Teaching Christianity (continued)
This ambiguity is settled by one word that follows, the word for; the translators who omitted this little word inclined rather to the opinion that he was not only constrained from two sides, but also had a desire for the two. This then is how it should be phrased: And I do not know which to choose; but I am being constrained from two sides; this phrase is then followed by, having a desire to cast off and be with Christ. And as though he were asked why he had a desire for this rather than for the other, he says, for it is much the best. So why is he being constrained from two sides? Because he is under the necessity to remain, about which he adds, to remain in the flesh is necessary on your account.
5. Where, however, an ambiguity can be resolved neither by the standard of faith nor by the actual context of the passage, there is no objection to your phrasing it in any of the ways that are open to you. Like this to the Corinthians: Has ergo promissiones habentes, carissimi, mundemus nos ab omni inquinatione carnis et spiritus perficientes sanctificationem in timore Dei capite nos; neminem nocuimus[3] (2 Cor 7:1–2). It is in doubt whether it should be read, mundemus nos ab omni inquinatione carnis et spiritus, according to that other text, so that she may be holy both in body and in spirit (1 Cor 7:34); or, mundemus nos ab omni inquinatione carnis, so that the next phrase would be, et spiritus perficientes sanctificationem in timore Dei capite nos. The phrasing, therefore, of such ambiguities is left to the discretion of the reader.
Ambiguities over pronunciation
3, 6. Now everything we have said about ambiguous phrasing is to be observed with ambiguities over pronunciation. These too, except where they arise from the carelessness of the reader, are to be settled either by the standard of faith, or by the context of what precedes and what follows; or if neither serves to resolve the doubt, then whichever way the reader pronounces the word, he will not be at fault.
For example, unless we were held back by the faith by which we believe that God is not going to accuse his chosen ones, and Christ is not going to condemn his chosen ones, we could pronounce the passage, Who will bring an accusation against God's chosen ones? as though the reply to this question followed immediately, God, who justifies them; and then again when the question is asked, Who is it that will condemn them? as though the answer came, Christ Jesus who died (Rom 8:33–34). But because it would be the last word in lunacy to believe that, it will be pronounced in such a way that first we have a challenging inquiry, and then this is followed by an interrogatory question. The difference between an inquiry and an interrogatory question,[4] according to the ancient authors, is that to an inquiry many answers can be given, while to an interrogatory question only a "no" or a "yes." So then it will be pronounced in such a way that after our inquiry, saying Who will bring an accusation against God's chosen ones? what follows is spoken in an interrogatory tone, God, who justifies them? so that the tacit reply to this is, "No." And again we inquire, Who is it that will condemn them? and once more ask the interrogatory question, Christ Jesus who died, or rather who rose again, who is at God's right hand, who is also interceding for us? so that all the time the tacit answer is "No."
On the other hand, in the passage where it says, So then, what are we to say? That the nations who were not in pursuit of justice laid hold of justice (Rom 9:30), unless to the inquiry, So then, what are we to say? the affirmative reply comes, That the nations who were not in pursuit of justice laid hold of justice, it would not be coherent with the following context. But in whatever tone you pronounce what Nathanael said, A Nazareth potest aliquid boni esse[5] (Jn