. Sed quare talis est vitandus. Nonne melius esset, cum eo saepe conferre, et ab errore eum ad veritatem revocare? Solutio. Ex quo incorrigibilis est, melius est eum devitare, quia si saepius corriperetur, exercitatio esset ad malum.

QUAESTIO VI. *Cum sit proprio judicio condemnatus.* Quaeritur, quomodo iste talis proprio judicio sit condemnatus, nam credit verum esse quod dicit, et sic non judicat se damnatum. Solutio. De eo qui scienter peccat, qui errorem agnoscit et veritatem novit, et tamen errorem laudat, et veritatem vituperat, hic loqui videtur Apostolus, et hic talis teste conscientia damnatus est ut liquet omnibus.

## XIII. IN EPISTOLAM AD PHILEMONEM.

[0607]

[0607B] *Paulus vinctus Christi Jesu,* etc. Hanc Epistolam scribit Philemoni Colossensi, qui nulla ecclesiasticae ministrationis praeditus erat dignitate, sed vir laudabilis in plebe, cui familiares litteras mittit pro Onesimo servo suo, qui cum damno ejus fugerat, sed ab Apostolo audito Evangelio baptizatus, cui et veniam precatur, et culpam deprecatur Apostolus scribens ei a Roma de carcere. Et est intentio Apostoli implorare veniam Onesimo apud Philemonem. Modus talis est, prius salutat eum cum uxore et filio; deinde agit gratias Deo de bonis eorum, commendans fidem et charitatem eorum, postca Philemonem obsecrat, cum ei imperare posset, ut Onesimo parcat, et gratias Deo agat, quia talem illum recepit, ut non servum existimet, sed dilectissimum fratrem. Deinde dicit, ut paret sibi hospitium speranti ad ipsum venire.

QUAESTIO I. *Philemoni, et Appiae, et Archippo,* etc. [0608B] Quaeritur, quare in hac salutatione non servet personarum dignitatem, scilicet cur Archippum, qui erat episcopus Colossensis non praeponat, sed supponat, et Philemonem, qui nulla dignitate ecclesiastica erat praeditus, praeponat, nunquid ideo quia iste pater, et ille filius fuit? Solutio. Ideo laicum ordinato praeponit, quia de re familiari agitur.

QUAESTIO II. *Ita te, frater, fruar in Domino,* etc. Quid est frui? nonne alicui inhaerere propter se per amorem? sed sic solo Deo fruendum est, quia solus Deus propter se diligendus est; quomodo ergo dicit Apostolus ad Philemonem: Ita te, frater, fruar in Domino. Solutio. Non dicit simpliciter, ego te frater fruar; sed addit in Domino, per hoc innuens se finem dilectionis in Domino posuisse. Vel frui dicitur uti cum quadam delectatione, et sic potest hic accipi.

## XIV. IN EPISTOLAM AD HEBRAEOS.

[0607]

[0607C] *Multifariam [n: (Hebr. I)]*, etc. Paulus, doctor egregius, gentium Apostolus, ministerium suum volens honorificare. Juxta quod in Epistola ad Romanos ait: *Quandiu quidem Apostolus gentium sum, honorificabo ministerium meum, tentans si quomodo ad aemulandum provocem carnem meam [n: (Rom. XI)]*. Ecclesiis Hebraeorum hanc epistolam scribit agens de eminentia Christi secundum utramque naturam, et legis Mosaicae inutilitate; astruens multis modis fidem Jesu Christi absque legalibus sufficere ad justitiam et salutem. Legalia vero post Christi passionem [0608C] non modo non proficere, verum etiam officere, quorumdam Hebraeorum existimationem excludens, qui Christum confitentes legales observantias tenendas esse putabant; et in hunc errorem quosdam etiam, qui de gentilitate venerant ad Christum, sua auctoritate induxerant; ideo providens Apostolus gentibus, ne deinceps in hunc errorem Hebraeorum auctoritate trahantur, Judaeos quoque ad aemulandum provacans, gratiam Dei commendat per Christum verum pontificem hoc tempore fidelibus factam, legem ostendens reprobatam. Intentio itaque Apostoli [0609A] in hac epistola est Christi eminentiam, et fidei sufficientiam, nec non legis insufficientiam et inutilitatem ostendere.

Modus tractandi talis est. Primo proponit audienda esse verba Christi sicut prophe tarum, et amplius conferendo eum prophetis, et praeferendo; quia in eo locutus est Deus ut in prophetis, et major est eis. Deinde commendat eum alternatim secundum utramque naturam, humanam, scilicet, et divinam, postea comparat eum angelis, et praefert, multa interserens de excellentia ejus secundum utramque naturam. Deinde comparat eum Moysi et praefert. Deinde multis rationibus et auctoritatibus gratiam fidei, umbrae legis perferendam declarat; et sacerdotium Christi sacerdotio [0609B] Levitico, et Testamentum Novum Veteri; ejusque sacrificium unum multis illius sacrificiis praeponendum ostendit; quia ibi umbra hic veritas. Tandem ponit fidei descriptionem; eam multis testimoniis commendans. Circa finem vero moralem subdit instructionem.

QUAESTIO I. In primis quaeritur, cur huic epistolae sicut caeteris non praeposuit nomen suum, quod est Paulus; cur etiam nomen dignitatis tacuit, quod est Apostolus? Solutio. Quia Hebraeis odiosus erat, quibus legis destructor videbatur, nomen suum eis odiosum tacuit, ne praescripta nominis invidia sequentis excluderet utilitatem lectionis; sciens quoque eorum superbiam, suamque humilitatem demonstrans, sui ordinis dignitatem noluit anteferre nominando [0609C] se Apostolum, sed meritum sui officii tacens, superbis ipse humilis non se apostolum nominavit, ne superbi indignarentur. Sed dicet aliquis? Nonne Apostolus scribit fidelibus, qui erant Hierosolymis, quibus nomen Pauli non erat odiosum, nec ejus tanquam superbi dignitati invidebant; quomodo ergo verum est, quod ideo nomen proprium vel nomen dignitatis tacuit, quia Hebraeis erat odiosum, cum his quibus scripsit, non odiosus, sed dilectus fuerit? Solutio. Inter eos, quibus tanquam egregius gratiae praedicator multum placuit, erant quidam legis aemulatores, qui legem cum gratia tenendam esse putabant, et praedicabant, et his Pauli nomen fuit odiosum. Neminem enim suae falsae opinioni ita contrarium invenerunt sicut Paulum, unde persequebantur [0609D] eum, quantum poterant. Notandum quod fuerunt quidam dicentes hanc Epistolam fuisse minime apostoli Pauli, quia ejus nomen huic non praeponitur sicut in omnibus aliis, et ideo quod splendidiore atque facundiore stylo quam aliae resplendeat; sed aut Lucae, aut Barnabae, aut Clementis fuisse. Quibus Hieronymus sic respondet: Si ideo non est dicenda Pauli, quia ejus nomine non est inscripta, ergo nec alicujus illorum, imo nullius omnino, cum nullius nomen habeat in titulo, quod propter praedictam jam causam factum est. Quod autem majore refulget facundia quam aliae, non est mirandum, cum naturale sit unicuique in sua lingua plus valere quam aliena; cum ergo hanc [0610A] solam lingua Hebraica, alias vero graeca scripserit, quid mirum si majore nitet facundia?

QUAESTIO II. *Diebus istis.* Quaeritur quos dies vocet. Solutio. tempus gratiae vocat dies Apostolus propter eminentem fidei doctrinam et salutis cognitionem, unde alibi: *Ecce nunc dies salutis [n: (II Cor. VI)]*.

QUAESTIO III. *Quem constituit haeredem universorum,* etc. Quaeritur, secundum quam naturam Christus hic dicatur haeres universorum. Solutio. Bene dici potest, quod secundum naturam divinam hic dicatur haeres, id est possessor, et Dominus universorum, id est omnis naturae. Vel secundum humanitatem dicitur haeres universorum scilicet salvandorum, vel Judaeorum et Gentium. Hic est enim haeres mundi, semen illud, in quo benedicuntur omnes [0610B] gentes, ad quem loquitur Pater, dicens: *Postula a me, et dabo tibi gentes haereditatem tuam [n: (Psal. II)]*.

QUAESTIO IV. *Per quem fecit et saecula.* Nonne Deus Pater fecit omnia per Filium visibilia et invisibilia, mutabilia et immutabilia? Cur ergo Apostolus non dicit: Per quem omnia fecit, sed per quem fecit et saecula! Solutio. Haec visibilia et mutabilia sunt magis nobis nota; et ideo in his Dei potentiam amplius miramur quam in iis, quae sunt ignota, et haec est ratio, quare saecula potius nominavit specialiter.

QUAESTIO V. *Qui cum sit splendor gloriae,* etc. Quaeritur, quare hac utatur similitudine, et alibi alia? Solutio. Apostolus volens ostendere, quod, licet Filius sit ex Patre, tamen illi est coaeternus, [0610C] utitur proportionali rerum temporalium similitudine, dicens: qui cum sit splendor gloriae, quasi diceret: sicut splendor ignis, licet sit ex igne, tamen igni est coaevus et esset illi coaeternus, si ille esset aeternus, nunquam enim ignis fuit sine splendore; sic Filius, licet sit ex Patre, tamen illi est coaeternus, quia nunquam Pater fuit sine Filio. Item volens ostendere identitatem naturae, quam habet Filius cum Patre, aliarum rerum utitur proportionali similitudine, vocans Filium figuram substantiae, quia utramque in eisdem rebus non potuit demonstrare. In creaturis enim nil invenitur, quod habeat esse ex alio, et sit ejusdem naturae vel substantiae et quod non praecedatur ab eo. Filius autem sic habet esse ex Patre, quod illi est coaeternus; sicut splendor [0610D] igni coaevus et est ejusdem essentiae sive naturae cum Patre. Sicut homo generans, et homo ex eo genitus, sicut enim homo non potest gignere nisi id quod ipse est, id est quia homo hominem generat, sic Deus non aliud generat, nisi quod ipse est, id est Deus Deum. Lector diligenter intuere haec verba Apostoli, et expositionem sanctorum super eadem; et animadvertes quomodo tam haeresis Sabelliana, quam Ariana destruitur hic manifeste.

QUAESTIO VI. *Portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae.* Quaeritur quomodo dicatur omnia verbo portare Deus, cum ad proprietatem Verbi non pertineat portare. Similiter, an omnibus subsit, et non potius praesit et supersit, ut ea portare dicatur. Solutio. [0611A] Ideo verbo potius quam virtute dicitur omnia portare ut in portando, id est continendo, et gubernando, et conservando nullum laborem, vel difficultatem intelligatur sustinere, qui omni re est interior, quia omnia sunt in ipso et omni re est superior, quia ipse super omnia; et omni re antiquior, quia ipse est ante omnia, et omni re est novior, quia ipse post omnia, id est post omnium initia

QUAESTIO VII. *Sedet ad dexteram,* etc. Dicit expositor quod homo assumptus est sublimatus usque ad Patris aequalitatem, quae intelligitur per dexteram: ideo quaeritur an concedendum sit quod homo assumptus sit aequalis Patri; sed cum Filius dicat: *Pater major me est [n: (Joan. XIV)]*: quod intelligendum [0611B] est secundum id, quod est assumptum, quomodo idem est aequale Patri, cum Filius secundum id sit minor Patre? Solutio. Homo ille, in quantum est homo, minor est Patre, et non aequalis: in quantum vero homo assumptus est Deus, Filius Dei non est minor Patre, sed aequalis. Videndum itaque est quid de quo dicatur, et secundum quid, quoties sermo occurrit de Christo, sunt tamen multi, qui non concedunt, quod homo assumptus sit Deus, ut jam superius dictum est.

QUAESTIO VIII. *Tanto melior angelis effectus.* Quaeritur secundum quam naturam hic loquatur de Christo: quod autem secundum divinitatem melior sit angelis, nulla quaestio est; sed ta men melior non est angelis effectus, sed potius natus. Per hoc itaque [0611C] quod dicit, effectus, cogimur hic intelligere de Christo secundum humanitatem, scilicet quod melior sit angelis effectus. Sed huic videtur esse contrarium, quod invenitur in Psalm.: *Minuisti eum ab angelis [n: (Psalm. VIII)]*. Quomodo secundum eamdem naturam potest esse melior, et minor? Solutio. Minoratus est angelis carnis mortalitate et passione; et eisdem major et melior est gratiae plenitudine de qua et ipsi angeli accipiunt.

QUAESTIO IX. *Ego hodie genui te,* etc. Quaeritur de quo die loquatur. Solutio. Dicit Augustinus quod hoc potest intelligi de die illo, quo Christus natus est secundum carnem. Divinius tamen intelligi potest de aeterna ipsius generatione: unde dicit genui, [0611D] ne nova intelligatur: hodie enim de praeterita; et sic innuitur esse aeterna: in qua nil est praeteritum, quasi esse desierit; nec futurum, quasi nondum sit.

QUAESTIO X. Sed iterum potest quaeri quomodo hoc de temporali Christi generatione valeat exponi, cum Deus Pater Christum non genuerit secundum humanam naturam? Sicut enim Christus non habet matrem secundum Deitatem, sic nec patrem secundum humanitatem. Cum ergo non sit ejus pater secundum hanc naturam, quomodo potest dici, quod eum genuerit secundum eam? Solutio. Gignere non semper notat generationem naturalem, sed quandoque gratuitam, ut tibi: *Voluntarie genuit nos verbo veritatis [n: (Jac. I)]*. Quia ergo Christi generatio [0612A] temporalis, opus fuit totius Trinitatis, non inconvenienter potest dici, quod Pater eum genuerit etiam secundum humanitatem. Sed dicet aliquis: Ergo Christus est filius gratiae, et sic adoptivus? Solutio. Non est verum: per gratiam quidem homo ille factus est filius, non gratiae, sed naturae.

## XIV. IN EPISTOLAM AD HEBRAEOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XI. Et rursum dicit: *Ergo illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium,* etc. Quaeritur de hac auctoritate, quomodo ad Christum pertineat, cum nec praecedentia, nec subsequentia illius loci, unde haec auctoritas sumpta est, hoc videatur pati. In libro enim Regum inducitur Deus Pater ad David, loquens: *Tu non aedificabis mihi domum, quia vir sanguinum es; sed filius tuus, qui post te regnabit: [0612B] qui si inique egerit, corripiam eum in virga virorum, et in plagis* [verberibus] *filiorum hominum, et ponam regnum ejus in saeculum saeculi, et ero illi in patrem, et ipse erit mihi in filium [n: (II Reg. VII)]*, etc. Haec omnia nec Salomoni, nec Christo adaptari possunt, Solutio. In divina Scriptura saepe in eadem serie quaedam ponuntur, quae ad solam historiam referuntur; quaedam ad solum mysticum sensum; quaedam etiam, quae utroque modo accipi possunt, ut in praedictis; quaedam ad Salomonem, quaedam ad Christum referuntur.

QUAESTIO XII. Item contingit in multis aliis. Si quis enim historiam sequens, considerans praecedentia et subsequentia, ubi scriptum est: *Ecce virgo concipiet, et pariet filium [n: (Isa. VII)]*: magis videbitur [0612C] ei, quod haec auctoritas ad juvenculam illam Isaiae, quam ad virginem referatur, cum ibi quaedam sint, quae nullo modo matri nostri Emmanuelis possint convenire, quae ad historiam solam spectant, licet aliquis modus locutionis et proprietas relationis satis indicet quod omnia ad eamdem personam referantur: Filius, inquit, tuus, qui post te regnabit, etc. Solutio. Sciendum est tria genera esse relationum: alia est enim personalis, ut Saulus, qui et Paulus; alia generalis et simplex, ut mulier, quae damnavit, salvavit; alia vocalis, ut manus meae, quae vos fecerunt, clavis confixae sunt.

QUAESTIO XIII. Item quaeritur secundum quam [0612D] naturam Pater dicat: Ero illi in patrem. Nam secundum humanam non est pater; secundum divinam ab aeterno fuit pater, quomodo ergo dicit: Ero illi pater? Solutio. Tunc res dicitur fieri, cum incipit cognosci, quia ergo per resurrectionem omnibus fidelibus patuit, et in futuro etiam infidelibus patebit, quod ipse sit Pater, et ille Filius, ideo dicit: Ero illi in patrem. Vel sic: Ero illi, id est homini assumpto in patrem, et ipse homo erit mihi in filium, non tamen secundum humanitatem, sed secundum divinitatem.

QUAESTIO XIV. *Et cum iterum introducit primogenitum,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo Apostolus adventum, quem ipse Dominus exitum vocat, dicens: *Ex Patre exivi, et veni in mundum [n: (Joan. XVI)]*, vocet introitum [0613A] dicens, *Et iterum cum introducit [n: (Hebr. I)]*. Solutio. Quantum ad Patrem, qui intus erat, adventus Domini dicitur exitus; quantum vero ad nos, qui foris eramus, dicitur introitus, vel e converso.

QUAESTIO XV. *Et adorent eum omnes angeli Dei,* etc. De homine assumpto solet quaeri utrum illa adoratione quae dicitur latria, sit adorandus: latria enim soli Deo, et non creaturae exhibetur; sed homo assumptus est creatura, et sic videtur, quod latria non sit ei exhibenda. Solutio. Latria homini illi exhibetur non quia homo, sed quia Deus, de hoc jam superius dictum est; illa autem adoratio, quae hominibus, vel angelis exhibetur, dulia vocatur.

[0613B]QUAESTIO XVI. *Qui facit angelos suos spiritus,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo hoc faciat? Solutio. Spiritus nomen est naturae, ut homo, angelus nomen est officii, ut miles: ideo de spiritibus fiunt angeli, sicut de hominibus fiunt milites; non de angelis fiunt spiritus, sicut nec de militibus fiunt homines.

QUAESTIO XVII. *Et ministros suos flammam ignis,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo flammam ignis, id est, seraphin, faciat ministros suos, cum seraphin semper assistant: quomodo ergo ministrare dicitur ordo ille, si semper assistat? Non enim ministrare dicuntur, nisi ex eo quod ministrant. Solutio. Potest dici, quod seraphin immediate a Deo accipit, quod inferiori revelat, qui ad nos mittitur: unde et inferior [0613C] nomine superioris censetur, cujus gerit officium, vel potius a quo accipit officium. Unde Isaias ait: *Volavit ad me unus de seraphin, et tetigit labia mea [n: (Isa. VI)]*. Vel potest dici quod, cum aliqua magna facienda vel nuntianda sunt, tunc illi superiores mittuntur, quorum tamen officium non est ministrare, sed potius assistere. Nota quod nihil fit, quod non fiat, vel Deo jubente, vel Deo permittente: quibus verbis innuitur, quod non omne quod fit, opus sit Dei: quod enim tantum permittit, non facit. Hoc dico propter eos, qui dicunt, quod quidquid est, in eo quod est a Deo est. Si hoc est: nulla est praedicta distinctio, quod alia finnt, Deo jubente; alia fiunt, Deo permittente.

[0613D]QUAESTIO XVIII. *Propterea unxit te,* etc. Dicit expositor ad hoc unctum Christum, ut diligeret justitiam. Sed nonne ex quo fuit, justitiam dilexit, nec prius unctus quam dilectione plenus fuit? quomodo ergo dicitur ad hoc unctus, ut diligeret justitiam? Solutio. Per oleum unctionis intelligitur ipsa gratia, et virtus: per diligere, ipsum actum de virtute procedentem insinuat. Causaliter ergo praecedit unctio actum diligendi, et non tempore. Vel aliam expositionem prosequere.

QUAESTIO XIX. *Propterea unxit,* id est, ideo quia dilexisti justitiam, unxit te. Sed nonne ab ipsa sua cognitione habuit plenitudinem unctionis? quam ergo unctionem quasi in praemium accepit, quia dilexit justitiam? Solutio. Per oleum exsultationis, [0614A] quasi unctus est merito dilectionis, secundum quosdam intelligitur stola maturae resurrectionis.

QUAESTIO XX. *Unxit te Deus, Deus tuus,* etc. alter, id est prior, est casus vocativus, quasi diceret: O fili Deus, Deus tuus unxit te. Sed quis Deus habet Deum? quis Deus est unctus? Solutio. Christus Deus est, et Deum habet, non in quantum est Deus, sed in quantum est homo et secundum id est unctus.

QUAESTIO XXI. *Ipsi peribunt,* etc. Quaeritur de quibus coelis dicat, quod sint perituri. Solutio. De coelis aereis, ut dicit expositor, qui per diluvium perierunt, et igne perituri sunt. Unde quaeritur, si jam per diluvium perierunt, quomodo iterum per [0614B] ignem perituri sunt? Nonne si jam perierunt, esse desierunt, et si jam desierunt, quomodo iterum igne peribunt? Solutio. Per diluvium perierunt, id est in deterius mutati sunt et iidem ipsi igne perituri sunt, id est in meliorem statum mutandi sunt. De terra autem, et coelis superioribus non est quaestio, quin in melius sunt mutanda: unde Petrus ait: *Novos coelos, et novam terram exspectamus [n: (II Pet. III)]*. De aqua et aere dubitatur an in meliorem statum sint mutanda, sicut terra et coelum, quia in Apocalypsi scriptum est: *Et mare jam non erat [n: (Apoc. XXI)]*. Et hic de coelis aereis scriptum est: Ipsi peribunt. Unde quibusdam videtur quod aqua et aer illas proprietates, ex quibus haec nomina eis [0614C] conveniunt, amittent, et cum ipsis etiam nomina perdent, non tamen ex toto annihilabuntur, sed nec aqua, nec aer amplius vocabuntur privatis et annihilatis his, unde prius sic dicebantur.

QUAESTIO XXII. *Omnes spiritus administratorii sunt,* etc. Dictum est superius quod superiorum non est officium ministrare, quomodo ergo omnes sunt administratorii? Solutio. Potest dici quod omnes spiritus nobis ministrant vel immediate, ut inferiores; vel aliis mediantibus, ut superiores et medii; vel per omnes, non colligit nisi eos, qui sunt ultimi ordinis, qui proprie dicuntur angeli, quorum est specialiter officium ministrare, et ideo soli proprie sunt administratorii.

QUAESTIO XXIII. *Quid est homo quod memor es [0614D] ejus [n: (Hebr. II)]*, etc. Quaeritur quomodo hoc exponendum. Solutio tribus modis exponitur. Primo sic: Quod per hominem intelligitur homo vetus, per filium hominis homo novus intelligitur. Secundo sic: Ut per hominem intelligatur quilibet bonus, per filium hominis Christus. Tertio sic: Ut per hominem, et filium hominis idem intelligatur scilicet Christus.

QUAESTIO XXIV. *Minuisti eum paulo minus ab angelis,* etc. Superius dixit quod melior effectus est angelis: hic dicit, quod minoratus est eis: et nos, qualiter utrumque sit verum, diximus. Hic autem quaeritur, an simpliciter sit concedendum, quod Christus minor sit angelis. Quod sic quidam volunt probare Christus est omne, quod factus est, sed [0615A] factus minor: ergo minor est angelis. Solutio. Non est dicendum simpliciter, quod sit minor angelis; hoc autem paulo minus factus est minor, sic intelligitur, id est, secundum aliquid minoratus est, scilicet secundum carnis infirmitatem et passionem mortis, ut dicit auctoritas: nec consequens est, quod si minor est secundum aliquid, quod ideo simpliciter sit minor.

QUAESTIO XXV. *Omnia subjecisti sub pedibus ejus [n: (Psal. VIII)]*. Omnia aliquando universitatem colligit, ut omnes angeli coeli justi sunt. Aliquando per determinationem in partem redigitur, ut *omnia mea tua sunt [n: (Joan. XVII)]*, hoc enim dicit Deus Pater ad seniorem filium, id est ad Judaicum populum: ideo per omnia hic intelligere oportet, non ea, quae Deo secundum [0615B] naturam conveniunt: sed ea tantum, quae sunt necessaria ad salutem. Aliquando etiam omnia habet vim negationis, ut *omnia, quae audivi a Patre meo, nota feci vobis [n: (Joan. XV)]*, id est nulla nisi quae audivi. Unde potest quaeri quomodo hoc accipiatur cum dicitur, omnia subjecisti. Solutio. Dicunt quidam quod in partem redigitur, et per omnia tantum angelos, et homines intelligunt. Sed si excellentiora subjecta sunt Christo, quomodo non minora? Cum Ambrosius dicat, quod sicut a Dei opere nihil excipitur, ita nec a Christi potestate. Et Augustinus ait: Nulla creatura erit non subjecta, cui primates angeli subjiciuntur. Et ipse Apostolus ostendit nil esse exceptum, cum subjungit: *In eo enim quod omnia ei subjecit, nihil dimisit non subjectum ei.*

## XIV. IN EPISTOLAM AD HEBRAEOS. (cont.)

[0615C]QUAESTIO XXVI. *Nunc autem necdum videmus omnia subjecta ei,* etc. Propheta ait, omnia subjecisti ei: quod exponens Apostolus subjunxit, nihil dimisit non subjectum ei, quomodo ergo dicit hic: Necdum videmus omnia subjecta ei? Solutio. David utitur praeterito pro futuro more suo ex certitudine, dicens: Omnia subjecisti ei. Apostolus intelligens superius ait orbem futurum subjectum ei: et hic ait: Necdum videmus omnia subjecta ei; quasi diceret: jam ex parte prophetia impleta est, ex parte adhuc implenda. Sed dicet aliquis: nonne divinae dispensationi omnia famulantur, cujus voluntati nihil resistere potest? et sic jam velint nolint ei subjiciuntur universa. Quomodo ergo dicit Apostolus. Necdum videmus omnia subjecta ei? Solutio. Subjectio [0615D] alia est generalis, alia specialis. Item alia occulta, alia necessaria, alia voluntaria. Secundum generalem, et occultam, ac necessariam, jam omnia subjecta sunt Deo; secundum voluntariam nondum omnia quae subjicientur subjecta sunt. Nondum omnis lingua coelestium, terrestrium et infernorum confitetur, quia Dominus Jesus est in gloria Patris [n: (Philipp. II)]. Nondum omnes inimici positi sunt scabellum pedum ejus [n: (Psal. CIX)]. Quod quidem totum fiet in futuro; ideo dicit Apostolus: Nondum videmus omnia ei scilicet voluntarie, vel palam. Nota quod mente humana solus Deus major est, non aliquis angelorum. Possunt quidem angeli majores divi quam homines quantum ad corpus et animum [0616A] corporis corruptione aggravatum [n: (Sap. IX)]: sed non ad ipsam mentis puritatem, in qua assumpta est a Verbo.

QUAESTIO XXVII. *Ut gratia Dei pro omnibus gustaret mortem,* etc. Mors Christi non omnibus profuit; quomodo ergo pro omnibus mortem gustavit? Solutio. Universitas hic redigitur in partem: scilicet pro omnibus praedestinatis gustavit mortem. Vel ideo dicitur pro omnibus gustasse mortem, quia quantum in ipso est omnibus sufficit mors Christi.

QUAESTIO XXVIII. *Decebat eum propter quem omnia, et per quem omnia,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo decuit Deum Patrem, auctorem salutis fidelium per passionem mortis consummare. In quo consistit ista [0616B] decentia, cum potius videatur indecens quod Dominus gloriae moriatur? Solutio. Si Christus non moreretur, homo periret: quod si esset, Deus ab universitate non glorificaretur; et hoc esset indecens, cum propter Deum glorificandum omnia sint facta. Item si Christus non moreretur, homo non salvaretur, et sic divina praedestinatio non impleretur,et hoc esset inconveniens, ut ipsa cassaretur. Nec indecens erat ut auctor salutis pro nobis moreretur, cum sit proximus noster, et frater, et deceat proximum providere utilitati proximorum quantum potest; unde sequitur:

QUAESTIO XXIX. *Propter quam causam non confunditur fratres eos vocare,* etc. Quaeritur an ideo Christus dicatur frater noster, quia nostrae naturae [0616C] factus est particeps, formam servi accipiendo [n: (Philipp. II)]. Sed cum natura suscepta a Deo, communis sit bonis et malis, videtur quod Christus non solum sit frater fidelium sed etiam infidelium. Solutio. Non solum ideo dicitur Christus frater noster, quia ipse participat de natura nostra, sed etiam ideo, quia nos de plenitudine gratiae ejus accepimus. Ad hoc ergo quod aliquis dicatur frater Christi, oportet quod ei conjunctus sit natura et gratia.

QUAESTIO XXX. *Et ipse,* scilicet Christus, *similiter participavit eisdem* scilicet pueris *vel carne, et sanguine.* Sed quaeritur quomodo Christus pueris participaverit? Solutio. Id est factus est puer constans ex anima, et carne, ut expositor dicit. Vel participavit carne et sanguine, id est, factus est [0616D] homo, et hoc similiter, id est passibilis, et mortalis.

QUAESTIO XXXI. *Ut destrueret eum, qui mortis habebat imperium.* Cum mors sit poena juste illata a Deo et ita a Deo esse non inconvenienter dicatur, quaeritur quomodo diabolus dicatur auctor mortis. Non enim idem videtur posse esse a Deo, et a diabolo. Solutio. Quia mors accidit ex peccato, quod diabolus persuasit, ideo imperium mortis habet, vel habere dicitur; quia causa mortis fuit, ideo auctor appellatus est: unde dicitur quod Deus mortem non facit, id est causa ejus non habet esse ex Deo. Nota quod haec est justitia, qua redempti sumus. Quia enim fudit diabolus sanguinem non debitoris, [0617A] jussus est reddere debitores; et quia fudit sanguinem innocentis, in quo nihil invenit, est jussus recedere a nocentibus, quos quodam jure videbatur possidere.

QUAESTIO XXXII. Dicit expositor quod nisi homo esset qui diabolum vinceret, non juste, sed violenter homo ei tolleretur. Sed nonne diabolus injuriam Deo fecerat, qui servum prius fraudulenter decepit, et post violenter possedit? Quam ergo injustitiam faceret Deus, si solo verbo potentiae suae eriperet hominem de manu injustissimi invasoris? Solutio. Omnia opera Dei justa, sed in quibusdam etiam est manifesta potentia, et latet justitia; in quibusdam etiam occulta latet potentia, et manifesta est justitia. Si ergo Christus in liberatione nostra uteretur [0617B] manifesta potentia, et occulta justitia posset videri alicui minus discreto, quod homo non juste, sed violenter diabolo tolleretur: ut autem omnis iniquitas oppilaret os suum [n: (Psal. CVI)], usus est Dominus noster in nostri redemptione manifesta justitia, et occulta potentia.

QUAESTIO XXXIII. *Ut liberaret eos, qui timore mortis,* etc. Quaeritur cujus servituti subditi erant, quos liberavit Dominus? Solutio. Diabolus ante adventum Christi effectum nequitiae suae per mortem obtinuit: cujus timore dejiciebat, quos nullo alio modo potuit dejicere. Nam pro vita sua omnia dabant. Unde in Job legitur: *Pellem pro pelle; omnia, quae habet homo, dabit pro anima sua [n: (Job I)]*. Itaque timore mortis victi cedebant, et tentationi succumbebant, [0617C] donec Christus venit, qui moriendo et resurgendo timorem mortis tulit de medio. Unde sancti mortem irrident, et cupiunt dissolvi, et esse cum Christo [n: (Philipp. I)]. Vel timore poenae potest intelligi, quo Judaei sub lege serviebant, quos Christus evacuata lege per gratiam a legis onere, et servili timore liberavit.

QUAESTIO XXXIV. *Nusquam enim angelos apprehendit,* etc. Quaeritur an Deus posset assumpsisse angelicam naturam in unitatem personae sicut fecit humanam? Solutio. Videtur nobis quod potuit, sed noluit; in quo dignitas generis nostri intelligitur: homini enim qui minus acceperat angelis in sua creatione, plus collatum est in sua glorificatione per [0617D] gratiam. Non enim natura humana adorat supra se naturam angelicam, sed potius e converso.

QUAESTIO XXXV. *Unde debuit per omnia fratribus assimilari.* Nonne per solam gratiam assimilatus est fratribus in hoc, quod homo natus est, quod educatus, passus, mortuus? quomodo ergo dicit Apostolus, quod hoc debuit, cum hoc non sit debitum, sed donum Dei gratuitum? Solutio. Non dicit simpliciter debuit, sed addidit, *ut misericors fieret [n: (Hebr. II)]*: moriendo enim non posset nobis misereri, nisi fieret prius passibilis et mortalis. Vel ideo dicit, debuit, id est dicens fuit fratribus assimilari. Per hoc enim, quod nostras infirmitates, et mortem pro nobis pertulit, nos ad humilitatem provocavit, et charitatem in nobis accendit.

[0618A]QUAESTIO XXXVI. *In eo enim in quo passus est ipse, et tentatus potens est,* etc. Nonne ante passionem, imo ante incarnationem potens erat tentatis auxiliari? non enim ejus potentia per passionem est augmentata, quid est ergo in eo in quo passus? potens est eis, qui tentantur, auxiliari? Solutio. Post passionem bene novit etiam per experimentum quae sit ista tentatio, et tribulatio patientium: unde cum multa alacritate protendit manum ad compatiendum; ideo dicitur, potens haec facere, et perfecte haec nosse. Scit enim qui sunt illi, qui pro ipso patiuntur, novit quando et quomodo quibus manum debet porrigere. Unde Propheta: *Factus est Dominus refugium pauperi in opportunitatibus in tribulatione [n: (Psal. IX)]*.

[0618B]QUAESTIO XXXVII. *Quanto ampliorem honorem habet domus qui fabricavit illam [n: (Hebr. III)]*, etc. Nonne saepe ille, qui dispensat in domo majorem habet in ea gloriam, quam ille qui fabricavit eam? quomodo ergo dicit Apostolus: Quanto ampliorem, etc. Solutio. Hoc intelligendum est de domo spirituali, quasi diceret: Christus tanquam Dominus et Creator major est Moyse servo et ministro.

QUAESTIO XXXVIII. *Secundum diem tentationis,* etc. Quaeritur a quibus fiat tentatio. Solutio. Tentat homo, ut sciat quod ignorat, secundum quam acceptionem tentatio est quaedam animi blanda praecurrens experientia, ad aliquid agnoscendum, quod prius ignorabatur. Tentat Deus, ut probet per afflictionem et tribulationem, ut probatum coronet. [0618C] Tentat diabolus, ut dejiciat aliquem in peccatum: unde dicitur: *Et ne nos inducas in tentationem [n: (Matth. VI)]*, id est ne sinas dejici in peccatum. Tentat caro, cum ejus motus inordinatos sentimus. Tentat mundus, cum nos per vanitatem ad amorem sui provocat.

QUAESTIO XXXIX. *Propter quod offensus fui,* etc. Alia translatio habet proximus fui. Quomodo ergo si offensus, fuit proximus; et si proximus, quomodo offensus? et si utraque littera non potest stare, utra potius tenenda? Solutio. Proximus fuit adhibendo correctionis flagella; quia proximi est proximum corrigere. Offensus fuit et iratus, quia per flagella etiam noluerunt poenitere. Vel bonis quadraginta [0618D] annis in hoc potest intelligi iratus; quia tanto tempore non eos introduxit in terram promissionis: hanc tamen sententiam non videtur sequens littera approbare. Malis vero in hoc potest intelligi proximus quadraginta annis, quia, tanto tempore eos sustinuit, nec ex toto delevit.

QUAESTIO XL. *Si introibunt in requiem meam.* Quaeritur qua figura id sit dictum. Solutio. Figura est quae dicitur aposiopesis, et est sensus: Si hoc erit, quodlibet impossibile erit, vel non amplius credatur mihi in aliquo. Nota quatuor esse Sabbata, sive requies. Prima requies est illa Dei, de qua scriptum est in Genesi: *Et requievit Deus die septimo [n: (Gen. II)]*; secunda requies est terra promissionis; tertia, quies mentis; quarta est aeterna. Prima et [0619A] quarta Dei; secunda et tertia hominis. Prima figura est quartae, secunda tertiae.

## XIV. IN EPISTOLAM AD HEBRAEOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XLI. *Sicut juravi in ira mea,* etc. Quaeritur quod hic vocetur ira Dei: constat enim quod talis passio non cadit in Deum. Solutio. Iram vocat Dei immobilem aeternae justitiae sententiam, per figuram, quae dicitur anthropopathos: quae fit quoties ea, quae de hominibus dicta passionem significant, Deo figurative attribuuntur. Jurat ergo Deus in ira, quando firmiter statuit punire pro peccati obstinatione. Nota quatuor esse genera symbolorum, id est signorum, id est eorum, quae figurative dicuntur de Deo. Alia enim symbola sunt similia, et sunt a rebus corporalibus sumpta, ut ignis, lux, sol et alia hujusmodi. Alia similia et a rebus incorporeis sumpta, [0619B] ut ratio, intellectus, spiritus et similia. Alia sunt dissimilia et a rebus corporeis sumpta, ut leo, ursus, vermis et ejusmodi. Alia sunt dissimilia, et a rebus incorporeis sumpta ut ira, furor, dolor, poenitentia et similia.

QUAESTIO XLII. *Ut non obduretur quis ex vobis fallacia peccati,* etc. Quaeritur quod vocet fallaciam peccati. Solutio. Fallacia peccati est cum quis praesumit de gratia Dei: et hac securus fiducia jacet in peccatis: Vel quando promittit quis quod in futuro anno se corriget, ut in praesenti securius peccet, quod fit auctore diabolo. Potest etiam triplex fallacia hic notari, ut prima sit, quando pravo motui consentimus, secunda, quando ad opus malum prorumpimus; tertia, quando in peccati consuetudine [0619C] delectamur.

QUAESTIO XLIII. *Quibus autem infensus est quadraginta annis,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo id intelligatur. Solutio. Quadragenarius indicat integritatem annorum: ideo infensus dicitur illis quadraginta annis, quia irascitur peccantibus usque in finem vitae suae.

QUAESTIO XLIV. *Et quidem operibus ab institutione mundi [n: (Hebr. IV)]*, etc. Quaeritur ubi fiat mentio de illa requie aeterna, quae significatur per terram promissionis: nam de requie Sabbati ibi agitur: Et requievit Deus die septimo *ab omni opere, quod patrarat.* De requie vero terrae Palaestinae ibi mentio videtur fieri, ubi dicitur: Si introibunt in requiem [0619D] meam. Solutio. Ubi agitur de requie Sabbati, vel de requie terrae Palaestinae secundum litteram, ibidem agitur de vera requie anagogice, quae per illas duas significatur.

QUAESTIO XLV. *Requievit Deus die septimo,* etc. Dicit Scriptura, quod sex diebus Deus fecit omnia opera sua, ut nihil novum postea faceret; sed nonne quotidie creat novas animas? quomodo ergo nihil novum facit? Solutio. Nihil facit Deus nisi de materia in prima conditione facta, ut quaelibet corporea: vel ad similitudinem jam tunc factorum, ut spiritus incorporeos, scilicet humanas animas.

QUAESTIO XLVI. *Iterum terminat dies quemdam hodie,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo per hoc, quod hic [0620A] inducit Apostolus cogat Judaeos ad intelligendam requiem aliam ab alia, quae erat terrae promissionis, dicendo: *Hodie si vocem ejus audieritis,* etc. Solutio. Illi, quibus scribebat, fidem habebant, et David prophetam esse credebant: secundum quod necesse erat alium diem, et aliam requiem intelligere ab illa terrae promissionis requie ex prophetae verbis ibi positis: et sic procedit probatio Apostoli:

QUAESTIO XLVII. *Vivus est enim sermo,* etc. Dicit expositor quod Filius Dei videt quomodo ratio, et sensualitas in suis differentiis conveniunt: sed nonne in differentiis differunt: quomodo ergo in differentiis suis conveniunt: nunquid aliqua possunt in eodem convenire, et differe. Solutio. Non dicit quod in differentiis, quibus ratio differt a sensualitate, [0620B] vel e diverso, haec duo conveniant, sed quod ratio differentias habet, quibus ipsa a seipsa distinguitur, dum in Deum inhiat de divina usia cogitans, vel inferius coelestia considerans, invisibilium spirituum naturas contemplatur, vel in terra de mundanis recte pertractandis agit. Similiter et sensualitas differentias habet, quibus a seipsa dividitur dum plus dedita infimis rebus inferior est, vel ab illis revocata dignior est. Videt itaque Filius Dei quomodo superior differentia sensualitatis consentiendo convenit cum differentiis rationis? vel inferior differentia rationis pressa, et captiva aliquando consentit inferiori differentiae sensualitatis. Nota quod anima ponitur vel pro sensualitate, vel pro carnalibus peccatis, vel pro carnalibus [0620C] cogitationibus: sic et spiritus pro ratione, vel pro spiritualibus peccatis, vel pro bonis cogitationibus. Cum dicitur quod sermo Dei pertingit usque ad divisionem animae et spiritus [n: (Hebr. IV)], unde triplicem expositionem invenies in glossa propter triplicem animae et spiritus acceptionem.

QUAESTIO XLVIII. *Tentatum per omnia pro similitudine absque peccato.* In eo quod tentatus est, scit compati. In eo quod absque peccato potest liberare. Dicit expositor quod impossibile est homini scire afflictiones, nisi eas expertus fuerit. Sed nonne multi ex solo visu sciunt aliorum afflictiones, quas nusquam passi sunt: adeo etiam quod eis compatiuntur? quomodo ergo verum est, *impossibile est homini,* etc. Solutio. Non expertus non scit ita perfecte [0620D] sicut ille qui per experimentum novit: quem modum cognoscendi notat Apostolus dicens: *Non habemus pontificem qui [non possit compati,* id est noverit.

QUAESTIO XLIX. *Nec quisquam sumit sibi honorem [n: (Hebr. V)]*, etc. Nonne multi maximi in hoc tempore seipsos ingerunt: et non vocati etiam quandoque per violentiam sumunt sibi honorem? quomodo ergo verum est: *Nec quisquam sumit sibi honorem?* Solutio. Nemo pie et religiose agens seipsum ingerit. *Neque Christum seipsum glorificavit,* etc., cum haec glorificatio Patris de Filio facta sit secundum humanam naturam.

QUAESTIO L. Quaeritur quomodo haec auctoritas: [0621A] *Ego hodie genui te,* quae secundum Augustinum exponitur de aeterna generatione, in hoc loco ab Apostolo inducitur: quomodo Pater dicens, *Ego hodie genui te,* testatur Christum secundum quod homo, Filium suum esse, et mundi redemptorem? Solutio. Hieronymus dicit quod haec auctoritas de humana Christi generatione sic intelligitur: *Hodie,* id est in tempore gratiae et lucis, *genui te,* id est incarnavi te: vel genui, id est, ostendi te esse genitum: secundum quod bene inducitur haec auctoritas.

QUAESTIO LI. *Secundum ordinem Melchisedech,* etc. Dicit expositor quod temporalis non fuit Melchisedech: sed nonne homo fuit tantum, et sic temporalis, quia omnis homo est temporalis. Solutio. Ideo dictum est quod non est temporalis: quia Scriptura [0621B] subticuit ejusdem initium et finem vitae, infigura Christi, qui caret initio et fine. Vel potest dici sacerdos non temporalis propter ejus sacerdotium, quod manet in Christo in aeternum.

QUAESTIO LII. *Exauditus est pro sua reverentia,* etc. Quaeritur quid sit Christum exauditum esse pro sua reverentia. Nonne Stephanus similiter exauditus est pro sua reverentia, et caeteri sancti? Quid ergo magnum de Christo si sit exauditus pro sua reverentia? Solutio. Non est mirum si quaedam dicantur de Christo communia martyribus, cum quaedam etiam communia legalibus sacerdotibus hic ponantur. Potest tamen dici, quod Stephanus exauditus est pro reverentia Christi potius quam pro sua: Christus enim per se intravit, alii per ipsum: [0621C] unde et *de plenitudine ejus omnes accepimus [n: (Joan. I)]*. et sic aliquid speciale dicitur de Christo cum legitur, quod exauditus est pro reverentia sua: quae in hoc notatur, quod sine peccato et sola charitate mortuus et passus est.

QUAESTIO LIII. *Didicit ex his quae passus est obedientiam,* etc. Ea discimus, quae ignoramus: cum igitur Christus omnia noverat tanquam Deus, quomodo didicit quod non ignoravit? Solutio. Haec quaestio jam satis superius est agitata. Dictum est enim quod duplex est cognitio, una comprehensionis, altera experientiae: illam quae est comprehensionis ab aeterno habuit, alteram vero didicit ex tempore.

QUAESTIO LIV. *Quae sunt elementa exordii sermonum Dei,* etc. Quaeritur quae sit differentia inter haec [0621D] tria, elementa, exordium, sermonem Dei? Solutio. Sermonem Dei vocat doctrinam evangelicam; exordium Symbolum, et orationem Dominicam: elementa sunt materia, quam symbolum continet, ut nativitas, passio, et alii fidei articuli.

QUAESTIO LV. *Omnis qui lactis est particeps,* etc. Dicit expositor: Qui non capit, *Verbum caro factum est [n: (Joan. I)]*: quomodo capiet, *In principio erat Verbum [n: (ibid.)]*. Quaeritur ergo quomodo ad intelligendum levius sit, Verbum caro factum est, quam istud, In principio erat Verbum, cum istud de incarnatione Verbi sit contra rationem humanam: illa vero altiora, et de personarum Trinitate, et unitate essentiae ratione investigentur, ut ex prophetis [0622A] apparet? Solutio illa de incarnatione ideo leviora dicta, quia visibiliter exhibita sunt: haec vero difficiliora, quia paucorum solo intellectu comprehensa.

QUAESTIO LVI. Item quaeritur quomodo illi, quibus loquitur Apostolus hic, indigebant, ut docerentur quae sint elementa exordii sermonum Dei. Nonne fideles erant? quomodo ignorabant nativitatem, passionem, et alios articulos fidei: cum sine his nemo fidelis est? Solutio. Illi haec sciebant, sed non plene.

QUAESTIO LVII. *Quapropter intermittentes sermonem [n: (Hebr. VI)]*, etc. Cum illis necessarius esse videatur sermo inchoationis, quomodo dicit intermittentes inchoationis sermonem? Solutio. Sensus est: [0622B] non semper immorari debetis in his, quae ad inchoationem pertinent, sed ad perfectionem tendere.

QUAESTIO LVIII. *Non rursus jacientes fundamentum,* etc. Hoc videtur contrarium praedictis. Si enim elementorum adhuc indigebant doctrina, fundamentum erat illis necessarium. Solutio. Glossae huic quaestioni sufficiunt exponentes qualiter non rursus debeat intelligi.

QUAESTIO LIX. *Ab operibus mortuis,* etc. Mortua opera vocat peccata mortalia, vel opera bona, quae per malum superveniens sunt mortificata: quaeritur ergo quomodo verum sit, quod nullum bonum sit irremuneratum, sicut nullum malum impunitum. Solutio. Talia bona ideo mortua dicuntur, quia non [0622C] prosunt ad vitam aeternam: et tamen in hoc remunerabuntur, quia minus in futuro punientur, qui illa fecerunt. Vel forsitan temporale commodum pro eis datum est. Item talia bona mortua dicuntur, quia per poenitentiam reviviscere possunt secundum quosdam: non ideo quod amplius pro eis remunerentur: sed quia ex bonis ante factis facilius gratiam consequentur. Nobis autem videtur quod, deleto peccato per poenitentiam, per quod erant mortificata sicut prius antequam essent mortua, digna sunt vita aeterna.

## XIV. IN EPISTOLAM AD HEBRAEOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO LX. *Baptismatum,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo hic dicat pluraliter baptismatum, cum alibi dicat: *Unus Dominus, una fides, unum baptisma [n: (Ephes. IV)]*, etc. Si unum, quomodo plura? Solutio. [0622D] Sicut dicitur una fides non numero, sed genere, ut tradit auctoritas, sic potest dici unum baptisma non numero, sed genere, quia una forma: nec potest iterari: et quia est ibi una trium personarum operatio, plura quantum ad singulas ablutiones dicuntur. Vel ideo baptismatum in plurali dicit, quia est baptisma in potentia, in sanguine: nec hoc ideo, quod sacramentum baptismatis celebretur nisi in aqua: sed quia vicem baptismi supplet sanguinis effusio, fides, et poenitentia: ibi duntaxat ubi articulus necessitatis, non contemptus religionis excludit sacramentum baptismatis. Cui solutioni sic objicitur: *Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua, et Spiritu sancto, non intrabit in regnum coelorum [n: (Joan. III)]*. [0623A] Secundum hanc auctoritatem videtur, quod nullus dignus sit salute sine susceptione hujus sacramenti. Solutio. Doctores sic praedicta verba Domini exponunt *Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aqua,* etc., id est, nisi quis renatus eo spiritu, et regeneratione fuerit, qua renascuntur illi qui renascuntur ex aqua, et Spiritu sancto potest salvari. Hoc autem spiritu diversis modis renascuntur homines. Renascuntur alii per poenitentiam, alii per effusionem sanguinis, alii per baptisma. Nota quod fundamentum Christianae religionis dividitur in sex, quae hic ponuntur ab apostolis, scilicet poenitentia, fides, baptisma, manuum impositio, resurrectio, futurum judicium: quae ad instructionem neophytorum pertinent.

[0623B]QUAESTIO LXI. *Impossibile est eos, qui semel illuminati,* etc. Hic videtur Apostolus graviter prolapsis negare poenitentiam, sicut in sequenti, ubi dicit: *Voluntarie peccantibus jam non relinquitur hostia pro peccato.* Solutio. Nobis videtur quod utrobique describit peccatum in Spiritum sanctum, in cujus baratrum quicunque semel inciderit, impossibile est quod poenitentiam consequatur vel salutem. Doctores vero dicunt quod hic *impossibile,* etc., non negat omnem renovationem, sed tantum baptismatis iterationem. Vel de futuro statu potest intelligi: cui sententiae quaedam glossae deserviunt.

QUAESTIO LXII. Dicit expositor quod baptisma valet etiam contra sequentia peccata. Sed quaeritur quomodo peccata, quae nondum sunt facta, jam sint [0623C] dimissa. Solutio. Dicunt quidam quod ideo baptisma dicitur valere contra sequentia peccata, quia per gratiam in baptismate collatam futura peccata vitantur. Sed secundum hanc solutionem quid est hoc, quod in eadem glossa sequitur, si poenitentia de his agatur? Nobis sic videtur esse intelligendum, quod baptisma valet contra sequentia: quia ex virtute baptismatis minore satisfactione deleri possunt: ut si contingat fidelem et infidelem idem peccatum committere, poenitentia, quae sufficit renato ad salutem, eadem infideli vel nondum renato non sufficit. Hoc dico absque praejudicio melioris sententiae.

QUAESTIO LXIII. *Intravit Dominus per semetipsum,* etc. Cum Dominus in Evangelio dicat: *Sit sermo [0623D] vester: Est, est; Non, non: quod autem* amplius *est, a malo est [n: (Matth. V)]*, quaeritur quomodo juravit Dominus tunc Abrahae. Nunquid non crederet, vel tardius crederet Abraham Deo, si promitteret sine juramento? Solutio. Non propter Abraham juravit Dominus, cum sine juramento ei firmiter crederet: sed propter eos, qui post eum futuri erant, qui promissioni factae Abrahae aut omnino non crederent, aut tardius crederent, nisi esset per juramentum confirmata, et sic juramentum illud fuit non a malo Abrahae, sed illorum qui futuri erant.

QUAESTIO LXIV. Si quaeratur: Quare juravit Dominus per semetipsum? Solutio. Quia solent homines per majorem sui jurare, Deus autem non habuit [0624A] majorem: unde constat eos peccare, qui per aliquod inferius jurant. Nam illud, per quod jurant, quodammodo superius se constituunt.

QUAESTIO LXV. *Et omnis controversiae eorum finis juramentum.* Quid ergo dicemus de judicio ignis, vel aquae, vel aliorum hujusmodi, quae recipere videtur Ecclesia. Nonne in illis etiam finis controversiae consistit? Solutio. Haec judicia Ecclesiae non sunt: unde et rei multoties inde absolvuntur, et non rei quandoque judicantur: quod nequaquam fieret, si mater Ecclesia haec haberet. Unde in quibusdam locis potius haec tolerat, quam commendet. Sed dicet quis: Idem judicium debet fieri de juramento. Id nos concedimus. Non enim Ecclesia instituit illud, sicut nec praedicta.

[0624B]QUAESTIO LXVI. *Secundum ordinem Melchisedech [n: (Hebr. VII)]*, etc. Quaeritur quomodo? Solutio. Christus secundum ordinem Melchisedech pontifex multis modis dicitur. Tum quia ille rex et sacerdos solus fuit, ita Christus; tum quia non oleo visibili, ut Moyses institutus fuit, sed oleo exsultationis et puritate fidei unctus est; nec animalia immolavit, sed in pane et vino oblato sacrificium Christi dedicavit; sic et Christus Spiritu sancto unctus est a Patre; qui semetipsum in ara crucis Deo Patri obtulit; et quia verum corpus et sanguinem in coena discipulis dedit, et quia ejus sacerdotium manet in aeternum secundum ritum et dignitatem.

QUAESTIO LXVII. Quaeritur quid illa oblatio Melchisedech in pane et vino profuit sumentibus? Solutio. [0624C] Dicunt quidam, quod tantum iis, qui sumebant cum fide, quantum nunc corpus Christi prodest. Quod nobis non videtur esse verum: non enim sacramenta legis naturalis, vel legis scriptae tantum profuerunt, vel prodesse potuerunt, quantum sacramenta gratiae.

QUAESTIO LXVIII. *Quod minus est, sine ulla contradictione benedicitur.* Nonne saepe vir sanctus benedicitur ab eo, qui est minoris sanctitatis: ut cum monachus benedicitur ab aliquo sacerdote saeculari, quomodo ergo verum est, quod minus est, benedicitur a majore? Solutio. Potest aliquis esse minor aliquo excellentia meritorum, et major eodem dignitate: hic autem agitur de majoritate et minoritate quae consistit secundum dignitatem. Quod ergo [0624D] minus est dignitate, benedicitur ab eo, quod est majus dignitatis excellentia. Nec agitur hic de qualibet benedictione, sed de illa tantum, quae convenit consecratis.

QUAESTIO LXIX. *Per Abraham, et Levi, qui decimas accepit, decimatus est,* etc. Dicit Augustinus quod sicut, Adam peccante, qui in lumbis ejus erant peccaverunt; sic Abraham decimas dante, qui in lumbis ejus erant decimati sunt. Sed nunquid Christus, vel Adam peccante, peccavit; vel Abraham decimas dante, decimatus est, cum fuerit in lumbis utriusque, secundum carnem? Cum ergo Levi, et Christus in lumbis Abrahae pariter fuerint, quomodo Levi est decimatus, et non Christus? Vel [0625A] si Christus decimatus sicut Levi, quomodo probat Apostolus sacerdotium Christi sacerdotio levitico majus esse: per hoc, quod ordo leviticus in Levi, sit decimatus in Abraham? Solutio. Erant quidam et forte adhuc sunt dicentes carnem Christi ab Adam usque ad virginem integram, et incorruptam servatam esse, qui non sunt audiendi. Levi ergo est decimatus, et non Christus, quamvis uterque ibi fuerit, quia Levi inde contraxit unde decimationi subjacuit, id est culpam. Christus autem nihil inde contraxit, unde decimationi foret subjectus, cujus caro non vulnus, sed vulneris medicamentum inde contraxit. Cui solutioni sic objicitur: Tota caro, quae fuit in Isaac ex Abraham descendit secundum communem legem, scilicet per concupiscentiam; [0625B] sed caro Christi fuit in Isaac: ergo caro Christi per concupiscentiam descendit ex Abraham. Solutio. Non est simpliciter concedendum quod caro Christi per concupiscentiam inde sic descenderit: hoc enim esset, quod per concupiscentiam fieret caro Christi; potest tamen concedi per divisionem: quaedam caro, postea quae fuit Christi secundum communem legem, inde descendit, quae a primo homine usque ad Mariam sub originali fuit peccato.

QUAESTIO LXX. *Translato sacerdotio, necesse est legis fieri translationem.* Quaeri potest quomodo ad sacerdotii translationem necessario sequatur legis translatio. Solutio. Quia enim simul ab eodem sub [0625C] eadem sponsione utraque data sunt: quod de uno asseritur, et de altero necessario intelligitur. Vel ideo translato sacerdotio, necessario transfertur lex; quia ideo fit translatio sacerdotii, quod ejus ministerio nemo justificabatur et sic propter suam insufficientiam et infirmitatem translatum est; sed lex aeque insufficiens et infirma. Unde Apostolus: *Nihil ad perfectum adduxit lex*[n: (Hebr. )]. Eadem ergo necessitate transfertur ipsa. Quia neutrum ergo potuit consummare, utriusque fit translatio: quod figuratum in sacerdote et levita, languidum, qui incidit in latrones, transeuntibus et misericordiam curationis non conferentibus [n: (Luc. X)].

QUAESTIO LXXI. *Manifestum est autem quod de [0625D] Juda ortus est Dominus noster.* Quaeritur igitur an etiam mater ejus? Solutio. Quaestionem illam, quam superius posuimus super Epistolam ad Timotheum, revoca ad memoriam, quam faciunt verba Origenis dicentis, quod Maria tantum fuit de tribu Levi, et propter Joseph tantum dictus est Dominus de tribu Juda. Sed, sicut dixi, duae tribus permistae erant regalis, et sacerdotalis, et virgo ex patre patris de tribu Juda fuit, et ex parte matris de tribu Levi.

QUAESTIO LXXII. Nihil ad perfectum adduxit lex, etc. Nonne quidam perfecti erant tempore legis, ut David, et alii multi; et justitiam illam, quia justi erant, ex obedientia divinae legis habebant quomodo ergo ex lege justi non erant? Solutio. Justi illius temporis non ex lege, sed ex fide futuri justitiam [0626A] habebant: lex enim delicta ostendit, non abstulit.

QUAESTIO LXXIII. *Ad interpellandum pro nobis,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo Christus interpellet pro nobis? Solutio. Dicit expositor quod repraesentatione sui, quod sic intelligendum est quod meritum passionis suae, quam in sua humanitate exhibuit, nos credentes Patri reconciliat.

QUAESTIO LXXIV. *Qui non habet quotidie necessitatem [n: (Hebr. VIII)]*. Quaeritur de sacrificiis legis quid utilitatis contulerunt: nunquid peccatorum remissionem? Solutio. Pro quibusdam peccatis peccantes prohibebantur ab ingressu, et per sacrificia sic reconciliabantur ut liceret eis ingredi in templum: non autem per talem remissionem fiebant [0626B] digni vita aeterna.

QUAESTIO LXXV. *Si ergo super terram esset, nec esset sacerdos,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo haec intelligenda? Solutio. Hujus capituli littera minus continens est, et decisa: ideoque caliginem ingerit. Unde quinque exponitur modis, sicut habetur in glossis. Nota in omni sacrificio quatuor considerantur scilicet cui offeratur, et a quo offeratur, quid offeratur, et pro quibus offeratur. Idem ipse unus utriusque mediator per sacrificium pacis reconcilians nos Deo, unum cum illo maneret, cui offerebat, unum in se faceret pro quibus offerebat; unus ipse esset, qui offerebat et quod offerebat.

## XIV. IN EPISTOLAM AD HEBRAEOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO LXXVI. *Qui exemplari, et umbrae deserviunt,* [0626C] etc. Quaeritur quod hic dicatur exemplar. Solutio. Veritas in monte Moysi ostensa dicitur figurarum juxta se factarum exemplar. Item ipsae figurae dicuntur exemplar veritatis, quae postea impleta est: et sic ipsae figurae diverso respectu et exemplum et exemplar dici possunt. Exemplar onim proprie dicitur ad cujus similitudinem aliquid fit; exemplum, quod inde trahitur.

QUAESTIO LXXVII. *Nam, si illud prius culpa vacasset,* etc. Nonne lex bona, sancta et a Deo data? quomodo ergo non vacat a culpa? Solutio. Ea ratione dicitur vetus testamentum a culpa non vacare. qua dicitur lex iram operari, scilicet, quia non justificat, et quia praecipit quod non potest fieri sine gratia.

[0626D]QUAESTIO LXXVIII. Quaeritur cur non eo ritu colimus Deum quo coluerunt eum Hebraei patres? Solutio. Quia aliud Deus praecepit nobis per patres novi testamenti: neque haec contra vetus testamentum sunt, quae nos observamus, sed in illo praedicta, et praenuntiata.

QUAESTIO LXXIX. Item cur auctoritatem illius testamenti teneamus? Solutio. Ne prophetas exstinguamus, et testimonium de medio offeramus veritatis. Cum ergo aliquid legitur, quod a nobis non observatur, quaerendum est tantum quid significet, non reprehendendum; quia eo ipso, quod jam observatur, non damnatum, sed impletum probatur.

QUAESTIO LXXX. Item quaeritur unde illud vetus dicatur testamentum, hoc novum, cum lex impleatur [0627A] per novum testamentum? Solutio. Vetus testamentum, vetus vocatur pro veteri noxa, quae per litteram jubentem, et minantem non sanatur. Hoc autem novum dicitur propter novitatem spiritus, quae hominem sanat a vitio vetustatis. Nota diligenter quae sit differentia inter duo testamenta: illud vetus, hoc novum. Ibi littera, quae sola occidit, hic spiritus vivificans. Illud scriptum est in tabulis lapideis, hoc in mentibus et in cordibus. Illud promittit terrena, hoc coelestia. Illud habet sacramenta salutem significantia, non conferentia; hoc habet sacramenta salutem conferentia. Item nota quod testamentum dicitur, et ipsa promissio temporalis, vel aeterna, et scriptum continens ipsam promissionem. Vetus ergo testamentum continens promissionem [0627B] ad veterem hominem pertinentem. Novum vero testamentum, quod continet promissionem aeternae haereditatis quae ad novum hominem spectat.

QUAESTIO LXXXI. *Si enim cinis vitulaeaspersus inquinatos sanctificat [n: (Hebr. IX)]*, etc. Quaeritur quid vocet coinquinationem, a qua sanctificat cinis vitulae aspersus? Solutio. Contactum mortuorum sic vocat; vel lepram, a qua mundat cinis ille, id est a poena, quae secundum legem tali immunditiae debebatur: quo tactu significatur consensus peccati.

QUAESTIO LXXXII. *Et quemadmodum statutum est hominibus semel mori.* Dicit expositor quod eadem necessitate, et jure naturae Christus mortuus est: qua necessitate, et in re alii homines moriuntur. [0627C] Unde quaeritur an Christus sit necessitate mortuus, et an habuit necessitatem moriendi? Quod videtur manifeste secundum praedictam auctoritatem. Sed si necessitate, quomodo sola voluntate mortuus, sicut scriptum est: *Oblatus quia voluit? [n: (Isa. LIII.)]* Solutio. Dicunt quidam quod inter caeteras poenalitates, quas Dominus suscepit cum natura nostra sine culpa: etiam hanc poenalitatem, scilicet necessitatem moriendi suscepit voluntarie: quae non excludit voluntatem, nec excluditur ab ea. Nec tamen intelligendum est quin Christus potentia divinitatis posset deponere hanc poenam sine animae et corporis dissolutione, et supervestire naturam assumptam stola immortalitatis; sed si amplius non conferret, [0627D] quam ei collatum est ante mortem, necessario moreretur.

QUAESTIO LXXXIII. *Exspectantibus se in salutem,* etc. Super hunc locum dicit expositor quod Christus non necessitate, sed voluntate pro peccato exspectantium se in salutem mortuus est: sed superius dictum est quod mortuus est necessitate: quod videtur esse contrarium. Solutio. Quod hic dicit, sic intellige. Christus mortuus est non necessitate, id est in eo non fuit peccatum, pro quo necesse fuit eum mori: unde quasi exponens, quod dixerat, subjungit: sed pro peccato eorum mortuus, scilicet qui eum exspectabant in salutem.

QUAESTIO LXXXIV. *Alioqui cessassent offerri [n: (Hebr. X)]*, etc. Hostiae legales, ut dicit Apostolus, si [0628A] perfectos facerent offerri cessarent: unde quaeritur cur hostia salutaris novi testamenti cum perficiat, et sanctificatos consummet, saepius offeratur, et offerri non cesset? Solutio. Semel quidem oblata per passionem mortis in ara crucis in forma humana est; nec iterum sic per mortem offertur, sed tamen in sacramento saepius offertur, non causa suae infirmitatis, sed potius nostrae, qui quotidie peccamus: et praecipue propter recordationem mortis Christi, ut amor ejus cordibus nostris altius infigatur per hoc, quod memores sumus tanti beneficii.

QUAESTIO LXXXV. *Corpus autem aptasti mihi,* etc. Quaeritur in quo aptaverit corpus Christi? Solutio. Haec aptitudo in duobus consistit, scilicet in munditia, et mortalitate: nisi enim esset mundum, per [0628B] ipsum immundi non possent redimi, nisi esset mortale non posset immolari; necesse est ergo ut Domini corpus esset mundum per immunitatem peccati, et mortale.

QUAESTIO LXXXVI. *Non deserentes collectionem vestram.* Quaeritur an Apostolus damnet hic quod Dominus permittit, dicens: *Si vos persecuti fuerint in una civitate fugite in aliam [n: (Matth. X)]*, cujus rei etiam ipse dedit exemplum fugiendo in Aegyptum. Et Paulus similiter multoties invenitur idem fecisse: quid est ergo quod hic culpat eos, qui deserunt collectionem? Solutio. Eos culpat Apostolus in hoc loco, qui quasi causa sanctitatis suae inter alios infirmos, vel imperfectos habitare non possunt: et ideo deserendo collectionem scindunt unitatem, et sic [0628C] peccant ad mortem. Cum aliqui specialiter quaeruntur a persecutoribus, tunc licet rabiem persecutorum declinare, si fieri potest sine detrimento collectionis.

QUAESTIO LXXXVII. *Voluntarie peccantibus,* etc. Quaeritur qui sunt voluntarie peccantes, quibus non relinquitur hostia pro peccato. Solutio. Dicit glossa quod voluntarie peccantes permanentes in peccato ex voluntate peccandi vocat: quibus non prodest Christus, qui est hostia pro peccato, qui poenitentibus tantum prodest.

QUAESTIO LXXXVIII. Sed iterum quaeritur cur dicat Apostolus *post acceptam notitiam veritatis,* cum nec ante notitiam veritatis manentibus in voluntate [0628D] peccandi prosit Christus? Forsitan dicet quis quod talibus potest prodesse per gratiam baptismatis ut nec aliqua etiam poena satisfactionis injungatur, quomodo post gratiam regenerationis non potest renovari etiam per poenitentiam. Hoc dicentes non excludimus poenitentiam, ut quidam volunt ex his verbis Apostoli: *voluntarie peccantibus,* etc., occasionem sumentes. Quibusdam autem videtur quod voluntarie peccantes vocet, qui scienter veritatem invidia, vel odio, vel aliqua causa hujusmodi impugnantes in Spiritum sanctum peccant, et ideo irremissibiliter peccant; quia hoc peccatum nec in praesenti, nec in futuro habet remissionem, ut Dominus ait. Quod etiam videtur insinuari superius, ubi dicit Apostolus: *Impossibile est eos qui semel illuminati* [0629A] [n: (Matth. XII)], etc. Et subsequenter in hoc loco supponit: Qui Filium Dei conculcaverit, et sanguinem testamenti pollutum duxerit, et spiritui gratiae contumeliam fecerit. Quibus verbis manifeste videtur peccatum in Spiritum sanctum significari.

QUAESTIO LXXXIX. Quaeritur cur baptismus non possit iterari: cujus iteratio negata est hic ab Apostolo secundum quosdam? Solutio. Quia baptismus simul et culpam et poenam aufert. Unde si iteraretur, non solum vilesceret, sed etiam ad peccatum invitaret. Sed dicet aliquis: eadem ratione nec poenitentia deberet iterari, ne vilescat vel ad peccandum provocet. Solutio. Aliud judicium est de poenitentia, quae per poenae irrogationem a peccato cohibet, [0629B] quam de baptismo, quo et culpa et poena ex toto remittitur.

QUAESTIO XC. *Et ignis aemulatio quaedam.* Quaeritur quam poenam hic per ignem significet? Solutio. Aeternae poenae vehementiam hic ignis significat, quia nullius elementi est tanta efficacia quanta est ignis.

QUAESTIO XCI. *Quae consumptura est adversarios,* etc. Nunquid ignis in nihilum rediget Christi inimicos? Solutio. Ideo dicitur ignis aemulatio adversarios consumptura, quia nulla pars corporis vel animae a poena vacabit, quin ab igne crucietur.

QUAESTIO XCII. *Mihi vindictam, et ego retribuam, dicit Dominus.* Quaeritur, an semper vindicta sit reservanda Domino; nunquid non licet homini [0629C] vindictam sumere? Nonne licite latrones suspenduntur? Solutio. Non licet homini sibi sumere vindictam, nec eam affectare debet; sed si sumere necesse est, Deus tantum sit in causa, et zelus justitiae, qui autem aliter sumit, mortaliter peccat. Juxta illud: *Qui gladium acceperit, gladio peribit [n: (Matth. XXVI)]*.

QUAESTIO XCIII. *Fides est sperandarum substantia rerum argumentum non apparentium [n: (Hebr. XI)]*. De hac fidei definitione quaeritur an omni fidei conveniat, et an soli etiam aptari possit. Videtur autem quod haec definitio tantum conveniat fidei, quae est de rebus futuris; sed cum fides sit de praesentibus, et praeteritis, ut de nativitate, et passione, quomodo fides passionis est substantia rerum sperandarum? [0629D] Item, nonne spes et charitas est substantia, id est res et causa, quae res sperandas facit subsistere in nobis? quomodo ergo sola fides est substantia sperandarum rerum? Solutio. Secundum quod glossa hanc definitionem exponit, videtur quod non soli fidei conveniat. Caeterum licet pars hujus definitionis aliis virtutibus assignari videatur, non tota tamen; sola enim fides est argumentum non apparentium, per quam solam certi sumus de aeternis, quod sunt; per spem vero, quod ea nos sumus habituri, confidimus. Et ideo proprie fides substantia futurorum dicitur, quia per eam scimus quod sunt. fides etiam de praesentibus, vel praeteritis potest dici substantia rerum sperandarum, id est causa quae [0630A] facit quandoque ea quae speramus subsistere in nobis, quia per fidem passionis venitur ad futura bona, et est argumentum non apparentium, adeo quod illi qui viderunt eum pati aliquid crediderunt, scilicet Christum esse Deum, qui in cruce pendebat.

QUAESTIO XCIV. *Ut ex invisibilibus,* etc. Quaeritur quid vocet invisibilia? Solutio. Vel informem et invisibilem materiam quatuor elementorum, quae Graece chaos dicitur; vel invisibilem mundum, qui archetypus dicitur, qui in mente Dei erat juxta cujus exemplar factus est iste sensibilis et visibilis mundus.

QUAESTIO XCV. *Abel fide adhuc defunctus loquitur,* etc. Quaeritur quomodo ille, qui non vivit, loquatur? [0630B] Solutio. Loquitur, id est materia est loquendi; loquitur quia suo exemplo nos monet ut simus justi.

QUAESTIO XCVI. *Sine fide impossibile est placere Deo,* etc. Quaeritur de qua fide hoc dicat; nunquid de fide incarnationis? Solutio. Dicitur quod sine ea nullus ab initio placuit Deo.

## XIV. IN EPISTOLAM AD HEBRAEOS. (cont.)

QUAESTIO XCVII. *Credere oportet accedentem ad Deum quoniam est,* etc. Quaeritur de qua fide agat, an de perfecta, an de imperfecta? Si de imperfecta, quomodo per eam potuit aliquis Deo placere; si de perfecta, quomodo hoc potest sufficere ad salutem, credere quia est, et quia inquirentibus se remunerator sit? his enim non sunt omnes articuli contenti, qui sunt necessarii ad salutem. Solutio. Videtur [0630C] hic fidei habendae ponere ordinem, id est ostendere quid in primis credere oportet, non fidei sufficientiam assignare.

QUAESTIO XCVIII. Utrum vero aliquod tempus fuerit in quo hoc credere tantum, scilicet, quia Deus est, et quia remunerator, etc., suffecerit, quaeri potest. Quod non videtur.

QUAESTIO XCIX. *Fide et de futuris benedixit Isaac Jacob,* etc. Nunquid cum benediceret ei, intellexit quod ibi significabatur per hoc, quod minorem benedicebat? Si intelligebat, tunc sciebat quod diceret Jacob, quod nequaquam historia patitur. Nam et manus contrectavit, ut probaret an esset Esau, et postea veniente Esau ait: *Quis fuit, qui venit fraudulenter: cui benedixi, et erit benedictus?* Solutio. [0630D] Licet tunc non intellexit, tamen post intellexit, et ejus rei fidem habuit, quod major populus serviet minori.

QUAESTIO C. Item quaeritur unde Isaac in benedicendo deceptus est? Solutio. Non fuit deceptus, quin sciret quem effectum haberet benedictio in illo quem benedicebat; nondum tamen quod Jacob esse sciebat, quem benedicebat. Solet autem proprie deceptio in iis, quae non debent fieri, accipi. Nunquid decipi dicendus est, qui pro aurichalco emit aurum, vel pro stanno argentum? Si vero large deceptio accipiatur, pro omnibus quae aliter fiant quam existimantur, et hic deceptio quaedam fuit.

QUAESTIO CI. *Et adoravit fastigium virgae ejus;* [0631A] vel ut alia habet littera, *super fastigium,* etc. Quaeritur quid est quod Jacob adoravit super cacumen virgae Joseph. Solutio. Forte tulerat a filio virgam, quando idem filius jurabat, et dum eam tenet post verba jurantis, nondum illa reddita, mox adoravit Deum: sic solvit Augustinus. Vel potest dici quod adoravit fastigium virgae ejus, id est regnum Christi futurum in gentibus: quod per illud significabatur, ut nomine signi signatum intelligatur.

QUAESTIO CII. *Jephthe,* etc. De hoc quaeritur an rationale fecerit votum, et an peccaverit implendo illud, unicam filiam offerendo Domino. Nunquid si canis occurrisset ei, obtulisset eum Deo? Solutio. Videtur, quod stulte egerit vovendo, stultius votum implendo: [0631B] tamen si occulto monitu sancti Spiritus hoc fecerit, excusatur, sicut Samson, qui secum Philisthaeos compressit, quia non licet sibi manum inferre. Unde et Jonas dixit: *Mittite me in mare.*

QUAESTIO CIII. Quaeritur cur in recordatione mortis illius puellae, Hebreae virgines singulis annis planctus faciunt? Solutio. Exempli causa, ne quis iterum sic stulte aliquid voveat, vel faciat, unde talis dolor sequi possit.

QUAESTIO. CIV. Quaeritur an Abraham voluntate peccaverit, volendo immolare filium suum, cum, secundum quosdam, imo revera Jephthe peccaverit occidendo filiam, nisi hoc factum sit instinctu divino. Solutio. Abraham non solum non culpatur crudelitatis crimine, verum etiam laudatur pietatis [0631C] nomine, quod filium suum non scelerate, sed obedienter, voluit occidere.

QUAESTIO CV. *Deinde patres quidemcarnis nostrae eruditores habuimus, et reverebamur eos: nonne multo magis obtemperabimus Patri spirituum, et vivemus? [n: (Hebr. XII.)]* Si quaeratur, utrum animae humanae sint ex traduce, nota diligenter hanc auctoritatem, per quam manifeste probatur, quod animae non sunt ex traduce sicut caro; si enim hoc esset, nequaquam distingueret Apostolus inter patres carnis nostrae, et Patrem spirituum.

QUAESTIO CVI. *Contemplantes ne quis desit gratiae Dei,* etc. Quaeritur quid sit deesse gratiae Dei? Solutio. Gratiae oblatae oculos mentis claudere, et gratiam respuere, quemadmodum radio solis oculis [0631D] meis apertis eos claudere, vel apertos tenere, pro libitu possum, quod est ex libero arbitrio; et sic gratia non excludit liberum arbitrium, nec ipsum arbitrium excludit gratiam.

QUAESTIO CVII. *Vendidit primogenita sua,* etc. Quaeritur quid Apostolus vocet primogenita Esau. Solutio. Primogenita hic vocat honorem et dignitatem sacerdotii: quia ante sacerdotium Aaron omnes primogeniti sacerdotes erant, sicut fuit Sem. Et haec erat magna dignitas, quia de substantia et haereditate paterna majorem portionem sumebat, vestiumque ornatu locupletiorum splendebat, eique benedictio dabatur.

QUAESTIO CVIII. Quaeritur an peccatum Esau erat [0632A] irremissibile, cum Apostolus dicat quod *non invenit poenitentiae locum.* Nonne poenituit? imo lacrymatus est: quomodo ergo verum est, non invenit locum poenitentiae? Solutio. Non invenit locum poenitentiae, id est veniae, et locum benedictionis per poenitentiam non quod non poenituerit, sed quia non poenituit uti debuit. Lacrymae enim illae potius fuerunt ex indignatione contra fratrem, et ex dolore amissi honoris, quam ex humilitate veraque poenitentia.

QUAESTIO CIX. *Testamenti novi mediatorem Jesum, et sanguinis aspersionem melius loquentem quam Abel.* Quaeritur in quo sanguis Christi melius loquatur quam sanguis Abel? Solutio. Dicit glossa ideo melius, quia iste, id est Christi, petebat veniam, [0632B] ille vindictam; iste salutem, ille damnationem. Sed dicet quis: Nonne effusores sanguinis Christi perierunt, sicut effusores sanguinis Abel? Ergo sanguis Christi vindictam loquitur, sicut sanguis Abel. Quomodo ergo melius loquitur iste quam ille? Solutio. Sanguis Christi non solum vindictam clamat contemnentibus, sed etiam veniam omnibus, etiam persecutoribus, si ipsi volunt poenitere. Sanguis vero Abel tantum vindictam, et nulli veniam loquitur. Vel melius loquitur sanguis Christi quam Abel, id est melius nos loqui facit, scilicet, quod Jesus sit Filius Dei, a quo redempti sumus; quam sanguis Abel, qui facit nos loqui Abel fuisse virum justum in figura Christi immolatum. Nota quod Abel, qui primus injuste occisus fuit, positus est pro omnibus [0632C] aliis quorum sanguis nullam veniam facere potuit.

QUAESTIO CX. *Per hanc quidem placuerunt Deo,* etc. Quaeritur an Abraham et Lot cognoverunt eos esse angelos. Si cognoverunt, quomodo officia humanitatis praebuerunt, quae non sunt necessaria, nisi infirmitati hominum? Item si non cognoverunt angelos esse, sed homines tantum arbitrati sunt, quomodo plusquam homines venerati sunt eos? Solutio. Primo homines arbitrati sunt divinitus missos, et in quibus Deus esset; postea vero compererunt angelos esse.

QUAESTIO CXI. Quaeritur quomodo angeli in sumptis corporibus comedere potuerunt? Non enim sic illa corpora unita habebant, ut animae hominum habent [0632D] sibi unita corpora, unde nec animata erant, nec sensibilia illa corpora; nec laedi poterant in illis corporibus angeli. Solutio. Non comederunt angeli more animalium, sed sicut ignis quod ipsi apponitur consumit, et in nihilum redigit; sic et cibus ille consumptus est operatione illorum, vel ipsi inde fecerunt quod volebant.

QUAESTIO CXII. Item quaeritur quomodo cum angeli essent tres visi, unum eorum in fide Trinitatis et unitatis adorare potuerit Abraham? Solutio. Divina revelatione cognovit in illis mysterium Trinitatis et unitatis.

QUAESTIO CXIII. *Quorum enim animalium,* etc. Dicit expositor, quod per duplicem allegoriam probat, [0633A] quod corpus Christi non est comedendum ab iis qui tabernaculo deserviunt; sed cum unus sit sensus utriusque historiae, quomodo per duplicem allegoriam probat hoc? Quid est allegoria? Nonne spiritalis sensus? Ergo ubi est unus sensus, quomodo duplex est allegoria? Solutio. Dicit per duplicem allegoriam, [0634A] id est per allegoriam de duplici historia surgentem. Vel allegoria dicitur significans et significatum; hic autem pro significante ponitur: Quid est autem per duplicem allegoriam nisi per duplicem historiam, scilicet unam Veteris, alteram Novi Testamenti?

english:
## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS.

[0431C] *Paul* is a common noun among the Hebrews, the Greeks, and the Latins, though not with the same ending [n: (Rom. I)]. Among the Hebrews it means *wonderful* or *chosen*; among the Greeks *quiet*; among the Latins *small*. This name was aptly imposed on Paul as a mark of a twofold, or a threefold, virtue, which the aforesaid interpretations suggest; or Paul was called an Apostle from Paulus Sergius the proconsul, whom he converted in Cyprus; or he bore two names.

QUESTION I. It is asked how Paul calls himself a servant, since elsewhere he says: *For you have not received the spirit of bondage again in fear [n: (Rom. VIII)]*. And elsewhere: *Now he is no longer a servant, but a son [n: (Galat. IV)]*. And the Lord in the Gospel: *I will now no longer call you servants, but friends [n: (Joan. XV)]*. Was Paul then not a friend? Solution. [0431D] Two kinds of fear make two kinds of servants: namely servile and filial. Paul, then, was a servant by filial fear, and not by servile: which servitude does not take away liberty or friendship, but rather establishes it.

QUESTION II. Why does Paul say that Christ was made from [0432C] the seed of David, when we confess him born of the Virgin? Solution. That he might note that Christ was conceived not after the manner of other men, but by the sole working of the Holy Spirit, from the Virgin, without male seed: whence other men can beget other men, but not make them.

QUESTION III. How was the incarnation itself brought about? Solution. I say that the very Word of God was made flesh, that is, man: yet not changed or converted into man or flesh, but clothed with flesh (that he might appear to mortals); for that union was so brought about that neither was the divine nature changed into the human, nor the human into the divine: nor was a new nature or a new person made out of the two natures, but ineffably the two natures are united in Christ: so that the one assuming should confer upon the assumed by grace all that it had by nature, and all [0432D] that was the assumed's by nature should become the assuming one's by condescension; whence the whole is called God, the whole man, and in turn man is God, and God man, which does not happen in the substances of man.

[0433A] QUESTION IV. How is it here said that the whole is God and the whole man, since those two natures are not parts of that person? Solution. This is said on account of a likeness, because the two natures are so united in Christ as parts in a whole, but differently. For not as a whole has its being from the conjunction of its parts, does the person of Christ have its being from the union of the humanity and the divinity, for neither nature has any new being. But that those natures are not parts of the person is clear from this, that either of them is predicated of the person, as when it is said: Christ is the divine nature. Likewise the names of the natures are predicated of one another, as when it is said: God is man and man is God: which does not happen in an integral whole and its parts.

QUESTION V. How is the image referred to the essence [0433B] only, when it is said of the Son only in a relative sense? Solution. Image sometimes signifies the divine essence, and then it is predicated in common of the three persons: it also signifies a relation, and then it is said of the Son alone.

QUESTION VI. What is not in the substance of man, that is in the substances of Christ? Solution. Because neither is the flesh the soul, nor the soul the flesh; nor is man the flesh or the soul, as God is man, and man is God, and Christ is both. And this comes about because the union between God and man is greater than that between flesh and soul. For the soul united to the flesh does not confer upon it all that it has by nature, since the flesh is not capable of the many things that are the soul's, as God united to man wholly infuses himself [0433C] into him.

QUESTION VII. What is it that is said, when it is said: Man is God and God is man, or Christ is God, Christ is man? Solution. In answering this question the modern doctors disagree among themselves. For some say that the same is predicated of itself, namely: this person, Christ; which is astonishing, since God means one thing, man another; and the son of man one thing, the Son of God another, as authority says. Which also seems to me to be false, because this name God means the same, when it is said: man is God, and: Christ is God, and: the Father is God. If it be said, it does not follow that the same is God, man, and Christ, and God the Father. Likewise man and God are common [0433D] nouns; how then do they properly signify this person, or when, or by whom was such an imposition made? Likewise Christ is man, and the Virgin [the Word] is man, is not the same thing predicated of both? If it be said no: then they are not of the same nature, since the name of the nature is not common to both according to the same signification. Others say that when it is said: man is God, that which is signified by this name God is not predicated, but rather to be personally united to God; and when it is said: God is man, to have man united in person is predicated. But according to this neither is man truly God, nor is God truly man. Others say that when it is said: man is God, the person of the divine nature is predicated of the person of the human nature; and when it is said: [0434A] God is man, the person of the human nature is predicated of the person of the divine nature: yet the person of the divine and of the human nature is the same, namely Christ; yet another is understood when one says: man, and when one says: God. These plainly concede that Christ is two things, of which one is simple and the other composite; one eternal, the other temporal; and that Christ is something composite according to his humanity, from flesh and soul, and something simple according to his divinity, and that the divinity is not a part of this person, but is the very person, while the flesh and soul are only parts.

QUESTION VIII. Whether Christ was twice begotten. Response. He was twice born and twice begotten: once from eternity out of the substance of the Father, again in time of the Virgin. [0434B] He has therefore two nativities, two generations, two filiations, an eternal and a temporal, yet he is not two sons or two born, but one and the same Son of God and son of man, though not by the same filiation.

QUESTION IX. Whether a person took up a person, or a nature a person, or a nature a nature. Solution. A person is not assumed, therefore neither did a person assume a person, nor a nature a person. But that a person assumed a nature, all concede; whether a nature assumed a nature is doubted by some: but, beyond doubt, the divine nature assumed the human, not into a unity of nature, but of person, that is, the union was so brought about that the one assuming and the assumed should be one person, not one nature, which, although authority manifestly [0434C] often says this, many deny, saying: if that which is assumed is a person, how is a person not assumed? But we say: although a person is assumed, yet God did not assume the person of man, but the nature, because he was not made of another person than he had been before, as he was made of another nature than he was, retaining his own; for in assuming the humanity, he did not lose the divinity. Therefore it is conceded that a nature, not a person, is assumed, not only by a person, but by a nature. Those authorities which say that the Word alone was incarnate exclude only the other persons, not the divine nature.

QUESTION X. What is predestination? Response. [0434D] The preparation of grace. Sometimes also the very applying of grace is called predestination.

QUESTION XI. Likewise it is asked, of what predestination was made: whether of the person, or of the nature? Solution. Of the person, not according to the divine nature, but according to the human. It can also be said that the nature was predestined, or the man assumed, so as to be exalted such that there was nothing higher to which he might be lifted.

QUESTION XII. Whether it ought simply to be conceded that Christ is a creature, or made. Solution. It is not to be conceded without such a qualification, according to the flesh: lest we seem to consent to the heretics who say that Christ was made according to either nature, and also on account of the implicit negation [0435A] contained in this name, creature: because that is called a creature which began to be and did not always exist. For it does not follow, if according to his humanity Christ did not always exist: therefore he did not always exist; as it rightly follows, if according to his Divinity he always existed, therefore he always existed.

QUESTION XIII. Whether Christ according to his humanity is the Son of God, or God? Which they wish to prove thus: according as he is man, he is predestined to be the Son of God: but that is, that he might be, he was predestined according as he is man, therefore according as he is man, he is the Son of God. Solution. It is not true that if according to man he is predestined to be the Son of God: therefore according to man he is the Son of God, unless "according to" be expressive of the person. But if [0435B] it notes a cause or a condition, it is not true, as appears in this like case: This man, according to the magnitude of his sin, repents that he may be saved, therefore according to the magnitude of his sin he is made saved.

QUESTION XIV. Whether according as he is man he is a person. Solution. Some say: If "according to" signifies a cause or a condition, according as he is man, he is not a person; saying: If according as he is man, he is a person, therefore a third in the Trinity, or another; but there is no other, therefore a third in the Trinity, and thus according as he is man he is God. Again, according as he is man, he is not distinguished by a personal property from the Father or the Holy Spirit, but by filiation alone, which he had from eternity. Others say that, inasmuch as he is man, he is a person. Whence it rightly follows, [0435C] if he is man, he is a person, and that consequence: if he is a person, he is a third person in the Trinity or another, they call false. For the whole posited does not posit the part, as the removed removes it, but the part posited posits the whole. But the part removed neither posits nor removes the whole. But that that which is assumed is a person is clear, since Augustine says that that which he took up and that which is assumed are one person.

QUESTION XV. Whether the soul of Christ is God? Solution. It is not to be conceded simply, lest we seem to consent to those who said that the Word assumed flesh only, and that the Word itself quickened the flesh in place of a soul. For this reason also the soul is not called God, because the name of soul redounds more upon the nature [0435D] than upon the person.

QUESTION XVI. Whether it ought to be conceded, That man existed from eternity? Solution. If by the pronoun "that" a person is indicated, it is true that that man existed from eternity; but if the human nature, it is not true, That man existed from eternity.

QUESTION XVII. Whether the soul of Christ is a person? Some say that it is not, while it is joined to the flesh: but separated it is a person. Others say that Christ's soul is the same person with the Word.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XVIII. Whether that which is signified by this name Christ is a universal? Which seems to be so: because it is predicated of several, as when it is said, man is Christ, and God is Christ. Solution. It need not [0436A] be conceded on that account, since in each case the predication is not conformable, although too there are two things which are predicated of several according to some, yet it is not that which is predicated of several. Likewise they wish to prove that it is that which is predicated of several, because the person, which is said of the one assuming, is also said of the assumed. Solution. Person is as it were a comprehensive name, for two, or several, are one person. Yet there are some who concede that what is signified by this name, Christ, is common to several: and signifies as much as this term, the person of the divine and human nature, yet Christ is not a universal, but two singulars according to these men.

QUESTION XIX. Whether the man assumed is God. Solution. [0436B] Many say that he is not, whom authority plainly contradicts. For the Apostle says that in him dwells the fullness of the divinity [n: (Col. II)]. And Ambrose: Whatever the Son of God has by nature, the son of man has by grace. Likewise the Lord speaking of himself: *All power is given to me in heaven,* etc. [n: (Matth. XXVIII)]. If he has omnipotence, he is omnipotent; if he is omnipotent, he is God. Likewise John the apostle says of him, that *he received the Spirit not by measure [n: (Joan. III)]*; but according to those who deny that the man assumed is God, the Spirit was given to him by measure, since he does not have all that the Word has, to which he is personally united.

QUESTION XX. Whether that man can forgive sins, since he is omnipotent? Solution. That man [0436C] can forgive sins, not because he is man, but because he is God, just as he can reduce the world to nothing, if he willed.

QUESTION XXI. Whether the creature is made equal to the Creator, since the soul of Christ, or the man assumed, has wholly by grace what God has by nature? Solution. The creature is not equal to God, because it is one thing to be wisdom, another to be wise by wisdom, another to have something by nature, another by grace.

Likewise the objection is made thus: It has been said that whatever the Word has by nature, the man has by grace: but the Word has eternity by nature, therefore the man has the same by grace, and if this is so, the man himself is eternal. Solution. This term, eternal, notes [0436D] a negation. For that is properly called eternal which always was, and did not begin to be, whence, because "eternal" does not simply predicate the person of the divine nature, but also designates such a negation, the man is not to be called eternal. Or it can be put thus: that man is the eternal God, he is not an eternal man.

QUESTION XXII. Whether the man assumed is an adoptive son, or a natural son. Some wish to prove that he is an adoptive son thus: by grace alone he was predestined, so as to be the Son of God, therefore he is a son of grace, and thus of adoption, therefore adoptive. Solution. To be the Son by grace alone he has not from grace but from nature, that is, the man assumed is not an adoptive son, [0437A] but a natural son, not by nature but by grace, through which he has whatever he possesses.

QUESTION XXIII. How does the Apostle show his affection toward the Romans, as the expositor says, by giving thanks to God, since for all the good things that God gives to good and bad alike, thanks are to be given to God? Solution. He gives thanks not only in respect of the gifts, but rather in respect of the Romans, namely because the gifts were conferred on them. But when someone gives thanks for evil gifts conferred, he does this only in respect of the gifts, not of those on whom they are conferred.

QUESTION XXIV. The expositor says that the Apostle in the Romans does not praise the faith, but the readiness of faith, which seems not to be praiseworthy, because he who [0437B] easily believes, easily disbelieves. Solution. There is a twofold readiness; the one, which comes from lightness of mind, and this is unworthy of praise; the other, which comes from vigor of mind, and much consideration of reason, and this is worthy of praise.

QUESTION XXV. The Lord forbids in the Gospel to swear by heaven or by earth [n: (Matth. V)]; the Apostle swears not by a creature but by the Creator, which is more, when he says: *God is my witness [n: (Rom. I)]*. Whence he seems to be a transgressor of the precept, and thus to sin unto death. Solution. The Lord forbids what is evil, namely to swear falsely, or truly without necessity; he counseled to speak the truth; he permitted an oath when it is necessary, in which three things ought to be present: judgment, as to the usefulness of discretion; [0437C] justice, as to whether it is to be done; truth, as to knowledge. If one of these be lacking, the guilt of perjury is incurred.

QUESTION XXVI. What it is to swear by God. Solution. The sense is: So may God profit me, or not, or as the truth is in God, so in this man; and if he empties it out as far as in him lies, he annihilates the truth of God, setting God up as a guarantor to those men: but if it is not true, he in a manner imprisons God.

QUESTION XXVII. Likewise what it is to swear by a creature? Solution. By God, who made it. Whence Augustine says that he who swears falsely by a stone is a perjurer.

QUESTION XXVIII. Whether an oath is good, [0437D] or evil, or indifferent: for if it is good, it is not to be forbidden; if evil, it is by no means to be done; if it is indifferent, how is it always from evil? Solution. It is not itself evil, but nevertheless an occasion of evil; whence the Lord himself counsels to avoid it, lest by its constant use we incur perjury.

QUESTION XXIX. How does the Apostle show his affection toward the Romans by saying: *I desire to see you that I may have some fruit among you [n: (ibid.)]*, since he seems to attend to his own advantage rather than to theirs? Solution. He does not seek his own advantage so much as theirs, while he desires them to bear fruit in good works, so that he too may obtain some advantage from their progress.

[0438A] QUESTION XXX. If it is true, as many hold, that the will with the deed is not worth more than the will without the deed, how does the Apostle say: I desire to see you that I may have some fruit among you; since he would not have more merit from the deed than he had from the will alone? Solution. To us, however, it seems that the deed with the will is a greater good than the will alone without the deed. But those men say: He desired to come for this reason, that with the deed the will might grow, and the merit become greater. What will they say about the passion of Christ? Did he not merit more by suffering than before by desire alone? For they cannot say that his will in the passion was augmented, so that thus the merit might grow.

[0438B] QUESTION XXXI. How does the Apostle say that he is a debtor to the Greeks and to the barbarians: did he not preach to them freely? therefore not out of debt. Solution. He does not say that he owes them anything from their merit, but from the office enjoined he owes to evangelize to them; and out of grace alone, as regards them, he preached, so this debt therefore does not take away grace, as he says elsewhere: *Necessity lies upon me to evangelize [n: (I Cor. IX)]*. Which necessity does not take away the will, as this debt does not remove grace.

Likewise it seems that there was in them that whence he owed this to them; from the law of nature, by which he owed them that which he would wish to be done to himself. Solution. We concede that by natural law he was bound to illumine them with the light of truth, yet it is not simply to be conceded that he [0438C] owed this to them.

QUESTION XXXII. Likewise when it is said: *The just man lives by faith [n: (Hebr. X)]*, it is asked why the efficacy of justice is attributed to faith, and not to charity; since faith is somewhere where there is no justice; charity nowhere without justice. To this some respond, saying: Charity and justice are the same, and therefore neither is the cause of the other. Or otherwise: although charity is the cause of justice, yet fittingly faith, which is the cause of charity, is said to be the cause of justice; because whatever is the cause of a cause, is the cause also of the effect. And it is to be known that it is one thing to believe that God exists, which is the faith of knowledge; another to believe God, which is called the faith of consent; another to believe in God, which is called the faith of trust; another to believe unto God, which is by faith [0438D] and love to tend toward God. Likewise it is one thing which is believed; another that by which it is believed; each is often designated by the name of faith. Likewise that by which it is believed is sometimes informed by charity, and then only, according to some, is it called a virtue; but when it is without charity, it is an unformed quality; it is neither a virtue nor does it justify. To others it seems that wherever there is faith, even of knowledge, as far as in itself, it always justifies: yet its effect is sometimes hindered by the abundance of evil. Faith is a virtue by which are believed the things that are not seen: or a certitude of invisible things pertaining to religion, above opinion and within knowledge. Charity justifies, and faith, and grace, and God: therefore four justify. [0439A] Solution. It is not therefore true, that four, because this would be separately: for in faith and through faith charity justifies, and in charity, grace, and through grace, God.

QUESTION XXXIII. How does he say in the plural, the invisible things of God, since God is simple and one, nor is there anything in God that is not God, nor is anything here called the invisible of God which is not God? Solution. That which is one and simple in nature, comes into our knowledge not as one and simple, but as many: and this is rarely grasped, why, namely, it comes thus, because the inner eye is not yet able to attain to that simplicity and ineffable unity which is God, so as to understand him as he is. Whence, when it understands God as good, wise, omnipotent, [0439B] and the like, as it were several things come into the mind, which is one in nature. From which a higher question arises: whether those things which are understood by man's reason as several, are in themselves, or in God, distinguished by any difference. They do not differ among themselves substantially or personally: as the eternal reasons of things, which were in the mind of God, it is clear that they differ in some way, yet in what way is not certain.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XXXIV. Likewise, since it is said: His everlasting power also, and divinity, it may be asked: These two, the power of God and the divinity, since they are invisible, how are they distinguished from the invisible things? For it cannot fittingly be said, animals live, and men, and horses, since men and horses are animals. Solution. [0439C] The names that are said of God, some signify what God is not, as immortal and immeasurable, eternal and infinite. Some note what is in God, as wise, good: some by their predication suggest what God is, as goodness and wisdom. Lest anyone then should suppose that only those are beheld by the creature through the understanding of God which indicate what God is not, as immeasurable, he added, his everlasting power also, etc. Otherwise according to others: by the invisible things is understood the Father; by the power, the Son; by the divinity, the Holy Spirit. According to this it seems that the philosophers had knowledge of the supreme Trinity through the things that are made. But Augustine on Exodus says that the philosophers did not attain to the knowledge of the third person, [0439D] but only περὶ τοῦ αγάθου, that is, concerning the Father, and περὶ νόον, that is, concerning the Son, did they philosophize. To this some say that that distinction of the supreme Trinity which the catholic faith confesses they did not have, nor could have, except by revelation. For God is known in four ways: in two ways inwardly, namely by natural reason, which the Apostle notes according to some, saying: *What is known of God is manifest in them [n: (Rom. I)]*, and by divine inspiration, which the Apostle there notes: *For God has manifested it to them [n: (ibid.)]*. In two ways outwardly, by the created work, as the Apostle suggests, saying: *The invisible things of God [n: (ibid.)]*, and by Scripture, which way is sufficiently plain. God willed therefore to lie hidden in some things, that faith might have [0440A] its merit, and to appear in some, that unbelief might have no excuse. Note, in the magnitude of the universe the divine power is noted, in its beauty the wisdom, in its usefulness the goodness, whence it is clear that not only in all things together, but in each single thing, there shines a certain image and vestige of the Trinity. Nevertheless it is to be observed carefully, when likenesses are brought in, whether it is to demonstrate the identity of essence, or to suggest the personal distinction, or to show that the incarnation pertains to the Son alone, although it is itself the work of the Trinity.

QUESTION XXXV. Why is the Father understood through the invisible things rather than the Son, or the Holy Spirit, since they too are invisible? Solution. Because the Father is nowhere read to have appeared in a visible form, as the Son in the man [0440B] assumed, and the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and in tongues of fire.

QUESTION XXXVI. Why the Son through the power? Solution. Because he himself is the operative power of the Father, through whom all things were made.

QUESTION XXXVII. Why is the Holy Spirit signified through the divinity? Solution. That it may be shown to proceed in common from the Father and the Son, he obtains a common name as though proper. Or by the invisible things the Holy Spirit is understood, whence "invisible things" is said in the plural on account of the diversity of gifts. By the power the Father, to whose property power is wont to be referred. By the divinity, or Deity, is understood the Son, for thus different men hold different views.

QUESTION XXXVIII. It is asked concerning that which the Apostle says [0440C] of the philosophers, that they were inexcusable: *Because when they had known God, they did not glorify him as God [n: (ibid.)]*. For they seem to have had an excuse: for not so great a grace was conferred on them, out of which they could glorify God. For could they glorify God without charity? Could anyone have charity without faith? Could they, from that degree of knowledge which they had, love? Solution. They were therefore inexcusable, because they did not do as much as they could.

QUESTION XXXIX. Likewise it is asked, if they had done as much as they could, whether they would be worthy of salvation, if they had departed from this life in such a state. For who is worthy of salvation without faith, or who can perish with charity? [0440D] Master Peter Abelard says that they were worthy of salvation, that is, that there should be given to them the means whereby they might be saved; because if they had done as much as they could, God would never permit them to pass on without faith. Others say that they were therefore inexcusable, because from that degree of knowledge they could love: and at once from this state faith would be given to them. But according to this, faith is from charity, not charity from faith. But a third group hold that by no degree of knowledge could they love; yet if they had done what they could, at once faith would be given to them, out of which they would love God, and thus glorify him. To whom it is objected: Could they merit faith? Perhaps they will say: That, although they could not merit faith, yet from that which they had, they could be made fit and apt to receive faith. But how do they know that [0441A] from this they would be made fit; or if fit, how do they know that faith would be given to them? Were not the Tyrians and Sidonians fit? yet the preaching was not made to them. Solution. But we believe that they could glorify God in part, even if not yet perfectly, for if they attributed to God what they had received, and sought his glory and not their own, they would glorify God according to something: in which they would love God, even if they could not perfectly.

It is objected. From that knowledge which they had, they could at least in part love God: therefore from charity they could do this, which they had, or which they did not have; but not from that which they did not have: therefore from that which they had, and thus they had the love of God, and thus were worthy of salvation. Solution. It is to be conceded [0441B] that they could love God from the charity which they had; yet it is not simply to be said that they had the love of God: just as this sick and weak man carries a stone from the strength which he has; yet it is not simply to be said that this man is strong, or has strength. For we do not concede that those who are in mortal sin can do no good work, as some hold, but they do many good things, although insufficient for salvation on account of the greater evil which they have.

QUESTION XL. Whether natural reason can do anything of itself without the aid of grace? Solution. Some say that natural reason can do much of itself, as appears in the philosophers, who, relying on reason alone, knew much not only in the comprehension of truth concerning creatures, [0441C] but even concerning the Creator, namely that God is, and is one, and that he is triune. But to this thought they seem not to have attained without the aid of grace. Whence the Apostle: What is known of God is manifest in them; and at once he adds: For God has manifested it to them.

QUESTION XLI. How then without grace, if God manifested it to them, is not this grace? To this some respond thus: God is said to have manifested, because he made such creatures that from them the Creator himself could be known. Whence he adds: For the invisible things of God, etc.

QUESTION XLII. Likewise if natural reason avails so much, as to suffice for this degree of knowledge, [0441D] it is asked in what it was more efficacious before sin than now; or how it is now weaker than then? For as then it knew that God is, and is one, and triune; so also now. And as now it cannot comprehend the mystery of the incarnation without the aid of grace, so neither then that mystery which is hidden in God, who made all things, as the Apostle says, as though nothing served the creatures whereby this could be known. Solution. Reason before sin comprehended more easily and more perfectly what now with great difficulty, and less perfectly, and from afar it descries: it would also then have known many things which now it does not know. It is objected against those who say that natural reason can do something of itself: Can not the outer eye see nothing without the illumination of the light coming upon [0442A] it, or of the ray of the sun, or of another? So the inner eye can do nothing of itself without the illumination of the light which illumines every man coming into this world. What then can natural reason do without grace, since such light is from grace? To which some respond thus: In the first creation there was set out and set before the inner eye the illumination of the supreme light: as far as and to what end, from such a setting out and setting before, without any grace supervening, it might of itself avail to attain: which illumination was not of the substance of reason, nor of its nature, but of its gratuitous gift. Yet it can be said that it sees naturally; because, with the nature was given the aptitude and fitness for seeing, that light being set out, of which the discourse before proceeded. And so without every kind of grace the eye of the mind can see [0442B] nothing: yet it can well see without a supervening grace other than that which was conferred with the nature, which supervening grace is most especially wont to be called grace.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XLIII. *God gave them up to the desires of their heart, and to the passions of shame, and to a reprobate sense.* From these authorities, and many others, such as this: *He gave them the spirit of compunction, that seeing they might not see, and hearing they might not hear [n: (Rom. XI)]*. And this: *The heart of Pharaoh was hardened [n: (Exod. VII)]*. And this: *Whom he will he hardens, on whom he will he has mercy [n: (Rom. IX)]*. From these and many others certain evils seem to be brought about by God's operation. Augustine too heaps up many things into one for the proof of a matter of this kind. Afterward he infers. From which it is manifest [0442C] that God works in the hearts of men, in the good by inclining them to good things out of mercy, or in the evil by inclining them to evil things by his judgment, sometimes hidden, sometimes manifest, but always just. Likewise: *Is it not just, that he who is in filth should be filthy still? [n: (Apoc. XXII.)]* By whom is this just? Is it not by God, from whom is all that is just? Therefore God seems to work this. Likewise that sin which is the penalty of a preceding sin, from whom is it? All that is just is from God, and that sin is a just penalty. Therefore it seems to have its origin from God. Solution. To this indeed some respond, saying that all sin is from God, not only that which is the penalty of another, but also that which is only fault, conceding that theft, robbery, [0442D] adultery are from God, according to that saying of the prophet: *There is no evil in the city, which God does not make [n: (Amos. III)]*. Because also by such a reasoning they attempt to prove the same. Every essence is from God, but an evil will and an evil action are sin, and have essence: whence it is gathered that sin is from God according to the opinion of these men. Against whom the objection is made thus. What is it to make sin, but to sin? What is it to make adultery, but to make to be committed in adultery? to make theft, but to steal? Whence if it be conceded that he makes sin, it follows that God sins, steals, commits adultery, kills: which it is not only wicked to say, but even to think. That which is objected concerning the evil will and the action not good, that they are something, and thus from God. Thus it is resolved. Of sins one is according to [0443A] itself, another according to another. Sin according to itself is a certain disorder, as the privation of justice; and it itself is nothing but the absence of justice, whence it is not from God, since it is nothing. For God is not the author of that which is nothing. An evil will, and an action not good, is sin according to another, namely according to the disorder, and these are something, and are called sins not from that which they have, but from that which they do not have: for they are sins for this reason, that they do not have order or measure. That saying of the prophet, namely that he says: There is no evil in the city, which God does not make, is understood of the evil of adversity, not of the evil of perversity. Or perhaps we are not even compelled to understand this of the evil of adversity, if we look more diligently at the context of this Scripture. For thus [0443B] it stands in the prophet: There is no evil in the city, which the Lord does not make known to his servants the prophets. Likewise they object concerning the power of sinning, that it is from God: and it itself is sin, and thus sin is from God, as it seems. Solution. This is nothing, because the power of sinning is neither sin, nor a sufficient cause of sinning without the will.

QUESTION XLIII. Again it is asked thus. Whether every will is from God, since nothing is, which does not have its being from God? Solution. It is not to be conceded that every will is from God, since nothing is, which does not have its being from God: for this would be both good and evil alike. The same is understood of action. For when an evil action or will is spoken of, the expression redounds more upon the quality than upon the essence.

[0443C] Wherefore, although it has that whence it is said to be from God, yet since its quality is not from him, an evil action or will is not to be said to be from God. Note that disorder is said to be the quality of an evil action, on account of the similar manner of response; or "quality" is taken broadly for that by which it is assigned of what sort something is, or is not. Likewise this proposition: The essence of this action is from God, is understood in two ways: either that it itself is from God, or that from which it has being is from God. But others say that not every sin is from God; but only according to that which is the penalty of another, is done by God's operation; saying: If what is said, God gave them up to a reprobate sense, be referred to permission alone, this could be said generally of every sin, that God works [0443D] it; but God is never said to give anyone up to any sin, except that which is the penalty of sin. Likewise, if it be referred to the withdrawal of grace, from this it is plain that God works it, since he withdraws grace. Likewise since that follows necessarily from the withdrawal of grace, who is the cause of it but the withdrawer? as if a house had some prop without which it could not stand, if anyone took away the prop, who would become the cause of the ruin, but he who removed the prop? Or if some were in a little boat on the sea, if anyone sank it, since without it men could not live, who is the cause of death but the sinker? By these likenesses, then, they attempt to assert that God works certain sins, if not [0444A] all. But there does not seem to be a likeness between a house, which can merit nothing, and a man, by whose fault is offered that without which he cannot stand. But a more fitting likeness would be where, if a house were about to fall, and someone put his hand under and held it up lest it fall, if afterward, reason requiring it, he withdrew his hand, he would indeed not be the cause why the house fell, but he was the cause why it did not fall sooner. As if someone were naked, and another gave him clothes, and that clothed man then offended the one with whose clothes he is clad, so that he reasonably took away the clothes, and thus he died naked, who is the cause of death? Is it not he himself who dies naked? And if anyone, cause requiring it, withdraws teaching from someone to whom he before displayed it, he does this not by doing something, but rather by not doing what he was doing. [0444B] So too we say that God, by withdrawing grace, our fault requiring it, is not himself the cause why grace is withdrawn according to us: nor did he do this by doing something, but by not doing what he before did. Thus therefore it is by no reasoning to be conceded that sin is done by God's operation, whether it be the penalty of sin, or not; this therefore, which Augustine says, that God works in the hearts of men, either by inclining to good or to evil, is said to work either by the likeness of the diction of this verb *to withdraw,* which is construed with the accusative, as if it signified to do something; or, what is better, *to work* is taken for to work, or not to work, as here: *For what I work I do not understand [n: (Infra, c. 7)]*. For otherwise, if it were not so taken, to do evil, and not to do good, [0444C] would not be parts of working. And that: *He will render to each according to his works,* namely for those which he did, and for those which he did not do, when he ought to have done them. But that which is said: *He who is in filth, let him be filthy still [n: (Apoc. 22, infra, c. 2)]*, is understood thus: the justice is not from the quality of the defilement, but from the judgment of God, by which it is done. Whence, if it be called just, not the justice which is in it, but in the rule of God, not that its being defiled is from God, or that God does it. Likewise concerning any sin whatever which is the penalty of a preceding sin. For that such a penalty is called just, this is not from the quality of itself, but from the judgment of God.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XLV. Whether the penalty itself, which is also [0444D] fault, is from God. Which seems to be so, because all that is just is from God, and every such penalty is just. Therefore it seems that such a penalty is from God. Solution. It is not necessary to say this: since from the quality of itself it does not have that it is just, but from the law of God, as has already been said: for it is written: *God did not make death, nor does he rejoice in the destruction of the living [n: (Sap. I)]*. Or, even if it be conceded that the penalty is from God, yet not the fault, although penalty and fault are the same. For it does not have from God that it is fault, even if in some way it has from God that it is penalty. For since a penalty is something in itself, on three accounts it is said to be from God, namely on account of its matter, which God makes, as the matter of fire; and on account of the nature, namely that such a thing cannot be in such a thing without suffering: which nature is from God, and on account of the judgment [0445A] of God, by which such a penalty is inflicted on such a fault. Yet we do not say that God is the cause of that penalty; for this would be to say that God had made the fault of that penalty, because he is not the cause of the corruption; which if it were not, he who is punished would not suffer anything. Therefore a penalty of this kind, which is something, is said to be from God on three accounts. On account of the matter, and the nature, and the judgment. But according to two, namely the fault and the corruption, it is not from God. But that penalty which is sin, on two accounts can it be said to be from God, namely on account of the judgment of God, and on account of the nature, which is that no one can so sin, without being punished by that very thing. But the fault and the corruption are in no way from God. It is not therefore to be said that by God's operation or impulse anyone is cast headlong into sin; [0445B] nor even into that which is penalty; but the Scriptures which seem to hold this are to be referred either to permission, or to the withdrawal of grace. Some also refer them to the opening of the way, because wickedness conceived within cannot go out unless a way is opened for it, as Nebuchadnezzar had first conceived malice within, and God, by exposing to him the Jewish nation, opened a way for him, and thus he exercised the malice which he before had shut within. But others refer it to the closing of the way, because God closed all the other ways, that it might not be permitted to go out, so that it has not another by which to go out. Hence one is said to be cast headlong into sin, because he does not close this way by which it goes out, as the others by which it does not go forth. Whence it is clear that God is not the cause why it comes forth by this, but he himself who [0445C] goes out; but why it does not go out by another, God is the cause, and why also rather by this than by another, is from both; why he does not sin worse, God is the author; but why so much, and not less, is from him. Just as, if someone were in a tower, wishing to cast himself down through a window, and some other closed all the windows except one, and that man cast himself down through it. See that not through another: he who closes the rest is the cause that it is through this one, not he who closes; but he himself, who cast himself down. But that it is rather through this than through another, is from both. There are also those who refer them to occasion, as when the Lord entered Jerusalem, the whole city was stirred, and the malice before conceived, having taken occasion, was excited to envy; and thus to persecution. [0445D] Therefore it is referred either to permission, or to the withdrawal of grace, or to the opening of the way, or to the not-closing of the way, according to some, that which is said: *He gave them up to the desires of the heart, and to the passions of shame,* etc. [n: (Rom. I.)] But we rather say all of them, than any one of the several, even if all do not everywhere concur; yet always three, namely permission, and the withdrawal of grace, and the not-closing of the way, do concur; but the opening of the way, and occasion, are not found in all.

QUESTION XLVI. How is God said to give them up to the passions of shame, since they not only suffer nothing there, but even take delight? Solution. On account of the effect; for because eternal penalty follows, [0446A] the passions of sin of this kind are called penalties. Or even in the present life they suffer. For they cannot so sin, without suffering, without nature being harmed, corrupted, and deprived of some good, and defiled; and thus it is true that they already suffer in the present.

QUESTION XLVII. It is asked again what evil it brings upon the reprobate, to be given up to a reprobate sense, since they are not going to repent. For those who are blinded, so that they put light for darkness, and darkness for light, seem to sin less through such blinding, since they do nothing against conscience; whence what is a greater sin in itself, is less to him by whom it is done, since it is less done against conscience. Therefore since these sin less against conscience on account of the reprobate sense, it seems to profit them to be thus blinded. Solution. Such a necessity [0446B] of ignorance does not have excuse, because it comes from a perverse will.

QUESTION XLVIII. How does God not sin by working in their hearts, so that they are inclined to evil? Solution. If the aforesaid things be called to mind, the response is plain: for by doing this he does not send in malice.

QUESTION XLIX. How can it be defended, that God does not act cruelly in condemning this man, who, all grace being withdrawn from him and left to himself, cannot but sin: for if he does not avoid what he cannot avoid, what fault is it to him? or if for this he is condemned, it seems that he is dealt with unjustly. Solution. That impossibility is inexcusable, which proceeded from the fault and vice of his own will; because he first cast himself headlong, although [0446C] now he sins unwillingly; yet God justly condemns him for his sins. *For it is just that he who is in filth should be filthy still [n: (Apoc. XXII)]*.

QUESTION L. How does God not consent to those who sin, since he knows the evil, and can forbid it, and the expositor says: To consent is not to correct when you can. Solution. God corrects and reproves those who sin in many ways, both by natural reason, and by written law, and through his ministers, and through his own or others' scourges: whence he is by no means to be said to consent to those who sin.

QUESTION LI. Whether those who do and those who consent sin equally. Solution. In matters of this kind, which can vary according to different causes, a general judgment [0446D] cannot be given: for according to the intention such things are to be judged.

[n: (Rom. 3)] QUESTION LII. *According to his hardness, he is impenitent,* etc. It is asked what it is to repent. Solution. Penitence is a compunction of mind concerning things past, and a resolution concerning the future, or a grief, because he made a resolution which he will no more carry out. For what else is it truly to repent, than to bewail things committed, and, by resolution, not to commit further things to be bewailed? Penitence is also called satisfaction for sins. Whence the priest is said to enjoin penance. Likewise penitence is of one kind late, of another kind fruitless. Fruitless, which does not profit: as that of Judas, and of the senseless who say: *We senseless ones,* etc. [n: (Sap. V.)]. Late, which is wont to be done tardily when there is no time. Thus it is said: Truly [0447A] penitent is he who is contrite in heart, and confesses with the mouth, and renders worthy satisfaction.

QUESTION LIII. *When it is said in the day of wrath,* etc. It is asked concerning the day of judgment, why it is called the day of wrath rather than of mercy; for as the evil are to hear: *Go into eternal fire,* so the good are to hear: *Come, blessed of my Father,* etc. [n: (Matth. XXV.)] Solution. In that it is called the day of wrath, provision is made for us, that we may always fear that day, and by fearing may beware of the eternal burning. Note that it is called day not for time, but for manifestation. Likewise it is to be noted that all will come to judgment, both good and evil. Of the good, some to judge, namely the very good; others to be judged, as the less good. Likewise of the evil, some are already judged, whose damnation [0447B] is already certain; others yet to be judged, whose damnation is uncertain.

QUESTION LIV. How is it to be understood concerning the saints, that they will judge the evil. To which some respond that this is nothing other than that the excellence of their glory will show how great a penalty they are worthy of who persecuted them, or did not imitate them. Or they are for this reason called judges, because in the judgment itself the eternal reasons will be made manifest to them, according to which the judgment will be made, and the merits of each, concerning which the judgment will be made. According to that of Daniel: *The judgment sat, and the books were opened [n: (Dan. VII)]*, namely of the reasons and merits: those therefore whose penalty or glory is not yet so plain, are to be judged in the day of judgment.

[0447C] QUESTION LV. It is asked again concerning that *according to the impenitent heart,* concerning the sin against the Holy Spirit, what it is, and why it is called irremissible. Whether because it cannot be forgiven; or for this reason because it will never be forgiven, although it could be; or because it is scarcely, and rarely, and with difficulty forgiven. Solution. Some say that the sin against the Holy Spirit is out of envy to disparage the divine goodness: of which sin so great is the stain, that those who so sin can never submit to the humility of penitence. Others say that despair or impenitence is called the sin against the Holy Spirit. Others that it is to sow discords among brethren with the torches of envy. But to those who say that this sin can be forgiven, the objection is made thus: If this is possible, that such a fault be forgiven, from this supposition no [0447D] impossibility follows; but the truth says that *this sin is not forgiven, neither in this world nor in the world to come [n: (Matth. XIV)]*; but if it were forgiven, it would be false that it is not forgiven: which is impossible, because the Truth cannot lie. Of this sin no one is certain: yet this is known, that if anyone has sinned it, he will never obtain pardon.

QUESTION LVI. How does he *render to each according to his works,* since this man's works are good, and his intention evil, and that man's works evil, and his intention good, since the name of the work is imposed from the disposition: will he be condemned for good works, because the intention is evil, or saved for evil ones, because the intention is good? Solution. Intention does not suffice in all cases for works to be called good, but it is always required that they be [0448A] good to him by whom they are done: for if the works be good in themselves, and the intention evil, he is punished for the evil intention, not for the good works; nor will he be rewarded for them, because they are made useless to him through the evil intention. But for this, that the works be evil to him, an evil intention is not required; for the intention can be good or evil, while the works are evil: whatever the intention may have been, from the fact that the works are evil, it harms him who did them: but in those things which are indifferent, that is, as far as in themselves neither good nor evil, judgment ought to be referred according to the intention.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION LVII. How is it rendered to each according to his own works, since this man works good things through his whole life and falls at the end, and another works evil things through his whole life and rises at the end, through penance; [0448B] will not he who worked good things be damned, and he who worked evil things be saved? How then according to works? Solution. A man's works are said to be those with which he departs from this life, by which alone God will requite him; but those good things which he did who fell at the end are mortified, and become not his own through the supervening evil. So too, in the case of him who lived badly and rose at the end through penance, the evil things he did become not his own through the supervening good things; or else judgment is made with respect to works, so that he is punished less, because he did good things, or will have less glory, because he sinned.

QUESTION LVIII. It is likewise asked how [it is] according to works, since this man has the will to do evil but not the power to carry it out, and another has the will to do good but not the power to fulfill it. Solution. [0448C] Their works are said to be theirs from the fact that they are in their wills, and it does not rest with them that they are not done. Whence the Lord in the Gospel: *Whoever shall look upon a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart [n: (Matth. V)]*; nor yet do we say that he is now punished as much as he would be punished for the works themselves fulfilled, but as for works, though he would not be punished as much as for the will alone.

QUESTION LIX. It is asked concerning an unbaptized child how requital is made to him according to his works, since he dies at once before he does anything. Solution. The works of his parents come to be in his conception and in his birth, and for them he will be damned as though he had actually done them. Likewise concerning a baptized child we say that [0448D] he is saved by the grace of baptism without his own merits.

QUESTION LX. It is asked concerning him who suffers for Christ and does not work, how it is rendered to him according to work? Solution. "Works" are taken both for sufferings and for works, as "deed" is taken for what is done and for what is not done: when that is done which ought not to be done, it is called a sin; but when that is not done which ought to be done, it is a fault.

QUESTION LXI. Since guilt is temporal and the punishment eternal, how will he render according to works? Solution. The guilt of the wicked, so far as lies in themselves, is eternal, for it was in their will to remain always in evil: whence by the just judgment of God they will be punished for eternity. Or else the evil will, and the guilt of fault, and the impenitence of heart will be eternal in him. Whence the Lord [0449A] is to say to them: *Depart from me, all you who work iniquity [n: (Luc. I)]*. He will not say, who have worked, but who work. For not to repent is a sin, and they cannot repent. And so they will sin for eternity, and thus for eternal guilt the punishment will be everlasting.

QUESTION LXII. Likewise, since the good are to receive more than they have merited, and the evil are punished less than they might be according to justice, how [is it] according to works? Solution. There is no comparison between merit and reward, but the sense is: he who has merited more will receive more, and he who less will receive less, according to quality and quantity: for the merit of one and the reward is at one time equal and unlike, at another time like and unequal, with the merit and reward of another; as two martyrs, or two confessors, who are of the same [0449B] and equal merit and reward, are equal and alike in justice and glory; but if one martyr and one confessor are equal, they are nevertheless unlike according to quality, because the one is a martyr and the other a confessor, etc.

QUESTION LXIII. It is asked concerning that which is said: *Tribulation and anguish upon every soul,* etc. [n: (Rom. II.)] Shall a man be punished in the soul alone, and not also in the body? Why then does he say, upon every soul, and not upon the body, since he sinned in both? Solution. There are certain sins of the soul, for which it alone will be punished, such as anger, envy, unbelief, of which the Apostle treats especially in this place: and therefore he makes mention of the punishment of the soul, not the punishment of the body. There are also certain sins of the body, for which [0449C] it will be punished, such as gluttony, lust, murders, contentions, which are performed by the ministry of the body; whence it is clear that they will be punished in both, according to that word: *With a double destruction destroy them [n: (Jerem. XVII)]*.

QUESTION LXIV. It is asked concerning the glorification of the body, what it confers upon the man or upon the soul, since the sole beatitude of man is the vision of God, of which the soul alone is capable, whence it seems to confer nothing upon the glory which will be in the body. Solution. The glorification of the body will be unto the increase of glory and joy for the soul itself. For it will greatly rejoice, when it sees the body, formerly so weak and feeble, thus made solid, that it can suffer no further injury.

QUESTION LXV. It is asked, since the glory of the soul is to contemplate God, and to enjoy the vision of him, and in him [0449D] to know all things — for *God will be all in all [n: (I Cor. XV)]*, being the mirror of every creature, just as every creature now is a mirror of God — since this, I say, is so, how will the glorification of the body be said to befit it, so that its beatitude is increased? Solution. It will know this glorification already in God himself, and the contemplation will be a part of its beatitude.

QUESTION LXVI. Since the Apostle says: *God is no respecter of persons [n: (Act. X)]*, it is asked what it is to accept persons. Does not the Apostle say: *To whom honor, honor; to whom fear, fear [n: (Rom. XIII)]*? Ought we not to show greater reverence to one than to another? Solution. He accepts persons who venerates a man on account of something that is the man's, and [0450A] prefers him to others — which God does not do. For when we show fear or honor to those who are established in dignity, we do not do this except on account of God, whose person they bear, or whose ministers they are.

QUESTION LXVII. *The doers of the law shall be justified.* It is asked whether the fulfilling of the law justifies, which seems so from these words, when a lawyer asked of the Lord: *What shall I do to possess eternal life?* The Lord answered: *What is written? How do you read? And he: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and thy neighbor as thyself; and the Lord said to him: Do this, and thou shalt live [n: (Luc. X)]*. Behold, the commandment of the law, when observed, confers eternal life. Whence it is read that the law fulfilled justifies [n: (Rom. II)]. The same in another place, when the young man [0450B] says to him: *What shall I do to possess eternal life?* And the Lord to him: *Honor father and mother; thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bear false witness, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife,* nor his property. And the *young man says: All these things* from *my* youth *have I kept.* And the Lord *looked upon him, and loved him [n: (Matth. XIX; Exod. XX; Marc. X; Luc. XVIII)]*: which he would not have done, unless he were just from the observance of the commandments of God. But that which is added: *If thou wilt be perfect [n: (Matth. XIX)]*, etc., pertains to the perfection of justice. Likewise Paul: *The commandment of the law, which was unto life, was found by me to be unto death [n: (Rom. VII)]*. Likewise Bede: The law, kept in its own time, conferred not only temporal goods, but also eternal; whence it is manifest that the law fulfilled [0450C] justifies. But the Apostle asserts that the law brought no one to perfection, saying: *by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified, and if justice is from the law, then Christ died in vain [n: (Galat. II)]*: and many other things in this manner. And therefore some say that those precepts whose fulfillment confers justice are the precepts of the Gospel, even though they are written in the law. For he who does them is at once made an evangelical man; nor is he a man of the law. These also say that those precepts, according as they are understood to be fulfilled in the law, do not justify immediately, but only make one fit to receive the faith of Christ, through which alone salvation is had: for they say that he who shows outwardly that he loves God and neighbor, even if inwardly he does not love in his heart, keeps the law so far as the law goes [0450D]; it restrains the hand indeed, and not the mind. To which solution it is objected thus: If by the observance of those precepts, made only outwardly, they become fit and worthy to receive the faith of Christ, faith is given not from grace, but from merits. Likewise, if they are fit, how do they know that they will receive it? Whence they do not seem suitably to resolve the foregoing question. For what is a greater perfection than to love God with the whole heart, and one's neighbor as oneself? And therefore we say that the fulfilling of the aforesaid precepts justifies immediately, yet not the law, which does not suffice but is weak without grace for its own fulfilling; nor does it give grace, nor does it openly show the faith of Christ, without which the precepts of the law [0451A] are not fulfilled: it shows indeed the homeland, but does not point out the way by which one must go, nor whither. Whence the Apostle: By the works of the law shall no flesh be justified.

But someone will say: This authority manifestly contradicts your solution. Are they not contrary — that there is justice by the fulfilling of the legal precepts, as you asserted above, and that no one is justified by works? Solution. The Apostle calls "works of the law" those which are done from fear alone, which the law instills, from which there is no justice. It is to be noted that "law" is said in several ways: for sometimes "law" is called the book of Moses, sometimes the ceremonies and legal observances, sometimes the ten precepts written on the two tablets, sometimes the book of psalms, sometimes also "law" is said [0451B] of any observance whatever, as when it is said: This is the law of this or that matter. Natural reason too is called law. In the New Testament also "law" is taken in several ways; whence the law of faith, the law of the spirit, the law of grace, the law of the flesh, the law of the members, the law of sin, the law of death.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION LXVIII. It is asked concerning circumcision — to whom it was commanded, and why, and why in the genital parts and not in others, and why to males and not to females, and what efficacy it had, and why baptism succeeded it. Now circumcision is the cutting off of that little skin which is over the male parts; whence that skin too is called the foreskin (*praeputium*); from which the gentiles are called foreskinned (*praeputiati*), because they are without pruning, that is, cutting. It was first commanded to Abraham; whence [0451C] he and his whole household was circumcised. Nor was this command made to all in common or generally, but only to the Jews. Whence it is said: *The soul that shall not have been circumcised shall perish from his people [n: (Gen. XVII)]*. The people of God is the people of the Jews. This was commanded with reason, for God willed his people to be set apart from others, and their hearts to be circumcised both from vices and from concupiscences, and that he might show this in outward things, he commanded them to be circumcised in the flesh: and in the genital parts rather than in others. For since there are two things by which fellowship is chiefly contracted among any people, namely marriage and food, in both God willed his people to be set apart; whence he forbade to the gentiles a common food, namely [0451D] swine's flesh. He also commanded them to be circumcised in the genitals, lest they should pollute those sanctified parts by some intercourse with unclean women, and that they might keep the flesh, as it were the gate of our birth, uncorrupted from vices. And the gentile women, seeing all the males cut, would avoid marriages with them. It was commanded to males alone for this reason, that no one who was without sin was to be born of male seed; but from a woman he was.

QUESTION LXIX. It is likewise asked: of what efficacy was it? And some say that it was of the same [efficacy] as baptism is now, except that it did not send to the kingdom. But if this is so, then in circumcision there was remission of sins; therefore justice, and thus from the law, which the Apostle denies. Solution. We say that in circumcision [0452A] there was not remission of all sins, but only of original sin; but in baptism there is made remission of all, and moreover a conferring of virtues. But whether baptism had this full efficacy before the Passion is wont to be asked. And some indeed say that it did not. Yet it can be said that after Christ's death, upon those who were purified before the cross, there was conferred by the sacrament of baptism itself as much as upon those also who were baptized afterward.

QUESTION LXX. Next it is asked why baptism succeeded circumcision. Solution. For three reasons: for its gentleness, for its comeliness, and for the imperfection of circumcision itself. For it was hard to be circumcised, and more seemly to be washed with waters than to be cut with a knife: baptism is also more general, being suited not only to hands, [0452B] but also to women, and to Jews as well as to gentiles.

QUESTION LXXI. It is asked how the Apostle here says that *to be circumcised is profitable,* when in what follows he says: *If you be circumcised, Christ will profit you nothing [n: (Galat. V)]*. Solution. This is said according to the state of the different times. For in the time of the law it was profitable to observe it; in the time of grace it does not profit according to the letter, but rather harms.

QUESTION LXXII. It is asked of what state it is said: *What then is more,* etc. Solution. Of the former, in which the Jews were before the incarnation of the Lord.

QUESTION LXXIII. Likewise it is asked what it pertains to the matter that he says [this], since those to whom he was writing were not in that state, but in the state of faith. Response. That we, [0452C] who have believed from among the gentiles, might not be proud against the Jews.

QUESTION LXXIV. It is asked: is the assumed man a liar? It seems that he is, because he is a man: and every man is a liar. For one is called a liar, not because he lies or sins, but because he is changeable, *and never remains in the same state [n: (Job XIV)]*, and through sins can dissolve away. All of which some presume to assert even concerning the assumed man, which they attempt to affirm thus. If the assumed man could have not been assumed by the Word, he could have sinned; but he could have not been assumed, therefore he could have sinned: which seems [to follow], if the antecedent be conceded; but all concede that he could have not been assumed. Solution. It is not to be conceded [0452D] that that man could have sinned: for when one says "that man," by "that" the personal property is noted, in which it is impossible for him to sin; but in the consequent, when it is said, if that man could have not been assumed, he could have sinned, that personal property is not understood, but, without regard to it, the human nature is given to be understood. Likewise by another way they wish to prove the same. Christ, when he came into Jerusalem, could have gone into Galilee, and if he had then gone into Galilee, he would not now suffer; and if he did not suffer, he would not fulfill the command of the Father, by whose command he suffered: but he could then have not suffered in Jerusalem, and been disobedient, and so have sinned. Solution. He could indeed thus have not gone to Jerusalem. He could therefore have not fulfilled the precept of the Father: this does not follow — for if he did not then suffer, which [0453A] was possible; whence he says: *I have power to lay down my life, and to take it up again [n: (Joan. X)]*: if this, I say, were the case, that he did not then suffer, it would not be the command of the Father that he should then suffer there; but that these two should be at once is impossible: that the Father should have commanded him to suffer then, and that he himself should not then suffer: this is the common solution.

QUESTION LXXV. It is asked concerning this hypothetical: *If our iniquity commends the justice of God,* etc. Whether it is true, and whether the consequent necessarily follows from the antecedent, and how it is to be understood. Solution. Our iniquity commends the justice of God: this is understood in two ways: either that, by its own quality, it makes the justice of God more commendable, which is false; and according to this understanding the consequence would be true: [0453B] if this were so, God would be unjust, who punishes sins. It can also be understood that from the comparison of our injustice the justice of God appears more commendable, and this is true; but according to this understanding the consequence is not true, nor does the consequent follow from the antecedent: for the false never follows from the true.

QUESTION LXXVI. It is asked how this is to be understood: *why am I still judged as a sinner?* — whose voice is it, of one converted or of one not converted? If a converted man speaks, he is not judged as a sinner; if one not yet converted speaks, God is not yet glorified in his lie. Solution. It is the voice of one converted, and again fallen.

QUESTION LXXVII. It is asked whether God wills evil [0453C] to be done, since he himself uses our evils for good and for his glory, just as we abuse his good things unto our own reproach. Solution. He does not will evil to be done. For it is not to be conceded that he wills evil to be done, or wills it not to be done: for if he willed evil to be done, he would be the author of evil, since, when he wills something to be done, it comes to be by no other than himself as author. Likewise, if he willed it not to be done, and yet it were done, something would resist his will. There are, however, those who say that God wills evil to be done, but according to these "will" is said in several ways, namely for permission, for good pleasure, for command, and for prohibition. He wills evils to be done, that is, he permits them, not that he is their author.

QUESTION LXXVIII. Whether it is good that evil should be? [0453D] Solution. "Good" is said in several ways: the expedient good, the good by its own quality, etc. Likewise "evil" is said in many ways, namely that which harms, that which is corrupted: a depraved act and a depraved will, which is sin — the privation of every good; any disorder whatever is called sin. When therefore it is said, it is good that evil should be, it must be diligently seen what is understood by the name of good or of evil.

QUESTION LXXIX. Since he says: *We have charged that all are under sin,* etc. It does not seem to be a necessary argument for demonstrating that the Jews do not excel the gentiles; for both were under sin, even mortal sin: for it could have happened that these were under a lesser, and those under a greater sin: whence they seem more worthy and fit to receive grace than the rest. [0454A] Solution. If both were under sin, namely mortal, which the Apostle notes, who says "under sin" as though pressed down and enslaved: it is clear that neither did they merit grace, but punishment. Wherefore if grace is conferred on them, namely faith and the other gifts, this is not from their merits, but from the sole goodness of God: therefore, so far as lies in themselves, neither do they excel. We do not deny, however, that those who were under a greater sin were less fit to receive grace: with whom it was dealt more mercifully than with the others, who were under a lesser sin. *But where the offense abounded, grace did more abound [n: (Rom. V)]*: even though the grace of these was not greater than that of those in itself, yet grace superabounded, according to the number of the men. It is not [0454B] to be discussed in this place whether the Jews were subject to a greater sin than the gentiles.

QUESTION LXXX. It does not seem to be true which is said: *There is none that understands, or that seeks after God.* For many in that people had understanding of God, namely that he is one, that he is Creator, and almighty: for if one is called "not understanding" because he did not understand perfectly, then the men of grace also, because they do not yet understand perfectly except through faith, can be called "not understanding." Solution. One can be called "not understanding" who, though he know God in majesty, does not yet know him in humility and mercy. Or one is said "not understanding God perfectly" who, though he have some knowledge, does not have it through the experience of charity [0454C]; or "not understanding God perfectly," namely because he alone is the Creator of all, and moreover is the author of all justice, which the Jews do not understand: establishing their own justice, they are not subject to the justice of God; nay, in a certain manner they make themselves God, when they say that they are justified by their own power without the grace of God, asserting themselves to be authors of justice, which God [alone] can do. Whence the Apostle says that *in the Gospel the justice of God is revealed, not of man (Rom III)*. And elsewhere: *But now without the law the justice of God is made manifest [n: (ibid.)]*. And if at times the justice of man is read of, as David often says *my justice:* it must be so understood that it is the man's who receives, and the same is God's who gives.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION LXXXI. It is asked concerning that which is said: [0454D] *Whatever the law says, it says to those who are under the law,* etc. Even if it speaks to the Jews, do all things therefore pertain to the Jews, because they were said to the Jews? Solution. It is to be understood thus: It so speaks to them that the things which it says pertain to them. Which again seems to be false: for many things are said about the gentiles in the law. Whence one must understand "whatever it says" without determination and distinction, from which it is certain whether the discourse is made to the gentiles: so that it speaks about those gentiles, I say, who are of the law, in such a way that what is said pertains to them. To which opinion it is objected thus: Were not David and many other just men, and yet were under the law? and if this is so, how does that which is said pertain to them, "there is none that understands"? Solution. To be "under the law" notes two things, namely to seek justice [0455A] from the law, and to lean wholly upon it, as those who out of fear observe it outwardly; and according to this David and the other just men were not under the law. For they did not seek to be justified from the law itself, but from the faith of Christ yet to come; and thus they were men of the Gospel, not of the law. Those also are said to be "under the law" to whom the law was given, and who do the works of the law: and according to this David and those like him were under the law, because to them the law was given, and they kept it for the sake of those to whom the law was necessary, lest by their example they should despise the law. It is to be noted that there are three kinds of men, namely men of the natural law, of the written law, and of grace. Men of the natural law are said to be those who have the natural law alone, and nothing is superadded. Men of the written law are those to whom the written law was given, [0455B] and they have nothing superadded. Men of grace are those to whom grace itself was given. Or otherwise: Men of the natural law are those who seek to be justified by their own powers; men of the written law are those who lean upon the law, supposing that the law justifies. Men of grace are those who seek justice and salvation from nowhere else but grace alone.

QUESTION LXXXII. Since it is said: For by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified, it is asked concerning Moses and David and the other just men who lived in the time of the law, whether they are just from the works of the law: which seems so, because they did those [works] out of charity. Solution. By faith alone in [the one] to come, so that those ancients were just not from the works of the law. Note that "works of the law," according to some, are said [to be] those which were instituted with the law and terminated with the law, [0455C] namely the ceremonial, which were not instituted for justification, but for the signifying of things to come; but according to others "works of the law" are said [to be] those which are done from fear alone, and not from love: concerning which it is clear that they do not justify: whence the law is said to restrain the hand, and not the mind.

QUESTION LXXXIII. Why do the works of the law done with charity not justify as the works of the Gospel do — do not the moral precepts, when fulfilled, justify? From these it seems that the works of the law justify. Solution. Not whatever we are bound by a precept of the law to do is called a work of the law; but that which was instituted with the law and terminated with the law. Or, what is better: works of the law are those for whose fulfilling the law suffices, which are done [0455D] from fear alone of temporal punishment, which justify no one.

QUESTION LXXXIV. It is asked what is the difference between the works of the law and [those] of the Gospel; for if the works of the Gospel are done from the fear of temporal punishment alone, they confer justice on no one, just as neither do the works of the law. Solution. To the works of the law belong only outward things: whence the law forbids the hand. To the works of the Gospel belong also inward things, such as the inner affections and motions, in which justice consists.

QUESTION LXXXV. It is asked concerning that which is said: *Through the law the knowledge of sin,* etc. — of what sin has knowledge been made through the law? For "sin" is said in several ways, sometimes [as] guilt, sometimes [as] the punishment of sin. Whence God is said to bear our sins, [0456A] that is, the punishment for sin: sometimes [as] a victim for sin, whence *Christ was made sin for us [n: (II Cor. V)]*, that is, a victim for sin. Sometimes also it is said [to be] satisfaction for sin, or a penance enjoined for sin: any disorder whatever of anything whatever is also called sin. Whence the lyre-player is said to have sinned, if he always strays upon the same string. Likewise "sin" is said [to be] the work of sin, and the guilt of sin: which, according to some, is other than the fault, according to others the same as the fault. It is asked, therefore, of what sin knowledge has been made through the law? Solution. Some say that knowledge of that sin which is in the will has been made through the law, because before the law the sin which is in the deed was alone believed to be sin, and concupiscence was not known to be [0456B] sin.

QUESTION LXXXVI. It is again asked why the law does not justify, since it thus makes sin manifest. For what else does the Gospel do than make sin manifest, teaching what is to be followed and what avoided — which the law also does? Likewise, some wish to prove that the law leads to perfection by the words of the Lord, who concerning a precept of the law answered the young man: *Do this, and thou shalt live [n: (Luc. X)]*. Likewise: *Thou shalt love the Lord thy God,* etc. [n: (Matth. XIX.)] This is a precept of the law, but this, when observed, justifies; therefore the law leads to perfection. Likewise Bede says: The law, observed in its own time, conferred not only temporal things, but also eternal. Solution. That a response may be made to all questions of this kind, we say that the law is called a commandment without grace, [0456C] which never confers salvation; but the Gospel is called a commandment with grace, which justifies and leads through to eternal life.

QUESTION LXXXVII. *But now without the law there is justice,* etc. It is asked how both are true, that the justice of God is made manifest without the law, and is testified by the law and the prophets? Solution. The Apostle says that the justice of God is without the law, not that it is made manifest without the law.

QUESTION LXXXVIII. Likewise, when it is said: *The justice of God through faith in Jesus Christ,* it is asked concerning this virtue of faith, whether it can be had equally by the good and by the evil? Solution. In the answer to this question the moderns seem to disagree. For some say that this virtue of faith is had only by the good, and in no [0456D] way by the evil: for it is that [faith] which works through love. And therefore, they say, where there is no love, neither is there faith. But to others it seems that it is had equally by the good and by the evil. For what else is it to have faith, than to believe those things which are to be believed? But all that this good man believes, this evil man also believes; how then does he not have the same faith, especially since Augustine says that faith can be had without charity, and the Apostle: *If,* he says, *I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not charity, I am nothing [n: (I Cor. XXXI)]*: how would he say this, if faith could not be had without charity?

QUESTION LXXXIX. *Justified freely through the grace of Christ.* How does he say *freely through grace?* Would not either "freely" or "through grace" suffice? It seems that one of them [0457A] is superfluous. Solution. He says "freely," that is, without any merit of ours; "through grace," that is, through his gratuitous gifts. For often he confers many things on us through grace indeed, yet not without any merit of ours: which nevertheless does not come about without his grace.

QUESTION XC. *Through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus,* etc. It is asked why God redeemed man through his own death, whom he could have freed by a word alone? Solution. Although another mode was possible to God, yet none was more suited to our misery: because in the same [death] he both conferred on us a remedy, and furnished an example of humility and of love. The remedy is considered in this, that the devil laid his hand upon him who was free from sin: in whom he found nothing that was his own. Therefore he deservedly [0457B] lost those whom he seemed to hold by a certain right, [namely] those believing in him who, through his own death, was made the cause of salvation to all who obey him: for he suffered not for himself, but for us, granting us his merits, so that for them there might come to be for us what would come to be for himself, if he were in need. To humility he provoked us in this, that, descending from the secret bosom of the Father's majesty, he so emptied himself as to take the form of a servant [n: (Philipp. III)]. To charity he invited us in this: that, though he is the Lord of glory, such and so great, he died in such a manner for the impious and for sinners. Note that if he had redeemed man by a word alone, no injury would have been done to the devil. Or if God had reformed the human race through an angel, salvation would not on that account be ascribed to the angel. For God works many things through the angels [0457C] which nevertheless are to be attributed not to the angels, but to God: and therefore he redeemed us through himself, not through another, because the merits of no other could be so great as to suffice for the redemption of the whole world.

QUESTION XCI. It is asked whether God could have made a more fitting mode of redemption? If it be said that he could not, it seems that the power of God has a limit, and is not immeasurable: if it be said that he could, how is this [mode] the most fitting? Solution. Although in this he has a limit, it is nevertheless not to be conceded without qualification that he has a limit. Or, although this mode is the most fitting to our misery, it is nevertheless not necessary that it be the most fitting absolutely.

[0457D]QUESTION XCII. It is asked to whom our price was given, whether to the devil or to God? Solution. It was given to God, not to the devil: because no injury was done to the devil, since he was nothing but as it were a jailer, nor would he even wish to receive it, that he might lose the man: but it was not to be given to one unwilling, lest injury should be done to him.

QUESTION XCIII. It is asked from whom man was redeemed? Solution. From the devil, from sin, from torment. Moreover he is reconciled to God: and this is the twofold efficacy of the blood of Christ.

QUESTION XCIV. It is asked in what the power of the devil has been diminished through the death of Christ. For as before he had the power of tempting the good and the evil, so also now. Solution. It has been diminished not according to essence, but according to [0458A] efficacy: because he cannot prevail as much as before, especially because powers of resisting have been given to man, and the stronger man is for resisting, the weaker is the enemy for assailing.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XCV. It is asked, when it is said *unto the showing of the just one,* etc., concerning the ancient just, who were held in hell, whether their sins had been remitted to them through faith and penance: and if they had been remitted, why were they held in hell: for without the remission of sins they were not just. Solution. All sins had been remitted to them through faith and love, but they obtained the full effect of remission. Twofold is the effect of remission, namely, to be without punishment, and to enjoy glory; only the one of these they had before the death of Christ: [0458B] because they did not feel actual punishment, the other they had not yet received, because they did not see God. Again it is objected: Were they not just, and so worthy of glory? Why then was not that given to them of which they were worthy? Solution. Their justice was not so great as to suffice for obtaining life without the death of Christ, nor even were their sins remitted simply, except under a certain expectation and pledge of one to come, who should make satisfaction for them. Whence the Apostle says that Christ died not only for the remission of present sins, but also of preceding ones; *because he is the lamb who was slain from the origin of the world [n: (Hebr. IX)]*.

QUESTION XCVI. Whether God could damn them with eternal punishment, since they were just, and he could not justly punish the just — for what is unjust, God [0458C] cannot do: and if he could not punish them, in what did he sustain them? Solution. It was necessary that satisfaction be made for original sin, and since they themselves could not make satisfaction unless another made satisfaction for them, God could justly punish them. Yet it is not necessary to concede that he would punish the just. For this would be after the death of Christ: for they are not to be called just simply, but only in comparison with the death of Christ: for they did not have so great an actual justice from which they could justly demand eternal life, just as neither do we without the death of Christ: yet Scripture calls them just, because they had as much as God demanded, since what was lacking to them Christ was to supply.

[0458D]QUESTION XCVII. When it is said: *By what law of deeds?* etc., it is asked why the Mosaic law, the written law, is called the law of deeds, and not the Gospel: but the law of the Gospel [is called] the law of grace and the law of justice: for as that one has works, so does this. Solution. The Mosaic law is called [the law] of deeds, because it only commands the things which are to be done, and does not confer the grace through which the things commanded may be fulfilled: and therefore the killing letter is called a commandment without grace. But the Gospel indeed commands the things which are to be done: yet moreover it confers the grace through which the things commanded may be fulfilled. Or for this reason: the written law is called the law of deeds, because the men of the law placed their whole justice in the works of the law: but the law of faith or of grace is so called, because the men of grace place the whole sum and efficacy [0459A] of their salvation in grace alone: knowing that, as no one is saved from the justice of works, so no one is justified from the works of justice. For justice is not from good works, but good works from justice.

QUESTION XCVIII. *Is he not also of the gentiles,* etc. The Apostle proves that God is [God] of the gentiles, because he is their creator. But thus it seems that he is the God of stones. Solution. He is indeed the creator of stones, but he is the creator of the gentiles in another way, whom he created to his own image and likeness: whence he is deservedly called [God] of the gentiles, as one truly to be worshiped by them.

QUESTION XCIX. Whether the works which precede faith are entirely useless, or whether they profit for anything; for it seems that they profit nothing, because the whole life of unbelievers is sin. Solution. Good works which are done [0459B] before faith, even if they do not profit for meriting life, are nevertheless of avail for receiving it, as it seems to some, as appears in the case of Cornelius.

QUESTION C. *Do we then destroy the law through faith? God forbid: but we establish the law.* It is asked how this is true, when elsewhere he says: *If the things which I have destroyed I build again, I make myself a transgressor: and through the law I am dead to the law [n: (Galat. II)]*. There he says that he has destroyed the law: here he says that he does not destroy it, but establishes it. Solution. To destroy the law is taken in two ways. Whence here the Apostle says that he does not destroy the law, that is, he does not show the law to be useless in its own time, and to be of no avail, nor that it is not to be fulfilled spiritually. Elsewhere he said that he destroyed it, that is, he preached that after the fulfillment of the truth it ought to cease as regards [0459C] the carnal things.

QUESTION CI. *Abraham believed God, and it was reputed to him unto justice [n: (Rom. IV)]*. It is asked why he says *it was reputed,* as though it were not the true justice which he had through faith, but something which was reputed unto justice: for if you owed me a horse, I would not fittingly say: Give me a horse, and I will repute it for a horse; but I could suitably say: Give me an ass, and I will repute it for a horse. Solution. If man had not sinned, he would have justice in every respect, which consists in the fulfilling in every respect of the precepts of God, so that he would desire nothing at all against reason, and would love God with his whole heart; but after sin, and on account of sin, man could not have this perfect justice [0459D] to which eternal beatitude is deservedly owed: but God through his grace gives man faith, which likewise, through the same grace, he reputes for that perfection: as if he had the perfection of justice.

QUESTION CII. *But to him who works, the reward is not imputed,* etc. It is asked of what works he here treats: whether of the inward, or of the outward. Outward [works] are such as to clothe the poor, and the rest of this kind, which many do not perform, although they have the time for performing them, such as contemplative men, whence they seem unworthy of salvation, if the discourse here be about works of this kind. Inward works are such as to believe, to love, to pray, which are common to all the faithful, because without them there is no salvation, concerning which, if it is here treated, how is faith without works reputed unto justice for him [0460A] who does not have the time for working? Solution. He treats of outward works, which are required of those who have the means of doing them, and for those who do not have the means of doing them, the will is reputed for the deed.

QUESTION CIII. *According to the purpose of the grace of God,* etc. Here it is wont to be asked concerning grace and merit. For it seems either that the whole is from grace, so that merit confers nothing; or, if anything is from merit, that not the whole is from grace. But that the whole is from grace, the Scriptures testify. Whence the Apostle: *What hast thou that thou hast not received? [n: (I Cor. IV.)] By the grace of God I am what I am [n: (I Cor. XV)]*. And that: *Grace for grace [n: (Joan. I)]*. What then is to be said? To say that merit is nothing is the error of the Manicheans, just as to assert that the whole is from free will is the error of the Pelagians. Solution. [0460B] When it is said that the whole is from grace, merit is not excluded, since merit is from grace. And therefore it must be seen what the grace of God works in us without us, and what it works in us not without us. And so prevenient grace, which is also called operating, heals the free will, freeing it from the yoke of sin: and this it does in us without us: then the healed will is not idle, nor does it receive the grace of God in vain, which it works not by itself, but with grace; nay, the grace of God cooperates with the free will: whence it is called cooperating; and the same work or merit is said to be from grace and from will: for it does not work separately, but together. Whence, although the whole is from grace, it does not follow that nothing is from merit, or from free will; as if someone should find a little child lying in the mud [0460C] and unable to rise, and should lift him up, then hold his hand so that he might walk, the walking itself would be from both, just as the lifting of him is from the finder alone and not from the child: so, from prevenient grace alone it is that we will the good, just as from subsequent grace — I do not say alone, but also from free will, healed and deliberating through grace — it is that we work the good.

QUESTION CIV. *Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven.* It is asked concerning original sin what it is, of which the doctors discourse somewhat obscurely. For some say that original sin is the guilt of eternal punishment, that is, the debt and liability by which we are bound over to punishment: but according to this original sin is not [0460D] a fault, but a punishment. But that it is a fault, the authorities testify, which one must concede. But others say that original sin is the tinder of sin: concupiscence, or concupiscibility: the law of the members, the law of the flesh, the languor of nature, the tyrant who dwells in our members: the innate vice which makes the child apt to lust, the adult lusting: by these and other names original sin is called.

QUESTION CV. Why it is called "original" is wont to be asked. Solution. Because it is drawn from the vicious condition of our origin.

QUESTION CVI. Likewise it is asked why it is imputed to posterity? Response. Because the intercourse of the parents does not [0461A] come about without lust, nor the conception of the children without sin.

QUESTION CVII. How is it destroyed in baptism? Solution. Wholly, as to the guilt, it is mitigated, and it is weakened as to the act or the affection. But others say that original sin is the privation of a certain original justice which man would have, if he had not sinned: and therefore, because he is deprived of justice, he is deprived also of glory, nor will those who are punished for original sin alone suffer any other punishment, except that they will forever lack the vision of God. Likewise, since the soul is not from transmission (*ex traduce*), but the flesh alone [is], it is asked how this sin is drawn through the flesh: for the flesh itself cannot without the soul have fault, which is not, nor can be, except in a rational creature: for that which is not [0461B] capable of justice, [is] neither [capable] of sin.

QUESTION CVIII. How then, in the propagation of offspring from the parents, does that pass through the flesh which cannot be in the flesh alone without the soul? Solution. Sin is said to pass, because its cause passes, which is a certain pollution and uncleanness which the soul finds in the flesh when it is infused into it, and by which it is polluted: whence, although the soul alone lusts, yet the soul is not said to lust, because the soul lusts from the flesh.

QUESTION CIX. Whether the soul is ever such as it was created by God: for if it was created clean by God, and from the moment it was joined and coupled to the flesh it was unclean, it follows that it is never such as it was created by God. Solution. It can be conceded that it never [0461C] was altogether such as it was created by God, as if I had given you a clean apple, and you received it with unclean hands: it would be true that you never have such an apple as I gave you.

QUESTION CX. It is wont to be asked why the guilt of original sin is imputed to the soul, created clean by God. The doctors say that this question is insoluble; yet it can be said that it is not unjust that glory be not given to the soul not having justice: for this is to be subject to the guilt of original sin, which is to be deprived of original justice. What wonder, then, if such a fault be punished with such a punishment?

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CXI. *And he received the sign of circumcision, and the seal of justice,* etc. Concerning circumcision [0461D] it was said above. But here it can be asked whether Abraham obtained any benefit from circumcision. Solution. The doctors say that through it he was only shown to be just, not made [just]. Did it then have greater efficacy in his posterity than in Abraham himself? Which seems so, since to them it was given as a remedy at least for original sin; but to Abraham himself it was given only for the showing of justice.

QUESTION CXII. Likewise it is asked whether from circumcision remission of original sin was given to those children who were held by no other [sin], how they were not justified through it, and thus from the law. The solution of this question is clear from what has been said.

QUESTION CXIII. It is asked concerning the children who died before [0462A] the eighth day, on which circumcision was performed, whether they were damned or saved. Solution. The same judgment is concerning those uncircumcised as concerning the unbaptized, namely that they are damned by the guilt of original sin alone. But if it be asked concerning those children who died as soon as they were born, before circumcision, perhaps they were succored by the faith of their parents.

QUESTION CXIV. *For not through the law was the promise,* etc. It is asked how the Apostle says: the promise was not *made* to *Christ* through the law, *but through the justice of faith;* was not the promise made in the law and through the law, namely in David, to Christ himself? Likewise: What is it for the promise to be made to Christ through the justice of faith? Solution. The Apostle does not say thus, that the promise was not [0462B] made through the law, but through the justice of faith; but thus, that the promise was not made — that he should be the heir of the world — through the law, but through the justice of faith.

QUESTION CXV. Likewise it is asked how the promise was made to Abraham through justice; was it by the merit of his own faith? but if by the merit of Abraham's own faith the promise was made, then by the same merit also [was] the fulfillment of the promise itself, how then [is it] by grace alone? Solution. The letter must not be construed thus: The promise was made through the justice of faith; but thus: The promise was made to Abraham, that he should be the heir of the world, through the justice of faith: through which he himself was made the father of believers, and believers are made the sons of Abraham, that is, just men and heirs. The expositor here says otherwise than we.

QUESTION CXVI. Because it is said: *The law works the wrath of God.* [0462C] It is asked how this is to be understood. Is not the law good, and wrath evil? How does that which is good work that which is evil? Is not that whose effect is evil itself also evil? How then does such a cause have such an effect? Solution. The law does not work wrath immediately, and by its own quality, and as an efficient cause, but as it were by occasion; because if the law had not been given, the wrath would not be so great, which was increased through the transgression of the law. For many things are said to effect certain things, not because they effect them, but because without them they would not come to be; whence Christ too is said to be *set,* not only *unto resurrection* by cause, but also *unto ruin [n: (Luc. II)]* by occasion. And the Apostle is said to be, not only *the odor of life,* but [0462D] also *the odor of death [n: (II Cor. II)]*. According to the same reasoning one must be vigilant concerning like cases.

QUESTION CXVII. How does the Apostle prove that the law works wrath, saying: *For where there is no law, neither [is there] transgression?* For this too does not seem to be true. Where there is no law, cannot there be transgression of the natural law, or of the Gospel? How then [is it] true, where there is no law, neither [is there] transgression? But if it be so expounded, where there is no law, neither [is there] transgression of the law, by the same argument it is proved that where there is no Gospel, neither is there transgression of the Gospel. Solution. By the name of "law" the Apostle often designates a commandment without grace; but by the name of "Gospel" is always understood a commandment with grace: whence it stands true, where there is no law, that is, a commandment without grace, neither [is there] transgression. [0463A] Likewise, where there is a commandment with grace, there is not transgression, but fulfillment of the commandment.

QUESTION CXVIII. Likewise, when it is said: *Who against hope believed in hope.* It is asked concerning the faith of Abraham, which the Apostle here praises: which is reputed to him unto justice: what or of what thing it was? For if the words of the Apostle and of Genesis are diligently considered, it seems that that faith, by which he believed that offspring was promised to him by God, was reputed to him unto justice; but if this is so, then some faith besides the faith of Christ is a justifying faith. But if it be said that he then had the faith of Christ, it is asked whether two faiths justify, or why justice is rather said to be from that one than from this? Solution. The Apostle commends the faith of Abraham, by which he believed all things which were to be believed: by which faith, among other things, [0463B] he believed God to be truthful in the promise of offspring.

QUESTION CXIX. How is the generation of Isaac said to be against nature? What is nature? Is it not a certain power of creatures, implanted by the Creator, through which like things are procreated and propagated from like? Did not nature there work? Was there not a certain tempering in the works of the parents in the act and from the mingling of flesh? how [then is it] against nature? Solution. When the Author of nature works in nature beyond the accustomed course of nature, that is, not according to the lower causes, but according to the higher, then something is said to come about against nature, but it would more properly be called above nature.

QUESTION CXX. *Most fully knowing that whatever [0463C] God has promised, he is able also to do.* The expositor says that by much beholding of the divine power he knew God to be almighty, and the Apostle [says he was] "most fully knowing," etc., which seems to be harmful to faith; because faith has no merit, to which human reason furnishes proof. Likewise, if he knew him to be God, what great thing [is it], if he believed him to be almighty; or if he did not know him to be God, how did he believe him? Solution. That beholding of the divine power which Abraham had was not from human reason, but from the constancy of faith: by which he was as certain as if he most fully knew, or saw.

QUESTION CXXI. But as to what is asked, what great thing it was that he believed God to be almighty, since not only the good, but also the evil believe that? [0463D] We say that to believe that was then a great thing, when almost the whole world was straying in the worship of demons, nor had the faith of one God yet been preached, or manifestly declared by the Scriptures, as [it is] now.

QUESTION CXXII. *And not only was it written,* etc. It is asked how the Apostle says that this was written on account of Abraham, that faith was reputed unto justice? does he obtain any benefit from the fact that he is praised in the Scriptures, or imitated by us? Solution. Perhaps the Apostle does not say this because it profits him, but it is to be understood thus: And not only, etc., that is, this was written not only that it might be shown whence Abraham himself was [0464A] just, but that it might be demonstrated to us also in what alone we can be justified, namely in the grace of faith, and nowhere else.

QUESTION CXXIII. *He was delivered up for our offenses,* etc. So the authority says. It is asked by whom he was delivered up? And it is certain that [he was delivered] by God the Father, by Judas and by the Jews, and by Pilate. But it is asked whether that which was done by God and by the Jews was good or evil? If it be said good, then the Jews did good. But if it be said evil, then God did evil. Likewise: Did not the Jews do only evil, and God only good? how then did God and the Jews do the same? Solution. The work or deed of the Jews is taken equivocally for the act and for the passion; the act of the Jews [was] only evil; the passion [0464B] of Christ, which followed from their act, was good. Therefore the doctors sometimes unite God and the Jews, even in the same deed or work, on account of the passion of Christ, which came to pass both from the action of the Jews and from [that] of God; sometimes they distinguish [them] on account of the diversity of the acts. But if it be asked whether the work of the Jews was good, distinguish thus: Their act [was] evil, the passion which they inflicted was good.

QUESTION CXXIV. Likewise it is asked why the Apostle distinguishes thus, saying: *That Christ was delivered up for our offenses, and rose again for our justification,* since both — both the passion and the resurrection — both free from sins and justify? Solution. Although each of them is a cause, yet [not each is] a figure.

QUESTION CXXV. *And not only so, but also [sic: sedet] we glory [0464C] in tribulations [n: (Rom. V)]*, etc. How does the Apostle glory in tribulations, which are bitter, and not to be sought for their own sake? Solution. Not on account of the tribulations themselves, but on account of their effect, is one to glory in them. But it is objected that by the same reasoning one ought to glory in sins, not for their own sake, but for the good, which they often [produce], as when they bring about humility, whence the Prophet: *Before I was humbled, I offended [n: (Psal. CXVIII)]*. Solution. Tribulations by their own quality cooperate with the inner grace unto the attaining of patience, but sins do not; rather God by his mercy makes some good come forth from our evils.

QUESTION CXXVI. When the Apostle says: *But hope does not confound.* It is asked concerning hope, what it is, and whether it is had without charity? Solution. Hope is the certain expectation [0464D] of future goods, which differs from faith in this, that faith is about things past, present, and future, both good and evil; but hope [is] only about things future and good. But it seems that it is not had without charity: for without good works and a good life, which is not without charity, to hope for future goods is not hope, but rather presumption, as Augustine says. Likewise Augustine seems to assert the same, that hope precedes charity. Solution. One is the hope of pardon, another is the hope of glory; the first is had even by the evil, the second perhaps only by the good.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CXXVII. *The charity of God is poured forth,* etc. It is asked whether the charity by which God loves us, and that by which we love God, is the same? Solution. There are those who [0465A] say that it is the same; whom Augustine meets, expounding this passage and saying that here the discussion is of the charity by which we love God, just as there, *God is charity [n: (I Joan. IV)]*, the discussion is of the charity by which God loves us: which he would not say, if it were the same. Likewise elsewhere he says: I call charity a movement of the mind toward loving God for his own sake, and the neighbor for God's sake. God is not a movement, therefore there is a charity which is not God. Likewise charity can be increased and diminished, but God cannot, therefore there is a charity which is not God. And so it must be firmly held that the name of charity is said equivocally of God, when it is said God is charity, and of a certain virtue, when it is said, a certain virtue is charity, or the charity of God is poured forth in our hearts. The Apostle [0465B] Paul almost everywhere designates by this name the virtue which is not God, but from God. John by the same name signifies God himself. But as to that which Augustine says, that fraternal charity, by which we love one another, is God: we concede it, saying that God, [who is] charity, makes us also love one another, but by the mediation of charity, just as he makes us believe by the mediation of faith; for from whom faith is, from the same is charity, as Augustine says. But it is objected: God is charity in us, and also charity which is a virtue; therefore there are two charities in us, or we love God by two charities. Solution. They are not on that account two. Just as the sun illumines us and the ray of the sun, therefore two illumine us — it does not follow, because this would be apart and separately: for the sun through the ray, and God through charity [0465C] the virtue, illumines or enlightens us.

QUESTION CXXVIII. It is likewise asked whether charity, once had, can be lost? And some say that it cannot, because it is written: *Charity never falls away [n: (I Cor. XIII)]*. Solution. This was said of perfect charity, or it was said that charity never falls away for this reason, that it is had in the present and in the future.

QUESTION CXXIX. Charity is that fountain of which it is said: Let the fountain of thy water be thine own, and let no stranger share it with thee. It is asked who the strangers are, if not the reprobate, and those who are to hear: *Go, ye cursed, into eternal fire [n: (Matth. XXV)]*, etc. But many of the number of such love for a time, and thus as strangers share [0465D] this fountain. Solution. Strangers are so called according to foreknowledge — of whom he is not now speaking — but according to present injustice, namely all who do not love now, whether they be elect or not; and these, as such, do not share the fountain of love.

QUESTION CXXX. How is this true, which is said: *Christ died for the ungodly.* Did not Christ die only for those to whom his death is profitable? but it is profitable only to the godly, therefore he died only for the godly. It seems, therefore, that he did not die for the ungodly. Solution. He died for the ungodly, that is, for the love of those who were formerly ungodly, and through faith were made godly; and so it is true that the death of Christ was made for the ungodly, and that it profits none but the godly.

[0466A]QUESTION CXXXI. *We are reconciled to God through the death of his Son.* It is asked how this word is to be understood. Was he perhaps angry at us before the death, as at sinners, according to that: *Thou hast hated all who work iniquity [n: (Psal. V)]*; and through the death of the Son was he appeased toward us, and did he then first begin to love? But if this is so, how did he choose us before the foundation of the world? Did he not choose while not loving; or how, being not appeased, did he deliver up the Son for us? Solution. The wrath of God is called not a passion of the mind, but a just vengeance; and when such wrath is ended — which was done through the death of Christ — God is said to be appeased toward us, and we to be reconciled to him; nor yet, because he reconciled, did he love; but because he loved, he reconciled. Of that justice by which Christ conquered it has been said above [0466B], and of the manner of the redemption. Nor is it needful to do again what is done: let only the words of Augustine be briefly set down, by which he plainly expresses it. He says therefore: This is the justice by which Christ conquered the devil. The devil, a lover of power and a deserter of justice, slew Christ, in whom he found nothing worthy of death. Whence it is just that those whom he held should be let go free, believing in him who was slain without any evil desert. He willed not, therefore, to use power against the lover of power, but against the deserter of justice he willed to use justice, that he might instruct us how we must fight against the same enemy; namely, not by power, but rather by justice, and so we shall be victors.

QUESTION CXXXII. *Therefore as through one,* etc. It is asked why he says rather that sin entered into the world through one man than [0466C] through one woman, since the beginning of sin was rather in the woman than in the man? Solution. He kept the order of custom, as Augustine says, because posterity is wont to be named not from the woman but from the man. Or for this reason, because man and woman are one flesh; and therefore whatever was done by him or by her is said to pertain to the first man. Or otherwise: if the man had not sinned, God would perhaps have provided him another companion, of whom he would have begotten offspring innocent and conformed to himself, or by his merit would have forgiven the sins of the wife; but because he sinned, through him not undeservedly is sin said to have entered into the world.

QUESTION CXXXIII. It is likewise asked why sin is said to have entered through man and not through the devil, [0466D] since it was first in him, and through him entered also into the first man, whence it is written: *By the envy of the devil death* entered into the world [n: (Sap. II)]. Solution. In one way through the devil, in another way through man did sin enter. For through the devil by imitation alone, and not by propagation. Through man it entered not by imitation alone, but also by propagation. It is to be known that the Pelagians said that original sin entered through Adam by imitation alone and not by propagation: which if it were true, he would have called not man, but the devil, the author of sin: whence also they said that in baptism original sin is not forgiven to little ones, because according to them nothing is contracted in the newborn: but the catholic faith does not hold this, but preaches this, and the Scriptures testify to this, that, just as [0467A] Christ, beyond the example of imitation, works illumination and justification inwardly and secretly, by which grace alone he inserts into his body the regenerated little ones who cannot imitate him; so Adam, beyond the example of imitation, by the taint of his concupiscence corrupted all who were to be born of him through concupiscence.

QUESTION CXXXIV. Julian asks thus: He does not sin who creates, he does not sin who generates, he does not sin who is generated: through what chinks, then, amid so many safeguards of innocence, do you feign that original sin has entered? To whom Augustine answers thus: The Apostle says: *Through one man sin entered [sic: inravit] into this world [n: (Rom. V)]*; what does he seek more openly? what does he seek [sic: *nculcatius*]? what does he seek more plainly? why does he seek a chink, [0467B] where he has a most open door?

QUESTION CXXXV. It is likewise asked whether original sin is from the will or from nature: if from the will, the will is evil; if from nature, nature is evil. To whom Augustine responds: Every evil work proceeded from an evil will as from a root, but no evil preceded the evil will itself, but it arose first in the angel, then in man, both of whom were the good work of God; and thus in the good, evil arose, which had no efficient cause, but a deficient cause.

QUESTION CXXXVI. It is likewise asked whether original sin is from the will. Solution. It is indeed from the will of the first parents, whence it too can be called voluntary.

[0467C]QUESTION CXXXVII. *In whom all have sinned,* etc. We were not yet; how then could we, who were not yet, sin? Solution. In him we all sinned, that is, in him was done that from which we all should sin. Or thus: From him we drew the cause of sin; or thus: We are all guilty of that sin which he committed.

QUESTION CXXXVIII. It is also asked how we all were one man in Adam? Solution. That is, from him, who was one man, we descend by propagation.

QUESTION CXXXIX. It is asked again how from that small mass, which was in Adam, so many and so great things could descend, or how so small a particle could be divided into so many parts, that the body of each may thence materially consist. This question is wont to be raised concerning those *seven loaves,* with which the Lord satisfied so many thousands of men without the addition of anything [n: (Matth. XV)]. Solution. This was done by the law of propagation. For that particle which was in the loins of Adam, from the time it was separated in the generation of his son, was increased and multiplied in itself into the perfect stature of a man: from which again a small particle was separated in the second generation, which again was increased and multiplied in itself: from which again, thus multiplied, another was separated, and so on thereafter by the law of propagation it grew into so great a multitude without any extrinsic addition, or change of foods into it. It is agreed [0468A] that God can make from one atom whatever weight he will.

QUESTION CXL. If therefore one atom were thus multiplied in itself into something great, in which there were infinite atoms, it is asked whether that one would be all these, or one of the number of the others, or whether these are that one. Solution. It is not necessary to concede that that one is all these, but that it is multiplied and increased into these; nor that all these are that one, but from that one, or that they were in that one — just as that grain grew into a tree, nor is that grain the tree, but the tree is from it, or materially in it. Expressions of this kind are to be noted carefully. It is to be noted that there are several kinds of changes: sometimes essence is changed into essence without change of accidents, as in the sacrament of the altar; [0468B] sometimes a change of properties takes place without change of essence, as when water was made wine; sometimes a change takes place according to quantity alone, into something greater, as in the seven loaves. But in what manner the rod of Moses was changed into a serpent — whether according to properties alone, both substantial and accidental, or according to essence — is not certain to me.

QUESTION CXLI. It is written: *God did not make death.* Likewise: *Death and life are from God [n: (Sap. I)]*, which seems to be contrary: for nothing temporal is from God which he himself has not made; how then did he make death, and not make it? Solution. God did not make death, that is, the cause of death, namely sin; but that penalty which is called death, according to some, God did make: and it is numbered among the good works, [0468C] because it is just; and everything just is from God.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CXLII. *But not as the offense, so also the gift.* It is asked how the Apostle says that the gift of Christ abounds unto more than the offense of Adam: for not more are saved through the grace of Christ than are damned by the offense of Adam. Solution. This superabundance of grace is not to be considered in the number of persons; but to those very ones to whom the gift of Christ is profitable, it confers more in good than the offense of Adam harms those whom it harms in evil; because from Adam not all damnation [comes], but that alone by which those are punished who lie subject to original sin alone, apart from that by which those are punished who have added their own offenses; but the grace of Christ not only frees from original sin, but also from the things superadded, advancing unto justification, and at length unto eternal life.

QUESTION CXLIII. Whether actual sins are from the sin of Adam? Which seems so to some, because from the tinder of sin we are prone to sinning. Solution. Such proneness is not an efficient cause, even if it be a cause without which it would not come to be, as it pleases some; but neither is it required, since it was neither in the devil, nor in the first man before the fall, and yet there was sin in them without it: for it was not the cause of sin, but sin was the cause of it.

QUESTION CXLIV. It is asked whether the other actual sins of Adam are imputed to his posterity? Solution. The Apostle says by *the offense of one,* he does not say by offenses, *many are made sinners:* in which he intimates that not many, but one alone is imputed.

[0469A]QUESTION CXLV. It is asked whether the sin of Eve too is imputed to us? Solution. Note the words of the Apostle saying by the offense of one, he does not say of two; or if it is imputed, for the aforesaid reasons, he says that through one man sin entered into the world, or by the offense of one.

QUESTION CXLVI. It is asked whether the actual sins of nearer parents are imputed to their posterity? Which seems so, because the Lord says: *I am the Lord thy God, a jealous [God]: visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation [n: (Exod. XX)]*, etc. Solution. The sins of parents, even of nearer ones, are not imputed to the children, unless they themselves make the sins of the fathers their own by imitation; nor then are they punished because [they are] parents, but because they themselves sinned. According to another Scripture: [0469B] *The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father [n: (Ezech. XVIII)]*, etc.; but the contradiction which seems [to lie] between these two authorities, the doctors sufficiently elucidate.

QUESTION CXLVII. But if it be asked for what reason the sin of the first parents, and not of the nearer ones, is imputed. Solution. Because that one despoiled us; the other sins of others, finding us as it were naked and despoiled, could not take anything away from us: for original sin, as has already been said, deprives only of a certain original justice.

QUESTION CXLVIII. Man, of himself and through himself, before sin was able to sin; but to advance of himself and through himself, without the help of grace, he was not able; therefore he was more prone to evil than to good; but he was not yet [0469C] other than such as God had made him: therefore God made him more prone to evil than to good. Solution. Before the fall man was not prone to sin; nor did God make man such that he was prone to sinning, but such proneness afterward came in from sin; nor even did he have the power of sinning from God, but from his own nothingness; not from the good which he had received, but from its limit; not because he had received so much, but because he had not received more, as has already been said above concerning the same.

QUESTION CXLIX. *As through the disobedience of one,* etc. It is asked whether man, first, from the good which he had before the fall, without the addition of others, could obey grace and fulfill the commandment given to him? If it be said that he could: therefore, from that which he then had he could [0469D] advance: which is denied by almost all. Likewise, if it be conceded that he could not obey without the help of grace, what then was his fault, if he did not do what he could not do without grace, and grace was not conferred; nor was it his fault that it was not conferred. Solution. He did not sin because he did not do what he could not do; but because he did not do it when he could.

QUESTION CL. It is likewise asked whether Christ, by obeying God the Father, merited anything? Some wish to prove that he merited nothing, because neither according to his humanity nor according to his divinity. God, they say, cannot receive anything from anyone; or through anything that he does acquire something else not previously due [0470A]: therefore he cannot merit anything. Likewise, according as he is man, he is good and loves; but he cannot not be good, or not love: therefore of necessity he is good or loves; how then can he merit? Solution. To merit has a twofold signification: for one is said to merit when through a good work he is made worthy of something of which he was not previously worthy — according to which signification it seems to us that neither according to his divinity nor according to his humanity did Christ merit anything, even in his very death. One is also said to merit when he does some good which is worthy of remuneration — according to which God too is said to merit, when he bestows benefits on us for which we are bound to praise him for eternity; and Christ, according to [0470B] his humanity, in his passion merited for us the entrance of eternal life. Beforehand indeed he merited many things for us; but the passion alone was not only precious, but the price of the world.

QUESTION CLI. *The law entered in, that [sin] might abound,* etc. It is asked whether the law is the cause of evil, which seems so, because it is the cause of the abounding of the offense. Solution. 'That' [ut] is sometimes causative, as: I [go] to the market, that I may buy a toga; sometimes operative, as: he placed man in paradise, that he might keep it, etc.; sometimes it is consecutive, as: he went outside, so that he died; sometimes also it denotes occasion, as: the law entered in, that sin might abound. For the Jews received a more abundant occasion of sin from the law, which was good, not the cause of evil; but their vice was the cause of this evil, [0470C] just as if I take occasion of envying from another's knowledge; which [knowledge] is not the cause of my grief, but my own vice.

QUESTION CLII. *Where the offense abounded, grace also superabounded.* Did not the offense superabound in the Jews, because [of] the transgression of the law; and yet grace did not also superabound, because they were blinded. How then is it true, where the offense abounded, grace also superabounded? Solution. He does not say: Wherever the offense abounded, grace also superabounded; but 'where' indefinitely, which is to be understood as regards those who believed, in whom, before they believed, the offense abounded; because besides the other sins the transgression of the law was in them: but grace forgave all; moreover it conferred faith and charity — not [0470D] as regards those who died in their sins, in whom the offense abounded, and not grace.

QUESTION CLIII. *What then shall we say: Shall we remain in sin, that grace may abound? [n: (Rom. VI.)]* Concerning these things it is asked what it is to remain in sin. Solution. Not to repent of sin, or, by a certain torpor of mind, persevering in sin, to await grace.

QUESTION CLIV. *Whoever of you have been baptized in Christ,* etc. It is asked what sins are forgiven in baptism? Solution. Augustine says that not only past or present [sins], but even future ones.

QUESTION CLV. But it is asked how future [0471A] sins, which are not yet, of which no one repents, nor is yet held [liable] for them, because no one is yet guilty for them — how, I say, are they forgiven? Solution. Future sins are said to be forgiven in baptism for this reason, that through the grace given there they are guarded against, or for this reason, that afterward he who receives this sacrament more easily obtains pardon.

QUESTION CLVI. Whether sins are forgiven to one who approaches feignedly? Solution. Augustine says that yesterday's day is loosed, and whatever there was over and above fraternal hatred, in the very hour of being baptized; but they return at once because he does not repent.

QUESTION CLVII. It is asked how what Augustine says is true? Is he not, from the fact that he does not repent, a member of the devil? how then is he a member [0471B] of Christ? And if this is so, how are his sins forgiven him? he has not faith, he has not the spirit of Christ; therefore he is not a member of Christ, nor are his sins forgiven him. Solution. Some say that the aforesaid words of Augustine are to be understood thus. Yesterday is loosed, etc., that is, baptism has such efficacy even in him who approaches with a heart not contrite, that, unless the feigning remained in him, he would obtain pardon of all offenses, and afterward he will be able to obtain it, if he be willing to repent of his feigning.

QUESTION CLVIII. *Our old man is crucified,* etc. It is asked whether the old man, and the outer man, and the new man, and the inner man are the same? Solution. Not the same, because the outer man is called that which we have in common with the animals, the inner man that which [0471C] we possess in common with the angels. But the old man pertains to both; for not the outer man alone, but also the inner is old through [sic: *por*] fault, concerning which old [man] we must treat in the present chapter.

QUESTION CLIX. It is asked, therefore, what the old man is? They say that the tinder of sin is so called; but it is truer that the tinder itself is called a part of the oldness. But it seems to us that oldness is understood according to two [things], namely fault and penalty. Now of penalty, one kind is eternal, another temporal; but of fault, one kind is original, another actual. Likewise original fault consists in the tinder itself, and in its act, and in the guilt of both. Again, actual fault is of one kind venial, of another mortal. Venial consists in three [things], namely [0471D] consent, act, and the guilt of both. Similarly mortal is understood by the same three modes. Behold the elevenfold number of transgression, in which the old man is regarded; for there is one pair in penalty, one triad in original fault, another in venial fault, a third in mortal fault, and thus three triads of faults with the pair of penalties constitute the number eleven. It is to be seen, therefore, according to what the old man is crucified. According to eternal penalty he is wholly destroyed in those who are Christ's; according to temporal penalty he is weakened and mitigated. Similarly according to mortal fault he is nonetheless utterly destroyed; but according to venial, mitigated, not yet fully taken away; further, according to original guilt [0472A] wholly not imputed; but according to act and the original tinder so crucified, that it does not have dominion.

QUESTION CLX. It is asked whether in Abraham the tinder of sin was crucified through the death of Christ? Some say that through faith in the death of Christ, then to come, it was in him also weakened.

QUESTION CLXI. It is likewise asked whether in the Apostle himself it was so weakened and crucified, that he never consented to its movements. For how did he not consent to the movements, when he committed venial [sins]? Likewise the venial [sins] which he committed — were they not voluntary, and so he willed them? how then did the tinder of sin not draw the Apostle to consent to sin? Solution. The Apostle, although he committed [them] voluntarily, nevertheless did not will the sin. [0472B] For a sin is not called voluntary from the fact that someone willed it; but because it proceeded from some will. Nor did he consent to the tinder. For to consent is to do, from deliberation and diligence, what the movements suggested: and so to consent seems even to be mortal.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CLXII. *That you obey the concupiscences.* It is asked what difference there is between obeying the concupiscences and presenting the members to sin. Solution. To obey the concupiscences is to consent in mind to carnal delights. To present the members to sin, so that they may be weapons of iniquity, this is to fulfill iniquity itself in deed.

QUESTION CLXIII. Whence it is asked why, after the first, he forbids the second; for in forbidding to obey [0472C] the concupiscences, he also forbids presenting the members to sin; for he who does not consent, does not act. Solution. He forbids the work also after the consent, for this reason: that if it should sometimes happen to consent in mind, yet such consent may not proceed into act, but rather be cut off. But some understand by 'to obey the concupiscences' the operation; by 'to present the members to sin,' the consent; and thus fittingly, after the prohibition of the operation, follows the prohibition of consent.

QUESTION CLXIV. *Sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under the law, but under grace.* Does not sin have dominion over many who are under grace? How then is it true: Sin shall not have dominion, etc. Solution. To you, who are obedient to grace, [0472D] there is already given a power by which you can resist sin, that it may not reign. Whence it is clear that if at any time it resumes its strength so as to have dominion, this comes about by our own fault.

QUESTION CLXV. *I speak a human thing on account of the infirmity.* It is asked what the Apostle calls 'human,' namely light, and easy to do, which belongs to a grown justice and not a perfect one. Solution. He himself shows it, subjoining: As you presented your members to serve uncleanness and iniquity unto iniquity, so now present your members to serve justice unto sanctification. Which is, briefly and openly, to say: Serve justice with that love with which formerly, without compulsion, by delight alone, you served uncleanness. Which is therefore called 'human,' because more is owed to justice than [0473A] to sin: for no one ever so loved sin, that he would not fear to die for it. But since we are prone to evil, which is done without labor and without any difficulty, and moreover with great sweetness and [sic: *immmoderata*] delight, but to good [we are] slow and sluggish, which is not done except with great labor, and huge difficulty, and often little or no delight; because the way of the virtues is arduous and hard, strait and narrow.

QUESTION CLXVI. But it is asked how the Apostle says it is a human thing to serve justice with as great a love, and as great a delight, as we formerly served iniquity, since this seems to be perfect and consummate? Solution. It is indeed true that when we see someone serve justice with love, we say that he is perfect, especially in this time [0473B] when the holy [man] has failed: yet as regards the truth itself, he is imperfect, unless for justice's sake he despise not only other things, but even death itself. It belongs, therefore, to a grown [adulterinae] justice, and not a perfect one, to do the commandment with love, with the resolve of dying for Christ, even if he does not yet have so great a charity or constancy from which he could endure death itself; and this degree suffices for salvation, and is required; because without it no one is worthy of glory. But it belongs to a perfect and consummate justice to have only virtue [enough], which may suffice for enduring death for the truth and the love of justice. Peter is seen to have had the first degree when he said: *Even if I must die with thee, I will not deny thee [n: (Matth. XXVI)]*. But he did not yet have the second, [0473C] which he attained through the coming of the Holy Spirit.

QUESTION CLXVII. *While the husband lives, the woman is bound by the law of the husband [n: (Rom. VII)]*, etc. It is asked concerning David and the other just, whether, while the law was living, that is, holding its standing, they were bound to keep the law, and whether they are to be called adulterers, because they were with another, that is, with Christ, in whom they believed, and by whom they sought to be justified? Solution. The law indeed is not laid down for the just [man], being as it were the schoolmaster of little ones; yet David with the other just were bound to keep the law on account of those to whom the law was necessary, lest by their example they should transgress it. Nor because they were with Christ through faith and love are they to be called adulterers: but [0473D] if, the legal sacraments being despised, they should already presume to introduce the sacraments of the New Testament, then they would seem adulterers.

QUESTION CLXVIII. *For when we were in the flesh, the passions of sins,* etc. It is asked what he calls 'passions,' whether the first movements, or something else. Solution. It can be said [that he means] the inborn concupiscences, which are the cause of sin, and, in those who are not in Christ, even mortal sin. Or the first movements, which are not imputed to the reborn; which he therefore calls 'passions,' because they harm nature, and deprive it of some good.

QUESTION CLXIX. *What shall we say? Is the law sin? God forbid!* It is asked whether the law itself makes [one] sin, or teaches [it], and so is evil. Solution. It is not [0474A] evil, but good; nor is it the cause of sin, even if it may seem the occasion.

QUESTION CLXX. *For I knew not concupiscence,* etc. It is asked of what concupiscence the Apostle says this. And the doctors say, of that which is forbidden in the Decalogue. Concerning which again it is asked what that is? For by the name of concupiscence there is sometimes signified the vice of concupiscence, namely the tinder of sin; sometimes the first movement, which is called propassion; sometimes the second movement, which is called passion, or delight; sometimes the consent; sometimes the outward endeavor; which, then, does the law forbid, saying: *Thou shalt not covet? [n: (Ibid.)]* Solution. In the response to this question the modern doctors disagree. For some say that the law forbids the first movements; but others [0474B] say the consent; others expound thus: Thou shalt not covet, that is, know concupiscence to be evil, and avoid it as much as you can, and so, according to this, nothing is forbidden. But whatever is contained in the Decalogue is either a precept or a prohibition: whence it must be that something is forbidden when it is said: Thou shalt not covet. To those who say that consent is forbidden, the objection is made thus: the Apostle says: *I do what I will not; but if this is so: I consent to the law by not doing, but by not willing (ibid)*.

QUESTION CLXXI. It is asked, therefore, what that is which the law forbids, and the Apostle, unwilling, was doing? but these say that the law forbids consent; yet it is clear that the Apostle was not consenting, because, if he consented to concupiscence, he would in no way consent to the law, [0474C] but would act against it. But Augustine shows openly what it is that the Apostle was unwilling [to do], and yet was doing. Namely, he felt the movement of concupiscence, but nevertheless did not consent to it — nay, he willed not to feel it. Whence it is clear that the law forbids the first movements of concupiscence.

QUESTION CLXXII. But it is asked again why God forbade what no one ever could avoid? For the law seems not only useless, but even irrational, since it interdicts what is impossible to avoid. For this reason the aforesaid doctors are unwilling that the law forbid the first movements. To whom the objection is made thus: Did not the law command to love God with the whole heart? But this precept, as Augustine says, [0474D] no one in the present can fulfill: if therefore something is commanded which cannot here be done by anyone, what wonder if something is forbidden which cannot be avoided?

QUESTION CLXXIII. It is asked, therefore, why God either forbade what cannot be avoided, or commanded what cannot be fulfilled. For he seems cruel, or not fair. Solution. That he might humble the proud, and illumine the blind, and thus prepare [him] worthy to receive grace. In this, that he forbade what no one can avoid, and commanded what no one can do, he shows what the perfection of divine justice is, and what God can justly exact from man. Moreover [he shows] what kind of [being] man was before sin, namely such a one as, with grace helping, would covet nothing without any difficulty, [0475A] and would love God with his whole heart: and of what kind he was made through fault, namely weak, carnal, unable not to covet, or to love God perfectly. What then remains, except that man, no longer presuming upon himself, take refuge in grace, and say: Lord, answer for me, for I am weak. And so not cruelly, but by a great dispensation, God commanded what cannot be done except by the sole mediator.

QUESTION CLXXIV. It is asked where the law thus forbids concupiscence in general; for it is not found where the law makes a prohibition except concerning the property or the wife of a neighbor. Solution. In the particular the general is understood.

QUESTION CLXXV. It is asked whence it comes about that we strive toward the forbidden, and that which is forbidden pleases the more [0475B], and becomes sweeter from the prohibition itself? Solution. Human nature is so created that it naturally desires liberty: which by prohibition seems to be diminished, and reduced to servitude; whence, as much as it can, immediately when the prohibition is made, it resists, striving against [it].

QUESTION CLXXVI. It is asked in what person the Apostle speaks when he says: *But I am carnal [n: (Rom. VII)]*, in his own, or in a general one? For if he speaks in his own person, how does he say that he is carnal, since he was spiritual? but if he speaks in a general [person], so that what he says befits every just and unjust [man] of any time whatever, how does it befit the unjust to hate evil, and to will good, and to consent to the law of God? Solution. Augustine says that he speaks in his own person [0475C], saying that he is carnal on account of the movements which he felt, and the same [man] was spiritual, not consenting to those disordered movements. But it cannot be denied that he says certain things which do not befit his own person, such as that: *I lived once without law [n: (ibid.)]*. There are those who say that he speaks in the general person of the just [man]; but how does it befit the just [man]: *But I am dead? [n: (Ibid.)]* But we say that the Apostle speaks in such wise that certain things befit the man of the natural law, certain things the man of the written law, certain things the man of the law of grace; but what befits whom is to be carefully noted; but it is of our purpose to pursue the questions, not to expound the letter.

QUESTION CLXXVII. *For what I work I understand not,* [0475D] etc. It is asked how he says that he does not understand what he works, since through the law he had known sin? Solution. 'I understand not' is put for 'I do not approve.'

QUESTION CLXXVIII. But when he says: *For not what I will, this I do;* it is asked how he says that he does not will what he does; is not that which he does a sin, and every sin is voluntary, and thus he seems to will what he says he does not will? Solution. There is a threefold willing, namely of nature, of fault, and of grace; whence the same [man] can will according to the flesh, and not will according to the mind.

QUESTION CLXXIX. *But if what I will not, this I do,* etc. It is asked what that is which the Apostle says he wills not, and yet does, the law forbidding [it]? [0476A] Solution. To covet: for the law forbids to covet, and the Apostle wills according to the mind not to covet, and yet according to the flesh he was coveting.

QUESTION CLXXX. But it is asked how he says that he does [it], and does not work [it]: for the same [holds]: if he does something, he works it, and if he does not work it, neither does he do it. Are affirmation and negation at once true of the same thing? Solution. He does [it] according to the flesh, and does not work [it] according to the mind.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CLXXXI. It is asked whether it is consequent that he does not work [it] simply, if he does not work [it] according to the mind; just as it is consequent that, if he does [it] according to the flesh, he also does [it] simply. Solution. It is indeed true that upon a determinate affirmation [0476B] there follows a simple affirmation almost always, but a simple negation does not usually follow a determinate negation; whence one must lay stress on the pronoun when it is said: *I do not work [it] [n: (ibid.)]*, as it were the inner I, in which the truth of the man consists, because [it is] the image of God; and thus the negation, which seems to be simple, is not simple, but rather determinate.

QUESTION CLXXXII. *But the sin that dwells in me.* It is asked how sin, which is nothing, but only a privation of good, is said to dwell in someone. Solution. By this name 'sin' is signified the tinder of sin, which is called the law of the flesh, or the law of the members, just as consent or operation is called the law of death.

QUESTION CLXXXIII. *I know that there dwells not in [0476C] me,* that is, *in my flesh, good.* It is asked whether he says universally of all good, or indefinitely of a certain good, that it does not dwell in the flesh? But of all good how can he say this, since the flesh, even corrupted and subject to languor, is the work of God, nor deprived of all good, especially since evil is not a thing existing by itself, nor can it be except in a good thing. Whence it is consequent that where there is no good, neither is there any evil; and where there is any evil, there is necessarily also some good. Solution. He says of health, or of the integrity of nature, that it does not dwell in the flesh: whence he fittingly proves that sin is the tinder of sin, which is the privation of health, or of the integrity of nature; it dwells in the flesh: for where there is not health [0476D] and there ought to be, there is the privation of the same, which the Apostle signifies, saying: Good does not dwell in the flesh.

QUESTION CLXXXIV. *To will lies near to me,* etc. It is asked concerning that will which the Apostle says lies near to him, what it is to be called? Solution. Nothing other than the natural affection of the soul, which from creation is in the soul, and by which the soul naturally wills good; but this affection always lacks effect, unless it be helped by the grace of God.

QUESTION CLXXXV. *To will lies near to me, but to accomplish I find not; since evil lies near to me.* By these words the Apostle seems to intimate that, if evil did not lie near, not only would 'to will' lie near to him, but he would also find 'to accomplish,' since nothing would impede toward [0477A] good, or impel toward evil. But in this very thing he intimates the first state of the first man before sin, to whom 'to will' good lay near, but evil did not lie near, whence he could not say, 'to will lies near to me, but to accomplish I find not, because evil lies near to me.' But whether that good, which he naturally willed, he could accomplish without the addition of greater grace, might be asked. Was not that willing, which Adam had before sin, much more intense than that natural willing which the pagans now have? but the pagans do great and many good things (even if they are not worthy of eternal life, because done without faith) from the natural affection which they have: how then could Adam, before sin, from a greater will, not advance even a little, as almost all assert? [0477B] Likewise, if God did not confer greater grace, but left [him] in that state in which he created him, could not God justly exact from man that, for the good already conferred, he should love him perfectly? but God could not justly exact what man could not render: and thus it seems that man before sin could advance from the good already received, which many deny.

QUESTION CLXXXVI. But someone will say: Can not God now justly exact from man what man cannot render, as has already been said above? For unless God could justly exact that he covet nothing against reason, and that he love God with his whole heart, he would not have commanded man both. In a similar way it seems that man before sin could not render the whole which God could justly exact. [0477C] Solution. Man before sin was not made weak or impotent by any fault; therefore he could easily render what God could exact: after sin, and through sin, he was made such that he cannot pay every debt, which nevertheless God can exact, and does exact from those who presume upon themselves, and do not take refuge in grace. It is to be known that this text, from that place: I am carnal, up to that: *therefore there is now no condemnation [n: (Rom. VIII)]*, etc., is wont to be read both of the man of the law and of the man of grace; and how it ought, or can, be expounded of the man of grace has been said according to Augustine. But how it is to be read of the man of the law, they will be loved, is to be considered. Now he is called the man of the law who, instructed by the law, knows through sin; to which, unwilling to resist, [0477D] he is conquered and succumbs, and consents to the tinder — who is called carnal, not only feeling the tinder, but even consenting to it. Since, therefore, consent is of reason.

QUESTION CLXXXVII. It is asked how it befits the man of the law: *I will the good, I hate the evil, now* I myself do not work *it, and I consent to the law of God.* Solution. Although consent is of reason, yet because carnality drew it to consent, it is ascribed not to reason but to the flesh.

QUESTION CLXXXVIII. *That the justification of the law might be fulfilled in us [n: (Rom. VIII)]*. It is asked what he calls the justification of the law, since from the law there is no justice. Solution. He calls the justification of the law not that which the law conferred, [0478A] but that which the law commanded and promised, which is fulfilled in us through the grace of Christ, who fulfilled the law fully and perfectly, and gave us the grace of fulfilling [it], and what we do too little: he himself supplies, and answers for us.

QUESTION CLXXXIX. Whether it is the same thing to walk according to the flesh, and to be according to the flesh, and to savor the things that are of the flesh. Solution. It is not the same. For to walk according to the flesh is to fulfill in deed the things which the flesh covets. To be according to the flesh is to consent to the concupiscences, or to be disposed toward carnal things. To savor the things that are of the flesh is to take delight in such things as the flesh judges highest, or not to perceive the things that are of God. For in two ways is one called carnal, namely by life and by doctrine: either who [0478B] indulges the flesh, or who binds the divine power to the natures of things, that is, who believes that God can do nothing except what he sees in the nature of things. Similarly, to walk according to the spirit is to fulfill in deed the things that are of the spirit. To be according to the spirit is to consent to the spirit, or to be disposed according to spiritual things. To perceive the things that are of the spirit is to take delight in spiritual things, according to which three [things] one is called truly spiritual. One is also called spiritual through understanding; and there is one spiritual by life, and not by understanding; another by understanding, and not by life; another in both ways; another in neither, etc.

QUESTION CXC. *But you are not in the flesh,* etc. It is asked how the Apostle says that they are not in the flesh, since he wrote to them to repress their proud contention. [0478C] Solution. He calls them in the spirit and not in the flesh, because they did not walk according to the flesh, or, what is better, among the Romans there were certain spiritual ones, and of perfect faith: on account of which he says: You are not in the flesh. And there were others contending among themselves, and of imperfect faith, looking to whom he subjoins: *If yet the Spirit of God dwells in you [n: (ibid.)]*, whom he exhorts to perfection.

QUESTION CXCI. *But if Christ is in you.* It is asked what it is for Christ to be in someone, or the spirit of Christ? Solution. Augustine says: Christ in a man is faith in the heart. But according to this, in whomever [there is] faith [there is] also Christ; but in the evil [man] there is faith, therefore also Christ, or the Spirit of Christ is in the evil [man]. For it is the same [thing], for Christ, or the spirit of Christ, to be [0478D] in someone; but the spirit of Christ is not in anyone except in whom there is love. Solution. Not everyone in whom there is faith has faith in the heart; for faith is not said to be in the heart, except when it sits in the heart and pleases [it], that is, except where it works through love; and according to this it is the same [thing], for Christ to be in someone, and for the faith of Christ to be in his heart.

QUESTION CXCII. *The body indeed is dead on account of sin.* It is asked on account of what sin the body is dead, that is, subject to the necessity of dying. Solution. On account of the guilt of original fault: but since such — nay, every — fault is forgiven in baptism, it is asked why such a penalty, inflicted for such a fault, is not taken away. Solution. Although the fault for which such a penalty [0479A] is inflicted is forgiven, yet such an infirmity remains, lest men should hasten to the reception of that sacrament more for the advantage of temporal benefit than for the faith and love of the future life, and thus it would not profit the soul to be reborn in Christ. Or *the body is dead on account of sin [n: (Rom. VIII)]* to be avoided. For the human spirit is such that, unless it were liable to infirmities, it would be exalted beyond measure, and thus would not be saved — which cannot come about without humility. Not cruelly, therefore, but mercifully; nor from impotence, but from a great dispensation, is our mortality, with the other penalties, not taken away in baptism.

QUESTION CXCIII. *For you have not received the spirit of servitude,* etc. It is asked whether the spirit of fear [0479B] and the spirit of adoption are the same? Solution. The same Spirit, on account of various effects, is called by different names. Note that the gift and the author of the gift are called by the same name.

QUESTION CXCIV. It is asked how, speaking to the Romans, he says: You have not again received the spirit of servitude, again in fear, etc. For the spirit of servitude was not before given to them as to the Jews. Solution. 'Again' does not denote an iteration made in the same persons, but in different ones, as if he said: To the Jews indeed, in the giving of the law, was given the spirit of servitude in fear, and again *to you is given a spirit not of fear, but of adoption.* Fear is of one kind worldly, of another servile, of another initial, of another filial. Worldly fear is, according to some, when we forsake good or do evil, yet keeping the will [0479C] good, on account of the shame of others, lest we be held cheap — which, according to the same [authors], is also called human. But according to Cassiodorus, worldly fear is when we fear the perils of the flesh, or to lose the goods of the world, on account of which we transgress; and this fear is evil, and in the first degree is forsaken along with the world: which the Lord forbids, saying: *Fear not those who kill the body [n: (Matth. X)]*. Servile [fear], according to the earlier [authors], is that which restrains the hand from an evil work, the evil will being kept.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CXCV. Concerning which it can be asked, whether it is a gift of the Holy Spirit; which if it is, it is good; but it seems evil, since on account of penalty it makes [one] serve. Solution. This [fear] is good, having a good effect, namely, to restrain from an evil work; but this, that the evil [0479D] will remains, is not from it, but from the vice of man. But according to others, servile fear is that by which hell is feared: by which good is done, but not well: which is called initial according to the earlier [authors], and, according to the later ones too, is the beginning of wisdom: which prepares a place for wisdom, and leads to charity. Initial fear is also spoken of in another way, when that which was hard begins to be loved, and this is as it were midway between servile and filial, having something of both. According to both opinions, filial fear is that by which not penalty is feared, but lest the bridegroom be offended, or depart — lest we offend, lest we be without God: which is the companion of perfection.

QUESTION CXCVI. But which of these was in [0480A] Christ is wont to be asked? That the worldly was not [in him], since it is evil, is agreed: likewise neither the servile nor the initial, since neither could be in perfect charity: therefore either the filial, or none, seems to have been in him; but filial is that by which we fear to offend; but did Christ fear to offend, or to be separated? Solution. Filial fear was in Christ not according to the effect which it has in the present in us, but according to that which it has in the angels, or will have in the future in the saints; but according to reverence, which is love mixed with subjection, whence the Apostle: *And he was heard for his reverence [n: (Hebr. V)]*. Likewise, did not Christ fear penalty, namely death, *whence Jesus began to be afraid [n: (Marc. XIV)]*: by what fear, then? was it perhaps filial, since no other was [0480B] in him? Solution. By natural fear he began to be afraid, which is not contained in the aforesaid division; because it is equally in the good and the evil: which is called natural, not because it is concreted with nature, but because from corruption it grew somehow into nature: which, with the other penalties, Christ took upon himself.

QUESTION CXCVII. Servile fear was given in the law; but servile fear, according to Augustine, is that by which hell is feared: therefore fear of hell was given in the law: but does not fear of hell restrain not only the hand, but also the mind; whereas the law [restrains] the hand only, and not the mind? Likewise, Augustine says that servile fear is never with charity; but does not everyone who fears eternal penalty have fear of hell? but someone who has charity begun, [0480C] still fears penalty, and thus it seems that servile fear is in charity. These questions I raise, not that I may solve them, but that I may rouse the reader to inquire with me.

QUESTION CXCVIII. It is asked still concerning servile fear, whether it makes [one] a servant of Christ, or of the devil. Solution. Neither of God nor of the devil, but it makes [one] a servant of penalty; because in some way it takes away liberty, and does not allow [one] to do the work which he wills, on account of penalty.

QUESTION CXCIX. *And coheirs of Christ,* etc. It is asked whether Christ is an heir, and if he is, according to which nature; for it seems that according to divinity he is not to be called an heir, since an inheritance is the firm possession of a successor upon someone's dying: but neither does the Father die, nor does the Son succeed him, because both [0480D] are from eternity: how then [is he] an heir? Solution. Thus indeed among us an inheritance has [its] being through succession; but not so in God: for *the Son, because he has [his] being from the Father, has also all things which he has from the Father [n: (Joan. I)]*; but not conversely: therefore the Son is the heir of the Father: but according to his humanity he received the inheritance, according to the fullness of which we all have received.

QUESTION CC. It is asked what it is to be coheirs of Christ. Solution. Partakers of the same inheritance. But according to this it seems false that we are coheirs; because the possession of the nations is the inheritance of Christ. Whence: *Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thy inheritance [n: (Psal. II)]*: of which inheritance we are not partakers, [0481A] and thus we are not coheirs. Solution. The inheritance of Christ, according to which we are coheirs, is eternal life, not the possession of the nations.

QUESTION CCI. *If yet we suffer with [him].* It is asked how one is to suffer with Christ, who now does not suffer. Solution. In two ways we suffer with Christ: either by calling to memory his sufferings, which he endured for us, and thus by compassion grieving with him, or by enduring tribulations in his likeness, with him, and on account of him. Compassion is sometimes the name of a natural affection, sometimes of the consent to it, which is a virtue.

QUESTION CCII. *The sufferings of this time are not worthy [to be compared],* etc. It is asked whether the merits of the saints suffice for attaining the future life: for if they have true [0481B] justice they are worthy of the crown; but that the fathers of the New Testament are truly just, the Apostle himself intimates, saying: *For the rest, there is laid up for me a crown of justice, which the just judge will render to me: and not only to me, but also to all who love his coming [n: (II Tim. IV)]*. But here he seems to say that the tribulations which the saints endure do not suffice to merit the future glory, which is to be revealed: for this is [what it means], that the sufferings are not worthy [to be compared] to the future glory. Solution. The Apostle does not deny that the merits of the saints suffice for attaining glory, but for meriting so excellent a glory they are not worthy [to be compared]; because God from his grace will superadd more than our merits have merited, which is, briefly, to say: our merits are least [0481C] in respect of the rewards. For the creature is subjected to vanity. Note that vanity is threefold: the first is of mutability, the second of mortality, the third of iniquity; and man is all vanity, that is, subjected to every vanity.

QUESTION CCIII. *Not willing, but for the sake of him who subjected it in hope.* It is asked what the creature subjected to vanity does not will: if it does not will evil, the will is good: but then that which follows is nothing, 'But for the sake of him,' etc.; but if it does not will good, it sins, since it ought to will good. Solution. 'Will' is spoken of in several ways; for sometimes it is called the natural affection, as there, 'not what I will, I do'; sometimes the consent to it, according to which the will is said [to be] damnable or to be rewarded; sometimes the horror of the flesh, as there: [0481D] *Not as I will, but as thou [wilt] [n: (Matth. XXVI)]*, and in this way it is taken here, and the sense is: Although the penalty which I endure is bitter, yet I take delight to endure it for the sake of Christ.

QUESTION CCIV. *Every creature groans,* etc. It is asked how this is true, since a stone is a creature, and yet does not groan? Solution. 'Every,' here, does not gather the individuals of the kinds, but the kinds of the individuals, and the sense is: Every creature, that is, man, in whom is every kind of creatures. For there are three species of creature, namely corporeal, and animal, and spiritual: which all are in man, and thus every creature groans in man.

QUESTION CCV. *And not only it, but we also,* etc. [0482A] Are not the good understood by the name of creature? how then does the Apostle distinguish between the apostles, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, and the creature, as though they themselves were not good? Solution. By the same reasoning by which, between the creature and the sons of God — although the sons of God are creature — he distinguishes between the creature and the apostles, although they themselves are creatures, making a distinction which is regarded not in a diversity of another quality, as the glosses, diligently inspected, declare.

QUESTION CCVI. *Hope that is seen is not hope,* etc. It is asked what it is that is signified by the name of hope, when it is said: Hope that is seen; and from what it is removed, when it is said: It is not hope. To that which is not hope, how does the name of hope befit, or is it fitted? Solution. Just as equivocally faith is called that by which one believes and that which is believed; [0482B] so equivocally hope is called that by which one hopes, and that which is hoped for. And thus hope that is seen, that is, the thing hoped for, is not the hope by which we hope, namely that virtue. Or otherwise, hope that is seen, that is, that which is of a visible thing, is not our hope, namely, by the merit of which we are already made saved.

QUESTION CCVII. *The Spirit himself asks for us with unspeakable groanings.* It is asked, since the Spirit needs nothing, nor suffers any straits, how he is said to ask or to groan. Solution. What the saints do, with him as author, is attributed to the Spirit: he asks, therefore, or groans, because he makes us ask, or groan.

QUESTION CCVIII. Whether the Spirit asks for something, and does not obtain [it]? Whenever we ask for anything out of charity, [0482C] does not the Spirit himself ask in us; but often we ask for him who lies in crime, and we are not heard, and thus it seems that the Spirit, by whose teaching we pray, is not heard. Solution. There are two species of just prayer: either when we ask what is to be asked, or when we ask where it is to be asked; but sometimes we ask where it is to be asked, yet not what is to be asked, and the Spirit then teaches how it is to be asked, but does not teach what is to be asked, and therefore we do not obtain [it]. But as often as we ask what is to be asked and where it is to be asked, we obtain [it].

QUESTION CCIX. *We know that to those who love God all things work together unto good.* Do not some love for a time, and afterward fall and thus are damned? But to these [0482D] not all things work together unto good, and thus it seems that to those who love God not all things work together unto good. Solution. He does not say simply that to those who love God all things work together unto good, but *to those who love and are called saints according to purpose:* for some love, and yet are not called saints according to purpose, just as some are preordained to life, yet do not yet love; and to neither do all things work together unto good, but to those who love and are called saints according to purpose.

QUESTION CCX. It is likewise asked how the very sins of such [persons] work together unto good for them. Solution. They rise up more humble and more learned.

[0483A]QUESTION CCXI. But would they not, if they had not fallen, but had then done good, be better than they now are; as this corrupted [woman], if she had, along with those good things which she now has, also virginity, would she not be of a higher degree and of greater merit? Solution. It is indeed true that if Mary Magdalene, with so great devotion, had also virginity, she would be of greater merit; but her fall cooperated toward a certain perfection, and perhaps if she had not fallen so basely, she would never have loved the heavenly physician so much: yet [one is] not to sin, that grace may abound.

QUESTION CCXII. It is likewise asked how the sins of the evil work together unto good for the good. Solution. Nothing is done in the world that does not confer something of usefulness [0483B] to the good of the universe; and thus all things, whether goods, or evils, whether one's own, or another's, work together unto good for the good.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CCXIII. Whether all things work together unto evil for those to be damned? That their own evils harm them is certain; but whether the good things which they sometimes do work together unto evil for them can be asked, which seems [so]: because it is written: *It is better not to know the way of truth, than after knowing it to turn back [n: (II Petr. II)]*. Solution. Not all things work together unto evil for those to be damned; because for the good things which they sometimes do, they will be punished less. But that which is said: It is better, etc., was not said of those to be damned who were once just; it was said of heretics.

QUESTION CCXIV. *Whom he foreknew, he also predestinated.* It is asked whether foreknowledge is the cause of predestination, [0483C] just as predestination is the cause of calling, calling the cause of justification, and justification of glorification — which seems [so] according to the supposed order: but since each is eternal, how can one be the cause of the other? Solution. Although each is eternal, yet one can be the cause of the other; just as the Son and the Holy Spirit, though each is eternal, yet the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit; so, according to some, foreknowledge pertains to knowledge, and thus to the Son; predestination to election; election to will, which pertains to the property of the Holy Spirit: and therefore, just as the Son is the cause of the Holy Spirit, so also foreknowledge is the cause of predestination, which it precedes naturally, not in time.

[0483D]QUESTION CCXV. Whether foreknowledge and predestination are the same in God? For the solution of this question it must be known that the divine essence, though it is one and simple, yet on account of various effects obtains diverse names; for it is called wisdom, knowledge, foresight, providence, disposition, predestination. But wisdom and knowledge are concerning all things past and present and future, good and evil, and foresight concerning the same; providence concerning things to be governed, which is sometimes taken for foresight; disposition concerning things to be done; predestination concerning those to be saved; and thus in God, as to essence, foreknowledge and predestination are the same.

QUESTION CCXVI. Whether foreknowledge would be in God, if [0484A] there were no future things? That [it would] not, they seek to prove thus. If there were no future things, God would not foreknow any future things, and if this were so, foreknowledge would not be in God; but foreknowledge is the divine knowledge, and this is the essence of God, and thus it seems, if there were no future things, that God would not be; which God forbid! Solution. Foreknowledge does not simply signify the divine essence, but designates about it a relation with respect to future things: whence that expression, if there were no future things, foreknowledge would not be in God, is understood in two ways. For if it be said: If there were no future things, foreknowledge would not be in God, that is, if there were no future things, there would be no objects of the divine knowledge whence it would be called foreknowledge, the understanding is true. But if it be understood thus: If there were no future things, foreknowledge would not [0484B] be in God, that is, the knowledge by which he foreknows future things, the understanding is false.

QUESTION CCXVII. Whether God's foreknowledge is the cause of future things, or future things of foreknowledge? There would be no future things, unless God had foreseen [them]; and thus it seems that foreknowledge is the cause of future things. Whence Augustine: God knows all creatures not because they are; but they now are, because he knows [them]. But since he knows equally good and evil things, it seems that foreknowledge is the cause both of evils and of goods. But Origen says: A thing will not be for the reason that God knows it to be future, but because that thing is future, God foreknows [it]: this seems to be contrary to that earlier opinion of Augustine. Solution. Sometimes "knowledge" is taken for good pleasure, and then it is the cause of future things; but only of good things: [0484C] thus [it is] that Augustine took [it] above; but sometimes it signifies knowledge or cognition alone, and then it is not the cause of future things, but is related equally to goods and to evils; and thus Origen took [it]; and thus foreknowledge is not the cause of future things, but neither are future things the cause of foreknowledge, unless it be called a cause without which [there is] not [the thing].

QUESTION CCXVIII. Whether foreknowledge imposes on future things a necessity of coming to pass? Which seems [so], because if God foreknew something to be future, it cannot not come to pass; and if this is so, whatever he foreknew will necessarily come to pass. Likewise it seems that God's foresight could be deceived; because if that which is foreseen can come to pass otherwise than it comes to pass, it can come to pass otherwise than it is foreseen, as if God foresaw that someone would read today: [0484D] it is conceded by all that such a one, who is to read today, can not read, and thus it can happen otherwise than is foreknown. Solution. This is the common one: these and similar [statements] can be expounded by conjunction and by disjunction; the sense of the conjunction is this: If God foresaw, it is necessary [that it] come to pass, that is, both cannot be at once, that God foresees and that it does not come to pass, and thus it is true. The sense of the disjunction is this: This future thing cannot come to pass otherwise than in the manner in which it comes to pass, and than it is foreseen, and this is false. Likewise, if it came to pass otherwise than is foreknown, the divine providence would not be deceived; because then this would not have been foreseen, but the other thing which would then come to pass. To the aforesaid solution it is objected thus: If God foresaw something, it will come to pass; [0485A] this hypothetical [proposition] is necessary: whence if the antecedent is necessary, so is the consequent; but the antecedent is necessary, because what is foreknown cannot be not foreknown, and thus it seems that whatever is future is future by a certain necessity. Which also seems able to be proved otherwise: God from eternity by his eternal Word said of every future thing, that it will be; but it is impossible for God to lie: but if that which he said to be future did not come to pass, it would follow that God were a liar, and so what is future will necessarily come to pass; whence Augustine: As it is necessary that what was should have been, so it is necessary that what is future should come to be. And elsewhere, speaking of God: Whose will, he says, is necessity, because, if he wills, it will necessarily be. Solution. There are some who [0485B] concede that God can not-have-foreseen what he foresaw from eternity: and therefore they say that the antecedent of the preceding hypothetical is not necessary, and therefore neither is the consequent. But how what they say is true, I do not see. Likewise let them answer the second objection: how God is not a liar, if that which he foretold to be future does not come to pass; or how the will of God is necessity; or how what Augustine says is true, [that] it is necessary that what is future should come to be. But we, following Augustine, say that there is a twofold necessity: one which is regarded according to lower causes, which is sometimes impeded by the higher ones; and another which is understood according to higher causes, which it is impossible not to be fulfilled. But of those things which are future, some come to pass equally both according to higher causes and according to lower causes, some [0485C] only according to higher causes: but whatever is future, as regards the necessity which is understood according to the totality of causes, cannot be hindered from coming to pass. But the usage of speaking is formed according to the lower causes, because they are more known to us. Whence we often say that something can be, and the same can not be, because those causes permit both; but according to the higher causes only one can be, namely what God wills, what he disposes, what he foreknew from eternity and foretold by his Word to be future, and it can in no way be hindered from coming to pass: regarding these causes, Augustine said that what is future will necessarily come to be.

[0485D]QUESTION CCXIX. Likewise it is asked whether God's knowledge can be increased or diminished. That it can, they seek to prove thus: God knows that this man will read, but he can not read: therefore God can not-know that this man will read. Or thus: This man is not going to read, but he can read: therefore God can know that this man will read, who is not going to read: but it can come to pass that he read, therefore something can be known by God which is not. Solution. God's knowledge is immutable, nor can it be increased or diminished: yet some concede that God can know what he does not know, and not-know what he knows, and know more things than he knows, not knowing how to respond to the aforesaid objections. But we say that God cannot know what he does not know, nor not-know what he knows, nor know more things than he knows; because if [0486A] some things which will never come to be were to begin to come to be, they would not thereby begin to be known by God, who from eternity knows all things perfectly, not only those which sometimes come to be, but whatever can come to be: for he knows both by what causes they can come to be, and what they would be like, if they came to be. For he does not now have a fuller knowledge of the world than he had from eternity: nor now a lesser knowledge of those things which will never come to be, though they could come to be, than he would have if [it] came to be. Yet it is a great question whether any such thing is in mere possibility, which is never in act: for that which does not have a cause in God, how can it come forth into act? But of this, which we have now touched upon incidentally, it must be spoken elsewhere. But responding to the aforesaid objections, we say that this [statement], God knows that this man will read, posits that this man [0486B] is to read and that God knows this: and therefore, since he is not going to read, it is not to be conceded that God knows that this man will read — not because God does not know something: for whether he read or not read, God does not therefore know or not-know more or less. The same judgment [holds] of similar cases. It is also to be noted that when it is said that he who is to read can not read, or that he who is not to read can read, this is said according to the lower causes; but if we look to the higher causes, what is future will determinately be, and not the other, nor will it be able not to come to pass: yet because usage is formed according to the lower causes, which compel neither but permit both, we say that both can be and not be, although in truth it is true that the one is future, and not [0486C] the other.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CCXX. Whether the number of the predestined can be increased or diminished? The same is asked concerning the number of the reprobate. That it can, they seek to prove thus. God can not apply grace to him to whom he applies it, and if he did this, the predestined would be damned; and he can apply it to him to whom he does not apply it, and if he did this, the reprobate would be saved. And thus he who is predestined can be damned, and he who is reprobate can be saved: and someone can pass from the number of the predestined to the number of the reprobate, and conversely. Solution. This they resolve after the likeness of the aforesaid, by conjunction and disjunction. But we say that it is possible according to lower causes, [and] perhaps impossible [0486D] according to higher causes. Likewise it does not seem to follow, God can save or damn this man, therefore this man can be saved or damned. For our power does not follow from God's power, as [it would] if God could redeem the human race otherwise, that therefore the human race could be redeemed otherwise than through the death of the Son of God: and if God had this in his power, that man therefore had in his power to be saved otherwise. Cannot God, if he willed, save Judas? Can Judas therefore be saved? It is to be noted that "lower causes" are called those which God implanted in creatures at the first constitution of things, according to which like are born of like, as from such a grain such a tree or fruit proceeds. But "higher causes" are called the divine power, will, disposition, and predestination: [0487A] which sometimes work with the lower, sometimes without them: which always have their effect, but the lower not always; rather they are sometimes impeded by the higher.

QUESTION CCXXI. *To be made conformable to the image of his Son,* etc. It is asked why the Son is called the image of the Father. Solution. Because he is most like him, and because he is of the same essence.

QUESTION CCXXII. But since the Holy Spirit is equally like the Father, being of the same substance, why is the Son and not the Holy Spirit called the image of the Father? Solution. Because image pertains more to the property of generation than of procession: for those things which are generated are wont to be more alike than those which proceed.

[0487B]QUESTION CCXXIII. Whether there are two images in the Son, because he is the uncreated image insofar as he is God, and the created image insofar as he is man. Solution. Not for that reason two images, because in Christ the uncreated image and the created image are not two images, but one: just as he is the Son of God and the son of man; yet not two sons, but one Son of God and son of man.

QUESTION CCXXIV. *Whom he called, them he also justified,* etc. It is asked how the Apostle distinguishes between calling and justifying, since in calling he justifies. Solution. By calling he understands the infusion of charity; by justification the grace that follows and preserves.

QUESTION CCXXV. *Whom he predestinated, [them] he also called,* etc. It is asked whether all who are called are predestined, [0487C] which seems [so], because calling is the effect of predestination. But some are called who are not chosen, because it is written: *Many are called, few chosen [n: (Matth. XXII)]*; but only the chosen are predestined; therefore not all who are called are predestined. Solution. Calling is of one kind common, which is made outwardly by preaching, and also sometimes inwardly by inspiration: of another kind special, which is made according to purpose, according to which none is called except the chosen and predestined. But according to the common calling it was said: Many are called, but few chosen.

QUESTION CCXXVI. *Who shall accuse against the elect?* None, because what God does not will, another cannot [do]. But it is asked: what is it for God to accuse someone? Solution. For God to accuse is to permit [0487D] a man to fall into sin. But for the devil to accuse is to cast [him] into sin through temptation, and by casting [him down] to make him liable to accusation.

QUESTION CCXXVII. It is asked how Christ intercedes for us. Whether by voice, or only by mind and desire? or in some other way? Solution. For Christ to intercede for us is, by the merits of his obedience shown to God the Father in his humanity, to reconcile us to him, [we] adhering [to him] by faith and love.

QUESTION CCXXVIII. It is also asked whether the saints, whose patronage we ask, intercede for us, and how? Solution. For the saints to intercede for us is nothing other than that God, for their merits, [0488A] rewards the good affections which we have toward them for God's sake; and therefore it makes no difference whether they hear us or do not hear us.

QUESTION CCXXIX. *Who shall separate us from the charity of God,* etc. It is asked whether the Apostle was of such great perfection that he could not sin mortally; for if he could not be separated from God, neither could he sin mortally: for this is to be separated. But since he says elsewhere: *Lest the greatness of the revelations should exalt me, there was given me a sting of my flesh [n: (II Cor. 12)]*, he intimates that if he could be exalted, he could also sin mortally, and thus be separated. Solution. No other than himself could separate the Apostle; yet he could separate himself, because in this he merited, that he could transgress, and did not transgress. For when he confessed Christ before Nero, then he could deny him, if [0488B] he willed: what therefore neither life nor death could [do], he himself could.

QUESTION CCXXX. It is asked how the cause makes the martyr, and not the punishment, since none is a martyr without punishment, just as neither without a cause. For as punishment without a cause does not suffice for the crown of martyrdom, so neither the cause without punishment. Solution. That which is said, the cause makes the martyr and not the punishment, is namely to be understood as "alone." But someone will say that by the same reasoning it can be said, punishment makes the martyr, not the cause, so that it be understood as "alone." Response. The cause without punishment profits; punishment without a cause not only does not profit, but harms; and that punishment profits, when it profits, this it has from the cause; therefore this is said rather than that.

[0488C]QUESTION CCXXXI. *Great is my sadness, [and] continual sorrow to my heart [n: (Rom. IX)]*. It is asked why the Apostle says that he grieves, that formerly, erring with those who erred, he persecuted the Church: for since great advantage came from that persecution, he ought not to grieve over it, but to rejoice? Solution. The Apostle did not grieve over the good which followed from his evil, but over the sin which he himself committed, over which it is always good to grieve.

QUESTION CCXXXII. *I myself wished to be anathema from Christ for my brethren.* It is asked how the Apostle wished to be separated from Christ, whether according to glory, or according to justice. If according to glory, he seems to have loved his brethren more than God, which is in no way to be done; if he wished to be separated according to [0488D] justice, this he could not [do] without sin and without offense against God, which cannot reasonably be wished by anyone. Solution. He did not wish to be separated from Christ in this way or that, but by these words he shows his wonderful affection which he had toward the Jews, which kind of expression Moses used, saying: *Either blot me out of the book of life, or forgive them this offense [n: (Exod. XXXII)]*. Or it can be said that each, both Moses and the Apostle, preferred in his desire and wish the salvation of so great a multitude to his own salvation, nor in this did they set the love of God after; rather, preferring the glory and honor of God to their own salvation, [they were] willing rather that the glory of God be magnified in so many saved, than [0489A] diminished in one saved; and this perfection exceeds every perfection, because a greater cannot be conceived.

QUESTION CCXXXIII. *What then shall we say? Is there injustice with God?* It is asked whether God is unjust in reprobating, and in hardening, and finally in damning this man who cannot act well without the grace of predestination, especially since he cannot merit that predestination itself? Solution. There is assuredly no injustice with God. But that it may be plain that there is no injustice with God, it must be seen what predestination is and what its effect, and what reprobation and its effect. Predestination is the preparation of grace: by the name of grace are here signified the gratuitous goods by which in the present we are justified, or in the future [0489B] are crowned; but what "preparation" signifies must be seen. It was said above that the divine essence, though it is one and simple, obtains diverse names on account of the various effects of things: of which one is predestination. Preparation therefore is nothing other than God himself preparing, and discerning, and appointing, and purposing, or choosing in himself, that he confer these gifts on these, or those in time; and this purpose or this preparation is the cause of the future goods by which we are adopted as sons of God. Behold, it has been said what predestination is, and what its effect, namely calling, justification, and glorification. But is reprobation something that was from eternity in God, or God himself, that it be the cause of future evils just as predestination [is the cause] of goods? Which [0489C] if it be conceded, it follows that God is thus the cause and author of evils. Whence it must be known that reprobation does not posit anything; because for God to reprobate someone is nothing other than not to choose, and not to predestine, [and] not to prepare gratuitous goods. Whose effect is to harden: which is nothing other than not to apply grace; such as the cause is, such is the effect. But there is no injustice or unrighteousness, if God does not give something to him to whom he owes nothing. God is therefore not unjust in that he reprobates or hardens someone.

QUESTION CCXXXIV. But it is asked why God did not reprobate all, or why he did not predestine all; but predestined some and reprobated some. Solution. If he predestined all, the divine justice would lie hidden, [0489D] because it would not be known what was justly owed to fault; if he reprobated all, the goodness of God would not appear. But the wisdom of God judged it better that there be good and evil, than only good, although it itself made nothing but good.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CCXXXV. But it is asked why he chose Jacob rather than Esau; likewise the same can be asked concerning any elect and reprobate whatever. For it cannot be said that one was chosen and the other reprobated on account of future good or evil merits: for thus that which is temporal would be the cause of that which is eternal. Likewise, if it be said that Jacob was chosen by grace alone, [and] Esau reprobated on account of original sin, it is asked why on account of the same sin Jacob was not reprobated, or why Esau was not chosen out of the same [0490A] grace? Solution — if indeed it ought to be called a solution to show that something is insoluble. They say it was so done because God willed it to be done; but if it be asked why he so willed, the question is foolish, because the cause of the divine will is sought, of which there is none; rather it itself is the first and principal cause of all things. But blessed Jerome says that God did nothing because he wills, but because there is a reason for it to be so done. And therefore it can not incongruously thus he asks why he willed this, and be answered: Because the judgments of God are a great deep. [n: (Psal. XXXV)]. Yet we can say, saving the reverence due to secret things and without the arrogance of assertion, that he chose Jacob rather than Esau for this reason: because he foreknew that greater benefit would come to the good of the universe from the election of Jacob than of Esau. But someone will say: Therefore [0490B] that which is temporal is the cause of that which is eternal, namely the good which he foresaw would then be future is the cause of predestination. To which we say that this is not true; yet the cause looks to that, namely the eternal reason: for that he should choose that from which greater benefit would come to the good of the universe — this reason too was eternal, which looks to that temporal good that would be future from the election of Jacob.

QUESTION CCXXXVI. But again it is asked why greater benefit came from the election of Jacob than of Esau? Solution. Because grace is more commended by the election of Jacob than of Esau. Likewise it is asked why it is more commended by the election of Jacob than of Esau. Solution. Because he was younger in birth. For if the elder-born were chosen, it would seem that this [0490C] was done by the privilege of birth.

QUESTION CCXXXVII. It is asked why Jacob was not the firstborn and Esau the later-born, so that thus at least Esau might be chosen? Solution. This is to ask why Jacob is not Esau, and conversely: and therefore it is a question without reason.

QUESTION CCXXXVIII. From those things which come to pass in time, the same difficulty arises: for it is wont to be asked why God confers grace on this man rather than on that, since they are indifferent, and neither can merit grace, without which he cannot be saved. For it seems that it is not to be imputed to me if I do not do what I cannot do without grace, since grace has not been conferred on me, but rather to him who does not confer on me the necessary [0490D] grace, since he cannot [do so] without harm to himself. Solution. Concerning grace different men think differently. Some said that God cannot do [anything] except what he does: which is certainly not true. Others say: There is a certain seed-bed of virtue (which they call the root of charity) in this man, from which he is apt, so that by grace conferred on him he may merit eternal life: which because it is not in that man, he can merit neither charity nor eternal life. But because this is against the Church, let it be wholly passed over. Others say that God offers his grace to all in common, which he who lays hold of will be saved; he who does not lay hold of will be damned, as if someone had prepared good food for you in a tower, and said: Come up to take the food: but because you cannot go up without a ladder or some help of this [0491A] kind, therefore they say: There is need of another grace, that you may ascend to that higher one. Likewise for laying hold of that, another, and for that another, and so on to infinity. But these attribute the whole to grace, and leave nothing to merit. There are others who say that grace is offered, even by being held out to the man, that he himself may lay hold of it, without which, once laid hold of, he cannot be raised up, just as if a rope be let down to one who is in a pit, without which he cannot get out of the pit; but if he stretch out his hand to the rope and lay hold, he is drawn out, and something is from the man, although merit cannot exist without grace. But because this opinion divides between merit and grace, [holding] that something good is there from the man, at least that he raises his hand and lays hold of the rope, which because it [0491B] cannot be done without grace, this opinion too, together with the aforesaid, is to be guarded against. But it can be said that the grace of God is offered equally to the good and to the evil, that is, to the predestined and to the reprobate, which yet not every one lays hold of or follows as it draws; rather he, into whom the ray of grace is poured, closes his eyes; and thus repels the ray by which he is touched, whence grace is deservedly withdrawn from him, because he withdraws himself. For it is in grace as in the ray of the sun, which presents itself to the eye, by which the eye, being touched, exercises sight. For the eye is of such a nature that through it sight is exercised, if it be struck by the ray of the sun, without which there is no vision in the eye: yet unless it were of such a nature, even when touched by the ray it would not see, as a wall or a stone does not see, even if it be flooded with the ray of the sun; so the soul [0491C] has naturally the power of meriting, which yet it cannot exercise unless it be flooded with the splendor of grace. But when it is touched, it is moved and merits, whence the whole is from grace, yet in such a way that merit is not excluded, just as if a boy who cannot yet walk be led by someone, and does indeed walk, which yet he could not [do] by himself, nor even with another leading, unless he had the natural power of walking: yet the whole is said to be from the one leading, that he walks; so for this, that the soul may merit, two things are required, both grace and natural power: yet the whole authorship of meriting belongs to grace alone, because natural power posits nothing without grace.

QUESTION CCXXXIX. *For to this same purpose have I raised [0491D] thee, that I may show in thee my power,* etc. It is asked whether God inclines the mind of a man to this, that the man be made worse? Solution. Pharaoh, in that blinding, was not made worse than he was before; but through the signs set forth outwardly, the malice which had before been conceived in the mind was stirred up, and broke forth into deed, just as the envy of the Jews broke forth when the Lord entered Jerusalem with such great glory, and brought to ripeness the crime already conceived. Or for God to stir up is nothing other than to permit [one] to be cast headlong by a just judgment: concerning this question it has been said more carefully in the foregoing.

QUESTION CCXL. *On whom he will he has mercy, and whom he will he hardens.* It is asked whether the will of God, as it is the cause of mercy, is likewise the cause of hardening: which seems [so], [0492A] since the Apostle says: On whom he will, etc. Solution. The will of God is not the cause except of that which is something; hardening does not posit something, but rather removes [it]; yet [the Apostle says this] so that he may show that God can justly give to whom he will, and not give to whom he wills not to give: for God does not act by necessity, but by will alone. But that it is the cause of good is certain, whence the Apostle above: *It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy [n: (ibid.)]*.

QUESTION CCXLI. But it can be asked how willing is not of him that wills, since no one can [will] this without will. Solution. The good will is both man's, but as of one receiving; and God's, but as of one giving and [as] author.

QUESTION CCXLII. *Has not the potter power [0492B] over the clay,* etc. It is asked: to what end this likeness is brought in; does God form *one vessel unto honor, another unto dishonor?* Or does the dishonorable have its being from God? Solution. That one vessel is unto honor is from God; but that it is dishonorable is from the vessel itself. Yet the likeness is good, because just as the potter makes one vessel unto honor, another unto dishonor: so God is said to form one vessel unto honor, another unto dishonor; or, what is better, God is said to form one unto honor and another unto dishonor for this reason: because, God being author, even those things which are vessels of wrath or of dishonor have their being, yet the vessels of dishonor do not have their being from God, but from their own vice.

QUESTION CCXLIII. It is asked what it is to be written in the book [0492C] of life according to foreknowledge. Solution. To be foreknown and foreordained to life, just as to be written according to justice is to be in a state in which, if he departed from this life, he would be saved. There are therefore some written according to foreknowledge and not according to justice, as those who do not yet have virtue, yet are foreordained to life. But some are written according to justice and not according to foreknowledge, as those who have charity, yet are foreseen unto death. But some are written according to foreknowledge and according to justice, as those who have charity and are predestined to life. But some neither according to foreknowledge nor according to justice, as those who were never good nor [0492D] are predestined. But those things which are there written according to justice and not according to foreknowledge are said to be blotted out thence; but those which are written there according to foreknowledge are never blotted out thence.

QUESTION CCXLIV. It is asked whether those who are written in the book of life according to merit, and not according to foreknowledge, are written by disposition. Solution. It can be said that they are written by disposition on account of merit, yet not simply according to disposition; because if this were so, they could not be blotted out thence; with such a qualification it can be said [that they are written] by disposition on account of merit, [in the sense] that God disposed [it] as [he does] every good.

QUESTION CCXLV. It is asked how that is to be understood which is said concerning this authority: *The elder shall serve [0493A] the younger [n: (Gen. XXV)]*, this is [said] concerning foreknowledge. Solution. The sense is: by this Scripture it is shown that God was foreknowing of future things.

QUESTION CCXLVI. *But the justice which is of faith,* etc. It is asked what it is for justice to be of faith. Solution. This is for justice to be through grace, because not only does one come to faith from grace, but also after faith grace is necessary, that faith may be fulfilled by good works, whose fulfillment is called justice.

QUESTION CCXLVII. Likewise it is asked how that is to be understood which is said concerning this authority, *Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated [n: (Malach. I)]*, this is [said] concerning judgment. Solution. By this prophecy it is shown to have been fulfilled, what was in God's foreknowledge. Note, [0493B] that this authority, Jacob I have loved, Esau I have hated, can be expounded concerning the eternal predestination of the one, and the reprobation of the other, or concerning the temporal application of grace, or the withdrawal of the same: whence that gloss, In Jacob he found nothing to be loved except the gift of his mercy, is thus understood, that is, out of grace alone God disposed to confer on Jacob grace in time whereby he would be saved. And that gloss: In Esau nothing to be hated [sic: *odiendium*] except original sin, that is, he foreknew that on account of original sin grace was not to be conferred on Esau, by which he would be saved in time.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CCXLVIII. Someone says: Why on account of original sin was grace not conferred on Esau, since it was conferred on Jacob, although he had original sin? [0493C] Solution. Because the same grace was assuredly offered, but Esau withdrew himself from grace and closed his eye, while in Jacob grace blotted out sin, because he yielded to grace: he followed it as it drew, God working and disposing all things according to the judgment of his most just will.

QUESTION CCXLIX. *That he might show the riches of [his] glory,* etc. It is asked whether the torments of the evil profit the good in the future life? Solution. They say that they profit, because God would never allow evils to be, unless they conferred some benefit on the good of the universe.

QUESTION CCL. It is asked what benefit comes to the good from this, that they see the evil punished. Do they therefore love or praise God the more; or do they take delight in the punishment of the evil? Solution. They take delight not in the punishment of the evil, but in the justice of God; and their own [0493D] grace shines forth the more by comparison with the evil, especially when they see themselves freed from the same punishments by mercy alone. But someone will say: Although the evil were not punished, would not the good know that they are freed from the same punishments as now? Solution. Perhaps not so effectively, and in this very thing they would love less. Likewise, if none were to be damned, would not God requite the good according to their merits? And thus it seems, although all were saved, it would be no less good than now — rather it would be more good; because the good would rejoice more over their salvation then, than they now do over their damnation. Likewise the good in the future either will have compassion on the evil, or will not have compassion; if they have compassion, how [are they] blessed: if they do not have compassion, [they are] cruel. Solution. [0494A] Augustine resolves this question thus: It was more good that there be goods and evils, than only goods, so that God might be praised more wonderfully from that very diversity.

QUESTION CCLI. *Following after the law of justice,* etc. Since the law does not justify, it is asked how it is called the law of justice. Solution. Because it is a certain preparation for justice, therefore it is called the law of justice.

QUESTION CCLII. *They stumbled at the stone of stumbling* — concerning which, because the Lord [says] in the Gospel: *Whoever shall fall upon this stone shall be broken; but upon whomever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder [n: (Matth. XXI)]*, it is asked what it is to fall upon the stone. Solution. To offend God imprudently, just as to be ground by the stone [is] to be eternally punished by Christ: whence Christ is called the rock of scandal and the stone of stumbling, [0494B] because [being] humble, [he was] therefore apt for the proud to stumble against.

QUESTION CCLIII. *I bear witness to them, that they have a zeal, or emulation, of God,* etc. [n: (Rom. X.)] It is asked whether that zeal is good, and what it is, and what its effect? That it is good is clear from this, that the Apostle says this to the commendation of the Jews, and the expositors also say that it is the love of God: but if this were so, they would seem to have something that were worthy of eternal life; but were they not worthy of death, who killed Christ? How then did they have the zeal of God, that is, love? Likewise, if it was good, it had a good effect, but was not its effect that which they did out of that zeal? But this was mortal [0494C] sin, namely the persecution of the martyrs and the killing of Christ: how then did the good produce evil? Solution. That good zeal was an affection toward God, by which they were ready to do what their conscience dictated must be done for God's sake: yet it was not so great as to make them worthy of eternal life, nor ought it to be called charity, nor simply the love of God: yet if it is sometimes called the love of God, this is for the reason that they had it toward God: but its effect was not the persecution of the martyrs, or the death of Christ, but the avoidance of contempt of God. For they were placed in such a strait that whether they killed Christ or not, they would sin mortally: yet not [that], if they did not kill Christ, they would sin in this very thing; but because by not killing [him] they would despise God: for often by one [0494D] sin another is avoided.

QUESTION CCXLIV. Likewise, by killing Christ they were not acting against conscience; rather [they did] that which they believed must be done for God's sake: how then did they sin? Solution. Although they were not acting against conscience, yet they sinned mortally, because they were blinded: for they did what their conscience ought to have dictated to them must not be done.

QUESTION CCLV. *Wishing to establish their own justice,* etc. It is asked how the justice of the law is called the Jews'. Solution. Because in this, that they believed they fulfilled it by their own powers, they made [it] their own justice, but not according to knowledge, that is, they did not exercise that good affection as it [0495A] was to be exercised by the judgment of reason, and in this they erred.

QUESTION CCLVI. *Christ is the end of the law.* It is asked how Christ is the end and consummation of the law, since the justice of the law is without assisting grace, and they had no merit with God. Solution. Christ is not called the end or consummation of the law according to that by which it was kept by the Jews, but because he spiritually fulfills it in himself and in his own.

QUESTION CCLVII. *But the justice which is of faith speaks thus: Say not,* etc. *In thy heart, Who shall ascend into heaven?* etc. It is asked how the Apostle brought in this authority: for it is taken from Deuteronomy, where Moses uses it in another sense: for he forbade the Jews to say, Who has ascended into heaven, [0495B] to bring us the law, or who has crossed the sea to carry the law over, or who has descended into hell to bring it forth to us, because the word is near, in thy heart, that is, to have the law in the present. Solution. It is fittingly brought in, although the Apostle does not here express through it the literal sense of Moses: for it can come to pass that, just as to the Jews that was literally a sin, so in it there is figuratively a precept to us, that we not ask, Who has ascended, etc.; whence the Apostle brings in the words of Moses under such a sense, [and] fittingly also brings in Moses as speaking about it.

QUESTION CCLVIII. But someone will say: If Moses speaks of the justice of faith in the law, it seems that the justice of faith was in the law, and thus the law truly justified. Solution. It does not follow, if in the law there is speech about the justice [0495C] of faith, that it was therefore in the law, nor is it even to be admitted that Moses speaks of the justice of faith, unless "to speak" be taken for "to signify." For by saying this he figures the justice of faith [as] near, that is, not far from the nature of minds; because, as the gloss says, it is agreeable to reason to believe.

QUESTION CCLIX. *The word is near, in thy mouth and in thy heart.* It is asked how this is true. Do we not believe many things which reason did not provide for, whence it is written: *Faith has no merit, for which human reason furnishes proof.* Solution. If anyone consider how all things concerning Christ were foretold beforehand in the law and the prophets, and how, [being] fulfilled, they were approved by signs and prodigies; how true, how holy and pious, and how powerful in deed and word [0495D] he himself was in his own person, what remains, except that he proclaim: *Thy testimonies are become exceedingly credible? [n: (Psal. XCII.)]* And reason is in no way permitted to doubt even a little: or [it is] for this reason called agreeable to reason; because to speak and to believe concerning that which pertains to the salvation of the soul pleases reason itself, rather it desires this above all things.

QUESTION CCLX. *With the heart one believes unto justice.* The gloss says that a man can [do] the rest unwilling; but he cannot believe except willing. But how is this true? Can no one hope and love except willing? How then does it say, a man can [do] the rest even unwilling, since these are other than to believe? Solution. By "the rest" it understands external things. But again it seems [0496A] false that anyone does external things unwilling: for if he in no way willed, how would he do [them]? Solution. "To will" is put for "to approve": for we often do many things which we do not approve.

QUESTION CCLXI. *For everyone, whosoever shall call upon.* It is asked how this is true, since many call upon, and yet are not saved, whence the Lord says: *Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven [n: (Matth. VII)]*. Is not to say this, to call upon the name of the Lord? Solution. To call upon is to call inwardly, that is, unto the honor of God and for God's sake, or to desire knowledge [of him], which is not done without faith, hope, and charity.

QUESTION CCLXII. *They cannot believe, because Isaiah had foretold,* etc. It is asked concerning this prophecy, whether [0496B] the prophet willed that what he said be fulfilled? For if he willed [it], he seems to have willed that the blinding of the Jews come to pass: for in the blinding of the Jews the prophecy was fulfilled. Solution. It is not to be conceded that he willed the Jews to be blinded, although he willed his prophecy to be fulfilled, just as Christ willed to be true what he said to Peter: *Before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice [n: (Matth. XXVI)]*: yet he did not will Peter to deny [him]: for many things are so joined that one cannot come to pass without the other, yet we can will one without the other.

QUESTION CCLXIII. *Lord, who has believed our report,* etc. It is read in the Gospel concerning the Jews, who *believed not, that the word of Isaiah might be fulfilled [n: (Joan. XII)]*: whence they object thus: What fault of the Jews [is it], that they [0496C] believed not, since it was necessary that the prophecy be fulfilled, and thus it was necessary that they not believe? Solution. God foretold through the prophet the sins of the Jews, but did not do [them]: for the foreknowledge of them does not impose necessity on them, according to that [saying]: so that when it is said, they believed not, that the word, etc., it only notes that that prophecy was fulfilled in the blindness of the Jews, and that it was foretold before [it was] fulfilled.

QUESTION CCLXIV. It is asked how the Jews sinned by not believing in Christ, since it is written: *Therefore they could believe* not because *Isaiah said: God has blinded their eyes, and hardened [their] heart [n: (ibid.)]*, or if they sinned by not believing in Christ, therefore they could believe, and did not believe: and if this is so, [0496D] how is this true: Therefore they could not believe because God blinded [them], etc. How [is it] at once true [that] they could believe and could not believe? Likewise he seems to place the cause of their unbelief with God, saying: Therefore they could not, because Isaiah said: God blinded [their] eyes, etc. Solution. It is true that they could not believe, as the Gospel says, and yet by not believing they sinned; because they came to that impossibility from the vice of their own will, and therefore such impossibility has no excuse. Both therefore are true, that they could not believe and that they could believe, but not in the same respect: they could [believe] by nature, and could not by fault: for they were so made, that they had the possibility not only of believing, but even of seeing God [0497A] face to face: and therefore it is said that they could believe by nature; but because through fault they were made such, that it was just with God not to have mercy on them, therefore it is said that by fault they could not believe. A like expression is had concerning the good angels: [namely] that they are mutable by nature, immutable by grace; but this which is said, God blinded [them], etc., is to be understood thus, that is, he permitted [them] to be blinded, not by imparting malice by which they would be made worse, but by not conferring grace by which they would be made better.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

It is to be noted [regarding] that which is said, They could not believe, because they were unwilling: this exposition seems to be too general; for the same can be said of all who are in sins unto death, whence according to this exposition nothing special is said of the blinded. [0497B] Solution. It can be said that the blinded merit that they be unwilling to believe, and that God not have mercy on them: which not all who sin mortally do. Likewise that which is added: *While [they are] proud,* etc., seems to be said too generally and simply: for this too can be said generally of all. Solution. Because "while" too is to be taken causally: for through pride and the other vices they merit that it be unjust for God to have mercy on them.

QUESTION CCLXV. It is asked how this prophecy is brought in: was he not speaking to those who were of the present state, and yet the prophecy was not yet fulfilled, and if this is so, how by this authority did he reprove those who then were, concerning that which was still future, how did it pertain to those then present? [0497C] For this seems to be the force of the proof, that all who were in the world heard the word of Christ, and therefore are to be reproved, as hearing and not believing. Likewise, if the prophecy was not yet fulfilled, how can he use a verb of past time in the sense of present time? for if it be taken in the sense of future time, the Apostle's proof seems to be ridiculous. Solution. He was speaking to those present, but not on account of those present only; rather he brought in this prophecy also on account of all of the future state, and he well reproves those present of that time, because although in their time the prophecy was not fulfilled, yet there was begun in them what the prophecy had foretold would be future. Note that certain Scriptures seem to mean that Israel [0497D] did not know [him]; others seem to mean that it knew Christ, which seem to be contrary: but they are not, because they are understood of different [persons]. For in that people there were some knowing, others not knowing.

QUESTION CCLXVI. *But if of grace, then not now of works,* etc. [n: (Rom XI)]. It is asked, if the whole is of grace, what [is] of merits, or if [there is] something of merits, how [is] the whole of grace? Solution. The whole is of grace, although something is of merits, because the merits themselves are of grace. Yet it seems that justice is from preceding merits, as in Cornelius, whose prayer obtained this, that he be converted by the preaching of Peter, [and] that he receive faith: which faith is of grace, wherefore grace was obtained from works. Solution. It is not to be said [0498A] that grace or justice is from works; because this would be, that someone be justified from works without grace: which cannot be. But that Cornelius prayed, that he might receive faith, this was from preceding grace: for which also a greater grace, namely justifying grace, was conferred. For he was not without all grace, when he believed in one God and, as the doctors say, had the faith of the incarnation, but did not yet know the Word of God [to be] incarnate, which afterward he learned by the preaching of Peter. Note that compunction is of one kind, of envy, by which one is pricked and grieves, and pines away at another's goods; of another kind, of fault, by which one is tormented in his own conscience, as Judas, who hanged himself with a noose for his crime. Of another kind is the compunction of grace, which is either of beginners, who repent of evils, [0498B] that they may abstain, or of the perfect, who fear God out of love.

QUESTION CCLXVII. This which it sought, Israel did not obtain. It is asked how this is true: did it not seek external justice, but obtained that: therefore what it sought, this it obtained. Solution. This is said for the reason that they lacked the end for which they were acting: for they wished to be reputed just with God, which did not befall them.

QUESTION CCLXVIII. *That they hear not, unto this present day.* That the Jews of this time are blinded, this we plainly hold, and the saints in many places say the same, establishing the persecution of Christ as the cause of the blinding, and still more that they killed James the Just. But it does not seem agreeable to reason, [0498C] that the present Jews should be punished for this, since the crimes which their fathers committed displease many [of them]. Solution. Not undeservedly are the modern Jews too blinded, because if the power were given them, what their fathers did to Christ, the same they would do also to the members of Christ, even if it could be done to the Head himself.

QUESTION CCLXIX. *I will honor my ministry,* etc. It is asked what it is to honor one's office. Solution. He honors his ministry who expends something beyond what he owes from his office, as Paul, who from his office ought only to preach to the Gentiles, did more, by preaching also to the Jews. But since Paul believed that some of the Jews could be converted to the faith by his preaching, and knew that this must be done [0498D] for God's sake, if he did not do [it], he would sin: wherefore he ought to do this — how then does he say that he honors his office, since he owed also that which is superadded? Solution. The debt of office is one thing, that of occasion another: beyond the debt of office Paul preached to the Jews, and thus honored his ministry; yet he owed to preach to them as regards the debt of occasion, since he knew it must be done for God's sake.

QUESTION CCLXX. *For if the loss of them be the reconciliation of the world,* etc. It is asked how the unbelief of the Jews and [their] blinding was the cause of the salvation of the Gentiles, would the Gentiles not be saved, unless the Jews were blinded? Could not God save the Gentiles otherwise? Solution. Their unbelief was not the efficient cause why the Gentiles should be saved, yet from the fact that [0499A] those blinded ones repelled the word of preaching, the Apostles took occasion of preaching to the Gentiles; and thus the salvation of the Gentiles followed, God fulfilling his disposition through evils, from which he draws out a good effect.

QUESTION CCLXXI. *If the firstfruit be holy, so is the lump; and if the root be holy, so are the branches,* etc. It is asked concerning this consequence, whether it is true? Cannot the antecedent be true without the consequent, how then is the consequence true? Solution. The consequent of each hypothetical, although it be uttered simply, is nevertheless not to be understood simply, but with such a qualification, "naturally": for although the branches be broken, yet they are naturally good: and those few who were converted to the faith, if they were so constant, it is plain that those who will be converted at the end will be constant.

[0499B]QUESTION CCLXXII. But since the nation of the Jews is often called in the Scriptures most hard, how is it here called naturally holy, as though having a fitness for holiness? Solution. The Apostle treats of the holiness by which is understood the inconstancy of faith; not of the fitness which they would have for holiness.

QUESTION CCLXXIII. It can be asked what the firstfruit is? It is answered. The taste of a small part of some thing, for the testing of the whole lump. But the lump is the multitude of those to be converted after the death of Antichrist. The Jews are called natural branches; because [they were] born of the patriarchs, in whom was the origin of faith, and of whom Christ was born according to the flesh. Note that "nature" is called the accustomed course of nature, against which God often works. Sometimes also the divine [0499C] disposition is called "nature," against which God does nothing; but does all things according to it.

QUESTION CCLXXIV. *For without repentance, that is, without change, are the gift and calling of God.* God sometimes changes his sentence, but not his counsel. What is it to change a sentence? To do something which he did not seem about to do; or not to do something which he seemed about to do.

QUESTION CCLXXV. The expositor says that the evil, while they act against the will of God, [in that very act] the will of God is fulfilled by them: but if the will of God is fulfilled by them, do they not themselves fulfill the will of God? and if this is so, how do they act against the will of God? Solution. "Will" is said in two ways: the precept [0499D] of God, and his disposition. While therefore they act against the precept of God, they do what God disposed to be done: for often good things are done through the evil; but always from the evils which the evil do, God draws out some good.

QUESTION CCLXXVI. *He who hears the Father comes to the Son.* For no one comes to the Son, unless the Father draw him [n: (Joan. VI)]. It is asked, then, what it is for the Father to draw to the Son? Solution. From the disposition which is from the Father, to come to the knowledge of the Son, that one may be saved by him: the Father draws to the Son, when the Father reveals the Son to be equal to himself.

QUESTION CCLXXVII. *God has shut up all things under sin, that he may have mercy on all.* It is asked how this is to be understood: is not to shut up under sin an evil? how does God do this, or how [0500A] is this the cause of good? Solution. God shut up all things in sin, that is, permitted [them] to be shut up, and this is the occasion of good, not the efficient cause.

QUESTION CCLXXVIII. It is asked whether God worked our salvation in this way rather than in another, namely by shutting up all things under sin? Solution. It so pleased God, that seeing themselves unable to be justified, they might be humbled, and seek grace, and thus ascribe the whole to God. *O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God,* etc. Here a threefold kind of causes is wont to be distinguished. Some are formal, some judicial, some final; some according to which, others through which, others on account of which things come to pass. Through judgments, judicial causes; through counsels, final causes; through which [they are] formal, or through wisdom and knowledge, formal.

[0500B]QUESTION CCLXXIX. Concerning the foregoing exclamation it is wont to be asked. For the Apostle seems to exclaim less advisedly concerning the blinding of the Jews and the entry of the Gentiles, saying: O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! since he himself knew how to render a cause for this, whence he says: *I would not have you ignorant of the mystery [n: (ibid.)]*, etc., and afterward adds: *God has shut up all things under sin, that he may have mercy on all [n: (ibid.)]*. But if he exclaims for this reason, that under this [matter] human understanding does not suffice to render a reason perfectly, by like reasoning would he have had to exclaim concerning many other things? Solution. He exclaims concerning that rather than concerning another, because there one more quickly errs in rendering reasons, and sins unto death.

QUESTION CCLXXX. *For from him, and through him, [0500C] and in him are all things.* It is asked whether sins, insofar as they are, are from God: for if all things [are], then sins [are], or sins are not of the number of all things. Solution. Some say that sins, insofar as they are, have their being from God. But Augustine, in *On the Nature of the Good*, says that only those things which are naturally ought to be understood, when it is said that all things are from God, not sins, which corrupt nature; therefore sins are not from God in any way.

QUESTION CCLXXXI. It is asked whether all things which have their being from God ought to be said to be of God. Solution. Only those things which have their being of the substance of God ought to be said [to be] of God, as the Son and the Holy Spirit are from God the Father in such a way that [they are] of him, because they are of his essence, [0500D] consubstantial with him. But creatures are from God, not of the substance of God, but out of nothing. Note that by the threefold preposition, namely from, through, in, the trinity of persons is here intimated; by the same pronoun the identity of nature is signified, which is whole in each person: for saying, from whom, he understands the Father; through whom, the Son; in whom, the Holy Spirit.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CCLXXXII. But it is asked how, by this that he says, from whom are all things, he understands the Father, since just as all things are from the Father, so also from the Son and the Holy Spirit? Solution. On account of the authority of the [sic: *principit*], because all things so have their being from the Father that he himself does not have it from another; but the Son and the Holy Spirit, although they are one principle of all creatures, yet have a principle, or author, namely the Father himself, [0501A] from whom they have being: and this very thing, that they are the principle of all, they have from the Father, as all else that they possess. The expositor says that in the Trinity there is the highest origin of all, the most perfect beauty, the most blessed delight, referring origin to the Father, beauty to the Son, delight to the Holy Spirit: and thus these three — origin, beauty, and delight — are determinate, because they are referred, each determinately to each person, as has already been said. But because again the whole Trinity is the highest origin of all things, the most perfect beauty, the most blessed delight, these same three are called infinite. And this is, as I judge, what is said: that the aforesaid three are both determinate in relation to one another, and infinite in themselves.

[0501B]QUESTION CCLXXXIII. Likewise it is said: in the Father unity, in the Son equality, in the Holy Spirit the concord of unity and equality: but since the same unity, and equality, and concord belongs to the three, it is asked why unity is said to be in the Father, and equality in the Son, and concord in the Holy Spirit? Solution. Saving the reverence due to hidden things, we say that unity is said to be in the Father for this reason, that as unity is the principle of numbers, but itself has no being from any other number, so also the Father, since he is the cause of all, has no cause. But equality is said to be in the Son, because in him is the first distinction, and discretion, and the first plurality, and the second personal unity, which, that it may be shown undifferentiated and unequal in nothing from the Father himself, is not unfittingly marked by the name [0501C] of equality, wherein it is declared that the Son so has his being from the Father alone that he is neither the Father, nor diverse from him in nature, but in all things equal and consubstantial with him. But the Holy Spirit is for this reason called the concord of unity and equality, that it may be intimated that the Holy Spirit is so from both that he is equal to both — this I say saving the catholic faith, whose hidden meaning I would rather hear from another than say anything about these matters out of my own slenderness.

QUESTION CCLXXXIV. Likewise it is read: All things are one on account of the Father, all things equal on account of the Son, all things connected on account of the Holy Spirit. It is asked, then, how these words are to be understood? Are not the three persons one by the same unity, or [0501D] equal by equality, or concordant by concord? Solution. All things are one on account of the Father, that is, the three persons are one, having the same natural unity, which is wont to be referred to the Father, though it is common to the three persons: in like manner it is to be understood of equality and concord: for the three persons are equal on account of the ineffable and natural equality which they have, being thus connected. In creatures a vestige of the Trinity shines forth, because they show that they hold in themselves unity, and species, and order, since each single thing is both some one thing, and is formed by some species, and holds some order, whence it is said: *He made all things in number, and weight, and measure [n: (Sap. XI)]*. For number pertains to unity, weight to order, measure to species. For of anything whatever [0502A] it is true that, from the moment it begins to be, it at once falls under number, because it is either one or many. Weight is said to pertain to order for this reason, that single things hold their order according to the nature of weight. For there are two kinds of weights: one which tends downward, as the nature of lead; the other which tends upward, as oil. Likewise order is considered according to place and time: whence also the angels, according to their greater or lesser affections and delights [dilectiones.], obtain their orders; but the species of things, which is a certain mode of them, and measure.

QUESTION CCLXXXV. It is likewise asked whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from himself, or is sent as from the Father and the Son. Solution. The procession, or mission, of the Holy Spirit is twofold, [0502B] eternal and temporal: according to the eternal procession he proceeds only from the Father and the Son, not from himself; temporally he proceeds also from himself, because his temporal procession is the operation of the Trinity. In the same way it is to be understood of the temporal procession or mission of the Son. For just as he sanctified himself for us and did not deliver himself up, so also he sent himself, that is, his own mission or incarnation (which is the same) he wrought. But the eternal procession of the Son from the Father ought to be called, not mission, but generation.

QUESTION CCLXXXVI. It is asked further how the Holy Spirit is the love by which the Father loves the Son, and the Son the Father. Is it not the same for the Father to love, and to be, and by that whereby he has being, also to love? If [0502C] then the Father loves by the Holy Spirit, how does he not have being from the Holy Spirit? Solution. It is not said that the Father loves by the Holy Spirit, but that the Holy Spirit is the love by which the Father loves the Son; because the Holy Spirit is the divine nature, and the Father loves by the divine nature; but if by this term, the love by which the Father loves the Son, a personal property is signified, it is not true that the Holy Spirit is the love by which the Father loves, just as the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

QUESTION CCLXXXVII. Hilary says: As it is impious to preach two gods, the Father and the Son, so to preach a singular God is sacrilegious. Likewise the expositor says, speaking of the Trinity, that it is singularly [0502D] one according to substance, which seems to be contrary. Solution. Singularity sometimes excludes a plurality of persons, and according to this it is sacrilegious to preach the Father and the Son a singular God. Sometimes singularity is put for unity, and thus it is taken when it is said to be singularly one according to substance.

QUESTION CCLXXXVIII. *Not to be more wise than it behooves to be wise,* etc. [n: (Rom. XII.)] It is asked who is wise more than he ought. For no one in this life has so great a knowledge that he could not have a greater, and that he ought not even to desire more: how then does the Apostle command not to be more wise than it behooves to be wise, as though anyone could, by investigating concerning God, comprehend more than is necessary? Solution. The Apostle does not forbid the investigation [0503A] of truth, but lest anyone through excessive investigation fall into doubt of those things which ought to be firmly and undoubtingly believed. Or lest anyone ascribe to himself, by proud presumption, that which he knows, which is to be proud of one's knowledge: for this is not to be wise, but to be foolish.

QUESTION CCLXXXIX. *He who shows mercy, in cheerfulness,* etc. It is asked, then, whether God punishes anyone without mercy, that is, whether he punishes those whom he punishes as much as they deserved to be punished. Which seems so, because *judgment without mercy to him who has not done mercy [n: (Jac. II)]*. But again it is written: *All the ways of the Lord are mercy and truth [n: (Psal. XLII)]*. Whence it seems that he does not even punish the wicked without mercy, according to that: *Neither did he kindle all his wrath* [0503B] [n: (Psal. LXXVII)], that is, he did not punish them as much as they deserved; because he might justly have punished more if he willed. Solution. God punishes no one without mercy, because he punishes none as much as he deserved, and yet judgment without mercy to him who does not show mercy, because he is not further corrected to this end, that he attain eternal life. And so it is true that, just as to the good God will confer of grace more good in the future than they merited, so to the wicked less evil than they merited, and in both God is just and merciful.

QUESTION CCXC. It is asked why rather, judgment without mercy, etc., he says this of this than of another, since it could be said of any criminal whatever. Solution. Understand it to be said of this one for this reason, that there are many fallen into this error: that they believe it enough for them, in order to [0503C] attain eternal life, to harm none, and to turn away from evil, although they do not bestow their goods on the poor, or show forth works of mercy: which error the Apostle here openly represses.

QUESTION CCXCI. *Rejoice with them that rejoice,* etc. It is asked whether one should rejoice over temporal prosperity, as over the abundance of someone's riches. Solution. Since they are given to the good and to the wicked, and more often to the wicked than to the good, it does not seem that one should rejoice if they are given to anyone; nor grieve, if they are taken away: but God is always to be praised in his gifts.

QUESTION CCXCII. *Weep with them that weep,* etc. It is asked concerning the weeping which the Apostle commanded, whether it is reasonable, since over the adversities which befall the good or the wicked [0503D] one should rather rejoice than grieve? For adversities are either for a greater crown to the good, or for the correction of the wicked. It is read also that they wept imprudently over the death of the martyrs, when they should rather have rejoiced than wept, if the reason of grief admitted it. Solution. One weeping is of piety, another of compassion: that which is of piety is, as it were, of nature, and according to some does not merit; but that which is of compassion, merits. For we ought to have compassion on the infirmities of the brethren, that we may gain those whose salvation we ought to desire, and give our labor that they be saved.

QUESTION CCXCIII. *Rendering to no one evil for evil, and love your enemies.* It is asked how the saints do not render evil for evil, since it is written: [0504A] *The saints cry out: Avenge, O Lord, our blood [n: (Apoc. VI)]*. And that: *The just shall rejoice when he shall see the vengeance [n: (Psal. XXXVII)]*; therefore since equally the good and the wicked wish to be avenged by the Lord, wherein are they distinguished? Solution. The good do not rejoice over the punishment as the wicked do, but over the judgment of God.

QUESTION CCXCIV. It is asked whether Christ observes what the Apostle above commanded to all, that he render evil for evil to none. They wish to prove thus, that Christ does not observe it. The wicked man deserved that evil be rendered to him for evil: unless therefore God render him evil, he will not render him what he deserves. Likewise God renders him something for evil, therefore either good or evil; if not evil, therefore good, and thus the wicked deserved good. Likewise, does not God render punishment for fault, and [0504B] thus evil for evil? Solution. Neither a good judge nor God renders evil for evil; because this would be to exercise vengeance with an evil intention: whence it must be diligently guarded against, lest this be inferred in all the aforesaid matters.

QUESTION CCXCV. It is asked whether, from what has been said, the justice by which someone is hanged for theft, and the like, is of the Gospel. Which seems so, since the Church hands him over to the prince, and all justice of the Church ought to be that which is there taught. *Behold, here are two swords [n: (Luc. XXII)]*. But if it is of the Church, as it seems, how can it be denied that the justice of the Gospel is heavier than the justice of the law, since by the law it was commanded, *a tooth for a tooth, an eye for an eye [n: (Matth. V)]*; but here the head of a man is given for a she-goat [0504C]? Solution. This is in no way the justice of the Gospel, that a man be slain for a horse or an ox, nor is this precept found in the whole Gospel, nor does the Church do it, but only permits it.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CCXCVI. *Providing good things not only in the sight of God, but also in the sight of men,* etc. It is asked what it is to provide good things in the sight of God. Solution. In the secret of the heart, that is, to do those things which conscience dictates ought to be done for God.

QUESTION CCXCVII. But since God requires of us that we provide good things also in the sight of men, how does he divide between this and that? Solution. The sense is: The Apostle commands that we do good things also so circumspectly that the weak be not scandalized, but [0504D] receive a good example of profiting; and in this very thing he represses the proud presumption of certain men, who care nothing about the scandals of the weak, considering only what is lawful, not what is expedient.

QUESTION CCXCVIII. *If thy enemy be hungry, feed him,* etc. In the law it is written: *Thou shalt love thy friend, and shalt hold thy enemy in hatred [n: (ibid.)]*. Which seems to be contrary to that precept: *Love your enemies [n: (ibid.)]*, and to this: If thy enemy be hungry, feed him. Solution. It is not a precept in the law to hold enemies in hatred, but a permission; and it is, according to some, a counsel, not a precept, to love enemies in the Gospel, and thus there is no contrariety. Understanding which, David says: *If I have rendered evil to them that repaid me evils, let me deservedly fall away empty before my enemies [0505A] [n: (Psal. VII)]*.

QUESTION CCXCIX. *There is no power but from God,* etc. [n: (Rom. XIII.)] Concerning the power of the good it is agreed that it is from God; concerning the power of the wicked it is asked whether it is from God. If it is from God, it is good, because God is the author only of good things; but how is the power of the wicked good, since through it evils are done, which power also is often called in Scripture iniquitous and unjust? On the contrary, that the power of the wicked is from God, Scripture testifies: how then is it evil? Solution. The power of the wicked is good, and from God; but nevertheless it is called evil because of the malice of those who abuse it, just as the law indeed is good, but nevertheless an occasion of evil, and the light of the sun, and many like things.

QUESTION CCC. It is asked what he calls power. [0505B] Solution. Some say that it is the ordinance of God, from which some indeed have to be set over others. Others say that it is the very persons constituted in eminence, as kings and princes, who must be obeyed in all things that pertain to their power. But if they enjoin anything which is against God, they are not to be heard.

QUESTION CCCI. It is asked whether the power of sinning is from God. Which is proved thus: The power of Pilate, by which he could crucify the Savior, was from God, as is had in the Gospel [n: (Joan. XIX)]: therefore the power of sinning is from God. Likewise, on the contrary, God, from the fact that he is omnipotent, cannot sin: therefore to be able to sin is not to be able, nor is the power of sinning a power, but an impotence. Solution. The power of sinning is called [0505C] a certain force of doing something which cannot be done without sin, or a certain dignity from which someone can lawfully do that which is not done without sin: as the power of Pilate was indeed good, namely from God, from which he had the power to crucify Christ, just as from royal power someone can exercise tyranny, and under the appearance of ordained power rage against his subjects: yet to crucify Christ, or to exercise tyranny, is not a power, but rather an impotence, which is often called the power of sinning, which is present from a defect, or limit, of good: which also, if it was in the first man before sin.

QUESTION CCCII. *He that loveth his neighbor hath fulfilled the law,* etc. It is asked whether love of neighbor and love [0505D] of God are the same. If they are not the same, how is love of neighbor the fullness of the law? how is the whole law restored in love of neighbor? how are the three precepts of the first table, pertaining to God, fulfilled by love of neighbor? Likewise, if this and that are the same, why was one precept given separately concerning love of God, and another concerning love of neighbor? Solution. Love is the name of a virtue, and thus it can be said that the love by which we love God and neighbor is the same; and it is the name of a motion of the mind, and thus love of God is one thing, love of neighbor another, and love of God is greater, and love of neighbor less, since love of God is contained in love of neighbor: for he who loves God, it follows that he loves his neighbor, and conversely; and therefore the one is put for both [0506A] commandments. For love of neighbor is a motion of the mind toward the neighbor for God's sake: how then can there be love of neighbor without love of God? For love of neighbor is a certain matter in which love of God is exercised, which lies more hidden, whose effect appears in love of neighbor. Love of God is a motion of the mind toward God for his own sake.

QUESTION CCCIII. But since love of God is worthier than love of neighbor, why did the Apostle rather mention love of neighbor than love of God, saying that it is the fulfilling of the law? Solution. Because love of neighbor appears more in daily life and conduct.

QUESTION CCCIV. It is asked whether love of neighbor can be without love of God. Which seems so, because [0506B] someone can love his neighbor not for God's sake, but for something else. Solution. It is not to be conceded that anyone loves his neighbor, unless he love him for God's sake: for otherwise to love is not to love, but rather to hate; because *he that loveth iniquity hateth his own soul [n: (Psal. X)]*; and thus neither does he love another, who hates himself.

QUESTION CCCV. It is likewise asked whether we ought to love one another for the sake of eternal life: which if it be granted, it seems that we do it for our own advantage, and thus we are hirelings. For Ambrose says: he who serves in hope and desire of the heavenly fatherland is a hireling. Solution. The neighbor is to be loved for the sake of eternal life, nor is anything on that account preferred to God, because he himself is eternal life: and in him there is not [0506C] anything outside him besides himself, and therefore it is not fitting to extend the aforesaid words of Ambrose from their place; because they seem to sound against the usage of the Church: yet it seems to intimate this, that if anyone, thinking eternal life to be something apart, besides God, should do good, attending only to his own advantage, not because God willed this to be done, he would have to be called a hireling.

QUESTION CCCVI. It is asked whether all are to be loved equally. Solution. Some say that according to affection all are to be loved equally, but not according to effect, nay rather some more, some less, according to that which is written: *He set in order charity in me [n: (Cant. II)]*. To others it seems that even according to [0506D] affection some are to be preferred to others, as the better to the less good, and parents to strangers. And so charity is ordered according to affection and effect: which can be done in many ways; sometimes the affection ought to be unequal, sometimes the affection equal, and the effect unequal, and conversely.

QUESTION CCCVII. It is asked where the precept, or doctrine, is given, how a man ought to love himself. Solution. When a man is taught how God is to be loved, in this very thing he is taught how a man ought to love himself. For what is it to love oneself, but to love one's own good? but what is the good of man, but God? He therefore who loves God, in this very thing loves himself; and in as much as he loves God, in so much does he love himself.

[0507A]QUESTION CCCVIII. It is asked whether a man ought to love his neighbor as much as himself. Because it is written: *Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself [n: (Matth. XXII)]*. Solution. "As" notes a likeness, not a quantity, according to some, when it is said: Love thy neighbor as thyself, that is, unto that unto which thou lovest thyself, that is, unto this, that he may have God, and as much as thou canst, give thy labor that he may do those things whereby he may be saved. But what has already been said above concerning charity need not be repeated. For not all things can, or ought to, be said everywhere.

QUESTION CCCIX. *Now him that is weak in faith,* etc. It is asked how he takes "weak." Solution. He here understands "weak" not according to constancy, but according to the knowledge of faith.

[0507B]QUESTION CCCX. *He that is weak, let him eat herbs. And let every one abound in his own sense.* It is asked how the Apostle persuades that the man who distinguishes foods ought to be left to himself, since it is evil to distinguish foods, and to think this one clean and this one unclean, when he ought rather to be drawn back from such an error, for this seems to concede it to him, since this is to foster him in error. Solution. He permits the lesser evil to be done, that the greater evil may be avoided: for it would be a greater evil to eat against conscience than to abstain from certain foods, when one thinks he must abstain from them: for whoever acts against conscience, sins.

QUESTION CCCXI. It is asked whether he who thus distinguishes foods sins. Does he not live according to the doctrine of the Apostle? if this too is so, how does he sin? Solution. [0507C] The Apostle does not here teach that it is to be done as though it were good, but he shows that it is a lesser evil: for it is a lesser evil to err out of good zeal than manifestly to sin against conscience: wherefore, lest he incur a greater sin, he is rather to be borne with than provoked. But there are certain things which even in the New Testament are forbidden, as that no one eat the blood of animals, or use things strangled. From certain things also we abstain, because it is not necessary to use them, as from horse-flesh, not because it would be as good to eat as beef; but because there is no need. From certain things we abstain, because they are harmful, as the serpent, the toad, and the like: which indeed are venomous, and therefore deadly to those eating them.

[0507D]QUESTION CCCXII. It is asked how they distinguished foods. Did they establish some uncleanness in these more than in those, on account of which they refused to eat them? If this is so, they were casting the fault back upon God through the medium of the creature, and thus sinning unto death. But if they sinned unto death, how does the Apostle bid them be tolerated in their death? Solution. They erred and sinned, but venially, not unto death; for they abstained from certain foods, not because they believed some uncleanness to be in them, but because, being placed under the law, they had been accustomed to abstain from them, and it was grievous for them to lay aside the custom.

QUESTION CCCXIII. It is asked to whom what the Apostle here says pertains. Solution. What he says seems to pertain to prelates, *Now him that is weak receive [take up* ]* [0508A] [n: (Rom. XIV.)] Likewise he seems to say certain things in this chapter which seem to pertain to the weak, as that: *He that eateth not, let him not despise him that eateth; and he that eateth, let him not judge him that eateth [n: (ibid.)]*: for by these words he seems to instruct the weak.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CCCXIV. *To his own Lord he standeth or falleth.* The Apostle seems, when he says this, to take away from us all judgment concerning the good: for, since a man is good from intention and charity alone, which do not lie under human judgment, how can we judge anyone to be good? Solution. The Church judges only of manifest things, and not of hidden things: for it does not judge that charity is in someone, because then it would judge that to be which it did not know to be, but that the signs of charity, which are in him, show charity to be in him. Likewise, [0508B] when it judges or condemns anyone, it does not judge that he is guilty of the crime of which he is accused, but that the signs concur in his accusation, on account of which it gives a just sentence against him. If it be objected that the witnesses are false by whom he is convicted, and the accusation false, because he is not held guilty of the crime imputed to him, we say that the accusation is true and the witnesses true, even if he is not guilty of that crime; because the accusation is called true, that is, irreproachable, when it is made in judicial order. Likewise we say that the Church condemns the guilty, although the crime be not in him of which he is accused, because we take him as guilty there when convicted in judicial order.

QUESTION CCCXV. Doubtful things are to be turned to the better part, as the expositor says. It is asked, then, how [0508C] we ought to turn ambiguous things to the better part: for since I am equally in doubt about a good thing, whether it be good, as about an evil thing, whether it be evil, I seem to act no less indiscreetly in judging it to be good than in judging it to be evil; but since neither is defined and certain to me, I ought to define neither: how then ought we to understand what is said, to turn ambiguous things to the better part? Solution. To believe, to judge, or to turn, is here taken for to wish: for this the Apostle counsels, that when we see ambiguous things being done, we wish them to be done with good intention, and not with evil: for with what intention they are done, since this cannot be known by us, we ought not to judge what we cannot know.

[0508D]QUESTION CCCXVI. Likewise the expositor says: He who thinks evil to be evil is deceived; but he who thinks evil to be good is not deceived: is not evil's being evil true? and evil's being good false? How then is he who thinks that which is true deceived, and he who thinks that which is false not deceived? Solution. Without prejudice to a better opinion, we say that this is to be so understood: He who thinks evil to be evil is deceived, is slowed in his course, because he despises and spurns it, or at least loves it less. But he who thinks evil to be good is not deceived, that is, in the way of conduct he is not offended, nor slowed, because in that he believes it to be good, he loves it the more, and thus in a certain manner profits by erring. It is to be noted that there are certain things manifestly good, certain things manifestly evil, [0509A] concerning which it is lawful to judge, even if we do not know with what mind they are done. But there are also middle things, which can be good and evil, concerning which to judge is perilous, and forbidden by the Lord: and these we ought to turn to the better part, as the blessed Jerome says: If you see a priest raising his hand over a woman, say that he does this to bless her. Which authority is to be understood according to the exposition above. Of manifest goods, however, we can rarely judge, since a just man can do almost nothing which a wicked man does not also do, as miracles, signs, and the like. He fasts, prays, and the rest of such things, which are signs of good. *Let every one abound in his own sense [n: (ibid.)]*, that is, let him be permitted in his own conscience, if it is not unto death, lest, called back from it, he sin more grievously.

[0509B]QUESTION CCCXVII. *We shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ,* etc. It is asked how the Apostle says: We shall all stand, since elsewhere it is read written: *You shall sit upon twelve seats, judging the twelve tribes of Israel [n: (Matth. XIX)]*. If the saints will sit in the hour of judgment, how will they stand? or if they will stand, how will they sit? Solution. They are said to stand out of reverence for the supreme judge, they are said to sit as being themselves also about to judge.

QUESTION CCCXVIII. *Nothing is common but to him who esteemeth any thing to be common.* The Apostle seems to intimate that the amount of guilt is to be assigned according to the amount and quality of conscience, so that if anyone believe a venial sin to be mortal, committing it against conscience, he sins unto death: even [0509C] in lifting a straw from the ground, if he lift it while conscience dictates this to be a sin unto death. And thus from this it seems it can be held that every sin which is against conscience is unto death. For whoever acts against his conscience, even in committing a venial sin, seems to despise God; because he prefers himself to God. Solution. In a venial sin which is against conscience, some sin unto death, others venially: for if anyone commit a venial sin against conscience thus: that he believe himself to be eternally punished if he commit it, he sins unto death, and despises God. But if from some infirmity, his conscience dictating to him that he is not to be damned for it, although he go forth with it, he sins venially; nor does he [0509D] prefer himself to God, nor despise God. If anyone object that he sins against conscience, and thus the committed sin is pleasing, and thus he sins unto death; because he sins unto death, authority attesting: *Every one to whom sin is pleasing,* etc. Solution. "To please" is taken for "to bring into use": and whoever brings any venial sin into use is guilty of death, as Augustine says.

QUESTION CCCXIX. *It is good for a man not to eat flesh, and not to drink wine,* etc. Jerome against Jovinian uses this argument: It is good not to drink wine, therefore it is evil to drink; and if it is evil to drink wine, everyone sins who drinks wine, and the sentence of the Apostle seems false: *I know, and am confident in the Lord Jesus, that nothing is common through him [n: (Rom. XIV)]*. Solution. To drink wine according to [0510A] Jerome is called evil by occasion, because from the drinking of wine luxury easily is born: and the sense of the argumentation is: if by abstinence from wine evil is avoided, from the drinking of wine an occasion of evil is easily taken. The Apostle says therefore: It is good for a man not to eat, etc., that is, it is good, by abstinence from flesh, or wine, or any other food, to avoid that the neighbor be offended. Likewise the Apostle could have said the same of beans, and peas, and the like.

QUESTION CCCXX. *All that is not of faith is sin.* It is asked how faith is here taken, whether for the judgment of conscience, or for the catholic faith. Therefore the questions are to be considered according to each opinion. All then that is done against faith, that is, the judgment of conscience, is sin. [0510B] The judgment of conscience is that whereby we believe something is to be done for God's sake, against which it is not to be done, as if anyone believe even that a man is to be killed if he can: and if he do it not, he sins even unto death, as some say. But to others it seems not to be unto death, unless he himself, who believes this is to be done for God's sake, thinks that he sins mortally, and does it not.

QUESTION CCCXXI. It is asked, therefore, since this man with this intention kills a just man, since he ought to do this, whether in doing this he merits? For whoever does for God's sake what he thinks is to be done for God's sake, merits, but this man does for God's sake what he believes is to be done for God's sake: therefore from this he merits. But that he ought to do this is established from this; that if he leave it undone, he sins mortally. [0510C] Solution. Some plausibly say that here he has put himself in a strait, and so whether he go forward or draw back, he falls: as if someone see fire before him, and feel a precipice of water behind, he incurs peril on either side. But to others it seems that there are two things here, error and zeal: and that which is of error is evil; but that which is of zeal is good, and has merit. For there is a good will, but that in which it is exercised is evil; in this, then, he sins, in that he merits.

QUESTION CCCXXII. All the life of unbelievers is sin, as the expositor says. But do not even unbelievers do certain good things, as to sow fields, to build houses, to feed parents: which, although they are not worthy of eternal life, yet are laudable, and in no way [0510D] sins: how then is all the life of unbelievers sin? Solution. He calls unbelievers those acting against faith, not those not having faith.

QUESTION CCCXXIII. Now let us pursue the other part of the question according as faith is taken for the catholic faith. The Apostle therefore, saying: *All that is not of faith is sin [n: (Act. X)]*, seems to hold that no one not having faith does anything which profits him: which seems not to be true, since Cornelius, not yet having faith, praying, was heard, and elsewhere it is written: *They who faithfully administer the affair of Babylon will deserve at some time to be freed from Babylon.* Solution. The Apostle intends to say this, that nothing profits anyone not having faith toward attaining eternal life, unless he come to faith: [0511A] nay, according to some, all good things also are harmful to such a one; because good things mingled with evils are wont to harm, and the more one abuses virtues, the more he offends. Whence Augustine: The least goods are better than the greatest, when they are mingled with evils.

QUESTION CCCXXIV. It is asked here, since all that is not of faith is sin, whether a Jew sins in saying that Christ is God, when he says this under compulsion: for in saying this he seems to lie, since he speaks against conscience; whence he seems to sin unto death in saying it. Solution. It does not seem to sound well to the ears of the faithful, that a Jew in saying that Christ is God sins unto death; nor do we say this, though some seem to assert it; because to lie is to speak that which the judgment of conscience must dictate [0511B] ought not to be said. Or to lie is properly to speak what is false with the intention of deceiving: whence where there is no falsehood, neither is there a lie, yet someone can be guilty of a lie even in speaking the truth. No virtue is true, save that which is formed by the recognition of eternal truth; not even in the best morals, as appears in the philosophers, who flourished in the best morals, yet shone with a false virtue, because they lacked the knowledge of eternal truth.

QUESTION CCCXXV. *For Christ did not please himself. [n: (Rom. XV.)]* It is asked how this is to be understood. Is not the will of the Father and of the Son himself one? how then could he please the Father, and not himself? But that he pleased the Father in all things, there is no one who doubts. Solution. He did not please himself according to [0511C] the infirmity of the flesh, whose affliction he did not refuse, according to what he says elsewhere: *I came not to do my own will [n: (Joan. VI)]*, that is, he came not to fulfill that affection which he had from the nature of the flesh, but he subjected it to the command of reason, which reason in all things obeyed the divine will.

QUESTION CCCXXVI. *But the gentiles, for mercy,* etc. God in a certain manner bound himself by promise to the Jews; but to the gentiles he passed over by mercy alone: yet he did both of grace, both that he promised himself to those, and that he passed over to these. Yet it is said, on account of the things promised to the Jews, truth; but to the gentiles, mercy, because by grace alone and not by the promise of God he came to them, and took them up.

## I. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS. (cont.)

[0511D]QUESTION CCCXXVII. But was not a promise made to the gentiles, since the Lord says in Hosea: *I will call my people that which is not my people [n: (Osee II)]*. Likewise Isaiah: *Rejoice, ye gentiles, with his people [n: (Rom. XV)]*. Likewise: *Rejoice, thou barren, that bearest not [n: (Gal. IV)]*, etc. Solution. A promise was not made to the gentiles, in such a way that the promise was directed to them; for no writings were given to them concerning the promise itself. Or a promise was not made to them, that Christ would come to them, and preach in his own person: for he came only to the Jews, and preached to them. Whence the Apostle says that he was a minister of the circumcision.

QUESTION CCCXXVIII. *There shall be a root of Jesse, and he that shall rise up to rule the gentiles,* etc. It is asked why he is called a root of Jesse. Solution. Because from him proceeded David, [0512A] who was constituted king, and by his power protected many, as a tree is wont to protect by its roots, or by its branches and leaves.

QUESTION CCCXXIX. It is asked also what sort of prophecy this was, since Isaiah began to be after the death of Jesse? For does prophecy use the future for the past, as conversely it often does? Solution. This prophecy is of the future, and the sense is: There shall be a root of Jesse, etc., that is, Jesse shall be called a root, and from that root there shall be one who shall rise up, namely Christ.

QUESTION CCCXXX. *I will set out through you into Spain,* etc. It is asked whether the Apostle was lying, when he said that through Rome he would go into Spain, and it is agreed that then, when he said this, he did not do it. For neither did he then come to Rome. Into Spain perhaps, [0512B] as Jerome thinks, he was carried over by ships: whence it is said, The sea shall be despoiled: which Jerome records was said of Paul alone: for he despoiled the devil of the Spaniards surrounded by the sea, by converting them to Christ. Solution. To lie is, as Gregory says, to speak what is false with the intention of deceiving: which, because Paul did not do, neither do we say that he lied. For he said this because he hoped that he could set out: yet the words which he spoke signified what was false; yet according to intention he did not lie: for he had so disposed to do, because he believed it would be so in fact.

QUESTION CCCXXXI. *According to the revelation of the mystery kept silent from eternal times,* etc. [n: (Rom. XVI.)] [0512C] It is asked how he calls them eternal times, saying, from eternal times. Solution. He calls eternal times all that which preceded the creation of the world from the creation of the angels, as some hold. In which times there was succession, yet not decession. Therefore in a wondrous manner there was there a certain immutability, and thus a certain eternity; and a certain mutability, and thus a certain temporality. Yet almost all say that the angels were not created before the creation of the world. Therefore perhaps he calls them eternal times, as if he said that the mystery was kept silent, and hidden from the origin of the world.

QUESTION CCCXXXII. *To the only wise God,* etc. It is asked whether by this name God is here understood the Trinity, or the person of the Father. Solution. Augustine says [0512D] that this is a name of the Trinity; according to some it is a name of the Father: but according to this it seems that the Father alone is wise, which is against faith; and so it must be known that "alone" is sometimes exclusive of a person, sometimes of nature only.

QUESTION CCCXXXIII. But when it is said, God the Trinity, wisdom, wise, it is asked by what wisdom, whether by the unbegotten, which is the Father; or by the begotten, which is the Son; or by the wisdom proceeding from the Father and the Son, which is the Holy Spirit; or by a wisdom which is neither unbegotten nor begotten, nor proceeding. Solution. This name Trinity signifies as much as the three persons, or the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit: and the Father indeed is wise by the unbegotten wisdom; the Son by the begotten [0513A] wisdom; the Holy Spirit by the wisdom proceeding from the Father, and the Son. And the unbegotten wisdom, and the begotten wisdom, [0514A] and the proceeding, are not three wisdoms, but one wisdom naturally.

## II. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.

[0513]

[0513A]QUESTION I. *Paul, called to be an Apostle,* etc. [n: (I Cor. I.)] This Epistle, which is addressed to the Corinthians, was not written by the Apostle in the second place, as in the body of the epistles it is arranged in the second place. For both epistles sent to the Corinthians were written before [0513B] that which is to the Romans. Which is clear from this, that in the Epistle to the Romans he says that he will set out for Rome after he has assigned the collection made by the Achaeans for the poor who are at Jerusalem. Of which collection, to be made, he makes mention in these. But it is not without a rational cause that that to the Romans is set before the others in the body of the epistles, but on account of the dignity of the Romans. Or rather because in it first is taken away and destroyed that vice which is pride. But the Corinthians, converted to the faith by the Apostle, but afterward in manifold ways subverted and seduced by false apostles, were erring in the virtues of the sacraments, and especially in the virtue of baptism, thinking that, when conferred by an evil man, it had no virtue, a greater from a better, a lesser from a less good. [0513C] They also thought little of the Apostle, and held him in contempt: he who had not come to them in the words of human wisdom, but in the simplicity of faith for the instruction of the little ones. Concerning the resurrection also they did not think rightly, saying that it had already taken place: some also among them altogether denied it. Certain ones also wished to hold the law together with the Gospel as though necessary to salvation. In marriage also they sinned, as in many other things, and made schisms: in which the Apostle intends to correct them. For after pride is cut down in us, it remains that we cut down also the other vices. From these things, then, it appears what is the matter of this epistle, what the intention, what the mode and order of proceeding. But the special matter of this [0513D] epistle is the state of the Corinthians, in which they then were, when the Apostle wrote to them from Ephesus. But the intention is to recall them from contentions to the unity of faith. But the mode is such, that he instructs, rebukes, confirms, praises, according to the qualities of persons. The order is such: he sends beforehand a salutation, after the manner of those writing epistles, lest at the outset he seem to have chided them. Then he sets before them concerning good things, that others may be conformed to them, and thus he comes to reproving contention. He begins therefore from the salutation, saying, Paul, using a name of humility against pride; Apostle, which is a name of dignity and office.

QUESTION II. *Through the will of God,* etc. It is asked: what does he here call the will of God? For the will of God is sometimes called his counsel, sometimes [0514A] his precept, sometimes his disposition, sometimes his approbation, sometimes his permission. Solution. He calls the will of God his good pleasure.

QUESTION III. *Grace to you, and peace from God.* It is asked: what is the grace of God? Solution. The grace of God is said to be [0514B] God giving freely, and grace, that is, divine inspiration, namely the operation of God, from which the soul is moved to love God and neighbor.

QUESTION IV. *To them that wait for the revelation,* etc. It is asked whether to every just man it is revealed at once after his death concerning his salvation. For it seems not: for since that revelation is a full knowledge, which is eternal beatitude, it seems, if this be granted, that no one is in purgatorial punishments: for can anyone be at once in punishment and in glory? Solution. The perfect pass at once to the knowledge of the highest good, in which is eternal beatitude. But the less perfect, before they come to eternal beatitude, pass through purgatorial punishments, yet certain of their [0514C] rest at last. But that there are purgatorial punishments, Augustine makes manifest, saying: The mildest purgatorial punishment is heavier than any temporal punishment whatever that is among us: and so there cannot be at once punishment and glory in such a fire.

QUESTION V. It is asked how that is to be understood which is read: *The angels shall tremble in the day of judgment;* for if then there will be trembling in them, how are they blessed? Solution. That trembling notes veneration of a higher power, not that the punishment of fear can be there where there is eternal beatitude. It is to be noted that not every mortal sin is called a crime, but only that which is worthy of accusation and damnation.

QUESTION VI. *Unto the day of the coming of the Lord,* etc. It is asked whether the Lord will come on a day to judgment; [0514D] because often the time of his coming is called a day. Solution. The time of the coming of the Lord is called a day, not for the illumination of the air, but for the revelation of hidden things: for all things which now lie hidden will then be laid open. But it is not known: will he come by day, or by night? For not only by the name of day, as above, but also by the name of night is the time of judgment designated, as it is written in the Gospel: *At midnight there was a cry made: Behold, the bridegroom cometh [n: (Matth. XXV)]*; but it is called night on account of its exceeding hiddenness: the day of judgment is so called on account of the discerning of the good and the wicked.

QUESTION VII. *Now this I say, that every one of you saith: I am of Paul,* etc. It is asked whether the Apostle speaks truly, saying, Now this, etc., when [0515A] none of them said this. For they did not glory in the true apostles, but in the false. Whence in what follows he is about to say: *But these things, brethren, I have transferred in a figure to myself, and to Apollo [n: (I Cor. IV)]*. Solution. The Apostle speaks truly, and the sense of the words is: Now this I say, that every one, etc., that is, this which I say is like that which every one of you says. But he did not wish to designate those in whom they gloried by their proper names, lest he should seem to envy them; and that in greater matters he might show that in lesser ones there is no glorying.

QUESTION VIII. Augustine says that Christ retained to himself the power of baptizing, which, if he willed, he could have given to his servants. It is asked, therefore, what that power is, which Christ retained to himself, and could have given to his servants, [0515B] and yet did not give. Whether it is the power of outwardly dipping bodies; but this he gave to the apostles, on whom he conferred the ministry of baptizing; but if he calls the power of baptizing the inward washing of souls, this power God alone can have, whose alone it is to infuse himself into souls, and to wipe away the stains of sins: how then could he give this to his servants? Solution. In answering this question many labor, not knowing what Augustine signified by the name of power. But we say that he calls power a dignity: by which, through the invocation of the name of Christ, or of the whole Trinity, baptism is given: which dignity he could have given to his chief servants, so that baptism might be designated by their name, and be called the baptism of Paul, the baptism [0515C] of Peter, and baptism designated by their names might have as great a force as it has when designated by the name of Christ himself: yet he did not wish to give this to them, lest anyone place his hope in man.

QUESTION IX. *Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?* etc. What it is to be baptized in the name of Paul is wont to be asked. Solution. The faithful are not baptized in the name of Paul; because those who are baptized are not bidden to believe in Paul, but in Christ, nor is the name of Paul invoked over them or over the element, that the sacrament may be made, but the name of Christ, who alone baptizes in the Spirit.

QUESTION X. *Lest the cross of Christ should be made void by the wisdom of speech.* It is asked how by the wisdom of speech [0515D] the cross of Christ should be made void. Solution. The wisdom of the world, which is called the wisdom of speech, because it is commended by no virtue, but by the composition of words alone, supposes that natural genius suffices for knowing, and free will for living rightly: which if it were so, the cross of Christ would be made void, that is, Christ would have died in vain.

QUESTION XI. *I will destroy the wisdom,* etc. Is not all wisdom from God? how then is it said: I will destroy the wisdom *of the wise?* Does God destroy that which is from himself? Solution. Their wisdom in themselves is not the wisdom of God; because they ascribe it to themselves, and abuse it: whence while they think to comprehend the highest things, they become vain in their thoughts, and thus from their wisdom incur damnation to themselves. Therefore their false [0516A] opinion, by which they believed that God could not do anything against the accustomed course of nature, and by which they supposed that free will sufficed for salvation, is called by the prophet the wisdom of the wise, which God destroys by acting against it, according to the reasons above, working our salvation in the midst of the earth.

QUESTION XII. *The world by wisdom knew not God.* It is asked how this is true which he here says, since elsewhere it is written of the wise of the world: *When they had known God, they glorified him not as God [n: (Rom. I)]*: how are both true, the world knew not, and when they had known God? etc. Solution. That: When they had known God, etc., is understood of the possibility of knowing. But this, [0516B] the world knew not God, is taken of the act of knowing. Or rather that, when they had known God, is understood of a few of the wiser and more excellent. But this, the world knew not, is expounded of all, or the greater part. Whence he here says the world: by which name the whole, or the greater part, is wont to be understood. Or the world, that is, the wise of the world, even if they had known God according to the works of restoration, in power, not in piety; in majesty, not in humility. It is to be noted that there are theophanies in creatures, that is, divine apparitions, as in the world, whose greatness demonstrates the highest power of God; but the fullness or beauty of the world demonstrates the wisdom of God; but the usefulness of the world intimates the benignity of God: in power the Father, in wisdom the Son, in [0516C] benignity the Holy Spirit is understood.

QUESTION XIII. *He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord,* etc. It is asked what it is to glory in oneself, or of oneself. Solution. He glories in himself, or of himself, who thinks that to be of himself which is of God, and therefore attributes praise to himself, who, so far as in him lies, takes from God what is his own: for God alone is the author of good things. Whence it follows that whoever says any good to be of himself, in a certain manner makes himself God. He also glories in himself who, although he know that what he has is from God, yet turns back to himself the end of it, which he ought to refer to God.

QUESTION XIV. It is asked also what it is to glory in the Lord. Solution. He glories in the Lord who by the grace [0516D] of God alone judges himself worthy of glory.

QUESTION XV. *And I came not to you in loftiness of speech, or of wisdom,* etc. [n: (I Cor. II.)] It is asked how the Apostle says that he came not to the Corinthians in wisdom, but preached to them Christ, and him crucified: as though it were less difficult to understand that God assumed in the flesh died, than that God is one in essence, and three in persons? Solution. In Christ there are two natures, human and divine: but those things which are according to the human nature are more akin to us than those which are according to the divine nature: wherefore by us they are more easily believed and understood. But those which are according to the divine nature, as concerning the three persons, and the same essence, and the like, are more remote, [0517A] and therefore more difficult to understand. Whence he well said that he came not to them in wisdom, when he discoursed to them of the death of Christ; because he preached those lesser things, and not those loftier ones.

## II. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XVI. Is it not required, in order that anyone be perfect, that he believe God to be one and three? And thus the Apostle seems to have handed down to them an imperfect doctrine, not preaching those loftier things, and thus to have deceived them. Solution. Faith is spoken of in two ways: either when it is simply set forth what is to be believed; or when the distinction of the things which are believed is set out distinctly — what is to be believed, and how, and why. But thus the Apostle set before them, generally and without distinction of the several articles, what they ought to believe. For thus it behooves that in the first place [0517B] believers be initiated, and afterward that the advancing be perfected.

QUESTION XVII. *We speak wisdom among the perfect.* It is asked whom the Apostle here calls perfect. For some are perfect in faith and in knowledge; others perfect in knowledge, and less in faith; others perfect in faith, and less in knowledge. In faith and knowledge the apostles are perfect; perfect in knowledge, and less in faith, are certain clerics, who are less constant in faith than the country folk; in faith and not in knowledge are very many country folk, who have attained little of knowledge, and yet believe perfectly. Solution. It seems to us that the Apostle was speaking wisdom among those perfect in knowledge, because those who are perfect in faith alone seem incapable of the higher things: yet deservedly to such faithful ones many things are often revealed: [0517C] and therefore, according to some, he speaks among those perfect in faith.

QUESTION XVIII. *Neither of the princes of this world, which is brought to nought [who are brought to nought].* It is asked how the wisdom of the philosophers is brought to nought, since it seems to be itself a comprehension of the truth. Solution. It is brought to nought when it is shown to be false or nothing: for they thought, as has already been said, that God could do nothing against nature. And so, among the great and many things which they truly comprehended, they asserted many false ones, and that truth which they had from God they attributed not to God but to themselves, whence their wisdom was turned into darkness.

QUESTION XIX. *Which none of the princes of this world.* It is asked first whom he calls the princes of the world? Solution. Either the wise of the world, or the demons, or even [0517D] those learned in the law.

QUESTION XX. It is asked, therefore, secondly, how that is true, that none of the demons knew him, since it is written of those who said: *Jesus, thou Son of David, why art thou come to torment us before the time? [n: (Matth. VIII.)]* And again: *And there were many devils going out, and crying: Thou art the Son of God; and he suffered them not to speak, for they knew him to be the Son of God [n: (Marc I)]*. Solution. The demons are said to have known on account of their supposing: who rather supposed Christ to be God than truly knew it: for God always left the devil in doubt, so that always after some humble things he did lofty ones, and after the sublime returned to the humble: whence after that notable [0518A] miracle concerning Lazarus, when the devil altogether thought him to be God, he allowed himself to be seized, bound, scourged: whence again the devil judged him to be a mere man; but when he was now led to the governor, and the Jews themselves confirmed in evil, it was in some manner revealed to him that through him he would lose his own right, and he wished to persuade Pilate through his wife to release him.

QUESTION XXI. Likewise it is asked, thirdly, concerning the Jews, how it is true that they did not know him, since it is written of them in the Gospel parable: *Behold the heir; come, let us kill him [n: (Marc. XII)]*. And elsewhere: *That through envy they had delivered him up [n: (Matth. XXVII)]*: but if they knew him, and yet killed him, incredible cruelty was in them. Likewise, if they knew him to be God, they knew him to be immortal, and thus unable [0518B] to die: how then did they seek his death, if they knew that he could not die? Solution. Some say that the Jews knew Christ, which they could not deny. Or in truth some of them knew him to be that one who had been promised in the law and the prophets. But they did not believe him to be God; yet that they killed him whom they knew to be just, was envy. Whose nature is such, that against its own goods it seeks the harm of others: therefore they were utterly ignorant of the dispensation of the divine counsel.

QUESTION XXII. *That we may know the things that are given us.* It is asked what it is to know the things that are given us. Solution. To know from whom they are given, and not to be ungrateful to the giver: for he is said truly to have who knows whence he has; he does not have, who knows not whence he has, and is ungrateful [0518C] to him from whom he has: for no one is blessed by the gifts of God who is ungrateful to the giver.

QUESTION XXIII. *Comparing spiritual things with spiritual.* It is asked whom he calls spiritual: for some are perfect in life, and not in understanding; others in understanding, and not in life. Solution. Those whom above he named perfect, here he calls spiritual.

QUESTION XXIV. It is asked whom he calls the animal man. For a man is animal according to life, and according to understanding. Solution. He calls animal the man intent upon earthly wisdom, who, considering earthly things, reckons the things that are of God to be foolish.

QUESTION XXV. *But the spiritual man discerneth all things that are necessary to salvation, and he himself is judged of no man. [0518D] For the animal man cannot understand what he doeth, or why.* It is objected. Peter was rebuked by Paul, therefore a spiritual man is judged by a spiritual man. Solution. The spiritual man is judged of no man, that is, he is shown by no one to be damnable and worthy of damnation: for although he sin in something, yet this is not damnable to him.

QUESTION XXVI. *I could not speak to you as to spiritual,* etc. [n: (I Cor. II)]. Was not the Apostle spiritual, both in life and in knowledge, and thus able to speak spiritual things, which he also did? Whence above: *We speak wisdom among the perfect [n: (I Cor. II)]*; how then does he say, I could not speak to you as to spiritual? Solution. He does not say this as though he did not inwardly have the faculty of teaching greater things, but because they themselves were not fit hearers; yet often, when the perfect and imperfect [0519A] are mingled, the same things are said, even if they are not understood in the same way.

QUESTION XXVII. *I have planted, Apollo watered, but God now gave the increase.* It is asked how the Apostle divides between himself, and God, and Apollo, since Paul or Apollo does nothing except from God and through God, and thus whatever either Paul or Apollo works, God also works. Solution. The Apostle divides, that he may show what God works through Paul himself, and through Apollo, and through himself: for the Apostle, by preaching, was working unto the faith of Christ, which God also did through Paul. For in vain would the Apostle speak outwardly, unless the Holy Spirit were within, working, and moving the mind.

QUESTION XXVIII. *He that watereth, and he that planteth, are one. [0519B]* It is asked how one, since they are divided both in substance and in accident? Solution. They are one, that is, indifferent. For neither does Paul confer more from that which is Paul's than Apollo from that which is Apollo's. For in the conferring of gifts this one does no more than that one: for God alone confers the gifts; yet Paul labors more than Apollo, and a greater gift is conferred through the office of Paul than of Apollo, because through the faith which is from preaching one comes to baptism. Or, through the sacraments themselves no more is conferred from this one than from that one, or through this one than through that one.

QUESTION XXIX. *For we are God's helpers,* etc. Does God need anything? How then were the apostles God's helpers? Solution. They are called God's helpers because God works through them, although he could work that same thing [0519C] through himself.

QUESTION XXX. *As a wise architect, I have laid the foundation,* etc. It is asked what he calls the foundation. Solution. The faith of Christ, which works through love, which they obtained from the preaching of Paul himself: this foundation remaining, no one can perish, although some stains adhere, which are purged by fire. For although here they possessed some worldly things by desire, yet they did not prefer these to God, but God to all. But to prefer God to all is, if the option or choice were given of dying or of denying Christ, to choose to die rather than to deny Christ. Upon this foundation one builds this, another that.

QUESTION XXXI. It is asked, what is to be understood by *wood, hay, [0519D] and stubble?* Solution. Some say that by these three is understood venial sin: but how do these build upon this foundation, since rather any sin whatever pertains to destruction than to building? Likewise, how shall he who builds these be saved yet so as by fire, since faith without works is dead? Likewise, *if any man have all faith, so as to remove mountains, and have not charity, it profiteth nothing [n: (I Cor. XIII)]*: therefore, if there is no salvation without charity, how can anyone be saved building these three alone upon this foundation?

QUESTION XXXII. Others say otherwise, that by wood, hay, stubble are understood good works, but imperfect ones. According to which opinion it is asked how a good work is to burn, or how [0520A] it suffers loss? Solution. Not the good work, because it is good; but because it is imperfect it will be purged of its imperfection, and especially of certain carnal affections which the builders of such things have, which seem to be venial sins.

QUESTION XXXIII. *All things are yours; and you are Christ's; and Christ is God's,* etc. It is asked according to which nature we are Christ's, that is, whether we are his according to the human nature, or according to the divine. Solution. It can be said that we are his not only according to the divine nature, according to which he is our Creator, but also we are his according to the human nature, according to which he is our Redeemer; but he himself, according to both natures, is of God the Father, from whom he has whatever [0520B] he has; but in one way and in another: for according to that which he is God, he has by nature all things which are the Father's; and all the same things he has according to that which he is man, but by grace: this is the norm of right faith.

QUESTION XXXIV. *I am conscious to myself of nothing,* etc. [n: (I Cor. IV)]. It is asked how the Apostle says that he is conscious to himself of nothing, and yet is not hereby justified: and John in his Epistle says: *If our heart do not reprehend us, we have confidence toward God [n: (I Joan. III)]*. And Paul himself elsewhere: *For our glory is this, the testimony of our conscience [n: (II Cor. I)]*: wherefore we ought to think ourselves just, and thence to have glory, if our conscience does not reprehend us. For what is a greater perfection of justice than to have so pure [0520C] a conscience? Solution. Something can always lie hidden from us: and therefore, in order that we may have true justice, it does not suffice that our conscience does not gnaw at us: yet we can glory in this, that our conscience is clean and pure.

## II. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XXXV. Likewise it is asked how the Apostle was not conscious to himself, since he knew that he was not without sin. Whence John: *If we say that we have no sin, we are liars, and the truth is not in us [n: (I Joan. I)]*. And the child, whose life is of one day upon the earth [n: (Job II)], is not without sin. Whence he himself says: *And I do that which I will not [n: (Rom. VII)]*. Solution. The Apostle was of such perfection that whatever his conscience dictated to him was to be done, [0520D] this he did. Whence, if at any time as a man he had sinned, either through ignorance, or by stealth, or by frailty, the force of divine love consumed the whole like stubble.

QUESTION XXXVI. *Judge not before the time,* etc. It is one thing to judge concerning ambiguous matters, which is forbidden, because damnable: it is another to suspect, which is of human infirmity, of which perhaps no one is free. But since the Apostle forbids judging, and the Lord himself forbids the same in the Gospel, what is it that elsewhere the Lord says: *Beware of false prophets, who come to you in the clothing of sheep [n: (Matth. VII)]*. And how they may also be discerned, he himself adds, saying: *By their fruits you shall know them [n: (ibid.)]*. Hence he seems to intimate that we ought to judge concerning such. Solution. [0521A] It is one thing to discern the evil, that they may be guarded against; another to judge them worthy of damnation: whom we do not definitely know whether they are good or evil.

QUESTION XXXVII. Likewise it is asked how false prophets can be discerned from their works, since they do all the same things that the good also do: for by fruits are understood works. Solution. By the virtue of perseverance the false are proved and discerned from the true.

QUESTION XXXVIII. It is asked whether that is true which the Apostle says: *You are now filled [n: (I Cor. IV)]*, since he speaks ironically: which does not seem to be, since the contrary is true. Solution. As often as such a kind of speech occurs, as to the surface of the word and the first signification of the utterance, what is said is false: yet he himself who speaks does not lie; [0521B] but rather speaks the truth, which happens from the nature of the trope.

QUESTION XXXIX. *Not to confound you.* Is it not good to bring it about by a word that a sinner be confounded, and blush for his fault, and thus be corrected: how then does the Apostle say, I say *not this,* to confound you? Solution. Confusion is twofold. There is a confusion which is unto death, from which some are made worse; and there is a confusion which is of correction, when one blushes from correction over his sins, that a man may abstain the more.

QUESTION XL. *Shall I come to you with a rod, or in charity?* It is asked how the Apostle divides, saying, whether with a rod, or in charity. Solution. The name "charity" is here, from the adjunct, restricted to the sweet and delightful things [0521C] which come from charity; but sometimes charity signifies all things, hope thou, and the sweet things, which pertain to salvation.

QUESTION XLI. The expositor says that in those who are punished by an inflicted penalty, sin is diminished: but it is asked how this is true, since they bear the inflicted penalty unwillingly, and in this are contrary to justice, and thus sin the more, and thus their sin is increased in this, that they are punished. Solution. It can be said of such, that at least they avoid, through the penalty which they suffer, the sins into which they would fall if they lived longer: for if they bore the penalty willingly, even the sin already committed would be forgiven.

[n: (I COR. V)]. *I have judged to deliver such a man [0521D] to Satan,* etc. From this place of the Apostle the Church takes the sentence of anathema, that is, of separation; and separation is made now of known and manifest persons, now of unknown; but whether of these or of those, they are first to be summoned before the Church. Some also are to be awaited longer, and more often admonished, according to the diversity and quality of persons and of sins, as if a king, through whose anger slaughter threatens the Church. But after they have been separated, if they are known, in no way is one to communicate with them: if unknown, if anyone communicate unknowingly, he does not sin; but if he suspect, if he can avoid it without scandal, let him avoid; if he cannot, let him communicate. But this vengeance ought to be done for the sake of the common utility, both of him and of others.

[0522A]QUESTION XLII. It is asked, then, whether to excommunicate someone is good, which seems so, because just. Solution. It is good, that is, expedient, yet not in itself and from its own quality is it good: but when such a thing is called just, it is understood thus, that is, requited according to desert, not that it is informed by the quality of justice.

QUESTION XLIII. Likewise it is asked whether to be excommunicated is good. Solution. According to the aforesaid reasoning it seems to be good, because excommunication seems to be expedient not only to the rest but even to him: for if he should resist the admonition of the Church, he would sin.

QUESTION XLIV. But it is asked, if it happen that he be excommunicated who did not deserve it, but someone is struck with the sentence of excommunication out of the hatred or [0522B] envy of a prelate, whether he ought to resist, or to yield. Solution. If without scandal he can resist, let him resist, and by good zeal repress the swelling of his prelate; if without scandal he cannot, let him yield, and for God's sake patiently endure: whence the sentence of a prelate is always to be feared, not always to be held. When someone is excommunicated, he is delivered into the power of Satan, that he may vex his flesh, so that at last he may thus come to his senses: yet Satan does not always vex. For the crafty enemy spares one, that he may gain many, or that he may keep him for himself.

QUESTION XLV. *Purge out the [sic: velus] leaven,* etc. It is asked what he calls the old leaven? Solution. Vain boasting, or the oldness of life, which is to be purged by [0522C] newness of life.

QUESTION XLVI. *Such cannot be gained to Christ,* etc. This is from the gloss. It is asked: Since the human mind is prone to evil rather than to good, and especially when it is urged to return to accustomed things, why did the Apostle grant to those newly converted to the faith to have table and conversation in common with the gentiles, since Christians would more easily come to idolatry by the persuasion of the gentiles than the gentiles come to the faith by the admonition of Christians? Solution. In the primitive Church those converted to the faith, fervent with charity, could not easily be torn from the foundation: which the Apostle knowing, granted to it only fellowship with the gentiles.

QUESTION XLVII. *If he who is named a brother among [0522D] you is a fornicator,* etc. Since there is now so great a multitude in the Church, it is asked whether we act against the precept of the Apostle when we take food with such, or whether all such are to be cast out of the Church and cut off with the sickle of anathema. Solution. So indeed it would be to be done, if it could be done without scandal: but yet, because so great and so many would rather make a schism, since they spurn correction and amendment, they are tolerated: and therefore nothing else remains but that Rachel weep for her children. It is to be noted that of fornications some are bodily, others spiritual: bodily is every use of those members apart from the lawful; spiritual is that which separates the soul from God, and takes it away, as a bride from the bridegroom.

QUESTION XLVIII. *Know you not that the saints shall judge this [0523A] world? [n: (I Cor. VI.)]* Here the Apostle shows that it is lawful for the saints to judge concerning secular matters: but if this is so, how does he afterward subjoin: *there is now plainly a fault among you, that you have lawsuits among yourselves [n: (Ibid.)]*: if it is lawful to judge, how is this a fault? Solution. It is lawful for the saints to have causes under discipline, but it is not lawful to contend among themselves.

QUESTION XLIX. It is asked how this is true, that it is lawful to demand back one's own, since the Lord says: *If anyone take away what is thine, ask it not again? [n: (Luc VI.)]* Solution. To demand back one's own, although it be not evil, yet is an occasion of evil: therefore the Lord counsels not to demand back one's own, for the sake of avoiding contentions. This is what the Apostle says: *All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient [n: (I Cor. X)]*.

[0523B]QUESTION L. It is asked in what manner the saints are to judge in the future? And it is said, not only by the comparison of a better deed, but also by authority and power. Whence not without reason it is asked what that power is, since it is written: *The Father judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment to the Son [n: (Joan. V)]*. Solution. As Daniel says: *The judgment sat, and the books were opened,* namely of the eternal reasons, according to which the judgment shall be made, and the books of consciences, concerning which the judgment shall be made [n: (Dan. VII)]. These books of the eternal reasons and of consciences will be open and manifest to those who are to judge with the Lord. And this revelation of hidden things, according to some, is their power and authority: according to others, the saints are therefore said to be about to judge with the Lord because by their comparison the evil [0523C] will appear damnable. Whence it is read that the saints shall judge the nations.

QUESTION LI. It is asked whether it is a precept, or a counsel, or a permission, this which he says concerning judgments? Now it is a counsel concerning the highest things, as that: *Concerning virgins I have no precept; but I give counsel [n: (I Cor. VII)]*. A precept concerning middle things, as: *Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery [n: (Exod. XX)]*, etc.; a permission concerning the lowest things, as concerning the taking of food. But it seems that it is a precept: for if I do not demand back my own, I foster in error him who has taken it away; wherefore for the sake of the common utility I ought to demand it back: wherefore I demand it back from precept; because every evil is to be fled from precept. Solution. It is a permission to demand back; but a counsel [0523D] not to demand back. The Apostle therefore shows what is lawful to the weak; but the Lord shows what befits the perfect, namely not to demand back: but to contend, and to carry on lawsuits before a judge, especially an unbeliever, is altogether a fault.

QUESTION LII. *He who is joined to a harlot is made one body.* It is asked concerning this unity, what it is, and according to what it is to be understood. Solution. He notes that such are one not only by bodily conjunction, but in the ardor of lust, and this is most foul, thus to be made one body with a harlot, who ought to be one spirit cleaving to God.

QUESTION LIII. *For they shall be,* he says, *two in one flesh.* It is asked how the Apostle brings forward this authority, which is concerning that conjugal union which is holy, [0524A] to show this foul union, which is between the fornicator and the harlot, since in no way can that union which is there be this. Solution. The sense is: If in that conjugal union one body is made of both, much more is this made one flesh on account of the greater delight of the vice.

QUESTION LIV. *Bear God,* etc. What is it to bear God? Solution. To live soberly, and justly, and piously. They therefore bear God who live well in him: for this is to put on his image and the form of justice, just as they trample God under foot who by living ill deny him; but they lay God down who grow lukewarm in charity and are made more lax and remiss.

## II. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION LV. The gloss says: It is graver to sin against God than against the neighbor; but do not those who sin against the neighbor [0524B] offend God? How then is this distinguished, both the one and the other? Solution. To sin against God is, through contempt in those things which pertain specially to him, as in the sacraments, and faith, and the like, to offend God. To sin against the neighbor is to injure him by some wrong, which is less grave than the first. Or, to sin against God is to violate the mind inwardly. To sin against the neighbor is outwardly to injure a man by word or example: not therefore is everyone who offends him said to sin against God.

QUESTION LVI. *Now concerning the things whereof you wrote to me,* etc. [n: (I Cor. VII.)] He treats of marriage in three ways: according to precept, according to permission, according to counsel, which several things let the diligent reader distinguish in their places. What marriage is must be seen, [0524C] what the efficient cause, what the cause on account of which it is contracted, who are the legitimate persons, and what are the goods of marriage. And so marriage or matrimony is the marital conjunction of male and female, retaining, between legitimate persons, an undivided manner of life. This definition befits only the marriage of the faithful. According to others: Marriage is the power of lawfully being joined, contracted from lawful consent. The efficient cause is the material consent expressed through words of the present. The consent, which is in the soul, ought to be shown before the Church, without which there is no marriage, whence it is read: Matrimony is made not by the union of bodies, but by the will of souls. The cause on account of which it is contracted is the procreation [0524D] of offspring, and the avoidance of fornication. The legitimate persons are those whom neither a vow of continence, nor blood, nor order, nor disparity of worship, nor condition, nor frigidity of nature impedes. Three are the goods of marriage: faith, offspring, sacrament — namely inseparability, which is twofold, of the sacrament and of matrimony itself: for this third good, namely the sacrament, is not marriage itself, although it is itself a sacrament, as is that also: but whether both are of the same thing can be asked, which here we defer to resolve for the sake of brevity, whose traces we follow: for in the [treatises on] sacraments and the sentences of our elders we pursue these things more diligently.

QUESTION LVII. *But this I say by way of indulgence.* It is asked what indulgence is, or is called? [0525A] Solution. Indulgence is the concession of a laxer life; so that what would be unlawful and a sin, where there was no concession, becomes lawful. For the carnal union of man and woman would be a sin, unless it had taken up the state of the married, and thus through concession the unlawful becomes lawful, which is wont to be done for the sake of avoiding a graver sin.

QUESTION LVIII. *But I would that all of you were as myself.* It is asked: how does the Apostle say that he wishes all chaste, since he knew that God does not? For if this were so, how would the propagation of the human race come about? Solution. There is an implicit condition, as if he said, I wish, and it is good, or it would please me, that all were such: perhaps, if all were good who now are, the number of the predestined would be filled from them.

[0525B]QUESTION LIX. *Let not the husband put away,* etc. It is asked whether a husband can put away his wife, if she be convicted of adultery? Solution. He can put her away. Likewise it is asked whether he, or she, can be joined to another while the other is living. Some say that he cannot.

QUESTION LX. It is asked whether marriage still remains, namely after divorce; if it remains, then the husband has power over the body of his wife, and conversely. Solution. It remains, and he has the power; but he cannot use this power, unless a reconciliation has been made.

QUESTION LXI. It is asked whether [sic: *au*] among unbelievers, or between a believer and an unbeliever, there is matrimony: which does not seem to be, since it is written that no marriage which was not made in God is ratified. Solution. [0525C] They say that there is marriage among unbelievers, as between Priam and Hecuba, and between Philip and Herodias. Whence John reproved Herod for adultery; for it is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife [n: (Matth. XIV)]: because, if there was adultery and marriage there, as Chrysostom says.

QUESTION LXII. *But if the unbeliever depart, let him depart.* It is asked, if between a believer and an unbeliever there is marriage, how the Apostle says: *If he will depart, let the unbeliever depart, and let the believer be joined to another [n: (I Cor. VII)]*, when above he says that she who is dismissed should remain unmarried: for if it is a true marriage, how can it be dissolved? If it is not a marriage, how does he persuade them to remain together, since every union apart from the lawful is fornication? Solution. The believer has power [0525D] over the body of the unbeliever, but not conversely; because, as is read, the injury done to the Creator dissolves the right of matrimony: the believer therefore can both remain and depart. Because also that debt which was owed was previously paid; but the power which she had, she did not lose. But the unbeliever departing, if he join himself to another, commits adultery.

QUESTION LXIII. Concerning the marriages of the ancients it is wont to be asked whether they were true marriages, seeing how one having several wives conducted himself toward each by marital law. How was there lawful consent there, retaining an undivided manner of life. Solution. Some say that they were not marriages, but held the place of marriage. But others say that there were true marriages among some, and that there are among the Jews and unbelievers: [0526A] for he who says that the marriage of such is not ratified does not deny it to be a marriage, but asserts it not to be ratified.

QUESTION LXIV. It is asked whether marriage is a greater good than virginity. And it seems that it is; because there are greater straits, and pains, and labors in marriage than in virginity, and to each one the reward will be rendered according to his labor. Solution. It does not follow, if the labor is greater here than there, that therefore the glory is greater. For virginity is a greater good in itself than marriage. Yet certain married persons are not of less merit than certain virgins.

QUESTION LXV. *Be not made the servants of men.* Above he said: *Wast thou called being a servant? care not for it* [0526B] [n: (I Cor. VII)]: how then does he here forbid that we be servants of men? Solution. He warns that men be not served for the sake of men: which is done when the hope of salvation is placed in them, as those who said: *I am of Paul, but I of Apollo [n: (I Cor. I)]*.

QUESTION LXVI. *But he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body,* etc. From these words fornication seems graver than the other sins: for where there is greater delight and greater contempt, there is also greater offense. Solution. A certain delight, from the penalty inflicted for original sin, is present in our members: which although it be greater in delight than the other sins, yet does not seem to be greater than all other sins in guilt or fault. Likewise they wish to prove by the authority of Jerome that fornication is graver than the other sins. For he says: [0526C] As much delight as preceded in the deed, so much bitterness of mind ought to follow in the satisfaction, and thus it seems that where there is greater delight, there is greater fault. Solution. This, as I judge, is not said in comparison with all the others; but in any kind whatever the quantity of the crime is understood according to the quantity of the delight.

QUESTION LXVII. *Each one hath his first gift,* etc. It is asked how this is true, since there are many to whom nothing has been given whereby they can be saved? Solution. He speaks only of the faithful, of whom there are diverse grades, as continence, marriage, virginity: in which they can be saved, as if he said: He who would not contain, let him descend to the marriage [0526D] granted to him by God, that in it he may be saved.

QUESTION LXVIII. *For the figure passeth away.* It is asked how this is true, since it is written: *The earth standeth for ever [n: (Eccle. I)]*. Solution. He does not say the world passeth away; but the figure of the world, that is, the form and appearance which it now has, will change into a better form: yet if anywhere it be read that the world passeth away, this is to be understood according to form, not according to substance, which will always be.

QUESTION LXIX. *He that joineth not, doth better.* On account of a greater aptitude for meriting. But it is asked how there is a greater aptitude for meriting in virginity than in marriage: since the fight is greater here than there? For if there is greater difficulty of meriting in marriage, there seems to be a greater reward. Solution. In virginity, [0527A] with less labor, greater profit, and therefore a greater aptitude for meriting. In marriage, great labor, and little profit: in which grade it is a great thing at least to stand.

QUESTION LXX. *But I think that I also have the Spirit of God.* It is asked what spirit of God the Apostle says he had, that the Corinthians might acquiesce in his counsel? For if we say charity, it does not suffice. For he could have charity, and not knowledge, like very many; if knowledge, it does not suffice: for many have knowledge, but their life does not answer to their words. Whence the counsel of such can deservedly be reproved. Solution. By the Spirit of God he understands both knowledge and charity; because in both the Apostle excelled. Whence also in his counsel one ought to acquiesce. [0527B]

QUESTION LXXI. *Knowledge puffeth up,* etc. [n: (I Cor. VIII.)] Of itself, without charity, not from its own quality; but by occasion, as the law works wrath. But the same seems able to be said of charity. For many, remaining in the advance of charity and of the other virtues, sometimes grow proud, and thus fall. As therefore the occasion of transgressing is taken from knowledge, so it seems to be taken from charity, which is not to be granted. For from charity no one takes an occasion of evil. For *it dealeth not perversely; it is not puffed up [n: (I Cor. XIII)]*. Solution. Knowledge is such a thing that it puffs up: and yet it is from God, just as riches offer an occasion of evil, and yet are from God; just as also wood is apt for burning, yet is not burned unless fire be applied; [0527C] so also knowledge never puffs up unless the heart of man be kindled. But can charity ever be so kindled? For can anyone have charity, and be proud?

QUESTION LXXII. *An idol is nothing.* It is asked how this is true, since anything artificial is something. Augustine says: The matter is from God, but the folly of men gave the form. But again, since it is written: *Every substance, every form, every conjunction, and every joining is made by God:* how is the form of the idol not from God, since it is something? Origen says: *An idol is nothing,* that is, it has the likeness of no thing that exists. Or an idol is nothing, that which they think to be the idol, that is, a person made of the image and [0527D] of a presiding spirit: Or (which is better) an idol is nothing in the world, that is, it has no power in the things of the world, to change them for better or worse. Whence things sacrificed to idols, as far as concerns themselves, it is lawful to eat; but not in the presence of a weak person, lest he do this with veneration of the idol.

## II. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION LXXIII. *There is no God but one.* Is not the Father God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, and the Father is not the Son, or the Holy Spirit? How then is there but one God? Likewise the Father is unbegotten God, and the Son is begotten God, how then is there one God? Solution. There is one God in nature, not in person: but what is the sense of these words, God one in nature, not in person? A great question among the moderns. But to speak what I feel, many seem to me to savor of the Sabellian heresy, being ignorant of the manifold signification of this word, *unus,* or *unum,* or even *singulus,* or [0528A] *substantia.* For these three words are taken otherwise in theology, otherwise in the common usage of speaking, concerning which one must treat by itself.

QUESTION LXXIV. It is asked whether the Son, or the Holy Spirit, is to be called our Father? Solution. Not simply, lest the unbegotten person be understood: but it can be so with such a determination, namely according to the grace of regeneration: for the whole Trinity in common by its grace regenerates us into sons of adoption.

QUESTION LXXV. Likewise it is asked whether God the Trinity is that Father who is eternally Father, or another. [0528B] Solution. Not that one, nor another, but one and the same with the same.

QUESTION LXXVI. It is asked whether the angels are to be called gods, as holy men are called gods, as that: *I have said: You are gods, and all of you sons of the most High [n: (Psal. LXXXI)]*. Solution. The angels are not to be called gods, lest they seem to be worshipped with that service which is called latria. In three ways is one called God: substantively, as the Trinity; by adoption, as the saints; by appellation, as the gods of the nations.

QUESTION LXXVII. *For their conscience, being weak, is defiled.* It is asked how he says that their conscience is defiled: for if they believed themselves to do this for God, namely to eat things sacrificed to idols with veneration, would they not, if they left this off, [0528C] sin, since all that is not of faith is sin? Whence also Paul, if he did not persecute the Church, then when he believed that it was to be persecuted for God, would sin. Solution. Because they did this to a creature, as to the Creator, they had no excuse on account of ignorance: for so perverse and blinded was their mind, that they thought a wooden or stone image to be God, whence fittingly the Apostle says: *Their conscience, being weak, is defiled [n: (I Cor. VIII)]*, not that it is defiled on account of God. Note that it is lawful for a preacher to take necessary things from his subjects, yet let him do this without scandal.

QUESTION LXXVIII. *Doth God take care for oxen?* [0528D] [n: (I Cor. IX.)] Does not God take care of all things? and if of all, how does he not take care of oxen? Solution. One is the care of providence, which is had generally of all things; another is the care of precept, which God does not have concerning oxen. For he does not give precepts to men, that he may teach them how they ought to nourish oxen; for this care he has concerning men alone.

QUESTION LXXIX. *I became to the Jews as a Jew.* It is asked how, as a Jew? or truly a Jew? Solution. He truly used the rites of the Jews, as Augustine says; not by dispensation, as Jerome says. But it would be done by dispensation, if it were evil, and yet were done for a time for the sake of a greater good, namely, that through that feigning they might be converted to the true [0529A] faith of Christ. But those two pillars of the Church were diverse in this: yet we do not say that either of them lied, since to believe this or that is no peril of faith: concerning which controversy it shall be spoken in what follows.

QUESTION LXXX. *All ate the same [sic: spiritatem] food [n: (I Cor. X)]*. It is asked, how the same? Solution. The same in signifying, or the same in effecting. For that [sic: *sibus*] was of the same efficacy as this, as they hold: yet certain sacraments of the Old Testament have their virtue and efficacy from the sacraments of the New Testament: just as from the body of Christ, which is a sacrament, the manna taken by the faithful had its virtue.

QUESTION LXXXI. *Neither let us tempt Christ, as [0529B] some of them.* God tempts, that he may prove; the devil tempts, that he may cast down; man tempts, that he may explore and know. And so temptation is threefold. The first is of proving, which is good, as that of Job. The second is of deceiving, which is the trying of the mind unto deceiving. The third is of distrust and despair, as that of the Jews saying: *Can God prepare a table in the desert? [n: (Psal. LXXVII.)]* It is asked, therefore, how the Jews are said to have tempted Christ, since they seem to have worshipped only God the Father and God the Trinity. Solution. The Jews are therefore said to have tempted Christ, because all the preceding things figured Christ; hence it is that this temptation was rather said to be of Christ than of the Father, although it is not more of the Son than of the Father, although it is so said.

[0529C]QUESTION LXXXII. *And they perished by the destroyer,* that is, by the angel striking them outside the borders of the promised homeland. But if it be asked whether that angel was good or evil, we answer that the evil are sometimes punished by the good, sometimes by the evil; but the good are not punished except by the evil.

QUESTION LXXXIII. *Upon whom the ends of the ages are come.* But were the ages ended at the coming of Christ; but if they are not ended, how is it the end of the ages? Solution. They are ended in us, because, whereas there preceded diverse states of life, in all of which there was a variation and a certain expectation of the coming of Christ, but we expect no other state of life, because between this life and the future there is nothing [0529D] intermediate; but to those who still expect the Messiah, the end of the ages has not yet come, as to the wretched Jews.

QUESTION LXXXIV. *God is faithful, who will not suffer,* etc. It is asked how he says that God does not permit anyone to be tempted above that which he can bear, since many fall from temptation, and are separated from God, and thus are overcome by the devil, and so are tempted more than they can endure. Solution. As long as they are with God, he does not suffer them to be tempted above that which they can. But that some of them yield is because they are unwilling to resist temptation when they can; whence it is just that they be tempted to that degree, their fault demanding it. But God sometimes permits someone to be tempted for the sake of proving, and for the preservation of virtues: which temptation is of providence, [0530A] as with Paul, to whom *there was given a sting of the flesh [n: (II Cor. XII)]*, for the preservation of humility.

QUESTION LXXXV. *The chalice of benediction, which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ.* It is asked concerning the name of this sacrament, why it is called the Eucharist. Solution. The sacrament of the body and blood of Christ is called, on account of its excellent virtue, the Eucharist, that is, good grace, in which sacrament there is not only an increase of virtue and grace, but he himself is received who is the fountain and origin of all virtue and grace. In which sacrament there are three things: namely, the visible species of bread and wine, and the body and blood of Christ, and spiritual grace. The first is the sacrament of the second, the second is the reality of the first and the sacrament of the third, the third is the virtue of the first and the reality of the second. [0530B] And so the first is only a sacrament, the second is both sacrament and reality, but the third is only reality. The first sacrament therefore has two realities, one signified and contained, namely the true body and blood of Christ; the other signified and not contained, namely the unity of the Church.

QUESTION LXXXVI. It is asked likewise why, after the sacrament of the typical lamb, the Lord gave his disciples the sacrament of his body and blood? Solution. That he might show that the legal sacraments, among which the chief was the sacrament of the Paschal lamb, ought to cease, and that the sacrament of the new law be substituted: among which the Eucharist holds the first place: therefore also that he might imprint this sacrament more closely, [0530C] and commend it more tenaciously to the memory of the disciples.

QUESTION LXXXVII. Then it is asked why he gave this sacrament under another species, and not under its own? Solution. That faith might have merit, which is of invisible things, because faith has no merit when human reason offers proof; and lest the eye shudder at what the hand holds, and lest we be insulted by unbelievers.

QUESTION LXXXVIII. Likewise it is asked why under this species rather than under another. Solution. Because a thing of this species has an express likeness with both realities of this sacrament, because, as bread is from many grains, and wine from many grapes, so the material body of Christ is from many members, and the spiritual from many [0530D] faithful. And as in bread and wine there is a full and principal refreshment of bodies, so in this sacrament there is a full and principal refreshment of souls, because through the eating of the flesh one comes to the taste of the divinity.

QUESTION LXXXIX. Likewise it is asked: since the whole Christ is received under either species, why is it received not under one only, but under a twofold species? Solution. Therefore under two species, that it may be shown that he assumed the whole man, that he might heal the whole man; for he assumed body for the sake of body, soul for the sake of soul, and bread is changed into flesh, and wine into blood. Therefore indeed it is received under two species, that the taking-up of soul and body in [0531A] Christ, and the liberation of both in us, may be signified.

QUESTION XC. Likewise, since flesh and blood are under either species, it is asked whether the substance of either species is changed into the flesh and blood of Christ? Solution. Although either be under either species, yet the substance of bread alone is changed into flesh alone, and the substance of wine alone into the substance of blood alone. Nor ought they to be called two sacraments, but one. Nor is the sacrament therefore said to be repeated, because the benediction is not repeated over the same species. Nor ought other substances to be offered in the sacrifice of truth, because from others the body and blood of Christ cannot be consecrated, but from a grain of wheat reduced into bread, and from wine.

[0531B]QUESTION XCI. It is asked why water is put with wine in the chalice of the Lord. Solution. The water signifies the people: whence neither ought the wine, by which Christ is signified, to be offered without water, because Christ suffered only for the people, nor water without wine in any way; because the people is not redeemed except through Christ.

QUESTION XCII. But it is asked whether the sacrifice becomes void if the water be omitted. Solution. If anyone, not intending to introduce heresy, has omitted the water through forgetfulness or ignorance, it does not seem to be void: whence neither do the Churches of the Greeks add water. But water alone can in no way be offered in sacrifice, nor bread except of grain, that is, of wheat, nor the grain except reduced into bread.

[0531C]QUESTION XCXIII. But it is wont to be asked whether the water with the wine is changed into blood. Solution. Some say that it is changed; but to us it seems that it is not changed: which we received from master Achard.

QUESTION XCIV. It is asked whether Judas received the body of the Lord in the dipped morsel. Solution. Not then, but before with the others.

QUESTION XCV. It is asked concerning the accidents, which remain in species, taste, weight, and form, in what subject they are. Solution. Many doctors agree in this, that they are without a subject, just as the substances of flesh and blood are there without accidents of this kind.

## II. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XCVI. It is wont also to be asked concerning the breaking [0531D] and partition which is there, in what thing it takes place; because there is no other substance than the substance of flesh and blood, which remains whole. Solution. The body of Christ remains whole in itself, and yet is broken and divided in the sacrament.

QUESTION XCVII. It is asked whether the evil man receives the true body of the Lord and the true blood. Solution. He truly receives both, but to his own harm; because unworthily — for he is unworthy who receives otherwise than Christ instituted, or who is in mortal sin.

QUESTION XCVIII. Likewise it is asked whether Christ is immolated daily. Solution. He who was once slain on the altar of the cross is immolated daily in memory of his passion in the sacrament, nor is it repeated from his infirmity, but from ours, who daily sin, and obtain the remission of venial sins, [0532A] and an increase of virtues if we participate worthily. It is objected concerning that which Augustine says, that the good man receives the sacrament and the reality of the sacrament; but the evil man only the sacrament, and not the reality of the sacrament, and it has already been said above that the evil man receives the true body and the true blood: therefore the evil man receives not only the sacrament, but also the reality of the sacrament, which is to be believed without doubt. Solution. In the aforesaid words Augustine calls the sacrament the true body and true blood of Christ; he calls the reality the spiritual grace, which the good man alone and not the evil receives.

QUESTION XCIX. It is asked what kind of body Christ gave to his disciples, mortal or immortal? If mortal, how could it without injury be ground [0532B] or broken by the teeth; if immortal, then he gave such as it was not yet. Solution. Soundly we say that he gave such as he willed, to whom nothing was impossible. Yet some assert that he gave a mortal one, which, as we do not assert, so we do not deny.

QUESTION C. It is asked what is the virtue of this sacrament? Solution. The remission of venial sins, the perfecting of virtues, and it is instituted for the increase of virtues, and as a medicine of daily infirmity.

QUESTION CI. It is asked whether one ought to communicate daily. Solution. Augustine says: to receive the Eucharist daily I neither praise nor blame: yet if anyone is in the disposition of sinning, he is more burdened by receiving than [0532C] purified; and if anyone is gnawed by mortal sin, let him make satisfaction with tears; and if for the rest he have the will of not sinning, let him approach securely.

QUESTION CII. It is wont to be asked whether depraved priests can confect this sacrifice? Solution. Although some be depraved in life, if they are within by name and by sacrament, it is believed that they truly consecrate: but those who are excommunicated, and manifestly marked with heresy, do not seem able to do this. In this sacrament three things must be observed, namely form, order, and intention: the form instituted by the Lord; the order, that he be a priest; the intention, that he intend to do this.

QUESTION CIII. It is asked whether the body of the Lord is touched or received by brute animals? Solution. In no way is it received either by a mouse, or by another little beast.

[0532D]QUESTION CIV. What then does the mouse receive, which eats it? Solution. God knows — perhaps nothing but the accidents which are there.

QUESTION CV. *Eat not for the sake of him who judged, and for conscience' sake,* namely of the weak, etc. It is asked how he says: Eat not for the sake of the unbeliever, or the weak believer, is it not better to eat for the sake of both than to abstain? For if one abstains, the unbeliever is offended. But the weak is rather to be left to himself, as was said above: *He that is weak, let him eat herbs [n: (I Cor. XIV)]*. For in this opinion, he who thinks that thou dost venerate the idol, if thou eatest things consecrated to the idol, he is to be left to himself: for although he judge that thou sinnest by eating, yet thou dost not eat with veneration of the idol, [0533A] nor is he himself, by thinking this, turned away from the faith, but rather by zeal for the faith believes thee to err in this that thou eatest, and therefore is indignant. Solution. It is better to instruct by abstaining him who ate, than by eating to foster him in error. Likewise, if thou shouldst eat in the presence of a weak brother, he himself would be scandalized, and from the scandal would perish. Therefore one ought rather to abstain than to eat.

QUESTION CVI. *Whether you eat, or drink,* etc. It is asked how it can be fulfilled, that we do all things to the glory of God, since we do many things naturally, which we do not do for this, that we may please God? Solution. Let all our works be done so circumspectly, that nothing be done against God.

QUESTION CVII. *As I also please all men in all things.* Elsewhere he says: *If I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ [0533B] [n: (Galat. I)]*. Was he, pleasing all men in all things, not the servant of Christ? Solution. That which he says: If I yet pleased men, is understood thus: If I pleased men so far as in me lies, so as to put the cause and end in man, I should not be the servant of Christ. But he who pleases for the sake of the truth, not he himself, but rather the truth itself pleases.

QUESTION CVIII. *If any man seem to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither the Church of God.* Here we have authority that the customs of holy Church are to be held, even if we are ignorant of the reason why they were thus established by her: for God does not permit his Church to err in those things which pertain to himself. Note: The Church is called the convocation of the faithful, and the house in which one assembles to receive the Eucharist, [0533C] not only for the commemoration of the death of Christ, but also that we may be conformed to Christ in morals and life.

QUESTION CIX. *The man is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the image and glory of the man,* etc. It is asked how the man is the image of God and not the woman, since in Genesis it is written of both, that they were made to the image of God? [n: (Gen. I.)] Solution. One is the image common to man and woman, of which it is treated in Genesis; another is that which befits the man alone and not the woman. The first consists in the natural power of knowing God; the second is understood in this, that, as from God are all things, so from one man are all men. Or it is to be taken morally: that by the man reason be understood; by [0533D] the woman, sensuality, and according to this the man and not the woman is the image of God.

QUESTION CX. *There must be heresies,* etc. Concerning the authority of the Church. It is asked who is to be called a heretic? Solution. A heretic properly is one who, for the sake of some temporal advantage, and especially of glory, or of his own principality, invents false and new and depraved sects, alien from the truth, or holds, follows, and defends sects invented by others.

QUESTION CXI. *But let a man prove himself,* etc. If anyone is in mortal sin, let him not approach, but say: *Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof [n: (Matth. VIII)]*. What then is it for anyone to prove himself, but to see whether his conscience gnaws at him concerning a mortal sin, and whether he is in the purpose of remaining still in [0534A] sin? But the priest ought to admonish him who is in mortal sin, though not manifest, not to approach; yet he cannot withdraw communion from him. But if public report or a crime accuse him, let him in no way approach, lest the priest give it to him. For if, either for favor of him, or convicted by money, he gives to such a one, so far as in him lies, he kills Christ: which is greatly to be feared.

QUESTION CXII. *Now there are diversities of graces, but the same Spirit,* etc. [n: (I Cor. XII.)] Since the works of the Trinity are undivided, it is asked why he attributes graces to the Holy Spirit, ministrations to the Son, operations to the Father? Solution. In grace especially appears benignity, which pertains to the property of the Holy Spirit: therefore he attributes graces to the Holy Spirit. In ministrations [0534B] indeed wisdom shines, which is wont to be referred to the Son. In operations, power, which is specially of the Father: therefore he refers operations to the authority of the Father.

QUESTION CXIII. *To one is given the word of wisdom,* etc. It is to be noted that wisdom and knowledge are taken here otherwise than there: *O the depth of the riches of the knowledge and wisdom of God [n: (Rom. XI)]*. For when he says: O the depth of the riches of the knowledge and wisdom of God, by wisdom and knowledge he calls the divine essence. But when he says, to one is given the word of wisdom; *to another the word of knowledge,* by wisdom he calls the knowledge of eternal things, but by knowledge, the knowledge of human things.

QUESTION CXIV. *All these things one and the same Spirit worketh.* It is asked why the Father is not called gift, [0534C] as the Son or the Holy Spirit, since he gives himself, as also do the other persons: for to no one is the Son or the Holy Spirit given without the Father. Solution. On account of the authority of the origin, lest he be understood to be from another, who is from none.

QUESTION CXV. *For as one body,* etc. It is asked whether the good alone participate in these gifts? Or also the evil? But that even the evil have these gifts of the Spirit is plain from that which is read in the Gospel, that they will say to the Lord in the day of judgment: *Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name, and cast out devils? [n: (Matth. VII)]* to whom the Lord will say: *Amen I say to you, I know you not,* etc. [n: (Matth. XXV.)] Likewise John the evangelist, when he saw a certain man, who did not follow the Lord, casting out devils in the name [0534D] of Christ, wished to forbid him; to whom the Lord said: *Forbid not; he that is not with me is against me [n: (Marc. IX)]*. From which it is plain that the evil also often use these gifts, and thus it seems that they are of the body of Christ, and are his members; but the same, since they are evil, are members of the devil. Solution. The Apostle does not say that all having the gifts of the Holy Spirit are established in the unity of the body; or the Church is taken broadly, namely the multitude of all participating in the sacraments of the Church. Among whom are certain rotten members, and many grains with chaff, which are said to be in the body, but not of the body. Whence John: *They went out from us, but they were not of us [n: (I Joan. II)]*. Note that the Apostle says all the members of the body, since they are many, are one body. This I say on account of [0535A] certain ones unwilling to concede that all the parts of some whole joined together receive the name of the whole, since it is also said in the creed of Athanasius, soul and flesh are one man.

## II. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CXVI. *If I should have all faith, but charity,* etc. [n: (I Cor. XIII.)] Here the Apostle manifestly shows that faith, and the other gifts, cannot be had without charity. It is asked therefore, first of all, of what faith he here treats — whether of the catholic faith, or of another? But not of another, because by another mountains cannot be transferred from place to place, as by this of which he here treats: therefore he here treats of the catholic faith. Whence it is established that it can be had without charity, and thus can be had by the wicked, which many deny. But according to these, the catholic faith is a faith working [0535B] through love. Of whom it can be asked whether they call it one thing, or two — faith working through love — but this whole cannot be one? For he who has faith thus not only believes, but also loves. But these two cannot be in the wicked; yet so far as it is simply in faith, this whole can be even in the wicked, even in the devil. For what does this good man believe that this evil man does not believe? Does not this evil man, or even the devil, believe that Christ died, and was raised again from death, and the other things which are to be believed, which are necessary to faith? But it is objected, according to this, that the devil has the catholic faith, and thus becomes a catholic. Solution. "Catholic" is said in two ways: both he who lives in catholic wise, imitating the life of Christ; and he is called catholic who believes all [0535C] things that are to be believed, whether he have charity or not. Certain ones concede that even the devil, according to the other acceptation, can be called catholic — which sounds grievously to our ears, especially since that knowledge which he has of Christ is rather from subtlety of nature than from the inspiration of the Christian faith.

QUESTION CXVII. *Charity is the proper fountain of good things,* etc. It is asked whether charity can be had by those who are to be damned. Are they not strangers, who do not share in the proper fountain of good things? Solution. Charity is called the proper fountain of good things for this reason, that no one can at once have charity and be evil.

QUESTION CXVIII. *Charity never falleth away,* etc. [0535D] It is asked whether charity, once had, is never lost. For if it never falls away, and is never lost, then those who are to be damned can never at any time have charity. Solution. Charity is said never to fall away for this reason, that it is had both here and in the future; but had in the present it is lost, and once lost is again recovered.

QUESTION CXIX. *Knowledge shall be destroyed,* etc. It is asked how he says that knowledge is destroyed in the future. Shall we not have in the future the knowledge of those things of which we now have it? We shall indeed have it, and much greater than we have in the present: how then shall knowledge be destroyed? Solution. Certain ones say that knowledge shall be destroyed as to its partiality and imperfection, so that it be not partial and imperfect. But [0536A] this is for it to be increased and perfected, and not destroyed; because in the same way it could be said of charity, that it is to be destroyed. For as we know imperfectly, so we love imperfectly; and when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away.

Solution. Certain ones say that not knowledge, but its enigmatic and shadowy mode is to be destroyed. But again, by the same reasoning, charity too seems to be destroyed: whose mode, namely of imperfection, is in the future to be done away. To this it is answered that it is true that the mode of imperfection shall be taken away from charity, but not every mode. For in the future the neighbor shall be loved for his own sake, and for God's sake, as he is loved in the present. Others also say that the act of knowledge shall be destroyed in the future. But charity, [0536B] which now is — neither its act, nor any mode of it — shall be destroyed in the future; but faith and hope shall be wholly done away; but knowledge in part shall be destroyed [sic: *destrueter*]: of which there shall be neither act nor mode.

QUESTION CXX. But there is another question, which presses us more: it is true, and it cannot be denied, that charity in the present is imperfect in comparison with the future; but the Apostle proves by such an argument that prophecies shall be done away, and that knowledge shall be destroyed: *We know in part, and we prophesy in part: but when that which is perfect is come, that which is in part shall be done away:* since therefore charity is in part, by a like argument it too shall be done away, when that which is perfect is come. Solution. But we say that [0536C] knowledge, or prophecy, is said to be in part by one reason, and charity imperfect by another reason. For from the fact that some know, and some do not know, prophecy or doctrine has place in this present, where one teaches and instructs another. But in the future, where all shall be taught of God, when all from the greatest to the least shall know God fully and perfectly, then the teaching of men shall have no place: when no one shall say to his brother: Know God. And therefore knowledge, that is, doctrine, shall be done away. But charity is not in this way said to be in part. For it does not have being for this reason, that some love and some love not: nay, it shall be much more truly when all shall love perfectly. Note: an enigma is an obscure likeness; and as in the present every creature is as it were [0536D] a kind of mirror in which God is seen, so in the future God himself shall be the mirror of every creature, in which all things shall be seen more truly than in themselves. Hence it is, according to some, why knowledge is to be destroyed: because this shadowy mode of knowing, which we now have, when full knowledge comes will be no more.

QUESTION CXXI. Faith and hope cannot be lacking to charity; but faith and hope can exist without charity. Yet certain ones say, as was said above, that faith cannot exist without charity: whose error is here destroyed. For when he says: *If I should have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing:* he manifestly intimates that even perfect faith can be had without charity. [0537A] And the expositor, in the aforesaid words, manifestly refutes them, saying that faith and hope can exist without charity.

QUESTION CXXII. But concerning hope it can be asked how it can exist without charity. Is not hope a confidence of future goods, coming from preceding merits? But this cannot be without charity. And so it seems that hope cannot exist without charity. Likewise, if hope is, as it seems to others, the expectation of a future advantage, it will now be presumption rather than hope, if I am certain that he will reward, though there be no merits. To this it can be answered that hope is twofold: of reward, and of meriting: but the hope of meriting cannot exist without charity, while the hope of reward can (not) be had without [0537B] charity.

QUESTION CXXIII. *He that speaketh in a tongue, speaketh not to men, but to God [n: (I Cor. XIV)]*. It is asked what it is to speak in a tongue. Solution. Some say that to speak in a tongue is to speak in parables; others, in an unknown tongue. Augustine says that the utterance of signs, which the Spirit forms in the spirit of man, is said to be speaking in a tongue. Whence the Apostle says: *The Spirit speaketh mysteries [n: (Ibid.)]*. For to speak in a tongue and to speak in the spirit he says to be the same. The Holy Spirit, in the primitive Church, formed for the conversion of the faithful the signs of heavenly secrets in the minds of the faithful, and the utterance of such things the Apostle calls speaking in tongues. But it is to be noted that those who spoke in tongues sometimes understood, sometimes did not understand. But [0537C] someone will say: If he who speaks in a tongue understands what he says, then this is not to speak in a tongue, but to prophesy. Solution. Although he himself understand, unless he expound to others, he does not prophesy, but only speaks in a tongue. Note that certain things are done in the Church only for adornment, not so much for necessity: among which is contained speaking in tongues.

QUESTION CXXIV. *You shall be speaking into the air,* etc. From these words certain ones judge that to speak in tongues is to speak in diverse kinds of languages; but this is not true: nay, the Apostle brings this in to show that to speak in tongues without interpretation has little usefulness, just as to speak in all kinds of languages would make rather confusion than edification [0537D] for those who understood none of them.

QUESTION CXXV. *If I know not the power of the voice.* It is asked what he calls the power of the voice. Solution. He calls the signification of the voice the power of the voice.

QUESTION CXXVI. It is also asked why speech of this kind is said to be done by the tongue. Solution. This is so because what is in the tongue is in the voice and in the utterance; but what is in the heart is in the understanding; because in the heart is intelligence: whence, because this speech is only in the utterance, and not in the intelligence, it is therefore said to be done by the tongue; by the spirit also, and not by the mind. For the spirit is a power of the soul lower than the mind, in which the images of things are confusedly apprehended. For it is an imaginary and confused apprehension of visible things, without discernment of the properties of those things which [0538A] are apprehended: such as was that vision of Pharaoh concerning the cows and the ears of grain: for he saw only images. But Joseph had in his understanding the revelation of God concerning these things.

QUESTION CXXVII. It is asked what words thus uttered signify, when someone thus speaks in a tongue — to set down this example: *He that soweth went forth to sow his seed.* For if this is the signification of the voice, it was true: it is asked therefore whether that is said by it which is properly signified by it: if it be said to be so, it is inferred, therefore, that something false is signified by it. To this certain ones respond, saying: The signification of the voice is not to be sought in such things, but only that of the things, which pertains to allegory. Others say, to speak more freely, that it does indeed properly signify something false; [0538B] yet a falsehood is not spoken by it: because the statement is not there terminated; for the end of the speech is not that first signification of the voice, but the second, which is called allegorical. But it can be said that the speech itself signifies neither true nor false: for the things there signify only the truth, which is there mystically understood. Nor do I deny that there is there a signification of the voice, but only incomplexly, because this word, "man," signifies a man, and so of the rest; but they do not signify complexly; for they do not signify conjointly, so that the true or the false is signified, but so that they may signify those things by which the truth is signified. Or it can be said that the proposition itself, from the property of the things which are signified, is taken up [0538C] to signify that which is mystically understood, as this word, "seed," signifies the word of God, from the property of the thing which it signifies.

## II. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CXXVIII. *Christ died for our sins,* etc. [n: (I Cor. XV.)] It is asked whether Christ, according to the flesh, had the necessity of dying? That he had the necessity of dying seems to be the intent of the authority upon that passage: As *it is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment: so also Christ was offered once [n: (Hebr. IX)]*; so, that is, by the same necessity and law of nature by which the rest die. Likewise the authority says, *because it was his own will he was offered [n: (Isai. LIII)]*. Therefore by will alone: how then by necessity? Solution. It is established that in Christ there was no cause of dying, because no sin; yet, as certain ones will have it, among [0538D] the other penalties, he took up voluntarily also the necessity of dying; and thus this necessity does not impede the will, which, as he received it when he willed, so he laid it down when he willed: for if, they say, some greater benefit had not been conferred upon the assumed flesh, it would necessarily be subject to the law of nature — which necessity also some understand by mortality.

QUESTION CXXIX. *I am the least of the apostles,* etc. It is asked how the Apostle calls himself the least of the apostles, since he is of greater merit than the merits of the others: for he labored more than all. Solution. He says this according to his former state, not according to the present, in which he was not the least of the apostles, but the greatest. But it is objected: For he does not [0539A] say, I was the least, but *I am the least of the apostles:* therefore, since he is not among the least, but rather among the first, it seems that he lies, and thus sins unto death: because *the mouth that belieth killeth the soul [n: (Sap. I)]*. Solution. The sense is: I am the least of the apostles, that is, I do not prefer myself to others, but rather others to myself: for indeed all his sins, past or present, hidden or manifest, he had before his eyes; but the simplicity and innocence of others he considered, and thus, according to this consideration, he felt more humbly of himself: for as the proud man, if he has any goods, always attends to them, and to the infirmities of others, whence he judges himself alone great, despising others; so the humble man without ceasing sees his own infirmities, but weighs the goods [0539B] of others: hence it is that the saints, though they be greater, feel themselves the more humble, nor is it a deceiving opinion, because the goods which they have they judge to be not their own, but the gifts of God; but the evils to which they are subject they know to be their own.

QUESTION CXXX. *By the grace of God I am what I am,* etc. It is asked of what grace he speaks. Indeed, of operating and cooperating grace, or preventing grace and subsequent grace, it has already been said in what precedes: for preventing, or operating, grace is one and the same, which works in us without us, namely by preparing and healing free will, that it may will the good, which the Apostle notes, saying: By the grace of God I am what I am; but subsequent, or [0539C] cooperating, grace is one and the same, which works in us, not without us, by following after and helping, lest we will in vain, which the Apostle notes, saying: *And his grace in me hath not been void, because I have laboured more than all: yet not I, but the grace of God with me.* From this therefore, that he says: *I am what I am by the grace of God,* the error of the Pelagians is destroyed, who said that free will suffices for meriting salvation. Likewise, from the fact that he adds, *and his grace in me hath not been void,* he shows that man can do something from free will, which certain heretics deny, saying that man can merit nothing. But the Apostle demonstrates that man of himself can indeed do nothing, but only from grace supervening: for it is needful that man be prevented by grace; then free will, [0539D] already prevented by grace, ought to cooperate with grace itself: whose nature is such that it can shine back and cooperate, as the eye touched by the ray of the sun can see. What therefore man works, is from grace, with which he cooperates. For a certain grace, as has already been said, works without the help of man, because it pricks the mind and rouses it; but man without grace can neither consent to grace, nor effect anything else, but leans upon grace drawing and leading, and thus, helped by grace, merits. From which it appears that it is not grace only when man does anything of good, but also from free will, although the whole is the work of grace, either by itself, or working with man. And so there are certain things from grace alone, and certain things from grace and man.

[0540A]QUESTION CXXXI. *If there be no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen again.* It is asked concerning the hypothetical, whether it be true, and how it is to be understood. Solution. It is true, and is thus understood: If it were impossible for the dead to rise, as certain heretics said, neither is it possible that Christ rose; or if the saints were not to rise, neither would it be true that Christ rose; because all that he did in the flesh — by dying, by suffering, by rising — he did for us.

QUESTION CXXXII. *If Christ be not risen again, our faith is vain.* It is asked how the Apostle says that our faith is vain, and *we are more miserable than all men [n: (I Cor. XV)]*, if there will be no resurrection of the dead, or of bodies. For since [0540B] the soul is immortal, and it alone is capable of the vision of God, and thus it alone can have beatitude, can we not be blessed without the resurrection of bodies? And to the same:

QUESTION CXXXIII. It is asked, to what end will be the resurrection of bodies, since there will be no need of them where Christ will be all in all, nor can they themselves receive the beatitude which will be of the soul alone? Solution. It is to be seen diligently what is said, and according to what. For that which he says: We are more miserable than all men, he says not according to the soul, but according to the body. For here the Apostle suffered greater misery than others. But the resurrection of bodies is, that we may glory also in the second robe: for that brightness [0540C] which will be in the body will be for the increase of beatitude itself, so that what before it had for misery, it may now have for glory and adornment. The Apostle proves the resurrection of the dead by the resurrection of Christ: which was done for this reason alone, that the resurrection of bodies might be believed, and might come to pass: *When he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father [n: (Ibid.)]*, that is, when he shall lead the Church — in which he now reigns through faith, through the knowledge which it had of the Son — to the knowledge and vision of the Father.

QUESTION CXXXIV. *Till he put all his enemies under his feet.* It is asked how he says that Christ must reign: *Till he put,* etc. [n: (Ibid.)] Will he not reign forever, and especially when his enemies are subdued? Solution. In like places, "till" is put [0540D] for "forever": for if he reigns then, when he has adversaries, it is established that he will reign when all are subject to him, and thus he will reign forever.

QUESTION CXXXV.-- *Then the Son also himself shall be subject unto him that put all things under him.* It is asked according to what nature he says the Son is subject to the Father. For if according to the divine, he will be less than him: which is false, because according to the divinity he is equal to the Father. Likewise, if this be said according to the human, then according to it all things are subject to him: and according to the human he is Lord of all: wherefore also Creator; and thus according to the same he seems to be equal to the Father, according to which he is less than him: whence it is read: Equal to the Father according to the divinity; less than the Father according to the humanity. Solution. This can [0541A] well be understood according to both natures, namely the divine and the human: according to the human all things are subject to him, according to which he was exalted to the equality of the Father, when the human nature was united in one person to the Word consubstantial with the Father, according to which he himself also received the fullness of gifts; of which *fullness we all have received [n: (Joan. I)]*, and thus are subject to him. Likewise, according to the divine nature, certain ones understand it thus, that the Son is subject to the Father, because from him he has being, from whom he has whatever he has. According to that: *My doctrine is not mine [n: (Joan. VII)]*. Likewise: *The Father is greater than I [n: (Joan. XIV)]*. Which some will have understood according to the divine nature. In a word of this kind a distinction is noted, because the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the Son [0541B]; whence the Father is called the principle of the Deity, because he is from none, and from him is both the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Father is a principle not from a principle; the Son a principle from a principle; the Holy Spirit proceeding from both. But things of this kind are to be said only at a fitting place and time, lest the weak incur scandal.

QUESTION CXXXVI. *In unequal brightness there will be equal joy.* It is asked, if the brightness is unequal, how can the joy be equal? Will not the quantity of joy be according to the quantity of brightness! Will not the brightness itself be the joy itself? Likewise, if one is more blessed than another, the one will have greater joy than the other: how then will the joy be equal? Likewise, will not the joy of all [0541C] be that of each? How then, in unequal brightness, will there be equal joy? If the same coin be given to all, how is the brightness unequal? If the joy will be equal, then the joy of Peter will be the joy of Martin. Solution. One thing is the joy of experience, another that of the will; as the joy of Peter is of remuneration, and of experience, but for Martin it is not of experience, but of affection. For the good of Peter pleases him as much as it does Peter himself, yet he does not feel and experience in himself so great a beatitude as Peter feels. And so the beatitude is different according to quantity, although it be the same according to quality. Just as, therefore, at the health of someone recovering from infirmity I rejoice as much as he does, by affection, though not by experience, because I do not feel in myself the health which he experiences. [0541D] As two are covered by the same bed, yet one is warmer: so in the one vision of God, one will rejoice more intensely than another. But no inferior will envy any greater, nor will he desire for himself the greater joy of the superior, because each one will have as much as he wills, otherwise he would not be blessed. There is life without death, knowledge without error, love without offense. There will be seen the end of our desires, namely God without end, he will be loved without weariness, he will be praised without fatigue.

QUESTION CXXXVII. *It is sown a natural body,* etc. It is asked whether the body has animality, that is, sensuality, from the soul, or the soul from the body? Solution. Neither can the body have animality except from the soul; nor would the soul be animal, that is, having [0542A] sensuality, unless joined to a body. And so animality seems to be known from the conjunction of both; the soul alone, however, feels through the body, but the body receives it, and does not itself feel. For man was first so created that from creation he was passible, yet he would never have suffered, unless he had sinned. Whence he is also said to have been immortal before sin, because he was able not to die, for he was able not to sin, since, if he had not sinned, he would not die.

## II. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION CXXXVIII. It is likewise wont to be asked, since man before sin was said to be mortal, and in a certain manner immortal, whether he had both from nature, or neither, or one only. Solution. Saving the reverence due to hidden things, and without prejudice to a better opinion, we say that man before sin was naturally mortal and passible; [0542B] but by the benefit of the tree of life he would become immortal: whence the doctors do not say simply that he was then immortal, but they add "in a certain manner," and determine in what manner; but mortal they pronounce him simply to have been, according to this that is said: The first man was made into a living soul, that is, into a soul which should quicken and vivify the body, not so as to have no need of foods.

QUESTION CXXXIX. *Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot possess the kingdom of God; neither shall corruption possess incorruption.* It is asked therefore what bodies we are going to have. Solution. The same bodies which we now have we shall have after the resurrection, but changed not according to substance, but [0542C] according to quality: these dissoluble, but those indissoluble; but those of the good impassible, but those of the wicked passible: whence they will be as if in perpetual death. But that they will be indissoluble, the Apostle teaches, saying: Flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God [n: (Ibid.)]. But that they are going to have impassible bodies, the Apostle intimates, saying: *but we shall all be changed [n: (Ibid.)]*.

QUESTION CXL. *For the trumpet shall sound [sic: Canetenim],* etc. It is asked, what is signified by the name of the trumpet? Solution. The doctors say that the Apostle so calls some evident and manifest sign, by which the mystery of the future resurrection will be fulfilled: which trumpet is elsewhere called a cry, elsewhere the voice of an archangel or the voice of Christ.

[0542D]QUESTION CXLI. It is asked also concerning the voice of the trumpet, whether it will be material? Solution. It is manifest that there will be a material voice made by the ministry of an angel; because as by the trumpet the people of the Jews was called together to a feast or to war, so then they will be called to judgment; or some evident sign, by which the same is done that is wont to be done by the voice.

QUESTION CXLII. *Death is swallowed up in victory.* It is asked, what death, and in what victory it is thus swallowed up? For by the name of death is signified sometimes the devil, who is the author of death, sometimes sin, which separates from God, sometimes the dissolution of soul and body. Solution. It can well be understood both of the devil, and of sin, and of the dissolution of soul and body. It is established that in the victory of the Lord's resurrection the devil [0543A] is swallowed up: that he may not domineer, as before, when by the fear of death men were driven to any crime whatever; but now the saints despise death: but chiefly in the future general resurrection of all shall all death be swallowed up, when this mortal shall put on incorruption.

QUESTION CXLIII. *And the strength of sin is the law.* How this is to be understood may easily be weighed from those things which were said upon the Epistle to the Romans: for the law being given, both carnal concupiscence grew strong, and transgression came on. For the law by forbidding increases concupiscence, unless the Holy Spirit infuse charity.

QUESTION CXLIV. *Therefore, brethren, be ye steadfast and unmovable.* It is asked in what these two differ. Solution. [0543B] Steadfast in faith, lest of themselves they be moved by the foot of pride; unmovable in temptations, lest by the impelling hand of sins they forsake the faith. There are three kinds of temptations: one violent, another fraudulent, the third violent and fraudulent. The first is done through open persecutions; the second through false brethren and heretics; the third will be done through Antichrist. But every [0544A] kind of temptation the devil sends: whence he is also called a lion, by raging openly, and a dragon, by seducing secretly and stealthily: whence it is written: *Under his tongue is labour and sorrow [n: (Psal. X)]*.

QUESTION CXLV. *Concerning Apollo, I make known to you, that I greatly besought him to come unto you, but it was not his will to come now [n: (I Cor. XVI)]*. It is asked which of the two acted unreasonably — whether Paul in asking that he should go? or Apollo in not consenting, because it seems either that this one did not ask what was fitting, or that the other omitted what he ought to have done? Solution. It is true that both acted reasonably, because the Apostle asked that he should do this; whence Apollo, because he was thus asked, saw that the Apostle's petition should rather be set aside, wherefore [0544B] he did not consent.

QUESTION CXLVI. *Salute one another with a holy kiss.* It is asked why he added, "holy"? Solution. There is a kiss of wantonness; there is a kiss of betrayal, as of Judas; there is a kiss of holiness and concord, so that what is within may appear outwardly, namely the bond of charity, etc. Of this therefore he speaks, that he may exclude the rest.

## III. ON THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS.

[0543]

[0543C] *[n: (II COR. I.)] Paul an apostle,* etc. This is the second epistle, which is addressed to the Corinthians. Now the Apostle sometimes writes two, sometimes one epistle only; but neither, when he writes one, does he say anything diminished and imperfect, nor, when he writes two, anything superfluous, as here can be seen. For this epistle, which follows, is the consummation and confirmation of the preceding. For in this second one he admonishes those to be corrected who had not yet been corrected through the preceding epistle. He marks them, that in almsgiving they were sparing. He commands the corrected fornicator to be received. Whence it appears what is the matter of this epistle, and also what the intention. The matter is the special state of the Corinthians, in which they then were. But the intention is to recall them to the unity and integrity of faith. But in this [0543D] special state he signifies and forms the general state of the Church, and invites all to the unity of faith. He sends beforehand, after his manner, and that of others writing epistles, salutations of those to whom he writes, courting benevolence: whence also he says, Paul an apostle, joining a name of humility and a name of dignity, that humility as companion may temper the excellence of dignity, without which every virtue is empty and vain. Likewise, of Jesus Christ: Jesus is a name of the person. Now many were called by this name, as Jesus son of Nave, Jesus the great priest, but all by way of designation. But Christ alone substantively, because he had both the name and the thing: who was truly the Savior of the world. For Jesus is interpreted *Savior.* But Christ is a name of the person, [0544C] which embraces both natures. For it is a name of office, like priest, soldier, and is interpreted *anointed.* In the Old Testament two persons were anointed, the royal and the priestly; but Christ was anointed with a royal anointing, who according to the divine nature was able to rule his own; but according to the human nature received the power of offering, who offered himself to God the Father: whence from the royal and priestly office he is called Christ. The will of God is taken in many ways, as was already said above, and to say it again will not be superfluous. For the will of God is called the disposition itself, and the good pleasure. Whence: *Whatsoever he pleased he hath done [n: (Psalm. CXXXIV)]*. The will of God is also called counsel, or precept: whence it is said: *God will have all men to be saved [n: (I Tim. II)]*, that is, [0544D] he counsels and commands them to do those things by which they may be saved, such as prohibition, or permission, and the like.

QUESTION I. *Whereas when I was thus minded, did I use lightness?* It is asked therefore whether the Apostle lied, in promising that he would come, when he did not come: for he himself said, I will come, and he did not come: therefore with him there was "it is" and "it is not," that is, affirmation and negation of the same thing, and thus a lie, and thus he is guilty of lying. Solution. A lie is a false signification of the voice with the intention of deceiving: whence he who says something false which he thinks true is not to be judged a liar, since he is rather deceived than deceives. But whoever, with the intention of deceiving, says what is true or false, is guilty [0545A] of lying: whence it is gathered that someone saying what is true is guilty of lying, or lies; and that someone says what is false, and yet does not lie or is not guilty of lying.

QUESTION II. But it is asked concerning those who lie piously, whether they are guilty of lying, as those Egyptian midwives? For from the intention of deceiving they pronounced something false. Solution. Those who thus lie sin, and while they provide for the lives of others, acting against their own conscience, they offend the truth, and incur the peril of their own soul.

QUESTION III. Likewise it is asked concerning those who speak falsehood in jest. Solution. Sometimes so to jest is evil, sometimes not; but if from habit, then it is a sin.

[0545B]QUESTION IV. *To some indeed the odour of death unto death,* etc. [n: (II Cor. II.)] It is asked whether the odour of death is good or evil, since the Apostle says that he is an odour, to some unto death, to some unto life: for if good, how unto death? Likewise, if evil, how good to God? Solution. The Apostle was nothing but a good odour, and yet by this good odour some were dying, that is, they took occasion through envy, as the law is good, and yet an occasion of evil, because of transgression.

QUESTION V. *Not that we are sufficient,* etc. [n: (II Cor. III)]. Here it is asked how the Apostle says that we are not sufficient to think anything of ourselves, since we can both think and do evil of ourselves. Likewise, since certain things we can do naturally, which are neither for reward nor for punishment [0545C] — and these are those which were given us from the first creation, as to raise a finger, to bend it, to lay it down, and the like. Solution. The Apostle here treats of those goods which have merit with God, which can in no way be done without grace supervening and helping. Whence *His mercy shall prevent me [n: (Psal. LVIII)]*, *and his mercy shall follow me [n: (Psal. XXII)]*. For grace prevents the will, that it may will, and follows after, lest it will in vain. Whence the Apostle here destroys the error of those who said that the beginning of good cannot naturally be without grace, but that the consummation of good is from ourselves: in this that he says, but our sufficiency is from God. For from free will we have the faculty of working well, yet we cannot use this faculty except [0545D] by the help of grace. For free will is through fault so depressed that it cannot use its own power, unless it be raised up by grace and helped, as, when I have the power of riding, yet I cannot have the exercise of this power without a horse.

QUESTION VI. *The letter killeth, but the spirit quickeneth,* etc. It is asked how the letter is said to kill: does it command such things as, when observed, kill? How then will that stand which the Apostle says elsewhere, that *the law is holy, and the commandment holy, good and just,* if the precepts kill? Likewise, if it be said that the letter without the spirit, that is, without grace, kills, the same can seem to be said of the Gospel. [0546A] Likewise, if it be said that the letter kills for this reason, that not all things can be observed there according to the letter: let him not perish who has observed them. In the same way it can be said of the Gospel. For if this, *except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood,* etc. [n: (Joan. VI)], be observed according to the letter, that is, as the letter sounds, so that we understand eating and drinking thus, this, as elsewhere, is foolish and damnable. Solution: The letter without the spirit kills, that is, without grace, because it is an occasion of death, as knowledge without charity puffs up. But the letter of the Gospel is not without the spirit. Or, as was already said elsewhere: *By the letter, or law, is understood the commandment without grace:* which always kills: because, increasing concupiscence, it adds on transgression. By the Gospel [0546B] is understood the commandment with the spirit, that is, grace: whence the Apostle calls the law *the ministration of death:* the Gospel, *the ministration of justice.*

QUESTION VII. *And not as Moses put a veil,* etc. It is asked concerning the veil, whether it blinds. Solution. One thing is the figured veil, which is the reading of Moses: which was figured by the veil that Moses, speaking to the children of Israel, put over his face. Another thing is the veil of blindness, which is placed over the heart of the Jews: both veils are taken away through Christ. In figure of which thing the veil of the temple was rent in the passion of Christ.

QUESTION VIII. *But we all, beholding the glory of God with open face, are transformed into the same image,* [0546C] etc. It is asked what he calls glory, and what image? Solution. The glory of God, which we behold, and the image, into which we are transformed, he calls the same, namely Christ, who is the glory, and the uncreated image of God, as man is the glory, and the created image of God.

QUESTION IX. *Who is the image of the invisible God [n: (II Cor. IV)]*. It is asked why the Son is called the image of the Father. Solution. That it may be shown that he is so from the Father, as to be shown through all things like and equal to him.

QUESTION X. But if it be asked why the Holy Spirit, since he is from the Father, and like and equal through all things, is not called the image of the Father as the Son is. It is answered that image, equality, and likeness pertain more to the property of the Son than to [0546D] the property of the Holy Spirit. For those things which are born, not those which proceed, are wont to be alike. It is to be noted that upon image and equality follows likeness: because wherever there is image, or equality, there is likeness, but it is not converted. Likewise, image neither infers equality, nor is inferred from it, because there can be image without equality, and equality without image.

QUESTION XI. Having the same spirit of faith. The expositor says upon this passage that the times are varied, not the faith, because whatever we believe, those ancients also believed, and conversely. Whence it is thus objected: Abraham believed that Christ was to be born, and we believe that he is born: but it is one thing to be [0547A] about to be born, another to be born: therefore he believed one thing, and we another? Solution. Whatever we believe, and the ancients, etc., that is, the same things are subject to our faith and to theirs: yet it does not follow that the same thing which is now past was past in their time; or that what was then future is now future. Likewise, if it is objected: Abraham believed that Christ was to be born, but now it is false that Christ is to be born: therefore Abraham believed something false. Solution. As it seems to us, the "what" is interpreted by the "of what kind." For when it is said: Abraham believed that Christ was to be born, the sense is, he had faith concerning the nativity of Christ, which was then future; but in the assumption, when it is said, now it is false that Christ is to be born, the sense is: the nativity of Christ is not future: whence [0547B] from those two premises it in no way follows that Abraham believed something false.

QUESTION XII. *But though our outward man.* It is asked whether the outward man and the inward man are two men, and whether the outward man and the old man, and the inward man and the new man, are the same. Solution. As the old man and the new man are not two men, but one, although according to one thing he be called old, according to another new, so the outward man and the inward man are not two men, but one and the same, so called according to diverse things. Nor is the old man the same as the outward man; nor is the new man the same as the inward man. For the old man consists in fault and punishment, which two are found not only in the outward man, but also in the inward man. But the new man [0547C] is understood according to justice and glory: which two also pertain to the inward man. But the outward man is called whatever we have in common with the beasts; the inward man, what is common to us with the angels.

## III. ON THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XIII. *Who hath given us the pledge of the Spirit,* etc. [n: (II Cor. V)]. It is asked how the Holy Spirit is called a pledge, and of what thing he is the earnest? Solution. The Holy Spirit is love, and from the love which we have toward God, we are certain of his promise; and because we have this certitude from the Holy Spirit, therefore the Holy Spirit is given to us by God as it were an earnest and a pledge. Now a pledge is the certitude of a thing believed, or promised, or to be believed. [0547D] *Knowing therefore the fear of the Lord, we persuade men.* Fear is divided into five species, as was already said in the Epistle to the Romans, nor is there need to go back over it.

QUESTION XIV. *For whether we be transported in mind,* etc. It is asked what are the excesses of mind. Solution. There are two excesses, either dread, or straining toward things above: so that in a certain manner lower things slip from the memory. In this excess of mind were all the saints: to whom the secret things of God, surpassing the world, were revealed.

QUESTION XV. *Christ died for all.* It is asked how Christ died for all: since his death does not profit all: for it does not profit those to be damned, but only the elect. Solution. [0548A] According to Jerome it is thus understood, for all who are to be saved. For universality is sometimes restricted, and this in many ways. For sometimes the universal sign gathers the individuals of the kinds, sometimes the kinds of the individuals, sometimes neither, but the greater or the more worthy part of the universality itself. Or according to Augustine, Christ died for all, because his death merited this, that through him all should be saved, unless it remained in themselves: for it was sufficient for the salvation of all.

QUESTION XVI. *God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself.* It is asked how the Father is said to be in the Son, or the Son in the Father: or how that [0548B] is to be understood: *He that seeth me, seeth the Father also [n: (Joan. XIV)]*. Solution. The one is said to be or to be seen in the other for this reason, that their substance is naturally one. Which I add, that I may exclude the Sabellian heresy. There is unity where there is no diversity, but in every way indifference, and equality, and identity. Whence Hilary says: The Father is seen in the Son on account of the united likeness of nature: for so do we detest the pest of the Arians, that we no less execrate the madness of the Sabellians; so do we confess God to be three, that he is one, and so one, that he is three. For many in our days are Sabellians as to their understanding, who confess three persons: but when it is said that the three persons are one substance, they understand nothing else than what Sabellius understood: [0548C] which comes about because they do not attend to the manifold signification of this name, *substance.* For Hilary says that when it is said: The Father and the Son are one substance, such a manner of speaking has both the conscience of faith, and a fraud ready at hand. Then he opens up both, saying: If you signify the Father and the Son to be a singular God, the understanding is false; but if you say that the Father and the Son are one substance, or one simply, so as to understand one, equal and indifferent, through all things equal, in no part dissimilar, the understanding is true. By which words he most manifestly distinguishes between personal unity and natural unity: for the Father and the Son are one in nature, not in person.

[0548D]QUESTION XVII. *Behold, now is the day of salvation,* etc. [n: (III Cor. VI)]. It is asked why the time of grace is called the day of salvation, since also in the time of the natural and written law many were saved? Solution. This time of grace is called the day of salvation for this reason, that in this time the victim was offered, through which alone entrance lies open into the kingdom, through which also those who went before merited salvation. Whence also it is called the time of grace, on account of the greater powers given to us through the manifestation of faith and love: whence also the powers of the devil are diminished, and because now all things are done freely, not for the sake of any earthly advantage, and because those things which in other times were promised are in this time fulfilled.

[0549A]QUESTION XVIII. *In charity unfeigned,* etc. It is asked what charity is called feigned. Solution. That which does not persevere, or which is not sufficient for salvation, or that which is simulated, namely some sign of love shown outwardly, when within it is not in the heart, and this charity is not charity.

QUESTION XIX. *As dying, and behold we live.* It is asked, in view of these words, how the yoke of the Lord is sweet, and the burden light, since the saints suffer so many and so great hard and difficult things, and how those laboring and burdened, coming to him, find rest, since they seem to pass not from labor to rest, but rather from rest to labor. Solution. To the saints sustaining grievous and harsh things there is present the Holy Spirit, who in the corruption of the outward man renews the inward man, [0549B] from day to day, and, spiritual rest being tasted, by the hope of future beatitude relieves all harsh things, and thus in so many hard things the burden of Christ is lighter. For the love of God and of our Lord Jesus Christ makes all savage and monstrous things easy and well-nigh nothing.

QUESTION XX. *That there may be an equality, as it is written: He that had much had nothing over,* etc. [n: (II Cor. VIII.)] It is asked whether the lesser, who (as it were provincials) minister stipends to the soldiers of Christ, are equal to them in merits: which the Apostle seems to mean, saying, that there may be an equality. Solution. That equality is not of piety, but because both sustain, and are sustained by, one another. For the lesser sustain the greater in carnal things, and are sustained in spiritual things. And the greater sustain the lesser, that is, the spiritual the carnal, in [0549C] spiritual things, and are sustained in carnal things by the same.

QUESTION XXI. *For we provide good things not only before God,* etc. It is asked how the Apostle divides, namely before God, and before men, since it cannot be done before God, unless it be also done before men? Yet the outward work is not always required, namely when the faculty is lacking. But it is always required that the conscience be clean. Solution. That the Apostle may show that the conscience cannot be clean, unless good things also be provided before men, therefore he distinguishes between these two.

QUESTION XXII. It is asked: What is it to provide good things before God? Solution. So to dispose the mind, that [0549D] nothing be done against God, which cannot be done, unless the scandal of the brethren be avoided outwardly; or therefore he divides between the aforesaid, that he may show that there are certain things which, as far as pertains to God, are lawful to be done, because in themselves they are good, although it seem otherwise to men, and therefore they can be passed over. What therefore is expedient and fitting, let that be done which is expedient for us unto merit, which is fitting for an example to the rest. Therefore for the sake of conscience we ought to provide good things before God. For the sake of reputation we provide good things also before men: for he who, trusting in his conscience, neglects his reputation, is cruel, which he does who cares not whether what he does please or displease, and for the scandal of the brethren omits nothing.

QUESTION XXIII. *He who soweth sparingly, shall also reap sparingly.* [0550A] [n: (II Cor. IX.)] It is asked concerning the poor, who sow sparingly, or nothing, whether they too shall therefore reap sparingly. Solution. He does not sow sparingly who bestows little, if the mind be ready to give, if he had more. He therefore is to be said to sow sparingly who has little love, whether he give more or less: and this man shall reap sparingly, that is, he shall receive a small retribution unto life eternal.

QUESTION XXIV. *For we dare not insert ourselves,* etc. [n: (II Cor. II.)] That is, we do not usurp to ourselves power, but we use the power given to us by God. It is asked therefore what it is to usurp power. Solution. He usurps to himself power who, not elected, or not called, takes to himself honor, who thrusts himself in, and, power not being received, wishes to domineer.

[0550B]QUESTION XXV. *But we will not glory beyond measure.* It is asked: What is it to glory beyond measure? Solution. To glory more than one ought, and in that in which one ought not, which he does who extends himself into that to which he has no right. But to abuse power is to flatter, and to caress the vices of sinners. To use power is to reprove sinners, and to do the other things which pertain to edification.

QUESTION XXVI. *He that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord.* It is asked what it is to glory in the Lord, since elsewhere he says: *God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ [n: (Galat. VI)]*. And that: *Not only do we glory in the hope of the sons of God, but also in our tribulations [n: (Rom. V)]*. Is it the same to glory in the Lord, and in the cross of the Lord, and in tribulations? [0550C] What is it to glory? Solution. To glory is to rejoice in praise, and to judge oneself worthy of glory. To glory in the Lord is to attribute all confidence not to oneself, but to the Lord as author, and to exult in Christ with spiritual joy. To glory in the cross of the Lord can be understood in two ways. For he is rightly said to glory in the cross of the Lord who with joy, and with hope of the future life, imitates the passion of the Lord, and this is to glory in tribulations. Someone also is said to glory in the cross of the Lord who does not judge himself worthy of salvation, except through the merit of the Lord's passion, saying with the apostle Peter: *Because there is no other name under heaven whereby we must be saved [n: (Act. IV)]*: these things I say without prejudice to a better opinion.

[0550D]QUESTION XXVII. *For I am jealous of you with the jealousy of God,* etc. [n: (II Cor. XI.)] It is asked: What is jealousy? Solution. Jealousy is a motion of the mind toward good or toward evil on account of another's state. When it is toward good, then it is of love; when it is toward evil, then it is of envy.

QUESTION XXVIII. It is asked likewise: What is it to be jealous with the jealousy of God? Solution. To love unto the honor of God, or with that jealousy which God inspires.

QUESTION XXIX. *For I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you a chaste virgin to Christ.* It is asked concerning this espousal of the Apostle, since not all who are in the Church are virgins, as the married, how then can he present those who are not virgins as a virgin, as it were one, and moreover chaste? Solution. Virginity is twofold: [0551A] of body and of mind: the virginity of the flesh is the body untouched; the virginity of the mind is the incorrupt integrity of the inward man. But this is required of every believer, without which that which is of the flesh does not profit. But all are called one virgin on account of the unity of entire faith, of solid hope, of sincere love. Chaste, not having the heat of an evil will.

QUESTION XXX. *Satan transformeth himself into an angel of light,* etc. It is asked whether it is perilous to believe Satan to be an angel of light, when he says or does those things which befit the good. Solution. If, at the time when he says or does those things which are fitting, there is no error, it is not perilous; but when he begins to lead in his deceits, that no one may go after him, there is need of vigilance: which is not done without God.

## III. ON THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE CORINTHIANS. (cont.)

[0551B]QUESTION XXXI. [ *In hunger, and thirst,* etc. It is asked where is the promise of God who says: *First seek the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you [n: (Matth. VI)]*. For the promise seems to have wavered, since the Apostle says that he labored in hunger, and thirst, in cold and nakedness. Solution. That physician, to whom we have once committed ourselves wholly, and from whom we have the promise of the present life and of the future, knows when to apply these aids, or to withdraw them, as he judges to be expedient for us?

QUESTION XXXII. *Through a window in the gate by the brethren.* It is asked whether this deed was praiseworthy, or worthy of reproach: which seems [so] to some, because he was not freed by the help of God. Solution. The help of God is not needed before human aid has failed; nor ought anyone to await [0551C] the help of God, while he has something he can do, lest he seem to tempt God.

QUESTION XXXIII. *And thus I escaped his hands.* It is asked whether the Apostle acted, in fleeing, as a good shepherd, or as a hireling. Did he not, when the wolf came, desert the sheep, and flee? and thus it seems that he was not a good shepherd, but a hireling. Solution. When any shepherd is specially sought by persecutors, it is permitted him to give way, and to avoid the fury of the persecutors, and by fleeing to preserve himself for the benefit of the whole flock, and meanwhile let the others, who are not so sought after, furnish food to their fellow-servants. But when a common peril presses upon all, let those, who need others, not be deserted by those whom they need.

QUESTION XXXIV. *Whether in the body, or out of the body, [0551D] I know not, God knoweth,* etc. [n: (II Cor. XII.)] It is asked how the Apostle could have doubted whether he was caught up in the body, or out of the body, since no one existing in this life can see God as he is; whence he says to Moses: *Man shall not see me, and live [n: (Exod. XXXIII)]*. Likewise, if he was caught up out of the body, namely so that the soul was separated from the body, was his body meanwhile dead? Likewise, if he saw God with an intellectual vision, then he saw him truly, and had that knowledge in which is the highest beatitude, and thus he was in beatitude; but beatitude once had is never lost; or if God took from him what he had already received, it seems that God acted unjustly. Solution. Either could have happened: either that the soul separated from the body [0552A] saw God in itself, or that the soul, free from the senses of the body, contemplated God thus in the body itself; and since either of these could rightly have happened, the Apostle, in doubt, says whether in the body, or out of the body. Whence, whichever of these it was, that authority will be preserved: *Man shall not see me, and live,* because in either way he could have put off the man. But if he was out of the body, then the body was dead, and separated from the soul, and again quickened when the soul returned. And since he had full knowledge of God, and thus was in beatitude, if again the same glory was withdrawn from him, it is not to be wondered at, nor incredible, because thus God could show beforehand to his most beloved servant the beatitude and joy to come, which he was to receive, [0552B] that he might endure more firmly in his love and service, and desire more vehemently the very time of receiving it: just as, transfigured on the mountain, he showed the glory of his humanity to his three disciples.

QUESTION XXXV. But by the third heaven, and paradise, into which he was caught up, he understands the same thing, namely the full understanding, or knowledge, of the divinity. Note the fourfold opinion concerning the three heavens. According to the first opinion, the first heaven is the airy, whence [are] the birds of heaven. The second is the firmament, whence also he called the firmament heaven. The third is the empyrean, which as soon as it was made was filled with angels, where the angels, and the holy souls, enjoy the contemplation of God. According to the second opinion, the first heaven is corporeal vision, by which [0552C] heaven, and earth, and all things visible to the eyes are discerned. By the same vision certain things are sometimes seen by the gift of God, as Elisha [saw] the fiery chariots [n: (IV Reg. II)], and Balthasar the hand writing on the wall, *mane, thecel, phares [n: (Dan. V)]*. The second heaven is imaginary, or spiritual, vision, by which are seen not bodies, but the images of them: as is wont [to happen] in dreams, or in ecstasy, as Pharaoh [saw] the ears of grain [n: (Gen. XLI)], and Peter the vessel [n: (Act. X)]. The third is intellectual vision, by which neither bodies, nor images of bodies are seen, but incorporeal and immaterial things are beheld by the instinct of the mind, as substance, the Godhead, and every affection of the soul. The third opinion calls the three heavens the threefold hierarchy of angels according to Dionysius. The first, in the ascent, is that which contains the angels, and archangels, [0552D] and virtues. The second, powers, principalities, and dominions; the third, thrones, and cherubim, and seraphim. This third hierarchy, therefore, in the ascent, and the first in the descent, the Apostle calls the third heaven, or paradise: to which, when he says he was caught up, he shows that he saw God immediately, face to face. The fourth opinion is, that the first heaven is called the knowledge of heavenly bodies, the second [the knowledge] of heavenly spirits, the third the knowledge of the Godhead.

QUESTION XXXVI. *I know such a man,* etc. It is asked how he says a man was caught up whether in the body, or out of it, since man subsists in body and soul, how then does he say that a man can be caught up out of the body. Solution. The truth of man consists there, where is [0553A] the image, and likeness of God. Whence [comes] that saying: The mind of each is the man himself. By the name of man, therefore, he calls the inner man.

QUESTION XXXVII. *There was given to me a thorn of my flesh, an angel,* etc. It is asked by whom this thorn was given to him, whether by God, or by the devil. If by God, how is it called an angel of Satan, as though sent by him? Likewise, if sent by the devil, how is that true which follows: *Lest the greatness of the revelations exalt [me],* etc. Did Satan then buffet the Apostle through an angel sent by himself, lest he be exalted into pride? Solution. Both by God, and by the devil, was he sent who vexed the Apostle, but for one purpose by God, and for another by the devil. By God he was sent for this, lest the greatness of the revelations exalt him. By the devil, for this, that he might drag him to [0553B] failing. By God also he was sent for this, that virtue might be perfected in weakness.

QUESTION XXXVIII. *For which thing I besought the Lord thrice,* etc. The devil sought to tempt Job, and was heard [n: (Job I)]. The Apostle asked that the angel of Satan might depart from him, and was not heard. Where then is divine justice? Was it just that the devil be heard, and not the Apostle? Solution. Those whom God has purposed to heal, he does not always hear according to their will, but according to their health. But some, in wrath, he sometimes hears according to their will, as the devil.

QUESTION XXXIX. Likewise, since the Apostle knew that this infirmity was given him for his profit, and for the preservation of humility, it is asked whether he reasonably prayed [0553C] that such a temptation might depart from him. Solution. Although he knew this, yet as a man he feared a fall from the affliction, [0554A] and so from fear he was humbled; but humility drove out the disease of proud elation, and by this dispensation of divine providence, that thorn was given him.

QUESTION XL. *And they did not do penance,* etc. It is asked whether penance is necessary for one amending his morals for the better; and in what ways penance is performed. Solution. It does not suffice to change one's morals for the better, and to withdraw from evils, unless by the sorrow of penance, and the groaning of humility, and the sacrifice of a contrite heart, satisfaction be made for the fault. Likewise it is to be noted that penance is performed in three ways: before baptism, and after baptism, for the graver [sins], and daily for the lighter and more frequent, according to that saying: You have avoided great things, see that you be not crushed by the sand.

QUESTION XLI. *We pray God, that you do no evil* [0554B] [n: (II Cor. XIII)]. Here the Apostle intimates that only by the grace of God is one turned aside from evil, saying: We pray, etc. For outward planting and watering avail nothing without the inward increase: which God gives by grace alone. It is asked, then, why in the sacred Scriptures we are often commanded both to turn aside from evil, and to do good: since free will is sufficient for neither of these, since it is the work of grace alone, proper to it, both this and that. Solution. The will does something, but does not do it alone. Therefore when it is commanded that this or that be done, we ought to recognize free will; but when prayer is made, the benefit of grace is sought. Concerning grace and free will it has already been said in what is above, and likewise what grace works of itself without the will, [0554C] and what it does not work without it; nor is there need that the same things be repeated again.

## IV. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS.

[0553]

[0553C] *[n: (Galat. I.)] Paul the apostle,* etc. This Epistle the Apostle sends to the Galatians: who, coming from Gaul, mingled themselves with the Greeks in a certain province of Greece. Whence that province was first called Gallograecia, then Galatia. Whence, since the Greeks are of sharp intellect, these [being] foolish, and slower to understand, are held to be like the unteachable Gauls. These were first instructed by the Apostle in the faith, [0553D] and in evangelical doctrine, [and] afterwards were subverted in many ways by false apostles, so that they believed the grace of Christ did not suffice for salvation without the law of Moses. Whence it is plain what the special matter is, namely the state of the Galatians in which they then were; but the general matter [is] the common state of the Church. But the intention of the Apostle in this Epistle is to recall the Galatians, deceived by the tricks of the false [apostles], to the truth of the catholic faith and of evangelical doctrine. The manner [is] such: he prefaces a greeting, where against the detractors, and those glorying in the works of the law, he briefly touches upon his own dignity, and the grace of Christ: commending his own person, when the false [apostles] disparaged [him]. After the salutation he reproves them for their fickleness: afterwards he commends his own person more fully. Then he disproves the law of Moses: [0554C] teaching that it is not to be kept after Christ, because not only does it not profit unto salvation and justice, but even hinders. Afterwards he commends the Gospel and the faith of Christ, which suffices for salvation.

QUESTION I. *Who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us from the present world,* etc. Since the world or age is the work of God, who is the author of good things [0554D] only, it is asked here how the whole world is set in evil, or how the age is called wicked. Solution. Not only places, but also times and instruments of evils contract the infamy of those [evils] which are done in them: whence [there are] evil days, and perilous times [so] called. Woodland passes too, full of robbers, are called evil; and the sword, by which blood is shed, and the cup, by which poison is administered; and thus the world, or age, obtains the name of wickedness on account of the things which are done in it.

QUESTION II. *But although we, or an angel, preach to you beside that,* etc. Were there not many things which he had not yet preached to them, which are to be believed and held by little ones, who are to be nourished with the milk of simple doctrine? Solution. He does not say more than you have received, but beside [0555A] that, he says, by which he understands the contrary. Whence he promised he would come to some, that he might fulfill the things that were lacking to them.

QUESTION III. *If I yet pleased men,* etc. The question, which is wont to be raised here, has been resolved in the first Epistle to the Corinthians. But someone will say: Whatever has been said elsewhere, I would like to hear how both are true, *if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ;* and that: *Please all men in all things [n: (I Cor. X)]*. He himself does not wish to please men, that he may be the servant of Christ. But to us he commands that we please all men. Does he not wish us not to be servants of Christ, since we cannot [do] both, both please them, and be servants of Christ? Whence it is written: *He hath scattered the bones of them that please men* [0555B] [n: (Psal. XXV)]. The same question arises from the diverse words of the Lord. For in one place he says: *Let your light shine before men [n: (Matth. V)]*; and in another: *Do not your justice before men [n: (Matth. VI)]*. Solution. We are admonished nothing else, whether by the words of the Lord, or by the words of the Apostle, save that we place not the end of good works in the praise of men, and that we not desire the same as it were for the reward of good works.

QUESTION IV. *I persecuted the Church of God,* etc. It is asked whether the Apostle sinned by persecuting the Church of God, since he had zeal for the law, and in doing this believed it ought to be done for God's sake. For everyone is bound to do that which conscience dictates [0555C] ought to be done for God's sake, and so if he did not do it, he seems to offend God by contempt. Likewise, who would doubt that to persecute the Church is evil? Solution. Some say that, whether he did this or that, he would sin. But others say that the zeal, which the Apostle had, was good, but that work was evil, and of error, namely the persecution of the Church.

QUESTION V. *But I saw none other of the apostles, save James the brother of the Lord.* Why James the less, son of Alphaeus, is called the brother of the Lord is wont to be asked. Solution. Some say that he was called the brother of the Lord because he was the son of Joseph by another wife, who was thought to be the father of the Lord: but this is not established, since Joseph was believed to be a virgin; another solution therefore is to be sought. [0555D] It is to be known, then, that Mary the mother of the Lord was the daughter of Joachim and Anna, who married Joseph, and so Joseph was the putative father of the Lord. But when Joachim was dead, Cleophas the brother of Joseph took the same Anna to wife, and begot of her a daughter, whom he called Mary, who married Alphaeus, who begot sons, namely James, Joseph, Simon, and Jude. But when Cleophas was dead, a certain Salomas married the same Anna, and begot of her a daughter by name Mary, who married Zebedee: and had of him sons, James, who was called the Greater, and John the evangelist. Three husbands, therefore, Anna had, and three daughters. Now it is to be seen why James [son] of Alphaeus was also called the less, [and] the brother of the Lord. He was called the less in comparison with the other, who first clung to the Lord, [0556A] and therefore was called the greater, not according to the time of birth, but of conversion. But he was called the brother of the Lord, according to some, because he was the son of his maternal aunt, or on account of the likeness of his sanctity, or rather because he was the nephew of the paternal uncle of Christ, that is, of Cleophas. For the Hebrews call those joined by natural consanguinity on the fathers' side brothers. It is to be noted that in the Scriptures men are called brothers in four ways. By nature, as Esau and Jacob; by nation, as all the Jews are called brothers among themselves; by kinship, as all those who are of the same family; when from one root a multitude spreads out, as Scripture calls Abraham, and Lot, and Jacob, and Laban brothers. By affection, all Christians [are brothers], partakers of the same grace, having the same heavenly Father.

[0556B]QUESTION VI. *Thou compellest the Gentiles to judaize [n: (Galat. II)]*, etc. Concerning this rebuke it is wont to be asked: was it true, or dispensatory, and did Peter sin, and was he truly reprehensible? Solution. In the answering of this question those two illustrious lights, Jerome and Augustine, seem to disagree. Jerome says that that rebuke was dispensatory, and not true, and that Peter did not sin, nor was reprehensible. But Augustine asserts that the rebuke was true, and not feigned, and that Peter was truly reprehensible; nor did he walk according to the truth of the Gospel; not in this, that he became weak to the weak, but because by his example he compelled the Gentiles to judaize: otherwise the consequence will be that Paul wrote what was false, which is by no means to be believed. [0556C] Likewise concerning the abolition of the legal [observances] after Christ, the same two masters nonetheless do not think the same. For Jerome says that after Christ those legal observances are deadly. Augustine says that it was permitted the Jews then, in the primitive Church, to observe them, only let them not put hope in them. For before the coming of Christ they seem to have been necessary; on the very border of law and grace [they were] indifferent, if hope be not put in them; but now they are deadly. Note that a dispensation is the concession of an inferior state for the sake of avoiding scandal, in which a lesser evil is done, that a greater may be avoided. Saving the reverence of [these] secret [matters], we prefer the opinion of blessed Augustine to the opinion of blessed Jerome upon the aforesaid rebuke and abolition of the law. [0556D] Whence to the objections of blessed Jerome we answer thus. The first is: Christ is the end of the law, that is, the consummation and fullness fulfilling the law, and consummating [it] in himself, and in his own. Yet not so that through no interval of time could the law, after the coming of Christ, lawfully be kept by anyone. Likewise, *the law and the prophets until John.* Venerable old man Jerome, answer me with pure understanding, how is this to be understood, the law and the prophets until John? Is it thus, that after John it was not lawful to keep the law? Which seems [to follow] according to your disputation. But did not Christ even after John keep the law, celebrating the old pasch? Did Christ do what was not fitting? It is therefore to be understood thus: *the law and the prophets until John,* that is, from John the grace of the New Testament [0557A] began both to be preached and to be shown forth: and from then the Old Testament began to cease. Likewise at that time it was not heresy to observe the legal ceremonies, though it would be now, especially if anyone believed that grace did not suffice for salvation without the law. Likewise if they are to be observed, they bring salvation. Do we not observe certain things, which do not confer salvation, but which we can, at our own discretion, use, and not use?

QUESTION VII. *Man shall not be justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Christ.* It is asked how faith justifies and not works, since God renders to each according to his works. Is there not, from the fact that there is merit and reward, [also] crown and justice? If then the crown is from works, it seems that justice is from the same. Solution. In the Epistle to the Romans it has been disputed [0557B] according to our measure concerning this question: here let it now suffice to say: faith is said to justify for this reason, because from the certitude of things invisible the eternal goods are loved; and love justifies. He says therefore that we are justified from faith, because it is first, from which the rest are obtained. Nor, when he says that we are justified from faith, are good works made void, but he says this for the reason that the works themselves are from the grace of faith.

QUESTION VIII. *If I build again the things which I destroyed, I make myself a prevaricator.* But someone will say: Did he not destroy the faith which he assailed, and again build it up by preaching, and thus seem to be a prevaricator? Solution. He who destroys a false thing, which can be destroyed, if he build it again, is a prevaricator. But faith cannot be destroyed, though [0557C] it can be assailed. Although, therefore, Paul first tried to destroy our faith, and again to build it up, yet he was not a prevaricator.

QUESTION IX. Likewise it is objected concerning the same thing thus: *If I build again the things which I destroyed.* Behold he manifestly says that he destroyed the legal [observances]; but elsewhere he says: *Do we then destroy the law? God forbid! but we establish the law [n: (Rom. III)]*. How then is each true? Solution. In two ways is anyone said to destroy the law. He destroys the law who says it useless in its state before the incarnation of the Word, and asserts it was not given by God, and in this way Paul did not destroy the law. He also is said to destroy the law, who shows that after the coming of Christ it is not to be kept according to the carnal [sense], [0557D] and in this way Paul did destroy the law, saying: *If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.*

QUESTION X. Is Christ then the minister of sin, since the law is good, and the commandment good, just, and holy? how [is] Christ [the minister of sin], if he administers the law, and [that] sin? Did God, when he gave the law, administer sin? Solution. The law indeed [is] good, yet the occasion of sin: according to which reasoning the minister of the law is called the minister of sin.

## IV. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XI. *For through the law I am dead to the law,* etc., that is, through the authority of the law I have dismissed it: but by what authority, it is asked. Solution. Moses says: *I will raise up for you a prophet from your brethren, whom you shall hear as me [n: (Deut. XVIII)]*. And Jeremiah: *I will complete a new testament with the house of Israel.* And David: [0558A] *And holocaust for sin thou didst not require: then said I: Behold I come [n: (Psal. XXXIX)]*. From this too, that it is written in the law: *Thou shalt hate thine enemy [n: (Matth. V)]*, since no one can be saved with hatred of an enemy, it is established that the law justifies no one. And therefore from it one must flee to the grace which justifies. And because the law restrained only the hand, and not the mind, in the doing of outward things, and set all its worshippers under a curse, it is clear that through it one must die to it, that one may live in God.

QUESTION XII. *Who loved me, and delivered himself for me,* etc. Recall to memory that question, how the Father, the Son, and Judas concur in the delivering up of the Son, treated upon the Epistle to the Romans according to our ability. For if [0558B] justice [is] through the law, then Christ died in vain: but Christ did not die in vain, that is, without cause, or benefit: therefore justice is not from the law. Reader, recall the authority to memory as often as it is needful for you to prove that justice is not from the law: this I say, because there are authorities by which it seems it could be shown that justice is from the law: as was shown above.

QUESTION XIII. *Who hath bewitched you that you should not believe the truth,* etc. It is asked what bewitching is. Solution. Magical mockery, by which things are shown to the eyes of men otherwise than they are: [this] is called a bewitching, or bewitchment: or commonly [it is called] fascination, which harms infants. For the eyes of certain [persons] are said to burn by their gaze, and this act is reckoned a bewitching. Thus envy harms not only [0558C] the envious man, pining away at another's happiness, but also those in whom some good things begin to be. Whence it is written: *The bewitching of trifling obscureth good things [n: (Sap. IV)]*.

QUESTION XIV. *They who are of faith shall be blessed: they who are of the works of the law are under a curse.* It is asked what it is to be of faith, [and] what it is to be of the works of the law. Solution. They are of faith whose being depends on faith, that is, who through faith tend to true being, and who through the grace of faith seek to be justified. And these alone shall obtain from God the blessing of eternal life. But they are said to be of the works of the law, who seek to be justified from them; and therefore they are under a curse, as transgressors of the law.

QUESTION XV. *Cursed is everyone who abideth not [0558D] in all things which are written in the book of the law, to do them.* It is asked whether God commanded anything in the law which cannot be fulfilled? If it be said nothing, how are all, who are of the works of the law, under a curse? Likewise, if God commanded man something which he himself would not [be willing to] do, God seems unjust and cruel. Solution. Some say that nothing was commanded in the law which man cannot fulfill. Against whom the expositor says, that God commanded many things, all of which no one could fulfill. Whence the apostle Peter: *Why tempt you God, to put upon us a yoke, which neither we, nor our fathers were able to bear [n: (Act. XV)]*.

QUESTION XVI. *Cursed is everyone that hangeth on a tree.* It is asked whether Christ is contained under this universality of the curse [0559A]? But he is the one who is over all things God blessed forever; through whom every curse is taken away, and who blessed us with every blessing in the heavenly [places]. For he himself [is] the promised seed of Abraham, in whom is [made] the blessing of all nations. How then can he be cursed? Solution. There is one curse of fault, which is far from Christ: there is another of punishment, which Christ voluntarily took upon himself, made for us a curse, or sin, that is, a victim for sin: that he might take away from the midst the curse both of fault and of punishment. It can also be said that Christ was cursed with the curse of fault, not truly, but according to the opinion of men: whence he was reputed as a sinner with the wicked.

[0559B]QUESTION XVII. *For if the inheritance [be] from the law, [it is] not from the promise.* Concerning this consequence it is asked whether it is true. For its truth it requires that to be from the law and [to be] from the promise be opposites: otherwise it would not follow, if from the law, [then] not from the promise. What is it, then, [for] the inheritance to be from the law: what is it to be from the promise? what also does he call the inheritance? Solution. By inheritance he calls eternal life: to be from the law, is to be from the works of the law, for the fulfilling of which man seems to himself to suffice, nor to need the grace of God, which is [for] the inheritance to be from merits. But for the inheritance to be from the promise, this is, to be from grace. See then, that to be from the law, and [to be] from the promise are opposites. Whence elsewhere the Apostle says: *If from works, [then] now not from grace [n: (Rom. XI)]*, that is, if from debt, [0559C] [then] not from grace.

QUESTION XVIII. *What then [is] the law?* Since the former saints, who were before the law, were just through the grace of faith, and obtained the promise, it is asked why the law was given? and what usefulness it conferred? The solution of this question the Apostle sets down, saying: *The law was set because of transgression,* which can be understood in two ways, namely for the restraining of transgression, that at least through fear men might cease to transgress, so that at some time they might do the same voluntarily; or the law was set because of transgression, that is, that it might make men transgress, and thus they might be humbled, and seek a physician, and implore the help of grace. It was given therefore that it might humble the proud, and betray [their] weakness, [0559D] and [be] a scourge to the hard and a sign of things to come.

QUESTION XIX. It is asked why the law was not given immediately after the fall of man? or why the Son himself did not come at once? or why he permitted so many men to perish? Solution. By great counsel this was done, that after the fall of man the law was not immediately given, or the Son sent. For unless the pride of man first made trial of the powers of his own choice, it would arrogate sufficiency to [its] liberty, and would judge that the law was given superfluously, and that the Son came in vain. Nor did all, who then were, perish: just as neither are all, who now are, made saved. And so this was done, that man might recognize the disease of his own weakness, and implore the grace necessary for him. For in the natural law he was left to himself, [0560A] that thus he might make trial of the powers of nature, and was convicted of ignorance, and confessed [it], because the light of his eyes failed: yet still he believed that he had a virtue, by which he could fulfill whatever was necessary for salvation. Whence also he said: *There is not lacking one who fulfills, but there is lacking one who commands.* As if he said: I need knowledge, not virtue. And so the law was given, which might illuminate ignorance, but not aid weakness: which uncovered sin, but did not consume it, by the giving of which the disease grew strong, and concupiscence was increased, not by the fault of the law, but of nature, and by the instigation of the devil, that thus, the insufficiency of both laws being recognized, and his own weakness, [man] might cry to the physician, and seek the help of grace: and thus, with weaknesses multiplied, they hastened to the physician, who coming in the form [0560B] of a servant healed the wounds of the sick. For this is that Samaritan, who drew near to the wounded man, who fell among robbers, and bound up his wounds: whom the priest, and the levite, that is the law and the priesthood, passed by [n: (Luc. X)]: because *the law brought no one to perfection [n: (Hebr. VII)]*. This is Elisha, who after sending the staff not effective of health, came to raise up the dead son of the Shunammite [n: (IV Reg. IV)]. This is the Angel of great counsel, who descended into the pool, and when the water was moved one was healed [n: (Joan. V)]. This is the omnipotent Word, who came from the royal seats, while a middle silence held all things [n: (Sap. XVIII)]. Note that there are three silences. The first silence is the ignorance of languor, which was under the natural law. The second silence is the despair of salvation, [0560C] which was under the written law, and this silence is the middle one. The third silence is the attainment of health: which will be in the glory of eternal beatitude. While therefore all things held a middle silence, that is, despaired of salvation: the Son of the most high King descended from the light of heaven to the darkness of the world or of hell. And coming he spoke peace, gave grace, set forth mercy, promised pardon. And thus, the middle silence being broken, the sick began with pure faith, and true confession, as with great cries to demand a remedy, and to hasten to the physician, by whom the sick might be healed, and [their] wounds cured.

QUESTION XX. *The law was set in the hand of a Mediator.* It is asked why Christ is called a Mediator? Solution. [0560D] Because he mediates us, that is, reconciles [us] to God.

QUESTION XXI. But since not only the Son reconciles us to himself, but also God the Father, as the Apostle says: *God was in Christ, reconciling the world to himself [n: (II Cor. V)]*, it is asked why the Son alone is called the Mediator of God and men. Solution. The whole Trinity by the exercise of [its] power reconciles us to itself: but the Son alone by the fulfilling of obedience, and by the undertaking of the sacraments, justifies and reconciles us. Whence not undeservedly he alone is called Mediator.

QUESTION XXII. Since Christ [is] God, and man, the mediator of God and men, it is asked according to which nature, whether according to the divine, or according to the human, or according to both, he is Mediator. Solution. The authors say that he is not mediator according to [0561A] that which is God, but only according to that which is man, drawing near to us by mortality, [and] to God by justice.

QUESTION XXIII. *But scripture hath concluded all under sin.* It is asked what he calls scripture. Solution. The law, which elsewhere he calls the letter, here the Apostle names scripture: because it only commands, [and] does not help: it convicts of disease the sick man, who seemed to himself whole, and thus by showing sins, and not taking [them] away, concludes all under sin. The law was given therefore, that grace might be sought: and grace was conferred, that through it the law might be fulfilled: to this accords what he says elsewhere: *God hath concluded all in unbelief, that he might have mercy on all [n: (Rom. XI)]*.

QUESTION XXIV. *As many of you as have been baptized [0561B] in Christ, have put on Christ.* It is asked concerning him, who feignedly approaches baptism, whether he is baptized in Christ, and has put on Christ. For if it be said so, it follows that he is conformed to Christ: but if he is not baptized, [and] if he repent of his feigning, he will be able to be baptized, but this is not granted him: it is established therefore that if baptized. Solution. To be baptized in Christ, and to put on Christ is understood in two ways, either by the reception of the sacrament, which is common to good and bad; or by inward sanctification, and conformity of life, which belongs to the good alone.

## IV. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XXV. It is asked how Christ is the garment of the saints, and whether the saints are the garment of Christ? Solution. Christ is called the garment of the saints, and the saints also the garment [0561C] of Christ. But in one way and another. For Christ is called the garment of the saints through the overshadowing of the Holy Spirit, protecting them from the heat of vices: but the saints [are] the garment of Christ, as it were having him within themselves, and surrounding [him]. Also they honor him by their holy manner of life: as the wicked, by living wickedly, blaspheme [him].

QUESTION XXVI. *If you [be] Christ's, then [you are] Abraham's,* etc. Christ is called the seed of Abraham, and the faithful are called the seed of Abraham. Whence it is asked whether according to the same signification both Christ and the faithful are called the seed of Abraham? Solution. Christ is the seed of Abraham corporally, because born of his stock: the faithful are the seed of Abraham spiritually, that is, just through [0561D] faith, as he was.

QUESTION XXVII. *We were serving under the elements of the world [n: (Galat. IV)]*. If then the Jews also served under the elements, in what did they differ from the pagans? Solution. The Jews under the elements served God, not the elements themselves: but the pagans exhibited divine worship not to God, but to the elements themselves.

QUESTION XXVIII. *When the fullness came,* etc. It is asked why the coming of the Savior is called the fullness of time? Solution. For this reason, because at this time are fulfilled the things which in preceding times had been foretold, and it would seem more properly said the time of fullness, than the fullness of time, and the end of the age is called the same.

QUESTION XXIX. *He sent his Son,* etc. It is asked [0562A] whence and whither the Son was sent. Hear: *I came forth from the Father, and came into the world [n: (Joan. XVI)]*.

QUESTION XXX. But someone will say: Was he not *in the world, and the world was made by him [n: (Joan. I)]*. Was he then sent thither, where he was before? Solution. He was before in the world by power, and by essence, but he began to be otherwise in the world, made visible through the undertaking of the servile form. As therefore when he came forth from the Father, he did not desert the Father; so he came into the world, in which he was before. But why the mission of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, since it is the work of the Trinity, is attributed to the Father, has already been said in what precedes.

QUESTION XXXI. *Made of a woman.* Since the Lord was born of a virgin, it is asked why the Apostle asserts [him] made of a woman? Solution. He used the Hebrew [0562B] manner of speech, which puts woman for female, as Eve in Genesis, not yet having suffered intercourse, is called a woman. Note that the expositor says that the Creator, who always was, was made, that he might be a creature; because he was made man, that he might become what he was not; not that what he was might perish; this I say on account of certain [persons], who deny that he was made anything.

QUESTION XXXII. *Made under the law, that he might redeem them, who were under the law,* etc. Did he not by his death redeem both those who were under the law, and those who were without the law? How then does the Apostle say Christ [was] made under the law, that he might redeem those who were under the law, as though he redeemed them through the observance of the law? Solution. He was made under the law, that he might fulfill it, and having fulfilled [it] make it cease; and thus also [0562C] redeem the Jews from the prevarication of the law. For unless he kept the law, in which the promise was made, who would believe that he was the seed of Abraham promised to Abraham, in whom not only the Jews, but also all the nations should be blessed?

QUESTION XXXIII. *That we might receive the adoption of sons.* What does he call adoption; whether the gratuitous goods pertaining to present justice, or to future glory, through which we are made sons? Solution. Some think a distinction is to be made between the sons of adoption and the sons of grace, but I judge them to be the same.

QUESTION XXXIV. *God sent the spirit of his Son,* etc. Note that the Trinity is here manifestly signified. There are some, who say, that as the eternal generation of the Word [0562D] is from the Father alone, so also is his temporal mission; because according to these, for the Father to send the Son, is [for the Son] to be from the Father, and to appear to us in the flesh assumed. Similarly they assert concerning the Holy Spirit, that as his eternal procession is from the Father, and the Son, and not from himself, so also [is] the temporal: but Augustine manifestly says that the temporal mission both of the Son and of the Holy Spirit is the work of the Trinity; whence the Son himself says that he was sent by the Holy Spirit.

QUESTION XXXV. *Crying: Abba, Father.* It is asked why the Apostle set down two words signifying the same thing; for one seems to be set down superfluously. Solution. He does this for this reason, that he might intimate two peoples joined by one faith. For the Hebrew name signifies the Jews, the Greek word the gentile people; [0563A] the same signification of both words figures the unity of faith and of the Spirit.

QUESTION XXXVI. *To those, who by nature are not gods.* Here he intimates that the nature of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is one. For if the Son is not by nature God, then [he is] neither to be worshipped, nor adored. But it is objected to us thus: Is not the humanity of Christ worshipped and adored? and yet it is not by nature God. Solution. That which is assumed is adored not on its own account, but on account of the one assuming; therefore we adore the humanity of the Savior not alone and bare, but united to the Godhead.

QUESTION XXXVII. *But rather, being known by God.* Does not God know all things from eternity? How then is God said then as if first to know us, when we begin to believe in him? Solution. By a tropical [0563B] manner of speech what we do by God's authorship, is attributed to him; whence it is said: He asketh for the saints, because he maketh them ask, so [he is said] to know us, because he bestoweth on us the knowledge of himself, and to rest, because he maketh us rest in himself.

QUESTION XXXVIII. *How are you turned again to the weak and needy things?* The Galatians did not before keep the law, how then does he say: *you are turned again to the needy things,* etc. Solution. That he might show that legal observance after the coming of Christ differs little, or nothing, from idolatry. Or he says this for this reason, because they wished not only to keep the law, but were also turned to their former errors; thus by a double error they had been deceived by the false [apostles].

QUESTION XXXIX. *And the seventh of the seventh decade, [0563C] which is called jubilee.* What is this that the expositor says? was not the fiftieth year called jubilee in the law? how then is the seventh year of the seventh decade called jubilee? for the seventh of the seventh decade is the sixty-seventh. Solution. The children of Israel, sometimes oppressed by captivity, could not keep the jubilee year in its order. But in the sixty-sixth year license of returning was given by Cyrus, and Darius, and in part they returned, and kept the sixty-seventh year for the jubilee. But someone will say that before the seventy years were fulfilled, they did not return from captivity. Solution. Not indeed generally and wholly did they return before the seventieth year; yet in the [0563D] sixty-sixth year, as we said before, license of returning was granted to some, which is signified by the Alleluia, which is sung on the Saturday after Good Friday, which is the sixty-sixth day of Septuagesima. But since some were still detained in captivity, there follows the tract, which is a sign of labor, as the Alleluia is a sign of joy. But on the following Saturday there is sung also a second [Alleluia] together with the first Alleluia, prefiguring the general return of the Jews which is [at] the completed seventy years.

QUESTION XL. *If it could have been done, you would have plucked out,* etc. Was not that able to be done which the Apostle says? Solution. Holy Scripture says that thing cannot be done, which is not justly done; whence Job says: *Would that I could kill myself [n: (Job X)]*. And the Lord to Lot: *I cannot [0564A] do anything, until thou enter thither [n: (Gen. XIX)]*. He said that he could not [do] what without doubt he could through power, but not through justice.

QUESTION XLI. *Abraham had two sons.* Did he not have more sons of Cetura after the death of Sara? How then does the Apostle say he had two, as though not more than two? Solution. If more than two, then two; for he does not say only two, but yet rather speaks of these than of the others, because Scripture follows out the particulars concerning these, intimating that something excellent is prefigured.

QUESTION XLII. *But these are the two testaments.* Concerning this and like expressions it is asked how they are true. Is not the figure one thing, the truth another; the signifier one thing, the signified another? how [0564B] then is the name of truth predicated of the name of figure, when it is said: These are the two Testaments, and *the rock was Christ? [n: (I Cor. X.)]* Solution. This word, to be, in places of this kind, is set for to signify.

QUESTION XLIII. Likewise why holy Scripture in such a place uses the substantive verb, can be asked. Would it not be plainer, if it were said: But these signify the two testaments, and the rock figured Christ? Solution. It belongs to words to signify, to things to be, properly. But in theology not only do words have signification, but also things are set for the signification of other things, that is, certain things are signified by other things. As often, therefore, as holy Scripture wishes to show, what thing has to signify what thing, it does not say: this signifies that; but this is that, as the rock [0564C] was Christ; for if it were said the rock signifies Christ, it would seem that the signification of this name rock, and not of this thing the rock, was pointed out.

QUESTION XLIV. Note that above he says, that Ishmael was born according to the flesh; Isaac not according to the flesh, but through promise, but was not Isaac, like Ishmael, born by the intercourse of both sexes? how then was he not born according to nature or according to the flesh? Solution. Ishmael was born by the accustomed law of nature, namely from the concurrence of natural causes; but the generation of Isaac was the operation not of nature, but of divine power, and grace. For to such intercourse, as could be at such an age between old Abraham, and Sara aged and [0564D] barren, nature does not grant children; but what nature denied, grace conferred.

QUESTION XLV. But how then did he, who was born according to the flesh, persecute him who was born according to the spirit, or promise; so also now. It is asked: Where this is found, that Ishmael persecuted Isaac. For in Genesis it is read, that the elder played with the younger [n: (Gen. XXI)]. What evil then did he do? what did he sin? how by merely playing did he persecute him? Solution. The play of the elder with the younger Sara understood to be a mockery. Whence also, indignant, she said: *Cast out the handmaid, and her son. [n: (Ibid.)]* And the Apostle calls such mockery persecution. So also mockers persecute us more than open persecutors.

QUESTION XLVI. *If you be circumcised, Christ [0565A] shall profit you nothing. [n: (Gal. V.)]* Did not the Apostle circumcise Timothy? Then he deceived him, and made [it so] that Christ profited nothing? Solution. He says this of those who sought to be justified from circumcision; and therefore circumcised themselves, and thus fell from grace, which they believed to be insufficient. But to those, who received it out of a certain reverence, yet not putting hope in it, it was not pernicious according to Augustine, but according to Jerome it harmed all who received [it], unless a dispensation were made. Concerning which controversy it has been more fully said above.

## IV. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE GALATIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XLVII. *I testify to every man circumcising himself, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.* Will he, if he fulfill the whole law, even so be able to obtain justice? Which seems [to follow] from these words, but [0565B] elsewhere it is manifestly held that justice is not from the law. Likewise, is not every man bound to fulfill the law, at least according to the spirit? What is it then that every man circumcising himself owes this, [and] not another? Likewise: Is not everyone bound to love his neighbor as himself? but he who loves his neighbor fulfills the whole law. Does it not seem from these things, that everyone is bound to fulfill the whole law? What is it then that he says: I testify to every man circumcising himself, etc. Solution. He who seeks to be justified from circumcision or from the law, is bound to this, that, in order to have justice, or be worthy of life, he fulfill whatever is commanded in the law, namely that he covet nothing; and love God with his whole heart, in which two consists perfect justice; which, if anyone had, he would not need the grace [0565C] of faith, as neither [do] the angels of God, [a justice] which is granted to no one in the present [life], save only to the Mediator of God and men: whence it is necessary, that if anyone wishes to be justified or beatified, he flee to grace alone; for if he seeks to be justified in the law, that is required of him which cannot be discharged by man.

QUESTION XLVIII. *In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth, nor uncircumcision.* The expositor says that for those who are in Christ Jesus vices are to be fled, virtues to be sought; but the middle things [are] neither to be fled, nor to be sought, among which he places circumcision. Whence it seems that it neither profits, nor hurts; but above it was said that circumcision not only does not profit, but even hurts. And the Apostle says: *If you be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.* If then [0565D] it takes Christ from us, it hurts much. Solution. Circumcision simply received, in that the cause of salvation is not placed in it, seems to be indifferent, and so neither profits, nor hinders; but if [received] with this intention, and this mind, that from it salvation be sought, [it] hurts [when] received.

QUESTION XLIX. *The whole law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.* Since there are two precepts of love, namely of God and of neighbor, it is asked how in the love of neighbor the whole law is fulfilled? Solution. In the love of neighbor is contained the love of God; for who can love his neighbor for God's sake, unless he love God? Likewise no one can love his neighbor as himself, unless he love [0566A] himself; but no one loves himself, unless he love God: for what is it to love oneself, but to love one's own good? but the true and highest good is Christ. Otherwise he who loves iniquity, hates his own soul.

QUESTION L. It is asked who is [one's] neighbor? Solution. Every man. We are bound therefore by precept to love every man, and to exhibit the offices of piety to everyone in need.

QUESTION LI. *As thyself,* etc. It is asked whether we ought to love [our] neighbor as much as ourselves? Which seems [so], since it is said, as thyself. Solution. "As" is not of quantity, but of quality: this indeed we are bound to do to others, which we wish according to reason to be exhibited to us by others. Note: Since each precept of love is contained in [0566B] each [other], often one is set down rather than two, for if both were set down together, it would seem that one could be had without the other, or could be had.

QUESTION LII. *The flesh lusteth against the spirit.* It is asked how the flesh is said to lust, since the soul alone lusts. Solution. What the soul does from the flesh, this is attributed to the flesh, as the ear is said to hear, the eye to see, since the soul does these things through instruments of this kind.

QUESTION LIII. Since therefore the soul and the spirit are the same according to substance, by what does the soul lust against the spirit; is it against itself? Solution. He calls the lusting flesh the carnal delight, which the soul has from the flesh. But by the name of Spirit he signifies the spiritual delight. [0566C] And on account of these two delights the inner man is divided, and obtains diverse names. For according to the lower delight, he is called now flesh, now man, now soul, or animal, or carnal; but according to the higher he is called spirit, or spiritual, or new man.

QUESTION LIV. *If you be led by the spirit, you are not under the law.* It is asked what it is to be under the law? Solution. To abstain from every evil work by the fear of punishment, not by the love of justice, this is to be under the law. As he is said to be under the law, who seeks to be justified from it, who is a debtor to fulfill the whole law.

QUESTION LV. *But manifest are the works of the flesh, which are fornication,* etc. It is asked how the Apostle [0566D] enumerates among the works of the flesh certain things which are not vices of the flesh, but rather of the soul, as anger, envy, etc. Solution. By the name of flesh he signifies the whole man, who by living according to himself has fallen into these things. For to believe that all vices are from the flesh, is an error, lest the devil, who has no flesh, seem immune from these.

QUESTION LVI. *But the fruit of the spirit is charity.* The expositor says that the Apostle calls the works of the spirit fruits, because they are to be sought for their own sake. But Augustine says that the virtues are to be sought for the sake of beatitude alone, but for their own sake nothing is to be loved, save the highest good, whose fruition makes us blessed. What then is to be said? what is to be held? Solution. The virtues are to be sought for their own sake, because they delight their possessors [0567A] with a sincere delight, but not only for their own sake, but also for the sake of beatitude, which is the supreme end.

QUESTION LVII. *If a man be overtaken in any fault [n: (Gal. VI)]*, etc. It is asked what it is to be overtaken, and what he calls a fault. Solution. He is overtaken, who falls into some fault, or sin, either because he is ignorant of what is to be done or to be omitted, or when he knows [it], but yet weakness impels [him] to sinning. A fault is the desertion of good, as sin is the perpetration of evil, or a fault is what is done ignorantly; sin what [is done] by one knowing, yet indifferently the one is set for the other.

QUESTION LVIII. *Every one shall bear his own burden,* etc. It is asked how both are true. [0567B] *Bear ye one another's burdens,* etc., and this, which he says here: Every one shall bear his own burden? Solution. There are some burdens of the weakness to be shared, of which he treated above; there are others of the account to be rendered to God concerning our acts, of which he treats here. It is true therefore that in the present we ought to help one another; and [that] those who are stronger [ought] to sustain the weaknesses of others; and yet in the future everyone shall bear his own burden, that is, for his own sin and not for the sin of another.

QUESTION LIX. *Let us work good to all,* etc. It is asked whether we are bound by precept to bestow the offices of piety even on enemies? Which seems [so], since the Apostle says: Let us work good to all; and the Lord [0568A] in the Gospel: *Love your enemies; do good to them that hate you [n: (Luc. VI)]*. But Augustine says: To love enemies is not of so great a multitude, as I believe to be heard in the Lord's Prayer, where it is said: *Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive our debtors [n: (Matth. VI)]*. And Gregory says: It suffices not to hate enemies, that is, to will their salvation; even if works of mercy be not bestowed on them. Solution. By precept we are bound to will the salvation of all; but to bestow also the offices of piety on enemies is, as regards the weak and less perfect, counsel, [but] as regards the perfect, precept. Diligently therefore is it to be noted what is said according to counsel, [and] what according to precept.

QUESTION LX. Likewise since it is established, that it is good [0568B] to do good to the wicked, and to sinners, and to the impious, what is it that Scripture says: *Give to the merciful, and receive not the sinner, and to the impious, and to sinners render vengeance, and do good to the humble, and give not to the impious [n: (Eccles. XII)]*. Solution. The sense of the aforesaid authorities is that you do good to no sinner for this reason, because he is a sinner, but because [he is] a man, that is, we ought to foster no one's fault, but [his] nature. In each let us love what God loves, and hate what he hates; but if we cannot help all, both good and bad, we ought to bestow the good things which we can on the servants of God; whence the Apostle: *But most of all to those of the household of the faith.*

## V. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.

[0567]

[0567C] *[n: (Ephes. I.)] Paul, an apostle,* etc. This Epistle he writes to the Ephesians, whom Paul did not found in the faith, but, having been founded by John the apostle, he confirmed — men who firmly persisted in faith and good works, whom he exhorts to advance in good things, writing to them from Rome, from prison. And so the matter of the apostle in this epistle is the state of the Ephesians, in which they then were. But the intention is to confirm them in the good things they possess, to spur on [sic: *adulteriora*], and also to form them to humility and the giving of thanks. The mode of proceeding is such: after his manner he sends a salutation beforehand; then he gives thanks, setting forth the manifold benefits of God, conferred by grace alone — now upon the human race, now upon the apostles themselves, now upon the Ephesians themselves. Then he shows the dignity and preeminence of Christ. Afterward he invites them to patience [0567D] and charity, commending the unity of faith and of the Church, and enumerating the gifts of grace; at last, exhorting them to the contest, he describes the armor of the Christian soldiery against the princes of darkness.

QUESTION I. *Blessed be God, who hath blessed us,* etc. Since "to be blessed" is said of God and of man, it is asked whether it is said in the same manner, and according to the same signification. Solution. Otherwise and otherwise of each. [0568C] For God is blessed by man when he is extolled with worthy praises; but man is blessed by God when God imparts to him the gifts of his grace.

QUESTION II. The expositor says that the Apostle here sets down two preordinations: one concerning present justice, the other concerning the future crown. But since the predestination of God is one, which is God himself, it is asked how they are said to be two? Solution. They are not said to be two as though it were not one; but because it has two effects, namely through present justice and through future glory. To which solution it is thus objected: If the number of predestinations is to be assigned according to the number of effects, then there will be infinite predestinations, since the effects of predestination are infinite. Solution. All instances of justice, because they differ in number and not in species, [0568D] are said to be one effect; so also all crowns, because they are distinguished not in species but in number alone, are said to be one effect of predestination. But since present justice and future glory differ not only in number but also in species, they are not incongruously said to be two effects of predestination. It is to be noted that there are many things of this kind which, though they be many in number and one in species, are said to be simply not many, but [0569A] one, according to the usage of speaking; as my faith and his faith, though they be two in number, are nevertheless said to be not two simply, but one, because they are one in species; so of grass, of voice, of understanding, of sight, and of many other things — letter, figure, element, vowel — the like distinction is to be made.

QUESTION III. *As he chose us, that we should be holy,* etc. The Pelagian says that those whom God chose from eternity, he chose them for this reason, because he foreknew that they would be good, and through the choice of free will, not because he was going to sanctify them. But the Apostle destroys this heresy of his when he says: He chose us, that we should be holy *and unspotted;* he does not say because we were going to be holy, but that we should be. For if it were as the Pelagian says, our justification would be the cause [0569B] of the divine election, not the divine election the cause of our justification; and thus that which is temporal would be the cause of that which is eternal, and not conversely: which cannot be.

QUESTION IV. *In whom we have redemption,* etc. It is asked whether he calls redemption and the remission of sins the same thing? for if they seem the same, then one of them is superfluously set down. Solution. By redemption he calls that price by which we were redeemed, through which the power of returning is given to us; but the remission of sins, which is conferred upon us in baptism, is the effect of that redemption itself.

QUESTION V. *To restore [sic: omnio], which are in the heavens,* etc. Since Christ did not die for the angels, it is asked how the things which are in the heavens were restored through Christ? [0569C] Solution. This is said for this reason, because those who are saved by grace fill up the diminished number of the angels; or by the things which are in the heavens he understands the souls which are already in heaven; by the things which are on the earth, the saints still dwelling in this life.

QUESTION VI. *You are sealed with the Holy Spirit, who is the pledge of the inheritance.* It is asked how the Holy Spirit is called the pledge of our inheritance; is not a pledge that which is given for a time for some price, and again, when the price is paid, is taken away? Is the Spirit then taken away from us when the inheritance itself is given to us? Solution. Here "pledge" is set down for "earnest," which is part of the price itself, and is not taken away when the price is paid; whence certain manuscripts have "earnest," not "pledge."

[0569D]QUESTION VII. *Setting him at his right hand,* etc. God is spirit, and is not bounded or enclosed by the form of a body: how then is the Son said to sit at the right hand of the Father, since the Father has no right or left side, because he has no body? Solution. By the right hand of God in Holy Scripture is sometimes signified eternal beatitude, sometimes the equality of the divine nature, sometimes judiciary power. For Christ is at the right hand of the Father, because in the majesty of the Father he remains equal, and because *the Father judgeth no man, but hath given all judgment to the Son [n: (Joan. V)]*. By the right hand of God therefore, or by hand, or arm, or finger, or eye, or ear, and the like, nothing corporeal is to be understood, but the whole spiritually.

[0570A]QUESTION VIII. *Above every name, which is named not only in this world,* etc. Are there not nine orders of angels? Angels, archangels, virtues, powers, principalities, dominations, thrones, cherubim, seraphim — and there are no more than these, which are all named in the present. How then does he say: Set above everything that is named not only in this world, *but also in that which is to come,* as though there were some to be named in the future who are not named in the present. Solution. The denominations of certain angels are given to them according to the offices which they exhibit toward us in the present, as angels, archangels, virtues, powers, principalities, dominations; therefore they are said to be names in the present, because in this manner their denomination looks to the present. [0570B] Whence in the future they will be made void, when Christ shall deliver up the kingdom to God and the Father, when God *shall be all in all.* But the denominations of certain angels look to the future state, as thrones, cherubim, and seraphim; whence they will not be made void even in the future, but above all these orders of the supercelestial spirits the humanity of the Savior has been exalted.

QUESTION IX. *And him he gave to be head over all the Church.* It is asked according to which nature, namely the divine or the human, Christ is the head of the Church. Solution. It can be said that it is according to the divine, according to which he is the head, the beginning, and the author of all the faithful. To which solution it is thus objected: By the same reasoning it can be said that he is the head of a stone, and of every creature, of which he is the author; and nothing would be said [0570C] of the Church. Therefore we say that Christ is properly the head of the Church according to his humanity.

QUESTION X. Why Christ is called the head of the Church. Why he is said to be the head may not unfittingly be asked. Solution. Christ is called the head of the Church for this reason: because as in the head of a man are fully all the carnal senses, namely sight, hearing, smell or scent, taste, and touch; so in Christ is the fullness of all the spiritual senses, namely the fullness of grace, *of whose fullness we all have received [n: (Joan. I)]*; whence we are also called members, as not all having some one sense, just as the other members of the body have but a single sense; none has all except the head.

QUESTION XI. *We were by nature the children of wrath (Ephes. [0570D] II),* etc. God is the author of nature; if therefore we are by nature children of wrath, it seems that we are this with God as author. Solution. Nature is taken in three ways in Holy Scripture, namely for that whole and interrupted good in which man was created, according to which acceptation it is said that every creature of God is good. Nature is also called the corruption of sin, in which every man is conceived, and with which he is born, and thus it is taken here when it is said: We were by nature children of wrath. For the vice has grown ingrained in place of nature: because therefore, on account of the guilt of original sin, with which we are born, we are worthy of Gehenna, therefore we are called by nature children of wrath. Nature is also taken for the remnants of that natural good which remained in us after sin, and thus [0571A] it is taken where it is read that *the Gentiles do by nature the things that are of the law [n: (Rom. II)]*.

QUESTION XII. *To me the least of all the saints is given this grace [n: (Ephes. III)]*. Since the Apostle was not the least in the number of all the saints, but rather among the apostles was one of the first, how does he speak truly in naming himself the least of all. Seek the solution of this question upon that passage: *I am the least of the apostles,* in the First Epistle to the Corinthians.

QUESTION XIII. *The unsearchable riches of Christ,* etc. It is asked how the Apostle understood or evangelized, if the riches are unsearchable. For those things are called unsearchable which cannot be comprehended. Solution. Those things which are by their nature unsearchable were made searchable, through the grace [0571B] and revelation of the Holy Spirit, not only to the Apostle, but also to the rest of the faithful, whom the anointing itself teaches concerning all things.

QUESTION XIV. *Of the hidden mystery,* etc. It is asked, what things are called hidden. Solution. In the world the causes are hidden of all things that come to be naturally. But in God alone are hidden the causes of all things that come to be through grace. Concerning these two kinds of causes something has already been said above.

QUESTION XV. *That it may be made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly places through the Church,* etc. It is asked whether the mystery of the incarnation was revealed to the supercelestial essences before its fulfillment. In the solution of this question Jerome [0571C] and Augustine seem contrary. For the blessed Jerome says that the angelic dignities did not understand purely the aforesaid mystery; whence they thus ask: *Who is this that cometh from Edom? [n: (Isa. LXIII.)]* And elsewhere: *Who is this king of glory? [n: (Psal. XXIII.)]* But the blessed Augustine says that the mystery of the kingdom of heaven was not hidden from the angels; whence the text is expounded in diverse ways, That it may be made known, etc. But this contrariety, which seems to be between the aforesaid doctors, can be resolved thus: to those who are of greater dignity the aforesaid mystery was revealed; but to others not purely, as the blessed Jerome says. But that the angels grow daily in knowledge, from those things which come to be in the world, many doctors assert with concordant voice. [0571D] Whence we hold this as if for certain, since canonical Scripture seems manifestly to intimate it.

## V. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XVI. *Of whom all paternity in heaven and in earth is named.* From this passage we have that not only is God our Father, but also the angels and men are called our fathers. But elsewhere the Lord says: *One is your Father, who is in heaven [n: (Matth. XXIII)]*. If therefore there is one, how are there many? or if many, how one? Solution. As God, who alone truly is, and who alone is truly good, imparts the name of his essence and of his goodness to the rest, so that they too are said both to be and to be good; so also he, who alone is truly Father — of all by creation, and of the faithful by regeneration — has granted the name of paternity to the rest. It is to be known thus, that God the Trinity is the Father of all [0572A] by creation and of the faithful by regeneration. But God unbegotten alone is the Father of the Only-begotten by nature. But the angels are called our fathers by the authority of example, by reason of benefit, by care, and by providence. But men are fathers both by nature, and by the authority of example, and by reason of benefit, and by care and providence.

QUESTION XVII. *What is the breadth, and length, and height.* What is the breadth of love, what the length of eternity, what the height of power, what the depth of knowledge — according to this, which is expounded of God, such can be the understanding.

QUESTION XVIII. *To know also the charity of Christ, which surpasseth knowledge.* If the charity of Christ surpasses knowledge, how can it be known? if it cannot be known, how does the Apostle pray that the disciples may know it? [0572B] Solution. That which human knowledge cannot comprehend is known in part through grace, which the Apostle prays may come to pass.

QUESTION XIX. *That you may be filled unto all the fullness of God,* etc. Shall we not have less than God himself? how then can we be filled unto all the fullness of God? how can anyone have the fullness of God, and not be full God and equal to God? Solution. The sense is, that you may be full of God, not full God. This is to be filled unto all fullness: to have in the present the fullness of virtues, and in the future the fullness of glory; for Paul does not wish that the fullness of the divine nature be conferred upon anyone, but that we be full of God in the present and in the future.

[0572C]QUESTION XX. *One Lord, one faith, one baptism [n: (Ephes. IV)]*. How are they to be understood? Solution. One Lord: the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit in nature, not in person. One faith not in number, but in kind, because it is alike in all, just as of all who will the same thing there is said to be the same will. Concerning faith it has already been spoken. It is called one baptism, because it is equal, and of the same essence by whomsoever it is given, and therefore also because it cannot be reiterated.

QUESTION XXI. *He gave gifts to men.* But does David say: *Thou hast received gifts in men [n: (Psal. LXVII)]*? if he gave, how did he receive? or if he received, how did he give? Solution. As God he gave; he received not only in himself according to that he is man, but also in his members, in which he is, of which receiving [0572D] the Prophet treats: whence he says: Thou hast received gifts in men.

QUESTION XXII. *What gifts he gave in ascending.* It is asked what gifts he gave in ascending. Solution. The Holy Spirit, and also the gifts which are not the Holy Spirit, which when he gives, in them also he gives the Holy Spirit; he does not give separately the Holy Spirit and his gifts which are not himself, but in giving the Holy Spirit he gives the gifts; and in giving the gifts of the Holy Spirit he gives him. This I say on account of those who will not grant that the Holy Spirit is given, since he is immutable, but grant nevertheless that his gifts are given. For the Holy Spirit is then said to be given to us by the Father, and the Son, and even by himself, when he infuses into our hearts through charity this power, [0573A] to the end that we may love God and neighbor.

QUESTION XXIII. Since Christ is God and man, it is asked according to which nature he gave the gifts? Solution. He gave according to that, as the expositor says, according to which he ascended and descended, and thus he gave according to that he is man; because the divinity, which is everywhere, neither descends nor ascends. But this seems to be contrary to the aforesaid, where I asserted that he gave as God, not as man. When therefore it is read that he gave as man or according to his humanity, it ought to be understood thus: he who is man, not because he is man, but because he is God.

QUESTION XXIV. Whether the Deity descended, and how. Likewise another exposition says that Christ descended according to [0573B] his Deity, and ascended according to his humanity, which seems contrary to the foregoing. For it was said that the divinity which is everywhere neither descends nor ascends; but here it is said that the Deity descended: what then is to be held? Solution. When it is said that God descended, this is understood of the descent of the incarnation, by which God was made man. When it is said that man descended, this ought to be understood of the descent to the lower regions, which was only according to the soul, not according to the body, which lay in the sepulcher, nor according to the Deity, which was everywhere.

QUESTION XXV. *Unto a perfect man,* etc. It is asked, by what perfection. Solution. Perfection can be understood neither of the whole Christ, that is, of body and head, nor [0573C] of the individual members. For Christ, consummated in himself, grows and advances in others, but in the future at last he will be perfected, so that nothing be added either in powers or in number. Each one also will then be a perfect man, as much by the consummation of virtues as by the stature of the body. Whence there follows: *Unto the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ.* For each one will rise again in that perfection in which he was, or to which he was going to come, when he was thirty years of age; for not all will be of the same magnitude, nor of that of which Christ was when departing from this life.

QUESTION XXVI. *Be angry, and sin not,* etc. The Apostle permits anger, which cannot be avoided, but the Lord forbids anger, saying: *Whosoever [0573D] is angry with his brother shall be in danger of the judgment [n: (Matth. V)]*. Whence it seems that what the Lord forbids, the Apostle permits. Likewise it was said above: that nothing is forbidden in the New Testament which cannot be avoided, just as nothing is commanded which cannot be fulfilled; which does not seem to be true, if the Lord forbids anger, and no one can avoid being angry. Solution. The first motion of anger, which is not in our power, is permitted by the Apostle: but the Lord does not forbid the first motion, which is called pro-passion, but the will and the purpose of harming another. And so one thing is permitted by the Apostle, and another is forbidden by the Lord, which can be avoided with grace helping.

QUESTION XXVII. What are the gates of death and of life. Note that concupiscence and the fear of the world are the two [0574A] gates of death, through which the devil enters; as the fear and love of God are the gates of life, through which Christ enters. Each stands at the door; and both Christ knocks and the devil: but the enemy is driven out, Christ is brought in.

QUESTION XXVIII. *Grieve not the Holy Spirit,* etc. It is asked how anyone can grieve the Holy Spirit, since he is impassible and cannot receive into himself the passion of sadness. Solution. He has used a certain trope, sufficiently customary in theology, by which those things which come to be in us with God as author are attributed to him; because therefore those whom he fills with charity, as they rejoice over the progress of others, so are grieved over the lapses of those who fall, the Apostle says: Grieve not the Holy Spirit, that is, those in whom [0574B] the Holy Spirit dwells through charity.

QUESTION XXIX. Forgive *one another,* etc. Scripture says: Unless we forgive our fellow servants, God requires again what was remitted; but it is asked how God requires it again? Will God punish again for sins for which satisfaction has already been made through the contrition of the heart, and the confession of the mouth, and through worthy fruits of penance? Will he punish twice for the same thing? Solution. To the end that anyone may bring forth worthy fruits of penance, it is required that henceforth he sin not mortally; whence whoever sins after penance renders his former satisfaction useless to himself.

QUESTION XXX. What is it to punish twice for the same thing? Now to punish twice for the same thing is to punish again in another life for a sin destroyed by penance and not repeated, [0574C] which God does not do. But if any penitent is afflicted for some sin and again repeats the same; if in this life or in another he is punished for it again, this is not to punish twice for the same thing.

QUESTION XXXI. *For an odor of sweetness [n: (Ephes. V)]*, etc. If the death of Christ was a sweet odor to God, then he willingly accepted his death; then the Jews did not sin, who crucified him; because they did that which was good, and which pleased God. Solution. The action of the Jews was evil, nor did that which was done by them please God; but the passion of Christ was good, and the cause of our salvation.

QUESTION XXXII. *The days are evil,* etc. Do not the days have their being from God as author, as it is written: *Thine [0574D] is the day, and thine is the night? [n: (Psal. LXXIII.)]* How then are they called evil? Solution. On account of the malice and misery of men the days are called evil; otherwise, as to the spaces of the hours, they are ordered, and good.

QUESTION XXXIII. *No man ever hated his own flesh,* etc. Do not holy men hate the flesh, persecute, crucify, and mortify it, not nourish nor cherish it? how then is it true, No man ever hated his own flesh? Solution. The saints hate and persecute not the flesh, but the vice of the flesh.

QUESTION XXXIV. *For this cause shall a man leave his father.* It is asked how this pertains to the Son of God, who never forsook the Father, but always remained inseparably with him? Solution. Because the Son did not [0575A] appear to us in the form in which he is equal to the Father, he is said to have forsaken or left the Father; yet he never departed from him: he came into the world, and did not forsake the Father.

QUESTION XXXV. *He that loveth his wife.* It is asked of what love he here treats; for if of the love by which we love one another for the sake of God, the sense is: He that loveth his wife *loveth himself,* that is, does what is useful to himself: according to this he could say the same of any neighbor whatever. Solution. The Apostle says this for this reason, because it is more incumbent upon a man to provide for his wife than for another: whence if for the sake of God he acquires for her the necessaries, and governs her, he also loves himself, that is, does what is useful to himself; because thereby he merits with God.

QUESTION XXXVI. *Servants, obey your masters [n: (Ephes. VI)]*. Here it is asked whether it is lawful for a Christian to have a servant, [0575B] since the Apostle permits this. The Catholic Church too, and especially the Church of the Gauls, receives this. Solution. It would be better not to exact servitude of this kind; nor does the Church receive it as a good, but tolerates it as an evil.

QUESTION XXXVII. *Children, obey your parents; and you, fathers, provoke not your children to anger.* It is asked why the Apostle commands parents to [0576A] love their children, and children to honor their parents, since nature compels them to love one another mutually. Solution. Natural love has no merit unless it be done for the sake of God: therefore he commands that they love one another for the sake of God, and so have merit.

## V. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XXXVIII. *Our wrestling is not against flesh.* Do not the saints fight against flesh and blood, against evil men, or against the vices which arise from flesh and blood? how then does he say: *Our wrestling is not,* etc.? Solution. Our wrestling is not only against flesh and blood, but also against demons.

QUESTION XXXIX. *Against the rulers of the world.* Does not God, who founded the world, govern and rule the world, so that the same is founder and ruler? how then does [0576B] the Apostle call the demons rulers of the world? Solution. Here by the name of the world he signifies the lovers of the world. This is the world which is wholly set in wickedness: this is the world in which is found nothing but the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life: this world the Apostle calls darkness, adding *of this darkness,* and elsewhere saying: *You were heretofore darkness; but now light in the Lord [n: (Ephes. V)]*.

## VI. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS.

[0575]

[0575C] *[n: (Philip. I.)] Paul and Timothy,* etc. This epistle the Apostle writes to the Philippians, who are Macedonians. For Philippi is a metropolis city in Macedonia, which is a certain province in Greece, which Philip the father of Alexander built, calling it by his own name. But these, having received the word of preaching from the Apostle, were firm in the faith, and did not receive the false apostles. These therefore he fortifies against a twofold war, namely of tribulations and of false preachers. And so the intention of the Apostle in this epistle is to exhort the Philippians to patience against tribulations, and to constancy against the false apostles. The mode is such: after the customary manner he sends a salutation beforehand. Then he gives thanks for them, imploring for them greater goods, that growing in virtues they may come to perfection. Then [0575D] he admonishes them to the patience of tribulations by his own example and Christ's. Afterward, that they beware of the cunning of the false apostles. At last he interposes an admonition of mortality, and near the end he says that he rejoices concerning the grace which the Romans had sent him through Epaphroditus.

QUESTION I. *For what? so that by every means, whether by occasion or by truth, Christ be announced.* It is asked how the Apostle permits the wicked to preach the evangelical doctrine, since elsewhere it is written: *To the sinner God hath said: Why dost thou declare my justices [n: (Psal. XLIX)]*? etc. Likewise: *Praise is not comely in the mouth of a sinner [n: (Eccli. XV)]*. Likewise: He whose life is despised, it remains that his preaching be neglected. Solution. In such a case the preacher is rebuked on his own account, not on account of others. For what he preaches profits not himself, but others: [0576C] whence the praise of God in the mouth of sinners is not comely. The hirelings therefore are to be tolerated. Whence the Lord: *Upon the chair of Moses have sat the Scribes and Pharisees: what they say, do ye [n: (Matth. XXV)]*, etc. And so the preachers who preach for the truth are to be loved; the hirelings, who from occasion and temporal advantage announce the truth, are to be permitted; thieves and robbers, or wolves, are to be guarded against, nay, to be fled from.

QUESTION II. *What I shall choose, I know not,* etc. It is asked how the Apostle is in doubt which he should choose, whether to remain in the flesh, or to be dissolved and to be with Christ [n: (Philipp. I)], since he knows that the stronger the fight, the greater the crown. Did he not know that it is of greater merit to fight than to rest? Solution. Affection drew him to both: therefore he says that he knows not which [0576D] he should choose. The Apostle therefore doubts from affection, not from ignorance. But then it is asked: How does he say that it is much better to be dissolved and to be with Christ. Solution. "Better" is here set down for "sweeter" and "safer."

QUESTION III. *To you it is given not only that you believe in him, but also that you suffer for him,* etc. It is asked whether to suffer itself is a good, and whether it is a gift of God? for if it is, it is to be desired. Solution. From him who is the faith of believers is the endurance of the suffering. But the punishment itself in itself is not good, nor to be desired for its own sake, nor ought it to be numbered among the gifts of God. Yet to suffer for Christ is good and to be desired; because it has great merit. Nor does the Apostle say simply: To you it is given to suffer; [0577A] but thus: To you it is given to suffer for Christ.

QUESTION IV. *Who being in the form of God [n: (Philipp. II)]*. It is asked what "form" here denotes. Solution. Form is sometimes set down for representation, sometimes for the truth of the thing, as here: Who being in the form of God, that is, in the truth of the divine essence and in the equality of substance; for as a man begets a man, a dog a dog, so God begot God, equal in all things, not unequal: whence the Son also is said to be this which the Father is; and since this can be understood according to person and nature, Augustine shows the understanding of this saying, saying: The Son is therefore said to be that which the Father is, because as the Father is God, so also the Son, and as the Father is omnipotent, so also the Son, and as the Father is immutable, so also the [0577B] Son. For therefore the Father and the Son are one, and supremely one, of whom there is no diversity of nature or of will. Scripture therefore says both: that the Son is equal to the Father, and that the Father is greater than the Son, but this according to the form of a servant, and that according to the form of God.

QUESTION V. *And in habit found as a man,* etc. In how many ways is something had? Solution. In four ways something accedes to another so as to be had: either so as to change and not be changed, as wisdom; or so as to change and be changed, as food; or so as neither to change nor be changed, as a ring; or so as not to change but to be changed, not from its own nature, but from some prior form, as a garment when it is put on; it does not change the man, but is changed; not from its own nature, but it receives an appearance and form which [0577C] cast aside it did not have; according to which comparison and likeness the incarnation is understood: for the form of a servant so acceded to the form of God that it did not change or convert it, but the form of a servant itself was changed, not from its own nature, but into a more excellent and worthier state than it had been before. All this therefore which Augustine says of habit he adduces for this reason, to show that when the Word was made flesh it was not changed or converted into man; just as neither is a man changed into a garment when he puts it on. But this, which certain ones add of their own, that as a man when he puts on his garment does not become something, so neither did God, when he took the form of a servant, become something: this, I say, they do not have from the words of Augustine, [0577D] nor of any other saint, since it is false: for if they wish to hold the likeness adduced from the garment in all respects, they must concede that, as a man does not become a garment when he puts it on, so neither did God become man when he clothed himself with the form of a servant. For if Christ is nothing but that which he was from eternity, he had no being common with his mother: therefore not consubstantial with his mother; because nothing substantial is said of both. For when it is said: Christ is man, and the Virgin mother of the Lord is man, the same is not signified by this name, man, according to these new heretics. Of these things it has been spoken more fully upon the Epistle to the Romans.

[0578A]QUESTION VI. *Who humbled himself, becoming obedient,* etc. It is asked whether Christ merited anything. Solution. He merited for us, not for himself. For we by his merit were made worthy of eternal life; but he by his death acquired for himself nothing of which he was not worthy before. Yet it can be said: Truly by the humility of his passion he merited the brightness of the resurrection, namely impassibility and immortality. I do not say that Christ, unless he died, would not become immortal and impassible; but I say that such a merit was worthy of such a reward.

QUESTION VII. It is asked how at the same time in the same soul there could be the highest beatitude and sadness: for before the passion these two were in Christ. For that there was beatitude according to the mind [0578B] from the time he was man, is to be believed: otherwise, how he would be true God, I do not see. Likewise that there was sadness is established, since he himself says: *My soul is sorrowful even unto death [n: (Matth. XXVI)]*. Solution. As in Paul there was a lower power and a higher power, so in Christ there was a lower power, namely a motion of the soul, or a certain affection, which shrank in horror from death: yet the higher reason, free in its beatitude, flourished. For the affection of the flesh in him, as in the rest, did not impede the reason in anything, so as to contemplate the divinity less.

QUESTION VIII. Likewise it is asked how he did not have greater [sic: *beatudinem*] after the resurrection, when he put on immortality and impassibility? Solution. He did not then have more as to the mind, but what [0578C] he had before, he then possessed more tranquilly, just as a king possesses his kingdom more tranquilly and securely when the enemies cease to harass it.

QUESTION IX. *For which cause he gave,* etc. Did he not have before the name which is above every name? How then does he say, For which cause he gave? for not only according to that he is God was this name given to him from eternity according to nature, but also according to that he is man it was given from his conception to the man assumed according to grace. Solution. A thing is then said to be made, when it becomes known: for what he had before, then first after the resurrection became known to men and demons.

QUESTION X. Likewise it is asked to whom this name was given, [0578D] whether to God, or to man? Solution. Augustine says that to man and not to God was given the name *which is above every name [n: (Philipp. II)]*, namely that he be God and the Son of God by the grace not of participation, but of union, and that the man assumed have by grace all that God begotten has by nature. By grace therefore the man has it that he is a son, not a son of grace, but a son of nature. Ambrose says otherwise, that to God and not to man was given the name which is above every name.

QUESTION XI. But do Augustine and Ambrose think contrary things upon this? Solution. One is the gratuitous giving, of which Augustine speaks; another the natural, [0579A] of which the blessed Ambrose speaks. It was given to the man that he be God by personal union immediately in his conception: for when God was made man by condescension, the man too was made God by grace, not an adoptive God, but a natural God, an eternal God, an omnipotent God. But to God begotten it was given from eternity to be God by nature. And so there is no contrariety in understanding between the doctors of truth.

QUESTION XII. *We who serve God in spirit,* etc. [n: (Philip. III.)] It is asked with what service. Note that the service which is owed to God alone is called *latria*; whence also one is called an idolater who exhibits to idols the worship of God, and the abomination is called idolatry, and the house an idol-temple, and the sacrifice an idol-offering. But the service by which through charity [0579B] we are bidden to serve one another is in Greek called *dulia*: yet both are named by the Latin word "service."

QUESTION XIII. *A Hebrew of Hebrews, according to the law a Pharisee.* It is asked whence the Hebrews are so called. Solution. The Hebrews are called from Heber, not from Abraham, as it once seemed to the blessed Augustine, which he afterward retracted: which is clear from this, that Abraham himself is in a certain place called a Hebrew: which would not be, if this name were derived from him. Likewise Abraham is interpreted *father of many nations;* the Hebrews, *those passing over.* It is established therefore to be true that the Hebrews are called not from Abraham, but from Heber: who alone in the division of tongues retained the Hebrew [0579C] language.

QUESTION XIV. *According to the justice which is in the law.* It is asked how he says that he conversed according to the justice which is in the law, without complaint, since elsewhere he says that he walked with others in the desires of the flesh while he was under the law, whence he also names himself a child of wrath? Solution. Both are true, both that he walked according to the desires of the flesh, and yet that he conversed without complaint according to the justice which was in the law — which makes one serve through the fear of punishment, not through love; which restrains the hand, not the mind: such was the justice in the law.

## VI. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE PHILIPPIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XV. *Not having my own justice,* etc. Did not God give the law, and command obedience to it? [0579D] how then does he call the justice which is from the law his own? The solution of this question is contained in the foregoing. For while he was under the law, seeking to be justified from the works of the law: in this, that he believed he could fulfill the law itself by his own powers, he made the justice of the law his own.

QUESTION XVI. *In faith unto knowing,* etc. This is understood of the faith which has not the time of working; but is not to love a work of faith? But faith without love, after one is grown, is never of avail. How then does the expositor say that this ought to be understood of the faith which has not the time of working, that it avails for knowing God, and for other things? Solution. This is said for this reason, lest anyone think it [0580A] suffices for salvation, namely to believe and to have faith without works, when he has the faculty of working well.

QUESTION XVII. *Whose names are written,* etc. It is asked what the book of life is. Solution. The book of life is the predestination of God, in which all who are to be saved are written, whether at least through predestination alone, or also through justice and predestination.

QUESTION XVIII. *Rejoice in the Lord always [n: (Philipp. IV)]*, etc. The expositor says that joy in the world and joy in God are contrary, and cannot be at the same time in the same person. But is there not someone who is divided, and rejoices partly in the world and partly in the Lord, just as he loves partly the world and partly God? Solution. Anyone is said [0580B] to rejoice with that joy which is known to preponderate in him; and that part of the inner man which the joy of the world occupies, the joy which is in the Lord does not hold, because they cannot be in the same person concerning the same thing.

QUESTION XIX. *Let your petitions be made known with God,* etc. Does not God know all things fully and perfectly before they come to pass? how then does the Apostle say, That the petitions be made known with God? Solution. The sense is: Let your petitions be so vehement and not lukewarm that they be worthy to be heard and fulfilled. For when they are fulfilled, it becomes known to us that they reach to God.

QUESTION XX. The expositor says that the angels offer [0580C] our prayers to God: therefore it is asked how this offering is to be understood. Solution. Saving the reverence due to hidden things, we say that for our prayers to be offered to God by the angels is nothing other than for them to be made worthy through them, that they may be heard by God. Likewise the angels are intermediaries between us and God: for as they announce the divine secrets to us, so the things which are done here among us they are said to announce to God.

QUESTION XXI. But since God's own perfection suffices for knowing all things, it is asked to what end the angels announce anything to him? Solution. Not that they may teach him, but that they may consult his eternal and unchangeable truth, and that they may know what is to be done by them, what, and to whom, and when it is to be announced.

[0580D]QUESTION XXII. *I seek not the gift, but the fruit,* etc. It is asked what difference there is between gift and fruit. Solution. He calls the gift that which is given, as food, coin, garment. But the fruit is the intention of the giver: which is therefore called fruit, because according to it the work is judged useful and fruitful. Or he calls the fruit the reward itself. Whence a good work is called a flower, from which is born the fruit of eternal life. Note that by the raven which fed Elijah is understood the gift, where the good work was without a good intention. By the widow who fed the same prophet is understood the fruit; where there was a good work with a good intention.

## VII. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

[0581]

[0581A] *[n: (Coloss. I)] Paul an apostle,* etc. The Apostle writes this epistle to the Colossians, who are Asians: to whom the Apostle himself did not preach, but his disciples, namely Archippus and Epaphras. But Archippus had received a ministry among them; Epaphras indeed was sprung from them, and, instructed by the Apostle, confirmed the teaching of Archippus. But afterward, when false apostles came in and preached carnal observances, it had come into doubt among them whom they ought to believe. Whence the Apostle, whose authority was renowned, judges as it were a mediator which side ought rather to be held, writing to them from Ephesus. The intention therefore of the Apostle in this epistle is to confirm the Colossians in that faith and doctrine which they received from his disciples, and he teaches that hope is to be placed in nothing besides [0581B] Christ. The manner of treatment is such: after his wonted fashion he sends greeting beforehand; then he gives thanks for their good things, commending their faith and love. He prays that they may be perfected in Christ, whose benefits, and primacy according to both natures, he commends, and afterward recounts the dignity of his own ministry, and warns them not, seduced by philosophy or by the ceremonies of the law, to depart from Christ. Finally he instructs all together, and separately — namely the sexes, and ages, and conditions — morally. At the end he warns Archippus to be solicitous of his ministry.

QUESTION I. *Giving thanks,* etc. The expositor says that here the Apostle begins to show that the law [0581C] does not profit, but harms. Is not the law good, and given by God, and did it not only not harm, but profit in its own state? how then is it true that it does not profit, but harms? Solution. It is true that the law before grace profited; but after grace it was useless. To which solution it is thus objected: Does not the law even now bear witness to the truth, and through it are we not illuminated in the knowledge of the Deity? therefore even now in the time of grace the law profits us. How then is it true: The law does not profit, but harms? Solution. The law read, and spiritually understood, profits, and does not harm: but observed according to the letter it does not profit, but harms.

QUESTION II. *Who hath made us worthy to be partakers of the lot of the saints.* It is asked what he calls the lot, of which [0581D] we have been made partakers. Solution. The future inheritance, which is given by lot — that is, by divine grace and will — without merits, the Apostle here calls the lot.

QUESTION III. Likewise it is asked how the future inheritance is given to the saints without merits, since through faith, and love, and good works they merit it. Solution. [0582A] It is to be understood without merits preceding faith, not without those following: which are of grace, and therefore are not excluded, when it is said that by grace alone future glory is given. Of these we have already spoken above.

QUESTION IV. *He hath translated us into the kingdom of the Son.* It is asked what he means by *the kingdom of the Son of God.* Solution. The kingdom of heaven, or of the Son, is taken in several ways, namely for future glory, as there: *Thy kingdom come [n: (Matth. VI)]*; or for the present Church, as there: *When he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God and the Father [n: (I Cor. XV)]*; or for the faith of Christ, as there: *The kingdom of God is within you [n: (Matth. XII)]*; or for Holy Scripture, as there: *The kingdom of heaven shall be taken away from you, and shall be given to a nation yielding fruit [n: (Matth. XXI)]*.

[0582B]QUESTION V. *Of the Son of his love.* Is not the Holy Spirit the love by which the Father loves the Son, and the Son the Father, and is Christ the son of love? It seems therefore that he is the son of the Holy Spirit: which faith does not receive. Solution. Love is commonly taken for the divine nature, or substance, or essence, when he is proclaimed to be the son of love. For the Son is consubstantial and coessential with the Father in nature, substance, and essence. But what love signifies, when it is said: The Holy Spirit is the love by which the Father loves the Son, and conversely, has been expounded elsewhere. Concerning redemption likewise, and the image, and that Christ is called the head of the Church, it has been already said: nor is it needful that we do things already done.

[0582C]QUESTION VI. It is asked, however, whether Christ according to his humanity was the head of the saints who preceded the incarnation. It seems that he was: but he who was not yet [head] according to his humanity, how could he be their head? Or if [he was], how could they have [a head] that was not yet head? Solution. Christ even according to [sic: *humanitatom*] can be called the head of those who were from Abel, because through faith all who are to be saved, as many as are saved, [are saved]. Note that Christ is proclaimed to be of the same nature with the Father, where he is shown to be the son of love. But where [he is called] the image, not only the identity of the same substance, but also personal property is intimated. Where he is said to be the firstborn of every creature, there he is asserted to be coeternal with the Father. Where [0582D] it is read that all things were founded through him, his omnipotence is declared. Where it is said that *all things consist in him [n: (Coloss. I)]*, his immensity is made manifest, whose eternity is intimated in John, where it is written: *In the beginning was the Word [n: (Joan. I)]*; and personal property when it is subjoined: *And the Word was with God [n: (ibid.)]*; and identity of substance, [0583A] when it is said: *And the Word was God [n: (Joan. I)]*. And so the Son is coeternal, consubstantial, and co-omnipotent with the Father; another in person, the same with the Father the beginning of all creatures.

QUESTION VII. *And he,* namely Christ, *is the head of the Church.* It is said that the Church began first from Abel, who was the first just man, but was not Adam just? For it is believed that after the fall he was justified through penance and faith: why then is the Church not said to have begun from Adam? Solution. From Adam the Church contracted the stain of original sin, from Abel none, and therefore it is better said to have begun from Abel than from Adam; because Scripture makes mention of the sin of Adam, and not of his justice, and of the justice of Abel, and not of his sin. Christ [0583B] therefore is always the head of all who have been from the beginning, as of those who followed him: through whom alone we have access to the Father.

QUESTION VIII. *See that no one deceive you through philosophy and vain deceit [n: (Coloss. II)]*, etc. Was not the knowledge of natural things, which the philosophers handed down, useful for knowing the invisible things of God? For through the visible forms of visible things, the teaching of which is taught in mathematics, one comes to the invisible causes of visible things, which physics teaches: through which one comes to know invisible substances, and the invisible natures of invisible substances. How then does the Apostle call such knowledge vain deceit? Solution. The Apostle does not reprehend the philosophers for [0583C] this, that they inquired into the natures of things; but for this, that they endeavored to confine the power of God, though it be infinite, under natural causes, saying that God does nothing against nature. Whence they said that for God to become a creature, for a virgin to bear, for a dead man to live again, was impossible. This error of theirs therefore the Apostle rightly reprehends: not the true knowledge which they had concerning natures.

QUESTION IX. *In whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead.* Since the fulness of the Godhead is one and simple, how does he say all the fulness of the Godhead, since 'all' is wont to gather a multitude? Solution. It is said 'all the fulness of the Godhead,' that may be noted [sic: *I otetur*]: that it is there in every mode of indwelling, even personally. Or otherwise: All the fulness is said, that it may be intimated [0583D] that in him is the fulness not only of knowledge, but also of power and goodness. Whereby is destroyed the error of those who say that the man assumed has all the knowledge through grace which the Word has through nature, but not all the power.

QUESTION X. *The fulness of the Godhead bodily.* Since the Godhead is incorporeal, it is asked how it can dwell bodily in Christ. Solution. He says 'bodily,' that is, completively, solidly, and truly, with regard to the legal figures, which were the shadow of things to come, whose body — that is, fulfillment and truth — is Christ. Or otherwise: 'Bodily' signifies not the nature of the existing thing, but rather [0584A] the mode of existing. For just as a body so has being naturally in one place that it cannot at the same time be in another: so the fulness of the Godhead has being in the man assumed: in which mode it is in no other creature. In every creature it is by essence, in the just by grace, in Christ alone according to personal property. This then is for the Godhead to dwell bodily in Christ, that is, personally. Just as a body is in several places at once, not bodily but spiritually. In saying this I do not deny the truth and the essence of the Lord's body to be at once in several altars, but by this I intimate that it does not have that mode of existing common with other bodies, or from the nature of a body, but rather common with a spirit — not created, but uncreated. Both are [0584B] wonderful, and true: that a created spirit is somewhere bodily, and that the sacramental body of Christ is in several places spiritually.

QUESTION XI. *Blotting out the handwriting of the decree, which was contrary to you,* etc. It is asked what he calls the decree, what the handwriting. Solution. By 'decree' he names either the law of Moses itself, or the precept of God which he gave to the first man in paradise, saying: *Of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil thou shalt not eat [n: (Gen. II)]*; by 'handwriting,' the record of each violated decree: and the handwritings of all faults have been blotted out by the blood shed without fault.

QUESTION XII. *Which are a shadow of things to come, but the body is Christ's.* It is asked how shadow, body, and spirit are distinguished. Solution. One thing is shadow, [0584C] another body, another spirit: which three are called by other names figure, thing, truth, so that the same is shadow and figure; the same body and thing; the same spirit and truth. The legal ceremonies were called the shadow and figure of things to come. The sacraments of grace are the body, or thing, of those shadows or figures: the spiritual grace, namely, which the sacraments of the New Testament confer and signify, is called the spirit or truth: but the sacraments of the Old Testament only signify spiritual grace, and do not confer it: and this is the difference between these sacraments and those. Likewise it is to be known that those things which in the time of the law were precepts, now in the time of grace are not precepts; but only testimonies of truth, whence then it was a sin not to [0584D] observe even one. But now it is not a sin not to keep them; nay, he who keeps them, offends.

QUESTION XIII. *Mortify your members [n: (Coloss. III)]*, etc. It is asked what, or what things, he calls members, which are to be mortified. Are the eye, the hand, the foot to be mortified? Solution. Here the Apostle calls members the concupiscence of the members, as he himself subjoins, and expounds *fornication,* etc.

QUESTION XIV. *Covetousness, which is the service of idols,* etc. Is not covetousness one thing, idolatry another? how then does he call covetousness the service of idols? Solution. He therefore compares covetousness to idolatry, because the malice is not unlike. For just as the idolater worships a block, so the covetous man his coin. And just as the idolater strives to take away from God his honor, so the covetous man usurps to himself alone the things [0585A] which God created in common for all.

QUESTION XV. *Putting off the old man,* etc. It is asked what he here calls the old man. Solution. The old man is sometimes called Adam the first man, who by sinning clothed himself and all his posterity with the tunic of oldness. The old man is sometimes called any man who bears the image of the earthly; but sometimes the old man is called oldness itself, which consists in fault and in punishment; sometimes the old man is named the habit of vices, as here, according to the expositor.

## VII. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS. (cont.)

QUESTION XVI. *And put on the new man.* It is asked likewise what he here calls the new man? For the new man is sometimes called Christ, from whom [0585B] is all newness; sometimes the new man is called anyone renewed in Christ; sometimes also the habit of virtues; sometimes specially the mind of reason. But above, that which is called the inner man was said to be the mind; here, however, it is said that the inner mind is called the new man: which seems to be contrary, since the new man is one thing, the inner another, as has already been shown. Solution. The expositor says that he calls the rational mind the new man, nor is it contrary to what was said above, that the inner mind is called man: for the same thing, on account of diverse properties, obtains diverse names.

QUESTION XVII. *Who is renewed unto the knowledge of God according to his image,* etc. Likewise it is asked how [0585C] the mind is said to be renewed according to the image of God, since it is itself the image of God — can it be renewed according to itself? Solution. It is the same image which is renewed, and that according to which it is renewed, just as we say that someone is dead according to the body, that is, in body, not according to the spirit. And so the mind is renewed according to itself, that is, in itself. In the Epistle to the Ephesians, however, it is said that this very renewal is made according to God: therefore according to God, lest it be said to be according to a creature. For through such a renewal it is made like and conformed to God: therefore it is said to be according to him. Note that this image, which is renewed in the knowledge of God, is found equally in the man and in the woman: which is other [0586A] than that of which it was said above: *The man is the image of God, and the woman of the man.*

QUESTION XVIII. *Forgiving one another, if any have a complaint against another.* This same thing the Lord commanded, saying: *Forgive your debtors [n: (Matth. VI)]*, but what is it that can be forgiven by us? what is the debt that can be exacted by us from him who has done us injury? Solution. This is to forgive the injury inflicted, to demand for ourselves in no way satisfaction on account of the injury: certain other things upon this have been said by us elsewhere.

QUESTION XIX. The expositor says that he who abstains from unlawful things has praise; but he who tempers himself from lawful things, praise and reward — as if he said: The one avoids punishment, the other also merits a crown. But does not also he [0586B] who abstains from unlawful things have not only praise, but also reward? Solution. He who abstains from unlawful things always avoids punishment, but does not always merit a crown, except only then, when he is tempted and assailed.

QUESTION XX. *Do all things in the name of the Lord.* By 'all things' he understands nothing but good things, which are to be done by us. Whence it is asked whether he prescribes that all things to be done be done for God's sake. Am I by the precepts constrained to give my cloak to a poor man whom I see to be in need, and which I know to please God? For if I withhold it, I seem to despise what I know he wishes to be done. Solution. It is to be understood thus: Do all things in the name of the Lord, that is, do nothing against God, and in good things seek not your own glory, but God's. Not [0586C] however in all things that we do do we merit; because certain things are indifferent, as to sit, to stand, to draw breath, to close the hand, to open the eyes, and the like. But certain things are such as have merit if they be done; and are not a sin if they be not done, as to give a cloak to a poor man, and to sell all things, and give to the poor: which is of the perfect, who follow Christ naked.

QUESTION XXI. *Say to Archippus: Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it [n: (Coloss. IV)]*. It is asked whether subjects may admonish prelates. Solution. Behold authority, that subjects may admonish prelates, lest they be slothful in foreseeing those things which pertain to salvation.

## VIII. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

[0585]

[0585D] *[n: (I Thess. I.)] Paul and Silvanus,* etc. The Apostle writes this epistle to the Thessalonians. Thessalonica is the metropolis of Macedonia, which is a province of the Greeks. The Thessalonians therefore are Macedonians, or Greeks, who, converted by the Apostle, could be moved from the truth of the faith neither by tribulations nor by false preachers. These the Apostle praises together, [0586D] because they had drunk in the spirit of so great a faith that, even in the hope of things to come, with devoted mind for the name of Christ he sustained perils from his fellow-citizens who did not believe. Yet there were some among them idle and curious; some also thinking less rightly about the resurrection, and therefore grieving too tenderly over the death of their friends. These therefore the Apostle corrects in this epistle, and warns the perfect [0587A] not to yield to adversities and false apostles, and to correct others. He wrote, moreover, from Athens. And the intention of the Apostle in this epistle is to correct the depraved and the uncorrected, and to exhort the good to perseverance and to the correction of others. The manner is such: after his own fashion he sends greeting beforehand: which sent beforehand, he gives thanks for their good things, recounting not their faith and works only, but also the manner of their conversion and their endurance of evils, that he may provoke them to persevere; and he inserts also somewhat concerning his own labors, and the truth of the Gospel, and his prudent conduct among them, and with how great affection he desires to see them. Then he beseeches the depraved to restrain themselves from luxury, and idleness, and curiosity, and he confirms that the dead shall rise again. Toward the end is moral instruction. And so he says, Paul and Sylvanus, etc. [0587B] Timothy, etc. Note that it was the custom of the Apostle to join to himself in the salutation those who either had been with him among them, or were to be.

QUESTION I. *To the living and true God,* etc. It is asked why he says, true. Solution. There is one God naturally; many by participation: to distinguish from whom he is called the true God, inasmuch as he is God of himself, not from elsewhere. For the others are gods not from the fact that they are, but from the fact that they have received.

QUESTION II. *For the wrath of God is come upon them. [n: (I Thess. II)]*. It is asked how, on account of their sins, the wrath of God and punishment came upon them, that is, before death. Is eternal punishment lightened by temporal punishment? for if it is not lightened, God seems merciless, who punishes here, and there. Likewise, if the eternal [0587C] is lightened by the temporal, it seems that such punishment proceeds not from the wrath of God, but from mercy; and therefore it is to be called not wrath, but mercy. Solution. Great indeed is the mercy of God to call to penance through temporal punishment; but they, unwilling to repent, turn the mercy of God for themselves into wrath, and the punishment inflicted, which could have been a means of salvation, becomes for them the beginning of eternal punishment.

QUESTION III. *We hastened to see your face with much desire,* etc. The expositor says wherein evils would come upon them; but it is asked how from the presence of the Teacher evils would come upon the disciples: since rather good things than evils seem to come from it: whence he himself desired to see them for the profit of his own presence, [0587D] namely that he might confirm them, and add over what was lacking. Solution. Greater is the crown, and more praiseworthy the victory, if they should stand immovable, the master being absent: yet the Apostle humanly feared lest they fall, and therefore desired to come to them.

QUESTION IV. *At his coming,* namely of the Lord. It is asked, at what coming. Solution. Threefold is the coming of the Lord, one in the flesh, one in the spirit, one in the flesh. He came in the flesh made man. He comes in the spirit when he pours his Spirit into our spirit, healing and justifying it. He shall come in the flesh at the judgment. He comes also secretly to each one at death, either to purge them, or to open the gate of the kingdom: to the evil, to punish them.

QUESTION V. *That you be not sorrowful, even as the rest [0588A] who have no hope. [n: (I Thess. IV)]*. It is asked whether to be sorrowful and to weep for the death of friends is a sin, since the Apostle says: That you be not sorrowful? Solution. It is necessary that, when death seizes one beloved, it sadden the affection of love; it is therefore not a fault, if we be saddened by the necessity of losing, if we be consoled by the hope of receiving again: whence the Apostle does not say simply, that you be not sorrowful, but says, that you be not sorrowful as the rest who have no hope, as if he said: It is lawful to be sorrowful, but with hope.

QUESTION VI. It is asked how the Lord wept for Lazarus, dead but presently, at his own bidding, about to live? Solution. Not the dead man, but death, which he had not deserved by sinning, did he bewail: to which, and to the miseries of the world, Lazarus was again to be recalled: and thence was the Lord [0588B] moved.

QUESTION VII. It is asked whether prayers, alms, the sacrifices of the altar, profit all for whom they are done. Solution. The aforesaid profit after death only those who so lived before death that they are worthy that these be profitable to them after death: for they profit not those who went forth from this life without faith working through love; because, living here, they lacked the pledge of salvation, namely unto salvation.

QUESTION VIII. Since Christ can do all things, it is asked why he did not straightway grant immortality to his faithful, that they should never at all experience death. Solution. If this were done, a certain felicity indeed would be given to the flesh, but the fortitude of faith would be diminished. No one then would hasten to the grace of Christ for the sake of the future [0588C] life; but only for the sake of fleeing the trouble of death, and so in a certain manner delicately would men believe in Christ. Where then would be the glorious triumph of the martyrs?

QUESTION IX. *And those who have slept.* It is asked, since he calls Christ, who now lives, dead, why he calls the faithful dead not dead, but sleeping? Solution. He therefore says Christ died, and rose again, that, while we hear this, we may hope the same, namely that we shall rise again through the power of the Godhead. But the elect he therefore calls sleeping; because no one can be so easily wakened from [sic: *sommo*], as easily as God will waken them all from the [sic: *sommo*] of death.

QUESTION X. *At the voice of the archangel,* etc. Concerning this voice [0588D] it is asked, whether it will be material. Solution. Some say that it will be material, formed by the ministry of angels, just as that was material which was heard when the Lord was baptized, which is therefore called God's; because God will give it efficacy, that through it the dead may rise. Others say that it will be some evident sign. Concerning the uncertain, an ambiguous solution. For all things future at the last day are uncertain to us.

QUESTION XI. *Then we who live.* It is asked how the Apostle says that those *first shall rise* who were *dead* long since, and then those who shall then be found alive, since he himself elsewhere says that the resurrection shall be *in the twinkling of an eye and in a moment [n: (I Cor. XV)]*; wherein there is nothing prior, nor posterior, but all things at once? Solution. It can be said that the resurrection of the dead is therefore said [0589A] to be made at once, because there will be a little delay.

QUESTION XII. It is wont, however, to be asked whether those whom Christ shall find alive are to die, or to pass without death to immortality? Solution. Concerning this we have nothing certain; yet it seems to some that in the very rapture they die, and revive, since elsewhere the Apostle says: *In Christ all shall be made alive [n: (I Cor. XV)]*, and elsewhere: *that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it first die [n: (ibid.)]*. Nor ought this to seem incredible, since in a moment, and in the twinkling of an eye, the common and general resurrection is believed to be about to be.

QUESTION XIII. *We shall be caught up to meet Christ in the air.* It is asked whether this is said of all? Solution. The good, as it were light, shall run to meet Christ in the air; but the evil, [0589B] as it were weighty, shall cleave not to meet Christ in the air, but to the earth, which they always loved. Note that there are four kinds of those who shall come to the judgment; for some shall come to judge only, as the very good, not to be judged, of whose salvation it is settled. Others are the less perfect, of whose salvation it is not yet settled; these shall come to the judgment, to be judged. So there are two kinds of the evil; some shall come to the judgment, to be judged, as the less evil, of whose damnation it is not settled. But others, not to be judged; [0590A] because they are already judged, since concerning their damnation it is already certain. Why then shall they come? shall it be to judge? God forbid! Why then? that they may hear with the devil: *Go, ye cursed, into everlasting fire [n: (Matth. XXV)]*, etc. Concerning the manner of the judgment it has already been said in the first epistle to the Corinthians; namely how the saints shall judge, whether by comparison alone, or also by power.

QUESTION XIV. *The day of the Lord shall so come as a thief in the night [n: (I Thess. V)]*, etc. Since no one knows whether by day or by night the Lord shall come to the judgment, it is asked how the Apostle calls the time of the Lord's coming day. Solution. Day in such a place is not put for the illumination of the air as elsewhere; but for revelation, that is, manifestation, because then all things shall be manifested. For each one shall know why the Lord saves or damns him [0590B] or another.

QUESTION XV. *To pray without ceasing.* It is asked how this precept of the Apostle can be fulfilled. For who can always pray? Is it not needful sometimes to sleep? Solution. It is thus understood: Without ceasing at the fixed hours. Or by prayer is understood holy desire, and pious affection, and so the just man never ceases to pray, unless he cease to be just; for he who always does well, always prays well.

## IX. ON THE SECOND EPISTLE TO THE THESSALONIANS.

[0589]

[0589C] *Paul, and Silvanus [n: (II Thess. I)]*, etc. The Apostle writes this epistle to the Thessalonians. For, a graver tribulation having arisen among them, he warns them to patience, showing the just judgment of God, that the good may attain glory, the evil punishment. And because in the first epistle he says certain things concerning the Coming of the Lord and concerning the resurrection of the dead, whence the day of the Lord was thought to be at hand; now he writes another epistle, in which he signifies, though obscurely (for he cannot do so openly), concerning the abolition of the Roman kingdom, concerning the appearing of Antichrist, and his damnation, and concerning the disquiet of certain brethren. He writes also that the day of the Lord is not at hand, as by occasion of the former epistle it seemed to some. And so the intention of the Apostle in this epistle is to move the good and the quiet [0589D] to patience, and to correct the unquiet; and to open somewhat here what he had said obscurely in the former epistle. The manner is such: first he salutes, then he gives thanks for their good things; afterward he warns to patience, and to constancy; thence he asserts that Antichrist shall forestall the coming of Christ, and announces some signs of the coming of Antichrist, though obscurely, treating of the abolition of the Roman kingdom and of the slaying of Antichrist. But toward the end he beseeches them to rebuke the curious and the idle.

QUESTION I. *In a flame of fire, giving vengeance to them who have not known God.* It is asked, whether the Lord [0590C] shall come to the judgment surrounded in fire? Solution. He is said to be about to come in a flame of fire, because he shall appear terrible to the ungodly, to burn and to torment them. Fire indeed shall precede his coming, by which the elements shall be dissolved, that they may be renewed.

QUESTION II. It is asked how those shall be kept alive whom the Lord shall find alive. Solution. Just as the fire did not hurt the three children in the furnace of the oven; so that fire preceding the coming of the judge shall not hurt the good.

QUESTION III. It is asked what punishments the souls of the ungodly now suffer among those below, whether material, or only tortures of conscience? Solution. It is believed that they suffer material punishments, as fire and cold. Whence it is said: They shall pass *from the waters of snows to [0590D] excessive heat [n: (Job. XXIV)]*.

QUESTION IV. Likewise it is asked how they are tormented by these punishments, since spiritual things cannot be touched by bodily. Solution. It can come about that they be punished by those things by which they are not touched, just as one contracts a great horror from something seen or imagined, although he be not touched by it.

QUESTION V. Likewise, their bodies being resumed, since these shall thereafter be immortal, how shall they be punished in them, since they cannot be dissolved? Solution. The bodies of the evil shall indeed be immortal, but passible, [0591A] that is, such in which the evil may suffer, yet without harm to the natural quantity, or essence, of the bodies themselves.

QUESTION VI. *Except there come a departure first [n: (II Thess. II)]*, etc. It is asked: how shall that which he says concerning the departure come to pass? Solution. This can be understood in four ways, either of the earthly Roman empire, or of the spiritual empire of the Roman Church, or of the faith, or of Antichrist. For another translation says the Runaway. Note that it is read that Antichrist shall be born in Babylon of the tribe of Dan. According to which Jacob says: *Let Dan be a serpent in the way, and a horned snake in the path [n: (Gen. XLIX)]*. Who, when he shall first manifest himself, shall come to Jerusalem, and shall circumcise himself, saying: I am Christ promised to the Jews.

[0591B]QUESTION VII. *Who is lifted up above all that is called God,* as the gods of the nations or the saints; *or that is worshipped,* as God the Trinity. But it is asked how he shall be able to lift himself up above God the Trinity? Will not this be his greatest pride and self-exaltation, that he shall say himself to be Christ, and thus equal to God — for he will not say himself greater; how then is he lifted up above all that is worshipped as God? Solution. As it seems to me, this self-exaltation is understood in this, that that wicked one, *the man of sin, the son of perdition,* shall cause the veneration and worship due to God the Trinity alone to be exhibited to himself and not to God. It is read that just as in Christ dwelt the fulness of the Godhead, so in Antichrist there shall be the fulness of malice, and of all iniquity, and, so to say, the fulness of devilishness.

[0591C]QUESTION VIII. Whence it can be asked whether he will be a man simply, or whether the devil will assume him personally, as God man. Solution. The devil cannot so assume a man that he be personally united to himself; he will therefore be a pure man, whom nevertheless the devil will so possess that he shall fill him with all the power of his wickedness, and with all iniquity, so that, utterly given over and devoted to him, he shall wish nothing, be able to do nothing, save what the devil wishes and is able to do.

QUESTION IX. *The mystery of iniquity already worketh.* The expositor says that in Nero and in other evil men the devil already works secretly, who in Antichrist shall openly rage. Whence it is asked how he works secretly in Nero. Did not Nero deny Christ, and [0591D] openly persecute those who preached Christ? Solution. He is therefore said to work secretly in Nero; because Nero did this by the fraudulent suggestion of certain men. Or, which is better, the devil is therefore said to work secretly in Nero, not because that persecution was not manifest, but because it is a shadow, and figure, and a certain image of that which shall be done through Antichrist, which shall be much graver than all which have gone before. For he shall reign three years and a half; and, sitting in a pavilion on the Mount of Olives, he shall be slain by the power of the Holy Spirit through Michael, as the doctors say, or the Lord himself, or some other angel.

QUESTION X. *Whom the Lord shall destroy with the brightness of his coming,* etc. Shall not Antichrist first be slain [0592A] before the Lord come to the judgment? For from the book of Daniel it is understood that forty-two days shall be granted to the elect for penance after the death of Antichrist. But how long after the Lord shall come is utterly unknown not only to men, but even to the angels. How then does the Apostle say: With the brightness of his coming (since before the coming he is to be slain) the Lord shall destroy him? Solution. Antichrist shall indeed be slain, as is believed, before the coming of the Lord, by the dissolution of body and soul; yet the Lord shall destroy him, now raised again with his whole body, with the brightness of his coming, damning him, and sending him into everlasting fire, saying to him and to the other reprobate: *Go, ye cursed, into everlasting fire [n: (Matth. XXV)]*.

[0592B]QUESTION XI. *According to the working of Satan,* etc. The expositor says, yet not without sense, as the frenzied, who have no fault for the evils which they do. Whence it can be asked, if Antichrist shall do the whole with the devil instigating and cooperating, and in a manner compelling, why it is imputed to him rather than to the frenzied, or if the frenzied do this with the devil instigating, why it is not imputed to them. And how are they without fault for the evils which they do, rather than that wicked one? Solution. The frenzied, who are without sense, are rather to be said to suffer something than to do something; and evils are done rather through them than by them; since they themselves are not the authors, seeing they do not apply the will to this. But Antichrist shall so do all things, with the devil instigating, that he shall apply his whole will and [0592C] sense to the same; and therefore all things shall be imputed to him unto eternal punishment.

QUESTION XII. *With signs, and lying wonders,* etc. It is asked concerning those signs which Antichrist shall do through the devil, whether they are therefore called lying, because they are not true as they seem, but phantastic; that is, because he is about to deceive mortal senses through phantasms, or whether they are therefore called lying, because by God's permission they shall draw men to a lie? Solution. It seems to us to be probable, that all those signs which the devil shall be able to do, Antichrist shall also do truly. But those which the devil has not in his power, neither shall that wicked one do truly, but by magic art alone he shall delude the eyes of mortals, that he may seem to do what [0592D] he shall not truly do. Whence the Apostle says: Whose coming shall be in all power, as regards those things which he shall do truly, and in all seduction, as regards those things which he shall not do truly. Yet all avail unto the seduction of the ungodly. But what those things are which the devil shall be able [to do], and what things lie not subject to his power, it is not for our littleness to unfold.

QUESTION XIII. *God shall send them the operation of error, to believe a lie, that they may be judged,* etc. It is asked, however, concerning those who, moved by the signs and wonders of that wicked one, shall believe him to be good, and the Son of God: whether they have any excuse? For if they do not exhibit divine worship to him, since their conscience dictates to them that he is to be adored as God, they shall sin unto death, and thus they seem to be inexcusable [0593A]. Solution. The Apostle says that because they received not the brightness of the truth, that they were saved — that is, Christ formerly manifestly preached — God shall send them the operation of error, that they may believe a lie and be judged: wherein he sufficiently teaches that, on account of their preceding sins, they shall have no excuse, even if they judge themselves to render obedience to Christ, that is, to the true God, by believing in Antichrist.

QUESTION XIV. Augustine says that to be able to have faith, or charity, is of the nature of the faithful: to have faith, or charity, is of the grace of God. Whence it can be asked how this ought to be understood. Is not that which is natural in our own faculty? but since we cannot have faith, or charity, without grace, how is to be able to have faith of the nature [0593B] of the faithful? Solution. To be able to have faith, that is, the potency of having, is natural; but to have the use of this potency is of grace alone, and not of nature.

QUESTION XV. *He that will not work, let him not eat* [0594A] [n: (II Thess. III)]. It is asked of what work he here treats. For if of the outward, how does he prescribe that he not eat who will not work? For many are worthy to eat, though they work not. Solution. Augustine says that the Apostle wills the servants of God to work bodily, that they be not compelled by want to seek necessaries; yet they do not act ill who postpone outward works for spiritual ones when they have whereof to live, because *Mary hath chosen the best part [n: (Luc. X)]*. But those who, given over to curiosity, will not work, are reprehended; not those who forsake lesser goods for greater.

QUESTION XVI. *If any obey not our word by an epistle, note that man, and do not keep company with him, that he may be confounded.* The Apostle says thus, that he [0594B] who resists the admonition of the Church is to be excommunicated. Whence it can be asked in what manner this is to be done. And it is certain that it is to be done with great discretion, lest the Church incur detriment, nor is such punishment to be exercised for a light cause.

## X. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.

[0593]

[0593C] *Paul an apostle [n: (I Tim. I)]*, etc. The Apostle writes this epistle to Timothy, who was the son of a certain faithful woman, begotten of a gentile father: and since he was not circumcised, and was himself a gentile, and the brethren who were in Lystra and Iconium gave good testimony of him, Paul wished this man to set out with him: and therefore that he be circumcised on account of the Jews who were in those places. And he was learned as well in the divine Scriptures as in the liberal arts. This man the Apostle created bishop: therefore, leaving him in Asia, he instructs him in this epistle concerning the episcopal office, namely how he should resist false apostles and how he should instruct the Church, what sort of priests or deacons he should ordain; what sort of widows he should honor, and how he should conduct himself in the Church, or how he should rule it. And the intention of the [0593D] Apostle in this epistle is to instruct Timothy concerning the office of the episcopal dignity. The manner is such: first he salutes him; then he warns him to resist the false ones; afterward he instructs him concerning the episcopal office, teaching what sort of priests and deacons he ought to ordain. Then what sort of widows he ought to receive; afterward he instructs him concerning the manner of correption; but at the end he warns him to avoid profane novelties.

QUESTION I. *Of God the Father our Saviour,* etc. Since the Son is frequently called in Scripture Saviour, who alone died for our salvation, not the Father, not the Holy Spirit, it is asked why the Apostle refers our salvation to God the Father, saying here: Of God the Father our Saviour. Solution. God the Father, in that he deigned to send us his Son, and to bestow the Holy Spirit in the sacraments of the New Testament, [0594C] is the author of our salvation and therefore is called Saviour.

QUESTION II. *And of Jesus Christ our hope.* Likewise it is asked why he refers hope specially to the Son, saying, and of Jesus Christ our hope, since we hope and believe in the whole Trinity. Solution. We therefore refer our hope to Christ, because he rose from the dead, and ascended into the heavens; because through his resurrection we hope to attain to the glory of the future resurrection.

QUESTION III. *Grace, mercy and peace,* etc. It is asked why, beyond his wont, the Apostle in this salutation puts three, saying, grace, mercy, and peace. Solution. The nine preceding epistles he wrote in common to the Churches. But this one specially to Timothy [0594D] his fellow-bishop; therefore he puts three. By mercy understanding the same thing which in the others he understood by grace, namely the remission of sins; by peace, the tranquillity and foretaste of the future life; but by grace he understands the donation of the Holy Spirit, wherewith the ministers of Christ are armed.

QUESTION IV. *That they should not attend to fables,* etc. It is asked what the Apostle here understands by fables? does he perhaps so call the words of the law, and the divine oracles in this place? and elsewhere he says: *Avoid profane and old wives' fables [n: (I Tim. IV)]*. Solution. By fables he here means the doctrine of those who preach that the law with grace is necessary. Or by fables he here means the traditions which the Jews hold unwritten, and one transfuses into another by speaking, which they call deuterosis: wherein they say, and believe, that God first created two wives, from whom [0595A] they weave infinite genealogies of men, bringing forth unfruitful questions. Concerning which traditions, foreign to the sacred Scriptures, the Lord says in the Gospel: *Why have you made void the commandment of God for your traditions? [n: (Matth. XV.)]*.

QUESTION V. *Now the end of the commandment is charity, from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned.* Here the Apostle defines charity, as the expositor says. Whence it can be asked what is the definition here given, whether this: the end of the commandment? or this: from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned? Solution. The definition of charity is, to be from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith unfeigned.

QUESTION VI. Likewise it can be asked whether this definition fits all charity. Which if it be granted, no one [0595B] is having charity who is not perfect, because consummating and perfecting the law; because charity is the end of the commandment, that is, perfection and consummation. For if 'end' is here put for consummation. But elsewhere it is put for consumption, as when it is said, the bread is finished. Elsewhere for a boundary, as when it is said: Here the field ends. Likewise, who can have a pure heart and a good conscience without charity? does not cleanness of heart, and a good conscience, proceed from charity? how then does charity proceed from a pure heart? Solution. It seems to me that here the definition of perfect and consummated charity is assigned, and thus this definition does not fit imperfect charity. First is given love, which cleanses the heart, and from which good [0595C] works are done, and from which is born a good conscience; at length, the heart being cleansed, and a good conscience procured, charity is perfected and consummated, which is the end of the commandment. These things I say without prejudice to a better opinion.

QUESTION VII. *The law is good, if a man use it lawfully.* It is asked what it is to use lawfully? Solution. As the expositor says, he uses the law lawfully who, understanding it spiritually, through it recognizes the disease, and seeks the physician, and who knows it to have been given for a time, and forsakes it for Christ. It is to be noted that the unjust man uses the law lawfully, when he understands why it was given, and by fear of it flees to the grace of Christ, that he may become just. But the just man uses the law lawfully, when by terrifying he imposes it upon the unjust.

[0595D]QUESTION VIII. *The law is not made for the just man.* Were not David and other just men, who were under the law, bound to keep the law, how then is the law not made for the just? Solution. The law is not imposed upon the just man, so as to have dominion over him, and to coerce him by fear, and the just man is not under the law, but rather with it, as a friend of the law.

QUESTION IX. *Because I did it ignorantly,* etc. The expositor says that this 'because' can note the cause or the consequence. But [sic: *Ssd*] it is asked how ignorance, which is a fault, can be the cause of divine mercy. Solution. There is a certain ignorance from infirmity: from which if anyone act against God out of good zeal, out of the affection which he has, he merits to be freed from that ignorance.

[0596A]QUESTION X. *He came into this world to save sinners,* etc. It is asked concerning little ones, who are born of baptized parents, whether they pertain to the sinners for whose saving Jesus came into the world. For these have no actual sin, and how can they contract original sin from parents, which the parents themselves have not; because it is forgiven them? Solution. It is to be known that original sin is so forgiven in baptism, not that it be not at all, but that it be not a fault. But the vice of corruption remains even in the baptized, who beget, not from that whereby they are reborn, but from the oldness of corruption, through which original fault passes into the little ones: whence they too need a remedy. Whence also the physician himself says: *Suffer the little ones to come unto me [n: (Marc. X)]*.

[0596B]QUESTION XI. *Of whom I am the first.* Were not Cain and Saul before Paul? how then is Paul the first among sinners? Solution. Paul was first not in order of time, but in greatness of iniquity. To which solution it is thus objected: Did not Paul sin through ignorance, and many others knowingly? but it is a greater sin to sin knowingly than through ignorance: therefore Paul was not the first among sinners in greatness of iniquity, since others, especially those who sinned against the Holy Spirit, are much worse than Paul even according to his first state, in which he was a blasphemer, a persecutor, and contumelious. Solution. Paul, considering the greatness of his own offenses, judged himself worse than all sinners, [0596C] although in the eyes of God it was otherwise.

QUESTION XII. *Now to the king of ages, immortal, invisible, the only God, honor and glory for ever and ever. Amen.* The expositor says that the man assumed by the Word is king of ages from that time in which he was assumed by the Word; but if the man assumed is not man, nor God, nor person, as certain men have dared to profess, how is the man assumed, from the time that he is assumed, and not before, king of ages? But we say that the man assumed by the Word is man and God: the Word itself, by whom he was assumed, both began in time to be king of ages, namely when he began to be assumed by the Word. For when God began to be man, man also began to be God, as many authorities attest.

[0596D]QUESTION XIII. *Who will have all men to be saved [n: (I Tim. II)]*. Since God is omnipotent, and no one can resist the divine will, how are not all saved, since God wills all to be saved? Or is it perhaps his will that the reprobate be saved? Ambrose thus resolves it: God wills all to be saved, if they themselves will. But do not many will to be saved, who nevertheless are not saved? how then is it true, God wills all to be saved? And therefore others thus expound: God wills, etc., it would please him, if all were saved, or all, that is, of every kind of men some. Or thus: To all he offers grace, through which, if they will, they can be saved. But how is this solution true? Are there not many who are and were, who did not even hear the word of preaching? Or he wills all to be saved, [0597A] that is, he makes the holy to will that all be saved. Or thus: He wills all to be saved, that is, no one is made saved, unless he himself will it. In like manner is understood that: *Who enlighteneth every man [n: (Joan. I)]*, that is, no one is enlightened except by him, and all are made alive in Christ, according to the same manner it behooves to be understood. Thus concerning the ambiguous diverse opinions are given.

QUESTION XIV. *One mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus.* Concerning the mediator it has already in part been said above. But here let it suffice to consider this which the expositor says, that in so far as he is man, he is mediator, not in so far as he is Word. But is he not mediator between the angels and God the Father, and also between the Holy Spirit, in so far as he is Word, though otherwise between the angels and God the Father, and otherwise between the Holy [0597B] Spirit and the Father? Solution. It can well be granted that, in so far as he is Word, he is mediator between the rational creatures and God the Father; but he is not mediator between God the Trinity and men in so far as he is Word, but in so far as he is man like to God in justice, to men in mortality. For if, in so far as he is Word, he were mediator between men and God the Trinity, then there would already be something mediate between himself and another, because the Word between himself and men; which is not to be granted. Someone will say: Christ is now not mortal, how then is he mediator between mortal men and the immortal God, since he was therefore called mediator; because he is like to men through mortality, and to God through justice? Solution. Even now Christ reconciles us to God the Father as the best [0597C] mediator, through that which he did for us in the days of his flesh, that is, of his mortality.

## X. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. (cont.)

QUESTION XV. *Adam was not seduced, but the woman.* It is asked which of the two sinned more, whether Adam or Eve? Solution. The doctors say that the woman not only sinned, but also made the man sin. Against which solution it is thus objected: Adam was seduced, because he did not believe to be true what the enemy urged; but the woman was seduced, believing to be true what the serpent was saying; and thus it follows that he sinned knowingly, and she through ignorance; but it is graver to sin knowingly than through ignorance. Whence it follows that the man sinned more than the woman. Solution. [0597D] That ignorance did not have excuse, because it proceeded from fault; for doubting she answered, saying: *Lest perhaps we die [n: (Gen. III)]*. But the man thought of the mercy of God, and of penitence; and therefore he sinned less.

QUESTION XVI. It is asked how it is true that he was not seduced? Did he not believe that to be committed as venial, which was mortal? Therefore he too was in some way deceived. Solution. He was not seduced first, and in that in which the woman was, as the authority says. But is he not seduced, if he was not seduced first, and in that in which the woman was? For if someone is not wounded in the head, is he therefore not wounded? Does a simple negation follow upon a determinate negation? Solution. The doctors of the New Testament sometimes say [0598A] that something was not, which the Scripture of the Old Testament does not say was. Whence, because the scripture of Genesis, speaking of the seduction of the woman, says nothing of any seduction of the man, therefore the Apostle says: Adam was not seduced, but the woman. According to the same manner of speaking, elsewhere the same Apostle asserts that Melchisedech had no beginning, nor end, no father, no offspring, although in truth he had a beginning, and an end, and a father, and perhaps offspring; but because the scripture so introduces him that it said nothing either of his genealogy, or birth, or death, therefore the Apostle asserts that he had none of the aforesaid things. And Ambrose says that the man is blessed with the first woman, and not with the second, as if he were to say: In Holy Scripture we read the blessing of the man with the [0598B] first woman, but we do not read where God blesses the man with the second.

QUESTION XVII. *But the woman shall be saved through the generation of children.* If the generation of children saves, what will the continent woman or the virgin do? Will she not be saved, because she has no children? What is it that elsewhere the Apostle says: *But she will be more blessed, whether widow or virgin, if she so remain?* Solution. He does not place the cause of salvation in the generation of children, but rather in faith and love, whence he adds: *If she remain in faith and love.* And the sense is: even if the woman was the cause of sin, nevertheless she shall be saved — not only the continent woman, or the virgin, but even the married woman, though, never ceasing from the generation of children, but going forward through the generation of children, she should depart from this world, provided that they remain [0598C] in faith and love. Or it will avail her for an increase of salvation, if her children, through her teaching and diligence, remain in faith and love. Or rather it is understood mystically. The woman is a type of the flesh, which elsewhere is signified by the turtledove. Adam is a figure of reason, which is figured by the sparrow. The children are good works, which are understood by the young of the turtledove, which live only in the nest of the Catholic faith; outside they do not thrive, nay they are trodden down, because good works do not profit pagans, Jews, heretics, schismatics. Whence he says here: If she remain in faith and love, namely the children of the woman, the young of the turtledove, the good works.

QUESTION XVIII. *If any man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work [n: (I Tim. III)]*, etc. But this ambitious man [0598D] desires the episcopate; can it be inferred, therefore he desires a good work? Solution. The episcopate is the attention over one's own and others' life, and thus it is the name of a work, which the good man desires, who, Rachel of beautiful countenance being set aside for a time, but not abandoned, with Jacob enters in to Leah bleary-eyed, on account of the fruitfulness of children, and descends from the mountain of contemplation with Moses to the fields of action. For no one ought so to be at leisure that in that same leisure he does not think of the profit of his neighbor, nor so busy that he does not seek the contemplation of God. The episcopate is also the name of a dignity, which the ambitious man desires, who wishes rather to preside than to profit.

QUESTION XIX. *The husband of one wife,* etc. It is asked whether he ought to be called a monogamist, and can be ordained, who [0599A] before baptism had a wife; and, she being dismissed, was reborn in Christ and afterward married a believing woman. Solution. Jerome says that such a man is not a bigamist, and that he can be ordained; to whom, now made new, neither debaucheries nor other things are imputed. But Augustine says that he is not a monogamist, nor ought to be ordained, although what he had done before does not stand against him; on account of the mystery which ought to be preserved in those to be ordained; which in the aforesaid man cannot be preserved.

QUESTION XX. But do Jerome and Augustine hold contrary opinions in the solution of the aforesaid question? Solution. Jerome says that such a man is a monogamist as regards merit, and it is not a sin if he be ordained. But Augustine says that he is not a monogamist as regards the force of the sacrament, nor can he be [0599B] ordained, where the sacrament of monogamy is to be preserved; nor is it required that it be preserved in every one to be ordained, otherwise a virgin could not be ordained, since he is not the husband of one wife. The Church is the convocation of many to the worship of the one God.

QUESTION XXI. *Great is the sacrament of piety,* etc. It is asked what is here called a sacrament. For sometimes a sacrament is called a sign of a sacred thing, as the sacrament of baptism and of the altar; sometimes it is called something hidden and secret, or a mystery. Solution. Christ, hidden according to his deity, is called a sacrament, who is the cause of all religion, and of true worship. For who was ever pious and devout in faith, except the knowledge of this sacrament having first been received?

QUESTION XXII. *Which was manifested in the flesh,* etc. [0599C] It is asked of what manifestation this treats. Solution. Of that which was made by preaching, by powers, and by signs shown in the assumed flesh.

QUESTION XXIII. *Justified in the spirit.* Did not the discourse precede concerning the Word of God? but this was not justified, but rather born just from eternity. Solution. When discourse is made about Christ, it must be diligently observed what is said, and in respect of what; this therefore, justified in the spirit, is understood of Christ according to the man assumed, according to whom he is free from all sin, having justice in every mode.

QUESTION XXIV. *He appeared to the angels.* Here we have authority that the angels advance in knowledge through [0599D] those things which are done in the Church, which we have already diligently pursued above upon the passage: that the manifold wisdom may become known, etc.; and the expositor testifies the same in this place.

QUESTION XXV. *Nothing is to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving [n: (I Tim. IV)]*. It is asked whether this is contrary to the legal doctrine, which distinguishes certain foods, calling some clean, others unclean? Solution. In the law certain animals were called unclean not by nature, but by signification: so that, if concerning the pig and the lamb it be inquired, each is clean in nature, because every creature is good; yet in signification the lamb is clean, the pig unclean.

QUESTION XXVI. *Piety is profitable to all things, having the promise [0600A] of the life that now is,* etc. It is asked what he calls the promise of the present life; for concerning the promise of the future life it is established. Solution. The sufficiency of temporal things and the abundance of spiritual things. For God promises both to his worshippers. The sufficiency of temporal things is promised, where it is said: *Seek first the kingdom of God, and all these things shall be added unto you [n: (Matth. VI)]*. The abundance of spiritual things, where it is written: *Whosoever shall leave these or those things for my sake, shall receive a hundredfold [n: (Matth. XIX)]*, that is, in the present the delightfulness of spiritual goods exceeds the affluence of temporal goods by as much as a hundred surpasses unity.

QUESTION XXVII. *Which was given to thee by prophecy,* etc. It is asked, what does he call prophecy? Solution. [0600B] He calls prophecy the choice of the holy ones who chose him for bishop. Or rather the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, through which the Apostle knew him to be worthy of the episcopate.

QUESTION XXVIII. *With the imposition of hands.* What is it? Solution. He calls the imposition of hands the mystical words, by which the one chosen is confirmed for this work, receiving authority, his conscience being witness, that he may dare to offer sacrifices in the Lord's stead.

QUESTION XXIX. *The laborer is worthy of his hire [n: (I Tim. V)]*, etc. It is asked whether that which is given by the people to the preacher is a due and worthy wage; and whether he sins, if he preaches for it; and whether he who does this sells the Gospel. Solution. Who would dare to say that is not a wage, which Truth itself calls a wage? [0600C] Yet he ought not to preach for such a wage, but that he may receive an eternal wage from the Lord. It is therefore of necessity to receive that whereby one lives; it is of charity to bestow, nay a debt, that those who receive spiritual things should minister carnal things. The preacher ought to receive, that he may preach; not to preach, that he may receive.

QUESTION XXX. *But them that sin reprove before all.* To this seems to be contrary what the Lord says in the Gospel: *If thy brother shall offend against thee, rebuke him between thee and him alone [n: (Matth. XVIII)]*. Does so good a disciple disagree with so good a Master? Solution. Both are true, and sometimes that which the Lord says with his own mouth, namely when thou art alone, is to be done; for a hidden fault [0600D] ought to be reproved in secret, as the just Joseph did concerning Mary, alone suspecting adultery; otherwise, if thou do otherwise, thou wilt be a betrayer, not a corrector. Sometimes also that is to be done which Truth said by the mouth of Paul, namely when one sins openly. For a public offense needs a public satisfaction.

QUESTION XXXI. *Use a little wine.* It is asked how he counseled this. Solution. He gives a special counsel, that he govern himself by wholesome instruction; for God wishes to be served prudently, not that by excessive abstinence they become weak, and afterward require the help of physicians for themselves.

QUESTION XXXII. *Languishing about questions, and strifes of words [n: (I Tim. VI)]*, etc. The question was, whether anyone was a slave, since all have arisen [0601A] from the same fathers, and Christ has redeemed all. Likewise a strife of words, he may have freed [them], because the Lord says: *If the Son hath freed you, you are free indeed [n: (Joan. VIII)]*, which and similar things seem to dissent from the apostolic doctrine, which exhorts servants to be subject to their masters, and likewise from the words of the Lord saying: *Render therefore the things that are Caesar's to Caesar,* etc. [n: (Luc. XX.)] But such a controversy of words is to be resolved thus: this — if the Son shall have freed you, you are free indeed — is to be understood of spiritual liberty, not of carnal. But Paul speaks of carnal liberty and servitude, which the spiritual does not take away.

## X. ON THE FIRST EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY. (cont.)

QUESTION XXXIII. *The root of all evils is cupidity.* Elsewhere Scripture says: *The beginning of every sin is pride [n: (Eccle. X)]*. But here, that it is avarice or [0601B] cupidity. For if avarice is held as a species for a genus, how is each true? for if pride is the beginning of every sin, therefore also of cupidity; and if cupidity is the root of all evils, therefore also of pride; and thus the same thing is the cause and the effect of the same. Solution. When it is said that the root of all evils is cupidity, or that pride is the beginning of every sin, if the individual genera are understood, it is false; but if the genera of individuals, it is true. For there is no genus of sin which does not sometimes arise from pride, sometimes from cupidity. For there are some who covet riches, that through them they may be able to reach the summit of honor; there are others who seek dignity for this reason, that they may become richer.

QUESTION XXXIV. *Alone powerful.* Are not the angels powerful [0601C], whence they are also called Virtues and Powers? Solution. God alone is powerful by nature, from that which he is; but the angels are powerful by grace, from that which they have received.

QUESTION XXXV. *Who alone hath immortality,* etc. Are not souls and angels also by nature immortal? Solution. God alone hath immortality, that is, immutability, because he neither could, nor can, nor will be able to sin. This immortality neither the angels nor the souls of the saints have; for although they are immortal by grace, yet they are truly believed to be mutable by nature.

QUESTION XXXVI. *Who inhabiteth light inaccessible.* The prophet says: *Come ye to him, and be enlightened [n: (Psal. XXXIII)]*: is not God himself the very light which he is said to inhabit? How are we admonished to come [0602A] to this light, if it is itself inaccessible? Solution. No one comes to it of himself, but he to whom it is given by his gift.

QUESTION XXXVII. *Whom no man hath seen, nor can see.* Did not Abraham see God, and Moses, and the other fathers? How then is it true that no one has ever seen God? Likewise, do not we too hope for the vision of him? But how, if no one can see him? Solution. God in his own nature is invisible to the eye of flesh; but those visions were exhibited to the holy fathers in a subject creature. Whence Moses, after those figures in which God was seen, said: *Lord, show me thy face [n: (Exod. XXXIII)]*. But in the future God shall be seen by the clean of heart, and now he is seen by the holy angels.

[0602B]QUESTION XXXVIII. *Avoiding the profane novelties of words,* etc. It is asked whether all novelties of words are to be avoided. Solution. No, because not all are profane, as this very name "Christian," "homoousion," "the new commandment," and "the new testament," and "the new song" — they call these novelties not profane, but sacred, and befitting religion. But "hypostasis," in the time of the heretics, denoted a profane novelty, which name the heretics used, now in the signification of person, now in the signification of substance, for the deception of the simple, so that, if they granted the Trinity to be one hypostasis, they would infer: Therefore they are one person; but if they said the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit to be three hypostases, they would conclude: Therefore they are three substances. But now [0602C] this word does not denote a profane novelty, because it has been reduced to the signification of person. Whence we now simply grant the Trinity to be three hypostases, and not one; which formerly was not to be granted without a qualification, when it still retained a manifold signification.

QUESTION XXXIX. *And the oppositions of knowledge falsely so called,* etc. It is asked what the Apostle calls knowledge of a false name. Is it logic? But if it is this, how does Augustine call dialectic the science of sciences, which not only makes one knowing, but even demonstrates the knower? Solution. As I judge, he calls knowledge of a false name the sophistical art, whose oppositions are to be avoided by the pious and meek, because they avail for nothing but the subversion of the simple.

## XI. ON THE SECOND EPISTLE TO TIMOTHY.

[0601]

[0601D] *Paul an apostle [n: (II Tim. I)]*, etc. Now about to pass from the world, he writes this second epistle from Rome, from prison, to Timothy, wearied by infirmities and adversities, that he may labor constantly in the grace of God entrusted to him, exhorting him to martyrdom in many ways, [0602D] and that he may persevere in the office of right preaching, and in holy working: and foretelling what shall be in the last times, and concerning his own death. And the intention of the Apostle in this epistle is to exhort Timothy to the diligent execution of his office, and to the palm [0603A] of martyrdom, and he adds still some things about the episcopal office. The manner is such: first he greets, then he gives thanks for the good which he has, where he shows his desire of seeing him: afterward he admonishes to preaching, and to the endurance of martyrdom, by his own example and in other ways: thence he says what men will be like in the last days: finally, concerning the time of his own dissolution which is at hand.

QUESTION I. *God hath not given us the spirit of fear.* It is asked of what fear this is said. Solution. Of the fear which the love of God expels.

QUESTION II. *Which was given us before the secular ages,* etc. When could anything be given to us, we not yet existing? Solution. It was given, that is, foreseen to be given: whence he does not say simply "it was given," but added "in Christ Jesus."

[0603B]QUESTION III. Likewise it is asked why he does not say [sic: *sempliciter*] *before the ages,* but adds, *secular.* Are not all times secular? To the difference of what, then, does he say "secular"? Solution. Some say that the angels were created before the creation of the world, and those spaces which were from the creation of the angels up to the creation of the world the Apostle elsewhere calls eternal times, to the difference of which he here says "secular times." But someone will say: Does not time denote mutability, and eternity immutability? How then can any times be eternal? how be at once mutable and immutable? Solution. The aforesaid doctors understand this thus: In those spaces which are called eternal times there was succession, and no passing-away: and thus a certain immutability, [0603C] and according to this a certain eternity. To this opinion Jerome seems to accord. But nearly all the doctors say that the angels were created not before, but with the world; but what, according to them, ought to be understood by "eternal times," let him see and inquire who follows their opinion. But to me the opinion of the former seems the stronger, saving the reverence due to hidden things: this I say, asserting nothing rashly.

QUESTION IV. *No man being a soldier to God entangleth himself with secular businesses [n: (II Tim. II)]*, etc. Do not active men war for God, and yet are entangled in secular businesses? how then does the Apostle say: No man being a soldier to God, etc.? Solution. He calls businesses "secular" when the mind is occupied with the care of gathering money: [0603D] which no one can do at the same time, and war for God. But active men do not devote themselves to outward things for this, that they may gather money, but only for this, that they may provide necessary things for themselves and for others.

QUESTION V. *Of the seed of David according to my Gospel, wherein I labor even unto bonds.* It is asked of what tribe Christ and Mary were. But from this passage note that Christ was born of David: as in the beginning he says: *Of the seed of David according to the flesh.* And the archangel Gabriel of the same: *The Lord God shall give unto him the throne of David his father [n: (Luc. I)]*. These things I say on account of those who will not have the mother of the Lord to be of the seed of David, who was of the tribe of Judah, but say that she was only of the tribe of Levi, and on account of Joseph the husband of Mary, who was of the family of David, they say Christ is called of [0604A] the seed of David: and Origen (as it is said) thought thus. Others say — which also seems so to us — that Mary too proceeded from the stock of David, and so from the stock of Judah, not only from the stock of Levi. For the two tribes, the royal and the priestly, were intermingled, and therefore it is no wonder that the Virgin drew her origin from both, as one about to bring forth a true King and Priest. *Contend not in words.* Among the servants of God there ought to be no contention, but conference, and a modest inquiry into truth.

QUESTION VI. *Saying that the resurrection is already made.* It is asked of what resurrection the Apostle speaks: whether of that which is of minds, or of that which is of bodies? For if this be said of that which is of minds, which is made in baptism, how did those who said this [0604B] to be already made subvert the faith of some, since this is true and to be believed? Likewise, if they said this of the resurrection of bodies, how did they by this subvert the faith of some, since it is established to all that this is false? Solution. This can be understood of both resurrections: for by this, that they said the resurrection of minds to be already made, and no other of bodies to be future, they deceived, namely because they slyly denied the resurrection of bodies. Or also in this they subverted faith, that they said the resurrection of bodies to have been made: taking thence the occasion of their error, that it is written in the Gospel: *Many bodies of the saints arose, and appeared in the holy city [n: (Matth. XXVII)]*, [0604C] denying that the general resurrection, which we await, is to come.

QUESTION VII. *In a great house there are not only vessels of gold and of silver,* etc. It is asked whom he understands by the vessels of gold and silver, and whom by the vessels of wood and of earthenware? Solution. By the vessels of gold and silver he understands the predestined; by the vessels of wood and earthenware, the reprobate. Or by the golden vessels are understood the good, whether they be predestined or not; by the wooden and earthen vessels, the evil, whether they be foreknown unto life, or reprobate. And thus according to this opinion, of both there are some unto honor, some unto contumely. But according to the former, unto honor only are the golden and silver vessels; unto contumely, the wooden and earthen. *Avoid foolish questions, and without discipline,* [0604D] etc. Here he hints that not all questions are to be avoided, but only those in which there is no fruit. *Having an appearance of piety, but denying the power thereof.* Such are many in this time, as the Apostle here describes, who love themselves, not God: having the name and habit of sanctity, while within they are full of all uncleannesses. He calls the power of piety charity, of which it is written: *Love is strong as death [n: (Cant. VIII)]*: this contempt of the world necessarily precedes.

QUESTION VIII. *All who wish to live piously in Christ shall suffer persecution [n: (II Tim. III)]*. Does not the Church have a time of peace in which many live piously, and yet do not suffer persecution? Solution. The saints suffer in many ways, as in heart and body: [0605A] now from the devil, now from evil men, now from their own concupiscences; to whom also the manner of life of the weak is a persecution. For these say with the Apostle: *Who is weak, and I am not weak? who is scandalized, and I am not on fire? [n: (II Cor. XI)]*. Therefore those who live piously in Christ are not without persecution, even in time of peace.

QUESTION IX. *I have finished my course [n: (II Tim. IV)]*, [0606A] etc. Did there not still remain, for the consummation of his course, a sharper and crueler enemy, namely the sword of Nero? How then was it true that Paul had finished his course before the triumph of his passion! Solution. He says this not with the thing complete, but with sure hope. For he who made him victor in the contest had already, through revelation, rendered him certain and secure concerning the consummation.

## XII. ON THE EPISTLE TO TITUS.

[0605]

[0605B] *Paul the servant of God [n: (Tit. I)]*, etc. This epistle he writes to Titus, left as bishop of Crete, too forbearing out of humility and simplicity, from Nicopolis, concerning the episcopal office to be handled commandingly and with authority, having prescribed to him by his own useful authority. For a bishop ought to have maternal tenderness and paternal severity: that he be strong toward the proud, and gentle toward the modest: having neither a corner of fear, nor the eyebrow of haughtiness. *Let him burn and shine:* whence in the vestment of the legal high priest there was scarlet twice-dyed, which has the appearance of fire. But fire does two things: it burns and it shines: so also the bishop, with the sword of preaching, namely with fiery speech, ought to burn with biting rebuke and with fearful threatening: and to shine with soothing words, by cherishing and by promising delightful things. And therefore it is said of the manna that it hardened [0605C] at the fire, and melted at the sun. And the pontifical staff pricks from the lower part, and at the top is extended toward the front, returning upon itself: because the ecclesiastical doctor ought with the sword of the word to prick, that is, to reprove sharply those who sin, which is from the lower nature, and to direct those corrected toward the things before, yet so that by consideration of himself he return to his own conscience, if perchance he have in himself that which he announces by reproaching others. The form of the staff therefore figures this, that the bishop ought to prick the rebellious, and to draw the meek to himself, whence a certain one says: *The curved part draws the meek, the sharp point pricks the rebellious.*
The intention of the Apostle in this epistle, then, is to instruct Titus about the episcopal office, and to admonish him to handle it commandingly, and to shun heretics. The manner is such: [0605D] First he greets, then he instructs him about the episcopal office, teaching him what he ought to do, and what kind of bishops to constitute throughout the cities: then how he ought to instruct those differing whether in sex, or in age, or in condition: afterward he admonishes him about avoiding heretics.

QUESTION I. *Which he promised before the secular ages,* etc. It is asked how God promised eternal life before all times, since there were not yet men to whom he might promise? Solution. He promised, that is, in himself the eternal one he immutably purposed, that in time he would give eternal life to those whom he had already predestined.

[0606B]QUESTION II. *Without crime,* etc. He does not say "without sin": because, as the authority says, no one, however piously he live, even if he be worthy of the name of just, is without sin. But someone will say: Is there not in baptism, and through true penitence, a plenary remission of all sins? And if this is so — nay, because it is so — it is established that this baptized man, and the truly penitent, is without sin. How then is it true, No one is without sin? Solution. When it is said, No one is without sin, it is thus understood: No one, however good he be, can pass through this life without sin; yet he can live without crime, that is, without a graver sin, and without a ground of complaint, that is, without such a sin as is worthy of accusation and of damnation, as adultery, homicide, theft, and the like.

[0606C]QUESTION III. *The Cretans are always liars,* etc. It is asked why the Apostle interwove into his own teaching, in which there is divine authority, the words of a Gentile and unbelieving author, and, speaking to the Athenians, says: *In him we live, and move, and are [n: (Act. XVII)]*; and elsewhere he says: *I found an altar on which it was written, To the Unknown God, which is certain to have been taken from the writings of the heathen [n: (ibid.)]* Solution. It is permitted to the divine authority to take a testimony of truth from whence it will, which it judged to be necessary. For it does not on that account approve all the other things which are there, and judge them to be true. In figure of which thing the Hebrews despoiled the Egyptians of gold, and silver, and other things which were necessary for the divine worship. And in the law it was commanded to the Jews that, if they bought a Gentile slave, his hairs should be shaved, and the growths of his nails [0606D] cut off, and then he should be taken up for domestic uses. So, the vain and superfluous superstitions of the Gentiles being shaved off and cut away, whatever is found pure is to be taken up for the ministry of the house of God. It is to be noted that the divine authors put testimonies of this kind in a signification other than that in which they were put by their own author, as that: *It is expedient that one man die for the people, [and not] that the whole nation perish [n: (Joan. XI)]*; Caiaphas understood it one way, the evangelist another. For he by whose power and might the she-ass, as by an instrument, spoke with the voice of a man, used Caiaphas in the utterance of the aforesaid words.

[0607A]QUESTION IV. *They confess that they know God, but in their works they deny him.* Note, that some confess God with words only, others also with works; some deny God with works only, some both with words and with works; those who confess God with words and works are good. But those who deny both with words and with works are unbelievers; but those who confess with words, and deny with works, are they to be called simply confessors, or deniers? Solution. Hear. *By their fruits you shall know them [n: (Matth. VII)]*, he does not say "by their words." All the evil, therefore, deny God by their works; all are antichrists who deny Christ by their life. Antichrist has not yet come, and yet already there are many antichrists in the world.

QUESTION V. *A heretical man, after the first and second correction, avoid [n: (Tit. II)]*, etc. He calls a heretic [0608A] one who by the law assails the law. But why is such a one to be avoided? Would it not be better to confer with him often, and to recall him from error to truth? Solution. Since he is incorrigible, it is better to avoid him, because if he were more often corrected, it would be an exercise unto evil.

QUESTION VI. *Since he is condemned by his own judgment.* It is asked how such a one is condemned by his own judgment, for he believes what he says to be true, and thus does not judge himself damned. Solution. Of him who knowingly sins, who recognizes the error and knows the truth, and yet praises the error and blames the truth — of this man the Apostle seems here to speak, and such a one, his conscience being witness, is damned, as is clear to all.

## XIII. ON THE EPISTLE TO PHILEMON.

[0607]

[0607B] *Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus,* etc. This epistle he writes to Philemon of Colossae, who was endowed with no dignity of ecclesiastical ministry, but was a praiseworthy man among the people, to whom he sends a familiar letter on behalf of Onesimus his slave, who had fled to his loss, but, having heard the Gospel from the Apostle, was baptized, for whom the Apostle both prays pardon, and deprecates his fault, writing to him from Rome, from prison. And the intention of the Apostle is to implore pardon for Onesimus with Philemon. The manner is such: first he greets him with his wife and son; then he gives thanks to God for their good things, commending their faith and charity, afterward he beseeches Philemon, though he could command him, to spare Onesimus, and to give thanks to God, because he received him such, that he should esteem him not a slave, but a most beloved brother. Then he says that he should prepare him a lodging, as he hopes to come to him.

QUESTION I. *To Philemon, and to Appia, and to Archippus,* etc. [0608B] It is asked why in this salutation he does not preserve the dignity of persons, namely why he does not put first Archippus, who was bishop of Colossae, but puts him after, and puts Philemon first, who was endowed with no ecclesiastical dignity — is it perhaps because the one was father, and the other son? Solution. He puts the layman before the ordained man for this reason, that a domestic matter is being treated.

QUESTION II. *So may I enjoy thee, brother, in the Lord,* etc. What is it to enjoy? Is it not to cleave to something for its own sake through love? but thus God alone is to be enjoyed, because God alone is to be loved for his own sake; how then does the Apostle say to Philemon: So may I enjoy thee, brother, in the Lord? Solution. He does not say simply, "I shall enjoy thee, brother"; but he adds "in the Lord," by this hinting that he has placed the end of his love in the Lord. Or "to enjoy" is said to be "to use with a certain delight," and thus it can be taken here.

## XIV. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS.

[0607]

[0607C] *In many ways [n: (Hebr. I)]*, etc. Paul, the excellent doctor, the Apostle of the Gentiles, wishing to honor his ministry. According to which he says in the Epistle to the Romans: *As long as I am the Apostle of the Gentiles, I will honor my ministry, trying if by any means I may provoke to emulation my own flesh [n: (Rom. XI)]*. To the churches of the Hebrews he writes this epistle, treating of the eminence of Christ according to both natures, and of the uselessness of the Mosaic law; building up in many ways that the faith of Jesus Christ, without the legal observances, suffices for justice and salvation. But that the legal observances, after Christ's passion, [0608C] not only do not profit, but even hinder, excluding the estimation of certain Hebrews, who, confessing Christ, thought that the legal observances were to be kept; and by their authority had led into this error even some who had come to Christ from heathenism; therefore the Apostle, providing for the Gentiles, lest thenceforth they be drawn into this error by the authority of the Hebrews, provoking the Jews also to emulation, commends the grace of God made to the faithful in this time through Christ the true high priest, showing the law to be reprobated. The intention, therefore, of the Apostle [0609A] in this epistle is to show the eminence of Christ, and the sufficiency of faith, as well as the insufficiency and uselessness of the law.

The manner of treating is such. First he proposes that the words of Christ are to be heard as those of the prophets, and further, by comparing him with the prophets, and preferring him; because in him God spoke as in the prophets, and he is greater than they. Then he commends him alternately according to both natures, namely the human and the divine, afterward he compares him with the angels, and prefers him, interweaving many things about his excellence according to both natures. Then he compares him with Moses and prefers him. Then by many reasons and authorities he declares that the grace of faith is to be carried through for the shadow of the law; and the priesthood of Christ to the Levitical [0609B] priesthood, and the New Testament to the Old; and he shows that its one sacrifice is to be set before the many sacrifices of that; because there is the shadow, here the truth. Finally he sets down a description of faith, commending it by many testimonies. But toward the end he adds a moral instruction.

QUESTION I. First it is asked, why to this epistle, as to the others, he did not prefix his own name, which is Paul; why also he was silent about the name of dignity, which is Apostle? Solution. Because he was odious to the Hebrews, to whom he seemed a destroyer of the law, he kept silent his name, odious to them, lest the ill-will toward his name, prefixed, should exclude the usefulness of the reading that follows; knowing also their pride, and showing his own humility, he was unwilling to put forward the dignity of his order by naming [0609C] himself Apostle, but, keeping silent the merit of his office, himself humble toward the proud, he did not name himself apostle, lest the proud be indignant. But someone will say? Does not the Apostle write to the faithful who were at Jerusalem, to whom the name of Paul was not odious, nor did they envy his dignity as though he were proud; how then is it true that he kept silent his proper name or the name of dignity because it was odious to the Hebrews, since to those to whom he wrote he was not odious, but beloved? Solution. Among those to whom, as an excellent preacher of grace, he was much pleasing, there were certain zealots of the law, who thought and preached that the law was to be kept together with grace, and to these the name of Paul was odious. For they found no one so contrary to their false opinion as Paul, whence they persecuted [0609D] him as much as they could. It is to be noted that there were some saying that this epistle was by no means the apostle Paul's, because his name is not prefixed to it as in all the others, and also because it shines with a more splendid and more eloquent style than the others; but that it was either Luke's, or Barnabas's, or Clement's. To whom Jerome thus responds: If it is therefore not to be called Paul's, because it is not inscribed with his name, then neither is it any of theirs, nay of no one at all, since it has no one's name in the title, which was done for the aforesaid cause already given. But that it shines with greater eloquence than the others is not to be wondered at, since it is natural for each one to be more capable in his own language than in a foreign one; since therefore he wrote this one [0610A] alone in the Hebrew language, but the others in Greek, what wonder if it shines with greater eloquence?

QUESTION II. *In these days.* It is asked what days he calls them. Solution. The Apostle calls the time of grace "days" on account of the eminent doctrine of faith and the knowledge of salvation, whence elsewhere: *Behold, now is the day of salvation [n: (II Cor. VI)]*.

QUESTION III. *Whom he hath appointed heir of all things,* etc. It is asked, according to which nature Christ is here called heir of all things. Solution. It can well be said that according to the divine nature he is here called heir, that is, possessor, and Lord of all things, that is, of all nature. Or according to his humanity he is called heir of all things, namely of those to be saved, or of Jews and Gentiles. For this is the heir of the world, that seed in which all nations are blessed, [0610B] to whom the Father speaks, saying: *Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance [n: (Psal. II)]*.

QUESTION IV. *By whom also he made the ages.* Did not God the Father make all things through the Son, visible and invisible, mutable and immutable? Why then does the Apostle not say: By whom he made all things, but "by whom he made also the ages"! Solution. These visible and mutable things are more known to us; and therefore in these we more admire the power of God than in those which are unknown; and this is the reason why he rather named the ages specially.

QUESTION V. *Who, being the brightness of glory,* etc. It is asked why he uses this likeness, and elsewhere another? Solution. The Apostle, wishing to show that, although the Son is from the Father, yet he is coeternal with him, [0610C] uses a proportional likeness of temporal things, saying: who, being the brightness of glory, as if he were to say: as the brightness of fire, although it be from the fire, yet is coeval with the fire, and would be coeternal with it, if it were eternal; for the fire was never without brightness; so the Son, although he be from the Father, yet is coeternal with him, because the Father was never without the Son. Likewise, wishing to show the identity of nature which the Son has with the Father, he uses a proportional likeness of other things, calling the Son the figure of the substance, because he could not demonstrate both in the same things. For in creatures nothing is found which has being from another, and is of the same nature or substance, and which is not preceded by it. But the Son so has being from the Father, that he is coeternal with him; as the brightness [0610D] is coeval with the fire, and is of the same essence or nature with the Father. As the man begetting, and the man begotten of him — for as a man cannot beget except that which he himself is, that is, because a man begets a man, so God begets nothing other than what he himself is, that is, God begets God. Reader, diligently observe these words of the Apostle, and the exposition of the holy ones upon them; and thou wilt notice how both the Sabellian heresy and the Arian is here manifestly destroyed.

QUESTION VI. *And upholding all things by the word of his power.* It is asked how God is said to uphold all things by the word, since to uphold does not pertain to the property of the Word. Likewise, whether he is beneath all things, and not rather over and above them, that he should be said to uphold them. Solution. [0611A] He is said to uphold all things by the word rather than by power for this reason, that in upholding — that is, in containing, and governing, and preserving — he may be understood to sustain no labor or difficulty, he who is more inward than every thing, because all things are in him; and higher than every thing, because he is above all; and more ancient than every thing, because he is before all; and newer than every thing, because he is after all, that is, after the beginnings of all things.

QUESTION VII. *He sitteth at the right hand,* etc. The expositor says that the man assumed was exalted even to equality with the Father, which is understood by the "right hand": therefore it is asked whether it is to be granted that the man assumed is equal to the Father; but since the Son says: *The Father is greater than I [n: (Joan. XIV)]*: which is to be understood [0611B] according to that which is assumed, how is the same equal to the Father, since the Son according to it is less than the Father? Solution. That man, inasmuch as he is man, is less than the Father, and not equal: but inasmuch as the man assumed is God, the Son of God, he is not less than the Father, but equal. It is therefore to be seen what is said of what, and in respect of what, as often as discourse occurs about Christ; yet there are many who do not grant that the man assumed is God, as has already been said above.

QUESTION VIII. *Being made so much better than the angels.* It is asked according to which nature he here speaks of Christ: that according to divinity he is better than the angels, there is no question; but yet he was not made better than the angels, but rather born. By this therefore, [0611C] that he says "made," we are compelled here to understand of Christ according to his humanity, namely that he was made better than the angels. But to this seems contrary what is found in the Psalm: *Thou hast lessened him below the angels [n: (Psalm. VIII)]*. How, according to the same nature, can he be better, and less? Solution. He was made less than the angels by the mortality and passion of the flesh; and he is greater and better than the same by the fullness of grace, from which the angels themselves also receive.

QUESTION IX. *I have this day begotten thee,* etc. It is asked of what day he speaks. Solution. Augustine says that this can be understood of that day on which Christ was born according to the flesh. Yet it can be understood more divinely of his eternal generation: whence he says "I begot," [0611D] lest it be understood as new; for "today" is said of a past begetting; and thus it is intimated to be eternal, in which nothing is past, as though it had ceased to be, nor future, as though it were not yet.

QUESTION X. But again it can be asked how this can be expounded of the temporal generation of Christ, since God the Father did not beget Christ according to human nature? For as Christ has no mother according to his Deity, so neither a father according to his humanity. Since therefore he is not his father according to this nature, how can it be said that he begot him according to it? Solution. To beget does not always denote a natural generation, but sometimes a gratuitous one, as to thee: *Of his own will he begot us by the word of truth [n: (Jac. I)]*. Because, therefore, the temporal generation of Christ [0612A] was the work of the whole Trinity, it can not unfittingly be said that the Father begot him even according to his humanity. But someone will say: Therefore Christ is a son of grace, and so adoptive? Solution. It is not true: by grace indeed that man was made a son, not of grace, but of nature.

## XIV. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. (cont.)

QUESTION XI. And again he says: *Therefore to him for a father, and he himself shall be to me for a son,* etc. It is asked concerning this authority how it pertains to Christ, since neither the things preceding nor the things following that place, whence this authority is taken, seem to admit this. For in the book of Kings God the Father is brought in speaking to David: *Thou shalt not build me a house, because thou art a man of blood; but thy son, who shall reign after thee: [0612B] who if he shall have done wickedly, I will correct him with the rod of men, and in the blows* [stripes] *of the sons of men, and I will establish his kingdom for ever and ever, and I will be to him for a father, and he himself shall be to me for a son [n: (II Reg. VII)]*, etc. All these things can be fitted neither to Solomon nor to Christ. Solution. In divine Scripture often in the same series certain things are set down which refer to the history alone; certain things to the mystical sense alone; certain things also which can be taken both ways, as in the aforesaid; certain things refer to Solomon, certain to Christ.

QUESTION XII. Likewise it happens in many others. For if anyone, following the history, considering the things preceding and following, where it is written: *Behold a virgin shall conceive, and shall bear a son [n: (Isa. VII)]*: it will seem to him [0612C] rather that this authority refers to that young woman of Isaiah than to the Virgin, since there are there certain things which can in no way agree with the mother of our Emmanuel, which pertain to the history alone, although a certain mode of speech and property of relation sufficiently indicate that all things refer to the same person: Thy son, he says, who shall reign after thee, etc. Solution. It is to be known that there are three kinds of relations: for one is personal, as Saul, who is also Paul; another general and simple, as the woman who condemned, saved; another vocal, as my hands, which made you, are fastened with nails.

QUESTION XIII. Likewise it is asked according to which [0612D] nature the Father says: I will be to him for a father. For according to the human he is not father; according to the divine he was father from eternity; how then does he say: I will be father to him? Solution. Then a thing is said to be made, when it begins to be known; because therefore through the resurrection it was made plain to all the faithful, and in the future will be made plain even to the unbelieving, that he himself is Father, and that one Son, therefore he says: I will be to him for a father. Or thus: I will be to him, that is to the man assumed, for a father, and that man himself shall be to me for a son, yet not according to humanity, but according to divinity.

QUESTION XIV. *And when again he bringeth in the first-begotten,* etc. It is asked how the Apostle calls "entrance" that coming which the Lord himself calls "going forth," saying: *I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world [n: (Joan. XVI)]*, calling it entrance [0613A] when he says, *And again when he bringeth in [n: (Hebr. I)]*. Solution. As regards the Father, who was within, the coming of the Lord is called a going forth; but as regards us, who were without, it is called an entrance, or conversely.

QUESTION XV. *And let all the angels of God adore him,* etc. Concerning the man assumed it is wont to be asked whether he is to be adored with that adoration which is called latria: for latria is exhibited to God alone, and not to a creature; but the man assumed is a creature, and thus it seems that latria is not to be exhibited to him. Solution. Latria is exhibited to that man not because he is man, but because he is God; concerning this it has already been said above; but that adoration which is exhibited to men or to angels is called dulia.

[0613B]QUESTION XVI. *Who maketh his angels spirits,* etc. It is asked how he does this? Solution. "Spirit" is the name of a nature, as "man"; "angel" is the name of an office, as "soldier": therefore of spirits are made angels, as of men are made soldiers; not of angels are made spirits, just as neither of soldiers are made men.

QUESTION XVII. *And his ministers a flame of fire,* etc. It is asked how he makes a flame of fire, that is, the seraphim, his ministers, since the seraphim always stand by: how then is that order said to minister, if it always stands by? For they are not said to minister except from the fact that they minister. Solution. It can be said that the seraph receives immediately from God that which he reveals to an inferior, who is sent to us: whence also the inferior [0613C] is reckoned by the name of the superior, whose office he bears, or rather from whom he receives the office. Whence Isaiah says: *One of the seraphim flew to me, and touched my lips [n: (Isa. VI)]*. Or it can be said that, when some great things are to be done or announced, then those superiors are sent, whose office nevertheless is not to minister, but rather to stand by. Note that nothing is done which is not done either by God commanding or by God permitting: by which words it is intimated that not everything which is done is a work of God: for what he only permits, he does not do. This I say on account of those who say that whatever is, in that which it is, is from God. If this be so, the aforesaid distinction is null, that some things are done [sic: *finnt*] by God commanding, others are done by God permitting.

[0613D]QUESTION XVIII. *Therefore he anointed thee,* etc. The expositor says that Christ was anointed for this, that he might love justice. But did he not, from the moment he existed, love justice, nor was he anointed before he was full of love? how then is he said to be anointed for this, that he might love justice? Solution. By the oil of anointing is understood grace itself, and virtue: by "to love" he insinuates the very act proceeding from virtue. Causally therefore the anointing precedes the act of loving, and not in time. Or pursue another exposition.

QUESTION XIX. *Therefore he anointed,* that is, therefore because thou hast loved justice, he anointed thee. But did he not from his very cognition have the fullness of anointing? what anointing then did he receive as it were in reward, because he loved justice? Solution. By the oil of gladness, [0614A] as it were anointed by the merit of love, according to certain men is understood the stole of the mature resurrection.

QUESTION XX. *God, thy God, hath anointed thee,* etc.— the other, that is the former, is the vocative case, as if he should say: O Son, God, thy God hath anointed thee. But what God has a God? what God is anointed? Solution. Christ is God, and has a God, not inasmuch as he is God, but inasmuch as he is man, and according to that he is anointed.

QUESTION XXI. *They shall perish,* etc. It is asked concerning which heavens he says that they are to perish. Solution. Concerning the airy heavens, as the expositor says, which perished through the flood, and are to perish by fire. Whence it is asked, if they already perished through the flood, how are they again to perish through [0614B] fire? If they have already perished, have they not ceased to be? and if they have already ceased, how shall they again perish by fire? Solution. They perished through the flood, that is, they were changed for the worse; and those same are to perish by fire, that is, they are to be changed into a better state. But concerning the earth and the higher heavens there is no question but that they are to be changed for the better: whence Peter says: *We look for new heavens and a new earth [n: (II Pet. III)]*. Concerning water and air it is doubted whether they are to be changed into a better state, like earth and heaven, because in the Apocalypse it is written: *And the sea was now no more [n: (Apoc. XXI)]*. And here concerning the airy heavens it is written: They shall perish. Whence it seems to some that water and air will lose those properties from which these names belong to them, [0614C] and with them will lose also the names, yet they will not be wholly annihilated; but neither water nor air will they any longer be called, these things being taken away and annihilated whence before they were so called.

QUESTION XXII. *They are all ministering spirits,* etc. It was said above that it is not the office of the superiors to minister, how then are they all ministering? Solution. It can be said that all spirits minister to us either immediately, as the inferiors; or through the mediation of others, as the superiors and the middle ones; or by "all" he gathers only those who are of the lowest order, who are properly called angels, whose office it especially is to minister, and therefore they alone are properly ministering.

QUESTION XXIII. *What is man, that thou art mindful [0614D] of him [n: (Hebr. II)]*, etc. It is asked how this is to be expounded. The solution is expounded in three ways. First thus: That by "man" is understood the old man, by "the son of man" the new man is understood. Secondly thus: That by "man" is understood any good man, by "the son of man" Christ. Thirdly thus: That by "man" and "the son of man" the same is understood, namely Christ.

QUESTION XXIV. *Thou hast made him a little less than the angels,* etc. Above he said that he was made better than the angels: here he says that he was made less than they: and we have said in what way both are true. But here it is asked whether it is to be granted absolutely that Christ is less than the angels. Which certain men wish thus to prove: Christ is all that he was made, but [0615A] he was made less: therefore he is less than the angels. Solution. It is not to be said absolutely that he is less than the angels; but that "a little less" he was made less, is thus understood, that is, according to something he was made less, namely according to the infirmity of the flesh and the passion of death, as the authority says: nor is it consequent that, if he is less according to something, he is therefore absolutely less.

QUESTION XXV. *Thou hast subjected all things under his feet [n: (Psal. VIII)]*. "All" sometimes gathers the whole, as all the angels of heaven are just. Sometimes by determination it is reduced to a part, as *all mine are thine [n: (Joan. XVII)]*, for this God the Father says to the elder son, that is to the Jewish people: therefore by "all" here it behooves to understand, not those things which belong to God according to [0615B] nature, but only those which are necessary for salvation. Sometimes also "all" has the force of a negation, as *all things which I have heard from my Father, I have made known to you [n: (Joan. XV)]*, that is, none except those which I have heard. Whence it can be asked how this is to be taken when it is said, thou hast subjected all things. Solution. Some say that it is reduced to a part, and by "all" they understand only angels and men. But if the more excellent things are subjected to Christ, how not the lesser? Since Ambrose says that just as nothing is excepted from the work of God, so neither from the power of Christ. And Augustine says: No creature will be not subject, to whom the chief angels are subjected. And the Apostle himself shows that nothing is excepted, when he subjoins: *For in that he subjected all things to him, he left nothing not subject to him.*

## XIV. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. (cont.)

[0615C]QUESTION XXVI. *But now we see not yet all things subject to him,* etc. The prophet says, thou hast subjected all things to him: which the Apostle, expounding, subjoined, he left nothing not subject to him; how then does he say here: We see not yet all things subject to him? Solution. David, after his manner, uses the past for the future out of certitude, saying: Thou hast subjected all things to him. The Apostle, understanding this, said above that the world was to be subjected to him: and here he says: We see not yet all things subject to him; as if he should say: already in part the prophecy is fulfilled, in part still to be fulfilled. But someone will say: do not all things serve the divine dispensation, whose will nothing can resist? and thus already, willing or unwilling, all things are subjected to him. How then does the Apostle say, We see not yet all things subject to him? Solution. Subjection [0615D] is one kind general, another special. Likewise one hidden, another necessary, another voluntary. According to the general, and the hidden, and the necessary, all things are already subject to God; according to the voluntary, not yet are all things subject which shall be subjected. Not yet does every tongue of things heavenly, earthly and infernal confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of the Father [n: (Philipp. II)]. Not yet are all enemies made the footstool of his feet [n: (Psal. CIX)]. All which indeed shall wholly come to pass in the future; therefore the Apostle says: We see not yet all things, namely voluntarily, or openly, subject to him. Note that only God is greater than the human mind, not any of the angels. Angels indeed can be greater divine ones than men as regards the body and the mind [0616A] weighed down by the corruption of the body [n: (Sap. IX)]: but not as regards the very purity of the mind, in which it was assumed by the Word.

QUESTION XXVII. *That by the grace of God he might taste death for all,* etc. The death of Christ did not profit all; how then did he taste death for all? Solution. The whole is here reduced to a part: namely, for all the predestined he tasted death. Or it is therefore said that he tasted death for all, because, as far as in him lies, the death of Christ suffices for all.

QUESTION XXVIII. *It became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things,* etc. It is asked how it became God the Father to perfect the author of the salvation of the faithful through the passion of death. Wherein consists this [0616B] fittingness, since it rather seems unfitting that the Lord of glory should die? Solution. If Christ did not die, man would perish: and if this were so, God would not be glorified by the whole; and this would be unfitting, since all things were made for God to be glorified. Likewise, if Christ did not die, man would not be saved, and thus the divine predestination would not be fulfilled, and this would be unfitting, that it should be made void. Nor was it unfitting that the author of salvation should die for us, since he is our neighbor, and brother, and it befits a neighbor to provide for the advantage of his neighbors as much as he can; whence it follows:

QUESTION XXIX. *For which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,* etc. It is asked whether Christ is therefore called our brother, because he was made a partaker of our nature, [0616C] taking the form of a servant [n: (Philipp. II)]. But since the nature assumed by God is common to good and bad, it seems that Christ is not only the brother of the faithful but also of the unfaithful. Solution. Christ is not called our brother only because he shares in our nature, but also because we have received of the fullness of his grace. Therefore, for anyone to be called a brother of Christ, it behooves that he be joined to him by nature and by grace.

QUESTION XXX. *And he himself,* namely Christ, *in like manner partook of the same,* namely of the children, *or of flesh and blood.* But it is asked how Christ partook of the children? Solution. That is, he was made a child consisting of soul and flesh, as the expositor says. Or he partook of flesh and blood, that is, he was made [0616D] man, and this "in like manner," that is, passible and mortal.

QUESTION XXXI. *That he might destroy him who had the empire of death.* Since death is a punishment justly inflicted by God, and thus is not unfittingly said to be from God, it is asked how the devil is said to be the author of death. For the same thing does not seem able to be from God and from the devil. Solution. Because death happened from sin, which the devil persuaded, therefore he has the empire of death, or is said to have it; because he was the cause of death, therefore he was called its author: whence it is said that God does not make death, that is, its cause has not its being from God. Note that this is the justice by which we were redeemed. For because the devil shed the blood of one who was not a debtor, [0617A] he was commanded to give back the debtors; and because he shed the blood of the innocent, in whom he found nothing, he was commanded to withdraw from the guilty, whom by a certain right he seemed to possess.

QUESTION XXXII. The expositor says that unless it were a man who conquered the devil, not justly, but by violence would man be taken from him. But had not the devil done injury to God, who first fraudulently deceived the servant, and afterward violently possessed him? What injustice then would God do, if by the sole word of his power he should snatch man from the hand of the most unjust invader? Solution. All the works of God are just, but in some there is also manifest power, and justice lies hidden; in some also hidden power lies, and justice is manifest. If therefore Christ in our liberation had used [0617B] manifest power and hidden justice, it might seem to some less discerning that man was taken from the devil not justly, but by violence: but that all iniquity might stop its mouth [n: (Psal. CVI)], our Lord used in our redemption manifest justice and hidden power.

QUESTION XXXIII. *That he might deliver them, who through the fear of death,* etc. It is asked to whose servitude they were subject, whom the Lord delivered? Solution. The devil, before the coming of Christ, obtained the effect of his wickedness through death: by the fear of which he cast down those whom in no other way he could cast down. For they gave all things for their life. Whence in Job it is read: *Skin for skin; all that a man hath he will give for his life [n: (Job I)]*. And so, conquered by the fear of death, they yielded, and succumbed to temptation, [0617C] until Christ came, who by dying and rising took away the fear of death from their midst. Whence the saints deride death, and desire to be dissolved, and to be with Christ [n: (Philipp. I)]. Or it can be understood of the fear of punishment, whereby the Jews served under the law, whom Christ, the law being emptied, through grace liberated from the burden of the law and from servile fear.

QUESTION XXXIV. *For nowhere doth he take hold of the angels,* etc. It is asked whether God could have assumed the angelic nature into the unity of the person as he did the human? Solution. It seems to us that he could, but would not; wherein the dignity of our race is understood: for to man, who had received less than the angels in his creation, more was conferred in his glorification through [0617D] grace. For human nature does not adore the angelic nature above it, but rather conversely.

QUESTION XXXV. *Wherefore he ought in all things to be made like unto his brethren.* Was he not by grace alone made like unto his brethren in this, that he was born man, that he was reared, suffered, died? how then does the Apostle say that this "ought" to be, since this is not a debt, but a gratuitous gift of God? Solution. He does not say simply "ought," but added, *that he might be merciful [n: (Hebr. II)]*: for by dying he could not have mercy on us, unless he first became passible and mortal. Or he therefore says "ought," that is, it was fitting for him to be made like unto his brethren. For by this, that he bore our infirmities and death for us, he provoked us to humility, and kindled charity in us.

[0618A]QUESTION XXXVI. *For in that he himself hath suffered and been tempted, he is able,* etc. Was he not before his passion, nay before his incarnation, able to help the tempted? for his power was not augmented through the passion; what then is it, "in that he himself hath suffered"? "he is able to help those who are tempted"? Solution. After the passion he well knows even by experience what that temptation is, and the tribulation of those who suffer: whence with much alacrity he stretches out his hand to compassionate; therefore he is said to be able to do these things, and perfectly to know them. For he knows who they are who suffer for him, he knows when and how and to whom he ought to stretch out his hand. Whence the Prophet: *The Lord is become a refuge for the poor in his opportunities, in tribulation [n: (Psal. IX)]*.

[0618B]QUESTION XXXVII. *By so much hath he greater honor than the house who framed it [n: (Hebr. III)]*, etc. Does not often he who dispenses in the house have greater glory in it than he who framed it? how then does the Apostle say: By so much greater, etc. Solution. This is to be understood of the spiritual house, as if he should say: Christ as Lord and Creator is greater than Moses the servant and minister.

QUESTION XXXVIII. *According to the day of temptation,* etc. It is asked by whom temptation is made. Solution. Man tempts, that he may know what he is ignorant of, according to which acceptation temptation is a certain soothing foretaste of the mind, running before, for the recognizing of something which before was unknown. God tempts, that he may prove through affliction and tribulation, that he may crown the proved. [0618C] The devil tempts, that he may cast someone down into sin: whence it is said: *And lead us not into temptation [n: (Matth. VI)]*, that is, suffer us not to be cast down into sin. The flesh tempts, when we feel its inordinate motions. The world tempts, when it provokes us through vanity to the love of itself.

QUESTION XXXIX. *Wherefore I was offended,* etc. Another translation has "I was near." How then, if offended, was he near; and if near, how offended? and if both readings cannot stand, which rather is to be held? Solution. He was near by applying the scourges of correction; because it is the part of a neighbor to correct his neighbor. He was offended and angry, because even through the scourges they would not repent. Or toward the good for forty [0618D] years he can be understood angry in this; because for so long a time he did not bring them into the land of promise: this opinion nevertheless the following text does not seem to approve. But toward the wicked he can be understood near for forty years in this, that for so long a time he bore with them, nor wholly destroyed them.

QUESTION XL. *If they shall enter into my rest.* It is asked by what figure this is said. Solution. It is the figure which is called aposiopesis, and the sense is: If this shall be, anything impossible will be, or let me no longer be believed in anything. Note that there are four Sabbaths, or rests. The first rest is that of God, of which it is written in Genesis: *And God rested on the seventh day [n: (Gen. II)]*; the second rest is the land of promise; the third, the quiet of the mind; the fourth is the eternal. The first and [0619A] fourth are of God; the second and third of man. The first is a figure of the fourth, the second of the third.

## XIV. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. (cont.)

QUESTION XLI. *As I swore in my wrath,* etc. It is asked what here is called the wrath of God: for it is agreed that such a passion does not fall upon God. Solution. He calls the wrath of God the immovable sentence of eternal justice, by the figure which is called anthropopathos: which occurs whenever those things which, said of men, signify passion, are figuratively attributed to God. God therefore swears in wrath, when he firmly determines to punish for the obstinacy of sin. Note that there are four kinds of symbols, that is of signs, that is of those things which are figuratively said of God. For some symbols are like, and are taken from corporeal things, as fire, light, sun and others of this kind. Others are like and taken from incorporeal things, [0619B] as reason, intellect, spirit and the like. Others are unlike and taken from corporeal things, as lion, bear, worm and such like. Others are unlike, and taken from incorporeal things, as wrath, fury, grief, repentance and the like.

QUESTION XLII. *That none of you be hardened by the fallacy of sin,* etc. It is asked what he calls the fallacy of sin. Solution. The fallacy of sin is when one presumes upon the grace of God: and secure in this confidence lies in sins. Or when one promises that in the coming year he will amend, that in the present he may sin more securely, which is done at the instigation of the devil. There can also be a threefold fallacy noted here, so that the first is when we consent to a depraved motion; the second, when we break forth into an evil work; the third, when in the habit of sin [0619C] we take delight.

QUESTION XLIII. *But with whom was he offended for forty years,* etc. It is asked how this is to be understood. Solution. The number forty indicates the entirety of years: therefore he is said to be offended with them for those forty years, because he is angry with sinners even to the end of their life.

QUESTION XLIV. *And indeed the works from the foundation of the world [n: (Hebr. IV)]*, etc. It is asked where mention is made of that eternal rest, which is signified by the land of promise: for the rest of the Sabbath is there treated of: And God rested on the seventh day *from all the work which he had done.* But of the rest of the land of Palestine mention seems to be made there, where it is said: If they shall enter into my rest [0619D]. Solution. Where the rest of the Sabbath, or the rest of the land of Palestine according to the letter, is treated of, there also the true rest is treated of anagogically, which is signified by those two.

QUESTION XLV. *God rested on the seventh day,* etc. Scripture says that in six days God made all his works, so that he made nothing new afterward; but does he not daily create new souls? how then does he make nothing new? Solution. God makes nothing except from matter made in the first condition, as any corporeal thing: or after the likeness of things then already made, as incorporeal spirits, namely human souls.

QUESTION XLVI. *Again he determineth a certain day, To-day,* etc. It is asked how, by that which the Apostle here [0620A] brings in, he compels the Jews to understand a rest other than the other, which was that of the land of promise, saying: *To-day if you shall hear his voice,* etc. Solution. Those to whom he wrote had faith, and believed David to be a prophet: according to which it was necessary to understand another day, and another rest than that rest of the land of promise, from the words of the prophet there set down: and thus the proof of the Apostle proceeds:

QUESTION XLVII. *For the word is living,* etc. The expositor says that the Son of God sees how reason and sensuality agree in their differences: but do they not differ in their differences? how then do they agree in their differences? can any things agree and differ in the same? Solution. He does not say that in the differences by which reason differs from sensuality, [0620B] or conversely, these two agree, but that reason has differences by which it is distinguished from itself, while it gazes upon God, thinking of the divine *usia*, or lower, considering the heavenly things, it contemplates the natures of invisible spirits, or on earth it deals with the things of the world rightly to be handled. Likewise sensuality too has differences by which it is divided from itself, while, more given to the lowest things, it is lower, or, called back from them, it is worthier. So then the Son of God sees how the superior difference of sensuality, by consenting, agrees with the differences of reason; or the inferior difference of reason, pressed and captive, sometimes consents to the inferior difference of sensuality. Note that "soul" is put either for sensuality, or for carnal sins, or for carnal [0620C] thoughts: so also "spirit" for reason, or for spiritual sins, or for good thoughts. When it is said that the word of God reaches even to the division of the soul and the spirit [n: (Hebr. IV)], whence thou wilt find a threefold exposition in the gloss on account of the threefold acceptation of soul and spirit.

QUESTION XLVIII. *Tempted in all things for the likeness, without sin.* In that he was tempted, he knows how to compassionate. In that he is without sin, he is able to deliver. The expositor says that it is impossible for a man to know afflictions, unless he has experienced them. But do not many from sight alone know the afflictions of others, which they have nowhere suffered: so much even that they compassionate them? how then is it true, *it is impossible for a man,* etc.? Solution. He who has not experienced does not know so perfectly [0620D] as he who knows by experiment: which manner of knowing the Apostle notes, saying: *We have not a high priest who [cannot compassionate,* that is, has known.

QUESTION XLIX. *Neither doth any man take the honor to himself [n: (Hebr. V)]*, etc. Do not many very great men in this time thrust themselves forward: and, not called, sometimes even by violence take the honor to themselves? how then is it true: *Neither doth any man take the honor to himself?* Solution. No one acting piously and religiously thrusts himself forward. *Neither did Christ glorify himself,* etc., since this glorification of the Father was made concerning the Son according to the human nature.

QUESTION L. It is asked how this authority: [0621A] *This day have I begotten thee,* which according to Augustine is expounded of the eternal generation, is in this place brought in by the Apostle: how does the Father, saying, *This day have I begotten thee,* testify that Christ, according as he is man, is his Son, and the redeemer of the world? Solution. Jerome says that this authority is thus understood of the human generation of Christ: *This day,* that is in the time of grace and light, *have I begotten thee,* that is, I have incarnated thee: or "I have begotten," that is, I have shown thee to be begotten: according to which this authority is well brought in.

QUESTION LI. *According to the order of Melchisedech,* etc. The expositor says that Melchisedech was not temporal: but was he not only a man, and thus temporal, because every man is temporal? Solution. It is therefore said that he is not temporal: because Scripture [0621B] was silent as to the beginning and end of his life, in figure of Christ, who lacks beginning and end. Or he can be said a priest not temporal on account of his priesthood, which remains in Christ for ever.

QUESTION LII. *He was heard for his reverence,* etc. It is asked what it is that Christ was heard for his reverence. Was not Stephen likewise heard for his reverence, and the other saints? What then is great concerning Christ if he was heard for his reverence? Solution. It is no wonder if certain things are said of Christ common to the martyrs, since certain things also common to the legal priests are here set down. Yet it can be said that Stephen was heard for the reverence of Christ rather than for his own: for Christ entered by himself, others through him: [0621C] whence also *of his fullness we all have received [n: (Joan. I)]*. And thus something special is said of Christ when it is read that he was heard for his reverence: which is noted in this, that without sin and by charity alone he died and suffered.

QUESTION LIII. *He learned obedience by the things which he suffered,* etc. We learn those things which we do not know: since therefore Christ knew all things as God, how did he learn what he was not ignorant of? Solution. This question has already been sufficiently discussed above. For it was said that cognition is twofold, one of comprehension, the other of experience: that which is of comprehension he had from eternity, but the other he learned in time.

QUESTION LIV. *Which are the elements of the beginning of the words of God,* etc. It is asked what is the difference between these [0621D] three: elements, beginning, word of God? Solution. He calls the word of God the evangelical doctrine; the beginning, the Creed and the Lord's Prayer: the elements are the matter which the Creed contains, as the nativity, the passion, and the other articles of faith.

QUESTION LV. *Every one that is a partaker of milk,* etc. The expositor says: He who does not grasp, *The Word was made flesh [n: (Joan. I)]*: how will he grasp, *In the beginning was the Word [n: (ibid.)]*? It is asked therefore how it is lighter to understand, The Word was made flesh, than that, In the beginning was the Word, since that concerning the incarnation of the Word is against human reason: but the former are higher, and concerning the Trinity of persons, and the unity of essence, investigated by reason, as from the prophets [0622A] it appears? Solution: those things concerning the incarnation are therefore said lighter, because they were visibly exhibited: but these more difficult, because comprehended by the intellect alone of few.

QUESTION LVI. Likewise it is asked how those to whom the Apostle here speaks needed to be taught what are the elements of the beginning of the words of God. Were they not faithful? how were they ignorant of the nativity, the passion, and the other articles of faith: since without these no one is faithful? Solution. They knew these things, but not fully.

QUESTION LVII. *Wherefore, leaving the word [n: (Hebr. VI)],* etc. Since the word of beginning seems necessary to them, how does he say, leaving the word of beginning? Solution. The sense is: [0622B] you ought not always to tarry in those things which pertain to the beginning, but to tend to perfection.

QUESTION LVIII. *Not again laying the foundation,* etc. This seems contrary to the aforesaid. For if they still needed the doctrine of the elements, the foundation was necessary to them. Solution. The glosses suffice for this question, expounding how "not again" is to be understood.

QUESTION LIX. *From dead works,* etc. He calls dead works either mortal sins, or good works which have been mortified by an ensuing evil: it is asked therefore how it is true, that no good is unrewarded, as no evil unpunished. Solution. Such goods are therefore called dead, because they [0622C] do not profit unto eternal life: and yet in this they shall be rewarded, because they who did them shall be less punished in the future. Or perhaps a temporal advantage was given for them. Likewise such goods are called dead, because through penance they can revive according to certain men: not that they be any more rewarded for them: but because from goods before done they will more easily attain grace. But it seems to us that, the sin being blotted out by penance, through which they were mortified, they are, as before, before they were mortified, worthy of eternal life.

## XIV. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. (cont.)

QUESTION LX. *Of baptisms,* etc. It is asked how he here says in the plural "of baptisms," since elsewhere he says: *One Lord, one faith, one baptism [n: (Ephes. IV)]*, etc. If one, how many? Solution. [0622D] As faith is said to be one not in number, but in kind, as the authority teaches, so baptism can be said to be one not in number, but in kind, because it is one form: nor can it be repeated: and because there is there one operation of the three persons, many are spoken of as regards the several washings. Or he therefore says "baptisms" in the plural, because there is baptism in power, in blood: and not for this reason, that the sacrament of baptism is celebrated except in water: but because the shedding of blood, faith, and penance supply the place of baptism: there only where the moment of necessity, not contempt of religion, excludes the sacrament of baptism. To which solution it is thus objected: *Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven [n: (Joan. III)]*. [0623A] According to this authority it seems that no one is worthy of salvation without the reception of this sacrament. Solution. The doctors thus expound the aforesaid words of the Lord, *Unless a man be born again of water,* etc., that is, unless a man be born again by that spirit and regeneration by which are reborn those who are reborn of water, and by the Holy Spirit he can be saved. But by this spirit men are reborn in diverse ways. Some are reborn through penance, others through the shedding of blood, others through baptism. Note that the foundation of the Christian religion is divided into six, which are here set down by the apostles, namely penance, faith, baptism, imposition of hands, resurrection, future judgment: which pertain to the instruction of neophytes.

[0623B]QUESTION LXI. *It is impossible for those who were once illuminated,* etc. Here the Apostle seems to deny penance to those gravely fallen, as in the following, where he says: *To those who sin voluntarily there is now left no sacrifice for sin.* Solution. It seems to us that in both places he describes the sin against the Holy Spirit, into whose pit whoever once falls, it is impossible that he attain penance or salvation. But the doctors say that this "impossible," etc., does not deny all renovation, but only the repetition of baptism. Or it can be understood of the future state: to which opinion certain glosses are of service.

QUESTION LXII. The expositor says that baptism avails even against subsequent sins. But it is asked how sins which are not yet done are already [0623C] forgiven. Solution. Some say that baptism is therefore said to avail against subsequent sins, because through the grace conferred in baptism future sins are avoided. But according to this solution what is this, which in the same gloss follows, "if penance be done concerning them"? It seems to us to be thus understood, that baptism avails against subsequent sins: because by the virtue of baptism they can be blotted out with less satisfaction: so that if it happen that a faithful man and an unfaithful commit the same sin, the penance which suffices for the reborn unto salvation, the same does not suffice for the unfaithful or not yet reborn. This I say without prejudice to a better opinion.

QUESTION LXIII. *The Lord entered in by himself,* etc. Since the Lord says in the Gospel: *Let your speech [0623D] be: Yea, yea; No, no: and that which* over and above *is, is of evil [n: (Matth. V)]*, it is asked how the Lord then swore to Abraham. Would not Abraham believe, or would he believe more slowly, God, if he promised without an oath? Solution. Not on account of Abraham did the Lord swear, since without an oath he firmly believed him: but on account of those who were to come after him, who would either not at all believe, or would more slowly believe, the promise made to Abraham, unless it were confirmed by an oath, and thus that oath was not from the evil of Abraham, but of those who were to come.

QUESTION LXIV. If it be asked: Why did the Lord swear by himself? Solution. Because men are wont to swear by one greater than themselves, but God had not [0624A] a greater: whence it is agreed that they sin who swear by something inferior. For that by which they swear they in a manner constitute above themselves.

QUESTION LXV. *And an oath for confirmation is the end of all their controversy.* What then shall we say of the judgment of fire, or of water, or of others of this kind, which the Church seems to receive? Is not in those also the end of controversy? Solution. These are not judgments of the Church: whence also the guilty are many times thereby absolved, and the not-guilty are sometimes condemned: which would by no means happen, if mother Church held these. Whence in certain places she rather tolerates these than commends them. But someone will say: The same judgment ought to be made concerning an oath. This we grant. For the Church did not institute that, just as neither the aforesaid.

[0624B]QUESTION LXVI. *According to the order of Melchisedech [n: (Hebr. VII)]*, etc. It is asked how? Solution. Christ is said to be a high priest according to the order of Melchisedech in many ways. Both because that man was king and priest alone, so is Christ; both because he was instituted not with visible oil, as Moses, but was anointed with the oil of gladness and the purity of faith; nor did he immolate animals, but in bread and wine offered dedicated the sacrifice of Christ; so also Christ was anointed by the Father with the Holy Spirit; who offered himself on the altar of the cross to God the Father; and because he gave his true body and blood to his disciples at the supper, and because his priesthood remains for ever according to rite and dignity.

QUESTION LXVII. It is asked what that oblation of Melchisedech in bread and wine profited those who received it? Solution. [0624C] Some say that it profited those who received with faith as much as now the body of Christ profits. Which does not seem to us to be true: for the sacraments of the natural law, or of the written law, did not profit, nor could profit, as much as the sacraments of grace.

QUESTION LXVIII. *That which is less is blessed without any contradiction by the better.* Is not often a holy man blessed by one who is of less sanctity: as when a monk is blessed by some secular priest, how then is it true, that which is less is blessed by the greater? Solution. Someone can be less than another in excellence of merits, and greater than the same in dignity: but here it is treated of the majority and minority which consists according to dignity. That therefore which [0624D] is less in dignity is blessed by that which is greater in excellence of dignity. Nor is it here treated of any blessing whatever, but only of that which belongs to the consecrated.

QUESTION LXIX. *Through Abraham, even Levi, who received tithes, was tithed,* etc. Augustine says that just as, Adam sinning, those who were in his loins sinned; so, Abraham giving tithes, those who were in his loins were tithed. But did Christ either sin, Adam sinning; or was he tithed, Abraham giving tithes, since he was in the loins of both, according to the flesh? Since therefore Levi and Christ were alike in the loins of Abraham, how was Levi tithed, and not Christ? Or [0625A] if Christ was tithed like Levi, how does the Apostle prove the priesthood of Christ to be greater than the levitical priesthood: by this, that the levitical order in Levi was tithed in Abraham? Solution. There were some, and perhaps still are, saying that the flesh of Christ from Adam even to the Virgin was kept entire and incorrupt, who are not to be heard. Levi therefore was tithed, and not Christ, although both were there, because Levi contracted thence that whereby he lay subject to tithing, that is, fault. But Christ contracted nothing thence whereby he might be subject to tithing, whose flesh contracted thence not a wound, but the medicament of a wound. To which solution it is thus objected: All the flesh which was in Isaac descended from Abraham according to the common law, namely through concupiscence; [0625B] but the flesh of Christ was in Isaac: therefore the flesh of Christ descended through concupiscence from Abraham. Solution. It is not to be granted absolutely that the flesh of Christ so descended thence through concupiscence: for this would be, that the flesh of Christ was made through concupiscence; yet it can be granted by division: a certain flesh, which afterward was Christ's, descended thence according to the common law, which from the first man even to Mary was under original sin.

QUESTION LXX. *The priesthood being translated, it is necessary that a translation also be made of the law.* It can be asked how, upon the translation of the priesthood, the translation of the law necessarily follows. Solution. Because both were given at once by the same one under [0625C] the same promise: what is asserted of the one is necessarily understood also of the other. Or therefore, the priesthood being translated, the law is necessarily translated; because the translation of the priesthood is made for this, that by its ministry no one was justified, and thus on account of its insufficiency and infirmity it was translated; but the law is equally insufficient and infirm. Whence the Apostle: *The law brought nothing to perfection* [n: (Hebr. )]. By the same necessity therefore is it translated. Because neither therefore could consummate, of both is made a translation: which was figured in the priest and levite, the languishing man, who fell among robbers, passing by and not conferring the mercy of healing [n: (Luc. X)].

QUESTION LXXI. *For it is manifest that our Lord sprang [0625D] out of Juda.* It is asked therefore whether his mother also? Solution. Call back to memory that question which we set down above upon the Epistle to Timothy, which the words of Origen make, saying that Mary was only of the tribe of Levi, and on account of Joseph only was the Lord said to be of the tribe of Juda. But, as I said, two tribes were intermingled, the royal and the sacerdotal, and the Virgin was on the father's side, of her father, of the tribe of Juda, and on the mother's side of the tribe of Levi.

QUESTION LXXII. The law brought nothing to perfection, etc. Were not certain men perfect in the time of the law, as David, and many others; and had they not that justice, since they were just, from obedience to the divine law? how then were they not just from the law? Solution. The just of that time had justice not from the law, but from faith in him who was to come: [0626A] for the law showed sins, it did not take them away.

QUESTION LXXIII. *To make intercession for us,* etc. It is asked how Christ makes intercession for us? Solution. The expositor says that it is by the representation of himself, which is thus to be understood, that the merit of his passion, which he exhibited in his humanity, reconciles us believers to the Father.

QUESTION LXXIV. *Who hath not daily necessity [n: (Hebr. VIII)].* It is asked concerning the sacrifices of the law what utility they conferred: perhaps the remission of sins? Solution. For certain sins the sinners were forbidden entrance, and through the sacrifices they were so reconciled that it was permitted them to enter into the temple: but not through such remission were they made [0626B] worthy of eternal life.

QUESTION LXXV. *If then he were upon earth, he would not be a priest,* etc. It is asked how these things are to be understood. Solution. The text of this chapter is less coherent, and cut off: and therefore brings in obscurity. Whence it is expounded in five ways, as is had in the glosses. Note that in every sacrifice four things are considered: namely, to whom it is offered, and by whom it is offered, what is offered, and for whom it is offered. The same one mediator of both, reconciling us to God through the sacrifice of peace, would remain one with him to whom he offered, would make one in himself those for whom he offered; he himself would be one who offered and what he offered.

## XIV. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. (cont.)

QUESTION LXXVI. *Who serve the exemplar and shadow,* [0626C] etc. It is asked what is here called "exemplar." Solution. The truth shown on the mount to Moses is called the exemplar of the figures made according to it. Likewise the figures themselves are called the exemplar of the truth, which was afterward fulfilled: and thus the figures themselves, in a different respect, can be called both example and exemplar. For "exemplar" [sic: *onim*] is properly said that to whose likeness something is made; "example," that which is drawn from it.

QUESTION LXXVII. *For if that former had been without fault,* etc. Is not the law good, holy and given by God? how then is it not without fault? Solution. For that reason the Old Testament is said not to be without fault, for which the law is said to work wrath, namely, because it does not justify, and because it commands what cannot be done without grace.

[0626D]QUESTION LXXVIII. It is asked why we do not worship God with that rite with which the Hebrew fathers worshiped him? Solution. Because God commanded us another thing through the fathers of the New Testament: nor are these things which we observe against the Old Testament, but foretold and pre-announced in it.

QUESTION LXXIX. Likewise, why do we hold the authority of that testament? Solution. Lest we extinguish the prophets, and take away the testimony of truth from our midst. When therefore something is read which is not observed by us, we must only ask what it signifies, not reprehend it; because by the very fact that it is now not observed, it is proved not condemned, but fulfilled.

QUESTION LXXX. Likewise it is asked whence that is called the Old Testament, this the New, since the law is fulfilled [0627A] through the New Testament? Solution. The Old Testament is called "old" for the old harm, which is not healed through the letter commanding and threatening. But this is called "new" on account of the newness of spirit, which heals a man from the vice of oldness. Note diligently what is the difference between the two testaments: that old, this new. There the letter, which alone kills, here the spirit giving life. That is written on tables of stone, this on minds and hearts. That promises earthly things, this heavenly. That has sacraments signifying salvation, not conferring it; this has sacraments conferring salvation. Likewise note that "testament" is said both of the promise itself, temporal or eternal, and of the writing containing the promise itself. The Old Testament therefore contains the promise [0627B] pertaining to the old man. But the New Testament, which contains the promise of the eternal inheritance which belongs to the new man.

QUESTION LXXXI. *For if the ashes [sic: vitulaeaspersus] sanctify the defiled [n: (Hebr. IX)]*, etc. It is asked what he calls the defilement, from which the sprinkled ashes of a heifer sanctify? Solution. He so calls the touch of the dead; or leprosy, from which those ashes cleanse, that is, from the punishment which according to the law was due to such uncleanness: by which touch is signified the consent of sin.

QUESTION LXXXII. *And as it is appointed unto men once to die.* The expositor says that Christ died by the same necessity and right of nature by which necessity, and in fact, other men die. [0627C] Whence it is asked whether Christ died by necessity, and whether he had the necessity of dying? Which seems manifest according to the aforesaid authority. But if by necessity, how did he die by will alone, as it is written: *He was offered because he willed it? [n: (Isa. LIII.)]* Solution. Some say that among the other penalties which the Lord took up with our nature without fault, he took up also this penalty, namely the necessity of dying, voluntarily: which does not exclude the will, nor is excluded by it. Nor yet is it to be understood but that Christ could by the power of divinity lay aside this penalty without the dissolution of soul and body, and clothe over the nature assumed with the stole of immortality; but if he conferred no more [0627D] than was conferred on it before death, he would necessarily die.

QUESTION LXXXIII. *To them that expect him unto salvation,* etc. Upon this place the expositor says that Christ died not by necessity, but by will for the sin of those expecting him unto salvation: but above it was said that he died by necessity: which seems to be contrary. Solution. What he says here, understand thus. Christ died not by necessity, that is, in him there was no sin for which it was necessary that he die: whence, as it were expounding what he had said, he subjoins: but he died for their sin, namely of those who expected him unto salvation.

QUESTION LXXXIV. *Otherwise they would have ceased to be offered [n: (Hebr. X)]*, etc. The legal victims, as the Apostle says, if [0628A] they made perfect would cease to be offered: whence it is asked why the salutary victim of the New Testament, since it perfects, and consummates the sanctified, is more often offered, and does not cease to be offered? Solution. Once indeed it was offered through the passion of death on the altar of the cross in human form; nor is it again so offered through death, but yet in the sacrament it is more often offered, not by reason of its own infirmity, but rather of ours, who daily sin: and especially for the remembrance of the death of Christ, that his love may be more deeply fixed in our hearts through this, that we are mindful of so great a benefit.

QUESTION LXXXV. *But a body thou hast fitted to me,* etc. It is asked in what he fitted the body of Christ? Solution. This fitness consists in two things, namely in cleanness and in mortality: for unless it were clean, through [0628B] it the unclean could not be redeemed, unless it were mortal it could not be immolated; it is necessary therefore that the body of the Lord be clean through immunity from sin, and mortal.

QUESTION LXXXVI. *Not forsaking your assembly.* It is asked whether the Apostle here condemns what the Lord permits, saying: *If they shall persecute you in one city, flee into another [n: (Matth. X)]*, of which thing he himself also gave an example by fleeing into Egypt. And Paul likewise is found many times to have done the same: what is it then that here he blames those who forsake the assembly? Solution. The Apostle in this place blames those who, as it were for the cause of their own sanctity, cannot dwell among other infirm or imperfect ones: and therefore by forsaking the assembly they rend unity, and thus [0628C] sin unto death. When some are specially sought by persecutors, then it is lawful to decline the rage of the persecutors, if it can be done without detriment to the assembly.

QUESTION LXXXVII. *To those who sin voluntarily,* etc. It is asked who are those who sin voluntarily, to whom there is left no sacrifice for sin. Solution. The gloss says that he calls those who sin voluntarily those remaining in sin out of the will of sinning: to whom Christ, who is the sacrifice for sin, does not profit, who profits only the penitent.

QUESTION LXXXVIII. But again it is asked why the Apostle says *after having received the knowledge of the truth,* since Christ does not profit those remaining in the will [0628D] of sinning even before the knowledge of the truth? Perhaps someone will say that such can be profited through the grace of baptism, so that no punishment even of satisfaction is enjoined, whereas after the grace of regeneration he cannot be renewed even through penance. Saying this we do not exclude penance, as certain men wish, taking occasion from these words of the Apostle: *to those who sin voluntarily,* etc. But to certain men it seems that he calls those "sinning voluntarily" who, knowingly assailing the truth out of envy, or hatred, or some such cause, sin against the Holy Spirit, and therefore sin irremissibly; because this sin has remission neither in the present nor in the future, as the Lord says. Which also seems to be intimated above, where the Apostle says: *It is impossible for those who were once illuminated* [0629A] [n: (Matth. XII)], etc. And subsequently in this place he supposes: Who hath trodden underfoot the Son of God, and hath esteemed the blood of the testament polluted, and hath offered an affront to the spirit of grace. By which words the sin against the Holy Spirit seems manifestly to be signified.

QUESTION LXXXIX. It is asked why baptism cannot be repeated: whose repetition is here denied by the Apostle, according to certain men? Solution. Because baptism at once takes away both fault and punishment. Whence if it were repeated, not only would it become cheap, but would even invite to sin. But someone will say: by the same reasoning neither ought penance to be repeated, lest it become cheap or provoke to sinning. Solution. There is another judgment concerning penance, which by the infliction of punishment restrains from sin, [0629B] than concerning baptism, by which both fault and punishment are wholly remitted.

QUESTION XC. *And a certain jealousy of fire.* It is asked what punishment he here signifies through fire? Solution. The vehemence of eternal punishment here the fire signifies, because no element has such efficacy as fire.

QUESTION XCI. *Which shall consume the adversaries,* etc. Shall the fire reduce Christ's enemies to nothing? Solution. Therefore it is said that the jealousy of fire shall consume the adversaries, because no part of the body or soul shall be free from punishment, but shall be tortured by the fire.

QUESTION XCII. *Revenge to me, and I will repay, saith the Lord.* It is asked whether vengeance is always to be reserved to the Lord; is it not lawful for a man [0629C] to take vengeance? Are not robbers lawfully hanged? Solution. It is not lawful for a man to take vengeance for himself, nor ought he to desire it; but if it is necessary to take it, let God alone be in the cause, and the zeal of justice; but he who takes it otherwise, sins mortally. According to that: *He that shall take the sword, shall perish by the sword [n: (Matth. XXVI)]*.

QUESTION XCIII. *Faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not [n: (Hebr. XI)]*. Concerning this definition of faith it is asked whether it fits all faith, and whether it can also be fitted to faith alone. But it seems that this definition fits only faith which is concerning future things; but since faith is concerning present and past things, as concerning the nativity and the passion, how is the faith of the passion the substance of things to be hoped for? [0629D] Likewise, is not hope and charity the substance, that is the thing and cause, which makes the things to be hoped for subsist in us? how then is faith alone the substance of things to be hoped for? Solution. According as the gloss expounds this definition, it seems that it does not fit faith alone. But although part of this definition seems to be assigned to other virtues, yet not the whole; for faith alone is the evidence of things that appear not, through which alone we are certain concerning things eternal, that they are; but through hope we are confident that we shall have them. And therefore properly faith is called the substance of future things, because through it we know that they are. Faith also, concerning present or past things, can be called the substance of things to be hoped for, that is, the cause which [0630A] sometimes makes those things which we hope for subsist in us, because through faith in the passion one comes to the future goods, and it is the evidence of things that appear not, so much that those who saw him suffer believed something, namely that Christ, who hung on the cross, was God.

QUESTION XCIV. *That from invisible things,* etc. It is asked what he calls invisible things? Solution. Either the unformed and invisible matter of the four elements, which in Greek is called chaos; or the invisible world, which is called the archetype, which was in the mind of God, according to whose exemplar this sensible and visible world was made.

QUESTION XCV. *Abel by faith being dead yet speaketh,* etc. It is asked how he who does not live, speaks? [0630B] Solution. He speaks, that is, is matter of speaking; he speaks because by his example he admonishes us to be just.

QUESTION XCVI. *Without faith it is impossible to please God,* etc. It is asked of what faith he says this; is it of the faith of the incarnation? Solution. It is said that without it no one from the beginning pleased God.

## XIV. ON THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. (cont.)

QUESTION XCVII. *He that cometh to God must believe that he is,* etc. It is asked of what faith he treats, whether of perfect, or of imperfect? If of imperfect, how could anyone please God through it; if of perfect, how can this suffice for salvation, to believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder to them that seek him? for in these are not contained all the articles which are necessary for salvation. Solution. He seems [0630C] here to lay down the order of the faith to be held, that is, to show what one must believe in the first place, not to assign the sufficiency of faith.

QUESTION XCVIII. But whether there was any time in which this believing only, namely, that God is, and that he is a rewarder, etc., sufficed, can be asked. Which does not seem [to be so].

QUESTION XCIX. *By faith also concerning things to come Isaac blessed Jacob,* etc. Did he, when he blessed him, understand what was there signified by this, that he was blessing the younger? If he understood, then he knew that it was Jacob, which the history in no way allows. For he even felt the hands, to prove whether he was Esau, and afterward, when Esau came, he said: *Who was it that came deceitfully, whom I blessed, and he shall be blessed?* Solution. [0630D] Although he did not then understand, yet afterward he understood, and had faith of this thing, that the greater people shall serve the lesser.

QUESTION C. Likewise it is asked whence Isaac was deceived in blessing? Solution. He was not deceived, but that he knew what effect the blessing would have in him whom he was blessing; yet he did not yet know that it was Jacob whom he was blessing. Now deception is properly wont to be taken in those things which ought not to be done. Is he to be said to be deceived, who buys gold for brass, or silver for tin? But if deception be taken broadly, for all things which happen otherwise than they are thought, then here too there was a certain deception.

QUESTION CI. *And he adored the top of his rod;* or, as another reading has it, *upon the top,* etc. [0631A] It is asked what it is that Jacob adored upon the top of Joseph's rod. Solution. Perhaps he had taken the rod from his son, when that same son was swearing, and while he holds it after the words of the one swearing, it not yet being returned, he straightway adored God: thus Augustine resolves it. Or it can be said that he adored the top of his rod, that is, the kingdom of Christ to come among the nations: which was signified by it, so that by the name of the sign the thing signified may be understood.

QUESTION CII. *Jephthah,* etc. Concerning this it is asked whether he made a rational vow, and whether he sinned in fulfilling it, in offering his only daughter to the Lord. If a dog had met him, would he have offered it to God? Solution. It seems that he acted foolishly in vowing, more foolishly in fulfilling the vow: [0631B] yet if he did this by the hidden admonition of the Holy Spirit, he is excused, like Samson, who crushed the Philistines together with himself, since it is not lawful to lay hand upon oneself. Whence also Jonah said: *Cast me into the sea.*

QUESTION CIII. It is asked why, in memory of the death of that girl, the Hebrew virgins make lamentation every year? Solution. For the sake of example, lest anyone again so foolishly vow or do something whence such grief might follow.

QUESTION CIV. It is asked whether Abraham sinned by will, in willing to sacrifice his son, since, according to some — nay, in very truth — Jephthah sinned in killing his daughter, unless this was done by divine instinct. Solution. Abraham is not only not blamed with the charge of cruelty, but is even praised under the name [0631C] of piety, because he willed to kill his son not wickedly, but obediently.

QUESTION CV. *Moreover we have had fathers indeed of our flesh [sic: quidemcarnis] as instructors, and we reverenced them: shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? [n: (Hebr. XII.)]* If it be asked whether human souls are by traduction, note diligently this authority, by which it is manifestly proved that souls are not by traduction as flesh is; for if this were so, the Apostle would in no way distinguish between the fathers of our flesh, and the Father of spirits.

QUESTION CVI. *Looking diligently lest any man be wanting to the grace of God,* etc. It is asked what it is to be wanting to the grace of God? Solution. To close the eyes of the mind to the grace offered, and to spurn the grace, just as, when my eyes [0631D] are open to the ray of the sun, I can at my pleasure close them, or hold them open, which is from free will; and thus grace does not exclude free will, nor does the will itself exclude grace.

QUESTION CVII. *He sold his birthright,* etc. It is asked what the Apostle calls the birthright of Esau. Solution. Here he calls the birthright the honor and dignity of the priesthood: because before the priesthood of Aaron all the firstborn were priests, as was Shem. And this was a great dignity, because he took a greater portion of the paternal substance and inheritance, and shone with a richer adornment of garments, and to him the blessing was given.

QUESTION CVIII. It is asked whether the sin of Esau was [0632A] irremissible, since the Apostle says that *he found no place of repentance.* Did he not repent? nay, he wept: how then is it true, he found no place of repentance? Solution. He found no place of repentance, that is, of pardon, and place of blessing through repentance — not that he did not repent, but because he did not repent as he ought. For those tears were rather from indignation against his brother, and from grief at the honor lost, than from humility and true repentance.

QUESTION CIX. *Jesus the mediator of the new testament, and the sprinkling of blood speaking better than that of Abel.* It is asked in what the blood of Christ speaks better than the blood of Abel? Solution. The gloss says [it speaks] better for this reason, because this, that is, [the blood] of Christ, sought pardon, [0632B] that one vengeance; this, salvation, that one, damnation. But someone will say: Did not the shedders of the blood of Christ perish, like the shedders of the blood of Abel? Therefore the blood of Christ speaks vengeance, like the blood of Abel. How then does this speak better than that? Solution. The blood of Christ not only cries vengeance to those who despise it, but also pardon to all, even to persecutors, if they are willing to repent. But the blood of Abel speaks only vengeance, and pardon to none. Or the blood of Christ speaks better than [that of] Abel, that is, makes us speak better, namely, that Jesus is the Son of God, by whom we are redeemed; than the blood of Abel, which makes us speak [only] that Abel was a just man immolated in a figure of Christ. Note that Abel, who was the first unjustly slain, is put for all [0632C] the others whose blood could effect no pardon.

QUESTION CX. *By this indeed they pleased God,* etc. It is asked whether Abraham and Lot knew them to be angels. If they knew, how did they offer the offices of humanity, which are not necessary except to the infirmity of men? Likewise, if they did not know them to be angels, but thought them only men, how did they venerate them more than men? Solution. At first they thought them men sent from God, and in whom God was; but afterward they discovered them to be angels.

QUESTION CXI. It is asked how the angels could eat in the bodies they had assumed? For they did not have those bodies united to them as the souls of men have [0632D] bodies united to themselves, whence those bodies were neither animate nor sensible; nor could the angels be harmed in those bodies. Solution. The angels did not eat after the manner of animals, but as fire consumes what is put to it, and reduces it to nothing; so also that food was consumed by their operation, or they made of it what they willed.

QUESTION CXII. Likewise it is asked how, since three angels were seen, Abraham could adore one of them in the faith of the Trinity and unity? Solution. By divine revelation he knew in them the mystery of the Trinity and unity.

QUESTION CXIII. *For the bodies of those animals,* etc. The expositor says that by a double allegory he proves, [0633A] that the body of Christ is not to be eaten by those who serve the tabernacle; but since there is one sense of both histories, how does he prove this by a double allegory? What is allegory? Is it not the spiritual sense? Therefore where there is one sense, how is the allegory double? Solution. He says by a double allegory, [0634A] that is, by an allegory arising from a double history. Or allegory is said [both] of the signifying and of the signified; but here it is put for the signifying: And what is "by a double allegory" but "by a double history," namely one of the Old, the other of the New Testament?