Pauline Commentaries 1 part 26/28

Matthew, therefore, must be placed first, because he took his beginning from the promise itself, that is, from Abraham, to whom was made the promise of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. After him Luke, because he narrates how this incarnation came to pass. Third, Mark, who attests that the Gospel which was preached by Christ was promised in the Law. But fourth, John, because he shows in open speech that this one—who was promised to Abraham as the one to be incarnate, and of whom Luke told how he was incarnate, and Mark showed to have been preached as his Gospel according to the prophecy of Isaiah—is God, saying: In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. WHY, IN DESCRIBING THE GOSPEL OF CHRIST, DOES MATTHEW SAY:

'THE BOOK OF THE GENERATION OF JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF DAVID,' WHEN ABRAHAM IS EARLIER? For this reason he began thus, that he might first speak of him, describing his genealogy from the promise of his incarnation, as the Apostle says: whose are the fathers, and from whom is Christ according to the flesh. Therefore he said: the book of generation, because the incarnation of Christ is constituted out of many and diverse persons, so that—since out of one diverse persons began to be—he might draw his corporeal substance from them all, from Jews and Gentiles, from the worthy and the unworthy; for Ruth was a Moabitess, and Bathsheba was made a wife out of an adulteress, so that, drawing the flesh of all to himself, he might recall them to a native unity. And for this reason:

He says, of Jesus Christ the Son of David, although Abraham is earlier, because Christ is specially called the Son of David on account of the kingdom, so that, as God from God, so also he might take his origin as King from a king according to the flesh. For thus it was said to David: of the fruit of thy womb I will set upon thy throne. WHY DID THE AFORESAID APOSTLE MATTHEW DIVIDE ALL THE GENERATIONS INTO THREE PARTS? The causes and the times make the divisions; therefore he distinguished from Abraham down to David. For the first part of the cause is from Abraham down to David, because Abraham is the father of faith and David the father of the kingdom—for Saul, having been rendered unworthy, deprived himself of the kingdom—;

But from David down to the deportation is another part of the cause, in which the Jews lost the kingdom, having been made reprobate; and after the deportation to Babylon down to Christ is the third part, of lamentation and misery, of their captivity and dispersion, because, although after the Babylonian deportation and the period of seventy years, when they were released by Cyrus and returned to their own land, yet they never had any pause or rest. For Judaea was never afterward able to reign, but they were always anxious and wandering about. For indeed at the time of Christ's nativity they were captives, saying: We have no king but Caesar.

For this reason, then, Matthew made three stages of the generation, in order to show the changes both of merits and of causes from the promise that was made down to Christ, but that the seasons of the year, down to the end, remain in one and the same grace. WHY, SINCE THERE ARE FORTY-ONE GENERATIONS, DOES THE EVANGELIST SEEM TO HAVE COUNTED FORTY-TWO? FOR THREE TIMES FOURTEEN, WHAT DOES THAT MAKE BUT FORTY-TWO? According to the number, forty-one generations are counted, but according to the reckoning, forty-two are proved.

But Jechoniah was born at the time of the deportation, that is, was made king, as is contained in Chronicles; he made the end of the second part, and, because after the deportation he remained in the kingdom by the permission of King Nebuchadnezzar, from him begins the third part, which comes down to Christ. And therefore he is counted twice, so that Jechoniah both concludes the second part and begins the third. For thus it stands: and after the deportation to Babylon, Jechoniah begat Salathiel. Now down to this Salathiel reigned those who are of Judah, but from whose root Joseph is born.

For Jechoniah first had a son named Assir, but because Joseph traces his origin through the root of Salathiel, with Assir passed over, Salathiel was joined to Jechoniah his father, so that one might come down to Joseph, to whom the Virgin Mary was betrothed. For also after Josiah Jechoniah follows; but because it is through Joachim the father of Jechoniah that one comes down to Joseph, with him—that is, Joachim—passed over, he set down Jechoniah, so as not to exceed the number of fourteen generations, and because after Jechoniah comes Salathiel and his son, through whom Joseph arises.

WHY DID THE SAVIOUR, AFTER HIS BAPTISM, FAST FORTY DAYS AND AFTERWARD HUNGER? FOR HE WHO HAD FASTED FORTY DAYS, COULD HE NOT BY THEN HAVE BEEN WITHOUT HUNGER? It is written: Son, when thou comest to the service of God, stand in justice and fear, and prepare thy soul for temptation. And therefore the Saviour, in order to give us a pattern, fasted, so that in like manner we too, persisting in fastings, might overcome by God's help every assault of the devil set against us, knowing by the Saviour's example that the snares of the adversary are then the more to be guarded against, when we draw near to the fear of God. For he grieves that we have withdrawn from him; therefore he rages the more against us. This the Saviour did for us, not for himself. Likewise also that he hungered was not for his own sake, but for ours.

For when by his fastings the temptations of the devil had been overcome—which were therefore not written down, because they do not pertain to our profit—afterward, that is, after the forty days, he permitted himself to suffer hunger, so that—what belonged to man—he might suffer hunger, in order that the devil, who had already been overcome, seeing the weakness of hunger in him, might be incited again to tempt him, seeing that it was a man by whom he was being conquered. For this was the mystery of the Saviour, that, since the devil had insulted and lorded it over conquered man, he should be conquered by man, so that the power of God might win the victory for man. Thus Satan was rendered the more contemptible, when he beheld a man and yet did not understand a power that was not of man.

For he marveled, stunned and bewildered, that there was a mystery hidden in him which lay concealed from him, so that there was power to approach, but no power to ensnare. For he was tormented by two causes. For seeing the weakness, he approached, and found power, so that, beholding a man, he was made suspicious about the power of God. To this end, then, he hungered, that he might mock the cunning of Satan. But for this reason he fasted no longer, that he might accord with Moses and Elijah. IF 'THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS WERE UNTIL JOHN,' FROM WHOM THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN WAS PREACHED—FOR HE IS THE INAUGURATOR OF THE NEW PREACHING—WHY DID HIS BAPTISM CEASE? The baptism of John, once begun, did not cease, but to it was added what was lacking.

For John only baptized; he did not give the Holy Spirit to those who believed, just as he himself says concerning the Saviour: I indeed baptize you in water unto repentance, but he shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit. This is what he means: through me is the remission of sins, yet the Holy Spirit is not given, that those purified might be called sons; for this was reserved to the Saviour, as to the Lord, that they should not become sons of God except by receiving the Holy Spirit from the Son of God.

The effect, then, of John's baptism—which operated silently, without interrogation, yet not without mention of the Saviour, that what it accomplished might be firm—is the gift of the Trinity, which the condescension of the Saviour displayed, giving the form of the three names, which from the very beginning, under the name or person of the one God, wrought one and undifferentiated work. An interpretation, therefore, was added to the baptism of John, with the signification of the mystery long hidden; and there was added a further gift, that the baptized, having received the Holy Spirit, might be sons of God. It was therefore amplified, not made void. WHY ARE 'THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS' RIGHTLY SAID TO HAVE CEASED UNTIL JOHN? BECAUSE HE OF WHOM THEY PROPHESIED HAS NOW COME.

WHY 'THE LAW UNTIL JOHN,' WHEN THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT WE OUGHT TO BE SUBJECT TO THE LAW? 'THE POWERS THAT BE,' HE SAYS, 'ARE ORDAINED OF GOD.' The Law indeed has but one name, yet it has a threefold understanding. For the first part of the Law is concerning God; for if the Law (lex) is so called from reading (lectio), so that you may know what to choose out of many, then those set amid errors received it that they might choose the true, that is, rejecting the devil they might choose God. But the second part of the Law is this, which is contained in six commandments, which begins thus: Honour thy father and thy mother. The third is in the new moons and in the Sabbath, and in the distinguishing and choosing of foods, and in circumcision, and in the offering of sacrifices of cattle.

This Law, accordingly, he says was to be kept only until John, not beyond. For it was given in such a way that, the time being completed, it should cease. For it was not from the beginning, but a cause for it was given for a time, so that at the coming of the Saviour the Law should cease. Therefore both the Law of the commandments concerning God abides, as does his nature, which is without doubt from him and cannot be abolished. For through it one advances toward the promised reward. For fear begets carefulness. A SABBATH IS SURELY THE LAW, OR A PART OF THE LAW: HOW THEN IS THE LAW NOT MADE VOID, WHEN THE SABBATH WAS LOOSED, AS THE EVANGELIST SAYS: 'BECAUSE HE NOT ONLY LOOSED THE SABBATH,' AND THE REST? The Saviour did indeed loose the Sabbath, but without prejudice to the Sabbath that had been given.

For while the time of the Sabbath was already ceasing, but the Jews asserted that the Sabbath still remained, the Saviour, working on the Sabbaths and commanding the sick man to carry his bed on the Sabbaths, was, according to the understanding of the Jews, loosing the Sabbath. For according to the faith of the truth, how is it such, if it be said that it had already ceased? It is as if it were said of someone who is to be called a former prefect and has suffered injury, that the prefecture has suffered injury; therefore it is not the Sabbath that was loosed, but the men who imprudently claimed the authority of the Sabbath who were deluded, since a new law had now succeeded the Sabbath. WHY DID THE SAVIOUR CALL HIS DISCIPLES 'SONS OF THUNDER,' WHO WOULD SEEM RATHER TO BE CALLED SONS OF GOD? FOR THUNDERS ARE SAID TO BE PRODUCED BY THE COLLISION OF CLOUDS.

Since thunders strike terror, for this cause the Lord called his disciples sons of thunder, as it were sons of him who is to be feared. For although thunders are produced by the collision of clouds, yet they are produced by the will of God and are terrible. IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE SAVIOUR, WHEN BORN, WAS CALLED SON OF GOD AND CHRIST: WHY THEN, AFTER HIS BAPTISM, DID THE TEMPTER APPROACH HIM, SAYING: 'IF THOU BE THE SON OF GOD,' AND THE REST? The Saviour was so born of the Virgin that he was both Christ and Son of God, not by making but by birth. But still, in his lesser age, emptying his power, that is, dissembling his authority, he did not provoke the impudence of the devil.

But when he was baptized, the Holy Spirit descending upon him, and when by the testimony of God the Father it had appeared to men who he was, the enemy, led by the rivalry of zeal, was moved to envy, seeing that this deed worked against himself; for he understood that the ordinance of baptism had been provided for the salvation of men. And therefore he approaches the Saviour, the prince of this matter, not to approve, but to find an opportunity of overturning it. For temptation is sometimes made for proving, sometimes craftily for subversion. For he supposed that, as it were, he had elicited from the Saviour an answer according to the deceit of his own will, that he might possess his whole kingdom, secure that, the leader of the Saviour's teaching being subjected, no one would escape his death.

WHY DID THE SAVIOUR RESIST THE DEVIL TEMPTING HIM IN NO OTHER WAY THAN BY THE EXAMPLES OF THE LAW? The Saviour answered not only the devil tempting him, but also the Jews, through whom the devil wrought the impiety of his cruelty against the Saviour. For, foreknowing that the Jews would call him an enemy of the Law, he restrained the impudence of their father, the devil, by the testimonies of the Law, so as to condemn the father in the sons and the sons in the father. THE GOSPEL ATTESTS THAT 'NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD': AGAINST THIS, JACOB AND MOSES AND ISAIAH ASSERT THAT THEY SAW GOD. BUT SOMEONE SAYS: 'NO ONE HAS SEEN THE FATHER.' WHAT OF THE MATTER? IF THE SON WAS SEEN,

THEN THE FATHER ALSO WAS SEEN, SEEING THAT BOTH FATHER AND SON ARE EACH ONE GOD, BOTH IN SUBSTANCE AND IN IMAGE, SINCE THERE IS ONE IMAGE OF THE TWO, AND, AS HE HIMSELF SAYS: 'HE WHO SEES ME, SEES THE FATHER ALSO.' HOW THEN HAS NO ONE SEEN THE FATHER, GOD, WHEN THE SON SAYS THAT THE FATHER IS SEEN WHEN HE HIMSELF IS SEEN, SINCE NEITHER IS THERE ANOTHER GOD? IF THEREFORE THERE IS NOT ANOTHER, HE HIMSELF IS THE SAME, SINCE HE IS ONE, AND GOD WAS SEEN. So far as concerns the Evangelist, he said this of God the Father, that no one has seen God except the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father; he himself has declared him. Let us believe the Son; for he himself has declared that no one but he has seen God. But he said this for this reason, to teach that he himself had always appeared to the patriarchs and prophets.

This, therefore, does not pertain to the one God, but to the person of the Father, of whom it cannot otherwise be said than 'God the Father.' But the Son says he was seen in such a way that he is nonetheless invisible, in that very thing in which he is thought to be seen. For 'seen' here is to be understood, because he was certainly not seen with the eyes, but understood with the mind; and this was 'to have seen,' namely to have understood, in that which appeared, that God was present there. But when the Saviour says: He who sees me sees the Father also, he certainly did not refer this to the sight of the eyes, but to that of the mind, and so that nothing should be thought to be diverse between the Father and the Son. Neither of them, therefore, was seen according to substance; but in the surrounding manifestation the Son alone was seen by the mind, not by the bodily eyes, because he is invisible like the Father.

WHY DID THE SAVIOUR, AT THE OUTSET, DENY MERCY TO THE FOREIGN WOMAN, THAT IS, THE CANAANITE, WHEN HE DID NOT REFUSE THE BENEFIT OF GRANTING HEALTH EITHER TO THE FOREIGN CENTURION OR TO THE LEPER, WHOM JESUS HIMSELF CALLED A FOREIGNER? The very cause designates the deed worthy of the Saviour. For it was absurd, and tended to the injury of the promise made to the fathers, if a woman who had not confessed the God of the Jews should receive the benefit promised to a nation confessing God. Therefore at the outset it was denied to her.

But when, with neck bowed, she did not deny faith at the Saviour's words, but confessed that the believing Jews were sons, while the Gentiles were dogs or servants—by which she joined herself to the Lord's faith, because servants point to a master, and a master is not without servants—a unity was made of the subject and of the one subjecting. Hence it is that she merited to obtain what she prayed for. But the centurion, who without delay received the benefit from the Saviour, had long since imbued himself with the things of God. Indeed the elders of the Jews say to the Lord: He is worthy that thou shouldst grant this to him; for he loves our nation, and he himself has built us a synagogue. But the leper the Lord called a foreigner not by faith, but by nation. For he was a Samaritan, and it is established that these are by origin of the Babylonians.

And yet this one too did not obtain the benefit without confession, because it had been said to the disciples by the Lord: Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into the city of the Samaritans enter not, but go rather to the sheep that are lost of the house of Israel; that is, that it should not be preached first to the Samaritans and Gentiles before the Jews, whose this promise had been. But when the Jews began to repudiate the faith of Christ, then the Saviour offered himself also to the Samaritan woman, and after the cross to the centurion Cornelius; but the Canaanite woman, when she sought him out, he received, because it was not yet the time that salvation should be offered to her.

THE APOSTLE PETER SAYS: 'CHRIST DIED FOR US'; BUT THE APOSTLE PAUL ASSERTS THAT HE DIED ALSO FOR HIMSELF: 'HE WAS MADE,' HE SAYS, 'OBEDIENT UNTO DEATH; WHEREFORE GOD HAS GIVEN HIM A NAME WHICH IS ABOVE EVERY NAME.' IF THIS BE SO, HE WILL SEEM TO HAVE BEEN IMPERFECT, WHO BY HIS OWN WORKS MADE AN INCREASE. That the Son of God was born perfect from God, no faithful person doubts. For he received all things of the paternal divinity by being born of God the Father. Then, therefore, he received the name which is above every name, that is, that he should be called what the Father is: God. For nothing is said to be future with him; for he has all things before himself. Therefore he was born to create and to restore all these things.

For indeed order and reason have it thus, that to the paternal name every knee should bow. This the Father gave to the Son on account of the things he was about to do; and he gave it when he begot him. For he so begot him that he should be in the same honour in which the Father himself is. JOHN TO THE LORD: 'ART THOU HE THAT IS TO COME, OR DO WE LOOK FOR ANOTHER?' Under his own person he pleads the cause of his disciples. For John did not doubt, he who had said: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sin of the world; but, in order to satisfy his disciples, he sends them with his own words, so that he might confirm by the Saviour's mouth what he himself was teaching about him, that after his own departure his disciples might without any doubt follow Christ.

WHY IS IT THAT, WHEN THE SAVIOUR HAD HEALED ALMOST ALL BY A WORD, HE YET RESTORED THE EYES OF THE BLIND MAN BY MUD MADE FROM SPITTLE? The Saviour did this for the confounding of those who accuse the creation. For when he amended a defect accidentally befalling the body in no other way than the Creator had made it, he commended the Author of this work. For he amended it through that by which it had been created. For everything that is made, if, when fallen, it be restored through that by which it had been made, will be proved to have been made aright. For if the Saviour by these things testifies himself to be God, because he amended the damages and defects of the body, how much more is he God, who is the inventor of the body itself!

WHY IS IT THAT, BEING ABOUT TO PERFORM A WONDERFUL AND UNHEARD-OF MIRACLE—NAMELY, ABOUT TO RAISE LAZARUS FROM THE DEAD—HE WEPT, OR ASKED FOR THE PLACE WHERE HE WAS LAID, AS THOUGH IGNORANT? The Saviour is God and man, and on this account he always performed two roles in turn, so that—what belonged to the affection of man—he might weep, but, because he was also God, he raised up the one whom he had wept for. From the least, therefore, one always comes to the greater, so that, because he was perceived as man, he might prove himself to be that which he was seen to be; but by his works he asserted himself to be God. WHY IS IT THAT ABOVE WE READ THAT HEROD DIED, BUT LOWER DOWN, AND AFTER MANY YEARS, THAT HEROD KILLED JOHN, WHEN ABOVE, AFTER THE DEATH OF HEROD, JOHN SURVIVED?

Herod was king of Judaea; he had four sons—Archelaus, Herod, Philip, and Lysanias; but when Herod their father died, Archelaus succeeded, and when he died the kingdom of the aforesaid Herod was divided into four parts, so that Pilate was admitted into the fourth part of the kingdom as governor, not as king, while the sons of Herod were called kings. Finally, when Philip in turn died, his brother Herod took his wife, on account of whom he was rebuked by John the Baptist, for which cause Herod, the son of the aforementioned Herod, killed him. For what does it say? Herod, it says, the tetrarch, that is, set over a fourth part of the kingdom of his father Herod.

What, then, is in doubt, since the signification of the added surname shows that this is another Herod? For he it is who also slew with the sword James, the brother of John, who afterward, struck by an angel of God, swarming with worms, expired. WHY DOES THE APOSTLE SAY THAT HE WAS MADE ALL THINGS TO ALL MEN, WHICH SEEMS TO BE THE ACT OF A FLATTERER AND A HYPOCRITE? That man is a flatterer who gives consent for this reason, that he may not offend him whom he desires to keep favorable. But he who does something on account of a stumbling-block—something not indeed dangerous, but superfluous—is studious for the salvation of him whom he does not wish to suffer offense.

When the Apostle Paul circumcised Timothy on account of the Jews, and, being purified, entered into the temple, he certainly showed himself such, lest those who were zealous for the paternal tradition, suffering a stumbling-block, should either kill him or think our religion hostile to them. He wished, therefore, to admit the less, that he might be able to gain the more. For he could have sinned gravely if he had not made himself a Jew so as to go into the temple to pray; he therefore subjected himself, that he might profit them. But to those who were under the Law, that is, the Samaritans, he consented on this principle, by which it is established that they rightly confess the books of Moses to be from God, and circumcision and the Sabbaths to be given by God. And by these things he showed them Christ, whom they hoped to be the one he was preaching.

For thus you have it, the Samaritan woman saying to the Lord: I know that the Messiah comes; when therefore he comes, he will announce to us all things. According to this sense, then, he pursued the words of the books of Moses, who said that the Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet from among your brethren. But to those who were without the Law, he assented on this score, because they say the world was made by God, and the race of men. For he says: as certain also of your own have said, for we also are his offspring. Thus, therefore, he was made all things to all men, that he might profit for their salvation. SINCE WE PROFESS THAT THE SAVIOUR WAS BORN, WHY IS IT THAT THE APOSTLE SAYS HE WAS MADE OF THE SEED OF DAVID, WHEN TO BE MADE IS ONE THING, TO BE BORN ANOTHER?

Although in this place the 'making' may be understood as the nativity—for 'making' does indeed differ from generation, but in other matters, not where the reasoning of flesh and body is concerned—yet the Apostle did not speak in such words without cause, because also in another place he says: made of a woman. He signified something, therefore, by this saying. For since the flesh of the Lord was not formed of human seed in the womb of the Virgin and made a body, but by the operation and power of the Holy Spirit, therefore the Apostle spoke thus. For it is one thing, by the admixture of seed, to coagulate blood and to generate, and another, not by mixture but by power, to procreate. Therefore he said 'made,' because it was unbegotten.

WHY DID THE APOSTLE SAY TO THE GALATIANS, WHOM HE SO REBUKES AND CONVICTS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE EPISTLE: 'BE,' HE SAYS, 'AS I AM, FOR I AM AS YOU ARE'? IF THEN HE SHOWED HIMSELF SUCH AS THEY WERE, IT WAS SUPERFLUOUS TO SAY: 'BE AS I AM'; OR PERHAPS IN CERTAIN THINGS HE HAD BEGUN TO BE AN IMITATOR OF THEM, AND IN SOME THINGS HE WISHES THEM TO BE IMITATORS OF HIMSELF? Which of them could imitate the Apostle? Or what did he, the teacher of the Gentiles, lack? But he exhorts them to be imitators of him, and since it is not impossible, he reproves them thus, when he says: 'because I am what you are. For you are men, as I also am;

therefore do what I do.' It can also be referred to that other point: that, since he says he was made all things to all men by consent, in those matters in which they did not disagree from the truth, especially the Gentiles. For there was nothing of theirs which ought now in no way to be done, but had previously been done rightly—such as circumcision, the observance of the Sabbaths, of new moons, of foods. But if he approved anything of the Gentiles, he showed that it ought not now to cease. For they say the world was fashioned by God and by men—this always stands—: if, therefore, in these things he was made consenting to them, as they also were, he exhorts them to become in like manner what he too is, consenting to his teaching. HOW ARE WE FREE IN JUDGMENT AND WILL, WHEN THE APOSTLE SAYS:

'THE FLESH LUSTS AGAINST THE SPIRIT, AND THE SPIRIT AGAINST THE FLESH, SO THAT YOU DO NOT THE THINGS THAT YOU WOULD'? AND IF THE FLESH LUSTS AGAINST THE SPIRIT, IT IS EVIL; FOR THE SPIRIT SUGGESTS GOOD THINGS. By 'flesh' in this place you are not to understand the substance of the flesh, but the evil acts and the faithlessness signified in the flesh. For inasmuch as all error is from things visible and worldly, and the flesh is akin to them—for it consists of the elements—he calls all error 'flesh.' He calls not only adulteries and fornications and debaucheries works of the flesh, but also idolatry and sorceries and blasphemies and such things. Does the flesh compel blasphemy or idolatry? Are these not the vices of the soul, while it consents to error?

But of those who act rightly he says that they are not in the flesh, but in the spirit, and yet they are still in the body. He, therefore, who walks well and does not despair of the hope of the faithful, though set in the flesh, is said not to be in the flesh; but he who acts ill and is a blasphemer is said to be in the flesh, because, just as those who act well are spiritual together with the flesh itself, so those who live ill are carnal together with the soul itself. For this is what he means when he says: This error, then, which he calls 'flesh,' lusts against the spirit, that is, suggests evil things against that same spirit, which is the law of God. For he introduces two laws, of God and of the devil. Whence he says 'spirit,' for the reason that the law of God is spiritual, to fight against the flesh, that is, against the vices, so as to preserve man for God;

but the law of the devil, which is error, contradicts through the enticements of luxury and the sweetness of worldly things. Between these, then, as they fight against each other, stands man in the middle, who, when he consents to the spirit, the flesh is unwilling; but when he gives his hand to the flesh, he spurns the spirit, that is, he despises the law of God. The spirit, therefore, recalls him who consents to the flesh, lest he do what he wills; but the flesh solicits him who assents to the spirit, lest he do what he thinks useful.

But the spirit rightly and providently contradicts and recalls, in order to rescue man from the counsels of Satan; whereas the flesh, which is the adverse law, solicits and resists the spirit of the law for this reason, that by deceit it may deceive. Therefore the Apostle publishes these things for this reason, to show to the human judgment to which thing it should commit its will—not to empty out the judgment of liberty, but he teaches the judgment to which thing it should join itself. But if there were no judgment of the will, neither the law of the devil, which is the flesh, nor the law of God, which is the spirit, opposing each other, would solicit man with their counsels. For he who solicits, persuades; but he who persuades does not bring force, but circumvents; and he who is circumvented, his will is changed by certain deceits.