A SELECT LIBRARY
OF THE
NICENE AND
POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
EDITED BY
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK,
IN CONNECTION WITH A NUMBER OF PATRISTIC SCHOLARS OF EUROPE AND AMERICA.
VOLUME III
ON THE HOLY TRINITY
DOCTRINAL TREATISES
MORAL TREATISES
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
Preface.
————————————
This third volume contains the most important doctrinal and moral treatises of St. Augustin, and presents a pretty complete view of his dogmatics and ethics.
The most weighty of the doctrinal treatises is that on the Holy Trinity. The Latin original (De Trinitate contra Arianos libri quindecim) is contained in the 8th volume of the Benedictine edition. It is the most elaborate, and probably also the ablest and profoundest patristic discussion of this central doctrine of the Christian religion, unless we except the Orations against the Arians, by Athanasius, “the Father of Orthodoxy,” who devoted his life to the defense of the Divinity of Christ. Augustin, owing to his defective knowledge of Greek, wrote his work independently of the previous treatises of the Eastern Church on that subject. He bestowed more time and care upon it than on any other book, except the City of God.
The value of the present translation, which first appeared in Mr. Clark’s edition, 1873, has been much increased by the revision, the introductory essay, and the critical notes of a distinguished American divine, who is in full sympathy with St. Augustin, and thoroughly at home in the history of this dogma. I could not have intrusted it to abler hands than those of my friend and colleague, Dr. Shedd.
The moral treatises (contained in
the 6th volume of the Benedictine edition) were first translated
for the Oxford Library of the Fathers (1847). They contain much
that will instruct and interest the reader; while some views will
appear strange to those who fail to distinguish between different
ages and different types of virtue and piety. Augustin shared with
the Greek and Latin fathers the ascetic preference for voluntary
celibacy and poverty. He accepted the distinction which dates from
the second century, between two kinds of morality: a lower morality
of the common people, which consists in keeping the ten
commandments; and a higher sanctity of the elect few, which
observes, in addition, the evangelical counsels, so called, or the
monastic virtues. He practiced this doctrine after his conversion.
He ought to have married the mother of his son; but in devoting
himself to the priesthood, he felt it his duty to remain unmarried,
according to the prevailing spirit of the church in his age. His
teacher, Ambrose, and his older contemporary, Jerome, went still
further in the enthusiastic praise of single life. We must admire
their power of self-denial and undivided consecration, though we
may dissent from their theory.
On the ascetic tendencies of the second and third
centuries, and the gradual introduction of clerical celibacy (which
began with a decree of Bishop Siricius of Rome, 385), see Schaff,
Church Hist., vol. ii. 367–414, and vol. iii.
242–250.
The asceticism of the early church was a reaction
against the awful sexual corruption of surrounding heathenism, and
with all its excesses it accomplished a great deal of good. It
prepared the way for Christian family life. The fathers appealed to
the example of Christ, who in this respect, as the Son of God,
stood above ordinary human relations, and the advice of St. Paul,
which was given in view of “the present distress,” in times of
persecution. They deemed single life better adapted to the
undivided service of Christ and his church than the married state
with its unavoidable secular cares (
“Therefore go on, Saints of God, boys and girls, males and females, unmarried men and women; go on and persevere unto the end. Praise more sweetly the Lord, whom ye think on more richly; hope more happily in Him, whom ye serve more earnestly; love more ardently Him, whom ye please more attentively. With loins girded, and lamps burning, wait for the Lord, when He returns from the marriage. Ye shall bring unto the marriage of the Lamb a new song, which ye shall sing on your harps.”
The Reformation has abolished the system of monasticism and clerical celibacy, and substituted for it, as the normal condition for the clergy as well as the laity, the purity, chastity and beauty of family life, instituted by God in Paradise and sanctioned by our Saviour’s presence at the wedding at Cana.
New York, March, 1887.
Contents.
__________
Preface.
I. Doctrinal Treatises of St. Augustin.
On the Holy Trinity
Translated by the Rev. Arthur West Haddan, B.D.
Revised and annotate, together with an introductory essay, by
the Rev. Professor W. G. T. Shedd, D.D.
The Enchiridion
Translated by Professor J. F. Shaw.
On the Catechising of the Uninstructed.
Translated by the Rev. Professor S. D. F. Salmond, D.D.
Concerning Faith of Things not Seen.
Translated by the Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A.
On the Profit of Believing.
Translated by the Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A.
On the Creed: A Sermon to Catechumens.
Translated by the Rev. H. Brown, M.A.
II. Moral Treatises of St. Augustin.
Of Continence.
Translated by the Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A.
On the Good of Marriage.
Translated by the Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A.
Of Holy Virginity.
Translated by the Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A.
On the Good of Widowhood.
Translated by the Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A.
On Lying.
Translated by the Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
To Consentius: Against Lying.
Translated by the Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
Of the Work of Monks.
Translated by the Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
On Patience.
Translated by the Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
On Care to be Had for the Dead.
Translated by the Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
Index to On the Holy Trinity.
Index to Fifteen Doctrinal and Moral Treatises.
St. augustin:
on the Trinity
[De trinitate, libri xv.]
Translated by the
Rev. Arthur West Haddan, B.D.,
Hon. Canon of Worchester, and Rector of Barton-on-the-Heath, Warwickshire.
Revised and Annotated, with an Introductory Essay,
by
William G. T. Shedd, D.D.,
Roosevelt Professor of Systematic Theology in Union Theological Seminary, New York.
Introductory Essay.
By William G. T. Shedd, D.D.
The doctrine of the Divine Unity is a truth of natural religion; the doctrine of the Trinity is a truth of revealed religion. The various systems of natural theism present arguments for the Divine existence, unity, and attributes, but proceed no further. They do not assert and endeavor to demonstrate that the Supreme Being is three persons in one essence. It is because this doctrine is not discoverable by human reason, that the Christian church has been somewhat shy of attempts to construct it analytically; or even to defend it upon grounds of reason. The keen Dr. South expresses the common sentiment, when he remarks that “as he that denies this fundamental article of the Christian religion may lose his soul, so he that much strives to understand it may lose his wits.” Yet all the truths of revelation, like those of natural religion, have in them the element of reason, and are capable of a rational defense. At the very least their self-consistence can be shown, and objections to them can be answered. And this is a rational process. For one of the surest characteristics of reason is, freedom from self contradiction, and consonance with acknowledged truths in other provinces of human inquiry and belief.
It is a remarkable fact, that the earlier forms of Trinitarianism are among the most metaphysical and speculative of any in dogmatic history. The controversy with the Arian and the Semi-Arian, brought out a statement and defense of the truth, not only upon scriptural but ontological grounds. Such a powerful dialectician as Athanasius, while thoroughly and intensely scriptural—while starting from the text of scripture, and subjecting it to a rigorous exegesis—did not hesitate to pursue the Arian and Semi-Arian dialectics to its most recondite fallacy in its subtlest recesses. If any one doubts this, let him read the four Orations of Athanasius, and his defence of the Nicene Decrees. In some sections of Christendom, it has been contended that the doctrine of the Trinity should be received without any attempt at all to establish its rationality and intrinsic necessity. In this case, the tenets of eternal generation and procession have been regarded as going beyond the Scripture data, and if not positively rejected, have been thought to hinder rather than assist faith in three divine persons and one God. But the history of opinions shows that such sections of the church have not proved to be the strongest defenders of the Scripture statement, nor the most successful in keeping clear of the Sabellian, Arian, or even Socinian departure from it.
Those churches which have followed
Scripture most implicitly, and have most feared human speculation,
are the very churches which have inserted into their creeds the
most highly analytic statement that has yet been made of the
doctrine of the Trinity. The Nicene Trinitarianism is incorporated
into nearly all the symbols of modern Christendom; and this
specifies, particularly, the tenets of eternal generation and
procession with their corollaries. The English Church, to whose
great divines, Hooker, Bull, Waterland, and Pearson, scientific
Trinitarianism owes a very lucid and careful statement, has added
the Athanasian creed to the Nicene. The Presbyterian churches,
distinguished for the closeness of their adherence to the simple
Scripture, yet call upon their membership to confess,
Westminster Confession, II. iii.
The treatise of Augustin upon the
Trinity, which is here made accessible to the English reader, is
one of the ablest produced in the patristic age. The author devoted
nearly thirty years of his matured life to its composition (A.D. 400 to 428). He was continually touching
and retouching it, and would have delayed its publication longer
than he did, had a copy not been obtained surreptitiously and
published. He seems to have derived little assistance from others;
for although the great Greek Trinitarians—Athanasius, the two
Gregories, and Basil—had published their treatises, yet he
informs us that his knowledge of Greek, though sufficient for
understanding the exegetical and practical writings of his brethren
of the Greek Church, was not adequate to the best use of their
dialectical and metaphysical compositions.
That Augustin had considerable acquaintance with
Greek is proved by his many references and citations throughout his
writings. In this work, see XII. vii. 11; XII. xiv. 22; XIII. x.
14; XIV. i. 1; XV. ix. 15. His statement in III. i. 1, is, that he
was “not so familiar with the Greek tongue (Græcæ
linguæ non sit nobis tantus habitus), as to be able to read
and understand the books that treat of such [metaphysical]
topics.” In V. viii. 10, he remarks that he does not comprehend
the distinction which the Greek Trinitarians make between
οὐσία
and ὑπόστασις; which shows that he
had not read the work of Gregory of Nyssa, in which it is defined
with great clearness. One may have a good knowledge of a language
for general purposes, and yet be unfamiliar with its philosophical
nomenclature.
In his general position, Augustin
agrees with the Nicene creed; but laying more emphasis upon the
consubstantiality of the persons, and definitely asserting the
procession of the Spirit from the Father and Son. Some dogmatic
historians seem to imply that he differed materially from the
Nicene doctrine on the point of subordination. Hagenbach
(Smith’s Ed. § 95) asserts that “Augustin completely purified
the dogma of the Trinity from the older vestiges of
subordination;” and adds that “such vestiges are unquestionably
to be found in the most orthodox Fathers, not only in the East but
also in the West.” He cites Hilary and Athanasius as examples,
and quotes the remark of Gieseler, that “the idea of a
subordination lies at the basis of such declarations.” Neander
(II. 470, Note 2) says that Augustin “kept at a distance
everything that bordered on subordinationism.” These statements
are certainly too sweeping and unqualified. There are three kinds
of subordination: the filial or trinitarian; the theanthropic; and
the Arian. The first is taught, and the second implied, in the
Nicene creed. The last is denied and excluded. Accordingly,
dogmatic historians like Petavius, Bull, Waterland, and Pearson,
contend that the Nicene creed, in affirming the filial, but denying
the Arian subordination; in teaching subordination as to person and
relationship, but denying it as to essence; enunciates a revealed
truth, and that this is endorsed by all the Trinitarian fathers,
Eastern and Western. And there certainly can be no doubt that
Augustin held this view. He maintains, over and over again, that
Sonship as a relationship is second and subordinate to Fatherhood;
that while a Divine Father and a Divine Son must necessarily be of
the very same nature and grade of being, like a human father and a
human son, yet the latter issues from the former, not the former
from the latter. Augustin’s phraseology on this point is as
positive as that of Athanasius, and in some respects even more bold
and capable of misinterpretation. He denominates the Father the
“beginning” (principium) of the Son, and the Father and Son the
“beginning” (principium) of the Holy Spirit. “The Father is
the beginning of the whole divinity, or if it is better so
expressed, deity.” IV. xx. 29. “In their mutual
rela
For an analysis of Augustin’s Trinitarianism,
see Bauv:
Dreieinigkeitslehre I. 828–885;
Gangauf: Des Augustinus
speculative Lehre von Gott dem Dreieinigen; Schaff: History, iii. 684 sq.
Augustin starts with the assumption
that man was made in the image of the triune God, the God of
revelation; not in the image of the God of natural religion, or the
untriune deity of the nations. Consequently, it is to be expected
that a trinitarian analogue can be found in his mental
constitution. If man is God’s image, he will show traces of it in
every respect. All acknowledge that the Divine unity, and all the
communicable attributes, have their finite correspondents in the
unity and attributes of the human mind. But the Latin father goes
further than this. This, in his view, is not the whole of the
Divine image. When God says, “Let us make man in
our image, after our likeness” (
In asserting, however, that an image of the Trinity exists in man’s nature, Augustin is careful to observe that it is utterly imperfect and inadequate. He has no thought or expectation of clearing up the mystery by any analogy whatever. He often gives expression to his sense of the inscrutability and incomprehensibility of the Supreme Being, in language of the most lowly and awe-struck adoration. “I pray to our Lord God himself, of whom we ought always to think, and yet of whom we are not able to think worthily, and whom no speech is sufficient to declare, that He will grant me both help for understanding and explaining that which I design, and pardon if in anything I offend.” V. i. 1. “O Lord the one God, God the Trinity, whatever I have said in these books that is of Thine, may they acknowledge who are Thine; if anything of my own, may it be pardoned both by Thee and by those who are Thine. Amen.” XV. xxviii.
Augustin’s method in this work is (1.) The exegetical; (2.) The rational. He first deduces the doctrine of the Trinity from Scripture, by a careful collation and combination of the texts, and then defends it against objections, and illustrates it by the analogies which he finds in nature generally, and in the human mind particularly. The Scripture argument is contained in the first seven books; the rational in the last eight. The first part is, of course, the most valuable of the two. Though the reader may not be able to agree with Augustin in his interpretation of some Scripture passages, particularly some which he cites from the Old Testament, he will certainly be impressed by the depth, acumen, and accuracy with which the Latin father reaches and exhausts the meaning of the acknowledged trinitarian texts. Augustin lived in an age when the Scriptures and the Greek and Roman classics were nearly all that the student had, upon which to expend his intellectual force. There was considerable metaphysics, it is true, but no physics, and little mathematics. There was consequently a more undivided and exclusive attention bestowed upon revealed religion as embodied in the Scriptures, and upon ethics and natural religion as contained in the classics, than has ever been bestowed by any subsequent period in Christendom. One result was that scripture was expounded by scripture; things spiritual by things spiritual. This appears in the exegetical part of this treatise. Augustin reasons out of the Scriptures; not out of metaphysics or physics.
The second, or speculative division of the work, is that which will be most foreign to the thinking of some trinitarians. In it they will find what seems to them to be a philosophy, rather than an interpretation of the word of God. We shall, therefore, in this introductory essay, specify some of the advantages, as it seems to us, of the general method of defending and illustrating the doctrine of the Trinity employed by Augustin and the patristic Trinitarians.
1. Fuller justice is done to Scripture by this method. Revelation denominates the first trinitarian person the Father, the second the Son, the third the Spirit. These terms are literal, not metaphorical; because the relations denoted by them are eternally in the essence. Scripture clearly teaches that the Father is such from eternity. Consequently, “paternity” (implied in the name Father) can no more be ascribed to the first person of the Godhead in a figurative sense, than eternity can be. For a person that is a father must be so in relation to a son. No son, no father. Consequently, an eternal Father implies an eternal Son. And the same reasoning holds true of the relation of the Father and Son to the Spirit. The terms Father, Son, and Spirit, in the baptismal formula and the apostolic benediction, must designate primary and eternal distinctions. The rite that initiates into the kingdom of God, certainly would not be administered in three names that denote only assumed and temporal relations of God; nor would blessings for time and eternity be invoked from God under such secondary names.
Hence, these trinal names given to
God in the baptismal formula and the apostolic benediction,
actually force upon the trinitarian theologian, the ideas of
paternity, generation, filiation, spiration, and procession. He
cannot reflect upon the implication of these names without forming
these ideas, and finding himself necessitated to concede their
literal validity and objective reality. He cannot say that the
first person is the Father, and then deny that he “begets.” He
cannot say that the second person is the Son, and then deny that he
is “begotten.” He cannot say that the third person is the
Spirit, and then deny that he “proceeds” by “spiration”
(spiritus quia spiratus) from the Father and Son. When
therefore Augustin, like the primitive fathers generally, endeavors
to illustrate this eternal, necessary, and constitutional
energizing and activity (opera ad intra) in the Divine
Essence, whereby the Son issues from the Father and the Spirit from
Father and Son, by the emanation of sunbeam from sun, light from
light, river from fountain, thought from mind, word
2. A second advantage in this
method is, that it shows the doctrine of the Trinity to be
inseparable from that of the Unity of God. The Deistical conception
of the Divine unity is wholly different from the Christian. The
former is that of natural religion, formed by the unassisted human
mind in its reflection upon the Supreme Being. The latter is that
of revealed religion, given to the human mind by inspiration. The
Deistical unity is mere singleness. The Christian unity is a
trinality. The former is a unit. The latter a true unity, and
union. The former is meagre, having few contents. The latter is a
plenitude—what St. Paul denominates “the fullness of the
Godhead” (πλήρωμα
τῆς θεότητος).
It follows, consequently, that the
Divine unity cannot be discussed by itself without reference to
trinality, as the Deist and the Socinian endeavor to do.
The Mohammedan conception of the Divine Unity,
also, is deistic. In energetically rejecting the doctrine of the
Trinity, the Mohammedan is the Oriental Unitarian.
The Primitive church took this ground with confidence. Unity and trinality were inseparable in their view. The term God meant for them the Trinity. A “theologian,” in their nomenclature, was a trinitarian. They called the Apostle John ὁ θεόλογος, because he was enlightened by the Holy Spirit to make fuller disclosures, in the preface to his Gospel, concerning the deity of the Logos and the doctrine of the Trinity, than were the other evangelists. And they gave the same epithet to Gregory Nazianzum, because of the acumen and insight of his trinitarian treatises. This work of Augustin adopts the same position, and defends it with an ability second to none.
3. A third advantage of this method
of illustrating the doctrine of the Trinity is, that it goes to
show that the personality of God depends upon the trinality of the
Divine Essence
This is an important and valuable feature of the method in question, when viewed in its bearing upon the modern assertion that an Infinite Being cannot be personal. This treatise of Augustin does not develope the problem upon this point, but it leads to it. In illustrating the Trinity by the ternaries in nature, and especially in the human mind, he aims only to show that trinality of a certain kind does not conflict with unity of a certain kind. Memory, understanding, and will are three faculties, yet one soul. Augustin is content with elucidating the Divine unity by such illustrations. The elucidation of the Divine personality by them, was not attempted in his day nor in the Mediæval and Reformation churches. The conflict with pantheism forced this point upon the attention of the Modern church.
At the same time, these Christian fathers who took the problem of the Trinity into the centre of the Divine essence, and endeavored to show its necessary grounds there, prepared the way for showing, by the same method, that trinality is not only consistent with personality, but is actually indispensable to it. In a brief essay like this, only the briefest hints can be indicated.
If God is personal, he is self-conscious. Self-consciousness is, (1), the power which a rational spirit, or mind, has of making itself its own object; and, (2), of knowing that it has done so. If the first step is taken, and not the second, there is no self-consciousness. For the subject would not know that the object is the self. And the second step cannot be taken, if the first has not been. These two acts of a rational spirit, or mind, involve three distinctions in it, or three modes of it. The whole mind as a subject contemplates the very same whole mind as an object. Here are two distinctions, or modes of one mind. And the very same whole mind perceives that the contemplating subject and the contemplated object are one and the same essence or being. Here are three modes of one mind, each distinct from the others, yet all three going to make up the one self-conscious spirit. Unless there were these three distinctions, there would be no self-knowledge. Mere singleness, a mere subject without an object, is incompatible with self-consciousness.
In denying distinctions in the
Divine Essence, while asserting its personality, Deism, with
Socinianism and Mohammedanism, contends that God can be
self-knowing and self-communing as a single subject without an
object. The controversy, consequently, is as much between the deist
and the psychologist, as it is between him and the trinitarian. It
is as much a question whether his view of personality and
self-consciousness is correct, as whether his interpretation of
Scripture is. For the dispute involves the necessary conditions of
personality. If a true psychology does not require trinality in a
spiritual essence in order to its own self-contemplation, and
self-knowledge, and self-communion, then the deist is correct; but
if it does, then he is in error. That the study of
self-consciousness in modern metaphysics has favored
trinitarianism, is unquestionable. Even the spurious trinitarianism
which has grown up in the schools of the later pantheism goes to
show, that a trinal constitution is requisite in an essence, in
order to explain self-consciousness, and that absolute singleness,
or the absence of all interior distinctions, renders the problem
insoluble.
“That view of the divine nature which makes it
inconsistent with the Incarnation and Trinity is
philosophically imperfect, as well as scripturally
incorrect.” H. B. Smith: Faith and Philosophy, p.
191.
But the authority of Scripture is
higher than that of psychology, and settles the matter. Revelation
unquestionably discloses a deity who is “blessed forever;”
whose blessedness is independent of the universe which he
has made from nonentity, and who must therefore find all the
conditions of blessedness within himself alone. He is blessed from
eternity, in his own self-contemplation and self-communion. He does
not need the universe in order
Here is society within the Essence, and wholly independent of the universe; and communion and blessedness resulting therefrom. But this is impossible to an essence without personal distinctions. Not the singular Unit of the deist, but the plural Unity of the trinitarian, explains this. A subject without an object could not know. What is there to be known? Could not love. What is there to be loved? Could not rejoice. What is there to rejoice over? And the object cannot be the universe. The infinite and eternal object of God’s infinite and eternal knowledge, love, and joy, cannot be his creation: because this is neither eternal, nor infinite. There was a time when the universe was not; and if God’s self-consciousness and blessedness depends upon the universe, there was a time when God was neither self-conscious nor blessed. The objective God for the subjective God must, therefore, be very God of very God, begotten not made, the eternal Son of the eternal Father.
The same line of reasoning applies
to the third trinitarian person, but there is no need of going
through with it. The history of opinion shows, that if the first
two eternal distinctions are conceded, there is no denial of the
reality and eternity of the third.
Upon the necessary conditions of self
consciousness in God, see Müller: On Sin, II. 136 sq.
(Urwick’s Trans ); Dorner: Christian Doctrine, I.
412–465; Christlieb: Modern Doubt, Lecture III.; Kurtz:
Sacred History, § 2; Billroth: Religions
Philosophie, § 89, 90; Wilberforce: Incarnation,
Chapter III; Kidd: On the Trinity, with Candlish’s
Introduction; Shedd: History of Doctrine, I.
365–368.
The analogue derived from the
nature of finite personality and self-consciousness has one great
advantage—namely, that it illustrates the independence of the
Divine personality and self-consciousness. The later pantheism (not
the earlier of Spinoza) constructs a kind of trinity, but it is
dependent upon the universe. God distinguishes Himself from the
world, and thereby finds the object required for the subject.
But this implies either that the world is eternal, or else, that
God is not eternally self-conscious. The Christian trinitarianism,
on the contrary, finds all the media and conditions of
self-consciousness within the Divine Essence. God distinguishes
himself from himself, not from the universe. The eternal
Father beholds himself in the eternal Son, his alter ego,
the “express image of his own person” (
“O Light Eterne, sole in thyself that dwellest,
Sole knowest thyself, and known unto thyself,
And knowing, lovest and smilest on thyself!”—Dante: Paradise xxxiii. 125.
While, however, this analogue from
the conditions of finite personality approaches nearer to the
eternal distinctions in the Godhead than does that ternary which
Augustin employs—namely, memory, understanding, and will—yet
like all finite analogies to the Infinite it is inadequate. For the
subject-ego, object-ego, and ego-percipient, are not so essentially
distinct and completely objective to each other, as are the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit. They cannot employ the personal pronouns in
reference to each other. They cannot reciprocally perform acts and
discharge functions towards each other, like the
Such are some of the salient features of this important treatise upon the Trinity. It has its defects; but they pertain to the form more than to the matter; to arrangement and style more than to dogma. Literary excellence is not the forte of the patristic writers. Hardly any of them are literary artists. Lactantius among the Latins, and Chrysostom among the Greeks, are almost the only fathers that have rhetorical grace. And none of them approach the beauty of the classic writers, as seen in the harmonious flow and diction of Plato, and the exquisite finish of Horace and Catullus.
Augustin is prolix, repetitious, and sometimes leaves his theme to discuss cognate but distantly related subjects. This appears more in the last eight chapters, which are speculative, than in the first seven, which are scriptural. The material in this second division is capable of considerable compression. The author frequently employs two illustrations when one would suffice, and three or more when two are enough. He discusses many themes which are not strictly trinitarian.
Yet the patient student will derive some benefit from this discursiveness. He will find, for example, in this treatise on the Trinity, an able examination of the subject of miracles (Book III); of creation ex nihilo (III. ix); of vicarious atonement (IV. vii-xiv); of the faculty of memory (XI. x); and, incidentally, many other high themes are touched upon. Before such a contemplative intellect as that of Augustin, all truth lay spread out like the ocean, with no limits and no separating chasms. Everything is connected and fluid. Consequently, one doctrine inevitably leads to and merges in another, and the eager and intense inquirer rushes forward, and outward, and upward, and downward, in every direction. The only aim is to see all that can be seen, and state all that can be stated. The neglect of the form, and the anxiety after the substance, contribute to the discursiveness. Caring little for proportion in method, and nothing for elegance in diction, the writer, though bringing forth a vast amount of truth, does it at the expense of clearness, conciseness, and grace. Such is the case with the North African father—one of the most voluminous and prolix of authors, yet one of the most original, suggestive, and fertilizing of any.
And this particular treatise is perhaps as pregnant and suggestive as any that Augustin, or any other theologian, ever composed. The doctrine of the Trinity is the most immense of all the doctrines of religion. It is the foundation of theology. Christianity, in the last analysis, is Trinitarianism. Take out of the New Testament the persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and there is no God left. Take out of the Christian consciousness the thoughts and affections that relate to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and there is no Christian consciousness left. The Trinity is the constitutive idea of the evangelical theology, and the formative idea of the evangelical experience. The immensity of the doctrine makes it of necessity a mystery; but a mystery which like night enfolds in its unfathomed depths the bright stars—points of light, compared with which there is no light so keen and so glittering. Mysterious as it is, the Trinity of Divine Revelation is the doctrine that holds in it all the hope of man; for it holds within it the infinite pity of the Incarnation and the infinite mercy of the Redemption.
And it shares its mysteriousness
with the doctrine of the Divine Eternity. It is diffi
The translation of this treatise is the work of the Rev. Arthur West Haddan, Hon. Canon of Worcester, who, according to a note of the publisher, died while it was passing through the press. It has been compared with the original, and a considerable number of alterations made. The treatise is exceedingly difficult to render into English—probably the most so of any in the author’s writings. The changes in some instances were necessary from a misconception of the original; but more often for the purpose of making the meaning of the translator himself more clear. It is believed that a comparison between the original and revised translation will show that the latter is the more intelligible. At the same time, the reviser would not be too confident that in every instance the exact meaning of Augustin has been expressed, by either the translator or reviser.
The annotations of the reviser upon important points in the treatise, it is hoped, will assist the reader in understanding Augustin’s reasoning, and also throw some light upon the doctrine of the Trinity.
William G. T. Shedd.
New York, Feb. 1, 1887.
Translator’s Preface.
————————————
The history
of St. Augustin’s treatise on the Trinity, as gathered by
Tillemont and others from his own allusions to it, may be briefly
given. It is placed by him in his Retractations among the
works written (which in the present case, it appears, must mean
begun) in A.D. 400. In letters of A.D. 410, 414, and at the end of A.D. 415 (Ad Consentium,
His motive for writing on the
subject may be learned from the treatise itself. It was not
directed against any individual antagonist, or occasioned by any
particular controversial emergency. In fact, his labors upon it
were, he says, continually interrupted by the distraction of such
controversies. Certain ingenious and subtle theories respecting
types or resemblances of the Holy Trinity, traceable in human
nature as being the image of God, seemed to him to supply, not
indeed a logical proof, but a strong rational presumption, of the
truth of the doctrine itself; and thus to make it incumbent upon
him to expound and unfold them in order to meet rationalizing
objectors upon (so to say) their own ground. He is careful not to
deal with these analogies or images as if they either constituted a
purely argumentative proof or exhausted the full meaning of the
doctrine, upon both which assumptions such speculations have at all
times been the fruitful parent both of presumptious theorizing and
of grievous heresy. But he nevertheless employs them more
affirmatively than would perhaps have been the case. While modern
theologians would argue negatively, from the triplicity of
independent faculties,—united, nevertheless, in the unity of a
single human person,—that any presumption of reason against the
Trinity of persons in the Godhead is thereby, if not removed, at
least materially and enormously lessened, St. Augustin seems to
argue positively from analogous grounds, as though they constituted
a direct intimation of the doctrine itself. But he takes especial
pains, at the same time, to dwell upon the incapacity of human
thought to fathom the depths of the nature of God; and he carefully
prefaces his reasonings by a statement of the Scripture evidence of
the catholic doctrine as a matter of faith and not of reason, and
by an explanation of difficult texts upon the subject. One of the
most valuable portions, indeed, of the treatise is the eloquent and
profound exposition given in this part of it of the rule of
interpretation to be applied to Scripture language respecting the
person of our Lord. It should be noticed, however, that a large
proportion of St. Augustin’s scriptural exege
It remains to say, that the translation here printed was made about four years since by a friend of the writer of this preface, and that the latter’s share in the work has been that of thoroughly revising and correcting it, and of seeing it through the press. He is therefore answerable for the work as now published.
A. W. Haddan.
Nov. 5, 1872.
————————————
In the Retractations (ii. 15) Augustin speaks of this work in the following terms:—
“I spent some years in writing fifteen books concerning the Trinity, which is God. When, however, I had not yet finished the thirteenth Book, and some who were exceedingly anxious to have the work were kept waiting longer than they could bear, it was stolen from me in a less correct state than it either could or would have been had it appeared when I intended. And as soon as I discovered this, having other copies of it, I had determined at first not to publish it myself, but to mention what had happened in the matter in some other work; but at the urgent request of brethren, whom I could not refuse, I corrected it as much as I thought fit, and finished and published it, with the addition, at the beginning, of a letter that I had written to the venerable Aurelius, Bishop of Carthage, in which I set forth, in the way of prologue, what had happened, what I had intended to do of myself, and what love of my brethren had forced me to do.”
The letter to which he here alludes is the following:—
“To the most blessed Lord, whom he reveres with most sincere love, to his holy brother and fellow-priest, Pope Aurelius, Augustin sends health in the Lord.
“I began as a very young man, and have published in my old age, some books concerning the Trinity, who is the supreme and true God. I had in truth laid the work aside, upon discovering that it had been prematurely, or rather surreptitiously, stolen from me before I had completed it, and before I had revised and put the finishing touches to it, as had been my intention. For I had not designed to publish the Books one by one, but all together, inasmuch as the progress of the inquiry led me to add the later ones to those which precede them. When, therefore, these people had hindered the fulfillment of my purpose (in that some of them had obtained access to the work before I intended), I had given over dictating it, with the idea of making my complaint public in some other work that I might write, in order that whoso could might know that the Books had not been published by myself, but had been taken away from my possession before they were in my own judgment fit for publication. Compelled, however, by the eager demands of many of my brethren, and above all by your command, I have taken the pains, by God’s help, to complete the work, laborious as it is; and as now corrected (not as I wished, but as I could, lest the Books should differ very widely from those which had surreptitiously got into people’s hands), I have sent them to your Reverence by my very dear son and fellow-deacon, and have allowed them to be heard, copied, and read by every one that pleases. Doubtless, if I could have fulfilled my original intention, although they would have contained the same sentiments, they would have been worked out much more thoroughly and clearly, so far as the difficulty of unfolding so profound a subject, and so far, too, as my own powers, might have allowed. There are some persons, however, who have the first four, or rather five, Books without the prefaces, and the twelfth with no small part of its later chapters omitted. But these, if they please and can, will amend the whole, if they become acquainted with the present edition. At any rate, I have to request that you will order this letter to be prefixed separately, but at the beginning of the Books. Farewell. Pray for me.”
The
fifteen books of aurelius augustinus,
Bishop of Hippo,
on the Trinity
_________
Book I.
————————————
In which the unity and equality of the supreme Trinity is established from the sacred Scriptures, and some texts alleged against the equality of the Son are explained.
Chapter 1.—This Work is Written Against Those Who Sophistically Assail the Faith of the Trinity, Through Misuse of Reason. They Who Dispute Concerning God Err from a Threefold Cause. Holy Scripture, Removing What is False, Leads Us on by Degrees to Things Divine. What True Immortality is. We are Nourished by Faith, that We May Be Enabled to Apprehend Things Divine.
1. The
following dissertation concerning the Trinity, as the reader ought
to be informed, has been written in order to guard against the
sophistries of those who disdain to begin with faith, and are
deceived by a crude and perverse love of reason. Now one class of
such men endeavor to transfer to things incorporeal and spiritual
the ideas they have formed, whether through experience of the
bodily senses, or by natural human wit and diligent quickness, or
by the aid of art, from things corporeal; so as to seek to measure
and conceive of the former by the latter. Others, again, frame
whatever sentiments they may have concerning God according to the
nature or affections of the human mind; and through this error they
govern their discourse, in disputing concerning God, by distorted
and fallacious rules. While yet a third class strive indeed to
transcend the whole creation, which doubtless is changeable, in
order to raise their thought to the unchangeable substance, which
is God; but being weighed down by the burden of mortality, whilst
they both would seem to know what they do not, and cannot know what
they would, preclude themselves from entering the very path of
understanding, by an over-bold affirmation of their own
presumptuous judgments; choosing rather not to correct their own
opinion when it is perverse, than to change that which they have
once defended. And, indeed, this is the common disease of all the
three classes which I have mentioned,—viz., both of those
who frame their thoughts of God according to things corporeal, and
of those who do so according to the spiritual creature, such as is
the soul; and of those who neither regard the body nor the
spiritual creature, and yet think falsely about God; and are indeed
so much the further from the truth, that nothing can be found
answering to their conceptions, either in the body, or in the made
or created spirit, or in the Creator Himself. For he who thinks,
for instance, that God is white or red, is in error; and yet these
things are found in the body. Again, he who thinks of God as now
forgetting and now remembering, or anything of the same kind, is
none the less in error; and yet these things are found in the mind.
But he who thinks that God is of such power as to have generated
Himself, is so much the
[Augustin here puts generare for
creare—which is rarely the case with him, since the
distinction between generation and creation is of the highest
importance in discussing the doctrine of the Trinity. His thought
here is, that God does not bring himself into being, because he
always is. Some have defined God as the Self-caused: causa
sui. But the category of cause and effect is inapplicable to
the Infinite Being.—W.G.T.S.]
2. In order, therefore, that the
human mind might be purged from falsities of this kind, Holy
Scripture, which suits itself to babes has not avoided words drawn
from any class of things really existing, through which, as by
nourishment, our understanding might rise gradually to things
divine and transcendent. For, in speaking of God, it has both used
words taken from things corporeal, as when it says, “Hide me
under the shadow of Thy wings;”
[God’s being is necessary; that of the creature
is contingent. Hence the name I Am, or Jehovah,—which denotes
this difference. God alone has immortality a parte ante, as
well as a parte post.—W.G.T.S.]
3. Further, it is difficult to
contemplate and fully know the substance of God; who fashions
things changeable, yet without any change in Himself, and creates
things temporal, yet without any temporal movement in Himself. And
it is necessary, therefore, to purge our minds, in order to be able
to see ineffably that which is ineffable; whereto not having yet
attained, we are to be nourished by faith, and led by such ways as
are more suited to our capacity, that we may be rendered apt and
able to comprehend it. And hence the Apostle says, that “in
Christ indeed are hid all the treasures of wisdom and
knowledge;”
[St. Paul, in this place, denominates imperfect
but true believers “carnal,” in a relative sense, only. They
are comparatively carnal, when contrasted with the law of God,
which is absolutely and perfectly spiritual. (
Chapter 2.—In What Manner This Work Proposes to Discourse Concerning the Trinity.
4. Wherefore, our Lord God helping, we will undertake to render, as far as we are able, that very account which they so importunately demand: viz., that the Trinity is the one and only and true God, and also how the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are rightly said, believed, understood, to be of one and the same substance or essence; in such wise that they may not fancy themselves mocked by excuses on our part, but may find by actual trial, both that the highest good is that which is discerned by the most purified minds, and that for this reason it cannot be discerned or understood by themselves, because the eye of the human mind, being weak, is dazzled in that so transcendent light, unless it be invigorated by the nourishment of the righteousness of faith. First, however, we must demonstrate, according to the authority of the Holy Scriptures, whether the faith be so. Then, if God be willing and aid us, we may perhaps at least so far serve these talkative arguers—more puffed up than capable, and therefore laboring under the more dangerous disease—as to enable them to find something which they are not able to doubt, that so, in that case where they cannot find the like, they may be led to lay the fault to their own minds, rather than to the truth itself or to our reasonings; and thus, if there be anything in them of either love or fear towards God, they may return and begin from faith in due order: perceiving at length how healthful a medicine has been provided for the faithful in the holy Church, whereby a heedful piety, healing the feebleness of the mind, may render it able to perceive the unchangeable truth, and hinder it from falling headlong, through disorderly rashness, into pestilent and false opinion. Neither will I myself shrink from inquiry, if I am anywhere in doubt; nor be ashamed to learn, if I am anywhere in error.
Chapter 3.—What Augustin Requests from His Readers. The Errors of Readers Dull of Comprehension Not to Be Ascribed to the Author.
5. Further let me ask of my
reader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go on
with me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to join
with me in inquiring; wherever he recognizes himself to be in
error, there to return to me; wherever he recognizes me to be so,
there to call me back: so that we may enter together upon the path
of charity, and advance towards Him of whom it is said, “Seek His
face evermore.”
[This request of Augustin to his reader, involves
an admirable rule for authorship generally—the desire, namely,
that truth be attained, be it through himself or through others.
Milton teaches the same, when he says that the author must “study
and love learning for itself, not for lucre, or any other end, but
the service of God and of truth, and perhaps that lasting fame and
perpetuity of praise, which God and good men have consented shall
be the reward of those whose published labors advance the good of
mankind.”—W.G.T.S.]
6. I expect, indeed, that some, who are more dull of understanding, will imagine that in some parts of my books I have held sentiments which I have not held, or have not held those which I have. But their error, as none can be ignorant, ought not to be attributed to me, if they have deviated into false doctrine through following my steps without apprehending me, whilst I am compelled to pick my way through a hard and obscure subject: seeing that neither can any one, in any way, rightly ascribe the numerous and various errors of heretics to the holy testimonies themselves of the divine books; although all of them endeavor to defend out of those same Scriptures their own false and erroneous opinions. The law of Christ, that is, charity, admonishes me clearly, and commands me with a sweet constraint, that when men think that I have held in my books something false which I have not held, and that same falsehood displeases one and pleases another, I should prefer to be blamed by him who reprehends the falsehood, rather than praised by him who praises it. For although I, who never held the error, am not rightly blamed by the former, yet the error itself is rightly censured; whilst by the latter neither am I rightly praised, who am thought to have held that which the truth censures, nor the sentiment itself, which the truth also censures. Let us therefore essay the work which we have undertaken in the name of the Lord.
Chapter 4.—What the Doctrine of the Catholic Faith is Concerning the Trinity.
7. All those Catholic expounders of
the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I have been able to
read, who have written before me concerning the Trinity, Who is
God, have purposed to teach, according to the Scriptures, this
doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit
intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance in an
indivisible equality;
[Augustin teaches the Nicene doctrine of a
numerical unity of essence in distinction from a specific unity.
The latter is that of mankind. In this case there is
division of substance—part after part of the specific nature
being separated and formed, by propagation, into individuals. No
human individual contains the whole specific nature. But in the
case of the numerical unity of the Trinity, there is no division of
essence. The whole divine nature is in each divine person. The
three divine persons do not constitute a species—that is, three
divine individuals made by the division and distribution of one
common divine nature—but are three modes or “forms”
(
[The term Trinity denotes the Divine essence in
all three modes. The term Father (or Son, or Spirit) denotes the
essence in only one mode. Consequently, there is something in the
Trinity that cannot be attributed to any one of the Persons, as
such; and something in a Person that cannot be attributed to the
Trinity, as such. Trinality cannot be ascribed to the first Person;
paternity cannot be ascribed to the Trinity.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 5.—Of Difficulties Concerning the Trinity: in What Manner Three are One God, and How, Working Indivisibly, They Yet Perform Some Things Severally.
8. Some persons, however, find a
difficulty in this faith; when they hear that the Father is God,
and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, and yet that this Trinity
is not three Gods, but one God; and they ask how they are to
understand this: especially when it is said that the Trinity works
indivisibly in everything that God works, and yet that a certain
voice of the Father spoke, which is not the voice of the Son; and
that none except the Son was born in the flesh, and suffered, and
rose again, and ascended into heaven; and that none except the Holy
Spirit came in the form of a dove. They wish to understand how the
Trinity uttered that voice which was only of the Father; and how
the same Trinity created that flesh in which the Son only was born
of the Virgin; and how the very same Trinity itself wrought that
form of a dove, in which the Holy Spirit only appeared. Yet,
otherwise, the Trinity does not work indivisibly, but the Father
does some things, the Son other things, and the Holy Spirit yet
others: or else, if they do some things together, some severally,
then the Trinity is not indivisible. It is a difficulty, too, to
them, in what manner the Holy Spirit is in the Trinity, whom
neither the Father nor the Son, nor both, have begotten, although
He is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. Since, then,
men weary us with asking such questions, let us unfold to them, as
we are able, whatever wisdom God’s gift has bestowed upon our
weakness on this subject; neither “let us go on our way with
consuming envy.”
Chapter 6.—That the Son is Very God, of the Same Substance with the Father. Not Only the Father, But the Trinity, is Affirmed to Be Immortal. All Things are Not from the Father Alone, But Also from the Son. That the Holy Spirit is Very God, Equal with the Father and the Son.
9. They who have said that our Lord
Jesus Christ is not God, or not very God, or not with the Father
the One and only God, or not truly immortal because changeable, are
proved wrong by the most plain and unanimous voice of divine
testimonies; as, for instance, “In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” For it is plain
that we are to take the Word of God to be the only Son of God, of
whom it is afterwards said, “And the Word was made flesh, and
dwelt among us,” on account of that birth of His incarnation,
which was wrought in time of the Virgin. But herein is declared,
not only that He is God, but also that He is of the same substance
with the Father; because, after saying, “And the Word was God,”
it is said also, “The same was in the beginning with God: all
things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything
made.”
[Augustin here postulates the theistic doctrines
of two substances—infinite and finite; in contradiction to the
postulate of pantheism, that there is only one substance—the
infinite.—W.G.T.S.]
10. Hence also it follows by
consequence, that the Apostle Paul did not say, “Who alone has
immortality,” of the Father merely; but of the One and only God,
which is the Trinity itself. For that which is itself eternal life
is not mortal according to any changeableness; and hence the Son of
God, because “He is Eternal Life,” is also Himself understood
with the Father, where it is said, “Who only hath immortality.”
For we, too, are made partakers of this eternal life, and become,
in our own measure, immortal. But the eternal life itself, of which
we are made partakers, is one thing; we ourselves, who, by
partaking of it, shall live eternally, are another. For if He had
said, “Whom in His own time the Father will show, who is the
blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;
who only hath immortality;” not even so would it be necessarily
understood that the Son is excluded. For neither has the Son
separated the Father from Himself, because He Himself, speaking
elsewhere with the voice of wisdom (for He Himself is the Wisdom of
God),
11. But perhaps what follows may
interfere with this meaning; because it is said, “Whom no man
hath seen, nor can see:” although this may also be taken as
belonging to Christ according to His divinity, which the Jews did
not see, who yet saw and crucified Him in the flesh; whereas His
divinity can in no wise be seen by human sight, but is seen with
that sight with which they who see are no longer men, but beyond
men. Rightly, therefore, is God Himself, the Trinity, understood to
be the “blessed and only Potentate,” who “shows the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ in His own time.” For the words, “Who
only hath immortality,” are said in the same way as it is said,
“Who only doeth wondrous things.”
[Nothing is more important, in order to a correct
interpretation of the New Testament, than a correct explanation of
the term God. Sometimes it denotes the Trinity, and sometimes a
person of the Trinity. The context always shows which it is. The
examples given here by Augustin are only a few out of
many.—W.G.T.S.]
12. Also, when the same apostle
says, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are
all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are
all things, and we by Him,”
Ipsi.
[It is not
generally safe to differ from Augustin in trinitarian exegesis. But
in If then θεοῦ, in this
place, denotes the Father, as Augustin says, St. Paul would teach
that the Logos subsisted “in a form of the Father,”
which would imply that the Father had more than one “form,” or
else (if
μορφῆ be rendered with the
article) that the Logos subsisted in the “form” of the Father,
neither of which is true. But if “God,” in this place, denotes
the Divine Essence, then St. Paul teaches that the unincarnate
Logos subsisted in a particular “form” of the Essence—the
Father and Spirit subsisting in other “forms” of it. The student will observe
that Augustin is careful to teach that the Logos, when he took on
him “a form of a servant,” did not lay aside “a form
of God.” He understands the kenosis (ἐκένωσε) to be,
the humbling of the divinity by its union with the humanity,
not the exinanition of it in the extremest sense of entirely
divesting himself of the divinity, nor the less extreme sense of a
total non-use of it during the
humiliation.—W.G.T.S.]
13. Similar evidence has been
collected also concerning the Holy Spirit, of which those who have
discussed the subject before ourselves have most fully availed
themselves, that He too is God, and not a creature. But if not a
creature, then not only God (for men likewise are called gods
Chapter 7.—In What Manner the Son is Less Than the Father, and Than Himself.
14. In these and like testimonies
of the divine Scriptures, by free use of which, as I have said, our
predecessors exploded such sophistries or errors of the heretics,
the unity and equality of the Trinity are intimated to our faith.
But because, on account of the incarnation of the Word of God for
the working out of our salvation, that the man Christ Jesus might
be the Mediator between God and men,
Exinanivit
Habitu
Habitu
Chapter 8.—The Texts of Scripture Explained Respecting the Subjection of the Son to the Father, Which Have Been Misunderstood. Christ Will Not So Give Up the Kingdom to the Father, as to Take It Away from Himself. The Beholding Him is the Promised End of All Actions. The Holy Spirit is Sufficient to Our Blessedness Equally with the Father.
15. As for that which the apostle
says, “And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall
the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under
Him:” either the text has been so turned, lest any one should
think that the “fashion”
Habitum
Subjicere
Evacuaverit
16. Neither may we think that
Christ shall so give up the kingdom to God, even the Father, as
that He shall take it away from Himself. For some vain talkers have
thought even this. For when it is said, “He shall have delivered
up the kingdom to God, even the Father,” He Himself is not
excluded; because He is one God together with the Father. But that
word “until” deceives those who are careless readers of the
divine Scriptures, but eager for controversies. For the text
continues, “For He must reign, until He hath put all enemies
under His feet;”
Similitudines
In recubitu
Vestra
17. For this contemplation is held
forth to us as the end of all actions, and the everlasting fullness
of joy. For “we are the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear
what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall
be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is.”
[The common explanation is better, which regards
the “kingdom” that is to be delivered up, to be the mediatorial
commission. When Christ shall have finished his work of redeeming
men, he no longer discharges the office of a mediator. It seems
incongruous to denominate the beatific vision of God by the
redeemed, a surrender of a kingdom. In I. x. 21, Augustin says that
when the Redeemer brings the redeemed from faith to sight, “He is
said to ‘deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father.’
”—W.G.T.S.]
18. Neither is the Spirit of either
thence excluded, that is, the Spirit of the Father and of the Son;
which Holy Spirit is specially called “the Spirit of truth, whom
the world cannot receive.”
Chapter 9.—All are Sometimes Understood in One Person.
But this is said, not on account of
any inequality of the Word of God and of the Holy Spirit, but as
though the presence of the Son of man with them would be a
hindrance to the coming of Him, who was not less, because He did
not “empty Himself, taking upon Him the form of a servant,”
19. Will it perhaps be thought,
that when the Father and the Son make their abode with him who
loves them, the Holy Spirit [An act belonging eminently and
officially to a particular trinitarian person is not performed to
the total exclusion of the other persons, because of the
numerical unity of essence. The whole undivided essence is in each
person; consequently, what the essence in one of its personal
modes, or forms, does officially and eminently, is participated in
by the essence in its other modes or forms. Hence the interchange
of persons in Scripture. Though creation is officially the
Father’s work, yet the Son creates (
Chapter 10.—In What Manner Christ Shall Deliver Up the Kingdom to God, Even the Father. The Kingdom Having Been Delivered to God, Even the Father, Christ Will Not Then Make Intercession for Us.
20. Our Lord Jesus Christ,
therefore, will so deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father,
Himself not being thence excluded, nor the Holy Spirit, when He
shall bring believers to the contemplation of God, wherein is the
end of all good actions, and everlasting rest, and joy which never
will be taken from us. For He signifies this in that which He says:
“I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice; and your joy
no man taketh from you.” [The redeemed must forever stand
in the relation of redeemed sinners to their Redeemer. Thus
standing, they will forever need Christ’s sacrifice and
intercession in respect to their past sins in this earthly
state. But as in the heavenly state they are sinless, and are
incurring no new guilt, it is true that they do not require the
fresh application of atoning blood for new sins, nor Christ’s
intercession for such. This is probably what Augustin means by
saying that Christ “no longer makes intercession for us,” when
he has delivered up the kingdom to God. When the Mediator has
surrendered his commission, he ceases to redeem sinners from death,
while yet he continues forever to be the Head of those whom he has
redeemed, and their High Priest forever, after the order of
Melchizedek ( [The animal soul is different in
kind from the rational soul though both constitute one person;
while the rational soul of a man is the same in kind with that of
another man. Similarly, says Augustin, there is a difference in
kind between the human nature and the divine nature of Christ,
though constituting one theanthropic person, while the divine
nature of the Son is the same in substance with that of the Father,
though constituting two different persons, the Father and
Son.—W.G.T.S.]
21. When, therefore, He “shall
have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father,”—that
is, when He shall have brought those who believe and live by faith,
for whom now as Mediator He maketh intercession, to that
contemplation, for the obtaining of which we sigh and groan, and
when labor and groaning shall have passed away,—then, since the
kingdom will have been delivered up to God, even the Father, He
will no more make intercession for us. And this He signifies, when
He says: “These things have I spoken unto you in similitudes; Proverbs—A.V. Proverbs—A.V. Show—A.V.
Chapter 11.—By What Rule in the Scriptures It is Understood that the Son is Now Equal and Now Less.
22. Wherefore, having mastered this
rule for interpreting the Scriptures concerning the Son of God,
that we are to distinguish in them what relates to the form of God,
in which He is equal to the Father, and what to the form of a
servant which He took, in which He is less than the Father; we
shall not be disquieted by apparently contrary and mutually
repugnant sayings of the sacred books. For both the Son and the
Holy Spirit, according to the form of God, are equal to the Father,
because neither of them is a creature, as we have already shown:
but according to the form of a servant He is less than the Father,
because He Himself has said, “My Father is greater than I;”
Chapter 12.—In What Manner the Son is Said Not to Know the Day and the Hour Which the Father Knows. Some Things Said of Christ According to the Form of God, Other Things According to the Form of a Servant. In What Way It is of Christ to Give the Kingdom, in What Not of Christ. Christ Will Both Judge and Not Judge.
Again, “Of that day and that hour
knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven; neither the
Son, but the Father.” [The more common explanation of
this text in modern exegesis makes the ignorance to be literal, and
referable solely to the human nature of our Lord, not to his person
as a whole. Augustin’s explanation, which Bengel, on
24. According to the form of God,
it is said “Before all the hills He begat me,”
25. But that which is prepared by
His Father is prepared also by the Son Himself, because He and the
Father are one.
26. For I ask again, in what manner
this is said, “If any man hear not my words, I will not judge
him?” Seipsum
loquitur
27. I ask, therefore, how we are to
understand, “I will not judge him; but the Word which I have
spoken shall judge him:” which appears from what follows to be so
said, as if He would say, I will not judge; but the Word of the
Father will judge. But the Word of the Father is the Son of God
Himself. Is it to be so understood: I will not judge, but I will
judge? How can this be true, unless in this way: viz., I
will not judge by human power, because I am the Son of man; but I
will judge by the power of the Word, because I am the Son of God?
Or if it still seems contradictory and inconsistent to say, I will
not judge, but I will judge; what shall we say of that place where
He says, “My doctrine is not mine?” How “mine,” when “not
mine?” For He did not say, This doctrine is not mine, but
“My doctrine is not mine:” that which He called His own,
the same He called not His own. How can this be true, unless He has
called it His own in one relation; not His own, in another?
According to the form of God, His own; according to the form of a
servant, not His own. For when He says, “It is not mine, but His
that sent me,”
Chapter 13.—Diverse Things are Spoken Concerning the Same Christ, on Account of the Diverse Natures of the One Hypostasis [Theanthropic Person]. Why It is Said that the Father Will Not Judge, But Has Given Judgment to the Son.
28. Yet unless the very same were
the Son of man on account of the form of a servant which He took,
who is the Son of God on account of the form of God in which He is;
Paul the apostle would not say of the princes of this world, “For
had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of
glory.” [Augustin in this discussion,
sometimes employs the phrase “Son of man” to denote the human
nature of Christ, in distinction from the divine. But in Scripture
and in trinitarian theology generally, this phrase properly denotes
the whole theanthropic person under a human title—just as
“man”, (
29. Therefore both ways of speaking
may be used; the Son of man will judge, and, the Son of man will
not judge: since the Son of man will judge, that the text may be
true which says, “When the Son of man shall come, then before Him
shall be gathered all nations;” and the Son of man will not
judge, that the text may be true which says, “I will not judge
him;”
30. Lest, however, we may seem to
conjecture this rather than to prove it clearly, let us produce a
certain and plain sentence of the Lord Himself, by which we may
show that this was the cause why He said, “The Father judgeth no
man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son,” viz.
because He will appear as Judge in the form of the Son of man,
which is not the form of the Father, but of the Son; nor yet that
form of the Son in which He is equal to the Father, but that in
which He is less than the Father; in order that, in the judgment,
He may be visible both to the good and to the bad. For a little
while after He says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that
heareth my word, and believeth on Him that sent me, hath
everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but shall
pass Transiit in Vulg.; and so
in the Greek. [Augustin here seems to teach that
the phenomenal appearance of Christ to the redeemed in heaven will
be different from that to all men in the day of judgment. He says
that he will show himself to the former “in the form of God;”
to the latter, “in the form of the Son of man.” But, surely, it
is one and the same God-man who sits on the judgment throne, and
the heavenly throne. His appearance must be the same in both
instances: namely, that of God incarnate. The effect of his
phenomenal appearance upon the believer will, indeed, be very
different from that upon the unbeliever. For the wicked, this
vision of God incarnate will be one of terror; for the redeemed one
of joy.—W.G.T.S.]
31. He is “good,” according to
that sight, according to which God appears to the pure in heart;
for “truly God is good unto Israel even to such as are of a clean
heart.” [Augustin’s reading of this text
is that of the uncials; and in that form which omits the article
with ἀγαθοῦ.—W.G.T.S.] [That is, a mere man. Augustin
here, as in some other places, employs the phrase “Son of man”
to denote the human nature by itself—not the divine and human
natures united in one person, and designated by this human title.
The latter is the Scripture usage. As “Immanuel” does not
properly denote the divine nature, but the union of divinity and
humanity, so “Son of man” does not properly denote the human
nature, but the union of divinity and
humanity.—W.G.T.S.]
Book II.
————————————
Augustin pursues his defense of the equality of the Trinity; and in treating of the sending of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and of the various appearances of God, demonstrates that He who is sent is not therefore less than He who sends, because the one has sent, the other has been sent; but that the Trinity, being in all things equal, and alike in its own nature unchangeable and invisible and omnipresent, works indivisibly in each sending or appearance.
Preface.
When men
seek to know God, and bend their minds according to the capacity of
human weakness to the understanding of the Trinity; learning, as
they must, by experience, the wearisome difficulties of the task,
whether from the sight itself of the mind striving to gaze upon
light unapproachable, or, indeed, from the manifold and various
modes of speech employed in the sacred writings (wherein, as it
seems to me, the mind is nothing else but roughly exercised, in
order that it may find sweetness when glorified by the grace of
Christ);—such men, I say, when they have dispelled every
ambiguity, and arrived at something certain, ought of all others
most easily to make allowance for those who err in the
investigation of so deep a secret. But there are two things most
hard to bear with, in the case of those who are in error: hasty
assumption before the truth is made plain; and, when it has been
made plain, defence of the falsehood thus hastily assumed. From
which two faults, inimical as they are to the finding out of the
truth, and to the handling of the divine and sacred books, should
God, as I pray and hope, defend and protect me with the shield of
His good will,
Chapter 1.—There is a Double Rule for Understanding the Scriptural Modes of Speech Concerning the Son of God. These Modes of Speech are of a Threefold Kind.
2. Wherefore, although we hold most
firmly, concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, what may be called the
canonical rule, as it is both disseminated through the Scriptures,
and has been demonstrated by learned and Catholic handlers of the
same Scriptures, namely, that the Son of God is both
under [Augustin here brings to view both
the trinitarian and the theanthropic or mediatorial subordination.
The former is the status of Sonship. God the Son is God of
God. Sonship as a relation is subordinate to paternity. But
a son must be of the same grade of being, and of the same nature
with his father. A human son and a human father are alike and
equally human. And a Divine Son and a Divine father are
alike and equally divine. The theanthropic or mediatorial
subordination is the status of humiliation, by reason of the
incarnation. In the words of Augustin, it is “that by which we
understand the Son as less, in that he has taken upon Him the
creature.” The subordination in this case is that of voluntary
condescension, for the purpose of redeeming sinful
man.—W.G.T.S.]
3. Some things, then, are so put in
the Scriptures concerning the Father and the Son, as to intimate
the unity and equality of their substance; as, for instance, “I
and the Father are one;”
Chapter 2.—That Some Ways of Speaking Concerning the Son are to Be Understood According to Either Rule.
4. There are, then, some things in
the sacred books, as I began by saying, so put, that it is doubtful
to which they are to be referred: whether to that rule whereby the
Son is less on account of His having taken the creature; or whether
to that whereby it is intimated that although equal, yet He is of
the Father. And in my opinion, if this is in such way doubtful,
that which it really is can neither be explained nor discerned,
then such passages may without danger be understood according to
either rule, as that, for instance, “My doctrine is not mine, but
His that sent me.” See above, Book I. c.
12.
Chapter 3.—Some Things Concerning the Holy Spirit are to Be Understood According to the One Rule Only.
5. For even of the Holy Spirit, of
whom it is not said, “He emptied Himself, and took upon Him the
form of a servant;” yet the Lord Himself says, “Howbeit, when
He the Spirit of Truth is come, He will guide you into all truth.
For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He shall hear
that shall He speak; and He will show you things to come. He shall
glorify me; for He shall receive of mine, and shall show it unto
you.” And except He had immediately gone on to say after this,
“All things that the Father hath are mine; therefore said I, that
He shall take of mine, and shall show it unto you;” Below, Bk. XV. c. 25.
Chapter 4.—The Glorification of the Son by the Father Does Not Prove Inequality.
6. But here also let them wake up
if they can, who have thought this, too, to be a testimony on their
side, to show that the Father
Chapter 5.—The Son and Holy Spirit are Not Therefore Less Because Sent. The Son is Sent Also by Himself. Of the Sending of the Holy Spirit.
7. But being proved wrong so far,
men betake themselves to saying, that he who sends is greater than
he who is sent: therefore the Father is greater than the Son,
because the Son continually speaks of Himself as being sent by the
Father; and the Father is also greater than the Holy Spirit,
because Jesus has said of the Spirit, “Whom the Father will send
in my name;”
8. For this reason, then, if both
the Son and the Holy Spirit are sent thither where they were, we
must inquire, how that sending, whether of the Son or of the Holy
Spirit, is to be understood; for of the Father alone, we nowhere
read that He is sent. Now, of the Son, the apostle writes thus:
“But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth His
Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were
under the law.” Mulier
9. Perhaps some one may wish to
drive us to say, that the Son is sent also by Himself, because the
conception and childbirth of Mary is the working of the Trinity, by
whose act of creating all things are created. And how, he will go
on to say, has the Father sent Him, if He sent Himself? To whom I
answer first, by asking him to tell me, if he can, in what manner
the Father hath sanctified Him, if He hath sanctified Himself? For
the same Lord says both; “Say ye of Him,” He says, “whom the
Father hath sanctified and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest,
because I said, I am the Son of God;”
10. If, therefore, He is said to be
sent, in so far as He appeared outwardly in the bodily creature,
who inwardly in His spiritual nature is always hidden from the eyes
of mortals, it is now easy to understand also of the Holy
Chapter 6.—The Creature is Not So Taken by the Holy Spirit as Flesh is by the Word.
11. It is, then, for this reason
nowhere written, that the Father is greater than the Holy Spirit,
or that the Holy Spirit is less than God the Father, because the
creature in which the Holy Spirit was to appear was not taken in
the same way as the Son of man was taken, as the form in which the
person of the Word of God Himself should be set forth not that He
might possess the word of God, as other holy and wise men have
possessed it, but “above His fellows;” [The reference is to σχήμα,
in [A theophany, though a harbinger
of the incarnation, differs from it, by not effecting a
hypostatical or personal union between God and the creature. When
the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, he did not unite
himself with it. The dove did not constitute an integral part of
the divine person who employed it. Nor did the illuminated vapor in
the theophany of the Shekinah. But when the Logos appeared in the
form of a man, he united himself with it, so that it became a
constituent part of his person. A theophany, as Augustin notices,
is temporary and transient. The incarnation is
perpetual.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 7.—A Doubt Raised About Divine Appearances.
12. The Holy Spirit, then, is also
said to be sent, on account of these corporeal forms which came
into existence in time, in order to signify and manifest Him, as He
must needs be manifested, to human senses; yet He is not said to be
less than the Father, as the Son, because He was in the form of a
servant, is said to be; because that form of a servant inhered in
the unity of the person of the Son, but those corporeal forms
appeared for a time, in order to show what was necessary to be
shown, and then ceased to be. Why, then, is not the Father also
said to be sent, through those corporeal forms, the fire of the
bush, and the pillar of cloud or of fire, and the lightnings in the
mount, and whatever other things of the kind appeared at that time,
when (as we have learned from Scripture testimony) He spake face to
face with the fathers, if He Himself was manifested by those modes
and forms of the creature, as exhibited and presented corporeally
to human sight? But if the Son was manifested by them, why is He
said to be sent so long after, when He was made of a woman, as the
apostle says, “But when the fullness of time was come, God sent
forth His Son, made of a woman,”
13. In the perplexity of this inquiry, the Lord helping us, we must ask, first, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or whether, sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or whether it was without any distinction of persons, in such way as the one and only God is spoken of, that is, that the Trinity itself appeared to the Fathers by those forms of the creature. Next, whichever of these alternatives shall have been found or thought true, whether for this purpose only the creature was fashioned, wherein God, as He judged it suitable at that time, should be shown to human sight; or whether angels, who already existed, were so sent, as to speak in the person of God, taking a corporeal form from the corporeal creature, for the purpose of their ministry, as each had need; or else, according to the power the Creator has given them, changing and converting their own body itself, to which they are not subject, but govern it as subject to themselves, into whatever appearances they would that were suited and apt to their several actions. Lastly, we shall discern that which it was our purpose to ask, viz. whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were also sent before; and, if they were so sent, what difference there is between that sending, and the one which we read of in the Gospel; or whether in truth neither of them were sent, except when either the Son was made of the Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit appeared in a visible form, whether in the dove or in tongues of fire.
Chapter 8.—The Entire Trinity Invisible.
14. Let us therefore say nothing of
those who, with an over carnal mind, have thought the nature of the
Word of God, and the Wisdom, which, “remaining in herself, maketh
all things new,” [For an example of the manner in
which the patristic writers present the doctrine of the divine
invisibility, see Irenæus, Adv. Hæreses, IV.
xx.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 9.—Against Those Who Believed the Father Only to Be Immortal and Invisible. The Truth to Be Sought by Peaceful Study.
15. But they who will have these
texts understood only of the Father, and not of the Son or the Holy
Spirit, declare the Son to be visible, not by having taken flesh of
the Virgin, but aforetime also in Himself. For He Himself, they
say, appeared to the eyes of the Fathers. And if you say to them,
In whatever manner, then, the Son is visible in Himself, in that
manner also He is mortal in Himself; so that it plainly follows
that you would have this saying also understood only of the Father,
viz., “Who only hath immortality;” for if the Son is
mortal from having taken upon Him our flesh, then allow that it is
on account of this flesh that He is also visible: they reply, that
it is not on account of this flesh that they say that the Son is
mortal; but that, just as He was also before visible, so He was
also before mortal. For if they say the Son is mortal from having
taken our flesh, then it is not the Father alone without the Son
who hath immortality; because His Word also has immortality, by
which all things were made. For He did not therefore lose His
immortality, because He took mortal flesh; seeing that it could not
happen even to the human soul, that it should die with the body,
when the Lord Himself says, “Fear not them which kill the body,
but are not able to kill the soul.”
16. Passing by, then, these
reasoners, who are unable to know the substance even of the soul,
which is invisible, and therefore are very far indeed from knowing
that the substance of the one and only God, that is, the Father and
the Son and the Holy Spirit, remains ever not only invisible, but
also unchangeable, and that hence it possesses true and real
immortality; let us, who deny that God, whether the Father, or the
Son, or the Holy
Chapter 10—Whether God the Trinity Indiscriminately Appeared to the Fathers, or Any One Person of the Trinity. The Appearing of God to Adam. Of the Same Appearance. The Vision to Abraham.
17. And first, in that which is
written in Genesis, viz., that God spake with man whom He
had formed out of the dust; if we set apart the figurative meaning,
and treat it so as to place faith in the narrative even in the
letter, it should appear that God then spake with man in the
appearance of a man. This is not indeed expressly laid down in the
book, but the general tenor of its reading sounds in this sense,
especially in that which is written, that Adam heard the voice of
the Lord God, walking in the garden in the cool of the evening, and
hid himself among the trees of the garden; and when God said,
“Adam, where art thou?”
18. Let him, then, who has the
strength whereby he can penetrate this secret with his mind’s
eye, so that to him it appears clearly, either that the Father also
is able, or that only the Son and Holy Spirit are able, to appear
to human eyes through a visible creature; let him, I say, proceed
to examine these things if he can, or even to express and handle
them in words; but the thing itself, so far as concerns this
testimony of Scripture, where God spake with man, is, in my
judgment, not discoverable, because it does not evidently appear
even whether Adam usually saw God with the eyes of his body;
especially as it is a great question what manner of eyes it was
that were opened when they tasted the forbidden fruit;
19. Likewise, also, in that which
is written, “Now the Lord had said unto Abraham, Get thee out of
thy country, and from thy kindred, and thy father’s house,” it
is not clear whether a voice alone came to the ears of Abraham, or
whether anything also appeared to his eyes. But a little while
after, it is somewhat more clearly said, “And the Lord appeared
unto Abraham, and said, Unto thy seed will I give this land.”
Chapter 11.—Of the Same Appearance.
20. That place of Scripture demands
neither a slight nor a passing consideration. For if one man had
appeared, what else would those at once cry out, who say that the
Son was visible also in His own substance before He was born of the
Virgin, but that it was Himself? since it is said, they say, of the
Father, “To the only invisible God.” [The theophanies of the Pentateuch
are trinitarian in their implication. They involve distinctions in
God—God sending, and God sent; God speaking of God, and God
speaking to God. The trinitarianism of the Old Testament has been
lost sight of to some extent in the modern construction of the
doctrine. The patristic, mediæval, and reformation theologies
worked this vein with thoroughness, and the analysis of Augustin in
this reference is worthy of careful study.—W.G.T.S.]
21. For, lest any one should think
that one among the three is in this way intimated to have been the
greater, and that this one is to be understood to have been the
Lord, the Son of God, while the other two were His angels; because,
whereas three appeared, Abraham there speaks to one as the Lord:
Holy Scripture has not forgotten to anticipate, by a contradiction,
such future cogitations and opinions, when a little while after it
says that two angels came to Lot, among whom that just man also,
who deserved to be freed from the burning of Sodom, speaks to one
as to the Lord. For so Scripture goes on to say, “And the Lord
went His way, as soon as He left communing with Abraham; and
Abraham returned to his place.”
Chapter 12.—The Appearance to Lot is Examined.
“But there came two angels to Sodom at even.” Here, what I have begun to set forth must be considered more attentively. Certainly Abraham was speaking with three, and called that one, in the singular number, the Lord. Perhaps, some one may say, he recognized one of the three to be the Lord, but the other two His angels. What, then, does that mean which Scripture goes on to say, “And the Lord went His way, as soon as He had left communing with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place: and there came two angels to Sodom at even?” Are we to suppose that the one who, among the three, was recognized as the Lord, had departed, and had sent the two angels that were with Him to destroy Sodom? Let us see, then, what follows. “There came,” it is said, “two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them, rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; and he said, Behold now, my lords, turn in, I pray you, into your servant’s house.” Here it is clear, both that there were two angels, and that in the plural number they were invited to partake of hospitality, and that they were honorably designated lords, when they perchance were thought to be men.
22. Yet, again, it is objected that
except they were known to be angels of God, Lot would not have
bowed himself with his face to the ground. Why, then, is both
hospitality and food offered to them, as though they wanted such
human succor? But whatever may here lie hid, let us now pursue that
which we have undertaken. Two appear; both are called angels; they
are invited plurally; he speaks as with two plurally, until the
departure from Sodom. And then Scripture goes on to say, “And it
came to pass, when they had brought them forth abroad, that they
said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou
in all the plain; escape to the mountain, and there thou shalt be
saved, This clause is not in the
Hebrew. [It is difficult to determine the
details of this theophany, beyond all doubt: namely, whether the
“Jehovah” who “went his way as soon as he had left communing
with Abraham.” (
Chapter 13.—The Appearance in the Bush.
23. But when Moses was sent to lead
the children of Israel out of Egypt, it is written that the Lord
appeared to him thus: “Now Moses kept the flock of Jethro his
father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flock to the
back side of the desert, and came to the mountain of God, even to
Horeb. And the Angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a flame of
fire, out of the midst of a bush; and he looked, and, behold, the
bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. And Moses
said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush
is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside to see,
God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, I am
the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and
the God of Jacob.” Annuntiabit Nuntius
Chapter 14.—Of the Appearance in the Pillar of Cloud and of Fire.
24. Also in the going forth of the
children of Israel from Egypt it is written, “And the Lord went
before them, by day in a pillar of cloud to lead them the way, and
by night in a pillar of fire. He took not away the pillar of the
cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, from before the
people.”
Chapter 15.—Of the Appearance on Sinai. Whether the Trinity Spake in that Appearance or Some One Person Specially.
25. But now of the clouds, and
voices, and lightnings, and the trumpet, and the smoke on Mount
Sinai, when it was said, “And Mount Sinai was altogether on a
smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire, and the smoke
thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace; and all the people that
was in the camp trembled; and when the voice of the trumpet sounded
long and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and God answered him
by a voice.” Nebulam
26. But as far as concerns our
present undertaking, neither on Mount Sinai do I see how it
appears, by all those things which were fearfully displayed to the
senses of mortal men, whether God the Trinity spake, or the Father,
or the Son, or the Holy Spirit severally. But if it is allowable,
without rash assertion, to venture upon a modest and hesitating
conjecture from this passage, if it is possible to understand it of
one person of the Trinity, why do we not rather understand the Holy
Spirit to be spoken of, since the Law itself also, which was given
there, is said to have been written upon tables of stone with
the
Chapter 16.—In What Manner Moses Saw God.
26. There is yet another difficulty
which troubles most people, viz. that it is written, “And
the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his
friend;” whereas a little after, the same Moses says, “Now
therefore, I pray Thee, if I have found grace in Thy sight, show me
now Thyself plainly, that I may see Thee, that I may find grace in
Thy sight, and that I may consider that this nation is Thy
people;” and a little after Moses again said to the Lord, “Show
me Thy glory.” What means this then, that in everything which was
done, as above said, God was thought to have appeared by His own
substance; whence the Son of God has been believed by these
miserable people to be visible not by the creature, but by Himself;
and that Moses, entering into the cloud, appeared to have had this
very object in entering, that a cloudy darkness indeed might be
shown to the eyes of the people, but that Moses within might hear
the words of God, as though he beheld His face; and, as it is said,
“And the Lord spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh
unto his friend;” and yet, behold, the same Moses says, “If I
have found grace in Thy sight, show me Thyself plainly?”
Assuredly he knew that he saw corporeally, and he sought the true
sight of God spiritually. And that mode of speech accordingly which
was wrought in words, was so modified, as if it were of a friend
speaking to a friend. Yet who sees God the Father with the eyes of
the body? And that Word, which was in the beginning, the Word which
was with God, the Word which was God, by which all things were
made,
28. Add, too, that which the Lord
afterward said to Moses, “Thou canst not see my face: for there
shall no man see my face, and live. And the Lord said, Behold,
there is a place by me, and thou shall stand upon a rock: and it
shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee
into a watch-tower Clift—A.V. Spelunca is
one reading in S. Aug., but the Benedictines read specula =
watch-tower, which the context proves to be certainly
right.
Chapter 17.—How the Back Parts of God Were Seen. The Faith of the Resurrection of Christ. The Catholic Church Only is the Place from Whence the Back Parts of God are Seen. The Back Parts of God Were Seen by the Israelites. It is a Rash Opinion to Think that God the Father Only Was Never Seen by the Fathers.
Not unfitly is it commonly
understood to be prefigured from the person of our Lord Jesus
Christ, that His “back parts” are to be taken to be His flesh,
in which He was Posteriora Posterius [Augustin here gives the
Protestant interpretation of the word “rock,” in the passage,
“on this rock I will build my church.”—W.G.T.S.]
29. But in the flesh itself, the
faith in His resurrection saves and justifies us. For, “If thou
shalt believe,” he says, “in thine heart, that God hath raised
Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved;” [The meaning seems to be, that the
vivid realization that Christ’s body rose from the dead is the
reward of a Christian’s faith. The unbeliever has no such
reward.—W.G.T.S.] Transitus = passing by.
30. But they who believe this, but
believe it not in the Catholic Church, but in some schism or in
heresy, do not see the back parts of the Lord from “the place
that is by Him.” For what does that mean which the Lord says,
“Behold, there is a place by me, and thou Transitus
31. For as to that, too, which
follows in Exodus, “I will cover thee with mine hand while I pass
by, and I will take away my hand and thou shalt see my back
parts;” many Israelites, of whom Moses was then a figure,
believed in the Lord after His resurrection, as if His hand had
been taken off from their eyes, and they now saw His back parts.
And hence the evangelist also mentions that prophesy of Isaiah,
“Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy,
and shut their eyes.” [This explanation of the “back
parts” of Christ to mean his resurrection, and of “the place
that is by him,” to mean the church, is an example of the
fanciful exegesis into which Augustin, with the fathers generally,
sometimes falls. The reasoning, here, unlike that in the preceding
chapter, is not from the immediate context, and hence extraneous
matter is read into the text.—W.G.T.S.]
32. Wherefore, if in those words
which were spoken in Exodus, and in all those corporeal
appearances, the Lord Jesus Christ was manifested; or if in some
cases Christ was manifested, as the consideration of this passage
persuades us, in others the Holy Spirit, as that which we have said
above admonishes us; at any rate no such result follows, as that
God the Father never appeared in any such form to the Fathers. For
many such appearances happened in those times, without either the
Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit being expressly named and
designated in them; but yet with some intimations given through
certain very probable interpretations, so that it would be too rash
to say that God the Father never appeared by any visible forms to
the fathers or the prophets. For they gave birth to this opinion
who were not able to understand in respect to the unity of the
Trinity such texts as, “Now unto the King eternal, immortal,
invisible, the only wise God;”
Chapter 18.—The Vision of Daniel.
33. [The original has an awkward
anacoluthon in the opening sentence of this chapter, which has been
removed by omitting “quamquam,” and substituting
“autem” for “ergo.”—W.G.T.S.] Cast down—A.V.
34. Unless, perhaps, some one shall
say, that the Father is therefore not visible, because He appeared
within the sight of one who was dreaming; but that therefore the
Son and the Holy Spirit are visible, because Moses saw all those
things being awake; as if, forsooth, Moses saw the Word and the
Wisdom of God with fleshly eyes, or that even the human spirit
which quickens that flesh can be seen, or even that corporeal thing
which is called wind;—how much less can that Spirit of God be
seen, who transcends the minds of all men, and of angels, by the
ineffable excellence of the divine substance? Or can any one fall
headlong into such an error as to dare to say, that the Son and the
Holy Spirit are visible also to men who are awake, but that the
Father is not visible except to those who dream? How, then, do they
understand that of the Father alone, “Whom no man hath seen, nor
can see.”? When men sleep, are they then not men? Or cannot He,
who can fashion the likeness of a body to signify Himself through
the visions of dreamers, also fashion that same bodily creature to
signify Himself to the eyes of those who are awake? Whereas His own
very substance, whereby He Himself is that which He is, cannot be
shown by any bodily likeness to one who sleeps, or by any bodily
appearance to one who is awake; but this not of the Father only,
but also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. And certainly, as to
those who are moved by the visions of waking men to believe that
not the Father, but only the Son, or the Holy Spirit, appeared to
the corporeal sight of men,—to omit the great extent of the
sacred pages, and their manifold interpretation, such that no one
of sound reason ought to affirm that the person of the Father was
nowhere shown to the eyes of waking men by any corporeal
appearance;—but, as I said, to omit this, what do they say of our
father Abraham, who was certainly awake and ministering, when,
after Scripture had premised, “The Lord appeared unto Abraham,”
not one, or two, but three men appeared to him; no one of whom is
said to have stood prominently above the others, no one more than
the others to have shone with greater glory, or to have acted more
authoritatively?
35. Wherefore, since in that our
threefold division we determined to inquire, See above, chap. vii.
Book III.
————————————
The question is discussed with respect to the appearances of God spoken of in the previous book, which were made under bodily forms, whether only a creature was formed, for the purpose of manifesting God to human sight in such way as He at each time judged fitting; or whether angels, already existing, were so sent as to speak in the person of God; and this, either by assuming a bodily appearance from the bodily creature, or by changing their own bodies into whatever forms they would, suitable to the particular action, according to the power given to them by the Creator; while the essence itself of God was never seen in itself.
Preface.—Why Augustin Writes of the Trinity. What He Claims from Readers. What Has Been Said in the Previous Book.
1. I Would
have them believe, who are willing to do so, that I had rather
bestow labor in reading, than in dictating what others may read.
But let those who will not believe this, but are both able and
willing to make the trial, grant me whatever answers may be
gathered from reading, either to my own inquiries, or to those
interrogations of others, which for the character I bear in the
service of Christ, and for the zeal with which I burn that our
faith may be fortified against the error of carnal and natural
men, [The English translator renders
“animalium” by “psychical,” to agree with
ψυχικός in [This is an important passage with
reference to Augustin’s learning. From it, it would appear that
he had not read the Greek Trinitarians in the original, and that
only “a little” of these had been translated, at the time when
he was composing this treatise. As this was from
A.D. 400 to A.D. 416—, the
treatises of Athanasius (d. 373), Basil (d. 379), Gregory of Nyssa
(d. 400?), and Gregory of Nazianzum (d. 390?) had been composed and
were current in the Eastern church. That Augustin thought out this
profound scheme of the doctrine of the Trinity by the close study
of Scripture alone, and unassisted by the equally profound
trinitarianism of the Greek church, is an evidence of the depth and
strength of his remarkable intellect.—W.G.T.S.]
2. Assuredly, as in all my writings I desire not only a pious reader, but also a free corrector, so I especially desire this in the present inquiry, which is so important that I would there were as many inquirers as there are objectors. But as I do not wish my reader to be bound down to me, so I do not wish my corrector to be bound down to himself. Let not the former love me more than the catholic faith, let not the latter love himself more than the catholic verity. As I say to the former, Do not be willing to yield to my writings as to the canonical Scriptures; but in these, when thou hast discovered even what thou didst not previously believe, believe it unhesitatingly; while in those, unless thou hast understood with certainty what thou didst not before hold as certain, be unwilling to hold it fast: so I say to the latter, Do not be willing to amend my writings by thine own opinion or disputation, but from the divine text, or by unanswerable reason. If thou apprehendest anything of truth in them, its being there does not make it mine, but by understanding and loving it, let it be both thine and mine; but if thou convictest anything of falsehood, though it have once been mine, in that I was guilty of the error, yet now by avoiding it let it be neither thine nor mine.
3. Let this third book, then, take
its beginning at the point to which the second had reached. For
after we had arrived at this, that we desired to show that the Son
was not therefore less than the Father, because the Father sent and
the Son was sent; nor the Holy Spirit therefore less than both,
because we read in the Gospel that He was sent both by the one and
by the other; we undertook then to inquire, since the Son was sent
thither, where He already was, for He came into the world, and
“was in the world;”
Chapter 1.—What is to Be Said Thereupon.
4. Let us, then, continue our
inquiry now in order. For under the second head in that division
the question occurred, whether the creature was formed for that
work only, wherein God, in such way as He then judged it to be
fitting, might be manifested to human sight; or whether angels, who
already existed, were so sent as to speak in the person of God,
assuming a corporeal appearance from the corporeal creature for the
purpose of their ministry; or else changing and turning their own
body itself, to which they are not subject, but govern it as
subject to themselves, into whatever forms they would, that were
appropriate and fit for their actions, according to the power given
to them by the Creator. And when this part of the question shall
have been investigated, so far as God permit, then,
last See above, Book ii. chap. vii. n.
13.
5. I confess, however, that it
reaches further than my purpose can carry me to inquire whether the
angels, secretly working by the spiritual quality of their body
abiding still in them, assume somewhat from the inferior and more
bodily elements, which, being fitted to themselves, they may change
and turn like a garment into any corporeal appearances they will,
and those appearances themselves also real, as real water was
changed by our Lord into real wine;
6. Our present inquiry then is,
whether the angels were then the agents both in showing those
bodily appearances to the eyes of men and in sounding those words
in their ears when the sensible creature itself, serving the
Creator at His beck, was turned for the time into whatever was
needful; as it is written in the book of Wisdom, “For the
creature serveth Thee, who art the Maker, increaseth his strength
against the unrighteous for their punishment, and abateth his
strength for the benefit of such as put their trust in Thee.
Therefore, even then was it altered into all fashions, and was
obedient to Thy grace, that nourisheth all things according to the
desire of them that longed for Thee.”
Chapter 2.—The Will of God is the Higher Cause of All Corporeal Change. This is Shown by an Example.
7. But there is one kind of natural order in the conversion and changeableness of bodies, which, although itself also serves the bidding of God, yet by reason of its unbroken continuity has ceased to cause wonder; as is the case, for instance, with those things which are changed either in very short, or at any rate not long, intervals of time, in heaven, or earth, or sea; whether it be in rising, or in setting, or in change of appearance from time to time; while there are other things, which, although arising from that same order, yet are less familiar on account of longer intervals of time. And these things, although the many stupidly wonder at them, yet are understood by those who inquire into this present world, and in the progress of generations become so much the less wonderful, as they are the more often repeated and known by more people. Such are the eclipses of the sun and moon, and some kinds of stars, appearing seldom, and earthquakes, and unnatural births of living creatures, and other similar things; of which not one takes place without the will of God; yet, that it is so, is to most people not apparent. And so the vanity of philosophers has found license to assign these things also to other causes, true causes perhaps, but proximate ones, while they are not able to see at all the cause that is higher than all others, that is, the will of God; or again to false causes, and to such as are not even put forward out of any diligent investigation of corporeal things and motions, but from their own guess and error.
8. I will bring forward an example,
if I can, that this may be plainer. There is, we know, in the human
body, a certain bulk of flesh and an outward form, and an
arrangement and distraction of limbs, and a temperament of health;
and a soul breathed into it governs this body, and that soul a
rational one; which, therefore, although changeable, yet can be
partaker of that unchangeable wisdom, so that “it may partake of
that which is in and of itself;” [The original is: “ut sit
participatio ejus in idipsum.” The English translator
renders: “So that it may partake thereof in itself.” The
thought of Augustin is, that the believing soul though mutable
partakes of the immutable; and he designates the immutable as the
in idipsum: the self-existent. In that striking passage in
the Confessions, in which he describes the spiritual and extatic
meditations of himself and his mother, as they looked out upon the
Mediterranean from the windows at Ostia—a scene well known from
Ary Schefer’s painting—he denominates God the idipsum:
the “self same” (Confessions IX. x). Augustin refers to the
same absolute immutability of God, in this place. By faith, man is
“a partaker of a divine nature,” (
Chapter 3.—Of the Same Argument.
Let us take, then, the case of a wise man, such that his rational soul is already partaker of the unchangeable and eternal truth, so that he consults it about all his actions, nor does anything at all, which he does not by it know ought to be done, in order that by being subject to it and obeying it he may do rightly. Suppose now that this man, upon counsel with the highest reason of the divine righteousness, which he hears with the ear of his heart in secret, and by its bidding, should weary his body by toil in some office of mercy, and should contract an illness; and upon consulting the physicians, were to be told by one that the cause of the disease was overmuch dryness of the body, but by another that it was overmuch moisture; one of the two no doubt would allege the true cause and the other would err, but both would pronounce concerning proximate causes only, that is, corporeal ones. But if the cause of that dryness were to be inquired into, and found to be the self-imposed toil, then we should have come to a yet higher cause, which proceeds from the soul so as to affect the body which the soul governs. Yet neither would this be the first cause, for that doubtless was a higher cause still, and lay in the unchangeable wisdom itself, by serving which in love, and by obeying its ineffable commands, the soul of the wise man had undertaken that self-imposed toil; and so nothing else but the will of God would be found most truly to be the first cause of that illness. But suppose now in that office of pious toil this wise man had employed the help of others to co-operate in the good work, who did not serve God with the same will as himself, but either desired to attain the reward of their own carnal desires, or shunned merely carnal unpleasantnesses;—suppose, too, he had employed beasts of burden, if the completion of the work required such a provision, which beasts of burden would be certainly irrational animals, and would not therefore move their limbs under their burdens because they at all thought of that good work, but from the natural appetite of their own liking, and for the avoiding of annoyance;—suppose, lastly, he had employed bodily things themselves that lack all sense, but were necessary for that work, as e.g. corn, and wine, and oils, clothes, or money, or a book, or anything of the kind;—certainly, in all these bodily things thus employed in this work, whether animate or inanimate, whatever took place of movement, of wear and tear, of reparation, of destruction, of renewal or of change in one way or another, as places and times affected them; pray, could there be, I say, any other cause of all these visible and changeable facts, except the invisible and unchangeable will of God, using all these, both bad and irrational souls, and lastly bodies, whether such as were inspired and animated by those souls, or such as lacked all sense, by means of that upright soul as the seat of His wisdom, since primarily that good and holy soul itself employed them, which His wisdom had subjected to itself in a pious and religious obedience?
Chapter 4.—God Uses All Creatures as He Will, and Makes Visible Things for the Manifestation of Himself.
9. What, then, we have alleged by
way of example of a single wise man, although of one still bearing
a mortal body and still seeing only in part, may be allowably
extended also to a family, where there is a society of such men, or
to a city, or even to the whole world, if the chief rule and
government of human affairs were in the hands of the wise, and of
those who were piously and perfectly subject to God; but because
this is not the case as yet (for it behoves us first to be
exercised in this our pilgrimage after mortal fashion, and to be
taught with stripes by force of gentleness and patience), let us
turn our thoughts to that country itself that is above and
heavenly, from which we here are pilgrims. For there the will of
God, “who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a flaming
fire,”
10. If, therefore, the Apostle
Paul, although he still bare the burden of the body, which is
subject to corruption and presseth down the soul,
Chapter 5.—Why Miracles are Not Usual Works.
11. For since the divine power
administers the whole spiritual and corporeal creature, the waters
of the sea are summoned and poured out upon the face of the earth
on certain days of every year. But when this was done at the prayer
of the holy Elijah; because so continued and long a course of fair
weather had gone before, that men were famished; and because at
that very hour, in which the servant of God prayed, the air itself
had not, by any moist aspect, put forth signs of the coming rain;
the divine power was apparent in the great and rapid showers that
followed, and by which that miracle was granted and dispensed. [One chief reason why a miracle is
incredible for the skeptic, is the difficulty of working it. If the
miracle were easy of execution for man—who for the skeptic is the
measure of power—his disbelief of it would disappear. In
reference to this objection, Augustin calls attention to the fact,
that so far as difficulty of performance is concerned, the products
of nature are as impossible to man as supernatural products. Aaron
could no more have made an almond rod blossom and fructuate on an
almond tree, than off it. That a miracle is difficult to be wrought
is, consequently, no good reason for disbelieving its
reality.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 6.—Diversity Alone Makes a Miracle.
And who is it that restored to the
corpses their proper souls when the dead rose again,
Chapter 7.—Great Miracles Wrought by Magic Arts.
12. I see here what may occur to a
weak judgment, namely, why such miracles are wrought also by magic
arts; for the wise men of Pharaoh likewise made serpents, and did
other like things. Yet it is still more a matter of wonder, how it
was that the power of those magicians, which was able to make
serpents, when it came to very small flies, failed altogether. For
the lice, by which third plague the proud people of Egypt were
smitten, are very short-lived little flies; yet there certainly the
magicians failed, saying, “This is the finger of God.”
Chapter 8.—God Alone Creates Those Things Which are Changed by Magic Art.
13. Yet it is not on this account
to be thought that the matter of visible things is subservient to
the bidding of those wicked angels; but rather to that of God, by
whom this power is given, just so far as He, who is unchangeable,
determines in His lofty and spiritual abode to give it. For water
and fire and earth are subservient even to wicked men, who are
condemned to the mines, in order that they may do therewith what
they will, but only so far as is permitted. Nor, in truth, are
those evil angels to be called creators, because by their means the
magicians, withstanding the servant of God, made frogs and
serpents; for it was not they who created them. But, in truth, some
hidden seeds of all things that are born corporeally and visibly,
are concealed in the corporeal elements of this world. For those
seeds that are visible now to our eyes from fruits and living
things, are quite distinct from the hidden seeds of those former
seeds; from which, at the bidding of the Creator, the water
produced the first swimming creatures and fowl, and the earth the
first buds after their kind, and the first living creatures after
their kind. [Augustin is not alone in his
belief that the bee is an exception to the dictum; omne animal
ex ovo. As late as 1744, Thorley, an English “scientist,”
said that “the manner in which bees propagate their species is
entirely hid from the eyes of all men; and the most strict,
diligent, and curious observers and inquisitors have not been able
to discover it. It is a secret, and will remain a mystery. Dr.
Butler says that they do not copulate as other living creatures
do.” (Thorley: Melisselogia. Section viii.) The observations of
Huber and others have disproved this opinion. Some infer that
ignorance of physics proves ignorance of philosophy and theology.
The difference between matter and mind is so great, that erroneous
opinions in one province are compatible with correct ones in the
other. It does not follow that because Augustin had wrong notions
about bees, and no knowledge at all of the steam engine and
telegraph, his knowledge of God and the soul was inferior to that
of a modern materialist.—W.G.T.S.] [The English translator renders
“virtus” in its secondary sense of “goodness.”
Augustin employs it here, in its primary sense of “energy,”
“force.”—W.G.T.S.]
14. Accordingly, the Apostle Paul,
distinguishing God’s creating and forming within, from the
operations of the creature which are applied from without, and
drawing a similitude from agriculture, says, “I planted, Apollos
watered; but God gave the increase.”
15. Just as Jacob, again, was not
the creator of the colors in the flocks, because he placed the
various colored rods for the several mothers, as they drank, to
look at in conceiving.
Chapter 9.—The Original Cause of All Things is from God.
16. For it is one thing to make and
administer the creature from the innermost and highest
turning-point of causation, which He alone does who is God the
Creator; but quite another thing to apply some operation from
without in proportion to the strength and faculties assigned to
each by Him, so that what is created may come forth into being at
this time or at that, and in this or that way. For all these things
in the way of original and beginning have already been created in a
kind of texture of the elements, but they come forth when they get
the opportunity. [This is the same as the
theological distinction between substances and their modifications.
“The former,” says Howe, “are the proper object of creation
strictly taken; the modifications of things are not properly
created, in the strictest sense of creation, but are educed and
brought forth out of those substantial things that were themselves
created, or made out of nothing.”—Germs are originated ex
nihilo, and fall under creation proper; their evolution and
development takes place according to the nature and inherent force
of the germ, and falls under providence, in distinction from
creation. See the writer’s Theological Essays,
133–137.—W.G.T.S.]
17. But lest the somewhat different condition of animals should trouble any one, in that they have the breath of life with the sense of desiring those things that are according to nature, and of avoiding those things that are contrary to it; we must consider also, how many men there are who know from what herbs or flesh, or from what juices or liquids you please, of whatever sort, whether so placed or so buried, or so bruised or so mixed, this or that animal is commonly born; yet who can be so foolish as to dare to call himself the creator of these animals? Is it, therefore, to be wondered at, if just as any, the most worthless of men, can know whence such or such worms and flies are produced; so the evil angels in proportion to the subtlety of their perceptions discern in the more hidden seeds of the elements whence frogs and serpents are produced, and so through certain and known opportune combinations applying these seeds by secret movements, cause them to be created, but do not create them? Only men do not marvel at those things that are usually done by men. But if any one chance to wonder at the quickness of those growths, in that those living beings were so quickly made, let him consider how even this may be brought about by men in proportion to the measure of human capability. For whence is it that the same bodies generate worms more quickly in summer than in winter, or in hotter than in colder places? Only these things are applied by men with so much the more difficulty, in proportion as their earthly and sluggish members are wanting in subtlety of perception, and in rapidity of bodily motion. And hence it arises that in the case of any kind of angels, in proportion as it is easier for them to draw out the proximate causes from the elements, so much the more marvellous is their rapidity in works of this kind.
18. But He only is the creator who
is the chief former of these things. Neither can any one be this,
unless He with whom primarily rests the measure, number, and weight
of all things existing; and He is God the one Creator, by whose
unspeakable power it comes to pass, also, that what these angels
were able to do if they were permitted, they are therefore not able
to do because they are not permitted. For there is no other reason
why they who made frogs and serpents were not able to make the most
minute flies, unless because
19. Excepting, therefore, those
corporeal things which are done in the order of nature in a
perfectly usual series of times, as e.g., the rising and
setting of the stars, the generations and deaths of animals, the
innumerable diversities of seeds and buds, the vapors and the
clouds, the snow and the rain, the lightnings and the thunder, the
thunderbolts and the hail, the winds and the fire, cold and heat,
and all like things; excepting also those which in the same order
of nature occur rarely, such as eclipses, unusual appearances of
stars, and monsters, and earthquakes, and such like;—all these, I
say, are to be excepted, of which indeed the first and chief cause
is only the will of God; whence also in the Psalm, when some things
of this kind had been mentioned, “Fire and hail, snow and vapor,
stormy wind,” lest any one should think those to be brought about
either by chance or only from corporeal causes, or even from such
as are spiritual, but exist apart from the will of God, it is added
immediately, “fulfilling His word.”
Chapter 10.—In How Many Ways the Creature is to Be Taken by Way of Sign. The Eucharist.
Excepting, therefore, all these
things as I just now said, there are some also of another kind;
which, although from the same corporeal substance, are yet brought
within reach of our senses in order to announce something from God,
and these are properly called miracles and signs; yet is not the
person of God Himself assumed in all things which are announced to
us by the Lord God. When, however, that person is assumed, it is
sometimes made manifest as an angel; sometimes in that form which
is not an angel in his own proper being, although it is ordered and
ministered by an angel. Again, when it is assumed in that form
which is not an angel in his own proper being; sometimes in this
case it is a body itself already existing, assumed after some kind
of change, in order to make that message manifest; sometimes it is
one that comes into being for the purpose, and that being
accomplished, is discarded. Just as, also, when men are the
messengers, sometimes they speak the words of God in their own
person, as when it is premised, “The Lord said,” or, “Thus
saith the Lord,”
20. But because these things are
known to men, in that they are done by men, they may well meet with
reverence as being holy things, but they cannot cause wonder as
being miracles. And therefore those things which are done by angels
are the more wonderful to us, in that they are more difficult and
more known; but they are known and easy to them as being their own
actions. An angel speaks in the person of God to man, saying, “I
am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,
21. What man, again, knows how the
angels made or took those clouds and fires in order to signify the
message they were bearing, even if we supposed that the Lord or the
Holy Spirit was manifested in those corporeal forms? Just as
infants do not know of that which is placed upon the altar and
consumed after the performance of the holy celebration, whence or
in what manner it is made, or whence it is taken for religious use.
And if they were never to learn from their own experience or that
of others, and never to see that species of thing except during the
celebration of the sacrament, when it is being offered and given;
and if it were told them by the most weighty authority whose body
and blood it is; they will believe nothing else, except that the
Lord absolutely appeared in this form to the eyes of mortals, and
that that liquid actually flowed from the piercing of a side
Chapter 11.—The Essence of God Never Appeared in Itself. Divine Appearances to the Fathers Wrought by the Ministry of Angels. An Objection Drawn from the Mode of Speech Removed. That the Appearing of God to Abraham Himself, Just as that to Moses, Was Wrought by Angels. The Same Thing is Proved by the Law Being Given to Moses by Angels. What Has Been Said in This Book, and What Remains to Be Said in the Next.
Wherefore the substance, or, if it
is better so to say, the essence of God, [“Substance,” from sub
stans, is a passive term, denoting latent and potential being.
“Essence,” from esse, is an active term, denoting
energetic being. The schoolmen, as Augustin does here, preferred
the latter term to the former, though employing both to designate
the divine nature.—W.G.T.S.]
22. It is manifest, accordingly,
that all those appearances to the fathers, when God was presented
to them according to His own dispensation, suitable to the times,
were wrought through the creature. And if we cannot discern in what
manner He wrought them by ministry of angels, yet we say that they
were wrought by angels; but not from our own power of discernment,
lest we should seem to any one to be wise beyond our measure,
whereas we are wise so as to think soberly, as God hath dealt to us
the measure of faith;
23. But some one may say, Why then
is it written, “The Lord said to Moses;” and not, rather, The
angel said to Moses? Because, when the crier proclaims the words of
the judge, it is not usually written in the record, so and so the
crier said, but so and so the judge. In like manner also, when the
holy prophet speaks, although we say, The prophet said, we mean
nothing else to be understood than that the Lord said; and if we
were to say, The Lord said, we should not put the prophet aside,
but only intimate who spake by him. And, indeed, these Scriptures
often reveal the angel to be the Lord, of whose speaking it is from
time to time said, “the Lord said,” as we have shown already.
But on account of those who, since the Scripture in that place
specifies an angel, will have the Son of God Himself and in
24. For Stephen, too, in the Acts
of the Apostles, relates these things in that manner in which they
are also written in the Old Testament: “Men, brethren, and
fathers, hearken,” he says; “The God of glory appeared unto our
father Abraham, when he was in Mesopotamia.”
25. Can there be any one who will
say that the Lord appeared to Moses by an angel, but to Abraham by
Himself? Let us not answer this question from Stephen, but from the
book itself, whence Stephen took his narrative. For, pray, because
it is written, “And the Lord God said unto Abraham;” Propter me Dominus vidit Dominus visus
est
26. But why do we delay any longer
to stop their mouths by another most clear and most weighty proof,
where not an angel in the singular nor men in the plural are spoken
of, but simply angels; by whom not any particular word was wrought,
but the Law itself is most distinctly declared to be given; which
certainly none of the faithful doubts that God gave to Moses for
the control of the children of Israel, or yet, that it was given by
angels. So Stephen speaks: “Ye stiff-necked,” he says, “and
uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy
Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. Which of the prophets have
not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed
before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the
betrayers and murderers: who have received the Law by the
disposition of angels, In edictis
angelorum Dispositum
27. But now, as I think, that which
we had undertaken to show in this book has been [The reference here is to the
difference between a theophany, and an incarnation; already alluded
to, in the note on p. 149.—W.G.T.S.]
Book IV.
————————————
Explains for what the Son of God was sent, viz, that by Christ’s dying for sinners, we were to be convinced how great is God’s love for us, and also what manner of men we are whom He loved. That the Word came in the flesh, to the purpose also of enabling us to be so cleansed as to contemplate and cleave to God. That our double death was abolished by His death, being one and single. And hereupon is discussed, how the single of our Saviour harmonizes to salvation with our double; and the perfection is treated at length of the senary number, to which the ratio itself of single to double is reducible. That all are gathered together from many into one by the one Mediator of life, viz. Christ, through Whom alone is wrought the true cleansing of the soul. Further it is demonstrated that the Son of God, although made less by being sent, on account of the form of a servant which He took, is not therefore less than the Father according to the form of God, because He was sent by Himself: and that the same account is to be given of the sending of the Holy Spirit.
Preface.—The Knowledge of God is to Be Sought from God.
1.
Theknowledge of things terrestrial and
celestial is commonly thought much of by men. Yet those doubtless
judge better who prefer to that knowledge, the knowledge of
themselves; and that mind is more praiseworthy which knows even its
own weakness, than that which, without regard to this, searches
out, and even comes to know, the ways of the stars, or which holds
fast such knowledge already acquired, while ignorant of the way by
which itself to enter into its own proper health and strength. But
if any one has already become awake towards God, kindled by the
warmth of the Holy Spirit, and in the love of God has become vile
in his own eyes; and through wishing, yet not having strength to
come in unto Him, and through the light He gives, has given heed to
himself, and has found himself, and has learned that his own
filthiness cannot mingle with His purity; and feels it sweet to
weep and to entreat Him, that again and again He will have
compassion, until he have put off all his wretchedness; and to pray
confidently, as having already received of free gift the pledge of
salvation through his only Saviour and Enlightener of man:—such
an one, so acting, and so lamenting, knowledge does not puff up,
because charity edifieth;
Chapter 1.—We are Made Perfect by Acknowledgement of Our Own Weakness. The Incarnate Word Dispels Our Darkness.
2. But since we are exiled from the
unchangeable joy, yet neither cut off nor torn away from it so that
we should not seek eternity, truth, blessedness, even in those
changeable and temporal things (for we wish neither to die, nor to
be deceived, nor to be troubled); visions have been sent to us from
heaven suitable to our state of pilgrimage, in order to remind us
that what we seek is not here, but that from this pilgrimage we
must return thither, whence unless we originated we should not here
seek these things. And first we have had to be persuaded how much
God loved us, lest from despair we should not dare to look up to
Him. And we needed to be shown also what manner of men we are whom
He loved, lest being proud, as if of our own merits, we should
recede the more from Him, and fail the more in our own strength.
And hence He so dealt with us, that we might the rather profit by
His strength, and that so in the weakness of humility the virtue of
charity might be perfected. And this is intimated in the Psalm,
where it is said, “Thou, O God, didst send a spontaneous rain,
whereby Thou didst make Thine inheritance perfect, when it was
weary.” Gratis.
3. Because therefore the Word of
God is One, by which all things were made, which is the
unchangeable truth, all things are simultaneously therein,
potentially and unchangeably; not only those things which are now
in this whole creation, but also those which have been and those
which shall be. And therein they neither have been, nor shall be,
but only are; and all things are life, and all things are
one; or rather it is one being and one life. For all things were so
made by Him, that whatsoever was made in them was not made in Him,
but was life in Him. Since, “in the beginning,” the Word was
not made, but “the Word was with God, and the Word was God, and
all things were made by Him;” neither had all things been made by
Him, unless He had Himself been before all things and not made. But
in those things which were made by Him, even body, which is not
life, would not have been made by Him, except it had been life in
Him before it was made. For “that which was made was already life
in Him;” and not life of any kind soever: for the soul also is
the life of the body, but this too is made, for it is
Chapter 2.—How We are Rendered Apt for the Perception of Truth Through the Incarnate Word.
4. But “the light shineth in
darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.” Now the
“darkness” is the foolish minds of men, made blind by vicious
desires and unbelief. And that the Word, by whom all things were
made, might care for these and heal them, “The Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us.” For our enlightening is the partaking
of the Word, namely, of that life which is the light of men. But
for this partaking we were utterly unfit, and fell short of it, on
account of the uncleanness of sins. Therefore we were to be
cleansed. And further, the one cleansing of the unrighteous and of
the proud is the blood of the Righteous One, and the humbling of
God Himself; [This singleness and doubleness is
explained in chapter 3.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 3.—The One Death and Resurrection of The Body of Christ Harmonizes with Our Double Death and Resurrection of Body and Soul, to the Effect of Salvation. In What Way the Single Death of Christ is Bestowed Upon Our Double Death.
5. But for our present need we must
discuss, so far as God gives us power, in what manner the single of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ answers to, and is, so to say, in
harmony with our double to the effect of salvation. We certainly,
as no Christian doubts, are dead both in soul and body: in soul,
because of sin; in body, because of the punishment of sin, and
through this also in body because of sin. And to both these parts
of ourselves, that is, both to soul and to body, there was need
both of a medicine and of resurrection, that what had been changed
for the worse might be renewed for the better. Now the death of the
soul is ungodliness, and the death of the body is corruptibility,
through which comes also a departure of the soul from the body. For
as the soul dies when God leaves it, so the body dies when the soul
leaves it; whereby the former becomes foolish, the latter lifeless.
For the soul is raised up again by repentance, and the renewing of
life is begun in the body still mortal by faith, by which men
believe on Him who justi
6. Therefore on this double death
of ours our Saviour bestowed His own single death; and to cause
both our resurrections, He appointed beforehand and set forth in
mystery and type His own one resurrection. For He was not a sinner
or ungodly, that, as though dead in spirit, He should need to be
renewed in the inner man, and to be recalled as it were to the life
of righteousness by repentance; but being clothed in mortal flesh,
and in that alone dying, in that alone rising again, in that alone
did He answer to both for us; since in it was wrought a mystery as
regards the inner man, and a type as regards the outer. For it was
in a mystery as regards our inner man, so as to signify the death
of our soul, that those words were uttered, not only in the Psalm,
but also on the cross: “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken
me?” Sapite Sapere
Chapter 4.—The Ratio of the Single to the Double Comes from the Perfection of the Senary Number. The Perfection of The Senary Number is Commended in the Scriptures. The Year Abounds in The Senary Number.
7. Now this ratio of the single to
the double arises, no doubt, from the ternary number, since one
added to two makes three; but the whole which these make reaches to
the senary, for one and two and three make six. And this number is
on that account called perfect, because it is completed in its own
parts: for it has these three, sixth, third, and half; nor is there
any other part found in it, which we can call an aliquot part. The
sixth part of it, then, is one; the third part, two; the half,
three. But one and two and three complete the same six. And Holy
Scripture commends to us the perfection of this number, especially
in this, that God finished His works in six days, and on the sixth
day man was made in the image of God.
8. A single year also, if the whole twelve months are taken into account, which are made up of thirty days each (for the month that has been kept from of old is that which the revolution of the moon determines), abounds in the number six. For that which six is, in the first order of numbers, which consists of units up to ten, that sixty is in the second order, which consists of tens up to a hundred. Sixty days, then, are a sixth part of the year. Further, if that which stands as the sixth of the second order is multiplied by the sixth of the first order, then we make six times sixty, i.e. three hundred and sixty days, which are the whole twelve months. But since, as the revolution of the moon determines the month for men, so the year is marked by the revolution of the sun; and five days and a quarter of a day remain, that the sun may fulfill its course and end the year; for four quarters make one day, which must be intercalated in every fourth year, which they call bissextile, that the order of time may not be disturbed: if we consider, also, these five days and a quarter themselves, the number six prevails in them. First, because, as it is usual to compute the whole from a part, we must not call it five days, but rather six, taking the quarter days for one day. Next, because five days themselves are the sixth part of a month; while the quarter of a day contains six hours. For the entire day, i.e. including its night, is twenty-four hours, of which the fourth part, which is a quarter of a day, is found to be six hours. So much in the course of the year does the sixth number prevail.
Chapter 5.—The Number Six is Also Commended in the Building Up of the Body of Christ and of the Temple at Jerusalem.
9. And not without reason is the
number six understood to be put for a year in the building up of
the body of the Lord, as a figure of which He said that He would
raise up in three days the temple destroyed by the Jews. For they
said, “Forty and six years was this temple in building.”
Chapter 6.—The Three Days of the Resurrection, in Which Also the Ratio of Single to Double is Apparent.
10. Scripture again witnesses that
the space of those three days themselves was not whole and entire,
but the first day is counted as a whole from its last part, and the
third day is itself also counted as a whole from its first part;
but the intervening day, i.e. the second day, was absolutely
a whole with its twenty-four hours, twelve of the day and twelve of
the night. For He was crucified first by the voices of the Jews in
the third hour, when it was the sixth day of the week. Then He hung
on the cross itself at the sixth hour, and yielded up His spirit at
the ninth hour.
Chapter 7.—In What Manner We are Gathered from Many into One Through One Mediator.
11. This mystery, this sacrifice, this priest, this God, before He was sent and came, being made of a woman—of Him, all those things which appeared to our fathers in a sacred and mystical way by angelical miracles, or which were done by the fathers themselves, were similitudes; in order that every creature by its acts might speak in some way of that One who was to be, in whom there was to be salvation in the recovery of all from death. For because by the wickedness of ungodliness we had recoiled and fallen away in discord from the one true and supreme God, and had in many things become vain, being distracted through many things and cleaving fast to many things; it was needful, by the decree and command of God in His mercy, that those same many things should join in proclaiming the One that should come, and that One should come so proclaimed by these many things, and that these many things should join in witnessing that this One had come; and that so, freed from the burden of these many things, we should come to that One, and dead as we were in our souls by many sins, and destined to die in the flesh on account of sin, that we should love that One who, without sin, died in the flesh for us; and by believing in Him now raised again, and by rising again with Him in the spirit through faith, that we should be justified by being made one in the one righteous One; and that we should not despair of our own resurrection in the flesh itself, when we consider that the one Head had gone before us the many members; in whom, being now cleansed through faith, and then renewed by sight, and through Him as mediator reconciled to God, we are to cleave to the One, to feast upon the One, to continue one.
Chapter 8.—In What Manner Christ Wills that All Shall Be One in Himself.
12. So the Son of God Himself, the
Word of God, Himself also the Mediator between God and men, the Son
of man,
Chapter 9.—The Same Argument Continued.
He did not say, I and they are one
thing; Unum Unum Unus Unum Unum
Chapter 10.—As Christ is the Mediator of Life, So the Devil is the Mediator of Death.
13. Therein is our true peace and
firm bond of union with our Creator, that we should be purified and
reconciled through the Mediator of life, as we had been polluted
and alienated, and so had departed from Him, through the mediator
of death. For as the devil through pride led man through pride to
death; so Christ through lowliness led back man through obedience
to life. Since, as the one fell through being lifted up, and cast
down [man] also who consented to him; so the other was raised up
through being abased, and lifted up [man] also who believed in Him.
For because the devil had not himself come thither whither he had
led the way (inasmuch as he bare indeed in his ungodliness the
death of the spirit, but had not undergone the death of the flesh,
because he had not assumed the covering of the flesh), he appeared
to man to be a mighty chief among the legions of devils, through
whom he exercises his reign of deceits; so puffing up man the more,
who is eager for power more than righteousness, through the pride
of elation, or through false philosophy; or else entangling him
through sacrilegious rites, in which, while casting down headlong
by deceit and illusion the minds of the more curious and prouder
sort, he holds him captive also to magical trickery; promising too
the cleansing of the soul, through those initiations which they
call τελεταί, by transforming himself into an angel of light,
Chapter 11.—Miracles Which are Done by Demons are to Be Spurned.
14. For it is easy for the most
worthless spirits to do many things by means of aerial bodies, such
as to cause wonder to souls which are weighed down by earthly
bodies, even though they be of the better inclined. For if earthly
bodies themselves, when trained by a certain skill and practice,
exhibit to men so great marvels in theatrical spectacles, that they
who never saw such things scarcely believe them when told; why
should it be hard for the devil and his angels to make out of
corporeal elements, through their own aerial bodies, things at
which the flesh marvels; or even by hidden inspirations to contrive
fantastic appearances to the deluding of men’s senses, whereby to
deceive them, whether awake or asleep, or to drive them into
frenzy? But just as it may happen that one who is better than they
in life and character may gaze at the most worthless of men, either
walking on a rope, or doing by various motions of the body many
things difficult of belief, and yet he may not at all desire to do
such things, nor think those men on that account to be preferred to
himself; so the faithful and pious soul, not only if it sees, but
even if on account of the frailty of the flesh it shudders at, the
miracles of demons; yet will not for that either deplore its own
want of power to do such things, or judge
Chapter 12.—The Devil the Mediator of Death, Christ of Life.
15. In no wise therefore are souls
cleansed and reconciled to God by sacrilegious imitations, or
curious arts that are impious, or magical incantations; since the
false mediator does not translate them to higher things, but rather
blocks and cuts off the way thither through the affections,
malignant in proportion as they are proud, which he inspires into
those of his own company; which are not able to nourish the wings
of virtues so as to fly upwards, but rather to heap up the weight
of vices so as to press downwards; since the soul will fall down
the more heavily, the more it seems to itself to have been carried
upwards. Accordingly, as the Magi did when warned of God,
Chapter 13.—The Death of Christ Voluntary. How the Mediator of Life Subdued the Mediator of Death. How the Devil Leads His Own to Despise the Death of Christ.
16. Wherefore, since the spirit is
to be preferred to the body, and the death of the spirit means that
God has left it, but the death of the body that the spirit has left
it; and since herein lies the punishment in the death of the body,
that the spirit leaves the body against its will, because it left
God willingly; so that, whereas the spirit left God because it
would, it leaves the body although it would not; nor leaves it when
it would, unless it has offered violence to itself, whereby the
body itself is slain: the spirit of the Mediator showed how it was
through no punishment of sin that He came to the death of the
flesh, because He did not leave it against His will, but because He
willed, when He willed, as He willed. For because He is so
commingled [with the flesh] by the Word of God as to be one, He
says: “I have power to lay down my life, and I have power to take
it again. No man taketh it from me, but I lay down my life that I
might take it again.”
17. Because that deceiver
then,—who was a mediator to death for man, and feignedly puts
himself forward as to life, under the name of cleansing by
sacrilegious rites and sacrifices, by which the proud are led
away,—can neither share in our death, nor rise again from his
own: he has indeed been able to apply his single death to our
double one; but he certainly has not been able to apply a single
resurrection, which should be at once a mystery of our renewal, and
a type of that waking up which is to be in the end. He then who
being alive in the spirit raised again His own flesh that was dead,
the true Mediator of life, has cast out him, who is dead in the
spirit and the mediator of death, from the spirits of those who
believe in Himself, so that he should not reign within, but should
assault from without, and yet not prevail. And to him, too, He
offered Himself to be tempted, in order that He might be also a
mediator to overcome his temptations, not only by succor, but also
by example. But when the devil, from the first, although striving
through every entrance to creep into His inward parts, was thrust
out, having finished all his alluring temptation in the wilderness
after the baptism;
18. Hence also the devil mocks
those who are his own until this very day, to whom he presents
himself as a false mediator, as though they would be cleansed or
rather entangled and drowned by his rites, in that he very
Chapter 14.—Christ the Most Perfect Victim for Cleansing Our Faults. In Every Sacrifice Four Things are to Be Considered.
19. They do not understand, that
not even the proudest of spirits themselves could rejoice in the
honor of sacrifices, unless a true sacrifice was due to the one
true God, in whose stead they desire to be worshipped: and that
this cannot be rightly offered except by a holy and righteous
priest; nor unless that which is offered be received from those for
whom it is offered; and unless also it be without fault, so that it
may be offered for cleansing the faulty. This at least all desire
who wish sacrifice to be offered for themselves to God. Who then is
so righteous and holy a priest as the only Son of God, who had no
need to purge His own sins by sacrifice,
Chapter 15.—They are Proud Who Think They are Able, by Their Own Righteousness, to Be Cleansed So as to See God.
20. There are, however, some who
think themselves capable of being cleansed by their own
righteousness, so as to contemplate God, and to dwell in God; whom
their very pride itself stains above all others. For there is
no [The wood of the cross is meant.
One of the ancient symbols of the church was a
ship.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 16.—The Old Philosophers are Not to Be Consulted Concerning the Resurrection and Concerning Things to Come.
21. These people also blame us for
believing the resurrection of the flesh, and rather wish us to
believe themselves concerning these things. As though, because they
have been able to understand the high and unchangeable substance by
the things which are made,
Chapter 17.—In How Many Ways Things Future are Foreknown. Neither Philosophers, Nor Those Who Were Distinguished Among the Ancients, are to Be Consulted Concerning the Resurrection of the Dead.
22.—although the name of
prophets, too, is not altogether foreign to their writings. But it
makes the greatest possible difference, whether things future are
conjectured by experience of things past (as physicians also have
committed many things to writing in the way of foresight, which
they themselves have noted by experience; or as again husbandmen,
or sailors, too, foretell many things; for if such predictions are
made a long while before, they are thought to be divinations), or
whether such things have already started on their road to come to
us, and being seen coming far off, are announced in proportion to
the acuteness of the sense of those who see them, by doing which
the aerial powers are thought to divine (just as if a person from
the top of a mountain were to see far off some one coming, and were
to announce it beforehand to those who dwelt close by in the
plain); or whether they are either fore-announced to certain men,
or are heard by them and again transmitted to other men, by means
of holy angels, to whom God shows those things by His Word and His
Wisdom, wherein both things future and things past consist: or
whether the minds of certain men themselves are so far borne
upwards by theHoly Spirit, as to behold, not through the angels,
but of themselves, the immoveable
23. Therefore, neither concerning
the successions of ages, nor concerning the resurrection of the
dead, ought we to consult those philosophers, who have understood
as much as they could the eternity of the Creator, in whom “we
live, and move, and have our being.”
Chapter 18.—The Son of God Became Incarnate in Order that We Being Cleansed by Faith May Be Raised to the Unchangeable Truth.
24. Since, then, we were not fit to
take hold of things eternal, and since the foulness of sins weighed
us down, which we had contracted by the love of temporal things,
and which were implanted in us as it were naturally, from the root
of mortality, it was needful that we should be cleansed. But
cleansed we could not be, so as to be tempered together with things
eternal, except it were through things temporal, wherewith we were
already tempered together and held fast. For health is at the
opposite extreme from disease; but the intermediate process of
healing does not lead us to perfect health, unless it has some
congruity with the disease. Things temporal that are useless merely
deceive the sick; things temporal that are useful take up those
that need healing, and pass them on healed, to things eternal. And
the rational mind, as when cleansed it owes contemplation to things
eternal; so, when needing cleansing, owes faith to things temporal.
One even of those who were formerly esteemed wise men among the
Greeks has said, The truth stands to faith in the same relation in
which eternity stands to that which has a beginning. And he is no
doubt right in saying so. For what we call temporal, he describes
as having had a beginning. And we also ourselves come under this
kind, not only in respect to the body, but also in respect to the
changeableness of the soul. For that is not properly called eternal
which undergoes any degree of change. Therefore, in so far as we
are changeable, in so far we stand apart from eternity. But life
eternal is promised to us through the truth, from the clear
knowledge of which, again, our faith stands as far apart as
mortality does from eternity. We then now put faith in things done
in time on our account, and by that faith itself we are cleansed;
in order that when we have come to sight, as truth follows faith,
so eternity may follow upon mortality. And therefore, since our
faith will become truth, when we have attained to that which is
promised to us who believe: and that which is promised us is
eternal life; and the Truth (not that which shall come to be
according as our faith shall be, but that truth which is always,
because in it is eternity,—the Truth then) has said, “And this
is life eternal, that Ortus.
Chapter 19.—In What Manner the Son Was Sent and Proclaimed Beforehand. How in the Sending of His Birth in the Flesh He Was Made Less Without Detriment to His Equality with the Father.
25. Behold, then, why the Son of God was sent; nay, rather behold what it is for the Son of God to be sent. Whatever things they were which were wrought in time, with a view to produce faith, whereby we might be cleansed so as to contemplate truth, in things that have a beginning, which have been put forth from eternity, and are referred back to eternity: these were either testimonies of this mission, or they were the mission itself of the Son of God. But some of these testimonies announced Him beforehand as to come, some testified that He had come already. For that He was made a creature by whom the whole creation was made, must needs find a witness in the whole creation. For except one were preached by the sending of many [witnesses] one would not be bound to, the sending away of many. And unless there were such testimonies as should seem to be great to those who are lowly, it would not be believed, that He being great should make men great, who as lowly was sent to the lowly. For the heaven and the earth and all things in them are incomparably greater works of the Son of God, since all things were made by Him, than the signs and the portents which broke forth in testimony of Him. But yet men, in order that, being lowly, they might believe these great things to have been wrought by Him, trembled at those lowly things, as if they had been great.
26. “When, therefore, the
fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son, made of a woman,
made under the Law;”
Chapter 20.—The Sender and the Sent Equal. Why the Son is Said to Be Sent by the Father. Of the Mission of the Holy Spirit. How and by Whom He Was Sent. The Father the Beginning of the Whole Godhead.
27. But if the Son is said to be
sent by the Father on this account, that the one is the Father, and
the other the Son, this does not in any manner hinder us from
believing the Son to be equal, and consubstantial, and co-eternal
with the Father, and yet to have been sent as Son by the Father.
Not because the one is greater, the other less; but because the one
is Father, the other Son; the one begetter, the other begotten; the
one, He from whom He is who is sent; the other, He who is from Him
who sends. For the Son is from the Father, not the Father from the
Son. And according to this manner we can now understand that the
Son is not only said to have been sent because “the Word was made
flesh,” [The allusion is to the Wisdom of
Proverbs, and of the Book of Wisdom which Augustin regards as
canonical, as his frequent citations show.—W.G.T.S.] Quod, scil.
sacramentum
28. Therefore the Word of God is
sent by Him, of whom He is the Word; He is sent by Him, from whom
He was begotten (genitum); He sends who begot, That is sent
which is begotten. And He is then sent to each one, when He is
apprehended and perceived by each, in so far as He can be
apprehended and perceived, in proportion to the comprehension of
the rational soul, either advancing towards God, or already perfect
in God. The Son, therefore, is not properly said to have been sent
in that He is begotten of the Father; but either in that the Word
made flesh appeared to the world, whence He says, “I came forth
from the Father, and am come into the world;”
29. As, therefore, the Father
begat, the Son is begotten; so the Father sent, the Son was sent.
But in like manner as He who begat and He who was begotten, so both
He who sent and He who was sent, are one, since the Father and the
Son are one. [Augustin here, as in previous
instances, affirms the procession of the Spirit from the Father and
Son.—W.G.T.S.] [The term “beginning” is
employed “relatively, and not according to substance,” as
Augustin says. The Father is “the beginning of the whole
deity,” with reference to the personal distinctions of Father,
Son, and Spirit—the Son being from the Father, and the Spirit
from Father and Son. The trinitarian relations or modes of the
essence, “begin” with the first person, not the second or the
third. The phrase “whole deity,” in the above statement, is put
for “trinity,” not for “essence.” Augustin would not say
that the Father is the “beginning” (principium) of the
divine essence considered abstractly, but only of the essence as
trinal. In this sense, Trinitarian writers denominate the
Father “fons trinitatis,” and sometimes “fons
deitatis.” Turrettin employs this latter phraseology (iii.
xxx. i. 8); so does Owen (Communion with Trinity, Ch. iii.);
and Hooker (Polity, v. liv.). But in this case, the guarding
clause of Turretin is to be subjoined: “fons deitatis, si
modus subsistendi spectatur.” The phrase “fons
trinitatis,” or “principium trinitatis,” is less
liable to be misconceived, and more accurate than “fons
deitatis,” or “principum
deitatis.”—W.G.T.S.]
30. Therefore man was united, and in some sense commingled, with the Word of God, so as to be One Person, when the fullness of time was come, and the Son of God, made of a woman, was sent into this world, that He might be also the Son of man for the sake of the sons of men. And this person angelic nature could prefigure beforehand, so as to pre-announce, but could not appropriate, so as to be that person itself.
Chapter 21.—Of the Sensible Showing of the Holy Spirit, and of the Coeternity of the Trinity. What Has Been Said, and What Remains to Be Said.
But with respect to the sensible
showing of the Holy Spirit, whether by the shape of a dove,
31. If then I am asked, in what manner either words or sensible forms and appearances were wrought before the incarnation of the Word of God, which should prefigure it as about to come, I reply that God wrought those things by the angels; and this I have also shown sufficiently, as I think, by testimonies of the Holy Scriptures. And if I am asked how the incarnation itself was brought to pass, I reply that the Word of God itself was made flesh, that is, was made man, yet not turned and changed into that which was made; but so made, that there should be there not only the Word of God and the flesh of man, but also the rational soul of man, and that this whole should both be called God on account of God, and man on account of man. And if this is understood with difficulty, the mind must be purged by faith, by more and more abstaining from sins, and by doing good works, and by praying with the groaning of holy desires; that by profiting through the divine help, it may both understand and love. And if I am asked, how, after the incarnation of the Word, either a voice of the Father was produced, or a corporeal appearance by which the Holy Spirit was manifested: I do not doubt indeed that this was done through the creature; but whether only corporeal and sensible, or whether by the employment also of the spirit rational or intellectual (for this is the term by which some choose to call what the Greeks name νοερόν), not certainly so as to form one person (for who could possibly say that whatever creature it was by which the voice of the Father sounded, is in such sense God the Father; or whatever creature it was by which the Holy Spirit was manifested in the form of a dove, or in fiery tongues, is in such sense the Holy Spirit, as the Son of God is that man who was made of a virgin?), but only to the ministry of bringing about such intimations as God judged needful; or whether anything else is to be understood: is difficult to discover, and not expedient rashly to affirm. Yet I see not how those things could have been brought to pass without the rational or intellectual creature. But it is not yet the proper place to explain, as the Lord may give me strength, why I so think; for the arguments of heretics must first be discussed and refuted, which they do not produce from the divine books, but from their own reasons, and by which, as they think, they forcibly compel us so to understand the testimonies of the Scriptures which treat of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, as they themselves will.
32. But now, as I think, it has
been sufficiently shown, that the Son is not therefore less because
He is sent by the Father, nor the Holy Spirit less because both the
Father sent Him and the Son. For these things are perceived to be
laid down in the Scriptures, either on account of the visible
creature; or rather on account of commending to our thoughts the
emanation [within the Godhead]; [The original is: “propter
principii commendationem,” which the English translator
renders “On account of commending to our thoughts the principle
[of the Godhead].” The technical use of “principium” is
missed. Augustin says that the phrases, “sending the Son,” and
“sending the Spirit,” have reference to the “visible
creature” through which in the theophanies each was manifested;
but still more, to the fact that the Father is the “beginning”
of the Son, and the Father and Son are the “beginning” of the
Spirit. This fact of a “beginning,” or emanation
(manatio) of one from another, is what is commended to our
thoughts.—W.G.T.S.]
Book V.
————————————
Proceeds to treat of the arguments put forward by the heretics, not from Scripture, but from their own reason. Those are refuted, who think the substance of the Father and of the Son to be not the same, because everything predicated of God is, in their opinion, predicated of Him according to substance; and therefore it follows, that to beget and to be begotten, or to be begotten and unbegotten, being diverse, are diverse substances; whereas it is here demonstrated that not everything predicated of God is predicated according to substance, in such manner as He is called good and great according to substance, or anything else that is predicated of Him in respect to Himself; but that some things are also predicated of Him relatively, i.e. not in respect to Himself, but to something not Himself, as He is called Father in respect to the Son, and Lord in respect to the creature that serveth Him; in which case, if anything thus predicated relatively, i.e. in respect to something not Himself, is even predicated as happening in time, as e.g. “Lord, thou hast become our refuge,” yet nothing happens to God so as to work a change in Him, but He Himself remains absolutely unchangeable in His own nature or essence.
Chapter 1.—What the Author Entreats from God, What from the Reader. In God Nothing is to Be Thought Corporeal or Changeable.
1.
Beginning, as I now do henceforward, to
speak of subjects which cannot altogether be spoken as they are
thought, either by any man, or, at any rate, not by myself;
although even our very thought, when we think of God the Trinity,
falls (as we feel) very far short of Him of whom we think, nor
comprehends Him as He is; but He is seen, as it is written, even by
those who are so great as was the Apostle Paul, “through a glass
and in an enigma:”
2. And we shall mutually pardon one
another the more easily, if we know, or at any rate firmly believe
and hold, that whatever is said of a nature, unchangeable,
invisible and having life absolutely and sufficient to itself, must
not be measured after the custom of things visible, and changeable,
and mortal, or not self-sufficient. But although we labor, and yet
fail, to grasp and know even those things which are within the
scope of our corporeal senses, or what we are ourselves in the
inner man; yet it is with no shamelessness that faithful piety
burns after those divine and unspeakable things which are above:
piety, I say, not inflated by the arrogance of its own power, but
inflamed by the grace of
Chapter 2.—God the Only Unchangeable Essence.
3. He is, however, without doubt, a
substance, or, if it be better so to call it, an essence, which the
Greeks call
οὐσία. For as wisdom is so
called from the being wise, and knowledge from knowing; so from
being Esse
Chapter 3.—The Argument of the Arians is Refuted, Which is Drawn from the Words Begotten and Unbegotten.
4. Wherefore,—to being now to
answer the adversaries of our faith, respecting those things also,
which are neither said as they are thought, nor thought as they
really are:—among the many things which the Arians are wont to
dispute against the Catholic faith, they seem chiefly to set forth
this, as their most crafty device, namely, that whatsoever is said
or understood of God, is said not according to accident, but
according to substance, and therefore, to be unbegotten belongs to
the Father according to substance, and to be begotten belongs to
the Son according to substance; but to be unbegotten and to be
begotten are different; therefore the substance of the Father and
that of the Son are different. To whom we reply, If whatever is
spoken of God is spoken according to substance, then that which is
said, “I and the Father are one,”
Chapter 4.—The Accidental Always Implies Some Change in the Thing.
5. That which is accidental
commonly implies that it can be lost by some change of the thing to
which it is an accident. For although some accidents are said to be
inseparable, which in Greek are called
ἀχώριστα, as the color black
is to the feather of a raven;
Chapter 5.—Nothing is Spoken of God According to Accident, But According to Substance or According to Relation.
6. Wherefore nothing in Him is said
in respect to accident, since nothing is accidental to Him, and yet
all that is said is not said according to substance. For in created
and changeable things, that which is not said according to
substance, must, by necessary alternative, be said according to
accident. For all things are accidents to them, which can be either
lost or diminished, whether magnitudes or qualities; and so also is
that which is said in relation to something, as friendships,
relationships, services, likenesses, equalities, and anything else
of the kind; so also positions and conditions, Habitus
Chapter 6.—Reply is Made to the Cavils of the Heretics in Respect to the Same Words Begotten and Unbegotten.
7. But if they think they can
answer this reasoning thus,—that the Father indeed is so called
in relation to the Son, and the Son in relation to the Father, but
that they are said to be unbegotten and begotten in relation to
themselves, not in relation each to the other; for that it is not
the same thing to call Him unbegotten as it is to call Him the
Father, because there would be nothing to hinder our calling Him
unbegotten even if He had not begotten the Son; and if any one
beget a son, he is not therefore himself unbegotten, for men, who
are begotten by other men, themselves also beget others; and
therefore they say the Father is called Father in relation to the
Son, and the Son is called Son in relation to the Father, but
unbegotten is said in relation to Himself, and begotten in relation
to Himself; and therefore, if whatever is said in relation to
oneself is said according to sub
Chapter 7.—The Addition of a Negative Does Not Change the Predicament.
8. This is to be made clear by
examples. And first we must notice, that by the word begotten is
signified the same thing as is signified by the word son. For
therefore a son, because begotten, and because a son, therefore
certainly begotten. By the word unbegotten, therefore, it is
declared that he is not son. But begotten and unbegotten are both
of them terms suitably employed; whereas in Latin we can use the
word “filius,” but the custom of the language does not allow us
to speak of “infilius.” It makes no difference, however, in the
meaning if he is called “non filius;” just as it is precisely
the same thing if he is called “non genitus,” instead of
“ingenitus.” For so the terms of both neighbor and friend are
used relatively, yet we cannot speak of “invicinus” as we can
of “inimicus.” Wherefore, in speaking of this thing or that, we
must not consider what the usage of our own language either allows
or does not allow, but what clearly appears to be the meaning of
the things themselves. Let us not therefore any longer call it
unbegotten, although it can be so called in Latin; but instead of
this let us call it not begotten, which means the same. Is this
then anything else than saying that he is not a son? Now the
prefixing of that negative particle does not make that to be said
according to substance, which, without it, is said relatively; but
that only is denied, which, without it, was affirmed, as in the
other predicaments. When we say he is a man, we denote substance.
He therefore who says he is not a man, enunciates no other kind of
predicament, but only denies that. As therefore I affirm according
to substance in saying he is a man, so I deny according to
substance in saying he is not a man. And when the question is asked
how large he is? and I say he is quadrupedal, that is, four feet in
measure, Habitus The terms “unbegotten” and
“begotten” are interchangeable with the terms Father and Son.
This follows from the relation of a substantive to its adjective.
In whatever sense a substantive is employed, in the same sense must
the adjective formed from it be employed. Consequently, if the
first person of the Trinity may be called Father in a sense that
implies deity, he may be called Unbegotten in the same sense. And
if the second person may be called Son in a sense implying deity,
he may be called Begotten in the same sense. The Ancient church
often employed the adjective, and spoke of God the Unbegotten and
God the Begotten (Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 25, 53; ii. 12,
13. Clem. Alex. Stromata v. xii.). This phraseology sounds
strange to the Modern church, yet the latter really says the same
thing when it speaks of God the Father, and God the
Son.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 8.—Whatever is Spoken of God According to Substance, is Spoken of Each Person Severally, and Together of the Trinity Itself. One Essence in God, and Three, in Greek, Hypostases, in Latin, Persons.
9. Wherefore let us hold this above
all, that whatsoever is said of that most eminent and divine
loftiness in respect to itself, is said in respect to substance,
but that which is said in relation to anything, is not said in
respect to substance, but relatively; and that the effect of the
same substance in Father and Son and Holy Spirit is, that
whatsoever is said of each in respect to themselves, is to be taken
of them, not in the plural in sum, but in the singular. For as the
Father is God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God,
which no one doubts to be said in respect to substance, yet we do
not say that the very Supreme Trinity itself is three Gods, but one
God. So the Father is great, the Son great, and the Holy Spirit
great; yet not three greats, but one great. For it is not written
of the Father alone, as they perversely suppose, but of the Father
and the Son and the Holy Spirit, “Thou art great: Thou art God
alone.” [This phraseology appears in the
analytical statements of the so-called Athanasian creed (cap.
11–16), and affords ground for the opinion that this symbol is a
Western one, originating in the school of
Augustin.—W.G.T.S.]
10. They indeed use also the word
hypostasis; but they intend to put a difference, I know not what,
between οὐσία and hypostasis: so that most of ourselves who treat
these things in the Greek language, are accustomed to say,
μίαν οὐσίαν,
τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις
or in Latin, one essence, three substances. [It is remarkable that Augustin, understanding
thoroughly the distinction between essence and person, should not
have known the difference between οὐσία and
ὑπόστασις. It
would seem as if his only moderate acquaintance with the Greek
language would have been more than compensated by his profound
trinitarian knowledge. In respect to the
term “substantia”—when it was discriminated from
“essentia,” as it is here by Augustin—it corresponds
to ὑπόστασις, of
which it is the translation. In this case, God is one essence in
three substances. But when “substantia” was identified
with “essentia,” then to say that God is one essence in
three substances would be a self-contradiction. The identification
of the two terms led subsequently to the coinage, in the mediæval
Latin, of the term “subsistantia,” to denote
ὑπόστασις.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 9.—The Three Persons Not Properly So Called [in a Human Sense].
But because with us the usage has
already obtained, that by essence we understand the same thing
which is understood by substance; we do not dare to say one
essence, three substances, but one essence or substance and three
persons: as many writers in Latin, who treat of these things, and
are of authority, have said, in that they could not find any other
more suitable way by which to enunciate in words that which they
understood without words. For, in truth, as the Father is not the
Son, and the Son is not the Father, and that Holy Spirit who is
also called the gift of God is neither the Father nor the Son,
certainly they are three. And so it is said plurally, “I and my
Father are one.”
Chapter 10.—Those Things Which Belong Absolutely to God as an Essence, are Spoken of the Trinity in the Singular, Not in the Plural.
11. As, therefore, we do not say
three essences, so we do not say three greatnesses, or three who
are great. For in things which are great by partaking of greatness,
to which it is one thing to be, and another to be
great, as a great house, and a great mountain, and a great
mind; in these things, I say, greatness is one thing, and that
which is great because of greatness is another, and a great house,
certainly, is not absolute greatness itself. But that is absolute
greatness by which not only a great house is great, and any great
mountain is great, but also by which every other thing whatsoever
is great, which is called great; so that greatness itself is one
thing, and those things are another which are called great from it.
And this greatness certainly is primarily great, and in a much more
excellent way than those things which are great by partaking of it.
But since God is not great with that greatness which is not
Himself, so that God, in being great, is, as it were, partaker of
that greatness;—otherwise that will be a greatness greater than
God, whereas there is nothing greater than God; therefore, He is
great with that greatness by which He Himself is that same
greatness. And, therefore, as we do not say three essences, so
neither do we say three greatnesses; for it is the same thing to
God to be, and to be great. For the same reason neither
Chapter 11.—What is Said Relatively in the Trinity.
12. But whereas, in the same
Trinity, some things severally are specially predicated, these are
in no way said in reference to themselves in themselves, but either
in mutual reference, or in respect to the creature; and, therefore,
it is manifest that such things are spoken relatively, not in the
way of substance. For the Trinity is called one God, great, good,
eternal, omnipotent; and the same God Himself may be called His own
deity, His own magnitude, His own goodness, His own eternity, His
own omnipotence: but the Trinity cannot in the same way be called
the Father, except perhaps metaphorically, in respect to the
creature, on account of the adoption of sons. For that which is
written, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one Lord,” [The reason which Augustin here assigns, why the name
Holy Spirit is given to the third person—namely, because
spirituality is a characteristic of both the Father and Son, from
both of whom he proceeds—is not that assigned in the more
developed trinitarianism. The explanation in this latter is, that
the third person is denominated the Spirit because of the peculiar
manner in which the divine essence is communicated to
him—namely, by spiration or out-breathing: spiritus
quia spiratus. This is supported by the etymological
signification of
πνεῦμα, which is breath; and
by the symbolical action of Christ in
And the epithet
“Holy” is similarly explained. The third person is the Holy
Spirit, not because he is any more holy than the first and second,
but because he is the source and author of holiness
in all created spirits. This is eminently and officially his work.
In this way also, the epithet “Holy”—which in its ordinary
use would specify nothing peculiar to the third person,—mentions
a characteristic that differentiates him from the Father and
Son.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 12.—In Relative Things that are Reciprocal, Names are Sometimes Wanting.
13. Neither ought it to influence
us—since we have said that the Holy Spirit is so called
relatively, not the Trinity itself, but He who is in the
Trinity—that the designation of Him to whom He is referred, does
not seem to answer in turn to His designation. For we cannot, as we
say the servant of a master, and the master of a servant, the son
of a father and the father of a son, so also say here—because
these things are said relatively. For we speak of the Holy Spirit
of the Father; but, on the other hand, we do not speak of the
Father of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit should be
understood to be His Son. So also we speak of the Holy Spirit of
the Son; but we do not speak of the Son of the
Chapter 13.—How the Word Beginning (Principium) is Spoken Relatively in the Trinity.
14. The Father is called so,
therefore, relatively, and He is also relatively said to be the
Beginning, and whatever else there may be of the kind; but He is
called the Father in relation to the Son, the Beginning in relation
to all things, which are from Him. So the Son is relatively so
called; He is called also relatively the Word and the Image. And in
all these appellations He is referred to the Father, but the Father
is called by none of them. And the Son is also called the
Beginning; for when it was said to Him, “Who art Thou?” He
replied, “Even the Beginning, who also speak to you.”
Chapter 14.—The Father and the Son the Only Beginning (Principium) of the Holy Spirit.
15. But in their mutual relation to
one another in the Trinity itself, if the begetter is a beginning
in relation to that which he begets, the Father is a beginning in
relation to the Son, because He begets Him; but whether the Father
is also a beginning in relation to the Holy Spirit, since it is
said, “He proceeds from the Father,” is no small question.
Because, if it is so, He will not only be a beginning to that thing
which He begets or makes, but also to that which He gives. And
here, too, that question comes to light, as it can, which is wont
to trouble many, Why the Holy Spirit is not also a son, since He,
too, comes forth from the Father, as it is read in the Gospel. [The term “beginning” (principium), when
referring to the relation of the Trinity, or of any person of the
Trinity, to the creature, denotes creative energy, whereby a
new substance is originated from nothing. This is the reference in
chapter 13. But when the term refers to the relations of the
persons of the Trinity to each other, it denotes only a
modifying energy, whereby an existing uncreated substance is
communicated by generation and spiration. This is the reference in
chapter 14. When it is said that
the Father is the “beginning” of the Son, and the Father and
Son are the “beginning” of the Spirit, it is not meant that the
substance of the Son is created ex nihilo by the Father, and
the substance of the Spirit is created by the Father and Son, but
only that the Son by eternal generation receives from the Father
the one uncreated and undivided substance of the Godhead, and the
Spirit by eternal spiration receives the same numerical substance
from the Father and Son. The term “beginning” relates not to
the essence, but to the personal peculiarity. Sonship originates in
fatherhood; but deity is unoriginated. The Son as the second person
“begins” from the Father, because the Father communicates the
essence to him. His sonship, not his deity or godhood, “begins”
from the Father. And the same holds true of the term
“beginning” as applied to the Holy Spirit. The “procession”
of the Holy Spirit “begins” by spiration from the Father and
Son, but not his deity or godhood.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 15.—Whether the Holy Spirit Was a Gift Before as Well as After He Was Given.
16. But it is asked further, whether, as the Son, by being born, has not only this, that He is the Son, but that He is absolutely; and so also the Holy Spirit, by being given, has not only this, that He is given, but that He is absolutely—whether therefore He was, before He was given, but was not yet a gift; or whether, for the very reason that God was about to give Him, He was already a gift also before He was given. But if He does not proceed unless when He is given, and assuredly could not proceed before there was one to whom He might be given; how, in that case, was He [absolutely] in His very substance, if He is not unless because He is given? just as the Son, by being born, not only has this, that He is a Son, which is said relatively, but His very substance absolutely, so that He is. Does the Holy Spirit proceed always, and proceed not in time, but from eternity, but because He so proceeded that He was capable of being given, was already a gift even before there was one to whom He might be given? For there is a difference in meaning between a gift and a thing that has been given. For a gift may exist even before it is given; but it cannot be called a thing that has been given unless it has been given.
Chapter 16.—What is Said of God in Time, is Said Relatively, Not Accidentally.
17. Nor let it trouble us that the
Holy Spirit, although He is co-eternal with the Father and the Son,
yet is called something which exists in time; as, for instance,
this very thing which we have called Him, a thing that has been
given. For the Spirit is a gift eternally, but a thing that has
been given in time. For if a lord also is not so called unless when
he begins to have a slave, that appellation likewise is relative
and in time to God; for the creature is not from all eternity, of
which He is the Lord. How then shall we make it good that relative
terms themselves are not accidental, since nothing happens
accidentally to God in time, because He is incapable of change, as
we have argued in the beginning of this discussion? Behold! to be
the Lord, is not eternal to God; otherwise we should be compelled
to say that the creature also is from eternity, since He would not
be a lord from all eternity unless the creature also was a servant
from all eternity. But as he cannot be a slave who has not a lord,
neither can he be a lord who has not a slave. And if there be any
one who says that God, indeed, is alone eternal, and that times
are [“Matter” denotes the material
as created ex nihilo: “nature” the material as formed
into individuals. In this reference, Augustin speaks of “the
nature of the soul” of the people of Israel as existing while
“as yet that people existed not” individually— having in mind
their race-existence in Adam.—W.G.T.S.]
Book VI.
————————————
The question is proposed, how the apostle calls Christ “the power of God, and the wisdom of God.” And an argument is raised, whether the Father is not wisdom Himself, but only the Father of wisdom; or whether Wisdom begat Wisdom. But the answer to this is deferred for a little, while the unity and equality of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, are proved; and that we ought to believe in a Trinity, not in a threefold (triplicem) god. Lastly, that saying of Hilary is explained, eternity in the Father, appearance in the image, use in the gift.
Chapter 1.—The Son, According to the Apostle, is the Power and Wisdom of the Father. Hence the Reasoning of the Catholics Against the Earlier Arians. A Difficulty is Raised, Whether the Father is Not Wisdom Himself, But Only the Father of Wisdom.
1.
Somethink themselves hindered from
admitting the equality of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, because
it is written, “Christ, the power of God, and the wisdom of
God;” in that, on this ground, there does not appear to be
equality; because the Father is not Himself power and wisdom, but
the begetter of power and wisdom. And, in truth, the question is
usually asked with no common earnestness, in what way God can be
called the Father of power and wisdom. For the apostle says,
“Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”
2. Now this argument compels us to
say that God the Father is not wise, except by having the wisdom
which He begat, not by the Father in Himself being wisdom itself.
Further, if it be so, just as the Son also Himself is called God of
God, Light of Light, we must consider whether He can be called
wisdom of wisdom, if God the Father is not wisdom itself, but only
the begetter of wisdom. And if we hold this, why is He not the
begetter also of His own greatness, and of His own goodness, and of
His own eternity, and of His own omnipotence; so that He is not
Himself His own greatness, and His own goodness, and His own
eternity, and His own omnipotence; but is great with that greatness
which He begat, and good with that goodness, and eternal with that
eternity, and omnipotent with that omnipotence, which was born of
Him; just as He Himself is not His own wisdom, but is wise with
that wisdom which was born of Him? For we need not be afraid of
being compelled to say
Chapter 2 .—What is Said of the Father and Son Together, and What Not.
3. But if nothing is spoken of the
Father as such, except that which is spoken of Him in relation to
the Son, that is, that He is His father, or begetter, or beginning;
and if also the begetter is by consequence a beginning to that
which he begets of himself; but whatever else is spoken of Him is
so spoken as with the Son, or rather in the Son;
whether that He is great with that greatness which He begat, or
just with that justice which He begat, or good with that goodness
which He begat, or powerful with that force or power which He
begat, or wise with that wisdom which He begat: yet the Father is
not said to be greatness itself, but the begetter of greatness; but
the Son, as He is called the Son as such, is not so called
with the Father but in relation to the Father, so is not
great in and by himself, but with the Father, of whom He is
the greatness; and so also is called wise with the Father,
of whom He Himself is the wisdom; just as the Father is called wise
with the Son, because He is wise with that wisdom which He
begat; therefore the one is not called without the other, whatever
they are called in respect to themselves; that is, whatever they
are called that manifests their essential nature, both are so
called together;—if these things are so, then the Father is not
God without the Son, nor the Son God without the Father, but both
together are God. And that which is said, “In the beginning was
the Word,” means that the Word was in the Father. Or if “In the
beginning” is intended to mean, Before all things; then in that
which follows, “And the Word was with God,” the Son alone is
understood to be the Word, not the Father and Son together, as
though both were one Word (for He is the Word in the same way as He
is the Image, but the Father and Son are not both together the
Image, but the Son alone is the Image of the Father: just as He is
also the Son of the Father, for both together are not the Son). But
in that which is added, “And the Word was with God,” there is
much reason to understand thus: “The Word,” which is the Son
alone, “was with God,” which is not the Father alone, but God
the Father and the Son together. [The term “God,” in the
proposition, “the Word was with God,” must refer to the Father,
not to “the Father and Son together,” because the Son could not
be said to be “with” himself. St. John says that “the word
was God” (θεὸς). The
absence of the article with
θεὸς denotes the abstract
deity, or the divine nature without reference to the persons in it.
He also says that “the Word was with God” (τὸν
θεὸν). The presence of the
article in this instance denotes one of the divine persons in the
essence: namely, the Father, with whom the Word was from eternity,
and upon whose “bosom” he was from eternity. (
Chapter 3.—That the Unity of the Essence of the Father and the Son is to Be Gathered from the Words, “We are One.” The Son is Equal to the Father Both in Wisdom and in All Other Things.
4. And I know not whether the
words, “They are one,” are ever found in Scripture as spoken of
things of which the nature is different. But if there are more
things than one of the same nature, and they differ in sentiment,
they are not one, and that so far as they differ in sentiment. For
if the disciples were already one by the fact of being men, He
would not say, “That they may be one, as we are one,”
5. Whence then is the Father
greater? For if greater, He is greater by greatness; but whereas
the Son is His greatness, neither assuredly is the Son greater than
He who begat Him, nor is the Father greater than that greatness,
whereby He is great; therefore they are equal. For whence is He
equal, if not in that which He is, to whom it is not one thing to
be, and another to be great? Or if the Father is greater in
eternity, the Son is not equal in anything whatsoever. For whence
equal? If you say in greatness, that greatness is not equal which
is less eternal, and so of all things else. Or is He perhaps equal
in power, but not equal in wisdom? But how is that power which is
less wise, equal? Or is He equal in wisdom, but not equal in power?
But how is that wisdom equal which is less powerful? It remains,
therefore, that if He is not equal in anything, He is not equal in
all. But Scripture proclaims, that “He thought it not robbery to
be equal with God.”
Chapter 4.—The Same Argument Continued.
6. For in like manner the virtues
which are in the human mind, although each has its own several and
different meaning, yet are in no way mutually separable; so that,
for instance, whosoever were equal in courage, are equal also in
prudence, and temperance, and justice. For if you say that such and
such men are equal in courage, but that one of them is greater in
prudence, it follows that the courage of the other is less prudent,
and so neither are they equal in courage, since the courage of the
former is more prudent. And so you will find it to be the case with
the other virtues, if you consider them one by one. For the
question is not of the strength of the body, but of the courage
of
Chapter 5.—The Holy Spirit Also is Equal to the Father and the Son in All Things.
7. Wherefore also the Holy Spirit
consists in the same unity of substance, and in the same equality.
For whether He is the unity of both, or the holiness, or the love,
or therefore the unity because the love, and therefore the love
because the holiness, it is manifest that He is not one of the two,
through whom the two are joined, through whom the Begotten is loved
by the Begetter, and loves Him that begat Him, and through whom,
not by participation, but by their own essence, neither by the gift
of any superior, but by their own, they are “keeping the unity of
the Spirit in the bond of peace;”
Chapter 6.—How God is a Substance Both Simple and Manifold.
8. But if it is asked how that
substance is both simple and manifold: consider, first, why the
creature is manifold, but in no way really simple. And first, all
that is body is composed certainly of parts; so that therein one
part is greater, another less, and the whole is greater than any
part whatever or how great soever. For the heaven and the earth are
parts of the whole bulk of the world; and the earth alone, and the
heaven alone, is composed of innumerable parts; and its third part
is less than the remainder, and the half of it is less than the
whole; and the whole body of the world, which is usually
Chapter 7.—God is a Trinity, But Not Triple (Triplex).
But God is truly called in manifold ways, great, good, wise, blessed, true, and whatsoever other thing seems to be said of Him not unworthily: but His greatness is the same as His wisdom; for He is not great by bulk, but by power; and His goodness is the same as His wisdom and greatness, and His truth the same as all those things; and in Him it is not one thing to be blessed, and another to be great, or wise, or true, or good, or in a word to be Himself.
9. Neither, since He is a Trinity,
is He therefore to be thought triple (triplex) [The Divine Unity is trinal, not
triple. The triple is composed of three different substances. It
has parts, and is complex. The trinal is without parts, and is
incomplex. It denotes one simple substance in three modes or forms.
“We may speak of the trinal, but not of the triple deity.”
Hollaz, in Hase’s Hutterus, 172.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 8.—No Addition Can Be Made to the Nature of God.
Since, therefore, the Father alone,
or the Son alone, or the Holy Spirit alone, is as great as is the
Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit together, [Each trinitarian person is as
great as the Trinity, if reference be had to the essence, but not
if reference be had to the persons. Each person has the entire
essence, and the Trinity has the entire essence. But each person
has the essence with only one personal characteristic; while the
Trinity has the essence with all three personal characteristics. No
trinitarian person is as comprehensive as the triune Godhead,
because he does not possess the two personal characteristics
belonging to the other two persons. The Father is God, but he is
not God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.—W.G.T.S.] [The addition of finite numbers,
however great, to an infinite number, does not increase the
infinite. Similarly, any addition of finite being to the Infinite
Being is no increase. God plus the universe is no larger an
infinite than God minus the universe. The creation of the universe
adds nothing to the infinite being and attributes of God. To add
contingent being to necessary being, does not make the latter any
more necessary. To add imperfect being to perfect being, does not
make the latter more perfect. To add finite knowledge to infinite
knowledge, does not produce a greater amount of knowledge. This
truth has been overlooked by Hamilton, Mansell, and others, in the
argument against the personality of the Infinite, in which the
Infinite is confounded with the All, and which assumes that the All
is greater than the Infinite—in other words, that God plus the
universe is greater than God minus the
universe.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 9.—Whether One or the Three Persons Together are Called the Only God.
10. And since we are showing how we
can say the Father alone, because there is no Father in the Godhead
except Himself, we must consider also the opinion which holds that
the only true God is not the Father alone, but the Father and the
Son and the Holy Spirit. For if any one should ask whether the
Father alone is God, how can it be replied that He is not, unless
perhaps we were to say that the Father indeed is God, but that He
is not God alone, but that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are God
alone? But then what shall we do with that testimony of the Lord?
For He was speaking to the Father, and had named the Father as Him
to whom He was speaking, when He says, “And this is life eternal,
that they may know Thee the one true God.”
Chapter 10.—Of the Attributes Assigned by Hilary to Each Person. The Trinity is Represented in Things that are Made.
11. A certain writer, when he would
briefly intimate the special attributes of each of the persons in
the Trinity, tells us that “Eternity is in the Father, form in
the Image, use in the Gift.” And since he was a man of no mean
authority in handling the Scriptures, and in the assertion of the
faith, for it is Hilary who put this in his book (On the
Trinity, ii.); I have searched into the hidden meaning of these
words as far as I can, that is, of the Father, and the Image, and
the Gift, of eternity, and of form, and of use. And I do not think
that he intended more by the word eter
12. Therefore all these things
which are made by divine skill, show in themselves a certain unity,
and form, and order; for each of them is both some one thing, as
are the several natures of bodies and dispositions of souls; and is
fashioned in some form, as are the figures or qualities of bodies,
and the various learning or skill of souls; and seeks or preserves
a certain order, as are the several weights or combinations of
bodies and the loves or delights of souls. When therefore we regard
the Creator, who is understood by the things that are made
Book VII.
————————————
The question is explained, which had been deferred in the previous book, viz. that God the Father, who begat the Son, His power and wisdom, is not only the Father of power and wisdom, but also Himself power and wisdom; and similarly the Holy Spirit: yet that there are not three powers or three wisdoms, but one power and one wisdom, as there is one God and one essence. Inquiry is then made, why the Latins say one essence, three persons, in God; but the Greeks, one essence, three substances or hypostases: and both modes of expression are shown to arise from the necessities of speech, that we might have an answer to give when asked, what three, while truly confessing that there are three, viz. the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Chapter 1.—Augustin Returns to the Question, Whether Each Person of the Trinity by Itself is Wisdom. With What Difficulty, or in What Way, the Proposed Question is to Be Solved.
1.
Let us now inquire more carefully, so far
as God grants, into that which a little before we deferred; whether
each person also in the Trinity can also by Himself and not with
the other two be called God, or great, or wise, or true, or
omnipotent, or just, or anything else that can be said of God, not
relatively, but absolutely; or whether these things cannot be said
except when the Trinity is understood. For the question is
raised,—because it is written, “Christ the power of God, and
the wisdom of God,”
2. This discussion has arisen from
that which is written, that “Christ is the power of God, and the
wisdom of God.” Wherefore our discourse is compressed into these
narrow limits, while we desire to speak things unspeakable; that
either we must say that Christ is not the power of God and the
wisdom of God, and so shamelessly and impiously resist the apostle;
or we must acknowledge that Christ is indeed the power of God and
the wisdom of God, but that His Father is not the Father of His own
power and wisdom, which is not less impious; for so neither will He
be the Father of Christ, because Christ is the power of God and the
wisdom of God; or that the Father is not powerful with His own
power, or wise with His own wisdom: and who shall dare to say this?
Or yet, again, that we must understand, that in the Father it is
one thing to be, another thing to be wise, so that He is not by
that by which He is wise: a thing usually understood of the soul,
which is at some times unwise, at others wise; as being by nature
changeable, and not absolutely and perfectly simple. Or, again,
that the Father is not anything in respect to His own substance;
and that not only that He is the Father, but that He is, is
said relatively to the Son. How then can the Son be of the same
essence as the Father, seeing that the Father, in respect to
Himself, is neither His own essence, nor is at all in
respect to Himself, but even His essence is in relation to the Son?
But, on the contrary, much more is He of one and the same essence,
since the Father and Son are one and the same essence; seeing that
the Father has His being itself not in respect to Himself, but to
the Son, which essence He begat, and by which essence He is
whatever He is. Therefore neither [person] is in respect to
Himself alone; and both exist relatively the one to the other. Or
is the Father alone not called Father of himself, but whatever He
is called, is called relatively to the Son, but the Son is
predicated of in reference to Himself? And if it be so, what is
predicated of Him in reference to Himself? Is it His essence
itself? But the Son is the essence of the Father, as He is the
power and wisdom of the Father, as He is the Word of the Father,
and the image of the Father. Or if the Son is called essence in
reference to Himself, but the Father is not essence, but the
begetter of the essence, and is not in respect to Himself,
but is by that very essence which He begat; as He is great
by that greatness which He begat: therefore the Son is also called
greatness in respect to Himself; therefore He is also called, in
like manner, power, and wisdom, and word, and image. But what can
be more absurd than that He should be called image in respect to
Himself? Or if image and word are not the very same with power and
wisdom, but the former are spoken relatively, and the latter in
respect to self, not to another; then we get to this, that the
Father is not wise with that wisdom which He begat, because He
Himself cannot be spoken relatively to it, and it cannot be spoken
relatively to Him. For all things which are said relatively are
said reciprocally; therefore it remains that even in essence the
Son is spoken of relatively to the Father. But from this is educed
a most unexpected sense: that essence itself is not essence, or at
least that, when it is called essence, not essence but something
relative is intimated. As when
Chapter 2.—The Father and the Son are Together One Wisdom, as One Essence, Although Not Together One Word.
3. Therefore the Father and the Son
together are one essence, and one greatness, and one truth, and one
wisdom. But the Father and Son both together are not one Word,
because both together are not one Son. For as the Son is referred
to the Father, and is not so called in respect to Himself, so also
the Word is referred to him whose Word it is, when it is called the
Word. Since He is the Son in that He is the Word, and He is the
Word in that He is the Son. Inasmuch, therefore, as the Father and
the Son together are certainly not one Son, it follows that the
Father and the Son together are not the one Word of both. And
therefore He is not the Word in that He is wisdom; since He is not
called the Word in respect to Himself, but only relatively to Him
whose Word He is, as He is called the Son in relation to the
Father; but He is wisdom by that whereby He is essence. And
therefore, because one essence, one wisdom. But since the Word is
also wisdom, yet is not thereby the Word because He is wisdom for
He is understood to be the Word relatively, but wisdom essentially:
let us understand, that when He is called the Word, it is meant,
wisdom that is born, so as to be both the Son and the Image;
and that when these two words are used, namely wisdom
(is) born, in one of the two, namely born, [Augustin sometimes denominates
the Son “begotten” (genitus), and sometimes “born”
(natus). Both terms signify that the Son is of the
Father; God of God, Light of Light, Essence of
Essence.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 3.—Why the Son Chiefly is Intimated in the Scriptures by the Name of Wisdom, While Both the Father and the Holy Spirit are Wisdom. That the Holy Spirit, Together with the Father and the Son, is One Wisdom.
4. Why, then, is scarcely anything
ever said in the Scriptures of wisdom, unless to show that it is
begotten or created of God?—begotten in the case of that Wisdom
by which all things are made; but created or made, as in men, when
they are converted to that Wisdom which is not created and made but
begotten, and are so enlightened; for in these men themselves there
comes to be something which may be called their wisdom: even as the
Scriptures foretell or narrate, that “the Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us;”
5. On this account, then, when
anything concerning wisdom is declared or narrated in the
Scriptures, whether as itself speaking, or where anything is spoken
of it, the Son chiefly is intimated to us. And by the example of
Him who is the image, let us also not depart from God, since we
also are the Image of God: not indeed that which is equal to Him,
since we are made so by the Father through the Son, and not born of
the Father, as that is. And we are so, because we are enlightened
with light; but that is so, because it is the light that
enlightens; and which, therefore, being without pattern, is to us a
pattern. For He does not imitate any one going before Him, in
respect to the Father, from whom He is never separable at all,
since He is the very same substance with Him from whom He is. But
we by striving imitate Him who abides, and follow Him who stands
still, and walking in Him, reach out towards Him; because He is
made for us a way in time by His humiliation, which is to us an
eternal abiding-place by His divinity. For since to pure
intellectual spirits, who have not fallen through pride, He gives
an example in the form of God and as equal with God and as God; so,
in order that He might also give Himself as an example of returning
to fallen man who on account of the uncleanness of sins and the
punishment of mortality cannot see God, “He emptied Himself;”
not by changing His own divinity, but by assuming our
changeableness: and “taking upon Him the form of a servant”
6. The Holy Spirit also, whether we
are to call Him that absolute love which joins together Father and
Son, and joins us also from beneath, that so that is not unfitly
said which is written, “God is love;”
Chapter 4.—How It Was Brought About that the Greeks Speak of Three Hypostases, the Latins of Three Persons. Scripture Nowhere Speaks of Three Persons in One God.
7. For the sake, then, of speaking
of things that cannot be uttered, that we may be able in some way
to utter what we are able in no way to utter fully, our Greek
friends have spoken of one essence, three substances; but the
Latins of one essence or substance, three persons; because, as we
have already said, Bk. v. c. 28.
8. Further, in regard to that very
generic (generalis) word, if on this account we say three
persons, because that which person means is common to them
(otherwise they can in no way be so called, just as they are not
called three sons, because that which son means is not common to
them); why do we not also say three Gods? For certainly, since the
Father is a person, and the Son a person, and the Holy Spirit a
person, therefore there are three persons: since then the Father is
God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, why not three Gods?
Or else, since on account of their ineffable union these three are
together one God, why not also one person; so that we could not say
three persons, although we call each a person singly, just as we
cannot say three Gods, although we call each singly God, whether
the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Is it because Scripture
does not say three Gods? But neither do we find that Scripture
anywhere mentions three persons. Or is it because Scripture does
not call these three, either three persons or one person (for we
read of the person of the Lord, but not of the Lord as a person),
that therefore it was lawful through the mere necessity of speaking
and reasoning to say three persons, not because Scripture says it,
but because Scripture does not contradict it: whereas, if we were
to say three Gods, Scripture would contradict it, which says,
“Hear, O Israel; the Lord thy God is one God?”
9. What therefore remains, except
that we confess that these terms sprang from the necessity of
speaking, when copious reasoning was required against the devices
or errors of the heretics? For when human weakness endeavored to
utter in speech to the senses of man what it grasps in the secret
places of the mind in proportion to its comprehension respecting
the Lord God its creator, whether by devout faith, or by any
discernment whatsoever; it feared to say three essences, lest any
difference should be understood to exist in that absolute equality.
Again, it could not say that there were not three somewhats
(tria quædam), for it was because Sabellius said this that
he fell into heresy. For it must be devoutly believed, as most
certainly known from the Scriptures, and must be grasped by the
mental eye with undoubting perception, that there is both
[Augustin’s meaning is, that the
term “substance” is not an adequate one whereby to denote a
trinitarian distinction, because in order to denote such a
distinction it must be employed relatively, while in itself it has
an absolute signification. In the next chapter he proceeds to show
this.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 5.—In God, Substance is Spoken Improperly, Essence Properly.
10. If, however, it is fitting that
God should be said to subsist—(For this word is rightly applied
to those things, in which as subjects those things are, which are
said to be in a subject, as color or shape in body. For body
subsists, and so is substance; but those things are in the body,
which subsists and is their subject, and they are not substances,
but are in a substance: and so, if either that color or that shape
ceases to be, it does not deprive the body of being a body, because
it is not of the being of body, that it should retain this or that
shape or color; therefore neither changeable nor simple things are
properly called substances.)—If, I say, God subsists so that He
can be properly called a substance, then there is something in Him
as it were in a subject, and He is not simple, i.e. such
that to Him to be is the same as is anything else that is said
concerning Him in respect to Himself; as, for instance, great,
omnipotent, good, and whatever of this kind is not unfitly said of
God. But it is an impiety to say that God subsists, and is a
subject in relation to His own goodness, and that this goodness is
not a substance or rather essence, and that God Himself is not His
own goodness, but that it is in Him as in a subject. And hence it
is clear that God is improperly called substance, in order that He
may be understood to be, by the more usual name essence, which He
is truly and properly called; so that perhaps it is right that God
alone should be called essence. For He is truly alone, because He
is unchangeable; and declared this to be His own name to His
servant Moses, when He says, “I am that I am;” and, “Thus
shalt thou say unto the children of Israel: He who is hath sent me
unto you.”
Chapter 6.—Why We Do Not in the Trinity Speak of One Person, and Three Essences. What He Ought to Believe Concerning the Trinity Who Does Not Receive What is Said Above. Man is Both After the Image, and is the Image of God.
11. But lest I should seem to favor
ourselves [the Latins], let us make this further inquiry. Although
they [the Greeks] also, if they pleased, as they call three
substances three hypostases, so might call three persons three
“prosopa,” yet they preferred that word which, perhaps, was
more in accordance with the usage of their language. For the case
is the same with the word persons also; for to God it is not one
thing to be, another to be a person, but it is absolutely the same
thing. For if to be is said in respect to Himself, but person
relatively; in this way we should say three persons, the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit; just as we speak of three friends, or three
relations, or three neighbors, in that they are so mutually, not
that each one of them is so in respect to himself. Wherefore any
one of these is the friend of the other two,
12. And until he be purged from
this uncleanness, let him believe in the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, one God, alone, great, omnipotent, good, just, merciful,
Creator of all things visible and invisible, and whatsoever can be
worthily and truly said of Him in proportion to human capacity. And
when he is told that the Father only is God, let him not separate
from Him the Son or the Holy Spirit; for together with Him He is
the only God, together with whom also He is one God; because, when
we are told that the Son also is the only God, we must needs take
it without any separation of the Father or the Holy Spirit. And let
him so say one essence, as not to think one to be either greater or
better than, or in any respect differing from, another. Yet not
that the Father Himself is both Son and Holy Spirit, or whatever
else each is singly called in relation to either of the others; as
Word, which is not said except of the Son, or Gift, which is not
said except of the Holy Spirit. And on this account also they admit
the plural number, as it is written in the Gospel, “I and my
Father are one.” Unum Sumus [Augustin would find this
“image” in the ternaries of nature and the human mind which
illustrate the Divine trinality. The remainder of the treatise is
mainly devoted to this abstruse subject; and is one of the most
metaphysical pieces of composition in patristic literature. The
exegetical portion of the work ends substantially with the seventh
chapter. The remainder is ontological, yet growing out of, and
founded upon the biblical data and results of the first
part.—W.G.T.S.]
Book VIII.
————————————
Explains and proves that not only the Father is not greater than the Son, but neither are both together anything greater than the Holy Spirit, nor any two together in the same trinity anything greater than one, nor all three together anything greater than each severally. It is then shown how the nature itself of God may be understood from our understanding of truth, and from our knowledge of the supreme good, and from the innate love of righteousness, whereby a righteous soul is loved even by a soul that is itself not yet righteous. But it is urged above all, that the knowledge of God is to be sought by love, which God is said to be in the Scriptures; and in this love is also pointed out the existence of some trace of a trinity.
Preface.—The Conclusion of What Has Been Said Above. The Rule to Be Observed in the More Difficult Questions of the Faith.
We have said elsewhere that those things are predicated specially in the Trinity as belonging severally to each person, which are predicated relatively the one to the other, as Father and Son, and the gift of both, the Holy Spirit; for the Father is not the Trinity, nor the Son the Trinity, nor the gift the Trinity: but what whenever each is singly spoken of in respect to themselves, then they are not spoken of as three in the plural number, but one, the Trinity itself, as the Father God, the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God; the Father good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; and the Father omnipotent, the Son omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit omnipotent: yet neither three Gods, nor three goods, nor three omnipotents, but one God, good, omnipotent, the Trinity itself; and whatsoever else is said of them not relatively in respect to each other, but individually in respect to themselves. For they are thus spoken of according to essence, since in them to be is the same as to be great, as to be good, as to be wise, and whatever else is said of each person individually therein, or of the Trinity itself, in respect to themselves. And that therefore they are called three persons, or three substances, not in order that any difference of essence may be understood, but that we may be able to answer by some one word, should any one ask what three, or what three things? And that there is so great an equality in that Trinity, that not only the Father is not greater than the Son, as regards divinity, but neither are the Father and Son together greater than the Holy Spirit; nor is each individual person, whichever it be of the three, less than the Trinity itself. This is what we have said; and if it is handled and repeated frequently, it becomes, no doubt, more familiarly known: yet some limit, too, must be put to the discussion, and we must supplicate God with most devout piety, that He will open our understanding, and take away the inclination of disputing, in order that our minds may discern the essence of the truth, that has neither bulk nor moveableness. Now, therefore, so far as the Creator Himself aids us in His marvellous mercy, let us consider these subjects, into which we will enter more deeply than we entered into those which preceded, although they are in truth the same; preserving the while this rule, that what has not yet been made clear to our intellect, be nevertheless not loosened from the firmness of our faith.
Chapter 1.—It is Shown by Reason that in God Three are Not Anything Greater Than One Person.
2. For we say that in this Trinity
two or three persons are not anything greater than one of them;
which carnal perception does not receive, for no other reason
except because it perceives as it can the true things which are
created, but cannot discern the truth itself by which they are
created; for if it could, then the very corporeal light would in no
way be more clear than this which we have said. For in respect to
the substance of truth, since it alone truly is, nothing is
greater, unless because it more truly is. [In this and the following
chapter, the meaning of Augustin will be clearer, if the Latin
“veritas,” “vera,” and “vere,” are
rendered occasionally, by “reality,” “real,” and
“really.” He is endeavoring to prove the equality of the three
persons, by the fact that they are equally real (true), and the
degree of their reality (truth) is the same. Real being is true
being; reality is truth. In common phraseology, truth and reality
are synonymous.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 2.—Every Corporeal Conception Must Be Rejected, in Order that It May Be Understood How God is Truth.
3. But in respect to bodies, it may
be the case that this gold and that gold may be equally true
[real], but this may be greater than that, since magnitude is not
the same thing in this case as truth; and it is one thing for it to
be gold, another to be great. So also in the nature of the soul; a
soul is not called great in the same respect in which it is called
true. For he, too, has a true [real] soul who has not a great soul;
since the essence of body and soul is not the essence of the truth
[reality] itself; as is the Trinity, one God, alone, great, true,
truthful, the truth. Of whom if we endeavor to think, so far as He
Himself permits and grants, let us not think of any touch or
embrace in local space, as if of three bodies, or of any
compactness of conjunction, as fables tell of three-bodied Geryon;
but let whatsoever may occur to the mind, that is of such sort as
to be greater in three than in each singly, and less in one than in
two, be rejected without any doubt; for so everything corporeal is
rejected. But also in spiritual things let nothing changeable that
may have occurred to the mind be thought of God. For when we aspire
from this depth to that height, it is a step towards no small
knowledge, if, before we can know what God is, we can already know
what He is not. For certainly He is neither earth nor heaven; nor,
as it were, earth and heaven; nor any such thing as we see in the
heaven; nor any such thing as we do not see, but which perhaps is
in heaven. Neither if you were to magnify in the imagination of
your thought the light of the sun as much as you are able, either
that it may be greater, or that it may be brighter, a thousand
times as much, or times without number; neither is this God.
Neither as Read si for sicut,
if for as. Bened. ed.
Chapter 3.—How God May Be Known to Be the Chief Good. The Mind Does Not Become Good Unless by Turning to God.
4. Behold again, and see if thou canst. Thou certainly dost not love anything except what is good, since good is the earth, with the loftiness of its mountains, and the due measure of its hills, and the level surface of its plains; and good is an estate that is pleasant and fertile; and good is a house that is arranged in due proportions, and is spacious and bright; and good are animal and animate bodies; and good is air that is temperate, and salubrious; and good is food that is agreeable and fit for health; and good is health, without pains or lassitude; and good is the countenance of man that is disposed in fit proportions, and is cheerful in look, and bright in color; and good is the mind of a friend, with the sweetness of agreement, and with the confidence of love; and good is a righteous man; and good are riches, since they are readily useful; and good is the heaven, with its sun, and moon, and stars; and good are the angels, by their holy obedience; and good is discourse that sweetly teaches and suitably admonishes the hearer; and good is a poem that is harmonious in its numbers and weighty in its sense. And why add yet more and more? This thing is good and that good, but take away this and that, and regard good itself if thou canst; so wilt thou see God, not good by a good that is other than Himself, but the good of all good. For in all these good things, whether those which I have mentioned, or any else that are to be discerned or thought, we could not say that one was better than another, when we judge truly, unless a conception of the good itself had been impressed upon us, such that according to it we might both approve some things as good, and prefer one good to another. So God is to be loved, not this and that good, but the good itself. For the good that must be sought for the soul is not one above which it is to fly by judging, but to which it is to cleave by loving; and what can this be except God? Not a good mind, or a good angel, or the good heaven, but the good good. For perhaps what I wish to say may be more easily perceived in this way. For when, for instance, a mind is called good, as there are two words, so from these words I understand two things—one whereby it is mind, and another whereby it is good. And itself had no share in making itself a mind, for there was nothing as yet to make itself to be anything; but to make itself to be a good mind, I see, must be brought about by the will: not because that by which it is mind is not itself anything good;—for how else is it already called, and most truly called, better than the body?—but it is not yet called a good mind, for this reason, that the action of the will still is wanted, by which it is to become more excellent; and if it has neglected this, then it is justly blamed, and is rightly called not a good mind. For it then differs from the mind which does perform this; and since the latter is praiseworthy, the former doubtless, which does not perform, it is blameable. But when it does this of set purpose, and becomes a good mind, it yet cannot attain to being so unless it turn itself to something which itself is not. And to what can it turn itself that it may become a good mind, except to the good which it loves, and seeks, and obtains? And if it turns itself back again from this, and becomes not good, then by the very act of turning away from the good, unless that good remain in it from which it turns away, it cannot again turn itself back thither if it should wish to amend.
5. Wherefore there would be no
changeable goods, unless there were the unchangeable good. Whenever
then thou art told of this good thing and that good thing, which
things can also in other respects be called not good, if thou canst
put aside those things which are good by the participation of the
good, and discern that good itself by the participation of which
they are good (for when this or that good thing is spoken of, thou
understandest together with them the good itself also): if, then, I
say thou canst remove these things, and canst discern the good in
itself, then thou wilt have discerned God. And if thou shalt cleave
to Him with love, thou shalt be forthwith blessed. But whereas
other things are not loved, except because they are good,
Chapter 4.—God Must First Be Known by an Unerring Faith, that He May Be Loved.
6. But it is by love that we must
stand firm to this and cleave to this, in order that we may enjoy
the presence of that by which we are, and in the absence of which
we could not be at all. For as “we walk as yet by faith, and not
by sight,”
7. But it must needs be, that, when
by reading or hearing of them we believe in any corporeal things
which we have not seen, the mind frames for itself something under
bodily features and forms, just as it may occur to our thoughts;
which either is not true, or even if it be true, which can most
rarely happen, yet this is of no benefit to us to believe in by
faith, but it is useful for some other purpose, which is intimated
by means of it. For who is there that reads or hears what the
Apostle Paul has written, or what has been written of him, that
does not imagine to himself the countenance both of the apostle
himself, and of all those whose names are there mentioned? And
whereas, among such a multitude of men to whom these books are
known, each imagines in a different way those bodily features and
forms, it is assuredly uncertain which it is that imagines them
more nearly and more like the reality. Nor, indeed, is our faith
busied therein with the bodily countenance of those men; but only
that by the grace of God they so lived and so acted as that
Scripture witnesses: this it is which it is both useful to believe,
and which must not be despaired of, and must be sought. For even
the countenance of our Lord Himself in the flesh is variously
fancied by the diversity of countless imaginations, which yet was
one, whatever it was. Nor in our faith which we have of our
Chapter 5.—How the Trinity May Be Loved Though Unknown.
Our conception is framed according to this notion, when we believe that God was made man for us, as an example of humility, and to show the love of God towards us. For this it is which it is good for us to believe, and to retain firmly and unshakenly in our heart, that the humility by which God was born of a woman, and was led to death through contumelies so great by mortal men, is the chiefest remedy by which the swelling of our pride may be cured, and the profound mystery by which the bond of sin may be loosed. So also, because we know what omnipotence is, we believe concerning the omnipotent God in the power of His miracles and of His resurrection, and we frame conceptions respecting actions of this kind, according to the species and genera of things that are either ingrafted in us by nature, or gathered by experience, that our faith may not be feigned. For neither do we know the countenance of the Virgin Mary; from whom, untouched by a husband, nor tainted in the birth itself, He was wonderfully born. Neither have we seen what were the lineaments of the body of Lazarus; nor yet Bethany; nor the sepulchre, and that stone which He commanded to be removed when He raised Him from the dead; nor the new tomb cut out in the rock, whence He Himself arose; nor the Mount of Olives, from whence He ascended into heaven. And, in short, whoever of us have not seen these things, know not whether they are as we conceive them to be, nay judge them more probably not to be so. For when the aspect either of a place, or a man, or of any other body, which we happened to imagine before we saw it, turns out to be the same when it occurs to our sight as it was when it occurred to our mind, we are moved with no little wonder. So scarcely and hardly ever does it happen. And yet we believe those things most steadfastly, because we imagine them according to a special and general notion, of which we are certain. For we believe our Lord Jesus Christ to be born of a virgin who was called Mary. But what a virgin is, or what it is to be born, and what is a proper name, we do not believe, but certainly know. And whether that was the countenance of Mary which occurred to the mind in speaking of those things or recollecting them, we neither know at all, nor believe. It is allowable, then, in this case to say without violation of the faith, perhaps she had such or such a countenance, perhaps she had not: but no one could say without violation of the Christian faith, that perhaps Christ was born of a virgin.
8. Wherefore, since we desire to
understand the eternity, and equality, and unity of the Trinity, as
much as is permitted us, but ought to believe before we understand;
and since we must watch carefully, that our faith be not feigned;
since we must have the fruition of the same Trinity, that we may
live blessedly; but if we have believed anything false of it, our
hope would be worthless, and our charity not pure: how then can we
love, by believing, that Trinity which we do not know? Is it
according to the special or general notion, according to which we
love the Apostle Paul? In whose case, even if he was not of that
countenance which occurs to us when we think of him (and this we do
not know at all), yet we know what a man is. For not to go far
away, this we are; and it is manifest he, too, was this, and
that his soul joined to his body lived after the manner of mortals.
Therefore we believe this of him, which we find in ourselves,
according to the species or genus under which all human nature
alike is comprised. What then do we know, whether specially or
generally, of that most excellent Trinity, as if there were many
such trinities, some of which we had learned by experience, so that
we may believe that Trinity, too, to have been such as they,
through the rule of similitude, impressed upon us, whether a
special or a general notion; and thus love also that thing which we
believe and do not yet know, from the parity of the thing which we
do know? But this certainly is not so. Or is it that, as we love in
our Lord Jesus Christ, that He rose from the dead, although we
never saw any one rise from thence, so we can believe in and love
the Trinity which we do not see, and the like of which we never
have seen? But we certainly know what it is to die, and what it is
to live; because we both live, and from time to time have seen and
experienced both dead and dying persons. And what else is it to
rise again, except to live again, that is, to return to life from
death? When, therefore, we say and believe that there is a Trinity,
we know what a Trinity is, because we know what three are; but this
is not what we love. For we can easily have this whenever we will,
to pass over other things, by just hold
Chapter 6.—How the Man Not Yet Righteous Can Know the Righteous Man Whom He Loves.
9. Return then with me, and let us
consider why we love the apostle. Is it at all on account of his
human kind, which we know right well, in that we believe him to
have been a man? Assuredly not; for if it were so, he now is not
him whom we love, since he is no longer that man, for his soul is
separated from his body. But we believe that which we love in him
to be still living, for we love his righteous mind. From what
general or special rule then, except that we know both what a mind
is, and what it is to be righteous? And we say, indeed, not
unfitly, that we therefore know what a mind is, because we too have
a mind. For neither did we ever see it with our eyes, and gather a
special or general notion from the resemblance of more minds than
one, which we had seen; but rather, as I have said before, because
we too have it. For what is known so intimately, and so perceives
itself to be itself, as that by which also all other things are
perceived, that is, the mind itself? For we recognize the movements
of bodies also, by which we perceive that others live besides
ourselves, from the resemblance of ourselves; since we also so move
our body in living as we observe those bodies to be moved. For even
when a living body is moved, there is no way opened to our eyes to
see the mind, a thing which cannot be seen by the eyes; but we
perceive something to be contained in that bulk, such as is
contained in ourselves, so as to move in like manner our own bulk,
which is the life and the soul. Neither is this, as it were, the
property of human foresight and reason, since brute animals also
perceive that not only they themselves live, but also other brute
animals interchangeably, and the one the other, and that we
ourselves do so. Neither do they see our souls, save from the
movements of the body, and that immediately and most easily by some
natural agreement. Therefore we both know the mind of any one from
our own, and believe also from our own of him whom we do not know.
For not only do we perceive that there is a mind, but we can also
know what a mind is, by reflecting upon our own: for we have a
mind. But whence do we know what a righteous man is? For we said
above that we love the apostle for no other reason except that he
is a righteous mind. We know, then, what a righteous man also is,
just as we know what a mind is. But what a mind is, as has been
said, we know from ourselves, for there is a mind in us. But whence
do we know what a righteous man is, if we are not righteous? But if
no one but he who is righteous knows what is a righteous man, no
one but a righteous man loves a righteous man; for one cannot love
him whom one believes to be righteous, for this very reason that
one does believe him to be righteous, if one does not know what it
is to be righteous; according to that which we have shown above,
that no one loves what he believes and does not see, except by some
rule of a general or special notion. And if for this reason no one
but a righteous man loves a righteous man, how will any one wish to
be a righteous man who is not yet so? For no one wishes to be that
which he does not love. But, certainly, that he who is not
righteous may be so, it is necessary that he should wish to be
righteous; and in order that he may wish to be righteous, he loves
the righteous man. Therefore, even he who is not yet righteous,
loves the righteous man. [The “wish” and “love”
which Augustin here attributes to the non-righteous man is not true
and spiritual, but selfish. In chapter vii. 10, he speaks of true
love as distinct from that kind of desire which is a mere wish. The
latter he calls cupiditas. “That is to be called love
which is true, otherwise it is desire (cupiditas); and so
those who desire (cupidi) are improperly said to love
(diligere), just as they who love (diligunt) are said
improperly to desire (cupere).”—W.G.T.S.] Violence—A.V.
Chapter 7.—Of True Love, by Which We Arrive at the Knowledge of the Trinity. God is to Be Sought, Not Outwardly, by Seeking to Do Wonderful Things with the Angels, But Inwardly, by Imitating the Piety of Good Angels.
10. No other thing, then, is
chiefly to be regarded in this inquiry, which we make concerning
the Trinity and concerning knowing God, except what is true love,
nay, rather what is love. For that is to be called love which is
true, otherwise it is desire; and so those who desire are said
improperly to love, just as they who love are said improperly to
desire. But this is true love, that cleaving to the truth we may
live righteously, and so may despise all mortal things in
comparison with the love of men, whereby we wish them to live
righteously. For so we should be prepared also to die profitably
for our brethren, as our Lord Jesus Christ taught us by His
example. For as there are two commandments on which hang all the
Law and the prophets, love of God and love of our neighbor;
11. Wherefore they who seek God
through those Powers which rule over the world, or parts of the
world, are removed and cast away far from Him; not by intervals of
space, but by difference of affections: for they endeavor to find a
path outwardly, and forsake their own inward things, within which
is God. Therefore, even although they may either have heard some
holy heavenly Power, or in some way or another may have thought of
it, yet they rather covet its deeds at which human weakness
marvels, but do not imitate the piety by which divine rest is
acquired. For they prefer, through pride, to be able to do that
which an angel does, more than, through devotion, to be that which
an angel is. For no holy being rejoices in his own power, but in
His from whom he has the power which he fitly can have; and he
knows it to be more a mark of power to be united to the Omnipotent
by a pious will, than to be able, by his own power and will, to do
what they may tremble at who are not able to do such things.
Therefore the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, in doing such things, in
order that He might teach better things to those who marvelled at
them, and might turn those who were intent and in doubt about
unusual temporal things to eternal and inner things, says, “Come
unto me, all ye that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you
rest. Take my yoke upon you.” And He does not say, Learn of me,
because I raise those Charity.—A.V. Abide with.—A.V.
Chapter 8.—That He Who Loves His Brother, Loves God; Because He Loves Love Itself, Which is of God, and is God.
12. Let no one say, I do not know
what I love. Let him love his brother, and he will love the same
love. For he knows the love with which he loves, more than the
brother whom he loves. So now he can know God more than he knows
his brother: clearly known more, because more present; known more,
because more within him; known more, because more certain. Embrace
the love of God, and by love embrace God. That is love itself,
which associates together all good angels and all the servants of
God by the bond of sanctity, and joins together us and them
mutually with ourselves, and joins us subordinately to Himself. In
proportion, therefore, as we are healed from the swelling of pride,
in such proportion are we more filled with love; and with what is
he full, who is full of love, except with God? Well, but you will
say, I see love, and, as far as I am able, I gaze upon it with my
mind, and I believe the Scripture, saying, that “God is love; and
he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God;”
Chapter 9.—Our Love of the Righteous is Kindled from Love Itself of the Unchangeable Form of Righteousness.
13. For why is it, pray, that we
burn when we hear and read, “Behold, now is the accepted time;
behold, now is the day of salvation: giving no offense in anything,
that the ministry be not blamed: but in all things approving
ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in
afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, in stripes, in
imprisonments, in tumults, in labors, in watchings, in fastings; by
pureness, by knowledge, by long-suffering, by kindness, by the Holy
Ghost, by love unfeigned, by the word of truth, by the power of
God, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on the
left, by honor and dishonor, by evil report and good report: as
deceivers, and yet true; as unknown, and yet well known; as dying,
and, behold, we live; as chastened, and not killed; as sorrowful,
yet alway rejoicing; as poor, yet making many rich; as having
nothing, and yet possessing all things?”
Chapter 10.—There are Three Things in Love, as It Were a Trace of the Trinity.
14. But what is love or charity, which divine Scripture so greatly praises and proclaims, except the love of good? But love is of some one that loves, and with love something is loved. Behold, then, there are three things: he that loves, and that which is loved, and love. What, then, is love, except a certain life which couples or seeks to couple together some two things, namely, him that loves, and that which is loved? And this is so even in outward and carnal loves. But that we may drink in something more pure and clear, let us tread down the flesh and ascend to the mind. What does the mind love in a friend except the mind? There, then, also are three things: he that loves, and that which is loved, and love. It remains to ascend also from hence, and to seek those things which are above, as far as is given to man. But here for a little while let our purpose rest, not that it may think itself to have found already what it seeks; but just as usually the place has first to be found where anything is to be sought, while the thing itself is not yet found, but we have only found already where to look for it; so let it suffice to have said thus much, that we may have, as it were, the hinge of some starting-point, whence to weave the rest of our discourse.
Book IX.
————————————
That a kind of trinity exists in man, who is the image of God, viz. the mind, and the knowledge wherewith the mind knows itself, and the love wherewith it loves both itself and its own knowledge; and these three are shown to be mutually equal, and of one essence.
Chapter 1.—In What Way We Must Inquire Concerning the Trinity.
1. We
certainly seek a trinity,—not any trinity, but that Trinity which
is God, and the true and supreme and only God. Let my hearers then
wait, for we are still seeking. And no one justly finds fault with
such a search, if at least he who seeks that which either to know
or to utter is most difficult, is steadfast in the faith. But
whosoever either sees or teaches better, finds fault quickly and
justly with any one who confidently affirms concerning it. “Seek
God,” he says, “and your heart shall live;” In purpose, om. in
A.V.
Chapter 2.—The Three Things
Which are Found in Love Must Be Considered. [Augustin here begins his discussion of some ternaries
that are found in the Finite, that illustrate the trinality of the
Infinite. Like all finite analogies, they fail at certain points.
In the case chosen—namely, the lover, the loved, and love—the
first two are substances, the last is not. The mind is a substance,
but its activity in loving is not. In chapter iv. 5, Augustin
asserts that “love and knowledge exist substantially, as the mind
itself does.” But no psychology, ancient or modern, has ever
maintained that the agencies of a spiritual entity or substance are
themselves spiritual entity or substances. The activities of the
human mind in cognizing, loving, etc., are only its energizing, not
its substance. The ambiguity of the Latin
contributes to this error. The mind and its loving, and also the
mind and its cognizing, are denominated “duo quædam”
the mind, love, and knowledge, are denominated “tria
quædem.” By bringing the mind and its love and knowledge
under the one term “quædam,” and then giving the
meaning of “substance” to “thing,” in “something,” the
result follows that all three are alike and equally
“substantial.” This analogy taken from the mind
and its activities illustrates the trinality of the Divine essence,
but fails to illustrate the substantiality of the three persons.
The three Divine persons are not the Divine essence together with
two of its activities (such, e.g., as creation and
redemption), but the essence in three modes, or “forms,” as St.
Paul denominates them in If Augustin could
prove his assertion that the activities of the human spirit in
knowing and loving are strictly “substantial,” then this
ternary would illustrate not only the trinality of the essence, but
the essentiality and objectivity of the persons. The fact which he
mentions, that knowledge and love are inseparable from the
knowing and loving mind, does not prove their equal substantiality
with the mind.—W.G.T.S.]
2. And this being so, let us direct
our attention to those three things which we fancy we have found.
We are not yet speaking of heavenly things, nor yet of God the
Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, but of that inadequate image,
which yet is an image, that is, man; for our feeble mind perhaps
can gaze upon this more familiarly and more easily. Well then, when
I, who make this inquiry, love anything, there are three things
concerned—myself, and that which I love, and love itself. For I
do not love love, except I love a lover; for there is no love where
nothing is loved. Therefore there are three things—he who loves,
and that which is loved, and love. But what if I love none except
myself? Will there not then be two things—that which I love, and
love? For he who loves and that which is loved are the same when
any one loves himself; just as to love and to be loved, in the same
way, is the very same thing when any one loves himself. Since the
same thing is said, when it is said, he loves himself, and he is
loved by himself. For in that case to love and to be loved are not
two different things: just as he who loves and he who is loved are
not two different persons. But yet, even so, love and what is loved
are still two things. For there is no love when any one loves
himself, except when love itself is loved. But it is one thing to
love one’s self, another to love one’s own love. For love is
not loved, unless as already loving something; since where nothing
is loved there is no love. Therefore there are two things when any
one loves himself—love, and that which is loved. For then he that
loves and that which is loved are one. Whence it seems that it does
not follow that three things are to be understood wherever love is.
For let us put aside from the inquiry all the other many things of
which a man consists; and in order that we may discover clearly
what we are now seeking, as far as in such a subject is possible,
let us treat of the mind alone. The mind, then, when it loves
itself, discloses two things—mind and love. But what is to love
one’s self, except to wish to help one’s self to the enjoyment
of self? And when any one wishes himself to be just as much as he
is, then the will is on a par with the mind, and the love is equal
to him who loves. And if love is a substance, it is certainly not
body, but spirit; and the mind also is not body, but spirit. Yet
love and mind are not two spirits, but one spirit; nor yet two
essences, but one: and yet here are two things that are one, he
that loves and love; or, if you like so to put it, that which is
loved and love. And these two, indeed, are mutually said
relatively. Since he who loves is referred to love, and love to him
who loves. For he who loves, loves with some love, and love is the
love of some one who loves. But mind and spirit are not said
relatively, but express essence. For mind and spirit do not exist
because the mind and spirit of some particular man exists. For if
we subtract the body from that which is man, which is so called
with the conjunction of body, the mind and spirit remain. But if we
subtract him that loves, then there is no love; and if we subtract
love, then there is no one that loves. And therefore, in so far as
they are mutually referred to one another, they are two; but
whereas they are spoken in re
Chapter 3.—The Image of the Trinity in the Mind of Man Who Knows Himself and Loves Himself. The Mind Knows Itself Through Itself.
3. For the mind cannot love itself, except also it know itself; for how can it love what it does not know? Or if any body says that the mind, from either general or special knowledge, believes itself of such a character as it has by experience found others to be and therefore loves itself, he speaks most foolishly. For whence does a mind know another mind, if it does not know itself? For the mind does not know other minds and not know itself, as the eye of the body sees other eyes and does not see itself; for we see bodies through the eyes of the body, because, unless we are looking into a mirror, we cannot refract and reflect the rays into themselves which shine forth through those eyes, and touch whatever we discern,—a subject, indeed, which is treated of most subtlely and obscurely, until it be clearly demonstrated whether the fact be so, or whether it be not. But whatever is the nature of the power by which we discern through the eyes, certainly, whether it be rays or anything else, we cannot discern with the eyes that power itself; but we inquire into it with the mind, and if possible, understand even this with the mind. As the mind, then, itself gathers the knowledge of corporeal things through the senses of the body, so of incorporeal things through itself. Therefore it knows itself also through itself, since it is incorporeal; for if it does not know itself, it does not love itself.
Chapter 4.—The Three are One, and Also Equal, Viz The Mind Itself, and the Love, and the Knowledge of It. That the Same Three Exist Substantially, and are Predicated Relatively. That the Same Three are Inseparable. That the Same Three are Not Joined and Commingled Like Parts, But that They are of One Essence, and are Relatives.
4. But as there are two things (duo quædam), the mind and the love of it, when it loves itself; so there are two things, the mind and the knowledge of it, when it knows itself. Therefore the mind itself, and the love of it, and the knowledge of it, are three things (tria quædam), and these three are one; and when they are perfect they are equal. For if one loves himself less than as he is,—as for example, suppose that the mind of a man only loves itself as much as the body of a man ought to be loved, whereas the mind is more than the body,—then it is in fault, and its love is not perfect. Again, if it loves itself more than as it is,—as if, for instance, it loves itself as much as God is to be loved, whereas the mind is incomparably less than God,—here also it is exceedingly in fault, and its love of self is not perfect. But it is in fault more perversely and wrongly still, when it loves the body as much as God is to be loved. Also, if knowledge is less than that thing which is known, and which can be fully known, then knowledge is not perfect; but if it is greater, then the nature which knows is above that which is known, as the knowledge of the body is greater than the body itself, which is known by that knowledge. For knowledge is a kind of life in the reason of the knower, but the body is not life; and any life is greater than any body, not in bulk, but in power. But when the mind knows itself, its own knowledge does not rise above itself, because itself knows, and itself is known. When, therefore, it knows itself entirely, and no other thing with itself, then its knowledge is equal to itself; because its knowledge is not from another nature, since it knows itself. And when it perceives itself entirely, and nothing more, then it is neither less nor greater. We said therefore rightly, that these three things, [mind, love, and knowledge], when they are perfect, are by consequence equal.
5. Similar reasoning suggests to
us, if indeed we can any way understand the matter, that these
things [i.e. love and knowledge] exist in the soul, and
that, being as it were involved in it, they are so evolved from it
as to be perceived and reckoned up substantially, or, so to say,
essentially. Not as though in a subject; as color, or shape, or any
other quality or quantity, are in the body. For anything of this
[material] kind does not go beyond the subject in which it is; for
the color or shape of this particular body cannot be also those of
another body. But the mind can also love something besides itself,
with that love with which it loves itself. And further, the mind
does not know itself only, but also many other things. Wherefore
love and knowledge are not contained in the mind as in a subject,
but these also exist substantially, as the mind itself does;
because, even if they are mutually predicated relatively,
yet
6. But, further, although one who loves or one who knows is a substance, and knowledge is a substance, and love is a substance, but he that loves and love, or, he that knows and knowledge, are spoken of relatively to each other, as are friends: yet mind or spirit are not relatives, as neither are men relatives: nevertheless he that loves and love, or he that knows and knowledge, cannot exist separately from each other, as men can that are friends. Although it would seem that friends, too, can be separated in body, not in mind, in as far as they are friends: nay, it can even happen that a friend may even also begin to hate a friend and on this account cease to be a friend while the other does not know it, and still loves him. But if the love with which the mind loves itself ceases to be, then the mind also will at the same time cease to love. Likewise, if the knowledge by which the mind knows itself ceases to be, then the mind will also at the same time cease to know itself. Just as the head of anything that has a head is certainly a head, and they are predicated relatively to each other, although they are also substances: for both a head is a body, and so is that which has a head; and if there be no head, then neither will there be that which has a head. Only these things can be separated from each other by cutting off, those cannot.
7. And even if there are some bodies which cannot be wholly separated and divided, yet they would not be bodies unless they consisted of their own proper parts. A part then is predicated relatively to a whole, since every part is a part of some whole, and a whole is a whole by having all its parts. But since both part and whole are bodies, these things are not only predicated relatively, but exist also substantially. Perhaps, then, the mind is a whole, and the love with which it loves itself, and the knowledge with which it knows itself, are as it were its parts, of which two parts that whole consists. Or are there three equal parts which make up the one whole? But no part embraces the whole, of which it is a part; whereas, when the mind knows itself as a whole, that is, knows itself perfectly, then the knowledge of it extends through the whole of it; and when it loves itself perfectly, then it loves itself as a whole, and the love of it extends through the whole of it. Is it, then, as one drink is made from wine and water and honey, and each single part extends through the whole, and yet they are three things (for there is no part of the drink which does not contain these three things; for they are not joined as if they were water and oil, but are entirely commingled: and they are all substances, and the whole of that liquor which is composed of the three is one substance),—is it, I say, in some such way as this we are to think these three to be together, mind, love, and knowledge? But water, wine, and honey are not of one substance, although one substance results in the drink made from the commingling of them. And I cannot see how those other three are not of the same substance, since the mind itself loves itself, and itself knows itself; and these three so exist, as that the mind is neither loved nor known by any other thing at all. These three, therefore, must needs be of one and the same essence; and for that reason, if they were confounded together as it were by a commingling, they could not be in any way three, neither could they be mutually referred to each other. Just as if you were to make from one and the same gold three similar rings, although connected with each other, they are mutually referred to each other, because they are similar. For everything similar is similar to something, and there is a trinity of rings, and one gold. But if they are blended with each other, and each mingled with the other through the whole of their own bulk, then that trinity will fall through, and it will not exist at all; and not only will it be called one gold, as it was called in the case of those three rings, but now it will not be called three things of gold at all.
Chapter 5.—That These Three are Several in Themselves, and Mutually All in All.
8. But in these three, when the
mind knows itself and loves itself, there remains a trinity: mind,
love, knowledge; and this trinity is not confounded together by any
commingling: although they are each severally in themselves and
mutually all in all, or each severally in each two, or each two in
each. Therefore all are in all. For certainly the mind is in
itself, since it is called mind in respect to itself: although it
is said to be knowing, or known, or knowable, relatively to its own
knowledge; and although also as [Augustin here illustrates, by the ternary of mind,
love, and knowledge, what the Greek Trinitarians denominate
the περιχώρησις of the divine essence. By the figure of a circulation,
they describe the eternal inbeing and indwelling of one person in
another. This is founded on The Platonists, also, employed this
figure of circulatory movement, to explain the self-reflecting and
self-communing nature of the human mind. “It is not possible for
us to know what our souls are, but only by their κινήσεις
κυκλικαὶ, their circular and
reflex motions and converse with themselves, which only can steal
from them their own secrets.” J. Smith: Immortality of the
Soul, Ch. ii. Augustin’s
illustration, however, is imperfect, because “the three things”
which circulate are not “each of them severally a
substance.” Only one of them, namely, the mind, is a
substance.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 6.—There is One Knowledge of the Thing in the Thing Itself, and Another in Eternal Truth Itself. That Corporeal Things, Too, are to Be Judged the Rules of Eternal Truth.
9. But when the human mind knows itself and loves itself, it does not know and love anything unchangeable: and each individual man declares his own particular mind by one manner of speech, when he considers what takes place in himself; but defines the human mind abstractly by special or general knowledge. And so, when he speaks to me of his own individual mind, as to whether he understands this or that, or does not understand it, or whether he wishes or does not wish this or that, I believe; but when he speaks the truth of the mind of man generally or specially, I recognize and approve. Whence it is manifest, that each sees a thing in himself, in such way that another person may believe what he says of it, yet may not see it; but another [sees a thing] in the truth itself, in such way that another person also can gaze upon it; of which the former undergoes changes at successive times, the latter consists in an unchangeable eternity. For we do not gather a generic or specific knowledge of the human mind by means of resemblance by seeing many minds with the eyes of the body: but we gaze upon indestructible truth, from which to define perfectly, as far as we can, not of what sort is the mind of any one particular man, but of what sort it ought to be upon the eternal plan.
10. Whence also, even in the case of the images of things corporeal which are drawn in through the bodily sense, and in some way infused into the memory, from which also those things which have not been seen are thought under a fancied image, whether otherwise than they really are, or even perchance as they are;—even here too, we are proved either to accept or reject, within ourselves, by other rules which remain altogether unchangeable above our mind, when we approve or reject anything rightly. For both when I recall the walls of Carthage which I have seen, and imagine to myself the walls of Alexandria which I have not seen, and, in preferring this to that among forms which in both cases are imaginary, make that preference upon grounds of reason; the judgment of truth from above is still strong and clear, and rests firmly upon the utterly indestructible rules of its own right; and if it is covered as it were by cloudiness of corporeal images, yet is not wrapt up and confounded in them.
11. But it makes a difference,
whether,
Chapter 7.—We Conceive and Beget the Word Within, from the Things We Have Beheld in the Eternal Truth. The Word, Whether of the Creature or of the Creator, is Conceived by Love.
12. We behold, then, by the sight of the mind, in that eternal truth from which all things temporal are made, the form according to which we are, and according to which we do anything by true and right reason, either in ourselves, or in things corporeal; and we have the true knowledge of things, thence conceived, as it were as a word within us, and by speaking we beget it from within; nor by being born does it depart from us. And when we speak to others, we apply to the word, remaining within us, the ministry of the voice or of some bodily sign, that by some kind of sensible remembrance some similar thing may be wrought also in the mind of him that hears,—similar, I say, to that which does not depart from the mind of him that speaks. We do nothing, therefore, through the members of the body in our words and actions, by which the behavior of men is either approved or blamed, which we do not anticipate by a word uttered within ourselves. For no one willingly does anything, which he has not first said in his heart.
13. And this word is conceived by
love, either of the creature or of the Creator, that is, either of
changeable nature or of unchangeable truth. [The inward production of a
thought in the finite essence of the human spirit which is
expressed outwardly in a spoken word, is analogous to the eternal
generation of the Eternal Wisdom in the infinite essence of God
expressed in the Eternal Word. Both are alike, in that something
spiritual issues from something spiritual, without division or
diminution of substance. But a thought of the human mind is not an
objective thing or substance; while the Eternal Word
is.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 8.—In What Desire and Love Differ.
[Conceived] therefore, either by desire or by love: not that the creature ought not to be loved; but if that love [of the creature] is referred to the Creator, then it will not be desire (cupiditas), but love (charitas). For it is desire when the creature is loved for itself. And then it does not help a man through making use of it, but corrupts him in the enjoying it. When, therefore, the creature is either equal to us or inferior, we must use the inferior in order to God, but we must enjoy the equal duly in God. For as thou oughtest to enjoy thyself, not in thyself, but in Him who made thee, so also him whom thou lovest as thyself. Let us enjoy, therefore, both ourselves and our brethren in the Lord; and hence let us not dare to yield, and as it were to relax, ourselves to ourselves in the direction downwards. Now a word is born, when, being thought out, it pleases us either to the effect of sinning, or to that of doing right. Therefore love, as it were a mean, conjoins our word and the mind from which it is conceived, and without any confusion binds itself as a third with them, in an incorporeal embrace.
Chapter 9.—In the Love of Spiritual Things the Word Born is the Same as the Word Conceived. It is Otherwise in the Love of Carnal Things.
14. But the word conceived and the
word born are the very same when the will finds rest in knowledge
itself, as is the case in the love of spiritual things. For
instance, he who knows righteousness perfectly, and loves it
perfectly, is already righteous; even if no necessity exist of
working according to it outwardly through the members of the body.
But in the love of carnal and temporal things, as in the offspring
of animals, the conception of the word is one thing, the bringing
forth another. For here what is conceived by desiring is born by
attaining. Since it does not suffice to avarice to know and to love
gold, except it also have it; nor to know and love to eat, or to
lie with any one, unless also one does it; nor to know and love
honors and power, unless they actually come to pass. Nay, all these
things, even if obtained, do not suffice. “Whosoever drinketh of
this water,” He says, “shall thirst again.” Partus Words. Words.—A.V.
Chapter 10.—Whether Only Knowledge that is Loved is the Word of the Mind.
15. It is rightly asked then,
whether all knowledge is a word, or only knowledge that is loved.
For we also know the things which we hate; but what we do not like,
cannot be said to be either conceived or brought forth by the mind.
For not all things which in anyway touch it, are conceived by it;
but some only reach the point of being known, but yet are not
spoken as words, as for instance those of which we speak now. For
those are called words in one way, which occupy spaces of time by
their syllables, whether they are pronounced or only thought; and
in another way, all that is known is called a word imprinted on the
mind, as long as it can be brought forth from the memory and
defined, even though we dislike the thing itself; and in another
way still, when we like that which is conceived in the mind. And
that which the apostle says, must be taken according to this last
kind of word, “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the
Holy Ghost;” [The meaning of this obscure
chapter seems to be, that only what the mind is pleased with, is
the real expression and index of the mind—its true “word.”
The true nature of the mind is revealed in its sympathies. But this
requires some qualification. For in the case of contrary qualities,
like right and wrong, beauty and ugliness, the real nature of the
mind is seen also in its antipathy as well as in its sympathy; in
its hatred of wrong as well as in its love of right. Each alike is
a true index of the mind, because each really implies the
other.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 11.—That the Image or Begotten Word of the Mind that Knows Itself is Equal to the Mind Itself.
16. But all knowledge according to species is like the thing which it knows. For there is another knowledge according to privation, according to which we speak a word only when we condemn. And this condemnation of a privation is equivalent to praise of the species, and so is approved. The mind, then, contains some likeness to a known species, whether when liking that species or when disliking its privation. And hence, in so far as we know God, we are like Him, but not like to the point of equality, since we do not know Him to the extent of His own being. And as, when we speak of bodies by means of the bodily sense, there arises in our mind some likeness of them, which is a phantasm of the memory; for the bodies themselves are not at all in the mind, when we think them, but only the likenesses of those bodies; therefore, when we approve the latter for the former, we err, for the approving of one thing for another is an error; yet the image of the body in the mind is a thing of a better sort than the species of the body itself, inasmuch as the former is in a better nature, viz. in a living substance, as the mind is: so when we know God, although we are made better than we were before we knew Him, and above all when the same knowledge being also liked and worthily loved becomes a word, and so that knowledge becomes a kind of likeness of God; yet that knowledge is of a lower kind, since it is in a lower nature; for the mind is creature, but God is Creator. And from this it may be inferred, that when the mind knows and approves itself, this same knowledge is in such way its word, as that it is altogether on a par and equal with it, and the same; because it is neither the knowledge of a lower essence, as of the body, nor of a higher, as of God. And whereas knowledge bears a likeness to that which it knows, that is, of which it is the knowledge; in this case it has perfect and equal likeness, when the mind itself, which knows, is known. And so it is both image and word; because it is uttered concerning that mind to which it is equalled in knowing, and that which is begotten is equal to the begetter.
Chapter 12.—Why Love is Not the Offspring of the Mind, as Knowledge is So. The Solution of the Question. The Mind with the Knowledge of Itself and the Love of Itself is the Image of the Trinity.
17. What then is love? Will it not
be an image? Will it not be a word? Will it not be begotten? For
why does the mind beget its knowledge when it knows itself, and not
beget its love when it loves itself? For if it is the cause of its
own knowing, for the reason that it is knowable, it is also the
cause of its own love because it is lovable. It is hard, then, to
say why it does not beget both. For there is a further question
also respecting the supreme Trinity itself, the omnipotent God the
Creator, after whose image man is made, which troubles men, whom
the truth of God invites to the faith by human speech; viz.
why the Holy Spirit is not also to be either believed or understood
to be begotten by God the Father, so that He also may be called a
Son. And this question we are endeavoring in some way to
investigate in the human mind, in order that from a lower image, in
which our own nature itself as it were answers, upon being
questioned, in a way more familiar to ourselves, we may be able to
direct a more practised mental vision from the enlightened creature
to the unchangeable light; assuming, however, that the truth itself
has persuaded us, that as no Christian doubts the Word of God to be
the Son, so that the Holy Spirit is love. Let us return, then, to a
more careful questioning and consideration upon this subject of
that image which is the creature, that is, of the rational mind;
wherein the knowl
18. First, therefore, it is clear
that a thing may possibly be knowable, that is, such as can be
known, and yet that it may be unknown; but that it is not possible
for that to be known which is not knowable. Wherefore it must be
clearly held that everything whatsoever that we know begets at the
same time in us the knowledge of itself; for knowledge is brought
forth from both, from the knower and from the thing known. When,
therefore, the mind knows itself, it alone is the parent of its own
knowledge; for it is itself both the thing known and the knower of
it. But it was knowable to itself also before it knew itself, only
the knowledge of itself was not in itself so long as it did not
know itself. In knowing itself, then, it begets a knowledge of
itself equal to itself; since it does not know itself as less than
itself is, nor is its knowledge the knowledge of the essence of
some one else, not only because itself knows, but also because it
knows itself, as we have said above. What then is to be said of
love; why, when the mind loves itself, it should not seem also to
have begotten the love of itself? For it was lovable to itself even
before it loved itself since it could love itself; just as it was
knowable to itself even before it knew itself, since it could know
itself. For if it were not knowable to itself, it never could have
known itself; and so, if it were not lovable to itself, it never
could have loved itself. Why therefore may it not be said by loving
itself to have begotten its own love, as by knowing itself it has
begotten its own knowledge? Is it because it is thereby indeed
plainly shown that this is the principle of love, whence it
proceeds? for it proceeds from the mind itself, which is lovable to
itself before it loves itself, and so is the principle of its own
love by which it loves itself: but that this love is not therefore
rightly said to be begotten by the mind, as is the knowledge of
itself by which the mind knows itself, because in the case of
knowledge the thing has been found already, which is what we call
brought forth or discovered; “Partum” or
“repertum.”
“Reperiendi.” [It is not these three together
that constitute the one substance. The mind alone is the
substance—the knowledge and the love being only two activities of
it. When the mind is not cognizing or loving, it is still an entire
mind. As previously remarked in the annotation on IX. ii. this
ternary will completely illustrate a trinality of a certain kind,
but not that of the Trinity; in which the “tria quædam”
are three subsistences, each of which is so substantial as to be
the subject of attributes, and to be able to employ them. The human
mind is substantial enough to possess and employ the attributes of
knowledge and love. We say that the mind knows and loves. But an
activity of the mind is not substantial enough to possess
and employ the attributes of knowledge and love. We cannot say that
the loving loves; or the loving knows; or the knowing loves,
etc.—W.G.T.S.]
Book X.
————————————
In which there is shown to be another trinity in the mind of man, and one that appears much more evidently, viz. in his memory, understanding, and will.
Chapter 1.—The Love of the Studious Mind, that Is, of One Desirous to Know, is Not the Love of a Thing Which It Does Not Know.
1. Let us now proceed, then, in due order, with a more exact purpose, to explain this same point more thoroughly. And first, since no one can love at all a thing of which he is wholly ignorant, we must carefully consider of what sort is the love of those who are studious, that is, of those who do not already know, but are still desiring to know any branch of learning. Now certainly, in those things whereof the word study is not commonly used, love often arises from hearsay, when the reputation of anything for beauty inflames the mind to the seeing and enjoying it; since the mind knows generically wherein consist the beauties of corporeal things, from having seen them very frequently, and since there exists within a faculty of approving that which outwardly is longed for. And when this happens, the love that is called forth is not of a thing wholly unknown, since its genus is thus known. But when we love a good man whose face we never saw, we love him from the knowledge of his virtues, which virtues we know [abstractly] in the truth itself. But in the case of learning, it is for the most part the authority of others who praise and commend it that kindles our love of it; although nevertheless we could not burn with any zeal at all for the study of it, unless we had already in our mind at least a slight impression of the knowledge of each kind of learning. For who, for instance, would devote any care and labor to the learning of rhetoric, unless he knew before that it was the science of speaking? Sometimes, again, we marvel at the results of learning itself, which we have heard of or experienced; and hence burn to obtain, by learning, the power of attaining these results. Just as if it were said to one who did not know his letters, that there is a kind of learning which enables a man to send words, wrought with the hand in silence, to one who is ever so far absent, for him in turn to whom they are sent to gather these words, not with his ears, but with his eyes; and if the man were to see the thing actually done, is not that man, since he desires to know how he can do this thing, altogether moved to study with a view to the result which he already knows and holds? So it is that the studious zeal of those who learn is kindled: for that of which any one is utterly ignorant, he can in no way love.
2. So also, if any one hear an
unknown sign, as, for instance, the sound of some word of which he
does not know the signification, he desires to know what it is;
that is, he desires to know what thing it is which it is agreed
shall be brought to mind by that sound: as if he heard the word
temetum Wine.
3. Wherefore in all cases the love
of a studious mind, that is, of one that wishes to know what it
does not know, is not the love of that thing which it does not
know, but of that which it knows; on account of which it
Chapter 2.—No One at All Loves Things Unknown.
4. No studious person, then, no inquisitive person, loves things he does not know, even while he is urgent with the most vehement desire to know what he does not know. For he either knows already generically what he loves, and longs to know it also in some individual or individuals, which perhaps are praised, but not yet known to him; and he pictures in his mind an imaginary form by which he may be stirred to love. And whence does he picture this, except from those things which he has already known? And yet perhaps he will not love it, if he find that form which was praised to be unlike that other form which was figured and in thought most fully known to his mind. And if he has loved it, he will begin to love it from that time when he learned it; since a little before, that form which was loved was other than that which the mind that formed it had been wont to exhibit to itself. But if he shall find it similar to that form which report had proclaimed, and to be such that he could truly say I was already loving thee; yet certainly not even then did he love a form he did not know, since he had known it in that likeness. Or else we see somewhat in the species of the eternal reason, and therein love it; and when this is manifested in some image of a temporal thing, and we believe the praises of those who have made trial of it, and so love it, then we do not love anything unknown, according to that which we have already sufficiently discussed above. Or else, again, we love something known, and on account of it seek something unknown; and so it is by no means the love of the thing unknown that possesses us, but the love of the thing known, to which we know the unknown thing belongs, so that we know that too which we seek still as unknown; as a little before I said of an unknown word. Or else, again, every one loves the very knowing itself, as no one can fail to know who desires to know anything. For these reasons they seem to love things unknown who wish to know anything which they do not know, and who, on account of their vehement desire of inquiry, cannot be said to be without love. But how different the case really is, and that nothing at all can be loved which is not known, I think I must have persuaded every one who carefully looks upon truth. But since the examples which we have given belong to those who desire to know something which they themselves are not, we must take thought lest perchance some new notion appear, when the mind desires to know itself.
Chapter 3.—That When the Mind Loves Itself, It is Not Unknown to Itself.
5. What, then, does the mind love,
when it seeks ardently to know itself, whilst it is still unknown
to itself? For, behold, the mind seeks to know itself, and is
excited thereto by studious zeal. It loves, therefore; but what
does it love? Is it itself? But how can this be when it does not
yet know itself, and no one can love what he does not know? Is it
that report has declared to it its own species, in like way as we
commonly hear of people who are absent? Perhaps, then, it does not
love itself, but loves that which it imagines of itself, which is
perhaps widely different from what itself is: or if the phantasy in
the mind is like the mind itself, and
Chapter 4.—How the Mind Knows Itself, Not in Part, But as a Whole.
6. What then shall we say? Does
that which knows itself in part, not know itself in part? But it is
absurd to say, that it does not as a whole know what it knows. I do
not say, it knows wholly; but what it knows, it as a whole knows.
When therefore it knows anything about itself, which it can only
know as a whole, it knows itself as a whole. But it does know that
itself knows something, while yet except as a whole it cannot know
anything. Therefore it knows itself as a whole. Further, what in it
is so known to itself, as that it lives? And it cannot at once be a
mind, and not live, while it has also something over and above,
viz., that it understands: for the souls of beasts also live,
but do not understand. As therefore a mind is a whole mind, so it
lives as a whole. But it knows that it lives. Therefore it knows
itself as a whole. Lastly, when the mind seeks to know itself, it
already knows that it is a mind: otherwise it knows not whether it
seeks itself, and perhaps seeks one thing while intending to seek
another. For it might happen that itself was not a mind, and so, in
seeking to know a mind, that it did not seek to know itself.
Wherefore since the mind, when it seeks to know what mind is, knows
that it seeks itself, certainly it knows that itself is a mind.
Furthermore, if it knows this in itself, that it is a mind, and a
whole mind, then it knows itself as a whole. But suppose it did not
know itself to be a mind, but in seeking itself only knew that it
did seek itself. For so, too, it may possibly seek one thing for
another, if it does not know this: but that it may not seek one
thing for another, without doubt it knows what it seeks. But if it
knows what it seeks, and seeks itself, then certainly it knows
itself. What therefore more does it seek? But if it knows itself in
part, but still seeks itself in part, then it seeks not itself, but
part of itself. For when we speak of the mind itself, we speak of
it as a whole. Further, because it knows that it is not yet found
by itself as a whole, it knows how much the whole is. And so it
seeks that
Chapter 5.—Why the Soul is Enjoined to Know Itself. Whence Come the Errors of the Mind Concerning Its Own Substance.
7. Why therefore is it enjoined upon it, that it should know itself? I suppose, in order that, it may consider itself, and live according to its own nature; that is, seek to be regulated according to its own nature, viz., under Him to whom it ought to be subject, and above those things to which it is to be preferred; under Him by whom it ought to be ruled, above those things which it ought to rule. For it does many things through vicious desire, as though in forgetfulness of itself. For it sees some things intrinsically excellent, in that more excellent nature which is God: and whereas it ought to remain steadfast that it may enjoy them, it is turned away from Him, by wishing to appropriate those things to itself, and not to be like to Him by His gift, but to be what He is by its own, and it begins to move and slip gradually down into less and less, which it thinks to be more and more; for it is neither sufficient for itself, nor is anything at all sufficient for it, if it withdraw from Him who is alone sufficient: and so through want and distress it becomes too intent upon its own actions and upon the unquiet delights which it obtains through them: and thus, by the desire of acquiring knowledge from those things that are without, the nature of which it knows and loves, and which it feels can be lost unless held fast with anxious care, it loses its security, and thinks of itself so much the less, in proportion as it feels the more secure that it cannot lose itself. So, whereas it is one thing not to know oneself, and another not to think of oneself (for we do not say of the man that is skilled in much learning, that he is ignorant of grammar, when he is only not thinking of it, because he is thinking at the time of the art of medicine);—whereas, then, I say it is one thing not to know oneself, and another not to think of oneself, such is the strength of love, that the mind draws in with itself those things which it has long thought of with love, and has grown into them by the close adherence of diligent study, even when it returns in some way to think of itself. And because these things are corporeal which it loved externally through the carnal senses; and because it has become entangled with them by a kind of daily familiarity, and yet cannot carry those corporeal things themselves with itself internally as it were into the region of incorporeal nature; therefore it combines certain images of them, and thrusts them thus made from itself into itself. For it gives to the forming of them somewhat of its own substance, yet preserves the while something by which it may judge freely of the species of those images; and this something is more properly the mind, that is, the rational understanding, which is preserved that it may judge. For we see that we have those parts of the soul which are informed by the likenesses of corporeal things, in common also with beasts.
Chapter 6.—The Opinion Which the Mind Has of Itself is Deceitful.
8. But the mind errs, when it so lovingly and intimately connects itself with these images, as even to consider itself to be something of the same kind. For so it is conformed to them to some extent, not by being this, but by thinking it is so: not that it thinks itself to be an image, but outright that very thing itself of which it entertains the image. For there still lives in it the power of distinguishing the corporeal thing which it leaves without, from the image of that corporeal thing which it contains therefrom within itself: except when these images are so projected as if felt without and not thought within, as in the case of people who are asleep, or mad, or in a trance.
Chapter 7.—The Opinions of Philosophers Respecting the Substance of the Soul. The Error of Those Who are of Opinion that the Soul is Corporeal, Does Not Arise from Defective Knowledge of the Soul, But from Their Adding There to Something Foreign to It. What is Meant by Finding.
9. When, therefore, it thinks
itself to be something of this kind, it thinks itself to be a
corporeal thing; and since it is perfectly conscious of its own
superiority, by which it rules the body, it has hence come to pass
that the question has been raised what part of the body has the
greater power in the body; and the opinion has been held that this
is the mind, nay, that it is even the whole soul altogether. And
some accordingly think it to be the blood, others the brain, others
the heart; not as the Scripture says, “I will praise Thee, O
Lord, with my whole heart;” and, “Thou shall love the Lord thy
God with all thine heart;”
For as to that fifth kind of body, I know not what, which some have added to the four well-known elements of the world, and have said that the soul was made of this, I do not think we need spend time in discussing it in this place. For either they mean by body what we mean by it, viz., that of which a part is less than the whole in extension of place, and they are to be reckoned among those who have believed the mind to be corporeal: or if they call either all substance, or all changeable substance, body, whereas they know that not all substance is contained in extension of place by any length and breadth and height, we need not contend with them about a question of words.
10. Now, in the case of all these
opinions, any one who sees that the nature of the mind is at once
substance, and yet not corporeal,—that is, that it does not
occupy a less extension of place with a less part of itself, and a
greater with a greater,—must needs see at the same time that they
who are of opinion that it is corporeal [The distinction between corporeal
and incorporeal substance is one that Augustin often insists upon.
See Confessions VII. i-iii. The doctrine that all substance is
extended body, and that there is no such entity as spiritual
unextended substance, is combatted by Plato in the Theatetus. For a
history of the contest and an able defence of the substantiality of
spirit, see Cudworth’s Intellectual System, III. 384 sq.
Harrison’s Ed.—W.G.T.S.] Invenire Inventa
Chapter 8.—How the Soul Inquires into Itself. Whence Comes the Error of the Soul Concerning Itself.
11. It is then a wonderful question, in what manner the soul seeks and finds itself; at what it aims in order to seek, or whither it comes, that it may come into or find out. For what is so much in the mind as the mind itself? But because it is in those things which it thinks of with love, and is wont to be in sensible, that is, in corporeal things with love, it is unable to be in itself without the images of those corporeal things. And hence shameful error arises to block its way, whilst it cannot separate from itself the images of sensible things, so as to see itself alone. For they have marvellously cohered with it by the close adhesion of love. And herein consists its uncleanness; since, while it strives to think of itself alone, it fancies itself to be that, without which it cannot think of itself. When, therefore, it is bidden to become acquainted with itself, let it not seek itself as though it were withdrawn from itself; but let it withdraw that which it has added to itself. For itself lies more deeply within, not only than those sensible things, which are clearly without, but also than the images of them; which are indeed in some part of the soul, viz., that which beasts also have, although these want understanding, which is proper to the mind. As therefore the mind is within, it goes forth in some sort from itself, when it exerts the affection of love towards these, as it were, footprints of many acts of attention. And these footprints are, as it were, imprinted on the memory, at the time when the corporeal things which are without are perceived in such way, that even when those corporeal things are absent, yet the images of them are at hand to those who think of them. Therefore let the mind become acquainted with itself, and not seek itself as if it were absent; but fix upon itself the act of [voluntary] attention, by which it was wandering among other things, and let it think of itself. So it will see that at no time did it ever not love itself, at no time did it ever not know itself; but by loving another thing together with itself it has confounded itself with it, and in some sense has grown one with it. And so, while it embraces diverse things, as though they were one, it has come to think those things to be one which are diverse.
Chapter 9.—The Mind Knows Itself, by the Very Act of Understanding the Precept to Know Itself.
12. Let it not therefore seek to discern itself as though absent, but take pains to discern itself as present. Nor let it take knowledge of itself as if it did not know itself, but let it distinguish itself from that which it knows to be another. For how will it take pains to obey that very precept which is given it, “Know thyself,” if it knows not either what “know” means or what “thyself” means? But if it knows both, then it knows also itself. Since “know thyself” is not so said to the mind as is “Know the cherubim and the seraphim;” for they are absent, and we believe concerning them, and according to that belief they are declared to be certain celestial powers. Nor yet again as it is said, Know the will of that man: for this it is not within our reach to perceive at all, either by sense or understanding, unless by corporeal signs actually set forth; and this in such a way that we rather believe than understand. Nor again as it is said to a man, Behold thy own face; which he can only do in a looking-glass. For even our own face itself is out of the reach of our own seeing it; because it is not there where our look can be directed. But when it is said to the mind, Know thyself; then it knows itself by that very act by which it understands the word “thyself;” and this for no other reason than that it is present to itself. But if it does not understand what is said, then certainly it does not do as it is bid to do. And therefore it is bidden to do that thing which it does do, when it understands the very precept that bids it.
Chapter 10.—Every Mind Knows Certainly Three Things Concerning Itself—That It Understands, that It Is, and that It Lives.
13. Let it not then add anything to
that which it knows itself to be, when it is bidden to know itself.
For it knows, at any rate, that this is said to itself; namely, to
the self that is, and that lives, and that understands. But a dead
body also is, and cattle live; but neither a dead body nor cattle
understand. Therefore it so knows that it so is, and that it so
lives, as an understanding is and lives. When, therefore, for
example’s sake, the mind thinks itself air, it thinks that air
understands; it knows, however, that itself understands, but it
does not know itself to be air, but only thinks so. Let it separate
that which it thinks itself; let it discern that which it knows;
let this remain to it, about which not even have they doubted who
have thought the mind to be this corporeal thing or that. For
certainly every mind does not consider
14. But since we treat of the nature of the mind, let us remove from our consideration all knowledge which is received from without, through the senses of the body; and attend more carefully to the position which we have laid down, that all minds know and are certain concerning themselves. For men certainly have doubted whether the power of living, of remembering, of understanding, of willing, of thinking, of knowing, of judging, be of air, or of fire, or of the brain, or of the blood, or of atoms, or besides the usual four elements of a fifth kind of body, I know not what; or whether the combining or tempering together of this our flesh itself has power to accomplish these things. And one has attempted to establish this, and another to establish that. Yet who ever doubts that he himself lives, and remembers, and understands, and wills, and thinks, and knows, and judges? Seeing that even if he doubts, he lives; if he doubts, he remembers why he doubts; if he doubts, he understands that he doubts; if he doubts, he wishes to be certain; if he doubts, he thinks; if he doubts, he knows that he does not know; if he doubts, he judges that he ought not to assent rashly. Whosoever therefore doubts about anything else, ought not to doubt of all these things; which if they were not, he would not be able to doubt of anything.
15. They who think the mind to be either a body or the combination or tempering of the body, will have all these things to seem to be in a subject, so that the substance is air, or fire, or some other corporeal thing, which they think to be the mind; but that the understanding (intelligentia) is in this corporeal thing as its quality, so that this corporeal thing is the subject, but the understanding is in the subject: viz. that the mind is the subject, which they judge to be a corporeal thing, but the understanding [intelligence], or any other of those things which we have mentioned as certain to us, is in that subject. They also hold nearly the same opinion who deny the mind itself to be body, but think it to be the combination or tempering together of the body; for there is this difference, that the former say that the mind itself is the substance, in which the understanding [intelligence] is, as in a subject; but the latter say that the mind itself is in a subject, viz. in the body, of which it is the combination or tempering together. And hence, by consequence, what else can they think, except that the understanding also is in the same body as in a subject?
16. And all these do not perceive
that the mind knows itself, even when it seeks for itself, as we
have already shown. But nothing is at all rightly said to be known
while its substance is not known. And therefore, when the mind
knows itself, it knows its own substance; and when it is certain
about itself, it as certain about its own substance. But it is
certain about itself, as those things which are said above prove
convincingly; although it is not at all certain whether itself is
air, or fire, or some body, or some function of body. Therefore it
is not any of these. And to that whole which is bidden to know
itself, belongs this, that it is certain that it is not any of
those things of which it is uncertain, and is certain that it is
that only, which only it is certain that it is. For it thinks in
this way of fire, or air, and whatever else of the body it thinks
of. Neither can it in any way be brought to pass that it should so
think that which itself is, as it thinks that which itself is not.
Since it thinks all these things through an imaginary phantasy,
whether fire, or air, or this or that body, or that part or
combination and tempering together of the body: nor assuredly is it
said to be all those things, but
Chapter 11.—In Memory, Understanding [or Intelligence], and Will, We Have to Note Ability, Learning, and Use. Memory, Understanding, and Will are One Essentially, and Three Relatively.
17. Putting aside, then, for a little while all other things, of which the mind is certain concerning itself, let us especially consider and discuss these three—memory, understanding, will. For we may commonly discern in these three the character of the abilities of the young also; since the more tenaciously and easily a boy remembers, and the more acutely he understands, and the more ardently he studies, the more praiseworthy is he in point of ability. But when the question is about any one’s learning, then we ask not how solidly and easily he remembers, or how shrewdly he understands; but what it is that he remembers, and what it is that he understands. And because the mind is regarded as praiseworthy, not only as being learned, but also as being good, one gives heed not only to what he remembers and what he understands, but also to what he wills (velit); not how ardently he wills, but first what it is he wills, and then how greatly he wills it. For the mind that loves eagerly is then to be praised, when it loves that which ought to be loved eagerly. Since, then, we speak of these three—ability, knowledge, use—the first of these is to be considered under the three heads, of what a man can do in memory, and understanding, and will. The second of them is to be considered in regard to that which any one has in his memory and in his understanding, which he has attained by a studious will. But the third, viz. use, lies in the will, which handles those things that are contained in the memory and understanding, whether it refer them to anything further, or rest satisfied with them as an end. For to use, is to take up something into the power of the will; and to enjoy, is to use with joy, not any longer of hope, but of the actual thing. Accordingly, every one who enjoys, uses; for he takes up something into the power of the will, wherein he also is satisfied as with an end. But not every one who uses, enjoys, if he has sought after that, which he takes up into the power of the will, not on account of the thing itself, but on account of something else.
18. Since, then, these three,
memory, understanding, will, are not three lives, but one life; nor
three minds, but one mind; it follows certainly that neither are
they three substances, but one substance. Since memory, which is
called life, and mind, and substance, is so called in respect to
itself; but it is called memory, relatively to something. And I
should say the same also of understanding and of will, since they
are called understanding and will relatively to something; but each
in respect to itself is life, and mind, and essence. And hence
these three are one, in that they are one life, one mind, one
essence; and whatever else they are severally called in respect to
themselves, they are called also together, not plurally, but in the
singular number. But they are three, in that wherein they are
mutually referred to each other; and if they were not equal, and
this not only each to each, but also each to all, they certainly
could not mutually contain each other; for not only is each
contained by each, but also all by each. For I remember that I have
memory and understanding, and will; and I understand that I
understand, and will, and remember; and I will that I will, and
remember, and understand; and I remember together my whole memory,
and understanding, and will. For that of my memory which I do not
remember, is not in my memory; and nothing is so much in the memory
as memory itself. Therefore I remember the whole memory. Also,
whatever I understand I know that I understand, and I know that I
will whatever I will; but whatever I know I remember. Therefore I
remember the whole of my understanding, and the whole of my will.
Likewise, when I understand these three things, I understand them
together as whole. For there is none of things intelligible which I
do not understand, except what I do not know; but what I do not
know, I neither remember, nor will. Therefore, whatever of things
intelligible I do not understand, it follows also that I neither
remember nor will. And whatever of things intelligible I remember
and will, it fol [This ternary of memory, understanding, and will, is a
better analogue to the Trinity than the preceding one in chapter
IX—namely, mind, knowledge, and love. Memory, understanding, and
will have equal substantiality, while mind, knowledge, and love
have not. The former are three faculties, in each of which
is the whole mind or spirit. The memory is the whole mind as
remembering; the understanding is the whole mind as cognizing; and
the will is the whole mind as determining. The one essence of the
mind is in each of these three modes, each of which is distinct
from the others; and yet there are not three essences or minds. In
the other ternary, of mind, knowledge, and love, the last two are
not faculties but single acts of the mind. A particular act
of cognition is not the whole mind in the general mode of
cognition. This would make it a faculty. A particular act of
loving, or of willing, is not the whole mind in the general
mode of loving, or of willing. This would make the momentary and
transient act a permanent faculty. This ternary fails, as we have
noticed in a previous annotation (IX. ii. 2), in that only the mind
is a substance. The ternary of
memory, understanding, and will is an adequate analogue to the
Trinity in respect to equal substantiality. But it fails when the
separate consciousness of the Trinitarian distinctions is
brought into consideration. The three faculties of memory,
understanding, and will, are not so objective to each other as to
admit of three forms of consciousness, of the use of the personal
pronouns, and of the personal actions that are ascribed to the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It also fails, in that these three
are not all the modes of the mind. There are other
faculties: e. g., the imagination. The whole essence of the
mind is in this also.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 12.—The Mind is an Image of the Trinity in Its Own Memory, and Understanding, and Will.
19. Are we, then, now to go upward, with whatever strength of purpose we may, to that chiefest and highest essence, of which the human mind is an inadequate image, yet an image? Or are these same three things to be yet more distinctly made plain in the soul, by means of those things which we receive from without, through the bodily sense, wherein the knowledge of corporeal things is impressed upon us in time? Since we found the mind itself to be such in its own memory, and understanding, and will, that since it was understood always to know and always to will itself, it was understood also at the same time always to remember itself, always to understand and love itself, although not always to think of itself as separate from those things which are not itself; and hence its memory of itself, and understanding of itself, are with difficult discerned in it. For in this case, where these two things are very closely conjoined, and one is not preceded by the other by any time at all, it looks as if they were not two things, but one called by two names; and love itself is not so plainly felt to exist when the sense of need does not disclose it, since what is loved is always at hand. And hence these things may be more lucidly set forth, even to men of duller minds, if such topics are treated of as are brought within reach of the mind in time, and happen to it in time; while it remembers what it did not remember before, and sees what it did not see before, and loves what it did not love before. But this discussion demands now another beginning, by reason of the measure of the present book.
Book XI.
————————————
A kind of image of the Trinity is pointed out, even in the outer man; first of all, in those things which are perceived from without, viz. in the bodily object that is seen, and in the form that is impressed by it upon the sight of the seer, and in the purpose of the will that combines the two; although these three are neither mutually equal, nor of one substance. Next, a kind of trinity, in three somewhats of one substance, is observed to exist in the mind itself, as it were introduced there from those things that are perceived from without; viz. the image of the bodily object which is in the memory, and the impression formed therefrom when the mind’s eye of the thinker is turned to it, and the purpose of the will combining both. And this latter trinity is also said to pertain to the outer man, in that it is introduced into the mind from bodily objects, which are perceived from without.
Chapter 1.—A Trace of the Trinity Also In the Outer Man.
1.
No one doubts that, as the inner man is
endued with understanding, so is the outer with bodily sense. Let
us try, then, if we can, to discover in this outer man also, some
trace, however slight, of the Trinity, not that itself also is in
the same manner the image of God. For the opinion of the apostle is
evident, which declares the inner man to be renewed in the
knowledge of God after the image of Him that created him:
Chapter 2.—A Certain Trinity in the Sight. That There are Three Things in Sight, Which Differ in Their Own Nature. In What Manner from a Visible Thing Vision is Produced, or the Image of that Thing Which is Seen. The Matter is Shown More Clearly by an Example. How These Three Combine in One.
2. When, then, we see any corporeal object, these three things, as is most easy to do, are to be considered and distinguished: First, the object itself which we see; whether a stone, or flame, or any other thing that can be seen by the eyes; and this certainly might exist also already before it was seen; next, vision or the act of seeing, which did not exist before we perceived the object itself which is presented to the sense; in the third place, that which keeps the sense of the eye in the object seen, so long as it is seen, viz. the attention of the mind. In these three, then, not only is there an evident distinction, but also a diverse nature. For, first, that visible body is of a far different nature from the sense of the eyes, through the incidence of which sense upon it vision arises. And what plainly is vision itself other than perception informed by that thing which is perceived? Although there is no vision if the visible object be withdrawn, nor could there be any vision of the kind at all if there were no body that could be seen; yet the body by which the sense of the eyes is informed, when that body is seen, and the form itself which is imprinted by it upon the sense, which is called vision, are by no means of the same substance. For the body that is seen is, in its own nature, separable; but the sense, which was already in the living subject, even before it saw what it was able to see, when it fell in with something visible,—or the vision which comes to be in the sense from the visible body when now brought into connection with it and seen,—the sense, then, I say, or the vision, that is, the sense informed from without, belongs to the nature of the living subject, which is altogether other than that body which we perceive by seeing, and by which the sense is not so formed as to be sense, but as to be vision. For unless the sense were also in us before the presentation to us of the sensible object, we should not differ from the blind, at times when we are seeing nothing, whether in darkness, or when our eyes are closed. But we differ from them in this, that there is in us, even when we are not seeing, that whereby we are able to see, which is called the sense; whereas this is not in them, nor are they called blind for any other reason than because they have it not. Further also, that attention of the mind which keeps the sense in that thing which we see, and connects both, not only differs from that visible thing in its nature; in that the one is mind, and the other body; but also from the sense and the vision itself: since this attention is the act of the mind alone; but the sense of the eyes is called a bodily sense, for no other reason than because the eyes themselves also are members of the body; and although an inanimate body does not perceive, yet the soul commingled with the body perceives through a corporeal instrument, and that instrument is called sense. And this sense, too, is cut off and extinguished by suffering on the part of the body, when any one is blinded; while the mind remains the same; and its attention, since the eyes are lost, has not, indeed, the sense of the body which it may join, by seeing, to the body without it, and so fix its look thereupon and see it, yet by the very effort shows that, although the bodily sense be taken away, itself can neither perish nor be diminished. For there remains unimpaired a desire [appetitus] of seeing, whether it can be carried into effect or not. These three, then, the body that is seen, and vision itself, and the attention of mind which joins both together, are manifestly distinguishable, not only on account of the properties of each, but also on account of the difference of their natures.
3. And since, in this case, the
sensation does not proceed from that body which is seen, but from
the body of the living being that perceives, with which the soul is
tempered together in some wonderful way of its own; yet vision is
produced, that is, the sense itself is informed, by the body which
is seen; so that now, not only is there the power of sense, which
can exist also unimpaired even in darkness, provided the eyes are
sound, but also a sense actually informed, which is called vision.
Vision, then, is produced from a thing that is visible; but not
from that alone, unless there be present also one who sees.
Therefore vision is produced from a thing that is visible, together
with one who sees; in such way that, on the part of him who sees,
there is the sense of seeing and the intention of looking and
gazing at the object; while yet that information of the sense,
which is called vision, is imprinted only by the body which is
seen, that is, by some visible thing; which being taken away, that
form
4. But if any perhaps attend to what I am about to mention, they will find no such trouble in this inquiry. Commonly, when we have looked for some little time at a light, and then shut our eyes, there seem to play before our eyes certain bright colors variously changing themselves, and shining less and less until they wholly cease; and these we must understand to be the remains of that form which was wrought in the sense, while the shining body was seen, and that these variations take place in them as they slowly and step by step fade away. For the lattices, too, of windows, should we happen to be gazing at them, appear often in these colors; so that it is evident that our sense is affected by such impressions from that thing which is seen. That form therefore existed also while we were seeing, and at that time it was more clear and express. But it was then closely joined with the species of that thing which was being perceived, so that it could not be at all distinguished from it; and this was vision itself. Why, even when the little flame of a lamp is in some way, as it were, doubled by the divergent rays of the eyes, a twofold vision comes to pass, although the thing which is seen is one. For the same rays, as they shoot forth each from its own eye, are affected severally, in that they are not allowed to meet evenly and conjointly, in regarding that corporeal thing, so that one combined view might be formed from both. And so, if we shut one eye, we shall not see two flames, but one as it really is. But why, if we shut the left eye, that appearance ceases to be seen, which was on the right; and if, in turn, we shut the right eye, that drops out of existence which was on the left, is a matter both tedious in itself, and not necessary at all to our present subject to inquire and discuss. For it is enough for the business in hand to consider, that unless some image, precisely like the thing we perceive, were produced in our sense, the appearance of the flame would not be doubled according to the number of the eyes; since a certain way of perceiving has been employed, which could separate the union of rays. Certainly nothing that is really single can be seen as if it were double by one eye, draw it down, or press, or distort it as you please, if the other is shut.
5. The case then being so, let us
remember how these three things, although diverse in nature, are
tempered together into a kind of unity; that is, the form of the
body which is seen, and the image of it impressed on the sense,
which is vision or sense informed, and the will of the mind which
applies the sense to the sensible thing, and retains the vision
itself in it. The first of these, that is, the visible thing
itself, does not belong to the nature of the living being, except
when we discern our own body. But the second belongs to that nature
to this extent, that it is wrought in the body, and through the
body in the soul; for it is wrought in the sense, which is neither
without the body nor without the soul. But the third is of the soul
alone,
Chapter 3.—The Unity of the Three Takes Place in Thought, Viz Of Memory, of Ternal Vision, and of Will Combining Both.
6. The rational soul, however,
lives in a degenerate fashion, when it lives according to a trinity
of the outer man; that is, when it applies to those things
which form the bodily sense from without, not a praiseworthy will,
by which to refer them to some useful end, but a base desire, by
which to cleave to them. Since even if the form of the body, which
was corporeally perceived, be withdrawn, its likeness remains in
the memory, to which the will may again direct its eye, so as to be
formed thence from within, as the sense was formed from without by
the presentation of the sensible body. And so that trinity is
produced from memory, from internal vision, and from the will which
unites both. And when these three things are combined into one,
from that combination Coactus Cogitatio
Chapter 4.—How This Unity Comes to Pass.
7. But if that will which moves to and fro, hither and thither, the eye that is to be informed, and unites it when formed, shall have wholly converged to the inward phantasy, and shall have absolutely turned the mind’s eye from the presence of the bodies which lie around the senses, and from the very bodily senses themselves, and shall have wholly turned it to that image, which is perceived within; then so exact a likeness of the bodily species expressed from the memory is presented, that not even reason itself is permitted to discern whether the body itself is seen without, or only something of the kind thought of within. For men sometimes either allured or frightened by over-much thinking of visible things, have even suddenly uttered words accordingly, as if in real fact they were engaged in the very midst of such actions or sufferings. And I remember some one telling me that he was wont to perceive in thought, so distinct and as it were solid, a form of a female body, as to be moved, as though it were a reality. Such power has the soul over its own body, and such influence has it in turning and changing the quality of its [corporeal] garment; just as a man may be affected when clothed, to whom his clothing sticks. It is the same kind of affection, too, with which we are beguiled through imaginations in sleep. But it makes a very great difference, whether the senses of the body are lulled to torpor, as in the case of sleepers, or disturbed from their inward structure, as in the case of madmen, or distracted in some other mode, as in that of diviners or prophets; and so from one or other of these causes, the intention of the mind is forced by a kind of necessity upon those images which occur to it, either from memory, or by some other hidden force through certain spiritual commixtures of a similarly spiritual substance: or whether, as sometimes happens to people in health and awake, that the will occupied by thought turns itself away from the senses, and so informs the eye of the mind by various images of sensible things, as though those sensible things themselves were actually perceived. But these impressions of images not only take place when the will is directed upon such things by desiring them, but also when, in order to avoid and guard against them, the mind is carried away to look upon these very thing so as to flee from them. And hence, not only desire, but fear, causes both the bodily eye to be informed by the sensible things themselves, and the mental eye (acies) by the images of those sensible things. Accordingly, the more vehement has been either fear or desire, the more distinctly is the eye informed, whether in the case of him who [sensuously] perceives by means of the body that which lies close to him in place, or in the case of him who conceives from the image of the body which is contained in the memory. What then a body in place is to the bodily sense, that, the similitude of a body in memory is to the eye of the mind; and what the vision of one who looks at a thing is to that appearance of the body from which the sense is informed, that, the vision of a concipient is to the image of the body established in the memory, from which the eye of the mind is informed; and what the intention of the will is towards a body seen and the vision to be combined with it, in order that a certain unity of three things may therein take place, although their nature is diverse, that, the same intention of the will is towards combining the image of the body which is in the memory, and the vision of the concipient, that is, the form which the eye of the mind has taken in returning to the memory, in order that here too a certain unity may take place of three things, not now distinguished by diversity of nature, but of one and the same substance; because this whole is within, and the whole is one mind.
Chapter 5.—The Trinity of the Outer Man, or of External Vision, is Not an Image of God. The Likeness of God is Desired Even in Sins. In External Vision the Form of the Corporeal Thing is as It Were the Parent, Vision the Offspring; But the Will that Unites These Suggests the Holy Spirit.
8. But as, when [both] the form and
species of a body have perished, the will cannot recall to it the
sense of perceiving; so, when the image which memory bears is
blotted out by forgetfulness, the will will be unable to
force
9. Of that vision then; that is, of
the form which is wrought in the sense of him who sees; the form of
the bodily thing from which it is wrought, is, as it were, the
parent. But it is not a true parent; whence neither is that a true
offspring; for it is not altogether born therefrom, since something
else is applied to the bodily thing in order that it may be formed
from it, namely, the sense of him who sees. And for this reason, to
love this is to be estranged. Vid. Retract. Bk. II. c. 15, where Augustin adds that it is possible
to love the bodily species to the praise of the Creator, in which
case there is no “estrangement.”
Chapter 6.—Of What Kind We are to Reckon the Rest (Requies), and End (Finis), of the Will in Vision.
10. Perhaps we can rightly call
vision the end and rest of the will, only with respect to this one
object [namely, the bodily thing that is visible]. For it will not
will nothing else merely because it sees something which it is now
willing. It is not therefore the whole will itself of the man, of
which the end is nothing else than blessedness; but the will
provisionally directed to this one object, which has as its end in
seeing, nothing but vision, whether it refer the thing seen to any
other thing or not. For if it does not refer the vision to anything
further, but wills only to see this, there can be no question made
about showing that the end of the will is the vision; for it is
manifest. But if it does refer it to anything further, then
certainly it does will something else, and it will not be now a
will merely to see; or if to see, not one to see the particular
thing. Just as, if any one wished to see the scar, that from thence
he might learn that there had been a wound; or wished to see the
window, that through the window he might see the passers-by: all
these and other such acts of will have their own proper [proximate]
ends, which are referred to that [final] end of the will by which
we will to live blessedly, and to attain to that life which is not
referred to anything else, but suffices of itself to him who loves
it. The will then to see, has as its end vision; and the will to
see this particular thing, has as its end the vision of this
particular thing. Therefore the will to see the scar, desires its
own end, that is, the vision of the scar, and does not reach beyond
it; for the will to prove that there had been a wound, is a
distinct will, although dependent upon that, of which the end also
is to prove that there had been a wound. And the will to see the
window, has as its end the vision of the window; for that is
another and further will which depends upon it, viz. to see
the passers-by through the window, of which also the end is the
vision of the passers-by. But all the several wills that are bound
to each other, are at once right, if that one is good, to which all
are referred; and if that is bad, then all are bad. And so the
connected series of right wills is a sort of road which consists as
it were of certain steps, whereby to ascend to blessedness; but the
entanglement of depraved and distorted wills is a bond by which he
will be bound who thus acts, so as to be cast into outer
darkness.
Chapter 7.—There is Another Trinity in the Memory of Him Who Thinks Over Again What He Has Seen.
11. But yet again, take the case of
another trinity, more inward indeed than that which is in things
sensible, and in the senses, but which is yet conceived from
thence; while now it is no longer the sense of the body that is
informed from the body, but the eye of the mind that is informed
from the memory, since the species of the body which we perceived
from without has inhered in the memory itself. And that species,
which is in the memory, we call the quasi-parent of that which is
wrought in the phantasy of one who conceives. For it was in the
memory also, before we conceived it, just as the body was in place
also before we [sensuously] perceived it, in order that vision
might take place. But when it is conceived, then from that form
which the memory retains, there is copied in the mind’s eye
(acie) of him who conceives, and by remembrance is formed,
that species, which is the quasi-offspring of that which the memory
retains. But neither is the one a true parent, nor the other a true
offspring. For the mind’s vision which is formed from memory when
we think anything by recollection, does not proceed from that
species which we remember as seen; since we could not indeed have
remembered those things, unless we had seen them; yet the mind’s
eye, which is informed by the recollection, existed also before we
saw the body that we remember; and therefore how much more before
we committed it to memory? Although therefore the form which is
wrought in the mind’s eye of him who remembers, is wrought
12. Further, it is more difficult to discern clearly, whether the will which connects the vision to the memory is not either the parent or the offspring of some one of them; and the likeness and equality of the same nature and substance cause this difficulty of distinguishing. For it is not possible to do in this case, as with the sense that is formed from without (which is easily discerned from the sensible body, and again the will from both), on account of the difference of nature which is mutually in all three, and of which we have treated sufficiently above. For although this trinity, of which we at present speak, is introduced into the mind from without; yet it is transacted within, and there is no part of it outside of the nature of the mind itself. In what way, then, can it be demonstrated that the will is neither the quasi-parent, nor the quasi-offspring, either of the corporeal likeness which is contained in the memory, or of that which is copied thence in recollecting; when it so unites both in the act of conceiving, as that they appear singly as one, and cannot be discerned except by reason? It is then first to be considered that there cannot be any will to remember, unless we retain in the recesses of the memory either the whole, or some part, of that thing which we wish to remember. For the very will to remember cannot arise in the case of a thing which we have forgotten altogether and absolutely; since we have already remembered that the thing which we wish to remember is or has been, in our memory. For example, if I wish to remember what I supped on yesterday, either I have already remembered that I did sup, or if not yet this, at least I have remembered something about that time itself, if nothing else; at all events, I have remembered yesterday, and that part of yesterday in which people usually sup, and what supping is. For if I had not remembered anything at all of this kind, I could not wish to remember what I supped on yesterday. Whence we may perceive that the will of remembering proceeds, indeed, from those things which are retained in the memory, with the addition also of those which, by the act of discerning, are copied thence through recollection; that is, from the combination of something which we have remembered, and of the vision which was thence wrought, when we remembered, in the mind’s eye of him who thinks. But the will itself which unites both requires also some other thing, which is, as it were, close at hand, and adjacent to him who remembers. There are, then, as many trinities of this kind as there are remembrances; because there is no one of them wherein there are not these three things, viz. that which was stored up in the memory also before it was thought, and that which takes place in the conception when this is discerned, and the will that unites both, and from both and itself as a third, completes one single thing. Or is it rather that we so recognize some one trinity in this kind, as that we are to speak generally, of whatever corporeal species lie hidden in the memory, as of a single unity, and again of the general vision of the mind which remembers and conceives such things, as of a single unity, to the combination of which two there is to be joined as a third the will that combines them, that this whole may be a certain unity made up from three?
Chapter 8.—Different Modes of Conceiving.
But since the eye of the mind cannot look at all things together, in one glance, which the memory retains, these trinities of thought alternate in a series of withdrawals and successions, and so that trinity becomes most innumerably numerous; and yet not infinite, if it pass not beyond the number of things stored up in the memory. For, although we begin to reckon from the earliest perception which any one has of material things through any bodily sense, and even take in also those things which he has forgotten, yet the number would undoubtedly be certain and determined, although innumerable. For we not only call infinite things innumerable, but also those, which, although finite, exceed any one’s power of reckoning.
13. But we can hence perceive a
little more clearly that what the memory stores up and retains is a
different thing from that which is thence copied in the conception
of the man who remembers, although, when both are combined
together, they appear to be one and the same; because we can only
remember just as many species of bodies as we have actually seen,
and so great, and such, as we have actually seen; for the mind
imbibes them into the memory from the bodily sense; whereas the
things seen in conception, although drawn from those things which
are in the memory, yet are multiplied
14. Yet it very often happens that we believe also a true narrative, told us by others, of things which the narrators have themselves perceived by their senses. And in this case, when we conceive the things narrated to us, as we hear them, the eye of the mind does not seem to be turned back to the memory, in order to bring up visions in our thoughts; for we do not conceive these things from our own recollection, but upon the narration of another; and that trinity does not here seem to come to its completion, which is made when the species lying hid in the memory, and the vision of the man that remembers, are combined by will as a third. For I do not conceive that which lay hid in my memory, but that which I hear, when anything is narrated to me. I am not speaking of the words themselves of the speaker, lest any one should suppose that I have gone off to that other trinity, which is transacted without, in sensible things, or in the senses: but I am conceiving of those species of material things, which the narrator signifies to me by words and sounds; which species certainly I conceive of not by remembering, but by hearing. But if we consider the matter more carefully, even in this case, the limit of the memory is not overstepped. For I could not even understand the narrator, if I did not remember generically the individual things of which he speaks, even although I then hear them for the first time as connected together in one tale. For he who, for instance, describes to me some mountain stripped of timber, and clothed with olive trees, describes it to me who remembers the species both of mountains, and of timber, and of olive trees; and if I had forgotten these, I should not know at all of what he was speaking, and therefore could not conceive that description. And so it comes to pass, that every one who conceives things corporeal, whether he himself imagine anything, or hear, or read, either a narrative of things past, or a foretelling of things future, has recourse to his memory, and finds there the limit and measure of all the forms at which he gazes in his thought. For no one can conceive at all, either a color or a form of body, which he never saw, or a sound which he never heard, or a flavor which he never tasted, or a scent which he never smelt, or any touch of a corporeal thing which he never felt. But if no one conceives anything corporeal except what he has [sensuously] perceived, because no one remembers anything corporeal except what he has thus perceived, then, as is the limit of perceiving in bodies, so is the limit of thinking in the memory. For the sense receives the species from that body which we perceive, and the memory from the sense; but the mental eye of the concipient, from the memory.
15. Further, as the will applies
the sense to the bodily object, so it applies the memory to the
sense, and the eye of the mind of the concipient to the memory. But
that which harmonizes those things and unites them, itself also
disjoins and separates them, that is, the will. But it separates
the bodily senses from the bodies that are to be perceived, by
movement of the body, either to hinder our perceiving the thing, or
that we may cease to perceive it: as when we avert our eyes from
that which we are unwilling to see, or shut them; so, again, the
ears from sounds, or the nostrils from smells. So also we turn away
from tastes, either by shutting the mouth, or by casting the thing
out of the mouth. In touch, also, we either remove the bodily
thing, that we may not touch what we do not wish, or if we were
already touching it, we fling or push it away. Thus the will acts
by movement of the body, so that the bodily sense shall not be
joined to the sensible things. And it does this according to
its
Chapter 9.—Species is Produced by Species in Succession.
16. In this arrangement, then,
while we begin from the bodily species and arrive finally at the
species which comes to be in the intuition (contuitu) of the
concipient, we find four species born, as it were, step by step one
from the other, the second from the first, the third from the
second, the fourth from the third: since from the species of the
body itself, there arises that which comes to be in the sense of
the percipient; and from this, that which comes to be in the
memory; and from this, that which comes to be in the mind’s eye
of the concipient. And the will, therefore, thrice combines as it
were parent with offspring: first the species of the body with that
to which it gives birth in the sense of the body; and that again
with that which from it comes to be in the memory; and this also,
thirdly, with that which is born from it in the intuition of the
concipient’s mind. But the intermediate combination which is the
second, although it is nearer to the first, is yet not so like the
first as the third is. For there are two kinds of vision, the one
of [sensuous] perception (sentientis), the other of
conception (cogitantis). But in order that the vision of
conception may come to be, there is wrought for the purpose, in the
memory, from the vision of [sensuous] perception something like it,
to which the eye of the mind may turn itself in conceiving, as the
glance (acies) of the eyes turns itself in [sensuously]
perceiving to the bodily object. I have, therefore, chosen to put
forward two trinities in this kind: one when the vision of
[sensuous] perception is formed from the bodily object, the other
when the vision of conception is formed from the memory. But I have
refrained from commending an intermediate one; because we do not
commonly call it vision, when the form which comes to be in the
sense of him who perceives, is entrusted to the memory. Yet in all
cases the will does not appear unless as the combiner as it were of
parent and offspring; and so, proceed from whence it may, it can be
called neither parent nor offspring. [Augustin’s map of consciousness is as follows: (1).
The corporeal species=the external object (outward appearance).
(2). The sensible species=the sensation (appearance for the sense).
(3). The mental species in its first form=present perception. (4).
The mental species in its second form=remembered perception. These
three “species” or appearances of the object: namely,
corporeal, sensible, and mental, according to him, are combined in
one synthesis with the object by the operation of the will. By
“will,” he does not mean distinct and separate volitions: but
the spontaneity of the ego—what Kant denominates the mechanism of
the understanding, seen in the spontaneous employment of the
categories of thought, as the mind ascends from empirical sensation
to rational conception. The English translator
has failed to make clear the sharply defined psychology of these
chapters, by loosely rendering “sentire,” “to
perceive,” and “cogitare” to
think.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 10.—The Imagination Also Adds Even to Things We Have Not Seen, Those Things Which We Have Seen Elsewhere.
17. But if we do not remember
except what we have [sensuously] perceived, nor conceive except
what we remember; why do we often conceive things that are false,
when certainly we do not remember falsely those things which we
have perceived, unless it be because that will (which I have
already taken pains to show as much as I can to be the uniter and
the separater of things of this kind) leads the vision of the
conceiver that is to be formed, after its own will and
pleasure, Vid. Retract. 11. xv. 2. [Augustin here says that when he wrote the
above, he forgot what is said in
Chapter 11.—Number, Weight, Measure.
18. But because those things which
are impressed on the memory singly, can be conceived according to
number, measure seems to belong to the memory, but number to the
vision; because, although the multiplicity of such visions is
innumerable, yet a limit not to be transgressed is prescribed for
each in the memory. Therefore, measure appears in the memory,
number in the vision of things: as there is some measure in visible
bodies themselves, to which measure the sense of those who see is
most numerously adjusted, and from one visible object is formed the
vision of many beholders, so that even a single person sees
commonly a single thing under a double appearance, on account of
the number of his two eyes, as we have laid down above. Therefore
there is some measure in those things whence visions are copied,
but in the visions themselves there is number. But the will which
unites and regulates these things, and combines them into a certain
unity, and does not quietly rest its desire of [sensuously]
perceiving or of conceiving, except in those things from whence the
visions are formed, resembles weight. And therefore I would just
notice by way of anticipation these three things, measure, number,
weight, which are to be perceived in all other things also. In the
meantime, I have now shown as much as I can, and to whom I can,
that the will is the uniter of the visible thing and of the vision;
as it were, of parent and of offspring; whether in [sensuous]
perception or in conception, and that it cannot be called either
parent or offspring. Wherefore time admonishes us to seek for this
same trinity in the inner man, and to strive to pass inwards from
that animal and carnal and (as he is called) outward man, of whom I
have so long spoken. And here we hope to be able to find an image
of God according to the Trinity, He Himself helping our efforts,
who as things themselves show, and as Holy Scripture also
witnesses, has regulated all things in measure, and number, and
weight.
Book XII.
————————————
Commencing with a distinction between wisdom and knowledge, points out a kind of trinity, of a peculiar sort, in that which is properly called knowledge, and which is the lower of the two; and this trinity, although it certainly pertains to the inner man, is still not yet to be called or thought an image of God.
Chapter 1.—Of What Kind are the Outer and the Inner Man.
1. Come now, and let us see where lies, as it were, the boundary line between the outer and inner man. For whatever we have in the mind common with the beasts, thus much is rightly said to belong to the outer man. For the outer man is not to be considered to be the body only, but with the addition also of a certain peculiar life of the body, whence the structure of the body derives its vigor, and all the senses with which he is equipped for the perception of outward things; and when the images of these outward things already perceived, that have been fixed in the memory, are seen again by recollection, it is still a matter pertaining to the outer man. And in all these things we do not differ from the beasts, except that in shape of body we are not prone, but upright. And we are admonished through this, by Him who made us, not to be like the beasts in that which is our better part—that is, the mind—while we differ from them by the uprightness of the body. Not that we are to throw our mind into those bodily things which are exalted; for to seek rest for the will, even in such things, is to prostrate the mind. But as the body is naturally raised upright to those bodily things which are most elevated, that is, to things celestial; so the mind, which is a spiritual substance, must be raised upright to those things which are most elevated in spiritual things, not by the elation of pride, but by the dutifulness of righteousness.
Chapter 2.—Man Alone of Animate Creatures Perceives the Eternal Reasons of Things Pertaining to the Body.
2. And the beasts, too, are able
both to perceive things corporeal from without, through the senses
of the body, and to fix them in the memory, and remember them, and
in them to seek after things suitable, and shun things
inconvenient. But to note these things, and to retain them not only
as caught up naturally but also as deliberately committed to
memory, and to imprint them again by recollection and conception
when now just slipping away into forgetfulness; in order that as
conception is formed from that which the memory contains, so also
the contents themselves of the memory may be fixed firmly by
thought: to combine again imaginary objects of sight, by taking
this or that of what the memory remembers, and, as it were, tacking
them to one another: to examine after what manner it is that in
this kind things like the true are to be distinguished from the
true, and this not in things spiritual, but in corporeal things
themselves;—these acts, and the like, although performed in
reference to things sensible, and those which the mind has deduced
through the bodily senses, yet, as they are combined with reason,
so are not common to men and beasts. But it is the part of the
higher reason to judge of these corporeal things according to
incorporeal and eternal reasons; which, unless they were above the
human mind, would certainly not be unchangeable; and yet, unless
something of our own were subjoined to them, we should not be able
to employ them as our measures by which to judge of corporeal
things. But we judge of corporeal things from the rule of
dimensions and figures, which the mind knows to remain
unchangeably. [The distinction drawn here is
between that low form of intelligence which exists in the brute,
and that high form characteristic of man. In the Kantian
nomenclature, the brute has understanding, but unenlightened by
reason; either theoretical or practical. He has intelligence, but
not as modified by the forms of space and time and the categories
of quantity, quality, relation etc.; and still less as modified and
exalted by the ideas of reason—namely, the mathematical ideas,
and the moral ideas of God, freedom, and immortality. The animal
has no rational intelligence. He has mere understanding
without reason.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 3.—The Higher Reason Which Belongs to Contemplation, and the Lower Which Belongs to Action, are in One Mind.
3. But that of our own which thus
has to do with the handling of corporeal and temporal things, is
indeed rational, in that it is not common to us with the beasts;
but it is drawn, as it were, out of that rational substance of our
mind, by which we depend upon and cleave to the intelligible and
unchangeable truth, and which is deputed to handle and direct the
inferior things. For as among all the beasts there was not found
for the man a help like unto him, unless one were taken from
himself, and formed to be his consort: so for that mind, by which
we consult the supernal and inward truth, there is no like help for
such employment as man’s nature requires among things corporeal
out of those parts of the soul which we have in common with the
beasts. And so a certain part of our reason, not separated so as to
sever unity, but, as it were, diverted so as to be a help to
fellowship, is parted off for the performing of its proper work.
And as the twain is one flesh in the case of male and female, so in
the mind one nature embraces our intellect and action, or our
counsel and performance, or our reason and rational appetite, or
whatever other more significant terms there may be by which to
express them; so that, as it was said of the former, “And they
two shall be in one flesh,”
Chapter 4.—The Trinity and the Image of God is in that Part of the Mind Alone Which Belongs to the Contemplation of Eternal Things.
4. When, therefore, we discuss the nature of the human mind, we discuss a single subject, and do not double it into those two which I have mentioned, except in respect to its functions. Therefore, when we seek the trinity in the mind, we seek it in the whole mind, without separating the action of the reason in things temporal from the contemplation of things eternal, so as to have further to seek some third thing, by which a trinity may be completed. But this trinity must needs be so discovered in the whole nature of the mind, as that even if action upon temporal things were to be withdrawn, for which work that help is necessary, with a view to which some part of the mind is diverted in order to deal with these inferior things, yet a trinity would still be found in the one mind that is no where parted off; and that when this distribution has been already made, not only a trinity may be found, but also an image of God, in that alone which belongs to the contemplation of eternal things; while in that other which is diverted from it in the dealing with temporal things, although there may be a trinity, yet there cannot be found an image of God.
Chapter 5.—The Opinion Which Devises an Image of the Trinity in the Marriage of Male and Female, and in Their Offspring.
5. Accordingly they do not seem to
me to advance a probable opinion, who lay it down that a trinity of
the image of God in three persons, so far as regards human nature,
can so be discovered as to be completed in the marriage of male and
female and in their offspring; in that the man himself, as it were,
indicates the person of the Father, but that which has so proceeded
from him as to be born, that of the Son; and so the third person as
of the Spirit, is, they say, the woman, who has so proceeded from
the man as not herself to be either son or daughter,
Chapter 6. —Why This Opinion is to Be Rejected.
6. We do not therefore reject this
opinion, because we fear to think of that holy and inviolable and
unchangeable Love, as the spouse of God the Father, existing as it
does from Him, but not as an offspring in order to beget the Word
by which all things are made; but because divine Scripture
evidently shows it to be false. For God said, “Let us make man in
our image, after our likeness;” and a little after it is said,
“So God created man in the image of God.”
7. For such expressions are
customary in the Scriptures; and yet some persons, while
maintaining the Catholic faith, do not carefully attend to them, in
such wise that they think the words, “God made man in the image
of God,” to mean that the Father made man after the image of the
Son; and they thus desire to assert that the Son also is called God
in the divine Scriptures, as if there were not other most true and
clear proofs wherein the Son is called not only God, but also the
true God. For whilst they aim at explaining another difficulty in
this text, they become so entangled that they cannot extricate
themselves. For if the Father made man after the image of the Son,
so that he is not the image of the Father, but of the Son, then the
Son is unlike the Father. But if a pious faith teaches us, as it
does, that the Son is like the Father after an equality of essence,
then that which is made in the likeness of the Son must needs also
be made in the likeness of the Father. Further, if the Father made
man not in His own image, but in the image of His Son, why does He
not say, “Let us make man after Thy image and likeness,”
whereas He does say, “our;” unless it be because the image of
the Trinity was made in man, that in this way man should be the
image of the one true God, because the Trinity itself is the one
true God? Such expressions are innumerable in the Scriptures, but
it will suffice to have produced these. It is so said in the
Psalms, “Salvation belongeth unto the Lord; Thy blessing is upon
Thy people;”
8. And since the case stands thus,
if we are to accept the same image of the Trinity, as not in one,
but in three human beings, father and mother and son, then the man
was not made after the image of God before a wife was made for him,
and before they procreated a son; because there was not yet a
trinity. Will any one say there was already a trinity, because,
although not yet in their proper form, yet in their original
nature, both the woman was already in the side of the man, and the
son in the loins of his father? Why then, when Scripture had said,
“God made man after the image of God,” did it go on to say,
“God created him; male and female created He them: and God
blessed them”?
Chapter 7.—How Man is the Image of God. Whether the Woman is Not Also the Image of God. How the Saying of the Apostle, that the Man is the Image of God, But the Woman is the Glory of the Man, is to Be Understood Figuratively and Mystically.
9. We ought not therefore so to
understand that man is made in the image of the supreme Trinity,
that is, in the image of God, as that the same image should be
understood to be in three human beings; especially when the apostle
says that the man is the image of God, and on that account removes
the covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use,
speaking thus: “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head,
forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the
glory of the man.” What then shall we say to this? If the woman
fills up the image of the trinity after the measure of her own
person, why is the man still called that image after she has been
taken out of his side? Or if even one person of a human being out
of three can be called the image of God, as each person also is God
in the supreme Trinity itself, why is the woman also not the image
of God? For she is instructed for this very reason to cover her
head, which he is forbidden to do because he is the image of God.
10. But we must notice how that
which the apostle says, that not the woman but the man is the image
of God, is not contrary to that which is written in Genesis, “God
created man: in the image of God created He him; male and female
created He them: and He blessed them.” For this text says that
human nature itself, which is complete [only] in both sexes, was
made in the image of God; and it does not separate the woman from
the image of God which it signifies. For after
11. For that the Apostle Paul, when
speaking outwardly of the sex of male and female, figured the
mystery of some more hidden truth, may be understood from this,
that when he says in another place that she is a widow indeed who
is desolate, without children and nephews, and yet that she ought
to trust in God, and to continue in prayers night and day,
12. For, as not only most true
reason but also the authority of the apostle himself declares, man
was not made in the image of God according to the shape of his
body, but according to his rational mind. For the thought is a
debased and empty one, which holds God to be circumscribed and
limited by the lineaments of bodily members. But further, does not
the same blessed apostle say, “Be renewed in the spirit of your
mind, and put on the new man, which is created after God;”
Chapter 8.—Turning Aside from the Image of God.
13. A common nature, therefore, is
recognized in their minds, but in their bodies a division of that
one mind itself is figured. As we ascend, then, by certain steps of
thought within, along the succession of the parts of the mind,
there where something first meets us which is not common to
ourselves with the beasts reason begins, so that here the inner man
can now be recognized. And if this inner man himself, through that
reason to which the administering of things temporal has been
delegated, slips on too far by over-much progress into outward
things, that which is his head moreover consenting, that is, the
(so to call it) masculine part which presides in the watch-tower of
counsel not restraining or bridling it: then he waxeth old because
of all his enemies,
Chapter 9.—The Same Argument is Continued.
14. For the soul loving its own
power, slips onwards from the whole which is common, to a part,
which belongs especially to itself. And that apostatizing pride,
which is called “the beginning of sin,”
Chapter 10.—The Lowest Degradation Reached by Degrees.
15. When the soul then consults
either for itself or for others with a good will towards perceiving
the inner and higher things, such as are possessed in a chaste
embrace, without any narrowness or envy, not individually, but in
common by all who love such things; then even if it be deceived in
anything, through ignorance of things temporal (for its action in
this case is a temporal one), and if it does not hold fast to that
mode of acting which it ought, the temptation is but one common to
man. And it is a great thing so to pass through this life, on which
we travel, as it were, like a road on our return home, that
Chapter 11.—The Image of the Beast in Man.
16. For as a snake does not creep
on with open steps, but advances by the very minutest efforts of
its several scales; so the slippery motion of falling away [from
what is good] takes possession of the negligent only gradually, and
beginning from a perverse desire for the likeness of God, arrives
in the end at the likeness of beasts. Hence it is that being naked
of their first garment, they earned by mortality coats of skins.
Chapter 12.—There is a Kind of Hidden Wedlock in the Inner Man. Unlawful Pleasures of the Thoughts.
17. Let us now complete, so far as
the Lord helps us, the discussion which we have undertaken,
respecting that part of reason to which knowledge belongs, that is,
the cognizance of things temporal and changeable, which is
necessary for managing the affairs of this life. For as in the case
of that visible wedlock of the two human beings who were made
first, the serpent did not eat of the forbidden tree, but only
persuaded them to eat of it; and the woman did not eat alone, but
gave to her husband, and they eat together; although she alone
spoke with the serpent, and she alone was led away by him:
18. And yet, certainly, when the
mind is pleased in thought alone with unlawful things, while not
indeed determining that they are to be done, but yet holding and
pondering gladly things which ought to have been rejected the very
moment they touched the mind, it cannot be denied to be a sin, but
far less than if it were also determined to accomplished it in
outward act. And therefore pardon must be sought for such thoughts
too, and the breast must be smitten, and it must be said,
“Forgive us our debts;” and what follows must be done, and must
be joined in our prayer, “As we also forgive our debtors.” [Augustin here teaches that the
inward lust is guilt as well as the outward action prompted by it.
This is in accordance with
19. This reasoning, then, whereby
we have sought in the mind of each several human being a certain
rational wedlock of contemplation and action, with functions
distributed through each severally, yet with the unity of the mind
preserved in both; saving meanwhile the truth of that
history which divine testimony hands down respecting the first
two human beings, that is, the man and his wife, from whom the
human species is propagated; [Augustin means, that while he has
given an allegorical and mystical interpretation to the narrative
of the fall, in Genesis, he also holds to its historical
sense.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 13.—The Opinion of Those Who Have Thought that the Mind Was Signified by the Man, the Bodily Sense by the Woman.
20. Nor does it escape me, that
some who before us were eminent defenders of the Catholic faith and
expounders of the word of God, while they looked for these two
things in one human being, whose entire soul they perceived to be a
sort of excellent paradise, asserted that the man was the mind, but
that the woman was the bodily sense. And according to this
distribution, by which the man is assumed to be the mind, but the
woman the bodily sense, all things seem aptly to agree together if
they are handled with due attention: unless that it is written,
that in all the beasts and flying things there was not found for
man an helpmate like to himself; and then the woman was made out of
his side.
21. But whether that the apostle
calls the man the image and glory of God, but the woman the glory
of the man,
Chapter 14.—What is the Difference Between Wisdom and Knowledge. The Worship of God is the Love of Him. How the Intellectual Cognizance of Eternal Things Comes to Pass Through Wisdom.
For knowledge also has its own good
measure, if that in it which puffs up, or is wont to puff up, is
conquered by love of eternal things, which does not puff up, but,
as we know, edifieth.
22. Yet action, by which we use
temporal things well, differs from contemplation of eternal things;
and the latter is reckoned to wisdom, the former to knowledge. For
although that which is wisdom can also be called knowledge, as the
apostle too speaks, where he says, “Now I know in part, but then
shall I know even as also I am known;”
23. When a discourse then relates
to these things, I hold it to be a discourse belonging to
knowledge, and to be distinguished from a discourse belonging to
wisdom, to which those things belong, which neither have
been,
Chapter 15.—In Opposition to the Reminiscence of Plato and Pythagoras. Pythagoras the Samian. Of the Difference Between Wisdom and Knowledge, and of Seeking the Trinity in the Knowledge of Temporal Things.
24. And hence that noble
philosopher Plato endeavored to persuade us that the souls of men
lived even before they bare these bodies; and that hence those
things which are learnt are rather remembered, as having been known
already, than taken into knowledge as things new. For he has told
us that a boy, when questioned I know not what respecting geometry,
replied as if he were perfectly skilled in that branch of learning.
For being questioned step by step and skillfully, he saw what was
to be seen, and said that which he saw. [This fine specimen of the
“obstetric method” of Socrates is given in Plato’s dialogue,
Meno.—W.G.T.S.]
25. If therefore this is the right distinction between wisdom and knowledge, that the intellectual cognizance of eternal things belongs to wisdom, but the rational cognizance of temporal things to knowledge, it is not difficult to judge which is to be preferred or postponed to which. But if we must employ some other distinction by which to know these two apart, which without doubt the apostle teaches us are different, saying, “To one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom; to another the word of knowledge, by the same Spirit:” still the difference between those two which we have laid down is a most evident one, in that the intellectual cognizance of eternal things is one thing, the rational cognizance of temporal things another; and no one doubts but that the former is to be preferred to the latter. As then we leave behind those things which belong to the outer man, and desire to ascend within from those things which we have in common with beasts, before we come to the cognizance of things intelligible and supreme, which are eternal, the rational cognizance of temporal things presents itself. Let us then find a trinity in this also, if we can, as we found one in the senses of the body, and in those things which through them entered in the way of images into our soul or spirit; so that instead of corporeal things which we touch by corporeal sense, placed as they are without us, we might have resemblances of bodies impressed within on the memory from which thought might be formed, while the will as a third united them; just as the sight of the eyes was formed from without, which the will applied to the visible thing in order to produce vision, and united both, while itself also added itself thereto as a third. But this subject must not be compressed into this book; so that in that which follows, if God help, it may be suitably examined, and the conclusions to which we come may be unfolded.
Book XIII.
————————————
The inquiry is prosecuted respecting knowledge, in which, as distinguished from wisdom, Augustin had begun in the former book to look for a kind of trinity. And occasion is taken of commending Christian faith, and of explaining how the faith of believers is one and common. Next, that all desire blessedness, yet that all have not the faith whereby we arrive at blessedness; and that this faith is defined in Christ, who in the flesh rose from the dead; and that no one is set free from the dominion of the devil through forgiveness of sins, save through Him. It is shown also at length that it was needful that the devil should be conquered by Christ, not by power, but by righteousness. Finally, that when the words of this faith are committed to memory, there is in the mind a kind of trinity, since there are, first, in the memory the sounds of the words, and this even when the man is not thinking of them; and next, the mind’s eye of his recollection is formed thereupon when he thinks of them; and, lastly, the will, when he so thinks and remembers, combines both.
Chapter 1.—The Attempt is Made to Distinguish Out of the Scriptures the Offices of Wisdom and of Knowledge. That in the Beginning of John Some Things that are Said Belong to Wisdom, Some to Knowledge. Some Things There are Only Known by the Help of Faith. How We See the Faith that is in Us. In the Same Narrative of John, Some Things are Known by the Sense of the Body, Others Only by the Reason of the Mind.
1. In the book before this, viz. the twelfth of this work, we have done enough to distinguish the office of the rational mind in temporal things, wherein not only our knowing but our action is concerned, from the more excellent office of the same mind, which is employed in contemplating eternal things, and is limited to knowing alone. But I think it more convenient that I should insert somewhat out of the Holy Scriptures, by which the two may more easily be distinguished.
2. John the Evangelist has thus
begun his Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning
with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him was not
anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life was the
light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness
comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was
John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light,
that all men through Him might believe. He was not that Light, but
was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light,
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in the
world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not.
He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as
received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even
to them that believe on His name: which were born, not of blood,
nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheld His
glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father), full of
grace and truth.”
3. Further, we know from other
sources the faith itself which a man sees to be in his own heart,
if he believes, or not to be there, if he does not believe: but not
as we know bodies, which we see with the bodily eyes, and think of
even when absent through the images of themselves which we retain
in memory; nor yet as those things which we have not seen, and
which we frame howsoever we can in thought from those which we have
seen, and commit them to memory, that we may recur to them when we
will, in order that therein we may similarly by recollection
discern them, or rather discern the images of them, of what sort
soever these are which we have fixed there; nor again as a living
man, whose soul we do not indeed see, but conjecture from our own,
and from corporeal motions gaze also in thought upon the living
man, as we have learnt him by sight. Faith is not so seen in the
heart in which it is, by him whose it is; but most certain
knowledge holds it fast, and conscience proclaims it. Although
therefore we are bidden to believe on this account, because we
cannot see what we are bidden to believe; nevertheless we see faith
itself in ourselves, when that faith is in us; because faith even
in absent things is present, and faith in things which are without
us is within, and faith in things which are not seen is itself
seen, and itself none the less comes into the hearts of men in
time; and if any cease to be faithful and become unbelievers, then
it perishes from them. And sometimes faith is accommodated even to
falsehoods; for we sometimes so speak as to say, I put faith in
him, and he deceived me. And this kind of faith, if indeed it too
is to be called faith, perishes from the heart without blame, when
truth is found and expels it. But faith in things that are true,
passes, as one should wish it to pass, into the things themselves.
For we must not say that faith perishes, when those things which
were believed are seen. For is it indeed still to be called faith,
when faith, according to the definition in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, is the evidence of things not seen?
4. In the words which follow next,
“The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that
all men through him might believe;” the action, as we have said,
is one done in time. For to bear witness even to that which is
eternal, as is that light that is intelligible, is a thing done in
time. And
Chapter 2.—Faith a Thing of the Heart, Not of the Body; How It is Common and One and the Same in All Believers. The Faith of Believers is One, No Otherwise than the Will of Those Who Will is One.
5. But faith, of which we are
compelled, by reason of the arrangement of our subject, to dispute
somewhat more at length in this book: faith I say, which they who
have are called the faithful, and they who have not, unbelievers,
as were those who did not receive the Son of God coming to His own;
although it is wrought in us by hearing, yet does not belong to
that sense of the body which is called hearing, since it is not a
sound; nor to the eyes of this our flesh, since it is neither color
nor bodily form; nor to that which is called touch, since it has
nothing of bulk; nor to any sense of the body at all, since it is a
thing of the heart, not of the body; nor is it without apart from
us, but deeply seated within us; nor does any man see it in
another, but each one in himself. Lastly, it is a thing that can
both be feigned by pretence, and be thought to be in him in whom it
is not. Therefore every one sees his own faith in himself; but does
not see, but believes, that it is in another; and believes this the
more firmly, the more he knows the fruits of it, which faith is
wont to work by love.
Chapter 3.—Some Desires Being the Same in All, are Known to Each. The Poet Ennius.
6. There is, indeed, so closely
conspiring a harmony in the same nature living and using reason,
that although one knows not what the other wills, yet there are
some wills of all which are also known to each; and although each
man does not know what any other one man wills, yet in some things
he may know what all will. And hence comes that story of the comic
actor’s witty joke, who promised that he would say in the
theatre, in some other play, what all had in their minds, and what
all willed; and when a still greater crowd had come together on the
day appointed, with great expectation, all being in suspense and
silent, is affirmed to have said: You will to buy cheap, and sell
dear. And mean actor though he was, yet all in his words recognized
what themselves were conscious of, and applauded him with wonderful
goodwill, for saying before the eyes of all what was confessedly
true, yet what no one looked for. And why was so great expectation
raised by his promising that he would say what was the will of all,
unless because no man knows the wills of other men? But did not he
know that will? Is there any one who does not know it? Yet why,
unless because there are some things which not unfitly each
conjectures from himself to be in others, through sympathy or
agreement either in vice or virtue? But it is one thing to see
one’s own will; another to conjecture, however certainly, what is
another’s. For, in human affairs, I am as certain that Rome was
built as that Constantinople was, although I have seen Rome with my
eyes, but know nothing of the other city, except what I have
believed on the testimony of others. And truly that comic actor
believed it to be common to all to will to buy cheap and sell dear,
either by observing himself or by making experiment also of others.
But since such a will is in truth a fault, every one can attain the
counter virtue, or run into the mischief of some other fault which
is contrary to it, whereby to resist and conquer it. For I myself
know a case where a manuscript was offered to a man for purchase,
who perceived that the vendor was ignorant of its value, and was
therefore asking something very small, and who thereupon gave him,
though not expecting it, the just price, which was much more.
Suppose even the case of a man possessed with wickedness so great
as to sell cheap what his parents left to him, and to buy dear, in
order to waste it on his own lusts? Such wanton extravagance, I
fancy, is not incredible; and if such men are sought, they may be
found, or even fall in one’s way although not sought; who, by a
wickedness more than that of the theatre, make a mock of the
theatrical proposition or declaration, by buying dishonor at a
great price, while selling lands at a small one. We have heard,
too, of persons that, for the sake of distribution, have bought
corn at a higher
Chapter 4.—The Will to Possess Blessedness is One in All, But the Variety of Wills is Very Great Concerning that Blessedness Itself.
7. It is wonderful, however, since
the will to obtain and retain blessedness is one in all, whence
comes, on the other hand, such a variety and diversity of wills
concerning that blessedness itself; not that any one is unwilling
to have it, but that all do not know it. For if all knew it, it
would not be thought by some to be in goodness of mind; by others,
in pleasure of body; by others, in both; and by some in one thing,
by others in another. For as men find special delight in this thing
or that, so have they placed in it their idea of a blessed life.
How, then, do all love so warmly what not all know? Who can love
what he does not know?—a subject which I have already discussed
in the preceding books. Bks. viii. c. 4, etc., x. c.
1.
Chapter 5.—Of the Same Thing.
8. Or is, perhaps, the deliverance
from our difficulties to be found in this, that, since we have said
that every one places his idea of a blessed life in that which has
most pleased him, as pleasure pleased Epicurus, and goodness Zeno,
and something else pleased other people, we say that to live
blessedly is nothing else but to live according to one’s own
pleasure: so that it is not false that all will to live blessedly,
because all will that which pleases each? For if this, too, had
been proclaimed to the people in the theatre, all would have found
it in their own wills. But
Chapter 6.—Why, When All Will to Be Blessed, that is Rather Chosen by Which One Withdraws from Being So.
9. Since, then, a blessed life consists of these two things, and is known to all, and dear to all; what can we think to be the cause why, when they cannot have both, men choose, out of these two, to have all things that they will, rather than to will all things well, even although they do not have them? Is it the depravity itself of the human race, in such wise that, while they are not unaware that neither is he blessed who has not what he wills, nor he who has what he wills wrongly, but he who both has whatsoever good things he wills, and wills no evil ones, yet, when both are not granted of those two things in which the blessed life consists, that is rather chosen by which one is withdrawn the more from a blessed life (since he certainly is further from it who obtains things which he wickedly desired, than he who only does not obtain the things which he desired); whereas the good will ought rather to be chosen, and to be preferred, even if it do not obtain the things which it seeks? For he comes near to being a blessed man, who wills well whatsoever he wills, and wills things, which when he obtains, he will be blessed. And certainly not bad things, but good, make men blessed, when they do so make them. And of good things he already has something, and that, too, a something not to be lightly esteemed,—namely, the very good will itself; who longs to rejoice in those good things of which human nature is capable, and not in the performance or the attainment of any evil; and who follows diligently, and attains as much as he can, with a prudent, temperate, courageous, and right mind, such good things as are possible in the present miserable life; so as to be good even in evils, and when all evils have been put an end to, and all good things fulfilled, then to be blessed.
Chapter 7.—Faith is Necessary, that Man May at Some Time Be Blessed, Which He Will Only Attain in the Future Life. The Blessedness of Proud Philosophers Ridiculous and Pitiable.
10. And on this account, faith, by
which men believe in God, is above all things necessary in this
mortal life, most full as it is of errors and hardships. For there
are no good things whatever, and above all, not those by which any
one is made good, or those by which he will become blessed, of
which any other source can be found whence they come to man, and
are added to man, unless it be from God. But when he who is good
and faithful in these miseries shall have come from this life to
the blessed life, then will truly come to pass what now is
absolutely impossible,—namely, that a man may live as he will. [The prophet Nathan enunciates the
same truth, in his words to David, “Go do all that is in thine
heart; for the Lord is with thee.”
“Since that cannot be which you
will, will that which thou canst.” Andreia,
That this is aptly said, who denies? But it is advice given to the miserable man, that he may not be more miserable. And it is not rightly or truly said to the blessed man, such as all wish themselves to be, That cannot be which you will. For if he is blessed, whatever he wills can be; since he does not will that which cannot be. But such a life is not for this mortal state, neither will it come to pass unless when immortality also shall come to pass. And if this could not be given at all to man, blessedness too would be sought in vain, since it cannot be without immortality.
Chapter 8.—Blessedness Cannot Exist Without Immortality.
11. As, therefore, all men will to
be blessed, certainly, if they will truly, they will also to be
immortal; for otherwise they could not be blessed. And further, if
questioned also concerning immortality, as before concerning
blessedness, all reply that they will
Chapter 9.—We Say that Future Blessedness is Truly Eternal, Not Through Human Reasonings, But by the Help of Faith. The Immortality of Blessedness Becomes Credible from the Incarnation of the Son of God.
12. Whether human nature can
receive this, which yet it confesses to be desirable, is no small
question. But if faith be present, which is in those to whom Jesus
has given power to become the sons of God, then there is no
question. Assuredly, of those who endeavor to discover it from
human reasonings, scarcely a few, and they endued with great
abilities, and abounding in leisure, and learned with the most
subtle learning, have been able to attain to the investigation of
the immortality of the soul alone. And even for the soul they have
not found a blessed life that is stable, that is, true; since they
have said that it returns to the miseries of this life even after
blessedness. And they among them who are ashamed of this opinion,
and have thought that the purified soul is to be placed in eternal
happiness without a body, hold such opinions concerning the past
eternity of the world, as to confute this opinion of theirs
concerning the soul; a thing which here it is too long to
demonstrate; but it has been, as I think, sufficiently explained by
us in the twelfth book of the City of God. C. 20.
Chapter 10.—There Was No Other More Suitable Way of Freeing Man from the Misery of Mortality Than The Incarnation of the Word. The Merits Which are Called Ours are the Gifts of God.
13. Those then who say, What, had God no other way by which He might free men from the misery of this mortality, that He should will the only-begotten Son, God co-eternal with Himself, to become man, by putting on a human soul and flesh, and being made mortal to endure death?—these, I say, it is not enough so to refute, as to assert that that mode by which God deigns to free us through the Mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, is good and suitable to the dignity of God; but we must show also, not indeed that no other mode was possible to God, to whose power all things are equally subject, but that there neither was nor need have been any other mode more appropriate for curing our misery. For what was so necessary for the building up of our hope, and for the freeing the minds of mortals cast down by the condition of mortality itself, from despair of immortality, than that it should be demonstrated to us at how great a price God rated us, and how greatly He loved us? But what is more manifest and evident in this so great proof hereof, than that the Son of God, unchangeably good, remaining what He was in Himself, and receiving from us and for us what He was not, apart from any loss of His own nature, and deigning to enter into the fellowship of ours, should first, without any evil desert of His own, bear our evils; and so with unobligated munificence should bestow His own gifts upon us, who now believe how much God loves us, and who now hope that of which we used to despair, without any good deserts of our own, nay, with our evil deserts too going before?
14. Since those also which are
called our deserts, are His gifts. For, that faith may work by
love,
Chapter 11.—A Difficulty, How We are Justified in the Blood of the Son of God.
15. But what is meant by
“justified in His blood?” What power is there in this blood, I
beseech you, that they who believe should be justified in it? And
what is meant by “being reconciled by the death of His Son?”
Was it indeed so, that when God the Father was wroth with us, He
saw the death of His Son for us, and was appeased towards us? Was
then His Son already so far appeased towards us, that He even
deigned to die for us; while the Father was still so far wroth,
that except His Son died for us, He would not be appeased? And
what, then, is that which the same teacher of the Gentiles himself
says in another place: “What shall we then say to these things?
If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His own
Son, but delivered Him up for us all; how has He not with Him also
freely given us all things?”
Chapter 12.—All, on Account of the Sin of Adam, Were Delivered into the Power of the Devil.
16. By the justice of God in some
sense, the human race was delivered into the power of the devil;
the sin of the first man passing over originally into all of both
sexes in their birth through conjugal union, and the debt of our
first parents binding their whole posterity. This delivering up is
first signified in Genesis, where, when it had been said to the
serpent, “Dust shalt thou eat,” it was said to the man, “Dust
thou art, and unto dust thou shall return.”
Chapter 13.—Man Was to Be Rescued from the Power of the Devil, Not by Power, But by Righteousness.
17. But the devil was to be
overcome, not by the power of God, but by His righteousness. For
what is more powerful than the Omnipotent? Or what creature is
there of which the power can be compared to the power of the
Creator? But since the devil, by the fault of his own perversity,
was made a lover of power, and a forsaker and assailant of
righteousness,—for thus also men imitate him so much the more in
proportion as they set their hearts on power, to the neglect or
even hatred of righteousness, and as they either rejoice in the
attainment of power, or are inflamed by the lust of it,—it
pleased God, that in order to the rescuing of man from the grasp of
the devil, the devil should be conquered, not by power, but by
righteousness; and that so also men, imitating Christ, should seek
to conquer the devil by righteousness, not by power. Not that power
is to be shunned as though it were something evil; but the order
must be preserved, whereby righteousness is before it. For how
great can be the power of mortals? Therefore let mortals cleave to
righteousness; power will be given to immortals. And compared to
this, the power, how great soever, of those men who are called
powerful on earth, is found to be ridiculous weakness, and a
pitfall is dug there for the sinner, where the wicked seem to be
most powerful. And the righteous man says in his song, “Blessed
is the man whom Thou chasteneth, O Lord, and teachest him out of
Thy law: that Thou mayest give him rest from the days of adversity,
until the pit be digged for the wicked. For the Lord will not cast
off His people, neither will He forsake His inheritance, until
righteousness return unto judgment, and all who follow it are
upright in heart.” Res secundœ
Chapter 14.—The Unobligated Death of Christ Has Freed Those Who Were Liable to Death.
18. What, then, is the
righteousness by which the devil was conquered? What, except the
righteousness of Jesus Christ? And how was he conquered? Because,
when he found in Him nothing worthy of death, yet he slew Him. And
certainly it is just, that we whom he held as debtors, should be
dismissed free by believing in Him whom he slew without any debt.
In this way it is that we are said to be justified in the blood of
Christ.
Chapter 15.—Of the Same Subject.
19. It is not then difficult to see
that the devil was conquered, when he who was slain by Him rose
again. It is something more, and more profound of comprehension, to
see that the devil was conquered when he thought himself to have
conquered, that is, when Christ was slain. For then that blood,
since it was His who had no sin at all, was poured out for the
remission of our sins; that, because the devil deservedly held
those whom, as guilty of sin, he bound by the condition of death,
he might deservedly loose them through Him, whom, as guilty of no
sin, the punishment of death undeservedly affected. The strong man
was conquered by this righteousness, and bound with this chain,
that his vessels might be spoiled, [In this representation of
Augustin, the relics of that misconception which appears in the
earlier soteriology, paricularly that of Irenæus, are seen:
namely, that the death of Christ ransoms the sinner from Satan.
Certain texts which teach that redemption delivers from the
captivity to sin and Satan, were interpreted to teach deliverance
from the claims of Satan. Augustin’s soteriology is more
free from this error than that of Irenæus, yet not entirely free
from it. The doctrine of justification did not obtain its most
consistent and complete statement in the Patristic
church.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 16.—The Remains of Death and the Evil Things of the World Turn to Good for the Elect. How Fitly the Death of Christ Was Chosen, that We Might Be Justified in His Blood. What the Anger of God is.
20. For although the death, too, of
the flesh itself came originally from the sin of the first man, yet
the good use of it has made most glorious martyrs. And so not only
that death itself, but all the evils of this world, and the griefs
and labors of men, although they come from the deserts of sins, and
especially of original sin, whence life itself too became bound by
the bond of death, yet have fitly remained, even when sin is
forgiven; that man might have wherewith to contend for truth, and
whereby the goodness of the faithful might be exercised; in order
that the new man through the new covenant might be made ready among
the evils of this world for a new world, by bearing wisely the
misery which this condemned life deserved, and by rejoicing soberly
because it will be finished, but expecting faithfully and patiently
the blessedness which the future life, being set free, will have
for ever. For the devil being cast forth from his dominion, and
from the hearts of the faithful, in the condemnation and
faithlessness of whom he, although himself also condemned, yet
reigned, is only so far permitted to be an adversary according to
the condition of this mortality, as God knows to be expedient for
them: concerning which the sacred writings speak through the mouth
of the apostle: “God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be
tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also
make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” C. 2.
21. Why then should the death of
Christ not have come to pass? Nay, rather, why should not that
death itself have been chosen above all else to be brought to pass,
to the passing by of the other innumerable ways which He who is
omnipotent could have employed to free us; that death, I say,
wherein neither was anything diminished or changed from His
divinity, and so great benefit was conferred upon men, from the
humanity which He took upon Him, that a temporal death, which was
not due, was rendered by the eternal Son of God, who was also the
Son of man, whereby He might free them from an eternal
Chapter 17.—Other Advantages of the Incarnation.
22. There are many other things
also in the incarnation of Christ, displeasing as it is to the
proud, that are to be observed and thought of advantageously. And
one of them is, that it has been demonstrated to man what place he
has in the things which God has created; since human nature could
so be joined to God, that one person could be made of two
substances, and thereby indeed of three—God, soul, and flesh: so
that those proud malignant spirits, who interpose themselves as
mediators to deceive, although as if to help, do not therefore dare
to place themselves above man because they have not flesh; and
chiefly because the Son of God deigned to die also in the same
flesh, lest they, because they seem to be immortal, should
therefore succeed in getting themselves worshipped as gods.
Further, that the grace of God might be commended to us in the man
Christ without any precedent merits; because not even He Himself
obtained by any precedent merits that He should be joined in such
great unity with the true God, and should become the Son of God,
one Person with Him; but from the time when He began to be man,
from that time He is also God; whence it is said, “The Word was
made flesh.”
Chapter 18.—Why the Son of God Took Man Upon Himself from the Race of Adam, and from a Virgin.
23. For assuredly God could have
taken upon Himself to be man, that in that manhood He might be the
Mediator between God and men, from some other source, and not from
the race of that Adam who bound the human race by his sin; as He
did not create him whom He first created, of the race of some one
else. Therefore He was able, either so, or in any other mode that
He would, to create yet one other, by whom the conqueror of the
first might be conquered. But God judged it better both to take
upon Him man through whom to conquer the enemy of the human race,
from the race itself that had been conquered; and yet to do this of
a virgin, whose conception, not flesh but spirit, not lust but
faith, preceded.
Chapter 19.—What in the Incarnate Word Belongs to Knowledge, What to Wisdom.
24. And all these things which the
Word made flesh did and bare for us in time and place, belong,
according to the distinction which we have undertaken to
demonstrate, to knowledge, not to wisdom. And as the Word is
without time and without place, it is co-eternal with the Father,
and in its wholeness everywhere; and if any one can, and as much as
he can, speak truly concerning this Word, then his discourse will
pertain to wisdom. And hence the Word made flesh, which is Christ
Jesus, has the treasures both of wisdom and of knowledge. For the
apostle, writing to the Colossians, says: “For I would that ye
knew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea,
and for as many as have not seen my face in the
Chapter 20.—What Has Been Treated of in This Book. How We Have Reached by Steps to a Certain Trinity, Which is Found in Practical Knowledge and True Faith.
25. Now, therefore, let us see what
this prolix discourse has effected, what it has gathered, whereto
it has reached. It belongs to all men to will to be blessed; yet
all men have not faith, whereby the heart is cleansed, and so
blessedness is reached. And thus it comes to pass, that by means of
the faith which not all men will, we have to reach on to the
blessedness which every one wills. All see in their own heart that
they will to be blessed; and so great is the agreement of human
nature on this subject, that the man is not deceived who
conjectures this concerning another’s mind, out of his own: in
short, we know ourselves that all will this. But many despair of
being immortal, although no otherwise can any one be that which all
will, that is, blessed. Yet they will also to be immortal if they
could; but through not believing that they can, they do not so live
that they can. Therefore faith is necessary, that we may attain
blessedness in all the good things of human nature, that is, of
both soul Cc. 19–21.
26. For we wished to ascend, as it
were, by steps, and to seek in the inner man, both in knowledge and
in wisdom, a sort of trinity of its own special kind, such as we
sought before in the outer man; in order that we may come, with a
mind more practised in these lower things, to the contemplation of
that Trinity which is God, according to our little measure, if
indeed, we can even do this, at least in a riddle and as through a
glass. Bk. viii. cc. 8 seqq., and Bk. x.
c. 1, etc. [The ternary is this: 1. The idea
of a truth or fact held in the memory. 2. The contemplation of it
as thus recollected. 3. The love of it. This last is the “will”
that “unites” the first two.—W.G.T.S.]
Book XIV.
————————————
The true wisdom of man is treated of; and it is shown that the image of God, which man is in respect to his mind, is not placed properly in transitory things, as in memory, understanding, and love, whether of faith itself as existing in time, or even of the mind as busied with itself, but in things that are permanent; and that this wisdom is then perfected, when the mind is renewed in the knowledge of God, according to the image of Him who created man after His own Image, and thus attains to wisdom, wherein that which is contemplated is eternal.
Chapter 1.—What the Wisdom is of Which We are Here to Treat. Whence the Name of Philosopher Arose. What Has Been Already Said Concerning the Distinction of Knowledge and Wisdom.
1. We must now discourse concerning
wisdom; not the wisdom of God, which without doubt is God, for His
only-begotten Son is called the wisdom of God; C. 14. Disciplina,
disco Disciplina,
disco Disciplina Disciplina
2. But if to dispute of wisdom
belongs to wise men, what shall we do? Shall we dare indeed to
profess wisdom, lest it should be mere impudence for ourselves to
dispute about it? Shall we not be alarmed by the example of
Pythagoras?—who dared not profess to be a wise man, but answered
that he was a philosopher, i.e., a lover of wisdom; whence
arose the name, that became thenceforth so much the popular name,
that no matter how great the learning wherein any one excelled,
either in his own opinion or that of others, in things pertaining
to wisdom, he was still called nothing more than philosopher. Or
was it for this reason that no one, even of
3. In disputing, then, about
wisdom, they have defined it thus: Wisdom is the knowledge of
things human and divine. And hence, in the last book, I have not
withheld the admission, that the cognizance of both subjects,
whether divine or human, may be called both knowledge and wisdom. Bk. xiii. cc. 1, 19. Bk. xiii. c. 7.
Chapter 2.—There is a Kind of Trinity in the Holding, Contemplating, and Loving of Faith Temporal, But One that Does Not Yet Attain to Being Properly an Image of God.
4. Wherefore since, as it is
written, “While we are in the body, we are absent from the Lord;
for we walk by faith, not by sight;”
Chapter 3.—A Difficulty Removed, Which Lies in the Way of What Has Just Been Said.
But far be it from us to think,
that while the nature of the soul is immortal, and from the first
beginning of its creation thenceforth never ceases to be, yet that
that which is the best thing it has should not endure for ever with
its own immortality. Yet what is there in its nature as created,
better than that it is made after the image of its Creator?
5. Shall we then scrutinize
somewhat more carefully and deeply whether the case is really thus?
For it may be said that this trinity does not perish even when
faith itself shall have passed away; because, as now we both hold
it by memory, and discern it by thought, and love it by will; so
then also, when we shall both hold in memory, and shall recollect,
that we once had it, and shall unite these two by the third, namely
will, the same trinity will still continue. Since, if it have left
in its passage as it were no trace in us, doubtless we shall not
have ought of it even in our memory, whereto to recur when
recollecting it as past, and by the third, viz. purpose,
coupling both these, to wit, what was in our memory though we were
not thinking about it, and what is formed thence by conception. But
he who speaks thus, does not perceive, that when we hold, see, and
love in ourselves our present faith, we are concerned with a
different trinity as now existing, from that trinity which will
exist, when we shall contemplate by recollection, not the faith
itself, but as it were the imagined trace of it laid up in the
memory, and shall unite by the will, as by a third, these two
things, viz. that which was in the memory of him who
retains, and that which is impressed thence upon the vision of the
mind of him who recollects. And that we may understand this, let us
take an example from things corporeal, of which we have
sufficiently spoken in the eleventh book. Cc. 2 sq.
Chapter 4.—The Image of God is to Be Sought in the Immortality of the Rational Soul. How a Trinity is Demonstrated in the Mind.
6. Therefore neither is that
trinity an image of God, which is not now, nor is that other an
image of God, which then will not be; but we must find in the soul
of man, i.e.,
7. We said, then, among other things in the tenth book, that the mind of man knows itself. For the mind knows nothing so much as that which is close to itself; and nothing is more close to the mind than itself. We adduced also other evidences, as much as seemed sufficient, whereby this might be most certainly proved.
Chapter 5.—Whether the Mind of Infants Knows Itself.
What, then, is to be said of the
mind of an infant, which is still so small, and buried in such
profound ignorance of things, that the mind of a man which knows
anything shrinks from the darkness of it? Is that too to be
believed to know itself; but that, as being too intent upon those
things which it has begun to perceive through the bodily senses,
with the greater delight in proportion to their novelty, it is not
able indeed to be ignorant of itself, but is also not able to think
of itself? Moreover, how intently it is bent upon sensible things
that are without it, may be conjectured from this one fact, that it
is so greedy of sensible light, that if any one through
carelessness, or ignorance of the possible consequences, place a
light at nighttime where an infant is lying down, on that side to
which the eyes of the child so lying down can be bent, but its neck
cannot be turned, the gaze of that child will be so fixed in that
direction, that we have known some to have come to squint by this
means, in that the eyes retained that form which habit in some way
impressed upon them while tender and soft. [This occurred in the the case of
Edward Irving. Oliphant’s Life of
Irving.—W.G.T.S.] Bk. x. c. 5.
8. But let us pass by the infantine
age, since we cannot question it as to what goes on within itself,
while we have ourselves pretty well forgotten it. Let it suffice
only for us hence to be certain, that when man has come to be able
to think of the nature of his own mind, and to find out what is the
truth, he
Chapter 6.—How a Kind of Trinity Exists in the Mind Thinking of Itself. What is the Part of Thought in This Trinity.
The function of thought, however,
is so great, that not even the mind itself can, so to say, place
itself in its own sight, except when it thinks of itself; and hence
it is so far the case, that nothing is in the sight of the mind,
except that which is being thought of, that not even the mind
itself, whereby we think whatever we do think, can be in its own
sight otherwise than by thinking of itself. But in what way
it is not in its own sight when it is not thinking of itself, while
it can never be without itself, as though itself were one
thing, and the sight of itself another, it is not in my power to
discover. For this is not unreasonably said of the eye of the body;
for the eye itself of the body is fixed in its own proper place in
the body, but its sight extends to things external to itself, and
reaches even to the stars. And the eye is not in its own sight,
since it does not look at itself, unless by means of a mirror, as
is said above; Bk. x. c. 3.
9. But since the mind, as we said
near the end of the same tenth book, always remembers itself, and
always understands and loves itself, although it does not always
think of itself as distinguished from those things which are not
itself; we must inquire in what way understanding
(intellectus) belongs to conception, while the notion
(notitia) of each thing that is in the mind, even when one
is not thinking of it, is said to belong only to the memory. For if
this is so, then the mind had not these three things: viz.
the remembrance, the understanding, and the love of itself; but it
only remembered itself, and afterwards,
Chapter 7.—The Thing is Made Plain by an Example. In What Way the Matter is Handled in Order to Help the Reader.
Wherefore let us consider more carefully that example which we have adduced, wherein it was shown that not knowing a thing is different from not thinking [conceiving] of it; and that it may so happen that a man knows something of which he is not thinking, when he is thinking of something else, not of that. When any one, then, who is skilled in two or more branches of knowledge is thinking of one of them, though he is not thinking of the other or others, yet he knows them. But can we rightly say, This musician certainly knows music, but he does not now understand it, because he is not thinking of it; but he does now understand geometry, for of that he is now thinking? Such an assertion, as far as appears, is absurd. What, again, if we were to say, This musician certainly knows music, but he does not now love it, while he is not now thinking of it; but he does now love geometry, because of that he is now thinking,—is not this similarly absurd? But we say quite correctly, This person whom you perceive disputing about geometry is also a perfect musician, for he both remembers music, and understands, and loves it; but although he both knows and loves it, he is not now thinking of it, since he is thinking of geometry, of which he is disputing. And hence we are warned that we have a kind of knowledge of certain things stored up in the recesses of the mind, and that this, when it is thought of, as it were, steps forth in public, and is placed as if openly in the sight of the mind; for then the mind itself finds that it both remembers, and understands, and loves itself, even although it was not thinking of itself, when it was thinking of something else. But in the case of that of which we have not thought for a long time, and cannot think of it unless reminded; that, if the phrase is allowable, in some wonderful way I know not how, we do not know that we know. In short, it is rightly said by him who reminds, to him whom he reminds, You know this, but you do not know that you know it; I will remind you, and you will find that you know what you had thought you did not know. Books, too, lead to the same results, viz. those that are written upon subjects which the reader under the guidance of reason finds to be true; not those subjects which he believes to be true on the faith of the narrator, as in the case of history; but those which he himself also finds to be true, either of himself, or in that truth itself which is the light of the mind. But he who cannot contemplate these things, even when reminded, is too deeply buried in the darkness of ignorance, through great blindness of heart and too wonderfully needs divine help, to be able to attain to true wisdom.
10. For this reason I have wished
to adduce some kind of proof, be it what it might, respecting the
act of conceiving, such as might serve to show in what way, out of
the things contained in the memory, the mind’s eye is informed in
recollecting, and some such thing is begotten, when a man
conceives, as was already in him when, before he conceived, he
remembered; because it is easier to distinguish things that take
place at successive times, and where the parent precedes the
offspring by an interval of time. For if we refer ourselves to the
inner memory of the mind by which it remembers itself, and to the
inner understanding by which it understands itself, and to the
inner will by which it loves itself, where these three always are
together, and always have been together since they began to be at
all, whether they were being thought of or not; the image of this
trinity will indeed appear to pertain even to the memory alone; but
because in this case a word cannot be without a thought (for we
think all that we say, even if it be said by that inner word
which belongs to no separate language), this image is rather to be
discerned in these three things, viz. memory, intelligence,
will. And I mean now by intelligence that by which we understand in
thought, that is, when our thought is formed by the finding of
those things, which had been at hand to the memory but were not
being thought of; and I mean that will, or love, or preference
which combines this offspring and parent, and is in some way common
to both. Hence it was that I tried also, viz. in the
eleventh book, to lead on the slowness of readers by means of
outward sensible things which are seen by the eyes of the flesh;
and that I then proceeded to enter with them upon that power of the
inner man whereby he reasons of things temporal, deferring the
consideration of that which dominates as the higher power, by which
he contemplates things eternal. And I discussed this in two books,
distinguishing the two in the twelfth, the one of them being higher
and the other lower, and that the lower ought to be subject to the
higher; and in the thirteenth I discussed, with what truth and
brevity I could, the office of the lower, in which the wholesome
knowledge of things human is contained, in order that we may
so
Chapter 8.—The Trinity Which is the Image of God is Now to Be Sought in the Noblest Part of the Mind.
11. But we have come now to that
argument in which we have undertaken to consider the noblest part
of the human mind, by which it knows or can know God, in order that
we may find in it the image of God. For although the human mind is
not of the same nature with God, yet the image of that nature than
which none is better, is to be sought and found in us, in that than
which our nature also has nothing better. But the mind must first
be considered as it is in itself, before it becomes partaker of
God; and His image must be found in it. For, as we have said,
although worn out and defaced by losing the participation of God,
yet the image of God still remains. Supra, c. iv. Cc. 2 sq.
Chapter 9.—Whether Justice and the Other Virtues Cease to Exist in the Future Life.
12. There is, however, some question raised, whether the virtues likewise by which one lives well in this present mortality, seeing that they themselves begin also to be in the mind, which was a mind none the less when it existed before without them, cease also to exist at that time when they have brought us to things eternal. For some have thought that they will cease, and in the case of three—prudence, fortitude, temperance—such an assertion seems to have something in it; but justice is immortal, and will rather then be made perfect in us than cease to be. Yet Tullius, the great author of eloquence, when arguing in the dialogue Hortensius, says of all four: “If we were allowed, when we migrated from this life, to live forever in the islands of the blessed, as fables tell, what need were there of eloquence when there would be no trials, or what need, indeed, of the very virtues themselves? For we should not need fortitude when nothing of either toil or danger was proposed to us; nor justice, when there was nothing of anybody else’s to be coveted; nor temperance, to govern lusts that would not exist; nor, indeed, should we need prudence, when there was no choice offered between good and evil. We should be blessed, therefore, solely by learning and knowing nature, by which alone also the life of the gods is praiseworthy. And hence we may perceive that everything else is a matter of necessity, but this is one of free choice.” This great orator, then, when proclaiming the excellence of philosophy, going over again all that he had learned from philosophers, and excellently and pleasantly explaining it, has affirmed all four virtues to be necessary in this life only, which we see to be full of troubles and mistakes; but not one of them when we shall have migrated from this life, if we are permitted to live there where is a blessed life; but that blessed souls are blessed only in learning and knowing, i.e. in the contemplation of nature, than which nothing is better and more lovable. It is that nature which created and appointed all other natures. And if it belongs to justice to be subject to the government of this nature then justice is certainly immortal; nor will it cease to be in that blessedness, but will be such and so great that it cannot be more perfect or greater. Perhaps, too, the other three virtues—prudence although no longer with any risk of error, and fortitude without the vexation of bearing evils, and temperance without the thwarting of lust—will exist in that blessedness: so that it may be the part of prudence to prefer or equal no good thing to God; and of fortitude, to cleave to Him most steadfastly; and of temperance, to be pleased by no harmful defect. But that which justice is now concerned with in helping the wretched, and prudence in guarding against treachery, and fortitude in bearing troubles patiently, and temperance in controlling evil pleasures, will not exist there, where there will be no evil at all. And hence those acts of the virtues which are necessary to this mortal life, like the faith to which they are to be referred, will be reckoned among things past; and they make now a different trinity, whilst we hold, look at, and love them as present, from that which they will then make, when we shall discover them not to be, but to have been, by certain traces of them which they will have left in passing in the memory; since then, too, there will be a trinity, when that trace, be it of what sort it may, shall be retained in the memory, and truly recognized, and then these two be joined by will as a third.
Chapter 10.—How a Trinity is Produced by the Mind Remembering, Understanding, and Loving Itself.
13. In the knowledge of all these
temporal things which we have mentioned, there are some knowable
things which precede the acquisition of the knowledge of them by an
interval of time, as in the case of those sensible objects which
were already real before they were known, or of all those things
that are learned through history; but some things begin to be at
the same time with the knowing of them,—just as, if any visible
object, which did not exist before at all, were to rise up before
our eyes, certainly it does not precede our knowing it; or if there
be any sound made where there is some one to hear, no doubt the
sound and the hearing that sound begin and end simultaneously. Yet
none the less, whether preceding in time or beginning to exist
simultaneously, knowable things generate knowl
Chapter 11.—Whether Memory is Also of Things Present.
14. But some one will say, That is
not memory by which the mind, which is ever present to itself, is
affirmed to remember itself; for memory is of things past, not of
things present. For there are some, and among them Cicero, who, in
treating of the virtues, have divided prudence into these
three—memory, understanding, forethought: to wit, assigning
memory to things past, understanding to things present, forethought
to things future; which last is certain only in the case of those
who are prescient of the future; and this is no gift of men, unless
it be granted from above, as to the prophets. And hence the book of
Wisdom, speaking of men, “The thoughts of mortals,” it says,
“are fearful, and our forethought uncertain.” Æneid, iii. 628, 629.
Chapter 12.—The Trinity in the Mind is the Image of God, in that It Remembers, Understands, and Loves God, Which to Do is Wisdom.
15. This trinity, then, of the mind
is not therefore the image of God, because the mind remembers
itself, and understands and loves itself; but because it can also
remember, understand, and love Him by whom it was made. And in so
doing it is made wise itself. But if it does not do so, even when
it remembers, understands, and loves itself, then it is foolish.
Let it then remember its God, after whose image it is made, and let
it understand and love Him. Or to say the same thing more briefly,
let it worship God, who is not made, by whom because itself was
made, it is capable and can be partaker of Him; wherefore it is
written, “Behold, the worship of God, that is wisdom.”
16. There is, then, a nature not
made, which made all other natures, great and small, and is without
doubt more excellent than those which it has made, and therefore
also than that of which we are speaking; viz. than the
rational and intellectual nature, which is the mind of man, made
after the image of Him who made it. And that nature, more excellent
than the rest, is God. And indeed “He is not far from every one
of us,” as the apostle says, who adds, “For in Him we live, and
are moved, and have our being.”
Chapter 13.—How Any One Can Forget and Remember God.
17. Let us take an instance for the
purpose from visible things. Somebody whom you do not recognize,
says to you, You know me; and in order to remind you, tells you
where, when, and how he became known to you; and if, after the
mention of every sign by which you might be recalled to
remembrance, you still do not recognize him, then you have so come
to forget, as that the whole of that knowledge is altogether
blotted out of your mind; and nothing else remains, but that you
take his word for it who tells you that you once knew him; or do
not even do that, if you do not think the person who speaks to you
to be worthy of credit. But if you do remember him, then no doubt
you return to your own memory, and find in it that which had not
been altogether blotted out by forgetfulness. Let us return to that
which led us to adduce this instance from the intercourse of men.
Among other things, the 9th Psalm says, “The wicked shall be
turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God;” [Augustin here understands
“Sheol,” to denote the place of retribution for the
wicked.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 14.—The Mind Loves God in Rightly Loving Itself; And If It Love Not God, It Must Be Said to Hate Itself. Even a Weak and Erring Mind is Always Strong in Remembering, Understanding, and Loving Itself. Let It Be Turned to God, that It May Be Blessed by Remembering, Understanding, and Loving Him.
18. But there are yet more
testimonies in the divine Scriptures concerning the love of God.
For in it, those other two [namely, memory and understanding] are
understood by consequence, inasmuch as no one loves that which he
does not remember, or of which he is wholly ignorant. And hence is
that well known and primary commandment, “Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God.” Virg. Georg. iii.
513–514.
19. Yet, in the midst of these
evils of weakness and delusion, great as they are, it could not
lose its natural memory, understanding and love of itself. And
therefore what I quoted above C. 4.
20. I have said thus much, that
even those who are slower of understanding, to whose eyes or ears
this book may come, might be admonished, however briefly, how
greatly even a weak and erring mind loves itself, in wrongly loving
and pursuing things beneath itself. Now it could not love itself if
it
Chapter 15.—Although the Soul Hopes for Blessedness, Yet It Does Not Remember Lost Blessedness, But Remembers God and the Rules of Righteousness. The Unchangeable Rules of Right Living are Known Even to the Ungodly.
21. And of this certainly it feels
no doubt, that it is wretched, and longs to be blessed nor can it
hope for the possibility of this on any other ground than its own
changeableness for if it were not changeable, then, as it could not
become wretched after being blessed, so neither could it become
blessed after being wretched. And what could have made it wretched
under an omnipotent and good God, except its own sin and the
righteousness of its Lord? And what will make it blessed, unless
its own merit, and its Lord’s reward? But its merit, too, is His
grace, whose reward will be its blessedness; for it cannot give
itself the righteousness it has lost, and so has not. For this it
received when man was created, and assuredly lost it by sinning.
Therefore it receives righteousness, that on account of this it may
deserve to receive blessedness; and hence the apostle truly says to
it, when beginning to be proud as it were of its own good, “For
what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now if thou didst
receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received
it?” [In the case of knowledge that is
remembered, there is something latent and potential—as when past
acquisitions are recalled by a voluntary act of recollection. The
same is true of innate ideas—these also are latent, and brought
into consciousness by reflection. But no man can either remember,
or elicit, his original holiness and blessedness, because this is
not latent and potential, but wholly lost by the
fall.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 16.—How the Image of God is Formed Anew in Man.
22. But those who, by being
reminded, are turned to the Lord from that deformity whereby they
were through worldly lusts conformed to this world, are formed anew
from the world, when they hearken to the apostle, saying, “Be not
conformed to this world, but be ye formed again in the renewing of
your mind;”
In the one place he says, “After
God;” in the other, “After the image of Him that created
him.” But instead of saying, as in the former passages “In
righteousness and true holiness,” he has put in the latter, “In
the knowledge of God.” This renewal, then, and forming again of
the mind, is wrought either after God, or after the image of God.
But it is said to be after God, in order that it may not be
supposed to be after another creature; and to be after the image of
God, in order that this renewing may be understood to take place in
that wherein is the image of God, i.e. in the mind. Just as
we say, that he who has departed from the body a faithful and
righteous man, is dead after the body, not after the spirit. For
what do we mean by dead after the body, unless as to
Chapter 17.—How the Image of God in the Mind is Renewed Until the Likeness of God is Perfected in It in Blessedness.
23. Certainly this renewal does not
take place in the single moment of conversion itself, as that
renewal in baptism takes place in a single moment by the remission
of all sins; for not one, be it ever so small, remains unremitted.
But as it is one thing to be free from fever, and another to grow
strong again from the infirmity which the fever produced; and one
thing again to pluck out of the body a weapon thrust into it, and
another to heal the wound thereby made by a prosperous cure; so the
first cure is to remove the cause of infirmity, and this is wrought
by the forgiving of all sins; but the second cure is to heal the
infirmity itself, and this takes place gradually by making progress
in the renewal of that image: which two things are plainly shown in
the Psalm, where we read, “Who forgiveth all thine iniquities,”
which takes place in baptism; and then follows, “and healeth all
thine infirmities;” [Justification is instantaneous:
sanctification is gradual. Baptism is the sign, not the cause, of
the former. “As many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ,
were baptized with reference to (εἰς) his death;” and “are
intombed with him by the baptism that has reference to
(εἰς)
his death.”
Chapter 18.—Whether the Sentence of John is to Be Understood of Our Future Likeness with the Son of God in the Immortality Itself Also of the Body.
24. But the Apostle John says,
“Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it doth not yet appear
what we shall be: but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall
be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.”
Chapter 19.—John is Rather to Be Understood of Our Perfect Likeness with the Trinity in Life Eternal. Wisdom is Perfected in Happiness.
25. But in respect to that image
indeed, of which it is said, “Let us make man after our image and
likeness,”
26. This contemplative wisdom,
which I believe is properly called wisdom as distinct from
knowledge in the sacred writings; but wisdom only of man, which yet
man has not except from Him, by partaking of whom a rational and
intellectual mind can be made truly wise;—this contemplative
wisdom, I say, it is that Cicero commends, in the end of the
dialogue Hortensius, when he says: “While, then, we
consider these things night and day, and sharpen our understanding,
which is the eye of the mind, taking care that it be not ever
dulled, that is, while we live in philosophy; we, I say, in so
doing, have great hope that, if, on the one hand, this sentiment
and wisdom of ours is mortal and perishable, we shall still, when
we have discharged our human offices, have a pleasant setting, and
a not painful extinction, and as it were a rest from life: or if,
on the other, as ancient philosophers thought,—and those, too,
the greatest and far the most celebrated,—we have souls eternal
and divine, then must we needs think, that the more these shall
have always kept in their own proper course, i.e. in reason
and in the desire of inquiry, and the less they shall have mixed
and entangled themselves in the vices and errors of men, the more
easy ascent and return they will have to heaven.” And then he
says, adding this short sentence, and finishing his discourse by
repeating it: “Wherefore, to end my discourse at last, if we wish
either for a tranquil extinction, after living in the pursuit of
these subjects, or if to migrate without delay from this present
home to another in no little measure better, we must bestow all our
labor and care upon these pursuits.” And here I marvel, that a
man of such great ability should promise to men living in
philosophy, which makes man blessed by contemplation of truth, “a
pleasant setting after the discharge of human offices, if this our
sentiment and wisdom is mortal and perishable;” as if that which
we did not love, or rather which we fiercely hated, were then to
die and come to nothing, so that its setting would be pleasant to
us! But indeed he had not learned this from the philosophers, whom
he extols with great praise; but this sentiment is redolent of that
New Academy, wherein it pleased him to doubt of even
Book XV.
————————————
Begins by setting forth briefly and in sum the contents of the previous fourteen books. The argument is then shown to have reached so far as to allow of our now inquiring concerning the Trinity, which is God, in those eternal, incorporeal, and unchangeable things themselves, in the perfect contemplation of which a blessed life is promised to us. But this Trinity, as he shows, is here seen by us as by a mirror and in an enigma, in that it is seen by means of the image of God, which we are, as in a likeness that is obscure and hard of discernment. In like manner, it is shown, that some kind of conjecture and explanation may be gathered respecting the generation of the divine Word, from the word of our own mind, but only with difficulty, on account of the exceeding disparity which is discernible between the two words; and, again, respecting the procession of the Holy Spirit, from the love that is joined thereto by the will.
Chapter 1.—God is Above the Mind.
1.
Desiring to exercise the reader in the things that are made,
in order that he may know Him by whom they are made, we have now
advanced so far as to His image, which is man, in that wherein he
excels the other animals, i.e. in reason or intelligence,
and whatever else can be said of the rational or intellectual soul
that pertains to what is called the mind. Mens or animus. Anima
Chapter 2.—God, Although Incomprehensible, is Ever to Be Sought. The Traces of the Trinity are Not Vainly Sought in the Creature.
2. For God Himself, whom we seek,
will, as I hope, help our labors, that they may not be unfruitful,
and that we may understand how it is said in the holy Psalm, “Let
the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord. Seek the Lord, and be
strengthened: seek His face evermore.”
3. We shall have tarried then long
enough among those things that God has made, in order that by them
He Himself may be known that made them. “For the invisible things
of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being
understood by the things that are made.”
Chapter 3.—A Brief Recapitulation of All the Previous Books.
4. But since the necessities of our discussion and argument have compelled us to say a great many things in the course of fourteen books, which we cannot view at once in one glance, so as to be able to refer them quickly in thought to that which we desire to grasp, I will attempt, by the help of God, to the best of my power, to put briefly together, without arguing, whatever I have established in the several books by argument as known, and to place, as it were, under one mental view, not the way in which we have been convinced of each point, but the points themselves of which we have been convinced; in order that what follows may not be so far separated from that which precedes, as that the perusal of the former shall produce forgetfulness of the latter; or at any rate, if it have produced such forgetfulness, that what has escaped the memory may be speedily recalled by re-perusal.
5. In the first book, the unity and
equality of that highest Trinity is shown from Holy Scripture. In
the second, and third, and fourth, the same: but a careful handling
of the question respecting the sending of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit has resulted in three books; and we have demonstrated, that
He who is sent is not therefore less than He who sends because the
one sent, the other was sent; since the Trinity, which is in all
things equal, being also equally in its own nature unchangeable,
and invisible, and everywhere present, works indivisibly. In the
fifth,—with a view to those who think that the substance of the
Father and of the Son is therefore not the same, because they
suppose everything that is predicated of God to be predicated
according to substance, and therefore contend that to beget and to
be begotten, or to be begotten and unbegotten, as being diverse,
are diverse substances,—it is demonstrated that not everything
that is predicated of God is predicated according to substance, as
He is called good and great according to substance, or anything
else that is predicated of Him in respect to Himself, but that some
things also are predicated relatively, i.e. not in respect
to Himself, but in respect to something which is not Himself; as He
is called the Father in respect to the Son, or the Lord in respect
to the creature that serves Him; and that here, if anything thus
relatively predicated, i.e. predicated in respect to
something that is not Himself, is predicated also as in time, as,
e.g., “Lord, Thou hast become our
Chapter 4.—What Universal Nature Teaches Us Concerning God.
6. Let us, then, now seek the Trinity which is God, in the things themselves that are eternal, incorporeal, and unchangeable; in the perfect contemplation of which a blessed life is promised us, which cannot be other than eternal. For not only does the authority of the divine books declare that God is; but the whole nature of the universe itself which surrounds us, and to which we also belong, proclaims that it has a most excellent Creator, who has given to us a mind and natural reason, whereby to see that things living are to be preferred to things that are not living; things that have sense to things that have not; things that have understanding to things that have not; things immortal to things mortal; things powerful to things impotent; things righteous to things unrighteous; things beautiful to things deformed; things good to things evil; things incorruptible to things corruptible; things unchangeable to things changeable; things invisible to things visible; things incorporeal to things corporeal; things blessed to things miserable. And hence, since without doubt we place the Creator above things created, we must needs confess that the Creator both lives in the highest sense, and perceives and understands all things, and that He cannot die, or suffer decay, or be changed; and that He is not a body, but a spirit, of all the most powerful, most righteous, most beautiful, most good, most blessed.
Chapter 5.—How Difficult It is to Demonstrate the Trinity by Natural Reason.
7. But all that I have said, and
whatever else seems to be worthily said of God after the like
fashion of human speech, applies to the whole Trinity, which is one
God, and to the several Persons in that Trinity. For who would dare
to say either of the one God, which is the Trinity itself, or of
the Father, or Son, or Holy Spirit, either that He is not living,
or is without sense or intelligence; or that, in that nature in
which they are affirmed to be mutually equal, any one of them is
mortal, or corruptible, or changeable, or corporeal? Or is there
any one who would deny that any one in the Trinity is most
powerful, most righteous, most beautiful, most good, most blessed?
If, then, these things, and all others of the kind, can be
predicated both of the Trinity itself, and of each several one in
that Trinity, where or how shall the Trinity manifest itself? Let
us therefore first reduce these numerous predicates to some limited
number. For that which is called life in God, is itself His essence
and nature. God, therefore, does not live, unless by the life which
He is to Himself. And this life is not such as that which is in a
tree, wherein is neither understanding nor sense; nor such as is in
a beast, for the life of a beast possesses the fivefold sense, but
has no understanding. But the life which is God perceives and
understands all things, and perceives by mind, not by body, because
“God is a spirit.”
8. Further, if we say, Eternal,
immortal, incorruptible, unchangeable, living, wise, powerful,
beautiful, righteous, good, blessed spirit; only the last of this
list as it were seems to signify substance, but the rest to signify
qualities of that substance; but it is not so in that ineffable and
simple nature. For whatever seems to be predicated therein
according to quality, is to be understood according to substance or
essence. For far be it from us to predicate spirit of God according
to substance, and good according to quality; but both according to
substance. [In the Infinite Being, qualities
are inseparable from essence; in the finite being, they are
separable. If man or angel ceases to be good, or wise, or
righteous, he does not thereby cease to be man or angel. But if God
should lose goodness, wisdom or righteousness, he would no longer
be God. This is the meaning of Augustin, when he says that
“goodness” as well as “spirit” must be predicated of God,
“according to substance”—that is, that qualities in God are
essential qualities. They are so one with the essence, that
they are inseparable.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 6.—How There is a Trinity in the Very Simplicity of God. Whether and How the Trinity that is God is Manifested from the Trinities Which Have Been Shown to Be in Men.
9. When, then, we say, Eternal,
wise, blessed, are these three the Trinity that is called God? We
reduce, indeed, those twelve to this small number of three; but
perhaps we can go further, and reduce these three also to one of
them. For if wisdom and might, or life and wisdom, can be one and
the same thing in the nature of God, why cannot eternity and
wisdom, or blessedness and wisdom, be one and the same thing in the
nature of God? And hence, as it made no difference whether we spoke
of these twelve or of those three when we reduced the many to the
small number; so does it make no difference whether we speak of
those three, or of that one, to the singularity of which we have
shown that the other two of the three may be reduced. What fashion,
then, of argument, what possible force and might of understanding,
what liveliness of reason, what sharp-sightedness of thought, will
set forth how (to pass over now the others) this one thing, that
God is called wisdom, is a trinity? For God does not receive wisdom
from any one as we receive it from Him, but He is Himself His own
wisdom; because His wisdom is not one thing, and His essence
another, seeing that to Him to be wise is to be. Christ, indeed, is
called in the Holy Scriptures, “the power of God, and the wisdom
of God.”
10. For if we recall where it was
in these books that a trinity first began to show itself
Chapter 7.—That It is Not Easy to Discover the Trinity that is God from the Trinities We Have Spoken of.
11. But these three are in such way
in man, that they are not themselves man. For man, as the ancients
defined him, is a rational mortal animal. These things, therefore,
are the chief things in man, but are not man themselves. And any
one person, i.e. each individual man, has these three things
in his mind. But if, again, we were so to define man as to say, Man
is a rational substance consisting of mind and body, then without
doubt man has a soul that is not body, and a body that is not soul.
And hence these three things are not man, but belong to man, or are
in man. If, again, we put aside the body, and think of the soul
by
12. There is, again, a wide
difference in this point likewise, that whether we speak of the
mind in a man, and of its knowledge and love; or of memory,
understanding, will,—we remember nothing of the mind except by
memory, nor understand anything except by understanding, nor love
anything except by will. But in that Trinity, who would dare to say
that the Father understands neither Himself, nor the Son, nor the
Holy Spirit, except by the Son, or loves them except by the Holy
Spirit; and that He remembers only by Himself either Himself, or
the Son, or the Holy Spirit; and in the same way that the Son
remembers neither Himself nor the Father, except by the Father, nor
loves them except by the Holy Spirit; but that by Himself He only
understands both the Father and Son and Holy Spirit: and in like
manner, that the Holy Spirit by the Father remembers both the
Father and the Son and Himself, and by the Son understands both the
Father and the Son and Himself; but by Himself only loves both
Himself and the Father and the Son;—as though the Father were
both His own memory, and that of the Son and of the Holy Spirit;
and the Son were the understanding of both Himself, and the Father
and the Holy Spirit; but the Holy Spirit were the love both of
Himself, and of the Father and of the Son? Who would presume to
think or affirm this of that Trinity? For if therein the Son alone
understands both for Himself and for the Father and for the Holy
Spirit, we have returned to the old absurdity, that the Father is
not wise from Himself, but from the Son, and that wisdom has not
begotten wisdom, but that the Father is said to be wise by that
wisdom which He begat. For where there is no understanding there
can be no wisdom; and hence, if the Father does not understand
Himself for Himself, but the Son understands for the Father,
assuredly the Son makes the Father wise. But if to God to be is to
be wise, and essence is to Him the same as wisdom, then it is not
the Son that has His essence from the Father, which is the truth,
but rather the Father from the Son, which is a most absurd
falsehood. And this absurdity, beyond all doubt, we have discussed,
disproved, and rejected, in the seventh book. Therefore God the
Father is wise by that wisdom by which He is His own wisdom, and
the Son is the wisdom of the Father from the wisdom which is the
Father, from whom the Son is begotten; whence it follows that the
Father understands also by that understanding by which He is His
own understanding (for he could not be Wise that did not
understand); and that the Son is the understanding of the Father,
begotten of the understanding which is the Father. And this same
may not be unfitly said of memory also. For how is he wise, that
remembers nothing, or does not remember himself? Accordingly, since
the Father is wisdom, and the Son is wisdom, therefore, as the
Father remembers Himself, so does the Son also remember Himself;
and as the Father remembers both Himself and the Son, not by the
memory of the Son, but by His own, so does the Son remember both
Himself and the Father, not by the memory of the Father, but by His
own. Where, again, there is no love, who would say there was any
wisdom? And hence we must infer that the Father is in such way His
own love, as He is His own understanding and memory. And therefore
these three, i.e. memory, understanding, love or will in
that highest and unchangeable essence which is God, are, we see,
not the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, but the Father
alone. And because the Son too is wisdom begotten of wisdom, as
neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit understands for Him, but He
understands for Himself; so neither does the Father remember for
Him, nor the Holy Spirit love for Him, but He remembers and loves
for Himself: for He is Himself also His own memory, His own
understanding, and His own love. But that He is so comes to Him
from the Father, of whom He is born. And because the Holy Spirit
also is wisdom proceeding from wisdom, He too has not the Father
for a memory, and the Son for an understanding, and Himself for
love: for He would not be wisdom if another remembered for Him, and
yet another understood for Him, and He only loved for Himself; but
Himself has all three things, and has them in such way that they
are Him
13. What man, then, is there who
can comprehend that wisdom by which God knows all things, in such
wise that neither what we call things past are past therein, nor
what we call things future are therein waited for as coming, as
though they were absent, but both past and future with things
present are all present; nor yet are things thought severally, so
that thought passes from one to another, but all things
simultaneously are at hand in one glance;—what man, I say, is
there that comprehends that wisdom, and the like prudence, and the
like knowledge, since in truth even our own wisdom is beyond our
comprehension? For somehow we are able to behold the things that
are present to our senses or to our understanding; but the things
that are absent, and yet have once been present, we know by memory,
if we have not forgotten them. And we conjecture, too, not the past
from the future, but the future from the past, yet by all unstable
knowledge. For there are some of our thoughts to which, although
future, we, as it were, look onward with greater plainness and
certainty as being very near; and we do this by the means of memory
when we are able to do it, as much as we ever are able, although
memory seems to belong not to the future, but to the past. And this
may be tried in the case of any words or songs, the due order of
which we are rendering by memory; for we certainly should not utter
each in succession, unless we foresaw in thought what came next.
And yet it is not foresight, but memory, that enables us to foresee
it; for up to the very end of the words or the song, nothing is
uttered except as foreseen and looked forward to. And yet in doing
this, we are not said to speak or sing by foresight, but by memory;
and if any one is more than commonly capable of uttering many
pieces in this way, he is usually praised, not for his foresight,
but for his memory. We know, and are absolutely certain, that all
this takes place in our mind or by our mind; but how it takes
place, the more attentively we desire to scrutinize, the more do
both our very words break down, and our purpose itself fails, when
by our understanding, if not our tongue, we would reach to
something of clearness. And do such as we are, think, that in so
great infirmity of mind we can comprehend whether the foresight of
God is the same as His memory and His understanding, who does not
regard in thought each several thing, but embraces all that He
knows in one eternal and unchangeable and ineffable vision? In this
difficulty, then, and strait, we may well cry out to the living
God, “Such knowledge is too wonderful for me: it is high, I
cannot attain unto it.”
Chapter 8.—How the Apostle Says that God is Now Seen by Us Through a Glass.
14. I know that wisdom is an
incorporeal substance, and that it is the light by which those
things are seen that are not seen by carnal eyes; and yet a man so
great and so spiritual [as Paul] says, “We see now through a
glass, in an enigma, but then face to face.” Speculantes Speculum Specula
Chapter 9.—Of the Term “Enigma,” And of Tropical Modes of Speech.
15. What has been said relates to
the words of the apostle, that “we see now through a glass;”
but whereas he has added, “in an enigma,” the meaning of this
addition is unknown to any who are unacquainted with the books that
contain the doctrine of those modes of speech, which the Greeks
call Tropes, which Greek word we also use in Latin. For as we more
commonly speak of schemata than of figures, so we more
commonly speak of tropes than of modes. And it is a very difficult
and uncommon thing to express the names of the several modes or
tropes in Latin, so as to refer its appropriate name to each. And
hence some Latin translators, through unwillingness to employ a
Greek word, where the apostle says, “Which things are an
allegory,”
16. But because it is not only
those that are ignorant of the books that contain the doctrine of
tropes, who inquire the apostle’s meaning, when he said that we
“see now in an enigma,” but those, too, who are acquainted with
the doctrine, but yet desire to know what that enigma is in which
“we now see;” we must find a single meaning for the two
phrases, viz. for that which says, “we see now through a
glass,” and for that which adds, “in an enigma.” For it makes
but one sentence, when the whole is so uttered, “We see now
through a glass in an enigma.” Accordingly, as far as my judgment
goes, as by the word glass he meant to signify an image, so by that
of enigma any likeness you will, but yet one obscure, and difficult
to see through. While, therefore, any likenesses whatever may be
understood as signified by the apostle when he speaks of a glass
and an enigma, so that they are adapted to the understanding of
God, in such way as He can be understood; yet nothing is better
adapted to this purpose than that which is not vainly called His
image. Let no one, then, wonder, that we labor to see in any way at
all, even in that fashion of seeing which is granted to us in this
life, viz. through a glass, in an enigma. For we should not
hear of an enigma in this place if sight were easy. And this is a
yet greater enigma, that we do not see what we cannot but see. For
who does not see his own thought? And yet who does see his own
thought, I do not say with the eye of the flesh, but with the inner
sight itself? Who
Chapter 10.—Concerning the Word of the Mind, in Which We See the Word of God, as in a Glass and an Enigma.
17. But let us now speak of those
things of which we think as known, and have in our knowledge even
if we do not think of them; whether they belong to the
contemplative knowledge, which, as I have argued, is properly to be
called wisdom, or to the active which is properly to be called
knowledge. For both together belong to one mind, and are one image
of God. But when we treat of the lower of the two distinctly and
separately, then it is not to be called an image of God, although
even then, too, some likeness of that Trinity may be found in it;
as we showed in the thirteenth book. We speak now, therefore, of
the entire knowledge of man altogether, in which whatever is known
to us is known; that, at any rate, which is true; otherwise it
would not be known. For no one knows what is false, except when he
knows it to be false; and if he knows this, then he knows what is
true: for it is true that that is false. We treat, therefore, now
of those things which we think as known, and which are known to us
even if they are not being thought of. But certainly, if we would
utter them in words, we can only do so by thinking them. For
although there were no words spoken, at any rate, he who thinks
speaks in his heart. And hence that passage in the book of Wisdom:
“They said within themselves, thinking not aright.”
18. Some thoughts, then, are
speeches of the heart, wherein the Lord also shows that there is a
mouth, when He says, “Not that which entereth into the mouth
defileth a man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, that
defileth a man.” In one sentence He has comprised two diverse
mouths of the man, one of the body, one of the heart. For
assuredly, that from which they thought the man to be defiled,
enters into the mouth of the body; but that from which the Lord
said the man was defiled, proceedeth out of the mouth of the heart.
So certainly He Himself explained what He had said. For a little
after, He says also to His disciples concerning the same thing:
“Are ye also yet without understanding? Do ye not understand,
that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and
is cast out into the draught?” Here He most certainly pointed to
the mouth of the body. But in that which follows He plainly speaks
of the mouth of the heart, where He says, “But those things which
proceed out of the mouth come forth from the heart; and they defile
the man. For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,”
19. Whoever, then, is able to
understand a word, not only before it is uttered in sound, but also
before the images of its sounds are considered in thought,—for
this it is which belongs to no tongue, to wit, of those which are
called the tongues of nations, of which our Latin tongue is
one;—whoever, I say, is able to understand this, is able now to
see through this glass and in this enigma some likeness of that
Word of whom it is said, “In the beginning was the Word, and the
Word was with God, and the Word was God.”
Chapter 11.—The Likeness of the Divine Word, Such as It Is, is to Be Sought, Not in Our Own Outer and Sensible Word, But in the Inner and Mental One. There is the Greatest Possible Unlikeness Between Our Word and Knowledge and the Divine Word and Knowledge.
20. Accordingly, the word that
sounds outwardly is the sign of the word that gives light inwardly;
which latter has the greater claim to be called a word. For that
which is uttered with the mouth of the flesh, is the articulate
sound of a word; and is itself also called a word, on account of
that to make which outwardly apparent it is itself assumed. For our
word is so made in some way into an articulate sound of the body,
by assuming that articulate sound by which it may be manifested to
men’s senses, as the Word of God was made flesh, by assuming that
flesh in which itself also might be manifested to men’s senses.
And as our word becomes an articulate sound, yet is not changed
into one; so the Word of God became flesh, but far be it from us to
say He was changed into flesh. For both that word of ours became an
articulate sound, and that other Word became flesh, by assuming it,
not by consuming itself so as to be changed into it. And therefore
whoever desires to arrive at any likeness, be it of what sort it
may, of the Word of God, however in many respects unlike, must not
regard the word of ours that sounds in the ears, either when it is
uttered in an articulate sound or when it is silently thought. For
the words of all tongues that are uttered in sound are also
silently thought, and the mind runs over verses while the bodily
mouth is silent. And not only the numbers of syllables, but the
tunes also of songs, since they are corporeal, and pertain to that
sense of the body which is called hearing, are at hand by certain
incorporeal images appropriate to them, to those who think of them,
and who silently revolve all these things. But we must pass by
this, in order to arrive at that word of man, by the likeness of
which, be it of what sort it may, the Word of God may be somehow
seen as in an enigma. Not that word which was spoken to this or
that prophet, and of which it is said, “Now the word of God grew
and multiplied;”
21. When, therefore, this image
shall have been renewed to perfection by this transformation, then
we shall be like God, because we shall see Him, not through a
glass, but “as He is;”
Chapter 12.—The Academic Philosophy.
First, of what sort and how great
is the very knowledge itself that a man can attain, be he ever so
skillful and learned, by which our thought is formed with truth,
when we speak what we know? For to pass by those things that come
into the mind from the bodily senses, among which so many are
otherwise than they seem to be, that he who is overmuch pressed
down by their resemblance to truth, seems sane to himself, but
really is not [Not the Old Academy of Plato and
his immediate disciples, who were anti-skeptical; but the new
Academy, to which Augustin has previously referred (XIV. xix. 26).
This was skeptical—W.G.T.S.] Libri Tres contra
Academicos
22. All these things, then, both those which the human mind knows by itself, and those which it knows by the bodily senses, and those which it has received and knows by the testimony of others, are laid up and retained in the storehouse of the memory; and from these is begotten a word that is true when we speak what we know, but a word that is before all sound, before all thought of a sound. For the word is then most like to the thing known, from which also its image is begotten, since the sight of thinking arises from the sight of knowledge; when it is a word belonging to no tongue, but is a true word concerning a true thing, having nothing of its own, but wholly derived from that knowledge from which it is born. Nor does it signify when he learned it, who speaks what he knows; for sometimes he says it immediately upon learning it; provided only that the word is true, i.e. sprung from things that are known.
Chapter 13.—Still Further of the Difference Between the Knowledge and Word of Our Mind, and the Knowledge and Word of God.
But is it so, that God the Father,
from whom is born the Word that is God of God,—is it so, then,
that God the Father, in respect to that wisdom which He is to
Himself, has learned some things by His bodily senses, and others
by Himself? Who could say this, who thinks of God, not as a
rational animal, but as One above the rational soul? So far at
least as He can be thought of, by those who place Him above all
animals and all souls, although they see Him by conjecture through
a glass and in an enigma, not yet face to face as He is. Is it that
God the Father has learned those very things which He knows, not by
the body, for He has none, but by Himself, from elsewhere from some
one? or has stood in need of messengers or witnesses that He might
know them? Certainly not; since His own perfection enables Him to
know all things that He knows. No doubt He has messengers,
viz. the angels; but not to announce to Him things that He
knows not, for there is nothing He does not know. But their good
lies in consulting the truth about their own works. And this it is
which is meant by saying that they bring Him word of some things,
not that He may learn of them, but they of Him by His word without
bodily sound. They bring Him word, too, of that which He wills,
being sent by Him to whomever He wills, and hearing all from Him by
that word of His, i.e. finding in His truth what themselves
are to do: what, to whom, and when, they are to bring word. For we
too pray to Him, yet do not inform Him what our necessities are.
“For your Father knoweth,” says His Word, “what things ye
have need of, before you ask Him.”
Chapter 14.—The Word of God is in All Things Equal to the Father, from Whom It is.
23. The Word of God, then, the
only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal to
the Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence
of Essence, is altogether that which the Father is, yet is not the
Father, because the one is Son, the other is Father. And hence He
knows all that the Father knows; but to Him to know, as to be, is
from the Father, for to know and to be is there one. And therefore,
as to be is not to the Father from the Son, so neither is to know.
Accordingly, as though uttering Himself, the Father begat the Word
equal to Himself in all things; for He would not have uttered
Himself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anything
more or less than in Himself. And here that is recognized in the
highest sense, “Yea, yea; nay, nay.”
24. And that word, then, of ours which has neither sound nor thought of sound, but is of that thing in seeing which we speak inwardly, and which therefore belongs to no tongue; and hence is in some sort like, in this enigma, to that Word of God which is also God; since this too is born of our knowledge, in such manner as that also is born of the knowledge of the Father: such a word, I say, of ours, which we find to be in some way like that Word, let us not be slow to consider how unlike also it is, as it may be in our power to utter it.
Chapter 15.—How Great is the Unlikeness Between Our Word and the Divine Word. Our Word Cannot Be or Be Called Eternal.
Is our word, then, born of our
knowledge only? Do we not say many things also that we do not know?
And say them not with doubt, but thinking them to be true; while if
perchance they are true in respect to the things themselves of
which we speak, they are yet not true in respect to our word,
because a word is not true unless it is born of a thing that is
known. In this sense, then, our word is false, not when we lie, but
when we are deceived. And when we doubt, our word is not yet of the
thing of which we doubt, but it is a word concerning the doubt
itself. For although we do not know whether that is true of which
we doubt, yet we do know that we doubt; and hence, when we say we
doubt, we say a word that is true, for we say what we know. And
what, too, of its being possible for us to lie? And when we do,
certainly we both willingly and knowingly have a word that is
false, wherein there is a word that is true, viz. that we
lie, for this we know. And when we confess that we have lied, we
speak that which is true; for we say what we know, for we know that
we lied. But that Word which is God, and can do more than we,
cannot do this. For it “can do nothing except what it sees the
Father do;” and it “speaks not of itself,” but it has from
the Father all that it
25. In respect to those things also which are so known that they can never escape the memory, because they are present, and belong to the nature of the mind itself,—as, e.g., the knowing that we are alive (for this continues so long as the mind continues; and because the mind continues always, this also continues always);—I say, in respect to this and to any other like instances, in which we are the rather to contemplate the image of God, it is difficult to make out in what way, although they are always known, yet because they are not always also thought of, an eternal word can be spoken respecting them, when our word is spoken in our thought. For it is eternal to the soul to live; it is eternal to know that it lives. Yet it is not eternal to it to be thinking of its own life, or to be thinking of its own knowledge of its own life; since, in entering upon this or that occupation, it will cease to think of this, although it does not cease from knowing it. And hence it comes to pass, that if there can be in the mind any knowledge that is eternal, while the thought of that knowledge cannot be eternal, and any inner and true word of ours is only said by our thought, then God alone can be understood to have a Word that is eternal, and co-eternal with Himself. Unless, perhaps, we are to say that the very possibility of thought—since that which is known is capable of being truly thought, even at the time when it is not being thought—constitutes a word as perpetual as the knowledge itself is perpetual. But how is that a word which is not yet formed in the vision of the thought? How will it be like the knowledge of which it is born, if it has not the form of that knowledge, and is only now called a word because it can have it? For it is much as if one were to say that a word is to be so called because it can be a word. But what is this that can be a word, and is therefore already held worthy of the name of a word? What, I say, is this thing that is formable, but not yet formed, except a something in our mind, which we toss to and fro by revolving it this way or that, while we think of first one thing and then another, according as they are found by or occur to us? And the true word then comes into being, when, as I said, that which we toss to and fro by revolving it arrives at that which we know, and is formed by that, in taking its entire likeness; so that in what manner each thing is known, in that manner also it is thought, i.e. is said in this manner in the heart, without articulate sound, without thought of articulate sound, such as no doubt belongs to some particular tongue. And hence if we even admit, in order not to dispute laboriously about a name, that this something of our mind, which can be formed from our knowledge, is to be already called a word, even before it is so formed, because it is, so to say, already formable, who would not see how great would be the unlikeness between it and that Word of God, which is so in the form of God, as not to have been formable before it was formed, or to have been capable at any time of being formless, but is a simple form, and simply equal to Him from whom it is, and with whom it is wonderfully co-eternal?
Chapter 16.—Our Word is Never to Be Equalled to the Divine Word, Not Even When We Shall Be Like God.
Wherefore that Word of God is in
such wise so called, as not to be called a thought of God, lest we
believe that there is anything in God which can be revolved, so
that it at one time receives and at another recovers a form, so as
to be a word, and again can lose that form and be revolved in some
sense formlessly. Certainly that excellent master of speech knew
well the force of words, and had looked into the nature of thought,
who said in his poem, “And revolves with himself the varying
issues of war,” Æn. x. 159, 160.
26. Wherefore, since we have found
now in this enigma so great an unlikeness to God and the Word of
God, wherein yet there was found before some likeness, this, too,
must be admitted, that even when we shall be like Him, when “we
shall see Him as He is”
Chapter 17.—How the Holy Spirit is Called Love, and Whether He Alone is So Called. That the Holy Spirit is in the Scriptures Properly Called by the Name of Love.
27. We have sufficiently spoken of
the Father and of the Son, so far as was possible for us to see
through this glass and in this enigma. We must now treat of the
Holy Spirit, so far as by God’s gift it is permitted to see Him.
And the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scriptures, is neither
of the Father alone, nor of the Son alone, but of both; and so
intimates to us a mutual love, wherewith the Father and the Son
reciprocally love one another. But the language of the Word of God,
in order to exercise us, has caused those things to be sought into
with the greater zeal, which do not lie on the surface, but are to
be scrutinized in hidden depths, and to be drawn out from thence.
The Scriptures, accordingly, have not said, The Holy Spirit is
Love. If they had said so, they would have done away with no small
part of this inquiry. But they have said, “God is love;”
28. “God,” then, “is love;”
but the question is, whether the Father, or the Son, or the Holy
Spirit, or the Trinity itself: because the Trinity is not three
Gods, but one God. But I have already argued above in this book,
that the Trinity, which is God, is not so to be understood from
those three things which have been set forth in the trinity of our
mind, as that the Father should be the memory of all three, and the
Son the understanding of all three, and the Holy Spirit the love of
all three; as though the Father should neither understand nor love
for Himself, but the Son should understand for Him, and the Holy
Spirit love for Him, but He Himself should remember only both for
Himself and for them; nor the Son remember nor love for Himself,
but the Father should remember for Him, and the Holy Spirit love
for Him, but He Himself understand only both for Himself and them;
nor likewise that the Holy Spirit should neither remember nor
understand for Himself, but the Father should remember for Him, and
the Son understand for Him, while He Himself should love only both
for Himself and for them; but rather in this way, that both all and
each have all three each in His own nature. Nor that these things
should differ in them, as in us memory is one thing, understanding
another, love or charity another, but should be some one thing that
is
29. And yet it is not to no purpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called the Word of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, and God the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whom the Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added the word principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to one already existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to the only-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begat Him as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and the Holy Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction, then, of the inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing, but to be carefully considered; for hence it was that the Word of God was specially called also the Wisdom of God, although both Father and Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of the three is to be specially called Love, what more fitting than that it should be the Holy Spirit?—namely, that in that simple and highest nature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but that substance itself should be love, and love itself should be substance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the Holy Spirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially called Love.
30. Just as sometimes all the
utterances of the Old Testament together in the Holy Scriptures are
signified by the name of the Law. For the apostle, in citing a text
from the prophet Isaiah, where he says, “With divers tongues and
with divers lips will I speak to this people,” yet prefaced it
by, “It is written in the Law.”
31. As, then, we call the only Word
of God specially by the name of Wisdom, although universally both
the Holy Spirit and the Father Himself is wisdom; so the Holy
Spirit is specially called by the name of Love, although
universally both the Father and the Son are love. But the Word of
God, i.e. the only-begotten Son of God, is expressly called
the Wisdom of God by the mouth of the apostle, where he says,
“Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”
Chapter 18.—No Gift of God is More Excellent Than Love.
32. There is no gift of God more
excellent than this. It alone distinguishes the sons of the eternal
kingdom and the sons of eternal perdition. Other gifts, too, are
given by the Holy Spirit; but without love they profit nothing.
Unless, therefore, the Holy Spirit is so far imparted to each, as
to make him one who loves God and his neighbor, he is not removed
from the left hand to the right. Nor is the Spirit specially called
the Gift, unless on account of love. And he who has not this love,
“though he speak with the tongues of men and angels, is sounding
brass and a tinkling cymbal; and though he have the gift of
prophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and though he
have all faith, so that he can remove mountains, he is nothing; and
though he bestow all his goods to feed the poor, and though he give
his body to be burned, it profiteth him nothing.”
Chapter 19.—The Holy Spirit is Called the Gift of God in the Scriptures. By the Gift of the Holy Spirit is Meant the Gift Which is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is Specially Called Love, Although Not Only the Holy Spirit in the Trinity is Love.
33. Is this too to be proved, that
the Holy Spirit is called in the sacred books the gift of God? If
people look for this too, we have in the Gospel according to John
the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, “If any one thirst,
let him come to me and drink: he that believeth on me, as the
Scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living
water.” And the evangelist has gone on further to add, “And
this He spake of the Spirit, which they should receive who believe
in Him.”
34. Paul the apostle also says,
“To each of us is given grace according to the measure of the
gift of Christ;” and then, that he might show that by the gift of
Christ he meant the Holy Spirit, he has gone on to add,
“Wherefore He saith, He hath ascended up on high, He hath led
captivity captive, and hath given gifts to men.”
Distributionibus
35. And Peter the apostle, as we
read in that canonical book, wherein the Acts of the Apostles are
recorded,—when the hearts of the Jews were troubled as he spake
of Christ, and they said, “Brethren, what shall we do? tell
us,”—said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you
in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins:
and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
36. Certainly they must be warned,
since they now see that the Holy Spirit is called the gift of God,
that when they hear of “the gift of the Holy Spirit,” they
should recognize therein that mode of speech which is found in the
words, “In the spoiling of the body of the flesh.”
37. Wherefore, if Holy Scripture
proclaims that God is love, and that love is of God, and works this
in us that we abide in God and He in us, and that hereby we know
this, because He has given us of His Spirit, then the Spirit
Himself is God, who is love. Next, if there be among the gifts of
God none greater than love, and there is no greater gift of God
than the Holy Spirit, what follows more naturally than that He is
Himself love, who is called both God and of God? And if the love by
which the Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father,
ineffably demonstrates the communion of both, what is more suitable
than that He should be specially called love, who is the Spirit
common to both? For this is the sounder thing both to believe and
to understand, that the Holy Spirit is not alone love in that
Trinity, yet is not specially called love to no purpose, for the
reasons we have alleged; just as He is not alone in that Trinity
either a Spirit or holy, since both the Father is a Spirit, and the
Son is a Spirit; and both the Father is holy, and the Son is
holy,—as piety doubts not. And yet it is not to no purpose that
He is specially called the Holy Spirit; for because He is common to
both, He is specially called that which both are in common.
Otherwise, if in that Trinity the Holy Spirit alone is love, then
doubtless the Son too turns out to be the Son, not of the Father
only, but also of the Holy
Chapter 20.—Against Eunomius, Saying that the Son of God is the Son, Not of His Nature, But of His Will. Epilogue to What Has Been Said Already.
38. Wherefore the logic of
Eunomius, from whom the Eunomian heretics sprang, is ridiculous.
For when he could not understand, and would not believe, that the
only-begotten Word of God, by which all things were made is the Son
of God by nature,—i.e. born of the substance of the
Father,—he alleged that He was not the Son of His own nature or
substance or essence, but the Son of the will of God; so as to mean
to assert that the will by which he begot the Son was something
accidental [and optional] to God,—to wit, in that way that we
ourselves sometimes will something which before we did not will, as
though it was not for these very things that our nature is
perceived to be changeable,—a thing which far be it from us to
believe of God. For it is written, “Many are the thoughts in the
heart of man, but the counsel of the Lord abideth for ever,”
39. I see that my argument in this
book respecting the Holy Spirit, according to the Holy Scripture,
is quite enough for faithful men who know already that the Holy
Spirit is God, and not of another substance, nor less than the
Father and the Son,—as we have shown to be true in the former
books, according to the same Scriptures. We have reasoned also from
the creature which God made, and, as far as we could, have warned
those who demand a reason on such subjects to behold and understand
His invisible things, so far as they could, by those things which
are made
Chapter 21.—Of the Likeness of the Father and of the Son Alleged to Be in Our Memory and Understanding. Of the Likeness of the Holy Spirit in Our Will or Love.
40. I have undoubtedly taken pains
so far as I could, not indeed so that the thing might be seen face
to face, but that it might be seen by this likeness in an enigma,
41. But I have shown nothing in this enigma respecting the Holy Spirit such as might appear to be like Him, except our own will, or love, or affection, which is a stronger will, since our will which we have naturally is variously affected, according as various objects are adjacent or occur to it, by which we are attracted or offended. What, then, is this? Are we to say that our will, when it is right, knows not what to desire, what to avoid? Further, if it knows, doubtless then it has a kind of knowledge of its own, such as cannot be without memory and understanding. Or are we to listen to any one who should say that love knows not what it does, which does not do wrongly? As, then, there are both understanding and love in that primary memory wherein we find provided and stored up that to which we can come in thought, because we find also those two things there, when we find by thinking that we both understand and love anything; which things were there too when we were not thinking of them: and as there are memory and love in that understanding, which is formed by thought, which true word we say inwardly without the tongue of any nation when we say what we know; for the gaze of our thought does not return to anything except by remembering it, and does not care to return unless by loving it: so love, which combines the vision brought about in the memory, and the vision of the thought formed thereby, as if parent and offspring, would not know what to love rightly unless it had a knowledge of what it desired, which it cannot have without memory and understanding.
Chapter 22.—How Great the Unlikeness is Between the Image of the Trinity Which We Have Found in Ourselves, and the Trinity Itself.
42. But since these are in one
person, as man is, some one may say to us, These three things,
memory, understanding, and love, are mine, not their own; neither
do they do that which they do for themselves, but for me, or rather
I do it by them. For it is I who remember by memory, and understand
by understanding, and love by love: and when I direct the mind’s
eye to my memory, and so say in my heart the thing I know, and a
true word is begotten of my knowledge, both are mine, both the
knowledge certainly and the word. For it is I who know, and it is I
who say in my heart the thing I know. And when I come to find in my
memory by thinking that I understand and love anything, which
understanding and love were there also before I thought thereon, it
is my own understanding and my own love that I find in my own
memory, whereby it is I that understand,
Chapter 23.—Augustin Dwells Still Further on the Disparity Between the Trinity Which is in Man, and the Trinity Which is God. The Trinity is Now Seen Through a Glass by the Help of Faith, that It May Hereafter Be More Clearly Seen in the Promised Sight Face to Face.
43. A thing itself, then, which is
a trinity is different from the image of a trinity in some other
thing; by reason of which image, at the same time that also in
which these three things are is called an image; just as both the
panel, and the picture painted on it, are at the same time called
an image; but by reason of the picture painted on it, the panel
also is called by the name of image. But in that Highest Trinity,
which is incomparably above all things, there is so great an
indivisibility, that whereas a trinity of men cannot be called one
man, in that, there both is said to be and is one God, nor is that
Trinity in one God, but it is one God. Nor, again, as that image in
the case of man has these three things but is one person, so is it
with the Trinity; but therein are three persons, the Father of the
Son, and the Son of the Father, and the Spirit of both Father and
Son. For although the memory in the case of man, and especially
that memory which beasts have not—viz. the memory by which
things intelligible are so contained as that they have not entered
that memory through the bodily senses [The reader will observe that
Augustin has employed the term “memory” in a wider sense than
in the modern ordinary use. With him, it is the mind as including
all that is potential or latent in it. The innate ideas, in this
use, are laid up in the “memory,” and called into consciousness
or “remembered” by reflection. The idea of God, for example, is
not in the “memory” when not elicited by reflection. The same
is true of the ideas of space and time, etc.—W.G.T.S.]
44. But when the sight shall have
come which is promised anew to us face to face, we
Chapter 24.—The Infirmity of the Human Mind.
They, then, who see their own mind,
in whatever way that is possible, and in it that Trinity of which I
have treated as I could in many ways, and yet do not believe or
understand it to be an image of God, see indeed a glass, but do not
so far see through the glass Him who is now to be seen through the
glass, that they do not even know the glass itself which they see
to be a glass, i.e. an image. And if they knew this, perhaps
they would feel that He too whose glass this is, should by it be
sought, and somehow provisionally be seen, an unfeigned faith
purging their hearts,
Chapter 25.—The Question Why the Holy Spirit is Not Begotten, and How He Proceeds from the Father and the Son, Will Only Be Understood When We are in Bliss.
For if any belong to Him, although
far duller in intellect than those, yet when they are freed from
the body at the end of this life, the envious powers have no right
to hold them. For that Lamb that was slain by them without any debt
of sin has conquered them; but not by the might of power before He
had done so by the righteousness of blood. And free accordingly
from the power of the devil, they are borne up by holy angels,
being set free from all evils by the mediator of God and men, the
man Christ Jesus.
45. There we shall see the truth
without any difficulty, and shall enjoy it to the full, most clear
and most certain. Nor shall we be inquiring into anything by a mind
that reasons, but shall discern by a mind that contemplates, why
the Holy Spirit is not a Son, although He proceeds from the Father.
In that light there will be no place for inquiry: but here, by
experience itself it has appeared to me so difficult,—as beyond
doubt it will likewise appear to them also who shall carefully and
intelligently read what I have written,—that although in the
second book C. 3.
Chapter 26.—The Holy Spirit Twice Given by Christ. The Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from the Son is Apart from Time, Nor Can He Be Called the Son of Both.
Further, in that Highest Trinity
which is
46. But the reason why, after His
resurrection, He both gave the Holy Spirit, first on earth,
47. Are we therefore able to ask
whether the Holy Spirit had already proceeded from the Father when
the Son was born, or had not yet proceeded; and when He was born,
proceeded from both, wherein there is no such thing as distinct
times: just as we have been able to ask, in a case where we do find
times, that the will proceeds from the human mind first, in order
that that may be sought which, when found, may be called offspring;
which offspring being already brought forth or born, that will is
made perfect, resting in this end, so that what had been its desire
when seeking, is its love when enjoying; which love now proceeds
from both, i.e. from the mind that begets, and from the
notion that is begotten, as if from parent and offspring? These
things it is absolutely impossible to ask in this case, where
nothing is begun in time, so as to be perfected in a time
following. Wherefore let him who can understand the generation of
the Son from the Father without time, understand also the
procession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. And let him
who can understand, in that which the Son says, “As the Father
hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in
Himself,” [Says Turrettin, III. xxix. 21.
“The Father does not generate the Son either as previously
existing, for in this case there would be no need of generation;
nor yet as not yet existing, for in this case the Son would not be
eternal; but as co-existing, because he is from eternity in
the God-head.”—W.G.T.S.] [The term “unbegotten” is not
found in Scripture, but it is implied in the terms “begotten”
and “only-begotten,” which are found. The term “unity” is
not applied to God in Scripture, but it is implied in the term
“one” which is so applied.—W.G.T.S.] [The spiration and procession of
the Holy Spirit is not by two separate acts, one of the Father, and
one of the Son—as perhaps might be inferred from Augustin’s
remark that “the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father
principally.” As Turrettin says: “The Father and Son spirate
the Spirit, not as two different essences in each of which resides
a spirative energy, but as two personal subsistences of one
essence, who concur in one act of spiration.” Institutio
III. xxxi. 6.—W.G.T.S.]
Chapter 27.—What It is that Suffices Here to Solve the Question Why the Spirit is Not Said to Be Begotten, and Why the Father Alone is Unbegotten. What They Ought to Do Who Do Not Understand These Things.
48. But because it is most
difficult to distinguish generation from procession in that
co-eternal, and equal, and incorporeal, and ineffably unchangeable
and indivisible Trinity, let it suffice meanwhile to put before
those who are not able to be drawn on further, what we said upon
this subject in a sermon to be delivered in the ears of Christian
people, and after saying wrote it down. For when, among other
things, I had taught them by testimonies of the Holy Scriptures
that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both, I continue: “If, then,
the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from the Son, why
did the Son say, ‘He proceedeth from the Father?’ [Generation and procession are
each an emanation of the essence by which it is modified. Neither
of them is a creation ex nihilo. The school-men attempted to
explain the difference between the two emanations, by saying that
the generation of the Son is by the mode of the intellect—hence
the Son is called Wisdom, or Word (Logos); but the procession of
the Spirit is by the mode of the will—hence the Spirit is called
Love. Turrettin distinguishes the difference by the following
particulars: 1. In respect to the source. Generation is from the
Father alone; procession is from Father and Son. 2. In respect to
effects. Generation yields not only personality, but resemblance.
The Son is the “image” of the Father, but the Spirit is not the
image of the Father and Son. Generation is accompanied with the
power to communicate the essence; procession is not. 3. In respect
to order of relationship. Generation is second, procession is
third. In the order of nature, not of time (for both generation and
procession are eternal, therefore simultaneous), procession is
after generation. Institutio III. xxxi.
3.—W.G.T.S.] Serm. in Joh. Evang.
tract.. 99, n. 8, 9.
49. But if they are not competent
to gaze upon this image, and to see how true these things are which
are in their mind, and yet which are not so three as to be three
persons, but all three belong to a man who is one person; why do
they not believe what they find in the sacred books respecting that
highest Trinity which is God, rather than insist on the clearest
reason being rendered them, which cannot be comprehended by the
human mind, dull and infirm as it is? And to be sure, when they
have steadfastly believed the Holy Scriptures as most true
witnesses, let them strive, by praying and seeking and living well,
that they may understand, i.e. that so far as it can be
seen, that may be seen by the mind which is held fast by faith. Who
would forbid this? Nay, who would not rather exhort them to it? But
if they think they ought to deny that these things are, because
they, with their blind minds, cannot discern them, they, too, who
are blind from their birth, ought to deny that there is a sun. The
light then shineth in darkness; but if the darkness comprehend it
not,
50. But among these many things
which I have now said, and of which there is nothing
Chapter 28.—The Conclusion of the Book with a Prayer, and an Apology for Multitude of Words.
51. O Lord our God, we believe in
Thee, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For the Truth
would not say, Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unless Thou wast a Trinity.
Nor wouldest thou, O Lord God, bid us to be baptized in the name of
Him who is not the Lord God. Nor would the divine voice have said,
Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God, unless Thou wert so a
Trinity as to be one Lord God. And if Thou, O God, wert Thyself the
Father, and wert Thyself the Son, Thy Word Jesus Christ, and the
Holy Spirit your gift, we should not read in the book of truth,
“God sent His Son;”
The Enchiridion,
Addressed to Laurentius;
Being a Treatise on Faith, Hope and Love.
Translated by Professor J. F. Shaw, Londonderry.
Introductory Notice
By the Editor.
St. Augustin speaks of this book in his Retractations, l. ii. c. 63, as follows:
“I also wrote a book on Faith,
Hope, and Charity, at the request of the person to whom I
addressed it, that he might have a work of mine which should never
be out of his hands, such as the Greeks call an Enchiridion
(Hand-Book). There I think I have pretty carefully treated
of the manner in which God is to be worshipped, which knowledge
divine Scripture defines to be the true wisdom of man. The book
begins: ‘I cannot express,’” etc. “Scripsi etiam librum ‘de
Fide, Spe et Charitate’ cum a me ad quem scriptus est postulasset
ut aliquod opusculum haberet meum de suis manibus nunquam
recessurum, quod genus Græci Enchiridion
vocant. Ubi satis diligenter mihi videor esse complexus quomodo sit
colendus Deus quam sapientiam esse hominis utique veram Divina
Scriptura definit. Hic liber sic incipit, ‘Dici non potest,
dilectissime fili Laurenti, quantum tuâ eruditione
delecter.’”
The Enchiridion is among the latest books of Augustin. It was written after the death of Jerome, which occurred Sept. 30, 420; for he alludes in ch. 87 to Jerome “of blessed memory” (sanctæ memoriæ Hieronymus presbyter).
It is addressed to Laurentius, in answer to his questions. This person is otherwise unknown. One ms. calls him a deacon, another a notary of the city of Rome. He was probably a layman.
The author usually calls the book
“On Faith, Hope and Love,” because he treats the subject under
these three heads (comp. (
The original is in the sixth volume of the Benedictine edition. A neat edition of the Latin text, with three other small tracts of Augustin, (De Catechizandis Rudibus; De Fide Rerum quæ non creduntur; De Utilitate Credendi), is also published in C. Marriott’s S. Aurelius Augustinus, 4th ed. by H. de Romestin, Oxford and London (Parker and Comp.), 1885 (pp. 150–251.) An English edition of the same tracts by H. de Romestin, Oxford and London, 1885 (pp. 151–251). His English translation is based on that of C. L. Cornish, M.A., which appeared in the Oxford “Library of the Fathers,” Oxford 1847 (“Seventeen Short Treatises of St. Aug.” pp. 85–158).
The present translation by Professor Shaw was first published in Dr. Dods’s series of Augustin’s works, Edinburgh, (T. and T. Clark,) 3d ed. 1883. It is more free and idiomatic than that of Cornish. I have in a few cases conformed it more closely to the original.
P.S.
The Enchiridion.
————————————
Argument.
Laurentius having asked Augustin to furnish him with a handbook of Christian doctrine, containing in brief compass answers to several questions which he had proposed, Augustin shows him that these questions can be fully answered by any one who knows the proper objects of faith, hope, and love. He then proceeds, in the first part of the work (Chap. ix.—cxiii.), to expound the objects of faith, taking as his text the Apostles’ Creed; and in the course of this exposition, besides refuting divers heresies, he throws out many observations on the conduct of life. The second part of the work (Chap. cxiv.—cxvi.) treats of the objects of hope, and consists of a very brief exposition of the several petitions in the Lord’s Prayer. The third and concluding part (Chap. cxvii.-cxxii.) treats of the objects of love, showing the pre-eminence of this grace in the gospel system, that it is the end of the commandment and the fulfilling of the law, and that God himself is love.
Chapter 1.—The Author Desires the Gift of True Wisdom for Laurentius.
I Cannot
express, my beloved son Laurentius, the delight with which I
witness your progress in knowledge, and the earnest desire I have
that you should be a wise man: not one of those of whom it is said,
“Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of
this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this
world?”
Chapter 2.—The Fear of God is Man’s True Wisdom.
The true wisdom of man is piety.
You find this in the book of holy Job. For we read there what
wisdom itself has said to man: “Behold, the fear of the Lord
[pietas], that is wisdom.”
Chapter 3.—God is to Be Worshipped Through Faith, Hope, and Love.
Now if I should answer, that God is to be worshipped with faith, hope, and love, you will at once say that this answer is too brief, and will ask me briefly to unfold the objects of each of these three graces, viz., what we are to believe, what we are to hope for, and what we are to love. And when I have done this, you will have an answer to all the questions you asked in your letter. If you have kept a copy of your letter, you can easily turn it up and read it over again: if you have not, you will have no difficulty in recalling it when I refresh your memory.
Chapter 4.—The Questions Propounded by Laurentius.
You are anxious, you say, that I should write a sort of handbook for you, which you might always keep beside you, containing answers to the questions you put, viz.: what ought to be man’s chief end in life; what he ought, in view of the various heresies, chiefly to avoid; to what extent religion is supported by reason; what there is in reason that lends no support to faith, when faith stands alone; what is the starting-point, what the goal, of religion; what is the sum of the whole body of doctrine; what is the sure and proper foundation of the catholic faith. Now, undoubtedly, you will know the answers to all these questions, if you know thoroughly the proper objects of faith, hope, and love. For these must be the chief, nay, the exclusive objects of pursuit in religion. He who speaks against these is either a total stranger to the name of Christ, or is a heretic. These are to be defended by reason, which must have its starting-point either in the bodily senses or in the intuitions of the mind. And what we have neither had experience of through our bodily senses, nor have been able to reach through the intellect, must undoubtedly be believed on the testimony of those witnesses by whom the Scriptures, justly called divine, were written; and who by divine assistance were enabled, either through bodily sense or intellectual perception, to see or to foresee the things in question.
Chapter 5.—Brief Answers to These Questions.
Moreover, when the mind has been
imbued with the first elements of that faith which worketh by
love,
Chapter 6.—Controversy Out of Place in a Handbook Like the Present.
Now you ask of me a handbook, that is, one that can be carried in the hand, not one to load your shelves. To return, then, to the three graces through which, as I have said, God should be worshipped—faith, hope, and love: to state what are the true and proper objects of each of these is easy. But to defend this true doctrine against the assaults of those who hold an opposite opinion, requires much fuller and more elaborate instruction. And the true way to obtain this instruction is not to have a short treatise put into one’s hands, but to have a great zeal kindled in one’s heart.
Chapter 7.—The Creed and the Lord’s Prayer Demand the Exercise of Faith, Hope, and Love.
For you have the Creed and the
Lord’s Prayer. What can be briefer to hear or to read? What
easier to commit to memory?
Chapter 8.—The Distinction Between Faith and Hope, and the Mutual Dependence of Faith, Hope, and Love.
Again, can anything be hoped for
which is not an object of faith? It is true that a thing which is
not an object of hope may be believed. What true Christian, for
example, does not believe in the punishment of the wicked? And yet
such an one does not hope for it. And the man who believes that
punishment to be hanging over himself, and who shrinks in horror
from the prospect, is more properly said to fear than to hope. And
these two states of mind the poet carefully distinguishes, when he
says: “Permit the fearful to have hope.” Lucan, Phars. ii.
15. Virgil, Æneid, iv.
419.
Chapter 9.—What We are to Believe. In Regard to Nature It is Not Necessary for the Christian to Know More Than that the Goodness of the Creator is the Cause of All Things.
When, then, the question is asked
what we are to believe in regard to religion, it is not necessary
to probe into the nature of things,
Chapter 10.—The Supremely Good Creator Made All Things Good.
By the Trinity, thus supremely and equally and unchangeably good, all things were created; and these are not supremely and equally and unchangeably good, but yet they are good, even taken separately. Taken as a whole, however, they are very good, because their ensemble constitutes the universe in all its wonderful order and beauty.
Chapter 11.—What is Called Evil in the Universe is But the Absence of Good.
And in the universe, even that which is called evil, when it is regulated and put in its own place, only enhances our admiration of the good; for we enjoy and value the good more when we compare it with the evil. For the Almighty God, who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supreme power over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permit the existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not so omnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what is that which we call evil but the absence of good? In the bodies of animals, disease and wounds mean nothing but the absence of health; for when a cure is effected, that does not mean that the evils which were present—namely, the diseases and wounds—go away from the body and dwell elsewhere: they altogether cease to exist; for the wound or disease is not a substance, but a defect in the fleshly substance,—the flesh itself being a substance, and therefore something good, of which those evils—that is, privations of the good which we call health—are accidents. Just in the same way, what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations of natural good. And when they are cured, they are not transferred elsewhere: when they cease to exist in the healthy soul, they cannot exist anywhere else.
Chapter 12.—All Beings Were Made Good, But Not Being Made Perfectly Good, are Liable to Corruption.
All things that exist, therefore,
seeing that the Creator of them all is supremely good, are
themselves good. But because they are not, like their Creator,
supremely and unchangeably good, their good may be diminished and
increased. But for good to be diminished is an evil, although,
however much it may be diminished, it is necessary, if the being is
to continue, that some good should remain to constitute the being.
For however small or of whatever kind the being may be, the good
which makes it a being cannot be destroyed without destroying the
being itself. An uncorrupted nature is justly held in esteem. But
if, still further, it be incorruptible, it is undoubtedly
considered of still higher value. When it is corrupted, however,
its corruption is an evil, because it is deprived of some sort of
good. For if it be deprived of no good, it receives no injury; but
it does receive injury, therefore it is deprived of good.
Therefore, so long as a being is in process of corruption, there is
in it some good of which it is being deprived; and if a part of the
being should remain which cannot be corrupted, this will certainly
be an incorruptible being, and accordingly the process of
corruption will result in the manifestation of this great good. But
if it do not cease to be corrupted, neither can it cease to possess
good of which corruption may deprive it. But if it should be
thoroughly and completely consumed by corruption, there will then
be no good left, because there will be no being. Wherefore
corruption can consume the good only by consuming the being. Every
being, therefore, is a good; a great good, if it can not be
corrupted; a little good, if it can: but in any case, only the
foolish or ignorant will deny that it is a good. And if it be
wholly
Chapter 13.—There Can Be No Evil Where There is No Good; And an Evil Man is an Evil Good.
Accordingly, there is nothing of
what we call evil, if there be nothing good. But a good which is
wholly without evil is a perfect good. A good, on the other hand,
which contains evil is a faulty or imperfect good; and there can be
no evil where there is no good. From all this we arrive at the
curious result: that since every being, so far as it is a being, is
good, when we say that a faulty being is an evil being, we just
seem to say that what is good is evil, and that nothing but what is
good can be evil, seeing that every being is good, and that no evil
can exist except in a being. Nothing, then, can be evil except
something which is good. And although this, when stated, seems to
be a contradiction, yet the strictness of reasoning leaves us no
escape from the conclusion. We must, however, beware of incurring
the prophetic condemnation: “Woe unto them that call evil good,
and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness:
that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter.”
Chapter 14.—Good and Evil are an Exception to the Rule that Contrary Attributes Cannot Be Predicated of the Same Subject. Evil Springs Up in What is Good, and Cannot Exist Except in What is Good.
Accordingly, in the case of these contraries which we call good and evil, the rule of the logicians, that two contraries cannot be predicated at the same time of the same thing, does not hold. No weather is at the same time dark and bright: no food or drink is at the same time sweet and bitter: no body is at the same time and in the same place black and white: none is at the same time and in the same place deformed and beautiful. And this rule is found to hold in regard to many, indeed nearly all, contraries, that they cannot exist at the same time in any one thing. But although no one can doubt that good and evil are contraries, not only can they exist at the same time, but evil cannot exist without good, or in anything that is not good. Good, however, can exist without evil. For a man or an angel can exist without being wicked; but nothing can be wicked except a man or an angel: and so far as he is a man or an angel, he is good; so far as he is wicked, he is an evil. And these two contraries are so far co-existent, that if good did not exist in what is evil, neither could evil exist; because corruption could not have either a place to dwell in, or a source to spring from, if there were nothing that could be corrupted; and nothing can be corrupted except what is good, for corruption is nothing else but the destruction of good. From what is good, then, evils arose, and except in what is good they do not exist; nor was there any other source from which any evil nature could arise. For if there were, then, in so far as this was a being, it was certainly a good: and a being which was incorruptible would be a great good; and even one which was corruptible must be to some extent a good, for only by corrupting what was good in it could corruption do it harm.
Chapter 15.—The Preceding Argument is in No Wise Inconsistent with the Saying of Our Lord: “A Good Tree Cannot Bring Forth Evil Fruit.”
But when we say that evil springs
out of good, let it not be thought that this contradicts our
Lord’s saying: “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit.”
Chapter 16.—It is Not Essential to Man’s Happiness that He Should Know the Causes of Physical Convulsions; But It Is, that He Should Know the Causes of Good and Evil.
Now, in view of these
considerations, when we are pleased with that line of Maro,
“Happy the man who has attained to the knowledge of the causes of
things,” Virgil, Georgics, ii.
490. Ibid
Chapter 17.—The Nature of Error. All Error is Not Hurtful, Though It is Man’s Duty as Far as Possible to Avoid It.
For although we ought with the
greatest possible care to avoid error, not only in great but even
in little things, and although we cannot err except through
ignorance, it does not follow that, if a man is ignorant of a
thing, he must forthwith fall into error. That is rather the fate
of the man who thinks he knows what he does not know. For he
accepts what is false as if it were true, and that is the essence
of error. But it is a point of very great importance what the
subject is in regard to which a man makes a mistake. For on one and
the same subject we rightly prefer an instructed man to an ignorant
one, and a man who is not in error to one who is. In the case of
different subjects, however,—that is, when one man knows one
thing, and another a different thing, and when what the former
knows is useful, and what the latter knows is not so useful, or is
actually hurtful,—who would not, in regard to the things the
latter knows, prefer the ignorance of the former to the knowledge
of the latter? For there are points on which ignorance is better
than knowledge. And in the same way, it has sometimes been an
advantage to depart from the right way,—in travelling, however,
not in morals. It has happened to myself to take the wrong road
where two ways met, so that I did not pass by the place where an
armed band of Donatists lay in wait for me. Yet I arrived at the
place whither I was bent, though by a roundabout route; and when I
heard of the ambush, I congratulated myself on my mistake, and gave
thanks to God for it. Now, who would not rather be the traveller
who made a mistake like this, than the highwayman who made no
mistake? And hence, perhaps, it is that the prince of poets puts
these words into the mouth of a lover in misery: Virgil, Eclog. viii.
41.
Chapter 18.—It is Never Allowable to Tell a Lie; But Lies Differ Very Much in Guilt, According to the Intention and the Subject.
But here arises a very difficult and very intricate question, about which I once wrote a large book, finding it necessary to give it an answer. The question is this: whether at any time it can become the duty of a good man to tell a lie? For some go so far as to contend that there are occasions on which it is a good and pious work to commit perjury even, and to say what is false about matters that relate to the worship of God, and about the very nature of God Himself. To me, however, it seems certain that every lie is a sin, though it makes a great difference with what intention and on what subject one lies. For the sin of the man who tells a lie to help another is not so heinous as that of the man who tells a lie to injure another; and the man who by his lying puts a traveller on the wrong road, does not do so much harm as the man who by false or misleading representations distorts the whole course of a life. No one, of course, is to be condemned as a liar who says what is false, believing it to be true, because such an one does not consciously deceive, but rather is himself deceived. And, on the same principle, a man is not to be accused of lying, though he may sometimes be open to the charge of rashness, if through carelessness he takes up what is false and holds it as true; but, on the other hand, the man who says what is true, believing it to be false, is, so far as his own consciousness is concerned, a liar. For in saying what he does not believe, he says what to his own conscience is false, even though it should in fact be true; nor is the man in any sense free from lying who with his mouth speaks the truth without knowing it, but in his heart wills to tell a lie. And, therefore, not looking at the matter spoken of, but solely at the intention of the speaker, the man who unwittingly says what is false, thinking all the time that it is true, is a better man than the one who unwittingly says what is true, but in his conscience intends to deceive. For the former does not think one thing and say another; but the latter, though his statements may be true in fact, has one thought in his heart and another on his lips: and that is the very essence of lying. But when we come to consider truth and falsehood in respect to the subjects spoken of, the point on which one deceives or is deceived becomes a matter of the utmost importance. For although, as far as a man’s own conscience is concerned, it is a greater evil to deceive than to be deceived, nevertheless it is a far less evil to tell a lie in regard to matters that do not relate to religion, than to be led into error in regard to matters the knowledge and belief of which are essential to the right worship of God. To illustrate this by example: suppose that one man should say of some one who is dead that he is still alive, knowing this to be untrue; and that another man should, being deceived, believe that Christ shall at the end of some time (make the time as long as you please) die; would it not be incomparably better to lie like the former, than to be deceived like the latter? and would it not be a much less evil to lead some man into the former error, than to be led by any man into the latter?
Chapter 19.—Men’s Errors Vary Very Much in the Magnitude of the Evils They Produce; But Yet Every Error is in Itself an Evil.
In some things, then, it is a great
evil to be deceived; in some it is a small evil; in some no evil at
all; and in some it is an actual advantage. It is to his grievous
injury that a man is deceived when he does not believe what leads
to eternal life, or believes what leads to eternal death. It is a
small evil for a man to be deceived, when, by taking falsehood for
truth, he brings upon himself temporal annoyances; for the patience
of the believer will turn even these to a good use, as when, for
example, taking a bad man for a good, he receives injury from him.
But one who believes a bad man to be good, and yet suffers no
injury, is nothing the worse for being deceived, nor does he fall
under the prophetic denunciation: “Woe to those who call evil
good!”
Chapter 20.—Every Error is Not a Sin. An Examination of the Opinion of the Academic Philosophers, that to Avoid Error We Should in All Cases Suspend Belief.
I am not sure whether mistakes such
as the following,—when one forms a good opinion of a bad man, not
knowing what sort of man he is; or when, instead of the ordinary
perceptions through the bodily senses, other appearances of a
similar kind present themselves, which we perceive in the spirit,
but think we perceive in the body, or perceive in the body, but
think we perceive in the spirit (such a mistake as the Apostle
Peter made when the angel suddenly freed him from his chains and
imprisonment, and he thought he saw a vision Virgil, Æn. x.
392.
Chapter 21.—Error, Though Not Always a Sin, is Always an Evil.
But as to those matters in regard
to which
Chapter 22.—A Lie is Not Allowable, Even to Save Another from Injury.
But every lie must be called a sin,
because not only when a man knows the truth, but even when, as a
man may be, he is mistaken and deceived, it is his duty to say what
he thinks in his heart, whether it be true, or whether he only
think it to be true. But every liar says the opposite of what he
thinks in his heart, with purpose to deceive. Now it is evident
that speech was given to man, not that men might therewith deceive
one another, but that one man might make known his thoughts to
another. To use speech, then, for the purpose of deception, and not
for its appointed end, is a sin. Nor are we to suppose that there
is any lie that is not a sin, because it is sometimes possible, by
telling a lie, to do service to another. For it is possible to do
this by theft also, as when we steal from a rich man who never
feels the loss, to give to a poor man who is sensibly benefited by
what he gets. And the same can be said of adultery also, when, for
instance, some woman appears likely to die of love unless we
consent to her wishes, while if she lived she might purify herself
by repentance; but yet no one will assert that on this account such
an adultery is not a sin. And if we justly place so high a value
upon chastity, what offense have we taken at truth, that, while no
prospect of advantage to another will lead us to violate the former
by adultery, we should be ready to violate the latter by lying? It
cannot be denied that they have attained a very high standard of
goodness who never lie except to save a man from injury; but in the
case of men who have reached this standard, it is not the deceit,
but their good intention, that is justly praised, and sometimes
even rewarded. It is quite enough that the deception should be
pardoned, without its being made an object of laudation, especially
among the heirs of the new covenant, to whom it is said: “Let
your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more
than these cometh of evil.”
Chapter 23.—Summary of the Results of the Preceding Discussion.
As it is right that we should know the causes of good and evil, so much of them at least as will suffice for the way that leads us to the kingdom, where there will be life without the shadow of death, truth without any alloy of error, and happiness unbroken by any sorrow, I have discussed these subjects with the brevity which my limited space demanded. And I think there cannot now be any doubt, that the only cause of any good that we enjoy is the goodness of God, and that the only cause of evil is the falling away from the unchangeable good of a being made good but changeable, first in the case of an angel, and afterwards in the case of man.
Chapter 24.—The Secondary Causes of Evil are Ignorance and Lust.
This is the first evil that befell
the intelli
Chapter 25.—God’s Judgments Upon Fallen Men and Angels. The Death of the Body is Man’s Peculiar Punishment.
And yet such a nature, in the midst
of all its evils, could not lose the craving after happiness. Now
the evils I have mentioned are common to all who for their
wickedness have been justly condemned by God, whether they be men
or angels. But there is one form of punishment peculiar to
man—the death of the body. God had threatened him with this
punishment of death if he should sin,
Chapter 26.—Through Adam’s Sin His Whole Posterity Were Corrupted, and Were Born Under the Penalty of Death, Which He Had Incurred.
Thence, after his sin, he was
driven into exile, and by his sin the whole race of which he was
the root was corrupted in him, and thereby subjected to the penalty
of death. And so it happens that all descended from him, and from
the woman who had led him into sin, and was condemned at the same
time with him,—being the offspring of carnal lust on which the
same punishment of disobedience was visited,—were tainted with
the original sin, and were by it drawn through divers errors and
sufferings into that last and endless punishment which they suffer
in common with the fallen angels, their corrupters and masters, and
the partakers of their doom. And thus “by one man sin entered
into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men,
for that all have sinned.”
Chapter 27.—The State of Misery to Which Adam’s Sin Reduced Mankind, and the Restoration Effected Through the Mercy of God.
Thus, then, matters stood. The whole mass of the human race was under condemnation, was lying steeped and wallowing in misery, and was being tossed from one form of evil to another, and, having joined the faction of the fallen angels, was paying the well-merited penalty of that impious rebellion. For whatever the wicked freely do through blind and unbridled lust, and whatever they suffer against their will in the way of open punishment, this all evidently pertains to the just wrath of God. But the goodness of the Creator never fails either to supply life and vital power to the wicked angels (without which their existence would soon come to an end); or, in the case of mankind, who spring from a condemned and corrupt stock, to impart form and life to their seed, to fashion their members, and through the various seasons of their life, and in the different parts of the earth, to quicken their senses, and bestow upon them the nourishment they need. For He judged it better to bring good out of evil, than not to permit any evil to exist. And if He had determined that in the case of men, as in the case of the fallen angels, there should be no restoration to happiness, would it not have been quite just, that the being who rebelled against God, who in the abuse of his freedom spurned and transgressed the command of his Creator when he could so easily have kept it, who defaced in himself the image of his Creator by stubbornly turning away from His light, who by an evil use of his free-will broke away from his wholesome bondage to the Creator’s laws,—would it not have been just that such a being should have been wholly and to all eternity deserted by God, and left to suffer the everlasting punishment he had so richly earned? Certainly so God would have done, had He been only just and not also merciful, and had He not designed that His unmerited mercy should shine forth the more brightly in contrast with the unworthiness of its objects.
Chapter 28.—When the Rebellious Angels Were Cast Out, the Rest Remained in the Enjoyment of Eternal Happiness with God.
Whilst some of the angels, then, in
their
Chapter 29.—The Restored Part of Humanity Shall, in Accordance with the Promises of God, Succeed to the Place Which the Rebellious Angels Lost.
And so it pleased God, the Creator
and Governor of the universe, that, since the whole body of the
angels had not fallen into rebellion, the part of them which had
fallen should remain in perdition eternally, and that the other
part, which had in the rebellion remained steadfastly loyal, should
rejoice in the sure and certain knowledge of their eternal
happiness; but that, on the other hand, mankind, who constituted
the remainder of the intelligent creation, having perished without
exception under sin, both original and actual, and the consequent
punishments, should be in part restored, and should fill up the gap
which the rebellion and fall of the devils had left in the company
of the angels. For this is the promise to the saints, that at the
resurrection they shall be equal to the angels of God.
Chapter 30.—Men are Not Saved by Good Works, Nor by the Free Determination of Their Own Will, But by the Grace of God Through Faith.
But this part of the human race to
which God has promised pardon and a share in His eternal kingdom,
can they be restored through the merit of their own works? God
forbid. For what good work can a lost man perform, except so far as
he has been delivered from perdition? Can they do anything by the
free determination of their own will? Again I say, God forbid. For
it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyed both it
and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, be
alive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases
to live, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his
own free-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the
freedom of his will was lost. “For of whom a man is overcome, of
the same is he brought in bondage.”
Chapter 31.—Faith Itself is the Gift of God; And Good Works Will Not Be Wanting in Those Who Believe.
And lest men should arrogate to
themselves the merit of their own faith at least, not understanding
that this too is the gift of God, this same apostle, who says in
another place that he had “obtained mercy of the Lord to be
faithful,”
Chapter 32.—The Freedom of the Will is Also the Gift of God, for God Worketh in Us Both to Will and to Do.
And further, should any one be
inclined to boast, not indeed of his works, but of the freedom of
his will, as if the first merit belonged to him, this very liberty
of good action being given to him as a reward he had earned, let
him listen to this same preacher of grace, when he says: “For it
is God which worketh in you, both to will and to do of His own good
pleasure;”
Chapter 33.—Men, Being by Nature the Children of Wrath, Needed a Mediator. In What Sense God is Said to Be Angry.
And so the human race was lying
under a just condemnation, and all men were the children of wrath.
Of which wrath it is written: “All our days are passed away in
Thy wrath; we spend our years as a tale that is told.”
Chapter 34.—The Ineffable Mystery of the Birth of Christ the Mediator Through the Virgin Mary.
Now of this Mediator it would
occupy too much space to say anything at all worthy of Him; and,
indeed, to say what is worthy of Him is not in the power of man.
For who will explain in consistent words this single statement,
that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,” 3[1147]
Chapter 35.—Jesus Christ, Being the Only Son of God, is at the Same Time Man.
Wherefore Christ Jesus, the Son of
God, is both God and man; God before all worlds; man in our world:
God, because the Word of God (for “the Word was God”
Chapter 36.—The Grace of God is Clearly and Remarkably Displayed in Raising the Man Christ Jesus to the Dignity of the Son of God.
Now here the grace of God is
displayed with the greatest power and clearness. For what merit had
the human nature in the man Christ earned, that it should in this
unparalleled way be taken up into the unity of the person of the
only Son of God? What goodness of will, what goodness of desire and
intention, what good works, had gone before, which made this man
worthy to become one person with God? Had He been a man previously
to this, and had He earned this unprecedented reward, that He
should be thought worthy to become God? Assuredly
Chapter 37.—The Same Grace is Further Clearly Manifested in This, that the Birth of Christ According to the Flesh is of the Holy Ghost.
For the same Jesus Christ who is
the only-begotten, that is, the only Son of God, our Lord, was born
of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary. And we know that the Holy
Spirit is the gift of God, the gift being Himself indeed equal to
the Giver. And therefore the Holy Spirit also is God, not inferior
to the Father and the Son. The fact, therefore, that the nativity
of Christ in His human nature was by the Holy Spirit, is another
clear manifestation of grace. For when the Virgin asked the angel
how this which he had announced should be, seeing she knew not a
man, the angel answered, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also
that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son
of God.”
Chapter 38.—Jesus Christ, According to the Flesh, Was Not Born of the Holy Spirit in Such a Sense that the Holy Spirit is His Father.
Nevertheless, are we on this
account to say that the Holy Ghost is the father of the man Christ,
and that as God the Father begat the Word, so God the Holy Spirit
begat the man, and that these two natures constitute the one
Christ; and that as the Word He is the Son of God the Father, and
as man the Son of God the Holy Spirit, because the Holy Spirit as
His father begat Him of the Virgin Mary? Who will dare to say so?
Nor is it necessary to show by reasoning how many other absurdities
flow from this supposition, when it is itself so absurd that no
believer’s ears can bear to hear it. Hence, as we confess, “Our
Lord Jesus Christ, who of God is God, and as man was born of the
Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, having both natures, the divine
and the human, is the only Son of God the Father Almighty, from
whom proceedeth the Holy Spirit.” A quotation from a form of the
Apostles’ Creed anciently in use in the Latin Church.
Chapter 39.—Not Everything that is Born of Another is to Be Called a Son of that Other.
We need not therefore take for granted, that whatever is born of a thing is forthwith to be declared the son of that thing. For, to pass over the fact that a son is born of a man in a different sense from that in which a hair or a louse is born of him, neither of these being a son; to pass over this, I say, as too mean an illustration for a subject of so much importance: it is certain that those who are born of water and of the Holy Spirit cannot with propriety be called sons of the water though they are called sons of God the Father, and of the Church their mother. In the same way, then, He who was born of the Holy Spirit is the Son of God the Father, not of the Holy Spirit. For what I have said of the hair and the other things is sufficient to show us that not everything which is born of another can be called the son of that of which it is born, just as it does not follow that all who are called a man’s sons were born of him, for some sons are adopted. And some men are called sons of hell, not as being born of hell, but as prepared for it, as the sons of the kingdom are prepared for the kingdom.
Chapter 40.—Christ’s Birth Through the Holy Spirit Manifests to Us the Grace of God.
And, therefore, as one thing may be born of another, and yet not in such a way as to be its son, and as not every one who is called a son was born of him whose son he is called, it is clear that this arrangement by which Christ was born of the Holy Spirit, but not as His son, and of the Virgin Mary as her son, is intended as a manifestation of the grace of God. For it was by this grace that a man, without any antecedent merit, was at the very commencement of His existence as man, so united in one person with the Word of God, that the very person who was Son of man was at the same time Son of God, and the very person who was Son of God was at the same time Son of man; and in the adoption of His human nature into the divine, the grace itself became in a way so natural to the man, as to leave no room for the entrance of sin. Wherefore this grace is signified by the Holy Spirit; for He, though in His own nature God, may also be called the gift of God. And to explain all this sufficiently, if indeed it could be done at all, would require a very lengthened discussion.
Chapter 41.—Christ, Who Was Himself Free from Sin, Was Made Sin for Us, that We Might Be Reconciled to God.
Begotten and conceived, then,
without any indulgence of carnal lust, and therefore bringing with
Him no original sin, and by the grace of God joined and united in a
wonderful and unspeakable way in one person with the Word, the
Only-begotten of the Father, a son by nature, not by grace, and
therefore having no sin of His own; nevertheless, on account of the
likeness of sinful flesh in which He came, He was called sin, that
He might be sacrificed to wash away sin. For, under the Old
Covenant, sacrifices for sin were called sins.
Chapter 42.—The Sacrament of Baptism Indicates Our Death with Christ to Sin, and Our Resurrection with Him to Newness of Life.
And this is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism which is solemnized among us, that all who attain to this grace should die to sin, as He is said to have died to sin, because He died in the flesh, which is the likeness of sin; and rising from the font regenerate, as He arose alive from the grave, should begin a new life in the Spirit, whatever may be the age of the body?
Chapter 43.—Baptism and the Grace Which It Typifies are Open to All, Both Infants and Adults.
For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there is none shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not die to sin. But infants die only to original sin; those who are older die also to all the sins which their evil lives have added to the sin which they brought with them.
Chapter 44.—In Speaking of Sin, the Singular Number is Often Put for the Plural, and the Plural for the Singular.
But even these latter are
frequently said to die to sin, though undoubtedly they die not to
one sin, but to all the numerous actual sins they have committed in
thought, word, or deed: for the singular number is often put for
the plural, as when the poet says, “They fill its belly with the
armed soldier,” “Uterumque armato milite
complent.”.—Virgil, Æn. ii.
20.
Chapter 45.—In Adam’s First Sin, Many Kinds of Sin Were Involved.
However, even in that one sin,
which “by one man entered into the world, and so passed upon all
men,”
Chapter 46.—It is Probable that Children are Involved in the Guilt Not Only of the First Pair, But of Their Own Immediate Parents.
And it is said, with much
appearance of probability, that infants are involved in the guilt
of the sins not only of the first pair, but of their own immediate
parents. For that divine judgment, “I shall visit the iniquities
of the fathers upon the children,”
Chapter 47.—It is Difficult to Decide Whether the Sins of a Man’s Other Progenitors are Imputed to Him.
But about the sins of the other progenitors who intervene between Adam and a man’s own parents, a question may very well be raised. Whether every one who is born is involved in all their accumulated evil acts, in all their multiplied original guilt, so that the later he is born, so much the worse is his condition; or whether God threatens to visit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations, because in His mercy He does not extend His wrath against the sins of the progenitors further than that, lest those who do not obtain the grace of regeneration might be crushed down under too heavy a burden if they were compelled to bear as original guilt all the sins of all their progenitors from the very beginning of the human race, and to pay the penalty due to them; or whether any other solution of this great question may or may not be found in Scripture by a more diligent search and a more careful interpretation, I dare not rashly affirm.
Chapter 48.—The Guilt of the First Sin is So Great that It Can Be Washed Away Only in the Blood of the Mediator, Jesus Christ.
Nevertheless, that one sin, admitted into a place where such perfect happiness reigned, was of so heinous a character, that in one man the whole human race was originally, and as one may say, radically, condemned; and it cannot be pardoned and blotted out except through the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who only has had power to be so born as not to need a second birth.
Chapter 49.—Christ Was Not Regenerated in the Baptism of John, But Submitted to It to Give Us an Example of Humility, Just as He Submitted to Death, Not as the Punishment of Sin, But to Take Away the Sin of the World.
Now, those who were baptized in the
baptism of John, by whom Christ was Himself baptized,
Chapter 50.—Christ Took Away Not Only the One Original Sin, But All the Other Sins that Have Been Added to It.
With this difference: the first man
brought one sin into the world, but this man took away not only
that one sin, but all that He found added to it. Hence the apostle
says:
Chapter 51.—All Men Born of Adam are Under Condemnation, and Only If New Born in Christ are Freed from Condemnation.
But what he says a little after,
“Therefore, as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men
to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift
came upon all men unto justification of life,”
Chapter 52.—In Baptism, Which is the Similitude of the Death and Resurrection of Christ, All, Both Infants and Adults, Die to Sin that They May Walk in Newness of Life.
And after he has said as much about
the condemnation through one man, and the free gift through one
man, as he deemed sufficient for that part of his epistle, the
apostle goes on to speak of the great mystery of holy baptism in
the cross of Christ, and to clearly explain to us that baptism in
Christ is nothing else than a similitude of the death of Christ,
and that the death of Christ on the cross is nothing but a
similitude of the pardon of sin: so that just as real as is His
death, so real is the remission of our sins; and just as real as is
His resurrection, so real is our justification. He says: “What
shall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may
abound?”
Chapter 53.—Christ’s Cross and Burial, Resurrection, Ascension, and Sitting Down at the Right Hand of God, are Images of the Christian Life.
All the events, then, of Christ’s
crucifixion,
Chapter 54.—Christ’s Second Coming Does Not Belong to the Past, But Will Take Place at the End of the World.
But what we believe as to
Christ’s action in the future, when He shall come from heaven to
judge the quick and the dead, has no bearing upon the life which we
now lead here; for it forms no part of what He did upon earth, but
is part of what He shall do at the end of the world. And it is to
this that the apostle refers in what immediately follows the
passage quoted above: “When Christ, who is our life, shall
appear, then shall ye also appear with Him in glory.”
Chapter 55.—The Expression, “Christ Shall Judge the Quick and the Dead,” May Be Understood in Either of Two Senses.
Now the expression, “to judge the
quick and the dead,” may be interpreted in two ways: either we
may understand by the “quick” those who at His advent shall not
yet have died, but whom He shall find alive in the flesh, and by
the “dead” those who have departed from the body, or who shall
have departed before His coming; or we may understand the
“quick” to mean the righteous, and the “dead” the
unrighteous; for the righteous shall be judged as well as others.
Now the judgment of God is sometimes taken in a bad sense, as, for
example, “They that have done evil unto the resurrection of
judgment;”
Chapter 56.—The Holy Spirit and the Church. The Church is the Temple of God.
And now, having spoken of Jesus
Christ, the only Son of God, our Lord, with the brevity suitable to
a confession of our faith, we go on to say that we believe also in
the Holy Ghost,—thus completing the Trinity which constitutes the
Godhead. Then we mention the Holy Church. And thus we are made to
understand that the intelligent creation, which constitutes the
free Jerusalem,
Chapter 57.—The Condition of the Church in Heaven.
But of that part of the Church
which is in heaven what can we say, except that no wicked one is
found in it, and that no one has fallen from it, or shall ever fall
from it, since the time that “God spared not the angels that
sinned,” as the Apostle Peter writes, “but cast them down to
hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved
unto judgment?”
Chapter 58.—We Have No Certain Knowledge of the Organization of the Angelic Society.
Now, what the organization is of
that supremely happy society in heaven: what the differences of
rank are, which explain the fact that while all are called by the
general name angels, as we read in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, “but to which of the angels said God at any time, Sit on
my right hand?”
Chapter 59.—The Bodies Assumed by Angels Raise a Very Difficult, and Not Very Useful, Subject of Discussion.
Further, who will tell with what
sort of bodies it was that the angels appeared to men, making
themselves not only visible, but tangible; and again, how it is
that, not through material bodies, but by spiritual power, they
present visions not to the bodily eyes, but to the spiritual eyes
of the mind, or speak something not into the ear from without, but
from within the soul of the man, they themselves being stationed
there too, as it is written in the prophet, “And the angel that
spake in me said unto me”
Chapter 60.—It is More Necessary to Be Able to Detect the Wiles of Satan When He Transforms Himself into an Angel of Light.
It is more necessary to use all our
powers of discrimination and judgment when Satan transforms himself
into an angel of light,
Chapter 61.—The Church on Earth Has Been Redeemed from Sin by the Blood of a Mediator.
This part of the Church, then,
which is made up of the holy angels and the hosts of God, shall
become known to us in its true nature, when, at the end of the
world, we shall be united with it in the common possession of
everlasting happiness. But the other part, which, separated from
it, wanders as a stranger on the earth, is better known to us, both
because we belong to it, and because it is composed of men, and we
too are men. This section of the Church has been redeemed from all
sin by the blood of a Mediator who had no sin, and its song is:
“If God be for us, who can be against us? He that spared not His
own Son, but delivered Him up for us all.”
Chapter 62.—By the Sacrifice of Christ All Things are Restored, and Peace is Made Between Earth and Heaven.
And, of course, the holy angels,
taught by God, in the eternal contemplation of whose truth their
happiness consists, know how great a number of the human race are
to supplement their ranks, and fill up the full tale of their
citizenship. Wherefore the apostle says, that “all things are
gathered together in one in Christ, both which are in heaven and
which are on earth.”
Chapter 63.—The Peace of God, Which Reigneth in Heaven, Passeth All Understanding.
This peace, as Scripture saith,
“passeth all understanding,”
Chapter 64.—Pardon of Sin Extends Over the Whole Mortal Life of the Saints, Which, Though Free from Crime, is Not Free from Sin.
But the angels even now are at
peace with us when our sins are pardoned. Hence, in the order of
the Creed, after the mention of the Holy Church is placed the
remission of sins. For it is by this that the Church on earth
stands: it is through this that what had been lost, and was found,
is saved from being lost again. For, setting aside the grace of
baptism, which is given as an antidote to original sin, so that
what our birth imposes upon us, our new birth relieves us from
(this grace, however, takes away all the actual sins also that have
been committed in thought, word, and deed): setting aside, then,
this great act of favor, whence commences man’s restoration, and
in which all our guilt, both original and actual, is washed away,
the rest of our life from the time that we have the use of reason
provides constant occasion for the remission of sins, however great
may be our advance in righteousness. For the sons of God, as long
as they live in this body of death, are in conflict with death. And
although it is truly said of them, “As many as are led by the
Spirit of God, they are the sons of God,”
Chapter 65.—God Pardons Sins, But on Condition of Penitence, Certain Times for Which Have Been Fixed by the Law of the Church.
But even crimes themselves, however
great, may be remitted in the Holy Church; and the mercy of God is
never to be despaired of by men who truly repent, each according to
the measure of his sin. And in the act of repentance, where a crime
has been committed of such a nature as to cut off the sinner from
the body of Christ, we are not to take account so much of the
measure of time as of the measure of sorrow; for a broken and a
contrite heart God doth not despise.
Chapter 66.—The Pardon of Sin Has Reference Chiefly to the Future Judgment.
Now the pardon of sin has reference
chiefly to the future judgment. For, as far as this life is
concerned, the saying of Scripture holds good: “A heavy yoke is
upon the sons of Adam, from the day that they go out of their
mother’s womb, till the day that they return to the mother of all
things.”
Chapter 67.—Faith Without Works is Dead, and Cannot Save a Man.
It is believed, moreover, by some,
that men who do not abandon the name of Christ, and who have been
baptized in the Church by His baptism, and who have never been cut
off from the Church by any schism or heresy, though they should
live in the grossest sin and never either wash it away in penitence
nor redeem it by almsgiving, but persevere in it persistently to
the last day of their lives, shall be saved by fire; that is, that
although they shall suffer a punishment by fire, lasting for a time
proportionate to the magnitude of their crimes and misdeeds, they
shall not be punished with everlasting fire. But those who believe
this, and yet are Catholics, seem to me to be led astray by a kind
of benevolent feeling natural to humanity. For Holy Scripture, when
consulted, gives a very different answer. I have written a book on
this subject, entitled Of Faith and Works, in which, to the
best of my ability, God assisting me, I have shown from Scripture,
that the faith which saves us is that which the Apostle Paul
clearly enough describes when he says: “For in Jesus Christ
neither circumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but
faith which worketh by love.”
Chapter 68.—The True Sense of the Passage
(
But as these most plain and
unmistakeable declarations of the apostles cannot be false, that
obscure saying about those who build upon the foundation, Christ,
not gold, silver, and precious stones, but wood, hay, and stubble
(for it is these who, it is said, shall be saved, yet so as by
fire, the merit of the foundation saving them
Chapter 69.—It is Not Impossible that Some Believers May Pass Through a Purgatorial Fire in the Future Life.
And it is not impossible that
something of the same kind may take place even after this life. It
is a matter that may be inquired into, and either ascertained or
left doubtful, whether some believers shall pass through a kind of
purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have loved with more or
less devotion the goods that perish, be less or more quickly
delivered from it. This cannot, however, be the case of any of
those of whom it is said, that they “shall not inherit the
kingdom of God,”
Chapter 70.—Almsgiving Will Not Atone for Sin Unless the Life Be Changed.
We must beware, however, lest any
one should suppose that gross sins, such as are committed by those
who shall not inherit the kingdom of God, may be daily perpetrated,
and daily atoned for by almsgiving. The life must be changed for
the better; and almsgiving must be used to propitiate God for past
sins, not to purchase impunity for the commission of such sins in
the future. For He has given no man license to sin,
Chapter 71.—The Daily Prayer of the Believer Makes Satisfaction for the Trivial Sins that Daily Stain His Life.
Now the daily prayer of the
believer makes satisfaction for those daily sins of a momentary and
trivial kind which are necessary incidents of this life. For he can
say, “Our Father which art in heaven,”
Chapter 72.—There are Many Kinds of Alms, the Giving of Which Assists to Procure Pardon for Our Sins.
And on this principle of
interpretation, our Lord’s saying, “Give alms of such things as
ye have, and, behold, all things are clean unto you,”
Chapter 73.—The Greatest of All Alms is to Forgive Our Debtors and to Love Our Enemies.
But none of those is greater than
to forgive from the heart a sin that has been committed against us.
For it is a comparatively small thing to wish well to, or even to
do good to, a man who has done no evil to you. It is a much higher
thing, and is the result of the most exalted goodness, to love your
enemy, and always to wish well to, and when you have the
opportunity, to do good to, the man who wishes you ill, and, when
he can, does you harm. This is to obey the command of God: “Love
your enemies, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
which persecute you.”
Chapter 74.—God Does Not Pardon the Sins of Those Who Do Not from the Heart Forgive Others.
Now, he who asks forgiveness of the
man against whom he has sinned, being moved by his sin to ask
forgiveness, cannot be counted an enemy in such a sense that it
should be as difficult to love him now as it was when he was
engaged in active hostility. And the man who does not from his
heart forgive him who repents of his sin, and asks forgiveness,
need not suppose that his own sins are forgiven of God. For the
Truth cannot lie. And what reader or hearer of the Gospel can have
failed to notice, that the same person who said, “I am the
Truth,”
Chapter 75.—The Wicked and the Unbelieving are Not Made Clean by the Giving of Alms, Except They Be Born Again.
Assuredly, then, those who live in
gross wickedness, and take no care to reform their lives and
manners, and yet amid all their crimes and vices do not cease to
give frequent alms, in vain take comfort to themselves from the
saying of our Lord: “Give alms of such things as ye have; and,
behold, all things are clean unto you.”
Chapter 76.—To Give Alms Aright, We Should Begin with Ourselves, and Have Pity Upon Our Own Souls.
For the man who wishes to give aims
as he ought, should begin with himself, and give to himself first.
For almsgiving is a work of mercy; and most truly is it said, “To
have mercy on thy soul is pleasing to God.”
Chapter 77.—If We Would Give Alms to Ourselves, We Must Flee Iniquity; For He Who Loveth Iniquity Hateth His Soul.
Those, then, who think that they
can by giving alms, however profuse, whether in money or in kind,
purchase for themselves the privilege of persisting with impunity
in their monstrous crimes and hideous vices, need not thus deceive
themselves. For not only do they commit these sins, but they love
them so much that they would like to go on forever committing them,
if only they could do so with impunity. Now, he who loveth iniquity
hateth his own soul;
Chapter 78.—What Sins are Trivial and What Heinous is a Matter for God’s Judgment.
Now, what sins are trivial and what
heinous is not a matter to be decided by man’s judgment, but by
the judgment of God. For it is plain that the apostles themselves
have given an indulgence in the case of certain sins: take, for
example, what the Apostle Paul says to those who are married:
“Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a
time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer: and come
together again, that
Chapter 79.—Sins Which Appear Very Trifling, are Sometimes in Reality Very Serious.
Again, there are some sins which
would be considered very trifling, if the Scriptures did not show
that they are really very serious. For who would suppose that the
man who says to his brother, “Thou fool,” is in danger of
hell-fire, did not He who is the Truth say so? To the wound,
however, He immediately applies the cure, giving a rule for
reconciliation with one’s offended brother: “Therefore, if thou
bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother
hath ought against thee; leave there thy gift before the altar, and
go thy way: first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and
offer thy gift.”
Chapter 80.—Sins, However Great and Detestable, Seem Trivial When We are Accustomed to Them.
Add to this, that sins, however
great and detestable they may be, are looked upon as trivial, or as
not sins at all, when men get accustomed to them; and so far does
this go, that such sins are not only not concealed, but are boasted
of, and published far and wide; and thus, as it is written, “The
wicked boasteth of his heart’s desire, and blesseth the covetous,
whom the Lord abhorreth.”
Chapter 81.—There are Two Causes of Sin, Ignorance and Weakness; And We Need Divine Help to Overcome Both.
I shall now say this, which I have
often said before in other places of my works. There are two causes
that lead to sin: either we do not yet know our duty, or we do not
perform the duty that we know. The former is the sin of ignorance,
the latter of weakness. Now against these it is our duty to
struggle; but we shall certainly be beaten in the fight, unless we
are helped by God, not only to see our duty, but also, when we
clearly see it, to make the love of righteousness stronger in us
than the love of earthly things, the eager longing after which, or
the fear of losing which, leads us with our eyes open into known
sin. In the latter case we are not only sinners, for we are so even
when we err through ignorance, but we are also transgressors of the
law; for we leave undone what we know we ought to do, and we do
what we know we ought not to do. Wherefore not only ought we to
pray for pardon when we have sinned, saying, “Forgive us our
debts, as we forgive our debtors;” but we ought to pray for
guidance, that we may be kept from sinning, saying, “and lead us
not into temptation.” And we are to pray to Him of whom the
Psalmist says, “The Lord is my light and my salvation:”
Chapter 82.—The Mercy of God is Necessary to True Repentance.
Now even penance itself, when by
the law of the Church there is sufficient reason for its being gone
through, is frequently evaded through infirmity; for shame is the
fear of losing pleasure when the good opinion of men gives more
pleasure than the righteousness which leads a man to humble himself
in penitence. Wherefore the mercy of God is necessary not only when
a man repents, but even to lead him to repent. How else explain
what the apostle says of certain persons: “if God peradventure
will give them repentance”?
Chapter 83.—The Man Who Despises the Mercy of God is Guilty of the Sin Against the Holy Ghost.
Now the man who, not believing that
sins are remitted in the Church, despises this great gift of
God’s mercy, and persists to the last day of his life in his
obstinacy of heart, is guilty of the unpardonable sin against the
Holy Ghost, in whom Christ forgives sins.
Chapter 84.—The Resurrection of the Body Gives Rise to Numerous Questions.
Now, as to the resurrection of the body, —not a resurrection such as some have had, who came back to life for a time and died again, but a resurrection to eternal life, as the body of Christ Himself rose again,—I do not see how I can discuss the matter briefly, and at the same time give a satisfactory answer to all the questions that are ordinarily raised about it. Yet that the bodies of all men—both those who have been born and those who shall be born, both those who have died and those who shall die—shall be raised again, no Christian ought to have the shadow of a doubt.
Chapter 85.—The Case of Abortive Conceptions.
Hence in the first place arises a question about abortive conceptions, which have indeed been born in the mother’s womb, but not so born that they could be born again. For if we shall decide that these are to rise again, we cannot object to any conclusion that may be drawn in regard to those which are fully formed. Now who is there that is not rather disposed to think that unformed abortions perish, like seeds that have never fructified? But who will dare to deny, though he may not dare to affirm, that at the resurrection every defect in the form shall be supplied, and that thus the perfection which time would have brought shall not be wanting, any more than the blemishes which time did bring shall be present: so that the nature shall neither want anything suitable and in harmony with it that length of days would have added, nor be debased by the presence of anything of an opposite kind that length of days has added; but that what is not yet complete shall be completed, just as what has been injured shall be renewed.
Chapter 86.—If They Have Ever Lived, They Must of Course Have Died, and Therefore Shall Have a Share in the Resurrection of the Dead.
And therefore the following question may be very carefully inquired into and discussed by learned men, though I do not know whether it is in man’s power to resolve it: At what time the infant begins to live in the womb: whether life exists in a latent form before it manifests itself in the motions of the living being. To deny that the young who are cut out limb by limb from the womb, lest if they were left there dead the mother should die too, have never been alive, seems too audacious. Now, from the time that a man begins to live, from that time it is possible for him to die. And if he die, wheresoever death may overtake him, I cannot discover on what principle he can be denied an interest in the resurrection of the dead.
Chapter 87.—The Case of Monstrous Births.
We are not justified in affirming
even of monstrosities, which are born and live, however quickly
they may die, that they shall not rise again, nor that they shall
rise again in their deformity, and not rather with an amended and
perfected body. God forbid that the double limbed man who was
lately born in the East, of whom an account was brought by most
trustworthy brethren who had seen him,—an account which the
presbyter Jerome, of blessed memory, left in writing; Jerome, in his Epistle to
Vitalis: “Or because in our times a man was born at Lydda
with two heads, four hands, one belly, and two feet, does it
necessarily follow that all men are so born?”
Chapter 88.—The Material of the Body Never Perishes.
Nor does the earthly material out of which men’s mortal bodies are created ever perish; but though it may crumble into dust and ashes, or be dissolved into vapors and exhalations, though it may be transformed into the substance of other bodies, or dispersed into the elements, though it should become food for beasts or men, and be changed into their flesh, it returns in a moment of time to that human soul which animated it at the first, and which caused it to become man, and to live and grow.
Chapter 89.—But This Material May Be Differently Arranged in the Resurrection Body.
And this earthly material, which
when the soul leaves it becomes a corpse, shall not at the
resurrection be so restored as that the parts into which it is
separated, and which under various forms and appearances become
parts of other things (though they shall all return to the same
body from which they were separated), must necessarily return to
the same parts of the body in which they were originally situated.
For otherwise, to suppose that the hair recovers all that our
frequent clippings and shavings have taken away from it, and the
nails all that we have so often pared off, presents to the
imagination such a picture of ugliness and deformity, as to make
the resurrection of the body all but incredible. But just as if a
statue of some soluble metal were either melted by fire, or broken
into dust, or reduced to a shapeless mass,
Chapter 90.—If There Be Differences and Inequalities Among the Bodies of Those Who Rise Again, There Shall Be Nothing Offensive or Disproportionate in Any.
Nor does it necessarily follow that there shall be differences of stature among those who rise again, because they were of different statures during life; nor is it certain that the lean shall rise again in their former leanness, and the fat in their former fatness. But if it is part of the Creator’s design that each should preserve his own peculiarities of feature, and retain a recognizable likeness to his former self, while in regard to other bodily advantages all should be equal, then the material of which each is composed may be so modified that none of it shall be lost, and that any defect may be supplied by Him who can create at His will out of nothing. But if in the bodies of those who rise again there shall be a well-ordered inequality, such as there is in the voices that make up a full harmony, then the material of each man’s body shall be so dealt with that it shall form a man fit for the assemblies of the angels, and one who shall bring nothing among them to jar upon their sensibilities. And assuredly nothing that is unseemly shall be there; but whatever shall be there shall be graceful and becoming: for if anything is not seemly, neither shall it be.
Chapter 91.—The Bodies of the Saints Shall at The Resurrection Be Spiritual Bodies.
The bodies of the saints, then,
shall rise again free from every defect, from every blemish, as
from all corruption, weight, and impediment. For their ease of
movement shall be as complete as their happiness. Whence their
bodies have been called spiritual, though undoubtedly they
shall be bodies and not spirits. For just as now the body is called
animate, though it is a body, and not a soul [anima],
so then the body shall be called spiritual, though it shall be a
body, not a spirit.
Chapter 92.—The Resurrection of the Lost.
But as for those who, out of the
mass of perdition caused by the first man’s sin, are not redeemed
through the one Mediator between God and man, they too shall rise
again, each with his own body, but only to be punished with the
devil and his angels. Now, whether they shall rise again with all
their diseases and deformities of body, bringing with them the
diseased and deformed limbs which they possessed here, it would be
labor lost to inquire. For we need not weary ourselves speculating
about their health or their beauty, which are matters uncertain,
when their eternal damnation is a matter of certainty. Nor need we
inquire in what sense their body shall be incorruptible, if it be
susceptible of pain; or in what sense corruptible, if it be free
from the possibility of death. For there is no true life except
where there is happiness in life, and no true incorruption except
where health is unbroken by any pain. When, however, the unhappy
are not permitted to die, then, if I may so speak, death itself
dies not; and where pain without intermission afflicts the
Chapter 93.—Both the First and the Second Deaths are the Consequence of Sin. Punishment is Proportioned to Guilt.
And neither the first death, which takes place when the soul is compelled to leave the body, nor the second death, which takes place when the soul is not permitted to leave the suffering body, would have been inflicted on man had no one sinned. And, of course, the mildest punishment of all will fall upon those who have added no actual sin, to the original sin they brought with them; and as for the rest who have added such actual sins, the punishment of each will be the more tolerable in the next world, according as his iniquity has been less in this world.
Chapter 94.—The Saints Shall Know More Fully in the Next World the Benefits They Have Received by Grace.
Thus, when reprobate angels and men
are left to endure everlasting punishment, the saints shall know
more fully the benefits they have received by grace. Then, in
contemplation of the actual facts, they shall see more clearly the
meaning of the expression in the psalms, “I will sing of mercy
and judgment;”
Chapter 95.—God’s Judgments Shall Then Be Explained.
Then shall be made clear much that
is now dark. For example, when of two infants, whose cases seem in
all respects alike, one by the mercy of God chosen to Himself, and
the other is by His justice abandoned (wherein the one who is
chosen may recognize what was of justice due to himself, had not
mercy intervened); why, of these two, the one should have been
chosen rather than the other, is to us an insoluble problem. And
again, why miracles were not wrought in the presence of men who
would have repented at the working of the miracles, while they were
wrought in the presence of others who, it was known, would not
repent. For our Lord says most distinctly: “Woe unto thee,
Chorazin! woe unto thee, Bethsaida! for if the mighty works, which
were done in you, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have
repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes.”
Chapter 96.—The Omnipotent God Does Well Even in the Permission of Evil.
Nor can we doubt that God does well even in the permission of what is evil. For He permits it only in the justice of His judgment. And surely all that is just is good. Although, therefore, evil, in so far as it is evil, is not a good; yet the fact that evil as well as good exists, is a good. For if it were not a good that evil should exist, its existence would not be permitted by the omnipotent Good, who without doubt can as easily refuse to permit what He does not wish, as bring about what He does wish. And if we do not believe this, the very first sentence of our creed is endangered, wherein we profess to believe in God the Father Almighty. For He is not truly called Almighty if He cannot do whatsoever He pleases, or if the power of His almighty will is hindered by the will of any creature whatsoever.
Chapter 97.—In What Sense Does the Apostle Say that “God Will Have All Men to Be Saved,” When, as a Matter of Fact, All are Not Saved?
Hence we must inquire in what sense
is said of God what the apostle has mostly truly said: “Who will
have all men to be saved.”
Chapter 98.—Predestination to Eternal Life is Wholly of God’s Free Grace.
And, moreover, who will be so
foolish and blasphemous as to say that God cannot change the evil
wills of men, whichever, whenever, and wheresoever He chooses, and
direct them to what is good? But when He does this He does it of
mercy; when He does it not, it is of justice that He does it not
for “He hath mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will
He hardeneth.” Comp.
Chapter 99.—As God’s Mercy is Free, So His Judgments are Just, and Cannot Be Gainsaid.
Now after commending the mercy of
God, saying, “So it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,” that he might commend
His justice also (for the man who does not obtain mercy finds, not
iniquity, but justice, there being no iniquity with God), he
immediately adds:
Chapter 100.—The Will of God is Never Defeated, Though Much is Done that is Contrary to His Will.
These are the great works of the
Lord, sought out according to all His pleasure,
Chapter 101.—The Will of God, Which is Always Good, is Sometimes Fulfilled Through the Evil Will of Man.
Sometimes, however, a man in the
goodness of his will desires something that God does not desire,
even though God’s will is also good, nay, much more fully and
more surely good (for His will never can be evil): for example, if
a good son is anxious that his father should live, when it is
God’s good will that he should die. Again, it is possible for a
man with evil will to desire what God wills in His goodness: for
example, if a bad son wishes his father to die, when this is also
the will of God. It is plain that the former wishes what God does
not wish, and that the latter wishes what God does wish; and yet
the filial love of the former is more in harmony with the good will
of God, though its desire is different from God’s, than the want
of filial
Chapter 102.—The Will of the Omnipotent God is Never Defeated, and is Never Evil.
But however strong may be the purposes either of angels or of men, whether of good or bad, whether these purposes fall in with the will of God or run counter to it, the will of the Omnipotent is never defeated; and His will never can be evil; because even when it inflicts evil it is just, and what is just is certainly not evil. The omnipotent God, then, whether in mercy He pitieth whom He will, or in judgment hardeneth whom He will, is never unjust in what He does, never does anything except of His own free-will, and never wills anything that He does not perform.
Chapter 103.—Interpretation of the Expression
in
Accordingly, when we hear and read
in Scripture that He “will have all men to be saved,”
Chapter 104.—God, Foreknowing the Sin of the First Man, Ordered His Own Purposes Accordingly.
Wherefore, God would have been willing to preserve even the first man in that state of salvation in which he was created, and after he had begotten sons to remove him at a fit time, without the intervention of death, to a better place, where he should have been not only free from sin, but free even from the desire of sinning, if He had foreseen that man would have the steadfast will to persist in the state of innocence in which he was created. But as He foresaw that man would make a bad use of his free-will, that is, would sin, God arranged His own designs rather with a view to do good to man even in his sinfulness, that thus the good will of the Omnipotent might not be made void by the evil will of man, but might be fulfilled in spite of it.
Chapter 105.—Man Was So Created as to Be Able to Choose Either Good or Evil: in the Future Life, the Choice of Evil Will Be Impossible.
Now it was expedient that man should be at first so created, as to have it in his power both to will what was right and to will what was wrong; not without reward if he willed the former, and not without punishment if he willed the latter. But in the future life it shall not be in his power to will evil; and yet this will constitute no restriction on the freedom of his will. On the contrary, his will shall be much freer when it shall be wholly impossible for him to be the slave of sin. We should never think of blaming the will, or saying that it was no will, or that it was not to be called free, when we so desire happiness, that not only do we shrink from misery, but find it utterly impossible to do otherwise. As, then, the soul even now finds it impossible to desire unhappiness, so in future it shall be wholly impossible for it to desire sin. But God’s arrangement was not to be broken, according to which He willed to show how good is a rational being who is able even to refrain from sin, and yet how much better is one who cannot sin at all; just as that was an inferior sort of immortality, and yet it was immortality, when it was possible for man to avoid death, although there is reserved for the future a more perfect immortality, when it shall be impossible for man to die.
Chapter 106.—The Grace of God Was Necessary to Man’s Salvation Before the Fall as Well as After It.
The former immortality man lost
through the exercise of his free-will; the latter he shall obtain
through grace, whereas, if he had not sinned, he should have
obtained it by desert. Even in that case, however, there could have
been no merit without grace; because, although the mere exercise of
man’s free-will was sufficient to bring in sin, his free-will
would not have sufficed for his maintenance in righteousness,
unless God had assisted it by imparting a portion of His
unchangeable goodness. Just as it is in man’s power to die
whenever he will (for, not to speak of other means, any one can put
an end to himself by simple abstinence from food), but the mere
will cannot preserve life in the absence of food and the other
means of life; so man in paradise was able of his mere will, simply
by abandoning righteousness, to destroy himself; but to have
maintained a life of righteousness would have been too much for his
will, unless it had been sustained by the Creator’s power. After
the fall, however, a more abundant exercise of God’s mercy was
required, because the will itself had to be freed from the bondage
in which it was held by sin and death. And the will owes its
freedom in no degree to itself, but solely to the grace of God
which comes by faith in Jesus Christ; so that the very will,
through which we accept all the other gifts of God which lead us on
to His eternal gift, is itself prepared of the Lord, as the
Scripture says.
Chapter 107.—Eternal Life, Though the Reward of Good Works, is Itself the Gift of God.
Wherefore, even eternal life
itself, which Comp.
Chapter 108.—A Mediator Was Necessary to Reconcile Us to God; And Unless This Mediator Had Been God, He Could Not Have Been Our Redeemer.
For we could not be redeemed, even through the one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, if He were not also God. Now when Adam was created, he, being a righteous man, had no need of a mediator. But when sin had placed a wide gulf between God and the human race, it was expedient that a Mediator, who alone of the human race was born, lived, and died without sin, should reconcile us to God, and procure even for our bodies a resurrection to eternal life, in order that the pride of man might be exposed and cured through the humility of God; that man might be shown how far he had departed from God, when God became incarnate to bring him back; that an example might be set to disobedient man in the life of obedience of the God-Man; that the fountain of grace might be opened by the Only-begotten taking upon Himself the form of a servant, a form which had no antecedent merit; that an earnest of that resurrection of the body which is promised to the redeemed might be given in the resurrection of the Redeemer; that the devil might be subdued by the same nature which it was his boast to have deceived, and yet man not glorified, lest pride should again spring up; and, in fine, with a view to all the advantages which the thoughtful can perceive and describe, or perceive without being able to describe, as flowing from the transcendent mystery of the person of the Mediator.
Chapter 109.—The State of the Soul During the Interval Between Death and the Resurrection.
During the time, moreover, which intervenes between a man’s death and the final resurrection, the soul dwells in a hidden retreat, where it enjoys rest or suffers affliction just in proportion to the merit it has earned by the life which it led on earth.
Chapter 110.—The Benefit to the Souls of the Dead from the Sacraments and Alms of Their Living Friends.
Nor can it be denied that the souls
of the dead are benefited by the piety of their living friends, who
offer the sacrifice of the Mediator, or give alms in the church on
their behalf. But these services are of advantage only to those who
during their lives have earned such merit, that services of this
kind can help them. For there is a manner of life which is neither
so good as not to require these services after death, nor so bad
that such services are of no avail after death; there is, on the
other hand, a kind of life so good as not to require them; and
again, one so bad that when life is over they render no help.
Therefore, it is in this life that all the merit or demerit is
acquired, which can either relieve or aggravate a man’s
sufferings after this life. No one, then, need hope that after he
is dead he shall obtain merit with God which he has neglected to
secure here. And accordingly it is plain that the services which
the church celebrates for the dead are in no way opposed to the
apostle’s words: “For we must all appear before the
judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done
in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or
bad;”
Chapter 111.—After the Resurrection There Shall Be Two Distinct Kingdoms, One of Eternal Happiness, the Other of Eternal Misery.
After the resurrection, however, when the final, universal judgment has been completed, there shall be two kingdoms, each with its own distinct boundaries, the one Christ’s, the other the devil’s; the one consisting of the good, the other of the bad,—both, however, consisting of angels and men. The former shall have no will, the latter no power, to sin, and neither shall have any power to choose death; but the former shall live truly and happily in eternal life, the latter shall drag a miserable existence in eternal death without the power of dying; for the life and the death shall both be without end. But among the former there shall be degrees of happiness, one being more pre-eminently happy than another; and among the latter there shall be degrees of misery, one being more endurably miserable than another.
Chapter 112.—There is No Ground in Scripture for the Opinion of Those Who Deny the Eternity of Future Punishments.
It is in vain, then, that some,
indeed very many, make moan over the eternal punishment, and
perpetual, unintermitted torments of the lost, and say they do not
believe it shall be so; not, indeed, that they directly oppose
themselves to Holy Scripture, but, at the suggestion of their own
feelings, they soften down everything that seems hard, and give a
milder turn to statements which they think are rather designed to
terrify than to be received as literally true. For “Hath God”
they say, forgotten to be gracious? hath He in anger shut up His
tender mercies?”
Chapter 113.—The Death of the Wicked Shall Be Eternal in the Same Sense as the Life of the Saints.
This perpetual death of the wicked, then, that is, their alienation from the life of God, shall abide for ever, and shall be common to them all, whatever men, prompted by their human affections, may conjecture as to a variety of punishments, or as to a mitigation or intermission of their woes; just as the eternal life of the saints shall abide for ever, and shall be common to them all, whatever grades of rank and honor there may be among those who shine with an harmonious effulgence.
Chapter 114.—Having Dealt with Faith, We Now Come to Speak of Hope. Everything that Pertains to Hope is Embraced in the Lord’s Prayer.
Out of this confession of faith,
which is
Chapter 115.—The Seven Petitions of the Lord’s Prayer, According to Matthew.
Accordingly, in the Gospel
according to Matthew the Lord’s Prayer seems to embrace seven
petitions, three of which ask for eternal blessings, and the
remaining four for temporal; these latter, however, being necessary
antecedents to the attainment of the eternal. For when we say,
“Hallowed be Thy name: Thy kingdom come: Thy will be done in
earth, as it is in heaven”
Chapter 116.—Luke Expresses the Substance of These Seven Petitions More Briefly in Five.
But the Evangelist Luke in his
version of the Lord’s prayer embraces not seven, but five
petitions: not, of course, that there is any discrepancy between
the two evangelists, but that Luke indicates by his very brevity
the mode in which the seven petitions of Matthew are to be
understood. For God’s name is hallowed in the spirit; and God’s
kingdom shall come in the resurrection of the body. Luke,
therefore, intending to show that the third petition is a sort of
repetition of the first two, has chosen to indicate that by
omitting the third altogether. [These petitions are retained in
the A.V., but omitted in the R.V., according to the oldest
authorities.—P.S.] [These petitions are retained in
the A.V., but omitted in the R.V., according to the oldest
authorities.—P.S.]
Chapter 117.—Love, Which is Greater Than Faith and Hope, is Shed Abroad in Our Hearts by the Holy Ghost.
And now as to love, which
the apostle declares to be greater than the other two graces, that
is, than faith and hope,
Chapter 118.—The Four Stages of the Christian’s Life, and the Four Corresponding Stages of the Church’s History.
When, sunk in the darkest depths of
ignorance, man lives according to the flesh undisturbed by any
struggle of reason or conscience, this is his first state.
Afterwards, when through the law has come the knowledge of sin, and
the Spirit of God has not yet interposed His aid, man, striving to
live according to the law, is thwarted in his efforts and falls
into conscious sin, and so, being overcome of sin, becomes its
slave (“for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought
in bondage” Comp.
Chapter 119.—The Grace of Regeneration Washes Away All Past Sin and All Original Guilt.
Now in whichever of these four
stages (as we may call them) the grace of regeneration finds any
particular man, all his past sins are there and then pardoned, and
the guilt which he contracted in his birth is removed in his new
birth; and so true is it that “the wind bloweth where it
listeth,”
Chapter 120.—Death Cannot Injure Those Who Have Received the Grace of Regeneration.
But before a man can receive the
commandment, it is necessary that he should live according to the
flesh. But if once he has received the grace of regeneration, death
shall not injure him, even if he should forthwith depart from this
life; “for to this end Christ both died, and rose, and revived,
that He might be Lord both of the dead and the living;”
Chapter 121.—Love is the End of All the Commandments, and God Himself is Love.
All the commandments of God, then,
are embraced in love, of which the apostle says: “Now the end of
the commandment is charity, out of a pure heart, and of a good
conscience, and of faith unfeigned.” Comp.
Chapter 122.—Conclusion.
But now there must be an end at last to this volume. And it is for yourself to judge whether you should call it a hand-book, or should use it as such. I, however, thinking that your zeal in Christ ought not to be despised, and believing and hoping all good of you in dependence on our Redeemer’s help, and loving you very much as one of the members of His body, have, to the best of my ability, written this book for you on Faith, Hope, and Love. May its value be equal to its length.
On the Catechising of the Uninstructed [The Oxford Library and H. de
Romestin translate the title: On Instructing the
Unlearned.—P.S.]
In One Book.
Translated by
Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology, Free Church College, Aberdeen.
Introductory Notice.
In the fourteenth chapter of the second book of his Retractations, Augustin makes the following statement: “There is also a book of ours on the subject of the Catechising of the Uninstructed, [or, for Instructing the Unlearned, De Catechizandis Rudibus], that being, indeed, the express title by which it is designated. In this book, where I have said, ‘Neither did the angel, who, in company with other spirits who were his satellites, forsook in pride the obedience of God, and became the devil, do any hurt to God, but to himself; for God knoweth how to dispose of souls that leave Him:’ it would be more appropriate to say, ‘spirits that leave Him,’ inasmuch as the question dealt with angels. This book commences in these terms: ‘You have requested me, brother Deogratias.’ ”
The composition so described in the passage cited is reviewed by Augustin in connection with other works which he had in hand about the year 400 A.D., and may therefore be taken to belong to that date. It has been conjectured that the person to whom it is addressed may perhaps be the same with the presbyter Deogratias, to whom, as we read in the epistle which now ranks as the hundred and second, Augustin wrote about the year 406, in reply to some questions of the pagans which were forwarded to him from Carthage.
The Benedictine editors introduce the treatise in the following terms: “At the request of a deacon of Carthage, Augustin undertakes the task of teaching the art of catechising; and in the first place, he gives certain injunctions, to the effect that this kind of duty may be discharged not only in a settled method and an apt order, but also without tediousness, and in a spirit of cheerfulness. Thereafter reducing his injunctions to practical use, he gives an example of what he means by delivering two set discourses, presenting parallels to each other, the one being somewhat lengthened and the other very brief, but both suitable for the instruction of any individual whose desire is to be a Christian.”
[This treatise shows what was thought in the age of Saint Augustin to be the most needful instruction in religion. The Latin text: De Cactechizandis Rudibus, is in the sixth vol. of the Benedictine edition, and in the handy ed. of C. Marriott: S. Augustini Opuscula quædam, Oxford and London (Parker & Co.) 4th ed. 1885. An earlier and closer English Version by Rev. C. L. Cornish, M. A., of Exeter College, Oxford, appeared in the Oxford “Library of the Fathers” (1847, pp. 187 sqq.,) under the title On Instructing the Unlearned. H. De Romestin reproduces the Oxford translation in the English version of Marriott’s ed. of five treatises of St. Augustin, Oxford and London, 1885, pp. 1–71.—P.S.]
————————————
Chapter 1.—How Augustin Writes in Answer to a Favor Asked by a Deacon of Carthage.
1. You have requested me, brother
Deogratias, to send you in writing something which might be of
service to you in the matter of catechising the uninstructed. For
you have informed me that in Carthage, where you hold the position
of a deacon, persons, who have to be taught the Christian faith
from its very rudiments, are frequently brought to you by reason of
your enjoying the reputation of possessing a rich gift in
catechising, due at once to an intimate acquaintance with the
faith, and to an attractive method of discourse; Reading et doctrina fidei et
suavitate sermonis, instead of which, however, et
doctrinam…suavitatem, etc. also occurs, = possessing
at once a rich gift in catechising, and an intimate acquaintance
with the faith, and an attractive method of discourse, [or,
sweetness of language]. Reading retineri as in the
mss. Some editions give retinere =
know how to maintain the Christian life and profession.
2. As for myself then, if, in the
exercise of those capacities which through the bounty of our Lord I
am enabled to present, the same Lord requires me to offer any
manner of aid to those whom He has made brethren to me, I feel
constrained not only by that love and service which is due from me
to you on the terms of familiar friendship, but also by that which
I owe universally to my mother the Church, by no means to refuse
the task, but rather to take it up with a prompt and devoted
willingness. For the more extensively I desire to see the treasure
of the Lord Pecuniam
Dominicam
Chapter 2.—How It Often Happens that a Discourse Which Gives Pleasure to the Hearer is Distasteful to the Speaker; And What Explanation is to Be Offered of that Fact.
3. But as regards the idea thus
privately entertained by yourself in such efforts, I Verbis
sonantibus,—sounding
words. Perdurant illa cum syllabarum
morulis Sonantia
signa,—vocal signs. I am angry.
4. But ofttimes the earnestness of
those who are desirous of hearing me shows me that my utterance is
not so frigid as it seems to myself to be. From the delight, too,
which they exhibit, I gather that they derive some profit from it.
And I occupy myself sedulously with the endeavor not to fail in
putting before them a service in which I perceive them to take in
such good part what is put before them. Even, so, on your side
also, the very fact that persons who require to be instructed in
the faith are brought so frequently to you, ought to help you to
understand that your discourse is not displeasing to others as it
is displeasing to yourself; and you ought not to consider yourself
unfruitful, simply because you do not succeed in setting forth in
such a manner as you desire the things which you discern; for,
perchance, you may be just as little able to discern them in the
way you wish. For in this life who sees except as “in an enigma
and through a glass”? Sine volumine
cæli
Chapter 3.—Of the Full Narration to Be Employed in Catechising.
5. The narration is full when each
person is catechised in the first instance from what is written in
the text, “In the beginning God created the heaven and the
earth,” In the
mss. we also find the reading Ezræ =
Ezra. In ipsis articulis
= “among the very articles,” or “connecting
links.” Reference is made to certain great epochs or articles of
time in sections 6 and 39.
6. In all things, indeed, not only
ought our own eye to be kept fixed upon the end of the commandment,
which is “charity, out of a pure heart, and a good conscience,
and faith unfeigned,” Reading movendus, for
which monendus = to be admonished, also occurs in the
editions. Reading supplantavit. Some
mss. give supplantaret = wherewith
also He might supplant, etc. Temporum
articulos
Chapter 4.—That the Great Reason for the Advent of Christ Was the Commendation of Love.
7. Moreover, what greater reason is
apparent for the advent of the Lord than that God might show His
love in us, commending it powerfully, inasmuch as “while we were
yet sinners, Christ died for us”? Reading quanto plus, for
which some mss. give plurius, while
in a large number we find purius = with how much greater
purity should it hold good, etc. Reading
studioso…obsequio, for which studiose, etc., also
occurs in the editions = are earnestly gratified with the
attention, etc. Æstuat= burn, heave. Ex miseria…ex
misericordia
8. If, therefore, it was mainly for
this purpose that Christ came, to wit, that man might learn how
much God loves him; and that he might learn this, to the intent
that he might be kindled to the love of Him by whom he was first
loved, and might also love his neighbor at the command and showing
of Him who became our neighbor, in that He loved man when, instead
of being a neighbor to Him, he was sojourning far apart: if, again,
all divine Scripture, which was written aforetime, was written with
the view of presignifying the Lord’s advent; and if whatever has
been committed to writing in times subsequent to these, and
established by divine authority, is a record of Christ, and
admonishes us of love, it is manifest that on those two
commandments of love to God and love to our neighbor Reading conscripta, for
which some mss. have consecuta =
have followed, and many give consecrata,
dedicated.
Chapter 5.—That the Person Who Comes for Catechetical Instruction is to Be Examined with Respect to His Views, on Desiring to Become a Christian.
9. Moreover, it is on the gound of
that very severity of God, De ipsa etiam severitate
Dei…caritas ædificanda est Non fieri vult potius quam
fingere Or = “signifying assent by its
motions,” adopting the reading of the best
mss., viz. salutantis corporis. Some editions give
salvandi, while certain mss. have
salutis, and others saltantis. Reading quando veniat
animo, for which quo veniat animo also occurs = the mind
in which a man comes…is a matter hidden from us.
Chapter 6.—Of the Way to Commence the Catechetical Instruction, and of the Narration of Facts from the History of the World’s Creation on to the Present Times of the Church.
10. But if it happens that his
answer is to the effect that he has met with some divine warning,
or with some divine terror, prompting him to become a Christian,
this opens up the way most satisfactorily for a commencement to our
discourse, by suggesting the greatness of God’s interest in us.
His thoughts, Prærogata sit Reading ad voluptatem. But
many mss. give ad voluntatem =
according to the inclination, etc. Avidam saginæ
sœcularis Reading veritas adhibitœ
rationis, for which we also find adhibita rationis = the
applied truth, etc.; and adhibita rationi = the truth
applied to our explanation. Non tamen ornamenti seriem
ulla immoderatione perturbans
Chapter 7.—Of the Exposition of the Resurrection, the Judgment, and Other Subjects, Which Should Follow This Narration.
11. On the completion of this
narration, the hope of the resurrection should be set forth, and,
so far as the capacity and strength of the hearer will bear it, and
so far also as the measure of time at our disposal will allow, we
ought to handle our arguments against the vain scoffings of
unbelievers on the subject of the resurrection of the body, as well
as on that of the future judgment, with its goodness in relation to
the good, its severity in relation to the evil, its truth in
relation to all. And after the penalties of the impious have thus
been declared with detestation and horror, then the kingdom of the
righteous and faithful, and that supernal city and its joy, should
form the next themes for our discourse. At this point, moreover, we
ought to equip and animate the weakness of man in withstanding
temptations and offenses, whether these emerge without or rise
within the church itself; without, as in opposition to Gentiles, or
Jews, or heretics; within, on the other hand, as in opposition to
the chaff of the Lord’s threshing-floor. It is not meant,
however, that we are to dispute against each several type of
perverse men, and that all their wrong opinions are to be refuted
by set arrays of argumentations: but, in a manner suitable to a
limited allowance of time, we ought to show how all this was
foretold, and to point out of what service temptations are in the
training of the faithful, and what relief Medicina
Chapter 8.—Of the Method to Be Pursued in Catechising Those Who Have Had a Liberal Education.
12. But there is another case which
evidently must not be overlooked. I mean the case of one coming to
you to receive catchetical instruction who has cultivated the field
of liberal studies, who has already made up his mind to be a
Christian, and who has betaken himself to you for the express
purpose of becoming one. It can scarcely fail to be the fact that a
person of this character has already acquired a considerable
knowledge of our Scriptures and literature; and, furnished with
this, he may have come now simply with the view of being made a
partaker in the sacraments. For it is customary with men of this
class to inquire carefully into all things, not at the very time
when they are made Christians, but previous to that, and thus early
also to communicate and reason, with any whom they can reach, on
the subject of the feelings of their own minds. Consequently a
brief method of procedure should be adopted with these, so as not
to inculcate on them, in an odious fashion Reading odiose, for which
several mss. give otiose =
idly. Utilium
tractatorum Reading exponentium.
Various codices give ad exponendum = in
expounding. Reading quod, with
Marriott. But if we accept quod with the Benedictine
editors, the sense will = and in ignorance it may be that the true
faith condemns them, has retained them in his mind. Aliorumque doctissimorum
hominum et disputationibus et scriptionibus in ejus veritate
florentium. It may also be = bringing
before him the authority of the Church universal, as well as both
the disputations and the writings of other most learned men well
reputed in (the cause of) its truth. Idiota
Chapter 9.—Of the Method in Which Grammarians and Professional Speakers are to Be Dealt with.
13. There are also some who come
from the commonest schools of the grammarians and professional
speakers, whom you may not venture to reckon either among the
uneducated or among those very learned classes whose minds have
been exercised in questions of real magnitude. When such persons,
therefore, who appear to be superior to the rest of mankind, so far
as the art of speaking is concerned, approach you with the view of
becoming Christians, it will be your duty in your communications
with them, in a higher degree than in your dealings with those
other illiterate hearers, to make it plain that they are to be
diligently admonished to clothe themselves with Christian humility,
and learn not to despise individuals whom they may discover keeping
themselves free from vices of conduct more carefully than from
faults of language; and also that they ought not to presume so much
as to compare with a pure heart the practised tongue which they
were accustomed even to put in preference. But above all, such
persons should be taught to listen to the divine Scriptures, so
that they may neither deem solid eloquence to be mean, merely
because it is not inflated, nor suppose that the words or
deeds Carnalibus integumentis
involuta atque operta Or = confusing the sense by false
pauses: perturbateque distinguere. Ut sono in foro, sic voto in
ecclesia benedici Bona dictio, nunquam tamen
benedictio
Chapter 10.—Of the Attainment of Cheerfulness in the Duty of Catechising, and of Various Causes Producing Weariness in the Catechumen.
14. At this point you perhaps
desiderate some example of the kind of discourse intended, so that
I may show you by an actual instance how the things which I have
recommended are to be done. This indeed I shall do, so far as by
God’s help I shall be able. But before proceeding to that, it is
my duty, in consistency with what I have promised, to speak of the
acquisition of the cheerfulness (to which I have alluded). For as
regards the matter of the rules in accordance with which your
discourse should be set forth, in the case of the catechetical
instruction of a person who comes with the express view of being
made a Christian, I have already made good, as far as has appeared
sufficient, the promise which I made. And surely I am under no
obligation at the same time to do myself in this volume that which
I enjoin as the right thing to be done. Consequently, if I do that,
it will have the value of an overplus. But how can the overplus be
super-added by me before I have filled up the measure of what is
due? Besides, one thing which I have heard you make the subject of
your complaint above all others, is the fact that your discourse
seemed to yourself to be poor and spiritless when you were
instructing any one in the Christian name. Now this, I know,
results not so much from want of matter to say, with which I am
well aware you are sufficiently provided and furnished, or from
poverty of speech itself, as rather from weariness of mind. And
that may spring either from the cause of which I have already
spoken, namely, the fact that our intelligence is better pleased
and more thoroughly arrested by that which we perceive in silence
in the mind, and that we have no inclination to have our attention
called off from it to a noise of words coming far short of
representing it; or from the circumstance that even when discourse
is pleasant, we have more delight in hearing or reading things
which have been expressed in a superior manner, and which are set
forth without any care or anxiety on our part, than in putting
together, with a view to the comprehension of others, words
suddenly conceived, and leaving it an uncertain issue, on the one
hand, whether such terms occur to us as adequately represent the
sense, and on the other, whether they be accepted in such
The sentence, “either in that
he is actually not stirred…by what is said,” is omitted in many
mss.
15. Now if the cause of our sadness
lies in the circumstance that our hearer does not apprehend what we
mean, so that we have to come down in a certain fashion from the
elevation of our own conceptions, and are under the necessity of
dwelling long in the tedious processes of syllables which come far
beneath the standard of our ideas, and have anxiously to consider
how that which we ourselves take in with a most rapid draught of
mental apprehension is to be given forth by the mouth of flesh in
the long and perplexed intricacies of its method of enunciation;
and if the great dissimilarity thus felt (between our utterance and
our thought) makes it distasteful to us to speak, and a pleasure to
us to keep silence, then let us ponder what has been set before us
by Him who has “showed us an example that we should follow His
steps.” Cf.
Cf.
Cf.
Illius
gallinœ,—in reference to
Chapter 11.—Of the Remedy for the Second Source of Weariness.
16. If, however, it is rather our
desire to read or hear such things as are already prepared for our
use and expressed in a superior style, and if the consequence is
that we feel it irksome to put together, at the time and with an
uncertain issue, the terms of discourse on our own side, then,
provided only that our mind does not wander off from the truth of
the facts themselves, it is an easy matter for the hearer, if he is
offended by anything in our language, to come to see in that very
circumstance how little value should be set, supposing the subject
itself to be rightly understood, upon the mere fact that there may
have been some imperfection or some inaccuracy in the literal
expressions, which were employed indeed simply with the view of
securing a correct apprehension of the subject-matter. But if the
bent of human infirmity has wandered off from the truth of the
facts themselves,—although in the catechetical instruction of the
unlearned, where we have to keep by the most beaten track, that
cannot occur very readily,—still, lest haply it should turn out
that our hearer finds cause of offence even in this direction, we
ought not to deem this to have come upon us in any other way than
as the issue of God’s own wish to put us to the test with respect
to our readiness to receive correction in calmness of mind, so as
not to rush headlong, in the course of a still greater error, into
the defense of our error. But if, again, no one has told us of it,
and if the thing has altogether escaped our own notice, as well as
the observation of our hearers, then there is nothing to grieve
over, provided only the same thing does not occur a second time.
For the most part, however, when we recall what we have said, we
ourselves discover something to find fault with, and are ignorant
of the manner in which it was received when it was uttered; and so
when charity is fervent within us, we are the more vexed if the
thing, while really false, has been received with unquestioning
acceptance. This being the case, then, whenever an opportunity
occurs, as we have been finding fault with ourselves in silence, we
ought in like manner to see to it that those persons be also set
right on the subject in a considerate method, who have fallen into
some sort of error, not by the words of God, but plainly by those
used by us. If, on the other hand, there are any who, blinded by
insensate spite, rejoice that we have committed a mistake,
whisperers as they are, and slanderers, and “hateful to God,” Cf.
A caritate
jaculatur Concurrant in
bonum
Chapter 12.—Of the Remedy for the Third Source of Weariness.
17. Once more, however, we often
feel it very wearisome to go over repeatedly matters which are
thoroughly familiar, and adapted (rather) to children. If this is
the case with us, then we should endeavor to meet them with a
brother’s, a father’s, and a mother’s love; and, if we are
once united with them thus in heart, to us no less than to them
will these things seem new. For so great is the power of a
sympathetic disposition of mind, that, as they are affected while
we are speaking, and we are affected while they are learning, we
have our dwelling in each other; and thus, at one and the same
time, they as it were in us speak what they hear, and we in them
learn after a certain fashion what we teach. Is it not a common
occurrence with us, that when we show to persons, who have never
seen them, certain spacious and beautiful tracts, either in cities
or in fields, which we have been in the habit of passing by without
any sense of pleasure, simply because we have become so accustomed
to the sight of them, we find our own enjoyment renewed in their
enjoyment of the novelty of the scene? And this is so much the more
our experience in proportion to the intimacy of our friendship with
them; because, just as we are in them in virtue of the bond of
love, in the same degree do things become new to us which
previously were old. But if we ourselves have made any considerable
progress in the contemplative study of things, it is not our wish
that those whom we love should simply be gratified and astonished
as they gaze upon the works of men’s hands; but it becomes our
wish to lift them to (the contemplation of) the very skill Some editions read arcem =
stronghold, instead of artem. Or = wherein:
ubi. Instead of eam, the
reading ea = those things, also occurs.
Chapter 13.—Of the Remedy for the Fourth Source of Weariness.
18. But in good truth it is a
serious demand to make upon us, to continue discoursing on to the
set limit when we fail to see our hearer in any degree moved;
whether it be that, under the restraints of the awe of religion, he
has not the boldness to signify his approval by voice or by any
movement of his body, or that he is kept back by the modesty proper
to man, Or = by the reverence which he
feels for the man: humana verecundia. The text gives simply
Catholicæ. One ms. has Catholicæ
fidei = the Catholic faith. But it is most natural to supply
Ecclesiæ.
19. It is likewise a frequent
occurrence that one who at first listened to us with all readiness,
becomes exhausted either by the effort of hearing or by standing,
and now no longer commends what is said, but gapes and yawns, and
even unwillingly exhibits a disposition to depart. When we observe
that, it becomes our duty to refresh his mind by saying something
seasoned with an honest cheerfulness and adapted to the matter
which is being discussed, or something of a very wonderful and
amazing order, or even, it may be, something of a painful and
mournful nature. Whatever we thus say may be all the better if it
affects himself more immediately, so that the quick sense of
self-concern may keep his attention on the alert. At the same time,
however, it should not be of the kind to offend his spirit of
reverence by any harshness attaching to it; but it should be of a
nature fitted rather to conciliate him by the friendliness which it
breathes. Or else, we should relieve him by accommodating him with
a seat, although unquestionably matters will be better ordered if
from the outset, whenever that can be done with propriety, he sits
and listens. And indeed in certain of the churches beyond the sea,
with a far more considerate regard to the fitness of things, not
only do the prelates sit when they address the people, but they
also themselves put down seats for the people, lest any person of
enfeebled strength should become exhausted by standing, and thus
have his mind diverted from the most wholesome purport (of the
discourse), or even be under the necessity of departing. And yet it
is one thing if it be simply some one out of a great multitude who
withdraws in order to recruit his strength, he being also already
under the obligations which result from participation in the
sacraments; and it is quite another thing if the person withdrawing
is one (inasmuch as it is usually the case in these circumstances
that the man is unavoidably urged to that course by the fear that
he should even fall, overcome by internal weakness) who has to be
initiated in the first sacraments; for a person in this position is
at once restrained by the sense of shame from stating the reason of
his going, and not permitted to stand through the force of his
weakness. This I speak from experience. For this was the case with
a certain individual, a man from the country, when I was
instructing him catechetically: and from
Instead of viros fratres,
some mss. read veros fratres = our
genuine brethren. Initiandi = initiated.
Chapter 14.—Of the Remedy Against the Fifth and Sixth Sources of Weariness.
20. If, again, your spirit has been
broken by the necessity of giving up some other employment, on
which, as the more requisite, you were now bent; and if the sadness
caused by that constraint makes you catechise in no pleasant mood,
you ought to ponder the fact that, excepting that we know it to be
our duty, in all our dealings with men, to act in a merciful
manner, and in the exercise of the sincerest charity,—with this
one exception, I say, it is quite uncertain to us what is the more
profitable thing for us to do, and what the more opportune thing
for us either to pass by for a time or altogether to omit. For
inasmuch as we know not how the merits of men, on whose behalf we
are acting, stand with God, the question as to what is expedient
for them at a certain time is something which, instead of being
able to comprehend, we can rather only surmise, without the aid of
any (clear) inferences, or (at best) with the slenderest and the
most uncertain. Therefore we ought certainly to dispose the matters
with which we have to deal according to our intelligence; and then,
if we prove able to carry them out in the manner upon which we have
resolved, we should rejoice, not indeed that it was our will, but
that it was God’s will, that they should thus be accomplished.
But if anything unavoidable happens, by which the disposition thus
proposed by us is interfered with, we should bend ourselves to it
readily, lest we be broken; so that the very disposition of affairs
which God has preferred to ours may also be made our own. For it is
more in accordance with propriety that we should follow His will
than that He should follow ours. Besides, as regards this order in
the doing of things, which we wish to keep in accordance with our
own judgment, surely that course is to be approved of in which
objects that are superior have the precedence. Why then are we
aggrieved that the precedence over men should be held by the Lord
God in His vast superiority to us men, so that in the said love
which we entertain for our own order, we should thus (exhibit the
disposition to) despise order? For “no one orders for the
better” what he has to do, except the man who is rather ready to
leave undone what he is prohibited from doing by the divine power,
than desirous of doing that which he meditates in his own human
cogitations. For “there are many devices in a man’s heart;
nevertheless, the counsel of the Lord stands for ever.”
21. But if our mind is agitated by some cause of
offense, so as not to be capable of delivering a discourse of a
calm and enjoyable strain, our charity towards those for whom
Christ died, desiring to redeem them by the price of His own blood
from the death of the errors of this world, ought to be so great,
that the very circumstance of intelligence being brought us in our
sadness, regarding the advent of some person who longs to become a
Christian, ought to be enough to cheer us and dissipate that
heaviness of spirit, just as the delights of gain are wont to
soften the pain of losses. For we are not (fairly) oppressed by the
offense of any individual, unless it be that of the man whom we
either perceive or believe to be perishing himself, or to be the
occasion of the undoing of some weak one. Accordingly, one who
comes to us with the view of being formally admitted, in that we
cherish the hope of his ability to go forward, should wipe away the
sorrow caused by one who fails us. For even if the dread that our
proselyte may become the child of hell
22. If, however, grief has taken
possession of us on account of something in which we ourselves have
erred or sinned, we should bear in mind not only that a “broken
spirit is a sacrifice to God,” Fæno= hay. Reading istud edentis; for
which some editions give studentis = of one who studies
it.
Chapter 15.—Of the Method in Which Our Address Should Be Adapted to Different Classes of Hearers.
23. But now, perhaps, you also
demand of me as a debt that which, previous to the promise which I
made, I was under no obligation to give, namely, that I should not
count it burdensome to unfold some sort of example of the discourse
intended, and to set it before you for your study, just as if I
were my Cf.
Ut aliquam observationem
sermonis tui a nobis audire quæreres
Chapter 16.—A Specimen of a Catechetical Address; And First, the Case of a Catechumen with Worthy Views.
24. Nevertheless, however that may
be, let us here suppose that some one has come to us who desires to
be made a Christian, and who belongs indeed to the order of private
persons, Idiotarum
25. “There are also other men who
neither crave to be rich nor go about seeking the vain pomps of
honors, but who nevertheless are minded to find their pleasure and
rest in dainty meats, and in fornications, and in those theatres
and spectacles which are at their disposal in great cities for
nothing. But it fares with these, too, in the same way; or they
waste their small means in luxury, and subsequently, under pressure
of want, break out into thefts and burglaries, and at times even
into highway robberies, and so they are suddenly filled with fears
both numerous and great; and men who a little before were singing
in the house of revelry, are now dreaming of the sorrows of the
prison. Moreover, in their eager devotion to the public spectacles,
they come to resemble demons, as they incite men by their cries to
wound each other, and instigate those who have done them no hurt to
engage in furious contests with each other, while they seek to
please an insane people. And if they perceive any such to be
peaceably disposed, they straightway hate them and persecute them,
and raise an outcry, asking that they should be beaten with clubs,
as if they had been in collusion to cheat them; and this iniquity
they force even the judge, who is the (appointed) avenger of
iniquities, to perpetrate. On the other hand, if they observe such
men exerting themselves in horrid hostilities against each other,
whether they be those who are called sintœ, Reading sive sintœ qui
appellantur, for which there occur such varieties of reading as
these: sint athletæ qui appellantur = those who are called
athletes; or sint æqui appellantur; or simply sint qui
appellantur = whatever name they bear, whether actors, etc. The
term sintæ, borrowed from the Greek Σίνται = devourers,
spoilers, may have been a word in common use among the
Africans, as the Benedictine editors suggest, for designating some
sort of coarse characters. Thymelici, strictly = the musicians belonging to the
thymele, or orchestra. Reading incitatis favent,
for which some mss. give incitati =
excited themselves, they favor them; and others have
incitantes = exciting them, they favor them. Compare a passage in the
Confessions, vi. 13.
Chapter 17.—The Specimen of Catechetical Discourse Continued, in Reference Specially to the Reproval of False Aims on the Catechumen’s Part.
26. “For there are some whose reason for desiring to become Christians is either that they may gain the favor of men from whom they look for temporal advantages, or that they are reluctant to offend those whom they fear. But these are reprobate; and although the church bears them for a time, as the threshing-floor bears the chaff until the period of winnowing, yet if they fail to amend and begin to be Christians in sincerity in view of the everlasting rest which is to come, they will be separated from it in the end. And let not such flatter themselves, because it is possible for them to be in the threshing-floor along with the grain of God. For they will not be together with that in the barn, but are destined for the fire, which is their due. There are also others of better hope indeed, but nevertheless in no inferior danger. I mean those who now fear God, and mock not the Christian name, neither enter the church of God with an assumed heart, but still look for their felicity in this life, expecting to have more felicity in earthly things than those enjoy who refuse to worship God. And the consequence of this false anticipation is, that when they see some wicked and impious men strongly established and excelling in this worldly prosperity, while they themselves either possess it in a smaller degree or miss it altogether, they are troubled with the thought that they are serving God without reason, and so they readily fall away from the faith.
27. “But as to the man who has in
view that everlasting blessedness and perpetual rest which is
promised as the lot destined for the saints after this life, and
who desires to become a Christian, in order that he may not pass
into eternal fire with the devil, but enter into the eternal
kingdom together with Christ, Cf.
28. “Now, on the subject of this
rest Scripture is significant, and refrains not to speak, when it
tells us how at the beginning of the world, and at the time when
God made heaven and earth and all things which are in them, He
worked during six days, and rested on the seventh day. Humanitate, = humanity, also occurs instead of
humilitate.
Chapter 18.—Of What is to Be Believed on the Subject of the Creation of Man and Other Objects.
29. “Whereas, then, the omnipotent God, who is also good and just and merciful, who made all things,—whether they be great or small, whether they be highest or lowest, whether they be things which are seen, such as are the heavens and the earth and the sea, and in the heavens, in particular, the sun and the moon and other luminaries, and in the earth and the sea, again, trees and shrubs and animals each after their kind, and all bodies celestial or terrestrial alike, or whether they be things which are not seen, such as are those spirits whereby bodies are animated and endowed with life,—made also man after His own image, in order that, as He Himself, in virtue of His omnipotence, presides over universal creation, so man, in virtue of that intelligence of his by which he comes to know even his Creator and worships Him, might preside over all the living creatures of earth: Whereas, too, he made the woman to be an helpmeet for him: not for carnal concupiscence,—since, indeed, they had not corruptible bodies at that period, before the punishment of sin invaded them in the form of mortality,—but for this purpose, that the man might at once have glory of the woman in so far as he went before her to God, and present in himself an example to her for imitation in holiness and piety, even as he himself was to be the glory of God in so far as he followed his wisdom:
30. “Therefore did he place them
in a certain locality of perpetual blessedness, which the Scripture
designates Paradise: and he gave them a commandment, on condition
of not violating which they were to continue for ever in that
blessedness of immortality; while, on the other hand, if they
transgressed it, they were to sustain the penalties of mortality.
Now God knew beforehand that they would trangress it. Nevertheless,
in that He is the author and maker of everything good, He chose
rather to make them, as He also made the beasts, in order that He
might replenish the earth with the good things proper to earth. And
certainly man, even sinful man, is better than a beast. And the
commandment, which they were not to keep, He yet preferred to give
them, in order that they might be without excuse when He should
begin to vindicate Himself against them. For whatever man may have
done, he finds God worthy to be praised in all His doings: if he
shall have acted rightly, he finds Him worthy to be praised for the
righteousness of His rewards: if he shall have sinned, he finds Him
worthy to be praised for the righteousness of His punishments: if
he shall have confessed his sins and returned to an upright life,
he finds Him worthy to be praised for the mercy of His pardoning
favors. Why, then, should God not make man, although He foreknew
that he would sin, when He might crown him if he stood, and set him
right if he fell, and help him if he rose, Himself being always and
everywhere glorious in goodness, righteousness, and clemency? Above
all, why should He not do so, since He also foreknew this, namely,
that from the race of that mortality there would spring saints, who
should not seek their own, but give glory to their Creator; and
who, obtaining deliverance from every corruption by worshipping
Him, should be counted worthy to live for ever, and to live in
blessedness with the holy angels? For He who gave freedom of will
to men, in order that they might worship God not of slavish
necessity but with ingenuous inclination, gave it also to the
angels; and hence neither did the angel, who, in com Rather “spirits.” See the
correction made in the Retractations, ii. 14, as given above
in the Introductory Notice. The beatitatem is omitted
by several mss.
Chapter 19.—Of the Co-Existence of Good and Evil in the Church, and Their Final Separation.
31. “Neither ought we to be moved by the consideration that many consent unto the devil, and few follow God; for the grain, too, in comparison with the chaff, has greatly the defect in number. But even as the husbandman knows what to do with the mighty heap of chaff, so the multitude of sinners is nothing to God, who knows what to do with them, so as not to let the administration of His kingdom be disordered and dishonored in any part. Nor is the devil to be supposed to have proved victorious for the mere reason of his drawing away with him more than the few by whom he may be overcome. In this way there are two communities—one of the ungodly, and another of the holy—which are carried down from the beginning of the human race even to the end of the world, which are at present commingled in respect of bodies, but separated in respect of wills, and which, moreover, are destined to be separated also in respect of bodily presence in the day of judgment. For all men who love pride and temporal power with vain elation and pomp of arrogance, and all spirits who set their affections on such things and seek their own glory in the subjection of men, are bound fast together in one association; nay, even although they frequently fight against each other on account of these things, they are nevertheless precipitated by the like weight of lust into the same abyss, and are united with each other by similarity of manners and merits. And, again, all men and all spirits who humbly seek the glory of God and not their own, and who follow Him in piety, belong to one fellowship. And, notwithstanding this, God is most merciful and patient with ungodly men, and offers them a place for penitence and amendment.
32. “For with respect also to the
fact that He destroyed all men in the flood, with the exception of
one righteous man together with his house, whom He willed to be
saved in the ark, He knew indeed that they would not amend
themselves; yet, nevertheless, as the building of the ark went on
for the space of a hundred years, the wrath of God which was to
come upon them was certainly preached to them: Instead of pascunt the
reading miscent, = mix, is also found.
33. “But in truth there were not
wanting in those times righteous men also of the kind to seek God
piously and to overcome the pride of the devil, citizens of that
holy community, who were made whole by the humiliation of Christ,
which was then only destined to enter, but was revealed to them by
the Spirit. From among these, Abraham, a pious and faithful servant
of God, was chosen, in order that to him might be shown the
sacrament of the Son of God, so that thus, in virtue of the
imitation of his faith, all the faithful of all nations might be
called his children in the future. Of him was born a people, by
whom the one true God who made heaven and earth should be
worshipped when all other nations did service to idols and evil
spirits. In that people, plainly, the future Church was much more
evidently prefigured. For in it there was a carnal multitude that
worshipped God with a view to visible benefits. But in it there
were also a few who thought of the future rest, and looked
longingly for the heavenly fatherland, to whom through prophecy was
revealed the coming humiliation of God in the person of our King
and Lord Jesus Christ, in order that they might be made whole of
all pride and arrogance through that faith. And with respect to
these saints who in point of time had precedence of the birth of
the Lord, not only their speech, but also their life, and their
marriages, and their children, and their doings, constituted a
prophecy of this time, at which the Church is being gathered
together out of all nations through faith in the passion of Christ.
By the instrumentality of those holy patriarchs and prophets this
carnal people of Israel, who at a later period were also called
Jews, had ministered unto them at once those visible benefits which
they eagerly desired of the Lord in a carnal manner, and those
chastisements, in the form of bodily punishments, which were
intended to terrify them for the time, as was befitting for their
obstinacy. And in all these, nevertheless, there were also
spiritual mysteries signified, such as were meant to bear upon
Christ and the Church; of which Church those saints also were
members, although they existed in this life previous to the birth
of Christ, the Lord, according to the flesh. For this same Christ,
the only-begotten Son of God, the Word of the Father, equal and
co-eternal with the Father, by whom all things were made, was
Himself also made man for our sakes, in order that of the whole
Church, as of His whole body, He might be the Head. But just as
when the whole man is in the process of being born, although he may
put the hand forth first in the act of birth, yet is that hand
joined and compacted together with the whole body under the head,
even as also among these same patriarchs some were born
Chapter 20.—Of Israel’s Bondage in Egypt, Their Deliverance, and Their Passage Through the Red Sea.
34. “That people, then, having
been brought down into Egypt, were in bondage to the harshest of
kings; and, taught by the most oppressive labors, they sought their
deliverer in God; and there was sent to them one belonging to the
people themselves, Moses, the holy servant of God, who, in the
might of God, terrified the impious nation of the Egyptians in
those days by great miracles, and led forth the people of God out
of that land through the Red Sea, where the water parted and opened
up a way for them as they crossed it, whereas, when the Egyptians
pressed on in pursuit, the waves returned to their channel and
overwhelmed them, so that they perished. Thus, then, just as the
earth through the agency of the flood was cleansed by the waters
from the wickedness of the sinners, who in those times were
destroyed in their inundation, while the righteous escaped by means
of the wood; so the people of God, when they went forth from Egypt,
found a way through the waters by which their enemies were
devoured. Nor was the sacrament of the wood wanting there. For
Moses smote with his rod, in order that that miracle might be
effected. Both these
35. “Thereafter this people was
conducted through the wilderness for forty years. They also
received the law written by the finger of God, under which name the
Holy Spirit is signified, as it is declared with the utmost
plainness in the Gospel. For God is not defined Or = circumscribed,
definitus.
36. “In this manner, then,
through many varied signs of things to come, which it would be
tedious to enumerate in complete detail, and which we now see in
their fulfillment in the Church, that people were brought to the
land of promise, in which they were to reign in a temporal and
carnal way in accordance with their own longings: which earthly
kingdom, nevertheless, sustained the image of a spiritual kingdom.
There Jerusalem was founded, that most celebrated city of God,
which, while in bondage, served as a sign of the free city, which
is called the heavenly Jerusalem Cf.
Hominem.
Chapter 21.—Of the Babylonish Captivity, and the Things Signified Thereby.
37. “Howbeit, after the lapse of
some generations, another type was presented, which bears very
emphatically on the matter in hand. For that city Or = community,
civitas. See Chapter xix. Pro capite
hominis, literally = "on" account of
that head of man, etc. Instead of orationes; the
better authenticated reading is adorationes.
38. “And, indeed, after the lapse
of the seventy years of which Jeremiah had mystically prophesied,
to the intent of prefiguring the end of times, with a view still to
the perfecting of that same figure, no settled peace and liberty
were conceded again to the Jews. Thus it was that they were
conquered subsequently by the Romans and made tributary. From that
period, in truth, at which they received the land of promise and
began to have kings, in order to preclude the supposition that the
promise of the Christ who was to be their Liberator had met its
complete fulfillment in the person of any one of their kings,
Christ was prophesied of with greater clearness in a number of
prophecies; not only by David himself in the book of Psalms, but
also by the rest of the great and holy prophets, even on to the
time of their conveyance into captivity in Babylonia; and in that
same captivity there were also prophets whose mission was to
prophesy of the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ as the Liberator of
all. And after the restoration of the temple, when the seventy
years had passed, the Jews sus
Chapter 22.—Of the Six Ages of the World.
39. “Five ages of the world,
accordingly, having been now completed (there has entered the
sixth). Of these ages the first is from the beginning of the human
race, that is, from Adam, who was the first man that was made, down
to Noah, who constructed the ark at the time of the flood. Instead of dictus est the
mss. give also electus est = was
chosen to be. articuli = articles. Gratis.
40. “Thus, then, showing forth
the New Testament of our everlasting inheritance, wherein man was
to be renewed by the grace of God and lead a new life, that is, a
spiritual life; and with the view of exhibiting the first one as an
old dispensation, wherein a carnal people acting out the old man
(with the exception of a few patriarchs and prophets, who had
understanding, and some hidden saints), and leading a carnal life,
desiderated carnal rewards at the hands of the Lord God, and
received in that fashion but the figures of spiritual
blessings;—with this intent, I say, the Lord Christ, when made
man, despised all earthly good things, in order that He might show
us how these things ought to be despised; and He endured all
earthly ills which He was inculcating as things needful to be
endured; so that neither might our happiness be sought for in the
former class, nor our unhappiness be apprehended in the latter. For
being born of a mother who, although she conceived without being
touched by man and always remained thus untouched, in virginity
conceiving, in virginity bringing forth, in virginity dying, had
nevertheless been espoused to a handicraftsman, He extinguished all
the inflated pride of carnal nobility. Moreover, being born in the
city of Bethlehem, which among all the cities of Judæa was so
insignificant that even in our own day it is designated a village,
He willed not that any one should glory in the exalted position of
any city of earth. He, too, whose are all things and by whom all
things were created, was made poor, in order that no one, while
believing in Him, might venture to boast himself in earthly riches.
He refused to be made by men a king, because He displayed the
pathway of humility to those unhappy ones whom pride had separated
from Him; Reading ab eo; for which
some editions give ab ea = from that humility. There is a play in the words
here: crucifixus est qui cruciatus nostros
finivit.
Chapter 23.—Of the Mission of the Holy Ghost Fifty Days After Christ’s Resurrection.
41. “Thereafter, having confirmed
the disciples, and having sojourned with them forty days, He
ascended up into heaven, as these same persons were beholding Him.
And on the completion of fifty days from His resurrection He sent
to them the Holy Spirit (for so He had promised), by whose agency
they were to have love shed abroad in their hearts, Cf.
In imagine. The reference evidently is
to
42. “But when the Jews perceived
so great signs to be wrought in the name of Him, whom, partly
through ill-will and partly in ignorance, they crucified, some of
them were provoked to persecute the apostles, who were His
preachers; while others, on the contrary, marvelling the more at
this very circumstance, that so great miracles were being performed
in the name of Him whom they had derided as one overborne and
conquered by themselves, repented, and were converted, so that
thousands of Jews believed on Him. For these parties were not bent
now on craving at the hand of God temporal benefits and an earthly
kingdom, neither did they look any more for Christ, the promised
king, in a carnal spirit; but they continued in immortal fashion to
apprehend and love Him, who in mortal fashion endured on their
behalf at their own hands sufferings so heavy, and imparted to them
the gift of forgiveness for all their sins, even down to the
iniquity of His own blood, and by the example of His own
resurrection unfolded immortality as the object which they should
hope for and long for at His hands. Accordingly, now mortifying the
earthly cravings of the old man, and inflamed with the new
experience of the spiritual life, as the Lord had enjoined in the
Gospel, they sold all that they had, and laid the price of their
possessions at the feet of the apostles, in order that these might
distribute to every man according as each had need; and living in
Christian love harmoniously with each other, they did not affirm
anything to be their own, but they had all things in common, and
were one in soul and heart toward God. Adopting the Benedictine version,
qui eos mansuetus passus fuerat, and taking it as a parallel
to
43. “Among those same persecutors
of the saints the Apostle Paul had once also ranked; and he raged
with eminent violence against the Christians. But, subsequently, he
became a believer and an apostle, and was sent to preach the gospel
to the Gentiles, suffering (in that ministry) things more grievous
on behalf of the name of Christ than were those which he had done
against the name of Christ. Moreover, in establishing churches
throughout all the nations where he was sowing the seed of the
gospel, he was wont to give earnest injunction that, as these
converts (coming as they did from the worship of idols and without
experience in the worship of the one God) could not readily serve
God in the way of selling and distributing their possessions, they
should make offerings for the poor brethren among the saints who
were in the churches of Judea which had believed in Christ. In this
manner the doctrine of the apostle constituted some to be, as it
were, soldiers, and others to be, as it were, provincial
tributaries, while it set Christ in the centre of them like the
corner-stone (in accordance with what had been announced beforetime
by the prophet),
Chapter 24.—Of the Church in Its Likeness to a Vine Sprouting and Suffering Pruning.
44. “But that vine, which was
spreading forth its fruitful shoots throughout the circle of lands,
according as had been prophesied with regard to it, and as had been
foretold by the Lord Himself, sprouted all the more luxuriantly in
proportion as it was watered with richer streams of the blood of
martyrs. And as these died in behalf of the truth of the faith in
countless numbers throughout all lands, even the persecuting
kingdoms themselves desisted, and were converted to the knowledge
and worship of Christ, with the neck of their pride broken.
Moreover it behoved that this same vine should be pruned in
accordance with the Lord’s repeated predictions,
45. “All these things, then, we
now perceive to be realized precisely as we read of them in
predictions uttered so long before the event. And as the first
Christians, inasmuch as they did not see these things literally
made good in their own day, were moved by miracles to believe them;
so as regards ourselves, inasmuch as all these things have now been
brought to pass exactly as we read of them in those books which
were written a long time previous to the fulfillment of the things
in question, wherein they were all announced as matters yet future,
even as they are now seen to be actually present, we are built up
unto faith, so that, enduring and persevering in the Lord, we
believe without any hesitation in the destined accomplishment even
of those things which still remain to be realized. For, indeed, in
the same Scriptures, tribulations yet to come are still read of, as
well as the final day of judgment itself, when all the citizens of
these two states shall receive their bodies again, and rise and
give account of their life before the judgment-seat of Christ. For
He will come in the glory of His power, who of old condescended to
come in the lowliness of humanity; and He will separate all the
godly from the ungodly,—not only from those who have utterly
refused to believe in Him at all, but also from those who have
believed in Him to no purpose and without fruit. To the one class
He will give an eternal kingdom together with Himself, while to the
other He will award eternal punishment together with the devil. But
as no joy yielded by things temporal can be found in any measure
comparable to the joy of life eternal which
Chapter 25.—Of Constancy in the Faith of the Resurrection.
46. “Therefore, brother, confirm
yourself in the name and help of Him in whom you believe, so as to
withstand the tongues of those who mock at our faith, in whose case
the devil speaks seductive words, bent above all on making a
mockery of the faith in a resurrection. But, judging from your own
history, Sed ex te ipso
crede. It may also = but, on your side,
do you believe. Certisque ætatum
incrementis, etc. Reading sicut non erat;
for which, however, cum non erat also occurs = seeing He was
able to make it when it was not. Corruptibilem corporis
conditionem. But corruptibilis
also occurs = the condition of a corruptible body.
47. “Flee, therefore, by
steadfast faith and good manners,—flee, brother, those torments
in which neither the torturers fail, nor do the tortured die; to
whom it is death without end, to be unable to die in their pains.
And be kindled with love and longing for the everlasting life of
the saints, in which neither will action be toilsome nor will rest
be indolent; in which the praise of God will be without irksomeness
and without defect; wherein there will be no weariness in the mind,
no exhaustion in the body; wherein, too, there shall be no want,
whether on your own part, so that you should crave for relief, or
on your neighbor’s part, so that you should be in haste to carry
relief to him. God will be the whole enjoyment and satisfaction Satietas. Some editions, however, give societas = the
society.
48. “These things hold fixed in
your heart, and call upon the God in whom you believe, to defend
you against the temptations of the devil; and be careful, lest that
adversary come stealthily upon you from a strange quarter, who, as
a most malevolent solace for his own damnation, seeks others whose
companionship he may obtain in that damnation. For he is bold
enough not only to tempt Christian people through the
instrumentality of those who hate the Christian name, or are pained
to see the world taken possession of by that name, and still fondly
desire to do service to idols and to the curious rites of evil
spirits, but at times he also attempts the same through the agency
of such men as we have mentioned a little ago, to wit, persons
severed from the unity of the Church, like the twigs which are
lopped off when the vine is pruned, who are called heretics
or Ad placendum Deo miserati
animas suas, etc. Instead of
miserati the reading miseranti also occurs = "to" the
doing of the good pleasure of the God who takes pity on their
souls. The Benedictine editors suggest that the whole clause is in
reference to Cf.
Mathematicis Or = its (i.e. the
law’s) truth.
49. “Associate with the good,
whom you perceive to be at one with you in loving your King. For
there are many such for you to discover, if you also begin to
cultivate that character yourself. For if in the public spectacles
you wished to be in congenial company, and to attach yourself
closely Adopting nam si in spectaculis
cum illis esse cupiebas et eis inhærere. Another, but less
weightily supported reading, is, nam si in spectaculis et
vanitatibus insanorum certaminum illis cupiebas inhærere = for
if in the public spectacles and vanities of mad struggles you wish
to attach yourself closely to men, etc. Bona via. Another and well authenticated rendering is, bona
vita = the good life.
Chapter 26.—Of the Formal Admission of the Catechumen, and of the Signs Therein Made Use of.
50. At the conclusion of this
address the person is to be asked whether he believes these things
and earnestly desires to observe them. And on his replying to that
effect then certainly he is to be solemnly signed and dealt with in
accordance with the custom of the Church. On the subject of the
sacrament, indeed, It has been supposed by the
Benedictine editors that sane may be a misreading for
salis. Whether that be or be not the case, the
sacramentum intended here appears to be the sacramentum
salis, in reference to which Neander (Church History
iii. p. 458, Bohn’s Translation) states that “in the North
African Church the bishop gave to those whom he received as
competentes, while signing the cross over them as a symbol of
consecration, a portion of salt over which a blessing had been
pronounced. This was to signify the divine word imparted to the
candidates as the true salt for human nature.” There is an
allusion to the same in the Confessions (i. 11), where
Augustin says, “Even from my mother’s womb who greatly hoped in
thee, I was signed with the sign of His cross, and seasoned with
His salt.” Speciem = kind, in reference to the outward and sensible sign of
the salt. Adopting condiat, which
unquestionably is the reading most accordant with the figure of the
sacramental salt here dealt with. Some editions give
condatur = what is hidden in it, i.e. in the said form
of words.
51. If this discourse, in which I have supposed myself to have been teaching some uninstructed person in my presence, appears to you to be too long, you are at liberty to expound these matters with greater brevity. I do not think, however, that it ought to be longer than this. At the same time, much depends on what the case itself, as it goes on, may render advisable, and what the audience actually present shows itself not only to bear, but also to desire. When, however, rapid despatch is required, notice with what facility the whole matter admits of being explained. Suppose once more that some one comes before us who desires to be a Christian; and accordingly, suppose further that he has been interrogated, and that he has returned the answer which we have taken the former catechumen to have given; for, even should he decline to make this reply, it must at least be said that he ought to have given it;—then all that remains to be said to him should be put together in the following manner:—
52. Of a truth, brother, that is
great and true blessedness which is promised to the saints in a
future world. All visible things, on the other hand, pass away, and
all the pomp, and pleasure, and solicitude Curiositas Hominem
Chapter 27.—Of the Prophecies of the Old Testament in Their Visible Fulfillment in the Church.
53. “For all those things, which at present you witness in the Church of God, and which you see to be taking place under the name of Christ throughout the whole world, were predicted long ages ago. And even as we read of them, so also we now see them. And by means of these things we are built up unto faith. Once of old there occurred a flood over the whole earth, the object of which was that sinners might be destroyed. And, nevertheless, those who escaped in the ark exhibited a sacramental sign of the Church that was to be, which at present is floating on the waves of the world, and is delivered from submersion by the wood of the cross of Christ. It was predicted to Abraham, a faithful servant of God, a single man, that of Him it was determined that a people should be born who should worship one God in the midst of all other nations which worshipped idols; and all things which were prophesied of as destined to happen to that people have come to pass exactly as they were foretold. Among that people Christ, the King of all saints and their God, was also prophesied of as destined to come of the seed of that same Abraham according to the flesh, which (flesh) He took unto Himself, in order that all those also who became followers of His faith might be sons of Abraham; and thus it has come to pass: Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, who belonged to that race. It was foretold by the prophets that He would suffer on the cross at the hands of that same people of the Jews, of whose lineage, according to the flesh, He came; and thus it has come to pass. It was foretold that He would rise again: He has risen again; and, in accordance with these same predictions of the prophets, He has ascended into heaven and has sent the Holy Spirit to His disciples. It was foretold not only by the prophets, but also by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, that His Church would exist throughout the whole world, extended by the martyrdoms and sufferings of the saints; and this was foretold at a time when as yet His name was at once undeclared to the Gentiles, and made a subject of derision where it was known; and, nevertheless, in the power of His miracles, whether those which He wrought by His own hand or those which he effected by means of His servants, as these things are being reported and believed, we already see the fulfillment of that which was predicted, and behold the very kings of the earth, who formerly were wont to persecute the Christians, even now brought into subjection to the name of Christ. It was also foretold that schisms and heresies would arise from His Church, and that under His name they would seek their own glory instead of Christ’s, in such places as they might be able to command; and these predictions have been realized.
54. “Will those things, then,
which yet remain fail to come to pass? It is manifest that, just as
the former class of things which were foretold have come to pass,
so will these latter also come to pass. I refer to all the
tribulations of the righteous, which yet wait for fulfillment, and
to the day of judgment, which will separate all the wicked from the
righteous in the resurrection of the dead;—and not only will it
thus separate those wicked men who are outside the Church, but also
it will set apart for the fire, which is due to such, the chaff of
the Church itself, which must be borne with in utmost patience on
to the last winnowing. Moreover, they who deride the (doctrine of
a) resurrection, because they think that this flesh, inasmuch as it
becomes corrupt, cannot rise again, will certainly rise in the same
unto punishment, and God will make it plain to such, that He who
was able to form these bodies when as yet they were not, is able in
a moment to restore them as they were. But all the faithful who are
destined to reign with Christ shall rise with the same body in such
wise that they may also be counted worthy to be changed into
angelic incorruption; so that they may be made equal unto the
angels of God, even as the Lord Himself has promised;
55. “Believe these things,
therefore, and be on your guard against temptations (for the devil
seeks for others who may be brought to perish along with himself);
so that not only may that adversary fail to seduce you by the help
of those who are without the Church,
Remediorum aut divinationum
diabolicarum. Some editions insert
sacrilegorum after remediorum = sacrilegious charms or
divinations of devils. Gratis. Cf.
Many
mss. omit the words: and holiness, and righteousness, and
charity. One edition reads Dominum,
the Lord, the Holy Spirit, etc., instead of
donum.
A Treatise on Faith and the Creed.
[De Fide Et Symbolo.]
in One Book.
Translated by
Rev. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D.,
Professor of Systematic Theology, Free Church College, Aberdeen.
[A discourse delivered before a council of the whole North African Episcopate assembled at Hippo-Regius.]
Introductory Notice.
The occasion and date of the composition of this treatise are indicated in a statement which Augustin makes in the seventeenth chapter of the First Book of his Retractations.
From this we learn that, in its original form, it was a discourse which Augustin, when only a presbyter, was requested to deliver in public by the bishops assembled at the Council of Hippo-Regius, and that it was subsequently issued as a book at the desire of friends. The general assembly of the North African Church, which was thus convened at what is now Bona, in the modern territory of Algiers, took place in the year 393 A.D., and was otherwise one of some historical importance, on account of the determined protest which it emitted against the position elsewhere allowed to Patriarchs in the Church, and against the admittance of any more authoritative or magisterial title to the highest ecclesiastical official than that of simply “Bishop of the first Church” (primæ sedis episcopus).
The work constitutes an exposition of the several clauses of the so-called Apostles’ Creed. The questions concerning the mutual relations of the three Persons in the Godhead are handled with greatest fullness; in connection with which, especially in the use made of the analogies of Being, Knowledge, and Love, and in the cautions thrown in against certain applications of these and other illustrations taken from things of human experience, we come across sentiments which are also repeated in the City of God, the books on the Trinity, and others of his doctrinal writings.
The passage referred to in the
Retractations is as follows: About the same period, in presence
of the bishops, who gave me orders to that effect, and who were
holding a plenary Council of the whole of Africa at Hippo-Regius, I
delivered, as presbyter, a discussion on the subject of Faith
and the Creed. This disputation, at the very pressing request
of some of those who were on terms of more than usual intimacy and
affection with us, I threw into the form of a book, in which the
themes themselves are made the subjects of discourse, although not
in a method involving the adoption of the particular connection of
words which is given to the competentes i.e.the third order of catechumens, embracing those
thoroughly prepared for baptism. Chap. x. § 24. City of God, Bk. xxii. Ch. 21.
[Additional Note by the American Editor.]
[Another English edition of this treatise De Fide et Symbolo was prepared by the Rev. Charles a. Heurtley, D.D., Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and published by Parker & Co., Oxford and London, 1886.
The following text of the Apostles’ Creed may be collected from this book of St. Augustin, and was current in North Africa towards the close of the fourth century:
1. I Believe in God the Father Almighty. Chs. 2 and 3.
2. (And) In Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-Begotten of the Father, or, His Only Son, Our Lord. Ch. 3.
3. Who Was Born Through the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary. Ch. 4 (§ 8.)
4. Who Under Pontius Pilate Was Crucified and Buried. Ch. 5 (§ 11.)
5. On the Third Day He Rose Again from the Dead. Ch. 5 (§ 12.)
6. He Ascended into Heaven. Ch. 6 (§ 13.)
7. He Sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father. Ch. 7 (§ 14.)
8. From Thence He Will Come and Judge the Living and the Dead. Ch. 8 (§ 15.)
9. (and I Believe) in the Holy Spirit. Ch. 9 (§ 16–19.)
10. I Believe the Holy Church (Catholic). Ch. 10 (§ 21.)
11. The Forgiveness of Sin. Ch. 10 (§ 23.)
12. The Resurrection of the Body. Ch. 10 (§ 23, 24.)
13. The Life Everlasting. Ch. 10 (§ 24.)]
A Treatise on Faith and the Creed.
Chapter 1.—Of the Origin and Object of the Composition.
1.
Inasmuch as it is a position, written and established on the
most solid foundation of apostolic teaching, “that the just lives
of faith;”
We have, however, the catholic
faith in the Creed, known to the faithful and committed to memory,
contained in a form of expression as concise as has been rendered
admissible by the circumstances of the case; the purpose of which
[compilation] was, that individuals who are but beginners and
sucklings among those who have been born again in Christ, and who
have not yet been strengthened by most diligent and spiritual
handling and understanding of the divine Scriptures, should be
furnished with a summary, expressed in few words, of those matters
of necessary belief which were subsequently to be explained to them
in many words, as they made progress and rose to [the height of]
divine doctrine, on the assured and steadfast basis of humility and
charity. It is underneath these few words, therefore, which are
thus set in order in the Creed, that most heretics have endeavored
to conceal their poisons; whom divine mercy has withstood, and
still withstands, by the instrumentality of spiritual men, who have
been counted worthy not only to accept and believe the catholic
faith as expounded in those terms, but also thoroughly to
understand and apprehend it by the enlightenment imparted by the
Lord. For it is written, “Unless ye believe, ye shall not
understand.”
Chapter 2.—Of God and His Exclusive Eternity.
2. For certain parties have
attempted to gain acceptance for the opinion that God the Father is not
Almighty: not that they have been bold enough expressly to
affirm this, but in their traditions they are convicted of
entertaining and crediting such a notion. For when they affirm that
there is a nature Naturam Reading pulchre ordinatum.
Some editions give pulchre ornatum = beautifully
adorned. Si mundum fabricare non
posset. For si some mss. give qui = inasmuch as He could not,
etc. De limo = of mud. Speciosissima
species = the seemliest
semblance.
3. As we believe, therefore, in
God the Father
Almighty, we ought to uphold the opinion that there is no
creature which has not been created by the Almighty. And since He
created all things by the Word, For qui several mss. give quibus here = "under" many
other appellations is the Lord Jesus Christ introduced to our
mental apprehensions, by which He is commended to our
faith. For Rector we also find
Creator = Creator.
Chapter 3.—Of the Son of God, and His Peculiar Designation as the Word.
—Since this is the case, I
repeat, we be Adopting the Benedictine version
per ipsam innotescit dignis animis secretissimus Pater.
There is, however, great variety of reading here. Some mss. give ignis for dignis = the
most hidden fire of the Father is made known to minds. Others give
signis = the most hidden Father is made known by signs to
minds. Others have innotescit animus secretissimus Patris,
or innotescit signis secretissimus Pater = the most hidden
mind of the Father is made known by the same, or = the most hidden
Father is made known by the same in signs.
4. Now there is a very great
difference between our mind and those words of ours, by which we
endeavor to set forth the said mind. We indeed do not beget
intelligible words, Sonantia verba
= sounding, vocal words. Appetitum Nostra notitia
= our knowledge. Reading conantes et
verbis, etc. Three good mss. give
conante fetu verbi = as the offspring of the word makes the
attempt. The Benedictine editors suggest conantes fetu verbi
= making the attempt by the offspring of the word.
Chapter 4.—Of the Son of God as Neither Made by the Father Nor Less Than the Father, and of His Incarnation.
5. Wherefore The
Only-Begotten Son of God was neither made by the Father;
for, according to the word of an evangelist, “all things were
made by Him:” According to the literal meaning
of the phrase ex tempore. It may, however, here be used as =
under conditions of time, or in time. Reading sempiterne: for
which sempiternus = the eternal wise God, is also
given. Condita et facta
est Condere and creare.
6. But as “the Word was made
flesh, and dwelt among us,” Adopting in hominibus
creavi. One important ms. gives in
omnibus = amongst all. Various editions give
principium et caput Ecclesiæ est Christus = the beginning of
His ways and the Head of the Church is Christ. For via certa others give
via recta = a right way. Per ejus primatum
= by means of His standing as the Firstborn. We
follow the Benedictine reading, qui post ejus et per ejus
primatum in Dei gratiam renascuntur. But there is another,
although less authoritative, version, viz. qui post ejus
primitias in Dei gratia nascimur = all of us who, subsequently
to His first-fruits, are born in the grace of God. Id existens quod Pater
est, etc. Another version is, idem
existens quod Pater Deus = subsisting as the same that God the
Father is. The term dispensatio
occurs very frequently as the equivalent of the Greek οἰκονομία = economy,
designating the Incarnation.
7. From this, I trust, it is now
made patent to spiritual minds that there cannot possibly exist any
nature contrary to God. For if He is,—and this is a word
which can be spoken with propriety only of God (for that which
truly is remains unchangeably; inasmuch as that which is
changed has been something which now it is not, and shall be
something which as yet it is not),—it follows that God has
nothing contrary to Himself. For if the question were put to us,
What is contrary to white? we would reply, black; if the question
were, What is contrary to hot? we would reply, cold; if the
question were, What is contrary to quick? we would reply, slow;
and
8. But whereas, in a temporal
dispensation, as I have said, with a view to our salvation and
restoration, and with the goodness of God acting therein, our
changeable nature has been assumed by that unchangeable Wisdom of
God, we add the faith in temporal things which have been done with
salutary effect on our behalf, believing in that
Son of God Who Was Born Through the Holy Ghost of the Virgin
Mary. For by the gift of God, that is, by the Holy Spirit,
there was granted to us so great humility on the part of so great a
God, that He deemed it worthy of Him to assume the entire nature of
man (totum hominem) in the womb of the Virgin, inhabiting
the material body so that it sustained no detriment
(integrum), and leaving it Deserens. With less point, deferens has been suggested =
bearing it, or delivering it. Or it may = he should fail
to have any relation to the salvation.
9. Moreover, those parties Referring to the
Manicheans.
10. Neither should the thought of
the woman’s womb impair this faith in us, to the effect that
there should appear to be any necessity for rejecting such a
generation of our Lord for the mere reason that worthless men
consider it unworthy (sordidi sordidam putant). For most
true are these sayings of an apostle, both that “the foolishness
of God is wiser than men,” In reference to the
Manicheans. The Benedictine text gives,
quibus intervenientibus habitat majestas Verbi ab humani corporis
fragilitate secretius. Another well-supported version is, ad
humani corporis fragilitatem, etc. = more retired in relation
to the frailty of the human body.
Chapter 5.—Of Christ’s Passion, Burial, and Resurrection.
11. But little [comparatively] was
the humiliation (humilitas) of our Lord on our behalf in His
being born: it was also added that He deemed it meet to die in
behalf of mortal men. For “He humbled Himself, being made subject
even unto death, yea, the death of the cross:” For monumenti some
editions give testamenti = testament.
12. We believe also, that On the Third Day He Rose Again from The Dead,
the first-begotten for brethren destined to come after Him, whom He
has called into the adoption of the sons of God,
Chapter 6.—Of Christ’s Ascension into Heaven.
13. We believe that He Ascended into Heaven, which place of
blessedness He has likewise promised unto us, saying, “They shall
be as the angels in the heavens,” Adopting the Benedictine reading,
quod ita spiritui subditum est. But several mss. give quia ita coaptandum est = it is
understood to be a spiritual body, in that it is to be so adapted
as to suit a heavenly habitation.
Chapter 7.—Of Christ’s Session at the Father’s Right Hand.
14. We believe also that He Sitteth at the Right Hand of the Father.
This, however, is Reading propter iniquitates,
labores atque cruciatus. Several mss.
give propter iniquitatis labores, etc. = by reason of the
labors and torments of unrighteousness. Reading futura sit; for
which fulsura sit also occurs = is destined to shine much
more manifestly, etc.
Chapter 8.—Of Christ’s Coming to Judgment.
15. We believe also, that at the
most seasonable time He Will Come from Thence,
and Will Judge the Quick and the Dead: whether by these
terms are signified the righteous and sinners, or whether it be the
case that those persons are here called the quick, whom at
that period He shall find, previous to [their] death, The text gives simply ante
mortem. Some editions insert nostram = previous to our
death.
Chapter 9.—Of the Holy Spirit and the Mystery of the Trinity.
16. The divine generation,
therefore, of our Lord, and his human dispensation, having both
been thus systematically disposed and commended to faith, Instead of fideique commendata
et divina generatione, etc., another, but weakly supported,
version is, fide atque commendata divina, etc., which makes
the sense = The faith, therefore, having been systematically
disposed, and our Lord’s divine generation and human dispensation
having been commended to the understanding, etc. Non minore natura quam
Pater. The Benedictine editors suggest
minor for minore = not inferior in nature,
etc.
17. Neither is it strange that these things are said in
reference to an ineffable Nature, when even in those objects which
we discern with the bodily eyes, and judge of by the bodily sense,
something similar holds good. For take the instance of an
interrogation on the subject of a fountain, and consider how we are
unable then to affirm that the said fountain is itself the river;
and how, when we are asked about the river, we are as little able
to call it the fountain; and, again, how we are equally unable to
designate the draught, which comes of the fountain or the river,
either river or fountain. Nevertheless, in the case of this trinity
we use the name water [for the whole]; and when the question
is put regarding each of these separately, we reply in each several
instance that the thing is water. For if I inquire whether
it is water in the fountain, the reply is given that it is water;
and if we ask whether it is water in the river, no different
response is returned; and in the case of the said draught, no other
answer can possibly be made: and yet, for all this, we do not speak
of these things as three waters, but as one water. At the same
time, of course, care must be taken that no one should conceive of
the ineffable substance of that Majesty merely as he might think of
this visible and material Corporeum = corporeal. Many
mss., however, insert colamus after Deum in
the closing sentence, sed unum Deum unamque substantiam. The
sense then will be = and that nevertheless we should worship in
that Trinity not three Gods, but one God and one
substance.
18. And, indeed, on this subject of
the Father and the Son, learned and spiritual Spiritales, for which religiosi = religious, is also
sometimes given. Non unus esset Pater et
Filius, sed unum essent = how the
Father and the Son were not one in person, but were one in
essence. In reference probably to
Or it may be = that the Son owes
it to the Father that He is.
19. With respect to the Holy Spirit, however, there has not been as yet,
on the part of learned and distinguished investigators of the
Scriptures, a discussion of the subject full enough or careful
enough to make it possible for us to obtain an intelligent
conception of what also constitutes His special individuality
(proprium): in virtue of which special individuality it
comes to be the case that we cannot call Him either the Son or the
Father, but only the Holy Spirit; excepting that they predicate Him
to be the Gift of God, so that we may believe God not to give a
gift inferior to Himself. At the same time they hold by this
position, namely, to predicate the Holy Spirit neither as begotten,
like the Son, of the Father; for Christ is the only one [so
begotten]: nor as [begotten] of the Son, like a Grandson of the
Supreme Father: while they do not affirm Him to owe that which He
is to no one, but [admit Him to owe it] to the Father, of whom are
all things; lest we should establish two Beginnings without
beginning (ne duo constituamus principia isne principio),
which would be an assertion at once most false and most absurd, and
one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the error of certain
heretics. In reference, again, to Manichean
errorists. Patri cohœrendo
= by close connection with the Father. Instead of sanciuntur,
which is the reading of the mss., some
editions give sanctificantur = all things that are
sanctified are sanctioned, etc. Reading, with the mss. and the Benedictine editors, Hic enim
regenerationem nostram dicit. Some editions give Hoc for
Hic, and dicunt for dicit = for they say that
this expresses our regeneration. Quoniam Spiritus Deus
est. But various editions and mss. give Dei for Deus = for the
Spirit is of God. Here again, instead of
dilectio Deus est, we also find dilectio Dei est = love
is of God.
20. Those parties oppose this
opinion who think that the said communion, which we call either
Godhead, or Love, or Charity, is not a substance. Moreover, they
require the Holy Spirit to be set forth to them according to
substance; neither do they take it to have been otherwise
impossible for the expression “God is Love” to have been used,
unless love were a substance. In this, indeed, they are influenced
by the wont of things of a bodily nature. For if two bodies are
connected with each other in such wise as to be placed in
juxtaposition one with the other, the connection itself is not a
body: inasmuch as when these bodies which had been connected are
separated, no such connection certainly is found [any more]; while,
at the same time, it is not understood to have departed, as it
were, and migrated, as is the case with those bodies themselves.
But men like these should make their heart pure, so far as they
can, in order that they may have power to see that in the substance
of God there is not anything of such a nature as would imply that
therein substance is one thing, and that which is accident to
substance (aliud quod accidat subsantiœ) another thing, and
not substance; whereas whatsoever can be taken to be therein is
substance. These things, however, can easily be spoken and
believed; but seen, so as to reveal how they are in themselves,
they absolutely cannot be, except by the pure heart. For which
reason,
21. But inasmuch as love is
enjoined upon us, not only toward God, when it was said, “Thou
shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy
soul, and with all thy mind;”
Chapter 10.—Of the Catholic Church, the Remission of Sins, and the Resurrection of the Flesh.
—Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in The Holy Church, [intending thereby] assuredly the Catholic. For both heretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. But heretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to the faith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wicked separations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believe just what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to the Church catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part of the same, inasmuch as it loves the neighbor, and consequently readily forgives the neighbor’s sins, because it prays that forgiveness may be extended to itself by Him who has reconciled us to Himself, doing away with all past things, and calling us to a new life. And until we reach the perfection of this new life, we cannot be without sins. Nevertheless it is a matter of consequence of what sort those sins may be.
22. Neither ought we only to treat
of the difference between sins, but we ought most thoroughly to
believe that those things in which we sin are in no way forgiven
us, if we show ourselves severely unyielding in the matter of
forgiving the sins of others.
23. And inasmuch as there are three
things of which man consists,—namely, spirit, soul, and
body,—which again are spoken of as two, because frequently the
soul is named along with the spirit; for a certain rational portion
of the same, of which beasts are devoid, is called spirit: the
principal part in us is the spirit; next, the life whereby we are
united with the body is called the soul; finally, the body itself,
as it is visible, is the last part in us. This “whole creation”
(creatura), however, “groaneth and travaileth until
now.” Reading spiritus. Taking
spiritus, the sense might be = Nevertheless, the spirit hath
imparted the first-fruits, in that it has believed God, and is now
of a good will. Instead of caro nominatur.
Pars enim ejus quœdam resistit, etc., some good mss. read caro nominatur et resistit,
etc. = is called the flesh, and resists, etc. Animalis homo, literally = "the" soulish man. The text gives, Mors quippe
animæ est apostatare a Deo. The reference, perhaps, is
to
24. Rise again, therefore, the body
will, according to the Christian faith, which is incapable of
deceiving. And if this appears incredible to any one, [it is
because] he looks simply to what the flesh is at present, while he
fails to consider of what nature it shall be hereafter. For at that
time of angelic change it will no more be flesh and blood, but only
body. Augustin refers to this statement
in the passage quoted from the Retractations in the
Introductory Notice above. Instead of a temporis
conditione liberati, æterna vita ineffabili caritate atque
stabilitate sine corruptione perfruemur, several mss. read, corpus a temporis conditione
liberatum æterna vita ineffabili caritate perfruetur = the
body, set free from the condition of time, shall fully enjoy
eternal life in ineffable love.
25. This is the faith which in few words is given in the Creed to Christian novices, to be held by them. And these few words are known to the faithful, to the end that in believing they may be made subject to God; that being made subject, they may rightly live; that in rightly living, they may make the heart pure; that with the heart made pure, they may understand that which they believe.
Concerning Faith of Things Not Seen
[De Fide Rerum Quæ Non Videntur.]
This tract was thought spurious by
some, but is known to be St. Augustin’s by his mention of it in
The reader of Butler’s Analogy will recognise many similar turns of thought.
1. There are those who think that the Christian religion is what we should smile at rather than hold fast, for this reason, that, in it, not what may be seen, is shown, but men are commanded faith of things which are not seen. We therefore, that we may refute these, who seem to themselves through prudence to be unwilling to believe what they cannot see, although we are not able to show unto human sight those divine things which we believe, yet do show unto human minds that even those things which are not seen are to be believed. And first they are to be admonished, (whom folly hath so made subject to their carnal eyes, as that, whatsoever they see not through them, they think not that they are to believe,) how many things they not only believe but also know, which cannot be seen by such eyes. Which things being without number in our mind itself, (the nature of which mind is incapable of being seen,) not to mention others, the very faith whereby we believe, or the thought whereby we know that we either believe any thing, or believe not, being as it is altogether alien from the sight of those eyes; what so naked, so clear, what so certain is there to the inner eyes of our minds? How then are we not to believe what we see not with the eyes of the body, whereas, either that we believe, or that we believe not, in a case where we cannot apply the eyes of the body, we without any doubt see?
2. But, say they, those things
which are in the mind, in that we can by the mind itself discern
them, we have no need to know through the eyes of the body; but
those things, which you say unto us that we should believe, you
neither point to without, that through the eyes of the body we may
know them; nor are they within, in our own mind, that by exercising
thought we may see them. And these things they so say, as though
any one would be bidden to believe, if that, which is believed, he
could already see set before him. Therefore certainly ought we to
believe certain temporal things also, which we see not, that we may
merit Mereamur Affectione
3. But you say, that you
therefore believe your friend, whose heart you cannot see, because
you have proved him in your trials, and have come to know of what
manner of spirit he was towards you in your dangers, wherein he
deserted you not. Seemeth it therefore to you that we must wish for
our own affliction, that our friend’s love towards us may be
proved? And shall no man be happy in most sure friends, unless he
shall be unhappy through adversity? so that, forsooth, he enjoy not
the tried love of the other, unless he be racked by pain and fear
of his own? And how in the having of true friends can that
happiness be wished for, and not rather feared, which nothing save
unhappiness can put to the proof? And yet it is true that a friend
may be had also in prosperity, but proved more surely in adversity.
But assuredly in order to prove him, neither would you commit
yourself to dangers of your own, unless you believed; and thus,
when you commit yourself in order to prove, you believe before you
prove. For surely, if we ought not to believe things not seen, The text seems corrupt. A ms. in Brasenose Library reads, “si non vis
rebus credere.” If we read “Si non vis rebus non visis
credere,” the sense will be, “For certainly if you will not
have us believe things unseen, we ought not (to believe this),
since” etc.
4. If this faith be taken away
from human affairs, who but must observe how great disorder in
them, and how fearful confusion must follow? For who will be loved
by any with mutual affection, (being that the loving Dilectio Ingeniosa “Religio,” (toward
parents).
5. But you will say, the good
will of a friend towards me, although I cannot see it, yet can I
trace it out by many proofs; but you, what things you will us to
believe not being seen, you have no proofs whereby to show them. In
the mean time it is no slight thing, that you confess that by
reason of the clearness of certain proofs, some things, even such
as are not seen, ought to be believed: for even thus it is agreed,
that not all things which are not seen, are not to be believed; and
that saying, “that we ought not to believe things which we see
not,” falls to the ground, cast away, and refuted. But they are
much deceived, who think that we believe in Christ without any
proofs concerning Christ. For what are there clearer proofs than
those things, which we now see to have been foretold and fulfilled?
Wherefore do ye, who think that there are no proofs why ye ought to
believe concerning Christ those things which ye have not seen, give
heed to what things ye see. The Church herself addresses you out of
the mouth of a mother’s love: “I, whom ye view with wonder
throughout the whole world, bearing fruit and increasing, was not
once such as ye now behold me.” But, “In thy Seed shall all
nations be blessed.” mss.
“si”—“if.” Semper
6. If this Queen ye see not,
now rich also with royal progeny. If she see not that fulfilled
which she heard to have been promised, she, unto whom it was said,
“Hear, O daughter, and see.” If she hath not left the ancient
rites of the world, she, unto whom it was said, “Forget thy own
people and thy Father’s house.” If she confesses not every
where Christ the Lord, she, unto whom it was said, “The King hath
desired thy beauty, for He is the Lord thy God.” If she sees not
the cities of the nations pour forth prayers and offer gifts unto
Christ, concerning Whom it was said unto her, “There shall
worship Him the daughters of Tyre with gifts.” If the pride also
of the rich is not laid aside, and they do not entreat help of the
Church, unto whom it was said, “Thy face shall all the rich of
the people entreat.” If He acknowledges not the King’s
daughter, unto Whom she was bidden to say, “Our Father Who art in
Heaven;” Ben. conj.
“fulgente,” for
“fulgentes.” The Prophecy might be called an
“effect” as well as its fulfillment; or read
“verbis,” for “vobis,” “clear by words
going before and effects following after.” For further
illustration see St. Aug. on
7. “Give heed unto me,”
the Church says unto you; give heed unto me, whom ye see, although
to see ye be unwilling. For the faithful, who were in those times
in the land of Judæa, were present at, and learnt as present,
Christ’s wonderful birth of a virgin, and His passion,
resurrection, ascension; all His divine words and deeds. These
things ye have not seen, and therefore ye refuse to believe.
Therefore behold these things, fix your eyes on these things, these
things which ye see reflect on, which are not told you as things
past, nor foretold you as things future, but are shown you as
things present. What? seemeth it to you a vain or a light thing.
and think you it to be none, or a little, divine miracle, that in
the name of One Crucified the whole human race runs? Ye saw not
what was foretold and fulfilled concerning the human birth of
Christ, “Behold, a Virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall
bear a Son;”
8. But as the wills of
friends, which are not seen, are believed through tokens which are
seen; thus the Church, which is now seen, is, of all things which
are not seen, but which are shown forth in those writings wherein
itself also is foretold, an index of the past, and a herald of the
future. Because both things past, which cannot now be seen, and
things present which cannot be seen all of them, at the time at
which they were foretold, no one of these could then be seen.
Therefore, since they have begun to come to pass as they were
foretold, from those things which have come to pass unto those
which are coming to pass, those things which were foretold
concerning Christ and the Church have run on in an ordered series:
unto which series these pertain concerning the day of Judgment,
concerning the resurrection of the dead, concerning the eternal
damnation of the ungodly with the devil, and concerning the eternal
recompense of the godly with Christ, things which, foretold in like
manner, are yet to come. Why therefore should we not believe the
first and the last things which we see not, when we have, as
witnesses of both, the things between, which we see, and in the
books of the Prophets either hear or read both
9. If they suspect this, let
them examine carefully the copies Codices
10. Although, even if there
went before no testimonies concerning Christ and the Church, whom
ought it not to move unto belief, that the Divine brightness hath
on a sudden shone on the human race, when we see, (the false gods
now abandoned, and their images every where broken in pieces, their
temples overthrown or changed into other uses, and so many vain
rites plucked out by the roots from the most inveterate usage of
men,) the One True God invoked by all? And that this hath been
brought to pass-by One Man, by men mocked, seized, bound, scourged,
smitten with the palms of the hand, reviled, crucified, slain: His
disciples, (whom He chose common men, Idiotas Lit. “when.”
11. But you, beloved, who
possess this faith, or who have begun now newly to have it, let it
be nourished and increase in you. For as things temporal have come,
so long before foretold, so will things eternal also come, which
are promised. Nor let them deceive you, either the vain heathen, or
the false Jews, or the deceitful heretics, or also within the
Catholic (Church) itself evil Christians, enemies by so much the
more hurtful, as they are the more within us. For, lest on this
subject also the weak should be troubled, divine prophecy hath not
been silent, where in the Song of Songs the Bridegroom speaking
unto the Bride, that is, Christ the Lord unto the Church, saith,
“As a lily in the midst of thorns, so is my best Beloved Proxima Some
mss. “that they &c. may find not punishment, but
life.”
On the Profit of Believing.
[De Utilitate Credendi.]
Translated by Rev. C. L. Cornish. M.A.
Retract. i. cap. 14. Moreover now at Hippo-Regius as Presbyter I wrote a book on the Profit of Believing, to a friend of mine who had been taken in by the Manichees, and whom I knew to be still held in that error, and to deride the Catholic school of Faith, in that men were bid believe, but not taught what was truth by a most certain method. In this book I said, &c. * * *. This book begins thus, “Si mihi Honorate, unum atque idem videretur esse.”
St. Augustin enumerates his book
on the Profit of Believing first amongst those he
wrote as Presbyter, to which order he was raised at Hippo about the
beginning of the year 391. The person for whom he wrote had been
led into error by himself, and appears to have been recovered from
it, at least if he is the same who wrote to St. Augustin from
Carthage about 412, proposing several questions, and to whom St.
Augustin wrote his 140th Epistle. Cassiodorus calls him a
Presbyter, though at that time he was not baptized. In
The remarks in the Retractations are given in notes to the passages where they occur.
1. IF, Honoratus, a heretic,
and a man trusting heretics seemed to me one and the same, I should
judge it my duty to remain silent both in tongue and pen in this
matter. But now, whereas there is a very great difference between
these two: forasmuch as he, in my opinion, is an heretic, who, for
the sake of some temporal advantage, and chiefly for the sake of
his own glory and pre-eminence, either gives birth to, or follows,
false and new opinions; but he, who trusts men of this kind, is a
man deceived by a certain imagination of truth and piety. This
being the case, I have not thought it my duty to be silent towards
you, as to my opinions on the finding and retaining of truth: with
great love of which, as you know, we have burned from our very
earliest youth: but it is a thing far removed from the minds of
vain men, who, having too far advanced and fallen into these
corporeal things, think that there is nothing else than what they
perceive by those five well-known reporters of the body; and what
impressions Plagas Si
2. It is then my purpose to
prove to you, if I can, that the Manichees profanely and rashly
inveigh against those, who, following the authority of the Catholic
Faith, before that they are able to gaze upon that Truth, which the
pure mind beholds, are by believing forearmed, and prepared for God
Who is about to give them light. For you know, Honoratus, that for
no other reason we fell in with such men, than because they used to
say, that, apart from all terror of authority, by pure and simple
reason, they would lead within to God, and set free from all error
those who were willing to be their hearers. For what else
constrained me, during nearly nine years, spurning the religion
which had been set in me from a child by my parents, to be a
follower and diligent hearer of those men, Confess. b. i. c. 11; b. v. c.
14.
3. But why do I not make
answer to myself, that these fair and clever similies, and charges
of this nature may be poured forth against all who are teachers of
any thing by any adversary, with abundance of wit and sarcasm? But
I thought that I ought to insert something of this kind in my
letter, in order to admonish them to give over such proceedings; so
that, as he Cicero
4. For you well know that the
Manichees move the unlearned by finding fault with the Catholic
Faith, and chiefly by rending in pieces and tearing the Old
Testament: and they are utterly ignorant, how far Quatenus Vagientium Famigerula Præsumo
5. All that Scripture therefore, which is called the Old Testament, is handed down fourfold to them who desire to know it, according to history, according to ætiology, according to analogy, according to allegory. Do not think me silly for using Greek words. In the first place, because I have so received, nor do I dare to make known to you otherwise than I have received. Next you yourself perceive, that we have not in use terms for such things: and had I translated and made such, I should have been indeed more silly: but, were I to use circumlocution, I should be less free in treating: this only I pray you to believe, that in whatever way I err, I am not inflated or swollen in any thing that I do. Thus (for example) it is handed down according to history, when there is taught what hath been written, or what hath been done; what not done, but only written as though it had been done. According to ætiology, when it is shown for what cause any thing hath been done or said. According to analogy, when it is shown that the two Testaments, the Old and the New, are not contrary the one to the other. According to allegory, when it is taught that certain things which have been written are not to be taken in the letter, but are to be understood in a figure.
6. All these ways our Lord
Jesus Christ and His Apostles used. For when it had been objected
that His disciples had plucked the ears of corn on the sabbath-day,
the instance was taken from history; “Have ye not read,” saith
He, “what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were
with him; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the
shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them
that were with him, but only for the priests?”
7. And further, analogy,
whereby the agreement of both Testaments is plainly seen, why shall
I say that all have made use of, to whose authority they yield;
whereas it is in their power to consider with themselves, how many
things they are wont to say have been inserted in the divine
Scriptures by certain, I know not who, corrupters of truth? Which
speech of theirs I always thought to be most weak, even at the time
that I was their hearer: nor I alone, but you also, (for I well
remember,) and all of us, who essayed to exercise a little more
care in forming a judgment than the crowd of hearers. But now,
after that many things have been expounded and made clear to me,
which used chiefly to move me: those I mean, wherein their
discourse for the most part boasts itself, and expatiates the more
freely, the more safely it can do so as having no opponent; it
seems to me that there is no assertion of theirs more shameless, or
(to use a milder phrase) more careless and weak than that the
divine Scriptures have been corrupted; whereas there are no copies
in existence, in a matter of so recent date, whereby they can prove
it. For were they to assert, that they thought not that they ought
thoroughly to receive them, because they had been written by
persons, who they thought had not written the truth; any how their
refusal Tergiversatio Humanior Cor mediocre Ea
8. For that both history of
the Old Testament, and ætiology, and analogy are found in the New
Testament, has been, as I think, sufficiently proved: it remains to
show this of allegory. Our Redeemer Himself in the Gospel uses
allegory out of the Old Testament. “This generation,” saith He,
“seeketh a sign, and there shall not be given it save the sign of
Jonas the prophet. For as Jonas was three days and three nights in
the whale’s belly, so also shall the Son of Man be three days and
three nights in the heart of the earth.” Figuræ nostra
τὐποι
ἠμῶν Gr. in figura facta
sunt nostri. Vulg.
τύποι.
ἀλληγοροὐμενα Gr. Confinis
9. Here therefore these men
too evil, while they essay to make void the Law, force us to
approve these Scriptures. For they mark what is said, that they who
are under the Law are in bondage, and they keep flying above the
rest that last saying, “Ye are made empty Ventilant Beneficium Ad verbum Vid. Retr. l. i. c. 14. n.
l. “In this book I said, ‘in which &c.’ but I have
otherwise explained those words of the Apostle Paul, and as far as
I can see, or rather as is apparent from the plain state of the
case, much more suitably, in the book entitled De Spiritu et
Literâ, though this sense too is not to be utterly
rejected.” Apex
10. But, passing over in the
mean while the depth of knowledge, to deal with you as I think I
ought to deal with my intimate friend; that is, as I have myself
power, not as I have wondered at the power of very learned men;
there are three kinds of error, whereby men err, when they read
anything. I will speak of them one by one. The first kind is,
wherein that which is false is thought true, whereas the writer
thought otherwise. A second kind, although not so extensive, yet
not less hurtful, when that, which is false, is Virg. Æn. vi.
566–569. Humanus
11. And, this being so, hear also just so many conditions and differences of the same Scriptures. For it must be that just so many meet us. For either any one hath written profitably, and is not profitably understood by some one: or both take place unprofitably: or the reader understands profitably, whereas he, who is read, hath written contrariwise. Of these the first I blame not, the last I regard not. For neither can I blame the man, who without any fault of his own hath been ill understood; nor can I be distressed at any one being read, who hath failed to see the truth, when I see that the readers are no way injured. There is then one kind most approved, and as it were most cleansed, when both the things written are well, and are taken in a good sense by the readers. And yet that also is still further divided into two: for it doth not altogether shut out error. For it generally comes to pass, that, when a writer hath held a good sense, the reader also holds a good sense; still other than he, and often better, often worse, yet profitably. But when both we hold the same sense as he whom we read, and that is every way suited to right conduct of life, there is the fullest possible measure of truth, and there is no place opened for error from any other quarter. And this kind is altogether very rare, when what we read is matter of extreme obscurity: nor can it, in my opinion, be clearly known, but only believed. For by what proofs shall I so gather the will of a man who is absent or dead, as that I can swear to it: when, even if he were questioned being present, there might be many things, which, if he were no ill man, he would most carefully hide? But I think that it hath nothing to do towards learning the matter of fact, of what character the writer was; yet is he most fairly believed good, whose writings have benefited the human race and posterity.
12. Wherefore I would that they would tell me, in what kind they place the, supposed, error of the Catholic Church. If in the first, it is altogether a grave charge; but it needs not a far-fetched defense: for it is enough to deny that we so understand, as the persons, who inveigh against us, suppose. If in the second, the charge is not less grave; but they shall be refuted by the same saying. If in the third, it is no charge at all. Proceed, and next consider the Scriptures themselves. For what objection do they raise against the books of (what is called) the Old Testament? Is it that they are good, but are understood by us in an ill sense? But they themselves do not receive them. Or is it that they are neither good, nor are well understood? But our defense above is enough to drive them from this position. Or is it this that they will say, although they are understood by you in a good sense, yet they are evil? What is this other than to acquit living adversaries, with whom they have to do, and to accuse men long ago dead, with whom they have no strife? I indeed believe that both those men profitably delivered to memory all things, and that they were great and divine. And that that Law was published, and framed by the command and will of God: and of this, although I have but very slight knowledge of books of that kind, yet I can easily persuade any, if there apply to me a mind fair and no way obstinate: and this I will do, when you shall grant to me your ears and mind well disposed: this however when it shall be in my power: but now is it not enough for me, however that matter may stand, not to have been deceived?
13. I call to witness,
Honoratus, my conscience, and God Who hath His dwelling in pure
souls, that I account nothing more prudent, chaste, and religious,
than are all those Scriptures, which under the name of the Old
Testament the Catholic Church retains. You wonder at this, I am
aware. For I cannot hide that we were far otherwise persuaded. But
there is indeed nothing more full of rashness, (which at that time,
being boys, we had in us,) than in the case of each several book,
to desert expounders, who profess that they hold them, and that
they can deliver them to their scholars, and to seek their meaning
from those, who, I know not from what cause compelling, have
proclaimed a most bitter war against the framers and authors of
them. For who ever thought that the hidden and dark books of
Aristotle were to be expounded to him by one who was the enemy of
Aristotle; to speak of these systems of teaching, wherein a reader
may perhaps err without sacrilege? Who, in fine, willed to read or
learn the geometrical writings of Archimedes, under Epicurus as a
master; against which Epicurus used to argue with great obstinacy,
so far as I judge, understanding them not at all? What are those
Scriptures of the law most plain, against which, as though set
forth in public, these men make their attack in vain and to no
purpose? And they seem to me to be like that weak woman, whom these
same men are wont to mock at, who enraged at the sun being extolled
to her, and recommended as an object of worship by a certain female
Manichee, being as she was simple-minded and of a religions spirit,
leaped up in haste, and often striking with her foot that spot on
which the sun through the window cast light, began to cry out, Lo,
I trample on the sun and your God: altogether after a foolish and
womanish manner; Who denies it? But do not those men seem to you to
be such, who, in matters which they understand not, either
wherefore, or altogether of what kind they are, although like to
matters cast in the way, Jacentibus Subtilia Mediocri corde
14. But now I will proceed with what I have begun, if I can, and I will so treat with you, as not in the mean while to lay open the Catholic Faith, but, in order that they may search out its great mysteries, to show to those who have a care for their souls, hope of divine fruit, and of the discerning of truth. No one doubts of him who seeks true religion, either that he already believes that there is an immortal soul for that religion to profit, or that he also wishes to find that very thing in this same religion. Therefore all religion is for the sake of the soul; for howsoever the nature of the body may be, it causes no care or anxiety, especially after death, to him, whose soul possesses that whereby it is blessed. For the sake of the soul, therefore, either alone or chiefly, hath true religion, if there be any such, been appointed. But this soul, (I will consider for what reason, and I confess the matter to be most obscure,) yet errs, and is foolish, as we see, until it attain to and perceive wisdom, and perhaps this very [wisdom] is true religion. I am not, am I, sending you to fables? I am not, am I, forcing you to believe rashly? I say that our soul entangled and sunk in error and folly seeks the way of truth, if there be any such. If this be not your case, pardon me, I pray, and share with me your wisdom; but if you recognize in yourself what I say, let us, I entreat, together seek the truth.
15. Put the case that we have not as yet heard a teacher of any religion. Lo we have undertaken a new matter and business. We must seek, I suppose, them who profess this matter, if it have any existence. Suppose that we have found different persons holding different opinions, and through their difference of opinions seeking to draw persons each one to himself: but that, in the mean while, there are certain pre-eminent from being much spoken of, and from having possession of nearly all peoples. Whether these hold the truth, is a great question: but ought we not to make full trial of them first, in order that, so long as we err, being as we are men, we may seem to err with the human race itself?
16. But it will be said, the
truth is with some few; therefore you already know what it is, if
you know with whom it is. Said I not a little above, that we were
in search of it as unlearned men? But if from the very force of
truth you conjecture that few possess it, but know not who they
are; what if it is thus, that there are so few who know the truth,
as that they hold the multitude by their authority, whence the
small number may set itself free, and, as it were, strain itself Eliquare
17. “But they seemed there
to make absurd statements.” On whose assertion? Forsooth on that
of enemies, for whatever cause, for whatever reason, for this is
not now the question, still enemies. Upon reading, I found it so of
myself. Is it so? Without having received any instruction in
poetry, you would not dare to essay to read Terentianus Maurus
without a master: Asper, Cornutus, Donatus, and others without
number are needed, that any poet whatever may be understood, whose
strains seem to court even the applause of the theatre; do you in
the case of those books, which, however they may be, yet by the
confession of well-nigh the whole human race are commonly reported
to be sacred and full of divine things, rush upon them without a
guide, and dare to deliver an opinion on them without a teacher;
and, if there meet you any matters, which seem absurd, do not
accuse rather your own dullness, and mind decayed by the corruption
of this world, such as is that of all that are foolish, than those
[books] which haply cannot be understood by such persons! You
should seek some one at once pious and learned, or who by consent
of many was said to be such, that you might be both bettered by his
advice, and instructed by his learning. Was he not easy to find? He
should be searched out with pains. Was there no one in the country
in which you lived? What cause could more profitably force to
travel? Was he quite hidden, or did he not exist on the continent Continenti Virg. Ecl. ii.
18. But in truth was there either decree of any law, or power of gainsayers, or vile character of persons consecrated, or shameful report, or newness of institution, or hidden profession, to recall us from, and forbid us, the search? There is nothing of these. All laws divine and human allow us to seek the Catholic Faith; but to hold and exercise it is allowed us at any rate by human law, even if so long as we are in error there be a doubt concerning divine law; no enemy alarms our weakness, (although truth and the salvation of the soul, in case being diligently sought it be not found where it may with most safety, ought to be sought at any risk); the degrees of all ranks and powers most devotedly minister to this divine worship; the name of religion is most honorable and most famous. What, I pray, hinders to search out and discuss with pious and careful enquiry, whether there be here that which it must needs be few know and guard in entire purity, although the goodwill and affection of all nations conspire in its favor?
19. The case standing thus,
suppose, as I said, that we are now for the first time seeking unto
what religion we shall deliver up our souls, for it to cleanse and
renew them; without doubt we must begin with the Catholic Church.
For by this time there are more Christians, than if the Jews and
idolaters be added together. But of these same Christians, whereas
there are several heresies, and all wish to appear Catholics, and
call all others besides themselves heretics, there is one
20. Having then laid down
these principles, which, as I think, are so just that I ought to
win this cause before you, let who will be my adversary, I will set
forth to you, as I am able, what way I followed, when I was
searching after true religion in that spirit, in which I have now
set forth that it ought to be sought. For upon leaving you and
crossing the sea, now delaying and hesitating, what I ought to
hold, what to let go; which delay rose upon me every day the more,
from the time that I was a hearer of that man, i.e. Faustus. v. Conf. b. v. c.
vi. § 10 i.e. S. Ambrose. v. Conf. b. v.
c. xiii. xiv. § 23, 24, 25
21. This, you will say, is
ridiculous, whereas all profess to hold and teach this: all
heretics make this profession, I cannot deny it; but so, as that
they promise to those whom they entice, that they will give them a
reason concerning matters the most obscure: and on this account
chiefly charge the Catholic [Church], that they who come to her are
enjoined to believe; but they make it their boast, that they impose
not a yoke of believing, but open a fount of teaching. You answer,
What could be said, that should pertain more to their praise? It is
not so. For this they do, without being endued with any strength,
but in order to conciliate to themselves a crowd by the name of
reason: on the promise of which the human soul naturally is
pleased, and, without considering its own
22. But perhaps you seek to
have some reason given you on this very point, such as may persuade
you, that you ought not to be taught by reason before faith. Which
may easily be done, if only you make yourself a fair hearer. But,
in order that it may be done suitably, I wish you as it were to
answer my questions; and, first, to tell me, why you, think that
one ought not to believe. Because, you say, credulity, from which
men are called credulous, in itself, seems to me to be a certain
fault: otherwise we should not use to cast this as a term of
reproach. For if a suspicious man is in fault, in that he suspects
things not ascertained; how much more a credulous man, who herein
differs from a suspicious man, that the one allows some doubt, the
other none, in matters which he knows not. In the mean while I
accept this opinion and distinction. But you know that we are not
wont to call a person even curious without some reproach; but we
call him studious even with praise. Wherefore observe, if you
please, what seems to you to be the difference between these two.
This surely, you answer, that, although both be led by great desire
to know, yet the curious man seeks after things that no way pertain
to him, but the studious man, on the contrary, seeks after what
pertain to him. But, because we deny not that a man’s wife and
children, and their health, pertain unto him; if any one, being
settled abroad, were to be careful to ask all comers, how his wife
and children are and fare, he is surely led by great desire to
know, and yet we call not this man studious, who both exceedingly
wishes to know, and that (in) matters which very greatly pertain
unto him. Wherefore you now understand that the definition of a
studious person falters in this point, that every studious person
wishes to know what pertain to himself, and yet not every one, who
makes this his business, is to be called studious; but he who with
all earnestness seeks those things which pertain unto the liberal
culture and adornment of the mind. Yet we rightly call him one who
studies, Studentem
23. But you will say,
consider now whether we ought to believe in religion. For, although
we grant that it is one thing to believe, another to be credulous,
it does not follow that it is no fault to believe in matters of
religion. For what if it be a fault both to believe and to be
credulous, as (it is) both to be drunk and to be a drunkard? Now he
who thinks this certain, it seems to me can have no friend; for, if
it is base to believe any thing, either he acts basely who believes
a friend, or in nothing believing a friend I see not how he can
call either him or himself a friend. Here perhaps you may say, I
grant that we must believe something at some time; now make plain,
how in the case of religion it be not base to believe before one
knows. I will do so, if I can. Wherefore I ask of you, which you
esteem the graver fault, to deliver religion to one unworthy, or to
believe what is said by them who deliver it. If you understand not
whom I call unworthy, I call him, who approaches with feigned
breast. You grant, as I suppose, that it is more blameable to
unfold unto such an one whatever holy secrets there are, than to
believe religious
24. But you say, Were it not
better that you should give me a reason, that, wherever, that shall
lead me, I may follow without any rashness? Perhaps it were: but,
it being so great a matter, that you are by reason to come to the
knowledge of God, do you think that all are qualified to understand
the reasons, by which the human soul is led to know God, or many,
or few? Few I think, you say. Do you believe that you are in the
number of these? It is not for me, you say, to answer this.
Therefore you think it is for him to believe you in this also: and
this indeed he does: only do you remember, that he hath already
twice believed you saying things uncertain; that you are unwilling
to believe him even once admonishing you in a religious spirit. But
suppose that it is so, and that you approach with a true mind to
receive religion, and that you are one of few men in such sense as
to be able to take in the reasons by which the Divine Power Vis divina Antistites
25. Wherefore it now remains
to consider, in what manner we ought not to follow these,
cf. Retract. b. i. ch.
xiv. 2. “I also said, ‘For there are two &c.’ In these
words of mine if ‘those who have already found’ whom we have
said to be ‘now in possession,’ are in such sort understood to
be ‘most happy,’ as that they are so not in this life, but in
that we hope for, and aim at by the path of faith, the meaning is
free from error: for they are to be judged to have found that which
is to be sought, who are now there, whither we by seeking and
believing, that is by keeping the path of faith, do seek to come.
But if they are thought to be or to have been such in this life
that seems to me not to be true: not that in this life no truth at
all can be found that can be discerned by the mind, not believed on
faith; but because it is but so much, what there is of it, as not
to make men ‘most blessed.’ For neither is that which the
Apostle says, We see now through a glass in a riddle and
now I know in part ( Opinantium cf. Retract. b. i. ch. 14.
2. “Also what I said, ‘for to know great and noble and even
divine things,’ we should refer to the same blessedness. For in
this life whatsoever there be of it known amounts not to perfect
bliss, because that part of it which remains unknown is far more
without all comparison.” cf. Retract. b. i. ch.
xiv. 3. “And what I said ‘that there is a great difference
whether anything be grasped by sure reason of mind, which we call
knowing, or whether for practical purposes it be entrusted to
common fame or writing, for posterity to believe it,’ and
presently after, ‘what therefore we know, we owe to reason; what
we believe to authority;’ is not to be so taken as that in
conversation we should fear to say we ‘know’ what we believe of
suitable witnesses. For when we speak strictly we are said to know
that only which by the mind’s own firm reason we comprehend. But
when we speak in words more suited to common use, as also Divine
Scripture speaketh, we should not hesitate to say we know both what
we have perceived with our bodily senses, and what we believe of
trustworthy witnesses, whilst however between one and the other we
are aware what difference exists.” Probat Opinationis
26. For I ask, if what is not
known must not be believed, in what way may children do service to
their parents, and love with mutual affection those whom they
believe not to be their parents? For it cannot, by any means, be
known by reason. But the authority of the mother comes in, that it
be believed of the father; but of the mother it is usually not the
mother that is believed, but midwives, nurses, servants. For she,
from whom a son may be stolen and another put in his place, may she
not being deceived deceive? Yet we believe, and believe without any
doubt, what we confess we cannot know. For who but must see, that
unless it be so, filial affection, the most sacred bond of the
human race, is violated by extreme pride of wickedness? For what
madman even would think him to be blamed who discharged the duties
that were due to those whom he believed to be his parents, although
they were not so? Who, on the other hand, would not judge him to
deserve banishment, who failed to love those who were perhaps his
true parents, through fear lest he should love pretended. Many
things may be alleged, whereby to show that nothing at all of human
society remains safe, if we shall determine to believe nothing,
which we cannot grasp by full apprehension. Tenere
perceptum
27. But now hear, what I
trust I shall by this time more easily persuade you of. In a matter
of religion, that is, of the worship and knowledge of God, they are
less to be followed, who forbid us to believe, making most ready
professions of reason. For no one doubts that all men are either
fools or wise. cf. Retract. b. i. ch. 14.
4. “Also what I said, ‘No one doubts that all men are either
fools or wise,’ may seem contrary to what is read in my third
book On Free Will, (c. 24.) ‘as though human nature
admitted of no middle state between folly and wisdom.’ But that
is said when the question was about the first man, whether he was
made wise, or foolish, or neither: since we could in no wise call
him foolish, who was made without fault, since folly is a great
fault, and how we could call him wise, who was capable of being led
astray, did not appear. So for shortness I thought well to say,
‘as though human nature admitted of no middle state between folly
and wisdom.’ I also had infants in view, whom though we confess
to bear with them original sin, yet we cannot properly call either
wise or foolish, not as yet using free will either well or ill. But
now I said that men were either wise or foolish, meaning those to
be understood who are already using reason, by which they are
distinguished from cattle, so as to be men; as we say that ‘all
men wish to be happy.’ For can we in so true and manifest a
statement be in fear of being supposed to mean infants, who have
not yet the power of so wishing?” Ministerium Or
“begetting,”—suscipiendis Ben. ed.—a modo. Mss.
admodum
28. Here again arises a very difficult question. For in what way shall we fools be able to find a wise man, whereas this name, although hardly any one dare openly, yet most men lay claim to indirectly: so disagreeing one with another in the very matters, in the knowledge of which wisdom consists, as that it must needs be that either none of them, or but some certain one be wise? But when the fool enquires, who is that wise man? I do not at all see, in what way he can be distinguished and perceived. For by no signs whatever can one recognize any thing, unless he shall have known that thing, whereof these are signs. But the fool is ignorant of wisdom. For not, as, in the case of gold and silver and other things of that kind, it is allowed both to know them when you see them and not to have them, thus may wisdom be seen by the mind’s eye of him who hath it not. For whatever things we come into contact with by bodily sense, are presented to us from without; and therefore we may perceive by the eyes what belong to others, when we ourselves possess not any of them or of that kind. But what is perceived by the understanding is within in the mind, and to have it is nothing else than to see. But the fool is void of wisdom, therefore he knows not wisdom. For he could not see it with the eyes: but he cannot see it and not have it, nor have it and be a fool. Therefore he knoweth it not, and, so long as he knoweth it not, he cannot recognize it in another place. No one, so long as he is a fool, can by most sure knowledge find out a wise man, by obeying whom he may be set free from so great evil of folly.
29. Therefore this so vast difficulty, since our enquiry is about religion, God alone can remedy: nor indeed, unless we believe both that He is, and that He helps men’s minds, ought we even to enquire after true religion itself. For what I ask do we with so great endeavor desire to search out? What do we wish to attain unto? Whither do we long to arrive? Is it at that which we believe not exists or pertains to us? Nothing is more perverse than such a state of mind. Then, when you would not dare to ask of me a kindness, or at any rate would be shameless in daring, come you to demand the discovery of religion, when you think that God neither exists, nor, if He exist, hath any care for us? What, if it be so great a matter, as that it cannot be found out, unless it be sought carefully and with all our might? What, if the very extreme difficulty of discovery be an exercise for the mind of the inquirer, in order to receive what shall be discovered? For what more pleasant and familiar to our eyes than this light? And yet men are unable after long darkness to hear and endure it. What more suited to the body exhausted by sickness than meat and drink? And yet we see that persons who are recovering are restrained and checked, lest they dare to commit themselves to the fullness of persons in health, and so bring to pass by means of their very food their return to that disease which used to reject it. I speak of persons who are recovering. What, the very sick, do we not urge them to take something? Wherein assuredly they would not with so great discomfort obey us, if they believed not that they would recover from that disease. When then will you give yourself up to a search very full of pains and labor? When will you have the heart to impose upon yourself so great care and trouble as the matter deserves, when you believe not in the existence of that which you are in search of? Rightly therefore hath it been ordained by the majesty of the Catholic system of teaching, that they who approach unto religion be before all things persuaded to have faith.
30. Wherefore that heretic,
(inasmuch as our discourse is of those who wish to be called
Christians,) I ask you, what reason he alleges to me? What is there
whereby for him to call me back from believing, as if from
rashness? If he bid me believe nothing; I believe not that this
very true religion hath any existence in human affairs; and what I
believe not to exist, I seek not. But He, as I suppose, will show
it to me seeking it: for so it it written, “He that seeketh shall
find.”
31. What, that
all heretics exhort us to believe in Christ? Can they possibly be
more opposed to themselves? And in this matter they are to be
pressed in a twofold way. In the first place we must ask of them,
where is the reason which they used to promise, where the reproof
of rashness, where the assumption of knowledge? For, if it be
disgraceful to believe any without reason, what do you wait for,
what are you busied about, that I believe some one without reason,
in order that I may the more easily be led by your reason? What,
will your reason raise any firm superstructure on the foundation of
rashness? I speak after their manner, whom we displease by
believing. For I not only judge it most healthful to believe before
reason, when you are not qualified to receive reason, and by the
very act of faith thoroughly to cultivate the mind to receive the
seeds of truth, but altogether a thing of such sort as that without
it health cannot return to sick souls. And in that this seems to
them matter for mockery and full of rashness, surely they are
shameless in making it their business that we believe in Christ.
Next, I confess that I have already believed in Christ, and have
convinced myself that what He hath said is true, although it be
supported by no reason; is this, heretic, what you will teach me in
the first place? Suffer me to consider a little with myself, (since
I have not seen Christ Himself, as He willed to appear unto men,
Who is said to have been seen by them, even by common eyes,) who
they are that I have believed concerning Him, in order that I may
approach you already furnished beforehand with such a faith. I see
that there are none that I have believed, save the confirmed
opinion and widely extended report of peoples and nations: and that
the mysteries of the Church Catholic have in all times and places
had possession of these peoples. Why therefore shall I not of
these, in preference to others, inquire with all care, what Christ
commanded, by whose authority I have been moved already to believe
that Christ hath commanded something that is profitable? Are you
likely to be a better expounder to me of what He said, Whose past
or present existence I should not believe, if by you I were to be
recommended to believe thus? This therefore I have believed, as I
said, trusting to report strengthened by numbers, agreement,
antiquity. But you, who are both so few, and so turbulent, and so
new, no one doubts that ye bring forward nothing worthy of
authority. What then is that so great madness? Believe them, that
you are to believe in Christ, and learn from us what He said. Why,
I pray you? For were they to fail and to be unable to teach me any
thing with much greater ease could I persuade my self, that I am
not to believe in Christ, than that I am to learn any thing
concerning Him, save from those through whom I had believed in Him.
O vast confidence, or rather absurdity! I teach you what Christ, in
Whom you believe, commanded. What, in case I believed not in Him?
You could not, could you, teach me any thing concerning Him? But,
says he, it behoves you to believe. You do not mean, do you, that I
am (to believe) you when you commend Him to my faith? No, saith he,
for we lead by reason them who believe in Him. Why then should I
believe in Him? Because report hath been grounded. Whether is it
through you, or through others? Through others, saith he. Shall I
then believe them, in order that you may teach me? Perhaps I ought
to do so, were it not that they gave me this chief charge, that I
should not approach you at all; for they say that you have deadly
doctrines. You will answer, They lie. How then shall I believe them
concerning Christ, Whom they have not seen, (and) not believe them
concerning you, whom they are unwilling to see? Believe the
Scriptures, saith he. But every writing, Scripturæ
32. But if they say that we
are not even to believe in Christ, unless undoubted reason shall be
given us, they are not Christians. For this is what certain pagans
say against us, foolishly indeed, yet not contrary to, or
inconsistent with, themselves. But who can endure that these
profess to belong to Christ, Meruit
33. Wherefore, although I am not able to teach, yet I cease not to advise, that, (whereas many wish to appear wise, and it is no easy matter to discern whether they be fools,) with all earnestness, and with all prayers, and lastly with groans, or even, if so it may be, with tears, you entreat of God to set you free from the evil of error; if your heart be set on a happy life. And this will take place the more easily, if you obey with a willing mind His commands, which He hath willed should be confirmed by so great authority of the Catholic Church. For whereas the wise man is so joined to God in mind, as that there is nothing set between to separate; for God is Truth; and no one is by any means wise, unless his mind come into contact with the Truth; we cannot deny that between the folly of man, and the most pure Truth of God, the wisdom of man is set, as something in the middle. For the wise man, so far as it is given unto him, imitates God; but for a man who is a fool, there is nothing nearer to him, than a man who is wise, for him to imitate with profit: and since, as has been said, it is not easy to understand this one by reason, it behoved that certain miracles be brought near to the very eyes, which fools use with much greater readiness than the mind, that, men being moved by authority, their life and habits might first be cleansed, and they thus rendered capable of receiving reason. Whereas, therefore, it needed both that man be imitated, and that our hope be not set in man, what could be done on the part of God more full of kindness and grace, than that the very pure, eternal, unchangeable Wisdom of God, unto Whom it behoves us to cleave, should deign to take upon Him (the nature of) man? That not only He might do what should invite us to follow God, but also might suffer what used to deter us from following God. For, whereas no one can attain unto the most sure and chief good, unless he shall fully and perfectly love it; which will by no means take place, so long as the evils of the body and of fortune are dreaded; He by being born after a miraculous manner and working caused Himself to be loved; and by dying and rising again shut out fear. And, further, in all other matters, which it were long to go through, He shewed Himself such, as that we might perceive unto what the clemency of God could be reached forth, and unto what the weakness of man be lifted up.
34. This is, believe me, a
most wholesome authority, this a lifting up first of our mind from
dwelling on the earth, this a turning from the love of this world
unto the True God. It is authority alone which moves fools to
hasten unto wisdom. So long as we cannot understand pure (truths),
it is indeed wretched to be deceived by authority, but surely more
wretched not to be moved. For, if the Providence of God preside not
over human affairs, we have no need to busy ourselves about
religion. But if both the outward form of all things, which we must
believe assuredly flows from some fountain of truest beauty, and
some, I know not what, inward conscience exhorts, as it were, in
public and in private, all the better order of minds to seek God,
and to serve God; we must not give up all hope that the same God
Himself hath appointed some authority, whereon, resting as on a
sure step, we may be lifted up unto God. But this, setting aside
reason, which (as we have often said) it is very hard for fools to
understand pure, moves us two ways; in part by miracles, in part
by cf. Retract. b. i. c. 14.
5. “In another place, where I had made mention of the miracles,
which our Lord Jesus did, while He was here in the Flesh, I added,
saying, ‘Why, say you, do not those things take place now?’ and
I answered, ‘Because they would not move unless they were
wonderful, and if they were usual they would not be wonderful.’
But this I said because not so great miracles, nor all take place
now, not because there are none wrought even now.”
35. But any habits whatever
have so great power to hold possession of men’s minds, that even
what in them are evil, which usually takes place through excess of
lusts, we can sooner disapprove of and hate, than desert or change.
Do you think that little hath been done for the benefit of man,
that not some few very learned men maintain by argument, but also
an unlearned crowd of males and females in so many and different
nations both believe and set forth, that we are to worship as God
nothing of earth, nothing of fire, nothing, lastly, which comes
into contact with the senses of the body, but that we are to seek
to approach Him by the understanding only? that abstinence is
extended even unto the slenderest food of bread and water, and
fastings not only for the day, Quotidiana, i.e. each day till evening. He clearly means the Apostolic
office and presidency in general. For illustration, see St. Cyprian
on the Unity of the Church, §. 3 and 4. vid. Oxf. Tr. p. 134, and
note. The plural
“successiones.” Compare Con. Faustus, b. xiii. § 13,
xxxii. § 19, xxxiii. § 6, 9. Primas al. strength. Sacramentorum
36. Wherefore, if either our
reasoning or our discourse hath in any way moved you, and if you
have, as I believe, a true care for yourself, I would you would
listen to me, and with pious faith, lively hope, and simple
charity, entrust yourself to good teachers of Catholic
Christianity; and cease not to pray unto God Himself, by Whose
goodness alone we were created, and suffer punishment by His
justice, and are set free by His mercy. Thus there will be wanting
to you neither precepts and treatises of most learned and truly
Christian men, nor books, nor calm thoughts themselves, whereby you
may easily find what you are seeking. For do you abandon utterly
those wordy and wretched men, (for what other milder name can I
use?) who, whilst they seek to excess whence is evil, find nothing
but evil. And on this question they often rouse their hearers to
inquire; but after that they have been roused, they teach them such
lessons as that it were preferable even to sleep for ever, than
than thus to be awake. For in place of lethargic they make them
frantic, between which diseases, both being usually fatal, there is
still this difference, that lethargic persons die without doing
violence to others; but the frantic person many who are sound, and
specially they who wish to help him, have reason to fear. For
neither is God the author of evil, nor hath it ever repented Him
that He hath done aught, nor is He troubled by storm of any passion
of soul, nor is a small part of earth His Kingdom: He neither
approves nor commands any sins or wickedness, He never lies. For
these and such like used to move us, when they used them to make
great and threatening assaults, and charged this as being the
system of teaching of the Old Testament, which is most false. Thus
then I allow that they do right in censuring these. What then have
I learnt? What think you, save that, when these are censured, the
Catholic system of teaching is not censured. Thus what I had learnt
among them that is true, I hold, what is false that I had thought I
reject. But the Catholic Church hath taught me many other things
also, which those men of bloodless bodies, but coarse minds, cannot
aspire unto; that is to say, that God is not corporeal, that no
part of Him can be perceived by corporeal eyes, that nothing of His
Substance or Nature can any way suffer violence or change, or is
compounded or formed; and if you grant me these, (for we may not
think otherwise concerning God,) all their devices are overthrown.
But how it is, that neither God begot or created evil, nor yet is
there, or hath there been ever, any nature and substance, which God
either begot not or created not, and yet that He setteth us free
from evil, is proved by reasons so necessary, that it cannot at all
be matter of doubt; especially to you and such as you; that is, if
to a good disposition there be added piety and a certain peace of
mind, without which nothing at all can be understood concerning so
great matters. And here there is no rumor concerning smoke, and I
know not what Persian vain fable, unto which it is enough to lend
an ear, and soul not subtile, but absolutely childish. Far
altogether, far otherwise is the truth, than as the Manichees dote.
But since this discourse of ours hath gone much further than I
thought, here let us end the book; in which I wish you to remember,
that I have not yet begun to refute the Manichees, and that I have
not yet assailed that nonsense; and that neither have I unfolded
any thing great concerning the Catholic Church itself, but that I
have only wished to root out of you, if I could, a false notion
concerning true Christians that was maliciously or ignorantly
suggested to us, and to arouse you to learn certain great and
divine things. Wherefore let this volume be as it is; but when your
soul becomes more cf. Retr. b. i. ch. 14. 6.
“But in the end of the book I say, ‘But since this discourse of
ours, &c.’ This I did not say in such sort as though I had
not hitherto written anything against the Manichæans, or had not
committed to writing anything at all about Catholic doctrine, when
so many volumes before published were witnesses that I had not been
silent on either subject; but in this book written to him I had not
yet begun to refute the Manichæans, and had not yet attacked those
follies, nor had I as yet opened anything great concerning the
Catholic Church itself; because I hoped that after that beginning
made, I should write to that same person what I had not yet here
written.”
On the Creed:
A Sermon to the Catechumens.
[De Symbolo Ad Catechumenos.]
Translated by the Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A., of Exeter College, Oxford
1.
Receive, my children, the Rule of Faith, which is called the
Symbol (or Creed Symbolum Codex
2. Of this, then, ye have now
received, have meditated, and having meditated have held, that ye
should say, “I believe in God the Father Almighty.” God is
Almighty, and yet, though Almighty, He cannot die, cannot be
deceived, cannot lie; and, as the Apostle says, “cannot deny
Himself.” Princeps
3. For this reason we believe also in His Son, that is to say, God the Father Almighty’s, “His Only Son, our Lord.” When thou hearest of the Only Son of God, acknowledge Him God. For it could not be that God’s Only Son should not be God. What He is, the same did He beget, though He is not that Person Whom He begot. If He be truly Son, He is that which the Father is; if He be not that which the Father is, He is not truly Son. Observe mortal and earthly creatures: what each is, that it engendereth. Man besets not an ox, sheep besets not dog, nor dog sheep. Whatever it be that begetteth, that which it is, it begetteth. Hold ye therefore boldly, firmly, faithfully, that the Begotten of God the Father is what Himself is, Almighty. These mortal creatures engender by corruption. Does God so beget? He that is begotten mortal generates that which himself is; the Immortal generates what He is: corruptible begets corruptible, Incorruptible begets Incorruptible: the corruptible begets corruptibly, Incorruptible, Incorruptibly: yea, so begetteth what Itself is, that One begets One, and therefore Only. Ye know, that when I pronounced to you the Creed, so I said, and so ye are bounden to believe; that we “believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His Only Son.” Here too, when thou believest that He is the Only, believe Him Almighty: for it is not to be thought that God the Father does what He will, and God the Son does not what He will. One Will of Father and Son, because one Nature. For it is impossible for the will of the Son to be any whit parted from the Father’s will. God and God; both one God: Almighty and Almighty; both One Almighty.
4. We do not bring in two Gods
as some do, who say, “God the Father and God the Son, but greater
God the Father and lesser God the Son.” They both are what? Two
Gods? Thou blushest to speak it, blush to believe it. Lord God the
Father, thou sayest, and Lord God the Son: and the Son Himself
saith, “No man can serve two Lords.” Charitas
5. The Father doeth what He
will, and what He will doeth the Son. Do not imagine an Almighty
Father and a not Almighty Son: it is error, blot it out within you,
let it not cleave in your memory, let it not be drunk into your
faith, and if haply any of you shall have drunk it in, let him
vomit it up. Almighty is the Father, Almighty the Son. If Almighty
begat not Almighty, He begat not very Son. For what say we,
brethren, if the Father being greater begat a Son less than He?
What said I, begat? Man engenders, being greater, a son being less:
it is true: but that is because the one grows old, the other grows
up, and by very growing attains to the form of his father. The Son
of God, if He groweth not because neither can God wax old, was
begotten perfect. And being begotten perfect, if He groweth not,
and remained not less, He is equal. For that ye may know Almighty
begotten of Almighty, hear Him Who is Truth. That which of Itself
Truth saith, is true. What saith Truth? What saith the Son, Who is
Truth? “Whatsoever things the Father doeth, these also the Son
likewise doeth.”
6. But this Only Son of God, the Father Almighty, let us see what He did for us, what He suffered for us. “Born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary.” He, so great God, equal with the Father, born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, born lowly, that thereby He might heal the proud. Man exalted himself and fell; God humbled Himself and raised him up. Christ’s lowliness, what is it? God hath stretched out an hand to man laid low. We fell, He descended: we lay low, He stooped. Let us lay hold and rise, that we fall not into punishment. So then His stooping to us is this, “Born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary.” His very Nativity too as man, it is lowly, and it is lofty. Whence lowly? That as man He was born of men. Whence lofty? That He was born of a virgin. A virgin conceived, a virgin bore, and after the birth was a virgin still.
7. What next? “Suffered
under Pontius Pilate.” He was in office as governor and was the
judge, this same Pontius Pilate, what time as Christ suffered. In
the name of the judge there is a mark of the times, when He
suffered under Pontius Pilate: when He suffered, “was crucified,
dead, and buried.” Who? what? for whom? Who? God’s Only Son,
our Lord. What? Crucified, dead, and buried. For whom? for ungodly
and sinners. Great condescension, great grace! “What shall I
render unto the Lord for all that He hath bestowed on me?”
8. He was begotten before all
times, before all worlds. “Begotten before.” Before what, He in
Whom is no before? Do not in the least imagine any time before that
Nativity of Christ whereby He was begotten of the Father; of that
Nativity I am speaking by which He is Son of God Almighty, His Only
Son our Lord; of that am I first speaking. Do not imagine in this
Nativity a beginning of time; do not imagine any space of eternity
in which the Father was and the Son was not. Since when the Father
was, since then the Son. And what is that “since,” where is no
beginning? Therefore ever Father without beginning, ever Son
without beginning. And how, thou wilt say, was He begotten, if He
have no beginning? Of eternal, coeternal. At no time was the
Father, and the Son not, and yet Son of Father was begotten. Whence
is any manner of similitude to be had? We are among things of
earth, we are in the visible creature. Let the earth give me a
similitude: it gives none. Let the element of the waters give me
some similitude: it hath not whereof to give. Some animal give me a
similitude: neither can this do it. An animal indeed engenders,
both what engenders and what is engendered: but first is the
father, and then is born the son. Let us find the coeval and
imagine it coeternal. If we shall be able to find a father coeval
with his son, and son coeval with his father, let us believe God
the Father coeval with His Son, and God the Son coeternal with His
Father. On earth we can find some coeval, we cannot find any
coeternal. Let us stretch Intendamus Intentos Ut lateret
Deus Susceptor
susceptus
9. Of His cross what shall I
speak, what say? This extremest kind of death He chose, that not
any kind of death might make His Martyrs afraid. The doctrine He
shewed in His life as Man, the example of patience He demonstrated
in His Cross. There, you have the work, that He was crucified;
example of the work, the Cross; reward of the work, Resurrection.
He shewed us in the Cross what we ought to endure, He shewed in the
Resurrection what we have to hope. Just like a consummate
task-master in the matches of the arena, He said, Do, and bear; do
the work and receive the prize; strive in the match and thou shall
be crowned. What is the work? Obedience. What the prize?
Resurrection without death. Why did I add, “without death?”
Because “Lazarus rose, and died: Christ rose again, “dieth no
more, death will no longer have dominion over Him.”
10. Scripture saith, “Ye
have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of the
Lord.” Querela Lat. from LXX. Lat. from LXX.
11. “He ascended into
heaven:” believe. “He sitteth at the right hand of the
Father:” believe. By sitting, understand dwelling: as [in Latin]
we say of any person, “In that country he dwelt (sedit)
three years.” The Scripture also has that expression, that such
an one dwelt (sedisse) in a city for such a time. Cf. Serm. 214, n. 8.
Ben.
12. “Thence He shall come
to judge the quick and dead.” The quick, who shall be alive and
remain; the dead, who shall have gone before. It may also be
understood thus:
13. It follows in the Creed,
“And in the Holy Ghost.” This Trinity, one God, one nature, one
substance, one power; highest equality, no division, no diversity,
perpetual dearness of love. Charitas
14. It follows after
commendation of the Trinity, “The Holy Church.” God is pointed
out, and His temple. “For the temple of God is holy,” says the
Apostle, “which (temple) are ye.”
15. “Forgiveness of
sins.” Ye have [this article of] the Creed perfectly in you when
ye receive Baptism. Let none say, “I have done this or that sin:
perchance that is not forgiven me.” What hast thou done? How
great a sin hast thou done? Name any heinous thing thou hast
committed, heavy, horrible, which thou shudderest even to think of:
have done what thou wilt: hast thou killed Christ? There is not
than that deed any worse, because also than Christ there is nothing
better. What a dreadful thing is it to kill Christ! Yet the Jews
killed Him, and many afterwards believed on Him and drank His
blood: they are forgiven the sin which they committed. When ye have
been baptized, hold fast a good life in the commandments of God,
that ye may guard your Baptism even unto the end. I do not tell you
that ye will live here without sin; but they are venial, without
which this life is not. For the sake of all sins was Baptism
provided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be,
was prayer provided. Inventus “Agere
pœnitentiam.”
16. In three ways then are
sins remitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater
humility of penance; yet God doth not remit sins but to the
baptized. The very sins which He remits first, He remits not but to
the baptized. When? when they are baptized. The sins which are
after remitted upon prayer, upon penance, to whom He remits, it is
to the baptized that He remitteth. For how can they say, “Our
Father,” who are not yet born sons? The Catechumens, so long as
they be such, have upon them all their sins. If Catechumens, how
much more Pagans? how much more heretics? But to heretics we do not
change their baptism. Why? because they have baptism in the same
way as a deserter has the soldier’s mark:
“Characterem.”
17. We believe also “the resurrection of the flesh,” which went before in Christ: that the body too may have hope of that which went before in its Head. The Head of the Church, Christ: the Church, the body of Christ. Our Head is risen, ascended into heaven: where the Head, there also the members. In what way the resurrection of the flesh? Lest any should chance to think it like as Lazarus’s resurrection, that thou mayest know it to be not so, it is added, “Into life everlasting.” God regenerate you! God preserve and keep you! God bring you safe unto Himself, Who is the Life Everlasting. Amen.
On Continence.
[De Continentia.]
Translated by Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A., of Exeter College, Oxford.
ST. Augustin speaks of his work On Continence in Ep. 231, Ad Darium Comitem. [See vol. 1. of this edition, p. 584.—P.S.] Possidius, Ind. c. 10, mentions it, and it is cited in the Collectanea of Bede or Florus, and by Eugypius. Erasmus is therefore wrong in ascribing it to Hugo on the ground of the style, which is not unlike that of the earlier discourses. It is evidently a discourse, and probably for that reason unnoticed in the Retractations. The Manichæan heresy is impugned after the manner of his early works.—(Abridged from Benedictine ed. vol. vi.)
1. It
is difficult to treat of the virtue of the soul, which is called
Continence, in a manner fully suitable and worthy; but He, whose
great gift this virtue is, will help our littleness under the
burden of so great a weight. For He, who bestows it upon His
faithful ones when they are continent, Himself gives discourse of
it to His ministers when they speak. Lastly, of so great a matter
purposing to speak what Himself shall grant, in the first place we
say and prove that Continence is the gift of God.
2. And lest it should seem
that necessary Continence was to be hoped for from the Lord only in
respect of the lust of the lower parts of the flesh, it is also
sung in the Psalm; “Set, O Lord, a watch to my mouth, and a door
of Continence around my lips.”
3. Lastly, to show more
plainly the inner mouth, which by these words he meant, after
having said, “Set a watch, O Lord, to my mouth, and a door of
Continence around my lips,” he added straightway, “Cause not my
heart to fall aside into evil words.”
4. For which cause our Lord
Himself also with His own mouth saith, “Cleanse what are within,
and what are without will be clean.”
5. And on this account that,
which, the parts that beget being bridled by modesty, is most
chiefly and properly to be called Continence, is violated by no
transgression, if the higher Continence, concerning which we have
been some time speaking, be preserved in the heart. For this reason
the Lord, after He had said, “For from the heart go forth evil
thoughts,” then went on to add what it is that belongs to evil
thoughts, “murders, adulteries,” and the rest. He spake not of
all; but, having named certain by way of instance, He taught that
we are to understand others also. Of which there is no one that can
take place, unless an evil thought have gone before, whereby that
is prepared within which is done without, and going forth out of
the mouth of the heart already defiles the man, although, through
no power being granted, it be not done without by means of the
members of the body. When therefore a door of Continence hath been
set in the mouth of the heart, whence go out all that defile the
man, if nothing such be permitted to go out thence, there followeth
a purity, wherein now the conscience may rejoice; although there be
not as yet that perfection, wherein Continence shall not strive
with vice. But now, so long as “the flesh lusteth against the
spirit, and the spirit against the flesh,”
6. But it is one thing to
fight well, which now is, when the strife (Reading νεῖκος.)
7. This conflict none
experience in themselves, save such as war on the side of the
virtues, and war down the vices: nor doth any thing storm the evil
of lust, save the good of Continence. But there are, who, being
utterly ignorant of the law of God, account not evil lusts among
their enemies, and through wretched blindness being slaves to them,
over and above think themselves also blessed, by satisfying them
rather than taming them. But whoso through the Law have come to
know them, (“For through the Law is the knowledge of sin,”
8. Such soldiers the Apostolic
trumpet enkindles for battle with that sound, “Therefore let
not,” saith he, “sin reign in your mortal body to obey its
lusts; nor yield your members weapons of unrighteousness unto sin;
but yield yourselves unto God, as living in place of dead, and your
members weapons of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not rule
over you. For ye are not under the law, but under Grace.”
9. And also, when he exhorts
us, that we live not after the flesh, lest we die, but that by the
Spirit we mortify the deeds of the flesh, that we may live; surely
the trumpet which sounds, shows the war in which we are engaged,
and enkindles us to contend keenly, and to do our enemies to
death, Mortificare Vulg. adds, “patientia,
modestia, castitas.”
10. But in order that we fall
not away from Continence, we ought to watch specially against those
snares of the suggestions of the devil, that we presume not of our
own strength. For, “Cursed is every one that setteth his hope in
man.”
11. But some one will say to
me that it is one thing to live after man, another thing to live
after the flesh; because man forsooth is a rational creature, and
there is in him a rational soul, whereby he differs from the beast:
but the flesh is the lowest and earthly part of man, and thus to
live after it is faulty: and for this reason, he who lives after
man, assuredly lives not after the flesh, but rather after that
part of man, whereby he is man, that is, after the spirit of the
mind whereby he excels the beasts. But this discussion is perhaps
of some force in the schools of philosophers: but we, in order to
understand the Apostle of Christ, ought to observe in what manner
the Christian books are used to speak; at any rate it is the belief
of all of us, to whom to live is Christ, that Man was taken unto
Himself by the Word of God, not surely without a rational soul, as
certain heretics will have it; and yet we read, “The Word was
made flesh.”
12. When, therefore, you hear
it said, “Sin shall not reign over you;”
13. In this so great
conflict, wherein man under Grace lives, and when, being aided, he
fights well, rejoices in the Lord with trembling, there yet are not
wanting even to valiant warriors, and mortifiers however
unconquered of the works of the flesh, some wounds of sins, for the
healing of which they may say daily, “Forgive us our debts:”
14. And some indeed, who are
used to excuse their own sins, complain that they are driven to sin
by fate, as though the stars had decreed this, and heaven had first
sinned by decreeing such, in order that man should after sin by
committing such, and thus had rather impute their sin to fortune:
who think that all things are driven to and fro by chance
accidents, and yet contend that this their wisdom and assertion is
not of chance rashness, but of ascertained reason. What madness
then is it, to lay to reason their discussions, and to make their
actions subject to accidents! Others refer to the devil the whole
of what they do ill: and will not have even a share with him,
whereas they may suspect whether he by hidden suggestions hath
persuaded them to evil, and on the other hand cannot doubt that
they have consented to those suggestions, from whatever source they
have come. There are also they who extend their defense of self
unto an accusation of God, wretched by the divine judgment, but
blasphemers by their own madness. For
15. And there are also they
who in excuse of their sins so accuse God, as to say that sins are
pleasing to Him. For, if they were displeasing, say they, surely by
His most Almighty power He would by no means suffer them to take
place. As though indeed God suffered sins to be unpunished, even in
the case of those whom by remission of sins He frees from eternal
punishment! No one forsooth receives pardon of more grievous
punishment due, unless he hath suffered some punishment, be it what
it may, although far less than what was due: and the fullness of
mercy is so conveyed, as that the justice also of discipline is not
abandoned. For also sin, which seems unavenged, hath its own
attendant punishment, so that there is no one but by reason of what
he hath done either suffers pain from bitterness, or suffers not
through blindness. As therefore you say, Why doth He permit those
things, if they are displeasing? so I say, Why doth He punish them,
if they are pleasing? And thus, as I confess that those things
would not take place at all, unless they were permitted by the
Almighty, so confess thou that what are punished by the Just One
ought not to be done; in order that, by not doing what He punishes,
we may deserve to learn of Him, why He permits to exist what He
punishes. For, as it is written, “solid food is for the
perfect,”
16. But God wanted not power
to make man such as that he should not be able to sin: but He chose
rather to make him such, as that it should lie in his power Cui adjaceret
17. Now therefore let us
return to that, wherefore we have said what we have. We have need
of Continence, and we know it to be a divine gift, that our heart
fall not away unto evil words, to make excuses in sins. But what
sin is there but that we have need of Continence, to restrain it
from being committed, since it is this very Continence which, in
case it have been committed, restrains it from being defended by
wicked pride? Universally therefore we have need of Continence, in
order to turn away from evil. But to do good seems to pertain to
another virtue, that is, to righteousness. Justitiam
18. All we therefore, who
believe in the Living and True God, Whose Nature, being in the
highest sense good and incapable of change, neither doth any evil,
nor suffers any evil, from Whom is every good, even that which
admits of decrease, and Who admits not at all of decrease in His
own Good, Which is Himself, when we hear the Apostle saying,
“Walk in the Spirit, and perform ye not the lusts of the flesh.
For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against
the flesh: For these are opposed one to another, that ye do not
what ye would.” Vitiasset
19. For the flesh lusts after
nothing save through the soul, but the flesh is said to lust
against the spirit, when the soul with fleshly lust wrestles
against the spirit. This whole are we: and the flesh itself, which
on the departure of the soul dies, the lowest part of us is not put
away as what we are to flee from, but is laid aside as what we are
to receive again, and, after having received it, never again to
leave. But “there is sown an animal body, there shall rise again
a spiritual body.” Vitiata vel
vitiosa
20. There are therefore in us
evil desires, by consenting not unto which we live not ill: there
are in us lusts of sins, by obeying not which we perfect not evil,
but by having them do not as yet perfect good. The Apostle shows
both, that neither is good here perfected, where evil is so lusted
after, nor evil here perfected, whereas such lust is not obeyed.
The one forsooth he shows, where he says, “To will is present
with me, but to perfect good is not;” Sæculo Indulgentiam
21. That, therefore, the
flesh lusteth against the Spirit, that there dwelleth not in our
flesh good, that the law in our members is opposed to the law of
the mind, is not a mingling of two natures caused of contrary
principles, but a division of one against itself caused through
desert of sin. We were not so in Adam, before that nature, having
listened to and followed its deceiver, had despised and offended
its Creator: that is, not the former life of man created, but the
latter punishment of man condemned. From which condemnation when
set free by Grace, through Jesus Christ, being free they contend
with their punishment, having received not as yet full salvation,
but already a pledge of salvation: but when not set free, they are
both guilty by reason of sins, and involved in punishments. But
after this life for the guilty
22. I say not, therefore,
with what error, but with what utter madness, do the Manichees
attribute our flesh to some, I know not what, fabled “race of
darkness,” See De Ag. Christ. §
4.
23. The Apostle has made
known to us certain three unions, Christ and the Church, husband
and wife, spirit and flesh. Of these the former consult for the
good of the latter, the latter wait upon the former. All the things
are good, when, in them, certain set over by way of pre-eminence,
certain made subject in a becoming manner, observe the beauty of
order. Husband and wife receive command and pattern how they ought
to be one with another. The command is, “Let wives be subject
unto their own husbands, as unto the Lord; because the husband is
the head of the wife;”
24. If what we have made
mention of out of the Apostolic Epistles seem to you to fall short
of an answer, hear yet others, if ye have ears. What saith the
utterly mad Manichæan of the Flesh of Christ? That it was not
true, but false. What saith the blessed Apostle to this?
“Remember that Christ Jesus rose again from the dead of the seed
of David, according to my Gospel.”
25. But, say they, how is the
flesh by a certain likeness compared unto the Church? What! doth
the Church lust against Christ? whereas the same Apostle said,
“The Church is subject unto Christ.”
26. Thus much will suffice to
have treated on behalf of true Continence against the Manichees
deceitfully continent, lest the fruitful and glorious labor of
Continence, when it restrains and curbs the lowest part of us, that
is, the body, from immoderate and unlawful pleasures, be believed
not healthfully to chasten, but hostilely to persecute. Forsooth
the body is indeed different from the nature of the soul, yet is it
not alien from the nature of man: for the soul is not made up of
body, but yet man is made up of soul and body: and assuredly, whom
God frees, He frees the whole man. Whence our Saviour Himself also
took upon Him the whole man, having deigned to free in us all that
He made. They who hold contrary to this truth, what doth it profit
them to restrain lusts? if, that is, they restrain any. What in
them can be made clean through Continence, whose such Continence is
unclean? and which ought not to be called Continence. Forsooth to
hold
27. There are also they who,
in doing open service to evil demons, contain from pleasures of the
body, that, through their means, they may satisfy unlawful
pleasures, the violence and glow whereof they contain not. Whence
also, (to name one case, and pass over the rest in silence by
reason of the length of the discourse,) certain come not near even
unto their own wives, whilst, as though clean, they essay through
magic arts to gain access unto the wives of others. O marvellous
continence, nay rather, singular wickedness and uncleanness! For,
if it were true continence, the lust of the flesh ought rather to
contain from adultery, than, in order to commit adultery, from
marriage. Forsooth marriage continence is wont to ease this lust of
the flesh, and to check its curb but thus far, that neither in
marriage itself it run riot by immoderate license, but that a
measure be observed, either such as is due to the weakness of the
spouse, unto whom the Apostle enjoins not this, as of command, but
yields it as of permission;
28. Far be it therefore that
we say of continence, of which Scripture saith. “And this very
thing was wisdom, to know whose gift it was,”
29. Thus the spirit of man,
cleaving unto the Spirit of God, lusts against the flesh, that is,
against itself: but for itself, in order that those motions,
whether in the flesh or in the soul, after man, not after God,
which as yet exist through the sickness man hath gotten, may be
restrained by continence, that so health may be gotten; and man,
not living after man, may now be able to say, “But I live, now
not I, but there liveth in me Christ.” Sapite
Interpellatione
30. But, after that he had
made mention of these evils, he added and said, “On account of
which cometh the wrath of God on the sons of unbelief.”
31. “But now do ye also,”
saith he, “put down all;”
32. But whether keenly
contending, that we be not overcome, or overcoming divers times, or
even with unhoped and unlooked for ease, let us give the glory unto
Him Who giveth continence unto us. Let us remember that a certain
just man said, “I shall never be moved:” and that it was showed
him how rashly he had said this, attributing as though to his own
strength, what was given to him from above. But this we have learnt
from his own confession: for soon after he added, “Lord, in Thy
will Thou hast given strength to my beauty; but Thou hast turned
away Thy Face, and I was troubled.” “Peste.”
On the Good of Marriage.
[De Bono Conjugali.]
Translated by Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A., of Exeter College, Oxford.
This treatise, and the following, were written against somewhat that still remained of the heresy of Jovinian. S. Aug. mentions this error in b. ii. c. 23, de Nuptiis et Conc. “Jovinianus,” he says, “who a few years since tried to found a new heresy, said that the Catholics favored the Manichæans, because in opposition to him they preferred holy Virginity to Marriage.” And in his book on Heresies, c. 82. “That heresy took its rise from one Jovinianus, a Monk, in our own time, when we were yet young.” And he adds that it was soon overborne and extinguished, say about A.D. 390, having been condemned first at Rome, then at Milan. There are letters of Pope Siricius on the subject to the Church of Milan, and the answer sent him by the Synod of Milan, at which St. Ambrose presided. Jerome had refuted Jovinian, but was said to have attempted the defense of the excellency of the virgin state, at the expense of condemning marriage. That Augustin might not be subject to any such complaint or calumny, before speaking of the superiority of Virginity, he thought it well to write on the Good of Marriage.
This work we learn to have been finished about the year 401, not only from the order of his Retractations, but also from his books on Genesis after the Letter, begun about that year. For in b. ix. on Genesis, c. 7, where he commends the Good of Marriage, he says: “Now this is threefold, faithfulness, offspring, and the Sacrament. For faithfulness, it is observed, that there be no lying with other man or woman, out of the bond of wedlock: for the offspring, that it be lovingly welcomed, kindly nourished, religiously brought up: for the Sacrament, that marriage be not severed, and that man or woman divorced be not joined to another even for the sake of offspring. This is as it were the rule of Marriages by which rule either fruitfulness is made seemly, or the perverseness of incontinence is brought to order. Upon which since we have sufficiently discoursed in that book, which we lately published, on the Good of Marriage, where we have also distinguished the Widow’s continence and the Virgin’s excellency, according to the worthiness of their degrees, our pen is not to be now longer occupied.” This very work is referred to in Book I. on the Deserts and Remission of Sins, c. 29.—Bened. Ed.
NOTICE.
The Editors are, of course, aware
of the danger there is in reading a treatise like the following in
a spirit of idle curiosity, and they beg any reader who has not
well assured
It seemed further requisite to bring forward a work calculated to remove the imputation so falsely cast on the holy Fathers, that they regarded Matrimony as unholy, and almost agreed with the Manichean view of it, as a defilement and degradation to the Christian. They did, it is true, prefer Virginity to Marriage, but as St. Augustin expressly states, as the “better of two good things,” not as though one were good, and the other evil.
In estimating the work and the writer, the age in which it was written must be kept in view, and what that age required must not be imputed as a fault to him or to his religion. And perhaps what was written for another age may serve the more safely towards our improvement and guidance from the very circumstance that the style and manner of antiquity has become a kind of veil, which takes off somewhat from the strength and vividness of first impressions, and leaves the mind more at liberty to use what is laid before it as it will, than a more modern way of speaking would be likely to do. Let that liberty be used rightly and conscientiously, and the effect of reading will be good.—Eds. of the Oxford Library.
1. Forasmuch as each man is a part of the human
race, and human nature is something social, and hath for a great
and natural good, the power also of friendship; on this account God
willed to create all men out of one, in order that they might be
held in their society not only by likeness of kind, but also by
bond of kindred. Therefore the first natural bond of human society
is man and wife. Nor did God create these each by himself, and join
them together as alien by birth: but He created the one out of the
other, setting a sign also of the power of the union in the side,
whence she was drawn, was formed.
2. Nor is it now necessary
that we enquire, and put forth a definite opinion on that question,
whence could exist the progeny of the first men, whom God had
blessed, saying, “Increase, and be ye multiplied, and fill the
earth;” See De Civ. Dei, b.
xiv.
3. This we now say, that,
according to this condition of being born and dying, which we know,
and in which we have been created, the marriage of male and female
is some good; the compact whereof divine Scripture so commends, as
that neither is it allowed one put away by her husband to marry, so
long as her husband lives: nor is it allowed one put away by his
wife to marry another, unless she who have separated from him be
dead. Therefore, concerning the good of marriage, which the Lord
also confirmed in the Gospel, not only in that He forbade to put
away a wife, Perhaps “charity.”
4. There is this further, that
in that very debt which married persons pay one to another, even if
they demand it with somewhat too great intemperance and
incontinence, yet they owe faith alike one to another. Unto which
faith the Apostle allows so great right, as to call it “power,”
saying, “The woman hath not power of her own body, but the man;
again in like manner also the man hath not power of his own body,
but the woman.”
5. Also the question is wont
to be asked, when a male and female, neither the one the husband,
nor the other the wife, of any other, come together, not for the
begetting of children, but, by reason of incontinence, for the mere
sexual intercourse, there being between them this faith, that
neither he do it with any other woman, nor she with any other man,
whether it is to be called marriage. Nuptiœ Connubium Placuerit
6. Further, in the very case
of the more immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which
the Apostle enjoins not on them by way of command, but allows to
them by way of leave, that they have intercourse also beside the
cause of begetting children; although evil habits impel them to
such intercourse, yet marriage guards them from adultery or
fornication. For neither is that committed because of marriage, but
is pardoned because of marriage. Therefore married persons owe one
another not only the faith of their sexual intercourse itself, for
the begetting of children, which is the first fellowship of the
human kind in this mortal state; but also, in a way, a mutual
service of sustaining Excipiendæ
7. But I marvel, if, as it is
allowed to put away a wife who is an adulteress, so it be allowed,
having put her away, to marry another. For holy Scripture causes a
hard knot in this matter, in that the Apostle says, that, by
commandment of the Lord, the wife ought not to depart from her
husband, but, in case she shall have departed, to remain unmarried,
or to be reconciled to her husband;
8. “Honorable,” therefore,
“is marriage in all, and the bed undefiled.” Meditatio
9. Truly we must consider,
that God gives us some goods, which are to be sought for their own
sake, such as wisdom, health, friendship: but others, which are
necessary for the sake of somewhat, such as learning, meat, drink,
sleep, marriage, sexual intercourse. For of these certain are
necessary for the sake of wisdom, as learning: certain for the sake
of health, as meat and drink and sleep: certain for the sake of
friendship, as marriage or sexual intercourse: for hence subsists
the propagation of the human kind, wherein friendly fellowship is a
great good. These goods, therefore, which are necessary for the
sake of something else, whoso useth not for this purpose, wherefore
they were instituted, sins; in some cases venially, in other cases
damnably. But whoso useth them for this purpose, wherefore they
were given doeth well. Therefore, to whomsoever they are not
necessary, if he use them not, he doeth better. Wherefore, these
goods, when we have need, we do well to wish; but we do better not
to wish than to wish: because ourselves are in a better state, when
we account them not necessary. And on this account it is good to
marry, because it is good to beget children, to be a mother of a
family: but it is better not to marry,
10. But I am
aware of some that murmur: What, say they, if all men should
abstain from all sexual intercourse, whence will the human race
exist? Would that all would this, only in “charity out of a pure
heart, and good conscience, and faith unfeigned;”
11. And yet not to these
themselves is marriage a sin; which, if it were chosen in
comparison of fornication, would be a less sin than fornication,
and yet would be a sin. But now what shall we say against the most
plain speech of the Apostle, saying, “Let her do what she will;
she sinneth not, if she be married;” Veniam
12. For, whereas that natural
use, when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond
the necessity of begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife,
damnable in the case of an harlot; that which is against nature is
execrable when done in the case of an harlot, but more execrable in
the case of a wife. Of so great power is the ordinance of the
Creator, and the order of Creation, that, in matters allowed us to
use, even when the due measure is exceeded, it is far more
tolerable, than, in what are not allowed, either a single, or rare
excess. And, therefore, in a matter allowed, want of moderation, in
a husband or wife, is to be borne with, in order that lust break
not forth into a matter that is not allowed. Hence is it also that
he sins far less, who is ever so unceasing in approaches to his
wife, than he who approaches ever so seldom to commit fornication.
But, when the man shall wish to use the member of the wife not
allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she suffer
it to take place in her own case, than if in the case of another
woman. Therefore the ornament of marriage is chastity of begetting,
and faith of yielding
13. What therefore he says,
“She, that is unmarried, thinketh of the things of the Lord, that
she may be holy both in body and spirit;” we are not to take in
such sense, as to think that a chaste Christian wife is not holy in
body. Forsooth unto all the faithful it was said, “Know ye not
that your bodies are a temple of the Holy Ghost within you, Whom ye
have from God?”
14. And not without just
cause a doubt is raised, whether he said this of all married women,
or of such as so many are, as that nearly all may be thought so to
be. For neither doth that, which he saith of unmarried women,
“She, that is unmarried, thinkest of the things of the Lord, to
be holy both in body and spirit:”
15. For what Christian men of
our time being free from the marriage bond, having power to contain
from all sexual intercourse, seeing it to be now “a time,” as
it is written, “not of embracing, but of abstaining from
embrace,”
16. Therefore if haply,
(which whether it can take place, I know not; and rather think it
cannot take place; but yet, if haply), having taken unto himself a
concubine for a time, a man shall have sought sons only from this
same intercourse; neither thus is that union to be preferred to the
marriage even of those women, who do this, that is matter of
pardon. Veniale
17. That marriage can take
place of persons first ill joined, an honest decree following
after, is manifest. But a marriage once for all entered upon in the
City of our God, where, even from the first union of the two, the
man and the woman, marriage bears a certain sacramental character,
can no way be dissolved but by the death of one of them. For the
bond of marriage remains, although a family, for the sake of which
it was entered upon, do not follow through manifest barrenness; so
that, when now married persons know that they shall not have
children, yet it is not lawful for them to separate even for the
very sake of children, and to join themselves unto others. And if
they shall so do, they commit adultery with those unto whom they
join themselves, but themselves remain husbands and wives. Clearly
with the good will of the wife to take another woman, that from her
may be born sons common to both, by the sexual intercourse and seed
of the one, but by the right and power of the other, was lawful
among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also, I would
not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begetting
children, as there then was, when, even when wives bare children,
it was allowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry
other wives in addition, which now is certainly not lawful. For the
difference that separates times causes the due season to have so
great force unto the justice and doing or not doing any thing, that
now a man does better, if he marry not even one wife, unless he be
unable to contain. But then they married even several without any
blame, even Consulendi
18. For what food is unto the
conservation of the man, this sexual intercourse is unto the
conservation of the race: and both are not without carnal delight:
which yet being modified, and by restraint of temperance reduced
unto the use after nature, cannot be lust. Retract. b. ii. c. xxii. 2. “it was meant that the good and
right use of lust is not lust, for as it is evil will to use good
things, so is it good will to use evil things.” “Vena.”
19. Therefore as many women
as there are now, unto whom it is said, “if they contain not, let
them be married,
20. And on this account, not,
so as it was allowed one man to have even several wives, was it
allowed one female to have several husbands, not even for the sake
of a family, in case it should happen that the woman could bear,
the man could not beget. For by a secret law of nature things that
stand chief love to be singular; but what are subject are set
under, not only one under one, Societas
21. But since out of many
souls there shall be hereafter one City of such as have one soul
and one heart Thus Ambrose, Verellæ, and
ancient Jerome, Ep. ad Ocean. and harshly against Ep. to Ch.
of general custom, speaks strongly this interpretation, and says,
b. i. near the end, that Ruffinus had found fault with him for
this. Ben. Normam Antistes Cato minor, cf. Plutarch. p. 771.
22. If, therefore, even they
who are united in marriage only for the purpose of begetting, for
which purpose marriage was instituted, are not compared with the
Fathers, seeking their very sons in a way far other than do these;
forasmuch as Abraham, being bidden to slay his son, fearless and
devoted, spared not his only son, whom from out of great despair he
had received
23. Nor, in that the Law
orders a man to be purified even after intercourse with a wife,
doth it show it to be sin: unless it be that which is allowed by
way of pardon, which also, being in excess, hinders prayers. But,
as the Law sets Infirmitas
24. Marriage, I say, is a good, and may be, by sound reason, defended against all calumnies. But with the marriage of the holy fathers, I inquire not what marriage, but what continence, is on a level: or rather not marriage with marriage; for it is an equal gift in all cases given to the mortal nature of men; but men who use marriage, forasmuch as I find not, to compare with other men who used marriage in a far other spirit, we must require what continent persons admit of being compared with those married persons. Unless, haply, Abraham could not contain from marriage, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, he who, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven, could fearless sacrifice his only pledge of offspring, for whose sake marriage was dear!
25. Forsooth continence is a
virtue, not of the body, but of the soul. But the virtues of the
soul are sometimes shown in work, sometimes lie hid in habit, as
the virtue of martyrdom shone forth and appeared by enduring
sufferings; but how many are there of the same virtue of mind, unto
whom trial is wanting, whereby what is within, in the sight of God,
may go forth also into the sight of men, and not to men begin to
exist, but only become known? For there was already in Job
patience, which God knew, and to which He bore witness: but it
became known unto men by test of trial: Or “work.”
26. But, in order that it may
be more clearly understood, how there may be virtue in habit,
although it be not in work, I speak of an example, about which no
Catholic Christian can doubt. For that our Lord Jesus Christ in
truth of flesh hungered and thirsted, ate and drank, no one doubts
of such as out of the Gospel are believers. What, then, was there
not in Him the virtue of continence from meat and drink, as great
as in John Baptist? “For John came neither eating nor drinking;
and they said, He hath a devil; the Son of Man came both eating and
drinking; and they said, “Lo, a glutton and wine-bibber, a friend
of publicans and sinners.” S. Jerome agt.
Jovinianus.
27. Therefore at that time,
when the Law also, following upon the days of the Patriarchs,
28. Therefore, if we compare the things themselves, we may no way doubt that the chastity of continence is better than marriage chastity, whilst yet both are good: but when we compare the persons, he is better, who hath a greater good than another. Further, he who hath a greater of the same kind, hath also that which is less; but he, who only hath what is less, assuredly hath not that which is greater. For in sixty, thirty also are contained, not sixty also in thirty. But not to work from out that which he hath, stands in the allotment of duties, not in the want of virtues: forasmuch as neither is he without the good of mercy, who finds not wretched persons such as he may mercifully assist.
29. And there is this further, that men are not rightly compared with men in regard of some one good. For it may come to pass, that one hath not what another hath, but hath another thing, which must be esteemed of more value. The good of obedience is better than of continence. For marriage is in no place condemned by authority of our Scriptures, but disobedience is in no place acquitted. If therefore there be set before us a virgin about to continue so, but yet disobedient, and a married woman who could not continue a virgin, but yet obedient, which shall we call better? shall it be (the one) less praiseworthy, than if she were a virgin, or (the other) worthy of blame, even as she is a virgin? So, if you compare a drunken virgin with a sober married woman, who can doubt to pass the same sentence? Forsooth marriage and virginity are two goods, whereof the one is greater; but sobriety and drunkenness, even as obedience and stubbornness, are, the one good, and the other evil. But it is better to have all goods even in a less degree, than great good with great evil: forasmuch as in the goods of the body also it is better to have the stature of Zacchæus with sound health, than that of Goliah with fever.
30. The right question
plainly is, not whether a virgin every way disobedient is to be
compared to an obedient married woman, but a less obedient to a
more obedient: forasmuch as that also of marriage is chastity, and
therefore a good, but less than virginal. Therefore if the one, by
so much less in the good of obedience, as she is greater in the
good of chastity, be compared with the other, which of them is to
be preferred that person judges, who in the first place comparing
chastity itself and obedience, sees that obedience is in a certain
way the mother of all virtues. And therefore, for this reason,
there may be obedience without virginity, because virginity is of
counsel, not of precept. But I call that obedience, whereby
precepts are complied with. And, therefore, there may be obedience
to precepts without virginity, but not without chastity. For it
pertains unto chastity, not to commit fornication, not to commit
adultery, to be defiled by no unlawful intercourse: and whoso
observe not these, do contrary to the precepts of God, and on this
account are banished from the virtue of obedience. But there may be
vir
31. From this obedience that
Father, who was not without a wife, was prepared to be without an
only son, Retract. b. ii. c. 22. 2. “I do not quite approve this; as one
should rather believe that he believed his son would presently be
restored to him by resurrection, as we read in the Epistle to the
Hebrews.”
32. Therefore the good of
marriage throughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion
of begetting, and faith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto
the People of God, also in the sanctity of the Sacrament, by reason
of which it is unlawful for one who leaves her husband, even when
she has been put away, to be married to another, so long as her
husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearing children: and,
whereas this is the alone cause, wherefore marriage takes place,
not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, follows
not, is the marriage bond loosed, save by the death of the husband
or wife. In like manner as if there take place an ordination of
clergy in order to form a congregation of people, although the
congregation of people follow not, yet there remains in the
ordained persons the Sacrament of Ordination; and if, for any
fault, any be removed from his office, he will not be without the
Sacrament of the Lord once for all set upon him, albeit continuing
unto condemnation. Therefore that marriage takes place for the sake
of begetting children, the Apostle is a witness thus, “I will,”
says he, “that the younger women be married.” And, as though it
were said to him, For what purpose? straightway he added, “to
have children, to be mothers of families.” But unto the faith of
chastity pertains that saying, “The wife hath not power of her
own body, but the husband: likewise also the husband hath not power
of his own body, but the wife.”
33. And, the case being thus, enough and more than enough answer has been made to the heretics, whether they be Manichees, or whosoever other that bring false charges against the Fathers of the Old Testament, on the subject of their having several wives, thinking this a proof whereby to convict them of incontinence: provided, that is, that they perceive, that that is no sin, which is committed neither against nature, in that they used those women not for wantonness, but for the begetting of children: nor against custom, forasmuch as such things were usually done at those times: nor against command, forasmuch as they were forbidden by no law. But such as used women unlawfully, either the divine sentence in those Scriptures convicts them, or the reading sets them forth for us to condemn and shun, not to approve or imitate.
34. But those of ours who
have wives we advise, with all our power, that they dare not to
judge of those holy fathers after their own weakness, comparing, as
the Apostle says, themselves with themselves;
35. Boys also and virgins
dedicating unto God actual chastity we do before all things
admonish, that they be aware that they must guard their life
meanwhile upon earth with so great humility, by how much the more
what they have vowed is heavenly. Forsooth it is written, “How
great soever thou art, by so much humble thyself in all
things.”
Of Holy Virginity.
[De Virginitate.]
Translated by Rev. C. I. Cornish, M.A., of Exeter College, Oxford
Retr. ii. 23. “After I had written ‘on the Good of Marriage,’ it was expected that I should write on Holy Virginity; and I did not delay to do so: and that it is God’s gift, and how great a gift, and with what humility to be guarded, so far as I was able I set forth in one volume. This book begins,” &c.
1. We lately put forth a book “of
the Good of Marriage,” in which also we admonished and admonish
the virgins of Christ, not, on account of that greater gift which
they have received, to despise, in comparison of themselves, the
fathers and mothers of the People of God; and not to think those
men,
2. This we have undertaken in
our present discourse: may Christ help us, the Son of a virgin, and
the Spouse of virgins, born after the flesh of a virgin womb, and
wedded after the Spirit in virgin marriage. Whereas, therefore, the
whole Church itself is a virgin espoused unto one Husband Christ,
3. It is written in the
Gospel, of the mother and brethren of Christ, that is, His kindred
after the flesh, that, when word had been brought to Him, and they
were standing without, because they could not come to Him by reason
of the crowd, He made answer, “Who is My mother? or who are My
brethren? and stretching forth His Hand over His disciples, He
saith, These are My brethren: and whosoever shall have done the
will of My Father, that man is to Me brother, and mother, and
sister.”
4. Her virginity also itself
was on this account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not
that Christ being conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a
husband who would violate it, Himself to preserve it; but, before
He was conceived, chose it, already dedicated to God, as that from
which to be born. This is shown by the words which Mary spake in
answer to the Angel announcing to her her conception; “How,”
saith she, “shall this be, seeing I know not a man?”
5. There is, therefore, no
reason why the virgins of God be sad, because themselves also
cannot, keeping their virginity, be mothers of the flesh. For Him
alone could virginity give birth to with fitting propriety, Who in
His Birth could have no peer. However, That Birth of the Holy
Virgin is the ornament of all holy virgins; and themselves together
with Mary are mothers of Christ, if they do the will of His Father.
For Mary also is on this account the Mother of Christ in a way more
full of praise and blessing, according to His sentence mentioned
above. “Whosoever doeth the will of my Father Who is in heaven,
that one is to Me brother, and sister, and mother.” All these
degrees of nearness of kin to Himself, He shows forth in a
spiritual manner, in the People whom He hath redeemed: as brothers
and sisters He hath holy men and holy women, forasmuch as they all
are co-heirs in the heavenly inheritance. His mother is the whole
Church, because she herself assuredly gives birth to His members,
that is, His faithful ones. Also His mother is every pious soul,
doing the will of His Father with most fruitful charity, in them of
whom it travaileth, until Himself
6. And on this account, that
one female, not only in the Spirit, but also in the flesh, is both
a mother and a virgin. And a mother indeed in the Spirit, not of
our Head, Which is the Saviour Himself, of Whom rather she was born
after the Spirit: forasmuch as all, who
Imbuti
7. I have said this, lest
haply married fruitfulness dare to vie with virgin chastity, and to
set forth Mary herself, and to say unto the virgins of God, She had
in her flesh two things worthy of honor, virginity and
fruitfulness; inasmuch as she both continued a virgin, and bore:
this happiness, since we could not both have the whole, we have
divided, that ye be virgins, we be mothers: for what is wanting to
you in children, let your virginity, that hath been preserved, be a
consolation: for us, let the gain of children make up for our lost
virginity. This speech of faithful women married, unto holy
virgins, would any how be to be endured, if they gave birth to
Christians in the flesh; that in this alone, save virginity, the
fruitfulness of Mary in the flesh should be more excellent, that
she gave birth to the Head Himself of these members, but they to
the members of That Head: but now, although by this speech there
vie such as on this one account wed and have intercourse with
husbands, that they may have sons, and have no other thought of
their sons, than to gain them for Christ, and do this so soon as
they can: yet are not Christians born of their flesh, but made so
afterwards: the Church giving them birth, through this, that in a
spiritual manner she is the mother of the members of Christ, of
Whom also after a spiritual manner she is the virgin. And unto this
holy birth mothers also who have not borne in the flesh Christians,
are workers together, that they may become what they know that they
could not give birth to in the flesh: yet are they workers together
through this, wherein themselves also are virgins and mothers It has been proposed to omit
“que,” making the sense, “wherein the virgins
themselves also are mothers of Christ,” but the sense is good as
it stands.
8. Therefore no fruitfulness of the flesh can be compared to holy virginity even of the flesh. For neither is itself also honored because it is virginity, but because it hath been dedicated to God, and, although it be kept in the flesh, yet is it kept by religion and devotion of the Spirit. And by this means even virginity of body is spiritual, which continence of piety vows and keeps. For, even as no one makes an immodest use of the body, unless the sin have been before conceived in the spirit, so no one keeps modesty in the body, unless chastity have been before implanted in the spirit. But, further, if modesty of married life, although it be guarded in the flesh, is yet attributed to the soul, not to the flesh, under the rule and guidance of which, the flesh itself hath no intercourse with any beside its own proper estate of marriage; how much more, and with how much greater honor, are we to reckon among the goods of the soul that continence, whereby the virgin purity of the flesh is vowed, consecrated, and kept, for the Creator Himself of the soul and flesh.
9. Wherefore neither are we to
believe that their fruitfulness of the flesh, who at this time seek
in marriage nothing else save children, to make over unto Christ,
can be set against the loss of virginity. Forsooth, in former
times, unto Christ about to come after the flesh, the race itself
of the flesh was needful, in a certain large and prophetic nation:
but now, when from out every race of men, and from out all nations,
members of Christ may be gathered unto the People of God, and City
of the kingdom of heaven, whoso can receive sacred virginity, let
him receive it; and let her only, who contains not, be married. Muneri
10. For not even herein ought such as are married to compare themselves with the deserts of the continent, in that of them virgins are born: for this is not a good of marriage, but of nature: which was so ordered of God, as that of every sexual intercourse whatever of the two sexes of human kind, whether in due order and honest, or base and unlawful, there is born no female save a virgin, yet is none born a sacred virgin: so it is brought to pass that a virgin is born even of fornication, but a sacred virgin not even of marriage.
11. Nor do we ourselves set
forth this in virgins, that they are virgins; but that they are
virgins dedicated unto God by pious continence. For it is not at a
venture that I may say, a married woman seems to me happier than a
virgin about to be married: for the one hath what the other as yet
desires, especially if she be not yet even the betrothed of any
one. The one studies to please one, unto whom she hath been given;
the other many, in doubt unto whom she is to be given: by this one
thing she guards modesty of thought from the crowd, that she is
seeking, not an adulterer, but a husband, in the crowd. Therefore
that virgin is with good reason set before a married woman, who
neither sets herself forth for the multitude to love, whereas she
seeks from out the multitude the love of one; nor, having now found
him, orders herself Componit
12. Let marriages possess
their own good, not that they beget sons, but that honestly, that
lawfully, that modestly, that in a spirit of fellowship they beget
them, and educate them, after they have been begotten, with
cooperation, with wholesome teaching, and earnest purpose: in that
they keep the faith of the couch one with another; in that they
violate not the sacrament of wedlock. All these, however, are
offices of human duty: but virginal chastity and freedom through
pious continence from all sexual intercourse is the portion of
Angels, and a practice, Meditatio
13. Whence they are
marvellously void of wisdom, who think that the good of this
continence is not necessary for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,
but for the sake of the present world: in that, forsooth, married
persons are strained different ways by earthly cares more and more
straitened, from which trouble virgins and continent persons are
free: as though on this account only it were better not to be
married, that the straits of this present time may be escaped, not
that it is of any profit unto a future life. And, that they may not
seem to have put forth this vain opinion from out the vanity of
their own heart, they take the Apostle to witness, where he saith,
“But concerning virgins I have not command of the Lord, but I
give counsel, as having obtained mercy from God to be faithful.
Therefore I think that this is good on account of the present
necessity, because it is good for a man so to be.” Dispensatio
14. It is, therefore, the
present necessity that we are to avoid, but yet such as is a
hindrance to somewhat of the good things to come; by which
necessity the married life is forced to have thought of the things
of the world, how to please, the husband the wife or the wife the
husband. Not that these separate from the kingdom of God, as there
are sins, which are restrained by command, not by counsel, on this
account, because it is matter of condemnation not to obey the Lord
when He commands: but that, which, within the kingdom of God
itself, might be more largely possessed, if there were larger
thoughts how they were to please God, will assuredly be less, when
as this very thing is less thought of by necessity of marriage.
Therefore he says, “Concerning virgins I have not command of the
Lord.”
15. After that the same
Apostle adds, and says, “Thou art bound to a wife, seek not
loosening: thou art loosed from a wife, seek not a wife.”
16. Yet he added, “But such
shall have tribulation of the flesh, but I spare you:”
17. Only by this, which I have briefly set down, the reader ought to be set on his guard against those, who, in this that is written, “but such shall have tribulation of the flesh but I spare you,” falsely charge marriage, as indirectly condemned by this sentence; as though he were unwilling to utter the condemnation itself, when he saith, “But I spare you;” so that, forsooth, when he spares them, he spared not his own soul, as saying falsely, “And, if thou shalt have taken a wife, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin shall have been married, she sinneth not.” And this, whoso believe or would have believed concerning holy Scripture, they, as it were prepare for themselves a way for liberty of lying, or for defense of their own perverse opinion, in whatever case they hold other sentiments than what sound doctrine demands. For if there shall be alleged any plain statement from the divine books, whereby to refute their errors, this they have at hand as a shield, whereby defending themselves as it were against the truth, they lay themselves bare to be wounded by the devil: to say that the author of the book did not speak the truth in this instance, at one time in order to spare the weak, at another in order to alarm despisers: just as a case shall come to hand, wherein to defend their own perverse opinion: and thus, whilst they had rather defend than amend their own opinions, they essay to break the authority of holy Scripture, whereby alone all proud and hard necks are broken.
18. Wherefore I admonish both
men and women who follow after perpetual continence and holy
virginity, that they so set their own good before marriage, as that
they judge not marriage an evil: and that they understand that it
was in no way of deceit, but of plain truth that it was said by the
Apostle, “Whoso gives in marriage does well; and whoso gives not
in marriage, does better; and, if thou shalt have taken a wife,
thou hast not sinned; and, if a virgin shall have been married, she
sinneth not;”
19. But lest
any should think that of two works, the good and the better, the
rewards will be equal, on this account it was necessary to treat
against those, who have so interpreted that saying of the Apostle,
“But I think that this is good by reason of the present
necessity,”
20. Far be it, therefore,
that the Apostle so said, unto such as are married or are about to
marry, “But I spare you,” as if he were unwilling to say what
punishment is due to the married in another life. Far be it that
she, whom Daniel set free from temporal judgment, be cast by Paul
into hell! Far be it that her husband’s bed be unto her
punishment before the judgment seat of Christ, keeping faith to
which she chose, under false charge of adultery, to meet either
danger, or death! To what effect that speech, “It is better for
me to fall into your hands, than to sin in the sight of God:” Hist. of
21. Here some one will say,
What has this to do with holy virginity, or perpetual continence,
the setting forth of which was undertaken in this discourse? To
whom I make answer in the first place, what I mentioned above, that
the glory of that greater good is greater from the fact that, in
order to obtain it, the good of married life is surmounted, not the
sin of marriage shunned. Otherwise it would be enough for perpetual
continence, not to be specially praised, but only not to be blamed:
if it were maintained on this account, because it was a crime to
wed. In the next place, because it is not by human judgment, but by
authority of Divine Scripture, that men must be exhorted unto so
excellent a gift, we must plead not in a common-place manner, or
merely by the way, that divine Scripture itself seem not to any one
in any matter to have lied. For they discourage rather than exhort
holy virgins, who compel them to continue so by passing sentence on
marriage. For whence can they feel sure that that is true, which is
written, “And he, who gives her not in marriage, does
better:”
22. And now by plainest
witnesses of divine Scriptures, such as according to the small
measure of our memory we shall be able to remember, let it more
clearly appear, that, not on account of the present life of this
world, but on account of that future life which is promised in the
kingdom of heaven, we are to choose perpetual continence. But who
but must observe this in that which the same Apostle says a little
after, “Whoso is without a wife has thought of the things of the
Lord, how to please the Lord: but whoso is joined in marriage has
thought of the things of the world, how to please his wife. And a
woman unmarried and a virgin is divided; cf. de Bon.
Conj. 10.
23. Lastly, let us hear the
Lord Himself delivering most plain judgment on this matter. For,
upon His speaking after a divine and fearful manner concerning
husband and wife not separating, save on account of fornication,
His disciples said to Him, “If the case be such with a wife, it
is not good to marry.”
24. But concerning what
eunuchs speaketh
25. Nor indeed hath the Holy
Spirit failed to speak what should be of open and unshaken avail
against these men, most shamelessly and madly obstinate, and should
repel their assault, as of wild beasts, from His sheep-fold, by
defences that may not be stormed. For, after He had said concerning
eunuchs, “I will give unto them in My house and in My wall a
named place, much better than of sons and daughters;”
26. What then, say they, is
the meaning of that penny, which is given in payment to all alike
when the work of the vineyard is ended? whether it be to those who
have labored from the first hour, or to those who have labored one
hour?
27. Therefore go on, Saints
of God, boys and girls, males and females, unmarried men, and
women; go on and persevere unto the end. Praise more sweetly the
Lord, Whom ye think on more richly: hope more happily in Him, Whom
ye serve more instantly: love more ardently Him, whom ye please
more attentively. With loins girded, and lamps burning, wait for
the Lord, when He cometh from the marriage. “Eructuabat.”
cf. Merito
28. Therefore let the rest of
the faithful, who have lost virginity, follow the Lamb, not
whithersoever He shall have gone, but so far as ever they shall
have been able. But they are able every where, save when He walks
in the grace of virginity. “Blessed are the poor in spirit;” Forma
29. But, lo, That Lamb goeth
by a Virgin road, how shall they go after Him, who have lost what
there is no way for them to recover? Do ye, therefore, do ye go
after Him, His virgins; do ye thither also go after Him, in that on
this one account whithersoever He shall have gone, ye follow Him:
for unto any other gift whatsoever of holiness, whereby to follow
Him, we can exhort married persons, save this which they have lost
beyond power of recovery. Do ye, therefore, follow Him, by holding
with perseverance what ye have vowed with ardor. Go when ye can,
that the good of virginity perish not from you, unto which ye can
do nothing, in order that it may return. The rest of the multitude
of the faithful will see you, which cannot unto this follow the
Lamb; it will see you, it will not envy you: and by rejoicing
together with you, what it hath not in itself, it will have in you.
For that new song also, which is your own, it will not be able to
utter; but it will not be unable to hear, and to be delighted with
your so excellent good: but ye, who shall both utter and hear, in
that what ye shall say, this ye shall hear of yourselves, will
exult with greater happiness, and reign with greater joy. But they
will have no sorrow on account of your greater joy, to whom this
shall be wanting. Forsooth That Lamb, Whom ye shall follow
whithersoever He shall have gone, will not desert those who cannot
follow Him, where you can. Almighty is the Lamb, of Whom we speak.
He both will go before you, and will not depart from them, when God
shall be all in all.
“Præsumite.”
30. Ye also who have not yet
made this vow, who are able to receive it, receive it.
“Supererogaveritis.”
31. Whence the greatness of
this service, Muneris
32. Wherefore a few
witnesses, which the Lord deigns to suggest to my mind, I proceed
to mention, from out the teaching of Christ concerning humility,
such as perhaps may be enough for my purpose. His discourse, the
first which He delivered to His disciples at greater length, began
from this. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the
Kingdom of Heaven.” Promeruit
33. Whereas, then, all
Christians have to guard humility, forasmuch as it is from Christ
that they are called Christians, Whose Gospel no one considers with
care, but that he discovers Him to be a Teacher of humility;
specially is it becoming that they be followers and keepers of this
virtue, who excel the rest of men in any great good, in order that
they may have a great care of that, which I set down in the
beginning, “By how much thou art great, by so much humble thyself
in all things, and thou shall find grace before God.”
34. Paul the Apostle censures
evil unmarried women, curious and prating, and says that this fault
comes of idleness. “But at the same time,” saith he, “being
idle they learn to go about to houses: but not only idle, but
curious also and prating, speaking what they ought not.”
35. Certainly we are to
contemplate in Christ Himself, the chief instruction and pattern of
virginal purity. What further precept then concerning humility
shall I give to the continent, than what He saith to all, “Learn
of Me, in that I am meek and lowly of heart?”
36. Let them hear Thee, and
let them come to Thee, and let them learn of Thee to be meek and
lowly, who seek Thy Mercy and Truth, by living unto Thee, unto
Thee, not unto themselves. Let him hear this, laboring and laden,
who is weighed down by his burthen, so as not to dare to lift up
his eyes to heaven, that sinner beating his breast, and drawing
near from afar.
37. But regard the troops of
virgins, holy boys and girls: this kind hath been trained up in Thy
Church: there for Thee it hath been budding from its mother’s
breasts; for Thy Name it hath loosed its tongue to speak, Thy Name,
as through the milk of its infancy, it hath had poured in and hath
sucked, no one of this number can say, “I, who before was a
blasphemer, and persecutor, and injurious, but I obtained mercy, in
that I did in being ignorant, in unbelief.”
38. I send
thee not, soul that art religiously chaste, that hast not given the
reins to fleshly appetite even so far as to allowed marriage, that
hast not indulged thy body about to depart even to the begetting
one to succeed thee, that hast sustained aloft thy earthly members,
afloat to accustom them to heaven; I send thee not, in order that
thou mayest learn humility, unto publicans and sinners, who yet
enter into the kingdom of heaven before the proud: I send thee not
to these: for they, who have been set free from the gulf of
uncleanness, are unworthy that undefiled virginity be sent to them
to take pattern from. I send thee unto the King of Heaven, unto
Him, by Whom men were created, and Who was created among men for
the sake of men; unto Him, Who is fair of beauty above the sons of
men,
39. I fear, I say, greatly
for thee, lest, when thou boastest that thou wilt follow the Lamb
wheresoever He shall have gone, thou be unable by reason of
swelling pride to follow Him through strait ways. It is good for
thee, O virgin soul, that thus, as thou art a virgin, thus
altogether keeping in thy heart that thou hast been born again,
keeping in thy flesh that thou hast been born, thou yet conceive of
the fear of the Lord, and give birth to the spirit of salvation.
40. And what members of the
holy body, which is the Church, ought more to take care, that upon
them the holy Spirit may rest, than such as profess virginal
holiness? But how doth He rest, where He findeth not His own place?
what else than an humbled heart, to fill, not to leap back from; to
raise up, not to weigh down? whereas it hath been most plainly
said, “On whom shall rest My Spirit? On him that is humble and
quiet, and trembles at My words.”
41. Or are we indeed to
believe that it is for any other reason, that God suffers to be
mixed up with the number of your profession, many, both men and
women, about to fall, than that by the fall of these your fear may
be increased, whereby to repress pride; which God so hates, as that
against this one thing The Highest humbled Himself? Unless haply,
in truth, thou shalt therefore fear less, and be more puffed up, so
as to love little Him, Who hath loved thee so much, as to give up
Himself for thee,
42. Wherefore let this be the
first thought for the putting on of humility, that God’s virgin
think not that it is of herself that she is such, and not rather
that this best “gift cometh down from above from the Father of
Lights, with Whom is no change nor shadow of motion.”
43. Concerning continence
also itself hath it not been most openly said, “And when I knew
that no one can be continent unless God give it, this also itself
was a part of wisdom, to know whose gift it was?”
44. Next let not man, now
that he knoweth that by the grace of God he is what he is, fall
into another snare of pride, so as by lifting up himself for the
very grace of God to despise the rest. By which fault that other
Pharisee both gave thanks unto God for the goods which he had, and
yet vaunted himself above the Publican confessing his sins. What
therefore should a virgin do, what should she think, that she vaunt
not herself above those, men or women, who have not this so great
gift? For she ought not to feign humility,
45. Wherefore what shall we
say? is there any thought which a virgin of God may truly have, by
reason of which she dare not to set herself before a faithful
woman, not only a widow, but even married? I say not a reprobate
virgin; for who knows not that an obedient woman is to be set
before a disobedient virgin? But where both are obedient unto the
commands of God, shall she so tremble to prefer holy virginity even
to chaste marriage, and continence to wedded life, the fruit an
hundred-fold to go before the thirty-fold? Nay, let her not doubt
to prefer this thing to that thing; yet let not this or that
virgin, obeying and fearing God, dare to set herself before this or
that woman, obeying and fearing God; otherwise she will not be
humble, and “God resisteth the proud!” A married woman, who was beheaded
in the persecution under Diocletian and Maximian at Thebeste in
Africa. See Ser. 354, ad Continentes, n. 5. where he says,
“bethink you that in the time of persecution not only Agnes the
Virgin was crowned, but likewise Crispina, the wife; and perchance,
as there is no doubt, some of the continent then failed, and many
of the wedded fought and conquered.” Ben. ed.
46. But this is so great,
that certain understand it to be the fruit an hundred-fold. St. Jerome mentions this
interpretation; but b. 1. agt. Jovinian, and on Ser. 159, he says, “Martyrs are
in such place rehearsed at the Altar of God as that prayer is not
made for them; but for the other deceased that are mentioned prayer
is made.” Ben. ed.
47. But, as I had begun to
say, whether the fruit an hundred-fold be virginity dedicated to
God, or whether we are to understand that interval of fruitfulness
in some other way, either such as we have made mention of, or such
as we have not made mention of; yet no one, as I suppose, will have
dared to prefer virginity to martyrdom, and no one will have
doubted that this latter gift is hidden, if trial to test it be
wanting. A virgin, therefore, hath a subject for thought, such as
may be of profit to her for the keeping of humility, that she
violate not that charity, which is above all gifts, without which
assuredly whatever other gifts she shall have had, whether few or
many, whether great or small, she is nothing. She hath, I say, a
subject for thought, that she be not puffed up, that she rival not;
forsooth that she so make profession that the virginal good is much
greater and better than the married good, as that yet she know not
whether this or that married woman be not already able to suffer
for Christ, but herself as yet unable, and she herein spared, that
her weakness is not put to the question by trial. “For God,”
saith the Apostle, “is faithful, Who will not suffer you to be
tried above what ye are able but will make with the trial a way
out, that ye may be able to bear it.”
48. What now shall I say
concerning the very carefulness and watchfulness against sin?
“Who shall boast that he hath a chaste heart? or who shall boast
that he is clean from sin?”
49. Wherefore also the
virgins of God without blame indeed, “follow the Lamb
whithersoever He shall have gone,” both the cleansing of sins
being perfected, and virginity being kept, which, were it lost,
could not return: but, because that same Apocalypse itself, wherein
such unto one such were revealed, in this also praises them, that
“in their mouth there was not found a lie:”
50. But, again, lest by
occasion of this sentence, any one should sin with deadly security,
and should allow himself to be carried away, as though his sins
were soon by easy confession to be blotted out, he straightway
added, “My little children, these things have I written unto you,
that ye sin not; and, if one shall have sinned, we have an Advocate
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and Himself is a
propitiation of our sins.”
51. But I contend not with
those, who assert that a man can in this life live without any sin:
I contend not, I gainsay not. For perhaps we take measure of the
great from out our own misery, and, comparing ourselves with
ourselves, understand not.
52. Here some one will say,
This is now not to write of virginity, but of humility. As though
truly it were any kind of virginity, and not that which is after
God, which we had undertaken to set forth. And this good, by how
much I see it to be great, by so much I fear for it, lest it be
lost, the thief pride. Therefore there is none that guardeth the
virginal good, save God Himself Who gave it: and God is Charity.
53. Wherefore this do ye,
virgins of God, this do ye: follow ye the Lamb, whithersoever He
shall have gone. But first come unto Him, Whom ye are to follow,
and learn, in that He is meek and lowly of heart. Come ye in lowly
wise unto the Lowly, if ye love: and depart not from Him, lest ye
fall. For whoso fears to depart from Him asks and says, “Let
there not come to me foot of pride.”
54. Lo, already ye are such,
as that in the rest of your conduct also ye correspond with the
virginity which ye have professed and kept. Lo, already not only do
ye abstain from murders, devilish sacrifices and abominations,
thefts, rapines, frauds, perjuries, drunkennesses, and all luxury
and avarice, hatreds, emulations, impieties, cruelties; but even
those things, which either are, or are thought, lighter, are not
found nor arise among you: not bold face, not wandering eyes, not
unbridled tongue, not petulant laugh, not scurrilous jest, not
unbecoming mien, not swelling or loose gait; already ye render not
evil for evil, nor curse for curse;
55. If, therefore, ye despise marriages of sons of men, from which to beget sons of men, love ye with your whole heart Him, Who is fair of form above the sons of men; ye have leisure; your heart is free from marriage bonds. Gaze on the Beauty of your Lover: think of Him equal to the Father, made subject also to His Mother: ruling even in the heavens, and serving upon the earth: creating all things, created among all things. That very thing, which in Him the proud mock at, gaze on, how fair it is: with inward eyes gaze on the wounds of Him hanging, the scars of Him rising again, the blood of Him dying, the price of him that believes, the gain of Him that redeems. Consider of how great value these are, weigh them in the scales of Charity; and whatever of love ye had to expend upon your marriages, pay back to Him.
56. It is well that He seeks
your beauty within, where He hath given unto you power to become
daughters of God:
57. Thus, after our small
measure, we have spoken enough both of sanctity, whereby ye are
properly called “sanctimoniales,” and of humility, whereby
whatever great name ye bear is kept. But more worthily let those
Three Children, unto whom He, Whom they loved with full glow of
heart, afforded refresh Song of Three Children
65.
On the Good of Widowhood.
[De Bono Viduitatis.]
Translated by Rev. C. L. Cornish, M.A., of Exeter College, Oxford.
This work is not mentioned in
the Retractations, probably because it is a letter, and as
such it is reckoned by Possidius, cap. 7. It is also marked as St.
Augustin’s by its references to his other works, De Bono
Conjugali, etc. cap. 15. Ep. to Proba, cap. 23. The date is
marked by the recent consecration of Demetrias, which was in 413.
The admonition for which he is thanked by Juliana,
An objection has been raised from its disagreement with the fourth Council of Carthage, an. 398. can. 104, which excommunicates widows who marry again after consecration, and pronounces them guilty of adultery, whereas in cap. 10 and 11, the opinion that such marriages are no marriages, and that they ought to return to continence, is refuted. The two, however, are not wholly irreconcileable, as there may be a guilt similar to that of adultery incurred, and it may be visited with a censure in the form of excommunication, and yet the marriage may remain valid. The 16th Canon of Chalcedon imposes such a penalty, with power to the Bishop to relax it.—Abridged from the Benedictine Edition.
Augustin the Bishop, servant of Christ, and of the servants of Christ, unto the religious handmaiden of God, Juliana, in the Lord of lords health.
Not any longer to be in debt of my promise to your request and love in Christ, I have seized the occasion as I could, amid other my very pressing engagements, to write to you somewhat concerning the profession of holy widowhood, forasmuch as, when I was present, you laded me with entreaty, and, when I had not been able to deny you this, you often by letters demanded my promise. And in this work of ours, when you shall find in reading that some things pertain not at all unto your own person, or unto the person of you, who are living together in Christ, nor are strictly necessary to give counsel unto your life, it will be your duty not on this account to judge them superfluous. Forsooth this letter, although it be addressed to you, was not to be written for you alone; but certainly it was a matter for us not to neglect, that it should profit others also through your means. Whatsoever, therefore, you shall find here, such as either hath been at no time necessary for you, or is not so now, and which yet you shall perceive to be necessary for others, grieve not either to possess or to lend to read; that your charity also may be the profit of others.
2. Whereas, therefore, in
every question, which relates to life and conduct, not only
teaching, but exhortation also is necessary; So V.
3. Therefore (thus) saith the
Apostle, the teacher of the Gentiles, the vessel of election,
“But I say unto the unmarried and the widows, that it is good for
them, if they shall have so continued, even as I also.” τοῖς,
ταῖς: ἡ γυνὴ καὶ
ἡ παρθένος
4. Lo, there is your good
compared to that good, which the Apostle calls his own, if faith be
present: yea, rather, because faith is present. Short is this
teaching, yet not on this account to be despised, because it is
short; but on this account to be retained the more easily and the
more dearly, in that in shortness it is not cheap. For it is not
every kind of good soever, which the Apostle would here set forth,
which he hath unambiguously placed above the faith of married
women. But how great good the faith of married women, that is, of
Christian and religious women joined in marriage, hath, may be
understood from this, that, when he was giving charge for the
avoiding of fornication, wherein assuredly he was addressing
married persons also, he saith, “Know ye not that your bodies are
the members of Christ?”
5. Wherefore also when he was
advising married persons not to defraud one another of the due of
carnal intercourse; lest, by this means, the one of them, (the due
of marriage being denied to him,) being through his own
incontinence tempted of Satan, should fall away into fornication,
he saith, “But this I say of leave, not of command; but I would
that all men were as I myself; but each one hath his own proper
gift from God; but one in this way, and another in that.”
6. Wherefore this in the first
place you ought to know, that by the good, which you have chosen,
second marriages are not condemned, but are set in lower honor.
For, even as the good of holy virginity, which thy daughter hath
chosen, doth not condemn thy one marriage; so neither doth thy
widowhood the second marriage of any. For hence, specially, the
heresies of the Cataphryges and of the Novatians swelled, which
Tertullian also, inflated with cheeks full of sound not of wisdom,
whilst with railing tooth he attacks “Concidit.” “Concedit.”
7. But whereas the Apostle,
when commending the fruit of unmarried men and women, in that they
have thought of the things of the Lord, how to please God, added
and saith, “But this I say for your profit, not to cast a snare
on you,”
8. Whence, also, what the
Apostle Paul said of the unmarried woman, “that she may be holy
both in body and spirit;”
9. Learn, therefore, that thy
good, yea, rather, remember what thou hast learned, that thy good
is more praised, because there is another good than which this is
better, than if this could not on any other condition be a good,
unless that were an evil, or altogether were not. The eyes have
great honor in the body, but they would have less, if they were
alone, and there were not other members of less honor. In heaven
itself the sun by its light surpasses, not chides, the moon; and
star from star differs in glory,
10. Nor, because I called
Ruth blessed, Anna more blessed, in that the former married twice,
the latter, being soon widowed of her one husband, so lived long,
do you straightway also think that you are better than Ruth.
Forsooth different in the times of the Prophets was the
dispensation of holy females, whom obedience, not lust, forced to
marry, for the propagation of the people of God,
11. But thou who both hast
sons, and livest in that end of the world, wherein now is the time
not of casting stones, but of gathering; not of embracing, but of
abstaining from embracing;
12. But since, as the Lord
saith, “Not all receive this word;” Muneris
13. Wherefore they who say
that the marriages of such are not marriages, but rather
adulteries, seem not to me to consider with sufficient acuteness
and care what they say; forsooth they, are misled by a semblance of
truth. For, whereas they, who of Christian sanctity marry not, are
said to choose the marriage of Christ, hence certain argue saying,
If she, who during the life of her husband is married to another,
be an adulteress, even as the Lord Himself hath laid down in the
Gospel; therefore, during the life of Christ, over Whom death hath
no more dominion,
14. Wherefore I cannot indeed say, of females who have fallen away from a better purpose, in case they shall have married, that they are adulteries, not marriages; but I plainly would not hesitate to say, that departures and fallings away from a holier chastity, which is vowed unto the Lord, are worse than adulteries. For if, what may no way be doubted, it pertains unto an offense against Christ, when a member of Him keepeth not faith to her husband; how much graver offense is it against Him, when unto Himself faith is not kept, in a matter which He requires when offered, Who had not required that it should be offered. For when each fails to render that which, not by force of command, but by advice of counsel, he vowed, by so much the more doth he increase the unrighteousness of the wrong done to his vow, by how much the less necessity he had to vow. These matters I for this reason treat of, that you may not think either that second marriages are criminal, or that any marriages whatsoever, being marriages, are an evil. Therefore let this be your mind, not that you condemn them, but that you despise them. Therefore the good of widowed chastity is becoming after a brighter fashion, in that in order to make vow and profession of it, females may despise what is both pleasing and lawful. But after profession of vow made they must continue to rein in, and overcome, what is pleasing, because it is no longer lawful.
15. Men are wont to move a
question concerning a third or fourth marriage, and even more
numerous marriages than this. On which to make answer strictly, I
dare neither to condemn any marriage, nor to take from these the
shame of their great number. But, lest the brevity of this my
answer may chance to displease any, I am prepared to listen to my
reprover Al. “or any
number.” Septiviram
16. For that also is no
foolish question which is wont to be proposed, that whoso can may
say, which widow is to be preferred in desert; whether one who hath
had one husband, who, after having lived a considerable time with
her husband, being left a widow with sons born to her and alive,
hath made profession of continence; or she who as a young woman
having lost two husbands within two years, having no children left
alive to console her, hath vowed to God continence, and in it hath
grown old with most enduring sanctity. Herein let them exercise
themselves, if they can, by discussing, and by showing some proof
to us, who weigh the merits of widows by number of husbands, not by
the strength itself of continence. For, if they shall have said,
that she who hath had one husband is to be preferred to her who
hath had two; unless they shall have alleged some special reason or
authority, they will assuredly be found to set before excellence of
soul, not greater excellence of soul, but good fortune of the
flesh. Forsooth it pertained unto good fortune of the flesh, both
to live a long time with her husband, and to conceive sons. But, if
they prefer her not on this account, that she had sons; at any rate
the very fact that she lived a long time with her husband, what
else was it than good fortune of the flesh? Further, the desert of
Anna herself is herein chiefly commended, in that, after she had so
soon buried her husband, through her protracted life she long
contended with the flesh, and overcame. For so it is written,
“And there was Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of
the tribe of Aser; she was far advanced in many days; and had lived
with her husband seven years from her virginity; and she was a
widow even unto eighty-four years, who used not to depart from the
Temple, by fastings and prayers serving day and night.”
17. Let us therefore set
before our eyes three widows, each having one of the things, the
whole of which were in her: let us suppose one who had had one
husband, in whose case is wanting both so great length of
widowhood, in that she hath lived long with her husband, and so
great zeal of piety, in that she doth not so serve with fasts and
prayers: a second, who after the very short life of her former
husband, had quickly lost a second also, and is now long time a
widow, but yet herself also doth not so set herself to the most
religious service of fasts and prayers: a third, who not only hath
had two husbands, but also hath lived long with each of them
singly, or with one of them, and being left a
18. No one indeed of these
six widows could come up to your standard. For you, in case that
you shall have maintained this vow even unto old age, mayest have
all the three things wherein the desert of Anna excelled. For both
thou hast had one husband, and he lived not long with thee in the
flesh; and, by this means, in case that thou shall show forth
obedience to the words of the Apostle, saying, “But she who is a
widow indeed and desolate, hath hoped in the Lord, and persevereth
in prayers night and day,” Potestatis Demetrias, whose grandmother was
Proba Faltonia, her mother, Juliana. See S. Aug.
19. These discussions,
therefore, concerning the different deserts of married women, and
of different widows, I would not in this work enter upon, if, what
I am writing unto you, I were writing only for you. But, since
there are in this kind of discourse certain very difficult
questions, it was my wish to say something more than what properly
relates to you, by reason of certain, who seem not to themselves
learned, unless they essay, not by passing judgment to discuss, but
by rending to cut in pieces the labors of others: in the next
place, that you yourself also may not only keep what you have
vowed, and make advance in that good; but also know more carefully
and more surely, that this same good of yours is not distinguished
from the evil of marriage, but is set before the good of marriage.
For let not such, as condemn the marriage of widowed females,
although they exercise their continence in abstaining from many
things, which you make use of, on this account lead you astray, to
think what they think, although you cannot do what they do. For no
one would be a madman, although he see that the strength of a
madman is greater than of men in their sound senses. Chiefly,
therefore, let sound doctrine both adorn and guard goodness of
purpose. Forsooth it is from this cause that catholic females, even
after that they have been married more than once, are by just
judgment preferred, not only to the widows who have had one
husband, but also to the virgins of heretics. There are indeed on
these three matters, of marriage, widowhood, and virginity, many
winding recesses of questions, many perplexities; and in order by
discussion to enter deeply into and solve these, there is required
both greater care, and a fuller discourse; that either we may have
a right mind in all those things, or, if in any matter we be
otherwise minded, this also God may reveal unto us. However, what
there also the Apostle saith next after, “Whereunto we have
arrived, in that let us walk.”
20. Wherefore, forasmuch as
in the beginning of this little work I had proposed certain two
necessary matters, and had undertaken to follow them out; one which
related to doctrine, the other to exhortation; and I have not
failed in the former part, to the best of my power, according to
the business which I had undertaken; let us come to exhortation, in
order that the good which is known wisely, may be pursued ardently.
And in this matter I give you this advice first, that, how great
soever love of pious continence you feel to be in you, you ascribe
it to the favor of God, and give Him thanks, Who of His Holy Spirit
hath freely given unto you so much, as that, His love being shed
abroad in your heart, the love of a better good should take away
from you the permission of a lawful matter. For it was His gift to
you that you should not wish to marry, when it was lawful, in order
that now it should not be lawful, even if you wished; and that by
this means the wish not to do it might be the more settled, lest
what were now unlawful be done, which was not done even when
lawful; and that, a widow of Christ, you should so far attain as to
see your daughter also a virgin of Christ; for whilst you are
praying as Anna, she hath become what Mary was. These by how much
the more you know them to be gifts of God, by so much the more are
you by the same gifts blessed; yea, rather, you are not so
otherwise than as you know from Whom you have what you have. For
listen to what the Apostle said on this matter, “But we have
received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit Which is of
God, that we may know what things have been given to us by
God.” “Intus qua sanctione,”
al. “inter quas actiones,” “amongst what actions;”
there are other various readings besides.
21. These things I am
compelled to admonish by reason of certain little discourses of
some men, that are to be shunned and avoided, which have begun to
steal through the ears unto the minds of many, being (as must be
said with tears) hostile to the grace of Christ, which go to
persuade that we count not as necessary for us prayer unto the
Lord, that we enter not into temptation. For they so essay to
defend the free will of man, as that by it alone, even without help
of the grace of God, we are able to fulfill what is commanded us of
God. And thus it follows, that the Lord in vain said, “Watch and
pray, lest ye enter into temptation;” Or “be sound.”
“Integritas.”
22. Now it has been my wish
on this account to say something on this subject, by reason of
certain of our brethren most friendly and dear to us, and without
willful guilt indeed entangled in this error, but yet entangled;
who think, that, when they exhort any to righteousness and piety,
their exhortation will not have force, unless the whole of that,
wherein they would work upon man that man should work, they set in
the power of man, not helped by the grace of God, but put forth by
the alone choice of the free will; as though there can be free will
to perform a good work, unless set free by the gift of God! And
they mark not that this very thing themselves also have by the gift
of God, that with such power they exhort, as to excite the dull
wills of men to enter upon a good life, to enkindle the cold, to
correct such as are in error, to convert such as are turned aside,
to pacify such as are opposed. For thus they are able to succeed in
persuading what they would persuade to, or if they work not these
things in the wills of men, what is their work? wherefore speak
they? Let them leave them rather to their own choice. But if in
them they work these things, what? I pray, doth man, in the will of
man, work so great things by speaking, and doth God work nothing
there by helping? Yea rather, with how great soever power of
discourse man may prevail, as that by skill of discussion, and
sweetness of speech, he in the will of man implant truth, nourish
charity, by teaching remove error, by exhortation remove sloth,
“Neither he who planteth is any thing, nor he who watereth, but
God Who giveth the increase.” Merito
23. If, therefore, you had
not as yet vowed unto God widowed continence, we would assuredly
exhort you to vow it; but, in that you have already vowed it, we
exhort you to persevere. And yet I see that I must so speak as to
lead those also who had as yet thought of marriage to love it and
to seize on it. Therefore let us give ear unto the Apostle, “She
who is unmarried,” saith he, “is
Most
mss. “but certainly that divine holiness.”
24. Let the inner ear of the
virgin also, thy holy child, hear these things. I shall see One ms
“to see.” Olibrius, see S. Jerome to
Demetr. Ben. ed.
25. The past day returns not
hereafter, and after yesterday proceeds to-day, and after to-day
will proceed to-morrow; and, lo, all times and the things of time
pass away, that there may come the promise that shall abide; and
“whoso shall have persevered even unto the end, this one shall be
saved.”
26. Therefore let spiritual
delights succeed to the place of carnal delights in holy chastity;
reading, prayer, psalm, good thought, frequency in good works, hope
of the world to come, and a heart upward; and for all these giving
of thanks unto the Father of lights, from Whom, without any doubt,
every good gift, and every perfect gift, as Scripture bears
witness, cometh down. Intentione Cupa et
sacculus
27. Indeed in all spiritual
delights, which unmarried women enjoy, their holy conversation
ought also to be with caution; lest haply, though their life be not
evil through haughtiness, their report be evil through negligence.
Nor are they to be listened to, whether they be holy men or women,
when (upon occasion of their neglect in some matter being blamed,
through which it comes to pass that they fall into evil suspicion,
from which they know that their life is far removed) they say that
it is enough for them their conscience before God, despising what
men think of them, not only imprudently al. “impudenter,”
“with lack of modesty.”
28. Go on therefore in your
course, and run with perseverance, in order that ye may obtain; and
by pattern of life, and discourse of exhortation, carry away with
you into this same your course, whomsoever ye shall have had power.
Let there not bend you from this earnest purpose, whereby ye excite
many to follow, the complaint of vain persons, who say, How shall
the human race subsist, if all shall have been continent? As though
it were for any other reason that this world is delayed, save that
the predestined number of the Saints be fulfilled, and were this
the sooner fulfilled, assuredly the end of the world would not be
put off. Nor let it stay you from your earnest purpose of
persuading others to the same good ye have, if it be said to you,
Whereas marriage also is good, how shall there be all goods in the
Body of Christ, both the greater, forsooth, and the lesser, if all
through praise and love of continence imitate? In the first place,
because with the endeavor that all be continent, there will still
be but few, for “not all receive this word.” But forasmuch as
it is written, “Whoso can receive, let him receive;”
29. Next I entreat you, by
Him, from Whom ye have both received this gift, and hope for the
rewards of this gift, that ye be mindful to set me also in your
prayers with all your household Church. Forsooth it hath come to
pass in most proper order, that I should write unto your Mother now
aged a letter
May you persevere in the grace of Christ.
On Lying.
[De Mendacio.]
Translated by
Rev. H. Browne, M.A.,
of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, Late Principal of the Diocesan College, Chichester.
This book appears from its place in the Retractations to have been written about a.d. 395, as it is the last work named in the first book, which contains those which he wrote before he was Bishop. Some editions represent it as addressed to Consentius, but not the mss. The latter are probably right, as his other work on the subject was written in answer to the inquiries of Consentius on the case of the Priscillianists many years later.—Bened. Ed.
Retractations, Book I. last Chapter.
“I have also written a Book on Lying, which though it takes some pains to understand, contains much that is useful for the exercise of the mind, and more that is profitable to morals, in inculcating the love of speaking the truth. This also I was minded to remove from my works, because it seemed to me obscure, and intricate, and altogether troublesome; for which reason I had not sent it abroad. And when I had afterwards written another book, under this title, Against Lying, much more had I determined and ordered that the former should cease to exist; which however was not done. Therefore in this retractation of my works, as I have found this still in being, I have ordered that it should remain; chiefly because therein are to be found some necessary things which in the other are not. Why the other has for its title, Against Lying, but this, Of Lying, the reason is this, that throughout the one is an open assault upon lying, whereas great part of this is taken up with the discussion of the question for and against. Both, however, are directed to the same object. This book begins thus: “Magna quæstio est de Mendacio.”
1.
There is a great question about Lying, which often arises in
the midst of our every day business, and gives us much trouble,
that we may not either rashly call that a lie which is not such, or
decide that it is sometimes right to tell a lie, that is, a kind of
honest, well-meant, charitable lie. This question we will painfully
discuss by seeking with them that seek: whether to any good
purpose, we need not take upon ourselves to affirm, for the
attentive reader will sufficiently gather from the course of the
discussion. It is, indeed, very full of dark corners, and hath many
cavern-like windings, whereby it oft eludes the eagerness of the
seeker; so that at one moment what was found seems to slip out of
one’s hands, and anon comes to light again, and then is once more
lost to sight. At last, however, the chase will bear down more
surely, and will overtake our sentence. Wherein if there is any
error, yet as Truth is that which setteth free from all error,
and
2. Setting aside, therefore, jokes, which have never been accounted lies, seeing they bear with them in the tone of voice, and in the very mood of the joker a most evident indication that he means no deceit, although the thing he utters be not true: touching which kind of discourse, whether it be meet to be used by perfect minds, is another question which we have not at this time taken in hand to clear; but setting jokes apart, the first point to be attended to, is, that a person should not be thought to lie, who lieth not.
3. For which purpose we must see what a lie is. For not every one who says a false thing lies, if he believes or opines that to be true which he says. Now between believing and opining there is this difference, that sometimes he who believes feels that he does not know that which he believes, (although he may know himself to be ignorant of a thing, and yet have no doubt at all concerning it, if he most firmly believes it:) whereas he who opines, thinks he knows that which he does not know. Now whoever utters that which he holds in his mind either as belief or as opinion, even though it be false, he lies not. For this he owes to the faith of his utterance, that he thereby produce that which he holds in his mind, and has in that way in which he produces it. Not that he is without fault, although he lie not, if either he believes what he ought not to believe, or thinks he knows what he knows not, even though it should be true: for he accounts an unknown thing for a known. Wherefore, that man lies, who has one thing in his mind and utters another in words, or by signs of whatever kind. Whence also the heart of him who lies is said to be double; that is, there is a double thought: the one, of that thing which he either knows or thinks to be true and does not produce; the other, of that thing which he produces instead thereof, knowing or thinking it to be false. Whence it comes to pass, that he may say a false thing and yet not lie, if he thinks it to be so as he says although it be not so; and, that he may say a true thing, and yet lie, if he thinks it to be false and utters it for true, although in reality it be so as he utters it. For from the sense of his own mind, not from the verity or falsity of the things themselves, is he to be judged to lie or not to lie. Therefore he who utters a false thing for a true, which however he opines to be true, may be called erring and rash: but he is not rightly said to lie; because he has not a double heart when he utters it, neither does he wish to deceive, but is deceived. But the fault of him who lies, is, the desire of deceiving in the uttering of his mind; whether he do deceive, in that he is believed when uttering the false thing; or whether he do not deceive, either in that he is not believed, or in that he utters a true thing with will to deceive, which he does not think to be true: wherein being believed, he does not deceive though it was his will to deceive: except that he deceives in so far as he is thought to know or think as he utters.
4. But it may be a very nice
question whether in the absence of all will to deceive, lying is
altogether absent. Thus, put the case that a person shall speak a
false thing, which he esteems to be false, on the ground that he
thinks he is not believed, to the intent, that in that way
falsifying his faith he may deter the person to whom he speaks,
which person he perceives does not choose to believe him. For here
is a person who tells a lie with studied purpose of not deceiving,
if to tell a lie is to utter any thing otherwise than you know or
think it to be. But if it be no lie, unless when something is
uttered with wish to deceive, that person lies not, who says a
false thing, knowing or thinking it to be false, but says it on
purpose that the person to whom he speaks by not believing him may
not be deceived, because the speaker either knows or thinks the
other will not believe him. Whence if it appear to be possible that
a person should say a false thing on purpose that he to whom it is
said may not be deceived, on the other hand there is this opposite
case, the case of a person saying the truth on purpose that he may
deceive. For if a man determines to say a true thing because he
perceives he is not believed, that man speaks truth on purpose that
he may deceive: for he knows or thinks that what is said may be
accounted false, just because it is spoken by him. Wherefore in
saying a true thing on purpose that it may be thought false, he
says a true thing on purpose to deceive. So that it may be
inquired, which rather lies: he who says a false thing that
he
5. But whether a lie be at
some times useful, is a much greater and more concerning question.
Whether, as above, it be a lie, when a person has no will to
deceive, or even makes it his business that the person to whom he
says a thing shall not be deceived although he did wish the thing
itself which he uttered to be false, but this on purpose that he
might cause a truth to be believed; whether, again, it be a lie
when a person willingly utters even a truth for the purpose of
deceiving; this may be doubted. But none doubts that it is a lie
when a person willingly utters a falsehood for the purpose of
deceiving: wherefore a false utterance put forth with will to
deceive is manifestly a lie. But whether this alone be a lie, is
another question. Meanwhile, taking this kind of lie, in which all
agree, let us inquire, whether it be sometimes useful to utter a
falsehood with will to deceive. They who think it is, advance
testimonies to their opinion, by alleging the case of Sarah,
6. On the other hand, those
who say that we must never lie, plead much more strongly, using
first the Divine authority, because in the very Decalogue it is
written “Thou shall not bear false witness;”
7. Neither do they confess
that they are awed by those citations from the Old Testament which
are alleged as examples of lies: for there, every incident may
possibly be taken figuratively, although it really did take place:
and when a thing is either done or said figuratively, it is no lie.
For every utterance is to be referred to that which it utters. But
when any thing is either done or said figuratively, it utters that
which it signifies to those for whose understanding it was put
forth. Whence we may believe in regard of those persons of the
prophetical times who are set forth as authoritative, that in all
that is written of them they acted and spoke prophetically; and no
less, that there is a prophetical meaning in all those incidents of
their lives which by the same prophetic Spirit have been accounted
worthy of being recorded in writing. As to the midwives, indeed,
they cannot say that these women did through the prophetic Spirit,
with purpose of signifying a future truth, tell Pharaoh one thing
instead of another, (albeit that Spirit did signify something,
without their knowing what was doing in their persons:) but, they
say that these women were according to their degree approved and
rewarded of God. For if a person who is used to tell lies for
harm’s sake comes to tell them for the sake of doing good, that
person has made great progress. But it is one thing that is set
forth as laudable in itself, another that in comparison with a
worse is preferred. It is one sort of gratulation that we express
when a man is in sound health, another when a sick man is getting
better. In the Scripture, even Sodom is said to be
8. For this reason, from the
books of the New Testament, except the figurative
pre-significations used by our Lord, if thou consider the life and
manners of the Saints, their actions and sayings, nothing of the
kind can be produced which should provoke to imitation of lying.
For the simulation of Peter and Barnabas is not only recorded, but
also reproved and corrected. S. Jerome Ep. inter
Augustinianas, 75, n. 9–11. Sacramenta Signaculum Salutares
9. But if no authority for
lying can be alleged, neither from the ancient Books, be it because
that is not a lie which is received to have been done or said in a
figurative sense, or be it because good men are not challenged to
imitate that which in bad men, beginning to amend, is praised in
comparison with the worse; nor yet from the books of the New
Testament, because Peter’s correction rather than his simulation,
even as his tears rather than his denial, is what we must imitate:
then, as to those examples which are fetched from common life, they
assert much more confidently that there is no trust to be given to
these. For first they teach, that a lie is iniquity, by many proofs
of holy writ, especially by that which is written, “Thou, Lord,
hatest all workers of iniquity, thou shall destroy them that speak
leasing.”
10. As concerning purity of
body; here indeed a very honorable regard seems to come in the way,
and to demand a lie in its behalf; to wit, that if the assault of
the ravisher may be escaped by means of a lie, it is indubitably
right to tell it: but to this it may easily be answered, that there
is no purity of body except as it depends on integrity of mind;
this being broken, the other must needs fall, even though it seem
intact; and for this reason it is not to be reckoned among temporal
things, as a thing that might be taken away from people against
their will. By no means therefore must the mind corrupt itself by a
lie for the sake of its body, which it knows remaineth incorrupt if
from the mind itself incorruptness depart not. For that which by
violence, with no lust foregoing, the body suffereth, is rather to
be called deforcement than corruption. Or if all deforcement is
corruption, then not every corruption hath turpitude, but only that
which lust hath procured, or to which lust hath consented. Now by
how much the mind is more excellent than the body, so much the more
heinous is the wickedness if that be corrupted. There, then, purity
can be preserved, because there none but a voluntary corruption can
have place. For assuredly if the ravisher assault the body, and
there is no escaping him either by contrary force, or by any
contrivance or lie, we must needs allow that purity cannot be
violated by another’s lust. Wherefore, since no man doubts that
the mind is better than the body, to integrity of body we ought to
prefer integrity of mind, which can be preserved for ever. Now who
will say that the mind of him who tells a lie hath its integrity?
Indeed lust itself is rightly defined, An appetite of the mind by
which to eternal goods any temporal goods whatever are preferred.
Therefore no man can prove that it is at any time right to tell a
lie, unless he be able to show that any eternal good can be
obtained by a lie. But since each man departs from eternity just in
so far as he departs from truth, it is most absurd to say, that by
departing therefrom it is possible for any man to attain to any
good. Else if there be any eternal good which truth compriseth not,
it will not be a true good, therefore neither will it be good,
because it will be false. But as the mind to the body, so must also
truth be preferred to the mind itself, so that the mind should
desire it not only more than the body, but even more than its own
self. So will the mind be more entire and chaste, when it shall
enjoy the immutability of truth rather than its own mutability. Now
if Lot, “Ut
mereretur.”
11. But if any man supposes
that the reason why it is right for a person to tell a lie for
another is, that he may live the while, or not be offended in those
things which he much loveth, to the end he may attain unto eternal
truth by being taught: that man doth not understand, in the first
place, that there is no flagitious thing which he may not upon the
same ground be compelled to commit, as has been above demonstrated;
and in the next place, that the authority of the doctrine itself is
cut off and altogether undone if those whom we essay to bring
thereunto, are by our lie made to think that it is somewhiles right
to lie. For seeing the doctrine which bringeth salvation consisteth
partly in things to be believed, partly in things to be understood;
and there is no attaining unto those things which are to be
understood, unless first those things are believed, which are to be
believed; how can there be any believing one who thinks it is
sometimes right to lie, lest haply he lie at the moment when he
teacheth us to believe? For how can it be known whether he have at
that moment some cause, as he thinks, for a well-meant Officiosi Aptus
12. Thus has the question been on both sides considered and treated; and still it is not easy to pass sentence: but we must further lend diligent hearing to those who say, that no deed is so evil, but that in avoidance of a worse it ought to be done; moreover that the deeds of men include not only what they do, but whatever they consent to be done unto them. Wherefore, if cause have arisen that a Christian man should choose to burn incense to idols, that he might not consent to bodily defilement which the persecutor threatened him withal, unless he should do so, they think they have a right to ask why he should not also tell a lie to escape so foul a disgrace. For the consent itself to endure violation of the person rather than to burn incense to idols, this, they say, is not a passive thing, but a deed; which rather than do, he chose to burn incense. How much more readily then would he have chosen a lie, if by a lie he might ward off from a holy body so shocking a disgrace?
13. In which proposition
these points may well deserve to be questioned: whether such
consent is to be accounted as a deed: or whether that is to be
called consent which hath not approbation: or whether it be
approbation, when it is said, “It is expedient to suffer this
rather than do that;” and whether the person spoken of did right
to burn incense rather than suffer violation of his body; and
whether it would be right rather to tell a lie, if that was the
alternative proposed, than to burn incense? But if such consent is
to be accounted as a deed, then are they murderers who have chosen
rather to be put to death than bear false witness, yea, what is
worse, they are murderers of themselves. For why, at this rate,
should it not be said that they have slain themselves, because they
chose that this should be done to them that they might not do what
they were urged to do? Or, if it be accounted a worse thing to slay
another than himself, what if these terms were offered to a Martyr,
that, upon his refusing to bear false witness of Christ and to
sacrifice to demons, then, before his eyes, not some other man, but
his own father should be put to death; his father entreating him
that he would not by his persevering permit that to be done? Is it
not manifest, that, upon his remaining steadfast in his purpose of
most faithful testimony, they alone would be the murderers who
should slay his father, and not he a parricide into the bargain? As
therefore, in this case, the man would be no party to this so
heinous deed, for choosing, rather than violate his faith by false
testimony, that his own father should be put to death by others,
(yea, though that father were a sacrilegious person whose soul
would be snatched away to punishment;) so the like consent, in the
former case, would not make him a party to that so foul disgrace,
if he refused to do evil himself, let others do what they might in
consequence of his not doing it. For what do such persecutors say,
but, “Do evil that we may not?” If the case were so, that our
doing evil would make them not to have done it, even then it would
not be our duty by doing wickedness ourselves to vote them
harmless; but as in fact they are already doing it when they say
nothing of the kind, Al. when they say such
things.
14. “How,” sayest thou,
“is it not his doing as well as theirs, when they would not do
this, if he would do that?” Why, at this rate we go housebreaking
with house-breakers, because if we did not shut the door, they
would not break it open: and we go and murder with highwaymen, if
it chance we know that they are going to do it, because if we
killed them out of hand, they would not kill others. Or, if a
person confess to us that he is going to commit a parricide, we
commit it along with him, if, being able, we do not slay him before
he can do the deed when we can
15. The whole stress, then, of this question comes to this; whether it be true universally that no sin of another, committed upon thee, is to be imputed to thee, if, being able to avoid it by a lighter sin of thine own, thou do it not; or whether there be an exception of all bodily defilement. No man says that a person is defiled by being murdered, or cast into prison, or bound in chains, or scourged, or afflicted with other tortures and pains, or proscribed and made to suffer most grievous losses even to utter nakedness, or stripped of honors, and subjected to great disgrace by reproaches of whatsoever kind; whatever of all these a man may have unjustly suffered, no man is so senseless as to say that he is thereby defiled. But if he have filth poured all over him, or poured into his mouth, or crammed into him, or if he be carnally used like a woman; then almost all men regard him with a feeling of horror, and they call him defiled and unclean. One must conclude then that the sins of others, be they what they may, those always excepted which defile him on whom they are committed, a man must not seek to avoid by sin of his own, either for himself or for any other, but rather he must put up with them, and suffer bravely; and if by no sins of his own he ought to avoid them, therefore not by a lie: but those which by being committed upon a man do make him unclean, these we are bound to avoid even by sinning ourselves; and for this reason those things are not to be called sins, which are done for the purpose of avoiding that uncleanness. For whatever is done, in consideration that the not doing it were just cause of blame, that thing is not sin. Upon the same principle, neither is that to be called uncleanness when there is no way of avoiding it; for even in that extremity he who suffers it has what he may do aright, namely, patiently bear what he cannot avoid. Now no man while acting aright can be defiled by any corporal contagion. For the unclean in the sight of God is every one who is unrighteous; clean therefore is every one who is righteous; if not in the sight of men, yet in the sight of God, Who judges without error. Nay, even in the act of suffering that defilement with power given of avoiding it, it is not by the mere contact that the man is defiled; but by the sin of refusing to avoid it when he might. For that would be no sin, whatever might be done for the avoiding of it. Whoever therefore, for the avoiding of it, shall tell a lie, sinneth not.
16. Or, are some lies, also,
to be excepted, so that it were better to suffer this than to
commit those? If so, then not every thing
17. But yet if the option were proposed to the man who chose to burn incense to idols rather than yield his body to abominable lust, that, if he wished to avoid that, he should violate the fame of Christ by some lie; he would be most mad to do it. I say more: that he would be mad, if, to avoid another man’s lust, and not to have that done upon his person which he would suffer with no lust of his own, he should falsify Christ’s Gospel with false praises of Christ; more eschewing that another man should corrupt his body, than himself to corrupt the doctrine of sanctification of souls and bodies. Wherefore, from the doctrine of religion, and from those utterances universally, which are uttered on behalf of the doctrine of religion, in the teaching and learning of the same, all lies must be utterly kept aloof. Nor can any cause whatever be found, one should think, why a lie should be told in matters of this kind, when in this doctrine it is not right to tell a lie for the very purpose of bringing a person to it the more easily. For, once break or but slightly diminish the authority of truth, and all things will remain doubtful: which unless they be believed true, cannot be held as certain. It is lawful then either to him that discourses, disputes, and preaches of things eternal, or to him that narrates or speaks of things temporal pertaining to edification of religion and piety, to conceal at fitting time whatever seems fit to be concealed: but to tell a lie is never lawful, therefore neither to conceal by telling a lie.
18. This being from the very
first and most firmly established, touching other lies the question
proceeds more securely. But by consequence we must also see that
all lies must be kept aloof which hurt any man unjustly: because no
man is to have a wrong, albeit a lighter one is done to him, that
another may have a heavier kept from him. Nor are those lies to be
allowed, which, though they hurt not another, yet do nobody any
good, and are hurtful to the persons themselves who gratuitously
tell them. Indeed, these are the persons who are properly to be
called liars. For there is a difference between lying and being a
liar. A man may tell a lie unwillingly; but a liar loves to lie,
and inhabits in his mind in the delight of lying. Next to such are
those to be placed who by a lie wish to please men, not that they
may do wrong or bring reproach upon any man; for we have already
before put away that kind; but that they may be pleasant in
conversation. These, differ from the class in which we have placed
liars in this respect, that liars delight in lying, rejoicing in
deceit for its own sake: but these lust to please by agreeable
talk, and yet would rather please by saying things that were true,
but when they do not easily find true things to say that are
pleasant to the hearers, they choose rather to tell lies than to
hold their tongues. Yet it is difficult for these sometimes to
undertake a story which is the whole of it false; but most commonly
they interweave falsehood with truth, where they are at a loss for
something sweet. Now these two sorts of lies do no harm to those
who believe them, because they are not deceived concerning any
matter of religion and truth, or concerning any profit or advantage
of their own. It
19. These sorts of lies having been without any hesitation condemned, next follows a sort, as it were by steps rising to something better, which is commonly attributed to well-meaning and good people, when the person who lies not only does no harm to another, but even benefits somebody. Now it is on this sort of lies that the whole dispute turns, whether that person does harm to himself, who benefits another in such sort as to act contrary to the truth. Or, if that alone may be called truth which illustrateth the very minds of men with an intimate and incommutable light, at least he acts contrary to some true thing, because although the bodily senses are deceived, yet he acts contrary to a true thing who says that a thing is so or not so, whereof neither his mind nor senses nor his opinion or belief giveth him any report. Whether therefore he does not hurt himself in so profiting another, or in that compensation not hurt himself in which he profiteth the other, is a great question. If it be so, it should follow that he ought to profit himself by a lie which damages no man. But these things hang together, and if you concede that point, it necessarily draws in its train some very embarrassing consequences. For should it be asked, what harm it does to a person rolling in superfluous wealth, if from countless thousands of bushels of wheat he lose one bushel, which bushel may be profitable as necessary food to the person stealing it; it will follow that theft also may be committed without blame, and false witness borne without sin. Than which, what can be mentioned more perverse? Or truly, if another had stolen the bushel, and thou sawest it done, and wert questioned, wouldest thou tell a lie with honesty for the poor man, and if thou do it for thine own poverty wilt thou be blamed? As if it were thy duty to love another more than thyself. Both then are disgraceful, and must be avoided.
20. But haply some may think
that there is an exception to be added; that there be some honest
lies which not only hurt no man, but profit some man, excepting
those by which crimes are screened and defended: so that the reason
why the aforesaid lie is disgraceful, is that, although it hurt no
man, and profit the poor, it screens a theft; but if it should in
such sort hurt nobody and profit somebody as not to screen and
defend any sin, it would not be morally wrong. As, put the case
that some one should in thy sight hide his money that he might not
lose it by theft or violence, and thereupon being questioned thou
shouldest tell a lie; thou wouldest hurt no man, and wouldest serve
him who had need that his money were hidden, and wouldest not have
covered a sin by telling a lie. For it is no sin if a man hide his
property which he fears to lose. But, if we therefore sin not in
telling a lie, for that, while covering no man’s sin, we hurt
nobody and do good to somebody, what are we about as concerning the
sin itself of a lie? For where it is laid down, “Thou shalt not
steal,” there is also this, “Thou shall not bear false
witness.”
21. If this be absurd, what
shall we say? Is it so, that there is no “false witness,” but
when one tells a lie either to invent a crime against some man, or
to hide some man’s crime, or in any way to oppress any man in
judgment? For a witness seems to be necessary to the judge for
cognizance of the cause. But if the Scripture named a “witness”
only so far as that goes, the Apostle would not say, “Yea, and we
are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God
that He raised up Christ: whom He raised not up.”
Or peradventure, doth the person
who lies then utter false witness when he either invents or hides
any man’s sin, or hurts any man in whatever way? For, if a lie
spoken against a man’s temporal life is detestable, how much more
one against eternal life? as is every lie, if it take place in
doctrine of religion. And it is for this reason that the Apostle
calls it false witness, if a man tell a lie about Christ, yea, one
which may seem to pertain to His praise. Now if it be a lie that
neither inventeth or hideth any man’s sin, nor is an
22. What then, if a homicide seek refuge with a Christian, or if he see where the homicide have taken refuge, and be questioned of this matter by him who seeks, in order to bring to punishment a man, the slayer of man? Is he to tell a lie? For how does he not hide a sin by lying, when he for whom he lies has been guilty of a heinous sin? Or is it because he is not questioned concerning his sin, but about the place where he is concealed? So then to lie in order to hide a person’s sin is evil; but to lie in order to hide the sinner is not evil? “Yea, surely:” says some one: “for a man sins not in avoiding punishment, but in doing something worthy of punishment. Moreover, it pertaineth to Christian discipline neither to despair of any man’s amendment, nor to bar against any man the way of repentance.” What if thou be led to the judge, and then questioned concerning the very place where the other is in hiding? Art thou prepared to say, either, “He is not there,” when thou knowest him to be there; or, “I know not, and have not seen,” what thou knowest and hast seen? Art thou then prepared to bear false witness, and to slay thy soul that a manslayer may not be slain? Or, up to the presence of the judge wilt thou lie, but when the judge questions thee, then speak truth that thou be not a false witness? So then thou art going to slay a man thyself by betraying him. Surely the betrayer too is one whom the divine Scripture detesteth. Or haply is he no betrayer, who in answer to the judge’s interrogation gives true information; but would be a betrayar, if, unasked, he should delate a man to his destruction? Put the case with respect to a just and innocent man, that thou know where he is in hiding, and be questioned by the judge; which man, however, has been ordered to be taken to execution by a higher power, so that he who interrogates is charged with the execution of the law, not the author of the sentence? Will it be no false witness that thou shall lie for an innocent man, because the interrogator is not a judge, but only charged with the execution? What if the author of the law interrogate thee, or any unjust judge, making quest of an innocent man to bring him to punishment? What wilt thou do? wilt thou be false witness, or betrayer? Or will he be a betrayer, who to a just judge shall ultroneously delate a lurking homicide; and he not so, who to an unjust judge, interrogating him of the hiding-place of an innocent man whom he seeks to slay, shall inform against the person who has thrown himself upon his honor? Or between the crime of false witness and that of betrayal, wilt thou remain doubtful and unable to make up thy mind? Or by holding thy peace or professing that thou wilt not tell, wilt thou make up thy mind to avoid both? Then why not do this before thou come to the judge, that thou mayest shun the lie also? For, having kept clear of a lie, thou wilt escape all false witness; whether every lie be false witness, or not every: but by keeping clear of all false witness in thy sense of the word, thou wilt not escape all lying. How much braver then, how much more excellent, to say, “I will neither betray nor lie?”
23. This did a former Bishop
of the Church of Thagasta, Firmus by name, and even more firm in
will. For, when he was asked by command of the emperor, through
officers sent by him, for a man who was taking refuge with him, and
whom he kept in hiding with all possible care, he made answer to
their questions, that he could neither tell a lie, nor betray a
man; and when he had suffered so many torments of body, (for as yet
emperors were not Christian,) he stood firm in his purpose.
Thereupon being brought before the emperor, his conduct appeared so
admirable, that he without any difficulty obtained a pardon for the
man whom he was trying to save. What conduct could be more brave
and constant? But peradventure some more timid person may say, “I
can be prepared to bear any torments, or even to submit to death,
that I may not sin; but, since it is no sin to tell a lie such that
you neither hurt any man, nor bear false witness, and benefit some
man, it is foolish and a great sin, voluntarily and to no purpose
to submit to torments, and, when one’s health and life may haply
be useful, to fling them away for nothing to people in a rage.”
Of whom I ask; Why he fears that which is written, “Thou shall
not bear false witness,”
24. But one sometimes comes to a case of this kind, that we are not interrogated where the person is who is sought, nor forced to betray him, if he is hidden in such manner, that he cannot easily be found unless betrayed: but we are asked, whether he be in such a place or not. If we know him to be there, by holding our peace we betray him, or even by saying that we will in no wise tell whether he be there or not: for from this the questioner gathers that he is there, as, if he were not, nothing else would be answered by him who would not lie nor betray a man, but only, that he is not there. So, by our either holding our peace, or saying such words, a man is betrayed, and he who seeks him hath but to enter in, if he have the power, and find him: whereas he might have been turned aside from finding him by our telling a lie. Wherefore if thou know not where he is, there is no cause for hiding the truth, but thou must confess that thou knowest not. But, if thou know where he is, whether he be in the place which is named in the question or elsewhere; thou must not say, when it is asked whether he be there or not, “I will not tell thee what thou askest,” but thou must say, “I know where he is, but I will never show.” For if, touching one place in particular thou answer not and profess that thou wilt not betray, it is just as if thou shouldest point to that same place with thy finger: for a sure suspicion is thereby excited. But if at the first thou confess that thou know where he is, but will not tell, haply the inquisitor may be diverted from that place, and begin now to ply thee that the place where he is may be betrayed. For which good faith and humanity whatever thou shall bravely bear, is judged to be not only not culpable, but even laudable; save only these things which if a man suffer he is said to suffer not bravely, but immodestly and foully. For this is the last description of lie, concerning which we must treat more diligently.
25. For first to be eschewed
is that capital lie and far to be fled from, which is done in
doctrine of religion; to which lie a man ought by no consideration
to be induced. The second, that he should hurt some man unjustly:
which is such that it profits no man and hurts some man. The third,
which so profits one as to hurt another, but not in corporal
defilement. The fourth, that which is done through only lust of
lying and deceiving, which is an unmixed lie. The fifth, what is
done with desire of pleasing by agreeableness in talk. All these
being utterly eschewed and rejected, there follows a sixth sort
which at once hurts nobody and helps somebody; as when, if a
person’s money is to be unjustly taken from him, one who knows
where the money is, should say that he does not know, by whomsoever
the question be put. The seventh, which hurts none and profits
some: except if a judge interrogate: as when, not wishing to betray
a man who is sought for to be put to death, one should lie; not
only a just and innocent, but also a culprit; because it belongs to
Christian discipline neither to despair of any man’s amendment,
nor to bar the way of repentance against any. Of which two sorts,
which are wont to be attended with great controversy, we have
sufficiently treated, and have shown what was our judgment; that by
taking the consequences, which are honorably and bravely borne,
these kinds also should be eschewed by brave and faithful and
truthful men and women. The eighth sort of lie is that which hurts
no man, and does good in the preserving somebody from corporal
defilement, at least that defilement which we have mentioned above.
For even to eat with unwashen hands the Jews thought defilement. Or
if a person think this also a defilement, yet not such that a lie
ought to be told to avoid it. But if the lie be such as to do an
injury to any man, even though it screen a man from that
uncleanness which all men abhor and detest; whether a lie of this
kind may be told provided the injury done by the lie be such as
consists not in that sort of uncleanness with which we are now
concerned, is another question: for here the question is no longer
about lying, but it is asked whether an injury ought to be done to
any man, even otherwise than by a lie, that the said defilement may
be warded off from another. Which I should by no means think:
though the case proposed be the slightest wrongs, as that which I
mentioned above, about a single measure of wheat; and though it be
very embarrassing whether it be our duty not to do even such an
injury to any man, if thereby another may be defended or screened
from a lustful outrage upon his person. But, as I said, this is
another question: at present let us go on with what we have taken
in hand: whether a lie ought to be told, if even the inevitable
condition be proposed that we either do this, or suffer the deed of
lust or
26. Touching which matter,
there will be some place open for consideration, if first the
divine authorities which forbid a lie be diligently discussed: for
if these give no place, we vainly seek a loophole; for we are bound
to keep in every way the command of God, and the will of God in all
that through keeping His command we may suffer, it is our duty with
an even mind to follow: but if by some relaxation any outlet be
allowed, in such a case we are not to decline a lie. The reason why
the Divine Scriptures contain not only God’s commands, but the
life and character of the just, is this: that, if haply it be
hidden in what way we are to take that which is enjoined, by the
actions of the just it may be understood. With the exception,
therefore, of those actions which one may refer to an allegorical
significance, although none doubts that they really took place, as
is the case with almost all the occurrences in the books of the Old
Testament. For who can venture to affirm of any thing there, that
it does not pertain to a figurative foretelling? Seeing the
Apostle, speaking of the sons of Abraham, of whom of course it is
most easily said that they were born and did live in the natural
order of propagating the people, (for not monsters and prodigies
were born, to lead the mind to some presignification,) nevertheless
asserteth that they signify the two Testaments;
27. As, when we read in the
Gospel, “Thou hast received a blow in the face, make ready the
other cheek.”
28. It is also written,
“But I say unto you, Swear not at all.” But the Apostle himself
has used oaths in his Epistles.
29. As that, “Take no
thought for the morrow,” and, “Take therefore no thought what
ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, or what ye shall put on.”
30. Moreover, it was said to
the Apostles that they should take nothing with them for their
journey, but should live by the Gospel.
31. Thus then what is
written, “The mouth that lieth, slayeth the soul;” Conceptaculum A Domino, “unto the Lord.” E.V. Obscurum responsum in vacuum
non ibit, “There is no word so secret
that shall go for nought.” E.V.
32. Manifestly also in the
Gospel we find
33. But, like as it is asked of what mouth the Scripture saith, “The mouth that lieth, slayeth the soul,” so it may be asked, of what lie. For it seems to speak of that lie in particular, which consists in detraction. It says, “Keep yourselves from murmuring, which profiteth nothing, and from detraction refrain your tongue.” Now this detraction takes place through malevolence, when any man not only with mouth and voice of the body doth utter what he forgeth against any, but even without speaking wisheth him to be thought such; which is in truth to detract with the mouth of the heart; which thing, it saith, cannot be obscure and hidden from God.
34. For what is written in
another place, “Wish not to use every lie;” Abutendum
35. Moreover what is written
“Thou wilt destroy all that speak leasing:” Agere
pœnitentiam
36. For, concerning false
witness, which is set down in the ten commands of the Law, it can
indeed in no wise be contended that love of truth may at heart be
preserved, and false witness brought forth to him unto whom the
witness is borne. For, when it is said to God only, then it is only
in the heart that the truth is to be embraced: but when it is said
to man, then must we with the mouth also of the body bring forth
truth, because man is not an inspector of the heart. But then,
touching the witness itself, it is not unreasonably asked, to whom
one is a witness? For not to whomsoever we speak unto are we
witnesses, but to them to whom it is expedient and due that they by
our means should come to know or believe the truth; as is a judge,
that he may not err in judging; or he who is taught in doctrine of
religion, that he may not err in faith, or by very authority of the
teacher waver in doubt. But when the person who interrogates thee
or wishes to know aught from thee seeks that which concerneth him
not, or which is not expedient for him to know, he craveth not a
witness, but a betrayer. Therefore if to him thou tell a lie, from
false witness peradventure thou wilt be clear, but from a lie
assuredly not. So then with this salvo, that to bear false witness
is never lawful, the question is, whether it be lawful sometimes to
tell a lie. Or if it be false witness to lie at all, it is to be
seen whether it admit of compensation, to wit, that it be said for
the sake of avoiding a greater sin: as that which is written,
“Honor father and mother,”
37. Likewise, touching that
which is written, “A son which receiveth the word shall be far
from destruction: but receiving, he receiveth it for himself, and
no falsehood proceedeth out of his mouth:” Or “of Him who is Truth
itself.”
38. Certain it is, albeit all
this disputation go from side to side, some asserting that it is
never right to lie, and to this effect reciting divine testimonies:
others gainsaying, and even in the midst of the very words of the
divine testimonies seeking place for a lie; yet no man can say,
that he finds this either in example or in word of the Scriptures,
that any lie should seem a thing to be loved, or not had in hatred;
howbeit sometimes by telling a lie thou must do that thou hatest,
that what is more greatly to be detested may be avoided. But then
here it is that people err; they put the precious beneath the vile.
For when thou hast granted that some evil is to be admitted, that
another and more grievous may not be admitted; not by the rule of
truth, but by his own cupidity and custom doth each measure the
evil, accounting that to be the more grievous, which himself more
greatly dreads, not which is in reality more greatly to be fled
from. All this fault is engendered by perversity of loving. For
being there are two lives of ours; the one eternal, which is
promised of God; the other temporal, in which we now are: when a
man shall have begun to love this temporal more than that eternal,
for the sake of this which he loveth he thinks all things right to
be done; and there are not any, in his estimation, more grievous
sins than those which do injury to this life, and either take away
from it any commodity unjustly and unlawfully, or by inflicting of
death take it utterly away. And so thieves, and robbers, and
ruffians, and torturers, and slayers, are more hated of them than
lascivious, drunken, luxurious men, if these molest no man. For
they do not understand or at all care, that these do wrong to God;
not indeed to any inconvenience of Him, but to their own pernicious
hurt; seeing they corrupt His gifts bestowed upon them, even His
temporal gifts, and by their very corruptions turn away from
eternal gifts: above all, if they have already begun to be the
Temple of God; which to all Christians the Apostle saith thus:
“Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit
of God dwelleth in you? Whoso shall corrupt God’s temple, God
will corrupt him. For the temple of God is holy: which temple are
ye.”
39. And all these sins,
truly, whether such whereby an injury is done to men in the
comforts of this life, or whereby men corrupt themselves and hurt
none against his will: all these sins, then, even though they seem
to mean well by this temporal life to the procuring of any delight
or profit, (for no man commits any of these things with any other
purpose and end;) yet in regard of that life which is forever and
ever, they do entangle and in all ways hinder. But there are some
of these that hinder the doers only, others likewise those on whom
they are done. For as to the things which people keep safe for the
sake of utility to this life, when these are
40. Now the things which are
to be kept safe for sanctity’s sake are these: pudicity of body,
and chastity of soul, Animæ Animi Animæ Mentis Animi Signaculis
41. There resulteth then from
all these this sentence, that a lie which doth not violate the
doctrine of piety, nor piety itself, nor innocence, nor
benevolence, may on behalf of pudicity of body be admitted. And yet
if any man should propose to himself so to love truth, not only
that which consists in contemplation, but also in uttering the true
thing, which each in its own kind of things is true, and no
otherwise to bring forth with the mouth of the body his thought
than in the mind it is conceived and beheld; so that he should
prize the beauty of truth-telling honesty, not only above gold and
silver and jewels and pleasant lands, but above this temporal life
itself altogether and every good thing of the body, I know not
whether any could wisely say that that man errs. And if he should
prefer this and prize it more than all that himself hath of such
things; rightly also would he prefer it to the temporal things of
other men, whom by his innocence and benevolence he was bound to
keep and to help. For he would love perfect faith, not only of
believing aright those things which by an excellent authority and
worthy of faith should to himself be spoken, but also of
faith “Fides, quia fit quod
dicitur.”
42. It clearly appears then,
all being discussed, that those testimonies of Scripture have none
other meaning than that we must never at all tell a lie: seeing
that not any examples of lies, worthy of imitation, are found in
the manners and actions of the Saints, as regards those Scriptures
which are referred to no figurative signification, such as is the
history in the Acts of the Apostles. For all those sayings of our
Lord in the Gospel, which to more ignorant minds seem lies, are
figurative significations. And as to what the Apostle says: “I am
made all things to all men, that I might gain all;”
43. So great blindness,
moreover, hath occupied men’s minds, that to them it is too
little if we pronounce some lies not to be sins; but they must
needs pronounce it to be sin in some things if we refuse to lie:
and to such a pass have they been brought by defending lying, that
even that first kind which is of all the most abominably wicked
they pronounce to have been used by the Apostle Paul. For in the
Epistle to the Galatians, written as it was, like the rest, for
doctrine of religion and piety, they say that he has told a lie, in
the passage where he says concerning Peter and Barnabas, “When I
saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the
Gospel.”
Against Lying.
To Consentius
[Contra Mendacium.]
Translated by the Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge, Late Principal of the Diocesan College, Chichester.
From the Retractations, Book II. Chap. 60.
“ Then i.e. A.D. 420, the work mentioned
just before belonging to the early part of that year. Consentius is
thought to be the writer of ep. 119, to Augustin, and ep. 120, and
205, are addressed to him. This is the work referred to in the
Enchiridion, ch. 18, p. 243.
1. A great deal for me to read
hast thou sent, my dearest brother Consentius: a great deal for me
to read: to the which while I am preparing an answer, and am drawn
off first by one, then by another, more urgent occupation, the year
has measured out its course, and has thrust me into such straits,
that I must answer in what sort I may, lest the time for sailing
being now favorable, and the bearer desirous to return, I should
too long detain him. Having therefore unrolled and read through all
that Leonas, servant of God, brought me from thee, both soon after
I received it, and afterwards when about to dictate this reply, and
having weighed it with all the consideration in my power, I am
greatly delighted with thy eloquence, and memory of the holy
Scripture, and cleverness of wit, and the resentment with which
thou bitest negligent Catholics, and the zeal with which thou
gnashest against even latent heretics. But I am not persuaded that
it is right to unearth them out of their hiding places by our
telling lies. For to what end do we take such pains in tracking
them out and running them down, but that having taken them and
brought them forth into open day, we may either teach them the
truth, or at least having convicted them by the truth, may not
allow them to hurt others? to this end, therefore, that their lie
may be blotted out, or shunned, and God’s truth increased. How
then by a lie shall I rightly be able to prosecute lies? Or is it
by robbery that robberies and by sacrilege that sacrileges, and by
adultery that adulteries, are to be prosecuted? “But if the truth
of God shall abound by my lie,” are we too to say, “Let us do
evil that good may come?”
2. Perceivest thou not how
much this reasoning aideth the very persons whom as great game we
make ado to catch by our lies? For, as thyself hast shown, this is
the sentiment of the Priscillianists to prove which, they apply
testimonies from the Scriptures exhorting their followers to lie,
as though by the examples of Patriarchs, Prophets, Apostles,
Angels; not hesitating to add even the Lord Christ Himself; and
deeming that they cannot otherwise prove their falsehood truthful,
unless they pronounce Truth to be a liar. It must be refuted, this;
not imitated: nor ought we to be partners with the Priscillianists
in that evil in which they are convicted to be worse than other
heretics. For they alone, or at least they in the greatest degree,
are found to make a dogma of lying for the purpose of hiding their
truth, as they call it: and this so great evil therefore to esteem
just, because they say that in the heart must be held that which is
true, but with the mouth to utter unto aliens a false thing, is no
sin; and that this is written, “Who speaketh the truth in his
heart:” Commembres
3. Which sentence dishonoreth
the holy Martyrs, nay rather taketh away holy martyrdoms
altogether. For they would do more justly and wisely, according to
these men, not to confess to their persecutors that they were
Christians, and by confessing make them murderers: but rather by
telling a lie, and denying what they were, should both themselves
keep safe the convenience of the flesh and purpose of the heart,
and not allow those to accomplish the wickedness which they had
conceived in their mind. For they were not their neighbors in the
Christian faith, that with them it should be their duty to speak
the truth in their mouth which they spake in their heart; but
moreover enemies of Truth itself. For if Jehu (whom it seems they
do prudently to single out unto themselves to look unto as an
example of lying) falsely gave himself out for a servant of Baal,
that he might slay Baal’s servants: how much more justly,
according to their perversity, might, in time of persecution, the
servants of Christ falsely give themselves out, for servants of
demons, that the servants of demons might not slay servants of
Christ; and sacrifice to idols that men might not be killed, if
Jehu sacrificed to Baal that he might kill men? For what harm would
it do them, according to the egregious doctrine of these speakers
of lies, if they should lyingly pretend a worship of the Devil in
the body, when the worship of God was preserved in the heart? But
not so have the Martyrs understood the Apostle, the true, the holy
Martyrs. They saw and held that which is written, “With the heart
man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is
made unto salvation;”
4. Of lies are many sorts,
which indeed
5. Well then, let us set
before our eyes a cunning spy as he makes up to the person whom he
has already perceived to be a Priscillianist; he begins with
Dictinius the bishop, and lyingly bepraises either his life, if he
knew him, or his fame, if he knew him not; this is more tolerable
thus far, because Dictinius is accounted to have been a Catholic,
and to have been corrected of that error. Then, passing on to
Priscillian, (for this comes next in the art of lying,) he shall
make reverend mention of him, of an impious and detestable person,
condemned for his nefarious wickedness and crimes! In which
reverend mention, if haply the person for whom this sort of net is
spread, had not been a firm Priscillianist, by this preaching of
him, he will be confirmed. But when the spy shall go on to
discourse of the other matters, and saying that he pities them whom
the author of darkness hath invoked in such darkness of error, that
they acknowledge not the honor of their own soul, and the
brightness of their divine ancestry: then speaking of Dictinius’s
Book, which is called “the Pound,” because it
6. It remains, then, that what the Priscillianists think, according to the nefarious falsity of their heresy, of God, of the soul, of the body, and the rest, we hesitate not with truthful pity to condemn; but what they think of the right of telling a lie to hide the truth is to be to us and them (which God forbid!) a common dogma. This is so great an evil, that even though this attempt of ours, whereby we desire by means of a lie to catch them and change them, should so prosper that we do catch and change them, there is no gain that can compensate the damage of making ourselves wrong with them in order to set them right. For through this lie shall both we be in that respect perverse, and they but half corrected; seeing that their thinking it right to tell a lie on behalf of the truth is a fault which we do not correct in them, because we have learned and do teach the same thing, and lay it down that it is fit to be done, in order that we may be able to attain to the amending of them. Whom yet we amend not, for their fault, with which they think right to hide the truth, we take not away, rather we make ourselves faulty when by such a fault we seek them; nor do we find how we can believe them, when converted, to whom, while perverted, we have lied; lest haply what was done to them that they might be caught, they do to us when caught; not only because to do it hath been their wont, but because in us also, to whom they come, they find the same.
7. And, what is more miserable, even they, already made as it were our own, cannot find how they may believe us. For if they suspect that even in the catholic doctrines themselves we speak lyingly, that we may conceal I know not what other thing which we think true; of course to one suspecting the like thou shalt say, I did this then only to catch thee: but what wilt thou answer when he says, Whence then do I know whether thou art not doing it even now, lest thou be caught by me? Or indeed, can any man be made to believe that a man does not lie not to be caught, who lies to catch? Seest thou whither this evil tends? that is, that not only we to them, and they to us, but every brother to every brother shall not undeservedly become suspected? And so while that which is aimed at by means of the lie, is that faith may be taught, the thing which is brought about is, rather, that there shall be no having faith in any man. For if we speak even against God when we tell a lie, what so great evil will people be able to discover in any lie, that, as though it were a most wretched thing, we should be bound in every way to eschew it?
8. But now observe how more
tolerable in comparison with us is the lying of the
Priscillianists, when they know that they speak deceitfully: whom
by our own lying we think right to deliver from those false things
in which they by erring are decayed. A Priscillianist saith, that
the soul is a part of God, and of the same nature and substance
with Him. This is a great and detestable blasphemy. For it follows
that the nature of God may be taken captive, deceived, cheated,
disturbed, and defiled, condemned and tortured. But if that man
also saith this, who from so great an evil desires to deliver a man
by a lie, let us see what is the difference between the one
blasphemer and the other. “Very much,” sayest thou: “for this
the Priscillianist saith, also believing it so: but the catholic
not so believing, though so speaking.” The one, then, blasphemes
without knowing, the other with knowledge: the one against science,
the other against conscience; the one hath the blindness of
thinking false things, but in them hath at least the will of saying
true things; the other in secret seeth truth, and willingly
speaketh false. “But the one;” thou wilt say, “teacheth this,
that he may make men partakers of his error and madness: the latter
saith it that from that error and madness he may deliver men.”
Now I have already shown above how hurtful is this very
9. When therefore we teach
ours to blaspheme God that the Priscillianists may believe them
theirs, let us see what evil themselves say when they therefore lie
that we may believe them ours. They anathematize Priscillian, and
detest him according to our mind; they say that the soul is a
creature of God, not a part; they execrate the Priscillianists’
false martyrdoms; the catholic bishops by whom that heresy has been
stripped, attacked, prostrated, they extol with great praises, and
so forth. Behold, themselves speak truth when they lie: not that
the very thing which is a lie can be true at the same time; but
when in one thing they lie, in another they speak truth: for when,
in saying they are of us, they lie, of the catholic faith they
speak truth. And therefore they, that they may not be found out for
Priscillianists, speak in lying manner the truth: but we, that we
may find them out, not only speak lyingly, that we may be believed
to belong to them; but we also speak false things which we know to
belong to their error. Therefore as for them, when they wish to be
thought of us, it is both false in part, and true in part, what
they say; for it is false that they are of us, but true that the
soul is not a part of God: but as for us, when we wish to be
thought to belong to them, it is false, both the one and the other
that we say, both that we are Priscillianists, and that the soul is
a part of God. They, then, praise God, not blaspheme, when they
conceal themselves; and when they do not so, but utter their own
sentiments, they know not that they blaspheme. So that if they be
converted to the catholic faith, they console themselves, because
they can say what the Apostle said: who when among other things he
had said, “I was before a blasphemer; but,” saith he, “I
obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly.”
10. Ever, my brother, in such
cases, it behoves with fear to recollect, “Whoso shall deny Me
before men, I will deny him before My Father which is in
heaven.”
11. “But, hidden wolves,”
thou wilt say, “clad in sheep’s clothing, and privily and
grievously wasting the Lord’s flock, can we no otherwise find
out.” Whence then have the Priscillianists become known, ere this
way of hunting for them with lies was ex-cogitated? Whence was
their very author, more cunning doubtless, and therefore more
covert, got at in his bed? Whence so many and so great persons made
manifest and condemned, and the others innumerable partly
corrected, partly as if corrected, and in the Church’s compassion
gathered into her fold? For many ways giveth the Lord, when He hath
compassion, whereby we may come to the discovery of them: two of
which are more happy than others; namely, that either they whom
they have wished to seduce, or they whom they had already seduced,
shall, when they repent and are converted, point them out. Which is
more easily effected, if their nefarious error, not by lying
tricks, but by truthful
“Concorditer”—“Misericorditer.”
12. “But,” thou wilt say,
“we more easily penetrate their concealment if we pretend to be
ourselves what they are.” If this were lawful or expedient,
Christ might have instructed his sheep that they should come clad
in wolves’ clothing to the wolves, and by the cheat of this
artifice discover them: which He hath not said, no, not when He
foretold that He would send them forth in the midst of wolves.
13. Or haply is it so, that
he who plots in this way to find out Priscillianists, denies not
Christ, forasmuch as with his mouth he utters what with his heart
he believes not? As if truly (which I also said a little above)
when it was said, “With the heart man believeth unto
righteousness,” it was added to no purpose, “with the mouth
confession is made unto salvation?” Evanescat
14. Wherefore, that which is
written, “Who speaketh the truth in his heart,”
16. For there were even in
the Apostles’ times some who preached the truth not in truth,
that is, not with truthful mind: of whom the Apostle saith that
they preached Christ not chastely, but of envy and strife. And on
this account even at that time some were tolerated while preaching
truth not with a chaste mind: yet not any have been praised as
preaching falsehood with a chaste mind. Lastly, he saith of those,
“Whether in pretence or in truth Christ be preached:”
17. Wherefore, though there
be indeed many ways in which latent heretics may be sought out,
without vituperating the catholic faith or praising heretical
impiety, yet if there were no other way at all of drawing out
heretical impiety from its caverns, but that the catholic tongue
should deviate from the straight path of truth; more tolerable were
it that that should be hid, than that this should be precipitated;
more tolerable that the foxes should lurk in their pits unseen,
than for the sake of catching them the huntsmen should fall into
the pit of blasphemy; more tolerable that the perfidy of
Priscillianists should be covered with the veil of truth, than that
the faith of catholics, lest it should of lying Priscillianists be
praised, should of believing catholics be denied. For if lies, not
of whatsoever kind, but blasphemous lies, are therefore just
because they are committed with intent to detect hidden heretics;
it will be possible at that rate, if they be commuted with the same
intention, that there should be chaste adulteries. For put the case
that of a number of lewd Priscillianists, some woman should cast
her eye upon a catholic Joseph, and promise him that she will
betray their hidden retreats if she obtain from him that he lie
with her, and it be certain that if he consent unto her she will
make good her promise: shall we judge that it ought to be done? Or
shall we understand that by no means must such a price be paid in
purchase of that kind of merchandise? Why then do we not rout out
heretics, in order to their being caught, by the flesh committing
lasciviousness in adultery, and yet think right to rout them out by
a mouth committing fornication in blasphemy? For either it will be
lawful to defend both the one and the other with equal reason, that
these things be therefore said to be not unjust, because they were
done with intention of finding out the unjust: or if sound doctrine
willeth not even for the sake of finding out heretics that we
should have to do with unchaste women, albeit only in body, not in
mind, assuredly not even for the sake of finding out heretics
willeth it that by us, albeit only in voice not in mind, either
unclean heresy were preached, or the chaste Catholic Church
blasphemed. Because even the very sovereignty of the mind, to which
every inferior motion of the man ought to be obedient, will not
lack deserved opprobrium, when a thing is done that ought not to be
done, whether by member or by word. Although even when it is done
by word, it is done by member: because the tongue is a member, by
which the word is made; nor is any deed of ours by any member
brought to the birth unless it is first conceived in the heart; or
rather being by our inwardly thinking upon and consenting unto it
already brought to the birth, it is brought forth abroad in our
doing of it, by a member. It is therefore no excusing the mind from
the deed, when any thing is said to be done not after the purpose
of the mind, Ex animo
18. It does indeed make very
much difference, for what cause, with what end, with what intention
a thing be done: but those things which are clearly sins, are upon
no plea of a good cause, with no seeming good end, no alleged good
intention, to be done. Those works, namely of men, which are not in
themselves sins, are now good, now evil, according as their causes
are good or evil; as, to give food to a poor man is a good work, if
it be done because of pity, with right faith; as to lie with a
wife, when it is done for the
19. Some man will say, “So
then any thief whatever is to be accounted equal with that thief
who steals with will of mercy?” Who would say this? But of these
two it does not follow that any is good, because one is worse. He
is worse who steals through coveting, than he who steals through
pity: but if all theft be sin, from all theft we must abstain. For
who can say that people may sin, even though one sin be damnable,
another venial? but now we are asking, if a man shall do this or
that, who will not sin or will sin? not, who will sin more heavily
or lightly. For even thefts themselves are more lightly punished by
law than crimes of lust: they are, however, both sins, albeit the
one lighter, the other heavier; so that a theft which is committed
of concupiescence is held to be lighter than an act of lust which
is committed for
20. But, what must be
confessed, to human minds certain compensative sins do cause such
embarrassment, that they are even thought meet to be praised, and
rather to be called right deeds. For who can doubt it to be a great
sin, if a father prostitute his own daughters to the fornications
of the impious? And yet hath there arisen a case in which a just
man thought it his duty to do this, when the Sodomites with
nefarious onset of lust were rushing upon his guests. For he said,
“I have two daughters which have not known man; I will bring them
out to you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto
these men do ye no wrong, for that they have come under covering of
my roof.”
21. If then to sin, that
others may not commit a worse sin, either against us or against
any, without doubt we ought not; it is to be considered in that
which Lot did, whether it be an example which we ought to imitate,
or rather one which we ought to avoid. For it seems meet to be more
looked into and noted, that, when so horrible an evil from the most
flagitious impiety of the Sodomites was impending over his guests,
which he wished to ward off and was not able, to such a degree may
even that just man’s mind have been disturbed, that he was
willing to do that which, not man’s fear with its misty temper,
but God’s Law in its tranquil serenity, if it be consulted by us,
will cry aloud, must not be done, and will command rather that we
be so cautious not to sin ourselves, that we sin not through fear
of any sins whatever of other men. For that just man, by fearing
other men’s sins, which cannot defile except such as consent
thereto, was so perturbed that he did not attend to his own sin, in
that he was willing to subject his daughters to the lusts of
impious men. These things, when we read in holy Scriptures, we must
not, for that we believe them done, therefore believe them meet to
be done; lest we violate precepts while we indis
22. And to holy David indeed
it might more justly be said, that he ought not to have been angry;
no, not with one however ungrateful and rendering evil for good;
yet if, as man, anger did steal over him, he ought not to have let
it so prevail, that he should swear to do a thing which either by
giving way to his rage he should do, or by breaking his oath leave
undone. But to the other, set as he was amid the libidinous frenzy
of the Sodomites, who would dare to say, “Although thy guests in
thine own house, whither to enter in thou by most violent humanity
hast compelled them, be laid hold upon by lewd men, and being
deforced be carnally known as women, fear thou not a whit, care for
it not a whir, have no dread, no horror, no trembling?” What man,
even a companion of those wretches, would dare to say this to the
pious host? But assuredly it would be most rightly said, “Do what
thou canst, that the thing be not done which thou deservedly
fearest: but let not this fear of thine drive thee to do a thing
which if thy daughters be willing that it be done unto them, they
will through thee do wickedness with the Sodomites, if unwilling,
will through thee from the Sodomites suffer violence. Commit not
thou a great crime of thine own, while thou dreadest a greater
crime of other men; for be the difference as great as thou wilt
between thine own and that of others, this will be thine own, that
other men’s.” Unless perchance in defending this man one should
so crowd himself into a corner, as to say, “Since to receive a
wrong is better than to do one, and those guests were not about to
do but to suffer a wrong, that just man chose that his daughters
should suffer wrong rather than his guests, acting upon his rights
as his daughters’ lord; and he knew that it would be no sin in
them if the thing were done, because they would but bear them which
did the sin, not consenting unto them, and so without sin of their
own. In fine, they did not offer themselves (albeit better females
than males) to be carnally known instead of those guests, lest they
should be rendered guilty, not by the suffering of others’ lust,
but by consenting of their own will: nor yet did their father
permit it to be done unto himself, when they essayed to do it,
because he would not betray his guests to them, (albeit there had
been less of evil, if it were done to one man than to two;) but as
much as he could he resisted, lest himself also should be defiled
by any assent of his own, though even if the frenzy of others’
lust had prevailed by strength of body, it would not have defiled
him so long as he consented not. Now as the daughters sinned not,
neither did he sin in their persons, because he was not making them
to sin, if they should be deforced against their will, but only to
bear them that did the sin. Just as if he should offer his slaves
to be beaten by ruffians, that his guests might not suffer the
wrong of beating.” Of which matter I shall not dispute, because
it would take long to argue, whether even a master may justly use
his right of power over his slave, so as to cause an unoffending
slave to be smitten, that his unoffending friend may not be beaten
in his house by violent bad men. But certainly, as concerning
David, it is no wise right to say that he ought to have sworn to do
a thing which afterwards he would perceive that he ought not to do.
Whence it is clear that we ought not to take all that we read to
have been done by holy or just men, and transfer the same to
morals, but hence too we must learn how widely that saying of the
Apostle extends, and even to what persons it reaches: “Brethren,
if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore
such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyself also,
lest thou be tempted.”
23. But in all our doings,
even good men are very greatly embarrassed in the matter
24. Touching Jacob, however,
that which he did at his mother’s bidding, so as to seem to
deceive his father, if with diligence and in faith it be attended
to, is no lie, but a mystery. The which if we shall call lies, all
parables also, and figures designed for the signifying of any
things soever, which are not to be taken according to their proper
meaning, but in them is one thing to be understood from another,
shall be said to be lies: which be far from us altogether. For he
who thinks this, may also in regard of tropical expressions of
which there are so many, bring in upon all of them this calumny; so
that even metaphor, as it is called, that is, the usurped
transferring of any word from its proper object to an object not
proper, may at this rate be called a lie. For when he speaks of
waving corn-fields, of vines putting forth gems, “Gemmare.” Enucleate cuncta
rimari
25. Nor have I undertaken
that in the present discourse, as it more pertains to thee, who
hast laid open the hiding-places of the Priscillianists, so far as
relates to their false and perverse dogmas; that they may not seem
to have been in such sort investigated as if they were meet to be
taught, not to be argued against. Make it therefore more thy work
that they be beaten down and laid low, as thou hast made it, that
they should be betrayed and laid open; lest while we wish to get at
the discovery of men practising falsehood, we allow the falsehoods
themselves, as if insuperable, to stand their ground; when we ought
rather even in the hearts of latent heretics to destroy falsehoods,
than by sparing falsehoods to find out the deceivers who practise
falsehood. Moreover, among those dogmas of theirs which are to be
subverted, is this which they dogmatize, namely, that in order to
hide religion religious people ought to lie, to that degree that
not only concerning other matters, not pertaining to doctrine of
religion, but concerning religion itself, it is meet to lie, that
it may not become exposed to aliens; to wit, that one may deny
Christ, in order that one may in the midst of His enemies be in
secret a Christian. This impious and nefarious dogma do thou
likewise, I beseech thee, overthrow; to bolster up which they in
their argumentations do gather from the Scriptures testimonies to
make it appear that lies are not only to be pardoned and tolerated,
but even honored. To thee therefore it pertains, in refuting that
detestable sect, to show that those testimonies of Scripture are so
to be received, that either thou shalt teach those to be no lies
which are accounted to be such, if they be understood in that
manner in which they ought to be understood; or, that those are not
to be imitated which be manifestly lies; or in any wise at last,
that concerning those matters at least which pertain to doctrine of
religion, it is in no wise meet to tell a lie. For thus are they
truly from the very foundation overthrown, while that is overthrown
wherein they lurk: that in that very matter they be judged least
fit for us to follow, most fit to be shunned, in that they, for the
hiding of their heresy, do profess themselves liars. This it is in
them that must from the very first be assaulted, this which is, as
it were, their fitting bulwark must with blows of Truth be battered
and cast down. Nor must we afford them another lurking-place, which
they had not, wherein they may take refuge, to wit, that being
perhaps betrayed of them whom they have es
26. To show then that some
things in the Scriptures which are thought to be lies are not what
they are thought, if they be rightly understood, let it not seem to
thee to tell little against them, that it is not from Apostolic but
from Prophetical books that they find as it were precedents of
lying. For all those which they mention by name, in which each
lied, are read in those books in which not only words but many
deeds of a figurative meaning are recorded, because it was also in
a figurative sense that they were done. But in figures that which
is spoken as a seeming lie, being well understood, is found to be a
truth. The Apostles, however, in their Epistles spoke in another
sort, and in another sort are written the Acts of the Apostles, to
wit, because now the New Testament was revealed, which was veiled
in those prophetic figures. In short, in all those Apostolic
Epistles, and in that large book in which their acts are narrated
with canonical truth, we do not find any person lying, such that
from him a precedent can be set forth by these men for license of
lying. For that simulation of Peter and Barnabas with which they
were compelling the Gentiles to Judaize, was deservedly reprehended
and set right, both that it might not do harm at the time, and that
it might not weigh with posterity as a thing to be imitated. For
when the Apostle Paul saw that they walked not uprightly according
to the truth of the Gospel, he said to Peter in the presence of
them all, “If thou, being a Jew, livest as the Gentiles; and not
as do the Jews, how compellest thou the Gentiles to Judaize?”
“Sacramenta.”
27. There are some things of
this sort even of our Saviour in the Gospel, because the Lord of
the Prophets deigned to be Himself also a Prophet. Such are those
where, concerning the woman which had an issue of blood, He said,
“Who touched Me?”
28. Hence is also that which
thou hast mentioned that they speak of, that the Lord Jesus, after
He was risen, walked in the way with two disciples; and upon their
drawing near to the village whither they were going, He made as
though He would have gone farther: where the Evangelist, saying,
“But He Himself feigned that He would go further,” Serm. ii. 6; Epist. i.
7.
29. Because, therefore, lying
heretics find not in the books of the New Testament any
30. But why do these persons
think they may imitate Tamar telling a lie, and not think they may
imitate Judah committing fornication?
31. But he who says that some
lies are just, must be judged to say no other than that some sins
are just, and therefore some things are just which are unjust: than
which what can be more absurd? For whence is a thing a sin, but for
that it is contrary to justice? Be it said then that some sins are
great, some small, because it is true; and let us not listen to the
Stoics who maintain all to be equal: but to say that some sins are
unjust, some just, what else is it than to say that there be some
unjust, some just iniquities? When the Apostle John saith, “Every
man who doeth sin, doeth also iniquity and sin is iniquity.”
32. But, as for that which is
written, that God did good to the Hebrew midwives, and to Rahab the
harlot of Jericho, Mentis,
mentientis Dimittuntur
33. It remains then that we
understand as concerning those women, whether in Egypt or in
Jericho, that for their humanity and mercy they received a reward,
in any wise temporal, which indeed itself, while they wist not of
it, should by prophetical signification prefigure somewhat eternal.
But whether it be ever right, even for the saving of a man’s
life, to tell a lie, as it is a question in resolving which even
the most learned do weary themselves, it did vastly surpass the
capacity of those poor women, set in the midst of those nations,
and accustomed to those manners. Therefore their ignorance in this
as well as in those other things of which they were alike
unknowing, but which are to be known by the children not of this
world but of that which is to come, the patience of God did bear
withal: Who yet, for their human kindness which they had shown to
His servants, rendered unto them rewards of an earthly sort, albeit
signifying somewhat of an heavenly. And Rahab, indeed, delivered
out of Jericho, made transition into the people of God, where,
being proficient, she might attain to eternal and immortal prizes
which are not to be sought by any lie. Yet at that time when she
did for the Israelite spies that good, and, for her condition of
life, laudable work, she was not as yet such that it should be
required of her, “In your mouth let Yea be yea, Nay nay.”
34. But some man will say,
Would then those midwives and Rahab have done better if they had
shown no mercy, by refusing to lie? Nay verily, those Hebrew women,
if they were such as that sort of persons of whom we ask whether
they ought ever to tell a lie, would both eschew to say aught
false, and would most frankly refuse that foul service of killing
the babes. But, thou wilt say, themselves would die. Yea, but see
what follows. They would die with an heavenly habitation for their
incomparably more ample reward than those houses which they made
them on earth could be: they would die, to mss. and
edd. “An posset;” but Ben. ed. propose “an non
posset,” “Could she not?”
35. Since these things are
so, because it were too long to treat thoroughly of all that in
that “Pound” Or “Balance.”
36. But for that we are men
and among men do live, and I confess that I am not yet in the
number of them whom compensative sins embarrass not, it oft
befalleth me in human affairs to be overcome by human feeling, nor
am I able to resist when it is said to me, “Lo, here is a sick
man in peril of his life with a grievous disease, whose strength
will no more be able to bear it, if the death of his only and most
dear son be announced to him; he asks of thee whether his son
liveth, and thou knowest that he is departed this Intelligibilem
37. Add to this, (and here is
cause to cry out more piteously,) that, if once we grant it to have
been right for the saving of that sick man’s life to tell him the
lie, that his son was alive, then, by little and little and by
minute degrees, the evil so grows upon us, and by slight accesses
to such a heap of wicked lies does it, in its almost imperceptible
encroachments, at last come, that no place can ever be any where
found on which this huge mischief, by smallest additions rising
into boundless strength, might be resisted. Wherefore, most
providently is it written, “He that despiseth small things shall
fall by little and little.”
“Sacramentum.”
38. But infirmity pleadeth
its part, and with favor of the crowds proclaims itself to have a
cause invincible. Where it contradicts, and says, “What way is
there among men, who without doubt by being deceived
39. But, some man will say,
“Strong meat is for them that are perfect.”
40. But sometimes a peril to
eternal salvation itself is put forth against us; Opponitur. Proponitur.
41. Either then we are to
eschew lies by right doing, or to confess them by repenting: but
not, while they unhappily abound in our living, to make them more
by teaching also. But let him who thinks this, choose out whereby
he may help his fellow man being in peril, to what safety he will,
what kinds soever of lies; provided yet even of such men we obtain
our demand, that upon no cause must we be carried on to
false-swearing and to blaspheming. These wickednesses at least let
us judge either greater than deeds of lewdness, or certainly not
smaller. For indeed it is worth thinking of, that very often men,
where they suspect them of adultery, challenge their wives to an
oath: which surely they would not do, unless they believed that
even they who were not afraid to perpetrate adultery, might be
afraid of perjury. Because in fact also some lewd women who were
not afraid by unlawful embraces to deceive their husbands, have
been afraid to call God deceitfully to witness unto those same
husbands whom they had deceived. What cause then can there be, that
a chaste and religious person should be unwilling by adultery to
help a man to baptism, yet be willing to help him by perjury, which
even adulterers are wont to dread? And then, if it be shocking to
do this by perjuring one’s self, how much rather by blaspheming?
Far be it then from a Christian to deny and blaspheme Christ, that
he may make another man a Christian; and by losing himself seek to
find one, whom, if he teach him such things, he may cause to be
lost when found. The book then which is called “the Pound,”
thou must in this method refute and destroy; namely, that head of
it in which they dogmatize that for the purpose of concealing
religion a lie may be told, this thou shall understand must be the
first to be amputated; in such manner, that their testimonies by
which they labor to advance the Holy Books as patrons of their
lies, thou must demonstrate partly not to be lies, partly, even
those which are such, to be not meet to be imitated: and if
infirmity usurps to herself thus much, that somewhat shall be
venially permitted unto her which truth approve not, yet that thou
unshakenly hold and defend, that in divine religion it is at no
time whatever right to tell a lie. And, as for concealed heretics,
that, as we are not to find out concealed adulterers by committing
of adulteries, nor murderers by committing of murders, nor
practisers of black arts Maleficos
Of the Work of Monks.
[De Opere Monachorum.]
Translated by Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
Of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; Late Principal of the Diocesan College, Chichester.
From the Retractations, ii. 21.
To write the Book on the Work of
Monks, the need which compelled me was this. When at Carthage there
had begun to be monasteries, some maintained themselves by their
own hands, obeying the Apostle; but others wished so to live on the
oblations of the faithful, that doing no work whence they might
either have or supply the necessaries of life, they thought and
boasted that they did rather fulfill the precept of the Gospel,
where the Lord saith, Behold the fowls of heaven, and the lilies
of the field, (
This work is placed in the Retractations next after that “On the Good of Marriage” which belongs to the year 401.
1.
Thy bidding, holy brother Aurelius, it was meet that I
should comply withal, with so much the more devotion, by how much
the more it became clear unto me Who, out of thee, did speak that
bidding. For our Lord Jesus Christ, dwelling in thine inner part,
and inspiring into thee a solicitude of fatherly and brotherly
charity, whether our sons and brothers the monks, who neglect to
obey blessed Paul the Apostle, when he saith, “If any will not
work, neither let him eat,”
2. First then, it is to be
seen, what is said by persons of that profession, who will not
work: then, if we shall find that they think not aright, what is
meet to be said for their correction? “It is not,” say they,
“of this corporal work in which either husbandmen or
handicraftsmen labor, that the Apostle gave precept, when he said,
‘If any will not work, neither let him eat.’” For he could
not be contrary to the Gospel, where the Lord Him
3. Nor do they attend to this,
that if another should say, that the Lord indeed, speaking in
parables and in similitudes concerning spiritual food and clothing,
did warn that not on these accounts should His servants be
solicitous; (as He saith, “When they shall drag you to
judgment-seats, take no thought what ye shall speak. For it will be
given you in that hour what ye shall speak: but it is not ye that
speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.”
4. First then we ought to
demonstrate that the blessed Apostle Paul willed the servants of
God to work corporal works which should have as their end a great
spiritual reward, for this purpose that they should need food and
clothing of no man, but with their own hands should procure these
for themselves: then, to show that those evangelical precepts from
which some cherish not only their sloth but even arrogance, are not
contrary to the Apostolical precept and example. Let us see then
whence the Apostle came to this, that he should say, “If any will
not work, neither let him eat,” and what he thereupon joineth on,
that from the very context
“Circumstantia.”
“Acceperunt.” Gratuitum
5. I would, however, proceed
to a more searching Enucleatius So Griesbach amd Lachmann. But
text recept. “Am I not an Apostle? am I not free?” “Sororem
mulierem.”
6. Which thing whoso thinks
cannot have been done by the Apostles, that with them women of holy
conversation should go about wheresoever they preached the Gospel,
that of their substance they might minister to their necessities,
let him hear the Gospel, and learn how in this they did after the
example of the Lord Himself. Our Lord, namely, according to the
wont of His pity, sympathizing with the weak, albeit Angels might
minister unto Him, had both a bag in which should be put the money
which was bestowed doubtless by good and believing persons, as
necessary for their living, (which bag He gave in charge to Judas,
that even thieves, if we could not keep clear of such, we might
learn to tolerate in the Church. He, namely, as is written of him,
“stole
“Auferebat.”
7. But lest any should fancy
that this was granted only to the twelve, see also what Luke
relateth: “After these things,” saith he, “the Lord chose
also other seventy and two, and sent them by two and two before His
face into every city and place whither He was about to come. And He
said unto them, The harvest indeed is plentiful, but the laborers
few: ask ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He would send
forth laborers into His harvest. Go your ways: behold, I send you
as lambs in the midst of wolves. Carry neither purse nor scrip nor
shoes, and salute no man by the way. Into whatsoever house ye shall
enter, first say, Peace be to this house. And if the son of peace
be there, your peace shall rest upon him: if not, it shall return
to you. And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such
things as are with them: for the workman is worthy of his
hire.”
8. But let us return to the
order of our discourse, and the whole of the passage itself of the
Epistle let us diligently consider. “Have we not,” saith he,
“leave Licentiam
9. But he speaks more openly
in the rest which he subjoins, and altogether removes all causes of
doubting. “If we unto you,” saith he, “have sown spiritual
things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal
things?” What are the spiritual things which he sowed, but the
word and mystery of the sacrament of the kingdom of heaven? And
what the carnal things which he saith he had a right to reap, but
these temporal things which are indulged to the life and indigency
of the flesh? These however being due to him he declares that he
had not sought nor accepted, lest he should cause any impediment to
the Gospel of Christ. What work remaineth for us to understand him
to have wrought, whereby he should get his living, but bodily work,
with his own bodily and visible hands? For if from spiritual work
he sought food and clothing, that is, to receive these of them whom
he was edifying in the Gospel, he could not, as he does, go on to
say, “If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we
rather? Nevertheless,
10. And he comes back again,
and in all ways, over and over again, enforceth what he hath the
right to do, yet doeth not. “Do ye not know,” saith he, “that
they which work in the temple, eat of the things which are in the
temple? they which serve the altar, have their share with the
altar? So hath the Lord ordained for them which preach the Gospel,
to live of the Gospel. But I have used none of these things.”
11. And he goes on, and
adjoins, lest perchance any should imagine that he only therefore
received not, because they had not given: “But I have not written
these things that they may be so done unto me: good is it for me
rather to die than that any make void my glory.”
12. But now, that as bearing
with the infirmity of men he did this, let us hear what follows:
“For though I be free from all men, yet have I made myself
servant unto all, that I might gain the more. To them that are
under the law, I became as under the law, that I might gain them
that are under the law; to them that are without law, as without
law, (being not without law to God, but under the law to Christ,)
that I might gain them that are without law.” S. Jerome in Ep. inter
Augustinianas, 75, n. 9–11.
13. Of this weakness of his,
he saith in another place, “We made ourselves small among you,
even as a nurse cherisheth her children.” “Parvuli.”
14. Here peradventure some
man may
15. But when he might use to
work, that is, in what spaces of time, that he might not be
hindered from preaching the Gospel, who can make out? Though,
truly, that he wrought at hours of both day and night himself hath
not left untold.
16. For he himself also, with
an eye to the like necessities of saints, who, although they obey
his precepts, “that with silence they work and eat their own
bread,” may yet from many causes stand in need of somewhat by way
of supplement to the like sustenance, therefore, after he had thus
said, teaching and premonishing, “Now them which are such we
command and beseech in our Lord Jesus Christ, that with silence
they work and eat their own bread;” Infirmari
benefacientes Bonis operibus
præesse, καλῶν ἔργων
προΐστασθαι. E.V. in margin,
“profess honest trades.”
“Germanissimum.” Cui se
probavit
17. On account then of these
either occupations of the servants of God, or bodily infirmities,
which cannot be altogether wanting, not only doth the Apostle
permit the needs of saints to be supplied by good believers, but
also most wholesomely exhorteth. For, setting apart that power,
which he saith himself had not used, which yet that the faithful
must serve unto, he enjoins, saying, “Let him that is catechised
in the word, communicate unto him that doth catechise him, in all
good things:” Read perhaps
“quantam;” “how great the Apostle willed to be the
care.” Plebium
18. And a little after he
saith, “For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is
superfluous for me to write to you. For I know the forwardness of
your mind, for which I boast of you to them of Macedonia, that
Achaia was ready a year ago; and your zeal hath provoked very many.
Yet have we sent the brethren, lest our boasting of you should be
in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may be ready: lest
haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find you unprepared,
we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this substance.
Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they
would go before unto you, and make up beforehand this your long
promised benediction, that the same might be ready, as benediction,
and not as covetousness. But this I say, He which soweth sparingly
shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth in benediction shall
reap also in benediction. Every man according as he hath purposed
in his heart, not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a
cheerful giver. And God is able to make all grace abound in you;
that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound to
every good work: as it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he
hath given to the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever. But
He that ministereth seed to the sower will both minister bread for
your food, and multiply your seed sown, and increase the growing
fruits of your righteousness; that ye may be enriched in every
thing to all bountifulness, which causeth through us thanksgiving
to God: for the administration of this service not only supplieth
the want of the saints, but makes them also to abound by
thanksgiving unto God of many, while by the proof of this
ministration they glorify God for the obedience of your confession
unto the Gospel of Christ, and for your liberal distribution unto
them, and unto all men; and in the praying for you of them which
long after you for the excellent grace of God in you. Thanks be
unto God for His unspeakable gift.” Provincialium
“Eructuare.”
19. As therefore the Apostle,
nay rather the Spirit of God possessing and filling and actuating
his heart, ceased not to exhort the faithful who had such
substance, that nothing should be lacking to the necessities of the
servants of God, who wished to hold a more lofty degree of sanctity
in the Church, in cutting off all ties of secular hope, and
dedicating a mind at liberty to their godly service
20. For what these men are
about, who will not do bodily work, to what thing they give up
their time, I should like to know. “To prayers,” say they,
“and psalms, and reading, and the word of God.” A holy life,
unquestionably, and in sweetness of Christ worthy of praise; but
then, if from these we are not to be called off, neither must we
eat, nor our daily viands themselves be prepared, that they may be
put before us and taken. Now if to find time for these things the
servants of God at certain intervals of times by very infirmity are
of necessity compelled, why do we not make account of some portions
of times to be allotted also to the observance of Apostolical
precepts? For one single prayer of one who obeyeth is sooner heard
than ten thousand of a despiser. As for divine songs, however, they
can easily, even while working with their hands, say them, and like
as rowers with a boat-song, Celeumate
21. Moreover, if discourse
must be bestowed upon any, and this so take up the speaker that he
have not time to work with his hands, are all in the monastery able
to hold discourse unto brethren which come unto them from another
kind of life, whether it be to expound the divine lessons, or
concerning any questions which may be put, to reason in an
wholesome manner? Then since not all have the ability, why upon
this pretext do all want to have nothing else to do? Although even
if all were able, they ought to do it by turns; not only that the
rest might not be taken up from necessary works, but also because
it sufficeth that to many hearers there be one speaker. To come now
to the Apostle; how could he find time to work with his hands,
unless for the bestowing of the word of God he had certain set
times? And indeed God hath not willed this either to be hidden from
us. For both of what craft he was a workman, and at what times he
was taken up with dispensing the Gospel, holy Scripture has not
left untold. Namely, when the day of his departure caused him to be
in haste, being at Troas, even on the first day of the week when
the brethren were assembled to break bread, such was his
earnestness, and so necessary the disputation, that his discourse
was prolonged even until midnight, S. Augustin therefore assumes
that the Christians of the Apostolic age did not break their fast
before receiving the Eucharist. See St. Chrys. on Stat. Hom.
ix. § 2. Tr. p. 159, and note g. Τοῖς
᾽Ιουδαίοις καὶ τοῖς
σεβομένοις καὶ ἐν τῇ
ἀγορᾷ κατὰ πᾶσαν
ἡμέραν πρὸς
τοὺς παρατυγχάνοντας. For καὶ τοῖς
σεβομένοις Aug. has et
Gentibus incolis: for which some mss.
have Gentibus in viculis.
22. There also is said at
what work the Apostle wrought. “After these things,” it says,
“he departed from Athens and came to Corinth; and having found a
certain Jew, by name Aquila, of Pontus by birth, lately come from
Italy, and Priscilla his wife, because that Claudius had ordered
all Jews to depart from Rome, he came unto them, and because he was
of the same craft he abode with them, doing work: for they were
tent-makers.”
23. Hence arises another
question; for peradventure one may say, “What then? did the other
Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas, sin, in that
they did not work? Or did they occasion an hindrance to the Gospel,
because blessed Paul saith that he had not used this power on
purpose that he might not cause any hindrance to the Gospel of
Christ? For if they sinned because they wrought not, then had they
not received power not to work, but to live instead by the Gospel.
But if they had received this power, by ordinance of the Lord, that
they which preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel; and by His
saying, “The workman is worthy of his meat;” which power Paul,
laying out somewhat more, Amplius aliquid
erogans
24. This question I should
briefly solve, if I should say, because I should also justly say,
that we must believe the Apostle. For he himself knew why in the
Churches of the Gentiles it was not meet that a venal Gospel were
carried about; not finding fault with his fellow-apostles, but
distinguishing his own ministry; because they, without doubt by
admonition of the Holy Ghost, had so distributed among them the
provinces of evangelizing, that Paul and Barnabas should go
25. If at the least they once
had in this world wherewithal they might easily without handiwork
sustain this life, which property, when they were converted unto
God, they disparted to the needy, then must we both believe their
infirmity, and bear with it. For usually such persons, having been,
not better brought up, as many think, but what is the truth, more
languidly brought up, are not able to bear the labor of bodily
works. Such peradventure were many in Jerusalem. For it is also
written, that they sold their houses and lands, and laid the prices
of them at the Apostles’ feet, that distribution might be made to
every one as he had need.
26. That, namely, befalleth
them which in undisciplined younger widows, the same Apostle saith
must be avoided: “And withal they learn to be idle; and not only
idle, but also busy bodies and full of words, speaking what they
ought not.” Cassian. de Inst. x.
22.
27. As it is,
however, they, against the Apostle of Christ, recite a Gospel of
Christ. For so marvellous are the works of the sluggards, hindered
that they want to have that very thing by Gospel, which the Apostle
enjoined and did on purpose that the Gospel itself should not be
hindered. And yet, if from the very words of the Gospel we should
compel them to live agreeably with their way of understanding it,
they will be the first to endeavor to persuade us how they are not
to be understood so as they do understand them. For certainly, they
say that they therefore ought not to work, for that the birds of
the air neither sow nor reap, of which the Lord hath given us a
similitude that we should take no thought about such necessaries.
Then why do they not attend to that which follows? For it is not
only said, that “they sow not, neither reap;”
28. Here then shall these
persons in their turn be in another more sublime degree of
righteousness outdone, by them who shall so order themselves, that
every day they shall betake them into the fields as unto pasture,
and at what time they shall find it, pick up their meal, and having
allayed their hunger, return. But plainly, on account of the
keepers of the fields, how good were it, if the Lord should deign
to bestow wings also, that the servants of God being found in other
men’s fields should not be taken up as thieves, but as starlings
be scared off. As things are, however, such an one will do all he
can to be like a bird, which the fowler shall not be able to catch.
But, lo, let all men allow this to the servants of God, that when
they will they should go forth into their fields, and thence depart
fearless and refreshed: as it was ordered to the people Israel by
the law, that none should lay hands on a thief in his fields,
unless he wanted to carry any thing away with him from thence;
29. But let us grant this
also, that the whole year round there may in the fields be found
either of tree or of herbs or of any manner of roots, that which
may be taken as food uncooked; or, at any rate, let so great
exercise of body be used, that the things which require cooking,
may be taken even raw without hurt, and people may even in winter
weather, no matter how rough, go forth to their fodder; and so it
shall be the case that nothing be taken away to be prepared,
nothing laid up for the morrow. Yet will not those men be able to
keep these rules, who for many days separating themselves from
sight of men, and allowing none access to them, do shut themselves
up, living in great earnestness of prayers. For these do use to
shut up with themselves store of aliments,
30. Wherefore, that I may
briefly embrace the whole matter, let these persons, who from
perverse understanding of the Gospel labor to pervert apostolical
precepts, either take no thought for the morrow, even as the birds
of the air; or let them obey the Apostle, as dear children: yea
rather, let them do both, because both accord. For things contrary
to his Lord, Paul the servant of Jesus Christ would never advise.
31. For if they be urged from
the Gospel that they should put nothing by for the morrow, they
most rightly answer, “Why then had the Lord Himself a bag in
which to put by the money which was collected?
32. Some man will say:
“What then does it profit a servant of God, that, having left the
former doings which he had in the world he is converted unto the
spiritual life and warfare, if it still behove him to do business
as of a common workman?” As if truly it could be easily unfolded
in words, how greatly profiteth what the Lord, in answer to that
rich man who was seeking counsel of laying hold on eternal life,
told him to do if he would fain be perfect: sell that he had,
distribute all to the indigence of the poor, and follow Him? Scipio ap. Val. iv. 4.
33. Wherefore even they which
having relinquished or distributed their former, whether ample or
in any sort opulent, means, have chosen with pious and wholesome
humility to be numbered among the poor of Christ; if they be so
strong in body and free from ecclesiastical occupations, (albeit,
bringing as they do so great a proof of their purpose, and
conferring from their former havings, either very much, or not a
little, upon the indigence of the same society, the common fund
itself and brotherly charity owes them in return a sustenance of
their life,) yet if they too work with their hands, that they may
take away all excuse from lazy brethren who come from a more humble
condition in life, and therefore one more used to toil; therein
they act far more mercifully than when they divided all their goods
to the needy. If indeed they be unwilling to do this, who can
venture to compel them? Yet then there ought to be found for them
works in the monastery, which if more free from bodily exercise,
require to be looked unto with vigilant administration, that not
even they may eat their bread for nought, because it is now become
the common property. Nor is it to be regarded in what monasteries,
or in what place, any man may have bestowed his former having upon
his indigent brethren. For all Christians make one commonwealth.
And for that cause whoso shall have, no matter in what place,
expended upon Christians the things they needed, in what place
soever he also receiveth what himself hath need of, from Christ’s
goods De Christi
34. But then the Lord saith,
“Be not solicitous for your life what ye shall eat, nor for the
body, what ye shall put on.” Rightly: because He had said above,
“Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” For he who preaches the
Gospel with an eye to this, that he may have whereof he may eat and
whereof be clothed, accounts that he at the same time both serves
God, because he preaches the Gospel; and mammon, because he
preaches with an eye to these necessaries: which thing the Lord
saith to be impossible. And hereby he who doth for the sake of
these things preach the Gospel is convicted that he serves not God
but mammon; however God may use him, he knows not how, to other
men’s advancement. For to this sentence doth He subjoin, saying
“Therefore I say unto you, Be not solicitous for your life what
ye shall eat, nor for your body what ye shall put on:” not that
they should not procure these things, as much as is enough for
necessity, by what means they honestly may; but that they should
not look to these things, and for the sake of these do whatever in
preaching of the Gospel they are bidden to do. The intention,
namely, for which a thing is done, He calls the eye: of which a
little above He was speaking with purpose to come down to this, and
saying, “The light of thy body is thine eye: if thine eye be
single, thy whole body shall be full of light; but if thine
eye Correpto oculo
35. And that which follows
concerning birds of the air and lilies of the field, He saith to
this end, that no man may think that God careth not for the needs
of His servants; when His most wise Providence reacheth unto these
in creating and governing those. For it must not be deemed that it
is not He that feeds and clothes them also which work with their
hands. But lest they turn aside the Christian service of warfare
unto their purpose of getting these things, the Lord in this
premonisheth His servants that in this ministry which is due to His
Sacrament, we should take thought, not for these, but for His
kingdom and righteousness: and all these things shall be added unto
us, whether working by our hands, or whether by infirmity of body
hindered from working, or whether bound by such occupation of our
very warfare that we are able to do nothing else. For neither does
it follow that because the Lord hath said, “Call upon Me in the
day of tribulation and I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify
Me,”
36. Since these things are
so, suffer me awhile, holy brother, (for the Lord giveth me through
thee great boldness,) to address these same our sons and brethren
whom I know with what love thou together with us dost travail in
birth withal, until the Apostolic discipline be formed in them. O
servants of God, soldiers of Christ, is it thus ye dissemble the
plottings of our most crafty foe, who fearing your good fame, that
so goodly odor of Christ, lest good souls should say, “We will
run after the odor of thine ointments,” Reg. S. Ben. c. l. Cass. Coll.
xviii. 7.
37. We are not binding heavy
burdens and laying them upon your shoulders, while we with a finger
will not touch them. Seek out, and acknowledge the labor of our
occupations, and in some of us the infirmities of our bodies also,
and in the Churches which we serve, that custom now grown up, that
they do not suffer us to have time ourselves for those works to
which we exhort you. For though we might say, “Who goeth a
warfare any time at his own charges? Who planteth a vineyard, and
eateth not of the fruit thereof? Who feedeth a flock, and partaketh
not of the milk of the flock?” Reg. S. Ben. c.
xlviii. Ab humano die Germana
38. These things, my brother
Aurelius, most dear unto me, and in the bowels of Christ to be
venerated, so far as He hath bestowed on me the ability Who through
thee commanded me to do it, touching work of Monks, I have not
delayed to write; making this my chief care, lest good brethren
obeying apostolic precepts, should by lazy and disobedient be
called even prevaricators from the Gospel: that they which work
not, may at the least account them which do work to be better than
themselves without doubt. But who can bear that contumacious
persons resisting most wholesome admonitions of the Apostle,
should, not as weaker brethren be borne withal, but even be
preached up as holier men; insomuch that monasteries founded on
sounder doctrine should be by this double enticement corrupted, the
dissolute license of vacation from labor, and the false name of
sanctity? Let it be known then to the rest, our brethren and sons,
who are accustomed to favor such men, and through ignorance to
defend this kind of presumption, that they need themselves most
chiefly to be corrected, in order that those may be corrected, nor
that they become “weary in well-doing.”
39. For there is less sin, if
people do not praise the sinner in the desires of his soul, and
speak good of him who practiseth iniquities. E.V. follows text rec.
τοῦτο δὲ
παραγγελλων οὐκ ἐπαινῶ, but
good mss. and Versions besides the Ital.
and Vulg, have
τοῦτο δὲ παραγγελλω ουκ
ἐπαινῶν, hoc autem
prœcipio non laudans. Cum transieris. Gr. ἡνίκα δ᾽
ἄν ἐπιστρέψη, sc. ὁ Ἰσραὴλ Chrys. Theod. or
τὶς Origen. Venalem typhum Sacramentum Species illa
venalis
40. And then that further
device of theirs, (if words can express it), how painfully
ridiculous is it, which they have invented for defense of their
long locks! “A man,” say they, “the Apostle hath forbidden to
have long hair: but then they who have made themselves eunuchs for
the kingdom of God are no longer men.” O dotage unparalleled!
Well may the person who says this arm himself against Holy
Scripture’s most manifest proclamations, with counsel of
outrageous impiety, and persevere in a tortuous path, and essay to
bring in a pestiferous doctrine that not “Blessed is the man who
hath not walked in the counsel of the ungodly, and in the way of
sinners hath not stood, and in the chair of noisome wickedness Pestilentiæ Mens Sacramentum
41. Wherefore, they which will not do right things, let them give over at least to teach wrong things. Howbeit they be others whom in this speech we reprove: but as for those who by this one fault, of letting their hair contrary to apostolic precept grow long, offend and trouble the Church, because when some being unwilling to think of them any thing amiss are forced to twist the manifest words of the Apostle into a wrong meaning, others choose to defend the sound understanding of the Scriptures rather than fawn upon any men, there arise between the weaker and the stronger brethren most bitter and perilous contentions: which things perchance if they knew, these would correct without hesitation this also, in whom we admire and love all else. Those then we not reprove, but ask and solemnly beseech by the Godhead and the Manhood of Christ and by the charity of the Holy Ghost, that they no more put this stumbling-block before the weak for whom Christ died, and aggravate the grief and torment of our heart when we bethink us how much more readily evil men can imitate this evil thing for deceiving of mankind, when they see this in them whom on the score of other so great good we with deserved offices of Christian love do honor. If however, after this admonition, or rather this solemn entreaty of ours, they shall think fit to persevere in the same, we shall do nothing else but only grieve and mourn. This let them know; it is enough. If they be servants of God, they have pity. If they have not pity, I will not say any thing worse. All these things, therefore, in the which peradventure I have been more loquacious than the occupations both of thee and of me could wish, if thou approve the same, make thou to be known to our brethren and sons, on whose behalf thou hast deigned to put this burden upon me: but if aught seem to thee meet to be withdrawn or amended, by reply of your Blessedness I shall know the same.
On Patience
[De Patientia.]
Translated by Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
Of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; Late Principal of the Diocesan College, Chichester.
Erasmus infers from the style and language of this piece, that it is not S. Augustin’s, putting it in the same category with the treatises On Continence, On substance of Charity, On Faith of things invisible. The Benedictine editors acknowledge that it has peculiarities of style which are calculated to move suspicion; (especially the studied assonances and rhyming endings, e.g. “cautior fuit iste in doloribus quam ille in nemoribus . . . consensit ille oblectamentis, non cessit ille tormentis,” chap. 12.); yet they feel themselves bound to retain it among the genuine works by Augustin’s own testimony, who mentions both this piece and that On Continence in his Epistle to Darius, 231. chap. 7. [Vol. I. 584.] That it is not named in the Retractations is accounted for by the circumstance that it appears to have been delivered as a sermon, see chap. 1. and 3, and Augustin did not live to fulfill his intention of composing a further book of retractations on review of his popular discourses and letters. Ep. 224. chap. 2. In point of matter and doctrine this treatise has nothing contrary to or not in harmony with S. Augustin’s known doctrine and sentiments.
1.
That virtue of the mind which is called Patience, is so
great a gift of God, that even in Him who bestoweth the same upon
us, that, whereby He waiteth for evil men that they may amend, is
set forth by the name of Patience, [or long-suffering.] So,
although in God there can be no suffering, Pati Nihil
patientem Livore
2. The patience of man, which
is right and laudable and worthy of the name of virtue, is
understood to be that by which we tolerate evil things with an even
mind, that we may not with a mind uneven desert good things,
through which we may arrive at better. Wherefore the impatient,
while they will not suffer ills, effect not a deliverance from
ills, but only the suffering of heavier ills. Whereas the patient
who choose rather by not committing to bear, than by not
bearing
3. Look we then, beloved, what
hardships in labors and sorrows men endure, for things which they
viciously love, and by how much they think to be made by them more
happy, by so much more unhappily covet. How much for false riches,
how much for vain honors, how much for affections of games and
shows, is of exceeding peril and trouble most patiently borne! We
see men hankering after money, glory, lasciviousness, how, that
they may arrive at their desires, and having gotten not lose them,
they endure sun, rain, icy cold, waves, and most stormy tempests,
the roughnesses and uncertainties of wars, the strokes of huge
blows, and dreadful wounds, not of inevitable necessity but of
culpable will. But these madnesses are thought, in a manner,
permitted. Thus avarice, ambition, luxury, and the delights of all
sorts of games and shows, unless for them some wicked deed be
committed or outrage which is prohibited by human laws, are
accounted to pertain to innocence: nay moreover, the man who
without wrong to any shall, whether for getting or increasing of
money, whether for obtaining or keeping of honors, whether in
contending in the match, or in hunting, or in exhibiting with
applause some theatrical spectacle, have borne great labors and
pains, it is not enough that through popular vanity he is checked
by no reproofs, but he is moreover extolled with praises:
“Because,” as it is written, “the sinner is praised in the
desires of his soul.”
4. Nay more; for is it not so
that even for open wickednesses, not to punish but to perpetrate
them, men put up with many most grievous troubles? Do not authors
of secular letters tell of a certain right noble parricide of his
country, that hunger, thirst, cold, all these he was able to
endure, and his body was patient of lack of food and warmth and
sleep to a degree surpassing belief? Sallust
Catilin, c. v.
5. When therefore thou shall see any man suffer aught patiently, do not straightway praise it as patience; for this is only shown by the cause of suffering. When it is a good cause, then is it true patience: when that is not polluted by lust, then is this distinguished from falsity. But when that is placed in crime, then is this much misplaced in name. For not just as all who know are partakers of knowledge, just so are all who suffer partakers of patience: but they which rightly use the suffering, these in verity of patience are praised, these with the prize of patience are crowned.
6. But yet, seeing that for
lusts’ sake, or even wickednesses, seeing, in a word, that for
this temporal life and weal men do wonderfully bear the brunt of
many horrible sufferings, they much admonish us how great things
ought to be borne for the sake of a good life, that it may also
hereafter be eternal life, and without any bound of time, without
waste or loss of any advantage, in true felicity secure. The Lord
saith, “In your patience ye shall
7. Though indeed the welfare
even of the body is then more providently consulted for if its
temporal life and welfare be disregarded for righteousness’ sake,
and its pain or death most patiently for righteousness’ sake
endured. Since it is of the body’s redemption which is to be in
the end, that the Apostle speaks, where he says, “Even we
ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting the adoption of sons, the
redemption of our body.”
8. But although patience be a
virtue of the mind, yet partly the mind exercises it in the mind
itself, partly in the body. In itself it exercises patience, when,
the body remaining unhurt and untouched, the mind is goaded by any
adversities or filthinesses of things or words, to do or to say
something that is not expedient or not becoming, and patiently
bears all evils that it may not itself commit any evil in work or
word. By this patience we bear, even while we be sound in body,
that in the midst of the offenses of this world our blessedness is
deferred: of which is said what I cited a little before, “If what
we see not we hope for, we do by patience wait for it.” By this
patience, holy David bore the revilings of a railer,
9. It is indeed a greater fight of patience, when it is not a visible enemy that by persecution and rage would urge us into crime which enemy may openly and in broad day be by not consenting overcome; but the devil himself, (he who doth likewise by means of the children of infidelity, as by his vessels, persecute the children of light) doth by himself hiddenly attack us, by his rage putting us on to do or say something against God. As such had holy Job experience of him, by both temptations vexed, but in both through steadfast strength of patience and arms of piety unconquered. For first, his body being left unhurt, he lost all that he had, in order that the mind, before excruciation of the flesh, might through withdrawal of the things which men are wont to prize highly, be broken, and he might say something against God upon loss of the things for the sake of which he was thought to worship Him. He was smitten also with sudden bereavement of all his sons so that whom he had begotten one by one he should lose all at once, as though their numerousness had been not for the adorning of his felicity, but for the increasing of his calamity. But where, having endured these things, he remained immovable in his God, he cleaved to His will, Whom it was not possible to lose but by his own will; and in place of the things he had lost he held Him who took them away, in Whom he should find what should never be lost. For He that took them away was not that enemy who had will of hurting, but He who had given to that enemy the power of hurting. The enemy next attacked also the body, and now not those things which were in the man from without, but the man himself, in whatever part he could, he smote. From the head to the feet were burning pains, were crawling worms, were running sores; still in the rotting body the mind remained entire, and horrid as were the tortures of the consuming flesh, with inviolate piety and uncorrupted patience it endured them all. There stood the wife, and instead of giving her husband any help, was suggesting blasphemy against God. For we are not to think that the devil, in leaving her when he took away the sons, went to work as one unskilled in mischief: rather, how necessary she was to the tempter, he had already learned in Eve. But now he had not found a second Adam whom he might take by means of a woman. More cautious was Job in his hours of sadness, than Adam in his bowers of gladness, the one was overcome in the midst of pleasant things, the other overcame in the midst of pains; the one consented to that which seemed delightsome, this other quailed not in torments most affrightsome. There stood his friends too, not to console him in his evils, but to suspect evil in him. For while he suffered so great sorrows, they believed him not innocent, nor did their tongue forbear to say that which his conscience had not to say; that so amid ruthless tortures of the body, his mind also might be beaten with truthless reproaches. But he, bearing in his flesh his own pains, in his heart others’ errors, reproved his wife for her folly, taught his friends wisdom, preserved patience in each and all.
10. To this man let them Donatists
11. Let then the Saints hear
from holy Scripture the precepts of patience: “My son, when thou
comest to the service of God, stand thou in righteousness and fear,
and prepare thy soul for temptation: bring thine heart low, and
bear up; that in the last end thy life may increase. All that shall
come upon thee receive thou, and in pain bear up, and in thy
humility have patience. For in the fire gold and silver is proved,
but acceptable men in the furnace Receptibiles
12. But concerning true
patience, worthy of the name of this virtue, whence it is to be
had, must now be inquired. For there are some Pelagians
13. But they answer and
speak, saying, “If the will of man without any aid of God by
strength of free choice Liberi
arbitrii
14. They which say these
things, do not understand that as well each one of the wicked is in
that measure for endurance of any ills more hard, in what measure
the lust of the world is mightier in him; as also that each one of
the just is in that measure for endurance of any ills more brave,
in what measure in him the love of God is mightier. But lust of the
world hath its beginning from choice of the will, its progress from
enjoyableness of pleasure, its confirmation from the chain of
custom, whereas “the love of God is shed abroad in our
hearts,” Magnanima Ambitio
sæculi Deifica
15. For, as the Divine
utterances testify, “God is love, and he that dwelleth in love
dwelleth in God, and God dwelleth in him.”
16. Here some man shall say;
“If the concupiscence of the bad, whereby it comes that they bear
all evils for that which they lust after, be of the world, how is
it said to be of their will?” As if, truly, they were not
themselves also of the world, when they love the world, forsaking
Him by Whom the world was made. For “they serve the
creature
17. Now this election the
Apostle demonstrating to be, not of merits going before in good
works, but election of grace, saith thus: “And in this time a
remnant by election of grace is saved. But if by grace, then is it
no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.”
18. Whence also the just of
old, before the Incarnation of the Word, in this faith of Christ,
and in this true righteousness, (which thing Christ is unto us,)
were justified; believing this to come which we believe come: and
they themselves by grace were saved through faith, not of
themselves, but by the gift of God, not of works, lest haply they
should be lifted up.
19. Since the case is so,
what is man, while in this life he uses his own proper will, ere he
choose and love God, but unrighteous and ungodly? “What,” I
say, “is man,” a creature going astray from the Creator, unless
his Creator “be mindful of him,” Eligere Diligere
20. Let thus much have been said with regard to charity, without which in us there cannot be true patience, because in good men it is the love of God which endureth all things, as in bad men the lust of the world. But this love is in us by the Holy Spirit which was given us. Whence, of Whom cometh in us love, of Him cometh patience. But the lust of the world, when it patiently bears the burdens of any manner of calamity, boasts of the strength of its own will, like as of the stupor of disease, not robustness of health. This boasting is insane: it is not the language of patience, but of dotage. A will like this in that degree seems more patient of bitter ills, in which it is more greedy of temporal good things, because more empty of eternal.
21. But if it be goaded on and inflamed with deceitful visions and unclean incentives by the devilish spirit, associated and conspiring therewith in malignant agreement, this spirit makes the will of the man either frantic with error, or burning with appetite of some worldly delight; and hence, it seems to show a marvellous endurance of intolerable evils: but yet it does not follow from this that an evil will without instigation of another and unclean spirit, like as a good will without aid of the Holy Spirit, cannot exist. For that there may be an evil will even without any spirit either seducing or inciting, is sufficiently clear in the instance of the devil himself, who is found to have become a devil, not through some other devil, but of his own proper will. An evil will therefore, whether it be hurried on by lust, whether called back by fear, whether expanded by gladness, whether contracted by sadness, and in all these perturbations of mind enduring and making light of whatever are to others, or at another time, more grievous, this evil will may, without another spirit to goad it on, seduce itself, and in lapsing by defection from the higher to the lower, the more pleasant it shall account that thing to be which it seeks to get or fears to lose, or rejoices to have gotten, or grieves to have lost, the more tolerably for its sake bear what is less for it to suffer than that is to be enjoyed. For whatever that thing be, it is of the creature, of which one knows the pleasure. Because in some sort, the creature loved approaches itself to the creature loving in fond contact and connection, to the giving experience of its sweetness.
22. But the pleasure of the
Creator, of which is written, “And from the river of Thy pleasure
wilt Thou give them to drink,”
23. But if moreover any not
having charity, which pertaineth to the unity of spirit and the
bond of peace whereby the Catholic Church is gathered and knit
together, being involved in any schism, doth, that he may not deny
Christ, suffer tribulations, straits, hunger, nakedness,
persecution, perils, prisons, bonds, torments, swords, or flames,
or wild beasts, or the very cross, through fear of hell and
everlasting fire; in nowise is all this to be blamed, nay rather
this also is a patience meet to be praised. For we cannot say that
it would have been better for him that by denying Christ he should
suffer none of these things, which he did suffer by confessing Him:
but we must account that it will perhaps be more tolerable for him
in the judgment, than if by denying Christ he should avoid all
those things: so that what the Apostle saith, “If I shall give my
body to be burned, but have not charity, it profiteth me
nothing,”
24. See on Profit of
Believing, c. 1, p. 347.
25. So then, as we are not to
deny that this is the gift of God, we are thus to understand that
there be some gifts of God possessed by the sons of that Jerusalem
which is above,
26. Cry we therefore with the
spirit of charity, and until we come to the inheritance in which we
are alway to remain, let us be, through love which becometh the
free-born, not through fear which becometh bondmen, patient of
suffering. Cry we, so long as we are poor, until we be with that
inheritance made rich. Seeing how great earnest thereof we have
received, in that Christ to make us rich made Himself poor; Who
being exalted unto the riches which are above, there was sent One
Who should breathe into our hearts holy longings, the Holy Spirit.
Of these poor, as yet believing, not yet beholding; as yet hoping,
not yet enjoying; as yet sighing in desire, not yet reigning in
felicity; as yet hungering
On Care to Be Had for the Dead.
[De Cura Pro Mortuis.]
Translated by Rev. H. Browne, M.A.
Of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge; Late Principal of the Diocesan College, Chichester.
From the Retractations, Book ii. Chap. 64.
The book, On care to be had for
the dead, I wrote, having been asked by letter whether it
profits any person after death that his body shall be buried at the
memorial of any Saint. The date may be conjectured from
the order of the Retractations, where this book is mentioned
next after the Enchiridion ad Laurentium, which was not
finished earlier than A.D. 421. The first two paragraphs of this
treatise will be found quoted by Augustin in his Book On Eight
Questions of Dulcitius, Quæst. ii. 2, 3. Ben. ed.
Paulinus, to whom it was addressed, was Bishop of Nolæ, and took
great pains to honor the memory of St. Felix, who is mentioned in
the beginning of it. Several poems of his on the subject are
extant.
1. Long time, my venerable
fellow-bishop Paulinus, have I been thy Holiness’s debtor for an
answer; even since thou wrotest to me by them of the household Homines Vacare
2. But this being the case,
how to this opinion that should not be contrary which the Apostle
says, “For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ,
that each may receive according to the things he hath done by the
body, Per corpus Inaniter
3. Possibly thy inquiry is
satisfied by this my brief reply. But what other considerations
move me, to which I think meet to answer, do thou for a short space
attend. In the books of the Maccabees we read of sacrifice offered
for the dead.
“To none is giv’n to pass the hideous banks
And waters hoarse, ere in their meet abode
The bones have sunk to rest.” Æneidvi. 327, 328.
Who can incline a Christian heart to these
poetical and fabulous figments, when the Lord Jesus, to the intent
that under the hands of their enemies, who should have their bodies
in their power, Christians might lie down without a fear, asserts
that not a hair of their head shall perish, exhorting that they
should not fear them which when they have killed the body have
nothing more that they can do?
4. “But” (say I) “in
such a slaughter-heap of dead bodies, could they not even be
buried? not this, either, doth pious faith too greatly dread,
holding that which is foretold that not even consuming beasts will
be an hindrance to the rising again of bodies of which not a hair
of the head shall perish.
“though all unurn’d he lie,
His cov’ring is the overarching
sky.” Lucan vii. 819, speaking of the
slain in the battle of Pharsalia, whose bodies Caesar forbad to
burn or inter.
How much less ought they to make a vaunting about unburied bodies of Christians, to whom the flesh itself with all its members, re-fashioned, not only from the earth, but even from the other elements, yea, from their most secret windings, whereinto these evanished corpses have retired, is assured to be in an instant of time rendered back and made entire as at the first, according to His promise?
5. Yet it follows not that the
bodies of the departed are to be despised and flung aside, and
above all of just and faithful men, which bodies as organs and
vessels to all good works their spirit hath holily used. For if a
father’s garment and ring, and whatever such like, is the more
dear to those whom they leave behind, the greater their affection
is towards their parents, in no wise are the bodies themselves to
be spurned, which truly we wear in more familiar and close
conjunction than any of our putting on. For these pertain not to
ornament or aid which is applied from without, but to the very
nature of man. Whence also the funerals of the just men of old were
with dutiful piety cared for, and their obsequies celebrated, and
sepulture provided: On the City of
God, book i. chap. xii. 13. Vol. ii. p.
10.
6. If this be true, doubtless
also the providing for the interment of bodies a place at
Memoria Recordationis
7. When therefore the faithful
mother of a faithful son departed desired to have his body
deposited in the basilica of a Martyr, forasmuch as she believed
that his soul would be aided by the merits of the Martyr, the very
believing of this was a sort of supplication, and this profited, if
aught profited. And in that she recurs in her thoughts to this same
sepulchre, and in her prayers more and more commends her son, the
spirit of the departed is aided, not by the place of its dead body,
but by that which springs from memory of the place, the living
affection of the mother. For at once the thought, who is commended
and to whom, doth touch, and that with no unprofitable emotion, the
religious mind of her who prays. For also in prayer to God, Orantes
8. We read in the
Ecclesiastical History which Eusebius wrote in Greek, and Ruffinus
turned into the Latin tongue, of Martyr’s bodies in Gaul exposed
to dogs, and how the leavings of those dogs and bones of the dead
were, even to uttermost consumption, by fire burned up; and the
ashes of the same scattered on the river Rhone, lest any thing
should be left for any sort whatever of memorial. Eusebius, H. E. book v. chap. i.
relates, that the bodies of these martyrs of Lyons lay exposed in
the open air for six days successively, and were then burned and
cast into the Rhone.—Ben. ed.
9. And yet, by reason of that
affection of the human heart, whereby “no man ever hateth his own
flesh,”
10. This affection the
Martyrs of Christ contending for the truth did overcome: and it is
no marvel that they despised that whereof they should, when death
was overpast, have no feeling, when they could not by those
tortures, which while alive they did feel, be overcome. God was
able, no doubt, (even as He permitted not the lion when it had
slain the Prophet, to touch his body further, and of a slayer made
it to be a keeper): He was able, I say, to have kept the slain
bodies of His own from the dogs to which they had been flung; He
was able in innumerable ways to have deterred the rage of the men
themselves, that to burn the carcases, to scatter the ashes, they
should not dare: but it was fit that this experience also should
not be lacking to manifold variety of temptations, lest the
fortitude of confession which would not for the saving of the life
of the body give way to the savageness of persecution, should be
tremblingly anxious for the honor of a sepulchre: in a word, lest
faith of resurrection should dread the consuming of the body. It
was fit then, that even these things should be permitted, in order
that, even after these examples of so great horror, the Martyrs,
fervent in confession of Christ, should become witnesses of this
truth also, in which they had learned that they by whom their
bodies should be slain had after that no more that they could do.
11. In regard to that woful
compassion which I have mentioned, are those praised, and by king
David blessed, who to the dry bones of Saul and Jonathan afforded
mercy of sepulture.
12. Stories are told of
certain appearances or visions, Visa Imagines Visis
13. Such, however, is human
infirmity, that when in a dream a person shall see a dead man, he
thinks it is the soul that he sees: but when he shall in like
manner dream of a living man, he has no doubt that it is not a soul
nor a body, but the likeness of a man that has appeared to him:
just as if it were not possible in regard of dead men, in the same
sort unconscious of it, that it should not be their souls, but
their likenesses that appear to the sleepers. Of a surety, when we
were at Milan, we heard tell of a certain person of whom was
demanded payment of a debt, with production of his deceased
father’s acknowledgment, Cautio Recautum Chirographum
14. Like dreams, moreover,
are also some visions of persons awake, who have had their senses
troubled, such as phrenetic persons, or those who are mad in any
way: for they too talk to themselves just as though they were
speaking to people verily present, and as well with absent as with
present, whose images they perceive, whether persons living or
dead. But just as they which live, are unconscious that they are
seen of them and talk with them; for indeed they are not really
themselves present, or themselves make speeches, but through
troubled senses, these persons are wrought upon by such-like
imaginary visions; just so they also who have departed this life,
to persons thus affected appear as present, while they be absent,
and whether any man sees them in regard of their image, Imaginaliter
15. Similar to this is also
that condition when persons, with their senses more profoundedly in
abeyance than is the case in sleep, are occupied with the like
visions. For to them also appear images of quick and dead; but
then, when they return to their senses, whatever dead they say they
have seen are thought to have been verily with them: and they who
hear these things pay no heed to the circumstance that there were
seen in like manner the images of certain living persons, absent
and unconscious. A certain man by name Curma, of the municipal town
of Tullium, which is hard by Hippo, a poor member of the Curia, Curialis Duumviralitius
16. Why should we not believe
these to be angelic operations through dispensation of the
providence of God, Who maketh good use of both good things and
evil, according to the unsearchable depth of His judgments? whether
thereby the minds of mortals be instructed, or whether deceived;
whether consoled, or whether terrified: according as unto each one
there is to be either a showing of mercy, or a taking of vengeance,
by Him to Whom, not without a meaning, the Church doth sing “of
mercy and of judgment.”
17. Some man may say: “If
there be not in the dead any care for the living, how is it that
the rich man, who was tormented in hell, asked father Abraham to
send Lazarus to his five brothers not as yet dead, and to take
course with them, that they should not come themselves also into
the same place of torments?”
18. So then we must confess
that the dead indeed do not know what is doing here, but while it
is in doing here: afterwards, however, they hear it from those who
from hence go to them at their death; not indeed every thing, but
what things those are allowed to make known who are suffered also
to remember these things; and which it is meet for those to hear,
whom they inform of the same. It may be also, that from the Angels,
who are present in the things which are doing here, the dead do
hear somewhat, which for each one of them to hear He judgeth right
to Whom all things are subject. For were there not Angels, who
could be present in places both of quick and dead, the Lord Jesus
had not said, “It came to pass also that the poor man died, and
was carried by the angels into Abraham’s bosom.” Quæst. ad Simplicianum,
lib. ii. qu. 4. Retract. ii. 4, and “On Christian Doctrine,” book
ii. chap. viii., vol. ii. p. 539. Ben. ed.
19. Hence too is solved that
question, how is it that the Martyrs, by the very benefits which
are given to them that pray, indicate that they take an interest in
the affairs of men, if the dead know not what the quick are doing.
For not only by effects of benefits, but in the very beholding of
men, it is certain, Inquilinatum
20. Howbeit it is a question
which surpasses the strength of my understanding, after what manner
the Martyrs aid them who by them, it is certain, are helped;
whether themselves by themselves be present at the same time in so
different places, and by so great distance lying apart one from
another, either where their Memorials are, or beside their
Memorials, wheresoever they are felt to be present: or whether,
while they themselves, in a place congruous with their merits, are
removed from all converse with mortals, and yet do in a general
sort pray for the needs of their suppliants, (like as we pray for
the dead, to whom however we are not present, nor know where they
be or what they be doing,) God Almighty, Who is every where
present, neither bounded in Concretus Alii, ἄλλῳ Alii, ἄλλῳ Alteri, ἑτέρῳ Alteri, ἑτέρῳ Alii, ἄλλῳ Alii, ἄλλῳ Alii, ἄλλῳ Alii, ἄλλῳ Alii, ἄλλῳ
21. Such, we may believe, was
that John the Monk, whom the elder Theodosius, the Emperor,
consulted concerning the issue of the civil war: seeing he had also
the gift of prophecy. For that not each several person has a
several one of those gifts, but that one man may have more gifts
than one, I make no question. This John, then, when once a certain
most religious woman desired to see him, and to obtain this did
through her husband make vehement entreaty, refused indeed this
request because he had never allowed this to women, but “Go,”
said he, “tell thy wife, she shall see me this night, but in her
sleep.” And so it came to pass: and he gave her advice, whatever
was meet to be given to a wedded believing woman. And she, on her
awaking, made known to her husband that she had seen a man of God,
such as he knew him to be, and what she had been told by him. The
person who learned this from them, reported it to me, a grave man
and a noble, and most worthy to be believed. But if I myself had
seen that holy monk, because (it is said) he was most patient in
hearing questions and most wise in answering, I would have sought
of him, as touching our question, whether he himself came to that
woman in sleep, that is to say, his spirit in the form of his body,
just as we dream that we see ourselves in the form of our own body;
or whether, while he himself was doing something else, or, if
asleep, was dreaming of
22. Which things being so,
let us not think that to the dead for whom we have a care, any
thing reaches save what by sacrifices either of the altar, or of
prayers, or of alms, we solemnly supplicate: although not to all
for whom they are done be they profitable, but to them only by whom
while they live it is obtained that they should be profitable. But
forasmuch as we discern not who these be, it is meet to do them for
all regenerate persons, that none of them may be passed by to whom
these benefits may and ought to reach. For better it is that these
things shall be superfluously done to them whom they neither hinder
nor help, than lacking to them whom they help. More diligently
however doth each man these things for his own near and dear
friends, in order that they may be likewise done unto him by his.
But as for the burying of the body, whatever is bestowed on that,
is no aid of salvation, but an office of humanity, according to
that affection by which “no man ever hateth his own flesh.” Gerat Gerebat.
23. Here, to the things thou
hast thought meet to inquire of me, thou hast such reply as I have
been able to render: which if it be more than enough prolix, thou
must excuse this, for it was done through love of holding longer
talk with thee. For this book, then, how thy charity shall receive
it, let me, I pray thee, know by a second letter: though
doubt
Abraham, appearance of God to, 46 sq., 66 sq.
Academic philosophy, the, criticised, 210 sq.
Adam, the appearing of God to, and how he spoke to, 45 sq.; on account of his sin we are delivered into the power of the devil, 175.
Angels, how they work miracles, 60; have their power from God only, 63; appearing of, 64–66; how the law was given by, 67.
Anthropomorphism, 18.
Arians, the arguments of, derived from the words “begotten” and “unbegotten,” refuted, 88 sq.
Back parts, the, of God, 50–52.
“Beginning,” the word, spoken relatively in regard to the Trinity, 85, 94, 95.
“Begotten” and “unbegotten,” the words, 91, 225; reply to cavils of heretics respecting, 89.
Blessedness, desired by all, 170; perfect only in the life to come, 171; cannot exist without immortality, 172.
Christ, the mediation and intercession of, shall cease, 26–28; the sending of, at His incarnation, 40; the death and resurrection of, and their bearing on us, 71 sq.; the Mediator gathers the many into one, 75 sq.; the ignorance of, 30; the death of, voluntary, 77 sq.; the most perfect victim for cleansing guilt, 79, 80.
Cicero says all men will be blessed, 170; commends contemplative wisdom, 197.
Creation, all, a manifestation of God, 58.
Daniel, the appearance of God to, 53.
Death, the, of soul and body, and the bearing of Christ’s one death on, 71‑73.
Degradation, the lowest, reached by degrees, 160.
Demons, miracles wrought by, to be spurned, 76.
Devil, the, the mediator of death, 76; how he leads his own to despise the death of Christ, 79; overcome not by might but by righteousness, 176–178.
Dove, the, Holy Spirit manifested by a, 42, 224.
Essence, and substance, 21 (note), 92, 109–114, 139 (note).
Eunomius, his error in saying that the Son of God is the son not of His nature but of His will, 220.
Faith, a thing of the heart, 168; necessary to blessedness, 171.
Father, the, not alone immortal, 44, etc.; what is said of, and the Son together; and what not, 98, etc.; is Himself power and wisdom, 104, etc.; and the Son, together one wisdom as one essence, 107, etc.
Generation, eternal, 225, 226 (notes).
Glass, seeing through darkly, explained, 206, etc.
God, how the Scriptures speak of, 18; why immortality ascribed exclusively to, 18; the substance of, how to know, 18; uses of the term, 22 (note); whether God the Trinity, or one person of the Trinity, appeared to the fathers, 45; how He spake to Adam, 45; His appearance to Abraham, 46, etc., 66, etc.; to Lot, 47; to Moses, 48; in the pillar of cloud and fire, 49; at Sinai, 50; to Daniel, 53; the will of, the higher cause of all corporeal changes, 57; uses all His creatures as He will for His glory, 58; the essence of, never appeared, 65; the appearances of, wrought by angels, 66; the knowledge of, to be sought from Himself, 69, etc.; not corporeal nor changeable, 87; the only unchangeable essence, 88; what is spoken of according to essence, is spoken of each person severally, and together of the Trinity itself, 91; of those things which belong absolutely to His essence, 92; what is said of, in respect to time, said relatively, 95; how a substance, simple and manifold, 100; is a Trinity, but not triple, 101; whether one person, or the three together, called the one God, 102; substance is spoken of improperly, essence properly, 111; nothing greater in, than one person 116; corporeal conceptions of, to be rejected, 116; to be known by faith, that He may be loved, 118, etc.; worship of, is the love of Him, 163; what His wrath is, 179.
Head, mystical meaning of covering the, 159.
Hilary quoted respecting the persons of the Trinity, 102, 201.
Holy Spirit, the, is very God, 23; why so called, 93; relation to the Son, 26; relation to the Son and the Father, 39; the sending of, 40, 85; not incarnate in the dove, 42; the sensible showing of, 85; the Father and the Son the only beginning of, 94; whether He was a gift before as well as after He was given, 95; equal to the Father and the Son in all things, 100, etc.; is together with the Father and the Holy Spirit one wisdom, 107; is properly called in Scripture by the name of love, 215, etc.; is God, and also the gift of God, 217; of the procession of the, 224, etc.
Hypostasis and person, how these words came into use in reference to the Trinity, the former among the Greeks, the latter among the Latins, 23 (note), 92, 109, etc.
Image of God, how man is the, 113; turning aside from, 160; to be found in the rational soul, 185; how formed anew in man, 195.
Image of the beast in man, 161.
Imagination, the power of 153.
Incarnation of the Word, benefits of, 174, 179.
Infants, minds of, 186.
Infinite, the, not the All, 101 (note).
Kingdom, the, delivered by Christ to the Father. 26, etc., 28.
Knowledge of God, the, to be sought from God, 69, etc.
Law, the, given by angels, 67.
Love, the true, by which we arrive at a knowledge of the Trinity, 122.
Magic, great miracles wrought by, 60; how far it extends, 61.
Man, is both after the image of God and is the image of God, 113; rescued not by might but by righteousness, 176.
Mediatorship of Christ, the cessation of, 28 (note), 29.
Merits, our, are the gifts of God, 174.
Mind, the Trinity in, 125; knows itself not in part but in whole, 137; its opinion of itself deceitful, 138; what it knows of itself, 140, etc.; an image of the Trinity, 143; in what part of, alone, is the Trinity the image of God, 156; how it thinks of itself, 187;loves God in rightly loving itself, 192, etc.; infirmity of the human, 223.
Miracles, why not usual works, 59; diversity lone makes, 60; great, wrought by magicians, 60; how angels work, 61; signs, 63 wrought by demons, to be spurned, 76.
Moses, in what manner he saw God, 50; his rod changed into a serpent, its sign, 64.
Nature, what it teaches us regarding God, 202.
Numbers, the senary and ternary, 73, etc., 74, etc.
Perfection, how God brings us to, 70.
Persons, the three, in the Godhead, 23 (note), 92; and Hypostases, how the word came into use, etc., 109–111; the Scriptures never formally speak of three, in one God, 110.
Pharaoh, the miracles wrought by the wise men of, 59.
Philosophers, not to be consulted respecting the resurrection, 80; their blessedness ridiculous, 171; origin of the name, 183.
Plato’s doctrine of reminiscences, 164.
Pythagoras, story regarding, 164.
Resurrection of Christ, the, the faith of, saves, 51.
Righteous man, how the man not yet righteous can know the, 120.
Scripture, Holy, the adaptation of, even to the simplest, 18; has more meanings than one, 36; a double rule for understanding the various modes of speech used in, respecting the Son, 37.
Sheol, 192.
Son of man, the, 33 (note).
Son of God, the, is very God, 21; in what respects less than the Father, 24, etc.; the subjection of, to the Father, and delivers up the kingdom to the Father, 24–28; relation of, to the Holy Spirit, 26; how equal to, and how less than the Father, 29; how said not to know the day nor the hour, 30, etc.; how to sit on His right hand and His left, not His to give, 31; the two natures of, lays a foundation for opposite things being said of, 33, etc.; judgment committed to, 33, etc.; double rule for understanding the phraseology of Scripture respecting, 37, etc.; glorification of, by the Father, 39; the sending of, 40; object of the incarnation of, 81; how sent and proclaimed beforehand, 82; how in His incarnation He was made less without detriment to His equality with the Father, 83; what the sending of, means, 84; the wisdom and power of the Father, 97; what is said of the Father and, together, and what not, 98; and the Father, how one, 99; and the Father, one wisdom as one essence, 107, etc.; why He is chiefly intimated by the word wisdom, when both the Father and the Holy Spirit are wisdom, 107; the love by which we arrive at a knowledge of, 122; how we are justified by His blood, 175; why He took upon Himself man from the race of Adam and from a virgin, 180; we are to be like Him, 196.
Soul, opinions of philosophers regarding its substance, 139; whence comes its error concerning itself, 140; its power over the body, 148.
Species, mental, produced by species in succession, 153.
Spirit, the Holy, why so called, 93 (note).
Spirit, a word of many meanings, 195.
Spiration, 93, 225, 226 (notes).
Ternary number, the, in Christ’s resurrection, 118, 119.
Theophanies, the, 43–54, 65–68.
Trinity, for what purpose the dissertation on, was written, 17; the Catholic faith respecting, 20; the difficulties concerning, 21, etc.; all three sometimes understood in one person, 27, 28 (note); the entire invisible, 43; whether the, spoke at Sinai, or some one person specially, 49, 53; the co-eternity of, 85, 86; the three persons of, and one essence, 92, 93; the word “beginning” how spoken relatively in regard to the Trinity, 94; God is a, but not triple, 101; whether one, or the three persons together, is called the one God, 102; Hilary quoted respecting the persons of the, 102; whether each person of, is of itself wisdom, 104, etc.; the use of the words hypostasis and person, in relation to, 109–114; why we do not speak of one person and three essences in, 111; how the, may be loved though unknown, 119; difficult to be demonstrated by natural reason, 202, etc.; disparity between the trinity which is in man and that which is in God, 111, 129, 133, 143 (notes), 222.
Trinity in man, three things in love, as it were a trace of, 124; a kind of, exists in mind, knowledge, and love, 125; another, in memory, understanding, and will, 134–143; a trace of, in the outer man, 144, etc.; man made after the image of the, 5, 157., etc., 190.
Unity of the Father and the Son, 99; numerical not specific, 20 (note).
Vision, how produced, 145.
Word, the Incarnate, dispels our darkness, 70; man apt for the perception of truth through, 71; incarnation of, suitable for freeing man from mortality, 174; knowledge and wisdom of, 180, etc.; of God, and word of man, 209; of God, equal to the Father, 213.
Abortive conceptions, question regarding resurrection of, 265.
Abraham, Christ the promised Seed of, 339, 340; His example cited, 408, 409, 412; actions of, figurative, 470; told no lie, 491; knew the state of the world from Lazarus, 548.
Abstinence, practice of, a benefit due to authority, 364; easier than moderation, 405, 410; from food, etc. for ill ends, 528.
Academics, St. Augustin once inclined to, 356.
Action, unless rightly done, sin, 360; whether implied in permission, 464, 475; always conceived in the heart, 487; indifferent, takes its character from motive, 488; some unconsciously prophetic, 495; character determined by the intention, 519.
Adam, sin of, the results to his posterity, 246, 254; involved many kinds of sin, 252; Job, how unlike, 530.
Address, different methods of, to different classes of hearers, catechumens, 298 sq.
Admonition, desired by St. Augustin, 522.
Adultery, what? 400, 402; compared with fornication, 403; is evil, while even second marriage is good, 443; might be justified on same grounds as lying, 487, 488; some guilty of, fear perjury, 500; penance done for, 575.
Æsop, Fables of, 494.
Ætiology, explanation by, 349.
Age, qualifies to give counsel, 451; flower of, brief, 452.
Aged, marriage, 400.
Ages, seven; the last to be an age of rest, 301.
Ages of the world, the six, 307.
Alexis, of Plato and Virgil thought allegorical, 355.
All things gathered together in one in Christ, expounded, 257.
Allegory, explanation by, 349; instances of, 350, 351; in real events, 460, 470, 492; no lie if the thing figured is true, 460; Jacob’s deceit was, 491; use of, 492.
Almighty, what He Who is, cannot do, 569.
Alms, means of, not to be gotten by sin, 488; a means of pardon, 496; given to Christ, 519; to be done for a heavenly reward, 520.
Almsgiving, will not, without change of life, atone for sin, 260; the greatest, is forgiveness of debtors and love of enemies, 261; the first, is to pity our own souls, 262; advanced by Christianity, 364.
Altar, prayers at the, 434; ministers of, Christian Priests, 515; prayers offered at the, 540.
Alternatives, 464, 466, 468, 469.
Ambrose, St., Bp. of Milan, heard by St. Augustin, 356.
Analogy, explanation by, 349.
Ananias, appearance to St. Paul, 550.
Angel, Temple may not be built to an, 374.
Angels, the fallen, God’s judgment on, 246; who fell not, 246; nothing certainly known of their social organization, 256; bodies assumed by, 256; what Christ did for man was in a sense done for them, 257; may communicate the events of time to the dead, 359; cannot sin, 385; entertained by Lot, 463; ministry of, to Lazarus, 541; free of both worlds, 548.
Anger, darkens the mind’s eye, 490.
Angry, in what sense God is said to be, 248, 527.
Anima, animus, mens, 475.
Anna, and Susanna, 403, 413; more blessed than Ruth, 443; unless Ruth knew what was to follow; probably knew Christ should be born of a Virgin, 444; her long and early widowhood, 447; her piety, 448; recognized Christ with His Virgin Mother, 444, 448.
Antiphrasis, is no lie, 491; instances of, 492.
Antiquity, testimony of, to Religion, 363.
Apocrypha, books of, 548; quoted, 540.
Apostle, God spoke in him, 521.
Apostles, common men chosen to show Christ’s power, 342; prophesied of, 343; use the four-fold exposition, 349, 350; Acts of, rejected by Manichees, inconsistently, 350; teaching handed down from, 356; effect of their labors on nations, 364; whether bound to live of the Gospel, 471, 522; Acts of the, a place to find examples, 476, 493; example of, no obligation not to labor, 505–508; maintained by holy women and those among whom they preached, 506–508; words not to be derided, 508; divided their provinces, 516; had power not to work: to speak with authority, 522; once of the world, 532; chosen not just but justified: else had first chosen Christ, 533.
Apostolic chair, succession from, and note, 365.
Apparitions, in dreams, 544–550; of the dead without their consciousness, 545 sq.; as of the living, unconscious, 545. 546, 549; images only, not of souls themselves, 545; produced by the ministry of Angels, 545, 547, 549; asking for burial, 545; use of: pointing out places of burial, 545; foretelling things future, 545; not to be denied, 545; instances of, in sleep, 545; pointing out where things should be found, 545; seen when awake, 546; in trances, 546; doctrines taught by: of Samuel to Saul, 548; of St. Felix, 548; of saints whether themselves or angelic appearances, doubtful, 549, 550; of John the Monk, 549; of Ananias to St. Paul: John would have solved St. Augustin’s difficulties, 550.
Aptus, 464.
Archimedes, not to be explained by Epicurus, 353.
Arena, matches of the, 372.
Aristotle, not to be explained by an enemy, 353.
Army, of the virtues and vices, 382.
Artisans, singing at work, 514.
Ascension of Christ foretold, 341; witnessed by Apostles, 342; of our Lord, 373, 374, 375; how our Lord prefigured, 494.
Ashes, of martyrs, thrown into the Rhone, 543; not scattered, 544.
Asper, a grammarian, 355.
Atoms, soul not formed of, 352.
Augustin, St., when ordained Priest or Presbyter, 347; his early love of truth, 347, 349; his prayer for Honoratus, 348; how led into Manicheism (nine years in it), tempted by discussions, 348; only a “Hearer:” a worldling: contrast later, 348; his eyes weak from past delusions, 349; his book “De Spiritu et Litera,” note, 351; his belief about the Old Testament, 353; young when led into error, 353; his way of search for true religion, 356, 357; disappointed in Faustus, 356; tended at times toward Academics: his prayers for help: becomes Catechumen, 356; his purpose of writing further to Honoratus, 365; expresses doubt on a point connected with marriage, 407; not at variance with Council of Carthage, 441; his many engagements, 441; his books on marriage and virginity, 448, 454; wrote against Faustus, 448; works of, on Divine grace, 450; his works on Lying of different dates, 457; uses a homely style in practical matters, 458; his avocations, 481; life laborious, (bodily infirmity), 521, 522; did what he exhorted others to do, 522; found a Bishop’s life more laborious than a Monk’s, 521; not submitting to man’s judgment, 522; desired to be admonished, 523; never completed his Retractations, 527; visited nightly by his mother while she lived, 547; not after her death, 547.
Aurelius, Bp. of Carthage, desired St. Augustin to write on the work of Monks, 503, 522.
Authority, necessity of in religion,356, 357; source of what we believe, 359; lovers of truth believe, 360; for doctrine same as for belief in Christ, 362; some probable a priori, 363; shown by miracles on multitudes, 364; brought to bear on life through numbers, 364; seat of, in Catholic Church, 365; of doctrine to be strictly guarded, 466, 483, 484.
Babylon, represents the world, 496.
Ball, pleasure of playing with, 453.
Baptism, indicates our death to sin and resurrection to life, 252, 254; open to all, both infants and adults, 252; “Come, ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom,” 374; makes men temples of the Holy Spirit, 374; remission of all things in, 374; received, to be guarded by good life: washes once for all: why not repeated, 375; of heretics, “a form of Godliness:” is of the Church only: remits original sin, 386; puts away all sin, 408; of children, 419; remits from all sin, 435; supposed case of lying in order to give, 499; necessary for admission to Paradise, 546.
Baptized persons pray, 435.
Barnabas, simulation of corrected, 461, 493.
Barrenness, does not make divorce lawful, 402, 406, 412.
Beauty, inward is what Christ loves, 451; false, lawful to none, 451; spiritual, decays not, 451; of truth, 498.
Bees, have progeny without intercourse, 399.
Begging Monks, 515.
Beginners, lying, well meant, excused in,.460, 473, 495, 497.
Beginning, The Father is, of Christ: The Son also the, 328; Godhead has none, 372.
Belief, See Faith; implies objects unseen, 337. 338; of historical facts, 359; different from opinion, 458; needed before understanding, 463; of a lie, not always hurtful, 466, 483; of false doctrine, a real misery, 483; in the heart, not enough without confession, 486.
Bene-dictio, better than bona dictio, 292.
Betrayal, sin of, 467, 468, 496; by silence, 468, 469.
Bill of divorcement, 402.
Birds, their habits alluded to, 409; who? 436; image of the proud, 516; not to be imitated in all points, 517, 518 sq.; in cages, 517; not imitated in picking food or flies, 518; caught by want of water, 348.
Bishop, empowered to relax certain excommunications, 441; addresses another Bishop’s flock by permission, 521, 524.
Bishops, Catholic, overthrew Priscillianism, 485; called to act in secular affairs, 517; by Apostolic injunction, to be obeyed, 522; succession of from Apostles, 565.
Bishop’s life, laborious, 521, 522; recent increase of occupation, 521.
Blasphemy, worst in one who knows it such, 444, 495, 499; none can be allowable, 499; suggested by Job’s wife, 500.
Blessedness, called Right Hand of God, 373.
Blessing, put for cursing, 491.
Blood, of Christ, given the pardoned to drink, 374.
Bodies of the married are holy, 405.
Body, the death of, man’s peculiar punishment, 246; resurrection of, 264, 332, 375, 540, 541; in the resurrection, spiritual, 266; material of, never perishes, 265, 529; a creature of God, 374; Temple of the Holy Spirit, 374, 444, 474, not our object in religion, 354; its peaceful members made the soul’s pattern, 389; may be holy in marriage, 443, 444; of all the Faithful is “members of Christ,” 444; soul to be preferred to, 463, purity of, depends on soul, 463, 499; Priscillianists erred concerning, 484; real good of, in the life to come, 528, 529; to be restored entire, 529; patience of Martyrs concerning their, 530; motions of, affect the mind, 542; an interest felt in, by us while living, 543, 544; overcome by the Martyrs, 544; hurt only by the pain of dying, 543, 544; faith in resurrection of, confirmed by care for the dead, 541, 550; obtained by the spirit, 543; not affected by the treatment of the corpse, 540, 541, 543, 544.
Boyhood, good and bad reasons for preferring, 352; rashness incident to, 353.
Bread, daily breaking of, at Troas, the Eucharist, 514.
Bridegroom, Christ the, 343.
Burial, in the memorials of Martyrs, 539, 542, 549, 550; place provided for, 539; want of, does not affect the dead, 540, 541, 543, 544, 545; a grief to the living, 544; external rites of, for the comfort of the living, 540, 544, 550; no benefit to the wicked, 540, 544; care for, a duty, 541; why? 544; by the Patriarchs and their children, 541; significative, 541; commended in Scripture, 541; rewarded, 541; want of, and place of, does not hinder the resurrection, 540, 541; or rest, 541, 543, 545; place of, a benefit only as occasioning prayer, 542, 543, 550; to slight, irreligious, 545; place of, naturally, a subject of interest, 543, 544; loss of, how a punishment; how a kindness, 544.
Business distracting the mind unsuitable to preachers, 405.
Butler, Analogy, 337.
Calling, each to remain in, 509.
Candidianus, bearer of St. Augustin’s book on “Care for the Dead,” 551.
Canticles, prophecy of Christ and the Church, 343.
Care for the Dead, book on, occasion of writing, 539, 551.
Caring for temporal things forbidden, 504.
Caring not, by some limited to spiritual wants, 503.
Carnally-minded like grass, 516.
Carthage, fourth Council of, 441; introduction of monasteries into, 503.
Cassiodorus, his book, De Inst. Div. Lit., 347.
Catechetical instruction, 282 sq.; way to commence it, 288 sq.; of the educated,290 sq.; of grammarians and professional speakers, 291; causes and remedies of tediousness in, 292 sq.
Catechumen, examination of, as to his views, 288; specimen of address to (1) one of worthy views, (2) one of false aims, 299; formal admission of, 312; St. Augustin becomes one, 356; learned and repeated the Creed, 369; still under sins, 375; having a second wife, case of, 408.
Catholic, title of, whose by consent, 356.
Cataline, his powers of endurance, 528.
Cato, cited, 408.
Causes, essential to man’s happiness to know the; of good and evil, 242; the secondary, of evil, are ignorance and lust, 245, 264; of common things obscure.
Centurion, ready faith of, praised, 363; case of the, 428.
Chalcedon, Council of, excommunicates (Church) widows who marry, 441.
Character, care of, a point of charity, 453.
Characterem, (of Baptism), 375.
Charity, the Church abides in, 374; of the married state, 400; shown in communicating any good to others, 441; in keeping good repute, 453; unity of the Church belongs to, 535; a mark of the free-born, 535.
Chase, simile of, 457.
Chastity, advanced by Christianity, 364; of continence, better than married chastity, 411; wedded, is a good, 443, 445; wedded, is God’s gift, 450; complete (integritas), of virgins and widows, 450; spiritual delights in, 452; not to be broken to save a life, 463; or a soul, 499; not lost by violence, 463, 475; of mind what, 475, 499; of mind to be preserved for detecting heresy, 487; is of the truth, 498, 499; cannot teach adultery, 499.
Children, probably involved in the guilt, not only of our first parents, but also of their own immediate parents, 252; know their parents by faith, 338, 360; exorcised, 369; loss of, 372, 530; why baptized, 419; the Three Holy, Song of, 438; having, a reason for not marrying again, 445; spiritual, may serve instead of natural, 445, 450; virginity of, a compensation to parents, 445, 448; desire of, lawful, but not praiseworthy, 445; having, a blessing, not a merit, 447, 448; bringing up well, is of good will, 448; spiritual fruits in place of, 451, 452; lawfully begetting, for God a good work, 488; power of a parent over, 490.
Childhood, why a grown man may prefer, 352.
Christ, birth of, 249, 371; being the only Son of God, is at the same time man, 249; grace of God in His birth, 250, 251; made sin for us, 251; not regenerated in the baptism of John, 253; took away original sin and all other sins, 253; His life typical of the Christian life, 254; second coming of, 255; advent of, why foretold, 286; shows God’s love to us, 287; generation of, as Son of God and the Word, 322 sq.; neither made by nor less than the Father, 323; born through the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary, 325; as God, has no mother, 325; Passion, Burial and Resurrection of, 326; Ascension of, 326; Session at the Father’s Right Hand and Coming to Judgment, 326, 327; relation of, as Son to the Father, 328 sq.; the Seed of Abraham, 339; nations blessed in, 339; so honored though crucified, a miracle, 340; witnessed to by Jewish prophecy, 342; sufferings of, contrasted with His Victory, 342; name of, honored even by heretics, 343; the Bridegroom, 343; used the four ways of exposition, 349, 350; veil of Law done away by, 351; teaching handed down from, 356; even heretics bid us believe in, 361; on whose testimony we do so, 362; planted His religion by the way of faith, 363; Death and Resurrection of, shut out fear, 363; various miracles of, their use, 364; effects of His Incarnation and Teaching, 365; God in true Man, 364; without sin, restores from sin, 369, 370; what He teaches of Himself, 371; His lowly Birth, Passion and Death: born perfect as Son of God, 371, 372; born of the Virgin in the fullness of time: God and Man: death of, a pattern to martyrs; Resurrection of, 372, 375; sets a prize as in the arena, 372; arose to die no more, 372; example of, exceeds Job’s, 373; His Sufferings and Ascension, 373; shall come to judge the quick and the dead: the Church abides in, as branches in a Vine, 374; the Root: sin of killing, not unpardonable: members of, shall follow Him, 375; our pattern: condescends to our slowness, 380; and the Church, their union, 388; heretical notion concerning, 389; came in real flesh, 389; took a human body and a human soul, 390, 364; really hungered and thirsted: saw fit not to abstain like the Baptist, 410; the object of love, 437, 452; taught humility when near His Passion, 429; Himself the model for virgins, 429, 431; the object of virgin love, 437; crucified, to be gazed on with the inward eyes, 437; may not be loved a little, 444; recognized by Anna as a child, 444, 448; conceived in chastity, can make virginity fruitful, 446; loves an inward beauty, 446; a Husband, in the Spirit, to the married as to the Church, 446; shown to be the worthiest object of love, 452; did and commanded all for our salvation, 462; no lie to be told about, 466; patience of, perfect, 470; yet did not literally turn the other cheek, 470; sayings of, that seem false, are figurative, 476, 494; denied before men in pretending heresy, 485; few deny sincerely, 486; kept back some truth, 491; called a “Rock,” “Lion,” 491; under our sins figured by Jacob, 492; Himself a Prophet, 494; assumed show of ignorance, 494; His feigning, 494; exhorts Martyrs to patience, 529; forbearance of, to Judas, 529; chose and justified the Apostles, 533; faith of, saved the old Saints, 533; made poor for our sakes, 535; poor of, to be made rich 539.
Christianity, derided as credulous, 337; is not without evidence, 339; testimony of mankind to, 355; profession of, its effect on the masses, 364, 365.
Christians, nominal, described, 311; more numerous than Jews and Pagans united [in the Roman empire,] 356; they are not, who forbid faith before reason, 362, 363; misrepresented, 365; work and prize of, 372; all in one commonwealth, 519; state of, as longing for inheritance, 535.
Christian life, four stages of, 275.
Church, is the Temple of God, 255; condition of, in heaven, 256; redeemed by blood, 257; history of, in four stages, 275; in its likeness to a Vine, 309; the Catholic, 331; quotes herself as fulfillment of prophecy, 339, 341; called the “Queen,” 339; visible as such, 340; is herself an evidence, 341; witness of past and future, 342; spread abroad by suffering, 342; Bride of Christ, 343; milk from the teats of, 348; with what error charged by Manichees, 353, 357; Catholic, prima facie claims of, 355; her teaching from Christ and the Apostles, 356; witnessed to by people and nations, 362; testimony of mankind leads us to, 364; doctrines of, concerning God, 365; mother of God’s children, 369; named in the Creed after the Holy Trinity: victorious over heresies, abides in charity, 374; Body of Christ: He the Head, 375; an heretical notion concerning, 389; Christ and the, 388, 389; not yet perfect, 390; made subject to Christ, 390; her daily cry, 391; the, a Mother and a Virgin, 417, 418; a holy Virgin, 420; sometimes called the kingdom of heaven, 425; the, a virgin and spouse of Christ, 446, 451, 452; includes the departed, 454; in a household, 454; authority of its practices though not in Scripture, 541; disunion with, breaks charity, 535.
Churches, seats in (apparently an exception), 296; of withdrawing from, during service; by whom filled on Festival days, 311; building of, 488.
Cicero, his rule for argument, 348; studied because acknowledged by all, 354; conspirators put to death by, 359; lectured on, 545.
Circumcision, a seal: is not for Christians, 351; made uncircumcision by leaving the law, 461, 462; for whom lawful, 461.
City of God, St. Augustin on, 317.
Clean, who are, in God’s sight, 465.
Clergy, not bound to labor, 506–508; may claim maintenance from their people, 506, 507; all, as well as Apostles, 508, 510; employments fitted for, 511; receive support, not as mendicants, that they may escape distracting occupations, 512; injunctions to support, 511, 513; for the good of the people, 513; have same right to maintenance as the Apostles, 515, 516: ministers of His Sacrament unto righteousness, 519, 520; not to be careful, 521.
Cæcilius, not studied instead of Cicero, 354.
Coeval, image of the Coeternal, 371.
Colors, divers, signify what, 339.
Command, of the Lord, why St. Paul had none, 421.
Commands, clear, to be obeyed at all risks, 469, 470; explained by examples, 470, 471.
Community of goods at Jerusalem, 512; of goods, benefit of, 520; all Christians one, 519.
Compacts, sexual, how far sinful, 400, 401.
Competentes, a step beyond other Catechumens, 547.
Concealment, of many things lawful, 352; not itself lying, 491.
Conceptaculum 471.
Concubinage, for offspring’s sake unlawful, 406; was lawful among the ancient fathers, 406; lawfulness of a certain kind of, doubtful, 407.
Concupiscence, gradually weakened, 524; patience not to minister to, 528.
Confession, of sins, 436; medicine of, 473; remedy for lies, 500.
Confinis, 351.
Conflict. of virtues and vices in the soul, 381; of the Christian, 382, 387.
Conscience, moves all good minds to seek God, 363; good, excuses not carelessness of repute, 453; solace of, in evil report, 453; sinning against, 484.
Consent, in thought constitutes sin, 380, 381; yielded and withheld, 387, 388; withheld is mortification of the members, 392; what constitutes, 464, 465; when it justifies doing a man wrong, 466; chastity not lost without, 475.
Consentius, his inquiries about Priscillianists, 457, 482; praise of, 481; advised to write against Priscillianism, 486, 492.
Constancy, in the faith of the Resurrection, 310 sq.
Continence, praised by Epicurus, 352; door of, 380, 381; why mentioned last by St. Paul, 383; God’s gift, 379, 391; the gift of God’s Spirit, 384; difficult to treat of, 379; marriage, glorious, not to be attained in our own strength, 383; forbears excuses, 384, sought of God by David, 384; required against all sin, 385; peace the prize of, 386; a healthful chastisement of our nature, 390; falsely claimed, considered, 391; its office, 391; is refusing the consent of the mind, 392; must watch the thoughts, 393; glory of perseverance in, due to the Lord, 393; the greater of two goods, 402, 411 423; and marriage, two goods, 403; compared to fasting, 403; how, is not on a level with the marriage of the old Fathers, 408, 409; a virtue of the soul, 409; in habit and act, 410; praise of the state of, 411; the root-virtue, 412; profitable for the life to come, 420, 421, 422, 424; when unwillingly professed, 429; of widows: its rank, 434; widowed, better than nuptial chastity, 443; best for those who “receive” it, 445; strength of, measures merit of widowhood, 447; of heretics not to persuade us, 448; all is God’s gift, 449; though willing, 450; term properly used of virgins and widows, 450; universal, supposed danger of, 460.
Contraries, instances of, 483.
Conversion, not to be brought about by lying, 476, 484.
Cornutus, a grammarian, 355.
Corruption, all things not perfectly good are liable to, 240.
Councils, weight of, against heretics, 365.
Creation, of man, what is to be believed concerning the, 302; all good, the whole better than each part, 444.
Creature, visible and invisible, 369; gives pleasure by approach to that which it loves, 534.
Credulousness, distinguished from faith, 357.
Creed, the Apostles’, 238; current in 4th century, 318; expounded, 321 sq.; the rule of faith or symbol, 369 sq.; not written, repeated by Catechumens: scattered through Scripture, 369; calls, not the Son Almighty, yet implies this, 370.
Crimes, penance for, 575.
Crispina, mentioned, 434.
Critics, destructive, 448.
Cross, why Christ chose, 372.
Crown, for those who strive, 372; is not for the impatient, 531.
Curia, of Tullium, 546.
Curiosity, what it means, 356, 357; idle, danger of, in reading, 398; forbidden, 573.
Curma, vision of, 546.
Custom, binding power of, 263 sq.
Cynegius, buried in the Basilica of St. Felix, 539.
Cyprian, St., on the unity of the Church, note, 365.
Danger, seeking, tempting God, 520.
Daniel and St. Paul, 423.
Darius Comes, Ep. to, 337; St. Augustin’s letter to, 527.
David, a great saint, 384; spake rashly, 393; rash oath of, no example, 490; his feigned madness, 491; patient forbearance of, 529.
Day, the first and the Lord’s, 515.
Dead, souls of the, benefitted by the sacraments and alms of living friends, 272, 550; care for, 539–551; pagan opinions of, 539, 544, 545: at rest, 541, 543, 544, 545; sacrifice for, in Maccabees, 540; not affected by the condition of the body, 540 sq.; unconscious when seen in visions, 545 sq.; do not know what happens in this world, 547–549; or their happiness would be affected, 547; except in special cases, 548; perhaps by information from other spirits, 548; from Angels, 548; by dispensation of the Holy Spirit: interpose not ordinarily, 547 sq., 549; not as they please, 549; sometimes, 548, 549; a blessing thereby, 547; by extraordinary Divine permission, 549; we care and pray for, without knowing their state, 548, 549.
Death, of the body is man’s peculiar punishment, 246; the first and the second, consequences of, 267; eternal, 273; cannot injure the regenerate, 275; question of lying to prevent, 497, 498; sin worse than, 462; wrongly thought of as worst evil, 474; for mercy and truth, a gain, 497; sin the sting of, 500.
Deceit, purpose of, implied in lying, 458; may be by means of truth, 458; safest to avoid, entirely, 459; turns on itself, 495.
Defamation, question of, to prevent crime, 466; especially condemned, 472.
Degrees of glory in Heaven, 426, 435.
Dei fica, 532.
Demetrias, consecrated a Nun, 441; her choice of virginity praised, and note, 443, 448; became like Virgin Mary was, 449; before her mother in the kingdom, 451; grandmother of, 451; care needed for, being young, and a book recommended, 454.
Demons, served, 391; confess themselves tormented by Martyrs, 550; by living Saints, 550.
Deogratias, the book on Catechising the Uninstructed, written for, 282.
Deserter, mark of, not changed, 375.
Desires, earthly, lead to endurance, 528.
Devil, the, how he tempts, 314; the, called a lion, 491.
Dictinius, reformed from his error, 483; his book called the “Pound,” 484, 497, 500.
Diet, what St. Augustin used, 348.
Difficulties, to be borne with, 550.
Discourse, a, often pleasant to the hearer and distasteful to the speaker, and probable explanation of the fact, 282 sq.
Disease, of nature, what, 386.
Dives, care for his brethren did not imply that he knew of their state, 548.
Divorce, why permitted the Jews, 349; rebuked by Christ, 402; may not take place for barrenness, 402, 406, 412; does not dissolve marriage, 402, 406, 412; dissolves marriage in the world’s opinion, 402.
Donatists, suicides of, 530; not martyrdoms, 531.
Donatus, the grammarian, 355.
Dreams, See Apparitions, 545 sq.
Drunkenness, a fault in act or habit, 357.
Duty, of marriage among the early people of God, 403, 406, 408, 419; higher, supersede lower, 474; cannot require a sin, 489.
Duumvir, 546.
Dwelling called “sitting,” 373
Earth, creation of the, 369.
Ecclesiasticus, said to be written by Solomon, not canonical, 548.
Economy, some, used toward aliens without lying, 487; practiced by our Lord, 491.
Educated, the, how to catechise, 290 sq.
Egypt, represents the world, 496.
Election, God’s sovereign grace in, 268; Divine, is grace, 532, 533; precedes faith, 533; examples of, 534.
Eligere, 534.
Eloquence, few attain, yet masters of, known, 354.
Emperor, heathen, grants pardon to the courage of Firmus, 468.
End of the Lord, our example, 373.
Endurance, not patience, 426; of sufferings for worldly objects, 527; of men for temporal objects praised, 528; practised for wicked ends, 528, 529; not patience, but an example, 528; in surgical cases, worldly, 532, 534; this is animal and devilish, 532; like stupor of disease, 534; frantic, of misguided lust, 534.
Enemies, love of, 261.
Epicurus, sometimes praises continence, 352; his error about pleasure 352; not fit to explain Archimedes, 353.
Epistles, of St. Paul, said by Manichees to be interpolated, 350; written for men’s salvation, 470, 477; truth clearly put forth in, 493.
Erasmus, his opinion of the “De Patientia,” 527.
Error, the nature of, 242; always an evil, 243, 245; not always a sin, 244; easy to talk against, 348; three kinds of, in reading, 351; hurts not unless believed: charitable, no evil, 352; truth frees from, falsehood involves in 457, 458; of fact does little harm, 483.
Erucius, Orations of, 354.
Esau, birthright of, what it signified, 492.
Eternal life, the penny in the parable, 426.
Eternity, no space of, between the Father and the Son, 371.
Eucharist, Blood of Christ given to drink in, 374.
Eulogius, sees St. Augustin in a dream, 545.
Eunuchs, for the kingdom of Heaven, 424, monks preferred to be as, 523.
Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. translated by Ruffinus, 543.
Evanescere, 486.
Eve, Adam tempted by, 372; a help to the tempter, 530.
Every, used for “any,” 472.
Evidence, of prophecy, 339, 340 sq.; of the Jews, 342.
Evil, in the universe is but the absence of good, 240; there can be no evil where there is no good, 241; good and evil are exceptions to the rule that contrary attributes cannot be predicated of the same subject, 241; permission of, 267, 269, 385; turned into good by God, 269, 385, 495; man created able to choose good or evil,—choice of evil impossible in the future life, 271; co-existence of, with good, in the Church, and their final separation, 303 sq.; God not the author of, 365; not self-existent, 385; Manichæan errors concerning, 385, 386, 388; uses of, 385, 386; lusts, what, 387; perfected hereafter, not a substance, 387, 388; its nature explained, 464; question of doing less, to avoid greater, 465, 467; wrongly measured through earthly affections, 474; comparison of evils, 476; not to be done that good may come, 488.
Evil fruit, good tree cannot bring forth, expounded, 241.
Examples (see Saints), how to be judged of, 495.
Excommunication, needed for crimes, 373; may be incurred by a valid marriage, 441.
Excuses, shunned by continence, 384; useless before God, 384.
Exhortation, needful to spur us to action, 442, 449; use of, implies acting on others’ will, 450.
Exorcism of children shows original sin, 369.
Experience, of friendship leaves room for faith, 338.
Exsufflation of Children, 369.
Eye, inward and outward, 337.
Eyes, weak from darkness cannot bear light, 361; fools use more readily than the mind, 363; their honorable place in the body, 444; want of, supplied by hearing, etc., 452.
Fables, are no lies, 494.
Fairness of Christ, the love of virgins, 436, 437.
Faith, is the gift of God, 247; without works, is dead, 259; of things unseen derided, 337; defended by analogy, 338; even after trial, 338; if due to human things, more so to divine, 339; prophesied of, a ground of faith, 343; on authority, blamed by the Manichees, 348, 356; distinguished from credulity, 357; question if still a fault, 357, 358; necessary for friendship, 357, 358, 338; teacher uses, towards learner, 357; no harm in, though reason might be used, 358; distinguished from knowledge and opinion, 359; faulty only when rash or wrong, 359; of historical facts, needful, 360; parents known by, 359, 360; most needful of all in religion, and why, 360, 361; before reason, no rashness, 362; they are not Christians who forbid faith in Christ before reason, 362; miracles lead to, 363; prepares way to wisdom, 365; before understanding, 370; is in order to eternal life, 374; and works, 392; without putting down lust, is dead, 393; in wedlock, 401; conjugal, less worthy than virginity, 442; of profession to be kept, 445; whence named, 476; of Christ, none justified without, 533; Faith, Hope and Love, God to be worshipped through, 238; their mutual dependence, 239; distinction between faith and hope, 239; love is the greatest of the three, 274.
Fall of man, through pride, 371.
Falling, danger of, 432.
Falsehood, not all, is a lie, 458; leads to error, 459.
Faltonia, Proba, mother of Juliana, 448.
Fame, endurance from desire of, 528.
Famine, provided against, 471.
Fasting, continuous for several days, 364; compared to continence, 403; adds to the merit of widowhood, 448; time of, how to be used, 452; before receiving the Eucharist, 514.
Fatalism, its excuses blasphemous, 384.
Fate, inconsistency of those who speak of it, 384.
Father, The, how greater than the son, 249; Himself God, 327; the Beginning of The Son, 328; hath not His Being from The Son, 329; nor from any other, 329; The Son anointed by, 339; One God with The Son, 370; coeternal with Son imaged by coeval, 371; doth what he will, never without The Son, 371.
Father, human, supposed death of, inciting to lying, 464; power of, over children, 490; why greater than sons, 370.
Fathers, Catholic, remarks on their writings, 291; the Old, how they married, 403, 406, 407, 466; typical in their marriage of many wives, 408.
Faustus, the Manichee, attacked Patriarchs’ marriages: his pretensions and failure, 448.
Fear, to displease God entertained by love, 431; spoken of by St. Paul, 432; likely to mislead, 489; of God, His gift, 534; patience founded on, 535.
Feast, conversation at a, 357.
Feigning, in our Lord no falsehood, 494.
Felix, St., burial in his Basilica, 539; appeared at Nola, 548.
Fellowship, attainable without marriage, 403.
Female, contrasted with male, 408.
Fides, from fieri, 476.
Figure, of speech, 392, 393; in speech, no lie, 491, 494.
Filth of soul, love of any thing but God and the soul, 364.
Final goods, 403.
“Finger of God,” means the Holy Spirit, 305.
Fire, saved by, expounded, 259; coeval father of light, 371.
Firmus, Bishop, courage of, 468, 469.
Flames of the world, 438.
Fleeing iniquity, the greatest of all alms, 262.
Flesh and blood, shall not inherit the kingdom of God, expounded, 317; living after what? 383; meaning of, in Scripture, 383, 384; how saved, 387; Manichæan error concerning, 388, 389; as created, spoken well of by St. Paul, 388; Christ’s was true, 389; not evil: likened to the Church, 389, 390; its works, may be sins of the soul, 391.
Flood, the, a sacramental sign, 303.
Flora, a pious widow, 539.
Food, strong, not for the diseased, 357, 361; preserves man, 407; uncooked, needs exercise to digest, 518; stores of, necessary, 518.
Fools, all who are not wise, and note, 360; do best to follow the wise, 361, 363; cannot know wisdom surely, 361; incapable of reason concerning God, 363; easiest led by means of sense, 363, 364.
Foreknowledge, of God, 271, 302.
Forgery of wills, 488.
Forgiveness, of debtors, 261; of sins, realized in baptism, 374 sq.; asked by all, shows all sinful, 443.
Fortitude, spirit of, 535.
Fowlers, why the, cover up waters, 348.
Foxes, who? 436.
Free, why man is left, 385.
Free-born, love is of, 535.
Free-will, lost by sin, 247.
Freedom of the will, See Will, is the gift of God, 248; man created with, 271.
Friendship, founded on faith, 337; exists before fully proved, 338; none without faith, 358; attainable without marriage, 403.
Fronto, informant of Consentius, 483.
Fruitfulness, not to be compared to virginity, 419.
Fruits, thirty, sixty, and hundred fold, 434.
Future life, continence profitable for, 420, 421, 423, 424.
Games, illustrate the Christian conflict, 372; what men will suffer for, 528.
Gaul, martyrs of, 542.
Generation, preserves mankind, as food man, 407; of mortal creatures is by corruption, 370.
Generation, of The Son from eternity, 371.
Genius, finds not truth without God’s help, 358.
Gentiles, not to use Jewish customs, 461, 462, 493; typified by the woman with issue of blood, 494; idolatrous, called Pagans, 509, 511; debtors to Jews, 516.
Gift, The Holy Ghost called, 339.
Gifts, are all from God, 432; prayed for, are not of ourselves, 433; of different kinds, 434; spiritual, one person may have many, 549.
Girding the loins, what? 386.
Glory, different degrees of, 426, 435.
God, to be worshipped through faith, hope and love, 238; in what sense said to be angry, 248; Grace of, displayed in Christ, 249; in election, 268, 533; Peace of, 257; pardons sin, but on condition of penitence, 258; alone decides what sins are trivial and what not, 262; does well even in the permission of evil, 267; Will of, never defeated, though much is done contrary to His will, 269; always good, but sometimes fulfilled through the evil will of man, 269; Grace necessary to salvation before the fall, 271; foreknew the sin of the first man, and ordered His own purpose. accordingly, 271; is Love, 275 sq.; severity of, 287; finger of, signifies the Holy Spirit, 305; exclusive eternity and omnipotence of, 322; blessed Abraham, 339; most fitly born of a Virgin, 339; is not in any special place, 341; the True, now invoked by all, 342; if Almighty created matter, 322; just in binding men by law, 351; frees from the Law, but condemns it not, 351; dwells in pure souls, 353; reasons concerning, understood by few, 358; helps those who go humbly and charitably, 358; knowledge of, true wisdom, 360; search for true religion presupposes faith in, 361; cannot be displeased with our believing, 361; demands faith, 362; the wise most near to, 363; mercy of,. shown in Christ, 363; now known by nations not to be of earth or fire, 364; Old Testament charged with false doctrine about, 365; providence of, points out the Church, 364; no substance but is of Him, 365; Father of those to whom the Church is Mother, 369; The Almighty Father, cannot lie or will wrong, 369; Author of Incorruptibility: One Will of Father and Son, 370; not lost by misfortunes, 372, 373; a Temple is for Him: He creates, Who clothes, 374; permits evil, why? 385; brings good out of evil, 385; Manichæan heresy concerning, 385, 386; His nature, 386; a Physician, 386; not wanting under the law, 449; destroys not free will, 449, 450; favor of, gives continence, 449;. gifts of, no blessings unless owned, 449; all good comes from, 452; labors to win, pleasant, 453; “hates” sinners, “destroys” liars, 462, 481; who unclean in sight of, 465; hears our inward speech, 471; wronged, though not hurt, by sins of luxury, 474; to be honored outwardly as well as inwardly, 482; Priscillianists erred concerning, 484; sin against, worse than against man, 485; sometimes heals secretly, 486; we must depend on, after all means, 497; will provide where we cannot rightly, 500; impassible: passions attributed to: patience His Gift, 527, 536; Himself long-suffering, though not suffering, 527, 528; His wrath, jealousy: His “repentance” implies no error, 527; cares for our body, 529; not lost by will, 530; riches of, 531, 536; patience likens to, 532; assists the just, and justifies the ungodly. 533; free mercy of, to old Saints, 533; how first loves sinners, works in us good will, 534, 536; never lies, 565.
“God will have all men to be saved,” expounded, 267, 270.
Gold, may be known and not had, 361.
Goliath and Zaccheus compared, 411.
Good, all things made, 240; but not perfectly good, hence liable to corruption, 240; there can be no evil where there is no good, 241;. highest, not attained without loving it, 363; brought out of evil, 385; all nature is, 386; in what degree attainable, 387; man so created, 388; the substance of the flesh is, 390; superior, makes not lesser good an evil: some, implied in “better,” 443, 446; more honored by having a good below it than an evil, 444, 446; fall from a higher, is an evil, 445, 446; all, comes from God, 452; sin aims at some, in this life, 474; temporal, may be given up without sin, 474, 475; three things to be kept, for sanctity’s sake, 475; luminous, of truth, 498; impassible, 532.
Goods, final and instrumental, 403; when abused, become sin, 403; of marriage are offspring, faith, sacrament, 412.
Good works, men not saved by, 247; follow faith, 247; rewarded by eternal life, the gift of God, 272.
Gospel, not to seem sold, 508–510.
Gospels, said by Manichees to be interpolated, 350.
Government, of mankind, 385.
Grammarians, expected to find good sense in Virgil, 353; several named, 355.
Gratitude, due from virgins to God, 433.
Greek, words borrowed from, 349.
Greeks, philosophers, shoemakers, 511.
Guests, duty of protecting, 489, 490.
Guilt, transmitted from progenitors, 252, 253.
Habits, hard to change, 364.
Hair, bosses of, 429; worn long by some monks: long, thought a sign of sanctity, 522; St. Paul’s rule against long, 523; every, in God’s keeping. 529.
Happiness, knowledge of the causes of good and evil necessary to man’s, 242; of perfect knowledge not yet ours, 359.
Head dress of women, 429.
Health and immortality, two goods, 403.
Hearers, order of, among the Manichees, 348; what said of, when they left them, 348.
Hearing, studiousness of, 357.
Heart, its mouth, 379–381: continence must be seated there, 379; its consent, 380, 381; its language, 379; picture of purity, 392.
Heaven, the Church in, 256, 257; degrees of glory in, 426, 435.
Heresies, fight in vain against the Church, 374.
Heresy, pretence of, may cause real, 483, 484; how to be exposed: sometimes healed secretly, 486.
Heretic, not every one a, who believes heretics, 347; what makes a, 348; silence to be kept to a: each claims name of Catholic, 355, 356; spoils that claim by pretending to reason, 357, 363; cannot claim authority, or do without it, 362; that on which we believe Christ is against them, 363.
Heretics, or schismatics compared to twigs lopped off the vine, 310 sq.; all, would have us believe in Christ, 362; many ways condemned, 365; yet in their sins, 375; continence of, should not persuade us, 448; widows and virgins of, inferior to Catholic wives, 448; not to be tracked out by lying, 482; sin less in speaking heresy than Catholics would, 483, 485; little harm in believing, when they pretend Catholicism, 483; converted, may take comfort in their former ignorance, 485; converted, will correct others, 486.
Hidden life with Christ, 392.
History, explanation by, 349; of the Exodus allegorical, though true, 350.
Holy Spirit, the birth of Christ is of The, 250; is not the Father of Christ, 250; Holy Spirit and the Church, 255; is not a creature, 256; sin against The, 264; signified by the expression, finger of God, 305; mission of, on Pentecost, 308; The third Person of the Trinity, 327; His individuality and offices, 329; body of any Christian, a temple of, 444; speaking in St. Paul, 513.
Homicide, lying to screen from punishment, 468; justifiable, 469.
Honoratus, several of the name, 347; one a companion of St. Augustin, a lover of truth, 347; prayed for, 348, 349; how led astray, 348; not then a Christian, 348; his friendship with St. Augustin, 351; will wonder at the Old Testament being called pure, 353; called on to take more pains, 355; a sincere and earnest inquirer, 365.
Honorius, laws of, against idols, 337.
Hope, everything pertaining to, embraced in the Lord’s Prayer, 273; worldly, its objects, 348; of discovery implied in search, 361; of Christians in the Judgment, 374.
Horace, fable quoted, 494.
House, temporal and eternal, 496.
Humility, most needful for virgins, 428, 437; who would follow Christ, 436; its praise, 428; instances of, 428, 429; commended by our Lord, 428, 430.
Humility, taught by Christ, near his Passion, 429; learnt of Christ, 430; unfeigned, needed, 434; treated of fully by St. Augustin, 436; of Saints, 438; and holiness: need of in pious widows, 448.
Hundredfold fruits of virginity, 434.
Hunting, pleasure of, 452.
Husband, and wife, their union, 388; relative duties, 389, 391; might once have many wives, 406, 407; must have but one, 408.
I AM, meaning of the Name, 324.
Idleness leads to vain talking, 516.
Idolaters, a minority, 355.
Idolatry conforming to, to avoid violence, 464; might be done to save life, if lying lawful, 482; conformity to, nowhere allowed, 493.
Idols, laws of Honorius against, 337; some still believe in, 341; rejection of, prophesied, 342.
Ignorance, sometimes better than knowledge, 242; result of evil, 245, 264; to be borne patiently, 550.
Image, of God, in the mind, 524.
Images, of persons and things seen in visions, 545 sq.
Imitation of Christ, 427.
Immanuel, 340.
Immortality, the penny in the parable, 426.
Impatience, evil of, 527.
Impurity, legal, not always sin, 409.
Incest, compared with adultery and fornication, 402.
Incorruptible, begets Incorruptible, 370.
Incorruption, future gain of, 529.
Infirmity, a reason for not working, 515; pleaded as an excuse, 516.
Injury, not to be done to one man to save another, 466, 467.
Instrumental, goods, 403.
Integritas, said of virgins and widows, 450.
Intention, determines the character of an action, 520.
Intercourse of the sexes venial in marriage state, 263; when right, when wrong, 487.
Interpolations supposed in Holy Scripture, 350.
Involuntary continence estimated, 429.
Isaac, son of Abraham: told no lie, 491; inherited otherwise than his brothers, 535.
Israel, prefigured the future Church, 304; history of, and its significance, 304 sq.; compared with Sodom, 461; history of, figurative, 470.
Israelites, whole people as it were a prophet, 444.
Israelitess, without guile, Rahab became, 497.
Jacob, his birth as typical of Christ’s Incarnation, 286; an ancestor of Christ, 339; his example quoted for lying, 460; his deceit was a mystery, 491; acted in the figure of Christ, 492.
Jealousy, attributed to God, 527.
Jehu, falsehood of, no safe example, 482.
Jericho, represents the world, 496.
Jerome, St. opinion of, about St. Peter’s simulation, and note, 461.
Jerusalem, heavenly and earthly contrasted, 496; Christian’s living in common at, 512; the heavenly, what gifts her sons have, 535.
Jesus, supported by pious women, 506.
Jewish Christians, kept the Law, 509.
Jews, named from Judah, 339; our witnesses to prophecy, 342; permitted to ill-treat our Lord, 373; many of, murderers of Christ, forgiven, 374; and heathens, out numbered by Christians, 355; their notions of defilements, 469; priesthood of, become vile, 470; heart of, called “stony,” 491; rites of, culled “sacramenta,” 493.
Job, his example cited, 409; patience of, in various temptations, 530; was thought to worship God, for temporal things: compared with Adam, 530; trials of, extreme, 372; tempted by his wife: stood fast in God, 373; restored to prosperity for our example, 373.
John, St. beautifully alluded to, 390; his example cited, 410; alluded to, 426.
John, the Monk, 539; he had the gift of prophecy: consulted by Theodosius: appeared to one in sleep, 550.
Joke, a, not a lie, 458.
Joseph, St. chosen to evidence the perpetual virginity of St. Mary, 511.
Joseph, temptation of, 487; his concealment no lie, 491.
Josiah, sparing the Prophet’s bones, 544; spared the knowledge of the afflictions which followed after his death, 547.
Jotham, parable of, 494.
Joy, different degrees of, in Heaven, 426; godly, given to us, 534.
Judah, Jews named from, 339.
Judah, fornication of, no example, 495.
Judaism, how far St. Paul allowed, 460. 461, 493.
Judas prophesied of, 341; an example of evil tolerated, 506; our Lord’s patience with, 529.
Judge, seems required for “false witness,” 467, 468, 473; information to, no betrayal, 468; tortures inflicted by, 528.
Judgment, reason for believing, 341; will separate good and evil, 343; of the just and the unjust, 374.
Judgments of God, on fallen men and angels 246; will be explained at the Resurrection, 267; are just, 268 sq.
Juliana, thanks St. Augustin for a warning: asked him to write, 441; not to take all as written for herself, 441, 448; had children when left a widow, 445, 448; highest achievements open to, 448; is to communicate the book to others, 450; household of, a Church, 454.
Kids, skins of, meant sins, 492.
Kindred, spiritual, preferable to human, 418.
Kingdoms, two distinct, after the resurrection; Christ’s and the Devil’s, 273.
Kiss, not refused to Judas, 529.
Knowledge, different ways of desiring, 357; distinguished from opinion and belief, 359; of evil, no misery, 359; matter of belief may be called, 360; and charity, two goods, 403; all who know, partake of, 528; of difficult questions, a divine gift, 549.
Labor, pleasure in, 453; those able to, happier, 515; a duty of monks, 514; practised in good monasteries, 516; humbling effects of, on the wealthy, 518; for the common store, 519;. in the rich more charitable than alms-giving, 535.
Lamb, The, followed by virgins, and married persons, 426, 432.
Lamps, burning, what, 386.
Laurentius, the Enchiridion addressed to, 237.
Law, counsel given beyond, 461, 462; of God unmoved by circumstances, 489; of nature, 407; under, in, without distinguished, 509; Jewish, permitted eating in the fields, 517; supposed wish to combine, with the Gospel, 351; Ceremonial, mysteries of, 351; in the letter, killeth; wants an expounder, 353.
Laws, of man, in some sort Christian, 356.
Laying out more, St. Paul, 515.
Lazarus, buried, what signified in, 494; borne by Angels, 541; told Abraham the state of the Jews, 548.
Lectures of Rhetoricians, 545.
Leeches, 529.
Left-hand, what means, 374.
Legal purification shows not marriage sinful, 409; was for the type of sin, 409.
Leisure, what, had St. Paul, 466.
Leonas, messenger of Consentius, 481.
Lewdness, worse than theft, 488 489.
Liar, not every is a, who lies, 466.
Liberty, Christian, 461, 462, 493.
Lie, never allowable, but differs much in guilt, 243; not allowable to save another from injury, 245; question if ever lawful, 457 sq.; a joke is not a, 458; nor a mistake, 458; definition of, 458, 459, 494; how to be safe from, 460; question if ever useful, 460, 491; examples quoted in favor of, 460, 495, 500; cases of danger requiring, 460, 462, 490; condemned as false witness, 460; condemned more generally, and note, 460, .468, 476; allegory is not, 460, 491; sometimes allowed in imperfect state, 461; New Testament never favors, 461, 493; God hates, even to destroying, 462, 482; corrupts the soul, 463; any sin as easily justified, 463, 495; good men lose authority by telling, 464; about Christ, 466; several cases of, 466; none lawful in doctrine, 466, 490; not to be told to give pleasure, 467; useful, question of, 467, 472, 474, 495; if not to defend crime, 467; how to escape, when questioned, 468; how to escape, when silence betrays, 469; five kinds of, condemned: three still questioned, 469; wish to use, forbidden, 472; what, threatened with destruction, 473; Deceit is, even if not “false witness,” 473; a harmless one, to save pudicity of body, allowed, 475; eight sorts of, all shown to be evil, 476; which sorts less culpable: none is good, 481, 482; examples of, quoted from Scripture, 482, 491; every, contrary to truth, 482; pretending heresy worse kind of, 483; metaphor or antiphrasis, is not, 491; none is “just,” 495, 484; no holy person glories in, 496; one, leads to another, 498; about religion worst, 498, 500; not to be told to save a soul, 499; rather trust God, 500; put for sin in general, 500; not less than lewdness, 500.
Life, eternal, through the reward of good works, is itself the gift of God, 272; eternal, not to be given for temporal, 462, 474; good here, eternal hereafter, worth patience, 528.
Light, real and pretended, 348; strong, not born at once, 361; beauty of, a standing miracle, 364; coeval offspring of fire, 371.
Lips, have spoken if the heart has consented, 338.
Literal sense, the usual one of the Epistles, 504.
Liturgy, quoted, 449.
Living after man, is living after the flesh, 383.
Lot, entertained Angels, 463; his example discussed, 463, 489, 490; excused by perturbation, 490; knew not his guests to be Angels, 497.
Love, greater than faith and hope, 274; is the end of all the commandments, 275; action of, 286 sq.; “perfect, casteth out fear,” 330; act of, invisible, 338; only way to attain the highest good, 363; submits without hope of temporal rewards, 373; of husband for wife, Apostolical argument for, 388; fears to displease God, 431; owed to God by virgins, 433; of Christ, on the part of virgins, 437; the remedy for pride, 437; of neighbor as self, 462; misdirected, makes false estimates, 474; rectitude of, the soul’s chastity, 475, 476; of God, is His gift, 532; the ground of patience, 532, 534; kindled by The Holy Spirit, 532; of creature: already in creature loving, 534; of God, not in creature unless given, 534.
Lucretius, error of, about the soul, 352.
Lucus quod non luceat, 491.
Lust, what is chiefly so called, 380, 381; our enemy, to be resisted, 381; its resistance the business of man, 382; proved to be of the soul as much as of the body, 391; how put down, 393; sexual, its sinfulness, 401; definition of, 463.
Maccabees, book of, referred to, 540.
Madmen, strength of, not healthy, 448.
Magic arts, 391; in bringing up Samuel, 548.
Male and female, contrasted, 407.
Malefici, 500.
Man, knowledge concerning, a part of wisdom, 306; nature of, assumed by God, 363; image of God in, 369; begins in imperfection, 372; living after, what, 383.
Manhood, assumed by The Son, 329; perfect in Christ, 249.
Manichees, object to believing on authority, 348; their pretence of reasons and learned discussions, 348; refute rather than prove, 348; their contemptuous phrases: attack the Old Testament, 349; think Scripture interpolated, and how, 350; of what error they accuse the Church, 353; worship the sun, 353; boasted of Faustus, 356; inquire origin of evil, 365; charges of, against Scripture: of bloodless bodies, but coarse minds, 365, 366; their heresy, 385, 386, 388, 389; refuted: dismissed, 388, 390; their saying, 410; their heretical opinion, 413; said the law was not of God, 509.
Manichæans, place claimed for among the Apostles, 350.
Mankind, how they might have multiplied had Adam not sinned, 399, 400.
Mansions, many in heaven, 426.
Marriage, fools should consult the wise about 361; many have learned to despise, 364; its end, 391; not regarded as unholy by the Fathers, 398; a lower state than virginity: first bond of society: that of our first parents, holy, 399; Christ went to one, 400; how a good, 400, 402, 412; intended as well for fellowship, 400; of aged persons, 400; continence in, praise-worthy, 400; brings good out of evil: its uses, 400, 401 402; its grave joy, 400; how far certain compacts deserve the name of, 401; its abuse, not the sin of marriage, 401; Sacramental, 402, 406, 408; the lesser of two goods, 403, 411, 422, 423; of the just, better than the virginity of the impious, 403; not evil, but good, 402, 403, 409; in what sense it is “better” not to marry, 403, 407; was once a duty: St. Paul’s view of, 404; not sinful, 404, 408; to be not sinful must be without excess, 404; holy, though the partner is unholy, 405; that looks only to pleasing God, rare, 405; how piously contracted by the old Fathers, 406, 407, 408, 413; cannot be dissolved, except by death, 402, 411, 412; of many wives, allowable once, 406; compared to the taking of food, 407; was once contracted with spiritual desire, 407; hard, to use it like Abraham, 413; compared to ordination, 411; goods of, three, 413; of the old Fathers, holier than virginity now, 413; summary of St. Augustin’s book on, 417; how that of the old Fathers must be regarded, 422, 423; not even indirectly condemned by St. Paul, 422 423, 424; its fruits thirty-fold only, 434; of (professed) widows wrong but valid, 441; ends with the life of either party, 442; good of, shown, in that the bodies of married Christians are members of Christ, 442; due of, not to be withheld for fear of temptation, 442; the chastity in, God’s gift, 442, 450; evil of excess in, not of marriage, but venial through it, 442; ends of: that of Sacrament: second, allowable, 443; second attacked by Montanists, etc., 443; body as well as spirit, holy in, 443, 444; more desirable in Old Covenant, 444; of Patriarchs, was for offspring, 444; provides against temptation, 445; not needed when we may have spiritual children, 445, 453; better than unstable purpose of widowhood, 441; still good under the Gospel, 446; desire of, wrong after vows, 446; argument from “marriage to Christ” refuted, 446; third or fourth, lawful, though less worthy, 446; seventh, allowed by our Lord to be marriage, 447; hard questions about, 448, 449; ranks below continence: holiness of, inferior by reason of cares, 451; less needful since the world is perishing, 452.
Married, faithful women are mothers of Christ, 419; fruitfulness may not vie with virgin chastity, 419, 420; persons may follow the Lamb, 427, 436; persons in one respect cannot follow the Lamb, 427; may be fitter than virgins for Martyrdom, 434.
Martha and Mary, 403.
Martyr, supposed terms put to a, 464; no place for, if doctrine may be denied, 482; makes real gain, 497.
Martyrs, effect of their sufferings on mankind, 464; not prayed for at the Altar, 489; patience of, in scorn and pain, 529; true, do not kill themselves, 530; who suffer out of the Church, 535; memorials of, 542, 549, 550; prayers to, 542; care for others, the living, 542, 544 sq.; ashes and bodies dispersed, of Gaul, and elsewhere, 542, 544; overcame natural regard for the fate of their bodies, 544; removed from knowledge of earthly things, 549; tormenting demons, 550.
Martyrdom, often a hidden gift: common among Christians, 364; higher than virginity, 435.
Mary (see Virgin), the Blessed Virgin of the Jewish race, 339; Virgin after Christ’s birth, 339, 511; Christ born of, 371; suspected: conceived Christ in chastity, 486; holy virgins become like, 449.
Mary and Martha, 403, 413, 423.
Master, opposed to “schoolmaster,” 351; of grammar, 353; one, to many slaves, 408; power of, over slaves, 490.
Mechanics, became Monks, 516.
Mediator, a, needed by fallen men, 248, 253, 257; must be God in order to redeem us, 272.
Medicine, taking, implies hope of recovery, 361.
Meditation, in the Law of God, 452; consistent with work, 514.
Members of sin, how mortified, 392; all members, though differing in honor, 444.
Memorials of Martyrs, 539 542; prayers offered there, obtain special blessings, 539, 540, 542; buried, 550.
Men, fallen, God’s judgments on, 246; restored through the mercy of God, 246; the restored part succeeds to the place lost by the rebellious angels, 247; not saved by good works, but by grace through faith, 247; needed a mediator, 248; all born of Adam are under condemnation, 246, 254; Christians truly so, 523; figure the ruling principle of the mind, 524.
Mercy of God, free and abounding, 264, 268, 271; how far an excuse for wrong actions, 496.
Metaphor, is no lie, 491.
Midwives, believed, as to parents, 360; Hebrew, quoted for lying, 460, 495; were not prophesying, 460, 496; temporarily rewarded, 460; excused as beginners, 470, 495.
Mind, things in, perceived without sight, 337; of others, not directly perceived, etc., 337 sq.; prepared for truth by believing, 358, 362; of the wise brought in contact with God, 363; sovereign power of, disgraced by body’s sin, 487; parts of the, how figured, 524; patience a virtue of, 529; wounds of, 529; incomprehensible to itself, 569.
Miracle, spread of the Gospel a, 340.
Miracles, meant to produce faith, 363; what are, 364; better than reasons to impress fools, 363; point out authority, 364; some more gracious, some more wonderful: why less frequent, and note, 364; witness of, against heretics, 365.
Mistrust of self, our security, 383.
Monachism, a holy purpose, 521.
Monasteries, introduction of, into Carthage, 503; good, practise manual labor, 516; indifferent to which one’s property has been given, 519; time divided for labor and devotion and study, 521.
Monastery, some may labor, others instruct, 514; owes a maintenance to those who have surrendered their property to it, 519; division of works in, 519.
Monica, St., failed not to visit St. Augustin every night, 547.
Monks, not laboring for their own support, 503; the work of, occasion of writing, 504; honest trades for men; a holy society, 511; laziness of, a trap, 515; cause scandals, 516; to avoid giving offense, to labor and be obedient, 514; ecclesiastical occupations and teaching of, 514, 515; life holy and praiseworthy, 514; their many religious offices, 515; who have been delicately brought up, to be borne with, 516; not Evangelists nor Priests: supporters of the Monastery, 519; persons admitted without signs of amendment, 516; a heavy sin not to admit as, slaves, peasants, mechanics: some became exemplars, 516; kept stores of provisions, 517; might have dressed provisions, 517, 518; who have been rich not compelled to bodily labor, 519; none to be idle: disentangled from secular affairs, 520, 521; trusting for support in labor if able, without, if unable: called servants of God, 521; poor of Christ, 519; objects of the Bishop’s care, 521; hypocritical and vagrant, pretended ones, 521; a device of Satan to discredit that life by scandal, 521; accused of wishing to be maintained in idleness: of hawking: costuming: lying stories: begging, 521; wearing long hair, 522; life preferred to Bishop’s, 521; good ones accused and unsettled by the idle, 522; idle ones regarded as more holy, 523.
Monstrous births, and the resurrection, 265.
Montanists, attacked second marriages, 443.
Moral government of the world, 385.
Mortification of the members, what? 392.
Moses, veil of, 523; appeared after death, 548.
Mothers, of Christ, who? 418, 419.
Mouth of the heart as well as the body, 380, 381; not to be always literally taken in Scripture, 380; of the heart, 471, 472; confession with the mouth required, 486.
Multitude, testimony of followed in common life, 355; must be led by steps to religion, 358: is believed regarding Christ, 362; gathered by Him in the way of faith, 363; led by faith to approve many good things, 364, 365; witness of, against heretics, 365.
Mysteries, holy, words used in celebrating, 449.
Mystery, defense of, not popular, 349; to be borne with, 534.
Nabal, David right in sparing, 490.
Naboth, charge against, 491.
Name, eternal, promised to the eunuchs, 425.
Narration, to be employed in catechising, 285 sq., 289.
Nations blessed in Christ, 339; come to God, by believing, 341.
Nativity, Eternal, of the Son, 371; of Christ in time, 374.
Nature, the Christian knows little of, except that the goodness of the Creator is the cause of all things, 239; knowledge of the causes of, unessential to happiness, 242; wonders of, familiar, 364; all, is good, 386; lust is a disease of, 386.
Nazarites, long hair a figure of the veil of the Law, 523.
Neighbor, even an alien is, 487.
Net, of the Gospel, takes bad and good, 343.
Novations, against second marriages, 443.
Nuns, holy, deceased, 434.
Nurses, believed as to parents, 360.
Obedience, the Christian’s work, 372; above continence, 411; implies chastity, 412; unmurmuring, duty of Monks, 514.
Old persons, why they marry, 400.
Olibrius, husband of Juliana, 452.
Omnipotence of God, 322.
Opinatio, 360.
Opinion, distinguished from knowledge and belief, 359; different from belief, 458.
Ordination, to be withheld from a husband who had a second wife, 408; a sacrament, 412.
Original sin, remitted by Baptism, 386.
Pagans, soldiers: poets: yet in their sins, 375; idolatrous heathen so called, 509, 511; opinions of burial, 540; philosophers, 540.
Paint, not to be used by women, 451.
Parables, are no lies, 494.
Paradise, man deceived in, 372; Adam careless in, 530; how man forfeited, 531; vision of, also baptism necessary for admission to, 546.
Parcae quad non parcant, 491.
Pardon, granted implies sin, 404; to what granted by St. Paul, 404.
Pardon of sin conditioned by penitence, and has reference chiefly to the Judgment, 258; not given to those who forgive not others, 261.
Parents, not to be recognized when they hinder our ministry, 325; known by testimony, 339; known to children by faith: yet love due to, 360.
Parricide, Cataline, of his country, 528; why worst homicide, 530.
Passion, foretold by same writers as things now seen fulfilled, 341; in Jewish Scriptures, 342.
Passions, how attributed to God, 527.
Patience, of Christ, 372; of Job, 372; is not to be for temporal hopes, 372, 373; differs from endurance, 391; a great gift of God, 527; attributed to God: in what sense, 527; of God, without passion, 527, 528; in man, what, 527, 528; waits for good, 527, 529; compared with worldly endurance, 528, 531; for ill ends is no patience, 528; truth of, is in the cause, 528; not like science: both in mind and body, 529; shown without bodily pain: of our Lord toward Judas, 529; greatest against Satan’s assaults, 530; is God’s gift, 531; being from love of God, is from grace, 532; likens to God, 532; her words by St. Paul, 535; is it God’s gift? 535, 536.
Patriarchs, had several wives for offspring, 444; marriages of, attacked by Faustus, 448; fed cattle, 511; ignorant of what befell the Jews, 547.
Paul, his speaking by permission not of commandment, expounded, 262 sq.; once a persecutor, 309; his counsels and commands concerning marriage and virginity, 421; what “he spared,” 422; the Teacher: “vessel of election,” 442. chose the unmarried state as higher good, 442; rightly allows second marriage, 443; cared not for men’s praise, 453; St. Peter corrected by, 461, 462; kept good repute with care, 461; his answer to the high priest, 470; his oaths, 470, 474, 477; right in not “living of the Gospel,” 470; used sympathy, not falsehood, 476; charged by some with a lie, 477; not compelled by want to preach, 509; not using his liberty, 506 509, 510; bearing with the weak, 509; condescending, not of craft, 509, 510; becoming all things to all men: “becoming weak,” 509; relieved by distant Churches, 510; declined gifts to avoid suspicion of venal motives, 510, 511; labored in temporal as well as spiritual works, 511; avoiding suspicion of dishonesty, 513; rejoicing in the liberality of believers, 513; had special times for labor and teaching, at Troas: at Athens, 513, 514; could work by day and night, 515; not receiving support was to avoid offense, 515, 517; because his ministry was among the Gentiles, 515; not contrary to his Lord, 518; used means for self-preservation, 520; rapt into Paradise, 548.
Paulinus, St., of Nola, inquires about burial: his opinion, 569.
Peace, on earth, 257; the prize of continence, 386.
Peasants, became Monks, 516, 519.
Pelagianism, noted by St. Augustin in his book on widowhood, 441, 449. 450; dangerous approaches to 450.
Pelagians, think patience man’s attainment, 531; argument of, for free-will, 531, 532.
Penance, done openly in Church: way of remission for the baptized, 375; refusal of, condemned, 473.
Penitence, needful for pardon of sins, 258.
Penitents, order of, 375.
Penny, in the parable, 426.
Pentecost, 308.
Peoples, and nations, our witnesses to Christ, 362.
Perfect, are not even to wish to lie, 472.
Perfecting, good and evil, 387.
Perjury, strangely justified by some, 498; none can be allowable, 499; real though not of truth, 499; feared even by the adulterous, 500.
Permission, not same as consent, 475.
Persecution, flight from, 520, 521.
Perseverance, need of grace for, 453, 454.
Persian fable of Manichees, 365.
Peter, St., his example cited, 410; simulation of, corrected, 461, 493; his denial, 462; justifying him makes St. Paul a liar, 477; denied only with the mouth, yet sinned, 486.
Pharisee and Publican, 428.
Physician, best judge for the sick, 373; hates sickness, loves the sick, 534.
Pity, how attributed to God, 527.
Plato, hidden meanings of, in amorous writing, 355.
Pleasure, thought chief good by Epicurus, 352; in holy labor, 452; of earthly things a known motive to natural will, 534.
Pontius Pilate, named to mark the date, 371.
Poor, feeding, for man’s praise not good, 487; of Christ, monks so called, 519; patience of the, 531; long for the inheritance, 535; of Christ to be made rich, 536.
Posture, in prayer increases fervor, 542.
Powers that be, subjection to the, illustrated, 306.
Prayer, the Lord’s, 238, 274; called “The Prayer,” 375; needed against temptation, 449.
Prayer, the daily, of the believer makes satisfaction for daily trivial sins, 260; remission of lighter sins by, 375; does more than exhortation, 450; spiritual delight in, 452, 453; helped by alms, 452; of the obedient heard, 514; interrupted for necessary labors, 518; posture at, increases fervency: yet is not necessary to it, 542.
Prayer, for the dead, 434; an universal practice, 539; at the Altar, 540; authority for, though not in Scripture: also profit of, 539, 540; do not profit all, 539, 542, 550; for all the faithful departed, 542, 543; for our departed friends, especially, 550.
Preaching, the Gospel, reward of, 509; the Gospel for support might offend the weak, 510, 511; for the sake of a maintenance wrong, 519.
Predestination, to eternal life is wholly of God’s free grace, 268.
Pride, and envying, 428; to be guarded against, 531; ground of false patience, 531.
Priesthood, of the Jews become vile, 470.
Priscillian, artful praise of, 483; himself detected without lies, 485.
Priscillianists, exposed by Consentius, 450; inquiries of Consentius about, 457; thought it lawful to deny doctrines, 481, 486, 492; some of their notions, 484; sin less than Catholics in blaspheming, 484, 485; heresy of, overthrown by Catholic Bishops, 485; anathematize Priscillian in pretence, 485.
Proba Faltonia, mother-in-law of Juliana, and note, 448, 454; grandmother of Demetrias, 451.
Property, management of, 361; question of lying to save, 467, 476; giving up of, a pattern to us, 518.
Prophecy, evidence of, conclusive, 339, 340; even for Gospel records, 340, 341; of things we see proves things unseen: Passion foretold in, 341, 342.
Prophecies, Old Testament, fulfillment of, pointed out, 313.
Prophetic meaning of Patriarchs’ care for burial, 541.
Prophets, effect of their teaching on multitudes, 364; in time of, women served God by marriage: God’s ancient people a prophet, 444; marriages of, attacked by Faustus, 448; knew only what God thought fit, 548.
Providence, not excluding our exertions, 520, 521.
Provision, for the morrow, how forbidden, 470; to be made for the future, 518.
Psalmody, a spiritual delight, 452; no hindrance to work, 514.
Psalms, to be learnt by heart, 514.
Publican and Pharisee, 428.
Punishment, eternal, 341; for sin inevitable, 385; less for schismatics who suffer for Christ, 535.
Punishments, future, eternity of, 273; threatened to correct the foolish, 351.
Purgatorial fire, possible, 260.
Purification, why ordered under the Law, 409.
Quick, the, and the dead, Christ shall judge, expounded, 255, 373.
Rahab, not approved for lying, 495; how she might have avoided it, 496.
Reading, three kinds of error in, 351, 352; spiritual delight in, 452 453; pursued to the neglect of doing what is read, 514.
Reality of Christ’s flesh, 389.
Reason, Manichees would prove all by, 348, 354; not enough to keep men from sin, 351; why not to be followed before faith, 357; unable to master religion, 360.
Refuge, is one seeking, to be saved by a lie? 460, 462, 468.
Regeneration, effects of, 275; prayer for, for Catechumens, 375; in Baptism, 386; had we no other birth we should not sin, 500.
Relics of martyrs (pretended ones), hawked about, 521.
Religion, search after true, 354; search for true, presupposes belief in God, 361.
Repentance, true, 264; of God without error, 527.
Report, good, duty of keeping, 453.
Resurrection, the, of the body, 264 sq.; of the saints, 266; of the lost, 266; derided by some, 313; is certain, 332; of Christ, prophesied, 341.
Retreat of monks, for prayer, 517, 518.
Revelations, by visions, 546; to Prophets partial, 548.
Reward, of Christian soldier, 453; of evangelizing, 509.
Rhadamanthus, fable of, 352.
Rhetoric, learned from the few whom the many acknowledge, 354.
Rhyming terminations, 527.
Rich, the, humbled before the Church, 340; healed of pride, in becoming poor, 518; men, become monks, 519.
Riches, desire of, condemned in widows, 452; what men will suffer to gain, 528; of God, 531.
Right Hand of God, what meant by, 327, 373.
Rising with Christ, what, 392.
Robbers, lying in wait, 458, 459.
Rome, the usage of, in respect of divorce, 402; love of the commonwealth, 519.
Root-virtue, continence, 412.
Ruffinus, translated Eusebius’ Ecel. Hist., 543.
Rule of Faith, the Creed, 369 sq.
Ruth, blessed, though Anna more so, 443; continent widows may not set themselves above: married again to be an ancestor of Christ, 444.
Sacraments, of New Law, supersede the old, 461; truth intimated in, 475.
Sacrifice, for sin, called sin, 495.
Sacrifices, legal, not for Christians,. 351.
Sadducees, our Lord’s answer to, 447.
Saints, the, resurrection of, 266; shall know at the resurrection the benefits they have received by grace, 267; Church daily renewed in the, 340; general effect of their examples, 364; in heaven cannot sin, 385, 387; differ in merits: in glory: and joy, 426; number of the, to be completed, 453; of Old Testament saved by grace through faith, 533. 534; intercession of: prayers to, 549; prayers to: patrons, 539, 542 sq.; memorial chapels. of, 539, 542.
Sallust, referred to, 528.
Samuel, apparition to Saul, opinions on, 548.
Sanctity, treated of, 437; higher, sought in separation from the world, 514.
Sarah, her example cited, 411; an example to wives, 444; denied her laughing, 460; truly called Abraham’s sister, 491.
Satan, as an angel of light, 257; tempted Job, as Adam, by woman, 372, 530; brought low, after his pride, 522; tempts. through or without instruments, 530; hurt not Job, but by God’s power, 530; fell by his own will, 534; exorcised from children, 569.
Saul (King), those who buried him praised, 544; seeing Samuel, 548.
Schism, a breach of charity, 535.
School, tempting discussions in, 348.
Schoolmaster, the Law a, 351.
Scipio Africanus, his daughter portioned by the state, 519.
Scripture Holy, creed scattered about in, 347; statements all true, 422, 423; forbids being overwise, 442; wrested, 508; to. be learnt by memory, 514; cannot deceive, 534.
Scriptures, copies of, in hands of Jews, 342; of the Old Testament often figurative, 460; why contain examples as well as precepts, 470; forbid every lie, 476; no mincing of, 477; knowledge of, praised, 481; true interpretation of, to be urged, 492; three methods to be used with, 493; of Old Testament attacked by Manichees, 349, 350; why hard to defend, 349; fourfold sense of, 349; partial use of, 351; how to deal with, 351, 353; three suppositions about, 352; Church’s belief about, 353; falsely charged with absurdity, 355; believed on Church’s testimony, 362.
Secular judgments imposed on Bishops by Apostolical injunction, 521.
Sedes, dwellings called, 373.
Senators, became Monks, 519.
Septivira, 447.
Sermon on the mount, 428.
Sickness of the soul, what, 386.
Signacula; 475.
Signs; intelligible, 283; employed at the formal admission of a catechumen, 312; not known, without the thing, 361.
Similes, easy weapons to find, 348.
Simon, his example cited, 433.
Sin and Sins, results of Adams, 246; often put one for the other, 252; of progenitors, 253; guilt of the first, can be washed away only in the blood of Christ, 253; pardon of, extends over the whole mortal life of the saints, 258; trivial, 260, 263; relative magnitude of sins, 262 sq.; two causes of, ignorance and weakness, 264; remission of, 331; impossible to God: original in children, 347; law made to restrain fools from, 351; every action not rightly done is, 360; forgiveness of, in Baptism, 375; none too heinous: some are venial, some remitted by prayers, some, by penance, 374; Catechumens still under, 375; remitted to the faithful in Baptism, 386; spiritual men not exempt from, 390; venial and deadly, 402, 403; none are free from, 439; confession of, 447; not to be committed to save life, 462 sq.; confession of, required, 473; wrongly estimated by carnal men, 474; of others, not to be prevented by our own, 476, 486; not to be done to detect sin, 481; against conscience, 484; not justified by motive, 488; yet made less, 488, 496; venial not allowed, 489; alternatives of, 489, 491; of ignorance or infirmity, 490, 496, 510; forgiven for subsequent good works, 496; comes of our earthly birth: is the sting of death. 500.
Singing at work, 514.
Sinner, to protect a, is not to aid sin, 468; not to be despaired of, 468.
Sitting, at the right hand of God, what? 523.
Sixtyfold fruits of widowed life, 434.
Slaves, many, but one master, 408; freed to become Monks, 516; trusted by masters, 358.
Sleep, abstinence from, 528.
Society, founded on faith, 339.
Sodom, justified in comparison of Israel, 461; Lot’s conduct in, 463, 467. 468; men of, smitten with blindness, 497.
Soldiers of Christ, mark of, not repeated after desertion, 375; Monks so called, 521.
Solomon, commanded to build God a temple, 374.
Son, The, anointed by the Father, 339; said to suffer because His humanity suffered: of God is God: of man is man: of God is Almighty: why Only Son, 370; doth what He will: One God with the Father, 370; of God suffered and died: begotten before all times, 371.
Song of the Three Holy Children, 438.
Soul, made to know truth, 356; may be defiled, 380; meaning of, in Scripture, 383; purity of, more than that of the body, 463, 475, 476; Priscillianists in error about, 484.
Souls pure, God dwells in, 353; of the faithful departed, at rest, 541, 543; obtain the resurrection of the body, 542; rest of, not affected by the condition of the body, 540–543; nor by the events of the world, 547, 548; some free from all suffering, 547.
Speech, inward, heard by God, 471.
Spirit Holy, signified by finger of God, 305; the Apostles filled with, 342; continence the gift of God’s, 354; signified by men’s actions, 460; God, as dwelling in Temple, 350; consubstantial and coequal: called “Love,” 374; heareth all things, 471; the fire of Divine Love, 532; hence the source of patience, 532, 534.
Spiritual, desire of the old Fathers, 407, 408, 413.
Spy, supposed practice of, 483.
Steward of the Church must have one wife, 408.
Stewards, trusted though slaves, 358.
Stoics, wrong in making all sins equal, 495.
Studiousness, matter of praise, 356, 357.
Subtance, none but what God begot or created, 365.
Succession, Apostolic, 365.
Suffering, for faith and humanity, praiseworthy, 469.
Sufferings, endured for worldly objects, 528.
Suicide, threat of, may not move us to sin, 462 sq.; false claim of martyrdom by, 531.
Supererogation, 427.
Susanna and Anna, 403, 413, 423.
Swearing, instances of, in New Testament, 470; all “cometh of evil,” 474; rash, of David, 490; false, excused by some, 498.
Talking, lust of, leads to lying, 466, 467.
Tamar, falsehood of, not to be imitated, 495.
Tares, borne with till the harvest, 529.
Teaching, all implies some faith, 354; multitude may show where to find, 355, 362; Catholic, origin of, 356; ordinary way of, uses belief, 359; all requires a master, 365.
Tediousness, in catechising causes and remedies of, 293 sq.
Temple, Christian heart a, 374.
Temptation, counsel against, from the aged, 451; hope of gratification a, 452.
Tempting God by not avoiding danger, 508.
Terentianus Maurus, not to be read without expositors, 355.
Tertullian, unwisely attacks second marriage, 443.
Testament, Old, food for infant souls, 349; agrees with New, 349. passages that seem to condemn it, 351; veil of removed, 351; what the charge against, 353; St. Augustin’s belief about, 353; St. Ambrose’s exposition of, 356; charges brought against, 365; two, signified by Abraham’s sons, 470.
Testimony, parents known by, 339; of the multitude how useful, 354, 355.
Theatre, applause of, courted by poets, 355.
Thecla, mentioned, 434.
Theft, from rich not lawful, 467; is “from the mouth” of the heart, 472; some think too much of, as compared with sins of luxury, 474; though to feed the poor, 488; is less sin than lewdness: one worse than another, 488, 489.
Thigh, signification of putting the hand under, 409.
Thirtyfold fruit of marriage, 434.
Thought, sins of, 379, 380; goes before works, 381; of intention, 380; cannot go unpunished, 385; a mystery, 385.
Time, shifting course of, 452.
Times, change of, 349.
Timothy, St., his example cited, 409; circumcised by St. Paul, 461.
Titus, St., not circumcised, and why, 461.
Tobias, commended for burying the dead, 541.
Tongue, the, 487; not to be yielded to sin, 488.
Torture, to obtain testimony, 468, 528; question of lying, to escape, 468; to be borne with love, 470.
Trades, honest, practised by St. Paul, 511; manual, suitable to preachers, 512.
Travel, in search of instruction: to Holy Land, 355.
Tribulation, attends marriage, 422, 424.
Trinity, Holy, the, doctrine of, 327 sq., 374.
Truth, St. Augustin’s early love of, 347; belief prepares for beholding, 348, 349; search after, 354 sq.; lovers of, believe authority: why, made hard to discover, 361; God is, 363; state of mind needful for seeking, 365; of every statement in Scripture, 422; may be spoken in order to deceive, 459; comprises every eternal good, 463; eternal, distinguished from ordinary, 467, 474, 475; notion of keeping “in the heart,” 471, 486; love of, allows not false witness, 473; may be preferred to everything external, 475, 498; not to be wronged in defending it, 481; every lie contrary to, 483; to be kept with those without: some to be concealed from aliens, 487; nothing against it “just,” 495; defended by examples of chastity, 499, 500.
Type, woman, of what 425; application of the Three Holy Children, 438.
Typical, meaning of many wives, 408; view of impurity, 409.
Uncircumcision, not to be feigned, 509.
Understanding, distinguished from belief and opinion: is by reason, 359; now known by multitudes to be the way of knowing God, 364; quick, God’s gift, 370; faith goes before, 370.
Unions, three spoken of by the Apostle, 388.
Unity, in Godhead illustrated by that of souls united: but imperfectly, 370.
Unmarried, may mean widows, 442; persons, “think of things of the Lord,” 443; should give Christ what they reserve from a consort, 451; exhorted to forbear marriage, 453.
Unwilling continence estimated, 429.
Veil, of Scripture, done away in Christ, 351; of Moses, of the Nazarite, 523.
Veils, men not to wear: why, 524.
Vengeance, less kingly than forbearance, 529.
Ventilare, 351.
Vice, can use the instruments of virtue, 528.
Vine, the Church in its likeness to Christ compared to, 309.
Violence, not consented to, corrupts not, 463, 490; lying to escape, wrong, 463; not to be evaded by sin, 464.
Virgil, quoted, 239, 242, 352, 355, 540.
Virgin, (see Mary,) God most fitly born of a, 339; the Blessed, 403; the blessed, a type and pattern, 417; what was her highest blessedness, 418, 419; had vowed virginity, 418; was born of Christ: how both a Mother and a Virgin, 418.
Virginal chastity above marriage, 422.
Virginity, preferred to marriage, 397, 411, 422; is angelic, 403, 420; the greater of two goods, 411; to be guarded by humility, 413; that of the blessed Virgin, 418; a good, for the sake of the future life, 420, 421, 423, 424; its joys in heaven, 426; the gift of God, 432; its fruits hundredfold, 434; inferior to martyrdom, 435; preferred by St. Paul to conjugal faith, 442; goodness of, makes not marriage evil, 442; of children, a compensation to parents, 445, 448; forsaking, after profession is sinful, 445; of the Church, 446.
Virgins, brought to Christ everywhere, 340; all holy ones are Mothers of Christ, 418; rich, how they may give birth to members of Christ, 419; distinguished from sacred Virgins, 420; no “command” concerning, 421; have peculiar joys in heaven, 426; follow the Lamb, 427; need humility, 428; their grounds for loving God, 432; may be less fit than married women for martyrdom, 434, 435; encouragement to, 437; should love the fairness of Christ, 437; distinguished from the “unmarried,” 442; before widows in the kingdom, 451; special song of, 451.
Virtue, what patience is a, 527; instruments of, not to be yielded to, 528.
Virtues of the soul may exist unseen in habit, 409, 410.
Visible and invisible creation, 369.
Visions, of the unseen world, 546.
Vows, freely made, makes what was lawful unlawful. 443; wrong to desire to revoke, 445; marriage after, is not adultery, 446; but yet is worse, 446; of continence recommended, 450; a protection, 452; marriage to Christ by, 446; more laudable because not required, 446.
Vows of continence, 427.
Warfare, of the Christian life, 382, 387.
Washing, once for all in Baptism: daily, in prayer, 375.
Watchings, use of, 452.
Water, changed into wine, 363.
Whirling, about false doctrine, 523.
Wicked, the death of, eternal in the same sense as the life of the Saints, 273.
Widowed, chastity, above marriage, 423.
Widowed, continence, its rank, 434.
Widowhood, forsaking, after profession is a sin, 445; this is not adultery, but worse, 446; long and early, greater test of continence, 447; prayer and fasting make better, 448; hard questions about, 448.
Widows, their continence, 434; Fourth Council forbade (professed widows) to marry again, 441; may be called unmarried: better among the members of Christ than married women, 442; may marry again, as Ruth, 443; more blessed if not, as Anna, 443, 447; not therefore better than Ruth herself, 444; do better in not marrying now that Christ is come, 444; having family, have no good reason to marry, 445; what they should do according to their ability, 445; merits of, in different cases compared, 447; luxurious living of, condemned, 452; humility an ornament to, 448; alms help their prayers, 452; to draw others to like profession, 453.
Wife (see Husband), why created out of husband, 399; many allowed once, why, 407, 408; only one belongs to a steward of the Church, 408; and woman, Greek word ambiguous, 506.
Will (see Freedom of), of God, invariable, 369; true submission of, to God, 373; of man, admonished and healed by grace, 449; free, made too much of, by some, 450; if man works on, much more God helps, 450; God not lost but by, 530; free, of man, gets not patience by itself, 531; why it produces hardness, yet not true patience, 531, 532; evil, made frantic by devilish incitements: the devil became devil by his own, 534; has not love of God, but by His gift, 534.
Wills, forgery of, 488.
Wisdom, man’s true, is the fear of God, 237; to be found in true religion, 354; implies knowledge concerning God and man, 360; he who has not, knows not, 361; prayer to God for, 363; is God’s gift, 433, 450; patience handmaid of, 528; true and false, true from God, 531.
Wise, who are, 360; how are fools to find them, 361; are brought near to God, 363.
Witchcraft, not to be detected by witchcraft; 500.
Witness, false forbidden, 460, 467, 469; question if lawful to save life, 464; about God or Christ, 464, 467; definition of, 467, 468; incompatible with love of truth, 473; false, might seem expedient at times, 488.
Wolves, in sheep’s clothing, 485; sheep not to wear theirs, 486.
Woman, insult offered to the sun by a, 353.
Women, now, compared to the holy women of old, 406, 412; accompanied and supported the Apostles: and our Lord, 506; figure the concupiscential part of the mind, 524.
Words, use of Greek, 349; are the beginning of works, 400; are deeds, 487.
Work, evil, not made good by motive, 488; to refuse, as wrong an error, 415.
Working, understood of laboring in spiritual things enjoined by the Apostle, 503.
Works, are preceded by thoughts, 380, 381; and Faith, 392; good, a better portion than children, 451, 452; precede not election, 533, 534.
World, spirit of this, puffs up, 449; cares of, lower married holiness, 451; passing away, a reason against marrying, 452; waits for the number of Saints, 453; trials of, require patience, 529; love of, produces worldly endurance, 532, 534; lust comes of, but also of man’s will, 532 sq.
Wounds of Christ, 437.
Wrath, in God no passion, 527.
Writers, three was to err in using, 351; sense of, often hard to see clearly, 352.
Genesis
1 1:1 1:1 1:4-5 1:20-25 1:24 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26-27 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:27-28 1:28 1:31 1:31 2:1-3 2:17 2:20-22 2:21-22 2:22 2:22 2:24 2:24 3 3:1 3:1-6 3:4 3:5 3:5 3:7 3:8-10 3:14-19 3:21 4:14 6:3 6:7 6:7 6:22 7:22 12:1 12:1 12:7 16:7 17:1 17:4 18 18:1 18:1-2 18:4 18:15 18:20 18:33 18:33 19:1 19:1-19 19:2 19:5-11 19:8 19:8 19:17-21 19:18-20 19:21-22 19:24 20:2 20:12 21:10 21:12 21:12 22 22:6 22:12 22:12 22:18 22:18 23 24:2-4 25:5-6 25:26 25:26 26:7 27:16-19 27:19 28:18 28:18 28:18 30:37-41 30:41 32:24-25 37:33 38:14-18 42 46:27 46:27
Exodus
1:17-20 1:19-20 2:15 3:1-6 3:2 3:2 3:6 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:21-22 4:3 4:4 7 7:10 7:12 7:12 9:16 12 12 13:21-22 16:10-12 17:8-16 19:6 19:16 19:18-19 20:5 20:5 20:12 20:13 20:13 20:14 20:15-16 20:16 20:16 20:18 20:21 21:18 24:10 24:17 32:4 32:31 33:11-23 33:19 33:19 34:28 34:33
Leviticus
Numbers
6:5 11:17 17:8 19:11 21:7 21:9
Deuteronomy
5:9 6:4 6:4 6:4 6:5 6:5 6:5 6:13 6:13 10:22 23:24-25 24:1 25:5 25:5-10 25:10 29:5 34:5
Joshua
Judges
1 Samuel
2 Samuel
1 Kings
2:38 11:13 11:30-31 13:21-22 18:45 21:10 21:13
2 Kings
Job
1 1:8 1:21 1:21 2 2:5 2:9 2:10 2:10 7:1 7:1 7:1 14:1 25:4 28:28 28:28 28:28 28:28 28:28
Psalms
1:1 1:2 1:2 2:7 2:7 2:7-8 2:7-8 2:11 3:8 3:8 4:8 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5-6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6-7 5:6-7 5:12 6:7 6:7 7:14 8:4 8:5 8:8 9:17 9:18 9:18 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 11:5 11:5 11:6 14:1 14:1 14:2 14:6 15:1 15:2 15:2 15:2 15:2 15:3 16 16:2 16:11 17:2 17:8 18:29 18:44 19:1 19:3-4 19:3-4 19:4 19:5 19:7 19:9 20:8 22:1 22:1 22:16-18 22:27 22:27-28 23:6 25:15 25:18 26 27:1 27:4 27:4 27:4 27:9 27:10 30:6-7 31:19 31:20 31:21 31:22 31:22 32:4-5 32:8 34:1 34:5 34:14 35:19 36:3 36:9 36:9 36:11 37:23 38:9 38:10 38:10 39:3 39:3 39:5 39:6 39:7 41:4 41:6-8 41:9-10 43:1 45 45:1 45:2 45:2 45:2 45:5 45:6-17 45:7 46:8 48:1 49:12 50:15 51:5 51:5 51:10 51:17 51:17 54:1 55:5 56:7 57:6 59:9 59:9 59:10 59:10 59:10 59:11 59:17 62:5 62:5 65:2 65:13 66:4 68:9 68:18 68:18 69:4 69:21-23 69:32 71:4-5 71:5 71:5 72:18 73:1 73:23 75:7 77:9 77:9 78 79:2-3 79:11 80:1 81:8 81:10 82:6 82:6 84:2 84:4 85:11 85:12 86:10 88:5 90 90:1 90:9 91:9 91:16 94:8-9 94:11 94:12-15 94:19 96:1 96:8 101:1 101:1 102:26-27 102:26-27 102:27 103:2-3 103:3 103:3 103:3 103:5 104:4 104:6 105:3-4 105:4 105:4 105:4 105:4 108:5 110:1 110:3 111:2 112:7 112:8 115:3 115:3 116:11 116:12 116:15 116:15 118:22 119:4-6 119:133 119:142 120 122:3 123:4 126:1 127:1 138:3 138:6 139:6 139:6 139:7 139:7 139:8 139:8 141:3 141:3-4 141:3-4 141:4 141:5 143:2 143:2 146:8 148:2 148:5 148:8 148:8
Proverbs
3:11-12 8:22 8:22 8:25 8:30 9:8 10:19 16:1 16:1 19:21 19:21 20:9 29:27 29:27 29:27 30:15
Ecclesiastes
Song of Solomon
Isaiah
2:3 5:7 5:18 5:20 5:20 6:10 7:9 7:9 7:9 7:14 7:14 9:6 9:6 11:2 26:10 26:18 28:11 28:16 40:6 40:8 48:16 53:2 53:7 53:8 55:6-7 56:4-5 56:4-5 56:5 61:1 63:16 63:16 66:1-2 66:2 66:2
Jeremiah
16:19 16:19-20 17:5 17:5 17:5 23:24 25:12 25:12 25:18 29:4-7 31:1-2
Ezekiel
Daniel
Hosea
Joel
Jonah
Habakkuk
Zephaniah
Zechariah
Malachi
Matthew
1:17 1:17 1:18 1:20 1:20 1:23 2:12 2:20 3:3 3:11 3:13-15 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:17 3:17 4:1-11 5:3 5:3-10 5:6 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:10 5:11-12 5:14 5:22-23 5:27 5:28 5:32 5:34 5:34 5:37 5:37 5:37 5:37 5:37 5:37 5:39 5:40 5:44 5:44 5:44 6:8 6:9 6:9 6:9-10 6:11 6:11-13 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:12-13 6:13 6:14-15 6:15 6:19-22 6:24 6:24-25 6:25-34 6:26 6:26 6:26 6:30 6:31 6:34 6:34 6:34 7:7 7:7 7:8 7:12 7:15-16 7:16 7:18 7:21 7:21-22 8:5-10 8:8 8:8-9 8:11 8:19-20 8:22 9:2-4 9:11-13 9:15 10:7-10 10:10 10:16 10:16 10:19-20 10:20 10:21 10:22 10:22 10:23 10:28 10:28 10:28 10:28 10:28 10:28 10:28-30 10:33 10:40-42 11:13 11:18-19 11:19 11:21 11:25-29 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27-28 11:28 11:28-29 11:29 11:29 12:1-2 12:3-4 12:28 12:32 12:32 12:33 12:35 12:37 12:39-40 12:40 12:45 12:46-50 12:48 13:8 13:9 13:15 13:30 13:47-50 13:55 14:26 14:31 15:10-20 15:11 15:16-20 15:17-20 15:22-28 15:28 16:18 16:18 16:21-23 17:3 17:5 17:27 18 18:1-3 18:7 19:8 19:8 19:9 19:9 19:10-12 19:11 19:11 19:11-12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:17 19:19 19:21 20:9-10 20:21-22 20:22 20:23 21:31 22:13 22:29-30 22:30 22:37 22:37 22:37-40 22:37-40 22:37-40 22:37-40 22:37-40 22:39 22:39 22:40 22:40 22:40 23:3 23:9 23:15 23:26 23:26 23:37 23:37 24:12 24:19 24:31 25:4 25:21 25:23 25:26-27 25:31 25:31-32 25:31-46 25:33 25:34 25:34 25:34 25:34 25:37 25:40 25:41 25:41 25:41 25:46 25:46 26:7-13 26:38-39 26:41 26:49 26:70-74 27:23-50 27:46
Mark
1:11 3:27 13:32 13:32 15:37 15:39 15:42-46 15:43 15:44 17:5
Luke
1:15 1:15 1:17 1:26-32 1:27-28 1:28 1:30 1:34 1:34-35 1:35 1:41 1:80 2:14 2:25-38 2:36-37 2:37 2:52 3:6 3:6 3:21-23 3:22 4:18-19 5:21-22 6:19 6:30 6:45 7:6-7 7:36-47 7:37-38 7:38 7:47 8:1-3 8:8 8:21 8:45 9:3 10:1-7 10:7 10:27 10:27 10:30 10:30-35 10:30-37 10:30-42 10:34 10:35 10:35 10:39 11:20 11:20 11:27-28 11:37-41 11:41 11:41 11:42 11:42 11:42 12:4 12:4 12:17 12:20 12:35 12:35-36 12:36 13:6-17 13:28-30 15:11-32 16:3 16:19-22 16:22 16:24-29 18:10-14 18:11-14 18:13 18:18-19 19:2-8 19:41 20:35-36 20:36 20:36 20:36 20:36 21:18 21:18 21:18 21:19 22:61 23:34 23:34 24:28 24:39 24:39 24:39 24:39 24:44
John
1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-2 1:1-14 1:2 1:2 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:5 1:5 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:10 1:10 1:10-11 1:12 1:12 1:12-14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:47 2:2 2:4 2:7-9 2:9 2:9 2:19 2:19-21 2:20 3:2 3:5 3:6 3:6 3:8 3:14-15 3:17 3:21 3:35 3:35 3:36 3:36 4:7-14 4:13 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:34 5:2 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:21 5:22 5:22 5:22 5:22-29 5:24-25 5:25-26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:27 5:29 5:46 6:38 6:38 6:67 7:16 7:16 7:16 7:16 7:37-39 7:39 8:15 8:23 8:25 8:25 8:25 8:31-32 8:36 8:42 8:44 8:50 9:6-7 10:17-18 10:18 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:36 11:34 11:51 12:6 12:6 12:6 12:28 12:28 12:44 12:47 12:47-50 12:48 13:1 13:1-17 13:5 13:16 13:21-24 13:23 14:1 14:1 14:2 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:8 14:9 14:9 14:10 14:10-11 14:10-11 14:15-17 14:16-23 14:17 14:21 14:21 14:21 14:21 14:22-23 14:23 14:25-26 14:26 14:26 14:26 14:26 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:30-31 15:2 15:5 15:12-13 15:13 15:13 15:15 15:25 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 16:6-7 16:7 16:7 16:12 16:12 16:13 16:13 16:13 16:13-15 16:15 16:15 16:22 16:23 16:25-28 16:28 16:28 17:1 17:2 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3-5 17:4 17:5 17:5 17:10 17:11 17:11 17:15 17:19 17:20-22 17:23 18:22-23 19:14 19:23-24 19:26-27 19:30 19:30-34 19:34 19:38-39 19:41 19:41-42 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:22 20:22 20:22 20:22 20:23 20:28 21:15
Acts
1:11 2 2 2:1-4 2:1-4 2:1-4 2:2 2:2-4 2:2-4 2:3 2:3 2:3-4 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:32 2:33 2:37 2:37-38 2:39 2:41 2:44 2:44 2:44 2:45 4:12 4:32 4:32 4:32 4:32 5:15 6:7 7:2 7:29-33 7:47-48 7:51-53 8:18-19 8:18-20 8:20 8:20 8:21-22 9:4 9:12 9:25 10:38 10:41 10:44 10:46 11:15-17 11:28-30 11:28-30 11:28-30 12:9 12:9-11 13:2 13:18 13:30 13:33 15:9 15:9 16:1-3 17:17-18 17:21 17:27-28 17:27-28 17:27-28 17:28 17:28 18:1-3 18:4 20:7 20:33-35 21:10-12 23:3 26:16-18
Romans
1:1 1:3 1:3-4 1:9 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:18 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:21-22 1:23 1:23 1:25 1:25 1:26-27 1:30 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:5 2:5 2:25 2:25 3:7 3:7-8 3:8 3:19 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:26 4:4 4:5 4:5 4:15 4:17 4:25 5:4-5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:6 5:6-10 5:8 5:8 5:8 5:8-10 5:9 5:10 5:10 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:12 5:16 5:16 5:18 5:20 5:20 5:20 5:20 6:1 6:1-11 6:3-4 6:4 6:5 6:6 6:6 6:9 6:9 6:9 6:9 6:12-13 6:12-13 6:12-14 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:14 6:23 7:7 7:7 7:14 7:17 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:18 7:22-23 7:23 7:24-25 7:25 7:25 8 8:9 8:10 8:10 8:10-11 8:12-14 8:13 8:13 8:14 8:14 8:14 8:14 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15 8:15-17 8:17 8:18 8:22 8:23 8:23 8:23-25 8:24-25 8:24-25 8:26 8:28 8:28 8:28-32 8:29 8:30 8:30 8:31 8:31-32 8:31-32 8:32 8:32 8:32 8:34 8:35-39 9:1 9:2 9:5 9:5 9:5 9:7-8 9:12 9:13 9:14 9:15 9:15-16 9:16 9:16 9:16 9:17 9:18 9:18 9:19 9:20-21 9:21 9:22-23 9:23 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:4 10:9 10:10 10:10 10:10 10:10 10:14 10:17 11:5-6 11:6 11:17-18 11:20 11:20 11:20 11:33-36 11:36 11:36 11:36 11:36 11:36 11:36 11:36 12:1 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:2 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:4-6 12:10 12:12 12:16 12:17 13:1 13:1 13:7 13:8 13:9 13:10 14:9 14:9 14:10 14:23 15:3 15:4 15:19 15:25-27 15:27 16:18 16:19
1 Corinthians
1:13 1:20 1:21 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:25 1:25 1:27-29 1:30 1:30 1:30-31 1:31 1:31 1:31 2:2 2:2-3 2:3 2:6 2:8 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:11 2:12 2:14 2:14 2:14 3:1 3:1-2 3:1-3 3:3 3:5 3:5-10 3:6 3:7 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:11 3:11-15 3:11-15 3:13-15 3:15 3:16 3:16 3:16 3:16-17 3:17 3:19 3:22-23 3:22-23 4:3 4:3 4:5 4:5 4:5 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:7 6:1 6:4-6 6:4-6 6:7 6:9-10 6:10 6:15 6:15 6:15 6:15 6:15 6:16-17 6:17 6:17 6:18 6:19 6:19 6:19 6:19 6:19 6:19-20 6:19-20 6:20 6:20 6:20 7:1 7:4 7:4 7:4 7:5 7:6 7:6 7:6 7:6-7 7:7 7:7 7:7 7:8 7:8 7:8 7:8-9 7:9 7:9 7:9 7:9 7:9 7:10-11 7:10-11 7:10-11 7:14 7:18 7:18-20 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:25-26 7:26 7:26 7:26 7:27 7:28 7:28 7:28 7:28 7:28 7:28 7:28 7:28 7:29 7:29-34 7:32 7:32 7:32 7:32 7:32-34 7:33 7:34 7:34 7:34 7:34 7:34 7:34 7:35 7:36 7:36 7:36 7:37 7:38 7:38 7:38 7:39 7:39-40 7:39-40 7:40 7:40 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:2 8:3 8:5-6 8:6 8:6 9:1-7 9:6-12 9:7 9:7 9:7-10 9:7-15 9:11 9:12 9:12 9:12 9:13-15 9:14-15 9:15 9:16 9:17 9:18 9:19-21 9:20 9:22 9:22 9:22 9:22 9:24 10:1-11 10:1-11 10:4 10:4 10:11 10:11 10:11 10:12 10:13 10:13 10:13 10:13 10:13 10:13 10:32 10:33 11:3 11:3 11:3 11:3 11:3 11:4 11:5 11:7 11:7 11:7 11:7 11:10 11:12 11:14 11:16-17 11:31-32 11:31-32 11:31-32 12:3 12:6 12:6-11 12:7-8 12:7-10 12:8 12:10 12:11 12:11 12:11 12:12 12:13 12:18 12:18 12:24 12:24-26 12:29 12:31 12:31 13:1-3 13:3 13:4 13:4 13:4 13:4-5 13:7 13:7 13:8 13:11 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:12 13:13 13:13 13:13 14:14 14:21 15:15 15:19 15:21-22 15:23 15:24 15:24 15:24-25 15:24-28 15:24-28 15:27 15:28 15:28 15:28 15:28 15:33 15:36-38 15:39-40 15:41 15:41-42 15:41-42 15:43 15:44 15:44 15:44 15:44 15:45 15:47 15:49 15:50 15:50 15:50 15:51 15:52 15:52 15:52 15:52 15:53 15:53 15:53-56 15:54 15:54-55 15:55 15:56 16:1-4
2 Corinthians
1:12 1:19 2:15-16 2:16 3:6 3:14 3:16 3:16 3:17 3:17 3:18 3:18 4:6 4:13 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:17 4:18 5:5 5:6 5:6-7 5:6-7 5:6-7 5:7 5:7 5:10 5:10 5:13-14 5:20-21 6:2-10 6:7-8 6:10 8:1-21 8:9 8:21 9 9:7 9:7 10:12 10:12 10:17 11:2 11:2 11:2 11:7 11:7-12 11:9 11:9 11:14 11:14 11:33 12:4 12:6 12:9 12:15 13:4
Galatians
1:10 1:20 1:20 2:3-4 2:9 2:12-21 2:13-14 2:14 2:14 2:16 2:20 2:20 2:20 2:20 3:11 3:19 3:24 3:26-28 3:27-28 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4-5 4:4-5 4:5 4:5 4:6 4:9 4:10-11 4:19 4:22-24 4:22-26 4:24 4:25-26 4:26 4:26 4:26 4:26 4:30 5:2 5:4 5:5 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:13 5:14 5:16 5:16-17 5:16-17 5:16-18 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:19-21 5:19-21 5:22-23 5:24 5:24 6:1 6:1 6:2 6:4 6:6 6:6 6:14
Ephesians
1:4 1:5 1:5 1:10 1:14 1:22-23 2:1-3 2:3 2:3 2:8 2:8-9 2:8-9 2:8-10 2:10 3:7-8 4:3 4:5 4:7-8 4:7-12 4:8 4:8 4:13-14 4:21-24 4:22-25 4:23-24 4:23-24 4:25 4:25 4:25 4:28 4:28 5:1 5:8 5:12 5:14 5:22-28 5:24 5:25-28 5:29 5:29 5:29 5:29 5:29 5:29 5:29 5:29 6:5
Philippians
1:8 1:15-18 1:18 1:23 1:23 1:29 2:3 2:5-11 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7-8 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:8-11 2:9 2:9 2:12 2:12-13 2:13 2:13 2:13 2:16 2:17 2:21 3:3 3:6 3:12-14 3:13-15 3:15 3:15-16 3:20-21 3:21 4:7 4:8-9 4:12
Colossians
1:9 1:13 1:13-14 1:15 1:15 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:17 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:19-20 1:24 1:24 2:1-3 2:3 2:3 2:11 2:11 2:15 2:20 3:1-2 3:1-2 3:1-3 3:1-4 3:3-4 3:4 3:5 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:9-10 3:9-10 3:9-10 3:10 3:10 3:10
1 Thessalonians
2:5-7 2:6 2:7 2:7-9 2:9 2:13 4:5 4:17 5:6-8
2 Thessalonians
3:6-12 3:8 3:8 3:8-9 3:10 3:12 3:12-13 3:13
1 Timothy
1:1 1:2 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:5 1:13 1:13 1:13 1:15 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:20 2:1-2 2:1-4 2:4 2:4 2:4 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:5 2:9-10 2:15 3:2 3:16 4:8 5:5 5:5-6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:6 5:11-12 5:11-12 5:11-13 5:13 5:14 5:14-15 5:23 5:23 6:10 6:14-16 6:15-16 6:16 6:16 6:16 6:18-19
2 Timothy
2:3-6 2:4 2:4 2:8 2:13 2:19 2:25 2:25 4:1 4:2
Titus
Hebrews
1:3 1:3 1:5 1:5 1:8 1:9 1:13 1:13-14 2:1-4 2:4 2:9 2:11 5:14 5:14 5:14 7 7:17 10:38 11:1 11:1 12:3 12:7 12:11 13:4
James
1:5 1:5 1:14 1:14 1:15 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 2:14 2:14 2:17 2:19 2:19 3:2 3:15 4:6 4:6 5:11
1 Peter
1:10-11 1:17 1:20 1:24-25 2:21 2:21 2:21 2:22 3:1-7 3:5-7 3:9 5:8
2 Peter
1 John
1:5 1:5 1:5 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8-10 2:1-2 2:10 2:15-16 2:16 2:21 2:21 2:21 3:1 3:1 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:4 3:4 3:9 3:16 3:16 4:6 4:7-8 4:7-19 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:16 4:18 4:18 4:19 4:20 5:20 5:20 5:20
Revelation
1:5 1:7 1:8 2:2 5:5 5:6 5:11 14:1-5 14:3-4 14:4 14:4-5 14:5 14:5 21:8
Tobit
Wisdom of Solomon
1:6-11 1:7 1:11 1:11 1:11 1:13 2:1 3:9 6:1 6:23 6:24 6:26 7:16 7:24-25 7:25-27 7:27 7:27 7:27 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:1 8:21 8:21 8:21 8:21 9 9:10 9:10 9:14 9:14-17 9:15 9:15 9:15 9:15 9:15 9:15 9:15 9:15 11:17 11:20 11:20 11:20 11:21 12:18 13:1-5 16:24-25
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
2 Maccabees
1 Esdras
Sirach
1:1 1:5 2:1-5 2:14 3:18 3:18 3:18 3:18 3:22 3:30 7:13 10:12 10:15 15:20 18:7 19:1 19:1 23:20 24:3 24:5 24:5 24:22 27:5 30:24 30:24 37:16 37:20 39:16 40:1 43:29 46:20
i iii iv v 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 231 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 279 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 317 318 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551