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.

 

 

Kenan B. Osborne (RC) on the Council of Trent, the Council of Pistoia, and Issues Relating to the Meaning of "Anathema Sit"

  

In 1929 J. Umberg, who was one of the editors of the Enchiridion Symbolorum, Definitonum Declarationum (commonly called Denzinger), compared the censures of Pius VI against the propositions of the Synod of Pistoia with the canons found in the decrees of Trent. Did the Synod of Pistoia, he asked, dissent from Trent, and, if so, were these instances of their dissent heretical? Umberg found two instances in which the Synod of Pistoia had clearly contradicted Trent, and in which Pius VI had concluded that such contradictions were heretical. However, he argued, what about the other one hundred and eighteen canons of Trent? Umberg pointed out that there were, indeed, other instances in which the Synod of Pistoia, had contradicted Trent, but which Pius VI had not judged heretical. Did this not mean the following, namely, that the mere fact that there was something contradictory, to the canons of Trent in itself could not be considered an adequate basis for heresy?

 

Following this work of Umberg, H. Lennerz examined the canons of Trent and came to the conclusion that many of the canons must be interpreted as penalties, latae sententiae. Lennerz states, however, that if one is going to deny a tradition of the church, one must first know what that tradition is, and if one has such knowledge and still denies the tradition, then there is an anathema because of the contempt (pro eius contemptu) not specifically because of the denial of the tradition. R. Favre continued this line of research on a number of the Tridentine canons. He found that anathema sit had several meanings even during the council. He found that anathema sit had several meanings even during the council. To prove his point he lists one canon after another.

 

In turn, A. Lang reviewed the teaching of Melchior Cano, a major figure at the time of Trent, and conclude that anathema sit, by itself, cannot be taken to mean heresy. Lang argues that other factors, from other sources, must be present and operative before a condemnation of heresy is warranted. H. Jedin, though his historical research on the Council of Trent, arrived at the same conclusion. P. Fransen also researched the material and came to a similar conclusion. Faith and heresy have, in the documents of Trent, a meaning which is far more comprehensive than merely a divinely revealed truth (faith) or its denial (heresy). Under “faith” Trent refers not only to items found in scripture, but also to items proposed for the universal church, including ecclesiastical law. On this topic, Karl Peter states; “An anathema meant a major communication, as canonists have remembered better than theologians. Heresy, by the same token, involved disobedience to the religious leaders Christ left to guide us to salvation.”

 

On many occasions during the Council of Trent, the issue under consideration focused more on the rejection of church authority by the reformation theologians, rather than one an issue of heresy. At times it was this contempt for authority which was anathematized, rather than a specific theological position. In the following discussion, the mere recital of the canon, then, cannot be understood, of itself, as a statement of divinely revealed truth, on the one hand, and its denial, on the other hand, as an heretical position. (Kenan B. Osborne, Reconciliation & Justification: The Sacrament and Its Theology [New York: Paulist Press, 1990], 160-61)

 

The Various “Causes” in Justification

The following from a Roman Catholic theologian is a useful table to understand “causes”; it is similar to how I sometimes describe the same, albeit for baptismal regeneration:

 

Final cause:	the glory of God and of Christ eternal life
Efficient cause:	the merciful God who gratuitously washes and sanctifies
Meritorious cause:	Jesus Christ
Instrumental cause:	the sacrament of baptism
Formal cause:	the justice of God by which he justifies us

 

Table taken from Kenan B. Osborne, Reconciliation & Justification: The Sacrament and Its Theology (New York: Paulist Press, 1990), 192

Baptismal Regeneration in the Confession of Faith by Peter Abelard (1079-1142)

  

I also declare that in baptism all offences are remitted, and that we need grace whereby we may begin on good and persevere in it, and that having lapsed we may be restored through penitence. (“Abelard’s Confession of Faith,” in The Letters of Abelard and Heloise [rev ed.; trans. M. T. Clanchy; Penguin Books, 2003], 212)

 

Photius (810-891) on Romans 5:12

  

Question 84

What does the word of the Apostle mean, “in this all sinned”?

 

The saying, “in this all sinned,” which the divine Paul said and you asked to know its meaning, some interpret as “in the person of Adam,” and others “with respect to death itself.” But I accept neither the one nor the other. We must not understand anything else, since the phrase has in itself its own completeness. That is, the phrase “in this all sinned” here does not point to a person, nor indicate a person in any way, but rather signifies a cause; that is “εφ’ ω παντες ημαρτον” means “because all sinned.” This usage occurs countless times even in non-Chrisitan writers, but the divine Paul is sufficient, who interprets his own words. For he says elsewhere, “as long as we are still in the body, we groan under its weight”; and then, “Not that we wish to put it off, but to put on over it.” From this it becomes entirely clear that “εφ’ ω” was used to signify cause. That is, “for this we groan, not because we wish to be unclothed, but because we wish to be clothed upon.” To speak more freely, the sense of the phrase is as follows: “We groan while we are in this tabernacle, feeling the burden of our body.” What then? Do you wish to put off the body which the hands of God formed and joined with the soul by divine breath? “no,” he says, “far be such a thought. For surely I do not groan because I am stripped of it, but because I have not put on the clothing over it.” And by clothing he means being clothed with incorruption, and making it as it had been formed in the beginning. For this reason he immediately adds, “so that mortality may be swallowed up by life.” I do not groan therefore because I lay aside the body, but because I have not clothed it with incorruption and eternal life.

 

And it is not only here evident that “εφ’ ω” (“in this”) signifies cause, but also from the very sense of the saying under consideration. For he says, since Adam sinned and was afterwards condemned to death, therefore also the race that sprang from him received death. And not simply, he says, and without judgment, but “because all sinned,” that is, “because all sinned as the one who begot them.” For this made them also sharers of the punishment. That is, participation in the act led them also to participation in the condemnation. (Photius, The Collected Amphilochia, 3 vols. [trans. Nun Christina; 2025], 2:273)

 

Photius (810-891) Favoring γενομενον vs. γεννωμενον in the Amphilochia

  

Question 227

Should we say “God sent His Son being begotten” (γεννωμενον) or “having become”(γενομενον)—with one n or with two?

 

We must say γενομενον (“having become”) of a woman, just as we say γενομενον (“being made subject”) under the law—with one immutable n. First, because of the continuous sequence of meanings and words. Second, because Christ was indeed born of the Virgin with the unchangeable spelling of the double n in the second syllable (γεννηθεντα), yet He is not being born. For he was born once of the Virgin. Let no one, therefore, be led astray by the saying of Gregory the Theologian. For when he said, “Christ is born,” he did not mean that He is forever being born of the Virgin, but that the feast then being celebrated concerned the day of the Lord’s birth. For this reason, we must take every care neither to write nor to pronounce “γενομενον απο γυναικα” with the double n. (Photius, The Collected Amphilochia, 3 vols. [trans. Nun Christina; 2025], 3:517)

 

Johannes Crell (1590-1633) (Socinian) On Jesus Being Ignorant of the Second Coming

  

Ninth Argument: that Christ Was Once Ignorant of the Day of the Last Judgement

 

Up to this point we have brought forward testimonies from John in which something is denied of Christ that could not be denied of him if he were that supreme God. It remains that we bring forward similar testimonies from the other sacred writers as well, and indeed such as attribute a prerogative to the Father above Christ. The first of these we shall make that saying of Christ which we touched on above when treating of the Father (Mark 13:32): “But of that day or hour” (namely, of the last judgement) “no one knows, not the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father”, or, as Matthew puts it (Matt 24:36), “but the Father alone”. How it is proved from this that the Father alone is the supreme God, we have shown earlier. Now we must see how it is proved from it that the Son is not that supreme God: although, once the former is proved, this latter necessarily follows. But here we proceed the opposite way, and do not demonstrate from the fact that the Father alone is the supreme God that Christ is not the supreme God, but from this latter the former. The matter, however, is easy and plain to anyone: for that supreme God is ignorant of nothing and never was. But the Son of God was once ignorant of the day and hour of the last judgement. Therefore the Son of God is not that supreme God.

 

Defence of the Argument

 

How greatly the opponents have tormented themselves in untying this knot, and what diverse interpretations different men, indeed even the same men, have devised, may be seen both in others and especially in Maldonatus. He reports that Jerome and Augustine, hard pressed by the difficulty of the testimony, took refuge in declaring the passage corrupt and saying that one should not read “nor the Son” but “the Father”: against the witness of all the manuscripts. If it is permitted to call this into doubt, nothing in Holy Scripture will be certain, nothing firm, nothing that one may not deny; and one will have to strike out not only the words of Mark but also the corresponding words of Matthew. The same interpreter says further that the greater part of the ancient authors held that Christ was ignorant of the day of judgement, not because he was really ignorant of it, but because he did not wish to reveal it to us, because his body, that is, the Church, was ignorant of it, or because he concealed that he knew it; and for this opinion he cites Origen, Chrysostom, Gregory, Jerome, Bede and Theophylact. This interpretation (if indeed it deserves the name) the same writer rightly refutes with the argument that in this way the Father too would be ignorant of the day of judgement, since he has not revealed it to us. But then, what sort of reply would this have been from Christ? The disciples wished to learn the day of judgement from him. Christ answers, on the view of those men: “The Son causes you to be ignorant of the day of judgement; he does not wish to reveal it; he conceals that he knows it.” Yet this was the very thing the disciples asked, that he should make it known to them. A reason should have been given why he would not make it known, why, as they say, he concealed it. And finally, what sort of interpretation is this: “I do not know”, that is, “I conceal that I know”? Did Christ deal thus with his disciples, and deceive those with whom it was both permitted and fitting for him to deal openly? Such speech would not be worthy even of a sensible man, much less of Christ. Others again, he says, such as Origen, Epiphanius and Chrysostom, interpreted it to mean that Christ was ignorant of the day of judgement, that is, had not yet experienced it. This opinion he refutes on the same ground as the previous one: because in this way the Father too would be ignorant of it, since he has not experienced it either. Others, he says, gave the sense as: “Nor does the Son of Man know, unless the Father knows”; but because the Father knows, the Son of Man knows too; so Euthymius. This interpretation is quite frivolous. First, because in this way he would have given no reason why he did not make the day of judgement known to the disciples, and would not have lessened but increased their desire to know it and to inquire of him about it: for in this way he would have indicated that the Son of Man knows that day. Secondly, the word “Son”, used of Christ absolutely, denotes not the Son of Man but the Son of God as such; especially since the word “Father”, by which God is understood, is at once set over against it. And the little word “but” in the words “but the Father” is in truth connected not with the immediately preceding words “nor the Son”, but with the words “no one knows”; or at least it stands for the adversative “but rather”. Finally, this interpretation contradicts the words of Matthew, who says that “the Father alone” knows. For how ridiculous would it be to say that the Son of Man does not know the day of judgement unless the Father alone knows it? For that is a contradiction in the adjunct, and the condition added overturns the very thing to which it is added. The same interpreter says further that many ancient and weighty authors, whose names he lists in order, interpreted it thus: that Christ was ignorant of the day of judgement in so far as he is man. This he holds to be true only to the extent that it is understood that Christ knew the day of judgement not under this title, or not for this reason, that he was man, but because he was God. Otherwise he holds it false, indeed dreadful to hear, that the human nature of Christ was ignorant of anything. For the Papists, and some others as well, think that the human nature of Christ knew all things straight from the beginning of his conception or birth. But he refutes that interpretation too, because Christ not only denies that the Son of Man (he ought rather to have said “the Son of God” here) knows the day of judgement, but also affirms that the Father alone knows it: by which word he seems to exclude not only the Son but also the holy spirit.

 

But since today the very interpretation which that interpreter rejects, namely that Christ is said to have been truly ignorant of the day of judgement not according to the divine but according to the human nature, is very widely and commonly received, even among those who otherwise maintain that at the very moment of conception the properties of the divine nature were communicated to the human, or that the knowledge of all things was infused into his soul, we must briefly refute it here; and once it has been disposed of, that man’s own interpretation is also to be refuted in a few words.

 

This interpretation, then, and this reply to our argument, which is commonly offered, is not to be admitted, chiefly for three reasons. First, because Christ simply and without any limitation denies that the Son knows the day and hour of judgement. From this it follows that he spoke of himself as a whole, in his whole person, as we showed in examining the second reply on the passage John 5:19. Secondly, to pass over other things said in the same place: both from the simple word “Son”, set over against God the Father, and from the gradation Christ uses, ascending from the angels to the Son and from the Son to the Father, it is evident that he spoke precisely of that nature according to which he is the Son of God. Thirdly, because in Matthew it is expressly said that “the Father alone” knows the day or hour of judgement. And this is also the sense of the words of Mark when he says: “No one knows”, etc., “but the Father”, thereby setting the Father against the Son, too. But if Christ had known the day of judgement according to the divine nature, then not the Father alone would have known it, but the Son as well, and besides, if we believe the opponents, the holy spirit.

 

As for that saying of Paul which they press so hard here (Col 2:3): “In whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge”, they do not notice, first, that those words can be referred no less, indeed even more correctly, to the term “mystery of God and of Christ”, which had been mentioned immediately before, than to the name of Christ; for it is chiefly the knowledge of that mystery which is treated there, so that the sense is: in the mystery of God and of Christ all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hidden. That mystery, however, is the doctrine of the Gospel (cf. Col 1:25–27). Secondly, the words “knowledge” and “wisdom” are to be understood of the knowledge of things pertaining to human salvation, which have also been revealed to us through Christ and are to be diligently learned by us. But that the day of judgement is not among these things is evident from the very words of Christ about which we are disputing. Not to mention that, even if the same kind of things were otherwise in question, this special saying about the day of judgement would nevertheless have to restrict the general one, and the special would have to be interpreted not from the general, but the general from the special.

 

It remains to say something about the interpretation and reply which that interpreter of the Papists devised after refuting the opinions of all the others; though he puts it forward in such a way that he himself seems not quite to trust it. For he says: But, unless I am mistaken, Christ speaks in the same way as he said above: “But to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give to you, but to those for whom it has been prepared by my Father” (Matt 20:23). He therefore indicates, which is saying more, that not only as man but also as God he is in a certain way ignorant of the day of judgement: not that he is ignorant of it, but that it is not his office to know it; just as he did not say “for whom it has been prepared by me”, but “by my Father”, not because it had not also been prepared by him, but because to prepare the kingdom, that is, to predestine, is not his office but the Father’s.

 

So too it is the Father’s part to determine when the world is to be dissolved and when the day of judgement is to be. This is what he says to the Apostles: “It is not yours to know times or seasons which the Father has put in his own power” (Acts 1:7). Therefore he alone is signified to know it. And this, unless I am mistaken, is the true sense. He rightly added that “unless I am mistaken” twice; for he was afraid of being mistaken, and the ingenious man did not satisfy himself while he wished to satisfy others. But he has neither explained the passage correctly, indeed he has perverted it, nor removed the difficulty, but in part even increased it. For, first, without any example and without any just reason he departs from the proper and customary meaning of the words “he does not know”, and interprets them as “it is not someone’s office to know”; unless perhaps he offers as his reason the very thing that is in dispute, namely that it cannot be said that the Son does not know the day of judgement, because, as he has always known everything else, so he has always known that day too. Secondly, however he interprets the words “it is not the Son’s office to know that day”, he still does not escape the difficulty. For either it is not Christ’s office because he is not bound to know that day, or is under no obligation to know that day; or because he is bound not to know that day, or because he is not even permitted to know it; and the passages he cites seem to require this latter. If he means the latter, he increases the difficulty rather than lessening it, and even says more than is needed. For he says not only that the Son did not then know the day of judgement, but that he was not even permitted to know it. But how can he be that supreme God who not only is ignorant of something, but cannot even know it; or who is not even permitted to know something, and that in so far as he is God? And yet the passages he cites, duly compared with this sense, seem altogether to require this sense. For when Christ says, “To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give”, he signifies that this does not lie within his power and discretion, or that it is not permitted to him. The passage in Acts, moreover, makes express mention of power, and signifies that the Father has reserved to his own (for in the Greek it is ἰδίᾳ, that is, “own”) power and discretion the determination of the times and seasons, and, further, the knowledge of them as well. But if he means the former, I ask, first, what does this contribute to the matter? For the sense will be that no one is obliged to know the day of judgement, neither the angels nor the Son, but the Father alone. What follows from that? Even if neither men nor angels nor the Son are obliged to know it, yet both the former and the latter will be able to know it; “and we”, the disciples could have said, “though we are not bound to, nevertheless desire to know it, since we can know it without prejudice to the truth of that saying”. For the man against whom we are disputing believes that Christ did know the day of judgement, even though it was not his office to know it. In this way, then, Christ would not have checked the Apostles’ desire and their eagerness to learn that day, and would have left room for the thought that it might come about that both men and angels know that day. Secondly, how can it be said that it is the Father’s office, or that the Father is obliged, to know the day of judgement, but not the Son, if the Son too is supreme and thus one God with the Father? For neither of them can be obliged to know anything without the other being obliged as well, since both have numerically the same intellect and altogether the same knowledge. And moreover, whatever reason you may adduce why the Father is obliged to know the day of judgement, it will be common to the Son, if he is the supreme God together with the Father. Indeed, if it could come about that one of them were obliged to it and the other not, or less so, one would have to hold that Christ is the more obliged; for he holds the office of judge, and in it, if he is the supreme God, depends on no one, so that he both fixes and determines the day of judgement at his own discretion. I say nothing of the fact that it is not correctly said that it is the Father’s office, or that he is bound, to know the day of judgement, since he cannot fail to know it; or, if you say it is his office because he is bound to define and fix that day, one must consider how correctly it is said that he is bound to do what lies within his own discretion. But enough of this. (Johannes Crell, On the One God, the Father: Two Books, in Which Much is Also Discussed Concerning the Nature of the Son of God and of the Holy Spirit [trans. Marcin Poholski; 2026], 87-93)