Questions on the Old and New Testament 98.1–102.8

You have heard what the holy gospel testifies, where the Lord says to the Jews: “You are born of your father the devil, and you want to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own, because he is a liar, as is his father too.” Let none of the faithful doubt that the devil had no author of his apostasy. He himself is the prince of all error: seeing that he had been made by God with no mean power, he dared to lay claim to deity, so that, because he saw the others were inferior, he set himself above them as God. Indeed the names by which he is called, devil and Satan, are formed from his action, not from his nature. For every evil is proved by the deed, so that what lies in the crime is not a substance but a will conceived from causes. When he saw that he was more powerful than the others, he was puffed up to exercise dominion.

How then will he be said to have a father, when he is held to be the author of his own crime? Or how is it proved that he was a murderer from the beginning? But Scripture calls by his name the one who was his imitator, so that, because the devil received his name from his work, everyone who has done an evil work may not undeservedly be named devil. So in this place the Savior called Cain the devil, because he was a rival of the devil’s works. Envying his brother, he committed murder, leaving an example of the cruelty of killing a kinsman; just as the devil, envying the man made in God’s image, heaped up the malice of his work, providing a pattern for error. From this, therefore, Cain also proved a liar: when God said to him, “Where is Abel your brother?”, steeped in his father’s malice, he burst out into a lie and said, “I do not know,” pretending not to know where the one was whose life he had wrested from him, so blinded by fury that he answered God as though answering a man from whom he thought he could hide.

The Jews, then, having become his imitators, killed even the Lord himself, wanting to have Cain the fratricide as father rather than God, so that they became guilty of all the blood that had been shed. For in killing the author of life they became the chief perpetrators of all crime, so much so that they even bound their sons to this evil, saying, “His blood be on us and on our sons.” To persuade Pilate that there was nothing evil in what they asked, they said that it should be turned back on their sons if it were unjust; for to satisfy their fury they were unwilling to spare even their sons.

That the devil is not evil by nature is more easily learned from this: punishment would not be promised to one who had not done what he did not know. It is unjust to punish one who does nothing other than what belongs to his nature; and it is a greater evil to demand of someone what you know he cannot do. Therefore he is justly to be punished who, though it is certain that he knows the good and can do it, does evil. This can also be observed from the Savior’s words; for he says, as mentioned above: “Your father was a murderer from the beginning and did not stand in the truth.” If, then, he is a liar by nature, how is he said not to have stood in the truth? For he does not stand in the truth who does not remain in the truth. It is certain, then, that the devil was in the truth but did not persevere. Indeed we read the Lord saying through the prophet: “If they had stood,” he says, “in my substance,” that is, “in my law”; and the apostle to the Galatians: “Stand,” he says, “and do not be held again by the yoke of slavery.” What could be plainer? He commands this, that from then on they remain in his commandments. If the devil had kept them, he would have stood in God’s substance and law. For the law is a foundation for those who keep it.

How, then, do some think that the devil was either made evil by God or has an origin of his own, that is, arose from nothing, both of which are seen to be contrary to God? For whoever says that he was made in order to be evil thinks God of imperfect goodness, because one who is perfectly good does not make evil; but whoever does not believe that God is the author of his origin denies God’s dominion. For by this, since all things are God’s, they suppose there is something that does not belong to God at all; and they must suffer punishment when they see that all things are judged by God through Christ.

Not without foresight, I think, does the teacher of the gentiles, our apostle, wish that temptation may take hold of us, but only human temptation, because divine temptation brings ruin. The Jews, taken by this, perished by serpents; for though they lived under God’s law, they doubted his providence. And therefore he urges that not divine but human temptation take hold of us. He is said to tempt God who, acting under God’s name, hopes for salvation from idols, because he does not hold God as proved. Everything that is not proved is put to the test, and what is put to the test comes into doubt. Therefore divine temptation is deadly but human temptation saving, because, as doubting God is ruinous, so to despair of human beings for the sake of God’s law is most wholesome. Therefore the apostle providently says, “Let no temptation take hold of you except what is human,” so that, tempted by human beings because of God’s law, we may be found strong while carnal men doubt us, and may be proved before God; for those who are not proved before God are tempted so that they may be corrected.

Temptation, then, is twofold: sometimes we are tempted as believers, sometimes as doubters, the temptation of believers being human. For because of faith we are afflicted by human beings, who tempt us to see whether they can lead us away from the faith; but because of distrust people are tempted so that, hard pressed, they may repent and return to the way, as happened to the Jews. When they distrusted God’s providence, they were tried by serpents, so that, seized by pain, they might be corrected. God tempts in this way in order to correct such people. There is also another temptation, by which Abraham and Job and Tobit, servants of God, were tempted: Abraham, so that through the trial of offering his only and most beloved son he might have a richer fruit of righteousness for eternal glory; Job, so that through the loss of all his substance he might be increased, enriched with wealth in heaven and on earth; and Tobit, who suffered blindness, became so much more advanced that he was made glorious in the present when his sight was restored, and lasting splendor was kept for him in the future; for the righteous are tested so that they may advance. And therefore in temptation we ought to be of strong mind, knowing that it serves not to our diminution but to our increase, if only we bear it with a calm mind through Christ.

You have heard, dearest brothers, what the gospel testifies, where the Lord says: “I confess to you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and prudent and revealed them to little ones. Yes, Father, for so it was pleasing before you.” If, then, we look into the sense of the words, we will see that they were spoken by the Lord to encourage believers, those who, because they spurn worldly wisdom, seem little ones to the wise of the world, who want to be called wise though commended by no testimony. Therefore it seemed unworthy to God to show these people the truth; but to the humble, who presume nothing of themselves and bow to God’s will, saving things must be revealed, as fairness requires. For he is prudent before God and mindful of his salvation who puts God’s law before his own knowledge, seeing that it is supported not by the clatter of words but by powerful deeds. And without doubt he is foolish and empty who entrusts himself to a thing that is fortified by no privilege of signs.

Hence God promised the kingdom not to the learned of the world but to the faithful; he promises eternity not to those who search the stars but to those who act rightly; he gives glory not to dialecticians, who strive to shut out the truth by trickery and petty quibbles, but to men of good will, who are careful more in their life than in their speech. For God rejects those who would rather use the eloquence of brilliant speech than good deeds. He who thinks he adorns God’s cause with words wants to turn God’s glory to himself. The things themselves ought to please by themselves, so that not the speech but the sense is praised. If sense is the author of the letter, and words were invented to signify things, why should not the things themselves rather be set forth in plain sense, so as more easily to stir the mind to salvation? And therefore the Lord chose fishermen as our apostles, simple and unlettered men, who without any cunning, by keeping faith and living well, might show God’s truth in themselves. Hence the apostle Paul too says, “And I, when I came to you, brothers, came not in loftiness of speech or of wisdom,” and among other things, “For the kingdom of God,” he says, “is not in speech but in power,” so that, because words are open to contradiction, power might stand as witness to God’s law, before which all loftiness of speech gives way.

So these things have been said first, dearest brothers, to look after the simpler ones, lest they think themselves unworthy of God’s grace because they are not at all trained in the learning of the courts; for their simplicity serves rather to their praise, since what the prudent of the world do not see because of the pride of learning, these believe, prudent not in words but in counsel. They know that God rests in good works and looks for faith, not polished speech. For they read the Lord saying: “On whom shall I rest, except on the humble and meek one who trembles at my words?” Therefore, so that we may be made worthy of the promised rewards, we must do what the Lord commands, confident that the Lord loves those who keep his words. For so he said to his disciples, “If you love me, keep my commandments,” so that, serving the Lord in these things, we may be heirs of his kingdom through Christ our Lord.

While we wish to obey the commands of love, we shall perhaps fall into blame for writing on a matter that has never come into doubt for anyone; for while we do not wish to offend friendship, we entangle an effort that ought to serve to reveal something hidden. Yet because of the excessive folly of a certain man, who asserts what we shall set out below, the same love has laid this on us too, lest, if no one answered these things for a long time, he should go on to worse and, long practised in vanity, could not be corrected. For this is the zeal of love, which does not seek its own.

A certain man, then, who bears the name of a false god, led by folly and by the boastfulness of the city of Rome, strives to make levites equal to priests and deacons equal to presbyters, not to say set them above them; for that would be more foolish and might seem incredible, and we would be held not correctors but slanderers. By what law, then, or what custom, by what example he dares attempt this, I think no one knows: to make those to whom no seat in the church is given equal to those who, as overseers of God, sit with dignity in God’s house and in the honor of Christ. What audacity, to make the presbyters’ own ministers equal to them! What vain presumption of rashness, to compare to priests the bearers of the tabernacle and all its vessels, the cutters of wood and the carriers of water! For this was the office of the levites. It is as if officials were made equal to prefects, or servants to masters. For this is written, where the Lord says to Moses: “Take the tribe of Levi from the midst of the sons of Israel and set them before Aaron the priest, and they shall serve him.” What could be plainer than this example, which is kept in the church even now?

Although the deacons of the Roman church seem somewhat more shameless, they do not presume the dignity of sitting in the church. That they do not perform all the ministries of service in turn is due to the great number of clergy. For otherwise they would certainly carry both the altar and its vessels, and pour water on the priest’s hands, as we see in all the churches and as was established by the Lord through Moses. Or are they better than Elisha, who poured water on Elijah’s hands?

He defends deacons against presbyters as if deacons were ordained from among the presbyters and not presbyters from among the deacons. But because they are ministers of the Roman church, they are thought more honorable than in the other churches because of the magnificence of the city of Rome, which seems to be the head of all cities. If that is so, they ought to claim this for their priests too; for if those who are inferior grow because of the city’s magnificence, how much more are those who are superior to be exalted! Whatever is granted to officials becomes an increase to the authority over them, as a servant’s honor serves the praise of his master; although before God, the just judge, each keeps here the honor that was created for the several offices of the churches, so that he who is a deacon has the honor of the diaconate throughout all the churches (for it is no ordinary honor to serve the overseer of God, at least in the church), and the priest is held worthy of all church honor. For the greater order contains within itself and with itself the lesser as well; the presbyter also performs the office of deacon, of exorcist, and of reader.

That a presbyter is understood to be a bishop the apostle Paul proves when he instructs Timothy, whom he ordained a presbyter, what kind of man he ought to make bishop. For what is a bishop but the first presbyter, that is, the high priest? Indeed he calls the presbyters nothing other than his fellow presbyters and fellow priests; but does the bishop call the ministers his fellow deacons? Certainly not, because they are much inferior, and it would be shameful to call a judge “chief clerk.” For in Alexandria and throughout Egypt, if the bishop is absent, the presbyter gives the seal.

How great the dignity of the priestly order is, the case of Caiaphas shows: though he was a very wicked man, he prophesied. Why? “Because,” it says, “he was chief of the priests.” And again, that there is a great distance between a deacon and a priest the book we call the Acts of the Apostles proves. When people from Samaria had believed Philip’s preaching, a deacon ordained by the apostles, “they sent,” it says, “Peter and John to come and give the Holy Spirit to those who had believed, through the laying on of hands.”

But they defend these things, I believe, because they do not know the Scriptures or have forgotten the law. Whoever thinks these things should be asserted ought, then, to remember what happened to the levites when they thought this way. When they presumed that there was no difference between priests and levites, by God’s judgment Korah and those who agreed with him were swallowed up when the earth opened, and a torrent of fire consumed two hundred and fifty men together; and King Uzziah, when he presumed to do the priestly work, was covered with leprosy, so that by this example the rest would be terrified and not dare to presume what is not granted. For now we see deacons rashly doing at banquets what belongs to priests, and wanting in prayer to be answered by the people, though this is lawful only for priests. For the order of the diaconate is to receive from the priest and so give to the people.

Do you see what vain presumption produces? Forgetful through pride, because they see that they are ministers of the Roman church, they do not consider what God has decreed for them and what they ought to keep; this is taken out of their memory by their constant attendance in the household and their position as officials, which now has very great power through suggestions, bad or good. For either they are feared, lest they make bad suggestions, or they are bought, so that they will help. These are the people who make them disregard the nature of their order. For while people pay court to them unlawfully by flattery, they make them headlong, so that they think more is permitted to them, since they see that the priests are not shown such deference; and from this they think they are preferred.

“But,” he says, “a presbyter is made on the testimony of a deacon,” as if this belonged to a prerogative of greatness. Yet we read that the apostle Peter said to the people: “Choose,” he says, “from among yourselves those whom we may appoint to serve the ministries of the church”; I do not wish to say “tables.” See, deacons were created by the testimony of lay people. And the apostle wants the one who is to be ordained bishop to have the testimony even of the gentiles; for he says: “For he must also have a good testimony from those outside.” Giving testimony, then, belongs to all, and yet not all are worthy of this honor. All can judge, and yet not all can be what they judge. A painter can be judged a good painter by someone who cannot paint, and one choral piper can be approved as better than another by someone who practises another art; so too one who is lower in order can be a witness for a presbyter to be made. There is something else that puffs them up and makes them think much is owed them: “For by us,” they say, “those to be ordained are led forward,” so that, being flanked at their sides by them, they seem worthy of honor. Suppose it is true: the deacon is sent by the bishop as an official, to render service to the one being ordained. For the emperor too, so that he may appear emperor, is installed with the service of soldiers; yet the army is not better than the emperor, nor his equal. Haman too, though he was distinguished in military honor, was sent by the king to go and serve Mordecai, so that from his services it might be known how worthy Mordecai was; so too deacons are sent to serve presbyters who are being made, so that all may understand that these are being made worthy priests. For, except for the priests, to whom they owe service, deacons are placed above all.

His disciples say to Jesus: “Lord, do you want us to say that fire should come down from heaven and consume them, as Elijah did?” And the Lord answered them, saying: “You do not know of what spirit you are. For the Son of Man did not come to destroy souls, but to save them.” Although it would certainly have been fitting to punish the Samaritans who did not receive him, yet the Lord, because he came to give mercy, set the sentence aside, so that they might be corrected and amended in future. The prophet Elisha, angered at the boys who insulted him, punished them by God’s judgment, so that they were eaten by bears in a place where there is said to be no forest. But the Lord spared the harlot brought to him, namely the woman whom the elders of the Jews said they had caught in adultery, to teach that, because the preaching of mercy was beginning, she was not to be condemned but forgiven. For the law given through Moses, because it had a justice directed to punishment, exercised severity at its beginnings: it punished with death the man who went out on the Sabbath to gather wood, likewise took vengeance on the son of the Egyptian woman who had blasphemed God, and in the matter of the molten calf struck down the sons of Israel.

Each law, then, showed its full sense at its very beginnings: the old law, being quicker to punish, seemed harsher at its beginning, so that by striking fear it might make its hearers diligent and careful; the new, being merciful and ready to show mercy, displayed very mild and gentle beginnings, so as to draw all to pardon by that very delight. But afterward the one that seemed harsher not only softened its rigor because of the frailty of the human race but showed itself humane and merciful; and the one that seemed merciful sometimes punished. For Ananias with Sapphira his wife was struck down by God; and Elymas the magician, unbelieving and opposing God’s law, was blinded by the Lord’s judgment and power; and King Herod, because he did not give honor to God, was struck by an angel of God and died swarming with worms. Lest, because mercy is preached, people should think that sin goes altogether unpunished, he set fear in place, showing that pardon for sins is given for this purpose: that, brought to life as it were from the dead, they should afterward abstain from what is contrary, and take pains that no one leaves this world with a crime, because they will come to judgment. For to each one is imputed the sentence in which he dies. Since, then, the new law has the fullness of mercy, it punished those mentioned above, lest it be held in contempt by lovers of sin. And the old law, although it was given for punishment, nevertheless pardoned some, lest it be thought altogether cruel, but it punished more, because its sense is quick to avenge.

Without doubt, then, the grace of the new law is greater than that of the old. If, then, its grace is greater, how is it denied that it can grant what was granted by the law that had lesser grace? For the old law was more inclined to severity. So if it is shown to have pardoned the penitent, how can this law, which is merciful, not receive the penitent? For the Jews too were called sons of God, and on the authority of the apostle Paul they are read to have been baptized through Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Being about to receive the law, they are without doubt known to have been purified, so that afterward they might give account of the law they had received, and, if any sinned, might reform themselves through repentance, as the Lord says through the prophet Isaiah: “Repent, you who go astray, and be converted.” But perhaps it is objected: “Repentance indeed was preached, but not forgiveness.” If repentance was preached by God, there is fruit for those who do penance; the Lord would not have urged it to no purpose. Moreover, the Lord, knowing that forgiveness of sins ought to be given to those who turn back, commanded this, since he said: “I do not desire the death of one who is dying, so much as that he return and live.” There is, then, a fruit of repentance, as has become clear, for those who turn to God. Excluded, then, is the impiously composed assertion of Novatian, by which he turns the sense of the Lord’s words upside down, saying: “The Lord says, Whoever denies me, I too will deny him,” so that, if any Christian has denied for whatever cause, he can no longer return, or at least, if he returns, is not received.

And where will the repentance that was commanded be, when the Savior, after giving this sentence, did not deny the apostle Peter, who denied him? Why? Because, as repentance followed, Peter wept most bitterly for his error, knowing indeed that those who turn back are pardoned and restored through repentance. But Novatian only pretends that penance is to be done. For because he does not dare openly deny that penance is to be granted, bound as he is by the law, he strives subtly to frustrate it. When he says that “whoever denies will in no way have pardon, but will himself be denied in the sight of God’s angels,” how is he not professing with guile that penance is to be done? His fraud appears plainly from what he adds: “Whoever sins against the Holy Spirit, it will not be forgiven him, either here or in the future.” Although sinning against the Holy Spirit is one matter and denying the Lord Jesus another, Novatian nevertheless, to deny pardon to this sin, wants the sense of denying the Lord and of sinning against the Holy Spirit to be the same, so as to cut off the fruit of repentance by this evasion. For if denying the Lord is the same as sinning against the Holy Spirit, no pardon is to be hoped for by those who deny, nor any fruit of repentance, because the Lord’s oracles have declared that this sin is forgiven neither here nor in the future.

From this it appears that Novatian says with guile that penance is to be done; for why should anyone repent if it is denied that the offense is wiped out? The groaning, weeping, and lamentation of repentance obtain this, that one merits both pardon and restoration. Indeed David, repenting and confessing his sin, both merited pardon and was restored to his former state, for he both remained king and afterward prophesied. This is clearly proved: in the fiftieth psalm he repented, and afterward, having suffered persecution from his son, he prophesied; for in the order of history the third psalm comes after the fiftieth. But perhaps a king ought to be pardoned, while the lowly ought not to be? On the contrary, it would seem that the more powerful should be pardoned with more difficulty, for God does not accept a man’s person. The more exalted someone is, the more his sin, even if light, is a grave crime. Just as humility in a petitioner is sublime and magnificent, so his fault is to be held a crime. For, apart from the sins that are known to be unlawful for all, not everything allowed to the lowly is lawful for the powerful. It is unseemly for a man of rank to trade, and to enter a tavern brings disgrace; for senators, too, lending at interest is infamy. If, then, they are marked with disgrace for these light things, how much more are they to be held guilty if they sin! From this it appears that David sinned most gravely, and indeed in two ways; yet, turning back, he obtained pardon for both murder and adultery, and, what is more, by weeping he was restored. When he was rebuked by the prophet Nathan, he did not dare to hide his sin but confessed it, saying, “I have sinned against the Lord.” Then the prophet answered him and said: “The Lord has taken away your sin, and you will not die, because you have repented”; and because he is found to have prophesied afterward, there is no doubt that he was restored. Ahab too, rebuked by the prophet for the death of Naboth, went about weeping, tore his garments, and girded himself with sackcloth; and the word of the Lord came by the hand of his servant Elijah concerning Ahab, and the Lord said: “Have you heard how Ahab was moved before my face? I will not bring the evils in his days.” And the Ninevites, weeping for their sins, had their life restored when death was imminent. See how great the gain of repentance is!

But perhaps it will be objected: “Pardon has indeed been granted, but not for the crime of idolatry; for although these are grave, the crime of idolatry is greater.” Even so, Novatian’s assertion has been rightly overthrown in no small part, since two grave crimes are seen to have been granted to repentance; for if sexual immorality ought not to be pardoned, as Novatian thinks, how much less murder or adultery! His emptiness appears here, when these graver things are shown to have been pardoned. So we must now inquire whether God promised that pardon could be granted to idolaters. For whatever has not been rightly granted here cannot be granted in the future either. Here, as the Lord said, sins are either bound or loosed; in the future there will be nothing but reward or condemnation. Everyone who is rightly rejected here cannot be chosen or judged worthy in the future.

Let us hear, then, what the Lord says about idolaters to the prophet Jeremiah: “Go and say,” he says, “Return to me, dwelling of Israel, says the Lord, and I will not set my face against you, for I am merciful, says the Lord, and I am not angry with you for ever. Only know your offense: you have acted impiously and set your ways toward strangers under every leafy tree.” See what God promises to those who turn to him after a fall: he forgives the sins of those who return after apostasy. And again God says through Jeremiah: “My delicate ones have walked rough ways; they were led away like a flock plundered by enemies. Be steadfast, my sons, and cry out to God; you will be remembered in your captivity. For as your mind was set on straying from God, so, once turned back, you will seek him ten times as much; for he who brought evils upon you will bring upon you everlasting joy with your salvation.” O the mercy of God! How he calls the fallen to rise! How he urges them to return to him after the error of idols! Like a kindly father he promises his sons the everlasting joy of salvation if they correct themselves. Likewise in the same prophet, among other things: “And I will restore them to this land and rebuild them and not abandon them; and I will replant them and not pluck them up”; so that, because he had threatened, “Whoever sacrifices to gods will be rooted out,” those who sinned against God should not despair of themselves, as though those who had sacrificed to idols, once rooted out, could not be replanted. He urges them because, if they repent, they can be restored to their former state. For the sentence stands only if the offense is not amended.

Indeed it was preached to the Ninevites that their city would be overthrown after three days. Why after three days, unless so that they should either repent and the sentence be removed, or, persisting in sin, perish more justly? This is what he said through the prophet: “I do not desire the death of one who is dying, so much as that he return and live.” So it came about that the Ninevites, who were about to die because of their sins, were pardoned when repentance followed. For why do we find the ark being built for a hundred years under Noah, unless so that people, seeing and hearing what was coming, might amend themselves? For God wills no one to perish. Hence we read in Solomon: “Because,” he says, “the Most High has had mercy on the penitent,” and again: “You have mercy on all, because you can do all things, and you overlook the sins of men for the sake of repentance.” In this sense the Lord too, grieving over the faithlessness of the Jews, says: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I wanted to gather your children, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, and you were not willing!”