Letter to Brigham Young (April 3, 1877) Querying the Theological Status of Adam

 The following is a transcription of:

 

Anonymous Letter (CHL Call no.: CR 1234 1)

 

Brigham Young. Newfane April 3d 1877

 

Sir. Salt Lake City, Utah.

 

You no doubt will be surprized on the receipt of this letter,
coming as it does from a stranger; but now will be no more so, than
I would have been one month ago at the bare thought of writing you.
Since that time, I have been reading the writings of one who has
been a mormon, and advanced the mormon doctrine for a score of years,
but who, thank God! has forsaken Baal, and his idolatrous worship,
before it was too late. You, who because you will not see, are blind.
Can never know how shocked I was to learn that there was, one
man—perhaps a million—living on this beautiful earth, who
thought the "Sinner," in the garden of Eden, was the Creator of all things.

 

Could he who was formed from the dust of the earth, make
that dust? could he who sinned, be still a God? Sinful man
would be too selfish, to provide a world of beauties for the human
family, unless he could sit enthroned in the midst, and think you,
a Sinful God would do more? I tell you Nay!

 

Sin, mars beauty, and weakens the Strong. Our God is not
less beautiful, or His arm less strong than when, with His
majestic power, He spoke the world into being. We read that
God is every where, and careth for all things. Could Adam in the garden,
with that body of dust, hold the waters in his hand—the Sun and
moon in their places? Could he cause the rains to fall from heaven, or
the grass to grow on the earth? Who drew the mantle down, from the
garden of Eden—who ruled the armies of heaven during his stay on
earth, and who, when Death tightened his first grasp, (for the cold
angel came to Adam) ruled Heaven and Earth?

 

O, wonder, of wonders! that all had not rolled back into Chaos.
Oh! what a thought—what a religion, for a people living in the
nineteenth century, and this is only a part of the great mormon
doctrine, You perhaps, are not the framer of the whole of this
fearful libel, against the God of heaven, and yet, the
partaker is as bad as the thief; but do not think you can if the keys of Heaven are placed in mortal hands, it is woman, that
holds them; but you would lock her out and bar the door with a worse
than heathen rite. You would destroy her happiness in this life, and
her soul in the next. Oh! how dare you call, so vile, loathsome,
and heart-rending a practice—a religion? How can you close your eyes,
& sleep, for fear the Judge of heaven would summon you away from
your false worship, and your field of carnage, with your hands duplicated
in some dark Act. I long to lift my heart in prayer, for such an
one; but I dare not, for God has said, there are those we shall
not pray for, and, if I read my Bible aright, the mormon
Prophet and the mormon worship in Utah for the last
twenty years, is not unlike, that recorded in the seventh
chapter of Jeremiah.

 

If, not for you, I know He will let me pray
for the poor misguided beings, that have shipwrecked
their faith on a delusive sea, and from the wild mountains of
despair, are wandering back to the blessed fold of King
Immanuel. O may they all be gathered in at last.

 

But there are those, beyond the reach of prayer—thousands,
perhaps, who will stand up against you, in that great day
of the Lord. Oh! will you meet them, clad in the filthy rags
of your own self-righteousness—when Jesus died and lives again?
How you will long, on that day, for the cleansing power of
Calvary's precious blood; but Justice, not Mercy will meet
you there—

Prophet of the mormons, you have power, you have
wealth. In addition to all this—if the sands of earth were gold,
also—if Kingdoms were heaped on kingdoms, until they reached
to heaven—if crowns lay at your feet, thick as the leaves of
Autumn, and each and all could be mine, at the word. I
would not speak that word to exchange my humble lot, and
hope of Heaven, through the blood of a crucified and risen
Jesus! No! No! it would be giving wheat for chaff, as gold and gold, for dross.

 

I did not intend to write you so long
a letter when I began. But I have drawn, only a faint outline—
of what the world, and Christian people, think of the
mormon Prophet, and the mormon doctrine—for I can not
command words, to speak as some of them might.

 

Could it be
the pleasure of my heavenly Father, to bless in the least,
what I have written—because I felt it a duty—I have not
lived in vain.

 

A. B. K. April 3d, 1877

 

After perusing this sheet; from the first, I
wish you to remember, that the writer has no personal
acquaintance with you, or your religion, and if any thing
has been said that is unjust and not in accordance
with your teachings, you are at liberty to send explanations
and proof to

 

A. B. K. Newfane
Niagara Co
N. Y.

 

Request to Subscribe To, and Become a "Member" of my Youtube Channel

If you have not already done so, please consider "subscribing" to my youtube channel:

Scriptural Mormonism

And if you wish to help support the channel, you can become a member here.

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-457) Interpreting Isaiah 1:16 and 1:18 as teaching Baptismal Regeneration

  

1:16 Wash you, be clean;

 

Lest they think that he is prescribing the washings of the law, he has to add:

 

remove your iniquities from your souls before my eyes

 

I know your secret thoughts, and none of your wicked desires escapes me, so purify your souls by the washing of regeneration.

 

cease from your iniquities

 

It is not enough to reject past sins; your must also avoid repeating them in the future.

 

1:17 Learn to do well,

 

It is not enough to abstain from evil to achieve perfection; you must also learn to do good works.

 

diligently seek judgment deliver him that is suffering wrong, plead for the orphan, and obtain justice for the widow. 1:18 And come, let us reason together, saith the Lord.

 

Nevertheless, to prevent them from being frightened by the reproaches they have just heard, he promises an abundance of good things:

 

and through your sins be as purple, I will make them white as snow, and though they be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool.

 

He says, “When I bring you into court, I shall not demand punishments for your outrages, but when I see your repentance I shall do what the dyers do. By the bath of most holy baptism, I shall change the color of blood and I shall not allow you to carry the mark of the stain of murder forever. For my knowledge is not like that of others. Where dyers color fabrics in pink, in yellow in violet, or in purple, I shall turn red into snow white.” (Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Commentary on Isaiah [trans. Gerald L. Bray; Ancient Christian Texts; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2026], 5-6, emphasis added)

 

The terms translated as “by the washing of regeneration” and “by the bath of most holy baptism” translate the Greek τω λουτρω τοινυν της παλιγγενεσιας and του παναγιου βαπτισματος λουτρω. See the following from Théodoret de. Cyr, Commentaire sur Isaïe, ed. Jean-Noël Guinot, 3 vols. (Sources Chrétiennes 276; Cerf, 1980), 1:172:

 

 

Theodoret of Cyrrhus (393-457) on Isaiah 22:22

  

22:22 And I will give him the glory of David, and he shall rule and there shall be none to speak against him; and I will give him the key of the house of David upon his shoulder, and he shall open and there shall be none to shut, and he shall shut and there shall be none to open.

 

In this passage are prefigured also the realities that are ours:” What you bind on earth,” he says, “will be bound in heaven, and what you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Commentary on Isaiah [trans. Gerald L. Bray; Ancient Christian Texts; Downers Grove, Ill.: IVP Academic, 2026], 77-78)

 

The following is taken from Théodoret de. Cyr, Commentaire sur Isaïe, ed. Jean-Noël Guinot, 3 vols. (Sources Chrétiennes 295; Cerf, 1982), 2:166, 168:

 

  

Here is a transcription:

 

²² Καὶ δώσω τὴν δόξαν Δαυὶδ αὐτῷ, καὶ ἄρξει, καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀντιλέγων· καὶ δώσω αὐτῷ τὴν κλεῖδα οἴκου Δαυὶδ ἐπὶ τοῦ ὤμου αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἀνοίξει, καὶ οὐδεὶς κλείσει, ⟨καὶ κλείσει,⟩ καὶ οὐκ ἔσται ὁ ἀνοίγων. Ἐν τούτῳ καὶ τὰ ἡμέτερα προτυποῦται. «Ὃ ἂν δήσητε» γάρ φησιν «ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται δεδεμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς· καὶ ὃ ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς, ἔσται λελυμένον ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς.»

 

As one can see, Theodoret is not quoting from Matt 16:19, which uses singulars, but Matt 18:18, which uses plurals:

 

Ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν· ὅσα ἐὰν δήσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται δεδεμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ, καὶ ὅσα ἐὰν λύσητε ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἔσται λελυμένα ἐν οὐρανῷ.

 

 

P. M. Hixson, Letter to Wilford Woodruff (August 29, 1901)

 The following is a transcription of:

P. M. Hixson letter to Lorenzo Snow (CHL Call no.: CR 1 170)

 

Park City Aug 29 1901

 

Pres. Lorenzo Snow,
Salt Lake City.

Dear Brother:

I write you for a little
information on a subject or two.
Will you please tell me if we are to
understand that Adam was a
Resurrected being or not when placed
on the earth? Also is Adam the
Father of our spirits or not?

 

I have always understood the
Latter Day Saints believe in Adam
as a God Now that is what has
been Troubling me, and I would like
to know if he is a God at the

 

P. M. Hixson
Aug. 29, 1901

present time, or will be in the
future.

Will you please answer these questions
if you think them proper questions
and Oblige your Bro. in the Gospel

P. M. Hixson

Park City Utah.

Box 115.

 

Johann Gerhard (1634) on the Use of the Present Tense in Matthew 26/Mark 14/Luke 22

  

Argument V. Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22. In the words of institution, Christ says: “This is my body, which is given for you; this is my blood, which is shed for you.” These words in the present tense signify that the body is being given and the blood is being shed to God in sacrifice. He responded, 1. The Latin Vulgate version was pronounced authentic by the Council of Trent, so that no one may depart from it under any pretext. Now in the Vulgate (Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22), it does not say in the present tense “which is shed” but in the future tense “which shall be shed,” and in 1 Corinthians 11 it does not say in the present “which is given” but in the future “which shall be delivered.” The entire structure of the argument, drawn from the words of the present tense, therefore collapses.

 

2. The Canon of the Mass likewise reads “shall be shed,” not “is shed,” and the words of the first part, “which is delivered for you,” it omits entirely.

 

3. Gorranus on chapter 26 of Matthew: “Shall be shed, that is, shall be poured out, by the ordaining of the Father, the willing of the Son, the granting of the Holy Spirit, the betrayal of Judas, the scheming of the Jews, the judgment of Pilate, the execution of the gentile.”

 

4. Denis the Carthusian on chapter 22 of Luke: “Which is given for you, that is, for your liberation it is now exposed to suffering and death, the betrayer delivering and I willingly embracing the suffering, Which shall be shed for you that is, for your salvation I shall shed and permit this blood to be shed.”

 

5. George of Ataide, theologian of the King of Portugal, at the Council of Trent, said that the words “This is my body, which is given for you,” and “the blood which is shed for you,” have a plainer meaning if they are referred to the body and blood in their natural being than in their sacramental being, Just as when Christ is said to be the true vine that brings forth wine, it is understood that not a symbolic vine but a real one produces wine, so in the words “This is my blood which is shed,” what is said to be shed is not the sacramental and signifying blood but the natural and signified blood (Peter Sarpi, History of the Council of Trent, book 6, p. 640).

 

6. Adrianus Hoffstadius, Minorite, says that Christ, when he says he is giving his body and shedding his blood, did this at that time by will and desire, not in act, and that this is also reckoned before God as done which is done by will and desire alone (Adrianus Hoffstadius, Sermons, serm. 33, p. 322).

 

7. Vasques holds that Christ spoke thus because the time of his death and passion was immediately impending, in which blood was to be shed and his body to be delivered unto death, indeed in a sense it had already begun. In the same passage (ch. 1 and 2), he teaches that those words are expounded not only by Chrysostom, Anselm, Theophylact, Euthymius, but also by Titelmann, Cajetan, Mirandola, Hosius, and Denis the Carthusian, as referring to the bloody sacrifice of Christ on the cross (Gabriel Vasquex, Disputations, vol. 3, disp. 199, ch. 1, no. 8).

 

8. If the verb in the present tense denotes the shedding of blood at the Sacred Supper, it follows that Christ did not use this word in its proper signification but in a metaphorical one. For in the Eucharist there is no true and real shedding of blood in the manner of a sacrifice, but a representation and a figure of it. For in the cup of the Lord the blood is not separated from the body of Christ, and therefore is not really shed, but the death of Christ and the separation or shedding of his blood is represented in it. But to hold that the word “to shed” is not to be taken in its proper but in a metaphorical signification favors the trope of the Calvinists. For if the word “shedding” is to be taken tropically, then also the words “body” and “blood” will have to be taken tropically. This argument is that of Vasquez (Gabriel Gazques, Disputations, at the passage). Huntly invented a threefold bloodless shedding of blood that took place at the first Supper. First, he says just as in the Old Testament blood was separated from the body by a material sword, which the priests afterward caught in a vessel, so at the last Supper, by a spiritual sword, namely by his word, he separated his blood, as it was really under the form of wine, from his body, which was under the form of bread, and caught his blood in the chalice which he held in his hand. Thus, when Christ drank his blood, the blood of Christ was shed upon our mystical alter, which is Christ. Finally, at the Supper he shed or sprinkled his blood upon the people. But none of these sheddings is sacrificial. For separation is not the essence of offering. That pouring was a drinking. The sprinkling did not reach the people (James Gordon Huntly, On the Mass, p. 271).

 

9. If they say that the blood of Christ is shed at the Supper under the species of wine, they can be pressed: either the blood is truly shed, or only the species of wine. They cannot say the former, since the shedding of blood cannot be bloody. IF they wish to say the latter, they will be compelled to concede that the species of wine is shed for the remission of sins. Vazques urges this argument (Gabriel Vasquez, Disputations, ch. 2, no. 1): Christ calls his blood, which is shed, the blood of the New Testament. But the New Testament is sanctified by the shedding of the blood of Christ on the cross. Therefore he is speaking of the shedding made on the cross.

 

10. Barradius, in his explanation of the words of the Supper, treats them thus among other things: “The Lord uses the present tense for what was shortly to be future. For the words are to be understood of the impending and imminent passion in this sense: ‘This is my body, which for you is to be given or delivered shortly to suffering and death, and which shall be broken for you by scourges, thorns, nails, and a lance, and so forth’” (Sebastian Barradius, Commentaries, vol. 1, book 3, ch. 4, p. 59). Although in the same passage he adds from others a secondary interpretation, that the body of Christ is offered to the heavenly Father in the sacrifice of the Eucharist, he nonetheless does not repudiate the former exposition but in the end acquiesces in it. “The Lord,” he says,” had openly said that this was his body which he was giving to his disciples; he indicates this more clearly when he adds, ‘which is given and broken for you,’ that is, which will shortly be offered to death for you and broken by nails; for these things can fit only a true body.” In this, Barradius supplies us with a response to the argument drawn from the Pauline phrase, “which shall be broken for you.”

 

11. If grammatical propriety were observed, according to the mind of the Papists, the Lord ought not to have spoken in the present but in the past tense, because the flesh of a victim is not presented to be eaten unless the victim has first been slaughtered, as Bellarmine argues.

 

12. The enallage of the present tense for what is immediately and very shortly to come is acknowledged here also by Gregory of Valencia (Gregory of Valencia, On the Mass, book 1, ch. 4, p. 686), Salmeron (Alphonsus Salmeron, Commentaries, vol. 1, proleg. 15, p. 282 and vol. 9, p. 203), and John de la Haye (John de la Haye, Triumph of Truth, ch. 170), following Euthymius Zigabenus on chapter 26 of Matthew.

 

13. The Jesuit Sa, on chapter 26 of Matthew, verse 28: “Shall be shed, namely on the cross. In Greek, it is ‘is shed,’ the present of the future.” Compare him also on chapter 22 of Luke.

 

14. Cardinal Cajetan, on chapter 26 of Matthew: “’Is Shed’ for ‘shall be shed,’ For the time of his passion had now begun. He knew what was then being done by Judas and the Jews toward the shedding of his blood.” The same on chapter 22 of Luke: “He does not say ‘will be given’ but ‘is given,’ because the giving had already begun, since he had already been sold.” The same on 1 Corinthians 11: “Nor should the Latins be horrified by the particle ‘shall be broken,’ since it was most true that the true body of Christ was broken in multiple ways. For it was broken as to the skin when he was scourged by the soldiers of Pilate, broken also as to the flesh in his hands by the nails with which he was fixed to the cross, and broken finally in his side when one of the soldiers pierced his side with a lance. But if anyone calls into question the verb in the present tense ‘is broken,’ let him attend to what is written by the other Evangelists, and the question will cease. For the three Evangelists, in narrating the words of consecration of the chalice, use the verb in the present tense, saying ‘which is shed for you’ or ‘for many’; by the same reasoning by which those Evangelists signified in the present tense ‘is shed’ the future shedding of blood on the cross, by the same reasoning Paul signifies in the present tense ‘is broken’ the future breaking of the flesh of Christ on the cross. And the common reason why the Lord Jesus at the Supper expressed in the words of the present tense the future shedding of blood and breaking on the cross is that he might make clear to the disciples that such shedding and breaking were not distant in time but as it were present. And speaking truthfully in the grammatical present tense, the time of the shedding and breaking was then present, since the time of his passion had already begun. And just as with the beginning of a day, whatever happens on that day can be signified by the verb of the present tense, so with the day of his passion now begun, all his suffering could be signified by the verb of the present tense; for the grammatical present is not an instant but a certain diffuse present.”

 

15. Estius notes that all Greek interpreters expounds the words of the Apostles in 1 Corinthians 11 in such a way that by the shedding of the chalice, which was done at the Supper and not on the cross, what is to be understood is the shedding into the mouths of the disciples, and by no means a breaking through an oblation other than that of the cross (William Estius, Annotations on 1 Corinthians 11, p. 409 and on Luke 22:20).

 

16. Of the future delivery of the altar of the cross, Thomas expounds in the Catena and in part 3, question 78, article 3, reply 7, as do John Fetus and Cornelius a Lapide on 1 Corinthians 11. “The Lord is said to have used the present tense ‘shall be delivered, shall be shed,’ because he was shortly to be delivered. ‘Is broken,’ that is, shortly it shall be broken and immolated on the cross.” So Anselm, whence our verse: “shall be delivered, and this because this breaking and immolating was not so much future as present. For the day of the Passover and of Christ’s passion had begun when Christ said these things, so that they were then a diffuse present.” (Johann Gerhard, Confessio Catholica: On the Sacrifice of the Mass—Article XV [trans. Koden A. Green [2026], 51-54)

 

André Reis on the Person of David being in View in Romans 4:6-8

 While arguing for sola fide and forensic justification, André Reis (SDA) admits that it is the person of David that is in view by Paul with respect to his quotation of Psa 32, and not a general reference to believers merely as some claim:

 

Paul’s second witness is David. Abraham might be mistaken for a moral hero; David cannot. The man after God’s own heart carried adultery and murder on his record, and it is to him that Paul applies Psalm 32: “Blessed are those whose lawless deeds are forgiven, and whose sins are covered; blessed is the man against whom the Lord will not count his sin” (Romans 4:7-8). Paul introduces the psalm as describing “the blessing of the one to whom God counts righteousness apart from works” (Romans 4:6), and the psalm nowhere mentions works. When God credits righteousness to a person and when he does not count that person’s sin, he does one and the same thing: he acquits him. This acquittal first changes the person’s standing before God, and only afterward does God change anything in the person himself. (André Reis, The Apostasy: The Faith Once Delivered and the Church That Left It [The Sola Collective, 2026], 281)

 

 

To understand the ramifications of David being used as an example of a person who was (re)justified, see:

 

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness

André Reis on Azazel Being a Reference to a Goat Demon

  

Three main arguments can be put forth in support of this view: (1) if one goat is “for the Lord,” and the other to “for/to Azazel,” ‘ʿăzāʾzēl more likely represented an entity that stood in opposition to the Lord, as did הַשָּׂטָן (haśśāṭān); (2) elsewhere in the OT, the wilderness is seen as the abode of demons, and Leviticus 17:7 forbids sacrifices to goat-demons; and (3) the development of a demonic persona around the name ʿăzāʾzēl in Jewish pseudepigraphal literature. The passages below reveal the pervasive belief that Israel was surrounded by desert demons, whose influence and worship presented a constant source of covenantal jeopardy to Israelites.

(1) Leviticus 17:7 warns against offering sacrifices outside of the confines of the tabernacle, “so that they may no longer offer their sacrifices for goat-demons [שְׂעִירִם, śeʿîrîm], to whom they prostitute themselves.”

 

(2) 2 Chronicles 11:15 describes Jeroboam’s wickedness: “… and [he] had appointed his own priests for the high places, and for the goat-demons [śeʿîrîm].”

 

(3) In an oracle against Babylon in Isaiah 13:21 predicts that in its ruins, “ostriches will live, and goat-demons [śeʿîrîm] will dance.”

 

(4) The oracle against Edom in Isaiah 34:14 predicts that “wildcats shall meet with hyenas, goat-demons [śāʿîr] all call to each other; there too Lilith [a female demon-goddess] shall repose, and find a place to rest.” It is important to note that the coupling of śāʿîr and lilît here led the LXX translators to render both words as δαμόνια, “demons.”

 

(5) The śeʿîrîm mentioned in the context of the reforms of King Josiah: “he broke down the high places of the gates that were at the entrance of the gate of Joshua the governor of the city” (2 Kgs 23:8). According to the punctuation proposed by Hoffmann—via Lev 17:7 and 2 Chr 11:15—the non-sensical construction “the gates that were at the entrance of the gate” should be replaced with “the high places of the śeʿîrîm,” which matches the idolatry motif in the passage.

 

Echoes of the association between the desert and the demonic also reverberate in the NT when the synoptic Gospels connect erēmon with diabolos; Jesus is led “into the desert” (eis tēn erēmon) to be tempted by the devil (Matt 4:1; Mark 1:12–13 [hypo tou Satana]; Luke 4:1–2). Jesus also expressed this view: “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a person, it wanders through waterless regions looking for a resting place, but it finds none” (Matt 12:43).

 

The preceding evidence on the demonic origins of the name Azazel begs the question: Why would the Levitical law-giver forgo the more common term for goat-demons (śeʿîrîm) in favor of laʿăzāʾzēl? A couple of explanations could be advanced. First, the author likely wished to avoid a direct association of a sanctuary rite with pagan deities such as the mythological śeʿîrîm. As Milgrom explains: “Azazel is the name of a demon who has been eviscerated of his demonic powers by the Priestly legislators . . . They [demons] can represent the powers of the physical world . . . but they are not deified . . . and their worship is prohibited.” Second, the Levitical author likely wished to avoid confusing the purgation rite with an “offering” to the śeʿîrîm—precisely what Leviticus 17:7 forbids—while still ascribing executing judgment on a being in opposition to God (e.g., Exod 20:4–5; 22:9; Deut 4:19; 5:7–8; 17:3; Job 5:1). In this case, sending a toxic goat to Azazel offered a limited, highly controlled parallel with contemporary Canaanite goat-demon mythology while at the same time preserving the integrity of the Israelite purification rite within the confines of their monotheistic covenant. The author might have wanted to avoid dedicating more attention than necessary to Azazel and relegated this demon to a lower status, keeping the Lord at the center of the D[ay of]A[tonement]. This entity did not receive atonement through blood but only the toxic load of all of Israel’s sins, impurities, and guilt. The goat was not a substitute for loyal Israel, and a vicarious sacrifice was not implied in this ritual since the “goat for the Lord” had already assumed this function. Azazel received punishment and judgment and suffered “the fate of all angels and spirits in Scripture,” observes Milgrom. (André Reis, Echoes of the Most Holy: The Day of Atonement in the Book of Revelation [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2022], 53-55, comments in square brackets added for clarification)

 

 

André Reis on Parallels Between Yahoel in the Apocalypse of Abraham and Jesus in the Book of Revelation

  

. . . there are parallels between the heavenly, high-priestly Yahoel, who officiates during Yom Kippur in the Apocalypse of Abraham, and the exalted, high-priestly Christ in Revelation 1. For example, Yahoel has “the likeness of a man” (Apoc. Ab. 10:4), while Jesus is called the “Son of man” in 1:13. Yahoel’s hair is “like snow” (Apoc. Ab. 11:4), while Jesus’ hair is “white as snow” (1:14). Yahoel’s body is likened to precious stones (Apoc. Ab. 11:2), while Jesus’s feet are like “burnished bronze, refined in a furnace” (1:15). In sum, both books seem to draw on similar traditions and high-priestly representations of heavenly beings (see Dan 10:5; Ezek 9:2-3, 10). (André Reis, Echoes of the Most Holy: The Day of Atonement in the Book of Revelation [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf and Stock, 2022], 130)

 

Gael Santana Marquez on the macuahuitl /macana and it being a "sword club"

  

The macuahuitl has become one of the defining military symbols of ancient Mexico. Constructed from hardwood, usually oak or pine, the weapon resembled a broad paddle or sword club with grooves carved along its edges.

 

. . .

 

Unlike a European steel sword designed for repeated impact against armor or metal weapons, the macuahuitl excelled at slashing exposed flesh. . . . Spanish chronicles frequently emphasized the cutting ability of these weapons . . . Even if exaggerated, these reports reveal the psychological effect Indigenous weapons had on European invaders who initially underestimated them. (Gael Santana Marquez, Obsidian and Steel: A History of Blade Culture in Mexico [Chicago: Of the Books, Books, 2026], 8-9)

 

Eliza R. Snow (1804-1887) on the origin of the term “Son of Man”

  

In the Bible, Jesus is frequently called the Son of man, which is an unmeaning expression, through mistranslation. The name of God in the pure language is Ahman, and Jesus, in that language is called Son Ahman, and from this the appellation of Son of man originated. (Eliza R. Snow, The Story of Jesus [Truth Bound Publishing, 2025], 24)

 

Faustus Socinus (1539-1604) on there being Missing Inspired Books of Scripture That are Referenced in the Bible

  

The third thing is, which in our judgment must by all means be noted, is this: that not all the sacred books are extant today; and it must certainly be believed that from these books no longer extant were cited in the New Testament those testimonies that are not read today in the books of the Old Testament—which, however, are very few indeed. That many sacred books have perished is manifest from the fact that mention is made of the words of Nathan the prophet and of Gad the seer in 1 Chronicles 29[:29], and in the ninth chapter of the second book of the same work, as also of the words of Jeddo the seer in the same ninth chapter of the second book of Chronicles—or rather, not of his words, but of his vision. In the same chapter, moreover, mention is made of Ahijah the Shilonite. Besides this, in the twelfth chapter of the same second book of Chronicles mention is made of the words of Iddo the seer in the genealogies, and in the thirteenth chapter the Midrash of the same prophet is named. In the same twelfth chapter, further mention is made of the words of Shemaiah the prophet. Furthermore, in the tenth chapter of the book of Joshua, and likewise in the tenth chapter of the second book of Samuel, mention is made of the Book of the Upright, while in the twenty-first chapter of the book of Numbers the Book of Wars of Jehovah is mentioned, although it is not altogether certain that a particular book is meant in that passage. Moreover, in Isaiah, chapter 34, the Book of Jehovah, or of the Lord, is named. Finally, everyone knows that in the second book of Kings mention is repeatedly made of the Chronicles of the Kings of Judah and of the Kings of Israel, to which the writer of that book very often refers and to which he directs the reader. (Faustus Socinus, Sacred Letters: On the Authority of Holy Scripture, Especially of the New Covenant [trans. Marcin Poholski; 2026], 58-60; comment in square brackets in original)

 

John the Deacon (c. 825), “Letter to Senarius"

The following is a transcription and translation of John the Deacon (c. 825), “Letter to Senarius,” PL 59:399-408:

 

JOANNIS DIACONI EPISTOLA AD SENARIUM VIRUM ILLUSTREM

De variis ritibus ad baptismum pertinentibus, et aliis observatione dignis.

 

I.

Domino merito illustri, semperque magnifico filio Senario, Joannes diaconus.

 

Sublimitatis vestrae paginam filio nostro spectabili viro Renato deferente suscepimus, in qua et antiquae gratiae nobis jucundam fecistis memoriam, et quantus pectori vestro divini cultus ardor insideat, catholica sollicitudine non celastis. Nam, ut vestrae loquuntur litterae, quaedam vobis scribi, quaedam dirigi transcripta voluistis.

 

Sed in transcribendo curam nostram utcunque notariorum labor adjuvit; in his vero quae scribenda sunt, multum fateor laboris indicitis, et superaddere hoc mensuram meam adducta fronte respondeo. Primum, quod ea, sicut opus est, disserere, non ita, ut credit amici aestimatio, meum valet ingenium. Fallitur enim amantium saepe judicium, cum plus dilectioni tribuit quam meritis dilectus ostendit. Accedit deinde quod infirmus corpore, ut alia taceam, ecclesiastico jugiter astringor officio.

 

Postremo otiosum tempus res postulat, ut majorum volumina recensentibus quid de unaquaque re dici debeat, illorum tuta juvamine procedat oratio. Quid igitur in haec possumus, nisi forte quod me posse vota desideriaque vestra praestiterint? Idcirco quaesita breviter conabor attingere, ne si omnino taceam, infructuosi silentii poenas excipiam. Confido enim orationibus tuis me posse juvari, qui ut haec auderem tam ardua compulisti.

 

Unde quaeso ut nihil in me eloquentiae, nihil summae doctrinae desideres; quia nec illi plene studui, et doceri adhuc malo, quam doctoris nomen audire. Igitur si in hac inquisitione, mea, qualiscunque est, placet aut exspectatur oratio, jam nunc de singulis quae sunt proposita videamus. Illud interea prudentiae vestrae praedico, quia inquisitionum ordo, non ita, ut vestra legitur pagina consequetur; sed ut se unaquaeque suggesserit, absolutione congrua terminabitur.

 

Itaque inquisitionis tuae verba ita se habent.

 

II.

Requiro, inquis, a vobis, quare antequam baptisma quis consequatur, catechuminus fuit; vel quid sibi habeat hoc vocabulum aut haec catechizatio, aut qua regula in Veteri Testamento praemissa sit; aut certe, si novella regula est, et magis a Novo Testamento sumpsit exordium. Simul etiam scrutinium quid sit, aut quare tertio ante Pascha scrutinentur infantes; aut quid sibi haec districtio vel sollicitudo scrutaminis vindicet, etc.

 

III.

Ad haec ita respondeo. Studium vestrum nosse confidimus: quia omne genus humanum in ipsis, ut ita dicam, mundi cunabulis praevaricatione primi hominis in morte fuerit jure collapsum; nec ab ea posse redimi, nisi affuerit gratia Salvatoris: qui dum ante saecula genitus esset ex Patre, propter nos ex sola matre fieri non est dedignatus in tempore.

 

Non est ergo dubium quod priusquam aliquis renascatur in Christo, diabolicae potestati teneatur astrictus: cujus laqueis nisi inter ipsa primitus fidei rudimenta veraci professione renuntians exuatur, ad salutaris lavacri gratiam non accedit. Et ideo hunc oportet prius catechumenorum auditorium introire. Catechesis enim Graece instructio dicitur.

 

Instruitur namque ecclesiastico ministerio per benedictionem imponentis manum, ut intelligat quis sit, quisve futurus sit; hoc est, quia ex damnabili sanctus fiat, ex injusto justus appareat, ad postremum filius fiat ex servo: ut qui in primo parente perditus fuerat, secundi reparatus beneficio, haereditatis paternae possessor existat.

 

Exsufflatus igitur exorcizatur, ut, fugato diabolo, Christo Deo nostro paretur introitus; et a potestate erutus tenebrarum, transferatur in regnum gloriae caritatis Dei: ut qui dudum vas fuerat Satanae, fiat nunc domicilium Salvatoris. Exsufflatur itaque, quia tali dignus est ignominia desertor antiquus. Exorcizatur autem, id est conjuratur, ut exeat et recedat, illius agnoscens adventum, cujus erectam in paradisi felicitate imaginem prava suasione dejecerat.

 

Accipiet jam catechumenus benedictum sal, in quo signatur, quia sicut omnis caro sale condita servatur, ita sale sapientiae et praedicationis verbi Dei mens fluctibus saeculi madida et fluxa conditur, ut ad soliditatem stabilitatis atque permansionis digesto penitus corruptionis humore divini salis suavitate perveniat. Hoc ergo agit frequens impositio manus, et reverentia Trinitatis, et invocata super caput ejus tertio benedictio Conditoris.

 

IV.

Dehinc quodam profectu atque provectu, ille qui dudum exsufflatus diabolicis laqueis pompisque renuntiaverat, symboli ab apostolis traditi jam meretur verba suscipere: ut qui paulo ante solum catechumenus dicebatur, nunc etiam vocetur competens vel electus. Conceptus enim est in utero matris Ecclesiae, et vivere jam incipit, etiam si nondum sacri partus tempus explevit. Tunc fiunt illa, quae ab ecclesiastica consuetudine scrutinia dictitantur.

 

Perscrutamur enim eorum corda per fidem, utrum menti suae post renuntiationem diaboli sacra verba defixerint; utrum agnoverint futuram gratiam Redemptoris; utrum se credere fateantur in Deum Patrem omnipotentem. Et cum haec ita esse illorum responsione claruerit, quia scriptum est: Corde creditur ad justitiam, ore autem confessio fit in salutem (Rom. X, 10); tanguntur sanctificationis oleo aures eorum, tanguntur et nares; sed aures ideo, quia per eas ad intellectum fides ingreditur, Apostolo dicente: Fides autem per auditum, auditus vero per verbum Dei (Ibid., 17); ut quasi quodam sanctificationis muro aures instructae, nihil noxium, nihil quod retro revocare possit admittant.

 

V.

Cum vero tanguntur nares eorum, admonentur sine dubio, ut quandiu spiritum vitae hujus naribus trahunt, in Dei servitio mandatisque perdurent. Unde ille vir sanctus dicebat: Vivit Dominus, qui abstulit judicium meum, et omnipotens qui ad amaritudinem adduxit animam meam: quia donec superest halitus in me et spiritus Dei in naribus meis, non loquentur labia mea iniquitatem, nec lingua mea meditabitur mendacium (Job. XXVII, 2-4).

 

Aliud quoque in narium unctione signatur: ut quia illud oleum in nomine benedictum est Salvatoris, ad spiritalem ejus odorem quadam ineffabili interiores sensus suavitate ducantur, ut delectati cantent: Unguentum effusum est nomen tuum; post odorem unguentorum tuorum curremus (Cant. I, 2, 3); quo mysterio sensus narium praemunitus, nihil voluptuosum saeculi, nihil quod mentem resolvere queat, possit admittere.

 

VI.

Dehinc pectus eorum oleo consecrationis perungitur, in quo est sedes et habitaculum cordis: ut intelligant firma se conscientia et puro corde debere promittere, quod jam relicto diabolo Christi mandata sectentur. Hi etiam nudis pedibus jubentur incedere, ut depositis morticinis et carnalibus indumentis, agnoscant se illius viae iter arripere, in qua nihil asperum, nihil potest inveniri nocivum.

 

Haec igitur ecclesiastica sollicitudo per successiones temporum cauta dispositione constituit: quamvis horum vestigia vetus pagina non ostendat. Proinde cum istis quasi vehiculis spiritalibus electus sive catechumenus in fide processerit, tunc et necesse est unici lavacri baptismate consecrari, in quo sacramento baptizatus trina demersione perficitur. Et recte.

 

Nam qui in nomine Trinitatis baptizandus accedit, ipsam utique Trinitatem trina debet mersione signare, et illius se agnoscere beneficiis debitorem qui tertia pro eo die resurrexit a mortuis. Sumptis dehinc albis vestibus, caput ejus sacri chrismatis unctione perungitur; ut intelligat baptizatus regnum in se ac sacerdotale convenisse mysterium. Chrismatis enim oleo sacerdotes et principes ungebantur, ut illi offerendo sacrificia, illi populis imperarent.

 

Ad imaginem quippe sacerdotii plenius exprimendam, renascentis caput lintei decore componitur. Nam sacerdotes illius temporis quodam mystico velamine caput semper ornabant; cuncti vero regenerati albis vestibus induuntur ad ministerium resurgentis Ecclesiae, sicut ipse Dominus et Salvator coram quibusdam discipulis ac prophetis ita in monte transfiguratus est, ut diceretur: Resplenduit facies ejus velut sol; vestimenta vero ejus facta sunt candida sicut nix (Matth. XVII, 2).

 

Quo facto splendorem ut dictum est, resurgentis in futurum figuravit Ecclesiae, de qua item scriptum est: Quae est ista quae ascendit dealbata (Cant. III, 6; VIII, 5)? Utuntur igitur albis vestibus, ut quorum primae nativitatis infantiam vetusti erroris pannus fuscaverat, habitus secundae generationis gloriae proferat indumentum, ut ad mensam sponsi coelestis nuptiali veste circumdatus homo novus occurrat.

 

VII.

Illud autem ne praetermissum videatur, ante praedicimus, quod ista omnia etiam parvulis fiant, qui adhuc pro ipsius aetatis primordio nihil intelligunt. Unde scire debetis, quia dum a parentibus aut a quibuslibet aliis offeruntur, aliena eos professione salvari necesse est, qui fuerant alieno errore damnati. Ac proinde adjungis ut dicam, cur sanctum chrisma soli pontifici liceat consecrare, quod presbytero non videtur esse concessum.

 

Et merito: quia episcopus summi pontificis gradum obtinet, presbyter vero secundi sacerdotii locum retinere cognoscitur. Omnis enim pontifex est sacerdos, non omnis sacerdos pontifex dici potest. Nam in Veteri Testamento, ut alia taceam, etiam indumentorum habitu differebant: ita ut sacerdotes quatuor quibusdam mysticis vestibus uterentur quae illis cum pontifice videbantur esse communes; at pontifex quatuor aliis utebatur, quibus indui sacerdotibus penitus non licebat.

 

Adjicitur etiam quod in sancta sanctorum semel in anno solus pontifex habebat accessum. Unde jam in novo populo episcopus ordinandi presbyteros meruit potestatem. Recte igitur benedictionis et unctionis quodammodo potestas apostolica huic traditioni servatur, quam constat ecclesiasticorum ordinum tenere principium.

 

VIII.

Illud quoque non praetereundum videtur, qui nec eadem benedictionis verba presbyterii consecratio promeretur, quae pontificalis apex consuevit audire. Nam si nihil speciale reservatum esset episcopo, gradus indifferens esse videbatur: nec opus esset diverso vocabulo, quod eadem benedictio consecraret. Sed nec illud tangat animum, quod sibi aliquando quaedam vis necessitatis assumit, veluti (quod nunc per Africam fieri dicitur) ut presbyteri sanctum chrisma conficiant: quod merito moveret, si istam pontificalis auctoritas licentiam non dedisset. Unde constat etiam nunc a pontificibus quodammodo fieri, quod in tanta rerum necessitate, ut a presbyteris effici possit, superior ordo constituit.

 

IX.

Illud etiam vultis scire, quos Ecclesia catholica redeuntes non baptizet haereticos? Quod ego pro meo modulo brevi responsione concludam: illos venientes baptizari quos non constiterit in nomine Trinitatis aeque suscepisse mysterium.

 

Nam sive Patrem solum quis confiteatur, negans Filium et Spiritum sanctum, baptizandus omnino est; sive Filium confitens, neget Patrem vel Spiritum sanctum, sine dubio consequi debet baptismatis sacramentum; vel si Spiritum sanctum denegans, Patrem fateatur ac Filium, aeque, ut meminimus, mystico fonte purgabitur, juxta illam Domini regulam dicentis: Ite, baptizate omnes gentes in nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti (Matth. XXVIII, 19).

 

Verum si Trinitatis nomen accepit, inaequalitatis quolibet modo faciens differentiam, veluti qui illo in tempore Arium sunt secuti, baptizari omnino non possunt: quia illam dominicam consecuti sunt regulam, licet videantur errare. Unde hujusmodi docendi sunt potius quam baptizandi, et incorporandi matris Ecclesiae visceribus benedictione succedente pontificis: ut per caritatem qua Deus proximusque vere diligitur, quid minus habuerint, quidve in eis completum fuerit, recognoscant.

 

De Pelagianis autem, Eutychianis sive Nestorianis aperta et vulgata sunt omnia, quae in libro de Haeresibus cum legeritis, plenius poteritis advertere.

 

X.

Acolythi autem exorcistis hoc ordine differunt, quod exorcistis portandi sacramenta, eaque sacerdotibus ministrandi negata potestas est; tantumque manus impositioni vacent, propter quod exorcistae dicuntur; vel caetera quae intra acolythorum ordinem esse probantur, explere festinent.

 

Acolythi vero sacramentorum portanda vasa suscipiunt, et ministrandi sacerdotibus ordinem gerunt. Ideoque exorcista fieri potest acolythus; iste vero ad exorcistarum officium nulla penitus promotione descendit; qui si optime suum officium ministraverint, ad subdiaconatus gradum poterunt pervenire: cujus hic apud nos ordo est, ut accepto sacratissimo calice in quo consuevit pontifex dominici sanguinis immolare mysterium, subdiaconus jam dicatur.

 

Qui si rursus nullo fuscatus vitio inculpabilis perseverat, ad diaconii vel presbyterii sacratissimas dignitates poterit pervenire.

 

XI.

Quod de septem altaribus inquisisti, quae in urbe Roma sabbato Paschae moris est consecrari, hoc dico, quia majores nostri, sive in septiformis gratiae Spiritu decreverint faciendum, sive quia septem regionibus ecclesiastica apud nos militia continetur a qua haec ipsa parantur altaria, ut singulis benedictio praestaretur: an quia septenarius ipse numerus mysticus et sacratus est, quia in Trinitatis nomine orbis credit universus, qui quatuor partibus ab Scriptura saepe describitur; ac per hoc ternarius quaternario junctus septenarium efficiat, qui quasi inter illa sacra terribilia totius mundi repraesentat imaginem; an alia quadam ratione constitutum sit, certe mihi habetur incognitum.

 

Illud tamen firma mente custodio, quod non a majoribus tradita custodiret Ecclesia, nisi certa sui ratio poposcisset. Nec ea possumus dicere inania videri ac frivola, quia eorum minime rationem accepimus.

 

Nam multa qui proxime ante nos fuerunt, et nos, ut nobis ratio persuadet, in ecclesiis quaedam nova sancimus: quae dum ad posteros transmittimus observanda, etiamsi qua id ratione a nobis factum sit, longe posterior aetas ignoret, non putabit tamen inania, si in Deum piam praecedentium intelligat voluntatem. Hoc ergo modo etiam nos quod . . . . majorum ratio ipsa non venit: nam quorum pervenit, et ipsa tenentur et res; quorum autem causa latet, et res fidei non resultat, observari ac teneri necesse est.

 

XII.

Quod autem quaesistis, cur in sacratissimum calicem lac mittatur et mel, et Paschae sabbato cum sacrificiis offeratur? Illud in causa est, quia scriptum est in Veteri Testamento et novo populo figuraliter repromissum: Introducam vos in terram repromissionis, terram fluentem lac et mel (Levit. XX, 24).

 

Terra ergo repromissionis terra est resurrectionis, et in illa felicitate semper permanentis, quae nihil est aliud quam terra corporis nostri, quae in resurrectione mortuorum incorruptionis pacisque gloriam consequetur.

 

Baptizatis ergo hoc sacramenti genus offertur, ut intelligant quia non alii, sed ipsi qui participes fiunt corporis et sanguinis Domini, terram repromissionis accipient, cujus iter inchoantes, tanquam parvuli lacte nutriuntur et melle, ut incipiant decantare: Quam dulcia faucibus meis eloquia tua, Domine, super mel et favum (Psal. CXVIII, 103; XVIII, 11).

 

Lac ergo et mel portantur novi homines post amara delicta: ut qui in prima nativitate corruptionis lacte nutriti sunt, et amaritudinis lacrymas inchoarunt, secunda generatione lactis ac mellis dulcedinem in Ecclesiae visceribus sumant, ut nutriti talibus sacramentis incorruptionis perpetuae mysteriis consecrentur.

 

XIII.

Illud etiam quod interrogare dignatus es, cur Alleluia usque ad Pentecosten in Ecclesia decantatur, scire vos convenit alia esse in fide catholica, quibus per totum mundum omnis Christianus astringitur, veluti est auctoritas Novi ac Veteris Testamenti; alia rursus esse instituta Patrum, a quibus nulli licet catholico deviare, veluti Nicaeni canones, et si quid hujusmodi est; itemque alia esse quae unaquaeque Ecclesia tanquam propria retinet, et a suis majoribus tradita sibi custodit, quae salva fide et pace catholica cum alterius regionis non observat Ecclesia, ut est Romana, quae sabbatis omnibus jejunat, quod Orientalis facere non videtur; vel quod hic septem altaria componuntur, quod alibi nullus attentat; et rursus fiant alia alibi, quae hic fieri non probantur.

 

Haec autem omnia ita diversis Ecclesiis diverso modo fiunt; ut tamen omnes illius reginae vestem faciant de qua dictum est: Astitit regina a dextris tuis in vestitu deaurato, circumamicta varietate (Psal. XLIV, 10). Nihil ergo moveat, cum videntur hic aliqua in Dei laudibus fieri, quae alibi alio modo fieri comprobantur. Sive enim usque ad Pentecosten Alleluia cantetur, quod apud nos fieri manifestum est; sive alibi toto anno dicatur; laudes Dei cantat Ecclesia.

 

Sed reservatur aliquid apud nos paschali reverentiae, ut majoribus gaudiis, et quasi mentibus innovatis ad laudem Dei recurrat affectus; propter quod Alleluia, Latino sermone Laudate Dominum dicitur. Quanquam et aliis verbis id quotidie populorum vox dicentium resonet: Laudate Dominum de coelis, laudate eum in excelsis (Psal. CXLVIII, 1). Itemque: Laudate Dominum, omnes angeli ejus (Ibid., 2). Et iterum: Laudate Dominum omnes gentes (Psal. CXVI, 1).

 

Semper ergo cum Deus quoquo modo fideli corde laudatur, Alleluia cantatur.

 

XIV.

Restat nunc illud quod interrogandum putastis: Si baptizatus sine chrismatis unctione ac benedictione pontificis ex hac vita migraverit, utrum ei obsit aliquid, an non? De qua re magis a doctis plenius audire vellem, quam ipse aliquid dicere.

 

Quid tamen mihi videatur, salva meliore intelligentia et majorum plena sententia, quod in omnibus supradictis volo tenere; quia ita vestrae voluntati parere studui, ut tamen de omnibus quid melius (quod non dubito) a majoribus dictum est, hoc uterque servemus. Quid ergo videatur breviter dicam. Ducatur ergo similitudo ab hac prima nativitate in qua orti sumus, ut intelligamus illam secundum ex qua vere vivimus et in qua justificati sumus.

 

Cum natus fuerit infans, et lucis hujus participationem contigerit, perfectum hominem natum esse dicimus, et est ejusdem substantiae cujus est ille qui genuit, hoc est, animal rationale mortale: quanquam ille grandis, hic parvus; quae sunt accidentium vocabula, non naturae. Si ergo accidant adjumenta ad aetatis provectum, nunquid adjectum est aliquid definitioni substantiae? Absit: quia non extenditur aut minuitur naturae proprietas . . . . . Caetera desunt.

 

 

English Translation:

 

THE LETTER OF JOHN THE DEACON TO SENARIUS, AN ILLUSTRIOUS MAN

On Various Rites Pertaining to Baptism, and Other Matters Worthy of Notice

 

I.

John the deacon to his deservedly distinguished and ever-magnificent son Senarius.

 

We have received Your Excellency's letter, delivered by our son Renatus, a distinguished man. In it you have pleasantly reminded us of your former kindness, and, with Catholic solicitude, have not concealed how ardently the worship of God burns in your heart. As your letter relates, you wished certain matters to be copied for you and others to be sent in writing.

 

In the copying, the labour of the scribes has in some measure assisted our own efforts. But as for the matters that must be written anew, you impose, I confess, a great deal of work upon me; and I answer, with a boldness that exceeds my measure, by undertaking this additional task. To begin with, my ability is not equal to discussing these matters as they deserve, despite the estimation in which a trusted friend holds me. The judgment of those who love is often mistaken, for affection gives more than the merits of the beloved person warrant. Furthermore, to say nothing of other matters, I am physically weak and continually bound by ecclesiastical duties.

 

Finally, the subject requires leisure, so that, while the works of our predecessors are being reviewed, the discussion of each matter may proceed with their reliable assistance. What, then, can I do in this matter, unless perhaps your wishes and desires make me capable? I shall try briefly to address the questions you have raised, as best I can, lest by remaining completely silent I incur the penalty of unproductive silence. I trust that I may be helped by your prayers, since you have compelled me to dare to undertake such difficult matters.

 

I therefore ask you to expect from me neither eloquence nor profound learning, for I have not devoted myself fully to either, and I would still rather be taught than hear myself called a teacher. Accordingly, if my discourse in this inquiry, whatever its quality, meets with your approval or expectation, let us now consider individually the matters that have been proposed. Meanwhile, I forewarn your prudence that the questions will not be answered in the exact sequence in which they appear in your letter; each will instead be brought to a suitable conclusion as it presents itself. Your questions, then, are as follows.

 

II.

The question I ask, you say, is why a person is a catechumen before receiving baptism; what this term or this catechetical instruction signifies; whether some rule for it was laid down in the Old Testament; or whether, if it is a new rule, it took its beginning rather from the New Testament. I also ask what the scrutiny is, why infants are examined three times before Easter, and what this strictness or solicitude of the examination signifies, and so forth.

 

III.

To these questions I respond as follows. We are confident that you already know the matter: the whole human race, from the very cradle of the world, as I might say, rightly fell under death through the transgression of the first man; nor could it be redeemed from this except through the grace of the Saviour. Though he was begotten of the Father before the ages, for our sake he did not disdain to be made in time from a mother alone.

 

There can therefore be no doubt that, before anyone is reborn in Christ, that person remains bound under the power of the devil. Unless he is stripped of the devil's snares by renouncing them with a true profession of faith, at the very outset of the first elements of faith, he does not attain the grace of the saving font. For this reason he must first enter the auditorium of the catechumens. In Greek, catechesis means instruction.

 

He is instructed by the ministry of the Church through the blessing accompanying the laying on of a hand, so that he may understand who he is and what he is to become: that from one liable to condemnation he may become holy; from an unrighteous person, righteous; and, finally, that from a slave he may become a son. Thus the one who had been lost in the first parent, restored through the benefit of the Second, may become possessor of his Father's inheritance.

 

The candidate who has been breathed upon is therefore exorcised, so that, once the devil has been driven away, an entrance may be prepared for Christ our God; and, freed from the power of darkness, he may be transferred into the kingdom of the glory of God's love. Thus the one who had formerly been a vessel of Satan may now become the dwelling place of the Saviour. He is breathed upon because the ancient deserter [the devil] deserves such disgrace. He is exorcised—that is, adjured—so that the devil may go out and depart, acknowledging the advent of the One whose image he had cast down by evil persuasion, although that image had been established in the blessedness of paradise.

 

The catechumen now receives blessed salt. This signifies that, just as all flesh is preserved when seasoned with salt, so the mind, sodden and unstable amid the waves of the world, is seasoned with the salt of wisdom and the preaching of God's word. In this way, once the moisture of corruption has been thoroughly drained away, it may attain firmness, stability, and permanence through the sweetness of divine salt. This is what the frequent laying on of hands accomplishes, together with reverence for the Trinity and the Creator's blessing invoked three times over the candidate's head.

 

IV.

After a certain advance and progress, the one who had formerly been breathed upon and had renounced the snares and pomps of the devil now deserves to receive the words of the Creed handed down by the apostles. Thus, the one who shortly before was called only a catechumen is now also called a competens or an electus—a candidate or chosen one. For he has been conceived in the womb of Mother Church and has already begun to live, even though he has not yet completed the time of sacred birth. Then are performed those rites which ecclesiastical custom calls the scrutinies.

 

We scrutinise their hearts through faith: whether, after renouncing the devil, they have fixed the sacred words in their minds; whether they have acknowledged the grace of the Redeemer that is to come; and whether they profess that they believe in God the Father Almighty. When their responses have made it clear that this is so—for it is written, 'With the heart one believes unto righteousness, but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation' (Romans 10:10)—their ears are touched with the oil of sanctification, and their nostrils are touched as well. Their ears are touched because through them faith enters the understanding, as the Apostle says: 'Faith comes through hearing, and hearing through the word of God' (ibid. 10:17). Thus, as though fortified by a wall of sanctification, their ears admit nothing harmful, nothing that could draw them back.

 

V.

When their nostrils are touched, they are undoubtedly admonished to persevere in God's service and commandments for as long as they draw the breath of this life through their nostrils. Hence that holy man said: 'The Lord lives, who has taken away my judgment, and the Almighty, who has brought bitterness upon my soul; for as long as my breath remains in me and the spirit of God is in my nostrils, my lips shall not speak iniquity, nor shall my tongue meditate deceit' (Job 27:2–4).

 

Another thing is signified by the anointing of the nostrils: since that oil has been blessed in the name of the Saviour, let them be led to his spiritual fragrance by an ineffable sweetness in their inner senses, so that, delighted, they may sing: 'Your name is poured-out ointment; we shall run after the fragrance of your ointments' (Song of Songs 1:2–3). Through this mystery, the sense of smell is fortified, so that it may admit nothing worldly that gives pleasure, nothing that could unsettle the mind.

 

VI.

Next, their breast is anointed with the oil of consecration, for there is the seat and dwelling place of the heart. They must understand that they are to promise, with a firm conscience and pure heart, that now, having abandoned the devil, they will follow the commandments of Christ. They are also instructed to walk barefoot, so that, having laid aside the garments of death and the flesh, they may recognise that they are setting out upon a road on which nothing rough or harmful can be found.

 

Thus ecclesiastical care has established this prudent arrangement through the passage of time, although the ancient Scriptures show no trace of these practices. Accordingly, when the electus or catechumen has advanced in faith through these rites, as though through spiritual vehicles, it is then necessary for him to be consecrated by the baptism of the one font, in which sacrament the baptized person is perfected through a threefold immersion. And rightly so.

 

For the one who approaches baptism in the name of the Trinity ought to signify that same Trinity by a threefold immersion and to acknowledge himself indebted to its benefits—to the One who rose from the dead on the third day for his sake. After this, white garments are received and the candidate's head is anointed with the unction of holy chrism, so that the baptized person may understand that the mystery of royal and sacerdotal dignity has come to dwell within him. For priests and princes were anointed with the oil of chrism: the former offered sacrifices, while the latter ruled peoples.

 

To express more fully the image of the priesthood, the head of the newly reborn is adorned with linen. For the priests of that time always adorned their heads with a certain mystical veil. All who are regenerated, however, are clothed in white garments for the ministry of the Church's resurrection, just as the Lord and Saviour himself was transfigured on the mountain before certain disciples and prophets, so that it was said: 'His face shone like the sun, and his garments became white as snow' (Matthew 17:2).

 

By this, as has been said, he prefigured the splendour of the Church, which is to rise in the future. Of it, too, it is written: 'Who is this that ascends, made white?' (Song of Songs 3:6; 8:5). They therefore wear white garments so that, whereas the cloth of ancient error had darkened the infancy of their first birth, the attire of the glory of their second birth may bring forth a garment, and the new man may come to the table of his heavenly Bridegroom clothed in a bridal robe.

 

VII.

Lest this seem to have been omitted, we state beforehand that all these things are done even for little children, who, because they are at the very beginning of their age, understand nothing. Therefore you should know that, when they are presented by their parents or by others, they must necessarily be saved through another's profession of faith, since they had been condemned through another's error.

 

You also add, accordingly, that I should explain why only the bishop is permitted to consecrate holy chrism, whereas the priest does not appear to have been granted this. And rightly so: the bishop holds the rank of the supreme pontiff, while the priest is recognised as holding the place of the second priesthood. Every pontiff is a priest, but not every priest can be called a pontiff.

 

In the Old Testament, to say nothing of other matters, they differed even in the manner of their garments: the priests wore four certain mystical vestments that appeared to be shared with the pontiff; but the pontiff wore four others, with which priests were absolutely not permitted to be clothed. It is also added that only the pontiff had access to the Holy of Holies once a year. Hence, among the new people, the bishop obtained the authority to ordain priests. Rightly, therefore, the power of blessing and anointing is in a certain manner preserved for this apostolic tradition, which is acknowledged to hold the first place among ecclesiastical orders.

 

VIII.

It also seems that this should not be passed over: the ordination of a priest does not receive the same words of blessing that the summit of the pontificate is accustomed to hear. For if nothing were specially reserved to the bishop, the ranks would appear indistinguishable; and there would be no need for a different title if the same blessing consecrated both. Nor should it trouble you that necessity sometimes assumes a certain force of its own—as is said to be happening now in Africa, where priests make the holy chrism. This would rightly cause concern if the authority of the pontiff had not granted this permission. Hence it is clear that even now something is in a certain manner done by pontiffs which the superior order has established may, in such great necessity, be performed by priests.

 

IX.

You also wish to know which heretics the Catholic Church does not rebaptize when they return to it. I shall conclude this briefly, according to my limited ability: those who come must be baptized if it has not been established that they have likewise received the mystery in the name of the Trinity. For if someone confesses the Father alone while denying the Son and the Holy Spirit, he must certainly be baptized; if he confesses the Son but denies the Father or the Holy Spirit, he must without doubt receive the sacrament of baptism; or if he denies the Holy Spirit but confesses the Father and the Son, he is likewise to be cleansed, as we have said, in the mystical font, in accordance with that rule of the Lord who says: 'Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' (Matthew 28:19).

 

But if someone has received the name of the Trinity while in some way making a distinction of inequality—as did those who followed Arius in that time—they must certainly not be baptized, because they have received that dominical rule, even though they may appear to be in error. Such people must therefore be taught rather than baptized, and incorporated into the womb of Mother Church through the blessing that follows from the bishop, so that through charity, by which God and neighbour are truly loved, they may recognise what they have lacked and what has been fulfilled in them. As for the Pelagians, Eutychians, and Nestorians, all these matters are clear and widely known; when you have read the book On Heresies, you will be able to observe them more fully.

 

X.

The acolytes differ from the exorcists in this respect: exorcists have been denied the power to carry the sacraments and to minister them to priests; they are occupied only with the laying on of hands, from which they are called exorcists. They should hasten to fulfil the other duties that are recognised as belonging to the order of acolytes.

 

Acolytes, by contrast, undertake to carry the vessels for the sacraments and perform the service of assisting the priests. Thus an exorcist can become an acolyte, but an acolyte cannot descend to the office of exorcist by any promotion. Those who discharge their office very well may attain the rank of subdeacon. The order of subdeacon here among us is as follows: once he has received the most sacred chalice, in which the pontiff is accustomed to offer the mystery of the Lord's blood, he is then called a subdeacon. If he, in turn, remains blameless and is not darkened by any fault, he can attain the most sacred dignities of the diaconate or priesthood.

 

XI.

What you asked about the seven altars, which it is customary in the city of Rome to consecrate on Holy Saturday, I answer as follows. Our predecessors may have decided that this should be done either in reference to the sevenfold grace of the Spirit, or because the ecclesiastical service among us is organised into seven regions, from which these very altars are prepared, so that a blessing might be provided for each; or because the number seven itself is mystical and sacred. The whole world believes in the name of the Trinity and is often described in Scripture as having four parts. Accordingly, when three is joined to four, it produces seven, which, as it were, represents the image of the whole world among those sacred and awe-inspiring realities. Whether it was established for some other reason, I certainly do not know.

 

One thing, however, I firmly hold in mind: the Church would not preserve a tradition handed down by our predecessors unless a definite reason had demanded it. Nor can we call these things empty and frivolous simply because we have received little explanation of their rationale. For many who lived immediately before us, and we ourselves, establish certain new things in churches, as reason persuades us. When we pass them on to those who come after us for observance, even if a much later age does not know for what reason we did something, it will not consider these things empty if it recognises the pious intention of those who preceded it toward God.

 

In the same way, we too preserve those things whose rationale from our predecessors has not come down to us. For where the rationale has come down, both it and the practice are retained; but where the reason is hidden, and the practice does not conflict with the faith, it is necessary that it be observed and maintained.

 

XII.

You have also asked why milk and honey are put into the most sacred chalice and offered with the sacrifices on the Saturday of Easter. The reason is that the Old Testament makes a figurative promise to the new people in these words: 'I will bring you into the land of promise, a land flowing with milk and honey' (Leviticus 20:24).

 

The land of promise, then, is the land of resurrection and of that happiness which endures forever. It is nothing other than the land of our body, which in the resurrection of the dead attains the glory of incorruption and peace.

 

This kind of sacrament is therefore offered to the baptized, so that they may understand that it is not others but they themselves—those who become partakers of the Lord's body and blood—who will receive the land of promise. As they begin their journey toward it, they are nourished like little children with milk and honey, so that they may begin to sing: 'How sweet are your words to my palate, O Lord—more than honey and the honeycomb' (Psalm 118:103; 18:11).

 

Thus milk and honey are brought to the new people after their bitter sins: those who in their first birth were nourished by the milk of corruption and began the tears of bitterness may, in their second birth, receive the sweetness of milk and honey in the womb of the Church, so that, nourished by such sacraments, they may be consecrated through the mysteries of everlasting incorruption.

 

XIII.

What you were also pleased to ask—why Alleluia is sung in the Church up to Pentecost—you should know that there are certain matters of the Catholic faith to which every Christian throughout the world is bound, such as the authority of the New and Old Testaments. There are, in turn, institutions of the Fathers from which no Catholic may deviate, such as the canons of Nicaea and anything of that sort. And there are also practices that each Church retains as its own and preserves as a tradition handed down by its predecessors. One Church does not observe these together with the Church of another region, without violating the faith and peace of the Catholic Church. Such is the Roman Church, which fasts on every Saturday, a practice that the Eastern Church does not appear to follow; or the practice here of arranging seven altars, which no one elsewhere attempts; while elsewhere, in turn, other things are done that are not observed here.

 

All these things are done in different Churches in different ways, yet all together they make the garment of that queen of whom it is said: 'The queen stood at your right hand, clothed in a garment of gold, surrounded with variety' (Psalm 44:10). Therefore, do not be disturbed when certain things are seen here in the praises of God which are shown to be done elsewhere in another way. Whether Alleluia is sung up to Pentecost, as is clearly done among us, or whether it is said elsewhere throughout the whole year, the Church sings the praises of God.

 

Yet we reserve something here out of reverence for Easter, so that with greater joy and, as it were, with minds renewed, our devotion may return to the praise of God. For this reason, Alleluia means in Latin 'Praise the Lord.' Nevertheless, the people's voice also echoes this praise every day in other words: 'Praise the Lord from the heavens; praise him in the highest' (Psalm 148:1); and again: 'Praise the Lord, all his angels' (ibid. 148:2); and once more: 'Praise the Lord, all nations' (Psalm 116:1). Thus, whenever God is praised in any way with a faithful heart, Alleluia is sung.

 

XIV.

There remains now the question you thought should be asked: if a baptized person departs this life without the anointing of chrism and the blessing of the bishop, does this harm him in any way or not? On this matter I would prefer to hear a fuller explanation from learned men rather than say something myself.

 

Nevertheless, I shall briefly state what seems to me, subject to a better understanding and the full judgment of our predecessors, which I wish to maintain in all the matters discussed above. For I have been eager to comply with your wishes, while at the same time preserving whatever better teaching our predecessors have given on every point—which, I do not doubt, we ought all to retain.

 

Let me therefore explain briefly what seems to be the case. Let an analogy be drawn from this first birth, in which we have been born, so that we may understand the second birth, from which we truly live and in which we have been justified. When an infant has been born and has attained a share in this light, we say that a complete human being has been born; he is of the same substance as the one who begot him—that is, a rational, mortal animal. Although the one is grown and the other small, these are terms of accident, not of nature. If, therefore, the aids of advancing age are added, has anything been added to the definition of substance? Certainly not, for the property of nature is neither enlarged nor diminished. ... The remainder is missing.