Isidore of Seville (d. 636) Affirming the Damnation of All Unbaptized Infants in his De Ecclesiasticis Officiis

  

(7) We believe that at the age of perfection baptism effects either the purgation of the original fault or the abolition of actual sin. For children, however, the effect of baptism is that they are washed only from the original sin that they contracted from Adam through their first birth. If they should have died before they are regenerated, without doubt they are separated from the kingdom of Christ, our savior testifying: “no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit” [John 3:5]. Accordingly, children are baptized with another person professing, because as yet they do not know how to speak or believe. This is also the case with the sick, the speechless, and the deaf, on whose behalf another professes so as to respond on their behalf while they are being baptized. (8) However, although original sin passes away through the regeneration, nevertheless the punishment of the mandated death, which entered through the transgression, remains even in those whom the baptism of the savior cleanses from the fault of the origin. This is the case accordingly so that one will know that the hope of future happiness follows through regeneration, not so that he can be absolved from the punishment of temporal death. (Isidore of Seville, De Ecclesiasticis Officiis [trans. Thomas L. Knoebel; Ancient Christian Writers 61; New York: The Newman Press, 2008], 110, emphasis in bold added)

 

Isidore of Seville (d. 636) on Three Different Types of Baptism in his De Ecclesiasticis Officiis

  

There are three kinds of baptism: first, the baptism by which the stains of sin are washed away through the washing of regeneration. Second, the baptism by which one is baptized in his blood through martyrdom. By this baptism also Christ was baptized so that both in this, as in the others, he might give an example to the believers, as he was saying to his disciples the sons of Zebedee: “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” [Mark 10:38]. Therefore water and blood symbolize a twofold baptism: the one by which we are regenerated by a washing, the other by which we are consecrated by blood. (3) There is also a third baptism, of tears, which is accomplished laboriously, as the one who “every night … flood[s his] bed with tears” [Ps 6:7], who imitates the conversion of Manasseh and the humility of the people of Nineveh through which mercy followed, who imitates the prayer of that publican in the Temple, “who, standing far off, would not even look up to heaven, but was beating his breast” [Luke 18:13].

 

For the water of baptism is that which flowed from the side of Christ at the time of the passion, and there is no other element that purges all things in this world, that enlivens all things. Therefore, when we are baptized in Christ we are reborn through that water so that, purified, we might be brought to life. (Isidore of Seville, De Ecclesiasticis Officiis [trans. Thomas L. Knoebel; Ancient Christian Writers 61; New York: The Newman Press, 2008], 109)

 

כֹּהֵן (kōhēn) and כֹּמֶר (kōmer) In the Lexham Theological Wordbook (2014)

  

כֹּהֵן (kōhēn). n. masc. priest. Someone who mediates between the divine and the human in or around a place of worship.

 

Although this word is a noun, the vocalic pattern shows that it was originally a participle. The original meaning of the root is not certain, but it is also used to refer to a religious official in Ugaritic (khn), Imperial and Middle Aramaic (כהן, khn), and Phoenician (כהן, khn). In the OT, kōhēn refers to priests who are descendants of Aaron and Levi, as well as to certain non-Levitical priests such as Melchizedek (Gen 14:18–20) and Jethro (Exod 18:1) and priests of other gods (e.g., a priest of Baal; 1 Kgs 11:18). At a later point, the meaning of this root was restricted so that it referred only to Levitical priests. Accordingly, Targum Onqelos (an Aramaic paraphrase of the Pentateuch) refers to Jethro as a רבא (rabbāʾ, “teacher”) and to Melchizedek as a משׁמישׁ (mĕšamêš, “minister”). The Peshitta (the Syriac version of the OT) refers to both of these as ܟܘܡܪܐ (kumrāʾ), a term used for all non-Levitical priests; kumrāʾ is cognate with the Hebrew term כֹּמֶר (kōmer; see below). (Daniel E. Carver, “Priesthood,” in Lexham Theological Wordbook, ed. Douglas Mangum et al., Lexham Bible Reference Series [Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014], Logos ed. [RB: kohen does not appear in 1 Kings 11:18, but it appears in 1 Kings 8:11])

 

 

כֹּמֶר (kōmer). n. masc. priest. Used only of idolatrous priests.

 

This word is unrelated to the main Hebrew words for priests and priesthood and is used only for idolatrous priests (2 Kgs 23:5; Hos 10:5; Zeph 1:4). It is cognate with the Syriac ܟܘܡܪܐ (kumrāʾ), which is not restricted to idolatrous priests, since it is used for Melchizedek. (Daniel E. Carver, “Priesthood,” in Lexham Theological Wordbook, ed. Douglas Mangum et al., Lexham Bible Reference Series [Bellingham, Wash.: Lexham Press, 2014], Logos ed.)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Canon 102 of Trullo/Quinisext (A. D. 692) and All the Bishops Having the Ability to Bind and Loose

Addressing all bishops, not the Bishop of Rome singularly, canon 102 of the Council of Trullo (AKA Quinisext), held A.D. 692, reads:

 

It behoves those who have received from God the power to loose and bind, to consider the quality of the sin and the readiness of the sinner for conversion, and to apply medicine suitable for the disease, lest if he is injudicious in each of these respects he should fail in regard to the healing of the sick man. For the disease of sin is not simple, but various and multiform, and it germinates many mischievous offshoots, from which much evil is diffused, and it proceeds further until it is checked by the power of the physician. Wherefore he who professes the science of spiritual medicine ought first of all to consider the disposition of him who has sinned, and to see whether he tends to health or (on the contrary) provokes to himself disease by his own behaviour, and to look how he can care for his manner of life during the interval. And if he does not resist the physician, and if the ulcer of the soul is increased by the application of the imposed medicaments, then let him mete out mercy to him according as he is worthy of it. For the whole account is between God and him to whom the pastoral rule has been delivered, to lead back the wandering sheep and to cure that which is wounded by the serpent; and that he may neither cast them down into the precipices of despair, nor loosen the bridle towards dissolution or contempt of life; but in some way or other, either by means of sternness and astringency, or by greater softness and mild medicines, to resist this sickness and exert himself for the healing of the ulcer, now examining the fruits of his repentance and wisely managing the man who is called to higher illumination. For we ought to know two things, to wit, the things which belong to strictness and those which belong to custom, and to follow the traditional form in the case of those who are not fitted for the highest things, as holy Basil teaches us. (NPNF₂ 14:408)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Robert A. Sungenis on the Importance of the Patristics

The following comes from Robert A. Sungenis, who has written a lot in favor of Catholic theology (e.g., Not By Bread Alone: The Biblical and Historical Evidence of the Eucharistic Sacrifice) and against Protestantism (e.g., Not By Faith Alone: The Biblical Evidence for the Catholic Doctrine of Justification). What stood out is how Sungenis downplays the significance of the patristics and their witness (at least in comparison to many pop-level Catholic apologists who often [falsely] appeal to the unanimous consent of the fathers for various doctrines):

 

Often we are tempted to think that support for a doctrinal truth can be garnered simply by finding a representative sample of Fathers of the early Church who held the same opinion. Often the Catholic interpreter will quote one, two, or perhaps even a dozen Fathers on a matter of doctrine and consider the case closed. Unfortunately, it is simply not that easy. Unless the Fathers had a consensus wherein all of them agreed on a certain matter of Christian doctrine, the doctrine is neither established nor required for belief. The Catholic should consider the testimony of the Fathers influential and valuable, but certainly not final. The reason is that the Catholic Church does not regard the Fathers as possessing an inspired gift for deciding matters of doctrine, nor does the Church regard the Fathers as superior interpreters of Scripture compared to exegetes of a later time. Truth be told, some of the Fathers were poor at exegeting Scripture. Some of them did not even know the languages of the Bible, Greek and Hebrew. At other times the Fathers not only contradicted one another, but a Father would sometimes contradict himself, or give two or more opinions on a certain passage of Scripture. In fact, some of the Fathers held beliefs that were later regarded as dubious or even heretical by the Church. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Should We Expect a Mass Conversion of Jews Just Before the Return of Christ?,” in Catholic/Jewish Dialogue: Controversies & Corrections [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2010], 634)

 

 

The main reason the Church invests the Fathers with a certain degree of influence or authority regarding Catholic doctrine is that their consensus on a certain belief is a strong sign that the doctrine originates from Christ and the Apostles. [272] If their teaching is unanimous, such that they all interpret a text of the Bible precisely the same, then it can be assumed, barring some intervention by the magisterium, that the teaching was inspired by the Holy Spirit, either by written revelation (2Tm 3:16) or oral revelation (1Th 2:13), which were both commanded to be preserved in Tradition (2Th 2:15). It is the divine origin of a particular doctrine that makes the doctrine a requirement of belief for salvation, not the majority or common opinion of the Fathers, the medieval or theologians and prelates of today. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Should We Expect a Mass Conversion of Jews Just Before the Return of Christ?,” in Catholic/Jewish Dialogue: Controversies & Corrections [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2010], 634-35)

 

[272] “We say [the Fathers] are of supreme authority whenever they all interpret in one and the same manner any text of the Bible as pertaining to the doctrine of faith or morals; for their unanimity clearly evinces that such interpretation has come down form the Apostles as a matter of Catholic faith” (Encyclical, Providentissimus Deus, II, 1893).

 

 

There are instances in which the Fathers held to a consensus on various points of doctrine, but the Church, who is the final authority, has not chosen to dogmatize the consensus into a requirement for personal belief and salvation (e.g., geocentrism, the sons of God in Gn 6:1-2 were fallen angels, etc). There are other instances in which there exists very little testimony from the Fathers on a given doctrine, yet the Church has chosen to dogmatize the doctrine and make it a requirement for salvation (e.g., the Assumption of Mary). Sometimes there is a germ of doctrine in the Fathers which is enhanced by the medieval theologians, but which the Church eventually rejects (e.g., limbo). [273] Additionally, there are cases in which an absolute consensus exists very early among the Fathers on a given doctrine and which the Church dogmatizes early in her history (e.g., baptismal regeneration), yet other times there is a developing consensus which the Church dogmatizes rather later in her history (e.g., transubstantiation, justification, canon of Scripture). Hence, when we enter into a study of the patristics, we must tread lightly. As reliable as they often were, the Fathers were fallible men just like theologians of today. In fact, the tools of biblical exegesis we have today, as well as the exegetical knowledge and easy access of Greek and Hebrew not available to some Fathers, contemporary exegetes of Scripture have a distinct advantage in discovering the truths of Holy Writ that there not always available to the Fathers. What the Fathers had to their distinct advantage is their close proximity to the Apostles, and thus we would expect that, if and when there was a bridge from the Apostles to the Fathers on a certain point of doctrine, the Fathers would most likely provide us with consensus testimony to that divine source, yet even then, they may not do so in very case. (Robert A. Sungenis, “Should We Expect a Mass Conversion of Jews Just Before the Return of Christ?,” in Catholic/Jewish Dialogue: Controversies & Corrections [State Line, Pa.: Catholic Apologetics International Publishing, Inc., 2010], 635)

 

The case of Limbo is especially significant since Pope Benedict XVI recently approved a papal commission document that essentially removed Limbo from the teaching of the Church. This shows that even cherished theological ideas from tradition, if not officially accepted and dogmatized by the Church, can be eliminated by a future pope or council. (Ibid., 635 n. 275)

 

 

"Elias" as a Forerunner and "Elias" in D&C 110 being John the Revelator in The Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times

  

In his position as patriarchal head of his own church, [Ross Wesley] LeBaron sees himself as preparing the way for the great man who will hold the special Mighty and Strong office. “I am not the prophet spoken of as the One Mighty and Strong,” he as emphatically written, “my work is that of an Elias or forerunner to this great prophet—much as John the Baptist was before the coming of Christ” (Ross W. LeBaron, Letter to John Wolf, February 14, 1959). (Lyle O. Wright, “Origins and Development of the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times” [MA Thesis; Brigham Young University, 1963], 40)

 

 

Elias

 

Maurice Lerrie Glendenning, who heads the Order of Aaron as a purported firstborn son of Aaron, claims to receive revelations from Elias. Glendenning teaches that the One Mighty and Strong is Christ, the great Elias. (James R. Christianson, “The Aaronic Order and/or The True Order of Aaron, Term paper, Brigham Young University, 1959). (Lyle O. Wright, “Origins and Development of the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times” [MA Thesis; Brigham Young University, 1963], 41)

 

 

[on “The Right of the Firstborn”]:

 

LeBaronism maintains that Moses held this authority and that it was this office of “Right of the Firstborn” that fulfilled the promise to Abraham that through him and his seed all the families of the earth should be blessed—that is, they would be blessed in the priesthood which Abraham and his seed were to hold.

 

The holding of this office is said to have been what constituted Abraham the “father of the faithful.” It was this office that was supposedly taken out of Israel with Moses, yet after the loss of the office all three departments of ecclesiastical government—spiritual, civil, and temporal—were carried on under the patriarchal authority of the priesthood of Aaron. No prophets between Moses and Christ held the office Moses held, but it was conferred upon Christ by Moses, according to the LeBarons. Christ bestowed the office upon John the Revelator, who as “Elias” completed Joseph Smith’s power of restoration by bestowing the office upon Joseph in the Kirtland Temple in 1836.

 

Table 2 lists the men from Adam to the present said to have held this office, the early history of which Joel LeBaron has summarized by declaring their belief to be that:

 

. . . Adam brought a certain office with him, which of course is the Melchizedek office . . . that Adam left this office with Enoch, that Enoch left it with Lamech, his grandson; that Lamech left it with Noah, his son; that Noah passed it to Melchizedek; Melchizedek passed it to Abraham; that Abraham gave it to Esaias and through a line of prophets to Jethro; and Jethro gave this to Moses; Moses gave this personally to Christ, and Christ gave this personally, after the same pattern exactly, to John his beloved disciple; that John his beloved disciple gave it to Joseph Smith April 3, 1836, in the Kirtland temple; that there was no man on the face of this earth in the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith that could give that office to another but himself, following the same pattern exactly as it came down form the days of Adam to him, no change. (Joel F. LeBaron, Tape-recording of an address given at Ogden, Utah, in 1961, a copy of which is in the writer’s possession; the original is in the possession of Wendell L. Hansen, Ogden, Utah.) (Lyle O. Wright, “Origins and Development of the Church of the Firstborn of the Fullness of Times” [MA Thesis; Brigham Young University, 1963], 139-40)

 

Further Reading:

 

“Elias” as a “forerunner” in LDS Scripture

Blake Ostler on 1 Clement Teaching Creatio Ex Materia, not Ex Nihilo

  

1 Clement. Clement, bishop of Rome, shared the same worldview as Philo of an eternal fabric or constitution of the world from which the world was created. Clement stated: “Thou . . . didst make manifest the everlasting fabric of the world. Thou, Lord, didst create the earth.” The terms used here by Clement are significant. He asserts that God did “make manifest” (ἐϕανεροποίησας) the “everlasting fabric of the world” (Σὺ τὴν ἀέναον τοῦ κόσμου σύστασιν). He is referring to an eternal substrate that underlies God’s creative activity. Clement is important because he is at the very center of the Christian church as it was then developing. His view assumed that God had created from an eternally existing substrate, creating by “making manifest” what already existed in some form. The lack of argumentation or further elucidation indicates that Clement was not attempting to establish a philosophical position; he was merely maintaining a generally accepted one. However, the fact that such a view was assumed is even more significant than if Clement had argued for it. If he had presented an argument for this view, then we could assume that it was either a contested doctrine or a new view. But because he acknowledged it as obvious, it appears to have been a generally accepted belief in the early Christian church. (Blake Ostler, “Out of Nothing: A History of Creation Ex Nihilo in Early Christian Thought,” FARMS Review 17, no. 2 [2005]: 293-94)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Adele Reinhartz on John 4:22

  

The difficulty in interpreting 4:22 rests in great measure on the meaning of “from” in the phrase translated “salvation is from the Jews.” The Greek preposition translated “from” is ek (sometimes ex). This preposition can mean “of” as in “a part of” or “can be found within.” It can also mean “out of” or “emerging from.”

 

Those who read 4:22 as the positive counterbalance to the negative portrayal of the Jews interpret “salvation is from the Jews” as “belonging to or reserved for Jews only.” But in Greek the phrase can just as easily be read “salvation emerges from the Jews.” John’s point here is not to emphasize that the Jews are the origin of salvation but that Jesus is the one through whom salvation comes. In other words, Jesus, the Jew who, by rights, should not have been speaking to a Samaritan woman, is the salvation that comes from the Jews. This analysis supports the idea that, while Ioudaioi is a positive term here, the point of the verse is not to stress Jesus’s Jewish origins so much as to draw attention to Jesus himself.

 

It may seem that an interpreter keen to avoid Judeophobic teachings of this passage might do well to focus on the positive resonances of John 4:22 and downplay the Christological and rhetorical elements of the verse in its context within the gospel. Taking this route, however, amounts to an apologetic reading that, perhaps paradoxically, may reinforce the anti-Judaism it is attempting to avoid. A more successful, as well as more critically defensible, approach is to situate this passage within its literary and theological context in John’s Gospel. Doing so allows us to see that 4:22, like 8:44, contributes to the gospel’s rhetorical program. (Adele Reinhartz, “Gospel of John,” in Judeophobia and the New Testament: Texts and Contexts, ed. Sarah E. Rollens, Eric M. Vanden Eykel, and Meredith J. C. Warren [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2025], 146)

 

Vee Chandler on the Scapegoat

  

THE SCAPEGOAT

 

To support the penal substitution view of sacrifice, specifically that the blood of the animal is shed in place of the blood of the offerer, advocates refer to the ceremony of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:8-10, 20-22). The penal substitution interpretation assumes that in the regular sin offering the sins of the offerer are symbolically placed on the sacrificial animal by the laying on of hands in the same manner as with the scapegoat. But there are differences between the scapegoat and the sin offering. The Scapegoat is not killed and its blood is not shed. IT is sent into the desert. The sin offering, however, is pure and is offered to God. The scapegoat is impure, and anyone who touches it is also considered impure. Therefore, the priest who carried out the ceremony and the one appointed to release the scapegoat in the wilderness both had to purify themselves afterward (Lev 16:26). In addition, both hands of the priest are laid on the scapegoat whereas only one is placed on the sin offerings and the other sacrifices in which there is no thought of removing sin (such as the burnt offering and the peace offering). Most revealing is the fact that not once in the NT, when the author speaks of the sacrifice of Christ, is the ceremony of the scapegoat mentioned.

 

The scapegoat, then, is not a type of Christ, for in the ceremonies of the Day of Atonement the two ideas of a sacrificial victim and sin-bearing are mutually exclusive. An animal could be sacrificed or offered to God only because it was thought not to be contaminated with the sins of the people. This clearly presents a contradiction for juridical theories of the Atonement. The use of the blood signified the expiation or washing away of sin by a sinless life that had been offered to and accepted by God. On the Day of Atonement one goat symbolized the means of atonement and the other the effect of atonement: bearing away the sins of the people to the land of forgetfulness. The ritual contains no idea of punishment.

 

It was during the Reformation that the exegesis of the rite changed to reflect the newly developed penal substitution theory. The scapegoat provided a ready illustration of a theory of the Atonement founded on the alleged imputation of sins to Christ. However, there is no scriptural evidence for interpreting the scapegoat as a type of Christ. Attempts to create such comparisons are mere exercise in typology unfounded in Scripture. A change in the Christian understanding of redemption is what allowed the association of Christ with the scapegoat. (Vee Chandler, Victorious Substitution: Exploring the Nature of Salvation and Christ’s Atoning Work [Eugene, Oreg.: Wipf & Stock, 2025], 107-8, italics in original)

 

John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation

Huge credit to Stephen Smoot//the B H Roberts Foundation for the following:

 

John Taylor’s 1886 Revelation (cf. Primary Sources)

 

Smoot was instrumental in getting the handwritten original digitized. One can find the 1886 revelation in Taylor’s own handwriting here:

 

John Taylor revelation, 1886 September 27, Church History Catalog, MS 34928

J. J. M. Roberts on Discovering New Roots in Semitic Languages

  

There is no particular merit in "discovering" vast numbers of "hitherto unrecognized" Hebrew roots, particularly when the pas- sages being explicated make sense with the old established roots. Nevertheless, classical Hebrew undoubtedly possessed a much richer vocabulary than has been preserved in our limited corpus of texts, and where none of the old roots make sense in the context, as is certainly the case in Ps. xxii 17c, it is legitimate to suggest a new root. The only requirements are that the root be well-attested in a cognate language or languages, the difference in root consonants, if any, be explainable by the principles of Semitic phonology, and the meaning suggested for the new root be consistent with its attested meaning in the cognate languages and with the context in the other language where it is posited. (J. J. M. Roberts, “A New Root for an Old Crux, Ps. XXII 17c,” Vetus Testmentum 23, no. 2 [April 1973]: 251)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Edward Denny on the Scriptural Witness Against the Roman Catholic Interpretation of Luke 22:32

  

The Scriptural testimony against the Papalist interpretation of St. Luke xxii. 32.

 

154. Additional evidence that St. Peter had no office of strengthening the brethren other than that which, as has been said, he shared in common with the rest of the Rulers of the Church, is afforded by the fact that the word στηριζειν, used by St. Luke in the passage (or its compounds) is also used by the same writer with reference to the work of St. Paul and others in the Acts of the Apostles.

 

So St. Paul and St. Barnabas are related to have confirmed [επιστηριζοντες] the disciples of Lystra, Iconium, and Antioch. [Acts 14:22] So St. Jude and St. Silas confirmed [επεστηριξαν] the brethren of Antioch. [Acts 15:32] So St. Paul confirmed [επιστηριζων] the Churches of Syria and Cilicia, [Acts 15:41] and the disciples in Galatia and Phrygia, [Acts 18:23] whilst St. Paul used the word GK to describe the purpose for which he sent Timothy to the Thessalonian Church. [1 Thess 3:2]

 

155. It is, moreover, specially worthy of note that the Apostle in his Epistle to the Romans says of himself: 'I long to see you that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, that you may be established,' [Rom 1:10] εις το στηριχθηναι υμας, words which show that he regarded himself as one who should be the instrument whereby a gift of strength should be conferred on the Christians of Rome. A fact which is specially interesting, as the Roman Christians on Papalist principles were the peculiar charge of Peter, who was actually at this very time, according to the Papalist figment of his twenty-five years' tenure of the Roman See, seated in 'the Chair' which he had placed there. St. Paul's statement therefore would have been, if the Papalist interpretation of St. Luke xxii. 32 were true, in a very special manner an infringement of the prerogatives of Peter, whilst, on the other hand, it would accurately describe the result of the faithful discharge of that Apostolic office which he held in common with St. Peter and the rest of the Apostolic College, and be perfectly consistent with the position of joint-founder with St. Peter of the Church at Rome, which was his privilege. (Edward Denny, Papalism: A Treatise on the Claims of the Papacy As Set Forth in the Encyclical Satis Cognitum [London: Rivingtons, 1912], 77-78)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet (1627-1704) Defending the Book of Judith

   

En ce temps arriva la mort de Romulus (39-715). Il fut toujours en guerre, et toujours victorieux; mais, a umilieu des guerres, il jeta les fondements de la religionet des lois. Une longue paix donna moyen à Numa, son successeur, d'achever l'ouvrage (40-714). Il formala religion, et adoucit les mœurs farouches du peupleromain. De son temps, les colonies venues de Corinthe, et de quelques autres villes de Grèce, fondèrent Syracuse en Sicile, Crotone, Tarente, et peut-être quelques autres villes dans cette partie de l'Italie, à qui de plus anciennes colonies grecques répandues dans tout le pays avaient déjà donné le nom de Grande-Grèce.

 

Cependant Ezéchias, le plus pieux et le plus justede tous les rois après David, régnait en Judée. Sennachérib, fils et successeur de Salmanasar, l'assiégea dans Jérusalem avec une armée immense (44-710) : elle périten une nuit, par la main d'un ange. Ezéchias, délivréd'une manière si admirable, servit Dieu avec tout son peuple, plus fidèlement que jamais. Mais, après la mortde ce prince (56-698), et sous son fils Manassès, le peupleingrat oublia Dieu, et les désordres s'y multiplièrent

 

L'Etat populaire se formait alors parmi les Athéniens, et ils commencèrent à choisir les archontes annuels, dont le premier fut Créon (67-687).

 

Pendant que l'impiété s'augmentait dans le royaume de Juda, la puissance des rois d'Assyrie, qui devaient en être les vengeurs, s'accrut sous Asaraddon, fils de Sennachérib. Il réunit le royaume de Babylone à celui de Ninive (73-681), et égala dans la grande Asie la puissance des premiers Assyriens. Les Mèdes commençaient aussi à se rendre considérables. Déjocès, leur premier roi, que quelques-uns prennent pour l'Arphaxad nommé dans le livre de Judith, fonda la superbe ville d'Ecbatane, et jeta les fondements d'un grand empire. Ils l'avaient mis sur le trône pour couronner ses vertus, et mettre fin aux désordres que l'anarchie causait parmi eux. Conduits par un si grand roi, ils se soutenaient contre leurs voisins, mais ils ne s'étendaient pas. (Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Discours Sur L’Histoire Universelle [New York : The Odyssey Press Inc., 1966], 64-65)

 

English Translation:

 

At that time, the death of Romulus occurred (39–715 BC). He was always at war, and always victorious; but, in the midst of his wars, he laid the foundations of religion and of the laws. A long peace gave his successor, Numa, the opportunity to complete the work (40–714 BC). He organized the religion and softened the fierce manners of the Roman people. In his time, colonies from Corinth and from some other Greek cities founded Syracuse in Sicily, Crotone, Tarentum, and perhaps a few other towns in that part of Italy, to which the older Greek colonies scattered throughout the region had already given the name “Magna Graecia.”

Meanwhile, Hezekiah—the most devout and the most righteous of all the kings after David—reigned in Judah. Sennacherib, son and successor of Shalmaneser, besieged him in Jerusalem with a vast army (44–710 BC): it perished in a single night by the hand of an angel. Hezekiah, delivered in so miraculous a manner, served God with all his people more faithfully than ever. But after the death of that prince (56–698 BC), and under his son Manasseh, the ungrateful people forgot God, and their disorders multiplied.

 

At that same time, the popular state was forming among the Athenians, and they began to choose annual archons, the first of whom was Creon (67–687 BC).

 

While impiety was increasing in the kingdom of Judah, the power of the Assyrian kings—destined to be their avengers—grew under Esarhaddon, son of Sennacherib. He united the kingdom of Babylon with that of Nineveh (73–681 BC), and equaled in Greater Asia the power of the early Assyrians. The Medes were also beginning to become significant. Deioces, their first king—whom some identify with the Arphaxad mentioned in the Book of Judith—founded the splendid city of Ecbatana and laid the foundations of a great empire. They had placed him on the throne to crown his virtues and to end the disorders that anarchy was causing among them. Led by so great a king, they held their own against their neighbors, though they did not yet expand their territory.

 

Nephi L. Morris: The Age of the Earth is "two-and-a-half billion years"

  

WHEN

 

One of the most hotly disputed questions between scientists and religionists is that which has to be with time. Archbishop Usher's Bible chronology seems to have been generally accepted with an authority almost equal to that of the scriptures themselves. This is regrettable. We might have been better off without his attempted fixing of the historical dates of the Old Testament. Authorities of the subject say that, "While the Old Testament contains a great many chronological notices, it has no chronological system. A chronological system requires some fixed event or point of time from which all dates may be reckoned. No such event finds mention in the Old Testament. The earliest fixed date of the Old Testament history is given us by the inscription of Shalmaneser II of Assyria 860-824 B. C." Modern schools of archaeological research are pushing the border of time back father and father so that our children are acquiring a far greater range of historical vision than their parents dreamed of in their school days. Geological time reaches back by millions and billions of years.

 

Sir James Jeans in the opening paragraph of his little book already referred to, says that man has been on the earth for approximately three hundred thousand years, and that the earth is about two billion years old. Quoting him: "Some two thousand million years ago our planetary system came into existence." It appears that most scientists are in practical agreement on the matter in the May number, 1931, of "Current History," under the department of Science Service of which Watson Davis was editor, the following authoritative statement is made on the subject: "The age of the earth is at least 2,000,000,000 years according to a committee of scientists appointed by the National Research Council, who have been investigating the problem for the past four years. The radioactive minerals uranium and thorium, which spontaneously disintegrate into lead, give the best clue to the earth's age. By carefully analyzing the radioactive minerals and their products in a sample of rock, it is possible to tell how long it has been in existence. The oldest rock from Dinyaya Pala, Carelita, Russia. It is 1,853,000,000 years old, and as it occurs in rocks that were intruded into the surrounding rocks which therefore must be older, the scientists conclude that the age of the earth must be in round numbers at least 2,000,000,000 years. Estimates of the age of the earth have been multiplied by more than twenty during the last three decades. The old idea that the amount of sale in the ocean is an index of the earth's age was found by the National Research Council committee to be unreliable as only 100,000,000 years can be accounted for by this method. At the turn of the century this was a favorite figure for the earth's age."

 

Professor E. W. Brown, Yale astronomer, concluded that while there are no known astronomical methods, the two billion year age is consistent with astronomical probabilities.

 

In one of these addresses of a few weeks ago we quoted Dr. J. D. Haldane, a famous scientist of England, who was introduced before the University of California "as possibly the most brilliant man alive." in reporting the remarks of Mr. Haldane made on the occasion. It was stated that he figures that "the earth was probably two billion years old in Cambrian times and life probably had existed for some five hundred million years at that time." Taking these figures as they are intended the earth's age would be placed at two-and-a-half billion years. (Nephi L. Morris, “The How When and Why of The Earth and Man—A Cosmogony Revealed Through Joseph Smith,” box 4, folder 20, Nephi L. Morris papers, 1870-1943, Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah)

 

 

 

Larry Wilcox, "A Comparative Analysis of Those Portions of the Bible Found in the Book of Mormon" (August 29, 1949)

On the insertion, beginning in 1840, to 1 Nephi 20:1 (= Isa 48:1) of the phrase “or out of the waters of baptism”:

 

This change was made by the author, Joseph Smith, and is apparently an attempt to clarify the meaning of “the waters of Judah.” It is admitted by the Church that Joseph Smith probably used the King James version of the Bible as a guide when he translated the sections of the Bible found in the Book of Mormon. It is possible that for this reason the quotation “or out of the waters of baptism” was omitted. Whatever the reason, the quotation at least givens a meaning, and a logical meaning, to “the waters of Judah.,” for Dr. Alfred Edersheim states that the Jewish law required:

 

That those who had contracted Levitical defilement were to immerse before offering sacrifice. Again, it was prescribed “proselytes of the Covenant,” were to be admitted to the full participation in the privilege of Israel by the three-fold rites of circumcision, baptism and sacrifice—the immersion being, as it were, the acknowledgement and symbolic removal of mortal defilement, corresponding to that of Levitical uncleanness. (Alfred Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus, the Messiah, Vol. 1, pp. 273-274) (Larry Wilcox, "A Comparative Analysis of Those Portions of the Bible Found in the Book of Mormon," p. 5, August 29, 1949, Box 11, Folder 9, Louis C. Zucker papers, 1904-1982, Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah)

 

 

Isaiah 29 – II Nephi 27. II Nephi 27 quotes several verses of the 29th chapter of Isaiah. Again there is no indication in the surrounding text that they are quotations. For this reason they shall not be discussed here. Furthermore, they are woven into the sermon which is being given by Nephi. (Larry Wilcox, "A Comparative Analysis of Those Portions of the Bible Found in the Book of Mormon," p. 17, August 29, 1949, Box 11, Folder 9, Louis C. Zucker papers, 1904-1982, Special Collections, J. Willard Marriott Library, University of Utah)

 

 

Georg Molin Using the Term "Heilige der letzten Tage" (Latter-day Saints) to Describe the Essenes

In his essay, “From the Dead Sea Scrolls (1QS),” Hugh W. Nibley, commenting on the Essenes community, noted that, according to Roman Catholic scholar Georg Molin:

 

The proper title for them, the name they gave themselves, he maintains, is “Latter-day Saints”—and he deplores the preemption of that name at the present time by a “so-called Christian sect.”

 

I decided to track down a copy of the book. Here are pp. 146-47:

 

 

Here is a transcription:

 

Entschlossen trennt sich die heilige Kriegsschar von dem Gottesvolk, das Gott verraten hat, von seinen Priestern und Königen, die die ersten im Sündigen sind, und wartet auf den Tag, da Gott sie in den Kampf senden wird, dem allen ein Ende zu machen. Von Sturmzeichen sieht sie sich aller Orten umgeben. Sie haben ihre Propheten gut gelesen (vor allem Jes, Ez, Hag, Sach, Mal). Schreibt nicht Ezechiel, daß sich im Tale Hinnom vor Jerusalem der Endkampf abspielen wird? Der Gog von Magog sammelt dort alle Völker des Nordens, aber Gott vertilgt ihn und seine Scharen. Was verschlägt es, wenn die Macht der Welt groß ist, wenn die Kittim mit gewaltiger Macht einherziehen, die Frevler in Jerusalem zu strafen. Hat nicht Gott auch Sanheribs Heer vernichtet, weiß nicht die Chronik von wunderbaren Siegen zu berichten, bei denen Juda kaum die Hand zu rühren brauchte. Nur rein bleiben muß man und Gottes Gesetz einhalten, um Seine Hilfe zu empfangen. Und weil man nicht weiß, wann es sein wird, kann man nicht warten mit Umkehr, Reinigung und Unterwerfung unter Gottes Willen. Jeden Tag gilt es bereit zu sein.

 

So erscheint die ganze Lebensführung der Sekte immer im Lichte des letzten Tages. „Heilige der letzten Tage“ hat sich später eine „christliche“ Sekte genannt. Unserer Sekte hier kann man diesen Titel mit Recht geben. Daß sie den Weg des Judentums konsequent zu Ende gingen, wer will es ihnen verübeln? Kannten sie einen anderen doch nicht. Sie gingen ihn mit einem heiligen Ernst, der beschämend wirkt. Aber hie und da dämmert es auf in ihren Schriften, besonders in den Hymnen, daß der Mensch von sich aus mit aller Mühe nicht gerecht sein könne, daß er ganz auf die Gnade Gottes angewiesen sei. (Georg Molin, Die Söhne des Lichtes: Zeit und Stellung der Handschriften vom Toten Meer [Munich: Verlag Herold Wien, 1954], 146-47)

 

 

English Translation (from ChatGPT using the "reason" option [I don't know German!])

 

Resolutely the holy war-host separates itself from the people of God who have betrayed Him— from its priests and kings, who are foremost in sinning— and waits for the day when God will send it into battle to put an end to all this. Everywhere it sees itself surrounded by signs of the storm. They have read their prophets well (especially Isaiah, Ezekiel, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi). Does not Ezekiel write that the final battle will take place in the Valley of Hinnom before Jerusalem? There Gog of Magog gathers together all the peoples of the north, but God destroys him and his hordes. What does it matter if the power of the world grows great, if the Kittim march in with overwhelming might to punish the wrongdoers in Jerusalem? Did God not also annihilate Sennacherib’s army? Does not the chronicle recount marvelous victories at which Judah scarcely needed to lift a hand? One need only remain pure and keep God’s law in order to receive His aid. And since no one knows when that day will come, one cannot delay repentance, purification, and submission to God’s will. Every day it is necessary to be ready.

 

Thus the entire way of life of the sect always appears in the light of the last day. A “Christian” sect later called itself the “Holy Ones of the Last Days [RB: Alt. “Latter-day Saints] Our sect here may rightly be given that title. Who can blame them for carrying the path of Judaism through to its end? After all, they knew no other. They walked it with a holy solemnity that can even embarrass. Yet here and there it dawns in their writings—especially in the hymns—that Man, by his own efforts, cannot attain righteousness; he is wholly dependent on the grace of God.

 

One should not read too much into this, however. There has been a lot of questionable work by amateur Latter-day Saints on the Dead Sea Scrolls and Latter-day Saint scripture and theology over the years. However, as I have heard this quote from Nibley a few times over the years, I decided to source-check it.

Athanasius Schneider on "Magisterial Positivism"

 In his “Timeline of Doctrinal Errors,” we find the following entry from Athanasius Schneider:

 

Magisterial Positivism

 

Holds that all teachings, acts, and commands of a pope or ecumenical council are automatically infallibly true, morally good, and necessary to obey. Implicitly gives primacy to the Magisterium above Holy Scripture and Tradition, as occurs when representatives of the Magisterium manifestly teach or act to undermine revealed truths of the perennial sacramental and liturgical praxis of the Church. Such was the case under Pope Paul VI (+1978), who sought in 1970 to proscribe the venerable millennium-old Roman Rite of Mass and forbid its celebration, and with Pope Francis, who contradicted the Church’s perennial moral and sacramental praxis in 2016 by authorizing the reception of Holy Communion to public adulterers, (See Letter to the Bishops of the Buenos Aires region of September 5, 2016. In his later audience with the Cardinal Secretary of State, “Ex audientia SS.mi” [June 5, 2017], the pope declared this approval to be “authentic Magisterium.”) and in 2023 by authorizing the blessings of adulterous or sodomitical couples. (See Declaration Fiducia Supplicans on the Pastoral Meaning of Blessings from December 18, 2023.) Magisterial Positivism justifies all such deviations through an artificial “hermeneutic of continuity” or semantic exercises of “squaring the circle,” or irrational obedience. (Athanasius Schneider, Flee From Heresy: A Guide to Ancient and Modern Errors [Manchester, N.H.: Sophia Institute Press, 2024], 63-64)

 

 

To Support this Blog:

 

Patreon

Paypal

Venmo

Amazon Wishlist

Email for Amazon Gift card: ScripturalMormonism@gmail.com

Email for Logos.com Gift Card: IrishLDS87@gmail.com

Chapters 10 and 15 of Origen, On Prayer

  

English Translation taken from:

 

Origen, Prayer, Exhortation to Martyrdom (Ancient Christian Writers; trans. John J. O’Meara; New York: Newman Press, 1954)

 

	English	Greek
Chapter 10	All this has been said on the supposition, that even though we should gain nothing else by our prayer, we gain the most excellent benefits in understanding how to pray and disposing ourselves accordingly. It is evident that the man who prays thus, even while he is still speaking and contemplating the power of Him who is listening to him, will hear the words, Behold, I am here. He will have cast off any dissatisfaction about Providence before he prays. This is clear from the text: If thou wilt take away the chain out of the midst of thee and cease to stretch out the finger and to speak the word of murmuring. For he who is well satisfied with whatever happens, is free from every chain, and does not stretch out his finger to God who arranges what He wills for our training; nor does he even murmur his difficulties in secret, not being heard by men. For like the murmuring of evil servants who criticize, but not openly, the commands of their masters, is the murmuring of those who do not dare with their voice and whole soul to speak ill of Providence because of what happens. They act as if they hoped that their complaints would not be known to the Lord of all. I think this is what is meant in Job: In all these things that happened to him Job did not sin “with his lips” against God; whereas it was written of the previous trial: In all these things that happened to him Job sinned not before God. And the word which enjoins that this murmuring should not take place is also to be found in Deuteronomy: Beware lest perhaps a hidden word steal into thy heart, something forbidden, and thou say: The seventh year draweth nigh and so on.  2. The man who prays in this way and who has already received such benefits, becomes more fitted to be united with the Spirit of the Lord who fills the whole world and with Him who fills the whole earth and heavens and who speaks thus by the mouth of the prophet: Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the Lord. Moreover, because of the purification already mentioned, he shares in the prayer of the Word of God, who stands in the midst even of those who are not aware of it, who is not wanting to the prayer of anyone and prays to the Father with him whose mediator He is. For the Son of God is the High Priest of our offerings and our advocate with the Father, praying for those who pray and pleading with those who plead. He will not pray for us as His friends if we do not pray constantly through His intercession. Nor will He be an advocate with God for His followers if we do not obey His teaching that we ought always to pray and not to faint. For He spoke, it is said in the Gospel, a parable, that we ought always to pray and not to faint. There was a judge in a certain city, and so on. And before that: And He said to them: Which of you shall have a friend and shall go to him at midnight and shall say to him: Friend, lend me three loaves, because a friend of mine is come off his journey to me, and I have not what to set before him. And a little later: I say to you, although he will not rise and give him because he is his friend; yet, because of his importunity, he will rise and give him as many as he needeth. And what man who believes in the infallible word of Jesus who says: Ask, and it shall be given you; … for every one that asketh receiveth—will not turn to prayer without hesitation? The good Father gives to us, if we ask Him for it, the living bread (and not the stone proffered as nourishment by the Adversary to Jesus and His disciples)—to us who have received from the Father the spirit of adoption of sons. The Father gives the good gift, raining from the heaven on them that ask Him. (pp. 40-42)	Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὡς καθʼ ὑπόθεσιν εἴρηται, καὶ εἰ μηδὲν ἡμῖν ἐπακολουθήσει εὐχομένοις, ὅτι τὰ κάλλιστα κερδαίνομεν, τὸ καθὸ δεῖ εὔχεσθαι νενοηκότες καὶ κατορθοῦντες· σαφὲς δὲ ὅτι ὁ οὕτως εὐχόμενος ἔτι λαλῶν ἀκούσεται, τῇ ἐνεργείᾳ τοῦ ἐπακούοντος ἐνορῶν, τὸ Ἰδοὺ πάρειμι· πᾶσαν τὴν πρὸς τὴν Πρόνοιαν δυσαρέστησιν πρὶν εὔξασθαι ἀποβεβληκώς. Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστι δηλούμενον ἐκ τοῦ, Ἐὰν ἀφέλῃς ἀπὸ σοῦ σύνδεσμον καὶ χειροτονίαν καὶ ῥῆμα γογγυσμοῦ· τοῦ εὐαρεστουμένου τοῖς γινομένοις, ἐλευθέρου ἀπὸ παντὸς δεσμοῦ γεγενημένου, καὶ μὴ ἀντιχειροτονοῦντος τῷ Θεῷ. ἃ βούλεται πρὸς γυμνάσιον ἡμῶν διατασσομένῳ· ἀλλὰ μηδὲ κατὰ τὸ κρυπτὸν τῶν λογισμῶν γογγύζοντος χωρὶς ἀκουστῆς ἀνθρώποις φωνῆς· ὅντινα γογγυσμὸν, δίκην πονηρῶν οἰκετῶν οὐκ ἐν φανερωτέρῳ αἰτιωμένων τὰς προστάξεις τῶν δεσποτῶν, γογγύζουσιν οἱ μὴ τολμῶντες μὲν φωνῇ καὶ ὅλῃ ψυχῇ κακολογεῖν ἐπὶ τοῖς συμβαίνουσι τὴν πρόνοιαν· οἱονεὶ δὲ βουλόμενοι καὶ τὸν τῶν ὅλων Κύριον ἐφʼ οἷς δυσαρεστοῦνται λαθεῖν. Καὶ οἶμαι τοῦτʼ εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἐν Ἰώβ· Ἐν τούτοις πᾶσι τοῖς συμβεβηκόσιν οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Ἰὼβ τοῖς χείλεσιν ἐναντίον τοῦ Θεοῦ· ἐπὶ τοῦ πρὸ αὐτοῦ πειρασμοῦ ἀναγεγραμμένου· Ἐν τούτοις πᾶσι τοῖς συμβεβηκόσιν οὐδὲν ἥμαρτεν Ἰὼβ ἐνώπιον τοῦ θεοῦ. Ὃ δὴ προστάσσων μὴ δεῖν (83) γίνεσθαι ἐν τῷ Δευτερονομίῳ ὁ λόγος φησί· Πρόσεχε μήποτε γένηται ῥῆμα κρυπτὸν ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου ἀνόμημα, λέγων, Ἐγγίζει τὸ ἔτος τὸ ἕβδομον, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς. Ὁ τοίνυν οὕτως εὐχόμενος τοσαῦτα προωφεληθεὶς (84) ἐπιτηδειότερος γίνεται ἀνακραθῆναι τῷ πεπληρωκότι τὴν πᾶσαν οἰκονομίαν (85) τοῦ Κυρίου Πνεύματι, καὶ τῷ πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν πεπληρωκότι διὰ τοῦ προφήτου λέγοντος (86) οὕτως· Οὐχὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν ἐγὼ πληρῶ, λέγει Κύριος; Ἔτι δὲ (87) διά τε τῆς προειρημένης καθαρεύσεως, καὶ τῆς εὐχῆς τοῦ μέσον καὶ τῶν μὴ γινωσκόντων αὐτὸν ἑστηκότος Λόγου Θεοῦ, οὐδενὸς ἀπολειπομένου τῆς εὐχῆς μεθέξει, συνευχομένου πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα τῷ ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ μεσιτευομένῳ· ἀρχιερεὺς γὰρ τῶν προσφορῶν ἡμῶν καὶ πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα παράκλητός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ· εὐχόμενος ὑπὲρ τῶν εὐχομένων, καὶ συμπαρακαλῶν τοῖς παρακαλοῦσιν,οὐκ ἂν ὡς ὑπὲρ οἰκείων εὐξάμενος (88) τῶν μὴ διʼ αὐτοῦ συνεχέστερον εὐχομένων, οὐδʼ ἂν ὡς ὑπὲρ ἤδη ἰδίων παράκλητος ἐσόμενος πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν τῶν μὴ πειθομένων ταῖς εἰς τὸ δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι καὶ μὴ ἐκκακεῖν διδασκαλίαις· Ἔλεγε γὰρ, φησὶ, παραβολὴν πρὸς τὸ δεῖν πάντοτε προσεύχεσθαι, καὶ μὴ ἐκκακεῖν· Κριτής τις ἦν ἔν τινι πόλει, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· Καὶ ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων· Καὶ εἶπε πρὸς αὐτούς· Τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἕξει φίλον, καὶ πορεύσεται πρὸς αὐτὸν μεσονύκτιον (89), καὶ εἴπῃ αὐτῷ· Φίλε, χρῆσόν μοι τρεῖς ἄρτους, ἐπειδὴ φίλος μου παρεγένετο ἐξ ὁδοῦ πρός με, καὶ οὐκ ἔχω ὃ παραθήσω αὐτῷ· καὶ μετʼ ὀλίγα· Λέγω ὑμῖν εἰ καὶ οὐ δώσει αὐτῷ ἀναστὰς, διὰ τὸ εἶναι φίλον αὐτοῦ, διά γε τὴν ἀναίδειαν αὐτοῦ, ἐγερθεὶς, δώσει αὐτῷ, ὅσων χρῄζει. Τίς δὲ μὴ προτραπῇ τῶν τῷ ἀψευδεῖ στόματι πιστευόντων Ἰησοῦ, ἀόκνως εὔχεσθαι, λέγοντος· Αἰτεῖτε, καὶ δοθήσεται ὑμῖν· πᾶς γὰρ ὁ αἰτῶν λαμβάνει; ἐπεὶ ὁ χρηστὸς Πατὴρ τὸν ζῶντα ἄρτον αἰτούντων ἡμῶν αὐτὸν, οὐχ ὃν βούλεται λίθον τροφὴν γενέσθαι τῷ Ἰησοῦ καὶ τοῖς μαθηταῖς αὐτοῦ ὁ ἀντικείμενος, δίδωσι τοῖς τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς υἱοθεσίας εἰληφόσιν ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρός· καὶ δίδωσιν ὁ Πατὴρ τὸ ἀγαθὸν δόμα ὕων ἐξ οὐρανοῦ τοῖς αἰτοῦσιν αὐτόν (90).
Chapter 15	If we understand what prayer really is, we shall know that we may never pray to anything generated—not even to Christ—but only to God and the Father of all, to whom even Our Saviour Himself prayed, as we have already said, and teaches us to pray. For when He is asked, Teach us to pray, He does not teach how to pray to Himself, but to the Father, and to say: Our Father, who art in heaven, and so on. For if the Son, as is shown elsewhere, is distinct from the Father in nature and person, then we must pray either to the Son and not to the Father, or to both, or to the Father only. Everyone will agree that to pray to the Son and not to the Father would be very strange, and maintained against the clearest evidence; and if to both, then we must obviously pray and make our requests in the plural saying, “Grant ye,” “favour ye,” “provide ye,” “save ye,” and everything similar in the same way. But this is clearly incongruous, nor can anyone point out where anyone has used it in Scripture. There remains, then, to pray to God alone, the Father of all, but not apart from the High Priest who was appointed with an oath by the Father, according to the words: He hath sworn and he will not repent: Thou art a priest for ever according to the order of Melchisedech.   2. The saints, then, in their prayers of thanks to God acknowledge their thanks to Him through Christ Jesus. And as, if one is to pray correctly, one does not pray to Him who prays Himself, but rather to the Father whom Our Lord Jesus taught us to call upon in our prayers, in the same way one must not offer a prayer to the Father apart from Him. He Himself makes this clear when He says: Amen, amen, I say to you: if you ask my Father anything, He will give it to you in my name. Hitherto you have not asked anything in my name. Ask, and you shall receive, that your joy may be full. He did not say simply, ask me, or ask the Father; but rather, If you ask the Father anything, He will give it to you in my name. Until Jesus taught this, no one had asked the Father in the name of the Son; and what Jesus said was true—Hitherto you have not asked anything in my name; and true too—Ask, and you shall receive, that your joy may be full.   3. But suppose someone, believing through confusion about the meaning of the term “worship” that we should pray to Christ Himself, brings against us the text, Let all the angels of God worship Him—which is admittedly said of Christ in Deuteronomy: we should reply that the Church, too, called by the prophet “Jerusalem,” is said in the following text to be “worshipped” by kings and queens, that nurse her and provide for her: Behold I will lift up my hand to the Gentiles and will set up my standard to the islands. And they shall bring thy sons in their arms and carry thy daughters upon their shoulders. And kings shall be thy nursing fathers, and queens thy nurses. They shall worship thee with their face toward the earth, and they shall lick up the dust of thy feet. And thou shalt know that I am the Lord and thou shalt not be confounded.   4. And as He has said: Why callest thou me good? None is good but one, that is God the Father, so He might equally say: “Why prayest thou to me? One should pray to the Father alone, to whom I also pray. Learn this from the Scriptures. You should not pray to Him who has been set over you as High Priest257 by the Father, nor to the Advocate who has this office from the Father; but you should pray through your High Priest and Advocate who can have compassion on your infirmities, being tempted in all things like as you are, but, through the gift of my Father, tempted without sin. Learn, then, what great gift you have received from my Father, through having received the spirit of adoption of sons in your rebirth in me, so that you may be called sons of God and my brothers. Surely you have read the words said by me, in the person of David, to the Father about you: I will declare Thy name to my brethren; in the midst of the church will I praise Thee. It is not right that they who have been held worthy to have the same Father with Him, should pray to their Brother. You should pray with me and through me to the Father alone.” (pp. 57-60)	Ἐὰν δὲ ἀκούωμεν, ὅ τί ποτέ ἐστι προσευχὴ, μἡποτε οὐδενὶ τῶν γεννητῶν προσευκτέον ἐστὶν, οὐδὲ αὐτῷ τῷ Χριστῷ (55), ἀλλὰ μόνῳ τῷ Θεῷ τῶν ὅλων καὶ Πατρὶ, ᾧ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ Σωτὴρ ἡμῶν προσηύχετο, ὡς προπαρεθέμεθα, καὶ διδάσκει ἡμᾶς προσεύχεσθαι· ἁκούσας γὰρ, Δίδαξον ἡμᾶς προσεύχεσθαι, οὐ διδάσκει αὑτῷ προσεύχεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τῷ Πατρὶ, λέγοντας· Πάτερ ἡμῶν, ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς· εἰ γὰρ ἕτερος, ὡς ἐν ἄλλοις δείκνυται, κατʼ οὐσίαν καὶ ὑποκείμενός (56) ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἤτοι προσευκτέον τῷ Υἱῷ καὶ οὐ τῷ Πατρὶ, ἤ ἀμφοτέροις, ἢ τῷ Πατρὶ μόνῳ. Τὸ μὲν οὖν τῷ Υἰῷ καὶ οὐ τῷ Πατρὶ, πᾶς ὁστισοῦν ὁμολογήσει εἶναι ἀτοπώτατον καὶ παρὰ τὴν ἐνάργειαν (57) λεχθησόμενον ἄν· εἰ δὲ ἀμφοτέροις, δῆλον ὅτι καὶ ἀξιώσεις προσενεγκοῦμεν πληθυντικῶς, παράσγεσθε, καὶ εὐεργετήσατε, καὶ ἐπιχορηγήσατε, καὶ σώσατε, καὶ εἴ τι τούτων ὅμοιον, διὰ τῶν προσευχῶν λέγοντες· ὅπερ καὶ αὐτόθεν ἀπεμφαῖνον, οὐδὲ ἐν ταῖς Γραφαῖς ἔχει τις δεῖξαι κείμενον ὑπό τινων λεγόμενον· λέγεται (58) τοίνυν προσεύχεσθαι μόνῳ τῷ Θεῷ τῷ τῶν ὅλων Πατρί· ἀλλὰ μὴ χωρὶς τοῦ ἀρχιερέως ὅστις μεθʼ ὁρκωμοσίας κατεστάθη ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς κατὰ τό· Ὤμοσε, καὶ οὐ μεταμεληθήσεται· σὺ ἱερεὺς εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα κατὰ τὴν τάξιν Μελχισεδέκ. Εὐχαριστοῦντες οὖν οἱ ἅγιοι ἐν ταῖς προσευχαῖς ἑαυτῶν τῷ Θεῷ, διὰ Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ χάριτας ὁμολογοῦσιν (59) αὐτῷ. Ὥσπερ δὲ τὸν ἀκριβοῦντα τὸ προσεύχεσθαι οὐ χρὴ τῷ εὐχομένῳ προσεὑχεσθαι, ἀλλὰ τῷ ὅν ἐδίδαξεν ἐπὶ τῶν εὐχῶν καλεῖν Πατρὶ ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦς· οὕτως οὑ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ προσευχήν τινα προσενεκτέον τῷ Πατρί· ὡς αὐτὸς τοῦτο παραδείκνυσι σαφῶς οὕτω λέγων· Ἀμὴν, ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, ἄν τι αἰτήσητε τὸν Πατέρα μου, δώσει ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου. Ἔως ἄρτι οὐκ ᾐτήσατε οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου· αἰτεῖτε καὶ λήψεσθε, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν ᾖ πεπληρωμένη· οὐ γὰρ εἶπεν· Αἰτεῖτέ με, οὐδὲ, Αἰτεῖτε τὸν Πατέρα, ἁπλῶς, ἀλλʼ Ἐάν τι αἰτήσητε τὸν Πατέρα, δώσει ὑμῖν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου. Ἕως γάρ διδάξει (60) ταῦτα ὁ Ἰησοῦς, οὐδεὶς ᾐτήκει τὸν Πατέρα ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ Υἰοῦ· καὶ ἀληθὲς ἦν ὑπὸ Ἰησοῦ λεγόμενον τό· Ἕως ἄρτι οὐκ ᾐτήσατε οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου· ἀληθὲς δὲ καὶ τό· Αἰτεῖτε, καὶ λήψεσθε, ἵνα ἡ χαρὰ ὑμῶν ᾖ πεπληρωμένη. Ἐὰν δέ τις, οἰόμενος (61) δεῖν αὐτῷ τῷ Χριστῷ προσεύχεσθαι, συγχεόμενος ἀπὸ τοῦ ἐκ τοῦ προσκυνεῖν σημαινομένου, προσάγῃ ἡμῖν τὸ, Προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι Θεοῦ (62), ὁμολογουμένως ἐν τῷ Δευτερονομίῳ περὶ Χριστοῦ εἰρημένον· λεκτέον πρὸς αὐτὸν, ὅτι καὶ ἡ Ἐκκλησία, Ἱερουσαλὴμ πσρὰ τοῦ προφήτου ὀνομαζομένη, προσκυνεῖσθαι ὑπὸ βασιλέων καὶ ἀρχουσῶν γινομένων τιθηνῶν αὐτῆς καὶ τροφῶν, λέγεται διὰ τούτων· Ἰδοὺ αἴρω εἰς τὰ ἕθνη τὴν χεφά μου, καὶ εἰς τὰς νήσους ἀρῶ σύσσημόν μου· καὶ ἄξουσι τοὺς υἱούς σου ἐν κόλπῳ, τὰς δὲ θυγατέρας σου ἐπὶ τῶν ὤμων ἀροῦσι. Καὶ ἕσονται βασιλεῖς τιθηνοί σου· οἱ δέ ἄρχουσαι αὐτῶν τροφοί σου. Ἐπὶ πρόσωπον τῆς γῆς προσκυνήσουσί σε καὶ τὸν χοῦν τῶν ποδῶν σου λείξουσι. Καὶ γνώσῃ, ὅτι ἐγὼ Κύριος καὶ οὐκ αἰσχυνθήσῃ. Πῶς δὲ οὐκ ἔστι, κατὰ τὸν εἰπόντα· Τί με λέγεις ἀγαθόν; οὐδεὶς ἀγαθὸς εἰ μὴ εἷς ὁ Θεὸς, ὁ Πατήρ (63)· εἰπεῖν ἄν· Τί ἐμοὶ προσεύχῃ; Μόνῳ τῷ Πατρὶ προσεύχεσθαι χρὴ, ᾧ κἀγὼ προσεύχομαι· ὅπερ διὰ τῶν ἁγίων Γραφῶν μανθάνετε ἀρχιερεῖ γὰρ τῷ ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν (64) κατασταθέντι ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ παρακλήτῳ ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς εἶναι λαβόντι, εὔχεσθαι ἡμᾶς (65) οὐ δεῖ, ἀλλὰ διʼ ἀρχιερέως καὶ παρακλήτου, δυναμένου συμπαθεῖν ταῖς ἀσθενείαις ἡμῶν (66), πεπειρασμένου κατὰ πάντα ὁμοίως ἡμῖν (67), ἀλλὰ διὰ τὸν δωρησάμενόν μοι Πατέρα πεπειρασμένου χωρὶς ἁμαρτίας. Μάθετε οὖν ὄσην δωρεάν ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρός μου εἰλήφατε διὰ τῆς ἐν ἐμοὶ ἀναγεννήσεως τὸ τῆς υἱοθεσίας πνεῦμα ἀπειληφότες, ἵνα χρηματίσητε υἱοὶ Θεοῦ, ἀδελφοὶ δὲ ἐμοῦ· ἀνέγνωτε γὰρ τὴν διὰ τοῦ Δαυΐδ ὑπʼ ἐμοῦ εἰρημένην περὶ ὑμῶν πρὸς τὸν Πατέρα φωνήν Ἀπαγγελῶ τὸ ὄνομά σου τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς μου, ἐν μέσῳ Ἐκκλησίας ὑμνήσω σε. Ἀδελφῷ δὲ προσεύχεσθαι τοὺς κατηξιωμένους ἑνὸς αὐτοῦ (68) Πατρὸς οὐκ ἔστιν εὔλογον· μόνῳ γὰρ τῷ Πατρὶ μετʼ ἐμοῦ καὶ διʼ ἐμοῦ ἀναπεμπτέον ἐστὶν ὑμῖν προσευχήν.