You have sent me a most welcome and most pleasing token of esteem in your questions, father Simplician; and were I not to try to answer them, I would prove not only obstinate but ungrateful as well. And those questions which you proposed for solution concerning the Apostle Paul had already, in some fashion, been examined by us and committed to writing.

Yet, not content with my past inquiry and explanation, I have searched out those same words of the Apostle and the drift of his statements more cautiously and attentively, lest I should have passed over anything in them too carelessly; for you would not have judged these matters worth asking about if their meaning were easy and ready to hand.

1.1. From that place where it is written, What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! down to the place where he says, So the law is good for me who wills it, and what follows, indeed (as I believe) down to that point, Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 7:7-25), you wished me first to unravel this question.

In this passage it seems to me that the Apostle has transferred into himself the person of one set under the law, in whose words he speaks as though in his own person.

And because a little before he had said, We are discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held captive, so that we serve in the new life of the spirit and not in the old written code (Rom 7:6),

and since through these words he might seem to have found fault with the law, he at once added, What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet I did not know sin except through the law; for I would not have known desire if the law had not said, You shall not covet (Rom 7:7).

1.2. Here again he raises a difficulty: if the law is not sin but the sower of sin, it is nonetheless censured by these words. We must therefore understand that the law was given for this purpose, not that sin might be implanted nor that it might be rooted out, but only that it might be made manifest,

so that by the very demonstration of sin it might render guilty the human soul, which was as if secure in its innocence, so that, because sin cannot be overcome without the grace of God, the soul might by that very anxiety over its guilt be turned toward receiving grace. And so he does not say, "I did not commit sin except through the law," but, I did not know sin except through the law (Rom 7:7); nor again does he say, "for I would not have had desire if the law had not said, You shall not covet," but he says, I would not have known desire if the law had not said, You shall not covet (Rom 7:7). From this it is clear that desire was not implanted by the law but made manifest.

1.3. It followed, however, that, since desire could not be resisted before grace had been received,

it was even increased, because desire has greater force once the offense of transgression has been added, when it acts even against the law, than if it were prohibited by no law.

Consequently he goes on to add, But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me every kind of desire (Rom 7:8). For it existed even before the law, but it was not all there, since the offense of transgression was still lacking. Hence in another place he says, For where there is no law, there is no transgression either (Rom 4:15).

1.4. As for what he adds, for apart from the law sin lies dead (Rom 7:8), this is put as if he were saying that it lies hidden, that is, it is thought to be dead. He is about to say this a little later more plainly: I was once alive apart from the law (Rom 7:9), he says, that is, "I was terrified by no death arising from sin, because it did not appear, since there was no law"; but when the commandment came, sin came to life again (Rom 7:9), that is, it appeared.

And I died (Rom 7:10), that is, I came to know that I was dead, or because the guilt of transgression threatens the certain punishment of death.

Surely, when he says, sin came to life again when the commandment came (Rom 7:9), he has sufficiently indicated that in this way sin had at some time been alive, that is, had been known—as I think, in the transgression of the first man, since he too had received a commandment (See Gen 2:17).

For in another place too he says, The woman, however, was deceived and fell into transgression (1 Tim 2:14), and again, after the likeness of the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come (Rom 5:14). For nothing can come to life again except what was once alive. But it had been dead, that is, concealed, when human beings, born mortal, lived without the commandment of the law, following the desires of the flesh without any knowledge, because without any prohibition.

Therefore, I, he says, was once alive apart from the law (Rom 7:9), whereby he makes clear that he is speaking not strictly in his own person but generally in the person of a human being. But when the commandment came, sin came to life again, and I died, and the very commandment which was meant to bring life was found in my case to bring death (Rom 7:9-10). For if the commandment is obeyed, it is surely life; but it was found to bring death, when one acts against the commandment, so that not only is sin committed, which was being committed even before the commandment, but it is committed more abundantly and more ruinously, since now one sins knowingly and as a transgressor.

1.5. For sin, he says, finding opportunity in the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me (Rom 7:11). Sin, not using the law lawfully, became sweeter through the desire heightened by the prohibition, and so it deceived. For the sweetness is deceptive which is followed by greater and more numerous bitternesses of punishment. Because, then, what is forbidden is more pleasingly indulged by those who have not yet received spiritual grace, sin deceives by a false sweetness; but because the guilt of transgression is also added, it kills.

1.6. So the law indeed is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good (Rom 7:12); for it commands what must be commanded and forbids what must be forbidden. Did then what is good become death to me? By no means! (Rom 7:13) The fault, indeed, lies in the one who uses it badly, not in the commandment itself, which is good, since the law is good, if anyone uses it lawfully (See 1 Tim 1:8).

But he uses the law badly who does not submit himself to God in devout humility, so that through grace the law may be fulfilled. And so the one who does not use it lawfully receives the law for no other purpose than that his sin, which lay hidden before the prohibition, may begin to appear through transgression, and this beyond measure (Rom 7:13), since now it is not only sin but is also against the commandment.

There follows, then, and he adds, but sin, that it might appear sin, wrought death in me through what is good, so that sin, or the sinner, might become beyond measure sinful through the commandment (Rom 7:13). From this he makes clear in what sense he said above, for apart from the law sin lies dead (Rom 7:8)—not because it did not exist, but because it did not appear—and in what sense it was said, sin came to life again (Rom 7:9)—not so that it might exist, which it did even before the law, but so that it might appear, since it was being committed against the law—seeing that in this place he says, but sin, that it might appear sin, wrought death in me through what is good (Rom 7:13); for he does not say, "that sin might exist," but, that sin might appear.

1.7. Then he adds the reason why this is so. For we know, he says, that the law is spiritual, but I am carnal (Rom 7:14). In this he shows sufficiently that the law cannot be fulfilled except by the spiritual, who do not come to be such except through grace.

For the more anyone becomes like the spiritual law—that is, the more he himself also rises into a spiritual affection—the more he fulfills it, because he takes the more delight in it, no longer afflicted under its burden but quickened in its light,

since the commandment of the Lord is clear (See Ps 19:8-9 (18)), enlightening the eyes, and the law of the Lord is spotless, converting souls, while grace forgives sins and pours in the spirit of love, by which righteousness is both not burdensome and even pleasant.

Surely, when he had said, but I am carnal (Rom 7:14), he went on to add what sort of carnal man he meant. For even those already established under grace, already redeemed by the blood of the Lord and reborn through faith, are in a certain way called carnal,

to whom the same Apostle says, And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to carnal. As to babes in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not solid food (1 Cor 3:1-2).

In saying this he certainly shows that they had already been reborn through grace, those who were babes in Christ and to be given milk to drink, and yet he still calls them carnal.

But one who is not yet under grace but under the law is carnal in such a way that he is not yet reborn from sin but sold under sin, since as the price of deadly pleasure he embraces that sweetness by which he is deceived, and takes delight even in acting against the law, finding it the more pleasing the less it is permitted. He cannot enjoy this sweetness, as it were the price of his condition, unless he is compelled, like a purchased slave, to serve lust. For he feels himself the slave of a domineering desire, the one who is forbidden, and who recognizes that he is rightly forbidden, and yet does it.

1.8. For what I do, he says, I do not understand (Rom 7:15). Here I do not understand is not said as though he did not know that he was sinning.

For what he said would be contrary: but sin, that it might appear sin, wrought death in me through what is good (Rom 7:13), and that earlier statement, yet I did not know sin except through the law (Rom 7:7). For how does it appear, or how did he come to know, what he does not understand?

But it is said in the way in which the Lord will say to the ungodly, I do not know you (Matt 25:12). For nothing lies hidden from God, since the face of the Lord is against those who do evil, to cut off the remembrance of them from the earth (Ps 34:16 (33)).

But we are sometimes said not to know what we do not approve. So, then, he says, for what I do I do not understand, that is, "I do not approve." This he shows in what follows, saying, for I do not do the good I want, but the evil I hate, that I do (Rom 7:15). So when he says I hate, he means "I do not understand," because of those to whom the Lord will say, I do not know you, it is said to him, You hate, O Lord, all who work iniquity (Ps 5:5).

1.9. But if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law that it is good (Rom 7:16); for he does not want what the law too does not want, since the law forbids this. He agrees with the law, then, not insofar as he does what it prohibits, but insofar as he does not want what he does.

For one who is not yet set free through grace is overcome, although through the law he both knows that he is acting badly and does not want to. And as for what follows, where he says, but now it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me (Rom 7:17),

he does not say this because he does not consent to committing the sin—although he agrees with the law in disapproving it; for he is still speaking in the person of one set under the law and not yet under grace, who is indeed dragged to acting badly by a domineering desire and by the deceiving sweetness of forbidden sin, although in respect of his knowledge of the law he disapproves it—but he says it is no longer I that do it because he acts as one overcome.

For desire does this, to which, when it prevails, one yields. But that one not yield, and that the human mind be stronger against desire, is the work of grace, of which he will speak later.

1.10. For I know, he says, that the good does not dwell in me, that is, in my flesh (Rom 7:18). By the fact that he knows, he agrees with the law; but by the fact that he acts, he yields to sin.

But if anyone should ask, "Whence comes this, that he says there dwells in his flesh something certainly not good, that is, sin?"—whence but from the propagation of mortality and the persistence of pleasure?

The former is from the penalty of original sin, the latter from the penalty of habitual sin; with the former we are born into this life, the latter we add by living.

These two, namely, joined together as nature and habit, make desire most strong and most invincible—which he calls sin and says dwells in his flesh, that is, holds a kind of dominion and, as it were, a reign there. Hence that saying in the Psalm: I chose to be an outcast in the house of the Lord rather than to dwell in the tents of sinners (Ps 84:10 (83)), as though one who is an outcast does not dwell, even though he is there, wherever he may be. By this he suggests that "dwelling" is to be understood as carrying a certain rule. But if through grace there comes to be in us what he says in another place, that sin may not reign in our mortal body so as to obey its desires (Rom 6:12), then it is no longer properly said even to dwell.

1.11. For the willing, he says, lies near at hand for me, but to accomplish the good does not (Rom 7:18). By these words he seems, to those who do not understand rightly, as if to take away free choice.

But how does he take it away, when he says, the willing lies near at hand for me? For surely the willing itself is in our power, since it lies near at hand for us; but that to accomplish the good is not in our power belongs to the deserving of original sin. For this is not the first nature of man but the penalty of his fault, through which mortality itself was made, as it were, a second nature, from which the grace of the Creator sets us free when we are subject to him through faith.

But these are now the words of a man set under the law and not yet under grace. For he does not do the good he wills, who is not yet under grace, but the evil he does not will, that he does, since desire prevails, strengthened not only by the bond of mortality but by the mass of habit. But if he does what he does not will, then it is no longer he himself that does it, but the sin that dwells in him, as was said and explained above.

1.12. I find, then, he says, that the law is good for me who wills to do good, since evil lies near at hand for me (Rom 7:21), that is, "I find the law to be good for me, when I will to do what the law contains, since evil lies near at hand for me to do easily"; for what he said above, the willing lies near at hand for me, he said with reference to ease.

For what is easier for a man set under the law than to will the good and to do the evil? For he wills the good too without difficulty, although he does not do it as easily as he easily wills it; and the evil that he hates he does with ease, although he does not want it,

just as one who is cast down comes without difficulty into the depths, although he does not want it and hates it. I have said this on account of the word lies near at hand.

Therefore the man set under the law and not yet set free by grace bears witness to the law that it is good.

He bears witness altogether by this very thing: that he reproaches himself for acting against the law and finds it to be good for him, willing to do what it commands and, with desire prevailing, not being able.

And so he sees himself entangled in the guilt of transgression, to this end: that he may implore the grace of the deliverer.

1.13. For I delight, he says, in the law of God according to the inner man—that law, surely, which says, You shall not covet. But I see, he says, another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind and making me captive under the law of sin which is in my members (Rom 7:22-23).

He calls the law in his members the very burden of mortality, under which we groan, weighed down (See 2 Cor 5:4). For the body that is corrupted weighs down the soul (See Wis 9:15). Through this it often comes about, too, that what is not permitted delights invincibly.

This pressing and urging load he calls a law, because by right of punishment it was assigned and imposed by divine judgment from him who forewarned man, saying, On the day you eat of it you shall die the death (Gen 2:17).

This law wars against the law of the mind, which says, You shall not covet, in which a man delights according to the inner man, and, before anyone is under grace, it so wars that it even makes him captive under the law of sin, that is, under itself. For when he says, which is in my members, he shows that this is the same as that of which he said above, I see another law in my members (Rom 7:23).

1.14. But all this is said in order to show that a man held captive must not presume upon his own strength. Hence he reproved the Jews as boasting proudly of the works of the law, while they were dragged by desire toward whatever is unlawful, although the law of which they boasted says, You shall not covet.

Humbly, then, must the conquered, condemned, captive man speak, and—even after receiving the law not as a victor but rather as a transgressor—he must humbly cry out, Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom 7:24-25). For this is what remains to free choice in this mortal life: not that a man may fulfill righteousness whenever he wills, but that with suppliant devotion he may turn himself to him by whose gift he can fulfill it.

1.15. In this whole connected discourse of the Apostle which we have treated, then, whoever thinks that the Apostle meant that the law is evil because he says,

The law slipped in, so that the offense might abound (Rom 5:20), and, the ministry of death, engraved in letters on stone (2 Cor 3:7), and, the power of sin is the law (1 Cor 15:56), and, you have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you might belong to another, who rose from the dead,

and, the passions of sins which are through the law were at work in our members, to bear fruit for death; but now we have been discharged from the law, having died to that in which we were held captive, so that we serve in the new life of the spirit and not in the old written code (Rom 7:4-6)

and other things of this kind, if we find that the Apostle said any such—let him attend that they are said for this reason: because the law increases desire by the prohibition and binds one as guilty by the transgression, since it commands what human beings, in their weakness, cannot fulfill unless they turn themselves in devotion to the grace of God;

and so those are said to be under the law over whom it has dominion, and it has dominion over those whom it punishes, and it punishes all transgressors. Further, those who have received the law transgress it, unless through grace they obtain the power to do what it commands. So it comes about that it does not have dominion over those who are now under grace, fulfilling it through love, who had been condemned under its fear.

1.16. For if the things that have been said move one to think that the Apostle reproaches the law, what are we to do with what he says: For I delight in the law of God according to the inner man (Rom 7:22)? For in saying this he surely praises the law.

When they hear this, they reply that in this passage the Apostle is speaking of another law, that is, the law of Christ, not of that which was given to the Jews.

We therefore ask them, of what law he speaks when he says, But the law slipped in, so that the offense might abound (Rom 5:20); they reply without hesitation, "Of that which the Jews received."

See, then, whether this is the same law of which it is said, sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me every kind of desire (Rom 7:8). For what else is it wrought in me every kind of desire than what is there, so that the offense might abound?

See too whether that statement also harmonizes: so that sin, or the sinner, might become beyond measure sinful through the commandment (Rom 7:13). For this, that sin might become beyond measure sinful, is the same as, that sin might abound.

If, therefore, we show that the commandment is good, whence sin, finding opportunity, wrought every kind of desire, so that it might become beyond measure, we shall at the same time show that the law is good, which slipped in so that the offense might abound, that is, so that sin might work every kind of desire and become beyond measure.

Let them therefore hear the same Apostle saying, What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! (Rom 7:7) This, they say, was said of the law of Christ, that is, of the law of grace. Let them then reply of what law they understand what follows: But I did not know sin except through the law; for I would not have known desire if the law had not said, You shall not covet. But sin, finding opportunity in the commandment, wrought in me every kind of desire (Rom 7:7-8).

Behold, the very connection of the words sufficiently indicates of what law he said, That the law is sin? By no means!—namely, of that through whose commandment there was opportunity for sin, so that it wrought every kind of desire; of that, therefore, which slipped in so that the offense might abound, which they think is evil.

But what is plainer than what he says a little later: So the law indeed is holy, and the commandment is holy and just and good (Rom 7:12)? This, they say again, was said not of the law given to the Jews but of the Gospel. For so unutterably blind is this perversity of the Manichees. For they do not attend to what follows, most plain and most manifest: Did then what is good become death to me? By no means! But sin, that it might appear sin, wrought death in me through what is good, so that sin, or the sinner, might become beyond measure sinful through the commandment (Rom 7:13)—that is, through the commandment that is holy and just and good, which nonetheless slipped in so that sin might abound, that is, become beyond measure.

1.17. Why, then, is it called the ministry of death (2 Cor 3:7), if the law is good? Because sin, that it might appear sin, wrought death in me through what is good. And do not be surprised, since of the very preaching of the Gospel it is said, We are the good aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to some indeed an aroma of life unto life, but to others an aroma of death unto death (2 Cor 2:15-16).

For the law was called the ministry of death with reference to the Jews, to whom it was even written on stone, to signify their hardness, not with reference to those who fulfill the law through love. For the fullness of the law is love (Rom 13:10). For the very law that is engraved in letters on stone says, You shall not commit adultery, you shall not kill, you shall not steal, you shall not covet (Exod 20:13-17) and the rest.

This law the Apostle says is fulfilled through love, speaking thus: For he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not kill, You shall not steal, You shall not covet, and any other commandment, are summed up in this saying: You shall love your neighbor as yourself (Rom 13:8-9), for this too is written in the same law.

Why is the power of sin the law (1 Cor 15:56), if the law is good? Because sin wrought death through what is good, so that it might become beyond measure, that is, conceive greater force from transgression.

Why have we died to the law through the body of Christ (Rom 7:4), if the law is good? Because we have died to the dominating law, set free from that affection which the law punishes and condemns. For it is more usually called law when it threatens and terrifies and exacts punishment. And so the same precept is law to those who fear, grace to those who love.

Hence that saying in the Gospel: The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ (John 1:17). For the same law that was given through Moses to be feared, came through Jesus Christ as grace and truth to be fulfilled.

So, then, it was said, you have died to the law, as if it were said, "you have died to the punishment of the law," through the body of Christ, through which the offenses were forgiven that bound men with their lawful punishment.

Why the passions of sins which are through the law (Rom 7:5), if the law is good? Because he wished here to be understood as the passions of sins those of which much has already been said—the increase of desire from the prohibition and the guilt of punishment from the transgression—that is, because it wrought death through what is good, so that sin, or the sinner, might become beyond measure sinful through the commandment (Rom 7:13).

Why have we been set free from the law, having died to that in which we were held captive, so that we serve in the new life of the spirit and not in the old written code (Rom 7:6), if the law is good? Because the law is a written code to those who do not fulfill it through the spirit of love, to which the New Testament pertains.

And so those who have died to sin are set free from the written code, by which are held guilty those who do not fulfill what is written. For what is the law but a mere written code to those who know how to read it and cannot fulfill it?

For it is not unknown to those for whom it was written down; but since it is known only insofar as it is read as written, not insofar as it is loved and carried out, it is nothing else to such people but a written code.

And this written code is not a helper of those who read but a witness against those who sin. From its condemnation, therefore, those are set free who are renewed through the spirit, so that they are no longer bound to the written code for punishment, but joined to its meaning through righteousness.

Hence too that saying: The letter kills, but the spirit gives life (2 Cor 3:6). For the law, merely read and not understood or not fulfilled, surely kills; for then it is called the letter. But the spirit gives life, because the fullness of the law is love, which has been poured out in our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us (Rom 5:5).

2.1. But now, I think, it is time to pass on to the other question, which you proposed in such a way that the whole connected passage from what is written, And not only so, but also Rebecca, who had conceived children by one act of intercourse, by Isaac our father. For though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or evil (Rom 9:10), down to what is written, If the Lord of hosts had not left us seed, we would have become like Sodom, and we would have been made like Gomorrah (Rom 9:29), should be discussed. And it is indeed more obscure. But surely, knowing you as I do toward me, you could not command me to open up these matters unless you prayed to the Lord that I might be able. Made more confident by that help, I approach it.

2.2. And first I shall hold to and consult the intention of the Apostle which is alive throughout the whole epistle. This, however, is that no one should boast of the merits of works.

Of these the Israelites dared to boast, that they had served the law given to them and on this ground had received the grace of the Gospel as though owed to their merits, because they served the law.

Hence they were unwilling that the same grace be given to the Gentiles as unworthy, unless they took up the Jewish rites—a question which arose and is resolved in the Acts of the Apostles (See Acts 15). For they did not understand that by the very fact that it is the grace of the Gospel, it is not owed to works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Rom 11:6).

And in many places he often testifies to this, setting the grace of faith before works, not to do away with works, but to show that works do not precede grace but follow it, so that no one, of course, may think that he received grace because he did good works, but rather that he cannot do good works unless through faith he has received grace.

Now a man begins to receive grace from the time he begins to believe in God, moved to faith by some admonition, whether inward or outward.

But it makes a difference at what junctures of time, or by what celebration of the sacraments, grace is poured in more fully and more evidently. For catechumens are not without belief; nor indeed did Cornelius fail to believe God when, by his almsgiving and prayers, he showed himself worthy to have an angel sent to him (See Acts 10:1-4).

But he would in no way have done these things unless he had first believed; and in no way would he have believed unless he had been called, whether by hidden admonitions through visions of the mind or spirit, or by more manifest ones through the senses of the body.

But in some the grace of faith is such as does not suffice for obtaining the kingdom of heaven, as in catechumens, as in Cornelius himself before he was incorporated into the Church by partaking of the sacraments; while in others it is such that they are now counted as belonging to the body of Christ and the holy temple of God.

For the temple of God is holy, he says, which you are (1 Cor 3:17), and the Lord himself: Unless one is born of water and the Holy Spirit, he will not enter the kingdom of heaven (John 3:5). There come to be, then, certain beginnings of faith, like conceptions. Yet it is necessary not only to be conceived but also to be born, so that one may attain eternal life. None of these, however, comes about without the grace of God's mercy, because any good works there may be also follow that grace, as has been said, and do not precede it.

2.3. Wishing to persuade us of this—because, as he says in another place, not from yourselves, but it is the gift of God; not from works, lest anyone be exalted (Eph 2:8-9)—he gave a proof from those who were not yet born.

For no one could say that Jacob, not yet born, had earned God by works, so that it should be said by God, and the elder will serve the younger (Gen 25:23).

Therefore, not only, he says, was Isaac promised, when it was said, At this time I will come, and Sarah will have a son (Rom 9:9; Gen 18:10),

who certainly had earned God by no works so as to be promised before his birth—that in Isaac the seed of Abraham should be called, that is, that those should belong to the lot of the saints which is in Christ who understood themselves to be sons of the promise, not taking pride in their own merits, but reckoning to the grace of their calling that they were coheirs of Christ; for since it was promised that they should be, those who did not yet exist had surely earned nothing—

but also Rebecca, who had conceived children by one act of intercourse, by Isaac our father (Rom 9:10). Most vigilantly he says, by one act of intercourse. For twins had been conceived, lest it be attributed even to the merits of the parents, should anyone perhaps say:

such a son was born because the father was disposed in such a way at the time when he sowed him in the mother's womb, or the mother was so disposed when she conceived him. For both at once, at one time, he sowed and she conceived.

To press this home he says, by one act of intercourse, so as to give no place even to the astrologers, or rather to those whom they have called casters of nativities, who from the birthdays of those being born conjecture their characters and fortunes.

For they utterly fail to find what they are to say as to why, with one conception under one and the same point of time, with such a disposition of the heaven and stars that distinct dispositions could not possibly be noted for each, there was so great a difference in those twins;

and they easily perceive, if they will, that those answers which they sell to wretched people are brought forth by no exposition of any art but by chance guesswork.

But that we may rather speak of the matter at hand: these things are recalled in order to break and cast down the pride of men ungrateful for the grace of God and daring to boast of their own merits.

For though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or evil, it was said to her, not from works but from him who calls, that the elder will serve the younger (Rom 9:11-12).

The grace, then, belongs to the one who calls; but good works follow upon the one who receives grace—works that do not bring forth grace, but are brought forth by grace. For fire does not give heat in order to become hot, but because it is hot; nor does a wheel run well in order to be round, but because it is round.

So no one does good works in order to receive grace, but because he has received it. For how can one live righteously who has not been justified? How can one live in holiness who has not been sanctified, or live at all who has not been given life? But grace justifies, so that the justified may be able to live righteously.

First, then, is grace; second, good works—as he says in another place, but to one who works, the wage is not reckoned as a gift but as a debt (Rom 4:4)—just as that immortality comes after good works, if indeed it too is required as a debt,

as the same Apostle says, I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, will render to me on that day (2 Tim 4:7-8).

For perhaps, because he said will render, it is now from a debt. But when he ascended on high, he led captivity captive, he did not render but gave gifts to men (Eph 4:8).

For on what ground would the Apostle himself presume that what was owed was being rendered to him, unless he had first received the unowed grace by which, being justified, he might fight the good fight?

For he was a blasphemer and a persecutor and insolent, but he obtained mercy, as he himself testifies (See 1 Tim 1:13), believing, surely, in him who justifies not the godly but the ungodly (See Rom 4:5), so that by justifying he may make him godly.

2.4. Not from works, he says, but from him who calls, it was said to her that the elder will serve the younger.

To this pertains what he says, for though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or evil, so that it could be said, not from works but from him who calls.

Hence it comes to mind to ask why he said, so that the purpose of God according to election might stand (Rom 9:11-12).

For how is there a just election, or any election at all, where there is no distinction?

For if Jacob was chosen by no merit, not yet born and having done nothing, he could not have been chosen at all, since there was no difference by which he might be chosen.

Likewise, if Esau was disapproved by no merit, since he too was not yet born and had done nothing when it was said, and the elder will serve the younger, how can his disapproval be called just?

By what distinction, then, by what scale of fairness, do we understand what follows: Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (Rom 9:13)? This was indeed written in the Prophet, who prophesied long after those two were born and had died.

But nevertheless that statement seems to be recalled by which it was said, and the elder will serve the younger, even before they were born and had done anything. Whence, then, is this election, or what sort of election, if for those not yet born and not yet having done anything there are no weights of merit? Or are there perhaps some weights of natures?

Who could understand this: from one father, from one mother, from one act of intercourse, from one Creator? Or, just as from the same earth the same Creator brought forth diverse kinds of living and growing things, did he likewise from the same union and embrace of human beings bring forth in the twins a diverse offspring, one whom he would love, the other whom he would hate?

There is, then, no election before there is something to be chosen. For if Jacob was made good so as to please, whence did he please, before he was made, so that he might be made good? It is not, therefore, that he was chosen so as to be made good, but, having been made good, he could be chosen.

2.5. Or is it according to election for this reason, that God, foreknowing all things, also saw the future faith in Jacob not yet born, so that, although no one earns to be justified from his own works—seeing that no one can do good works unless justified—yet, because God justifies the nations from faith (See Gal 3:8) and no one believes except by free will, God, foreseeing this very future will of faith, chose by his foreknowledge, even one not yet born, whom he would justify?

If, therefore, the election is through foreknowledge, and God foreknew the faith of Jacob, whence do you prove that he did not also choose him from works?

If on this ground, that they were not yet born and had not yet done anything good or evil, then likewise neither of them had yet believed.

But foreknowledge saw that he would believe. In the same way foreknowledge could see that he would work, so that, just as he is said to be chosen on account of future faith which God foreknew, so another might say that he was chosen rather on account of future works, which God none the less foreknew.

Therefore, how does the Apostle show that it was not from works that it was said, the elder will serve the younger? If because they were not yet born, then it was said not only not from works, but also not from faith, since both were lacking to those not yet born.

He did not, therefore, wish the election of the younger, that the elder should serve him, to be understood as made from foreknowledge;

for, wishing to show that it was not made from works, he therefore added, saying, for though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or evil (Rom 9:11); otherwise it could be said to him, "but God already knew who would do what."

For this reason it is asked whence that election was made. For if not from works, which did not exist in those not yet born, nor from faith, since that too did not exist, whence then?

2.6. Or is it to be said that there was no election, since no diversity existed in the mother's womb, whether of faith or of works or of any merits at all?

But it was said, so that the purpose of God according to election might stand (Rom 9:11); and therefore we ask, since it was said.

Unless perhaps the statement is to be punctuated thus: not that we understand it as if for this reason it was said not from works but from him who calls, the elder will serve the younger, so that the purpose of God according to election might stand, but rather so that the example concerning those not yet born and not yet having done anything is taken to this end, that no election can here be understood.

For though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or evil, so that the purpose of God according to election might stand (Rom 9:11-12)—that is, they had done nothing good or evil, such that on account of that very action some election should be made of the one who had done well;

since, then, there was no election of one doing well according to which the purpose of God might stand,

not from works but from him who calls—that is, from him who, by calling to faith, justifies the ungodly through grace—it was said to her: that the elder will serve the younger.

It is not, therefore, that the purpose of God stands according to election, but that election is from the purpose; that is, it is not because God finds good works in men which he may choose that the purpose of his justification stands,

but because that purpose stands, that he may justify believers, that he then finds works which he now chooses for the kingdom of heaven.

For unless there were an election, there would be no elect, nor would it rightly be said, Who will bring a charge against God's elect? (Rom 8:33) Yet election does not precede justification, but justification precedes election. For no one is chosen unless he is already distinct from the one who is rejected.

Hence what was said, that God chose us before the foundation of the world (Eph 1:4), I do not see how it was said except by foreknowledge.

But here, when he says, not from works but from him who calls it was said to her that the elder will serve the younger, he wished it to be understood not from an election of merits, which come about after the justification of grace, but from the bounty of God's gifts, lest anyone be exalted because of works. For by the grace of God we have been saved; and this not from ourselves, but it is the gift of God; not from works, lest anyone be exalted (Eph 2:8-9).

2.7. But it is asked whether faith at least earns a man's justification, or whether even the merits of faith do not precede the mercy of God, but faith itself too is numbered among the gifts of grace,

because here too, when he had said, not from works, he did not say, "but from faith it was said to her that the elder will serve the younger," but rather, but from him who calls.

For no one believes who is not called. But the merciful God calls, bestowing this on no merits even of faith, since the merits of faith follow the calling rather than precede it. For how are they to believe in him whom they have not heard? And how are they to hear without a preacher? (Rom 10:14)

Unless, therefore, the mercy of God goes before by calling, no one can even believe, so as to begin from this to be justified and to receive the capacity for doing good works.

Therefore grace is before every merit; for indeed Christ died for the ungodly (Rom 5:6). From him who calls, then, the younger received, not from any merits of his own works, that the elder should serve him, so that even what is written, Jacob I loved, is from God who calls, not from Jacob who works.

2.8. What, then, of Esau? That he serves the younger, and what is written, but Esau I hated (Rom 9:13)—by what evils of his own did he deserve this, since he too was not yet born and had done nothing good or evil when it was said, and the elder will serve the younger?

Or is it perhaps that, just as that concerning Jacob was said by no merits of good action, so Esau is hateful by no merits of evil action? For if it is because God foreknew his future evil works that he therefore predestined him to serve the younger, then he likewise predestined Jacob, that the elder should serve him, because he foreknew his future good works—and then what he says is already false: not from works.

But if it is true that it is not from works, and he proves this from the fact that it was said of those not yet born and not yet having done anything—whence too not from faith, which likewise did not yet exist in those not yet born—by what merit is Esau hated before he is born?

That God made the things he would love is no question. But if we should say that he made the things he would hate, it is absurd, since another Scripture meets us and says, For you have appointed nothing while hating it, nor have you hated any of the things you have made (Wis 11:24). For by what merit was the sun made the sun? Or how did the moon give offense, that it should be so far inferior to it? Or what did it earn, that it should be created so much brighter than the other stars? But all these were created good, each in its own kind.

For God would not say, "the sun I loved, but the moon I hated," or, "the moon I loved, but the stars I hated," as he said, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated. But he loved all those things, though arranged in diverse degrees of excellence, since God saw that they are good, when they were established by his word (See Gen 1).

But that he should hate Esau except by the merit of injustice is unjust. And if we grant this, then Jacob too begins to be loved by the merit of justice.

And if that is true, then it is false that it is not from works. Or is it perhaps from the righteousness of faith? What, then, does it help you to say, for though they were not yet born, seeing that in one not yet born not even the righteousness of faith could exist?

2.9. And so the Apostle saw what might come to the mind of the hearer or reader from these words, and at once added, What then shall we say? Is there injustice with God? By no means! and, as if teaching how it is far from him, For he says to Moses, he says, I will have mercy on whom I have had mercy, and I will show compassion to whom I have been compassionate (Rom 9:14-15),

by which words he resolved the question—or rather bound it more tightly. For this is the very thing that most disturbs: if he has mercy on whom he will have had mercy, and shows compassion to whom he will have been compassionate, why was this mercy lacking to Esau, so that he too might be good through it, just as Jacob was made good through it?

Or was it said, I will have mercy on whom I have had mercy, and I will show compassion to whom I have been compassionate, because the one on whom God will have had mercy so as to call him, on him he will have mercy so that he believes, and to the one to whom he will have been compassionate so that he believes, he will show compassion, that is, he will make him compassionate, so that he too may do good works?

Hence we are admonished that no one ought to boast and be exalted even over the very works of mercy, as though he had earned God by them as his own, seeing that, in order that he might have mercy itself, it was bestowed by him who will show compassion to whom he will have been compassionate.

But if anyone boasts that he earned it by believing, let him know that he who has mercy by inspiring faith bestowed on him that he should believe—he who had mercy on him so as to grant a calling to one still an unbeliever. For now the believer is distinguished from the ungodly. For what have you, he says, that you did not receive? But if you also received it, why do you boast as if it were not a gift? (1 Cor 4:7)

2.10. This is indeed rightly said. But why was this mercy withdrawn from Esau, so that he was not called in such a way that, being called, faith might be inspired in him, and, believing, he might become compassionate, so as to do good works?

Or was it perhaps because he did not will it? If, then, Jacob believed because he willed it, God did not give him faith, but he bestowed it on himself by willing, and had something that he did not receive. Or is it because no one can believe unless he wills, and no one can will unless he is called, and no one can bestow on himself that he be called, that God, by calling, bestows faith as well, since without a calling no one can believe—although no one believes against his will?

For how are they to believe in him whom they have not heard? Or how are they to hear without a preacher? (Rom 10:14) And so no one believes who is not called, but not everyone who is called believes; for many are called, but few are chosen (Matt 22:14), namely those who did not despise him who called but followed him by believing.

But willing it, without doubt, they believed. What, then, is it that follows: So it depends not on the one who wills nor on the one who runs, but on God who has mercy (Rom 9:16)?

Or is it because we cannot even will unless we are called, and our willing avails nothing unless God helps so that we may carry it through? There is need, then, to will and to run; for it would not be said in vain, on earth peace to men of good will (Luke 2:14), and, so run that you may obtain (1 Cor 9:24).

Yet it depends not on the one who wills nor on the one who runs, but on God who has mercy, so that we obtain what we will and reach where we will. Esau, then, did not will and did not run. But even if he had willed and run, he would have reached it by the help of God, who by calling would bestow on him even the willing and the running, had he not become reprobate by despising the calling.

For in one way God bestows that we will, in another way he bestows what we shall have willed. For he willed that the willing be both his and ours: his by calling, ours by following. But what we shall have willed he alone bestows, that is, the power to act well and to live blessed forever.

Nevertheless, Esau, not yet born, could will or refuse none of these. Why, then, was he, set in the womb, disapproved? For we return to those difficulties, made the more troublesome not only by their own obscurity but also by our so frequent repetition.

2.11. For why was Esau disapproved, not yet born, who could neither believe in him who called, nor despise the calling, nor do anything good or evil? If by God's foreknowledge of his future evil will, why was Jacob not also approved by God's foreknowledge of his future good will?

But if you once grant that anyone could be either approved or disapproved on the ground of what was not yet in him but which God foreknew would be, it follows that he could also be approved from works, which God foreknew would be in him,

although he had not yet done anything; and it will help you nothing at all that they were not yet born when it was said, the elder will serve the younger, to show from this that it was said not from works, since he had not yet done anything.

2.12. Those words too, if you attend to them carefully—So it depends not on the one who wills nor on the one who runs, but on God who has mercy (Rom 9:16)—will not seem to have been said by the Apostle only because we reach what we will by the help of God, but also with that intention with which he says in another place, Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who works in you both to will and to work, for the sake of good will (Phil 2:12-13),

where he shows sufficiently that the good will itself comes to be in us by the working of God. For if it was said, it depends not on the one who wills, but on God who has mercy, only because the will of man alone does not suffice for us to live rightly and justly unless we are helped by the mercy of God, then it could also be said in this way: "So it depends not on the merciful God but on the willing man, because the mercy of God alone does not suffice unless the consent of our will is added."

But this is manifest, that we will in vain unless God has mercy. Yet I do not know how it could be said that God has mercy in vain unless we will. For if God has mercy, we also will; for it belongs to the same mercy that we will. For it is God who works in us both to will and to work, for the sake of good will. For if we ask whether a good will is the gift of God, it would be strange if anyone should dare to deny it. But because a good will does not precede the calling, but the calling precedes the good will, therefore it is rightly attributed to God who calls that we will well, while it cannot be attributed to us that we are called. It is not, therefore, to be thought that it was said, it depends not on the one who wills nor on the one who runs, but on God who has mercy, because we cannot obtain what we will except by his help, but rather because we do not will except by his calling.

2.13. But if this calling is the producer of the good will in such a way that everyone called follows it, how will it be true, many are called, but few are chosen (Matt 20:16; 22:14)?

But if this is true, and the one called does not obey the calling as a consequence, and it is placed in his own will not to obey, then it can rightly be said too: so it depends not on the merciful God but on the willing and running man, since the mercy of the one calling does not suffice unless the obedience of the one called follows.

Or is it perhaps that those who, called in this way, do not consent, could, called in another way, adapt their will to faith, so that this too is true, many are called, but few are chosen—so that, although many are called in one way, yet, because not all are disposed in one way, only those follow the calling who are found suited to receiving it—and that this is no less true, So it depends not on the one who wills nor on the one who runs, but on God who has mercy, who called in the way that was fitting for those who followed the calling?

But to others the calling indeed reached, but because it was of such a kind that they could not be moved by it nor were suited to receive it, they could indeed be called but not chosen; and now it is not similarly true, "so it depends not on the merciful God but on the willing and running man," since the effect of God's mercy cannot be in man's power, so that God should have mercy in vain if the man should refuse;

for if he willed to have mercy on them too, he could call in such a way as was fitting for them, so that they would be moved and would understand and would follow.

It is true, then, many are called, but few are chosen. For those are chosen who were fittingly called, but those who did not fit nor were attuned to the calling were not chosen, because they did not follow, although called.

Likewise it is true, it depends not on the one who wills nor on the one who runs, but on God who has mercy, because, even if he calls many, he yet has mercy on those whom he calls in such a way as is fitting for them to be called so that they may follow.

But it is false if anyone says, "so it depends not on the merciful God but on the willing and running man," because God has mercy on no one in vain. But on whomever he has mercy, he calls in the way that he knows to be fitting for him, so that he may not reject the one who calls.

2.14. Here someone will say, "Why, then, was Esau not called in such a way that he would be willing to obey?" For we see that different people are moved to belief in different ways by the same things shown or signified—as, for example, Simeon believed in our Lord Jesus Christ while he was still a little infant, recognizing him by the revelation of the Spirit (See Luke 2:25).

Nathanael, at one saying which he heard from him, Before Philip called you, when you were under the fig tree, I saw you, replied, Rabbi, you are the Son of God, you are the king of Israel (John 1:48-49).

Because Peter confessed this so long afterward, he deserved to hear that he is blessed and that the keys of the kingdom of heaven would be given to him (See Matt 16:16-19). When a miracle had been worked at Cana of Galilee, which the Evangelist John records as the beginning of the signs, the water having been changed into wine, his disciples believed in him (See John 2:11).

By speaking he invited many to faith; many did not believe even when the dead were raised. Terrified by his cross and death, even the disciples wavered, and yet the thief then believed, when he saw him not more eminent in works but equal in the fellowship of the Cross (See Luke 23:40-42). One of the number of the disciples, after his resurrection, believed not so much in the living members as in the fresh scars (See John 20:27); many of the number of those by whom he was crucified, who, seeing him work miracles, had despised him, believed when the disciples preached him and worked such things in his name (See Acts 2-4).

Since, then, one is moved to faith in this way and another in that, and the same thing said often in one way moves and said in another way does not move, and moves one and does not move another, who would dare to say that God lacked a way of calling by which even Esau might apply his mind to that faith and join his will to it, in which Jacob was justified?

But if the obstinacy of the will can also be so great that the mind's perversion hardens against all ways of calling, it is asked whether that very hardness is from divine punishment, when God abandons him by not calling in such a way that he can be moved to faith. For who could say that the way by which he might be persuaded to believe was lacking even to the Almighty?

2.15. But why do we ask this, when the Apostle himself adds, For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, For this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth (Rom 9:17)? The Apostle added this proof to demonstrate what he had said above, So it depends not on the one who wills nor on the one who runs, but on God who has mercy (Rom 9:16).

For as if it were said, "How do you teach this?"—For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, he says, For this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth,

showing surely from this that it depends not on the one who wills nor on the one who runs, but on God who has mercy, and he concludes thus: So he has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills (Rom 9:18), although above there is not both. For just as it was said, it depends not on the one who wills nor on the one who runs, but on God who has mercy, it was not likewise said, "it depends not on the one who refuses nor on the one who despises, but on God who hardens."

From this it is given to understand that, since below he set down both, So he has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills, it can so accord with the earlier statement that the hardening by God is to refuse to have mercy,

so that nothing is inflicted by him whereby a man becomes worse, but only that whereby he would become better is not bestowed.

But if this happens with no distinction of merits, who would not burst out into that cry which the Apostle himself put to himself: You will say to me then, Why does he still find fault? For who resists his will? (Rom 9:19)

For God often finds fault with men, as appears through countless places of the Scriptures, because they refuse to believe and to live rightly.

Hence the faithful and those who do the will of God are said to walk without blame (See Luke 1:6), because Scripture does not find fault with them. But why does he find fault, he says, for who resists his will, when he has mercy on whom he wills, and he hardens whom he wills?

And yet let us look at what precedes, and from there direct our judgment, so far as the Lord himself helps.

2.16. For he says a little before, What then shall we say? Is there injustice with God? By no means! (Rom 9:14) Let this, then, be fixed and immovable in a mind sober in devotion and stable in faith: that there is no injustice with God. And so let this very thing be most tenaciously and most firmly believed, that God's having mercy on whom he wills, and hardening whom he wills—that is, having mercy on whom he wills and not having mercy on whom he does not will—belongs to a certain hidden fairness, unsearchable by the human measure, which is to be discerned in human affairs and earthly transactions themselves;

for unless we held in these certain imprinted traces of the heavenly justice, the intent of our weakness would never look up and yearn toward the very chamber and most holy and most chaste inner sanctuary of the spiritual precepts. Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied (Matt 5:6). In this dryness, then, of our life and mortal condition, unless there were sprinkled from above, as it were, a most subtle breath of justice, we would dry up sooner than thirst.

Wherefore, since the society of men is bound together by giving and receiving among themselves, and things are given and received that are either owed or not owed, who does not see that no one can be charged with injustice who has exacted what is owed to him, nor surely the one who has wished to forgive what is owed to him, and that this is not in the discretion of those who are debtors, but in the discretion of the one to whom it is owed?

This image, or, as I said above, this trace, is imprinted on the affairs of men from the highest summit of fairness.

All men, then—seeing that, as the Apostle says, in Adam all die (1 Cor 15:22), from whom the origin of offense against God is drawn into the whole human race—are a certain single mass of sin, owing punishment to the divine and supreme justice; and whether it is exacted or forgiven, there is no injustice.

But from whom it is to be exacted and to whom it is to be forgiven, the debtors judge proudly, just as those hired to that vineyard were unjustly indignant when as much was given to others as was rendered to them (See Matt 20:11).

And so the Apostle thus beats back the impudence of this question: O man, who are you to answer back to God? (Rom 9:20) For one answers back to God in this way when he is displeased that God finds fault with sinners, as though God compelled anyone to sin, whereas he himself compels no one to sin, but only does not bestow on certain sinners the mercy of his justification, and on this account is said to harden certain sinners, because he does not have mercy on them, not because he drives them to sin.

But he does not have mercy on those to whom, by a fairness most hidden and most remote from human senses, he judges that mercy is not to be shown; for his judgments are inscrutable and his ways unsearchable (See Rom 11:33). But he justly finds fault with sinners, as with those whom he himself does not compel to sin. And at the same time, so that those on whom he has mercy may have this calling too, that, while God finds fault with sinners, they may be pricked in heart and turned toward his grace. He finds fault, therefore, both justly and mercifully.

2.17. But if this disturbs you, that no one resists his will, since he aids whom he wills and abandons whom he wills, although both the one he aids and the one he abandons are from the same mass of sinners, and, although both owe punishment, yet it is exacted from the one and forgiven the other—if this, then, disturbs you:

O man, who are you to answer back to God? (Rom 9:20) For I think that the word man is here set down with the same meaning under which that too is said, Are you not men, and walking according to man? (1 Cor 3:3) For there the carnal and natural are marked by this name, to whom it is said, I could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to carnal, and that, for you were not yet able, nor are you even now able; for you are still carnal (1 Cor 3:1-3), and that, but the natural man does not perceive the things that are of the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:14).

To these, then, it is said, O man, who are you to answer back to God? Does the thing molded say to him who molded it, Why have you made me thus? Or does the potter not have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (Rom 9:20-21)

By this very thing he perhaps shows sufficiently that he is speaking to a carnal man, since this is what the very mud signifies, from which the first man was formed. And because all, as I have already recalled, according to the same Apostle, die in Adam, he says that there is one lump of all. And although one vessel is made for honor and another for dishonor, yet even that which is made for honor must needs begin to be carnal and from there rise to a spiritual age—seeing that they had already been made for honor and had already been born in Christ.

But nevertheless, since he is still addressing babes, he calls even them carnal, saying, I could not speak to you as to spiritual men, but as to carnal. As to babes in Christ, I gave you milk to drink, not solid food. For you were not yet able, nor indeed are you even now able; for you are still carnal (1 Cor 3:1-2).

Although, then, he says that they are carnal, yet they were already born in Christ and babes in him and to be given milk to drink.

And what he adds, nor indeed are you even now able, shows that, as they make progress, it will come about that they are able, because in them, spiritually reborn, grace had already been begun.

Therefore they were already vessels made for honor, to whom nevertheless it could still rightly be said, O man, who are you to answer back to God? And if it is rightly said to such, much more rightly is it said to those who are either not yet so regenerated or even made for dishonor.

Let this only be held with unshaken faith, that there is no injustice with God, who, whether he forgives or exacts a debt, neither can the one from whom he exacts it rightly complain of his injustice, nor ought the one to whom he forgives it boast of his own merits. For the former renders only what is owed, and the latter has only what he received.

2.18. But we must strive in this place, if the Lord help, to see how both is true: what is written, You have hated none of the things you have made (Wis 11:24), and that, Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated (Mal 1:2-3).

For if he hated Esau because he was a vessel made for dishonor, and the same potter made one vessel for honor and another for dishonor, how is it that you have hated none of the things you have made? For behold, he hates Esau, whom he himself made a vessel for dishonor. This knot is loosed if we understand that God is the craftsman of all creatures.

But every creature of God is good (See 1 Tim 4:4), and every man, insofar as he is a man, is a creature, not insofar as he is a sinner. God, then, is the Creator both of the human body and of the human mind. Neither of these is evil, and neither does God hate; for he hates none of the things he has made. But the mind is more excellent than the body, and God is the maker and founder of both mind and body, and he hates nothing in man except sin.

But the sin of man is disorder and perversity, that is, a turning away from the more excellent Creator and a turning toward the inferior things he created.

God, therefore, does not hate Esau the man, but God hates Esau the sinner, as it is said of the Lord, He came to his own, and his own did not receive him (John 1:11), to whom likewise he says, You do not hear, for this reason, because you are not of God (John 8:47).

How are they his own, how are they not of God, except that the former was said of the men whom the Lord himself had made, the latter of the sinners whom the Lord himself reproved? Yet the same persons are both men and sinners—but men by God's making, sinners by their own will.

As for the fact that he loved Jacob, was he not a sinner? But he loved in him not the fault that he was blotting out, but the grace that he was bestowing.

For Christ too died for the ungodly (See Rom 5:6), yet not that they might remain ungodly, but that, justified, they might be changed from ungodliness, believing in him who justifies the ungodly (See Rom 4:5).

For God hates ungodliness. And so in some he punishes it by damnation, in others he removes it by justification, as he himself judges it right to be done by those inscrutable judgments.

And as for the fact that from the number of the ungodly whom he does not justify he makes vessels for dishonor, he does not hate in them what he makes; for indeed, insofar as they are ungodly, they are detestable, but insofar as they are made vessels, they are made for some use, so that through their ordered punishments the vessels that are made for honor may profit.

And so God does not hate them, neither insofar as they are men nor insofar as they are vessels—that is, neither what he does in them by creating, nor what he does in them by ordering. For he hates none of the things he has made.

But nevertheless, that he may make them vessels of perdition for the use of correcting others, he hates in them the ungodliness which he himself did not make. For just as a judge hates theft in a man, but does not hate his being sent to the mine—for the one the thief does, the other the judge does—so God, in that from the lump of the ungodly he makes vessels of perdition, does not hate what he makes, that is, the work of his ordering in those perishing by a deserved punishment, in which those on whom he has mercy find an occasion of salvation.

So it was said to Pharaoh, For this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show my power in you, and that my name may be proclaimed in all the earth (Rom 9:17).

This demonstration of God's power and the proclamation of his name in all the earth profits those, that they may fear and correct their ways, for whom such a calling is fitting.

So consequently he says, But if God, willing to show his wrath and to make known his power, bore with much patience the vessels of wrath which were made complete for perdition (Rom 9:22),

there is understood, who are you to answer back to God? (Rom 9:20), so that, the sentence recurring to the earlier words, this is the sense: "if God, willing to show his wrath, bore with the vessels of wrath, who are you to answer back to God?"

But not only willing to show his wrath and to make known his power did he bear with much patience the vessels of wrath which were made complete for perdition, but also, as follows, that he might make known the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy (Rom 9:22-23).

For what does it profit the vessels made complete for perdition that God bears with them patiently, so as to destroy them in due order and use them as an instrument for the salvation of others on whom he has mercy?

But it surely profits those for whose salvation he so uses these, that, as it is written, the righteous man washes his hands in the blood of the sinner (See Ps 58:10 (57)), that is, that he is cleansed from evil works through the fear of God, when he sees the punishments of sinners.

So the fact that, willing to show his wrath, he bore with the vessels of wrath, avails to bestow a useful fear on others, and that he might make known the riches of his glory upon the vessels of mercy, which he prepared for glory (Rom 9:22-23).

For that hardening of the ungodly demonstrates both: both what is to be feared, so that each may be turned to God by devotion, and how great thanks are to be given for the mercy of God, who in the punishment of some shows what he bestows on others.

But if that punishment which he exacts from some is not just, he bestows nothing on the others from whom he does not exact it. But because it is just, and there is no injustice with the avenging God, who could suffice to give thanks to him who remits this—which, if he willed to exact it, no one could rightly say he did not owe?

2.19. Whom he also called, namely us, he says, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles (Rom 9:24)—that is, the vessels of mercy which he prepared for glory; for not all the Jews, but some from the Jews, and not absolutely all men of the Gentiles, but some from the Gentiles.

For there is from Adam one mass of sinners and of the ungodly, in which both Jews and Gentiles, the grace of God set aside, belong to one lump. For if the potter, from the same lump of clay, makes one vessel for honor and another for dishonor, and it is manifest that from the Jews there are some vessels for honor and others for dishonor, as also from the Gentiles, it follows that all are to be understood as belonging to one lump.

Then he begins to render the attestations of prophecy to each kind in reversed order. For he had first said from the Jews, afterward from the Gentiles; but he first renders the testimony for the Gentiles, then for the Jews.

For indeed, as Hosea says, I will call those who are not my people my people, and her who is not beloved beloved; and it shall be that in the place where it was said to them, You are not my people, there they shall be called sons of the living God (Rom 9:25-26),

is understood as said of the Gentiles, because they did not have one appointed place of sacrifices as the Jews did in Jerusalem.

But the apostles were sent to the Gentiles, that each might believe in his own place and, wherever they had believed, there offer the sacrifice of praise, to whom he gave the power to become sons of God (See John 1:12).

But Isaiah, he says, cries out concerning Israel. Lest again all the Israelites be believed to have gone into perdition, he teaches that from them too were made some vessels for honor and others for dishonor. If, he says, the number of the sons of Israel were as the sand of the sea, a remnant will be saved.

The rest of the crowd, then, are vessels made complete for perdition. For the Lord, he says, will execute his word upon the earth, completing and cutting it short (Rom 9:27-28)—that is, that by the brevity of faith through grace he may save believers, not through countless observances by which that multitude was servilely burdened and oppressed.

For through grace he made for us a word completing and cutting short upon the earth, saying, My yoke is easy, and my burden is light (Matt 11:30). This is what is also said here a little later: The word is near you, on your lips and in your heart, that is, the word of faith which we preach. For if you confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved; for one believes with the heart unto righteousness, and confession is made with the lips unto salvation (Rom 10:8-10).

This is the word completing and cutting short which the Lord made upon the earth. By this completing and brevity the thief was justified, who, with all his members fixed on the cross and having these two free, believed with the heart unto righteousness, confessed with the lips unto salvation, and at once deserved to hear, Today you will be with me in paradise (Luke 23:43).

For good works would have followed in him, had he, after receiving grace, lived long among men; but they had not preceded, so that he might earn that same grace—fixed on the cross from his brigandage, transferred from the cross into paradise.

And as Isaiah foretold, he says, If the Lord of hosts had not left us seed, we would have become like Sodom, and we would have been made like Gomorrah (Rom 9:29). What he here says, had left us seed, is there, a remnant will be saved. But the rest, as vessels of perdition, perished by a deserved punishment;

and that they did not all perish as in Sodom and Gomorrah was effected not by their merit but by the grace of God leaving seed, from which another harvest might rise up over the whole world. This too he says a little later: So then, at this present time also, a remnant has come to be by the election of grace. But if by grace, then it is no longer from works; otherwise grace is no longer grace. What then? What Israel was seeking, this it did not obtain; but the election obtained it, while the rest were blinded (Rom 11:5-7). The vessels of mercy obtained it, the vessels of wrath were blinded—yet from the same lump, as in the fullness of the Gentiles.

2.20. There is a certain place of Scripture most necessary to the matter we are now treating, confirming by a wonderful witness the very things that have been discussed—in that book which by some is called Jesus Sirach, by others Ecclesiasticus, in which it is thus written:

And all men are from the ground, and Adam was created from the earth. In the fullness of his knowledge the Lord separated them and made their ways diverse. Some of them he blessed and exalted, and some of them he sanctified and brought near to himself; some of them he cursed and brought low and turned them out of their place. As the potter's clay is in his hand, to mold it and dispose it—all his ways are according to his disposition—so is man in the hand of him who made him, and he will render to him according to his judgment. Good is the opposite of evil, and life is the opposite of death; so the sinner is the opposite of the righteous man. And so look upon all the works of the Most High: they go in pairs, one the opposite of the other (Sir 33:10-15).

First here the knowledge of God is commended. In the fullness, he says, of his knowledge the Lord separated them—from what, except from the blessedness of paradise? And made their ways diverse, so that they now lived as mortals. Then was made one mass of all, coming from the propagation of sin and from the penalty of mortality, although with God forming and creating the things that are good.

For in all there is form and the framing of the body in so great a concord of members that from it the Apostle drew a likeness for obtaining love (See 1 Cor 12:12ff); in all there is also the vital spirit giving life to the earthly members; and the whole nature of man is tempered by a wonderful condition through the rule of the soul and the service of the body. But carnal desire, now reigning from the penalty of sin, had thrown the whole human race into confusion, as one whole lump, with the original guilt abiding in all. And yet there follows: some of them he blessed and exalted, and some of them he sanctified and brought near to himself; some of them he cursed and brought low and turned them out of their place (Sir 33:12),

as if the Apostle were saying, Does the potter not have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor? (Rom 9:21) And therefore what is woven in next is not without the same likeness: As the potter's clay, he says, is in his hand, to mold it and dispose it—all his ways are according to his disposition—so is man in the hand of him who made him (Sir 33:13).

But since the Apostle says, Is there injustice with God? (Rom 9:14), see here too what he adds: he will render to him, he says, according to his judgment (Sir 33:14).

But although just punishments are dealt to the damned, yet because this very thing is turned to a use whereby those profit to whom mercy is shown, attend to the rest: Good, he says, is the opposite of evil, and life is the opposite of death; so the sinner is the opposite of the righteous man. And so look upon all the works of the Most High: they go in pairs, one the opposite of the other (Sir 33:15),

so that, of course, by comparison with the worse, the better things stand out and profit. Yet since these are better through grace, as though he had said, a remnant will be saved (Rom 9:27),

there follows, and he says in the person of the remnant, And I awoke last of all, like one who gleans after the grape-gatherers (Sir 33:16). And whence does he prove that it is not from his own merits but from the mercy of God?

In the blessing of the Lord, he says, I too hoped, and like one who gathers grapes I filled the winepress (Sir 33:17).

For although he awoke last, yet because, as has been said, the last will be first (Matt 20:16), hoping in the blessing of the Lord, the people gleaned from the remnant of Israel filled the winepress from the abundance of the vintage that comes forth over the whole world.

2.21. There is held, then, no intention of the Apostle and of all the justified, through whom the understanding of grace has been shown to us, except that he who boasts may boast in the Lord (2 Cor 10:17).

For who will examine the works of the Lord, who from the same lump damns one and justifies another? Free choice of the will avails very much—nay rather, it indeed exists, but in those sold under sin (See Rom 7:14), what does it avail?

The flesh, he says, desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, so that you do not do the things you will (Gal 5:17). We are commanded to live rightly, with this reward of course set before us, that we may deserve to live blessed forever.

But who can live rightly and do good works unless justified by faith? We are commanded to believe, so that, having received the gift of the Holy Spirit, we may be able through love to do good works.

But who can believe unless he is touched by some calling, that is, by some testimony of things? Who has it in his power that his mind be touched by such a sight that his will is moved to faith?

But who embraces in mind anything that does not delight him? Or who has it in his power that something which can delight him should occur, or that it should delight him when it has occurred?

When, then, those things delight us by which we make progress toward God, this is inspired and bestowed by the grace of God; it is not procured by our own nod and effort or by the merits of works, because that there be the nod of the will, that there be the effort of zeal, that there be works fervent with love—he grants it, he bestows it.

We are commanded to ask, that we may receive, and to seek, that we may find, and to knock, that it may be opened to us (See Matt 7:7). Is not our very prayer sometimes so lukewarm, or rather cold, and almost nothing—nay, sometimes altogether so nothing—that we do not even notice this in ourselves with sorrow?

For if we even grieve over this, we are already praying. What else, then, is shown to us, except that he both grants us to ask and to seek and to knock who commands us to do these things? So it depends not on the one who wills nor on the one who runs, but on God who has mercy (Rom 9:16), seeing that we can neither will nor run unless he moves and rouses us.

2.22. But if some election takes place here, so that we understand what was said, a remnant has come to be by the election of grace (Rom 11:5), not so that there is an election of the justified to eternal life, but so that those are chosen who are to be justified, surely this election is so hidden that it cannot at all appear to us within that same lump.

Or if it appears to some, I confess my weakness in this matter. For I have nothing to consider in choosing men for saving grace, if I am permitted by any reasoning to examine this election, except either greater ability, or fewer sins, or both.

Let us add too, if you please, honorable and useful learning. Whoever, then, is entangled and stained by the fewest sins—for who can be entangled by none?—and is keen in ability and polished in the liberal arts, seems to be the one to be chosen for grace.

But when I have decided this, he will so laugh at me who chose the weak things of the world to confound the strong, and the foolish things of the world to confound the wise (See 1 Cor 1:27), that, looking to him and corrected by shame, I shall laugh at myself for having preferred certain more chaste persons to certain sinners, and certain orators to certain fishermen.

Do we not notice that many of our faithful, walking the way of God, are in no respect to be compared in ability—I will not say with certain heretics, but even with certain actors?

Likewise, do we not see certain people of both sexes living in conjugal chastity without blame, and yet either heretics or pagans, or even, in the true faith and the true Church, so lukewarm that we marvel they are surpassed by harlots and stage-players who have suddenly been converted—not only in patience and temperance, but even in faith, hope, and charity?

It remains, then, that wills are chosen. But the will itself, unless something occurs which delights and invites the mind, can in no way be moved. But that this should occur is not in man's power. What did Saul will except to assail, drag off, bind, and kill Christians?

How raging that will, how furious, how blind! Yet, laid low by one voice from above—a sight of such a kind occurring, of course, by which that mind and will, its savagery broken, might be wrenched back and corrected toward faith—he was suddenly made, from a wonderful persecutor of the Gospel, a still more wonderful preacher of it (See Acts 8:3; 9:1).

And yet: What shall we say? Is there injustice with God, who exacts from whom he pleases and forgives whom he pleases, who in no way exacts what is not owed, in no way forgives what is another's? Is there injustice with God? By no means! (Rom 9:14)

Why, then, to this one thus, and to that one not thus? O man, who are you? (Rom 9:20) If you do not render the debt, you have reason to give thanks; if you render it, you have no reason to complain.

Let us only believe, even if we are not able to grasp it, that he who made and founded the whole creation, both spiritual and corporeal, disposes all things in number and weight and measure (See Wis 11:20). But his judgments are inscrutable and his ways unsearchable (See Rom 11:33). Let us say, Alleluia, and join in praising the song, and not say, "Why this, or why that?" For all things were created in their own time (See Sir 39:16-33).

I think I have now answered the proposed questions about the Apostle sufficiently. Now I shall approach in another volume the things you asked about the Books of Kingdoms, which, like many—indeed nearly all—of the Old Books, are more figurative and wrapped in the veils of mysteries.

But although, by the fact that we have crossed over to Christ, the veil is taken away (See 2 Cor 3:16), yet now we see in a riddle, but then face to face. For a veil altogether blocks the sight, but a riddle, as through a mirror—as the same Apostle says, we see now through a mirror in a riddle (1 Cor 13:12)—neither uncovers the appearance most plainly nor altogether conceals the truth.

Let us approach these things too, then, with the Lord as our guide, lifted up rather by your prayers than weighed down by your commands—especially because from your letter I understood that you are not asking this, what these things signify in prophecy.

To obey you in this would in truth be most difficult for me, because the intention would have to be drawn from the whole connected text of those same books, and, even if the understanding were more ready, the magnitude of the work would nonetheless hinder; and if it is to be undertaken, it demands a more extended leisure and time. But now you have judged it worthy to know, and to have opened up in my writing, how I would understand the very particular features of the deeds that are signified by those words, the mention of which was made by you.

1.1. And first, indeed, what you commanded me to expound concerning the First Book of Kingdoms: how it was said, And the spirit of the Lord rushed upon Saul (1 Sam 10:10), whereas elsewhere it says, And an evil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul (1 Sam 16:14).

It is written thus: And it came to pass, when he turned his shoulder to go from Samuel, that God turned in Saul another heart, and all those signs came to pass that day. And he came from there to the hill, and behold, a band of prophets met him, and the spirit of God rushed upon him, and he prophesied in their midst (1 Sam 10:9-10).

For Samuel had foretold these things to him, when, having been commanded, he had anointed him. And this, indeed, I do not think presents any question. For the Spirit breathes where he wills (John 3:8), and the contact of no souls can stain the spirit of prophecy; for it reaches everywhere because of its purity (See Wis 7:24).

But it does not affect all in the same way; rather, some by the informing of the spirit of those same men, where images of things are shown; others by the fruit of the mind unto understanding; others by both inspirations; and others even without their knowing.

But by the informing of the spirit in two ways: either through dreams, as not only most of the saints but also Pharaoh and King Nebuchadnezzar saw what none of them was able to understand, yet which each had been able to see (See Gen 41; Dan 2-4);

or through a showing in an ecstasy, which some Latin writers interpret as "dread"—strange if as a proper rendering, but close nonetheless—when there comes about an estrangement of the mind from the senses of the body, so that the spirit of man, taken up by the divine Spirit, is free for receiving and beholding images, as was shown to Daniel what he did not understand, and to Peter that vessel let down from heaven by four corners (See Acts 10:11); for he too afterward came to know what that showing signified.

But by the fruit of the mind unto understanding in one way: when it is revealed what these very things shown by images signify and to what they pertain—which is the more certain prophecy, for the Apostle rather calls this prophecy (See 1 Cor 13:2)—

as Joseph deserved to understand what Pharaoh only to see, and Daniel expounds to the king what the king beholds and does not know.

But when the mind is so affected that it does not understand images of things by a conjectural examination, but beholds the things themselves—as wisdom and justice and every immutable and divine form are understood—this does not pertain to the prophecy of which we are now speaking.

But those are endowed with both gifts of prophecy who both see the images of things in the spirit and at the same time understand what they signify, or are certainly informed by manifest words in the showing itself, as certain things are expounded in the Apocalypse.

But the spirit of prophecy affects those who do not know, as Caiaphas, when he was high priest, prophesied concerning the Lord that it was expedient for one to die for the whole nation (See John 11:49-50), while he had in view something else in the words he was speaking, which he did not know he was not speaking of himself.

Examples abound in the Holy Books, and I am speaking of things most well known to your prudence. For you do not learn these things from me, but you test me in them by questioning, both desiring to know one who is making progress and ready to correct one who is erring. But by this word that is set down, the spirit rushed upon him (1 Sam 10:10), a sudden inbreathing is signified, as from a hidden secret place of the Godhead.

By which of these ways, then, we are to understand that Saul was affected, sufficiently appears from what is written there: God turned in Saul another heart (1 Sam 10:9). For thus he signifies another disposition of heart, which God made by turning, so that he became capable of receiving the images that signify and prefigure, for prophetic divination.

1.2. But there is as great a distance between the prophecy of the prophets—such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and the rest of this kind were—and that transitory prophecy which appeared in Saul, as there is between human speech when men speak, and when, by the same speech, on account of a necessary portent, the donkey on which the prophet Balaam was sitting spoke (See Num 22:28).

For that beast received this for a time, so that God might show what he had appointed, not that as a perpetual habit a beast should speak among men.

Or if this example is set apart by too great a difference, it is much less to be wondered at that prophecy was given for a moment of time, as a transitory disposition, to a reprobate man, since he gave it who also made the donkey speak when he willed.

For a beast is more distant from a man than a reprobate man from the elect, who are nonetheless men. For if anyone says something that pertains to wisdom, he is not on that account at once to be thought wise.

So neither, if anyone has at some time prophesied, is he therefore to be numbered among the prophets, since the Lord too says in the Gospel that some receive the word with joy and do not have depth of root, but are temporary (See Matt 13:20-21). And therefore, as the following reading indicates, it became a proverb: Is Saul too among the prophets? (1 Sam 10:12) Let us therefore cease to marvel when something divine appears in men, exceeding either their merit or their habitual state, when perhaps God wills, for the sake of some signification, that some such thing be shown.

1.3. But if this disturbs you, that afterward Saul, who had first received the spirit of prophecy, was choked by an evil spirit assailing him, neither is this to be wondered at.

For the former came about by a dispensation of signifying something, the latter by the desert of avenging. Nor ought these alternations in the human mind to disturb us, that is, in a changeable creature, especially at the time in which corruptible and mortal flesh is borne.

Do we not see in Peter himself, as far as the Gospel indicates, that there was so great a confession that he deserved to hear, Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven (Matt 16:17), and a little later that he thought so carnally about the Lord's passion that he at once heard, Get behind me, Satan; you are a scandal to me; for you do not savor the things of God, but the things of men? (Matt 16:23)

And perhaps, for those who understand somewhat more inwardly, this difference—by which Peter first understood, with God the Father revealing it, that Christ was the Son of God, and afterward was afraid lest he should die—matters as much, for those visions of the mind, as, for distinguishing the visions that come about imaginatively in the spirit of man with the mind estranged, the revelation of prophecy by which Saul was first inbreathed matters, and the admixture of the evil spirit by which he was afterward oppressed.

1.4. But now, as for the fact that it was even called an evil spirit of the Lord, this is understood in the way that it was said, The earth is the Lord's (Ps 24:1 (23)), namely as a creature placed in his power.

Or if this example of speech does not fit on the ground that the earth is not evil—for every creature of God is good (See 1 Tim 4:4)—let this fit: that Saul himself, now reprobate and wicked and ungrateful to holy David, and even his persecutor, when he was most savagely driven by the firebrands of envy, was nevertheless still called the anointed of the Lord, as David himself called him when he avenged his death (See 2 Sam 1:14-15).

But I rather think that the malign spirit by which Saul was vexed was called the spirit of the Lord because by the hidden judgment of the Lord it vexed Saul.

For God uses as ministers even evil spirits, for the punishment of the wicked or for the testing of the good, in one way for this matter, in another for that. For although anyone is a malign spirit because by an evil will he seeks to harm, yet he does not receive the power of harming except from him under whom all things are ordered by fixed and just degrees of deserving, since, just as an evil will is not from God, so there is no power except from God (See Rom 13:1).

For although it is in each one's power what he wills, it is nevertheless not in each one's power what he is able either to do to anyone or to suffer from anyone. For the only-begotten Son of God himself, when he was about to suffer for a time, said humbly to a man speaking proudly and saying that he had power to kill him or to release him, You would have no power over me unless it were given you from above (John 19:11).

The devil too, wishing to harm the righteous man Job, was indeed the devil in the will of harming, yet he asked power from the Lord God, saying, Put forth your hand and touch his flesh (Job 2:5), although this was what he himself would do if he were permitted.

For he was asking for that very permission in this way, and he called the hand of the Lord his own hand permitted by the Lord, that is, the very power that he wished to receive. With this accords that saying in the Gospel which the Lord said to the disciples: This night Satan has demanded to sift you like wheat (Luke 22:31).

It was called, then, an evil spirit of God, that is, a minister of God for doing in Saul what the most omnipotent judge judged him to suffer,

since that spirit, by the will in which it was evil, was not of God, but, as the creature in which it was made, and by the power which it had received not by its own but by the fairness of the Lord of all, it was of God.

The very words of the Scriptures, too, are thus: And Samuel went on, it says, and departed to Ramah; and the spirit of the Lord withdrew from Saul, and a malign spirit from the Lord seized him and choked him. And Saul's servants said to him, Behold, an evil spirit of the Lord chokes you (1 Sam 16:13-15).

In what way, then, this was said by his servants, an evil spirit of the Lord, the earlier words of the narrating Scripture indicate, where it says, a malign spirit from the Lord. For it is of the Lord according to this, that it is from the Lord, because of itself it had the will to harm, that is, to seize Saul, but it did not have the power unless it were permitted by the supreme justice. For if God justly takes vengeance, as the Apostle himself says, when he hands men over to the desires of their heart (See Rom 1:24), it is no wonder if, taking vengeance no less justly, he hands them over also to the desires of others who wish to harm—his own immutable fairness always being preserved.

1.5. It is certainly to be noted that an evil spirit of God is said with an addition. But when only the Spirit of God is said, even if "good" is not added, from this he is understood to be good. Hence it appears that a good spirit is called the spirit of God according to substance, but an evil one according to ministry.

Although it may still be asked whether, when the Spirit of God is said, and from this very thing, even if nothing be added, he is understood to be good, the one understood is he who in the Trinity is the Holy Spirit, consubstantial with the Father and the Son, of whom it is said, But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty (2 Cor 3:17),

and again, but to us God has revealed it through his Spirit (1 Cor 2:10), and that, so too no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God (1 Cor 2:11).

And in many places the Spirit of God is said in this way and is understood to be the Holy Spirit, even if it is not added, since the surrounding context sufficiently indicates of whom it is said—so that sometimes not even of God is added, and yet that Spirit of God, principally holy, is understood.

For what other does he mention where he says, The Spirit himself bears witness to our spirit that we are sons of God (Rom 8:16), and, the Spirit himself helps our weakness (Rom 8:26), and, all these things one and the same Spirit works, distributing to each individually as he wills (1 Cor 12:11), and, there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit (1 Cor 12:4)? For in all these statements neither "of God" nor "holy" is added, and yet he himself is understood.

But I do not know whether it can be proved by any manifest example that the spirit of God is anywhere said without an addition where that Holy Spirit is not signified, but some other spirit, good though it be, yet created and founded.

For the instances that are brought forward are doubtful and need clearer proof, such as that which is written, The Spirit of God was borne over the water (Gen 1:2). For there too I do not find what should prevent us from taking it as the Holy Spirit.

For since by the name of waters there was suggested that formless matter, made from nothing, from which all things were to come to be, what prevents us from understanding the Holy Spirit of the Creator,

who was borne over this matter not by gradations of places and intervals of spaces—which is by no means rightly said of anything incorporeal—but by the excellence and eminence of a will ruling over all things, that all might be founded,

especially since that manner of speaking, as is the custom of those Scriptures, also sounds something prophetic, and prefigures the mystery of the future baptism of a people to be born of water and the Holy Spirit?

What is said, then—and the Spirit of God was borne over the water—does not compel us to understand that spirit, as some wish, by which the whole bodily mass of this world is, as it were, animated for the service of all things that beget and of the bodily creatures to be contained in their own form. For whatever is such is a creature.

As for what is also written, For the Spirit of the Lord has filled the world (Wis 1:7), there are those who would have the same spirit understood—namely an invisible creature quickening and containing all visible things by a certain universal conspiration.

But neither here do I see what prevents us from understanding the Holy Spirit, since God himself says in the prophet, I fill heaven and earth (Jer 23:24). For God does not fill heaven and earth without his Holy Spirit. What wonder, then, if it was said of his Holy Spirit, he has filled the world (Wis 1:7)?

For he fills in one way by sanctifying, as it is said of Stephen, he was filled with the Holy Spirit (Acts 7:55), and of others of that kind; he fills, then, in one way by sanctifying grace, as he does certain saints, in another way by an attesting and ordering presence, as he does all things.

Wherefore I do not know whether by any certain proof of the Scriptures it can be shown that, when "the spirit of God" or "the spirit of the Lord" is said without any addition, anything else is signified than the Holy Spirit.

But even if there is perhaps some instance that does not occur to me at present, this at least I think may be said without rashness: as often as in the holy words the spirit of God is mentioned and nothing is added, whether the Holy Spirit consubstantial with the Father and the Son is understood, or some invisible creature, an evil one nevertheless cannot be understood unless "evil" is also added. For because God uses an evil spirit well for the ministry of his judgment, that spirit too is called the spirit of God, for the punishment of the wicked and the discipline or testing of the good.

1.6. Nor ought this any longer disturb us, that afterward it is written that the same Saul prophesied when the spirit of God came upon him—how, after the good spirit, came the evil spirit, and again, after the evil, the good.

For this comes about not by a changeableness of the Holy Spirit, who is immutable with the Father and the Son, but by the changeableness of the human mind, while God distributes all things, whether to the evil for the desert of their damnation or amendment, or to the good for the bounty of his grace—

although it may also seem that the same spirit of God was always in Saul, but evil for him because he was not holily capable of it.

But this does not seem right. For that sense is safer and truer, that, according to the changeableness of the human disposition, the good spirit of God affects well, whether for prophecy or for any other work in the divine gift, while the evil spirit affects ill—which, on account of the ministry of the divine fairness that distributes all things and uses all things rightly, is itself also called the spirit of God—especially because it was said, The Spirit of God withdrew from him, and a malign spirit from the Lord seized him (1 Sam 16:14).

For in no way can the same spirit seem to have both withdrawn and seized. Further, in some copies—and especially those which seem to be rendered word for word from the Hebrew tongue—the spirit of God is set down without an addition, and it is understood to be evil from the fact that it seized Saul and David refreshed him by touching the harp.

It is manifest, nevertheless, that "evil" was not added because it had already been said a little above and could be supplied and understood from the nearby context of Scripture. For in copies of this kind it is read thus: Therefore, whenever the spirit of God seized Saul, David took the harp and played with his hand, and Saul was refreshed and felt easier; for the evil spirit withdrew from him (1 Sam 16:23).

Whether, then, because here it was not said "the spirit of God" but only the evil spirit, what had there been said less appears to be made up, or because above it had been set down thus:

And Saul's servants said to him, Behold, an evil spirit of God harasses you; let our lord command, and your servants who are before you will seek a man skilled in playing the harp, so that, when the evil spirit of God seizes you, he may play with his hand and you may bear it more easily (1 Sam 16:15-16),

there was no need, when it was said again, whenever the spirit of God seized Saul, to add "evil," because it was known of which spirit it was then being said.

1.7. Nevertheless, that other question is greater and not to be searched out with a passing attention of mind: that, when Saul was persecuting the innocent David, full of envy and frenzied with spite, the spirit of God came upon him, and he went on walking and prophesied (1 Sam 19:23).

For here only a good spirit can be understood, through which the holy prophets discerned images and visions of future things—not merely because it was said, and he prophesied;

for in the copies that are from the Hebrew this too is found said of the evil spirit thus: But on the next day an evil spirit of God assailed Saul, and he prophesied in the midst of his house (1 Sam 18:10); and in other places of the Divine Scriptures it is often found that prophecy is called not only good but also evil; and the prophets of the Baals are spoken of (See 1 Kgs 18:19, 22, 25, 40); and it was cast as a reproach against certain ones who prophesied in Baal (See Jer 2:8).

It is therefore not necessary to understand a good spirit, the one that afterward came upon Saul, because it was said, and he went on walking and prophesied, but because it was set down without an addition, and the spirit of God came upon him too (1 Sam 19:23). For it was not, as in that other place above, said, an evil spirit of God, so that from this it could be supplied in what follows; rather, the preceding words attest more and more that that spirit of God was good and truly prophetic.

For David was with Samuel, and Saul sent messengers to seize David. But since Samuel was among the prophets and the company of prophets who at that time were prophesying, the messengers who were sent, having received the same spirit, prophesied; and when others were sent, this befell them, and the third no less.

Afterward, when Saul himself had come, the spirit of God came upon him too, and he went on walking and prophesied (1 Sam 19:20). For when it is said, the Spirit of God came upon them too, and they also prophesied (1 Sam 19:23), it was surely the same Spirit that was in the prophets, among whom Samuel was found. From this, then, it is necessary to understand that spirit to be good. And therefore the question must be carefully examined: how both they, when they had been sent to seize the man and lead him to death, deserved to be affected by such a spirit, and Saul himself, who had sent them, coming and seeking to pour out innocent blood, deserved to receive that spirit and to prophesy.

1.8. Here, doubtless, that occurs which the Apostle Paul most plainly sets forth, showing the more excellent way. If I speak, he says, with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal. And if I have prophecy and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have all faith, so as to remove mountains, but have not love, I am nothing. And if I distribute all my substance, and if I hand over my body to be burned, but have not love, it profits me nothing (1 Cor 13:1-3).

In this place it is manifest that he mentioned those gifts which are given by the distributions of the Holy Spirit, as he says above: But to each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for profit. To one indeed is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit, to another faith in the same Spirit, to another the gift of healings in the one Spirit, to another the working of mighty deeds, to another prophecy, to another the discernment of spirits, to another kinds of tongues. But all these one and the same Spirit works, distributing his own to each as he wills (1 Cor 12:7-11).

It is sufficiently clear, then, that prophecy is among the gifts of the Holy Spirit. Yet if anyone has it and does not have love, he is nothing. From this it is understood that it can come about that certain people, even though unworthy of eternal life and the kingdom of heaven, are nonetheless sprinkled with certain gifts of the Holy Spirit, not having love, without which those gifts are not nothing, but profit them nothing.

For prophecy without love, as has already been shown, does not lead to the kingdom of God, whereas love without prophecy certainly does lead there. For when, speaking of the members of Christ, he says, Are all apostles? Are all prophets?, he shows without doubt that even one who does not have prophecy can be numbered among the members of Christ. But what place would he have there, if he did not have love, without which a man is nothing? But in no way would he say, when he was treating of the members by which the body of Christ is filled, "Do all have love?" as he said, Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all workers of mighty deeds? Do all have gifts of healings? (1 Cor 12:29-30) and other things of this kind.

1.9. But someone says that it can indeed come about that one does not have prophecy and yet has love, and is therefore numbered among and clings to the members of Christ; but that it cannot come about that one has prophecy and does not have love, for a man having prophecy without love is nothing. So perhaps, just as we can say that a man having a soul without a mind is nothing—not because a man can be found who, having a soul, does not have a mind, but because, if such could be found, he would be nothing—so too it can be said: "a body, if it has shape but does not have color, cannot be seen, not because there is a body that lacks color, but because, if there were, it could not be discerned." So perhaps it was said that, if anyone has prophecy and does not have love, he is nothing, not because prophecy can be in anyone without love, but because, if it were, it could not profit.

It is necessary, therefore, for the solving of this question, that we show that some reprobate had this gift of prophecy. And if we could find no one, this very Saul would show it sufficiently. But nonetheless that Balaam too appears reprobate—for Scripture does not keep silent that he was condemned by the divine judgment—and yet he had prophecy. And because love was lacking to him, there was in him the will to curse the people of Israel, which the enemy had procured for a price, who had hired him for pay to curse; yet by that gift of prophesying, with which he was sprinkled, he blessed against his will (See Num 22-24).

Nor do those words attest little to this opinion which are written in the Gospel, that many will say on that day, Lord, Lord, in your name we ate and drank, and in your name we prophesied, and in your name we did many mighty deeds, to whom nevertheless he will say, I do not know you; depart from me, workers of iniquity (Matt 7:22-23). For we do not think that they will say these things lying in that judgment, where there will be no place for deceiving; nor do we read any such saying, "We loved you." They will be able, then, to say, in your name we prophesied, though they be wicked and reprobate; but they will not be able to say, "We kept the love that you commanded." For if they say it, it will not be answered to them, I do not know you. For by this, he says, it is known that you are my disciples, if you love one another (John 13:35).

1.10. And so the example of this Saul withstands certain proud heretics, who deny that anything good from the gifts of the Holy Spirit can be given to those who do not belong to the lot of the saints, when we say to them that they can have the sacrament of Baptism, which, when they come to the Catholic Church, is in no way to be violated in them or, as though they did not have it, to be conferred,

but that they ought not on that account to be confident of salvation, since we do not disapprove what we grant they have received, but they must recognize that the fellowship of unity is to be entered by the bond of love,

without which, whatever they may have been able to have—holy and venerable though it be in itself—they themselves are nevertheless nothing, made the more unworthy of the reward of eternal life the more they have not used well those gifts which they received in this life, which is to pass away.

But none uses well except love, and love bears all things (See 1 Cor 13:7), and therefore does not cut the unity of which it is itself the strongest bond.

For that servant too did not fail to receive a talent, nor is the talent understood as anything other than some gift, surely divine; rather, to him who has, it will be given, but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away (Matt 25:29).

What he does not have cannot be taken away; but he does not have something else, so that what he has is deservedly taken away: he does not have the love of using it, so that whatever else he has is taken away, which without love profits nothing.

1.11. It is no wonder, then, that King Saul, both at the time when he was first anointed received the spirit of prophesying, and afterward, when he had been reprobated for his disobedience, the spirit of the Lord withdrawing from him, was seized by a malign spirit from the Lord, which also was itself called the spirit of the Lord on account of its ministry—because the Lord uses well even all evil spirits, whether for the damnation of some, or for amendment, or for testing; and although the malignity is not from God, yet there is no power except from God (See Rom 13:1).

A deep sleep of the Lord, too, was spoken of, which had taken hold of the soldiers of the same Saul, when David carried off the spear and cup from the head of the sleeping man—not because there was then a sleep in the Lord, so that he himself slept, but because that sleep which had then seized the men was poured in by the nod of God, lest David be perceived by his servants by his presence in that place.

Nor again is it any wonder that the same Saul received the spirit of prophecy, when, persecuting the righteous man and having come to seize and kill him, he had come to the place where there was a gathering of prophets. For thus it was sufficiently shown that no one ought to be secure about such a gift, as though he were most acceptable to God, if he does not have love—seeing that that gift could be given even to Saul for the sake of the hidden meaning of some mystery, but nonetheless could be given to one reprobate and envious and ungrateful and rendering evil for good, and not corrected for the better or changed even after the very reception of the spirit.

2.1. Come now, let us see how it was said, I repent that I made Saul king (1 Sam 15:11). For you ask—not, of course, as one untrained in the understanding of such words, but exploring my own rudiments with fatherly zeal and kindly care—how God repents of anything, in whom there is all foreknowledge.

But I, when this is said of God, would think that something unworthy is said, if anything worthy could be found that might be said of him. But since his eternal power and divinity wonderfully and unhesitatingly exceeds all the words by which human conversations are woven, whatever is said of him in human fashion that may even seem despicable to men—by this very thing human weakness is admonished that even those things which it judges to be said fittingly of God in the Holy Scriptures are more suited to human capacity than to the divine sublimity, and that through this they too are to be transcended by a more serene understanding, just as these others, such as they are, have been transcended.

2.2. For who is there among men to whom it does not occur that in God, who foreknows all things, there can be no repentance? And yet, surely, these are two words—repentance and foreknowledge—of which, because we believe one to befit God, namely foreknowledge, we deny that there is repentance in him. But when another, treating these things by a clearer consideration, asks how even foreknowledge itself befits God, and finds that the notion of this word too is far and deeply surpassed by his ineffable divinity, he does not wonder that both could be said of him on account of men, of whom both would be said unfittingly on his own account.

For what is foreknowledge but the knowledge of future things? But what is future to God, who transcends all times? For if the knowledge of God has the things themselves, they are not future to him but present; and through this it can no longer be called foreknowledge but only knowledge. But if, as in the order of temporal creatures, so also with him the things that are future are not yet, but he anticipates them by knowing, then he perceives them twice—in one way according to the foreknowledge of future things, in another according to the knowledge of present things.

Something, then, happens temporally to the knowledge of God, which is most absurd and most false.

For he cannot know the things he foreknew as coming, when they have come, unless they become known to him twice—both by foreknowing before they exist and by knowing when they already exist.

So it comes about that—a thing far removed from the truth—something happens temporally to the knowledge of God, since temporal things, which are foreknown, are also perceived as present, which were not perceived before they came to be, but only foreknown.

But if, even when the things have come which were foreknown to be coming, nothing new happens to the knowledge of God, but that foreknowledge remains as it was even before the foreknown things came, how will it still be called foreknowledge, when it is not of future things?

For now those things are present which it discerned as future, and a little later will be past. But of past things, as of present, there can in no way be called a foreknowledge.

We return, then, to this: that there comes to be, for things now present, a knowledge which was, for those same things when future, foreknowledge. And since that which was first foreknowledge afterward becomes knowledge in God, he admits changeableness and is temporal—whereas he is God, who truly and supremely is, neither in any part changeable nor by any new motion temporal.

It pleases us, therefore, not to speak of the foreknowledge of God but only of his knowledge. Let us inquire into this too, how it is. For we are not accustomed to speak of knowledge in ourselves except when we retain in memory things sensed and understood, when we remember that we have sensed or understood something, so that we may recall it when we will.

But if it is so in God that it can properly be said, he understands and has understood, he perceives and has perceived, then he admits time, and that changeableness creeps in nonetheless, which is to be far removed from the substance of God.

And yet God both knows and foreknows in an ineffable way. So too he repents in an ineffable way. For although the knowledge of God is far distant from human knowledge, so that the comparison is to be laughed at, both are nevertheless called knowledge. And this human knowledge, indeed, is such that the Apostle says even of it, knowledge will be destroyed (1 Cor 13:8), which can in no way rightly be said of the knowledge of God.

So too the wrath of man is turbulent and not without anguish of mind, but the wrath of God—of which it is said in the Gospel, but the wrath of God remains upon him (John 3:36), and the Apostle, for the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness (Rom 1:18)—while he abides perpetually in tranquillity, exercises vengeance with wonderful fairness upon the creature subject to him.

Human mercy, too, has a certain misery of heart, whence in the Latin tongue it took its name. For from this it is, too, that the Apostle exhorts us not only to rejoice with those who rejoice but also to weep with those who weep (See Rom 12:15).

But who, with a sound head, would say that God is touched by any misery, whom nevertheless Scripture everywhere testifies to be merciful? So too we understand human zeal as not without the plague of spite, but God's zeal not so—by the same word, but not in the same way.

2.3. It would be long to run through the rest, and there are countless instances by which it is shown that many divine things are called by the same names as human things, although they are separated by an incomparable diversity.

Yet not in vain are the same words applied to both kinds of things, except that these things known to us, which are bound up in daily custom and become familiar by more usual experiences, provide some way toward understanding those sublime things.

For when I have removed from human knowledge changeableness and certain passages from thought to thought—as when we recollect, in order to discern in mind what was not in its view a little before, and so we leap from part to part by frequent recollections, whence the Apostle says that our knowledge is in part (See 1 Cor 13:9)—

when, then, I have taken away all these things and have left only the liveliness of certain and unshaken truth, surveying all things by one eternal contemplation—nay rather, when I have not left it, for human knowledge does not have this, but have thought of it according to my powers—the knowledge of God is somehow suggested to me.

Yet that name, from the fact that by knowing something does not lie hidden from a man, could be common to both things.

Although even in men themselves knowledge is usually distinguished from wisdom, as the Apostle too says, To one indeed is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge according to the same Spirit (1 Cor 12:8).

But in God, doubtless, these are not two but one. And in men, indeed, they are usually distinguished, with probability, so that wisdom pertains to the understanding of eternal things, but knowledge to those things which we experience by the senses of the body.

But though one may bring forward another difference, yet, unless they were diverse, they would not be so distinguished by the Apostle. And if indeed this is so, that the name "knowledge" is to be assigned to the things we experience through the sense of the body, there is no knowledge of God at all; for God does not in himself consist of body and mind as man does.

But it is better said that the knowledge of God is of another kind and not of the same genus as this which is called the knowledge of men—just as that very thing which is called "God" is far other than the way it was said that he stood in the assembly of the gods (Ps 82:1 (81)). Yet the very sharing of the word pertains in some way to the not-lying-hidden.

So too from the wrath of man I take away the turbulent motion, that there may remain the vigor of vengeance; and so I somehow rise up to a notion of that which is called the wrath of God.

Likewise, if from mercy you take away the compassion of shared misery with the one whom you pity, and there remains the tranquil goodness of coming to aid and of delivering from misery, some notion of the divine mercy is suggested. Let us not reject and despise the zeal of God, either, since we find it written; but let us take away from human zeal the pale wasting of grief and the diseased perturbation of mind, and let that judgment alone remain by which the corruption of chastity is not allowed to go unpunished, and we rise up so as to begin in some way to grasp the zeal of God.

2.4. Wherefore, when we read also that God says, I repent (1 Sam 15:11), let us consider what the work of repenting is wont to be in men. Without doubt there is found a will to change, but in man it is with grief of mind; for he reproaches in himself what he had rashly done.

Let us take away, then, those things that come from human weakness and ignorance, and let there remain only the willing that something should not be as it was.

In this way it can be intimated somewhat to our mind by what rule it is understood that God repents. For when he is said to repent, he wills that something should not be, as he had made it to be.

But nevertheless, both when it was so, it ought to be so; and when it is now not allowed to be so, it now ought not to be so—by a certain perpetual and tranquil judgment of fairness, by which God disposes all changeable things with an unchangeable will.

2.5. But since we are accustomed to use the words foreknowledge and knowledge with praise in men, and the human race is wont to tremble at wrath itself in great powers rather than to reproach it, we fittingly think such things are said of God.

But one who is zealous, and one who repents of something, since he is usually either blamed or corrects in himself a fault, and therefore these things are said of men with reproach—this is why it disturbs us when we read that there is something of this kind in God.

But that Scripture, taking thought for all, sets down these things too the more, lest those things which please us be understood in God in the way they are usually understood in men. For through these things which displease us, since we do not dare to understand them in God as they are found in man, we learn to seek likewise those things which we thought to be suitable and fitting. For if that is not to be said of God because in man it displeases, let us not say that God is unchangeable, because it was said of men with reproach, for there is no change in them (Ps 55:19 (54)).

Likewise there are certain things which are praiseworthy in man but cannot be in God, such as modesty, which is a great ornament of the more tender ages, and such as the fear of God; for it is praised not only in the Old Books, but the Apostle too says, perfecting holiness in the fear of God (2 Cor 7:1)—which fear is surely none in God.

As, then, certain praiseworthy things of men are not rightly said of God, so certain blameworthy things of men are rightly understood of God—not as in men, but only by common words, in a far different account and manner. For a little later the same Samuel, to whom the Lord had said, I repent that I made Saul king (1 Sam 15:11), says to Saul himself concerning God, for he is not like a man, that he should repent (1 Sam 15:29). Where, indeed, he sufficiently shows that, even when God says, I repent, it is not to be taken in human fashion, as we have already discussed as far as we were able.

3.1. Likewise you ask whether the unclean spirit that was in the woman with the divining spirit could have brought it about that Samuel was seen by Saul and spoke with him (See 1 Sam 28:7-19).

But it is a matter of much greater wonder that Satan himself, the prince of all unclean spirits, was able to speak with God and to ask to tempt Job, that most righteous man (See Job 1:11), who also asks for the Apostles to be tempted (See Luke 22:31).

Or if this does not present a difficult question on the ground that the truth, present everywhere, speaks through whatever creature it wills to whatever creature it wills, and that one to whom God speaks is not on that account of great merit—

for it matters what he speaks, since an emperor too does not speak with many innocent men for whom he most providently takes thought unto safety, and speaks with many guilty men whom he orders to be put to death—

if, then, on this account there is no question here, let there be no question how even an unclean spirit could speak with the soul of a holy man.

For God, the Creator and Sanctifier, is surely far greater than all the saints. But if this disturbs you, that it was permitted to a malign spirit to rouse the soul of a righteous man and, as it were, to call it forth from the hidden receptacles of the dead, is it not rather to be wondered at that Satan took the Lord himself and set him upon the pinnacle of the Temple (See Matt 4:5)?

For in whatever way he did it, that way too, by which it came about that Samuel was roused, lies hidden in like manner—unless perhaps someone should say that it was an easier license for the devil to take the living Lord from where he willed and set him where he willed, than to rouse from its seat the spirit of the deceased Samuel.

But if that in the Gospel does not for this reason perturb us—because the Lord willed and permitted it to be done with no diminution of his power and divinity, just as he suffered himself to be seized and bound and mocked and crucified and killed by those very Jews, perverse and unclean though they were and doing the works of the devil—

it is not absurd to believe that it was permitted, by some dispensation of the divine will, that the spirit of the holy prophet—not unwilling, nor with a magic power dominating and subjugating, but willing and obeying the hidden disposition of God which lay hidden from that woman with the divining spirit and from Saul—should consent to show himself to the sight of the king, to strike him by a divine sentence.

For why should the soul of a good man, called forth by the living wicked, if it should come, seem to lose its dignity, since living good men too are often called to the wicked and do with them what the duty of fairness demands, the dignity of their own virtue being preserved and unshaken, and the others' vices being dealt with according to the use or necessity of present circumstances?

3.2. Although in this matter there can be another easier way out and a readier understanding: that we should not believe that the spirit of Samuel was truly roused from its rest, but that some phantom and imaginary illusion was made by the devil's machinations, which Scripture therefore calls by the name of Samuel, because images are wont to be called by the names of the things of which they are images;

just as all things that are painted and fashioned from some material of metal or wood or any thing suited to works of this kind, and whatever things are also seen in dreams, and nearly all images, are wont to be called by the names of the things of which they are images.

For who is there who would hesitate to call a painted man a man? Seeing that, when we look at the picture of each individual person, we also apply their proper names without hesitation, as when, gazing at a panel or a wall, we say:

that is Cicero, that is Sallust, that is Achilles, that is Hector, this river is the Simois, that is Rome—when they are nothing other than painted images. Hence the cherubim, although they are heavenly powers, yet fashioned of metal, which God commanded, above the Ark of the Covenant for the sake of signifying a great thing, are themselves also called nothing other than cherubim, those figures too (See Exod 25:18).

Likewise, whoever sees a dream does not say, "I saw an image of Augustine or of Simplician," but, "I saw Augustine or Simplician," even though at the time he saw something of this sort we knew nothing of it; so plainly is it the case that it is not the men themselves but their images that are seen.

And Pharaoh said that he had seen ears of grain and oxen in his dreams (See Gen 41:17-28), not images of ears of grain or of oxen. If, then, it is clearly established that the images of things are called by the names of the things whose images they are, it is no wonder that Scripture says Samuel was seen, even if perhaps it was an image of Samuel that appeared by the contrivance of him who transforms himself into an angel of light and his servants into servants of righteousness (See 2 Cor 11:14-15).

3. 3. But now, if what troubles you is how true things were foretold to Saul even by an evil spirit, this too may seem remarkable: how the demons recognized Christ (See Matt 8:29), whom the Jews did not recognize.

For when God wills that, even through the lowest and infernal spirits, someone should come to know true things—but only temporal things, things belonging to this mortal life—it is easy and not unfitting that the almighty and just God should, for the punishment of those to whom these things are foretold, so that they may suffer the evil that hangs over them by knowing it beforehand, before it comes, impart by the hidden arrangement of his ministries some measure of divination even to such spirits, so that they announce to men what they hear from the angels.

But they hear only as much as the Lord and governor of all either commands or permits. Hence in the Acts of the Apostles even the pythonic spirit bears witness to the apostle Paul and tries to be an evangelist (See Acts 16:17).

Yet these spirits mingle deceptions, and the truth they have been able to know they foretell with the aim of deceiving rather than of teaching. And perhaps this is why, when that image of Samuel foretold that Saul would die (See 1 Sam 28:19), it also said that he would be with him, which is certainly false. For we read in the Gospel that the good are separated from the wicked by a great interval after death, since the Lord testifies that between that proud rich man, when he was already suffering torments in the underworld, and the man who had lain covered with sores at his gate, now established in rest, a great chasm has been set (See Luke 16:26). Or, if Samuel said to Saul you shall be with me (1 Sam 28:19) in such a way that it refers not to an equality of happiness but to a like condition of death—that both were men and both were able to die—then, being already dead, he was foretelling death to one still living.

Your prudence perceives, I think, that on either understanding that passage has an outcome which is not against the faith, unless perhaps, by a deeper and more intricate inquiry—one that exceeds either the limits of my powers or those of my time—it should be found with full clarity whether or not the human soul, when it has departed from this life, can, summoned by magical incantations, appear to the sight of the living, bearing even the lineaments of a body, so that it can not only be seen but also recognized,

and, if it can, whether even the soul of a righteous man, not indeed compelled by magic rites, might deign to show itself in obedience to more hidden commands of the supreme law,

so that, if it should become clear that this cannot happen, neither sense need be lost in the treatment and exposition of this passage of Scripture, but, the former being excluded, it would be understood as an imaginary simulation of Samuel produced by a diabolical rite.

But since, whether this can happen or cannot, nevertheless the deceit of Satan and the cunning work of simulating images is many-shaped in its watchfulness to deceive the human senses, let us proceed step by step—so as not to foreclose more careful inquiries—yet let us rather suppose that some such thing was done by the malign ministry of that pythoness, so long as it is not granted to us to think out and explain anything further.

4. But as for what you ask, what it means that it is written, King David went in and sat before the Lord (2 Sam 7:18), what else is to be understood but that he sat in the sight of the Lord—either where the Ark of the Testament was, through which a certain more sacred and more commended presence of the Lord can be received, or because he sat in order to pray, which is rightly done only in the sight of God, that is, in the inmost recesses of the heart?

For what is said, before the Lord, can also be taken in this way: where there was no one among men to hear him praying. So whether on account of the Ark of the Testament, or on account of a secret place, in that he was removed from witnesses, or on account of the inmost part of the heart, where the disposition of the one praying was, it was fittingly said, he sat before the Lord—unless perhaps it troubles us that he prayed sitting, since holy Elijah too did this when by praying he obtained rain (See 1 Kgs 18:42-45).

By these examples we are reminded that there is no fixed prescription as to how the body should be set for praying, provided the mind, present to God, carries through its intention. For we pray standing, as it is written, but the tax collector stood far off (Luke 18:13), and on bent knees, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles (See Acts 7:59; 20:36), and sitting, as behold David and Elijah.

And unless we prayed even lying down, it would not be written in the Psalms, every night I will wash my bed, I will drench my couch with my tears (Ps 6:6 (7)). For when someone seeks to pray, he arranges his limbs in whatever posture of body for moving the mind occurs to him as suited to the occasion. But when the desire to pray is not sought out but brought upon him, when something suddenly comes to mind by which the disposition of supplication is moved with unutterable groanings, in whatever state it finds a man, prayer is by no means to be deferred so that we may look for somewhere to withdraw, or where to stand, or where to prostrate ourselves. For the intention of the mind makes its own solitude for itself, and often even forgets toward which quarter of the sky, or in what posture of body, that moment found its limbs.

5. Now in the words of blessed Elijah in which he says, O Lord, the witness of this widow with whom I dwell, you have done ill, to kill her son (1 Kgs 17:20), nothing would cause difficulty if the true manner of utterance were preserved. For it is the voice of one who does not believe that God would do so great a wrong to that widow who had so devoutly received the prophet, especially at that time when the one was present there to whom she had brought out her whole sustenance, so meager amid such great and utter want.

It was said, then, as if he were saying, "O Lord, the witness of this widow with whom I dwell, have you done ill, to kill her son?",

so that it may be understood that the Lord—the witness of that woman's heart, where he saw how great her devotion was, on account of which he had himself sent Elijah to her—had not put her son to death for the sake of doing harm, but for the sake of displaying a miracle to the glory of his name, by which he might commend so great a prophet both to those then living and to those to come,

just as the Lord says that Lazarus was dead not unto death, but that God might be glorified in his Son (See John 11:4);

and so the things that follow prove it. For out of that very confidence by which Elijah believed that this had happened not so that his hostess might be afflicted with bitter grief, but rather had been done so that God might more magnificently show the widow what manner of servant of God she had received,

Scripture goes on and says, and he breathed upon the boy three times and called upon the Lord and said: 'Lord my God, let the soul of this boy now return into him.' And it was done so (1 Kgs 17:21-22). This entreaty, then, by which Elijah asks so briefly and so confidently that the boy should rise, sufficiently indicates with what disposition the foregoing words were spoken.

And the woman herself shows that her son had been put to death for the very purpose that Elijah had presumed it was done, when she uttered those words not in affirmation but in denial. For when she had received her son alive, she said, behold, I know that you are a man of God, and that the word of the Lord in your mouth is most sure (1 Kgs 17:24). There are many things in the Scriptures which, unless they are uttered in that manner, fall back into the contrary meaning, such as, who shall bring a charge against God's elect? God who justifies (Rom 8:33). If you answer as though affirming, you see how great a perversity arises. So, then, it must be uttered as if it were said, "Is it God who justifies?", so that it is understood, "certainly not." And for this reason I think that saying of Elijah is plain, which an unpreserved manner of utterance made obscure.

6. But concerning the spirit of lying by which Ahab was deceived (See 1 Kgs 22:20-23), we understand this, which I think has already been treated sufficiently and clearly above: namely, that God, almighty and the just dispenser of punishments and rewards according to merits, makes use not only of good and holy ministers for fitting works, but also of evil ones for works that deserve them, since these, out of their own perverse desire, seek to do harm, yet are permitted only as much as he judges who arranges all things in measure and number and weight (See Wis 11:20).

Now the prophet Micaiah said this in the way it had been shown to him. For a hidden matter, one exceedingly secret, is shown to the prophets in the way the human mind can grasp it, when it is instructed in the revelation by the images of things, as if by words.

For how God does these things, present everywhere and everywhere whole and always present, and how the holy angels and all the lofty and most pure spirits created by him consult his simple and unchangeable and eternal truth, and carry out in time, according to what is fitting for lower things, that which they see to be eternally just in him;

how also the fallen spirits, who did not stand fast in the truth, because of the uncleanness and weakness of their desires and their punishments, being unable to behold and consult the truth present within, look for signs outwardly through creation, and are moved by them either to do something or to refrain from doing it; and in what way they are bound and constrained by the eternal law by which the universe is governed, either to await God's permission or to yield to him as he commands;

to grasp all this is arduous, and to explain it is very long.

But I fear that these very things I have said may both have failed to satisfy your expectation and have been a weariness to Your Gravity, seeing that, when you wished me to send you a single little book out of all the things you asked, I have sent two books, and those very long ones, and perhaps have by no means answered your questions carefully and readily. For this reason I ask that many and constant prayers be offered for my errors. And I beg for a judgment on this work—even a very brief one, but a weighty one; and, provided it be most truthful, I do not refuse one that is most severe.