21. But if we once admit that there are certain antecedent causes for one vessel being a vessel of honour, and another a vessel of dishonour, what absurdity is there in going back to the mystery of the soul, and understanding that there were antecedent causes for Jacob's being loved and Esau's being hated; as regards Jacob, before his assumption of a body, and as regards Esau, before he was conceived in the womb? At the same time it clearly appears that, so far as the subject nature is concerned, as there is one and the same lump of clay subject to the potter, out of which vessels are made to honour and dishonour: so, though there is one common soul nature subject to God, and, if I may so speak, one lump of rational subsistences, certain antecedent causes have made some men to be unto honour and others to dishonour. And if the Apostle's question conveys a rebuke, "Nay, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? it perhaps teaches that he who has confidence towards God, as a man of faith and good life, would not have the question addressed to him, "Who art thou that repliest against God?" Such an one was Moses; for Moses spake, and God answered him by a Voice, and as God answers Moses, so also the holy man answers God. But he who has not this confidence, manifestly, either because he has lost it, or because he investigates these topics not from a love of learning but in a contentious spirit, and therefore says, "Why doth he still find fault? For who withstandeth |162 his will?" this man would deserve the rebuke, "Nay, O man, who art thou that repliest against God?"