A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Volume III (1887)

Philip Schaff

Published by Liberty Fund, Inc.

Liberty Fund, Inc.

Liberty Fund, Inc. is a private, educational foundation established to encourage the study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals. It was founded in 1960 thus making 2010 its 50th Anniversary Year.

The Foundation develops, supervises, and finances its own educational activities to foster thought and encourage discourse on enduring intellectual issues pertaining to liberty. This is done through the implementation of different programs:

1. Each year, Liberty Fund conducts over 150 conferences throughout the United States, Canada, Latin America, and Europe.

2. Liberty Fund publishes about 10 books each year, many of which are classic works which have gone out of print. There is an online catalog where these books can be ordered <http://www.libertyfund.org/books.aspx>.

3. Liberty Fund has produced video and audio tapes including The Intellectual Portrait Series of videotapes and DVDs which records conversations with some of the most significant thinkers of our time.

4. Liberty Fund hosts two websites which contain books, articles, discussion, and podcasts about liberty: the Library of Economics and Liberty <http://www.econlib.org/> and the Online Library of Liberty <http://oll.libertyfund.org/>.

These programs focus on the place individual liberty has in an intellectual heritage evident from ancient times and continuing through our own times. The programs are intended to enrich understanding and appreciation of the complex nature of a society of free and responsible individuals and to contribute to its preservation.

Liberty Fund also sponsors the following websites:

1. Liberty Fund’s main website <http://www.libertyfund.org>

2. LF online catalog <http://www.libertyfund.org/books.aspx>

3. The Goodrich Seminar Room Virtual Tour <http://goodrich.libertyfund.org/goodrich/>

4. The Online Library of Liberty <http://oll.libertyfund.org/>

5. Library of Economics and Liberty <http://www.econlib.org/>

As a tax-exempt, private operating foundation, Liberty Fund’s purposes are educational. It does not, therefore, engage in political action of any kind. It fulfills its mission by conducting programs, not by awarding grants to outside organizations or individuals.

The cuneiform inscription that appears in the logo and serves as a design element in all Liberty Fund books and websites is the earliest-known written appearance of the word “freedom” (amagi), or “liberty.” It is taken from a clay document written about 2300 B.C. in the Sumerian city-state of Lagash.

LIBERTY FUND, INC.

8335 Allison Pointe Trail, Suite 300

Indianapolis, Indiana 46250-1684

U.S.A.

Phone no.: 1.800.955.8335

Liberty Fund’s Collection of Epub Titles on Liberty

The text you are currently reading comes from Liberty Fund’s Online Library of Liberty (OLL) <http://oll.libertyfund.org>. Additional titles in ePub format can be downloaded from the main OLL website from each title’s Table of Contents page or from this list <http://files.libertyfund.org/output/epub/>. One convenient way to load titles directly into your iPad is to email yourself this link, click on the title of your choice, and open it directly in iBook on your iPad (thus circumventing the need to load titles from your laptop or desktop computer.

Epub and Kindle versions of books published by Liberty Fund are not available for free download. They can be purchased from Amazon.com.

The Online Library of Liberty

The OLL was established in 2004 in order to further the educational goals of Liberty Fund, Inc, namely “to encourage study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible individuals”. It is a multi-award winning website which makes available at no charge to the public outstanding resources for teaching and learning about the humanities and the social sciences.

Awards

The OLL has won a number of international awards for its outstanding collection of online material in the humanities and social sciences. It has been recognised by

- the Library of Congress for its Minerva archiving project

- the National Endowment for the Humanities

- the British Arts and Humanities Research Council, and

- the International Political Science Association.

The Portable Library of Liberty

The 50th Anniversary Edition (2010) of the Portable Library of Liberty data DVD (PLL) contains 1,002 books in PDF format & 34 hours of MP3 audio files from Liberty Fund’s website The Online Library of Liberty (OLL) <oll.libertyfund.org>. Highlights include the complete scholarly editions of the works of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, J.S. Mill, the collected works of Jefferson, Madison, J. Adams,and 166 books published by Liberty Fund. It also contains a collection of Quotations about Liberty and Power, MP3 audio files from the Intellectual Portrait Series: Conversations with Leading Classical Liberal Figures of Our Time and the lecture series The Legacy of Friedrich Hayek.

The books and other resources in the Portable Library of Liberty data DVD are designed to be read or listened to on portable devices such as MP3 Players, smart phones, and E-Book Readers. Hence, this collection is called the “Portable” Library of Liberty and has material in the following formats: text-based PDF, MP3, and ePub.

Liberty Fund is happy to send a copy of this data DVD free of charge upon request for educational purposes. Please email the Director at <oll@libertyfund.org> and make sure you include your postal address.

Copyright and Fair Use Statement

There are four different types of texts which Liberty Fund has made available as part of the Online Library of Liberty website, the Portable Library of Liberty data DVD (PLL), and ePub titles for hand held reading devices:

1. public domain texts published before 1923. These texts are no longer under copyright and are in the public domain. We have put them online in order to further the educational aims of Liberty Fund.

2. texts to which the Liberty Fund has electronic rights, such as the books published by Liberty Fund in both print and online formats

3. other texts to which Liberty Fund has acquired the electronic rights from third parties, such as the journal Literature of Liberty (from the Institute for Humane Studies)

4. titles which are put online under license from third parties, such as the Glasgow Edition of the Works of Adam Smith (from Oxford University Press).

For titles in the first three categories listed above, no special permission from Liberty Fund is required for quoting material in papers and essays, or for limited photocopying and distribution for academic or other educational or non-profit purposes. The only requirements are that you include proper attribution on the first page of the document being distributed - e.g. for John Locke’s The Two Treatises of Government you would say one of the following:

- if using the OLL website - “This material originally appeared on the Online Library of Liberty hosted by Liberty Fund, Inc. URL: http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/222 and accessed on 2010-01-22.” This information can be found in the “Citation” button on the title’s table of contents page.

- or if using the copy on the PLL DVD - “This material originally appeared in the Portable Library of Liberty published by Liberty Fund, Inc. URL: http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/222 and PLL v5 (generated 22 January, 2010).” This information can be found in the footer of the EBook PDF.

- or if using the ePub version on a portable reading device: “This material is part of the collection of ePub titles in the Online Library of Liberty website hosted by Liberty Fund, Inc. Source Text URL http://oll.libertyfund.org/title/222 accessed on 2010-04-20.” This information can be found on the “Introduction to the Book” page in this file.

For titles in category two and three, any reprint of material “for profit”, such as a chapter or a substantial section of an online book for inclusion in a book or other publication for sale, requires written permission from Liberty Fund.

For titles in the fourth category you must follow the specific requirements of the copyright holder whose work we publish online under license. This information can be found in the “Introduction to the Book” page under the section “Copyright Information.” In the case of the Glasgow Edition of the Works of Adam Smith published under license from Oxford University Press, for reprint or copying permission you need to contact OUP directly. Under our contractual obligations with OUP we have placed the following declaration on the front page of every book and section of the online version of the Glasgow Edition of the Works of Adam Smith:

The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith and the associated volumes are published in hardcover by Oxford University Press. The six titles of the Glasgow Edition, but not the associated volumes, are being published in soft cover by Liberty Fund. The online edition is published by Liberty Fund under license from Oxford University Press.

© Oxford University Press 1976. All rights reserved. No part of this material may be stored transmitted retransmitted lent or reproduced in any form or medium without the permission of Oxford University Press.

Thus, for reprint or copying permission you need to contact OUP directly. Liberty Fund cannot grant you this permission because it is not the copyright holder.

A SELECT LIBRARY OF THE NICENE AND POST-NICENE FATHERS OF THECHRISTIAN CHURCH.

EDITED BY PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D., PROFESSOR IN THEUNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK,

IN CONNECTION WITH A NUMBER OF PATRISTIC SCHOLARS OF EUROPE ANDAMERICA.

VOLUME III.

ST. AUGUSTIN ON THE HOLY TRINITY DOCTRINAL TREATISES MORALTREATISES.

BUFFALO

THE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE COMPANY

1887

COPYRIGHT, 1887, BY

THE CHRISTIAN LITERATURE COMPANY.

ELECTROTYPED AND PRINTED BY

THE PUBLISHERS’ BOOK COMPOSITION AND ELECTROTYPINGCO.,

157 159 WILLIAM ST., NEWYORK.

PREFACE.

THIS third volume contains the most important doctrinaland moral treatises of St. Augustin, and presents a pretty complete view ofhis dogmatics and ethics.

The most weighty of the doctrinal treatises is that on the Holy Trinity. The Latin original ( De Trinitatecontra Arianos libri quindecim ), is contained in the 8th volume ofthe Benedictine edition. It is the most elaborate, and probably also theablest and profoundest patristic discussion of this central doctrine of theChristian religion, unless we except the Orations againstthe Arians, by Athanasius, “the Father ofOrthodoxy,” who devoted his life to the defense of the Divinityof Christ. Augustin, owing to his defective knowledge of Greek, wrote hiswork independently of the previous treatises of the Eastern Church on thatsubject. 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 Americandivine, who is in full sympathy with St. Augustin, and thoroughly at home inthe history of this dogma. I could not have intrusted it to abler hands thanthose 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). Theycontain much that will instruct and interest the reader; while some viewswill appear strange to those who fail to distinguish between different agesand different types of virtue and piety. Augustin shared with the Greek andLatin fathers the ascetic preference for voluntary celibacy and poverty. Heaccepted the distinction which dates from the second century, between twokinds of morality: a lower morality of the common people, which consists inkeeping the ten commandments; and a higher sanctity of the elect few, whichobserves, in addition, the evangelical counsels, so called, or the monasticvirtues. He practiced this doctrine after his conversion. He ought to havemarried the mother of his son; but in devoting himself to the priesthood, hefelt it his duty to remain unmarried, according to the prevailing spirit ofthe church in his age. His teacher, Ambrose, and his older contemporary,Jerome, went still further in the enthusiastic praise of single life. Wemust admire their power of self-denial and undivided consecration, though wemay dissent from their theory. [1]

The asceticism of the early church was a reaction against the awful sexualcorruption of surrounding heathenism, and with all its excesses itaccomplished a great deal of good. It prepared the way for Christian familylife. The fathers appealed to the example of Christ, who in this respect, asthe Son of God, stood above ordinary human relations, and the advice of St.Paul, which was given in view of “the presentdistress,” in times of persecution. They deemed single lifebetter adapted to the undivided service of Christ and his church than themarried state with its unavoidable secular cares (1 Cor. vii. 25 sqq.).Augustin expresses this view when he says, on Virginity, § 27:

“Therefore go on, Saints of God, boys and girls, males andfemales, unmarried men and women; go on and persevere unto the end. Praisemore sweetly the Lord, whom ye think on more richly; hope more happily inHim, whom ye serve more earnestly; love more ardently Him, whom ye pleasemore attentively. With loins girded, and lamps burning, wait for the Lord,when He returns from the marriage. Ye shall bring unto the marriage of theLamb a new song, which ye shall sing on your harps.”

The Reformation has abolished the system of monasticism and clericalcelibacy, and substituted for it, as the normal condition for the clergy aswell as the laity, the purity, chastity and beauty of family life,instituted by God in Paradise and sanctioned by our Saviour’spresence at the wedding at Cana.

NEW YORK,

March, 1887

CONTENTS.

- PREFACE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE iii.

- I. DOCTRINAL TREATISES OF ST.AUGUSTIN.

- ON THE HOLY TRINITY. . . . . . . . . . . 1-228
Translated by the REV. ARTHUR WEST HADDAN, B.D.

Revised and annotated, together with an introductory essay, bythe REV. PROFESSOR W. G. T. SHEDD, D.D.

- THE ENCHIRIDION. . . . . . . . . . . 237-276
Translated by PROFESSOR J. F. SHAW.

- ON THE CATECHISING OF THE UNINSTRUCTED. . . .. . 282-314
Translated by the REV. PROFESSOR S. D. F. SALMOND,D.D.

- ON FAITH AND THE CREED. . . . . . . . . . 321-333
Translated by the REV. PROFESSOR S. D. F. SALMOND,D.D.

- CONCERNING FAITH OF THINGS NOT SEEN. . . . . . 337-343
Translated by the REV. C. L. CORNISH,M.A.

- ON THE PROFIT OF BELIEVING. . . . . . . . . 347-366
Translated by the REV. C. L. CORNISH,M.A.

- ON THE CREED: A SERMON TO CATECHUMENS. . . . . 369-375
Translated by the REV. H. BROWNE, M.A.

- II. MORAL TREATISES OF ST.AUGUSTIN.

- OF CONTINENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . 379-393
Translated by the REV. C. L. CORNISH,M.A.

- ON THE GOOD OF MARRIAGE. . . . . . . . . 397-413
Translated by the REV. C. L. CORNISH,M.A.

- OF HOLY VIRGINITY. . . . . . . . . . . 417-438
Translated by the REV. C. L. CORNISH,M.A.

- ON THE GOOD OF WIDOWHOOD. . . . . . . . . 441-454
Translated by the REV. C. L. CORNISH,M.A.

- ON LYING. . . . . . . . . . . . . 457-477
Translated by the REV. H. BROWNE, M.A.

- TO CONSENTIUS: AGAINST LYING. . . . . . . . 481-500
Translated by the REV. H. BROWNE, M.A.

- OF THE WORK OF MONKS. . . . . . . . . . 503-524
Translated by the REV. H. BROWNE, M.A.

- ON PATIENCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . 527-536
Translated by the REV. H. BROWNE, M.A.

- ON CARE TO BE HAD FOR THE DEAD. . . . . . . . 539-551
Translated by the REV. H. BROWNE, M.A.

- INDEX TO ON THE HOLY TRINITY. . . . . . . . . 555-559

- INDEX TO FIFTEEN DOCTRINAL AND MORAL TREATISES. . . .. . 560-578

I.: DOCTRINAL TREATISES OF ST. AUGUSTIN

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON THE TRINITY.

[DE TRINITATE, LIBRI XV.]

TRANSLATED BY THE REV. ARTHUR WEST HADDAN, B.D., HON. CANON OFWORCESTER, 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 INUNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.

BY WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD, D.D.

THE doctrine of the Divine Unity is a truth ofnatural religion; the doctrine of the Trinity is a truth of revealedreligion. The various systems of natural theism present arguments forthe Divine existence, unity, and attributes, but proceed no further.They do not assert and endeavor to demonstrate that the Supreme Being isthree persons in one essence. It is because this doctrine is notdiscoverable by human reason, that the Christian church has beensomewhat shy of attempts to construct it analytically; or even to defendit upon grounds of reason. The keen Dr. South expresses the commonsentiment, when he remarks that “as he that denies thisfundamental article of the Christian religion may lose his soul, so hethat much strives to understand it may lose his wits.” Yetall the truths of revelation, like those of natural religion, have inthem the element of reason, and are capable of a rational defense. Atthe very least their self-consistence can be shown, and objections tothem can be answered. And this is a rational process. For one of thesurest characteristics of reason is, freedom from self contradiction,and consonance with acknowledged truths in other provinces of humaninquiry and belief.

It is a remarkable fact, that the earlier forms of Trinitarianism areamong the most metaphysical and speculative of any in dogmatic history.The controversy with the Arian and the Semi-Arian, brought out astatement and defense of the truth, not only upon scriptural butontological grounds. Such a powerful dialectician as Athanasius, whilethoroughly and intensely scriptural—while starting from thetext of scripture, and subjecting it to a rigorousexegesis—did not hesitate to pursue the Arian and Semi-Ariandialectics to its most recondite fallacy in its subtlest recesses. Ifany one doubts this, let him read the four Orations of Athanasius, andhis defence of the Nicene Decrees. In some sections of Christendom, ithas been contended that the doctrine of the Trinity should be receivedwithout any attempt at all to establish its rationality and intrinsicnecessity. In this case, the tenets of eternal generation and processionhave been regarded as going beyond the Scripture data, and if notpositively rejected, have been thought to hinder rather than assistfaith in three divine persons and one God. But the history of opinionsshows that such sections of the church have not proved to be thestrongest defenders of the Scripture statement, nor the most successfulin keeping clear of the Sabellian, Arian, or even Socinian departurefrom it.

Those churches which have followed Scripture most implicitly, and havemost feared human speculation, are the very churches which have insertedinto their creeds the most highly analytic statement that has yet beenmade of the doctrine of the Trinity. The Nicene Trinitarianism isincorporated into nearly all the symbols of modern Christendom; and thisspecifies, particularly, the tenets of eternal generation and processionwith their corollaries. The English Church, to whose great divines,Hooker, Bull, Waterland, and Pearson, scientific Trinitarianism owes avery lucid and careful statement, has added the Athanasian creed to theNicene. The Presbyterian churches, distinguished for the closeness oftheir adherence to the simple Scripture, yet call upon their membershipto confess, that “in the unity ofthe Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, andeternity; God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. TheFather is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternallybegotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from theFather and the Son.” [1]

The treatise of Augustin upon the Trinity, which is here made accessibleto the English reader, is one of the ablest produced in the patristicage. The author devoted nearly thirty years of his matured life to itscomposition ( AD 400 to 428). He was continuallytouching and retouching it, and would have delayed its publicationlonger than he did, had a copy not been obtained surreptitiously andpublished. He seems to have derived little assistance from others; foralthough the great Greek Trinitarians—Athanasius, the twoGregories, and Basil—had published their treatises, yet heinforms us that his knowledge of Greek, though sufficient forunderstanding the exegetical and practical writings of his brethren ofthe Greek Church, was not adequate to the best use of their dialecticaland metaphysical compositions. [2] Accordingly, there is no trace in this work of the writings of the GreekTrinitarians, though a substantial agreement with them. The onlyTrinitarian author to whom he alludes is Hilary—a highlyacute and abstruse Trinitarian.

In his general position, Augustin agrees with the Nicene creed; butlaying more emphasis upon the consubstantiality of the persons, anddefinitely asserting the procession of the Spirit from the Father andSon. Some dogmatic historians seem to imply that he differed materiallyfrom the Nicene doctrine on the point of subordination. Hagenbach (Smith’s Ed. §95) asserts that “Augustin completely purified the dogma ofthe Trinity from the older vestiges of subordination;” andadds that “such vestiges are unquestionably to be found inthe most orthodox Fathers, not only in the East but also in theWest.” He cites Hilary and Athanasius as examples, and quotesthe remark of Gieseler, that “the idea of a subordinationlies at the basis of such declarations.” Neander (II. 470,Note 2) says that Augustin “kept at a distance everythingthat bordered on subordinationism.” These statements arecertainly too sweeping and unqualified. There are three kinds ofsubordination: the filial or trinitarian; the theanthropic; and theArian. The first is taught, and the second implied, in the Nicene creed.The last is denied and excluded. Accordingly, dogmatic historians likePetavius, Bull, Waterland, and Pearson, contend that the Nicene creed,in affirming the filial, but denying the Arian subordination; inteaching subordination as to person and relationship, but denying it asto essence; enunciates a revealed truth, and that this is endorsed byall the Trinitarian fathers, Eastern and Western. And there certainlycan be no doubt that Augustin held this view. He maintains, over andover again, that Sonship as a relationship is second and subordinate toFatherhood; that while a Divine Father and a Divine Son must necessarilybe of the very same nature and grade of being, like a human father and ahuman son, yet the latter issues from the former, not the former fromthe latter. Augustin’s phraseology on this point is aspositive as that of Athanasius, and in some respects even more bold andcapable of misinterpretation. He denominates the Father the“beginning” (principium) of the Son, and theFather and Son the “beginning” (principium) of theHoly Spirit. “The Father is the beginning of the wholedivinity, or if it is better so expressed, deity.” IV. xx.29. “In their mutual relation to one another in the Trinityitself, if the begetter is a beginning (principium) in relation to that which he begets, the Father is abeginning in relation to the Son, because he begets Him.” V.xiv. 15. Since the Holy Spirit proceeds from both Father and Son,“the Father and Son are a beginning (principium) of the HolySpirit, not two beginnings.” V. xiv. 15. Compare also V.xiii.; X. iv.; and annotations pp. Augustin employs this term “beginning” only inrelation to the person, not to the essence. There is no“beginning,” or source, when the essence itself isspoken of. Consequently, the “subordination”(implied in a “beginning” by generation andspiration) is not the Arian subordination, as to essence, but thetrinitarian subordination, as to person and relation. [1]

Augustin starts with the assumption that man was made in the image of the triune God, the God of revelation; not in theimage of the God of natural religion, or the untriune deity of thenations. Consequently, it is to be expected that a trinitarian analoguecan be found in his mental constitution. If man is God’simage, he will show traces of it in every respect. All acknowledge thatthe Divine unity, and all the communicable attributes, have their finitecorrespondants in the unity and attributes of the human mind. But theLatin father goes further than this. This, in his view, is not the wholeof the Divine image. When God says, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (Gen. i. 26), Augustinunderstands these words to be spoken by theTrinity, and of the Trinity—by and ofthe true God, the God of revelation: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,one God. He denies that this is merely the pluralisexcellentiæ, and that the meaning of these wordswould be expressed by a change of the plural to the singular, and to thereading, “Let me make man in my image, after my likeness.” “For if the Father alone had made manwithout the Son, it would not have been written, ‘Let us makeman in our image, after our likeness.’ ” City ofGod XVI. vi.; Trinity I. vii. 14. In Augustin’s opinion, theOld Testament declaration that God is a unity, does not exclude the NewTestament declaration that he is a trinity. “For”says he, “that which is written, ‘Hear O Israel:the Lord our God is one Lord’ ought certainly not to beunderstood as if the Son were excepted, or the Holy Spirit wereexcepted; which one Lord our God we rightly call our Father, asregenerating us by his grace.” Trinity V. xi. 12. How farMoses understood the full meaning of the Divinecommunication and instruction, is one thing. Who itreally and actually was that made the communication to him, is another.Even if we assume, though with insufficient reason for so doing, thatMoses himself had no intimation of the Trinity, it does not follow thatit was not the Trinity that inspired him, and all the Hebrew prophets.The apostle Peter teaches that the Old Testament inspiration was aTrinitarian inspiration, when he says that “the prophets whoprophesied of the grace that should come, searched what the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when ittestified beforehand of the sufferings of Christ, and the glory thatshould follow.” (1 Pet. i. 10, 11).

In asserting, however, that an image of the Trinity exists inman’s nature, Augustin is careful to observe that it isutterly imperfect and inadequate. He has no thought or expectation ofclearing up the mystery by any analogy whatever. He often givesexpression to his sense of the inscrutability and incomprehensibility ofthe Supreme Being, in language of the most lowly and awe-struckadoration. “I pray to our Lord God himself, of whom we oughtalways to think, and yet of whom we are not able to think worthily, andwhom no speech is sufficient to declare, that He will grant me both helpfor understanding and explaining that which I design, and pardon if inanything 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 bepardoned 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 fromScripture, by a careful collation and combination of the texts, and thendefends it against objections, and illustrates it by the analogies whichhe finds in nature generally, and in the human mind particularly. TheScripture argument is contained in the first seven books; the rationalin the last eight. The first part is, of course, the most valuable ofthe two. Though the reader may not be able to agree with Augustin in hisinterpretation of some Scripture passages, particularly some which hecites from the Old Testament, he will certainly be impressed by thedepth, acumen, and accuracy with which the Latin father reaches andexhausts the meaning of the acknowledged trinitarian texts. Augustinlived in an age when the Scriptures and the Greek and Roman classicswere nearly all that the student had, upon which to expend hisintellectual force. There was considerable metaphysics, it is true, butno physics, and little mathematics. There was consequently a moreundivided and exclusive attention bestowed upon revealed religion asembodied in the Scriptures, and upon ethics and natural religion ascontained in the classics, than has ever been bestowed by any subsequentperiod in Christendom. One result was that scripture was expounded byscripture; things spiritual by things spiritual. This appears in theexegetical part of this treatise. Augustin reasons out of theScriptures; not out of metaphysics or physics.

The second, or speculative division of the work, is that which will bemost foreign to the thinking of some trinitarians. In it they will findwhat seems to them to be a philosophy, rather than an interpretation ofthe word of God. We shall, therefore, in this introductory essay,specify some of the advantages, as it seems to us, of the general methodof defending and illustrating the doctrine of the Trinity employed byAugustin and the patristic Trinitarians.

1. Fuller justice is done to Scripture by this method. Revelationdenominates the first trinitarian person the Father, the second the Son,the third the Spirit. These terms are literal, not metaphorical; becausethe relations denoted by them are eternally in the essence. Scriptureclearly teaches that the Father is such from eternity. Consequently,“paternity” (implied in the name Father) can nomore be ascribed to the first person of the Godhead in a figurativesense, than eternity can be. For a person that is a father must be so inrelation to a son. No son, no father. Consequently, an eternal Father implies an eternal Son. And the same reasoningholds true of the relation of the Father and Son to the Spirit. Theterms Father, Son, and Spirit, in the baptismal formula and theapostolic benediction, must designate primary and eternal distinctions.The rite that initiates into the kingdom of God, certainly would not beadministered in three names that denote only assumed and temporalrelations of God; nor would blessings for time and eternity be invokedfrom God under such secondary names.

Hence, these trinal names given to God in the baptismal formula and theapostolic benediction, actually force upon thetrinitarian theologian, the ideas of paternity, generation, filiation,spiration, and procession. He cannot reflect upon the implication ofthese names without forming these ideas, and finding himselfnecessitated to concede their literal validity and objective reality. Hecannot say that the first person is the Father, and then deny that he“begets.” He cannot say that the second person isthe Son, and then deny that he is “begotten.” Hecannot say that the third person is the Spirit, and then deny that he“proceeds” by “spiration”( spiritus quia spiratus ) from the Father andSon. When therefore Augustin, like the primitive fathers generally,endeavors to illustrate this eternal, necessary, and constitutionalenergizing and activity ( opera ad intra ) in theDivine Essence, whereby the Son issues from the Father and the Spiritfrom Father and Son, by the emanation of sunbeam from sun, light fromlight, river from fountain, thought from mind, word from thought—when the ternaries from nature andthe human mind are introduced to elucidate theTrinity—nothing more is done than when by other well-knownand commonly adopted analogies the Divine unity, or omniscence, oromnipresence, is sought to be illustrated. There is no analogy takenfrom the finite that will clear up the mystery of theinfinite—whether it be the mystery of the eternity of God, orthat of his trinity. But, at the same time, by the use of theseanalogies the mind is kept close up to the Biblical term or statement,and is not allowed to content itself with only a half-way understandingof it. Such a method brings thoroughness and clearness into theinterpretation of the Word of God.

2. A second advantage in this method is, that it shows the doctrine ofthe Trinity to be inseparable from that of the Unity of God. TheDeistical conception of the Divine unity is wholly different from theChristian. The former is that of natural religion, formed by theunassisted human mind in its reflection upon the Supreme Being. Thelatter is that of revealed religion, given to the human mind byinspiration. The Deistical unity is mere singleness. The Christian unityis a trinality. The former is a unit. The latter a true unity, andunion. The former is meagre, having few contents. The latter is aplenitude—what St. Paul denominates “the fullnessof the Godhead”(πλήρωματῆςθεότητος).Coloss. i. 9.

It follows, consequently, that the Divine unity cannot be discussed byitself without reference to trinality, as the Deist and the Socinianendeavor to do. [1] Trinality belongs as necessarilyand intrinsically to the Divine unity as eternity does to the Divineessence. “If,” says Athanasius (Oration I. 17)“there was not a Blessed Trinity from eternity, but only aunity existed first, which at length became a Trinity, it follows thatthe Holy Trinity must have been at one time imperfect, and at anothertime entire: imperfect until the Son came to be created, as the Ariansmaintain, and then entire afterwards.” If we follow theteachings of Revelation, and adopt the revealed idea of God, we may notdiscuss mere and simple unity, nor mere and simple trinality; but wemust discuss unity in trinality, and trinality in unity. We may not think of a monad whichoriginally, and in the order either of nature or of time, is not trinal,but becomes so. The instant there is a monad, there is a triad; theinstant there is a unity, there are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. TheChristian Trinity is not that of Sabellius: namely, an original untrinalmonad that subsequently, in the order of nature if not of time, becomesa triad; whereby four factors are introduced into the problem. God isnot one and three, but one in three. There is no primary monad, as such, and without trinality, towhich the three distinctions are secondary adjuncts. The monad, oressence, never exists in and by itself as untrinalized, as in theSabellian scheme. It exists only as in the three Persons; only astrinalized. The Essence, consequently, is not prior to the Persons,either in the order of nature or of time, nor subsequent to them, butsimultaneously and eternally in and with them.

The Primitive church took this ground with confidence. Unity andtrinality were inseparable in their view. The term God meant for themthe Trinity. A “theologian,” in theirnomenclature, was a trinitarian. They called the Apostle Johnδθεόλογος,because he was enlightened by the Holy Spirit to make fullerdisclosures, in the preface to his Gospel, concerning the deity of theLogos and the doctrine of the Trinity, than were the other evangelists.And they gave the same epithet to Gregory Nazianzum, because of theacumen and insight of his trinitarian treatises. This work of Augustinadopts the same position, and defends it with an ability second tonone.

3. A third advantage of this method of illustrating the doctrine of theTrinity is, that it goes to show that the personality of God dependsupon the trinality of the Divine Essence—that if there are no interior distinctions in theInfinite Being, he cannot be self-contemplative, self-cognitive, orself-communing.

This is an important and valuable feature of the method in question, whenviewed in its bearing upon the modern assertion that an Infinite Beingcannot be personal. This treatise of Augustin does not develope theproblem upon this point, but it leads to it. In illustrating the Trinityby the ternaries in nature, and especially in the human mind, he aimsonly to show that trinality of a certain kind does not conflict with unity of a certain kind. Memory, understanding, andwill are three faculties, yet one soul. Augustin is content withelucidating the Divine unity by such illustrations. The elucidation ofthe Divine personality by them, was not attemptedin his day nor in the Mediæval and Reformation churches. Theconflict with pantheism forced this point upon the attention of theModern church.

At the same time, these Christian fathers who took the problem of theTrinity into the centre of the Divine essence, and endeavored to showits necessary grounds there, prepared the way for showing, by the samemethod, that trinality is not only consistent with personality, but isactually indispensable to it. In a brief essay like this, only thebriefest hints can be indicated.

If God is personal, he is self-conscious. Self-consciousness is, (1), thepower which a rational spirit, or mind, has of making itself its ownobject; and, (2), of knowing that it has done so. If the first step istaken, and not the second, there is no self-consciousness. For thesubject would not know that the object is the self. And the second step cannot be taken, if the first has not been. Thesetwo acts of a rational spirit, or mind, involve three distinctions init, or three modes of it. The whole mind as a subject contemplates thevery same whole mind as an object. Here are two distinctions, or modesof one mind. And the very same whole mind perceives that thecontemplating subject and the contemplated object are one and the sameessence or being. Here are three modes of one mind, each distinct fromthe others, yet all three going to make up the one self-consciousspirit. Unless there were these three distinctions, there would be noself-knowledge. Mere singleness, a mere subject without an object, isincompatible with self-consciousness.

In denying distinctions in the Divine Essence, while asserting itspersonality, Deism, with Socinianism and Mohammedanism, contends thatGod can be self-knowing and self-communing as a single subject withoutan object. The controversy, consequently, is as much between the deistand the psychologist, as it is between him and the trinitarian. It is asmuch a question whether his view of personality and self-consciousnessis correct, as whether his interpretation of Scripture is. For thedispute involves the necessary conditions of personality. If a truepsychology does not require trinality in a spiritual essence in order toits own self-contemplation, and self-knowledge, and self-communion, thenthe deist is correct; but if it does, then he is in error. That thestudy of self-consciousness in modern metaphysics has favoredtrinitarianism, is unquestionable. Even the spurious trinitarianismwhich has grown up in the schools of the later pantheism goes to show,that a trinal constitution is requisite in an essence, in order toexplain self-consciousness, and that absolute singleness, or the absenceof all interior distinctions, renders the problem insoluble. [1]

But the authority of Scripture is higher than that of psychology, andsettles the matter. Revelation unquestionably discloses a deity who is“blessed forever;” whose blessedness is independent of the universe which he has made fromnonentity, and who must therefore find all the conditions of blessednesswithin himself alone. He is blessed from eternity, in his ownself-contemplation and self-communion. He does not need the universe inorder that he may have an object which he canknow, which he can love, and over which he can rejoice. “TheFather knoweth the Son,” from all eternity (Matt. xi. 27);and “loveth the Son,” from all eternity (John iii.35); and “glorifieth the Son,” from all eternity(John xvii. 5). Prior to creation, the Eternal Wisdom “was byHim as one brought up with Him, and was daily His delight, rejoicingalways before Him” (Prov. viii. 30); and the Eternal Word“was in the beginning with God” (John i. 2); and“the Only Begotten Son (or God Only Begotten, as the uncialsread) was eternally in the bosom of the Father” (John i.18).

Here is society within the Essence, and wholly independent of theuniverse; and communion and blessedness resulting therefrom. But this isimpossible to an essence without personal distinctions. Not the singularUnit of the deist, but the plural Unity of the trinitarian, explainsthis. A subject without an object could not know. What is there to beknown? 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, andjoy, cannot be his creation: because this is neither eternal, norinfinite. There was a time when the universe was not; and ifGod’s self-consciousness and blessedness depends upon theuniverse, there was a time when God was neither self-conscious norblessed. The objective God for the subjective God must, therefore, bevery God of very God, begotten not made, the eternal Son of the eternalFather.

The same line of reasoning applies to the third trinitarian person, butthere is no need of going through with it. The history of opinion shows,that if the first two eternal distinctions are conceded, there is nodenial of the reality and eternity of the third. [1]

The analogue derived from the nature of finite personality andself-consciousness has one great advantage—namely, that itillustrates the independence of the Divine personality andself-consciousness. The later pantheism (not the earlier of Spinoza)constructs a kind of trinity, but it is dependent upon the universe. Goddistinguishes Himself from the world, and therebyfinds the object required for the subject. But this implies either thatthe world is eternal, or else, that God is not eternally self-conscious.The Christian trinitarianism, on the contrary, finds all the media andconditions of self-consciousness within the Divine Essence. Goddistinguishes himself from himself, not from theuniverse. The eternal Father beholds himself in the eternal Son, his alter ego, the “express image of his ownperson” (Heb. i. 3). God does not struggle gradually intoself-consciousness, as in the Hegelian scheme, by the help of theuniverse. Before that universe was in existence, and in the solitude ofhis own eternity and self-sufficiency, he had within his own essence allthe media and conditions of self-consciousness. And after the worldswere called into being, the Divine personality remained the sameimmutable and infinite self-knowledge, unaffected by anything in hishandiwork.

- “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 personalityapproaches nearer to the eternal distinctions in the Godhead than doesthat ternary which Augustin employs—namely, memory,understanding, and will—yet like all finite analogies to theInfinite it is inadequate. For the subject-ego, object-ego, andego-percipient, are not so essentially distinct and completely objectiveto each other, as are the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. They cannotemploy the personal pronouns in reference to each other. They cannotreciprocally perform acts and discharge functions towards each other,like the Divine Three. Revelation is explicitupon this point. It specifies at least the following twelve actions andrelations, that incontestably prove the conscious distinctness andmutual objectivity of the persons of the Trinity. One divine personloves another (John iii. 35); dwells in another (John xiv. 10, 11);knows another (Matt. xi. 27); sends another (Gen. xvi. 7); suffers fromanother (Zech. xiii. 7-13); addresses another (Heb. i. 8); is the way toanother (John xiv. 6); speaks of another (Luke iii. 22;) glorifiesanother (John xvii. 5); confers with another (Gen. i. 26; xi. 7); planswith another (Is. ix. 6); rewards another (Phil. ii. 5-11; Heb. ii.9).

Such are some of the salient features of this important treatise upon theTrinity. It has its defects; but they pertain to the form more than tothe matter; to arrangement and style more than to dogma. Literaryexcellence is not the forte of the patristic writers. Hardly any of themare literary artists. Lactantius among the Latins, and Chrysostom amongthe Greeks, are almost the only fathers that have rhetorical grace. Andnone of them approach the beauty of the classic writers, as seen in theharmonious flow and diction of Plato, and the exquisite finish of Horaceand Catullus.

Augustin is prolix, repetitious, and sometimes leaves his theme todiscuss cognate but distantly related subjects. This appears more in thelast eight chapters, which are speculative, than in the first seven,which are scriptural. The material in this second division is capable ofconsiderable compression. The author frequently employs twoillustrations when one would suffice, and three or more when two areenough. He discusses many themes which are not strictly trinitarian.

Yet the patient student will derive some benefit from thisdiscursiveness. He will find, for example, in this treatise on theTrinity, an able examination of the subject of miracles (Book III); ofcreation ex nihilo (III. ix); of vicariousatonement (IV. vii-xiv); of the faculty of memory (XI. x); and,incidentally, many other high themes are touched upon. Before such acontemplative intellect as that of Augustin, all truth lay spread outlike the ocean, with no limits and no separating chasms. Everything isconnected and fluid. Consequently, one doctrine inevitably leads to andmerges in another, and the eager and intense inquirer rushes forward,and outward, and upward, and downward, in every direction. The only aimis to see all that can be seen, and state all that can be stated. Theneglect of the form, and the anxiety after the substance, contribute tothe discursiveness. Caring little for proportion in method, and nothingfor elegance in diction, the writer, though bringing forth a vast amountof truth, does it at the expense of clearness, conciseness, and grace.Such is the case with the North African father—one of themost 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 anythat Augustin, or any other theologian, ever composed. The doctrine ofthe Trinity is the most immense of all thedoctrines of religion. It is the foundation of theology. Christianity,in the last analysis, is Trinitarianism. Take out of the New Testamentthe persons of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and there is noGod left. Take out of the Christian consciousness the thoughts andaffections that relate to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, andthere is no Christian consciousness left. The Trinity is theconstitutive idea of the evangelical theology, and the formative idea ofthe evangelical experience. The immensity of the doctrine makes it ofnecessity a mystery; but a mystery which like night enfolds in itsunfathomed depths the bright stars—points of light, comparedwith which there is no light so keen and so glittering. Mysterious as itis, the Trinity of Divine Revelation is the doctrine that holds in itall the hope of man; for it holds within it the infinite pity of theIncarnation and the infinite mercy of the Redemption.

And it shares its mysteriousness with the doctrine of the DivineEternity. It is difficult to say which is mostbaffling to human comprehension, the all-comprehending, simultaneous,successionless consciousness of the Infinite One, or his trinalpersonality. Yet no theist rejects the doctrine of the Divine eternitybecause of its mystery. The two doctrines are antithetic andcorrelative. On one of the Northern rivers that flows through a narrowchasm whose depth no plummet has sounded, there stand two cliffsfronting each other, shooting their pinnacles into the blue ether, andsending their roots down to the foundations of the earth. They havenamed them Trinity and Eternity. So stand, antithetic and confronting,in the Christian scheme, the trinity and eternity of God.

The translation of this treatise is the work of the Rev. Arthur WestHaddan, Hon. Canon of Worcester, who, according to a note of thepublisher, died while it was passing through the press. It has beencompared with the original, and a considerable number of alterationsmade. The treatise is exceedingly difficult to render intoEnglish—probably the most so of any in theauthor’s writings. The changes in some instances werenecessary from a misconception of the original; but more often for thepurpose of making the meaning of the translator himself more clear. Itis believed that a comparison between the original and revisedtranslation will show that the latter is the more intelligible. At thesame time, the reviser would not be too confident that in every instancethe exact meaning of Augustin has been expressed, by either thetranslator or reviser.

The annotations of the reviser upon important points in the treatise, itis hoped, will assist the reader in understanding Augustin’sreasoning, and also throw some light upon the doctrine of theTrinity.

WILLIAM G. T. SHEDD.

NEW YORK,

Feb. 1,1887

.

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE.

THE history of St. Augustin’s treatise onthe Trinity, as gathered by Tillemont and others from his own allusionsto it, may be briefly given. It is placed by him in his Retractations among the works written (which in the presentcase, it appears, must mean begun) in AD 400.In letters of AD 410, 414, and at the end of AD 415 ( Ad Consentium, Ep. 120, and two Ad Evodium, Epp. 162, 169), it isreferred to as still unfinished and unpublished. But a letter of AD 412 ( Ad Marcellinum, Ep. 143) intimates that friends were at that time importuning him,although without success, to complete and publish it. And the letter toAurelius, which was sent to that bishop with the treatise itself whenactually completed, informs us that a portion of it, while it was stillunrevised and incomplete, was in fact surreptitiously madepublic,—a proceeding which the letters above cited postponeapparently until at least after AD 415. It wascertainly still in hand in AD 416, inasmuch asin Book XIII. a quotation occurs from the 12th Book of the De Civitate Dei; and another quotation in Book XV.,from the 90th lecture on St. John, indicates most probably a date of atleast a year later, viz. AD 417. The Retractations, which refer to it, are usually dated not later than AD 428. The letter to Bishop Aurelius also informs usthat the work was many years in progress, and was begun in St.Augustin’s early manhood, and finished in his old age. We mayinfer from this evidence that it was written by him between AD 400, when he was forty-six years old, andhad been Bishop of Hippo about four years, and AD 428 at the latest; but probably it was published tenor twelve years before this date. He writes of it, indeed, himself, asif the “ nonum prematur inannum ” very inadequately represented the amount ofdeliberate and patient thought which a subject so profound and so sacreddemanded, and which he had striven to give to it; and as if, even at thevery last, he shrank from publishing his work, and was only driven to doso in order to remedy the mischief of its partial and unauthorizedpublication.

His motive for writing on the subject may be learned from the treatiseitself. It was not directed against any individual antagonist, oroccasioned by any particular controversial emergency. In fact, hislabors upon it were, he says, continually interrupted by the distractionof such controversies. Certain ingenious and subtle theories respectingtypes or resemblances of the Holy Trinity, traceable in human nature asbeing the image of God, seemed to him to supply, not indeed a logicalproof, but a strong rational presumption, of the truth of the doctrineitself; and thus to make it incumbent upon him to expound and unfoldthem in order to meet rationalizing objectors upon (so to say) their ownground. He is careful not to deal with these analogies or images as ifthey either constituted a purely argumentative proof or exhausted thefull meaning of the doctrine, upon both which assumptions suchspeculations have at all times been the fruitful parent both ofpresumptious theorizing and of grievous heresy. But he neverthelessemploys them more affirmatively than would perhaps have been the case.While modern theologians would argue negatively, from the triplicity ofindependent faculties,—united, nevertheless, in the unity ofa single human person,—that any presumption of reason againstthe Trinity of persons in the Godhead is thereby, if not removed, atleast materially and enormously lessened, St. Augustin seems to arguepositively from analogous grounds, as though they constituted a directintimation of the doctrine itself. But he takes especial pains, at thesame time, to dwell upon the incapacity of human thought to fathom thedepths of the nature of God; and he carefully prefaces his reasonings bya statement of the Scripture evidence of the catholic doctrine as amatter of faith and not of reason, and by an explanation of difficulttexts upon the subject. One of the most valuable portions, indeed, ofthe treatise is the eloquent and profound exposition given in this partof it of the rule of interpretation to be applied to Scripture languagerespecting the person of our Lord. It should be noticed, however, that alarge proportion of St. Augustin’s scriptural exegesis is founded upon a close verbal exposition ofthe old Latin version, and is frequently not borne out by the originaltext. And the rule followed in rendering Scripture texts in the presenttranslation has been, accordingly, wherever the argument in the contextrests upon the variations of the old Latin, there to translate the wordsas St. Augustin gives them, while adhering otherwise to the language ofthe authorized English version. The reader’s attention mayallowably be drawn to the language of Book V. C.X., and to its close resemblance to some of the most remarkable phrases ofthe Athanasian Creed, and again to the striking passage respectingmiracles in Book III. C.V., and to that upon thenature of God at the beginning of Book V.; the last named of which seemsto have suggested one of the profoundest passages in the profoundest ofDr. Newman’s University Sermons (p. 353,ed. 1843). It may be added, that the writings of the Greek Fathers onthe subject were, if not wholly unknown, yet unfamiliar to Augustin, whoquotes directly only the Latin work of Hilary of Poictiers.

It remains to say, that the translation here printed was made about fouryears since by a friend of the writer of this preface, and that thelatter’s share in the work has been that of thoroughlyrevising and correcting it, and of seeing it through the press. He istherefore answerable for the work as now published.

A. W. HADDAN.

Nov. 5,1872

.

In the Retractations (ii. 15) Augustin speaks ofthis work in the following terms:—

“I spent some years in writing fifteen books concerning theTrinity, which is God. When, however, I had not yet finished thethirteenth Book, and some who were exceedingly anxious to have the workwere kept waiting longer than they could bear, it was stolen from me ina less correct state than it either could or would have been had itappeared when I intended. And as soon as I discovered this, having othercopies of it, I had determined at first not to publish it myself, but tomention what had happened in the matter in some other work; but at theurgent request of brethren, whom I could not refuse, I corrected it asmuch as I thought fit, and finished and published it, with the addition,at the beginning, of a letter that I had written to the venerableAurelius, Bishop of Carthage, in which I set forth, in the way ofprologue, what had happened, what I had intended to do of myself, andwhat 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 sincerelove, to his holy brother and fellow-priest, Pope Aurelius, Augustinsends health in the Lord.

“I began as a very young man, and have published in my oldage, 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 beenprematurely, or rather surreptitiously, stolen from me before I hadcompleted it, and before I had revised and put the finishing touches toit, as had been my intention. For I had not designed to publish theBooks one by one, but all together, inasmuch as the progress of theinquiry led me to add the later ones to those which precede them. When,therefore, these people had hindered the fulfillment of my purpose (inthat some of them had obtained access to the work before I intended), Ihad given over dictating it, with the idea of making my complaint publicin some other work that I might write, in order that whoso could mightknow that the Books had not been published by myself, but had been takenaway from my possession before they were in my own judgment fit forpublication. Compelled, however, by the eager demands of many of mybrethren, and above all by your command, I have taken the pains, byGod’s help, to complete the work, laborious as it is; and asnow corrected (not as I wished, but as I could, lest the Books shoulddiffer very widely from those which had surreptitiously got intopeople’s hands), I have sent them to your Reverence by myvery dear son and fellow-deacon, and have allowed them to be heard,copied, and read by every one that pleases. Doubtless, if I could havefulfilled my original intention, although they would have contained thesame sentiments, they would have been worked out much more thoroughlyand clearly, so far as the difficulty of unfolding so profound asubject, and so far, too, as my own powers, might have allowed. Thereare some persons, however, who have the first four, or rather five,Books without the prefaces, and the twelfth with no small part of itslater chapters omitted. But these, if they please and can, will amendthe whole, if they become acquainted with the present edition. At anyrate, I have to request that you will order this letter to be prefixedseparately, but at the beginning of the Books. Farewell. Pray forme.”

CONTENTS OF THE TRINITY.

- INTRODUCTORY ESSAY, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 3

- TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE, . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

- BOOK I. The unity and equalityof the Trinity are demonstrated out of the Scriptures; and the trueinterpretation is given of those texts which are wrongly alleged againstthe equality of the Son, . . . . . . . . 17

- BOOK II. The equality of theTrinity maintained against objections drawn from those texts which speakof the sending of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 37

- BOOK III. The appearances ofGod to the Old Testament saints are discussed, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

- BOOK IV. Augustin explains forwhat the Son of God was sent; but, however, that the Son of God,although made less by being sent, is not therefore less because theFather sent Him; nor yet the Holy Spirit less because both the Fathersent Him and the Son, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

- BOOK V. He proceeds to refutethose arguments which the heretics put forward, not out of theScriptures, but from their own conceptions. And first he refutes theobjection, that to beget and to be begotten, or that to be begotten andnot-begotten, being different, are therefore different substances, andshows that these things are spoken of God relatively, and not accordingto substance, . . . . . . . . . . . 87

- BOOK VI. In reply to theargument alleged against the equality of the Son from theapostle’s words, saying that Christ is the “powerof God and the wisdom of God,” he propounds the questionwhether the Father Himself is not wisdom. But deferring for a while theanswer to this, he adduces further proof of the unity and equality ofthe Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that God ought to be saidand believed to be a Trinity, not triple ( triplicem ). And he adds an explanation of the saying ofHilary—Eternity in the Father, Appearance in the Image, andUse in the Gift, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

- BOOK VII. He resolves thequestion he had deferred, and teaches us that the Father, the Son, andthe Holy Spirit is one power and one wisdom, no otherwise than one Godand one essence. And he then inquires how it is that, in speaking ofGod, the Latins say, One essence, three persons; but the Greeks, Oneessence, three substances or hypostases, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 104

- BOOK VIII. He advances reasonsto show not only that the Father is not greater than the Son, but thatneither are both together anything greater than the Holy Spirit, nor anytwo together in the same Trinity anything greater than one, nor allthree together anything greater than each singly. He also intimates thatthe nature of God may be understood from our understanding of truth,from our knowledge of the supreme good, and from our implanted love ofrighteousness; but above all, that our knowledge of God is to be soughtthrough love, in which he notices a trio of things which contains atrace of the Trinity, . . . 115

- BOOK IX. He instructs us thatthere is a kind of trinity discernible in man, who is the image of God, viz. the mind, and the knowledge by which themind knows itself, and the love wherewith it loves both itself and itsown knowledge; these three being mutually equal and of one essence, . .. . . . . . . . . 125

- BOOK X. That there is yetanother and a more manifest trinity to be found in the mind of man, viz. in his memory, understanding, and will, . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

- BOOK XI. That even in theouter man some traces of a trinity may be detected, as e.g., in the bodily sight, and in the recollection of objectsseen with the bodily sight, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

- BOOK XII. After premising thedifference between wisdom and knowledge, he points out a kind of trinityin that which is properly called knowledge; but one which, although wehave reached in it the inner man, is not yet to be called the image ofGod, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

- BOOK XIII. He expounds thistrinity that he has found in knowledge by commending Christian faith, .. . . . . 166

- BOOK XIV. He speaks of thetrue wisdom of man, viz. that by which heremembers, understands, and loves God; and shows that it is in this verything that the mind of man is the image of God, although his mind, whichis here renewed in the knowledge of God, will only then be made theperfect likeness of God in that image when there shall be a perfectsight of God, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183

- BOOK XV. He embraces in abrief compendium the contents of the previous books; and finally showsthat the Trinity, in the perfect sight of which consists the blessedlife that is promised us, is here seen by us as in a glass and in anenigma, so long as it is seen through that image of God which weourselves are, . . . . 199

BOOK I.

IN WHICH THE UNITY AND EQUALITY OF THE SUPREMETRINITY IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE SACRED SCRIPTURES, AND SOMETEXTS ALLEGED AGAINST THE EQUALITY OF THE SON AREEXPLAINED.

CHAP. 1.—: THIS WORK IS WRITTEN AGAINST THOSE WHOSOPHISTICALLY ASSAIL THE FAITH OF THE TRINITY, THROUGH MISUSE OF REASON.THEY WHO DISPUTE CONCERNING GOD ERR FROM A THREEFOLD CAUSE. HOLYSCRIPTURE, REMOVING WHAT IS FALSE, LEADS US ON BY DEGREES TO THINGSDIVINE. WHAT TRUE IMMORTALITY IS. WE ARE NOURISHED BY FAITH, THAT WE MAYBE ENABLED TO APPREHEND THINGS DIVINE.

1. THE following dissertation concerning theTrinity, as the reader ought to be informed, has been written inorder to guard against the sophistries of those who disdain to beginwith faith, and are deceived by a crude and perverse love of reason.Now one class of such men endeavor to transfer to things incorporealand spiritual the ideas they have formed, whether through experienceof the bodily senses, or by natural human wit and diligentquickness, or by the aid of art, from things corporeal; so as toseek to measure and conceive of the former by the latter. Others,again, frame whatever sentiments they may have concerning Godaccording to the nature or affections of the human mind; and throughthis error they govern their discourse, in disputing concerning God,by distorted and fallacious rules. While yet a third class striveindeed to transcend the whole creation, which doubtless ischangeable, in order to raise their thought to the unchangeablesubstance, which is God; but being weighed down by the burden ofmortality, whilst they both would seem to know what they do not, andcannot know what they would, preclude themselves from entering thevery path of understanding, by an over-bold affirmation of their ownpresumptuous judgments; choosing rather not to correct their ownopinion when it is perverse, than to change that which they haveonce defended. And, indeed, this is the common disease of all thethree classes which I have mentioned,—viz., both of thosewho frame their thoughts of God according to things corporeal, andof those who do so according to the spiritual creature, such as isthe soul; and of those who neither regard the body nor the spiritualcreature, and yet think falsely about God; and are indeed so muchthe further from the truth, that nothing can be found answering totheir conceptions, either in the body, or in the made or createdspirit, or in the Creator Himself. For he who thinks, for instance,that God is white or red, is in error; and yet these things arefound in the body. Again, he who thinks of God as now forgetting andnow remembering, or anything of the same kind, is none the less inerror; and yet these things are found in the mind. But he who thinksthat God is of such power as to have generated Himself, is so muchthe more in error, because not only doesGod not so exist, but neither does the spiritual nor the bodilycreature; for there is nothing whatever that generates its ownexistence. [1]

2. In order, therefore, thatthe human mind might be purged from falsities of this kind, HolyScripture, which suits itself to babes, has not avoided words drawnfrom any class of things really existing, through which, as bynourishment, our understanding might rise gradually to things divineand transcendent. For, in speaking of God, it has both used wordstaken from things corporeal, as when it says, “Hide meunder the shadow of Thy wings;” [2] and it has borrowed manythings from the spiritual creature, whereby to signify that whichindeed is not so, but must needs so be said: as, for instance,“I the Lord thy God am a jealous God;” [3] and, “It repenteth me that I have mademan.” [4] But it has drawn no wordswhatever, whereby to frame either figures of speech or enigmaticsayings, from things which do not exist at all. And hence it is thatthey who are shut out from the truth by that third kind of error aremore mischievously and emptily vain than their fellows; in that theysurmise respecting God, what can neither be found in Himself nor inany creature. For divine Scripture is wont to frame, as it were,allurements for children from the things which are found in thecreature; whereby, according to their measure, and as it were bysteps, the affections of the weak may be moved to seek those thingsthat are above, and to leave those things that are below. But thesame Scripture rarely employs those things which are spoken properlyof God, and are not found in any creature; as, for instance, thatwhich was said to Moses, “I am that I am;”and, “I Am hath sent me to you.” [5] For since both body and soul also are said insome sense to be, Holy Scripture certainlywould not so express itself unless it meant to be understood in somespecial sense of the term. So, too, that which the Apostle says,“Who only hath immortality.” [6] Since the soul also both is said to be, and is,in a certain manner immortal, Scripture would not say“only hath,” unless because true immortalityis unchangeableness; which no creature can possess, since it belongsto the creator alone. [7] So also James says,“Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above,and cometh down from the Father of Lights, with whom is novariableness, neither shadow of turning.” [8] So also David, “Thou shalt change them, and they shall bechanged; but Thou art the same.” [9]

3. Further, it is difficultto contemplate and fully know the substance of God; who fashionsthings changeable, yet without any change in Himself, and createsthings temporal, yet without any temporal movement in Hmself. And itis necessary, therefore, to purge our minds, in order to be able tosee ineffably that which is ineffable; whereto not having yetattained, we are to be nourished by faith, and led by such ways asare more suited to our capacity, that we may be rendered apt andable to comprehend it. And hence the Apostle says, that“in Christ indeed are hid all the treasures of wisdom andknowledge;” [10] and yet has commended Himto us, as to babes in Christ, who, although already born again byHis grace, yet are still carnal and psychical, not by that divinevirtue wherein He is equal to the Father, but by that humaninfirmity whereby He was crucified. For he says, “Idetermined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Himcrucified;” [11] and then hecontinues, “And I was with you in weakness, and in fear,and in much trembling.” And a little after he says tothem, “And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as untospiritual, but as unto carnal, [12] even as unto babes inChrist. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto yewere not able to bear it, neither yet now are yeable.” [13] There are some whoare angry at language of this kind, and think it is used in slightto themselves, and for the most part prefer rather to believe thatthey who so speak to them have nothing to say, than that theythemselves cannot understand what they have said. And sometimes,indeed, we do allege to them, not certainly that account of the casewhich they seek in their inquiries about God,—becauseneither can they themselves receive it, nor can we perhaps eitherapprehend or express it,—but such an account of it as todemonstrate to them how incapable and utterly unfit they are tounderstand that which they require of us. But they, on their parts,because they do not hear what they desire,think that we are either playing them false in order to conceal ourown ignorance, or speaking in malice because we grudge themknowledge; and so go away indignant and perturbed.

CHAP. 2.—: IN WHAT MANNER THIS WORK PROPOSES TO DISCOURSECONCERNING THE TRINITY.

4. Wherefore, our Lord Godhelping, we will undertake to render, as far as we are able, thatvery 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 rightlysaid, believed, understood, to be of one and the same substance oressence; in such wise that they may not fancy themselves mocked byexcuses on our part, but may find by actual trial, both that thehighest good is that which is discerned by the most purified minds,and that for this reason it cannot be discerned or understood bythemselves, because the eye of the human mind, being weak, isdazzled in that so transcendent light, unless it be invigorated bythe nourishment of the righteousness of faith. First, however, wemust demonstrate, according to the authority of the Holy Scriptures,whether the faith be so. Then, if God be willing and aid us, we mayperhaps at least so far serve these talkativearguers—more puffed up than capable, and thereforelaboring under the more dangerous disease—as to enablethem to find something which they are not able to doubt, that so, inthat case where they cannot find the like, they may be led to laythe fault to their own minds, rather than to the truth itself or toour reasonings; and thus, if there be anything in them of eitherlove or fear towards God, they may return and begin from faith indue order: perceiving at length how healthful a medicine has beenprovided for the faithful in the holy Church, whereby a heedfulpiety, healing the feebleness of the mind, may render it able toperceive the unchangeable truth, and hinder it from fallingheadlong, through disorderly rashness, into pestilent and falseopinion. Neither will I myself shrink from inquiry, if I am anywherein doubt; nor be ashamed to learn, if I am anywhere in error.

CHAP. 3.—: WHAT AUGUSTIN REQUESTS FROM HIS READERS. THEERRORS OF READERS DULL OF COMPREHENSION NOT TO BE ASCRIBED TO THEAUTHOR.

5. Further let me ask of myreader, wherever, alike with myself, he is certain, there to go onwith me; wherever, alike with myself, he hesitates, there to joinwith me in inquiring; wherever he recognizes himself to be in error,there to return to me; wherever he recognizes me to be so, there tocall me back: so that we may enter together upon the path ofcharity, and advance towards Him of whom it is said,“Seek His face evermore.” [1] And I would make this piousand safe agreement, in the presence of our Lord God, with all whoread my writings, as well in all other cases as, above all, in thecase of those which inquire into the unity of the Trinity, of theFather and the Son and the Holy Spirit; because in no other subjectis error more dangerous, or inquiry more laborious, or the discoveryof truth more profitable. If, then, any reader shall say, This isnot well said, because I do not understand it; such an one findsfault with my language, not with my faith: and it might perhaps invery truth have been put more clearly; yet no man ever so spoke asto be understood in all things by all men. Let him, therefore, whofinds this fault with my discourse, see whether he can understandother men who have handled similar subjects and questions, when hedoes not understand me: and if he can, let him put down my book, oreven, if he pleases, throw it away; and let him spend labor and timerather on those whom he understands. [2] Yet let him not think on that accountthat I ought to have been silent, because I have not been able toexpress myself so smoothly and clearly to him as those do whom heunderstands. For neither do all things, which all men have written,come into the hands of all. And possibly some, who are capable ofunderstanding even these our writings, may not find those more lucidworks, and may meet with ours only. And therefore it is useful thatmany persons should write many books, differing in style but not infaith, concerning even the same questions, that the matter itselfmay reach the greatest number—some in one way, some inanother. But if he who complains that he has not understood thesethings has never been able to comprehend any careful and exactreasonings at all upon such subjects, let him in that case deal withhimself by resolution and study, that he may know better; not with me by quarrellings and wranglings, that Imay hold my peace. Let him, again, who says, when he reads my book,Certainly I understand what is said, but it is not true, assert, ifhe pleases, his own opinion, and refute mine if he is able. And ifhe do this with charity and truth, and take the pains to make itknown to me (if I am still alive), I shall then receive the mostabundant fruit of this my labor. And if he cannot inform myself,most willing and glad should I be that he should inform those whomhe can. Yet, for my part, “I meditate in the law of theLord,” [1] if not “day andnight,” at least such short times as I can; and I commitmy meditations to writing, lest they should escape me throughforgetfulness; hoping by the mercy of God that He will make me holdsteadfastly all truths of which I feel certain; “but ifin anything I be otherwise minded, that He will himself reveal eventhis to me,” [2] whether through secretinspiration and admonition, or through His own plain utterances, orthrough the reasonings of my brethren. This I pray for, and this mytrust and desire I commit to Him, who is sufficiently able to keepthose things which He has given me, and to render those which He haspromised.

6. I expect, indeed, thatsome, who are more dull of understanding, will imagine that in someparts of my books I have held sentiments which I have not held, orhave not held those which I have. But their error, as none can beignorant, ought not to be attributed to me, if they have deviatedinto false doctrine through following my steps without apprehendingme, whilst I am compelled to pick my way through a hard and obscuresubject: seeing that neither can any one, in any way, rightlyascribe the numerous and various errors of heretics to the holytestimonies themselves of the divine books; although all of themendeavor to defend out of those same Scriptures their own false anderroneous opinions. The law of Christ, that is, charity, admonishesme clearly, and commands me with a sweet constraint, that when menthink that I have held in my books something false which I have notheld, and that same falsehood displeases one and pleases another, Ishould prefer to be blamed by him who reprehends the falsehood,rather than praised by him who praises it. For although I, who neverheld the error, am not rightly blamed by the former, yet the erroritself is rightly censured; whilst by the latter neither am Irightly praised, who am thought to have held that which the truthcensures, nor the sentiment itself, which the truth also censures.Let us therefore essay the work which we have undertaken in the nameof the Lord.

CHAP. 4.—: WHAT THE DOCTRINE OF THE CATHOLIC FAITH ISCONCERNING THE TRINITY.

7. All those Catholicexpounders of the divine Scriptures, both Old and New, whom I havebeen able to read, who have written before me concerning theTrinity, Who is God, have purposed to teach, according to theScriptures, this doctrine, that the Father, and the Son, and theHoly Spirit intimate a divine unity of one and the same substance inan indivisible equality; [3] andtherefore that they are not three Gods, but one God: although theFather hath begotten the Son, and so He who is the Father is not theSon; and the Son is begotten by the Father, and so He who is the Sonis not the Father; and the Holy Spirit is neither the Father nor theSon, but only the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, Himself alsoco-equal with the Father and the Son, and pertaining to the unity ofthe Trinity. Yet not that this Trinity was born of the Virgin Mary,and crucified under Pontius Pilate, and buried, and rose again thethird day, and ascended into heaven, but only the Son. Nor, again,that this Trinity descended in the form of a dove upon Jesus when Hewas baptized; [4] nor that, on the day of Pentecost, after theascension of the Lord, when “there came a sound fromheaven, as of a rushing mighty wind,” [5] the same Trinity“sat upon each of them with cloven tongues like as offire,” but only the Holy Spirit. Nor yet that thisTrinity said from heaven, “Thou art mySon,” [6] whether when He wasbaptized by John, or when the three disciples were with Him in themount, [7] or when the voice sounded, saying,“I have both glorified it, and will glorify itagain;” [8] but that it was a wordof the Father only, spoken to the Son; although the Father, and theSon, and the Holy Spirit, as they are indivisible, so workindivisibly. [9] This is also my faith, since it isthe Catholic faith.

CHAP. 5.—: OF DIFFICULTIES CONCERNING THE TRINITY: INWHAT MANNER THREE ARE ONE GOD, AND HOW, WORKING INDIVISIBLY, THEY YETPERFORM SOME THINGS SEVERALLY.

8. Some persons, however,find a difficulty in this faith; when they hear that the Father isGod, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, and yet that thisTrinity is not three Gods, but one God; and they ask how they are tounderstand this: especially when it is said that the Trinity worksindivisibly in everything that God works, and yet that a certainvoice of the Father spoke, which is not the voice of the Son; andthat none except the Son was born in the flesh, and suffered, androse again, and ascended into heaven; and that none except the HolySpirit came in the form of a dove. They wish to understand how theTrinity uttered that voice which was only of the Father; and how thesame Trinity created that flesh in which the Son only was born ofthe Virgin; and how the very same Trinity itself wrought that formof a dove, in which the Holy Spirit only appeared. Yet, otherwise,the Trinity does not work indivisibly, but the Father does somethings, the Son other things, and the Holy Spirit yet others: orelse, if they do some things together, some severally, then theTrinity is not indivisible. It is a difficulty, too, to them, inwhat manner the Holy Spirit is in the Trinity, whom neither theFather nor the Son, nor both, have begotten, although He is theSpirit both of the Father and of the Son. Since, then, men weary uswith asking such questions, let us unfold to them, as we are able,whatever wisdom God’s gift has bestowed upon our weaknesson this subject; neither “let us go on our way withconsuming envy.” [1] Should we say that weare not accustomed to think about such things, it would not be true;yet if we acknowledge that such subjects commonly dwell in ourthoughts, carried away as we are by the love of investigating thetruth, then they require of us, by the law of charity, to make knownto them what we have herein been able to find out. “Notas though I had already attained, either were alreadyperfect” (for, if the Apostle Paul, how much more must I,who lie far beneath his feet, count myself not to haveapprehended!); but, according to my measure, “if I forgetthose things that are behind, and reach forth unto those thingswhich are before, and press towards the mark for the prize of thehigh calling,” [2] I am requested todisclose so much of the road as I have already passed, and the pointto which I have reached, whence the course yet remains to bring meto the end. And those make the request, whom a generous charitycompels me to serve. Needs must too, and God will grant that, insupplying them with matter to read, I shall profit myself also; andthat, in seeking to reply to their inquiries, I shall myselflikewise find that for which I was inquiring. Accordingly I haveundertaken the task, by the bidding and help of the Lord my God, notso much of discoursing with authority respecting things I knowalready, as of learning those things by piously discoursing ofthem.

CHAP. 6.—: THAT THE SON IS VERY GOD, OF THE SAMESUBSTANCE WITH THE FATHER. NOT ONLY THE FATHER, BUT THE TRINITY, ISAFFIRMED TO BE IMMORTAL. ALL THINGS ARE NOT FROM THE FATHER ALONE, BUTALSO FROM THE SON. THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS VERY GOD, EQUAL WITH THEFATHER AND THE SON.

9. They who have said thatour Lord Jesus Christ is not God, or not very God, or not with theFather the One and only God, or not truly immortal becausechangeable, are proved wrong by the most plain and unanimous voiceof divine testimonies; as, for instance, “In thebeginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word wasGod.” For it is plain that we are to take the Word of Godto be the only Son of God, of whom it is afterwards said,“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongus,” on account of that birth of His incarnation, whichwas wrought in time of the Virgin. But herein is declared, not onlythat He is God, but also that He is of the same substance with theFather; because, after saying, “And the Word wasGod,” it is said also, “The same was in thebeginning with God: all things were made by Him, and without Him wasnot anything made.” [3] Not simply“all things;” but only all things that were made, that is, the whole creature. Fromwhich it appears clearly, that He Himself was not made, by whom allthings were made. And if He was not made, then He is not a creature;but if He is not a creature, then He is of the same substance withthe Father. For all substance that is not God is creature; and allthat is not creature is God. [4] And if the Son is not of the same substance with the Father, thenHe is a substance that was made: and if He is a substance that wasmade, then all things were not made by Him; but “allthings were made by Him,” therefore He is of one and thesame substance with the Father. And so He is not only God, but alsovery God. And the same John most expressly affirms this in hisepistle: “For we know that the Son of God is come, andhath given us an understanding, that we may know the true God, andthat we may be in His true Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God,and eternal life.” [1]

10. Hence also it follows byconsequence, that the Apostle Paul did not say, “Whoalone has immortality,” of the Father merely; but of theOne and only God, which is the Trinity itself. For that which isitself eternal life is not mortal according to any changeableness;and hence the Son of God, because “He is EternalLife,” is also Himself understood with the Father, whereit is said, “Who only hath immortality.” Forwe, too, are made partakers of this eternal life, and become, in ourown measure, immortal. But the eternal life itself, of which we aremade 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 theblessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;who only hath immortality;” not even so would it benecessarily understood that the Son is excluded. For neither has theSon separated the Father from Himself, because He Himself, speakingelsewhere with the voice of wisdom (for He Himself is the Wisdom ofGod), [2] says, “I alone compassed thecircuit of heaven.” [3] And therefore so muchthe more is it not necessary that the words, “Who hathimmortality,” should be understood of the Father alone,omitting the Son; when they are said thus: “That thoukeep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until theappearing of our Lord Jesus Christ: whom in His own time He willshow, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, andLord of lords; who only hath immortality, dwelling in the lightwhich no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see:to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.” [4] In which words neither is the Father speciallynamed, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit; but the blessed and onlyPotentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; that is, the Oneand only and true God, the Trinity itself.

11. But perhaps what followsmay interfere with this meaning; because it is said,“Whom no man hath seen, nor can see:” althoughthis may also be taken as belonging to Christ according to Hisdivinity, which the Jews did not see, who yet saw and crucified Himin the flesh; whereas His divinity can in no wise be seen by humansight, but is seen with that sight with which they who see are nolonger men, but beyond men. Rightly, therefore, is God Himself, theTrinity, understood to be the “blessed and onlyPotentate,” who “shows the coming of our LordJesus Christ in His own time.” For the words,“Who only hath immortality,” are said in thesame way as it is said, “Who only doeth wondrousthings.” [5] And I should be glad toknow of whom they take these words to be said. If only of theFather, how then is that true which the Son Himself says,“For what things soever the Father doeth, these alsodoeth the Son likewise?” Is there any, among wonderfulworks, more wonderful than to raise up and quicken the dead? Yet thesame Son saith, “As the Father raiseth up the dead, andquickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom Hewill.” [6] How, then, does theFather alone “do wondrous things,” when thesewords allow us to understand neither the Father only, nor the Sononly, but assuredly the one only true God, that is, the Father, andthe Son, and the Holy Spirit? [7]

12. Also, when the sameapostle says, “But to us there is but one God, theFather, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord JesusChrist, by whom are all things, and we by Him,” [8] who can doubt that he speaks of all things whichare created; as does John, when he says, “All things weremade by Him”? I ask, therefore, of whom he speaks inanother place: “For of Him, and through Him, and in Him,are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.” [9] For if of the Father, and the Son, and the HolySpirit, so as to assign each clause severally to each person: ofHim, that is to say, of the Father; through Him, that is to say,through the Son; in Him, that is to say, in the HolySpirit,—it is manifest that the Father, and the Son, andthe Holy Spirit is one God, inasmuch as the words continue in thesingular number, “To whom [10] be glory for ever.”For at the beginning of the passage hedoes not say, “O the depth of the riches both of thewisdom and knowledge” of the Father, or of the Son, or ofthe Holy Spirit, but “of the wisdom and knowledge ofGod!” “How unsearchable are His judgments, andHis ways past finding out! For who hath known the mind of the Lord?or who hath been His counsellor? Or who hath first given to Him andit shall be recompensed unto him again? For of Him, and through Him,and in Him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever.Amen.” [1] But if they will havethis to be understood only of the Father, then in what way are allthings by the Father, as is said here; and all things by the Son, aswhere it is said to the Corinthians, “And one Lord JesusChrist, by whom are all things,” [2] and as in the Gospelof John, “All things were made by Him?” For ifsome things were made by the Father, and some by the Son, then allthings were not made by the Father, nor all things by the Son; butif all things were made by the Father, and all things by the Son,then the same things were made by the Father and by the Son. TheSon, therefore, is equal with the Father, and the working of theFather and the Son is indivisible. Because if the Father made eventhe Son, whom certainly the Son Himself did not make, then allthings were not made by the Son; but all things were made by the Son: therefore He Himself was not made,that with the Father He might make all things that were made. Andthe apostle has not refrained from using the very word itself, buthas said most expressly, “Who, being in the form of God,thought it not robbery to be equal with God;” [3] using here the name of God specially of theFather; [4] aselsewhere, “But the head of Christ isGod.” [5]

13. Similar evidence has beencollected also concerning the Holy Spirit, of which those who havediscussed the subject before ourselves have most fully availedthemselves, that He too is God, and not a creature. But if not acreature, then not only God (for men likewise are called gods [6] ), but also very God; and therefore absolutelyequal with the Father and the Son, and in the unity of the Trinityconsubstantial and co-eternal. But that the Holy Spirit is not acreature is made quite plain by that passage above all others, wherewe are commanded not to serve the creature, but the Creator; [7] not in the sense in which we are commanded to“serve” one another by love, [8] which is in Greekδουλεύειν,but in that in which God alone is served, which is in Greekλατρεύειν.From whence they are called idolaters who tender that service toimages which is due to God. For it is this service concerning whichit is said, “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Himonly shalt thou serve.” [9] For this is found alsomore distinctly in the Greek Scriptures, which haveλατρεύσεις.Now if we are forbidden to serve the creature with such a service,seeing that it is written, “Thou shalt worship the Lordthy God, and Him only shalt thou serve” (and hence, too,the apostle repudiates those who worship and serve the creature morethan the Creator), then assuredly the Holy Spirit is not a creature,to whom such a service is paid by all the saints; as says theapostle, “For we are the circumcision, which serve theSpirit of God,” [10] which isin the Greekλατρεύοντες.For even most Latin copies also have it thus, “We whoserve the Spirit of God;” but all Greek ones, or almostall, have it so. Although in some Latin copies we find, not“We worship the Spirit of God,” but,“We worship God in the Spirit.” But let thosewho err in this case, and refuse to give up to the more weightyauthority, tell us whether they find this text also varied in the MSS.: “Know ye not that your bodyis the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have ofGod?” Yet what can be more senseless or more profane,than that any one should dare to say that the members of Christ arethe temple of one who, in their opinion, is a creature inferior toChrist? For the apostle says in another place, “Yourbodies are members of Christ.” But if the members ofChrist are also the temple of the Holy Spirit, then the Holy Spiritis not a creature; because we must needs owe to Him, of whom ourbody is the temple, that service wherewithGod only is to be served, which in Greek is calledλατρεία.And accordingly the apostle says, “Therefore glorify Godin your body.” [1]

CHAP. 7.—: IN WHAT MANNER THE SON IS LESS THAN THEFATHER, AND THAN HIMSELF.

14. In these and liketestimonies of the divine Scriptures, by free use of which, as Ihave said, our predecessors exploded such sophistries or errors ofthe heretics, the unity and equality of the Trinity are intimated toour faith. But because, on account of the incarnation of the Word ofGod for the working out of our salvation, that the man Christ Jesusmight be the Mediator between God and men, [2] many things are so saidin the sacred books as to signify, or even most expressly declare,the Father to be greater than the Son; men have erred through a wantof careful examination or consideration of the whole tenor of theScriptures, and have endeavored to transfer those things which aresaid of Jesus Christ according to the flesh, to that substance ofHis which was eternal before the incarnation, and is eternal. Theysay, for instance, that the Son is less than the Father, because itis written that the Lord Himself said, “My Father isgreater than I.” [3] But the truth shows thatafter the same sense the Son is less also than Himself; for how wasHe not made less also than Himself, who “emptied [4] Himself, and took upon Himthe form of a servant?” For He did not so take the formof a servant as that He should lose the form of God, in which He wasequal to the Father. If, then, the form of a servant was so takenthat the form of God was not lost, since both in the form of aservant and in the form of God He Himself is the same only-begottenSon of God the Father, in the form of God equal to the Father, inthe form of a servant the Mediator between God and men, the manChrist Jesus; is there any one who cannot perceive that He Himselfin the form of God is also greater than Himself, but yet likewise inthe form of a servant less than Himself? And not, therefore, withoutcause the Scripture says both the one and the other, both that theSon is equal to the Father, and that the Father is greater than theSon. For there is no confusion when the former is understood as onaccount of the form of God, and the latter as on account of the formof a servant. And, in truth, this rule for clearing the questionthrough all the sacred Scriptures is set forth in one chapter of anepistle of the Apostle Paul, where this distinction is commended tous plainly enough. For he says, “Who, being in the formof God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptiedHimself, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made inthe likeness of men: and was found in fashion [5] as aman.” [6] The Son of God, then,is equal to God the Father in nature, but less in“fashion.” [7] Forin the form of a servant which He took He is less than the Father;but in the form of God, in which also He was before He took the formof a servant, He is equal to the Father. In the form of God He isthe Word, “by whom all things are made;” [8] but in the form of a servant He was “made of a woman,made under the law, to redeem them that were under thelaw.” [9] In like manner, in theform of God He made man; in the form of a servant He was made man.For if the Father alone had made man without the Son, it would nothave been written, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” [10] Therefore, because theform of God took the form of a servant, both is God and both is man;but both God, on account of God who takes; and both man, on accountof man who is taken. For neither by that taking is the one of themturned and changed into the other: the Divinity is not changed intothe creature, so as to cease to be Divinity; nor the creature intoDivinity, so as to cease to be creature.

CHAP. 8.—: THE TEXTS OF SCRIPTURE EXPLAINED RESPECTINGTHE 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 AWAYFROM HIMSELF. THE BEHOLDING HIM IS THE PROMISED END OF ALL ACTIONS. THEHOLY SPIRIT IS SUFFICIENT TO OUR BLESSEDNESS EQUALLY WITH THEFATHER.

15. As for that which theapostle says, “And when all things shall be subdued untoHim, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that putall things under Him:” either the text has been soturned, lest any one should think that the“fashion” [11] ofChrist, which He took according to the human creature, was to betransformed hereafter into the Divinity, or (to express it moreprecisely) the Godhead itself, who is not a creature, but is theunity of the Trinity,—a nature incorporeal, andunchangeable, and consubstantial, and co-eternal with itself; or ifany one contends, as some havethought, that the text, “Then shall the Son also Himselfbe subject unto Him that put all things under Him,” is soturned in order that one may believe that very“subjection” to be a change and conversionhereafter of the creature into the substance or essence itself ofthe Creator, that is, that that which had been the substance of acreature shall become the substance of the Creator;—suchan one at any rate admits this, of which in truth there is nopossible doubt, that this had not yet taken place, when the Lordsaid, “My Father is greater than I.” For Hesaid this not only before He ascended into heaven, but also beforeHe had suffered, and had risen from the dead. But they who thinkthat the human nature in Him is to be changed and converted into thesubstance of the Godhead, and that it was so said, “Thenshall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all thingsunder Him,”—as if to say, Then also the Son ofman Himself, and the human nature taken by the Word of God, shall bechanged into the nature of Him who put all things underHim,—must also think that this will then take place,when, after the day of judgment, “He shall have deliveredup the kingdom to God, even the Father.” And hence evenstill, according to this opinion, the Father is greater than thatform of a servant which was taken of the Virgin. But if some affirmeven further, that the man Christ Jesus has already been changedinto the substance of God, at least they cannot deny that the humannature still remained, when He said before His passion,“For my Father is greater than I;” whencethere is no question that it was said in this sense, that the Fatheris greater than the form of a servant, to whom in the form of Godthe Son is equal. Nor let any one, hearing what the apostle says,“But when He saith all things are put under Him, it ismanifest that He is excepted which did put all things underHim,” [1] think thewords, that He hath put all things under the Son, to be sounderstood of the Father, as that He should not think that the SonHimself put all things under Himself. For this the apostle plainlydeclares, when he says to the Philippians, “For ourconversation is in heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour,the Lord Jesus Christ: who shall change our vile body, that it maybe fashioned like unto His glorious body, according to the workingwhereby He is able even to subdue [2] all things unto Himself.” [3] For the working ofthe Father and of the Son is indivisible. Otherwise, neither haththe Father Himself put all things under Himself, but the Son hathput all things under Him, who delivers the kingdom to Him, and putsdown all rule and all authority and power. For these words arespoken of the Son: “When He shall have deliveredup,” says the apostle, “the kingdom to God,even the Father; when He shall have put down [4] all rule, and all authority, and all power.” For the samethat puts down, also makes subject.

16. Neither may we think thatChrist shall so give up the kingdom to God, even the Father, as thatHe shall take it away from Himself. For some vain talkers havethought even this. For when it is said, “He shall havedelivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father,” HeHimself is not excluded; because He is one God together with theFather. But that word “until” deceives thosewho are careless readers of the divine Scriptures, but eager forcontroversies. For the text continues, “For He mustreign, until He hath put all enemies under His feet;” [5] as though, when He had so put them, He would nomore reign. Neither do they perceive that this is said in the sameway as that other text, “His heart is established: Heshall not be afraid, until He see His desire upon Hisenemies.” [6] For He will not then beafraid when He has seen it. What then means, “When Heshall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even theFather,” as though God and the Father has not the kingdomnow? But because He is hereafter to bring all the just, over whomnow, living by faith, the Mediator between God and men, the manChrist Jesus, reigns, to that sight which the same apostle calls“face to face;” [7] therefore the words,“When He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, eventhe Father,” are as much as to say, When He shall havebrought believers to the contemplation of God, even the Father. ForHe says, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father:and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any manthe Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will revealHim.” [8] The Father will then berevealed by the Son, “when He shall have put down allrule, and all authority, and all power;” that is, in suchwise that there shall be no more need of any economy of similitudes,by means of angelic rulers, and authorities, and powers. Of whomthat is not unfitly understood, which is said in the Song of Songsto the bride, “We will make thee borders [9] of gold, with studs ofsilver, while the King sitteth at Histable;” [1] that is, as long as Christ is in Hissecret place: since “your life is hid with Christ in God;when Christ, who is our [2] life,shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him inglory.” [3] Before which time,“we see now through a glass, in an enigma,”that is, in similitudes, “but then face toface.” [4]

17. For this contemplation isheld forth to us as the end of all actions, and the everlastingfullness of joy. For “we are the sons of God; and it dothnot yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shallappear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as Heis.” [5] For that which He saidto His servant Moses, “I am that I am; thus shalt thousay to the children of Israel, I Am hath sent me toyou;” [6] this it is which we shallcontemplate when we shall live in eternity. For so it is said,“And this is life eternal, that they might know Thee, theonly true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hastsent.” [7] This shall be when theLord shall have come, and “shall have brought to lightthe hidden things of darkness;” [8] when the darkness ofthis present mortality and corruption shall have passed away. Thenwill be our morning, which is spoken of in the Psalm, “Inthe morning will I direct my prayer unto Thee, and will contemplateThee.” [9] Of this contemplation Iunderstand it to be said, “When He shall have deliveredup the kingdom to God, even the Father;” that is, when Heshall have brought the just, over whom now, living by faith, theMediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus, reigns, to thecontemplation of God, even the Father. If herein I am foolish, lethim who knows better correct me; to me at least the case seems as Ihave said. [10] Forwe shall not seek anything else, when we shall have come to thecontemplation of Him. But that contemplation is not yet, so long asour joy is in hope. For “hope that is seen is not hope:for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope forthat we see not, then do we with patience wait forit,” [11] viz. “as long as the King sitteth atHis table.” [12] Then will take place thatwhich is written, “In Thy presence is fullness ofjoy.” [13] Nothing more than thatjoy will be required; because there will be nothing more than can berequired. For the Father will be manifested to us, and that willsuffice for us. And this much Philip had well understood, so that hesaid to the Lord, “Show us the Father, and it sufficethus.” But he had not yet understood that he himself wasable to say this very same thing in this way also: Lord, showThyself to us, and it sufficeth us. For, that he might understandthis, the Lord replied to him, “Have I been so long timewith you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seenme hath seen the Father.” But because He intended him,before he could see this, to live by faith, He went on to say,“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and theFather in me?” [14] For “whilewe are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: for we walkby faith, not by sight.” [15] For contemplation isthe recompense of faith, for which recompense our hearts arepurified by faith; as it is written, “Purifying theirhearts by faith.” [16] And that our hearts are tobe purified for this contemplation, is proved above all by thistext, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall seeGod.” [17] And that this is lifeeternal, God says in the Psalm, “With long life will Isatisfy him, and show him my salvation.” [18] Whether, therefore, we hear, Show us the Son; orwhether we hear, Show us the Father; it is even all one, sinceneither can be manifested without the other. For they are one, as Healso Himself says, “My Father and I areone.” [19] Finally, on account ofthis very indivisibility, it suffices that sometimes the Fatheralone, or the Son alone, should be named, as hereafter to fill uswith the joy of His countenance.

18. Neither is the Spirit ofeither thence excluded, that is, the Spirit of the Father and of theSon; which Holy Spirit is specially called “the Spirit oftruth, whom the world cannot receive.” [20] For to have the fruition of God the Trinity,after whose image we are made, is indeed the fullness of our joy,than which there is no greater. On this account the Holy Spirit issometimes spoken of as if He alone sufficed to our blessedness: andHe does alone so suffice, because He cannot be divided from theFather and the Son; as the Father alone is sufficient, because Hecannot be divided from the Son and the Holy Spirit; and the Sonalone is sufficient because He cannot be divided from the Father andthe Holy Spirit. For what does He mean by saying, “If yelove me, keep my commandments; and I will pray the Father, and Heshall give you another Comforter, that Hemay abide with you for ever; even the Spirit of truth, whom theworld cannot receive,” [1] that is, the loversof the world? For “the natural man receiveth not thethings of the Spirit of God.” [2] But it may perhapsseem, further, as if the words, “And I will pray theFather, and He shall give you another Comforter,” were sosaid as if the Son alone were not sufficient. And that place sospeaks of the Spirit, as if He alone were altogether sufficient:“When He, the Spirit of truth, is come, He will guide youinto all truth.” [3] Pray, therefore, is theSon here excluded, as if He did not teach all truth, or as if theHoly Spirit were to fill up that which the Son could not fullyteach? Let them say then, if it pleases them, that the Holy Spiritis greater than the Son, whom they are wont to call less. Or is it,forsooth, because it is not said, He alone,—or, No oneelse except Himself—will guide you into all truth, thatthey allow that the Son also may be believed to teach together withHim? In that case the apostle has excluded the Son from knowingthose things which are of God, where he says, “Even sothe things of God knoweth no one, but the Spirit ofGod:” [4] so that these perversemen might, upon this ground, go on to say that none but the HolySpirit teaches even the Son the things of God, as the greaterteaches the less; to whom the Son Himself ascribes so much as tosay, “But because I have said these things unto you,sorrow hath filled your heart. Nevertheless I tell you the truth; itis expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, theComforter will not come unto you.” [5]

CHAP. 9.—: ALL ARE SOMETIMES UNDERSTOOD IN ONEPERSON.

But this is said, not on account of any inequality of the Word of Godand of the Holy Spirit, but as though the presence of the Son of manwith them would be a hindrance to the coming of Him, who was notless, because He did not “empty Himself, taking upon Himthe form of a servant,” [6] as the Son did. It was necessary, then, that the form of a servantshould be taken away from their eyes, because, through gazing uponit, they thought that alone which they saw to be Christ. Hence alsois that which is said, “If ye loved me, ye would rejoicebecause I said, “I go unto the Father; for my Father isgreater than I:” [7] that is, on that accountit is necessary for me to go to the Father, because, whilst you seeme thus, you hold me to be less than the Father through that whichyou see; and so, being taken up with the creature and the“fashion” which I have taken upon me, you donot perceive the equality which I have with the Father. Hence, too,is this: “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to myFather.” [8] For touch, as it were,puts a limit to their conception, and He therefore would not havethe thought of the heart, directed towards Himself, to be so limitedas that He should be held to be only that which He seemed to be. Butthe “ascension to the Father” meant, so toappear as He is equal to the Father, that the limit of the sightwhich sufficeth us might be attained there. Sometimes also it issaid of the Son alone, that He himself sufficeth, and the wholereward of our love and longing is held forth as in the sight of Him.For so it is said, “He that hath my commandments, andkeepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he that loveth me shallbe loved of my Father; and I will love him, and will manifest myselfto him.” [9] Pray, because He has nothere said, And I will show the Father also to him, has He thereforeexcluded the Father? On the contrary, because it is true,“I and my Father are one,” when the Father ismanifested, the Son also, who is in Him, is manifested; and when theSon is manifested, the Father also, who is in Him, is manifested.As, therefore, when it is said, “And I will manifestmyself to him,” it is understood that He manifests alsothe Father; so likewise in that which is said, “When Heshall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even theFather,” it is understood that He does not take it awayfrom Himself; since, when He shall bring believers to thecontemplation of God, even the Father, doubtless He will bring themto the contemplation of Himself, who has said, “And Iwill manifest myself to him.” And so, consequently, whenJudas had said to Him, “Lord, how is it that Thou wiltmanifest Thyself unto us, and not unto the world?” Jesusanswered and said to him, “If a man love me, he will keepmy words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him,and make our abode with him.” [10] Behold, that Hemanifests not only Himself to him by whom He is loved, because Hecomes to him together with the Father, and abides with him.

19. Will it perhaps bethought, that when the Father and the Son make their abode with himwho loves them, the Holy Spirit isexcluded from that abode? What, then, is that which is said above ofthe Holy Spirit: “Whom the world cannot receive, becauseit seeth Him not: but ye know Him; for He abideth with you, and isin you”? He, therefore, is not excluded from that abode,of whom it is said, “He abideth with you, and is inyou;” unless, perhaps, any one be so senseless as tothink, that when the Father and the Son have come that they may maketheir abode with him who loves them, the Holy Spirit will departthence, and (as it were) give place to those who are greater. Butthe Scripture itself meets this carnal idea; for it says a littleabove: “I will pray the Father, and He shall give youanother Comforter, that He may abide with you forever.” [1] He will not thereforedepart when the Father and the Son come, but will be in the sameabode with them eternally; because neither will He come withoutthem, nor they without Him. But in order to intimate the Trinity,some things are separately affirmed, the Persons being also eachseverally named; and yet are not to be understood as though theother Persons were excluded, on account of the unity of the sameTrinity and the One substance and Godhead of the Father and of theSon and of the Holy Spirit. [2]

CHAP. 10.—: IN WHAT MANNER CHRIST SHALL DELIVER UP THEKINGDOM TO GOD, EVEN THE FATHER. THE KINGDOM HAVING BEEN DELIVERED TOGOD, EVEN THE FATHER, CHRIST WILL NOT THEN MAKE INTERCESSION FORUS.

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 Heshall bring believers to the contemplation of God, wherein is theend of all good actions, and everlasting rest, and joy which neverwill be taken from us. For He signifies this in that which He says:“I will see you again, and your heart shall rejoice; andyour joy no man taketh from you.” [3] Mary, sitting at thefeet of the Lord, and earnestly listening to His word, foreshowed asimilitude of this joy; resting as she did from all business, andintent upon the truth, according to that manner of which this lifeis capable, by which, however, to prefigure that which shall be foreternity. For while Martha, her sister, was cumbered about necessarybusiness, which, although good and useful, yet, when rest shall havesucceeded, is to pass away, she herself was resting in the word ofthe Lord. And so the Lord replied to Martha, when she complainedthat her sister did not help her: “Mary hath chosen thebest part, which shall not be taken away from her.” [4] He did not say that Martha was acting a badpart; but that “best part that shall not be takenaway.” For that part which is occupied in the ministeringto a need shall be “taken away” when the needitself has passed away. Since the reward of a good work that willpass away is rest that will not pass away. In that contemplation,therefore, God will be all in all; because nothing else but Himselfwill be required, but it will be sufficient to be enlightened by andto enjoy Him alone. And so he in whom “the Spirit makethintercession with groanings which cannot be uttered,” [5] says, “One thing have I desired of theLord, that I will seek after; that I may dwell in the house of theLord all the days of my life, to contemplate the beauty of theLord.” [6] For we shall thencontemplate God, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, whenthe Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, shall havedelivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father, so as no longer tomake intercession for us, as our Mediator and Priest, Son of God andSon of man; [7] but that He Himself too, inso far as He is a Priest that has taken the form of a servant forus, shall be put under Him who has put all things under Him, andunder whom He has put all things: so that, in so far as He is God,He with Him will have put us under Himself; in so far as He is aPriest, He with us will be put under Him. [8] And therefore as the[incarnate] Son is both God and man, it israther to be said that the manhood in the Son is another substance[from the Son], than that the Son in theFather [is another substance from the Father];just as the carnal nature of my soul ismore another substance in relation to my soul itself, although inone and the same man, than the soul of another man is in relation tomy soul. [1]

21. When, therefore, He“shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even theFather,”—that is, when He shall have broughtthose who believe and live by faith, for whom now as Mediator Hemaketh intercession, to that contemplation, for the obtaining ofwhich we sigh and groan, and when labor and groaning shall havepassed away,—then, since the kingdom will have beendelivered up to God, even the Father, He will no more makeintercession for us. And this He signifies, when He says:“These things have I spoken unto you in similitudes; [2] but the time cometh when I shall no more speakunto you in similitudes, [2] but I shalldeclare [3] to you plainly ofthe Father:” that is, they will not then be“similitudes,” when the sight shall be“face to face.” For this it is which He says,“But I will declare to you plainly of theFather;” as if He said, I will plainly show you theFather. For He says, I will “declare” to you,because He is His word. For He goes on to say, “At thatday ye shall ask in my name; and I say not unto you, that I willpray the Father for you: for the Father Himself loveth you, becauseye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. I cameforth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leavethe world, and go to the Father.” [4] What is meant by“I came forth from the Father,” unless this,that I have not appeared in that form in which I am equal to theFather, but otherwise, that is, as less than the Father, in thecreature which I have taken upon me? And what is meant by“I am come into the world,” unless this, thatI have manifested to the eyes even of sinners who love this world,the form of a servant which I took, making myself of no reputation?And what is meant by “Again, I leave theworld,” unless this, that I take away from the sight ofthe lovers of this world that which they have seen? And what ismeant by “I go to the Father,” unless this,that I teach those who are my faithful ones to understand me in thatbeing in which I am equal to the Father? Those who believe this willbe thought worthy of being brought by faith to sight, that is, tothat very sight, in bringing them to which He is said to“deliver up the kingdom to God, even theFather.” For His faithful ones, whom He has redeemed withHis blood, are called His kingdom, for whom He now intercedes; butthen, making them to abide in Himself there, where He is equal tothe Father, He will no longer pray the Father for them.“For,” He says, “the Father Himselfloveth you.” For indeed He “prays,”in so far as He is less than the Father; but as He is equal with theFather, He with the Father grants. Wherefore He certainly does notexclude Himself from that which He says, “The FatherHimself loveth you;” but He means it to be understoodafter that manner which I have above spoken of, and sufficientlyintimated,—namely, that for the most part each Person ofthe Trinity is so named, that the other Persons also may beunderstood. Accordingly, “For the Father Himself lovethyou,” is so said that by consequence both the Son and theHoly Spirit also may be understood: not that He does not now loveus, who spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; [5] but God loves us, such as we shall be, not suchas we are, For such as they are whom He loves, such are they whom Hekeeps eternally; which shall then be, when He who now makethintercession for us shall have “delivered up the kingdomto God, even the Father,” so as no longer to ask theFather, because the Father Himself loveth us. But for whatdeserving, except of faith, by which we believe before we see thatwhich is promised? For by this faith we shall arrive at sight; sothat He may love us, being such, as He loves us in order that we maybecome; and not such, as He hates us because we are, and exhorts andenables us to wish not to be always.

CHAP. 11.—: BY WHAT RULE IN THE SCRIPTURES IT ISUNDERSTOOD THAT THE SON IS NOW EQUAL AND NOW LESS.

22. Wherefore, havingmastered this rule for interpreting the Scriptures concerning theSon of God, that we are to distinguish in them what relates to theform of God, in which He is equal to the Father, and what to theform of a servant which He took, in which He is less than theFather; we shall not be disquieted by apparently contrary andmutually repugnant sayings of the sacred books. For both the Son andthe Holy Spirit, according to the form of God, are equal to theFather, because neither of them is acreature, as we have already shown: but according to the form of aservant He is less than the Father, because He Himself has said,“My Father is greater than I;” [1] and He is less than Himself, because it is saidof Him, He emptied Himself;” [2] and He is less than theHoly Spirit, because He Himself says, “Whosoever speaketha word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; butwhosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgivenHim.” [3] And in the Spirit tooHe wrought miracles, saying: “But if I with the Spirit ofGod cast out devils, no doubt the kingdom of God is come uponyou.” [4] And in Isaiah Hesays,—in the lesson which He Himself read in thesynagogue, and showed without a scruple of doubt to be fulfilledconcerning Himself,—“The Spirit of the LordGod,” He says, “is upon me: because He hathanointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek He hath sent me toproclaim liberty to the captives,” [5] etc.: forthe doing of which things He therefore declares Himself to be“sent,” because the Spirit of God is upon Him.According to the form of God, all things were made by Him; [6] according to the form of a servant, He was Himself made of a woman,made under the law. [7] According to the form ofGod, He and the Father are one; [8] according to the form ofa servant, He came not to do His own will, but the will of Him thatsent Him. [9] According to the form of God, “Asthe Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to havelife in Himself;” [10] according to the form of a servant, His “soul issorrowful even unto death;” and, “O myFather,” He says, “if it be possible, let thiscup pass from me.” [11] According to theform of God, “He is the True God, and eternallife;” [12] according to the form ofa servant, “He became obedient unto death, even the deathof the cross.” [13] —23. Accordingto the form of God, all things that the Father hath are His, [14] and “All mine,” He says,“are Thine, and Thine are mine;” [15] according to the form of a servant, the doctrineis not His own, but His that sent Him. [16]

CHAP. 12.—: IN WHAT MANNER THE SON IS SAID NOT TO KNOW THEDAY AND THE HOUR WHICH THE FATHER KNOWS. SOME THINGS SAID OF CHRISTACCORDING TO THE FORM OF GOD, OTHER THINGS ACCORDING TO THE FORM OF ASERVANT. IN WHAT WAY IT IS OF CHRIST TO GIVE THE KINGDOM, IN WHAT NOT OFCHRIST. CHRIST WILL BOTH JUDGE AND NOT JUDGE.

Again, “Of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, notthe angels which are in heaven; neither the Son, but theFather.” [17] For He is ignorant ofthis, as making others ignorant; that is, inthat He did not so know as at that time to show His disciples: [18] as it wassaid to Abraham, “Now I know that thou fearestGod,” [19] that is, now I havecaused thee to know it; because he himself, being tried in thattemptation, became known to himself. For He was certainly going totell this same thing to His disciples at the fitting time; speakingof which yet future as if past, He says, “Henceforth Icall you not servants, but friends; for the servant knoweth not whathis Lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that Ihave heard of my Father I have made known unto you;” [20] which He had not yet done, but spoke as though Hehad already done it, because He certainly would do it. For He saysto the disciples themselves, “I have yet many things tosay unto you; but ye cannot bear them now.” [21] Among which is to be understood also,“Of the day and hour.” For the apostle alsosays, “I determined not to know anything among you, saveJesus Christ, and Him crucified;” [22] because he was speakingto those who were not able to receive higher things concerning theGodhead of Christ. To whom also a little while after he says,“I could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but asunto carnal.” [23] He was“ignorant,” therefore, among them of thatwhich they were not able to know from him. And that only he saidthat he knew, which it was fitting that they should know from him.In short, he knew among the perfect what he knew not among babes;for he there says: “We speak wisdom among them that areperfect.” [24] For a man is said not to know what he hides, after that kindof speech, after which a ditch is called blind which is hidden. Forthe Scriptures do not use any other kind of speech than may be foundin use among men, because they speak to men.

24. According to the form ofGod, it is said, “Before all the hills He begatme,” [1] that is, before allthe loftinesses of things created; and, “Before the dawnI begat Thee,” [2] that is, before all times and temporalthings: but according to the form of a servant, it is said,“The Lord created me in the beginning of Hisways.” [3] Because, according tothe form of God, He said, “I am the truth;”and according to the form of a servant, “I am theway.” [4] For, because He Himself,being the first-begotten of the dead, [5] made a passage to thekingdom of God to life eternal for His Church, to which He is so theHead as to make the body also immortal, therefore He was“created in the beginning of the ways” of Godin His work. For, according to the form of God, He is thebeginning, [6] that also speaketh unto us, in which“beginning” God created the heaven and theearth; [7] but according to the form of a servant,“He is a bridegroom coming out of Hischamber.” [8] According to the form ofGod, “He is the first-born of every creature, and He isbefore all things and by him all things consist;”according to the form of a servant, “He is the head ofthe body, the Church.” [9] According to theform of God, “He is the Lord of glory.” [10] From which it is evident that He Himself glorifiesHis saints: for, “Whom He did predestinate, them He alsocalled; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom Hejustified, them He also glorified.” [11] Of Him accordingly itis said, that He justifieth the ungodly; [12] of Him it is said, that Heis just and a justifier. [13] If, therefore, He hasalso glorified those whom He has justified, He who justifies,Himself also glorifies; who is, as I have said, the Lord of glory.Yet, according to the form of a servant, He replied to Hisdisciples, when inquiring about their own glorification:“To sit on my right hand and on my left is not mine togive, but [it shall be given to them] for whomit is prepared by my Father.” [14]

25. But that which isprepared by His Father is prepared also by the Son Himself, becauseHe and the Father are one. [15] For we have already shown,by many modes of speech in the divine Scriptures, that, in thisTrinity, what is said of each is also said of all, on account of theindivisible working of the one and same substance. As He also saysof the Holy Spirit, “If I depart, I will send Him untoyou.” [16] He did not say, We will send; but in such way as if the Sononly should send Him, and not the Father; while yet He says inanother place, “These things have I spoken unto you,being yet present with you; but the Comforter, which is the HolyGhost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you allthings.” [17] Here again it is sosaid as if the Son also would not send Him, but the Father only. Astherefore in these texts, so also where He says, “But forthem for whom it is prepared by my Father,” He meant itto be understood that He Himself, with the Father, prepares seats ofglory for those for whom He will. But some one may say: There, whenHe spoke of the Holy Spirit, He so says that He Himself will sendHim, as not to deny that the Father will send Him; and in the otherplace, He so says that the Father will send Him, as not to deny thatHe will do so Himself; but here He expressly says, “It isnot mine to give,” and so goes on to say that thesethings are prepared by the Father. But this is the very thing whichwe have already laid down to be said according to the form of aservant: viz., that we are so to understand“It is not mine to give,” as if it were said,This is not in the power of man to give; that so He may beunderstood to give it through that wherein He is God equal to theFather. “It is not mine,” He says,“to give;” that is, I do not give these thingsby human power, but “to those for whom it is prepared bymy Father;” but then take care you understand also, thatif “all things which the Father hath aremine,” [18] then this certainly ismine also, and I with the Father have prepared these things.

26. For I ask again, in whatmanner this is said, “If any man hear not my words, Iwill not judge him?” [19] For perhaps He hassaid here, “I will not judge him,” in the samesense as there, “It is not mine to give.” Butwhat follows here? “I came not,” He says,“to judge the world, but to save the world;”and then He adds, “He that rejecteth me, and receivethnot my words, hath one that judgeth him.” Now here weshould understand the Father, unless He had added, “Theword that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the lastday.” Well, then, will neither the Son judge, because Hesays, “I will not judge him,” nor the Father,but the word which the Son hath spoken? Nay, but hear what yet follows: “For I,” Hesays, “have not spoken of myself; but the Father whichsent me, He gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what Ishould speak; and I know that His commandment is life everlasting:whatsoever I speak therefore, even as the Father said unto me, so Ispeak.” If therefore the Son judges not, but“the word which the Son hath spoken;” and theword which the Son hath spoken therefore judges, because the Son“hath not spoken of Himself, but the Father who sent Himgave Him a commandment what He should say, and what He shouldspeak:” then the Father assuredly judges, whose word itis which the Son hath spoken; and the same Son Himself is the veryWord of the Father. For the commandment of the Father is not onething, and the word of the Father another; for He hath called itboth a word and a commandment. Let us see, therefore, whetherperchance, when He says, “I have not spoken ofmyself,” He meant to be understood thus,—I amnot born of myself. For if He speaks the word of the Father, then Hespeaks Himself, [1] because He is Himself the Word of theFather. For ordinarily He says, “The Father gave tome;” by which He means it to be understood that theFather begat Him: not that He gave anything to Him, already existingand not possessing it; but that the very meaning of, To have giventhat He might have, is, To have begotten that He might be. For it isnot, as with the creature, so with the Son of God before theincarnation and before He took upon Him our flesh, the Only-begottenby whom all things were made; that He is onething, and has another: but He is in such way as to be what He has. And this is said more plainly, if any oneis fit to receive it, in that place where He says: “Foras the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son tohave life in Himself.” [2] For He did not give toHim, already existing and not having life, that He should have lifein Himself; inasmuch as, in that He is, He islife. Therefore “He gave to the Son to have life inHimself” means, He begat the Son to be unchangeable life,which is life eternal. Since, therefore, the Word of God is the Sonof God, and the Son of God is “the true God and eternallife,” [3] as John says in hisEpistle; so here, what else are we to acknowledge when the Lordsays, “The word which I have spoken, the same shall judgehim at the last day,” [4] and calls that very wordthe word of the Father and the commandment of the Father, and thatvery commandment everlasting life?” “And Iknow,” He says, “that His commandment is lifeeverlasting.”

27. I ask, therefore, how weare to understand, “I will not judge him; but the Wordwhich I have spoken shall judge him:” which appears fromwhat 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 isthe 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, becauseI 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 andinconsistent to say, I will not judge, but I will judge; what shallwe say of that place where He says, “My doctrine is notmine?” How “mine,” when“not mine?” For He did not say, This doctrine is not mine, but “ My doctrine is not mine:” that whichHe called His own, the same He called not His own. How can this betrue, 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 theform of a servant, not His own. For when He says, “It isnot mine, but His that sent me,” [5] He makes us recur to theWord itself. For the doctrine of the Father is the Word of theFather, which is the Only Son. And what, too, does that mean,“He that believeth on me, believeth not onme?” [6] How believe on Him, yetnot believe on Him? How can so opposite and inconsistent a thing beunderstood—“Whoso believeth on me,”He says, “believeth not on me, but on Him that sentme;”—unless you so understand it, Whosobelieveth on me believeth not on that which he sees, lest our hopeshould be in the creature; but on Him who took the creature, wherebyHe might appear to human eyes, and so might cleanse our hearts byfaith, to contemplate Himself as equal to the Father? So that inturning the attention of believers to the Father, and saying,“Believeth not on me, but on Him that sentme,” He certainly did not mean Himself to be separatedfrom the Father, that is, from Him that sent Him; but that men mightso believe on Himself, as they believe on the Father, to whom He isequal. And this He says in express terms in another place,“Ye believe in God, believe also in me:” [7] that is, in the same way as you believe in God, soalso believe in me; because I and the Father are One God. Astherefore, here, He has as it were withdrawn the faith of men from Himself, and transferred it to the Father,by saying, “Believeth not on me, but on Him that sentme,” from whom nevertheless He certainly did not separateHimself; so also, when He says, “It is not mine to give,but [it shall be given to them] for whom it isprepared by my Father,” it is I think plain in whatrelation both are to be taken. For that other also is of the samekind, “I will not judge;” whereas He Himselfshall judge the quick and dead. [1] But because He will notdo so by human power, therefore, reverting to the Godhead, He raisesthe hearts of men upwards; which to lift up, He Himself camedown.

CHAP. 13.—: DIVERSE THINGS ARE SPOKEN CONCERNING THE SAMECHRIST, ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIVERSE NATURES OF THE ONE HYPOSTASIS[THEANTHROPIC PERSON]. WHY IT IS SAID THAT THEFATHER WILL NOT JUDGE, BUT HAS GIVEN JUDGMENT TO THE SON.

28. Yet unless the very samewere the Son of man on account of the form of a servant which Hetook, who is the Son of God on account of the form of God in whichHe is; Paul the apostle would not say of the princes of this world,“For had they known it, they would not have crucified theLord of glory.” [2] For He was crucifiedafter the form of a servant, and yet “the Lord ofglory” was crucified. For that“taking” was such as to make God man, and manGod. Yet what is said on account of what, and what according towhat, the thoughtful, diligent, and pious reader discerns forhimself, the Lord being his helper. For instance, we have said thatHe glorifies His own, as being God, and certainly then as being theLord of glory; and yet the Lord of glory was crucified, because evenGod is rightly said to have been crucified, not after the power ofthe divinity, but after the weakness of the flesh: [3] just as we say, that He judges as God, that is, bydivine power, not by human; and yet the man Himself will judge, justas the Lord of glory was crucified: for so He expressly says,“When the Son of man shall come in His glory, and all theholy angels with Him, and before Him shall be gathered allnations;” [4] and the rest thatis foretold of the future judgment in that place even to the lastsentence. And the Jews, inasmuch as they will be punished in thatjudgment for persisting in their wickedness, as it is elsewherewritten, “shall look upon Him whom they havepierced.” [5] For whereas both goodand bad shall see the Judge of the quick and dead, without doubt thebad will not be able to see Him, except after the form in which Heis the Son of man; but yet in the glory wherein He will judge, notin the lowliness wherein He was judged. But the ungodly withoutdoubt will not see that form of God in which He is equal to theFather. For they are not pure in heart; and “Blessed arethe pure in heart: for they shall see God.” [6] And that sight is face to face, [7] the very sight thatis promised as the highest reward to the just, and which will thentake place when He “shall have delivered up the kingdomto God, even the Father;” and in this“kingdom” He means the sight of His own formalso to be understood, the whole creature being made subject to God,including that wherein the Son of God was made the Son of man.Because, according to this creature, “The Son alsoHimself shall be subject unto Him, that put all things under Him,that God may be all in all.” [8] Otherwise if the Sonof God, judging in the form in which He is equal to the Father,shall appear when He judges to the ungodly also; what becomes ofthat which He promises, as some great thing, to him who loves Him,saying, “And I will love him, and will manifest myself tohim?” [9] Wherefore He will judgeas the Son of man, yet not by human power, but by that whereby He isthe Son of God; and on the other hand, He will judge as the Son ofGod, yet not appearing in that [unincarnate]form in which He is God equal to the Father, but in that[incarnate form] in which He is the Son ofman. [10]

29. Therefore both ways ofspeaking may be used; the Son of man will judge, and, the Son of manwill not judge: since the Son of man will judge, that the text maybe true which says, “When the Son of man shall come, thenbefore Him shall be gathered all nations;” and the Son ofman will not judge, that the text may be true which says,“I will not judge him;” [11] and, “I seeknot mine own glory: there is One that seeketh andjudgeth.” [12] For in respect to this,that in the judgment, not the form of God, but the form of the Sonof man will appear, the Father Himself will not judge; for accordingto this it is said, “For theFather judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto theSon.” Whether this is said after that mode of speechwhich we have mentioned above, where it is said, “So hathHe given to the Son to have life in Himself,” [1] that it should signify that so He begat the Son;or, whether after that of which the apostle speaks, saying,“Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and givenHim a name which is above every name:”—(Forthis is said of the Son of man, in respect to whom the Son of Godwas raised from the dead; since He, being in the form of God equalto the Father, wherefrom He “emptied” Himselfby taking the form of a servant, both acts and suffers, andreceives, in that same form of a servant, what the apostle goes onto mention: “He humbled Himself, and became obedient untodeath, even the death of the cross; wherefore God also hath highlyexalted Him, and given Him a name which is above every name; that atthe name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, andthings in earth, and things under the earth; and that every tongueshould confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, in the Glory of God theFather:” [2] )—whetherthen the words, “He hath committed all judgment unto theSon,” are said according to this or that mode of speech;it sufficiently appears from this place, that if they were saidaccording to that sense in which it is said, “He hathgiven to the Son to have life in Himself,” it certainlywould not be said, “The Father judgeth noman.” For in respect to this, that the Father hathbegotten the Son equal to Himself, He judges with Him. Therefore itis in respect to this that it is said, that in the judgment, not theform of God, but the form of the Son of man will appear. Not that Hewill not judge, who hath committed all judgment unto the Son, sincethe Son saith of Him, “There is One that seeketh andjudgeth:” but it is so said, “The Fatherjudgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto theSon;” as if it were said, No one will see the Father inthe judgment of the quick and the dead, but all will see the Son:because He is also the Son of man, so that He can be seen even bythe ungodly, since they too shall see Him whom they havepierced.

30. Lest, however, we mayseem to conjecture this rather than to prove it clearly, let usproduce a certain and plain sentence of the Lord Himself, by whichwe may show that this was the cause why He said, “TheFather judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto theSon,” viz. because He will appear asJudge in the form of the Son of man, which is not the form of theFather, but of the Son; nor yet that form of the Son in which He isequal 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 goodand 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 shallnot come into condemnation; but shall pass [3] from death unto life.”Now this life eternal is that sight which does not belong to thebad. Then follows, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Thehour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice ofthe Son of God, and they that hear shall live.” [4] And this is proper to the godly, who so hear ofHis incarnation, as to believe that He is the Son of God, that is,who so receive Him, as made for their sakes less than the Father, inthe form of a servant, that they believe Him equal to the Father, inthe form of God. And thereupon He continues, enforcing this verypoint, “For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hathHe given to the Son to have life in Himself.” And then Hecomes to the sight of His own glory, in which He shall come tojudgment; which sight will be common to the ungodly and to the just.For He goes on to say, “And hath given Him authority toexecute judgment also, because He is the Son of man.” [5] I think nothing can be more clear. For inasmuchas the Son of God is equal to the Father, He does not receive thispower of executing judgment, but He has it with the Father insecret; but He receives it, so that the good and the bad may see Himjudging, inasmuch as He is the Son of man. Since the sight of theSon of man will be shown to the bad also: for the sight of the formof God will not be shown except to the pure in heart, for they shallsee God; that is, to the godly only, to whose love He promises thisvery thing, that He will show Himself to them. And see, accordingly,what follows: “Marvel not at this,” He says.Why does He forbid us to marvel, unless it be that, in truth, everyone marvels who does not understand, that therefore He said theFather gave Him power also to execute judgment, because He is theSon of man; whereas, it might rather have been anticipated that Hewould say, since He is the Son of God? But because the wicked arenot able to see the Son of God as He is in the form of God equal tothe Father, but yet it is necessary thatboth the just and the wicked should see the Judge of the quick anddead, when they will be judged in His presence; “Marvelnot at this,” He says, “for the hour iscoming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear Hisvoice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto theresurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto theresurrection of damnation.” [1] For this purpose, then,it was necessary that He should therefore receive that power,because He is the Son of man, in order that all in rising againmight see Him in the form in which He can be seen by all, but bysome to damnation, by others to life eternal. And what is lifeeternal, unless that sight which is not granted to the ungodly?“That they might know Thee,” He says,“the One true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hastsent.” [2] And how are they to knowJesus Christ Himself also, unless as the One true God, who will showHimself to them; not as He will show Himself, in the form of the Sonof man, to those also that shall be punished? [3]

31. He is“good,” according to that sight, according towhich God appears to the pure in heart; for “truly God isgood unto Israel, even to such as are of a cleanheart.” [4] But when the wickedshall see the Judge, He will not seem good to them; because theywill not rejoice in their heart to see Him, but all“kindreds of the earth shall then wail because ofHim,” [5] namely, as being reckonedin the number of all the wicked and unbelievers. On this accountalso He replied to him, who had called Him Good Master, when seekingadvice of Him how he might attain eternal life, “Whyaskest thou me about good? [6] there is none good but One,that is, God.” [7] And yet the LordHimself, in another place, calls man good: “A goodman,” He says, “out of the good treasure ofhis heart, bringeth forth good things: and an evil man, out of theevil treasure of his heart, bringeth forth evilthings.” [8] But because that manwas seeking eternal life, and eternal life consists in thatcontemplation in which God is seen, not for punishment, but foreverlasting joy; and because he did not understand with whom he wasspeaking, and thought Him to be only the Son of man: [9] Why,He says, askest thou me about good? that is, with respect to thatform which thou seest, why askest thou about good, and callest me,according to what thou seest, Good Master? This is the form of theSon of man, the form which has been taken, the form that will appearin judgment, not only to the righteous, but also to the ungodly; andthe sight of this form will not be for good to those who are wicked.But there is a sight of that form of mine, in which when I was, Ithought it not robbery to be equal with God: but in order to takethis form I emptied myself. [10] That one God,therefore, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, who will notappear, except for joy which cannot be taken away from the just; forwhich future joy he sighs, who says, “One thing have Idesired of the Lord, that will I seek after; that I may dwell in thehouse of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the beauty ofthe Lord:” [11] that one God, therefore,Himself, I say, is alone good, for this reason, that no one sees Himfor sorrow and wailing, but only for salvation and true joy. If youunderstand me after this latter form, then I am good; but ifaccording to that former only, then why askest thou me about good?If thou art among those who “shall look upon Him whomthey have pierced,” [12] that very sight itselfwill be evil to them, because it will be penal. That after thismeaning, then, the Lord said, “Why askest thou me aboutgood? there is none good but One, that is, God,” isprobable upon those proofs which I have alleged, because that sightof God, whereby we shall contemplate the substance of Godunchangeable and invisible to human eyes (which is promised to thesaints alone; which the Apostle Paul speaks of, as “faceto face;” [13] and of which theApostle John says, “We shall be like Him, for we shallsee Him as He is;” [14] and of which it issaid, “One thing have I desired of the Lord, that I maybehold the beauty of the Lord,” and of which the LordHimself says, “I will both love him, and will manifestmyself to him;” [15] and on account of whichalone we cleanse our hearts by faith, that we may be those“pure in heart who are blessed for they shall seeGod:” [16] and whatever else is spoken of that sight: whichwhosoever turns the eye of love to seek it, may find most copiouslyscattered through all the Scriptures),—that sight alone,I say, is our chief good, for the attaining of which we are directedto do whatever we do aright. But that sight of the Son of man whichis foretold, when all nations shall be gathered before Him, andshall say to Him, “Lord, when saw we Thee an hungered, orthirsty, etc.?” will neither be a good to the ungodly,who shall be sent into everlasting fire, nor the chief good to therighteous. For He still goes on to call these to the kingdom whichhas been prepared for them from the foundation of the world. For, asHe will say to those, “Depart into everlastingfire;” so to these, “Come, ye blessed of myFather, inherit the kingdom prepared for you.” And asthose will go into everlasting burning; so the righteous will gointo life eternal. But what is life eternal, except “thatthey may know Thee,” He says, “the One trueGod, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hast sent?” [1] but know Him now in that glory of which Hesays to the Father, “Which I had with Thee before theworld was.” [2] For then He willdeliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father, [3] that the good servantmay enter into the joy of his Lord, [4] and that He mayhide those whom God keeps in the hiding of His countenance from theconfusion of men, namely, of those men who shall then be confoundedby hearing this sentence; of which evil hearing “therighteous man shall not be afraid” [5] if only he be kept in“the tabernacle,” that is, in the true faithof the Catholic Church, from “the strife oftongues,” [6] that is, from thesophistries of heretics. But if there is any other explanation ofthe words of the Lord, where He says, “Why asketh thou meabout good? there is none good, but One, that is, God;”provided only that the substance of the Father be not thereforebelieved to be of greater goodness than that of the Son, accordingto which He is the Word by whom all things were made; and if thereis nothing in it abhorrent from sound doctrine; let us securely useit, and not one explanation only, but as many as we are able tofind. For so much the more powerfully are the heretics proved wrong,the more outlets are open for avoiding their snares. But let us nowstart afresh, and address ourselves to the consideration of thatwhich still remains.

BOOK II.

AUGUSTIN PURSUES HIS DEFENSE OF THE EQUALITY OF THETRINITY; AND IN TREATING OF THE SENDING OF THE SON AND OF THEHOLY SPIRIT, AND OF THE VARIOUS APPEARANCES OF GOD, DEMONSTRATESTHAT HE WHO IS SENT IS NOT THEREFORE LESS THAN HE WHO SENDS,BECAUSE THE ONE HAS SENT, THE OTHER HAS BEEN SENT; BUT THAT THETRINITY, BEING IN ALL THINGS EQUAL, AND ALIKE IN ITS OWN NATUREUNCHANGEABLE AND INVISIBLE AND OMNIPRESENT, WORKS INDIVISIBLY INEACH SENDING OR APPEARANCE.

PREFACE.

WHEN men seek to know God, and bend their mindsaccording to the capacity of human weakness to the understanding ofthe Trinity; learning, as they must, by experience, the wearisomedifficulties of the task, whether from the sight itself of the mindstriving to gaze upon light unapproachable, or, indeed, from themanifold and various modes of speech employed in the sacred writings(wherein, as it seems to me, the mind is nothing else but roughlyexercised, in order that it may find sweetness when glorified by thegrace of Christ);—such men, I say, when they havedispelled every ambiguity, and arrived at something certain, oughtof all others most easily to make allowance for those who err in theinvestigation of so deep a secret. But there are two things mosthard to bear with, in the case of those who are in error: hastyassumption before the truth is made plain; and, when it has beenmade plain, defence of the falsehood thus hastily assumed. Fromwhich two faults, inimical as they are to the finding out of thetruth, and to the handling of the divine and sacred books, shouldGod, as I pray and hope, defend and protect me with the shield ofHis good will, [1] and with the grace of His mercy, I will not beslow to search out the substance of God, whether through HisScripture or through the creature. For both of these are set forthfor our contemplation to this end, that He may Himself be sought,and Himself be loved, who inspired the one, and created the other.Nor shall I be afraid of giving my opinion, in which I shall moredesire to be examined by the upright, than fear to be carped at bythe perverse. For charity, most excellent and unassuming, gratefullyaccepts the dovelike eye; but for the dog’s tooth nothingremains, save either to shun it by the most cautious humility, or toblunt it by the most solid truth; and far rather would I be censuredby any one whatsoever, than be praised by either the erring or theflatterer. For the lover of truth need fear no one’scensure. For he that censures, must needs be either enemy or friend.And if an enemy reviles, he must be borne with: but a friend, if heerrs, must be taught; if he teaches, listened to. But if one whoerrs praises you, he confirms your error; if one who flatters, heseduces you into error. “Let the righteous,”therefore, “smite me, it shall be a kindness; and let himreprove me; but the oil of the sinner shall not anoint myhead.” [2]

CHAP. 1.—: THERE IS A DOUBLE RULE FOR UNDERSTANDING THESCRIPTURAL MODES OF SPEECH CONCERNING THE SON OF GOD. THESE MODES OFSPEECH ARE OF A THREEFOLD KIND.

2. Wherefore, although wehold most firmly, concerning our Lord Jesus Christ, what may becalled the canonical rule, as it is both disseminated through theScriptures, and has been demonstrated by learned and Catholichandlers of the same Scriptures, namely, that the Son of God is bothunderstood to be equal to the Fatheraccording to the form of God in which He is, and less than theFather according to the form of a servant which He took; [1] in which form He was found to be not only lessthan the Father, but also less than the Holy Spirit; and not onlyso, but less even than Himself,—not than Himself who was,but than Himself who is; because, by taking the form of a servant,He did not lose the form of God, as the testimonies of theScriptures taught us, to which we have referred in the former book:yet there are some things in the sacred text so put as to leave itambiguous to which rule they are rather to be referred; whether tothat by which we understand the Son as less, in that He has takenupon Him the creature, or to that by which we understand that theSon is not indeed less than, but equal to the Father, but yet thatHe is from Him, God of God, Light of light. For we call the Son God of God; but the Father, God only; not of God. Whence it is plain that the Son hasanother of whom He is, and to whom He is Son;but that the Father has not a Son of whom Heis, but only to whom He is father. For every son is what he is, of his father, and is son to his father; but nofather is what he is, of his son, but is fatherto his son. [2]

3. Some things, then, are soput in the Scriptures concerning the Father and the Son, as tointimate the unity and equality of their substance; as, forinstance, “I and the Father are one;” [3] and, “Who, being in the form of God, thought it notrobbery to be equal with God;” [4] and whatever other textsthere are of the kind. And some, again, are so put that they showthe Son as less on account of the form of a servant, that is, of Hishaving taken upon Him the creature of a changeable and humansubstance; as, for instance, that which says, “For myFather is greater than I;” [5] and, “TheFather judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto theSon.” For a little after he goes on to say,“And hath given Him authority to execute judgment also,because He is the Son of man.” And further, some are soput, as to show Him at that time neither as less nor as equal, butonly to intimate that He is of the Father; as, for instance, thatwhich says, “For as the Father hath life in Himself, sohath He given to the Son to have life in Himself;” andthat other: “The Son can do nothing of Himself, but whatHe seeth the Father do.” [6] For if weshall take this to be therefore so said, because the Son is less inthe form taken from the creature, it will follow that the Fathermust have walked on the water, or opened the eyes with clay andspittle of some other one born blind, and have done the other thingswhich the Son appearing in the flesh did among men, before the Sondid them; [7] in order that He might be ableto do those things, who said that the Son was not able to doanything of Himself, except what He hath seen the Father do. Yetwho, even though he were mad, would think this? It remains,therefore, that these texts are so expressed, because the life ofthe Son is unchangeable as that of the Father is, and yet He is ofthe Father; and the working of the Father and of the Son isindivisible, and yet so to work is given to the Son from Him of whomHe Himself is, that is, from the Father; and the Son so sees theFather, as that He is the Son in the very seeing Him. For to be ofthe Father, that is, to be born of the Father, is to Him nothingelse than to see the Father; and to see Him working, is nothing elsethan to work with Him: but therefore not from Himself, because He isnot from Himself. And, therefore, those things which “Hesees the Father do, these also doeth the Son likewise,”because He is of the Father. For He neither does other things inlike manner, as a painter paints other pictures, in the same way ashe sees others to have been painted by another man; nor the samethings in a different manner, as the body expresses the sameletters, which the mind has thought; but “whatsoeverthings,” saith He, “the Father doeth, thesesame things also doeth the Son likewise.” [8] He has said both “these same things,” and“likewise;” and hence the working of both theFather and the Son is indivisible and equal, but it is from theFather to the Son. Therefore the Son cannot do anything of Himself,except what He seeth the Father do. From this rule, then, wherebythe Scriptures so speak as to mean, not to set forth one as lessthan another, but only to show which is of which, some have drawnthis meaning, as if the Son were said to be less. And some amongourselves who are more unlearned and least instructed in thesethings, endeavoring to take these textsaccording to the form of a servant, and so mis-interpreting them,are troubled. And to prevent this, the rule in question is to beobserved, whereby the Son is not less, but it is simply intimatedthat He is of the Father, in which words not His inequality but Hisbirth is declared.

CHAP. 2.—: THAT SOME WAYS OF SPEAKING CONCERNING THE SONARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD ACCORDING TO EITHER RULE.

4. There are, then, somethings in the sacred books, as I began by saying, so put, that it isdoubtful to which they are to be referred: whether to that rulewhereby the Son is less on account of His having taken the creature;or whether to that whereby it is intimated that although equal, yetHe is of the Father. And in my opinion, if this is in such waydoubtful, that which it really is can neither be explained nordiscerned, then such passages may without danger be understoodaccording to either rule, as that, for instance, “Mydoctrine is not mine, but His that sent me.” [1] For this may both be taken according to the formof a servant, as we have already treated it in the former book; [2] or according to the form of God, in which Heis in such way equal to the Father, that He is yet of the Father.For according to the form of God, as the Son is not one and His lifeanother, but the life itself is the Son; so the Son is not one andHis doctrine another, but the doctrine itself is the Son. And hence,as the text, “He hath given life to the Son,”is no otherwise to be understood than, He hath begotten the Son, whois life; so also when it is said, He hath given doctrine to the Son,it may be rightly understood to mean, He hath begotten the Son, whois doctrine; so that, when it is said, “My doctrine isnot mine, but His who sent me,” it is so to be understoodas if it were, I am not from myself, but from Him who sent me.

CHAP. 3.—: SOME THINGS CONCERNING THE HOLY SPIRIT ARE TOBE UNDERSTOOD ACCORDING TO THE ONE RULE ONLY.

5. For even of the HolySpirit, of whom it is not said, “He emptied Himself, andtook upon Him the form of a servant;” yet the LordHimself says, “Howbeit, when He the Spirit of Truth iscome, He will guide you into all truth. For He shall not speak ofHimself, but whatsoever He shall hear that shall He speak; and Hewill show you things to come. He shall glorify me; for He shallreceive of mine, and shall show it unto you.” And exceptHe had immediately gone on to say after this, “All thingsthat the Father hath are mine; therefore said I, that He shall takeof mine, and shall show it unto you;” [3] it might, perhaps,have been believed that the Holy Spirit was so born of Christ, asChrist is of the Father. Since He had said of Himself,“My doctrine is not mine, but His that sentme;” but of the Holy Spirit, “For He shall notspeak of Himself, but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall Hespeak;” and, “For He shall receive of mine,and shall show it unto you.” But because He has renderedthe reason why He said, “He shall receive ofmine” (for He says, “All things that theFather hath are mine; therefore said I, that He shall take ofmine”); it remains that the Holy Spirit be understood tohave of that which is the Father’s, as the Son also hath.And how can this be, unless according to that which we have saidabove, “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will sendunto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth which proceedethfrom the Father, He shall testify of me”? [4] He is said, therefore, not to speak of Himself,in that He proceedeth from the Father; and as it does not followthat the Son is less because He said, “The Son can donothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do” (forHe has not said this according to the form of a servant, butaccording to the form of God, as we have already shown, and thesewords do not set Him forth as less than, but as of the Father), soit is not brought to pass that the Holy Spirit is less, because itis said of Him, “For He shall not speak of Himself, butwhatsoever He shall hear, that shall He speak;” for thewords belong to Him as proceeding from theFather. But whereas both the Son is of the Father, and the HolySpirit proceeds from the Father, why both are not called sons, andboth not said to be begotten, but the former is called the oneonly-begotten Son, and the latter, viz. theHoly Spirit, neither son nor begotten, because if begotten, thencertainly a son, we will discuss in another place, if God shallgrant, and so far as He shall grant. [5]

CHAP. 4.—: THE GLORIFICATION OF THE SON BY THE FATHERDOES NOT PROVE INEQUALITY.

6. But here also let themwake up if they can, who have thought this, too, to be a testimonyon their side, to show that the Father isgreater than the Son, because the Son hath said, “Father,glorify me.” Why, the Holy Spirit also glorifies Him.Pray, is the Spirit, too, greater than He? Moreover, if on thataccount the Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, because He shall receiveof that which is the Son’s, and shall therefore receiveof that which is the Son’s because all things that theFather has are the Son’s also; it is evident that whenthe Holy Spirit glorifies the Son, the Father glorifies the Son.Whence it may be perceived that all things that the Father hath arenot only of the Son, but also of the Holy Spirit, because the HolySpirit is able to glorify the Son, whom the Father glorifies. But ifhe who glorifies is greater than he whom he glorifies, let themallow that those are equal who mutually glorify each other. But itis written, also, that the Son glorifies the Father; for He says,“I have glorified Thee on the earth.” [1] Truly let them beware lest the Holy Spirit bethought greater than both, because He glorifies the Son whom theFather glorifies, while it is not written that He Himself isglorified either by the Father or by the Son.

CHAP. 5.—: THE SON AND HOLY SPIRIT ARE NOT THEREFORE LESSBECAUSE SENT. THE SON IS SENT ALSO BY HIMSELF. OF THE SENDING OF THEHOLY SPIRIT.

7. But being proved wrong sofar, men be-take themselves to saying, that he who sends is greaterthan he who is sent: therefore the Father is greater than the Son,because the Son continually speaks of Himself as being sent by theFather; and the Father is also greater than the Holy Spirit, becauseJesus has said of the Spirit, “Whom the Father will sendin my name;” [2] and the Holy Spirit isless than both, because both the Father sends Him, as we have said,and the Son, when He says, “But if I depart, I will sendHim unto you.” I first ask, then, in this inquiry, whenceand whither the Son was sent. “I,” He says,“came forth from the Father, and am come into theworld.” [3] Therefore, to besent, is to come forth forth from the Father, and to come into theworld. What, then, is that which the same evangelist says concerningHim, “He was in the world, and the world was made by Him,and the world knew Him not;” and then he adds,“He came unto His own?” [4] Certainly He was sentthither, whither He came; but if He was sent into the world, becauseHe came forth from the Father, then He both came into the world andwas in the world. He was sent therefore thither, where He alreadywas. For consider that, too, which is written in the prophet, thatGod said, “Do not I fill heaven andearth?” [5] If this is said of theSon (for some will have it understood that the Son Himself spokeeither by the prophets or in the prophets), whither was He sentexcept to the place where He already was? For He who says,“I fill heaven and earth,” was everywhere. Butif it is said of the Father, where could He be without His own wordand without His own wisdom, which “reacheth from one endto another mightily, and sweetly ordereth allthings?” [6] But He cannot beanywhere without His own Spirit. Therefore, if God is everywhere,His Spirit also is everywhere. Therefore, the Holy Spirit, too, wassent thither, where He already was. For he, too, who finds no placeto which he might go from the presence of God, and who says,“If I ascend up into heaven, Thou art there; if I shallgo down into hell, behold, Thou art there;” wishing it tobe understood that God is present everywhere, named in the previousverse His Spirit; for He says, “Whither shall I go fromThy Spirit? or whither shall I flee from Thypresence?” [7]

8. For this reason, then, ifboth 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 HolySpirit, is to be understood; for of the Father alone, we nowhereread that He is sent. Now, of the Son, the apostle writes thus:“But when the fullness of the time was come, God sentforth His Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem themthat were under the law.” [8] “Hesent,” he says, “His Son, made of awoman.” And by this term, woman, [9] whatCatholic does not know that he did not wish to signify the privationof virginity; but, according to a Hebraism, the difference of sex?When, therefore, he says, “God sent His Son, made of awoman,” he sufficiently shows that the Son was“sent” in this very way, in that He was“made of a woman.” Therefore, in that He wasborn of God, He was in the world; but in that He was born of Mary,He was sent and came into the world. Moreover, He could not be sentby the Father without the Holy Spirit, not only because the Father,when He sent Him, that is, when He made Him of a woman, is certainlyunderstood not to have so made Him without His own Spirit; but alsobecause it is most plainly and expressly said in the Gospel inanswer to the Virgin Mary, when she asked of the angel, “How shall this be?”“The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power ofthe Highest shall overshadow thee.” [1] And Matthew says,“She was found with child of the HolyGhost.” [2] Although, too, in theprophet Isaiah, Christ Himself is understood to say of His ownfuture advent, “And now the Lord God and His Spirit hathsent me.” [3]

9. Perhaps some one may wishto drive us to say, that the Son is sent also by Himself, becausethe conception and childbirth of Mary is the working of the Trinity,by whose act of creating all things are created. And how, he will goon to say, has the Father sent Him, if He sent Himself? To whom Ianswer first, by asking him to tell me, if he can, in what mannerthe Father hath sanctified Him, if He hath sanctified Himself? Forthe same Lord says both; “Say ye of Him,” Hesays, “whom the Father hath sanctified and sent into theworld, Thou blasphemest, because I said, I am the Son ofGod;” [4] while in another place Hesays, “And for their sake I sanctifymyself.” [5] I ask, also, in whatmanner the Father delivered Him, if He delivered Himself? For theApostle Paul says both: “Who,” he says,“spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for usall;” [6] while elsewhere he saysof the Saviour Himself, “Who loved me, and deliveredHimself for me.” [7] He will reply, I suppose,if he has a right sense in these things, Because the will of theFather and the Son is one, and their working indivisible. In likemanner, then, let him understand the incarnation and nativity of theVirgin, wherein the Son is understood as sent, to have been wroughtby one and the same operation of the Father and of the Sonindivisibly; the Holy Spirit certainly not being thence excluded, ofwhom it is expressly said, “She was found with child bythe Holy Ghost.” For perhaps our meaning will be moreplainly unfolded, if we ask in what manner God sent His Son. Hecommanded that He should come, and He, complying with thecommandment, came. Did He then request, or did He only suggest? Butwhichever of these it was, certainly it was done by a word, and theWord of God is the Son of God Himself. Wherefore, since the Fathersent Him by a word, His being sent was the work of both the Fatherand His Word; therefore the same Son was sent by the Father and theSon, because the Son Himself is the Word of the Father. For whowould embrace so impious an opinion as to think the Father to haveuttered a word in time, in order that the eternal Son might therebybe sent and might appear in the flesh in the fullness of time? Butassuredly it was in that Word of God itself which was in thebeginning with God and was God, namely, in the wisdom itself of God,apart from time, at what time that wisdom must needs appear in theflesh. Therefore, since without any commencement of time, the Wordwas in the beginning, and the Word was with God, and the Word wasGod, it was in the Word itself without any time, at what time theWord was to be made flesh and dwell among us. [8] And when thisfullness of time had come, “God sent His Son, made of awoman,” [9] that is, made in time,that the Incarnate Word might appear to men; while it was in thatWord Himself, apart from time, at what time this was to be done; forthe order of times is in the eternal wisdom of God without time.Since, then, that the Son should appear in the flesh was wrought byboth the Father and the Son, it is fitly said that He who appearedin that flesh was sent, and that He who did not appear in it, sentHim; because those things which are transacted outwardly before thebodily eyes have their existence from the inward structure ( apparatu ) of the spiritual nature, and on thataccount are fitly said to be sent. Further, that form of man whichHe took is the person of the Son, not also of the Father; on whichaccount the invisible Father, together with the Son, who with theFather is invisible, is said to have sent the same Son by making Himvisible. But if He became visible in such way as to cease to beinvisible with the Father, that is, if the substance of theinvisible Word were turned by a change and transition into a visiblecreature, then the Son would be so understood to be sent by theFather, that He would be found to be only sent; not also, with theFather, sending. But since He so took the form of a servant, as thatthe unchangeable form of God remained, it is clear that that whichbecame apparent in the Son was done by the Father and the Son notbeing apparent; that is, that by the invisible Father, with theinvisible Son, the same Son Himself was sent so as to be visible.Why, therefore, does He say, “Neither came I ofmyself?” This, we may now say, is said according to theform of a servant, in the same way as it is said, “Ijudge no man.” [10]

10. If, therefore, He is saidto be sent, in so far as He appeared outwardly in the bodilycreature, who inwardly in His spiritual nature is always hidden fromthe eyes of mortals, it is now easy to understand also of the HolySpirit why He too is said to be sent.For in due time a certain outward appearance of the creature waswrought, wherein the Holy Spirit might be visibly shown; whetherwhen He descended upon the Lord Himself in a bodily shape as adove, [1] or when, ten days having past since Hisascension, on the day of Pentecost a sound came suddenly from heavenas of a rushing mighty wind, and cloven tongues like as of fire wereseen upon them, and it sat upon each of them. [2] This operation, visiblyexhibited, and presented to mortal eyes, is called the sending ofthe Holy Spirit; not that His very substance appeared, in which Hehimself also is invisible and unchangeable, like the Father and theSon, but that the hearts of men, touched by things seen outwardly,might be turned from the manifestation in time of Him as coming toHis hidden eternity as ever present.

CHAP. 6.—: THE CREATURE IS NOT SO TAKEN BY THE HOLYSPIRIT AS FLESH IS BY THE WORD.

11. It is, then, for thisreason nowhere written, that the Father is greater than the HolySpirit, or that the Holy Spirit is less than God the Father, becausethe creature in which the Holy Spirit was to appear was not taken inthe same way as the Son of man was taken, as the form in which theperson of the Word of God Himself should be set forth; not that Hemight possess the word of God, as other holy and wise men havepossessed it, but “above His fellows;” [3] not certainly that He possessed the word more than they, so as to beof more surpassing wisdom than the rest were, but that He was thevery Word Himself. For the word in the flesh is one thing, and theWord made flesh is another; i.e. the word inman is one thing, the Word that is man is another. For flesh is putfor man, where it is said, “The Word was madeflesh;” [4] and again, “Andall flesh shall see the salvation of God.” [5] For it does not mean flesh without soul andwithout mind; but “all flesh,” is the same asif it were said, every man. The creature, then, in which the HolySpirit should appear, was not so taken, as that flesh and human formwere taken, of the Virgin Mary. For the Spirit did not beatify thedove, or the wind, or the fire, and join them for ever to Himselfand to His person in unity and “fashion.” [6] Nor, again,is the nature of the Holy Spirit mutable and changeable; so thatthese things were not made of the creature, but He himself wasturned and changed first into one and then into another, as water ischanged into ice. But these things appeared at the seasons at whichthey ought to have appeared, the creature serving the Creator, andbeing changed and converted at the command of Him who remainsimmutably in Himself, in order to signify and manifest Him in suchway as it was fit He should be signified and manifested to mortalmen. Accordingly, although that dove is called the Spirit; [7] and in speaking of that fire, “Thereappeared unto them,” he says, “cloven tongues,like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them; and they began tospeak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave themutterance;” [8] in order to show thatthe Spirit was manifested by that fire, as by the dove; yet wecannot call the Holy Spirit both God and a dove, or both God andfire, in the same way as we call the Son both God and man; nor as wecall the Son the Lamb of God; which not only John the Baptist says,“Behold the Lamb of God,” [9] but also John theEvangelist sees the Lamb slain in the Apocalypse. [10] For that prophetic vision was not shown to bodilyeyes through bodily forms, but in the spirit through spiritualimages of bodily things. But whosoever saw that dove and that fire,saw them with their eyes. Although it may perhaps be disputedconcerning the fire, whether it was seen by the eyes or in thespirit, on account of the form of the sentence. For the text doesnot say, They saw cloven tongues like fire, but, “Thereappeared to them.” But we are not wont to say with thesame meaning, It appeared to me; as we say, I saw. And in thosespiritual visions of corporeal images the usual expressions are,both, It appeared to me; and, I saw: but in those things which areshown to the eyes through express corporeal forms, the commonexpression is not, It appeared to me; but, I saw. There may,therefore, be a question raised respecting that fire, how it wasseen; whether within in the spirit as it were outwardly, or reallyoutwardly before the eyes of the flesh. But of that dove, which issaid to have descended in a bodily form, no one ever doubted that itwas seen by the eyes. Nor, again, as we call the Son a Rock (for itis written, “And that Rock was Christ” [11] ), can we so call the Spirit a dove or fire. Forthat rock was a thing already created, and after the mode of itsaction was called by the name of Christ,whom it signified; like the stone placed under Jacob’shead, and also anointed, which he took in order to signify theLord; [1] or as Isaac was Christ, when he carried thewood for the sacrifice of himself. [2] A particularsignificative action was added to those already existing things;they did not, as that dove and fire, suddenly come into being inorder simply so to signify. The dove and the fire, indeed, seem tome more like that flame which appeared to Moses in the bush, [3] or that pillar which the people followed in the wilderness, [4] or the thunders and lightnings which came whenthe Law was given in the mount. [5] For the corporeal form ofthese things came into being for the very purpose, that it mightsignify something, and then pass away. [6]

CHAP. 7.—: A DOUBT RAISED ABOUT DIVINEAPPEARANCES.

12. The Holy Spirit, then, isalso said to be sent, on account of these corporeal forms which cameinto existence in time, in order to signify and manifest Him, as Hemust needs be manifested, to human senses; yet He is not said to beless than the Father, as the Son, because He was in the form of aservant, is said to be; because that form of a servant inhered inthe unity of the person of the Son, but those corporeal formsappeared for a time, in order to show what was necessary to beshown, and then ceased to be. Why, then, is not the Father also saidto be sent, through those corporeal forms, the fire of the bush, andthe pillar of cloud or of fire, and the lightnings in the mount, andwhatever other things of the kind appeared at that time, when (as wehave learned from Scripture testimony) He spake face to face withthe fathers, if He Himself was manifested by those modes and formsof the creature, as exhibited and presented corporeally to humansight? But if the Son was manifested by them, why is He said to besent so long after, when He was made of a woman, as the apostlesays, “But when the fullness of time was come, God sentforth His Son, made of a woman,” [7] seeing that He was sentalso before, when He appeared to the fathers by those changeableforms of the creature? Or if He cannot rightly be said to be sent,unless when the Word was made flesh, why is the Holy Spirit said tobe sent, of whom no such incarnation was ever wrought? But if bythose visible things, which are put before us in the Law and in theprophets, neither the Father nor the Son but the Holy Spirit wasmanifested, why also is He said to be sent now, when He was sentalso before after these modes?

13. In the perplexity of thisinquiry, the Lord helping us, we must ask, first, whether theFather, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; or whether, sometimes theFather, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit; or whether itwas without any distinction of persons, in such way as the one andonly God is spoken of, that is, that the Trinity itself appeared tothe Fathers by those forms of the creature. Next, whichever of thesealternatives shall have been found or thought true, whether for thispurpose only the creature was fashioned, wherein God, as He judgedit suitable at that time, should be shown to human sight; or whetherangels, who already existed, were so sent, as to speak in the personof God, taking a corporeal form from the corporeal creature, for thepurpose of their ministry, as each had need; or else, according tothe power the Creator has given them, changing and converting theirown body itself, to which they are not subject, but govern it assubject to themselves, into whatever appearances they would thatwere suited and apt to their several actions. Lastly, we shalldiscern that which it was our purpose to ask, viz. whether the Son and the Holy Spirit were also sentbefore; and, if they were so sent, what difference there is betweenthat sending, and the one which we read of in the Gospel; or whetherin truth neither of them were sent, except when either the Son wasmade of the Virgin Mary, or the Holy Spirit appeared in a visibleform, whether in the dove or in tongues of fire.

CHAP. 8.—: THE ENTIRE TRINITY INVISIBLE.

14. Let us therefore saynothing of those who, with an over carnal mind, have thought thenature of the Word of God, and the Wisdom, which,“remaining in herself, maketh all thingsnew,” [8] whom we call the onlySon of God, not only to be changeable, but also to be visible. Forthese, with more audacity than religion, bring a very dull heart tothe inquiry into divine things. For whereas the soul is a spiritualsubstance, and whereas itself also was made, yet could not be madeby any other than by Him by whom allthings were made, and without whom nothing is made, [1] it, although changeable, is yet not visible; and this they havebelieved to be the case with the Word Himself and with the Wisdom ofGod itself, by which the soul was made; whereas this Wisdom is notonly invisible, as the soul also is, but likewise unchangeable,which the soul is not. It is in truth the same unchangeableness init, which is referred to when it was said, “Remaining inherself she maketh all things new.” Yet these people,endeavoring, as it were, to prop up their error in its fall bytestimonies of the divine Scriptures, adduce the words of theApostle Paul; and take that, which is said of the one only God, inwhom the Trinity itself is understood, to be said only of theFather, and neither of the Son nor of the Holy Spirit:“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the onlywise God, be honor and glory for ever and ever;” [2] and that other passage, “The blessedand only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; who onlyhath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approachunto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see.” [3] How these passages are to be understood, I thinkwe have already discoursed sufficiently. [4]

CHAP. 9.—: AGAINST THOSE WHO BELIEVED THE FATHER ONLY TOBE IMMORTAL AND INVISIBLE. THE TRUTH TO BE SOUGHT BY PEACEFULSTUDY.

15. But they who will havethese texts understood only of the Father, and not of the Son or theHoly Spirit, declare the Son to be visible, not by having takenflesh of the Virgin, but aforetime also in Himself. For He Himself,they say, appeared to the eyes of the Fathers. And if you say tothem, In whatever manner, then, the Son is visible in Himself, inthat manner also He is mortal in Himself; so that it plainly followsthat you would have this saying also understood only of the Father, viz., “Who only hathimmortality;” for if the Son is mortal from having takenupon Him our flesh, then allow that it is on account of this fleshthat He is also visible: they reply, that it is not on account ofthis flesh that they say that the Son is mortal; but that, just asHe was also before visible, so He was also before mortal. For ifthey say the Son is mortal from having taken our flesh, then it isnot the Father alone without the Son who hath immortality; becauseHis Word also has immortality, by which all things were made. For Hedid not therefore lose His immortality, because He took mortalflesh; seeing that it could not happen even to the human soul, thatit should die with the body, when the Lord Himself says,“Fear not them which kill the body, but are not able tokill the soul.” [5] Or, forsooth, also theHoly Spirit took flesh: concerning whom certainly they will, withoutdoubt, be troubled to say—if the Son is mortal on accountof taking our flesh—in what manner they understand thatthe Father only has immortality without the Son and the Holy Spirit,since, indeed, the Holy Spirit did not take our flesh; and if He hasnot immortality, then the Son is not mortal on account of taking ourflesh; but if the Holy Spirit has immortality, then it is not saidonly of the Father, “Who only hathimmortality.” And therefore they think they are able toprove that the Son in Himself was mortal also before theincarnation, because changeableness itself is not unfitly calledmortality, according to which the soul also is said to die; notbecause it is changed and turned into body, or into some substanceother than itself, but because, whatever in its own selfsamesubstance is now after another mode than it once was, is discoveredto be mortal, in so far as it has ceased to be what it was. Becausethen, say they, before the Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary,He Himself appeared to our fathers, not in one and the same formonly, but in many forms; first in one form, then in another; He isboth visible in Himself, because His substance was visible to mortaleyes, when He had not yet taken our flesh, and mortal, inasmuch asHe is changeable. And so also the Holy Spirit, who appeared at onetime as a dove, and another time as fire. Whence, they say, thefollowing texts do not belong to the Trinity, but singularly andproperly to the Father only: “Now unto the King eternal,immortal, and invisible, the only wise God;” and,“Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light whichno man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor cansee.”

16. Passing by, then, thesereasoners, who are unable to know the substance even of the soul,which is invisible, and therefore are very far indeed from knowingthat the substance of the one and only God, that is, the Father andthe Son and the Holy Spirit, remains ever not only invisible, butalso unchangeable, and that hence it possesses true and realimmortality; let us, who deny that God, whether the Father, or theSon, or the Holy Spirit, ever appeared tobodily eyes, unless through the corporeal creature made subject toHis own power; let us, I say—ready to be corrected, if weare reproved in a fraternal and upright spirit, ready to be so, evenif carped at by an enemy, so that he speak the truth—incatholic peace and with peaceful study inquire, whether Godindiscriminately appeared to our fathers before Christ came in theflesh, or whether it was any one person of the Trinity, or whetherseverally, as it were by turns.

CHAP. 10—: WHETHER GOD THE TRINITY INDISCRIMINATELYAPPEARED TO THE FATHERS, OR ANY ONE PERSON OF THE TRINITY. THE APPEARINGOF GOD TO ADAM. OF THE SAME APPEARANCE. THE VISION TO ABRAHAM.

17. And first, in that whichis written in Genesis, viz., that God spakewith man whom He had formed out of the dust; if we set apart thefigurative meaning, and treat it so as to place faith in thenarrative even in the letter, it should appear that God then spakewith man in the appearance of a man. This is not indeed expresslylaid down in the book, but the general tenor of its reading soundsin this sense, especially in that which is written, that Adam heardthe voice of the Lord God, walking in the garden in the cool of theevening, and hid himself among the trees of the garden; and when Godsaid, “Adam, where art thou?” [1] replied, “I heard Thy voice, and Iwas afraid because I was naked, and I hid myself from Thyface.” For I do not see how such a walking andconversation of God can be understood literally, except He appearedas a man. For it can neither be said that a voice only of God wasframed, when God is said to have walked, or that He who was walkingin a place was not visible; while Adam, too, says that he hidhimself from the face of God. Who then was He? Whether the Father,or the Son, or the Holy Spirit? Whether altogether indiscriminatelydid God the Trinity Himself speak to man in the form of man? Thecontext, indeed, itself of the Scripture nowhere, it should seem,indicates a change from person to person; but He seems still tospeak to the first man, who said, “Let there belight,” and, “Let there be afirmament,” and so on through each of those days; whom weusually take to be God the Father, making by a word whatever. Hewilled to make. For He made all things by His word, which Word weknow, by the right rule of faith, to be His only Son. If, therefore,God the Father spake to the first man, and Himself was walking inthe garden in the cool of the evening, and if it was from His facethat the sinner hid himself amongst the trees of the garden, why arewe not to go on to understand that it was He also who appeared toAbraham and to Moses, and to whom He would, and how He would,through the changeable and visible creature, subjected to Himself,while He Himself remains in Himself and in His own substance, inwhich He is unchangeable and invisible? But, possibly, it might bethat the Scripture passed over in a hidden way from person toperson, and while it had related that the Father said“Let there be light,” and the rest which itmentioned Him to have done by the Word, went on to indicate the Sonas speaking to the first man; not unfolding this openly, butintimating it to be understood by those who could understand it.

18. Let him, then, who hasthe strength whereby he can penetrate this secret with hismind’s eye, so that to him it appears clearly, eitherthat the Father also is able, or that only the Son and Holy Spiritare able, to appear to human eyes through a visible creature; lethim, I say, proceed to examine these things if he can, or even toexpress and handle them in words; but the thing itself, so far asconcerns this testimony of Scripture, where God spake with man, is,in my judgment, not discoverable, because it does not evidentlyappear 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 thatwere opened when they tasted the forbidden fruit; [2] for before they had tasted, these eyes wereclosed. Yet I would not rashly assert, even if that scriptureimplies Paradise to have been a material place, that God could nothave walked there in any way except in some bodily form. For itmight be said, that only words were framed for the man to hear,without seeing any form. Neither, because it is written,“Adam hid himself from the face of God,” doesit follow forthwith that he usually saw His face. For what if hehimself indeed could not see, but feared to be himself seen by Himwhose voice he had heard, and had felt His presence as he walked?For Cain, too, said to God, “From Thy face I will hidemyself;” [3] yet we are not thereforecompelled to admit that he was wont to behold the face of God withhis bodily eyes in any visible form, although he had heard the voiceof God questioning and speaking with him of his sin. But what manner of speech it was that God thenuttered to the outward ears of men, especially in speaking to thefirst man, it is both difficult to discover, and we have notundertaken to say in this discourse. But if words alone and soundswere wrought, by which to bring about some sensible presence of Godto those first men, I do not know why I should not there understandthe person of God the Father, seeing that His person is manifestedalso in that voice, when Jesus appeared in glory on the mount beforethe three disciples; [1] and in that when thedove descended upon Him at His baptism; [2] and in that where Hecried to the Father concerning His own glorification, and it wasanswered Him, “I have both glorified, and will glorifyagain.” [3] Not that the voice couldbe wrought without the work of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (sincethe Trinity works indivisibly), but that such a voice was wrought asto manifest the person of the Father only; just as the Trinitywrought that human form from the Virgin Mary, yet it is the personof the Son alone; for the invisible Trinity wrought the visibleperson of the Son alone. Neither does anything forbid us, not onlyto understand those words spoken to Adam as spoken by the Trinity,but also to take them as manifesting the person of that Trinity. Forwe are compelled to understand of the Father only, that which issaid, “This is my beloved Son.” [4] For Jesus can neither be believed nor understoodto be the Son of the Holy Spirit, or even His own Son. And where thevoice uttered, “I have both glorified, and will glorifyagain,” we confess it was only the person of the Father;since it is the answer to that word of the Lord, in which He hadsaid, “Father, glorify thy Son,” which Hecould not say except to God the Father only, and not also to theHoly Spirit, whose Son He was not. But here, where it is written,“And the Lord God said to Adam,” no reason canbe given why the Trinity itself should not be understood.

19. Likewise, also, in thatwhich is written, “Now the Lord had said unto Abraham,Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and thyfather’s house,” it is not clear whether avoice alone came to the ears of Abraham, or whether anything alsoappeared to his eyes. But a little while after, it is somewhat moreclearly said, “And the Lord appeared unto Abraham, andsaid, Unto thy seed will I give this land.” [5] But neither there is it expressly said in whatform God appeared to him, or whether the Father, or the Son, or theHoly Spirit appeared to him. Unless, perhaps, they think that it wasthe Son who appeared to Abraham, because it is not written, Godappeared to him, but “the Lord appeared tohim.” For the Son seems to be called the Lord as thoughthe name was appropriated to Him; as e.g. theapostle says, “For though there be that are called gods,whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many and lordsmany,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are allthings, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are allthings, and we by Him.” [6] But since it isfound that God the Father also is called Lord in manyplaces,—for instance, “The Lord hath said untome, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten Thee;” [7] and again, “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou at myright hand;” [8] since also the Holy Spiritis found to be called Lord, as where the apostle says,“Now the Lord is that Spirit;” and then, lestany one should think the Son to be signified, and to be called theSpirit on account of His incorporeal substance, has gone on to say,“And where the Spirit of the Lord is, there isliberty;” [9] and no one everdoubted the Spirit of the Lord to be the Holy Spirit: therefore,neither here does it appear plainly whether it was any person of theTrinity that appeared to Abraham, or God Himself the Trinity, ofwhich one God it is said, “Thou shalt fear the Lord thyGod, and Him only shalt thou serve.” [10] But under the oak atMamre he saw three men, whom he invited, and hospitably received,and ministered to them as they feasted. Yet Scripture at thebeginning of that narrative does not say, three men appeared to him,but, “The Lord appeared to him.” And then,setting forth in due order after what manner the Lord appeared tohim, it has added the account of the three men, whom Abraham invitesto his hospitality in the plural number, and afterwards speaks tothem in the singular number as one; and as one He promises him a sonby Sara, viz. the one whom the Scripture callsLord, as in the beginning of the same narrative, “TheLord,” it says, “appeared toAbraham.” He invites them then, and washes their feet,and leads them forth at their departure, as though they were men;but he speaks as with the Lord God, whether when a son is promisedto him, or when the destruction is shown to him that was impendingover Sodom. [11]

CHAP. 11.—: OF THE SAME APPEARANCE.

20. That place of Scripturedemands neither a slight nor a passing consideration. For if one manhad appeared, what else would those at once cry out, who say thatthe Son was visible also in His own substance before He was born ofthe Virgin, but that it was Himself? since it is said, they say, ofthe Father, “To the only invisible God.” [1] And yet, I could still go on to demand, in whatmanner “He was found in fashion as a man,”before He had taken our flesh, seeing that his feet were washed, andthat He fed upon earthly food? How could that be, when He was still“in the form of God, and thought it not robbery to beequal with God?” [2] For, pray, had Healready “emptied Himself, taking upon Him the form of aservant, and made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion as aman?” when we know when it was that He did this throughHis birth of the Virgin. How, then, before He had done this, did Heappear as one man to Abraham? or, was not that form a reality? Icould put these questions, if it had been one man that appeared toAbraham, and if that one were believed to be the Son of God. Butsince three men appeared, and no one of them is said to be greaterthan the rest either in form, or age, or power, why should we nothere understand, as visibly intimated by the visible creature, theequality of the Trinity, and one and the same substance in threepersons? [3]

21. For, lest any one shouldthink that one among the three is in this way intimated to have beenthe greater, and that this one is to be understood to have been theLord, 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 itsays that two angels came to Lot, among whom that just man also, whodeserved to be freed from the burning of Sodom, speaks to one as tothe Lord. For so Scripture goes on to say, “And the Lordwent His way, as soon as He left communing with Abraham; and Abrahamreturned to his place.” [4]

CHAP. 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 moreattentively. Certainly Abraham was speaking with three, and calledthat one, in the singular number, the Lord. Perhaps, some one maysay, he recognized one of the three to be the Lord, but the othertwo His angels. What, then, does that mean which Scripture goes onto say, “And the Lord went His way, as soon as He hadleft communing with Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place: andthere came two angels to Sodom at even?” Are we tosuppose that the one who, among the three, was recognized as theLord, had departed, and had sent the two angels that were with Himto destroy Sodom? Let us see, then, what follows. “Therecame,” it is said, “two angels to Sodom ateven; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing them, rose upto 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 yourservant’s house.” Here it is clear, both thatthere were two angels, and that in the plural number they wereinvited to partake of hospitality, and that they were honorablydesignated lords, when they perchance were thought to be men.

22. Yet, again, it isobjected that except they were known to be angels of God, Lot wouldnot have bowed himself with his face to the ground. Why, then, isboth hospitality and food offered to them, as though they wantedsuch human succor? But whatever may here lie hid, let us now pursuethat which we have undertaken. Two appear; both are called angels;they are invited plurally; he speaks as with two plurally, until thedeparture from Sodom. And then Scripture goes on to say,“And it came to pass, when they had brought them forthabroad, that they said, Escape for thy life; look not behind thee,neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, andthere thou shalt be saved, [5] lestthou be consumed. And Lot said unto them, Oh! not so, my lord:behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thysight,” [6] etc. What is meant byhis saying to them, “Oh! not so, my lord,” ifHe who was the Lord had already departed, and had sent the angels?Why is it said, “Oh! not so, my lord,” andnot, “Oh! not so, my lords?” Or if he wishedto speak to one of them, why does Scripture say, “But Lotsaid to them, Oh! not so, my lord: beholdnow, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight,” etc.?Are we here, too, to understand two persons in the plural number,but when the two are addressed as one, then the one Lord God of onesubstance? But which two persons do we hereunderstand?—of the Father and of the Son, or of theFather and of the Holy Spirit, or of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?The last, perhaps, is the more suitable; for they said of themselvesthat they were sent, which is that which we say of the Son and ofthe Holy Spirit. For we find nowhere in the Scriptures that theFather was sent. [1]

CHAP. 13.—: THE APPEARANCE IN THE BUSH.

23. But when Moses was sentto lead the children of Israel out of Egypt, it is written that theLord appeared to him thus: “Now Moses kept the flock ofJethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian: and he led the flockto 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 aflame 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, whythe bush is not burnt. And when the Lord saw that he turned aside tosee, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Iam the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, andthe God of Jacob.” [2] He is here also firstcalled the Angel of the Lord, and then God. Was an angel, then, theGod of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?Therefore He may be rightly understood to be the Saviour Himself, ofwhom the apostle says, “Whose are the fathers, and ofwhom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, Godblessed for ever.” [3] He, therefore,“who is over all, God blessed for ever,” isnot unreasonably here understood also to be Himself the God ofAbraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. But why is Hepreviously called the Angel of the Lord, when He appeared in a flameof fire out of the bush? Was it because it was one of many angels,who by an economy [or arrangement] bare theperson of his Lord? or was something of the creature assumed by Himin order to bring about a visible appearance for the business inhand, and that words might thence be audibly uttered, whereby thepresence of the Lord might be shown, in such way as was fitting, tothe corporeal senses of man, by means of the creature made subject?For if he was one of the angels, who could easily affirm whether itwas the person of the Son which was imposed upon him to announce, orthat of the Holy Spirit, or that of God the Father, or altogether ofthe Trinity itself, who is the one and only God, in order that hemight say, “I am the God of Abraham, and the God ofIsaac, and the God of Jacob?” For we cannot say that theSon of God is the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the Godof Jacob, and that the Father is not; nor will any one dare to denythat either the Holy Spirit, or the Trinity itself, whom we believeand understand to be the one God, is the God of Abraham, and the Godof Isaac, and the God of Jacob. For he who is not God, is not theGod of those fathers. Furthermore, if not only the Father is God, asall, even heretics, admit; but also the Son, which, whether theywill or not, they are compelled to acknowledge, since the apostlesays, “Who is over all, God blessed for ever;”and the Holy Spirit, since the same apostle says,“Therefore glorify God in your body;” when hehad said above, “Know ye not that your body is the templeof the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which ye have ofGod?” [4] and these three areone God, as catholic soundness believes: it is not sufficientlyapparent which person of the Trinity that angel bare, if he was oneof the rest of the angels, and whether any person, and not ratherthat of the Trinity itself. But if the creature was assumed for thepurpose of the business in hand, whereby both to appear to humaneyes, and to sound in human ears, and to be called the Angel of theLord, and the Lord, and God; then cannot God here be understood tobe the Father, but either the Son or the Holy Spirit. Although Icannot call to mind that the Holy Spirit is anywhere else called anangel, which yet may be understood from His work; for it is said ofHim, “And He will show you [5] things to come;” [6] and“angel” in Greek is certainly equivalent to“messenger” [7] inLatin: but we read most evidently of the Lord Jesus Christ in theprophet, that He is called “theAngel of Great Counsel,” [1] while both the Holy Spiritand the Son of God is God and Lord of the angels.

CHAP. 14.—: OF THE APPEARANCE IN THE PILLAR OF CLOUD ANDOF FIRE.

24. Also in the going forthof the children of Israel from Egypt it is written, “Andthe Lord went before them, by day in a pillar of cloud to lead themthe way, and by night in a pillar of fire. He took not away thepillar of the cloud by day, nor the pillar of fire by night, frombefore the people.” [2] Who here, too, woulddoubt that God appeared to the eyes of mortal men by the corporealcreature made subject to Him, and not by His own substance? But itis not similarly apparent whether the Father, or the Son, or theHoly Spirit, or the Trinity itself, the one God. Nor is thisdistinguished there either, in my judgment, where it is written,“The glory of the Lord appeared in the cloud, and theLord spake unto Moses, saying, I have heard the murmurings of thechildren of Israel,” [3] etc.

CHAP. 15.—: OF THE APPEARANCE ON SINAI. WHETHER THETRINITY 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 MountSinai, when it was said, “And Mount Sinai was altogetheron a smoke, because the Lord descended upon it in fire, and thesmoke thereof ascended as the smoke of a furnace; and all the peoplethat was in the camp trembled; and when the voice of the trumpetsounded long and waxed louder and louder, Moses spake, and Godanswered him by a voice.” [4] And a little after,when the Law had been given in the ten commandments, it follows inthe text, “And all the people saw the thunderings, andthe lightnings, and the noise of the trumpet, and the mountainsmoking.” And a little after, “And[when the people saw it,] they removed andstood afar off, and Moses drew near unto the thick darkness [5] where God was, and the Lordsaid unto Moses,” [6] etc. What shall I sayabout this, save that no one can be so insane as to believe thesmoke, and the fire, and the cloud, and the darkness, and whateverthere was of the kind, to be the substance of the word and wisdom ofGod which is Christ, or of the Holy Spirit? For not even the Ariansever dared to say that they were the substance of God the Father.All these things, then, were wrought through the creature servingthe Creator, and were presented in a suitable economy ( dispensatio ) to human senses; unless, perhaps,because it is said, “And Moses drew near to the cloudwhere God was,” carnal thoughts must needs suppose thatthe cloud was indeed seen by the people, but that within the cloudMoses with the eyes of the flesh saw the Son of God, whom dotingheretics will have to be seen in His own substance. Forsooth, Mosesmay have seen Him with the eyes of the flesh, if not only the wisdomof God which is Christ, but even that of any man you please andhowsoever wise, can be seen with the eyes of the flesh; or if,because it is written of the elders of Israel, that “theysaw the place where the God of Israel had stood,” andthat “there was under His feet as it were a paved work ofa sapphire stone, and as it were the body of heaven in hisclearness,” [7] therefore we are tobelieve that the word and wisdom of God in His own substance stoodwithin the space of an earthly place, who indeed“reacheth firmly from end to end, and sweetly orderethall things;” [8] and that the Word ofGod, by whom all things were made, [9] is in such wise changeable,as now to contract, now to expand Himself; (may the Lord cleanse thehearts of His faithful ones from such thoughts!) But indeed allthese visible and sensible things are, as we have often said,exhibited through the creature made subject in order to signify theinvisible and intelligible God, not only the Father, but also theSon and the Holy Spirit, “of whom are all things, andthrough whom are all things, and in whom are allthings;” [10] although “theinvisible things of God, from the creation of the world, are clearlyseen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternalpower and Godhead.” [11]

26. But as far as concernsour present undertaking, neither on Mount Sinai do I see how itappears, by all those things which were fearfully displayed to thesenses 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 hesitatingconjecture from this passage, if it is possible to understand it ofone person of the Trinity, why do we not rather understand the HolySpirit to be spoken of, since the Law itself also, which was giventhere, is said to have been written upon tables of stone with thefinger of God, [1] by which name we know theHoly Spirit to be signified in the Gospel. [2] And fifty days arenumbered from the slaying of the lamb and the celebration of thePassover until the day in which these things began to be done inMount Sinai; just as after the passion of our Lord fifty days arenumbered from His resurrection, and then came the Holy Spirit whichthe Son of God had promised. And in that very coming of His, whichwe read of in the Acts of the Apostles, there appeared cloventongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them: [3] which agrees with Exodus, where it is written,“And Mount Sinai was altogether on a smoke, because theLord descended upon it in fire;” and a little after,“And the sight of the glory of the Lord,” hesays, “was like devouring fire on the top of the mount inthe eyes of the children of Israel.” [4] Or if these things weretherefore wrought because neither the Father nor the Son could bethere presented in that mode without the Holy Spirit, by whom theLaw itself must needs be written; then we know doubtless that Godappeared there, not by His own substance, which remains invisibleand unchangeable, but by the appearance above mentioned of thecreature; but that some special person of the Trinity appeared,distinguished by a proper mark, as far as my capacity ofunderstanding reaches, we do not see.

CHAP. 16.—: IN WHAT MANNER MOSES SAW GOD.

26. There is yet anotherdifficulty which troubles most people, viz. that it is written, “And the Lord spake unto Moses faceto face, as a man speaketh unto his friend;” whereas alittle after, the same Moses says, “Now therefore, I prayThee, if I have found grace in Thy sight, show me now Thyselfplainly, 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 meThy glory.” What means this then, that in everythingwhich was done, as above said, God was thought to have appeared byHis own substance; whence the Son of God has been believed by thesemiserable people to be visible not by the creature, but by Himself;and that Moses, entering into the cloud, appeared to have had thisvery object in entering, that a cloudy darkness indeed might beshown to the eyes of the people, but that Moses within might hearthe 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 manspeaketh unto his friend;” and yet, behold, the sameMoses says, “If I have found grace in Thy sight, show meThyself plainly?” Assuredly he knew that he sawcorporeally, and he sought the true sight of God spiritually. Andthat mode of speech accordingly which was wrought in words, was somodified, as if it were of a friend speaking to a friend. Yet whosees God the Father with the eyes of the body? And that Word, whichwas in the beginning, the Word which was with God, the Word whichwas God, by which all things were made, [5] —who sees Himwith the eyes of the body? And the spirit of wisdom, again, who seeswith the eyes of the body? Yet what is, “Show me nowThyself plainly, that I may see Thee,” unless, Show meThy substance? But if Moses had not said this, we must indeed haveborne with those foolish people as we could, who think that thesubstance of God was made visible to his eyes through those thingswhich, as above mentioned, were said or done. But when it is heredemonstrated most evidently that this was notgranted to him, even though he desired it; who will dare tosay, that by the like forms which had appeared visibly to him also,not the creature serving God, but that itself which is God, appearedto the eyes of a mortal man?

28. Add, too, that which theLord afterward said to Moses, “Thou canst not see myface: for there shall no man see my face, and live. And the Lordsaid, Behold, there is a place by me, and thou shall stand upon arock: and it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that Iwill put thee into a watch-tower [6] of the rock, and will cover thee with myhand while I pass by: and I will take away my hand, and thou shaltsee my back parts; but my face shall not be seen.” [7]

CHAP. 17.—: HOW THE BACK PARTS OF GOD WERE SEEN. THE FAITHOF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ONLY IS THE PLACEFROM WHENCE THE BACK PARTS OF GOD ARE SEEN. THE BACK PARTS OF GOD WERESEEN BY THE ISRAELITES. IT IS A RASH OPINION TO THINK THAT GOD THEFATHER ONLY WAS NEVER SEEN BY THE FATHERS.

Not unfitly is it commonly understood to be prefigured from theperson of our Lord Jesus Christ, that His “backparts” are to be taken to be His flesh, in which He wasborn of the Virgin, and died, and roseagain; whether they are called back parts [1] on account of the posteriority of mortality, or because it wasalmost in the end of the world, that is, at a late period, [2] that He deigned to take it:but that His “face” was that form of God, inwhich He “thought it not robbery to be equal withGod,” [3] which no one certainlycan see and live; whether because after this life, in which we areabsent from the Lord, [4] and where the corruptiblebody presseth down the soul, [5] we shall see“face to face,” [6] as the apostlesays—(for it is said in the Psalms, of this life,“Verily every man living is altogethervanity;” [7] and again,“For in Thy sight shall no man living bejustified;” [8] and in this life also,according to John, “It doth not yet appear what we shallbe, but we know,” he says, “that when He shallappear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as Heis,” [9] which he certainlyintended to be understood as after this life, when we shall havepaid the debt of death, and shall have received the promise of theresurrection);—or whether that even now, in whateverdegree we spiritually understand the wisdom of God, by which allthings were made, in that same degree we die to carnal affections,so that, considering this world dead to us, we also ourselves die tothis world, and say what the apostle says, “The world iscrucified unto me, and I unto the world.” [10] For it was of this death that he also says,“Wherefore, if ye be dead with Christ, why as thoughliving in the world are ye subject to ordinances?” [11] Not therefore without cause will noone be able to see the “face,” that is, themanifestation itself of the wisdom of God, and live. For it is thisvery appearance, for the contemplation of which every one sighs whostrives to love God with all his heart, and with all his soul, andwith all his mind; to the contemplation of which, he who loves hisneighbor, too, as himself builds up his neighbor also as far as hemay; on which two commandments hang all the law and theprophets. [12] And this is signified also in Moseshimself. For when he had said, on account of the love of God withwhich he was specially inflamed, “If I have found gracein thy sight, show me now Thyself plainly, that I may find grace inThy sight;” he immediately subjoined, on account of thelove also of his neighbor, “And that I may know that thisnation is Thy people.” It is therefore that“appearance” which hurries away every rationalsoul with the desire of it, and the more ardently the more pure thatsoul is; and it is the more pure the more it rises to spiritualthings; and it rises the more to spiritual things the more it diesto carnal things. But whilst we are absent from the Lord, and walkby faith, not by sight, [13] we ought to see the“back parts” of Christ, that is His flesh, bythat very faith, that is, standing on the solid foundation of faith,which the rock signifies, [14] and beholding it from such a safe watch-tower, namely in theCatholic Church, of which it is said, “And upon this rockI will build my Church.” [15] For so much the morecertainly we love that face of Christ, which we earnestly desire tosee, as we recognize in His back parts how much first Christ lovedus.

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;” [16] and again, “Whowas delivered,” he says, “for our offenses,and was raised again for our justification.” [17] So that the reward of our faith is theresurrection of the body of our Lord. [18] For evenHis enemies believe that that flesh died on the cross of Hispassion, but they do not believe it to have risen again. Which webelieving most firmly, gaze upon it as from the solidity of a rock:whence we wait with certain hope for the adoption, to wit, theredemption of our body; [19] because we hope forthat in the members of Christ, that is, in ourselves, which by asound faith we acknowledge to be perfect in Him as in our Head.Thence it is that He would not have His back parts seen, unless asHe passed by, that His resurrection may be believed. For that whichis Pascha in Hebrew, is translated Passover. [20] Whence John the Evangelist also says,“Before the feast of the Passover, when Jesus knew thatHis hour was come, that He should pass out of this world unto theFather.” [21]

30. But they who believethis, but believe it not in the Catholic Church, but in some schismor in heresy, do not see the back parts of the Lord from“the place that is by Him.” For what does thatmean which the Lord says, “Behold, there is a place byme, and thou shalt stand upon arock?” What earthly place is “by”the Lord, unless that is “by Him” whichtouches Him spiritually? For what place is not“by” the Lord, who “reacheth fromone end to another mightily, and sweetly doth order allthings,” [1] and of whom it is said,“Heaven is His throne, and earth is Hisfootstool;” and who said, “Where is the housethat ye build unto me, and where is the place of my rest? For hasnot my hand made all those things?” [2] But manifestly theCatholic Church itself is understood to be “the place byHim,” wherein one stands upon a rock, where hehealthfully sees the “Pascha Domini,” that is,the “Passing by” [3] ofthe Lord, and His back parts, that is, His body, who believes in Hisresurrection. “And thou shalt stand,” He says,“upon a rock while my glory passeth by.” Forin reality, immediately after the majesty of the Lord had passed byin the glorification of the Lord, in which He rose again andascended to the Father, we stood firm upon the rock. And Peterhimself then stood firm, so that he preached Him with confidence,whom, before he stood firm, he had thrice from fear denied; [4] although, indeed, already before placed inpredestination upon the watch-tower of the rock, but with the handof the Lord still held over him that he might not see. For he was tosee His back parts, and the Lord had not yet “passedby,” namely, from death to life; He had not yet beenglorified by the resurrection.

31. For as to that, too,which follows in Exodus, “I will cover thee with minehand while I pass by, and I will take away my hand and thou shaltsee my back parts;” many Israelites, of whom Moses wasthen a figure, believed in the Lord after His resurrection, as ifHis hand had been taken off from their eyes, and they now saw Hisback parts. And hence the evangelist also mentions that prophesy ofIsaiah, “Make the heart of this people fat, and maketheir ears heavy, and shut their eyes.” [5] Lastly, in the Psalm, that is notunreasonably understood to be said in their person, “Forday and night Thy hand was heavy upon me.” “Byday,” perhaps, when He performed manifest miracles, yetwas not acknowledged by them; but “by night,”when He died in suffering, when they thought still more certainlythat, like any one among men, He was cut off and brought to an end.But since, when He had already passed by, so that His back partswere seen, upon the preaching to them by the Apostle Peter that itbehoved Christ to suffer and rise again, they were pricked in theirhearts with the grief of repentance, [6] that that might cometo pass among the baptized which is said in the beginning of thatPsalm, “Blessed are they whose transgressions areforgiven, and whose sins are covered;” therefore, afterit had been said, “Thy hand is heavy upon me,”the Lord, as it were, passing by, so that now He removed His hand,and His back parts were seen, there follows the voice of one whogrieves and confesses and receives remission of sins by faith in theresurrection of the Lord: “My moisture,” hesays, “is turned into the drought of summer. Iacknowledged my sin unto Thee, and mine iniquity have I not hid. Isaid, I will confess my transgressions unto the Lord, and Thouforgavest the iniquity of my sin.” [7] For we ought not tobe so wrapped up in the darkness of the flesh, as to think the faceindeed of God to be invisible, but His back visible, since bothappeared visibly in the form of a servant; but far be it from us tothink anything of the kind in the form of God; far be it from us tothink that the Word of God and the Wisdom of God has a face on oneside, and on the other a back, as a human body has, or is at allchanged either in place or time by any appearance or motion. [8]

32. Wherefore, if in thosewords which were spoken in Exodus, and in all those corporealappearances, the Lord Jesus Christ was manifested; or if in somecases Christ was manifested, as the consideration of this passagepersuades us, in others the Holy Spirit, as that which we have saidabove admonishes us; at any rate no such result follows, as that Godthe Father never appeared in any such form to the Fathers. For manysuch appearances happened in those times, without either the Father,or the Son, or the Holy Spirit being expressly named and designatedin them; but yet with some intimations given through certain veryprobable interpretations, so that it would be too rash to say thatGod the Father never appeared by any visible forms to the fathers orthe prophets. For they gave birth to this opinion who were not ableto understand in respect to the unity of the Trinity such texts as,“Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the onlywise God;” [9] and, “Whom noman hath seen, nor cansee.” [1] Which texts areunderstood by a sound faith in that substance itself, the highest,and in the highest degree divine and unchangeable, whereby both theFather and the Son and the Holy Spirit is the one and only God. Butthose visions were wrought through the changeable creature, madesubject to the unchangeable God, and did not manifest God properlyas He is, but by intimations such as suited the causes and times ofthe several circumstances.

CHAP. 18.—: THE VISION OF DANIEL.

33. [2] I do not know in what manner thesemen understand that the Ancient of Days appeared to Daniel, fromwhom the Son of man, which He deigned to be for our sakes, isunderstood to have received the kingdom; namely, from Him who saysto Him in the Psalms, “Thou art my Son; this day have Ibegotten Thee; ask of me, and I shall give Thee the heathen forThine inheritance;” [3] and who has“put all things under His feet.” [4] If, however, both the Father giving the kingdom,and the Son receiving it, appeared to Daniel in bodily form, how canthose men say that the Father never appeared to the prophets, and,therefore, that He only ought to be understood to be invisible whomno man has seen, nor can see? For Daniel has told us thus:“I beheld,” he says, “till thethrones were set, [5] and theAncient of Days did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and thehair of His head like the pure wool: His throne was like the fieryflame, and His wheels as burning fire; a fiery stream issued andcame forth from before Him: thousand thousands ministered unto Him,and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before Him: the judgmentwas set, and the books were opened,” etc. And a littleafter, “I saw,” he says, “in thenight visions, and behold, one like the Son of man came with theclouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days, and they broughtHim near before Him. And there was given Him dominion, and glory,and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serveHim: His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not passaway, and His kingdom that which shall not bedestroyed.” [6] Behold the Fathergiving, and the Son receiving, an eternal kingdom; and both are inthe sight of him who prophesies, in a visible form. It is not,therefore, unsuitably believed that God the Father also was wont toappear in that manner to mortals.

34. Unless, perhaps, some oneshall say, that the Father is therefore not visible, because Heappeared within the sight of one who was dreaming; but thattherefore the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible, because Moses sawall those things being awake; as if, forsooth, Moses saw the Wordand the Wisdom of God with fleshly eyes, or that even the humanspirit which quickens that flesh can be seen, or even that corporealthing which is called wind;—how much less can that Spiritof God be seen, who transcends the minds of all men, and of angels,by the ineffable excellence of the divine substance? Or can any onefall headlong into such an error as to dare to say, that the Son andthe Holy Spirit are visible also to men who are awake, but that theFather is not visible except to those who dream? How, then, do theyunderstand that of the Father alone, “Whom no man hathseen, nor can see.”? When men sleep, are they then notmen? Or cannot He, who can fashion the likeness of a body to signifyHimself through the visions of dreamers, also fashion that samebodily creature to signify Himself to the eyes of those who areawake? Whereas His own very substance, whereby He Himself is thatwhich He is, cannot be shown by any bodily likeness to one whosleeps, or by any bodily appearance to one who is awake; but thisnot 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 wakingmen to believe that not the Father, but only the Son, or the HolySpirit, appeared to the corporeal sight of men,—to omitthe great extent of the sacred pages, and their manifoldinterpretation, such that no one of sound reason ought to affirmthat the person of the Father was nowhere shown to the eyes ofwaking men by any corporeal appearance;—but, as I said,to omit this, what do they say of our father Abraham, who wascertainly awake and ministering, when, after Scripture had premised,“The Lord appeared unto Abraham,” not one, ortwo, but three men appeared to him; no one of whom is said to havestood prominently above the others, no one more than the others tohave shone with greater glory, or to have acted moreauthoritatively? [7]

35. Wherefore, since in thatour threefold division we determined to inquire, [8] first, whether the Father, or the Son, or theHoly Spirit; or whether sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son,sometimes the Holy Spirit; or whether, without any distinction ofpersons, as it is said, the one and only God, that is, the Trinityitself, appeared to the fathers through those forms of the creature:now that we have examined, so far as appeared to be sufficient, whatplaces of the Holy Scriptures we could, a modest and cautiousconsideration of divine mysteries leads, as far as I can judge, tono other conclusion, unless that we may not rashly affirm whichperson of the Trinity appeared to this or that of the fathers or theprophets in some body or likeness of body, unless when the contextattaches to the narrative some probable intimations on the subject.For the nature itself, or substance, or essence, or by whateverother name that very thing, which is God, whatever it be, is to becalled, cannot be seen corporeally: but we must believe that bymeans of the creature made subject to Him, not only the Son, or theHoly Spirit, but also the Father, may have given intimations ofHimself to mortal senses by a corporeal form or likeness. And sincethe case stands thus, that this second book may not extend to animmoderate length, let us consider what remains in those whichfollow.

BOOK III.

THE QUESTION IS DISCUSSED WITH RESPECT TO THEAPPEARANCES OF GOD SPOKEN OF IN THE PREVIOUS BOOK, WHICH WEREMADE UNDER BODILY FORMS, WHETHER ONLY A CREATURE WAS FORMED, FORTHE PURPOSE OF MANIFESTING GOD TO HUMAN SIGHT IN SUCH WAY AS HEAT EACH TIME JUDGED FITTING; OR WHETHER ANGELS, ALREADYEXISTING, WERE SO SENT AS TO SPEAK IN THE PERSON OF GOD; ANDTHIS, EITHER BY ASSUMING A BODILY APPEARANCE FROM THE BODILYCREATURE, OR BY CHANGING THEIR OWN BODIES INTO WHATEVER FORMSTHEY WOULD, SUITABLE TO THE PARTICULAR ACTION, ACCORDING TO THEPOWER GIVEN TO THEM BY THE CREATOR; WHILE THE ESSENCE ITSELF OFGOD WAS NEVER SEEN IN ITSELF.

PREFACE.—: WHY AUGUSTIN WRITES OF THE TRINITY. WHAT HECLAIMS FROM READERS. WHAT HAS BEEN SAID IN THE PREVIOUS BOOK.

1. I WOULD have them believe, who are willing to doso, that I had rather bestow labor in reading, than in dictatingwhat others may read. But let those who will not believe this, butare both able and willing to make the trial, grant me whateveranswers may be gathered from reading, either to my own inquiries, orto those interrogations of others, which for the character I bear inthe service of Christ, and for the zeal with which I burn that ourfaith may be fortified against the error of carnal and naturalmen, [1] Imust needs bear with; and then let them see how easily I wouldrefrain from this labor, and with how much even of joy I would givemy pen a holiday. But if what we have read upon these subjects iseither not sufficiently set forth, or is not to be found at all, orat any rate cannot easily be found by us, in the Latin tongue, whilewe are not so familiar with the Greek tongue as to be found in anyway competent to read and understand therein the books that treat ofsuch topics, in which class of writings, to judge by the littlewhich has been translated for us, I do not doubt that everything iscontained that we can profitably seek; [2] while yet I cannot resist my brethren when they exact of me, by thatlaw by which I am made their servant, that I should minister aboveall to their praiseworthy studies in Christ by my tongue and by mypen, of which two yoked together in me, Love is the charioteer; andwhile I myself confess that I have by writing learned many thingswhich I did not know: if this be so, then this my labor ought not toseem superfluous to any idle, or to any very learned reader; whileit is needful in no small part, to many who are busy, and to manywho are unlearned, and among these last to myself. Supported, then,very greatly, and aided by the writings we have already read ofothers on this subject, I have undertaken to inquired into and todiscuss, whatever it seems to my judgment can be reverently inquiredinto and discussed, concerning the Trinity, the one supreme andsupremely good God; He himself exhorting me to the inquiry, andhelping me in the discussion of it; in order that, if there are noother writings of the kind, there may be something for those to haveand read who are willing and capable; butif any exist already, then it may be so much the easier to find somesuch writings, the more there are of the kind in existence.

2. Assuredly, as in all mywritings I desire not only a pious reader, but also a freecorrector, so I especially desire this in the present inquiry, whichis so important that I would there were as many inquirers as thereare objectors. But as I do not wish my reader to be bound down tome, so I do not wish my corrector to be bound down to himself. Letnot the former love me more than the catholic faith, let not thelatter love himself more than the catholic verity. As I say to theformer, Do not be willing to yield to my writings as to thecanonical Scriptures; but in these, when thou hast discovered evenwhat thou didst not previously believe, believe it unhesitatingly;while in those, unless thou hast understood with certainty what thoudidst not before hold as certain, be unwilling to hold it fast: so Isay to the latter, Do not be willing to amend my writings by thineown opinion or disputation, but from the divine text, or byunanswerable reason. If thou apprehendest anything of truth in them,its being there does not make it mine, but by understanding andloving it, let it be both thine and mine; but if thou convictestanything of falsehood, though it have once been mine, in that I wasguilty of the error, yet now by avoiding it let it be neither thinenor mine.

3. Let this third book, then,take its beginning at the point to which the second had reached. Forafter we had arrived at this, that we desired to show that the Sonwas not therefore less than the Father, because the Father sent andthe 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 andby the other; we undertook then to inquire, since the Son was sentthither, where He already was, for He came into the world, and“was in the world;” [1] since also the Holy Spiritwas sent thither, where He already was, for “the Spiritof the Lord filleth the world, and that which containeth all thingshath knowledge of the voice;” [2] whether the Lord wastherefore “sent” because He was born in theflesh so as to be no longer hidden, and, as it were, came forth fromthe bosom of the Father, and appeared to the eyes of men in the formof a servant; and the Holy Spirit also was therefore“sent,” because He too was seen as a dove in acorporeal form, [3] and in cloven tongues,like as of fire; [4] so that, to be sent, whenspoken of them, means to go forth to the sight of mortals in somecorporeal form from a spiritual hiding-place; which, because theFather did not, He is said only to have sent, not also to be sent.Our next inquiry was, Why the Father also is not sometimes said tobe sent, if He Himself was manifested through those corporeal formswhich appeared to the eyes of the ancients. But if the Son wasmanifested at these times, why should He be said to be“sent” so long after, when the fullness oftime was come that He should be born of a woman; [5] since, indeed, He was sentbefore also, viz., when He appeared corporeallyin those forms? Or if He were not rightly said to be“sent,” except when the Word was madeflesh; [6] why should the Holy Spirit be read of as“sent,” of whom such an incarnation never tookplace? But if neither the Father, nor the Son, but the Holy Spiritwas manifested through these ancient appearances; why should He toobe said to be “sent” now, when He was alsosent before in these various manners? Next we subdivided thesubject, that it might be handled most carefully, and we made thequestion threefold, of which one part was explained in the secondbook, and two remain, which I shall next proceed to discuss. For wehave already inquired and determined, that not only the Father, noronly the Son, nor only the Holy Spirit appeared in those ancientcorporeal forms and visions, but either indifferently the Lord God,who is understood to be the Trinity itself, or some one person ofthe Trinity, whichever the text of the narrative might signify,through intimations supplied by the context.

CHAP. 1.—: WHAT IS TO BE SAID THEREUPON.

4. Let us, then, continue ourinquiry now in order. For under the second head in that division thequestion occurred, whether the creature was formed for that workonly, wherein God, in such way as He then judged it to be fitting,might be manifested to human sight; or whether angels, who alreadyexisted, were so sent as to speak in the person of God, assuming acorporeal appearance from the corporeal creature for the purpose oftheir ministry; or else changing and turning their own body itself,to which they are not subject, but govern it as subject tothemselves, into whatever forms they would, that were appropriateand fit for their actions, according to the power given to them bythe Creator. And when this part of the question shall have beeninvestigated, so far as God permit, then, lastly, we shall have to see to that question with which westarted, viz., whether the Son and the HolySpirit were also “sent” before; and if it beso, then what difference there is between that sending and the oneof which we read in the Gospel; or whether neither of them weresent, except when either the Son was made of the Virgin Mary, orwhen the Holy Spirit appeared in a visible form, whether as a doveor in tongues of fire. [1]

5. I confess, however, thatit reaches further than my purpose can carry me to inquire whetherthe angels, secretly working by the spiritual quality of their bodyabiding still in them, assume somewhat from the inferior and morebodily elements, which, being fitted to themselves, they may changeand turn like a garment into any corporeal appearances they will,and those appearances themselves also real, as real water waschanged by our Lord into real wine; [2] or whether they transformtheir own bodies themselves into that which they would, suitably tothe particular act. But it does not signify to the present questionwhich of these it is. And although I be not able to understand thesethings by actual experience, seeing that I am a man, as the angelsdo who do these things, and know them better than I know them, viz., how far my body is changeable by theoperation of my will; whether it be by my own experience of myself,or by that which I have gathered from others; yet it is notnecessary here to say which of these alternatives I am to believeupon the authority of the divine Scriptures, lest I be compelled toprove it, and so my discourse become too long upon a subject whichdoes not concern the present question.

6. Our present inquiry thenis, whether the angels were then the agents both in showing thosebodily appearances to the eyes of men, and in sounding those wordsin their ears, when the sensible creature itself, serving theCreator at His beck, was turned for the time into whatever wasneedful; as it is written in the book of Wisdom, “For thecreature that serveth Thee, who art the Maker, increaseth hisstrength against the unrighteous for their punishment, and abatethhis strength for the benefit of such as put their trust in Thee.Therefore, even then was it altered into all fashions, and wasobedient to Thy grace, that nourisheth all things according to thedesire of them that longed for Thee.” [3] For the power ofthe will of God reaches through the spiritual creature even tovisible and sensible effects of the corporeal creature. For wheredoes not the wisdom of the omnipotent God work that which He wills,which “reacheth from one end to another mightily, andsweetly doth order all things”? [4]

CHAP. 2.—: THE WILL OF GOD IS THE HIGHER CAUSE OF ALLCORPOREAL CHANGE. THIS IS SHOWN BY AN EXAMPLE.

7. But there is one kind ofnatural order in the conversion and changeableness of bodies, which,although itself also serves the bidding of God, yet by reason of itsunbroken continuity has ceased to cause wonder; as is the case, forinstance, with those things which are changed either in very short,or at any rate not long, intervals of time, in heaven, or earth, orsea; whether it be in rising, or in setting, or in change ofappearance from time to time; while there are other things, which,although arising from that same order, yet are less familiar onaccount of longer intervals of time. And these things, although themany stupidly wonder at them, yet are understood by those whoinquire into this present world, and in the progress of generationsbecome so much the less wonderful, as they are the more oftenrepeated and known by more people. Such are the eclipses of the sunand moon, and some kinds of stars, appearing seldom, andearthquakes, and unnatural births of living creatures, and othersimilar things; of which not one takes place without the will ofGod; yet, that it is so, is to most people not apparent. And so thevanity of philosophers has found license to assign these things alsoto other causes, true causes perhaps, but proximate ones, while theyare 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 asare not even put forward out of any diligent investigation ofcorporeal things and motions, but from their own guess anderror.

8. I will bring forward anexample, if I can, that this may be plainer. There is, we know, inthe human body, a certain bulk of flesh and an outward form, and anarrangement and distinction of limbs, and a temperament of health;and a soul breathed into it governs this body, and that soul arational one; which, therefore, although changeable, yet can bepartaker of that unchangeable wisdom, so that “it maypartake of that which is in and of itself;” [5] as it is written in the Psalm concerning allsaints, of whom as of living stones is built that Jerusalem which isthe mother of us all, eternal in the heavens. For so it is sung,“Jerusalem is builded as a city, that is partaker of thatwhich is in and of itself.” [1] For “inand of itself,” in that place, is understood of thatchiefest and unchangeable good, which is God, and of His own wisdomand will. To whom is sung in another place, “Thou shaltchange them, and they shall be changed; but Thou art thesame.” [2]

CHAP. 3.—: OF THE SAME ARGUMENT.

Let us take, then, the case of a wise man, such that his rationalsoul is already partaker of the unchangeable and eternal truth, sothat 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 bybeing subject to it and obeying it he may do rightly. Suppose nowthat this man, upon counsel with the highest reason of the divinerighteousness, which he hears with the ear of his heart in secret,and by its bidding, should weary his body by toil in some office ofmercy, and should contract an illness; and upon consulting thephysicians, were to be told by one that the cause of the disease wasovermuch dryness of the body, but by another that it was overmuchmoisture; one of the two no doubt would allege the true cause andthe other would err, but both would pronounce concerning proximatecauses only, that is, corporeal ones. But if the cause of thatdryness were to be inquired into, and found to be the self-imposedtoil, then we should have come to a yet higher cause, which proceedsfrom the soul so as to affect the body which the soul governs. Yetneither would this be the first cause, for that doubtless was ahigher cause still, and lay in the unchangeable wisdom itself, byserving which in love, and by obeying its ineffable commands, thesoul of the wise man had undertaken that self-imposed toil; and sonothing else but the will of God would be found most truly to be thefirst cause of that illness. But suppose now in that office of pioustoil this wise man had employed the help of others to co-operate inthe 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 workrequired such a provision, which beasts of burden would be certainlyirrational animals, and would not therefore move their limbs undertheir burdens because they at all thought of that good work, butfrom the natural appetite of their own liking, and for the avoidingof annoyance;—suppose, lastly, he had employed bodilythings themselves that lack all sense, but were necessary for thatwork, as e.g. corn, and wine, and oils,clothes, or money, or a book, or anything of thekind;—certainly, in all these bodily things thus employedin this work, whether animate or inanimate, whatever took place ofmovement, of wear and tear, of reparation, of destruction, ofrenewal or of change in one way or another, as places and timesaffected them; pray, could there be, I say, any other cause of allthese visible and changeable facts, except the invisible andunchangeable will of God, using all these, both bad and irrationalsouls, and lastly bodies, whether such as were inspired and animatedby those souls, or such as lacked all sense, by means of thatupright soul as the seat of His wisdom, since primarily that goodand holy soul itself employed them, which His wisdom had subjectedto itself in a pious and religious obedience?

CHAP. 4.—: GOD USES ALL CREATURES AS HE WILL, AND MAKESVISIBLE THINGS FOR THE MANIFESTATION OF HIMSELF.

9. What, then, we havealleged by way of example of a single wise man, although of onestill bearing a mortal body and still seeing only in part, may beallowably extended also to a family, where there is a society ofsuch men, or to a city, or even to the whole world, if the chiefrule and government of human affairs were in the hands of the wise,and of those who were piously and perfectly subject to God; butbecause this is not the case as yet (for it behoves us first to beexercised in this our pilgrimage after mortal fashion, and to betaught with stripes by force of gentleness and patience), let usturn 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 aflaming fire,” [3] presiding among spiritswhich are joined in perfect peace and friendship, and combined inone will by a kind of spiritual fire of charity, as it were in anelevated and holy and secret seat, as in its own house and in itsown temple, thence diffuses itself through all things by certainmost perfectly ordered movements of thecreature; first spiritual, then corporeal; and uses all according tothe unchangeable pleasure of its own purpose, whether incorporealthings or things corporeal, whether rational or irrational spirits,whether good by His grace or evil through their own will. But as themore gross and inferior bodies are governed in due order by the moresubtle and powerful ones, so all bodies are governed by the livingspirit; and the living spirit devoid of reason, by the reasonableliving spirit; and the reasonable living spirit that makes defaultand sins, by the living and reasonable spirit that is pious andjust; and that by God Himself, and so the universal creature by itsCreator, from whom and through whom and in whom it is also createdand established. [1] And so it comes to passthat the will of God is the first and the highest cause of allcorporeal appearances and motions. For nothing is done visibly orsensibly, unless either by command or permission from the interiorpalace, invisible and intelligible, of the supreme Governor,according to the unspeakable justice of rewards and punishments, offavor and retribution, in that far-reaching and boundlesscommonwealth of the whole creature.

10. If, therefore, theApostle Paul, although he still bare the burden of the body, whichis subject to corruption and presseth down the soul, [2] and although he still saw only in part and in anenigma, [3] wishing to depart and be with Christ, [4] and groaning within himself, waiting for theadoption, to wit, the redemption of his body, [5] yet was able to preachthe Lord Jesus Christ significantly, in one way by his tongue, inanother by epistle, in another by the sacrament of His body andblood (since, certainly, we do not call either the tongue of theapostle, or the parchments, or the ink, or the significant soundswhich his tongue uttered, or the alphabetical signs written onskins, the body and blood of Christ; but that only which we take ofthe fruits of the earth and consecrate by mystic prayer, and thenreceive duly to our spiritual health in memory of the passion of ourLord for us: and this, although it is brought by the hands of men tothat visible form, yet is not sanctified to become so great asacrament, except by the spirit of God working invisibly; since Godworks everything that is done in that work through corporealmovements, by setting in motion primarily the invisible things ofHis servants, whether the souls of men, or the services of hiddenspirits subject to Himself): what wonder if also in the creature ofheaven and earth, of sea and air, God works the sensible and visiblethings which He wills, in order to signify and manifest Himself inthem, as He Himself knows it to be fitting, without any appearing ofHis very substance itself, whereby He is, which is altogetherunchangeable, and more inwardly and secretly exalted than allspirits whom He has created?

CHAP. 5.—: WHY MIRACLES ARE NOT USUAL WORKS.

11. For since the divinepower administers the whole spiritual and corporeal creature, thewaters of the sea are summoned and poured out upon the face of theearth on certain days of every year. But when this was done at theprayer of the holy Elijah; because so continued and long a course offair weather had gone before, that men were famished; and because atthat very hour, in which the servant of God prayed, the air itselfhad not, by any moist aspect, put forth signs of the coming rain;the divine power was apparent in the great and rapid showers thatfollowed, and by which that miracle was granted and dispensed. [6] In like manner, God works ordinarily throughthunders and lightnings: but because these were wrought in anunusual manner on Mount Sinai, and those sounds were not utteredwith a confused noise, but so that it appeared by most sure proofsthat certain intimations were given by them, they were miracles. [7] Who draws up the sap through the root of the vine to the bunch ofgrapes, and makes the wine, except God; who, while man plants andwaters, Himself giveth the increase? [8] But when, at thecommand of the Lord, the water was turned into wine with anextraordinary quickness, the divine power was made manifest, by theconfession even of the foolish. [9] Who ordinarily clothes thetrees with leaves and flowers except God? Yet, when the rod of Aaronthe priest blossomed, the Godhead in some way conversed withdoubting humanity. [10] Again, the earthy mattercertainly serves in common to the production and formation both ofall kinds of wood and of the flesh of all animals: and who makesthese things, but He who said, Let the earth bring them forth; [11] and who governs and guides by the same word ofHis, those things which He has created? Yet, when He changed thesame matter out of the rod of Moses into the flesh of a serpent,immediately and quickly, that change,which was unusual, although of a thing which was changeable, was amiracle. [1] But who is it that gives life to every livingthing at its birth, unless He who gave life to that serpent also forthe moment, as there was need. [2]

CHAP. 6.—: DIVERSITY ALONE MAKES A MIRACLE.

And who is it that restored to the corpses their proper souls whenthe dead rose again, [3] unless He whogives life to the flesh in the mother’s womb, in orderthat they may come into being who yet are to die? But when suchthings happen in a continuous kind of river of ever-flowingsuccession, passing from the hidden to the visible, and from thevisible to the hidden, by a regular and beaten track, then they arecalled natural; when, for the admonition of men, they are thrust inby an unusual changeableness, then they are called miracles.

CHAP. 7.—: GREAT MIRACLES WROUGHT BY MAGIC ARTS.

12. I see here what may occurto a weak judgment, namely, why such miracles are wrought also bymagic arts; for the wise men of Pharaoh likewise made serpents, anddid other like things. Yet it is still more a matter of wonder, howit was that the power of those magicians, which was able to makeserpents, when it came to very small flies, failed altogether. Forthe lice, by which third plague the proud people of Egypt weresmitten, are very short-lived little flies; yet there certainly themagicians failed, saying, “This is the finger ofGod.” [4] And hence it isgiven us to understand that not even those angels and powers of theair that transgressed, who have been thrust down into that lowestdarkness, as into a peculiar prison, from their habitation in thatlofty ethereal purity, through whom magic arts have whatever powerthey have, can do anything except by power given from above. Nowthat power is given either to deceive the deceitful, as it was givenagainst the Egyptians, and against the magicians also themselves, inorder that in the seducing of those spirits they might seemadmirable by whom they were wrought, but to be condemned by thetruth of God; or for the admonishing of the faithful, lest theyshould desire to do anything of the kind as though it were a greatthing, for which reason they have been handed down to us also by theauthority of Scripture; or lastly, for the exercising, proving, andmanifesting of the patience of the righteous. For it was not by anysmall power of visible miracles that Job lost all that he had, andboth his children and his bodily health itself. [5]

CHAP. 8.—: GOD ALONE CREATES THOSE THINGS WHICH ARECHANGED BY MAGIC ART.

13. Yet it is not on thisaccount to be thought that the matter of visible things issubservient to the bidding of those wicked angels; but rather tothat of God, by whom this power is given, just so far as He, who isunchangeable, determines in His lofty and spiritual abode to giveit. For water and fire and earth are subservient even to wicked men,who are condemned to the mines, in order that they may do therewithwhat they will, but only so far as is permitted. Nor, in truth, arethose evil angels to be called creators, because by their means themagicians, withstanding the servant of God, made frogs and serpents;for it was not they who created them. But, in truth, some hiddenseeds of all things that are born corporeally and visibly, areconcealed in the corporeal elements of this world. For those seedsthat are visible now to our eyes from fruits and living things, arequite distinct from the hidden seeds of those former seeds; fromwhich, at the bidding of the Creator, the water produced the firstswimming creatures and fowl, and the earth the first buds aftertheir kind, and the first living creatures after their kind. [6] For neither at that time were those seeds sodrawn forth into products of their several kinds, as that the powerof production was exhausted in those products; but oftentimes,suitable combinations of circumstances are wanting, whereby they maybe enabled to burst forth and complete their species. For, consider,the very least shoot is a seed; for, if fitly consigned to theearth, it produces a tree. But of this shoot there is a yet moresubtle seed in some grain of the same species, and this is visibleeven to us. But of this grain also there is further still a seed,which, although we are unable to see it with our eyes, yet we canconjecture its existence from our reason; because, except there weresome such power in those elements, there would not so frequently beproduced from the earth things which had not been sown there; noryet so many animals, without anyprevious commixture of male and female; whether on the land, or inthe water, which yet grow, and by commingling bring forth others,while themselves sprang up without any union of parents. Andcertainly bees do not conceive the seeds of their young bycommixture, but gather them as they lie scattered over the earthwith their mouth. [1] For theCreator of these invisible seeds is the Creator of all thingsHimself; since whatever comes forth to our sight by being born,receives the first beginnings of its course from hidden seeds, andtakes the successive increments of its proper size and itsdistinctive forms from these as it were original rules. As thereforewe do not call parents the creators of men, nor farmers the creatorsof corn,—although it is by the outward application oftheir actions that the power [2] of God operates within for the creating these things;—soit is not right to think not only the bad but even the good angelsto be creators, if, through the subtilty of their perception andbody, they know the seeds of things which to us are more hidden, andscatter them secretly through fit temperings of the elements, and sofurnish opportunities of producing things, and of accelerating theirincrease. But neither do the good angels do these things, except asfar as God commands, nor do the evil ones do them wrongfully, exceptas far as He righteously permits. For the malignity of the wickedone makes his own will wrongful; but the power to do so, he receivesrightfully, whether for his own punishment, or, in the case ofothers, for the punishment of the wicked, or for the praise of thegood.

14. Accordingly, the ApostlePaul, 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, “Iplanted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.” [3] As, therefore, in the case of spiritual lifeitself, no one except God can work righteousness in our minds, yetmen also are able to preach the gospel as an outward means, not onlythe good in sincerity, but also the evil in pretence; [4] so in the creation of visible things it is Godthat works from within; but the exterior operations, whether of goodor bad, of angels or men, or even of any kind of animal, accordingto His own absolute power, and to the distribution of faculties, andthe several appetites for things pleasant, which He Himself hasimparted, are applied by Him to that nature of things wherein Hecreates all things, in like manner as agriculture is to the soil.Wherefore I can no more call the bad angels, evoked by magic arts,the creators of the frogs and serpents, than I can say that bad menwere creators of the corn crop, which I see to have sprung upthrough their labor.

15. Just as Jacob, again, wasnot the creator of the colors in the flocks, because he placed thevarious colored rods for the several mothers, as they drank, to lookat in conceiving. [5] Yet neither were thecattle themselves creators of the variety of their own offspring,because the variegated image, impressed through their eyes by thesight of the varied rods, clave to their soul, but could affect thebody that was animated by the spirit thus affected only throughsympathy with this commingling, so far as to stain with color thetender beginnings of their offspring. For that they are so affectedfrom themselves, whether the soul from the body, or the body fromthe soul, arises in truth from suitable reasons, which immutablyexist in that highest wisdom of God Himself, which no extent ofplace contains; and which, while it is itself unchangeable, yetquits not one even of those things which are changeable, becausethere is not one of them that is not created by itself. For it wasthe unchangeable and invisible reason of the wisdom of God, by whichall things are created, which caused not rods, but cattle, to beborn from cattle; but that the color of the cattle conceived shouldbe in any degree influenced by the variety of the rods, came to passthrough the soul of the pregnant cattle being affected through theireyes from without, and so according to its own measure drawinginwardly within itself the rule of formation, which it received fromthe innermost power of its own Creator. How great, however, may bethe power of the soul in affecting and changing corporeal substance(although certainly it cannot be called the creator of the body,because every cause of changeable and sensible substance, and allits measure and number and weight, bywhich are brought to pass both its being at all and its being ofsuch and such a nature, arise from the intelligible and unchangeablelife, which is above all things, and which reaches even to the mostdistant and earthly things), is a very copious subject, and one notnow necessary. But I thought the act of Jacob about the cattleshould be noticed, for this reason, viz. inorder that it might be perceived that, if the man who thus placedthose rods cannot be called the creator of the colors in the lambsand kids; nor yet even the souls themselves of the mothers, whichcolored the seeds conceived in the flesh by the image of variegatedcolor, conceived through the eyes of the body, so far as naturepermitted it; much less can it be said that the creators of thefrogs and serpents were the bad angels, through whom the magiciansof Pharaoh then made them.

CHAP. 9.—: THE ORIGINAL CAUSE OF ALL THINGS IS FROMGOD.

16. For it is one thing tomake and administer the creature from the innermost and highestturning-point of causation, which He alone does who is God theCreator; but quite another thing to apply some operation fromwithout in proportion to the strength and faculties assigned to eachby Him, so that what is created may come forth into being at thistime or at that, and in this or that way. For all these things inthe way of original and beginning have already been created in akind of texture of the elements, but they come forth when they getthe opportunity. [1] Foras mothers are pregnant with young, so the world itself is pregnantwith the causes of things that are born; which are not created init, except from that highest essence, where nothing either springsup or dies, either begins to be or ceases. But the applying fromwithout of adventitious causes, which, although they are notnatural, yet are to be applied according to nature, in order thatthose things which are contained and hidden in the secret bosom ofnature may break forth and be outwardly created in some way by theunfolding of the proper measures and numbers and weights which theyhave received in secret from Him “who has ordered allthings in measure and number and weight:” [2] this is not only in the power of bad angels, butalso of bad men, as I have shown above by the example ofagriculture.

17. But lest the somewhatdifferent condition of animals should trouble any one, in that theyhave the breath of life with the sense of desiring those things thatare according to nature, and of avoiding those things that arecontrary to it; we must consider also, how many men there are whoknow from what herbs or flesh, or from what juices or liquids youplease, of whatever sort, whether so placed or so buried, or sobruised or so mixed, this or that animal is commonly born; yet whocan be so foolish as to dare to call himself the creator of theseanimals? Is it, therefore, to be wondered at, if just as any, themost worthless of men, can know whence such or such worms and fliesare produced; so the evil angels in proportion to the subtlety oftheir perceptions discern in the more hidden seeds of the elementswhence frogs and serpents are produced, and so through certain andknown opportune combinations applying these seeds by secretmovements, cause them to be created, but do not create them? Onlymen do not marvel at those things that are usually done by men. Butif any one chance to wonder at the quickness of those growths, inthat those living beings were so quickly made, let him consider howeven this may be brought about by men in proportion to the measureof human capability. For whence is it that the same bodies generateworms more quickly in summer than in winter, or in hotter than incolder places? Only these things are applied by men with so much themore difficulty, in proportion as their earthly and sluggish membersare wanting in subtlety of perception, and in rapidity of bodilymotion. 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 proximatecauses from the elements, so much the more marvellous is theirrapidity in works of this kind.

18. But He only is thecreator who is the chief former of these things. Neither can any onebe this, unless He with whom primarily rests the measure, number,and weight of all things existing; and He is God the one Creator, bywhose unspeakable power it comes to pass, also, that what theseangels were able to do if they were permitted, they are thereforenot able to do because they are not permitted. For there is no otherreason why they who made frogs and serpents were not able to makethe most minute flies, unless because thegreater power of God was present prohibiting them, through the HolySpirit; which even the magicians themselves confessed, saying,“This is the finger of God.” [1] But what they are able to do bynature, yet cannot do, because they are prohibited; and what thevery condition of their nature itself does not suffer them to do; itis difficult, nay, impossible, for man to search out, unless throughthat gift of God which the apostle mentions when he says,“To another the discerning of spirits.” [2] For we know that a man can walk, yet that hecannot do so if he is not permitted; but that he cannot fly, even ifhe be permitted. So those angels, also, are able to do certainthings if they are permitted by more powerful angels, according tothe supreme commandment of God; but cannot do certain other things,not even if they are permitted by them; because He does not permitfrom whom they have received such and such a measure of naturalpowers: who, even by His angels, does not usually permit what He hasgiven them power to be able to do.

19. Excepting, therefore,those corporeal things which are done in the order of nature in aperfectly usual series of times, as e.g., therising and setting of the stars, the generations and deaths ofanimals, the innumerable diversities of seeds and buds, the vaporsand the clouds, the snow and the rain, the lightnings and thethunder, the thunderbolts and the hail, the winds and the fire, coldand heat, and all like things; excepting also those which in thesame order of nature occur rarely, such as eclipses, unusualappearances of stars, and monsters, and earthquakes, and suchlike;—all these, I say, are to be excepted, of whichindeed the first and chief cause is only the will of God; whencealso 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 chanceor 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.” [3]

CHAP. 10.—: IN HOW MANY WAYS THE CREATURE IS TO BE TAKENBY WAY OF SIGN. THE EUCHARIST.

Excepting, therefore, all these things as I just now said, there aresome also of another kind; which, although from the same corporealsubstance, are yet brought within reach of our senses in order toannounce something from God, and these are properly called miraclesand signs; yet is not the person of God Himself assumed in allthings 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 properbeing, although it is ordered and ministered by an angel. Again,when it is assumed in that form which is not an angel in his ownproper being; sometimes in this case it is a body itself alreadyexisting, assumed after some kind of change, in order to make thatmessage manifest; sometimes it is one that comes into being for thepurpose, and that being accomplished, is discarded. Just as, also,when men are the messengers, sometimes they speak the words of Godin their own person, as when it is premised, “The Lordsaid,” or, “Thus saith theLord,” [4] or any other suchphrase, but sometimes without any such prefix, they take uponthemselves the very person of God, as e.g.: “I will instruct thee, and teach thee in the way whereinthou shalt go:” [5] so, not only in word,but also in act, the signifying of the person of God is imposed uponthe prophet, in order that he may bear that person in theministering of the prophecy; just as he, for instance, bore thatperson who divided his garment into twelve parts, and gave ten ofthem to the servant of King Solomon, to the future king ofIsrael. [6] Sometimes, also, a thing which was not aprophet in his own proper self, and which existed already amongearthly things, was assumed in order to signify this; as Jacob, whenhe had seen the dream, upon waking up did with the stone, which whenasleep he had under his head. [7] Sometimes a thing ismade in the same kind, for the mere purpose; so as either tocontinue a little while in existence, as that brazen serpent wasable to do which was lifted up in the wilderness, [8] and as written records are able to do likewise; orso as to pass away after having accomplished its ministry, as thebread made for the purpose is consumed in the receiving of thesacrament.

20. But because these thingsare known to men, in that they are done by men, they may well meetwith reverence as being holy things, but they cannot cause wonder asbeing miracles. And therefore those things which are done by angelsare the more wonderful to us, in that they are more difficult andmore unknown; but they are known and easy to them as being their ownactions. An angel speaks in the person of God to man, saying,“I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob;” theScripture having said just before, “The angel of the Lordappeared to him.” [1] And a man also speaksin the person of God, saying, “Hear, O my people, and Iwill testify unto thee, O Israel: I am the Lord thyGod.” [2] A rod was taken toserve as a sign, and was changed into a serpent by angelicalpower; [3] but although that power is wanting to man,yet a stone was taken also by man for a similar sign. [4] There is a wide difference between the deed ofthe angel and the deed of the man. The former is both to be wonderedat and to be understood, the latter only to be understood. Thatwhich is understood from both, is perhaps one and the same; butthose things from which it is understood, are different. Just as ifthe name of God were written both in gold and in ink; the formerwould be the more precious, the latter the more worthless; yet thatwhich is signified in both is one and the same. And although theserpent that came from Moses’ rod signified the samething as Jacob’s stone, yet Jacob’s stonesignified something better than did the serpents of the magicians.For as the anointing of the stone signified Christ in the flesh, inwhich He was anointed with the oil of gladness above Hisfellows; [5] so the rod of Moses, turned into a serpent,signified Christ Himself made obedient unto death, even the death ofthe cross. [6] Whence it is said, “And as Moseslifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of manbe lifted up, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, buthave everlasting life;” [7] just as by gazing onthat serpent which was lifted up in the wilderness, they did notperish by the bites of the serpents. For “our old man iscrucified with Him, that the body of sin might bedestroyed.” [8] For by the serpent deathis understood, which was wrought by the serpent in paradise, [9] the mode of speech expressing the effect by the efficient. Thereforethe rod passed into the serpent, Christ into death; and the serpentagain into the rod, whole Christ with His body into theresurrection; which body is the Church; [10] and this shall be in theend of time, signified by the tail, which Moses held, in order thatit might return into a rod. [11] But the serpents of themagicians, like those who are dead in the world, unless by believingin Christ they shall have been as it were swallowed up by, [12] and have entered into, His body, will not be ableto rise again in Him. Jacob’s stone, therefore, as Isaid, signified something better than did the serpents of themagicians; yet the deed of the magicians was much more wonderful.But these things in this way are no hindrance to the understandingof the matter; just as if the name of a man were written in gold,and that of God in ink.

21. What man, again, knowshow the angels made or took those clouds and fires in order tosignify the message they were bearing, even if we supposed that theLord or the Holy Spirit was manifested in those corporeal forms?Just as infants do not know of that which is placed upon the altarand consumed after the performance of the holy celebration, whenceor in what manner it is made, or whence it is taken for religioususe. And if they were never to learn from their own experience orthat of others, and never to see that species of thing except duringthe celebration of the sacrament, when it is being offered andgiven; and if it were told them by the most weighty authority whosebody and blood it is; they will believe nothing else, except thatthe Lord absolutely appeared in this form to the eyes of mortals,and that that liquid actually flowed from the piercing of aside, [13] which resembled this. But it is certainly auseful caution to myself, that I should remember what my own powersare, and admonish my brethren that they also remember what theirsare, lest human infirmity pass on beyond what is safe. For how theangels do these things, or rather, how God does these things by Hisangels, and how far He wills them to be done even by the bad angels,whether by permitting, or commanding, or compelling, from the hiddenseat of His own supreme power; this I can neither penetrate by thesight of the eyes, nor make clear by assurance of reason, nor becarried on to comprehend it by reach of intellect, so as to speakthereupon to all questions that may be asked respecting thesematters, as certainly as if I were an angel, or a prophet, or anapostle. “For the thoughts of mortal men are miserable,and our devices are but uncertain. For the corruptible body pressethdown the soul, and the earthly tabernacle weigheth down the mind,that museth upon many things. And hardly do we guess aright atthings that are upon earth, and with labor do we find the thingsthat are before us; but the things that are in heaven, who hathsearched out?” But because it goes on to say,“And Thy counsel who hath known, except Thou give wisdom,and send Thy Holy Spirit from above;” [14] therefore we refrainindeed from searching out the things which are in heaven, underwhich kind are contained both angelical bodies according to theirproper dignity, and any corporeal actionof those bodies; yet, according to the Spirit of God sent to us fromabove, and to His grace imparted to our minds, I dare to sayconfidently, that neither God the Father, nor His Word, nor HisSpirit, which is the one God, is in any way changeable in regard tothat which He is, and whereby He is that which He is; and much lessis in this regard visible. Since there are no doubt some thingschangeable, yet not visible, as are our thoughts, and memories, andwills, and the whole incorporeal creature; but there is nothing thatis visible that is not also changeable.

CHAP. 11.—: THE ESSENCE OF GOD NEVER APPEARED IN ITSELF.DIVINE APPEARANCES TO THE FATHERS WROUGHT BY THE MINISTRY OF ANGELS. ANOBJECTION DRAWN FROM THE MODE OF SPEECH REMOVED. THAT THE APPEARING OFGOD 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. WHATHAS BEEN SAID IN THIS BOOK, AND WHAT REMAINS TO BE SAID IN THENEXT.

Wherefore the substance, or, if it is better so to say, the essenceof God, [1] wherein we understand, in proportion to our measure, in howeversmall a degree, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, since itis in no way changeable, can in no way in its proper self bevisible.

22. It is manifest,accordingly, that all those appearances to the fathers, when God waspresented to them according to His own dispensation, suitable to thetimes, were wrought through the creature. And if we cannot discernin what manner He wrought them by ministry of angels, yet we saythat they were wrought by angels; but not from our own power ofdiscernment, lest we should seem to any one to be wise beyond ourmeasure, whereas we are wise so as to think soberly, as God hathdealt to us the measure of faith; [2] and we believe, andtherefore speak. [3] For the authority isextant of the divine Scriptures, from which our reason ought not toturn aside; nor by leaving the solid support of the divineutterance, to fall headlong over the precipice of its ownsurmisings, in matters wherein neither the perceptions of the bodyrule, nor the clear reason of the truth shines forth. Now,certainly, it is written most clearly in the Epistle to the Hebrews,when the dispensation of the New Testament was to be distinguishedfrom the dispensation of the Old, according to the fitness of agesand of times, that not only those visible things, but also the worditself, was wrought by angels. For it is said thus: “Butto which of the angels said He at any time, Sit on my right hand,until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not allministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall beheirs of salvation?” [4] Whence it appears thatall those things were not only wrought by angels, but wrought alsoon our account, that is, on account of the people of God, to whom ispromised the inheritance of eternal life. As it is written also tothe Corinthians, “Now all these things happened unto themin a figure: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom theends of the world arecome.” [5] And then, demonstratingby plain consequence that as at that time the word was spoken by theangels, so now by the Son; “Therefore,” hesays, “we ought to give the more earnest heed to thethings which we have heard, lest at any time we should let themslip. For if the word spoken by angels was steadfast, and everytransgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward;how shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation?”And then, as though you asked, What salvation?—in orderto show that he is now speaking of the New Testament, that is, ofthe word which was spoken not by angels, but by the Lord, he says,“Which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, andwas confirmed unto us by them that heard Him; God also bearing themwitness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, andgifts of the Holy Ghost, according to His own will.” [6]

23. But some one may say, Whythen is it written, “The Lord said to Moses;”and not, rather, The angel said to Moses? Because, when the crierproclaims the words of the judge, it is not usually written in therecord, so and so the crier said, but so and so the judge. In likemanner also, when the holy prophet speaks, although we say, Theprophet said, we mean nothing else to be understood than that theLord said; and if we were to say, The Lord said, we should not putthe prophet aside, but only intimate who spake by him. And, indeed,these Scriptures often reveal the angel to be the Lord, of whosespeaking it is from time to time said, “the Lordsaid,” as we have shown already. But on account of thosewho, since the Scripture in that place specifies an angel, will havethe Son of God Himself and in Himself tobe understood, because He is called an angel by the prophet, asannouncing the will of His Father and of Himself; I have thereforethought fit to produce a plainer testimony from this epistle, whereit is not said by an angel, but “byangels.”

24. For Stephen, too, in theActs of the Apostles, relates these things in that manner in whichthey are also written in the Old Testament: “Men,brethren, and fathers, hearken,” he says; “TheGod of glory appeared unto our father Abraham, when he was inMesopotamia.” [1] But lest any one shouldthink that the God of glory appeared then to the eyes of any mortalin that which He is in Himself, he goes on to say that an angelappeared to Moses. “Then fled Moses,” he says,“at that saying, and was a stranger in the land ofMidian, where he begat two sons. And when forty years were expired,there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sinai an angel ofthe Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. When Moses saw it, hewondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voiceof the Lord came unto him, saying, I am the God of thy fathers, theGod of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. ThenMoses trembled, and durst not behold. Then said the Lord to him, Putoff thy shoes from thy feet,” [2] etc. Here, certainly, he speaks both of angeland of Lord; and of the same as the God of Abraham, and the God ofIsaac, and the God of Jacob; as is written in Genesis.

25. Can there be any one whowill say that the Lord appeared to Moses by an angel, but to Abrahamby Himself? Let us not answer this question from Stephen, but fromthe book itself, whence Stephen took his narrative. For, pray,because it is written, “And the Lord God said untoAbraham;” [3] and a little after,“And the Lord God appeared unto Abraham;” [4] were these things, for this reason, not done byangels? Whereas it is said in like manner in another place,“And the Lord appeared to him in the plains of Mamre, ashe sat in the tent door in the heat of the day;” and yetit is added immediately, “And he lift up his eyes andlooked, and, lo, three men stood by him:” [5] of whom we have already spoken. For how will thesepeople, who either will not rise from the words to the meaning, oreasily throw themselves down from the meaning to thewords,—how, I say, will they be able to explain that Godwas seen in three men, except they confess that they were angels, asthat which follows also shows? Because it is not said an angel spokeor appeared to him, will they therefore venture to say that thevision and voice granted to Moses was wrought by an angel because itis so written, but that God appeared and spake in His own substanceto Abraham because there is no mention made of an angel? What of thefact, that even in respect to Abraham an angel is not leftunmentioned? For when his son was ordered to be offered up as asacrifice, we read thus: “And it came to pass after thesethings that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him, Abraham: andhe said, Behold, here I am. And He said, Take now thy son, thineonly son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land ofMoriah; and offer him there for a burnt-offering upon one of themountains that I will tell thee of.” Certainly God ishere mentioned, not an angel. But a little afterwards Scripture hathit thus: “And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and tookthe knife to slay his son. And the angel of the Lord called unto himout of heaven, and said, Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thouanything unto him.” What can be answered to this? Willthey say that God commanded that Isaac should be slain, and that anangel forbade it? and further, that the father himself, inopposition to the decree of God, who had commanded that he should beslain, obeyed the angel, who had bidden him spare him? Such aninterpretation is to be rejected as absurd. Yet not even for it,gross and abject as it is, does Scripture leave any room, for itimmediately adds: “For now I know that thou fearest God,seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, on account ofme.” [6] What is “on account of me,” except on accountof Him who had commanded him to be slain? Was then the God ofAbraham the same as the angel, or was it not rather God by an angel?Consider what follows. Here, certainly, already an angel has beenmost clearly spoken of; yet notice the context: “AndAbraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ramcaught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram,and offered him up for a burnt-offering in the stead of his son. AndAbraham called the name of that place, The Lord saw: [7] as it is said to thisday, In the mount the Lord was seen.” [8] Just as thatwhich a little before God said by an angel, “For now Iknow that thou fearest God;” not because it was to beunderstood that God then came to know, but that He brought it topass that through God Abraham himself came to know what strength ofheart he had to obey God, even to the sacrificing of his only son:after that mode of speech in which the effect is signified by theefficient,—as cold is said to be sluggish, because itmakes men sluggish; so that He was therefore said to know, becauseHe had made Abraham himself to know, who might well have notdiscerned the firmness of his own faith, had it not been proved bysuch a trial. So here, too, Abraham called the name of the place“The Lord saw,” that is, caused Himself to beseen. For he goes on immediately to say, “As it is saidto this day, In the mount the Lord was seen.” Here yousee the same angel is called Lord: wherefore, unless because theLord spake by the angel? But if we pass on to that which follows,the angel altogether speaks as a prophet, and reveals expressly thatGod is speaking by the angel. “And the angel of theLord,” he says, “called unto Abraham out ofheaven the second time, and said, By myself I have sworn, saith theLord; for because thou hast done this thing, and hast not withheldthy son, thine only son, on account of me,” [1] etc. Certainly these words, viz. that he bywhom the Lord speaks should say, “Thus saith theLord,” are commonly used by the prophets also. Does theSon of God say of the Father, “The Lordsaith,” while He Himself is that Angel of the Father?What then? Do they not see how hard pressed they are about thesethree men who appeared to Abraham, when it had been said before,“The Lord appeared to him?” Were they notangels because they are called men? Let them read Daniel, saying,“Behold the man Gabriel.” [2]

26. But why do we delay anylonger to stop their mouths by another most clear and most weightyproof, where not an angel in the singular nor men in the plural arespoken of, but simply angels; by whom not any particular word waswrought, but the Law itself is most distinctly declared to be given;which certainly none of the faithful doubts that God gave to Mosesfor the control of the children of Israel, or yet, that it was givenby angels. So Stephen speaks: “Yestiff-necked,” he says, “and uncircumcised inheart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathersdid, so do ye. Which of the prophets have not your fatherspersecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of thecoming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers andmurderers: who have received the Law by the disposition ofangels, [3] andhave not kept it.” [4] What is more evidentthan this? What more strong than such an authority? The Law, indeed,was given to that people by the disposition of angels; but theadvent of our Lord Jesus Christ was by it prepared andpre-announced; and He Himself, as the Word of God, was in somewonderful and unspeakable manner in the angels, by whose dispositionthe Law itself was given. And hence He said in the Gospel,“For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me;for he wrote of me.” [5] Therefore then the Lordwas speaking by the angels; and the son of God, who was to be theMediator of God and men, from the seed of Abraham, was preparing Hisown advent by the angels, that He might find some by whom He wouldbe received, confessing themselves guilty, whom the Law unfulfilledhad made transgressors. And hence the apostle also says to theGalatians, “Wherefore then serveth the Law? It was addedbecause of transgressions, till the seed should come to whom thepromise was made, which [seed] was ordered [6] through angels in the handof a mediator;” [7] that is, ordered throughangels in His own hand. For He was not born inlimitation, but in power. But you learn in another place that hedoes not mean any one of the angels as a mediator, but the LordJesus Christ Himself, in so far as He deigned to be made man:“For there is one God,” he says,“and one Mediator between God and man, the man ChristJesus.” [8] Hence that passover inthe killing of the lamb: [9] hence all those things whichare figuratively spoken in the Law, of Christ to come in the flesh,and to suffer, but also to rise again, which Law was given by thedisposition of angels; in which angels, were certainly the Father,and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and in which, sometimes theFather, sometimes the Son, sometimes the Holy Spirit, and sometimesGod, without any distinction of person, was figuratively signifiedby them, although appearing in visible and sensible forms, yet byHis own creature, not by His substance, in order to the seeing ofwhich, hearts are cleansed through all those things which are seenby the eyes and heard by the ears.

27. But now, as I think, thatwhich we had undertaken to show in this book has been sufficiently discussed and demonstrated,according to our capacity; and it has been established, both byprobable reason, so far as a man, or rather, so far as I am able,and by strength of authority, so far as the divine declarations fromthe Holy Scriptures have been made clear, that those words andbodily appearances which were given to these ancient fathers of oursbefore the incarnation of the Saviour, when God was said to appear,were wrought by angels: whether themselves speaking or doingsomething in the person of God, as we have shown that the prophetsalso were wont to do, or assuming from the creature that which theythemselves were not, wherein God might be shown in a figure to men;which manner of showing also, Scripture teaches by many examples,that the prophets, too, did not omit. It remains, therefore, now forus to consider,—since both in the Lord as born of avirgin, and in the Holy Spirit descending in a corporeal form like adove, [1] and in the tongues like as of fire, whichappeared with a sound from heaven on the day of Pentecost, after theascension of the Lord, [2] it was not the Word ofGod Himself by His own substance, in which He is equal andco-eternal with the Father, nor the Spirit of the Father and of theSon by His own substance, in which He Himself also is equal andco-eternal with both, but assuredly a creature, such as could beformed and exist in these fashions, which appeared to corporeal andmortal senses,—it remains, I say, to consider whatdifference there is between these manifestations and those whichwere proper to the Son of God and to the Holy Spirit, althoughwrought by the visible creature; [3] which subject we shall moreconveniently begin in another book.

BOOK IV.

EXPLAINS FOR WHAT THE SON OF GOD WAS SENT, VIZ. THATBY CHRIST’S DYING FOR SINNERS, WE WERE TO BECONVINCED HOW GREAT IS GOD’S LOVE FOR US, AND ALSOWHAT MANNER OF MEN WE ARE WHOM HE LOVED. THAT THE WORD CAME INTHE FLESH, TO THE PURPOSE ALSO OF ENABLING US TO BE SO CLEANSEDAS TO CONTEMPLATE AND CLEAVE TO GOD. THAT OUR DOUBLE DEATH WASABOLISHED BY HIS DEATH, BEING ONE AND SINGLE. AND HEREUPON ISDISCUSSED, HOW THE SINGLE OF OUR SAVIOUR HARMONIZES TO SALVATIONWITH OUR DOUBLE; AND THE PERFECTION IS TREATED AT LENGTH OF THESENARY NUMBER, TO WHICH THE RATIO ITSELF OF SINGLE TO DOUBLE ISREDUCIBLE. THAT ALL ARE GATHERED TOGETHER FROM MANY INTO ONE BYTHE ONE MEDIATOR OF LIFE, VIZ. CHRIST, THROUGH WHOM ALONE ISWROUGHT THE TRUE CLEANSING OF THE SOUL. FURTHER IT ISDEMONSTRATED THAT THE SON OF GOD, ALTHOUGH MADE LESS BY BEINGSENT, ON ACCOUNT OF THE FORM OF A SERVANT WHICH HE TOOK, IS NOTTHEREFORE LESS THAN THE FATHER ACCORDING TO THE FORM OF GOD,BECAUSE HE WAS SENT BY HIMSELF: AND THAT THE SAME ACCOUNT IS TOBE GIVEN OF THE SENDING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

PREFACE.—: THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD IS TO BE SOUGHT FROMGOD.

1. The knowledge of thingsterrestrial and celestial is commonly thought much of by men. Yetthose doubtless judge better who prefer to that knowledge, theknowledge of themselves; and that mind is more praiseworthy whichknows even its own weakness, than that which, without regard tothis, searches out, and even comes to know, the ways of the stars,or which holds fast such knowledge already acquired, while ignorantof the way by which itself to enter into its own proper health andstrength. But if any one has already become awake towards God,kindled by the warmth of the Holy Spirit, and in the love of God hasbecome vile in his own eyes; and through wishing, yet not havingstrength to come in unto Him, and through the light He gives, hasgiven heed to himself, and has found himself, and has learned thathis own filthiness cannot mingle with His purity; and feels it sweetto weep and to entreat Him, that again and again He will havecompassion, until he have put off all his wretchedness; and to prayconfidently, as having already received of free gift the pledge ofsalvation through his only Saviour and Enlightener ofman:—such an one, so acting, and so lamenting, knowledgedoes not puff up, because charity edifieth; [1] for he has preferredknowledge to knowledge, he has preferred to know his own weakness,rather than to know the walls of the world, the foundations of theearth, and the pinnacles of heaven. And by obtaining this knowledge,he has obtained also sorrow; [2] but sorrow for strayingaway from the desire of reaching his own proper country, and theCreator of it, his own blessed God. And if among men such as these,in the family of Thy Christ, O Lord my God, I groan among Thy poor,give me out of Thy bread to answer men who do not hunger and thirstafter righteousness, but are sated and abound. [3] But it is the vain imageof those things that has sated them, not Thy truth, which they haverepelled and shrunk from, and so fall into their own vanity. Icertainly know how many figments the human heart gives birth to. Andwhat is my own heart but a human heart? But I pray the God of my heart, that I may not vomit forth( eructuem ) into these writings any of thesefigments for solid truths, but that there may pass into them onlywhat the breath of His truth has breathed into me; cast out though Iam from the sight of His eyes, [1] and striving from afarto return by the way which the divinity of His only-begotten Son hasmade by His humanity. And this truth, changeable though I am, I sofar drink in, as far as in it I see nothing changeable: neither inplace and time, as is the case with bodies; nor in time alone, andin a certain sense place, as with the thoughts of our own spirits;nor in time alone, and not even in any semblance of place, as withsome of the reasonings of our own minds. For the essence of God,whereby He is, has altogether nothing changeable, neither ineternity, nor in truth, nor in will; since there truth is eternal,love eternal; and there love is true, eternity true; and thereeternity is loved, and truth is loved.

CHAP. 1.—: WE ARE MADE PERFECT BY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF OUROWN WEAKNESS. THE INCARNATE WORD DISPELS OUR DARKNESS.

2. But since we are exiledfrom the unchangeable joy, yet neither cut off nor torn away from itso that we should not seek eternity, truth, blessedness, even inthose changeable and temporal things (for we wish neither to die,nor to be deceived, nor to be troubled); visions have been sent tous from heaven suitable to our state of pilgrimage, in order toremind us that what we seek is not here, but that from thispilgrimage we must return thither, whence unless we originated weshould not here seek these things. And first we have had to bepersuaded how much God loved us, lest from despair we should notdare to look up to Him. And we needed to be shown also what mannerof men we are whom He loved, lest being proud, as if of our ownmerits, we should recede the more from Him, and fail the more in ourown strength. And hence He so dealt with us, that we might therather profit by His strength, and that so in the weakness ofhumility the virtue of charity might be perfected. And this isintimated in the Psalm, where it is said, “Thou, O God,didst send a spontaneous rain, whereby Thou didst make Thineinheritance perfect, when it was weary.” [2] For by “spontaneousrain” nothing else is meant than grace, not rendered tomerit, but given freely, [3] whence also it is calledgrace; for He gave it, not because we were worthy, but because Hewilled. And knowing this, we shall not trust in ourselves; and thisis to be made “weak.” But He Himself makes usperfect, who says also to the Apostle Paul, “My grace issufficient for thee, for my strength is made perfect inweakness.” [4] Man, then, was to bepersuaded how much God loved us, and what manner of men we were whomHe loved; the former, lest we should despair; the latter, lest weshould be proud. And this most necessary topic the apostle thusexplains: “But God commendeth,” he says,“His love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners,Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by Hisblood, we shall be saved from wrath through Him. For if, when wewere enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of His Son;much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by Hislife.” [5] Also in another place:“What,” he says, “shall we then sayto these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? He thatspared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how has Henot with Him also freely given us all things?” [6] Now that which is declared to us as already done,was shown also to the ancient righteous as about to be done; thatthrough the same faith they themselves also might be humbled, and somade weak; and might be made weak, and so perfected.

3. Because therefore the Wordof God is One, by which all things were made, which is theunchangeable truth, all things are simultaneously therein,potentially and unchangeably; not only those things which are now inthis whole creation, but also those which have been and those whichshall be. And therein they neither have been, nor shall be, but only are; and all things are life, and allthings are one; or rather it is one being and one life. For allthings were so made by Him, that whatsoever was made in them was notmade in Him, but was life in Him. Since, “in thebeginning,” the Word was not made, but “theWord was with God, and the Word was God, and all things were made byHim;” neither had all things been made by Him, unless Hehad Himself been before all things and not made. But in those thingswhich were made by Him, even body, which is not life, would not havebeen made by Him, except it had been life in Him before it was made.For “that which was made was already life inHim;” and not life of any kind soever: for the soul alsois the life of the body, but this too is made, for it is changeable; and by what was it made,except by the unchangeable Word of God? For “all thingswere made by Him; and without Him was not anything made that wasmade.” “What, therefore, was made was alreadylife in Him;” and not any kind of life, but“the life [which] was the light ofmen;” the light certainly of rational minds, by which mendiffer from beasts, and therefore are men. Therefore not corporeallight, which is the light of the flesh, whether it shine fromheaven, or whether it be lighted by earthly fires; nor that of humanflesh only, but also that of beasts, and down even to the minutestof worms. For all these things see that light: but that life was thelight of men; nor is it far from any one of us, for in it“we live, and move, and have our being.” [1]

CHAP. 2.—: HOW WE ARE RENDERED APT FOR THE PERCEPTION OFTRUTH THROUGH THE INCARNATE WORD.

4. But “the lightshineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended itnot.” Now the “darkness” is thefoolish minds of men, made blind by vicious desires and unbelief.And that the Word, by whom all things were made, might care forthese and heal them, “The Word was made flesh, and dweltamong us.” For our enlightening is the partaking of theWord, namely, of that life which is the light of men. But for thispartaking we were utterly unfit, and fell short of it, on account ofthe uncleanness of sins. Therefore we were to be cleansed. Andfurther, the one cleansing of the unrighteous and of the proud isthe blood of the Righteous One, and the humbling of God Himself; [2] that we might be cleansed through Him, made as Hewas what we are by nature, and what we are not by sin, that we mightcontemplate God, which by nature we are not. For by nature we arenot God: by nature we are men, by sin we are not righteous.Wherefore God, made a righteous man, interceded with God for man thesinner. For the sinner is not congruous to the righteous, but man iscongruous to man. By joining therefore to us the likeness of Hishumanity, He took away the unlikeness of our unrighteousness; and bybeing made partaker of our mortality, He made us partakers of Hisdivinity. For the death of the sinner springing from the necessityof comdemnation is deservedly abolished by the death of theRighteous One springing from the free choice of His compassion,while His single [death and resurrection]answers to our double [death andresurrection]. [3] For this congruity, orsuitableness, or concord, or consonance, or whatever moreappropriate word there may be, whereby one is[united] to two, is of great weight in allcompacting, or better, perhaps, co-adaptation, of the creature. For(as it just occurs to me) what I mean is precisely thatco-adaptation which the Greeks callἁρμονία.However this is not the place to set forth the power of thatconsonance of single to double which is found especially in us, andwhich is naturally so implanted in us (and by whom, except by Himwho created us?), that not even the ignorant can fail to perceiveit, whether when singing themselves or hearing others. For by thisit is that treble and bass voices are in harmony, so that any onewho in his note departs from it, offends extremely, not only trainedskill, of which the most part of men are devoid, but the very senseof hearing. To demonstrate this, needs no doubt a long discourse;but any one who knows it, may make it plain to the very ear in arightly ordered monochord.

CHAP. 3.—: THE ONE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF THE BODY OFCHRIST HARMONIZES WITH OUR DOUBLE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF BODY ANDSOUL, TO THE EFFECT OF SALVATION. IN WHAT WAY THE SINGLE DEATH OF CHRISTIS BESTOWED UPON OUR DOUBLE DEATH.

5. But for our present needwe must discuss, so far as God gives us power, in what manner thesingle of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ answers to, and is, soto say, in harmony with our double to the effect of salvation. Wecertainly, 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 theseparts of ourselves, that is, both to soul and to body, there wasneed both of a medicine and of resurrection, that what had beenchanged for the worse might be renewed for the better. Now the deathof the soul is ungodliness, and the death of the body iscorruptibility, through which comes also a departure of the soulfrom the body. For as the soul dies when God leaves it, so the bodydies 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 justifiesthe ungodly; [1] and it is increased and strengthened by goodhabits from day to day, as the inner man is renewed more andmore. [2] But the body, being as it were the outwardman, the longer this life lasts is so much the more corrupted,either by age or by disease, or by various afflictions, until itcome to that last affliction which all call death. And itsresurrection is delayed until the end; when also our justificationitself shall be perfected ineffably. For then we shall be like Him,for we shall see Him as He is. [3] But now, so long as thecorruptible body presseth down the soul, [4] and human life uponearth is all temptation, [5] in His sight shall no manliving be justified, [6] in comparison of therighteousness in which we shall be made equal with the angels, andof the glory which shall be revealed in us. But why mention moreproofs respecting the difference between the death of the soul andthe death of the body, when the Lord in one sentence of the Gospelhas made either death easily distinguishable by any one from theother, where He says, “Let the dead bury theirdead”? [7] For burial was thefitting disposal of a dead body. But by those who were to bury it Hemeant those who were dead in soul by the impiety of unbelief, such,namely, as are awakened when it is said, “Awake thou thatsleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give theelight.” [8] And there is a death whichthe apostle denounces, saying of the widow, “But she thatliveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth.” [9] Therefore the soul, which was before ungodly andis now godly, is said to have come alive again from the dead and tolive, on account of the righteousness of faith. But the body is notonly said to be about to die, on account of that departure of thesoul which will be; but on account of the great infirmity of fleshand blood it is even said to be now dead, in a certain place in theScriptures, namely, where the apostle says, that “thebody is dead because of sin, but the spirit is life because ofrighteousness.” [10] Now this life iswrought by faith, “since the just shall live byfaith,” [11] But what follows?“But if the spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from thedead dwell in you, He that raised up Christ from the dead shall alsoquicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit which dwelleth inyou.” [12]

6. Therefore on this doubledeath of ours our Saviour bestowed His own single death; and tocause both our resurrections, He appointed beforehand and set forthin mystery and type His own one resurrection. For He was not asinner or ungodly, that, as though dead in spirit, He should need tobe renewed in the inner man, and to be recalled as it were to thelife of righteousness by repentance; but being clothed in mortalflesh, and in that alone dying, in that alone rising again, in thatalone did He answer to both for us; since in it was wrought amystery 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 signifythe death of our soul, that those words were uttered, not only inthe Psalm, but also on the cross: “My God, my God, whyhast Thou forsaken me?” [13] Towhich words the apostle agrees, saying, “Knowing this,that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin mightbe destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin;”since by the crucifixion of the inner man are understood the painsof repentance, and a certain wholesome agony of self-control, bywhich death the death of ungodliness is destroyed, and in whichdeath God has left us. And so the body of sin is destroyed throughsuch a cross, that now we should not yield our members asinstruments of unrighteousness unto sin. [14] Because, if even theinner man certainly is renewed day by day, [15] yet undoubtedly it isold before it is renewed. For that is done inwardly of which thesame apostle speaks: “Put off the old man, and put on thenew;” which he goes on to explain by saying,“Wherefore, putting away lying, speak every mantruth.” [16] But where is lying putaway, unless inwardly, that he who speaketh the truth from his heartmay inhabit the holy hill of God? [17] But the resurrection ofthe body of the Lord is shown to belong to the mystery of our owninner resurrection, where, after He had risen, He says to the woman,“Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to myFather;” [18] with which mystery theapostle’s words agree, where he says, “If yethen be risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, whereChrist sitteth on the right hand of God; set your thoughts [19] on thingsabove.” [20] For not to touchChrist, unless when He had ascended to the Father, means not to havethoughts [21] of Christ after afleshly manner. Again, the death of the flesh of our Lord contains atype of the death of our outer man, since it is by such sufferingmost of all that He exhorts His servantsthat they should not fear those who kill the body, but are not ableto kill the soul. [1] Wherefore the apostlesays, “That I may fill up that which is behind of theafflictions of Christ in my flesh.” [2] And the resurrection ofthe body of the Lord is found to contain a type of the resurrectionof our outward man, because He says to His disciples,“Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh andbones, as ye see me have.” [3] And one of thedisciples also, handling His scars, exclaimed, “My Lordand my God!” [4] And whereas the entireintegrity of that flesh was apparent, this was shown in that whichHe had said when exhorting His disciples: “There shallnot a hair of your head perish.” [5] For how comes it thatfirst is said, “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascendedto my Father;” [6] and how comes it thatbefore He ascends to the Father, He actually is touched by thedisciples; unless because in the former the mystery of the inner manwas intimated, in the latter a type was given of the outer man? Orcan any one possibly be so without understanding, and so turned awayfrom the truth, as to dare to say that He was touched by men beforeHe ascended, but by women when He had ascended? It was on account ofthis type, which went before in the Lord, of our future resurrectionin the body, that the apostle says, “Christ thefirst-fruits; afterward they that areChrist’s.” [7] For it was theresurrection of the body to which this place refers, on account ofwhich he also says, “Who has changed our vile body, thatit may be fashioned like unto His glorious body.” [8] The one death therefore of our Saviour broughtsalvation to our double death, and His one resurrection wrought forus two resurrections; since His body in both cases, that is, both inHis death and in His resurrection, was ministered to us by a kind ofhealing suitableness, both as a mystery of the inner man, and as atype of the outer.

CHAP. 4.—: THE RATIO OF THE SINGLE TO THE DOUBLE COMESFROM THE PERFECTION OF THE SENARY NUMBER. THE PERFECTION OF THE SENARYNUMBER IS COMMENDED IN THE SCRIPTURES. THE YEAR ABOUNDS IN THE SENARYNUMBER.

7. Now this ratio of thesingle to the double arises, no doubt, from the ternary number,since one added to two makes three; but the whole which these makereaches to the senary, for one and two and three make six. And thisnumber is on that account called perfect, because it is completed inits own parts: for it has these three, sixth, third, and half; noris there any other part found in it, which we can call an aliquotpart. The sixth part of it, then, is one; the third part, two; thehalf, three. But one and two and three complete the same six. AndHoly Scripture commends to us the perfection of this number,especially in this, that God finished His works in six days, and onthe sixth day man was made in the image of God. [9] And the Son of God cameand was made the Son of man, that He might re-create us after theimage of God, in the sixth age of the human race. For that is nowthe present age, whether a thousand years apiece are assigned toeach age, or whether we trace out memorable and remarkable epochs orturning-points of time in the divine Scriptures, so that the firstage is to be found from Adam until Noah, and the second thenceonwards to Abraham, and then next, after the division of Matthew theevangelist, from Abraham to David, from David to the carrying awayto Babylon, and from thence to the travail of the Virgin, [10] which three ages joined to those other two makefive. Accordingly, the nativity of the Lord began the sixth, whichis now going onwards until the hidden end of time. We recognize alsoin this senary number a kind of figure of time, in that threefoldmode of division, by which we compute one portion of time before theLaw; a second, under the Law; a third, under grace. In which lasttime we have received the sacrament of renewal, that we may berenewed also in the end of time, in every part, by the resurrectionof the flesh, and so may be made whole from our entire infirmity,not only of soul, but also of body. And thence that woman isunderstood to be a type of the church, who was made whole andupright by the Lord, after she had been bowed by infirmity throughthe binding of Satan. For those words of the Psalm lament suchhidden enemies: “They bowed down my soul.” [11] And this woman had her infirmity eighteen years,which is thrice six. And the months of eighteen years are found innumber to be the cube of six, viz. six timessix times six. Nearly, too, in the same place in the Gospel is thatfig tree, which was convicted also by the third year of itsmiserable barrenness. But intercession was made for it, that itmight be let alone that year, that year, that if it bore fruit,well; if otherwise, it should be cut down. [12] For both three yearsbelong to the same threefold division,and the months of three years make the square of six, which is sixtimes six.

8. A single year also, if thewhole twelve months are taken into account, which are made up ofthirty days each (for the month that has been kept from of old isthat which the revolution of the moon determines), abounds in thenumber six. For that which six is, in the first order of numbers,which consists of units up to ten, that sixty is in the secondorder, which consists of tens up to a hundred. Sixty days, then, area sixth part of the year. Further, if that which stands as the sixthof the second order is multiplied by the sixth of the first order,then we make six times sixty, i.e. threehundred and sixty days, which are the whole twelve months. Butsince, as the revolution of the moon determines the month for men,so the year is marked by the revolution of the sun; and five daysand a quarter of a day remain, that the sun may fulfill its courseand end the year; for four quarters make one day, which must beintercalated in every fourth year, which they call bissextile, thatthe order of time may not be disturbed: if we consider, also, thesefive days and a quarter themselves, the number six prevails in them.First, because, as it is usual to compute the whole from a part, wemust not call it five days, but rather six, taking the quarter daysfor one day. Next, because five days themselves are the sixth partof a month; while the quarter of a day contains six hours. For theentire day, i.e. including its night, istwenty-four hours, of which the fourth part, which is a quarter of aday, is found to be six hours. So much in the course of the yeardoes the sixth number prevail.

CHAP. 5.—: THE NUMBER SIX IS ALSO COMMENDED IN THEBUILDING UP OF THE BODY OF CHRIST AND OF THE TEMPLE AT JERUSALEM.

9. And not without reason isthe number six understood to be put for a year in the building up ofthe body of the Lord, as a figure of which He said that He wouldraise up in three days the temple destroyed by the Jews. For theysaid, “Forty and six years was this temple inbuilding.” [1] And six times forty-sixmakes two hundred and seventy-six. And this number of days completesnine months and six days, which are reckoned, as it were, ten monthsfor the travail of women; not because all come to the sixth dayafter the ninth month, but because the perfection itself of the bodyof the Lord is found to have been brought in so many days to thebirth, as the authority of the church maintains upon the traditionof the elders. For He is believed to have been conceived on the 25thof March, upon which day also He suffered; so the womb of theVirgin, in which He was conceived, where no one of mortals wasbegotten, corresponds to the new grave in which He was buried,wherein was never man laid, [2] neither before norsince. But He was born, according to tradition, upon December the25th. If, then you reckon from that day to this you find two hundredand seventy-six days which is forty-six times six. And in thisnumber of years the temple was built, because in that number ofsixes the body of the Lord was perfected; which being destroyed bythe suffering of death, He raised again on the third day. For“He spake this of the temple of His body,” [3] as is declared by the most clear and solidtestimony of the Gospel; where He said, “For as Jonas wasthree days and three nights in the whale’s belly, soshall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart ofthe earth.” [4]

CHAP. 6.—: THE THREE DAYS OF THE RESURRECTION, IN WHICHALSO THE RATIO OF SINGLE TO DOUBLE IS APPARENT.

10. Scripture again witnessesthat the space of those three days themselves was not whole andentire, 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 firstpart; but the intervening day, i.e. the secondday, was absolutely a whole with its twenty-four hours, twelve ofthe day and twelve of the night. For He was crucified first by thevoices of the Jews in the third hour, when it was the sixth day ofthe week. Then He hung on the cross itself at the sixth hour, andyielded up His spirit at the ninth hour. [5] But He was buried,“now when the even was come,” as the words ofthe evangelist express it; [6] which means, at theend of the day. Wheresoever then you begin,—even if someother explanation can be given, so as not to contradict the Gospelof John, [7] but to understand that He was suspended onthe cross at the third hour,—still you cannot make thefirst day an entire day. It will be reckoned then an entire day fromits last part, as the third from its first part. For the night up tothe dawn, when the resurrection of the Lord was made known, belongsto the third day; because God (who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, [1] that through the graceof the New Testament and the partaking of the resurrection of Christthe words might be spoken to us “For ye were sometimesdarkness, but now are ye light in the Lord” [2] )intimates to us in some way that the day takes its beginning fromthe night. For as the first days of all were reckoned from light tonight, on account of the future fall of man; [3] so these on account ofthe restoration of man, are reckoned from darkness to light. Fromthe hour, then, of His death to the dawn of the resurrection areforty hours, counting in also the ninth hour itself. And with thisnumber agrees also His life upon earth of forty days after Hisresurrection. And this number is most frequently used in Scriptureto express the mystery of perfection in the fourfold world. For thenumber ten has a certain perfection, and that multiplied by fourmakes forty. But from the evening of the burial to the dawn of theresurrection are thirty-six hours which is six squared. And this isreferred to that ratio of the single to the double wherein there isthe greatest consonance of co-adaptation. For twelve added totwenty-four suits the ratio of single added to double and makesthirty-six: namely a whole night with a whole day and a whole night,and this not without the mystery which I have noticed above. For notunfitly do we liken the spirit to the day and the body to the night.For the body of the Lord in His death and resurrection was a figureof our spirit and a type of our body. In this way, then, also thatratio of the single to the double is apparent in the thirty-sixhours, when twelve are added to twenty-four. As to the reasons,indeed, why these numbers are so put in the Holy Scriptures, otherpeople may trace out other reasons, either such that those which Ihave given are to be preferred to them, or such as are equallyprobable with mine, or even more probable than they are; but thereis no one surely so foolish or so absurd as to contend that they areso put in the Scriptures for no purpose at all, and that there areno mystical reasons why those numbers are there mentioned. But thosereasons which I have here given, I have either gathered from theauthority of the church, according to the tradition of ourforefathers, or from the testimony of the divine Scriptures, or fromthe nature itself of numbers and of similitudes. No sober personwill decide against reason, no Christian against the Scriptures, nopeaceable person against the church.

CHAP. 7.—: IN WHAT MANNER WE ARE GATHERED FROM MANY INTOONE THROUGH ONE MEDIATOR.

11. This mystery, thissacrifice, this priest, this God, before He was sent and came, beingmade of a woman—of Him, all those things which appearedto our fathers in a sacred and mystical way by angelical miracles,or which were done by the fathers themselves, were similitudes; inorder that every creature by its acts might speak in some way ofthat One who was to be, in whom there was to be salvation in therecovery of all from death. For because by the wickedness ofungodliness we had recoiled and fallen away in discord from the onetrue and supreme God, and had in many things become vain, beingdistracted through many things and cleaving fast to many things; itwas needful, by the decree and command of God in His mercy, thatthose same many things should join in proclaiming the One thatshould come, and that One should come so proclaimed by these manythings, and that these many things should join in witnessing thatthis One had come; and that so, freed from the burden of these manythings, we should come to that One, and dead as we were in our soulsby 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 forus; and by believing in Him now raised again, and by rising againwith Him in the spirit through faith, that we should be justified bybeing made one in the one righteous One; and that we should notdespair of our own resurrection in the flesh itself, when weconsider that the one Head had gone before us the many members; inwhom, being now cleansed through faith, and then renewed by sight,and through Him as mediator reconciled to God, we are to cleave tothe One, to feast upon the One, to continue one.

CHAP. 8.—: IN WHAT MANNER CHRIST WILLS THAT ALL SHALL BEONE IN HIMSELF.

12. So the Son of GodHimself, the Word of God, Himself also the Mediator between God andmen, the Son of man, [4] equal to the Fatherthrough the unity of the Godhead, and partaker with us by the takingupon Him of humanity, interceding for us with the Father in that Hewas man, [5] yet not concealing that He was God, one withthe Father, among other things speaks thus: “Neither prayI for these alone,” He says, “but for themalso which shall believe on me through their word; that they all maybe one; as Thou, Father, art in me, and Iin Thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believethat Thou hast sent me. And the glory which Thou gavest me I havegiven them; that they may be one, even as we areone.” [1]

CHAP. 9.—: THE SAME ARGUMENT CONTINUED.

He did not say, I and they are one thing; [2] although, in that He is the head of the church, which is Hisbody, [3] He might have said, I and they are, not onething, [4] but one person, [5] because the head and the body isone Christ; but in order to show His own Godhead consubstantial withthe Father (for which reason He says in another place, “Iand my Father are one” [6] ), in His own kind, that is, in theconsubstantial parity of the same nature, He wills His own to beone, [7] but in Himself; sincethey could not be so in themselves, separated as they are one fromanother by divers pleasures and desires and uncleannesses of sin;whence they are cleansed through the Mediator, that they may beone [8] in Him, not onlythrough the same nature in which all become from mortal men equal tothe angels, but also through the same will most harmoniouslyconspiring to the same blessedness, and fused in some way by thefire of charity into one spirit. For to this His words come,“That they may be one, even as we are one;”namely, that as the Father and Son are one, not only in equality ofsubstance, but also in will, so those also may be one, between whomand God the Son is mediator, not only in that they are of the samenature, but also through the same union of love. And then He goes onthus to intimate the truth itself, that He is the Mediator, throughwhom we are reconciled to God, by saying, “I in them, andThou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.” [9]

CHAP. 10.—: AS CHRIST IS THE MEDIATOR OF LIFE, SO THEDEVIL IS THE MEDIATOR OF DEATH.

13. Therein is our true peaceand firm bond of union with our Creator, that we should be purifiedand reconciled through the Mediator of life, as we had been pollutedand alienated, and so had departed from Him, through the mediator ofdeath. For as the devil through pride led man through pride todeath; so Christ through lowliness led back man through obedience tolife. Since, as the one fell through being lifted up, and cast down[man] also who consented to him; so the otherwas raised up through being abased, and lifted up[man] also who believed in Him. For becausethe devil had not himself come thither whither he had led the way(inasmuch as he bare indeed in his ungodliness the death of thespirit, but had not undergone the death of the flesh, because he hadnot assumed the covering of the flesh), he appeared to man to be amighty chief among the legions of devils, through whom he exerciseshis reign of deceits; so puffing up man the more, who is eager forpower more than righteousness, through the pride of elation, orthrough false philosophy; or else entangling him throughsacrilegious rites, in which, while casting down headlong by deceitand illusion the minds of the more curious and prouder sort, heholds him captive also to magical trickery; promising too thecleansing of the soul, through those initiations which they callτελεταί,by transforming himself into an angel of light, [10] through diversmachinations in signs and prodigies of lying.

CHAP. 11.—: MIRACLES WHICH ARE DONE BY DEMONS ARE TO BESPURNED.

14. For it is easy for themost worthless spirits to do many things by means of aerial bodies,such as to cause wonder to souls which are weighed down by earthlybodies, even though they be of the better inclined. For if earthlybodies themselves, when trained by a certain skill and practice,exhibit to men so great marvels in theatrical spectacles, that theywho never saw such things scarcely believe them when told; whyshould it be hard for the devil and his angels to make out ofcorporeal elements, through their own aerial bodies, things at whichthe flesh marvels; or even by hidden inspirations to contrivefantastic appearances to the deluding of men’s senses,whereby to deceive them, whether awake or asleep, or to drive theminto frenzy? But just as it may happen that one who is better thanthey in life and character may gaze at the most worthless of men,either walking on a rope, or doing by various motions of the bodymany things difficult of belief, and yet he may not at all desire todo such things, nor think those men on that account to be preferredto himself; so the faithful and pious soul, not only if it sees, buteven if on account of the frailty of the flesh it shudders at, themiracles of demons, yet will not for that either deplore its ownwant of power to do such things, or judgethem on this account to be better than itself; especially since itis in the company of the holy, who, whether they are men or goodangels, accomplish, through the power of God, to whom all things aresubject, wonders which are far greater and the very reverse ofdeceptive.

CHAP. 12.—: THE DEVIL THE MEDIATOR OF DEATH, CHRIST OFLIFE.

15. In no wise therefore aresouls cleansed and reconciled to God by sacrilegious imitations, orcurious arts that are impious, or magical incantations; since thefalse mediator does not translate them to higher things, but ratherblocks and cuts off the way thither through the affections,malignant in proportion as they are proud, which he inspires intothose of his own company; which are not able to nourish the wings ofvirtues so as to fly upwards, but rather to heap up the weight ofvices so as to press downwards; since the soul will fall down themore heavily, the more it seems to itself to have been carriedupwards. Accordingly, as the Magi did when warned of God, [1] whom the star led to adore the low estate of theLord; so we also ought to return to our country, not by the way bywhich we came, but by another way which the lowly King has taught,and which the proud king, the adversary of that lowly King, cannotblock up. For to us, too, that we may adore the lowly Christ, the“heavens have declared the glory of God, when their soundwent into all the earth, and their words to the ends of theworld.” [2] A way was made for usto death through sin in Adam. For, “By one man sinentered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed uponall men, in whom all have sinned.” [3] Of this way the devil was themediator, the persuader to sin, and the caster down into death. Forhe, too, applied his one death to work out our double death. Sincehe indeed died in the spirit through ungodliness, but certainly didnot die in the flesh: yet both persuaded us to ungodliness, andthereby brought it to pass that we deserved to come into the deathof the flesh. We desired therefore the one through wickedpersuasion, the other followed us by a just condemnation; andtherefore it is written, “God made notdeath,” [4] since He was not Himselfthe cause of death; but yet death was inflicted on the sinner,through His most just retribution. Just as the judge inflictspunishment on the guilty; yet it is not the justice of the judge,but the desert of the crime, which is the cause of the punishment.Whither, then, the mediator of death caused us to pass, yet did notcome himself, that is, to the death of the flesh, there our Lord Godintroduced for us the medicine of correction, which He deserved not,by a hidden and exceeding mysterious decree of divine and profoundjustice. In order, therefore, that as by one man came death, so byone man might come also the resurrection of the dead; [5] because men strove more to shun that which theycould not shun, viz. the death of the flesh,than the death of the spirit, i.e. punishmentmore than the desert of punishment (for not to sin is a thing aboutwhich either men are not solicitous or are too little solicitous;but not to die, although it be not within reach of attainment, isyet eagerly sought after); the Mediator of life, making it plainthat death is not to be feared, which by the condition of humanitycannot now be escaped, but rather ungodliness, which can be guardedagainst through faith, meets us at the end to which we have come,but not by the way by which we came. For we, indeed, came to deaththrough sin; He through righteousness: and, therefore, as our deathis the punishment of sin, so His death was made a sacrifice forsin.

CHAP. 13.—: THE DEATH OF CHRIST VOLUNTARY. HOW THEMEDIATOR OF LIFE SUBDUED THE MEDIATOR OF DEATH. HOW THE DEVIL LEADS HISOWN TO DESPISE THE DEATH OF CHRIST.

16. Wherefore, since thespirit is to be preferred to the body, and the death of the spiritmeans that God has left it, but the death of the body that thespirit has left it; and since herein lies the punishment in thedeath of the body, that the spirit leaves the body against its will,because it left God willingly; so that, whereas the spirit left Godbecause it would, it leaves the body although it would not; norleaves it when it would, unless it has offered violence to itself,whereby the body itself is slain: the spirit of the Mediator showedhow it was through no punishment of sin that He came to the death ofthe flesh, because He did not leave it against His will, but becauseHe willed, when He willed, as He willed. For because He is socommingled [with the flesh] by the Word of Godas 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 Ilay down my life that I might take it again.” [6] And, as the Gospel tells us, they who were present were most astonished at this, thatafter that [last] word, in which He set forththe figure of our sin, He immediately gave up His spirit. For theywho are hung on the cross are commonly tortured by a prolongeddeath. Whence it was that the legs of the thieves were broken, inorder that they might die directly, and be taken down from the crossbefore the Sabbath. And that He was found to be dead already, causedwonder. And it was this also, at which, as we read, Pilatemarvelled, when the body of the Lord was asked of him forburial. [1]

17. Because that deceiverthen,—who was a mediator to death for man, and feignedlyputs himself forward as to life, under the name of cleansing bysacrilegious rites and sacrifices, by which the proud are ledaway,—can neither share in our death, nor rise again fromhis own: he has indeed been able to apply his single death to ourdouble one; but he certainly has not been able to apply a singleresurrection, which should be at once a mystery of our renewal, anda type of that waking up which is to be in the end. He then whobeing 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 thespirit and the mediator of death, from the spirits of those whobelieve in Himself, so that he should not reign within, but shouldassault from without, and yet not prevail. And to him, too, Heoffered Himself to be tempted, in order that He might be also amediator to overcome his temptations, not only by succor, but alsoby example. But when the devil, from the first, although strivingthrough every entrance to creep into His inward parts, was thrustout, having finished all his alluring temptation in the wildernessafter the baptism; [2] because, being dead inthe spirit, he forced no entrance into Him who was alive in thespirit, he betook himself, through eagerness for the death of man inany way whatsoever, to effecting that death which he could, and waspermitted to effect it upon that mortal element which the livingMediator had received from us. And where he could do anything, therein every respect he was conquered; and wherein he received outwardlythe power of slaying the Lord in the flesh, therein his inwardpower, by which he held ourselves, was slain. For it was brought topass that the bonds of many sins in many deaths were loosed, throughthe one death of One which no sin had preceded. Which death, thoughnot due, the Lord therefore rendered for us, that the death whichwas due might work us no hurt. For He was not stripped of the fleshby obligation of any authority, but He stripped Himself. Fordoubtless He who was able not to die, if He would not, did diebecause He would: and so He made a show of principalities andpowers, openly triumphing over them in Himself. [3] For whereas by His deaththe one and most real sacrifice was offered up for us, whateverfault there was, whence principalities and powers held us fast as ofright to pay its penalty, He cleansed, abolished, extinguished; andby His own resurrection He also called us whom He predestinated to anew life; and whom He called, them He justified; and whom Hejustified, them He glorified. [4] And so the devil, inthat very death of the flesh, lost man, whom he was possessing as byan absolute right, seduced as he was by his own consent, and overwhom he ruled, himself impeded by no corruption of flesh and blood,through that frailty of man’s mortal body, whence he wasboth too poor and too weak; he who was proud in proportion as hewas, as it were, both richer and stronger, ruling over him who was,as it were, both clothed in rags and full of troubles. For whitherhe drove the sinner to fall, himself not following, there byfollowing he compelled the Redeemer to descend. And so the Son ofGod deigned to become our friend in the fellowship of death, towhich because he came not, the enemy thought himself to be betterand greater than ourselves. For our Redeemer says,“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay downhis life for his friends.” [5] Wherefore also the devilthought himself superior to the Lord Himself, inasmuch as the Lordin His sufferings yielded to him; for of Him, too, is understoodwhat is read in the Psalm, “For Thou hast made Him alittle lower than the angels:” [6] so that He, being Himselfput to death, although innocent, by the unjust one acting against usas it were by just right, might by a most just right overcome him,and so might lead captive the captivity wrought through sin, [7] and free us from a captivity that was just on account of sin, byblotting out the handwriting, and redeeming us who were to bejustified although sinners, through His own righteous bloodunrighteously poured out.

18. Hence also the devilmocks those who are his own until this very day, to whom he presentshimself as a false mediator, as though they would be cleansed orrather entangled and drowned by his rites, in that he very easily persuades the proud to ridicule anddespise the death of Christ, from which the more he himself isestranged, the more is he believed by them to be the holier and moredivine. Yet those who have remained with him are very few, since thenations acknowledge and with pious humility imbibe the price paidfor themselves, and in trust upon it abandon their enemy, and gathertogether to their Redeemer. For the devil does not know how the mostexcellent wisdom of God makes use of both his snares and his fury tobring about the salvation of His own faithful ones, beginning fromthe former end, which is the beginning of the spiritual creature,even to the latter end, which is the death of the body, and so“reaching from the one end to the other, mightily andsweetly ordering all things.” [1] For wisdom“passeth and goeth through all things by reason of herpureness, and no defiled thing can fall into her.” [2] And since the devil has nothing to do with thedeath of the flesh, whence comes his exceeding pride, a death ofanother kind is prepared in the eternal fire of hell, by which notonly the spirits that have earthly, but also those who have aerialbodies, can be tormented. But proud men, by whom Christ is despised,because He died, wherein He bought us with so great a price, [3] both bring back the former death, and also men,to that miserable condition of nature, which is derived from thefirst sin, and will be cast down into the latter death with thedevil. And they on this account preferred the devil to Christ,because the former cast them into that former death, whither hehimself fell not through the difference of his nature, and whitheron account of them Christ descended through His great mercy: and yetthey do not hesitate to believe themselves better than the devils,and do not cease to assail and denounce them with every sort ofmalediction, while they know them at any rate to have nothing to dowith the suffering of this kind of death, on account of which theydespise Christ. Neither will they take into account that the casemay possibly be, that the Word of God, remaining in Himself, and inHimself in no way changeable, may yet, through the taking upon Himof a lower nature, be able to suffer somewhat of a lower kind, whichthe unclean spirit cannot suffer, because he has not an earthlybody. And so, whereas they themselves are better than the devils,yet, because they bear a body of flesh, they can so die, as thedevils certainly cannot die, who do not bear such a body. Theypresume much on the deaths of their own sacrifices, which they donot perceive that they sacrifice to deceitful and proud spirits; orif they have come to perceive it, think their friendship to be ofsome good to themselves, treacherous and envious although they are,whose purpose is bent upon nothing else except to hinder ourreturn.

CHAP. 14.—: CHRIST THE MOST PERFECT VICTIM FOR CLEANSINGOUR 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 inthe honor of sacrifices, unless a true sacrifice was due to the onetrue God, in whose stead they desire to be worshipped: and that thiscannot be rightly offered except by a holy and righteous priest; norunless that which is offered be received from those for whom it isoffered; and unless also it be without fault, so that it may beoffered for cleansing the faulty. This at least all desire who wishsacrifice to be offered for themselves to God. Who then is sorighteous and holy a priest as the only Son of God, who had no needto purge His own sins by sacrifice, [4] neither original sins, northose which are added by human life? And what could be so fitlychosen by men to be offered for them as human flesh? And what so fitfor this immolation as mortal flesh? And what so clean for cleansingthe faults of mortal men as the flesh born in and from the womb of avirgin, without any infection of carnal concupiscence? And whatcould be so acceptably offered and taken, as the flesh of oursacrifice, made the body of our priest? In such wise that, whereasfour things are to be considered in every sacrifice,—towhom it is offered, by whom it is offered, what is offered, for whomit is offered,—the same One and true Mediator Himself,reconciling us to God by the sacrifice of peace, might remain onewith Him to whom He offered, might make those one in Himself forwhom He offered, Himself might be in one both the offerer and theoffering.

CHAP. 15.—: THEY ARE PROUD WHO THINK THEY ARE ABLE, BYTHEIR OWN RIGHTEOUSNESS, TO BE CLEANSED SO AS TO SEE GOD.

20. There are, however, somewho think themselves capable of being cleansed by their ownrighteousness, so as to contemplate God, and to dwell in God; whomtheir very pride itself stains above all others. For there is no sin to which the divine law is moreopposed, and over which that proudest of spirits, who is a mediatorto things below, but a barrier against things above, receives agreater right of mastery; unless either his secret snares be avoidedby going another way, or if he rage openly by means of a sinfulpeople (which Amalek, being interpreted, means), and forbid byfighting the passage to the land of promise, he be overcome by thecross of the Lord, which is prefigured by the holding out of thehands of Moses. [1] For these personspromise themselves cleansing by their own righteousness for thisreason, because some of them have been able to penetrate with theeye of the mind beyond the whole creature, and to touch, though itbe in ever so small a part, the light of the unchangeable truth; athing which they deride many Christians for being not yet able todo, who, in the meantime, live by faith alone. But of what use is itfor the proud man, who on that account is ashamed to embark upon theship of wood, [2] to behold from afarhis country beyond the sea? Or how can it hurt the humble man not tobehold it from so great a distance, when he is actually coming to itby that wood upon which the other disdains to be borne?

CHAP. 16.—: THE OLD PHILOSOPHERS ARE NOT TO BE CONSULTEDCONCERNING THE RESURRECTION AND CONCERNING THINGS TO COME.

21. These people also blameus for believing the resurrection of the flesh, and rather wish usto believe themselves concerning these things. As though, becausethey have been able to understand the high and unchangeablesubstance by the things which are made, [3] for thisreason they had a claim to be consulted concerning the revolutionsof mutable things, or concerning the connected order of the ages.For pray, because they dispute most truly, and persuade us by mostcertain proofs, that all things temporal are made after a sciencethat is eternal, are they therefore able to see clearly in thematter of this science itself, or to collect from it, how many kindsof animals there are, what are the seeds of each in theirbeginnings, what measure in their increase, what numbers run throughtheir conceptions, births, ages, settings; what motions in desiringthings according to their nature, and in avoiding the contrary? Havethey not sought out all these things, not through that unchangeablewisdom, but through the actual history of places and times, or havetrusted the written experience of others? Wherefore it is the lessto be wondered at, that they have utterly failed in searching outthe succession of more lengthened ages, and in finding any goal ofthat course, down which, as though down a river, the human race issailing, and the transition thence of each to its own appropriateend. For these are subjects which historians could not describe,inasmuch as they are far in the future, and have been experiencedand related by no one. Nor have those philosophers, who haveprofited better than others in that high and eternal science, beenable to grasp such subjects with the understanding; otherwise theywould not be inquiring as they could into past things of the kind,such as are in the province of historians, but rather would foreknowalso things future; and those who are able to do this are called bythem soothsayers, but by us prophets:

CHAP. 17.—: IN HOW MANY WAYS THINGS FUTURE ARE FOREKNOWN.NEITHER PHILOSOPHERS, NOR THOSE WHO WERE DISTINGUISHED AMONG THEANCIENTS, ARE TO BE CONSULTED CONCERNING THE RESURRECTION OF THEDEAD.

22. —although thename of prophets, too, is not altogether foreign to their writings.But it makes the greatest possible difference, whether things futureare conjectured by experience of things past (as physicians alsohave committed many things to writing in the way of foresight, whichthey themselves have noted by experience; or as again husbandmen, orsailors, too, foretell many things; for if such predictions are madea long while before, they are thought to be divinations), or whethersuch things have already started on their road to come to us, andbeing seen coming far off, are announced in proportion to theacuteness of the sense of those who see them, by doing which theaerial powers are thought to divine (just as if a person from thetop of a mountain were to see far off some one coming, and were toannounce it beforehand to those who dwelt close by in the plain); orwhether they are either foreannounced to certain men, or are heardby them and again transmitted to other men, by means of holy angels,to whom God shows those things by His Word and His Wisdom, whereinboth things future and things past consist; or whether the minds ofcertain men themselves are so far borne upwards by the Holy Spirit,as to behold, not through the angels, but of themselves, theimmoveable causes of things future, inthat very highest pinnacle of the universe itself. [And Isay, behold,] for the aerial powers, too, hear these things, either by message through angels, orthrough men; and hear only so much as He judges to be fitting, towhom all things are subject. Many things, too, are foretold by akind of instinct and inward impulse of such as know them not: asCaiaphas did not know what he said, but being the high priest, heprophesied. [1]

23. Therefore, neitherconcerning the successions of ages, nor concerning the resurrectionof the dead, ought we to consult those philosophers, who haveunderstood as much as they could the eternity of the Creator, inwhom “we live, and move, and have ourbeing.” [2] Since, knowing Godthrough those things which are made, they have not glorified Him asGod, neither were thankful; but professing themselves wise, theybecame fools. [3] And whereas they were not fit to fix the eyeof the mind so firmly upon the eternity of the spiritual andunchangeable nature, as to be able to see, in the wisdom itself ofthe Creator and Governor of the universe, those revolutions of theages, which in that wisdom were already and were always, but herewere about to be so that as yet they were not; or, again, to seetherein those changes for the better, not of the souls only, butalso of the bodies of men, even to the perfection of their propermeasure; whereas then, I say, they were in no way fit to see thesethings therein, they were not even judged worthy of receiving anyannouncement of them by the holy angels; whether externally throughthe senses of the body, or by interior revelations exhibited in thespirit; as these things actually were manifested to our fathers, whowere gifted with true piety, and who by foretelling them, obtainingcredence either by present signs, or by events close at hand, whichturned out as they had foretold, earned authority to be believedrespecting things remotely future, even to the end of the world. Butthe proud and deceitful powers of the air, even if they are found tohave said through their soothsayers some things of the fellowshipand citizenship of the saints, and of the true Mediator, which theyheard from the holy prophets or the angels, did so with the purposeof seducing even the faithful ones of God, if they could, by thesealien truths, to revolt to their own proper falsehoods. But God didthis by those who knew not what they said, in order that the truthmight sound abroad from all sides, to aid the faithful, to be awitness against the ungodly.

CHAP. 18.—: THE SON OF GOD BECAME INCARNATE IN ORDER THATWE BEING CLEANSED BY FAITH MAY BE RAISED TO THE UNCHANGEABLETRUTH.

24. Since, then, we were notfit to take hold of things eternal, and since the foulness of sinsweighed us down, which we had contracted by the love of temporalthings, and which were implanted in us as it were naturally, fromthe root of mortality, it was needful that we should be cleansed.But cleansed we could not be, so as to be tempered together withthings eternal, except it were through things temporal, wherewith wewere already tempered together and held fast. For health is at theopposite extreme from disease; but the intermediate process ofhealing does not lead us to perfect health, unless it has somecongruity with the disease. Things temporal that are useless merelydeceive the sick; things temporal that are useful take up those thatneed healing, and pass them on healed, to things eternal. And therational mind, as when cleansed it owes contemplation to thingseternal; so, when needing cleansing, owes faith to things temporal.One even of those who were formerly esteemed wise men among theGreeks has said, The truth stands to faith in the same relation inwhich eternity stands to that which has a beginning. And he is nodoubt right in saying so. For what we call temporal, he describes ashaving had a beginning. And we also ourselves come under this kind,not only in respect to the body, but also in respect to thechangeableness of the soul. For that is not properly called eternalwhich undergoes any degree of change. Therefore, in so far as we arechangeable, in so far we stand apart from eternity. But life eternalis promised to us through the truth, from the clear knowledge ofwhich, again, our faith stands as far apart as mortality does frometernity. We then now put faith in things done in time on ouraccount, and by that faith itself we are cleansed; in order thatwhen we have come to sight, as truth follows faith, so eternity mayfollow upon mortality. And therefore, since our faith will becometruth, when we have attained to that which is promised to us whobelieve: and that which is promised us is eternal life; and theTruth (not that which shall come to be according as our faith shallbe, but that truth which is always, because in it iseternity,—the Truth then) has said, “And thisis life eternal, that they might know Theethe only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom Thou hastsent:” [1] when our faith by seeingshall come to be truth, then eternity shall possess our now changedmortality. And until this shall take place, and in order that it maytake place,—because we adapt the faith of belief tothings which have a beginning, as in things eternal we hope for thetruth of contemplation, lest the faith of mortal life should be atdiscord with the truth of eternal life,—the Truth itself,co-eternal with the Father, took a beginning from earth, [2] when the Son of God so came as to become the Sonof man, and to take to Himself our faith, that He might thereby leadus on to His own truth, who so undertook our mortality, as not tolose His own eternity. For truth stands to faith in the relation inwhich eternity stands to that which has a beginning. Therefore, wemust needs so be cleansed, that we may come to have such a beginningas remains eternal, that we may not have one beginning in faith, andanother in truth. Neither could we pass to things eternal from thecondition of having a beginning, unless we were transferred, byunion of the eternal to ourselves through our own beginning, to Hisown eternity. Therefore our faith has, in some measure, now followedthither, whither He in whom we have believed has ascended; born, [3] dead, risen again, taken up. Of these four things, we knew the firsttwo in ourselves. For we know that men both have a beginning anddie. But the remaining two, that is, to be raised, and to be takenup, we rightly hope will be in us, because we have believed themdone in Him. Since, therefore, in Him that, too, which had abeginning has passed over to eternity, in ourselves also it will sopass over, when faith shall have arrived at truth. For to those whothus believe, in order that they might remain in the word of faith,and being thence led on to the truth, and through that to eternity,might be freed from death, He speaks thus: “If yecontinue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed.”And as though they would ask, With what fruit? He proceeds to say,“And ye shall know the truth.” And again, asthough they would say, Of what good is truth to mortal men?“And the truth,” He says, “shallmake you free.” [4] From what, exceptfrom death, from corruption, from changeableness? Since truthremains immortal, incorrupt, unchangeable. But true immortality,true incorruptibility, true unchangeableness, is eternityitself.

CHAP. 19.—: IN WHAT MANNER THE SON WAS SENT AND PROCLAIMEDBEFOREHAND. HOW IN THE SENDING OF HIS BIRTH IN THE FLESH HE WAS MADELESS WITHOUT DETRIMENT TO HIS EQUALITY WITH THE FATHER.

25. Behold, then, why the Sonof God was sent; nay, rather behold what it is for the Son of God tobe sent. Whatever things they were which were wrought in time, witha view to produce faith, whereby we might be cleansed so as tocontemplate truth, in things that have a beginning, which have beenput forth from eternity, and are referred back to eternity: thesewere either testimonies of this mission, or they were the missionitself of the Son of God. But some of these testimonies announcedHim 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 werepreached by the sending of many [witnesses]one would not be bound to, the sending away of many. And unlessthere were such testimonies as should seem to be great to those whoare lowly, it would not be believed, that He being great should makemen great, who as lowly was sent to the lowly. For the heaven andthe earth and all things in them are incomparably greater works ofthe Son of God, since all things were made by Him, than the signsand the portents which broke forth in testimony of Him. But yet men,in order that, being lowly, they might believe these great things tohave been wrought by Him, trembled at those lowly things, as if theyhad been great.

26. “When,therefore, the fullness of time was come, God sent forth His Son,made of a woman, made under the Law;” [5] to such a degree lowly,that He was “made;” in this way thereforesent, in that He was made. If, therefore, the greater sends theless, we too, acknowledge Him to have been made less; and in so farless, in so far as made; and in so far made, in so far as sent. For“He sent forth His Son made of a woman.” Andyet, because all things were made by Him, not only before He wasmade and sent, but before all things were at all, we confess thesame to be equal to the sender, whom we call less, as having beensent. In what way, then, could He be seen by the fathers, whencertain angelical visions were shown to them, before that fullnessof time at which it was fitting He should be sent, and so before Hewas sent, at a time when not yet sent He was seen as He is equalwith the Father? For how does He say toPhilip, by whom He was certainly seen as by all the rest, and evenby those by whom He was crucified in the flesh, “Have Ibeen so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip?he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also;” unlessbecause He was both seen and yet not seen? He was seen, as He hadbeen made in being sent; He was not seen, as by Him all things weremade. Or how does He say this too, “He that hath mycommandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me; and he thatloveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and willmanifest myself to him,” [1] at a time when He wasmanifest before the eyes of men; unless because He was offering thatflesh, which the Word was made in the fullness of time, to beaccepted by our faith; but was keeping back the Word itself, by whomall things were made, to be contemplated in eternity by the mindwhen cleansed by faith?

CHAP. 20.—: THE SENDER AND THE SENT EQUAL. WHY THE SON ISSAID TO BE SENT BY THE FATHER. OF THE MISSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. HOWAND BY WHOM HE WAS SENT. THE FATHER THE BEGINNING OF THE WHOLEGODHEAD.

27. But if the Son is said tobe 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 frombelieving the Son to be equal, and consubstantial, and co-eternalwith the Father, and yet to have been sent as Son by the Father. Notbecause the one is greater, the other less; but because the one isFather, the other Son; the one begetter, the other begotten; theone, He from whom He is who is sent; the other, He who is from Himwho sends. For the Son is from the Father, not the Father from theSon. And according to this manner we can now understand that the Sonis not only said to have been sent because “the Word wasmade flesh,” [2] but therefore sentthat the Word might be made flesh, and that He might perform throughHis bodily presence those things which were written; that is, thatnot only is He understood to have been sent as man, which the Wordwas made but the Word, too, was sent that it might be made man;because He was not sent in respect to any inequality of power, orsubstance, or anything that in Him was not equal to the Father; butin respect to this, that the Son is from the Father, not the Fatherfrom the Son; for the Son is the Word of the Father, which is alsocalled His wisdom. What wonder, therefore, if He is sent, notbecause He is unequal with the Father, but because He is“a pure emanation ( manatio ) issuingfrom the glory of the Almighty God?” For there, thatwhich issues, and that from which it issues, is of one and the samesubstance. For it does not issue as water issues from an aperture ofearth or of stone, but as light issues from light. For the words,“For she is the brightness of the everlastinglight,” what else are they than, she is light ofeverlasting light? For what is the brightness of light, except lightitself? and so co-eternal, with the light, from which the light is.But it is preferable to say, “the brightness oflight,” rather than “the light oflight;” lest that which issues should be thought to bedarker than that from which it issues. For when one hears of thebrightness of light as being light itself, it is more easy tobelieve that the former shines by means of the latter, than that thelatter shines less. But because there was no need of warning men notto think that light to be less, which begat the other (for noheretic ever dared say this, neither is it to be believed that anyone will dare to do so), Scripture meets that other thought, wherebythat light which issues might seem darker than that from which itissues; and it has removed this surmise by saying, “It isthe brightness of that light,” namely, of eternal light,and so shows it to be equal. For if it were less, then it would beits darkness, not its brightness; but if it were greater, then itcould not issue from it, for it could not surpass that from which itis educed. Therefore, because it issues from it, it is not greaterthan it is; and because it is not its darkness, but its brightness,it is not less than it is: therefore it is equal. Nor ought this totrouble us, that it is called a pure emanation issuing from theglory of the Almighty God, as if itself were not omnipotent, but anemanation from the Omnipotent; for soon after it is said of it,“And being but one, she can do allthings.” [3] But who isomnipotent, unless He who can do all things? It is sent, therefore,by Him from whom it issues; for so she is sought after by him wholoved and desired her. “Send her,” he says,“out of Thy holy heavens, and from the throne of Thyglory, that, being present, she may labor with me;” [4] that is, may teach me to labor[heartily] in order that I may not labor[irksomely]. For her labors are virtues. Butshe is sent in one way that she may be with man; she has been sentin another way that she herself may be man. For, “entering into holy souls, she maketh themfriends of God and prophets;” [1] so she also fills theholy angels, and works all things fitting for such ministries bythem. [2] But when the fullness oftime was come, she was sent, [3] not to fill angels, nor tobe an angel, except in so far as she announced the counsel of theFather, which was her own also; nor, again, to be with men or inmen, for this too took place before, both in the fathers and in theprophets; but that the Word itself should be made flesh, that is,should be made man. In which future mystery, when revealed, was tobe the salvation of those wise and holy men also, who, before He wasborn of the Virgin, were born of women; and in which, when done andmade known, is the salvation of all who believe, and hope, and love.For this is “the great mystery of godliness, which [4] was manifest in theflesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto theGentiles, believed on in the world, received up intoglory.” [5]

28. Therefore the Word of Godis sent by Him, of whom He is the Word; He is sent by Him, from whomHe 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 beapprehended and perceived, in proportion to the comprehension of therational soul, either advancing towards God, or already perfect inGod. The Son, therefore, is not properly said to have been sent inthat He is begotten of the Father; but either in that the Word madeflesh appeared to the world, whence He says, “I cameforth from the Father, and am come into the world;” [6] or in that from time to time, He is perceived bythe mind of each, according to the saying, “Send her,that, being present with me, she may labor with me.” [7] What then is born ( natum )from eternity is eternal, “for it is the brightness ofthe everlasting light;” but what is sent from time totime, is that which is apprehended by each. But when the Son of Godwas made manifest in the flesh, He was sent into this world in thefullness of time, made of a woman. “For after that, inthe wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew not God”(since “the light shineth in darkness, and the darknesscomprehended it not”), it “pleased God by thefoolishness of preaching to save them that believe,” [8] and that the Word should be made flesh, and dwellamong us. [9] But when from time to time He comes forth andis perceived by the mind of each, He is said indeed to be sent, butnot into this world; for He does not appear sensibly, that is, Hedoes not present Himself to the corporeal senses. For we ourselves,too, are not in this world, in respect to our grasping with the mindas far as we can that which is eternal; and the spirits of all therighteous are not in this world, even of those who are still livingin the flesh, in so far as they have discernment in things divine.But the Father is not said to be sent, when from time to time He isapprehended by any one, for He has no one of whom to be, or fromwhom to proceed; since Wisdom says, “I came out of themouth of the Most High,” [10] and it is said of theHoly Spirit, “He proceedeth from theFather,” [11] but the Father is from noone.

29. As, therefore, the Fatherbegat, 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 bothHe who sent and He who was sent, are one, since the Father and theSon are one. [12] So also the Holy Spirit is one with them,since these three are one. For as to be born, in respect to the Son,means to be from the Father; so to be sent, in respect to the Son,means to be known to be from the Father. And as to be the gift ofGod in respect to the Holy Spirit, means to proceed from the Father;so to be sent, is to be known to proceed from the Father. Neithercan we say that the Holy Spirit does not also proceed from the Son,for the same Spirit is not without reason said to be the Spirit bothof the Father and of the Son. [13] Nor do I see what else He intended tosignify, when He breathed on the face of the disciples, and said,“Receive ye the Holy Ghost.” [14] For that bodily breathing, proceeding from thebody with the feeling of bodily touching, was not the substance ofthe Holy Spirit, but a declaration by a fitting sign, that the HolySpirit proceeds not only from the Father, but also from the Son. Forthe veriest of madmen would not say, that it was one Spirit which Hegave when He breathed on them, and another which He sent after Hisascension. [15] For the Spirit of God is one, the Spirit ofthe Father and of the Son, the Holy Spirit, who worketh all inall. [16] But that He was given twice was certainly asignificant economy, which we will discussin its place, as far as the Lord may grant. That then which the Lordsays,—“Whom I will send unto you from theFather,” [1] —shows theSpirit to be both of the Father and of the Son; because, also, whenHe had said, “Whom the Father will send,” Headded also, “in my name.” [2] Yet He did not say, Whomthe Father will send from me, as He said,“Whom I will send unto you from theFather,”—showing, namely, that the Father isthe beginning ( principium ) of the wholedivinity, or if it is better so expressed, deity. [3] He, therefore, who proceeds fromthe Father and from the Son, is referred back to Him from whom theSon was born ( natus ). And that which theevangelist says, “For the Holy Ghost was not yet given,because that Jesus was not yet glorified;” [4] how is this to be understood, unless because thespecial giving or sending of the Holy Spirit after the glorificationof Christ was to be such as it had never been before? For it was notpreviously none at all, but it had not been such as this. For if theHoly Spirit was not given before, wherewith were the prophets whospoke filled? Whereas the Scripture plainly says, and shows in manyplaces, that they spake by the Holy Spirit. Whereas, also, it issaid of John the Baptist, “And he shall be filled withthe Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.”And his father Zacharias is found to have been filled with the HolyGhost, so as to say such things of him. And Mary, too, was filledwith the Holy Ghost, so as to foretell such things of the Lord, whomshe was bearing in her womb. [5] And Simeon and Annawere filled with the Holy Spirit, so as to acknowledge the greatnessof the little child Christ. [6] How, then, was“the Spirit not yet given, since Jesus was not yetglorified,” unless because that giving, or granting, ormission of the Holy Spirit was to have a certain speciality of itsown in its very advent, such as never was before? For we readnowhere that men spoke in tongues which they did not know, throughthe Holy Spirit coming upon them; as happened then, when it wasneedful that His coming should be made plain by visible signs, inorder to show that the whole world, and all nations constituted withdifferent tongues, should believe in Christ through the gift of theHoly Spirit, to fulfill that which is sung in the Psalm,“There is no speech nor language where their voice is notheard; their sound is gone out through all the earth, and theirwords to the end of the world.” [7]

30. Therefore man was united,and in some sense commingled, with the Word of God, so as to be OnePerson, when the fullness of time was come, and the Son of God, madeof a woman, was sent into this world, that He might be also the Sonof man for the sake of the sons of men. And this person angelicnature could prefigure beforehand, so as to pre-announce, but couldnot appropriate, so as to be that person itself.

CHAP. 21.—: OF THE SENSIBLE SHOWING OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,AND OF THE CO-ETERNITY OF THE TRINITY. WHAT HAS BEEN SAID, AND WHATREMAINS TO BE SAID.

But with respect to the sensible showing of the Holy Spirit, whetherby the shape of a dove, [8] or by fierytongues, [9] when the subjected and subservient creature bytemporal motions and forms manifested His substance co-eternal withthe Father and the Son, and alike with them unchangeable, while itwas not united so as to be one person with Him, as the flesh waswhich the Word was made; [10] I do not dare to say thatnothing of the kind was done aforetime. But I would boldly say, thatthe Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, of one and the same substance, Godthe Creator, the Omnipotent Trinity, work indivisibly; but that thiscannot be indivisibly manifested by the creature, which is farinferior, and least of all by the bodily creature: just as theFather, Son, and Holy Spirit cannot be named by our words, whichcertainly are bodily sounds, except in their own proper intervals oftime, divided by a distinct separation, which intervals the propersyllables of each word occupy. Since in their proper substancewherein they are, the three are one, the Father, and the Son, andthe Holy Spirit, the very same, by no temporal motion, above thewhole creature, without any interval of time and place, and at onceone and the same from eternity to eternity, as it were eternityitself, which is not without truth andcharity. But, in my words, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit areseparated, and cannot be named at once, and occupy their own properplaces separately invisible letters. And as, when I name my memory,and intellect, and will, each name refers to each severally, but yeteach is uttered by all three; for there is no one of these threenames that is not uttered by both my memory and my intellect and mywill together [by the soul as a whole]; so theTrinity together wrought both the voice of the Father, and the fleshof the Son, and the dove of the Holy Spirit, while each of thesethings is referred severally to each person. And by this similitudeit is in some degree discernible, that the Trinity, which isinseparable in itself, is manifested separably by the appearance ofthe visible creature; and that the operation of the Trinity is alsoinseparable in each severally of those things which are said topertain properly to the manifesting of either the Father, or theSon, or the Holy Spirit.

31. If then I am asked, inwhat manner either words or sensible forms and appearances werewrought before the incarnation of the Word of God, which shouldprefigure it as about to come, I reply that God wrought those thingsby the angels; and this I have also shown sufficiently, as I think,by testimonies of the Holy Scriptures. And if I am asked how theincarnation itself was brought to pass, I reply that the Word of Goditself was made flesh, that is, was made man, yet not turned andchanged into that which was made; but so made, that there should bethere not only the Word of God and the flesh of man, but also therational soul of man, and that this whole should both be called Godon account of God, and man on account of man. And if this isunderstood with difficulty, the mind must be purged by faith, bymore and more abstaining from sins, and by doing good works, and bypraying with the groaning of holy desires; that by profiting throughthe 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 Fatherwas produced, or a corporeal appearance by which the Holy Spirit wasmanifested: I do not doubt indeed that this was done through thecreature; but whether only corporeal and sensible, or whether by theemployment also of the spirit rational or intellectual (for this isthe term by which some choose to call what the Greeks nameνοερόν),not certainly so as to form one person (for who could possibly saythat whatever creature it was by which the voice of the Fathersounded, is in such sense God the Father; or whatever creature itwas 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 ofGod is that man who was made of a virgin?), but only to the ministryof bringing about such intimations as God judged needful; or whetheranything else is to be understood: is difficult to discover, and notexpedient rashly to affirm. Yet I see not how those things couldhave been brought to pass without the rational or intellectualcreature. But it is not yet the proper place to explain, as the Lordmay give me strength, why I so think; for the arguments of hereticsmust first be discussed and refuted, which they do not produce fromthe divine books, but from their own reasons, and by which, as theythink, they forcibly compel us so to understand the testimonies ofthe Scriptures which treat of the Father, and the Son, and the HolySpirit, as they themselves will.

32. But now, as I think, ithas been sufficiently shown, that the Son is not therefore lessbecause He is sent by the Father, nor the Holy Spirit less becauseboth the Father sent Him and the Son. For these things are perceivedto be laid down in the Scriptures, either on account of the visiblecreature; or rather on account of commending to our thoughts theemanation [within the Godhead]; [1] but not on account of inequality,or imparity, or unlikeness of substance; since, even if God theFather had willed to appear visibly through the subject creature,yet it would be most absurd to say that He was sent either by theSon, whom He begot, or by the Holy Spirit, who proceeds from Him.Let this, therefore, be the limit of the present book. Henceforth inthe rest we shall see, the Lord helping, of what sort are thosecrafty arguments of the heretics, and in what manner they may beconfuted.

BOOK V.

PROCEEDS TO TREAT OF THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORWARD BY THEHERETICS, NOT FROM SCRIPTURE, BUT FROM THEIR OWN REASON. THOSEARE REFUTED, WHO THINK THE SUBSTANCE OF THE FATHER AND OF THESON TO BE NOT THE SAME, BECAUSE EVERYTHING PREDICATED OF GOD IS,IN THEIR OPINION, PREDICATED OF HIM ACCORDING TO SUBSTANCE; ANDTHEREFORE IT FOLLOWS, THAT TO BEGET AND TO BE BEGOTTEN, OR TO BEBEGOTTEN AND UNBEGOTTEN, BEING DIVERSE, ARE DIVERSE SUBSTANCES;WHEREAS IT IS HERE DEMONSTRATED THAT NOT EVERYTHING PREDICATEDOF GOD IS PREDICATED ACCORDING TO SUBSTANCE, IN SUCH MANNER ASHE IS CALLED GOOD AND GREAT ACCORDING TO SUBSTANCE, OR ANYTHINGELSE THAT IS PREDICATED OF HIM IN RESPECT TO HIMSELF; BUT THATSOME THINGS ARE ALSO PREDICATED OF HIM RELATIVELY, I. E. NOT INRESPECT TO HIMSELF, BUT TO SOMETHING NOT HIMSELF, AS HE ISCALLED FATHER IN RESPECT TO THE SON, AND LORD IN RESPECT TO THECREATURE THAT SERVETH HIM; IN WHICH CASE, IF ANYTHING THUSPREDICATED RELATIVELY, I. E. IN RESPECT TO SOMETHING NOTHIMSELF, IS EVEN PREDICATED AS HAPPENING IN TIME, AS E. G.“LORD, THOU HAST BECOME OUR REFUGE,” YETNOTHING HAPPENS TO GOD SO AS TO WORK A CHANGE IN HIM, BUT HEHIMSELF REMAINS ABSOLUTELY UNCHANGEABLE IN HIS OWN NATURE ORESSENCE.

CHAP. 1.—: WHAT THE AUTHOR ENTREATS FROM GOD, WHAT FROMTHE READER. IN GOD NOTHING IS TO BE THOUGHT CORPOREAL ORCHANGEABLE.

1. Beginning, as I now dohenceforward, to speak of subjects which cannot altogether be spokenas they are thought, either by any man, or, at any rate, not bymyself; although even our very thought, when we think of God theTrinity, 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, evenby those who are so great as was the Apostle Paul,“through a glass and in an enigma:” [1] first, I pray to our Lord God Himself, of whom weought always to think, and of whom we are not able to thinkworthily, in praise of whom blessing is at all times to berendered, [2] and whom no speech is sufficient to declare,that He will grant me both help for understanding and explainingthat which I design, and pardon if in anything I offend. For I bearin mind, not only my desire, but also my infirmity. I ask also of myreaders to pardon me, where they may perceive me to have had thedesire rather than the power to speak, what they either understandbetter themselves, or fail to understand through the obscurity of mylanguage, just as I myself pardon them what they cannot understandthrough their own dullness.

2. And we shall mutuallypardon one another the more easily, if we know, or at any ratefirmly believe and hold, that whatever is said of a nature,unchangeable, invisible and having life absolutely and sufficient toitself, must not be measured after the custom of things visible, andchangeable, and mortal, or not self-sufficient. But although welabor, and yet fail, to grasp and know even those things which arewithin the scope of our corporeal senses, or what we are ourselvesin the inner man; yet it is with no shamelessness that faithfulpiety burns after those divine and unspeakable things which areabove: piety, I say, not inflated by the arrogance of its own power,but inflamed by the grace of its Creatorand Saviour Himself. For with what understanding can man apprehendGod, who does not yet apprehend that very understanding itself ofhis own, by which he desires to apprehend Him? And if he doesalready apprehend this, let him carefully consider that there isnothing in his own nature better than it; and let him see whether hecan there see any outlines of forms, or brightness of colors, orgreatness of space, or distance of parts, or extension of size, orany movements through intervals of place, or any such thing at all.Certainly we find nothing of all this in that, than which we findnothing better in our own nature, that is, in our own intellect, bywhich we apprehend wisdom according to our capacity. What,therefore, we do not find in that which is our own best, we oughtnot to seek in Him who is far better than that best of ours; that sowe may understand God, if we are able, and as much as we are able,as good without quality, great without quantity, a creator though Helack nothing, ruling but from no position, sustaining all thingswithout “having” them, in His wholenesseverywhere, yet without place, eternal without time, making thingsthat are changeable, without change of Himself, and without passion.Whoso thus thinks of God, although he cannot yet find out in allways what He is, yet piously takes heed, as much as he is able, tothink nothing of Him that He is not.

CHAP. 2.—: GOD THE ONLY UNCHANGEABLE ESSENCE.

3. He is, however, withoutdoubt, a substance, or, if it be better so to call it, an essence,which the Greeks callοὐσία. For aswisdom is so called from the being wise, and knowledge from knowing;so from being [1] comes that which wecall essence. And who is there that is, more than He who said to Hisservant Moses, “I am that I am;” and,“Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, He whois hath sent me unto you?” [2] But other things that arecalled essences or substances admit of accidents, whereby a change,whether great or small, is produced in them. But there can be noaccident of this kind in respect to God; and therefore He who is Godis the only unchangeable substance or essence, to whom certainly BEING itself, whence comes the name of essence,most especially and most truly belongs. For that which is changeddoes not retain its own being; and that which can be changed,although it be not actually changed, is able not to be that which ithad been; and hence that which not only is not changed, but alsocannot at all be changed, alone falls most truly, without difficultyor hesitation, under the category of BEING.

CHAP. 3.—: THE ARGUMENT OF THE ARIANS IS REFUTED, WHICHIS DRAWN FROM THE WORDS BEGOTTEN AND UNBEGOTTEN.

4. Wherefore,—tobeing now to answer the adversaries of our faith, respecting thosethings also, which are neither said as they are thought, nor thoughtas they really are:—among the many things which theArians are wont to dispute against the Catholic faith, they seemchiefly to set forth this, as their most crafty device, namely, thatwhatsoever is said or understood of God, is said not according toaccident, but according to substance: and therefore, to beunbegotten belongs to the Father according to substance, and to bebegotten belongs to the Son according to substance; but to beunbegotten and to be begotten are different; therefore the substanceof the Father and that of the Son are different. To whom we reply,If whatever is spoken of God is spoken according to substance, thenthat which is said, “I and the Father areone,” [3] is spoken according tosubstance. Therefore there is one substance of the Father and theSon. Or if this is not said according to substance, then somethingis said of God not according to substance, and therefore we are nolonger compelled to understand unbegotten and begotten according tosubstance. It is also said of the Son, “He thought it notrobbery to be equal with God.” [4] We ask, equal accordingto what? For if He is not said to be equal according to substance,then they admit that something may be said of God not according tosubstance. Let them admit, then, that unbegotten and begotten arenot spoken according to substance. And if they do not admit this, onthe ground that they will have all things to be spoken of Godaccording to substance, then the Son is equal to the Fatheraccording to substance.

CHAP. 4.—: THE ACCIDENTAL ALWAYS IMPLIES SOME CHANGE INTHE THING.

5. That which is accidentalcommonly implies that it can be lost by some change of the thing towhich it is an accident. For although some accidents are said to beinseparable, which in Greek are calledὰχώριστα,as the color black is to the feather of a raven; yet the feather loses that color, not indeed so long asit is a feather, but because the feather is not always. Whereforethe matter itself is changeable; and whenever that animal or thatfeather ceases to be, and the whole of that body is changed andturned into earth, it loses certainly that color also. Although thekind of accident which is called separable may likewise be lost, notby separation, but by change; as, for instance, blackness is calleda separable accident to the hair of men, because hair continuing tobe hair can grow white; yet, if carefully considered, it issufficiently apparent, that it is not as if anything departed byseparation away from the head when it grows white, as thoughblackness departed thence and went somewhere, and whiteness came inits place, but that the quality of color there is turned andchanged. Therefore there is nothing accidental in God, because thereis nothing changeable or that may be lost. But if you choose to callthat also accidental, which, although it may not be lost, yet can bedecreased or increased,—as, for instance, the life of thesoul: for as long as it is a soul, so long it lives, and because thesoul is always, it always lives; but because it lives more when itis wise, and less when it is foolish, here, too, some change comesto pass, not such that life is absent, as wisdom is absent to thefoolish, but such that it is less;—nothing of this kind,either, happens to God, because He remains altogetherunchangeable.

CHAP. 5.—: NOTHING IS SPOKEN OF GOD ACCORDING TOACCIDENT, BUT ACCORDING TO SUBSTANCE OR ACCORDING TO RELATION.

6. Wherefore nothing in Himis said in respect to accident, since nothing is accidental to Him,and yet all that is said is not said according to substance. For increated and changeable things, that which is not said according tosubstance, must, by necessary alternative, be said according toaccident. For all things are accidents to them, which can be eitherlost or diminished, whether magnitudes or qualities; and so also isthat which is said in relation to something, as friendships,relationships, services, likenesses, equalities, and anything elseof the kind; so also positions and conditions, [1] places and times, acts and passions. But in God nothing is said tobe according to accident, because in Him nothing is changeable; andyet everything that is said, is not said according to substance. Forit is said in relation to something, as the Father in relation tothe Son and the Son in relation to the Father, which is notaccident; because both the one is always Father, and the other isalways Son: yet not “always,” meaning from thetime when the Son was born [ natus ], so that the Father ceases not to be theFather because the Son never ceases to be theSon, but because the Son was always born, andnever began to be the Son. But if He had begun to be at any time, orwere at any time to cease to be, the Son, then He would be calledSon according to accident. But if the Father, in that He is calledthe Father, were so called in relation to Himself, not to the Son;and the Son, in that He is called the Son, were so called inrelation to Himself, not to the Father; then both the one would becalled Father, and the other Son, according to substance. Butbecause the Father is not called the Father except in that He has aSon, and the Son is not called Son except in that He has a Father,these things are not said according to substance; because each ofthem is not so called in relation to Himself, but the terms are usedreciprocally and in relation each to the other; nor yet according toaccident, because both the being called the Father, and the beingcalled the Son, is eternal and unchangeable to them. Wherefore,although to be the Father and to be the Son is different, yet theirsubstance is not different; because they are so called, notaccording to substance, but according to relation, which relation,however, is not accident, because it is not changeable.

CHAP. 6.—: REPLY IS MADE TO THE CAVILS OF THE HERETICS INRESPECT TO THE SAME WORDS BEGOTTEN AND UNBEGOTTEN.

7. But if they think they cananswer this reasoning thus,—that the Father indeed is socalled in relation to the Son, and the Son in relation to theFather, but that they are said to be unbegotten and begotten inrelation to themselves, not in relation each to the other; for thatit is not the same thing to call Him unbegotten as it is to call Himthe Father, because there would be nothing to hinder our calling Himunbegotten even if He had not begotten the Son; and if any one begeta son, he is not therefore himself unbegotten, for men, who arebegotten by other men, themselves also beget others; and thereforethey say the Father is called Father in relation to the Son, and theSon is called Son in relation to the Father, but unbegotten is saidin relation to Himself, and begotten in relation to Himself; andtherefore, if whatever is said in relation to oneself is saidaccording to substance, while to beunbegotten and to be begotten are different, then the substance isdifferent:—if this is what they say, then they do notunderstand that they do indeed say something that requires morecareful discussion in respect to the term unbegotten, becauseneither is any one therefore a father because unbegotten, northerefore unbegotten because he is a father, and on that account heis supposed to be called unbegotten, not in relation to anythingelse, but in respect to himself; but, on the other hand, with awonderful blindness, they do not perceive that no one can be said tobe begotten except in relation to something. For he is therefore ason because begotten; and because a son, therefore certainlybegotten. And as is the relation of son to father, so is therelation of the begotten to the begetter; and as is the relation offather to son, so is the relation of the begetter to the begotten.And therefore any one is understood to be a begetter under onenotion, but understood to be unbegotten under another. For thoughboth are said of God the Father, yet the former is said in relationto the begotten, that is to the Son, which, indeed, they do notdeny; but that He is called unbegotten, they declare to be said inrespect to Himself. They say then, If anything is said to be afather in respect to itself, which cannot be said to be a son inrespect to itself, and whatever is said in respect to self is saidaccording to substance; and He is said to be unbegotten in respectto Himself, which the Son cannot be said to be; therefore He is saidto be unbegotten according to substance; and because the Son cannotbe so said to be, therefore He is not of the same substance. Thissubtlety is to be answered by compelling them to say themselvesaccording to what it is that the Son is equal to the Father; whetheraccording to that which is said in relation to Himself, or accordingto that which is said in relation to the Father. For it is notaccording to that which is said in relation to the Father, since inrelation to the Father He is said to be Son, and the Father is notSon, but Father. Since Father and Son are not so called in relationto each other in the same way as friends and neighbors are; for afriend is so called relatively to his friend, and if they love eachother equally, then the same friendship is in both; and a neighboris so called relatively to a neighbor, and because they are equallyneighbors to each other (for each is neighbor to the other, in thesame degree as the other is neighbor to him), there is the sameneighborhood in both. But because the Son is not so calledrelatively to the Son, but to the Father, it is not according tothat which is said in relation to the Father that the Son is equalto the Father; and it remains that He is equal according to thatwhich is said in relation to Himself. But whatever is said inrelation to self is said according to substance: it remainstherefore that He is equal according to substance; therefore thesubstance of both is the same. But when the Father is said to beunbegotten, it is not said what He is, but what He is not; and whena relative term is denied, it is not denied according to substance,since the relative itself is not affirmed according tosubstance.

CHAP. 7.—: THE ADDITION OF A NEGATIVE DOES NOT CHANGE THEPREDICAMENT.

8. This is to be made clearby examples. And first we must notice, that by the word begotten issignified the same thing as is signified by the word son. Fortherefore a son, because begotten, and because a son, thereforecertainly begotten. By the word unbegotten, therefore, it isdeclared that he is not son. But begotten and unbegotten are both ofthem terms suitably employed; whereas in Latin we can use the word“filius,” but the custom of the language doesnot allow us to speak of “infilius.” It makesno difference, however, in the meaning if he is called“non filius;” just as it is precisely the samething if he is called “non genitus,” insteadof “ingenitus.” For so the terms of bothneighbor and friend are used relatively, yet we cannot speak of“invicinus” as we can of“inimicus.” Wherefore, in speaking of thisthing or that, we must not consider what the usage of our ownlanguage either allows or does not allow, but what clearly appearsto be the meaning of the things themselves. Let us not therefore anylonger call it unbegotten, although it can be so called in Latin;but instead of this let us call it not begotten, which means thesame. 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 besaid according to substance, which, without it, is said relatively;but that only is denied, which, without it, was affirmed, as in theother predicaments. When we say he is a man, we denote substance. Hetherefore who says he is not a man, enunciates no other kind ofpredicament, but only denies that. As therefore I affirm accordingto substance in saying he is a man, so I deny according to substancein saying he is not a man. And when the question is asked, how largehe is? and I say he is quadrupedal, that is, four feet in measure,I affirm according to quantity, and hewho says he is not quadrupedal, denies according to quantity. I sayhe is white, I affirm according to quality; if I say he is notwhite, I deny according to quality. I say he is near, I affirmaccording to relation; if I say he is not near, I deny according torelation. I affirm according to position, when I say he lies down; Ideny according to position, when I say he does not lie down. I speakaccording to condition, [1] whenI say he is armed; I deny according to condition, when I say he isnot armed; and it comes to the same thing as if I should say he isunarmed. I affirm according to time, when I say he is of yesterday;I deny according to time, when I say he is not of yesterday. Andwhen I say he is at Rome, I affirm according to place; and I denyaccording to place, when I say he is not at Rome. I affirm accordingto the predicament of action, when I say he smites; but if I say hedoes not smite, I deny according to action, so as to declare that hedoes not so act. And when I say he is smitten, I affirm according tothe predicament of passion; and I deny according to the same, when Isay he is not smitten. And, in a word, there is no kind ofpredicament according to which we may please to affirm anything,without being proved to deny according to the same predicament, ifwe prefix the negative particle. And since this is so, if I were toaffirm according to substance, in saying son, I should denyaccording to substance, in saying not son. But because I affirmrelatively when I say he is a son, for I refer to the father;therefore I deny relatively if I say he is not a son, for I referthe same negation to the father, in that I wish to declare that hehas not a parent. But if to be called son is precisely equivalent tothe being called begotten (as we said before), then to be called notbegotten is precisely equivalent to the being called not son. But wedeny relatively when we say he is not son, therefore we denyrelatively when we say he is not begotten. Further, what isunbegotten, unless not begotten? We do not escape, therefore, fromthe relative predicament, when he is called unbegotten. For asbegotten is not said in relation to self, but in that he is of a begetter; so when one is calledunbegotten, he is not so called in relation to himself, but it isdeclared that he is not of a begetter. Bothmeanings, however, turn upon the same predicament, which is calledthat of relation. But that which is asserted relatively does notdenote substance, and accordingly, although begotten and unbegottenare diverse, they do not denote a different substance; because, asson is referred to father, and not son to not father, so it followsinevitably that begotten must be referred to begetter, andnot-begotten to not-begetter. [2]

CHAP. 8.—: WHATEVER IS SPOKEN OF GOD ACCORDING TOSUBSTANCE, IS SPOKEN OF EACH PERSON SEVERALLY, AND TOGETHER OF THETRINITY ITSELF. ONE ESSENCE IN GOD, AND THREE, IN GREEK, HYPOSTASES, INLATIN, PERSONS.

9. Wherefore let us hold thisabove all, that whatsoever is said of that most eminent and divineloftiness in respect to itself, is said in respect to substance, butthat which is said in relation to anything, is not said in respectto substance, but relatively; and that the effect of the samesubstance in Father and Son and Holy Spirit is, that whatsoever issaid of each in respect to themselves, is to be taken of them, notin 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 doubtsto be said in respect to substance, yet we do not say that the verysupreme Trinity itself is three Gods, but one God. So the Father isgreat, the Son great, and the Holy Spirit great; yet not threegreats, but one great. For it is not written of the Father alone, asthey perversely suppose, but of the Father and the Son and the HolySpirit, “Thou art great: Thou art Godalone.” [3] And the Father isgood, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; yet not three goods,but one good, of whom it is said, “None is good, saveone, that is, God.” For the Lord Jesus, lest He should beunderstood as man only by him who said, “GoodMaster,” as addressing a man, does not therefore say,There is none good, save the Father alone; but, “None isgood, save one, that is, God.” [4] For the Father byHimself is declared by the name of Father; but by the name of God,both Himself and the Son and the Holy Spirit, because the Trinity isone God. But position, and condition, and places, and times, are not said to be in God properly, butmetaphorically and through similitudes. For He is both said to dwellbetween the cherubims, [1] which is spoken inrespect to position; and to be covered with the deep as with agarment, [2] which is said in respect to condition; and“Thy years shall have no end,” [3] which is said in respect of time; and,“If I ascend up into heaven, Thou artthere,” [4] which is said inrespect to place. And as respects action (or making), perhaps it maybe said most truly of God alone, for God alone makes and Himself isnot made. Nor is He liable to passions as far as belongs to thatsubstance whereby He is God. So the Father is omnipotent, the Sonomnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is omnipotent; yet not threeomnipotents, but one omnipotent: [5] “For of Him are all things, and through Him are allthings, and in Him are all things; to whom be glory.” [6] Whatever, therefore, is spoken of God in respectto Himself, is both spoken singly of each person, that is, of theFather, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and together of theTrinity itself, not plurally but in the singular. For inasmuch as toGod it is not one thing to be, and another thing to be great, but toHim it is the same thing to be, as it is to be great; therefore, aswe do not say three essences, so we do not say three greatnesses,but one essence and one greatness. I say essence, which in Greek iscalled οὐσία,and which we call more usually substance.

10. They indeed use also theword hypostasis; but they intend to put a difference, I know notwhat, betweenοὐσία andhypostasis: so that most of ourselves who treat these things in theGreek language, are accustomed to say,μίανοὐσίαν,τρεῖςὑποστάσεις,or, in Latin, one essence, three substances. [7]

CHAP. 9.—: THE THREE PERSONS NOT PROPERLY SO CALLED[IN A HUMAN SENSE].

But because with us the usage has already obtained, that by essencewe understand the same thing which is understood by substance; we donot dare to say one essence, three substances, but one essence orsubstance and three persons: as many writers in Latin, who treat ofthese things, and are of authority, have said, in that they couldnot find any other more suitable way by which to enunciate in wordsthat which they understood without words. For, in truth, as theFather is not the Son, and the Son is not the Father, and that HolySpirit who is also called the gift of God is neither the Father northe Son, certainly they are three. And so it is said plurally,“I and my Father are one.” [8] For He has not said,“ is one,” as theSabellians say; but, “ are one.” Yet, when the question is asked, What three? humanlanguage labors altogether under great poverty of speech. Theanswer, however, is given, three “persons,”not that it might be [completely] spoken, butthat it might not be left [wholly]unspoken.

CHAP. 10.—: THOSE THINGS WHICH BELONG ABSOLUTELY TO GOD ASAN ESSENCE, ARE SPOKEN OF THE TRINITY IN THE SINGULAR, NOT IN THEPLURAL.

11. As, therefore, we do notsay three essences, so we do not say three greatnesses, or three whoare great. For in things which are great by partaking of greatness,to which it is one thing to be, and another tobe great, as a great house, and a greatmountain, and a great mind; in these things, I say, greatness is onething, and that which is great because of greatness is another, anda great house, certainly, is not absolute greatness itself. But thatis absolute greatness by which not only a great house is great, andany great mountain is great, but also by which every other thingwhatsoever is great, which is called great; so that greatness itselfis one thing, and those things are another which are called greatfrom it. And this greatness certainly is primarily great, and in amuch more excellent way than those things which are great bypartaking of it. But since God is not great with that greatnesswhich is not Himself, so that God, in being great, is, as it were,partaker of that greatness;—otherwise that will be agreatness greater than God, whereas there is nothing greater thanGod; therefore, He is great with that greatness by which He Himself is that same greatness. And, therefore, aswe do not say three essences, so neither do we say threegreatnesses; for it is the same thing to God to be, and to be great.For the same reason neither do we saythree greats, but one who is great; since God is not great bypartaking of greatness, but He is great by Himself being great,because He Himself is His own greatness. Let the same be said alsoof the goodness, and of the eternity, and of the omnipotence of God,and, in short, of all the predicaments which can be predicated ofGod, as He is spoken of in respect to Himself, not metaphoricallyand by similitude, but properly, if indeed anything can be spoken ofHim properly, by the mouth of man.

CHAP. 11.—: WHAT IS SAID RELATIVELY IN THE TRINITY.

12. But whereas, in the sameTrinity, some things severally are specially predicated, these arein no way said in reference to themselves in themselves, but eitherin mutual reference, or in respect to the creature; and, therefore,it is manifest that such things are spoken relatively, not in theway of substance. For the Trinity is called one God, great, good,eternal, omnipotent; and the same God Himself may be called His owndeity, His own magnitude, His own goodness, His own eternity, Hisown omnipotence: but the Trinity cannot in the same way be calledthe Father, except perhaps metaphorically, in respect to thecreature, on account of the adoption of sons. For that which iswritten, “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is oneLord,” [1] ought certainly not to beunderstood as if the Son were excepted, or the Holy Spirit wereexcepted; which one Lord our God we rightly call also our Father, asregenerating us by His grace. Neither can the Trinity in any wise becalled the Son, but it can be called, in its entirety, the HolySpirit, according to that which is written, “God is aSpirit;” [2] because both the Fatheris a spirit and the Son is a spirit, and the Father is holy and theSon is holy. Therefore, since the Father, the Son and the HolySpirit are one God, and certainly God is holy, and God is a spirit,the Trinity can be called also the Holy Spirit. But yet that HolySpirit, who is not the Trinity, but is understood as in the Trinity,is spoken of in His proper name of the Holy Spirit relatively, sinceHe is referred both to the Father and to the Son, because the HolySpirit is the Spirit both of the Father and of the Son. But therelation is not itself apparent in that name, but it is apparentwhen He is called the gift of God; [3] for He is the gift ofthe Father and of the Son, because “He proceeds from theFather,” [4] as the Lord says; andbecause that which the apostle says, “Now, if any manhave not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His,” [5] he says certainly of the Holy Spirit Himself. Whenwe say, therefore, the gift of the giver, and the giver of the gift,we speak in both cases relatively in reciprocal reference. Thereforethe Holy Spirit is a certain unutterable communion of the Father andthe Son; and on that account, perhaps, He is so called, because thesame name is suitable to both the Father and the Son. For He Himselfis called specially that which they are called in common; becauseboth the Father is a spirit and the Son a spirit, both the Father isholy and the Son holy. [6] In order, therefore, that thecommunion of both may be signified from a name which is suitable toboth, the Holy Spirit is called the gift of both. And this Trinityis one God, alone, good, great, eternal, omnipotent; itself its ownunity, deity, greatness, goodness, eternity, omnipotence.

CHAP. 12.—: IN RELATIVE THINGS THAT ARE RECIPROCAL, NAMESARE SOMETIMES WANTING.

13. Neither ought it toinfluence us—since we have said that the Holy Spirit isso called relatively, not the Trinity itself, but He who is in theTrinity—that the designation of Him to whom He isreferred, does not seem to answer in turn to His designation. For wecannot, as we say the servant of a master, and the master of aservant, the son of a father and the father of a son, so also sayhere—because these things are said relatively. For wespeak of the Holy Spirit of the Father; but, on the other hand, wedo not speak of the Father of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spiritshould be understood to be His Son. So also we speak of the HolySpirit of the Son; but we do not speak of the Son of the Holy Spirit, lest the Holy Spirit beunderstood to be His Father. For it is the case in many relatives,that no designation is to be found by which those things which bearrelation to each other may [in name] mutuallycorrespond to each other. For what is more clearly spoken relativelythan the word earnest? Since it is referred to that of which it isan earnest, and an earnest is always an earnest of something. Canwe, then, as we say, the earnest of the Father and of the Son, [1] say in turn, the Father of the earnest orthe Son of the earnest? But, on the other hand, when we say the giftof the Father and of the Son, we cannot indeed say the Father of thegift, or the Son of the gift; but that these may correspond mutuallyto each other, we say the gift of the giver and the giver of thegift; because here a word in use may be found, there it cannot.

CHAP. 13.—: HOW THE WORD BEGINNING (PRINCIPIUM) IS SPOKENRELATIVELY IN THE TRINITY.

14. The Father is called so,therefore, relatively, and He is also relatively said to be theBeginning, and whatever else there may be of the kind; but He iscalled the Father in relation to the Son, the Beginning in relationto all things, which are from Him. So the Son is relatively socalled; He is called also relatively the Word and the Image. And inall these appellations He is referred to the Father, but the Fatheris 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 toyou.” [2] But is He, pray, theBeginning of the Father? For He intended to show Himself to be theCreator when He said that He was the Beginning, as the Father alsois the beginning of the creature in that all things are from Him.For creator, too, is spoken relatively to creature, as master toservant. And so, when we say, both that the Father is the Beginning,and that the Son is the Beginning, we do not speak of two beginningsof the creature; since both the Father and the Son together is onebeginning in respect to the creature, as one Creator, as one God.But if whatever remains within itself and produces or works anythingis a beginning to that thing which it produces or works; then wecannot deny that the Holy Spirit also is rightly called theBeginning, since we do not separate Him from the appellation ofCreator: and it is written of Him that He works; and assuredly, inworking, He remains within Himself; for He Himself is not changedand turned into any of the things which He works. And see what it isthat He works: “But the manifestation of theSpirit,” he says, “is given to every man toprofit withal. For to one is given by the Spirit the word of wisdom;to another the word of knowledge by the same Spirit; to anotherfaith by the same Spirit; to another the gifts of healing by thesame Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to anotherprophecy; to another the discerning of spirits; to another diverskinds of tongues; to another the interpretation of tongues: but allthese worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to everyman severally as He will;” certainly asGod—for who can work such great things butGod?—but “it is the same God which worketh allin all.” [3] For if we are askedpoint by point concerning the Holy Spirit, we answer most truly thatHe is God; and with the Father and the Son together He is one God.Therefore, God is spoken of as one Beginning in respect to thecreature, not as two or three beginnings.

CHAP. 14.—: THE FATHER AND THE SON THE ONLY BEGINNING(PRINCIPIUM) OF THE HOLY SPIRIT.

15. But in their mutualrelation to one another in the Trinity itself, if the begetter is abeginning in relation to that which he begets, the Father is abeginning in relation to the Son, because He begets Him; but whetherthe Father is also a beginning in relation to the Holy Spirit, sinceit is said, “He proceeds from the Father,” isno small question. Because, if it is so, He will not only be abeginning to that thing which He begets or makes, but also to thatwhich He gives. And here, too, that question comes to light, as itcan, which is wont to trouble many, Why the Holy Spirit is not alsoa son, since He, too, comes forth from the Father, as it is read inthe Gospel. [4] For the Spirit came forth, not as born, butas given; and so He is not called a son, because He was neitherborn, as the Only-begotten, nor made, so that by the grace of God Hemight be born into adoption, as we are. For that which is born ofthe Father, is referred to the Father only when called Son, and sothe Son is the Son of the Father, and not also our Son; but thatwhich is given is referred both to Him who gave, and to those towhom He gave; and so the Holy Spirit is not only the Spirit of theFather and of the Son who gave Him, but Heis also called ours, who have received Him: as “Thesalvation of the Lord,” [1] who gives salvation, issaid also to be our salvation, who have received it. Therefore, theSpirit is both the Spirit of God who gave Him, and ours who havereceived Him. Not, indeed, that spirit of ours by which we are,because that is the spirit of a man which is in him; but this Spiritis ours in another mode, viz. that in which wealso say, “Give us this day our bread.” [2] Although certainly we have received that spiritalso, which is called the spirit of a man. “For what hastthou,” he says, “which thou didst notreceive?” [3] But that is one thing,which we have received that we might be; another, that which we havereceived that we might be holy. Whence it is also written of John,that he “came in the spirit and power ofElias;” [4] and by the spirit of Eliasis meant the Holy Spirit, whom Elias received. And the same thing isto be understood of Moses, when the Lord says to him,“And I will take of thy spirit, and will put it uponthem;” [5] that is, I will give tothem of the Holy Spirit, which I have already given to thee. If,therefore, that also which is given has him for a beginning by whomit is given, since it has received from no other source that whichproceeds from him; it must be admitted that the Father and the Sonare a Beginning of the Holy Spirit, not two Beginnings; but as theFather and Son are one God, and one Creator, and one Lord relativelyto the creature, so are they one Beginning relatively to the HolySpirit. But the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is oneBeginning in respect to the creature, as also one Creator and oneGod. [6]

CHAP. 15.—: WHETHER THE HOLY SPIRIT WAS A GIFT BEFORE ASWELL AS AFTER HE WAS GIVEN.

16. But it is asked further,whether, as the Son, by being born, has not only this, that He isthe Son, but that He is absolutely; and so also the Holy Spirit, bybeing given, has not only this, that He is given, but that He isabsolutely—whether therefore He was, before He was given,but was not yet a gift; or whether, for thevery reason that God was about to give Him, He was already a giftalso before He was given. But if He does not proceed unless when Heis given, and assuredly could not proceed before there was one towhom He might be given; how, in that case, was He[absolutely] in His very substance, if He isnot unless because He is given? just as the Son, by being born, notonly has this, that He is a Son, which is said relatively, but Hisvery substance absolutely, so that He is. Does the Holy Spiritproceed always, and proceed not in time, but from eternity, butbecause He so proceeded that He was capable of being given, wasalready 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 thathas been given. For a gift may exist even before it is given; but itcannot be called a thing that has been given unless it has beengiven.

CHAP. 16.—: WHAT IS SAID OF GOD IN TIME, IS SAIDRELATIVELY, NOT ACCIDENTALLY.

17. Nor let it trouble usthat the Holy Spirit, although He is co-eternal with the Father andthe Son, yet is called something which exists in time; as, forinstance, this very thing which we have called Him, a thing that hasbeen given. For the Spirit is a gift eternally, but a thing that hasbeen given in time. For if a lord also is not so called unless whenhe begins to have a slave, that appellation likewise is relative andin time to God; for the creature is not from all eternity, of whichHe is the Lord. How then shall we make it good that relative termsthemselves are not accidental, since nothing happens accidentally toGod in time, because He is incapable of change, as we have argued inthe beginning of this discussion? Behold! to be the Lord, is noteternal to God; otherwise we should be compelled to say that thecreature also is from eternity, since He would not be a lord fromall eternity unless the creature also was a servant from alleternity. But as he cannot be a slave who has not a lord, neithercan he be a lord who has not a slave. And if there be any one whosays that God, indeed, is alone eternal, and that times are not eternal on account of their varietyand changeableness, but that times nevertheless did not begin to bein time (for there was no time before times began, and therefore itdid not happen to God in time that He should be Lord, since He wasLord of the very times themselves, which assuredly did not begin intime): what will he reply respecting man, who was made in time, andof whom assuredly He was not the Lord before he was of whom He wasto be Lord? Certainly to be the Lord of man happened to God in time.And that all dispute may seem to be taken away, certainly to be yourLord, or mine, who have only lately begun to be, happened to God intime. Or if this, too, seems uncertain on account of the obscurequestion respecting the soul, what is to be said of His being theLord of the people of Israel? since, although the nature of the soulalready existed, which that people had (a matter into which we donot now inquire), yet that people existed not as yet, and the timeis apparent when it began to exist. Lastly, that He should be Lordof this or that tree, or of this or that corn crop, which onlylately began to be, happened in time; since, although the matteritself already existed, yet it is one thing to be Lord of the matter( materiæ ), another to be Lord ofthe already created nature ( naturæ ). [1] Forman, too, is lord of the wood at one time, and at another he is lordof the chest, although fabricated of that same wood; which hecertainly was not at the time when he was already the lord of thewood. How then shall we make it good that nothing is said of Godaccording to accident, except because nothing happens to His natureby which He may be changed, so that those things are relativeaccidents which happen in connection with some change of the thingsof which they are spoken. As a friend is so called relatively: forhe does not begin to be one, unless when he has begun to love;therefore some change of will takes place, in order that he may becalled a friend. And money, when it is called a price, is spoken ofrelatively, and yet it was not changed when it began to be a price;nor, again, when it is called a pledge, or any other thing of thekind. If, therefore, money can so often be spoken of relatively withno change of itself, so that neither when it begins, nor when itceases to be so spoken of, does any change take place in that natureor form of it, whereby it is money; how much more easily ought we toadmit, concerning that unchangeable substance of God, that somethingmay be so predicated relatively in respect to the creature, thatalthough it begin to be so predicated in time, yet nothing shall beunderstood to have happened to the substance itself of God, but onlyto that creature in respect to which it is predicated?“Lord,” it is said, “Thou hast beenmade our refuge.” [2] God, therefore, is said tobe our refuge relatively, for He is referred to us, and He thenbecomes our refuge when we flee to Him; pray does anything come topass then in His nature, which, before we fled to Him, was not? Inus therefore some change does take place; for we were worse beforewe fled to Him, and we become better by fleeing to Him: but in Himthere is no change. So also He begins to be our Father, when we areregenerated through His grace, since He gave us power to become thesons of God. [3] Our substance therefore is changed for thebetter, when we become His sons; and He at the same time begins tobe our Father, but without any change of His own substance.Therefore that which begins to be spoken of God in time, and whichwas not spoken of Him before, is manifestly spoken of Himrelatively; yet not according to any accident of God, so thatanything should have happened to Him, but clearly according to someaccident of that, in respect to which God begins to be calledsomething relatively. When a righteous man begins to be a friend ofGod, he himself is changed; but far be it from us to say, that Godloves any one in time with as it were a new love, which was not inHim before, with whom things gone by have not passed away and thingsfuture have been already done. Therefore He loved all His saintsbefore the foundation of the world, as He predestinated them; butwhen they are converted and find Him, then they are said to begin tobe loved by Him, that what is said may be said in that way in whichit can be comprehended by human affections. So also, when He is saidto be wroth with the unrighteous, and gentle with the good, they arechanged, not He: just as the light is troublesome to weak eyes,pleasant to those that are strong; namely, by their change, not itsown.

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 WISDOMHIMSELF, BUT ONLY THE FATHER OF WISDOM; OR WHETHER WISDOM BEGATWISDOM. BUT THE ANSWER TO THIS IS DEFERRED FOR A LITTLE, WHILETHE UNITY AND EQUALITY OF THE FATHER, AND OF THE SON, AND OF THEHOLY GHOST, ARE PROVED; AND THAT WE OUGHT TO BELIEVE IN ATRINITY, NOT IN A THREEFOLD (TRIPLICEM) GOD. LASTLY, THAT SAYINGOF HILARY IS EXPLAINED, ETERNITY IN THE FATHER, APPEARANCE INTHE IMAGE, USE IN THE GIFT.

CHAP. 1.—: THE SON, ACCORDING TO THE APOSTLE, IS THEPOWER AND WISDOM OF THE FATHER. HENCE THE REASONING OF THE CATHOLICSAGAINST THE EARLIER ARIANS. A DIFFICULTY IS RAISED, WHETHER THE FATHERIS NOT WISDOM HIMSELF, BUT ONLY THE FATHER OF WISDOM.

1. Some think themselveshindered from admitting the equality of the Father, Son, and HolySpirit, because it is written, “Christ, the power of God,and the wisdom of God;” in that, on this ground, theredoes not appear to be equality; because the Father is not Himselfpower and wisdom, but the begetter of power and wisdom. And, intruth, the question is usually asked with no common earnestness, inwhat way God can be called the Father of power and wisdom. For theapostle says, “Christ the power of God, and the wisdom ofGod.” [1] And hence some on ourside have reasoned in this way against the Arians, at least againstthose who at first set themselves up against the Catholic faith. ForArius himself is reported to have said, that if He is a Son, then Hewas born; if He was born, there was a time when the Son was not: notunderstanding that even to be born is, to God, from all eternity; sothat the Son is co-eternal with the Father, as the brightness whichis produced and is spread around by fire is co-eval with it, andwould be co-eternal, if fire were eternal. And therefore some of thelater Arians have abandoned that opinion, and have confessed thatthe Son of God did not begin to be in time. But among the argumentswhich those on our side used to hold against them who said thatthere was a time when the Son was not, some were wont to introducesuch an argument as this: If the Son of God is the power and wisdomof God, and God was never without power and wisdom, then the Son isco-eternal with God the Father; but the apostle says,“Christ the power of God, and the wisdom ofGod;” and a man must be senseless to say that God at anytime had not power or wisdom; therefore there was no time when theSon was not.

2. Now this argument compelsus to say that God the Father is not wise, except by having thewisdom which He begat, not by the Father in Himself being wisdomitself. Further, if it be so, just as the Son also Himself is calledGod of God, Light of Light, we must consider whether He can becalled wisdom of wisdom, if God the Father is not wisdom itself, butonly the begetter of wisdom. And if we hold this, why is He not thebegetter also of His own greatness, and of His own goodness, and ofHis own eternity, and of His own omnipotence; so that He is notHimself His own greatness, and His own goodness, and His owneternity, and His own omnipotence; but is great with that greatnesswhich He begat, and good with that goodness, and eternal with thateternity, and omnipotent with that omnipotence, which was born ofHim; just as He Himself is not His own wisdom, but is wise with thatwisdom which was born of Him? For we need not be afraid of beingcompelled to say that there are many sonsof God, over and above the adoption of the creature, co-eternal withthe Father, if He be the begetter of His own greatness, andgoodness, and eternity, and omnipotence. Because it is easy to replyto this cavil, that it does not at all follow, because many thingsare named, that He should be the Father of many co-eternal sons; just as it does not follow that He is theFather of two sons, because Christ is said to be the power of God,and the wisdom of God. For that certainly is the power which is thewisdom, and that is the wisdom which is the power; and in likemanner, therefore, of the rest also; so that that is the greatnesswhich is the power, or any other of those things which either havebeen mentioned above, or may hereafter be mentioned.

CHAP. 2.—: WHAT IS SAID OF THE FATHER AND SON TOGETHER,AND WHAT NOT.

3. But if nothing is spokenof the Father as such, except that which is spoken of Him inrelation to the Son, that is, that He is His father, or begetter, orbeginning; and if also the begetter is by consequence a beginning tothat which he begets of himself; but whatever else is spoken of Himis so spoken as with the Son, or rather in the Son; whether that He is great with thatgreatness which He begat, or just with that justice which He begat,or good with that goodness which He begat, or powerful with thatforce or power which He begat, or wise with that wisdom which Hebegat: yet the Father is not said to be greatness itself, but thebegetter of greatness; but the Son, as He is called the Son as such,is not so called with the Father but inrelation to the Father, so is not great in andby himself, but with the Father, of whom He isthe greatness; and so also is called wise with the Father, of whom He Himself is the wisdom; just as the Father iscalled wise with the Son, because He is wisewith that wisdom which He begat; therefore the one is not calledwithout the other, whatever they are called in respect tothemselves; that is, whatever they are called that manifests theiressential nature, both are so called together;—if thesethings are so, then the Father is not God without the Son, nor theSon God without the Father, but both together are God. And thatwhich is said, “In the beginning was theWord,” means that the Word was in the Father, Or if“In the beginning” is intended to mean, Beforeall things; then in that which follows, “And the Word waswith God,” the Son alone is understood to be the Word,not the Father and Son together, as though both were one Word (forHe is the Word in the same way as He is the Image, but the Fatherand Son are not both together the Image, but the Son alone is theImage of the Father: just as He is also the Son of the Father, forboth together are not the Son). But in that which is added,“And the Word was with God,” there is muchreason to understand thus: “The Word,” whichis the Son alone, “was with God,” which is notthe Father alone, but God the Father and the Son together. [1] But whatwonder is there, if this can be said in the case of some twofoldthings widely different from each other? For what are so differentas soul and body? Yet we can say the soul was with a man, that is,in a man; although the soul is not the body, and man is both souland body together. So that what follows in the Scripture,“And the Word was God,” [2] may be understood thus: TheWord, which is not the Father, was God together with the Father. Arewe then to say thus, that the Father is the begetter of His owngreatness, that is, the begetter of His own power, or the begetterof His own wisdom; and that the Son is greatness, and power, andwisdom; but that the great, omnipotent, and wise God, is bothtogether? How then God of God, Light of Light?For not both together are God of God, but only the Son is of God,that is to say, of the Father; nor are both together Light of Light,but the Son only is of Light, that is, of the Father. Unless,perhaps, it was in order to intimate and inculcate briefly that theSon is co-eternal with the Father, that it is said, God of God, andLight of Light, or anything else of the like kind: as if to say,This which is not the Son without the Father, of this which is not the Father without the Son; that is,this Light which is not Light without the Father, of that Light, viz. the Father, whichis not Light without the Son; so that, when it is said, God which isnot the Son without the Father, and of Godwhich is not the Father without the Son, it may be perfectlyunderstood that the Begetter did not precede that which He begot.And if this be so, then this alone cannot be said of them, namely,this or that of this or that, which they are not both together. Justas the Word cannot be said to be of the Word, because both are not the Wordtogether, but only the Son; nor image of image,since they are not both together the image; nor Son of Son, since both together are not the Son, according tothat which is said, “I and my Father areone.” [1] For “we areone” means, what He is, that am I also; according toessence, not according to relation.

CHAP. 3.—: THAT THE UNITY OF THE ESSENCE OF THE FATHERAND THE SON IS TO BE GATHERED FROM THE WORDS, “WE AREONE.” THE SON IS EQUAL TO THE FATHER BOTH IN WISDOM AND INALL OTHER THINGS.

4. And I know not whether thewords, “They are one,” are ever found inScripture as spoken of things of which the nature is different. Butif there are more things than one of the same nature, and theydiffer in sentiment, they are not one, and that so far as theydiffer in sentiment. For if the disciples were already one by thefact of being men, He would not say, “That they may beone, as we are one,” [2] when commending them tothe Father. But because Paul and Apollos were both alike men, andalso of like sentiments, “He that planteth,”he says, “and he that watereth are one.” [3] When, therefore, anything is so called one, thatit is not added in what it is one, and yet more things than one arecalled one, then the same essence and nature is signified, notdiffering nor disagreeing. But when it is added in what it is one,it may be meant that something is made one out of things more thanone, though they are different in nature. As soul and body areassuredly not one; for what are so different? unless there be addedor understood in what they are one, that is, one man, or one animal[person]. Thence the apostle says,“He who is joined to a harlot, is one body;”he does not say, they are one or he is one; but he has added“body,” as though it were one body composed bybeing joined together of two different bodies, masculine andfeminine. [4] And, “He that is joined unto theLord,” he says, “is one spirit:” hedid not say, he that is joined unto the Lord is one, or they areone; but he added, “spirit.” For the spirit ofman and the Spirit of God are different in nature; but by beingjoined they become one spirit of two different spirits, so that theSpirit of God is blessed and perfect without the human spirit, butthe spirit of man cannot be blessed without God. Nor is it withoutcause, I think, that when the Lord said so much in the Gospelaccording to John, and so often, of unity itself, whether of His ownwith the Father, or of ours interchangeably with ourselves; He hasnowhere said, that we are also one with Himself, but,“that they may be one as we also are one.” [5] Therefore the Father and the Son are one,undoubtedly according to unity of substance; and there is one God,and one great, and one wise, as we have argued.

5. Whence then is the Fathergreater? For if greater, He is greater by greatness; but whereas theSon is His greatness, neither assuredly is the Son greater than Hewho begat Him, nor is the Father greater than that greatness,whereby He is great; therefore they are equal. For whence is Heequal, if not in that which He is, to whom it is not one thing tobe, and another to be great? Or if the Father is greater ineternity, the Son is not equal in anything whatsoever. For whenceequal? If you say in greatness, that greatness is not equal which isless eternal, and so of all things else. Or is He perhaps equal inpower, but not equal in wisdom? But how is that power which is lesswise, equal? Or is He equal in wisdom, but not equal in power? Buthow is that wisdom equal which is less powerful? It remains,therefore, that if He is not equal in anything, He is not equal inall. But Scripture proclaims, that “He thought it notrobbery to be equal with God.” [6] Therefore any adversaryof the truth whatever, provided he feels bound by apostolicalauthority, must needs confess that the Son is equal with God in eachone thing whatsoever. Let him choose that which he will; from it hewill be shown, that He is equal in all things which are said of Hissubstance.

CHAP. 4.—: THE SAME ARGUMENT CONTINUED.

6. For in like manner thevirtues which are in the human mind, although each has its ownseveral and different meaning, yet are in no way mutually separable;so that, for instance, whosoever were equal in courage, are equalalso in prudence, and temperance, and justice. For if you say thatsuch and such men are equal in courage, but that one of them isgreater in prudence, it follows that the courage of the other isless prudent, and so neither are they equal in courage, since thecourage of the former is more prudent. And so you will find it to bethe 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 thecourage of the mind. How much moretherefore is this the case in that unchangeable and eternalsubstance, which is incomparably more simple than the human mind is?Since, in the human mind, to be is not the same as to be strong, orprudent, or just, or temperate; for a mind can exist, and yet havenone of these virtues. But in God to be is the same as to be strong,or to be just, or to be wise, or whatever is said of that simplemultiplicity, or multifold simplicity, whereby to signify Hissubstance. Wherefore, whether we say God of God in such way thatthis name belongs to each, yet not so that both together are twoGods, but one God; for they are in such way united with each other,as according to the apostle’s testimony may take placeeven in diverse and differing substances; for both the Lord alone isa Spirit, and the spirit of a man alone is assuredly a spirit; yet,if it cleave to the Lord, “it is one spirit:”how much more there, where there is an absolutely inseparable andeternal union, so that He may not seem absurdly to be called as itwere the Son of both, when He is called the Son of God, if thatwhich is called God is only said of both together. Or perhaps it is,that whatever is said of God so as to indicate His substance, is notsaid except of both together, nay of the Trinity itself together?Whether therefore it be this or that (which needs a closer inquiry),it is enough for the present to see from what has been said, thatthe Son is in no respect equal with the Father, if He is found to beunequal in anything which has to do with signifying His substance,as we have already shown. But the apostle has said that He is equal.Therefore the Son is equal with the Father in all things, and is ofone and the same substance.

CHAP. 5.—: THE HOLY SPIRIT ALSO IS EQUAL TO THE FATHERAND THE SON IN ALL THINGS.

7. Wherefore also the HolySpirit consists in the same unity of substance, and in the sameequality. For whether He is the unity of both, or the holiness, orthe love, or therefore the unity because the love, and therefore thelove because the holiness, it is manifest that He is not one of thetwo, through whom the two are joined, through whom the Begotten isloved by the Begetter, and loves Him that begat Him, and throughwhom, not by participation, but by their own essence, neither by thegift of any superior, but by their own, they are “keepingthe unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace;” [1] which we are commanded to imitate by grace, both towards God andtowards ourselves. “On which two commandments hang allthe law and the prophets.” [2] So those three areGod, one, alone, great, wise, holy, blessed. But we are blessed fromHim, and through Him, and in Him; because we ourselves are one byHis gift, and one spirit with Him, because our soul cleaves to Himso as to follow Him. And it is good for us to cleave to God, sinceHe will destroy every man who is estranged from Him. [3] Therefore the Holy Spirit, whatever it is, issomething common both to the Father and Son. But that communionitself is consubstantial and co-eternal; and if it may fitly becalled friendship, let it be so called; but it is more aptly calledlove. And this is also a substance, since God is a substance, and“God is love,” as it is written. [4] But as He is a substance together with the Fatherand the Son, so that substance is together with them great, andtogether with them good, and together with them holy, and whatsoeverelse is said in reference to substance; since it is not one thing toGod to be, and another to be great or to be good, and the rest, aswe have shown above. For if love is less great therein[ i.e. in God] thanwisdom, then wisdom is loved in less degree than according to whatit is; love is therefore equal, in order that wisdom may be lovedaccording to its being; but wisdom is equal with the Father, as wehave proved above; therefore also the Holy Spirit is equal; and ifequal, equal in all things, on account of the absolute simplicitywhich is in that substance. And therefore they are not more thanthree: One who loves Him who is from Himself, and One who loves Himfrom whom He is, and Love itself. And if this last is nothing, howis “God love”? If it is not substance, how isGod substance?

CHAP. 6.—: HOW GOD IS A SUBSTANCE BOTH SIMPLE ANDMANIFOLD.

8. But if it is asked howthat substance is both simple and manifold: consider, first, why thecreature is manifold, but in no way really simple. And first, allthat is body is composed certainly of parts; so that therein onepart is greater, another less, and the whole is greater than anypart whatever or how great soever. For the heaven and the earth areparts of the whole bulk of the world; and the earth alone, and theheaven alone, is composed of innumerable parts; and its third partis less than the remainder, and the half of it is less than thewhole; and the whole body of the world, which is usually called by its two parts, viz. the heaven and the earth, is certainly greater thanthe heaven alone or the earth alone. And in each several body, sizeis one thing, color another, shape another; for the same color andthe same shape may remain with diminished size; and the same shapeand the same size may remain with the color changed; and the sameshape not remaining, yet the thing may be just as great, and of thesame color. And whatever other things are predicated together ofbody can be changed either all together, or the larger part of themwithout the rest. And hence the nature of body is conclusivelyproved to be manifold, and in no respect simple. The spiritualcreature also, that is, the soul, is indeed the more simple of thetwo if compared with the body; but if we omit the comparison withthe body, it is manifold, and itself also not simple. For it is onthis account more simple than the body, because it is not diffusedin bulk through extension of place, but in each body, it is bothwhole in the whole, and whole in each several part of it; and,therefore, when anything takes place in any small particle whateverof the body, such as the soul can feel, although it does not takeplace in the whole body, yet the whole soul feels it, since thewhole soul is not unconscious of it. But, nevertheless, since in thesoul also it is one thing to be skillful, another to be indolent,another to be intelligent, another to be of retentive memory; sincecupidity is one thing, fear another, joy another, sadness another;and since things innumerable, and in innumerable ways, are to befound in the nature of the soul, some without others, and some more,some less; it is manifest that its nature is not simple, butmanifold. For nothing simple is changeable, but every creature ischangeable.

CHAP. 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 notunworthily: but His greatness is the same as His wisdom; for He isnot great by bulk, but by power; and His goodness is the same as Hiswisdom 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 begreat, or wise, or true, or good, or in a word to be Himself.

9. Neither, since He is aTrinity, is He therefore to be thought triple ( triplex ) [1] otherwisethe Father alone, or the Son alone, will be less than the Father andSon together. Although, indeed, it is hard to see how we can say,either the Father alone, or the Son alone; since both the Father iswith the Son, and the Son with the Father, always and inseparably:not that both are the Father, or both are the Son; but because theyare always one in relation to the other, and neither the one nor theother alone. But because we call even the Trinity itself God alone,although He is always with holy spirits and souls, but say that Heonly is God, because they are not also God with Him; so we call theFather the Father alone, not because He is separate from the Son,but because they are not both together the Father.

CHAP. 8.—: NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE TO THE NATURE OFGOD.

Since, therefore, the Father alone, or the Son alone, or the HolySpirit alone, is as great as is the Father and the Son and the HolySpirit together, [2] in no manner is He to be calledthreefold. Forasmuch as bodies increase by union of themselves. Foralthough he who cleaves to his wife is one body; yet it is a greaterbody than if it were that of the husband alone, or of the wifealone. But in spiritual things, when the less adheres to thegreater, as the creature to the Creator, the former becomes greaterthan it was, not the latter. [3] For in those things which are notgreat by bulk, to be greater is to be better. And the spirit of anycreature becomes better, when it cleaves to the Creator, than if itdid not so cleave; and therefore also greater because better.“He,” then, “that is joined untothe Lord is one spirit:” [4] but yet the Lord does nottherefore become greater, although he whois joined to the Lord does so. In God Himself, therefore, when theequal Son, or the Holy Spirit equal to the Father and the Son, isjoined to the equal Father, God does not become greater than each ofthem severally; because that perfectness cannot increase. Butwhether it be the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. He isperfect, and God the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit is perfect;and therefore He is a Trinity rather than triple.

CHAP. 9.—: WHETHER ONE OR THE THREE PERSONS TOGETHER ARECALLED THE ONLY GOD.

10. And since we are showinghow we can say the Father alone, because there is no Father in theGodhead except Himself, we must consider also the opinion whichholds that the only true God is not the Father alone, but the Fatherand the Son and the Holy Spirit. For if any one should ask whetherthe 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, butthat He is not God alone, but that the Father, Son, and Holy Spiritare God alone? But then what shall we do with that testimony of theLord? For He was speaking to the Father, and had named the Father asHim to whom He was speaking, when He says, “And this islife eternal, that they may know Thee the one trueGod.” [1] And this the Ariansindeed usually take, as if the Son were not true God. Passing themby, however, we must see whether, when it is said to the Father,“That they may know Thee the one true God,” weare forced to understand it as if He wished to intimate that theFather alone is the true God; lest we should not understand any tobe God, except the three together, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.Are we therefore, from the testimony of the Lord, both to call theFather the one true God, and the Son the one true God, and the HolySpirit the one true God, and the Father, the Son, and the HolySpirit together, that is, the Trinity itself together, not threetrue Gods but one true God? Or because He added, “AndJesus Christ whom Thou hast sent,” are we to supply“the one true God;” so that the order of thewords is this, “That they may know Thee, and Jesus Christwhom Thou hast sent, the one true God?” Why then did Heomit to mention the Holy Spirit? Is it because it follows, thatwhenever we name One who cleaves to One by a harmony so great thatthrough this harmony both are one, this harmony itself must beunderstood, although it is not mentioned? For in that place, too,the apostle seems as it were to pass over the Holy Spirit; and yetthere, too, He is understood, where he says, “All areyours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ isGod’s.” [2] And again,“The head of the woman is the man, the head of the man isChrist, and the head of Christ is God.” [3] But again, if God is only all three together, howcan God be the head of Christ, that is, the Trinity the head ofChrist, since Christ is in the Trinity in order that it may be theTrinity? Is that which is the Father with the Son, the head of thatwhich is the Son alone? For the Father with the Son is God, but theSon alone is Christ: especially since it is the Word already madeflesh that speaks; and according to this His humiliation also, theFather is greater than He, as He says, “for my Father isgreater than I;” [4] so that the very beingof God, which is one to Him with the Father, is itself the head ofthe man who is mediator, which He is alone. [5] For if we rightly callthe mind the chief thing of man, that is, as it were the head of thehuman substance, although the man himself together with the mind isman; why is not the Word with the Father, which together is God,much more suitably and much more the head of Christ, although Christas man cannot be understood except with the Word which was madeflesh? But this, as we have already said, we shall consider somewhatmore carefully hereafter. At present the equality and one and thesame substance of the Trinity has been demonstrated as briefly aspossible, that in whatever way that other question be determined,the more rigorous discussion of which we have deferred, nothing mayhinder us from confessing the absolute equality of the Father, Son,and Holy Spirit.

CHAP. X.—: OF THE ATTRIBUTES ASSIGNED BY HILARY TO EACHPERSON. THE TRINITY IS REPRESENTED IN THINGS THAT ARE MADE.

11. A certain writer, when hewould briefly intimate the special attributes of each of the personsin the Trinity, tells us that “Eternity is in the Father,form in the Image, use in the Gift.” And since he was aman of no mean authority in handling the Scriptures, and in theassertion of the faith, for it is Hilary who put this in his book( On the Trinity, ii.); I have searched intothe hidden meaning of these words as far as I can, that is, of theFather, and the Image, and the Gift, of eternity, and of form, andof use. And I do not think that he intended more by the wordeternity, than that the Father has not afather from whom He is; but the Son is from the Father, so as to be,and so as to be co-eternal with Him. For if an image perfectly fillsthe measure of that of which it is the image, then the image is madeequal to that of which it is the image, not the latter to its ownimage. And in respect to this image he has named form, I believe onaccount of the quality of beauty, where there is at once such greatfitness, and prime equality, and prime likeness, differing innothing, and unequal in no respect, and in no part unlike, butanswering exactly to Him whose image it is: where there is prime andabsolute life, to whom it is not one thing to live, and another tobe, but the same thing to be and to live; and prime and absoluteintellect, to whom it is not one thing to live, another tounderstand, but to understand is to live, and is to be, and allthings are one: as though a perfect Word (John i. 1), to whichnothing is wanting, and a certain skill of the omnipotent and wiseGod, full of all living, unchangeable sciences, and all one in it,as itself is one from one, with whom it is one. Therein God knew allthings which He made by it; and therefore, while times pass away andsucceed, nothing passes away or succeeds to the knowledge of God.For things which are created are not therefore known by God, becausethey have been made; and not rather have been therefore made, evenalthough changeable, because they are known unchangeably by Him.Therefore that unspeakable conjunction of the Father and His imageis not without fruition, without love, without joy. Therefore thatlove, delight, felicity, or blessedness, if indeed it can beworthily expressed by any human word, is called by him, in short,Use; and is the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, not begotten, but thesweetness of the begetter and of the begotten, filling all creaturesaccording to their capacity with abundant bountifulness andcopiousness, that they may keep their proper order and restsatisfied in their proper place.

12. Therefore all thesethings which are made by divine skill, show in themselves a certainunity, and form, and order; for each of them is both some one thing,as are the several natures of bodies and dispositions of souls; andis fashioned in some form, as are the figures or qualities ofbodies, and the various learning or skill of souls; and seeks orpreserves a certain order, as are the several weights orcombinations of bodies and the loves or delights of souls. Whentherefore we regard the Creator, who is understood by the thingsthat are made [1] we must needs understand the Trinity of whomthere appear traces in the creature, as is fitting. For in thatTrinity is the supreme source of all things, and the most perfectbeauty, and the most blessed delight. Those three, therefore, bothseem to be mutually determined to each other, and are in themselvesinfinite. But here in corporeal things, one thing alone is not asmuch as three together, and two are something more than one; but inthat highest Trinity one is as much as the three together, nor aretwo anything more than one. And They are infinite in themselves. Soboth each are in each, and all in each, and each in all, and all inall, and all are one. Let him who sees this, whether in part, or“through a glass and in an enigma,” [2] rejoice in knowing God; and let himhonor Him as God, and give thanks; but let him who does not see it,strive to see it through piety, not to cavil at it throughblindness. Since God is one, but yet is a Trinity. Neither are we totake the words, “of whom, and through whom, and to whomare all things,” as used indiscriminately [ i.e., to denote a unity withoutdistinctions]; nor yet to denote many gods, for“to Him, be glory for ever and ever.Amen.” [3]

BOOK VII.

THE QUESTION IS EXPLAINED, WHICH HAD BEEN DEFERRED INTHE PREVIOUS BOOK, VIZ. THAT GOD THE FATHER, WHO BEGAT THE SON,HIS POWER AND WISDOM, IS NOT ONLY THE FATHER OF POWER ANDWISDOM, BUT ALSO HIMSELF POWER AND WISDOM; AND SIMILARLY THEHOLY SPIRIT: YET THAT THERE ARE NOT THREE POWERS OR THREEWISDOMS, BUT ONE POWER AND ONE WISDOM, AS THERE IS ONE GOD ANDONE ESSENCE. INQUIRY IS THEN MADE, WHY THE LATINS SAY ONEESSENCE, THREE PERSONS, IN GOD; BUT THE GREEKS, ONE ESSENCE,THREE SUBSTANCES OR HYPOSTASES: AND BOTH MODES OF EXPRESSION ARESHOWN TO ARISE FROM THE NECESSITIES OF SPEECH, THAT WE MIGHTHAVE AN ANSWER TO GIVE WHEN ASKED, WHAT THREE, WHILE TRULYCONFESSING THAT THERE ARE THREE, VIZ. THE FATHER, AND THE SON,AND THE HOLY SPIRIT.

CHAP. 1.—: AUGUSTIN RETURNS TO THE QUESTION, WHETHER EACHPERSON OF THE TRINITY BY ITSELF IS WISDOM. WITH WHAT DIFFICULTY, OR INWHAT WAY, THE PROPOSED QUESTION IS TO BE SOLVED.

1. Let us now inquire morecarefully, so far as God grants, into that which a little before wedeferred; whether each person also in the Trinity can also byHimself 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 saidof God, not relatively, but absolutely; or whether these thingscannot be said except when the Trinity is understood. For thequestion is raised,—because it is written,“Christ the power of God, and the wisdom ofGod,” [1] —whether He isso the Father of His own wisdom and His own power, as that He iswise with that wisdom which He begat, and powerful with that powerwhich He begat; and whether, since He is always powerful and wise,He always begat power and wisdom. For if it be so, then, as we havesaid, why is He not also the Father of His own greatness by which Heis great, and of His own goodness by which He is good, and of Hisown justice by which He is just, and whatever else there is? Or ifall these things are understood, although under more names than one,to be in the same wisdom and power, so that that is greatness whichis power, that is goodness which is wisdom, and that again is wisdomwhich is power, as we have already argued; then let us remember,that when I mention any one of these, I am to be taken as if Imentioned all. It is asked, then, whether the Father also by Himselfis wise, and is Himself His own wisdom itself; or whether He is wisein the same way as He speaks. For He speaks by the Word which Hebegat, not by the word which is uttered, and sounds, and passesaway, but by the Word which was with God, and the Word was God, andall things were made by Him: [2] by the Word which isequal to Himself, by whom He always and unchangeably utters Himself.For He is not Himself the Word, as He is not the Son nor the image.But in speaking (putting aside those words of God in time which areproduced in the creature, for they sound and passaway,—in speaking then) by that co-eternal Word, He isnot understood singly, but with that Word itself, without whomcertainly He does not speak. Is He then in such way wise as He isone who speaks, so as to be in such way wisdom, as He is the Word,and so that to be the Word is to be wisdom, that is, also to bepower, so that power and wisdom and the Word may be the same, and be so called relatively as the Son andthe image: and that the Father is not singly powerful or wise, buttogether with the power and wisdom itself which He begat ( genuit ); just as He is not singly one whospeaks, but by that Word and together with that Word which He begat;and in like way great by that and together with that greatness,which He begat? And if He is not great by one thing, and God byanother, but great by that whereby He is God, because it is not onething to Him to be great and another to be God; it follows thatneither is He God singly, but by that and together with that deity( deitas ) which He begat; so that the Son isthe deity of the Father, as He is the wisdom and power of theFather, and as He is the Word and image of the Father. And becauseit is not one thing to Him to be, another to be God, the Son is alsothe essence of the Father, as He is His Word and image. And hencealso—except that He is the Father [theUnbegotten]—the Father is not anything unlessbecause He has the Son; so that not only that which is meant byFather (which it is manifest He is not called relatively to Himselfbut to the Son, and therefore is the Father because He has the Son),but that which He is in respect to His own substance is so called,because He begat His own essence. For as He is great, only with thatgreatness which He begat, so also He is, onlywith that essence which He begat; because it is not one thing to Himto be, and another to be great. Is He therefore the Father of Hisown essence, in the same way as He is the Father of His owngreatness, as He is the Father of His own power and wisdom? sinceHis greatness is the same as His power, and His essence the same asHis greatness.

2. This discussion has arisenfrom that which is written, that “Christ is the power ofGod, and the wisdom of God.” Wherefore our discourse iscompressed into these narrow limits, while we desire to speak thingsunspeakable; that either we must say that Christ is not the power ofGod and the wisdom of God, and so shamelessly and impiously resistthe apostle; or we must acknowledge that Christ is indeed the powerof God and the wisdom of God, but that His Father is not the Fatherof His own power and wisdom, which is not less impious; for soneither will He be the Father of Christ, because Christ is the powerof God and the wisdom of God; or that the Father is not powerfulwith His own power, or wise with His own wisdom: and who shall dareto say this? Or yet, again, that we must understand, that in theFather it is one thing to be, another thing to be wise, so that He is not by that by which He is wise: a thingusually understood of the soul, which is at some times unwise, atothers wise; as being by nature changeable, and not absolutely andperfectly simple. Or, again, that the Father is not anything inrespect to His own substance; and that not only that He is theFather, but that He is, is said relatively tothe 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 ownessence, nor is at all in respect to Himself,but even His essence is in relation to the Son? But, on thecontrary, much more is He of one and the same essence, since theFather and Son are one and the same essence; seeing that the Fatherhas 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 relativelythe one to the other. Or is the Father alone not called Father ofhimself, but whatever He is called, is called relatively to the Son,but the Son is predicated of in reference to Himself? And if it beso, what is predicated of Him in reference to Himself? Is it Hisessence itself? But the Son is the essence of the Father, as He isthe 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 inreference to Himself, but the Father is not essence, but thebegetter of the essence, and is not in respectto Himself, but is by that very essence whichHe begat; as He is great by that greatness which He begat: thereforethe Son is also called greatness in respect to Himself; therefore Heis also called, in like manner, power, and wisdom, and word, andimage. But what can be more absurd than that He should be calledimage in respect to Himself? Or if image and word are not the verysame with power and wisdom, but the former are spoken relatively,and the latter in respect to self, not to another; then we get tothis, that the Father is not wise with that wisdom which He begat,because He Himself cannot be spoken relatively to it, and it cannotbe spoken relatively to Him. For all things which are saidrelatively are said reciprocally; therefore it remains that even inessence the Son is spoken of relatively to the Father. But from thisis educed a most unexpected sense: that essence itself is notessence, or at least that, when it is called essence, not essencebut something relative is intimated. As when we speak of a master, essence is not intimated, but arelative which has reference to a slave; but when we speak of a man,or any such thing which is said in respect to self not to somethingelse, then essence is intimated. Therefore when a man is called amaster, man himself is essence, but he is called master relatively;for he is called man in respect to himself, but master in respect tohis slave. But in regard to the point from which we started, ifessence itself is spoken relatively, essence itself is not essence.Add further, that all essence which is spoken of relatively, is alsosomething, although the relation be taken away; as e.g. in the case of a man who is a master, and a man whois a slave, and a horse that is a beast of burden, and money that isa pledge, the man, and the horse, and the money are spoken inrespect to themselves, and are substances or essences; but master,and slave, and beast of burden, and pledge, are spoken relatively tosomething. But if there were not a man, that is, some substance,there would be none who could be called relatively a master; and ifthere were no horse having a certain essence, there would be nothingthat could be called relatively a beast of burden; so if money werenot some kind of substance, it could not be called relatively apledge. Wherefore, if the Father also is not something in respect toHimself, then there is no one at all that can be spoken ofrelatively to something. For it is not as it is with color. Thecolor of a thing is referred to the thing colored, and color is notspoken at all in reference to substance, but is always of somethingthat is colored; but that thing of which it is the color, even if itis referred to color in respect to its being colored, is yet, inrespect to its being a body, spoken of in respect to substance. Butin no way may we think, in like manner, that the Father cannot becalled anything in respect to His own substance, but that whateverHe is called, He is called in relation to the Son; while the sameSon is spoken of both in respect to His own substance and inrelation to the Father, when He is called great greatness, andpowerful power, plainly in respect to Himself, and the greatness andpower of the great and powerful Father, by which the Father is greatand powerful. It is not so; but both are substance, and both are onesubstance. And as it is absurd to say that whiteness is not white,so is it absurd to say that wisdom is not wise; and as whiteness iscalled white in respect to itself, so also wisdom is called wise inrespect to itself. But the whiteness of a body is not an essence,since the body itself is the essence, and that is a quality of it;and hence also a body is said from that quality to be white, towhich body to be is not the same thing as to be white. For the formin it is one thing, and the color another; and both are not inthemselves, but in a certain bulk, which bulk is neither form norcolor, but is formed and colored. True wisdom is both wise, and wisein itself. And since in the case of every soul that becomes wise bypartaking of wisdom, if it again becomes foolish, yet wisdom initself remains; nor when that soul was changed into folly is thewisdom likewise so changed; therefore wisdom is not in him whobecomes wise by it, in the same manner as whiteness is in the bodywhich is by it made white. For when the body has been changed intoanother color, that whiteness will not remain, but will altogethercease to be. But if the Father who begat wisdom is also made wise byit, and to be is not to Him the same as to be wise, then the Son isHis quality, not His offspring; and there will no longer be absolutesimplicity in the Godhead. But far be it from being so, since intruth in the Godhead is absolutely simple essence, and therefore tobe is there the same as to be wise. But if to be is there the sameas to be wise, then the Father is not wise by that wisdom which Hebegat; otherwise He did not beget it, but it begat Him. For whatelse do we say when we say, that to Him to be is the same as to bewise, unless that He is by that whereby He iswise? Wherefore, that which is the cause to Him of being wise, isitself also the cause to Him that He is; and accordingly, if thewisdom which He begat is the cause to Him of being wise, it is alsothe cause to Him that He is; and this cannot be the case, excepteither by begetting or by creating Him. But no one ever said in anysense that wisdom is either the begetter or the creator of theFather; for what could be more senseless? Therefore both the FatherHimself is wisdom, and the Son is in such way called the wisdom ofthe Father, as He is called the light of the Father; that is, thatin the same manner as light from light, and yet both one light, sowe are to understand wisdom of wisdom, and yet both one wisdom; andtherefore also one essence, since, in God, to be, is the same as tobe wise. For what to be wise is to wisdom, and to be able is topower, and to be eternal is to eternity, and to be just to justice,and to be great to greatness, that being itself is to essence. Andsince in the Divine simplicity, to be wise is nothing else than tobe, therefore wisdom there is the same as essence.

CHAP. 2.—: THE FATHER AND THE SON ARE TOGETHER ONEWISDOM, AS ONE ESSENCE, ALTHOUGH NOT TOGETHER ONE WORD.

3. Therefore the Father andthe Son together are one essence, and one greatness, and one truth,and one wisdom. But the Father and Son both together are not oneWord, because both together are not one Son. For as the Son isreferred 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 iscalled the Word. Since He is the Son in that He is the Word, and Heis the Word in that He is the Son. Inasmuch, therefore, as theFather and the Son together are certainly not one Son, it followsthat 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 isnot called the Word in respect to Himself, but only relatively toHim whose Word He is, as He is called the Son in relation to theFather; but He is wisdom by that whereby He is essence. Andtherefore, because one essence, one wisdom. But since the Word isalso wisdom, yet is not thereby the Word because He is wisdom; forHe 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 Sonand the Image; and that when these two words are used, namely wisdom ( is ) born, in one of the two, namely born, [1] bothWord, and Image, and Son, are understood, and in all these namesessence is not expressed, since they are spoken relatively; but inthe other word, namely wisdom, since it isspoken also in respect to substance, for wisdom is wise in itself,essence also is expressed, and that being of His which is to bewise. Whence the Father and Son together are one wisdom, because oneessence, and singly wisdom of wisdom, as essence of essence. Andhence they are not therefore not one essence, because the Father isnot the Son, and the Son is not the Father, or because the Father isun-begotten, but the Son is begotten: since by these names onlytheir relative attributes are expressed. Butboth together are one wisdom and one essence; in which to be, is thesame as to be wise. And both together are not the Word or the Son,since to be is not the same as to be the Word or the Son, as we havealready sufficiently shown that these terms are spokenrelatively.

CHAP. 3.—: WHY THE SON CHIEFLY IS INTIMATED IN THESCRIPTURES BY THE NAME OF WISDOM, WHILE BOTH THE FATHER AND THE HOLYSPIRIT ARE WISDOM. THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT, TOGETHER WITH THE FATHER ANDTHE SON, IS ONE WISDOM.

4. Why, then, is scarcelyanything ever said in the Scriptures of wisdom, unless to show thatit is begotten or created of God?—begotten in the case ofthat Wisdom by which all things are made; but created or made, as inmen, when they are converted to that Wisdom which is not created andmade but begotten, and are so enlightened; for in these menthemselves there comes to be something which may be called theirwisdom: even as the Scriptures foretell or narrate, that“the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongus;” [2] for in this way Christ wasmade wisdom, because He was made man. Is it on this account thatwisdom does not speak in these books, nor is anything spoken of it,except to declare that it is born of God, or made by Him (althoughthe Father is Himself wisdom), namely, because wisdom ought to becommended and imitated by us, by the imitation of which we arefashioned [rightly]? For the Father speaks it,that it may be His Word: yet not as a word producing a soundproceeds from the mouth, or is thought before it is pronounced. Forthis word is completed in certain spaces of time, but that iseternal, and speaks to us by enlightening us, what ought to bespoken to men, both of itself and of the Father. And therefore Hesays, “No man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neitherknoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever theSon will reveal Him:” [3] since the Father revealsby the Son, that is, by His Word. For if that word which we utter,and which is temporal and transitory, declares both itself, and thatof which we speak, how much more the Word of God, by which allthings are made? For this Word so declares the Father as He is theFather; because both itself so is, and is that which is the Father,in so far as it is wisdom and essence. For in so far as it is theWord, it is not what the Father is; because the Word is not theFather, and Word is spoken relatively, as is also Son, whichassuredly is not the Father. And therefore Christ is the power andwisdom of God, because He Himself, being also power and wisdom, isfrom the Father, who is power and wisdom; as He is light of theFather, who is light, and the fountain of life with God the Father,who is Himself assuredly the fountain oflife. For “with Thee,” He says, “isthe fountain of life, and in Thy light shall we seelight.” [1] Because, “asthe Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to havelife in Himself:” [2] and, “He was the true Light, which lighteth every manthat cometh into the world:” and this light,“the Word,” was “withGod;” but “the Word also wasGod;” [3] and “God islight, and in Him is no darkness at all:” [4] but a light that is not corporeal, but spiritual;yet not in such way spiritual, that it was wrought by illumination,as it was said to the apostles, “Ye are the light of theworld,” [5] but “the lightwhich lighteth every man,” that very supreme wisdomitself who is God, of whom we now treat. The Son therefore is Wisdomof wisdom, namely the Father, as He is Light of light, and God ofGod; so that both the Father singly is light, and the Son singly islight; and the Father singly is God, and the Son singly is God:therefore the Father also singly is wisdom, and the Son singly iswisdom. And as both together are one light and one God, so both areone wisdom. But the Son is “by God made unto us wisdom,and righteousness, and sanctification;” [6] because we turn ourselves to Him in time, thatis, from some particular time, that we may remain with Him for ever.And He Himself from a certain time was “the Word madeflesh, and dwelt among us.”

5. On this account, then,when anything concerning wisdom is declared or narrated in theScriptures, whether as itself speaking, or where anything is spokenof it, the Son chiefly is intimated to us. And by the example of Himwho is the image, let us also not depart from God, since we also arethe Image of God: not indeed that which is equal to Him, since weare made so by the Father through the Son, and not born of theFather, as that is. And we are so, because we are enlightened withlight; but that is so, because it is the light that enlightens; andwhich, therefore, being without pattern, is to us a pattern. For Hedoes 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 samesubstance with Him from whom He is. But we by striving imitate Himwho 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 byHis humiliation, which is to us an eternal abiding-place by Hisdivinity. For since to pure intellectual spirits, who have notfallen through pride, He gives an example in the form of God and asequal with God and as God; so, in order that He might also giveHimself as an example of returning to fallen man, who on account ofthe uncleanness of sins and the punishment of mortality cannot seeGod, “He emptied Himself;” not by changing Hisown divinity, but by assuming our changeableness: and“taking upon Him the form of a servant,” [7] “He came to us into thisworld,” [8] who “was inthis world,” because “the world was made byHim;” [9] that He might be anexample upwards to those who see God, an example downwards to thosewho admire man, an example to the sound to persevere, an example tothe sick to be made whole, an example to those who are to die thatthey may not fear, an example to the dead that they may rise again,“that in all things He might have thepre-eminence.” [10] So that, because man oughtnot to follow any except God to blessedness, and yet cannot perceiveGod; by following God made man, he might follow at once Him whom hecould perceive, and whom he ought to follow. Let us then love Himand cleave to Him, by charity spread abroad in our hearts, throughthe Holy Spirit which is given unto us. [11] It is not therefore to bewondered at, if, on account of the example which the Image, which isequal to the Father, gives to us, in order that we may berefashioned after the image of God, Scripture, when it speaks ofwisdom, speaks of the Son, whom we follow by living wisely; althoughthe Father also is wisdom, as He is both light and God.

6. The Holy Spirit also,whether we are to call Him that absolute love which joins togetherFather and Son, and joins us also from beneath, that so that is notunfitly said which is written, “God islove;” [12] how is He not alsoHimself wisdom, since He is light, because “God islight”? or whether after any other way the essence of theHoly Spirit is to be singly and properly named; then, too, since Heis God, He is certainly light; and since He is light, He iscertainly wisdom. But that the Holy Spirit is God, Scriptureproclaims by the apostle, who says, “Know ye not that yeare the temple of God?” and immediately subjoins,“And the Spirit of God dwelleth in you;” [13] for God dwelleth in His own temple. For theSpirit of God does not dwell in the temple of God as a servant,since he says more plainly in another place, “Know ye notthat your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, andwhich ye have of God, and ye are not your own? For ye are bought with a great price: thereforeglorify God in your body.” [1] But what is wisdom,except spiritual and unchangeable light? For yonder sun also islight, but it is corporeal; and the spiritual creature also islight, but it is not unchangeable. Therefore the Father is light,the Son is light, and the Holy Spirit is light; but together notthree lights, but one light. And so the Father is wisdom, the Son iswisdom, and the Holy Spirit is wisdom, and together not threewisdoms, but one wisdom: and because in the Trinity to be is thesame as to be wise, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are oneessence. Neither in the Trinity is it one thing to be and another tobe God; therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are one God.

CHAP. 4.—: HOW IT WAS BROUGHT ABOUT THAT THE GREEKS SPEAKOF THREE HYPOSTASES, THE LATINS OF THREE PERSONS. SCRIPTURE NOWHERESPEAKS OF THREE PERSONS IN ONE GOD.

7. For the sake, then, ofspeaking of things that cannot be uttered, that we may be able insome way to utter what we are able in no way to utter fully, ourGreek friends have spoken of one essence, three substances; but theLatins of one essence or substance, three persons; because, as wehave already said, [2] essence usually meansnothing else than substance in our language, that is, in Latin. Andprovided that what is said is understood only in a mystery, such away of speaking was sufficient, in order that there might besomething to say when it was asked what the three are, which thetrue faith pronounces to be three, when it both declares that theFather is not the Son, and that the Holy Spirit, which is the giftof God, is neither the Father nor the Son. When, then, it is askedwhat the three are, or who the three are, we betake ourselves to thefinding out of some special or general name under which we mayembrace these three; and no such name occurs to the mind, becausethe supereminence of the Godhead surpasses the power of customaryspeech. For God is more truly thought than He is uttered, and existsmore truly than He is thought. For when we say that Jacob was notthe same as Abraham, but that Isaac was neither Abraham nor Jacob,certainly we confess that they are three, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.But when it is asked what three, we reply three men, calling them inthe plural by a specific name; but if we were to say three animals,then by a generic name; for man, as the ancients have defined him,is a rational, mortal animal: or again, as our Scriptures usuallyspeak, three souls, since it is fitting to denominate the whole fromthe better part, that is, to denominate both body and soul, which isthe whole man, from the soul; for so it is said that seventy-fivesouls went down into Egypt with Jacob, instead of saying so manymen. [3] Again, when we say that yourhorse is not mine, and that a third belonging to some one else isneither mine nor yours, then we confess that there are three; and ifany one ask what three, we answer three horses by a specific name,but three animals by a generic one. And yet again, when we say thatan ox is not a horse, but that a dog is neither an ox nor a horse,we speak of a three; and if any one questions us what three, we donot speak now by a specific name of three horses, or three oxen, orthree dogs, because the three are not contained under the samespecies, but by a generic name, three animals; or if under a highergenus, three substances, or three creatures, or three natures. Butwhatsoever things are expressed in the plural number specifically byone name, can also be expressed generically by one name. But allthings which are generically called by one name cannot also becalled specifically by one name. For three horses, which is aspecific name, we also call three animals; but a horse, and an ox,and a dog, we call only three animals or substances, which aregeneric names, or anything else that can be spoken genericallyconcerning them; but we cannot speak of them as three horses, oroxen, or dogs, which are specific names; for we express those thingsby one name, although in the plural number, which have that incommon that is signified by the name. For Abraham, and Isaac, andJacob, have in common that which is man; therefore they are calledthree men: a horse also, and an ox, and a dog, have in common thatwhich is animal; therefore they are called three animals. So threeseveral laurels we also call three trees; but a laurel, and amyrtle, and an olive, we call only three trees, or three substances,or three natures: and so three stones we call also three bodies; butstone, and wood, and iron, we call only three bodies, or by anyother higher generic name by which they can be called. Of theFather, therefore, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, seeing that theyare three, let us ask what three they are, and what they have incommon. For the being the Father is not common to them, so that theyshould be interchangeably fathers to oneanother: as friends, since they are so called relatively to eachother, can be called three friends, because they are so mutually toeach other. But this is not the case in the Trinity, since theFather only is there father; and not Father of two, but of the Sononly. Neither are they three Sons, since the Father there is not theSon, nor is the Holy Spirit. Neither three Holy Spirits, because theHoly Spirit also, in that proper meaning by which He is also calledthe gift of God, is neither the Father nor the Son. What threetherefore? For if three persons, then that which is meant by personis common to them; therefore this name is either specific or genericto them, according to the manner of speaking. But where there is nodifference of nature, there things that are several in number are soexpressed generically, that they can also be expressed specifically.For the difference of nature causes, that a laurel, and a myrtle,and an olive, or a horse, and an ox, and a dog, are not called bythe specific name, the former of three laurels, or the latter ofthree oxen, but by the generic name, the former of three trees, andthe latter of three animals. But here, where there is no differenceof essence, it is necessary that these three should have a specificname, which yet is not to be found. For person is a generic name,insomuch that man also can be so called, although there is so greata difference between man and God.

8. Further, in regard to thatvery generic ( generalis ) word, if on thisaccount we say three persons, because that which person means iscommon to them (otherwise they can in no way be so called, just asthey are not called three sons, because that which son means is notcommon 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 HolySpirit a person, therefore there are three persons: since then theFather is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, why notthree Gods? Or else, since on account of their ineffable union thesethree are together one God, why not also one person; so that wecould 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 becauseScripture does not say three Gods? But neither do we find thatScripture anywhere mentions three persons. Or is it becauseScripture does not call these three, either three persons or oneperson (for we read of the person of the Lord, but not of the Lordas a person), that therefore it was lawful through the merenecessity of speaking and reasoning to say three persons, notbecause Scripture says it, but because Scripture does not contradictit: whereas, if we were to say three Gods, Scripture wouldcontradict it, which says, “Hear, O Israel; the Lord thyGod is one God?” [1] Why then is it not alsolawful to say three essences; which, in like manner, as Scripturedoes not say, so neither does it contradict? For if essence is aspecific ( specialis ) name common to three, whyare They not to be called three essences, as Abraham, Isaac, andJacob are called three men, because man is the specific name commonto all men? But if essence is not a specific name, but a genericone, since man, and cattle, and tree, and constellation, and angel,are called essences; why are not these called three essences, asthree horses are called three animals, and three laurels are calledthree trees, and three stones three bodies? Or if they are notcalled three essences, but one essence, on account of the unity ofthe Trinity, why is it not the case, that on account of the sameunity of the Trinity they are not to be called three substances orthree persons, but one substance and one person? For as the name ofessence is common to them, so that each singly is called essence, sothe name of either substance or person is common to them. For thatwhich must be understood of persons according to our usage, this isto be understood of substances according to the Greek usage; forthey say three substances, one essence, in the same way as we saythree persons, one essence or substance.

9. What therefore remains,except that we confess that these terms sprang from the necessity ofspeaking, when copious reasoning was required against the devices orerrors of the heretics? For when human weakness endeavored to utterin speech to the senses of man what it grasps in the secret placesof the mind in proportion to its comprehension respecting the LordGod its creator, whether by devout faith, or by any discernmentwhatsoever; it feared to say three essences, lest any differenceshould be understood to exist in that absolute equality. Again, itcould not say that there were not three somewhats ( tria quædam ), for it was because Sabellius saidthis that he fell into heresy. For it must be devoutly believed, asmost certainly known from the Scriptures, and must be grasped by themental eye with undoubting perception, that there is both Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit; andthat the Son is not the same with the Father, nor the Holy Spiritthe same with the Father or the Son. It sought then what three itshould call them, and answered substances or persons; by which namesit did not intend diversity to be meant, but singleness to bedenied: that not only unity might be understood therein from thebeing called one essence, but also Trinity from the being calledthree substances or persons. For if it is the same thing with God tobe ( esse ) as to subsist ( subsistere ), they were not to be called three substances,in such sense as they are not called three essences; just as,because it is the same thing with God to be as to be wise, as we donot say three essences, so neither three wisdoms. For so, because itis the same thing to Him to be God as to be, it is not right to saythree essences, as it is not right to say three Gods. But if it isone thing to God to be, another to subsist, as it is one thing toGod to be, another to be the Father or the Lord (for that which Heis, is spoken in respect to Himself, but He is called Father inrelation to the Son, and Lord in relation to the creature whichserves Him); therefore He subsists relatively, as He begetsrelatively, and bears rule relatively: so then substance will be nolonger substance, because it will be relative. For as from being, Heis called essence, so from subsisting, we speak of substance. But itis absurd that substance should be spoken relatively, for everythingsubsists in respect to itself; how much more God? [1]

CHAP. 5.—: IN GOD, SUBSTANCE IS SPOKEN IMPROPERLY,ESSENCE PROPERLY.

10. If, however, it isfitting that God should be said to subsist—(For this wordis rightly applied to those things, in which as subjects thosethings are, which are said to be in a subject, as color or shape inbody. For body subsists, and so is substance; but those things arein the body, which subsists and is their subject, and they are notsubstances, but are in a substance: and so, if either that color orthat shape ceases to be, it does not deprive the body of being abody, because it is not of the being of body, that it should retainthis or that shape or color; therefore neither changeable nor simplethings are properly called substances.)—If, I say, Godsubsists so that He can be properly called a substance, then thereis 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 asis anything else that is said concerning Him in respect to Himself;as, for instance, great, omnipotent, good, and whatever of this kindis not unfitly said of God. But it is an impiety to say that Godsubsists, and is a subject in relation to His own goodness, and thatthis goodness is not a substance or rather essence, and that GodHimself is not His own goodness, but that it is in Him as in asubject. And hence it is clear that God is improperly calledsubstance, in order that He may be understood to be, by the moreusual name essence, which He is truly and properly called; so thatperhaps it is right that God alone should be called essence. For Heis truly alone, because He is unchangeable; and declared this to beHis own name to His servant Moses, when He says, “I amthat I am;” and, “Thus shalt thou say unto thechildren of Israel: He who is hath sent me unto you.” [2] However, whether He be called essence, which Heis properly called, or substance, which He is called improperly, Heis called both in respect to Himself, not relatively to anything;whence to God to be is the same thing as to subsist; and so theTrinity, if one essence, is also one substance. Perhaps thereforethey are more conveniently called three persons than threesubstances.

CHAP. 6.—: WHY WE DO NOT IN THE TRINITY SPEAK OF ONEPERSON, AND THREE ESSENCES. WHAT HE OUGHT TO BELIEVE CONCERNING THETRINITY WHO DOES NOT RECEIVE WHAT IS SAID ABOVE. MAN IS BOTH AFTER THEIMAGE, AND IS THE IMAGE OF GOD.

11. But lest I should seem tofavor ourselves [the Latins], let us make thisfurther inquiry. Although they [the Greeks]also, if they pleased, as they call three substances threehypostases, 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 itis not one thing to be, another to be a person, but it is absolutelythe same thing. For if to be is said in respect to Himself, butperson relatively; in this way we should say three persons, theFather, Son, and Holy Spirit; just as we speak of three friends, orthree relations, or three neighbors, in that they are so mutually,not that each one of them is so in respect to himself. Wherefore anyone of these is the friend of the other two, or the relation, or the neighbor, because these nameshave a relative signification. What then? Are we to call the Fatherthe person of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, or the Son the personof the Father and of the Holy Spirit, or the Holy Spirit the personof the Father and of the Son? But neither is the word personcommonly so used in any case; nor in this Trinity, when we speak ofthe person of the Father, do we mean anything else than thesubstance of the Father. Wherefore, as the substance of the Fatheris the Father Himself, not as He is the Father, but as He is, soalso the person of the Father is not anything else than the FatherHimself; for He is called a person in respect to Himself, not inrespect to the Son, or the Holy Spirit: just as He is called inrespect to Himself both God, and great, and good, and just, andanything else of the kind; and just as to Him to be is the same asto be God, or as to be great, or as to be good, so it is the samething to Him to be, as to be a person. Why, therefore, do we notcall these three together one person, as one essence and one God,but say three persons, while we do not say three Gods or threeessences; unless it be because we wish some one word to serve forthat meaning whereby the Trinity is understood, that we might not bealtogether silent, when asked, what three, while we confessed thatthey are three? For if essence is the genus, and substance or personthe species, as some think, then I must omit what I just now said,that they ought to be called three essences, as they are calledthree substances or persons; as three horses are called threehorses, and the same are called three animals, since horse is thespecies, animal the genus. For in this case the species is notspoken of in the plural, and the genus in the singular, as if wewere to say that three horses were one animal; but as they are threehorses by the special name, so they are three animals by the genericone. But if they say that the name of substance or person does notsignify species, but something singular and individual; so that anyone is not so called a substance or person as he is called a man,for man is common to all men, but in the same manner as he is calledthis or that man, as Abraham, as Isaac, as Jacob, or anyone elsewho, if present, could be pointed out with the finger: so will thesame reason reach these too. For as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob arecalled three individuals, so are they called three men, and threesouls. Why then are both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,if we are to reason about them also according to genus and speciesand individual, not so called three essences, as they are calledthree substances or persons? But this, as I said, I pass over: but Ido affirm, that if essence is a genus, then a single essence has nospecies; just as, because animal is a genus, a single animal has nospecies. Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not threespecies of one essence. But if essence is a species, as man is aspecies, but those are three which we call substances or persons,then they have the same species in common, in such way as Abraham,Isaac, and Jacob have in common the species which is called man; notas man is subdivided into Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, so can one manalso be subdivided into several single men; for this is altogetherimpossible, since one man is already a single man. Why then is oneessence subdivided into three substances or persons? For if essenceis a species, as man is, then one essence is as one man is: or dowe, as we say that any three human beings of the same sex, of thesame constitution of body, of the same mind, are onenature,—for they are three human beings, but onenature,—so also say in the Trinity three substances oneessence, or three persons one substance or essence? But this issomehow a parallel case, since the ancients also who spoke Latin,before they had these terms, which have not long come into use, thatis, essence or substance, used for them to say nature. We do nottherefore use these terms according to genus or species, but as ifaccording to a matter that is common and the same. Just as if threestatues were made of the same gold, we should say three statues onegold, yet should neither call the gold genus, and the statuesspecies; nor the gold species, and the statues individuals. For nospecies goes beyond its own individuals, so as to comprehendanything external to them. For when I define what man is, which is aspecific name, every several man that exists is contained in thesame individual definition, neither does anything belong to it whichis not a man. But when I define gold, not statues alone, if they begold, but rings also, and anything else that is made of gold, willbelong to gold; and even if nothing were made of it, it would stillbe called gold; since, even if there were no gold statues, therewill not therefore be no statues at all. Likewise no species goesbeyond the definition of its genus. For when I define animal, sincehorse is a species of this genus, every horse is an animal; butevery statue is not gold. So, although in the case of three goldenstatues we should rightly say three statues, one gold; yet we do notso say it, as to understand gold to be the genus, and the statues tobe species. Therefore neither do we so call the Trinity three persons or substances, one essenceand one God, as though three somethings subsisted out of one matter[leaving a remainder, i.e. ]; although whatever that is, it is unfolded inthese three. For there is nothing else of that essence besides theTrinity. Yet we say three persons of the same essence, or threepersons one essence; but we do not say three persons out of the sameessence, as though therein essence were one thing, and personanother, as we can say three statues out of the same gold; for thereit is one thing to be gold, another to be statues. And when we saythree men one nature, or three men of the same nature, they also canbe called three men out of the same nature, since out of the samenature there can be also three other such men. But in that essenceof the Trinity, in no way can any other person whatever exist out ofthe same essence. Further, in these things, one man is not as muchas three men together; and two men are something more than one man:and in equal statues, three together amount to more of gold thaneach singly, and one amounts to less of gold than two. But in God itis not so; for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit together isnot a greater essence than the Father alone or the Son alone; butthese three substances or persons, if they must be so called,together are equal to each singly: which the natural man does notcomprehend. For he cannot think except under the conditions of bulkand space, either small or great, since phantasms or as it wereimages of bodies flit about in his mind.

12. And until he be purgedfrom this uncleanness, let him believe in the Father, Son, and HolySpirit, one God, alone, great, omnipotent, good, just, merciful,Creator of all things visible and invisible, and whatsoever can beworthily and truly said of Him in proportion to human capacity. Andwhen he is told that the Father only is God, let him not separatefrom Him the Son or the Holy Spirit; for together with Him He is theonly God, together with whom also He is one God; because, when weare told that the Son also is the only God, we must needs take itwithout any separation of the Father or the Holy Spirit. And let himso say one essence, as not to think one to be either greater orbetter than, or in any respect differing from, another. Yet not thatthe Father Himself is both Son and Holy Spirit, or whatever elseeach 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 saidexcept of the Holy Spirit. And on this account also they admit theplural number, as it is written in the Gospel, “I and myFather are one.” [1] He has both said“ one, ” [2] and “ we are [3] one,” according to essence, because they are the sameGod; “we are,” according to relation, becausethe one is Father, the other is Son. Sometimes also the unity of theessence is left unexpressed, and the relatives alone are mentionedin the plural number: “My Father and I will come untohim, and make our abode with him.” [4] We will come, and we will makeour abode, is the plural number, since it was said before,“I and my Father,” that is, the Son and theFather, which terms are used relatively to one another. Sometimesthe meaning is altogether latent, as in Genesis: “Let usmake man after our image and likeness.” [5] Both let us make and our is said in the plural, and ought not to be received except as ofrelatives. For it was not that gods might make, or make after theimage and likeness of gods; but that the Father, and Son, and HolySpirit might make after the image of the Father, and Son, and HolySpirit, that man might subsist as the image of God. And God is theTrinity. But because that image of God was not made altogether equalto Him, as being not born of Him, but created by Him; in order tosignify this, he is in such way the image as that he is“after the image,” that is, he is not madeequal by parity, but approaches to Him by a sort of likeness. Forapproach to God is not by intervals of place, but by likeness, andwithdrawal from Him is by unlikeness. For there are some who drawthis distinction, that they will have the Son to be the image, butman not to be the image, but “after theimage.” But the apostle refutes them, saying,“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuchas he is the image and glory of God.” [6] He did not say after the image, but theimage. And this image, since it is elsewhere spoken of as after the image, is not as if it were saidrelatively to the Son, who is the image equal to the Father;otherwise he would not say after our image. Forhow our, when the Son is the image of theFather alone? But man is said to be “after theimage,” on account, as we have said, of the inequality ofthe likeness; and therefore after our image,that man might be the image of the Trinity; [7] notequal to the Trinity as the Son is equal to the Father, butapproaching to it, as has been said, by acertain likeness; just as nearness may in a sense be signified inthings distant from each other, not in respect of place, but of asort of imitation. For it is also said, “Be yetransformed by the renewing of your mind;” [1] to whom he likewise says, “Be yetherefore imitators of God as dear children.” [2] For it is said to the new man, “which is renewed to theknowledge of God, after the image of Him that createdhim.” [3] Or if we choose to admitthe plural number, in order to meet the needs of argument, evenputting aside relative terms, that so we may answer in one term whenit is asked what three, and say three substances or three persons;then let no one think of any bulk or interval, or of any distance ofhowsoever little unlikeness, so that in the Trinity any should beunderstood to be even a little less than another, in whatsoever wayone thing can be less than another: in order that there may beneither a confusion of persons, nor such a distinction as that thereshould be any inequality. And if this cannot be grasped by theunderstanding, let it be held by faith, until He shall dawn in theheart who says by the prophet, “If ye will not believe,surely ye shall not understand.” [4]

BOOK VIII.

EXPLAINS AND PROVES THAT NOT ONLY THE FATHER IS NOTGREATER THAN THE SON, BUT NEITHER ARE BOTH TOGETHER ANYTHINGGREATER THAN THE HOLY SPIRIT, NOR ANY TWO TOGETHER IN THE SAMETRINITY ANYTHING GREATER THAN ONE, NOR ALL THREE TOGETHERANYTHING GREATER THAN EACH SEVERALLY. IT IS THEN SHOWN HOW THENATURE ITSELF OF GOD MAY BE UNDERSTOOD FROM OUR UNDERSTANDING OFTRUTH, AND FROM OUR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SUPREME GOOD, AND FROM THEINNATE LOVE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS, WHEREBY A RIGHTEOUS SOUL IS LOVEDEVEN BY A SOUL THAT IS ITSELF NOT YET RIGHTEOUS. BUT IT IS URGEDABOVE 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 ISALSO 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 THEFAITH.

We have said elsewhere that those things are predicated specially inthe Trinity as belonging severally to each person, which arepredicated relatively the one to the other, as Father and Son, andthe gift of both, the Holy Spirit; for the Father is not theTrinity, nor the Son the Trinity, nor the gift the Trinity: but whatwhenever each is singly spoken of in respect to themselves, thenthey are not spoken of as three in the plural number, but one, theTrinity itself, as the Father God, the Son God, and the Holy SpiritGod; the Father good, the Son good, and the Holy Spirit good; andthe Father omnipotent, the Son omnipotent, and the Holy Spiritomnipotent: yet neither three Gods, nor three goods, nor threeomnipotents, but one God, good, omnipotent, the Trinity itself; andwhatsoever else is said of them not relatively in respect to eachother, but individually in respect to themselves. For they are thusspoken of according to essence, since in them to be is the same asto be great, as to be good, as to be wise, and whatever else is saidof each person individually therein, or of the Trinity itself, inrespect to themselves. And that therefore they are called threepersons, or three substances, not in order that any difference ofessence may be understood, but that we may be able to answer by someone word, should any one ask what three, or what three things? Andthat there is so great an equality in that Trinity, that not onlythe Father is not greater than the Son, as regards divinity, butneither are the Father and Son together greater than the HolySpirit; nor is each individual person, whichever it be of the three,less than the Trinity itself. This is what we have said; and if itis handled and repeated frequently, it becomes, no doubt, morefamiliarly known: yet some limit, too, must be put to thediscussion, and we must supplicate God with most devout piety, thatHe will open our understanding, and take away the inclination ofdisputing, in order that our minds may discern the essence of thetruth, that has neither bulk nor moveableness. Now, therefore, sofar as the Creator Himself aids us in His marvellous mercy, let usconsider these subjects, into which we will enter more deeply thanwe entered into those which preceded, although they are in truth thesame; preserving the while this rule, that what has not yet beenmade clear to our intellect, be nevertheless not loosened from thefirmness of our faith.

CHAP. 1.—: IT IS SHOWN BY REASON THAT IN GOD THREE ARENOT ANYTHING GREATER THAN ONE PERSON.

2. For we say that in thisTrinity two or three persons are not anything greater than one ofthem; which carnal perception does not receive, for no other reasonexcept because it perceives as it can the true things which arecreated, but cannot discern the truth itself by which they arecreated; for if it could, then the very corporeal light would in noway be more clear than this which we have said. For in respect tothe substance of truth, since it alone truly is, nothing is greater,unless because it more truly is. [1] But in respect to whatsoever is intelligible and unchangeable, noone thing is more truly than another, since all alike areunchangeably eternal; and that which therein is called great, is notgreat from any other source than from that by which it truly is.Wherefore, where magnitude itself is truth, whatsoever has more ofmagnitude must needs have more of truth; whatsoever therefore hasnot more of truth, has not also more of magnitude. Further,whatsoever has more of truth is certainly more true, just as that isgreater which has more of magnitude; therefore in respect to thesubstance of truth that is more great which is more true. But theFather and the Son together are not more truly than the Fathersingly, or the Son singly. Both together, therefore, are notanything greater than each of them singly. And since also the HolySpirit equally is truly, the Father and Son together are notanything greater than He, since neither are they more truly. TheFather also and the Holy Spirit together, since they do not surpassthe Son in truth (for they are not more truly), do not surpass Himeither in magnitude. And so the Son and the Holy Spirit together arejust as great as the Father alone, since they are as truly. So alsothe Trinity itself is as great as each several person therein. Forwhere truth itself is magnitude, that is not more great which is notmore true: since in regard to the essence of truth, to be true isthe same as to be, and to be is the same as to be great; thereforeto be great is the same as to be true. And in regard to it,therefore, what is equally true must needs also be equallygreat.

CHAP. 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 itis one thing for it to be gold, another to be great. So also in thenature of the soul; a soul is not called great in the same respectin which it is called true. For he, too, has a true[real] soul who has not a great soul; sincethe 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 tothink, so far as He Himself permits and grants, let us not think ofany touch or embrace in local space, as if of three bodies, or ofany compactness of conjunction, as fables tell of three-bodiedGeryon; but let whatsoever may occur to the mind, that is of suchsort as to be greater in three than in each singly, and less in onethan in two, be rejected without any doubt; for so everythingcorporeal is rejected. But also in spiritual things let nothingchangeable that may have occurred to the mind be thought of God. Forwhen we aspire from this depth to that height, it is a step towardsno small knowledge, if, before we can know what God is, we canalready know what He is not. For certainly He is neither earth norheaven; nor, as it were, earth and heaven; nor any such thing as wesee in the heaven; nor any such thing as we do not see, but whichperhaps is in heaven. Neither if you were to magnify in theimagination of your thought the light of the sun as much as you areable, either that it may be greater, or that it may be brighter, athousand times as much, or times without number; neither is thisGod. Neither as [2] we think of the pure angels as spiritsanimating celestial bodies, and changing and dealing with them afterthe will by which they serve God; not even if all, and there are“thousands of thousands,” [3] were brought togetherinto one, and became one; neither is any such thing God. Neither ifyou were to think of the same spirits as without bodies—athing indeed most difficult for carnal thought to do. Behold andsee, if thou canst, O soul pressed down by the corruptible body, andweighed down by earthly thoughts, many and various; behold and see,if thou canst, that God is truth. [4] For it is written that“God is light;” [5] not in such way as these eyes see, but in such way asthe heart sees, when it is said, He is truth[reality]. Ask not what is truth[reality]; for immediately the darkness ofcorporeal images and the clouds of phantasms will put themselves inthe way, and will disturb that calm which at the first twinklingshone forth to thee, when I said truth[reality]. See that thou remainest, if thoucanst, in that first twinkling with which thou art dazzled, as itwere, by a flash, when it is said to thee, Truth[Reality]. But thou canst not; thou wilt glideback into those usual and earthly things. And what weight, pray, isit that will cause thee so to glide back, unless it be the bird-limeof the stains of appetite thou hast contracted, and the errors ofthy wandering from the right path?

CHAP. 3.—: HOW GOD MAY BE KNOWN TO BE THE CHIEF GOOD. THEMIND DOES NOT BECOME GOOD UNLESS BY TURNING TO GOD.

4. Behold again, and see ifthou canst. Thou certainly dost not love anything except what isgood, since good is the earth, with the loftiness of its mountains,and the due measure of its hills, and the level surface of itsplains; and good is an estate that is pleasant and fertile; and goodis a house that is arranged in due proportions, and is spacious andbright; and good are animal and animate bodies; and good is air thatis temperate and salubrious; and good is food that is agreeable andfit for health; and good is health, without pains or lassitude; andgood is the countenance of man that is disposed in fit proportions,and is cheerful in look, and bright in color; and good is the mindof a friend, with the sweetness of agreement, and with theconfidence of love; and good is a righteous man; and good areriches, since they are readily useful; and good is the heaven, withits sun, and moon, and stars; and good are the angels, by their holyobedience; and good is discourse that sweetly teaches and suitablyadmonishes the hearer; and good is a poem that is harmonious in itsnumbers 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, andregard good itself if thou canst; so wilt thou see God, not good bya good that is other than Himself, but the good of all good. For inall these good things, whether those which I have mentioned, or anyelse that are to be discerned or thought, we could not say that onewas better than another, when we judge truly, unless a conception ofthe good itself had been impressed upon us, such that according toit we might both approve some things as good, and prefer one good toanother. So God is to be loved, not this and that good, but the gooditself. For the good that must be sought for the soul is not oneabove which it is to fly by judging, but to which it is to cleave byloving; and what can this be except God? Not a good mind, or a goodangel, or the good heaven, but the good good. For perhaps what Iwish to say may be more easily perceived in this way. For when, forinstance, a mind is called good, as there are two words, so fromthese words I understand two things—one whereby it ismind, and another whereby it is good. And itself had no share inmaking itself a mind, for there was nothing as yet to make itself tobe anything; but to make itself to be a good mind, I see, must bebrought about by the will: not because that by which it is mind isnot itself anything good;—for how else is it alreadycalled, and most truly called, better than the body?—butit is not yet called a good mind, for this reason, that the actionof the will still is wanted, by which it is to become moreexcellent; and if it has neglected this, then it is justly blamed,and is rightly called not a good mind. For it then differs from themind which does perform this; and since the latter is praiseworthy,the former doubtless, which does not perform, it is blameable. Butwhen it does this of set purpose, and becomes a good mind, it yetcannot attain to being so unless it turn itself to something whichitself is not. And to what can it turn itself that it may become agood mind, except to the good which it loves, and seeks, andobtains? And if it turns itself back again from this, and becomesnot good, then by the very act of turning away from the good, unlessthat good remain in it from which it turns away, it cannot againturn itself back thither if it should wish to amend.

5. Wherefore there would beno 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 thoucanst put aside those things which are good by the participation ofthe good, and discern that good itself by the participation of whichthey are good (for when this or that good thing is spoken of, thouunderstandest together with them the good itself also): if, then, Isay thou canst remove these things, and canst discern the good initself, then thou wilt have discerned God. And if thou shalt cleaveto Him with love, thou shalt be forthwith blessed. But whereas otherthings are not loved, except because they are good, be ashamed, in cleaving to them, not to love the gooditself whence they are good. That also, which is a mind, onlybecause it is a mind, while it is not yet also good by the turningitself to the unchangeable good, but, as I said, is only a mind;whenever it so pleases us, as that we prefer it even, if weunderstand aright, to all corporeal light, does not please us initself, but in that skill by which it was made. For it is thenceapproved as made, wherein it is seen to have been to be made. Thisis truth, and simple good: for it is nothing else than the gooditself, and for this reason also the chief good. For no good can bediminished or increased, except that which is good from some othergood. Therefore the mind turns itself, in order to be good, to thatby which it comes to be a mind. Therefore the will is then inharmony with nature, so that the mind may be perfected in good, whenthat good is loved by the turning of the will to it, whence thatother good also comes which is not lost by the turning away of thewill from it. For by turning itself from the chief good, the mindloses the being a good mind; but it does not lose the being a mind.And this, too, is a good already, and one better than the body. Thewill, therefore, loses that which the will obtains. For the mindalready was, that could wish to be turned to that from which it was:but that as yet was not, that could wish to be before it was. Andherein is our [supreme] good, when we seewhether the thing ought to be or to have been, respecting which wecomprehend that it ought to be or to have been, and when we see thatthe thing could not have been unless it ought to have been, of whichwe also do not comprehend in what manner it ought to have been. Thisgood then is not far from every one of us: for in it we live, andmove, and have our being. [1]

CHAP. 4.—: GOD MUST FIRST BE KNOWN BY AN UNERRING FAITH,THAT HE MAY BE LOVED.

6. But it is by love that wemust stand firm to this and cleave to this, in order that we mayenjoy the presence of that by which we are, and in the absence ofwhich we could not be at all. For as “we walk as yet byfaith, and not by sight,” [2] we certainly do not yetsee God, as the same [apostle] saith,“face to face:” [3] whom however we shallnever see, unless now already we love. But who loves what he doesnot know? For it is possible something may be known and not loved:but I ask whether it is possible that what is not known can beloved; since if it cannot, then no one loves God before he knowsHim. And what is it to know God except to behold Him and steadfastlyperceive Him with the mind? For He is not a body to be searched outby carnal eyes. But before also that we have power to behold and toperceive God, as He can be beheld and perceived, which is permittedto the pure in heart; for “blessed are the pure in heart,for they shall see God;” [4] except He is loved byfaith, it will not be possible for the heart to be cleansed, inorder that it may be apt and meet to see Him. For where are therethose three, in order to build up which in the mind the wholeapparatus of the divine Scriptures has been raised up, namely Faith,Hope, and Charity, [5] except in a mindbelieving what it does not yet see, and hoping and loving what itbelieves? Even He therefore who is not known, but yet is believed,can be loved. But indisputably we must take care, lest the mindbelieving that which it does not see, feign to itself somethingwhich is not, and hope for and love that which is false. For in thatcase, it will not be charity out of a pure heart, and of a goodconscience, and of faith unfeigned, which is the end of thecommandment, as the same apostle says. [6]

7. But it must needs be,that, when by reading or hearing of them we believe in any corporealthings which we have not seen, the mind frames for itself somethingunder bodily features and forms, just as it may occur to ourthoughts; which either is not true, or even if it be true, which canmost rarely happen, yet this is of no benefit to us to believe in byfaith, but it is useful for some other purpose, which is intimatedby means of it. For who is there that reads or hears what theApostle Paul has written, or what has been written of him, that doesnot imagine to himself the countenance both of the apostle himself,and of all those whose names are there mentioned? And whereas, amongsuch a multitude of men to whom these books are known, each imaginesin a different way those bodily features and forms, it is assuredlyuncertain which it is that imagines them more nearly and more likethe reality. Nor, indeed, is our faith busied therein with thebodily countenance of those men; but only that by the grace of Godthey so lived and so acted as that Scripture witnesses: this it iswhich it is both useful to believe, and which must not be despairedof, and must be sought. For even the countenance of our Lord Himselfin the flesh is variously fancied by the diversity of countlessimaginations, which yet was one, whatever it was. Nor in our faithwhich we have of our Lord Jesus Christ,is that wholesome which the mind imagines for itself, perhaps farother than the reality, but that which we think of man according tohis kind: for we have a notion of human nature implanted in us, asit were by rule, according to which we know forthwith, that whateversuch thing we see is a man or the form of a man.

CHAP. 5.—: HOW THE TRINITY MAY BE LOVED THOUGHUNKNOWN.

Our conception is framed according to this notion, when we believethat God was made man for us, as an example of humility, and to showthe love of God towards us. For this it is which it is good for usto believe, and to retain firmly and unshakenly in our heart, thatthe humility by which God was born of a woman, and was led to deaththrough contumelies so great by mortal men, is the chiefest remedyby which the swelling of our pride may be cured, and the profoundmystery by which the bond of sin may be loosed. So also, because weknow what omnipotence is, we believe concerning the omnipotent Godin the power of His miracles and of His resurrection, and we frameconceptions respecting actions of this kind, according to thespecies and genera of things that are either ingrafted in us bynature, or gathered by experience, that our faith may not befeigned. 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 thelineaments of the body of Lazarus; nor yet Bethany; nor thesepulchre, and that stone which He commanded to be removed when Heraised Him from the dead; nor the new tomb cut out in the rock,whence He Himself arose; nor the Mount of Olives, from whence Heascended into heaven. And, in short, whoever of us have not seenthese things, know not whether they are as we conceive them to be,nay judge them more probably not to be so. For when the aspecteither of a place, or a man, or of any other body, which we happenedto imagine before we saw it, turns out to be the same when it occursto our sight as it was when it occurred to our mind, we are movedwith no little wonder. So scarcely and hardly ever does it happen.And yet we believe those things most steadfastly, because we imaginethem according to a special and general notion, of which we arecertain. For we believe our Lord Jesus Christ to be born of a virginwho 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 themind in speaking of those things or recollecting them, we neitherknow at all, nor believe. It is allowable, then, in this case to saywithout violation of the faith, perhaps she had such or such acountenance, perhaps she had not: but no one could say withoutviolation of the Christian faith, that perhaps Christ was born of avirgin.

8. Wherefore, since we desireto understand the eternity, and equality, and unity of the Trinity,as much as is permitted us, but ought to believe before weunderstand; and since we must watch carefully, that our faith be notfeigned; since we must have the fruition of the same Trinity, thatwe may live blessedly; but if we have believed anything false of it,our hope would be worthless, and our charity not pure: how then canwe love, by believing, that Trinity which we do not know? Is itaccording to the special or general notion, according to which welove the Apostle Paul? In whose case, even if he was not of thatcountenance which occurs to us when we think of him (and this we donot 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, wasthis, and that his soul joined to his body lived after the manner ofmortals. Therefore we believe this of him, which we find inourselves, according to the species or genus under which all humannature alike is comprised. What then do we know, whether speciallyor generally, of that most excellent Trinity, as if there were manysuch trinities, some of which we had learned by experience, so thatwe may believe that Trinity, too, to have been such as they, throughthe rule of similitude, impressed upon us, whether a special or ageneral notion; and thus love also that thing which we believe anddo not yet know, from the parity of the thing which we do know? Butthis certainly is not so. Or is it that, as we love in our LordJesus Christ, that He rose from the dead, although we never saw anyone rise from thence, so we can believe in and love the Trinitywhich we do not see, and the like of which we never have seen? Butwe certainly know what it is to die, and what it is to live; becausewe both live, and from time to time have seen and experienced bothdead and dying persons. And what else is it to rise again, except tolive again, that is, to return to life from death? When, therefore,we say and believe that there is a Trinity, we know what a Trinityis, 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 otherthings, by just holding up three fingers.Or do we indeed love, not every trinity, but the Trinity, that is God? We love then in the Trinity,that it is God: but we never saw or knew any other God, because Godis One; He alone whom we have not yet seen, and whom we love bybelieving. But the question is, from what likeness or comparison ofknown things can we believe, in order that we may love God, whom wedo not yet know?

CHAP. 6.—: HOW THE MAN NOT YET RIGHTEOUS CAN KNOW THERIGHTEOUS MAN WHOM HE LOVES.

9. Return then with me, andlet us consider why we love the apostle. Is it at all on account ofhis human kind, which we know right well, in that we believe him tohave been a man? Assuredly not; for if it were so, he now is not himwhom we love, since he is no longer that man, for his soul isseparated from his body. But we believe that which we love in him tobe still living, for we love his righteous mind. From what generalor special rule then, except that we know both what a mind is, andwhat it is to be righteous? And we say, indeed, not unfitly, that wetherefore know what a mind is, because we too have a mind. Forneither did we ever see it with our eyes, and gather a special orgeneral notion from the resemblance of more minds than one, which wehad seen; but rather, as I have said before, because we too have it.For what is known so intimately, and so perceives itself to beitself, as that by which also all other things are perceived, thatis, the mind itself? For we recognize the movements of bodies also,by which we perceive that others live besides ourselves, from theresemblance of ourselves; since we also so move our body in livingas we observe those bodies to be moved. For even when a living bodyis moved, there is no way opened to our eyes to see the mind, athing which cannot be seen by the eyes; but we perceive something tobe contained in that bulk, such as is contained in ourselves, so asto move in like manner ourown bulk, which is the life and the soul.Neither is this, as it were, the property of human foresight andreason, since brute animals also perceive that not only theythemselves live, but also other brute animals interchangeably, andthe one the other, and that we ourselves do so. Neither do they seeour souls, save from the movements of the body, and that immediatelyand most easily by some natural agreement. Therefore we both knowthe mind of any one from our own, and believe also from our own ofhim whom we do not know. For not only do we perceive that there is amind, but we can also know what a mind is, by reflecting upon ourown: for we have a mind. But whence do we know what a righteous manis? For we said above that we love the apostle for no other reasonexcept that he is a righteous mind. We know, then, what a righteousman also is, just as we know what a mind is. But what a mind is, ashas 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 notrighteous? But if no one but he who is righteous knows what is arighteous man, no one but a righteous man loves a righteous man; forone cannot love him whom one believes to be righteous, for this veryreason that one does believe him to be righteous, if one does notknow what it is to be righteous; according to that which we haveshown 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 thisreason no one but a righteous man loves a righteous man, how willany one wish to be a righteous man who is not yet so? For no onewishes to be that which he does not love. But, certainly, that hewho is not righteous may be so, it is necessary that he should wishto be righteous; and in order that he may wish to be righteous, heloves the righteous man. Therefore, even he who is not yetrighteous, loves the righteous man. [1] But he cannot love the righteousman, who is ignorant what a righteous man is. Accordingly, even hewho is not yet righteous, knows what a righteous man is. Whence thendoes he know this? Does he see it with his eyes? Is any corporealthing righteous, as it is white, or black, or square, or round? Whocould say this? Yet with one’s eyes one has seen nothingexcept corporeal things. But there is nothing righteous in a manexcept the mind; and when a man is called a righteous man, he iscalled so from the mind, not from the body. For righteousness is insome sort the beauty of the mind, by which men are beautiful; verymany too who are misshapen and deformed in body. And as the mind isnot seen with the eyes, so neither is its beauty. From whence thendoes he who is not yet righteous know what a righteous man is, andlove the righteous man that he may become righteous? Do certainsigns shine forth by the motion of the body, by which this or that man is manifested to be righteous?But whence does any one know that these are the signs of a righteousmind, when he is wholly ignorant what it is to be righteous?Therefore he does know. But whence do we know what it is to berighteous, even when we are not yet righteous? If we know fromwithout ourselves, we know it by some bodily thing. But this is nota thing of the body. Therefore we know in ourselves what it is to berighteous. For I find this nowhere else when I seek to utter it,except within myself; and if I ask another what it is to berighteous, he seeks within himself what to answer; and whosoeverhence can answer truly, he has found within himself what to answer.And when indeed I wish to speak of Carthage, I seek within myselfwhat to speak, and I find within myself a notion or image ofCarthage; but I have received this through the body, that is,through the perception of the body, since I have been present inthat city in the body, and I saw and perceived it, and retained itin my memory, that I might find within myself a word concerning it,whenever I might wish to speak of it. For its word is the imageitself of it in my memory, not that sound of two syllables whenCarthage is named, or even when that name itself is thought ofsilently from time to time, but that which I discern in my mind,when I utter that dissyllable with my voice, or even before I utterit. So also, when I wish to speak of Alexandria, which I never saw,an image of it is present with me. For whereas I had heard from manyand had believed that city to be great, in such way as it could betold me, I formed an image of it in my mind as I was able; and thisis with me its word when I wish to speak of it, before I utter withmy voice the five syllables which make the name that almost everyone knows. And yet if I could bring forth that image from my mind tothe eyes of men who know Alexandria, certainly all either would say,It is not it; or if they said, It is, I should greatly wonder; andas I gazed at it in my mind, that is, at the image which was as itwere its picture, I should yet not know it to be it, but shouldbelieve those who retained an image they had seen. But I do not soask what it is to be righteous, nor do I so find it, nor do I sogaze upon it, when I utter it; neither am I so approved when I amheard, nor do I so approve when I hear; as though I have seen such athing with my eyes, or learned it by some perception of the body, orheard it from those who had so learned it. For when I say, and sayknowingly, that mind is righteous which knowingly and of purposeassigns to every one his due in life and behavior, I do not think ofanything absent, as Carthage, or imagine it as I am able, asAlexandria, whether it be so or not; but I discern somethingpresent, and I discern it within myself, though I myself am not thatwhich I discern; and many if they hear will approve it. And whoeverhears me and knowingly approves, he too discerns this same thingwithin himself, even though he himself be not what he discerns. Butwhen a righteous man says this, he discerns and says that which hehimself is. And whence also does he discern it, except withinhimself? But this is not to be wondered at; for whence should hediscern himself except within himself? The wonderful thing is, thatthe mind should see within itself that which it has seen nowhereelse, and should see truly, and should see the very true righteousmind, and should itself be a mind, and yet not a righteous mind,which nevertheless it sees within itself. Is there another mind thatis righteous in a mind that is not yet righteous? Or if there isnot, what does it there see when it sees and says what is arighteous mind, nor sees it anywhere else but in itself, when itselfis not a righteous mind? Is that which it sees an inner truthpresent to the mind which has power to behold it? Yet all have notthat power; and they who have power to behold it, are not all alsothat which they behold, that is, they are not also righteous mindsthemselves, just as they are able to see and to say what is arighteous mind. And whence will they be able to be so, except bycleaving to that very same form itself which they behold, so thatfrom thence they may be formed and may be righteous minds; not onlydiscerning and saying that the mind is righteous which knowingly andof purpose assigns to every one that which is his due in life andbehavior, but so likewise that they themselves may live righteouslyand be righteous in character, by assigning to every one that whichis his due, so as to owe no man anything, but to love oneanother. [1] And whence can any one cleave to that form butby loving it? Why then do we love another whom we believe to berighteous, and do not love that form itself wherein we see what is arighteous mind, that we also may be able to be righteous? Is it thatunless we loved that also, we should not love him at all, whomthrough it we love; but whilst we are not righteous, we love thatform too little to allow of our being able to be righteous? The mantherefore who is believed to be righteous, is loved through thatform and truth which he who loves discerns and understands within himself; but that very form andtruth itself cannot be loved from any other source than itself. Forwe do not find any other such thing besides itself, so that bybelieving we might love it when it is unknown, in that we herealready know another such thing. For whatsoever of such a kind onemay have seen, is itself; and there is not any other such thing,since itself alone is such as itself is. He therefore who loves men,ought to love them either because they are righteous, or that theymay become righteous. For so also he ought to love himself, eitherbecause he is righteous, or that he may become righteous; for inthis way he loves his neighbor as himself without any risk. For hewho loves himself otherwise, loves himself wrongfully, since heloves himself to this end that he may be unrighteous; therefore tothis end that he may be wicked; and hence it follows next that hedoes not love himself; for, “He who loveth iniquity, [1] hateth his own soul.” [2]

CHAP. 7.—: OF TRUE LOVE, BY WHICH WE ARRIVE AT THEKNOWLEDGE OF THE TRINITY. GOD IS TO BE SOUGHT, NOT OUTWARDLY, BY SEEKINGTO DO WONDERFUL THINGS WITH THE ANGELS, BUT INWARDLY, BY IMITATING THEPIETY OF GOOD ANGELS.

10. No other thing, then, ischiefly to be regarded in this inquiry, which we make concerning theTrinity 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 improperlyto love, just as they who love are said improperly to desire. Butthis is true love, that cleaving to the truth we may liverighteously, and so may despise all mortal things in comparison withthe love of men, whereby we wish them to live righteously. For so weshould be prepared also to die profitably for our brethren, as ourLord Jesus Christ taught us by His example. For as there are twocommandments on which hang all the Law and the prophets, love of Godand love of our neighbor; [3] not without causethe Scripture mostly puts one for both: whether it be of God only,as is that text, “For we know that all things worktogether for good to them that love God;” [4] and again, “But if any man love God,the same is known of Him;” [5] and that,“Because the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts bythe Holy Ghost which is given unto us;” [6] and many other passages; because he who loves God must both needs dowhat God has commanded, and loves Him just in such proportion as hedoes so; therefore he must needs also love his neighbor, because Godhas commanded it: or whether it be that Scripture only mentions thelove of our neighbor, as in that text, “Bear ye oneanother’s burdens, and so fulfill the law ofChrist;” [7] and again, “Forall the law is fufilled in one word, even in this, Thou shalt lovethy neighbor as thyself;” [8] and in the Gospel,“All things whatsoever ye would that men should do toyou, do ye even so to them; for this is the Law and theprophets.” [9] And many other passagesoccur in the sacred writings, in which only the love of our neighborseems to be commanded for perfection, while the love of God ispassed over in silence; whereas the Law and the prophets hang onboth precepts. But this, too, is because he who loves his neighbormust needs also love above all else love itself. But “Godis love; and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth inGod.” [10] Therefore he must needsabove all else love God.

11. Wherefore they who seekGod through those Powers which rule over the world, or parts of theworld, are removed and cast away far from Him; not by intervals ofspace, but by difference of affections: for they endeavor to find apath outwardly, and forsake their own inward things, within which isGod. Therefore, even although they may either have heard some holyheavenly Power, or in some way or another may have thought of it,yet they rather covet its deeds at which human weakness marvels, butdo not imitate the piety by which divine rest is acquired. For theyprefer, through pride, to be able to do that which an angel does,more than, through devotion, to be that which an angel is. For noholy being rejoices in his own power, but in His from whom he hasthe power which he fitly can have; and he knows it to be more a markof power to be united to the Omnipotent by a pious will, than to beable, by his own power and will, to do what they may tremble at whoare not able to do such things. Therefore the Lord Jesus ChristHimself, in doing such things, in order that He might teach betterthings to those who marvelled at them, and might turn those who wereintent and in doubt about unusual temporal things to eternal andinner things, says, “Come unto me, all ye that labor andare heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke uponyou.” And He does not say, Learn of me, because I raisethose who have been dead four days; butHe says, “Learn of me; for I am meek and lowly inheart.” For humility, which is most solid, is morepowerful and safer than pride, that is most inflated. And so He goeson to say, “And ye shall find rest unto yoursouls,” [1] for“Love [2] is not puffedup;” [3] and “God isLove;” [4] and “such asbe faithful in love shall rest in [5] Him,” [6] called back from the dinwhich is without to silent joys. Behold, “God isLove:” why do we go forth and run to the heights of theheavens and the lowest parts of the earth, seeking Him who is withinus, if we wish to be with Him?

CHAP. 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 notknow what I love. Let him love his brother, and he will love thesame love. For he knows the love with which he loves, more than thebrother whom he loves. So now he can know God more than he knows hisbrother: clearly known more, because more present; known more,because more within him; known more, because more certain. Embracethe love of God, and by love embrace God. That is love itself, whichassociates together all good angels and all the servants of God bythe bond of sanctity, and joins together us and them mutually withourselves, and joins us subordinately to Himself. In proportion,therefore, as we are healed from the swelling of pride, in suchproportion 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 seelove, and, as far as I am able, I gaze upon it with my mind, and Ibelieve the Scripture, saying, that “God is love; and hethat dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God;” [7] but when I see love, I do not see in it theTrinity. Nay, but thou dost see the Trinity if thou seest love. Butif I can I will put you in mind, that thou mayest see that thouseest it; only let itself be present, that we may be moved by loveto something good. Since, when we love love, we love one who lovessomething, and that on account of this very thing, that he does lovesomething; therefore what does love love, that love itself also maybe loved? For that is not love which loves nothing. But if it lovesitself it must love something, that it may love itself as love. Foras a word indicates something, and indicates also itself, but doesnot indicate itself to be a word, unless it indicates that it doesindicate something; so love also loves indeed itself, but except itlove itself as loving something, it loves itself not as love. Whattherefore does love love, except that which we love with love? Butthis, to begin from that which is nearest to us, is our brother. Andlisten how greatly the Apostle John commends brotherly love:“He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, andthere is none occasion of stumbling in him.” [8] It is manifest that he placed the perfection ofrighteousness in the love of our brother; for he certainly isperfect in whom “there is no occasion ofstumbling.” And yet he seems to have passed by the loveof God in silence; which he never would have done, unless because heintends God to be understood in brotherly love itself. For in thissame epistle, a little further on, he says most plainly thus:“Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God;and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He thatloveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love.” And thispassage declares sufficiently and plainly, that this same brotherlylove itself (for that is brotherly love by which we love each other)is set forth by so great authority, not only to be from God, butalso to be God. When, therefore, we love our brother from love, welove our brother from God; neither can it be that we do not loveabove all else that same love by which we love our brother: whenceit may be gathered that these two commandments cannot exist unlessinterchangeably. For since “God is love,” hewho loves love certainly loves God; but he must needs love love, wholoves his brother. And so a little after he says, “For hethat loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love Godwhom he hath not seen”? [9] because thereason that he does not see God is, that he does not love hisbrother. For he who does not love his brother, abideth not in love;and he who abideth not in love, abideth not in God, because God islove. Further, he who abideth not in God, abideth not in light; for“God is light, and in Him is no darkness atall.” [10] He therefore who abidethnot in light, what wonder is it if he does not see light, that is,does not see God, because he is in darkness? But he sees his brotherwith human sight, with which God cannot be seen. But if he lovedwith spiritual love him whom he sees with human sight, he would seeGod, who is love itself, with the inner sight by which He can beseen. Therefore he who does not love his brother whom he sees, how can he love God, whom onthat account he does not see, because God is love, which he has notwho does not love his brother? Neither let that further questiondisturb us, how much of love we ought to spend upon our brother, andhow much upon God: incomparably more upon God than upon ourselves,but upon our brother as much as upon ourselves; and we loveourselves so much the more, the more we love God. Therefore we loveGod and our neighbor from one and the same love; but we love God forthe sake of God, and ourselves and our neighbors for the sake ofGod.

CHAP. 9.—: OUR LOVE OF THE RIGHTEOUS IS KINDLED FROM LOVEITSELF OF THE UNCHANGEABLE FORM OF RIGHTEOUSNESS.

13. For why is it, pray, thatwe burn when we hear and read, “Behold, now is theaccepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation: giving nooffense in anything, that the ministry be not blamed: but in allthings approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in muchpatience, 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 theHoly Ghost, by love unfeigned, by the word of truth, by the power ofGod, by the armor of righteousness on the right hand and on theleft, by honor and dishonor, by evil report and good report: asdeceivers, 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 havingnothing, and yet possessing all things?” [1] Why is it that we are inflamed with love of theApostle Paul, when we read these things, unless that we believe himso to have lived? But we do not believe that the ministers of Godought so to live because we have heard it from any one, but becausewe behold it inwardly within ourselves, or rather above ourselves,in the truth itself. Him, therefore, whom we believe to have solived, we love for that which we see. And except we loved above allelse that form which we discern as always steadfast andunchangeable, we should not for that reason love him, because wehold fast in our belief that his life, when he was living in theflesh, was adapted to, and in harmony with, this form. But somehowwe are stirred up the more to the love of this form itself, throughthe belief by which we believe some one to have so lived; and to thehope by which we no more at all despair, that we, too, are able soto live; we who are men, from this fact itself, that some men haveso lived, so that we both desire this more ardently, and pray for itmore confidently. So both the love of that form, according to whichthey are believed to have lived, makes the life of these menthemselves to be loved by us; and their life thus believed stirs upa more burning love towards that same form; so that the moreardently we love God, the more certainly and the more calmly do wesee Him, because we behold in God the unchangeable form ofrighteousness, according to which we judge that man ought to live.Therefore faith avails to the knowledge and to the love of God, notas though of one altogether unknown, or altogether not loved; but sothat thereby He may be known more clearly, and loved moresteadfastly.

CHAP. 10.—: THERE ARE THREE THINGS IN LOVE, AS IT WERE ATRACE OF THE TRINITY.

14. But what is love orcharity, which divine Scripture so greatly praises and proclaims,except the love of good? But love is of someone 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, islove, except a certain life which couples or seeks to coupletogether some two things, namely, him that loves, and that which isloved? And this is so even in outward and carnal loves. But that wemay drink in something more pure and clear, let us tread down theflesh and ascend to the mind. What does the mind love in a friendexcept the mind? There, then, also are three things: he that loves,and that which is loved, and love. It remains to ascend also fromhence, and to seek those things which are above, as far as is givento man. But here for a little while let our purpose rest, not thatit may think itself to have found already what it seeks; but just asusually the place has first to be found where anything is to besought, while the thing itself is not yet found, but we have onlyfound already where to look for it; so let it suffice to have saidthus much, that we may have, as it were, the hinge of somestarting-point, whence to weave the rest of our discourse.

BOOK IX.

THAT A KIND OF TRINITY EXISTS IN MAN, WHO IS THE IMAGEOF GOD, VIZ. THE MIND, AND THE KNOWLEDGE WHEREWITH THE MINDKNOWS ITSELF, AND THE LOVE WHEREWITH IT LOVES BOTH ITSELF ANDITS OWN KNOWLEDGE; AND THESE THREE ARE SHOWN TO BE MUTUALLYEQUAL, AND OF ONE ESSENCE.

CHAP. 1.—: IN WHAT WAY WE MUST INQUIRE CONCERNING THETRINITY.

1. WE certainly seek a trinity,—not anytrinity, but that Trinity which is God, and the true and supreme andonly God. Let my hearers then wait, for we are still seeking. And noone justly finds fault with such a search, if at least he who seeksthat which either to know or to utter is most difficult, issteadfast in the faith. But whosoever either sees or teaches better,finds fault quickly and justly with any one who confidently affirmsconcerning it. “Seek God,” he says,“and your heart shall live;” [1] and lest any one should rashly rejoice that hehas, as it were, apprehended it, “Seek,” hesays, “His face evermore.” [2] And the apostle:“If any man,” he says, “think thathe knoweth anything, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. Butif any man love God, the same is known of Him.” [3] He has not said, has known Him, which is dangerouspresumption, but “is known of Him.” So also inanother place, when he had said, “But now after that yehave known God;” immediately correcting himself, he says,“or rather are known of God.” [4] And above all in that other place,“Brethren,” he says, “I count notmyself to have apprehended: but this one thing I do, forgettingthose things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those thingswhich are before, I press in purpose [5] toward the mark, for the prize of the highcalling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as beperfect, be thus minded.” [6] Perfection in thislife, he tells us, is nothing else than to forget those things whichare behind, and to reach forth and press in purpose toward thosethings which are before. For he that seeks has the safest purpose,[who seeks] until that is taken hold ofwhither we are tending, and for which we are reaching forth. Butthat is the right purpose which starts from faith. For a certainfaith is in some way the starting-point of knowledge; but a certainknowledge will not be made perfect, except after this life, when weshall see face to face. [7] Let us therefore bethus minded, so as to know that the disposition to seek the truth ismore safe than that which presumes things unknown to be known. Letus therefore so seek as if we should find, and so find as if we wereabout to seek. For “when a man hath done, then hebeginneth.” [8] Let us doubt withoutunbelief of things to be believed; let us affirm without rashness ofthings to be understood: authority must be held fast in the former,truth sought out in the latter. As regards this question, then, letus believe that the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit is oneGod, the Creator and Ruler of the whole creature; and that theFather is not the Son, nor the Holy Spirit either the Father or theSon, but a trinity of persons mutually interrelated, and a unity ofan equal essence. And let us seek to understand this, praying forhelp from Himself, whom we wish to understand; and as much as Hegrants, desiring to explain what we understand with so much piouscare and anxiety, that even if in any case we say one thing foranother, we may at least say nothing unworthy. As, for the sake ofexample, if we say anything concerning the Father that does notproperly belong to the Father, or does belong to the Son, or to theHoly Spirit, or to the Trinityitself; and if anything of the Son which does not properly suit withthe Son, or at all events which does suit with the Father, or withthe Holy Spirit, or with the Trinity; or if, again, anythingconcerning the Holy Spirit, which is not fitly a property of theHoly Spirit, yet is not alien from the Father, or from the Son, orfrom the one God the Trinity itself. Even as now our wish is to seewhether the Holy Spirit is properly that love which is mostexcellent; which if He is not, either the Father is love, or theSon, or the Trinity itself; since we cannot withstand the mostcertain faith and weighty authority of Scripture, saying,“God is love.” [1] And yet we ought not todeviate into profane error, so as to say anything of the Trinitywhich does not suit the Creator, but rather the creature, or whichis feigned outright by mere empty thought.

CHAP. 2.—: THE THREE THINGS WHICH ARE FOUND IN LOVE MUSTBE CONSIDERED. [2]

2. And this being so, let usdirect our attention to those three things which we fancy we havefound. We are not yet speaking of heavenly things, nor yet of Godthe Father, and Son, and Holy Spirit, but of that inadequate image,which yet is an image, that is, man; for our feeble mind perhaps cangaze upon this more familiarly and more easily. Well then, when I,who make this inquiry, love anything, there are three thingsconcerned—myself, and that which I love, and love itself.For I do not love love, except I love a lover; for there is no lovewhere nothing is loved. Therefore there are threethings—he who loves, and that which is loved, and love.But what if I love none except myself? Will there not then be twothings—that which I love, and love? For he who loves andthat which is loved are the same when any one loves himself; just asto love and to be loved, in the same way, is the very same thingwhen any one loves himself. Since the same thing is said, when it issaid, he loves himself, and he is loved by himself. For in that caseto love and to be loved are not two different things: just as he wholoves 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 isno love when any one loves himself, except when love itself isloved. But it is one thing to love one’s self, another tolove one’s own love. For love is not loved, unless asalready loving something; since where nothing is loved there is nolove. Therefore there are two things when any one loveshimself—love, and that which is loved. For then he thatloves and that which is loved are one. Whence it seems that it doesnot follow that three things are to be understood wherever love is.For let us put aside from the inquiry all the other many things ofwhich a man consists; and in order that we may discover clearly whatwe are now seeking, as far as in such a subject is possible, let ustreat of the mind alone. The mind, then, when it loves itself,discloses two things—mind and love. But what is to loveone’s self, except to wish to help one’s selfto the enjoyment of self? And when any one wishes himself to be justas much as he is, then the will is on a par with the mind, and thelove is equal to him who loves. And if love is a substance, it iscertainly not body, but spirit; and the mind also is not body, butspirit. Yet love and mind are not two spirits, but one spirit; noryet 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 isloved 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 someone who loves. But mind and spirit are not said relatively, butexpress essence. For mind and spirit do not exist because the mindand spirit of some particular man exists. For if we subtract thebody from that which is man, which is so called with the conjunctionof body, the mind and spirit remain. But if we subtract him thatloves, then there is no love; and if we subtract love, then there isno one that loves. And therefore, in so far as they are mutuallyreferred to one another, they are two; but whereas they are spokenin respect to themselves, each arespirit, and both together also are one spirit; and each are mind,and both together one mind. Where, then, is the trinity? Let usattend as much as we can, and let us invoke the everlasting light,that He may illuminate our darkness, and that we may see inourselves, as much as we are permitted, the image of God.

CHAP. 3.—: THE IMAGE OF THE TRINITY IN THE MIND OF MANWHO KNOWS HIMSELF AND LOVES HIMSELF. THE MIND KNOWS ITSELF THROUGHITSELF.

3. For the mind cannot loveitself, except also it know itself; for how can it love what it doesnot know? Or if any body says that the mind, from either general orspecial knowledge, believes itself of such a character as it has byexperience found others to be, and therefore loves itself, he speaksmost foolishly. For whence does a mind know another mind, if it doesnot know itself? For the mind does not know other minds and not knowitself, as the eye of the body sees other eyes and does not seeitself; for we see bodies through the eyes of the body, because,unless we are looking into a mirror, we cannot refract and reflectthe rays into themselves, which shine forth through those eyes, andtouch whatever we discern,—a subject, indeed, which istreated of most subtlely and obscurely, until it be clearlydemonstrated whether the fact be so, or whether it be not. Butwhatever is the nature of the power by which we discern through theeyes, certainly, whether it be rays or anything else, we cannotdiscern with the eyes that power itself; but we inquire into it withthe mind, and if possible, understand even this with the mind. Asthe mind, then, itself gathers the knowledge of corporeal thingsthrough the senses of the body, so of incorporeal things throughitself. Therefore it knows itself also through itself, since it isincorporeal; for if it does not know itself, it does not loveitself.

CHAP. 4.—: THE THREE ARE ONE, AND ALSO EQUAL, VIZ. THEMIND ITSELF, AND THE LOVE, AND THE KNOWLEDGE OF IT. THAT THE SAME THREEEXIST SUBSTANTIALLY, AND ARE PREDICATED RELATIVELY. THAT THE SAME THREEARE INSEPARABLE. THAT THE SAME THREE ARE NOT JOINED AND COMMINGLED LIKEPARTS, BUT THAT THEY ARE OF ONE ESSENCE, AND ARE RELATIVES.

4. But as there are twothings ( duo quædam ), the mind andthe love of it, when it loves itself; so there are two things, themind and the knowledge of it, when it knows itself. Therefore themind itself, and the love of it, and the knowledge of it, are threethings ( tria quædam ), and thesethree are one; and when they are perfect they are equal. For if oneloves himself less than as he is,—as for example, supposethat the mind of a man only loves itself as much as the body of aman ought to be loved, whereas the mind is more than thebody,—then it is in fault, and its love is not perfect.Again, if it loves itself more than as it is,—as if, forinstance, it loves itself as much as God is to be loved, whereas themind is incomparably less than God,—here also it isexceedingly in fault, and its love of self is not perfect. But it isin fault more perversely and wrongly still, when it loves the bodyas much as God is to be loved. Also, if knowledge is less than thatthing which is known, and which can be fully known, then knowledgeis not perfect; but if it is greater, then the nature which knows isabove that which is known, as the knowledge of the body is greaterthan the body itself, which is known by that knowledge. Forknowledge is a kind of life in the reason of the knower, but thebody is not life; and any life is greater than any body, not inbulk, but in power. But when the mind knows itself, its ownknowledge does not rise above itself, because itself knows, anditself is known. When, therefore, it knows itself entirely, and noother thing with itself, then its knowledge is equal to itself;because its knowledge is not from another nature, since it knowsitself. And when it perceives itself entirely, and nothing more,then it is neither less nor greater. We said therefore rightly, thatthese three things, [mind, love, andknowledge], when they are perfect, are by consequenceequal.

5. Similar reasoningsuggests to us, if indeed we can any way understand the matter, thatthese things [ i.e. love andknowledge] exist in the soul, and that, being as it wereinvolved in it, they are so evolved from it as to be perceived andreckoned up substantially, or, so to say, essentially. Not as thoughin 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 subjectin which it is; for the color or shape of this particular bodycannot be also those of another body. But the mind can also lovesomething besides itself, with that love with which it loves itself.And further, the mind does not know itself only, but also many otherthings. Wherefore love and knowledge are not contained in the mindas in a subject, but these also exist substantially,as the mind itself does; because, even if they are mutuallypredicated relatively, yet they existeach severally in their own substance. Nor are they so mutuallypredicated relatively as color and the colored subject are; so thatcolor is in the colored subject, but has not any proper substance initself, since colored body is a substance, but color is in asubstance; but as two friends are also two men, which aresubstances, while they are said to be men not relatively, butfriends relatively.

6. But, further, althoughone who loves or one who knows is a substance, and knowledge is a substance, and love is asubstance, but he that loves and love, or, he that knowsand knowledge, are spoken of relatively to each other, as arefriends: yet mind or spirit are not relatives, as neither are menrelatives: nevertheless he that loves and love, or he that knows andknowledge, cannot exist separately from each other, as men can thatare friends. Although it would seem that friends, too, can beseparated 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 afriend, and on this account cease to be a friend, while the otherdoes not know it, and still loves him. But if the love with whichthe mind loves itself ceases to be, then the mind also will at thesame time cease to love. Likewise, if the knowledge by which themind knows itself ceases to be, then the mind will also at the sametime cease to know itself. Just as the head of anything that has ahead is certainly a head, and they are predicated relatively to eachother, 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, thenneither will there be that which has a head. Only these things canbe separated from each other by cutting off, those cannot.

7. And even if there aresome bodies which cannot be wholly separated and divided, yet theywould not be bodies unless they consisted of their own proper parts.A part then is predicated relatively to a whole, since every part isa part of some whole, and a whole is a whole by having all itsparts. But since both part and whole are bodies, these things arenot only predicated relatively, but exist also substantially.Perhaps, then, the mind is a whole, and the love with which it lovesitself, and the knowledge with which it knows itself, are as it wereits parts, of which two parts that whole consists. Or are therethree equal parts which make up the one whole? But no part embracesthe whole, of which it is a part; whereas, when the mind knowsitself as a whole, that is, knows itself perfectly, then theknowledge of it extends through the whole of it; and when it lovesitself perfectly, then it loves itself as a whole, and the love ofit extends through the whole of it. Is it, then, as one drink ismade from wine and water and honey, and each single part extendsthrough the whole, and yet they are three things (for there is nopart of the drink which does not contain these three things; forthey are not joined as if they were water and oil, but are entirelycommingled: and they are all substances, and the whole of thatliquor which is composed of the three is onesubstance),—is it, I say, in some such way as this we areto think these three to be together, mind, love, and knowledge? Butwater, wine, and honey are not of one substance, although onesubstance results in the drink made from the commingling of them.And I cannot see how those other three are not of the samesubstance, since the mind itself loves itself, and itself knowsitself; and these three so exist, as that the mind is neither lovednor known by any other thing at all. These three, therefore, mustneeds be of one and the same essence; and for that reason, if theywere confounded together as it were by a commingling, they could notbe in any way three, neither could they be mutually referred to eachother. Just as if you were to make from one and the same gold threesimilar rings, although connected with each other, they are mutuallyreferred to each other, because they are similar. For everythingsimilar is similar to something, and there is a trinity of rings,and one gold. But if they are blended with each other, and eachmingled with the other through the whole of their own bulk, thenthat trinity will fall through, and it will not exist at all; andnot only will it be called one gold, as it was called in the case ofthose three rings, but now it will not be called three things ofgold at all.

CHAP. 5.—: THAT THESE THREE ARE SEVERAL IN THEMSELVES,AND MUTUALLY ALL IN ALL.

8. But in these three, whenthe mind knows itself and loves itself, there remains a trinity:mind, love, knowledge; and this trinity is not confounded togetherby any commingling: although they are each severally in themselvesand mutually all in all, or each severally in each two, or each twoin each. Therefore all are in all. For certainly the mind is initself, since it is called mind in respect to itself: although it issaid to be knowing, or known, or knowable, relatively to its ownknowledge; and although also as loving,and loved, or lovable, it is referred to love, by which it lovesitself. And knowledge, although it is referred to the mind thatknows or is known, nevertheless is also predicated both as known andknowing in respect to itself: for the knowledge by which the mindknows itself is not unknown to itself. And although love is referredto the mind that loves, whose love it is; nevertheless it is alsolove in respect to itself, so as to exist also in itself: since lovetoo is loved, yet cannot be loved with anything except with love,that is with itself. So these things are severally in themselves.But so are they in each other; because both the mind that loves is in love, and love is in the knowledge of him that loves, and knowledge is in the mind that knows. And each severally isin like manner in each two, because the mind which knows and lovesitself, is in its own love and knowledge: and the love of the mindthat loves and knows itself, is in the mind and in its knowledge:and the knowledge of the mind that knows and loves itself is in themind and in its love, because it loves itself that knows, and knowsitself that loves. And hence also each two is in each severally,since the mind which knows and loves itself, is together with itsown knowledge in love, and together with its own love in knowledge;and love too itself and knowledge are together in the mind, whichloves and knows itself. But in what way all are in all, we havealready shown above; since the mind loves itself as a whole, andknows itself as a whole, and knows its own love wholly, and lovesits own knowledge wholly, when these three things are perfect inrespect to themselves. Therefore these three things are marvellouslyinseparable from each other, and yet each of them is severally asubstance, and all together are one substance or essence, whilstthey are mutually predicated relatively. [1]

CHAP. 6.—: THERE IS ONE KNOWLEDGE OF THE THING IN THETHING ITSELF, AND ANOTHER IN ETERNAL TRUTH ITSELF. THAT CORPOREALTHINGS, TOO, ARE TO BE JUDGED BY THE RULES OF ETERNAL TRUTH.

9. But when the human mindknows itself and loves itself, it does not know and love anythingunchangeable: and each individual man declares his own particularmind by one manner of speech, when he considers what takes place inhimself; but defines the human mind abstractly by special or generalknowledge. And so, when he speaks to me of his own individual mind,as to whether he understands this or that, or does not understandit, 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 orspecially, I recognize and approve. Whence it is manifest, that eachsees a thing in himself, in such way that another person may believewhat he says of it, yet may not see it; but another [seesa thing] in the truth itself, in such way that anotherperson also can gaze upon it; of which the former undergoes changesat successive times, the latter consists in an unchangeableeternity. For we do not gather a generic or specific knowledge ofthe human mind by means of resemblance by seeing many minds with theeyes of the body: but we gaze upon indestructible truth, from whichto define perfectly, as far as we can, not of what sort is the mindof any one particular man, but of what sort it ought to be upon theeternal plan.

10. Whence also, even in thecase of the images of things corporeal which are drawn in throughthe bodily sense, and in some way infused into the memory, fromwhich also those things which have not been seen are thought under afancied image, whether otherwise than they really are, or evenperchance as they are;—even here too, we are provedeither to accept or reject, within ourselves, by other rules whichremain altogether unchangeable above our mind, when we approve orreject anything rightly. For both when I recall the walls ofCarthage which I have seen, and imagine to myself the walls ofAlexandria which I have not seen, and, in preferring this to thatamong forms which in both cases are imaginary, make that preferenceupon grounds of reason; the judgment of truth from above is stillstrong and clear, and rests firmly upon the utterly indestructiblerules of its own right; and if it is covered as it were bycloudiness of corporeal images, yet is not wrapt up and confoundedin them.

11. But it makes adifference, whether, under that or inthat darkness, I am shut off as it were from the clear heaven; orwhether (as usually happens on lofty mountains), enjoying the freeair between both, I at once look up above to the calmest light, anddown below upon the densest clouds. For whence is the ardor ofbrotherly love kindled in me, when I hear that some man has bornebitter torments for the excellence and steadfastness of faith? Andif that man is shown to me with the finger, I am eager to joinmyself to him, to become acquainted with him, to bind him to myselfin friendship. And accordingly, if opportunity offers, I draw near,I address him, I converse with him, I express my goodwill towardshim in what words I can, and wish that in him too in turn should bebrought to pass and expressed goodwill towards me; and I endeavorafter a spiritual embrace in the way of belief, since I cannotsearch out so quickly and discern altogether his innermost heart. Ilove therefore the faithful and courageous man with a pure andgenuine love. But if he were to confess to me in the course ofconversation, or were through unguardedness to show in any way, thateither he believes something unseemly of God, and desires alsosomething carnal in Him, and that he bore these torments on behalfof such an error, or from the desire of money for which he hoped, orfrom empty greediness of human praise: immediately it follows thatthe love with which I was borne towards him, displeased, and as itwere repelled, and taken away from an unworthy man, remains in thatform, after which, believing him such as I did, I had loved him;unless perhaps I have come to love him to this end, that he maybecome such, while I have found him not to be such in fact. And inthat man, too, nothing is changed: although it can be changed, sothat he may become that which I had believed him to be already. Butin my mind there certainly is something changed, viz., the estimate I had formed of him, which was beforeof one sort, and now is of another: and the same love, at thebidding from above of unchangeable righteousness, is turned asidefrom the purpose of enjoying, to the purpose of taking counsel. Butthe form itself of unshaken and stable truth, wherein I should haveenjoyed the fruition of the man, believing him to be good, andwherein likewise I take counsel that he may be good, sheds in animmoveable eternity the same light of incorruptible and most soundreason, both upon the sight of my mind, and upon that cloud ofimages, which I discern from above, when I think of the same manwhom I had seen. Again, when I call back to my mind some arch,turned beautifully and symmetrically, which, let us say, I saw atCarthage; a certain reality that had been made known to the mindthrough the eyes, and transferred to the memory, causes theimaginary view. But I behold in my mind yet another thing, accordingto which that work of art pleases me; and whence also, if itdispleased me, I should correct it. We judge therefore of thoseparticular things according to that [form of eternaltruth], and discern that form by the intuition of therational mind. But those things themselves we either touch ifpresent by the bodily sense, or if absent remember their images asfixed in our memory, or picture, in the way of likeness to them,such things as we ourselves also, if we wished and were able, wouldlaboriously build up: figuring in the mind after one fashion theimages of bodies, or seeing bodies through the body; but afteranother, grasping by simple intelligence what is above the eye ofthe mind, viz., the reasons and the unspeakablybeautiful skill of such forms.

CHAP. 7.—: WE CONCEIVE AND BEGET THE WORD WITHIN, FROMTHE THINGS WE HAVE BEHELD IN THE ETERNAL TRUTH. THE WORD, WHETHER OF THECREATURE OR OF THE CREATOR, IS CONCEIVED BY LOVE.

12. We behold, then, by thesight of the mind, in that eternal truth from which all thingstemporal are made, the form according to which we are, and accordingto which we do anything by true and right reason, either inourselves, or in things corporeal; and we have the true knowledge ofthings, thence conceived, as it were as a word within us, and byspeaking we beget it from within; nor by being born does it departfrom us. And when we speak to others, we apply to the word,remaining within us, the ministry of the voice or of some bodilysign, that by some kind of sensible remembrance some similar thingmay be wrought also in the mind of him thathears,—similar, I say, to that which does not depart fromthe mind of him that speaks. We do nothing, therefore, through themembers of the body in our words and actions, by which the behaviorof men is either approved or blamed, which we do not anticipate by aword uttered within ourselves. For no one willingly does anything,which he has not first said in his heart.

13. And this word isconceived by love, either of the creature or of the Creator, thatis, either of changeable nature or of unchangeable truth. [1]

CHAP. 8.—: IN WHAT DESIRE AND LOVE DIFFER.

[Conceived] therefore, either by desire or bylove: 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 ), butlove ( charitas ). For it is desire when thecreature is loved for itself. And then it does not help a manthrough making use of it, but corrupts him in the enjoying it. When,therefore, the creature is either equal to us or inferior, we mustuse the inferior in order to God, but we must enjoy the equal onlyin God. For as thou oughtest to enjoy thyself, not in thyself, butin Him who made thee, so also him whom thou lovest as thyself. Letus 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 isborn, when, being thought out, it pleases us either to the effect ofsinning, or to that of doing right. Therefore love, as it were amean, conjoins our word and the mind from which it is conceived, andwithout any confusion binds itself as a third with them, in anincorporeal embrace.

CHAP. 9.—: IN THE LOVE OF SPIRITUAL THINGS THE WORD BORNIS THE SAME AS THE WORD CONCEIVED. IT IS OTHERWISE IN THE LOVE OF CARNALTHINGS.

14. But the word conceivedand the word born are the very same when the will finds rest inknowledge itself, as is the case in the love of spiritual things.For instance, he who knows righteousness perfectly, and loves itperfectly, is already righteous; even if no necessity exist ofworking according to it outwardly through the members of the body.But in the love of carnal and temporal things, as in the offspringof animals, the conception of the word is one thing, the bringingforth another. For here what is conceived by desiring is born byattaining. Since it does not suffice to avarice to know and to lovegold, except it also have it; nor to know and love to eat, or to liewith any one, unless also one does it; nor to know and love honorsand power, unless they actually come to pass. Nay, all these things,even if obtained, do not suffice. “Whosoever drinketh ofthis water,” He says, “shall thirstagain.” [1] And so also the Psalmist,“He hath conceived pain and brought forthiniquity.” [2] And he speaks of pain orlabor as conceived, when those things are conceived which it is notsufficient to know and will, and when the mind burns and grows sickwith want, until it arrives at those things, and, as it were, bringsthem forth. Whence in the Latin language we have the word“parta” used elegantly for both“reperta” and“comperta,” which words sound as if derivedfrom bringing forth. [3] Since“lust, when it hath conceived, bringeth forthsin.” [4] Wherefore the Lordproclaims, “Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavyladen;” [5] and in another place“Woe unto them that are with child, and to them that givesuck, in those days!” [6] And when therefore Hereferred all either right actions or sins to the bringing forth ofthe word, “By thy mouth,” [7] He says, “thou shaltbe justified, and by thy mouth [8] thou shalt becondemned,” [9] intending thereby notthe visible mouth, but that which is within and invisible, of thethought and of the heart.

CHAP. 10.—: WHETHER ONLY KNOWLEDGE THAT IS LOVED IS THEWORD OF THE MIND.

15. It is rightly askedthen, whether all knowledge is a word, or only knowledge that isloved. For we also know the things which we hate; but what we do notlike, cannot be said to be either conceived or brought forth by themind. For not all things which in anyway touch it, are conceived byit; but some only reach the point of being known, but yet are notspoken as words, as for instance those of which we speak now. Forthose are called words in one way, which occupy spaces of time bytheir syllables, whether they are pronounced or only thought; and inanother way, all that is known is called a word imprinted on themind, as long as it can be brought forth from the memory anddefined, even though we dislike the thing itself; and in another waystill, when we like that which is conceived in the mind. And thatwhich the apostle says, must be taken according to this last kind ofword, “No man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by theHoly Ghost;” [10] since those alsosay this, but according to another meaning of the term“word,” of whom the Lord Himself says,“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shallenter into the kingdom of heaven.” [11] Nay, even in thecase of things which we hate, when we rightly dislike and rightlycensure them, we approve and like the censure bestowed upon them,and it becomes a word. Nor is it the knowledge of vices thatdispleases us, but the vices themselves.For I like to know and define what intemperance is; and this is itsword. Just as there are known faults in art, and the knowledge ofthem is rightly approved, when a connoisseur discerns the species orthe privation of excellence, as to affirm and deny that it is orthat it is not; yet to be without excellence and to fall away intofault, is worthy of condemnation. And to define intemperance, and tosay its word, belongs to the art of morals; but to be intemperatebelongs to that which that art censures. Just as to know and definewhat a solecism is, belongs to the art of speaking; but to be guiltyof one, is a fault which the same art reprehends. A word, then,which is the point we wish now to discern and intimate, is knowledgetogether with love. Whenever, then, the mind knows and loves itself,its word is joined to it by love. And since it loves knowledge andknows love, both the word is in love and love is in the word, andboth are in him who loves and speaks. [1]

CHAP. 11.—: THAT THE IMAGE OR BEGOTTEN WORD OF THE MINDTHAT KNOWS ITSELF IS EQUAL TO THE MIND ITSELF.

16. But all knowledgeaccording to species is like the thing which it knows. For there isanother knowledge according to privation, according to which wespeak a word only when we condemn. And this condemnation of aprivation is equivalent to praise of the species, and so isapproved. 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 liketo the point of equality, since we do not know Him to the extent ofHis own being. And as, when we speak of bodies by means of thebodily sense, there arises in our mind some likeness of them, whichis a phantasm of the memory; for the bodies themselves are not atall in the mind, when we think them, but only the likenesses ofthose bodies; therefore, when we approve the latter for the former,we err, for the approving of one thing for another is an error; yetthe image of the body in the mind is a thing of a better sort thanthe species of the body itself, inasmuch as the former is in abetter nature, viz. in a living substance, asthe mind is: so when we know God, although we are made better thanwe were before we knew Him, and above all when the same knowledgebeing also liked and worthily loved becomes a word, and so thatknowledge becomes a kind of likeness of God; yet that knowledge isof a lower kind, since it is in a lower nature; for the mind iscreature, but God is Creator. And from this it may be inferred, thatwhen the mind knows and approves itself, this same knowledge is insuch way its word, as that it is altogether on a par and equal withit, and the same; because it is neither the knowledge of a loweressence, as of the body, nor of a higher, as of God. And whereasknowledge bears a likeness to that which it knows, that is, of whichit 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 imageand word; because it is uttered concerning that mind to which it isequalled in knowing, and that which is begotten is equal to thebegetter.

CHAP. 12.—: WHY LOVE IS NOT THE OFFSPRING OF THE MIND, ASKNOWLEDGE IS SO. THE SOLUTION OF THE QUESTION. THE MIND WITH THEKNOWLEDGE OF ITSELF AND THE LOVE OF ITSELF IS THE IMAGE OF THETRINITY.

17. What then is love? Willit 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, andnot beget its love when it loves itself? For if it is the cause ofits own knowing, for the reason that it is knowable, it is also thecause of its own love because it is lovable. It is hard, then, tosay why it does not beget both. For there is a further question alsorespecting the supreme Trinity itself, the omnipotent God theCreator, after whose image man is made, which troubles men, whom thetruth of God invites to the faith by human speech; viz. why the Holy Spirit is not also to be either believedor understood to be begotten by God the Father, so that He also maybe called a Son. And this question we are endeavoring in some way toinvestigate in the human mind, in order that from a lower image, inwhich our own nature itself as it were answers, upon beingquestioned, in a way more familiar to ourselves, we may be able todirect a more practised mental vision from the enlightened creatureto the unchangeable light; assuming, however, that the truth itselfhas persuaded us, that as no Christian doubts the Word of God to bethe Son, so that the Holy Spirit is love. Let us return, then, to amore careful questioning and consideration upon this subject of thatimage which is the creature, that is, of the rational mind; whereinthe knowledge of some things coming intoexistence in time, but which did not exist before, and the love ofsome things which were not loved before, opens to us more clearlywhat to say: because to speech also itself, which must be disposedin time, that thing is easier of explanation which is comprehendedin the order of time.

18. First, therefore, it isclear that a thing may possibly be knowable, that is, such as can beknown, and yet that it may be unknown; but that it is not possiblefor that to be known which is not knowable. Wherefore it must beclearly held that everything whatsoever that we know begets at thesame time in us the knowledge of itself; for knowledge is broughtforth from both, from the knower and from the thing known. When,therefore, the mind knows itself, it alone is the parent of its ownknowledge; for it is itself both the thing known and the knower ofit. But it was knowable to itself also before it knew itself, onlythe knowledge of itself was not in itself so long as it did not knowitself. In knowing itself, then, it begets a knowledge of itselfequal to itself; since it does not know itself as less than itselfis, nor is its knowledge the knowledge of the essence of some oneelse, not only because itself knows, but also because it knowsitself, 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 begottenthe love of itself? For it was lovable to itself even before itloved itself, since it could love itself; just as it was knowable toitself even before it knew itself, since it could know itself. Forif 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 loveditself. Why therefore may it not be said by loving itself to havebegotten its own love, as by knowing itself it has begotten its ownknowledge? Is it because it is thereby indeed plainly shown thatthis is the principle of love, whence it proceeds? for it proceedsfrom the mind itself, which is lovable to itself before it lovesitself, and so is the principle of its own love by which it lovesitself: but that this love is not therefore rightly said to bebegotten by the mind, as is the knowledge of itself by which themind knows itself, because in the case of knowledge the thing hasbeen found already, which is what we call brought forth ordiscovered; [1] and this iscommonly preceded by an inquiry such as to find rest when that endis attained. For inquiry is the desire of finding, or, what is thesame thing, of discovering. [2] But those thingswhich are discovered are as it were brought forth, whence they arelike offspring; but wherein, except in the case itself of knowledge?For in that case they are as it were uttered and fashioned. Foralthough the things existed already which we found by seeking, yetthe knowledge of them did not exist, which knowledge we regard as anoffspring that is born. Further, the desire ( appetitus ) which there is in seeking proceeds from him whoseeks, and is in some way in suspense, and does not rest in the endwhither it is directed, except that which is sought be found andconjoined with him who seeks. And this desire, that is,inquiry,—although it does not seem to be love, by whichthat which is known is loved, for in this case we are still strivingto know,—yet it is something of the same kind. For it canbe called will ( voluntas ), since every one whoseeks wills ( vult ) to find; and if that issought which belongs to knowledge, every one who seeks wills toknow. But if he wills ardently and earnestly, he is said to study( studere ): a word that is most commonlyemployed in the case of pursuing and obtaining any branches oflearning. Therefore, the bringing forth of the mind is preceded bysome desire, by which, through seeking and finding what we wish toknow, the offspring, viz. knowledge itself, isborn. And for this reason, that desire by which knowledge isconceived and brought forth, cannot rightly be called the bringingforth and the offspring; and the same desire which led us to longfor the knowing of the thing, becomes the love of the thing whenknown, while it holds and embraces its accepted offspring, that is,knowledge, and unites it to its begetter. And so there is a kind ofimage of the Trinity in the mind itself, and the knowledge of it,which is its offspring and its word concerning itself, and love as athird, and these three are one, and one substance. [3] Neitheris the offspring less, since the mind knows itself according to themeasure of its own being; nor is the love less, since it lovesitself according to the measure both of its own knowledge and of itsown being.

BOOK X.

IN WHICH THERE IS SHOWN TO BE ANOTHER TRINITY IN THEMIND OF MAN, AND ONE THAT APPEARS MUCH MORE EVIDENTLY, VIZ. INHIS MEMORY, UNDERSTANDING, AND WILL.

CHAP. 1.—: THE LOVE OF THE STUDIOUS MIND, THAT IS, OF ONEDESIROUS TO KNOW, IS NOT THE LOVE OF A THING WHICH IT DOES NOTKNOW.

1. LET us now proceed, then, in due order, with amore exact purpose, to explain this same point more thoroughly. Andfirst, since no one can love at all a thing of which he is whollyignorant, we must carefully consider of what sort is the love ofthose who are studious, that is, of those who do not already know,but are still desiring to know any branch of learning. Nowcertainly, in those things whereof the word study is not commonlyused, love often arises from hearsay, when the reputation ofanything for beauty inflames the mind to the seeing and enjoying it;since the mind knows generically wherein consist the beauties ofcorporeal things, from having seen them very frequently, and sincethere exists within a faculty of approving that which outwardly islonged for. And when this happens, the love that is called forth isnot of a thing wholly unknown, since its genus is thus known. Butwhen we love a good man whose face we never saw, we love him fromthe knowledge of his virtues, which virtues we know[abstractly] in the truth itself. But in thecase of learning, it is for the most part the authority of otherswho praise and commend it that kindles our love of it; althoughnevertheless we could not burn with any zeal at all for the study ofit, unless we had already in our mind at least a slight impressionof the knowledge of each kind of learning. For who, for instance,would devote any care and labor to the learning of rhetoric, unlesshe knew before that it was the science of speaking? Sometimes,again, we marvel at the results of learning itself, which we haveheard of or experienced; and hence burn to obtain, by learning, thepower of attaining these results. Just as if it were said to one whodid not know his letters, that there is a kind of learning whichenables a man to send words, wrought with the hand in silence, toone who is ever so far absent, for him in turn to whom they are sentto gather these words, not with his ears, but with his eyes; and ifthe man were to see the thing actually done, is not that man, sincehe desires to know how he can do this thing, altogether moved tostudy with a view to the result which he already knows and holds? Soit is that the studious zeal of those who learn is kindled: for thatof which any one is utterly ignorant, he can in no way love.

2. So also, if any one hearan unknown sign, as, for instance, the sound of some word of whichhe 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 agreedshall be brought to mind by that sound: as if he heard the word temetum [1] uttered, and not knowing, shouldask what it is. He must then know already that it is a sign, i.e. that the word is not an empty sound, butthat something is signified by it; for in other respects thistrisyllabic word is known to him already, and has already impressedits articulate form upon his mind through the sense of hearing. Andthen what more is to be required in him, that he may go on to agreater knowledge of that of which all the letters and all thespaces of its several sounds are already known, unless that it shallat the same time have become known to him that it is a sign, andshall have also moved him with the desire of knowing of what it isthe sign? The more, then, the thing is known, yet not fully known,the more the mind desires to know concerning it what remains to beknown. For if he knew it to be only suchand such a spoken word, and did not know that it was the sign ofsomething, he would seek nothing further, since the sensible thingis already perceived as far as it can be by the sense. But becausehe knows it to be not only a spoken word, but also a sign, he wishesto know it perfectly; and no sign is known perfectly, except it beknown of what it is the sign. He then who with ardent carefulnessseeks to know this, and inflamed by studious zeal perseveres in thesearch; can such an one be said to be without love? What then doeshe love? For certainly nothing can be loved unless it is known. Forthat man does not love those three syllables which he knows already.But if he loves this in them, that he knows them to signifysomething, this is not the point now in question, for it is not thiswhich he seeks to know. But we are now asking what it is he loves,in that which he is desirous to know, but which certainly he doesnot yet know; and we are therefore wondering why he loves, since weknow most assuredly that nothing can be loved unless it be known.What then does he love, except that he knows and perceives in thereason of things what excellence there is in learning, in which theknowledge of all signs is contained; and what benefit there is inthe being skilled in these, since by them human fellowship mutuallycommunicates its own perceptions, lest the assemblies of men shouldbe actually worse than utter solitude, if they were not to mingletheir thoughts by conversing together? The soul, then, discerns thisfitting and serviceable species, and knows it, and loves it; and hewho seeks the meaning of any words of which he is ignorant, studiesto render that species perfect in himself as much as he can: for itis one thing to behold it in the light of truth, another to desireit as within his own capacity. For he beholds in the light of truthhow great and how good a thing it is to understand and to speak alltongues of all nations, and so to hear no tongue and to be heard bynone as from a foreigner. The beauty, then, of this knowledge isalready discerned by thought, and the thing being known is loved;and that thing is so regarded, and so stimulates the studious zealof learners, that they are moved with respect to it, and desire iteagerly in all the labor which they spend upon the attainment ofsuch a capacity, in order that they may also embrace in practicethat which they know beforehand by reason. And so every one, thenearer he approaches that capacity in hope, the more ferventlydesires it with love; for those branches of learning are studied themore eagerly, which men do not despair of being able to attain; forwhen any one entertains no hope of attaining his end, then he eitherloves lukewarmly or does not love at all, howsoever he may see theexcellence of it. Accordingly, because the knowledge of alllanguages is almost universally felt to be hopeless, every onestudies most to know that of his own nation; but if he feels that heis not sufficient even to comprehend this perfectly, yet no one isso indolent in this knowledge as not to wish to know, when he hearsan unknown word, what it is, and to seek and learn it if he can. Andwhile he is seeking it, certainly he has a studious zeal oflearning, and seems to love a thing he does not know; but the caseis really otherwise. For that species touches the mind, which themind knows and thinks, wherein the fitness is clearly visible whichaccures from the associating of minds with one another, in thehearing and returning of known and spoken words. And this specieskindles studious zeal in him who seeks what indeed he knows not, butgazes upon and loves the unknown form to which that pertains. Ifthen, for example, any one were to ask, What is temetum (for I had instanced this word already), and itwere said to him, What does this matter to you? he will answer, Lestperhaps I hear some one speaking, and understand him not; or perhapsread the word somewhere, and know not what the writer meant. Who,pray, would say to such an inquirer, Do not care about understandingwhat you hear; do not care about knowing what you read? For almostevery rational soul quickly discerns the beauty of that knowledge,through which the thoughts of men are mutually made known by theenunciation of significant words; and it is on account of thisfitness thus known, and because known therefore loved, that such anunknown word is studiously sought out. When then he hears and learnsthat wine was called “temetum” by ourforefathers, but that the word is already quite obsolete in ourpresent usage of language, he will think perhaps that he has stillneed of the word on account of this or that book of thoseforefathers. But if he holds these also to be superfluous, perhapshe does now come to think the word not worth remembering, since hesees it has nothing to do with that species of learning which heknows with the mind, and gazes upon, and so loves.

3. Wherefore in all casesthe love of a studious mind, that is, of one that wishes to knowwhat it does not know, is not the love of that thing which it doesnot know, but of that which it knows; on account of which it wishes to know what it does not know. Orif it is so inquisitive as to be carried away, not for any othercause known to it, but by the mere love of knowing things unknown;then such an inquisitive person is, doubtless, distinguishable froman ordinary student, yet does not, any more than he, love things hedoes not know; nay, on the contrary, he is more fitly said to hatethings he knows not, of which he wishes that there should be none,in wishing to know everything. But lest any one should lay before usa more difficult question, by declaring that it is just asimpossible for any one to hate what he does not know, as to lovewhat he does not know, we will not withstand what is true; but itmust be understood that it is not the same thing to say he loves toknow things unknown, as to say he loves things unknown. For it ispossible that a man may love to know things unknown; but it is notpossible that he should love things unknown. For the word to know isnot placed there without meaning; since he who loves to know thingsunknown, does not love the unknown things themselves, but theknowing of them. And unless he knew what knowing means, no one couldsay confidently, either that he knew or that he did not know. Fornot only he who says I know, and says so truly, must needs know whatknowing is; but he also who says, I do not know, and says soconfidently and truly, and knows that he says so truly, certainlyknows what knowing is; for he both distinguishes him who does notknow from him who knows, when he looks into himself, and says trulyI do not know; and whereas he knows that he says this truly, whenceshould he know it, if he did not know what knowing is?

CHAP. 2.—: NO ONE AT ALL LOVES THINGS UNKNOWN.

4. No studious person, then,no inquisitive person, loves things he does not know, even while heis urgent with the most vehement desire to know what he does notknow. For he either knows already generically what he loves, andlongs to know it also in some individual or individuals, whichperhaps are praised, but not yet known to him; and he pictures inhis mind an imaginary form by which he may be stirred to love. Andwhence does he picture this, except from those things which he hasalready known? And yet perhaps he will not love it, if he find thatform which was praised to be unlike that other form which wasfigured and in thought most fully known to his mind. And if he hasloved it, he will begin to love it from that time when he learnedit; since a little before, that form which was loved was other thanthat which the mind that formed it had been wont to exhibit toitself. But if he shall find it similar to that form which reporthad proclaimed, and to be such that he could truly say I was alreadyloving thee; yet certainly not even then did he love a form he didnot know, since he had known it in that likeness. Or else we seesomewhat in the species of the eternal reason, and therein love it;and when this is manifested in some image of a temporal thing, andwe believe the praises of those who have made trial of it, and solove it, then we do not love anything unknown, according to thatwhich we have already sufficiently discussed above. Or else, again,we love something known, and on account of it seek somethingunknown; and so it is by no means the love of the thing unknown thatpossesses us, but the love of the thing known, to which we know theunknown thing belongs, so that we know that too which we seek stillas 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 failto know who desires to know anything. For these reasons they seem tolove things unknown who wish to know anything which they do notknow, and who, on account of their vehement desire of inquiry,cannot be said to be without love. But how different the case reallyis, and that nothing at all can be loved which is not known, I thinkI must have persuaded every one who carefully looks upon truth. Butsince the examples which we have given belong to those who desire toknow something which they themselves are not, we must take thoughtlest perchance some new notion appear, when the mind desires to knowitself.

CHAP. 3.—: THAT WHEN THE MIND LOVES ITSELF, IT IS NOTUNKNOWN TO ITSELF.

5. What, then, does the mindlove, when it seeks ardently to know itself, whilst it is stillunknown to itself? For, behold, the mind seeks to know itself, andis excited thereto by studious zeal. It loves, therefore; but whatdoes it love? Is it itself? But how can this be when it does not yetknow itself, and no one can love what he does not know? Is it thatreport has declared to it its own species, in like way as wecommonly hear of people who are absent? Perhaps, then, it does notlove itself, but loves that which it imagines of itself, which isperhaps widely different from what itself is: or if the phantasy inthe mind is like the mind itself, and sowhen it loves this fancied image, it loves itself before it knewitself, because it gazes upon that which is like itself; then itknew other minds from which to picture itself, and so is known toitself generically. Why, then, when it knows other minds, does itnot know itself, since nothing can possibly be more present to itthan itself? But if, as other eyes are more known to the eyes of thebody, than those eyes are to themselves; then let it not seekitself, because it never will find itself. For eyes can never seethemselves except in looking-glasses; and it cannot be supposed inany way that anything of that kind can be applied also to thecontemplation of incorporeal things, so that the mind should knowitself, as it were, in a looking-glass. Or does it see in the reasonof eternal truth how beautiful it is to know one’s self,and so loves this which it sees, and studies to bring it to pass initself? because, although it is not known to itself, yet it is knownto it how good it is, that it should be known to itself. And this,indeed, is very wonderful, that it does not yet know itself, and yetknows already how excellent a thing it is to know itself. Or does itsee some most excellent end, viz. its ownserenity and blessedness, by some hidden remembrance, which has notabandoned it, although it has gone far onwards, and believes that itcannot attain to that same end unless it know itself? And so whileit loves that, it seeks this; and loves that which is known, onaccount of which it seeks that which is unknown. But why should theremembrance of its own blessedness be able to last, and theremembrance of itself not be able to last as well; that so it shouldknow itself which wishes to attain, as well as know that to which itwishes to attain? Or when it loves to know itself, does it love, notitself, which it does not yet know, but the very act of knowing; andfeel the more annoyed that itself is wanting to its own knowledgewherewith it wishes to embrace all things? And it knows what it isto know; and whilst it loves this, which it knows, desires also toknow itself. Whereby, then, does it know its own knowing, if it doesnot know itself? For it knows that it knows other things, but thatit does not know itself; for it is from hence that it knows alsowhat knowing is. In what way, then, does that which does not knowitself, know itself as knowing anything? For it does not know thatsome other mind knows, but that itself does so. Therefore it knowsitself. Further, when it seeks to know itself, it knows itself nowas seeking. Therefore again it knows itself. And hence it cannotaltogether not know itself, when certainly it does so far knowitself as that it knows itself as not knowing itself. But if it doesnot know itself not to know itself, then it does not seek to knowitself. And therefore, in the very fact that it seeks itself, it isclearly convicted of being more known to itself than unknown. For itknows itself as seeking and as not knowing itself, in that it seeksto know itself.

CHAP. 4.—: HOW THE MIND KNOWS ITSELF, NOT IN PART, BUT ASA WHOLE.

6. What then shall we say?Does that which knows itself in part, not know itself in part? Butit 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 wholeknows. When therefore it knows anything about itself, which it canonly know as a whole, it knows itself as a whole. But it does knowthat itself knows something, while yet except as a whole it cannotknow anything. Therefore it knows itself as a whole. Further, whatin it is so known to itself, as that it lives? And it cannot at oncebe a mind, and not live, while it has also something over and above, viz., that it understands: for the souls ofbeasts also live, but do not understand. As therefore a mind is awhole 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 toknow itself, it already knows that it is a mind: otherwise it knowsnot whether it seeks itself, and perhaps seeks one thing whileintending to seek another. For it might happen that itself was not amind, and so, in seeking to know a mind, that it did not seek toknow itself. Wherefore since the mind, when it seeks to know whatmind is, knows that it seeks itself, certainly it knows that itselfis a mind. Furthermore, if it knows this in itself, that it is amind, and a whole mind, then it knows itself as a whole. But supposeit did not know itself to be a mind, but in seeking itself only knewthat it did seek itself. For so, too, it may possibly seek one thingfor another, if it does not know this: but that it may not seek onething for another, without doubt it knows what it seeks. But if itknows what it seeks, and seeks itself, then certainly it knowsitself. What therefore more does it seek? But if it knows itself inpart, but still seeks itself in part, then it seeks not itself, butpart of itself. For when we speak of the mind itself, we speak of itas a whole. Further, because it knows that it is not yet found byitself as a whole, it knows how much the whole is. And so it seeksthat which is wanting, as we are wont toseek to recall to the mind something that has slipped from the mind,but has not altogether gone away from it; since we can recognize it,when it has come back, to be the same thing that we were seeking.But how can mind come into mind, as though it were possible for themind not to be in the mind? Add to this, that if, having found apart, it does not seek itself as a whole, yet it as a whole seeksitself. Therefore as a whole it is present to itself, and there isnothing left to be sought: for that is wanting which is sought, notthe mind which seeks. Since therefore it as a whole seeks itself,nothing of it is wanting. Or if it does not as a whole seek itself,but the part which has been found seeks the part which has not yetbeen found; then the mind does not seek itself, of which no partseeks itself. For the part which has been found, does not seekitself; nor yet does the part itself which has not yet been found,seek itself; since it is sought by that part which has been alreadyfound. Wherefore, since neither the mind as a whole seeks itself,nor does any part of it seek itself, the mind does not seek itselfat all.

CHAP. 5.—: WHY THE SOUL IS ENJOINED TO KNOW ITSELF.WHENCE COME THE ERRORS OF THE MIND CONCERNING ITS OWN SUBSTANCE.

7. Why therefore is itenjoined upon it, that it should know itself? I suppose, in orderthat 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 bywhom it ought to be ruled, above those things which it ought torule. For it does many things through vicious desire, as though inforgetfulness of itself. For it sees some things intrinsicallyexcellent, in that more excellent nature which is God: and whereasit ought to remain steadfast that it may enjoy them, it is turnedaway from Him, by wishing to appropriate those things to itself, andnot 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 sufficientfor itself, nor is anything at all sufficient for it, if it withdrawfrom Him who is alone sufficient: and so through want and distressit becomes too intent upon its own actions and upon the unquietdelights which it obtains through them: and thus, by the desire ofacquiring knowledge from those things that are without, the natureof which it knows and loves, and which it feels can be lost unlessheld fast with anxious care, it loses its security, and thinks ofitself so much the less, in proportion as it feels the more securethat it cannot lose itself. So, whereas it is one thing not to knowoneself, and another not to think of oneself (for we do not say ofthe man that is skilled in much learning, that he is ignorant ofgrammar, when he is only not thinking of it, because he is thinkingat the time of the art of medicine);—whereas, then, I sayit is one thing not to know oneself, and another not to think ofoneself, such is the strength of love, that the mind draws in withitself those things which it has long thought of with love, and hasgrown into them by the close adherence of diligent study, even whenit returns in some way to think of itself. And because these thingsare corporeal which it loved externally through the carnal senses;and because it has become entangled with them by a kind of dailyfamiliarity, and yet cannot carry those corporeal things themselveswith itself internally as it were into the region of incorporealnature; therefore it combines certain images of them, and thruststhem thus made from itself into itself. For it gives to the formingof them somewhat of its own substance, yet preserves the whilesomething by which it may judge freely of the species of thoseimages; and this something is more properly the mind, that is, therational understanding, which is preserved that it may judge. For wesee that we have those parts of the soul which are informed by thelikenesses of corporeal things, in common also with beasts.

CHAP. 6.—: THE OPINION WHICH THE MIND HAS OF ITSELF ISDECEITFUL.

8. But the mind errs, whenit so lovingly and intimately connects itself with these images, aseven to consider itself to be something of the same kind. For so itis conformed to them to some extent, not by being this, but bythinking it is so: not that it thinks itself to be an image, butoutright that very thing itself of which it entertains the image.For there still lives in it the power of distinguishing thecorporeal thing which it leaves without, from the image of thatcorporeal thing which it contains therefrom within itself: exceptwhen these images are so projected as if felt without and notthought within, as in the case of people who are asleep, or mad, orin a trance.

CHAP. 7.—: THE OPINIONS OF PHILOSOPHERS RESPECTING THESUBSTANCE OF THE SOUL. THE ERROR OF THOSE WHO ARE OF OPINION THAT THESOUL IS CORPOREAL, DOES NOT ARISE FROM DEFECTIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE SOUL,BUT FROM THEIR ADDING THERETO SOMETHING FOREIGN TO IT. WHAT IS MEANT BYFINDING.

9. When, therefore, itthinks itself to be something of this kind, it thinks itself to be acorporeal thing; and since it is perfectly conscious of its ownsuperiority, by which it rules the body, it has hence come to passthat the question has been raised what part of the body has thegreater power in the body; and the opinion has been held that thisis the mind, nay, that it is even the whole soul altogether. Andsome accordingly think it to be the blood, others the brain, othersthe heart; not as the Scripture says, “I will praiseThee, O Lord, with my whole heart;” and, “Thoushalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart;” [1] forthis word by misapplication or metaphor is transferred from the bodyto the soul; but they have simply thought it to be that small partitself of the body, which we see when the inward parts are rentasunder. Others, again, have believed the soul to be made up of veryminute and individual corpuscules, which they call atoms, meeting inthemselves and cohering. Others have said that its substance is air,others fire. Others have been of opinion that it is no substance atall, since they could not think any substance unless it is body, andthey did not find that the soul was body; but it was in theiropinion the tempering together itself of our body, or the combiningtogether of the elements, by which that flesh is as it wereconjoined. And hence all of these have held the soul to be mortal;since, whether it were body, or some combination of body, certainlyit could not in either case continue always without death. But theywho have held its substance to be some kind of life the reverse ofcorporeal, since they have found it to be a life that animates andquickens every living body, have by consequence striven also,according as each was able, to prove it immortal, since life cannotbe without life.

For as to that fifth kind of body, I know not what, which some haveadded to the four well-known elements of the world, and have saidthat the soul was made of this, I do not think we need spend time indiscussing it in this place. For either they mean by body what wemean by it, viz., that of which a part is lessthan the whole in extension of place, and they are to be reckonedamong those who have believed the mind to be corporeal: or if theycall either all substance, or all changeable substance, body,whereas they know that not all substance is contained in extensionof place by any length and breadth and height, we need not contendwith them about a question of words.

10. Now, in the case of allthese opinions, any one who sees that the nature of the mind is atonce substance, and yet not corporeal,—that is, that itdoes not occupy a less extension of place with a less part ofitself, and a greater with a greater,—must needs see atthe same time that they who are of opinion that it is corporeal, [2] do not err from defect ofknowledge concerning mind, but because they associate with itqualities without which they are not able to conceive any nature atall. For if you bid them conceive of existence that is withoutcorporeal phantasms, they hold it merely nothing. And so the mindwould not seek itself, as though wanting to itself. For what is sopresent to knowledge as that which is present to the mind? Or whatis so present to the mind as the mind itself? And hence what iscalled “invention,” if we consider the originof the word, what else does it mean, unless that to find out [3] is to “comeinto” that which is sought? Those things accordinglywhich come into the mind as it were of themselves, are not usuallysaid to be found out, [4] although they may be said to be known; since we did not endeavor byseeking to come into them, that is, to invent or find them out. Andtherefore, as the mind itself really seeks those things which aresought by the eyes or by any other sense of the body (for the minddirects even the carnal sense, and then finds out or invents, whenthat sense comes to the things which are sought); so, too, it findsout or invents other things which it ought to know, not with themedium of corporeal sense, but through itself, when it“comes into” them; and this, whether in thecase of the higher substance that is in God, or of the other partsof the soul; just as it does when it judges of bodily imagesthemselves, for it finds these within, in the soul, impressedthrough the body.

CHAP. 8.—: HOW THE SOUL INQUIRES INTO ITSELF. WHENCECOMES THE ERROR OF THE SOUL CONCERNING ITSELF.

11. It is then a wonderfulquestion, in what manner the soul seeks and finds itself; at what itaims in order to seek, or whither it comes, that it may come into orfind out. For what is so much in the mind as the mind itself? Butbecause it is in those things which it thinksof with love, and is wont to be in sensible, that is, in corporealthings with love, it is unable to be in itself without the images ofthose corporeal things. And hence shameful error arises to block itsway, whilst it cannot separate from itself the images of sensiblethings, so as to see itself alone. For they have marvellouslycohered with it by the close adhesion of love. And herein consistsits uncleanness; since, while it strives to think of itself alone,it fancies itself to be that, without which it cannot think ofitself. When, therefore, it is bidden to become acquainted withitself, let it not seek itself as though it were withdrawn fromitself; but let it withdraw that which it has added to itself. Foritself lies more deeply within, not only than those sensible things,which are clearly without, but also than the images of them; whichare indeed in some part of the soul, viz., thatwhich beasts also have, although these want understanding, which isproper to the mind. As therefore the mind is within, it goes forthin some sort from itself, when it exerts the affection of lovetowards these, as it were, footprints of many acts of attention. Andthese footprints are, as it were, imprinted on the memory, at thetime when the corporeal things which are without are perceived insuch way, that even when those corporeal things are absent, yet theimages of them are at hand to those who think of them. Therefore letthe mind become acquainted with itself, and not seek itself as if itwere absent; but fix upon itself the act of[voluntary] attention, by which it waswandering among other things, and let it think of itself. So it willsee that at no time did it ever not love itself, at no time did itever not know itself; but by loving another thing together withitself it has confounded itself with it, and in some sense has grownone with it. And so, while it embraces diverse things, as thoughthey were one, it has come to think those things to be one which arediverse.

CHAP. 9.—: THE MIND KNOWS ITSELF, BY THE VERY ACT OFUNDERSTANDING THE PRECEPT TO KNOW ITSELF.

12. Let it not thereforeseek to discern itself as though absent, but take pains to discernitself as present. Nor let it take knowledge of itself as if it didnot know itself, but let it distinguish itself from that which itknows to be another. For how will it take pains to obey that veryprecept which is given it, “Know thyself,” ifit knows not either what “know” means or what“thyself” means? But if it knows both, then itknows also itself. Since “know thyself” is notso said to the mind as is “Know the cherubim and theseraphim;” for they are absent, and we believe concerningthem, and according to that belief they are declared to be certaincelestial powers. Nor yet again as it is said, Know the will of thatman: for this it is not within our reach to perceive at all, eitherby sense or understanding, unless by corporeal signs actually setforth; and this in such a way that we rather believe thanunderstand. 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 faceitself is out of the reach of our own seeing it; because it is notthere where our look can be directed. But when it is said to themind, Know thyself; then it knows itself by that very act by whichit understands the word “thyself;” and thisfor no other reason than that it is present to itself. But if itdoes not understand what is said, then certainly it does not do asit is bid to do. And therefore it is bidden to do that thing whichit does do, when it understands the very precept that bids it.

CHAP. 10.—: EVERY MIND KNOWS CERTAINLY THREE THINGSCONCERNING ITSELF—THAT IT UNDERSTANDS, THAT IT IS, AND THATIT LIVES.

13. Let it not then addanything to that which it knows itself to be, when it is bidden toknow 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 bodynor cattle understand. Therefore it so knows that it so is, and thatit so lives, as an understanding is and lives. When, therefore, forexample’s sake, the mind thinks itself air, it thinksthat air understands; it knows, however, that itself understands,but it does not know itself to be air, but only thinks so. Let itseparate that which it thinks itself; let it discern that which itknows; let this remain to it, about which not even have they doubtedwho have thought the mind to be this corporeal thing or that. Forcertainly every mind does not consideritself to be air; but some think themselves fire, others the brain,and some one kind of corporeal thing, others another, as I havementioned before; yet all know that they themselves understand, andare, and live; but they refer understanding to that which theyunderstand, but to be, and to live, to themselves. And no onedoubts, either that no one understands who does not live, or that noone lives of whom it is not true that he is; and that therefore byconsequence that which understands both is and lives; not as a deadbody is which does not live, nor as a soul lives which does notunderstand, but in some proper and more excellent manner. Further,they know that they will, and they equally know that no one can willwho is not and who does not live; and they also refer that willitself to something which they will with that will. They know alsothat they remember; and they know at the same time that nobody couldremember, unless he both was and lived; but we refer memory itselfalso to something, in that we remember those things. Therefore theknowledge and science of many things are contained in two of thesethree, memory and understanding; but will must be present, that wemay enjoy or use them. For we enjoy things known, in which thingsthemselves the will finds delight for their own sake, and soreposes; but we use those things, which we refer to some other thingwhich we are to enjoy. Neither is the life of man vicious andculpable in any other way, than as wrongly using and wronglyenjoying. But it is no place here to discuss this.

14. But since we treat ofthe nature of the mind, let us remove from our consideration allknowledge which is received from without, through the senses of thebody; and attend more carefully to the position which we have laiddown, that all minds know and are certain concerning themselves. Formen certainly have doubted whether the power of living, ofremembering, 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 ofbody, I know not what; or whether the combining or temperingtogether of this our flesh itself has power to accomplish thesethings. And one has attempted to establish this, and another toestablish that. Yet who ever doubts that he himself lives, andremembers, and understands, and wills, and thinks, and knows, andjudges? Seeing that even if he doubts, he lives; if he doubts, heremembers why he doubts; if he doubts, he understands that hedoubts; if he doubts, he wishes to be certain; if he doubts, hethinks; if he doubts, he knows that he does not know; if he doubts,he judges that he ought not to assent rashly. Whosoever thereforedoubts about anything else, ought not to doubt of all these things;which if they were not, he would not be able to doubt ofanything.

15. They who think the mindto 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 thesubstance is air, or fire, or some other corporeal thing, which theythink to be the mind; but that the understanding ( intelligentia ) is in this corporealthing 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 corporealthing, but the understanding [intelligence],or any other of those things which we have mentioned as certain tous, is in that subject. They also hold nearly the same opinion whodeny the mind itself to be body, but think it to be the combinationor tempering together of the body; for there is this difference,that the former say that the mind itself is the substance, in whichthe understanding [intelligence] is, as in asubject; but the latter say that the mind itself is in a subject, viz. in the body, of which it is thecombination or tempering together. And hence, by consequence, whatelse can they think, except that the understanding also is in thesame body as in a subject?

16. And all these do notperceive that the mind knows itself, even when it seeks for itself,as we have already shown. But nothing is at all rightly said to beknown while its substance is not known. And therefore, when the mindknows itself, it knows its own substance; and when it is certainabout itself, it is certain about its own substance. But it iscertain about itself, as those things which are said above proveconvincingly; although it is not at all certain whether itself isair, or fire, or some body, or some function of body. Therefore itis not any of these. And to that whole which is bidden to knowitself, belongs this, that it is certain that it is not any of thosethings of which it is uncertain, and is certain that it is thatonly, which only it is certain that it is. For it thinks in this wayof fire, or air, and whatever else of the body it thinks of. Neithercan it in any way be brought to pass that it should so think thatwhich itself is, as it thinks that which itself is not. Since itthinks all these things through an imaginary phantasy, whether fire,or air, or this or that body, or that part or combination andtempering together of the body: nor assuredly is it said to be allthose things, but some one of them. Butif it were any one of them, it would think this one in a differentmanner from the rest, viz. not through animaginary phantasy, as absent things are thought, which eitherthemselves or some of like kind have been touched by the bodilysense; but by some inward, not feigned, but true presence (fornothing is more present to it than itself); just as it thinks thatitself lives, and remembers, and understands, and wills. For itknows these things in itself, and does not imagine them as though ithad touched them by the sense outside itself, as corporeal thingsare touched. And if it attaches nothing to itself from the thoughtof these things, so as to think itself to be something of the kind,then whatsoever remains to it from itself, that alone is itself.

CHAP. 11.—: IN MEMORY, UNDERSTANDING [ORINTELLIGENCE], AND WILL, WE HAVE TO NOTE ABILITY, LEARNING,AND USE. MEMORY, UNDERSTANDING, AND WILL ARE ONE ESSENTIALLY, AND THREERELATIVELY.

17. Putting aside, then, fora little while all other things, of which the mind is certainconcerning itself, let us especially consider and discuss thesethree—memory, understanding, will. For we may commonlydiscern in these three the character of the abilities of the youngalso; since the more tenaciously and easily a boy remembers, and themore acutely he understands, and the more ardently he studies, themore praiseworthy is he in point of ability. But when the questionis about any one’s learning, then we ask not how solidlyand easily he remembers, or how shrewdly he understands; but what itis that he remembers, and what it is that he understands. Andbecause the mind is regarded as praiseworthy, not only as beinglearned, but also as being good, one gives heed not only to what heremembers and what he understands, but also to what he wills ( velit ); not how ardently he wills, but firstwhat it is he wills, and then how greatly he wills it. For the mindthat loves eagerly is then to be praised, when it loves that whichought to be loved eagerly. Since, then, we speak of thesethree—ability, knowledge, use—the first ofthese is to be considered under the three heads, of what a man cando in memory, and understanding, and will. The second of them is tobe considered in regard to that which any one has in his memory andin his understanding, which he has attained by a studious will. Butthe third, viz. use, lies in the will, whichhandles those things that are contained in the memory andunderstanding, whether it refer them to anything further, or restsatisfied with them as an end. For to use, is to take up somethinginto the power of the will; and to enjoy, is to use with joy, notany longer of hope, but of the actual thing. Accordingly, every onewho enjoys, uses; for he takes up something into the power of thewill, wherein he also is satisfied as with an end. But not every onewho uses, enjoys, if he has sought after that, which he takes upinto the power of the will, not on account of the thing itself, buton account of something else.

18. Since, then, thesethree, memory, understanding, will, are not three lives, but onelife; nor three minds, but one mind; it follows certainly thatneither are they three substances, but one substance. Since memory,which is called life, and mind, and substance, is so called inrespect to itself; but it is called memory, relatively to something.And I should say the same also of understanding and of will, sincethey are called understanding and will relatively to something; buteach in respect to itself is life, and mind, and essence. And hencethese three are one, in that they are one life, one mind, oneessence; and whatever else they are severally called in respect tothemselves, they are called also together, not plurally, but in thesingular number. But they are three, in that wherein they aremutually referred to each other; and if they were not equal, andthis not only each to each, but also each to all, they certainlycould not mutually contain each other; for not only is eachcontained by each, but also all by each. For I remember that I havememory and understanding, and will; and I understand that Iunderstand, and will, and remember; and I will that I will, andremember, and understand; and I remember together my whole memory,and understanding, and will. For that of my memory which I do notremember, is not in my memory; and nothing is so much in the memoryas memory itself. Therefore I remember the whole memory. Also,whatever I understand I know that I understand, and I know that Iwill whatever I will; but whatever I know I remember. Therefore Iremember the whole of my understanding, and the whole of my will.Likewise, when I understand these three things, I understand themtogether as whole. For there is none of things intelligible which Ido not understand, except what I do not know; but what I do notknow, I neither remember, nor will. Therefore, whatever of thingsintelligible I do not understand, it follows also that I neitherremember nor will. And whatever of things intelligible I rememberand will, it follows that I understand.My will also embraces my whole understanding and my whole memory,whilst I use the whole that I understand and remember. And,therefore, while all are mutually comprehended by each, and aswholes, each as a whole is equal to each as a whole, and each as awhole at the same time to all as wholes; and these three are one,one life, one mind, one essence. [1]

CHAP. 12.—: THE MIND IS AN IMAGE OF THE TRINITY IN ITS OWNMEMORY, AND UNDERSTANDING, AND WILL.

19. Are we, then, now to goupward, with whatever strength of purpose we may, to that chiefestand highest essence, of which the human mind is an inadequate image,yet an image? Or are these same three things to be yet moredistinctly made plain in the soul, by means of those things which wereceive from without, through the bodily sense, wherein theknowledge of corporeal things is impressed upon us in time? Since wefound the mind itself to be such in its own memory, andunderstanding, and will, that since it was understood always to knowand always to will itself, it was understood also at the same timealways 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 henceits memory of itself, and understanding of itself, are withdifficult discerned in it. For in this case, where these two thingsare very closely conjoined, and one is not preceded by the other byany time at all, it looks as if they were not two things, but onecalled by two names; and love itself is not so plainly felt to existwhen the sense of need does not disclose it, since what is loved isalways at hand. And hence these things may be more lucidly setforth, even to men of duller minds, if such topics are treated of asare brought within reach of the mind in time, and happen to it intime; while it remembers what it did not remember before, and seeswhat it did not see before, and loves what it did not love before.But this discussion demands now another beginning, by reason of themeasure of the present book.

BOOK XI.

A KIND OF IMAGE OF THE TRINITY IS POINTED OUT, EVEN INTHE OUTER MAN; FIRST OF ALL, IN THOSE THINGS WHICH ARE PERCEIVEDFROM WITHOUT, VIZ. IN THE BODILY OBJECT THAT IS SEEN, AND IN THEFORM THAT IS IMPRESSED BY IT UPON THE SIGHT OF THE SEER, AND INTHE PURPOSE OF THE WILL THAT COMBINES THE TWO; ALTHOUGH THESETHREE ARE NEITHER MUTUALLY EQUAL, NOR OF ONE SUBSTANCE. NEXT, AKIND OF TRINITY, IN THREE SOMEWHATS OF ONE SUBSTANCE, ISOBSERVED TO EXIST IN THE MIND ITSELF, AS IT WERE INTRODUCEDTHERE FROM THOSE THINGS THAT ARE PERCEIVED FROM WITHOUT; VIZ.THE IMAGE OF THE BODILY OBJECT WHICH IS IN THE MEMORY, AND THEIMPRESSION FORMED THEREFROM WHEN THE MIND’S EYE OFTHE THINKER IS TURNED TO IT, AND THE PURPOSE OF THE WILLCOMBINING BOTH. AND THIS LATTER TRINITY IS ALSO SAID TO PERTAINTO THE OUTER MAN, IN THAT IT IS INTRODUCED INTO THE MIND FROMBODILY OBJECTS, WHICH ARE PERCEIVED FROM WITHOUT.

CHAP. 1.—: A TRACE OF THE TRINITY ALSO IN THE OUTERMAN.

1. NO one doubts that, as the inner man is enduedwith 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 samemanner the image of God. For the opinion of the apostle is evident,which declares the inner man to be renewed inthe knowledge of God after the image of Him that created him: [1] whereas he says also in another place,“But though our outer man perish,yet the inward man is renewed day by day.” [2] Let us seek, then, so far as we can, in thatwhich perishes, some image of the Trinity, if not so express, yetperhaps more easy to be discerned. For that outer man also is notcalled man to no purpose, but because there is in it some likenessof the inner man. And owing to that very order of our conditionwhereby we are made mortal and fleshly, we handle things visiblemore easily and more familiarly than things intelligible; since theformer are outward, the latter inward; and the former are perceivedby the bodily sense, the latter are understood by the mind; and weourselves, i.e. our minds, are not sensiblethings, that is, bodies, but intelligible things, since we are life.And yet, as I said, we are so familiarly occupied with bodies, andour thought has projected itself outwardly with so wonderful aproclivity towards bodies, that, when it has been withdrawn from theuncertainty of things corporeal, that it may be fixed with a muchmore certain and stable knowledge in that which is spirit, it fliesback to those bodies, and seeks rest there whence it has drawnweakness. And to this its feebleness we must suit our argument; sothat, if we would endeavor at any time to distinguish more aptly,and intimate more readily, the inward spiritual thing, we must takeexamples of likenesses from outward things pertaining to the body.The outer man, then, endued as he is with the bodily sense, isconversant with bodies. And this bodily sense, as is easilyobserved, is fivefold; seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, touching.But it is both a good deal of trouble, and is not necessary, that weshould inquire of all these five senses about that which we seek.For that which one of them declares to us, holds also good in therest. Let us use, then, principally the testimony of the eyes. Forthis bodily sense far surpasses the rest;and in proportion to its difference of kind, is nearer to the sightof the mind.

CHAP. 2.—: A CERTAIN TRINITY IN THE SIGHT. THAT THERE ARETHREE THINGS IN SIGHT, WHICH DIFFER IN THEIR OWN NATURE. IN WHAT MANNERFROM A VISIBLE THING VISION IS PRODUCED, OR THE IMAGE OF THAT THINGWHICH IS SEEN. THE MATTER IS SHOWN MORE CLEARLY BY AN EXAMPLE. HOW THESETHREE COMBINE IN ONE.

2. When, then, we see anycorporeal object, these three things, as is most easy to do, are tobe considered and distinguished: First, the object itself which wesee; whether a stone, or flame, or any other thing that can be seenby the eyes; and this certainly might exist also already before itwas seen; next, vision or the act of seeing, which did not existbefore we perceived the object itself which is presented to thesense; in the third place, that which keeps the sense of the eye inthe object seen, so long as it is seen, viz. the attention of the mind. In these three, then, not only is therean evident distinction, but also a diverse nature. For, first, thatvisible body is of a far different nature from the sense of theeyes, through the incidence of which sense upon it vision arises.And what plainly is vision itself other than perception informed bythat thing which is perceived? Although there is no vision if thevisible object be withdrawn, nor could there be any vision of thekind at all if there were no body that could be seen; yet the bodyby 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, whichis called vision, are by no means of the same substance. For thebody that is seen is, in its own nature, separable; but the sense,which was already in the living subject, even before it saw what itwas able to see, when it fell in with somethingvisible,—or the vision which comes to be in the sensefrom the visible body when now brought into connection with it andseen,—the sense, then, I say, or the vision, that is, thesense informed from without, belongs to the nature of the livingsubject, which is altogether other than that body which we perceiveby 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 thepresentation to us of the sensible object, we should not differ fromthe blind, at times when we are seeing nothing, whether in darkness,or when our eyes are closed. But we differ from them in this, thatthere is in us, even when we are not seeing, that whereby we areable to see, which is called the sense; whereas this is not in them,nor are they called blind for any other reason than because theyhave it not. Further also, that attention of the mind which keepsthe sense in that thing which we see, and connects both, not onlydiffers from that visible thing in its nature; in that the one ismind, and the other body; but also from the sense and the visionitself: since this attention is the act of the mind alone; but thesense of the eyes is called a bodily sense, for no other reason thanbecause the eyes themselves also are members of the body; andalthough an inanimate body does not perceive, yet the soulcommingled with the body perceives through a corporeal instrument,and that instrument is called sense. And this sense, too, is cut offand extinguished by suffering on the part of the body, when any oneis blinded; while the mind remains the same; and its attention,since the eyes are lost, has not, indeed, the sense of the bodywhich it may join, by seeing, to the body without it, and so fix itslook thereupon and see it, yet by the very effort shows that,although the bodily sense be taken away, itself can neither perishnor be diminished. For there remains unimpaired a desire[ appetitus ] ofseeing, whether it can be carried into effect or not. These three,then, the body that is seen, and vision itself, and the attention ofmind which joins both together, are manifestly distinguishable, notonly on account of the properties of each, but also on account ofthe difference of their natures.

3. And since, in this case,the sensation does not proceed from that body which is seen, butfrom the body of the living being that perceives, with which thesoul is tempered together in some wonderful way of its own; yetvision is produced, that is, the sense itself is informed, by thebody which is seen; so that now, not only is there the power ofsense, which can exist also unimpaired even in darkness, providedthe eyes are sound, but also a sense actually informed, which iscalled vision. Vision, then, is produced from a thing that isvisible; but not from that alone, unless there be present also onewho 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 whosees, there is the sense of seeing and the intention of looking andgazing at the object; while yet that information of the sense, whichis called vision, is imprinted only by the body which is seen, thatis, by some visible thing; which being taken away, that form remains no more which was in the sense solong as that which was seen was present: yet the sense itselfremains, which existed also before anything was perceived; just asthe trace of a thing in water remains so long as the body itself,which is impressed on it, is in the water; but if this has beentaken away, there will no longer be any such trace, although thewater remains, which existed also before it took the form of thatbody. And therefore we cannot, indeed, say that a visible thingproduces the sense; yet it produces the form, which is, as it were,its own likeness, which comes to be in the sense, when we perceiveanything by seeing. But we do not distinguish, through the samesense, the form of the body which we see, from the form which isproduced by it in the sense of him who sees; since the union of thetwo is so close that there is no room for distinguishing them. Butwe rationally infer that we could not have sensation at all, unlesssome similitude of the body seen was wrought in our own sense. Forwhen a ring is imprinted on wax, it does not follow that no image isproduced, because we cannot discern it unless when it has beenseparated. But since, after the wax is separated, what was maderemains, so that it can be seen; we are on that account easilypersuaded that there was already also in the wax a form impressedfrom the ring before it was separated from it. But if the ring wereimprinted upon a fluid, no image at all would appear when it waswithdrawn; and yet none the less for this ought the reason todiscern that there was in that fluid before the ring was withdrawn aform of the ring produced from the ring, which is to bedistinguished from that form which is in the ring, whence that formwas produced which ceases to be when the ring is withdrawn, althoughthat in the ring remains, whence the other was produced. And so the[sensuous] perception of the eyes may not besupposed to contain no image of the body, which is seen as long asit is seen, [merely] because when that iswithdrawn the image does not remain. And hence it is very difficultto persuade men of duller mind that an image of the visible thing isformed in our sense, when we see it, and that this same form isvision.

4. But if any perhaps attendto what I am about to mention, they will find no such trouble inthis inquiry. Commonly, when we have looked for some little time ata light, and then shut our eyes, there seem to play before our eyescertain bright colors variously changing themselves, and shiningless and less until they wholly cease; and these we must understandto be the remains of that form which was wrought in the sense, whilethe shining body was seen, and that these variations take place inthem as they slowly and step by step fade away. For the lattices,too, of windows, should we happen to be gazing at them, appear oftenin these colors; so that it is evident that our sense is affected bysuch impressions from that thing which is seen. That form thereforeexisted also while we were seeing, and at that time it was moreclear and express. But it was then closely joined with the speciesof that thing which was being perceived, so that it could not be atall distinguished from it; and this was vision itself. Why, evenwhen the little flame of a lamp is in some way, as it were, doubledby 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 theyshoot forth each from its own eye, are affected severally, in thatthey are not allowed to meet evenly and conjointly, in regardingthat corporeal thing, so that one combined view might be formed fromboth. And so, if we shut one eye, we shall not see two flames, butone as it really is. But why, if we shut the left eye, thatappearance ceases to be seen, which was on the right; and if, inturn, we shut the right eye, that drops out of existence which wason the left, is a matter both tedious in itself, and not necessaryat all to our present subject to inquire and discuss. For it isenough 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 thenumber of the eyes; since a certain way of perceiving has beenemployed, which could separate the union of rays. Certainly nothingthat 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 isshut.

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 thebody which is seen, and the image of it impressed on the sense,which is vision or sense informed, and the will of the mind whichapplies the sense to the sensible thing, and retains the visionitself in it. The first of these, that is, the visible thing itself,does not belong to the nature of the living being, except when wediscern our own body. But the second belongs to that nature to thisextent, that it is wrought in the body, and through the body in thesoul; for it is wrought in the sense, which is neither without thebody nor without the soul. But the third is of the soul alone, because it is the will. Although then thesubstances of these three are so different, yet they coalesce intosuch a unity that the two former can scarcely be distinguished, evenwith the intervention of the reason as judge, namely the form of thebody which is seen, and the image of it which is wrought in thesense, that is, vision. And the will so powerfully combines thesetwo, as both to apply the sense, in order to be informed, to thatthing which is perceived, and to retain it when informed in thatthing. And if it is so vehement that it can be called love, ordesire, or lust, it vehemently affects also the rest of the body ofthe living being; and where a duller and harder matter does notresist, changes it into like shape and color. One may see the littlebody of a chameleon vary with ready change, according to the colorswhich it sees. And in the case of other animals, since theirgrossness of flesh does not easily admit change, the offspring, forthe most part, betray the particular fancies of the mothers,whatever it is that they have beheld with special delight. For themore tender, and so to say, the more formable, are the primaryseeds, the more effectually and capably they follow the bent of thesoul of the mother, and the phantasy that is wrought in it throughthat body, which it has greedily beheld. Abundant instances might beadduced, but one is sufficient, taken from the most trustworthybooks; viz. what Jacob did, that the sheep andgoats might give birth to offspring of various colors, by placingvariegated rods before them in the troughs of water for them to lookat as they drank, at the time they had conceived. [1]

CHAP. 3.—: THE UNITY OF THE THREE TAKES PLACE IN THOUGHT,VIZ. OF MEMORY, OF INTERNAL VISION, AND OF WILL COMBINING BOTH.

6. The rational soul,however, lives in a degenerate fashion, when it lives according to atrinity of the outer man; that is, when itapplies 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 theform of the body, which was corporeally perceived, be withdrawn, itslikeness remains in the memory, to which the will may again directits eye, so as to be formed thence from within, as the sense wasformed from without by the presentation of the sensible body. And sothat trinity is produced from memory, from internal vision, and fromthe will which unites both. And when these three things are combinedinto one, from that combination [2] itself they are called conception. [3] And in these three there is no longer any diversity of substance.For neither is the sensible body there, which is altogether distinctfrom the nature of the living being, nor is the bodily sense thereinformed so as to produce vision, nor does the will itself performits office of applying the sense, that is to be informed, to thesensible body, and of retaining it in it when informed; but in placeof that bodily species which was perceived from without, there comesthe memory retaining that species which the soul has imbibed throughthe bodily sense; and in place of that vision which was outward whenthe sense was informed through the sensible body, there comes asimilar vision within, while the eye of the mind is informed fromthat which the memory retains, and the corporeal things that arethought of are absent; and the will itself, as before it applied thesense yet to be informed to the corporeal thing presented fromwithout, and united it thereto when informed, so now converts thevision of the recollecting mind to memory, in order that the mentalsight may be informed by that which the memory has retained, and sothere may be in the conception a like vision. And as it was thereason that distinguished the visible appearance by which the bodilysense was informed, from the similitude of it, which was wrought inthe sense when informed in order to produce vision (otherwise theyhad been so united as to be thought altogether one and the same);so, although that phantasy also, which arises from the mind thinkingof the appearance of a body that it has seen, consists of thesimilitude of the body which the memory retains, together with thatwhich is thence formed in the eye of the mind that recollects; yetit so seems to be one and single, that it can only be discovered tobe two by the judgment of reason, by which we understand that whichremains in the memory, even when we think it from some other source,to be a different thing from that which is brought into being whenwe remember, that is, come back again to the memory, and there findthe same appearance. And if this were not now there, we should saythat we had so forgotten as to be altogether unable to recollect.And if the eye of him who recollects were not informed from thatthing which was in the memory, the vision of the thinker could in noway take place; but the conjunction of both, that is, of that whichthe memory retains, and of that which is thence expressed so as toinform the eye of him who recollects, makes them appear as if they were one, because they areexceedingly like. But when the eye of the concipient is turned awaythence, and has ceased to look at that which was perceived in thememory, then nothing of the form that was impressed thereon willremain in that eye, and it will be informed by that to which it hadagain been turned, so as to bring about another conception. Yet thatremains which it has left in the memory, to which it may again beturned when we recollect it, and being turned thereto may beinformed by it, and become one with that whence it is informed.

CHAP. 4.—: HOW THIS UNITY COMES TO PASS.

7. But if that will whichmoves to and fro, hither and thither, the eye that is to beinformed, and unites it when formed, shall have wholly converged tothe inward phantasy, and shall have absolutely turned themind’s eye from the presence of the bodies which liearound the senses, and from the very bodily senses themselves, andshall have wholly turned it to that image, which is perceivedwithin; then so exact a likeness of the bodily species expressedfrom the memory is presented, that not even reason itself ispermitted to discern whether the body itself is seen without, oronly something of the kind thought of within. For men sometimeseither allured or frightened by over-much thinking of visiblethings, have even suddenly uttered words accordingly, as if in realfact they were engaged in the very midst of such actions orsufferings. And I remember some one telling me that he was wont toperceive in thought, so distinct and as it were solid, a form of afemale body, as to be moved, as though it were a reality. Such powerhas the soul over its own body, and such influence has it in turningand changing the quality of its [corporeal]garment; just as a man may be affected when clothed, to whom hisclothing sticks. It is the same kind of affection, too, with whichwe are beguiled through imaginations in sleep. But it makes a verygreat difference, whether the senses of the body are lulled totorpor, as in the case of sleepers, or disturbed from their inwardstructure, as in the case of madmen, or distracted in some othermode, as in that of diviners or prophets; and so from one or otherof these causes, the intention of the mind is forced by a kind ofnecessity upon those images which occur to it, either from memory,or by some other hidden force through certain spiritual commixturesof a similarly spiritual substance: or whether, as sometimes happensto people in health and awake, that the will occupied by thoughtturns itself away from the senses, and so informs the eye of themind by various images of sensible things, as though those sensiblethings themselves were actually perceived. But these impressions ofimages not only take place when the will is directed upon suchthings by desiring them, but also when, in order to avoid and guardagainst them, the mind is carried away to look upon these very thingso as to flee from them. And hence, not onlydesire, but fear, causes both the bodily eye to be informed by thesensible things themselves, and the mental eye ( acies ) by the images of those sensible things.Accordingly, the more vehement has been either fear or desire, themore distinctly is the eye informed, whether in the case of him who[sensuously] perceives by means of the bodythat which lies close to him in place, or in the case of him whoconceives from the image of the body which is contained in thememory. What then a body in place is to the bodily sense, that, thesimilitude of a body in memory is to the eye of the mind; and whatthe vision of one who looks at a thing is to that appearance of thebody from which the sense is informed, that, the vision of aconcipient is to the image of the body established in the memory,from which the eye of the mind is informed; and what the intentionof the will is towards a body seen and the vision to be combinedwith it, in order that a certain unity of three things may thereintake place, although their nature is diverse, that, the sameintention of the will is towards combining the image of the bodywhich 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 thememory, in order that here too a certain unity may take place ofthree things, not now distinguished by diversity of nature, but ofone and the same substance; because this whole is within, and thewhole is one mind.

CHAP. 5.—: THE TRINITY OF THE OUTER MAN, OR OF EXTERNALVISION, IS NOT AN IMAGE OF GOD. THE LIKENESS OF GOD IS DESIRED EVEN INSINS. IN EXTERNAL VISION THE FORM OF THE CORPOREAL THING IS AS IT WERETHE PARENT, VISION THE OFFSPRING; BUT THE WILL THAT UNITES THESESUGGESTS THE HOLY SPIRIT.

8. But as, when[both] the form and species of a body haveperished, 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 back theeye of the mind by recollection, so as to be formed thereby. Butbecause the mind has great power to imagine not only thingsforgotten, but also things that it never saw, or experienced, eitherby increasing, or diminishing, or changing, or compounding, afterits pleasure, those which have not dropped out of its remembrance,it often imagines things to be such as either it knows they are not,or does not know that they are. And in this case we have to takecare, lest it either speak falsely that it may deceive, or hold anopinion so as to be deceived. And if it avoid these two evils, thenimagined phantasms do not hinder it: just as sensible thingsexperienced or retained by memory do not hinder it, if they areneither passionately sought for when pleasant, nor basely shunnedwhen unpleasant. But when the will leaves better things, andgreedily wallows in these, then it becomes unclean; and they are sothought of hurtfully, when they are present, and also more hurtfullywhen they are absent. And he therefore lives badly and degeneratelywho lives according to the trinity of the outer man; because it is the purpose of using things sensible andcorporeal, that has begotten also that trinity, which although itimagines within, yet imagines things without. For no one could usethose things even well, unless the images of things perceived by thesenses were retained in the memory. And unless the will for thegreatest part dwells in the higher and interior things, and unlessthat will itself, which is accommodated either to bodies without, orto the images of them within, refers whatever it receives in them toa better and truer life, and rests in that end by gazing at which itjudges that those things ought to be done; what else do we do, butthat which the apostle prohibits us from doing, when he says,“Be not conformed to this world”? [1] And therefore that trinity is not an image of Godsince it is produced in the mind itself through the bodily sense,from the lowest, that is, the corporeal creature, than which themind is higher. Yet neither is it altogether dissimilar: for what isthere that has not a likeness of God, in proportion to its kind andmeasure, seeing that God made all things very good, [2] and for no other reason except that HeHimself is supremely good? In so far, therefore, as anything thatis, is good, in so far plainly it has still some likeness of thesupreme good, at however, great a distance; and if a naturallikeness, then certainly a right and well-ordered one; but if afaulty likeness, then certainly a debased and perverse one. For evensouls in their very sins strive after nothing else but some kind oflikeness of God, in a proud and preposterous, and, so to say,slavish liberty. So neither could our first parents have beenpersuaded to sin unless it had been said, “Ye shall be asgods.” [3] No doubt everything inthe creatures which is in any way like God, is not also to be calledHis image; but that alone than which He Himself alone is higher. Forthat only is in all points copied from Him, between which andHimself no nature is interposed.

9. Of that vision then; thatis, of the form which is wrought in the sense of him who sees; theform 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 atrue offspring; for it is not altogether born therefrom, sincesomething else is applied to the bodily thing in order that it maybe formed from it, namely, the sense of him who sees. And for thisreason, to love this is to be estranged. [4] Therefore the will which unites both, viz. thequasi-parent and the quasi-child, is more spiritual than either ofthem. For that bodily thing which is discerned, is not spiritual atall. But the vision which comes into existence in the sense, hassomething spiritual mingled with it, since it cannot come intoexistence without the soul. But it is not wholly spiritual; sincethat which is formed is a sense of the body. Therefore the willwhich unites both is confessedly more spiritual, as I have said; andso it begins to suggest ( insinuare ), as itwere, the person of the Spirit in the Trinity. But it belongs moreto the sense that is formed, than to the bodily thing whence it isformed. For the sense and will of an animate being belongs to thesoul, not to the stone or other bodily thing that is seen. It doesnot therefore proceed from that bodily thing as from a parent; yetneither does it proceed from that other as it were offspring,namely, the vision and form that is in the sense. For the willexisted before the vision came to pass, which will applied the sensethat was to be formed to the bodily thing that was to be discerned;but it was not yet satisfied. For how could that which was not yetseen satisfy? And satisfaction means a will that rests content. And,therefore, we can neither call the will the quasi-offspring ofvision, since it existed before vision; nor the quasi-parent, sincethat vision was not formed and expressedfrom the will, but from the bodily thing that was seen.

CHAP. 6.—: OF WHAT KIND WE ARE TO RECKON THE REST(REQUIES), AND END (FINIS), OF THE WILL IN VISION.

10. Perhaps we can rightlycall vision the end and rest of the will, only with respect to thisone object [namely, the bodily thing that isvisible]. For it will not will nothing else merelybecause it sees something which it is now willing. It is nottherefore the whole will itself of the man, of which the end isnothing else than blessedness; but the will provisionally directedto this one object, which has as its end in seeing, nothing butvision, whether it refer the thing seen to any other thing or not.For if it does not refer the vision to anything further, but willsonly to see this, there can be no question made about showing thatthe end of the will is the vision; for it is manifest. But if itdoes refer it to anything further, then certainly it does willsomething else, and it will not be now a will merely to see; or ifto see, not one to see the particular thing. Just as, if any onewished to see the scar, that from thence he might learn that therehad been a wound; or wished to see the window, that through thewindow he might see the passers-by: all these and other such acts ofwill have their own proper [proximate] ends,which are referred to that [final] end of thewill by which we will to live blessedly, and to attain to that lifewhich is not referred to anything else, but suffices of itself tohim who loves it. The will then to see, has as its end vision; andthe will to see this particular thing, has as its end the vision ofthis particular thing. Therefore the will to see the scar, desiresits own end, that is, the vision of the scar, and does not reachbeyond it; for the will to prove that there had been a wound, is adistinct will, although dependent upon that, of which the end alsois to prove that there had been a wound. And the will to see thewindow, has as its end the vision of the window; for that is anotherand further will which depends upon it, viz. tosee the passers-by through the window, of which also the end is thevision of the passers-by. But all the several wills that are boundto each other, are at once right, if that one is good, to which allare referred; and if that is bad, then all are bad. And so theconnected series of right wills is a sort of road which consists asit were of certain steps, whereby to ascend to blessedness; but theentanglement of depraved and distorted wills is a bond by which hewill be bound who thus acts, so as to be cast into outerdarkness. [1] Blessed therefore are they who in act andcharacter sing the song of the steps[degrees]; [2] and woe tothose that draw sin, as it were a long rope. [3] And it is just the same tospeak of the will being in repose, which we call its end, if it isstill referred to something further, as if we should say that thefoot is at rest in walking, when it is placed there, whence yetanother foot may be planted in the direction of the man’ssteps. But if something so satisfies, that the will acquiesces in itwith a certain delight; it is nevertheless not yet that to which theman ultimately tends; but this too is referred to something further,so as to be regarded not as the native country of a citizen, but asa place of refreshment, or even of stopping, for a traveller.

CHAP. 7.—: THERE IS ANOTHER TRINITY IN THE MEMORY OF HIMWHO THINKS OVER AGAIN WHAT HE HAS SEEN.

11. But yet again, take thecase of another trinity, more inward indeed than that which is inthings sensible, and in the senses, but which is yet conceived fromthence; while now it is no longer the sense of the body that isinformed from the body, but the eye of the mind that is informedfrom the memory, since the species of the body which we perceivedfrom without has inhered in the memory itself. And that species,which is in the memory, we call the quasi-parent of that which iswrought in the phantasy of one who conceives. For it was in thememory also, before we conceived it, just as the body was in placealso before we [sensuously] perceived it, inorder that vision might take place. But when it is conceived, thenfrom that form which the memory retains, there is copied in themind’s eye ( acie ) of him whoconceives, and by remembrance is formed, that species, which is thequasi-offspring of that which the memory retains. But neither is theone a true parent, nor the other a true offspring. For themind’s vision which is formed from memory when we thinkanything by recollection, does not proceed from that species whichwe remember as seen; since we could not indeed have remembered thosethings, unless we had seen them; yet the mind’s eye,which is informed by the recollection, existed also before we sawthe body that we remember; and therefore how much more before wecommitted it to memory? Although therefore the form which is wroughtin the mind’s eye of him who remembers, is wrought from that form which is in the memory;yet the mind’s eye itself does not exist from thence, butexisted before it. And it follows, that if the one is not a trueparent, neither is the other a true offspring. But both thatquasi-parent and that quasi-offspring suggest something, whence theinner and truer things may appear more practically and morecertainly.

12. Further, it is moredifficult to discern clearly, whether the will which connects thevision to the memory is not either the parent or the offspring ofsome one of them; and the likeness and equality of the same natureand substance cause this difficulty of distinguishing. For it is notpossible to do in this case, as with the sense that is formed fromwithout (which is easily discerned from the sensible body, and againthe will from both), on account of the difference of nature which ismutually in all three, and of which we have treated sufficientlyabove. For although this trinity, of which we at present speak, isintroduced 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 neitherthe quasi-parent, nor the quasi-offspring, either of the corporeallikeness which is contained in the memory, or of that which iscopied thence in recollecting; when it so unites both in the act ofconceiving, as that they appear singly as one, and cannot bediscerned except by reason? It is then first to be considered thatthere cannot be any will to remember, unless we retain in therecesses of the memory either the whole, or some part, of that thingwhich we wish to remember. For the very will to remember cannotarise in the case of a thing which we have forgotten altogether andabsolutely; since we have already remembered that the thing which wewish to remember is, or has been, in our memory. For example, if Iwish to remember what I supped on yesterday, either I have alreadyremembered that I did sup, or if not yet this, at least I haveremembered something about that time itself, if nothing else; at allevents, I have remembered yesterday, and that part of yesterday inwhich people usually sup, and what supping is. For if I had notremembered anything at all of this kind, I could not wish toremember what I supped on yesterday. Whence we may perceive that thewill of remembering proceeds, indeed, from those things which areretained in the memory, with the addition also of those which, bythe act of discerning, are copied thence through recollection; thatis, from the combination of something which we have remembered, andof the vision which was thence wrought, when we remembered, in themind’s eye of him who thinks. But the will itself whichunites 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; becausethere is no one of them wherein there are not these three things, viz. that which was stored up in the memoryalso before it was thought, and that which takes place in theconception when this is discerned, and the will that unites both,and from both and itself as a third, completes one single thing. Oris it rather that we so recognize some one trinity in this kind, asthat we are to speak generally, of whatever corporeal species liehidden in the memory, as of a single unity, and again of the generalvision of the mind which remembers and conceives such things, as ofa single unity, to the combination of which two there is to bejoined as a third the will that combines them, that this whole maybe a certain unity made up from three?

CHAP. 8.—: DIFFERENT MODES OF CONCEIVING.

But since the eye of the mind cannot look at all things together, inone glance, which the memory retains, these trinities of thoughtalternate in a series of withdrawals and successions, and so thattrinity becomes most innumerably numerous; and yet not infinite, ifit pass not beyond the number of things stored up in the memory.For, although we begin to reckon from the earliest perception whichany one has of material things through any bodily sense, and eventake in also those things which he has forgotten, yet the numberwould 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 ofreckoning.

13. But we can henceperceive a little more clearly that what the memory stores up andretains is a different thing from that which is thence copied in theconception of the man who remembers, although, when both arecombined together, they appear to be one and the same; because wecan only remember just as many species of bodies as we have actuallyseen, and so great, and such, as we have actually seen; for the mindimbibes them into the memory from the bodily sense; whereas thethings seen in conception, although drawn from those things whichare in the memory, yet are multiplied andvaried innumerably, and altogether without end. For I remember, nodoubt, but one sun, because according to the fact, I have seen butone; but if I please, I conceive of two, or three, or as many as Iwill; but the vision of my mind, when I conceive of many, is formedfrom the same memory by which I remember one. And I remember it justas large as I saw it. For if I remember it as larger or smaller thanI saw it, then I no longer remember what I saw, and so I do notremember it. But because I remember it, I remember it as large as Isaw it; yet I conceive of it as greater or as less according to mywill. And I remember it as I saw it; but I conceive of it as runningits course as I will, and as standing still where I will, and ascoming whence I will, and whither I will. For it is in my power toconceive of it as square, although I remember it as round; andagain, of what color I please, although I have never seen, andtherefore do not remember, a green sun; and as the sun, so all otherthings. But owing to the corporeal and sensible nature of theseforms of things, the mind falls into error when it imagines them toexist without, in the same mode in which it conceives them within,either when they have already ceased to exist without, but are stillretained in the memory, or when in any other way also, that which weremember is formed in the mind, not by faithful recollection, butafter the variations of thought.

14. Yet it very oftenhappens that we believe also a true narrative, told us by others, ofthings which the narrators have themselves perceived by theirsenses. And in this case, when we conceive the things narrated tous, as we hear them, the eye of the mind does not seem to be turnedback to the memory, in order to bring up visions in our thoughts;for we do not conceive these things from our own recollection, butupon the narration of another; and that trinity does not here seemto come to its completion, which is made when the species lying hidin the memory, and the vision of the man that remembers, arecombined by will as a third. For I do not conceive that which layhid in my memory, but that which I hear, when anything is narratedto me. I am not speaking of the words themselves of the speaker,lest any one should suppose that I have gone off to that othertrinity, which is transacted without, in sensible things, or in thesenses: but I am conceiving of those species of material things,which the narrator signifies to me by words and sounds; whichspecies certainly I conceive of not by remembering, but by hearing.But if we consider the matter more carefully, even in this case, thelimit of the memory is not overstepped. For I could not evenunderstand the narrator, if I did not remember generically theindividual things of which he speaks, even although I then hear themfor the first time as connected together in one tale. For he who,for instance, describes to me some mountain stripped of timber, andclothed with olive trees, describes it to me who remembers thespecies both of mountains, and of timber, and of olive trees; and ifI had forgotten these, I should not know at all of what he wasspeaking, and therefore could not conceive that description. And soit comes to pass, that every one who conceives things corporeal,whether he himself imagine anything, or hear, or read, either anarrative of things past, or a foretelling of things future, hasrecourse to his memory, and finds there the limit and measure of allthe forms at which he gazes in his thought. For no one can conceiveat all, either a color or a form of body, which he never saw, or asound which he never heard, or a flavor which he never tasted, or ascent which he never smelt, or any touch of a corporeal thing whichhe never felt. But if no one conceives anything corporeal exceptwhat he has [sensuously] perceived, because noone remembers anything corporeal except what he has thus perceived,then, as is the limit of perceiving in bodies, so is the limit ofthinking in the memory. For the sense receives the species from thatbody which we perceive, and the memory from the sense; but themental eye of the concipient, from the memory.

15. Further, as the willapplies the sense to the bodily object, so it applies the memory tothe sense, and the eye of the mind of the concipient to the memory.But that which harmonizes those things and unites them, itself alsodisjoins and separates them, that is, the will. But it separates thebodily senses from the bodies that are to be perceived, by movementof the body, either to hinder our perceiving the thing, or that wemay cease to perceive it: as when we avert our eyes from that whichwe are unwilling to see, or shut them; so, again, the ears fromsounds, or the nostrils from smells. So also we turn away fromtastes, either by shutting the mouth, or by casting the thing out ofthe mouth. In touch, also, we either remove the bodily thing, thatwe may not touch what we do not wish, or if we were already touchingit, we fling or push it away. Thus the will acts by movement of thebody, so that the bodily sense shall not be joined to the sensiblethings. And it does this according to itspower; for when it endures hardship in so doing, on account of thecondition of slavish mortality, then torment is the result, in suchwise that nothing remains to the will save endurance. But the willaverts the memory from the sense; when, through its being intent onsomething else, it does not suffer things present to cleave to it.As any one may see, when often we do not seem to ourselves to haveheard some one who was speaking to us, because we were thinking ofsomething else. But this is a mistake; for we did hear, but we donot remember, because the words of the speaker presently slipped outof the perception of our ears, through the bidding of the will beingdiverted elsewhere, by which they are usually fixed in the memory.Therefore, we should say more accurately in such a case, we do notremember, than, we did not hear; for it happens even in reading, andto myself very frequently, that when I have read through a page oran epistle, I do not know what I have read, and I begin it again.For the purpose of the will being fixed on something else, thememory was not so applied to the bodily sense, as the sense itselfwas applied to the letters. So, too, any one who walks with the willintent on something else, does not know where he has got to; for ifhe had not seen, he would not have walked thither, or would havefelt his way in walking with greater attention, especially if he waspassing through a place he did not know; yet, because he walkedeasily, certainly he saw; but because the memory was not applied tothe sense itself in the same way as the sense of the eyes wasapplied to the places through which he was passing, he could notremember at all even the last thing he saw. Now, to will to turnaway the eye of the mind from that which is in the memory, isnothing else but not to think thereupon.

CHAP. 9.—: SPECIES IS PRODUCED BY SPECIES INSUCCESSION.

16. In this arrangement,then, while we begin from the bodily species and arrive finally atthe species which comes to be in the intuition ( contuitu ) of the concipient, we find four species born, asit 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 thespecies of the body itself, there arises that which comes to be inthe sense of the percipient; and from this, that which comes to bein the memory; and from this, that which comes to be in themind’s eye of the concipient. And the will, therefore,thrice combines as it were parent with offspring: first the speciesof the body with that to which it gives birth in the sense of thebody; and that again with that which from it comes to be in thememory; and this also, thirdly, with that which is born from it inthe intuition of the concipient’s mind. But theintermediate combination which is the second, although it is nearerto the first, is yet not so like the first as the third is. Forthere are two kinds of vision, the one of[sensuous] perception ( sentientis ), the other of conception ( cogitantis ). But in order that the vision of conceptionmay come to be, there is wrought for the purpose, in the memory,from the vision of [sensuous] perceptionsomething like it, to which the eye of the mind may turn itself inconceiving, as the glance ( acies ) of the eyesturns itself in [sensuously] perceiving to thebodily object. I have, therefore, chosen to put forward twotrinities in this kind: one when the vision of[sensuous] perception is formed from thebodily object, the other when the vision of conception is formedfrom the memory. But I have refrained from commending anintermediate one; because we do not commonly call it vision, whenthe form which comes to be in the sense of him who perceives, isentrusted to the memory. Yet in all cases the will does not appearunless as the combiner as it were of parent and offspring; and so,proceed from whence it may, it can be called neither parent noroffspring. [1]

CHAP. 10.—: THE IMAGINATION ALSO ADDS EVEN TO THINGS WEHAVE NOT SEEN, THOSE THINGS WHICH WE HAVE SEEN ELSEWHERE.

17. But if we do notremember except what we have [sensuously]perceived, nor conceive except what we remember; why do we oftenconceive things that are false, when certainly we do not rememberfalsely those things which we have perceived, unless it be becausethat will (which I have already taken pains to show as much as I canto be the uniter and the separater of things of this kind) leads thevision of the conceiver that is to be formed, after its own will andpleasure, through the hidden stores ofthe memory; and, in order to conceive[imagine] those things which we do notremember, impels it to take one thing from hence, and another fromthence, from those which we do remember; and these things combininginto one vision make something which is called false, because iteither does not exist externally in the nature of corporeal things,or does not seem copied from the memory, in that we do not rememberthat we ever saw such a thing. For who ever saw a black swan? Andtherefore no one remembers a black swan; yet who is there thatcannot conceive it? For it is easy to apply to that shape which wehave come to know by seeing it, a black color, which we have not theless seen in other bodies; and because we have seen both, weremember both. Neither do I remember a bird with four feet, becauseI never saw one; but I contemplate such a phantasy very easily, byadding to some winged shape such as I have seen, two other feet,such as I have likewise seen. [1] And therefore, in conceiving conjointly, what we remember to haveseen singly, we seem not to conceive that which we remember; whilewe really do this under the law of the memory, whence we takeeverything which we join together after our own pleasure in manifoldand diverse ways. For we do not conceive even the very magnitudes ofbodies, which magnitudes we never saw, without help of the memory;for the measure of space to which our gaze commonly reaches throughthe magnitude of the world, is the measure also to which we enlargethe bulk of bodies, whatever they may be, when we conceive them asgreat as we can. And reason, indeed, proceeds still beyond, butphantasy does not follow her; as when reason announces the infinityof number also, which no vision of him who conceives according tocorporeal things can apprehend. The same reason also teaches thatthe most minute atoms are infinitely divisible; yet when we havecome to those slight and minute particles which we remember to haveseen, then we can no longer behold phantasms more slender and moreminute, although reason does not cease to continue to divide them.So we conceive no corporeal things, except either those we remember,or from those things which we remember.

CHAP. 11.—: NUMBER, WEIGHT, MEASURE.

18. But because those thingswhich are impressed on the memory singly, can be conceived accordingto number, measure seems to belong to the memory, but number to thevision; because, although the multiplicity of such visions isinnumerable, yet a limit not to be transgressed is prescribed foreach in the memory. Therefore, measure appears in the memory, numberin the vision of things: as there is some measure in visible bodiesthemselves, to which measure the sense of those who see is mostnumerously adjusted, and from one visible object is formed thevision of many beholders, so that even a single person sees commonlya single thing under a double appearance, on account of the numberof his two eyes, as we have laid down above. Therefore there is somemeasure in those things whence visions are copied, but in thevisions themselves there is number. But the will which unites andregulates these things, and combines them into a certain unity, anddoes not quietly rest its desire of[sensuously] perceiving or of conceiving,except in those things from whence the visions are formed, resemblesweight. And therefore I would just notice by way of anticipationthese three things, measure, number, weight, which are to beperceived in all other things also. In the meantime, I have nowshown as much as I can, and to whom I can, that the will is theuniter of the visible thing and of the vision; as it were, of parentand of offspring; whether in [sensuous]perception or in conception, and that it cannot be called eitherparent or offspring. Wherefore time admonishes us to seek for thissame trinity in the inner man, and to strive to pass inwards fromthat animal and carnal and (as he is called) outward man, of whom Ihave so long spoken. And here we hope to be able to find an image ofGod according to the Trinity, He Himself helping our efforts, who asthings themselves show, and as Holy Scripture also witnesses, hasregulated all things in measure, and number, and weight. [2]

BOOK XII.

COMMENCING WITH A DISTINCTION BETWEEN WISDOM ANDKNOWLEDGE, POINTS OUT A KIND OF TRINITY, OF A PECULIAR SORT, INTHAT WHICH IS PROPERLY CALLED KNOWLEDGE, AND WHICH IS THE LOWEROF THE TWO; AND THIS TRINITY, ALTHOUGH IT CERTAINLY PERTAINS TOTHE INNER MAN, IS STILL NOT YET TO BE CALLED OR THOUGHT AN IMAGEOF GOD.

CHAP. 1.—: OF WHAT KIND ARE THE OUTER AND THE INNERMAN.

1. COME now, and let us see where lies, as it were,the boundary line between the outer and inner man. For whatever wehave in the mind common with the beasts, thus much is rightly saidto belong to the outer man. For the outer man is not to beconsidered to be the body only, but with the addition also of acertain peculiar life of the body, whence the structure of the bodyderives its vigor, and all the senses with which he is equipped forthe perception of outward things; and when the images of theseoutward things already perceived, that have been fixed in thememory, are seen again by recollection, it is still a matterpertaining to the outer man. And in all these things we do notdiffer from the beasts, except that in shape of body we are notprone, but upright. And we are admonished through this, by Him whomade us, not to be like the beasts in that which is our betterpart—that is, the mind—while we differ fromthem by the uprightness of the body. Not that we are to throw ourmind into those bodily things which are exalted; for to seek restfor the will, even in such things, is to prostrate the mind. But asthe body is naturally raised upright to those bodily things whichare most elevated, that is, to things celestial; so the mind, whichis a spiritual substance, must be raised upright to those thingswhich are most elevated in spiritual things, not by the elation ofpride, but by the dutifulness of righteousness.

CHAP. 2.—: MAN ALONE OF ANIMATE CREATURES PERCEIVES THEETERNAL REASONS OF THINGS PERTAINING TO THE BODY.

2. And the beasts, too, areable both to perceive things corporeal from without, through thesenses of the body, and to fix them in the memory, and rememberthem, and in them to seek after things suitable, and shun thingsinconvenient. But to note these things, and to retain them not onlyas caught up naturally but also as deliberately committed to memory,and to imprint them again by recollection and conception when nowjust slipping away into forgetfulness; in order that as conceptionis formed from that which the memory contains, so also the contentsthemselves of the memory may be fixed firmly by thought: to combineagain imaginary objects of sight, by taking this or that of what thememory remembers, and, as it were, tacking them to one another: toexamine after what manner it is that in this kind things like thetrue are to be distinguished from the true, and this not in thingsspiritual, but in corporeal things themselves;—theseacts, and the like, although performed in reference to thingssensible, and those which the mind has deduced through the bodilysenses, yet, as they are combined with reason, so are not common tomen and beasts. But it is the part of the higher reason to judge ofthese corporeal things according to incorporeal and eternal reasons;which, unless they were above the human mind, would certainly not beunchangeable; and yet, unless something of our own were subjoined tothem, we should not be able to employ them as our measures by whichto judge of corporeal things. But we judge of corporeal things fromthe rule of dimensions and figures, which the mind knows to remainunchangeably. [1]

CHAP. 3.—: THE HIGHER REASON WHICH BELONGS TOCONTEMPLATION, AND THE LOWER WHICH BELONGS TO ACTION, ARE IN ONEMIND.

3. But that of our own whichthus 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 ourmind, by which we depend upon and cleave to the intelligible andunchangeable truth, and which is deputed to handle and direct theinferior things. For as among all the beasts there was not found forthe 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 consultthe supernal and inward truth, there is no like help for suchemployment as man’s nature requires among thingscorporeal out of those parts of the soul which we have in commonwith the beasts. And so a certain part of our reason, not separatedso as to sever unity, but, as it were, diverted so as to be a helpto 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 inthe mind one nature embraces our intellect and action, or ourcounsel and performance, or our reason and rational appetite, orwhatever other more significant terms there may be by which toexpress them; so that, as it was said of the former, “Andthey two shall be in one flesh,” [1] it may be said of these,they two are in one mind.

CHAP. 4.—: THE TRINITY AND THE IMAGE OF GOD IS IN THATPART OF THE MIND ALONE WHICH BELONGS TO THE CONTEMPLATION OF ETERNALTHINGS.

4. When, therefore, wediscuss the nature of the human mind, we discuss a single subject,and do not double it into those two which I have mentioned, exceptin respect to its functions. Therefore, when we seek the trinity inthe mind, we seek it in the whole mind, without separating theaction of the reason in things temporal from the contemplation ofthings eternal, so as to have further to seek some third thing, bywhich a trinity may be completed. But this trinity must needs be sodiscovered in the whole nature of the mind, as that even if actionupon temporal things were to be withdrawn, for which work that helpis necessary, with a view to which some part of the mind is divertedin order to deal with these inferior things, yet a trinity wouldstill be found in the one mind that is no where parted off; and thatwhen this distribution has been already made, not only a trinity maybe found, but also an image of God, in that alone which belongs tothe contemplation of eternal things; while in that other which isdiverted from it in the dealing with temporal things, although theremay be a trinity, yet there cannot be found an image of God.

CHAP. 5.—: THE OPINION WHICH DEVISES AN IMAGE OF THETRINITY IN THE MARRIAGE OF MALE AND FEMALE, AND IN THEIROFFSPRING.

5. Accordingly they do notseem to me to advance a probable opinion, who lay it down that atrinity of the image of God in three persons, so far as regardshuman nature, can so be discovered as to be completed in themarriage of male and female and in their offspring; in that the manhimself, as it were, indicates the person of the Father, but thatwhich has so proceeded from him as to be born, that of the Son; andso the third person as of the Spirit, is, they say, the woman, whohas so proceeded from the man as not herself to be either son ordaughter, [2] although it was by her conception that theoffspring was born. For the Lord hath said of the Holy Spirit thatHe proceedeth from the Father, [3] and yet he is not a son.In this erroneous opinion, then, the only point probably alleged,and indeed sufficiently shown according to the faith of the HolyScripture, is this,—in the account of the originalcreation of the woman,—that what so comes into existencefrom some person as to make another person, cannot in every case becalled a son; since the person of the woman came into existence fromthe person of the man, and yet she is not called his daughter. Allthe rest of this opinion is in truth so absurd, nay indeed so false,that it is most easy to refute it. For I pass over such a thing, asto think the Holy Spirit to be the mother of the Son of God, and thewife of the Father; since perhaps it may be answered that thesethings offend us in carnal things, because we think of bodilyconceptions and births. Although these very things themselves aremost chastely thought of by the pure, to whom all things are pure;but to the defiled and unbelieving, of whom both the mind and conscience are polluted, nothing is pure; [1] so that even Christ, born of a virgin accordingto the flesh, is a stumbling-block to some of them. But yet in thecase of those supreme spiritual things, after the likeness of whichthose kinds of the inferior creature also are made although mostremotely, and where there is nothing that can be injured and nothingcorruptible, nothing born in time, nothing formed from that which isformless, or whatever like expressions there may be; yet they oughtnot to disturb the sober prudence of any one, lest in avoiding emptydisgust he run into pernicious error. Let him accustom himself so tofind in corporeal things the traces of things spiritual, that whenhe begins to ascend upwards from thence, under the guidance ofreason, in order to attain to the unchangeable truth itself throughwhich these things were made, he may not draw with himself to thingsabove what he despises in things below. For no one ever blushed tochoose for himself wisdom as a wife, because the name of wife putsinto a man’s thoughts the corruptible connection whichconsists in begetting children; or because in truth wisdom itself isa woman in sex, since it is expressed in both Greek and Latintongues by a word of the feminine gender.

CHAP. 6.—: WHY THIS OPINION IS TO BE REJECTED.

6. We do not thereforereject this opinion, because we fear to think of that holy andinviolable and unchangeable Love, as the spouse of God the Father,existing as it does from Him, but not as an offspring in order tobeget the Word by which all things are made; but because divineScripture evidently shows it to be false. For God said,“Let us make man in our image, after ourlikeness;” and a little after it is said, “SoGod created man in the image of God.” [2] Certainly, in that itis of the plural number, the word “our” wouldnot be rightly used if man were made in the image of one person,whether of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit; butbecause he was made in the image of the Trinity, on that account itis said, “After our image.” But again, lest weshould think that three Gods were to be believed in the Trinity,whereas the same Trinity is one God, it is said, “So Godcreated man in the image of God,” instead of saying,“In His own image.”

7. For such expressions arecustomary in the Scriptures; and yet some persons, while maintainingthe Catholic faith, do not carefully attend to them, in such wisethat they think the words, “God made man in the image ofGod,” to mean that the Father made man after the image ofthe Son; and they thus desire to assert that the Son also is calledGod in the divine Scriptures, as if there were not other most trueand clear proofs wherein the Son is called not only God, but alsothe true God. For whilst they aim at explaining another difficultyin this text, they become so entangled that they cannot extricatethemselves. 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 theSon is unlike the Father. But if a pious faith teaches us, as itdoes, 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 alsobe made in the likeness of the Father. Further, if the Father mademan not in His own image, but in the image of His Son, why does Henot say, “Let us make man after Thy image andlikeness,” whereas He does say,“our;” unless it be because the image of theTrinity was made in man, that in this way man should be the image ofthe one true God, because the Trinity itself is the one true God?Such expressions are innumerable in the Scriptures, but it willsuffice to have produced these. It is so said in the Psalms,“Salvation belongeth unto the Lord; Thy blessing is uponThy people;” [3] as if the words werespoken to some one else, not to Him of whom it had been said,“Salvation belongeth unto the Lord.” Andagain, “For by Thee,” he says, “Ishall be delivered from temptation, and by hoping in my God I shallleap over the wall;” [4] as if he said to someone else, “By Thee I shall be delivered fromtemptation.” And again, “In the heart of theking’s enemies; whereby the people fall underThee;” [5] as if he were to say, inthe heart of Thy enemies. For he had said to that King, that is, toour Lord Jesus Christ, “The people fall underThee,” whom he intended by the word King, when he said,“In the heart of the king’senemies.” Things of this kind are found more rarely inthe New Testament. But yet the apostle says to the Romans,“Concerning His Son who was made to Him of the seed ofDavid according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God withpower, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection ofthe dead of Jesus Christ our Lord;” [6] as though he werespeaking above of some one else. For whatis meant by the Son of God declared by the resurrection of the deadof Jesus Christ, except of the same Jesus Christ who was declared tobe Son of God with power? And as then in this passage, when we aretold, “the Son of God with power of JesusChrist,” or “the Son of God according to thespirit of holiness of Jesus Christ,” or “theSon of God by the resurrection of the dead of JesusChrist,” whereas it might have been expressed in theordinary way, In His own power, or according to the spirit of Hisown holiness, or by the resurrection of His dead, or of their dead:as, I say, we are not compelled to understand another person, butone and the same, that is, the person of the Son of God our LordJesus Christ; so, when we are told that “God made man inthe image of God,” although it might have been more usualto say, after His own image, yet we are not compelled to understandany other person in the Trinity, but the one and selfsame Trinityitself, who is one God, and after whose image man is made.

8. And since the case standsthus, if we are to accept the same image of the Trinity, as not inone, but in three human beings, father and mother and son, then theman was not made after the image of God before a wife was made forhim, and before they procreated a son; because there was not yet atrinity. 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 inthe loins of his father? Why then, when Scripture had said,“God made man after the image of God,” did itgo on to say, “God created him; male and female createdHe them: and God blessed them”? [1] (Or if it is to be sodivided, “And God created man,” so thatthereupon is to be added, “in the image of God created Hehim,” and then subjoined in the third place,“male and female created He them;” for somehave feared to say, He made him male and female, lest somethingmonstrous, as it were, should be understood, as are those whom theycall hermaphrodites, although even so both might be understood notfalsely in the singular number, on account of that which is said,“Two in one flesh.”) Why then, as I began bysaying, in regard to the nature of man made after the image of God,does Scripture specify nothing except male and female? Certainly, inorder to complete the image of the Trinity, it ought to have addedalso son, although still placed in the loins of his father, as thewoman was in his side. Or was it perhaps that the woman also hadbeen already made, and that Scripture had combined in a short andcomprehensive statement, that of which it was going to explainafterwards more carefully, how it was done; and that therefore a soncould not be mentioned, because no son was yet born? As if the HolySpirit could not have comprehended this, too, in that briefstatement, while about to narrate the birth of the son afterwards inits own place; as it narrated afterwards in its own place, that thewoman was taken from the side of the man, [2] and yet has notomitted here to name her.

CHAP. 7.—: HOW MAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD. WHETHER THE WOMANIS NOT ALSO THE IMAGE OF GOD. HOW THE SAYING OF THE APOSTLE, THAT THEMAN IS THE IMAGE OF GOD, BUT THE WOMAN IS THE GLORY OF THE MAN, IS TO BEUNDERSTOOD FIGURATIVELY AND MYSTICALLY.

9. We ought not therefore soto 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 beunderstood to be in three human beings; especially when the apostlesays that the man is the image of God, and on that account removesthe covering from his head, which he warns the woman to use,speaking thus: “For a man indeed ought not to cover hishead, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the womanis 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 ofher own person, why is the man still called that image after she hasbeen taken out of his side? Or if even one person of a human beingout of three can be called the image of God, as each person also isGod in the supreme Trinity itself, why is the woman also not theimage of God? For she is instructed for this very reason to coverher head, which he is forbidden to do because he is the image ofGod. [3]

10. But we must notice howthat which the apostle says, that not the woman but the man is theimage 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 ofGod; and it does not separate the woman from the image of God whichit signifies. For after saying that Godmade man in the image of God, “He createdhim,” it says, “male and female:”or at any rate, punctuating the words otherwise, “maleand female created He them.” How then did the apostletell us that the man is the image of God, and therefore he isforbidden to cover his head; but that the woman is not so, andtherefore is commanded to cover hers? Unless, forsooth, according tothat which I have said already, when I was treating of the nature ofthe human mind, that the woman together with her own husband is theimage of God, so that that whole substance may be one image; butwhen she is referred separately to her quality of help-meet, which regards the woman herself alone, then sheis not the image of God; but as regards the man alone, he is theimage of God as fully and completely as when the woman too is joinedwith him in one. As we said of the nature of the human mind, thatboth in the case when as a whole it contemplates the truth it is theimage of God; and in the case when anything is divided from it, anddiverted in order to the cognition of temporal things; neverthelesson that side on which it beholds and consults truth, here also it isthe image of God, but on that side whereby it is directed to thecognition of the lower things, it is not the image of God. And sinceit is so much the more formed after the image of God, the more ithas extended itself to that which is eternal, and is on that accountnot to be restrained, so as to withhold and refrain itself fromthence; therefore the man ought not to cover his head. But becausetoo great a progression towards inferior things is dangerous to thatrational cognition that is conversant with things corporeal andtemporal; this ought to have power on its head, which the coveringindicates, by which it is signified that it ought to be restrained.For a holy and pious meaning is pleasing to the holy angels. [1] For God sees not after the way of time, neitherdoes anything new take place in His vision and knowledge, whenanything is done in time and transitorily, after the way in whichsuch things affect the senses, whether the carnal senses of animalsand men, or even the heavenly senses of the angels.

11. For that the ApostlePaul, when speaking outwardly of the sex of male and female, figuredthe 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 isdesolate, without children and nephews, and yet that she ought totrust in God, and to continue in prayers night and day, [2] he here indicates, that the woman having beenbrought into the transgression by being deceived, is brought tosalvation by child-bearing; and then he has added, “Ifthey continue in faith, and charity, and holiness, withsobriety.” [3] As if it could possiblyhurt a good widow, if either she had not sons, or if those whom shehad did not choose to continue in good works. But because thosethings which are called good works are, as it were, the sons of ourlife, according to that sense of life in which it answers to thequestion, What is a man’s life? that is, How does he actin these temporal things? which life the Greeks do not callξωή butβίος; and because thesegood works are chiefly performed in the way of offices of mercy,while works of mercy are of no profit, either to Pagans, or to Jewswho do not believe in Christ, or to any heretics or schismaticswhatsoever in whom faith and charity and sober holiness are notfound: what the apostle meant to signify is plain, and in so farfiguratively and mystically, because he was speaking of covering thehead of the woman, which will remain mere empty words, unlessreferred to some hidden sacrament.

12. For, as not only mosttrue reason but also the authority of the apostle himself declares,man was not made in the image of God according to the shape of hisbody, but according to his rational mind. For the thought is adebased and empty one, which holds God to be circumscribed andlimited by the lineaments of bodily members. But further, does notthe same blessed apostle say, “Be renewed in the spiritof your mind, and put on the new man, which is created afterGod;” [4] and in another placemore clearly, “Putting off the old man,” hesays, “with his deeds; put on the new man, which isrenewed to the knowledge of God after the image of Him that createdhim?” [5] If, then, we arerenewed in the spirit of our mind, and he is the new man who isrenewed to the knowledge of God after the image of Him that createdhim; no one can doubt, that man was made after the image of Him thatcreated him, not according to the body, nor indiscriminatelyaccording to any part of the mind, but according to the rationalmind, wherein the knowledge of God can exist. And it is according tothis renewal, also, that we are made sons of God by the baptism ofChrist; and putting on the new man, certainly put on Christ throughfaith. Who is there, then, who will holdwomen to be alien from this fellowship, whereas they arefellow-heirs of grace with us; and whereas in another place the sameapostle says, “For ye are all the children of God byfaith in Christ Jesus; for as many as have been baptized into Christhave put on Christ: there is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neitherbond nor free, there is neither male nor female; for ye are all onein Christ Jesus?” [1] Pray, have faithfulwomen then lost their bodily sex? But because they are there renewedafter the image of God, where there is no sex; man is there madeafter the image of God, where there is no sex, that is, in thespirit of his mind. Why, then, is the man on that account not boundto cover his head, because he is the image and glory of God, whilethe woman is bound to do so, because she is the glory of the man; asthough the woman were not renewed in the spirit of her mind, whichspirit is renewed to the knowledge of God after the image of Him whocreated him? But because she differs from the man in bodily sex, itwas possible rightly to represent under her bodily covering thatpart of the reason which is diverted to the government of temporalthings; so that the image of God may remain on that side of the mindof man on which it cleaves to the beholding or the consulting of theeternal reasons of things; and this, it is clear, not men only, butalso women have.

CHAP. 8.—: TURNING ASIDE FROM THE IMAGE OF GOD.

13. A common nature,therefore, is recognized in their minds, but in their bodies adivision of that one mind itself is figured. As we ascend, then, bycertain steps of thought within, along the succession of the partsof the mind, there where something first meets us which is notcommon to ourselves with the beasts reason begins, so that here theinner man can now be recognized. And if this inner man himself,through that reason to which the administering of things temporalhas been delegated, slips on too far by over-much progress intooutward things, that which is his head moreover consenting, that is,the (so to call it) masculine part which presides in the watch-towerof counsel not restraining or bridling it: then he waxeth oldbecause of all his enemies, [2] viz. the demons with their prince the devil,who are envious of virtue; and that vision of eternal things iswithdrawn also from the head himself, eating with his spouse thatwhich was forbidden, so that the light of his eyes is gone fromhim; [3] and so both being naked from thatenlightenment of truth, and with the eyes of their conscience openedto behold how they were left shameful and unseemly, like the leavesof sweet fruits, but without the fruits themselves, they so weavetogether good words without the fruit of good works, as while livingwickedly to cover over their disgrace as it were by speakingwell. [4]

CHAP. 9.—: THE SAME ARGUMENT IS CONTINUED.

14. For the soul loving itsown 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,” [5] whereas it might have been most excellentlygoverned by the laws of God, if it had followed Him as its ruler inthe universal creature, by seeking something more than the whole,and struggling to govern this by a law of its own, is thrust on,since nothing is more than the whole, into caring for a part; andthus by lusting after something more, is made less; whence alsocovetousness is called “the root of allevil.” [6] And it administers thatwhole, wherein it strives to do something of its own against thelaws by which the whole is governed, by its own body, which itpossesses only in part; and so being delighted by corporeal formsand motions, because it has not the things themselves within itself,and because it is wrapped up in their images, which it has fixed inthe memory, and is foully polluted by fornication of the phantasy,while it refers all its functions to those ends, for which itcuriously seeks corporeal and temporal things through the senses ofthe body, either it affects with swelling arrogance to be moreexcellent than other souls that are given up to the corporealsenses, or it is plunged into a foul whirlpool of carnalpleasure.

CHAP. 10.—: THE LOWEST DEGRADATION IS REACHED BYDEGREES.

15. When the soul thenconsults either for itself or for others with a good will towardsperceiving the inner and higher things, such as are possessed in achaste embrace, without any narrowness or envy, not individually,but in common by all who love such things; then even if it bedeceived in anything, through ignorance of things temporal (for itsaction in this case is a temporal one), and if it does not hold fastto that mode of acting which it ought, the temptation is but onecommon 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, thatno temptation may take us, but whatis common to man. [1] For this is a sinwithout the body, and must not be reckoned fornication, and on thataccount is very easily pardoned. But when the soul does anything inorder to attain those things which are perceived through the body,through lust of proving or of surpassing or of handling them, inorder that it may place in them its final good, then whatever itdoes, it does wickedly, and commits fornication, sinning against itsown body: [2] and while snatching from within the deceitfulimages of corporeal things, and combining them by vain thought, sothat nothing seems to it to be divine, unless it be of such a kindas this; by selfish greediness it is made fruitful in errors, and byselfish prodigality it is emptied of strength. Yet it would not leapon at once from the commencement to such shameless and miserablefornication, but, as it is written, “He that contemnethsmall things, shall fall by little and little.” [3]

CHAP. 11.—: THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST IN MAN.

16. For as a snake does notcreep on with open steps, but advances by the very minutest effortsof its several scales; so the slippery motion of falling away[from what is good] takes possession of thenegligent only gradually, and beginning from a perverse desire forthe likeness of God, arrives in the end at the likeness of beasts.Hence it is that being naked of their first garment, they earned bymortality coats of skins. [4] For the true honor ofman is the image and likeness of God, which is not preserved exceptit be in relation to Him by whom it is impressed. The less thereforethat one loves what is one’s own, the more one cleaves toGod. But through the desire of making trial of his own power, man byhis own bidding falls down to himself as to a sort of intermediategrade. And so, while he wishes to be as God is, that is, under noone, he is thrust on, even from his own middle grade, by way ofpunishment, to that which is lowest, that is, to those things inwhich beasts delight: and thus, while his honor is the likeness ofGod, but his dishonor is the likeness of the beast, “Manbeing in honor abideth not: he is compared to the beasts that arefoolish, and is made like to them.” [5] By what path, then,could he pass so great a distance from the highest to the lowest,except through his own intermediate grade? For when he neglects thelove of wisdom, which remains always after the same fashion, andlusts after knowledge by experiment upon things temporal andmutable, that knowledge puffeth up, it does not edify: [6] so the mind is overweighed and thrust out, as itwere, by its own weight from blessedness; and learns by its ownpunishment, through that trial of its own intermediateness, what thedifference is between the good it has abandoned and the bad to whichit has committed itself; and having thrown away and destroyed itsstrength, it cannot return, unless by the grace of its Maker callingit to repentance, and forgiving its sins. For who will deliver theunhappy soul from the body of this death, unless the grace of Godthrough Jesus Christ our Lord? [7] Of which grace wewill discourse in its place, so far as He Himself enables us.

CHAP. 12.—: THERE IS A KIND OF HIDDEN WEDLOCK IN THE INNERMAN. UNLAWFUL PLEASURES OF THE THOUGHTS.

17. Let us now complete, sofar 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 necessaryfor managing the affairs of this life. For as in the case of thatvisible wedlock of the two human beings who were made first, theserpent did not eat of the forbidden tree, but only persuaded themto eat of it; and the woman did not eat alone, but gave to herhusband, and they eat together; although she alone spoke with theserpent, and she alone was led away by him: [8] so also in the case ofthat hidden and secret kind of wedlock, which is transacted anddiscerned in a single human being, the carnal, or as I may say,since it is directed to the senses of the body, the sensuousmovement of the soul, which is common to us with beasts, is shut offfrom the reason of wisdom. For certainly bodily things are perceivedby the sense of the body; but spiritual things, which are eternaland unchangeable, are understood by the reason of wisdom. But thereason of knowledge has appetite very near to it: seeing that whatis called the science or knowledge of actions reasons concerning thebodily things which are perceived by the bodily sense; if well, inorder that it may refer that knowledge to the end of the chief good;but if ill, in order that it may enjoy them as being such goodthings as those wherein it reposes with a false blessedness.Whenever, then, that carnal or animal sense introduces into thispurpose of the mind which is conversant about things temporal andcorporeal, with a view to the offices ofa man’s actions, by the living force of reason, someinducement to enjoy itself, that is, to enjoy itself as if it weresome private good of its own, not as the public and common, which isthe unchangeable, good; then, as it were, the serpent discourseswith the woman. And to consent to this allurement, is to eat of theforbidden tree. But if that consent is satisfied by the pleasure ofthought alone, but the members are so restrained by the authority ofhigher counsel that they are not yielded as instruments ofunrighteousness unto sin; [1] this, I think, is to beconsidered as if the woman alone should have eaten the forbiddenfood. But if, in this consent to use wickedly the things which areperceived through the senses of the body, any sin at all is sodetermined upon, that if there is the power it is also fulfilled bythe body; then that woman must be understood to have given theunlawful food to her husband with her, to be eaten together. For itis not possible for the mind to determine that a sin is not only tobe thought of with pleasure, but also to be effectually committed,unless also that intention of the mind yields, and serves the badaction, with which rests the chief power of applying the members toan outward act, or of restraining them from one.

18. And yet, certainly, whenthe mind is pleased in thought alone with unlawful things, while notindeed determining that they are to be done, but yet holding andpondering gladly things which ought to have been rejected the verymoment they touched the mind, it cannot be denied to be a sin, butfar less than if it were also determined to accomplished it inoutward act. And therefore pardon must be sought for such thoughtstoo, and the breast must be smitten, and it must be said,“Forgive us our debts;” and what follows mustbe done, and must be joined in our prayer, “As we alsoforgive our debtors.” [2] For it is not as it waswith those two first human beings, of which each one bare his ownperson; and so, if the woman alone had eaten the forbidden food, shecertainly alone would have been smitten with the punishment ofdeath: it cannot, I say, be so said also in the case of a singlehuman being now, that if the thought, remaining alone, be gladly fedwith unlawful pleasures, from which it ought to turn away directly,while yet there is no determination that the bad actions are to bedone, but only that they are retained with pleasure in remembrance,the woman as it were can be condemned without the man. Far be itfrom us to believe this. For here is one person, one human being,and he as a whole will be condemned, unless those things which, aslacking the will to do, and yet having the will to please the mindwith them, are perceived to be sins of thought alone, are pardonedthrough the grace of the Mediator. [3]

19. This reasoning, then,whereby we have sought in the mind of each several human being acertain rational wedlock of contemplation and action, with functionsdistributed through each severally, yet with the unity of the mindpreserved in both; saving meanwhile the truth of that history which divine testimony hands downrespecting the first two human beings, that is, the man and hiswife, from whom the human species is propagated; [4] —this reasoning, I say, mustbe listened to only thus far, that the apostle may be understood tohave intended to signify something to be sought in one individualman, by assigning the image of God to the man only, and not also tothe woman, although in the merely different sex of two humanbeings.

CHAP. 13.—: THE OPINION OF THOSE WHO HAVE THOUGHT THAT THEMIND 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 faithand expounders of the word of God, while they looked for these twothings in one human being, whose entire soul they perceived to be asort of excellent paradise, asserted that the man was the mind, butthat the woman was the bodily sense. And according to thisdistribution, by which the man is assumed to be the mind, but thewoman the bodily sense, all things seem aptly to agree together ifthey are handled with due attention: unless that it is written, thatin all the beasts and flying things there was not found for man anhelpmate like to himself; and then the woman was made out of hisside. [5] And on this account I, for my part, havenot thought that the bodily sense should be taken for the woman,which we see to be common to ourselves and to the beasts; but I havedesired to find something which the beasts had not; and I haverather thought the bodily sense should be understood to be theserpent, whom we read to have been more subtle than all beasts ofthe field. [6] For in those natural good things which we seeare common to ourselves and to theirrational animals, the sense excels by a kind of living power; notthe sense of which it is written in the epistle addressed to theHebrews, where we read, that “strong meat belongeth tothem that are of full age, even those who by reason of use havetheir senses exercised to discern both good andevil;” [1] for these“senses” belong to the rational nature andpertain to the understanding; but that sense which is divided intofive parts in the body, through which corporeal species and motionis perceived not only by ourselves, but also by the beasts.

21. But whether that theapostle calls the man the image and glory of God, but the woman theglory of the man, [2] is to be received inthis, or that, or in any other way; yet it is clear, that when welive according to God, our mind which is intent on the invisiblethings of Him ought to be fashioned with proficiency from Hiseternity, truth, charity; but that something of our own rationalpurpose, that is, of the same mind, must be directed to the using ofchangeable and corporeal things, without which this life does not goon; not that we may be conformed to this world, [3] by placing our end insuch good things, and by forcing the desire of blessedness towardsthem, but that whatever we do rationally in the using of temporalthings, we may do it with the contemplation of attaining eternalthings, passing through the former, but cleaving to the latter.

CHAP. 14.—: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WISDOM ANDKNOWLEDGE. THE WORSHIP OF GOD IS THE LOVE OF HIM. HOW THE INTELLECTUALCOGNIZANCE OF ETERNAL THINGS COMES TO PASS THROUGH WISDOM.

For knowledge also has its own good measure, if that in it whichpuffs up, or is wont to puff up, is conquered by love of eternalthings, which does not puff up, but, as we know, edifieth. [4] Certainly without knowledge the virtuesthemselves, by which one lives rightly, cannot be possessed, bywhich this miserable life may be so governed, that we may attain tothat eternal life which is truly blessed.

22. Yet action, by which weuse temporal things well, differs from contemplation of eternalthings; and the latter is reckoned to wisdom, the former toknowledge. For although that which is wisdom can also be calledknowledge, as the apostle too speaks, where he says, “NowI know in part, but then shall I know even as also I amknown;” [5] when doubtless hemeant his words to be understood of the knowledge of thecontemplation of God, which will be the highest reward of thesaints; yet where he says, “For to one is given by theSpirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of knowledge by thesame Spirit,” [6] certainly hedistinguishes without doubt these two things, although he does notthere explain the difference, nor in what way one may be discernedfrom the other. But having examined a great number of passages fromthe Holy Scriptures, I find it written in the Book of Job, that holyman being the speaker, “Behold, piety, that is wisdom;but to depart from evil is knowledge.” [7] In thus distinguishing, it must be understood thatwisdom belongs to contemplation, knowledge to action. For in thisplace he meant by piety the worship of God, which in Greek is calledθεοσέβεια.For the sentence in the Greek MSS. has that word.And what is there in eternal things more excellent than God, of whomalone the nature is unchangeable? And what is the worship of Himexcept the love of Him, by which we now desire to see Him, and webelieve and hope that we shall see Him; and in proportion as we makeprogress, see now through a glass in an enigma, but then inclearness? For this is what the Apostle Paul means by“face to face.” [8] This is also whatJohn says, “Beloved, now we are the sons of God, and itdoth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when Heshall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as Heis.” [9] Discourse about theseand the like subjects seems to me to be the discourse itself ofwisdom. But to depart from evil, which Job says is knowledge, iswithout doubt of temporal things. Since it is in reference to time[and this world] that we are in evil, fromwhich we ought to abstain that we may come to those good eternalthings. And therefore, whatsoever we do prudently, boldly,temperately, and justly, belongs to that knowledge or disciplinewherewith our action is conversant in avoiding evil and desiringgood; and so also, whatsoever we gather by the knowledge that comesfrom inquiry, in the way of examples either to be guarded against orto be imitated, and in the way of necessary proofs respecting anysubject, accommodated to our use.

23. When a discourse thenrelates to these things, I hold it to be a discourse belonging toknowledge, and to be distinguished from a discourse belonging towisdom, to which those things belong, which neither have been, nor shall be, but are; and on account ofthat eternity in which they are, are said to have been, and to be,and to be about to be, without any changeableness of times. Forneither have they been in such way as that they should cease to be,nor are they about to be in such way as if they were not now; butthey have always had and always will have that very absolute being.And they abide, but not as if fixed in some place as are bodies; butas intelligible things in incorporeal nature, they are so at hand tothe glance of the mind, as things visible or tangible in place areto the sense of the body. And not only in the case of sensiblethings posited in place, there abide also intelligible andincorporeal reasons of them apart from local space; but also ofmotions that pass by in successive times, apart from any transit intime, there stand also like reasons, themselves certainlyintelligible, and not sensible. And to attain to these with the eyeof the mind is the lot of few; and when they are attained as much asthey can be, he himself who attains to them does not abide in them,but is as it were repelled by the rebounding of the eye itself ofthe mind, and so there comes to be a transitory thought of a thingnot transitory. And yet this transient thought is committed to thememory through the instructions by which the mind is taught; thatthe mind which is compelled to pass from thence, may be able toreturn thither again; although, if the thought should not return tothe memory and find there what it had committed to it, it would beled thereto like an uninstructed person, as it had been led before,and would find it where it had first found it, that is to say, inthat incorporeal truth, whence yet once more it may be as it werewritten down and fixed in the mind. For the thought of man, forexample, does not so abide in that incorporeal and unchangeablereason of a square body, as that reason itself abides: if, to besure, it could attain to it at all without the phantasy of localspace. Or if one were to apprehend the rhythm of any artificial ormusical sound, passing through certain intervals of time, as itrested without time in some secret and deep silence, it could atleast be thought as long as that song could be heard; yet what theglance of the mind, transient though it was, caught from thence,and, absorbing as it were into a belly, so laid up in the memory,over this it will be able to ruminate in some measure byrecollection, and to transfer what it has thus learned intosystematic knowledge. But if this has been blotted out by absoluteforgetfulness, yet once again, under the guidance of teaching, onewill come to that which had altogether dropped away, and it will befound such as it was.

CHAP. 15.—: IN OPPOSITION TO THE REMINISCENCE OF PLATO ANDPYTHAGORAS. PYTHAGORAS THE SAMIAN. OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WISDOM ANDKNOWLEDGE, AND OF SEEKING THE TRINITY IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF TEMPORALTHINGS.

24. And hence that noblephilosopher Plato endeavored to persuade us that the souls of menlived even before they bare these bodies; and that hence thosethings which are learnt are rather remembered, as having been knownalready, than taken into knowledge as things new. For he has told usthat 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 tobe seen, and said that which he saw. [1] But if this had been arecollecting of things previously known, then certainly every one,or almost every one, would not have been able so to answer whenquestioned. For not every one was a geometrician in the former life,since geometricians are so few among men that scarcely one can befound anywhere. But we ought rather to believe, that theintellectual mind is so formed in its nature as to see those things,which by the disposition of the Creator are subjoined to thingsintelligible in a natural order, by a sort of incorporeal light ofan unique kind; as the eye of the flesh sees things adjacent toitself in this bodily light, of which light it is made to bereceptive, and adapted to it. For none the more does this fleshlyeye, too, distinguish black things from white without a teacher,because it had already known them before it was created in thisflesh. Why, lastly, is it possible only in intelligible things thatany one properly questioned should answer according to any branch oflearning, although ignorant of it? Why can no one do this withthings sensible, except those which he has seen in this his presentbody, or has believed the information of others who knew them,whether somebody’s writings or words? For we must notacquiesce in their story, who assert that the Samian Pythagorasrecollected some things of this kind, which he had experienced whenhe was previously here in another body; and others tell yet ofothers, that they experienced something of the same sort in their minds: but it may be conjectured thatthese were untrue recollections, such as we commonly experience insleep, when we fancy we remember, as though we had done or seen it,what we never did or saw at all; and that the minds of thesepersons, even though awake, were affected in this way at thesuggestion of malignant and deceitful spirits, whose care it is toconfirm or to sow some false belief concerning the changes of souls,in order to deceive men. This, I say, may be conjectured from this,that if they really remembered those things which they had seen herebefore, while occupying other bodies, the same thing would happen tomany, nay to almost all; since they suppose that as the dead fromthe living, so, without cessation and continually, the living arecoming into existence from the dead; as sleepers from those that areawake, and those that are awake from them that sleep.

25. If therefore this is theright distinction between wisdom and knowledge, that theintellectual cognizance of eternal things belongs to wisdom, but therational cognizance of temporal things to knowledge, it is notdifficult to judge which is to be preferred or postponed to which.But if we must employ some other distinction by which to know thesetwo apart, which without doubt the apostle teaches us are different,saying, “To one is given by the Spirit the word ofwisdom; to another the word of knowledge, by the sameSpirit;” still the difference between those two which wehave laid down is a most evident one, in that the intellectualcognizance of eternal things is one thing, the rational cognizanceof temporal things another; and no one doubts but that the former isto be preferred to the latter. As then we leave behind those thingswhich belong to the outer man, and desire to ascend within fromthose things which we have in common with beasts, before we come tothe cognizance of things intelligible and supreme, which areeternal, the rational cognizance of temporal things presents itself.Let us then find a trinity in this also, if we can, as we found onein the senses of the body, and in those things which through thementered in the way of images into our soul or spirit; so thatinstead of corporeal things which we touch by corporeal sense,placed as they are without us, we might have resemblances of bodiesimpressed within on the memory from which thought might be formed,while the will as a third united them; just as the sight of the eyeswas formed from without, which the will applied to the visible thingin order to produce vision, and united both, while itself also addeditself thereto as a third. But this subject must not be compressedinto this book; so that in that which follows, if God help, it maybe suitably examined, and the conclusions to which we come may beunfolded.

BOOK XIII.

THE INQUIRY IS PROSECUTED RESPECTING KNOWLEDGE, INWHICH, AS DISTINGUISHED FROM WISDOM, AUGUSTIN HAD BEGUN IN THEFORMER BOOK TO LOOK FOR A KIND OF TRINITY. AND OCCASION IS TAKENOF COMMENDING CHRISTIAN FAITH, AND OF EXPLAINING HOW THE FAITHOF BELIEVERS IS ONE AND COMMON. NEXT, THAT ALL DESIREBLESSEDNESS, YET THAT ALL HAVE NOT THE FAITH WHEREBY WE ARRIVEAT BLESSEDNESS; AND THAT THIS FAITH IS DEFINED IN CHRIST, WHO INTHE FLESH ROSE FROM THE DEAD; AND THAT NO ONE IS SET FREE FROMTHE DOMINION OF THE DEVIL THROUGH FORGIVENESS OF SINS, SAVETHROUGH HIM. IT IS SHOWN ALSO AT LENGTH THAT IT WAS NEEDFUL THATTHE DEVIL SHOULD BE CONQUERED BY CHRIST, NOT BY POWER, BUT BYRIGHTEOUSNESS. FINALLY, THAT WHEN THE WORDS OF THIS FAITH ARECOMMITTED 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 FORMEDTHEREUPON WHEN HE THINKS OF THEM; AND, LASTLY, THE WILL, WHEN HESO THINKS AND REMEMBERS, COMBINES BOTH.

CHAP. 1.—: THE ATTEMPT IS MADE TO DISTINGUISH OUT OF THESCRIPTURES THE OFFICES OF WISDOM AND OF KNOWLEDGE. THAT IN THE BEGINNINGOF 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 THEFAITH THAT IS IN US. IN THE SAME NARRATIVE OF JOHN, SOME THINGS AREKNOWN BY THE SENSE OF THE BODY, OTHERS ONLY BY THE REASON OF THEMIND.

1. IN the book before this, viz. the twelfth of this work, we have done enough todistinguish the office of the rational mind in temporal things,wherein not only our knowing but our action is concerned, from themore excellent office of the same mind, which is employed incontemplating eternal things, and is limited to knowing alone. But Ithink it more convenient that I should insert somewhat out of theHoly Scriptures, by which the two may more easily bedistinguished.

2. John the Evangelist hasthus begun his Gospel: “In the beginning was the Word,and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in thebeginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him wasnot anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life wasthe light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and thedarkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whosename was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of theLight, that all men through Him might believe. He was not thatLight, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the trueLight, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He wasin the world, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Himnot. He came unto His own, and His own received Him not. But as manyas 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 ofblood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but ofGod. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us (and we beheldHis glory, the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father), full ofgrace and truth.” [1] This entire passage,which I have here taken from the Gospel,contains in its earlier portions what is immutable and eternal, thecontemplation of which makes us blessed; but in those which follow,eternal things are mentioned in conjunction with temporal things.And hence some things there belong to knowledge, some to wisdom,according to our previous distinction in the twelfth book. For thewords,—“In the beginning was the Word, and theWord was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in thebeginning with God. All things were made by Him; and without Him wasnot anything made that was made. In Him was life; and the life wasthe light of men. And the light shineth in darkness, and thedarkness comprehended it not:”—require acontemplative life, and must be discerned by the intellectual mind;and the more any one has profited in this, the wiser without doubtwill he become. But on account of the verse, “The lightshineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehended itnot,” faith certainly was necessary, whereby that whichwas not seen might be believed. For by“darkness” he intended to signify the heartsof mortals turned away from light of this kind, and hardly able tobehold it; for which reason he subjoins, “There was a mansent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, tobear witness of the Light, that all men through Him mightbelieve.” But here we come to a thing that was done intime, and belongs to knowledge, which is comprised in the cognizanceof facts. And we think of the man John under that phantasy which isimpressed on our memory from the notion of human nature. And whethermen believe or not, they think this in the same manner. For bothalike know what man is, the outer part of whom, that is, his body,they have learned through the eyes of the body; but of the inner,that is, the soul, they possess the knowledge in themselves, becausethey also themselves are men, and through intercourse with men; sothat they are able to think what is said, “There was aman, whose name was John,” because they know the namesalso by interchange of speech. But that which is there also, viz. “sent from God,”they who hold at all, hold by faith; and they who do not hold it byfaith, either hesitate through doubt, or deride it through unbelief.Yet both, if they are not in the number of those over-foolish ones,who say in their heart “There is no God,” [1] when they hear these words, think both things, viz. both what God is, and what it is to besent from God; and if they do not do this as the things themselvesreally are, they do it at any rate as they can.

3. Further, we know fromother sources the faith itself which a man sees to be in his ownheart, 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, andthink of even when absent through the images of themselves which weretain in memory; nor yet as those things which we have not seen,and which we frame howsoever we can in thought from those which wehave seen, and commit them to memory, that we may recur to them whenwe will, in order that therein we may similarly by recollectiondiscern them, or rather discern the images of them, of what sortsoever these are which we have fixed there; nor again as a livingman, 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 inwhich it is, by him whose it is; but most certain knowledge holds itfast, and conscience proclaims it. Although therefore we are biddento believe on this account, because we cannot see what we are biddento believe; nevertheless we see faith itself in ourselves, when thatfaith is in us; because faith even in absent things is present, andfaith in things which are without us is within, and faith in thingswhich are not seen is itself, seen, and itself none the less comesinto the hearts of men in time; and if any cease to be faithful andbecome unbelievers, then it perishes from them. And sometimes faithis accommodated even to falsehoods; for we sometimes so speak as tosay, 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 heartwithout blame, when truth is found and expels it. But faith inthings that are true, passes, as one should wish it to pass, intothe things themselves. For we must not say that faith perishes, whenthose things which were believed are seen. For is it indeed still tobe called faith, when faith, according to the definition in theEpistle to the Hebrews, is the evidence of things not seen? [2]

4. In the words which follownext, “The same came for a witness, to bear witness ofthe Light, that all men through him might believe;” theaction, as we have said, is one done in time. For to bear witnesseven to that which is eternal, as is that light that isintelligible, is a thing done in time. And of this it was that John came to bear witness, who“was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of thatLight.” For he adds, “That was the true Lightthat lighteth every man that cometh into the world. He was in theworld, and the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. Hecame unto His own, and His own received Him not.” Nowthey who know the Latin language, understand all these words, fromthose things which they know: and of these, some have become knownto us through the senses of the body, as man, as the world itself,of which the greatness is so evident to our sight; as again thesounds of the words themselves, for hearing also is a sense of thebody; and some through the reason of the mind, as that which issaid, “And His own received Him not;” for thismeans, that they did not believe in Him; and what belief is, we donot know by any sense of the body, but by the reason of the mind. Wehave learned, too, not the sounds, but the meanings of the wordsthemselves, partly through the sense of the body, partly through thereason of the mind. Nor have we now heard those words for the firsttime, but they are words we had heard before. And we were retainingin our memory as things known, and we here recognized, not only thewords themselves, but also what they meant. For when the bisyllabicword mundus is uttered, then something that iscertainly corporeal, for it is a sound, has become known through thebody, that is, through the ear. But that which it means also, hasbecome known through the body, that is, through the eyes of theflesh. For so far as the world is known to us at all, it is knownthrough sight. But the quadri-syllabic word crediderunt reaches us, so far as its sound, since that isa corporeal thing, through the ear of the flesh; but its meaning isdiscoverable by no sense of the body, but by the reason of the mind.For unless we knew through the mind what the word crediderunt meant, we should not understand what they didnot do, of whom it is said, “And His own received Himnot.” The sound then of the word rings upon the ears ofthe body from without, and reaches the sense which is calledhearing. The species also of man is both known to us in ourselves,and is presented to the senses of the body from without, in othermen; to the eyes, when it is seen; to the ears, when it is heard; tothe touch, when it is held and touched; and it has, too, its imagein our memory, incorporeal indeed, but like the body. Lastly, thewonderful beauty of the world itself is at hand from without, bothto our gaze, and to that sense which is called touch, if we come incontact with any of it: and this also has its image within in ourmemory, to which we revert, when we think of it either in theenclosure of a room, or again in darkness. But we have alreadysufficiently spoken in the eleventh book of these images ofcorporeal things; incorporeal indeed, yet having the likeness ofbodies, and belonging to the life of the outer man. But we aretreating now of the inner man, and of his knowledge, namely, thatknowledge which is of things temporal and changeable; into thepurpose and scope of which, when anything is assumed, even of thingsbelonging to the outer man, it must be assumed for this end, thatsomething may thence be taught which may help rational knowledge.And hence the rational use of those things which we have in commonwith irrational animals belongs to the inner man; neither can itrightly be said that this is common to us with the irrationalanimals.

CHAP. 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 OFBELIEVERS IS ONE, NO OTHERWISE THAN THE WILL OF THOSE WHO WILL ISONE.

5. But faith, of which weare compelled, by reason of the arrangement of our subject, todispute somewhat more at length in this book: faith I say, whichthey who have are called the faithful, and they who have not,unbelievers, as were those who did not receive the Son of God comingto His own; although it is wrought in us by hearing, yet does notbelong to that sense of the body which is called hearing, since itis not a sound; nor to the eyes of this our flesh, since it isneither 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 withoutapart from us, but deeply seated within us; nor does any man see itin another, but each one in himself. Lastly, it is a thing that canboth be feigned by pretence, and be thought to be in him in whom itis not. Therefore every one sees his own faith in himself; but doesnot see, but believes, that it is in another; and believes this themore firmly, the more he knows the fruits of it, which faith is wontto work by love. [1] And therefore this faith iscommon to all of whom the evangelist subjoins, “But asmany as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons ofGod, even to them that believe on His name: which were born, not ofblood, nor of the will of the flesh,nor of the will of man, but of God;” common I say, not asany form of a bodily object is common, as regards sight, to the eyesof all to whom it is present, for in some way the gaze of all thatbehold it is informed by the same one form; but as the humancountenance can be said to be common to all men; for this is sosaid, that yet each certainly has his own. We say certainly withperfect truth, that the faith of believers is impressed from onedoctrine upon the heart of each several person who believes the samething. But that which is believed is a different thing from thefaith by which it is believed. For the former is in things which aresaid either to be, or to have been, or to be about to be; but thelatter is in the mind of the believer, and is visible to him onlywhose it is; although not indeed itself, but a faith like it, isalso in others. For it is not one in number, but in kind; yet onaccount of the likeness, and the absence of all difference, werather call it one than many. For when, too, we see two menexceedingly alike, we wonder, and say that both have onecountenance. It is therefore more easily said that the souls weremany,—a several soul, of course, for each severalperson—of whom we read in the Acts of the Apostles, thatthey were of one soul, [1] —than it is,where the apostle speaks of “one faith,” [2] for any one to venture to say that there are asmany faiths as there are faithful. And yet He who says,“O woman, great is thy faith;” [3] and to another, “O thou of littlefaith, wherefore didst thou doubt?” [4] intimates that each hashis own faith. But the like faith of believers is said to be one, inthe same way as a like will of those who will is said to be one;since in the case also of those who have the same will, the will ofeach is visible to himself, but that of the other is not visible,although he wills the same thing; and if it intimate itself by anysigns, it is believed rather than seen. But each being conscious ofhis own mind certainly does not believe, but manifestly seesoutright, that this is his own will.

CHAP. 3.—: SOME DESIRES BEING THE SAME IN ALL, ARE KNOWNTO EACH. THE POET ENNIUS.

6. There is, indeed, soclosely conspiring a harmony in the same nature living and usingreason, that although one knows not what the other wills, yet thereare some wills of all which are also known to each; and althougheach man does not know what any other one man wills, yet in somethings he may know what all will. And hence comes that story of thecomic actor’s witty joke, who promised that he would sayin the theatre, in some other play, what all had in their minds, andwhat all willed; and when a still greater crowd had come together onthe day appointed, with great expectation, all being in suspense andsilent, is affirmed to have said: You will to buy cheap, and selldear. And mean actor though he was, yet all in his words recognizedwhat themselves were conscious of, and applauded him with wonderfulgoodwill, for saying before the eyes of all what was confessedlytrue, yet what no one looked for. And why was so great expectationraised 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 heknow that will? Is there any one who does not know it? Yet why,unless because there are some things which not unfitly eachconjectures from himself to be in others, through sympathy oragreement either in vice or virtue? But it is one thing to seeone’s own will; another to conjecture, however certainly,what is another’s. For, in human affairs, I am as certainthat Rome was built as that Constantinople was, although I have seenRome with my eyes, but know nothing of the other city, except what Ihave believed on the testimony of others. And truly that comic actorbelieved 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 thecounter virtue, or run into the mischief of some other fault whichis contrary to it, whereby to resist and conquer it. For I myselfknow a case where a manuscript was offered to a man for purchase,who perceived that the vendor was ignorant of its value, and wastherefore 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 asto sell cheap what his parents left to him, and to buy dear, inorder to waste it on his own lusts? Such wanton extravagance, Ifancy, is not incredible; and if such men are sought, they may befound, or even fall in one’s way although not sought;who, by a wickedness more than that of the theatre, make a mock ofthe theatrical proposition or declaration, by buying dishonor at agreat price, while selling lands at a small one. We have heard, too,of persons that, for the sake of distribution, have bought corn at ahigher price, and sold it to theirfellow-citizens at a lower one. And note also what the old poetEnnius has said: that “all mortals wish themselves to bepraised;” wherein, doubtless, he conjectured what was inothers, both by himself, and by those whom he knew by experience;and so seems to have declared what it is that all men will. Lastly,if that comic actor himself, too, had said, You all will to bepraised, no one of you wills to be abused; he would have seemed inlike manner to have expressed what all will. Yet there are some whohate their own faults, and do not desire to be praised by others forthat for which they are displeased with themselves; and who thankthe kindness of those who rebuke them, when the purpose of thatrebuke is their own amendment. But if he had said, You all will tobe blessed, you do not will to be wretched; he would have saidsomething which there is no one that would not recognize in his ownwill. For whatever else a man may will secretly, he does notwithdraw from that will, which is well known to all men, and wellknown to be in all men.

CHAP. 4.—: THE WILL TO POSSESS BLESSEDNESS IS ONE IN ALL,BUT THE VARIETY OF WILLS IS VERY GREAT CONCERNING THAT BLESSEDNESSITSELF.

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 ofwills concerning that blessedness itself; not that any one isunwilling to have it, but that all do not know it. For if all knewit, it would not be thought by some to be in goodness of mind; byothers, in pleasure of body; by others, in both; and by some in onething, by others in another. For as men find special delight in thisthing or that, so have they placed in it their idea of a blessedlife. How, then, do all love so warmly what not all know? Who canlove what he does not know?—a subject which I havealready discussed in the preceding books. [1] Why,therefore, is blessedness loved by all, when it is not known by all?Is it perhaps that all know what it is itself, but all do not knowwhere it is to be found, and that the dispute arises fromthis?—as if, forsooth, the business was about some placein this world, where every one ought to will to live who wills tolive blessedly; and as if the question where blessedness is were notimplied in the question what it is. For certainly, if it is in thepleasure of the body, he is blessed who enjoys the pleasure of thebody; if in goodness of mind, he has it who enjoys this; if in both,he who enjoys both. When, therefore, one says, to live blessedly isto enjoy the pleasure of the body; but another, to live blessedly isto enjoy goodness of mind; is it not, that either both know, or bothdo not know, what a blessed life is? How, then, do both love it, ifno one can love what he does not know? Or is that perhaps falsewhich we have assumed to be most true and most certain, viz. that all men will to live blessedly? Forif to live blessedly is, for argument’s sake, to liveaccording to goodness of mind, how does he will to live blessedlywho does not will this? Should we not say more truly, That man doesnot will to live blessedly, because he does not wish to liveaccording to goodness, which alone is to live blessedly? Thereforeall men do not will to live blessedly; on the contrary, few wish it;if to live blessedly is nothing else but to live according togoodness of mind, which many do not will to do. Shall we, then, holdthat to be false of which the Academic Cicero himself did not doubt(although Academics doubt every thing), who, when he wanted in thedialogue Hortensius to find some certain thing,of which no one doubted, from which to start his argument, says, Wecertainly all will to be blessed? Far be it from me to say this isfalse. But what then? Are we to say that, although there is no otherway of living blessedly than living according to goodness of mind,yet even he who does not will this, wills to live blessedly? This,indeed, seems too absurd. For it is much as if we should say, Evenhe who does not will to live blessedly, wills to live blessedly. Whocould listen to, who could endure, such a contradiction? And yetnecessity thrusts us into this strait, if it is both true that allwill to live blessedly, and yet all do not will to live in that wayin which alone one can live blessedly.

CHAP. 5.—: OF THE SAME THING.

8. Or is, perhaps, thedeliverance from our difficulties to be found in this, that, sincewe have said that every one places his idea of a blessed life inthat which has most pleased him, as pleasure pleased Epicurus, andgoodness Zeno, and something else pleased other people, we say thatto live blessedly is nothing else but to live according toone’s own pleasure: so that it is not false that all willto live blessedly, because all will that which pleases each? For ifthis, too, had been proclaimed to the people in the theatre, allwould have found it in their own wills. But when Cicero, too, had propounded this in opposition to himself,he so refuted it as to make them blush who thought so. For he says:“But, behold! people who are not indeed philosophers, butwho yet are prompt to dispute, say that all are blessed, whoeverlive as they will;” which is what we mean by, as pleaseseach. But by and by he has subjoined: “But this is indeedfalse. For to will what is not fitting, is itself most miserable;neither is it so miserable not to obtain what one wills, as to willto obtain what one ought not.” Most excellently andaltogether most truly does he speak. For who can be so blind in hismind, so alienated from all light of decency, and wrapped up in thedarkness of indecency, as to call him blessed, because he lives ashe will, who lives wickedly and disgracefully; and with no onerestraining him, no one punishing, and no one daring even to blamehim, nay more, too, with most people praising him, since, as divineScripture says, “The wicked is praised in hisheart’s desire; and he who works iniquity isblessed,” [1] gratifies all his mostcriminal and flagitious desires; when, doubtless, although even sohe would be wretched, yet he would be less wretched, if he couldhave had nothing of those things which he had wrongly willed? Forevery one is made wretched by a wicked will also, even though itstop short with will; but more wretched by the power by which thelonging of a wicked will is fulfilled. And, therefore, since it istrue that all men will to be blessed, and that they seek for thisone thing with the most ardent love, and on account of this seekeverything which they do seek; nor can any one love that of which hedoes not know at all what or of what sort it is, nor can be ignorantwhat that is which he knows that he wills; it follows that all knowa blessed life. But all that are blessed have what they will,although not all who have what they will are forewith blessed. Butthey are forewith wretched, who either have not what they will, orhave that which they do not rightly will. Therefore he only is ablessed man, who both has all things which he wills, and willsnothing ill.

CHAP. 6.—: WHY, WHEN ALL WILL TO BE BLESSED, THAT ISRATHER CHOSEN BY WHICH ONE WITHDRAWS FROM BEING SO.

9. Since, then, a blessedlife consists of these two things, and is known to all, and dear toall; what can we think to be the cause why, when they cannot haveboth, men choose, out of these two, to have all things that theywill, rather than to will all things well, even although they do nothave them? Is it the depravity itself of the human race, in suchwise that, while they are not unaware that neither is he blessed whohas not what he wills, nor he who has what he wills wrongly, but hewho both has whatsoever good things he wills, and wills no evilones, yet, when both are not granted of those two things in whichthe blessed life consists, that is rather chosen by which one iswithdrawn the more from a blessed life (since he certainly isfurther from it who obtains things which he wickedly desired, thanhe who only does not obtain the things which he desired); whereasthe good will ought rather to be chosen, and to be preferred, evenif it do not obtain the things which it seeks? For he comes near tobeing a blessed man, who wills well whatsoever he wills, and willsthings, which when he obtains, he will be blessed. And certainly notbad things, but good, make men blessed, when they do so make them.And of good things he already has something, and that, too, asomething not to be lightly esteemed,—namely, the verygood will itself; who longs to rejoice in those good things of whichhuman nature is capable, and not in the performance or theattainment of any evil; and who follows diligently, and attains asmuch as he can, with a prudent, temperate, courageous, and rightmind, such good things as are possible in the present miserablelife; so as to be good even in evils, and when all evils have beenput an end to, and all good things fulfilled, then to beblessed.

CHAP. 7.—: FAITH IS NECESSARY, THAT MAN MAY AT SOME TIMEBE BLESSED, WHICH HE WILL ONLY ATTAIN IN THE FUTURE LIFE. THEBLESSEDNESS OF PROUD PHILOSOPHERS RIDICULOUS AND PITIABLE.

10. And on this account,faith, by which men believe in God, is above all things necessary inthis mortal life, most full as it is of errors and hardships. Forthere are no good things whatever, and above all, not those by whichany one is made good, or those by which he will become blessed, ofwhich any other source can be found whence they come to man, and areadded to man, unless it be from God. But when he who is good andfaithful in these miseries shall have come from this life to theblessed life, then will truly come to pass what now is absolutelyimpossible,—namely, that a man may live as he will. [2] For he will not will to livebadly in the midst of that felicity, norwill he will anything that will be wanting, nor will there bewanting anything which he shall have willed. Whatever shall beloved, will be present; nor will that be longed for, which shall notbe present. Everything which will be there will be good, and thesupreme God will be the supreme good and will be present for thoseto enjoy who love Him; and what altogether is most blessed, it willbe certain that it will be so forever. But now, indeed, philosophershave made for themselves, according to the pleasure of each, theirown ideals of a blessed life; that they might be able, as it were bytheir own power, to do that, which by the common conditions ofmortals they were not able to do,—namely, to live as theywould. For they felt that no one could be blessed otherwise than byhaving what he would, and by suffering nothing which he would not.And who would not will, that the life whatsoever it be, with whichhe is delighted, and which he therefore calls blessed, were so inhis own power, that he could have it continually? And yet who is inthis condition? Who wills to suffer troubles in order that he mayendure them manfully, although he both wills and is able to endurethem if he does suffer them? Who would will to live in torments,even although he is able to live laudably by holding fast torighteousness in the midst of them through patience? They who haveendured these evils, either in wishing to have or in fearing to losewhat they loved, whether wickedly or laudably, have thought of themas transitory. For many have stretched boldly through transitoryevils to good things which will last. And these, doubtless, areblessed through hope, even while actually suffering such transitoryevils, through which they arrive at good things which will not betransitory. But he who is blessed through hope is not yet blessed:for he expects, through patience, a blessedness which he does notyet grasp. Whereas he, on the other hand, who is tormented withoutany such hope, without any such reward, let him use as muchendurance as he pleases, is not truly blessed, but bravelymiserable. For he is not on that account not miserable, because hewould be more so if he also bore misery impatiently. Further, evenif he does not suffer those things which he would not will to sufferin his own body, not even then is he to be esteemed blessed,inasmuch as he does not live as he wills. For to omit other things,which, while the body remains unhurt, belong to those annoyances ofthe mind, without which we should will to live, and which areinnumerable; he would will, at any rate, if he were able, so to havehis body safe and sound, and so to suffer no inconveniences from it,as to have it within his own control, or even to have it with animperishableness of the body itself; and because he does not possessthis, and hangs in doubt about it, he certainly does not live as hewills. For although he may be ready from fortitude to accept, andbear with an equal mind, whatever adversities may happen to him, yethe had rather they should not happen, and prevents them if he isable; and he is in such way ready for both alternatives, that, asmuch as is in him, he wishes for the one and shuns the other; and ifhe have fallen into that which he shuns, he therefore bears itwillingly, because that could not happen which he willed. He bearsit, therefore, in order that he may not be crushed; but he would notwillingly be even burdened. How, then, does he live as he wills? Isit because he is willingly strong to bear what he would not will tobe put upon him? Then he only wills what he can, because he cannothave what he wills. And here is the sum-total of the blessedness ofproud mortals, I know not whether to be laughed at, or not rather tobe pitied, who boast that they live as they will, because theywillingly bear patiently what they are unwilling should happen tothem. For this, they say, is like Terence’s wisesaying,—

“Since that cannot be which you will, will that whichthou canst.” [1]

That this is aptly said, who denies? But it is advicegiven to the miserable man, that he may not be more miserable. Andit is not rightly or truly said to the blessed man, such as all wishthemselves to be, That cannot be which you will. For if he isblessed, whatever he wills can be; since he does not will that whichcannot be. But such a life is not for this mortal state, neitherwill it come to pass unless when immortality also shall come topass. And if this could not be given at all to man, blessedness toowould be sought in vain, since it cannot be without immortality.

CHAP. 8.—: BLESSEDNESS CANNOT EXIST WITHOUTIMMORTALITY.

11. As, therefore, all menwill to be blessed, certainly, if they will truly, they will also tobe immortal; for otherwise they could not be blessed. And further,if questioned also concerning immortality, as before concerningblessedness, all reply that they will it.But blessedness of what quality soever, such as is not so, butrather is so called, is sought, nay indeed is feigned in this life,whilst immortality is despaired of, without which true blessednesscannot be. Since he lives blessedly, as we have already said before,and have sufficiently proved and concluded, who lives as he wills,and wills nothing wrongly. But no one wrongly wills immortality, ifhuman nature is by God’s gift capable of it; and if it isnot capable of it, it is not capable of blessedness. For, that a manmay live blessedly, he must needs live. And if life quits him by hisdying, how can a blessed life remain with him? And when it quitshim, without doubt it either quits him unwilling, or willing, orneither. If unwilling, how is the life blessed which is so withinhis will as not to be within his power? And whereas no one isblessed who wills something that he does not have, how much less ishe blessed who is quitted against his will, not by honor, nor bypossessions, nor by any other thing, but by the blessed life itself,since he will have no life at all? And hence, although no feeling isleft for his life to be thereby miserable (for the blessed lifequits him, because life altogether quits him), yet he is wretched aslong as he feels, because he knows that against his will that isbeing destroyed for the sake of which he loves all else, and whichhe loves beyond all else. A life therefore cannot both be blessed,and yet quit a man against his will, since no one becomes blessedagainst his will; and hence how much more does it make a manmiserable by quitting him against his will, when it would make himmiserable if he had it against his will! But if it quit him with hiswill, even so how was that a blessed life, which he who had itwilled should perish? It remains then for them to say, that neitherof these is in the mind of the blessed man; that is, that he isneither unwilling nor willing to be quitted by a blessed life, whenthrough death life quits him altogether; for that he stands firmwith an even heart, prepared alike for either alternative. Butneither is that a blessed life which is such as to be unworthy ofhis love whom it makes blessed. For how is that a blessed life whichthe blessed man does not love? Or how is that loved, of which it isreceived indifferently, whether it is to flourish or to perish?Unless perhaps the virtues, which we love in this way on account ofblessedness alone, venture to persuade us that we do not loveblessedness itself. Yet if they did this, we should certainly leaveoff loving the virtues themselves, when we do not love that onaccount of which alone we loved them. And further, how will thatopinion be true, which has been so tried, and sifted, and thoroughlystrained, and is so certain, viz. that all menwill to be blessed, if they themselves who are already blessedneither will nor do not will to be blessed? Or if they will it, astruth proclaims, as nature constrains, in which indeed the supremelygood and unchangeably blessed Creator has implanted that will: if, Isay, they will to be blessed who are blessed, certainly they do notwill to be not blessed. But if they do not will not to be blessed,without doubt they do not will to be annihilated and perish inregard to their blessedness. But they cannot be blessed except theyare alive; therefore they do not will so to perish in regard totheir life. Therefore, whoever are either truly blessed or desire tobe so, will to be immortal. But he does not live blessedly who hasnot that which he wills. Therefore it follows that in no way canlife be truly blessed unless it be eternal.

CHAP. 9.—: WE SAY THAT FUTURE BLESSEDNESS IS TRULYETERNAL, NOT THROUGH HUMAN REASONINGS, BUT BY THE HELP OF FAITH. THEIMMORTALITY OF BLESSEDNESS BECOMES CREDIBLE FROM THE INCARNATION OF THESON OF GOD.

12. Whether human nature canreceive this, which yet it confesses to be desirable, is no smallquestion. But if faith be present, which is in those to whom Jesushas given power to become the sons of God, then there is noquestion. Assuredly, of those who endeavor to discover it from humanreasonings, 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 ofthe soul alone. And even for the soul they have not found a blessedlife that is stable, that is, true; since they have said that itreturns to the miseries of this life even after blessedness. Andthey among them who are ashamed of this opinion, and have thoughtthat the purified soul is to be placed in eternal happiness withouta body, hold such opinions concerning the past eternity of theworld, as to confute this opinion of theirs concerning the soul: athing which here it is too long to demonstrate; but it has been, asI think, sufficiently explained by us in the twelfth book of the City of God. [1] But that faith promises, not byhuman reasoning, but by divine authority, that the whole man, whocertainly consists of soul and body,shall be immortal, and on this account truly blessed. And so, whenit had been said in the Gospel, that Jesus has given“power to become the sons of God to them who receivedHim;” and what it is to have received Him had beenshortly explained by saying, “To them that believe on Hisname;” and it was further added in what way they are tobecome sons of God, viz., “Whichwere born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of thewill of man, but of God;”—lest that infirmityof men which we all see and bear should despair of attaining sogreat excellence, it is added in the same place, “And theWord was made flesh, and dwelt among us;” [1] that, on the contrary, men might be convincedof that which seemed incredible. For if He who is by nature the Sonof God was made the Son of man through mercy for the sake of thesons of men,—for this is what is meant by “TheWord was made flesh, and dwelt among us”men,—how much more credible is it that the sons of men bynature should be made the sons of God by the grace of God, andshould dwell in God, in whom alone and from whom alone the blessedcan be made partakers of that immortality; of which that we might beconvinced, the Son of God was made partaker of our mortality?

CHAP. 10.—: THERE WAS NO OTHER MORE SUITABLE WAY OFFREEING MAN FROM THE MISERY OF MORTALITY THAN THE INCARNATION OF THEWORD. 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 themisery of this mortality, that He should will the only-begotten Son,God co-eternal with Himself, to become man, by putting on a humansoul and flesh, and being made mortal to enduredeath?—these, I say, it is not enough so to refute, as toassert that that mode by which God deigns to free us through theMediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus, is good and suitableto the dignity of God; but we must show also, not indeed that noother mode was possible to God, to whose power all things areequally subject, but that there neither was nor need have been anyother mode more appropriate for curing our misery. For what was sonecessary for the building up of our hope, and for the freeing theminds of mortals cast down by the condition of mortality itself,from despair of immortality, than that it should be demonstrated tous 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 wasin Himself, and receiving from us and for us what He was not, apartfrom any loss of His own nature, and deigning to enter into thefellowship of ours, should first, without any evil desert of Hisown, bear our evils; and so with unobligated munificence shouldbestow 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 gooddeserts of our own, nay, with our evil deserts too going before?

14. Since those also whichare called our deserts, are His gifts. For, that faith may work bylove, [2] “the love of God is shed abroad inour hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.” [3] And He was then given, when Jesus was glorified bythe resurrection. For then He promised that He Himself would sendHim, and He sent Him; [4] because then, as it was written and foretold of Him, “Heascended up on high, He led captivity captive, and gave gifts untomen.” [5] Thesegifts constitute our deserts, by which we arrive at the chief goodof an immortal blessedness. “But God,” saysthe apostle, “commendeth His love towards us, in that,while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more, then,being now justified by His blood, we shall be saved from wraththrough Him.” To this he goes on to add, “Forif, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death ofHis Son; much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by Hislife.” Those whom he first calls sinners he afterwardscalls the enemies of God; and those whom he first speaks of asjustified by His blood, he afterwards speaks of as reconciled by thedeath of the Son of God; and those whom he speaks of first as savedfrom wrath through Him, he afterwards speaks of as saved by Hislife. We were not, therefore, before that grace merely anyhowsinners, but in such sins that we were enemies of God. But the sameapostle calls us above several times by two appellations, viz. sinners and enemies of God,—oneas if the most mild, the other plainly the mostharsh,—saying, “For if when we were yet weak,in due time Christ died for the ungodly.” [6] Those whom he called weak, the same he calledungodly. Weakness seems something slight; but sometimes it is suchas to be called impiety. Yet except it were weakness, it would not need a physician, who is in theHebrew Jesus, in the GreekΣωτήρ, but inour speech Saviour. And this word the Latin language had notpreviously, but could have, seeing that it could have it when itwanted it. And this foregoing sentence of the apostle, where hesays, “For when we were yet weak, in due time He died forthe ungodly,” coheres with those two following sentences;in the one of which he spoke of sinners, in the other of enemies ofGod, as though he referred each severally to each, viz. sinners to the weak, the enemies of God to theungodly.

CHAP. 11.—: A DIFFICULTY, HOW WE ARE JUSTITIFIED IN THEBLOOD OF THE SON OF GOD.

15. But what is meant by“justified in His blood?” What power is therein this blood, I beseech you, that they who believe should bejustified in it? And what is meant by “being reconciledby the death of His Son?” Was it indeed so, that when Godthe 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 farappeased towards us, that He even deigned to die for us; while theFather was still so far wroth, that except His Son died for us, Hewould not be appeased? And what, then, is that which the sameteacher of the Gentiles himself says in another place:“What shall we then say to these things? If God be forus, who can be against us? He that spared not His own Son, butdelivered Him up for us all; how has He not with Him also freelygiven us all things?” [1] Pray, unless theFather had been already appeased, would He have delivered up His ownSon, not sparing Him for us? Does not this opinion seem to be as itwere contrary to that? In the one, the Son dies for us, and theFather is reconciled to us by His death; in the other, as though theFather first loved us, He Himself on our account does not spare theSon, He Himself for us delivers Him up to death. But I see that theFather loved us also before, not only before the Son died for us,but before He created the world; the apostle himself being witness,who says, “According as He hath chosen us in Him beforethe foundation of the world.” [2] Nor was the Son deliveredup for us as it were unwillingly, the Father Himself not sparingHim; for it is said also concerning Him, “Who loved me,and delivered up Himself for me.” [3] Therefore together boththe Father and the Son, and the Spirit of both, work all thingsequally and harmoniously; yet we are justified in the blood ofChrist, and we are reconciled to God by the death of His Son. And Iwill explain, as I shall be able, here also, how this was done, asmuch as may seem sufficient.

CHAP. 12.—: ALL, ON ACCOUNT OF THE SIN OF ADAM, WEREDELIVERED INTO THE POWER OF THE DEVIL.

16. By the justice of God insome sense, the human race was delivered into the power of thedevil; the sin of the first man passing over originally into all ofboth sexes in their birth through conjugal union, and the debt ofour first parents binding their whole posterity. This delivering upis first signified in Genesis, where, when it had been said to theserpent, “Dust shalt thou eat,” it was said tothe man, “Dust thou art, and unto dust thou shaltreturn.” [4] In the words,“Unto dust shalt thou return,” the death ofthe body is fore-announced, because he would not have experiencedthat either, if he had continued to the end upright as he was made;but in that it is said to him whilst still living, “Dustthou art,” it is shown that the whole man was changed forthe worse. For “Dust thou art” is much thesame as, “My spirit shall not always remain in these men,for that they also are flesh.” [5] Therefore it was at thattime shown, that he was delivered to him, in that it had been saidto him, “Dust shalt thou eat.” But the apostledeclares this more clearly, where he says: “And you whowere dead in trespasses and sins, wherein in time past ye walkedaccording to the course of this world, according to the prince ofthe power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children ofunfaithfulness; among whom we also had our conversation in timespast, in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the fleshand of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even asothers.” [6] The “childrenof unfaithfulness” are the unbelievers; and who is notthis before he becomes a believer? And therefore all men areoriginally under the prince of the power of the air, “whoworketh in the children of unfaithfulness.” And thatwhich I have expressed by “originally” is thesame that the apostle expresses when he speaks of themselves who“by nature” were as others; viz. by nature as it has been depraved by sin, not as itwas created upright from the beginning. But the way in which man wasthus delivered into the power of the devil, ought not to be sounderstood as if God did this, or commanded it to be done; but thatHe only permitted it, yet that justly. For when He abandoned thesinner, the author of the sin immediatelyentered. Yet God did not certainly so abandon His own creature asnot to show Himself to him as God creating and quickening, and amongpenal evils bestowing also many good things upon the evil. For Hehath not in anger shut up His tender mercies. [1] Nor did He dismiss manfrom the law of His own power, when He permitted him to be in thepower of the devil; since even the devil himself is not separatedfrom the power of the Omnipotent, as neither from His goodness. Forwhence do even the evil angels subsist in whatever manner of lifethey have, except through Him who quickens all things? If,therefore, the commission of sins through the just anger of Godsubjected man to the devil, doubtless the remission of sins throughthe merciful reconciliation of God rescues man from the devil.

CHAP. 13.—: MAN WAS TO BE RESCUED FROM THE POWER OF THEDEVIL, NOT BY POWER, BUT BY RIGHTEOUSNESS.

17. But the devil was to beovercome, not by the power of God, but by His righteousness. Forwhat is more powerful than the Omnipotent? Or what creature is thereof which the power can be compared to the power of the Creator? Butsince the devil, by the fault of his own perversity, was made alover of power, and a forsaker and assailant ofrighteousness,—for thus also men imitate him so much themore in proportion as they set their hearts on power, to the neglector even hatred of righteousness, and as they either rejoice in theattainment of power, or are inflamed by the lust ofit,—it pleased God, that in order to the rescuing of manfrom the grasp of the devil, the devil should be conquered, not bypower, but by righteousness; and that so also men, imitating Christ,should seek to conquer the devil by righteousness, not by power. Notthat power is to be shunned as though it were something evil; butthe order must be preserved, whereby righteousness is before it. Forhow great can be the power of mortals? Therefore let mortals cleaveto righteousness; power will be given to immortals. And compared tothis, the power, how great soever, of those men who are calledpowerful on earth, is found to be ridiculous weakness, and a pitfallis dug there for the sinner, where the wicked seem to be mostpowerful. And the righteous man says in his song,“Blessed is the man whom Thou chasteneth, O Lord, andteachest him out of Thy law: that Thou mayest give him rest from thedays of adversity, until the pit be digged for the wicked. For theLord will not cast off His people, neither will He forsake Hisinheritance, until righteousness return unto judgment, and all whofollow it are upright in heart.” [2] At this present time,then, in which the might of the people of God is delayed,“the Lord will not cast off His people, neither will Heforsake His inheritance,” how bitter and unworthy thingssoever it may suffer in its humility and weakness; “untilthe righteousness,” which the weakness of the pious nowpossesses, “shall return to judgment,” thatis, shall receive the power of judging; which is preserved in theend for the righteous when power in its due order shall havefollowed after righteousness going before. For power joined torighteousness, or righteousness added to power, constitutes ajudicial authority. But righteousness belongs to a good will; whenceit was said by the angels when Christ was born: “Glory toGod in the highest, and on earth peace to men of goodwill.” [3] But power ought to followrighteousness, not to go before it; and accordingly it is placed in“second,” that is, prosperous fortune; andthis is called “second,” [4] from“following.” For whereas two things make a manblessed, as we have argued above, to will well, and to be able to dowhat one wills, people ought not to be so perverse, as has beennoted in the same discussion, as that a man should choose from thetwo things which make him blessed, the being able to do what hewills, and should neglect to will what he ought; whereas he oughtfirst to have a good will, but great power afterwards. Further, agood will must be purged from vices, by which if a man is overcome,he is in such wise overcome as that he wills evil; and then how willhis will be still good? It is to be wished, then, that power may nowbe given, but power against vices, to conquer which men do not wishto be powerful, while they wish to be so in order to conquer men;and why is this, unless that, being in truth conquered, theyfeignedly conquer, and are conquerors not in truth, but in opinion?Let a man will to be prudent, will to be strong, will to betemperate, will to be just; and that he may be able to have thesethings truly, let him certainly desire power, and seek to bepowerful in himself, and (strange though it be) against himself forhimself. But all the other things which he wills rightly, and yet isnot able to have, as, for instance, immortality and true and fullfelicity, let him not cease to long for, and let him patientlyexpect.

CHAP. 14.—: THE UNOBLIGATED DEATH OF CHRIST HAS FREEDTHOSE WHO WERE LIABLE TO DEATH.

18. What, then, is therighteousness by which the devil was conquered? What, except therighteousness of Jesus Christ? And how was he conquered? Because,when he found in Him nothing worthy of death, yet he slew Him. Andcertainly it is just, that we whom he held as debtors, should bedismissed free by believing in Him whom he slew without any debt. Inthis way it is that we are said to be justified in the blood ofChrist. [1] For so that innocent blood was shed for theremission of our sins. Whence He calls Himself in the Psalms,“Free among the dead.” [2] For he only that isdead is free from the debt of death. Hence also in another psalm Hesays, “Then I restored that which I seizednot;” [3] meaning sin by the thingseized, because sin is laid hold of against what is lawful. Whencealso He says, by the mouth of His own Flesh, as is read in theGospel: “For the prince of this world cometh, and hathnothing in me,” that is, no sin; but “that theworld may know,” He says, “that I do thecommandment of the Father; arise, let us go hence.” [4] And hence He proceeds to His passion, that Hemight pay for us debtors that which He Himself did not owe. Wouldthen the devil be conquered by this most just right, if Christ hadwilled to deal with him by power, not by righteousness? But He heldback what was possible to Him, in order that He might first do whatwas fitting. And hence it was necessary that He should be both manand God. For unless He had been man, He could not have been slain;unless He had been God, men would not have believed that He wouldnot do what He could, but that He could not do what He would; norshould we have thought that righteousness was preferred by Him topower, but that He lacked power. But now He suffered for us thingsbelonging to man, because He was man; but if He had been unwilling,it would have been in His power to not so to suffer, because He wasalso God. And righteousness was therefore made more acceptable inhumility, because so great power as was in His Divinity, if He hadbeen unwilling, would have been able not to suffer humility; andthus by Him who died, being thus powerful, both righteousness wascommended, and power promised, to us, weak mortals. For He did oneof these two things by dying, the other by rising again. For what ismore righteous, than to come even to the death of the cross forrighteousness? And what more powerful, than to rise from the dead,and to ascend into heaven with that very flesh in which He wasslain? And therefore He conquered the devil first by righteousness,and afterwards by power: namely, by righteousness, because He had nosin, and was slain by him most unjustly; but by power, becausehaving been dead He lived again, never afterwards to die. [5] But He would have conquered the devil by power,even though He could not have been slain by him: although it belongsto a greater power to conquer death itself also by rising again,than to avoid it by living. But the reason is really a differentone, why we are justified in the blood of Christ, when we arerescued from the power of the devil through the remission of sins:it pertains to this, that the devil is conquered by Christ byrighteousness, not by power. For Christ was crucified, not throughimmortal power, but through the weakness which He took upon Him inmortal flesh; of which weakness nevertheless the apostle says,“that the weakness of God is stronger thanmen.” [6]

CHAP. 15.—: OF THE SAME SUBJECT.

19. It is not then difficultto see that the devil was conquered, when he who was slain by Himrose again. It is something more, and more profound ofcomprehension, to see that the devil was conquered when he thoughthimself to have conquered, that is, when Christ was slain. For thenthat blood, since it was His who had no sin at all, was poured outfor the remission of our sins; that, because the devil deservedlyheld those whom, as guilty of sin, he bound by the condition ofdeath, he might deservedly loose them through Him, whom, as guiltyof no sin, the punishment of death undeservedly affected. The strongman was conquered by this righteousness, and bound with this chain,that his vessels might be spoiled, [7] which with himself andhis angels had been vessels of wrath while with him, and might beturned into vessels of mercy. [8] For the Apostle Paultells us, that these words of our Lord Jesus Christ Himself werespoken from heaven to him when he was first called. For among theother things which he heard, he speaks also of this as said to himthus: “For I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, tomake thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thouhast seen from me, and of those things in the which I will appearunto thee; delivering thee from the people, and from the Gentiles,unto whom now I send thee, to open the eyes of the blind, and to turn them from darkness[to light], and from the power of Satan untoGod, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritanceamong them which are sanctified, and faith that is inme.” [1] And hence the sameapostle also, exhorting believers to the giving of thanks to God theFather, says: “Who hath delivered us from the power ofdarkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of His dear Son:in whom we have redemption, even the forgiveness ofsins.” [2] In this redemption,the blood of Christ was given, as it were, as a price for us, byaccepting which the devil was not enriched, but bound: [3] that we might be loosened fromhis bonds, and that he might not with himself involve in the meshesof sins, and so deliver to the destruction of the second and eternaldeath, [4] any one of those whom Christ, free from alldebt, had redeemed by pouring out His own blood unindebtedly; butthat they who belong to the grace of Christ, foreknown, andpredestinated, and elected before the foundation of the world, [5] should only so far die as Christ Himself died forthem, i.e. only by the death of the flesh, notof the spirit.

CHAP. 16.—: THE REMAINS OF DEATH AND THE EVIL THINGS OFTHE WORLD TURN TO GOOD FOR THE ELECT. HOW FITLY THE DEATH OF CHRIST WASCHOSEN, THAT WE MIGHT BE JUSTIFIED IN HIS BLOOD. WHAT THE ANGER OF GODIS.

20. For although the death,too, of the flesh itself came originally from the sin of the firstman, yet the good use of it has made most glorious martyrs. And sonot only that death itself, but all the evils of this world, and thegriefs and labors of men, although they come from the deserts ofsins, and especially of original sin, whence life itself too becamebound by the bond of death, yet have fitly remained, even when sinis forgiven; that man might have wherewith to contend for truth, andwhereby the goodness of the faithful might be exercised; in orderthat the new man through the new covenant might be made ready amongthe evils of this world for a new world, by bearing wisely themisery which this condemned life deserved, and by rejoicing soberlybecause it will be finished, but expecting faithfully and patientlythe blessedness which the future life, being set free, will have forever. For the devil being cast forth from his dominion, and from thehearts of the faithful, in the condemnation and faithlessness ofwhom he, although himself also condemned, yet reigned, is only sofar permitted to be an adversary according to the condition of thismortality, as God knows to be expedient for them: concerning whichthe sacred writings speak through the mouth of the apostle:“God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be temptedabove that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a wayto escape, that ye may be able to bear it.” [6] And those evils which the faithful endurepiously, are of profit either for the correction of sins, or for theexercising and proving of righteousness, or to manifest the miseryof this life, that the life where will be that true and perpetualblessedness may be desired more ardently, and sought out moreearnestly. But it is on their account that these evils are stillkept in being, of whom the apostle says: “For we knowthat all things work together for good to them that love God, tothem who are called to be holy according to His purpose. For whom Hedid foreknow, He also did predestinate to be conformed to the imageof His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren.Moreover, whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom Hecalled, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He alsoglorified.” It is of these who are predestinated, thatnot one shall perish with the devil; not one shall remain even todeath under the power of the devil. And then follows what I havealready cited above: [7] “What shall we thensay to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? Hethat spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all; howhas He not with Him also freely given us all things?” [8]

21. Why then should thedeath of Christ not have come to pass? Nay, rather, why should notthat death itself have been chosen above all else to be brought topass, to the passing by of the other innumerable ways which He whois omnipotent could have employed to free us; that death, I say,wherein neither was anything diminished or changed from Hisdivinity, and so great benefit was conferred upon men, from thehumanity which He took upon Him, that a temporal death, which wasnot due, was rendered by the eternal Son of God, who was also theSon of man, whereby He might free them from an eternal death which was due? The devil washolding fast our sins, and through them was fixing us deservedly indeath. He discharged them, who had none of His own, and who was ledby him to death undeservedly. That blood was of such price, that hewho even slew Christ for a time by a death which was not due, can ashis due detain no one, who has put on Christ, in the eternal deathwhich was due. Therefore “God commendeth His love towardsus, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Muchmore then, being now justified in His blood, we shall be saved fromwrath through Him.” Justified, he says, in Hisblood,—justified plainly, in that we are freed from allsin; and freed from all sin, because the Son of God, who knew nosin, was slain for us. Therefore “we shall be saved fromwrath through Him;” from the wrath certainly of God,which is nothing else but just retribution. For the wrath of God isnot, as is that of man, a perturbation of the mind; but it is thewrath of Him to whom Holy Scripture says in another place,“But Thou, O Lord, mastering Thy power, judgest withcalmness.” [1] If, therefore, the justretribution of God has received such a name, what can be the rightunderstanding also of the reconciliation of God, unless that thensuch wrath comes to an end? Neither were we enemies to God, exceptas sins are enemies to righteousness; which being forgiven, suchenmities come to an end, and they whom He Himself justifies arereconciled to the Just One. And yet certainly He loved them evenwhile still enemies, since “He spared not His own Son,but delivered Him up for us all,” when we were stillenemies. And therefore the apostle has rightly added:“For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to Godby the death of His Son,” by which that remission of sinswas made, “much more, being reconciled, we shall be savedin His life.” Saved in life, who were reconciled bydeath. For who can doubt that He will give His life for His friends,for whom, when enemies, He gave His death? “And not onlyso,” he says, “but we also joy in God, throughour Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received theatonement.” “Not only,” he says,“shall we be saved,” but “we alsojoy;” and not in ourselves, but “inGod;” nor through ourselves, “but through ourLord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received theatonement,” as we have argued above. Then the apostleadds, “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into theworld, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, in whomall have sinned;” [2] etc.: in which hedisputes at some length concerning the two men; the one the firstAdam, through whose sin and death we, his descendants, are bound by,as it were, hereditary evils; and the other the second Adam, who isnot only man, but also God, by whose payment for us of what He owednot, we are freed from the debts both of our first father and ofourselves. Further, since on account of that one the devil held allwho were begotten through his corrupted carnal concupiscence, it isjust that on account of this one he should loose all who areregenerated through His immaculate spiritual grace.

CHAP. 17.—: OTHER ADVANTAGES OF THE INCARNATION.

22. There are many otherthings also in the incarnation of Christ, displeasing as it is tothe proud, that are to be observed and thought of advantageously.And one of them is, that it has been demonstrated to man what placehe has in the things which God has created; since human nature couldso be joined to God, that one person could be made of twosubstances, and thereby indeed of three—God, soul, andflesh: so that those proud malignant spirits, who interposethemselves as mediators to deceive, although as if to help, do nottherefore dare to place themselves above man because they have notflesh; and chiefly because the Son of God deigned to die also in thesame flesh, lest they, because they seem to be immortal, shouldtherefore succeed in getting themselves worshipped as gods. Further,that the grace of God might be commended to us in the man Christwithout any precedent merits; because not even He Himself obtainedby any precedent merits that He should be joined in such great unitywith the true God, and should become the Son of God, one Person withHim; but from the time when He began to be man, from that time He isalso God; whence it is said, “The Word was madeflesh.” [3] Then, again, there isthis, that the pride of man, which is the chief hindrance againsthis cleaving to God, can be confuted and healed through such greathumility of God. Man learns also how far he has gone away from God;and what it is worth to him as a pain to cure him, when he returnsthrough such a Mediator, who both as God assists men by Hisdivinity, and as man agrees with men by His weakness. For whatgreater example of obedience could be given to us, who had perishedthrough disobedience, than God the Sonobedient to God the Father, even to the death of the cross? [1] Nay, wherein could the reward of obedience itselfbe better shown, than in the flesh of so great a Mediator, whichrose again to eternal life? It belonged also to the justice andgoodness of the Creator, that the devil should be conquered by thesame rational creature which he rejoiced to have conquered, and byone that came from that same race which, by the corruption of itsorigin through one, he held altogether.

CHAP. 18.—: WHY THE SON OF GOD TOOK MAN UPON HIMSELF FROMTHE RACE OF ADAM, AND FROM A VIRGIN.

23. For assuredly God couldhave taken upon Himself to be man, that in that manhood He might bethe Mediator between God and men, from some other source, and notfrom the race of that Adam who bound the human race by his sin; asHe did not create him whom He first created, of the race of some oneelse. Therefore He was able, either so, or in any other mode that Hewould, to create yet one other, by whom the conqueror of the firstmight be conquered. But God judged it better both to take upon Himman through whom to conquer the enemy of the human race, from therace itself that had been conquered; and yet to do this of a virgin,whose conception, not flesh but spirit, not lust but faith,preceded. [2] Nor did that concupiscence of the fleshintervene, by which the rest of men, who derive original sin, arepropagated and conceived; but holy virginity became pregnant, not byconjugal intercourse, but by faith,—lust being utterlyabsent,—so that that which was born from the root of thefirst man might derive only the origin of race, not also of guilt.For there was born, not a nature corrupted by the contagion oftransgression, but the one only remedy of all such corruptions.There was born, I say, a Man having nothing at all, and to havenothing at all, of sin; through whom they were to be born again soas to be freed from sin, who could not be born without sin. Foralthough conjugal chastity makes a right use of the carnalconcupiscence which is in our members; yet it is liable to motionsnot voluntary, by which it shows either that it could not haveexisted at all in paradise before sin, or if it did, that it was notthen such as that sometimes it should resist the will. But now wefeel it to be such, that in opposition to the law of the mind, andeven if there is no question of begetting, it works in us theincitement of sexual intercourse; and if in this men yield to it,then it is satisfied by an act of sin; if they do not, then it isbridled by an act of refusal: which two things who could doubt tohave been alien from paradise before sin? For neither did thechastity that then was do anything indecorous, nor did the pleasurethat then was suffer anything unquiet. It was necessary, therefore,that this carnal concupiscence should be entirely absent, when theoffspring of the Virgin was conceived; in whom the author of deathwas to find nothing worthy of death, and yet was to slay Him inorder that he might be conquered by the death of the Author of life:the conqueror of the first Adam, who held fast the human race,conquered by the second Adam, and losing the Christian race, freedout of the human race from human guilt, through Him who was not inthe guilt, although He was of the race; that that deceiver might beconquered by that race which he had conquered by guilt. And this wasso done, in order that man may not be lifted up, but“that he that glorieth should glory in theLord.” [3] For he who was conqueredwas only man; and he was therefore conquered, because he lustedproudly to be a god. But He who conquered was both man and God; andtherefore He so conquered, being born of a virgin, because God inhumility did not, as He governs other saints, so govern that Man,but bare Him [as a Son]. These so great giftsof God, and whatever else there are, which it is too long for us nowupon this subject both to inquire and to discuss, could not existunless the Word had been made flesh.

CHAP. 19.—: WHAT IN THE INCARNATE WORD BELONGS TOKNOWLEDGE, WHAT TO WISDOM.

24. And all these thingswhich the Word made flesh did and bare for us in time and place,belong, according to the distinction which we have undertaken todemonstrate, to knowledge, not to wisdom. And as the Word is withouttime and without place, it is co-eternal with the Father, and in itswholeness everywhere; and if any one can, and as much as he can,speak truly concerning this Word, then his discourse will pertain towisdom. And hence the Word made flesh, which is Christ Jesus, hasthe treasures both of wisdom and of knowledge. For the apostle,writing to the Colossians, says: “For I would that yeknew what great conflict I have for you, and for them at Laodicea,and for as many as have not seen my face in the flesh; that their hearts might be comforted, beingknit together in love, and unto all riches of the full assurance ofunderstanding, to the acknowledgment of the mystery of God, which isChrist Jesus: in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom andknowledge.” [1] To what extent theapostle knew all those treasures, how much of them he hadpenetrated, and in them to how great things he had reached, who canknow? Yet, for my part, according to that which is written,“But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to everyman to profit withal; for to one is given by the Spirit the word ofwisdom, to another the word of knowledge by the sameSpirit;” [2] if these two are insuch way to be distinguished from each other, that wisdom is to beassigned to divine things, knowledge to human, I acknowledge both inChrist, and so with me do all His faithful ones. And when I read,“The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us,”I understand by the Word the true Son of God, I acknowledge in theflesh the true Son of man, and both together joined into one Personof God and man, by an ineffable copiousness of grace. And on accountof this, the apostle goes on to say, “And we beheld Hisglory, the glory as of the Only-begotten of the Father, full ofgrace and truth.” [3] If we refer grace toknowledge, and truth to wisdom, I think we shall not swerve fromthat distinction between these two things which we have commended.For in those things that have their origin in time, this is thehighest grace, that man is joined with God in unity of person; butin things eternal the highest truth is rightly attributed to theWord of God. But that the same is Himself the Only-begotten of theFather, full of grace and truth,—this took place, inorder that He Himself in things done for us in time should be thesame for whom we are cleansed by the same faith, that we maycontemplate Him steadfastly in things eternal. And thosedistinguished philosophers of the heathen who have been able tounderstand and discern the invisible things of God by those thingswhich are made, have yet, as is said of them, “held downthe truth in iniquity;” [4] because theyphilosophized without a Mediator, that is, without the man Christ,whom they neither believed to be about to come at the word of theprophets, nor to have come at that of the apostles. For, placed asthey were in these lowest things, they could not but seek some mediathrough which they might attain to those lofty things which they hadunderstood; and so they fell upon deceitful spirits, through whom itcame to pass, that “they changed the glory of theincorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and tobirds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.” [5] For in such forms also they set up or worshippedidols. Therefore Christ is our knowledge, and the same Christ isalso our wisdom. He Himself implants in us faith concerning temporalthings, He Himself shows forth the truth concerning eternal things.Through Him we reach on to Himself: we stretch through knowledge towisdom; yet we do not withdraw from one and the same Christ,“in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and ofknowledge.” But now we speak of knowledge, and willhereafter speak of wisdom as much as He Himself shall grant. And letus not so take these two things, as if it were not allowable tospeak either of the wisdom which is in human things, or of theknowledge which is in divine. For after a laxer custom of speech,both can be called wisdom, and both knowledge. Yet the apostle couldnot in any way have written, “To one is given the word ofwisdom, to another the word of knowledge,” except alsothese several things had been properly called by the several names,of the distinction between which we are now treating:

CHAP. 20.—: WHAT HAS BEEN TREATED OF IN THIS BOOK. HOW WEHAVE REACHED BY STEPS TO A CERTAIN TRINITY, WHICH IS FOUND IN PRACTICALKNOWLEDGE AND TRUE FAITH.

25. Now, therefore, let ussee 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 soblessedness is reached. And thus it comes to pass, that by means ofthe faith which not all men will, we have to reach on to theblessedness which every one wills. All see in their own heart thatthey will to be blessed; and so great is the agreement of humannature on this subject, that the man is not deceived who conjecturesthis concerning another’s mind, out of his own: in short,we know ourselves that all will this. But many despair of beingimmortal, 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 thatthey can. Therefore faith is necessary, that we may attainblessedness in all the good things of human nature, that is, of bothsoul and body. But that same faithrequires that this faith be limited in Christ, who rose in the fleshfrom the dead, not to die any more; and that no one is freed fromthe dominion of the devil, through the forgiveness of sins, save byHim; and that in the abiding place of the devil, life must needs beat once miserable and never-ending, which ought rather to be calleddeath than life. All which I have also argued, so far as spacepermitted, in this book, while I have already said much on thesubject in the fourth book of this work as well; [1] but in that place for onepurpose, here for another,—namely, there, that I mightshow why and how Christ was sent in the fullness of time by theFather, [2] on account of those who say that He who sentand He who was sent cannot be equal in nature; but here, in order todistinguish practical knowlege from contemplative wisdom.

26. For we wished to ascend,as it were, by steps, and to seek in the inner man, both inknowledge 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 maycome, with a mind more practised in these lower things, to thecontemplation of that Trinity which is God, according to our littlemeasure, if indeed, we can even do this, at least in a riddle and asthrough a glass. [3] If, then, any onehave committed to memory the words of this faith in their soundsalone, not knowing what they mean, as they commonly who do not knowGreek hold in memory Greek words, or similarly Latin ones, or thoseof any other language of which they are ignorant, has not he a sortof trinity in his mind? because, first, those sounds of words are inhis memory, even when he does not think thereupon; and next, themental vision ( acies ) of his act ofrecollection is formed thence when he conceives of them; and next,the will of him who remembers and thinks unites both. Yet we shouldby no means say that the man in so doing busies himself with atrinity of the interior man, but rather of the exterior; because heremembers, and when he wills, contemplates as much as he wills, thatalone which belongs to the sense of the body, which is calledhearing. Nor in such an act of thought does he do anything else thandeal with images of corporeal things, that is, of sounds. But if heholds and recollects what those words signify, now indeed somethingof the inner man is brought into action; not yet, however, ought heto be said or thought to live according to a trinity of the innerman, if he does not love those things which are there declared,enjoined, promised. For it is possible for him also to hold andconceive these things, supposing them to be false, in order that hemay endeavor to disprove them. Therefore that will, which in thiscase unites those things which are held in the memory with thosethings which are thence impressed on the mind’s eye inconception, completes, indeed, some kind of trinity, since itself isa third added to two others; but the man does not live according tothis, when those things which are conceived are taken to be false,and are not accepted. But when those things are believed to be true,and those things which therein ought to be loved, are loved, then atlast the man does live according to a trinity of the inner man; forevery one lives according to that which he loves. But how can thingsbe loved which are not known, but only believed? This question hasbeen already treated of in former books; [4] and we found, that no one loves what he iswholly ignorant of, but that when things not known are said to beloved, they are loved from those things which are known. And now weso conclude this book, that we admonish the just to live byfaith, [5] which faith worketh by love, [6] so that the virtues also themselves, by which one lives prudently,boldly, temperately, and justly, be all referred to the same faith;for not otherwise can they be true virtues. And yet these in thislife are not of so great worth, as that the remission of sins, ofsome kind or other, is not sometimes necessary here; and thisremission comes not to pass, except through Him, who by His ownblood conquered the prince of sinners. Whatsoever ideas are in themind of the faithful man from this faith, and from such a life, whenthey are contained in the memory, and are looked at by recollection,and please the will, set forth a kind of trinity of its ownsort. [7] But the image of God, ofwhich by His help we shall afterwards speak, is not yet in thattrinity; a thing which will then be more apparent, when it shallhave been shown where it is, which the reader may expect in asucceeding book.

BOOK XIV.

THE TRUE WISDOM OF MAN IS TREATED OF; AND IT IS SHOWNTHAT THE IMAGE OF GOD, WHICH MAN IS IN RESPECT TO HIS MIND, ISNOT PLACED PROPERLY IN TRANSITORY THINGS, AS IN MEMORY,UNDERSTANDING, AND LOVE, WHETHER OF FAITH ITSELF AS EXISTING INTIME, OR EVEN OF THE MIND AS BUSIED WITH ITSELF, BUT IN THINGSTHAT ARE PERMANENT; AND THAT THIS WISDOM IS THEN PERFECTED, WHENTHE MIND IS RENEWED IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD, ACCORDING TO THEIMAGE OF HIM WHO CREATED MAN AFTER HIS OWN IMAGE, AND THUSATTAINS TO WISDOM, WHEREIN THAT WHICH IS CONTEMPLATED ISETERNAL.

CHAP. 1.—: WHAT THE WISDOM IS OF WHICH WE ARE HERE TOTREAT. WHENCE THE NAME OF PHILOSOPHER AROSE. WHAT HAS BEEN ALREADY SAIDCONCERNING THE DISTINCTION OF KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM.

1. WE must now discourse concerning wisdom; not thewisdom of God, which without doubt is God, for His only-begotten Sonis called the wisdom of God; [1] butwe will speak of the wisdom of man, yet of true wisdom, which isaccording to God, and is His true and chief worship, which is calledin Greek by one term,θεοσέβεια.And this term, as we have already observed, when our own countrymenthemselves also wished to interpret it by a single term, was by themrendered piety, whereas piety means more commonly what the Greekscallεὐσέβεια.But becauseθεοσέβειαcannot be translated perfectly by any one word, it is bettertranslated by two, so as to render it rather by “theworship of God.” That this is the wisdom of man, as wehave already laid down in the twelfth book [2] of this work, is shown by theauthority of Holy Scripture, in the book of God’s servantJob, where we read that the Wisdom of God said to man,“Behold piety, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil isknowledge;” [3] or, as some havetranslated the Greek wordἐπιστήμην,“learning,” [4] which certainly takes its name fromlearning, [4] whence also it may be called knowledge. For everythingis learned in order that it may be known. Although the same word,indeed, [5] is employed in adifferent sense, where any one suffers evils for his sins, that hemay be corrected. Whence is that in the Epistle to the Hebrews,“For what son is he to whom the father giveth notdiscipline?” And this is still more apparent in the sameepistle: “Now no chastening [6] for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: neverthelessafterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto themwhich are exercised thereby.” [7] Therefore God Himselfis the chiefest wisdom; but the worship of God is the wisdom of man,of which we now speak. For “the wisdom of this world isfoolishness with God.” [8] It is in respect tothis wisdom, therefore, which is the worship of God, that HolyScripture says, “The multitude of the wise is the welfareof the world.” [9]

2. But if to dispute ofwisdom belongs to wise men, what shall we do? Shall we dare indeedto profess wisdom, lest it should be mere impudence for ourselves todispute about it? Shall we not be alarmed by the example ofPythagoras?—who dared not profess to be a wise man, butanswered that he was a philosopher, i.e., alover of wisdom; whence arose the name, that became thenceforth somuch the popular name, that no matter how great the learning whereinany one excelled, either in his own opinion or that of others, inthings pertaining to wisdom, he was still called nothing more thanphilosopher. Or was it for this reason that no one, even of such as these, dared to profess himself awise man,—because they imagined that a wise man was onewithout sin? But our Scriptures do not say this, which say,“Rebuke a wise man, and he will lovethee.” [1] For doubtless he whothinks a man ought to be rebuked, judges him to have sin. However,for my part, I dare not profess myself a wise man even in thissense; it is enough for me to assume, what they themselves cannotdeny, that to dispute of wisdom belongs also to the philosopher, i.e., the lover of wisdom. For they have notgiven over so disputing who have professed to be lovers of wisdomrather than wise men.

3. In disputing, then, aboutwisdom, they have defined it thus: Wisdom is the knowledge of thingshuman and divine. And hence, in the last book, I have not withheldthe admission, that the cognizance of both subjects, whether divineor human, may be called both knowledge and wisdom. [2] But according to the distinction made in theapostle’s words, “To one is given the word ofwisdom, to another the word of knowledge,” [3] this definition is to be divided, so that theknowledge of things divine shall be called wisdom, and that ofthings human appropriate to itself the name of knowledge; and of thelatter I have treated in the thirteenth book, not indeed so as toattribute to this knowledge everything whatever that can be known byman about things human, wherein there is exceeding much of emptyvanity and mischievous curiosity, but only those things by whichthat most wholesome faith, which leads to true blessedness, isbegotten, nourished, defended, strengthened; and in this knowledgemost of the faithful are not strong, however exceeding strong in thefaith itself. For it is one thing to know only what man ought tobelieve in order to attain to a blessed life, which must needs be aneternal one; but another to know in what way this belief itself mayboth help the pious, and be defended against the impious, which lastthe apostle seems to call by the special name of knowledge. And whenI was speaking of this knowledge before, my especial business was tocommend faith, first briefly distinguishing things eternal fromthings temporal, and there discoursing of things temporal; but whiledeferring things eternal to the present book, I showed also thatfaith respecting things eternal is itself a thing temporal, anddwells in time in the hearts of believers, and yet is necessary inorder to attain the things eternal themselves. [4] I argued also, thatfaith respecting the things temporal which He that is eternal didand suffered for us as man, which manhood He bare in time andcarried on to things eternal, is profitable also for the obtainingof things eternal; and that the virtues themselves, whereby in thistemporal and mortal life men live prudently, bravely, temperately,and justly, are not true virtues, unless they are referred to thatsame faith, temporal though it is, which leads on nevertheless tothings eternal.

CHAP. 2.—: THERE IS A KIND OF TRINITY IN THE HOLDING,CONTEMPLATING, AND LOVING OF FAITH TEMPORAL, BUT ONE THAT DOES NOT YETATTAIN TO BEING PROPERLY AN IMAGE OF GOD.

4. Wherefore since, as it iswritten, “While we are in the body, we are absent fromthe Lord; for we walk by faith, not by sight;” [5] undoubtedly, so long as the just man lives byfaith, [6] howsoever he lives according to the innerman, although he aims at truth and reaches on to things eternal bythis same temporal faith, nevertheless in the holding,contemplating, and loving this temporal faith, we have not yetreached such a trinity as is to be called an image of God; lest thatshould seem to be constituted in things temporal which ought to beso in things eternal. For when the human mind sees its own faith,whereby it believes what it does not see, it does not see a thingeternal. For that will not always exist, which certainly will notthen exist, when this pilgrimage, whereby we are absent from God, insuch way that we must needs walk by faith, shall be ended, and thatsight shall have succeeded it whereby we shall see face to face; [7] just as now, because we believe although we donot see, we shall deserve to see, and shall rejoice at having beenbrought through faith to sight. For then it will be no longer faith,by which that is believed which is not seen; but sight, by whichthat is seen which is believed. And then, therefore, although weremember this past mortal life, and call to mind by recollectionthat we once believed what we did not see, yet that faith will bereckoned among things past and done with, not among things presentand always continuing. And hence also that trinity which nowconsists in the remembering, contemplating, and loving this samefaith while present and continuing, will then be found to be donewith and past, and not still enduring. And hence it is to begathered, that if that trinity is indeed an image of God, then this image itself would have to bereckoned, not among things that exist always, but among thingstransient.

CHAP. 3.—: A DIFFICULTY REMOVED, WHICH LIES IN THE WAY OFWHAT HAS JUST BEEN SAID.

But far be it from us to think, that while the nature of the soul isimmortal, and from the first beginning of its creation thenceforthnever ceases to be, yet that that which is the best thing it hasshould not endure for ever with its own immortality. Yet what isthere in its nature as created, better than that it is made afterthe image of its Creator? [1] We must find then what maybe fittingly called the image of God, not in the holding,contemplating, and loving that faith which will not exist always,but in that which will exist always.

5. Shall we then scrutinizesomewhat more carefully and deeply whether the case is really thus?For it may be said that this trinity does not perish even when faithitself shall have passed away; because, as now we both hold it bymemory, and discern it by thought, and love it by will; so thenalso, when we shall both hold in memory, and shall recollect, thatwe 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 itspassage as it were no trace in us, doubtless we shall not have oughtof it even in our memory, whereto to recur when recollecting it aspast, and by the third, viz. purpose, couplingboth these, to wit, what was in our memory though we were notthinking about it, and what is formed thence by conception. But hewho speaks thus, does not perceive, that when we hold, see, and lovein ourselves our present faith, we are concerned with a differenttrinity as now existing, from that trinity which will exist, when weshall contemplate by recollection, not the faith itself, but as itwere the imagined trace of it laid up in the memory, and shall uniteby the will, as by a third, these two things, viz. that which was in the memory of him who retains, andthat which is impressed thence upon the vision of the mind of himwho recollects. And that we may understand this, let us take anexample from things corporeal, of which we have sufficiently spokenin the eleventh book. [2] For as we ascend from lowerto higher things, or pass inward from outer to inner things, wefirst find a trinity in the bodily object which is seen, and in thevision of the seer, which, when he sees it, is informed thereby, andin the purpose of the will which combines both. Let us assume atrinity like this, when the faith which is now in ourselves is soestablished in our memory as the bodily object we spoke of was inplace, from which faith is formed the conception in recollection, asfrom that bodily object was formed the vision of the beholder; andto these two, to complete the trinity, will is to be reckoned as athird, which connects and combines the faith established in thememory, and a sort of effigy of that faith impressed upon the visionof recollection; just as in that trinity of corporeal vision, theform of the bodily object that is seen, and the corresponding formwrought in the vision of the beholder, are combined by the purposeof the will. Suppose, then, that this bodily object which was beheldwas dissolved and had perished, and that nothing at all of itremained anywhere, to the vision of which the gaze might haverecourse; are we then to say, that because the image of the bodilyobject thus now past and done with remains in the memory, whence toform the conception in recollecting, and to have the two united bywill as a third, therefore it is the same trinity as that formerone, when the appearance of the bodily object posited in place wasseen? Certainly not, but altogether a different one: for, not to saythat that was from without, while this is from within; the formercertainly was produced by the appearance of a present bodily object,the latter by the image of that object now past. So, too, in thecase of which we are now treating, to illustrate which we havethought good to adduce this example, the faith which is even now inour mind, as that bodily object was in place, while held, looked at,loved, produces a sort of trinity; but that trinity will exist nomore, when this faith in the mind, like that bodily object in place,shall no longer exist. But that which will then exist, when we shallremember it to have been, but not now to be, in us, will doubtlessbe a different one. For that which now is, is wrought by the thingitself, actually present and attached to the mind of one whobelieves; but that which shall then be, will be wrought by theimagination of a past thing left in the memory of one whorecollects.

CHAP. 4.—: THE IMAGE OF GOD IS TO BE SOUGHT IN THEIMMORTALITY OF THE RATIONAL SOUL. HOW A TRINITY IS DEMONSTRATED IN THEMIND.

6. Therefore neither is thattrinity an image of God, which is not now, nor is that other animage of God, which then will not be; but we must find in the soulof man, i.e., the rational or intellectual soul, thatimage of the Creator which is immortally implanted in itsimmortality. For as the immortality itself of the soul is spokenwith a qualification; since the soul too has its proper death, whenit lacks a blessed life, which is to be called the true life of thesoul; but it is therefore called immortal, because it never ceasesto live with some life or other, even when it is mostmiserable;—so, although reason or intellect is at onetime torpid in it, at another appears small, and at another great,yet the human soul is never anything save rational or intellectual;and hence, if it is made after the image of God in respect to this,that it is able to use reason and intellect in order to understandand behold God, then from the moment when that nature so marvellousand so great began to be, whether this image be so worn out as to bealmost none at all, or whether it be obscure and defaced, or brightand beautiful, certainly it always is. Further, too, pitying thedefaced condition of its dignity, divine Scripture tells us, that“although man walks in an image, yet he disquietethhimself in vain; he heapeth up riches, and cannot tell who shallgather them.” [1] It would not thereforeattribute vanity to the image of God, unless it perceived it to havebeen defaced. Yet it sufficiently shows that such defacing does notextend to the taking away its being an image, by saying,“Although man walks in an image.” Wherefore inboth ways that sentence can be truly enunciated; in that, as it issaid, “Although man walketh in an image, yet hedisquieteth himself in vain,” so it may be said,“Although man disquieteth himself in vain, yet he walkethin an image.” For although the nature of the soul isgreat, yet it can be corrupted, because it is not the highest; andalthough it can be corrupted, because it is not the highest, yetbecause it is capable and can be partaker of the highest nature, itis a great nature. Let us seek, then, in this image of God a certaintrinity of a special kind, with the aid of Him who Himself made usafter His own image. For no otherwise can we healthfully investigatethis subject, or arrive at any result according to the wisdom whichis from Him. But if the reader will either hold in remembrance andrecollect what we have said of the human soul or mind in formerbooks, and especially in the tenth, or will carefully re-peruse itin the passages wherein it is contained, he will not require hereany more lengthy discourse respecting the inquiry into so great athing.

7. We said, then, amongother 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 alsoother evidences, as much as seemed sufficient, whereby this might bemost certainly proved.

CHAP. 5.—: WHETHER THE MIND OF INFANTS KNOWSITSELF.

What, then, is to be said of the mind of an infant, which is still sosmall, and buried in such profound ignorance of things, that themind 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 toointent upon those things which it has begun to perceive through thebodily senses, with the greater delight in proportion to theirnovelty, it is not able indeed to be ignorant of itself, but is alsonot able to think of itself? Moreover, how intently it is bent uponsensible things that are without it, may be conjectured from thisone fact, that it is so greedy of sensible light, that if any onethrough carelessness, or ignorance of the possible consequences,place a light at nighttime where an infant is lying down, on thatside to which the eyes of the child so lying down can be bent, butits neck cannot be turned, the gaze of that child will be so fixedin that direction, that we have known some to have come to squint bythis means, in that the eyes retained that form which habit in someway impressed upon them while tender and soft. [2] In the case, too, of the other bodilysenses, the souls of infants, as far as their age permits, so narrowthemselves as it were, and are bent upon them, that they eithervehemently detest or vehemently desire that only which offends orallures through the flesh, but do not think of their own inwardself, nor can be made to do so by admonition; because they do notyet know the signs that express admonition, whereof words are thechief, of which as of other things they are wholly ignorant. Andthat it is one thing not to know oneself, another not to think ofoneself, we have shown already in the same book. [3]

8. But let us pass by theinfantine age, since we cannot question it as to what goes on withinitself, while we have ourselves pretty well forgotten it. Let itsuffice only for us hence to be certain, that when man has come tobe able to think of the nature of his own mind, and to find out whatis the truth, he will find it nowhereelse but in himself. And he will find, not what he did not know, butthat of which he did not think. For what do we know, if we do notknow what is in our own mind; when we can know nothing at all ofwhat we do know, unless by the mind?

CHAP. 6.—: HOW A KIND OF TRINITY EXISTS IN THE MINDTHINKING OF ITSELF. WHAT IS THE PART OF THOUGHT IN THIS TRINITY.

The function of thought, however, is so great, that not even the minditself can, so to say, place itself in its own sight, except when itthinks of itself; and hence it is so far the case, that nothing isin the sight of the mind, except that which is being thought of,that not even the mind itself, whereby we think whatever we dothink, can be in its own sight otherwise than by thinking of itself.But in what way it is not in its own sight whenit is not thinking of itself, while it can never be without itself, as though itself were one thing, andthe sight of itself another, it is not in my power to discover. Forthis is not unreasonably said of the eye of the body; for the eyeitself of the body is fixed in its own proper place in the body, butits sight extends to things external to itself, and reaches even tothe stars. And the eye is not in its own sight, since it does notlook at itself, unless by means of a mirror, as is said above; [1] a thing that certainly does not happen when themind places itself in its own sight by thinking of itself. Does itthen see one part of itself by means of another part of itself, whenit looks at itself in thought, as we look at some of our members,which can be in our sight, with other also of our members, viz. with our eyes? What can be said or thoughtmore absurd? For by what is the mind removed, except by itself? orwhere is it placed so as to be in its own sight, except beforeitself? Therefore it will not be there, where it was, when it wasnot in its own sight; because it has been put down in one place,after being taken away from another. But if it migrated in order tobe beheld, where will it remain in order to behold? Is it as it weredoubled, so as to be in this and in that place at the same time, viz. both where it can behold, and where it canbe beheld; that in itself it may be beholding, and before itselfbeheld? If we ask the truth, it will tell us nothing of the sortsince it is but feigned images of bodily objects of which weconceive when we conceive thus; and that the mind is not such, isvery certain to the few minds by which the truth on such a subjectcan be inquired. It appears, therefore, that the beholding of themind is something pertaining to its nature, and is recalled to thatnature when it conceives of itself, not as if by moving throughspace, but by an incorporeal conversion; but when it is notconceiving of itself, it appears that it is not indeed in its ownsight, nor is its own perception formed from it, but yet that itknows itself as though it were to itself a remembrance of itself.Like one who is skilled in many branches of learning: the thingswhich he knows are contained in his memory, but nothing thereof isin the sight of his mind except that of which he is conceiving;while all the rest are stored up in a kind of secret knowledge,which is called memory. The trinity, then, which we were settingforth, was constituted in this way: first, we placed in the memorythe object by which the perception of the percipient was formed;next, the conformation, or as it were the image which is impressedthereby; lastly, love or will as that which combines the two. Whenthe mind, then, beholds itself in conception, it understands andcognizes itself; it begets, therefore, this its own understandingand cognition. For an incorporeal thing is understood when it isbeheld, and is cognized when understood. Yet certainly the mind doesnot so beget this knowledge of itself, when it beholds itself asunderstood by conception, as though it had before been unknown toitself; but it was known to itself, in the way in which things areknown which are contained in the memory, but of which one is notthinking; since we say that a man knows letters even when he isthinking of something else, and not of letters. And these two, thebegetter and the begotten, are coupled together by love, as by athird, which is nothing else than will, seeking or holding fast theenjoyment of something. We held, therefore, that a trinity of themind is to be intimated also by these three terms, memory,intelligence, will.

9. But since the mind, as wesaid near the end of the same tenth book, always remembers itself,and always understands and loves itself, although it does not alwaysthink of itself as distinguished from those things which are notitself; 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 thememory. 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, andafterwards, when it began to think ofitself, then it understood and loved itself.

CHAP. 7.—: THE THING IS MADE PLAIN BY AN EXAMPLE. IN WHATWAY THE MATTER IS HANDLED IN ORDER TO HELP THE READER.

Wherefore let us consider more carefully that example which we haveadduced, wherein it was shown that not knowing a thing is differentfrom not thinking [conceiving] of it; and thatit may so happen that a man knows something of which he is notthinking, when he is thinking of something else, not of that. Whenany one, then, who is skilled in two or more branches of knowledgeis thinking of one of them, though he is not thinking of the otheror others, yet he knows them. But can we rightly say, This musiciancertainly knows music, but he does not now understand it, because heis not thinking of it; but he does now understand geometry, for ofthat he is now thinking? Such an assertion, as far as appears, isabsurd. What, again, if we were to say, This musician certainlyknows music, but he does not now love it, while he is not nowthinking of it; but he does now love geometry, because of that he isnow thinking;—is not this similarly absurd? But we sayquite correctly, This person whom you perceive disputing aboutgeometry is also a perfect musician, for he both remembers music,and understands, and loves it; but although he both knows and lovesit, 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 akind of knowledge of certain things stored up in the recesses of themind, and that this, when it is thought of, as it were, steps forthin public, and is placed as if openly in the sight of the mind; forthen the mind itself finds that it both remembers, and understands,and loves itself, even although it was not thinking of itself, whenit was thinking of something else. But in the case of that of whichwe have not thought for a long time, and cannot think of it unlessreminded; that, if the phrase is allowable, in some wonderful way Iknow not how, we do not know that we know. Inshort, it is rightly said by him who reminds, to him whom hereminds, You know this, but you do not know that you know it; I willremind you, and you will find that you know what you had thought youdid not know. Books, too, lead to the same results, viz. those that are written upon subjects which the readerunder the guidance of reason finds to be true; not those subjectswhich he believes to be true on the faith of the narrator, as in thecase 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 themind. But he who cannot contemplate these things, even whenreminded, is too deeply buried in the darkness of ignorance, throughgreat blindness of heart and too wonderfully needs divine help, tobe able to attain to true wisdom.

10. For this reason I havewished to adduce some kind of proof, be it what it might, respectingthe act of conceiving, such as might serve to show in what way, outof the things contained in the memory, the mind’s eye isinformed in recollecting, and some such thing is begotten, when aman conceives, as was already in him when, before he conceived, heremembered; because it is easier to distinguish things that takeplace at successive times, and where the parent precedes theoffspring by an interval of time. For if we refer ourselves to theinner memory of the mind by which it remembers itself, and to theinner understanding by which it understands itself, and to the innerwill by which it loves itself, where these three always aretogether, and always have been together since they began to be atall, whether they were being thought of or not; the image of thistrinity will indeed appear to pertain even to the memory alone; butbecause in this case a word cannot be without a thought (for we think all that we say, even if it be said bythat inner word which belongs to no separate language), this imageis rather to be discerned in these three things, viz. memory, intelligence, will. And I mean now byintelligence that by which we understand in thought, that is, whenour thought is formed by the finding of those things, which had beenat hand to the memory but were not being thought of; and I mean thatwill, or love, or preference, which combines this offspring andparent, and is in some way common to both. Hence it was that I triedalso, viz. in the eleventh book, to lead on theslowness of readers by means of outward sensible things which areseen by the eyes of the flesh; and that I then proceeded to enterwith them upon that power of the inner man whereby he reasons ofthings temporal, deferring the consideration of that which dominatesas the higher power, by which he contemplates things eternal. And Idiscussed this in two books, distinguishing the two in the twelfth,the one of them being higher and the other lower, and that the lowerought to be subject to the higher; and in the thirteenth Idiscussed, with what truth and brevity I could, the office of thelower, in which the wholesome knowledge of things human iscontained, in order that we may so act inthis temporal life as to attain that which is eternal; since,indeed, I have cursorily included in a single book a subject somanifold and copious, and one so well known by the many and greatarguments of many and great men, while manifesting that a trinityexists also in it, but not yet one that can be called an image ofGod.

CHAP. 8.—: THE TRINITY WHICH IS THE IMAGE OF GOD IS NOWTO BE SOUGHT IN THE NOBLEST PART OF THE MIND.

11. But we have come now tothat argument in which we have undertaken to consider the noblestpart of the human mind, by which it knows or can know God, in orderthat we may find in it the image of God. For although the human mindis not of the same nature with God, yet the image of that naturethan which none is better, is to be sought and found in us, in thatthan which our nature also has nothing better. But the mind mustfirst be considered as it is in itself, before it becomes partakerof 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. [1] For it is His image in this very point, that it is capable of Him,and can be partaker of Him; which so great good is only madepossible by its being His image. Well, then, the mind remembers,understands, loves itself; if we discern this, we discern a trinity,not yet indeed God, but now at last an image of God. The memory doesnot receive from without that which it is to hold; nor does theunderstanding find without that which it is to regard, as the eye ofthe body does; nor has will joined these two from without, as itjoins the form of the bodyily object and that which is thencewrought in the vision of the beholder; nor has conception, in beingturned to it, found an image of a thing seen without, which has beensomehow seized and laid up in the memory, whence the intuition ofhim that recollects has been formed, will as a third joining thetwo: as we showed to take place in those trinities which werediscovered in things corporeal, or which were somehow drawn withinfrom bodily objects by the bodily sense; of all which we havediscoursed in the eleventh book. [2] Nor, again, as it tookplace, or appeared to do so, when we went on further to discuss thatknowledge, which had its place now in the workings of the inner man,and which was to be distinguished from wisdom; of which knowledgethe subject-matter was, as it were, adventitious to the mind, andeither was brought thither by historical information,—asdeeds and words, which are performed in time and pass away, or whichagain are established in the nature of things in their own times andplaces,—or arises in the man himself not being therebefore, whether on the information of others, or by his ownthinking,—as faith, which we commended at length in thethirteenth book, or as the virtues, by which, if they are true, oneso lives well in this mortality as to live blessedly in thatimmortality which God promises. These and other things of the kindhave their proper order in time, and in that order we discerned moreeasily a trinity of memory, sight, and love. For some of such thingsanticipate the knowledge of learners. For they are knowable alsobefore they are known, and beget in the learner a knowledge ofthemselves. And they either exist in their own proper places, orhave happened in time past; although things that are past do notthemselves exist, but only certain signs of them as past, the sightor hearing of which makes it known that they have been and havepassed away. And these signs are either situate in the placesthemselves, as e.g. monuments of the dead orthe like; or exist in written books worthy of credit, as is allhistory that is of weight and approved authority; or are in theminds of those who already know them; since what is already known tothem is knowable certainly to others also, whose knowledge it hasanticipated, and who are able to know it on the information of thosewho do know it. And all these things, when they are learned, producea certain kind of trinity, viz. by their ownproper species, which was knowable also before it was known, and bythe application to this of the knowledge of the learner, which thenbegins to exist when he learns them, and by will as a third whichcombines both; and when they are known, yet another trinity isproduced in the recollecting of them, and this now inwardly in themind itself, from those images which, when they were learned, wereimpressed upon the memory, and from the informing of the thoughtwhen the look has been turned upon these by recollection, and fromthe will which as a third combines these two. But those things whicharise in the mind, not having been there before, as faith and otherthings of that kind, although they appear to be adventitious, sincethey are implanted by teaching, yet are not situate without ortransacted without, as are those things which are believed; butbegan to be altogether within in the mind itself. For faith is notthat which is believed, but that by which it is believed; and theformer is believed, the latter seen.Nevertheless, because it began to be in the mind, which was a mindalso before these things began to be in it, it seems to be somewhatadventitious, and will be reckoned among things past, when sightshall have succeeded, and itself shall have ceased to be. And itmakes now by its presence, retained as it is, and beheld, and loved,a different trinity from that which it will then make by means ofsome trace of itself, which in passing it will have left in thememory: as has been already said above.

CHAP. 9.—: WHETHER JUSTICE AND THE OTHER VIRTUES CEASE TOEXIST IN THE FUTURE LIFE.

12. There is, however, somequestion raised, whether the virtues likewise by which one liveswell in this present mortality, seeing that they themselves beginalso to be in the mind, which was a mind none the less when itexisted before without them, cease also to exist at that time whenthey have brought us to things eternal. For some have thought thatthey will cease, and in the case of three—prudence,fortitude, temperance—such an assertion seems to havesomething in it; but justice is immortal, and will rather then bemade perfect in us than cease to be. Yet Tullius, the great authorof eloquence, when arguing in the dialogue Hortensius, says of all four: “If we wereallowed, when we migrated from this life, to live forever in theislands of the blessed, as fables tell, what need were there ofeloquence when there would be no trials, or what need, indeed, ofthe very virtues themselves? For we should not need fortitude whennothing 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 betweengood and evil. We should be blessed, therefore, solely by learningand knowing nature, by which alone also the life of the gods ispraiseworthy. And hence we may perceive that everything else is amatter of necessity, but this is one of free choice.”This great orator, then, when proclaiming the excellence ofphilosophy, going over again all that he had learned fromphilosophers, and excellently and pleasantly explaining it, hasaffirmed all four virtues to be necessary in this life only, whichwe see to be full of troubles and mistakes; but not one of them whenwe shall have migrated from this life, if we are permitted to livethere where is a blessed life; but that blessed souls are blessedonly in learning and knowing, i.e. in thecontemplation of nature, than which nothing is better and morelovable. It is that nature which created and appointed all othernatures. And if it belongs to justice to be subject to thegovernment of this nature, then justice is certainly immortal; norwill it cease to be in that blessedness, but will be such and sogreat that it cannot be more perfect or greater. Perhaps, too, theother three virtues—prudence although no longer with anyrisk of error, and fortitude without the vexation of bearing evils,and temperance without the thwarting of lust—will existin that blessedness: so that it may be the part of prudence toprefer or equal no good thing to God; and of fortitude, to cleave toHim most steadfastly; and of temperance, to be pleased by no harmfuldefect. But that which justice is now concerned with in helping thewretched, and prudence in guarding against treachery, and fortitudein bearing troubles patiently, and temperance in controlling evilpleasures, will not exist there, where there will be no evil at all.And hence those acts of the virtues which are necessary to thismortal life, like the faith to which they are to be referred, willbe reckoned among things past; and they make now a differenttrinity, whilst we hold, look at, and love them as present, fromthat which they will then make, when we shall discover them not tobe, but to have been, by certain traces of them which they will haveleft in passing in the memory; since then, too, there will be atrinity, when that trace, be it of what sort it may, shall beretained in the memory, and truly recognized, and then these two bejoined by will as a third.

CHAP. 10.—: HOW A TRINITY IS PRODUCED BY THE MINDREMEMBERING, UNDERSTANDING, AND LOVING ITSELF.

13. In the knowledge of allthese temporal things which we have mentioned, there are someknowable things which precede the acquisition of the knowledge ofthem by an interval of time, as in the case of those sensibleobjects which were already real before they were known, or of allthose things that are learned through history; but some things beginto be at the same time with the knowing of them,—just as,if any visible object, which did not exist before at all, were torise up before our eyes, certainly it does not precede our knowingit; 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 endsimultaneously. Yet none the less, whether preceding in time orbeginning to exist simultaneously, knowable things generateknowledge, and are not generated byknowledge. But when knowledge has come to pass, whenever the thingsknown and laid up in memory are reviewed by recollection, who doesnot see that the retaining them in the memory is prior in time tothe sight of them in recollection, and to the uniting of the twothings by will as a third? In the mind, howver, it is not so. Forthe mind is not adventitious to itself, as though there came toitself already existing, that same self not already existing, fromsomewhere else, or did not indeed come from somewhere else, but thatin the mind itself already existing, there was born that same mindnot already existing; just as faith, which before was not, arises inthe mind which already was. Nor does the mind see itself, as itwere, set up in its own memory by recollection subsequently to theknowing of itself, as though it was not there before it knew itself;whereas, doubtless, from the time when it began to be, it has neverceased to remember, to understand, and to love itself, as we havealready shown. And hence, when it is turned to itself by thought,there arises a trinity, in which now at length we can discern also aword; since it is formed from thought itself, will uniting both.Here, then, we may recognize, more than we have hitherto done, theimage of which we are in search.

CHAP. 11.—: WHETHER MEMORY IS ALSO OF THINGSPRESENT.

14. But some one will say,That is not memory by which the mind, which is ever present toitself, is affirmed to remember itself; for memory is of thingspast, not of things present. For there are some, and among themCicero, who, in treating of the virtues, have divided prudence intothese 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 caseof those who are prescient of the future; and this is no gift ofmen, unless it be granted from above, as to the prophets. And hencethe book of Wisdom, speaking of men, “The thoughts ofmortals,” it says, “are fearful, and ourforethought uncertain.” [1] But memory of thingspast, and understanding of things present, are certain: certain, Imean, respecting things incorporeal, which are present; for thingscorporeal are present to the sight of the corporeal eyes. But letany one who denies that there is any memory of things present,attend to the language used even in profane literature, whereexactness of words was more looked for than truth of things.“Nor did Ulysses suffer such things, nor did the Ithacanforget himself in so great a peril.” [2] For when Virgil said that Ulysses didnot forget himself, what else did he mean, except that he rememberedhimself? And since he was present to himself, he could not possiblyremember himself, unless memory pertained to things present. And,therefore, as that is called memory in things past which makes itpossible to recall and remember them; so in a thing present, as themind is to itself, that is not unreasonably to be called memory,which makes the mind at hand to itself, so that it can be understoodby its own thought, and then both be joined together by love ofitself.

CHAP. 12.—: THE TRINITY IN THE MIND IS THE IMAGE OF GOD,IN THAT IT REMEMBERS, UNDERSTANDS, AND LOVES GOD, WHICH TO DO ISWISDOM.

15. This trinity, then, ofthe mind is not therefore the image of God, because the mindremembers itself, and understands and loves itself; but because itcan also remember, understand, and love Him by whom it was made. Andin so doing it is made wise itself. But if it does not do so, evenwhen it remembers, understands, and loves itself, then it isfoolish. 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 morebriefly, let it worship God, who is not made, by whom because itselfwas made, it is capable and can be partaker of Him; wherefore it iswritten, “Behold, the worship of God, that iswisdom.” [3] And then it will bewise, not by its own light, but by participation of that supremeLight; and wherein it is eternal, therein shall reign inblessedness. For this wisdom of man is so called, in that it is alsoof God. For then it is true wisdom; for if it is human, it is vain.Yet not so of God, as is that wherewith God is wise. For He is notwise by partaking of Himself, as the mind is by partaking of God.But as we call it the righteousness of God, not only when we speakof that by which He Himself is righteous, but also of that which Hegives to man when He justifies the ungodly, which latterrighteousness the apostle commending, says of some, that“not knowing the righteousness of God and going about toestablish their own righteousness, they are not subject to therighteousness of God;” [4] so also it may be said ofsome, that not knowing the wisdom of Godand going about to establish their own wisdom, they are not subjectto the wisdom of God.

16. There is, then, a naturenot made, which made all other natures, great and small, and iswithout doubt more excellent than those which it has made, andtherefore also than that of which we are speaking; viz. than the rational and intellectual nature, which isthe mind of man, made after the image of Him who made it. And thatnature, more excellent than the rest, is God. And indeed“He is not far from every one of us,” as theapostle says, who adds, “For in Him we live, and aremoved, and have our being.” [1] And if this weresaid in respect to the body, it might be understood even of thiscorporeal world; for in it too in respect to the body, we live, andare moved, and have our being. And therefore it ought to be taken ina more excellent way, and one that is spiritual, not visible, inrespect to the mind, which is made after His image. For what isthere that is not in Him, of whom it is divinely written,“For of Him, and through Him, and in Him, are allthings”? [2] If, then, all things arein Him, in whom can any possibly live that do live, or be moved thatare moved, except in Him in whom they are? Yet all are not with Himin that way in which it is said to Him, “I am continuallywith Thee.” [3] Nor is He with all inthat way in which we say, The Lord be with you. And so it is theespecial wretchedness of man not to be with Him, without whom hecannot be. For, beyond a doubt, he is not without Him in whom he is;and yet if he does not remember, and understand, and love Him, he isnot with Him. And when any one absolutely forgets a thing, certainlyit is impossible even to remind him of it.

CHAP. 13.—: HOW ANY ONE CAN FORGET AND REMEMBERGOD.

17. Let us take an instancefor the purpose from visible things. Somebody whom you do notrecognize 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, afterthe mention of every sign by which you might be recalled toremembrance, you still do not recognize him, then you have so cometo forget, as that the whole of that knowledge is altogether blottedout of your mind; and nothing else remains, but that you take hisword for it who tells you that you once knew him; or do not even dothat, if you do not think the person who speaks to you to be worthyof credit. But if you do remember him, then no doubt you return toyour own memory, and find in it that which had not been altogetherblotted out by forgetfulness. Let us return to that which led us toadduce this instance from the intercourse of men. Among otherthings, the 9th Psalm says, “The wicked shall be turnedinto hell, and all the nations that forget God;” [4] and again the 22d Psalm, “All the endsof the world shall be reminded, and turned unto theLord.” [5] These nations, then,will not so have forgotten God as to be unable to remember Him whenreminded of Him; yet, by forgetting God, as though forgetting theirown life, they had been turned into death, i.e. into hell. [6] But when reminded they are turnedto the Lord, as though coming to life again by remembering theirproper life which they had forgotten. It is read also in the 94thPsalm, “Perceive now, ye who are unwise among the people;and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shallHe not hear?” etc. [7] For this is spoken tothose, who said vain things concerning God through not understandingHim.

CHAP. 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 ANDERRING MIND IS ALWAYS STRONG IN REMEMBERING, UNDERSTANDING, AND LOVINGITSELF. LET IT BE TURNED TO GOD, THAT IT MAY BE BLESSED BY REMEMBERING,UNDERSTANDING, AND LOVING HIM.

18. But there are yet moretestimonies in the divine Scriptures concerning the love of God. Forin it, those other two [namely, memory andunderstanding] are understood by consequence, inasmuch asno one loves that which he does not remember, or of which he iswholly ignorant. And hence is that well known and primarycommandment, “Thou shalt love the Lord thyGod.” [8] The human mind, then, isso constituted, that at no time does it not remember, andunderstand, and love itself. But since he who hates any one isanxious to injure him, not undeservedly is the mind of man also saidto hate itself when it injures itself. For it wills ill to itselfthrough ignorance, in that it does not think that what it wills isprejudicial to it; but it none the less does will ill to itself,when it wills what would be prejudicial to it. And hence it iswritten, “He that loveth iniquity, hateth his ownsoul.” [9] He, therefore, who knowshow to love himself, loves God; but hewho does not love God, even if he does love himself,—athing implanted in him by nature,—yet is not unsuitablysaid to hate himself, inasmuch as he does that which is adverse tohimself, and assails himself as though he were his own enemy. Andthis is no doubt a terrible delusion, that whereas all will toprofit themselves, many do nothing but that which is most perniciousto themselves. When the poet was describing a like disease of dumbanimals, “May the gods,” says he,“grant better things to the pious, and assign thatdelusion to enemies. They were rending with bare teeth their owntorn limbs.” [1] Since it was a disease of the body hewas speaking of, why has he called it a delusion, unless because,while nature inclines every animal to take all the care it can ofitself, that disease was such that those animals rent those verylimbs of theirs which they desired should be safe and sound? Butwhen the mind loves God, and by consequence, as has been said,remembers and understands Him, then it is rightly enjoined also tolove its neighbor as itself; for it has now come to love itselfrightly and not perversely when it loves God, by partaking of whomthat image not only exists, but is also renewed so as to be nolonger old, and restored so as to be no longer defaced, andbeatified so as to be no longer unhappy. For although it so loveitself, that, supposing the alternative to be proposed to it, itwould lose all things which it loves less than itself rather thanperish; still, by abandoning Him who is above it, in dependence uponwhom alone it could guard its own strength, and enjoy Him as itslight, to whom it is sung in the Psalm, “I will guard mystrength in dependence upon Thee,” [2] and again,“Draw near to Him, and be enlightened,” [3] —it has been made so weak and so dark,that it has fallen away unhappily from itself too, to those thingsthat are not what itself is, and which are beneath itself, byaffections that it cannot conquer, and delusions from which it seesno way to return. And hence, when by God’s mercy nowpenitent, it cries out in the Psalms, “My strengthfaileth me; as for the light of mine eyes, it also is gone fromme.” [4]

19. Yet, in the midst ofthese evils of weakness and delusion, great as they are, it couldnot lose its natural memory, understanding and love of itself. Andtherefore what I quoted above [5] can be rightly said,“Although man walketh in an image, surely he isdisquieted in vain: he heapeth up treasures, and knoweth not whoshall gather them.” [6] For why does he heap uptreasures, unless because his strength has deserted him, throughwhich he would have God, and so lack nothing? And why cannot he tellfor whom he shall gather them, unless because the light of his eyesis taken from him? And so he does not see what the Truth saith,“Thou fool, this night thy soul shall be required ofthee. Then whose shall those things be which thou hastprovided?” [7] Yet because even such aman walketh in an image, and the man’s mind hasremembrance, understanding, and love of itself; if it were madeplain to it that it could not have both, while it was permitted tochoose one and lose the other, viz. either thetreasures it has heaped up, or the mind; who is so utterly withoutmind, as to prefer to have the treasures rather than the mind? Fortreasures commonly are able to subvert the mind, but the mind thatis not subverted by treasures can live more easily andunencumberedly without any treasures. But who will be able topossess treasures unless it be by means of the mind? For if aninfant, born as rich as you please, although lord of everything thatis rightfully his, yet possesses nothing if his mind be unconscious,how can any one possibly possess anything whose mind is wholly lost?But why say of treasures, that anybody, if the choice be given him,prefers going without them to going without a mind; when there is noone that prefers, nay, no one that compares them, to those lights ofthe body, by which not one man only here and there, as in the caseof gold, but every man, possesses the very heaven? For every onepossesses by the eyes of the body whatever he gladly sees. Who thenis there, who, if he could not keep both, but must lose one, wouldnot rather lose his treasures than his eyes? And yet if it were putto him on the same condition, whether he would rather lose eyes thanmind, who is there with a mind that does not see that he wouldrather lose the former than the latter? For a mind without the eyesof the flesh is still human, but the eyes of the flesh without amind are bestial. And who would not rather be a man, even thoughblind in fleshly sight, than a beast that can see?

20. I have said thus much,that even those who are slower of understanding, to whose eyes orears this book may come, might be admonished, however briefly, howgreatly even a weak and erring mind loves itself, in wrongly lovingand pursuing things beneath itself. Now it could not love itself ifit were altogether ignorant of itself, i. e. if it did not remember itself, norunderstand itself; by which image of God within itself it has suchpower as to be able to cleave to Him whose image it is. For it is soreckoned in the order, not of place, but of natures, as that thereis none above it save Him. When, finally, it shall altogether cleaveto Him, then it will be one spirit, as the apostle testifies,saying, “But he who cleaves to the Lord is onespirit.” [1] And this by its drawingnear to partake of His nature, truth, and blessedness, yet not byHis increasing in His own nature, truth and blessedness. In thatnature, then, when it happily has cleaved to it, it will liveunchangeably, and will see as unchangeable all that it does see.Then, as divine Scripture promises, “His desire will besatisfied with good things,” [2] good thingsunchangeable,—the very Trinity itself, its own God, whoseimage it is. And that it may not ever thenceforward suffer wrong, itwill be in the hidden place of His presence, [3] filled with so greatfullness of Him, that sin thenceforth will never delight it. Butnow, when it sees itself, it sees something not unchangeable.

CHAP. 15.—: ALTHOUGH THE SOUL HOPES FOR BLESSEDNESS, YETIT DOES NOT REMEMBER LOST BLESSEDNESS, BUT REMEMBERS GOD AND THE RULESOF RIGHTEOUSNESS. THE UNCHANGEABLE RULES OF RIGHT LIVING ARE KNOWN EVENTO THE UNGODLY.

21. And of this certainly itfeels no doubt, that it is wretched, and longs to be blessed; norcan it hope for the possibility of this on any other ground than itsown changeableness; for if it were not changeable, then, as it couldnot become wretched after being blessed, so neither could it becomeblessed after being wretched. And what could have made it wretchedunder an omnipotent and good God, except its own sin and therighteousness of its Lord? And what will make it blessed, unless itsown merit, and its Lord’s reward? But its merit, too, isHis grace, whose reward will be its blessedness; for it cannot giveitself the righteousness it has lost, and so has not. For this itreceived when man was created, and assuredly lost it by sinning.Therefore it receives righteousness, that on account of this it maydeserve to receive blessedness; and hence the apostle truly says toit, when beginning to be proud as it were of its own good,“For what hast thou that thou didst not receive? Now ifthou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst notreceived it?” [4] But when it rightlyremembers its own Lord, having received His Spirit, then, because itis so taught by an inward teaching, it feels wholly that it cannotrise save by His affection freely given, nor has been able to fallsave by its own defection freely chosen. Certainly it does notremember its own blessedness; since that has been, but is not, andit has utterly forgotten it, and therefore cannot even be remindedof it. [5] Butit believes what the trustworthy Scriptures of its God tell of thatblessedness, which were written by His prophet, and tell of theblessedness of Paradise, and hand down to us historical informationof that first both good and ill of man. And it remembers the Lordits God; for He always is, nor has been and is not, nor is but hasnot been; but as He never will not be, so He never was not. And Heis whole everywhere. And hence it both lives, and is moved, and isin Him; [6] and so it can remember Him. Not because itrecollects the having known Him in Adam or anywhere else before thelife of this present body, or when it was first made in order to beimplanted in this body; for it remembers nothing at all of all this.Whatever there is of this, it has been blotted out by forgetfulness.But it is reminded, that it may be turned to God, as though to thatlight by which it was in some way touched, even when turned awayfrom Him. For hence it is that even the ungodly think of eternity,and rightly blame and rightly praise many things in the morals ofmen. And by what rules do they thus judge, except by those whereinthey see how men ought to live, even though they themselves do notso live? And where do they see these rules? For they do not see themin their own [moral] nature; since no doubtthese things are to be seen by the mind, and their minds areconfessedly changeable, but these rules are seen as unchangeable byhim who can see them at all; nor yet in the character of their ownmind, since these rules are rules of righteousness, and their mindsare confessedly unrighteous. Where indeed are these rules written,wherein even the unrighteous recognizes what is righteous, whereinhe discerns that he ought to have what he himself has not? Where,then, are they written, unless in the book of that Light which iscalled Truth? whence every righteous law is copied and transferred (not by migrating to it, but by being asit were impressed upon it) to the heart of the man that workethrighteousness; as the impression from a ring passes into the wax,yet does not leave the ring. But he who worketh not, and yet seeshow he ought to work, he is the man that is turned away from thatlight, which yet touches him. But he who does not even see how heought to live, sins indeed with more excuse, because he is not atransgressor of a law that he knows; but even he too is just touchedsometimes by the splendor of the everywhere present truth, when uponadmonition he confesses.

CHAP. 16.—: HOW THE IMAGE OF GOD IS FORMED ANEW INMAN.

22. But those who, by beingreminded, are turned to the Lord from that deformity whereby theywere through worldly lusts conformed to this world, are formed anewfrom the world, when they hearken to the apostle, saying,“Be not conformed to this world, but be ye formed againin the renewing of your mind;” [1] that that image may beginto be formed again by Him by whom it had been formed at first. Forthat image cannot form itself again, as it could deform itself. Hesays again elsewhere: “Be ye renewed in the spirit ofyour mind; and put ye on the new man, which after God is created inrighteousness and true holiness.” [2] That which is meantby “created after God,” is expressed inanother place by “after the image of God.” [3] But it lost righteousness and true holiness bysinning, through which that image became defaced and tarnished; andthis it recovers when it is formed again and renewed. But when hesays, “In the spirit of your mind,” he doesnot intend to be understood of two things, as though mind were one,and the spirit of the mind another; but he speaks thus, because allmind is spirit, but all spirit is not mind. For there is a Spiritalso that is God, [4] which cannot be renewed,because it cannot grow old. And we speak also of a spirit in mandistinct from the mind, to which spirit belong the images that areformed after the likeness of bodies; and of this the apostle speaksto the Corinthians, where he says, “But if I shall haveprayed with a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding isunfruitful.” [5] For he speaks thus,when that which is said is not understood; since it cannot even besaid, unless the images of the corporeal articulate soundsanticipate the oral sound by the thought of the spirit. The soul ofman is also called spirit, whence are the words in the Gospel,“And He bowed His head, and gave up Hisspirit;” [6] by which the death ofthe body, through the spirit’s leaving it, is signified.We speak also of the spirit of a beast, as it is expressly writtenin the book of Solomon called Ecclesiastes; “Who knoweththe spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beastthat goeth downward to the earth?” [7] It is written too inGenesis, where it is said that by the deluge all flesh died which“had in it the spirit of life.” [8] We speak also of the spirit, meaning the wind, athing most manifestly corporeal; whence is that in the Psalms,“Fire and hail, snow and ice, the spirit of thestorm.” [9] Since spirit, then, isa word of so many meanings, the apostle intended to express by“the spirit of the mind” that spirit which iscalled the mind. As the same apostle also, when he says,“In putting off the body of the flesh,” [10] certainly did not intend two things, as thoughflesh were one, and the body of the flesh another; but because bodyis the name of many things that have no flesh (for besides theflesh, there are many bodies celestial and bodies terrestrial), heexpressed by the body of the flesh that body which is flesh. In likemanner, therefore, by the spirit of the mind, that spirit which ismind. Elsewhere, too, he has even more plainly called it an image,while enforcing the same thing in other words. “Doyou,” he says, “putting off the old man withhis deeds, put on the new man, which is renewed in the knowledge ofGod after the image of Him that created him.” [11] Where the one passage reads, “Put yeon the new man, which is created after God,” the otherhas, “Put ye on the new man, which is renewed after theimage of Him that created him.” In the one place he says,“After God;” in the other, “Afterthe image of Him that created him.” But instead ofsaying, as in the former passage, “In righteousness andtrue holiness,” he has put in the latter, “Inthe knowledge of God.” This renewal, then, and formingagain of the mind, is wrought either after God, or after the imageof God. But it is said to be after God, in order that it may not besupposed to be after another creature; and to be after the image ofGod, in order that this renewing may be understood to take place inthat wherein is the image of God, i.e. in themind. Just as we say, that he who has departed from the body afaithful and righteous man, is dead after the body, not after thespirit. For what do we mean by dead after the body, unless as to the body or in the body, and not dead asto the soul or in the soul? Or if we want to say he is handsomeafter the body, or strong after the body, not after the mind; whatelse is this, than that he is handsome or strong in body, not inmind? And the same is the case with numberless other instances. Letus not therefore so understand the words, “After theimage of Him that created him,” as though it were adifferent image after which he is renewed, and not the very samewhich is itself renewed.

CHAP. 17.—: HOW THE IMAGE OF GOD IN THE MIND IS RENEWEDUNTIL THE LIKENESS OF GOD IS PERFECTED IN IT IN BLESSEDNESS.

23. Certainly this renewaldoes not take place in the single moment of conversion itself, asthat renewal in baptism takes place in a single moment by theremission of all sins; for not one, be it ever so small, remainsunremitted. But as it is one thing to be free from fever, andanother to grow strong again from the infirmity which the feverproduced; and one thing again to pluck out of the body a weaponthrust into it, and another to heal the wound thereby made by aprosperous cure; so the first cure is to remove the cause ofinfirmity, and this is wrought by the forgiving of all sins; but thesecond cure is to heal the infirmity itself, and this takes placegradually by making progress in the renewal of that image: which twothings are plainly shown in the Psalm, where we read,“Who forgiveth all thine iniquities,” whichtakes place in baptism; and then follows, “and healethall thine infirmities;” [1] and this takes place bydaily additions, while this image is being renewed. [2] And the apostle has spoken of this most expressly, saying,“And though our outward man perish, yet the inner man isrenewed day by day.” [3] And “it isrenewed in the knowledge of God, i.e. inrighteousness and true holiness,” according to thetestimonies of the apostle cited a little before. He, then, who isday by day renewed by making progress in the knowledge of God, andin righteousness and true holiness, transfers his love from thingstemporal to things eternal, from things visible to thingsintelligible, from things carnal to things spiritual; and diligentlyperseveres in bridling and lessening his desire for the former, andin binding himself by love to the latter. And he does this inproportion as he is helped by God. For it is the sentence of GodHimself, “Without me ye can do nothing.” [4] And when the last day of life shall have found anyone holding fast faith in the Mediator in such progress and growthas this, he will be welcomed by the holy angels, to be led to God,whom he has worshipped, and to be made perfect by Him; and so willreceive in the end of the world an incorruptible body, in order notto punishment, but to glory. For the likeness of God will then beperfected in this image, when the sight of God shall be perfected.And of this the Apostle Paul speaks: “Now we see througha glass, in an enigma, but then face to face.” [5] And again: “But we with open face,beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into thesame image, from glory to glory, even as by the spirit of theLord.” [6] And this is whathappens from day to day in those that make good progress.

CHAP. 18.—: WHETHER THE SENTENCE OF JOHN IS TO BEUNDERSTOOD OF OUR FUTURE LIKENESS WITH THE SON OF GOD IN THE IMMORTALITYITSELF ALSO OF THE BODY.

24. But the Apostle Johnsays, “Beloved, now are we the sons of God; and it dothnot yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when He shallappear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as Heis.” [7] Hence it appears, thatthe full likeness of God is to take place in that image of God atthat time when it shall receive the full sight of God. And yet thismay also possibly seem to be said by the Apostle John of theimmortality of the body. For we shall be like to God in this too,but only to the Son, because He only in the Trinity took a body, inwhich He died and rose again, and which He carried with Him toheaven above. For this, too, is called an image of the Son of God,in which we shall have, as He has, an immortal body, being conformedin this respect not to the image of the Father or of the HolySpirit, but only of the Son, because of Him alone is it read andreceived by a sound faith, that “the Word was madeflesh.” [8] And for this reason theapostle says, “Whom He did foreknow, He also didpredestinate to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He mightbe the first-born among many brethren.” [9] “The first-born” certainly“from the dead,” [10] according to the same apostle; by which death Hisflesh was sown in dishonor, and rose again in glory. According tothis image of the Son, to which we are conformed in the body byimmortality, we also do that of which the same apostle speaks,“As we have borne the image of the earthy, so shall wealso bear the image of the heavenly;” [1] to wit, that we whoare mortal after Adam, may hold by a true faith, and a sure andcertain hope, that we shall be immortal after Christ. For so can wenow bear the same image, not yet in sight, but in faith; not yet infact, but in hope. For the apostle, when he said this, was speakingof the resurrection of the body.

CHAP. 19.—: JOHN IS RATHER TO BE UNDERSTOOD OF OUR PERFECTLIKENESS WITH THE TRINITY IN LIFE ETERNAL. WISDOM IS PERFECTED INHAPPINESS.

25. But in respect to thatimage indeed, of which it is said, “Let us make man afterour image and likeness,” [2] webelieve,—and, after the utmost search we have been ableto make, understand,—that man was made after the image ofthe Trinity, because it is not said, After my, or After thy image.And therefore that place too of the Apostle John must be understoodrather according to this image, when he says, “We shallbe like Him, for we shall see Him as He is;” because hespoke too of Him of whom he had said, “We are the sons ofGod.” [3] And the immortality ofthe flesh will be perfected in that moment of the resurrection, ofwhich the Apostle Paul says, “In the twinkling of an eye,at the last trump; and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, andwe shall be changed.” [4] For in that verytwinkling of an eye, before the judgment, the spiritual body shallrise again in power, in incorruption, in glory, which is now sown anatural body in weakness, in corruption, in dishonor. But the imagewhich is renewed in the spirit of the mind in the knowledge of God,not outwardly, but inwardly, from day to day, shall be perfected bythat sight itself; which then after the judgment shall be face toface, but now makes progress as through a glass in an enigma. [5] And we must understand it to be said on accountof this perfection, that “we shall be like Him, for weshall see Him as He is.” For this gift will be given tous at that time, when it shall have been said, “Come, yeblessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared foryou.” [6] For then will theungodly be taken away, so that he shall not see the glory of theLord, [7] when those on the left hand shall go intoeternal punishment, while those on the right go into lifeeternal. [8] But “this is eternallife,” as the Truth tells us; “to knowThee,” He says, “the one true God, and JesusChrist whom Thou hast sent.” [9]

26. This contemplativewisdom, which I believe is properly called wisdom as distinct fromknowledge in the sacred writings; but wisdom only of man, which yetman has not except from Him, by partaking of whom a rational andintellectual mind can be made truly wise;—thiscontemplative wisdom, I say, it is that Cicero commends, in the endof the dialogue Hortensius, when he says:“While, then, we consider these things night and day, andsharpen our understanding, which is the eye of the mind, taking carethat 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 shallstill, when we have discharged our human offices, have a pleasantsetting, and a not painful extinction, and as it were a rest fromlife: or if, on the other, as ancient philosophersthought,—and those, too, the greatest and far the mostcelebrated,—we have souls eternal and divine, then mustwe needs think, that the more these shall have always kept in theirown proper course, i.e. in reason and in thedesire of inquiry, and the less they shall have mixed and entangledthemselves in the vices and errors of men, the more easy ascent andreturn they will have to heaven.” And then he says,adding this short sentence, and finishing his discourse by repeatingit: “Wherefore, to end my discourse at last, if we wisheither for a tranquil extinction, after living in the pursuit ofthese subjects, or if to migrate without delay from this presenthome to another in no little measure better, we must bestow all ourlabor and care upon these pursuits.” And here I marvel,that a man of such great ability should promise to men living inphilosophy, 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 andperishable;” as if that which we did not love, or ratherwhich we fiercely hated, were then to die and come to nothing, sothat its setting would be pleasant to us! But indeed he had notlearned this from the philosophers, whom he extols with greatpraise; but this sentiment is redolent of that New Academy, whereinit pleased him to doubt of even theplainest things. But from the philosophers that were greatest andfar most celebrated, as he himself confesses, he had learned thatsouls are eternal. For souls that are eternal are not unsuitablystirred up by the exhortation to be found in “their ownproper course,” when the end of this life shall havecome, i.e. “in reason and in thedesire of inquiry,” and to mix and entangle themselvesthe less in the vices and errors of men, in order that they may havean easier return to God. But that course which consists in the loveand investigation of truth does not suffice for the wretched, i.e. for all mortals who have only this kind ofreason, and are without faith in the Mediator; as I have taken painsto prove, as much as I could, in former books of this work,especially in the fourth and thirteenth.

BOOK XV.

BEGINS BY SETTING FORTH BRIEFLY AND IN SUM THECONTENTS OF THE PREVIOUS FOURTEEN BOOKS. THE ARGUMENT IS THENSHOWN TO HAVE REACHED SO FAR AS TO ALLOW OF OUR NOW INQUIRINGCONCERNING THE TRINITY, WHICH IS GOD, IN THOSE ETERNAL,INCORPOREAL, AND UNCHANGEABLE THINGS THEMSELVES, IN THE PERFECTCONTEMPLATION OF WHICH A BLESSED LIFE IS PROMISED TO US. BUTTHIS TRINITY, AS HE SHOWS, IS HERE SEEN BY US AS BY A MIRROR ANDIN 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 OFDISCERNMENT. IN LIKE MANNER, IT IS SHOWN, THAT SOME KIND OFCONJECTURE AND EXPLANATION MAY BE GATHERED RESPECTING THEGENERATION OF THE DIVINE WORD, FROM THE WORD OF OUR OWN MIND,BUT ONLY WITH DIFFICULTY, ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXCEEDING DISPARITYWHICH IS DISCERNIBLE BETWEEN THE TWO WORDS; AND, AGAIN,RESPECTING THE PROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT, FROM THE LOVE THATIS JOINED THERETO BY THE WILL.

CHAP. 1.—: GOD IS ABOVE THE MIND.

1. DESIRING to exercise the reader in the thingsthat 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 thatwherein he excels the other animals, i.e. inreason or intelligence, and whatever else can be said of therational or intellectual soul that pertains to what is called themind. [1] For by this name some Latinwriters, after their own peculiar mode of speech, distinguish thatwhich excels in man, and is not in the beast, from the soul, [2] which is in the beast as well.If, then, we seek anything that is above this nature, and seektruly, it is God,—namely, a nature not created, butcreating. And whether this is the Trinity, it is now our business todemonstrate not only to believers, by authority of divine Scripture,but also to such as understand, by some kind of reason, if we can.And why I say, if we can, the thing itself will show better when wehave begun to argue about it in our inquiry.

CHAP. 2.—: GOD, ALTHOUGH INCOMPREHENSIBLE, IS EVER TO BESOUGHT. THE TRACES OF THE TRINITY ARE NOT VAINLY SOUGHT IN THECREATURE.

2. For God Himself, whom weseek, will, as I hope, help our labors, that they may not beunfruitful, and that we may understand how it is said in the holyPsalm. “Let the heart of them rejoice that seek the Lord.Seek the Lord, and be strengthened: seek His faceevermore.” [3] For that which is alwaysbeing sought seems as though it were never found and how then willthe heart of them that seek rejoice, and not rather be made sad, ifthey cannot find what they seek? For it is not said, The heart shallrejoice of them that find, but of them that seek, the Lord. And yetthe prophet Isaiah testifies, that the Lord God can be found when Heis sought, when he says: “Seek ye the Lord; and as soonas ye have found Him, call upon Him: and when He has drawn near toyou, let the wicked man forsake his ways, and the unrighteous manhis thoughts.” [4] If, then, when sought,He can be found, why is it said, “Seek ye His faceevermore?” Is He perhaps to be sought even when found?For things incomprehensible must so be investigated, as that no onemay think he has found nothing, when he has been able to find howincomprehensible that is which he was seeking. Why then does he soseek, if he comprehends that which he seeks to be incomprehensible,unless because he may not give over seeking so long as he makesprogress in the inquiry itself into things incomprehensible, and becomes ever better and better whileseeking so great a good, which is both sought in order to be found,and found in order to be sought? For it is both sought in order thatit may be found more sweetly, and found in order that it may besought more eagerly. The words of Wisdom in the book ofEcclesiasticus may be taken in this meaning: “They whoeat me shall still be hungry, and they who drink me shall still bethirsty.” [1] For they eat anddrink because they find; and they still continue seeking becausethey are hungry and thirst. Faith seeks, understanding finds; whencethe prophet says, “Unless ye believe, ye shall notunderstand.” [2] And yet, again,understanding still seeks Him, whom it finds; for “Godlooked down upon the sons of men,” as it is sung in theholy Psalm, “to see if there were any that wouldunderstand, and seek after God.” [3] And man, therefore, oughtfor this purpose to have understanding, that he may seek afterGod.

3. We shall have tarriedthen long enough among those things that God has made, in order thatby them He Himself may be known that made them. “For theinvisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearlyseen, being understood by the things that are made.” [4] And hence they are rebuked in the book of Wisdom,“who could not out of the good things that are seen knowHim that is: neither by considering the works, did they acknowledgethe workmaster; but deemed either fire, or wind, or the swift air,or the circle of the stars, or the violent water, or the lights ofheaven, to be the gods which govern the world: with whose beauty ifthey, being delighted, took them to be gods, let them know how muchbetter the Lord of them is; for the first Author of beauty hathcreated them. But if they were astonished at their power and virtue,let them understand by them how much mightier He is that made them.For by the greatness and beauty of the creatures proportionably theMaker of them is seen” [5] I have quoted thesewords from the book of Wisdom for this reason, that no one of thefaithful may think me vainly and emptily to have sought first in thecreature, step by step through certain trinities, each of their ownappropriate kind, until I came at last to the mind of man, traces ofthat highest Trinity which we seek when we seek God.

CHAP. 3.—: A BRIEF RECAPITULATION OF ALL THE PREVIOUSBOOKS.

4. But since the necessitiesof our discussion and argument have compelled us to say a great manythings in the course of fourteen books, which we cannot view at oncein one glance, so as to be able to refer them quickly in thought tothat 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 asknown, and to place, as it were, under one mental view, not the wayin which we have been convinced of each point, but the pointsthemselves of which we have been convinced; in order that whatfollows may not be so far separated from that which precedes, asthat the perusal of the former shall produce forgetfulness of thelatter; or at any rate, if it have produced such forgetfulness, thatwhat has escaped the memory may be speedily recalled byreperusal.

5. In the first book, theunity and equality of that highest Trinity is shown from HolyScripture. In the second, and third, and fourth, the same: but acareful handling of the question respecting the sending of the Sonand of the Holy Spirit has resulted in three books; and we havedemonstrated, that He who is sent is not therefore less than He whosends because the one sent, the other was sent; since the Trinity,which is in all things equal, being also equally in its own natureunchangeable, and invisible, and everywhere present, worksindivisibly. In the fifth,—with a view to those who thinkthat the substance of the Father and of the Son is therefore not thesame, because they suppose everything that is predicated of God tobe predicated according to substance, and therefore contend that tobeget and to be begotten, or to be begotten and unbegotten, as beingdiverse, are diverse substances,—it is demonstrated thatnot everything that is predicated of God is predicated according tosubstance, as He is called good and great according to substance, oranything else that is predicated of Him in respect to Himself, butthat some things also are predicated relatively, i.e. not in respect to Himself, but in respect tosomething which is not Himself; as He is called the Father inrespect to the Son, or the Lord in respect to the creature thatserves Him; and that here, if anything thus relatively predicated, i.e. predicated in respect to somethingthat is not Himself, is predicated also as in time, as, e.g., “Lord, Thou hast become ourrefuge,” [1] then nothing happens to Him so as to work a change in Him, but HeHimself continues altogether unchangeable in His own nature oressence. In the sixth, the question how Christ is called by themouth of the apostle “the power of God and the wisdom ofGod,” [2] is so far argued thatthe more careful handling of that question is deferred, viz. whether He from whom Christ is begotten isnot wisdom Himself, but only the father of His own wisdom, orwhether wisdom begat wisdom. But be it which it may, the equality ofthe Trinity became apparent in this book also, and that God was nottriple, but a Trinity; and that the Father and the Son are not, asit were, a double as opposed to the single Holy Spirit: for thereinthree are not anything more than one. We considered, too, how tounderstand the words of Bishop Hilary, “Eternity in theFather, form in the Image, use in the Gift,” In theseventh, the question is explained which had been deferred: in whatway that God who begat the Son is not only Father of His own powerand wisdom, but is Himself also power and wisdom; so, too, the HolySpirit; and yet that they are not three powers or three wisdoms, butone power and one wisdom, as one God and one essence. It was nextinquired, in what way they are called one essence, three persons, orby some Greeks one essence, three substances; and we found that thewords were so used through the needs of speech, that there might beone term by which to answer, when it is asked what the three are,whom we truly confess to be three, viz. Father,and Son, and Holy Spirit. In the eighth, it is made plain by reasonalso to those who understand, that not only the Father is notgreater than the Son in the substance of truth, but that bothtogether are not anything greater than the Holy Spirit alone, northat any two at all in the same Trinity are anything greater thanone, nor all three together anything greater than each severally.Next, I have pointed out, that by means of the truth, which isbeheld by the understanding, and by means of the highest good, fromwhich is all good, and by means of the righteousness for which arighteous mind is loved even by a mind not yet righteous, we mightunderstand, so far as it is possible to understand, that not onlyincorporeal but also unchangeable nature which is God; and by means,too, of love, which in the Holy Scriptures is called God, [3] by which, first of all, those who haveunderstanding begin also, however feebly, to discern the Trinity, towit, one that loves, and that which is loved, and love. In theninth, the argument advances as far as to the image of God, viz. man in respect to his mind; and in this wefound a kind of trinity, i.e. the mind, and theknowledge whereby the mind knows itself, and the love whereby itloves both itself and its knowledge of itself; and these three areshown to be mutually equal, and of one essence. In the tenth, thesame subject is more carefully and subtly handled, and is brought tothis point, that we found in the mind a still more manifest trinityof the mind, viz. in memory, and understanding,and will. But since it turned out also, that the mind could never bein such a case as not to remember, understand, and love itself,although it did not always think of itself; but that when it didthink of itself, it did not in the same act of thought distinguishitself from things corporeal; the argument respecting the Trinity,of which this is an image, was deferred, in order to find a trinityalso in the things themselves that are seen with the body, and toexercise the reader’s attention more distinctly in that.Accordingly, in the eleventh, we chose the sense of sight, whereinthat which should have been there found to hold good might berecognized also in the other four bodily senses, although notexpressly mentioned; and so a trinity of the outer man first showeditself in those things which are discerned from without, to wit,from the bodily object which is seen, and from the form which isthence impressed upon the eye of the beholder, and from the purposeof the will combining the two. But these three things, as waspatent, were not mutually equal and of one substance. Next, we foundyet another trinity in the mind itself, introduced into it, as itwere, by the things perceived from without; wherein the same threethings, as it appeared, were of one substance: the image of thebodily object which is in the memory, and the form thence impressedwhen the mind’s eye of the thinker is turned to it, andthe purpose of the will combining the two. But we found this trinityto pertain to the outer man, on this account, that it was introducedinto the mind from bodily objects which are perceived from without.In the twelfth, we thought good to distinguish wisdom fromknowledge, and to seek first, as being the lower of the two, a kindof appropriate and special trinity in that which is specially calledknowledge; but that although we have got now in this to somethingpertaining to the inner man, yet it is not yet to be either calledor thought an image of God. And this is discussed in the thirteenthbook by the commendation of Christian faith. In the fourteenth we discuss the true wisdom of man, viz. that which is granted him byGod’s gift in the partaking of that very God Himself,which is distinct from knowledge; and the discussion reached thispoint, that a trinity is discovered in the image of God, which isman in respect to his mind, which mind is “renewed in theknowledge” of God, “after the image of Himthat created” man; [1] “after Hisown image;” [2] and so obtains wisdom,wherein is the contemplation of things eternal.

CHAP. 4.—: WHAT UNIVERSAL NATURE TEACHES US CONCERNINGGOD.

6. Let us, then, now seekthe Trinity which is God, in the things themselves that are eternal,incorporeal, and unchangeable; in the perfect contemplation of whicha blessed life is promised us, which cannot be other than eternal.For not only does the authority of the divine books declare that Godis; but the whole nature of the universe itself which surrounds us,and to which we also belong, proclaims that it has a most excellentCreator, who has given to us a mind and natural reason, whereby tosee that things living are to be preferred to things that are notliving; things that have sense to things that have not; things thathave understanding to things that have not; things immortal tothings mortal; things powerful to things impotent; things righteousto things unrighteous; things beautiful to things deformed; thingsgood to things evil; things incorruptible to things corruptible;things unchangeable to things changeable; things invisible to thingsvisible; things incorporeal to things corporeal; things blessed tothings miserable. And hence, since without doubt we place theCreator above things created, we must needs confess that the Creatorboth lives in the highest sense, and perceives and understands allthings, and that He cannot die, or suffer decay, or be changed; andthat He is not a body, but a spirit, of all the most powerful, mostrighteous, most beautiful, most good, most blessed.

CHAP. 5.—: HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO DEMONSTRATE THE TRINITYBY NATURAL REASON.

7. But all that I have said,and whatever else seems to be worthily said of God after the likefashion of human speech, applies to the whole Trinity, which is oneGod, and to the several Persons in that Trinity. For who would dareto say either of the one God, which is the Trinity itself, or of theFather, or Son, or Holy Spirit, either that He is not living, or iswithout sense or intelligence; or that, in that nature in which theyare affirmed to be mutually equal, any one of them is mortal, orcorruptible, or changeable, or corporeal? Or is there any one whowould deny that any one in the Trinity is most powerful, mostrighteous, most beautiful, most good, most blessed? If, then, thesethings, and all others of the kind, can be predicated both of theTrinity itself, and of each several one in that Trinity, where orhow shall the Trinity manifest itself? Let us therefore first reducethese numerous predicates to some limited number. For that which iscalled 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 isneither understanding nor sense; nor such as is in a beast, for thelife of a beast possesses the fivefold sense, but has nounderstanding. But the life which is God perceives and understandsall things, and perceives by mind, not by body, because“God is a spirit.” [3] And God does not perceivethrough a body, as animals do, which have bodies, for He does notconsist of soul and body. And hence that single nature perceives asit understands, and understands as it perceives, and its sense andunderstanding are one and the same. Nor yet so, that at any time Heshould either cease or begin to be; for He is immortal. And it isnot said of Him in vain, that “He only hathimmortality.” [4] For immortality is trueimmortality in His case whose nature admits no change. That is alsotrue eternity by which God is unchangeable, without beginning,without end; consequently also incorruptible. It is one and the samething, therefore, to call God eternal, or immortal, orincorruptible, or unchangeable; and it is likewise one and the samething to say that He is living, and that He is intelligent, that is,in truth, wise. For He did not receive wisdom whereby to be wise,but He is Himself wisdom. And this is life, and again is power ormight, and yet again beauty, whereby He is called powerful andbeautiful. For what is more powerful and more beautiful than wisdom,“which reaches from end to end mightily, and sweetlydisposes all things”? [5] Or do goodness, again,and righteousness, differ from each other in the nature of God, asthey differ in His works, as though they were two diverse qualitiesof God—goodness one, and righteousness another? Certainly not; but that which isrighteousness is also itself goodness; and that which is goodness isalso itself blessedness. And God is therefore called incorporeal,that He may be believed and understood to be a spirit, not abody.

8. Further, if we say,Eternal, immortal, incorruptible, unchangeable, living, wise,powerful, beautiful, righteous, good, blessed, spirit; only the lastof this list as it were seems to signify substance, but the rest tosignify qualities of that substance; but it is not so in thatineffable and simple nature. For whatever seems to be predicatedtherein according to quality, is to be understood according tosubstance or essence. For far be it from us to predicate spirit ofGod according to substance, and good according to quality; but bothaccording to substance. [1] And so in like manner of all those we have mentioned, of which wehave already spoken at length in the former books. Let us choose,then, one of the first four of those in our enumeration andarrangement, i.e. eternal, immortal,incorruptible, unchangeable; since these four, as I have arguedalready, have one meaning; in order that our aim may not bedistracted by a multiplicity of objects. And let it be rather thatwhich was placed first, viz. eternal. Let usfollow the same course with the four that come next, viz. living, wise, powerful, beautiful. And since life ofsome sort belongs also to the beast, which has not wisdom; while thenext two, viz. wisdom and might, are socompared to one another in the case of man, as that Scripture says,“Better is he that is wise than he that isstrong;” [2] and beauty, again, iscommonly attributed to bodily objects also: out of these four thatwe have chosen, let Wise be the one we take. Although these four arenot to be called unequal in speaking of God; for they are fournames, but one thing. But of the third and lastfour,—although it is the same thing in God to berighteous that it is to be good or to be blessed; and the same thingto be a spirit that it is to be righteous, and good, and blessed;yet, because in men there can be a spirit that is not blessed, andthere can be one both righteous and good, but not yet blessed; butthat which is blessed is doubtless both just, and good, and aspirit,—let us rather choose that one which cannot existeven in men without the three others, viz. blessed.

CHAP. 6.—: HOW THERE IS A TRINITY IN THE VERY SIMPLICITYOF GOD. WHETHER AND HOW THE TRINITY THAT IS GOD IS MANIFESTED FROM THETRINITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE IN MEN.

9. When, then, we say,Eternal, wise, blessed, are these three the Trinity that is calledGod? We reduce, indeed, those twelve to this small number of three;but perhaps we can go further, and reduce these three also to one ofthem. For if wisdom and might, or life and wisdom, can be one andthe same thing in the nature of God, why cannot eternity and wisdom,or blessedness and wisdom, be one and the same thing in the natureof God? And hence, as it made no difference whether we spoke ofthese twelve or of those three when we reduced the many to the smallnumber; so does it make no difference whether we speak of thosethree, or of that one, to the singularity of which we have shownthat the other two of the three may be reduced. What fashion, then,of argument, what possible force and might of understanding, whatliveliness of reason, what sharp-sightedness of thought, will setforth how (to pass over now the others) this one thing, that God iscalled wisdom, is a trinity? For God does not receive wisdom fromany 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, seeingthat to Him to be wise is to be. Christ, indeed, is called in theHoly Scriptures, “the power of God, and the wisdom ofGod.” [3] But we have discussed inthe seventh book how this is to be understood, so that the Son maynot seem to make the Father wise; and our explanation came to this,that the Son is wisdom of wisdom, in the same way as He is light oflight, God of God. Nor could we find the Holy Spirit to be in anyother way than that He Himself also is wisdom, and altogether onewisdom, as one God, one essence. How, then, do we understand thiswisdom, which is God, to be a trinity? I do not say, How do webelieve this? For among the faithful this ought to admit noquestion. But supposing there is any way by which we can see withthe understanding what we believe, what is that way?

10. For if we recall whereit was in these books that a trinity first began to show itself to our understanding, the eighth book isthat which occurs to us; since it was there that to the best of ourpower we tried to raise the aim of the mind to understand that mostexcellent and unchangeable nature, which our mind is not. And we socontemplated this nature as to think of it as not far from us, andas above us, not in place, but by its own awful and wonderfulexcellence, and in such wise that it appeared to be with us by itsown present light. Yet in this no trinity was yet manifest to us,because in that blaze of light we did not keep the eye of the mindsteadfastly bent upon seeking it; only we discerned it in a sense,because there was no bulk wherein we must needs think the magnitudeof two or three to be more than that of one. But when we came totreat of love, which in the Holy Scriptures is called God, [1] then a trinity began to dawn upon us a little, i.e. one that loves, and that which isloved, and love. But because that ineffable light beat back ourgaze, and it became in some degree plain that the weakness of ourmind could not as yet be tempered to it, we turned back in the midstof the course we had begun, and planned according to the (as itwere) more familiar consideration of our own mind, according towhich man is made after the image of God, [2] in order to relieve ouroverstrained attention; and thereupon we dwelt from the ninth to thefourteenth book upon the consideration of the creature, which weare, that we might be able to understand and behold the invisiblethings of God by those things which are made. And now that we haveexercised the understanding, as far as was needful, or perhaps morethan was needful, in lower things, lo! we wish, but have notstrength, to raise ourselves to behold that highest Trinity which isGod. For in such manner as we see most undoubted trinities, whetherthose which are wrought from without by corporeal things, or whenthese same things are thought of which were perceived from without;or when those things which take their rise in the mind, and do notpertain to the senses of the body, as faith, or as the virtues whichcomprise the art of living, are discerned by manifest reason, andheld fast by knowledge; or when the mind itself, by which we knowwhatever we truly say that we know, is known to itself, or thinks ofitself; or when that mind beholds anything eternal and unchangeable,which itself is not;—in such way, then, I say, as we seein all these instances most undoubted trinities, because they arewrought in ourselves, or are in ourselves, when we remember, lookat, or desire these things;—do we, I say, in such manneralso see the Trinity that is God; because there also, by theunderstanding, we behold both Him as it were speaking, and His Word, i.e. the Father and the Son; and then,proceeding thence, the love common to both, namely, the Holy Spirit?These trinities that pertain to our senses or to our mind, do werather see than believe them, but rather believe than see that Godis a trinity? But if this is so, then doubtless we either do not atall understand and behold the invisible things of God by thosethings that are made, or if we behold them at all, we do not beholdthe Trinity in them; and there is therein somewhat to behold, andsomewhat also which we ought to believe, even though not beheld. Andas the eighth book showed that we behold the unchangeable good whichwe are not, so the fourteenth reminded us thereof, when we spoke ofthe wisdom that man has from God. Why, then, do we not recognize theTrinity therein? Does that wisdom which God is said to be, notperceive itself, and not love itself? Who would say this? Or who isthere that does not see, that where there is no knowledge, there inno way is there wisdom? Or are we, in truth, to think that theWisdom which is God knows other things, and does not know itself; orloves other things, and does not love itself? But if this is afoolish and impious thing to say or believe, then behold we have atrinity,—to wit, wisdom, and the knowledge wisdom has ofitself, and its love of itself. For so, too, we find a trinity inman also, i.e. mind, and the knowledgewherewith mind knows itself, and the love wherewith it lovesitself.

CHAP. 7.—: THAT IT IS NOT EASY TO DISCOVER THE TRINITYTHAT IS GOD FROM THE TRINITIES WE HAVE SPOKEN OF.

11. But these three are insuch way in man, that they are not themselves man. For man, as theancients 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 todefine man as to say, Man is a rational substance consisting of mindand body, then without doubt man has a soul that is not body, and abody that is not soul. And hence these three things are not man, butbelong to man, or are in man. If, again, we put aside the body, andthink of the soul by itself, the mind issomewhat belonging to the soul, as though its head, or eye, orcountenance; but these things are not to be regarded as bodies. Itis not then the soul, but that which is chief in the soul, that iscalled the mind. But can we say that the Trinity is in such way inGod, as to be somewhat belonging to God, and not itself God? Andhence each individual man, who is called the image of God, notaccording to all things that pertain to his nature, but according tohis mind alone, is one person, and is an image of the Trinity in hismind. But that Trinity of which he is the image is nothing else inits totality than God, is nothing else in its totality than theTrinity. Nor does anything pertain to the nature of God so as not topertain to that Trinity; and the Three Persons are of one essence,not as each individual man is one person.

12. There is, again, a widedifference in this point likewise, that whether we speak of the mindin a man, and of its knowledge and love; or of memory,understanding, will,—we remember nothing of the mindexcept by memory, nor understand anything except by understanding,nor love anything except by will. But in that Trinity, who woulddare to say that the Father understands neither Himself, nor theSon, nor the Holy Spirit, except by the Son, or loves them except bythe Holy Spirit; and that He remembers only by Himself eitherHimself, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit; and in the same way thatthe Son remembers neither Himself nor the Father, except by theFather, nor loves them except by the Holy Spirit; but that byHimself He only understands both the Father and Son and Holy Spirit:and in like manner, that the Holy Spirit by the Father remembersboth the Father and the Son and Himself, and by the Son understandsboth the Father and the Son and Himself; but by Himself only lovesboth Himself and the Father and the Son;—as though theFather were both His own memory, and that of the Son and of the HolySpirit; and the Son were the understanding of both Himself, and theFather and the Holy Spirit; but the Holy Spirit were the love bothof Himself, and of the Father and of the Son? Who would presume tothink or affirm this of that Trinity? For if therein the Son aloneunderstands both for Himself and for the Father and for the HolySpirit, we have returned to the old absurdity, that the Father isnot wise from Himself, but from the Son, and that wisdom has notbegotten wisdom, but that the Father is said to be wise by thatwisdom which He begat. For where there is no understanding there canbe no wisdom; and hence, if the Father does not understand Himselffor Himself, but the Son understands for the Father, assuredly theSon makes the Father wise. But if to God to be is to be wise, andessence is to Him the same as wisdom, then it is not the Son thathas His essence from the Father, which is the truth, but rather theFather from the Son, which is a most absurd falsehood. And thisabsurdity, beyond all doubt, we have discussed, disproved, andrejected, in the seventh book. Therefore God the Father is wise bythat wisdom by which He is His own wisdom, and the Son is the wisdomof the Father from the wisdom which is the Father, from whom the Sonis begotten; whence it follows that the Father understands also bythat understanding by which He is His own understanding (for hecould not be wise that did not understand); and that the Son is theunderstanding of the Father, begotten of the understanding which isthe Father. And this same may not be unfitly said of memory also.For how is he wise, that remembers nothing, or does not rememberhimself? Accordingly, since the Father is wisdom, and the Son iswisdom, therefore, as the Father remembers Himself, so does the Sonalso remember Himself; and as the Father remembers both Himself andthe Son, not by the memory of the Son, but by His own, so does theSon remember both Himself and the Father, not by the memory of theFather, but by His own. Where, again, there is no love, who wouldsay there was any wisdom? And hence we must infer that the Father isin 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 unchangeableessence which is God, are, we see, not the Father and the Son andthe Holy Spirit, but the Father alone. And because the Son too iswisdom begotten of wisdom, as neither the Father nor the Holy Spiritunderstands for Him, but He understands for Himself; so neither doesthe Father remember for Him, nor the Holy Spirit love for Him, butHe remembers and loves for Himself: for He is Himself also His ownmemory, His own understanding, and His own love. But that He is socomes to Him from the Father, of whom He is born. And because theHoly Spirit also is wisdom proceeding from wisdom, He too has notthe Father for a memory, and the Son for an understanding, andHimself for love: for He would not be wisdom if another rememberedfor Him, and yet another understood for Him, and He only loved forHimself; but Himself has all three things, and has them in such waythat they are Himself. But that He is socomes to Him thence, whence He proceeds.

13. What man, then, is therewho can comprehend that wisdom by which God knows all things, insuch wise that neither what we call things past are past therein,nor what we call things future are therein waited for as coming, asthough they were absent, but both past and future with thingspresent are all present; nor yet are things thought severally, sothat thought passes from one to another, but all thingssimultaneously are at hand in one glance;—what man, Isay, is there that comprehends that wisdom, and the like prudence,and the like knowledge, since in truth even our own wisdom is beyondour comprehension? For somehow we are able to behold the things thatare present to our senses or to our understanding; but the thingsthat are absent, and yet have once been present, we know by memory,if we have not forgotten them. And we conjecture, too, not the pastfrom the future, but the future from the past, yet by an unstableknowledge. For there are some of our thoughts to which, althoughfuture, we, as it were, look onward with greater plainness andcertainty as being very near; and we do this by the means of memorywhen we are able to do it, as much as we ever are able, althoughmemory seems to belong not to the future, but to the past. And thismay be tried in the case of any words or songs, the due order ofwhich we are rendering by memory; for we certainly should not uttereach in succession, unless we foresaw in thought what came next. Andyet 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 utteredexcept as foreseen and looked forward to. And yet in doing this, weare not said to speak or sing by foresight, but by memory; and ifany one is more than commonly capable of uttering many pieces inthis way, he is usually praised, not for his foresight, but for hismemory. We know, and are absolutely certain, that all this takesplace in our mind or by our mind; but how it takes place, the moreattentively we desire to scrutinize, the more do both our very wordsbreak down, and our purpose itself fails, when by our understanding,if not our tongue, we would reach to something of clearness. And dosuch as we are, think, that in so great infirmity of mind we cancomprehend whether the foresight of God is the same as His memoryand His understanding, who does not regard in thought each severalthing, but embraces all that He knows in one eternal andunchangeable and ineffable vision? In this difficulty, then, andstrait, we may well cry out to the living God, “Suchknowledge is too wonderful for me: it is high, I cannot attain untoit.” [1] For I understand bymyself how wonderful and incomprehensible is Thy knowledge, by whichThou madest me, when I cannot even comprehend myself whom Thou hastmade! And yet, “while I was musing, the fireburned,” [2] so that “Iseek Thy face evermore.” [3]

CHAP. 8.—: HOW THE APOSTLE SAYS THAT GOD IS NOW SEEN BYUS THROUGH A GLASS.

14. I know that wisdom is anincorporeal substance, and that it is the light by which thosethings are seen that are not seen by carnal eyes; and yet a man sogreat and so spiritual [as Paul] says,“We see now through a glass, in an enigma, but then faceto face.” [4] If we ask what and ofwhat sort is this “glass,” this assuredlyoccurs to our minds, that in a glass nothing is discerned but animage. We have endeavored, then, so to do; in order that we mightsee in some way or other by this image which we are, Him by whom weare made, as by a glass. And this is intimated also in the words ofthe same apostle: “But we with open face, beholding as ina glass the glory of the Lord, are transformed into the same image,from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of theLord.” [5] “Beholdingas in a glass,” [6] he has said, i.e. seeing by means of a glass,not looking from a watch-tower: an ambiguity that does not exist inthe Greek language, whence the apostolic epistles have been renderedinto Latin. For in Greek, a glass, [7] inwhich the images of things are visible, is wholly distinct in thesound of the word also from a watch-tower, [8] fromthe height of which we command a more distant view. And it is quiteplain that the apostle, in using the word“speculantes” in respect to the glory of theLord, meant it to come from “speculum,” notfrom “specula.” But where he says,“We are transformed into the same image,” heassuredly means to speak of the image of God; and by calling it“the same,” he means that very image which wesee in the glass, because that same image is also the glory of theLord; as he says elsewhere, “For a man indeed ought notto cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory ofGod,” [9] —a textalready discussed in the twelfth book. He means, then, by“We are transformed,” that we are changed fromone form to another, and that we pass from a form that is obscure toa form that is bright: since the obscureform, too, is the image of God; and if an image, then assuredly also“glory,” in which we are created as men, beingbetter than the other animals. For it is said of human nature initself, “The man ought not to cover his head, because heis the image and glory of God.” And this nature, beingthe most excellent among things created, is transformed from a formthat is defaced into a form that is beautiful, when it is justifiedby its own Creator from ungodliness. Since even in ungodlinessitself, the more the faultiness is to be condemned, the morecertainly is the nature to be praised. And therefore he has added,“from glory to glory:” from the glory ofcreation to the glory of justification. Although these words,“from glory to glory,” may be understood alsoin other ways;—from the glory of faith to the glory ofsight, from the glory whereby we are sons of God to the glorywhereby we shall be like Him, because “we shall see Himas He is.” [1] But in that he hasadded, “as from the Spirit of the Lord,” hedeclares, that the blessing of so desirable a transformation isconferred upon us by the grace of God.

CHAP. 9.—: OF THE TERM “ENIGMA,”AND OF TROPICAL MODES OF SPEECH.

15. What has been saidrelates to the words of the apostle, that “we see nowthrough a glass;” but whereas he has added,“in an enigma,” the meaning of this additionis unknown to any who are unacquainted with the books that containthe doctrine of those modes of speech, which the Greeks call Tropes,which Greek word we also use in Latin. For as we more commonly speakof schemata than of figures, so we morecommonly speak of tropes than of modes. And it is a very difficultand uncommon thing to express the names of the several modes ortropes in Latin, so as to refer its appropriate name to each. Andhence some Latin translators, through unwillingness to employ aGreek word, where the apostle says, “Which things are anallegory,” [2] have rendered it by acircumlocution—Which things signify one thing by another.But there are several species of this kind of trope that is calledallegory, and one of them is that which is called enigma. Now thedefinition of the generic term must necessarily embrace also all itsspecies; and hence, as every horse is an animal, but not everyanimal is a horse, so every enigma is an allegory, but everyallegory is not an enigma. What then is an allegory, but a tropewherein one thing is understood from another? as in the Epistle tothe Thessalonians, “Let us not therefore sleep, as doothers; but let us watch and be sober: for they who sleep, sleep inthe night; and they who are drunken, are drunken in the night: butlet us who are of the day, be sober.” [3] But this allegory isnot an enigma, for here the meaning is patent to all but the verydull; but an enigma is, to explain it briefly, an obscure allegory,as, e.g., “The horseleech had threedaughters,” [4] and other likeinstances. But when the apostle spoke of an allegory, he does notfind it in the words, but in the fact; since he has shown that thetwo Testaments are to be understood by the two sons of Abraham, oneby a bondmaid, and the other by a free woman, which was a thing notsaid, but also done. And before this was explained, it was obscure;and accordingly such an allegory, which is the generic name, couldbe specifically called an enigma.

16. But because it is notonly those that are ignorant of the books that contain the doctrineof tropes, who inquire the apostle’s meaning, when hesaid that we “see now in an enigma, but those, too, whoare acquainted with the doctrine, but yet desire to know what thatenigma is in which “we now see;” we must finda single meaning for the two phrases, viz. forthat which says, “we see now through a glass,”and for that which adds, “in an enigma.” Forit 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 hemeant to signify an image, so by that of enigma any likeness youwill, but yet one obscure, and difficult to see through. While,therefore, any likenesses whatever may be understood as signified bythe apostle when he speaks of a glass and an enigma, so that theyare adapted to the understanding of God, in such way as He can beunderstood; yet nothing is better adapted to this purpose than thatwhich is not vainly called His image. Let no one, then, wonder, thatwe labor to see in any way at all, even in that fashion of seeingwhich is granted to us in this life, viz. through a glass, in an enigma. For we should not hear of an enigmain 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 hisown thought? And yet who does see his own thought, I do not say withthe eye of the flesh, but with the inner sight itself? Who does not see it, and who does see it?Since thought is a kind of sight of the mind; whether those thingsare present which are seen also by the bodily eyes, or perceived bythe other senses; or whether they are not present, but theirlikenesses are discerned by thought; or whether neither of these isthe case, but things are thought of that are neither bodily thingsnor likenesses of bodily things, as the virtues and vices; or as,indeed, thought itself is thought of; or whether it be those thingswhich are the subjects of instruction and of liberal sciences; orwhether the higher causes and reasons themselves of all these thingsin the unchangeable nature are thought of; or whether it be evenevil, and vain, and false things that we are thinking of, witheither the sense not consenting, or erring in its consent.

CHAP. 10.—: CONCERNING THE WORD OF THE MIND, IN WHICH WESEE THE WORD OF GOD, AS IN A GLASS AND AN ENIGMA.

17. But let us now speak ofthose things of which we think as known, and have in our knowledgeeven if we do not think of them; whether they belong to thecontemplative knowledge, which, as I have argued, is properly to becalled wisdom, or to the active, which is properly to be calledknowledge. For both together belong to one mind, and are one imageof God. But when we treat of the lower of the two distinctly andseparately, then it is not to be called an image of God, althougheven then, too, some likeness of that Trinity may be found in it; aswe showed in the thirteenth book. We speak now, therefore, of theentire knowledge of man altogether, in which whatever is known to usis known; that, at any rate, which is true; otherwise it would notbe known. For no one knows what is false, except when he knows it tobe false; and if he knows this, then he knows what is true: for itis true that that is false. We treat, therefore, now of those thingswhich we think as known, and which are known to us even if they arenot being thought of. But certainly, if we would utter them inwords, we can only do so by thinking them. For although there wereno words spoken, at any rate, he who thinks speaks in his heart. Andhence that passage in the book of Wisdom: “They saidwithin themselves, thinking not aright.” [1] For the words, “They said withinthemselves,” are explained by the addition of“thinking.” A like passage to this is that inthe Gospel,—that certain scribes, when they heard theLord’s words to the paralytic man, “Be of goodcheer, my son, thy sins are forgiven thee,” said withinthemselves, “This man blasphemeth.” For howdid they “say within themselves,” except bythinking? Then follows, “And when Jesus saw theirthoughts, He said, Why think ye evil in yourthoughts?” [2] So far Matthew. ButLuke narrates the same thing thus: “The scribes andPharisees began to think, saying, Who is this that speakethblasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone? But when Jesusperceived their thoughts, He, answering, said unto them, What thinkye in your hearts?” [3] That which in the bookof Wisdom is, “They said, thinking,” is thesame here with, “They thought, saying.” Forboth there and here it is declared, that they spake withinthemselves, and in their own heart, i.e. spakeby thinking. For they “spake withinthemselves,” and it was said to them, “Whatthink ye?” And the Lord Himself says of that rich manwhose ground brought forth plentifully, “And he thoughtwithin himself, saying.” [4]

18. Some thoughts, then, arespeeches of the heart, wherein the Lord also shows that there is amouth, when He says, “Not that which entereth into themouth defileth a man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth,that defileth a man.” In one sentence He has comprisedtwo 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 saidthe man was defiled, proceedeth out of the mouth of the heart. Socertainly 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 notunderstand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into thebelly, and is cast out into the draught?” Here He mostcertainly pointed to the mouth of the body. But in that whichfollows He plainly speaks of the mouth of the heart, where He says,“But those things which proceed out of the mouth comeforth from the heart; and they defile the man. For out of the heartproceed evil thoughts,” [5] etc. What is clearerthan this explanation? And yet, when we call thoughts speeches ofthe heart, it does not follow that they are not also acts of sight,arising from the sight of knowledge, when they are true. For whenthese things are done outwardly by means of the body, then speechand sight are different things; but when we think inwardly, the twoare one,—just as sight andhearing are two things mutually distinct in the bodily senses, butto see and hear are the same thing in the mind; and hence, whilespeech is not seen but rather heard outwardly, yet the inwardspeeches, i.e. thoughts, are said by the holyGospel to have been seen, not heard, by the Lord. “Theysaid within themselves, This man blasphemeth,” says theGospel; and then subjoined, “And when Jesus saw theirthoughts.” Therefore He saw, what they said. For by Hisown thought He saw their thoughts, which they supposed no one sawbut themselves.

19. Whoever, then, is ableto understand a word, not only before it is uttered in sound, butalso before the images of its sounds are considered inthought,—for this it is which belongs to no tongue, towit, of those which are called the tongues of nations, of which ourLatin tongue is one;—whoever, I say, is able tounderstand this, is able now to see through this glass and in thisenigma some likeness of that Word of whom it is said, “Inthe beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Wordwas God.” [1] For of necessity, when wespeak what is true, i.e. speak what we know,there is born from the knowledge itself which the memory retains, aword that is altogether of the same kind with that knowledge fromwhich it is born. For the thought that is formed by the thing whichwe know, is the word which we speak in the heart: which word isneither Greek nor Latin, nor of any other tongue. But when it isneedful to convey this to the knowledge of those to whom we speak,then some sign is assumed whereby to signify it. And generally asound, sometimes a nod, is exhibited, the former to the ears, thelatter to the eyes, that the word which we bear in our mind maybecome known also by bodily signs to the bodily senses. For what isto nod or beckon, except to speak in some way to the sight? And HolyScripture gives its testimony to this; for we read in the Gospelaccording to John: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, thatone of you shall betray me. Then the disciples looked one uponanother, doubting of whom He spake. Now there was leaning onJesus’ breast one of His disciples whom Jesus loved.Simon Peter therefore beckons to him, and says to him, Who is it ofwhom He speaks?” [2] Here he spoke bybeckoning what he did not venture to speak by sounds. But whereas weexhibit these and the like bodily signs either to ears or eyes ofpersons present to whom we speak, letters have been invented that wemight be able to converse also with the absent; but these are signsof words, as words themselves are signs in our conversation of thosethings which we think.

CHAP. 11.—: THE LIKENESS OF THE DIVINE WORD, SUCH AS ITIS, IS TO BE SOUGHT, NOT IN OUR OWN OUTER AND SENSIBLE WORD, BUT IN THEINNER AND MENTAL ONE. THERE IS THE GREATEST POSSIBLE UNLIKENESS BETWEENOUR WORD AND KNOWLEDGE AND THE DIVINE WORD AND KNOWLEDGE.

20. Accordingly, the wordthat sounds outwardly is the sign of the word that gives lightinwardly; which latter has the greater claim to be called a word.For that which is uttered with the mouth of the flesh, is thearticulate sound of a word; and is itself also called a word, onaccount of that to make which outwardly apparent it is itselfassumed. For our word is so made in some way into an articulatesound of the body, by assuming that articulate sound by which it maybe manifested to men’s senses, as the Word of God wasmade flesh, by assuming that flesh in which itself also might bemanifested to men’s senses. And as our word becomes anarticulate sound, yet is not changed into one; so the Word of Godbecame flesh, but far be it from us to say He was changed intoflesh. For both that word of ours became an articulate sound, andthat other Word became flesh, by assuming it, not by consumingitself so as to be changed into it. And therefore whoever desires toarrive at any likeness, be it of what sort it may, of the Word ofGod, however in many respects unlike, must not regard the word ofours that sounds in the ears, either when it is uttered in anarticulate sound or when it is silently thought. For the words ofall tongues that are uttered in sound are also silently thought, andthe mind runs over verses while the bodily mouth is silent. And notonly the numbers of syllables, but the tunes also of songs, sincethey are corporeal, and pertain to that sense of the body which iscalled hearing, are at hand by certain incorporeal imagesappropriate to them, to those who think of them, and who silentlyrevolve all these things. But we must pass by this, in order toarrive at that word of man, by the likeness of which, be it of whatsort 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 whichit is said, “Now the word of God grew andmultiplied;” [3] and again,“Faith then cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ;” [1] and again, “When ye received the wordof God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men,but, as it is in truth, the word of God” [2] (and there are countless other like sayings inthe Scriptures respecting the word of God, which is disseminated inthe sounds of many and diverse languages through the hearts andmouths of men; and which is therefore called the word of God,because the doctrine that is delivered is not human, butdivine);—but we are now seeking to see, in whatsoever waywe can, by means of this likeness, that Word of God of which it issaid, “The Word was God;” of which it is said,“All things were made by Him;” of which it issaid, “The Word became flesh;” of which it issaid, “The Word of God on high is the fountain ofwisdom.” [3] We must go on, then, tothat word of man, to the word of the rational animal, to the word ofthat image of God, that is not born of God, but made by God; whichis neither utterable in sound nor capable of being thought under thelikeness of sound, such as must needs be with the word of anytongue; but which precedes all the signs by which it is signified,and is begotten from the knowledge that continues in the mind, whenthat same knowledge is spoken inwardly according as it really is.For the sight of thinking is exceedingly like the sight ofknowledge. For when it is uttered by sound, or by any bodily sign,it is not uttered according as it really is, but as it can be seenor heard by the body. When, therefore, that is in the word which isin the knowledge, then there is a true word, and truth, such as islooked for from man; such that what is in the knowledge is also inthe word, and what is not in the knowledge is also not in the word.Here may be recognized, “Yea, yea; nay,nay.” [4] And so this likeness ofthe image that is made, approaches as nearly as is possible to thatlikeness of the image that is born, by which God the Son is declaredto be in all things like in substance to the Father. We must noticein this enigma also another likeness of the word of God; viz. that, as it is said of that Word,“All things were made by Him,” where God isdeclared to have made the universe by His only-begotten Son, sothere are no works of man that are not first spoken in his heart:whence it is written, “A word is the beginning of everywork.” [5] But here also, itis when the word is true, that then it is the beginning of a goodwork. And a word is true when it is begotten from the knowledge ofworking good works, so that there too may be preserved the“yea yea, nay nay;” in order that whatever isin that knowledge by which we are to live, may be also in the wordby which we are to work, and whatever is not in the one may not bein the other. Otherwise such a word will be a lie, not truth; andwhat comes thence will be a sin, and not a good work. There is yetthis other likeness of the Word of God in this likeness of our word,that there can be a word of ours with no work following it, butthere cannot be any work unless a word precedes; just as the Word ofGod could have existed though no creature existed, but no creaturecould exist unless by that Word by which all things are made. Andtherefore not God the Father, not the Holy Spirit, not the Trinityitself, but the Son only, which is the Word of God, was made flesh;although the Trinity was the maker: in order that we might liverightly through our word following and imitating His example, i.e. by having no lie in either the thought orthe work of our word. But this perfection of this image is one to beat some time hereafter. In order to attain this it is that the goodmaster teaches us by Christian faith, and by pious doctrine, that“with face unveiled” from the veil of the law,which is the shadow of things to come, “beholding as in aglass the glory of the Lord,” i.e. gazing at it through a glass, “we may be transformed intothe same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit of theLord;” [6] as we explainedabove.

21. When, therefore, thisimage shall have been renewed to perfection by this transformation,then we shall be like God, because we shall see Him, not through aglass, but “as He is;” [7] which the Apostle Paulexpresses by “face to face.” [8] But now, who can explain how great is theunlikeness also, in this glass, in this enigma, in this likenesssuch as it is? Yet I will touch upon some points, as I can, by whichto indicate it.

CHAP. 12.—: THE ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHY.

First, of what sort and how great is the very knowledge itself that aman can attain, be he ever so skillful and learned, by which ourthought is formed with truth, when we speak what we know? For topass 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 whois overmuch pressed down by their resemblance to truth, seems saneto himself, but really is notsane;—whence it is that the Academic [1] philosophy has so prevailed as tobe still more wretchedly insane by doubting allthings;—passing by, then, those things that come into themind by the bodily senses, how large a proportion is left of thingswhich we know in such manner as we know that we live? In regard tothis, indeed, we are absolutely without any fear lest perchance weare being deceived by some resemblance of the truth; since it iscertain, that he who is deceived, yet lives. And this again is notreckoned among those objects of sight that are presented fromwithout, so that the eye may be deceived in it; in such way as it iswhen an oar in the water looks bent, and towers seem to move as yousail past them, and a thousand other things that are otherwise thanthey seem to be: for this is not a thing that is discerned by theeye of the flesh. The knowledge by which we know that we live is themost inward of all knowledge, of which even the Academic cannotinsinuate: Perhaps you are asleep, and do not know it, and you seethings in your sleep. For who does not know that what people see indreams is precisely like what they see when awake? But he who iscertain of the knowledge of his own life, does not therein say, Iknow I am awake, but, I know I am alive; therefore, whether he beasleep or awake, he is alive. Nor can he be deceived in thatknowledge by dreams; since it belongs to a living man both to sleepand to see in sleep. Nor can the Academic again say, in confutationof this knowledge: Perhaps you are mad, and do not know it: for whatmadmen see is precisely like what they also see who are sane; but hewho is mad is alive. Nor does he answer the Academic by saying, Iknow I am not mad, but, I know I am alive. Therefore he who says heknows he is alive, can neither be deceived nor lie. Let a thousandkinds, then, of deceitful objects of sight be presented to him whosays, I know I am alive; yet he will fear none of them, for he whois deceived yet is alive. But if such things alone pertain to humanknowledge, they are very few indeed; unless that they can be somultiplied in each kind, as not only not to be few, but to reach inthe result to infinity. For he who says, I know I am alive, saysthat he knows one single thing. Further, if he says, I know that Iknow I am alive, now there are two; but that he knows these two is athird thing to know. And so he can add a fourth and a fifth, andinnumerable others, if he holds out. But since he cannot eithercomprehend an innumerable number by additions of units, or say athing innumerable times, he comprehends this at least, and withperfect certainty, viz. that this is both trueand so innumerable that he cannot truly comprehend and say itsinfinite number. This same thing may be noticed also in the case ofa will that is certain. For it would be an impudent answer to maketo any one who should say, I will to be happy, that perhaps you aredeceived. And if he should say, I know that I will this, and I knowthat I know it, he can add yet a third to these two, viz. that he knows these two; and a fourth, that he knowsthat he knows these two; and so on adinfinitum. Likewise, if any one were to say, I will not tobe mistaken; will it not be true, whether he is mistaken or whetherhe is not, that nevertheless he does will not to be mistaken? Wouldit not be most impudent to say to him, Perhaps you are deceived?when beyond doubt, whereinsoever he may be deceived, he isnevertheless not deceived in thinking that he wills not to bedeceived. And if he says he knows this, he adds any number he chosesof things known, and perceives that number to be infinite. For hewho says, I will not to be deceived, and I know that I will not tobe so, and I know that I know it, is able now to set forth aninfinite number here also, however awkward may be the expression ofit. And other things too are to be found capable of refuting theAcademics, who contend that man can know nothing. But we mustrestrict ourselves, especially as this is not the subject we haveundertaken in the present work. There are three books of ours onthat subject, [2] written in the early time of ourconversion, which he who can and will read, and who understandsthem, will doubtless not be much moved by any of the many argumentswhich they have found out against the discovery of truth. Forwhereas there are two kinds of knowable things,—one, ofthose things which the mind perceives by the bodily senses; theother, of those which it perceives by itself,—thesephilosophers have babbled much against the bodily senses, but havenever been able to throw doubt upon those most certain perceptionsof things true, which the mind knows by itself, such as is thatwhich I have mentioned, I know that I am alive. But far be it fromus to doubt the truth of what we have learned by the bodily senses;since by them we have learned to know the heaven and the earth, andthose things in them which are known to us, so far as He who created both us and them has willed them tobe within our knowledge. Far be it from us too to deny, that we knowwhat we have learned by the testimony of others: otherwise we knownot that there is an ocean; we know not that the lands and citiesexist which most copious report commends to us; we know not thatthose men were, and their works, which we have learned by readinghistory; we know not the news that is daily brought us from thisquarter or that, and confirmed by consistent and conspiringevidence; lastly, we know not at what place or from whom we havebeen born: since in all these things we have believed the testimonyof others. And if it is most absurd to say this, then we mustconfess, that not only our own senses, but those of other personsalso, have added very much indeed to our knowledge.

22. All these things, then,both those which the human mind knows by itself, and those which itknows by the bodily senses, and those which it has received andknows by the testimony of others, are laid up and retained in thestorehouse of the memory; and from these is begotten a word that istrue, when we speak what we know, but a word that is before allsound, before all thought of a sound. For the word is then most liketo the thing known, from which also its image is begotten, since thesight of thinking arises from the sight of knowledge; when it is aword belonging to no tongue, but is a true word concerning a truething, having nothing of its own, but wholly derived from thatknowledge from which it is born. Nor does it signify when he learnedit, who speaks what he knows; for sometimes he says it immediatelyupon learning it; provided only that the word is true, i.e. sprung from things that are known.

CHAP. 13.—: STILL FURTHER OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THEKNOWLEDGE AND WORD OF OUR MIND, AND THE KNOWLEDGE AND WORD OFGOD.

But is it so, that God the Father, from whom is born the Word that isGod of God,—is it so, then, that God the Father, inrespect to that wisdom which He is to Himself, has learned somethings by His bodily senses, and others by Himself? Who could saythis, who thinks of God, not as a rational animal, but as One abovethe rational soul? So far at least as He can be thought of, by thosewho place Him above all animals and all souls, although they see Himby conjecture through a glass and in an enigma, not yet face to faceas He is. Is it that God the Father has learned those very thingswhich 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 orwitnesses that He might know them? Certainly not; since His ownperfection enables Him to know all things that He knows. No doubt Hehas messengers, viz. the angels; but not toannounce to Him things that He knows not, for there is nothing Hedoes not know. But their good lies in consulting the truth abouttheir own works. And this it is which is meant by saying that theybring Him word of some things, not that He may learn of them, butthey 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 yourFather knoweth,” says His Word, “what thingsye have need of, before you ask Him.” [1] Nor did He becomeacquainted with them, so as to know them, at any definite time; butHe knew beforehand, without any beginning, all things to come intime, and among them also both what we should ask of Him, and when;and to whom He would either listen or not listen, and on whatsubjects. And with respect to all His creatures, both spiritual andcorporeal, He does not know them because they are, but they arebecause He knows them. For He was not ignorant of what He was aboutto create; therefore He created because He knew; He did not knowbecause He created. Nor did He know them when created in any otherway than He knew them when still to be created, for nothing accruedto His wisdom from them; but that wisdom remained as it was, whilethey came into existence as it was fitting and when it was fitting.So, too, it is written in the book of Ecclesiasticus:“All things are known to Him ere ever they were created:so also after they were perfected.” [2] “So,” he says, not otherwise; so were theyknown to Him, both ere ever they were created, and after they wereperfected. This knowledge, therefore, is far unlike our knowledge.And the knowledge of God is itself also His wisdom, and His wisdomis itself His essence or substance. Because in the marvelloussimplicity of that nature, it is not one thing to be wise andanother to be, but to be wise is to be; as we have often saidalready also in the earlier books. But our knowledge is in mostthings capable both of being lost and ofbeing recovered, because to us to be is not the same as to know orto be wise; since it is possible for us to be, even although we knownot, neither are wise in that which we have learned from elsewhere.Therefore, as our knowledge is unlike that knowledge of God, so isour word also, which is born from our knowledge, unlike that Word ofGod which is born from the essence of the Father. And this is as ifI should say, born from the Father’s knowledge, from theFather’s wisdom; or still more exactly, from the Fatherwho is knowledge, from the Father who is wisdom.

CHAP. 14.—: THE WORD OF GOD IS IN ALL THINGS EQUAL TO THEFATHER, FROM WHOM IT IS.

23. The Word of God, then,the only-begotten Son of the Father, in all things like and equal tothe Father, God of God, Light of Light, Wisdom of Wisdom, Essence ofEssence, is altogether that which the Father is, yet is not theFather, because the one is Son, the other is Father. And hence Heknows all that the Father knows; but to Him to know, as to be, isfrom 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 Wordequal to Himself in all things; for He would not have utteredHimself wholly and perfectly, if there were in His Word anythingmore or less than in Himself. And here that is recognized in thehighest sense, “Yea, yea; nay, nay.” [1] And therefore this Word is truly truth, sincewhatever is in that knowledge from which it is born is also initself, and whatever is not in that knowledge is not in the Word.And this Word can never have anything false, because it isunchangeable, as He is from whom it is. For “the Son cando nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Fatherdo.” [2] Through power He cannot dothis; nor is it infirmity, but strength, by which truth cannot befalse. Therefore God the Father knows all things in Himself, knowsall things in the Son; but in Himself as though Himself, in the Sonas though His own Word which Word is spoken concerning all thosethings that are in Himself. Similarly the Son knows all things, viz. in Himself, as things which are born ofthose which the Father knows in Himself, and in the Father, as thoseof which they are born, which the Son Himself knows in Himself. TheFather, then, and the Son know mutually; but the one by begetting,the other by being born. And each of them sees simultaneously allthings that are in their knowledge, in their wisdom, in theiressence: not by parts or singly, as though by alternately lookingfrom this side to that, and from that side to this, and again fromthis or that object to this or that object, so as not to be able tosee some things without at the same time not seeing others; but, asI said, sees all things simultaneously, whereof there is not onethat He does not always see.

24. And that word, then, ofours which has neither sound nor thought of sound, but is of thatthing in seeing which we speak inwardly, and which therefore belongsto no tongue; and hence is in some sort like, in this enigma, tothat Word of God which is also God; since this too is born of ourknowledge, in such manner as that also is born of the knowledge ofthe Father: such a word, I say, of ours, which we find to be in someway like that Word, let us not be slow to consider how unlike alsoit is, as it may be in our power to utter it.

CHAP. 15.—: HOW GREAT IS THE UNLIKENESS BETWEEN OUR WORDAND THE DIVINE WORD. OUR WORD CANNOT BE OR BE CALLED ETERNAL.

Is our word, then, born of our knowledge only? Do we not say manythings also that we do not know? And say them not with doubt, butthinking them to be true; while if perchance they are true inrespect to the things themselves of which we speak, they are yet nottrue in respect to our word, because a word is not true unless it isborn of a thing that is known. In this sense, then, our word isfalse, 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 wordconcerning the doubt itself. For although we do not know whetherthat is true of which we doubt, yet we do know that we doubt; andhence, when we say we doubt, we say a word that is true, for we saywhat we know. And what, too, of its being possible for us to lie?And when we do, certainly we both willingly and knowingly have aword that is false, wherein there is a word that is true, viz. that we lie, for this we know. And when weconfess that we have lied, we speak that which is true; for we saywhat 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 donothing except what it sees the Father do;” and it“speaks not of itself,” but it has from theFather all that it speaks, since theFather speaks it in a special way; and the great might of that Wordis that it cannot lie, because there cannot be there “yeaand nay,” [1] but “yea yea,nay nay.” Well, but that is not even to be called a word,which is not true. I willingly assent, if so it be. What, then, ifour word is true, and therefore is rightly called a word? Is it thecase that, as we can speak of sight of sight, and knowledge ofknowledge, so we can speak of essence of essence, as that Word ofGod is especially spoken of, and is especially to be spoken of? Whyso? Because to us, to be is not the same as to know; since we knowmany things which in some sense live by memory, and so in some sensedie by being forgotten; and so, when those things are no longer inour knowledge, yet we still are; and while our knowledge has slippedaway and perished out of our mind, we are still alive.

25. In respect to thosethings also which are so known that they can never escape thememory, because they are present, and belong to the nature of themind itself,—as, e.g., the knowingthat we are alive (for this continues so long as the mind continues;and because the mind continues always, this also continuesalways);—I say, in respect to this and to any other likeinstances, in which we are the rather to contemplate the image ofGod, it is difficult to make out in what way, although they arealways known, yet because they are not always also thought of, aneternal word can be spoken respecting them, when our word is spokenin our thought. For it is eternal to the soul to live; it is eternalto know that it lives. Yet it is not eternal to it to be thinking ofits own life, or to be thinking of its own knowledge of its ownlife; since, in entering upon this or that occupation, it will ceaseto think of this, although it does not cease from knowing it. Andhence it comes to pass, that if there can be in the mind anyknowledge that is eternal, while the thought of that knowledgecannot be eternal, and any inner and true word of ours is only saidby our thought, then God alone can be understood to have a Word thatis eternal, and co-eternal with Himself. Unless, perhaps, we are tosay that the very possibility of thought—since that whichis known is capable of being truly thought, even at the time when itis not being thought—constitutes a word as perpetual asthe knowledge itself is perpetual. But how is that a word which isnot yet formed in the vision of the thought? How will it be like theknowledge of which it is born, if it has not the form of thatknowledge, and is only now called a word because it can have it? Forit is much as if one were to say that a word is to be so calledbecause it can be a word. But what is this that can be a word, andis therefore already held worthy of the name of a word? What, I say,is this thing that is formable, but not yet formed, except asomething in our mind, which we toss to and fro by revolving it thisway 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 wordthen comes into being, when, as I said, that which we toss to andfro by revolving it arrives at that which we know, and is formed bythat, in taking its entire likeness; so that in what manner eachthing is known, in that manner also it is thought, i.e. is said in this manner in the heart, withoutarticulate sound, without thought of articulate sound, such as nodoubt belongs to some particular tongue. And hence if we even admit,in order not to dispute laboriously about a name, that thissomething of our mind, which can be formed from our knowledge, is tobe already called a word, even before it is so formed, because itis, so to say, already formable, who would not see how great wouldbe the unlikeness between it and that Word of God, which is so inthe 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 asimple form, and simply equal to Him from whom it is, and with whomit is wonderfully co-eternal?

CHAP. 16.—: OUR WORD IS NEVER TO BE EQUALLED TO THE DIVINEWORD, NOT EVEN WHEN WE SHALL BE LIKE GOD.

Wherefore that Word of God is in such wise so called, as not to becalled a thought of God, lest we believe that there is anything inGod which can be revolved, so that it at one time receives and atanother recovers a form, so as to be a word, and again can lose thatform and be revolved in some sense formlessly. Certainly thatexcellent master of speech knew well the force of words, and hadlooked into the nature of thought, who said in his poem,“And revolves with himself the varying issues ofwar,” [2] i.e. thinks of them. That Son of God, then, isnot called the Thought of God, but the Word of God. For our ownthought, attaining to what we know, and formed thereby, is our trueword. And so the Word of God ought to be understood without anythought on the part of God, so that it be understood as the simpleform itself, but containing nothingformable that can be also unformed. There are, indeed, passages ofHoly Scripture that speak of God’s thoughts; but this isafter the same mode of speech by which the forgetfulness of God isalso there spoken of, whereas in strict propriety of language thereis in Him certainly no forgetfulness.

26. Wherefore, since we havefound now in this enigma so great an unlikeness to God and the Wordof 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” [1] (and certainly he who said this was aware beyonddoubt of our present unlikeness), not even then shall we be equal toHim in nature. For that nature which is made is ever less than thatwhich makes. And at that time our word will not indeed be false,because we shall neither lie nor be deceived. Perhaps, too, ourthoughts will no longer revolve by passing and repassing from onething to another, but we shall see all our knowledge at once, and atone glance. Still, when even this shall have come to pass, if indeedit shall come to pass, the creature which was formable will indeedhave been formed, so that nothing will be wanting of that form towhich it ought to attain; yet nevertheless it will not be to beequalled to that simplicity wherein there is not anything formable,which has been formed or re-formed, but only form; and which beingneither formless nor formed, itself is eternal and unchangeablesubstance.

CHAP. 17.—: HOW THE HOLY SPIRIT IS CALLED LOVE, ANDWHETHER HE ALONE IS SO CALLED. THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS IN THE SCRIPTURESPROPERLY CALLED BY THE NAME OF LOVE.

27. We have sufficientlyspoken of the Father and of the Son, so far as was possible for usto see through this glass and in this enigma. We must now treat ofthe Holy Spirit, so far as by God’s gift it is permittedto 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 theSon reciprocally love one another. But the language of the Word ofGod, in order to exercise us, has caused those things to be soughtinto with the greater zeal, which do not lie on the surface, but areto 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 ofthis inquiry. But they have said, “God islove;” [2] so that it is uncertainand remains to be inquired whether God the Father is love, or Godthe Son, or God the Holy Ghost, or the Trinity itself which is God.For we are not going to say that God is called Love because loveitself is a substance worthy of the name of God, but because it is agift of God, as it is said to God, “Thou art mypatience.” [3] For this is not saidbecause our patience is God’s substance, but in that HeHimself gives it to us; as it is elsewhere read, “Sincefrom Him is my patience.” [4] For the usage of wordsitself in Scripture sufficiently refutes this interpretation; for“Thou art my patience” is of the same kind as“Thou, Lord, art my hope,” [5] and “The Lordmy God is my mercy,” [6] and many like texts. Andit is not said, O Lord my love, or, Thou art my love, or, God mylove; but it is said thus, “God is love,” asit is said, “God is a Spirit.” [7] And he who does not discern this, must askunderstanding from the Lord, not an explanation from us; for wecannot say anything more clearly.

28. “God,” then, “is love;”but the question is, whether the Father, or the Son, or the HolySpirit, or the Trinity itself: because the Trinity is not threeGods, but one God. But I have already argued above in this book,that the Trinity, which is God, is not so to be understood fromthose three things which have been set forth in the trinity of ourmind, as that the Father should be the memory of all three, and theSon the understanding of all three, and the Holy Spirit the love ofall three; as though the Father should neither understand nor lovefor Himself, but the Son should understand for Him, and the HolySpirit love for Him, but He Himself should remember only both forHimself and for them; nor the Son remember nor love for Himself, butthe Father should remember for Him, and the Holy Spirit love forHim, but He Himself understand only both for Himself and them; norlikewise that the Holy Spirit should neither remember nor understandfor Himself, but the Father should remember for Him, and the Sonunderstand for Him, while He Himself should love only both forHimself and for them; but rather in this way, that both all and eachhave all three each in His own nature. Nor that these things shoulddiffer in them, as in us memory is one thing, understanding another,love or charity another, but should be some one thing that is equivalent to all, as wisdom itself; andshould be so contained in the nature of each, as that He who has itis that which He has, as being an unchangeable and simple substance.If all this, then, has been understood, and so far as is granted tous to see or conjecture in things so great, has been made patentlytrue, I know not why both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spiritshould not be called Love, and all together one love, just as boththe Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit is called Wisdom, and alltogether not three, but one wisdom. For so also both the Father isGod, and the Son God, and the Holy Ghost God, and all three togetherone God.

29. And yet it is not to nopurpose that in this Trinity the Son and none other is called theWord of God, and the Holy Spirit and none other the Gift of God, andGod the Father alone is He from whom the Word is born, and from whomthe Holy Spirit principally proceeds. And therefore I have added theword principally, because we find that the Holy Spirit proceeds fromthe Son also. But the Father gave Him this too, not as to onealready existing, and not yet having it; but whatever He gave to theonly-begotten Word, He gave by begetting Him. Therefore He so begatHim as that the common Gift should proceed from Him also, and theHoly Spirit should be the Spirit of both. This distinction, then, ofthe inseparable Trinity is not to be merely accepted in passing, butto be carefully considered; for hence it was that the Word of Godwas specially called also the Wisdom of God, although both Fatherand Holy Spirit are wisdom. If, then, any one of the three is to bespecially called Love, what more fitting than that it should be theHoly Spirit?—namely, that in that simple and highestnature, substance should not be one thing and love another, but thatsubstance itself should be love, and love itself should besubstance, whether in the Father, or in the Son, or in the HolySpirit; and yet that the Holy Spirit should be specially calledLove.

30. Just as sometimes allthe utterances of the Old Testament together in the Holy Scripturesare signified by the name of the Law. For the apostle, in citing atext from the prophet Isaiah, where he says, “With diverstongues and with divers lips will I speak to thispeople,” yet prefaced it by, “It is written inthe Law.” [1] And the Lord Himself says, “It is written in their Law,They hated me without a cause,” [2] whereas this is readin the Psalm. [3] And sometimes that which was given by Mosesis specially called the Law: as it is said, “The Law andthe Prophets were until John;” [4] and, “Onthese two commandments hang all the Law and theProphets.” [5] Here, certainly,that is specially called the Law which was from Mount Sinai. And thePsalms, too, are signified under the name of the Prophets; and yetin another place the Saviour Himself says, “All thingsmust needs be fulfilled, which are written in the Law, and theProphets, and the Psalms concerning me.” [6] Here, on the other side, He meant the name ofProphets to be taken as not including the Psalms. Therefore the Lawwith the Prophets and the Psalms taken together is called the Lawuniversally, and the Law is also specially so called which was givenby Moses. Likewise the Prophets are so called in common togetherwith the Psalms, and they are also specially so called exclusive ofthe Psalms. And many other instances might be adduced to teach us,that many names of things are both put universally, and alsospecially applied to particular things, were it not that a longdiscourse is to be avoided in a plain case. I have said so much,lest any one should think that it was therefore unsuitable for us tocall the Holy Spirit Love, because both God the Father and God theSon can be called Love.

31. As, then, we call theonly Word of God specially by the name of Wisdom, althoughuniversally both the Holy Spirit and the Father Himself is wisdom;so the Holy Spirit is specially called by the name of Love, althoughuniversally both the Father and the Son are love. But the Word ofGod, i.e. the only-begotten Son of God, isexpressly called the Wisdom of God by the mouth of the apostle,where he says, “Christ the power of God, and the wisdomof God.” [7] But where the HolySpirit is called Love, is to be found by careful scrutiny of thelanguage of John the apostle, who, after saying,“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is ofGod,” has gone on to say, “And every one thatloveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He that loveth not, knowethnot God; for God is love.” Here, manifestly, he hascalled that love God, which he said was of God; therefore God of Godis love. But because both the Son is born of God the Father, and theHoly Spirit proceeds from God the Father, it is rightly asked whichof them we ought here to think is the rather called the love that isGod. For the Father only is so God as not to be of God; and hencethe love that is so God as to be of God, is either the Son or theHoly Spirit. But when, in what follows,the apostle had mentioned the love of God, not that by which we loveHim, but that by which He “loved us, and sent His Son tobe a propitiator for our sins,” [1] and thereupon hadexhorted us also to love one another, and that so God would abide inus,—because, namely, he had called God Love; immediately,in his wish to speak yet more expressly on the subject,“Hereby,” he says, “know we that wedwell in Him, and He in us, because He hath given us of HisSpirit.” Therefore the Holy Spirit, of whom He hath givenus, makes us to abide in God, and Him in us; and this it is thatlove does. Therefore He is the God that is love. Lastly, a littleafter, when he had repeated the same thing, and had said“God is love,” he immediately subjoined,“And he who abideth in love, abideth in God, and Godabideth in him;” whence he had said above,“Hereby we know that we abide in Him, and He in us,because He hath given us of His Spirit.” He therefore issignified, where we read that God is love. Therefore God the HolySpirit, who proceedeth from the Father, when He has been given toman, inflames him to the love of God and of his neighbor, and isHimself love. For man has not whence to love God, unless from God;and therefore he says a little after, “Let us love Him,because He first loved us.” [2] The Apostle Paul,too, says, “The love of God is shed abroad in our heartsby the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us.” [3]

CHAP. 18.—: NO GIFT OF GOD IS MORE EXCELLENT THANLOVE.

32. There is no gift of Godmore excellent than this. It alone distinguishes the sons of theeternal 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 tomake him one who loves God and his neighbor, he is not removed fromthe left hand to the right. Nor is the Spirit specially called theGift, unless on account of love. And he who has not this love,“though he speak with the tongues of men and angels, issounding brass and a tinkling cymbal; and though he have the gift ofprophecy, and know all mysteries and all knowledge, and though hehave all faith, so that he can remove mountains, he is nothing; andthough he bestow all his goods to feed the poor, and though he givehis body to be burned, it profiteth him nothing.” [4] How great a good, then, is that without whichgoods so great bring no one to eternal life! But love or charityitself,—for they are two names for onething,—if he have it that does not speak with tongues,nor has the gift of prophecy, nor knows all mysteries and allknowledge, nor gives all his goods to the poor, either because hehas none to give or because some necessity hinders, nor delivers hisbody to be burned, if no trial of such a suffering overtakes him,brings that man to the kingdom, so that faith itself is onlyrendered profitable by love, since faith without love can indeedexist, but cannot profit. And therefore also the Apostle Paul says,“In Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth anything,nor uncircumcision, but faith that worketh by love:” [5] so distinguishing it from that faith by which even “thedevils believe and tremble.” [6] Love, therefore, whichis of God and is God, is specially the Holy Spirit, by whom the loveof God is shed abroad in our hearts, by which love the whole Trinitydwells in us. And therefore most rightly is the Holy Spirit,although He is God, called also the gift of God. [7] And by that giftwhat else can properly be understood except love, which brings toGod, and without which any other gift of God whatsoever does notbring to God?

CHAP. 19.—: THE HOLY SPIRIT IS CALLED THE GIFT OF GOD INTHE SCRIPTURES. BY THE GIFT OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IS MEANT THE GIFT WHICHIS THE HOLY SPIRIT. THE HOLY SPIRIT IS SPECIALLY CALLED LOVE, ALTHOUGHNOT ONLY THE HOLY SPIRIT IN THE TRINITY IS LOVE.

33. Is this too to beproved, that the Holy Spirit is called in the sacred books the giftof God? If people look for this too, we have in the Gospel accordingto John the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who says, “Ifany one thirst, let him come to me and drink: he that believeth onme, as the Scripture saith, out of his belly shall flow rivers ofliving water.” And the evangelist has gone on further toadd, “And this He spake of the Spirit, which they shouldreceive who believe in Him.” [8] And hence Paul theapostle also says, “And we have all been made to drinkinto one Spirit.” [9] The question thenis, whether that water is called the gift of God which is the HolySpirit. But as we find here that this water is the Holy Spirit, sowe find elsewhere in the Gospel itself that this water is called thegift of God. For when the same Lord was talking with the woman ofSamaria at the well, to whom He had said, “Give me to drink,” and she hadanswered that the Jews “have no dealings” withthe Samaritans, Jesus answered and said unto her, “Ifthou hadst known the gift of God, and who it is that says to thee,Give me to drink, thou wouldest have asked of Him, and He would havegiven thee living water. The woman saith unto Him, Sir, thou hastnothing to draw with, and the well is deep: whence then hast thouthis living water, etc.? Jesus answered and said unto her, Every onethat drinketh of this water shall thirst again; but whoso shalldrink of the water that I shall give him, shall never thirst; butthe water that I shall give him, shall be in him a fountain of waterspringing up unto eternal life.” [1] Because this livingwater, then, as the evangelist has explained to us, is the HolySpirit, without doubt the Spirit is the gift of God, of which theLord says here, “If thou hadst known the gift of God, andwho it is that saith unto thee, Give me to drink, thou wouldest haveasked of Him, and He would have given thee living water.”For that which is in the one passage, “Out of his bellyshall flow rivers of living water,” is in the other,“shall be in him a fountain of water springing up untoeternal life.”

34. Paul the apostle alsosays, “To each of us is given grace according to themeasure of the gift of Christ;” and then, that he mightshow that by the gift of Christ he meant the Holy Spirit, he hasgone on to add, “Wherefore He saith, He hath ascended upon high, He hath led captivity captive, and hath given gifts tomen.” [2] And every one knowsthat the Lord Jesus, when He had ascended into heaven after theresurrection from the dead, gave the Holy Spirit, with whom they whobelieved were filled, and spake with the tongues of all nations. Andlet no one object that he says gifts, not gift: for he quoted the text from the Psalm.And in the Psalm it is read thus, “Thou hast ascended upon high, Thou hast led captivity captive, Thou hast received giftsin men.” [3] For so it stands inmany MSS., especially in the Greek MSS., and so we have it translated from the Hebrew. Theapostle therefore said gifts, as the prophetdid, not gift. But whereas the prophet said,“Thou hast received gifts in men,” the apostlehas preferred saying, “He gave gifts to men:”and this in order that the fullest sense may be gathered from bothexpressions, the one prophetic, the other apostolic; because bothpossess the authority of a divine utterance. For both are true, aswell that He gave to men, as that He received in men. He gave tomen, as the head to His own members: He Himself that gave, receivedin men, no doubt as in His own members; on account of which, namely,His own members, He cried from heaven, “Saul, Saul, whypersecutest thou me?” [4] And of which, namely,His own members, He says, “Since ye have done it to oneof the least of these that are mine, ye have done it untome.” [5] Christ Himself,therefore, both gave from heaven and received on earth. And further,both prophet and apostle have said gifts forthis reason, because many gifts, which are proper to each, aredivided in common to all the members of Christ, by the Gift, whichis the Holy Spirit. For each severally has not all, but some havethese and some have those; although all have the Gift itself bywhich that which is proper to each is divided to Him, i.e. the Holy Spirit. For elsewhere also, whenhe had mentioned many gifts, “All these,” hesays, “worketh that one and the self-same Spirit,dividing to each severally as He will.” [6] And this word is found also in the Epistle to theHebrews, where it is written, “God also bearing witnessboth with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts [7] of the HolyGhost.” [8] And so here, when hehad said, “He ascended up on high, He led captivitycaptive, He gave gifts to men,” he says further,“But that He ascended, what is it but that He also firstdescended into the lower parts of the earth? He who descended is thesame also that ascended up far above all heavens, that He might fillall things. And He gave some apostles, some prophets, and someevangelists, and some pastors and doctors.” (This we seeis the reason why gifts are spoken of; because, as he sayselsewhere, “Are all apostles? are allprophets?” [9] etc.) And here hehas added, “For the perfecting of the saints, for thework of the ministry, for the building up of the body ofChrist.” [10] This is the housewhich, as the Psalm sings, is built up after the captivity; [11] since the house of Christ, which house is calledHis Church, is built up of those who have been rescued from thedevil, by whom they were held captive. But He Himself led thiscaptivity captive, who conquered the devil. And that he might notdraw with him into eternal punishment those who were to become themembers of the Holy Head, He bound him first by the bonds ofrighteousness, and then by those of might. The devil himself,therefore, is called captivity, which Heled captive who ascended up on high, and gave gifts to men, orreceived gifts in men.

35. And Peter the apostle,as we read in that canonical book, wherein the Acts of the Apostlesare recorded,—when the hearts of the Jews were troubledas he spake of Christ, and they said, “Brethren, whatshall we do? tell us,”—said to them,“Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name ofthe Lord Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins: and ye shallreceive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” [1] And we readlikewise in the same book, that Simon Magus desired to give money tothe apostles, that he might receive power from them, whereby theHoly Spirit might be given by the laying on of his hands. And thesame Peter said to him, “Thy money perish with thee:because thou hast thought to purchase for money the gift ofGod.” [2] And in anotherplace of the same book, when Peter was speaking to Cornelius, and tothose who were with him, and was announcing and preaching Christ,the Scripture says, “While Peter was still speaking thesewords, the Holy Spirit fell upon all them that heard the word; andthey of the circumcision that believed, as many as came with Peter,were astonished, because that upon the Gentiles also the gift of theHoly Spirit was poured out. For they heard them speak with tongues,and magnify God.” [3] And when Peterafterwards was giving an account to the brethren that were atJerusalem of this act of his, that he had baptized those who werenot circumcised, because the Holy Spirit, to cut the knot of thequestion, had come upon them before they were baptized, and thebrethren at Jerusalem were moved when they heard it, he says, afterthe rest of his words, “And when I began to speak tothem, the Holy Spirit fell upon them, as upon us in the beginning.And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He said, that John indeedbaptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit.If, therefore, He gave a like gift to them, as also to us whobelieved in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I, that I could hinderGod from giving to them the Holy Spirit?” [4] And there are many other testimonies of theScriptures, which unanimously attest that the Holy Spirit is thegift of God, in so far as He is given to those who by Him love God.But it is too long a task to collect them all. And what is enough tosatisfy those who are not satisfied with those we have alleged?

36. Certainly they must bewarned, since they now see that the Holy Spirit is called the giftof God, that when they hear of “the gift of the HolySpirit,” they should recognize therein that mode ofspeech which is found in the words, “In the spoiling ofthe body of the flesh.” [5] For as the body of theflesh is nothing else but the flesh, so the gift of the Holy Spiritis nothing else but the Holy Spirit. He is then the gift of God, sofar as He is given to those to whom He is given. But in Himself Heis God, although He were given to no one, because He was Godco-eternal with the Father and the Son before He was given to anyone. Nor is He less than they, because they give, and He is given.For He is given as a gift of God in such way that He Himself alsogives Himself as being God. For He cannot be said not to be in Hisown power, of whom it is said, “The Spirit bloweth whereit listeth;” [6] and the apostle says,as I have already mentioned above, “All these thingsworketh that self-same Spirit, dividing to every man severally as Hewill.” We have not here the creating of Him that isgiven, and the rule of them that give, but the concord of the givenand the givers.

37. Wherefore, if HolyScripture proclaims that God is love, and that love is of God, andworks this in us that we abide in God and He in us, and that herebywe know this, because He has given us of His Spirit, then the SpiritHimself is God, who is love. Next, if there be among the gifts ofGod none greater than love, and there is no greater gift of God thanthe Holy Spirit, what follows more naturally than that He is Himselflove, who is called both God and of God? And if the love by whichthe Father loves the Son, and the Son loves the Father, ineffablydemonstrates the communion of both, what is more suitable than thatHe should be specially called love, who is the Spirit common toboth? For this is the sounder thing both to believe and tounderstand, that the Holy Spirit is not alone love in that Trinity,yet is not specially called love to no purpose, for the reasons wehave alleged; just as He is not alone in that Trinity either aSpirit or holy, since both the Father is a Spirit, and the Son is aSpirit; and both the Father is holy, and the Son isholy,—as piety doubts not. And yet it is not to nopurpose that He is specially called the Holy Spirit; for because Heis common to both, He is specially called that which both are incommon. Otherwise, if in that Trinity the Holy Spirit alone is love,then doubtless the Son too turns out to be the Son, not of theFather only, but also of the Holy Spirit.For He is both said and read in countless places to beso,—the only-begotten Son of God the Father; as that whatthe apostle says of God the Father is true too: “Who hathdelivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us intothe kingdom of the Son of His own love.” [1] He did not say, “of His ownSon.” If He had so said, He would have said it mosttruly, just as He did say it most truly, because He has often saidit; but He says, “the Son of His own love.”Therefore He is the Son also of the Holy Spirit, if there is in thatTrinity no love in God except the Holy Spirit. And if this is mostabsurd, it remains that the Holy Spirit is not alone therein love,but is specially so called for the reasons I have sufficiently setforth; and that the words, “Son of His ownlove,” mean nothing else than His own belovedSon,—the Son, in short, of HIs own substance. For thelove in the Father, which is in His ineffably simple nature, isnothing else than His very nature and substanceitself,—as we have already often said, and are notashamed of often repeating. And hence the “Son of Hislove,” is none other than He who is born of Hissubstance.

CHAP. 20.—: AGAINST EUNOMIUS, SAYING THAT THE SON OF GODIS THE SON, NOT OF HIS NATURE, BUT OF HIS WILL. EPILOGUE TO WHAT HASBEEN SAID ALREADY.

38. Wherefore the logic ofEunomius, from whom the Eunomian heretics sprang, is ridiculous. Forwhen he could not understand, and would not believe, that theonly-begotten Word of God, by which all things were made, is the Sonof God by nature,— i.e. born of thesubstance of the Father,—he alleged that He was not theSon of His own nature or substance or essence, but the Son of thewill of God; so as to mean to assert that the will by which he begatthe Son was something accidental [andoptional] to God,—to wit, in that way that weourselves sometimes will something which before we did not will, asthough it was not for these very things that our nature is perceivedto be changeable,—a thing which far be it from us tobelieve of God. For it is written, “Many are the thoughtsin the heart of man, but the counsel of the Lord abideth forever,” [2] for no other reasonexcept that we may understand or believe that as God is eternal, sois His counsel for eternity, and therefore unchangeable, as Hehimself is. And what is said of thoughts can most truly be said alsoof the will: there are many wills in the heart of man, but the willof the Lord abideth for ever. Some, again, to escape saying that theonly-begotten Word is the Son of the counsel or will of God, haveaffirmed the same Word to be the counsel or will itself of theFather. But it is better in my judgment to say counsel of counsel,and will of will, as substance of substance, wisdom of wisdom, thatwe may not be led into that absurdity, which we have refutedalready, and say that the Son makes the Father wise or willing, ifthe Father has not in His own substance either counsel or will. Itwas certainly a sharp answer that somebody gave to the heretic, whomost subtly asked him whether God begat the Son willingly orunwillingly, in order that if he said unwillingly, it would followmost absurdly that God was miserable; but if willingly, he wouldforthwith infer, as though by an invincible reason, that at which hewas aiming, viz. that He was the Son, not ofHis nature, but of His will. But that other, with great wakefulness,demanded of him in turn, whether God the Father was God willingly orunwillingly; in order that if he answered unwillingly, that miserywould follow, which to believe of God is sheer madness; and if hesaid willingly, it would be replied to him, Then He is God too byHis own will, not by His nature. What remained, then, except that heshould hold his peace, and discern that he was himself bound by hisown question in an insoluble bond? But if any person in the Trinityis also to be specially called the will of God, this name, likelove, is better suited to the Holy Spirit; for what else is love,except will?

39. I see that my argumentin this book respecting the Holy Spirit, according to the HolyScripture, is quite enough for faithful men who know already thatthe Holy Spirit is God, and not of another substance, nor less thanthe Father and the Son,—as we have shown to be true inthe former books, according to the same Scriptures. We have reasonedalso from the creature which God made, and, as far as we could, havewarned those who demand a reason on such subjects to behold andunderstand His invisible things, so far as they could, by thosethings which are made, [3] and especially by therational or intellectual creature which is made after the image ofGod; through which glass, so to say, they might discern as far asthey could, if they could, the Trinity which is God, in our ownmemory, understanding, will. Which three things, if any oneintelligently regards as by nature divinely appointed in his ownmind, and remembers by memory, contemplates by understanding, embraces by love, how great a thingthat is in the mind, whereby even the eternal and unchangeablenature can be recollected, beheld, desired, doubtless that man findsan image of that highest Trinity. And he ought to refer the whole ofhis life to the remembering, seeing, loving that highest Trinity, inorder that he may recollect, contemplate, be delighted by it. But Ihave warned him, so far as seemed sufficient, that he must not socompare this image thus wrought by that Trinity, and by his ownfault changed for the worse, to that same Trinity as to think it inall points like to it, but rather that he should discern in thatlikeness, of whatever sort it be, a great unlikeness also.

CHAP. 21.—: OF THE LIKENESS OF THE FATHER AND OF THE SONALLEGED TO BE IN OUR MEMORY AND UNDERSTANDING. OF THE LIKENESS OF THEHOLY SPIRIT IN OUR WILL OR LOVE.

40. I have undoubtedly takenpains so far as I could, not indeed so that the thing might be seenface to face, but that it might be seen by this likeness in anenigma, [1] in how small a degree soever, by conjecture,in our memory and understanding, to intimate God the Father and Godthe Son: i.e. God the begetter, who has in someway spoken by His own co-eternal Word all things that He has in Hissubstance; and God His Word Himself, who Himself has nothing eithermore or less in substance than is in Him, who, not lyingly buttruly, hath begotten the Word; and I have assigned to memoryeverything that we know, even if we were not thinking of it, but tounderstanding the formation after a certain special mode of thethought. For we are usually said to understand what, by thinking ofit, we have found to be true; and this it is again that we leave inthe memory. But that is a still more hidden depth of our memory,wherein we found this also first when we thought of it, and whereinan inner word is begotten such as belongs to notongue,—as it were, knowledge of knowledge, vision ofvision, and understanding which appears in[reflective] thought; of understanding whichhad indeed existed before in the memory, but was latent there,although, unless the thought itself had also some sort of memory ofits own, it would not return to those things which it had left inthe memory while it turned to think of other things.

41. But I have shown nothingin this enigma respecting the Holy Spirit such as might appear to belike Him, except our own will, or love, or affection, which is astronger will, since our will which we have naturally is variouslyaffected, according as various objects are adjacent or occur to it,by which we are attracted or offended. What, then, is this? Are weto 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 ofknowledge of its own, such as cannot be without memory andunderstanding. Or are we to listen to any one who should say thatlove knows not what it does, which does not do wrongly? As, then,there are both understanding and love in that primary memory whereinwe find provided and stored up that to which we can come in thought,because we find also those two things there, when we find bythinking that we both understand and love anything; which thingswere there too when we were not thinking of them: and as there arememory and love in that understanding, which is formed by thought,which true word we say inwardly without the tongue of any nationwhen we say what we know; for the gaze of our thought does notreturn to anything except by remembering it, and does not care toreturn unless by loving it: so love, which combines the visionbrought about in the memory, and the vision of the thought formedthereby, as if parent and offspring, would not know what to loverightly unless it had a knowledge of what it desired, which itcannot have without memory and understanding.

CHAP. 22.—: HOW GREAT THE UNLIKENESS IS BETWEEN THE IMAGEOF THE TRINITY WHICH WE HAVE FOUND IN OURSELVES, AND THE TRINITYITSELF.

42. But since these are inone person, as man is, some one may say to us, These three things,memory, understanding, and love, are mine, not their own; neither dothey do that which they do for themselves, but for me, or rather Ido it by them. For it is I who remember by memory, and understand byunderstanding, and love by love: and when I direct themind’s eye to my memory, and so say in my heart the thingI 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, andit is I who say in my heart the thing I know. And when I come tofind in my memory by thinking that I understand and love anything,which understanding and love were there also before I thoughtthereon, it is my own understanding and my own love that I find inmy own memory, whereby it is I that understand, and I that love, not those things themselves.Likewise, when my thought is mindful, and wills to return to thosethings which it had left in the memory, and to understand and beholdthem, and say them inwardly, it is my own memory that is mindful,and it is my own, not its will, wherewith it wills. When my verylove itself, too, remembers and understands what it ought to desireand what to avoid, it remembers by my, not by its own memory; andunderstands that which it intelligently loves by my, not by its own,understanding. In brief, by all these three things, it is I thatremember, I that understand, I that love, who am neither memory, norunderstanding, nor love, but who have them. These things, then, canbe said by a single person, which has these three, but is not thesethree. But in the simplicity of that Highest Nature, which is God,although there is one God, there are three persons, the Father, theSon, and the Holy Spirit.

CHAP. 23.—: AUGUSTIN DWELLS STILL FURTHER ON THE DISPARITYBETWEEN THE TRINITY WHICH IS IN MAN, AND THE TRINITY WHICH IS GOD. THETRINITY IS NOW SEEN THROUGH A GLASS BY THE HELP OF FAITH, THAT IT MAYHEREAFTER BE MORE CLEARLY SEEN IN THE PROMISED SIGHT FACE TOFACE.

43. A thing itself, then,which is a trinity is different from the image of a trinity in someother thing; by reason of which image, at the same time that also inwhich these three things are is called an image; just as both thepanel, and the picture painted on it, are at the same time called animage; but by reason of the picture painted on it, the panel also iscalled by the name of image. But in that Highest Trinity, which isincomparably 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 oneGod, but it is one God. Nor, again, as that image in the case of manhas 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 ofthe Father, and the Spirit of both Father and Son. For although thememory in the case of man, and especially that memory which beastshave not— viz. the memory by whichthings intelligible are so contained as that they have not enteredthat memory through the bodily senses [1] —has in this image of theTrinity, in proportion to its own small measure, a likeness of theFather, incomparably unequal, yet of some sort, whatever it be: andlikewise the understanding in the case of man, which by the purposeof the thought is formed thereby, when that which is known is said,and there is a word of the heart belonging to no tongue, has in itsown great disparity some likeness of the Son; and love in the caseof man proceeding from knowledge, and combining memory andunderstanding, as though common to parent and offspring, whereby itis understood to be neither parent nor offspring, has in that image,some, however exceedingly unequal, likeness of the Holy Spirit: itis nevertheless not the case, that, as in that image of the Trinity,these three are not one man, but belong to one man, so in theHighest Trinity itself, of which this is an image, these threebelong to one God, but they are one God, and these are threepersons, not one. A thing certainly wonderfully ineffable, orineffably wonderful, that while this image of the Trinity is oneperson, but the Highest Trinity itself is three persons, yet thatTrinity of three persons is more indivisible than this of one. Forthat [Trinity], in the nature of the Divinity,or perhaps better Deity, is that which it is, and is mutually andalways unchangeably equal: and there was no time when it was not, orwhen it was otherwise; and there will be no time when it will notbe, or when it will be otherwise. But these three that are in theinadequate image, although they are not separate in place, for theyare not bodies, yet are now in this life mutually separate inmagnitude. For that there are therein no several bulks, does nothinder our seeing that memory is greater than understanding in oneman, but the contrary in another; and that in yet another these twoare overpassed by the greatness of love; and this whether the twothemselves are or are not equal to one another. And so each two byeach one, and each one by each two, and each one by each one: theless are surpassed by the greater. And when they have been healed ofall infirmity, and are mutually equal, not even then will that thingwhich by grace will not be changed, be made equal to that which bynature cannot change, because the creature cannot be equalled to theCreator, and when it shall be healed from all infirmity, will bechanged.

44. But when the sight shallhave come which is promised anew to us face to face, we shall see this not only incorporeal butalso absolutely indivisible and truly unchangeable Trinity far moreclearly and certainly than we now see its image which we ourselvesare: and yet they who see through this glass and in this enigma, asit is permitted in this life to see, are not those who behold intheir own mind the things which we have set in order and pressedupon them; but those who see this as if an image, so as to be ableto refer what they see, in some way be it what it may, to Him whoseimage it is, and to see that also by conjecturing, which they seethrough the image by beholding, since they cannot yet see face toface. For the apostle does not say, We see now a glass, but, We seenow through a glass. [1]

CHAP. 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 manyways, 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 whois now to be seen through the glass, that they do not even know theglass itself which they see to be a glass, i.e. an image. And if they knew this, perhaps they would feel that He toowhose glass this is, should by it be sought, and somehowprovisionally be seen, an unfeigned faith purging their hearts, [2] that He who is now seen through a glass may beable to be seen face to face. And if they despise this faith thatpurifies the heart, what do they accomplish by understanding themost subtle disputes concerning the nature of the human mind, unlessthat they be condemned also by the witness of their ownunderstanding? And they would certainly not so fail inunderstanding, and hardly arrive at anything certain, were they notinvolved in penal darkness, and burdened with the corruptible bodythat presses down the soul. [3] And for what demeritsave that of sin is this evil inflicted on them? Wherefore, beingwarned by the magnitude of so great an evil, they ought to followthe Lamb that taketh away the sins of the world. [4]

CHAP. 25.—: THE QUESTION WHY THE HOLY SPIRIT IS NOTBEGOTTEN, AND HOW HE PROCEEDS FROM THE FATHER AND THE SON, WILL ONLY BEUNDERSTOOD WHEN WE ARE IN BLISS.

For if any belong to Him, although far duller in intellect thanthose, yet when they are freed from the body at the end of thislife, the envious powers have no right to hold them. For that Lambthat 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 therighteousness of blood. And free accordingly from the power of thedevil, they are borne up by holy angels, being set free from allevils by the mediator of God and men, the man Christ Jesus. [5] Since by the harmonious testimony of the DivineScriptures, both Old and New, both those by which Christ wasforetold, and those by which He was announced, there is no othername under heaven whereby men must be saved. [6] And when purged fromall contagion of corruption, they are placed in peaceful abodesuntil they take their bodies again, their own, but nowincorruptible, to adorn, not to burden them. For this is the will ofthe best and most wise Creator, that the spirit of a man, whenpiously subject to God, should have a body happily subject, and thatthis happiness should last for ever.

45. There we shall see thetruth without any difficulty, and shall enjoy it to the full, mostclear and most certain. Nor shall we be inquiring into anything by amind that reasons, but shall discern by a mind that contemplates,why the Holy Spirit is not a Son, although He proceeds from theFather. In that light there will be no place for inquiry: but here,by experience itself it has appeared to me sodifficult,—as beyond doubt it will likewise appear tothem also who shall carefully and intelligently read what I havewritten,—that although in the second book [7] Ipromised that I would speak thereof in another place, yet as oftenas I have desired to illustrate it by the creaturely image of itwhich we ourselves are, so often, let my meaning be of what sort itmight, did adequate utterance entirely fail me; nay, even in my verymeaning I felt that I had attained to endeavor rather thanaccomplishment. I had indeed found in one person, such as is a man,an image of that Highest Trinity, and had desired, especially in theninth book, to illustrate and render more intelligible the relationof the Three Persons by that which is subject to time and change.But three things belonging to one person cannot suit those ThreePersons, as man’s purpose demands; and this we havedemonstrated in this fifteenth book.

CHAP. 26.—: THE HOLY SPIRIT TWICE GIVEN BY CHRIST. THEPROCESSION OF THE HOLY SPIRIT FROM THE FATHER AND FROM THE SON IS APARTFROM TIME, NOR CAN HE BE CALLED THE SON OF BOTH.

Further, in that Highest Trinity which isGod, there are no intervals of time, by which it could be shown, orat least inquired, whether the Son was born of the Father first, andthen afterwards the Holy Spirit proceeded from both; since HolyScripture calls Him the Spirit of both. For it is He of whom theapostle says, “But because ye are sons, God hath sentforth the Spirit of His Son into your hearts:” [1] and it is He of whom the same Son says,“For it is not ye who speak, but the Spirit of yourFather who speaketh in you.” [2] And it is proved bymany other testimonies of the Divine Word, that the Spirit, who isspecially called in the Trinity the Holy Spirit, is of the Fatherand of the Son: of whom likewise the Son Himself says,“Whom I will send unto you from theFather;” [3] and in another place,“Whom the Father will send in my name.” [4] And we are so taught that He proceeds from both,because the Son Himself says, He proceeds from the Father. And whenHe had risen from the dead, and had appeared to His disciples,“He breathed upon them, and said, Receive the HolyGhost,” [5] so as to show that Heproceeded also from Himself. And Itself is that very“power that went out from Him,” as we read inthe Gospel, “and healed them all.” [6]

46. But the reason why,after His resurrection, He both gave the Holy Spirit, first onearth, [7] and afterwards sent Him from heaven, [8] is in my judgment this: that “love isshed abroad in our hearts,” [9] by that Gift itself,whereby we love God and our neighbors, according to those twocommandments, “on which hang all the law and theprophets.” [10] And JesusChrist, in order to signify this, gave to them the Holy Spirit, onceupon earth, on account of the love of our neighbor, and a secondtime from heaven, on account of the love of God. And if some otherreason may perhaps be given for this double gift of the Holy Spirit,at any rate we ought not to doubt that the same Holy Spirit wasgiven when Jesus breathed upon them, of whom He by and by says,“Go, baptize all nations in the name of the Father, andof the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” where this Trinityis especially commended to us. It is therefore He who was also givenfrom heaven on the day of Pentecost, i.e. tendays after the Lord ascended into heaven. How, therefore, is He notGod, who gives the Holy Spirit? Nay, how great a God is He who givesGod! For no one of His disciples gave the Holy Spirit, since theyprayed that He might come upon those upon whom they laid theirhands: they did not give Him themselves. And the Church preservesthis custom even now in the case of her rulers. Lastly, Simon Magusalso, when he offered the apostles money, does not say,“Give me also this power, that I may give” theHoly Spirit; but, “that on whomsoever I may lay my hands,he may receive the Holy Spirit.” Because neither had theScriptures said before, And Simon, seeing that the apostles gave theHoly Spirit; but it had said, “And Simon, seeing that theHoly Spirit was given by the laying on of the apostles’hands.” [11] Therefore alsothe Lord Jesus Christ Himself not only gave the Holy Spirit as God,but also received it as man, and therefore He is said to be full ofgrace, [12] and of the Holy Spirit. [13] And in theActs of the Apostles it is more plainly written of Him,“Because God anointed Him with the HolySpirit.” [14] Certainly not withvisible oil but with the gift of grace which is signified by thevisible ointment wherewith the Church anoints the baptized. AndChrist was certainly not then anointed with the Holy Spirit, whenHe, as a dove, descended upon Him at His baptism. [15] For at that time He deigned to prefigure Hisbody, i.e. His Church, in which especially thebaptized receive the Holy Spirit. But He is to be understood to havebeen then anointed with that mystical and invisible unction, whenthe Word of God was made flesh, [16] i.e. when human nature, without any precedentmerits of good works, was joined to God the Word in the womb of theVirgin, so that with it it became one person. Therefore it is thatwe confess Him to have been born of the Holy Spirit and of theVirgin Mary. For it is most absurd to believe Him to have receivedthe Holy Spirit when He was near thirty years old: for at that ageHe was baptized by John; [17] but that He cameto baptism as without any sin at all, so not without the HolySpirit. For if it was written of His servant and forerunner Johnhimself, “He shall be filled with the Holy Spirit, evenfrom his mother’s womb,” [18] because, althoughgenerated by his father, yet he received the Holy Spirit when formedin the womb; what must be understood and believed of the man Christ,of whose flesh the very conception was not carnal, but spiritual?Both natures, too, as well the human as the divine, are shown inthat also that is written of Him, that He received of the Father thepromise of the Holy Spirit, and shed forth the Holy Spirit: [19] seeing that Hereceived as man, and shed forth as God. And we indeed can receivethat gift according to our small measure, but assuredly we cannotshed it forth upon others; but, that this may be done, we invokeover them God, by whom this is accomplished.

47. Are we therefore able toask whether the Holy Spirit had already proceeded from the Fatherwhen the Son was born, or had not yet proceeded, and when He wasborn, proceeded from both, wherein there is no such thing asdistinct times: just as we have been able to ask, in a case where wedo find times, that the will proceeds from the human mind first, inorder that that may be sought which, when found, may be calledoffspring; which offspring being already brought forth or born, thatwill is made perfect, resting in this end, so that what had been itsdesire when seeking, is its love when enjoying; which love nowproceeds from both, i.e. from the mind thatbegets, and from the notion that is begotten, as if from parent andoffspring? These things it is absolutely impossible to ask in thiscase, where nothing is begun in time, so as to be perfected in atime following. Wherefore let him who can understand the generationof the Son from the Father without time, understand also theprocession of the Holy Spirit from both without time. And let himwho can understand, in that which the Son says, “As theFather hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to havelife in Himself,” [1] not that the Fathergave life to the Son already existing without life, but that He sobegat Him apart from time, that the life which the Father gave tothe Son by begetting Him is co-eternal with the life of the Fatherwho gave it: [2] let him, I say, understand, that asthe Father has in Himself that the Holy Spirit should proceed fromHim, so has He given to the Son that the same Holy Spirit shouldproceed from Him, and be both apart from time: and that the HolySpirit is so said to proceed from the Father as that it beunderstood that His proceeding also from the Son, is a propertyderived by the Son from the Father. For if the Son has of the Fatherwhatever He has, then certainly He has of the Father, that the HolySpirit proceeds also from Him. But let no one think of any timestherein which imply a sooner and a later; because these things arenot there at all. How, then, would it not be most absurd to call Himthe Son of both: when, just as generation from the Father, withoutany changeableness of nature, gives to the Son essence, withoutbeginning of time; so procession from both, without anychangeableness of nature, gives to the Holy Spirit essence withoutbeginning of time? For while we do not say that the Holy Spirit isbegotten, yet we do not therefore dare to say that He is unbegotten,lest any one suspect in this word either two Fathers in thatTrinity, or two who are not from another. For the Father alone isnot from another, and therefore He alone is called unbegotten, notindeed in the Scriptures, [3] butin the usage of disputants, who employ such language as they can onso great a subject. And the Son is born of the Father; and the HolySpirit proceeds from the Father principally, the Father giving theprocession without any interval of time, yet in common from both[Father and Son]. [4] But He would be called the Son ofthe Father and of the Son, if—a thing abhorrent to thefeeling of all sound minds—both had begotten Him. Therefore the Spirit of both is not begottenof both, but proceeds from both.

CHAP. 27.—: WHAT IT IS THAT SUFFICES HERE TO SOLVE THEQUESTION WHY THE SPIRIT IS NOT SAID TO BE BEGOTTEN, AND WHY THE FATHERALONE IS UNBEGOTTEN. WHAT THEY OUGHT TO DO WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND THESETHINGS.

48. But because it is mostdifficult to distinguish generation from procession in thatco-eternal, and equal, and incorporeal, and ineffably unchangeableand indivisible Trinity, let it suffice meanwhile to put beforethose who are not able to be drawn on further, what we said uponthis subject in a sermon to be delivered in the ears of Christianpeople, and after saying wrote it down. For when, among otherthings, I had taught them by testimonies of the Holy Scriptures thatthe Holy Spirit proceeds from both, I continue: “If,then, the Holy Spirit proceeds both from the Father and from theSon, why did the Son say, ‘He proceedeth from theFather?’ ” [5] Why, think you, exceptas He is wont to refer to Him, that also which is His own, from whom also He Himself is? Whencealso is that which He saith, “My doctrine is not mineown, but His that sent me?” [1] If, therefore, it isHis doctrine that is here understood, which yet He said was not Hisown, but His that sent Him, how much more is it there to beunderstood that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from Himself, where Heso says, He proceedeth from the Father, as not to say, He proceedethnot from me? From Him, certainly, from whom the Son had his Divinenature, for He is God of God, He has also, that from Him tooproceeds the Holy Spirit; and hence the Holy Spirit has from theFather Himself, that He should proceed from the Son also, as Heproceeds from the Father. Here, too, in some way may this also beunderstood, so far as it can be understood by such as we are, whythe Holy Spirit is not said to be born, but rather to proceed; [2] since ifHe, too, was called a Son, He would certainly be called the Son ofboth, which is most absurd, since no one is son of two, save offather and mother. But far be it from us to surmise any such thingas this between God the Father and God the Son. Because not even theson of men proceeds at the same time from both father and mother;but when he proceeds from the father into the mother, he does not atthat time proceed from the mother; and when he proceeds from themother into this present light, he does not at that time proceedfrom the father. But the Holy Spirit does not proceed from theFather into the Son, and from the Son proceed to sanctify thecreature, but proceeds at once from both; although the Father hasgiven this to the Son, that He should proceed, as from Himself, soalso from Him. For we cannot say that the Holy Spirit is not life,while the Father is life, and the Son is life: and hence as theFather, while He has life in Himself, has given also to the Son tohave life in Himself; so has He given also to Him that life shouldproceed from Him, as it also proceeds from Himself.” [3] I have transferred this from that sermon into thisbook, but I was speaking to believers, not to unbelievers.

49. But if they are notcompetent to gaze upon this image, and to see how true these thingsare which are in their mind, and yet which are not so three as to bethree persons, but all three belong to a man who is one person; whydo they not believe what they find in the sacred books respectingthat highest Trinity which is God, rather than insist on theclearest reason being rendered them, which cannot be comprehended bythe human mind, dull and infirm as it is? And to be sure, when theyhave steadfastly believed the Holy Scriptures as most truewitnesses, let them strive, by praying and seeking and living well,that they may understand, i.e. that so far asit can be seen, that may be seen by the mind which is held fast byfaith. Who would forbid this? Nay, who would not rather exhort themto 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 asun. The light then shineth in darkness; but if the darknesscomprehend it not, [4] let them first beilluminated by the gift of God, that they may be believers, and letthem begin to be light in comparison with the unbelievers; and whenthis foundation is first laid, let them be built up to see what theybelieve, that at some time they may be able to see. For some thingsare so believed, that they cannot be seen at all. For Christ is notto be seen a second time on the cross; but unless this be believedwhich has been so done and seen, that it is not now to be hoped foras about to be and to be seen, there is no coming to Christ, such aswithout end He is to be seen. But as far as relates to thediscerning in some way by the understanding that highest, ineffable,incorporeal, and unchangeable nature the sight of the human mind cannowhere better exercise itself, so only that the rule of faithgovern it, than in that which man himself has in his own naturebetter than the other animals, better also than the other parts ofhis own soul, which is the mind itself, to which has been assigned acertain sight of things invisible, and to which, as though honorablypresiding in a higher and inner place, the bodily senses also bringword of all things, that they may be judged, and than which there isno higher, to which it is to be subject, and by which it is to begoverned, except God.

50. But among these manythings which I have now said, and of which there is nothing that I dare to profess myself to havesaid worthy of the ineffableness of that highest Trinity, but ratherto confess that the wonderful knowledge of Him is too great for me,and that I cannot attain [1] to it: O thou, mysoul, where dost thou feel thyself to be? where dost thou lie? wheredost thou stand? until all thy infirmities be healed by Him who hasforgiven all thy iniquities. [2] Thou perceivestthyself assuredly to be in that inn whither that Samaritan broughthim whom he found with many wounds inflicted by thieves,half-dead. [3] And yet thou hastseen many things that are true, not by those eyes by which coloredobjects are seen, but by those for which he prayed who said,“Let mine eyes behold the things that areequal.” [4] Certainly, then, thouhast seen many things that are true, and hast distinguished themfrom that light by the light of which thou hast seen them. Lift upthine eyes to the light itself, and fix them upon it if thou canst.For so thou wilt see how the birth of the Word of God differs fromthe procession of the Gift of God, on account of which theonly-begotten Son did not say that the Holy Spirit is begotten ofthe Father, otherwise He would be His brother, but that He proceedsfrom Him. Whence, since the Spirit of both is a kind ofconsubstantial communion of Father and Son, He is not called, far beit from us to say so, the Son of both. But thou canst not fix thysight there, so as to discern this lucidly and clearly; I know thoucanst not. I say the truth, I say to myself, I know what I cannotdo; yet that light itself shows to thee these three things inthyself, wherein thou mayest recognize an image of the highestTrinity itself, which thou canst not yet contemplate with steadyeye. Itself shows to thee that there is in thee a true word, when itis born of thy knowledge, i.e. when we say whatwe know: although we neither utter nor think of any articulate wordthat is significant in any tongue of any nation, but our thought isformed by that which we know; and there is in the mind’seye of the thinker an image resembling that thought which the memorycontained, will or love as a third combining these two as parent andoffspring. And he who can, sees and discerns that this will proceedsindeed from thought (for no one wills that of which he is absolutelyignorant what or of what sort it is), yet is not an image of thethought: and so that there is insinuated in this intelligible thinga sort of difference between birth and procession, since to beholdby thought is not the same as to desire, or even to enjoy will.Thou, too, hast been able [to discern this],although thou hast not been, neither art, able to unfold withadequate speech what, amidst the clouds of bodily likenesses, whichcease not to flit up and down before human thoughts, thou hastscarcely seen. But that light which is not thyself shows thee thistoo, that these incorporeal likenesses of bodies are different fromthe truth, which, by rejecting them, we contemplate with theunderstanding. These, and other things similarly certain, that lighthath shown to thine inner eyes. What reason, then, is there why thoucanst not see that light itself with steady eye, except certainlyinfirmity? And what has produced this in thee, except iniquity? Who,then, is it that healeth all thine infirmities, unless it be He thatforgiveth all thine iniquities? And therefore I will now at lengthfinish this book by a prayer better than by an argument.

CHAP. 28.—: THE CONCLUSION OF THE BOOK WITH A PRAYER, ANDAN APOLOGY FOR MULTITUDE OF WORDS.

51. O Lord our God, webelieve in Thee, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. For theTruth would not say, Go, baptize all nations in the name of theFather and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, unless Thou wast aTrinity. Nor wouldest thou, O Lord God, bid us to be baptized in thename of Him who is not the Lord God. Nor would the divine voice havesaid, Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one God, unless Thou wertso a Trinity as to be one Lord God. And if Thou, O God, wert Thyselfthe Father, and wert Thyself the Son, Thy Word Jesus Christ, and theHoly Spirit your gift, we should not read in the book of truth,“God sent His Son;” [5] norwouldest Thou, O Only-begotten, say of the Holy Spirit,“Whom the Father will send in my name;” [6] and, “Whom I will send to you from theFather.” [7] Directing my purposeby this rule of faith, so far as I have been able, so far as Thouhast made me to be able, I have sought Thee, and have desired to seewith my understanding what I believed; and I have argued and laboredmuch. O Lord my God, my one hope, hearken to me, lest throughweariness I be unwilling to seek Thee, “but that I mayalways ardently seek Thy face.” [8] Do Thou give strength toseek, who hast made me find Thee, and hast given the hope of findingThee more and more. My strength and my infirmity are in Thy sight:preserve the one, and heal the other. Myknowledge and my ignorance are in Thy sight; where Thou hast openedto me, receive me as I enter; where Thou hast closed, open to me asI knock. May I remember Thee, understand Thee, love Thee. Increasethese things in me, until Thou renewest me wholly. I know it iswritten, “In the multitude of speech, thou shalt notescape sin.” [1] But O that I mightspeak only in preaching Thy word, and in praising Thee! Not onlyshould I so flee from sin, but I should earn good desert, howevermuch I so spake. For a man blessed of Thee would not enjoin a sinupon his own true son in the faith, to whom he wrote,“Preach the word: be instant in season, out ofseason.” [2] Are we to say that hehas not spoken much, who was not silent about Thy word, O Lord, notonly in season, but out of season? But therefore it was not much,because it was only what was necessary. Set me free, O God, fromthat multitude of speech which I suffer inwardly in my soul,wretched as it is in Thy sight, and flying for refuge to Thy mercy;for I am not silent in thoughts, even when silent in words. And if,indeed, I thought of nothing save what pleased Thee, certainly Iwould not ask Thee to set me free from such multitude of speech. Butmany are my thoughts, such as Thou knowest, “thoughts ofman, since they are vain.” [3] Grant to me not toconsent to them; and if ever they delight me, nevertheless tocondemn them, and not to dwell in them, as though I slumbered. Norlet them so prevail in me, as that anything in my acts shouldproceed from them; but at least let my opinions, let my conscience,be safe from them, under Thy protection. When the wise man spake ofThee in his book, which is now called by the special name ofEcclesiasticus, “We speak,” he said,“much, and yet come short; and in sum of words, He isall.” [4] When, therefore,we shall have come to Thee, these very many things that we speak,and yet come short, will cease; and Thou, as One, wilt remain“all in all.” [5] And we shall say onething without end, in praising Thee in One, ourselves also made onein Thee. O Lord the one God, God the Trinity, whatever I have saidin 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 thosewho are Thine. Amen.

ST. AUGUSTIN: THE ENCHIRIDION; OR ON FAITH, HOPE, ANDLOVE.

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, andCharity, 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 hishands, such as the Greeks call an Enchiridion ( Hand-Book ). There I think I have pretty carefullytreated of the manner in which God is to be worshipped, which knowledgedivine Scripture defines to be the true wisdom of man. The book begins:‘I cannot express,’ ” etc. [1]

The Enchiridion is among the latest books ofAugustin. It was written after the death of Jerome, which occurred Sept.30, 420; for he alludes in ch. 87 to Jerome “of blessedmemory” ( sanctæ memoriæHieronymus presbyter ).

It is addressed to Laurentius, in answer to his questions. This person isotherwise unknown. One MS. calls him a deacon, another a notary of thecity of Rome. He was probably a layman.

The author usually calls the book “On Faith, Hope andLove,” because he treats the subject under these three heads(comp. I Cor. xiii. 13). He follows under the first head the order ofthe Apostles’ Creed, and refutes, without naming them, theManichæan, Apollinarian, Arian, and Pelagian heresies. Underthe second head he gives a brief exposition of the Lord’sPrayer. The third part is a discourse on Christian love.

The original is in the sixth volume of the Benedictine edition. A neatedition of the Latin text, with three other small tracts of Augustin,( De Catechizandis Rudibus; De Fide Rerumquæ non creduntur; De Utilitate Credendi ), is alsopublished in C. Marriott’s S. AureliusAugustinus, 4th ed. by H. de Romestin, Oxford and London(Parker and Comp.), 1885 (pp. 150-251.) An English edition of the sametracts by H. de Romestin, Oxford and London, 1885 (pp. 151-251). HisEnglish translation is based on that of C. L. Cornish, M.A., whichappeared 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 ofCornish. I have in a few cases conformed it more closely to theoriginal.

P. S.

CONTENTS OF THE ENCHIRIDION.

- CHAP. I.— The author desires the gift of true wisdom forLaurentius, . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 237

- CHAP. II.— The fear of God is man’s truewisdom, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237

- CHAP. III.— God is to be worshipped through faith, hope,and love, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

- CHAP. IV.— The questions propounded by Laurentius, . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

- CHAP. V.— Brief answers to these questions, . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

- CHAP. VI.— Controversy out of place in a hand-book likethe present, . . . . . . . . . . . . 238

- CHAP. VII.— The Creed and the Lord’s Prayerdemand the exercise of faith, hope, and love, . . . . 238

- CHAP. VIII.— The distinction between faith and hope, andthe mutual dependence of faith, hope and love, . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

- CHAP. IX.— What we are to believe. In regard to natureit is not necessary for the Christian to know more than that thegoodness of the Creator is the cause of all things, . . . . . . . . . .. 239

- CHAP. X.— The supremely good Creator made all thingsgood, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240

- CHAP. XI.— What is called evil in the universe is butthe absence of good, . . . . . . . . . . . 240

- CHAP. XII.— All beings were made good, but not beingmade perfectly good, are liable to corruption, . . 240

- CHAP. XIII.— There can be no evil where there is nogood; and an evil man is an evil good, . . . . 241

- CHAP. XIV.— Good and evil are an exception to the rulethat contrary attributes cannot be predicated of the same subject. Evilsprings up in what is good, and cannot exist except in what is good, . .. . 241

- CHAP. XV.— The preceding argument is in no wiseinconsistent with the saying of our Lord: “A good tree cannotbring forth evil fruit,” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 241

- CHAP. XVI.— It is not essential to man’shappiness that he should know the causes of physical convulsions; but itis, that he should know the causes of good and evil, . . . . . . . . . .. . 242

- CHAP. XVII.— The nature of error. All error is nothurtful, though it is man’s duty as far as possible to avoidit, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242

- CHAP. XVIII.— It is never allowable to tell a lie; butlies differ very much in guilt, according to the intention and thesubject, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

- CHAP. XIX.— Men’s errors vary very much inthe magnitude of the evils they produce; but yet every error is initself an evil, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243

- CHAP. XX.— Every error is not a sin. An examination ofthe opinion of the academic philosophers, that to avoid error we shouldin all cases suspend belief, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

- CHAP. XXI.— Error, though not always a sin, is always anevil, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244

- CHAP. XXII.— A lie is not allowable, even to saveanother from injury, . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

- CHAP. XXIII.— Summary of the results of the precedingdiscussion, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

- CHAP. XXIV.— The secondary causes of evil are ignoranceand lust, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245

- CHAP. XXV.— God’s judgments upon fallen menand angels. The death of the body is man’s peculiarpunishment, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

- CHAP. XXVI.— Through Adam’s sin his wholeposterity were corrupted, and were born under the penalty of death,which he had incurred, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

- CHAP. XXVII.— The state of misery to whichAdam’s sin reduced mankind, and the restoration effectedthrough the mercy of God, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 246

- CHAP. XXVIII.— When the rebellious angels were cast out,the rest remained in the enjoyment of eternal happiness with God, . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246

- CHAP. XXIX.— The restored part of humanity shall, inaccordance with the promises of God, succeed to the place which therebellious angels lost, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

- CHAP. XXX.— Men are not saved by good works, nor by thefree determination of their own will, but by the grace of God throughfaith, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247

- CHAP. XXXI.— Faith itself is the gift of God; and goodworks will not be wanting in those who believe, . 247

- CHAP. XXXII.— The freedom of the will is also the giftof God, for God worketh in us both to will and to do, . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

- CHAP. XXXIII.— Men, being by nature the children ofwrath, needed a Mediator. In what sense God is said to be angry, . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248

- CHAP. XXXIV.— The ineffable mystery of the birth ofChrist the Mediator through the virgin Mary, . . . 249

- CHAP. XXXV.— Jesus Christ, being the only Son of God, isat the same time man, . . . . . . . . 249

- CHAP. XXXVI.— The grace of God is clearly and remarkablydisplayed in raising the man Christ Jesus to the dignity of the Son ofGod, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249

- CHAP. XXXVII.— The same grace is further clearlymanifested in this, that the birth of Christ according to the flesh isof the Holy Ghost, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

- CHAP. XXXVIII.— Jesus Christ, according to the flesh,was not born of the Holy Spirit in such a sense that the Holy Spirit isHis Father, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250

- CHAP. XXXIX.— Not everything that is born of another isto be called a son of that other, . . . . . 251

- CHAP. XL.— Christ’s birth through the HolySpirit manifests to us the grace of God, . . . . . . 251

- CHAP. XLI.— Christ, who was himself free from sin, wasmade sin for us, that we might be reconciled to God, . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251

- CHAP. XLII.— The sacrament of Baptism indicates ourdeath with Christ to sin, and our resurrection with Him to newness oflife, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

- CHAP. XLIII.— Baptism and the grace which it typifiesare open to all, both infants and adults, . . . . 252

- CHAP. XLIV.— In speaking of sin, the singular number isoften put for the plural, and the plural for the singular, . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

- CHAP. XLV.— In Adam’s first sin, many kindsof sin were involved, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

- CHAP. XLVI.— It is probable that children are involvedin the guilt not only of the first pair, but of their own immediateparents, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 252

- CHAP. XLVII.— It is difficult to decide whether thesin’s of a man’s other progenitors are imputed to. him, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

- CHAP. XLVIII.— The guilt of the first sin is so greatthat it can be washed away only in the blood of the Mediator, JesusChrist, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253

- CHAP. XLIX.— Christ was not regenerated in the baptismof John, but submitted to it to give us an example of humility, just ashe submitted to death, not as the punishment of sin, but to take awaythe sin of the world, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . 253

- CHAP. L.— Christ took away not only the one originalsin, but all the other sins that have been added to it, . 253

- CHAP. LI.— All men born of Adam are under condemnation,and only if new born in Christ are freed from condemnation, . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

- CHAP. LII.— In baptism, which is the similitude of thedeath and resurrection of Christ, all, both infants and adults, die tosin that they may walk in newness of life, . . . . . . . . . . . . 254

- CHAP. LIII.— Christ’s cross and burial,resurrection, ascension, and sitting down at the right hand of God, areimages of the christian life, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 254

- CHAP. LIV.— Christ’s second coming does notbelong to the past, but will take place at the end of the world, . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

- CHAP. LV.— The expression, “Christ shalljudge the quick and the dead,” may be understood in either oftwo senses, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

- CHAP. LVI.— The Holy Spirit and the Church. The Churchis the temple of God, . . . . . . . 255

- CHAP. LVII.— The condition of the Church in heaven, . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

- CHAP. LVIII.— We have no certain knowledge of theorganization of the angelic society, . . . . . . 256

- CHAP. LIX.— The bodies assumed by angels raise a verydifficult, and not very useful, subject of discussion, . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256

- CHAP. LX.— It is more necessary to be able to detect thewiles of Satan when he transforms himself into an angel of light, . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

- CHAP. LXI.— The Church on earth has been redeemed fromsin by the blood of a Mediator, . . . . . 257

- CHAP. LXII.— By the sacrifice of Christ all things arerestored, and peace is made between earth and heaven, . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257

- CHAP. LXIII.— The peace of God, which reigneth inheaven, passeth all understanding, . . . . . . 257

- CHAP. LXIV.— Pardon of sin extends over the whole mortallife of the saints, which, though free from crime, is not free from sin,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

- CHAP. LXV.— God pardons sins, but on condition ofpenitence, certain times for which have been fixed by the law of theChurch, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 258

- CHAP. LXVI.— The pardon of sin has reference chiefly tothe future Judgment, . . . . . . . . . 258

- CHAP. LXVII.— Faith without works is dead, and cannotsave a man, . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

- CHAP. LXVIII.— The true sense of the passage (1. Cor. III. 11-15) about those who are saved, yet so asby fire, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 259

- CHAP. LXIX.— It is not impossible that some believersmay pass through a purgatorial fire in the future life, . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

- CHAP. LXX.— Almsgiving will not atone for sin unless thelife be changed, . . . . . . . . . . 260

- CHAP. LXXI.— The daily prayer of the believer makessatisfaction for the trivial sins that daily stain his life, . 260

- CHAP. LXXII.— There are many kinds of alms, the givingof which assists to procure pardon for our sins, . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260

- CHAP. LXXIII.— The greatest of all alms is to forgiveour debtors and to love our enemies, . . . . . 261

- CHAP. LXXIV.— God does not pardon the sins of those whodo not from the heart forgive others, . . . 261

- CHAP. LXXV.— The wicked and the unbelieving are not madeclean by the giving of alms, except they be born again, . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 261

- CHAP. LXXVI.— To give alms aright, we should begin withourselves, and have pity upon our own souls, . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

- CHAP. LXXVII.— If we would give alms to ourselves, wemust flee iniquity; for he who loveth iniquity hateth his soul, . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 262

- CHAP. LXXVIII.— What sins are trivial and what heinousis a matter for God’s judgment, . . . . . . 262

- CHAP. LXXIX.— Sins which appear very trifling, aresometimes in reality very serious, . . . . . . 263

- CHAP. LXXX.— Sins, however great and detestable, seemtrivial when we are accustomed to them, . . 263

- CHAP. LXXXI.— There are two causes of sin, ignorance andweakness; and we need divine help to . overcome both, . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

- CHAP. LXXXII.— The mercy of God is necessary to truerepentance, . . . . . . . . . . . . 264

- CHAP. LXXXIII.— The man who despises the mercy of God isguilty of the sin against the Holy Ghost, . . 264

- CHAP. LXXXIV.— The resurrection of the body gives riseto numerous questions, . . . . . . . . 264

- CHAP. LXXXV.— The case of abortive conceptions, . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

- CHAP. LXXXVI.— If they have ever lived, they must ofcourse have died, and therefore shall have a share in the resurrectionof the dead, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

- CHAP. LXXXVII.— The case of monstrous births, . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

- CHAP. LXXXVIII.— The material of the body neverperishes, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265

- CHAP. LXXXIX.— But this material may be differentlyarranged in the resurrection body, . . . . . . 265

- CHAP. XC.— If there be differences and inequalitiesamong the bodies of those who rise again, there shall be nothingoffensive or disproportionate in any, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

- CHAP. XCI.— The bodies of the saints shall at theresurrection be spiritual bodies, . . . . . . . . 266

- CHAP. XCII.— The resurrection of the lost, . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

- CHAP. XCIII.— Both the first and the second deaths arethe consequence of sin. Punishment is proportioned to guilt, . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

- CHAP. XCIV.— The saints shall know more fully in thenext world the benefits they have received by grace, . 267

- CHAP. XCV.— God’s judgments shall then beexplained, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267

- CHAP. XCVI.— The omnipotent God does well even in thepermission of evil, . . . . . . . . . . 267

- CHAP. XCVII.— In what sense does the Apostle say that“God will have all men to be saved,” when, as amatter of fact, all are not saved? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 267

- CHAP. XCVIII.— Predestination to eternal life is whollyof God’s free grace, . . . . . . . . . . 268

- CHAP. XCIX.— As God’s mercy is free, so Hisjudgments are just, and cannot be gainsaid, . . . . . 268

- CHAP. C.— The will of God is never defeated, though muchis done that is contrary to His will, . . . . 269

- CHAP. CI.— The will of God, which is always good, issometimes fulfilled through the evil will of man, . 269

- CHAP. CII.— The will of the omnipotent God is neverdefeated, and is never evil, . . . . . . . . 270

- CHAP. CIII.— Interpretation of the expressionin—1 Tim. 11. 4: “Who will have all men to besaved,” . . 270

- CHAP. CIV.— God, foreknowing the sin of the first man,ordered His own purposes accordingly, . . . . 271

- CHAP. CV.— Man was so created as to be able to chooseeither good or evil: in the future life, the choice of evil will beimpossible, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271

- CHAP. CVI.— The grace of God was necessary toman’s salvation before the fall as well as after it, . . . 271

- CHAP. CVII.— Eternal life, though the reward of goodworks, is itself the gift of God, . . . . . . . 271

- CHAP. CVIII.— A mediator was necessary to reconcile usto God; and unless this mediator had been God, he could not have beenour Redeemer, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 272

- CHAP. CIX.— The state of the soul during the intervalbetween death and the resurrection, . . . . . . 272

- CHAP. CX.— The benefit to the souls of the dead from thesacraments and alms of their living friends, . . 272

- CHAP. CXI.— After the resurrection there shall be twodistinct Kingdoms, one of eternal happiness, the other of eternalmisery, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

- CHAP. CXII.— There is no ground in Scripture for theopinion of those who deny the eternity of future punishments, . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

- CHAP. CXIII.— The death of the wicked shall be eternalin the same sense as the life of the saints, . . . 273

- CHAP. CXIV.— Having dealt with faith, we now come tospeak of hope. Everything that pertains to hope is embraced in theLord’s Prayer, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 273

- CHAP. CXV.— The seven petitions of the Lord’sPrayer, according to Matthew, . . . . . . . . . 274

- CHAP. CXVI.— Luke expresses the substance of these sevenpetitions more briefly in five, . . . . . . 274

- CHAP. CXVII.— Love, which is greater than faith andhope, is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274

- CHAP. CXVIII.— The four stages of theChristian’s life, and the four corresponding stages of theChurch’s history, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . 275

- CHAP. CXIX.— The grace of regeneration washes away allpast sin and all original guilt, . . . . . . 275

- CHAP. CXX.— Death cannot injure those who have receivedthe grace of regeneration, . . . . . . . 275

- CHAP. CXXI.— Love is the end of all the commandments,and God Himself is love, . . . . . . . . 275

- CHAP. CXXII.— Conclusion, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 276

ARGUMENT.

LAURENTIUS HAVING ASKED AUGUSTIN TO FURNISH HIM WITH AHANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE, CONTAINING IN BRIEF COMPASSANSWERS TO SEVERAL QUESTIONS WHICH HE HAD PROPOSED, AUGUSTINSHOWS HIM THAT THESE QUESTIONS CAN BE FULLY ANSWERED BY ANY ONEWHO KNOWS THE PROPER OBJECTS OF FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE. HE THENPROCEEDS, IN THE FIRST PART OF THE WORK (CHAP. IX.-CXIII.), TOEXPOUND THE OBJECTS OF FAITH, TAKING AS HIS TEXT THEAPOSTLES’ CREED; AND IN THE COURSE OF THISEXPOSITION, BESIDES REFUTING DIVERS HERESIES, HE THROWS OUT MANYOBSERVATIONS ON THE CONDUCT OF LIFE. THE SECOND PART OF THE WORK(CHAP. CXIV.-CXVI.) TREATS OF THE OBJECTS OF HOPE, AND CONSISTSOF A VERY BRIEF EXPOSITION OF THE SEVERAL PETITIONS IN THELORD’S PRAYER. THE THIRD AND CONCLUDING PART (CHAP.CXVII.-CXXII.) TREATS OF THE OBJECTS OF LOVE, SHOWING THEPRE-EMINENCE OF THIS GRACE IN THE GOSPEL SYSTEM, THAT IT IS THEEND OF THE COMMANDMENT AND THE FULFILLING OF THE LAW, AND THATGOD HIMSELF IS LOVE.

CHAP. 1.—: THE AUTHOR DESIRES THE GIFT OF TRUE WISDOM FORLAURENTIUS.

I CANNOT express, my beloved son Laurentius, thedelight with which I witness your progress in knowledge, and the earnestdesire I have that you should be a wise man: not one of those of whom itis said, “Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where isthe disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of thisworld?” [1] but one of those of whom itis said, “The multitude of the wise is the welfare of theworld,” [2] and such as the apostles wishes thoseto become, whom he tells, “I would have you wise unto thatwhich is good, and simple concerning evil.” [3] Now, just as no one can exist of himself, so no one can be wise ofhimself, but only by the enlightening influence of Him of whom it iswritten, “All wisdom cometh from the Lord.” [4]

CHAP. 2.—: THE FEAR OF GOD IS MAN’S TRUEWISDOM.

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.” [5] If you ask further what is meant in that place by pietas, the Greek calls it more definitelyθεοσέβεια,that is, the worship of God. The Greeks sometimes call pietyεὐσέβεια,which signifies right worship, though this, of course, refers speciallyto the worship of God. But when we are defining in what man’s true wisdom consists, the most convenientword to use is that which distinctly expresses the fear of God. And canyou, who are anxious that I should treat of great matters in few words,wish for a briefer form of expression? Or perhaps you are anxious thatthis expression should itself be briefly explained, and that I shouldunfold in a short discourse the proper mode of worshipping God?

CHAP. 3.—: GOD IS TO BE WORSHIPPED THROUGH FAITH, HOPE, ANDLOVE.

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 willask 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 areto love. And when I have done this, you will have an answer to all thequestions you asked in your letter. If you have kept a copy of yourletter, you can easily turn it up and read it over again: if you havenot, you will have no difficulty in recalling it when I refresh yourmemory.

CHAP. 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 thequestions you put, viz.: what ought to be man’s chief end inlife; what he ought, in view of the various heresies, chiefly to avoid;to what extent religion is supported by reason; what there is in reasonthat lends no support to faith, when faith stands alone; what is thestarting-point, what the goal, of religion; what is the sum of the wholebody of doctrine; what is the sure and proper foundation of the catholicfaith. Now, undoubtedly, you will know the answers to all thesequestions, if you know thoroughly the proper objects of faith, hope, andlove. For these must be the chief, nay, the exclusive objects of pursuitin religion. He who speaks against these is either a total stranger tothe 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 theintuitions of the mind. And what we have neither had experience ofthrough our bodily senses, nor have been able to reach through theintellect, must undoubtedly be believed on the testimony of thosewitnesses by whom the Scriptures, justly called divine, were written;and who by divine assistance were enabled, either through bodily senseor intellectual perception, to see or to foresee the things inquestion.

CHAP. 5.—: BRIEF ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS.

Moreover, when the mind has been imbued with the first elements of thatfaith which worketh by love, [1] it endeavors by purity of lifeto attain unto sight, where the pure and perfect in heart know thatunspeakable beauty, the full vision of which is supreme happiness. Heresurely is an answer to your question as to what is the starting-point,and what the goal: we begin in faith, and are made perfect by sight.This also is the sum of the whole body of doctrine. But the sure andproper foundation of the catholic faith is Christ. “For otherfoundation,” says the apostle, “can no man laythan that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.” [2] Nor are we to deny that this is the proper foundationof the catholic faith, because it may be supposed that some hereticshold this in common with us. For if we carefully consider the thingsthat pertain to Christ, we shall find that, among those heretics whocall themselves Christians, Christ is present in name only: in deed andin truth He is not among them. But to show this would occupy us toolong, for we should require to go over all the heresies which haveexisted, which do exist, or which could exist, under the Christian name,and to show that this is true in the case of each,—adiscussion which would occupy so many volumes as to be all butinterminable.

CHAP. 6.—: CONTROVERSY OUT OF PLACE IN A HANDBOOK LIKE THEPRESENT.

Now you ask of me a handbook, that is, one that can be carried in thehand, not one to load your shelves. To return, then, to the three gracesthrough which, as I have said, God should beworshipped—faith, hope, and love: to state what are the trueand proper objects of each of these is easy. But to defend this truedoctrine against the assaults of those who hold an opposite opinion,requires much fuller and more elaborate instruction. And the true way toobtain this instruction is not to have a short treatise put intoone’s hands, but to have a great zeal kindled inone’s heart.

CHAP. 7.—: THE CREED AND THE LORD’S PRAYER DEMANDTHE EXERCISE OF FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE.

For you have the Creed and the Lord’s Prayer. What can bebriefer to hear or to read? What easier to commit to memory? When, as the result of sin, the human racewas groaning under a heavy load of misery, and was in urgent need of thedivine compassion, one of the prophets, anticipating the time ofGod’s grace, declared: “And it shall come to pass,that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall bedelivered.” [1] Hence the Lord’sPrayer. But the apostle, when, for the purpose of commending this verygrace, he had quoted this prophetic testimony, immediately added:“How then shall they call on Him in whom they have notbelieved?” [2] Hence the Creed. In these twoyou have those three graces exemplified: faith believes, hope and lovepray. But without faith the two last cannot exist, and therefore we maysay that faith also prays. Whence it is written: “How shallthey call on Him in whom they have not believed?”

CHAP. 8.—: THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN FAITH AND HOPE, AND THEMUTUAL DEPENDENCE OF FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE.

Again, can anything be hoped for which is not an object of faith? It istrue that a thing which is not an object of hope may be believed. Whattrue Christian, for example, does not believe in the punishment of thewicked? And yet such an one does not hope for it. And the man whobelieves that punishment to be hanging over himself, and who shrinks inhorror from the prospect, is more properly said to fear than to hope.And these two states of mind the poet carefully distinguishes, when hesays: “Permit the fearful to have hope.” [3] Another poet, who is usuallymuch superior to this one, makes a wrong use of the word, when he says:“If I have been able to hope for so great a grief asthis.” [4] And some grammarians take this case as anexample of impropriety of speech, saying, “He said sperare [to hope] instead of timere [tofear].” Accordingly, faith may have for its objectevil as well as good; for both good and evil are believed, and the faiththat believes them is not evil, but good. Faith, moreover, is concernedwith the past, the present, and the future, all three. We believe, forexample, that Christ died,—an event in the past; we believethat He is sitting at the right hand of God,—a state ofthings which is present; we believe that He will come to judge the quickand the dead,—an event of the future. Again, faith appliesboth to one’s own circumstances and those of others. Everyone, for example, believes that his own existence had a beginning, andwas not eternal, and he believes the same both of other men and otherthings. Many of our beliefs in regard to religious matters, again, havereference not merely to other men, but to angels also. But hope has forits object only what is good, only what is future, and only what affectsthe man who entertains the hope. For these reasons, then, faith must bedistinguished from hope, not merely as a matter of verbal propriety, butbecause they are essentially different. The fact that we do not seeeither what we believe or what we hope for, is all that is common tofaith and hope. In the Epistle to the Hebrews, for example, faith isdefined (and eminent defenders of the catholic faith have used thedefinition as a standard) “the evidence of things notseen.” [5] Although, should any one saythat he believes, that is, has grounded his faith, not on words, nor onwitnesses, nor on any reasoning whatever, but on the direct evidence ofhis own senses, he would not be guilty of such an impropriety of speechas to be justly liable to the criticism, “You saw, thereforeyou did not believe.” And hence it does not follow that anobject of faith is not an object of sight. But it is better that weshould use the word “faith” as the Scriptures havetaught us, applying it to those things which are not seen. Concerninghope, again, the apostle says: “Hope that is seen is nothope; for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for? But if we hope forthat we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.” [6] When, then, we believe that good is about to come,this is nothing else but to hope for it. Now what shall I say of love?Without it, faith profits nothing; and in its absence, hope cannotexist. The Apostle James says: “The devils also believe, andtremble.” [7] —that is, they,having neither hope nor love, but believing that what we love and hopefor is about to come, are in terror. And so the Apostle Paul approvesand commends the “faith that worketh by love;” [8] andthis certainly cannot exist without hope. Wherefore there is no lovewithout hope, no hope without love, and neither love nor hope withoutfaith.

CHAP. 9.—: WHAT WE ARE TO BELIEVE. IN REGARD TO NATURE IT ISNOT NECESSARY FOR THE CHRISTIAN TO KNOW MORE THAN THAT THE GOODNESS OF THECREATOR IS THE CAUSE OF ALL THINGS.

When, then, the question is asked what we are to believe in regard toreligion, it is not necessary to probe into the nature of things, as was done by those whom the Greeks call physici; nor need we be in alarm lest the Christianshould be ignorant of the force and number of theelements,—the motion, and order, and eclipses of the heavenlybodies; the form of the heavens; the species and the natures of animals,plants, stones, fountains, rivers, mountains; about chronology anddistances; the signs of coming storms; and a thousand other things whichthose philosophers either have found out, or think they have found out.For even these men themselves, endowed though they are with so muchgenius, burning with zeal, abounding in leisure, tracking some things bythe aid of human conjecture, searching into others with the aids ofhistory and experience, have not found out all things; and even theirboasted discoveries are oftener mere guesses than certain knowledge. Itis enough for the Christian to believe that the only cause of allcreated things, whether heavenly or earthly, whether visible orinvisible, is the goodness of the Creator, the one true God; and thatnothing exists but Himself that does not derive its existence from Him;and that He is the Trinity—to wit, the Father, and the Sonbegotten of the Father, and the Holy Spirit proceeding from the sameFather, but one and the same Spirit of Father and Son.

CHAP. 10.—: THE SUPREMELY GOOD CREATOR MADE ALL THINGSGOOD.

By the Trinity, thus supremely and equally and unchangeably good, allthings were created; and these are not supremely and equally andunchangeably good, but yet they are good, even taken separately. Takenas a whole, however, they are very good, because their ensemble constitutes the universe in all its wonderful orderand beauty.

CHAP. 11.—: WHAT IS CALLED EVIL IN THE UNIVERSE IS BUT THEABSENCE OF GOOD.

And in the universe, even that which is called evil, when it is regulatedand put in its own place, only enhances our admiration of the good; forwe enjoy and value the good more when we compare it with the evil. Forthe Almighty God, who, as even the heathen acknowledge, has supremepower over all things, being Himself supremely good, would never permitthe existence of anything evil among His works, if He were not soomnipotent and good that He can bring good even out of evil. For what isthat which we call evil but the absence of good? In the bodies ofanimals, disease and wounds mean nothing but the absence of health; forwhen a cure is effected, that does not mean that the evils which werepresent—namely, the diseases and wounds—go awayfrom the body and dwell elsewhere: they altogether cease to exist; forthe wound or disease is not a substance, but a defect in the fleshlysubstance,—the flesh itself being a substance, and thereforesomething good, of which those evils—that is, privations ofthe good which we call health—are accidents. Just in the sameway, what are called vices in the soul are nothing but privations ofnatural good. And when they are cured, they are not transferredelsewhere: when they cease to exist in the healthy soul, they cannotexist anywhere else.

CHAP. 12.—: ALL BEINGS WERE MADE GOOD, BUT NOT BEING MADEPERFECTLY GOOD, ARE LIABLE TO CORRUPTION.

All things that exist, therefore, seeing that the Creator of them all issupremely good, are themselves good. But because they are not, liketheir Creator, supremely and unchangeably good, their good may bediminished and increased. But for good to be diminished is an evil,although, however much it may be diminished, it is necessary, if thebeing is to continue, that some good should remain to constitute thebeing. For however small or of whatever kind the being may be, the goodwhich makes it a being cannot be destroyed without destroying the beingitself. An uncorrupted nature is justly held in esteem. But if, stillfurther, it be incorruptible, it is undoubtedly considered of stillhigher 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 nogood, it receives no injury; but it does receive injury, therefore it isdeprived of good. Therefore, so long as a being is in process ofcorruption, there is in it some good of which it is being deprived; andif a part of the being should remain which cannot be corrupted, thiswill certainly be an incorruptible being, and accordingly the process ofcorruption will result in the manifestation of this great good. But ifit do not cease to be corrupted, neither can it cease to possess good ofwhich corruption may deprive it. But if it should be thoroughly andcompletely consumed by corruption, there will then be no good left,because there will be no being. Wherefore corruption can consume thegood only by consuming the being. Every being, therefore, is a good; agreat good, if it can not be corrupted; a little good, if it can: but inany case, only the foolish or ignorant will deny that it is a good. Andif it be wholly consumed by corruption, thenthe corruption itself must cease to exist, as there is no being left inwhich it can dwell.

CHAP. 13.—: THERE CAN BE NO EVIL WHERE THERE IS NO GOOD; ANDAN EVIL MAN IS AN EVIL GOOD.

Accordingly, there is nothing of what we call evil, if there be nothinggood. 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 arriveat 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 seemto say that what is good is evil, and that nothing but what is good canbe evil, seeing that every being is good, and that no evil can existexcept in a being. Nothing, then, can be evil except something which isgood. And although this, when stated, seems to be a contradiction, yetthe strictness of reasoning leaves us no escape from the conclusion. Wemust, however, beware of incurring the prophetic condemnation:“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil: that putdarkness for light, and light for darkness: that put bitter for sweet,and sweet for bitter.” [1] And yet our Lord says:“An evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringethforth that which is evil.” [2] Now, what is an evil man butan evil being? for a man is a being. Now, if a man is a good thingbecause he is a being, what is an evil man but an evil good? Yet, whenwe accurately distinguish these two things, we find that it is notbecause he is a man that he is an evil, or because he is wicked that heis a good; but that he is a good because he is a man, and an evilbecause he is wicked. Whoever, then, says, “To be a man is anevil,” or, “To be wicked is a good,”falls under the prophetic denunciation: “Woe unto them thatcall evil good, and good evil!” For he condemns the work ofGod, which is the man, and praises the defect of man, which is thewickedness. Therefore every being, even if it be a defective one, in sofar as it is a being is good, and in so far as it is defective isevil.

CHAP. 14.—: GOOD AND EVIL ARE AN EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THATCONTRARY ATTRIBUTES CANNOT BE PREDICATED OF THE SAME SUBJECT. EVIL SPRINGSUP 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 atthe same time of the same thing, does not hold. No weather is at thesame time dark and bright: no food or drink is at the same time sweetand bitter: no body is at the same time and in the same place black andwhite: none is at the same time and in the same place deformed andbeautiful. And this rule is found to hold in regard to many, indeednearly all, contraries, that they cannot exist at the same time in anyone thing. But although no one can doubt that good and evil arecontraries, not only can they exist at the same time, but evil cannotexist without good, or in anything that is not good. Good, however, canexist without evil. For a man or an angel can exist without beingwicked; but nothing can be wicked except a man or an angel: and so faras he is a man or an angel, he is good; so far as he is wicked, he is anevil. And these two contraries are so far co-existent, that if good didnot exist in what is evil, neither could evil exist; because corruptioncould 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 becorrupted except what is good, for corruption is nothing else but thedestruction of good. From what is good, then, evils arose, and except inwhat is good they do not exist; nor was there any other source fromwhich any evil nature could arise. For if there were, then, in so far asthis was a being, it was certainly a good: and a being which wasincorruptible would be a great good; and even one which was corruptiblemust be to some extent a good, for only by corrupting what was good init could corruption do it harm.

CHAP. 15.—: THE PRECEDING ARGUMENT IS IN NO WISE INCONSISTENTWITH THE SAYING OF OUR LORD: “A GOOD TREE CANNOT BRING FORTH EVILFRUIT.”

But when we say that evil springs out of good, let it not be thought thatthis contradicts our Lord’s saying: “A good treecannot bring forth evil fruit.” [3] For, as He who is the Truthsays, you cannot gather grapes of thorns, [4] because grapes do not growon thorns. But we see that on good soil both vines and thorns may begrown. And in the same way, just as an evil tree cannot bring forth goodfruit, so an evil will cannot produce good works. But from the nature ofman, which is good, may spring either a good or an evil will. Andcertainly there was at first no source from which an evil will couldspring, except the nature of angel or of man,which was good. And our Lord Himself clearly shows this in the very sameplace where He speaks about the tree and its fruit. For He says:“Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else makethe tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt,” [1] —clearly enoughwarning us that evil fruits do not grow on a good tree, nor good fruitson an evil tree; but that nevertheless the ground itself, by which Hemeant those whom He was then addressing, might grow either kind oftrees.

CHAP. 16.—: IT IS NOT ESSENTIAL TO MAN’S HAPPINESSTHAT HE SHOULD KNOW THE CAUSES OF PHYSICAL CONVULSIONS; BUT IT IS, THAT HESHOULD KNOW THE CAUSES OF GOOD AND EVIL.

Now, in view of these considerations, when we are pleased with that lineof Maro, “Happy the man who has attained to the knowledge ofthe causes of things,” [2] we should not suppose that it is necessary tohappiness to know the causes of the great physical convulsions, causeswhich lie hid in the most secret recesses of nature’skingdom, “whence comes the earthquake whose force makes thedeep seas to swell and burst their barriers, and again to return uponthemselves and settle down.” [3] But weought to know the causes of good and evil as far as man may in this lifeknow them, in order to avoid the mistakes and troubles of which thislife is so full. For our aim must always be to reach that state ofhappiness in which no trouble shall distress us, and no error misleadus. If we must know the causes of physical convulsions, there are nonewhich it concerns us more to know than those which affect our ownhealth. But seeing that, in our ignorance of these, we are fain toresort to physicians, it would seem that we might bear with considerablepatience our ignorance of the secrets that lie hid in the earth andheavens.

CHAP. 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, notonly in great but even in little things, and although we cannot errexcept through ignorance, it does not follow that, if a man is ignorantof a thing, he must forthwith fall into error. That is rather the fateof the man who thinks he knows what he does not know. For he acceptswhat is false as if it were true, and that is the essence of error. Butit is a point of very great importance what the subject is in regard towhich a man makes a mistake. For on one and the same subject we rightlyprefer an instructed man to an ignorant one, and a man who is not inerror to one who is. In the case of different subjects,however,—that is, when one man knows one thing, and another adifferent thing, and when what the former knows is useful, and what thelatter knows is not so useful, or is actually hurtful,—whowould not, in regard to the things the latter knows, prefer theignorance of the former to the knowledge of the latter? For there arepoints on which ignorance is better than knowledge. And in the same way,it has sometimes been an advantage to depart from the rightway,—in travelling, however, not in morals. It has happenedto myself to take the wrong road where two ways met, so that I did notpass 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 roundaboutroute; and when I heard of the ambush, I congratulated myself on mymistake, and gave thanks to God for it. Now, who would not rather be thetraveller who made a mistake like this, than the highwayman who made nomistake? And hence, perhaps, it is that the prince of poets puts thesewords into the mouth of a lover in misery: [4] “How I am undone, how I have been carriedaway by an evil error!” for there is an error which is good,as it not merely does no harm, but produces some actual advantage. Butwhen we look more closely into the nature of truth, and consider that toerr is just to take the false for the true, and the true for the false,or to hold what is certain as uncertain, and what is uncertain ascertain, and that error in the soul is hideous and repulsive just inproportion as it appears fair and plausible when we utter it, or assentto it, saying, “Yea, yea; Nay,nay,”—surely this life that we live is wretchedindeed, if only on this account, that sometimes, in order to preserveit, it is necessary to fall into error. God forbid that such should bethat other life, where truth itself is the life of the soul, where noone deceives, and no one is deceived. But here men deceive and aredeceived, and they are more to be pitied when they lead others astraythan when they are themselves led astray by putting trust in liars. Yetso much does a rational soul shrink from what is false, and so earnestlydoes it struggle against error, that even those who love to deceive aremost unwilling to be deceived. For the liar does not think that he errs, but that he leads another who trustshim into error. And certainly he does not err in regard to the matterabout which he lies, if he himself knows the truth; but he is deceivedin this, that he thinks his lie does him no harm, whereas every sin ismore hurtful to the sinner than to the sinned against.

CHAP. 18.—: IT IS NEVER ALLOWABLE TO TELL A LIE; BUT LIESDIFFER VERY MUCH IN GUILT, ACCORDING TO THE INTENTION AND THESUBJECT.

But here arises a very difficult and very intricate question, about whichI 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 agood man to tell a lie? For some go so far as to contend that there areoccasions 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 ofGod, and about the very nature of God Himself. To me, however, it seemscertain that every lie is a sin, though it makes a great difference withwhat intention and on what subject one lies. For the sin of the man whotells a lie to help another is not so heinous as that of the man whotells a lie to injure another; and the man who by his lying puts atraveller on the wrong road, does not do so much harm as the man who byfalse 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 consciouslydeceive, but rather is himself deceived. And, on the same principle, aman is not to be accused of lying, though he may sometimes be open tothe charge of rashness, if through carelessness he takes up what isfalse and holds it as true; but, on the other hand, the man who sayswhat is true, believing it to be false, is, so far as his ownconsciousness is concerned, a liar. For in saying what he does notbelieve, he says what to his own conscience is false, even though itshould in fact be true; nor is the man in any sense free from lying whowith his mouth speaks the truth without knowing it, but in his heartwills to tell a lie. And, therefore, not looking at the matter spokenof, but solely at the intention of the speaker, the man who unwittinglysays what is false, thinking all the time that it is true, is a betterman than the one who unwittingly says what is true, but in hisconscience intends to deceive. For the former does not think one thingand say another; but the latter, though his statements may be true infact, has one thought in his heart and another on his lips: and that isthe very essence of lying. But when we come to consider truth andfalsehood in respect to the subjects spoken of, the point on which onedeceives or is deceived becomes a matter of the utmost importance. Foralthough, as far as a man’s own conscience is concerned, itis a greater evil to deceive than to be deceived, nevertheless it is afar less evil to tell a lie in regard to matters that do not relate toreligion, than to be led into error in regard to matters the knowledgeand belief of which are essential to the right worship of God. Toillustrate this by example: suppose that one man should say of some onewho is dead that he is still alive, knowing this to be untrue; and thatanother man should, being deceived, believe that Christ shall at the endof some time (make the time as long as you please) die; would it not beincomparably better to lie like the former, than to be deceived like thelatter? and would it not be a much less evil to lead some man into theformer error, than to be led by any man into the latter?

CHAP. 19.—: MEN’S ERRORS VARY VERY MUCH IN THEMAGNITUDE OF THE EVILS THEY PRODUCE; BUT YET EVERY ERROR IS IN ITSELF ANEVIL.

In some things, then, it is a great evil to be deceived; in some it is asmall evil; in some no evil at all; and in some it is an actualadvantage. It is to his grievous injury that a man is deceived when hedoes not believe what leads to eternal life, or believes what leads toeternal death. It is a small evil for a man to be deceived, when, bytaking falsehood for truth, he brings upon himself temporal annoyances;for the patience of the believer will turn even these to a good use, aswhen, for example, taking a bad man for a good, he receives injury fromhim. But one who believes a bad man to be good, and yet suffers noinjury, is nothing the worse for being deceived, nor does he fall underthe prophetic denunciation: “Woe to those who call evilgood!” [1] For we are to understand thatthis is spoken not about evil men, but about the things that make menevil. Hence the man who calls adultery good, falls justly under thatprophetic denunciation. But the man who calls the adulterer good,thinking him to be chaste, and not knowing him to be an adulterer, fallsinto no error in regard to the nature of good and evil, but only makes amistake as to the secrets of human conduct. He calls the man good on the ground of believing him to be what isundoubtedly good; he calls the adulterer evil, and the pure man good;and he calls this man good, not knowing him to be an adulterer, butbelieving him to be pure. Further, if by making a mistake one escapedeath, as I have said above once happened to me, one even derives someadvantage from one’s mistake. But when I assert that incertain cases a man may be deceived without any injury to himself, oreven with some advantage to himself, I do not mean that the mistake initself is no evil, or is in any sense a good; I refer only to the evilthat is avoided, or the advantage that is gained, through making themistake. For the mistake, considered in itself, is an evil: a great evilif it concern a great matter, a small evil if it concern a small matter,but yet always an evil. For who that is of sound mind can deny that itis an evil to receive what is false as if it were true, and to rejectwhat is true as if it were false, or to hold what is uncertain ascertain, and what is certain as uncertain? But it is one thing to thinka man good when he is really bad, which is a mistake; it is anotherthing to suffer no ulterior injury in consequence of the mistake,supposing that the bad man whom we think good inflicts no damage uponus. In the same way, it is one thing to think that we are on the rightroad when we are not; it is another thing when this mistake of ours,which is an evil, leads to some good, such as saving us from an ambushof wicked men.

CHAP. 20.—: EVERY ERROR IS NOT A SIN. AN EXAMINATION OF THEOPINION OF THE ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS, THAT TO AVOID ERROR WE SHOULD IN ALLCASES SUSPEND BELIEF.

I am not sure whether mistakes such as the following,—when oneforms 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 weperceive in the spirit, but think we perceive in the body, or perceivein the body, but think we perceive in the spirit (such a mistake as theApostle Peter made when the angel suddenly freed him from his chains andimprisonment, and he thought he saw a vision [1] ); or when, in the case ofsensible objects themselves, we mistake rough for smooth, or bitter forsweet, or think that putrid matter has a good smell; or when we mistakethe passing of a carriage for thunder; or mistake one man for another,the two being very much alike, as often happens in the case of twins(hence our great poet calls it “a mistake pleasing toparents” [2] ),—whether these, and other mistakesof this kind, ought to be called sins. Nor do I now undertake to solve avery knotty question, which perplexed those very acute thinkers, theAcademic philosophers: whether a wise man ought to give his assent toanything, seeing that he may fall into error by assenting to falsehood:for all things, as they assert, are either unknown or uncertain. Now Iwrote three volumes shortly after my conversion, to remove out of my waythe objections which lie, as it were, on the very threshold of faith.And assuredly it was necessary at the very outset to remove this utterdespair of reaching truth, which seems to be strengthened by thearguments of these philosophers. Now in their eyes every error isregarded as a sin, and they think that error can only be avoided byentirely suspending belief. For they say that the man who assents towhat is uncertain falls into error; and they strive by the most acute,but most audacious arguments, to show that, even though aman’s opinion should by chance be true, yet that there is nocertainty of its truth, owing to the impossibility of distinguishingtruth from falsehood. But with us, “the just shall live byfaith.” [3] Now, if assent be taken away,faith goes too; for without assent there can be no belief. And there aretruths, whether we know them or not, which must be believed if we wouldattain to a happy life, that is, to eternal life. But I am not surewhether one ought to argue with men who not only do not know that thereis an eternal life before them, but do not know whether they are livingat the present moment; nay, say that they do not know what it isimpossible they can be ignorant of. For it is impossible that any oneshould be ignorant that he is alive, seeing that if he be not alive itis impossible for him to be ignorant; for not knowledge merely, butignorance too, can be an attribute only of the living. But, forsooth,they think that by not acknowledging that they are alive they avoiderror, when even their very error proves that they are alive, since onewho is not alive cannot err. As, then, it is not only true, but certain,that we are alive, so there are many other things both true and certain;and God forbid that it should ever be called wisdom, and not the heightof folly, to refuse assent to these.

CHAP. 21.—: ERROR, THOUGH NOT ALWAYS A SIN, IS ALWAYS ANEVIL.

But as to those matters in regard to which ourbelief or disbelief, and indeed their truth or supposed truth orfalsity, are of no importance whatever, so far as attaining the kingdomof God is concerned: to make a mistake in such matters is not to belooked on as a sin, or at least as a very small and trifling sin. Inshort, a mistake in matters of this kind, whatever its nature andmagnitude, does not relate to the way of approach to God, which is thefaith of Christ that “worketh by love.” [1] Forthe “mistake pleasing to parents” in the case ofthe twin children was no deviation from this way; nor did the ApostlePeter deviate from this way, when, thinking that he saw a vision, he somistook one thing for another, that, till the angel who delivered himhad departed from him, he did not distinguish the real objects amongwhich he was moving from the visionary objects of a dream; [2] nor did the patriarch Jacob deviate from this way,when he believed that his son, who was really alive, had been slain by abeast. [3] In the case of these and other false impressions ofthe same kind, we are indeed deceived, but our faith in God remainssecure. We go astray, but we do not leave the way that leads us to Him.But yet these errors, though they are not sinful, are to be reckonedamong the evils of this life, which is so far made subject to vanity,that we receive what is false as if it were true, reject what is true asif it were false, and cling to what is uncertain as if it were certain.And although they do not trench upon that true and certain faith throughwhich we reach eternal blessedness, yet they have much to do with thatmisery in which we are now living. And assuredly, if we were now in theenjoyment of the true and perfect happiness that lies before us, weshould not be subject to any deception through any sense, whether ofbody or of mind.

CHAP. 22.—: A LIE IS NOT ALLOWABLE, EVEN TO SAVE ANOTHER FROMINJURY.

But every lie must be called a sin, because not only when a man knows thetruth, but even when, as a man may be, he is mistaken and deceived, itis his duty to say what he thinks in his heart, whether it be true, orwhether he only think it to be true. But every liar says the opposite ofwhat he thinks in his heart, with purpose to deceive. Now it is evidentthat speech was given to man, not that men might therewith deceive oneanother, but that one man might make known his thoughts to another. Touse speech, then, for the purpose of deception, and not for itsappointed end, is a sin. Nor are we to suppose that there is any liethat 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 apoor man who is sensibly benefited by what he gets. And the same can besaid of adultery also, when, for instance, some woman appears likely todie of love unless we consent to her wishes, while if she lived shemight purify herself by repentance; but yet no one will assert that onthis account such an adultery is not a sin. And if we justly place sohigh a value upon chastity, what offense have we taken at truth, that,while no prospect of advantage to another will lead us to violate theformer by adultery, we should be ready to violate the latter by lying?It cannot be denied that they have attained a very high standard ofgoodness who never lie except to save a man from injury; but in the caseof men who have reached this standard, it is not the deceit, but theirgood intention, that is justly praised, and sometimes even rewarded. Itis quite enough that the deception should be pardoned, without its beingmade an object of laudation, especially among the heirs of the newcovenant, to whom it is said: “Let your communication be,Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh ofevil.” [4] And it is on account of thisevil, which never ceases to creep in while we retain this mortalvesture, that the co-heirs of Christ themselves say, “Forgiveus our debts.”

CHAP. 23.—: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE PRECEDINGDISCUSSION.

As it is right that we should know the causes of good and evil, so muchof them at least as will suffice for the way that leads us to thekingdom, where there will be life without the shadow of death, truthwithout any alloy of error, and happiness unbroken by any sorrow, I havediscussed these subjects with the brevity which my limited spacedemanded. And I think there cannot now be any doubt, that the only causeof any good that we enjoy is the goodness of God, and that the onlycause of evil is the falling away from the unchangeable good of a beingmade good but changeable, first in the case of an angel, and afterwardsin the case of man.

CHAP. 24.—: THE SECONDARY CAUSES OF EVIL ARE IGNORANCE ANDLUST.

[5] This is the first evil that befell the intelligent creation—that is, its firstprivation of good. Following upon this crept in, and now even inopposition to man’s will, ignorance ofduty, and lust after what is hurtful: and thesebrought in their train error and suffering, which, when they are felt to be imminent, producethat shrinking of the mind which is called fear. Further, when the mind attains the objects of its desire, howeverhurtful or empty they may be, error prevents it from perceiving theirtrue nature, or its perceptions are overborne by a diseased appetite,and so it is puffed up with a foolish joy. Fromthese fountains of evil, which spring out of defect rather thansuperfluity, flows every form of misery that besets a rationalnature.

CHAP. 25.—: GOD’S JUDGMENTS UPON FALLEN MEN ANDANGELS. THE DEATH OF THE BODY IS MAN’S PECULIARPUNISHMENT.

And yet such a nature, in the midst of all its evils, could not lose thecraving after happiness. Now the evils I have mentioned are common toall who for their wickedness have been justly condemned by God, whetherthey be men or angels. But there is one form of punishment peculiar toman—the death of the body. God had threatened him with thispunishment of death if he should sin, [1] leaving him indeed to thefreedom of his own will, but yet commanding his obedience under pain ofdeath; and He placed him amid the happiness of Eden, as it were in aprotected nook of life, with the intention that, if he preserved hisrighteousness, he should thence ascend to a better place.

CHAP. 26.—: THROUGH ADAM’S SIN HIS WHOLE POSTERITYWERE CORRUPTED, AND WERE BORN UNDER THE PENALTY OF DEATH, WHICH HE HADINCURRED.

Thence, after his sin, he was driven into exile, and by his sin the wholerace of which he was the root was corrupted in him, and therebysubjected to the penalty of death. And so it happens that all descendedfrom him, and from the woman who had led him into sin, and was condemnedat the same time with him,—being the offspring of carnal luston which the same punishment of disobedience wasvisited,—were tainted with the original sin, and were by itdrawn through divers errors and sufferings into that last and endlesspunishment which they suffer in common with the fallen angels, theircorrupters and masters, and the partakers of their doom. And thus“by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; andso death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” [2] By“the world” the apostle, of course, means in thisplace the whole human race.

CHAP. 27.—: THE STATE OF MISERY TO WHICH ADAM’S SINREDUCED MANKIND, AND THE RESTORATION EFFECTED THROUGH THE MERCY OFGOD.

Thus, then, matters stood. The whole mass of the human race was undercondemnation, was lying steeped and wallowing in misery, and was beingtossed from one form of evil to another, and, having joined the factionof the fallen angels, was paying the well-merited penalty of thatimpious rebellion. For whatever the wicked freely do through blind andunbridled lust, and whatever they suffer against their will in the wayof open punishment, this all evidently pertains to the just wrath ofGod. But the goodness of the Creator never fails either to supply lifeand vital power to the wicked angels (without which their existencewould soon come to an end); or, in the case of mankind, who spring froma condemned and corrupt stock, to impart form and life to their seed, tofashion their members, and through the various seasons of their life,and in the different parts of the earth, to quicken their senses, andbestow upon them the nourishment they need. For He judged it better tobring good out of evil, than not to permit any evil to exist. And if Hehad determined that in the case of men, as in the case of the fallenangels, there should be no restoration to happiness, would it not havebeen quite just, that the being who rebelled against God, who in theabuse of his freedom spurned and transgressed the command of his Creatorwhen he could so easily have kept it, who defaced in himself the imageof his Creator by stubbornly turning away from His light, who by an eviluse of his free-will broke away from his wholesome bondage to theCreator’s laws,—would it not have been just thatsuch a being should have been wholly and to all eternity deserted byGod, and left to suffer the everlasting punishment he had so richlyearned? Certainly so God would have done, had He been only just and notalso merciful, and had He not designed that His unmerited mercy shouldshine forth the more brightly in contrast with the unworthiness of itsobjects.

CHAP. 28.—: WHEN THE REBELLIOUS ANGELS WERE CAST OUT, THE RESTREMAINED IN THE ENJOYMENT OF ETERNAL HAPPINESS WITH GOD.

Whilst some of the angels, then, in theirpride and impiety rebelled against God, and were cast down from theirheavenly abode into the lowest darkness, the remaining number dwelt withGod in eternal and unchanging purity and happiness. For all were notsprung from one angel who had fallen and been condemned, so that theywere not all, like men, involved by one original sin in the bonds of aninherited guilt, and so made subject to the penalty which one hadincurred; but when he, who afterwards became the devil, was with hisassociates in crime exalted in pride, and by that very exaltation waswith them cast down, the rest remained steadfast in piety and obedienceto their Lord, and obtained, what before they had not enjoyed, a sureand certain knowledge of their eternal safety, and freedom from thepossibility of falling.

CHAP. 29.—: THE RESTORED PART OF HUMANITY SHALL, IN ACCORDANCEWITH THE PROMISES OF GOD, SUCCEED TO THE PLACE WHICH THE REBELLIOUS ANGELSLOST.

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, thepart of them which had fallen should remain in perdition eternally, andthat the other part, which had in the rebellion remained steadfastlyloyal, should rejoice in the sure and certain knowledge of their eternalhappiness; but that, on the other hand, mankind, who constituted theremainder of the intelligent creation, having perished without exceptionunder sin, both original and actual, and the consequent punishments,should be in part restored, and should fill up the gap which therebellion 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 theyshall be equal to the angels of God. [1] And thus the Jerusalem whichis above, which is the mother of us all, the city of God, shall not bespoiled of any of the number of her citizens, shall perhaps reign overeven a more abundant population. We do not know the number either of thesaints or of the devils; but we know that the children of the holymother who was called barren on earth shall succeed to the place of thefallen angels, and shall dwell for ever in that peaceful abode fromwhich they fell. But the number of the citizens, whether as it now is oras it shall be, is present to the thoughts of the great Creator, whocalls those things which are not as though they were, [2] and ordereth all things in measure, and number, and weight. [3]

CHAP. 30.—: MEN ARE NOT SAVED BY GOOD WORKS, NOR BY THE FREEDETERMINATION OF THEIR OWN WILL, BUT BY THE GRACE OF GOD THROUGHFAITH.

But this part of the human race to which God has promised pardon and ashare in His eternal kingdom, can they be restored through the merit oftheir 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 doanything by the free determination of their own will? Again I say, Godforbid. For it was by the evil use of his free-will that man destroyedboth it and himself. For, as a man who kills himself must, of course, bealive when he kills himself, but after he has killed himself ceases tolive, and cannot restore himself to life; so, when man by his ownfree-will sinned, then sin being victorious over him, the freedom of hiswill was lost. “For of whom a man is overcome, of the same ishe brought in bondage.” [4] This is the judgment of theApostle Peter. And as it is certainly true, what kind of liberty, I ask,can the bond-slave possess, except when it pleases him to sin? For he isfreely in bondage who does with pleasure the will of his master.Accordingly, he who is the servant of sin is free to sin. And hence hewill not be free to do right, until, being freed from sin, he shallbegin to be the servant of righteousness. And this is true liberty, forhe has pleasure in the righteous deed; and it is at the same time a holybondage, for he is obedient to the will of God. But whence comes thisliberty to do right to the man who is in bondage and sold under sin,except he be redeemed by Him who has said, “If the Son shallmake you free, ye shall be free indeed?” [5] And before this redemptionis wrought in a man, when he is not yet free to do what is right, howcan he talk of the freedom of his will and his good works, except he beinflated by that foolish pride of boasting which the apostle restrainswhen he says, “By grace are ye saved, throughfaith.” [6]

CHAP. 31.—: FAITH ITSELF IS THE GIFT OF GOD; AND GOOD WORKSWILL NOT BE WANTING IN THOSE WHO BELIEVE.

And lest men should arrogate to themselves the merit of their own faithat least, not understanding that this too is the gift of God, this sameapostle, who says in another place that he had “obtainedmercy of the Lord to be faithful,” [7] here also adds:“and that not of yourselves; it isthe gift of God: not of works, lest any man shouldboast.” [1] And lest it should bethought that good works will be wanting in those who believe, he addsfurther: “For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesusunto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk inthem.” [2] We shall be made truly free,then, when God fashions us, that is, forms and creates us anew, not asmen—for He has done that already—but as good men,which His grace is now doing, that we may be a new creation in ChristJesus, according as it is said: “Create in me a clean heart,O God.” [3] For God had already createdhis heart, so far as the physical structure of the human heart isconcerned; but the psalmist prays for the renewal of the life which wasstill lingering in his heart.

CHAP. 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 hisworks, but of the freedom of his will, as if the first merit belonged tohim, this very liberty of good action being given to him as a reward hehad 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 doof His own good pleasure;” [4] and in another place:“So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him thatrunneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” [5] Now as, undoubtedly, if a manis of the age to use his reason, he cannot believe, hope, love, unlesshe will to do so, nor obtain the prize of the high calling of God unlesshe voluntarily run for it; in what sense is it “not of himthat willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showethmercy,” except that, as it is written, “thepreparation of the heart is from the Lord?” [6] Otherwise, if it is said, “It is not of him that willeth, norof him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,” becauseit is of both, that is, both of the will of man and of the mercy of God,so that we are to understand the saying, “It is not of himthat willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showethmercy,” as if it meant the will of man alone is notsufficient, if the mercy of God go not with it,—then it willfollow that the mercy of God alone is not sufficient, if the will of mango not with it; and therefore, if we may rightly say, “it isnot of man that willeth, but of God that showeth mercy,”because the will of man by itself is not enough, why may we not alsorightly put it in the converse way: “It is not of God thatshoweth mercy, but of man that willeth,” because the mercy ofGod by itself does not suffice? Surely, if no Christian will dare to saythis, “It is not of God that showeth mercy, but of man thatwilleth,” lest he should openly contradict the apostle, itfollows that the true interpretation of the saying, “It isnot of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God thatshoweth mercy,” is that the whole work belongs to God, whoboth makes the will of man righteous, and thus prepares it forassistance, and assists it when it is prepared. For the man’srighteousness of will precedes many of God’s gifts, but notall; and it must itself be included among those which it does notprecede. We read in Holy Scripture, both that God’s mercy“shall meet me,” [7] and that His mercy“shall follow me.” [8] It goes before the unwillingto make him willing; it follows the willing to make his will effectual.Why are we taught to pray for our enemies, [9] who are plainly unwilling tolead a holy life, unless that God may work willingness in them? And whyare we ourselves taught to ask that we may receive, [10] unless that He who hascreated in us the wish, may Himself satisfy the wish? We pray, then, forour enemies, that the mercy of God may prevent them, as it has preventedus: we pray for ourselves that His mercy may follow us.

CHAP. 33.—: MEN, BEING BY NATURE THE CHILDREN OF WRATH, NEEDEDA MEDIATOR. IN WHAT SENSE GOD IS SAID TO BE ANGRY.

And so the human race was lying under a just condemnation, and all menwere the children of wrath. Of which wrath it is written:“All our days are passed away in Thy wrath; we spend ouryears as a tale that is told.” [11] Of which wrath also Job says:“Man that is born of a woman is of few days, and full oftrouble.” [12] Of which wrath also the LordJesus says: “He that believeth on the Son hath everlastinglife: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but thewrath of God abideth on him.” [13] Hedoes not say it will come, but it “abideth onhim.” For every man is born with it; wherefore the apostlesays: “We were by nature the children of wrath, even asothers.” [14] Now, as men were lying underthis wrath by reason of their original sin, and as this original sin wasthe more heavy and deadly in proportion tothe number and magnitude of the actual sins which were added to it,there was need for a Mediator, that is, for a reconciler, who, by theoffering of one sacrifice, of which all the sacrifices of the law andthe prophets were types, should take away this wrath. Wherefore theapostle says: “For if, when we were enemies, we werereconciled to God by the death of His Son, much more, being reconciled,we shall be saved by His life.” [1] Now when God is said to beangry, we do not attribute to Him such a disturbed feeling as exists inthe mind of an angry man; but we call His just displeasure against sinby the name “anger,” a word transferred by analogyfrom human emotions. But our being reconciled to God through a Mediator,and receiving the Holy Spirit, so that we who were enemies are made sons(“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are thesons of God” [2] ): this is the grace of Godthrough Jesus Christ our Lord.

CHAP. 34.—: THE INEFFABLE MYSTERY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST THEMEDIATOR THROUGH THE VIRGIN MARY.

Now of this Mediator it would occupy too much space to say anything atall worthy of Him; and, indeed, to say what is worthy of Him is not inthe power of man. For who will explain in consistent words this singlestatement, that “the Word was made flesh, and dwelt amongus,” [3] so that we may believe on theonly Son of God the Father Almighty, born of the Holy Ghost and theVirgin Mary? The meaning of the Word being made flesh, is not that thedivine nature was changed into flesh, but that the divine nature assumedour flesh. And by “flesh” we are here tounderstand “man,” the part being put for thewhole, as when it is said: “By the deeds of the law shall noflesh be justified,” [4] that is, no man. For we mustbelieve that no part was wanting in that human nature which He put on,save that it was a nature wholly free from every taint ofsin,—not such a nature as is conceived between the two sexesthrough carnal lust, which is born in sin, and whose guilt is washedaway in regeneration; but such as it behoved a virgin to bring forth,when the mother’s faith, not her lust, was the condition ofconception. And if her virginity had been marred even in bringing Himforth, He would not have been born of a virgin; and it would be false(which God forbid) that He was born of the Virgin Mary, as is believedand declared by the whole Church, which, in imitation of His mother,daily brings forth members of His body, and yet remains a virgin. Read,if you please, my letter on the virginity of the holy Mary which I sentto that eminent man, whose name I mention with respect and affection,Volusianus. [5]

CHAP. 35.—: JESUS CHRIST, BEING THE ONLY SON OF GOD, IS AT THESAME TIME MAN.

Wherefore Christ Jesus, the Son of God, is both God and man; God beforeall worlds; man in our world: God, because the Word of God (for“the Word was God” [6] ); and man, because in His oneperson the Word was joined with a body and a rational soul. Wherefore,so far as He is God, He and the Father are one; so far as He is man, theFather is greater than He. For when He was the only Son of God, not bygrace, but by nature, that He might be also full of grace, He became theSon of man; and He Himself unites both natures in His own identity, andboth natures constitute one Christ; because, “being in theform of God, He thought it not robbery to be,” what He was bynature, “equal with God.” [7] But He made Himself of noreputation, and took upon Himself the form of a servant, not losing orlessening the form of God. And, accordingly, He was both made less andremained equal, being both in one, as has been said: but He was one ofthese as Word, and the other as man. As Word, He is equal with theFather; as man, less than the Father. One Son of God, and at the sametime Son of man; one Son of man, and at the same time Son of God; nottwo Sons of God, God and man, but one Son of God: God without beginning;man with a beginning, our Lord Jesus Christ.

CHAP. 36.—: THE GRACE OF GOD IS CLEARLY AND REMARKABLYDISPLAYED IN RAISING THE MAN CHRIST JESUS TO THE DIGNITY OF THE SON OFGOD.

Now here the grace of God is displayed with the greatest power andclearness. 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 ofthe person of the only Son of God? What goodness of will, what goodnessof desire and intention, what good works, had gone before, which madethis man worthy to become one person with God? Had He been a manpreviously to this, and had He earned this unprecedented reward, that Heshould be thought worthy to become God? Assuredly nay; from the very moment that He began to be man, He wasnothing else than the Son of God, the only Son of God, the Word who wasmade flesh, and therefore He was God; so that just as each individualman unites in one person a body and a rational soul, so Christ in oneperson unites the Word and man. Now wherefore was this unheard of gloryconferred on human nature,—a glory which, as there was noantecedent merit, was of course wholly of grace,—except thathere those who looked at the matter soberly and honestly might behold aclear manifestation of the power of God’s free grace, andmight understand that they are justified from their sins by the samegrace which made the man Christ Jesus free from the possibility of sin?And so the angel, when he announced to Christ’s mother thecoming birth, saluted her thus: “Hail, thou that art full ofgrace;” [1] andshortly afterwards, “Thou hast found grace withGod.” [2] Now she was said to be full of grace, and to havefound grace with God, because she was to be the mother of her Lord, nay,of the Lord of all flesh. But, speaking of Christ Himself, theevangelist John, after saying, “The Word was made flesh, anddwelt among us,” adds, “and we beheld His glory,the glory as of the only-begotten of the Father, full of grace andtruth.” [3] When he says, “TheWord was made flesh,” this is “full ofgrace;” when he says, “the glory of theonly-begotten of the Father,” this is “full oftruth.” For the Truth Himself, who was the only-begotten ofthe Father, not by grace, but by nature, by grace took our humanity uponHim, and so united it with His own person that He Himself became alsothe Son of man.

CHAP. 37.—: THE SAME GRACE IS FURTHER CLEARLY MANIFESTED INTHIS, THAT THE BIRTH OF CHRIST ACCORDING TO THE FLESH IS OF THE HOLYGHOST.

For the same Jesus Christ who is the only-begotten, that is, the only Sonof God, our Lord, was born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary. Andwe know that the Holy Spirit is the gift of God, the gift being Himselfindeed equal to the Giver. And therefore the Holy Spirit also is God,not inferior to the Father and the Son. The fact, therefore, that thenativity of Christ in His human nature was by the Holy Spirit, isanother clear manifestation of grace. For when the Virgin asked theangel how this which he had announced should be, seeing she knew not aman, the angel answered, “The Holy Ghost shall come uponthee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore alsothat holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son ofGod.” [4] And when Joseph was minded toput her away, suspecting her of adultery, as he knew she was not withchild by himself, he was told by the angel, “Fear not to takeunto thee Mary thy wife; for that which is conceived in her is of theHoly Ghost:” [5] that is, what thou suspectestto be begotten of another man is of the Holy Ghost.

CHAP. 38.—: JESUS CHRIST, ACCORDING TO THE FLESH, WAS NOT BORNOF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN SUCH A SENSE THAT THE HOLY SPIRIT IS HISFATHER.

Nevertheless, are we on this account to say that the Holy Ghost is thefather of the man Christ, and that as God the Father begat the Word, soGod the Holy Spirit begat the man, and that these two natures constitutethe 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 asHis father begat Him of the Virgin Mary? Who will dare to say so? Nor isit necessary to show by reasoning how many other absurdities flow fromthis supposition, when it is itself so absurd that nobeliever’s ears can bear to hear it. Hence, as we confess,“Our Lord Jesus Christ, who of God is God, and as man wasborn of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, having both natures, thedivine and the human, is the only Son of God the Father Almighty, fromwhom proceedeth the Holy Spirit.” [6] Now inwhat sense do we say that Christ was born of the Holy Spirit, if theHoly Spirit did not beget Him? Is it that He made Him, since our LordJesus Christ, though as God “all things were made byHim,” [7] yet as man was Himself made; asthe apostle says, “who was made of the seed of Davidaccording to the flesh?” [8] But as that created thing whichthe Virgin conceived and brought forth, though it was united only to theperson of the Son, was made by the whole Trinity (for the works of theTrinity are not separable), why should the Holy Spirit alone bementioned as having made it? Or is it that, when one of the Three ismentioned as the author of any work, the whole Trinity is to beunderstood as working? That is true, and can be proved by examples. Butwe need not dwell longer on this solution.For the puzzle is, in what sense it is said, “born of theHoly Ghost,” when He is in no sense the Son of the HolyGhost? For though God made this world, it would not be right to say thatit is the Son of God, or that it was born of God; we would say that itwas created, or made, or framed, or ordered by Him, or whatever form ofexpression we can properly use. Here, then, when we make confession thatChrist was born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary, it isdifficult to explain how it is that He is not the Son of the Holy Ghostand is the Son of the Virgin Mary, when He was born both of Him and ofher. It is clear beyond a doubt that He was not born of the Holy Spiritas His father, in the same sense that He was born of the Virgin as Hismother.

CHAP. 39.—: NOT EVERYTHING THAT IS BORN OF ANOTHER IS TO BECALLED A SON OF THAT OTHER.

We need not therefore take for granted, that whatever is born of a thingis forthwith to be declared the son of that thing. For, to pass over thefact that a son is born of a man in a different sense from that in whicha hair or a louse is born of him, neither of these being a son; to passover this, I say, as too mean an illustration for a subject of so muchimportance: it is certain that those who are born of water and of theHoly Spirit cannot with propriety be called sons of the water, thoughthey 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 ofGod the Father, not of the Holy Spirit. For what I have said of the hairand the other things is sufficient to show us that not everything whichis 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’ssons were born of him, for some sons are adopted. And some men arecalled 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.

CHAP. 40.—: CHRIST’S BIRTH THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRITMANIFESTS TO US THE GRACE OF GOD.

And, therefore, as one thing may be born of another, and yet not in sucha way as to be its son, and as not every one who is called a son wasborn of him whose son he is called, it is clear that this arrangement bywhich Christ was born of the Holy Spirit, but not as His son, and of theVirgin Mary as her son, is intended as a manifestation of the grace ofGod. 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 oneperson with the Word of God, that the very person who was Son of man wasat the same time Son of God, and the very person who was Son of God wasat the same time Son of man; and in the adoption of His human natureinto 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 issignified by the Holy Spirit; for He, though in His own nature God, mayalso be called the gift of God. And to explain all this sufficiently, ifindeed it could be done at all, would require a very lengtheneddiscussion.

CHAP. 41.—: CHRIST, WHO WAS HIMSELF FREE FROM SIN, WAS MADESIN FOR US, THAT WE MIGHT BE RECONCILED TO GOD.

Begotten and conceived, then, without any indulgence of carnal lust, andtherefore bringing with Him no original sin, and by the grace of Godjoined and united in a wonderful and unspeakable way in one person withthe Word, the Only-begotten of the Father, a son by nature, not bygrace, and therefore having no sin of His own; nevertheless, on accountof 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 OldCovenant, sacrifices for sin were called sins. [1] And He, of whom all thesesacrifices were types and shadows, was Himself truly made sin. Hence theapostle, after saying, “We pray you in Christ’sstead, be ye reconciled to God,” forthwith adds:“for He hath made Him to be sin for us who knew no sin; thatwe might be made the righteousness of God in Him.” [2] He does not say, as some incorrect copies read,“He who knew no sin did sin for us,” as if Christhad Himself sinned for our sakes; but he says, “Him who knewno sin,” that is, Christ, God, to whom we are to bereconciled, “hath made to be sin for us,” that is,hath made Him a sacrifice for our sins, by which we might be reconciledto God. He, then, being made sin, just as we are made righteousness (ourrighteousness being not our own, but God’s, not in ourselves,but in Him); He being made sin, not His own, but ours, not in Himself,but in us, showed, by the likeness of sinful flesh in which He wascrucified, that though sin was not in Him, yet that in a certain senseHe died to sin, by dying in the flesh which was the likeness of sin; andthat although He Himself had never lived the old life of sin, yet by His resurrection He typified our newlife springing up out of the old death in sin.

CHAP. 42.—: THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM INDICATES OUR DEATH WITHCHRIST TO SIN, AND OUR RESURRECTION WITH HIM TO NEWNESS OF LIFE.

And this is the meaning of the great sacrament of baptism which issolemnized among us, that all who attain to this grace should die tosin, 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 Hearose alive from the grave, should begin a new life in the Spirit,whatever may be the age of the body?

CHAP. 43.—: BAPTISM AND THE GRACE WHICH IT TYPIFIES ARE OPENTO ALL, BOTH INFANTS AND ADULTS.

For from the infant newly born to the old man bent with age, as there isnone shut out from baptism, so there is none who in baptism does not dieto sin. But infants die only to original sin; those who are older diealso to all the sins which their evil lives have added to the sin whichthey brought with them.

CHAP. 44.—: IN SPEAKING OF SIN, THE SINGULAR NUMBER IS OFTENPUT FOR THE PLURAL, AND THE PLURAL FOR THE SINGULAR.

But even these latter are frequently said to die to sin, thoughundoubtedly they die not to one sin, but to all the numerous actual sinsthey have committed in thought, word, or deed: for the singular numberis often put for the plural, as when the poet says, “Theyfill its belly with the armed soldier,” [1] though inthe case here referred to there were many soldiers concerned. And weread in our own Scriptures: “Pray to the Lord, that He takeaway the serpent from us.” [2] He does not say serpents, though the people were suffering from many; and soin other cases. When, on the other hand, the original sin is expressedin the plural number, as when we say that infants are baptized for theremission of sins, instead of saying for theremission of sin, this is the converse figure ofspeech, by which the plural number is put in place of the singular; asin the Gospel it is said of the death of Herod, “for they aredead which sought the young child’s life,” [3] instead of saying, “he is dead.” And in Exodus:“They have made them,” Moses says,“gods of gold,” [4] though they had made onlyone calf, of which they said: “These be thy gods, O Israel,which brought thee up out of the land of Egypt,” [5] —here, too, putting the plural in place of thesingular.

CHAP. 45.—: IN ADAM’S FIRST SIN, MANY KINDS OF SINWERE INVOLVED.

However, even in that one sin, which “by one man entered intothe world, and so passed upon all men,” [6] and on account of whichinfants are baptized, a number of distinct sins may be observed, if itbe analyzed as it were into its separate elements. For there is in itpride, because man chose to be under his own dominion, rather than underthe dominion of God; and blasphemy, because he did not believe God; andmurder, for he brought death upon himself; and spiritual fornication,for the purity of the human soul was corrupted by the seducingblandishments of the serpent; and theft, for man turned to his own usethe food he had been forbidden to touch; and avarice, for he had acraving for more than should have been sufficient for him; and whateverother sin can be discovered on careful reflection to be involved in thisone admitted sin.

CHAP. 46.—: IT IS PROBABLE THAT CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED IN THEGUILT NOT ONLY OF THE FIRST PAIR, BUT OF THEIR OWN IMMEDIATE PARENTS.

And it is said, with much appearance of probability, that infants areinvolved in the guilt of the sins not only of the first pair, but oftheir own immediate parents. For that divine judgment, “Ishall visit the iniquities of the fathers upon thechildren,” [7] certainly appliesto them before they come under the new covenant by regeneration. And itwas this new covenant that was prophesied of, when it was said byEzekiel, that the sons should not bear the iniquity of the fathers, andthat it should no longer be a proverb in Israel, “The fathershave eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set onedge.” [8] Here lies the necessitythat each man should be born again, that he might be freed from the sinin which he was born. For the sins committed afterwards can be cured bypenitence, as we see is the case after baptism. And therefore the newbirth would not have been appointed only that the first birth wassinful, so sinful that even one who was legitimately born in wedlocksays: “I was shapen in iniquities,and in sins did my mother conceive me.” [1] He did not say in iniquity, or in sin, though hemight have said so correctly; but he preferred to say“iniquities” and “sins,”because in that one sin which passed upon all men, and which was sogreat that human nature was by it made subject to inevitable death, manysins, as I showed above, may be discriminated; and further, becausethere are other sins of the immediate parents, which, though they havenot the same effect in producing a change of nature, yet subject thechildren to guilt unless the divine grace and mercy interpose to rescuethem.

CHAP. 47.—: IT IS DIFFICULT TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SINS OF AMAN’S OTHER PROGENITORS ARE IMPUTED TO HIM.

But about the sins of the other progenitors who intervene between Adamand a man’s own parents, a question may very well be raised.Whether every one who is born is involved in all their accumulated evilacts, in all their multiplied original guilt, so that the later he isborn, so much the worse is his condition; or whether God threatens tovisit the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third andfourth generations, because in His mercy He does not extend His wrathagainst the sins of the progenitors further than that, lest those who donot obtain the grace of regeneration might be crushed down under tooheavy a burden if they were compelled to bear as original guilt all thesins 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 ofthis great question may or may not be found in Scripture by a morediligent search and a more careful interpretation, I dare not rashlyaffirm.

CHAP. 48.—: THE GUILT OF THE FIRST SIN IS SO GREAT THAT IT CANBE WASHED AWAY ONLY IN THE BLOOD OF THE MEDIATOR, JESUS CHRIST.

Nevertheless, that one sin, admitted into a place where such perfecthappiness reigned, was of so heinous a character, that in one man thewhole human race was originally, and as one may say, radically,condemned; and it cannot be pardoned and blotted out except through theone Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who only has hadpower to be so born as not to need a second birth.

CHAP. 49.—: CHRIST WAS NOT REGENERATED IN THE BAPTISM OF JOHN,BUT SUBMITTED TO IT TO GIVE US AN EXAMPLE OF HUMILITY, JUST AS HE SUBMITTEDTO DEATH, NOT AS THE PUNISHMENT OF SIN, BUT TO TAKE AWAY THE SIN OF THEWORLD.

Now, those who were baptized in the baptism of John, by whom Christ wasHimself baptized, [2] were not regenerated; but they were preparedthrough the ministry of His forerunner, who cried, “Prepareye the way of the Lord,” [3] for Him in whom only theycould be regenerated. For His baptism is not with water only, as wasthat of John, but with the Holy Ghost also; [4] so that whoever believes inChrist is regenerated by that Spirit, of whom Christ being generated, Hedid not need regeneration. Whence that announcement of the Father whichwas heard after His baptism, “This day have I begottenThee,” [5] referred not to that oneday of time on which He was baptized, but to the one day of anunchangeable eternity, so as to show that this man was one in personwith the Only-begotten. For when a day neither begins with the close ofyesterday, nor ends with the beginning of to-morrow, it is an eternalto-day. Therefore He asked to be baptized in water by John, not that anyiniquity of His might be washed away, but that He might manifest thedepth of His humility. For baptism found in Him nothing to wash away, asdeath found in Him nothing to punish; so that it was in the strictestjustice, and not by the mere violence of power, that the devil wascrushed and conquered: for, as he had most unjustly put Christ to death,though there was no sin in Him to deserve death, it was most just thatthrough Christ he should lose his hold of those who by sin were justlysubject to the bondage in which he held them. Both of these, then, thatis, both baptism and death, were submitted to by Him, not through apitiable necessity, but of His own free pity for us, and as part of anarrangement by which, as one man brought sin into the world, that is,upon the whole human race, so one man was to take away the sin of theworld.

CHAP. 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, butthis man took away not only that one sin, but all that He found added toit. Hence the apostle says: “Andnot as it was by one that sinned, so is the gift: for the judgment wasby one to condemnation, but the free gift is of many offenses untojustification.” [1] For it is evident that the onesin which we bring with us by nature would, even if it stood alone,bring us under condemnation; but the free gift justifies man from manyoffenses: for each man, in addition to the one sin which, in common withall his kind, he brings with him by nature, has committed many sins thatare strictly his own.

CHAP. 51.—: ALL MEN BORN OF ADAM ARE UNDER CONDEMNATION, ANDONLY IF NEW BORN IN CHRIST ARE FREED FROM CONDEMNATION.

But what he says a little after, “Therefore, as by the offenseof one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by therighteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justificationof life,” [2] shows clearly enough thatthere is no one born of Adam but is subject to condemnation, and that noone, unless he be new born in Christ, is freed from condemnation.

CHAP. 52.—: IN BAPTISM, WHICH IS THE SIMILITUDE OF THE DEATHAND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST, ALL, BOTH INFANTS AND ADULTS, DIE TO SIN THATTHEY MAY WALK IN NEWNESS OF LIFE.

And after he has said as much about the condemnation through one man, andthe free gift through one man, as he deemed sufficient for that part ofhis epistle, the apostle goes on to speak of the great mystery of holybaptism in the cross of Christ, and to clearly explain to us thatbaptism in Christ is nothing else than a similitude of the death ofChrist, and that the death of Christ on the cross is nothing but asimilitude 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 Hisresurrection, so real is our justification. He says: “Whatshall we say, then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace mayabound?” [3] For he had said previously,“But where sin abounded, grace did much moreabound.” [4] And therefore he proposes tohimself the question, whether it would be right to continue in sin forthe sake of the consequent abounding grace. But he answers,“God forbid;” and adds, “How shall we,that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?” Then, to showthat we are dead to sin, “Know ye not,” he says,“that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, werebaptized into His death?” If, then, the fact that we werebaptized into the death of Christ proves that we are dead to sin, itfollows that even infants who are baptized into Christ die to sin, beingbaptized into His death. For there is no exception made: “Somany of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into Hisdeath.” And this is said to prove that we are dead to sin.Now, to what sin do infants die in their regeneration but that sin whichthey bring with them at birth? And therefore to these also applies whatfollows: “Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism intodeath; that, like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory ofthe Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life. For if wehave been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall bealso in the likeness of His resurrection: knowing this, that our old manis crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, thathenceforth we should not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed fromsin. Now if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also livewith Him: knowing that Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth nomore; death hath no more dominion over Him. For in that He died, He diedunto sin once; but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God. Likewisereckon ye also yourselves to be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto Godthrough Jesus Christ our Lord.” Now he had commenced withproving that we must not continue in sin that grace may abound, and hadsaid: “How shall we that are dead to sin live any longertherein?” And to show that we are dead to sin, he added:“Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into JesusChrist, were baptized into His death?” And so he concludesthis whole passage just as he began it. For he has brought in the deathof Christ in such a way as to imply that Christ Himself also died tosin. To what sin did He die if not to the flesh, in which there was notsin, but the likeness of sin, and which was therefore called by the nameof sin? To those who are baptized into the death of Christ,then,—and this class includes not adults only, but infants aswell,—he says: “Likewise reckon ye also yourselvesto be dead indeed unto sin, but alive unto God through Jesus Christ ourLord.” [5]

CHAP. 53.—: CHRIST’S CROSS AND BURIAL,RESURRECTION, ASCENSION, AND SITTING DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, AREIMAGES OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.

All the events, then, of Christ’s crucifixion, of His burial, of His resurrection the thirdday, of His ascension into heaven, of His sitting down at the right handof the Father, were so ordered, that the life which the Christian leadshere might be modelled upon them, not merely in a mystical sense, but inreality. For in reference to His crucifixion it is said:“They that are Christ’s have crucified the flesh,with the affections and lusts.” [1] And in reference to Hisburial: “We are buried with Him by baptism intodeath.” [2] In reference to Hisresurrection: “That, like as Christ was raised up from thedead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newnessof life.” [3] And in reference to Hisascension into heaven and sitting down at the right hand of the Father:“If ye then be risen with Christ, seek those things which areabove, where Christ sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affectionon things above, not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and yourlife is hid with Christ in God.” [4]

CHAP. 54.—: CHRIST’S SECOND COMING DOES NOT BELONGTO THE PAST, BUT WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE END OF THE WORLD.

But what we believe as to Christ’s action in the future, whenHe shall come from heaven to judge the quick and the dead, has nobearing upon the life which we now lead here; for it forms no part ofwhat He did upon earth, but is part of what He shall do at the end ofthe world. And it is to this that the apostle refers in what immediatelyfollows the passage quoted above: “When Christ, who is ourlife, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with Him inglory.” [5]

CHAP. 55.—: THE EXPRESSION, “CHRIST SHALL JUDGE THEQUICK AND THE DEAD,” MAY BE UNDERSTOOD IN EITHER OF TWOSENSES.

Now the expression, “to judge the quick and thedead,” may be interpreted in two ways: either we mayunderstand by the “quick” those who at His adventshall not yet have died, but whom He shall find alive in the flesh, andby the “dead” those who have departed from thebody, or who shall have departed before His coming; or we may understandthe “quick” to mean the righteous, and the“dead” the unrighteous; for the righteous shall bejudged as well as others. Now the judgment of God is sometimes taken ina bad sense, as, for example, “They that have done evil untothe resurrection of judgment;” [6] sometimes in a good sense, as, “Saveme, O God, by Thy name, and judge me by Thy strength.” [7] This is easily understood when we consider that it is the judgment ofGod which separates the good from the evil, and sets the good at Hisright hand, that they may be delivered from evil, and not destroyed withthe wicked; and it is for this reason that the Psalmist cried,“Judge me, O God,” and then added, as if inexplanation, “and distinguish my cause from that of anungodly nation.” [8]

CHAP. 56.—: THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH. THE CHURCH IS THETEMPLE 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 saythat we believe also in the Holy Ghost,—thus completing theTrinity which constitutes the Godhead. Then we mention the Holy Church.And thus we are made to understand that the intelligent creation, whichconstitutes the free Jerusalem, [9] ought to be subordinate inthe order of speech to the Creator, the Supreme Trinity: for all that issaid of the man Christ Jesus has reference, of course, to the unity ofthe person of the Only-begotten. Therefore the true order of the Creeddemanded that the Church should be made subordinate to the Trinity, asthe house to Him who dwells in it, the temple to God who occupies it,and the city to its builder. And we are here to understand the wholeChurch, not that part of it only which wanders as a stranger on theearth, praising the name of God from the rising of the sun to the goingdown of the same, and singing a new song of deliverance from its oldcaptivity; but that part also which has always from its creationremained steadfast to God in heaven, and has never experienced themisery consequent upon a fall. This part is made up of the holy angels,who enjoy uninterrupted happiness; and (as it is bound to do) it rendersassistance to the part which is still wandering among strangers: forthese two parts shall be one in the fellowship of eternity, and now theyare one in the bonds of love, the whole having been ordained for theworship of the one God. Wherefore, neither the whole Church, nor anypart of it, has any desire to be worshipped instead of God, nor to beGod to any one who belongs to the temple of God—that templewhich is built up of the saints who were created by the uncreated God.And therefore the Holy Spirit, if a creature, could not be the Creator,but would be a part of the intelligentcreation. He would simply be the highest creature, and therefore wouldnot be mentioned in the Creed before the Church; for He Himself wouldbelong to the Church, to that part of it which is in the heavens. And Hewould not have a temple, for He Himself would be part of a temple. NowHe has a temple, of which the apostle says: “Know ye not thatyour body is the temple of the Holy Ghost, which is in you, which yehave of God?” [1] Of which body he says inanother place: “Know ye not that your bodies are the membersof Christ?” [2] How, then, is He not God,seeing that He has a temple? and how can He be less than Christ, whosemembers are His temple? Nor has He one temple, and God another, seeingthat the same apostle says: “Know ye not that ye are thetemple of God?” [3] and adds, as proof ofthis, “and that the Spirit of God dwelleth inyou.” [4] God, then, dwells in Histemple: not the Holy Spirit only, but the Father also, and the Son, whosays of His own body, through which He was made Head of the Church uponearth (“that in all things He might have thepre-eminence):” [5] “Destroy thistemple, and in three days I will raise it up.” [6] The temple of God, then, that is, of the Supreme Trinity as a whole, isthe Holy Church, embracing in its full extent both heaven and earth.

CHAP. 57.—: THE CONDITION OF THE CHURCH IN HEAVEN.

But of that part of the Church which is in heaven what can we say, exceptthat 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 sparednot the angels that sinned,” as the Apostle Peter writes,“but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chainsof darkness, to be reserved unto judgment?” [7]

CHAP. 58.—: WE HAVE NO CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORGANIZATIONOF 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 allare called by the general name angels, as we readin the Epistle to the Hebrews, “but to which of the angelssaid God at any time, Sit on my right hand?” [8] (this form of expression being evidently designed to embrace all theangels without exception), we yet find that there are some called archangels; and whether the archangels are the sameas those called hosts, so that the expression,“Praise ye Him, all His angels: praise ye Him, all Hishosts,” [9] is the same as if it had been said,“Praise ye Him, all His angels: praise ye Him, all Hisarchangels;” and what are the various significations of thosefour names under which the apostle seems to embrace the whole heavenlycompany without exception, “whether they be thrones, ordominions, or principalities, or powers:” [10] —let those who areable answer these questions, if they can also prove their answers to betrue; but as for me, I confess my ignorance. I am not even certain uponthis point: whether the sun, and the moon, and all the stars, do notform part of this same society, though many consider them merelyluminous bodies, without either sensation or intelligence.

CHAP. 59.—: THE BODIES ASSUMED BY ANGELS RAISE A VERYDIFFICULT, AND NOT VERY USEFUL, SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION.

Further, who will tell with what sort of bodies it was that the angelsappeared to men, making themselves not only visible, but tangible; andagain, how it is that, not through material bodies, but by spiritualpower, they present visions not to the bodily eyes, but to the spiritualeyes of the mind, or speak something not into the ear from without, butfrom within the soul of the man, they themselves being stationed theretoo, as it is written in the prophet, “And the angel thatspake in me said unto me” [11] (hedoes not say, “that spake to me,” but “that spake in me”); or appear to men in sleep, and make communicationsthrough dreams, as we read in the Gospel, “Behold, the angelof the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying”? [12] For these methods of communication seem to imply that the angels havenot tangible bodies, and make it a very difficult question to solve howthe patriarchs washed their feet, [13] and how it was thatJacob wrestled with the angel in a way so unmistakeably material. [14] To ask questions like these, and to make such guessesas we can at the answers, is a useful exercise for the intellect, if thediscussion be kept within proper bounds, and if we avoid the error ofsupposing ourselves to know what we do not know. For what is thenecessity for affirming, or denying, or defining with accuracy on thesesubjects, and others like them, when we may without blame be entirelyignorant of them?

CHAP. 60.—: IT IS MORE NECESSARY TO BE ABLE TO DETECT THEWILES OF SATAN WHEN HE TRANSFORMS HIMSELF INTO AN ANGEL OF LIGHT.

It is more necessary to use all our powers of discrimination and judgmentwhen Satan transforms himself into an angel of light, [1] lest by his wiles he should lead us astray into hurtful courses. For,while he only deceives the bodily senses, and does not pervert the mindfrom that true and sound judgment which enables a man to lead a life offaith, there is no danger to religion; or if, feigning himself to begood, he does or says the things that befit good angels, and we believehim to be good, the error is not one that is hurtful or dangerous toChristian faith. But when, through these means, which are alien to hisnature, he goes on to lead us into courses of his own, then greatwatchfulness is necessary to detect, and refuse to follow, him. But howmany men are fit to evade all his deadly wiles, unless God restrains andwatches over them? The very difficulty of the matter, however, is usefulin this respect, that it prevents men from trusting in themselves or inone another, and leads all to place their confidence in God alone. Andcertainly no pious man can doubt that this is most expedient for us.

CHAP. 61.—: THE CHURCH ON EARTH HAS BEEN REDEEMED FROM SIN BYTHE BLOOD OF A MEDIATOR.

This part of the Church, then, which is made up of the holy angels andthe hosts of God, shall become known to us in its true nature, when, atthe end of the world, we shall be united with it in the commonpossession of everlasting happiness. But the other part, which,separated from it, wanders as a stranger on the earth, is better knownto 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 fromall 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 notHis own Son, but delivered Him up for us all.” [2] Now it was not for the angels that Christ died. Yet what was done forthe redemption of man through His death was in a sense done for theangels, because the enmity which sin had put between men and the holyangels is removed, and friendship is restored between them, and by theredemption of man the gaps which the great apostasy left in the angelichost are filled up.

CHAP. 62.—: BY THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST ALL THINGS ARERESTORED, AND PEACE IS MADE BETWEEN EARTH AND HEAVEN.

And, of course, the holy angels, taught by God, in the eternalcontemplation of whose truth their happiness consists, know how great anumber of the human race are to supplement their ranks, and fill up thefull tale of their citizenship. Wherefore the apostle says, that“all things are gathered together in one in Christ, bothwhich are in heaven and which are on earth.” [3] The things which are in heaven are gathered together when what was losttherefrom in the fall of the angels is restored from among men; and thethings which are on earth are gathered together, when those who arepredestined to eternal life are redeemed from their old corruption. Andthus, through that single sacrifice in which the Mediator was offeredup, the one sacrifice of which the many victims under the law weretypes, heavenly things are brought into peace with earthly things, andearthly things with heavenly. Wherefore, as the same apostle says:“For it pleased the Father that in Him should all fullnessdwell: and, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him toreconcile all things to Himself: by Him, I say, whether they be thingsin earth, or things in heaven.” [4]

CHAP. 63.—: THE PEACE OF GOD, WHICH REIGNETH IN HEAVEN,PASSETH ALL UNDERSTANDING.

This peace, as Scripture saith, “passeth allunderstanding,” [5] and cannot be known by usuntil we have come into the full possession of it. For in what sense areheavenly things reconciled, except they be reconciled to us, viz. bycoming into harmony with us? For in heaven there is unbroken peace, bothbetween all the intelligent creatures that exist there, and betweenthese and their Creator. And this peace, as is said, passeth allunderstanding; but this, of course, means our understanding, not that ofthose who always behold the face of their Father. We now, however greatmay be our human understanding, know but in part, and see through aglass darkly. [6] But when we shall be equal unto the angels of God [7] then we shall see face to face, as they do; and we shall have as greatpeace towards them as they have towards us, because we shall love themas much as we are loved by them. And so their peace shall be known tous: for our own peace shall be like to theirs, and as great as theirs,nor shall it then pass our understanding. Butthe peace of God, the peace which He cherisheth towards us, shallundoubtedly pass not our understanding only, but theirs as well. Andthis must be so: for every rational creature which is happy derives itshappiness from Him; He does not derive His from it. And in this view itis better to interpret “all” in the passage,“The peace of God passeth all understanding,” asadmitting of no exception even in favor of the understanding of the holyangels: the only exception that can be made is that of God Himself. For,of course, His peace does not pass His own understanding.

CHAP. 64.—: PARDON OF SIN EXTENDS OVER THE WHOLE MORTAL LIFEOF 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 Churchis placed the remission of sins. For it is by this that the Church onearth 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 birthimposes 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, whencecommences man’s restoration, and in which all our guilt, bothoriginal and actual, is washed away, the rest of our life from the timethat we have the use of reason provides constant occasion for theremission 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 inconflict with death. And although it is truly said of them,“As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sonsof God,” [1] yet they are led by theSpirit of God, and as the sons of God advance towards God under thisdrawback, that they are led also by their own spirit, weighted as it isby the corruptible body; [2] and that, as the sons ofmen, under the influence of human affections, they fall back to theirold level, and so sin. There is a difference, however. For althoughevery crime is a sin, every sin is not a crime. And so we say that thelife of holy men, as long as they remain in this mortal body, may befound without crime; but, as the Apostle John says, “If wesay that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not inus.” [3]

CHAP. 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 HolyChurch; and the mercy of God is never to be despaired of by men whotruly repent, each according to the measure of his sin. And in the actof repentance, where a crime has been committed of such a nature as tocut off the sinner from the body of Christ, we are not to take accountso much of the measure of time as of the measure of sorrow; for a brokenand a contrite heart God doth not despise. [4] But as the grief of one heartis frequently hid from another, and is not made known to others by wordsor other signs, when it is manifest to Him of whom it is said,“My groaning is not hid from Thee,” [5] those who govern the Church have rightly appointedtimes of penitence, that the Church in which the sins are remitted maybe satisfied; and outside the Church sins are not remitted. For theChurch alone has received the pledge of the Holy Spirit, without whichthere is no remission of sins—such, at least, as brings thepardoned to eternal life.

CHAP. 66.—: THE PARDON OF SIN HAS REFERENCE CHIEFLY TO THEFUTURE 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 thatthey go out of their mother’s womb, till the day that theyreturn to the mother of all things.” [6] So that we see eveninfants, after baptism and regeneration, suffering from the inflictionof divers evils: and thus we are given to understand, that all that isset forth in the sacraments of salvation refers rather to the hope offuture good, than to the retaining or attaining of present blessings.For many sins seem in this world to be overlooked and visited with nopunishment, whose punishment is reserved for the future (for it is notin vain that the day when Christ shall come as Judge of quick and deadis peculiarly named the day of judgment); just as, on the other hand,many sins are punished in this life, which nevertheless are pardoned,and shall bring down no punishment in the future life. Accordingly, inreference to certain temporal punishments, which in this life arevisited upon sinners, the apostle, addressing those whose sins are blotted out, and not reserved for the finaljudgment, says: “For if we would judge ourselves, we shouldnot be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened of the Lord,that we should not be condemned with the world.” [1]

CHAP. 67.—: FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD, AND CANNOT SAVE AMAN.

It is believed, moreover, by some, that men who do not abandon the nameof Christ, and who have been baptized in the Church by His baptism, andwho 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 itaway in penitence nor redeem it by almsgiving, but persevere in itpersistently to the last day of their lives, shall be saved by fire:that is, that although they shall suffer a punishment by fire, lastingfor a time proportionate to the magnitude of their crimes and misdeeds,they shall not be punished with everlasting fire. But those who believethis, and yet are Catholics, seem to me to be led astray by a kind ofbenevolent feeling natural to humanity. For Holy Scripture, whenconsulted, gives a very different answer. I have written a book on thissubject, entitled Of Faith and Works, in which, tothe best of my ability, God assisting me, I have shown from Scripture,that the faith which saves us is that which the Apostle Paul clearlyenough describes when he says: “For in Jesus Christ neithercircumcision availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith whichworketh by love.” [2] But if it worketh evil, and notgood, then without doubt, as the Apostle James says, “it isdead, being alone.” [3] The same apostle says again,“What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hathfaith, and have not works? Can faith save him?” [4] And further, if a wicked man shall be saved by fire on account of hisfaith alone, and if this is what the blessed Apostle Paul means when hesays, “But he himself shall be saved, yet so as byfire;” [5] then faith without works can save a man, and what his fellow-apostleJames says must be false. And that must be false which Paul himself saysin another place: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, noridolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselveswith mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers,nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” [6] For if those who persevere in these wicked coursesshall nevertheless be saved on account of their faith in Christ, how canit be true that they shall not inherit the kingdom of God?

CHAP. 68.—: THE TRUE SENSE OF THE PASSAGE (1 COR. III. 11-15)ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE SAVED, YET SO AS BY FIRE.

But as these most plain and unmistakeable declarations of the apostlescannot be false, that obscure saying about those who build upon thefoundation, Christ, not gold, silver, and precious stones, but wood,hay, and stubble (for it is these who, it is said, shall be saved, yetso as by fire, the merit of the foundation saving them [7] ), must be sointerpreted as not to conflict with the plain statements quoted above.Now wood, hay, and stubble may, without incongruity, be understood tosignify such an attachment to worldly things, however lawful these maybe in themselves, that they cannot be lost without grief of mind. Andthough this grief burns, yet if Christ hold the place of foundation inthe heart,—that is, if nothing be preferred to Him, and ifthe man, though burning with grief, is yet more willing to lose thethings he loves so much than to lose Christ,—he is saved byfire. If, however, in time of temptation, he prefer to hold by temporaland earthly things rather than by Christ, he has not Christ as hisfoundation; for he puts earthly things in the first place, and in abuilding nothing comes before the foundation. Again, the fire of whichthe apostle speaks in this place must be such a fire as both men aremade to pass through, that is, both the man who builds upon thefoundation, gold, silver, precious stones, and the man who builds wood,hay, stubble. For he immediately adds: “The fire shall tryevery man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’swork abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. Ifany man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss; but hehimself shall be saved, yet so as by fire.” [8] The fire then shall prove, not the work of one ofthem only, but of both. Now the trial of adversity is a kind of firewhich is plainly spoken of in another place: “The furnaceproveth the potter’s vessels: and the furnace of adversityjust men.” [9] And this firedoes in the course of this life act exactly in the way the apostle says.If it come into contact with two believers, one “caring forthe things that belong to the Lord, how he may please theLord,” [10] that is, building uponChrist the foundation, gold, silver, precious stones; the other“caring for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife,” [11] that is, buildingupon the same foundation wood, hay, stubble,—the work of theformer is not burned, because he has not given his love to things whoseloss can cause him grief; but the work of the latter is burned, becausethings that are enjoyed with desire cannot be lost without pain. Butsince, by our supposition, even the latter prefers to lose these thingsrather than to lose Christ, and since he does not desert Christ out offear of losing them, though he is grieved when he does lose them, he issaved, but it is so as by fire; because the grief for what he loved andhas lost burns him. But it does not subvert nor consume him; for he isprotected by his immoveable and incorruptible foundation.

CHAP. 69.—: IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT SOME BELIEVERS MAY PASSTHROUGH A PURGATORIAL FIRE IN THE FUTURE LIFE.

And it is not impossible that something of the same kind may take placeeven after this life. It is a matter that may be inquired into, andeither ascertained or left doubtful, whether some believers shall passthrough a kind of purgatorial fire, and in proportion as they have lovedwith more or less devotion the goods that perish, be less or morequickly delivered from it. This cannot, however, be the case of any ofthose of whom it is said, that they “shall not inherit thekingdom of God,” [1] unless after suitablerepentance their sins be forgiven them. When I say“suitable,” I mean that they are not to beunfruitful in almsgiving; for Holy Scripture lays so much stress on thisvirtue, that our Lord tells us beforehand, that He will ascribe no meritto those on His right hand but that they abound in it, and no defect tothose on His left hand but their want of it, when He shall say to theformer, “Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit thekingdom,” and to the latter, “Depart from me, yecursed, into everlasting fire.” [2]

CHAP. 70.—: ALMSGIVING WILL NOT ATONE FOR SIN UNLESS THE LIFEBE 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 lifemust be changed for the better; and almsgiving must be used topropitiate God for past sins, not to purchase impunity for thecommission of such sins in the future. For He has given no man licenseto sin, [3] although in His mercy He may blot out sins that arealready committed, if we do not neglect to make proper satisfaction.

CHAP. 71.—: THE DAILY PRAYER OF THE BELIEVER MAKESSATISFACTION FOR THE TRIVIAL SINS THAT DAILY STAIN HIS LIFE.

Now the daily prayer of the believer makes satisfaction for those dailysins of a momentary and trivial kind which are necessary incidents ofthis life. For he can say, “Our Father which art inheaven,” [4] seeing that to such a Fatherhe is now born again of water and of the Spirit. [5] And this prayer certainlytakes away the very small sins of daily life. It takes away also thosewhich at one time made the life of the believer very wicked, but which,now that he is changed for the better by repentance, he has given up,provided that as truly as he says, “Forgive us ourdebts” (for there is no want of debts to be forgiven), sotruly does he say, “as we forgive ourdebtors;” [6] that is, provided he doeswhat he says he does: for to forgive a man who asks for pardon, isreally to give alms.

CHAP. 72.—: THERE ARE MANY KINDS OF ALMS, THE GIVING OF WHICHASSISTS 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 thingsare clean unto you,” [7] applies to every useful actthat a man does in mercy. Not only, then, the man who gives food to thehungry, drink to the thirsty, clothing to the naked, hospitality to thestranger, shelter to the fugitive, who visits the sick and theimprisoned, ransoms the captive, assists the weak, leads the blind,comforts the sorrowful, heals the sick, puts the wanderer on the rightpath, gives advice to the perplexed, and supplies the wants of theneedy,—not this man only, but the man who pardons the sinneralso gives alms; and the man who corrects with blows, or restrains byany kind of discipline one over whom he has power, and who at the sametime forgives from the heart the sin by which he was injured, or praysthat it may be forgiven, is also a giver of alms, not only in that heforgives, or prays for forgiveness for the sin, but also in that herebukes and corrects the sinner: for in this, too, he shows mercy. Nowmuch good is bestowed upon unwilling recipients, when their advantageand not their pleasure is consulted; and they themselves frequently prove to be their own enemies,while their true friends are those whom they take for their enemies, andto whom in their blindness they return evil for good. (A Christian,indeed, is not permitted to return evil even for evil. [1] ) And thus there are many kinds of alms, by givingof which we assist to procure the pardon of our sins.

CHAP. 73.—: THE GREATEST OF ALL ALMS IS TO FORGIVE OUR DEBTORSAND TO LOVE OUR ENEMIES.

But none of those is greater than to forgive from the heart a sin thathas been committed against us. For it is a comparatively small thing towish 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 exaltedgoodness, to love your enemy, and always to wish well to, and when youhave 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 prayfor them which persecute you.” [2] But seeing that this is aframe of mind only reached by the perfect sons of God, and that thoughevery believer ought to strive after it, and by prayer to God andearnest struggling with himself endeavor to bring his soul up to thisstandard, yet a degree of goodness so high can hardly belong to so greata multitude as we believe are heard when they use this petition,“Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors;”in view of all this, it cannot be doubted that the implied undertakingis fulfilled if a man, though he has not yet attained to loving hisenemy, yet, when asked by one who has sinned against him to forgive himhis sin, does forgive him from his heart. For he certainly desires to behimself forgiven when he prays, “as we forgive ourdebtors,” that is, Forgive us our debts when we begforgiveness, as we forgive our debtors when they beg forgiveness fromus.

CHAP. 74.—: GOD DOES NOT PARDON THE SINS OF THOSE WHO DO NOTFROM THE HEART FORGIVE OTHERS.

Now, he who asks forgiveness of the man against whom he has sinned, beingmoved by his sin to ask forgiveness, cannot be counted an enemy in sucha sense that it should be as difficult to love him now as it was when hewas engaged in active hostility. And the man who does not from his heartforgive him who repents of his sin, and asks forgiveness, need notsuppose 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, thatthe same person who said, “I am the Truth,” [3] taught us also this form of prayer; and in order to impress thisparticular petition deeply upon our minds, said, “For if yeforgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgiveyou; but if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will yourFather forgive your trespasses”? [4] The man whom the thunderof this warning does not awaken is not asleep, but dead; and yet sopowerful is that voice, that it can awaken even the dead.

CHAP. 75.—: THE WICKED AND THE UNBELIEVING ARE NOT MADE CLEANBY THE GIVING OF ALMS, EXCEPT THEY BE BORN AGAIN.

Assuredly, then, those who live in gross wickedness, and take no care toreform their lives and manners, and yet amid all their crimes and vicesdo not cease to give frequent alms, in vain take comfort to themselvesfrom the saying of our Lord: “Give alms of such things as yehave; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.” [5] For they do not understand how far this saying reaches. But that theymay understand this, let them hear what He says. For we read in theGospel as follows: “And as He spake, a certain Phariseebesought Him to dine with him; and He went in, and sat down to meat. Andwhen the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that He had not first washedbefore dinner. And the Lord said unto him, Now do ye Pharisees makeclean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part isfull of ravening and wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made thatwhich is without, make that which is within also? But rather give almsof such things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean untoyou.” [6] Are we to understand this as meaning thatto the Pharisees who have not the faith of Christ all things are clean,if only they give alms in the way these men count almsgiving, eventhough they have never believed in Christ, nor been born again of waterand of the Spirit? But the fact is, that all are unclean who are notmade clean by the faith of Christ, according to the expression,“purifying their hearts by faith;” [7] and that the apostle says, “Unto them that are defiled andunbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience isdefiled.” [8] How, then, could all things beclean to the Pharisees, even though they gavealms, if they were not believers? And how could they be believers ifthey were not willing to have faith in Christ, and to be born again ofHis grace? And yet what they heard is true: “Give alms ofsuch things as ye have; and, behold, all things are clean untoyou.”

CHAP. 76.—: TO GIVE ALMS ARIGHT, WE SHOULD BEGIN WITHOURSELVES, AND HAVE PITY UPON OUR OWN SOULS.

For the man who wishes to give alms as he ought, should begin withhimself, and give to himself first. For almsgiving is a work of mercy;and most truly is it said, “To have mercy on thy soul ispleasing to God.” [1] And for this end are weborn again, that we should be pleasing to God, who is justly displeasedwith that which we brought with us when we were born. This is our firstalms, which we give to ourselves when, through the mercy of a pityingGod, we find that we are ourselves wretched, and confess the justice ofHis judgment by which we are made wretched, of which the apostle says,“The judgment was by one to condemnation;” [2] and praise the greatness of His love, of which the same preacher ofgrace says, “God commendeth His love toward us, in that,while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us:” [3] andthus, judging truly of our own misery, and loving God with the lovewhich He has Himself bestowed, we lead a holy and virtuous life. But thePharisees, while they gave as alms the tithe of all their fruits, eventhe most insignificant, passed over judgment and the love of God, and sodid not commence their almsgiving at home, and extend their pity tothemselves in the first instance. And it is in reference to this orderof love that it is said, “Love thy neighbor asthyself.” [4] When, then, our Lord hadrebuked them because they made themselves clean on the outside, butwithin were full of ravening and wickedness, He advised them, in theexercise of that charity which each man owes to himself in the firstinstance, to make clean the inward parts. “Butrather,” He says, “give alms of such things as yehave; and, behold, all things are clean unto you.” [5] Then, to show what it was that He advised, and what they took no painsto do, and to show that He did not overlook or forget their almsgiving,“But woe unto you, Pharisees!” [5] He says; as if He meantto say: I indeed advise you to give alms which shall make all thingsclean unto you; “but woe unto you! for ye tithe mint, andrue, and all manner of herbs;” as if He meant to say: I knowthese alms of yours, and ye need not think that I am now admonishing youin respect of such things; “and pass over judgment and thelove of God,” an alms by which ye might have been made cleanfrom all inward impurity, so that even the bodies which ye are nowwashing would have been clean to you. For this is the import of“all things,” both inward and outward things, aswe read in another place: “Cleanse first that which iswithin, that the outside may be clean also.” [6] But lest He might appear to despise the alms whichthey were giving out of the fruits of the earth, He says:“These ought ye to have done,” referring tojudgment and the love of God, “and not to leave the otherundone,” referring to the giving of the tithes.

CHAP. 77.—: IF WE WOULD GIVE ALMS TO OURSELVES, WE MUST FLEEINIQUITY; 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 ofpersisting with impunity in their monstrous crimes and hideous vices,need not thus deceive themselves. For not only do they commit thesesins, but they love them so much that they would like to go on forevercommitting them, if only they could do so with impunity. Now, he wholoveth iniquity hateth his own soul; [7] and he who hateth his own soul is not merciful but cruel towards it. Forin loving it according to the world, he hateth it according to God. Butif he desired to give alms to it which should make all things clean untohim, he would hate it according to the world, and love it according toGod. Now no one gives alms unless he receive what he gives from one whois not in want of it. Therefore it is said, “His mercy shallmeet me.” [8]

CHAP. 78.—: WHAT SINS ARE TRIVIAL AND WHAT HEINOUS IS A MATTERFOR GOD’S JUDGMENT.

Now, what sins are trivial and what heinous is not a matter to be decidedby man’s judgment, but by the judgment of God. For it isplain that the apostles themselves have given an indulgence in the caseof certain sins: take, for example, what the Apostle Paul says to thosewho are married: “Defraud ye not one the other, except it bewith consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting andprayer: and come together again, that Satantempt you not for your incontinency.” [1] Now it is possible that itmight not have been considered a sin to have intercourse with a spouse,not with a view to the procreation of children, which is the greatblessing of marriage, but for the sake of carnal pleasure, and to savethe incontinent from being led by their weakness into the deadly sin offornication, or adultery, or another form of uncleanness which it isshameful even to name, and into which it is possible that they might bedrawn by lust under the temptation of Satan. It is possible, I say, thatthis might not have been considered a sin, had the apostle not added:“But I speak this by permission, and not ofcommandment.” [2] Who, then, can deny that it is a sin,when confessedly it is only by apostolic authority that permission isgranted to those who do it? Another case of the same kind is where hesays: “Dare any of you, having a matter against another, goto law before the unjust, and not before the saints?” [3] And shortly afterwards: “If then ye have judgments of thingspertaining to this life, set them to judge who are least esteemed in theChurch. I speak to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise manamong you? no, not one that shall be able to judge between his brethren?But brother goeth to law with brother, and that before theunbelievers.” [4] Now it might have beensupposed in this case that it is not a sin to have a quarrel withanother, that the only sin is in wishing to have it adjudicated uponoutside the Church, had not the apostle immediately added:“Now therefore there is utterly a fault among you, because yego to law with one another.” [5] And lest any one shouldexcuse himself by saying that he had a just cause, and was sufferingwrong, and that he only wished the sentence of the judges to remove hiswrong, the apostle immediately anticipates such thoughts and excuses,and says: “Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye notrather suffer yourselves to be defrauded?” Thus bringing usback to our Lord’s saying, “If any man will suethee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloakalso;” [6] and again, “Of himthat taketh away thy goods, ask them not again.” [7] Therefore our Lord has forbidden His followers to go to law with othermen about worldly affairs. And carrying out this principle, the apostlehere declares that to do so is “altogether afault.” But when, notwithstanding, he grants his permissionto have such cases between brethren decided in the Church, otherbrethren adjudicating, and only sternly forbids them to be carriedoutside the Church, it is manifest that here again an indulgence isextended to the infirmities of the weak. It is in view, then, of thesesins, and others of the same sort, and of others again more triflingstill, which consist of offenses in words and thought (as the ApostleJames confesses, “In many things we offendall” [8] ), that we need to pray every day and oftento the Lord, saying, “Forgive us our debts,” andto add in truth and sincerity, “as we forgive ourdebtors.”

CHAP. 79.—: SINS WHICH APPEAR VERY TRIFLING, ARE SOMETIMES INREALITY VERY SERIOUS.

Again, there are some sins which would be considered very trifling, ifthe Scriptures did not show that they are really very serious. For whowould suppose that the man who says to his brother, “Thoufool,” is in danger of hell-fire, did not He who is the Truthsay so? To the wound, however, He immediately applies the cure, giving arule for reconciliation with one’s offended brother:“Therefore, if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and thererememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave there thygift before the altar, and go thy way: first be reconciled to thybrother, and then come and offer thy gift.” [9] Again, who would suppose that it was so great a sinto observe days, and months, and times, and years, as those do who areanxious or unwilling to begin anything on certain days, or in certainmonths or years, because the vain doctrines of men lead them to thinksuch times lucky or unlucky, had we not the means of estimating thegreatness of the evil from the fear expressed by the apostle, who saysto such men, “I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed uponyou labor in vain”? [10]

CHAP. 80.—: SINS, HOWEVER GREAT AND DETESTABLE, SEEM TRIVIALWHEN WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO THEM.

Add to this, that sins, however great and detestable they may be, arelooked upon as trivial, or as not sins at all, when men get accustomedto them; and so far does this go, that such sins are not only notconcealed, but are boasted of, and published far and wide; and thus, asit is written, “The wicked boasteth of his heart’sdesire, and blesseth the covetous, whom the Lordabhorreth.” [11] Iniquity of this kind is inScripture called a cry. You have an instance in theprophet Isaiah, in the case of the evil vineyard: “He lookedfor judgment, but behold oppression; forrighteousness, but behold a cry.” [1] Whence also the expression inGenesis: “The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah isgreat,” [2] because in these citiescrimes were not only not punished, but were openly committed, as ifunder the protection of the law. And so in our own times: many forms ofsin, though not just the same as those of Sodom and Gomorrah, are now soopenly and habitually practised, that not only dare we not excommunicatea layman, we dare not even degrade a clergyman, for the commission ofthem. So that when, a few years ago, I was expounding the Epistle to theGalatians, in commenting on that very place where the apostle says,“I am afraid of you, lest I have bestowed labor upon you invain,” I was compelled to exclaim, “Woe to thesins of men! for it is only when we are not accustomed to them that weshrink from them: when once we are accustomed to them, though the bloodof the Son of God was poured out to wash them away, though they are sogreat that the kingdom of God is wholly shut against them, constantfamiliarity leads to the toleration of them all, and habitual tolerationleads to the practice of many of them. And grant, O Lord, that we maynot come to practise all that we have not the power tohinder.” But I shall see whether the extravagance of griefdid not betray me into rashness of speech.

CHAP. 81.—: THERE ARE TWO CAUSES OF SIN, IGNORANCE ANDWEAKNESS; AND WE NEED DIVINE HELP TO OVERCOME BOTH.

I shall now say this, which I have often said before in other places ofmy works. There are two causes that lead to sin: either we do not yetknow our duty, or we do not perform the duty that we know. The former isthe sin of ignorance, the latter of weakness. Now against these it isour 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 weclearly see it, to make the love of righteousness stronger in us thanthe love of earthly things, the eager longing after which, or the fearof losing which, leads us with our eyes open into known sin. In thelatter case we are not only sinners, for we are so even when we errthrough ignorance, but we are also transgressors of the law; for weleave undone what we know we ought to do, and we do what we know weought not to do. Wherefore not only ought we to pray for pardon when wehave sinned, saying, “Forgive us our debts, as we forgive ourdebtors;” but we ought to pray for guidance, that we may bekept from sinning, saying, “and lead us not intotemptation.” And we are to pray to Him of whom the Psalmistsays, “The Lord is my light and my salvation:” [3] my light, for He removes my ignorance; my salvation, for He takes awaymy infirmity.

CHAP. 82.—: THE MERCY OF GOD IS NECESSARY TO TRUEREPENTANCE.

Now even penance itself, when by the law of the Church there issufficient reason for its being gone through, is frequently evadedthrough infirmity; for shame is the fear of losing pleasure when thegood opinion of men gives more pleasure than the righteousness whichleads a man to humble himself in penitence. Wherefore the mercy of Godis necessary not only when a man repents, but even to lead him torepent. How else explain what the apostle says of certain persons:“if God peradventure will give themrepentance”? [4] And before Peter weptbitterly, we are told by the evangelist, “The Lord turned,and looked upon him.” [5]

CHAP. 83.—: THE MAN WHO DESPISES THE MERCY OF GOD IS GUILTY OFTHE 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 thelast day of his life in his obstinacy of heart, is guilty of theunpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, in whom Christ forgivessins. [6] But this difficult question I have discussed as clearly as I could in abook devoted exclusively to this one point.

CHAP. 84.—: THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY GIVES RISE TONUMEROUS QUESTIONS.

Now, as to the resurrection of the body,—not a resurrectionsuch 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 roseagain,—I do not see how I can discuss the matter briefly, andat the same time give a satisfactory answer to all the questions thatare ordinarily raised about it. Yet that the bodies of allmen—both those who have been born and those who shall beborn, both those who have died and those who shall die—shallbe raised again, no Christian ought to have the shadow of a doubt.

CHAP. 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 soborn that they could be born again. For if we shall decide that theseare to rise again, we cannot object to any conclusion that may be drawnin regard to those which are fully formed. Now who is there that is notrather disposed to think that unformed abortions perish, like seeds thathave never fructified? But who will dare to deny, though he may not dareto affirm, that at the resurrection every defect in the form shall besupplied, and that thus the perfection which time would have broughtshall not be wanting, any more than the blemishes which time did bringshall be present: so that the nature shall neither want anythingsuitable and in harmony with it that length of days would have added,nor be debased by the presence of anything of an opposite kind thatlength of days has added; but that what is not yet complete shall becompleted, just as what has been injured shall be renewed.

CHAP. 86.—: IF THEY HAVE EVER LIVED, THEY MUST OF COURSE HAVEDIED, AND THEREFORE SHALL HAVE A SHARE IN THE RESURRECTION OF THEDEAD.

And therefore the following question may be very carefully inquired intoand discussed by learned men, though I do not know whether it is inman’s power to resolve it: At what time the infant begins tolive in the womb: whether life exists in a latent form before itmanifests itself in the motions of the living being. To deny that theyoung who are cut out limb by limb from the womb, lest if they were leftthere dead the mother should die too, have never been alive, seems tooaudacious. Now, from the time that a man begins to live, from that timeit is possible for him to die. And if he die, wheresoever death mayovertake him, I cannot discover on what principle he can be denied aninterest in the resurrection of the dead.

CHAP. 87.—: THE CASE OF MONSTROUS BIRTHS.

We are not justified in affirming even of monstrosities, which are bornand live, however quickly they may die, that they shall not rise again,nor that they shall rise again in their deformity, and not rather withan amended and perfected body. God forbid that the double limbed man whowas lately born in the East, of whom an account was brought by mosttrustworthy brethren who had seen him,—an account which thepresbyter Jerome, of blessed memory, left in writing; [1] —God forbid, Isay, that we should think that at the resurrection there shall be oneman with double limbs, and not two distinct men, as would have been thecase had twins been born. And so other births, which, because they haveeither a superfluity or a defect, or because they are very muchdeformed, are called monstrosities, shall at theresurrection be restored to the normal shape of man; and so each singlesoul shall possess its own body; and no bodies shall cohere togethereven though they were born in cohesion, but each separately shallpossess all the members which constitute a complete human body.

CHAP. 88.—: THE MATERIAL OF THE BODY NEVER PERISHES.

Nor does the earthly material out of which men’s mortal bodiesare created ever perish; but though it may crumble into dust and ashes,or be dissolved into vapors and exhalations, though it may betransformed into the substance of other bodies, or dispersed into theelements, though it should become food for beasts or men, and be changedinto their flesh, it returns in a moment of time to that human soulwhich animated it at the first, and which caused it to become man, andto live and grow.

CHAP. 89.—: BUT THIS MATERIAL MAY BE DIFFERENTLY ARRANGED INTHE RESURRECTION BODY.

And this earthly material, which when the soul leaves it becomes acorpse, shall not at the resurrection be so restored as that the partsinto which it is separated, and which under various forms andappearances become parts of other things (though they shall all returnto the same body from which they were separated), must necessarilyreturn to the same parts of the body in which they were originallysituated. For otherwise, to suppose that the hair recovers all that ourfrequent clippings and shavings have taken away from it, and the nailsall that we have so often pared off, presents to the imagination such apicture of ugliness and deformity, as to make the resurrection of thebody all but incredible. But just as if a statue of some soluble metalwere either melted by fire, or broken into dust, or reduced to ashapeless mass, and a sculptor wished torestore it from the same quantity of metal, it would make no differenceto the completeness of the work what part of the statue any givenparticle of the material was put into, as long as the restored statuecontained all the material of the original one; so God, the Artificer ofmarvellous and unspeakable power, shall with marvellous and unspeakablerapidity restore our body, using up the whole material of which itoriginally consisted. Nor will it affect the completeness of itsrestoration whether hairs return to hairs, and nails to nails, orwhether the part of these that had perished be changed into flesh, andcalled to take its place in another part of the body, the great Artisttaking careful heed that nothing shall be unbecoming or out ofplace.

CHAP. 90.—: IF THERE BE DIFFERENCES AND INEQUALITIES AMONG THEBODIES OF THOSE WHO RISE AGAIN, THERE SHALL BE NOTHING OFFENSIVE ORDISPROPORTIONATE IN ANY.

Nor does it necessarily follow that there shall be differences of statureamong those who rise again, because they were of different staturesduring life; nor is it certain that the lean shall rise again in theirformer leanness, and the fat in their former fatness. But if it is partof the Creator’s design that each should preserve his ownpeculiarities of feature, and retain a recognizable likeness to hisformer self, while in regard to other bodily advantages all should beequal, then the material of which each is composed may be so modifiedthat none of it shall be lost, and that any defect may be supplied byHim who can create at His will out of nothing. But if in the bodies ofthose who rise again there shall be a well-ordered inequality, such asthere is in the voices that make up a full harmony, then the material ofeach man’s body shall be so dealt with that it shall form aman fit for the assemblies of the angels, and one who shall bringnothing among them to jar upon their sensibilities. And assuredlynothing that is unseemly shall be there; but whatever shall be thereshall be graceful and becoming: for if anything is not seemly, neithershall it be.

CHAP. 91.—: THE BODIES OF THE SAINTS SHALL AT THE RESURRECTIONBE 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. Fortheir ease of movement shall be as complete as their happiness. Whencetheir bodies have been called spiritual, thoughundoubtedly they shall be bodies and not spirits. For just as now thebody is called animate, though it is a body, andnot a soul [ anima ], so thenthe body shall be called spiritual, though it shall be a body, not aspirit. [1] Hence, as far asregards the corruption which now weighs down the soul, and the viceswhich urge the flesh to lust against the spirit, [2] it shall notthen be flesh, but body; for there are bodies which are calledcelestial. Wherefore it is said, “Flesh and blood cannotinherit the kingdom of God;” and, as if in explanation ofthis, “neither doth corruption inheritincorruption.” [3] What the apostle firstcalled “flesh and blood,” he afterwards calls“corruption;” and what he first called“the kingdom of God,” he afterwards calls“incorruption.” But as far as regards thesubstance, even then it shall be flesh. For even after the resurrectionthe body of Christ was called flesh. [4] The a postle, however,says: “It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritualbody;” [5] because so perfect shallthen be the harmony between flesh and spirit, the spirit keeping alivethe subjugated flesh without the need of any nourishment, that no partof our nature shall be in discord with another; but as we shall be freefrom enemies without, so we shall not have ourselves for enemieswithin.

CHAP. 92.—: THE RESURRECTION OF THE LOST.

But as for those who, out of the mass of perdition caused by the firstman’s sin, are not redeemed through the one Mediator betweenGod and man, they too shall rise again, each with his own body, but onlyto be punished with the devil and his angels. Now, whether they shallrise again with all their diseases and deformities of body, bringingwith them the diseased and deformed limbs which they possessed here, itwould be labor lost to inquire. For we need not weary ourselvesspeculating about their health or their beauty, which are mattersuncertain, when their eternal damnation is a matter of certainty. Norneed we inquire in what sense their body shall be incorruptible, if itbe susceptible of pain; or in what sense corruptible, if it be free fromthe possibility of death. For there is no true life except where thereis happiness in life, and no true incorruption except where health isunbroken by any pain. When, however, the unhappy are not permitted todie, then, if I may so speak, death itself dies not; and where painwithout intermission afflicts the soul, andnever comes to an end, corruption itself is not completed. This iscalled in Holy Scripture “the second death.” [1]

CHAP. 93.—: BOTH THE FIRST AND THE SECOND DEATHS ARE THECONSEQUENCE OF SIN. PUNISHMENT IS PROPORTIONED TO GUILT.

And neither the first death, which takes place when the soul is compelledto leave the body, nor the second death, which takes place when the soulis not permitted to leave the suffering body, would have been inflictedon man had no one sinned. And, of course, the mildest punishment of allwill fall upon those who have added no actual sin, to the original sinthey brought with them; and as for the rest who have added such actualsins, the punishment of each will be the more tolerable in the nextworld, according as his iniquity has been less in this world.

CHAP. 94.—: THE SAINTS SHALL KNOW MORE FULLY IN THE NEXT WORLDTHE BENEFITS THEY HAVE RECEIVED BY GRACE.

Thus, when reprobate angels and men are left to endure everlastingpunishment, the saints shall know more fully the benefits they havereceived by grace. Then, in contemplation of the actual facts, theyshall see more clearly the meaning of the expression in the psalms,“I will sing of mercy and judgment;” [2] forit is only of unmerited mercy that any is redeemed, and only inwell-merited judgment that any is condemned.

CHAP. 95.—: GOD’S JUDGMENTS SHALL THEN BEEXPLAINED.

Then shall be made clear much that is now dark. For example, when of twoinfants, whose cases seem in all respects alike, one is by the mercy ofGod chosen to Himself, and the other is by His justice abandoned(wherein the one who is chosen may recognize what was of justice due tohimself, had not mercy intervened); why, of these two, the one shouldhave been chosen rather than the other, is to us an insoluble problem.And again, why miracles were not wrought in the presence of men whowould have repented at the working of the miracles, while they werewrought 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 inyou, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long agoin sackcloth and ashes.” [3] And assuredly there was noinjustice in God’s not willing that they should be saved,though they could have been saved had He so willed it. Then shall beseen in the clearest light of wisdom what with the pious is now a faith,though it is not yet a matter of certain knowledge, how sure, howunchangeable, and how effectual is the will of God; how many things Hecan do which He does not will to do, though willing nothing which Hecannot perform; and how true is the song of the psalmist,“But our God is in the heavens; He hath done whatsoever Hehath pleased.” [4] And this certainly is nottrue, if God has ever willed anything that He has not performed; and,still worse, if it was the will of man that hindered the Omnipotent fromdoing what He pleased. Nothing, therefore, happens but by the will ofthe Omnipotent, He either permitting it to be done, or Himself doingit.

CHAP. 96.—: THE OMNIPOTENT GOD DOES WELL EVEN IN THEPERMISSION OF EVIL.

Nor can we doubt that God does well even in the permission of what isevil. For He permits it only in the justice of His judgment. And surelyall that is just is good. Although, therefore, evil, in so far as it isevil, is not a good; yet the fact that evil as well as good exists, is agood. For if it were not a good that evil should exist, its existencewould not be permitted by the omnipotent Good, who without doubt can aseasily refuse to permit what He does not wish, as bring about what Hedoes wish. And if we do not believe this, the very first sentence of ourcreed is endangered, wherein we profess to believe in God the FatherAlmighty. For He is not truly called Almighty if He cannot do whatsoeverHe pleases, or if the power of His almighty will is hindered by the willof any creature whatsoever.

CHAP. 97.—: IN WHAT SENSE DOES THE APOSTLE SAY THAT“GOD WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED,” WHEN, AS A MATTEROF FACT, ALL ARE NOT SAVED?

Hence we must inquire in what sense is said of God what the apostle hasmostly truly said: “Who will have all men to besaved.” [5] For, as a matter of fact, not all, noreven a majority, are saved: so that it would seem that what God wills isnot done, man’s will interfering with, and hindering the willof God. When we ask the reason why all men are not saved, the ordinaryanswer is: “Because men themselvesare not willing.” This, indeed, cannot be said of infants,for it is not in their power either to will or not to will. But if wecould attribute to their will the childish movements they make atbaptism, when they make all the resistance they can, we should say thateven they are not willing to be saved. Our Lord says plainly, however,in the Gospel, when upbraiding the impious city: “How oftenwould I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth herchickens under her wings, and ye would not!” [1] as if the will of God had been overcome by the willof men, and when the weakest stood in the way with their want of will,the will of the strongest could not be carried out. And where is thatomnipotence which hath done all that it pleased on earth and in heaven,if God willed to gather together the children of Jerusalem, and did notaccomplish it? or rather, Jerusalem was not willing that her childrenshould be gathered together? But even though she was unwilling, Hegathered together as many of her children as He wished: for He does notwill some things and do them, and will others and do them not; but“He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and inearth.”

CHAP. 98.—: PREDESTINATION TO ETERNAL LIFE IS WHOLLY OFGOD’S FREE GRACE.

And, moreover, who will be so foolish and blasphemous as to say that Godcannot change the evil wills of men, whichever, whenever, andwheresoever He chooses, and direct them to what is good? But when Hedoes this, He does it of mercy; when He does it not, it is of justicethat He does it not; for “He hath mercy on whom He will havemercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.” [2] And when the apostle saidthis, he was illustrating the grace of God, in connection with which hehad just spoken of the twins in the womb of Rebecca, “whobeing not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that thepurpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but ofHim that calleth, it was said unto her, The elder shall serve theyounger.” [3] And in reference to thismatter he quotes another prophetic testimony: “Jacob have Iloved, but Esau have I hated.” [4] But perceivinghow what he had said might affect those who could not penetrate by theirunderstanding the depth of this grace: “What shall we saythen?” he says: “Is there unrighteousness withGod? God forbid.” [5] For it seems unjust that, inthe absence of any merit or demerit, from good or evil works, God shouldlove the one and hate the other. Now, if the apostle had wished us tounderstand that there were future good works of the one, and evil worksof the other, which of course God foreknew, he would never have said,“not of works,” but, “of futureworks,” and in that way would have solved the difficulty, orrather there would then have been no difficulty to solve. As it is,however, after answering, “God forbid;” that is,God forbid that there should be unrighteousness with God; he goes on toprove that there is no unrighteousness in God’s doing this,and says: “For He saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom Iwill have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will havecompassion.” [6] Now, who buta fool would think that God was unrighteous, either in inflicting penaljustice on those who had earned it, or in extending mercy to theunworthy? Then he draws his conclusion: “So then it is not ofhim that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showethmercy.” [7] Thus both the twins were born children ofwrath, not on account of any works of their own, but because they werebound in the fetters of that original condemnation which came throughAdam. But He who said, “I will have mercy on whom I will havemercy,” loved Jacob of His undeserved grace, and hated Esauof His deserved judgment. And as this judgment was due to both, theformer learnt from the case of the latter that the fact of the samepunishment not falling upon himself gave him no room to glory in anymerit of his own, but only in the riches of the divine grace; because“it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, butof God that showeth mercy.” And indeeed the whole face, and,if I may use the expression, every lineament of the countenance ofScripture conveys by a very profound analogy this wholesome warning toevery one who looks carefully into it, that he who glories should gloryin the Lord. [8]

CHAP. 99.—: AS GOD’S MERCY IS FREE, SO HISJUDGMENTS ARE JUST, AND CANNOT BE GAINSAID.

Now after commending the mercy of God, saying, “So it is notof him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showethmercy,” that he might commend His justice also (for the manwho does not obtain mercy finds, not iniquity, but justice, there beingno iniquity with God), he immediately adds:“For the scripture saith unto Pharoah, Even for this samepurpose have I raised thee up, that I might show my power in thee, andthat my name might be declared throughout all the earth.” [1] And then he draws a conclusion that applies toboth, that is, both to His mercy and His justice: “Thereforehath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will Hehardeneth.” [2] “He hathmercy” of His great goodness, “Hehardeneth” without any injustice; so that neither can he thatis pardoned glory in any merit of his own, nor he that is condemnedcomplain of anything but his own demerit. For it is grace alone thatseparates the redeemed from the lost, all having been involved in onecommon perdition through their common origin. Now if any one, on hearingthis, should say, “Why doth He yet find fault? for who hathresisted His will?” [3] as if a man ought not to beblamed for being bad, because God hath mercy on whom He will have mercy,and whom He will He hardeneth, God forbid that we should be ashamed toanswer as we see the apostle answered: “Nay, but, O man, whoart thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to Himthat formed it, Why hast Thou made me thus? Hath not the potter powerover the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, andanother unto dishonor?” [4] Now some foolish peoplethink that in this place the apostle had no answer to give; and for wantof a reason to render, rebuked the presumption of his interrogator. Butthere is great weight in this saying: “Nay, but, O man, whoart thou?” and in such a matter as this it suggests to a manin a single word the limits of his capacity, and at the same time doesin reality convey an important reason. For if a man does not understandthese matters, who is he that he should reply against God? And if hedoes understand them, he finds no further room for reply. For then heperceives that the whole human race was condemned in its rebellious headby a divine judgment so just, that if not a single member of the racehad been redeemed, no one could justly have questioned the justice ofGod; and that it was right that those who are redeemed should beredeemed in such a way as to show, by the greater number who areunredeemed and left in their just condemnation, what the whole racedeserved, and whither the deserved judgment of God would lead even theredeemed, did not His undeserved mercy interpose, so that every mouthmight be stopped of those who wish to glory in their own merits, andthat he that glorieth might glory in the Lord. [5]

CHAP. 100.—: THE WILL OF GOD IS NEVER DEFEATED, THOUGH MUCH ISDONE THAT IS CONTRARY TO HIS WILL.

These are the great works of the Lord, sought out according to all Hispleasure, [6] and so wisely sought out, that when the intelligent creation, bothangelic and human, sinned, doing not His will but their own, He used thevery will of the creature which was working in opposition to theCreator’s will as an instrument for carrying out His will,the supremely Good thus turning to good account even what is evil, tothe condemnation of those whom in His justice He has predestined topunishment, and to the salvation of those whom in His mercy He haspredestined to grace. For, as far as relates to their own consciousness,these creatures did what God wished not to be done: but in view ofGod’s omnipotence, they could in no wise effect theirpurpose. For in the very fact that they acted in opposition to His will,His will concerning them was fulfilled. And hence it is that“the works of the Lord are great, sought out according to allHis pleasure,” because in a way unspeakably strange andwonderful, even what is done in opposition to His will does not defeatHis will. For it would not be done did He not permit it (and of courseHis permission is not unwilling, but willing); nor would a Good Beingpermit evil to be done only that in His omnipotence He can turn evilinto good.

CHAP. 101.—: THE WILL OF GOD, WHICH IS ALWAYS GOOD, ISSOMETIMES FULFILLED THROUGH THE EVIL WILL OF MAN.

Sometimes, however, a man in the goodness of his will desires somethingthat God does not desire, even though God’s will is alsogood, nay, much more fully and more surely good (for His will never canbe evil): for example, if a good son is anxious that his father shouldlive, 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 Hisgoodness: for example, if a bad son wishes his father to die, when thisis also the will of God. It is plain that the former wishes what Goddoes not wish, and that the latter wishes what God does wish; and yetthe filial love of the former is more in harmony with the good will ofGod, though its desire is different from God’s, than the wantof filial affection of the latter, though itsdesire is the same as God’s. So necessary is it, indetermining whether a man’s desire is one to be approved ordisapproved, to consider what it is proper for man, and what it isproper for God, to desire, and what is in each case the real motive ofthe will. For God accomplishes some of His purposes, which of course areall good, through the evil desires of wicked men: for example, it wasthrough the wicked designs of the Jews, working out the good purpose ofthe Father, that Christ was slain; and this event was so truly good,that when the Apostle Peter expressed his unwillingness that it shouldtake place, he was designated Satan by Him who had come to be slain. [1] How good seemed the intentions of the piousbelievers who were unwilling that Paul should go up to Jerusalem lestthe evils which Agabus had foretold should there befall him! [2] And yet it was God’s purpose that heshould suffer these evils for preaching the faith of Christ, and therebybecome a witness for Christ. And this purpose of His, which was good,God did not fulfill through the good counsels of the Christians, butthrough the evil counsels of the Jews; so that those who opposed Hispurpose were more truly His servants than those who were the willinginstruments of its accomplishment.

CHAP. 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 ofGod 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 isjust, and what is just is certainly not evil. The omnipotent God, then,whether in mercy He pitieth whom He will, or in judgment hardeneth whomHe will, is never unjust in what He does, never does anything except ofHis own free-will, and never wills anything that He does notperform.

CHAP. 103.—: INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION IN 1 TIM. II. 4:“WHO WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED.”

Accordingly, when we hear and read in Scripture that He “willhave all men to be saved,” [3] although we know well thatall men are not saved, we are not on that account to restrict theomnipotence of God, but are rather to understand the Scripture,“Who will have all men to be saved,” as meaningthat no man is saved unless God wills his salvation: not that there isno man whose salvation He does not will, but that no man is saved apartfrom His will; and that, therefore, we should pray Him to will oursalvation, because if He will it, it must necessarily be accomplished.And it was of prayer to God that the apostle was speaking when he usedthis expression. And on the same principle we interpret the expressionin the Gospel: “The true light which lighteth every man thatcometh into the world:” [4] not that there is no man who isnot enlightened, but that no man is enlightened except by Him. Or, it issaid, “Who will have all men to be saved;” notthat there is no man whose salvation He does not will (for how, then,explain the fact that He was unwilling to work miracles in the presenceof some who, He said, would have repented if He had worked them?), butthat we are to understand by “all men,” the humanrace in all its varieties of rank and circumstances,—kings,subjects; noble, plebeian, high, low, learned, and unlearned; the soundin body, the feeble, the clever, the dull, the foolish, the rich, thepoor, and those of middling circumstances; males, females, infants,boys, youths; young, middle-aged, and old men; of every tongue, of everyfashion, of all arts, of all professions, with all the innumerabledifferences of will and conscience, and whatever else there is thatmakes a distinction among men. For which of all these classes is thereout of which God does not will that men should be saved in all nationsthrough His only-begotten Son, our Lord, and therefore does save them;for the Omnipotent cannot will in vain, whatsoever He may will? Now theapostle had enjoined that prayers should be made for all men, and hadespecially added, “For kings, and for all that are inauthority,” who might be supposed, in the pride and pomp ofworldly station, to shrink from the humility of the Christian faith.Then saying, “For this is good and acceptable in the sight ofGod our Saviour,” that is, that prayers should be made forsuch as these, he immediately adds, as if to remove any ground ofdespair, “Who will have all men to be saved, and to come untothe knowledge of the truth.” [5] God, then, in His greatcondescension has judged it good to grant to the prayers of the humblethe salvation of the exalted; and assuredly we have many examples ofthis. Our Lord, too, makes use of the same mode of speech in the Gospel,when He says to the Pharisees: “Ye tithe mint, and rue, and every herb.” [1] For the Pharisees did not tithe whatbelonged to others, nor all the herbs of all the inhabitants of otherlands. As, then, in this place we must understand by “everyherb,” every kind of herbs, so in the former passage we mayunderstand by “all men,” every sort of men. And wemay interpret it in any other way we please, so long as we are notcompelled to believe that the omnipotent God has willed anything to bedone which was not done: for, setting aside all ambiguities, if“He hath done all that He pleased in heaven and inearth,” [2] as the psalmist sings of Him, Hecertainly did not will to do anything that He hath not done.

CHAP. 104.—: GOD, FOREKNOWING THE SIN OF THE FIRST MAN, ORDEREDHIS OWN PURPOSES ACCORDINGLY.

Wherefore, God would have been willing to preserve even the first man inthat state of salvation in which he was created, and after he hadbegotten sons to remove him at a fit time, without the intervention ofdeath, to a better place, where he should have been not only free fromsin, but free even from the desire of sinning, if He had foreseen thatman would have the steadfast will to persist in the state of innocencein which he was created. But as He foresaw that man would make a bad useof his free-will, that is, would sin, God arranged His own designsrather with a view to do good to man even in his sinfulness, that thusthe good will of the Omnipotent might not be made void by the evil willof man, but might be fulfilled in spite of it.

CHAP. 105.—: MAN WAS SO CREATED AS TO BE ABLE TO CHOOSE EITHERGOOD OR EVIL: IN THE FUTURE LIFE, THE CHOICE OF EVIL WILL BEIMPOSSIBLE.

Now it was expedient that man should be at first so created, as to haveit 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 punishmentif he willed the latter. But in the future life it shall not be in hispower to will evil; and yet this will constitute no restriction on thefreedom of his will. On the contrary, his will shall be much freer whenit shall be wholly impossible for him to be the slave of sin. We shouldnever think of blaming the will, or saying that it was no will, or thatit was not to be called free, when we so desire happiness, that not onlydo we shrink from misery, but find it utterly impossible to dootherwise. As, then, the soul even now finds it impossible to desireunhappiness, so in future it shall be wholly impossible for it to desiresin. But God’s arrangement was not to be broken, according towhich He willed to show how good is a rational being who is able even torefrain 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 wasimmortality, when it was possible for man to avoid death, although thereis reserved for the future a more perfect immortality, when it shall beimpossible for man to die.

CHAP. 106.—: THE GRACE OF GOD WAS NECESSARY TO MAN’SSALVATION 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, therecould have been no merit without grace; because, although the mereexercise of man’s free-will was sufficient to bring in sin,his free-will would not have sufficed for his maintenance inrighteousness, unless God had assisted it by imparting a portion of Hisunchangeable goodness. Just as it is in man’s power to diewhenever he will (for, not to speak of other means, any one can put anend to himself by simple abstinence from food), but the mere will cannotpreserve life in the absence of food and the other means of life; so manin paradise was able of his mere will, simply by abandoningrighteousness, to destroy himself; but to have maintained a life ofrighteousness would have been too much for his will, unless it had beensustained by the Creator’s power. After the fall, however, amore abundant exercise of God’s mercy was required, becausethe will itself had to be freed from the bondage in which it was held bysin and death. And the will owes its freedom in no degree to itself, butsolely to the grace of God which comes by faith in Jesus Christ; so thatthe very will, through which we accept all the other gifts of God whichlead us on to His eternal gift, is itself prepared of the Lord, as theScripture says. [3]

CHAP. 107.—: ETERNAL LIFE, THOUGH THE REWARD OF GOOD WORKS, ISITSELF THE GIFT OF GOD.

Wherefore, even eternal life itself, which issurely the reward of good works, the apostle calls the gift of God.“For the wages of sin,” he says, “isdeath; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ ourLord.” [1] Wages ( stipendium ) is paid as a recompense for military service; itis not a gift: wherefore he says, “the wages of sin is death,” to show that death was notinflicted undeservedly, but as the due recompense of sin. But a gift,unless it is wholly unearned, is not a gift at all. [2] We are to understand,then, that man’s good deserts are themselves the gift of God,so that when these obtain the recompense of eternal life, it is simplygrace given for grace. Man, therefore, was thus made upright that,though unable to remain in his uprightness without divine help, he couldof his own mere will depart from it. And whichever of these courses hehad chosen, God’s will would have been done, either by him,or concerning him. Therefore, as he chose to do his own will rather thanGod’s, the will of God is fulfilled concerning him; for God,out of one and the same heap of perdition which constitutes the race ofman, makes one vessel to honor, another to dishonor; to honor in mercy,to dishonor in judgment; [3] that no one may glory in man,and consequently not in himself.

CHAP. 108.—: A MEDIATOR WAS NECESSARY TO RECONCILE US TO GOD;AND UNLESS THIS MEDIATOR HAD BEEN GOD, HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OURREDEEMER.

For we could not be redeemed, even through the one Mediator between Godand men, the man Christ Jesus, if He were not also God. Now when Adamwas created, he, being a righteous man, had no need of a mediator. Butwhen sin had placed a wide gulf between God and the human race, it wasexpedient that a Mediator, who alone of the human race was born, lived,and died without sin, should reconcile us to God, and procure even forour bodies a resurrection to eternal life, in order that the pride ofman might be exposed and cured through the humility of God; that manmight be shown how far he had departed from God, when God becameincarnate to bring him back; that an example might be set to disobedientman in the life of obedience of the God-Man; that the fountain of gracemight be opened by the Only-begotten taking upon Himself the form of aservant, a form which had no antecedent merit; that an earnest of thatresurrection of the body which is promised to the redeemed might begiven in the resurrection of the Redeemer; that the devil might besubdued by the same nature which it was his boast to have deceived, andyet man not glorified, lest pride should again spring up; and, in fine,with a view to all the advantages which the thoughtful can perceive anddescribe, or perceive without being able to describe, as flowing fromthe transcendent mystery of the person of the Mediator.

CHAP. 109.—: THE STATE OF THE SOUL DURING THE INTERVAL BETWEENDEATH AND THE RESURRECTION.

During the time, moreover, which intervenes between a man’sdeath and the final resurrection, the soul dwells in a hidden retreat,where it enjoys rest or suffers affliction just in proportion to themerit it has earned by the life which it led on earth.

CHAP. 110.—: THE BENEFIT TO THE SOULS OF THE DEAD FROM THESACRAMENTS AND ALMS OF THEIR LIVING FRIENDS.

Nor can it be denied that the souls of the dead are benefited by thepiety of their living friends, who offer the sacrifice of the Mediator,or give alms in the church on their behalf. But these services are ofadvantage 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 lifewhich 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, onthe other hand, a kind of life so good as not to require them; andagain, 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 caneither relieve or aggravate a man’s sufferings after thislife. No one, then, need hope that after he is dead he shall obtainmerit with God which he has neglected to secure here. And accordingly itis plain that the services which the church celebrates for the dead arein no way opposed to the apostle’s words: “For wemust all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one mayreceive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done,whether it be good or bad;” [4] for themerit which renders such services as I speak of profitable to a man, isearned while he lives in the body. It is not to every one that theseservices are profitable. And why are they not profitable to all, exceptbecause of the different kinds of lives that men lead in the body? When,then, sacrifices either of the altar or ofalms are offered on behalf of all the baptized dead, they arethank-offerings for the very good, they are propitiatory offerings forthe not very bad, and in the case of the very bad, even though they donot assist the dead, they are a species of consolation to the living.And where they are profitable, their benefit consists either inobtaining a full remission of sins, or at least in making thecondemnation more tolerable.

CHAP. 111.—: AFTER THE RESURRECTION THERE SHALL BE TWO DISTINCTKINGDOMS, ONE OF ETERNAL HAPPINESS, THE OTHER OF ETERNAL MISERY.

After the resurrection, however, when the final, universal judgment hasbeen completed, there shall be two kingdoms, each with its own distinctboundaries, the one Christ’s, the other thedevil’s; the one consisting of the good, the other of thebad,—both, however, consisting of angels and men. The formershall have no will, the latter no power, to sin, and neither shall haveany power to choose death; but the former shall live truly and happilyin eternal life, the latter shall drag a miserable existence in eternaldeath without the power of dying; for the life and the death shall bothbe without end. But among the former there shall be degrees ofhappiness, one being more pre-eminently happy than another; and amongthe latter there shall be degrees of misery, one being more endurablymiserable than another.

CHAP. 112.—: THERE IS NO GROUND IN SCRIPTURE FOR THE OPINION OFTHOSE WHO DENY THE ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENTS.

It is in vain, then, that some, indeed very many, make moan over theeternal punishment, and perpetual, unintermitted torments of the lost,and say they do not believe it shall be so; not, indeed, that theydirectly oppose themselves to Holy Scripture, but, at the suggestion oftheir own feelings, they soften down everything that seems hard, andgive a milder turn to statements which they think are rather designed toterrify than to be received as literally true. For “HathGod,” they say, “forgotten to be gracious? hath Hein anger shut up His tender mercies?” [1] Now, they read this in oneof the holy psalms. But without doubt we are to understand it as spokenof those who are elsewhere called “vessels ofmercy,” [2] because even they are freedfrom misery not on account of any merit of their own, but solely throughthe pity of God. Or, if the men we speak of insist that this passageapplies to all mankind, there is no reason why they should thereforesuppose that there will be an end to the punishment of those of whom itis said, “These shall go away into everlastingpunishment;” for this shall end in the same manner and at thesame time as the happiness of those of whom it is said, “butthe righteous unto life eternal. [3] But let them suppose, ifthe thought gives them pleasure, that the pains of the damned are, atcertain intervals, in some degree assuaged. For even in this case thewrath of God, that is, their condemnation (for it is this, and not anydisturbed feeling in the mind of God that is called His wrath), abidethupon them; [4] that is, His wrath, though it still remains, does not shut up His tendermercies; though His tender mercies are exhibited, not in putting an endto their eternal punishment, but in mitigating, or in granting them arespite from, their torments; for the psalm does not say, “toput an end to His anger,” or, “when His anger ispassed by,” but “in His anger.” [5] Now, if this anger stood alone, or if it existed in the smallestconceivable degree, yet to be lost out of the kingdom of God, to be anexile from the city of God, to be alienated from the life of God, tohave no share in that great goodness which God hath laid up for themthat fear Him, and hath wrought out for them that trust in Him, [6] would be a punishment so great, that, supposing it to be eternal, notorments that we know of, continued through as many ages asman’s imagination can conceive, could be compared withit.

CHAP. 113.—: THE DEATH OF THE WICKED SHALL BE ETERNAL IN THESAME SENSE AS THE LIFE OF THE SAINTS.

This perpetual death of the wicked, then, that is, their alienation fromthe 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 avariety of punishments, or as to a mitigation or intermission of theirwoes; just as the eternal life of the saints shall abide for ever, andshall be common to them all, whatever grades of rank and honor there maybe among those who shine with an harmonious effulgence.

CHAP. 114.—: HAVING DEALT WITH FAITH, WE NOW COME TO SPEAK OFHOPE. EVERYTHING THAT PERTAINS TO HOPE IS EMBRACED IN THE LORD’SPRAYER.

Out of this confession of faith, which is briefly comprehended in the Creed, and which,carnally understood, is milk for babes, but, spiritually apprehended andstudied, is meat for strong men, springs the good hope of believers; and this is accompanied by a holy love. But of these matters, all of which are trueobjects of faith, those only pertain to hope which are embraced in theLord’s Prayer. For, “Cursed is the man thattrusteth in man” [1] is the testimony of holywrit; and, consequently, this curse attaches also to the man whotrusteth in himself. Therefore, except from God the Lord we ought to askfor nothing either that we hope to do well, or hope to obtain as areward of our good works.

CHAP. 115.—: THE SEVEN PETITIONS OF THE LORD’SPRAYER, ACCORDING TO MATTHEW.

Accordingly, in the Gospel according to Matthew the Lord’sPrayer seems to embrace seven petitions, three of which ask for eternalblessings, and the remaining four for temporal; these latter, however,being necessary antecedents to the attainment of the eternal. For whenwe say, “Hallowed be Thy name: Thy kingdom come: Thy will bedone in earth, as it is in heaven” [2] (which some haveinterpreted, not unfairly, in body as well as in spirit), we ask forblessings that are to be enjoyed for ever; which are indeed begun inthis world, and grow in us as we grow in grace, but in their perfectstate, which is to be looked for in another life, shall be a possessionfor evermore. But when we say, “Give us this day our dailybread: and forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors: and lead usnot into temptation, but deliver us from evil,” [3] who does not see that we ask for blessings thathave reference to the wants of this present life? In that eternal life,where we hope to live for ever, the hallowing of God’s name,and His kingdom, and His will in our spirit and body, shall be broughtto perfection, and shall endure to everlasting. But our daily bread is so called because there is here constant needfor as much nourishment as the spirit and the flesh demand, whether weunderstand the expression spiritually, or carnally, or in both senses.It is here too that we need the forgiveness that we ask, for it is herethat we commit the sins; here are the temptations which allure or driveus into sin; here, in a word, is the evil from which we desiredeliverance: but in that other world there shall be none of thesethings.

CHAP. 116.—: LUKE EXPRESSES THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE SEVENPETITIONS MORE BRIEFLY IN FIVE.

But the Evangelist Luke in his version of the Lord’s prayerembraces not seven, but five petitions: not, of course, that there isany discrepancy between the two evangelists, but that Luke indicates byhis very brevity the mode in which the seven petitions of Matthew are tobe understood. For God’s name is hallowed in the spirit; andGod’s kingdom shall come in the resurrection of the body.Luke, therefore, intending to show that the third petition is a sort ofrepetition of the first two, has chosen to indicate that by omitting thethird altogether. [4] Then he adds three others: one fordaily bread, another for pardon of sin, another for immunity fromtemptation. And what Matthew puts as the last petition, “butdeliver us from evil,” Luke has omitted, [4] to show us that it isembraced in the previous petition about temptation. Matthew, indeed,himself says, “ but deliver,”not “ and deliver,” as if toshow that the petitions are virtually one: do not this, but this; sothat every man is to understand that he is delivered from evil in thevery fact of his not being led into temptation.

CHAP. 117.—: LOVE, WHICH IS GREATER THAN FAITH AND HOPE, ISSHED ABROAD IN OUR HEARTS BY THE HOLY GHOST.

And now as to love, which the apostle declares to begreater than the other two graces, that is, than faith and hope, [5] the greater the measure in which it dwells in a man,the better is the man in whom it dwells. For when there is a question asto whether a man is good, one does not ask what he believes, or what hehopes, but what he loves. For the man who loves aright no doubt believesand hopes aright; whereas the man who has not love believes in vain,even though his beliefs are true; and hopes in vain, even though theobjects of his hope are a real part of true happiness; unless, indeed,he believes and hopes for this, that he may obtain by prayer theblessing of love. For, although it is not possible to hope without love,it may yet happen that a man does not love that which is necessary tothe attainment of his hope; as, for example, if he hopes for eternallife (and who is there that does not desire this?) and yet does not loverighteousness, without which no one can attain to eternal life. Now thisis the true faith of Christ which the apostlespeaks of, “which worketh by love;” [1] andif there is anything that it does not yet embrace in its love, asks thatit may receive, seeks that it may find, and knocks that it may be openedunto it. [2] For faith obtains through prayer that which the law commands. Forwithout the gift of God, that is, without the Holy Spirit, through whomlove is shed abroad in our hearts, [3] the law can command, but itcannot assist; and, moreover, it makes a man a transgressor, for he canno longer excuse himself on the plea of ignorance. Now carnal lustreigns where there is not the love of God.

CHAP. 118.—: THE FOUR STAGES OF THE CHRISTAIN’SLIFE, AND THE FOUR CORRESPONDING STAGES OF THE CHURCH’SHISTORY.

When, sunk in the darkest depths of ignorance, man lives according to theflesh, undisturbed by any struggle of reason or conscience, this is hisfirst state. Afterwards, when through the law has come the knowledge ofsin, and the Spirit of God has not yet interposed His aid, man, strivingto live according to the law, is thwarted in his efforts and falls intoconscious sin, and so, being overcome of sin, becomes its slave(“for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought inbondage” [4] ); and thus the effectproduced by the knowledge of the commandment is this, that sin workethin man all manner of concupiscence, and he is involved in the additionalguilt of willful transgression, and that is fulfilled which is written:“The law entered that the offense mightabound.” [5] This is man’ssecond state. But if God has regard to him, and inspires him with faithin God’s help, and the Spirit of God begins to work in him,then the mightier power of love strives against the power of the flesh;and although there is still in the man’s own nature a powerthat fights against him (for his disease is not completely cured), yethe lives the life of the just by faith, and lives in righteousness sofar as he does not yield to evil lust, but conquers it by the love ofholiness. This is the third state of a man of good hope; and he who bysteadfast piety advances in this course, shall attain at last to peace,that peace which, after this life is over, shall be perfected in therepose of the spirit, and finally in the resurrection of the body. Ofthese four different stages the first is before the law, the second isunder the law, the third is under grace, and the fourth is in full andperfect peace. Thus, too, has the history of God’s peoplebeen ordered according to His pleasure who disposeth all things innumber, and measure, and weight. [6] For the church existedat first before the law; then under the law, which was given by Moses;then under grace, which was first made manifest in the coming of theMediator. Not, indeed, that this grace was absent previously, but, inharmony with the arrangements of the time, it was veiled and hidden. Fornone, even of the just men of old, could find salvation apart from thefaith of Christ; nor unless He had been known to them could theirministry have been used to convey prophecies concerning Him to us, somemore plain, and some more obscure.

CHAP. 119.—: THE GRACE OF REGENERATION WASHES AWAY ALL PAST SINAND ALL ORIGINAL GUILT.

Now in whichever of these four stages (as we may call them) the grace ofregeneration finds any particular man, all his past sins are there andthen pardoned, and the guilt which he contracted in his birth is removedin his new birth; and so true is it that “the wind blowethwhere it listeth,” [7] that some have never knownthe second stage, that of slavery under the law, but have received thedivine assistance as soon as they received the commandment.

CHAP. 120.—: DEATH CANNOT INJURE THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED THEGRACE OF REGENERATION.

But before a man can receive the commandment, it is necessary that heshould live according to the flesh. But if once he has received thegrace of regeneration, death shall not injure him, even if he shouldforthwith depart from this life; “for to this end Christ bothdied, and rose, and revived, that He might be Lord both of the dead andthe living;” [8] nor shall death retaindominion over him for whom Christ freely died.

CHAP. 121.—: LOVE IS THE END OF ALL THE COMMANDMENTS, AND GODHIMSELF IS LOVE.

All the commandments of God, then, are embraced in love, of which theapostle says: “Now the end of the commandment is charity, outof a pure heart, and of a good conscience, and of faithunfeigned.” [9] Thus the end of everycommandment is charity, that is, every commandment has love for its aim.But whatever is done either through fear ofpunishment or from some other carnal motive, and has not for itsprinciple that love which the Spirit of God sheds abroad in the heart,is not done as it ought to be done, however it may appear to men. Forthis love embraces both the love of God and the love of our neighbor,and “on these two commandments hang all the law and theprophets,” [1] we mayadd the Gospel and the apostles. For it is from these that we hear thisvoice: The end of the commandment is charity, and God is love. [2] Wherefore, all God’s commandments, oneof which is, “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” [3] and all those precepts which are notcommandments but special counsels, one of which is, “It isgood for a man not to touch a woman,” [4] are rightly carried outonly when the motive principle of action is the love of God, and thelove of our neighbor in God. And this applies both to the present andthe future life. We love God now by faith, then we shall love Himthrough sight. Now we love even our neighbor by faith; for we who areourselves mortal know not the hearts of mortal men. But in the futurelife, the Lord “both will bring to light the hidden things ofdarkness, and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts, and thenshall every man have praise of God;” [5] for every man shall love andpraise in his neighbor the virtue which, that it may not be hid, theLord Himself shall bring to light. Moreover, lust diminishes as lovegrows, till the latter grows to such a height that it can grow no higherhere. For “greater love hath no man than this, that a man laydown his life for his friends.” [6] Who then can tell how greatlove shall be in the future world, when there shall be no lust for it torestrain and conquer? for that will be the perfection of health whenthere shall be no struggle with death.

CHAP. 122.—: CONCLUSION.

But now there must be an end at last to this volume. And it is foryourself to judge whether you should call it a hand-book, or should use it as such. I, however, thinking thatyour zeal in Christ ought not to be despised, and believing and hopingall good of you in dependence on our Redeemer’s help, andloving you very much as one of the members of His body, have, to thebest of my ability, written this book for you on Faith,Hope, and Love. May its value be equal to its length.

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON THE CATECHISING OF THEUNINSTRUCTED. [1]

IN ONE BOOK.

TRANSLATED BY REV. S. D. F. SALMOND, D.D., PROFESSOR OFSYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, ABERDEEN.

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.

IN the fourteenth chapter of the second book of his Retractations, Augustin makes the followingstatement: “There is also a book of ours on the subject ofthe Catechising of the Uninstructed, [or, for Instructing the Unlearned, DeCatechizandis Rudibus ], that being, indeed, theexpress title by which it is designated. In this book, where I havesaid, ‘ Neither did the angel, who, in companywith other spirits who were his satellites, forsook in pride theobedience of God, and became the devil, do any hurt to God, but tohimself; for God knoweth how to dispose of souls that leaveHim: ’ it would be more appropriate to say,‘ spirits that leave Him, ’inasmuch as the question dealt with angels. This book commences in theseterms: ‘ You have requested me, brotherDeogratias. ’ ”

The composition so described in the passage cited is reviewed by Augustinin connection with other works which he had in hand about the year 400 AD , and may therefore be taken to belong tothat date. It has been conjectured that the person to whom it isaddressed may perhaps be the same with the presbyter Deogratias, towhom, as we read in the epistle which now ranks as the hundred andsecond, Augustin wrote about the year 406, in reply to some questions ofthe 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 undertakesthe task of teaching the art of catechising; and in the first place, hegives certain injunctions, to the effect that this kind of duty may bedischarged not only in a settled method and an apt order, but alsowithout tediousness, and in a spirit of cheerfulness. Thereafterreducing his injunctions to practical use, he gives an example of whathe means by delivering two set discourses, presenting parallels to eachother, the one being somewhat lengthened and the other very brief, butboth suitable for the instruction of any individual whose desire is tobe a Christian.”

[This treatise shows what was thought in the age of SaintAugustin to be the most needful instruction in religion. The Latin text: De Catechizandis Rudibus, is in the sixth vol.of the Benedictine edition, and in the handy ed. of C. MARRIOTT: S. Augustini Opuscula quædam, Oxford andLondon (Parker Co.) 4th ed. 1885. An earlier and closerEnglish Version by Rev. C. L. CORNISH, M. A., ofExeter College, Oxford, appeared in the Oxford “Library ofthe Fathers” (1847, pp. 187 sqq.,) under the title On Instructing the Unlearned. H. DEROMESTIN reproduces the Oxford translation in the Englishversion of Marriott’s ed. of five treatises of St. Augustin,Oxford and London, 1885, pp. 1-71.—P. S.]

CONTENTS OF CATECHISING OF THEUNINSTRUCTED.

- CHAP. I.— How Augustin writes in answer to a favor askedby a deacon of Carthage, . . . . . . . PAGE 283

- CHAP. II.— How it often happens that a discourse whichgives pleasure to the hearer is distasteful to the speaker; and whatexplanation is to be offered of that fact, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283

- CHAP. III.— Of the full narration to be employed incatechising, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285

- CHAP. IV.— That the great reason for the advent ofChrist was the commendation of love, . . . . . . 286

- CHAP. V.— That the person who comes for catecheticalinstruction is to be examined with respect to his views, on desiring tobecome a Christian, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 288

- CHAP. VI.— Of the way to commence the catecheticalinstruction, and of the narration of facts from the history of theworld’s creation on to the present times of the Church, . . .. . . . . . . . . 288

- CHAP. VII.— Of the exposition of the Resurrection, theJudgment, and other subjects, which should follow this narration, . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289

- CHAP. VIII.— Of the method to be pursued in catechisingthose who have had a liberal education, . . . 290

- CHAP. IX.— Of the method in which grammarians andprofessional speakers are to be dealt with, . . . 291

- CHAP. X.— Of the attainment of cheerfulness in the dutyof catechising, and of various causes producing weariness in thecatechumen, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292

- CHAP. XI.— Of the remedy for the second source ofweariness, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 294

- CHAP. XII.— Of the remedy for the third source ofweariness, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295

- CHAP. XIII.— Of the remedy for the fourth source ofweariness, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296

- CHAP. XIV.— Of the remedy against the fifth and sixthsources of weariness, . . . . . . . . . . 297

- CHAP. XV.— Of the method in which our address should beadapted to different classes of hearers, . . . 298

- CHAP. XVI.— A specimen of a catechetical address; andfirst, the case of a catechumen with worthy views, 299

- CHAP. XVII.— The specimen of a catechetical discoursecontinued, in reference specially to the reproval of false aims on thecatechumen’s part, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 301

- CHAP. XVIII.— Of what is to be believed on the subjectof the creation of man and other objects, . . . 302

- CHAP. XIX.— Of the co-existence of good and evil in theChurch, and their final separation, . . . . . 303

- CHAP. XX.— Of Israel’s bondage in Egypt,their deliverance, and their passage through the Red Sea, . . 304

- CHAP. XXI.— Of the Babylonish captivity, and the thingssignified thereby, . . . . . . . . . . 305

- CHAP. XXII.— Of the six ages of the world, . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

- CHAP. XXIII.— Of the mission of the Holy Ghost fiftydays after Christ’s Resurrection, . . . . . . 308

- CHAP. XXIV.— Of the Church in its likeness to a vinesprouting and suffering pruning, . . . . . . 309

- CHAP. XXV.— Of constancy in the faith of theResurrection, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310

- CHAP. XXVI.— Of the formal admission of the catechumen,and of the signs therein made use of, . . . 312

- CHAP. XXVII.— Of the prophecies of the Old Testament intheir visible fulfillment in the Church, . . . 313

CHAP. 1.—: HOW AUGUSTIN WRITES IN ANSWER TO A FAVOR ASKED BYA DEACON OF CARTHAGE.

1. YOU have requested me, brother Deogratias, to sendyou in writing something which might be of service to you in the matterof catechising the uninstructed. For you have informed me that inCartliage, where you hold the position of a deacon, persons, who have tobe taught the Christian faith from its very rudiments, are frequentlybrought to you by reason of your enjoying the reputation of possessing arich gift in catechising, due at once to an intimate acquaintance withthe faith, and to an attractive method of discourse; [2] but that you almost always findyourself in a difficulty as to the manner in which a suitabledeclaration is to be made of the precise doctrine, the belief of whichconstitutes us Christians: regarding the point at which our statement ofthe same ought to commence, and the limit to which it should be allowedto proceed: and with respect to the question whether, when our narrationis concluded, we ought to make use of any kind of exhortation, or simplyspecify those precepts in the observance of which the person to whom weare discoursing may know the Christian life and profession to bemaintained. [3] Atthe same time, you have made the confession and complaint that it hasoften befallen you that in the course of a lengthened and languidaddress you have become profitless and distasteful even to yourself, notto speak of the learner whom you have been endeavoring to instruct byyour utterance, and the other parties who have been present as hearers;and that you have been constrained by these straits to put upon me theconstraint of that love which I owe to you, so that I may not feel it aburdensome thing among all my engagements to write you something on thissubject.

2. As for myself then, if, inthe exercise of those capacities which through the bounty of our Lord Iam enabled to present, the same Lord requires me to offer any manner ofaid to those whom He has made brethren to me, I feel constrained notonly by that love and service which is due from me to you on the termsof familiar friendship, but also by that which I owe universally to mymother the Church, by no means to refuse the task, but rather to take itup with a prompt and devoted willingness. For the more extensively Idesire to see the treasure of the Lord [4] distributed, the more does it become myduty, if I ascertain that the stewards, who are my fellow-servants, findany difficulty in laying it out, to do all that lies in my power to theend that they may be able to accomplish easily and expeditiously whatthey sedulously and earnestly aim at.

CHAP. 2.—: HOW IT OFTEN HAPPENS THAT A DISCOURSE WHICH GIVESPLEASURE TO THE HEARER IS DISTASTEFUL TO THE SPEAKER; AND WHAT EXPLANATIONIS TO BE OFFERED OF THAT FACT.

3. But as regards the idea thusprivately entertained by yourself in such efforts, I would not have you to be disturbed by the considerationthat you have often appeared to yourself to be delivering a poor andwearisome discourse. For it may very well be the case that the matterhas not so presented itself to the person whom you were trying toinstruct, but that what you were uttering seemed to you to be unworthyof the ears of others, simply because it was your own earnest desirethat there should be something better to listen to. Indeed with me, too,it is almost always the fact that my speech displeases myself. For I amcovetous of something better, the possession of which I frequently enjoywithin me before I commence to body it forth in intelligible words: [1] andthen when my capacities of expression prove inferior to my innerapprehensions, I grieve over the inability which my tongue has betrayedin answering to my heart. For it is my wish that he who hears me shouldhave the same complete understanding of the subject which I have myself;and I perceive that I fail to speak in a manner calculated to effectthat, and that this arises mainly from the circumstance that theintellectual apprehension diffuses itself through the mind withsomething like a rapid flash, whereas the utterance is slow, andoccupies time, and is of a vastly different nature, so that, while thislatter is moving on, the intellectual apprehension has already withdrawnitself within its secret abodes. Yet, in consequence of its havingstamped certain impressions of itself in a marvellous manner upon thememory, these prints endure with the brief pauses of the syllables; [2] and as theoutcome of these same impressions we form intelligible signs, [3] which get thename of a certain language, either the Latin, or the Greek, or theHebrew, or some other. And these signs may be objects of thought, orthey may also be actually uttered by the voice. On the other hand,however, the impressions themselves are neither Latin, nor Greek, norHebrew, nor peculiar to any other race whatsoever, but are made good inthe mind just as looks are in the body. For anger is designated by oneword in Latin, by another in Greek, and by different terms in otherlanguages, according to their several diversities. But the look of theangry man is neither (peculiarly) Latin nor (peculiarly) Greek. Thus itis that when a person says Iratus sum, [4] heis not understood by every nation, but only by the Latins; whereas, ifthe mood of his mind when it is kindling to wrath comes forth upon theface and affects the look, all who have the individual within their viewunderstand that he is angry. But, again, it is not in our power to bringout those impressions which the intellectual apprehension stamps uponthe memory, and to hold them forth, as it were, to the perception of thehearers by means of the sound of the voice, in any manner parallel tothe clear and evident form in which the look appears. For those formerare within in the mind, while this latter is without in the body.Wherefore we have to surmise how far the sound of our mouth must be fromrepresenting that stroke of the intelligence, seeing that it does notcorrespond even with the impression produced upon the memory. Now, it isa common occurrence with us that, in the ardent desire to effect what isof profit to our hearer, our aim is to express ourselves to him exactlyas our intellectual apprehension is at the time, when, in the veryeffort, we are failing in the ability to speak; and then, because thisdoes not succeed with us, we are vexed, and we pine in weariness as ifwe were applying ourselves to vain labors; and, as the result of thisvery weariness, our discourse becomes itself more languid and pointlesseven than it was when it first induced such a sense of tediousness.

4. But ofttimes the earnestnessof those who are desirous of hearing me shows me that my utterance isnot so frigid as it seems to myself to be. From the delight, too, whichthey exhibit, I gather that they derive some profit from it. And Ioccupy myself sedulously with the endeavor not to fail in putting beforethem a service in which I perceive them to take in such good part whatis put before them. Even, so, on your side also, the very fact thatpersons who require to be instructed in the faith are brought sofrequently to you, ought to help you to understand that your discourseis not displeasing to others as it is displeasing to yourself; and youought not to consider yourself unfruitful, simply because you do notsucceed in setting forth in such a manner as you desire the things whichyou discern; for, perchance, you may be just as little able to discernthem in the way you wish. For in this life who sees except as“in an enigma and through a glass”? [5] Neither is love itself of might sufficient to rendthe darkness of the flesh, and penetrate into that eternal calm fromwhich even things which pass away derive the light in which they shine.But inasmuch as day by day the good are making advances towards thevision of that day, independent of therolling sky, [1] and without theinvasion of the night, “which eye hath not seen, nor earheard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man,” [2] there is no greater reason why our discourse should become valueless inour own estimate, when we are engaged in teaching the uninstructed, thanthis,—namely, that it is a delight to us to discern in anextraordinary fashion, and a weariness to speak in an ordinary. And inreality we are listened to with much greater satisfaction, indeed, whenwe ourselves also have pleasure in the same work; for the thread of ouraddress is affected by the very joy of which we ourselves are sensible,and it proceeds from us with greater ease and with more acceptance.Consequently, as regards those matters which are recommended as articlesof belief, the task is not a difficult one to lay down injunctions, withrespect to the points at which the narration should be commenced andended, or with respect to the method in which the narration is to bevaried, so that at one time it may be briefer, at another morelengthened, and yet at all times full and perfect; and, again, withrespect to the particular occasions on which it may be right to use theshorter form, and those on which it will be proper to employ the longer.But as to the means by which all is to be done, so that every one mayhave pleasure in his work when he catechises (for the better he succeedsin this the more attractive will he be),—that is whatrequires the greatest consideration. And yet we have not far to seek forthe precept which will rule in this sphere. For if, in the matter ofcarnal means, God loves a cheerful giver, [3] how much more so in that ofthe spiritual? But our security that this cheerfulness may be with us atthe seasonable hour, is something dependent upon the mercy of Him whohas given us such precepts. Therefore, in accordance with myunderstanding of what your own wish is, we shall discuss in the firstplace the subject of the method of narration, then that of the duty ofdelivering injunction and exhortation, and afterwards that of theattainment of the said cheerfulness, so far as God may furnish us withthe ideas.

CHAP. 3.—: OF THE FULL NARRATION TO BE EMPLOYED INCATECHISING.

5. The narration is full wheneach person is catechised in the first instance from what is written inthe text, “In the beginning God created the heaven and theearth,” [4] on to the present times of theChurch. This does not imply, however, either that we ought to repeat bymemory the entire Pentateuch, and the entire Books of Judges, and Kings,and Esdras, [5] and theentire Gospel and Acts of the Apostles, if we have learned all theseword for word; or that we should put all the matters which are containedin these volumes into our own words, and in that manner unfold andexpound them as a whole. For neither does the time admit of that, nordoes any necessity demand it. But what we ought to do is, to give acomprehensive statement of all things, summarily and generally, so thatcertain of the more wonderful facts may be selected which are listenedto with superior gratification, and which have been ranked so remarkablyamong the exact turning-points (of the history); [6] that, instead of exhibiting them to view only intheir wrappings, if we may so speak, and then instantly snatching themfrom our sight, we ought to dwell on them for a certain space, and thus,as it were, unfold them and open them out to vision, and present them tothe minds of the hearers as things to be examined and admired. But asfor all other details, these should be passed over rapidly, and thus farintroduced and woven into the narrative. The effect of pursuing thisplan is, that the particular facts which we wish to see speciallycommended to attention obtain greater prominence in consequence of theothers being made to yield to them; while, at the same time, neitherdoes the learner, whose interest we are anxious to stimulate by ourstatement, come to these subjects with a mind already exhausted, nor isconfusion induced upon the memory of the person whom we ought to beinstructing by our teaching.

6. In all things, indeed, notonly ought our own eye to be kept fixed upon the end of the commandment,which is “charity, out of a pure heart, and a goodconscience, and faith unfeigned,” [7] to which we should make allthat we utter refer; but in like manner ought the gaze of the personwhom we are instructing by our utterance to be moved [8] toward the same, andguided in that direction. And, in truth, for no other reason were allthose things which we read in the Holy Scriptures written, previous tothe Lord’s advent, but for this,—namely, that Hisadvent might be pressed upon the attention, and that the Church which was to be, should be intimatedbeforehand, that is to say, the people of God throughout all nations;which Church is His body, wherewith also are united and numbered all thesaints who lived in this world, even before His advent, and who believedthen in His future coming, just as we believe in His past coming. For(to use an illustration) Jacob, at the time when he was being born,first put forth from the womb a hand, with which also he held the footof the brother who was taking priority of him in the act of birth; andnext indeed the head followed, and thereafter, at last, and as matter ofcourse, the rest of the members: [1] while, nevertheless the headin point of dignity and power has precedence, not only of those memberswhich followed it then, but also of the very hand which anticipated itin the process of the birth, and is really the first, although not inthe matter of the time of appearing, at least in the order of nature.And in an analogous manner, the Lord Jesus Christ, previous to Hisappearing in the flesh, and coming forth in a certain manner out of thewomb of His secrecy, before the eyes of men as Man, the Mediator betweenGod and men, [2] “who is over all, God blessed for ever,” [3] sent before Him, in the person of the holy patriarchs and prophets, acertain portion of His body, wherewith, as by a hand, He gave tokenbeforetime of His own approaching birth, and also supplanted [4] the people who were prior to Himin their pride, using for that purpose the bonds of the law, as if theywere His five fingers. For through five epochs of times [5] there was no cessation in theforetelling and prophesying of His own destined coming; and in a mannerconsonant with this, he through whom the law was given wrote five books;and proud men, who were carnally minded, and sought to“establish their own righteousness,” [6] were not filled with blessing by the open hand of Christ, but weredebarred from such good by the hand compressed and closed; and thereforetheir feet were tied, and “they fell, while we are risen, andstand upright.” [7] But although, as I have said,the Lord Christ did thus send before Him a certain portion of His body,in the person of those holy men who came before Him as regards the timeof birth, nevertheless He is Himself the Head of the body, theChurch, [8] and all these have been attached to that same body of which He is thehead, in virtue of their believing in Him whom they announcedprophetically. For they were not sundered (from that body) inconsequence of fulfilling their course before Him, but rather were theymade one with the same by reason of their obedience. For although thehand may be put forward away before the head, still it has itsconnection beneath the head. Wherefore all things which were writtenaforetime were written in order that we might be taught thereby, [9] and were our figures, and happened in a figure in the case of these men.Moreover they were written for our sakes, upon whom the end of the ageshas come. [10]

CHAP. 4.—: THAT THE GREAT REASON FOR THE ADVENT OF CHRIST WASTHE COMMENDATION OF LOVE.

7. Moreover, what greater reasonis apparent for the advent of the Lord than that God might show His lovein us, commending it powerfully, inasmuch as “while we wereyet sinners, Christ died for us”? [11] And furthermore, this iswith the intent that, inasmuch as charity is “the end of thecommandment,” [12] and “thefulfilling of the law,” [13] we also may love oneanother and lay down our life for the brethren, even as He laid down Hislife for us. [14] And with regard to God Himself, its object is that,even if it were an irksome task to love Him, it may now at least ceaseto be irksome for us to return His love, seeing that “Hefirst loved us,” [15] and “sparednot His own only Son, but delivered Him up for us all.” [16] For their is no mightier invitation to love than toanticipate in loving; and that soul is over hard which, supposing itunwilling indeed to give love, is unwilling also to give the return oflove. But if, even in the case of criminal and sordid loves, we see howthose who desire to be loved in return make it their special andabsorbing business, by such proofs as are within their power, to renderthe strength of the love which they themselves bear plain and patent; ifwe also perceive how they affect to put forward an appearance of justicein what they thus offer, such as may qualify them in some sort to demandthat a response be made in all fairness to them on the part of thosesouls which they are laboring to beguile; if, further, their own passionburns more vehemently when they observe that the minds which they areeager to possess are also moved now by the same fire: if thus, I say, ithappens at once that the soul which before was torpid is excited so soonas it feels itself to be loved, and that thesoul which was enkindled already becomes the more inflamed so soon as itis made cognizant of the return of its own love, it is evident that nogreater reason is to be found why love should be either originated orenlarged, than what appears in the occasion when one who as yet lovesnot at all comes to know himself to be the object of love, or when onewho is already a lover either hopes that he may yet be loved in turn, orhas by this time the evidence of a response to his affection. And ifthis holds good even in the case of base loves, how much more [1] in (true)friendship? For what else have we carefully to attend to in thisquestion touching the injuring of friendship than to this, namely, notto give our friend cause to suppose either that we do not love him atall, or that we love him less than he loves us? If, indeed, he is led toentertain this belief, he will be cooler in that love in which men enjoythe interchange of intimacies one with another; and if he is not of thatweak type of character to which such an offense to affection will serveas a cause of freezing off from love altogether, he yet confines himselfto that kind of affection in which he loves, not with the view ofenjoyment to himself, but with the idea of studying the good of others.But again it is worth our while to notice how,—althoughsuperiors also have the wish to be loved by their inferiors, and aregratified with the zealous attention [2] paid to them by such, and themselvescherish greater affection towards these inferiors the more they becomecognizant of that,—with what might of love, nevertheless, theinferior kindles so soon as he learns that he is beloved by hissuperior. For there have we love in its more grateful aspect, where itdoes not consume itself [3] in the drought of want, butflows forth in the plenteousness of beneficence. For the former type oflove is of misery, the latter of mercy. [4] And furthermore, if theinferior was despairing even of the possibility of his being loved byhis superior, he will now be inexpressibly moved to love if the superiorhas of his own will condescended to show how much he loves this personwho could by no means be bold enough to promise himself so great a good.But what is there superior to God in the character of Judge? and whatmore desperate than man in the character of sinner?—than man,I ask, who had given himself all the more unreservedly up to thewardship and domination of proud powers which are unable to make himblessed, as he had come more absolutely to despair of the possibility ofhis being an object of interest to that power which wills not to beexalted in wickedness, but is exalted in goodness.

8. If, therefore, it was mainlyfor this purpose that Christ came, to wit, that man might learn how muchGod loves him; and that he might learn this, to the intent that he mightbe kindled to the love of Him by whom he was first loved, and might alsolove his neighbor at the command and showing of Him who became ourneighbor, in that He loved man when, instead of being a neighbor to Him,he was sojourning far apart: if, again, all divine Scripture, which waswritten aforetime, was written with the view of presignifying theLord’s advent; and if whatever has been committed to writingin times subsequent to these, and established by divine authority, is arecord of Christ, and admonishes us of love, it is manifest that onthose two commandments of love to God and love to our neighbor [5] hang not only all the law and the prophets, which atthe time when the Lord spoke to that effect were as yet the only HolyScripture, but also all those books of the divine literature which havebeen written [6] at a later period for our health, andconsigned to remembrance. Wherefore, in the Old Testament there is aveiling of the New, and in the New Testament there is a revealing of theOld. According to that veiling, carnal men, understanding things in acarnal fashion, have been under the dominion, both then and now, of apenal fear. According to this revealing, on the other hand, spiritualmen,—among whom we reckon at once those then who knocked inpiety and found even hidden things opened to them, and others now whoseek in no spirit of pride, lest even things uncovered should be closedto them,—understanding in a spiritual fashion, have been madefree through the love wherewith they have been gifted. Consequently,inasmuch as there is nothing more adverse to love than envy, and aspride is the mother of envy, the same Lord Jesus Christ, God-man, isboth a manifestation of divine love towards us, and an example of humanhumility with us, to the end that our great swelling might be cured by agreater counteracting remedy. For here is great misery, proud man! Butthere is greater mercy, a humble God! Take this love, therefore, as theend that is set before you, to which you areto refer all that you say, and, whatever you narrate, narrate it in sucha manner that he to whom you are discoursing on hearing may believe, onbelieving may hope, on hoping may love.

CHAP. 5.—: THAT THE PERSON WHO COMES FOR CATECHETICALINSTRUCTION IS TO BE EXAMINED WITH RESPECT TO HIS VIEWS, ON DESIRING TOBECOME A CHRISTIAN.

9. Moreover, it is on the goundof that very severity of God, [1] bywhich the hearts of mortals are agitated with a most wholesome terror,that love is to be built up; so that, rejoicing that he is loved by Himwhom he fears, man may have boldness to love Him in return, and yet atthe same time be afraid to displease His love toward himself, evenshould he be able to do so with impunity. For certainly it very rarelyhappens, nay, I should rather say, never, that any one approaches uswith the wish to become a Christian who has not been smitten with somesort of fear of God. For if it is in the expectation of some advantagefrom men whom he deems himself unlikely to please in any other way, orwith the idea of escaping any disadvantage at the hands of men of whosedispleasure or hostility he is seriously afraid, that a man wishes tobecome a Christian, then his wish to become one is not so earnest as hisdesire to feign one. [2] For faith is not a matter of thebody which does obeisance, [3] but of the mind which believes.But unmistakeably it is often the case that the mercy of God comes to bepresent through the ministry of the catechiser, so that, affected by thediscourse, the man now wishes to become in reality that which he hadmade up his mind only to feign. And so soon as he begins to have thismanner of desire, we may judge him then to have made a genuine approachto us. It is true, indeed, that the precise time when a man, whom weperceive to be present with us already in the body, comes to us inreality with his mind, [4] is a thing hidden from us.But, notwithstanding that, we ought to deal with him in such a mannerthat this wish may be made to arise within him, even should it not bethere at present. For no such labor is lost, inasmuch as, if there isany wish at all, it is assuredly strengthened by such action on ourpart, although we may be ignorant of the time or the hour at which itbegan. It is useful certainly, if it can be done, to get from those whoknow the man some idea beforehand of the state of mind in which he is,or of the causes which have induced him to come with the view ofembracing religion. But if there is no other person available from whomwe may gather such information, then, indeed, the man himself is to beinterrogated, so that from what he says in reply we may draw thebeginning of our discourse. Now if he has come with a false heart,desirous only of human advantages or thinking to escape disadvantages,he will certainly speak what is untrue. Nevertheless, the very untruthwhich he utters should be made the point from which we start. Thisshould not be done, however, with the (open) intention of confuting hisfalsehood, as if that were a settled matter with you; but, taking it forgranted that he has professed to have come with a purpose which isreally worthy of approbation (whether that profession be true or false),it should rather be our aim to commend and praise such a purpose as thatwith which, in his reply, he has declared himself to have come; so thatwe may make him feel it a pleasure to be the kind of man actually thathe wishes to seem to be. On the other hand, supposing him to have givena declaration of his views other than what ought to be before the mindof one who is to be instructed in the Christian faith, then by reprovinghim with more than usual kindness and gentleness, as a personuninstructed and ignorant, by pointing out and commending, concisely andin a grave spirit the end of Christian doctrine in its genuine reality,and by doing all this in such a manner as neither to anticipate thetimes of a narration, which should be given subsequently, nor to ventureto impose that kind of statement upon a mind not previously set for it,you may bring him to desire that which, either in mistake or indissimulation, he has not been desiring up to this stage.

CHAP. 6.—: OF THE WAY TO COMMENCE THE CATECHETICALINSTRUCTION, AND OF THE NARRATION OF FACTS FROM THE HISTORY OF THEWORLD’S CREATION ON TO THE PRESENT TIMES OF THE CHURCH.

10. But if it happens that hisanswer is to the effect that he has met with some divine warning, orwith some divine terror, prompting him to become a Christian, this opensup the way most satisfactorily for a commencement to our discourse, bysuggesting the greatness of God’s interest in us. Histhoughts, however, ought certainly to beturned away from this line of things, whether miracles or dreams, anddirected to the more solid path and the surer oracles of the Scriptures;so that he may also come to understand how mercifully that warning wasadministered to him in advance, [1] previous to his giving himself to the HolyScriptures. And assuredly it ought to be pointed out to him, that theLord Himself would neither thus have admonished him and urged him on tobecome a Christian, and to be incorporated into the Church, nor havetaught him by such signs or revelations, had it not been His will that,for his greater safety and security, he should enter upon a pathwayalready prepared in the Holy Scriptures, in which he should not seekafter visible miracles, but learn the habit of hoping for thingsinvisible, and in which also he should receive monitions not in sleepbut in wakefulness. At this point the narration ought now to becommenced, which should start with the fact that God made all thingsvery good, [2] and which should be continued, as we have said, on to the present timesof the Church. This should be done in such a manner as to give, for eachof the affairs and events which we relate, causes and reasons by whichwe may refer them severally to that end of love from which neither theeye of the man who is occupied in doing anything, nor that of the manwho is engaged in speaking, ought to be turned away. For if, even inhandling the fables of the poets, which are but fictitious creations andthings devised for the pleasure [3] of minds whose food is found in trifles, thosegrammarians who have the reputation and the name of being good donevertheless endeavor to bring them to bear upon some kind of (assumed)use, although that use itself may be only something vain and grosslybent upon the coarse nutriment of this world: [4] how much more carefuldoes it become us to be, not to let those genuine verities which wenarrate, in consequence of any want of a well-considered account oftheir causes, be accepted either with a gratification which issues in nopractical good, or, still less, with a cupidity which may prove hurtful!At the same time, we are not to set forth these causes in such a manneras to leave the proper course of our narration, and let our heart andour tongue indulge in digressions into the knotty questions of moreintricate discussion. But the simple truth of the explanation which weadduce [5] ought to be like the gold which bindstogether a row of gems, and yet does not interfere with the choicesymmetry of the ornament by any undue intrusion of itself. [6]

CHAP. 7.—: OF THE EXPOSITION OF THE RESURRECTION, THEJUDGMENT, AND OTHER SUBJECTS, WHICH SHOULD FOLLOW THIS NARRATION.

11. On the completion of thisnarration, the hope of the resurrection should be set forth, and, so faras the capacity and strength of the hearer will bear it, and so far alsoas the measure of time at our disposal will allow, we ought to handleour arguments against the vain scoffings of unbelievers on the subjectof the resurrection of the body, as well as on that of the futurejudgment, with its goodness in relation to the good, its severity inrelation to the evil, its truth in relation to all. And after thepenalties of the impious have thus been declared with detestation andhorror, then the kingdom of the righteous and faithful, and thatsupernal city and its joy, should form the next themes for ourdiscourse. At this point, moreover, we ought to equip and animate theweakness of man in withstanding temptations and offenses, whether theseemerge without or rise within the church itself; without, as inopposition 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 severaltype of perverse men, and that all their wrong opinions are to berefuted by set arrays of argumentations: but, in a manner suitable to alimited 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 thefaithful, and what relief [7] thereis in the example of the patience of God, who has resolved to permitthem even to the end. But, again, while he is being furnished againstthese (adversaries), whose perverse multitudes fill the churches so faras bodily presence is concerned, the precepts of a Christian andhonorable manner of life should also be briefly and befittingly detailedat the same time, to the intent that he may neither allow himself to beeasily led astray in this way, by any who are drunkards, covetous,fraudulent, gamesters, adulterers, fornicators, lovers of publicspectacles, wearers of unholy charms, sorcerers, astrologers, ordiviners practising any sort of vain andwicked arts, and all other parties of a similar character; nor to lethimself fancy that any such course may be followed with impunity on hispart, simply because he sees many who are called Christians loving thesethings, and engaging themselves with them, and defending them, andrecommending them, and actually persuading others to their use. For asto the end which is appointed for those who persist in such a mode oflife, and as to the method in which they are to be borne with in thechurch itself, out of which they are destined to be separated in theend,—these are subjects in which the learner ought to beinstructed by means of the testimonies of the divine books. He shouldalso, however, be informed beforehand that he will find in the churchmany good Christians, most genuine citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem,if he sets about being such himself. And, finally, he must be sedulouslywarned against letting his hope rest on man. For it is not a matter thatcan be easily judged by man, what man is righteous. And even were this amatter which could be easily done, still the object with which theexamples of righteous men are set before us is not that we may bejustified by them, but that, as we imitate them, we may understand howwe ourselves also are justified by their Justifier. For the issue ofthis will be something which must merit the highestapproval,—namely this, that when the person who is hearingus, or rather, who is hearing God by us, has begun to make some progressin moral qualities and in knowledge, and to enter upon the way of Christwith ardor, he will not be so bold as to ascribe the change either to usor to himself; but he will love both himself and us, and whatever otherpersons he loves as friends, in Him, and for His sake who loved him whenhe was an enemy, in order that He might justify him and make him afriend. And now that we have advanced thus far, I do not think that youneed any preceptor to tell you how you should discuss matters briefly,when either your own time or that of those who are hearing you isoccupied; and how, on the other hand, you should discourse at greaterlength when there is more time at your command. For the very necessityof the case recommends this, apart from the counsel of any adviser.

CHAP. 8.—: OF THE METHOD TO BE PURSUED IN CATECHISING THOSEWHO HAVE HAD A LIBERAL EDUCATION.

12. But there is another casewhich evidently must not be overlooked. I mean the case of one coming toyou to receive catchetical instruction who has cultivated the field ofliberal studies, who has already made up his mind to be a Christian, andwho 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 hasalready acquired a considerable knowledge of our Scriptures andliterature; and, furnished with this, he may have come now simply withthe view of being made a partaker in the sacraments. For it is customarywith men of this class to inquire carefully into all things, not at thevery time when they are made Christians, but previous to that, and thusearly also to communicate and reason, with any whom they can reach, onthe subject of the feelings of their own minds. Consequently a briefmethod of procedure should be adopted with these, so as not to inculcateon them, in an odious fashion, [1] things which they know already,but to pass over these with a light and modest touch. Thus we should sayhow we believe that they are already familiar with this and the othersubject, and that we therefore simply reckon up in a cursory manner allthose facts which require to be formally urged upon the attention of theuninstructed and unlearned. And we should endeavor so to proceed, that,supposing this man of culture to have been previously acquainted withany one of our themes, he may not hear it now as from a teacher; andthat, in the event of his being still ignorant of any of them, he mayyet learn the same while we are going over the things with which weunderstand him to be already familiar. Moreover, it is certainly notwithout advantage to interrogate the man himself as to the means bywhich he was induced to desire to be a Christian; so that, if youdiscover him to have been moved to that decision by books, whether theybe the canonical writings or the compositions of literary men worth thestudying, [2] you may say something aboutthese at the outset, expressing your approbation of them in a mannerwhich may suit the distinct merits which they severally possess, inrespect of canonical authority and of skillfully applied diligence onthe part of these expounders; [3] and, in the case of the canonicalScriptures, commending above all the most salutary modesty (of language)displayed alongside their wonderful loftiness (of subject); while, inthose other productions you notice, in accordance with the characteristic faculty of each severalwriter, a style of a more sonorous and, as it were, more roundedeloquence adapted to minds that are prouder, and, by reason thereof,weaker. We should certainly also elicit from him some account ofhimself, so that he may give us to understand what writer he chieflyperused, and with what books he was more familiarly conversant, as thesewere the means of moving him to wish to be associated with the church.And when he has given us this information, then if the said books areknown to us, or if we have at least ecclesiastical report as our warrantfor taking them to have been written by some catholic man of note, weshould joyfully express our approbation. But if, on the other hand, hehas fallen upon the productions of some heretic, and in ignorance, itmay be, has retained in his mind anything which [1] the true faith condemns, and yet supposes it tobe catholic doctrine, then we must set ourselves sedulously to teachhim, bringing before him (in its rightful superiority) the authority ofthe Church universal, and of other most learned men reputed both fortheir disputations and for their writings in (the cause of) itstruth. [2] At the same time, it is to be admitted thateven those who have departed this life as genuine catholics, and haveleft to posterity some Christian writings, in certain passages of theirsmall works, either in consequence of their failing to be understood, or(as the way is with human infirmity) because they lack ability to pierceinto the deeper mysteries with the eye of the mind, and in (pursuing)the semblance of what is true, wander from the truth itself, have provedan occasion to the presumptuous and audacious for constructing andgenerating some heresy. This, however, is not to be wondered at, when,even in the instance of the canonical writings themselves, where allthings have been expressed in the soundest manner, we see how it hashappened,—not indeed through merely taking certain passagesin a sense different from that which the writer had in view or which isconsistent with the truth itself, (for if this were all, who would notgladly pardon human infirmity, when it exhibits a readiness to acceptcorrection?), but by persistently defending, with the bitterestvehemence and in impudent arrogance, opinions which they have taken upin perversity and error,—many have given birth to manypernicious dogmas at the cost of rending the unity of the (Christian)communion. All these subjects we should discuss in modest conferencewith the individual who makes his approach to the society of theChristian people, not in the character of an uneducated man, [3] as they say, but in that of one whohas passed through a finished culture and training in the books of thelearned. And in enjoining him to guard against the errors ofpresumption, we should assume only so much authority as that humility ofhis, which induced him to come to us, is now felt to admit of. As toother things, moreover, in accordance with the rules of saving doctrine,which require to be narrated or discussed, whether they be mattersrelating to the faith, or questions bearing on the moral life, or othersdealing with temptations, all these should be gone through in the mannerwhich I have indicated, and ought therein to be referred to the moreexcellent way (already noticed). [4]

CHAP. 9.—: OF THE METHOD IN WHICH GRAMMARIANS ANDPROFESSIONAL SPEAKERS ARE TO BE DEALT WITH.

13. There are also some who comefrom the commonest schools of the grammarians and professional speakers,whom you may not venture to reckon either among the uneducated or amongthose very learned classes whose minds have been exercised in questionsof real magnitude. When such persons, therefore, who appear to besuperior to the rest of mankind, so far as the art of speaking isconcerned, approach you with the view of becoming Christians, it will beyour duty in your communications with them, in a higher degree than inyour dealings with those other illiterate hearers, to make it plain thatthey are to be diligently admonished to clothe themselves with Christianhumility, and learn not to despise individuals whom they may discoverkeeping themselves free from vices of conduct more carefully than fromfaults of language; and also that they ought not to presume so much asto compare with a pure heart the practised tongue which they wereaccustomed even to put in preference. But above all, such persons shouldbe taught to listen to the divine Scriptures, so that they may neitherdeem solid eloquence to be mean, merely because it is not inflated, norsuppose that the words or deeds of men, ofwhich we read the accounts in those books, involved and covered as theyare in carnal wrappings, [1] are not to be drawn forth andunfolded with a view to an (adequate) understanding of them, but are tobe taken merely according to the sound of the letter. And as to thissame matter of the utility of the hidden meaning, the existence of whichis the reason why they are called also mysteries, the power wielded bythese intricacies of enigmatical utterances in the way of sharpening ourlove for the truth, and shaking off the torpor of weariness, is a thingwhich the persons in question must have made good to them by actualexperience, when some subject which failed to move them when it wasplaced baldly before them, has its significance elicited by the detailedworking out of an allegorical sense. For it is in the highest degreeuseful to such men to come to know how ideas are to be preferred towords, just as the soul is preferred to the body. And from this, too, itfollows that they ought to have the desire to listen to discoursesremarkable for their truth, rather than to those which are notable fortheir eloquence; just as they ought to be anxious to have friendsdistinguished for their wisdom, rather than those whose chief merit istheir beauty. They should also understand that there is no voice for theears of God save the affection of the soul. For thus they will not actthe mocker if they happen to observe any of the prelates and ministersof the Church either calling upon God in language marked by barbarismsand solecisms, or failing in understanding correctly the very wordswhich they are pronouncing, and making confused pauses. [2] It is not meant, of course,that such faults are not to be corrected, so that the people may say“Amen” to something which they plainly understand;but what is intended is, that such things should be piously borne withby those who have come to understand how, as in the forum it is in thesound, so in the church it is in the desire that the grace of speechresides. [3] Therefore that of the forum may sometimes be called good speech, butnever gracious speech. [4] Moreover, with respect to thesacrament which they are about to receive, it is enough for the moreintelligent simply to hear what the thing signifies. But with those ofslower intellect, it will be necessary to adopt a somewhat more detailedexplanation, together with the use of similitudes, to prevent them fromdespising what they see.

CHAP. 10.—: OF THE ATTAINMENT OF CHEERFULNESS IN THE DUTY OFCATECHISING, AND OF VARIOUS CAUSES PRODUCING WEARINESS IN THECATECHUMEN.

14. At this point you perhapsdesiderate some example of the kind of discourse intended, so that I mayshow you by an actual instance how the things which I have recommendedare to be done. This indeed I shall do, so far as by God’shelp I shall be able. But before proceeding to that, it is my duty, inconsistency with what I have promised, to speak of the acquisition ofthe cheerfulness (to which I have alluded). For as regards the matter ofthe rules in accordance with which your discourse should be set forth,in the case of the catechetical instruction of a person who comes withthe express view of being made a Christian, I have already made good, asfar as has appeared sufficient, the promise which I made. And surely Iam under no obligation at the same time to do myself in this volume thatwhich I enjoin as the right thing to be done. Consequently, if I dothat, it will have the value of an overplus. But how can the overplus besuper-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 yourcomplaint above all others, is the fact that your discourse seemed toyourself to be poor and spiritless when you were instructing any one inthe Christian name. Now this, I know, results not so much from want ofmatter to say, with which I am well aware you are sufficiently providedand furnished, or from poverty of speech itself, as rather fromweariness of mind. And that may spring either from the cause of which Ihave already spoken, namely, the fact that our intelligence is betterpleased and more thoroughly arrested by that which we perceive insilence in the mind, and that we have no inclination to have ourattention called off from it to a noise of words coming far short ofrepresenting it; or from the circumstance that even when discourse ispleasant, we have more delight in hearing or reading things which havebeen expressed in a superior manner, and which are set forth without anycare or anxiety on our part, than in putting together, with a view tothe comprehension of others, words suddenly conceived, and leaving it anuncertain issue, on the one hand, whether such terms occur to us asadequately represent the sense, and on the other, whether they beaccepted in such a manner as to profit: oryet again, from the consideration that, in consequence of their beingnow thoroughly familiar to ourselves, and no longer necessary to our ownadvancement, it becomes irksome to us to be recurring very frequently tothose matters which are urged upon the uninstructed, and our mind, asbeing by this time pretty well matured, moves with no manner of pleasurein the circle of subjects so well-worn, and, as it were, so childish. Asense of weariness is also induced upon the speaker when he has a hearerwho remains unmoved, either in that he is actually not stirred by anyfeeling, or in that he does not indicate by any motion of the body thathe understands or that he is pleased with what is said. [1] Not that it is a becoming dispositionin us to be greedy of the praises of men, but that the things which weminister are of God; and the more we love those to whom we discourse,the more desirous are we that they should be pleased with the matterswhich are held forth for their salvation: so that if we do not succeedin this, we are pained, and we are weakened, and become broken-spiritedin the midst of our course, as if we were wasting our efforts to nopurpose. Sometimes, too, when we are drawn off from some matter which weare desirous to go on with, and the transaction of which was a pleasureto us, or appeared to be more than usually needful, and when we arecompelled, either by the command of a person whom we are unwilling tooffend, or by the importunity of some parties that we find it impossibleto get rid of, to instruct any one catechetically, in such circumstanceswe approach a duty for which great calmness is indispensable with mindsalready perturbed, and grieving at once that we are not permitted tokeep that order which we desire to observe in our actions, and that wecannot possibly be competent for all things; and thus out of veryheaviness our discourse as it advances is less of an attraction,because, starting from the arid soil of dejection, it goes on lessflowingly. Sometimes, too, sadness has taken possession of our heart inconsequence of some offense or other, and at that very time we areaddressed thus: “Come, speak with this person; he desires tobecome a Christian.” For they who thus address us do it inignorance of the hidden trouble which is consuming us within. So ithappens that, if they are not the persons to whom it befits us to openup our feelings, we undertake with no sense of pleasure what theydesire; and then, certainly, the discourse will be languid andunenjoyable which is transmitted through the agitated and fuming channelof a heart in that condition. Consequently, seeing there are so manycauses serving to cloud the calm serenity of our minds, in accordancewith God’s will we must seek remedies for them, such as maybring us relief from these feelings of heaviness, and help us to rejoicein fervor of spirit, and to be jocund in the tranquility of a good work.“For God loveth a cheerful giver.” [2]

15. Now if the cause of oursadness lies in the circumstance that our hearer does not apprehend whatwe mean, so that we have to come down in a certain fashion from theelevation of our own conceptions, and are under the necessity ofdwelling long in the tedious processes of syllables which come farbeneath the standard of our ideas, and have anxiously to consider howthat which we ourselves take in with a most rapid draught of mentalapprehension is to be given forth by the mouth of flesh in the long andperplexed intricacies of its method of enunciation; and if the greatdissimilarity thus felt (between our utterance and our thought) makes itdistasteful to us to speak, and a pleasure to us to keep silence, thenlet us ponder what has been set before us by Him who has“showed us an example that we should follow Hissteps.” [3] For however much ourarticulate speech may differ from the vivacity of our intelligence, muchgreater is the difference of the flesh of mortality from the equality ofGod. And, neverless, “although He was in the same form, Heemptied Himself, taking the form of aservant,”—and so on down to the words“the death of the cross.” [4] What is the explanation of this but thatHe made Himself “weak to the weak, in order that He mightgain the weak?” [5] Listen to His followeras he expresses himself also in another place to this effect:“For whether we be beside ourselves, it is to God; or whetherwe be sober, it is for your cause. For the love of Christ constrainethus, because we thus judge that He died for all.” [6] And how, indeed, should one be ready to be spent fortheir souls, [7] if he should find it irksome to him to bend himselfto their ears? For this reason, therefore, He became a little child inthe midst of us, (and) like a nursecherishing her children. [1] For is it a pleasureto lisp shortened and broken words, unless love invites us? And yet mendesire to have infants to whom they have to do that kind of service; andit is a sweeter thing to a mother to put small morsels of masticatedfood into her little son’s mouth, than to eat up and devourlarger pieces herself. In like manner, accordingly, let not the thoughtof the hen [2] recede from your heart, who covers hertender brood with her drooping feathers, and with broken voice calls herchirping young ones to her, while they that turn away from her fosteringwings in their pride become a prey to birds. For if intelligence bringsdelights in its purest recesses, it should also be a delight to us tohave an intelligent understanding of the manner in which charity, themore complaisantly it descends to the lowest objects, finds its wayback, with all the greater vigor to those that are most secret, alongthe course of a good conscience which witnesses that it has soughtnothing from those to whom it has descended except their everlastingsalvation.

CHAP. 11.—: OF THE REMEDY FOR THE SECOND SOURCE OFWEARINESS.

16. If, however, it is ratherour desire to read or hear such things as are already prepared for ouruse and expressed in a superior style, and if the consequence is that wefeel it irksome to put together, at the time and with an uncertainissue, the terms of discourse on our own side, then, provided only thatour mind does not wander off from the truth of the facts themselves, itis an easy matter for the hearer, if he is offended by anything in ourlanguage, to come to see in that very circumstance how little valueshould be set, supposing the subject itself to be rightly understood,upon the mere fact that there may have been some imperfection or someinaccuracy in the literal expressions, which were employed indeed simplywith the view of securing a correct apprehension of the subject-matter.But if the bent of human infirmity has wandered off from the truth ofthe facts themselves,—although in the catecheticalinstruction of the unlearned, where we have to keep by the most beatentrack, that cannot occur very readily,—still, lest haply itshould turn out that our hearer finds cause of offence even in thisdirection, we ought not to deem this to have come upon us in any otherway than as the issue of God’s own wish to put us to the testwith 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, intothe defense of our error. But if, again, no one has told us of it, andif the thing has altogether escaped our own notice, as well as theobservation of our hearers, then there is nothing to grieve over,provided only the same thing does not occur a second time. For the mostpart, however, when we recall what we have said, we ourselves discoversomething to find fault with, and are ignorant of the manner in which itwas received when it was uttered; and so when charity is fervent withinus, we are the more vexed if the thing, while really false, has beenreceived with unquestioning acceptance. This being the case, then,whenever an opportunity occurs, as we have been finding fault withourselves in silence, we ought in like manner to see to it that thosepersons be also set right on the subject in a considerate method, whohave fallen into some sort of error, not by the words of God, butplainly 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 toGod,” [3] such characters shouldafford us matter for the exercise of patience with pity, inasmuch asalso the “patience of God leadeth them torepentance.” [4] For what is more detestable, and what morelikely to “treasure up wrath in the day of wrath andrevelation of the righteous judgment of God,” [5] than to rejoice, after the evil likeness and pattern of the devil, inthe evil of another? At times, too, even when all is correctly and trulyspoken, either something which has not been understood, or somethingwhich, as being opposed to the idea and wont of an old error, seemsharsh in its very novelty, offends and disturbs the hearer. But if thisbecomes apparent, and if the person shows himself capable of being setright, he should be set right without any delay by the use of abundanceof authorities and reasons. On the other hand, if the offense is tacitand hidden, the medicine of God is the effective remedy for it. And if,again, the person starts back and declines to be cured, we shouldcomfort ourselves with that example of our Lord, who, when men wereoffended at His word, and shrank from it as a hard saying, addressedHimself at the same time to those who had remained, in these terms,“Will ye also go away?” [6] For it ought to be retainedas a thoroughly “fixed and immovable” position inour heart, that Jerusalem which is incaptivity is set free from the Babylon of this world when the times haverun their course, and that none belonging to her shall perish: forwhoever may perish was not of her. “For the foundation of Godstandeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are His;and, let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart frominiquity.” [1] If we ponder these things,and call upon the Lord to come into our heart, we shall be lessapprehensive of the uncertain issues of our discourse, consequent on theuncertain feelings of our hearers; and the very endurance of vexationsin the cause of a work of mercy will also be something pleasant to us,if we seek not our own glory in the same. For then is a work truly good,when the aim of the doer gets its impetus from charity, [2] and, as if returning toits own place, rests again in charity. Moreover, the reading whichdelights us, or any listening to an eloquence superior to our own, theeffect of which is to make us inclined to set a greater value upon itthan upon the discourse which we ourselves have to deliver, and so tolead us to speak with a reluctant or tedious utterance, will come uponus in a happier spirit, and will be found to be more enjoyable afterlabor. Then, too, with a stronger confidence shall we pray to God tospeak to us as we wish, if we cheerfully submit to let Him speak by usas we are able. Thus is it brought about that all things come togetherfor good to them that love God. [3]

CHAP. 12.—: OF THE REMEDY FOR THE THIRD SOURCE OFWEARINESS.

17. Once more, however, we oftenfeel it very wearisome to go over repeatedly matters which arethoroughly familiar, and adapted (rather) to children. If this is thecase with us, then we should endeavor to meet them with abrother’s, a father’s, and a mother’slove; and, if we are once united with them thus in heart, to us no lessthan to them will these things seem new. For so great is the power of asympathetic disposition of mind, that, as they are affected while we arespeaking, and we are affected while they are learning, we have ourdwelling in each other; and thus, at one and the same time, they as itwere in us speak what they hear, and we in them learn after a certainfashion what we teach. Is it not a common occurrence with us, that whenwe show to persons, who have never seen them, certain spacious andbeautiful tracts, either in cities or in fields, which we have been inthe habit of passing by without any sense of pleasure, simply because wehave become so accustomed to the sight of them, we find our ownenjoyment renewed in their enjoyment of the novelty of the scene? Andthis is so much the more our experience in proportion to the intimacy ofour friendship with them; because, just as we are in them in virtue ofthe bond of love, in the same degree do things become new to us whichpreviously were old. But if we ourselves have made any considerableprogress in the contemplative study of things, it is not our wish thatthose whom we love should simply be gratified and astonished as theygaze upon the works of men’s hands; but it becomes our wishto lift them to (the contemplation of) the very skill [4] or wisdom of theirauthor, and from this to (see them) rise to the admiration and praise ofthe all-creating God, with whom [5] is the most fruitful end of love. How muchmore, then, ought we to be delighted when men come to us with thepurpose already formed of obtaining the knowledge of God Himself, with aview to (the knowledge of) whom all things should be learned which areto be learned! And how ought we to feel ourselves renewed in theirnewness (of experience), so that if our ordinary preaching is somewhatfrigid, it may rise to fresh warmth under (the stimulus of) theirextraordinary hearing! There is also this additional consideration tohelp us in the attainment of gladness, namely, that we ponder and bearin mind out of what death of error the man is passing over into the lifeof faith. And if we walk through streets which are most familiar to us,with a beneficent cheerfulness, when we happen to be pointing out theway to some individual who had been in distress in consequence ofmissing his direction, how much more should be the alacrity of spirit,and how much greater the joy with which, in the matter of savingdoctrine, we ought to traverse again and again even those tracks which,so far as we are ourselves concerned, there is no need to open up anymore; seeing that we are leading a miserable soul, and one worn out withthe devious courses of this world, through the paths of peace, at thecommand of Him who made that peace [6] good to us!

CHAP. 13.—: OF THE REMEDY FOR THE FOURTH SOURCE OFWEARINESS.

18. But in good truth it is aserious demand to make upon us, to continue discoursing on to the setlimit when we fail to see our hearer in any degree moved; whether it bethat, under the restraints of the awe of religion, he has not theboldness to signify his approval by voice or by any movement of hisbody, or that he is kept back by the modesty proper to man, [1] or that he does not understandour sayings, or that he counts them of no value. Since, then, this mustbe a matter of uncertainty to us, as we cannot discern his mind, itbecomes our duty in our discourse to make trial of all things which maybe of any avail in stirring him up and drawing him forth as it were fromhis place of concealment. For that sort of fear which is excessive, andwhich obstructs the declaration of his judgment, ought to be dispelledby the force of kindly exhortation; and by bringing before him theconsideration of our brotherly affinity, we should temper his reverencefor us; and by questioning him, we should ascertain whether heunderstands what is addressed to him; and we should impart to him asense of confidence, so that he may give free expression to anyobjection which suggests itself to him. We should at the same time askhim whether he has already listened to such themes on some previousoccasion, and whether perchance they fail to move him now in consequenceof their being to him like things well known and commonplace. And weought to shape our course in accordance with his answer, so as either tospeak in a simpler style and with greater detail of explanation, or torefute some antagonistic opinion, or, instead of attempting any morediffuse exposition of the subjects which are known to him, to give abrief summary of these, and to select some of those matters which arehandled in a mystical manner in the holy books, and especially in thehistorical narrative, the unfolding and setting forth of which may makeour addresses more attractive. But if the man is of a very sluggishdisposition, and if he is senseless, and without anything in common withall such sources of pleasure, then we must simply bear with him in acompassionate spirit; and, after briefly going over other points, weought to impress upon him, in a manner calculated to inspire him withawe, the truths which are most indispensable on the subject of the unityof the Catholic Church, [2] on that oftemptation, on that of a Christian conversation in view of the futurejudgment; and we ought rather to address ourselves to God for him thanaddress much to him concerning God.

19. It is likewise a frequentoccurrence that one who at first listened to us with all readiness,becomes exhausted either by the effort of hearing or by standing, andnow no longer commends what is said, but gapes and yawns, and evenunwillingly exhibits a disposition to depart. When we observe that, itbecomes our duty to refresh his mind by saying something seasoned withan honest cheerfulness and adapted to the matter which is beingdiscussed, or something of a very wonderful and amazing order, or even,it may be, something of a painful and mournful nature. Whatever we thussay may be all the better if it affects himself more immediately, sothat the quick sense of self-concern may keep his attention on thealert. At the same time, however, it should not be of the kind to offendhis spirit of reverence by any harshness attaching to it; but it shouldbe of a nature fitted rather to conciliate him by the friendliness whichit breathes. Or else, we should relieve him by accommodating him with aseat, although unquestionably matters will be better ordered if from theoutset, whenever that can be done with propriety, he sits and listens.And indeed in certain of the churches beyond the sea, with a far moreconsiderate regard to the fitness of things, not only do the prelatessit when they address the people, but they also themselves put downseats for the people, lest any person of enfeebled strength shouldbecome exhausted by standing, and thus have his mind diverted from themost wholesome purport (of the discourse), or even be under thenecessity of departing. And yet it is one thing if it be simply some oneout of a great multitude who withdraws in order to recruit his strength,he being also already under the obligations which result fromparticipation in the sacraments; and it is quite another thing if theperson withdrawing is one (inasmuch as it is usually the case in thesecircumstances that the man is unavoidably urged to that course by thefear that he should even fall, overcome by internal weakness) who has tobe initiated in the first sacraments; for a person in this position isat once restrained by the sense of shame from stating the reason of hisgoing, and not permitted to stand through the force of his weakness.This I speak from experience. For this was the case with a certainindividual, a man from the country, when I was instructing himcatechetically: and from his instance I havelearned that this kind of thing is carefully to be guarded against. Forwho can endure our arrogance when we fail to make men who are ourbrethren, [1] or even those who are not yet in thatrelation to us (for our solicitude then should be all the greater to getthem to become our brethren), to be seated in our presence, seeing thateven a woman sat as she listened to our Lord Himself, in whose servicethe angels stand alert? [2] Of course if the address is tobe but short, or if the place is not well adapted for sitting, theyshould listen standing. But that should be the case only when there aremany hearers, and when they are not to be formally admitted [3] at thetime. For when the audience consists only of one or two, or a few, whohave come with the express purpose of being made Christians, there is arisk in speaking to them standing. Nevertheless, supposing that we haveonce begun in that manner, we ought at least, whenever we observe signsof weariness on the part of the hearer, to offer him the liberty ofbeing seated; nay more, we should urge him by all means to sit down, andwe ought to drop some remark calculated at once to refresh him and tobanish from his mind any anxiety which may have chanced to break in uponhim and draw off his attention. For inasmuch as the reasons why heremains silent and declines to listen cannot be certainly known to us,now that he is seated we may speak to some extent against the incidenceof thoughts about worldly affairs, delivering ourselves either in thecheerful spirit to which I have already adverted, or in a serious vein;so that, if these are the particular anxieties which have occupied hismind, they may be made to give way as if indicted by name: while, on theother hand, supposing them not to be the special causes (of the loss ofinterest), and supposing him to be simply worn out with listening, hisattention will be relieved of the pressure of weariness when we addressto him some unexpected and extraordinary strain of remark on thesesubjects, in the mode of which I have spoken, as if they were theparticular anxieties,—for indeed we are simply ignorant (ofthe true causes). But let the remark thus made be short, especiallyconsidering that it is thrown in out of order, lest the very medicineeven increase the malady of weariness which we desire to relieve; and,at the same time, we should go on rapidly with what remains, and promiseand present the prospect of a conclusion nearer than was looked for.

CHAP. 14.—: OF THE REMEDY AGAINST THE FIFTH AND SIXTH SOURCESOF WEARINESS.

20. If, again, your spirit hasbeen broken by the necessity of giving up some other employment, onwhich, as the more requisite, you were now bent; and if the sadnesscaused by that constraint makes you catechise in no pleasant mood, youought 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 theexercise of the sincerest charity,—with this one exception, Isay, it is quite uncertain to us what is the more profitable thing forus to do, and what the more opportune thing for us either to pass by fora time or altogether to omit. For inasmuch as we know not how the meritsof men, on whose behalf we are acting, stand with God, the question asto what is expedient for them at a certain time is something which,instead of being able to comprehend, we can rather only surmise, withoutthe aid of any (clear) inferences, or (at best) with the slenderest andthe most uncertain. Therefore we ought certainly to dispose the matterswith which we have to deal according to our intelligence; and then, ifwe prove able to carry them out in the manner upon which we haveresolved, we should rejoice, not indeed that it was our will, but thatit was God’s will, that they should thus be accomplished. Butif anything unavoidable happens, by which the disposition thus proposedby us is interfered with, we should bend ourselves to it readily, lestwe be broken; so that the very disposition of affairs which God haspreferred to ours may also be made our own. For it is more in accordancewith propriety that we should follow His will than that He should followours. Besides, as regards this order in the doing of things, which wewish to keep in accordance with our own judgment, surely that course isto be approved of in which objects that are superior have theprecedence. Why then are we aggrieved that the precedence over menshould be held by the Lord God in His vast superiority to us men, sothat in the said love which we entertain for our own order, we shouldthus (exhibit the disposition to) despise order? For “no oneorders for the better” what he has to do, except the man whois rather ready to leave undone what he is prohibited from doing by thedivine power, than desirous of doing that which he meditates in his ownhuman cogitations. For “there are many devices in aman’s heart; nevertheless, the counsel of the Lord stands forever.” [4]

21. But if our mind is agitatedby some cause of offense, so as not to be capable of delivering adiscourse of a calm and enjoyable strain, our charity towards those forwhom Christ died, desiring to redeem them by the price of His own bloodfrom the death of the errors of this world, ought to be so great, thatthe 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. Forwe are not (fairly) oppressed by the offense of any individual, unlessit be that of the man whom we either perceive or believe to be perishinghimself, or to be the occasion of the undoing of some weak one.Accordingly, one who comes to us with the view of being formallyadmitted, 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 thedread that our proselyte may become the child of hell [1] comes into our thoughts, as, there are many suchbefore our eyes, from whom those offenses arise by which we aredistressed, this ought to operate, not in the way of keeping us back,but rather in the way of stimulating us and spurring us on. And in thesame measure we ought to admonish him whom we are instructing to be onhis guard against imitating those who are Christians only in name andnot in very truth, and to take care not to suffer himself to be so movedby their numbers as either to be desirous of following them, or to bereluctant to follow Christ on their account, and either to be unwillingto be in the Church of God, where they are, or to wish to be there insuch a character as they bear. And somehow or other, in admonitions ofthis sort, that address is the more glowing to which a present sense ofgrief supplies the fuel; so that instead of being duller, we utter withgreater fire and vehemence under such feelings things which, in times ofgreater ease, we would give forth in a colder and less energetic manner.And this should make us rejoice that an opportunity is afforded us underwhich the emotions of our mind pass not away without yielding somefruit.

22. If, however, grief has takenpossession of us on account of something in which we ourselves haveerred or sinned, we should bear in mind not only that a“broken spirit is a sacrifice to God,” [2] but also the saying, “Like as water quencheth fire, so almssin;” [3] and again, “Iwill have mercy,” saith He, “rather thansacrifice.” [4] Therefore, as in the event ofour being in peril from fire we would certainly run to the water inorder to get the fire extinguished, and we would be grateful if anyperson were to offer it in the immediate vicinity; so, if some flame ofsin has risen from our own stack, [5] and if we are troubled on that account, when anopportunity has been given for a most merciful work, we should rejoicein it, as if a fountain were offered us in order that by it theconflagration which had burst forth might be extinguished. Unless haplywe are foolish enough to think that we ought to be readier in runningwith bread, wherewith we may fill the belly of a hungry man, than withthe word of God, wherewith we may instruct the mind of the man who feedson it. [6] There is this also to consider, namely, that ifit would only be of advantage to us to do this thing, and entail nodisadvantage to leave it undone, we might despise a remedy offered in anunhappy fashion in the time of peril with a view to the safety, not nowof a neighbor, but of ourselves. But when from the mouth of the Lordthis so threatening sentence is heard, “Thou wicked andslothful servant, thou oughtest to give my money to theexchangers,” [7] what madness, I praythee, is it thus, seeing that our sin pains us, to be minded to sinagain, by refusing to give the Lord’s money to one whodesires it and asks it! When these and such like considerations andreflections have succeeded in dispelling the darkness of weary feelings,the bent of mind is rendered apt for the duty of catechising, so thatthat is received in a pleasant manner which breaks forth vigorously andcheerfully from the rich vein of charity. For these things indeed whichare uttered here are spoken, not so much by me to you, as rather to usall by that very “love which is shed abroad in our hearts bythe Holy Spirit that is given to us.” [8]

CHAP. 15.—: OF THE METHOD IN WHICH OUR ADDRESS SHOULD BEADAPTED TO DIFFERENT CLASSES OF HEARERS.

23. But now, perhaps, you alsodemand 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 itburdensome to unfold some sort of example of the discourse intended, andto set it before you for your study, just as if I were myself engaged in catechising some individual.Before I do that, however, I wish you to keep in mind the fact that themental effort is of one kind in the case of a person who dictates, witha future reader in his view, and that it is of quite another kind in thecase of a person who speaks with a present hearer to whom to direct hisattention. And further, it is to be remembered that, in this latterinstance in particular, the effort is of one kind when one isadmonishing in private, and when there is no other person at hand topronounce judgment on us; whereas it is of a different order when one isconveying any instruction in public, and when there stands around him anaudience of persons holding dissimilar opinions; and again, that in thisexercise of teaching, the effort will be of one sort when only a singleindividual is being instructed, while all the rest listen, like personsjudging or attesting things well known to them, and that it will bedifferent when all those who are present wait for what we have todeliver to them; and once more, that, in this same instance, the effortwill be one thing when all are seated, as it were, in private conferencewith a view to engaging in some discussion, and that it will be quiteanother thing when the people sit silent and intent on giving theirattention to some single speaker who is to address them from a higherposition. It will likewise make a considerable difference, even when weare discoursing in that style, whether there are few present or many,whether they are learned or unlearned, or made up of both classescombined; whether they are city-bred or rustics, or both the one and theother together; or whether, again, they are a people composed of allorders of men in due proportion. For it is impossible but that they willaffect in different ways the person who has to speak to them anddiscourse with them, and that the address which is delivered will bothbear certain features, as it were, expressive of the feelings of themind from which it proceeds, and also influence the hearers in differentways, in accordance with that same difference (in thespeaker’s disposition), while at the same time the hearersthemselves will influence one another in different ways by the simpleforce of their presence with each other. But as we are dealing atpresent with the matter of the instruction of the unlearned, I am awitness to you, as regards my own experience, that I find myselfvariously moved, according as I see before me, for the purposes ofcatechetical instruction, a highly educated man, a dull fellow, acitizen, a foreigner, a rich man, a poor man, a private individual, aman of honors, a person occupying some position of authority, anindividual of this or the other nation, of this or the other age or sex,one proceeding from this or the other sect, from this or the othercommon error,—and ever in accordance with the difference ofmy feelings does my discourse itself at once set out, go on, and reachits end. And inasmuch as, although the same charity is due to all, yetthe same medicine is not to be administered to all, in like mannercharity itself travails with some, is made weak together with others; isat pains to edify some, tremblingly apprehends being an offense toothers; bends to some, lifts itself erect to others; is gentle to some,severe to others; to none an enemy, to all a mother. And when one, whohas not gone through the kind of experience to which I refer in the samespirit of charity, sees us attaining, in virtue of some gift which hasbeen conferred upon us, and which carries the power of pleasing, acertain repute of an eulogistic nature in the mouth of the multitude, hecounts us happy on that account. But may God, into whose cognizance the“groaning of them that are bound enters,” [1] look upon our humility, and our labor, and forgive us all our sins. [2] Wherefore, if anything in us has so far pleased youas to make you desirous of hearing from us some remarks on the subjectof the form of discourse which you ought to follow, [3] youshould acquire a more thorough understanding of the matter bycontemplating us, and listening to us when we are actually engaged withthese topics, than by a perusal when we are only dictating them.

CHAP. 16.—: A SPECIMEN OF A CATECHETICAL ADDRESS; AND FIRST,THE CASE OF A CATECHUMEN WITH WORTHY VIEWS.

24. Nevertheless, however thatmay be, let us here suppose that some one has come to us who desires tobe made a Christian, and who belongs indeed to the order of privatepersons, [4] and yet not to the class ofrustics, but to that of the city-bred, such as those whom you cannotfail to come across in numbers in Carthage. Let us also suppose that, onbeing asked whether the inducement leading him to desire to be aChristian is any advantage looked for in the present life, or the restwhich is hoped for after this life, he has answered that his inducementhas been the rest that is yet to come. Then perchance such a personmight be instructed by us in some such strain of address as thefollowing: “Thanks be to God, mybrother; cordially do I wish you joy, and I am glad on your accountthat, amid all the storms of this world, which are at once so great andso dangerous, you have bethought yourself of some true and certainsecurity. For even in this life men go in quest of rest and security atthe cost of heavy labors, but they fail to find such in consequence oftheir wicked lusts. For their thought is to find rest in things whichare unquiet, and which endure not. And these objects, inasmuch as theyare withdrawn from them and pass away in the course of time, agitatethem by fears and griefs, and suffer them not to enjoy tranquillity. Forif it be that a man seeks to find his rest in wealth, he is renderedproud rather than at ease. Do we not see how many have lost their richeson a sudden,—how many, too, have been undone by reason ofthem, either as they have been coveting to possess them, or as they havebeen borne down and despoiled of them by others more covetous thanthemselves? And even should they remain with the man all his life long,and never leave their lover, yet would he himself (have to) leave themat his death. For of what measure is the life of man, even if he livesto old age? Or when men desire for themselves old age, what else do theyreally desire but long infirmity? So, too, with the honors of thisworld,—what are they but empty pride and vanity, and peril ofruin? For holy Scripture speaks in this wise: ‘All flesh isgrass, and the glory of man is as the flower of grass. The grasswithereth, the flower thereof falleth away; but the word of the Lordendureth for ever.’ [1] Consequently, if any man longs for true rest and true felicity, he oughtto lift his hope off things which are mortal and transitory, and fix iton the word of the Lord; so that, cleaving to that which endures forever, he may himself together with it endure for ever.

25. “There are alsoother men who neither crave to be rich nor go about seeking the vainpomps of honors, but who nevertheless are minded to find their pleasureand rest in dainty meats, and in fornications, and in those theatres andspectacles which are at their disposal in great cities for nothing. Butit fares with these, too, in the same way; or they waste their smallmeans in luxury, and subsequently, under pressure of want, break outinto thefts and burglaries, and at times even into highway robberies,and so they are suddenly filled with fears both numerous and great; andmen who a little before were singing in the house of revelry, are nowdreaming of the sorrows of the prison. Moreover, in their eager devotionto the public spectacles, they come to resemble demons, as they incitemen by their cries to wound each other, and instigate those who havedone them no hurt to engage in furious contests with each other, whilethey seek to please an insane people. And if they perceive any such tobe peaceably disposed, they straightway hate them and persecute them,and raise an outcry, asking that they should be beaten with clubs, as ifthey had been in collusion to cheat them; and this iniquity they forceeven the judge, who is the (appointed) avenger of iniquities, toperpetrate. On the other hand, if they observe such men exertingthemselves in horrid hostilities against each other, whether they bethose who are called sintæ, [2] or theatrical actors and players, [3] or charioteers, or hunters,—thosewretched men whom they engage in conflicts and struggles, not only menwith men, but even men with beasts,—then the fiercer the furywith which they perceive these unhappy creatures rage against eachother, the better they like them, and the greater the enjoyment theyhave in them; and they favor them when thus excited, [4] and byso favoring them they excite them all the more, the spectatorsthemselves striving more madly with each other, as they espouse thecause of different combatants, than is the case even with those very menwhose madness they madly provoke, while at the same time they also longto be spectators of the same in their mad frenzy. [5] How then can that mindkeep the soundness of peace which feeds on strifes and contentions? Forjust as is the food which is received, such is the health which results.In fine, although mad pleasures are no pleasures, nevertheless let thesethings be taken as they are, and it still remains the case that,whatever their nature may be, and whatever the measure of enjoymentyielded by the boasts of riches, and the inflation of honors, and thespendthrift pleasures of the taverns, and the contests of the theatres,and the impurity of fornications, and the pruriency of the baths, theyare all things of which one little feverdeprives us, while, even from those who still survive, it takes away thewhole false happiness of their life. Then there remains only a void andwounded conscience, destined to apprehend that God as a Judge whom itrefused to have as a Father, and destined also to find a severe Lord inHim whom it scorned to seek and love as a tender Father. But thou,inasmuch as thou seekest that true rest which is promised to Christiansafter this life, wilt taste the same sweet and pleasant rest even hereamong the bitterest troubles of this life, if thou continuest to lovethe commandments of Him who hath promised the same. For quickly wiltthou feel that the fruits of righteousness are sweeter than those ofunrighteousness, and that a man finds a more genuine and pleasurable joyin the possession of a good conscience in the midst of troubles than inthat of an evil conscience in the midst of delights. For thou hast notcome to be united to the Church of God with the idea of seeking from itany temporal advantage.

CHAP. 17.—: THE SPECIMEN OF CATECHETICAL DISCOURSE CONTINUED,IN REFERENCE SPECIALLY TO THE REPROVAL OF FALSE AIMS ON THECATECHUMEN’S PART.

26. “For there aresome whose reason for desiring to become Christians is either that theymay 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 arereprobate; and although the church bears them for a time, as thethreshing-floor bears the chaff until the period of winnowing, yet ifthey fail to amend and begin to be Christians in sincerity in view ofthe everlasting rest which is to come, they will be separated from it inthe end. And let not such flatter themselves, because it is possible forthem to be in the threshing-floor along with the grain of God. For theywill not be together with that in the barn, but are destined for thefire, 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 anassumed heart, but still look for their felicity in this life, expectingto have more felicity in earthly things than those enjoy who refuse toworship God. And the consequence of this false anticipation is, thatwhen they see some wicked and impious men strongly established andexcelling in this worldly prosperity, while they themselves eitherpossess it in a smaller degree or miss it altogether, they are troubledwith the thought that they are serving God without reason, and so theyreadily fall away from the faith.

27. “But as to theman who has in view that everlasting blessedness and perpetual restwhich 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 passinto eternal fire with the devil, but enter into the eternal kingdomtogether with Christ, [1] such an one istruly a Christian; (and he will be) on his guard in every temptation, sothat he may neither be corrupted by prosperity nor be utterly broken inspirit by adversity, but remain at once modest and temperate when thegood things of earth abound with him, and brave and patient whentribulations overtake him. A person of this character will also advancein attainments until he comes to that disposition of mind which willmake him love God more than he fears hell; so that even were God to sayto him, ‘Avail yourself of carnal pleasures for ever, and sinas much as you are able, and you shall neither die nor be sent intohell, but you will only not be with me,’ he would be terriblydismayed, and would altogether abstain from sinning, not now (simply)with the purpose of not falling into that of which he was wont to beafraid, but with the wish not to offend Him whom he so greatly loves: inwhom alone also there is the rest which eye hath not seen, neither hathear heard, neither hath it entered into the heart of man (toconceive),—the rest which God hath prepared for them thatlove Him. [2]

28. “Now, on thesubject of this rest Scripture is significant, and refrains not tospeak, when it tells us how at the beginning of the world, and at thetime when God made heaven and earth and all things which are in them, Heworked during six days, and rested on the seventh day. [3] For it was in the power of the Almighty to make all things even in onemoment of time. For He had not labored in the view that He might enjoy(a needful) rest, since indeed “He spake, and they were made;He commanded, and they were created;” [4] but that He might signifyhow, after six ages of this world, in a seventh age, as on the seventhday, He will rest in His saints; inasmuch as these same saints shallrest also in Him after all the good works in which they have servedHim,—which He Himself, indeed, works in them, who calls them,and instructs them, and puts away the offenses that are past, andjustifies the man who previously was ungodly.For as, when by His gift they work that which is good, He is Himselfrightly said to work (that in them), so, when they rest in Him, He isrightly said to rest Himself. For, as regards Himself, He seeks nocessation, because He feels no labor. Moreover He made all things by HisWord; and His Word is Christ Himself, in whom the angels and all thosepurest spirits of heaven rest in holy silence. Man, however, in that hefell by sin, has lost the rest which he possessed in His divinity, andreceives it again (now) in His humanity; and for this purpose He becameman, and was born of a woman, at the seasonable time at which He Himselfknew it behoved it so to be fulfilled. And from the flesh assuredly Hecould not sustain any contamination, being Himself rather destined topurify the flesh. Of His future coming the ancient saints, in therevelation of the Spirit, had knowledge, and prophesied. And thus werethey saved by believing that He was to come, even as we are saved bybelieving that He has come. Hence ought we to love God who has so lovedus as to have sent His only Son, in order that He might endue Himselfwith the lowliness [1] of our mortality, and die bothat the hands of sinners and on behalf of sinners. For even in times ofold, and in the opening ages, the depth of this mystery ceases not to beprefigured and prophetically announced.

CHAP. 18.—: OF WHAT IS TO BE BELIEVED ON THE SUBJECT OF THECREATION OF MAN AND OTHER OBJECTS.

29. “Whereas, then,the omnipotent God, who is also good and just and merciful, who made allthings,—whether they be great or small, whether they behighest or lowest, whether they be things which are seen, such as arethe heavens and the earth and the sea, and in the heavens, inparticular, the sun and the moon and other luminaries, and in the earthand the sea, again, trees and shrubs and animals each after their kind,and all bodies celestial or terrestrial alike, or whether they be thingswhich are not seen, such as are those spirits whereby bodies areanimated and endowed with life,—made also man after His ownimage, in order that, as He Himself, in virtue of His omnipotence,presides over universal creation, so man, in virtue of that intelligenceof his by which he comes to know even his Creator and worships Him,might preside over all the living creatures of earth: Whereas, too, hemade the woman to be an helpmeet for him: not for carnalconcupiscence,—since, indeed, they had not corruptible bodiesat that period, before the punishment of sin invaded them in the form ofmortality,—but for this purpose, that the man might at oncehave glory of the woman in so far as he went before her to God, andpresent in himself an example to her for imitation in holiness andpiety, even as he himself was to be the glory of God in so far as hefollowed his wisdom:

30. “Therefore did heplace them in a certain locality of perpetual blessedness, which theScripture designates Paradise: and he gave them a commandment, oncondition of not violating which they were to continue for ever in thatblessedness of immortality; while, on the other hand, if theytransgressed it, they were to sustain the penalties of mortality. NowGod knew beforehand that they would trangress it. Nevertheless, in thatHe is the author and maker of everything good, He chose rather to makethem, as He also made the beasts, in order that He might replenish theearth with the good things proper to earth. And certainly man, evensinful man, is better than a beast. And the commandment, which they werenot to keep, He yet preferred to give them, in order that they might bewithout excuse when He should begin to vindicate Himself against them.For whatever man may have done, he finds God worthy to be praised in allHis doings: if he shall have acted rightly, he finds Him worthy to bepraised for the righteousness of His rewards: if he shall have sinned,he finds Him worthy to be praised for the righteousness of Hispunishments: if he shall have confessed his sins and returned to anupright life, he finds Him worthy to be praised for the mercy of Hispardoning favors. Why, then, should God not make man, although Heforeknew that he would sin, when He might crown him if he stood, and sethim right if he fell, and help him if he rose, Himself being always andeverywhere glorious in goodness, righteousness, and clemency? Above all,why should He not do so, since He also foreknew this, namely, that fromthe race of that mortality there would spring saints, who should notseek their own, but give glory to their Creator; and who, obtainingdeliverance from every corruption by worshipping Him, should be countedworthy to live for ever, and to live in blessedness with the holyangels? For He who gave freedom of will to men, in order that they mightworship God not of slavish necessity but with ingenuous inclination,gave it also to the angels; and hence neither did the angel, who, incompany with other spirits who were hissatellites, 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 ofsouls [1] that leave Him, and outof their righteous misery to furnish the inferior sections of Hiscreatures with the most appropriate and befitting laws of His wonderfuldispensation. Consequently, neither did the devil in any manner harmGod, whether in falling himself, or in seducing man to death; nor didman himself in any degree impair the truth, or power, or blessedness [2] of His Maker, in that, when hispartner was seduced by the devil, he of his own deliberate inclinationconsented unto her in the doing of that which God had forbidden. For bythe most righteous laws of God all were condemned, God Himself beingglorious in the equity of retribution, while they were shamed throughthe degradation of punishment: to the end that man, when he turned awayfrom his Creator, should be overcome by the devil and made his subject,and that the devil might be set before man as an enemy to be conquered,when he turned again to his Creator; so that whosoever should consentunto the devil even to the end, might go with him into eternalpunishments; whereas those who should humble themselves to God, and byHis grace overcome the devil, might be counted worthy of eternalrewards.

CHAP. 19.—: OF THE CO-EXISTENCE OF GOOD AND EVIL IN THECHURCH, AND THEIR FINAL SEPARATION.

31. “Neither ought weto be moved by the consideration that many consent unto the devil, andfew follow God; for the grain, too, in comparison with the chaff, hasgreatly the defect in number. But even as the husbandman knows what todo with the mighty heap of chaff, so the multitude of sinners is nothingto God, who knows what to do with them, so as not to let theadministration of His kingdom be disordered and dishonored in any part.Nor is the devil to be supposed to have proved victorious for the merereason of his drawing away with him more than the few by whom he may beovercome. In this way there are two communities—one of theungodly, and another of the holy—which are carried down fromthe beginning of the human race even to the end of the world, which areat present commingled in respect of bodies, but separated in respect ofwills, and which, moreover, are destined to be separated also in respectof bodily presence in the day of judgment. For all men who love prideand temporal power with vain elation and pomp of arrogance, and allspirits who set their affections on such things and seek their own gloryin the subjection of men, are bound fast together in one association;nay, even although they frequently fight against each other on accountof these things, they are nevertheless precipitated by the like weightof lust into the same abyss, and are united with each other bysimilarity of manners and merits. And, again, all men and all spiritswho humbly seek the glory of God and not their own, and who follow Himin piety, belong to one fellowship. And, notwithstanding this, God ismost merciful and patient with ungodly men, and offers them a place forpenitence and amendment.

32. “For with respectalso to the fact that He destroyed all men in the flood, with theexception of one righteous man together with his house, whom He willedto be saved in the ark, He knew indeed that they would not amendthemselves; yet, nevertheless, as the building of the ark went on forthe space of a hundred years, the wrath of God which was to come uponthem was certainly preached to them: [3] and if they only would haveturned to God, He would have spared them, as at a later period He sparedthe city of Nineveh when it repented, after He had announced to it, bymeans of a prophet, the destruction that was about to overtake it. [4] Thus, moreover, God acts, granting a space for repentance even to thosewho He knows will persist in wickedness, in order that He may exerciseand instruct our patience by His own example; whereby also we may knowhow greatly it befits us to bear with the evil in long-suffering, whenwe know not what manner of men they will prove hereafter, seeing thatHe, whose cognizance nothing that is yet to be escapes, spares them andsuffers them to live. Under the sacramental sign of the flood, however,in which the righteous were rescued by the wood, there was also afore-announcement of the Church which was to be, which Christ, its Kingand God, has raised on high, by the mystery of His cross, in safety fromthe submersion of this world. Moreover, God was not ignorant of the factthat, even of those who had been saved in the ark, there would be bornwicked men, who would cover the face of the earth a second time withiniquities. But, nevertheless, He both gave them a pattern of the futurejudgment, and fore-announced the deliverance of the holy by the mystery of the wood. For even after thesethings wickedness did not cease to sprout forth again through pride, andlusts, and illicit impieties, when men, forsaking their Creator, notonly fell to the (standard of the) creature which God made, so as toworship instead of God that which God made, but even bowed their soulsto the works of the hands of men and to the contrivances of craftsmen,wherein a more shameful triumph was to be won over them by the devil,and by those evil spirits who rejoice in finding themselves adored andreverenced in such false devices, while they feed [1] their own errors with the errors of men.

33. “But in truththere were not wanting in those times righteous men also of the kind toseek God piously and to overcome the pride of the devil, citizens ofthat holy community, who were made whole by the humiliation of Christ,which was then only destined to enter, but was revealed to them by theSpirit. 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 Sonof God, so that thus, in virtue of the imitation of his faith, all thefaithful of all nations might be called his children in the future. Ofhim was born a people, by whom the one true God who made heaven andearth should be worshipped when all other nations did service to idolsand evil spirits. In that people, plainly, the future Church was muchmore evidently prefigured. For in it there was a carnal multitude thatworshipped God with a view to visible benefits. But in it there werealso a few who thought of the future rest, and looked longingly for theheavenly fatherland, to whom through prophecy was revealed the cominghumiliation of God in the person of our King and Lord Jesus Christ, inorder that they might be made whole of all pride and arrogance throughthat faith. And with respect to these saints who in point of time hadprecedence of the birth of the Lord, not only their speech, but alsotheir life, and their marriages, and their children, and their doings,constituted a prophecy of this time, at which the Church is beinggathered together out of all nations through faith in the passion ofChrist. By the instrumentality of those holy patriarchs and prophetsthis carnal people of Israel, who at a later period were also calledJews, had ministered unto them at once those visible benefits which theyeagerly desired of the Lord in a carnal manner, and those chastisements,in the form of bodily punishments, which were intended to terrify themfor the time, as was befitting for their obstinacy. And in all these,nevertheless, there were also spiritual mysteries signified, such aswere meant to bear upon Christ and the Church; of which Church thosesaints also were members, although they existed in this life previous tothe birth of Christ, the Lord, according to the flesh. For this sameChrist, the only-begotten Son of God, the Word of the Father, equal andco-eternal with the Father, by whom all things were made, was Himselfalso made man for our sakes, in order that of the whole Church, as ofHis whole body, He might be the Head. But just as when the whole man isin the process of being born, although he may put the hand forth firstin the act of birth, yet is that hand joined and compacted together withthe whole body under the head, even as also among these same patriarchssome were born [2] with the hand put forth first as a sign ofthis very thing: so all the saints who lived upon the earth previous tothe birth of our Lord Jesus Christ, although they were bornantecedently, were nevertheless united under the Head with thatuniversal body of which He is the Head.

CHAP. 20.—: OF ISRAEL’S BONDAGE IN EGYPT, THEIRDELIVERANCE, AND THEIR PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA.

34. “That people,then, having been brought down into Egypt, were in bondage to theharshest of kings; and, taught by the most oppressive labors, theysought their deliverer in God; and there was sent to them one belongingto the people themselves, Moses, the holy servant of God, who, in themight of God, terrified the impious nation of the Egyptians in thosedays by great miracles, and led forth the people of God out of that landthrough the Red Sea, where the water parted and opened up a way for themas they crossed it, whereas, when the Egyptians pressed on in pursuit,the waves returned to their channel and overwhelmed them, so that theyperished. Thus, then, just as the earth through the agency of the floodwas cleansed by the waters from the wickedness of the sinners, who inthose times were destroyed in that inundation, while the righteousescaped by means of the wood; so the people of God, when they went forthfrom Egypt, found a way through the waters by which their enemies weredevoured. Nor was the sacrament of the wood wanting there. For Mosessmote with his rod, in order that that miracle might be effected. Boththese are signs of holy baptism, by which thefaithful pass into the new life, while their sins are done away withlike enemies, and perish. But more clearly was the passion of Christprefigured in the case of that people, when they were commanded to slayand eat the lamb, and to mark their door-posts with its blood, and tocelebrate this rite every year, and to designate it theLord’s passover. For surely prophecy speaks with the utmostplainness of the Lord Jesus Christ, when it says that “He wasled as a lamb to the slaughter.” [1] And with the sign of Hispassion and cross, thou art this day to be marked on thy forehead, as onthe door-post, and all Christians are marked with the same.

35. “Thereafter thispeople was conducted through the wilderness for forty years. They alsoreceived the law written by the finger of God, under which name the HolySpirit is signified, as it is declared with the utmost plainness in theGospel. For God is not defined [2] by the form of a body, neitherare members and fingers to be thought of as existent in Him in the wayin which we see them in ourselves. But, inasmuch as it is through theHoly Spirit that God’s gifts are divided to His saints, inorder that, although they vary in their capacities, they maynevertheless not lapse from the concord of charity, and inasmuch as itis especially in the fingers that there appears a certain kind ofdivision, while nevertheless there is no separation from unity, this maybe the explanation of the phrase. But whether this may be the case, orwhatever other reason may be assigned for the Holy Spirit being calledthe finger of God, we ought not at any rate to think of the form of ahuman body when we hear this expression used. The people in question,then, received the law written by the finger of God, and that in goodsooth on tables of stone, to signify the hardness of their heart in thatthey were not to fulfill the law. For, as they eagerly sought from theLord gifts meant for the uses of the body, they were held by carnal fearrather than by spiritual charity. But nothing fulfills the law savecharity. Consequently, they were burdened with many visible sacraments,to the intent that they should feel the pressure of the yoke of bondagein the observances of meats, and in the sacrifices of animals, and inother rites innumerable; which things, at the same time, were signs ofspiritual matters relating to the Lord Jesus Christ and to the Church;which, furthermore, at that time were both understood by a few holy mento the effect of yielding the fruit of salvation, and observed by themin accordance with the fitness of the time, while by the multitude ofcarnal men they were observed only and not understood.

36. “In this manner,then, through many varied signs of things to come, which it would betedious to enumerate in complete detail, and which we now see in theirfulfillment in the Church, that people were brought to the land ofpromise, in which they were to reign in a temporal and carnal way inaccordance 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 asign of the free city, which is called the heavenly Jerusalem [3] which latter term is a Hebrew word, and signifies byinterpretation the ‘vision of peace.’ The citizensthereof are all sanctified men, who have been, who are, and who are yetto be; and all sanctified spirits, even as many as are obedient to Godwith pious devotion in the exalted regions of heaven, and imitate notthe impious pride of the devil and his angels. The King of this city isthe Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, by whom the highest angels aregoverned, and at the same time the Word that took unto Himself humannature, [4] inorder that by Him men also might be governed, who, in His fellowship,shall reign all together in eternal peace. In the service of prefiguringthis King in that earthly kingdom of the people of Israel, King Davidstood forth preeminent, [5] of whose seed according tothe flesh that truest King was to come, to wit, our Lord Jesus Christ,‘who is over all, God blessed for ever.’ [6] Inthat land of promise many things were done, which held good as figuresof the Christ who was to come, and of the Church, with which you willhave it in your power to acquaint yourself by degrees in the HolyBooks.

CHAP. 21.—: OF THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY, AND THE THINGSSIGNIFIED THEREBY.

37. “Howbeit, afterthe lapse of some generations, another type was presented, which bearsvery emphatically on the matter in hand. For that city [7] was broughtinto captivity, and a large section of the people were carried off intoBabylonia. Now, as Jerusalem signifies the city and fellowship of thesaints, so Babylonia signifies the city and fellowship of the wicked,seeing that by interpretation it denotes confusion. On the subject of these two cities, whichhave been running their courses, mingling the one with the other,through all the changes of time from the beginning of the human race,and which shall so move on together until the end of the world, whenthey are destined to be separated at the last judgment, we have spokenalready a little ago. [1] That captivity, then, ofthe city of Jerusalem, and the people thus carried into Babylonia inbondage, were ordained so to proceed by the Lord, by the voice ofJeremiah, a prophet of that time. [2] And there appearedkings [3] of Babylon, under whomthey were in slavery, who on occasion of the captivity of this peoplewere so wrought upon by certain miracles that they came to know the onetrue God who founded universal creation, and worshipped Him, andcommanded that He should be worshipped. Moreover the people were orderedboth to pray for those by whom they were detained in captivity, and intheir peace to hope for peace, to the effect that they should begetchildren, and build houses, and plant gardens and vineyards. [4] But at the end of seventy years, release from theircaptivity was promised to them. [5] All this, furthermore,signified in a figure that the Church of Christ in all His saints, whoare citizens of the heavenly Jerusalem, would have to do service underthe kings of this world. For the doctrine of the apostles speaks also inthis wise, that ‘every soul should be subject to the higherpowers,’ and that there ‘should be rendered allthings to all men, tribute to whom tribute (is due), custom to whomcustom,’ [6] and all other things inlike manner which, without detriment to the worship of our God, werender to the rulers in the constitution of human society: for the LordHimself also, in order to set before us an example of this sounddoctrine, did not deem it unworthy of Him to pay tribute [7] on account of that human individuality [8] wherewith He was invested.Again, Christian servants and good believers are also commanded to servetheir temporal masters in equanimity and faithfulness; [9] whom they will hereafter judge, if even on to the end they find themwicked, or with whom they will hereafter reign in equality, if they tooshall have been converted to the true God. Still all are enjoined to besubject to the powers that are of man and of earth, even until, at theend of the predetermined time which the seventy years signify, theChurch shall be delivered from the confusion of this world, like asJerusalem was to be set free from the captivity in Babylonia. Byoccasion of that captivity, however, the kings of earth too havethemselves been led to forsake the idols on account of which they werewont to persecute the Christians, and have come to know, and nowworship, the one true God and Christ the Lord; and it is on their behalfthat the Apostle Paul enjoins prayer to be made, even although theyshould persecute the Church. For he speaks in these terms: ‘Ientreat, therefore, that first of all supplications, adorations, [10] intercessions,and givings of thanks be made for kings, for all men, and all that arein authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life, with allgodliness and charity.’ [11] Accordingly peace hasbeen given to the Church by these same persons, although it be but of atemporal sort,—a temporal quiet for the work of buildinghouses after a spiritual fashion, and planting gardens and vineyards.For witness your own case, too,—at this very time we areengaged, by means of this discourse, in building you up and plantingyou. And the like process is going on throughout the whole circle oflands, in virtue of the peace allowed by Christian kings, even as thesame apostle thus expresses himself: ‘Ye are God’shusbandry; ye are God’s building.’ [12]

38. “And, indeed,after the lapse of the seventy years of which Jeremiah had mysticallyprophesied, to the intent of prefiguring the end of times, with a viewstill to the perfecting of that same figure, no settled peace andliberty were conceded again to the Jews. Thus it was that they wereconquered subsequently by the Romans and made tributary. From thatperiod, in truth, at which they received the land of promise and beganto have kings, in order to preclude the supposition that the promise ofthe Christ who was to be their Liberator had met its completefulfillment in the person of any one of their kings, Christ wasprophesied of with greater clearness in a number of prophecies; not onlyby David himself in the book of Psalms, but also by the rest of thegreat and holy prophets, even on to the time of their conveyance intocaptivity in Babylonia; and in that same captivity there were alsoprophets whose mission was to prophesy of the coming of the Lord JesusChrist as the Liberator of all. And after the restoration of the temple,when the seventy years had passed, the Jews sustained grievous oppressions and sufferings at the hands of thekings of the Gentiles, fitted to make them understand that the Liberatorwas not yet come, whom they failed to apprehend as one who was to effectfor them a spiritual deliverance, and whom they fondly longed for onaccount of a carnal liberation.

CHAP. 22.—: OF THE SIX AGES OF THE WORLD.

39. “Five ages of theworld, accordingly, having been now completed (there has entered thesixth). 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. [1] Then the second extends fromthat period on to Abraham, who was called [2] thefather indeed of all nations [3] which should follow theexample of his faith, but who at the same time in the way of naturaldescent from his own flesh was the father of the destined people of theJews; which people, previous to the entrance of the Gentiles into theChristian faith, was the one people among all the nations of all landsthat worshipped the one true God: from which people also Christ theSaviour was decreed to come according to the flesh. For theseturning-points [4] of those two ages occupy an eminent placein the ancient books. On the other hand, those of the other three agesare also declared in the Gospel, [5] where the descent of the LordJesus Christ according to the flesh is likewise mentioned. For the thirdage extends from Abraham on to David the king; the fourth from David onto that captivity whereby the people of God passed over into Babylonia;and the fifth from that transmigration down to the advent of our LordJesus Christ. With His coming the sixth age has entered on its process;so that now the spiritual grace, which in previous times was known to afew patriarchs and prophets, may be made manifest to all nations; to theintent that no man should worship God but freely, [6] fondly desiring of Him not thevisible rewards of His services and the happiness of this present life,but that eternal life alone in which he is to enjoy God Himself: inorder that in this sixth age the mind of man may be renewed after theimage of God, even as on the sixth day man was made after the image ofGod. [7] For then, too, is the law fulfilled, when all that it has commanded isdone, not in the strong desire for things temporal, but in the love ofHim who has given the commandment. Who is there, moreover, who shouldnot be earnestly disposed to give the return of love to a God of supremerighteousness and also of supreme mercy, who has first loved men of thegreatest unrighteousness and the loftiest pride, and that, too, sodeeply as to have sent in their behalf His only Son, by whom He made allthings, and who being made man, not by any change of Himself, but by theassumption of human nature, was designed thus to become capable not onlyof living with them, but also of dying at once for them and by theirhands?

40. “Thus, then,showing forth the New Testament of our everlasting inheritance, whereinman 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 anold dispensation, wherein a carnal people acting out the old man (withthe exception of a few patriarchs and prophets, who had understanding,and some hidden saints), and leading a carnal life, desiderated carnalrewards at the hands of the Lord God, and received in that fashion butthe figures of spiritual blessings;—with this intent, I say,the Lord Christ, when made man, despised all earthly good things, inorder that He might show us how these things ought to be despised; andHe endured all earthly ills which He was inculcating as things needfulto be endured; so that neither might our happiness be sought for in theformer class, nor our unhappiness be apprehended in the latter. Forbeing born of a mother who, although she conceived without being touchedby man and always remained thus untouched, in virginity conceiving, invirginity bringing forth, in virginity dying, had nevertheless beenespoused to a handicraftsman, He extinguished all the inflated pride ofcarnal nobility. Moreover, being born in the city of Bethlehem, whichamong all the cities of Judæa was so insignificant that evenin our own day it is designated a village, He willed not that any oneshould 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 boasthimself in earthly riches. He refused to be made by men a king, becauseHe displayed the pathway of humility to those unhappy ones whom pridehad separated from Him; [8] and yet universal creation attests the factof His everlasting kingdom. An hungered was He who feeds all men;athirst was He by whom is created whatsoever is drunk, and who in a spiritual manner is the bread of thehungry and the fountain of the thirsty; in journeying on earth, weariedwas He who has made Himself the way for us into heaven; as like one dumband deaf in the presence of His revilers was He by whom the dumb spokeand the deaf heard; bound was He who freed us from the bonds ofinfirmities; scourged was He who expelled from the bodies of man thescourges of all distresses; crucified was He who put an end to ourcrucial pains; [1] dead did He become who raised thedead. But He also rose again, no more to die, so that no one should fromHim learn so to contemn death as if he were never to live again.

CHAP. 23.—: OF THE MISSION OF THE HOLY GHOST FIFTY DAYS AFTERCHRIST’S RESURRECTION.

41. “Thereafter,having confirmed the disciples, and having sojourned with them fortydays, He ascended up into heaven, as these same persons were beholdingHim. And on the completion of fifty days from His resurrection He sentto them the Holy Spirit (for so He had promised), by whose agency theywere to have love shed abroad in their hearts, [2] to the end that they mightbe able to fulfill the law, not only without the sense of its beingburdensome, but even with a joyful mind. This law was given to the Jewsin the ten commandments, which they call the Decalogue. And thesecommandments, again, are reduced to two, namely that we should love Godwith all our heart, with all our soul, with all our mind; and that weshould love our neighbor as ourselves. [3] For that on these twoprecepts hang all the law and the prophets, the Lord Himself has at oncedeclared in the Gospel and shown in His own example. For thus it waslikewise in the instance of the people of Israel, that from the day onwhich they first celebrated the passover in a form, [4] slaying and eating the sheep,with whose blood their door-posts were marked for the securing of theirsafety, [5] —from this day, I repeat, the fiftieth day insuccession was completed, and then they received the law written by thefinger of God, [6] under which phrase we have already stated that the Holy Spirit issignified. [7] And in the same manner, after the passion and resurrection of the Lord,who is the true passover, the Holy Ghost was sent personally to thedisciples on the fiftieth day: not now, however, by tables of stonesignificant of the hardness of their hearts; but, when they weregathered together in one place at Jerusalem itself, suddenly there camea sound from heaven, as if a violent blast were being borne onwards, andthere appeared to them tongues cloven like fire, and they began to speakwith tongues, in such a manner that all those who had come to themrecognized each his own language [8] (for in that city the Jews werein the habit of assembling from every country wheresoever they had beenscattered abroad, and had learned the diverse tongues of diversenations); and thereafter, preaching Christ with all boldness, theywrought many signs in His name,—so much so, that as Peter waspassing by, his shadow touched a certain dead person, and the man rosein life again. [9]

42. “But when theJews perceived so great signs to be wrought in the name of Him, whom,partly through ill-will and partly in ignorance, they crucified, some ofthem were provoked to persecute the apostles, who were His preachers;while others, on the contrary, marvelling the more at this verycircumstance, that so great miracles were being performed in the name ofHim 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 Godtemporal benefits and an earthly kingdom, neither did they look any morefor Christ, the promised king, in a carnal spirit; but they continued inimmortal fashion to apprehend and love Him, who in mortal fashionendured on their behalf at their own hands sufferings so heavy, andimparted to them the gift of forgiveness for all their sins, even downto the iniquity of His own blood, and by the example of His ownresurrection unfolded immortality as the object which they should hopefor and long for at His hands. Accordingly, now mortifying the earthlycravings of the old man, and inflamed with the new experience of thespiritual life, as the Lord had enjoined in the Gospel, they sold allthat they had, and laid the price of their possessions at the feet ofthe apostles, in order that these might distribute to every manaccording as each had need; and living in Christian love harmoniouslywith each other, they did not affirm anything to be their own, but theyhad all things in common, and were one in soul and heart toward God. [10] Afterwards these same persons also themselvessuffered persecution in their flesh at thehands of the Jews, their carnal fellow-countrymen, and were dispersedabroad, to the end that, in consequence of their dispersion, Christshould be preached more extensively, and that they themselves at thesame time should be followers of the patience of their Lord. For He whoin meekness had endured them, [1] enjoined them in meeknessto endure for His sake.

43. “Among those samepersecutors of the saints the Apostle Paul had once also ranked; and heraged with eminent violence against the Christians. But, subsequently,he became a believer and an apostle, and was sent to preach the gospelto the Gentiles, suffering (in that ministry) things more grievous onbehalf of the name of Christ than were those which he had done againstthe name of Christ. Moreover, in establishing churches throughout allthe nations where he was sowing the seed of the gospel, he was wont togive earnest injunction that, as these converts (coming as they did fromthe worship of idols and without experience in the worship of the oneGod) could not readily serve God in the way of selling and distributingtheir possessions, they should make offerings for the poor brethrenamong the saints who were in the churches of Judea which had believed inChrist. In this manner the doctrine of the apostle constituted some tobe, as it were, soldiers, and others to be, as it were, provincialtributaries, while it set Christ in the centre of them like thecorner-stone (in accordance with what had been announced beforetime bythe prophet), [2] in whom both parties, like wallsadvancing from different sides, that is to say, from Jews and fromGentiles, might be joined together in the affection of kinship. But at alater period heavier and more frequent persecutions arose from theunbelieving Gentiles against the Church of Christ, and day by day wasfulfilled that prophetic word which the Lord spake when He said,‘Behold, I send you as sheep in the midst ofwolves.’ [3]

CHAP. 24.—: OF THE CHURCH IN ITS LIKENESS TO A VINE SPROUTINGAND SUFFERING PRUNING.

44. “But that vine,which was spreading forth its fruitful shoots throughout the circle oflands, according as had been prophesied with regard to it, and as hadbeen foretold by the Lord Himself, sprouted all the more luxuriantly inproportion as it was watered with richer streams of the blood ofmartyrs. And as these died in behalf of the truth of the faith incountless numbers throughout all lands, even the persecuting kingdomsthemselves desisted, and were converted to the knowledge and worship ofChrist, with the neck of their pride broken. Moreover it behoved thatthis same vine should be pruned in accordance with the Lord’srepeated predictions, [4] and that the unfruitful twigsshould be cut out of it, by which heresies and schisms were occasionedin various localities, under the name of Christ, on the part of men whosought not His glory but their own; whose oppositions, however, alsoserved more and more to discipline the Church, and to test andillustrate both its doctrine and its patience.

45. “All thesethings, then, we now perceive to be realized precisely as we read ofthem in predictions uttered so long before the event. And as the firstChristians, inasmuch as they did not see these things literally madegood in their own day, were moved by miracles to believe them; so asregards ourselves, inasmuch as all these things have now been brought topass exactly as we read of them in those books which were written a longtime previous to the fulfillment of the things in question, wherein theywere all announced as matters yet future, even as they are now seen tobe actually present, we are built up unto faith, so that, enduring andpersevering in the Lord, we believe without any hesitation in thedestined accomplishment even of those things which still remain to berealized. For, indeed, in the same Scriptures, tribulations yet to comeare still read of, as well as the final day of judgment itself, when allthe citizens of these two states shall receive their bodies again, andrise 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 tocome in the lowliness of humanity; and He will separate all the godlyfrom the ungodly,—not only from those who have utterlyrefused to believe in Him at all, but also from those who have believedin Him to no purpose and without fruit. To the one class He will give aneternal kingdom together with Himself, while to the other He will awardeternal punishment together with the devil. But as no joy yielded bythings temporal can be found in any measure comparable to the joy oflife eternal which the saints are destined toattain, so no torment of temporal punishments can be compared to theeverlasting torments of the unrighteous.

CHAP. 25.—: OF CONSTANCY IN THE FAITH OF THERESURRECTION.

46. “Therefore,brother, confirm yourself in the name and help of Him in whom youbelieve, 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 makinga mockery of the faith in a resurrection. But, judging from your ownhistory, [1] believe that, seeing you have been,you will also be hereafter, even as you perceive yourself now to be,although previously you were not. For where was this great structure ofyour body, and where this formation and compacted connection of membersa few years ago, before you were born, or even before you were conceivedin your mother’s womb? Where, I repeat, was then thisstructure and this stature of your body? Did it not come forth to lightfrom the hidden secrets of this creation, under the invisible formativeoperations of the Lord God, and did it not rise to its present magnitudeand fashion by those fixed measures of increase which come with thesuccessive periods of life? [2] Is it then in any way adifficult thing for God, who also in a moment brings together out ofsecrecy the masses of the clouds and veils the heavens in an instant oftime, to make this quantity of your body again what it was, seeing thatHe was able to make it what formerly it was not? [3] Consequently, believe with a manful and unshakenspirit that all those things which seem to be withdrawn from the eyes ofmen as if to perish, are safe and exempt from loss in relation to theomnipotence of God, who will restore them, without any delay ordifficulty, when He is so minded,—those of them at least, Ishould say, that are judged by His justice to merit restoration; inorder that men may give account of their deeds in their very bodies inwhich they have done them; and that in these they may be deemed worthyto receive either the exchange of heavenly incorruption in accordancewith the deserts of their piety, or the corruptible condition ofbody [4] in accordance withthe deserts of their wickedness,—and that, too, not acondition such as may be done away with by death, but such as shallfurnish material for everlasting pains.

47. “Flee, therefore,by steadfast faith and good manners,—flee, brother, thosetorments 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. Andbe kindled with love and longing for the everlasting life of the saints,in which neither will action be toilsome nor will rest be indolent; inwhich the praise of God will be without irksomeness and without defect;wherein there will be no weariness in the mind, no exhaustion in thebody; wherein, too, there shall be no want, whether on your own part, sothat 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 thewhole enjoyment and satisfaction [5] of that holy city, which lives in Him and ofHim, in wisdom and beatitude. For as we hope and look for what has beenpromised by Him, we shall be made equal to the angels of God, [6] and together with them we shall enjoy that Trinity now by sight, whereinat present we walk by faith. [7] For we believe that which wesee not, in order that through these very deserts of faith we may becounted worthy also to see that which we believe, and to abide in it; tothe intent that these mysteries of the equality of the Father, the Son,and the Holy Spirit, and the unity of this same Trinity, and the mannerin which these three subsistences are one God, need no more be utteredby us in words of faith and sounding syllables, but may be drunk in inpurest and most burning contemplation in that silence.

48. “These thingshold fixed in your heart, and call upon the God in whom you believe, todefend you against the temptations of the devil; and be careful, lestthat adversary come stealthily upon you from a strange quarter, who, asa most malevolent solace for his own damnation, seeks others whosecompanionship he may obtain in that damnation. For he is bold enough notonly to tempt Christian people through the instrumentality of those whohate the Christian name, or are pained to see the world taken possessionof by that name, and still fondly desire to do service to idols and tothe curious rites of evil spirits, but at times he also attempts thesame 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 twigswhich are lopped off when the vine is pruned, who are called heretics orschismatics. Howbeit sometimes also hemakes the same effort by means of the Jews, seeking to tempt and seducebelievers by their instrumentality. Nevertheless, what ought above allthings to be guarded against is, that no individual may suffer himselfto be tempted and deceived by men who are within the Catholic Churchitself, and who are borne by it like the chaff that is sustained againstthe time of its winnowing. For in being patient toward such persons, Godhas this end in view, namely, to exercise and confirm the faith andprudence of His elect by means of the perverseness of these others,while at the same time He also takes account of the fact that many oftheir number make an advance, and are converted to the doing of the goodpleasure of God with a great impetus, when led to take pity upon theirown souls. [1] For not alltreasure up for themselves, through the patience of God, wrath in theday of the wrath of His just judgment; [2] but many are brought by thesame patience of the Almighty to the most wholesome pain ofrepentance. [3] And until that is effected, they are made the means ofexercising not only the forbearance, but also the compassion of thosewho are already holding by the right way. Accordingly, you will have towitness many drunkards, covetous men, deceivers, gamesters, adulterers,fornicators, men who bind upon their persons sacrilegious charms, andothers given up to sorcerers and astrologers, [4] anddiviners practised in all kinds of impious arts. You will also have toobserve how those very crowds which fill the theatres on the festal daysof the pagans also fill the churches on the festal days of theChristians. And when you see these things you will be tempted to imitatethem. Nay, why should I use the expression, you willsee, in reference to what you assuredly are acquainted witheven already? For you are not ignorant of the fact that many who arecalled Christians engage in all these evil things which I have brieflymentioned. Neither are you ignorant that at times, perchance, men whomyou know to bear the name of Christians are guilty of even more grievousoffenses than these. But if you have come with the notion that you maydo such things as in a secured position, you are greatly in error;neither will the name of Christ be of any avail to you when He begins tojudge in utmost strictness, who also of old condescended in utmost mercyto come to man’s relief. For He Himself has foretold thesethings, and speaks to this effect in the Gospel: ‘Not everyone that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom ofheaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father. Many shall say unto mein that day, Lord, Lord, in thy name we have eaten anddrunken.’ [5] For all, therefore, whopersevere in such works the end is damnation. Consequently, when you seemany not only doing these things but also defending and recommendingthem keep yourself firmly by the law of God, and follow not its willfultransgressors. For it is not according to their mind, but according toHis [6] truth that you will be judged.

49. “Associate withthe 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 tocultivate that character yourself. For if in the public spectacles youwished to be in congenial company, and to attach yourself closely [7] to men who are unitedwith you in a liking for some charioteer, or some hunter, or some playeror other, how much more ought you to find pleasure in associating withthose who are at one with you in loving that God, with regard to whom noone that loves Him shall ever have cause for the blush of shame,inasmuch as not only is He Himself incapable of being overcome, but Hewill also render those unconquerable who are affectionately disposedtoward Him. At the same time, not even on those same good men, whoeither anticipate you or accompany you on the way to God, ought you toset your hope, seeing that no more ought you to place it on yourself,however great may be the progress you have made, but on Him whojustifies both them and you, and thus makes you what you are. For youare secure in God, because He changes not; but in man no one prudentlycounts himself secure. But if we ought to love those who are notrighteous as yet, with the view that they may be so, how much morewarmly ought those to be loved who already are righteous? At the sametime, it is one thing to love man, and another thing to setone’s hope in man; and the difference is so great, that Godenjoins the one and forbids the other. Moreover, if you have to sustain either any insults or any sufferingsin the cause of the name of Christ, and neither fall away from the faithnor decline from the good way, [1] you are certain toreceive the greater reward; whereas those who give way to the devil insuch circumstances, lose even the less reward. But be humble toward God,in order that He may not permit you to be tempted beyond yourstrength.”

CHAP. 26.—: OF THE FORMAL ADMISSION OF THE CATECHUMEN, AND OFTHE SIGNS THEREIN MADE USE OF.

50. At the conclusion of thisaddress the person is to be asked whether he believes these things andearnestly desires to observe them. And on his replying to that effect,then certainly he is to be solemnly signed and dealt with in accordancewith the custom of the Church. On the subject of the sacrament,indeed, [2] whichhe receives, it is first to be well impressed upon his notice that thesigns of divine things are, it is true, things visible, but that theinvisible things themselves are also honored in them, and that thatspecies, [3] which is then sanctified by the blessing, is therefore not to beregarded merely in the way in which it is regarded in any common use.And thereafter he ought to be told what is also signified by the form ofwords to which he has listened, and what in him is seasoned [4] by that (spiritual grace) ofwhich this material substance presents the emblem. Next we should takeoccasion by that ceremony to admonish him that, if he hears anythingeven in the Scriptures which may carry a carnal sound, he should, evenalthough he fails to understand it, nevertheless believe that somethingspiritual is signified thereby, which bears upon holiness of characterand the future life. Moreover, in this way he learns briefly that,whatever he may hear in the canonical books of such a kind as to makehim unable to refer it to the love of eternity, and of truth, and ofsanctity, and to the love of our neighbor, he should believe that tohave been spoken or done with a figurative significance; and that,consequently, he should endeavor to understand it in such a manner as torefer it to that twofold (duty of) love. He should be furtheradmonished, however, not to take the term neighbor in a carnal sense, but to understand under it every one who may ever bewith him in that holy city, whether there already or not yet apparent.And (he should finally be counselled) not to despair of the amendment ofany man whom he perceives to be living under the patience of God for noother reason, as the apostle [5] says, than that he may bebrought to repentance.

51. If this discourse, in whichI have supposed myself to have been teaching some uninstructed person inmy presence, appears to you to be too long, you are at liberty toexpound these matters with greater brevity. I do not think, however,that it ought to be longer than this. At the same time, much depends onwhat the case itself, as it goes on, may render advisable, and what theaudience actually present shows itself not only to bear, but also todesire. When, however, rapid despatch is required, notice with whatfacility the whole matter admits of being explained. Suppose once morethat some one comes before us who desires to be a Christian; andaccordingly, suppose further that he has been interrogated, and that hehas returned the answer which we have taken the former catechumen tohave given; for, even should he decline to make this reply, it must atleast be said that he ought to have given it;—then all thatremains to be said to him should be put together in the followingmanner:—

52. “Of a truth,brother, that is great and true blessedness which is promised to thesaints in a future world. All visible things, on the other hand, passaway, and all the pomp, and pleasure, and solicitude [6] ofthis world will perish, and (even now) they drag those who love themalong with them onward to destruction. The merciful God, willing todeliver men from this destruction, that is to say, from everlastingpains, if they should not prove enemies to themselves, and if theyshould not withstand the mercy of their Creator, sent His only-begottenSon, that is to say, His Word, equal with Himself, by whom He made allthings. And He, while abiding indeed in His divinity, and neitherreceding from the Father nor being changed in anything, did at the sametime, by taking on Himself human nature, [7] andappearing to men in mortal flesh, come unto men; in order that, just as death entered among the human race byone man, to wit, the first that was made, that is to say, Adam, becausehe consented unto his wife when she was seduced by the devil to theeffect that they (both) transgressed the commandment of God; even so byone man, Jesus Christ, who is also God, the Son of God, all those whobelieve in Him might have all their past sins done away with, and enterinto eternal life.

CHAP. 27.—: OF THE PROPHECIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THEIRVISIBLE FULFILLMENT IN THE CHURCH.

53. “For all thosethings, which at present you witness in the Church of God, and which yousee to be taking place under the name of Christ throughout the wholeworld, were predicted long ages ago. And even as we read of them, soalso we now see them. And by means of these things we are built up untofaith. Once of old there occurred a flood over the whole earth, theobject of which was that sinners might be destroyed. And, nevertheless,those who escaped in the ark exhibited a sacramental sign of the Churchthat 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. Itwas predicted to Abraham, a faithful servant of God, a single man, thatof Him it was determined that a people should be born who should worshipone God in the midst of all other nations which worshipped idols; andall things which were prophesied of as destined to happen to that peoplehave come to pass exactly as they were foretold. Among that peopleChrist, the King of all saints and their God, was also prophesied of asdestined to come of the seed of that same Abraham according to theflesh, which (flesh) He took unto Himself, in order that all those alsowho became followers of His faith might be sons of Abraham; and thus ithas come to pass: Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, who belonged tothat race. It was foretold by the prophets that He would suffer on thecross 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 wasforetold that He would rise again: He has risen again; and, inaccordance with these same predictions of the prophets, He has ascendedinto heaven and has sent the Holy Spirit to His disciples. It wasforetold not only by the prophets, but also by the Lord Jesus ChristHimself, that His Church would exist throughout the whole world,extended by the martyrdoms and sufferings of the saints; and this wasforetold at a time when as yet His name was at once undeclared to theGentiles, and made a subject of derision where it was known; and,nevertheless, in the power of His miracles, whether those which Hewrought by His own hand or those which he effected by means of Hisservants, as these things are being reported and believed, we alreadysee the fulfillment of that which was predicted, and behold the verykings of the earth, who formerly were wont to persecute the Christians,even now brought into subjection to the name of Christ. It was alsoforetold that schisms and heresies would arise from His Church, and thatunder His name they would seek their own glory instead ofChrist’s, in such places as they might be able to command;and these predictions have been realized.

54. “Will thosethings, then, which yet remain fail to come to pass? It is manifestthat, just as the former class of things which were foretold have cometo pass, so will these latter also come to pass. I refer to all thetribulations of the righteous, which yet wait for fulfillment, and tothe day of judgment, which will separate all the wicked from therighteous in the resurrection of the dead;—and not only willit thus separate those wicked men who are outside the Church, but alsoit will set apart for the fire, which is due to such, the chaff of theChurch itself, which must be borne with in utmost patience on to thelast winnowing. Moreover, they who deride the (doctrine of a)resurrection, because they think that this flesh, inasmuch as it becomescorrupt, cannot rise again, will certainly rise in the same untopunishment, and God will make it plain to such, that He who was able toform these bodies when as yet they were not, is able in a moment torestore them as they were. But all the faithful who are destined toreign with Christ shall rise with the same body in such wise that theymay also be counted worthy to be changed into angelic incorruption; sothat they may be made equal unto the angels of God, even as the LordHimself has promised; [1] and that they may praise Himwithout any failure and without any weariness, ever living in Him and ofHim, with such joy and blessedness as can be neither expressed norconceived by man.

55. “Believe thesethings, therefore, and be on your guard against temptations (for thedevil 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 ofthose who are without the Church, whetherthey be pagans, or Jews, or heretics; but you yourself also may declineto follow the example of those within the Catholic Church itself whomyou see leading an evil life, either indulging in excess in thepleasures of the belly and the throat, or unchaste, or given up to thevain and unlawful observances of curious superstitions, whether they beaddicted to (the inanities of) public spectacles, or charms, ordivinations of devils, [1] or be living in the pomp and inflated arroganceof covetousness and pride, or be pursuing any sort of life which the lawcondemns and punishes. But rather connect yourself with the good, whomyou will easily find out, if you yourself were once become of thatcharacter; so that you may unite with each other in worshipping andloving God for His own sake; [2] for He himself will be ourcomplete reward to the intent that we may enjoy His goodness andbeauty [3] in that life. He is to be loved, however, not in theway in which any object that is seen with the eyes is loved, but aswisdom is loved, and truth, and holiness, and righteousness, andcharity, [4] and whatever else may be mentioned as ofkindred nature; and further, with a love conformable to these things notas they are in men, but as they are in the very fountain ofincorruptible and unchangeable wisdom. Whomsoever, therefore, you mayobserve to be loving these things, attach yourself to them, so thatthrough Christ, who became man in order that He might be the Mediatorbetween God and men, you may be reconciled to God. But as regards theperverse, even if they find their way within the walls of the Church,think not that they will find their way into the kingdom of heaven; forin their own time they will be set apart, if they have not altered tothe better. Consequently, follow the example of good men, bear with thewicked, love all; forasmuch as you know not what he will be to-morrowwho to-day is evil. Howbeit, love not the unrighteousness of such; butlove the persons themselves with the express intent that they mayapprehend righteousness; for not only is the love of God enjoined uponus, but also the love of our neighbor, on which two commandments hangall the law and the prophets. [5] And this is fulfilledby no one save the man who has received the (other) gift, [6] the HolySpirit, who is indeed equal with the Father and with the Son; for thissame Trinity is God; and on this God every hope ought to be placed. Onman our hope ought not to be placed, of whatsoever character he may be.For He, by whom we are justified, is one thing; and they, together withwhom we are justified, are another. Moreover, it is not only by luststhat the devil tempts, but also by the terrors of insults, and pains,and death itself. But whatever a man shall have suffered on behalf ofthe name of Christ, and for the sake of the hope of eternal life, andshall have endured in constancy, (in accordance therewith) the greaterreward shall be given him; whereas, if he shall give way to the devil,he shall be damned along with him. But works of mercy, conjoined withpious humility, meet with this acknowledgment from God, to wit, that Hewill not suffer His servants to be tempted more than they are able tobear.” [7]

ST. AUGUSTIN: TREATISE ON FAITH AND THE CREED.

[DE FIDE ET SYMBOLO.] IN ONEBOOK.

TRANSLATED BY REV. S. D. F. SALMOND, D.D., PROFESSOR OF SYSTEMATICTHEOLOGY, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, ABERDEEN.

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.

THE occasion and date of the composition of thistreatise are indicated in a statement which Augustin makes in theseventeenth chapter of the First Book of his Retractations.

From this we learn that, in its original form, it was a discourse whichAugustin, when only a presbyter, was requested to deliver in public bythe bishops assembled at the Council of Hippo-Regius, and that it wassubsequently issued as a book at the desire of friends. The generalassembly of the North African Church, which was thus convened at what isnow Bona, in the modern territory of Algiers, took place in the year 393 AD , and was otherwise one of somehistorical importance, on account of the determined protest which itemitted against the position elsewhere allowed to Patriarchs in theChurch, and against the admittance of any more authoritative ormagisterial title to the highest ecclesiastical official than that ofsimply “Bishop of the first Church” ( primæ sedis episcopus ).

The work constitutes an exposition of the several clauses of theso-called Apostles’ Creed. The questions concerning themutual relations of the three Persons in the Godhead are handled withgreatest fullness; in connection with which, especially in the use madeof the analogies of Being, Knowledge, and Love, and in the cautionsthrown in against certain applications of these and other illustrationstaken from things of human experience, we come across sentiments whichare also repeated in the City of God, the books onthe Trinity, and others of his doctrinalwritings.

The passage referred to in the Retractations is asfollows: “About the same period, in presence of the bishops,who gave me orders to that effect, and who were holding a plenaryCouncil of the whole of Africa at Hippo-Regius, I delivered, aspresbyter, a discussion on the subject of Faith and theCreed. This disputation, at the very pressing request of someof those who were on terms of more than usual intimacy and affectionwith us, I threw into the form of a book, in which the themes themselvesare made the subjects of discourse, although not in a method involvingthe adoption of the particular connection of words which is given to the competentes [1] to be committed to memory. In this book,when discussing the question of the resurrection of the flesh, Isay: [2] ‘Rise again the body will, accordingto the Christian faith, which is incapable of deceiving. And if thisappears incredible to any one, [it is because] helooks simply to what the flesh is at present, while he fails to considerof what nature it shall be hereafter. For at that time of angelic changeit will no more be flesh and blood, but only body;’ and soon, through the other statements which I have made there on the subjectof the change of bodies terrestrial into bodies celestial, as theapostle, when he spake from the same point, said, ‘Flesh andblood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.’ [3] But if any one takes these declarations in a sense leading him tosuppose that the earthly body, such as we now have it, is changed in theresurrection into a celestial body, in any such wise as that neitherthese members nor the substance of the flesh will subsist any more, undoubtedly he must be set right, bybeing put in mind of the body of the Lord, who subsequently to Hisresurrection appeared in the same members, as One who was not only to beseen with the eyes, but also handled with the hands; and made Hispossession of the flesh likewise surer by the discourse which He spake,saying, ‘Handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh andbones, as ye see me have.’ [1] Hence it is certain thatthe apostle did not deny that the substance of the flesh will exist inthe kingdom of God, but that under the name of ‘flesh andblood’ he designated either men who live after the flesh, orthe express corruption of the flesh, which assuredly at that periodshall subsist no more. For after he had said, ‘Flesh andblood shall not inherit the kingdom of God,’ what he proceedsto say next,—namely, ‘neither shall corruptioninherit incorruption,’—is rightly taken to havebeen added by way of explaining his previous statement. And on thissubject, which is one on which it is difficult to convince unbelievers,any one who reads my last book, On the City of God, will find that I have discoursed with the utmost carefulness of which Iam capable. [2] The performance inquestion commences thus: ‘Since it is written,’etc.”

[ ADDITIONAL NOTE BY THEAMERICAN EDITOR. ]

[Another English edition of this treatise DeFide et Symbolo was prepared by the REV. CHARLESA. HEURTLEY, D.D., Margaret Professor of Divinity and Canon ofChrist Church, Oxford, and published by Parker Co., Oxford andLondon, 1886.

The following text of the Apostles’ Creed may be collectedfrom this book of St. Augustin, and was current in North Africa towardsthe close of the fourth century:

- 1. I BELIEVE IN GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY. Chs. 2 and3.

- 2. (And) IN JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD, THE ONLY-BEGOTTEN OF THEFATHER, or, HIS ONLY SON, OUR LORD. Ch.3.

- 3. WHO WAS BORN THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT OF THE VIRGINMARY. Ch. 4 (§ 8.)

- 4. WHO UNDER PONTIUS PILATE WAS CRUCIFIED ANDBURIED. 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 THEDEAD. Ch. 8 (§ 15.)

- 9. ( AND IBELIEVE ) 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.)]

CONTENTS OF FAITH AND THE CREED

- CHAP. I.— Of the origin and object of composition, . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . PAGE 321

- CHAP. II.— Of God and his exclusive eternity, . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322

- CHAP. III.— Of the Son of God, and His peculiardesignation as the Word, . . . . . . . . . . . 322

- CHAP. IV.— Of the Son of God as neither made by theFather nor less than the Father, and of His incarnation, 323

- CHAP. V.— Of Christ’s passion, burial, andresurrection, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

- CHAP. VI.— Of Christ’s ascension into heaven,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

- CHAP. VII.— Of Christ’s session at theFather’s right hand, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 326

- CHAP. VIII.— Of Christ’s coming to judgment,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

- CHAP. IX.— Of the Holy Spirit and the mystery of theTrinity, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 327

- CHAP. X.— Of the Catholic Church, the remission of sins,and the resurrection of the flesh, . . . . . 331

[A DISCOURSE DELIVERED BEFORE A COUNCIL OFTHE WHOLE NORTH AFRICAN EPISCOPATE ASSEMBLED ATHIPPO-REGIUS.]

CHAP. 1.—: OF THE ORIGIN AND OBJECT OF THECOMPOSITION.

1. INASMUCH as it is a position, written andestablished on the most solid foundation of apostolic teaching,“that the just lives of faith;” [1] and inasmuch also as thisfaith demands of us the duty at once of heart and tongue,—foran apostle says, “With the heart man believeth untorighteousness, and with the mouth confession is made untosalvation,” [2] —it becomes us to bemindful both of righteousness and of salvation. For, destined as we areto reign hereafter in everlasting righteousness, we certainly cannotsecure our salvation from the present evil world, unless at the sametime, while laboring for the salvation of our neighbors, we likewisewith the mouth make our own profession of the faith which we carry inour heart. And it must be our aim, by pious and careful watchfulness, toprovide against the possibility of the said faith sustaining any injuryin us, on any side, through the fraudulent artifices [or,cunning fraud] of the heretics.

We have, however, the catholic faith in the Creed, known to the faithfuland committed to memory, contained in a form of expression as concise ashas been rendered admissible by the circumstances of the case; thepurpose of which [compilation] was, thatindividuals who are but beginners and sucklings among those who havebeen born again in Christ, and who have not yet been strengthened bymost diligent and spiritual handling and understanding of the divineScriptures, should be furnished with a summary, expressed in few words,of those matters of necessary belief which were subsequently to beexplained to them in many words, as they made progress and rose to[the height of] divine doctrine, on the assuredand steadfast basis of humility and charity. It is underneath these fewwords, therefore, which are thus set in order in the Creed, that mostheretics have endeavored to conceal their poisons; whom divine mercy haswithstood, and still withstands, by the instrumentality of spiritualmen, who have been counted worthy not only to accept and believe thecatholic faith as expounded in those terms, but also thoroughly tounderstand and apprehend it by the enlightenment imparted by the Lord.For it is written, “Unless ye believe, ye shall notunderstand.” [3] But the handling of the faith is ofservice for the protection of the Creed; not, however, to the intentthat this should itself be given instead of the Creed, to be committedto memory and repeated by those who are receiving the grace of God, butthat it may guard the matters which are retained in the Creed againstthe insidious assaults of the heretics, by means of catholic authorityand a more entrenched defence.

CHAP. 2.—: OF GOD AND HIS EXCLUSIVE ETERNITY.

2. For certain parties haveattempted to gain acceptance for the opinion that GOD THEFATHER is not ALMIGHTY: not that they havebeen bold enough expressly to affirm this, but in their traditions theyare convicted of entertaining and crediting such a notion. For when theyaffirm that there is a nature [1] whichGod Almighty did not create, but of which at the same time He fashionedthis world, which they admit to have been disposed in beauty, [2] they thereby deny that God is almighty, to theeffect of not believing that He could have created the world withoutemploying, for the purpose of its construction, another nature, whichhad been in existence previously, and which He Himself had not made.Thus, forsooth, [they reason] from their carnalfamiliarity with the sight of craftsmen and house-builders, and artisansof all descriptions, who have no power to make good the effect of theirown art unless they get the help of materials already prepared. And sothese parties in like manner understand the Maker of the world not to bealmighty, if [3] thus Hecould not fashion the said world without the help of some other nature,not framed by Himself, which He had to use as His materials. Or ifindeed they do allow God, the Maker of the world, to be almighty, itbecomes matter of course that they must also acknowledge that He madeout of nothing the things which He did make. For, granting that He isalmighty, there cannot exist anything of which He should not be theCreator. For although He made something out of something, as man out ofclay, [4] nevertheless Hecertainly did not make any object out of aught which He Himself had notmade; for the earth from which the clay comes He had made out ofnothing. And even if He had made out of some material the heavens andthe earth themselves, that is to say, the universe and all things whichare in it, according as it is written, “Thou who didst makethe world out of matter unseen,” [5] or also “withoutform,” as some copies give it; yet we are under no manner ofnecessity to believe that this very material of which the universe wasmade, although it might be “without form,”although it might be “unseen,” whatever might bethe mode of its subsistence, could possibly have subsisted of itself, asif it were co-eternal and co-eval with God. But whatsoever that mode waswhich it possessed to the effect of subsisting in some manner, whateverthat manner might be, and of being capable of taking on the forms ofdistinct things, this it did not possess except by the hand of AlmightyGod, by whose goodness it is that everything exists,—not onlyevery object which is already formed, but also every object which isformable. This, moreover, is the difference between the formed and theformable, that the formed has already taken on form, while the formableis capable of taking the same. But the same Being who imparts form toobjects, also imparts the capability of being formed. For of Him and inHim is the fairest figure [6] of all things,unchangeable; and therefore He Himself is One, who communicates toeverything its possibilities, not only that it be beautiful actually,but also that it be capable of being beautiful. For which reason we domost right to believe that God made all things of nothing. For, evenalthough the world was made of some sort of material, this self-samematerial itself was made of nothing; so that, in accordance with themost orderly gift of God, there was to enter first the capacity oftaking forms, and then that all things should be formed which have beenformed. This, however, we have said, in order that no one might supposethat the utterances of the divine Scriptures are contrary the one to theother, in so far as it is written at once that God made all things ofnothing, and that the world was made of matter without form.

3. As we believe, therefore, in GOD THE FATHER ALMIGHTY, we ought to uphold theopinion that there is no creature which has not been created by theAlmighty. And since He created all things by the Word, [7] which Word is also designated the Truth, and the Power, and the Wisdomof God, [8] —as also under many other appellationsthe Lord Jesus Christ, who [9] is commended to our faith, ispresented likewise to our mental apprehensions, to wit, our Delivererand Ruler, [10] the Son of God; for that Word,by whose means all things were founded, could not have been begotten byany other than by Him who founded all things by Hisinstrumentality;—

CHAP. 3.—: OF THE SON OF GOD, AND HIS PECULIAR DESIGNATION ASTHE WORD.

—Since this is the case, I repeat, we believe also in JESUS CHRIST, THE SON OF GOD, THEONLY-BEGOTTEN OF THE FATHER, that is to say, HISONLY SON, OUR LORD. This Word, however, we ought not toapprehend merely in the sense in which we think of our own words, whichare given forth by the voice and the mouth, and strike the air and passon, and subsist no longer than their sound continues. For that Wordremains unchangeably: for of this very Word was it spoken when of Wisdomit was said, “Remaining in herself, she maketh all thingsnew.” [1] Moreover, the reason of Hisbeing named the Word of the Father, is that the Father is made known byHim. Accordingly, just as it is our intention, when we speak truth, thatby means of our words our mind should be made known to him who hears us,and that whatever we carry in secrecy in our heart may be set forth bymeans of signs of this sort for the intelligent understanding of anotherindividual; so this Wisdom that God the Father begat is mostappropriately named His Word, inasmuch as the most hidden Father is madeknown to worthy minds by the same. [2]

4. Now there is a very greatdifference between our mind and those words of ours, by which weendeavor to set forth the said mind. We indeed do not beget intelligiblewords, [3] but we form them; and in the forming of them the body is the underlyingmaterial. Between mind and body, however, there is the greatestdifference. But God, when He begat the Word, begat that which He isHimself. Neither out of nothing, nor of any material already made andfounded, did He then beget; but He begat of Himself that which He isHimself. For we too aim at this when we speak, (as we shall see) if wecarefully consider the inclination [4] of ourwill; not when we lie, but when we speak the truth. For to what else dowe direct our efforts then, but to bring our own very mind, if it can bedone at all, in upon the mind of the hearer, with the view of its beingapprehended and thoroughly discerned by him; so that we may indeed abidein our very selves, and make no retreat from ourselves, and yet at thesame time put forth a sign of such a nature as that by it a knowledge ofus [5] may beeffected in another individual; that thus, so far as the faculty isgranted us, another mind may be, as it were, put forth by the mind,whereby it may disclose itself? This we do, making the attempt [6] both by words, and by the simple soundof the voice, and by the countenance, and by the gestures of thebody,—by so many contrivances, in sooth, desiring to makepatent that which is within; inasmuch as we are not able to put forthaught of this nature [in itself completely]: andthus it is that the mind of the speaker cannot become perfectly known;thus also it results that a place is open for falsehoods. God theFather, on the other hand, who possessed both the will and the power todeclare Himself with the utmost truth to minds designed to obtainknowledge of Him, with the purpose of thus declaring Himself begat this[Word] which He Himself is who did beget; which[Person] is likewise called His Power andWisdom, [7] inasmuch as it is by Him that He has wrought all things, and in orderdisposed them; of whom these words are for this reason spoken:“She (Wisdom) reacheth from one end to another mightily, andsweetly doth she order all things.” [8]

CHAP. 4.—: OF THE SON OF GOD AS NEITHER MADE BY THE FATHERNOR LESS THAN THE FATHER, AND OF HIS INCARNATION.

5. Wherefore THEONLY-BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD was neither made by the Father; for,according to the word of an evangelist, “all things were madeby Him:” [9] nor begotteninstantaneously; [10] since God, who is eternally [11] wise, has with Himself Hiseternal Wisdom: nor unequal with the Father, that is to say, in anythingless than He; for an apostle also speaks in this wise, “Who,although He was constituted in the form of God, thought it not robberyto be equal with God.” [12] By this catholic faith,therefore, those are excluded, on the one hand, who affirm that the Sonis the same [Person] as the Father; for[it is clear that] this Word could not possibly be with God, were it not with God the Father, and [it is just as evidentthat] He who is alone is equal to no one. And, on the other hand, those are equallyexcluded who affirm that the Son is a creature, although not such an oneas the rest of the creatures are. For howevergreat they declare the creature to be, if it is a creature, it has beenfashioned and made. [1] For the terms fashion and create [2] mean one and the same thing;although in the usage of the Latin tongue the phrase create is employed at times instead of what would be thestrictly accurate word, beget. But the Greeklanguage makes a distinction. For we call that creatura (creature) which they callϰτίσμαorϰτίσις;and when we desire to speak without ambiguity, we use not the word creare (create), but the word condere (fashion, found). Consequently, if the Son is acreature, however great that may be, He has been made. But we believe inHim by whom all things ( omnia )were made, not in Him by whom the rest of things( cetera ) were made. For here again we cannottake this term all things in any other sense thanas meaning whatsoever things have been made.

6. But as “the Wordwas made flesh, and dwelt among us,” [3] the same Wisdom which wasbegotten of God condescended also to be created among men. [4] There is a reference tothis in the word, “The Lord created me in the beginning ofHis ways.” [5] For the beginning of His ways is the Head ofthe Church, which is Christ [6] endued with human nature ( homineindutus ), by whom it was purposed that there should be given tous a pattern of living, that is, a sure [7] way by which we might reach God. For by no otherpath was it possible for us to return but by humility, who fell bypride, according as it was said to our first creation,“Taste, and ye shall be as gods.” [8] Of this humility, therefore, that is to say, of the way by which it wasneedful for us to return, our Restorer Himself has deemed it meet toexhibit an example in His own person, “who thought it notrobbery to be equal with God, but emptied Himself, taking the form of aservant;” [9] in order that He might becreated Man in the beginning of His ways, the Word by whom all thingswere made. Wherefore, in so far as He is the Only-begotten, He has nobrethren; but in so far as He is the First-begotten, He has deemed itworthy of Him to give the name of brethren to all those who,subsequently to and by means of His pre-eminence, [10] areborn again into the grace of God through the adoption of sons, accordingto the truth commended to us by apostolic teaching. [11] Thus, then, the Son according tonature ( naturalis filius ) was born of the verysubstance of the Father, the only one so born, subsisting as that whichthe Father is, [12] God ofGod, Light of Light. We, on the other hand, are not the light by nature,but are enlightened by that Light, so that we may be able to shine inwisdom. For, as one says, “that was the true Light, whichlighteth every man that cometh into the world.” [13] Therefore we add to the faith of things eternal likewise the temporaldispensation [14] ofour Lord, which He deemed it worthy of Him to bear for us and tominister in behalf of our salvation. For in so far as He is theonly-begotten Son of God, it cannot be said of Him that He was and that He shall be, but onlythat He is; because, on the one hand, that which was, now is not; and, on the other, that which shall be, as yet is not. He, then, isunchangeable, independent of the condition of times and variation. Andit is my opinion that this is the very consideration to which was duethe circumstance that He introduced to the apprehension of His servantMoses the kind of name [which He then adopted].For when he asked of Him by whom he should say that he was sent, in theevent of the people to whom he was being sent despising him, he receivedhis answer when He spake in this wise: “ I AMTHAT I AM. ” Thereafter, too, He added this:“Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, HE THAT IS ( Qui est ) has sentme unto you.” [15]

7. From this, I trust, it is nowmade patent to spiritual minds that there cannot possibly exist anynature contrary to God. For if He is, —and this is a word which can be spoken withpropriety only of God (for that which truly is remains unchangeably; inasmuch as that which is changed has beensomething which now it is not, and shall be something which as yet it isnot),—it follows that God has nothing contrary to Himself.For if the question were put to us, What is contrary to white? we wouldreply, black; if the question were, What is contrary to hot? we wouldreply, cold; if the question were, What is contrary to quick? we wouldreply, slow; and all similar interrogationswe would answer in like manner. When, however, it is asked, What iscontrary to that which is? the right reply to giveis, that which is not.

8. But whereas, in a temporaldispensation, as I have said, with a view to our salvation andrestoration, and with the goodness of God acting therein, our changeablenature has been assumed by that unchangeable Wisdom of God, we add thefaith in temporal things which have been done with salutary effect onour behalf, believing in that Son of God WHO WAS BORNTHROUGH THE HOLY GHOST OF THE VIRGIN MARY. For by the gift ofGod, that is, by the Holy Spirit, there was granted to us so greathumility on the part of so great a God, that He deemed it worthy of Himto assume the entire nature of man ( totum hominem )in the womb of the Virgin, inhabiting the material body so that itsustained no detriment ( integrum ), and leavingit [1] without detriment. This temporaldispensation is in many ways craftily assailed by the heretics. But ifany one shall have grasped the catholic faith, so as to believe that theentire nature of man was assumed by the Word of God, that is to say,body, soul, and spirit, he has sufficient defense against those parties.For surely, since that assumption was effected in behalf of oursalvation, one must be on his guard lest, as he believes that there issomething belonging to our nature which sustains no relation to thatassumption, this something may fail also to sustain any relation to thesalvation. [2] And seeing that, with the exception ofthe form of the members, which has been imparted to the varieties ofliving objects with differences adapted to their different kinds, man isin nothing separated from the cattle but in [the possessionof] a rational spirit ( rationalispiritu ), which is also named mind ( mens ), howis that faith sound, according to which the belief is maintained, thatthe Wisdom of God assumed that part of us which we hold in common withthe cattle, while He did not assume that which is brightly illumined bythe light of wisdom, and which is man’s peculiar gift?

9. Moreover, those parties [3] also are to be abhorred who deny that ourLord Jesus Christ had in Mary a mother upon earth; while thatdispensation has honored both sexes, at once the male and the female,and has made it plain that not only that sex which He assumed pertainsto God’s care, but also that sex by which He did assume thisother, in that He bore [the nature of] the man( virum gerendo ), [and] inthat He was born of the woman. Neither is there anything to compel us toa denial of the mother of the Lord, in the circumstance that this wordwas spoken by Him: “Woman, what have I to do with thee? Minehour is not yet come.” [4] But He rather admonishes us tounderstand that, in respect of His being God, there was no mother forHim, the part of whose personal majesty ( cujusmajestatis personam ) He was preparing to show forth in theturning of water into wine. But as regards His being crucified, He wascrucified in respect of his being man; and that was the hour which had not come as yet, at the time when this word wasspoken, “What have I to do with thee? Mine hour is not yetcome;” that is, the hour at which I shall recognize thee. Forat that period, when He was crucified as man, He recognized His humanmother ( hominem matrem ), and committed her mosthumanely ( humanissime ) to the care of the bestbeloved disciple. [5] Nor, again, should we be moved by the fact that, whenthe presence of His mother and His brethren was announced to Him, Hereplied, “Who is my mother, or who my brethren?”etc. [6] But rather let it teach us, that when parents hinder our ministrywherein we minister the word of God to our brethren, they ought not tobe recognized by us. For if, on the ground of His having said,“Who is my mother?” every one should conclude thatHe had no mother on earth, then each should as matter of course be alsocompelled to deny that the apostles had fathers on earth; since He gavethem an injunction in these terms: “Call no man your fatherupon the earth; for one is your Father, which is inheaven.” [7]

10. Neither should the thoughtof the woman’s womb impair this faith in us, to the effectthat there should appear to be any necessity for rejecting such ageneration of our Lord for the mere reason that worthless men considerit unworthy ( sordidi sordidam putant ). For mosttrue are these sayings of an apostle, both that “thefoolishness of God is wiser than men,” [8] and that “to thepure all things are pure.” [9] Those, [10] therefore,who entertain this opinion ought to ponder the fact that the rays ofthis sun, which indeed they do not praise as a creature of God, butadore as God, are diffused all the world over, through the noisomenessesof sewers and every kind of horrible thing, and that they operate in these according to their nature, and yetnever become debased by any defilement thence confracted, albeit thatthe visible light is by nature in closer conjunction with visiblepollutions. How much less, therefore, could the Word of God, who isneither corporeal nor visible, sustain defilement from the female body,wherein He assumed human flesh together with soul and spirit, throughthe incoming of which the majesty of the Word dwells in a less immediateconjunction with the frailty of a human body! [1] Hence it is manifest that the Word of Godcould in no way have been defiled by a human body, by which even thehuman soul is not defiled. For not when it rules the body and quickensit, but only when it lusts after the mortal good things thereof, is thesoul defiled by the body. But if these persons were to desire to avoidthe defilements of the soul, they would dread rather these falsehoodsand profanities.

CHAP. 5.—: OF CHRIST’S PASSION, BURIAL, ANDRESURRECTION.

11. But little[comparatively] was the humiliation ( humilitas ) of our Lord on our behalf in His beingborn: it was also added that He deemed it meet to die in behalf ofmortal men. For “He humbled Himself, being made subject evenunto death, yea, the death of the cross:” [2] lest any one of us, even werehe able to have no fear of death [in general],should yet shudder at some particular sort of death which men reckonmost shameful. Therefore do we believe in Him WHO UNDERPONTIUS PILATE WAS CRUCIFIED AND BURIED. For it was requisitethat the name of the judge should be added, with a view to thecognizance of the times. Moreover, when that burial is made an object ofbelief, there enters also the recollection of the new tomb, [3] which wasmeant to present a testimony to Him in His destiny to rise again tonewness of life, even as the Virgin’s womb did the same toHim in His appointment to be born. For just as in that sepulchre noother dead person was buried, [4] whether before or after Him;so neither in that womb, whether before or after, was anything mortalconceived.

12. We believe also, that ON THE THIRD DAY HE ROSE AGAIN FROM THE DEAD, thefirst-begotten for brethren destined to come after Him, whom He hascalled into the adoption of the sons of God, [5] whom[also] He has deemed it meet to make His ownjoint-partners and joint-heirs. [6]

CHAP. 6.—: OF CHRIST’S ASCENSION INTOHEAVEN.

13. We believe that HE ASCENDED INTO HEAVEN, which place of blessednessHe has likewise promised unto us, saying, “They shall be asthe angels in the heavens,” [7] in that city which is themother of us all, [8] the Jerusalem eternal in the heavens. But it is wont to give offense tocertain parties, either impious Gentiles or heretics, that we shouldbelieve in the assumption of an earthly body into heaven. The Gentiles,however, for the most part, set themselves diligently to ply us with thearguments of the philosophers, to the effect of affirming that therecannot possibly be anything earthly in heaven. For they know not ourScriptures, neither do they understand how it has been said,“It is sown an animal body, it is raised a spiritualbody.” [9] For thus it has not beenexpressed, as if body were turned into spirit and became spirit;inasmuch as at present, too, our body, which is called animal ( animale ), has not been turned into soul and becomesoul ( anima ). But by a spiritual body is meant onewhich has been made subject to spirit in such wise [10] that it is adapted to a heavenlyhabitation, all frailty and every earthly blemish having been changedand converted into heavenly purity and stability. This is the changeconcerning which the apostle likewise speaks thus: “We shallall rise, but we shall not all be changed.” [11] And that this change is made not unto theworse, but unto the better, the same [apostle]teaches, when he says, “And we shall bechanged.” [12] But the question as towhere and in what manner the Lord’s body is in heaven, is onewhich it would be altogether over-curious and superfluous to prosecute.Only we must believe that it is in heaven. For it pertains not to ourfrailty to investigate the secret things of heaven, but it does pertainto our faith to hold elevated and honorable sentiments on the subject ofthe dignity of the Lord’s body.

CHAP. 7.—: OF CHRIST’S SESSION AT THEFATHER’S RIGHT HAND.

14. We believe also that HE SITTETH AT THE RIGHT HAND OF THE FATHER. This,however, is not to lead us to suppose thatGod the Father is, as it were, circumscribed by a human form, so that,when we think of Him, a right side or a left should suggest itself tothe mind. Nor, again, when it is thus said in express terms that theFather sitteth, are we to fancy that this is done with bended knees;lest we should fall into that profanity, in [dealingwith] which an apostle execrates those who“changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likenessof corruptible man.” [1] For it is unlawful for aChristian to set up any such image for God in a temple; much morenefarious is it, [therefore], to set it up in theheart, in which truly is the temple of God, provided it be purged ofearthly lust and error. This expression, “at the righthand,” therefore, we must understand to signify a position insupremest blessedness, where righteousness and peace and joy are; justas the kids are set on the left hand, [2] that is to say, in misery,by reason of unrighteousness, labors, and torments. [3] And in accordance with this, when itis said that God “sitteth,” the expressionindicates not a posture of the members, but a judicial power, which thatMajesty never fails to possess, as He is always awarding deserts as mendeserve them ( digna dignis tribuendo ); although atthe last judgment the unquestionable brightness of the only-begotten Sonof God, the Judge of the living and the dead, is destined yet to be [4] a thing much more manifest amongmen.

CHAP. 8.—: OF CHRIST’S COMING TO JUDGMENT.

15. We believe also, that at themost seasonable time HE WILL COME FROM THENCE, AND WILLJUDGE THE QUICK AND THE DEAD: whether by these terms aresignified the righteous and sinners, or whether it be the case thatthose persons are here called the quick, whom atthat period He shall find, previous to [their]death, [5] upon the earth, while the dead denote those who shall rise again at His advent. Thistemporal dispensation not only is, as holds good ofthat generation which respects His being God, but also hath been and shall be. For our Lord hath been upon the earth, and at present He is in heaven, and [hereafter]He shall be in His brightness as the Judge of thequick and the dead. For He shall yet come, even so as He has ascended,according to the authority which is contained in the Acts of theApostles. [6] Itis in accordance with this temporal dispensation, therefore, that Hespeaks in the Apocalypse, where it is written in this wise:“These things saith He, who is, and who was, and who is tocome.” [7]

CHAP. 9.—: OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE MYSTERY OF THETRINITY.

16. The divine generation,therefore, of our Lord, and his human dispensation, having both beenthus systematically disposed and commended to faith, [8] there is added to our Confession, with a view to the perfecting of thefaith which we have regarding God, [the doctrineof] THE HOLY SPIRIT, who is not of anature inferior [9] to the Father and the Son, but, so to say,consubstantial and co-eternal: for this Trinity is one God, not to theeffect that the Father is the same [Person] as theSon and the Holy Spirit, but to the effect that the Father is theFather, and the Son is the Son, and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit;and this Trinity is one God, according as it is written,“Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is oneGod.” [10] At the same time, if we beinterrogated on the subject of each separately, and if the question beput to us, “Is the Father God?” we shall reply,“He is God.” If it be asked whether the Son isGod, we shall answer to the same effect. Nor, if this kind of inquiry beaddressed to us with respect to the Holy Spirit, ought we to affirm inreply that He is anything else than God; being earnestly on our guard,[however], against an acceptance of this merely inthe sense in which it is applied to men, when it is said, “Yeare gods.” [11] For of all those who havebeen made and fashioned of the Father, through the Son, by the gift ofthe Holy Spirit, none are gods according to nature. For it is this sameTrinity that is signified when an apostle says, “For of Him,and in Him, and through Him, are all things.” [12] Consequently, although, when we are interrogated on the subject of each[of these Persons] severally, we reply that thatparticular one regarding whom the question is asked, whether it be theFather, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit, is God, no one, notwithstandingthis, should suppose that three Gods are worshipped by us.

17. Neither is it strange thatthese things are said in reference to an ineffable Nature, when even inthose objects which we discern with the bodily eyes, and judge of by thebodily sense, something similar holds good. For take the instance of aninterrogation on the subject of a fountain, and consider how we areunable then to affirm that the said fountain is itself the river; andhow, when we are asked about the river, we are as little able to call itthe fountain; and, again, how we are equally unable to designate thedraught, which comes of the fountain or the river, either river orfountain. Nevertheless, in the case of this trinity we use the name water [for the whole]; andwhen the question is put regarding each of these separately, we reply ineach several instance that the thing is water. Forif I inquire whether it is water in the fountain, the reply is giventhat it is water; and if we ask whether it is water in the river, nodifferent response is returned; and in the case of the said draught, noother answer can possibly be made: and yet, for all this, we do notspeak of these things as three waters, but as one water. At the sametime, of course, care must be taken that no one should conceive of theineffable substance of that Majesty merely as he might think of thisvisible and material [1] fountain, or river, or draught. For in thecase of these latter, that water which is at present in the fountaingoes forth into the river, and does not abide in itself; and when itpasses from the river or from the fountain into the draught, it does notcontinue permanently there where it is taken from. Therefore it ispossible here that the same water may be in view at one time under theappellation of the fountain, and at another under that of the river, andat a third under that of the draught. But in the case of that Trinity,we have affirmed it to be impossible that the Father should be sometimethe Son, and sometime the Holy Spirit: just as, in a tree, the root isnothing else than the root, and the trunk ( robur )is nothing else than the trunk, and we cannot call the branches anythingelse than branches; for, what is called the root cannot be called trunkand branches; and the wood which belongs to the root cannot by any sortof transference be now in the root, and again in the trunk, and yetagain in the branches, but only in the root; since this rule ofdesignation stands fast, so that the root is wood, and the trunk iswood, and the branches are wood, while nevertheless it is not threewoods that are thus spoken of, but only one. Or, if these objects havesome sort of dissimilarity, so that on account of their difference instrength they may be spoken of, without any absurdity, as three woods;at least all parties admit the force of the formerexample,—namely, that if three cups be filled out of onefountain, they may certainly be called three cups, but cannot be spokenof as three waters, but only as one all together. Yet, at the same time,when asked concerning the several cups, one by one, we may answer thatin each of them by itself there is water; although in this case no suchtransference takes place as we were speaking of as occurring from thefountain into the river. But these examples in things material ( corporalia exempla ) have been adduced not in virtueof their likeness to that divine Nature, but in reference to the onenesswhich subsists even in things visible, so that it may be understood tobe quite a possibility for three objects of some sort, not onlyseverally, but also all together, to obtain one single name; and that inthis way no one may wonder and think it absurd that we should call theFather God, the Son God, the Holy Spirit God, and that nevertheless weshould say that there are not three Gods in that Trinity, but one Godand one substance. [2]

18. And, indeed, on this subjectof the Father and the Son, learned and spiritual [3] men have conducted discussions inmany books, in which, so far as men could do with men, they haveendeavored to introduce an intelligible account as to how the Father wasnot one personally with the Son, and yet the two were onesubstantially; [4] andas to what the Father was individually ( proprie ),and what the Son: to wit, that the former was the Begetter, the latterthe Begotten; the former not of the Son, the latter of the Father: theformer the Beginning of the latter, whence also He is called the Head ofChrist, [5] although Christ likewise is the Beginning, [6] butnot of the Father; the latter, moreover, the Image [7] of the former, although in norespect dissimilar, and although absolutely and without difference equal( omnino et indifferenter æqualis ).These questions are handled with greater breadth by those who, in lessnarrow limits than ours are at present, seek to set forth the profession of the Christian faith in itstotality. Accordingly, in so far as He is the Son, of the Fatherreceived He it that He is, while that other[the Father] received not this of the Son; and inso far as He, in unutterable mercy, in a temporal dispensation took uponHimself the [nature of] man ( hominem ),—to wit, the changeable creature that wasthereby to be changed into something better,—many statementsconcerning Him are discovered in the Scriptures, which are so expressedas to have given occasion to error in the impious intellects ofheretics, with whom the desire to teach takes precedence of that tounderstand, so that they have supposed Him to be neither equal with theFather nor of the same substance. Such statements [aremeant] as the following: “For the Father isgreater than I;” [1] and, “The head ofthe woman is the man, the Head of the man is Christ, and the Head ofChrist is God;” [2] and, “Then shallHe Himself be subject unto Him that put all things underHim;” [3] and, “I go to myFather and your Father, my God and your God” [4] together with some others of like tenor. Now all these have had a placegiven them, [certainly] not with the object ofsignifying an inequality of nature and substance; for to take them sowould be to falsify a different class of statements, such as,“I and my Father are one” ( unum ); [5] and, “He that hath seen me hath seen my Fatheralso;” [6] and, “The Word wasGod,” [7] for He was not made, inasmuchas “all things were made by Him;” [8] and, “He thought it not robbery to be equal withGod:” [9] together with all the other passages of asimilar order. But these statements have had a place given them, partlywith a view to that administration of His assumption of human nature( administrationem suscepti hominis ), inaccordance with which it is said that “He emptiedHimself:” not that that Wisdom was changed, since it isabsolutely unchangeable; but that it was His will to make Himself knownin such humble fashion to men. Partly then, I repeat, it is with a viewto this administration that those things have been thus written whichthe heretics make the ground of their false allegations; and partly itwas with a view to the consideration that the Son owes to the Fatherthat which He is, [10] —thereby also certainly owing this inparticular to the Father, to wit, that He is equal to the same Father,or that He is His Peer ( eidem Patri æqualisaut par est ), whereas the Father owes whatsoever He is to noone.

19. With respect to the HOLY SPIRIT, however, there has not been as yet, onthe part of learned and distinguished investigators of the Scriptures, adiscussion of the subject full enough or careful enough to make itpossible for us to obtain an intelligent conception of what alsoconstitutes His special individuality ( proprium ):in virtue of which special individuality it comes to be the case that wecannot 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 maybelieve God not to give a gift inferior to Himself. At the same timethey hold by this position, namely, to predicate the Holy Spirit neitheras 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 theSupreme Father: while they do not affirm Him to owe that which He is tono one, but [admit Him to owe it] to the Father,of whom are all things; lest we should establish two Beginnings withoutbeginning ( ne duo constituamus principia isneprincipio ), which would be an assertion at once most false andmost absurd, and one proper not to the catholic faith, but to the errorof certain heretics. [11] Some, however, have gone so far as to believethat the communion of the Father and the Son, and (so to speak) theirGodhead ( deitatem ), which the Greeks designateθεότης,is the Holy Spirit; so that, inasmuch as the Father is God and the SonGod, the Godhead itself, in which they are united with eachother,—to wit, the former by begetting the Son, and thelatter by cleaving to the Father, [12] —should [thereby] beconstituted equal with Him by whom He is begotten. This Godhead, then,which they wish to be understood likewise as the love and charitysubsisting between these two [Persons], the onetoward the other, they affirm to have received the name of the HolySpirit. And this opinion of theirs they support by many proofs drawnfrom the Scriptures; among which we might instance either the passagewhich says, “For the love of God is shed abroad in our heartsby the Holy Ghost, who has been given unto us,” [13] ormany other proofs texts of a similar tenor: while they ground theirposition also upon the express fact that it is through the Holy Spiritthat we are reconciled unto God; whence also, when He is called the Giftof God, they will have it that sufficient indication is offered of the love of God and the Holy Spirit beingidentical. For we are not reconciled unto Him except through that lovein virtue of which we are also called sons: [1] as we are no more “under fear, like servants,” [2] because “love, when it is made perfect, casteth outfear;” [3] and[as] “we have received the spirit ofliberty, wherein we cry, Abba, Father.” [4] And inasmuch as, beingreconciled and called back into friendship through love, we shall beable to become acquainted with all the secret things of God, for thisreason it is said of the Holy Spirit that “He shall lead youinto all truth.” [5] For the same reason also,that confidence in preaching the truth, with which the apostles werefilled at His advent, [6] is rightly ascribed to love;because diffidence also is assigned to fear, which the perfecting oflove excludes. Thus, likewise, the same is called the Gift of God, [7] because no one enjoys that which he knows, unless healso love it. To enjoy the Wisdom of God, however, implies nothing elsethan to cleave to the same in love ( ei dilectionecohærere ). Neither does any one abide in that whichhe apprehends, but by love; and accordingly the Holy Spirit is calledthe Spirit of sanctity ( SpiritusSanctus ), inasmuch as all things that are sanctioned ( sanciuntur ) [8] are sanctioned with aview to their permanence, and there is no doubt that the term sanctity ( sanctitatem ) isderived from sanction ( asanciendo ). Above all, however, that testimony is employed bythe upholders of this opinion, where it is thus written,“That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which isborn of the Spirit is spirit;” [9] “for God is aSpirit.” [10] For here He speaks of ourregeneration, [11] which is not, accordingto Adam, of the flesh, but, according to Christ, of the Holy Spirit.Wherefore, if in this passage mention is made of the Holy Spirit, whenit is said, “For God is a Spirit,” they maintainthat we must take note that it is not said, “for the Spiritis God,” [12] but,“for God is a Spirit;” so that the very Godhead ofthe Father and the Son is in this passage called God, and that is theHoly Spirit. To this is added another testimony which the Apostle Johnoffers, when he says, “For God is love.” [13] For here, in like manner, what he says is not,“Love is God,” [14] but, “God islove;” so that the very Godhead is taken to be love. And withrespect to the circumstance that, in that enumeration of mutuallyconnected objects which is given when it is said, “All thingsare yours, and ye are Christ’s, and Christ isGod’s,” [15] as also,“The head of the woman is the man, the Head of the man isChrist, and the Head of Christ is God,” [16] there is no mention of theHoly Spirit; this they affirm to be but an application of the principlethat, in general, the connection itself is not wont to be enumeratedamong the things which are connected with each other. Whence, also,those who read with closer attention appear to recognize the expressTrinity likewise in that passage in which it is said, “For ofHim, and through Him, and in Him, are all things.” [17] “Of Him,” as if it meant, of that One who owes itto no one that He is: “throughHim,” as if the idea were, through a Mediator; “inHim,” as if it were, in that One who holds together, that is,unites by connecting.

20. Those parties oppose thisopinion who think that the said communion, which we call either Godhead,or Love, or Charity, is not a substance. Moreover, they require the HolySpirit to be set forth to them according to substance; neither do theytake it to have been otherwise impossible for the expression“God is Love” to have been used, unless love werea substance. In this, indeed, they are influenced by the wont of thingsof a bodily nature. For if two bodies are connected with each other insuch wise as to be placed in juxtaposition one with the other, theconnection itself is not a body: inasmuch as when these bodies which hadbeen connected are separated, no such connection certainly is found[any more]; while, at the same time, it is notunderstood to have departed, as it were, and migrated, as is the casewith those bodies themselves. But men like these should make their heartpure, so far as they can, in order that they may have power to see thatin the substance of God there is not anything of such a nature as wouldimply that therein substance is one thing, and that which is accident tosubstance ( aliud quod accidatsubstantiæ ) another thing, and not substance; whereaswhatsoever 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, theyabsolutely cannot be, except by the pure heart. For which reason, whether the opinion in question be true, orsomething else be the case, the faith ought to be maintained unshaken,so that we should call the Father God, the Son God, the Holy Spirit God,and yet not affirm three Gods, but hold the said Trinity to be one God;and again, not affirm these [Persons] to bedifferent in nature, but hold them to be of the same substance; andfurther uphold it, not as if the Father were sometime the Son, andsometime the Holy Spirit, but in such wise that the Father is always theFather, and the Son always the Son, and the Holy Spirit always the HolySpirit. Neither should we make any affirmation on the subject of thingsunseen rashly, as if we had knowledge, but [onlymodestly] as believing. For these things cannot be seenexcept by the heart made pure; and [even] he whoin this life sees them “in part,” as it has beensaid, and “in an enigma,” [1] cannot secure it that theperson to whom he speaks shall also see them, if he is hampered byimpurities of heart. “Blessed,” however,“are they of a pure heart, for they shall seeGod.” [2] This is the faith on thesubject of God our Maker and Renewer.

21. But inasmuch as love isenjoined upon us, not only toward God, when it was said,“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, andwith all thy soul, and with all thy mind;” [3] but also toward our neighbor, for “thou shaltlove,” saith He, “thy neighbor asthyself;” [4] and inasmuch, moreover, as thefaith in question is less fruitful, if it does not comprehend acongregation and society of men, wherein brotherly charity mayoperate;—

CHAP. 10.—: OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE REMISSION OF SINS, ANDTHE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.

—Inasmuch, I repeat, as this is the case, we believe also in THE HOLY CHURCH, [intendingthereby] assuredly the CATHOLIC. For bothheretics and schismatics style their congregations churches. Butheretics, in holding false opinions regarding God, do injury to thefaith itself; while schismatics, on the other hand, in wickedseparations break off from brotherly charity, although they may believejust what we believe. Wherefore neither do the heretics belong to theChurch catholic, which loves God; nor do the schismatics form a part ofthe same, inasmuch as it loves the neighbor, and consequently readilyforgives the neighbor’s sins, because it prays thatforgiveness may be extended to itself by Him who has reconciled us toHimself, 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 withoutsins. Nevertheless it is a matter of consequence of what sort those sinsmay be.

22. Neither ought we only totreat of the difference between sins, but we ought most thoroughly tobelieve that those things in which we sin are in no way forgiven us, ifwe show ourselves severely unyielding in the matter of forgiving thesins of others. [5] Thus, then, we believe also in THE REMISSION OFSINS.

23. And inasmuch as there arethree things of which man consists,—namely, spirit, soul, andbody,—which again are spoken of as two, because frequentlythe soul is named along with the spirit; for a certain rational portionof the same, of which beasts are devoid, is called spirit: the principalpart in us is the spirit; next, the life whereby we are united with thebody is called the soul; finally, the body itself, as it is visible, isthe last part in us. This “whole creation” ( creatura ), however, “groaneth andtravaileth until now.” [6] Nevertheless, He has givenit the first-fruits of the Spirit, in that it has believed God, and isnow of a good will. [7] This spirit is also called the mind, regardingwhich an apostle speaks thus: “With the mind I serve the lawof God.” [8] Which apostle likewiseexpresses himself thus in another passage: “For God is mywitness, whom I serve in my spirit.” [9] Moreover, the soul, when as yetit lusts after carnal good things, is called the flesh. For a certainpart thereof resists [10] the Spirit, not in virtue of nature,but in virtue of the custom of sins; whence it is said, “Withthe mind I serve the law of God, but with the flesh the law ofsin.” And this custom has been turned into a nature,according to mortal generation, by the sin of the first man.Consequently it is also written in this wise, “And we weresometime by nature the children of wrath,” [11] that is, of vengeance, through which it has come to pass that we servethe law of sin. The nature of the soul, however, is perfect when it ismade subject to its own spirit, and when it follows that spirit as thesame follows God. Therefore “the animal man [12] receiveth not the things whichare of the Spirit of God.” [13] But the soul is not sospeedily subdued to the spirit unto goodaction, as is the spirit to God unto true faith and goodwill; butsometimes its impetus, whereby it moves downwards into things carnal andtemporal, is more tardily bridled. But inasmuch as this same soul isalso made pure, and receives the stability of its own nature, under thedominance of the spirit, which is the head for it, which head of thesaid soul has again its own head in Christ, we ought not to despair ofthe restoration of the body also to its own proper nature. But thiscertainly will not be effected so speedily as is the case with the soul;just as the soul, too, is not restored so speedily as the spirit. Yet itwill take place in the appropriate season, at the last trump, when“the dead shall rise uncorrupted, and we shall bechanged.” [1] And accordingly we believealso in THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH, to wit, notmerely that that soul, which at present by reason of carnal affectionsis called the flesh, is restored; but that it shall be so likewise withthis visible flesh, which is the flesh according to nature, the name ofwhich has been received by the soul, not in virtue of nature, but inreference to carnal affections: this visible flesh, then, I say, whichis the flesh properly so called, must without doubt be believed to bedestined to rise again. For the Apostle Paul appears to point to this,as it were, with his finger, when he says, “This corruptiblemust put on incorruption.” [2] For when he says this, he, as it were, directs his finger toward it.Now it is that which is visible that admits of being pointed out withthe finger; since the soul might also have been called corruptible, forit is itself corrupted by vices of manners. And when it is read,“and this mortal [must] put onimmortality,” the same visible flesh is signified, inasmuchas at it ever and anon the finger is thus as it were pointed. For thesoul also may thus in like manner be called mortal, even as it isdesignated corruptible in reference to vices of manners. For assuredlyit is “the death of the soul to apostatize fromGod;” [3] which is its first sin in Paradise,as it is contained in the sacred writings.

24. Rise again, therefore, thebody will, according to the Christian faith, which is incapable ofdeceiving. And if this appears incredible to any one, [it isbecause] he looks simply to what the flesh is at present,while he fails to consider of what nature it shall be hereafter. For atthat time of angelic change it will no more be flesh and blood, but onlybody. [4] For when the apostle speaks of the flesh, he says,“There is one flesh of cattle, another of birds, another offishes, another of creeping things: there are also both celestial bodiesand terrestrial bodies.” [5] Now what he has saidhere is not “celestial flesh,” but“both celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies.”For all flesh is also body; but every body is not also flesh. In thefirst instance, [for example, this holds good] inthe case of those terrestrial bodies, inasmuch as wood is body, but notflesh. In the case of man, again, or in that of cattle, we have bothbody and flesh. In the case of celestial bodies, on the other hand,there is no flesh, but only those simple and lucent bodies which theapostle designates spiritual, while some call them ethereal. Andconsequently, when he says, “Flesh and blood shall notinherit the kingdom of God,” [6] that does not contradictthe resurrection of the flesh; but the sentence predicates what will bethe nature of that hereafter which at present is flesh and blood. And ifany one refuses to believe that the flesh is capable of being changedinto the sort of nature thus indicated, he must be led on, step by step,to this faith. For if you inquire of him whether earth is capable ofbeing changed into water, the nearness of the thing will make it notseem incredible to him. Again, if you inquire whether water is capableof being changed into air, he replies that this also is not absurd, forthe elements are near each other. And if, on the subject of the air, itis asked whether that can be changed into an ethereal, that is, acelestial body, the simple fact of the nearness at once convinces him ofthe possibility of the thing. But if, then, he concedes that throughsuch gradations it is quite a possible thing that earth should bechanged into an ethereal body, why does he refuse to believe, when thatwill of God, too, enters in addition, whereby a human body had power towalk upon the waters, that the same change is capable of being effectedwith the utmost rapidity, precisely in accordance with the saying,“in the twinkling of an eye,” [7] and without any suchgradations, even as, according to common wont, smoke is changed intoflame with marvellous quickness? For our flesh assuredly is of earth.But philosophers, on the ground of whose arguments opposition is for themost part offered to the resurrection of the flesh, so far as in thesethey assert that no terrene body can possibly exist in heaven, yetconcede that any kind of body may be converted and changed into every [other] sort ofbody. And when this resurrection of the body has taken place, being setfree then from the condition of time, we shall fully enjoy ETERNAL LIFE in ineffable love and steadfastness, withoutcorruption. [1] For “then shall be broughtto pass the saying which is written. Death is swallowed up in victory.Where is, O death, thy sting? Where is, O death, thycontention?” [2]

25. This is the faith which infew words is given in the Creed to Christian novices, to be held bythem. And these few words are known to the faithful, to the end that inbelieving they may be made subject to God; that being made subject, theymay rightly live; that in rightly living, they may make the heart pure;that with the heart made pure, they may understand that which theybelieve.

ST. AUGUSTIN: CONCERNING FAITH OF THINGS NOT SEEN.

[DE FIDE RERUM QUÆ NONVIDENTUR.]

TRANSLATED BY REV. C. L. CORNISH, M.A.

This tract was thought spurious by some, but is known to be St.Augustin’s by his mention of it in Ep. ccxxxi. ad Darium Comitem. It seems to have been writtenafter 399, from what is said about Idols, § 10; for in thatyear Honorius enacted laws against them.— FromBened. Ed.

The reader of Butler’s Analogy will recognise many similarturns of thought.

1. THERE are those who think that the Christian religion iswhat we should smile at, rather than hold fast, for this reason, that, init, not what may be seen, is shown, but men are commanded faith of thingswhich are not seen. We therefore, that we may refute these, who seem tothemselves through prudence to be unwilling to believe what they cannot see,although we are not able to show unto human sight those divine things whichwe believe, yet do show unto human minds that even those things which arenot seen are to be believed. And first they are to be admonished, (whomfolly hath so made subject to their carnal eyes, as that, whatsoever theysee not through them, they think not that they are to believe,) how manythings they not only believe but also know, which cannot be seen by sucheyes. Which things being without number in our mind itself, (the nature ofwhich mind is incapable of being seen,) not to mention others, the veryfaith whereby we believe, or the thought whereby we know that we eitherbelieve any thing, or believe not, being as it is altogether alien from thesight of those eyes; what so naked, so clear, what so certain is there tothe inner eyes of our minds? How then are we not to believe what we see notwith the eyes of the body, whereas, either that we believe, or that webelieve not, in a case where we cannot apply the eyes of the body, wewithout any doubt see?

2. But, say they, those things whichare in the mind, in that we can by the mind itself discern them, we have noneed to know through the eyes of the body; but those things, which you sayunto us that we should believe, you neither point to without, that throughthe 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, asthough any one would be bidden to believe, if that, which is believed, hecould already see set before him. Therefore certainly ought we to believecertain temporal things also, which we see not, that we may merit [1] to see eternal things also, which webelieve. But, whosoever thou art who wilt not believe save what thou seest,lo, bodies that are present thou seest with the eyes of the body, wills andthoughts of thine own that are present, because they are in thine own mind,thou seest by the mind itself; tell me, I pray thee, thy friend’swill towards thee by what eyes seest thou? For no will can be seen by theeyes of the body. What? see you in your own mind this also which is going on in the mind of another? But if you see itnot, how do you repay in turn the good will of your friend, if what youcannot see, you believe not? Will you haply say that you see the will ofanother through his works? Therefore you will see acts, and hear words, but,concerning your friend’s will, that which cannot be seen andheard you will believe. For that will is not color or figure, so as to bethrown upon the eyes; or sound or strain, so as to glide into the ears; norindeed is it your own, so as to be perceived by the motion [1] of your own heart. It remainstherefore that, being neither seen, nor heard, nor beheld within thyself, itbe believed, that thy life be not left deserted without any friendship, oraffection bestowed upon thee be not repaid by thee in return. Where then isthat which thou saidest, that thou oughtest not to believe, save what thousawest either outwardly in the body, or inwardly in the heart? Lo, out ofthine own heart, thou believest an heart not thine own; and lendest thyfaith, where thou dost not direct the glance of thy body or of thy mind. Thyfriend’s face thou discernest by thy own body, thy own faith thoudiscernest by thine own mind; but thy friend’s faith is not lovedby thee, unless there be in thee in return that faith, whereby thou mayestbelieve that which in him thou seest not. Although a man may also deceive byfeigning good will, and hiding malice: or, if he have no thought to do harm,yet by expecting some benefit from thee, feigns, because he has not,love.

3. But you say, that you thereforebelieve your friend, whose heart you cannot see, because you have proved himin your trials, and have come to know of what manner of spirit he wastowards you in your dangers, wherein he deserted you not. Seemeth ittherefore to you that we must wish for our own affliction, that ourfriend’s love towards us may be proved? And shall no man be happyin 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 bypain and fear of his own? And how in the having of true friends can thathappiness be wished for, and not rather feared, which nothing saveunhappiness can put to the proof? And yet it is true that a friend may behad also in prosperity, but proved more surely in adversity. But assuredlyin order to prove him, neither would you commit yourself to dangers of yourown, unless you believed; and thus, when you commit yourself in order toprove, you believe before you prove. For surely, if we ought not to believethings not seen, [2] sinceindeed we believe the hearts of our friends, and that, not yet surelyproved; and, after we shall have proved them good by our own ills, even thenwe believe rather than see their good will towards us: except that so greatis faith, that, not unsuitably, we judge that we see, with certain eyes ofit, that which we believe, whereas we ought therefore to believe, because wecannot see.

4. If this faith be taken away fromhuman affairs, who but must observe how great disorder in them, and howfearful confusion must follow? For who will be loved by any with mutualaffection, (being that the loving [3] itself isinvisible,) if what I see not, I ought not to believe? Therefore will thewhole of friendship perish, in that it consists not save of mutual love. Forwhat of it will it be able to receive from any, if nothing of it shall bebelieved to be shown? Further, friendship perishing, there will be preservedin the mind the bonds neither of marriages, nor of kindreds and relations;because in these also there is assuredly a friendly union of sentiment.Spouse therefore will not be able to love spouse in turn, inasmuch as eachbelieves not the other’s love, because the love itself cannot beseen. Nor will they long to have sons, who they believe not will make them areturn. And if these be born and grow up, much less will the parentsthemselves love their own children, whose love towards themselves in thosechildren’s hearts they will not see, it being invisible; if it benot praiseworthy faith, but blameable rashness, to believe those thingswhich are not seen. Why should I now speak of the other connections, ofbrothers, sisters, sons-in-law, and fathers-in-law, and of them who arejoined together by any kindred or affinity, if love is uncertain, and thewill suspected, that of parents by sons, and that of sons by parents, whilstdue benevolence is not rendered; because neither is it thought to be due,that which is not seen in another not being thought to exist. Further, ifthis caution be not a mark of ability, [4] but behateful, wherein we believe not that we are loved, because we see not thelove of them who love, and repay not them, unto whom we think not that weowe a return; to that degree are human affairs thrown into disorder, if whatwe see not we believe not, as to be altogether and utterly overthrown, if webelieve no wills of men, which assuredly wecannot see. I omit to mention in how many things they, who find fault withus because we believe what we see not, believe report or history; orconcerning places where they have not themselves been; and say not, webelieve not, because we have not seen. Since if they say this, they areobliged to confess that their own parents are not surely known to them:because on this point also they have believed the accounts of others tellingof it, who yet are unable to show it, because it is a thing already past;retaining themselves no sense of that time, and yet yielding assent withoutany doubting to others speaking of that time: and unless this be done, theremust of necessity be incurred a faithless impiety towards parents, whilst weare, as it were, showing a rashness of belief in those things which wecannot see. Since therefore, if we believe not those things which we cannotsee, human society itself, through concord perishing, will not stand; howmuch more is faith to be applied to divine things, although they be notseen; failing the application of which, it is not the friendship of some menor other, but the very chiefest bond of piety [1] that is violated, so as for thechiefest misery to follow.

5. But you will say, the good willof a friend towards me, although I cannot see it, yet can I trace it out bymany proofs; but you, what things you will us to believe not being seen, youhave 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, somethings, even such as are not seen, ought to be believed: for even thus it isagreed, that not all things which are not seen, are not to be believed; andthat saying, “that we ought not to believe things which we seenot,” falls to the ground, cast away, and refuted. But they aremuch deceived, who think that we believe in Christ without any proofsconcerning Christ. For what are there clearer proofs than those things,which we now see to have been foretold and fulfilled? Wherefore do ye, whothink that there are no proofs why ye ought to believe concerning Christthose things which ye have not seen, give heed to what things ye see. TheChurch herself addresses you out of the mouth of a mother’s love:“I, whom ye view with wonder throughout the whole world, bearingfruit and increasing, was not once such as ye now behold me.”But, “In thy Seed shall all nations be blessed.” [2] When God blessed Abraham, He gave the promise of me; for throughout allnations in the blessing of Christ am I shed abroad. That Christ is the Seedof Abraham, the order of successive generations bears witness. Shortly tosum up which, Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, Jacob begat twelvesons, of whom sprung the people Israel. For Jacob himself was called Israel.Among these twelve sons he begat Judah, whence the Jews have their name, ofwhom was born the Virgin Mary, who bore Christ. And, lo, in Christ, that is,in the seed of Abraham, that all the nations are blessed, ye see and areamazed: and do ye still fear to believe in Him, in Whom ye ought rather tohave feared not to believe? What? doubt ye, or refuse ye to believe, thetravail of a Virgin, whereas ye ought rather to believe that it was fittingthat so God should be born Man. For this also receive ye to have beenforetold by the Prophet; [3] “Behold,a Virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bring forth a Son, and theyshall call His Name Emmanuel, which is, being interpreted, God withus.” Ye will not therefore doubt of a Virgin bringing forth, ifye be willing to believe of a God being born; leaving not the governance ofthe world, and coming unto men in the flesh; unto His Mother bringingfruitfulness, not taking away maidenhood. For thus behoved it that He shouldbe born as Man, albeit [4] He was ever [5] God, by which birth He might become a Godunto us. Hence again the Prophet says concerning Him, “ThyThrone, O God, is for ever and ever; a sceptre of right, the sceptre of ThyKingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God,Thy God, hath anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thyfellows.” [6] This anointing is spiritual,wherewith God anointed God, the Father, that is, the Son: whence called fromthe “Chrism,” that is, from the anointing, we know Himas Christ. I am the Church, concerning whom it is said unto Him in the samePsalm, and what was future foretold as already done; “There stoodat Thy right hand the Queen, in a vesture of gold, in raiment of diverscolors;” that is, in the mystery of wisdom, “adornedwith divers tongues.” There it said unto me, “Hearken,O daughter, and see, and incline thine ear, and forget thy own people andthy father’s house: for the King hath desired thy beauty: seeingthat He is the Lord thy God: and the daughters of Tyre shall worship Himwith gifts, thy face shall all the rich of the people entreat. All the gloryof that King’s daughter is within, in fringes of gold, withraiment of divers colors. There shall be brought unto the King the maidens after her; her companions shall be broughtunto Thee. They shall be brought with joy and gladness, they shall bebrought into the Temple of the King. Instead of thy fathers, there are bornunto thee sons, thou shalt set them as princes over the whole earth. Theyshall be mindful of thy name, even from generation to generation. Thereforeshall the people confess unto thee for ever, and for ever and ever.

6. If this Queen ye see not, nowrich also with royal progeny. If she see not that fulfilled which she heardto have been promised, she, unto whom it was said, “Hear, Odaughter, and see.” If she hath not left the ancient rites of theworld, she, unto whom it was said, “Forget thy own people and thyFather’s house.” If she confesses not every whereChrist the Lord, she, unto whom it was said, “The King hathdesired thy beauty, for He is the Lord thy God.” If she sees notthe cities of the nations pour forth prayers and offer gifts unto Christ,concerning Whom it was said unto her, “There shall worship Himthe daughters of Tyre with gifts.” If the pride also of the richis not laid aside, and they do not entreat help of the Church, unto whom itwas said, “Thy face shall all the rich of the peopleentreat.” If He acknowledges not the King’s daughter,unto Whom she was bidden to say, “Our Father, Who art inHeaven;” [1] and in her saintsin the inner man she is not renewed from day to day, concerning whom it wassaid, “All the glory of that King’s daughter iswithin:” although she strike upon the eyes of them also that arewithout with the blaze [2] of the fameof her preachers, in diversity of tongues, as “in fringes ofgold, and raiment of divers colors.” If there be not, now thatHis fame is spread abroad in every place by His good odor, [3] virgins also brought unto Christ to be consecrated, of Whom it is said, andto Whom it is said, “There shall be brought unto the King thevirgins after her, her companions shall be brought unto Thee.”And that they might not seem to be brought like captives, into some, as itwere, prison, he says, “They shall be brought in joy andgladness, they shall be brought into the King’stemple.” If she brings not forth sons, that of them she may have,as it were, fathers, whom she may appoint unto herself every where asrulers, she, unto whom it is said, “Instead of thy fathers thereare born unto thee sons, thou shalt set them as princes over the wholeearth:” unto whose prayers their mother both preferred and madesubject, commends herself, “They shall be mindful of thy name,even from generation to generation.” If, by reason of thepreaching of those same fathers, wherein they have without ceasing mademention of her name, there are not so great multitudes in her gatheredtogether, and without end in their own tongues unto her confess the praiseof grace, unto whom it is said, “Therefore shall the peopleconfess unto thee for ever, and for ever and ever.” If thesethings are not so shown to be clear, as that the eyes of enemies find not inwhat direction to turn aside, where the same clearness strikes them not, soas by it to be obliged to confess what is evident: you perhaps assert withreason, that no proofs are shown to you, by seeing which you may believethose things also which you see not. But if those things, which you see,both have been foretold long before, and are so clearly fulfilled; if thetruth itself makes itself clear to you, by effects [4] going before and following after, O remnant ofunbelief, that ye may believe the things which you see not, blush at thosethings which ye see.

7. “Give heed untome,” 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 timesin 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 yehave not seen, and therefore ye refuse to believe. Therefore behold thesethings, 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 alight thing, and think you it to be none, or a little, divine miracle, thatin the name of One Crucified the whole human race runs? Ye saw not what wasforetold and fulfilled concerning the human birth of Christ,“Behold, a Virgin shall conceive in the womb, and shall bear aSon;” [5] butyou see the Word of God which was foretold and fulfilled unto Abraham,“In thy seed shall all nations be blessed.” [6] Yesaw not what was foretold concerning the wonderful works of Christ,“Come ye, and see the works of the Lord, what wonders He hath setupon the earth:” [7] but ye see that which wasforetold, “The Lord said unto Me, My Son art Thou, I have thisday begotten Thee; demand of Me and I will giveThee nations as Thy inheritance, and as Thy possession the bounds of theearth.” [1] Ye saw not that which was foretold and fulfilled concerning the Passion ofChrist, “They pierced My hands and My feet, they numbered all Mybones; but they themselves regarded and beheld Me; they divided among themMy garments, and upon My vesture they cast the lot;” [2] but ye see that which was in the same Psalmforetold, and now is clearly fulfilled; “All the ends of theearth shall remember and be turned unto the Lord, and all the kindreds ofthe nations shall worship in His sight; for the kingdom is theLord’s, and He shall rule over the nations.” [3] Ye saw not what was foretold and fulfilled concerning the Resurrection ofChrist, the Psalm speaking, in His Person, first concerning His betrayer andpersecutors: “They went forth out of doors, and spake together:against Me whispered all My enemies, against Me thought they evil forMe;” they set in order an unrighteous word against Me. [4] Where, to show that they availed nothing by slaying Him Who was about torise again, He adds and says; “What? will not He, that sleeps,add this, that He rise again?” And a little after, when He hadforetold, by means of the same prophecy, concerning His betrayer himself,that which is written in the Gospel also, “He that did eat of Mybread, enlarged his heel upon Me,” [5] that is, trampled Me underfoot: He straightway added, “But do Thou, O Lord, have mercy uponMe, and raise Thou Me up again, and I shall repay them.” This wasfulfilled, Christ slept and awoke, that is, rose again: Who through the sameprophecy in another Psalm says, “I slept and took my rest; and Irose again, for the Lord will uphold Me.” [6] But this ye saw not, but ye see HisChurch, concerning whom it is written in like manner, and fulfilled,“O Lord My God, the nations shall come unto Thee from theextremity of the earth and shall say, Truly our fathers worshipped lyingimages, and there is not in them any profit.” [7] This certainly, whether ye willor no, ye behold; even although ye yet believe, that there either is, orwas, in those idols some profit; yet certainly unnumbered peoples of thenations, after having left, or cast away, or broken in pieces such likevanities, ye have heard say, “Truly our fathers worshipped lyingimages, and there is not in them any profit; shall a man make gods, and, lo,they are no gods?” [8] Nor think that it wasforetold that the nations should come unto some one place of God, in that itwas said, “Unto Thee shall the nations come from the extremity ofthe earth.” Understand, if you can, that unto the God of theChristians, Who is the Supreme and True God, the peoples of the nationscome, not by walking but by believing. For the same thing was by anotherprophet thus foretold, “The Lord,” saith he,“shall prevail against them, and shall utterly destroy all thegods of the nations of the earth: and all the isles of the nations shallworship Him, each man from his place.” [9] Whereas the one says,“Unto Thee all nations shall come;” this the othersays, “They shall worship Him, each man from hisplace.” Therefore they shall come unto Him, not departing fromtheir own place, because believing in Him they shall find Him in theirhearts. Ye saw not what was foretold and fulfilled concerning the ascensionof Christ; “Be Thou exalted above the Heavens, OGod;” [10] butye see what follows immediately after, “And above all the earthThy Glory.” Those things concerning Christ already done and past,all of them ye have not seen; but these things present in His Church ye denynot that ye see. Both things we point out to you as foretold; but thefulfillment of both we are therefore unable to point out for you to see,because we cannot bring back into sight things past.

8. But as the wills of friends,which are not seen, are believed through tokens which are seen; thus theChurch, which is now seen, is, of all things which are not seen, but whichare shown forth in those writings wherein itself also is foretold, an indexof the past, and a herald of the future. Because both things past, whichcannot now be seen, and things present which cannot be seen all of them, atthe 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, fromthose things which have come to pass unto those which are coming to pass,those things which were foretold concerning Christ and the Church have runon in an ordered series: unto which series these pertain concerning the dayof Judgment, concerning the resurrection of the dead, concerning the eternaldamnation of the ungodly with the devil, and concerning the eternalrecompense 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 lastthings which we see not, when we have, as witnesses of both, the thingsbetween, which we see, and in the books of the Prophets either hear or readboth the first things, and the things between,and the last things, foretold before they came to pass? Unless haplyunbelieving men judge those things to have been written by Christians, inorder that those things which they already believed might have greaterweight of authority, if they should be thought to have been promised beforethey came.

9. If they suspect this, let themexamine carefully the copies [1] of ourenemies the Jews. There let them read those things of which we have mademention, foretold concerning Christ in Whom we believe, and the Church whomwe discern from the toilsome beginning of faith even unto the eternalblessedness of the kingdom. But, whilst they read, let them not wonder thatthey, whose are the books, understand not by reason of the darkness ofenmity. For that they would not understand was foretold beforehand by thesame Prophets; which it behoved should be fulfilled in like manner as therest, and that by the secret and just judgment of God a due punishmentshould be rendered to their deserts. He indeed, Whom they crucified, andunto Whom they gave gall and vinegar, although when hanging upon the Tree,by reason of those whom He had been about to lead forth from darkness intolight, He said unto the Father, “Forgive them, for they know notwhat they do;” [2] yet by reason of those whomthrough more hidden causes He had been about to desert, by the Prophet solong before foretold, “They gave Me gall for My meat, and in Mythirst they gave Me vinegar to drink; let their table become a snare beforethem, and a recompense, and a stumbling-block: let their eyes be darkenedthat they see not, and ever bow Thou down their back.” [3] Thus, having with them the clearest testimonies of our cause, they walkround about with eyes darkened, that by their means those testimonies may beproved, wherein they themselves are disapproved. Therefore was it brought topass, that they should not be so blotted out, as that this same sect shouldaltogether exist not: but it was scattered abroad upon the earth, in orderthat, carrying with it the prophecies of the grace conferred upon us, moresurely to convince unbelievers, it might every where profit us. And thisvery thing which I assert, receive ye after what manner it was prophesiedof: “Slay them not,” saith He, “lest at anytime they forget Thy law, but scatter them abroad in Thymight.” [4] Therefore they were not slain, inthat they forgot not those things which were read and heard among them. Forif they were altogether to forget, albeit they understand not, the HolyScriptures, they would be slain in the Jewish ritual itself; because, whenthe Jews should know nothing of the Law and of the Prophets, they would beunable to profit us. Therefore they were not slain, but scattered abroad; inorder that, although they should not have in faith, whence they might besaved; yet they should retain in their memory, whence we might be helped; intheir books our supporters, in their hearts our enemies, in their copies ourwitnesses.

10. Although, even if there wentbefore no testimonies concerning Christ and the Church, whom ought it not tomove unto belief, that the Divine brightness hath on a sudden shone on thehuman race, when we see, (the false gods now abandoned, and their imagesevery where broken in pieces, their temples overthrown or changed into otheruses, and so many vain rites plucked out by the roots from the mostinveterate usage of men,) the One True God invoked by all? And that thishath been brought to pass by One Man, by men mocked, seized, bound,scourged, smitten with the palms of the hand, reviled, crucified, slain: Hisdisciples, (whom He chose common men, [5] andunlearned, and fishermen, and publicans, that by their means His teachingmight be set forth,) proclaiming His Resurrection, His Ascension, which theyasserted that they had seen, and being filled with the Holy Ghost, soundedforth this Gospel, in all tongues which they had not learned. And of themwho heard them, part believed, part, believing not, fiercely withstood themwho preached. Thus while they were faithful even unto death for the truth,strove not by returning evil, but by enduring, overcame not by killing, butby dying; thus was the world changed unto this religion, thus unto thisGospel were the hearts of mortals turned, of men and women, of small andgreat, of learned and unlearned, of wise and foolish, of mighty and weak, ofnoble and ignoble, of high and low, and throughout all nations the Churchshed abroad so increased, that even against the Catholic faith itself therearises not any perverse sect, any kind of error, which is found so to opposeitself to Christian truth, as that it affect not and go not about to gloryin the name of Christ: which very error would not be suffered to spring upthroughout the earth, were it not that the very gainsaying exercised anwholesome discipline. How [6] would TheCrucified have availed so greatly, had He not been God that took upon Him Man, even if He had through the Prophetforetold no such things to come? But when now this so great mystery ofgodliness hath had its prophets and heralds going before, by whose divinevoices it was afore proclaimed; and when it hath come in such manner as itwas afore proclaimed, who is there so mad as to assert that the Apostleslied concerning Christ, of Whom they preached that He was come in suchmanner as the Prophets foretold afore that He should come, which Prophetswere not silent as to true things to come concerning the Apostlesthemselves? For concerning these they had said, “There is neitherspeech nor language, whereof their voices are not heard; their sound wentout into all the earth, and their words unto the ends of theworld.” [1] And this at any rate we seefulfilled in the world, although we have not yet seen Christ in the flesh.Who therefore, unless blinded by amazing madness, or hard and steeled byamazing obstinacy, would be unwilling to put faith in the sacred Scriptures,which have foretold the faith of the whole world?

11. But you, beloved, who possessthis faith, or who have begun now newly to have it, let it be nourished andincrease in you. For as things temporal have come, so long before foretold,so will things eternal also come, which are promised. Nor let them deceiveyou, either the vain heathen, or the false Jews, or the deceitful heretics,or also within the Catholic (Church) itself evil Christians, enemies by somuch the more hurtful, as they are the more within us. For, lest on thissubject also the weak should be troubled, divine prophecy hath not beensilent, where in the Song of Songs the Bridegroom speaking unto the Bride,that is, Christ the Lord unto the Church, saith, “As a lily inthe midst of thorns, so is my best Beloved [2] in the midstof the daughters.” [3] He said not, in the midstof them that are without; but, “in the midst of daughters. Whosohath ears to hear, let him hear:” [4] and whilst the net which iscast into the sea, [5] and gathers together all kinds of fishes, as saith the holy Gospel, is beingdrawn unto the shore, that is, unto the end of the world, let him separatehimself from the evil fishes, in heart, not in body; by changing evilhabits, not by breaking sacred nets; lest they who now seem being approvedto be mingled with the reprobate, find, not life, but punishmenteverlasting, [6] when they shall begin on the shore tobe separated.

ST. AUGUSTIN: 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 asPresbyter I wrote a book on the Profit ofBelieving, to a friend of mine who had been taken in by theManichees, and whom I knew to be still held in that error, and to deridethe Catholic school of Faith, in that men were bid believe, but nottaught what was truth by a most certain method. In this book I said,c. * * *. This book begins thus, “ Simihi Honorate, unum atque idem videretur esse. ”

St. Augustin enumerates his book on the Profit ofBelieving first amongst those he wrote as Presbyter, to whichorder he was raised at Hippo about the beginning of the year 391. Theperson for whom he wrote had been led into error by himself, and appearsto have been recovered from it, at least if he is the same who wrote toSt. Augustin from Carthage about 412, proposing several questions, andto whom St. Augustin wrote his 140th Epistle. Cassiodorus calls him aPresbyter, though at that time he was not baptized. In Ep. 83, St.Augustin speaks of the death of another Honoratus, a Presbyter. Towardsthe end of his life he also wrote his 228th Epistle to a Bishop ofThabenna of the same name.—( Bened.Ed. )

The remarks in the Retractations are given in notesto the passages where they occur.

1. IF, Honoratus, a heretic, and a man trusting hereticsseemed to me one and the same, I should judge it my duty to remain silentboth in tongue and pen in this matter. But now, whereas there is a verygreat difference between these two: forasmuch as he, in my opinion, is anheretic, who, for the sake of some temporal advantage, and chiefly for thesake 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 mandeceived by a certain imagination of truth and piety. This being the case, Ihave not thought it my duty to be silent towards you, as to my opinions onthe 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 removedfrom the minds of vain men, who, having too far advanced and fallen intothese corporeal things, think that there is nothing else than what theyperceive by those five well-known reporters of the body; and whatimpressions [1] and images they have received from these,they carry over with themselves, even when they essay to withdraw from thesenses; and by the deadly and most deceitful rule of these think that theymeasure most rightly the unspeakable recesses of truth. Nothing is moreeasy, my dearest friend, than for one not only to say, but also to think,that he hath found out the truth; but how difficult it is in reality, youwill perceive, I trust, from this letter of mine. And that this may profityou, or at any rate may in no way harm you, and also all, into whose handsit shall chance to come, I have both prayed, anddo pray, unto God; and I hope that it will be so, forasmuch as [1] I am fully conscious that I have undertaken towrite it, in a pious and friendly spirit, not as aiming at vain reputation,or trifling display.

2. It is then my purpose to prove toyou, if I can, that the Manichees profanely and rashly inveigh againstthose, who, following the authority of the Catholic Faith, before that theyare able to gaze upon that Truth, which the pure mind beholds, are bybelieving 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, bypure and simple reason, they would lead within to God, and set free from allerror those who were willing to be their hearers. For what else constrainedme, during nearly nine years, spurning the religion which had been set in mefrom a child by my parents, to be a follower and diligent hearer of thosemen, [2] save that they said that we are alarmed bysuperstition, and are commanded to have faith before reason, but that theyurge no one to have faith, without having first discussed and made clear thetruth? Who would not be enticed by such promises, especially the mind of ayoung man desirous of the truth, and further a proud and talkative mind bydiscussions of certain learned men in the school? such as they then foundme, disdainful forsooth as of old wives’ fables, and desirous tograsp and drink in, what they promised, the open and pure Truth? But whatreason, on the other hand, recalled me, not to be altogether joined to them,so that I continued in that rank which they call of Hearers, so that Iresigned not the hope and business of this world; save that I noticed thatthey also are rather eloquent and full in refutation of others, than abidefirm and sure in proof of what is their own. But of myself what shall I say,who was already a Catholic Christian? teats which now, after very longthirst, I almost exhausted and dry, have returned to with all greediness,and with deeper weeping and groaning have shaken together and wrung them outmore deeply, that so there might flow what might be enough to refresh meaffected as I was, and to bring back hope of life and safety. What thenshall I say of myself? You, not yet a Christian, who, through encouragementfrom me, execrating them greatly as you did, were hardly led to believe thatyou ought to listen to them and make trial of them, by what else, I prayyou, were you delighted, call to mind, I entreat you, save by a certaingreat presumption and promise of reasons? But because they disputed long andmuch with very great copiousness and vehemence concerning the errors ofunlearned men, a thing which I learned too late at length to be most easyfor any moderately educated man; if even of their own they implanted in usany thing, we thought that we were obliged to retain it, insomuch as therefell not in our way other things, wherein to acquiesce. So they did in ourcase what crafty fowlers are wont to do, who set branches smeared withbird-lime beside water to deceive thirsty birds. For they fill up and coveranyhow the other waters which are around, or fright them from them byalarming devices, that they may fall into their snares, not through choice,but want.

3. But why do I not make answer tomyself, that these fair and clever similies, and charges of this nature maybe 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 insertsomething of this kind in my letter, in order to admonish them to give oversuch proceedings; so that, as he [3] says, apartfrom trifles of common-places, matter may contend with matter, cause withcause, reason with reason. Wherefore let them give over that saying, whichthey have in their mouths as though of necessity, when any one, who hathbeen for some long time a hearer, hath left them; “The Light hathmade a passage through him.” For you see, you who are my chiefcare, (for I am not over anxious about them,) how empty this is, and mosteasy for any one to find fault with. Therefore I leave this for your ownwisdom to consider. For I have no fear that you will think me possessed byindwelling Light, when I was entangled in the life of this world, having adarkened hope, of beauty of wife, of pomp of riches, of emptiness of honors,and of all other hurtful and deadly pleasures. For all these, as is notunknown to you, I ceased not to desire and hope for, at the time when I wastheir attentive hearer. And I do not lay this to the charge of theirteaching; for I also confess that they also carefully advise to shun these.But now to say that I am deserted by light, when I have turned myself fromall these shadows of things, and have determined to be content with thatdiet merely which is necessary for health of body; but that I wasenlightened and shining, at a time when I loved these things, and waswrapped up in them, is the part of a man, to usethe mildest expression, wanting in a keen insight into matters, on which heloves to speak at length. But, if you please, let us come to the cause inhand.

4. For you well know that theManichees move the unlearned by finding fault with the Catholic Faith, andchiefly by rending in pieces and tearing the Old Testament: and they areutterly ignorant, how far [1] thesethings are to be taken, and how drawn out they descend with profit into theveins and marrows of souls as yet as it were but able to cry. [2] And because there are in themcertain things which are some slight offense to minds ignorant and carelessof themselves, (and there are very many such,) they admit of being accusedin a popular way: but defended in a popular way they cannot be, by any greatnumber of persons, by reason of the mysteries that are contained in them.But the few, who know how to do this, do not love public and much talked ofcontroversies and disputes: [3] and onthis account are very little known, save to such as are most earnest inseeking them out. Concerning then this rashness of the Manichees, wherebythey find fault with the Old Testament and the Catholic Faith, listen, Ientreat you, to the considerations which move me. But I desire and hope thatyou will receive them in the same spirit in which I say them. For God, untoWhom are known the secrets of my conscience, knows, that in this discourse Iam doing nothing of evil craft; but, as I think it should be received, forthe sake of proving the truth, for which one thing we have now long agodetermined to live; and with incredible anxiety, lest it may have been mosteasy for me to err with you, but most difficult, to use no harder term, tohold the right way with you. But I venture [4] to anticipate that, in this hope, wherein I hope that you will hold with usthe way of wisdom, He will not fail me, unto Whom I have been consecrated;Whom day and night I endeavor to gaze upon: and since, by reason of my sins,and by reason of past habit, having the eye of the mind wounded by strokesof feeble opinions, I know that I am without strength, I often entreat withtears, and as, after long blindness and darkness the eyes being hardlyopened, and as yet, by frequent throbbing and turning away, refusing thelight which yet they long after; specially if one endeavor to show to themthe very sun; so it has now befallen me, who do not deny that there is acertain unspeakable and singular good of the soul, which the mind sees; andwho with tears and groaning confess that I am not yet worthy of it. He willnot then fail me, if I feign nothing, if I am led by duty, if I love truth,if I esteem friendship, if I fear much lest you be deceived.

5. All that Scripture therefore,which is called the Old Testament, is handed down fourfold to them whodesire to know it, according to history, according to ætiology,according to analogy, according to allegory. Do not think me silly for usingGreek words. In the first place, because I have so received, nor do I dareto make known to you otherwise than I have received. Next you yourselfperceive, that we have not in use terms for such things: and had Itranslated and made such, I should have been indeed more silly: but, were Ito use circumlocution, I should be less free in treating: this only I prayyou to believe, that in whatever way I err, I am not inflated or swollen inany thing that I do. Thus (for example) it is handed down according tohistory, when there is taught what hath been written, or what hath beendone; what not done, but only written as though it had been done. Accordingto ætiology, when it is shown for what cause any thing hath beendone or said. According to analogy, when it is shown that the twoTestaments, 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 beenwritten are not to be taken in the letter, but are to be understood in afigure.

6. All these ways our Lord JesusChrist and His Apostles used. For when it had been objected that Hisdisciples had plucked the ears of corn on the sabbath-day, the instance wastaken from history; “Have ye not read,” saith He,“what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were withhim; how he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, whichwas not lawful for him to eat, neither for them that were with him, but onlyfor the priests?” [5] But the instance pertains toætiology, that, when Christ had forbidden a wife to be put away,save for the cause of fornication, and they, who asked Him, had alleged thatMoses had granted permission after a writing of divorcement had been given,This, saith He, “Moses did because of the hardness of yourheart.” [6] For here a reason was given, whythat had been well allowed by Moses for a time; that this command of Christmight seem to show that now the times were other. But it were long toexplain the changes of these times, and theirorder arranged and settled by a certain marvellous appointment of DivineProvidence.

7. And further, analogy, whereby theagreement of both Testaments is plainly seen, why shall I say that all havemade use of, to whose authority they yield; whereas it is in their power toconsider with themselves, how many things they are wont to say have beeninserted in the divine Scriptures by certain, I know not who, corrupters oftruth? Which speech of theirs I always thought to be most weak, even at thetime that I was their hearer: nor I alone, but you also, (for I wellremember,) and all of us, who essayed to exercise a little more care informing a judgment than the crowd of hearers. But now, after that manythings have been expounded and made clear to me, which used chiefly to moveme: 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 noopponent; it seems to me that there is no assertion of theirs moreshameless, or (to use a milder phrase) more careless and weak, than that thedivine Scriptures have been corrupted; whereas there are no copies inexistence, in a matter of so recent date, whereby they can prove it. Forwere they to assert, that they thought not that they ought thoroughly toreceive them, because they had been written by persons, who they thought hadnot written the truth; any how their refusal [1] wouldbe more right, or their error more natural. [2] For this iswhat they have done in the case of the Book which is inscribed the Acts ofthe Apostles. And this device of theirs, when I consider with myself, Icannot enough wonder at. For it is not the want of wisdom in the men that Icomplain of in this matter, but the want of ordinary understanding. [3] For that book hath so great matters,which are like what they receive, that it seems to me great folly to refuseto receive this book also, and if any thing offend them there to call itfalse and inserted. Or, if such language is shameless, as it is why in theEpistles of Paul, why in the four books of the Gospel, do they think thatthey [4] are of any avail, in which I am not sure but thatthere are in proportion many more things, than could be in that book, whichthey will have believed to have been interpolated by falsifiers. But fosooththis is what I believe to be the case, and I ask of you to consider it withme with as calm and serene a judgment as possible. For you know that,essaying to bring the person of their founder Manichæus into thenumber of the Apostles, they say that the Holy Spirit, Whom the Lordpromised His disciples that He would send, hath come to us through him.Therefore, were they to receive those Acts of the Apostles, in which thecoming of the Holy Spirit is plainly set forth, [5] they could not find how tosay that it was interpolated. For they will have it that there were some, Iknow not who, falsifiers of the divine Books before the times ofManichæus himself; and that they were falsified by persons whowished to combine the Law of the Jews with the Gospel. But this they cannotsay concerning the Holy Spirit, unless haply they assert that those personsdivined, and set in their books what should be brought forward againstManichæus, who should at some future time arise, and say that theHoly Spirit had been sent through him. But concerning the Holy Spirit wewill speak somewhat more plainly in another place. Now let us return to mypurpose.

8. For that both history of the OldTestament, and ætiology, and analogy are found in the NewTestament, has been, as I think, sufficiently proved: it remains to showthis of allegory. Our Redeemer Himself in the Gospel uses allegory out ofthe Old Testament. “This generation,” saith He,“seeketh a sign, and there shall not be given it save the sign ofJonas the prophet. For as Jonas was three days and three nights in thewhale’s belly, so also shall the Son of Man be three days andthree nights in the heart of the earth.” [6] For why should I speak ofthe Apostle Paul, who in his first Epistle to the Corinthians shows thateven the very history of the Exodus was an allegory of the future ChristianPeople. “But I would not that ye should be ignorant, brethren,how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through thesea, and were all baptized into Moses, in the cloud, and in the sea, and didall eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink the same spiritual drink;for they drank of the spiritual Rock that followed with them; and that Rockwas Christ. But in the more part of them God was not well pleased: for theywere overthrown in the wilderness. But these things were figures of us, [7] that we be not lustful of evil things, as they alsolusted. Neither let us worship idols, as certain of them; as it is written,The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play. Neither let uscommit fornication, as certain of them committed, and fell in one day threeand twenty thousand men. Neither let us temptChrist, as certain of them tempted, and perished of serpents. Neither murmurwe, as certain of them murmured, and perished of the destroyer. But allthese things happened unto them in a figure. [1] But they were written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the worldhave come.” [2] There is also inthe Apostle a certain allegory, which indeed greatly relates to the cause inhand, for this reason that they themselves are wont to bring it forward, andmake a display of it in disputing. For the same Paul says to the Galatians,“For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, one of abond-maid, and one of a free woman. But he who was of the bond-maid was bornafter the flesh: but he who was of the free woman, by promise: which thingswere spoken by way of allegory. [3] For these are the two Testaments, one of Mount Sinaigendering unto bondage, which is Agar: for Sinai is a mount in Arabia, whichbordereth [4] upon that Jerusalem which now is, andis in bondage with her children. But that Jerusalem which is above is free,which is the mother of us all.” [5]

9. Here therefore these men tooevil, while they essay to make void the Law, force us to approve theseScriptures. For they mark what is said, that they who are under the Law arein bondage, and they keep flying above the rest that last saying,“Ye are made empty [6] of Christ,as many of you as are justified in the Law; ye have fallen fromGrace.” [7] We grant that all these things aretrue, and we say that the Law is not necessary, save for them unto whombondage is yet profitable: and that the Law was on this account profitablyenacted, in that men, who could not be recalled from sins by reason, neededto be restrained by such a Law, that is to say, by the threats and terrorsof those punishments which can be seen by fools: from which when the Graceof Christ sets us free, it condemns not that Law, but invites us at lengthto yield obedience to its love, not to be slaves to the fear of the Law.Itself is Grace, that is free gift, [8] whichthey understand not to have come to them from God, who still desire to beunder the bonds of the Law. Whom Paul deservedly rebukes as unbelievers,because they do not believe that now through our Lord Jesus they have beenset free from that bondage, under which they were placed for a certain timeby the most just appointment of God. Hence is that saying of the sameApostle, “For the Law was our schoolmaster inChrist.” [9] He therefore gave to men a schoolmaster to fear, Who after gave a Master tolove. And yet in these precepts and commands of the Law, which now it is notallowed Christians to use, such as either the Sabbath, or Circumcision, orSacrifices, and if there be any thing of this kind, so great mysteries arecontained, as that every pious person may understand, there is nothing moredeadly than that whatever is there be understood to the letter, that is, tothe word: [10] and nothing more healthful than that itbe unveiled in the Spirit. Hence it is: “The letter killeth, butthe Spirit quickeneth.” [11] Hence it is, “That same veil remaineth in the reading of the OldTestament, which veil is not taken away; since it is made void inChrist.” [12] For there ismade void in Christ, not the Old Testament, but its veil: that so throughChrist that may be understood, and, as it were, laid bare, which withoutChrist is obscure and covered. Forasmuch as the same Apostle straightwayadds, “But when thou shalt have passed over to Christ, the veilshall be taken away.” [13] For he saith not, the Lawshall be taken away, or, the Old Testament. Not therefore through the Graceof the Lord, as though useless things were there hidden, have they beentaken away; but rather the covering whereby useful things were covered. Inthis manner all they are dealt with, who earnestly and piously, notdisorderly and shamelessly, seek the sense of those Scriptures, and they arecarefully shown both the order of events, and the causes of deeds and words,and so great agreement of the Old Testament with the New, that there is leftno jot [14] that agrees not; and so great secrets offigures, that all the things that are drawn forth by interpretation forcethem to confess that they are wretched, who will to condemn these beforethey learn them.

10. But, passing over in the meanwhile the depth of knowledge, to deal with you as I think I ought to dealwith my intimate friend; that is, as I have myself power, not as I havewondered 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 thewriter thought otherwise. A second kind, although not so extensive, yet notless hurtful, when that, which is false, isthought true, yet the thought is the same as that of the writer. A thirdkind, when from the writing of another some truth is understood, whereas thewriter understood it not. In which kind there is no little profit, rather,if you consider carefully, the whole entire fruit of reading. An instance ofthe first kind is, as if any one, for example, should say and believe thatRhadamanthus hears and judges the causes of the dead in the realms below,because he hath so read in the strain of Maro. [1] For this one errs in two ways: both in that hebelieves a thing not to be believed, and also in that he, whom he reads, isnot to be thought to have believed it. The second kind may be thus noticed:if one, because Lucretius writes that the soul is formed of atoms, and thatafter death it is dissolved into the same atoms and perishes, were to thinkthis to be true and what he ought to believe. For this one also is not lesswretched, if, in a matter of so great moment, he hath persuaded himself ofthat which is false, as certain; although Lucretius, by whose books he hathbeen deceived, held this opinion. For what doth it profit this one to beassured of the meaning of the author, whereas he hath chosen him to himselfnot so as through him to escape error, but so as with him to err. Aninstance suited to the third kind is, if one, after having read in the booksof Epicurus some place wherein he praises continence, were to assert that hehad made the chief good to consist in virtue, and that therefore he is notto be blamed. For how is this man injured by the error of Epicurus, whatthough Epicurus believe that bodily pleasure is the chief good of man:whereas he hath not surrendered up himself to so base and hurtful anopinion, and is pleased with Epicurus for no other reason, than that hethinks him not to have held sentiments which ought not to be holden. Thiserror is not only natural to man, [2] but oftenalso most worthy of a man. For what, if word were brought to me, concerningsome one whom I loved, that, when now he was of bearded age, he had said, inthe hearing of many, that he was so pleased with boyhood and childhood, aseven to swear that he wished to live after the same fashion, and that thatwas so proved to me, as that I should be shameless to deny it: I should not,should I, seem worthy of blame, if I thought that, in saying this, he wishedto show, that he was pleased with the innocence, and with the temper of mindalien from those desires in which the race of man is wrapped up, and fromthis circumstance should love him yet more and more, than I used to love himbefore; although perhaps he had been foolish enough to love in the age ofchildren a certain freedom in play and food, and an idle ease? For supposethat he had died after this report had reached me, and that I had beenunable to make any inquiry of him, so as for him to open his meaning; wouldthere be any one so shameless as to be angry with me, for praising theman’s purpose and wish, through those very words which I hadheard? What, that even a just judge of matters would not hesitate perhaps topraise my sentiment and wish, in that both I was pleased with innocence,and, as man of man, in a matter of doubt, preferred to think well, when itwas in my power also to think ill?

11. And, this being so, hear alsojust so many conditions and differences of the same Scriptures. For it mustbe that just so many meet us. For either any one hath written profitably,and is not profitably understood by some one: or both take placeunprofitably: or the reader understands profitably, whereas he, who is read,hath written contrariwise. Of these the first I blame not, the last I regardnot. For neither can I blame the man, who without any fault of his own hathbeen ill understood; nor can I be distressed at any one being read, who hathfailed 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, whenboth the things written are well, and are taken in a good sense by thereaders. And yet that also is still further divided into two: for it dothnot altogether shut out error. For it generally comes to pass, that, when awriter hath held a good sense, the reader also holds a good sense; stillother than he, and often better, often worse, yet profitably. But when bothwe hold the same sense as he whom we read, and that is every way suited toright conduct of life, there is the fullest possible measure of truth, andthere is no place opened for error from any other quarter. And this kind isaltogether very rare, when what we read is matter of extreme obscurity: norcan it, in my opinion, be clearly known, but only believed. For by whatproofs shall I so gather the will of a man who is absent or dead, as that Ican swear to it: when, even if he were questioned being present, there mightbe 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, whosewritings have benefited the human race and posterity.

12. Wherefore I would that theywould tell me, in what kind they place the, supposed, error of the CatholicChurch. If in the first, it is altogether a grave charge; but it needs not afar-fetched defense: for it is enough to deny that we so understand, as thepersons, who inveigh against us, suppose. If in the second, the charge isnot less grave; but they shall be refuted by the same saying. If in thethird, it is no charge at all. Proceed, and next consider the Scripturesthemselves. For what objection do they raise against the books of (what iscalled) the Old Testament? Is it that they are good, but are understood byus in an ill sense? But they themselves do not receive them. Or is it thatthey are neither good, nor are well understood? But our defense above isenough 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? Whatis 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 indeedbelieve that both those men profitably delivered to memory all things, andthat they were great and divine. And that that Law was published, and framedby the command and will of God: and of this, although I have but very slightknowledge of books of that kind, yet I can easily persuade any, if thereapply to me a mind fair and no way obstinate: and this I will do, when youshall grant to me your ears and mind well disposed: this however when itshall be in my power: but now is it not enough for me, however that mattermay stand, not to have been deceived?

13. I call to witness, Honoratus, myconscience, and God Who hath His dwelling in pure souls, that I accountnothing more prudent, chaste, and religious, than are all those Scriptures,which under the name of the Old Testament the Catholic Church retains. Youwonder at this, I am aware. For I cannot hide that we were far otherwisepersuaded. But there is indeed nothing more full of rashness, (which at thattime, being boys, we had in us,) than in the case of each several book, todesert expounders, who profess that they hold them, and that they candeliver them to their scholars, and to seek their meaning from those, who, Iknow not from what cause compelling, have proclaimed a most bitter waragainst the framers and authors of them. For who ever thought that thehidden and dark books of Aristotle were to be expounded to him by one whowas the enemy of Aristotle; to speak of these systems of teaching, wherein areader may perhaps err without sacrilege? Who, in fine, willed to read orlearn the geometrical writings of Archimedes, under Epicurus as a master;against which Epicurus used to argue with great obstinacy, so far as Ijudge, understanding them not at all? What are those Scriptures of the lawmost plain, against which, as though set forth in public, these men maketheir attack in vain and to no purpose? And they seem to me to be like thatweak woman, whom these same men are wont to mock at, who enraged at the sunbeing extolled to her, and recommended as an object of worship by a certainfemale Manichee, being as she was simple-minded and of a religious spirit,leaped up in haste, and often striking with her foot that spot on which thesun through the window cast light, began to cry out, Lo, I trample on thesun and your God: altogether after a foolish and womanish manner; Who deniesit? But do not those men seem to you to be such, who, in matters which theyunderstand not, either wherefore, or altogether of what kind they are,although like to matters cast in the way, [1] yet tosuch as understand them exact [2] and divine,rending them with great onset of speech and reproaches, think that they areeffecting something, because the unlearned applaud them? Believe me,whatever there is in these Scriptures, it is lofty and divine: there is inthem altogether truth, and a system of teaching most suited to refresh andrenew minds: and clearly so ordered in measure, as that there is no one butmay draw thence, what is enough for himself, if only he approach to drawwith devotion and piety, as true religion demands. To prove this to you,needs many reasons and a longer discourse. For first I must so treat withyou as that you may not hate the authors themselves; next, so as that youmay love them: and this I must treat in any other way, rather than byexpounding their meanings and words. For this reason, because in case wehated Virgil, nay, rather in case we loved him not, before understandinghim, by the commendation of our forefathers, we should never be satisfied onthose questions about him without number, by which grammarians are wont tobe disquieted and troubled; nor should we listen willingly to one who solvedthese at the same time praising him; but should favor that one who by meansof these essayed to show that he had erred and doated. But now, whereas manyessay to open these, and each in a different way according to his capacity,we applaud these in preference, through whose exposition the poet is foundbetter, who is believed, even by those who do notunderstand him, not only in nothing to have offended, but also to have sungnothing but what was worthy of praise. So that in some minute question, weare rather angry with the master who fails, and has not what to answer, thanthink him silent through any fault in Maro. And now, if, in order to defendhimself, he should wish to assert a fault in so great an author, hardly willhis scholars remain with him, even after they have paid his fee. How greatmatter were it, that we should shew like good will towards them, of whom ithath been confirmed by so long time of old that the Holy Spirit spake bythem? But, forsooth, we youths of the greatest understanding, and marvelloussearchers out of reasons, without having at least unrolled these writings,without having sought teachers, without having somewhat chided our owndullness, lastly, without having yielded our heart even in a measure [1] to those who have willed that writings ofthis kind be so long read, kept, and handled through the whole world; havethought that nothing in them is to be believed, moved by the speech of thosewho are unfriendly and hostile to them, with whom, under a false promise ofreason, we should be compelled to believe and cherish thousands offables.

14. But now I will proceed with whatI have begun, if I can, and I will so treat with you, as not in the meanwhile to lay open the Catholic Faith, but, in order that they may search outits great mysteries, to show to those who have a care for their souls, hopeof divine fruit, and of the discerning of truth. No one doubts of him whoseeks true religion, either that he already believes that there is animmortal soul for that religion to profit, or that he also wishes to findthat very thing in this same religion. Therefore all religion is for thesake of the soul; for howsoever the nature of the body may be, it causes nocare or anxiety, especially after death, to him, whose soul possesses thatwhereby it is blessed. For the sake of the soul, therefore, either alone orchiefly, hath true religion, if there be any such, been appointed. But thissoul, (I will consider for what reason, and I confess the matter to be mostobscure,) yet errs, and is foolish, as we see, until it attain to andperceive wisdom, and perhaps this very [wisdom] istrue 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 inerror and folly seeks the way of truth, if there be any such. If this be notyour case, pardon me, I pray, and share with me your wisdom; but if yourecognize in yourself what I say, let us, I entreat, together seek thetruth.

15. Put the case that we have not asyet heard a teacher of any religion. Lo we have undertaken a new matter andbusiness. We must seek, I suppose, them who profess this matter, if it haveany existence. Suppose that we have found different persons holdingdifferent opinions, and through their difference of opinions seeking to drawpersons each one to himself: but that, in the mean while, there are certainpre-eminent from being much spoken of, and from having possession of nearlyall peoples. Whether these hold the truth, is a great question: but ought wenot 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 truthis with some few; therefore you already know what it is, if you know withwhom it is. Said I not a little above, that we were in search of it asunlearned men? But if from the very force of truth you conjecture that fewpossess it, but know not who they are; what if it is thus, that there are sofew 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, strainitself [2] forth into those secrets? Do we notsee how few attain the highest eloquence, whereas through the whole worldthe schools of rhetoricians are resounding with troops of young men? What,do they, as many as desire to turn out good orators, alarmed at themultitude of the unlearned, think that they are to bestow their labor on theorations of Cæcilius, or Erucius, rather than those of Tullius?All aim at these, which are confirmed by authority of our forefathers.Crowds of unlearned persons essay to learn the same, which by the fewlearned are received as to be learned: yet very few attain, yet fewerpractise, the very fewest possible become famous. What, if true religion besome such thing? What if a multitude of unlearned persons attend theChurches, and yet that be no proof, that therefore no one is made perfect bythese mysteries? And yet, if they who studied eloquence were as few as thefew who are eloquent, our parents would never believe that we ought to becommitted to such masters. Whereas, then, we have been called to thesestudies by a multitude, which is numerous in that portion of it which ismade up of the unlearned, so as to become enamored of that which few canattain unto; why are we unwilling to be in thesame case in religion, which perhaps we despise with great danger to oursoul? For if the truest and purest worship of God, although it be found witha few, be yet found with those, with whom a multitude, albeit wrapped up inlusts, and removed far from purity of understanding, agrees; (and who candoubt that this may happen?) I ask, if one were to charge us with rashnessand folly, that we seek not diligently with them who teach it, that, whichwe are greatly anxious to discover, what can we answer? [Shall wesay,] I was deterred by numbers? Why from the pursuit of liberalarts, which hardly bring any profit to this present life; why from searchafter money? Why from attaining unto honor; why, in fine, from gaining andkeeping good health; lastly, why from the very aim at a happy life; whereasall are engaged in these, few excel; were you deterred by no numbers?

17. “But they seemedthere to make absurd statements.” On whose assertion? Forsooth onthat of enemies, for whatever cause, for whatever reason, for this is notnow the question, still enemies. Upon reading, I found it so of myself. Isit so? Without having received any instruction in poetry, you would not dareto essay to read Terentianus Maurus without a master: Asper, Cornutus,Donatus, and others without number are needed, that any poet whatever may beunderstood, whose strains seem to court even the applause of the theatre; doyou in the case of those books, which, however they may be, yet by theconfession of well-nigh the whole human race are commonly reported to besacred and full of divine things, rush upon them without a guide, and dareto deliver an opinion on them without a teacher; and, if there meet you anymatters, which seem absurd, do not accuse rather your own dullness, and minddecayed by the corruption of this world, such as is that of all that arefoolish, than those [books] which haply cannot beunderstood by such persons! You should seek some one at once pious andlearned, or who by consent of many was said to be such, that you might beboth bettered by his advice, and instructed by his learning. Was he not easyto find? He should be searched out with pains. Was there no one in thecountry in which you lived? What cause could more profitably force totravel? Was he quite hidden, or did he not exist on the continent [1] ? One should cross the sea. Ifacross the sea he was not found in any place near to us, you should proceedeven as far as those lands, in which the things related in those books aresaid to have taken place. What, Honoratus, have we done of this kind? Andyet a religion perhaps the most holy, (for as yet I am speaking as though itwere matter of doubt,) the opinion whereof hath by this time takenpossession of the whole world, we wretched boys condemned at our owndiscretion and sentence. What if those things which in those same Scripturesseem to offend some unlearned persons, were so set there for this purpose,that when things were read of such as are abhorrent from the feeling ofordinary men, not to say of wise and holy men, we might with much moreearnestness seek the hidden meaning. Perceive you not how the Catamite ofthe Bucolics, [2] forwhom the rough shepherd gushed forth into tears, men essay to interpret, andaffirm that the boy Alexis, on whom Plato also is said to have composed alove strain, hath some great meaning or other, but escapes the judgment ofthe unlearned; whereas without any sacrilege a poet however rich may seem tohave published wanton songs?

18. But in truth was there eitherdecree of any law, or power of gainsayers, or vile character of personsconsecrated, or shameful report, or newness of institution, or hiddenprofession, to recall us from, and forbid us, the search? There is nothingof these. All laws divine and human allow us to seek the Catholic Faith; butto hold and exercise it is allowed us at any rate by human law, even if solong as we are in error there be a doubt concerning divine law; no enemyalarms our weakness, (although truth and the salvation of the soul, in casebeing diligently sought it be not found where it may with most safety, oughtto be sought at any risk); the degrees of all ranks and powers mostdevotedly minister to this divine worship; the name of religion is mosthonorable and most famous. What, I pray, hinders to search out and discusswith pious and careful enquiry, whether there be here that which it mustneeds be few know and guard in entire purity, although the goodwill andaffection 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 weshall deliver up our souls, for it to cleanse and renew them; without doubtwe must begin with the Catholic Church. For by this time there are moreChristians, than if the Jews and idolaters be added together. But of thesesame Christians, whereas there are several heresies, and all wish to appearCatholics, and call all others besides themselves heretics, there is one Church, as all allow: if you consider the wholeworld, more full filled in number; but, as they who know affirm, more purealso in truth than all the rest. But the question of truth is another; but,what is enough for such as are in search, there is one Catholic, to whichdifferent heresies give different names, whereas they themselves are calledeach by names of their own, which they dare not deny. From which may beunderstood, by judgment of umpires who are hindered by no favor, to which isto be assigned the name Catholic, which all covet. But, that no one maysuppose that it is to be made matter of over garrulous or unnecessarydiscussion, this is at any rate one, in which human laws themselves also arein a certain way Christian. I do not wish any prejudgment to be formed fromthis fact, but I account it a most favorable commencement for enquiry. Forwe are not to fear lest the true worship of God, resting on no strength ofits own, seem to need to be supported by them whom it ought to support: but,at any rate, it is perfect happiness, if the truth may be there found, whereit is most safe both to search for it and to hold it: in case it cannot,then at length, at whatever risk, we must go and search some otherwhere.

20. Having then laid down theseprinciples, which, as I think, are so just that I ought to win this causebefore you, let who will be my adversary, I will set forth to you, as I amable, what way I followed, when I was searching after true religion in thatspirit, in which I have now set forth that it ought to be sought. For uponleaving you and crossing the sea, now delaying and hesitating, what I oughtto hold, what to let go; which delay rose upon me every day the more, fromthe time that I was a hearer of that man, [1] whose coming was promised to us, as you know, as if fromheaven, to explain all things which moved us, and found him, with theexception of a certain eloquence, such as the rest; being now settled inItaly, I reasoned and deliberated greatly with myself, not whether I shouldcontinue in that sect, into which I was sorry that I had fallen, but in whatway I was to find the truth, my sighs through love of which are known to noone better than to yourself. Often it seemed to me that it could not befound, and huge waves of my thoughts would roll toward deciding in favor ofthe Academics. Often again, with what power I had, looking into the humansoul, with so much life, with so much intelligence, with so much clearness,I thought that the truth lay not hid, save that in it the way of search layhid, and that this same way must be taken from some divine authority. Itremained to enquire what was that authority, where in so great dissensionseach promised that he would deliver it. Thus there met me a wood, out ofwhich there was no way, which I was very loath to be involved in: and amidthese things, without any rest, my mind was agitated through desire offinding the truth. However, I continued to unsew myself more and more fromthose whom now I had proposed to leave. But there remained nothing else, inso great dangers, than with words full of tears and sorrow to entreat theDivine Providence to help me. And this I was content to do: and now certaindisputations of the Bishop of Milan [2] had almost moved me to desire,not without some hope, to enquire into many things concerning the OldTestament itself, which, as you know, we used to view as accursed, havingbeen ill commended to us. And I had decided to be a Catechumen in theChurch, unto which I had been delivered by my parents, until such time as Ishould either find what I wished, or should persuade myself that it needednot to be sought. Therefore had there been one who could teach me, he wouldfind me at a very critical moment most fervently disposed and very apt tolearn. If you see that you too have been long affected in this way,therefore, and with a like care for thy soul, and if now you seem toyourself to have been tossed to and fro enough, and wish to put an end tolabors of this kind, follow the pathway of Catholic teaching, which hathflowed down from Christ Himself through the Apostles even unto us, and willhereafter flow down to posterity.

21. This, you will say, isridiculous, whereas all profess to hold and teach this: all heretics makethis profession, I cannot deny it; but so, as that they promise to thosewhom they entice, that they will give them a reason concerning matters themost obscure: and on this account chiefly charge the Catholic[Church], that they who come to her are enjoined tobelieve; but they make it their boast, that they impose not a yoke ofbelieving, 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 tothemselves a crowd by the name of reason: on the promise of which the humansoul naturally is pleased, and, without considering its own strength and state of health, by seeking the food of thesound, which is ill entrusted save to such as are in health, rushes upon thepoisons of them who deceive. For true religion, unless those things bebelieved, which each one after, if he shall conduct himself well and shallbe worthy, attains unto and understands, and altogether without a certainweighty power of authority, can in no way be rightly entered upon.

22. But perhaps you seek to havesome reason given you on this very point, such as may persuade you, that youought not to be taught by reason before faith. Which may easily be done, ifonly you make yourself a fair hearer. But, in order that it may be donesuitably, I wish you as it were to answer my questions; and, first, to tellme, 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 bea certain fault: otherwise we should not use to cast this as a term ofreproach. For if a suspicious man is in fault, in that he suspects thingsnot ascertained; how much more a credulous man, who herein differs from asuspicious man, that the one allows some doubt, the other none, in matterswhich 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 somereproach; but we call him studious even with praise. Wherefore observe, ifyou please, what seems to you to be the difference between these two. Thissurely, you answer, that, although both be led by great desire to know, yetthe curious man seeks after things that no way pertain to him, but thestudious man, on the contrary, seeks after what pertain to him. But, becausewe 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 toask all comers, how his wife and children are and fare, he is surely led bygreat desire to know, and yet we call not this man studious, who bothexceedingly wishes to know, and that (in) matters which very greatly pertainunto him. Wherefore you now understand that the definition of a studiousperson falters in this point, that every studious person wishes to know whatpertain to himself, and yet not every one, who makes this his business, isto be called studious; but he who with all earnestness seeks those thingswhich pertain unto the liberal culture and adornment of the mind. Yet werightly call him one who studies, [1] especiallyif we add what he studies to hear. For we may call him even studious of hisown (family) if he love only his own (family), we do not however, withoutsome addition, think him worthy of the common name of the studious. But onewho was desirous to hear how his family were I should not call studious ofhearing, unless taking pleasure in the good report, he should wish to hearit again and again: but one who studied, even if only once. Now return tothe curious person, and tell me, if any one should be willing to listen tosome tale, such as would no way profit him, that is, of matters that pertainnot to him: and that not in an offensive way and frequently, but very seldomand with great moderation, either at a feast, or in some company, or meetingof any kind; would he seem to you curious? I think not: but at any rate hewould certainly seem to have a care for that matter, to which he was willingto listen. Wherefore the definition of a curious person also must becorrected by the same rule as that of a studious person. Consider thereforewhether the former statements also do not need to be corrected. For whyshould not both he, who at some time suspects something, be unworthy thename of a suspicious person; and he who at some time believes something, ofa credulous person? Thus as there is very great difference between one whostudies any matter, and the absolutely studious; and again between him whohath a care and the curious; so is there between him who believes and thecredulous.

23. But you will say, consider nowwhether we ought to believe in religion. For, although we grant that it isone thing to believe, another to be credulous, it does not follow that it isno fault to believe in matters of religion. For what if it be a fault bothto believe and to be credulous, as (it is) both to be drunk and to be adrunkard? 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 believesa friend, or in nothing believing a friend I see not how he can call eitherhim or himself a friend. Here perhaps you may say, I grant that we mustbelieve something at some time; now make plain, how in the case of religionit 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 deliverreligion 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 withfeigned breast. You grant, as I suppose, that it is more blameable to unfoldunto such an one whatever holy secrets there are, than to believe religiousmen affirming any thing on the matter ofreligion itself. For it would be unbecoming you to make any other answer.Wherefore now suppose him present, who is about to deliver to you areligion, in what way shall you assure him, that you approach with a truemind, and that, so far as this matter is concerned, there is in you no fraudor feigning? You will say, your own good conscience that you are no wayfeigning, asserting this with words as strong as you can, but yet withwords. For you cannot lay open man to man the hiding places of your soul, sothat you may be thoroughly known. But if he shall say, Lo, I believe you,but is it not more fair that you also believe me, when, if I hold any truth,you are about to receive, I about to give, a benefit? what will you answer,save that you must believe?

24. But you say, Were it not betterthat you should give me a reason, that, wherever that shall lead me, I mayfollow without any rashness? Perhaps it were: but, it being so great amatter, that you are by reason to come to the knowledge of God, do you thinkthat all are qualified to understand the reasons, by which the human soul isled to know God, or many, or few? Few I think, you say. Do you believe thatyou 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 thisindeed he does: only do you remember, that he hath already twice believedyou saying things uncertain; that you are unwilling to believe him even onceadmonishing you in a religious spirit. But suppose that it is so, and thatyou approach with a true mind to receive religion, and that you are one offew men in such sense as to be able to take in the reasons by which theDivine Power [1] is brought into certain knowledge; what?do you think that other men, who are not endued with so serene adisposition, are to be denied religion? or do you think that they are to beled gradually by certain steps unto those highest inner recesses? You seeclearly which is the more religious. For you cannot think that any onewhatever in a case where he desires so great a thing, ought by any means tobe abandoned or rejected. But do you not think, that, unless he do firstbelieve that he shall attain unto that which he purposes; and do yield hismind as a suppliant; and, submitting to certain great and necessaryprecepts, do by a certain course of life thoroughly cleanse it, that he willnot otherwise attain the things that are purely true? Certainly you thinkso. What, then, is the case of those, (of whom I already believe you to beone,) who are able most easily to receive divine secrets by sure reason,will it, I ask, be to them any hindrance at all, if they so come as they whoat the first believe? I think not. But yet, you say, what need to delaythem? Because although they will in no way harm themselves by what is done,yet they will harm the rest by the precedent. For there is hardly one whohas a just notion of his own power: but he who has a less notion must beroused; he who has a greater notion must be checked: that neither the one bebroken by despair, nor the other carried headlong by rashness. And this iseasily done, if even they, who are able to fly, (that they be not alluringthe occasion of any into danger,) are forced for a short time to walk wherethe rest also may walk with safety. This is the forethought of truereligion: this the command of God: this what hath been handed down from ourblessed forefathers, this what hath been preserved even unto us: to wish todistrust and overthrow this, is nothing else than to seek a sacrilegious wayunto true religion. And whoso do this, not even if what they wish be grantedto them are they able to arrive at the point at which they aim. For whateverkind of excellent genius they have, unless God be present, they creep on theground. But He is then present, if they, who are aiming at God, have aregard for their fellow men. Than which step there can be found nothing moresure Heavenward. I for my part cannot resist this reasoning, for how can Isay that we are to believe nothing without certain knowledge? whereas boththere can be no friendship at all, unless there be believed something whichcannot be proved by some reason, and often stewards, who are slaves, aretrusted by their masters without any fault on their part. But in religionwhat can there be more unfair than that the ministers [2] of Godbelieve us when we promise an unfeigned mind, and we are unwilling tobelieve them when they enjoin us any thing. Lastly, what way can there bemore healthful, than for a man to become fitted to receive the truth bybelieving those things, which have been appointed by God to serve for theprevious culture and treatment of the mind? Or, if you be already altogetherfitted, rather to make some little circuit where it is safest to tread, thanboth to cause yourself danger, and to be a precedent for rashness to othermen?

25. Wherefore it now remains toconsider, in what manner we ought not to follow these, who profess that they will lead by reason. For how we maywithout fault follow those who bid us to believe, hath been already said:but unto these who make promises of reason certain think that they come, notonly without blame, but also with some praise: but it is not so. For thereare two (classes of) persons, praiseworthy in religion; one of those whohave already found, whom also we must needs judge most blessed; another ofthose who are seeking with all earnestness and in the right way. The first,therefore, are already in very possession, the other on the way, yet on thatway whereby they are most sure to arrive. [1] There arethree other kinds of men altogether to be disapproved of and detested. Oneis of those who hold an opinion, [2] that is,of those who think that they know what they know not. Another is of thosewho are indeed aware that they know not, but do not so seek as to be able tofind. A third is of those who neither think that they know, nor wish toseek. There are also three things, as it were bordering upon one another, inthe minds of men well worth distinguishing; understanding, belief, opinion.And, if these be considered by themselves, the first is always withoutfault, the second sometimes with fault, the third never without fault. Forthe understanding of matters great, and honorable, and even divine, is mostblessed. [3] But the understandingof things unnecessary is no injury; but perhaps the learning was an injury,in that it took up the time of necessary matters. But on the mattersthemselves that are injurious, it is not the understanding, but the doing orsuffering them, that is wretched. For not, in case any understand how anenemy may be slain without danger to himself, is he guilty from the mereunderstanding, not the wish; and, if the wish be absent, what can be calledmore innocent? But belief is then worthy of blame, when either any thing isbelieved of God which is unworthy of Him, or any thing is over easilybelieved of man. But in all other matters if any believe aught, provided heunderstand that he knows it not, there is no fault. For I believe that verywicked conspirators were formerly put to death by the virtue of Cicero; butthis I not only know not, but also I know for certain that I can by no meansknow. But opinion is on two accounts very base; in that both he who hathpersuaded himself that he already knows, cannot learn; provided only it maybe learnt; and in itself rashness is a sign of a mind not well disposed. Foreven if any suppose that he know what I said of Cicero, (although it be nohindrance to him from learning, in that the matter itself is incapable ofbeing grasped by any knowledge;) yet, (in that he understands not that thereis a great difference, whether any thing be grasped by sure reason of mind,which we call understanding, or whether for practical purposes it beentrusted to common fame or writing, for posterity to believe it,) heassuredly errs, and no error is without what is base. What then weunderstand, we owe to reason; what we believe, to authority; what we have anopinion on, to error. [4] But every one who understands alsobelieves, and also every one who has an opinion believes; not every one whobelieves understands, no one who has an opinion understands. Therefore ifthese three things be referred unto the five kinds of men, which wementioned a little above; that is, two kinds to be approved, which we setfirst, and three that remain faulty; we find that the first kind, that ofthe blessed, believe the truth itself; but the second kind, that of such asare earnest after, and lovers of, the truth, believe authority. In whichkinds, of the two, the act of belief is praiseworthy. But in the first ofthe faulty kinds, that is, of those who have anopinion that they know what they know not, there is an altogether faultycredulity. The other two kinds that are to be disapproved believe nothing,both they who seek the truth despairing of finding it, and they who seek itnot at all. And this only in matters which pertain unto any system ofteaching. For in the other business of life, I am utterly ignorant by whatmeans a man can believe nothing. Although in the case of those also, theywho say that in practical matters they follow probabilities, would seemrather to be unable to know than unable to believe. For who believes notwhat he approves? [1] or how is what they follow probable, if itbe not approved? Wherefore there may be two kinds of such as oppose thetruth: one of those who assail knowledge alone, not faith; the other ofthose who condemn both: and yet again, I am ignorant whether these can befound in matters of human life. These things have been said, in order thatwe might understand, that, in retaining faith, even of those things which asyet we comprehend not, we are set free from the rashness of such as have anopinion. For they, who say that we are to believe nothing but what we know,are on their guard against that one name“opining,” [2] whichmust be confessed to be base and very wretched, but, if they considercarefully that there is a very great difference, whether one think that heknows, or moved by some authority believe that which he understands that heknows not, surely he will escape the charge of error, and inhumanity, andpride.

26. For I ask, if what is not knownmust 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 theirparents? For it cannot, by any means, be known by reason. But the authorityof the mother comes in, that it be believed of the father; but of the motherit 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 hisplace, may she not being deceived deceive? Yet we believe, and believewithout 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 humanrace, is violated by extreme pride of wickedness? For what madman even wouldthink him to be blamed who discharged the duties that were due to those whomhe believed to be his parents, although they were not so? Who, on the otherhand, would not judge him to deserve banishment, who failed to love thosewho were perhaps his true parents, through fear lest he should lovepretended. Many things may be alleged, whereby to show that nothing at allof human society remains safe, if we shall determine to believe nothing,which we cannot grasp by full apprehension. [3]

27. But now hear, what I trust Ishall 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 noone doubts that all men are either fools or wise. [4] But now I call wise, not clever andgifted men, but those, in whom there is, so much as may be in man, theknowledge of man himself and of God most surely received, and a life andmanners suitable to that knowledge; but all others, whatever be their skillor want of skill, whatever their manner of life, whether to be approved ordisapproved, I would account in the number of fools. And, this being so, whoof moderate understanding but will clearly see, that it is more useful andmore healthful for fools to obey the precepts of the wise, than to live bytheir own judgment? For everything that is done, if it be not rightly done,is a sin, nor can that any how be rightly done which proceeds not from rightreason. Further, right reason is very virtue. But to whom of men is virtueat hand, save to the mind of the wise? Therefore the wise man alone sinsnot. Therefore every fool sins, save in those actions, in which he hathobeyed a wise man: for all such actions proceed from right reason, and, soto say, the fool is not to be accounted master of his own action, he being,as it were, the instrument and that which ministers [5] to thewise man. Wherefore, if it be better for all men not to sin than to sin;assuredly all fools would live better, if they could be slaves of the wise.And, if no one doubts that this is better in lesser matters, as in buyingand selling, and cultivating the ground, in taking a wife, in undertaking and bringing [1] up children, lastly, in themanagement of household property, much more in religion. For both humanmatters are more easy to distinguish between, than divine; and in allmatters of greater sacredness and excellence, the greater obedience andservice we owe them, the more wicked and the more dangerous is it to sin.Therefore you see henceforth [2] that nothing else is left us, so longas we are fools, if our heart be set on an excellent and religious life, butto seek wise men, by obeying whom we may be enabled both to lessen the greatfeeling of the rule of folly, whilst it is in us, and at the last to escapefrom it.

28. Here again arises a verydifficult question. For in what way shall we fools be able to find a wiseman, whereas this name, although hardly any one dare openly, yet most menlay claim to indirectly: so disagreeing one with another in the verymatters, in the knowledge of which wisdom consists, as that it must needs bethat either none of them, or but some certain one be wise? But when the foolenquires, who is that wise man? I do not at all see, in what way he can bedistinguished and perceived. For by no signs whatever can one recognize anything, unless he shall have known that thing, whereof these are signs. Butthe fool is ignorant of wisdom. For not, as, in the case of gold and silverand other things of that kind, it is allowed both to know them when you seethem, and not to have them, thus may wisdom be seen by the mind’seye of him who hath it not. For whatever things we come into contact with bybodily sense, are presented to us from without; and therefore we mayperceive by the eyes what belong to others, when we ourselves possess notany of them or of that kind. But what is perceived by the understanding iswithin in the mind, and to have it is nothing else than to see. But the foolis void of wisdom, therefore he knows not wisdom. For he could not see itwith the eyes: but he cannot see it and not have it, nor have it and be afool. Therefore he knoweth it not, and, so long as he knoweth it not, hecannot recognize it in another place. No one, so long as he is a fool, canby most sure knowledge find out a wise man, by obeying whom he may be setfree from so great evil of folly.

29. Therefore this so vastdifficulty, since our enquiry is about religion, God alone can remedy: norindeed, unless we believe both that He is, and that He helpsmen’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 wewish to attain unto? Whither do we long to arrive? Is it at that which webelieve not exists or pertains to us? Nothing is more perverse than such astate of mind. Then, when you would not dare to ask of me a kindness, or atany rate would be shameless in daring, come you to demand the discovery ofreligion, when you think that God neither exists, nor, if He exist, hath anycare for us? What, if it be so great a matter, as that it cannot be foundout, unless it be sought carefully and with all our might? What, if the veryextreme difficulty of discovery be an exercise for the mind of the inquirer,in order to receive what shall be discovered? For what more pleasant andfamiliar to our eyes than this light? And yet men are unable after longdarkness to hear and endure it. What more suited to the body exhausted bysickness than meat and drink? And yet we see that persons who are recoveringare restrained and checked, lest they dare to commit themselves to thefullness of persons in health, and so bring to pass by means of their veryfood their return to that disease which used to reject it. I speak ofpersons who are recovering. What, the very sick, do we not urge them to takesomething? Wherein assuredly they would not with so great discomfort obeyus, if they believed not that they would recover from that disease. Whenthen 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 andtrouble as the matter deserves, when you believe not in the existence ofthat which you are in search of? Rightly therefore hath it been ordained bythe majesty of the Catholic system of teaching, that they who approach untoreligion 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,) Iask you, what reason he alleges to me? What is there whereby for him to callme back from believing, as if from rashness? If he bid me believe nothing; Ibelieve not that this very true religion hath any existence in humanaffairs; 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 is written, “He thatseeketh shall find.” [3] Therefore I should not come untohim, who forbids me to believe, unless I believed something. Is there anygreater madness, than that I should displease him by faith alone, which isfounded on no knowledge, which faith alone led me to him?

31. What, that all heretics exhortus 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 firstplace 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 itbe disgraceful to believe any without reason, what do you wait for, what areyou busied about, that I believe some one without reason, in order that Imay the more easily be led by your reason? What, will your reason raise anyfirm superstructure on the foundation of rashness? I speak after theirmanner, whom we displease by believing. For I not only judge it mosthealthful to believe before reason, when you are not qualified to receivereason, and by the very act of faith thoroughly to cultivate the mind toreceive the seeds of truth, but altogether a thing of such sort as thatwithout it health cannot return to sick souls. And, in that this seems tothem matter for mockery and full of rashness, surely they are shameless inmaking it their business that we believe in Christ. Next, I confess that Ihave already believed in Christ, and have convinced myself that what He hathsaid is true, although it be supported by no reason; is this, heretic, whatyou will teach me in the first place? Suffer me to consider a little withmyself, (since I have not seen Christ Himself, as He willed to appear untomen, Who is said to have been seen by them, even by common eyes,) who theyare that I have believed concerning Him, in order that I may approach youalready furnished beforehand with such a faith. I see that there are nonethat I have believed, save the confirmed opinion and widely extended reportof peoples and nations: and that the mysteries of the Church Catholic havein all times and places had possession of these peoples. Why therefore shallI not of these, in preference to others, inquire with all care, what Christcommanded, by whose authority I have been moved already to believe thatChrist hath commanded something that is profitable? Are you likely to be abetter expounder to me of what He said, Whose past or present existence Ishould not believe, if by you I were to be recommended to believe thus? Thistherefore I have believed, as I said, trusting to report strengthened bynumbers, agreement, antiquity. But you, who are both so few, and soturbulent, and so new, no one doubts that ye bring forward nothing worthy ofauthority. What then is that so great madness? Believe them, that you are tobelieve in Christ, and learn from us what He said. Why, I pray you? For werethey to fail and to be unable to teach me any thing with much greater easecould I persuade my self, that I am not to believe in Christ, than that I amto learn any thing concerning Him, save from those through whom I hadbelieved in Him. O vast confidence, or rather absurdity! I teach you whatChrist, 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 reasonthem who believe in Him. Why then should I believe in Him? Because reporthath been grounded. Whether is it through you, or through others? Throughothers, 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 deadlydoctrines. You will answer, They lie. How then shall I believe themconcerning Christ, Whom they have not seen, (and) not believe themconcerning you, whom they are unwilling to see? Believe the Scriptures,saith he. But every writing, [1] if it be brought forward new and unheard of, or be commended by few, with noreason to confirm it, it is not it that is believed, but they who bring itforward. Wherefore, for those Scriptures, if you are they who bring themforward, you so few and unknown, I am not pleased to believe them. At thesame time also you are acting contrary to your promise, in enforcing faithrather than giving a reason. You will recall me again to numbers and(common) report. Curb, I pray you, your obstinacy, and that untamed lust, Iknow not what, of spreading your name: and advise me rather to seek thechief men of this multitude, and to seek with all care and pains rather tolearn something concerning these writings from these men, but for whoseexistence, I should not know that I had to learn at all. But do you returninto your dens, and lay not any snares under the name of truth, which youendeavor to take from those, to whom you yourself grant authority.

32. But if they say that we are noteven to believe in Christ, unless undoubted reason shall be given us, theyare not Christians. For this is what certain pagans say against us,foolishly indeed, yet not contrary to, or inconsistent with, themselves. Butwho can endure that these profess to belong to Christ, who contend that they are to believe nothing, unless theyshall bring forward to fools most open reason concerning God? But we seethat He Himself, so far as that history, which they themselves believe,teaches, willed nothing before, or more strongly than, that He should bebelieved in: whereas they, with whom He had to do, were not yet qualified toreceive the secret things of God. For, for what other purpose are so greatand so many miracles, He Himself also saying, that they are done for noother cause, than that He may be believed in? He used to lead fools byfaith, you lead by reason. He used to cry out, that He should be believedin, ye cry out against it. He used to praise such as believe in Him, yeblame them. But unless either He should change water into wine, [1] toomit other (miracles), if men would follow Him, doing no such, but (only)teaching; either we must make no account of that saying, “Believeye God, believe also Me;” [2] or we must charge him withrashness, who willed not that He should come into his house, believing thatthe disease of his servant would depart at His mere command. [3] Therefore He bringing to us a medicine such as should heal our utterlycorrupt manners, by miracles procured to Himself authority, [4] by authority obtained Himself belief, bybelief drew together a multitude, by a multitude possessed antiquity, byantiquity strengthened religion: so that not only the utterly foolishnovelty of heretics dealing deceitfully, but also the inveterate error ofthe nations opposing with violence, should be unable on any side to rend itasunder.

33. Wherefore, although I am notable to teach, yet I cease not to advise, that, (whereas many wish to appearwise, and it is no easy matter to discern whether they be fools,) with allearnestness, and with all prayers, and lastly with groans, or even, if so itmay be, with tears, you entreat of God to set you free from the evil oferror; if your heart be set on a happy life. And this will take place themore easily, if you obey with a willing mind His commands, which He hathwilled should be confirmed by so great authority of the Catholic Church. Forwhereas the wise man is so joined to God in mind, as that there is nothingset 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 thatbetween the folly of man, and the most pure Truth of God, the wisdom of manis set, as something in the middle. For the wise man, so far as it is givenunto him, imitates God; but for a man who is a fool, there is nothing nearerto 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, itbehoved that certain miracles be brought near to the very eyes, which foolsuse with much greater readiness than the mind, that, men being moved byauthority, their life and habits might first be cleansed, and they thusrendered capable of receiving reason. Whereas, therefore, it needed boththat man be imitated, and that our hope be not set in man, what could bedone on the part of God more full of kindness and grace, than that the verypure, eternal, unchangeable Wisdom of God, unto Whom it behoves us tocleave, should deign to take upon Him (the nature of) man? That not only Hemight do what should invite us to follow God, but also might suffer whatused to deter us from following God. For, whereas no one can attain unto themost sure and chief good, unless he shall fully and perfectly love it; whichwill by no means take place, so long as the evils of the body and of fortuneare dreaded; He by being born after a miraculous manner and working causedHimself 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 shewedHimself such, as that we might perceive unto what the clemency of God couldbe reached forth, and unto what the weakness of man be lifted up.

34. This is, believe me, a mostwholesome authority, this a lifting up first of our mind from dwelling onthe earth, this a turning from the love of this world unto the True God. Itis authority alone which moves fools to hasten unto wisdom. So long as wecannot understand pure (truths), it is indeed wretched to be deceived byauthority, but surely more wretched not to be moved. For, if the Providenceof God preside not over human affairs, we have no need to busy ourselvesabout religion. But if both the outward form of all things, which we mustbelieve assuredly flows from some fountain of truest beauty, and some, Iknow not what, inward conscience exhorts, as it were, in public and inprivate, all the better order of minds to seek God, and to serve God; wemust not give up all hope that the same God Himself hath appointed someauthority, 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 veryhard for fools to understand pure, moves us two ways; in part by miracles,in part by multitude of followers: no one ofthese is necessary to the wise man; who denies it? But this is now thebusiness in hand, that we may be able to be wise, that is, to cleave to thetruth; which the filthy soul is utterly unable to do: but the filth of thesoul, to say shortly what I mean, is the love of any things whatsoever saveGod and the soul: from which filth the more any one is cleansed, the moreeasily he sees the truth. Therefore to wish to see the truth, in order topurge your soul, when as it is purged for the very purpose that you may see,is surely perverse and preposterous. Therefore to man unable to see thetruth, authority is at hand, in order that he may be made fitted for it, andmay allow himself to be cleansed; and, as I said a little above, no onedoubts that this prevails, in part by miracles, in part by multitude. But Icall that a miracle, whatever appears that is difficult or unusual above thehope or power of them who wonder. Of which kind there is nothing more suitedfor the people, and in general for foolish men, than what is brought near tothe senses. But these, again, are divided into two kinds; for there arecertain, which cause only wonder, but certain others procure also greatfavor and good-will. For, if one were to see a man flying, inasmuch as thatmatter brings no advantage to the spectator, beside the spectacle itself, heonly wonders. But if any affected with grievous and hopeless disease were torecover straightway, upon being bidden, his affection for him who heals,will go beyond even his wonder at his healing. Such were done at that timeat which God in True Man appeared unto men, as much as was enough. The sickwere healed, the lepers were cleansed; walking was restored to the lame,sight to the blind, hearing to the deaf. The men of that time saw waterturned into wine, five thousand filled with five loaves, seas passed onfoot, dead rising again: thus certain provided for the good of the body bymore open benefit, certain again for the good of the soul by more hiddensign, and all for the good of men by their witness to Majesty: thus, at thattime, was the divine authority moving towards Itself the wandering souls ofmortal men. Why, say you, do not those things take place now? because theywould not move, unless they were wonderful, and, if they were usual, theywould not be wonderful. [1] For the interchangesof day and night, and the settled order of things in Heaven, the revolutionof years divided into four parts, the fall and return of leaves to trees,the boundless power of seeds, the beauty of light, the varieties of colors,sounds, tastes, and scents, let there be some one who shall see and perceivethem for the first time, and yet such an one as we may converse with; he isstupified and overwhelmed with miracles: but we contemn all these, notbecause they are easy to understand, (for what more obscure than the causesof these?) but surely because they constantly meet our senses. Thereforethey were done at a very suitable time, in order that, by these a multitudeof believers having been gathered together and spread abroad, authoritymight be turned with effect upon habits.

35. But any habits whatever have sogreat power to hold possession of men’s minds, that even what inthem are evil, which usually takes place through excess of lusts, we cansooner disapprove of and hate, than desert or change. Do you think thatlittle hath been done for the benefit of man, that not some few very learnedmen maintain by argument, but also an unlearned crowd of males and femalesin so many and different nations both believe and set forth, that we are toworship as God nothing of earth, nothing of fire, nothing, lastly, whichcomes into contact with the senses of the body, but that we are to seek toapproach Him by the understanding only? that abstinence is extended evenunto the slenderest food of bread and water, and fastings not only for theday, [2] butalso continued through several days together; that chastity is carried evenunto the contempt of marriage and family; that patience even unto thesetting light by crosses and flames; that liberality even unto thedistribution of estates unto the poor; that, lastly, the contempt of thiswhole world even unto the desire of death? Few do these things, yet fewer dothem well and wisely: but whole nations approve, nations hear, nationsfavor, nations, lastly, love. Nations accuse their own weakness that theycannot do these things, and that not without the mind being carried forwardunto God, nor without certain sparks of virtue. This hath been brought topass by the Divine Providence, through the prophecies of the Prophets,through the manhood and teaching of Christ, through the journeys of theApostles, through the insults, crosses, blood, of the Martyrs, through thepraiseworthy life of the Saints, and, in all these, according as times were seasonable, through miracles worthy of so greatmatters and virtues. When therefore we see so great help of God, so greatprogress and fruit, shall we doubt to hide ourselves in the bosom of thatChurch, which even unto the confession of the human race from[the] apostolic chair [1] through successions of Bishops, [2] (heretics in vain lurking around her and beingcondemned, partly by the judgment of the very people, partly by the weightof councils, partly also by the majesty of miracles,) hath held the summitof authority. To be unwilling to grant to her the first place, [3] is either surely the height of impiety, oris headlong arrogance. For, if there be no sure way unto wisdom and healthof souls, unless where faith prepare them for reason, what else is it to beungrateful for the Divine help and aid, than to wish to resist authorityfurnished with so great labor? [4] And ifevery system of teaching, however mean and easy, requires, in order to itsbeing received, a teacher or master, what more full of rash pride, than, inthe case of books of divine mysteries, [5] bothto be unwilling to learn from such as interpret them, and to wish to condemnthem unlearned?

36. Wherefore, if either ourreasoning or our discourse hath in any way moved you, and if you have, as Ibelieve, a true care for yourself, I would you would listen to me, and withpious faith, lively hope, and simple charity, entrust yourself to goodteachers of Catholic Christianity; and cease not to pray unto God Himself,by Whose goodness alone we were created, and suffer punishment by Hisjustice, and are set free by His mercy. Thus there will be wanting to youneither precepts and treatises of most learned and truly Christian men, norbooks, nor calm thoughts themselves, whereby you may easily find what youare seeking. For do you abandon utterly those wordy and wretched men, (forwhat other milder name can I use?) who, whilst they seek to excess whence isevil, find nothing but evil. And on this question they often rouse theirhearers to inquire; but after that they have been roused, they teach themsuch lessons as that it were preferable even to sleep for ever, than thus tobe awake. For in place of lethargic they make them frantic, between whichdiseases, both being usually fatal, there is still this difference, thatlethargic persons die without doing violence to others; but the franticperson many who are sound, and specially they who wish to help him, havereason to fear. For neither is God the author of evil, nor hath it everrepented Him that He hath done aught, nor is He troubled by storm of anypassion of soul, nor is a small part of earth His Kingdom: He neitherapproves nor commands any sins or wickedness, He never lies. For these andsuch like used to move us, when they used them to make great and threateningassaults, and charged this as being the system of teaching of the OldTestament, which is most false. Thus then I allow that they do right incensuring these. What then have I learnt? What think you, save that, whenthese are censured, the Catholic system of teaching is not censured. Thuswhat I had learnt among them that is true, I hold, what is false that I hadthought I reject. But the Catholic Church hath taught me many other thingsalso, which those men of bloodless bodies, but coarse minds, cannot aspireunto; that is to say, that God is not corporeal, that no part of Him can beperceived by corporeal eyes, that nothing of His Substance or Nature can anyway suffer violence or change, or is compounded or formed; and if you grantme these, (for we may not think otherwise concerning God,) all their devicesare overthrown. But how it is, that neither God begot or created evil, noryet is there, or hath there been ever, any nature and substance, which Godeither 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 therebe added piety and a certain peace of mind, without which nothing at all canbe understood concerning so great matters. And here there is no rumorconcerning smoke, and I know not what Persian vain fable, unto which it isenough to lend an ear, and soul not subtile, but absolutely childish. Faraltogether, far otherwise is the truth, than as the Mancihees dote. Butsince this discourse of ours hath gone much further than I thought, here letus end the book; in which I wish you to remember, that I have not yet begunto refute the Manichees, and that I have not yet assailed that nonsense; andthat neither have I unfolded any thing great concerning the Catholic Churchitself, but that I have only wished to root out of you, if I could, a falsenotion concerning true Christians that was maliciously or ignorantlysuggested 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 calmed, I shall perhaps be more ready in whatremains. [1]

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON THE CREED: A SERMON TO THECATECHUMENS.

[DE SYMBOLO AD CATECHUMENOS.]

TRANSLATED BY THE REV. C. L. CORNISH, M. A. OF EXETERCOLLEGE, OXFORD.

1. RECEIVE, my children, the Rule of Faith, which is calledthe Symbol (or Creed [1] ). And when ye have received it, writeit in your heart, and be daily saying it to yourselves; before ye sleep,before ye go forth, arm you with your Creed. The Creed no man writes so asit may be able to be read: but for rehearsal of it, lest haply forgetfulnessobliterate what care hath delivered, let your memory be yourrecord-roll: [2] what ye are about to hear, that are ye tobelieve; and what ye shall have believed, that are about to give back withyour tongue. For the Apostle says, “With the heart man believethunto righteousness, and with the mouth confession is made untosalvation.” [3] For this is the Creed which ye areto rehearse and to repeat in answer. These words which ye have heard are inthe Divine Scriptures scattered up and down: but thence gathered and reducedinto one, that the memory of slow persons might not be distressed; thatevery person may be able to say, able to hold, what he believes. For have yenow merely heard that God is Almighty? But ye begin to have him for yourfather, when ye have been born by the church as your Mother.

2. Of this, then, ye have nowreceived, have meditated, and having meditated have held, that ye shouldsay, “I believe in God the Father Almighty.” God isAlmighty, and yet, though Almighty, He cannot die, cannot be deceived,cannot lie; and, as the Apostle says, “cannot denyHimself.” [4] How many things that He cannotdo, and yet is Almighty! yea therefore is Almighty, because He cannot dothese things. For if He could die, He were not Almighty; if to lie, if to bedeceived, if to do unjustly, were possible for Him, He were not Almighty:because if this were in Him, He should not be worthy to be Almighty. To ourAlmighty Father, it is quite impossible to sin. He does whatsoever He will:that is Omnipotence. He does whatsoever He rightly will, whatsoever Hejustly will: but whatsoever is evil to do, He wills not. There is noresisting one who is Almighty, that He should not do what He will. It was HeWho made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, invisible andvisible. Invisible such as are in heaven, thrones, dominions,principalities, powers, archangels, angels: all, if we shall live aright,our fellow-citizens. He made in heaven the things visible; the sun, themoon, the stars. With its terrestrial animals He adorned the earth, filledthe air with things that fly, the land with them that walk and creep, thesea with them that swim: all He filled with their own proper creatures. Hemade also man after His own image and likeness, in the mind: for in that isthe image of God. This is the reason why the mind cannot be comprehendedeven by itself, because in it is the image of God. To this end were we made,that over the other creatures we should bear rule: but through sin in thefirst man we fell, and are all come into an inheritance of death. We werebrought low, became mortal, were filled with fears, with errors: this bydesert of sin: with which desert and guilt is every man born. [5] Thisis the reason why, as ye have seen to-day, as ye know, even little childrenundergo exsufflation, exorcism; to drive away from them the power of thedevil their enemy, which deceived man that it might possess mankind. It isnot then the creature of God that in infants undergoes exorcism orexsufflation: but he under whom are all that are born with sin; for he isthe first [6] of sinners. And for this cause byreason of one who fell and brought all intodeath, there was sent One without sin, Who should bring unto life, bydelivering them from sin, all that believe on Him.

3. For this reason we believe alsoin His Son, that is to say, God the Father Almighty’s,“His Only Son, our Lord.” When thou hearest of theOnly Son of God, acknowledge Him God. For it could not be thatGod’s Only Son should not be God. What He is, the same did Hebeget, though He is not that Person Whom He begot. If He be truly Son, He isthat which the Father is; if He be not that which the Father is, He is nottruly Son. Observe mortal and earthly creatures: what each is, that itengendereth. Man begets not an ox, sheep begets not dog, nor dog sheep.Whatever it be that begetteth, that which it is, it begetteth. Hold yetherefore boldly, firmly, faithfully, that the Begotten of God the Father iswhat Himself is, Almighty. These mortal creatures engender by corruption.Does God so beget? He that is begotten mortal generates that which himselfis; 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 Onebegets One, and therefore Only. Ye know, that when I pronounced to you theCreed, so I said, and so ye are bounden to believe; that we“believe in God the Father Almighty, and in Jesus Christ His OnlySon.” Here too, when thou believest that He is the Only, believeHim Almighty: for it is not to be thought that God the Father does what Hewill, 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 anywhit 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 assome do, who say, “God the Father and God the Son, but greaterGod the Father and lesser God the Son.” They both are what? TwoGods? 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, “Noman can serve two Lords.” [1] In His family shall we be insuch wise, that, like as in a great house where there is the father of afamily and he hath a son, so we should say, the greater Lord, the lesserLord? Shrink from such a thought. If ye make to yourselves such-like in yourheart, ye set up idols in the “one soul.” Utterlyrepel it. First believe, then understand. Now to whom God gives that when hehas believed he soon understands; that is God’s gift, not humanfrailness. Still, if ye do not yet understand, believe: One God the Father,God Christ the Son of God. Both are what? One God. And how are both said tobe One God? How? Dost thou marvel? In the Acts of the Apostles,“There was,” it says, “in the believers,one soul and one heart.” [2] There were many souls, faith hadmade them one. So many thousands of souls were there; they loved each other,and many are one: they loved God in the fire of charity, and from being manythey are come to the oneness of beauty. If all those many souls the dearnessof love [3] made one soul, what must be thedearness of love in God, where is no diversity, but entire equality! If onearth and among men there could be so great charity as of so many souls tomake one soul, where Father from Son, Son from Father, hath been everinseparable, could They both be other than One God? Only, those souls mightbe called both many souls and one soul; but God, in Whom is ineffable andhighest conjunction, may be called One God, not two Gods.

5. The Father doeth what He will,and what He will doeth the Son. Do not imagine an Almighty Father and a notAlmighty Son: it is error, blot it out within you, let it not cleave in yourmemory, let it not be drunk into your faith, and if haply any of you shallhave drunk it in, let him vomit it up. Almighty is the Father, Almighty theSon. 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 thatis because the one grows old, the other grows up, and by very growingattains to the form of his father. The Son of God, if He groweth not becauseneither 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 knowAlmighty begotten of Almighty, hear Him Who is Truth. That which of ItselfTruth saith, is true. What saith Truth? What saith the Son, Who is Truth?“Whatsoever things the Father doeth, these also the Son likewisedoeth.” [4] The Son is Almighty, in doing allthings that He willeth to do. For if the Father doeth some things which theSon doeth not, the Son said falsely, “Whatsoever things theFather doeth, these also the Son doeth likewise.” But because theSon spake truly, believe it:“Whatsoever things the Father doeth, these also the Son doethlikewise,” and ye have believed in the Son that He is Almighty.Which word although ye said not in the Creed, yet this is it that yeexpressed when ye believed in the Only Son, Himself God. Hath the Fatheraught that the Son hath not? This Arian heretic blasphemers say, not I. Butwhat say I? If the Father hath aught that the Son hath not, the Son lieth insaying, “All things that the Father hath, areMine.” [1] Manyand innumerable are the testimonies by which it is proved that the Son isVery Son of God the Father, and the Father God hath His Very-begotten SonGod, and Father and Son is One God.

6. But this Only Son of God, theFather 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 theVirgin Mary, born lowly, that thereby He might heal the proud. Man exaltedhimself and fell; God humbled Himself and raised him up. Christ’slowliness, what is it? God hath stretched out an hand to man laid low. Wefell, He descended: we lay low, He stooped. Let us lay hold and rise, thatwe fall not into punishment. So then His stooping to us is this,“Born of the Holy Ghost and of the Virgin Mary.” Hisvery Nativity too as man, it is lowly, and it is lofty. Whence lowly? Thatas man He was born of men. Whence lofty? That He was born of a virgin. Avirgin conceived, a virgin bore, and after the birth was a virgin still.

7. What next? “Sufferedunder Pontius Pilate.” He was in office as governor and was thejudge, this same Pontius Pilate, what time as Christ suffered. In the nameof the judge there is a mark of the times, when He suffered under PontiusPilate: when He suffered, “was crucified, dead, andburied.” Who? what? for whom? Who? God’s Only Son, ourLord. What? Crucified, dead, and buried. For whom? for ungodly and sinners.Great condescension, great grace! “What shall I render unto theLord for all that He hath bestowed on me?” [2]

8. He was begotten before all times,before all worlds. “Begotten before.” Before what, Hein Whom is no before? Do not in the least imagine any time before thatNativity of Christ whereby He was begotten of the Father; of that Nativity Iam speaking by which He is Son of God Almighty, His Only Son our Lord; ofthat am I first speaking. Do not imagine in this Nativity a beginning oftime; do not imagine any space of eternity in which the Father was and theSon was not. Since when the Father was, since then the Son. And what is that“since,” where is no beginning? Therefore ever Fatherwithout beginning, ever Son without beginning. And how, thou wilt say, wasHe begotten, if He have no beginning? Of eternal, coeternal. At no time wasthe Father, and the Son not, and yet Son of Father was begotten. Whence isany manner of similitude to be had? We are among things of earth, we are inthe visible creature. Let the earth give me a similitude: it gives none. Letthe element of the waters give me some similitude: it hath not whereof togive. Some animal give me a similitude: neither can this do it. An animalindeed engenders, both what engenders and what is engendered: but first isthe father, and then is born the son. Let us find the coeval and imagine itcoeternal. If we shall be able to find a father coeval with his son, and soncoeval 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 [3] thecoeval and imagine it coeternal. Some one, it may be, will put you on thestretch, [4] by saying, “When is itpossible for a father to be found coeval with his son, or son coeval withhis father? That the father may beget he goes before in age; that the sonmay be begotten, he comes after in age: but this father coeval with son, orson with father, how can it be?” Imagine to yourselves fire asfather, its shining as son; see, we have found the coevals. From the instantthat the fire begins to be, that instant it begets the shining: neither firebefore shining, nor shining after fire. And if we ask, which begets which?the fire the shining, or the shining the fire? Immediately ye conceive bynatural sense, by the innate wit of your minds ye all cry out, The fire theshining, not the shining the fire. Lo, here you have a father beginning; lo,a son at the same time, neither going before nor coming after. Lo, here thenis a father beginning, lo, a son at the same time beginning. If I have shownyou a father beginning, and a son at the same time beginning, believe theFather not beginning, and with Him the Son not beginning either; the oneeternal, the other coeternal. If ye get on with your learning, yeunderstand: take pains to get on. The being born,ye have; but also the growing, ye ought to have; because no man begins withbeing perfect. As for the Son of God, indeed, He could be born perfect,because He was begotten without time, coeternal with the Father, long beforeall things, not in age, but in eternity. He then was begotten coeternal, ofwhich generation the Prophet said, “His generation who shalldeclare?” [1] begotten of the Father without time, He was born of the Virgin in thefullness of times. This nativity had times going before it. In opportunityof time, when He would, when He knew, then was He born: for He was not bornwithout His will. None of us is born because he will, and none of us dieswhen he will: He, when He would, was born; when He would, He died: how Hewould, He was born of a Virgin: how He would, He died; on the cross.Whatever He would, He did: because He was in such wise Man that, unseen, [2] He was God; God assuming, Man assumed; [3] One Christ, God and Man.

9. Of His cross what shall I speak,what say? This extremest kind of death He chose, that not any kind of deathmight 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 thework, that He was crucified; example of the work, the Cross; reward of thework, Resurrection. He shewed us in the Cross what we ought to endure, Heshewed in the Resurrection what we have to hope. Just like a consummatetask-master in the matches of the arena, He said, Do, and bear; do the workand receive the prize; strive in the match and thou shalt be crowned. Whatis the work? Obedience. What the prize? Resurrection without death. Why didI add, “without death?” Because Lazarus rose, anddied: Christ rose again, “dieth no more, death will no longerhave dominion over Him.” [4]

10. Scripture saith, “Yehave heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end of theLord.” [5] Whenwe read what great trials Job endured, it makes one shudder, it makes oneshrink, it makes one quake. And what did he receive? The double of what hehad lost. Let not a man therefore with an eye to temporal rewards be willingto have patience, and say to himself, “Let me endure loss, Godwill give me back sons twice as many; Job received double of all, and begatas many sons as he had buried.” Then is this not the double? Yes,precisely the double, because the former sons still lived. Let none say,“Let me bear evils, and God will repay me as He repaidJob:” that it be now no longer patience but avarice. For if itwas not patience which that Saint had, nor a brave enduring of all that cameupon him; the testimony which the Lord gave, whence should he have it?“Hast thou observed,” saith the Lord, “myservant Job? For there is not like him any on the earth, a man withoutfault, [6] a true worshipper of God.” Whata testimony, my brethren, did this holy man deserve of the Lord! And yet hima bad woman sought by her persuasion to deceive, she too representing thatserpent, who, like as in Paradise he deceived the man whom God first made,so likewise here by suggesting blasphemy thought to be able to deceive a manwho pleased God. What things he suffered, my brethren! Who can have so muchto suffer in his estate, his house, his sons, his flesh, yea in his verywife who was left to be his tempter! But even her who was left, the devilwould have taken away long ago, but that he kept her to be his helper:because by Eve he had mastered the first man, therefore had he kept an Eve.What things, then, he suffered! He lost all that he had; his house fell;would that were all! it crushed his sons also. And, to see that patience hadgreat place in him, hear what he answered; “The Lord gave, theLord hath taken away; as it pleased the Lord, so hath it been done; [7] blessed be the name of the Lord.” [8] He hath taken what He gave, is Helost Who gave? He hath taken what He gave. As if he should say, He hathtaken away all, let Him take all, send me away naked, and let me keep Him.What shall I lack if I have God? or what is the good of all else to me, if Ihave not God? Then it came to his flesh, he was stricken with a wound fromhead to foot; he was one running sore, one mass of crawling worms: andshowed himself immovable in his God, stood fixed. The woman wanted,devil’s helper as she was not husband’s comforter, toput him up to blaspheme God. “How long,” said she,“dost thou suffer” so and so; “speak someword against the Lord, [9] and die.” [10] Sothen, because he had been brought low, he was to be exalted. And this theLord did, in order to show it to men; as for His servant, He kept greaterthings for him in heaven. So then Job who was brought low, He exalted; thedevil who was lifted up, He brought low: for“He putteth down one and setteth up another.” [1] Butlet not any man, my beloved brethren, when he suffers any such-liketribulations, look for a reward here: for instance, if he suffer any losses,let him not peradventure say, “The Lord gave, the Lord hath takenaway; as it pleased the Lord, so is it done: blessed be the name of theLord;” only with the mind to receive twice as much again. Letpatience praise God, not avarice. If what thou hast lost thou seekest toreceive back twofold, and therefore praisest God, it is of covetousness thoupraisest, not of love. Do not imagine this to be the example of that holyman; thou deceivest thyself. When Job was enduring all, he was not hopingfor to have twice as much again. Both in his first confession when he boreup under his losses, and bore out to the grave the dead bodies of his sons,and in the second when he was now suffering torments of sores in his flesh,ye may observe what I am saying. Of his former confession the words runthus: “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away: as it pleasedthe Lord, so is it done: blessed be the name of the Lord.” [2] Hemight have said, “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; Hethat took away can once more give; can bring back more than Hetook.” He said not this, but, “As it pleased theLord,” said he, “so is it done:” because itpleases Him, let it please me: let not that which hath pleased the good Lordmisplease His submissive servant; what pleased the Physician, not mispleasethe sick man. Hear his other confession: “Thou hastspoken,” said he to his wife, “like one of the foolishwomen. If we have received good at the hand of the Lord, why shall we notbear evil?” [3] He did not add, what, if he hadsaid it, would have been true. “The Lord is able both to bringback my flesh into its former condition, and that which He hath taken awayfrom us, to make manifold more:” lest he should seem to haveendured in hope of this. This was not what he said, not what he hoped. But,that we might be taught, did the Lord that for him, not hoping for it, bywhich we should be taught, that God was with him: because if He had not alsorestored to him those things, there was the crown indeed, but hidden, and wecould not see it. And therefore what says the divine Scripture in exhortingto patience and hope of things future, not reward of things present?“Ye have heard of the patience of Job, and have seen the end ofthe Lord.” Why is it, “the patience ofJob,” and not, Ye have seen the end of Job himself? Thou wouldestopen thy mouth for the “twice as much;” wouldest say,“Thanks be to God; let me bear up: I receive twice as much again,like Job.” “Patience of Job, end of theLord.” The patience of Job we know, and the end of the Lord weknow. [4] Whatend of the Lord? “My God, my God, why hast Thou forsakenMe?” They are the words of the Lord hanging on the cross. He didas it were leave Him for present felicity, not leave Him for eternalimmortality. In this is “the end of the Lord.” TheJews hold Him, the Jews insult, the Jews bind Him, crown Him with thorns,dishonor Him with spitting, scourge Him, overwhelm Him with revilings, hangHim upon the tree, pierce Him with a spear, last of all bury Him. He was asit were left: but by whom? By those insulting ones. Therefore thou shalt butto this end have patience, that thou mayest rise again and not die, that is,never die, even as Christ. For so we read, “Christ rising fromthe dead henceforth dieth not.” [5]

11. “He ascended intoheaven:” believe. “He sitteth at the right hand of theFather:” believe. By sitting, understand dwelling: as[in Latin] we say of any person, “In thatcountry he dwelt ( sedit ) three years.” TheScripture also has that expression, that such an one dwelt ( sedisse ) in a city for such a time. [6] Not meaning that he satand never rose up? On this account the dwellings of men are called seats( sedes ). [7] Where people areseated (in this sense), are they always sitting? Is there no rising, nowalking, no lying down? And yet they are called seats ( sedes ). In this way, then, believe an inhabiting of Christ on theright hand of God the Father: He is there. And let not your heart say toyou, What is He doing? Do not want to seek what is not permitted to find: Heis there; it suffices you. He is blessed, and from blessedness which iscalled the right hand of the Father, of very blessedness the name is, righthand of the Father. For if we shall take it carnally, then because Hesitteth on the right hand of the Father, the Father will be on His lefthand. Is it consistent with piety so to put Them together, the Son on theright, the Father on the left? There it is all right-hand, because no miseryis there.

12. “Thence He shall cometo judge the quick and dead.” The quick, who shall be alive andremain; the dead, who shall have gone before. It may also be understoodthus: The living, the just; the dead, the unjust.For He judges both, rendering unto each his own. To the just He will say inthe judgment, “Come, ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdomprepared for you from the beginning of the world.” [1] Forthis prepare yourselves, for these things hope, for this live, and so live,for this believe, for this be baptized, that it may be said to you,“Come ye blessed of My Father, receive the kingdom prepared foryou from the foundation of the world.” To them on the left hand,what? “Go into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and hisangels.” [2] Thus will they be judged byChrist, the quick and the dead. We have spoken of Christ’s firstnativity, which is without time; spoken of the other in the fullness oftime, Christ’s nativity of the Virgin; spoken of the passion ofChrist; spoken of the coming of Christ to judgment. The whole is spoken,that was to be spoken of Christ, God’s Only Son, our Lord. Butnot yet is the Trinity perfect.

13. It follows in the Creed,“And in the Holy Ghost.” This Trinity, one God, onenature, one substance, one power; highest equality, no division, nodiversity, perpetual dearness of love. [3] Would yeknow the Holy Ghost, that He is God? Be baptized, and ye will be His temple.The Apostle says, “Know ye not that your bodies are the templewithin you of the Holy Ghost, Whom ye have of God?” [4] Atemple is for God: thus also Solomon, king and prophet, was bidden to builda temple for God. If he had built a temple for the sun or moon or some staror some angel, would not God condemn him? Because therefore he built atemple for God, he showed that he worshipped God. And of what did he build?Of wood and stone, because God deigned to make unto Himself by His servantan house on earth, where He might be asked, where He might be had in mind.Of which blessed Stephen says, “Solomon built Him an house;howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in temples made by hand.” [5] If then our bodies are the temple of the Holy Ghost, what manner of God isit that built a temple for the Holy Ghost? But it was God. For if our bodiesbe a temple of the Holy Ghost, the same built this temple for the HolyGhost, that built our bodies. Listen to the Apostle saying, “Godhath tempered the body, giving unto that which lacked the greaterhonor;” [6] when he was speaking of thedifferent members that there should be no schisms in the body. God createdour body. The grass, God created; our body Who created? How do we prove thatthe grass is God’s creating? He that clothes, the same creates.Read the Gospel, “If then the grass of the field,”saith it, “which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven,God so clotheth.” [7] He, then, creates Who clothes.And the Apostle: “Thou fool, that which thou sowest is notquickened except it die; and that which thou sowest, thou sowest not thatbody that shall be, but a bare grain, as perchance of wheat, or of someother corn; but God giveth it a body as He would, and to each one of seedsits proper body.” [8] If then it be God thatbuilds our bodies, God that builds our members, and our bodies are thetemple of the Holy Ghost, doubt not that the Holy Ghost is God. And do notadd as it were a third God; because Father and Son and Holy Ghost is OneGod. So believe ye.

14. It follows after commendation ofthe Trinity, “The Holy Church.” God is pointed out,and His temple. “For the temple of God is holy,” saysthe Apostle, “which (temple) are ye.” [9] This same is the holy Church, the one Church, the true Church, the catholicChurch, fighting against all heresies: fight, it can: be fought down, itcannot. As for heresies, they went all out of it, like as unprofitablebranches pruned from the vine: but itself abideth in its root, in its Vine,in its charity. “The gates of hell shall not prevail againstit.” [10]

15. “Forgiveness ofsins.” Ye have [this article of] the Creedperfectly in you when ye receive Baptism. Let none say, “I havedone this or that sin: perchance that is not forgiven me.” Whathast thou done? How great a sin hast thou done? Name any heinous thing thouhast committed, heavy, horrible, which thou shudderest even to think of:have done what thou wilt: hast thou killed Christ? There is not than thatdeed any worse, because also than Christ there is nothing better. What adreadful thing is it to kill Christ! Yet the Jews killed Him, and manyafterwards believed on Him and drank His blood: they are forgiven the sinwhich they committed. When ye have been baptized, hold fast a good life inthe commandments of God, that ye may guard your Baptism even unto the end. Ido 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 Baptismprovided; for the sake of light sins, without which we cannot be, was prayerprovided. [11] What haththe Prayer? “Forgive us our debts, as we also forgive ourdebtors.” [1] Once for all we have washing in Baptism, every day we have washing inprayer. Only, do not commit those things for which ye must needs beseparated from Christ’s body: which be far from you! For thosewhom ye have seen doing penance, [2] havecommitted heinous things, either adulteries or some enormous crimes: forthese they do penance. Because if theirs had been light sins, to blot outthese daily prayer would suffice.

16. In three ways then are sinsremitted in the Church; by Baptism, by prayer, by the greater humility ofpenance; yet God doth not remit sins but to the baptized. The very sinswhich He remits first, He remits not but to the baptized. When? when theyare 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 theysay, “Our Father,” who are not yet born sons? TheCatechumens, so long as they be such, have upon them all their sins. IfCatechumens, how much more Pagans? how much more heretics? But to hereticswe do not change their baptism. Why? because they have baptism in the sameway as a deserter has the soldier’s mark: [3] just so these also haveBaptism; they have it, but to be condemned thereby, not crowned. And yet ifthe deserter himself, being amended, begin to do duty as a soldier, does anyman dare to change his mark?

17. We believe also “theresurrection of the flesh,” which went before in Christ: that thebody too may have hope of that which went before in its Head. The Head ofthe Church, Christ: the Church, the body of Christ. Our Head is risen,ascended into heaven: where the Head, there also the members. In what waythe resurrection of the flesh? Lest any should chance to think it like asLazarus’s resurrection, that thou mayest know it to be not so, itis added, “Into life everlasting.” God regenerate you!God preserve and keep you! God bring you safe unto Himself, Who is the LifeEverlasting. Amen.

II.: MORAL TREATISES OF ST. AUGUSTIN

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON CONTINENCE.

[DE CONTINENTIA.]

TRANSLATED BY REV. C. L. CORNISH, M.A., OF EXETER COLLEGE,OXFORD.

ST. AUGUSTIN speaks of his work OnContinence in Ep. 231, AdDarium Comitem. [See vol. I. 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 istherefore wrong in ascribing it to Hugo on the ground of the style,which is not unlike that of the earlier discourses. It is evidently adiscourse, and probably for that reason unnoticed in the Retractations. The Manichæan heresy is impugnedafter 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 burdenof so great a weight. For He, who bestows it upon His faithful ones whenthey are continent, Himself gives discourse of it to His ministers when theyspeak. Lastly, of so great a matter purposing to speak what Himself shallgrant, in the first place we say and prove that Continence is the gift ofGod. [1] Wehave it written in the Book of Wisdom, that no one can be continent, unlessGod grant it. But the Lord, concerning that greater and more gloriousContinence itself, whereby there is continence from the marriage bond, says,“Not all can receive this saying, but they to whom it isgiven.” [2] And since marriage chastityalso itself cannot be guarded, unless there be Continence from unlawfulintercourse, the Apostle declared both to be the gift of God, when He spakeof both lives, that is, both that of marriage and that without marriage,saying, “I would that all men were so as myself; but each hathhis own gift from God; one in this manner, another in thatmanner.” [3]

2. And lest it should seem thatnecessary Continence was to be hoped for from the Lord only in respect ofthe 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 Continencearound my lips.” [4] But in this witness of the divinespeech, if we understand “mouth” as we ought tounderstand it, we perceive how great a gift of God Continence there set is.Forsooth it is little to contain the mouth of the body, lest any thing burstforth thence, which is not for the better, through the sound of the voice.For there is, within, the mouth of the heart, where he, who spake thesewords, and wrote them for us to speak, desired of the Lord that the watchand door of Continence should be set for him. For many things we say notwith the mouth of the body, and cry aloud with the heart: but there goesforth from the mouth of the body no word of any thing, whereof there issilence in the heart. Therefore what flows not forth thence, sounds notabroad: but what flows forth thence, if it beevil, although it move not the tongue, defiles the soul. ThereforeContinence must be set there, where the conscience even of them who aresilent speaks. For it is brought to pass by means of the door of Continence,that there go not forth thence that, which, even when the lips of the fleshare closed, pollutes the life of him that hath the thought.

3. Lastly, to show more plainly theinner mouth, which by these words he meant, after having said,“Set a watch, O Lord, to my mouth, and a door of Continencearound my lips,” he added straightway, “Cause not myheart to fall aside into evil words.” [1] The falling aside of the heart, what is it but the consent? For he hath notyet spoken, whosoever in his heart hath with no falling aside of the heartconsented unto suggestions that meet him of each several thing that is seen.But, if he hath consented, he hath already spoken in his heart, although hehath not uttered sound by the mouth; although he hath not done with hand orany part whatever of the body, yet hath he done what in his thought he hathalready determined that he is to do: guilty by the divine laws, althoughhidden to human senses; the word having been spoken in the heart, no deedhaving been committed through the body. But in no case would he have movedthe limb without, in a deed, the beginning of which deed had not gone beforewithin in word. For it is no lie that is written, that “thebeginning of every work is a word.” [2] Forsooth men do manythings with mouth closed, tongue quiet, voice bridled; but yet they donothing by work of the body, which they have not before spoken in the heart.And through this since there are many sins in inward sayings which are notin outward deeds, whereas there are none in outward deeds, which do not gobefore in inward sayings, there will be purity of innocence from both, ifthe door of Continence be set around the inward lips.

4. For which cause our Lord Himselfalso with His own mouth saith, “Cleanse what are within, and whatare without will be clean.” [3] And, also, in another place,when He was refuting the foolish speeches of the Jews, in that they spakeevil against His disciples, eating with unwashen hands; “Not whatentereth into the mouth,” said He, “defileth the man:but what cometh forth out of the mouth, that defileth theman.” [4] Which sentence, if the whole of it be taken of the mouth of the body, isabsurd. For neither doth vomit defile him, whom food defileth not. Forsoothfood entereth into the mouth, vomit proceedeth forth out of the mouth. Butwithout doubt the former words relate to the mouth of the flesh, where Hesays, “Not what entereth into the mouth defileth theman,” but the latter words to the mouth of the heart, where Hesaith, “But what proceedeth forth out of the mouth, this defileththe man.” [5] Lastly, when the Apostle Peter sought of Him an explanation of this as of aparable, He answered, “Are ye also yet without understanding?understand ye not, that whatsoever entereth into the mouth, goeth into thebelly, and is cast out into the draught?” Here surely we perceivethe mouth of the flesh, into which the food enters. But in what He nextadds, in order that we might recognize the mouth of the heart, the slownessof our heart would not follow, did not the Truth deign to walk even with theslow. For He saith, “But what things go forth from the mouth, goout of the heart;” as though He should say, When you hear it said“from the mouth,” understand “from theheart.” I say both, but I set forth one by the other. The innerman hath an inner mouth, and this the inner ear discerns: what things goforth from this mouth, go out of the heart, and they defile the man. Thenhaving left the term mouth, which may be understood also of the body, Heshows more openly what He is saying. “For from the heart goout,” saith He, “evil thoughts, murders, adulteries,fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies; these are what defile theman.” There is surely no one of those evils, which can becommitted also by the members of the body, but that the evil thoughts gobefore and defile the man, although something hinder the sinful and wickeddeeds of the body from following. For if, because power is not given, thehand is free from the murder of a man, is the heart of the murderer forsooththerefore clean from sin? Or if she be chaste, whom one unchaste wishes tocommit adultery with, hath he on that account failed to commit adultery withher in his heart? Or if the harlot be not found in the brothel, doth he, whoseeks her, on that account fail to commit fornication in his heart? Or iftime and place be wanting to one who wishes to hurt his neighbor by a lie,hath he on that account failed already to speak false witness with his innermouth? Or if any one fearing men, dare not utter aloud blasphemy with tongueof flesh, is he on this account guiltless of this crime, who saith in hisheart, “There is no God.” [6] Thus all the other evil deeds ofmen, which no motion of the body performs, ofwhich no sense of the body is conscious, have their own secret criminals,who are also polluted by consent alone in thought, that is, by evil words ofthe inner mouth. Into which he (the Psalmist) fearing lest his heart shouldfall aside, asks of the Lord that the door of Continence be set around thelips of this mouth, to contain the heart, that it fall not aside into evilwords: but contain it, by not suffering thought to proceed to consent: forthus, according to the precept of the Apostle, sin reigneth not in ourmortal body, nor do we yield our members as weapons of unrighteousness untosin. [1] From fulfilling which precept they are surely far removed, who on thisaccount turn not their members to sin, because no power is allowed them; andif this be present, straightway by the motions of their members, as ofweapons, they show, who reigneth in them within. Wherefore, so far as is inthemselves, they yield their members weapons of unrighteousness unto sin;because this is what they wish, which for this reason they yield not,because they are not able.

5. And on this account that, which,the parts that beget being bridled by modesty, is most chiefly and properlyto be called Continence, is violated by no transgression, if the higherContinence, concerning which we have been some time speaking, be preservedin the heart. For this reason the Lord, after He had said, “Forfrom the heart go forth evil thoughts,” then went on to add whatit is that belongs to evil thoughts, “murders,adulteries,” and the rest. He spake not of all; but, having namedcertain 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 havegone before, whereby that is prepared within, which is done without, andgoing 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 themembers of the body. When therefore a door of Continence hath been set inthe mouth of the heart, whence go out all that defile the man, if nothingsuch be permitted to go out thence, there followeth a purity, wherein nowthe 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 theflesh,” [2] it is enough for us not to consentunto the evils which we feel in us. But, when that consent takes place, thenthere goeth out of the mouth of the heart what defileth the man. But whenthrough Continence consent is withheld, the evil of the lust of the flesh,against which the lust of the spirit fights, is not suffered to harm.

6. But it is one thing to fightwell, which now is, when the strife [3] of death is resisted; another thing not to have an adversary, which willthen be, when death, “the last enemy,” [4] shall be destroyed. For Continence also itself, when itcurbs and restrains lusts, at once both seeks the good unto the immortalityof which we aim, and rejects the evil with which in this mortality wecontend. Of the one it is forsooth the lover and beholder, but of the otherboth the enemy and witness: both seeking what becomes, and fleeing whatmisbecomes. Assuredly Continence would not labor in curbing lusts, if we hadno wishes contrary to what is becoming, if there were no opposition on thepart of evil lust unto our good will. The Apostle cries aloud, “Iknow,” saith he, “that there dwelleth not in me, thatis in my flesh, good. For to will lieth near to me, but to accomplish good Ifind not.” [5] Fornow good can be done, so far as that there be no assent given unto evillust: but good will be accomplished, when the evil lust itself shall come toan end. And also the same teacher of the Gentiles cries aloud, “Itake pleasure together with the law of God after the inner man: but I seeanother law in my members, warring against the law of mymind.” [6]

7. This conflict none experience inthemselves, save such as war on the side of the virtues, and war down thevices: nor doth any thing storm the evil of lust, save the good ofContinence. But there are, who, being utterly ignorant of the law of God,account not evil lusts among their enemies, and through wretched blindnessbeing slaves to them, over and above think themselves also blessed, bysatisfying them rather than taming them. But whoso through the Law have cometo know them, (“For through the Law is the knowledge ofsin,” [7] and,“Lust,” saith he, “I knew not, unless theLaw should say, Thou shalt not lust after,” [8] )and yet are overcome by their assault, because they live under the Law,whereby what is good is commanded, but not also given: they live not underGrace, which gives through the Holy Spirit what is commanded through theLaw: unto these the Law therefore entered, that in them the offense mightabound. The prohibition increased the lust, andmade it unconquered: [1] thatthere might be transgression also, which without the Law was not, althoughthere was sin, “For where there is not Law, neither is theretransgression.” [2] Thus the Law, Grace not helping,forbidding sin, became over and above the strength of sin; whence theApostle saith, “The Law is the strength of sin.” [3] Noris it to be wondered at, that man’s weakness even from the goodLaw added strength to evil, whilst it trusts to fulfill the Law itself ofits own strength. Forsooth being ignorant of the righteousness of God, [4] whichHe gives unto the weak, and wishing to establish his own, of which the weakis void, he was not made subject to the righteousness of God, reprobate andproud. But if the Law, as a schoolmaster, lead unto Grace one made anoffender, as though for this purpose more grievously wounded, that he maydesire a Physician; against the baneful sweetness, whereby lust prevailed,the Lord gives a sweetness that worketh good, that by it Continence may themore delight, and “our land giveth her fruit,” [5] whereby the soldier is fed, who by the help of the Lord wars down sin.

8. Such soldiers the Apostolictrumpet enkindles for battle with that sound, “Therefore letnot,” saith he, “sin reign in your mortal body to obeyits lusts; nor yield your members weapons of unrighteousness unto sin; butyield yourselves unto God, as living in place of dead, and your membersweapons of righteousness unto God. For sin shall not rule over you. For yeare not under the law, but under Grace.” [6] And in another place,“Therefore,” saith he, “brethren, we aredebtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh. For if ye shall liveafter the flesh, ye shall die; but if by the Spirit ye shall mortify thedeeds of the flesh, ye shall live. For as many as are led by the Spirit ofGod, these are sons of God.” [7] This therefore is thebusiness in hand, so long as this our mortal life under Grace lasts, thatsin, that is the lust of sin, (for this he in this place calls by the nameof sin,) reign not in this our mortal body. But it is then shown to reign,if obedience be yielded to its desires. There is therefore in us lust ofsin, which must not be suffered to reign; there are its desires, which wemust not obey, lest obeying it reign over us. Wherefore let not lust usurpour members, but let Continence claim them for herself; that they be weaponsof righteousness unto God, that they be not weapons of unrighteousness untosin; for thus sin shall not rule over us. For we are not under the Law,which indeed commandeth what is good yet giveth it not: but we are underGrace, which, making us to love that which the Law commands, is able to ruleover the free.

9. And also, when he exhorts us,that we live not after the flesh, lest we die, but that by the Spirit wemortify the deeds of the flesh, that we may live; surely the trumpet whichsounds, shows the war in which we are engaged, and enkindles us to contendkeenly, and to do our enemies to death, [8] that webe not done to death by them. But who those enemies are, it hath set forthplainly enough. For those are they, whom it willed should be done to deathby us, that is to say, the works of the flesh. For so it saith,“But if by the Spirit ye shall mortify the deeds of the flesh, yeshall live.” And in order that we may know what these are, let ushear the same in like manner writing unto the Galatians, and saying,“But the works of the flesh are manifest, which are,fornications, uncleannesses, luxuries, idolatry, witchcrafts, hatreds,contentions, emulations, wraths, strifes, heresies, envyings, drunkennesses,revellings, and such like; of which I foretell to you, as I have foretold,that they who do such things shall not possess the kingdom ofGod.” [9] Forthe very war there also was he showing, that he should speak of these, andunto the death-doing of these enemies was he calling up the soldiers ofChrist by the same heavenly and spiritual trumpet. For he had said above,“But I say, walk in the Spirit, and perform ye not the lusts ofthe flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit againstthe flesh. For these are opposed one to the other, that ye do not what yewould. But if ye are led by the Spirit, ye are not under theLaw.” [10] Therefore being setunder Grace, he would have them have that conflict against the works of theflesh. And in order to point out these works of the flesh, he added what Ihave mentioned above. “But the works of the flesh are manifest,which are, fornications,” and the rest, whether what hementioned, or whether what he admonished were to be understood, chiefly ashe added, “and such like.” Lastly, in this battle,against what is in a manner the carnal army leading forth as it were anotherspiritual line, “But the fruit of the Spirit is,”saith he, “charity, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness,goodness, faith, gentleness, continence; against such there is nolaw.” [11] He saith not “againstthese,” lest they should be thought to be alone: although evenwere he to say this, we ought to understand all, whatever goods of the samekind we could think of: but he saith, “against such,”that is to say, both these and whatsoever are such like. However, in thatamong the goods of which he made mention, he set Continence in the last [1] place, (concerning which we havenow undertaken to treat, and on account of which we have already said much,)he willed that it should in an especial manner cleave to our minds. Forsooththis same is of great avail in this case, wherein the Spirit lusteth againstthe flesh; forasmuch as in a certain way it crucifies the lusts of theflesh. Whence, after the Apostle had thus spoken, he added straightway,“But they who are Jesus Christ’s have crucified theirown flesh, with the passions and lusts.” [2] This is the acting of Continence:thus the works of the flesh are done to death. But they do to death those,whom falling away from Continence lust draweth into consent to do suchworks.

10. But in order that we fall notaway from Continence, we ought to watch specially against those snares ofthe suggestions of the devil, that we presume not of our own strength. For,“Cursed is every one that setteth his hope inman.” [3] Andwho is he, but man? We cannot therefore truly say that he setteth not hishope in man, who setteth it in himself. For this also, to “liveafter man,” what is it but to “live after theflesh?” Whoso therefore is tempted by such a suggestion, let himhear, and, if he have any Christian feeling, let him tremble. Let him hear,I say, “If ye shall live after the flesh, ye shalldie.”

11. But some one will say to me thatit 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 rationalsoul, whereby he differs from the beast: but the flesh is the lowest andearthly part of man, and thus to live after it is faulty: and for thisreason, he who lives after man, assuredly lives not after the flesh, butrather after that part of man, whereby he is man, that is, after the spiritof the mind whereby he excels the beasts. But this discussion is perhaps ofsome force in the schools of philosophers: but we, in order to understandthe Apostle of Christ, ought to observe in what manner the Christian booksare used to speak; at any rate it is the belief of all of us, to whom tolive is Christ, that Man was taken unto Himself by the Word of God, notsurely without a rational soul, as certain heretics will have it; and yet weread, “The Word was made flesh.” [4] What is to be here understood by“flesh,” but Man? “And all flesh shall seethe salvation of God.” [5] What can be understood, but allmen? “Unto Thee shall all flesh come.” [6] Whatis it, but all men? “Thou hast given unto Him power over allflesh.” [7] What is it, but all men?“Of the works of the Law shall no flesh bejustified.” [8] What is it, but no man shall bejustified? And this the same Apostle in another place confessing moreplainly saith, “Man shall not be justified of the works of theLaw.” [9] TheCorinthians also he rebukes, saying, “Are ye not carnal, and walkafter man?” [10] After he had called themcarnal, he saith not, ye walk after the flesh, but after man, forasmuch asby this also what would he have understood, but after the flesh? For surelyif to walk, that is, to live, after the flesh deserved blame, but after mandeserved praise, he would not say by way of rebuke, “ye walkafter man.” Let man recognize the reproach; let him change hispurpose, let him shun destruction. Hear thou man: walk not thou after man,but after Him Who made man. Fall not thou away from Him Who made thee, evenunto thyself. For a man said, who yet lived not after man, “Notthat we are sufficient to think any thing from ourselves, as though ofourselves: but our sufficiency is of God.” [11] Consider if he lived after man,who spake these things with truth. Therefore the Apostle, admonishing mannot to live after man, restores man to God. But whoso liveth not after man,but after God, assuredly liveth not even after himself, because himself alsois a man. But he is therefore said also to live after the flesh, when he solives; because also when the flesh alone hath been named, man is understood,as we have already shown: just as when the soul alone hath been named, manis understood: whence it is said, “Let every soul be subject untothe higher powers,” [12] that is, every man; and,“Seventy-five souls went down into Egypt withJacob,” [13] that is, seventy-five men.Therefore live thou not after thyself, O man: thou hadst thence perished,but thou wast sought. Live not then, I say, after thyself, O man; thou hadstthence perished, but thou wast found. Accuse not thou the nature of theflesh, when you hear it said, “If ye shall live after the flesh,ye shall die.” [14] For thus could it be said, and most truly could it, If ye shall liveafter yourselves ye shall die. For the devil hath not flesh, and yet,because he would live after himself, “he abode not in thetruth.” [1] What wonder therefore, if,living after himself, “when he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of hisown,” which the Truth spake truly of him.

12. When, therefore, you hear itsaid, “Sin shall not reign over you;” [2] havenot thou confidence of thyself, that sin reign not over thee, but of Him,unto Whom a certain Saint saith in prayer, “Direct my paths afterThy Word, and let no iniquity have dominion over me.” [3] Forlest haply, after that we had heard, “sin shall not reign overyou,” we should lift up ourselves, and lay this to our ownstrength, straightway the Apostle saw this, and added, “For yeare not under the Law, but under Grace.” Therefore, Grace causeththat sin reign not over you. Do not thou, therefore, have confidence ofthyself, lest it thence reign much more over thee. And, when we hear itsaid, “If by the Spirit ye shall mortify the deeds of the flesh,ye shall live,” [4] let us not lay this so greatgood unto our own spirit, as though of itself it can do this. For, in orderthat we should not entertain that carnal sense, the spirit being dead ratherthan that which putteth others to death, straightway he added,“For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are sons ofGod.” [5] Therefore that by our spirit we may mortify the works of the flesh, we areled by the Spirit of God, Who gives Continence, whereby to curb, tame,overcome lust.

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 tovaliant warriors, and mortifiers however unconquered of the works of theflesh, some wounds of sins, for the healing of which they may say daily,“Forgive us our debts:” [6] against the same vices, andagainst the devil the prince and king of vices, striving with much greaterwatchfulness and keenness by the very prayer, that his deadly suggestionsavail not aught, whereby he further urges the sinner to excuse rather thanaccuse his own sins; and thus those wounds not only be not healed, but also,although they were not deadly, yet may be pressed home to grievous and fatalharm. And here therefore there is need of a more cautious Continence,whereby to restrain the proud appetite of man; whereby he is self-pleased,and unwilling to be found worthy of blame, and disdains, when he sins, to beconvicted that he himself has sinned; not with healthful humility takingupon him to accuse himself, but rather with fatal arrogance seeking to findan excuse. In order to restrain this pride, he, whose words I have alreadyset down above, and, as I could, commended, sought Continence from the Lord.For, after that he had said, “Set, O Lord, a watch to my mouth,and a door of Continence around my lips. Make not my heart to fall asideunto evil words;” [7] explaining more clearlywhereof he spake this, he saith, “to make excuses insins.” For what more evil than these words, whereby the evil mandenies that he is evil, although convicted of an evil work, which he cannotdeny. And since he cannot hide the deed, or say that it is well done, andstill sees that it is clear that it was done by him, he seeks to refer toanother what he hath done, as though he could remove thence what he hathdeserved. Being unwilling that himself be guilty, he rather adds to hisguilt, and by excusing, not accusing, his own sins, he knows not that he isputting from him, not punishment, but pardon. For before human judges,forasmuch as they may be deceived, it seems to profit somewhat for the time,to cleanse as it were what hath been done amiss by any deceit whatever; butbefore God, Who cannot be deceived, we are to use, not a deceitful defense,but a true confession of sins.

14. And some indeed, who are used toexcuse their own sins, complain that they are driven to sin by fate, asthough the stars had decreed this, and heaven had first sinned by decreeingsuch, in order that man should after sin by committing such, and thus hadrather impute their sin to fortune: who think that all things are driven toand fro by chance accidents, and yet contend that this their wisdom andassertion is not of chance rashness, but of ascertained reason. What madnessthen is it, to lay to reason their discussions, and to make their actionssubject to accidents! Others refer to the devil the whole of what they doill: and will not have even a share with him, whereas they may suspectwhether he by hidden suggestions hath persuaded them to evil, and on theother hand cannot doubt that they have consented to those suggestions, fromwhatever source they have come. There are also they who extend their defenseof self unto an accusation of God, wretched by the divine judgment, butblasphemers by their own madness. For against Himthey bring in from a contrary principle a substance of evil rebelling, whichHe could not have resisted, had He not blended with that same that wasrebelling a portion of His own Substance and Nature, for it to contaminateand corrupt; and they say that they then sin when the nature of evilprevails over the nature of God. This is that most unclean madness of theManichæans, whose devilish devices the undoubted truth mosteasily overthrows; which confesses that the nature of God is incapable ofcontamination and corruption. But what wicked contamination and corruptiondo they not deserve to have believed of them, by whom God, Who is good inthe very highest degree, and in a way that admits not of comparison, isbelieved to be capable of contamination and corruption?

15. And there are also they who inexcuse 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 powerHe would by no means suffer them to take place. As though indeed Godsuffered sins to be unpunished, even in the case of those whom by remissionof sins He frees from eternal punishment! No one forsooth receives pardon ofmore grievous punishment due, unless he hath suffered some punishment, be itwhat it may, although far less than what was due: and the fullness of mercyis so conveyed, as that the justice also of discipline is not abandoned. Foralso sin, which seems unavenged, hath its own attendant punishment, so thatthere is no one but by reason of what he hath done either suffers pain frombitterness, or suffers not through blindness. As therefore you say, Why dothHe permit those things, if they are displeasing? so I say, Why doth Hepunish them, if they are pleasing? And thus, as I confess that those thingswould not take place at all, unless they were permitted by the Almighty, soconfess thou that what are punished by the Just One ought not to be done; inorder 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,” [1] wherein they who have made goodprogress already understand, that it pertained rather unto the Almightypower of God, to allow the existence of evils coming from the free choice ofthe will. So great forsooth is His Almighty goodness, as that even of evilHe can make good, either by pardoning, or by healing, or by fitting andturning unto the profit of the pious, or even by most justly takingvengeance. For all these are good, and most worthy a good and Almighty God:and yet they are not made save of evils. What therefore better, what moreAlmighty, than He, Who, whereas He maketh no evil, even of evils makethwell? They who have done ill cry unto Him, “Forgive us ourdebts;” [2] He hears, He pardons. Their ownevils have hurt the sinners; He helps and heals their sicknesses. Theenemies of His people rage; of their rage He makes martyrs. Lastly, also, Hecondemns those, whom He judges worthy of condemnation; although they suffertheir own evils, yet He doeth what is good. For what is just cannot but begood, and assuredly as sin is unjust, so the punishment of sin is just.

16. But God wanted not power to makeman such as that he should not be able to sin: but He chose rather to makehim such, as that it should lie in his power [3] tosin, if he would; not to sin, if he would not; forbidding the one, enjoiningthe other; that it might be to him first a good desert not to sin, and aftera just reward not to be able to sin. For such also at the last will He makesHis Saints, as to be without all power to sin. Such forsooth even now hathHe His angels, whom in Him we so love, as to have no fear for any of them,lest by sinning he become a devil. And this we presume not of any just manin this mortal life. But we trust that all will be such in that immortallife. For Almighty God Who worketh good even of our evils, what good will Hegive, when He shall have set us free from all evils? Much may be said morefully and more subtilely on the good use of evil; but this is not what wehave undertaken in our present discourse, and we must avoid in it excess oflength.

17. Now therefore let us return tothat, wherefore we have said what we have. We have need of Continence, andwe know it to be a divine gift, that our heart fall not away unto evilwords, to make excuses in sins. But what sin is there but that we have needof Continence, to restrain it from being committed, since it is this veryContinence which, in case it have been committed, restrains it from beingdefended 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 anothervirtue, that is, to righteousness. [4] This thesacred Psalm admonishes us, where we read, “Turn away from evil,and do good.” But with what end we do this, it adds bye and bye,saying, “Seek peace, and ensueit.” [1] Forwe shall then have perfect peace, when, our nature cleaving inseparably toits Creator, we shall have nothing of ourselves opposed to ourselves. Thisour Saviour also Himself would have us to understand, so far as seems to me,when He said, “Let your loins be girt, and your lampsburning.” [2] What is it, to gird the loins?To restrain lusts, which is the work of continence. But to have lampsburning is to shine and glow with good works, which is the work ofrighteousness. Nor was He here silent with what end we do these things,adding and saying, “And you like unto men waiting for their Lord,when He cometh from the marriage.” [3] But, when He shall have come, Hewill reward us, who have kept ourselves from those things which lust, andhave done those things which charity hath bidden us: that we may reign inHis perfect and eternal peace, without any strife of evil, and with thehighest delight of good.

18. All we therefore, who believe inthe Living and True God, Whose Nature, being in the highest sense good andincapable of change, neither doth any evil, nor suffers any evil, from Whomis every good, even that which admits of decrease, and Who admits not at allof decrease in His own Good, Which is Himself, when we hear the Apostlesaying, “Walk in the Spirit, and perform ye not the lusts of theflesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against theflesh: For these are opposed one to another, that ye do not what yewould.” [4] Far be it from us to believe,what the madness of the Manichees believes, that there are here shown twonatures or principles contrary one to another at strife, the one nature ofgood, the other of evil. Altogether these two are both good; both the Spiritis a good, and the flesh a good: and man, who is composed of both, oneruling, the other obeying, is assuredly a good, but a good capable ofchange, which yet could not be made save by a Good incapable of change, byWhom was created every good, whether small or great; but how small soever,yet made by What is Great; and how great soever, yet no way to be comparedwith the greatness of the Maker. But in this nature of man, that is good,and well formed and ordered by One That is Good, there is now war, sincethere is not yet health. Let the sickness be healed, there is peace. Butthat sickness fault hath deserved, not nature hath had. And this faultindeed through the laver of regeneration the grace of God hath alreadyremitted unto the faithful; but under the hands of the same Physician natureas yet striveth with its sickness. But in such a conflict victory will beentire soundness; and that, soundness not for a time, but for ever: whereinnot only this sickness is to come to an end, but also none to arise afterit. Wherefore the just man addresseth his soul and saith, “Blessthe Lord, O my soul, and forget not all His returns: Who becometh propitiousto all thy iniquities, Who healeth all thy sicknesses.” [5] Hebecometh propitious to our iniquities, when He pardons sins: He healssicknesses when He restrains evil desires. He becometh propitious untoiniquities by the grant of forgiveness: He heals sicknesses, by the grant ofcontinence. The one was done in Baptism to persons confessing; the other isdone in the strife to persons contending; wherein through His help we are toovercome our disease. Even now the one is done, when we are heard, saying,“Forgive us our debts;” [6] but the other, when we areheard, saying, “Lead us not into temptation. For every one istempted,” saith the Apostle James, “being drawn awayand enticed by his own lust.” [7] And against this fault there issought the help of medicine from Him, Who can heal all such sicknesses, notby the removal of a nature that is alien from us, but in the renewal of ourown nature. Whence also the above-mentioned Apostle saith not,“Every one is tempted” by lust, but added,“by his own:” that he who hears this may understand,how he ought to cry, “I said, Lord, have mercy upon me, heal mysoul, for I have sinned against Thee.” [8] For it would not have neededhealing, had it not corrupted [9] itself bysinning, so that its own flesh should lust against it, that is, itselfshould be opposed to itself, on that side, wherein in the flesh it was madesick.

19. For the flesh lusts afternothing save through the soul, but the flesh is said to lust against thespirit, when the soul with fleshly lust wrestles against the spirit. Thiswhole 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 islaid aside as what we are to receive again, and, after having received it,never again to leave. But “there is sown an animal body, thereshall rise again a spiritual body.” [10] Then from that time the fleshwill not lust after any thing against the spirit, when as itself also shallbe called spiritual, forasmuch as not only without any opposition, but alsowithout any need of bodily aliment, it shall befor ever made subject unto the spirit, to be quickened by Christ. Thereforethese two things, which are now opposed the one to the other within us,since we exist in both, let us pray and endeavor that they may agree. For weought not to think the one of them an enemy, but the fault, whereby theflesh lusteth against the spirit: and this, when healed, will itself ceaseto exist, and either substance will be safe, and no strife between either.Let us hear the Apostle; “I know,” saith he,“that there dwelleth not in me, that is, in my flesh, anygood.” [1] Thiscertainly he saith; that the fault of the flesh, in a good thing, is notgood; and, when this shall have ceased to exist, it will be flesh, but itwill not be now corrupted or faulty [2] flesh. And yet that this pertains to our nature the same teacher shows, bysaying, first, “I know that there dwelleth not in me,”in order to expound which, he added, “that is, in my flesh, anygood.” Therefore he saith that his flesh is himself. It is notthen itself that is our enemy: and when its faults are resisted, itself isloved, because itself is cared for; “For no one ever hated hisown flesh,” [3] as the Apostle himself saith. Andin another place he saith, “So then I myself with the mind servethe Law of God, but with the flesh the Law of sin.” Let them hearthat have ears. “So then I myself;” I with the mind, Iwith the flesh, but “with the mind I serve the Law of God, butwith the flesh the law of sin.” [4] How “with the fleshthe law of sin?” was it at all by consenting unto fleshly lust?Far be it! but by having there motions of desires which he would not have,and yet had. But, by not consenting to them, with the mind he served the Lawof God, and kept his members from becoming weapons of sins.

20. There are therefore in us evildesires, by consenting not unto which we live not ill: there are in us lustsof sins, by obeying not which we perfect not evil, but by having them do notas yet perfect good. The Apostle shows both, that neither is good hereperfected, where evil is so lusted after, nor evil here perfected, whereassuch lust is not obeyed. The one forsooth he shows, where he says,“To will is present with me, but to perfect good isnot;” [5] theother, where he says, “Walk in the Spirit, and perfect not thelusts of the flesh.” [6] For neither in the former placedoth he say that to do good is not with him, but “toperfect,” nor here doth he say, Have not “lusts of theflesh,” but “perfect not.” Therefore theretake place in us evil lusts, when that pleases which is not lawful; but theyare not perfected, when evil lusts are restrained by the mind serving theLaw of God. And good takes place, when that, which wrongly pleases, takesnot place through the good delight prevailing. But the perfection of good isnot fulfilled, so long as by the flesh serving the law of sin, evil lustentices, and, although it be restrained, is yet moved. For there would be noneed for it to be restrained, were it not moved. There will be at some timealso the perfection of good, when the destruction of evil: the one will behighest, the other will be no more. And if we think that this is to be hopedfor in this mortal state, we are deceived. For it shall be then, when deathshall not be; and it shall be there, where shall be life eternal. For inthat world, [7] and in that kingdom, thereshall be highest good, no evil: when there shall be, and where there shallbe, highest love of wisdom, no labor of continence. Therefore the flesh isnot evil, if it be void of evil, that is, of fault, whereby man was renderedfaulty, not made ill, but himself making. For on either part, that is, bothsoul and body, being made good by the good God, himself made the evil,whereby he was made evil. From the guilt of which evil being already alsoset free through forgiveness, [8] that hemay not think what he hath done to be light, he yet wars with his own faultthrough continence. But far be it that there be any faults in such as reignin that peace which shall be hereafter; since in this state of war there arelessened daily in such as make progress, not sins only, but the very lustsalso, with which, by not consenting, we strive, and by consenting unto whichwe sin.

21. That, therefore, the fleshlusteth against the Spirit, that there dwelleth not in our flesh good, thatthe law in our members is opposed to the law of the mind, is not a minglingof two natures caused of contrary principles, but a division of one againstitself caused through desert of sin. We were not so in Adam, before thatnature, having listened to and followed its deceiver, had despised andoffended its Creator: that is, not the former life of man created, but thelatter punishment of man condemned. From which condemnation when set free byGrace, through Jesus Christ, being free they contend with their punishment,having received not as yet full salvation, but already a pledge ofsalvation: but when not set free, they are both guilty by reason of sins,and involved in punishments. But after this life for the guilty there will remain for ever punishment for theircrime: for the free there will no more remain for ever either crime orpunishment: but the good substances, spirit and flesh, will continue forever, which God, Who is good, and incapable of change, created good althoughcapable of change. But they will continue having been changed for thebetter, never from this time to be changed for the worse: all evil beingutterly destroyed, both what man hath unjustly done, and what he hath justlysuffered. And, these two kinds of evil perishing utterly, whereof the one isof iniquity going before, the other of unhappiness following after, the willof man will be upright without any depravity. There it will be clear andplain to all, what now many of the faithful believe, few understand, thatevil is not a substance: but that, as a wound in a body, so in a substance,which hath made itself faulty, it hath begun to exist, when the disease hathcommenced, and ceaseth to exist in it, when the healing hath been perfected.Therefore, all evil having arisen from us, and having been destroyed in us,our good also having been increased and perfected unto the height of mosthappy incorruption and immortality, of what kind shall either of oursubstances be? forasmuch as now, in this corruption and mortality, when asyet “the corruptible body weigheth down the soul;” [1] and,what the Apostle saith, “the body is dead by reason ofsin;” [2] yetthe same himself beareth such witness unto our flesh, that is, to our lowestand earthly part, as to say, what I made mention of a little above,“No one ever hated his own flesh.” [3] And to add straightway,“but nourisheth and cherisheth it, as also Christ theChurch.”

22. I say not, therefore, with whaterror, but with what utter madness, do the Manichees attribute our flesh tosome, I know not what, fabled “race of darkness,” [4] which they will havehath had its own nature without any beginning ever evil: whereas the trueteacher exhorts men to love their own wives by the pattern of their ownflesh, and exhorts them unto this very thing by the pattern also of Christand the Church. Lastly, we must call to mind the whole place itself of theEpistle of the Apostle, relating greatly unto the matter in hand.“Husbands,” saith he, “love your wives, asChrist also loved the Church, and delivered Himself up for it, that He mightsanctify it, cleansing it by the laver of the water in the word: that Hemight set forth unto Himself a glorious Church, not having spot, or wrinkle,or any such thing, but that it may be holy and unspotted. So,”saith he, “husbands also ought to love their own wives, as theirown bodies. Whoso loveth his own wife, loveth himself.” [5] Then he added, what we have already made mention of, “For no manever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth it, and cherisheth it; as alsoChrist the Church.” [6] What saith the madness of mostimpure impiety in answer to these things? What say ye in answer to thesethings, ye Manichees; ye who wish to bring in upon us, as if out of theEpistles of the Apostles, two natures without beginning, one of good, theother of evil: and will not listen to the Epistles of the Apostles, thatthey may correct you from that sacrilegious perverseness? As ye read,“The flesh lusteth against the spirit,” [7] and,“There dwelleth not in my flesh any good;” [8] soread ye, “No one ever hated his own flesh, but nourisheth andcherisheth it, as also Christ the Church.” [9] As ye read, “I seeanother law in my members, opposed to the law of my mind;” [10] soread ye, “As Christ loved the Church, so also ought men to lovetheir own wives, as their own bodies.” Be not ye crafty in theformer witnesses of Holy Scripture, and deaf in this latter, and ye shall becorrect in both. For, if ye receive the latter as right is, ye will endeavorto understand the former also as truth is.

23. The Apostle has made known to uscertain three unions, Christ and the Church, husband and wife, spirit andflesh. Of these the former consult for the good of the latter, the latterwait upon the former. All the things are good, when, in them, certain setover by way of pre-eminence, certain made subject in a becoming manner,observe the beauty of order. Husband and wife receive command and patternhow they ought to be one with another. The command is, “Let wivesbe subject unto their own husbands, as unto the Lord; because the husband isthe head of the wife;” [11] and, “Husbands, loveyour wives.” But there is given a pattern, unto wives from theChurch, unto husbands from Christ: “As the Church,”saith he, “is subject unto Christ, so also wives unto their ownhusbands in all things.” In like manner also, having givencommand to husbands to love their own wives, he added a pattern,“As Christ loved the Church.” But husbands he exhortedto it from a lower matter also, that is, from their own body: not only froma higher, that is, from their Lord. For he notonly saith, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ also loved theChurch,” which is from an higher: but he said also,“Husbands ought to love their own wives, as their ownbodies,” which is from a lower: because both higher and lower areall good. And yet the woman received not pattern from the body, or flesh, tobe so subject to the husband as the flesh to the spirit; but either theApostle would have understood by consequence, what he omitted to state: orhaply because the flesh lusteth against the spirit in the mortal and sickestate of this life, therefore he would not set the woman a pattern ofsubjection from it. But the men he would for this reason, because, althoughthe spirit lusteth against the flesh, even in this it consults for the goodof the flesh: not like as the flesh lusting against the spirit, by suchopposition consulteth neither for the good of the spirit, nor for its own.Yet the good spirit would not consult for its good, whether by nourishingand cherishing its nature by forethought, or by resisting its faults bycontinence, were it not that each substance showeth God to be the Creator ofeach, even by the seemliness of this its order. What is it, therefore, thatwith true madness ye both boast yourselves to be Christians, and with sogreat perverseness contend against the Christian Scriptures, with eyesclosed, or rather put out, asserting both that Christ hath appeared untomortals in false flesh, and that the Church in the soul pertains to Christ,in the body to the devil, and that the male and female sex are works of thedevil, not of God, and that the flesh is joined unto the spirit, as an evilsubstance unto a good substance?

24. If what we have made mention ofout of the Apostolic Epistles seem to you to fall short of an answer, hearyet others, if ye have ears. What saith the utterly mad Manichæanof the Flesh of Christ? That it was not true, but false. What saith theblessed Apostle to this? “Remember that Christ Jesus rose againfrom the dead of the seed of David, according to my Gospel.” [1] AndChrist Jesus Himself saith, “Handle and see, that a spirit hathnot flesh, and bones, as ye see me to have.” [2] How is there truth in theirdoctrine, which asserts that in the Flesh of Christ there was falsehood? Howwas there in Christ no evil, in Whom was so great a lie? Because forsooth tomen over-clean true flesh is an evil, and false flesh instead of true is notan evil: it is an evil, true flesh of one born of the seed of David, and itis no evil, false tongue of one saying, “Handle, and see, that aspirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me to have.” Of theChurch what saith the deceiver of men with deadly error? That on the side ofsouls it pertains unto Christ, on the side of bodies unto the devil? What tothis saith the Teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth? “Knowye not,” saith he, “that your bodies are members ofChrist?” [3] Of the sex of male and femalewhat saith the son of perdition? That either sex is not of God, but of thedevil. What to this saith the Vessel of Election?“As,” saith he, “the woman from out theman, so also the man through the woman: but all things ofGod.” [4] Ofthe flesh what saith the unclean spirit through the Manichæan?That it is an evil substance, and not the creation of God, but of an enemy.What to this saith the Holy Spirit through Paul? “For as the bodyis one,” saith he, “and hath many members, but all themembers of the body, being many, are one body: so also isChrist.” [5] And a little after;“God hath set,” saith he, “the members,each one of them in the body, as He willed.” [6] Also a little after;“God,” saith he, “hath tempered the body,giving greater honor unto that to which it was wanting, that there should beno schisms in the body, but that the members have the self-same care one foranother: and whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it: orone member be glorified, all the members rejoice with it.” [7] How is the flesh evil, when the souls themselves areadmonished to imitate the peace of its members? How is it the creation ofthe enemy, when the souls themselves, which rule the bodies, take patternfrom the members of the body, not to have schisms of enmities amongthemselves, in order that, what God hath granted unto the body by nature,this themselves also may love to have by grace? With good cause, writing tothe Romans, “I beseech you,” saith he,“brethren, by the mercy of God, that ye present your bodies asacrifice, living, holy, pleasing to God.” [8] Without reason we contend thatdarkness is not light, nor light darkness, if we present a sacrifice,living, holy, pleasing to God, of the bodies of the “nation ofdarkness.”

25. But, say they, how is the fleshby a certain likeness compared unto the Church? What! doth the Church lustagainst Christ? whereas the same Apostle said, “The Church issubject unto Christ.” [9] Clearly the Church is subject untoChrist; because the spirit therefore lusteth against the flesh, that onevery side the Church may be made subject toChrist; but the flesh lusteth against the spirit, because not as yet haththe Church received that peace which was promised perfect. And for thisreason the Church is made subject unto Christ for the pledge of salvation,and the flesh lusteth against the spirit from the weakness of sickness. Forneither were those other than members of the Church, unto whom he thusspake, “Walk in the spirit, and fulfill not the lusts of theflesh. For the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit against theflesh; for these are opposed the one to the other; that ye do not what wewould.” [1] These things were assuredlyspoken unto the Church, which if it were not made subject unto Christ, thespirit would not in it lust against the flesh through continence. By reasonof which they were indeed able not to perfect the lusts of the flesh, butthrough the flesh lusting against the Spirit they were not able to do thethings which they would, that is, not even to have the very lusts of theflesh. Lastly, why should we not confess that in spiritual men the Church issubject unto Christ, but in carnal men yet lusteth against Christ? Did notthey lust against Christ unto whom it was said, “Is Christdivided?” [2] and, “I could notspeak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal. I have given unto youmilk to drink as unto babes in Christ, not meat, for ye were not as yetable; but not even now are ye able: for ye are still carnal. For whereasthere is among you emulation, and strife, are ye not carnal?” [3] Against whom doth emulation and strife lust, but againstChrist? For these lusts of the flesh Christ healeth in His own, but lovethin none. Whence the holy Church, so long as it hath such members, is not yetwithout spot or wrinkle. To these are added those other sins also, for whichthe daily cry of the whole Church is, “Forgive us ourdebts:” [4] and, that we should not thinkspiritual persons exempt from these, not any one soever of carnal persons,nor any one soever of spiritual persons themselves, but he, who lay on thebreast of the Lord, [5] andwhom He loved before others, saith, “If we shall say that we havenot sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” [6] Butin every sin, more in what is greater, less in what is less, there is an actof lust against righteousness. And of Christ it is written: “Whowas made unto us by God, Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Sanctification, andRedemption.” [7] In every sin therefore withoutdoubt there is an act of lust against Christ. But when He, Who“healeth all our sicknesses,” [8] shall have led His Church untothe promised healing of sickness, then in none of its members shall there beany, even the very least spot or wrinkle. Then in no way shall the fleshlust against the spirit, and therefore there shall be no cause why thespirit also lust against the flesh. Then all this conflict shall come to anend, then there shall be the highest concord of both substances; then tosuch a degree shall no one there be carnal, that even the flesh itself shallbe spiritual. What therefore each one living after Christ doth with hisflesh, whereas he both lusts against its evil lust, which he restrains,hereafter to be healed, which he holds, not yet healed; and yet nourishethand cherisheth its good nature, since “no one ever hated his ownflesh,” [9] this also Christ doth with theChurch, so far as it is lawful to compare lesser with greater matters. ForHe both represses it with rebukes, that it burst not being puffed up withimpunity; and raises it up with consolations, that it sink not being weigheddown with infirmity. Hence is that of the Apostle, “For if wewould judge ourselves, we should not be judged; but when we are judged, weare rebuked of the Lord, that we be not condemned with thisworld.” [10] And that in the Psalm,“After the multitude of my griefs in my heart, Thy consolationshave gladdened my soul.” [11] We are therefore then to hopefor perfect soundness of our flesh without any opposition, when there shallbe sure security of the Church of Christ without any fear.

26. Thus much will suffice to havetreated on behalf of true Continence against the Manichees deceitfullycontinent, lest the fruitful and glorious labor of Continence, when itrestrains and curbs the lowest part of us, that is, the body, fromimmoderate and unlawful pleasures, be believed not healthfully to chasten,but hostilely to persecute. Forsooth the body is indeed different from thenature of the soul, yet is it not alien from the nature of man: for the soulis not made up of body, but yet man is made up of soul and body: andassuredly, whom God frees, He frees the whole man. Whence our SaviourHimself also took upon Him the whole man, having deigned to free in us allthat He made. They who hold contrary to this truth, what doth it profit themto restrain lusts? if, that is, they restrain any. What in them can be madeclean through Continence, whose such Continence is unclean? and which oughtnot to be called Continence. Forsooth to holdwhat they hold is the poison of the devil; but Continence is the gift ofGod. But as not every one who suffers any thing, or with the greatestendurance suffers any pain whatever, possesses that virtue, which in likemanner is the gift of God, and is called Patience; for many endure manytorments, in order not to betray either such as are wickedly privy with themin their crimes, or themselves; many in order to satiate glowing lusts, andto obtain, or not to abandon those things, whereunto they are bound by chainof evil love; many on behalf of different and destructive errors, wherebythey are strongly held: of all of whom far be it from us to say that theyhave true patience: thus not every one, who contains in any thing, or whomarvellously retrains even the very lusts of the flesh, or mind, is to besaid to possess that continence, of the profit and beauty of which we aretreating. For certain, what may seem marvellous to say, through incontinencecontain themselves: as if a woman were to contain herself from her husband,because she hath sworn this to an adulterer. Certain through injustice, asif spouse yield not to spouse the due of sexual intercourse, because he orshe is already able to overcome such appetite of the body. Also certaincontain deceived by false faith, and hoping what is vain, and followingafter what is vain: among whom are all heretics, and whosoever under thename of religion are deceived by any error: whose continence would be true,if their faith also were true: but, whereas that is not to be called faith,on this account, because it is false; without doubt that also is unworthythe name of continence. For what? are we prepared to call continence, whichwe must truly say is the gift of God, sin? Far be from our hearts so hatefulmadness. But the blessed Apostle saith “Every thing that is notof faith is sin.” [1] What therefore hath not faith,is not to be called continence.

27. There are also they who, indoing open service to evil demons, contain from pleasures of the body, that,through their means, they may satisfy unlawful pleasures, the violence andglow whereof they contain not. Whence also, (to name one case, and pass overthe rest in silence by reason of the length of the discourse,) certain comenot near even unto their own wives, whilst, as though clean, they essaythrough magic arts to gain access unto the wives of others. O marvellouscontinence, nay rather, singular wickedness and uncleanness! For, if it weretrue continence, the lust of the flesh ought rather to contain fromadultery, than, in order to commit adultery, from marriage. Forsoothmarriage continence is wont to ease this lust of the flesh, and to check itscurb but thus far, that neither in marriage itself it run riot by immoderatelicense, but that a measure be observed, either such as is due to theweakness of the spouse, unto whom the Apostle enjoins not this, as ofcommand, but yields it as of permission; [2] or such as is suited for thebegetting of sons, which was formerly the one alone occasion of sexualintercourse to both holy fathers and mothers. But continence doing this,that is, moderating, and in a certain way limiting in married persons thelust of the flesh, and ordering in a certain way within fixed limits itsunquiet and inordinate motion, uses well the evil of man, whom it makes andwills to make perfect good: as God uses even evil men, for their sake whomHe perfects in goodness.

28. Far be it therefore that we sayof continence, of which Scripture saith. “And this very thing waswisdom, to know whose gift it was,” [3] that even they possess it,who, by containing, either serve errors, or overcome any lesser desires forthis purpose, that they may fulfill others, by the greatness of which theyare overcome. But that continence which is true, coming from above, willsnot to repress some evils by other evils, but to heal all evils by goods.And, briefly to comprehend its mode of action, it is the place of continenceto keep watch to restrain and heal all delights whatsoever of lust, whichare opposed to the delight of wisdom. Whence without doubt they set itwithin too narrow bounds, who limit it to restraining the lusts of the bodyalone: certainly they speak better, who say that it pertains to Continenceto rule in general lust or desire. Which desire is set down as a fault, noris it only of the body, but also of the soul. For, if the desire of the bodybe in fornications and drunkennesses; have enmities, strifes, emulations,lastly, hatreds, their exercise in the pleasure of the body, and not ratherin the motion and troubled states of the soul? Yet the Apostle called allthese “works of the flesh,” whether what pertained tothe soul, or what pertained properly to the flesh, calling forsooth the manhimself by the name of the flesh. [4] Forsooth they are theworks of man, whatsoever are not called works of God; forasmuch as man, whodoes these, lives after himself, not after God, so far as he does these. Butthere are other works of man, which are rather to be called works of God.“For it is God,” [5] saith the Apostle,“Who worketh in you both to will andto do, according to His good pleasure.” Whence also is that,“For as many as are led by the spirit of God, these are sons ofGod.” [1]

29. Thus the spirit of man, cleavingunto 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 thesoul, after man, not after God, which as yet exist through the sickness manhath 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 Ilive, now not I, but there liveth in me Christ.” [2] Forwhere not I, there more happily I: and, when any evil motion after manarises, unto which he, who with the mind serves the Law of God, consentsnot, let him say that also, “Now it is not I that dothis.” [3] Tosuch forsooth are said those words, which we, as partners and sharers withthem, ought to listen to. [4] “If ye have risentogether with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ issitting at the Right Hand of God: mind [5] the thingsthat are above, not what are upon earth. For ye are dead, and your life ishid with Christ in God: when Christ your life shall have appeared, then yealso shall appear with Him in glory.” Let us understand unto whomhe is speaking, yea, rather, let us listen with more attention. For whatmore plain than this? what more clear? He is certainly speaking unto those,who had risen again with Christ, not yet surely in the flesh, but in themind: whom he calls dead, and on this account the more living: for“your life,” saith he, “is hid with Christin God.” Of such dead the speech is: “But I live, nownot I, but there liveth in me Christ.” They therefore, whose lifewas hidden in God, are admonished and exhorted to mortify their members,which are upon the earth. For this follows, “Mortify, therefore,your members, which are upon the earth.” And, lest any throughexcess of dullness should think that such are to mortify the members of thebody that are seen, straightway opening what it is he saith,“Fornication,” saith he, “uncleanness,passion, evil lust, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” [6] Butis it so to be believed, that they, who were already dead, and their lifehidden with Christ in God, were still committing fornication, were stillliving in unclean habits and works, were still slaves to passions of evillust and covetousness? What madman would thus think of such? What,therefore, would he that they mortify, save the motions themselves stillliving in a certain intrusion [7] oftheir own, without the consent of our mind, without the action of themembers of the body? And how are they mortified by the work of continence,save when we consent not to them with the mind, nor are the members of thebody yielded to them as weapons; and, what is greater, and to be looked towith yet greater watchfulness of continence, our very thought itself,although in a certain way it be touched by their suggestion, and as it were,whisper, yet turns away from these, that it receive not delight from them,and turns to more delightful thoughts of things above: on this accountnaming them in discourse, that men abide not in them, but flee from them.And this is brought to pass, if we listen effectually, with His help, Who,through His Apostle gives this command, “Seek things that areabove, where Christ is sitting at the Right Hand of God. Mind the thingsthat are above, not what are on earth.” [8]

30. But, after that he had mademention of these evils, he added and said, “On account of whichcometh the wrath of God on the sons of unbelief.” [9] Surely it was a wholesome alarm that believers might not think that theycould be saved on account of their faith alone, even although they shouldlive in these evils: the Apostle James with most clear speech crying outagainst that notion, and saying, “If any say that he have faith,and have not works, shall his faith be able to save him?” [10] Whence also here the Teacher of the Gentiles said, that on account of theseevils the wrath of God cometh on the sons of unbelief. But when he saith,“Wherein ye also walked sometime, when ye were livingtherein;” [11] he shows sufficiently that nowthey were not living therein. Forsooth unto these they had died, that theirlife might be hidden in God with Christ. When then they were now not livingin them, they were now bidden to mortify such. Forsooth, themselves notliving in the same, the things were living, as I have already shown a littleabove, and were called their members, that is to say, those faults whichdwelt in their members; by a way of speech, that which is contained throughthat which contains; as it is said, The whole Forum talks of it, when mentalk who are in the Forum. In this very way of speech it is sung in thePsalm, “Let all the earth worship Thee:” [12] thatis, all men who are in the earth.

31. “But now do yealso,” saith he, “put down all;” [13] andhe makes mention of several more evils of thatsort. But what is it, that it is not enough for him to say, “Doye put down all,” but that he added the conjunction and said,“ye also?” save that lest they should not think thatthey did those evils and lived in them with impunity on this account,because their faith set them free from wrath, which cometh upon the sons ofunbelief, doing these things, and living in them without faith. Do ye also,saith he, put down those evils, on account of which cometh the wrath of Godon the children of unbelief; nor promise yourselves impunity of them onaccount of merit of faith. But he would not say, “put yedown,” unto those who had already laid down so far as that theyconsented not to such faults, nor were yielding their members to them asweapons of sin, save that the life of Saints stands in this past deed, andis still engaged in this work, so long as we are mortal. For, so long as theSpirit lusteth against the flesh, this business proceeds with greatearnestness, resistance is offered unto evil delights, unclean lusts, carnaland shameful motions, by the sweetness of holiness, by the love of chastity,by spiritual vigor, and by the beauty of continence; thus they are laid downby them who are dead to them, and who live not in them by consenting. Thus,I say, they are put down, whilst they are weighed down by continuedcontinence, that they rise not again. Whosoever, as though secure, shallcease from this laying aside of them, straightway they will assault theCitadel of the mind, and will themselves put it down thence, and will reduceit into slavery to them, captive after a base and unseemly fashion. Then sinwill reign in the mortal body of man to obey its desires; then will it yieldits members weapons of unrighteousness unto sin: [1] and the last state of thatman shall be worse than the former. [2] For it is much more tolerablenot to have begun a contest of this kind, than after one hath begun to haveleft the conflict, and to have become in place of a good warrior, or even inplace of a conqueror, a captive. Whence the Lord saith not, whoso shallbegin, but “Whoso shall persevere unto the end, he shall besaved.” [3]

32. But whether keenly contending,that we be not overcome, or overcoming divers times, or even with unhopedand unlooked for ease, let us give the glory unto Him Who giveth continenceunto us. Let us remember that a certain just man said, “I shallnever be moved:” and that it was showed him how rashly he hadsaid this, attributing as though to his own strength, what was given to himfrom above. But this we have learnt from his own confession: for soon afterhe added, “Lord, in Thy will Thou hast given strength to mybeauty; but Thou hast turned away Thy Face, and I wastroubled.” [4] Through a remedial Providencehe was for a short time deserted by his Ruler, in order that he might nothimself through deadly pride desert his Ruler. Therefore, whether here,where we engage with our faults in order to subdue and make them less, orthere, as it shall be in the end, where we shall be void of every enemy,because of all infection, [5] it is for our health that we arethus dealt with, in order that, “whoso glorieth, he may glory inthe Lord.” [6]

ST. AUGUSTIN: 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 writtenagainst somewhat that still remained of the heresy of Jovinian. S. Aug.mentions this error in b. ii. c. 23, de Nuptiis etConc. “Jovinianus,” he says,“who a few years since tried to found a new heresy, said thatthe Catholics favored the Manichæans, because in oppositionto him they preferred holy Virginity to Marriage. And in his book on Heresies, c. 82. “That heresy took itsrise from one Jovinianus, a Monk, in our own time, when we were yetyoung.” And he adds that it was soon overborne andextinguished, say about ad 390, having been condemned first atRome, then at Milan. There are letters of Pope Siricius on the subjectto 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 saidto have attempted the defense of the excellency of the virgin state, atthe expense of condemning marriage. That Augustin might not be subjectto any such complaint or calumny, before speaking of the superiority ofVirginity, he thought it well to write on the Good of Marriage.

This work we learn to have been finished about the year 401, not onlyfrom the order of his Retractations, but also fromhis 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 theSacrament. For faithfulness, it is observed, that there be no lying withother man or woman, out of the bond of wedlock: for the offspring, thatit be lovingly welcomed, kindly nourished, religiously brought up: forthe Sacrament, that marriage be not severed, and that man or womandivorced be not joined to another even for the sake of offspring. Thisis as it were the rule of Marriage, by which rule either fruitfulness ismade seemly, or the perverseness of incontinence is brought to order.Upon which since we have sufficiently discoursed in that book, which welately published, on the Good of Marriage, where wehave also distinguished the Widow’s continence and theVirgin’s excellency, according to the worthiness of theirdegrees, our pen is not to be now longer occupied.” This verywork is referred to in Book I. on the Deserts andRemission of Sins, c. 29.— Bened.Ed.

NOTICE.

The Editors are, of course, aware of the danger there is in reading atreatise like the following in a spirit of idle curiosity, and they begany reader who has not well assured himselfthat his aim is right and holy to abstain from perusing it. At the sametime it must not be forgotten, that something far other than a mereshrinking from subjects offensive to modern delicacy is needed, in orderto purify the thoughts with respect to the holy estate of Matrimony. Themind that will but seriously attend to it in that light, will certainlybe strengthened against evil suggestions by seeing in the whole subjecta field of Christian duty.

It seemed further requisite to bring forward a work calculated to removethe imputation so falsely cast on the holy Fathers, that they regardedMatrimony as unholy, and almost agreed with the Manichean view of it, asa defilement and degradation to the Christian. They did, it is true,prefer Virginity to Marriage, but, as St. Augustin expressly states, asthe “better of two good things,” not as though onewere good, and the other evil.

In estimating the work and the writer, the age in which it was writtenmust be kept in view, and what that age required must not be imputed asa fault to him or to his religion. And perhaps what was written foranother age may serve the more safely towards our improvement andguidance from the very circumstance that the style and manner ofantiquity has become a kind of veil, which takes off somewhat from thestrength and vividness of first impressions, and leaves the mind more atliberty to use what is laid before it as it will, than a more modern wayof speaking would be likely to do. Let that liberty be used rightly andconscientiously, 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, andhuman nature is something social, and hath for a great and natural good, thepower also of friendship; on this account God willed to create all men outof one, in order that they might be held in their society not only bylikeness of kind, but also by bond of kindred. Therefore the first naturalbond of human society is man and wife. Nor did God create these each byhimself, and join them together as alien by birth: but He created the oneout of the other, setting a sign also of the power of the union in the side,whence she was drawn, was formed. [1] For they are joined one toanother side by side, who walk together, and look together whither theywalk. Then follows the connexion of fellowship in children, which is the onealone worthy fruit, not of the union of male and female, but of the sexualintercourse. For it were possible that there should exist in either sex,even without such intercourse, a certain friendly and true union of the oneruling, and the other obeying.

2. Nor is it now necessary that weenquire, and put forth a definite opinion on that question, whence couldexist the progeny of the first men, whom God had blessed, saying,“Increase, and be ye multiplied, and fill theearth;” [2] if they had not sinned, whereastheir bodies by sinning deserved the condition of death, and there can be nosexual intercourse save of mortal bodies. For there have existed several anddifferent opinions on this matter; and if we must examine, which of them berather agreeable to the truth of Divine Scriptures, there is matter for alengthened discussion. [3] Whether, therefore, without intercourse, in some other way, had they notsinned, they would have had sons, from the gift of the Almighty Creator, Whowas able to create themselves also without parents, Who was able to form theFlesh of Christ in a virgin womb, and (to speak even to unbelieversthemselves) Who was able to bestow on bees a progeny without sexualintercourse; or whether many things there were spoken by way of mystery andfigure, and we are to understand in another sense what is written,“Fill the earth, and rule over it;” that is, that itshould come to pass by fullness and perfection of life and power, so thatthe very increase and multiplication, whereby it is said,“Increase, and be ye multiplied,” be understood to beby advance of mind, and abundance of virtue, as it is set in the Psalm,“Thou shall multiply me in my soul by virtue;” [4] and that succession of progeny was not given unto man,save after that, by reason of sin, there was to be hereafter departure indeath: or whether the body was not made spiritual in the case of these men,but at the first animal, in order that by merit of obedience it might afterbecome spiritual, to lay hold of immortality, not after death, which by themalice of the devil entered into the world, and was made the punishment ofsin; but after that change, which the Apostle signifies, when he says,“Then we living, who remain, together with them, shall be caughtup in the clouds, to meet Christ, into the air,” [5] that we may understand both that those bodies of the first pair were mortal,in the first forming, and yet that they would not have died, had they notsinned, as God had threatened: even as if He should threaten a wound, inthat the body was capable of wounds; which yet would not have happened,unless what He had forbidden were done. Thus, therefore, even through sexualintercourse there might take place generations of such bodies, as up to acertain point should have increase, and yetshould not pass into old age; or even into old age, and yet not into death;until the earth were filled with that multiplication of the blessing. For ifto the garments of the Israelites [1] God granted their proper statewithout any wearing away during forty years, how much more would He grantunto the bodies of such as obeyed His command a certain most happytemperament of sure state, until they should be changed for the better, notby death of the man, whereby the body is abandoned by the soul, but by ablessed change from mortality to immortality, from an animal to a spiritualquality. Of these opinions which be true, or whether some other or othersyet may be formed out of these words, were a long matter to enquire anddiscuss.

3. This we now say, that, accordingto this condition of being born and dying, which we know, and in which wehave been created, the marriage of male and female is some good; the compactwhereof divine Scripture so commends, as that neither is it allowed one putaway by her husband to marry, so long as her husband lives: nor is itallowed one put away by his wife to marry another, unless she who haveseparated from him be dead. Therefore, concerning the good of marriage,which the Lord also confirmed in the Gospel, not only in that He forbade toput away a wife, [2] savebecause of fornication, but also in that He came by invitation to amarriage, [3] thereis good ground to inquire for what reason it be a good. And this seems notto me to be merely on account of the begetting of children, but also onaccount of the natural society itself in a difference of sex. Otherwise itwould not any longer be called marriage in the case of old persons,especially if either they had lost sons, or had given birth to none. But nowin good, although aged, marriage, albeit there hath withered away the glowof full age between male and female, yet there lives in full vigor the orderof charity between husband and wife: because, the better they are, theearlier they have begun by mutual consent to contain from sexual intercoursewith each other: not that it should be matter of necessity afterwards not tohave power to do what they would, but that it should be matter of praise tohave been unwilling at the first, to do what they had power to do. Iftherefore there be kept good faith of honor, and of services mutually duefrom either sex, although the members of either be languishing and almostcorpse-like, yet of souls duly joined together, the chastity [4] continues, the purer byhow much it is the more proved, the safer, by how much it is the calmer.Marriages have this good also, that carnal or youthful incontinence,although it be faulty, is brought unto an honest use in the begetting ofchildren, in order that out of the evil of lust the marriage union may bringto pass some good. Next, in that the lust of the flesh is repressed, andrages in a way more modestly, being tempered by parental affection. Forthere is interposed a certain gravity of glowing pleasure, when in thatwherein husband and wife cleave to one another, they have in mind that theybe father and mother.

4. There is this further, that inthat very debt which married persons pay one to another, even if they demandit with somewhat too great intemperance and incontinence, yet they owe faithalike one to another. Unto which faith the Apostle allows so great right, asto call it “power,” saying, “The woman hathnot power of her own body, but the man; again in like manner also the manhath not power of his own body, but the woman.” [5] Butthe violation of this faith is called adultery, when either by instigationof one’s own lust, or by consent of lust of another, there issexual intercourse on either side with another against the marriage compact:and thus faith is broken, which, even in things that are of the body, andmean, is a great good of the soul: and therefore it is certain that it oughtto be preferred even to the health of the body, wherein even this life ofours is contained. For, although a little chaff in comparison of much goldis almost nothing; yet faith, when it is kept pure in a matter of chaff, asin gold, is not therefore less because it is kept in a lesser matter. Butwhen faith is employed to commit sin, it were strange that we should have tocall it faith; however of what kind soever it be, if also the deed be doneagainst it, it is the worse done; save when it is on this account abandoned,that there may be a return unto true and lawful faith, that is, that sin maybe amended, by correction of perverseness of the will. As if any, beingunable alone to rob a man, should find a partner in his iniquity, and makean agreement with him to do it together, and to divide the spoil; and, afterthe crime hath been committed, should take off the whole to himself alone.That other grieves and complains that faith hath not been kept with him, butin his very complaint he ought to consider, that he himself rather ought tohave kept faith with human society in a good life, not to make unjust spoil of a man, if he feels with how great injusticeit hath failed to be kept with himself in a fellowship of sin. Forsooth theformer, being faithless in both instances, must assuredly be judged the morewicked. But, if he had been displeased at what they had done ill, and hadbeen on this account unwilling to divide the spoil with his partner incrime, in order that it might be restored to the man, from whom it had beentaken, not even a faithless man would call him faithless. Thus a woman, if,having broken her marriage faith, she keep faith with her adulterer, iscertainly evil: but, if not even with her adulterer, worse. Further, if sherepent her of her sin, and returning to marriage chastity, renounce alladulterous compacts and resolutions, I count it strange if even theadulterer himself will think her one who breaks faith.

5. Also the question is wont to beasked, when a male and female, neither the one the husband, nor the otherthe wife, of any other, come together, not for the begetting of children,but, by reason of incontinence, for the mere sexual intercourse, there beingbetween them this faith, that neither he do it with any other woman, nor shewith any other man, whether it is to be called marriage. [1] And perhaps this may, not without reason, be called marriage, [2] if it shall be the resolution [3] of both parties until the death ofone, and if the begetting of children, although they came not together forthat cause, yet they shun not, so as either to be unwilling to have childrenborn to them, or even by some evil work to use means that they be not born.But, if either both, or one, of these be wanting, I find not how we can callit marriage. For, if a man should take unto him any one for a time, until hefind another worthy either of his honors or of his means, to marry as hiscompeer; in his soul itself he is an adulterer, and that not with her whomhe is desirous of finding, but with her, with whom he so lies, as not tohave with her the partnership of a husband. Whence she also herself, knowingand willing this, certainly acts unchastely in having intercourse with him,with whom she has not the compact of a wife. However, if she keep to himfaith of bed, and after he shall have married, have no thought of marriageherself, and prepare to contain herself altogether from any such work,perhaps I should not dare lightly to call her an adulteress; but who shallsay that she sins not, when he is aware that she has intercourse with a man,not being his wife? But further, if from that intercourse, so far aspertains to herself, she has no wish but for sons, and suffers unwillingwhatever she suffers beyond the cause of begetting; there are many matronsto whom she is to be preferred; who, although they are not adulteresses, yetforce their husbands, for the most part also wishing to exercise continence,to pay the due of the flesh, not through desire of children, but throughglow of lust making an intemperate use of their very right; in whosemarriages, however, this very thing, that they are married, is a good. Forfor this purpose are they married, that the lust being brought under alawful bond, should not float at large without form and loose; having ofitself weakness of flesh that cannot be curbed, but of marriage fellowshipof faith that cannot be dissolved; of itself encroachment of immoderateintercourse, of marriage a way of chastely begetting. For, although it beshameful to wish to use a husband for purposes of lust, yet it is honorableto be unwilling to have intercourse save with an husband, and not to givebirth to children save from a husband. There are also men incontinent tothat degree, that they spare not their wives even when pregnant. Thereforewhatever that is immodest, shameless, base, married persons do one withanother, is the sin of the persons, not the fault of marriage.

6. Further, in the very case of themore immoderate requirement of the due of the flesh, which the Apostleenjoins 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 guardsthem from adultery or fornication. For neither is that committed because ofmarriage, but is pardoned because of marriage. Therefore married persons oweone another not only the faith of their sexual intercourse itself, for thebegetting of children, which is the first fellowship of the human kind inthis mortal state; but also, in a way, a mutual service of sustaining [4] one another’sweakness, in order to shun unlawful intercourse: so that, although perpetualcontinence be pleasing to one of them, he may not, save with consent of theother. For thus far also, “The wife hath not power of her ownbody, but the man: in like manner also the man hath not power of his ownbody, but the woman.” [5] That that also, which, not forthe begetting of children, but for weakness and incontinence, either heseeks of marriage, or she of her husband, theydeny not the one or the other; lest by this they fall into damnableseductions, through temptation of Satan, by reason of incontinence either ofboth, or of whichever of them. For intercourse of marriage for the sake ofbegetting hath not fault; but for the satisfying of lust, but yet withhusband or wife, by reason of the faith of the bed, it hath venial fault:but adultery or fornication hath deadly fault, and, through this, continencefrom all intercourse is indeed better even than the intercourse of marriageitself, which takes place for the sake of begetting. But because thatContinence is of larger desert, but to pay the due of marriage is no crime,but to demand it beyond the necessity of begetting is a venial fault, but tocommit fornication or adultery is a crime to be punished; charity of themarried ought to beware, lest, whilst it seek for itself occasion of largerhonor, it do that for its partner which cause condemnation. “Forwhosoever putteth away his wife, except for the cause of fornication, makethher to commit adultery.” [1] To such a degree is that marriagecompact entered upon a matter of a certain sacrament, that it is not madevoid even by separation itself, since, so long as her husband lives, even bywhom she hath been left, she commits adultery, in case she be married toanother: and he who hath left her, is the cause of this evil.

7. But I marvel, if, as it isallowed to put away a wife who is an adulteress, so it be allowed, havingput her away, to marry another. For holy Scripture causes a hard knot inthis matter, in that the Apostle says, that, by commandment of the Lord, thewife ought not to depart from her husband, but, in case she shall havedeparted, to remain unmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband; [2] whereas surely she ought not to depart and remainunmarried, save from an husband that is an adulterer, lest by withdrawingfrom him, who is not an adulterer, she cause him to commit adultery. Butperhaps she may justly be reconciled to her husband, either he being to beborne with, if she cannot contain herself, or being now corrected. But I seenot how the man can have permission to marry another, in case he have leftan adulteress, when a woman has not to be married to another, in case shehave left an adulterer. And, this being the case, so strong is that bond offellowship in married persons, that, although it be tied for the sake ofbegetting children, not even for the sake of begetting children is itloosed. For it is in a man’s power to put away a wife that isbarren, and marry one of whom to have children. And yet it is not allowed;and now indeed in our times, and after the usage of Rome, neither to marryin addition, so as to have more than one wife living: and, surely, in caseof an adulteress or adulterer being left, it would be possible that more menshould be born, if either the woman were married to another, or the manshould marry another. And yet, if this be not lawful, as the Divine Ruleseems to prescribe, who is there but it must make him attentive to learn,what is the meaning of this so great strength of the marriage bond? Which Iby no means think could have been of so great avail, were it not that therewere taken a certain sacrament of some greater matter from out this weakmortal state of men, so that, men deserting it, and seeking to dissolve it,it should remain unshaken for their punishment. Seeing that the compact ofmarriage is not done away by divorce intervening; so that they continuewedded persons one to another, even after separation; and commit adulterywith those, with whom they shall be joined, even after their own divorce,either the woman with a man, or the man with a woman. And yet, save in theCity of our God, in His Holy Mount, the case is not such with the wife. [3] But, that the laws of the Gentiles are otherwise, who is there that knowsnot; where, by the interposition of divorce, without any offense of whichman takes cognizance, both the woman is married to whom she will, and theman marries whom he will. And something like this custom, on account of thehardness of the Israelites, Moses seems to have allowed, concerning a billof divorcement. [4] Inwhich matter there appears rather a rebuke, than an approval, ofdivorce. [5]

8. “Honorable,” therefore, “is marriage inall, and the bed undefiled.” [6] And this we do not so call a good, as that itis a good in comparison of fornication: otherwise there will be two evils,of which the second is worse: or fornication will also be a good, becauseadultery is worse: for it is worse to violate the marriage of another, thanto cleave unto an harlot: and adultery will be a good, because incest isworse; for it is worse to lie with a mother than with the wife of another:and, until we arrive at those things, which, as the Apostle saith,“it is a shame even to speak of,” [7] all will be good in comparison ofwhat are worse. But who can doubt that this is false? Therefore marriage andfornication are not two evils, whereof the secondis worse: but marriage and continence are two goods, whereof the second isbetter, even as this temporal health and sickness are not two evils, whereofthe second is worse; but that health and immortality are two goods, whereofthe second is better. Also knowledge and vanity are not two evils, whereofvanity is the worse: but knowledge and charity are two goods, whereofcharity is the better. For “knowledge shall bedestroyed,” [1] saith the Apostle: and yet itis necessary for this time: but “charity shall neverfail.” Thus also this mortal begetting, on account of whichmarriage takes place, shall be destroyed: but freedom from all sexualintercourse is both angelic exercise [2] here, andcontinueth for ever. But as the repasts of the Just are better than thefasts of the sacrilegious, so the marriage of the faithful is to be setbefore the virginity of the impious. However neither in that case is repastpreferred to fasting, but righteousness to sacrilege; nor in this, marriageto virginity, but faith to impiety. For for this end the righteous, whenneed is, take their repast, that, as good masters, they may give to theirslaves, i.e., their bodies, what is just and fair: butfor this end the sacrilegious fast, that they may serve devils. Thus forthis end the faithful are married, that they may be chastely joined untohusbands, but for this end the impious are virgins, that they may commitfornication away from the true God. As, therefore, that was good, whichMartha was doing, being engaged in the ministering unto the Saints, but thatbetter, which Mary, her sister, sitting at the feet of the Lord, and hearingHis word; thus we praise the good of Susanna [3] in married chastity,but yet we set before her the good of the widow Anna, [4] and, much more, of the VirginMary. [5] Itwas good that they were doing, who of their substance were ministeringnecessaries unto Christ and His disciples: but better, who left all theirsubstance, that they might be freer to follow the same Lord. But in boththese cases of good, whether what these, or whether what Martha and Marywere doing, the better could not be done, unless the other had been passedover or left. Whence we are to understand, that we are not, on this account,to think marriage an evil, because, unless there be abstinence from it,widowed chastity, or virgin purity, cannot be had. For neither on thisaccount was what Martha was doing evil, because, unless her sister abstainedfrom it, she could not do what was better: nor on this account is it evil toreceive a just man or a prophet into one’s house, because he, whowills to follow Christ unto perfection, ought not even to have a house, inorder to do what is better.

9. Truly we must consider, that Godgives us some goods, which are to be sought for their own sake, such aswisdom, health, friendship: but others, which are necessary for the sake ofsomewhat, such as learning, meat, drink, sleep, marriage, sexualintercourse. For of these certain are necessary for the sake of wisdom, aslearning: certain for the sake of health, as meat and drink and sleep:certain for the sake of friendship, as marriage or sexual intercourse: forhence subsists the propagation of the human kind, wherein friendlyfellowship is a great good. These goods, therefore, which are necessary forthe sake of something else, whoso useth not for this purpose, wherefore theywere instituted, sins; in some cases venially, in other cases damnably. Butwhoso useth them for this purpose, wherefore they were given doeth well.Therefore, to whomsoever they are not necessary, if he use them not, hedoeth 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 betterstate, when we account them not necessary. And on this account it is good tomarry, because it is good to beget children, to be a mother of a family: butit is better not to marry, [6] because it is better not tostand in need of this work, in order to human fellowship itself. For such isthe state of the human race now, that (others, who contain not, not onlybeing taken up with marriage, but many also waxing wanton through unlawfulconcubinages, the Good Creator working what is good out of their evils)there fails not numerous progeny, and abundant succession, out of which toprocure holy friendships. Whence we gather, that, in the first times of thehuman race, chiefly for the propagation of the People of God, through whomthe Prince and Saviour of all people should both be prophesied of, and beborn, it was the duty of the Saints to use this good of marriage, not as tobe sought for its own sake, but necessary for the sake of something else:but now, whereas, in order to enter upon holy and pure fellowship, there ison all sides from out all nations an overflowing fullness of spiritualkindred, even they who wish to contract marriage only for the sake ofchildren, are to be admonished, that they use rather the larger good ofcontinence.

10. But I am aware of some thatmurmur: What, say they, if all men should abstain from all sexualintercourse, whence will the human race exist? Would that all would this,only in “charity out of a pure heart, and good conscience, andfaith unfeigned;” [1] much more speedily would the Cityof God be filled, and the end of the world hastened. For what else doth theApostle, as is manifest, exhort to, when he saith, speaking on this head,“I would that all were as myself;” [2] or in that passage,“But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remains thatboth they who have wives, be as though not having: and they who weep, asthough not weeping: and they who rejoice, as though not rejoicing: and theywho buy, as though not buying: and they who use this world as though theyuse it not. For the form of this world passeth by. I would have you withoutcare.” Then he adds, “Whoso is without a wife, thinksof the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord: but whoso is joined inmarriage, thinks of the things of the world, how to please his wife: and awoman that is unmarried and a virgin is different: she that is unmarried isanxious about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit:but she that is married, is anxious about the things of the world, how toplease her husband.” [3] Whence it seems to me, that atthis time, those only, who contain not, ought to marry, according to thatsentence of the same Apostle, “But if they contain not, let thembe married: for it is better to be married than to burn.” [4]

11. And yet not to these themselvesis 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 whatshall we say against the most plain speech of the Apostle, saying,“Let her do what she will; she sinneth not, if she bemarried;” [5] and, “If thou shalthave taken a wife, thou hast not sinned: and, if a virgin shall have beenmarried, she sinneth not.” [6] Hence surely it is not lawful now todoubt that marriage is no sin. Therefore the Apostle alloweth not marriageas matter “of pardon:” [7] for who candoubt that it is extremely absurd to say, that they have not sinned, untowhom “pardon” is granted. But he allows, as matter of“pardon,” that sexual intercourse, which takes placethrough incontinence, not alone for the begetting of children, and, attimes, not at all for the begetting of children; and it is not that marriageforces this to take place, but that it procures pardon for it; providedhowever it be not so in excess as to hinder what ought to be set aside asseasons of prayer, nor be changed into that use which is against nature, onwhich the Apostle could not be silent, when speaking of the excessivecorruptions of unclean and impious men. For necessary sexual intercourse forbegetting is free from blame, and itself is alone worthy of marriage. Butthat which goes beyond this necessity, no longer follows reason, butlust. [8] And yet it pertains to the character of marriage, not to exact this, but toyield it to the partner, lest by fornication the other sin damnably. But, ifboth are set under such lust, they do what is plainly not matter ofmarriage. However, if in their intercourse they love what is honest morethan what is dishonest, that is, what is matter of marriage more than whatis not matter of marriage, this is allowed to them on the authority of theApostle as matter of pardon: and for this fault, they have in theirmarriage, not what sets them on to commit it, but what entreats pardon forit, if they turn not away from them the mercy of God, either by notabstaining on certain days, that they may be free to pray, and through thisabstinence, as through fasting, may commend their prayers; or by changingthe natural use into that which is against nature, which is more damnablewhen it is done in the case of husband or wife.

12. For, whereas that natural use,when it pass beyond the compact of marriage, that is, beyond the necessityof begetting, is pardonable in the case of a wife, damnable in the case ofan harlot; that which is against nature is execrable when done in the caseof an harlot, but more execrable in the case of a wife. Of so great power isthe ordinance of the Creator, and the order of Creation, that, in mattersallowed us to use, even when the due measure is exceeded, it is far moretolerable, than, in what are not allowed, either a single, or rare excess.And, therefore, in a matter allowed, want of moderation, in a husband orwife, is to be borne with, in order that lust break not forth into a matterthat is not allowed. Hence is it also that he sins far less, who is ever sounceasing in approaches to his wife, than he who approaches ever so seldomto commit fornication. But, when the man shall wish to use the member of thewife not allowed for this purpose, the wife is more shameful, if she sufferit 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 ofyielding the due of the flesh: this is the workof marriage, this the Apostle defends from every charge, in saying,“Both if thou shalt have taken a wife, thou hast not sinned: andif a virgin shall have been married, she sinneth not:” and,“Let her do what she will: she sinneth not if she bemarried.” [1] But an advance beyondmoderation in demanding the due of either sex, for the reasons which I havestated above, is allowed to married persons as matter of pardon.

13. What therefore he says,“She, that is unmarried, thinketh of the things of the Lord, thatshe may be holy both in body and spirit;” we are not to take insuch 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 thatyour bodies are a temple of the Holy Ghost within you, Whom ye have fromGod?” [2] Therefore the bodies also of the married are holy, so long as they keepfaith to one another and to God. And that this sanctity of either of them,even an unbelieving partner does not stand in the way of, but rather thatthe sanctity of the wife profits the unbelieving husband, and the sanctityof the husband profits the unbelieving wife, the same Apostle is witness,saying, “For the unbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife,and the unbelieving wife is sanctified in a brother.” [3] Wherefore that was said according to the greater sanctity of the unmarriedthan of the married, unto which there is also due a greater reward,according as, the one being a good, the other is a greater good: inasmuch asalso she has this thought only, how to please the Lord. For it is not that afemale who believes, keeping married chastity, thinks not how to please theLord; but assuredly less so, in that she thinks of the things of the world,how to please her husband. For this is what he would say of them, that theymay, in a certain way, find themselves obliged by marriage to think of thethings of the world, how to please their husbands.

14. And not without just cause adoubt is raised, whether he said this of all married women, or of such as somany 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 andspirit:” [4] pertain unto all unmarriedwomen: whereas there are certain widows who are dead, who live in delights.However, so far as regards a certain distinction and, as it were, characterof their own, of the unmarried and married; as she deserves the excess ofhatred, who containing from marriage, [5] that is, from a thing allowed,does not contain from offenses, either of luxury, or pride, or curiosity andprating; so the married woman is seldom met with, who, in the very obedienceof married life, hath no thought save how to please God, by adorningherself, not with plaited hair, or gold and pearls and costly attire, [6] but as becometh women making profession of piety, through a goodconversation. Such marriages, forsooth, the Apostle Peter also describes bygiving commandment. “In like manner,” saith he,“wives obeying their own husbands; in order that, even if anyobey not the word, they may be gained without discourse through theconversation of the wives, seeing your fear and chaste conversation: thatthey be not they that are adorned without with crispings of hair, or clothedwith gold or with fair raiment; but that hidden man of your heart, in thatunbroken continuance of a quiet and modest spirit, which before the Lordalso is rich. For thus certain holy women, who hoped in the Lord, used toadorn themselves, obeying their own husbands: as Sarah obeyed Abraham,calling him Lord: whose daughters ye are become, when ye do well, and fearnot with any vain fear. Husbands in like manner living at peace and inchastity with your wives, both give ye honor as to the weaker and subjectvessel, as with co-heirs of grace, and see that your prayers be nothindered.” [7] Is it indeed that suchmarriages have no thought of the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord?But they are very rare: who denies this? And, being, as they are, rare,nearly all the persons who are such, were not joined together in order to besuch, but being already joined together became such.

15. For what Christian men of ourtime being free from the marriage bond, having power to contain from allsexual intercourse, seeing it to be now “a time,” asit is written, “not of embracing, but of abstaining fromembrace,” [8] would not choose rather tokeep virginal or widowed continence, than (now that there is no obligationfrom duty to human society) to endure tribulation of the flesh, withoutwhich marriages cannot be (to pass over in silence other things from whichthe Apostle spares.) But when through desire reigning they shall have beenjoined together, if they shall after overcome it, because it is not lawfulto loose, in such wise as it was lawful not to tie, the marriage bond, theybecome such as the form of marriage makesprofession of, so as that either by mutual consent they ascend unto a higherdegree of holiness, or, if both are not such, the one who is such will notbe one to exact but to yield the due, observing in all things a chaste andreligious concord. But in those times, wherein as yet the mystery of oursalvation was veiled in prophetic sacraments, even they who were such beforemarriage, yet contracted marriage through the duty of begetting children,not overcome by lust, but led by piety, unto whom if there were given suchchoice, as in the revelation of the New Testament there hath been given, theLord saying “Whoso can receive, let him receive;” [1] noone doubts that they would have been ready to receive it even with joy, whoreads with careful attention what use they made of their wives, at a timewhen also it was allowed one man to have several, whom he had with morechastity, than any now has his one wife, of these, unto whom we see what theApostle allows by way of leave. [2] For they had them in the workof begetting children, not “in the disease of desire, as thenations which know not God.” [3] And this is so great a thing,that many at this day more easily abstain from all sexual intercourse theirwhole life through, than, if they are joined in marriage, observe themeasure of not coming together except for the sake of children. Forsooth wehave many brethren and partners in the heavenly inheritance of both sexesthat are continent, whether they be such as have made trial of marriage, orsuch as are entirely free from all such intercourse: forsooth they arewithout number: yet, in our familiar discourses with them, whom have weheard, whether of those who are, or of those who have been, married,declaring to us that he has never had sexual intercourse with his wife, savewith the hope of conception? What, therefore, the Apostles command themarried, this is proper to marriage, but what they allow by way of pardon,or what hinders prayers, this marriage compels not, but bears with.

16. Therefore if haply, (whichwhether it can take place, I know not; and rather think it cannot takeplace; 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 thusis that union to be preferred to the marriage even of those women, who dothis, that is matter of pardon. [4] For we mustconsider what belongs to marriage, not what belongs to such women as marryand use marriage with less moderation than they ought. For neither if eachone so use lands entered upon unjustly and wrongly, as out of their fruitsto give large alms, doth he therefore justify rapine: nor if another broodover, through avarice, an estate to which he has succeeded, or which he hathjustly gained, are we on this account to blame the rule of civil law,whereby he is made a lawful owner. Nor will the wrongfulness of a tyrannicalrebellion deserve praise, if the tyrant treat his subjects with royalclemency: nor will the order of royal power deserve blame, if a king ragewith tyrannical cruelty. For it is one thing to wish to use well unjustpower, and it is another thing to use unjustly just power. Thus neither doconcubines taken for a time, if they be such in order to sons, make theirconcubinage lawful; nor do married women, if they live wantonly with theirhusbands, attach any charge to the order of marriage.

17. That marriage can take place ofpersons first ill joined, an honest decree following after, is manifest. Buta marriage once for all entered upon in the City of our God, where, evenfrom the first union of the two, the man and the woman, marriage bears acertain sacramental character, can no way be dissolved but by the death ofone of them. For the bond of marriage remains, although a family, for thesake of which it was entered upon, do not follow through manifestbarrenness; so that, when now married persons know that they shall not havechildren, yet it is not lawful for them to separate even for the very sakeof children, and to join themselves unto others. And if they shall so do,they commit adultery with those unto whom they join themselves, butthemselves remain husbands and wives. Clearly with the good will of the wifeto take another woman, that from her may be born sons common to both, by thesexual intercourse and seed of the one, but by the right and power of theother, was lawful among the ancient fathers: whether it be lawful now also,I would not hastily pronounce. For there is not now necessity of begettingchildren, as there then was, when, even when wives bare children, it wasallowed, in order to a more numerous posterity, to marry other wives inaddition, which now is certainly not lawful. For the difference thatseparates times causes the due season to have so great force unto thejustice and doing or not doing any thing, that now a man does better, if hemarry not even one wife, unless he be unable to contain. But then theymarried even several without any blame, eventhose who could much more easily contain, were it not that piety at thattime had another demand upon them. For, as the wise and just man, [1] whonow desires to be dissolved and to be with Christ, and takes more pleasurein this, the best, now not from desire of living here, but from duty ofbeing useful [2] , takes food that he may remain inthe flesh, which is necessary for the sake of others; so to have intercoursewith females in right of marriage, was to holy men at that time a matter ofduty not of lust.

18. For what food is unto theconservation of the man, this sexual intercourse is unto the conservation ofthe race: and both are not without carnal delight: which yet being modified,and by restraint of temperance reduced unto the use after nature, cannot belust. [3] Butwhat unlawful food is in the supporting of life, this sexual intercourse offornication or adultery is in the seeking of a family. And what unlawfulfood is in luxury of belly and throat, this unlawful intercourse is in lustthat seeks not a family. And what the excessive appetite of some is inlawful food, this that intercourse that is matter of pardon is in husbandand wife. As therefore it is better to die of hunger than to eat thingsoffered unto idols: so it is better to die without children, than to seek afamily from unlawful intercourse. But from whatever source men be born, ifthey follow not the vices of their parents, and worship God aright, theyshall be honest and safe. For the seed of man, from out what kind of mansoever, is the creation of God, and it shall fare ill with those who use itill, yet shall not itself at any time be evil. But as the good sons ofadulterers are no defense of adulteries, so the evil sons of married personsare no charge against marriage. Wherefore as the Fathers of the time of theNew Testament taking food from the duty of conservation, although they tookit with natural delight of the flesh, were yet in no way compared with thedelight of those who fed on what had been offered in sacrifice, or of thosewho, although the food was lawful, yet took it to excess: so the Fathers ofthe time of the Old Testament from the duty of conservation used sexualintercourse; and yet that their natural delight, by no means relaxed untounreasonable and unlawful lust, is not to be compared either with thevileness of fornications, or with the intemperance of married persons.Forsooth through the same vein [4] of charity, now after the spirit,then after the flesh, it was a duty to beget sons for the sake of thatmother Jerusalem: but it was nought save the difference of times which madethe works of the fathers different. But thus it was necessary that evenProphets, not living after the flesh, should come together after the flesh;even as it was necessary that Apostles also, not living after the flesh,should eat food after the flesh.

19. Therefore as many women as thereare now, unto whom it is said, “if they contain not, let them bemarried, [5] ” are not to be compared to the holy women then,even when they married. Marriage itself indeed in all nations is for thesame cause of begetting sons, and of what character soever these may beafterward, yet was marriage for this purpose instituted, that they may beborn in due and honest order. But men, who contain not, as it were ascendunto marriage by a step of honesty: but they, who without doubt wouldcontain, if the purpose of that time had allowed this, in a certain measuredescended unto marriage by a step of piety. And, on this account, althoughthe marriages of both, so far as they are marriages, in that they are forthe sake of begetting, are equally good, yet these men when married are notto be compared with those men as married. For these have, what is allowedthem by the way of leave, on account of the honesty of marriage, although itpertain not to marriage; that is, the advance which goes beyond thenecessity of begetting, which they had not. But neither can these, if haplythere be now any found, who neither seek, nor desire, in marriage any thing,save that wherefore marriage was instituted, be made equal to those men. Forin these the very desire of sons is carnal, but in those it was spiritual,in that it was suited to the sacrament of that time. Forsooth now no one whois made perfect in piety seeks to have sons, save after a spiritual sense;but then it was the work of piety itself to beget sons even after a carnalsense: in that the begetting of that people was fraught with tidings ofthings to come, and pertained unto the prophetic dispensation.

20. And on this account, not, so asit was allowed one man to have even several wives, was it allowed one femaleto have several husbands, not even for the sake of a family, in case itshould happen that the woman could bear, the man could not beget. For by asecret law of nature things that stand chief love to be singular; but whatare subject are set under, not only one under one, but, if the system of nature or society allow, even several under one,not without becoming beauty. For neither hath one slave so several masters,in the way that several slaves have one master. Thus we read not that any ofthe holy women served two or more living husbands: but we read that manyfemales served one husband, when the social state [1] of thatnation allowed it, and the purpose of the time persuaded to it: for neitheris it contrary to the nature of marriage. For several females can conceivefrom one man: but one female cannot from several, (such is the power ofthings principal:) as many souls are rightly made subject unto one God. Andon this account there is no True God of souls, save One: but one soul bymeans of many false gods may commit fornication, but not be madefruitful.

21. But since out of many soulsthere shall be hereafter one City of such as have one soul and one heart [2] towards God; which perfection of our unity shall be hereafter, after thissojourn in a strange land, wherein the thoughts of all shall neither behidden one from another, nor shall be in any matter opposed one to another;on this account the Sacrament of marriage of our time hath been so reducedto one man and one wife, as that it is not lawful to ordain any as a stewardof the Church, save the husband of one wife. [3] And this they have understoodmore acutely who have been of opinion, that neither is he to beordained, [4] who asa catechumen or as a heathen [5] had a second wife. For it is amatter of sacrament, not of sin. For in baptism all sins are put away. Buthe who said, “If thou shalt have taken a wife, thou hast notsinned; and if a virgin shall have been married, she sinnethnot:” [6] and, “Let her do what she will, she sinnethnot, if she be married,” hath made it plain enough that marriageis no sin. But on account of the sanctity of the Sacrament, as a female,although it be as a catechumen that she hath suffered violence, cannot afterBaptism be consecrated among the virgins of God: so there was no absurdityin supposing of him who had exceeded the number of one wife, not that he hadcommitted any sin, but that he had lost a certain prescript rule [7] of a sacrament necessary not unto desert ofgood life, but unto the seal of ecclesiastic ordination; and thus, as themany wives of the old Fathers signified our future Churches out of allnations made subject unto one husband, Christ: so our chief-priest, [8] the husband of one wife, signifiesunity out of all nations, made subject unto one husband, Christ: which shallthen be perfected, when He shall have unveiled the hidden things ofdarkness, [9] andshall have made manifest the thoughts of the heart, that then each may havepraise from God. But now there are manifest, there are hidden, dissensions,even where charity is safe between those, who shall be hereafter one, and inone; which shall then certainly have no existence. As therefore theSacrament of marriage with several of that time signified the multitude thatshould be hereafter made subject unto God in all nations of the earth, sothe Sacrament of marriage with one of our times signifies the unity of usall made subject to God, which shall be hereafter in one Heavenly City.Therefore as to serve two or more, so to pass over from a living husbandinto marriage with another, was neither lawful then, nor is it lawful now,nor will it ever be lawful. Forsooth to apostatise from the One God, and togo into adulterous superstition of another, is ever an evil. Therefore noteven for the sake of a more numerous family did our Saints do, what theRoman Cato is said to have done, [10] to give up his wife, during his own life, to filleven another’s house with sons. Forsooth in the marriage of onewoman the sanctity of the Sacrament is of more avail than the fruitfulnessof the womb.

22. If, therefore, even they who areunited in marriage only for the purpose of begetting, for which purposemarriage was instituted, are not compared with the Fathers, seeking theirvery sons in a way far other than do these; forasmuch as Abraham, beingbidden to slay his son, fearless and devoted, spared not his only son, whomfrom out of great despair he had received [11] save that he laid down hishand, when He forbade him, at Whose command he had lifted it up; it remainsthat we consider, whether at least continent persons among us are to becompared to those Fathers who were married; unless haply now these are to bepreferred to them, to whom we have not yet found persons to compare. Forthere was a greater good in their marriage, than is the proper good ofmarriage: to which without doubt the good of Continence is to be preferred:because they sought not sons from marriage by such duty as these are led by,from a certain sense of mortal nature requiring succession against decease.And, whoso denies this to be good he knows notGod, the Creator of all things good, from things heavenly even unto thingsearthly, from things immortal even unto things mortal. But neither arebeasts altogether without this sense of begetting, and chiefly birds, whosecare of building nests meets us at once, and a certain likeness tomarriages, in order to beget and nurture together. But those men, with mindfar holier, surpassed this affection of mortal nature, the chastity whereofin its own kind, there being added thereto the worship of God, as some haveunderstood, is set forth as bearing first thirty-fold; who sought sons oftheir marriage for the sake of Christ; in order to distinguish His raceafter the flesh from all nations: even as God was pleased to order, thatthis above the rest should avail to prophesy of Him, in that it was foretoldof what race also, and of what nation, He should hereafter come in theflesh. Therefore it was a far greater good than the chaste marriages ofbelievers among us, which father Abraham knew in his own thigh, under whichhe bade his servant to put his hand, that he might take an oath concerningthe wife, whom his son was to marry. For putting his hand under the thigh ofa man, and swearing by the God of Heaven, [1] what else did he signify, thanthat in that Flesh, which derived its origin from that thigh, the God ofHeaven would come? Therefore marriage is a good, wherein married persons areso much the better, in proportion as they fear God with greater chastity andfaithfulness, specially if the sons, whom they desire after the flesh, theyalso bring up after the spirit.

23. Nor, in that the Law orders aman to be purified even after intercourse with a wife, doth it show it to besin: unless it be that which is allowed by way of pardon, which also, beingin excess, hinders prayers. But, as the Law sets [2] manythings in sacraments and shadows of things to come; a certain as it werematerial formless state of the seed, which having received form willhereafter produce the body of man, is set to signify a life formless, anduntaught: from which formless state, forasmuch as it behoves that man becleansed by form and teaching of learning; as a sign of this, thatpurification was ordered after the emission of seed. For neither in sleepalso doth it take place through sin. And yet there also a purification wascommanded. Or, if any think this also to be sin, thinking that it comes notto pass save from some lust of this kind, which without doubt is false;what? are the ordinary menses also of women sins? And yet from these thesame old Law commanded that they should be cleansed by expiation; for noother cause, save the material formless state itself, in that which, whenconception hath taken place, is added as it were to build up the body, andfor this reason, when it flows without form, the Law would have signified byit a soul without form of discipline, flowing and loose in an unseemlymanner. And that this ought to receive form, it signifies, when it commandssuch flow of the body to be purified. Lastly, what? to die, is that also asin? or, to bury a dead person, is it not also a good work of humanity? andyet a purification was commanded even on occasion of this also; because alsoa dead body, life abandoning it, is not sin, but signifies the sin of a soulabandoned by righteousness. [3]

24. Marriage, I say, is a good, andmay be, by sound reason, defended against all calumnies. But with themarriage of the holy fathers, I inquire not what marriage, but whatcontinence, is on a level: or rather not marriage with marriage; for it isan equal gift in all cases given to the mortal nature of men; but men whouse marriage, forasmuch as I find not, to compare with other men who usedmarriage in a far other spirit, we must inquire what continent persons admitof being compared with those married persons. Unless, haply, Abraham couldnot 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 onlypledge 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 sometimesshown in work, sometimes lie hid in habit, as the virtue of martyrdom shoneforth and appeared by enduring sufferings; but how many are there of thesame virtue of mind, unto whom trial is wanting, whereby what is within, inthe sight of God, may go forth also into the sight of men, and not to menbegin to exist, but only become known? For there was already in Jobpatience, which God knew, and to which He bore witness: but it became knownunto men by test of trial: [4] and what lay hid within was notproduced, but shown, by the things that were brought on him from without.Timothy also certainly had the virtue of abstaining from wine, [5] which Paul took not from him, by advising him to use a moderate portion ofwine, “for the sake of his stomach and his ofteninfirmities,” otherwise he taught him a deadly lesson, that forthe sake of the health of the body there shouldbe a loss of virtue in the soul: but because what he advised could takeplace with safety to that virtue, the profit of drinking was so left free tothe body, as that the habit of continence continued in the soul. For it isthe habit itself, whereby any thing is done, when there is need; [1] but when it is not done, itcan be done, only there is no need. This habit, in the matter of thatcontinence which is from sexual intercourse, they have not, unto whom it issaid, “If they contain not, let them be married.” [2] Butthis they have, unto whom it is said, “Whoso can receive, let himreceive.” [3] Thus have perfect souls usedearthly goods, that are necessary for something else, through this habit ofcontinence, so as, by it, not to be bound by them, and so as by it, to havepower also not to use them, in case there were no need. Nor doth any usethem well, save who hath power also not to use them. Many indeed with moreease practise abstinence, so as not to use, than practise temperance, so asto use well. But no one can wisely use them, save who can also continentlynot use them. From this habit Paul also said, “I know both toabound, and to suffer want.” [4] Forsooth to suffer want is thepart of any men soever; but to know to suffer want is the part of great men.So, also, to abound, who cannot? but to know also to abound, is not, save ofthose, whom abundance corrupts not.

26. But, in order that it may bemore clearly understood, how there may be virtue in habit, although it benot in work, I speak of an example, about which no Catholic Christian candoubt. For that our Lord Jesus Christ in truth of flesh hungered andthirsted, ate and drank, no one doubts of such as out of the Gospel arebelievers. What, then, was there not in Him the virtue of continence frommeat and drink, as great as in John Baptist? “For John cameneither eating nor drinking; and they said, He hath a devil; the Son of Mancame both eating and drinking; and they said, “Lo, a glutton andwine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners.” [5] What, are not such things said also against them of His household, ourfathers, from another kind of using of things earthy, so far as pertains tosexual intercourse; “Lo, men lustful and unclean, lovers of womenand lewdness?” And yet as in Him that was not true, although itwere true that He abstained not, even as John, from eating and drinking, forHimself saith most plainly and truly, “John came, not eating, nordrinking; the Son of Man came eating and drinking:” so neither isthis true in these Fathers; although there hath come now the Apostle ofChrist, not wedded, nor begetting, so that the heathen say of him, He was amagician; but there came then the Prophet of Christ, marrying and begettingsons, so that the Manichees say of him, He was a man fond of women:“And wisdom,” saith He, “hath beenjustified of her children.” [6] What the Lord there added, afterHe had thus spoken of John and of Himself; “Butwisdom,” saith He, “hath been justified of herchildren.” Who see that the virtue of continence ought to existeven in the habit of the soul, but to be shown forth in deed, according toopportunity of things and times; even as the virtue of patience of holymartyrs appeared in deed; but of the rest equally holy was in habit.Wherefore, even as there is not unequal desert of patience in Peter, whosuffered, and in John, who suffered not; so there is not unequal desert ofcontinence in John who made no trial of marriage, [7] and in Abraham, whobegat sons. For both the celibate of the one, and the marriage estate of theother, did service as soldiers to Christ, as times were allotted; but Johnhad continence in work also, but Abraham in habit alone.

27. Therefore at that time, when theLaw also, following upon the days of the Patriarchs, [8] pronounced accursed, whosoraised not up seed in Israel, even he, who could, put it not forth, but yetpossessed it. But from the period that the fullness of time hath come, [9] thatit should be said, “Whoso can receive, let himreceive,” [10] from that period even unto thispresent, and from henceforth even unto the end, whoso hath, worketh: whososhall be unwilling to work, let him not falsely say, that he hath. Andthrough this means, they, who corrupt good manners by evilcommunications, [11] with empty and vain craft, say to a Christian man exercising continence, andrefusing marriage, What then, are you better than Abraham? But let him not,upon hearing this, be troubled; neither let him dare to say,“Better,” nor let him fall away from his purpose: forthe one he saith not truly, the other he doth not rightly. But let him say,I indeed am not better than Abraham, but the chastity of the unmarried isbetter than the chastity of marriage; whereof Abraham had one in use, bothin habit. For he lived chastely in the marriage state: but it was in hispower to be chaste without marriage, but at that time it behoved not. But Iwith more ease use not marriage, which Abrahamused, than so use marriage as Abraham used it: and therefore I am betterthan those, who through incontinence of mind cannot do what I do; not thanthose, who, on account of difference of time, did not do what I do. For whatI now do, they would have done better, if it had been to be done at thattime; but what they did, I should not so do, although it were now to bedone. Or, if he feels and knows himself to be such, as that, (the virtue ofcontinence being preserved and continued in the habit of his mind, in casehe had descended unto the use of marriage from some duty of religion,) heshould be such an husband, and such a father, as Abraham was; let him dareto make plain answer to that captious questioner, and to say, I am notindeed better than Abraham, only in this kind of continence, of which he wasnot void, although it appeared not: but I am such, not having other than he,but doing other. Let him say this plainly: forasmuch as, even if he shallwish to glory, he will not be a fool, for he saith the truth. But if hespare, lest any think of him above what he sees him, [1] or hears any thing of him; lethim remove from his own person the knot of the question, and let him answer,not concerning the man, but concerning the thing itself, and let him say,Whoso hath so great power is such as Abraham. But it may happen that thevirtue of continence is less in his mind, who uses not marriage, whichAbraham used: but yet it is greater than in his mind, who on this accountheld chastity of marriage, in that he could not a greater. Thus also let theunmarried woman, whose thoughts are of the things of the Lord, that she maybe holy both in body and spirit, [2] when she shall have heard thatshameless questioner saying, What, then, are you better than Sara? answer, Iam better, but than those, who are void of the virtue of continence, which Ibelieve not of Sara: she therefore together with this virtue did what wassuited to that time, from which I am free, that in my body also may appear,what she kept in her mind.

28. Therefore, if we compare thethings themselves, we may no way doubt that the chastity of continence isbetter than marriage chastity, whilst yet both are good: but when we comparethe persons, he is better, who hath a greater good than another. Further, hewho 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 insixty, thirty also are contained, not sixty also in thirty. But not to workfrom out that which he hath, stands in the allotment of duties, not in thewant of virtues: forasmuch as neither is he without the good of mercy, whofinds not wretched persons such as he may mercifully assist.

29. And there is this further, thatmen are not rightly compared with men in regard of some one good. For it maycome 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 thanof continence. For marriage is in no place condemned by authority of ourScriptures, but disobedience is in no place acquitted. If therefore there beset before us a virgin about to continue so, but yet disobedient, and amarried woman who could not continue a virgin, but yet obedient, which shallwe call better? shall it be (the one) less praiseworthy, than if she were avirgin, or (the other) worthy of blame, even as she is a virgin? So, if youcompare a drunken virgin with a sober married woman, who can doubt to passthe same sentence? Forsooth marriage and virginity are two goods, whereofthe one is greater; but sobriety and drunkenness, even as obedience andstubbornness, are, the one good, and the other evil. But it is better tohave 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 statureof Zacchæus with sound health, than that of Goliah withfever.

30. The right question plainly is,not whether a virgin every way disobedient is to be compared to an obedientmarried woman, but a less obedient to a more obedient: forasmuch as thatalso 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 isgreater in the good of chastity, be compared with the other, which of themis to be preferred that person judges, who in the first place comparingchastity itself and obedience, sees that obedience is in a certain way themother of all virtues. And therefore, for this reason, there may beobedience without virginity, because virginity is of counsel, not ofprecept. But I call that obedience, whereby precepts are complied with. And,therefore, there may be obedience to precepts without virginity, but notwithout chastity. For it pertains unto chastity, not to commit fornication,not to commit adultery, to be defiled by no unlawful intercourse: and whosoobserve not these, do contrary to the precepts of God, and on this accountare banished from the virtue of obedience. But there may be virginity without obedience, on this account, because it ispossible for a woman, having received the counsel of virginity, and havingguarded virginity, to slight precepts: even as we have known many sacredvirgins, talkative, curious, drunken, litigious, covetous, proud: all whichare contrary to precepts, and slay one, even as Eve herself, by the crime ofdisobedience. Wherefore not only is the obedient to be preferred to thedisobedient, but a more obedient married woman to a less obedientvirgin.

31. From this obedience that Father,who was not without a wife, was prepared to be without an only son, [1] and that slain by himself. For Ishall not without due cause call him an only son, concerning whom he heardthe Lord say, “In Isaac shall there be called for thee aseed. [2] ” Therefore how much sooner would he hear it, thathe should be even without a wife, if this he were bidden? Wherefore it isnot without reason that we often consider, that some of both sexes,containing from all sexual intercourse, are negligent in obeying precepts,after having with so great warmth caught at the not making use of thingsthat are allowed. Whence who doubts that we do not rightly compare unto theexcellence of those holy fathers and mothers begetting sons, the men andwomen of our time, although free from all intercourse, yet in virtue ofobedience inferior: even if there had been wanting to those men in habit ofmind also, what is plain in the deed of the latter. Therefore let thesefollow the Lamb, boys singing the new song, as it is written in theApocalypse, “who have not defiled themselves withwomen:” [3] for no other reason than thatthey have continued virgins. Nor let them on this account think themselvesbetter than the first holy fathers, who used marriage, so to speak, afterthe fashion of marriage. Forsooth the use of it is such, as that, if in itthere hath taken place through carnal intercourse aught which exceedsnecessity of begetting, although in a way that deserves pardon, there ispollution. For what doth pardon expiate, if that advance cause no pollutionwhatever? From which pollution it were strange if boys following the Lambwere free, unless they continued virgins.

32. Therefore the good of marriagethroughout all nations and all men stands in the occasion of begetting, andfaith of chastity: but, so far as pertains unto the People of God, also inthe sanctity of the Sacrament, by reason of which it is unlawful for one wholeaves her husband, even when she has been put away, to be married toanother, so long as her husband lives, no not even for the sake of bearingchildren: and, whereas this is the alone cause, wherefore marriage takesplace, not even where that very thing, wherefore it takes place, followsnot, 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 toform a congregation of people, although the congregation of people follownot, 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 bewithout the Sacrament of the Lord once for all set upon him, albeitcontinuing unto condemnation. Therefore that marriage takes place for thesake of begetting children, the Apostle is a witness thus, “Iwill,” says he, “that the younger women bemarried.” And, as though it were said to him, For what purpose?straightway he added, “to have children, to be mothers offamilies.” 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 thewife.” [4] Butunto the sanctity of the Sacrament that saying, “The wife not todepart from her husband, but, in case she shall have departed, to remainunmarried, or to be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband putaway his wife.” [5] All these are goods, onaccount of which marriage is a good; offspring, faith, sacrament. But now,at this time, not to seek offspring after the flesh, and by this means tomaintain a certain perpetual freedom from every such work, and to be madesubject after a spiritual manner unto one Husband Christ, is assuredlybetter and holier; provided, that is, men so use that freedom, as it iswritten, so as to have their thoughts of the things of the Lord, how toplease the Lord; that is, that Continence [6] at all times do take thought,that obedience fall not short in any matter: and this virtue, as theroot-virtue, and (as it is wont to be called) the womb, and clearlyuniversal, the holy fathers of old exercised in deed; but that Continencethey possessed in habit of mind. Who assuredly, through that obedience,whereby they were just and holy, and ever prepared unto every good work,even if they were bidden to abstain from all sexual intercourse, wouldperform it. For how much more easily could they, at the bidding or exhortation of God, not use sexual intercourse,who, as an act of obedience, could slay the child, for the begetting ofwhich alone they used the ministry of sexual intercourse?

33. And, the case being thus, enoughand more than enough answer has been made to the heretics, whether they beManichees, or whosoever other that bring false charges against the Fathersof the Old Testament, on the subject of their having several wives, thinkingthis a proof whereby to convict them of incontinence: provided, that is,that they perceive, that that is no sin, which is committed neither againstnature, in that they used those women not for wantonness, but for thebegetting of children: nor against custom, forasmuch as such things wereusually done at those times: nor against command, forasmuch as they wereforbidden by no law. But such as used women unlawfully, either the divinesentence in those Scriptures convicts them, or the reading sets them forthfor us to condemn and shun, not to approve or imitate.

34. But those of ours who have wiveswe advise, with all our power, that they dare not to judge of those holyfathers after their own weakness, comparing, as the Apostle says, themselveswith themselves; [1] andtherefore, not understanding how great strength the soul hath, doing serviceunto righteousness against lusts, that it acquiesce not in carnal motions ofthis sort, or suffer them to glide on or advance unto sexual intercoursebeyond the necessity of begetting children, so far as the order of nature,so far as the use of custom, so far as the decrees of laws prescribe.Forsooth it is on this account that men have this suspicion concerning thosefathers, in that they themselves have either chosen marriage throughincontinence, or use their wives with intemperance. But however let such asare continent, either men, who, on the death of their wives, or, women, who,on the death of their husbands, or both, who, with mutual consent, havevowed continence unto God, know that to them indeed there is due a greaterrecompense than marriage chastity demands; but, (as regards) the marriagesof the holy Fathers, who were joined after the manner of prophecy, whoneither in sexual intercourse sought aught save children, nor in childrenthemselves aught save what should set forward Christ coming hereafter in theflesh, not only let them not despise them in comparison of their ownpurpose, but let them without any doubting prefer them even to their ownpurpose.

35. Boys also and virgins dedicatingunto God actual chastity we do before all things admonish, that they beaware that they must guard their life meanwhile upon earth with so greathumility, by how much the more what they have vowed is heavenly. Forsooth itis written, “How great soever thou art, by so much humble thyselfin all things.” [2] Therefore it is our part tosay something of their greatness, it is their part to have thought of greathumility. Therefore, except certain, those holy fathers and mothers who weremarried, than whom these although they be not married are not better, forthis reason, that, if they were married, they would not be equal, let themnot doubt that they surpass all the rest of this time, either married, orafter trial made of marriage, exercising continence; not so far as Annasurpasses Susanna; but so far as Mary surpasses both. I am speaking of whatpertains unto the holy chastity itself of the flesh; for who knows not, whatother deserts Mary hath? Therefore let them add to this so high purposeconduct suitable, that they may have an assured security of the surpassingreward; knowing of a truth, that, unto themselves and unto all the faithful,beloved and chosen members of Christ, coming many from the East, and fromthe West, although shining with light of glory that differeth one fromanother, according to their deserts, there is this great gift bestowed incommon, to sit down in the kingdom of God with Abraham, and Isaac, andJacob, [3] who not for the sake of this world, but for the sake of Christ, werehusbands, for the sake of Christ were fathers.

ST. AUGUSTIN: OF HOLY VIRGINITY. [DEVIRGINITATE.]

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 Ishould write on Holy Virginity; and I did not delay to do so: and thatit is God’s gift, and how great a gift, and with whathumility 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 ofMarriage,” in which also we admonished and admonish the virginsof Christ, not, on account of that greater gift which they have received, todespise, in comparison of themselves, the fathers and mothers of the Peopleof God; and not to think those men, [1] (whom the Apostle sets forthas the olive, that the engrafted wild olive be not proud,) who did serviceto Christ about to come hereafter, even by the begetting of sons, on thisaccount of less desert, because by divine right continence is preferred towedded life, and pious virginity to marriage. Forsooth in them were beingprepared and brought forth future things, which now we see fulfilled in amarvellous and effectual manner, whose married life also was prophetic:whence, not after the wonted custom of human wishes and joys, but by thevery deep counsel of God, in certain of them fruitfulness obtained to behonored, in certain also barrenness to be made fruitful. But at this time,towards them unto whom it is said, “if they contain not, let thembe married,” [2] we must use not consolation,but exhortation. But them, unto whom it is said, “Whoso canreceive, let him receive,” [3] we must exhort, that they be notalarmed; and alarm that they be not lifted up. Wherefore virginity is notonly to be set forth, that it may be loved, but also to be admonished, thatit be not puffed up.

2. This we have undertaken in ourpresent discourse: may Christ help us, the Son of a virgin, and the Spouseof virgins, born after the flesh of a virgin womb, and wedded after theSpirit in virgin marriage. Whereas, therefore, the whole Church itself is avirgin espoused unto one Husband Christ, [4] as the Apostle saith, of howgreat honor are its members worthy, who guard this even in the flesh itself,which the whole Church guards in the faith? which imitates the mother of herhusband, and her Lord. For the Church also is both a mother and a virgin.For whose virgin purity consult we for, if she is not a virgin? or whosechildren address we, if she is not a mother? Mary bare the Head of This Bodyafter the flesh, the Church bears the members of that Body after the Spirit.In both virginity hinders not fruitfulness: in both fruitfulness takes notaway virginity. Wherefore, whereas the whole Church is holy both in body andspirit, and yet the whole is not virgin in body but in spirit; how much more holy is it in these members, wherein it isvirgin both in body and spirit?

3. It is written in the Gospel, ofthe 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 forthHis Hand over His disciples, He saith, These are My brethren: and whosoevershall have done the will of My Father, that man is to Me brother, andmother, and sister.” [1] What else teaching us, thanto prefer to kindred after the flesh, our descent after the Spirit: and thatmen are not blessed for this reason, that they are united by nearness offlesh unto just and holy men, but that, by obeying and following, theycleave unto their doctrine and conduct. Therefore Mary is more blessed inreceiving the faith of Christ, than in conceiving the flesh of Christ. Forto a certain one who said, “Blessed is the womb, which bareThee,” [2] He Himself made answer, “Yea, rather, blessed are they who hearthe Word of God, and keep it.” Lastly, to His brethren, that is,His kindred after the flesh, who believed not in Him, what profit was therein that being of kin? Thus also her nearness as a Mother would have been ofno profit to Mary, had she not borne Christ in her heart after a moreblessed manner than in her flesh.

4. Her virginity also itself was onthis account more pleasing and accepted, in that it was not that Christbeing conceived in her, rescued it beforehand from a husband who wouldviolate 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 bythe words which Mary spake in answer to the Angel announcing to her herconception; “How,” saith she, “shall thisbe, seeing I know not a man?” [3] Which assuredly she would not say,unless she had before vowed herself unto God as a virgin. But, because thehabits of the Israelites as yet refused this, she was espoused to a justman, who would not take from her by violence, but rather guard againstviolent persons, what she had already vowed. Although, even if she had saidthis only, “How shall this take place?” and had notadded, “seeing I know not a man,” certainly she wouldnot have asked, how, being a female, she should give birth to her promisedSon, if she had married with purpose of sexual intercourse. She might havebeen bidden also to continue a virgin, that in her by fitting miracle theSon of God should receive the form of a servant, but, being to be a patternto holy virgins, lest it should be thought that she alone needed to be avirgin, who had obtained to conceive a child even without sexualintercourse, she dedicated her virginity to God, when as yet she knew notwhat she should conceive, in order that the imitation of a heavenly life inan earthly and mortal body should take place of vow, not of command; throughlove of choosing, not through necessity of doing service. Thus Christ bybeing born of a virgin, who, before she knew Who was to be born of her, haddetermined to continue a virgin, chose rather to approve, than to command,holy virginity. And thus, even in the female herself, in whom He took theform of a servant, He willed that virginity should be free.

5. There is, therefore, no reasonwhy the virgins of God be sad, because themselves also cannot, keeping theirvirginity, be mothers of the flesh. For Him alone could virginity give birthto 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; andthemselves together with Mary are mothers of Christ, if they do the will ofHis Father. For Mary also is on this account the Mother of Christ in a waymore full of praise and blessing, according to His sentence mentioned above.“Whosoever doeth the will of my Father Who is in heaven, that oneis to Me brother, and sister, and mother.” All these degrees ofnearness of kin to Himself, He shows forth in a spiritual manner, in thePeople whom He hath redeemed: as brothers and sisters He hath holy men andholy women, forasmuch as they all are co-heirs in the heavenly inheritance.His mother is the whole Church, because she herself assuredly gives birth toHis members, that is, His faithful ones. Also His mother is every pioussoul, doing the will of His Father with most fruitful charity, in them ofwhom it travaileth, until Himself [4] be formed in them. Mary,therefore, doing the will of God, after the flesh, is only the mother ofChrist, but after the Spirit she is both His sister and mother.

6. And on this account, that onefemale, not only in the Spirit, but also in the flesh, is both a mother anda virgin. And a mother indeed in the Spirit, not of our Head, Which is theSaviour Himself, of Whom rather she was born after the Spirit: forasmuch asall, who have believed in Him, among whom isherself also, are rightly called “children of theBridegroom:” [1] but clearly the mother of His members, whichare we: in that she wrought together by charity, that faithful ones shouldbe born in the Church, who are members of That Head: but in the flesh, themother of the Head Himself. For it behoved that our Head, on account of anotable miracle, should be born after the flesh of a virgin, that He mightthereby signify that His members would be born after the Spirit, of theChurch a virgin: therefore Mary alone both in Spirit and in flesh is amother and a virgin: both the mother of Christ, and a virgin of Christ; butthe Church, in the Saints who shall possess the kingdom of God, in theSpirit indeed is altogether the mother of Christ, altogether a virgin ofChrist: but in the flesh not altogether, but in certain a virgin of Christ,in certain a mother, but not of Christ. Forsooth both faithful women who aremarried, and virgins dedicated to God, by holy manners, and charity out of apure heart, [2] andgood conscience, and faith unfeigned, because they do the will of theFather, are after a spiritual sense mothers of Christ. But they who inmarried life give birth to (children) after the flesh, give birth not toChrist, but to Adam, and therefore run, that their offspring having beendyed [3] in His Sacraments, may become members ofChrist, forasmuch as they know what they have given birth to.

7. I have said this, lest haplymarried fruitfulness dare to vie with virgin chastity, and to set forth Maryherself, and to say unto the virgins of God, She had in her flesh two thingsworthy of honor, virginity and fruitfulness; inasmuch as she both continueda 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 toyou in children, let your virginity, that hath been preserved, be aconsolation: for us, let the gain of children make up for our lostvirginity. This speech of faithful women married, unto holy virgins, wouldany 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 fleshshould be more excellent, that she gave birth to the Head Himself of thesemembers, but they to the members of That Head: but now, although by thisspeech there vie such as on this one account wed and have intercourse withhusbands, 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 notChristians born of their flesh, but made so afterwards: the Church givingthem birth, through this, that in a spiritual manner she is the mother ofthe members of Christ, of Whom also after a spiritual manner she is thevirgin. And unto this holy birth mothers also who have not borne in theflesh Christians, are workers together, that they may become what they knowthat they could not give birth to in the flesh: yet are they workerstogether through this, wherein themselves also are virgins and mothers [4] of Christ, that is to say, in “faith whichworketh through love.” [5]

8. Therefore no fruitfulness of theflesh can be compared to holy virginity even of the flesh. For neither isitself also honored because it is virginity, but because it hath beendedicated to God, and, although it be kept in the flesh, yet is it kept byreligion and devotion of the Spirit. And by this means even virginity ofbody is spiritual, which continence of piety vows and keeps. For, even as noone makes an immodest use of the body, unless the sin have been beforeconceived in the spirit, so no one keeps modesty in the body, unlesschastity have been before implanted in the spirit. But, further, if modestyof married life, although it be guarded in the flesh, is yet attributed tothe soul, not to the flesh, under the rule and guidance of which, the fleshitself hath no intercourse with any beside its own proper estate ofmarriage; how much more, and with how much greater honor, are we to reckonamong the goods of the soul that continence, whereby the virgin purity ofthe flesh is vowed, consecrated, and kept, for the Creator Himself of thesoul and flesh.

9. Wherefore neither are we tobelieve that their fruitfulness of the flesh, who at this time seek inmarriage nothing else save children, to make over unto Christ, can be setagainst the loss of virginity. Forsooth, in former times, unto Christ aboutto come after the flesh, the race itself of the flesh was needful, in acertain large and prophetic nation: but now, when from out every race ofmen, and from out all nations, members of Christ may be gathered unto thePeople of God, and City of the kingdom of heaven, whoso can receive sacredvirginity, let him receive it; and let her only, who contains not, bemarried. [6] For what, if any rich woman were to expend much moneyon this good work, and to buy, from out different nations, slaves to make Christians, will she not provide for the givingbirth to members of Christ in a manner more rich, and more numerous, than byany, how great soever, fruitfulness of the womb? And yet she will nottherefore dare to compare her money to the offering [1] of holyvirginity. But if for the sake of making such as shall be born Christians,fruitfulness of the flesh shall with just reason be set against the loss ofchastity, this matter will be more fruitful, if virginity be lost at a greatprice of money, whereby many more children may be purchased to be madeChristians, than could be born from the womb, however fruitful, of a singleperson. But, if it be extreme folly to say this, let the faithful women thatare married possess their own good, of which we have treated, so far asseemed fit, in another volume; and let them more highly honor, even as theyare most rightly used to do, in the sacred virgins, their better good, ofwhich we are treating in our present discourse.

10. For not even herein ought suchas are married to compare themselves with the deserts of the continent, inthat of them virgins are born: for this is not a good of marriage, but ofnature: which was so ordered of God, as that of every sexual intercoursewhatever of the two sexes of human kind, whether in due order and honest, orbase and unlawful, there is born no female save a virgin, yet is none born asacred virgin: so it is brought to pass that a virgin is born even offornication, but a sacred virgin not even of marriage.

11. Nor do we ourselves set forththis in virgins, that they are virgins; but that they are virgins dedicatedunto God by pious continence. For it is not at a venture that I may say, amarried woman seems to me happier than a virgin about to be married: for theone hath what the other as yet desires, especially if she be not yet eventhe betrothed of any one. The one studies to please one, unto whom she hathbeen given; the other many, in doubt unto whom she is to be given: by thisone 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 withgood reason set before a married woman, who neither sets herself forth forthe multitude to love, whereas she seeks from out the multitude the love ofone; nor, having now found him, orders herself [2] for one,taking thought of the things of the world, “how to please herhusband;” [3] but hath so loved“Him of fair beauty above the sons of men,” [4] asthat, because she could not, even as Mary, conceive Him in her flesh, shehath kept her flesh also virgin for Him conceived in her heart. This kind ofvirgins no fruitfulness of the body hath given birth to: this is no progenyof flesh and blood. If of these the mother be sought for, it is the Church.None bears sacred virgins save a sacred virgin, she who hath been espousedto be presented chaste unto one Husband, Christ. [5] Of her, not altogether in body,but altogether in spirit virgin, are born holy virgins both in body and inspirit.

12. Let marriages possess their owngood, not that they beget sons, but that honestly, that lawfully, thatmodestly, that in a spirit of fellowship they beget them, and educate them,after they have been begotten, with coöperation, with wholesometeaching, and earnest purpose: in that they keep the faith of the couch onewith another; in that they violate not the sacrament of wedlock. All these,however, are offices of human duty: but virginal chastity and freedomthrough pious continence from all sexual intercourse is the portion ofAngels, and a practice, [6] incorruptible flesh, of perpetual incorruption. To this let all fruitfulnessof the flesh yield, all chastity of married life; the one is not in(man’s) power, the other is not in eternity; free choice hath notfruitfulness of the flesh, heaven hath not chastity of married life.Assuredly they will have something great beyond others in that commonimmortality, who have something already not of the flesh in the flesh.

13. Whence they are marvellouslyvoid of wisdom, who think that the good of this continence is not necessaryfor the sake of the kingdom of heaven, but for the sake of the presentworld: in that, forsooth, married persons are strained different ways byearthly cares more and more straitened, from which trouble virgins andcontinent persons are free: as though on this account only it were betternot to be married, that the straits of this present time may be escaped, notthat it is of any profit unto a future life. And, that they may not seem tohave put forth this vain opinion from out the vanity of their own heart,they take the Apostle to witness, where he saith, “But concerningvirgins I have not command of the Lord, but I give counsel, as havingobtained mercy from God to be faithful. Therefore I think that this is goodon account of the present necessity, because it is good for a man so tobe.” [7] Lo, say they, where theApostle shows “that this is good on account of the presentnecessity,” not on account of the future eternity. As though theApostle would have regard for the present necessity, otherwise than asproviding and consulting for the future; whereas all his dealing [1] calls not save unto lifeeternal.

14. It is, therefore, the presentnecessity that we are to avoid, but yet such as is a hindrance to somewhatof the good things to come; by which necessity the married life is forced tohave thought of the things of the world, how to please, the husband thewife, or the wife the husband. Not that these separate from the kingdom ofGod, as there are sins, which are restrained by command, not by counsel, onthis account, because it is matter of condemnation not to obey the Lord whenHe commands: but that, which, within the kingdom of God itself, might bemore largely possessed, if there were larger thoughts how they were toplease God, will assuredly be less, when as this very thing is less thoughtof by necessity of marriage. Therefore he says, “Concerningvirgins I have not command of the Lord.” [2] For whosoever obeys not acommand, is guilty and liable for punishment. Wherefore, because it is notsin to marry a wife or to be married, (but if it were a sin, it would beforbidden by a “Command,”) on this account there is no“Command” of the Lord concerning virgins. But since,after we have shunned or had forgiveness of sins, we must approach eternallife, wherein is a certain or more excellent glory, to be assigned not untoall who shall live for ever, but unto certain there; in order to obtainwhich it is not enough to have been set free from sins, unless there bevowed unto Him, Who setteth us free, something, which it is no matter offault not to have vowed, but matter of praise to have vowed and performed;he saith, “I give counsel, as having obtained mercy from God thatI should be faithful.” For neither ought I to grudge faithfulcounsel, who not by my own merits, but by the mercy of God, am faithful.“I think therefore that this is good, by reason of the presentnecessity.” [3] This, saith he, on which Ihave not command of the Lord, but give counsel, that is concerning virgins,I think to be good by reason of the present necessity. For I know what thenecessity of the present time, unto which marriages serve, compels, that thethings of God be less thought of than is enough for the obtaining thatglory, which shall not be of all, although they abide in eternal life andsalvation: “For star differeth from star in brightness; so alsothe Resurrection of the dead. [4] It is,”therefore, “good for a man so to be.”

15. After that the same Apostleadds, and says, “Thou art bound to a wife, seek not loosening:thou art loosed from a wife, seek not a wife.” [5] Ofthese two, that, which he set first, pertains unto command, against which itis not lawful to do. For it is not lawful to put away a wife, save becauseof fornication, [6] asthe Lord Himself saith in the Gospel. But that, which he added,“Thou art loosed from a wife, seek not a wife,” is asentence of counsel, not of command; therefore it is lawful to do, but it isbetter not to do. Lastly, he added straightway, “Both if thoushalt have taken a wife, thou hast not sinned; and, if a virgin shall havebeen married, she sinneth not.” [7] But, after that formersaying of his, “Thou art bound to a wife, seek notloosening,” he added not, did he, “And if thou shalthave loosed, thou hast not sinned?” For he had already saidabove, “But to these, who are in marriage, I command, not I, butthe Lord, that the wife depart not from her husband: but, if she shall havedeparted, that she remain unmarried, or be reconciled unto her ownhusband;” for it may come to pass that she depart, not throughany fault of her own, but of her husband. Then he saith, “And letnot the man put away his wife,” which, nevertheless, he set downof command of the Lord: nor did he then add, And, if he shall have put heraway, he sinneth not. For this is a command, not to obey which is sin: not acounsel, which if you shall be unwilling to use, you will obtain less good,not do any ill. On this account, after he had said, “Thou artloosed from a wife, seek not a wife;” because he was not givingcommand, in order that there be not evil done, but was giving counsel, inorder that there be done what is better: straightway he added,“Both, if thou shalt have taken a wife, thou hast not sinned;and, if a virgin shall have been married, she sinneth not.”

16. Yet he added, “Butsuch shall have tribulation of the flesh, but I spare you:” [8] inthis manner exhorting unto virginity, and continual continence, so as somelittle to alarm also from marriage, with all modesty, not as from a matterevil and unlawful, but as from one burdensome and troublesome. For it is onething to incur dishonor of the flesh, and another to have tribulation of theflesh: the one is matter of crime to do, theother of labor to suffer, which for the most part men refuse not even forthe most honorable duties. But for the having of marriage, now at this time,wherein there is no service done unto Christ about to come through descentof flesh by the begetting of the family itself, to take upon one to bearthat tribulation of the flesh, which the Apostle foretells to such as shallbe married, would be extremely foolish, did not incontinent persons fear,lest, through the temptation of Satan, they should fall into damnable sins.But whereas he says that he spares them, who he saith will have tribulationof the flesh, there suggests itself to me in the mean while no sounderinterpretation, than that he was unwilling to open, and unfold in words,this self-same tribulation of the flesh, which he fore-announced to thosewho choose marriage, in suspicions of jealousy of married life, in thebegetting and nurture of children, in fears and sorrows of childlessness.For how very few, after they have bound themselves with the bonds ofmarriage, are not drawn and driven to and fro by these feelings? And this weought not to exaggerate, lest we spare not the very persons, who the Apostlethought were to be spared.

17. Only by this, which I havebriefly set down, the reader ought to be set on his guard against those,who, in this that is written, “but such shall have tribulation ofthe flesh, but I spare you,” falsely charge marriage, asindirectly condemned by this sentence; as though he were unwilling to utterthe condemnation itself, when he saith, “But I spareyou;” so that, forsooth, when he spares them, he spared not hisown soul, as saying falsely, “And, if thou shalt have taken awife, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin shall have been married, shesinneth not.” And this, whoso believe or would have believedconcerning holy Scripture, they, as it were, prepare for themselves a wayfor liberty of lying, or for defense of their own perverse opinion, inwhatever 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, wherebydefending themselves as it were against the truth, they lay themselves bareto be wounded by the devil: to say that the author of the book did not speakthe truth in this instance, at one time in order to spare the weak, atanother in order to alarm despisers: just as a case shall come to hand,wherein to defend their own perverse opinion: and thus, whilst they hadrather defend than amend their own opinions, they essay to break theauthority of holy Scripture, whereby alone all proud and hard necks arebroken.

18. Wherefore I admonish both menand women who follow after perpetual continence and holy virginity, thatthey so set their own good before marriage, as that they judge not marriagean evil: and that they understand that it was in no way of deceit, but ofplain truth that it was said by the Apostle, “Whoso gives inmarriage does well; and whoso gives not in marriage, does better; and, ifthou shalt have taken a wife, thou hast not sinned; and, if a virgin shallhave been married, she sinneth not;” [1] and a little after,“But she will be more blessed, if she shall have continued so,according to my judgment.” And, that the judgment should not bethought human, he adds, “But I think I also have the Spirit ofGod.” This is the doctrine of the Lord, this of the Apostles,this true, this sound, so to choose greater gifts, as that the lesser be notcondemned. The truth of God, in the Scripture of God, is better thanvirginity of man in the mind or flesh of any. Let what is chaste be soloved, as that what is true be not denied. For what evil thought may theynot have even concerning their own flesh, who believe that the tongue of theApostle, in that very place, wherein he was commending virginity of body,was not virgin from corruption of lying. In the first place, therefore, andchiefly, let such as choose the good of virginity, hold most firmly that theholy Scriptures have in nothing spoken lies; and, thus, that that also istrue which is said, “And if thou shalt have taken a wife, thouhast not sinned; and, if a virgin shall have been married, she sinnethnot.” And let them not think that the so great good of virginchastity is made less, if marriage shall not be an evil. Yea rather, let herhence feel confident, rather, that there is prepared for her a palm ofgreater glory, who feared not to be condemned, in case she were married, butdesired to receive a more honorable crown, in that she was not married.Whoso therefore shall be willing to abide without marriage, let them notflee from marriage as a pitfall of sin; but let them surmount it as a hillof the lesser good, in order that they may rest in the mountain of thegreater, continence. It is on this condition, forsooth, that this hill isdwelt on; that one leave it not when he will. For, “a woman isbound, so long as her husband liveth.” [2] However unto widowedcontinence one ascends from it as from a step: but for the sake of virgincontinence, one must either turn aside from it by not consenting to suitors,or overleap it by anticipating suitors.

19. But lest any should think thatof two works, the good and the better, the rewards will be equal, on thisaccount it was necessary to treat against those, who have so interpretedthat saying of the Apostle, “But I think that this is good byreason of the present necessity,” [1] as to say that virginity is ofuse not in order to the kingdom of heaven, but in order to this presenttime: as though in that eternal life, they, who had chosen this better part,would have nothing more than the rest of men. And in this discussion when wecame to that saying of the same Apostle, “But such shall havetribulation of the flesh, but I spare you;” [2] we fell in with otherdisputants, who so far from making marriage equal to perpetual virginity,altogether condemned it. For whereas both are errors, either to equalmarriage to holy virginity, or to condemn it: by fleeing from one another toexcess, these two errors come into open collision, in that they have beenunwilling to hold the mean of truth: whereby, both by sure reason andauthority of holy Scriptures, we both discover that marriage is not a sin,and yet equal it not to the good either of virginal or even of widowedchastity. Some forsooth by aiming at virginity have thought marriage hatefuleven as adultery: but others, by defending marriage, would have theexcellence of perpetual continence to deserve nothing more than marriedchastity; as though either the good of Susanna be the lowering of Mary: orthe greater good of Mary ought to be the condemnation of Susanna.

20. Far be it, therefore, that theApostle so said, unto such as are married or are about to marry,“But I spare you,” as if he were unwilling to say whatpunishment is due to the married in another life. Far be it that she, whomDaniel set free from temporal judgment, be cast by Paul into hell! Far be itthat her husband’s bed be unto her punishment before the judgmentseat of Christ, keeping faith to which she chose, under false charge ofadultery, 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 thesight of God:” [3] if God had been about, notto set her free because she kept married chastity, but to condemn herbecause she had married? And now so often as married chastity is by truth ofholy Scripture justified against such as bring calumnies and charges againstmarriage, so often is Susanna by the Holy Spirit defended against falsewitnesses, so often is she set free from a false charge, and with muchgreater ado. For then against one married woman, now against all; then ofhidden and untrue adultery, now of true and open marriage, an accusation islaid. Then one woman, upon what the unjust elders said, now all husbands andwives, upon what the Apostle would not say, are accused. It was, forsooth,your condemnation, say they, that he was silent on, when he said,“But I spare you.” Who (saith) this? Surely he, whohad said above; “And, if thou shalt have taken a wife, thou hastnot sinned; and, if a virgin shall have been married, she sinnethnot.” [4] Why, therefore, wherein he hath been silent through modesty, suspect ye acharge against marriage; and wherein he hath spoken openly, recognize ye nota defense of marriage? What, doth he condemn by his silence them whom heacquitted by his words? Is it not now a milder charge, to charge Susanna,not with marriage, but with adultery itself, than to charge the doctrine ofthe Apostle with falsehood? What in so great peril could we do, were it notas sure and plain that chaste marriage ought not to be condemned, as it issure and plain that holy Scripture cannot lie?

21. Here some one will say, What hasthis to do with holy virginity, or perpetual continence, the setting forthof which was undertaken in this discourse? To whom I make answer in thefirst place, what I mentioned above, that the glory of that greater good isgreater from the fact that, in order to obtain it, the good of married lifeis surmounted, not the sin of marriage shunned. Otherwise it would be enoughfor perpetual continence, not to be specially praised, but only not to beblamed: if it were maintained on this account, because it was a crime towed. In the next place, because it is not by human judgment, but byauthority of Divine Scripture, that men must be exhorted unto so excellent agift, we must plead not in a common-place manner, or merely by the way, thatdivine Scripture itself seem not to any one in any matter to have lied. Forthey discourage rather than exhort holy virgins, who compel them to continueso by passing sentence on marriage. For whence can they feel sure that thatis true, which is written, “And he, who gives her not inmarriage, does better:” [5] if they think that false,which yet is written close above, “Both he, who gives his virgin,does well?” But, if they shall without all doubt have believedScripture speaking of the good of marriage, confirmed by the same most trueauthority of the divine oracle, they will hasten beyond unto their ownbetter part with glowing and confident eagerness.Wherefore we have already spoken enough for the business which we have takenin hand, and, so far as we could, have shown, that neither that saying ofthe Apostle, “But I think that this is good by reason of thepresent necessity,” [1] is so to be understood, asthough in this life holy virgins are better than faithful women married, butare equal in the kingdom of heaven, and in a future life: nor that other,where he saith of such as wed, “But such shall have tribulationof the flesh, but I spare you;” [2] is to be so understood, asthough he chose rather to be silent on, than to speak of, the sin andcondemnation of marriage. Forsooth two errors, contrary the one to theother, have, through not understanding them, taken hold of each one of thesetwo sentences. For that concerning the present necessity they interpret intheir own favor, who contend to equal such as wed to such as wed not: butthis, where it is said, “But I spare you,” they whopresume to condemn such as wed. But we, according to the faith and sounddoctrine of holy Scriptures, both say that marriage is no sin, and yet setits good not only below virginal, but also below widowed continence; and saythat the present necessity of married persons is an hindrance to theirdesert, not indeed unto life eternal, but unto an excellent glory and honor,which is reserved for perpetual continence: and that at this time marriageis not expedient save for such as contain not; and that on the tribulationof the flesh, which cometh from the affection of the flesh, without whichmarriages of incontinent persons cannot be, the Apostle neither wished to besilent, as forewarning what was true, nor to unfold more fully, as sparingman’s weakness.

22. And now by plainest witnesses ofdivine Scriptures, such as according to the small measure of our memory weshall be able to remember, let it more clearly appear, that, not on accountof the present life of this world, but on account of that future life whichis 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 littleafter, “Whoso is without a wife has thought of the things of theLord, how to please the Lord: but whoso is joined in marriage has thought ofthe things of the world, how to please his wife. And a woman unmarried and avirgin is divided; [3] she that is unmarried is careful aboutthe things of the Lord, to be holy both in body and spirit: but she that ismarried is careful about the things of the world, how to please herhusband.” [4] Certainly he saithnot, hath thought of the things of a state without care in this world, topass her time without weightier troubles; nor doth he say that a womanunmarried and a virgin is divided, that is, distinguished, and separatedfrom her who is married, for this end, that the unmarried woman be withoutcare in this life, in order to avoid temporal troubles, which the marriedwoman is not free from: but, “She hath thought,” saithhe, “of the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord; and iscareful about the things of the Lord, to be holy both in body andspirit.” Unless to such a degree, perchance, each be foolishlycontentious, as to essay to assert, that it is not on account of the kingdomof heaven, but on account of this present world, that we wish to“please the Lord,” or that it is on account of thispresent life, not on account of life eternal, that they are “holyboth in body and spirit.” To believe this, what else is it, thanto be more miserable than all men? For so the Apostle saith, “Ifin this life only we are hoping in Christ, we are more miserable than allmen.” [5] What? is he who breaks his bread to the hungry, if he do it only on accountof this life, a fool; and shall he be prudent, who chastens his own bodyeven unto continence, whereby he hath no intercourse even in marriage, if itshall profit him nought in the kingdom of heaven?

23. Lastly, let us hear the LordHimself delivering most plain judgment on this matter. For, upon Hisspeaking after a divine and fearful manner concerning husband and wife notseparating, save on account of fornication, His disciples said to Him,“If the case be such with a wife, it is not good tomarry.” [6] To whom He saith,“Not all receive this saying. For there are eunuchs who were soborn: but there are others who were made by men: and there are eunuchs, whomade themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven: whoso canreceive, let him receive.” What could be said more true, whatmore clear? Christ saith, the Truth saith, the Power and Wisdom of Godsaith, that they, who of pious purpose have contained from marrying a wife,make themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven: and againstthis, human vanity with impious rashness contends, that they, who do so,shun only the present necessity of the troubles of married life, but in thekingdom of heaven have no more than others.

24. But concerning what eunuchsspeaketh God by the prophet Isaiah, unto whom Hesaith that He will give in His house and in His wall a place by name, muchbetter than of sons and daughters, [1] save concerning these, who make themselveseunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven? For for these, whose bodilyorgan is without strength, so that they cannot beget, (such as are theeunuchs of rich men and of kings,) it is surely enough, when they becomeChristians, and keep the commands of God, yet have this purpose, that, ifthey could, they would have wives, to be made equal to the rest of thefaithful in the house of God, who are married, who bring up in the fear ofGod a family which they have lawfully and chastely gotten, teaching theirsons to set their hope on God; but not to receive a better place than of sons and daughters. For it is not of virtueof the soul, but of necessity of the flesh, that they marry not wives. Letwho will contend that the Prophet foretold this of those eunuchs who havesuffered mutilation of body; that even also helps the cause which we haveundertaken. For God hath not preferred these eunuchs to such as have noplace in His house, but assuredly to those who keep the desert of marriedlife in begetting sons. For, when He saith, “I will give untothem a place much better;” He shows that one is also given untothe married, but much inferior. Therefore, to allow that in the house of Godthere will be the eunuchs after the flesh spoken of above, who were not inthe People of Israel: because we see that these also themselves, whereasthey become not Jews, yet become Christians: and that the Prophet spake notof them, who through purpose of continence seeking not marriage, makethemselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven: is any one somadly opposed to the truth as to believe that eunuchs made so in the fleshhave a better place than married persons in the house of God, and to contendthat persons being of pious purpose continent, chastening the body even untocontempt of marriage, making themselves eunuchs, not in the body, but in thevery root of concupiscence, practising an heavenly and angelic life in anearthly mortal state, are on a level with the deserts of the married; and,being a Christian, to gainsay Christ when He praises those who have madethemselves eunuchs, not for the sake of this world, but for the sake of thekingdom of heaven, affirming that this is of use for the present life, notfor a future? What else remains for these, save to assert that the kingdomof heaven itself pertains unto this temporal life, wherein we now are? Forwhy should not blind presumption advance even to this madness? And what morefull of phrensy than this assertion? For, although at times the Church, eventhat which is at this time, is called the kingdom of heaven; certainly it isso called for this end, because it is being gathered together for a futureand eternal life. Although, therefore, it have the promise of the present,and of a future life, yet in all its good works it looks not to“the things that are seen, but to what are not seen. For what areseen are temporal; but what are not seen, are eternal.” [2]

25. Nor indeed hath the Holy Spiritfailed to speak what should be of open and unshaken avail against these men,most shamelessly and madly obstinate, and should repel their assault, as ofwild beasts, from His sheep-fold, by defences that may not be stormed. For,after He had said concerning eunuchs, “I will give unto them inMy house and in My wall a named place, much better than of sons anddaughters;” [3] lest any too carnal should think that therewas any thing temporal to be hoped for in these words, straightway He added,“An eternal name I will give unto them, nor shall it everfail:” as though He should say, Why dost thou draw back, impiousblindness? Why dost thou draw back? Why dost thou pour the clouds of thyperverseness over the clear (sky) of truth? Why in so great light ofScriptures dost thou seek after darkness from out which to lay snares? Whydost thou promise temporal advantage only to holy persons exercisingcontinence? “An eternal name I will give unto them:”why, where persons keep from all sexual intercourse, and also in the veryfact that they abstain from these, have thought of the things of the Lord,how to please the Lord, do you essay to refer them unto earthly advantage?“An eternal name I will give unto them.” Why contendyou that the kingdom of heaven, for the sake of which holy eunuchs have madethemselves eunuchs, is to be understood in this life only? “Aneternal name I will give unto them.” And if haply in this placeyou endeavor to take the word itself eternal in the sense of lasting for along time, I add, I heap up, I tread in, “nor shall it everfail.” What more seek you? What more say you? This eternal name,whatever it be, unto the eunuchs of God, which assuredly signifies a certainpeculiar and excellent glory, shall not be in common with many, although setin the same kingdom, and in the same house. Foron this account also, perhaps, it is called a name, that it distinguishes those, to whom it is given, from the rest.

26. What then, say they, is themeaning of that penny, which is given in payment to all alike when the workof the vineyard is ended? whether it be to those who have labored from thefirst hour, or to those who have labored one hour? [1] What assuredly doth itsignify, but something, which all shall have in common, such as is lifeeternal itself, the kingdom of heaven itself, where shall be all, whom Godhath predestinated, called, justified, glorified? “For itbehoveth that this corruptible put on incorruption, and this mortal put onimmortality.” [2] This is that penny, wages forall. Yet “star differeth from star in glory; so also theresurrection of the dead.” [3] These are the differentmerits of the Saints. For, if by that penny the heaven were signified, havenot all the stars in common to be in the heaven? And yet, “Thereis one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, another of thestars.” If that penny were taken for health of body, have not allthe members, when we are well, health in common; and, should this healthcontinue even unto death, is it not in all alike and equally? And yet,“God hath set the members, each one of them, in the body, as Hewould;” [4] that neither the whole be aneye, nor the whole hearing, nor the whole smelling: and, whatever else thereis, it hath its own property, although it have health equally with all. Thusbecause life eternal itself shall be alike to all, an equal penny wasassigned to all; but, because in that life eternal itself the lights ofmerits shall shine with a distinction, there are “manymansions” in the house of the Father: [5] and, by this means, in the pennynot unlike, one lives not longer than another; but in the many mansions, oneis honored with greater brightness than another.

27. Therefore go on, Saints of God,boys and girls, males and females, unmarried men and women; go on andpersevere unto the end. Praise more sweetly the Lord, Whom ye think on morerichly: hope more happily in Him, Whom ye serve more instantly: love moreardently Him, whom ye please more attentively. With loins girded, and lampsburning, wait for the Lord, when He cometh from the marriage. [6] Ye shall bring unto the marriage of the Lamb a new song, which ye shall singon your harps. Not surely such as the whole earth singeth, unto which it issaid, “Sing unto the Lord a new song; sing unto the Lord, thewhole earth” [7] : but such as no one shall be ableto utter but you. For thus there saw you in the Apocalypse a certain one [8] beloved above others by the Lamb, who had been wont to lie on His breast,and who used to drink in, and burst [9] forth, the Word of God above wonders of heaven. He saw you twelve timestwelve thousand of holy harpers, of undefiled virginity in body, ofinviolate truth in heart; and he wrote of you, that ye follow the Lambwhithersoever He shall go. Where think we that This Lamb goeth, where no oneeither dares or is able to follow save you? Where think we that He goeth?Into what glades and meadows? Where, I think, the grass are joys; not vainjoys of this world, lying madnesses; nor joys such as shall be in thekingdom of God itself, for the rest that are not virgins; but distinct fromthe portion of joys of all the rest. Joy of the virgins of Christ, ofChrist, in Christ, with Christ, after Christ, through Christ, for Christ.The joys peculiar to the virgins of Christ, are not the same as of such asare not virgins, although of Christ. For there are to different personsdifferent joys, but to none such. Go (enter) into these, follow the Lamb,because the Flesh of the Lamb also is assuredly virgin. For this He retainedin Himself when grown up, which He took not away from His Mother by Hisconception and birth. Follow Him, as ye deserve, [10] in virginityof heart and flesh, wheresoever He shall have gone. For what is it tofollow, but to imitate? Because “Christ hath suffered forus,” [11] leaving us an example, as saith the Apostle Peter, “that weshould follow His steps.” Him each one follows in that, whereinhe imitates Him: not so far forth as He is the only Son of God, by Whom allthings were made; but so far forth as, the Son of Man, He set forth inHimself, what behoved for us to imitate. And many things in Him are setforth for all to imitate: but virginity of the flesh not for all; for theyhave not what to do in order to be virgins, in whom it hath been alreadybrought to pass that they be not virgins.

28. Therefore let the rest of thefaithful, who have lost virginity, follow the Lamb, not whithersoever Heshall have gone, but so far as ever they shall have been able. But they areable every where, save when He walks in the grace of virginity.“Blessed are the poor in spirit;” [12] imitate Him, Who,“whereas He was rich, was made poor for yoursakes,” [13] “Blessed are themeek;” imitate Him, Who said, “Learn of Me, for I ammeek and lowly of heart.” [1] “Blessed are they that mourn;” imitate Him, Who“wept over” Jerusalem. [2] “Blessed are they,who hunger and thirst after righteousness:” imitate Him, Whosaid, “My meat is to do the will of Him Who sentMe.” [3] “Blessed are the merciful;” imitate Him, Who came tothe help of him who was wounded by robbers, and who lay in the way half-deadand despaired of. [4] “Blessed are the pure in heart;” imitate Him,“Who did no sin, neither was guile found in Hismouth.” [5] “Blessed are thepeace-makers;” imitate Him, Who said on behalf of Hispersecutors, “Father, forgive them, for they know not what theydo.” [6] “Blessed are they, who suffer persecution for righteousnesssake;” imitate Him, Who “suffered for you, leaving youan example, that ye follow His steps.” [7] These things, whoso imitate,in these they follow the Lamb. But surely even married persons may go inthose steps, although not setting their foot perfectly in the sameprint, [8] yet walking in the same paths.

29. But, lo, That Lamb goeth by aVirgin road, how shall they go after Him, who have lost what there is no wayfor them to recover? Do ye, therefore, do ye go after Him, His virgins; doye thither also go after Him, in that on this one account whithersoever Heshall have gone, ye follow Him: for unto any other gift whatsoever ofholiness, whereby to follow Him, we can exhort married persons, save thiswhich 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 donothing, in order that it may return. The rest of the multitude of thefaithful will see you, which cannot unto this follow the Lamb; it will seeyou, it will not envy you: and by rejoicing together with you, what it hathnot in itself, it will have in you. For that new song also, which is yourown, it will not be able to utter; but it will not be unable to hear, and tobe delighted with your so excellent good: but ye, who shall both utter andhear, in that what ye shall say, this ye shall hear of yourselves, willexult with greater happiness, and reign with greater joy. But they will haveno 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 theLamb, of Whom we speak. He both will go before you, and will not depart fromthem, when God shall be all in all. [9] And they, who shall have less,shall not turn away in dislike from you: for, where there is no envying,difference exists with concord. Take to you, [10] then, havetrust, be strong, continue, ye who vow and pay unto the Lord your God vowsof perpetual continence, not for the sake of this present world, but for thesake of the kingdom of Heaven.

30. Ye also who have not yet madethis vow, who are able to receive it, receive it. [11] Run with perseverance, that yemay obtain. [12] Take ye each his sacrifices, and enter ye into the courts [13] ofthe Lord, not of necessity, having power over your own will. [14] For not as, “Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt notkill,” [15] can it so be said, Thou shalt not wed. The former are demanded, the latterare offered. If the latter are done, they are praised: unless the former aredone, they are condemned. In the former the Lord commands us what is due;but in the latter, if ye shall have spent any thing more, on His return Hewill repay you. [16] Think of(whatever that be) within His wall “a place named, much betterthan of sons and of daughters.” [17] Think of“an eternal name” there. [18] Who unfolds of what kind that nameshall be? Yet, whatever it shall be, it shall be eternal. By believing andhoping and loving this, ye have been able, not to shun marriage, asforbidden, but to fly past it, as allowed.

31. Whence the greatness of thisservice, [19] unto the undertaking of which we haveaccording to our strength exhorted, the more excellent and divine it is, themore doth it warn our anxiety, to say something not only concerning mostglorious chastity, but also concerning safest humility. When then such asmake profession of perpetual chastity, comparing themselves with marriedpersons, shall have discovered, that, according to the Scriptures, theothers are below both in work and wages, both in vow and reward, let what iswritten straightway come into their mind, “By how much thou artgreat, by so much humble thyself in all things: and thou shalt find favorbefore God.” [20] The measure of humility foreach hath been given from the measure of his greatness itself: unto whichpride is full of danger, which layeth the greater wait against persons thegreater they be. On this followeth envying, as a daughter in her train;forsooth pride straightway giveth birth to her,nor is she ever without such a daughter and companion. By which two evils,that is, pride and envying, is the devil (a devil). Therefore it is againstpride, the mother of envying, that the whole Christian discipline chieflywars. For this teaches humility, whereby both to gain and to keep charity;of which after that it had been said, “Charity enviethnot;” [1] as though we wereasking the reason, how it comes to pass that it envieth not, he straightwayadded, “is not puffed up;” as though he should say, onthis account it hath not envying, in that neither hath it pride. Thereforethe Teacher of humility, Christ, first “emptied Himself, takingthe form of a servant, made in the likeness of men, and found in fashion asa man, He humbled Himself, made obedient even unto death, even the death ofthe Cross.” [2] But His teaching itself, how carefully itsuggests humility, and how earnest and instant it is in commanding this, whocan easily unfold, and bring together all witnesses for proof of thismatter? This let him essay to do, or do, whosoever shall wish to write aseparate treatise on humility; but of this present work the end proposed isdifferent, and it hath been undertaken on a matter so great, as that it hathchiefly to guard against pride.

32. Wherefore a few witnesses, whichthe Lord deigns to suggest to my mind, I proceed to mention, from out theteaching of Christ concerning humility, such as perhaps may be enough for mypurpose. His discourse, the first which He delivered to His disciples atgreater length, began from this. “Blessed are the poor in spirit,for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.” [3] And these without all controversywe take to be humble. The faith of that Centurion He on this account chieflypraised, and said that He had not found in Israel so great faith, because hebelieved with so great humility as to say, “I am not worthy thatthou shouldest enter under my roof.” [4] Whence alsoMatthew for no other reason said that he “came” untoJesus, (whereas Luke most plainly signifies that he came not unto Himhimself, but sent his friends,) save that by his most faithful humility hehimself came unto Him more than they whom he sent. Whence also is that ofthe Prophet, “The Lord is very high, and hath respect unto thingsthat are lowly: but what are very high He noteth afar off;” [5] assuredly as not coming unto Him. Whence also He saith to that woman ofCanaan, “O woman, great is thy faith; be it done unto thee asthou wilt;” [6] whom above He had called adog, and had made answer that the bread of the sons was not to be cast toher. And this she taking with humility had said, “Even so, Lord;for the dogs also eat of the crumbs which fall from theirmasters’ table.” And thus what by continual crying sheobtained not, by humble confession she earned. [7] Hence alsothose two are set forth praying in the Temple, the one a Pharisee, and theother a Publican, for the sake of those who seem to themselves just anddespise the rest of men, and the confession of sins is set before thereckoning up of merits. And assuredly the Pharisee was rendering thanks untoGod by reason of those things wherein he was greatly self-satisfied.“I render thanks to Thee,” saith he, “thatI am not even as the rest of men, unjust, extortioners, adulterers, even asalso this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all thingswhatsoever I possess. But the Publican was standing afar off, not daring tolift up his eyes to Heaven, but beating his breast, saying, God be mercifulunto me a sinner.” But there follows the divine judgment,“Verily I say unto you, the Publican went down from the Templejustified more than that Pharisee.” [8] Then the cause is shown,why this is just; “Forasmuch as he who exalteth himself shall behumbled, and whoso humbleth himself shall be exalted.” Thereforeit may come to pass, that each one both shun real evils, and reflect on realgoods in himself, and render thanks for these unto “the Father oflights, from Whom cometh down every best gift, and every perfectgift,” [9] andyet be rejected by reason of the sin of haughtiness, if through pride, evenin his thought alone, which is before God, he insult other sinners, andspecially when confessing their sins in prayer, unto whom is due notupbraiding with arrogance, but pity without despair. What is it that, whenHis disciples were questioning among themselves, who of them should begreater, He set a little child before their eyes, saying, “Unlessye shall be as this child, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom ofHeaven?” [10] Did He not chiefly commendhumility, and set in it the desert of greatness? Or when unto the sons ofZebedee desiring to be at His side in lofty seats He so made answer, [11] as that they should rather think of having to drink the Cup of His Passion,wherein He humbled Himself even unto death, even the death of the Cross, [12] thanwith proud desire demand to be preferred to the rest; what did He show, save, that He would be a bestower of exaltationupon them, who should first follow Him as a teacher of humility? And now, inthat, when about to go forth unto His Passion, He washed the feet of Hisdisciples, and most openly taught them to do for their fellow-disciples andfellow-servants this, which He their Lord and Master had done for them; howgreatly did He commend humility? [1] And in order to commend thisHe chose also that time, wherein they were looking on Him, as immediatelyabout to die, with great longing; assuredly about to retain in their memorythis especially, which their Master, Whom they were to imitate, had pointedout to them as the last thing. But He did this at that time, which surely Hecould have done on other days also before, wherein He had been conversantwith them; at which time if it were done, this same would indeed bedelivered, but certainly would not be so received.

33. Whereas, then, all Christianshave to guard humility, forasmuch as it is from Christ that they are calledChristians, Whose Gospel no one considers with care, but that he discoversHim to be a Teacher of humility; specially is it becoming that they befollowers and keepers of this virtue, who excel the rest of men in any greatgood, in order that they may have a great care of that, which I set down inthe beginning, “By how much thou art great, by so much humblethyself in all things, and thou shalt find grace before God.” [2] Wherefore, because perpetual Continence and specially virginity, is a greatgood in the Saints of God, they must with all watchfulness beware, that itbe not corrupted with pride.

34. Paul the Apostle censures evilunmarried women, curious and prating, and says that this fault comes ofidleness. “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.” [3] Of these he had saidabove, “But younger widows avoid; for when they have past theirtime in delights, they wish to wed in Christ; having condemnation, in thatthey have made void their first faith:” that is, have notcontinued in that, which they had vowed at the first. And yet he saith not,they marry, but “they wish to marry.” For many of themare recalled from marrying, not by love of a noble purpose, but by fear ofopen shame, which also itself comes of pride, whereby persons fear todisplease men more than God. These, therefore, who wish to marry, and do notmarry on this account, because they cannot with impunity, who would dobetter to marry than to be burned, that is, than to be laid waste in theirvery conscience by the hidden flame of lust, who repent of their profession,and who feel their confession irksome; unless they correct and set righttheir heart, and by the fear of God again overcome their lust, must beaccounted among the dead; whether they pass their time in delights, whencethe Apostle says, “But she who passes her time in delights,living, is dead;” [4] or whether in labors andfastings, which are useless where there is no correction of the heart, andserve rather for display than amendment. I do not, for my part, impose onsuch a great regard for humility, in whom pride itself is confounded, andbloodstained by wound of conscience. Nor on such as are drunken, orcovetous, or who are lying in any other kind whatever of damnable disease,at the same time that they have profession of bodily continence, and throughperverse manners are at variance with their own name, do I impose this greatanxiety about pious humility: unless haply in these evils they shall dareeven to make a display of themselves, unto whom it is not enough, that thepunishments of these are deferred. Nor am I treating of these, in whom thereis a certain aim of pleasing, either by more elegant dress than thenecessity of so great profession demands, or by remarkable manner of bindingthe head, whether by bosses of hair swelling forth, or by coverings soyielding, that the fine net-work below appears: unto these we must giveprecepts, not as yet concerning humility, but concerning chastity itself, orvirgin modesty. Give me one who makes profession of perpetual continence,and who is free from these, and all such faults and spots of conduct; forthis one I fear pride, for this so great good I am in alarm from theswelling of arrogance. The more there is in any one on account of which tobe self-pleased, the more I fear, lest, by pleasing self, he please not Him,Who “resisteth the proud, but unto the humble givethgrace.” [5]

35. Certainly we are to contemplatein 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 andlowly of heart?” [6] when He had made mention aboveof His greatness, and, wishing to show this very thing, how great He was,and how little He had been made for our sakes,saith, “I confess to Thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, inthat Thou hast hidden these things from the wise and prudent, and hastrevealed them unto little children. Even so, O Father, in that so it hathbeen pleasing before Thee. All things have been delivered unto Me of MyFather: and no one knoweth the Son, save the Father; and no one knoweth theFather, save the Son, and he to whom the Son shall have willed to revealHim. Come unto Me, all ye who labor and are burdened, and I will refreshyou. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me, in that I am meek and lowly ofheart.” [1] He, He, unto Whom the Fatherhath delivered all things, and Whom no one knoweth but the Father, and Whoalone, (and he, unto whom He shall have willed to reveal Him), knoweth theFather, saith not, “Learn of Me” to make the world, orto raise the dead, but, “in that I am meek and lowly ofheart.” O saving teaching? O Teacher and Lord of mortals, untowhom death was pledged and passed on in the cup of pride, He would not teachwhat Himself was not, He would not bid what Himself did not. I see Thee, Ogood Jesu, with the eyes of faith, which Thou hast opened for me, as in anassembly of the human race, crying out and saying, “Come unto Me,and learn of Me.” What, I beseech Thee, through Whom all thingswere made, O Son of God, and the Same Who was made among all things, O Sonof Man: to learn what of Thee, come we to Thee? “For that I ammeek,” saith He, “and lowly of heart.” Isit to this that all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge hidden in Thee [2] arebrought, that we learn this of Thee as a great thing, that Thou art“meek and lowly of heart?” Is it so great a thing tobe little, that it could not at all be learned unless it were brought topass by Thee, Who art so great? So indeed it is. For by no other way isthere found out rest for the soul, save when the unquiet swelling hath beendispersed, whereby it was great unto itself, when it was not sound untoThee.

36. Let them hear Thee, and let themcome to Thee, and let them learn of Thee to be meek and lowly, who seek ThyMercy and Truth, by living unto Thee, unto Thee, not unto themselves. Lethim hear this, laboring and laden, who is weighed down by his burthen, so asnot to dare to lift up his eyes to heaven, that sinner beating his breast,and drawing near from afar. [3] Let him hear, the centurion,not worthy that Thou shouldest enter under his roof. [4] Let him hear, Zaccheus, chiefof publicans, restoring fourfold the gains of damnable sins. [5] Lether hear, the woman in the city a sinner, by so much the more full of tearsat Thy feet, the more alien she had been from Thy steps. [6] Let them hear, the harlotsand publicans, who enter into the kingdom of heaven before the Scribes andPharisees. [7] Letthem hear, every kind of such ones, feastings with whom were cast in Thyteeth as a charge, forsooth, as though by whole persons who sought not aphysician, whereas Thou camest not to call the righteous, but sinners torepentance. [8] All these, when they areconverted unto Thee, easily grow meek, and are humbled before Thee, mindfulof their own most unrighteous life, and of Thy most indulgent mercy, inthat, “where sin hath abounded, grace hath aboundedmore.” [9]

37. But regard the troops ofvirgins, 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 themilk of its infancy, it hath had poured in and hath sucked, no one of thisnumber can say, “I, who before was a blasphemer, and persecutor,and injurious, but I obtained mercy, in that I did it being ignorant, inunbelief.” [10] Yea more, that, which Thoucommandedst not, but only didst set forth, for such as would, to seize,saying, “Whoso can receive, let him receive;” theyhave seized, they have vowed, and, for the sake of the kingdom of heaven,not for that Thou threatenedst, but for that Thou exhortedst, they have madethemselves eunuchs. [11] Tothese cry out, let these hear Thee, in that Thou art “meek andlowly of heart.” Let these, by how much they are great, by somuch humble themselves in all things, that they may find grace before Thee.They are just: but they are not, are they, such as Thou, justifying theungodly? They are chaste: but them in sins their mothers nurtured in theirwombs. [12] Theyare holy, but Thou art also Holy of Holies. They are virgins, but they arenot also born of virgins. They are wholly chaste both in spirit and inflesh: but they are not the Word made flesh. [13] And yet let them learn, not fromthose unto whom Thou forgivest sins, but from Thee Thyself, The Lamb of GodWho takest away the sins of the world, [14] in that Thou art “meekand lowly of heart.”

38. I send thee not, soul that artreligiously chaste, that hast not given the reins to fleshly appetite evenso far as to allowed marriage, that hast not indulged thy body about todepart even to the begetting one to succeed thee, that hast sustained aloftthy earthly members, afloat to accustom them to heaven; I send thee not, inorder that thou mayest learn humility, unto publicans and sinners, who yetenter 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 unworthythat undefiled virginity be sent to them to take pattern from. I send theeunto the King of Heaven, unto Him, by Whom men were created, and Who wascreated among men for the sake of men; unto Him, Who is fair of beauty abovethe sons of men, [1] anddespised by the sons of men on behalf of the sons of men: unto Him, Who,ruling the immortal angels, disdained not to do service unto mortals. Him,at any rate, not unrighteousness, but charity, made humble;“Charity, which rivalleth not, is not puffed up, seeketh not herown;” [2] forasmuch as “Christ also pleased not Himself, but, as it iswritten of Him, The reproaches of such as reproached Thee have fallen uponMe. [3] Gothen, come unto Him, and learn, in that He is “meek and lowly ofheart.” Thou shalt not go unto him, who dared not by reason ofthe burden of unrighteousness to lift up his eyes to heaven, but unto Him,Who by the weight of charity came down from heaven. [4] Thou shalt not go unto her, whowatered with tears the feet of her Lord, seeking forgiveness of heavy sins;but thou shalt go unto Him, Who, granting forgiveness of all sins, washedthe feet of His own disciples. [5] I know the dignity of thyvirginity; I propose not to thee to imitate the Publican humbly accusing hisown faults; but I fear for the Pharisee proudly boasting of his ownmerits. [6] I say not, Be thou such as she, of whom it was said, “There areforgiven unto her many sins, in that she hath loved much;” [7] but I fear lest, as thinking that thou hast little forgiven to thee, thoulove little.

39. I fear, I say, greatly for thee,lest, when thou boastest that thou wilt follow the Lamb wheresoever He shallhave gone, thou be unable by reason of swelling pride to follow Him throughstrait ways. It is good for thee, O virgin soul, that thus, as thou art avirgin, 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 fearof the Lord, and give birth to the spirit of salvation. [8] “Fear,” indeed, “there is not in charity,but perfect charity,” as it is written, “casteth outfear:” [9] but fear of men, not ofGod: fear of temporal evils, not of the Divine Judgment at the last.“Be not thou high-minded, but fear.” [10] Lovethou the goodness of God; fear thou His severity: neither suffers thee to beproud. For by loving you fear, lest you grievously offend One Who is lovedand loves. For what more grievous offense, than that by pride thou displeaseHim, Who for thy sake hath been displeasing to the proud? And where oughtthere to be more that “caste fear abiding for ever and ever, [11] thanin thee, who hast no thought of the things of this world, how to please awedded partner; but of the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord? [12] That other fear is not in charity, but this chaste fear quitteth notcharity. If you love not, fear lest you perish; if you love, fear lest youdisplease. That fear charity casteth out, with this it runneth within. TheApostle Paul also says, “For we have not received the spirit ofbondage again to fear; but we have received the spirit of adoption of sons,wherein we cry, Abba, Father.” [13] I believe that he speaks ofthat fear, which had been given in the Old Testament, lest the temporalgoods should be lost, which God had promised unto those not yet sons undergrace, but as yet slaves under the law. There is also the fear of eternalfire, to serve God in order to avoid which is assuredly not yet of perfectcharity. For the desire of the reward is one thing, the fear of punishmentanother. They are different sayings, “Whither shall I go awayfrom Thy Spirit, and from Thy face whither shall I flee?” [14] and, “One thing I have sought of the Lord, this I will seekafter; that I may dwell in the house of the Lord through all the days of mylife, that I may consider the delight of the Lord, that I be protected inHis temple:” [15] and, “Turn not awayThy face from me:” [16] and, “My soul longethand fainteth unto the courts of the Lord. [17] Those sayings let him have had,who dared not to lift up his eyes to heaven; and she who was watering withtears His feet, in order to obtain pardon for her grievous sins; but thesedo thou have, who art careful about the things of the Lord, to be holy bothin body and spirit. With those sayings there companies fear which hathtorment, which perfect charity casteth forth; butwith these sayings there companies chaste fear of the Lord, that abideth forever and ever. And to both kinds it must be said, “Be not thouhigh-minded, but fear;” [1] that man neither of defense ofhis sins, nor of presumption of righteousness set himself up. For Paul alsohimself, who saith, “For ye have not received the spirit ofbondage again to fear;” [2] yet, fear being a companion ofcharity, saith, “With fear and much trembling was I towardsyou:” [3] andthat saying, which I have mentioned, that the engrafted wild olive tree benot proud against the broken branches of the olive tree, himself made useof, saying, “Be not thou high-minded, but fear;”himself admonishing all the members of Christ in general, saith,“With fear and trembling work out your own salvation; for it isGod Who worketh in you both to will and to do, according to His goodpleasure;” [4] that it seem not to pertain unto the OldTestament what is written, “Serve the Lord in fear, and rejoiceunto Him with trembling.” [5]

40. And what members of the holybody, which is the Church, ought more to take care, that upon them the holySpirit may rest, than such as profess virginal holiness? But how doth Herest, 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 ithath been most plainly said, “On whom shall rest My Spirit? Onhim that is humble and quiet, and trembles at My words.” [6] Already thou livest righteously, already thou livest piously, thou livestchastely, holily, with virginal purity; as yet, however, thou livest here,and art thou not humbled at hearing, “What, is not human lifeupon earth a trial? [7] Doth it not drive thee back from over-confident arrogance, “Woeunto the world because of offenses?” [8] Dost thou not tremble, lest thou be accountedamong the many, whose “love waxeth cold, because that iniquityabounds?” [9] Dost thou not smite thybreast, when thou hearest, “Wherefore, whoso thinketh that hestandeth, let him see to it lest he fall?” [10] Amid these divine warnings andhuman dangers, do we yet find it so hard to persuade holy virgins tohumility?

41. Or are we indeed to believe thatit is for any other reason, that God suffers to be mixed up with the numberof your profession, many, both men and women, about to fall, than that bythe fall of these your fear may be increased, whereby to repress pride;which God so hates, as that against this one thing The Highest humbledHimself? Unless haply, in truth, thou shalt therefore fear less, and be morepuffed up, so as to love little Him, Who hath loved thee so much, as to giveup Himself for thee, [11] because He hath forgiven thee little, living, forsooth from childhood,religiously, piously, with pious chastity, with inviolate virginity. Asthough in truth you ought not to love with much greater glow of affectionHim, Who, whatsoever things He hath forgiven unto sinners upon their beingturned to Him, suffered you not to fall into them. Or indeed thatPharisee, [12] who therefore loved little, because he thought that little was forgiven him,was it for any other reason that he was blinded by this error, than becausebeing ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish hisown, he had not been made subject unto the righteousness of God? [13] Butyou, an elect race, and among the elect more elect, virgin choirs thatfollow the Lamb, even you “by grace have been saved throughfaith; and this not of yourselves, but it is the gift of God: not of works,lest haply any be elated. For we are His workmanship, created in JesusChrist in good works, which God hath prepared, that in them we maywalk.” [14] What therefore, by howmuch the more ye are adorned by His gifts, shall ye by so much the less loveHim? May He Himself turn away so dreadful madness! Wherefore forasmuch asthe Truth has spoken the truth, that he, unto whom little is forgiven,loveth little; do ye, in order that ye may love with full glow of affectionHim, Whom ye are free to love, being loosened from ties of marriage, accountas altogether forgiven unto you, whatever of evil, by His governance, yehave not committed. For “your eyes ever unto the Lord, forasmuchas He shall pluck out of the net your feet, [15] and, “Except the Lordshall have kept the city, in vain hath he watched who keepethit.” [16] And speaking of Continence itself the Apostle says, “But I wouldthat all men were as I myself; but each one hath his own proper gift fromGod; one in this way, and another in that way.” [17] Who therefore bestoweth these gifts? Who distributeth his own proper giftsunto each as He will? [18] Forsooth God, with Whom there is not unrighteousness, [19] and by this means with whatequity He makes some in this way, and others in that way, for man to know iseither impossible or altogether hard: but that with equity He maketh, it is not lawful to doubt.“What,” therefore, “hast thou, which thouhast not received?” [1] And by what perversity dost thouless love Him, of Whom thou hast received more?

42. Wherefore let this be the firstthought for the putting on of humility, that God’s virgin thinknot 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 Whomis no change nor shadow of motion.” [2] For thus she will not think that little hath been forgiven her, so as forher to love little, and, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, andwishing to establish her own, not to be made subject to the righteousness ofGod. In which fault was that Simon, who was surpassed by the woman, untowhom many sins were forgiven, because she loved much. But she will have morecautious and true thoughts, that we are so to account all sins as thoughforgiven, from which God keeps us that we commit them not. Witnesses arethose expressions of pious prayers in holy Scriptures, whereby it is shown,that those very things, which are commanded by God, are not done save by HisGift and help, Who commands. For there is a falsehood in the asking forthem, if we could do them without the help of His grace. What is there sogenerally and chiefly charged, as obedience whereby the Commandments of Godare kept? And yet we find this wished for. “Thou,”saith he, “hast charged, that Thy commandments be greatlykept.” Then it follows, “O that my ways were directedto keep Thy righteousnesses: then shall I not be confounded, whilst I lookunto all Thy commandments.” [3] That which he had set downabove that God had commanded, that he wished might of himself be fulfilled.This is done assuredly, that there be not sin; but, if there hath been sin,the command is that one repent; lest by defense and excuse of sin he perishthrough pride, who hath done it, whilst he is unwilling that what he hathdone perish through repentance. This also is asked of God, so that it may beunderstood that it is not done, save by His grant from Whom it is asked.“Set,” saith he, “O Lord, a watch to mymouth, and a door of continence around my lips: let not my heart turn awayunto evil words, to make excuses in sins, with men that workunrighteousness.” [4] If, therefore, both obedience,whereby we keep His commandments, and repentance whereby we excuse not oursins, are wished for and asked, it is plain that, when it is done, it is byHis gift that it is possessed, by His help that it is fulfilled, yet moreopenly is it said by reason of obedience, “By the Lord the stepsof a man are directed, and He shall will His way:” [5] and of repentance the Apostle says, “if haply God may grant untothem repentance.” [6]

43. Concerning continence alsoitself hath it not been most openly said, “And when I knew thatno one can be continent unless God give it, this also itself was a part ofwisdom, to know whose gift it was?” [7] But perhaps continence is thegift of God, but wisdom man bestows upon himself, whereby to understand,that that gift is, not his own, but of God. Yea, “The Lord makethwise the blind:” [8] and, “The testimonyof the Lord is faithful, it giveth wisdom unto little ones:” [9] and,“If any one want wisdom, let him ask of God, Who giveth unto allliberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given to him.” [10] Butit becometh virgins to be wise, that their lamps be not extinguished. [11] How“wise,” save “not having high thoughts, butconsenting unto the lowly.” [12] For Wisdom Itself hath said untoman, “Lo, piety is wisdom!” [13] If therefore thou hastnothing, which thou hast not received, “Be not high-minded, butfear.” [14] Andlove not thou little, as though Him by Whom little hath been forgiven tothee; but, rather, love Him much, by Whom much hath been given to thee. Forif he loves, unto whom it hath been given not to repay: how much more oughthe to love, unto whom it hath been given to possess. For both, whosoevercontinues chaste from the beginning, is ruled by Him; and whosoever is madechaste instead of unchaste, is corrected by Him; and whosoever is unchasteeven unto the end, is abandoned by Him. But this He can do by secretcounsel, by unrighteous He cannot: and perhaps it is for this end that itlies hid, that there may be more fear, and less pride.

44. Next let not man, now that heknoweth that by the grace of God he is what he is, fall into another snareof pride, so as by lifting up himself for the very grace of God to despisethe rest. By which fault that other Pharisee both gave thanks unto God forthe goods which he had, and yet vaunted himself above the Publicanconfessing his sins. What therefore should a virgin do, what should shethink, that she vaunt not herself above those, men or women, who have notthis so great gift? For she ought not to feign humility, but to set it forth: for the feigning of humility is greaterpride. Wherefore Scripture wishing to show that humility ought to be true,after having said, “By how much thou art great, by so much humblethyself in all things,” added soon after, “And thoushalt find grace before God:” [1] assuredly where one could nothumble one’s self deceitfully.

45. Wherefore what shall we say? isthere any thought which a virgin of God may truly have, by reason of whichshe dare not to set herself before a faithful woman, not only a widow, buteven married? I say not a reprobate virgin; for who knows not that anobedient woman is to be set before a disobedient virgin? But where both areobedient unto the commands of God, shall she so tremble to prefer holyvirginity even to chaste marriage, and continence to wedded life, the fruitan hundred-fold to go before the thirty-fold? Nay, let her not doubt toprefer this thing to that thing; yet let not this or that virgin, obeyingand fearing God, dare to set herself before this or that woman, obeying andfearing God; otherwise she will not be humble, and “God resisteththe proud!” [2] What, therefore, shall she havein her thoughts? Forsooth the hidden gifts of God, which nought save thequestioning of trial makes known to each, even in himself. For, to pass overthe rest, whence doth a virgin know, although careful of the things of theLord, how to please the Lord, [3] but that haply, by reason ofsome weakness of mind unknown to herself, she be not as yet ripe formartyrdom, whereas that woman, whom she rejoiced to set herself before, mayalready be able to drink the Cup of the Lord’s humiliation, [4] which He set before His disciples, to drink first, when enamored of highplace? Whence, I say, doth she know but that she herself be not as yetThecla, that other be already Crispina. [5] Certainly, unless there bepresent trial, there takes place no proof of this gift.

46. But this is so great, thatcertain understand it to be the fruit an hundred-fold. [6] For theauthority of the Church bears a very conspicuous witness, in which it isknown to the faithful in what place the Martyrs, in what place the holy nunsdeceased, are rehearsed at the Sacraments of the Altar. [7] But whatthe meaning is of that difference of fruitfulness, let them see to it, whounderstand these things better than we; whether the virginal life be infruit an hundred-fold, in sixty-fold the widowed, in thirty-fold themarried; or whether the hundred-fold fruitfulness be ascribed untomartyrdom, the sixty-fold unto continence, the thirty-fold unto marriage; orwhether virginity, by the addition of martyrdom, fill up the hundred-fold,but when alone be in sixty-fold, but married persons bearing thirty-foldarrive at sixty-fold, in case they shall be martyrs: or whether, what seemsto me more probable, forasmuch as the gifts of Divine grace are many, andone is greater and better than another, whence the Apostle says,“But emulate ye the better gifts;” [8] we are to understand that theyare more in number than to allow of being distributed under those differentkinds. In the first place, that we set not widowed continence either asbearing no fruit, or set it but level with the desert of married charity, orequal it unto virgin glory; or think that the Crown of Martyrdom, eitherestablished in habit of mind, although proof of trial be wanting, or inactual making trial of suffering, be added unto either one of those thesechastities, without any increase of fruitfulness. Next, when we set it downthat many men and women so keep virginal chastity, as that yet they do notthe things which the Lord saith, “If thou willest to be perfect,go, sell all that thou hast, and give unto the poor, and thou shalt havetreasure in Heaven: and come, follow me;” [9] and dare not unite themselvesto those dwelling together, among whom no one saith that any thing is hisown, but all things are unto them common; [10] do we think that there isno addition of fruitfulness unto the virgins of God, when they do this? orthat the virgins of God are without any fruit, although they do not this?Therefore there are many gifts, and some brighter and higher than others,each than each. And at times one is fruitful in fewer gifts, but better;another in lower gifts, but more. And in what manner they be either madeequal one to another, or distinguished one from another, in receivingeternal honors, who of men would dare to pronounce? whereas yet it is plainboth that those differences are many, and that the better are profitable notfor the present time, but for eternity. But I judge that the Lord willed tomake mention of three differences offruitfulness, the rest He left to such as understand. [1] For also another Evangelisthath made mention only of the hundred-fold: [2] we are not, therefore, are we,to think that he either rejected, or knew not of, the other two, but ratherthat he left them to be understood?

47. But, as I had begun to say,whether the fruit an hundred-fold be virginity dedicated to God, or whetherwe are to understand that interval of fruitfulness in some other way, eithersuch as we have made mention of, or such as we have not made mention of; yetno one, as I suppose, will have dared to prefer virginity to martyrdom, andno one will have doubted that this latter gift is hidden, if trial to testit be wanting. A virgin, therefore, hath a subject for thought, such as maybe of profit to her for the keeping of humility, that she violate not thatcharity, which is above all gifts, without which assuredly whatever othergifts she shall have had, whether few or many, whether great or small, sheis nothing. She hath, I say, a subject for thought, that she be not puffedup, that she rival not; forsooth that she so make profession that thevirginal good is much greater and better than the married good, as that yetshe know not whether this or that married woman be not already able tosuffer for Christ, but herself as yet unable, and she herein spared, thather weakness is not put to the question by trial. “ForGod,” saith the Apostle, “is faithful, Who will notsuffer you to be tried above what ye are able; but will make with the triala way out, that ye may be able to bear it.” [3] Perhaps, therefore, those men orwomen keeping a way of married life praiseworthy in its kind, are alreadyable, against an enemy forcing to unrighteousness, to contend even bytearing in pieces of bowels, and shedding of blood; but these men or women,continent from childhood, and making themselves eunuchs for the sake of theKingdom of Heaven, still are not as yet able to endure such, either forrighteousness, or for chastity itself. For it is one thing, for truth and anholy purpose, not to consent unto one who would persuade and flatter, butanother thing not to yield even to one who tortures and strikes. These liehid in the powers and strength of souls, by trial they are unfolded, byactual essay they come forth. In order, therefore, that each be not puffedup by reason of that, which he sees clearly that he can do, let him humblyconsider that he knows not that there is perchance something more excellentwhich he cannot do, but that some, who neither have nor profess that ofwhich he is lawfully self-conscious, are able to do this, which he himselfcannot do. Thus will be kept, not by feigned but by true humility,“In honor preventing one another,” [4] and, “esteeming each the other higher thanhimself.” [5]

48. What now shall I say concerningthe very carefulness and watchfulness against sin? “Who shallboast that he hath a chaste heart? or who shall boast that he is clean fromsin?” [6] Holyvirginity is indeed inviolate from the mother’s womb; but“no one,” saith he, “is clean in Thy sight,not even the infant whose life is of one day upon the earth.” [7] Thereis kept also in faith inviolate a certain virginal chastity, whereby theChurch is joined as a chaste virgin unto One Husband: but That One Husbandhath taught, not only the faithful who are virgin in mind and body, but allChristians altogether, from spiritual even unto carnal, from Apostles evenunto the last penitents, as though from the height of heaven even unto thebounds of it, [8] to pray, and in theprayer itself hath admonished them to say, “And forgive us ourdebts, even as we also forgive our debtors:” [9] where, by this which we seek, Heshews what also we should remember that we are. For neither on behalf ofthose debts, which for our whole past life we trust have been forgiven untous in Baptism through His peace, hath He charged us to pray, saying,“And forgive us our debts, even as we also forgive ourdebtors:” otherwise this were a prayer which Catechumens ratherought to pray up to the time of Baptism; but whereas it is what baptizedpersons pray, rulers and people, pastors and flocks; it is sufficientlyshown that in this life, the whole of which is a trial, no one ought toboast himself as though free from all sins. [10]

49. Wherefore also the virgins ofGod without blame indeed, “follow the Lamb whithersoever He shallhave gone,” both the cleansing of sins being perfected, andvirginity being kept, which, were it lost, could not return: but, becausethat same Apocalypse itself, wherein such unto one such were revealed, inthis also praises them, that “in their mouth there was not founda lie:” [11] let them remember in this also to be true, that they dare not say that theyhave not sin. Forsooth the same John, who saw that, hath said this,“If we shall have said that we have not sin, we deceive our ownselves, and the truth is not in us; but if we shall have confessed ourfaults, He is faithful and just, so as to forgiveus our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. But if we shallhave said that we have not sinned, we shall make Him a liar, and His wordshall not be in us.” [1] This surely is not said unto these or those,but unto all Christians, wherein virgins also ought to recognize themselves.For thus they shall be without a lie, such as in the Apocalypse theyappeared. And by this means so long as there is not as yet perfection inheavenly height, confession in lowliness maketh them without blame.

50. But, again, lest by occasion ofthis sentence, any one should sin with deadly security, and should allowhimself to be carried away, as though his sins were soon by easy confessionto be blotted out, he straightway added, “My little children,these things have I written unto you, that ye sin not; and, if one shallhave sinned, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ therighteous, and Himself is a propitiation of our sins.” [2] Let no one therefore depart from sin as though about to return to it, norbind himself as it were by compact of alliance of this kind withunrighteousness, so as to take delight rather to confess it than to shun it.But, forasmuch as even upon such as are busy and on the watch not to sin,there creep by stealth, in a certain way, from human weakness, sins, howeversmall, however few, yet not none; these same themselves become great andgrievous, in case pride shall have added to them increase and weight: but bythe Priest, Whom we have in the heavens, if by pious humility they bedestroyed, they are with all ease cleansed.

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 ownmisery, and, comparing ourselves with ourselves, understand not. [3] Onething I know, that those great ones, such as we are not, such as we have notas yet made proof of, by how much they are great, by so much humblethemselves in all things, that they may find grace before God. For, let thembe how great soever they will, “there is no servant greater thanhis Lord, nor disciple greater than his master.” [4] Andassuredly He is the Lord, Who saith, “All things have beendelivered unto Me of My Father;” [5] and He is the Master, Whosaith, “Come unto Me, all ye who labor, and learn ofMe;” and yet what learn we? “In that I ammeek,” saith He, “and lowly of heart.”

52. Here some one will say, This isnow not to write of virginity, but of humility. As though truly it were anykind of virginity, and not that which is after God, which we had undertakento set forth. And this good, by how much I see it to be great, by so much Ifear for it, lest it be lost, the thief pride. Therefore there is none thatguardeth the virginal good, save God Himself Who gave it: and God isCharity. [6] TheGuardian therefore of virginity is Charity: but the place of this Guardianis humility. There forsooth He dwelleth, Who said, that on the lowly andquiet, and that trembleth at His words, His Spirit resteth. [7] What,therefore, have I done foreign from my purpose, if wishing the good, which Ihave praised, to be more securely guarded, I have taken care also to preparea place for the Guardian? For I speak with confidence, nor have I any fearlest they be angry with me, whom I admonish with care to fear for themselvestogether with me. More easily do follow the Lamb, although not whithersoeverHe shall have gone, yet so far as they shall have had power, married personswho are humble, than virgins who are proud. For how doth one follow Him,unto Whom one wills not to approach? or how doth one approach Him, unto Whomone comes not to learn, “in that I am meek and lowly ofheart?” Wherefore those the Lamb leadeth following whithersoeverHe shall have gone, in whom first Himself shall have found where to lay HisHead. For also a certain proud and crafty person had said to Him,“Lord, I will follow Thee whithersoever Thou shalt havegone;” [8] to whom He made answer, “Foxes have dens, andfowls of heaven nests: but the Son of Man hath not where to lay HisHead.” By the term of foxes He reproved wily craftiness, and bythe name of birds puffed-up arrogance, wherein He found not pious humilityto rest in. And by this no where at all did he follow the Lord, who hadpromised that he would follow Him, not unto a certain point of progress, butaltogether whithersoever He should have gone.

53. Wherefore this do ye, virgins ofGod, this do ye: follow ye the Lamb, whithersoever He shall have gone. Butfirst come unto Him, Whom ye are to follow, and learn, in that He is meekand lowly of heart. Come ye in lowly wise unto the Lowly, if ye love: anddepart not from Him, lest ye fall. For whoso fears to depart from Him asksand says, “Let there not come to me foot ofpride.” [9] Go on in the way of loftinesswith the foot of lowliness; Himself lifteth up such as follow in lowly wise, Who thought it not a trouble to come down untosuch as lay low. Commit ye His gifts unto Him to keep, “guard yeyour strength unto Him.” [1] Whatever of evil through His guardianship ye commit not, account as forgivenunto you by Him: lest, thinking that you have little forgiven unto you, yelove little, and with ruinous boasting despise the publicans beating theirbreasts. Concerning that strength of yours which hath been tried beware,that ye be not puffed up, because ye have been able to bear something: butconcerning that which hath been untried, pray, that ye be not tempted abovethat ye are able to bear. Think that some are superior to you in secret,than whom ye are openly better. When the good things of others, haplyunknown to you, are kindly believed by you, your own that are known to youare not lessened by comparison, but strengthened by love: and what haply asyet are wanting, are by so much the more easily given, by how much they arethe more humbly desired. Let such among your number as persevere afford toyou an example: but let such as fall increase your fear. Love the one thatye may imitate it; mourn over the other, that ye be not puffed up. Do not yeestablish your own righteousness; submit yourselves unto God Who justifiesyou. Pardon the sins of others, pray for your own: future sins shun bywatching, past sins blot out by confessing.

54. Lo, already ye are such, as thatin the rest of your conduct also ye correspond with the virginity which yehave 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, notunbridled tongue, not petulant laugh, not scurrilous jest, not unbecomingmien, not swelling or loose gait; already ye render not evil for evil, norcurse for curse; [2] already, lastly, yefulfill that measure of love, that ye lay down your lives for yourbrethren. [3] Lo, already ye are such, because also such ye ought to be. These, beingadded to virginity, set forth an angelic life unto men, and the ways ofheaven unto the earth. But, by how much ye are great, whosoever of you areso great, “by so much humble yourselves in all things, that yemay find grace before God,” that He resist you not as proud, thatHe humble you not as lifting up yourselves, that He lead you not throughstraits as being puffed up: although anxiety be unnecessary, that, whereCharity glows, humility be not wanting.

55. If, therefore, ye despisemarriages of sons of men, from which to beget sons of men, love ye with yourwhole 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: rulingeven 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 thatbelieves, the gain of Him that redeems. Consider of how great value theseare, weigh them in the scales of Charity; and whatever of love ye had toexpend upon your marriages, pay back to Him.

56. It is well that He seeks yourbeauty within, where He hath given unto you power to become daughters ofGod: [4] Heseeks not of you a fair flesh, but fair conduct, whereby to bridle also theflesh. He is not one unto Whom any one can lie concerning you, and make himrage through jealousy. See with how great security ye love Him, Whom ye fearnot to offend by false suspicions. Husband and wife love each other, in thatthey see each other: and what they see not, that they fear betweenthemselves: nor have they sure delight in what is visible, while in what isconcealed they usually suspect what is not. Ye in Him, Whom ye see not withthe eyes, and behold by faith, neither have what is real to blame, nor fearlest haply ye offend Him by what is false. If therefore ye should owe greatlove to husbands, Him, for Whose sake ye would not have husbands, howgreatly ought ye to love? Let Him be fixed in your whole heart, Who for youwas fixed on the Cross: let Him possess in your soul all that, whatever itbe, that ye would not have occupied by marriage. It is not lawful for you tolove little Him, for Whose sake ye have not loved even what were lawful. Soloving Him Who is meek and lowly of heart, I have no fear for you ofpride.

57. Thus, after our small measure,we have spoken enough both of sanctity, whereby ye are properly called“sanctimoniales,” and of humility, whereby whatevergreat name ye bear is kept. But more worthily let those Three Children, untowhom He, Whom they loved with full glow of heart, afforded refreshing in the fire, admonish you concerning this ourlittle work, much more shortly indeed in number of words, but much moregreatly in weight of authority, in the Hymn wherein God is honored by them.For joining humility unto holiness in such as praise God, they have mostplainly taught, that each, by how much he make any more holy profession, byso much do beware that he be not deceived by pride. Wherefore do ye alsopraise Him, Who grants unto you, that in the midst of the flames of thisworld, although ye be not joined in marriage, yet ye be not burned: andpraying also for us, “Bless ye the Lord, ye holy and humble menof heart; utter an hymn, and exalt Him above all forever.” [1]

ST. AUGUSTIN: 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 byPossidius, cap. 7. It is also marked as St. Augustin’s by itsreferences to his other works, De Bono Conjugali, etc. cap. 15. Ep. to Proba, cap. 23. The date is marked by the recentconsecration of Demetrias, which was in 413. The admonition for which heis thanked by Juliana, Ep. 188, may be that against Pelagianism.

An objection has been raised from its disagreement with the fourthCouncil of Carthage, an. 398. can. 104, which excommunicates widows whomarry again after consecration, and pronounces them guilty of adultery,whereas in cap. 10 and 11, the opinion that such marriages are nomarriages, and that they ought to return to continence, is refuted. Thetwo, however, are not wholly irreconcileable, as there may be a guiltsimilar to that of adultery incurred, and it may be visited with acensure in the form of excommunication, and yet the marriage may remainvalid. The 16th Canon of Chalcedon imposes such a penalty, with power tothe Bishop to relax it.— Abridged from theBenedictine Edition.

AUGUSTIN the Bishop, servant of Christ, and of theservants of Christ, unto the religious handmaiden of God, Juliana, in theLord of lords health.

Not any longer to be in debt of my promise to your request and love inChrist, I have seized the occasion as I could, amid other my very pressingengagements, to write to you somewhat concerning the profession of holywidowhood, 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 lettersdemanded my promise. And in this work of ours, when you shall find inreading that some things pertain not at all unto your own person, or untothe person of you, who are living together in Christ, nor are strictlynecessary to give counsel unto your life, it will be your duty not on thisaccount to judge them superfluous. Forsooth this letter, although it beaddressed to you, was not to be written for you alone; but certainly it wasa matter for us not to neglect, that it should profit others also throughyour means. Whatsoever, therefore, you shall find here, such as either hathbeen at no time necessary for you, or is not so now, and which yet you shallperceive to be necessary for others, grieve not either to possess or to lendto read; that your charity also may be the profit of others.

2. Whereas, therefore, in everyquestion, which relates to life and conduct, not only teaching, butexhortation also is necessary; in order that byteaching we may know what is to be done, and by exhortation may be incitednot to think it irksome to do what we already know is to be done; what morecan I teach you, than what we read in the Apostle? For holy Scripturesetteth a rule to our teaching, that we dare not “be wise morethan it behoveth to be wise;” [1] but be wise, as himself saith,“unto soberness, according as unto each God hath allotted themeasure of faith.” [2] Be it not therefore for me toteach you any other thing, save to expound to you the words of the Teacher,and to treat of them as the Lord shall have given to me.

3. Therefore (thus) saith theApostle, the teacher of the Gentiles, the vessel of election,“But I say unto the unmarried and the widows, that it is good forthem, if they shall have so continued, even as I also.” [3] These words are to be so understood, asthat we think not that widows ought not to be called unmarried, in that theyseem to have made trial of marriage: for by the name of unmarried women hemeans those, who are not now bound by marriage, whether they have been, orwhether they have not been so. And this in another place he opens, where hesays, “Divided is a woman unmarried and a virgin.” [4] Assuredly when he adds a virgin also, what would he have understood by anunmarried woman, but a widow? Whence also, in what follows, under the oneterm “unmarried” he embraces both professions, saying,“She who is unmarried is careful of the things of the Lord, howto please the Lord: but she who is married is careful of the things of theworld, how to please her husband.” [5] Certainly by the unmarried hewould have understood, not only her who hath never married, but her also,who, being by widowhood set free from the bond of marriage, hath ceased tobe married; for on this account also he calleth not married, save her, whohath an husband; not her also, who hath had, and hath not. Wherefore everywidow is unmarried; but, because not every unmarried woman is a widow, forthere are virgins also; therefore he hath here set both, where he says,“But I say unto the unmarried and the widows;” as ifhe should say, What I say unto the unmarried, I say not unto them alone, whoare virgins, but unto them also who are widows; “that it is goodfor them, if they shall have so continued, even as also I.” [6]

4. Lo, there is your good comparedto 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 thisaccount to be despised, because it is short; but on this account to beretained the more easily and the more dearly, in that in shortness it is notcheap. For it is not every kind of good soever, which the Apostle would hereset forth, which he hath unambiguously placed above the faith of marriedwomen. But how great good the faith of married women, that is, of Christianand religious women joined in marriage, hath, may be understood from this,that, when he was giving charge for the avoiding of fornication, whereinassuredly he was addressing married persons also, he saith, “Knowye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?” [7] Sogreat then is the good of faithful marriage, that even the very members are(members) of Christ. But, forasmuch as the good of widowed continence isbetter than this good, the purpose of this profession is, not that acatholic widow be any thing more than a member of Christ, but that she havea better place, than a married woman, among the members of Christ. Forsooththe same Apostle says, “For, as in one body we have many members,but all members have not the same course of action; so being many we are onebody in Christ, and each members one of another: having gifts diverseaccording unto the grace, which hath been given unto us.” [8]

5. Wherefore also when he wasadvising married persons not to defraud one another of the due of carnalintercourse; lest, by this means, the one of them, (the due of marriagebeing denied to him,) being through his own incontinence tempted of Satan,should fall away into fornication, he saith, “But this I say ofleave, not of command; but I would that all men were as I myself; but eachone hath his own proper gift from God; but one in this way, and another inthat.” [9] You see that wedded chastity also, and the marriage faith of the Christianbed, is a “gift,” and this of God; so that, when ascarnal lust exceeds somewhat the measure of sensual intercourse, beyond whatis necessary for the begetting of children, this evil is not of marriage,but venial by reason of the good of marriage. For not concerning marriage,which is contracted for the begetting of children, and the faith of weddedchastity, and the sacrament (indissoluble, so long as both live) ofmatrimony, all which are good; but concerning that immoderate use of theflesh, which is recognized in the weakness of married persons, and ispardoned by the intervention of the good of marriage, the Apostle saith,“I speak of leave, not ofcommand.” Also, when he says, “The woman is bound, solong as her husband lives: but, in case her husband shall have died, she isset free: let her be married to whom she will, only in the Lord: but sheshall be more blessed, if she shall have so continued, according to mycounsel;” [1] he shows sufficiently thata faithful woman is blessed in the Lord, even when she marries a second timeafter the death of her husband, but that a widow is more blessed in the sameLord; that is, to speak not only in the words, but by instances also, of theScriptures, that Ruth is blessed, but that Anna is more blessed.

6. Wherefore this in the first placeyou ought to know, that by the good, which you have chosen, second marriagesare not condemned, but are set in lower honor. For, even as the good of holyvirginity, which thy daughter hath chosen, doth not condemn thy onemarriage; so neither doth thy widowhood the second marriage of any. Forhence, specially, the heresies of the Cataphryges and of the Novatiansswelled, which Tertullian also, inflated with cheeks full of sound not ofwisdom, whilst with railing tooth he attacks [2] second marriages, as thoughunlawful, which the Apostle with sober mind allows [3] to be altogether lawful. Fromthis soundness of doctrine let no man’s reasoning, be heunlearned, or be he learned, move thee; nor do thou so extol thy own good,as to charge as evil that of another’s which is not evil; but dothou rejoice so much the more of thy own good, the more thou seest, that, byit, not only are evils shunned, but some goods too surpassed. For adulteryand fornication are evils. But from these unlawful things she is very farremoved, who hath bound herself by liberty of vow, and, not by command oflaw, but by counsel of charity, hath brought to pass that even things lawfulshould not be lawful to her. And marriage chastity is a good, but widowedcontinence is a better good. Therefore this better good is honored by thesubmission of that other, not that other condemned by the praise of thisthat is better.

7. But whereas the Apostle, whencommending the fruit of unmarried men and women, in that they have thoughtof the things of the Lord, how to please God, added and saith,“But this I say for your profit, not to cast a snare onyou” [4] that is, not to force you; “but in order to that which ishonorable;” we ought not, because he saith that the good of theunmarried is honorable, therefore to think that the bond of marriage isbase; otherwise we shall condemn first marriages also, which neitherCataphryges, nor Novatians, nor their most learned upholder Tertullian daredto call base. But as, when he says, “But I say unto the unmarriedand widows, that it is good for them if they shall have socontinued;” [5] assuredly he set down“good” for “better,” since everything, which, when compared with a good, is called better, this also withoutdoubt is a good; for what else is it that it is so called better, save thatit is more good? and yet we do not on this account suppose him byconsequence to have thought that it was an evil, in case they married, inthat he said, “it is good for them, if they shall have socontinued;” so also, when he says, “but in order tothat which is honest,” he hath not shown that marriage is base,but that which was honester than (another thing also) honest, he hathcommended by the name of honest in general. Because what is honester, savewhat is more honest? But what is more honest is certainly honest. Forsoothhe plainly showed that this is better than that other that is good, where hesays, “Whoso giveth to marry, doeth well; but whoso giveth not tomarry, doeth better.” [6] And this more blessed thanthat other that is blessed, where he saith, “But she shall bemore blessed, if she shall have so continued.” [7] As,therefore, there is than good a better, and than blessed a more blessed, sois there than honest an honester, which he chose to call honest. For far beit that that be base, of which the Apostle Peter speaking saith,“Husbands, unto your wives, as unto the weaker and subjectvessel, give honor, as unto co-heirs of grace;” and addressingthe wives, he exhorts them, by the pattern of Sarah, to be subject untotheir husbands; “For so,” saith he,“certain holy women, who hoped in God, adorned themselves,obeying their own husbands; even as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord,whose daughters ye are made, well-doing, and not fearing anydisturbance.” [8]

8. Whence, also, what the ApostlePaul said of the unmarried woman, “that she may be holy both inbody and spirit;” [9] we are not so to understand,as though a faithful woman being married and chaste, and according to theScriptures subject unto her husband, be not holy in body, but only inspirit. For it cannot come to pass, that when the spirit is sanctified, thebody also be not holy, of which the sanctified spirit maketh use: but, thatwe seem not to any to argue rather than to provethis by divine saying; since the Apostle Peter, making mention of Sarah,saith only “holy women,” and saith not,“and in body;” let us consider that saying of the samePaul, where forbidding fornication he saith, “Know ye not, thatyour bodies are members of Christ? Taking, therefore, members of Christ,shall I make them members of an harlot? Far be it.” [1] Therefore let any onedare to say that the members of Christ are not holy; or let him not dare toseparate from the members of Christ the bodies of the faithful that aremarried. Whence, also, a little after he saith, “Your body is thetemple within you of the Holy Spirit, Whom ye have from God; and ye are notyour own; for ye have been bought with a great price.” [2] He saith that the body of the faithful is both members of Christ, and thetemple of the Holy Spirit, wherein assuredly the faithful of both sexes areunderstood. There therefore are married women, there unmarried women also;but distinct in their deserts, and as members preferred to members, whilstyet neither are separated from the body. Whereas, therefore, he saith,speaking of an unmarried woman, “that she may be holy both inbody and spirit,” he would have understood a fullersanctification both in body and in spirit, and hath not deprived the body ofmarried women of all sanctification.

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 couldnot on any other condition be a good, unless that were an evil, oraltogether were not. The eyes have great honor in the body, but they wouldhave less, if they were alone, and there were not other members of lesshonor. In heaven itself the sun by its light surpasses, not chides, themoon; and star from star differs in glory, [3] not is at variance throughpride. Therefore, “God made all things, and, lo, verygood;” [4] notonly “good,” but also “very;”for no other reason, than because “all.” For of eachseveral work throughout it was also said, “God saw that it isgood.” But, when “all” were named,“very” was added; and it was said, “God sawall things which He made, and, lo, very good.” For certainseveral things were better than other several, but all together better thanany several. Therefore, may the sound doctrine of Christ make thee in HisBody sound through His Grace, that, what thou hast better than others inbody and spirit, the self-same thy spirit, which ruleth the body, mayneither extol with insolence, nor distinguish with lack of knowledge.

10. Nor, because I called Ruthblessed, Anna more blessed, in that the former married twice, the latter,being soon widowed of her one husband, so lived long, do you straightwayalso think that you are better than Ruth. Forsooth different in the times ofthe Prophets was the dispensation of holy females, whom obedience, not lust,forced to marry, for the propagation of the people of God, [5] thatin them Prophets of Christ might be sent beforehand; whereas the Peopleitself also, by those things which in figure happened among them, whether inthe case of those who knew, or in the case of those who knew not thosethings, was nothing else than a Prophet of Christ, of whom should be bornthe Flesh also of Christ. In order therefore for the propagation of thatpeople, he was accounted accursed by sentence of the Law, whoso raised notup seed in Israel. [6] Whence also holy women were kindled, not by lust of sensual intercourse, butby piety of bearing; so that we most rightly believe of them that they wouldnot have sought sensual intercourse, in case a family could have come by anyother means. And to the husbands was allowed the use of several wivesliving; and that the cause of this was not lust of the flesh, butforethought of begetting, is shown by the fact, that, as it was lawful forholy men to have several wives living, it was not likewise lawful for holywomen to have intercourse with several husbands living; in that they wouldbe by so much the baser, by how much the more they sought what would not addto their fruitfulness. Wherefore holy Ruth, not having seed such as at thattime was necessary in Israel, on the death of her husband sought another ofwhom to have it. Therefore than this one twice married, Anna once married awidow was on this account more blessed, in that she attained also to be aprophetess of Christ; concerning whom we are to believe, that, although shehad no sons, (which indeed Scripture by keeping silence hath leftuncertain,) yet, had she by that Spirit foreseen that Christ wouldimmediately come of a virgin, by Which she was enabled to recognize Him evenas a child: whence, with good reason, even without sons, (that is, assumingshe had none,) she refused a second marriage: in that she knew that now wasthe time wherein Christ were better served, not by duty of bearing, but byzeal of containing: not by fruitfulness of married womb, but by chastity of widowed conduct. But if Ruth also was awarethat by her flesh was propagated a seed, whereof Christ should hereafterhave flesh, and by marrying set forth her ministering to this knowledge, Idare not any longer say that the widowhood of Anna was more blessed than herfruitfulness.

11. But thou who both hast sons, andlivest in that end of the world, wherein now is the time not of castingstones, but of gathering; not of embracing, but of abstaining fromembracing; [1] whenthe Apostle cries out, “But this I say, brethren, the time isshort; it remains, that both they who have wives be as nothaving;” [2] assuredly if thou hadst sought a secondmarriage, it would have been no obedience of prophecy or law, no carnaldesire even of family, but a mark of incontinence alone. For you would havedone what the Apostle says, after he had said, “It is good forthem, if they shall have so continued, even as I;” [3] forsooth he straightway added, “But if they contain notthemselves, let them marry; for I had rather that they marry than beburned.” For this he said, in order that the evil of unbridleddesire might not be carried headlong into criminal baseness, being taken upby the honest estate of marriage. But thanks be to the Lord, in that thouhast given birth to what thou wouldest not be, and the virginity of thychild hath compensated for the loss of thy virginity. For Christiandoctrine, having diligent question made of it, makes answer, that a firstmarriage also now at this time is to be despised, unless incontinence standin the way. For he, who said, “If they contain not themselves,let them marry,” could have said, “If they have notsons, let them marry,” if, when now after the Resurrection andPreaching of Christ, there is unto all nations so great and abundant supplyof sons to be spiritually begotten, it were any such duty to beget sonsafter the flesh, as it was in the first times. And, whereas in another placehe saith, “But I will that the younger marry, bear children, bemothers of families,” [4] he commends with apostolicsobriety and authority the good of marriage, but doth not impose the duty ofbearing, as though in order to obey the law, even on those who“receive” the good of continence. Lastly, why he hadsaid this, he unfolds, when he adds and says, “To give nooccasion of speaking evil to the adversary; for already certain have turnedback after Satan:” that by these words of his we may understand,that those, whom he would have marry, could have done better to contain thanmarry; but better to marry than to go back after Satan, that is, to fallaway from that excellent purpose of virginal or widowed chastity, by lookingback to things that are behind, and perish. Wherefore, such as contain notthemselves, let them marry before they make profession of continence, beforethey vow unto God, what, if they pay not, they are justly condemned.Forsooth in another place he saith of such, “For when they havelived in delights in Christ, they wish to marry: having condemnation, inthat they have made of none effect their first faith;” [5] that is, they haveturned aside their will from the purpose of continence unto marriage.Forsooth they have made of none effect the faith, whereby they formerlyvowed what they were unwilling by perseverance to fulfill. Therefore thegood of marriage is indeed ever a good: but in the people of God it was atone time an act of obedience unto the law; now it is a remedy for weakness,but in certain a solace of human nature. Forsooth to be engaged in thebegetting of children, not after the fashion of dogs by promiscuous use offemales, but by honest order of marriage, is not an affection such as we areto blame in a man; yet this affection itself the Christian mind, havingthoughts of heavenly things, in a more praiseworthy manner surpasses andovercomes.

12. But since, as the Lord saith,“Not all receive this word;” [6] therefore let her who canreceive it, receive it; and let her, who containeth not, marry; let her, whohath not begun, deliberate; let her, who hath undertaken it, persevere; letthere be no occasion given unto the adversary, let there be no oblationwithdrawn from Christ. Forsooth in the marriage bond if chastity bepreserved, condemnation is not feared; but in widowed and virginalcontinence, the excellence of a greater gift [7] is soughtfor: and, when this has been sought, and chosen, and by debt of vow offered,from this time not only to enter upon marriage, but, although one be notmarried, to wish to marry is matter of condemnation. For, in order to showthis, the Apostle saith not, “When they shall have lived indelights, in Christ” they marry; [8] but “they wish tomarry; having,” saith he, “condemnation, in that theyhave made of none effect their first faith,” although not bymarrying, yet by wishing; not that the marriages even of such are judgedmatter of condemnation; but there is condemned a wrong done to purpose,there is condemned a broken faith of vow, there is condemned not a relief bylower good, but a fall from higher good: lastly,such are condemned, not because they have entered upon marriage faithafterwards, but because they have made of none effect the first faith ofcontinence. And in order to suggest this in few words, the Apostle would notsay, that they have condemnation, who after purpose of greater sanctitymarry, (not because they are not condemned, but lest in them marriage itselfshould be thought to be condemned:) but, after he had said, “theywish to marry,” he straightway added, “havingcondemnation.” And he stated the reason, “in that theyhave made of none effect their former faith,” in order that itmay appear that it is the will which fell away from its purpose, which iscondemned, whether marriage follow, or fail to follow.

13. Wherefore they who say that themarriages of such are not marriages, but rather adulteries, seem not to meto consider with sufficient acuteness and care what they say; forsooth theyare misled by a semblance of truth. For, whereas they, who of Christiansanctity marry not, are said to choose the marriage of Christ, hence certainargue saying, If she, who during the life of her husband is married toanother, be an adulteress, even as the Lord Himself hath laid down in theGospel; therefore, during the life of Christ, over Whom death hath no moredominion, [1] if shewho had chosen His marriage, be married to a man, she is an adulteress.They, who say this, are moved indeed with acuteness, but fail to observe,how great absurdity in fact follows on this reasoning. For whereas it ispraiseworthy that, even during the life of her husband, by his consent, afemale vow continence unto Christ, now, according to the reasoning of thesepersons, no one ought to do this, lest she make Christ Himself, what isimpious to imagine, an adulterer, by being married to Him during the life ofher husband. Next, whereas first marriages are of better desert than second,far be it that this be the thought of holy widows, that Christ seem untothem as a second husband. For Himself they used heretofore also to have,(when they were subject and did faithful service to their own husbands,) notafter the flesh, but after the Spirit a Husband; unto Whom the Churchherself, of which they are members, is the wife; who by soundness of faith,of hope, of charity, not in the virgins alone, but in widows also, andfaithful married women, is altogether a virgin. Forsooth unto the universalChurch, of which they all are members, the Apostle saith, “Ijoined you unto one husband a chaste virgin to present untoChrist.” [2] But He knoweth how to make fruitful, without marring of chastity, a wife avirgin, Whom even in the flesh itself His Mother could without violation ofchastity conceive. But there is brought to pass by means of thisill-considered notion, (whereby they think that the marriages of women whohave fallen away from this holy purpose, in case they shall have married,are no marriages,) no small evil, that wives be separated from theirhusbands, as though they were adulteresses, not wives; and wishing torestore to continence the women thus separated, they make their husbandsreal adulterers, in that during the life of their wives they have marriedothers.

14. Wherefore I cannot indeed say,of females who have fallen away from a better purpose, in case they shallhave married, that they are adulteries, not marriages; but I plainly wouldnot hesitate to say, that departures and fallings away from a holierchastity, 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, whena member of Him keepeth not faith to her husband; how much graver offense isit against Him, when unto Himself faith is not kept, in a matter which Herequires when offered, Who had not required that it should be offered. Forwhen each fails to render that which, not by force of command, but by adviceof counsel, he vowed, by so much the more doth he increase theunrighteousness of the wrong done to his vow, by how much the less necessityhe had to vow. These matters I for this reason treat of, that you may notthink either that second marriages are criminal, or that any marriageswhatsoever, being marriages, are an evil. Therefore let this be your mind,not that you condemn them, but that you despise them. Therefore the good ofwidowed chastity is becoming after a brighter fashion, in that in order tomake vow and profession of it, females may despise what is both pleasing andlawful. But after profession of vow made they must continue to rein in, andovercome, what is pleasing, because it is no longer lawful.

15. Men are wont to move a questionconcerning a third or fourth marriage, and even more numerous marriages thanthis. On which to make answer strictly, I dare neither to condemn anymarriage, nor to take from these the shame of their great number. But, lestthe brevity of this my answer may chance to displease any, I am prepared tolisten to my reprover treating more fully. Forperhaps he alleges some reason, why second marriages be not condemned, butthird be condemned. For I, as in the beginning of this discourse I gavewarning, dare not to be more wise than it behoveth to be wise. [1] Forwho am I, that I should think that that must be defined which I see that theApostle hath not defined? For he saith, “A woman is bound, solong as her husband liveth.” [2] He said not, her first;or, second; or, third; or, fourth; [3] but, “A woman,” saith he, “is bound, solong as her husband liveth; but if her husband shall be dead, she is setfree; let her be married to whom she will, only in the Lord: but she shallbe more blessed, if she shall have so continued.” I know not whatcan be added to, or taken from, this sentence, so far as relates to thismatter. Next I hear Himself also, the Master and Lord of the Apostles and ofus, answering the Sadducees, when they had proposed to Him a woman notonce-married, or twice-married, but, if it can be said, seven-married, [4] whose wife she should be in theresurrection? For rebuking them, He saith, “Ye do err, notknowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. For in the resurrection theyshall neither be married, nor marry wives; [5] for they shall not beginto die, but shall be equal to the Angels of God.” [6] Therefore He made mention of their resurrection, who shall rise again untolife, not who shall rise again unto punishment. Therefore He might havesaid, Ye do err, knowing not the Scriptures, nor the power of God: for inthat resurrection it will not be possible that there be those that werewives of many; and then added, that neither doth any there marry. Butneither, as we see, did He in this sentence show any sign of condemning herwho was the wife of so many husbands. Wherefore neither dare I, contrary tothe feeling of natural shame, say, that, when her husbands are dead, a womanmarry as often as she will; nor dare I, out of my own heart, beside theauthority of holy Scripture, condemn any number of marriages whatever. But,what I say to a widow, who hath had one husband, this I say to every widow;you will be more blessed, if you shall have so continued.

16. For that also is no foolishquestion which is wont to be proposed, that whoso can may say, which widowis 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 widowwith sons born to her and alive, hath made profession of continence; or shewho as a young woman having lost two husbands within two years, having nochildren left alive to console her, hath vowed to God continence, and in ithath grown old with most enduring sanctity. Herein let them exercisethemselves, if they can, by discussing, and by showing some proof to us, whoweigh the merits of widows by number of husbands, not by the strength itselfof continence. For, if they shall have said, that she who hath had onehusband is to be preferred to her who hath had two; unless they shall havealleged some special reason or authority, they will assuredly be found toset before excellence of soul, not greater excellence of soul, but goodfortune 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, ifthey prefer her not on this account, that she had sons; at any rate the veryfact that she lived a long time with her husband, what else was it than goodfortune of the flesh? Further, the desert of Anna herself is herein chieflycommended, in that, after she had so soon buried her husband, through herprotracted life she long contended with the flesh, and overcame. For so itis written, “And there was Anna, a prophetess, the daughter ofPhanuel, of the tribe of Aser; she was far advanced in many days; and hadlived with her husband seven years from her virginity; and she was a widoweven unto eighty-four years, who used not to depart from the Temple, byfastings and prayers serving day and night.” [7] You see how the holy widow isnot only commended in this, that she had had one husband, but also, that shehad lived few years with a husband from her virginity, and had with so greatservice of piety continued her office of widowed chastity even unto so greatage.

17. Let us therefore set before oureyes three widows, each having one of the things, the whole of which were inher: let us suppose one who had had one husband, in whose case is wantingboth so great length of widowhood, in that she hath lived long with herhusband, and so great zeal of piety, in that she doth not so serve withfasts and prayers: a second, who after the very short life of her formerhusband, had quickly lost a second also, and is now long time a widow, butyet herself also doth not so set herself to the most religious service offasts and prayers: a third, who not only hath had two husbands, but alsohath lived long with each of them singly, or with one of them, and beingleft a widow at a later period of life, whereinindeed, in case she had wished to marry, she might also conceive sons, hathtaken upon her widowed continence; but is more intent on God, more carefulto do always the things that please Him, day and night, like Anna, servingby prayers and fasts. If a question be raised, which of these is to bepreferred in deserts, who but must see that in this contest the palm must begiven to the greater and more glowing piety? So also if three others be set,in each of whom are two of those three, but one of the three in eachwanting, who can doubt that they will be the better, who shall have in amore excellent manner in their two goods pious humility, in order that theremay be lofty piety?

18. No one indeed of these sixwidows could come up to your standard. For you, in case that you shall havemaintained this vow even unto old age, mayest have all the three thingswherein the desert of Anna excelled. For both thou hast had one husband, andhe lived not long with thee in the flesh; and, by this means, in case thatthou shalt show forth obedience to the words of the Apostle, saying,“But she who is a widow indeed and desolate, hath hoped in theLord, and persevereth in prayers night and day,” [1] and with sober watchfulness shalt shun what follows, “But she whopasses her time in delights, living is dead,” all those threegoods, which were Anna’s, shall be thine also. But you have sonsalso, which haply she had not. And yet you are not on this account to bepraised, that you have them, but that you are zealous to nurture and educatethem piously. For that they were born to thee, was of fruitfulness; thatthey are alive, is of good fortune; that they be so brought up, is of yourwill and disposal. [2] In the former let men congratulateyou, in this let them imitate you. Anna, through prophetic knowledge,recognized Christ with His virgin Mother; thee the grace of the Gospel hathmade the mother of a virgin of Christ. Therefore that holy virgin, [3] whom herself willing andseeking it ye have offered unto Christ, hath added something of virginaldesert also unto the widowed deserts of her grandmother and mother. For yewho have her, fail not to have something thence; and in her ye are, what inyourselves ye are not. For that holy virginity should be taken from you atyour marriage, was on this account brought to pass, in order that she shouldbe born of you.

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 werewriting only for you. But, since there are in this kind of discourse certainvery difficult questions, it was my wish to say something more than whatproperly relates to you, by reason of certain, who seem not to themselveslearned, unless they essay, not by passing judgment to discuss, but byrending to cut in pieces the labors of others: in the next place, that youyourself also may not only keep what you have vowed, and make advance inthat good; but also know more carefully and more surely, that this same goodof yours is not distinguished from the evil of marriage, but is set beforethe good of marriage. For let not such, as condemn the marriage of widowedfemales, although they exercise their continence in abstaining from manythings, which you make use of, on this account lead you astray, to thinkwhat they think, although you cannot do what they do. For no one would be amadman, although he see that the strength of a madman is greater than of menin their sound senses. Chiefly, therefore, let sound doctrine both adorn andguard goodness of purpose. Forsooth it is from this cause that catholicfemales, even after that they have been married more than once, are by justjudgment preferred, not only to the widows who have had one husband, butalso to the virgins of heretics. There are indeed on these three matters, ofmarriage, widowhood, and virginity, many winding recesses of questions, manyperplexities; and in order by discussion to enter deeply into and solvethese, there is required both greater care, and a fuller discourse; thateither we may have a right mind in all those things, or, if in any matter webe otherwise minded, this also God may reveal unto us. However, what therealso the Apostle saith next after, “Whereunto we have arrived, inthat let us walk.” [4] But we have arrived, inwhat relates to this matter on which we are speaking, so far as to setcontinence before marriage, but holy virginity even before widowedcontinence; and not to condemn any marriages, which yet are not adulteriesbut marriages, by praise of any purpose whatever of our own or of ourfriends. Many other things on these matters we have said in a Bookconcerning the Good of Marriage, and in another Book concerning HolyVirginity, and in a Book which we composed with as great pains as we couldagainst Faustus the Manichee; since, by most biting reproaches in hiswritings of the chaste marriages of Patriarchsand Prophets, he had turned aside the minds of certain unlearned personsfrom soundness of faith.

20. Wherefore, forasmuch as in thebeginning of this little work I had proposed certain two necessary matters,and had undertaken to follow them out; one which related to doctrine, theother to exhortation; and I have not failed in the former part, to the bestof my power, according to the business which I had undertaken; let us cometo exhortation, in order that the good which is known wisely, may be pursuedardently. And in this matter I give you this advice first, that, how greatsoever love of pious continence you feel to be in you, you ascribe it to thefavor of God, and give Him thanks, Who of His Holy Spirit hath freely givenunto you so much, as that, His love being shed abroad in your heart, thelove of a better good should take away from you the permission of a lawfulmatter. For it was His gift to you that you should not wish to marry, whenit was lawful, in order that now it should not be lawful, even if youwished; and that by this means the wish not to do it might be the moresettled, lest what were now unlawful be done, which was not done even whenlawful; and that, a widow of Christ, you should so far attain as to see yourdaughter also a virgin of Christ; for whilst you are praying as Anna, shehath become what Mary was. These by how much the more you know them to begifts 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 whatyou have. For listen to what the Apostle said on this matter,“But we have received not the spirit of this world, but theSpirit Which is of God, that we may know what things have been given to usby God.” [1] Forsooth many have many gifts of God, and by not knowing from Whom they havethem, come to boast themselves with impious vanity. But there is no oneblessed with the gifts of God, who is ungrateful to the Giver. Forasmuch as,also, whereas in the course of the sacred Mysteries we are bidden to“lift up our hearts,” it is by His help that we areable, by Whose bidding we are admonished; and therefore it follows, that, ofthis so great good of the heart lifted up, we give not the glory toourselves as of our own strength, but render thanks unto our Lord God. Forof this we are straightway admonished, that “this ismeet,” “this is right.” You remember whencethese words are taken, you recognize by what sanction, and by how greatholiness they are commended within. Therefore hold and have what you havereceived, and return thanks to the Giver. For, although it be yours toreceive and have, yet you have that, which you have received: forasmuch asto one waxing proud, and impiously glorying of that which he had, as thoughhe had it of himself, the Truth saith by the Apostle, “But whathast thou, which thou hast not received? But, if thou hast received, whyboastest thou, as if thou hadst not received?” [3]

[2] 21. These things I am compelled to admonish by reason ofcertain 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 (asmust be said with tears) hostile to the grace of Christ, which go topersuade that we count not as necessary for us prayer unto the Lord, that weenter 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 tofulfill what is commanded us of God. And thus it follows, that the Lord invain said, “Watch and pray, lest ye enter intotemptation;” [4] and in vain daily in theLord’s Prayer itself we say, “Lead us not intotemptation.” [5] For if it is of our own poweralone that we be not overcome by temptation, why do we pray that we enternot, nor be led into it? Rather let us do what is of our own free will, andmost absolute power; and let us mock at the Apostle, saying, “Godis faithful, Who will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye areable;” [6] andlet us oppose him, and say, Why seek I of the Lord, what He hath set in myown power? But far be it, that he be so minded, who is sound minded.Wherefore let us seek that He may give, what He bids us that we have. For tothis end He bids us have this, which as yet we have not, to admonish as whatto seek; and that when we shall have found the power to do what He hathbidden, we may understand, of this also, whence we have received it; lest,being puffed and lifted up by the spirit of this world, we know not whatthings have been given unto us of God. Wherefore the free choice of thehuman will we by no means destroy, when the Grace of God, by which the freechoice itself is helped, we deny not with ungrateful pride, but rather setforth with grateful piety. For it is ours to will: but the will itself isboth admonished that it may arise, and healed,that it may have power; [1] andenlarged, that it may receive; and filled, that it may have. For were not weto will, certainly neither should we receive the things that are given, norshould we have. For who would have continence, (among the rest of the giftsof God to speak of this rather, of which I am speaking to you,) who, I say,would have continence, unless willing? forasmuch as also no one wouldreceive unless willing. But if you ask, Whose gift it is, that it can be byour will received and had? listen to Scripture; yea, rather, because thouknowest, recollect what thou hast read, “Whereas Iknew,” saith he, “that no one can be continent, unlessGod give it, and this itself was of wisdom, to know whose gift itwas.” [2] Great are these two gifts, wisdom and continence; wisdom, forsooth, wherebywe are formed in the knowledge of God; but continence, whereby we are notconformed unto this world. But God bids us that we be both wise andcontinent, without which goods we cannot be just and perfect. But let uspray that He give what He bids, by helping and inspiring, Who hathadmonished us what to will by commanding and calling. Whatsoever of this Hehath given, let us pray that He preserve; but what He hath not given as yet,let us pray that He supply; yet let us pray and give thanks for what we havereceived; and for what we have not yet received, from the very fact that weare not ungrateful for what we have received, let us trust that we shallreceive it. For He, Who hath given power unto the faithful who are marriedto contain from adulteries and fornications, Himself hath given unto holyvirgins and widows to contain from all sexual intercourse; in the case ofwhich virtue now the term inviolate chastity [3] or continence is properlyused. Or is it haply that from Him indeed we have received continence, butfrom ourselves have wisdom? What then is it that the Apostle James saith,“But if any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, Who givethunto all liberally, and upbraideth not, and it shall be given untohim.” [4] But onthis question, already in other little works of ours, so far as the Lordhath helped us, we have said many things; and at other times, so far asthrough Him we shall be able, when opportunity is given, we will speak.

22. Now it has been my wish on thisaccount to say something on this subject, by reason of certain of ourbrethren most friendly and dear to us, and without willful guilt indeedentangled in this error, but yet entangled; who think, that, when theyexhort any to righteousness and piety, their exhortation will not haveforce, unless the whole of that, wherein they would work upon man that manshould 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 befree will to perform a good work, unless set free by the gift of God! Andthey 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 toenter upon a good life, to enkindle the cold, to correct such as are inerror, 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 ifin 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 byhelping? Yea rather, with how great soever power of discourse man mayprevail, as that by skill of discussion, and sweetness of speech, he in thewill of man implant truth, nourish charity, by teaching remove error, byexhortation remove sloth, “Neither he who planteth is any thing,nor he who watereth, but God Who giveth the increase.” [5] Forin vain would the workman use all means without, unless the Creator shouldwork secretly within. I hope therefore that this letter of mine by theworthy deed [6] of your Excellence will soon come into thehands of such also; on this account I thought that I ought to say somethingon this subject. Next that both you yourself, and whatsoever other widowsshall read this, or hear it read, may know that you make more advance untothe love and profession of the good of continence by your own prayers thanby our exhortations; forasmuch as if it be any help to you that ouraddresses also are supplied to you, the whole must be assigned to His grace,“in Whose Hand,” as it is written, “areboth we and our discourses.” [7]

23. If, therefore, you had not asyet vowed unto God widowed continence, we would assuredly exhort you to vowit; but, in that you have already vowed it, we exhort you to persevere. Andyet I see that I must so speak as to lead those also who had as yet thoughtof marriage to love it and to seize on it. Therefore let us give ear untothe Apostle, “She who is unmarried,” saith he,“is careful about the things of theLord, to be holy both in body and spirit; but she who is married is carefulabout the things of the world, how to please her husband.” [1] Hesaith not, is careful about the things of the world, so as not to be holy;but certainly that that marriage holiness [2] is less, in regard ofthat portion of cares, which hath thought of the pleasure of the world.Whatever, therefore, of earnest purpose of mind would be expended also onthese things whereby she would have to please a husband, the unmarriedChristian woman ought in a certain way to gather and bring together untothat earnest purpose whereby she is to please the Lord. And consider, Whomshe pleases, who pleases the Lord; and assuredly she is by so much the moreblessed by how much the more she pleases Him; but by how much the more herthoughts are of the things of the world, by so much the less does she pleaseHim. Therefore do ye with all earnest purpose please Him, Who is“fair of form above the sons of men.” [3] Forthat ye please Him, it is by His grace which is “shed abroad onHis lips.” Please ye Him in that portion of thought also, whichwould be occupied by the world, in order to please a husband. Please ye Him,Who displeased the world, in order that such as please Him might be set freefrom the world. For This One, fair of form above the sons of men, men saw onthe Cross of the Passion; “and He had not form or beauty, but Hisface cast down, and His posture unseemly.” [4] Yet from this unseemliness of your Redeemer flowed the price of your beauty,but of a beauty within, for “all the beauty of theKing’s daughter is within.” [5] By this beauty please ye Him, this beauty order ye with studious care andanxious thought. He loves not dyes of deceits; the Truth delighteth inthings that are true, and He, if you recognize what you have read, is calledthe Truth. “I am,” saith He, “the Way, andthe Truth, and the Life.” [6] Run ye to Him through Him, pleaseye Him of Him; live ye with Him, in Him, of Him. With true affections andholiest chastity love ye to be loved by such a Husband.

24. Let the inner ear of the virginalso, thy holy child, hear these things. I shall see [7] how far she goes before you in theKingdom of That King: it is another question. Yet ye have found, mother anddaughter, Him, Whom by beauty of chastity ye ought to please together,having despised, she all, you second, marriage. Certainly if there werehusbands whom ye had to please, by this time, perhaps, you would feelashamed to adorn yourself together with your daughter; now let it not shameyou, to set yourselves to do what may adorn you both together; because it isnot matter of blame, but of glory, that ye be loved both together by ThatOne. But white and red, feigned and laid on with paints, ye would not use,even if ye had husbands; not thinking that they were fit persons for you todeceive, or yourselves such as ought to deceive; now therefore That King,Who had longed for the beauty of His Only Spouse, of Whom ye are members, doye with all truth together please, together cleave unto; she with virginalchastity, you with widowed continence, both with spiritual beauty. In whichbeauty also her grandmother, and your mother-in-law, who by this time surelyhath grown old, is beautiful together with you. Forsooth whilst charitycarries the vigor of this beauty into things that are before, length ofyears causeth not in it a wrinkle. You have with you a holy aged woman, bothin your house and in Christ, whom to consult concerning perseverance; howyou are to fight with this or that temptation, what you are to do, that itmay be the more easily overcome; what safeguard you are to take, that it maynot easily again lay wait; and if there be any thing of this sort, sheteaches you, who is now by time fixed, by love a well-wisher, by naturalaffection full of cares, by age secure. Do you specially, do you in suchthings consult her, who hath made trial of what you have made trial of. Foryour child sings that song, [8] which in the Apocalypse none save virginscan sing. But for both of you she prays more carefully than for herself, butshe is more full of care for her granddaughter, for whom there remains alonger space of years to overcome temptations; but you she sees nearer toher own age, and mother of a daughter of such an age, as that, had you seenher married, (which now is not lawful, and far be it from her,) I think youwould have blushed to bear children together with her. How much then is itthat now remains to you of a dangerous age, who are on this account notcalled a grandmother, in order that together with your daughter you may befruitful in offspring of holy thoughts and works? Therefore not withoutreason is the grandmother more full of care for her, for whom you also themother; because both what she hath vowed is greater, and the whole of whatshe hath just now begun remains to her. May theLord hear her prayers, that ye may holily follow her good deserts, who inyouth gave birth to the flesh of your husband, [1] in old age travaileth with the heart of yourdaughter. Therefore do ye all, alike and with one accord, by conduct please,by prayers press upon, That One Husband of One Wife, in Whose Body by OneSpirit ye are living.

25. The past day returns nothereafter, and after yesterday proceeds to-day, and after to-day willproceed to-morrow; and, lo, all times and the things of time pass away, thatthere may come the promise that shall abide; and “whoso shallhave persevered even unto the end, this one shall be saved.” [2] Ifthe world is now perishing, the married woman, for whom beareth she? Or inheart about to bear, and in flesh not about to bear, why doth she marry? Butif the world is still about to last, why is not He more loved, by Whom theworld was made? If already enticements of this life are failing, there isnot any thing for a Christian soul with desire to seek after; but if theyshall yet remain, there is what with holiness he may despise. For the one ofthese two there is no hope of lust, in the other greater glory of charity.How many or how long are the very years, in which the flower of carnal ageseems to flourish? Some females having thoughts of marriage, and with ardorwishing it, whilst they are being despised or put off, on a sudden havegrown old, so as that now they would feel shame, rather than desire, tomarry. But many having married, their husbands having set out into distantcountries very soon after their union, have grown aged expecting theirreturn, and, as though soon left widows, at times have not even attained soas at least as old women to receive their old men on their return. Iftherefore, when betrothed bridegrooms despised or delayed, or when husbandswere abroad, carnal desire could be restrained from commission offornication or adultery, why cannot it be restrained from commission ofsacrilege? If it hath been repressed, when being deferred it was glowing,why is it not put down, when having been cut off it had grown cold? For theyin greater measure endure glowing of desire, who despair not of the pleasureof the same desire. But whoso of unmarried persons vow chastity to God,withdraw that very hope, which is the fuel of love. Hence with more ease isdesire bridled, which is kindled by no expectation; and yet, unless againstthis prayer be made, in order to overcome it, itself as unlawful is the moreardently wished for.

26. Therefore let spiritual delightssucceed to the place of carnal delights in holy chastity; reading, prayer,psalm, good thought, frequency in good works, hope of the world to come, anda heart upward; and for all these giving of thanks unto the Father oflights, from Whom, without any doubt, every good gift, and every perfectgift, as Scripture bears witness, cometh down. [3] For when, in stead of thedelights of married women, which they have in the flesh of their husbands,the use of other carnal delights is taken, as it were to solace them, whyshould I speak of the evils which follow, when the Apostle hath said inshort, that the widow, who lives in delights, living is dead. [4] Butfar be it from you, that ye be taken with lust of riches instead of lust ofmarriage, or that in your hearts money succeed to the place of love of ahusband. For looking into men’s conversation, we have often foundby experience, that in certain persons, when wantonness hath beenrestrained, avarice hath increased. For, as, in the senses themselves of thebody, they who see not hear more keenly, and discern many things by touch,nor have such as have the use of their eyes so great life in their touch;and in this instance it is understood that, when the exertion of the powerof attention [5] hath been restrained in oneapproach, that is, of the eyes, it puts itself forth into other senses, moreready with keenness to distinguish, as though it essayed to supply from theone what was denied in the other; thus also often carnal lust, beingrestrained from pleasure of sensual intercourse, with greater strengthreaches itself forth to desire money, and when turned away from the one,turns itself with more glow of passion to the other. But in you let the loveof riches grow cold together with the love of marriage, and let a pious useof what property you possess be directed to spiritual delights, that yourliberality wax warm rather in helping such as are in want than in enrichingcovetous persons. Forsooth into the heavenly treasury are sent not gifts tothe covetous, but alms to the needy, which above measure help the prayers ofwidows. Fastings, also, and watchings, so far as they disturb not health, ifthey be spent in praying, singing psalms, reading, and meditating in the Lawof God, even the very things which seem laborious are turned into spiritualdelights. For no way burdensome are the labors of such as love, but even ofthemselves delight, as of such as hunt, fowl, fish, gather grapes, traffic,delight themselves with some game. It matters therefore what be loved. For, in the case of what is loved,either there is no labor, or the labor also is loved. And consider how itshould be matter for shame and grief, if there be pleasure in labor, to takea wild beast, to fill cask and purse, [1] tocast a ball, and there be no pleasure in labors to win God!

27. Indeed in all spiritualdelights, which unmarried women enjoy, their holy conversation ought also tobe with caution; lest haply, though their life be not evil throughnaughtiness, their report be evil through negligence. Nor are they to belistened to, whether they be holy men or women, when (upon occasion of theirneglect in some matter being blamed, through which it comes to pass thatthey fall into evil suspicion, from which they know that their life is farremoved) they say that it is enough for them their conscience before God,despising what men think of them, not only imprudently [2] but also cruelly; when they slay thesouls of others; whether of such as blaspheme the way of God, who followingtheir suspicion are displeased at what is the chaste life of the Saints, asthough it were shameful, or of such also as make excuse, and imitate, notwhat they see, but what they think. Wherefore whosoever guards his life fromcharges of shameful and evil deeds, does good to himself; but whosoeverguards his character too, is merciful also towards others. For untoourselves our own life is necessary, unto others our character; andcertainly even what we mercifully minister unto others, for their health,abounds also to our own profit. Whence not in vain the Apostle,“We provide good things,” saith he, “notonly before God, but also before men;” [3] also he saith, “Please ye all menthrough all things; even as I also please all men through all things, notseeking what is of profit unto myself, but what unto many, that they may besaved.” [4] Also in a certain exhortation hesays, “For the rest, brethren, whatsoever things are true,whatsoever things are holy, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever thingsare pure, whatsoever things are most dear, whatsoever things are of goodreport; if any virtue, if any praise, these things think on, which ye haveboth learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me.” [5] You see how among many things, unto which by exhortation he admonished them,he neglected not to set, “whatsoever things are of goodreport;” and in two words included all things, where he saith,“if any virtue, if any praise.” For unto virtuepertain the good things of which He made mention above; but good report untopraise. I think that the Apostle took not the praise of men for any greatthing, saying in another place, “But to me it is the least thing,that I be judged of you, or of day of man;” [6] and in another place,“If I were pleasing men, I should not be a servant ofChrist;” [7] and again, “For ourglory is this, the testimony of our conscience.” [8] Butof these two, that is, of a good life, and a good report, or as is said moreshortly, of virtue and praise, the one for his own sake he most wisely kept,the other for the sake of others he most mercifully provided. But, forasmuchas human caution, how great soever, cannot on every side avoid mostmalevolent suspicions, when for our good report we shall have done whateverwe rightly can, if any, either by falsely pretending evil things of us, orfrom believing evil of us, endeavor to stain our fair fame, let there bepresent the solace of conscience, and clearly also the joy, in that ourreward is great in Heaven, even when men say many evil things of us, [9] and we yet live godly and righteously. For that reward is as the pay of suchas serve as soldiers, through the arms of righteousness, not only on theright hand, but on the left also; that is to say, through glory and meanestate, through ill report and good report. [10]

28. Go on therefore in your course,and run with perseverance, in order that ye may obtain; and by pattern oflife, and discourse of exhortation, carry away with you into this same yourcourse, whomsoever ye shall have had power. Let there not bend you from thisearnest purpose, whereby ye excite many to follow, the complaint of vainpersons, who say, How shall the human race subsist, if all shall have beencontinent? As though it were for any other reason that this world isdelayed, save that the predestined number of the Saints be fulfilled, andwere this the sooner fulfilled, assuredly the end of the world would not beput off. Nor let it stay you from your earnest purpose of persuading othersto the same good ye have, if it be said to you, Whereas marriage also isgood, 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 continenceimitate? In the first place, because with the endeavor that all becontinent, there will still be but few, for “not all receive thisword.” But forasmuch as it is written, “Whoso canreceive, let him receive;” [11] then do they receive whocan, when silence is not kept even toward those who cannot. Next, neitherought we to fear lest haply all receive it, andsome one of lesser goods, that is, married life, be wanting in the body ofChrist. For if all shall have heard, and all shall have received, we oughtto understand that this very thing was predestinated, that married goodsalready suffice in the number of those members which so many have passed outof this life. For neither now, if all shall have been continent, will theygive the honor of the continent to those who have already borne into thegarners of the Lord the fruit thirty-fold, if that be understood of marriedgood. Therefore all these goods will have there their place, although fromthis time no woman wish to be married, no man wish to marry a wife.Therefore without anxiety urge on whom ye can, to become what ye are; andpray with watchfulness and fervor, that by the help of the Right Hand of theMost High, and by the abundance of the most merciful grace of the Lord, yemay both persevere in that which ye are, and may make advances unto thatwhich ye shall be.

29. Next I entreat you, by Him, fromWhom 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 householdChurch. Forsooth it hath come to pass in most proper order, that I shouldwrite unto your Mother now aged a letter [1] concerning prayer; unto her, forsooth, it chieflypertains by praying to contend on your behalf, who is less full of care forherself than for you; and that for you rather than for her I should composethis little work concerning widowed continence; because unto you itremaineth to overcome, what her age hath already overcome. But the holyvirgin your child, if she desire aught concerning her profession from ourlabors, she hath a large book on Holy Virginity to read. Concerning thereading of which I had also admonished you, forasmuch as it contains manythings necessary unto either chastity, that is, virginal and widowed, whichthings on this account I have here partly touched on lightly, partlyaltogether passed over, because I there discussed them more fully.

May you persevere in the grace of Christ.

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON LYING. [DEMENDACIO.]

TRANSLATED BY REV. H. BROWNE, M.A., OF CORPUS CHRISTICOLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, LATE PRINCIPAL OF THE DIOCESAN COLLEGE,CHICHESTER.

This book appears from its place in the Retractations to have been written about ad 395, as itis the last work named in the first book, which contains those which hewrote before he was Bishop. Some editions represent it as addressed toConsentius, but not the MSS. The latter are probablyright, as his other work on the subject was written in answer to theinquiries of Consentius on the case of the Priscillianists many yearslater.— Bened. Ed.

Retractations, Book I. lastChapter.

“I have also written a Book on Lying, which though it takessome pains to understand, contains much that is useful for the exerciseof the mind, and more that is profitable to morals, in inculcating thelove of speaking the truth. This also I was minded to remove from myworks, because it seemed to me obscure, and intricate, and altogethertroublesome; for which reason I had not sent it abroad. And when I hadafterwards written another book, under this title, Against Lying, much more had I determined and ordered that theformer should cease to exist; which however was not done. Therefore inthis retractation of my works, as I have found this still in being, Ihave ordered that it should remain; chiefly because therein are to befound some necessary things which in the other are not. Why the otherhas for its title, Against Lying, but this, Of Lying, the reason is this, that throughout theone is an open assault upon lying, whereas great part of this is takenup with the discussion of the question for and against. Both, however,are directed to the same object. This book begins thus: “ Magna quæstio est deMendacio. ”

1. THERE is a great question about Lying, which oftenarises 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 decidethat it is sometimes right to tell a lie, that is, a kind of honest,well-meant, charitable lie. This question we will painfully discuss byseeking with them that seek: whether to any good purpose, we need not takeupon ourselves to affirm, for the attentive reader will sufficiently gatherfrom 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 ofthe seeker; so that at one moment what was found seems to slip out ofone’s hands, and anon comes to light again, and then is once morelost to sight. At last, however, the chase will bear down more surely, andwill overtake our sentence. Wherein if there is any error, yet as Truth isthat which setteth free from all error, andFalsehood that which entangleth in all error, one never errs more safely,methinks, than when one errs by too much loving the truth, and too muchrejecting of falsehood. For they who find great fault say it is too much,whereas peradventure Truth would say after all, it is not yet enough. Butwhoso readest, thou wilt do well to find no fault until thou have read thewhole; so wilt thou have less fault to find. Eloquence thou must not lookfor: we have been intent upon things, and upon dispatch in putting out ofhand a matter which nearly concerns our every day life, and therefore havehad small pains, or almost none, to bestow upon words.

2. Setting aside, therefore, jokes,which have never been accounted lies, seeing they bear with them in the toneof voice, and in the very mood of the joker a most evident indication thathe means no deceit, although the thing he utters be not true: touching whichkind of discourse, whether it be meet to be used by perfect minds, isanother question which we have not at this time taken in hand to clear; butsetting jokes apart, the first point to be attended to, is, that a personshould not be thought to lie, who lieth not.

3. For which purpose we must seewhat a lie is. For not every one who says a false thing lies, if he believesor opines that to be true which he says. Now between believing and opiningthere is this difference, that sometimes he who believes feels that he doesnot know that which he believes, (although he may know himself to beignorant of a thing, and yet have no doubt at all concerning it, if he mostfirmly believes it:) whereas he who opines, thinks he knows that which hedoes not know. Now whoever utters that which he holds in his mind either asbelief or as opinion, even though it be false, he lies not. For this he owesto the faith of his utterance, that he thereby produce that which he holdsin his mind, and has in that way in which he produces it. Not that he iswithout fault, although he lie not, if either he believes what he ought notto believe, or thinks he knows what he knows not, even though it should betrue: for he accounts an unknown thing for a known. Wherefore, that manlies, who has one thing in his mind and utters another in words, or by signsof whatever kind. Whence also the heart of him who lies is said to bedouble; that is, there is a double thought: the one, of that thing which heeither knows or thinks to be true and does not produce; the other, of thatthing 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, ifhe thinks it to be so as he says although it be not so; and, that he may saya true thing, and yet lie, if he thinks it to be false and utters it fortrue, although in reality it be so as he utters it. For from the sense ofhis own mind, not from the verity or falsity of the things themselves, is heto be judged to lie or not to lie. Therefore he who utters a false thing fora 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 heutters it, neither does he wish to deceive, but is deceived. But the faultof 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 thathe utters a true thing with will to deceive, which he does not think to betrue: wherein being believed, he does not deceive though it was his will todeceive: except that he deceives in so far as he is thought to know or thinkas he utters.

4. But it may be a very nicequestion whether in the absence of all will to deceive, lying is altogetherabsent. Thus, put the case that a person shall speak a false thing, which heesteems to be false, on the ground that he thinks he is not believed, to theintent, that in that way falsifying his faith he may deter the person towhom 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 itto be. But if it be no lie, unless when something is uttered with wish todeceive, that person lies not, who says a false thing, knowing or thinkingit to be false, but says it on purpose that the person to whom he speaks bynot believing him may not be deceived, because the speaker either knows orthinks the other will not believe him. Whence if it appear to be possiblethat a person should say a false thing on purpose that he to whom it is saidmay not be deceived, on the other hand there is this opposite case, the caseof a person saying the truth on purpose that he may deceive. For if a mandetermines to say a true thing because he perceives he is not believed, thatman speaks truth on purpose that he may deceive: for he knows or thinks thatwhat 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, hesays a true thing on purpose to deceive. So that it may be inquired, whichrather lies: he who says a false thing that hemay not deceive, or he who says a true thing that he may deceive? the oneknowing or thinking that he says a false thing, and the other knowing orthinking that he says a true thing? For we have already said that the personwho does not know the thing to be false which he utters, does not lie if hethinks it to be true; and that that person rather lies who utters even atrue thing when he thinks it false: because it is by the sense of their mindthat they are to be judged. Concerning these persons therefore, whom we haveset forth, there is no small question. The one, who knows or thinks he saysa false thing, and says it on purpose that he may not deceive: as, if heknows a certain road to be beset by robbers, and fearing lest some personfor whose safety he is anxious should go by that road, which person he knowsdoes not trust him, should tell him that that road has no robbers, onpurpose that he may not go by it, as he will think there are robbers thereprecisely because the other has told him there are none, and he is resolvednot to believe him, accounting him a liar. The other, who knowing orthinking that to be true which he says, says it on purpose that he maydeceive: for instance, if he tells a person who does not believe him, thatthere are robbers in that road where he really knows them to be, that he towhom he tells it may the rather go by that road and so fall among robbers,because he thinks that to be false which the other told him. Which then ofthese lies? the one who has chosen to say a false thing that he may notdeceive? or the other who has chosen to say a true thing that he maydeceive? that one, who in saying a false thing aimed that he to whom hespake should follow the truth? or this one, who in saying a true thing aimedthat he to whom he spake should follow a falsehood? Or haply have both lied?the one, because he wished to say a false thing: the other, because hewished to deceive? Or rather, has neither lied? not the one, because he hadthe will not to deceive: not the other, because he had the will to speak thetruth? For the question is not now which of them sinned, but which of themlied: as indeed it is presently seen that the latter sinned, because byspeaking a truth he brought it about that a person should fall amongrobbers, and that the former has not sinned, or even has done good, becauseby speaking a false thing he has been the means of a person’savoiding destruction. But then these instances may be turned the other way,so that the one should be supposed to wish some more grievous suffering tothe person whom he wishes not to be deceived; for there are many cases ofpersons who through knowing certain things to be true, have broughtdestruction upon themselves, if the things were such as ought to havecontinued unknown to them: and the other may be supposed to wish someconvenience to result to the person whom he wishes to be deceived; for therehave been instances of persons who would have destroyed themselves had theyknown some evil that had really befallen those who were dear to them, andthrough deeming it false have spared themselves: and so to be deceived hasbeen a benefit to them, as to others it has been a hurt to know the truth.The question therefore is not with what purpose of doing a kindness or ahurt, either the one said a false thing that he might not deceive, or theother a true thing that he might deceive: but, setting apart the convenienceor inconvenience of the persons spoken to, in so far as relates to the verytruth and falsehood, the question is, whether both of them or neither haslied. For if a lie is an utterance with will of uttering a false thing, thatman has rather lied who willed to say a false thing, and said what hewilled, albeit he said it of set purpose not to deceive. But if a lie is anyutterance whatever with will to deceive, then not the former has lied, butthe latter, who even in speaking truth willed to deceive. And if a lie is anutterance with will of any falsity, both have lied; because both the formerwilled his utterance to be false, and the latter willed a false thing to bebelieved concerning his utterance which was true. Further, if a lie is anutterance of a person wishing to utter a false thing that he may deceive,neither has lied; because both the former in saying a false thing had thewill to make a true thing believed, and the latter to say a true thing inorder that he might make a false thing believed. We shall be clear then ofall rashness and all lying, if, what we know to be true or right to bebelieved, we utter when need is, and wish to make that thing believed whichwe utter. If, however, either thinking that to be true which is false, oraccounting as known that which is to us unknown, or believing what we oughtnot to believe, or uttering it when need is not, we yet have no other aimthan to make that believed which we utter; we do not stand clear indeed ofthe error of temerity, but we do stand clear of all lying. For there is noneed to be afraid of any of those definitions, when the mind has a goodconscience, that it utters that which to be true it either knows, or opines,or believes, and that it has no wish to make anything believed but that which it utters.

5. But whether a lie be at sometimes useful, is a much greater and more concerning question. Whether, asabove, it be a lie, when a person has no will to deceive, or even makes ithis 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 thison purpose that he might cause a truth to be believed; whether, again, it bea lie when a person willingly utters even a truth for the purpose ofdeceiving; this may be doubted. But none doubts that it is a lie when aperson willingly utters a falsehood for the purpose of deceiving: whereforea false utterance put forth with will to deceive is manifestly a lie. Butwhether this alone be a lie, is another question. Meanwhile, taking thiskind of lie, in which all agree, let us inquire, whether it be sometimesuseful to utter a falsehood with will to deceive. They who think it is,advance testimonies to their opinion, by alleging the case of Sarah, [1] who, when she had laughed, denied to the Angels that she laughed: of Jacobquestioned by his father, and answering that he was the elder son Esau: [2] likewise that of the Egyptian midwives, who to save the Hebrew infants frombeing slain at their birth, told a lie, and that with God’sapprobation and reward: [3] and many such like instancesthey pick out, of lies told by persons whom you would not dare to blame, andso must own that it may sometimes be not only not blameworthy, but evenpraiseworthy to tell a lie. They add also a case with which to urge not onlythose who are devoted to the Divine Books, but all men and common sense,saying, Suppose a man should take refuge with thee, who by thy lie might besaved from death, wouldest thou not tell it? If a sick man should ask aquestion which it is not expedient that he should know, and might be moregrievously afflicted even by thy returning him no answer, wilt thou ventureeither to tell the truth to the destruction of the man’s life, orrather to hold thy peace, than by a virtuous and merciful lie to beserviceable to his weak health? By these and such like arguments they thinkthey most plentifully prove, that if occasion of doing good require, we maysometimes tell a lie.

6. On the other hand, those who saythat we must never lie, plead much more strongly, using first the Divineauthority, because in the very Decalogue it is written “Thoushalt not bear false witness;” [4] under which general term itcomprises all lying: for whoso utters any thing bears witness to his ownmind. But lest any should contend that not every lie is to be called falsewitness, what will he say to that which is written, “The mouththat lieth slayeth the soul:” [5] and lest any should suppose that this may be understood with the exceptionof some liars, let him read in another place, “Thou wilt destroyall that speak leasing.” [6] Whence with His own lips the Lordsaith, “Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; forwhatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.” [7] Hence the Apostle also in givingprecept for the putting off of the old man, under which name all sins areunderstood, says straightway, “Wherefore putting away lying,speak ye truth.” [8]

7. Neither do they confess that theyare awed by those citations from the Old Testament which are alleged asexamples of lies: for there, every incident may possibly be takenfiguratively, although it really did take place: and when a thing is eitherdone or said figuratively, it is no lie. For every utterance is to bereferred to that which it utters. But when any thing is either done or saidfiguratively, it utters that which it signifies to those for whoseunderstanding it was put forth. Whence we may believe in regard of thosepersons of the prophetical times who are set forth as authoritative, that inall 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 liveswhich by the same prophetic Spirit have been accounted worthy of beingrecorded in writing. As to the midwives, indeed, they cannot say that thesewomen did through the prophetic Spirit, with purpose of signifying a futuretruth, tell Pharaoh one thing instead of another, (albeit that Spirit didsignify something, without their knowing what was doing in their persons:)but, they say that these women were according to their degree approved andrewarded of God. For if a person who is used to tell lies forharm’s sake comes to tell them for the sake of doing good, thatperson has made great progress. But it is one thing that is set forth aslaudable in itself, another that in comparison with a worse is preferred. Itis 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 issaid to be justified in comparison with thecrimes of the people Israel. And to this rule they apply all the instancesof lying which are produced from the Old Books, and are found notreprehended, or cannot be reprehended: either they are approved on the scoreof a progress towards improvement and hope of better things, or in virtue ofsome hidden signification they are not altogether lies.

8. For this reason, from the booksof the New Testament, except the figurative pre-significations used by ourLord, if thou consider the life and manners of the Saints, their actions andsayings, nothing of the kind can be produced which should provoke toimitation of lying. For the simulation of Peter and Barnabas is not onlyrecorded, but also reproved and corrected. [1] For it was not, as somesuppose, [2] out of the same simulationthat even Paul the Apostle either circumcised Timothy, or himself celebratedcertain ceremonies [3] according to the Jewish rite; buthe did so, out of that liberty of his mind whereby he preached that neitherare the Gentiles the better for circumcision, nor the Jews the worse.Wherefore he judged that neither the former should be tied to the custom ofthe Jews, nor the Jews deterred from the custom of their fathers. Whence arethose words of his: “Is any man called being circumcised? let himnot become uncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not becircumcised. Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but thekeeping of the commandments of God. Let every man abide in the same callingwherein he was called.” [4] How can a man becomeuncircumcised after circumcision? but let him not do so, saith he: let himnot so live as if he had become uncircumcised, that is, as if he had coveredagain with flesh the part that was bared, and ceased to be a Jew; as inanother place he saith, “Thy circumcision is becomeuncircumcision.” [5] And this the Apostle said, not asthough he would compel either those to remain in uncircumcision, or the Jewsin the custom of their fathers: but that neither these nor those should beforced to the other custom; and, each should have power of abiding in hisown custom, not necessity of so doing. For neither if the Jew should wish,where it would disturb no man, to recede from Jewish observances, would hebe prohibited by the Apostle, since the object of his counselling to abidetherein was that Jews might not by being troubled about superfluous thingsbe hindered from coming to those things which are necessary to salvation.Neither would it be prohibited by him, if any of the Gentiles should wish tobe circumcised for the purpose of showing that he does not detest the sameas noxious, but holds it indifferently, as a seal, [6] theusefulness of which had already passed away with time; for it did not followthat, if there were now no salvation to be had from it, there wasdestruction to be dreaded therefrom. And for this reason, Timothy, havingbeen called in uncircumcision, yet because his mother was a Jewess and hewas bound, in order to gain his kindred, to show them that he had not learntin the Christian discipline to abominate the sacraments of the old Law, wascircumcised by the Apostle; [7] that in this way they mightprove to the Jews, that the reason why the Gentiles do not receive them, isnot that they are evil and were perniciously observed by the Fathers, butbecause they are no longer necessary to salvation after the advent of thatso great Sacrament, which through so long times the whole of that ancientScripture in its prophetical prefigurations did travail in birth withal. Forhe would circumcise Titus also, when the Jews urged this, [8] butthat false brethren, privily brought in, wished it to be done to the intentthey might have it to disseminate concerning Paul himself as a token that hehad given place to the truth of their preaching, who said that the hope ofGospel salvation is in circumcision of the flesh and observances of thatkind, and that without these Christ profiteth no man: whereas on thecontrary Christ would nothing profit them, who should be circumcised becausethey thought that in it was salvation; whence that saying,“Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christshall profit you nothing. [9] Out of this liberty, therefore, didPaul keep the observances of his fathers, but with this one precaution andexpress declaration, that people should not suppose that without these wasno Christian salvation. Peter, however, by his making as though salvationconsisted in Judaism, was compelling the Gentiles to judaize; as is shown byPaul’s words, where he says, “Why compellest thou theGentiles to live as do the Jews?” [10] For they would be under nocompulsion unless they saw that he observed them in such manner as if besidethem could be no salvation. Peter’s simulation therefore is notto be compared to Paul’s liberty. And while we ought to lovePeter for that he willingly received correction, we must not bolster uplying even by the authority of Paul, who bothrecalled Peter to the right path in the presence of them all, lest theGentiles through him should be compelled to judaize; and bare witness to hisown preaching, that whereas he was accounted hostile to the traditions ofthe fathers in that he would not impose them on the Gentiles, he did notdespise to celebrate them himself according to the custom of his fathers,and therein sufficiently showed that this has remained in them at the comingof Christ; that neither to the Jews they are pernicious, nor to the Gentilesnecessary, nor henceforth to any of mankind means of salvation. [1]

9. But if no authority for lying canbe alleged, neither from the ancient Books, be it because that is not a liewhich is received to have been done or said in a figurative sense, or be itbecause good men are not challenged to imitate that which in bad men,beginning to amend, is praised in comparison with the worse; nor yet fromthe books of the New Testament, because Peter’s correction ratherthan his simulation, even as his tears rather than his denial, is what wemust 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 tothese. For first they teach, that a lie is iniquity, by many proofs of holywrit, especially by that which is written, “Thou, Lord, hatestall workers of iniquity, thou shalt destroy them that speakleasing.” [2] For either as the Scripture is wont, in the following clause it expounds theformer; so that, as iniquity is a term of a wider meaning, leasing is namedas the particular sort of iniquity intended: or if they think there is anydifference between the two, leasing is by so much worse than iniquity as“thou wilt destroy” is heavier than “thouhatest.” For it may be that God hates a person to that degreemore mildly, as not to destroy him, but whom He destroys He hates the moreexceedingly, by how much He punisheth more severely. Now He hateth all whowork iniquity: but all who speak leasing He also destroyeth. Which thingbeing fixed, who of them which assert this will be moved by those examples,when it is said, suppose a man should seek shelter with thee who by thy liemay be saved from death? For that death which men are foolishly afraid ofwho are not afraid to sin, kills not the soul but the body, as the Lordteacheth in the Gospel; whence He charges us not to fear that death: [3] butthe mouth which lies kills not the body but the soul. For in these words itis most plainly written, “The mouth that lieth slayeth thesoul.” [4] How then can it besaid without the greatest perverseness, that to the end one man may havelife of the body, it is another man’s duty to incur death of thesoul? The love of our neighbor hath its bounds in each man’s loveof himself. “Thou shall love,” saith He,“thy neighbor as thyself.” [5] How can a manbe said to love as himself that man, for whom that he may secure a temporallife, himself loseth life eternal? Since if for his temporal life he losebut his own temporal life, that is not to love as himself, but more thanhimself: which exceeds the rule of sound doctrine. Much less then is he bytelling a lie to lose his own eternal for another’s temporallife. His own temporal life, of course, for his neighbor’seternal life a Christian man will not hesitate to lose: for this example hasgone before, that the Lord died for us. To this point He also saith,“This is my commandment, that ye love one another as I have lovedyou. Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life forhis friends.” [6] For none is so foolish as tosay that the Lord did other than consult for the eternal salvation of men,whether in doing what He hath charged us to do, or in charging us to do whatHimself hath done. Since then by lying eternal life is lost, never for anyman’s temporal life must a lie be told. And as to those who takeit ill and are indignant that one should refuse to tell a lie, and therebyslay his own soul in order that another may grow old in the flesh; what ifby our committing theft, what if by committing adultery, a person might bedelivered from death: are we therefore to steal, to commit whoredom? Theycannot prevail with themselves in a case of this kind: namely, if a personshould bring a halter and demand that one should yield to his carnal lust,declaring that he will hang himself unless his request be granted: theycannot prevail with themselves to comply for the sake of, as they say,saving a life. If this is absurd and wicked, why should a man corrupt hisown soul with a lie in order that another may live in the body, when, if hewere to give his body to be corrupted with such an object, he would in thejudgment of all men be held guilty of nefarious turpitude? Therefore theonly point to be attended to in this question is, whether a lie be iniquity.And since this is asserted by the texts above rehearsed, we must see that toask, whether a man ought to tell a lie for the safety of another, is justthe same as asking whether for another’s safety a man ought to commit iniquity. But if thesalvation of the soul rejects this, seeing it cannot be secured but byequity, and would have us prefer it not only to another’s, buteven to our own temporal safety: what remains, say they, that should make usdoubt that a lie ought not to be told under any circumstances whatsoever?For it cannot be said that there is aught among temporal goods greater ordearer than the safety and life of the body. Wherefore if not even that isto be preferred to truth, what can be put in our way for the sake of whichthey who think it is sometimes right to lie, can urge that a lie ought to betold?

10. As concerning purity of body;here indeed a very honorable regard seems to come in the way, and to demanda lie in its behalf; to wit, that if the assault of the ravisher may beescaped by means of a lie, it is indubitably right to tell it: but to thisit may easily be answered, that there is no purity of body except as itdepends 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 reckonedamong temporal things, as a thing that might be taken away from peopleagainst their will. By no means therefore must the mind corrupt itself by alie for the sake of its body, which it knows remaineth incorrupt if from themind itself incorruptness depart not. For that which by violence, with nolust foregoing, the body suffereth, is rather to be called deforcement thancorruption. Or if all deforcement is corruption, then not every corruptionhath turpitude, but only that which lust hath procured, or to which lusthath consented. Now by how much the mind is more excellent than the body, somuch the more heinous is the wickedness if that be corrupted. There, then,purity can be preserved, because there none but a voluntary corruption canhave place. For assuredly if the ravisher assault the body, and there is noescaping him either by contrary force, or by any contrivance or lie, we mustneeds allow that purity cannot be violated by another’s lust.Wherefore, since no man doubts that the mind is better than the body, tointegrity of body we ought to prefer integrity of mind, which can bepreserved for ever. Now who will say that the mind of him who tells a liehath its integrity? Indeed lust itself is rightly defined, An appetite ofthe mind by which to eternal goods any temporal goods whatever arepreferred. Therefore no man can prove that it is at any time right to tell alie, unless he be able to show that any eternal good can be obtained by alie. But since each man departs from eternity just in so far as he departsfrom truth, it is most absurd to say, that by departing therefrom it ispossible for any man to attain to any good. Else if there be any eternalgood which truth compriseth not, it will not be a true good, thereforeneither will it be good, because it will be false. But as the mind to thebody, so must also truth be preferred to the mind itself, so that the mindshould desire it not only more than the body, but even more than its ownself. So will the mind be more entire and chaste, when it shall enjoy theimmutability of truth rather than its own mutability. Now if Lot, [1] beingso righteous a man that he was meet [2] to entertain even Angels,offered his daughters to the lust of the Sodomites, to the intent, that thebodies of women rather than of men might be corrupted by them; how much morediligently and constantly ought the mind’s chasteness in thetruth to be preserved, seeing it is more truly preferable to its body, thanthe body of a man to the body of a woman?

11. But if any man supposes that thereason why it is right for a person to tell a lie for another is, that hemay 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 dothnot understand, in the first place, that there is no flagitious thing whichhe may not upon the same ground be compelled to commit, as has been abovedemonstrated; and in the next place, that the authority of the doctrineitself is cut off and altogether undone if those whom we essay to bringthereunto, are by our lie made to think that it is somewhiles right to lie.For seeing the doctrine which bringeth salvation consisteth partly in thingsto be believed, partly in things to be understood; and there is no attainingunto those things which are to be understood, unless first those things arebelieved, which are to be believed; how can there be any believing one whothinks it is sometimes right to lie, lest haply he lie at the moment when heteacheth us to believe? For how can it be known whether he have at thatmoment some cause, as he thinks, for a well-meant [3] lie,deeming that by a false story a man may be frightened and kept from lust,and in this way account that by telling a lie he is doing good even inspiritual things? Which kind of lie once admitted and approved, alldiscipline of faith is subverted altogether; and this being subverted,neither is there any attaining to understanding, for the receiving of whichthat discipline nurtureth the babes: and so allthe doctrine of truth is done away, giving place to most licentiousfalsehood, if a lie, even well-meant, may from any quarter have place openedfor it to enter in. For either whoso tells a lie prefers temporaladvantages, his own or another’s, to truth; than which what canbe more perverse? or when by aid of a lie he wishes to make a person fit forgaining the truth, he bars the approach to truth, for by wishing when helies to be accommodating, [1] it comes topass that when he speaks the truth, he cannot be depended upon. Wherefore,either we must not believe good men, or we must believe those whom we thinkobliged sometimes to tell a lie, or we must not believe that good mensometimes tell lies: of these three the first is pernicious, the secondfoolish; it remains therefore that good men should never tell lies.

12. Thus has the question been onboth sides considered and treated; and still it is not easy to passsentence: but we must further lend diligent hearing to those who say, thatno 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 whateverthey consent to be done unto them. Wherefore, if cause have arisen that aChristian man should choose to burn incense to idols, that he might notconsent to bodily defilement which the persecutor threatened him withal,unless he should do so, they think they have a right to ask why he shouldnot also tell a lie to escape so foul a disgrace. For the consent itself toendure 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 choseto burn incense. How much more readily then would he have chosen a lie, ifby a lie he might ward off from a holy body so shocking a disgrace?

13. In which proposition thesepoints may well deserve to be questioned: whether such consent is to beaccounted as a deed: or whether that is to be called consent which hath notapprobation: or whether it be approbation, when it is said, “Itis expedient to suffer this rather than do that;” and whether theperson spoken of did right to burn incense rather than suffer violation ofhis body; and whether it would be right rather to tell a lie, if that wasthe alternative proposed, than to burn incense? But if such consent is to beaccounted as a deed, then are they murderers who have chosen rather to beput to death than bear false witness, yea, what is worse, they are murderersof themselves. For why, at this rate, should it not be said that they haveslain themselves, because they chose that this should be done to them thatthey might not do what they were urged to do? Or, if it be accounted a worsething to slay another than himself, what if these terms were offered to aMartyr, that, upon his refusing to bear false witness of Christ and tosacrifice to demons, then, before his eyes, not some other man, but his ownfather should be put to death; his father entreating him that he would notby his persevering permit that to be done? Is it not manifest, that, uponhis remaining steadfast in his purpose of most faithful testimony, theyalone would be the murderers who should slay his father, and not he aparricide into the bargain? As therefore, in this case, the man would be noparty to this so heinous deed, for choosing, rather than violate his faithby false testimony, that his own father should be put to death by others,(yea, though that father were a sacrilegious person whose soul would besnatched away to punishment;) so the like consent, in the former case, wouldnot make him a party to that so foul disgrace, if he refused to do evilhimself, let others do what they might in consequence of his not doing it.For what do such persecutors say, but, “Do evil that we maynot?” If the case were so, that our doing evil would make themnot to have done it, even then it would not be our duty by doing wickednessourselves to vote them harmless; but as in fact they are already doing itwhen they say nothing of the kind, [2] why are they to have us to keep them company inwickedness rather than be vile and noisome by themselves? For that is not tobe called consent; seeing that we do not approve what they do, alwayswishing that they would not, and, as much as in us lies, hindering them thatthey should not do it, and, when it is done, not only not committing it withthem, but with all possible detestation condemning the same.

14. “How,”sayest thou, “is it not his doing as well as theirs, when theywould not do this, if he would do that?” Why, at this rate we gohousebreaking with house-breakers, because if we did not shut the door, theywould not break it open: and we go and murder with highwaymen, if it chancewe 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 goingto commit a parricide, we commit it along with him, if, being able, we donot slay him before he can do the deed when we cannot in some other way prevent or thwart him. For it may be said,word for word as before, “Thou hast done it as well as he; for hehad not done this, hadst thou done that.” With my good will,neither ill should be done; but only the one was in my power, and I couldtake care that this should not be done; the other rested with another, andwhen by my good advice I could not quench the purpose, I was not bound by myevil deed to thwart the doing. It is therefore no approving of a sinner,that one refuses to sin for him; and neither the one nor the other is likedby him who would that neither were done; but in that which pertains to him,he hath the power to do it or not, and with that he perpetrateth it not; inthat which pertains to another, he hath only the will to wish it or not, andwith that he condemneth. And therefore, on their offering those terms, andsaying, “If thou burn not incense, this shalt thousuffer;” if he should answer, “For me, I chooseneither, I detest both, I consent unto you in none of thesethings:” in uttering these and the like words, which certainly,because they would be true, would afford them no consent, no approbation ofhis, let him suffer at their hands what he might, to his account would beset down the receipt of wrongs, to theirs the commission of sins.“Ought he then,” it may be asked, “tosuffer his person to be violated rather than burn incense?” Ifthe question be what he ought, he ought to do neither. For should I say thathe ought to do any of these things, I shall approve this or that, whereas Ireprobate both. But if the question be, which of these he ought inpreference to avoid, not being able to avoid both but able to avoid one orother: I will answer, “His own sin, rather thananother’s; and rather a lighter sin being his own, than a heavierbeing another’s.” For, reserving the point for morediligent inquiry, and granting in the mean while that violation of theperson is worse than burning incense, yet the latter is his own, the formeranother’s deed, although he had it done to him; now, whose thedeed, his the sin. For though murder is a greater sin than stealing, yet itis worse to steal than to suffer murder. Therefore, if it were proposed toany man that, if he would not steal he should be killed, that is, murdershould be committed upon him; being he could not avoid both, he would preferto avoid that which would be his own sin, rather than that which would beanother’s. Nor would the latter become his act for beingcommitted upon him, and because he might avoid it if he would commit a sinof his own.

15. The whole stress, then, of thisquestion comes to this; whether it be true universally that no sin ofanother, committed upon thee, is to be imputed to thee, if, being able toavoid it by a lighter sin of thine own, thou do it not; or whether there bean exception of all bodily defilement. No man says that a person is defiledby being murdered, or cast into prison, or bound in chains, or scourged, orafflicted with other tortures and pains, or proscribed and made to suffermost grievous losses even to utter nakedness, or stripped of honors, andsubjected to great disgrace by reproaches of whatsoever kind; whatever ofall these a man may have unjustly suffered, no man is so senseless as to saythat he is thereby defiled. But if he have filth poured all over him, orpoured into his mouth, or crammed into him, or if he be carnally used like awoman; then almost all men regard him with a feeling of horror, and theycall him defiled and unclean. One must conclude then that the sins ofothers, be they what they may, those always excepted which defile him onwhom 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 domake him unclean, these we are bound to avoid even by sinning ourselves; andfor this reason those things are not to be called sins, which are done forthe purpose of avoiding that uncleanness. For whatever is done, inconsideration that the not doing it were just cause of blame, that thing isnot sin. Upon the same principle, neither is that to be called uncleannesswhen there is no way of avoiding it; for even in that extremity he whosuffers it has what he may do aright, namely, patiently bear what he cannotavoid. Now no man while acting aright can be defiled by any corporalcontagion. For the unclean in the sight of God is every one who isunrighteous; clean therefore is every one who is righteous; if not in thesight of men, yet in the sight of God, Who judges without error. Nay, evenin the act of suffering that defilement with power given of avoiding it, itis not by the mere contact that the man is defiled; but by the sin ofrefusing to avoid it when he might. For that would be no sin, whatever mightbe 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 beexcepted, so that it were better to suffer this than to commit those? If so,then not every thing that is done in order to theavoiding of that defilement ceases to be sin; seeing there are some lies tocommit which is worse than to suffer that foul violence. For, suppose questbe making after a person that his body may be deflowered, and that it bepossible to screen him by a lie; who dares to say that even in such a case alie ought not be told? But, if the lie by which he may be concealed be onewhich may hurt the fair fame of another, by bringing upon him a falseaccusation of that very uncleanness, to suffer which the other is soughtafter; as, if it should be said to the inquirer, “Go to such anone,” (naming some chaste man who is a stranger to vices of thiskind,) “and he will procure for you one whom you will find a morewilling subject, for he knows and loves such;” and thereby theperson might be diverted from him whom he sought: I know not whether oneman’s fair fame ought to be violated by a lie, in order thatanother’s body may not be violated by lust to which he is astranger. And in general, it is never right to tell a lie for any man, suchas may hurt another, even if the hurt be slighter than would be the hurt tohim unless such a lie were told. Because neither must anotherman’s bread be taken from him against his will, though he be ingood health, and it is to feed one who is weak; nor must an innocent man,against his will, be beaten with rods, that another may not be killed. Ofcourse, if they are willing, let it be done, because they are not hurt ifthey be willing that so it should be: but whether, even with his ownconsent, a man’s fair fame ought to be hurt with a false chargeof foul lusts, in order that lust may be averted from another’sbody, is a great question. And I know not whether it be easy to find in whatway it can be just that a man’s fair fame, even with his consent,should be stained with a false charge of lust, any more than aman’s body should be polluted by the lust itself against hiswill.

17. But yet if the option wereproposed to the man who chose to burn incense to idols rather than yield hisbody to abominable lust, that, if he wished to avoid that, he should violatethe 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 tohave that done upon his person which he would suffer with no lust of hisown, he should falsify Christ’s Gospel with false praises ofChrist; more eschewing that another man should corrupt his body, thanhimself to corrupt the doctrine of sanctification of souls and bodies.Wherefore, from the doctrine of religion, and from those utterancesuniversally, which are uttered on behalf of the doctrine of religion, in theteaching and learning of the same, all lies must be utterly kept aloof. Norcan any cause whatever be found, one should think, why a lie should be toldin matters of this kind, when in this doctrine it is not right to tell a liefor the very purpose of bringing a person to it the more easily. For, oncebreak or but slightly diminish the authority of truth, and all things willremain doubtful: which unless they be believed true, cannot be held ascertain. It is lawful then either to him that discourses, disputes, andpreaches of things eternal, or to him that narrates or speaks of thingstemporal pertaining to edification of religion and piety, to conceal atfitting time whatever seems fit to be concealed: but to tell a lie is neverlawful, therefore neither to conceal by telling a lie.

18. This being from the very firstand most firmly established, touching other lies the question proceeds moresecurely. But by consequence we must also see that all lies must be keptaloof which hurt any man unjustly: because no man is to have a wrong, albeita 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, yetdo nobody any good, and are hurtful to the persons themselves whogratuitously tell them. Indeed, these are the persons who are properly to becalled liars. For there is a difference between lying and being a liar. Aman may tell a lie unwillingly; but a liar loves to lie, and inhabits in hismind in the delight of lying. Next to such are those to be placed who by alie wish to please men, not that they may do wrong or bring reproach uponany man; for we have already before put away that kind; but that they may bepleasant in conversation. These differ from the class in which we haveplaced liars in this respect, that liars delight in lying, rejoicing indeceit for its own sake: but these lust to please by agreeable talk, and yetwould rather please by saying things that were true, but when they do noteasily find true things to say that are pleasant to the hearers, they chooserather to tell lies than to hold their tongues. Yet it is difficult forthese sometimes to undertake a story which is the whole of it false; butmost commonly they interweave falsehood with truth, where they are at a lossfor something sweet. Now these two sorts of lies do no harm to those whobelieve them, because they are not deceived concerning any matter ofreligion and truth, or concerning any profit or advantage of their own. Itsuffices them, to judge the thing possiblewhich is told, and to have faith in a man of whom they ought not rashly tothink that he is telling a lie. For where is the harm of believing that suchan one’s father or grandfather was a good man, when he was not?or that he has served with the army even in Persia, though he never set footout of Rome? But to the persons who tell these lies, they do much harm: tothe former sort, because they so desert truth as to rejoice in deceit: tothe latter, because they want to please people better than the truth.

19. These sorts of lies having beenwithout any hesitation condemned, next follows a sort, as it were by stepsrising to something better, which is commonly attributed to well-meaning andgood people, when the person who lies not only does no harm to another, buteven benefits somebody. Now it is on this sort of lies that the wholedispute turns, whether that person does harm to himself, who benefitsanother in such sort as to act contrary to the truth. Or, if that alone maybe called truth which illustrateth the very minds of men with an intimateand incommutable light, at least he acts contrary to some true thing,because although the bodily senses are deceived, yet he acts contrary to atrue thing who says that a thing is so or not so, whereof neither his mindnor senses nor his opinion or belief giveth him any report. Whethertherefore he does not hurt himself in so profiting another, or in thatcompensation not hurt himself in which he profiteth the other, is a greatquestion. If it be so, it should follow that he ought to profit himself by alie which damages no man. But these things hang together, and if you concedethat point, it necessarily draws in its train some very embarrassingconsequences. For should it be asked, what harm it does to a person rollingin superfluous wealth, if from countless thousands of bushels of wheat helose one bushel, which bushel may be profitable as necessary food to theperson stealing it; it will follow that theft also may be committed withoutblame, and false witness borne without sin. Than which, what can bementioned more perverse? Or truly, if another had stolen the bushel, andthou sawest it done, and wert questioned, wouldest thou tell a lie withhonesty for the poor man, and if thou do it for thine own poverty wilt thoube blamed? As if it were thy duty to love another more than thyself. Boththen are disgraceful, and must be avoided.

20. But haply some may think thatthere is an exception to be added; that there be some honest lies which notonly hurt no man, but profit some man, excepting those by which crimes arescreened and defended: so that the reason why the aforesaid lie isdisgraceful, is that, although it hurt no man, and profit the poor, itscreens a theft; but if it should in such sort hurt nobody and profitsomebody 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 hemight not lose it by theft or violence, and thereupon being questioned thoushouldest tell a lie; thou wouldest hurt no man, and wouldest serve him whohad need that his money were hidden, and wouldest not have covered a sin bytelling a lie. For it is no sin if a man hide his property which he fears tolose. But, if we therefore sin not in telling a lie, for that, whilecovering 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 islaid down, “Thou shalt not steal,” there is also this,“Thou shalt not bear false witness.” [1] Since then each is severally prohibited, why is false witness culpable if itcover a theft or any other sin, but if without any screening of sin it bedone by itself, then not culpable, whereas stealing is culpable in and byitself, and so other sins? Or is it so that to hide a sin is not lawful; todo it, lawful?

21. If this be absurd, what shall wesay? Is it so, that there is no “false witness,” butwhen one tells a lie either to invent a crime against some man, or to hidesome 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 thecause. But if the Scripture named a “witness” only sofar as that goes, the Apostle would not say, “Yea, and we arefound false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that Heraised up Christ: whom He raised not up.” [2] For so he shows that it isfalse witness to tell a lie, yea, in falsely praising a person.

Or peradventure, doth the person who lies then utter false witness when heeither invents or hides any man’s sin, or hurts any man inwhatever way? For, if a lie spoken against a man’s temporal lifeis detestable, how much more one against eternal life? as is every lie, ifit take place in doctrine of religion. And it is for this reason that theApostle calls it false witness, if a man tell a lie about Christ, yea, onewhich may seem to pertain to His praise. Now if it be a lie that neitherinventeth or hideth any man’s sin, nor is answered to a question of the judge, and hurteth no man,and profits some man, are we to say that it is neither false witness, nor areprehensible lie?

22. What then, if a homicide seekrefuge 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 topunishment a man, the slayer of man? Is he to tell a lie? For how does henot hide a sin by lying, when he for whom he lies has been guilty of aheinous sin? Or is it because he is not questioned concerning his sin, butabout the place where he is concealed? So then to lie in order to hide aperson’s sin is evil; but to lie in order to hide the sinner isnot evil? “Yea, surely:” says some one:“for a man sins not in avoiding punishment, but in doingsomething worthy of punishment. Moreover, it pertaineth to Christiandiscipline neither to despair of any man’s amendment, nor to baragainst any man the way of repentance.” What if thou be led tothe judge, and then questioned concerning the very place where the other isin hiding? Art thou prepared to say, either, “He is notthere,” when thou knowest him to be there; or, “I knownot, and have not seen,” what thou knowest and hast seen? Artthou then prepared to bear false witness, and to slay thy soul that amanslayer may not be slain? Or, up to the presence of the judge wilt thoulie, but when the judge questions thee, then speak truth that thou be not afalse witness? So then thou art going to slay a man thyself by betrayinghim. Surely the betrayer too is one whom the divine Scripture detesteth. Orhaply is he no betrayer, who in answer to the judge’sinterrogation gives true information; but would be a betrayer, if, unasked,he should delate a man to his destruction? Put the case with respect to ajust and innocent man, that thou know where he is in hiding, and bequestioned by the judge; which man, however, has been ordered to be taken toexecution by a higher power, so that he who interrogates is charged with theexecution of the law, not the author of the sentence? Will it be no falsewitness that thou shalt lie for an innocent man, because the interrogator isnot a judge, but only charged with the execution? What if the author of thelaw interrogate thee, or any unjust judge, making quest of an innocent manto 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 shallultroneously delate a lurking homicide; and he not so, who to an unjustjudge, interrogating him of the hiding-place of an innocent man whom heseeks to slay, shall inform against the person who has thrown himself uponhis honor? Or between the crime of false witness and that of betrayal, wiltthou remain doubtful and unable to make up thy mind? Or by holding thy peaceor professing that thou wilt not tell, wilt thou make up thy mind to avoidboth? Then why not do this before thou come to the judge, that thou mayestshun the lie also? For, having kept clear of a lie, thou wilt escape allfalse witness; whether every lie be false witness, or not every: but bykeeping clear of all false witness in thy sense of the word, thou wilt notescape 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 theChurch of Thagasta, Firmus by name, and even more firm in will. For, when hewas asked by command of the emperor, through officers sent by him, for a manwho was taking refuge with him, and whom he kept in hiding with all possiblecare, 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 asyet emperors were not Christian,) he stood firm in his purpose. Thereuponbeing brought before the emperor, his conduct appeared so admirable, that hewithout any difficulty obtained a pardon for the man whom he was trying tosave. What conduct could be more brave and constant? But peradventure somemore timid person may say, “I can be prepared to bear anytorments, or even to submit to death, that I may not sin; but, since it isno sin to tell a lie such that you neither hurt any man, nor bear falsewitness, and benefit some man, it is foolish and a great sin, voluntarilyand to no purpose to submit to torments, and, when one’s healthand life may haply be useful, to fling them away for nothing to people in arage.” Of whom I ask; Why he fears that which is written,“Thou shalt not bear false witness,” [1] andfears not that which is said unto God, “Thou wilt destroy allthem that speak leasing?” [2] Says he, “It is notwritten, Every lie: but I understand it as if it were written, Thou wiltdestroy all that speak false witness.” But neither there is itsaid, All false witness. “Yes, but it is set there,”saith he, “where the other things are set down which are in everysort evil.” What, is this the case with what is set down there,“Thou shalt not kill?” [3] If this be in every sort evil,how shall one clear of this crime even just men, who, upon a law given, havekilled many? “But,” itis rejoined, “that man doth not himself kill, who is the ministerof some just command.” These men’s fear, then, I doaccept, that I still think that laudable man who would neither lie, norbetray a man, did both better understand that which is written, and what heunderstood did bravely put in practice.

25. But one sometimes comes to acase of this kind, that we are not interrogated where the person is who issought, nor forced to betray him, if he is hidden in such manner that hecannot easily be found unless betrayed: but we are asked, whether he be insuch a place or not. If we know him to be there, by holding our peace webetray him, or even by saying that we will in no wise tell whether he bethere or not: for from this the questioner gathers that he is there, as, ifhe were not, nothing else would be answered by him who would not lie norbetray a man, but only, that he is not there. So, by our either holding ourpeace, or saying such words, a man is betrayed, and he who seeks him hathbut to enter in, if he have the power, and find him: whereas he might havebeen turned aside from finding him by our telling a lie. Wherefore if thouknow not where he is, there is no cause for hiding the truth, but thou mustconfess that thou knowest not. But, if thou know where he is, whether he bein 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 tellthee what thou askest,” but thou must say, “I knowwhere he is, but I will never show.” For if, touching one placein particular thou answer not and profess that thou wilt not betray, it isjust as if thou shouldest point to that same place with thy finger: for asure suspicion is thereby excited. But if at the first thou confess thatthou know where he is, but will not tell, haply the inquisitor may bediverted from that place, and begin now to ply thee that the place where heis may be betrayed. For which good faith and humanity whatever thou shaltbravely bear, is judged to be not only not culpable, but even laudable; saveonly 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 thatcapital 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, thathe should hurt some man unjustly: which is such that it profits no man andhurts some man. The third, which so profits one as to hurt another, but notin corporal defilement. The fourth, that which is done through only lust oflying and deceiving, which is an unmixed lie. The fifth, what is done withdesire of pleasing by agree-ableness in talk. All these being utterlyeschewed and rejected, there follows a sixth sort which at once hurts nobodyand helps somebody; as when, if a person’s money is to beunjustly taken from him, one who knows where the money is, should say thathe does not know, by whomsoever the question be put. The seventh, whichhurts none and profits some: except if a judge interrogate: as when, notwishing to betray a man who is sought for to be put to death, one shouldlie; not only a just and innocent, but also a culprit; because it belongs toChristian discipline neither to despair of any man’s amendment,nor to bar the way of repentance against any. Of which two sorts, which arewont to be attended with great controversy, we have sufficiently treated,and have shown what was our judgment; that by taking the consequences, whichare honorably and bravely borne, these kinds also should be eschewed bybrave and faithful and truthful men and women. The eighth sort of lie isthat which hurts no man, and does good in the preserving somebody fromcorporal defilement, at least that defilement which we have mentioned above.For even to eat with unwashen hands the Jews thought defilement. Or if aperson think this also a defilement, yet not such that a lie ought to betold to avoid it. But if the lie be such as to do an injury to any man, eventhough 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 liebe such as consists not in that sort of uncleanness with which we are nowconcerned, is another question: for here the question is no longer aboutlying, but it is asked whether an injury ought to be done to any man, evenotherwise than by a lie, that the said defilement may be warded off fromanother. Which I should by no means think: though the case proposed be theslightest wrongs, as that which I mentioned above, about a single measure ofwheat; and though it be very embarrassing whether it be our duty not to doeven such an injury to any man, if thereby another may be defended orscreened from a lustful outrage upon his person. But, as I said, this isanother 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 proposedthat we either do this, or suffer the deed of lust or some execrable pollution; even though by lying we do no manharm.

26. Touching which matter, therewill be some place open for consideration, if first the divine authoritieswhich forbid a lie be diligently discussed: for if these give no place, wevainly seek a loophole; for we are bound to keep in every way the command ofGod, and the will of God in all that through keeping His command we maysuffer, it is our duty with an even mind to follow: but if by somerelaxation any outlet be allowed, in such a case we are not to decline alie. The reason why the Divine Scriptures contain not only God’scommands, but the life and character of the just, is this: that, if haply itbe hidden in what way we are to take that which is enjoined, by the actionsof the just it may be understood. With the exception, therefore, of thoseactions which one may refer to an allegorical significance, although nonedoubts that they really took place, as is the case with almost all theoccurrences in the books of the Old Testament. For who can venture to affirmof 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 ismost easily said that they were born and did live in the natural order ofpropagating the people, (for not monsters and prodigies were born, to leadthe mind to some presignification,) nevertheless asserteth that they signifythe two Testaments; [1] and saith of that marvellous benefit which God bestowed upon His peopleIsrael to rescue them out of the bondage in which they in Egypt wereoppressed, and of the punishment which avenged their sin on their journey,that these things befell them in a figure: [2] what actions wilt thou find,from which thou mayest set aside that rule, and take upon thee to affirmthat they are not to be reduced to some figure? Excepting therefore these,the things which in the New Testament are done by the Saints, where there isa most evident commending of manners to our imitation, may avail as examplesfor the understanding of the Scriptures, which things are digested in thecommands.

27. As, when we read in the Gospel,“Thou hast received a blow in the face, make ready the othercheek.” [3] Now as an example of patience cannone be found than that of the Lord Himself more potent and excellent; butHe, when smitten on the cheek, said not, Behold here is the other cheek, butHe said, “If I have spoken ill, bear witness of the evil; but ifwell, why smitest thou Me?” [4] Where He shows that thepreparation of the other cheek is to be done in the heart. Which also theApostle Paul knew, for he, too, when he was smitten on the face before thehigh priest, did not say, Smite the other cheek: but,“God,” saith he, “shall smite thee, thouwhited wall: and sittest thou to judge me according to law, and contrary tolaw commandest me to be smitten?” [5] with most deep insightbeholding that the priesthood of the Jews was already become such, that inname it outwardly was clean and fair, but within was foul with muddy lusts;which priesthood he saw in spirit to be ready to pass away through vengeanceof the Lord, when he spake those words: but yet he had his heart ready notonly to receive other blows on the cheek, but also to suffer for the truthany torments whatever, with love of them from whom he should suffer thesame.

28. It is also written,“But I say unto you, Swear not at all.” But theApostle himself has used oaths in his Epistles. [6] And so heshows how that is to be taken which is said, “I say unto you,Swear not at all:” that is, lest by swearing one come to afacility in swearing, from facility to a custom, and so from a custom therebe a downfall into perjury. And therefore he is not found to have swornexcept in writing, where there is more wary forethought, and no precipitatetongue withal. And this indeed came of evil, as it is said,“Whatever is more than these is of evil:” [7] not however from evil of his own, but from the evil of infirmity which wasin them, in whom he even in this way endeavored to work faith. For that heused an oath in speaking, while not writing, I know not that any Scripturehas related concerning him. And yet the Lord says, “Swear not atall:” for He hath not granted license thereof to persons writing.Howbeit, because to pronounce Paul guilty of violating the commandment,especially in Epistles written and sent forth for the spiritual life andsalvation of the nations, were an impiety, we must understand that wordwhich is set down, “At all,” to be set down for thispurpose, that as much as in thee lies, thou affect not, love not, nor asthough it were for a good thing, with any delight desire, an oath.

29. As that, “Take nothought for the morrow,” and, “Take therefore nothought what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, or what ye shall puton.” [8] Now when we see that the Lord Himself had a bag in which was put what wasgiven, [9] that it might be kept for necessary uses as the time should require; and thatthe Apostles themselves made much provision for the indigence of thebrethren, not only for the morrow, but even for the more protracted time ofimpending dearth, as we read in the Acts of the Apostles; [1] itis sufficiently clear that these precepts are so to be understood, that weare to do nothing of our work as matter of necessity, through love ofobtaining temporal things, or fear of want.

30. Moreover, it was said to theApostles that they should take nothing with them for their journey, butshould live by the Gospel. [2] And in a certain placetoo the Lord Himself signified why He said this, when He added,“The laborer is worthy of his hire:” [3] whereHe sufficiently shows that this is permitted, not ordered; lest haply he whoshould do this, namely, that in this work of preaching the word he shouldtake aught for the uses of this life from them to whom he preached, shouldthink he was doing any thing unlawful. And yet that it may more laudably notbe done is sufficiently proved in the Apostle Paul: who, while he said,“Let him that is taught in the word, communicate unto him thatteacheth in all things,” [4] and showed in many places thatthis is wholesomely done by them to whom he preached the word,“Nevertheless,” saith he, “I have not usedthis power.” [5] The Lord, therefore, when He spake thosewords, gave power, not bound men by a command. So in general, what in wordswe are not able to understand, in the actions of the Saints we gather how itis meet to be taken, which would easily be drawn to the other side, unlessit were recalled by an example.

31. Thus then what is written,“The mouth that lieth, slayeth the soul;” [6] ofwhat mouth it speaketh, is the question. For in general when the Scripturespeaks of the mouth, it signifies the very seat of our conception [7] in the heart, where is approvedand decreed whatever also by the voice, when we speak the truth, is uttered:so that he lieth with the heart who approveth a lie; yet that man maypossibly not lie with the heart, who uttereth other than is in his mind, insuch sort that he knows it to be for the sake of avoiding a greater evilthat he admitteth an evil, disapproving withal both the one and the other.And they who assert this, say that thus also is to be understood that whichis written, “He that speaketh the truth in his heart: [8] becausealways in the heart truth must be spoken; but not always in the mouth of thebody, if any cause of avoiding a greater evil require that other than is inthe mind be uttered with the voice. And that there is indeed a mouth of theheart, may be understood even from this, that where there is speech, there amouth is with no absurdity understood: nor would it be right to say,“Who speaketh in his heart,” unless it were right tounderstand that there is also a mouth in the heart. Though in that veryplace where it is written, “The mouth that lieth, slayeth thesoul,” if the context of the lesson be considered, it mayperadventure be taken for no other than the mouth of the heart. For there isan obscure response there, where it is hidden from men, to whom the mouth ofthe heart, unless the mouth of the body sound therewith, is not audible. Butthat mouth, the Scripture in that place saith, doth reach to the hearing ofthe Spirit of the Lord, Who hath filled the whole earth; at the same timementioning lips and voice and tongue in that place; yet all these the sensepermitteth not to be taken, but concerning the heart, because it saith ofthe Lord, that what is spoken is not hidden from Him: now that which isspoken with that sound which reacheth to our ears, is not hidden from meneither. Thus, namely, is it written: “The Spirit of wisdom isloving, and will not acquit an evil-speaker of his lips: for of his reinsGod is witness, and of his heart a true searcher, and of his tongue ahearer. For the Spirit of the Lord hath filled the whole earth, and thatwhich containeth all things hath knowledge of the voice. Therefore he thatspeaketh unrighteous things cannot be hid: but neither shall the judgmentwhen it punisheth pass by him. For in the thoughts of the ungodly shallthere be interrogation; and the hearing of his words shall come from theLord, to the punishment of his iniquities. [9] For the ear of jealousy hearethall things, and the tumult of murmurings will not be hid. Therefore keepyourselves from murmuring, which profiteth nothing, and from backbitingrefrain your tongue: because an obscure response will not go into thevoid. [10] Butthe mouth that lieth, slayeth the soul.” [11] It seems then to threaten themwho think that to be obscure and secret, which they agitate and turn over intheir heart. And this, it would show, is so clear to the ears of God, thatit even calls it “tumult.”

32. Manifestly also in the Gospel wefind the mouth of the heart: so that in one placethe Lord is found to have mentioned the mouth both of the body and of theheart, where he saith, “Are ye also yet without understanding? Doye not yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth, goeth intothe belly, and is cast out into the draught? but those things which proceedout of the mouth come forth from the heart, and they defile the man. For outof the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications,thefts, false witness, blasphemies: these are the things which defile aman.” [1] Here if thou understand but one mouth, that of the body, how wilt thouunderstand, “Those things which proceed out of the mouth, comeforth from the heart;” since spitting also and vomiting proceedout of the mouth? Unless peradventure a man is but then defiled when heeateth aught unclean, but is defiled when he vomits it up. But if this bemost absurd, it remains that we understand the mouth of the heart to havebeen expounded by the Lord, when He saith, “The things whichproceed out of the mouth, come forth from the heart.” For beingthat theft also can be, and often is, perpetrated with silence of the bodilyvoice and mouth; one must be out of his mind so to understand it as then toaccount a person to be contaminated by the sin of theft, when he confessesor makes it known, but when he commits it and holds his peace, then to thinkhim undefiled. But, in truth, if we refer what is said to the mouth of theheart, no sin whatever can be committed tacitly: for it is not committedunless it proceed from that mouth which is within.

33. But, like as it is asked of whatmouth the Scripture saith, “The mouth that lieth, slayeth thesoul,” so it may be asked, of what lie. For it seems to speak ofthat lie in particular, which consists in detraction. It says,“Keep yourselves from murmuring, which profiteth nothing, andfrom detraction refrain your tongue.” Now this detraction takesplace through malevolence, when any man not only with mouth and voice of thebody doth utter what he forgeth against any, but even without speakingwisheth him to be thought such; which is in truth to detract with the mouthof the heart; which thing, it saith, cannot be obscure and hidden fromGod.

34. For what is written in anotherplace, “Wish not to use every lie;” [2] they say is not of force forthis, that a person is not to use any lie. Therefore, when one man shallsay, that according to this testimony of Scripture we must to that degreehold every sort and kind of lie in detestation, that even if a man wish tolie, yea, though he lie not, the very wish is to be condemned; and to thissense interpreteth, that it is not said, Do not use every lie, but,“Do not wish to use every lie;” that one must not darenot only to tell, but not even to wish to tell, any lie whatever: saithanother man, “Nay, in that it saith, Do not wish to use everylie, it willeth that from the mouth of the heart we exterminate and estrangelying: so that while from some lies we must abstain with the mouth of thebody, as are those chiefly which pertain to doctrine of religion; from some,we are not to abstain with the mouth of the body, if reason of avoiding agreater evil require; but with the mouth of the heart we must abstainutterly from every lie.” Where it behoveth to be understood whatis said, “Do not wish:” namely, the will itself istaken as it were the mouth of the heart, so that it concerneth not the mouthof the heart when in shunning a greater evil we lie unwillingly. There isalso a third sense in which thou mayest so take this word, “notevery,” that, except some lies, it giveth thee leave to lie. Likeas if he should say, wish not to believe every man: he would not mean toadvise that none should be believed; but that not all, some however, shouldbe believed. And that which follows, “For assiduity thereof willnot profit for good,” sounds as if, not lying, but assiduouslying, that is, the custom and love of lying, should seem to be that whichhe would prohibit. To which that person will assuredly slide down, [3] who either shall think that everylie may be boldly used (for so he will shun not that even which is committedin the doctrine of piety and religion; than which what more abominablywicked thing canst thou easily find, not among all lies, but among allsins?) or to some lie (no matter how easy, how harmless,) shall accommodatethe inclination of the will; so as to lie, not unwillingly for the sake ofescaping a greater evil, but willingly and with liking. So, seeing there bethree things which may be understood in this sentence, either“Every lie, not only tell thou not, but do not even wish totell:” or, “Do not wish, but even unwillingly tell alie when aught worse is to be avoided:” or, “Notevery,” to wit, that except some lies, the rest are admitted: oneof these is found to make for those who hold that one is never to lie, twofor those who think that sometimes one may tell alie. But yet what follows, “For assiduity thereof will not profitto good,” I know not whether it can countenance the firstsentence of these three; except haply so, that while it is a precept for theperfect not only not to lie, but not even to wish; assiduity of lying is notpermitted even to beginners. As if, namely, on laying down the rule at notime whatever not merely to lie but so much as to have a wish to lie, andthis being gainsaid by examples, in regard that there are some lies whichhave been even approved by great authority, it should be rejoined that thoseindeed are lies of beginners, which have, in regard of this life, some kindof duty of mercy; and yet to that degree is every lie evil, and by perfectand spiritual minds in every way to be eschewed, that not even beginners arepermitted to have assiduous custom thereof. For we have already spokenconcerning the Egyptian midwives, that it is in respect of the promise ofgrowth and proficiency to better things that they while lying are spoken ofwith approval: because it is some step towards loving the true and eternalsaving of the soul, when a person doth mercifully for the saving of anyman’s albeit mortal life even tell a lie.

35. Moreover what is written,“Thou wilt destroy all that speak leasing:” [1] onesaith that no lie is here excepted, but all condemned. Another saith: Yeaverily: but they who speak leasing from the heart, as we disputed above; forthat man speaketh truth in his heart, who hateth the necessity of lying,which he understands as a penalty of the mortal life. Another saith: Allindeed will God destroy who speak leasing, but not all leasing: for there issome leasing which the Prophet was at that time insinuating, in which noneis spared; that is, if refusing to confess each one his sins, he defend themrather, and will not do penance, [2] so that not content to workiniquity, he must needs wish to be thought just, and succumb not to themedicine of confession: as the very distinction of the words may seem tointimate no other, “Thou hatest all that workiniquity;” [3] but wilt not destroy them if uponrepenting they speak the truth in confession, that by doing that truth theymay come to the light; as is said in the Gospel according to John,“But he that doeth truth cometh unto the light. [4] Thouwilt destroy all who” not only work what Thou hatest, but also“speak leasing;” [5] in holding out before them falserighteousness, and not confessing their sins in penitence.

36. For, concerning false witness,which is set down in the ten commands of the Law, it can indeed in no wisebe contended that love of truth may at heart be preserved, and false witnessbrought forth to him unto whom the witness is borne. For, when it is said toGod only, then it is only in the heart that the truth is to be embraced: butwhen it is said to man, then must we with the mouth also of the body bringforth 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 awitness? For not to whomsoever we speak unto are we witnesses, but to themto whom it is expedient and due that they by our means should come to knowor believe the truth; as is a judge, that he may not err in judging; or hewho is taught in doctrine of religion, that he may not err in faith, or byvery authority of the teacher waver in doubt. But when the person whointerrogates thee or wishes to know aught from thee seeks that whichconcerneth him not, or which is not expedient for him to know, he cravethnot a witness, but a betrayer. Therefore if to him thou tell a lie, fromfalse 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, thequestion is, whether it be lawful sometimes to tell a lie. Or if it be falsewitness to lie at all, it is to be seen whether it admit of compensation, towit, that it be said for the sake of avoiding a greater sin: as that whichis written, “Honor father and mother,” [6] under stress of a preferable duty is disregarded; whence the paying of thelast honors of sepulture to a father, is forbidden to that man who by theLord Himself is called to preach the kingdom of God.

37. Likewise, touching that which iswritten, “A son which receiveth the word shall be far fromdestruction: but receiving, he receiveth it for himself, and no falsehoodproceedeth out of his mouth:” [7] some one may say, that what is here set down, “A son whichreceiveth the word,” is to be taken for no other than the word ofGod, which is truth. Therefore, “A son receiving the truth shallbe far from destruction,” refers to that which is written,“Thou wilt destroy all that speak leasing.” But whenit follows, “Receiving he receiveth for himself,” whatother doth this insinuate than what the Apostle saith, “But letevery man prove his own work, and then he shall have glorying in himself and not in another?” [1] For hethat receiveth the word, that is, truth, not for himself, but formen-pleasing, keepeth it not when he sees they can be pleased by a lie. Butwhoso receiveth it for himself, no falsehood proceedeth out of his mouth:because even when the way to please men is to lie, that man lieth not, whoreceiving the truth not thereby to please them but to please God, hathreceived it for himself. Therefore there is no reason why it should be saidhere, He will destroy all who speak leasing, but not all leasing: becauseall lies, universally, are cut off in this saying, “And nofalsehood proceedeth out of his mouth.” But another saith, it isto be so taken as the Apostle Paul took our Lord’s saying,“But I say unto you, Swear not at all.” [2] Forhere also all swearing is cut off; but from the mouth of the heart, that itshould never be done with approbation of the will, but through necessity ofthe weakness of another; that is, “from the evil” ofanother, when it shows that he cannot otherwise be got to believe what issaid, unless faith be wrought by an oath; or, from that“evil” of our own, that while as yet involved in theskins of this mortality we are not able to show our heart: which thing werewe able to do, of swearing there were no need. Though moreover in this wholesentence, if the saying, “A son receiving the word shall be farfrom destruction,” be said of none other than that Truth, [3] by Whom all things were made,which remaineth ever incommutable; then, because the doctrine of Religionstrives to bring men to the contemplation of this Truth, it may seem thatthe saying, “And no falsehood proceedeth out of hismouth,” is said to this purpose, that he speaketh no falsehoodthat pertaineth to doctrine. Which sort of lie is upon no compensationwhatever to be gone into, and is utterly and before all to be eschewed. Orif the saying, “No falsehood,” is absurdly taken if itbe not referred to every lie, the saying, “From hismouth,” should, as was argued above, be taken to mean the mouthof the heart, in the opinion of him who accounts that sometimes one may tella lie.

38. Certain it is, albeit all thisdisputation go from side to side, some asserting that it is never right tolie, and to this effect reciting divine testimonies: others gainsaying, andeven in the midst of the very words of the divine testimonies seeking placefor a lie; yet no man can say, that he finds this either in example or inword of the Scriptures, that any lie should seem a thing to be loved, or nothad in hatred; howbeit sometimes by telling a lie thou must do that thouhatest, that what is more greatly to be detested may be avoided. But thenhere it is that people err; they put the precious beneath the vile. For whenthou hast granted that some evil is to be admitted, that another and moregrievous may not be admitted; not by the rule of truth, but by his owncupidity and custom doth each measure the evil, accounting that to be themore grievous, which himself more greatly dreads, not which is in realitymore greatly to be fled from. All this fault is engendered by perversity ofloving. For being there are two lives of ours; the one eternal, which ispromised of God; the other temporal, in which we now are: when a man shallhave begun to love this temporal more than that eternal, for the sake ofthis which he loveth he thinks all things right to be done; and there arenot any, in his estimation, more grievous sins than those which do injury tothis life, and either take away from it any commodity unjustly andunlawfully, or by inflicting of death take it utterly away. And so thieves,and robbers, and ruffians, and torturers, and slayers, are more hated ofthem than lascivious, drunken, luxurious men, if these molest no man. Forthey do not understand or at all care, that these do wrong to God; notindeed to any inconvenience of Him, but to their own pernicious hurt; seeingthey corrupt His gifts bestowed upon them, even His temporal gifts, and bytheir very corruptions turn away from eternal gifts: above all, if they havealready begun to be the Temple of God; which to all Christians the Apostlesaith thus: “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and thatthe Spirit of God dwelleth in you? Whoso shall corrupt God’stemple, God will corrupt him. For the temple of God is holy: which templeare ye.” [4]

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 thesesins, then, even though they seem to mean well by this temporal life to theprocuring of any delight or profit, (for no man commits any of these thingswith any other purpose and end;) yet in regard of that life which is foreverand ever, they do entangle and in all ways hinder. But there are some ofthese that hinder the doers only, others likewise those on whom they aredone. For as to the things which people keep safe for the sake of utility tothis life, when these are taken away by injuriouspersons, they alone sin and are hindered from eternal life who do this, notthey to whom they do it. Therefore, even if a person consent to the takingof them from him, either that he may not do some evil, or that he may not inthese very things suffer some greater inconvenience; not only does he notsin, but in the one case he acts bravely and laudably, in the other usefullyand unblameably. But as to those things which are kept for the sake ofsanctity and religion, when injurious persons wish to violate these, it isright, if the condition be proposed and the means given, to redeem them evenby sins of lesser moment, yet not by wrongs to other men. And then do thesethings thenceforth cease to be sins, which are undertaken in order to theavoidance of greater sins. For as in things useful, for instance inpecuniary or any other corporal commodity, that is not called a loss whichis parted with in order to a greater gain; so in things holy, that is notcalled sin which is admitted lest a worse be admitted. Or if that is calledloss, which one foregoes that he may not forego more; let this also becalled sin, while however the necessity of undertaking it in order to theeschewing of a greater is no more to be doubted, than that, in order toavoid a greater loss, it is right to suffer a smaller one.

40. Now the things which are to bekept safe for sanctity’s sake are these: pudicity of body, andchastity of soul, [1] and verity of doctrine.Pudicity of body, without consent and permission of the soul, doth no manviolate. For, whatever against our will and without our empowering the sameis by greater force done upon our body, is no lewdness. Howbeit, ofpermitting there may be some reason, but of consenting, none. For weconsent, when we approve and wish: but we permit even not willing, becauseof some greater turpitude to be eschewed. Consent, truly, to corporallewdness violates also chastity of mind. For the mind’s [2] chastity consists in a good will and sincerelove, which is not corrupted, unless when we love and desire that whichTruth teaches ought not to be loved and desired. We have therefore to guardthe sincerity of love toward God and our neighbor; for in this is chastityof mind sanctified: and we must endeavor with all the strength in our power,and with pious supplication, that, when the pudicity of our body is soughtto be violated, not even that outermost sense of the soul, [3] which is entangled with theflesh, may be touched with any delight; but if it cannot this, at least themind and thought [4] in not consenting may have its chastitypreserved entire. Now what we have to guard in chastity of mind, [5] is, as pertaining to the love of ourneighbor, innocence and benevolence; as pertaining to the love of God,piety. Innocence is that we hurt no man; benevolence, that we also do goodto whom we can; piety, that we worship God. But as for verity of doctrine,of religion and piety, that is not violated unless by a lie; whereas thehighest and inmost Verity Itself, Whose that doctrine is, can in no wise beviolated: which Truth to attain unto, and in It on every wise to remain, andto It thoroughly to cleave, will not be permitted, but when this corruptibleshall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put onimmortality. But, because all piety in this life is practice by which wetend to that life, which practice hath a guidance afforded unto it from thatdoctrine, which in human words and signs [6] ofcorporal sacraments doth insinuate and intimate Truth herself: for thiscause this also, which by lying is possible to be corrupted, is most of allto be kept incorrupt; that so, if aught in that chastity of mind beviolated, it may have that wherefrom it may be repaired. For once corruptauthority of doctrine, and there can be none either course or recourse tochastity of mind.

41. There resulteth then from allthese this sentence, that a lie which doth not violate the doctrine ofpiety, nor piety itself, nor innocence, nor benevolence, may on behalf ofpudicity of body be admitted. And yet if any man should propose to himselfso to love truth, not only that which consists in contemplation, but also inuttering the true thing, which each in its own kind of things is true, andno otherwise to bring forth with the mouth of the body his thought than inthe mind it is conceived and beheld; so that he should prize the beauty oftruth-telling honesty, not only above gold and silver and jewels andpleasant lands, but above this temporal life itself altogether and everygood thing of the body, I know not whether any could wisely say that thatman errs. And if he should prefer this and prize it more than all thathimself hath of such things; rightly also would he prefer it to the temporalthings of other men, whom by his innocence and benevolence he was bound tokeep and to help. For he would love perfect faith, not only of believingaright those things which by an excellent authority and worthy of faithshould to himself be spoken, but also of faithfully uttering what himself should judge right to be spoken, and should speak.For faith hath its name in the Latin tongue, from that the thing is donewhich is said: [1] andthus it is manifest that one doth not exhibit when telling a lie. And evenif this faith be less violated, when one lies in such sort that he isbelieved to no inconvenience and no pernicious hurt, with added intentionmoreover of guarding either one’s life or corporal purity; yetviolated it is, and a thing is violated which ought to be kept safe inchastity and sanctity of mind. Whence we are constrained, not by opinion ofmen, which for the most part is in error, but by truth itself, truth whichis eminent above all, and alone is most invincible, to prefer even to purityof body, perfect faith. For chastity of mind is, love well ordered, whichdoes not place the greater below the smaller. Now it is less, whatever inthe body than whatever in the mind can be violated. For assuredly when forcorporal chasteness a man tells a lie, he sees indeed that his body isthreatened with corruption, not from his own, but from another’slust, but is cautious lest by permitting at least, he be a party. Thatpermission, however, where is it but in the mind? So then, even corporalchasteness cannot be corrupted but in the mind; which not consenting norpermitting, it can by no means be rightly said that corporal chasteness isviolated whatever in the body be perpetrated by another’s lust.Whence it is gathered, that much more must the chastity of the mind bepreserved in the mind, in the which is the guardianship of the pudicity ofthe body. Wherefore, what in us lies, both the one and the other must byholy manners and conversation be walled and hedged round, lest from anotherquarter it be violated. But when both cannot be, which is to be slighted incomparison of which, who doth not see? when he seeth which to which is to bepreferred, the mind to the body, or the body to the mind; and which is moreto be shunned among sins, the permitting of another’s deed, orthe committing of the deed thyself.

42. It clearly appears then, allbeing discussed, that those testimonies of Scripture have none other meaningthan that we must never at all tell a lie: seeing that not any examples oflies, worthy of imitation, are found in the manners and actions of theSaints, as regards those Scriptures which are referred to no figurativesignification, such as is the history in the Acts of the Apostles. For allthose sayings of our Lord in the Gospel, which to more ignorant minds seemlies, are figurative significations. And as to what the Apostle says:“I am made all things to all men, that I might gainall;” [2] theright understanding is, that he did this not by lying, but by sympathy; sothat he dealt with them in liberating them with so great charity, as if hewere himself in that evil from which he wished to make them whole. Theremust therefore be no lying in the doctrine of piety: it is a heinouswickedness, and the first sort of detestable lie. There must be no lying ofthe second sort; because no man must have a wrong done to him. There must beno lying of the third sort; because we are not to consult anyman’s good to the injury of another. There must be no lying ofthe fourth sort, that is, for the lust of lying, which of itself is vicious.There must be no lying of the fifth sort, because not even the truth itselfis to be uttered with the aim of men-pleasing, how much less a lie, which ofitself, as a lie, is a foul thing? There must be no lying of the sixth sort;for it is not right that even the truth of testimony be corrupted for anyman’s temporal convenience and safety. But unto eternal salvationnone is to be led by aid of a lie. For not by the ill manners of them thatconvert him is he to be converted to good manners: because if it is meet tobe done towards him, himself also ought when converted to do it towardothers; and so is he converted not to good, but to ill manners, seeing thatis held out to be imitated by him when converted, which was done unto him inconverting him. Neither in the seventh sort must there be any lying; for itis meet that not any man’s commodity or temporal welfare bepreferred to the perfecting of faith. Not even if any man is so ill moved byour right deeds as to become worse in his mind, and far more remote frompiety, are right deeds therefore to be foregone: since what we are chieflyto hold is that whereunto we ought to call and invite them whom as our ownselves we love; and with most courageous mind we must drink in thatapostolic sentence: “To some we are a savor of life unto life, toothers a savor of death unto death; and who is sufficient for thesethings?” [3] Nor in the eighth sort mustthere be lying: because both among good things chastity of mind is greaterthan pudicity of body; and among evil things, that which ourselves do, thanthat which we suffer to be done. In these eight kinds, however, a man sinsless when he tells a lie, in proportion as he emerges to the eighth: more,in proportion as he diverges to the first. Butwhoso shall think there is any sort of lie that is not sin, will deceivehimself foully, while he deems himself honest as a deceiver of othermen.

43. So great blindness, moreover,hath occupied men’s minds, that to them it is too little if wepronounce some lies not to be sins; but they must needs pronounce it to besin in some things if we refuse to lie: and to such a pass have they beenbrought by defending lying, that even that first kind which is of all themost 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, fordoctrine of religion and piety, they say that he has told a lie, in thepassage where he says concerning Peter and Barnabas, “When I sawthat they walked not uprightly according to the truth of theGospel.” [1] For, while they wish to defendPeter from error, and from that pravity of way into which he had fallen; thevery way of religion in which is salvation for all men, they by breaking andmincing the authority of the Scriptures do endeavor themselves to overthrow.In which they do not see that it is not only lying, but perjury that theylay to the charge of the Apostle in the very doctrine of piety, that is, inan Epistle in which he preaches the Gospel; seeing that he there saith,before he relates that matter, “What I write unto you, behold,before God, I lie not.” [2] But it is time that we set boundsto this disputation: in the consideration and treatment whereof altogetherthere is nothing more meet to be, before all else, borne in mind and madeour prayer, than that which the same Apostle saith: “God isfaithful, Who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able tobear, but will with the temptation make also a way to escape, that ye may beable to bear it.” [3]

ST. AUGUSTIN: TO CONSENTIUS: AGAINST LYING.

[CONTRA MENDACIUM.]

TRANSLATED BY THE REV. H. BROWNE, M.A., OF CORPUS CHRISTICOLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, LATE PRINCIPAL OF THE DIOCESAN COLLEGE,CHICHESTER.

From the Retractations, Book II.Chap. 60.

“Then [1] also I wrote a Book against Lying, the occasion ofwhich work was this. In order to discover the Priscillianist heretics,who think it right to conceal their heresy not only by denial and lies,but even by perjury, it seemed to certain Catholics that they ought topretend themselves Priscillianists, in order that they might penetratetheir lurking places. In prohibition of which thing, I composed thisbook. It begins: Multa mihi legendamisisti. ”

1. A great deal for me to read hastthou sent, my dearest brother Consentius: a great deal for me to read: tothe 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 itscourse, and has thrust me into such straits, that I must answer in what sortI may, lest the time for sailing being now favorable, and the bearerdesirous to return, I should too long detain him. Having therefore unrolledand read through all that Leonas, servant of God, brought me from thee, bothsoon 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 greatlydelighted with thy eloquence, and memory of the holy Scripture, andcleverness of wit, and the resentment with which thou bitest negligentCatholics, and the zeal with which thou gnashest against even latentheretics. But I am not persuaded that it is right to unearth them out oftheir hiding places by our telling lies. For to what end do we take suchpains in tracking them out and running them down, but that having taken themand brought them forth into open day, we may either teach them the truth, orat least having convicted them by the truth, may not allow them to hurtothers? to this end, therefore, that their lie may be blotted out, orshunned, and God’s truth increased. How then by a lie shall Irightly be able to prosecute lies? Or is it by robbery that robberies, andby sacrilege that sacrileges, and by adultery that adulteries, are to beprosecuted? “But if the truth of God shall abound by mylie,” are we too to say, “Let us do evil that good maycome?” [2] Athing which thou seest how the Apostle detesteth. For what else is,“Let us lie, that we may bring heretic liars to thetruth,” but, “Let us do evil that good maycome?” Or, is a lie sometimes good, or sometimes a lie not evil?Why then is it written, “Thou hatest, Lord, all that workiniquity; Thou wilt destroy all that speak leasing.” [3] For he hath not excepted some, or said indefinitely,“Thou wilt destroy them that speak leasing;” so as topermit some, not all, to be understood: but it is an universal sentence thathe hath passed, saying, “Thou wilt destroy all who speakleasing.” Or, because it is not said,Thou wilt destroy all who speak all leasing, or, who speak any leasingwhatsoever; is it therefore to be thought that there is place allowed forsome lie; to wit, that there should be some leasing, and them who speak it,God should not destroy, but destroy them all which speak unjust leasing, notwhat lie soever, because there is found also a just lie, which as such oughtto be matter of praise, not of crime?

2. Perceivest thou not how much thisreasoning aideth the very persons whom as great game we make ado to catch byour lies? For, as thyself hast shown, this is the sentiment of thePriscillianists to prove which, they apply testimonies from the Scripturesexhorting their followers to lie, as though by the examples of Patriarchs,Prophets, Apostles, Angels; not hesitating to add even the Lord ChristHimself; and deeming that they cannot otherwise prove their falsehoodtruthful, unless they pronounce Truth to be a liar. It must be refuted,this; not imitated: nor ought we to be partners with the Priscillianists inthat evil in which they are convicted to be worse than other heretics. Forthey alone, or at least they in the greatest degree, are found to make adogma of lying for the purpose of hiding their truth, as they call it: andthis so great evil therefore to esteem just, because they say that in theheart must be held that which is true, but with the mouth to utter untoaliens a false thing, is no sin; and that this is written, “Whospeaketh the truth in his heart:” [1] as though this were enough forrighteousness, even though a person do with his mouth speak a lie, when nothis neighbor but a stranger is he that heareth it. On this account theythink the Apostle Paul, when he had said, “Putting away lying,speak ye truth,” to have immediately added, “Every manwith his neighbor, for we are members one of another.” [2] Meaning, that with them who are not our neighbors in society of the truth,nor, so to say, our co-members, [3] it islawful and right to speak a lie.

3. Which sentence dishonoreth theholy Martyrs, nay rather taketh away holy martyrdoms altogether. For theywould do more justly and wisely, according to these men, not to confess totheir persecutors that they were Christians, and by confessing make themmurderers: but rather by telling a lie, and denying what they were, shouldboth themselves keep safe the convenience of the flesh and purpose of theheart, and not allow those to accomplish the wickedness which they hadconceived in their mind. For they were not their neighbors in the Christianfaith, that with them it should be their duty to speak the truth in theirmouth 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 themselvesto look unto as an example of lying) falsely gave himself out for a servantof Baal, that he might slay Baal’s servants: how much morejustly, according to their perversity, might, in time of persecution, theservants of Christ falsely give themselves out for servants of demons, thatthe servants of demons might not slay servants of Christ; and sacrifice toidols that men might not be killed, if Jehu sacrificed to Baal that he mightkill men? For what harm would it do them, according to the egregiousdoctrine of these speakers of lies, if they should lyingly pretend a worshipof the Devil in the body, when the worship of God was preserved in theheart? But not so have the Martyrs understood the Apostle, the true, theholy Martyrs. They saw and held that which is written, “With theheart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth confession ismade unto salvation;” [4] and, “In their mouthwas found no lie:” [5] and so theydeparted irreproachable, to that place where to be tempted by liars anyfurther they will not fear; because they will not have liars any more intheir heavenly assemblies, either for strangers or neighbors. As for thatJehu, by an impious lie and a sacrilegious sacrifice making inquisition forimpious and sacrilegious men for to kill them, they would not imitate him,no, not though the Scripture had said nothing concerning him, what manner ofman he was. But, seeing it is written that he had not his heart right withGod; [6] what profited it him, that for some obedience which, concerning the utterdestruction of the house of Ahab, he exhibited for the lust of his owndomination, he received some amount of transitory wages in a temporalkingdom? Let, rather, the truth-telling sentence of the Martyrs be thine todefend: to this I exhort thee, my brother, that thou mayst be against liars,not a teacher of lying, but an asserter of truth. For, I pray thee, attenddiligently to what I say, that thou mayest find how needful to be shunned isthat which, with laudable zeal indeed towards impious men, that they may becaught and corrected, or avoided, but yet too incautiously, is thought fitto be taught.

4. Of lies are many sorts, whichindeed all, universally, we ought to hate. Forthere is no lie that is not contrary to truth. For, as light and darkness,piety and impiety, justice and iniquity, sin and right-doing, health andweakness, life and death, so are truth and a lie contrary the one to theother. Whence by how much we love the former, by so much ought we to hatethe latter. Yet in truth there be some lies which to believe does no harm:although even by such sort of lie to wish to deceive, is hurtful to him thattells it, not to him that believes it. As though, if that brother, theservant of God, Fronto, in the information which he gave thee, should(though far be the thought!) say some things falsely; he would have hurthimself assuredly, not thee, although thou, without iniquity of thine, hadstbelieved all, upon his telling it. Because, whether those things did so takeplace or not so, yet they have not any thing, which if a person believe tohave been so, though it were not so, he by the rule of truth and doctrine ofeternal salvation should be judged worthy of blame. Whereas, if a persontell a lie which if any believe he will be an heretic against the doctrineof Christ, by so much is he who tells the lie more hurtful, by how much hethat believes it is more miserable. See then, what manner of thing it is, ifagainst the doctrine of Christ we shall tell a lie which whoso believesshall perish, in order that we may catch the enemies of the same doctrine,to the end we may bring them to the truth, while we recede from it; nayrather, when we catch liars by lying, teach worse lies. For it is one thingwhat they say when they lie, another when they are deceived. For, when theyteach their heresy, they speak the things in which they are deceived; butwhen they say that they think what they do not think, or that they do notthink what they do think, they say the things in which they lie. In that anybelieveth them, what though he do not find them out, himself perisheth not.For it is no receding from the catholic rule, if, when a heretic lyinglyprofesses the catholic doctrines, one believes him to be a catholic: andtherefore it is not pernicious to him; because he is mistaken in the mind ofa man, of which, when latent, he cannot judge, not in the faith of God whichit is his duty to keep safe planted within him. Moreover, when they teachtheir heresy, whoso shall believe them, in thinking it truth, will bepartaker, as of their error, so of their damnation. So it comes to pass,that when they fable their nefarious dogmas in which they are with deadlyerror deceived, then whoso believeth them is lost: whereas when we preachcatholic dogmas, in which we hold the right faith, then if he shall believe,that man is found, whoso was lost. But when, they being Priscillianists, do,in order that they may not betray their venom, lyingly give themselves outto be of us; whoever of us believes them, even while they escape detection,himself perseveres a Catholic: we on the other hand, if, in order to attainto the discovery of them, we falsely give ourselves out for Priscillianists,because we shall praise their dogmas as though they were our own, whososhall believe the same, will either be confirmed among them, or will betransferred to them in the meantime straightway: but what the coming hourmay bring forth, whether they shall be afterwards set free therefrom by uswhen speaking true things, who were deceived by us when speaking false; andwhether they will be willing to hear one teaching whom they have thusexperienced telling a lie, who can know for certain? who can be ignorantthat this is uncertain? Whence it is gathered, that it is more pernicious,or to speak more mildly, that it is more perilous for Catholics to lie thatthey may catch heretics, than for heretics to lie that they may not be foundout by Catholics. Because, whoso believes Catholics when they tell a lie totempt people, is either made or confirmed a heretic; but whoso believesheretics when they tell a lie to conceal themselves, doth not cease to be aCatholic. But that this may become more plain, let us propose some cases byway of example, and from those writings in preference which thou hast sentme to read.

5. Well then, let us set before oureyes a cunning spy as he makes up to the person whom he has alreadyperceived to be a Priscillianist; he begins with Dictinius the bishop, andlyingly bepraises either his life, if he knew him, or his fame, if he knewhim not; this is more tolerable thus far, because Dictinius is accounted tohave 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,) heshall make reverend mention of him, of an impious and detestable person,condemned for his nefarious wickedness and crimes! In which reverendmention, if haply the person for whom this sort of net is spread, had notbeen 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 sayingthat he pities them whom the author of darkness hath involved in suchdarkness of error, that they acknowledge not the honor of their own soul,and the brightness of their divine ancestry: then speaking ofDictinius’s Book, which is called “thePound,” because it treats, first andlast, of a dozen questions, being as the ounces which go to the pound, shallextol it with such praise, as to protest that such a“Pound” (in which awful blasphemies are contained) ismore precious than many thousands of pounds of gold; truly, this astutenessof him who tells the lie slays the soul of him who believes it, or, thatbeing slain already, doth in the same death sink, and hold it down. But,thou wilt say, “afterwards it shall be set atliberty.” What if it come not to pass, either upon somethingintervening that prevents what was begun from being completed, or throughobstinacy of an heretical mind denying the same things over again, althoughof some it had already begun to make confession? especially because, if heshall find out that he has been tampered with by a stranger, he will justthe more boldy study to conceal his sentiments by a lie, when he shall havelearned much more certainly that this is done without blame, even by theexample of the very person who tampered with him. This, truly, in a man whothinks it right to hide the truth by telling a lie, with what face can weblame, and dare to condemn what we teach?

6. It remains, then, that what thePriscillianists think, according to the nefarious falsity of their heresy,of God, of the soul, of the body, and the rest, we hesitate not withtruthful pity to condemn; but what they think of the right of telling a lieto hide the truth is to be to us and them (which God forbid!) a commondogma. 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 soprosper that we do catch and change them, there is no gain that cancompensate the damage of making ourselves wrong with them in order to setthem 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 alie 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 itis fit to be done, in order that we may be able to attain to the amending ofthem. Whom yet we amend not, for their fault, with which they think right tohide the truth, we take not away, rather we make ourselves faulty when bysuch a fault we seek them; nor do we find how we can believe them, whenconverted, to whom, while perverted, we have lied; lest haply what was doneto them that they might be caught, they do to us when caught; not onlybecause to do it hath been their wont, but because in us also, to whom theycome, they find the same.

7. And, what is more miserable, eventhey, 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 speaklyingly, that we may conceal I know not what other thing which we thinktrue; of course to one suspecting the like thou shalt say, I did this thenonly to catch thee: but what wilt thou answer when he says, Whence then do Iknow whether thou art not doing it even now, lest thou be caught by me? Orindeed, can any man be made to believe that a man does not lie not to becaught, who lies to catch? Seest thou whither this evil tends? that is, thatnot only we to them, and they to us, but every brother to every brothershall not undeservedly become suspected? And so while that which is aimed atby means of the lie, is that faith may be taught, the thing which is broughtabout is, rather, that there shall be no having faith in any man. For if wespeak even against God when we tell a lie, what so great evil will people beable 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 moretolerable in comparison with us is the lying of the Priscillianists, whenthey know that they speak deceitfully: whom by our own lying we think rightto deliver from those false things in which they by erring are deceived. APriscillianist saith, that the soul is a part of God, and of the same natureand substance with Him. This is a great and detestable blasphemy. For itfollows that the nature of God may be taken captive, deceived, cheated,disturbed, and defiled, condemned and tortured. But if that man also saiththis, who from so great an evil desires to deliver a man by a lie, let ussee what is the difference between the one blasphemer and the other.“Very much,” sayest thou: “for this thePriscillianist saith, also believing it so: but the catholic not sobelieving, though so speaking.” The one, then, blasphemes withoutknowing, the other with knowledge: the one against science, the otheragainst conscience; the one hath the blindness of thinking false things, butin them hath at least the will of saying true things; the other in secretseeth truth, and willingly speaketh false. “But theone,” thou wilt say, “teacheth this, that he may makemen partakers of his error and madness: the latter saith it, that from thaterror and madness he may deliver men.” Now I have already shownabove how hurtful is this very thing which peoplebelieve will do good: but meanwhile if we weigh in these two the presentevils, (for the future good which a catholic seeks from correcting a hereticis uncertain,) who sins worse? he who deceives a man without knowing it, orhe who blasphemes God, knowing it? Assuredly which is the worse, that manunderstands, who with solicitous piety preferreth God to man. Add to this,that, if God may be blasphemed in order that we may bring men to praise Him,without doubt we do by our example and doctrine invite men not only topraise, but also to blaspheme God: because they whom through blasphemiesagainst God we plot to bring to the praises of God, verily, if we do bringthem, will learn not only to praise, but also to blaspheme. These be thebenefits we confer on them whom, by blaspheming not ignorantly but withknowledge, we deliver from heretics! And whereas the Apostle delivered mento Satan himself that they might learn not to blaspheme, [1] we endeavor to rescue men fromSatan, that they may learn to blaspheme not with ignorance, but withknowledge. And upon ourselves, their masters, we bring this so great bane,that, for the sake of catching heretics, we first become, which is certain,blasphemers of God, in order that we may for the sake of delivering them,which is uncertain, be able to be teachers of His truth.

9. When therefore we teach ours toblaspheme God that the Priscillianists may believe them theirs, let us seewhat evil themselves say when they therefore lie that we may believe themours. 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 thePriscillianists’ false martyrdoms; the catholic bishops by whomthat heresy has been stripped, attacked, prostrated, they extol with greatpraises, and so forth. Behold, themselves speak truth when they lie: notthat the very thing which is a lie can be true at the same time; but when inone thing they lie, in another they speak truth: for when, in saying theyare of us, they lie, of the catholic faith they speak truth. And thereforethey, that they may not be found out for Priscillianists, speak in lyingmanner 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 thingswhich we know to belong to their error. Therefore as for them, when theywish to be thought of us, it is both false in part, and true in part, whatthey say; for it is false that they are of us, but true that the soul is nota 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 arePriscillianists, 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, bututter their own sentiments, they know not that they blaspheme. So that ifthey be converted to the catholic faith, they console themselves, becausethey 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.” [2] Weon the contrary, in order that they may open themselves to us, if we utterthis as if it were a just lie for deceiving and catching them, do assuredlyboth say that we belong to the blaspheming Priscillianists, and that theymay believe us, do without excuse of ignorance blaspheme. For a catholic,who by blaspheming wishes to be thought a heretic, cannot say, “Idid it ignorantly.”

10. Ever, my brother, in such cases,it behoves with fear to recollect, “Whoso shall deny Me beforemen, I will deny him before My Father which is in heaven.” [3] Ortruly is it no denying of Christ before men, to deny Him beforePriscillianists, that when they hide themselves, one may by a blasphemouslie strip them and catch them? But who doubts, I pray thee, that Christ isdenied, when so as He is in truth, we say that He is not; and so as thePriscillianist believes Him, we say that He is?

11. “But, hiddenwolves,” thou wilt say, “clad in sheep’sclothing, and privily and grievously wasting the Lord’s flock,can we no otherwise find out.” Whence then have thePriscillianists become known, ere this way of hunting for them with lies wasexcogitated? Whence was their very author, more cunning doubtless, andtherefore more covert, got at in his bed? Whence so many and so greatpersons made manifest and condemned, and the others innumerable partlycorrected, partly as if corrected, and in the Church’s compassiongathered into her fold? For many ways giveth the Lord, when He hathcompassion, whereby we may come to the discovery of them: two of which aremore happy than others; namely, that either they whom they have wished toseduce, or they whom they had already seduced, shall, when they repent andare converted, point them out. Which is more easily effected, if theirnefarious error, not by lying tricks, but by truthful reasonings be overthrown. In the writing of which it behovesthee to bestow thy pains, since God hath bestowed the gift that thou canstdo this: which wholesome writings whereby their insane perversity isdestroyed, becoming more and more known, and being by catholics, whetherprelates who speak in the congregations, or any studious men full of zealfor God, every where diffused, these will be holy nets in which they may becaught truthfully, not with lies hunted after. For so being taken, either,of their own accord, they will confess what they have been, and others whomthey know to be of the evil fellowship they will either kindly [1] correct,or mercifully betray. Or else, if they shall be ashamed to confess what withlong-continued simulation they have concealed, by the hidden hand of Godhealing them shall they be made whole.

12. “But,”thou wilt say, “we more easily penetrate their concealment if wepretend to be ourselves what they are.” If this were lawful orexpedient, Christ might have instructed His sheep that they should come cladin wolves’ clothing to the wolves, and by the cheat of thisartifice discover them: which He hath not said, no, not when He foretoldthat He would send them forth in the midst of wolves. [2] But thou wilt say:“They needed not at that time to have inquisition made for them,being most manifest wolves; but their bite and savageness were to beendured.” What, when foretelling later times, He said thatravening wolves would come in sheep’s clothing? Was there notroom there to give this advice and say, And do ye, that ye may find themout, assume wolves’ clothing, but within be ye sheep still? Notthis saith He: but when He had said, “Many will come to you insheep’s clothing, but within are ravening wolves;” [3] He went on to say, not, By your lies, but, “By their fruits yeshall know them.” By truth must we beware of, by truth must wetake, by truth must we kill, lies. Be it far from us, that the blasphemiesof the ignorant we by wittingly blaspheming should overcome: far from us,that the evils of deceitful men we by imitating should guard against. Forhow shall we guard against them if in order to guard against them we shallhave them? For if in order that he may be caught who blasphemes unwittingly,I shall blaspheme wittingly, worse is the thing I do than that which Icatch. If in order that he may be found who denies Christ unwittingly, Ishall deny Him wittingly, to his undoing will he follow me whom I shall sofind, since in order that I may find him out, I first am undone.

13. Or haply is it so, that he whoplots in this way to find out Priscillianists, denies not Christ, forasmuchas 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 theheart man believeth unto righteousness,” it was added to nopurpose, “with the mouth confession is made untosalvation?” [4] Is it not so that almost all whohave denied Christ before the persecutors, held in their heart what theybelieved of Him? And yet, by not confessing with the mouth unto salvation,they perished, save they which through penitence have lived again? Who canbe so vain, [5] as to think that the Apostle Peterhad that in his heart which he had on his lips when he denied Christ? Surelyin that denial he held the truth within and uttered the lie without. Whythen did he wash away with tears the denial which he uttered with his mouth,if that sufficed for salvation that with the heart he believed? Why,speaking the truth in his heart, did he punish with so bitter weeping thelie which he brought forth with his mouth, unless because he saw it to be agreat and deadly evil, that while with his heart he believed untorighteousness, with his mouth he made not confession unto salvation?

14. Wherefore, that which iswritten, “Who speaketh the truth in his heart,” [6] is notso to be taken, as if, truth being retained in the heart, in the mouth onemay speak a lie. But the reason why it is said, is, because it is possiblethat a man may speak with his mouth a truth which profiteth him nothing, ifhe hold it not in his heart, that is, if what he speaketh, himself believenot; as the heretics, and, above all, these same Priscillianists do, whenthey do, not indeed believe the catholic faith, but yet speak it, that theymay be believed to be of us. They speak therefore the truth in their mouth,not in their heart. On this account were they to be distinguished from himof whom it is written, “He that speaketh truth in hisheart.” Now this truth the catholic as in his heart he speaketh,because so he believeth, so also in his mouth ought he, that so he maypreach it; but against it, neither in heart nor in mouth have falsehood,that both with the heart he may believe unto righteousness, and with themouth may make confession unto salvation. For also in that psalm, after ithad been said, “Who speaketh truth in his heart,”presently this is added, “Who hath used no deceit in histongue.” [7]

15. And as for that saying of theApostle, “Putting away lying, speak every man truth with hisneighbor, for we are members one of another,” [1] far be it that we should sounderstand it, as though he had permitted to speak a lie with those who arenot yet with us members of the body of Christ. But the reason why it issaid, is, because each one of us ought to account every man to be that whichhe wishes him to become, although he be not yet become such; as the Lordshowed the alien Samaritan to be neighbor to him unto whom he showedmercy.” [2] A neighbor then, and not analien, is that man to be accounted, with whom our concern is that he remainnot an alien; and if, on the score of his not being yet made partaker of ourFaith and Sacrament, there be some truths that must be concealed from him,yet is that no reason why false things should be told him.

16. For there were even in theApostles’ times some who preached the truth not in truth, thatis, not with truthful mind: of whom the Apostle saith that they preachedChrist not chastely, but of envy and strife. And on this account even atthat 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 truthChrist be preached:” [3] but in no wise would he say,In order that Christ may after be preached, let Him be first denied.

17. Wherefore, though there beindeed many ways in which latent heretics may be sought out, withoutvituperating the catholic faith or praising heretical impiety, yet if therewere 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 beprecipitated; more tolerable that the foxes should lurk in their pitsunseen, than for the sake of catching them the huntsmen should fall into thepit of blasphemy; more tolerable that the perfidy of Priscillianists shouldbe covered with the veil of truth, than that the faith of catholics, lest itshould of lying Priscillianists be praised, should of believing catholics bedenied. For if lies, not of whatsoever kind, but blasphemous lies, aretherefore just because they are committed with intent to detect hiddenheretics; it will be possible at that rate, if they be committed with thesame intention, that there should be chaste adulteries. For put the casethat of a number of lewd Priscillianists, some woman should cast her eyeupon a catholic Joseph, and promise him that she will betray their hiddenretreats if she obtain from him that he lie with her, and it be certain thatif he consent unto her she will make good her promise: shall we judge thatit ought to be done? Or shall we understand that by no means must such aprice be paid in purchase of that kind of merchandise? Why then do we notrout out heretics, in order to their being caught, by the flesh committinglasciviousness in adultery, and yet think right to rout them out by a mouthcommitting fornication in blasphemy? For either it will be lawful to defendboth the one and the other with equal reason, that these things be thereforesaid to be not unjust, because they were done with intention of finding outthe unjust: or if sound doctrine willeth not even for the sake of findingout heretics that we should have to do with unchaste women, albeit only inbody, not in mind, assuredly not even for the sake of finding out hereticswilleth it that by us, albeit only in voice not in mind, either uncleanheresy were preached, or the chaste Catholic Church blasphemed. Because eventhe very sovereignty of the mind, to which every inferior motion of the manought to be obedient, will not lack deserved opprobrium, when a thing isdone that ought not to be done, whether by member or by word. Although evenwhen it is done by word, it is done by member: because the tongue is amember, by which the word is made; nor is any deed of ours by any memberbrought to the birth unless it is first conceived in the heart; or ratherbeing by our inwardly thinking upon and consenting unto it already broughtto the birth, it is brought forth abroad in our doing of it, by a member. Itis therefore no excusing the mind from the deed, when any thing is said tobe done not after the purpose of the mind, [4] which yetwere not done, unless the mind decreed it to be done.

18. It does indeed make very muchdifference, for what cause, with what end, with what intention a thing bedone: but those things which are clearly sins, are upon no plea of a goodcause, 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 apoor man is a good work, if it be done because of pity, with right faith; asto lie with a wife, when it is done for the sakeof generation, if it be done with faith to beget subjects for regeneration.These and the like works according to their causes are good or evil, becausethe self-same, if they have evil causes, are turned into sins: as, if forboasting sake a poor man is fed; or for lasciviousness a man lies with hiswife; or children are begotten, not that they may be nurtured for God, butfor the devil. When, however, the works in themselves are evil, such asthefts, fornications, blasphemies, or other such; who is there that willsay, that upon good causes they may be done, so as either to be no sins, or,what is more absurd, just sins? Who is there that would say, That we mayhave to give to the poor, let us commit thefts upon the rich: or, Let ussell false witness, especially if innocent men are not hurt thereby, butrather guilty men are rescued from the judges who would condemn them? Fortwo good things are done by selling of this lie, that money may be takenwherewith a poor man may be fed, and a judge deceived that a man be notpunished. Even in the matter of wills, if we can, why not suppress the true,and forge false wills, that inheritances or legacies may not come tounworthy persons, who do no good with them; but rather to those by whom thehungry are fed, the naked clothed, strangers entertained, captives redeemed,Churches builded? For why should not those evil things be done for the sakeof these good things, if, for the sake of these good things, those are notevil at all? Nay, further, if lewd and rich women are likely to enrichmoreover their lovers and paramours, why should not even these parts andarts be undertaken by a man of merciful heart, to use them for so good acause as that he may have whence to bestow upon the needy; and not hear theApostle saying, “Let him that stole steal no more, but rather lethim labor, working with his hands that which is good, that he may have togive to him that needeth?” [1] If indeed not only theft itself,but also false witness and adultery and every evil work will be not evil butgood, if it be done for the sake of being the means of doing good. Who cansay these things, except one who endeavors to subvert human affairs and allmanners and laws? For of what most heinous deed, what most foul crime, whatmost impious sacrilege, may it not be said that it is possible for it to bedone rightly and justly; and not only with impunity, but even gloriously,that in perpetrating thereof not only no punishments should be feared, butthere should be hope even of rewards: if once we shall concede in all evilworks of men, that not what is done, but wherefore done, must be thequestion; and this, to the end that whatever are found to have been done forgood causes, not even they should be judged to be evil? But if justicedeservedly punisheth a thief, albeit he shall say and shew that he thereforewithdrew superfluities from a rich that he might afford necessaries to apoor man; if deservedly she punisheth a forger, albeit he prove that hetherefore corrupted another’s will, that he might be heir, whoshould thence make large alms, not he who should make none; if deservedlyshe punisheth an adulterer, yea, though he shall demonstrate that of mercyhe did commit adultery, that through her with whom he did it he mightdeliver a man from death; lastly, to draw nearer to the matter in question,if deservedly she punisheth him who hath with that intent mixed inadulterous embrace with some woman, privy to the turpitude of thePriscillianists, that he might enter into their concealments; I pray thee,when the Apostle saith, “Neither yield ye your membersinstruments of unrighteousness unto sin;” [2] and therefore neither hands, normembers of generation, nor other members, can it be right to yield untoflagitious deeds with intent that we may be able to find outPriscillianists; what hath our tongue, what our whole mouth, what the organof the voice, offended us, that we should yield these as instruments to sin,and to so great a sin, in which, that we may apprehend and rescuePriscillianists from blaspheming in ignorance, we, without excuse ofignorance, are to blaspheme our God?

19. Some man will say,“So then any thief whatever is to be accounted equal with thatthief who steals with will of mercy?” Who would say this? But ofthese two it does not follow that any is good, because one is worse. He isworse who steals through coveting, than he who steals through pity: but ifall theft be sin, from all theft we must abstain. For who can say thatpeople may sin, even though one sin be damnable, another venial? but now weare 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 aremore lightly punished by law than crimes of lust: they are, however, bothsins, albeit the one lighter, the other heavier; so that a theft which iscommitted of concupiscence is held to be lighter than an act of lust whichis committed for doing a good turn. Namely, intheir own kind these become lighter than other sins of the same kind, whichappear to be committed with a good intention; when yet the same comparedwith sins of another kind lighter in respect of the kind itself, are foundto be heavier. It is a heavier sin to commit theft of avarice, than ofmercy; and likewise it is a heavier sin to perpetrate lewdness of luxury,than of mercy; and yet is it a heavier sin to commit adultery of mercy, thanto commit theft of avarice. Nor is it our concern now, what is lighter orwhat heavier, but what are sins or are not. For no man can say that it was aduty for a sin to be done, where it is clearly a sin; but we say that it isa duty, if the sin were done so or so, to forgive or not to forgive.

20. But, what must be confessed, tohuman minds certain compensative sins do cause such embarrassment, that theyare 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 owndaughters to the fornications of the impious? And yet hath there arisen acase in which a just man thought it his duty to do this, when the Sodomiteswith nefarious onset of lust were rushing upon his guests. For he said,“I have two daughters which have not known man; I will bring themout to you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these mendo ye no wrong, for that they have come under covering of myroof.” [1] Whatshall we say here? Do we not so abhor the wickedness which the Sodomiteswere attempting to do to the guests of the just man, that, whatever weredone so this were not done, he should deem right to be done? Very much alsomoveth us the person of the doer, which by merit of righteousness wasobtaining deliverance from Sodom, to say that, since it is a less evil forwomen to suffer lewdness than for men, it even pertained to therighteousness of that just man, that to his daughters he chose this ratherto be done, than to his guests; not only willing this in his mind, but alsooffering it in word, and, if they should assent, ready to fulfill it indeed. But then, if we shall open this way to sins, that we are to commitless sins, in order that others may not commit greater; by a broad boundary,nay rather, with no boundary at all, but with a tearing up and removing ofall bounds, in infinite space, will all sins enter in and reign. For, whenit shall be defined, that a man is to sin less, that another may not sinmore; then, of course, by our committing thefts shall other men’scommitting of lewdness be guarded against, and incest by lewdness; and ifany impiety shall seem even worse than incest, even incest shall bepronounced meet to be done by us, if in such wise it can be wrought thatthat impiety be not committed by others: and in each several kind of sins,both thefts for thefts, and lewdness for lewdness, and incest for incest,shall be accounted meet to be done: our own sins for other men’s,not only less for greater, but even if it come to the very highest andworst, fewer for more; if the stress of affairs so turns, that otherwiseother men would not abstain from sin unless by our sinning, somewhat lessindeed, but still sinning; so that in every case where an enemy who shallhave power of this sort shall say, “Unless thou be wicked, I willbe more wicked, or unless thou do this wickedness, I will do moresuch,” we must seem to admit wickedness in ourselves, if we wishto refrain (others) from wickedness. To be wise in this sort, what is it butto lose one’s wits, or rather, to be downright mad? Mine owniniquity, not another’s, whether perpetrated upon me or uponothers, is that from which I must beware of damnation. For “thesoul that sinneth, it shall die. [2]

21. If then to sin, that others maynot commit a worse sin, either against us or against any, without doubt weought not; it is to be considered in that which Lot did, whether it be anexample 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 horriblean evil from the most flagitious impiety of the Sodomites was impending overhis guests, which he wished to ward off and was not able, to such a degreemay even that just man’s mind have been disturbed, that he waswilling to do that which, not man’s fear with its misty tempest,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 socautious not to sin ourselves, that we sin not through fear of any sinswhatever of other men. For that just man, by fearing other men’ssins, which cannot defile except such as consent thereto, was so perturbedthat he did not attend to his own sin, in that he was willing to subject hisdaughters to the lusts of impious men. These things, when we read in holyScriptures, we must not, for that we believe them done, therefore believethem meet to be done; lest we violate precepts while we indiscriminately follow precedents. Or, truly, because David sworeto put Nabal to death, and, upon more considerate clemency, did it not, [1] shall we therefore say that he is to be imitated, so that we may swear to doa thing which afterwards we may see to be not meet to be done? But as fearperturbed the one, so that he was willing to prostitute his daughters, sodid anger the other, that he swore rashly. In short, if it were allowed usto inquire of them both, by asking them to tell us why they did thesethings, the one might answer, “Fearfulness and trembling cameupon me, and darkness covered me;” [2] the other too might say,“Mine eye was troubled through wrath: [3] ” so that we shouldnot marvel either that the one in the darkness of fear, or the other withtroubled eye, saw not what was meet to have been seen, that they might notdo what was not meet to have been done.

22. And to holy David indeed itmight more justly be said, that he ought not to have been angry; no, notwith 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 heshould swear to do a thing which either by giving way to his rage he shoulddo, or by breaking his oath leave undone. But to the other, set as he wasamid the libidinous frenzy of the Sodomites, who would dare to say,“Although thy guests in thine own house, whither to enter in thouby 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, carefor it not a whit, have no dread, no horror, no trembling?” Whatman, even a companion of those wretches, would dare to say this to the pioushost? But assuredly it would be most rightly said, “Do what thoucanst, that the thing be not done which thou deservedly fearest: but let notthis fear of thine drive thee to do a thing which if thy daughters bewilling that it be done unto them, they will through thee do wickedness withthe Sodomites, if unwilling, will through thee from the Sodomites sufferviolence. Commit not thou a great crime of thine own, while thou dreadest agreater crime of other men; for be the difference as great as thou wiltbetween thine own and that of others, this will be thine own, that othermen’s.” Unless perchance in defending this man oneshould so crowd himself into a corner, as to say, “Since toreceive a wrong is better than to do one, and those guests were not about todo but to suffer a wrong, that just man chose that his daughters shouldsuffer wrong rather than his guests, acting upon his rights as hisdaughters’ lord; and he knew that it would be no sin in them, ifthe thing were done, because they would but bear them which did the sin, notconsenting unto them, and so without sin of their own. In fine, they did notoffer themselves (albeit better females than males) to be carnally knowninstead of those guests, lest they should be rendered guilty, not by thesuffering of others’ lust, but by consenting of their own will:nor yet did their father permit it to be done unto himself, when theyessayed to do it, because he would not betray his guests to them, (albeitthere had been less of evil, if it were done to one man than to two;) but asmuch as he could he resisted, lest himself also should be defiled by anyassent of his own, though even if the frenzy of others’ lust hadprevailed by strength of body, it would not have defiled him so long as heconsented not. Now as the daughters sinned not, neither did he sin in theirpersons, because he was not making them to sin, if they should be deforcedagainst their will, but only to bear them that did the sin. Just as if heshould offer his slaves to be beaten by ruffians, that his guests might notsuffer the wrong of beating.” Of which matter I shall notdispute, because it would take long to argue, whether even a master mayjustly use his right of power over his slave, so as to cause an unoffendingslave to be smitten, that his unoffending friend may not be beaten in hishouse by violent bad men. But certainly, as concerning David, it is no wiseright to say that he ought to have sworn to do a thing which afterwards hewould perceive that he ought not to do. Whence it is clear that we ought notto take all that we read to have been done by holy or just men, and transferthe same to morals, but hence too we must learn how widely that saying ofthe Apostle extends, and even to what persons it reaches:“Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which arespiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness, considering thyselfalso, lest thou be tempted.” [4] The being overtaken in a faulthappens, either while one does not see at the time what is right to be done,or while, seeing it, one is overcome; that is, that a sin is done, eitherfor that the truth is hidden, or for that infirmity compelleth.

23. But in all our doings, even goodmen are very greatly embarrassed in the matter ofcompensative sins; so that these are not esteemed to be sins, if they havesuch causes for the which they be done, and in the which it may seem to berather sin, if they be left undone. And chiefly as concerning lies hath itcome to this pass in the opinion of men, that those lies are not accountedsins, nay rather are believed to be rightly done, when one tells a lie forthe benefit of him for whom it is expedient to be deceived, or lest a personshould hurt others, who seems likely to hurt unless he be got rid of bylies. In defense of these kinds of lies, very many examples from holyScripture are accounted to lend their support. It is not, however, the samething to hide the truth as it is to utter a lie. For although every one wholies wishes to hide what is true, yet not every one who wishes to hide whatis true, tells a lie. For in general we hide truths not by telling a lie,but by holding our peace. For the Lord lied not when He said, “Ihave many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear themnow.” [1] Heheld His peace from true things, not spake false things; for the hearing ofwhich truths He judged them to be less fit. But if He had not indicated thissame to them, that is, that they were not able to bear the things which Hewas unwilling to speak, He would indeed hide nevertheless somewhat of truth,but that this may be rightly done we should peradventure not know, or nothave so great an example to confirm us. Whence, they who assert that it issometimes meet to lie, do not conveniently mention that Abraham did thisconcerning Sarah, whom he said to be his sister. For he did not say, She isnot my wife, but he said, “She is my sister;” [2] because she was in truth so near akin, that she might without a lie becalled a sister. Which also afterwards he confirmed, after she had beengiven back by him who had taken her, answering him and saying,“And indeed she is my sister, by father, not bymother;” that is, by the father’s kindred, not themother’s. Somewhat therefore of truth he left untold, not toldaught of falsehood, when he left wife untold, and told of sister. This alsodid his son Isaac: for him too we know to have gotten a wife near ofkin. [3] It is not then a lie, when by silence a true thing iskept back, but when by speech a false thing is put forward.

24. Touching Jacob, however, thatwhich he did at his mother’s bidding, so as to seem to deceivehis father, if with diligence and in faith it be attended to, is no lie, buta mystery. The which if we shall call lies, all parables also, and figuresdesigned for the signifying of any things soever, which are not to be takenaccording to their proper meaning, but in them is one thing to be understoodfrom another, shall be said to be lies: which be far from us altogether. Forhe who thinks this, may also in regard of tropical expressions of whichthere are so many, bring in upon all of them this calumny; so that evenmetaphor, as it is called, that is, the usurped transferring of any wordfrom its proper object to an object not proper, may at this rate be called alie. For when he speaks of waving corn-fields, of vines putting forthgems, [4] of the bloom of youth, ofsnowy hairs; without doubt the waves, the gems, the bloom, the snow, forthat we find them not in those objects to which we have from othertransferred these words, shall by these persons be accounted lies. AndChrist a Rock, and the stony heart of the Jews; also, Christ a Lion, and thedevil a lion, and innumerable such like, shall be said to be lies. [5] Nay, this tropical expressionreaches even to what is called antiphrasis, as when a thing is said toabound which does not exist, a thing said to be sweet which is sour;“ lucus quod non luceat, Parcæ quodnon parcant. ” Of which kind is that in holy Scripture,“If he will not bless [6] Thee to Thyface;” which the devil saith to the Lord concerning holy Job, andthe meaning is “curse.” By which word also the feignedcrime of Naboth is named by his calumniators; for it is said that he“blessed [7] theking,” that is, cursed. All these modes of speaking shall beaccounted lies, if figurative speech or action shall be set down as lying.But if it be no lie, when things which signify one thing by another arereferred to the understanding of a truth, assuredly not only that whichJacob did or said to his father that he might be blessed, but that too whichJoseph spoke as if in mockery of his brothers, [8] and David’s feigning ofmadness, [9] must be judged to be no lies, but prophetical speeches and actions, to bereferred to the understanding of those things which are true; which arecovered as it were with a garb of figure on purpose to exercise the sense ofthe pious inquirer, and that they may not become cheap by lying bare and onthe surface. Though even the things which we have learned from other places,where they are spoken openly and manifestly, these, when they are broughtout from their hidden retreats, do, by our (in some sort) discovering ofthem, become renewed, and by renewal sweet. Noris it that they are begrudged to the learners, in that they are in theseways obscured; but are presented in a more winning manner, that being as itwere withdrawn, they may be desired more ardently, and being desired maywith more pleasure be found. Yet true things, not false, are spoken; becausetrue things, not false, are signified, whether by word or by deed; thethings that are signified namely, those are the things spoken. They areaccounted lies only because people do not understand that the true thingswhich are signified are the things said, but believe that false things arethe things said. To make this plainer by examples, attend to this very thingthat Jacob did. With skins of the kids, no doubt, he did cover his limbs; ifwe seek the immediate cause, we shall account him to have lied; for he didthis, that he might be thought to be the man he was not: but if this deed bereferred to that for the signifying of which it was really done, by skins ofthe kids are signified sins; by him who covered himself therewith, He whobare not His own, but others’ sins. The truthful signification,therefore, can in no wise be rightly called a lie. And as in deed, so alsoin word. Namely, when his father said to him, “Who art thou, myson?” [1] he answered, “I am Esau, thy first-born.” This, if itbe referred to those two twins, will seem a lie; but if to that for thesignifying of which those deeds and words are written, He is here to beunderstood, in His body, which is His Church, Who, speaking of this thing,saith, “When ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and allthe prophets in the kingdom of God, and yourselves cast out. And they shallcome from the east and from the west and from the north and from the south,and shall sit down in the kingdom of God; and, behold, there are last whichshall be first, and there are first which shall be last.” [2] For so in a certain sort the younger brother did bear off the primacy of theelder brother, and transfer it to himself. Since then things so true, and sotruthfully, be signified, what is there here that ought to be accounted tohave been done or said lyingly? For when the things which are signified arenot in truth things which are not, but which are, whether past or present orfuture, without doubt it is a true signification, and no lie. But it takestoo long in the matter of this prophetical signification by stripping offthe shell to search out all, [3] wherein truth hath the palm, because as by beingsignified they were fore-announced, so by ensuing have they becomeclear.

25. Nor have I undertaken that inthe present discourse, as it more pertains to thee, who hast laid open thehiding-places of the Priscillianists, so far as relates to their false andperverse dogmas; that they may not seem to have been in such sortinvestigated 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, asthou hast made it, that they should be betrayed and laid open; lest while wewish to get at the discovery of men practising falsehood, we allow thefalsehoods themselves, as if insuperable, to stand their ground; when weought 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 thiswhich they dogmatize, namely, that in order to hide religion religiouspeople ought to lie, to that degree that not only concerning other matters,not pertaining to doctrine of religion, but concerning religion itself, itis meet to lie, that it may not become exposed to aliens; to wit, that onemay deny Christ, in order that one may in the midst of His enemies be insecret a Christian. This impious and nefarious dogma do thou likewise, Ibeseech thee, overthrow; to bolster up which they in their argumentations dogather from the Scriptures testimonies to make it appear that lies are notonly to be pardoned and tolerated, but even honored. To thee therefore itpertains, in refuting that detestable sect, to show that those testimoniesof Scripture are so to be received, that either thou shalt teach those to beno lies which are accounted to be such, if they be understood in that mannerin which they ought to be understood; or, that those are not to be imitatedwhich be manifestly lies; or in any wise at last, that concerning thosematters at least which pertain to doctrine of religion, it is in no wisemeet to tell a lie. For thus are they truly from the very foundationoverthrown, while that is overthrown wherein they lurk: that in that verymatter they be judged least fit for us to follow, most fit to be shunned, inthat they, for the hiding of their heresy, do profess themselves liars. Thisit is in them that must from the very first be assaulted, this which is, asit were, their fitting bulwark must with blows of Truth be battered and castdown. Nor must we afford them another lurking-place, which they had not,wherein they may take refuge, to wit, that being perhaps betrayed of themwhom they have essayed to seduce but could not,they should say, “We only wanted to try them, because prudentCatholics have taught that to find out heretics it is right to dothis.” But it is necessary with somewhat more earnest bespeakingof thy favor to say why this seems to me a tripartite method of disputingagainst those who want to apply the divine Scriptures as advocates of theirlies; to wit, by showing that some which are there accounted to be lies, arenot what they are accounted, if rightly understood; next, that if there bethere any manifest lies, they are not meet to be imitated; thirdly, contraryto all opinions of all persons who think it pertains to the duty of a goodman sometimes to lie, that it must in every way be held that in doctrine ofreligion there must in no wise a lie be told. For these are the three thingsto follow up which I shortly before recommended, and in some sort enjoinedthee.

26. To show then that some things inthe 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 littleagainst them, that it is not from Apostolic but from Prophetical books thatthey find as it were precedents of lying. For all those which they mentionby name, in which each lied, are read in those books in which not only wordsbut many deeds of a figurative meaning are recorded, because it was also ina figurative sense that they were done. But in figures that which is spokenas a seeming lie, being well understood, is found to be a truth. TheApostles, however, in their Epistles spoke in another sort, and in anothersort are written the Acts of the Apostles, to wit, because now the NewTestament was revealed, which was veiled in those prophetic figures. Inshort, in all those Apostolic Epistles, and in that large book in whichtheir acts are narrated with canonical truth, we do not find any personlying, such that from him a precedent can be set forth by these men forlicense of lying. For that simulation of Peter and Barnabas with which theywere compelling the Gentiles to Judaize, was deservedly reprehended and setright, both that it might not do harm at the time, and that it might notweigh with posterity as a thing to be imitated. For when the Apostle Paulsaw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the Gospel, hesaid 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 theGentiles to Judaize?” [1] But in that which himselfdid, to the intent that by retaining and acting upon certain observances ofthe law after the Jewish custom he might show that he was no enemy to theLaw and to the Prophets, far be it from us to believe that he did so as aliar. As indeed concerning this matter his sentence is sufficiently wellknown, whereby it was settled that neither Jews who then believed in Christwere to be prohibited from the traditions of their fathers, nor Gentileswhen they became Christians to be compelled thereunto: in order that thosesacred rites [2] which were well knownto have been of God enjoined, should not be shunned as sacrileges; nor yetaccounted so necessary, now that the New Testament was revealed, as thoughwithout them whoso should be converted unto God, could not be saved. Forthere were some who thought so and preached, albeit afterChrist’s Gospel received; and to these had feignedly consentedboth Peter and Barnabas, and so were compelling the Gentiles to Judaize. Forit was a compelling, to preach them to be so necessary as if, even after theGospel received, without them were no salvation in Christ. This the error ofcertain did suppose, this Peter’s fear did feign, thisPaul’s liberty did beat down. What therefore he saith,“I am made all things to all, that I might gainall,” [3] that did he, bysuffering with others, not by lying. For each becomes as though he were thatperson whom he would fain succor, when he succoreth with the same pitywherewith he would wish himself to be succored, if himself were set in thesame misery. Therefore he becomes as though he were that person, not forthat he deceives him, but for that he thinks himself as him. Whence is thatof the Apostle, which I have before rehearsed, “Brethren, if aman be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one inthe spirit of meekness, considering thyself lest thou also betempted.” [4] For if, because he said,“To the Jews became I as a Jew, and to them which were under thelaw as under the law,” [5] he is therefore to be accountedto have in a lying manner taken up the sacraments of the old law, he oughtin the same manner to have taken up, in a lying way, the idolatry of theGentiles, because he hath said that to them which were without law he becameas without law; which thing in any wise he did not. For he did not any wheresacrifice to idols or adore those figments and not rather freely as a martyrof Christ show that they were to be detested and eschewed. From no apostolicacts or speeches, therefore, do these men allegethings meet for imitation as examples of lying. From prophetical deeds orwords, then, the reason why they seem to themselves to have what they mayallege, is only for that they take figures prenunciative to be lies, becausethey are sometimes like unto lies. But when they are referred to thosethings for the signifying of which they were so done or said, they are foundto be significations full of truth, and therefore in no wise to be lies. Alie, namely, is a false signification with will of deceiving. But that is nofalse signification, where, although one thing is signified by another, yetthe thing signified is a true thing, if it be rightly understood.

27. There are some things of thissort even of our Saviour in the Gospel, because the Lord of the Prophetsdeigned to be Himself also a Prophet. Such are those where, concerning thewoman which had an issue of blood, He said, “Who touchedMe?” [1] andof Lazarus. “Where have ye laid him?” [2] Heasked, namely, as if not knowing that which in any wise He knew. And He didon this account feign that He knew not, that He might signify somewhat elseby that His seeming ignorance: and since this signification was truthful, itwas assuredly not a lie. For those were signified, whether by her which hadthe issue, or by him which had been four days dead, whom even He Who knewall things did in a certain sort know not. For both she bore the type of thepeople of the Gentiles, whereof the prophecy had gone before, “Apeople whom I have not known hath served Me:” [3] and Lazarus, removed fromthe living, did as it were in that place lie in significative similitudewhere He lay, Whose voice that is, “I am cast out of the sight ofthine eyes.” [4] And with that intent, as thoughit were not known by Christ, both who she was, and where he was laid, by Hiswords of interrogating a figure was enacted, and by truthful significationall lying left apart.

28. Hence is also that which thouhast 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 thevillage whither they were going, He made as though He would have gonefarther: where the Evangelist, saying, “But He Himself feignedthat He would go further,” [5] hath put that very word inwhich liars too greatly delight, that they may with impunity lie: as ifevery thing that is feigned is a lie, whereas in a truthful way, for thesake of signifying one thing by another, so many things use to be feigned.If then there had been no other thing that Jesus signified, in that Hefeigned to be going further, with reason might it be judged to be a lie: butthen if it be rightly understood and referred to that which He willed tosignify, it is a mystery. Else will all things be lies which, on account ofa certain similitude of things to be signified, although they never weredone, are related to have been done. Of which sort is that concerning thetwo sons of one man, the elder who tarried with his father, and the youngerwho went into a far country, which is narrated so much at length. [6] Inwhich sort of fiction, men have put even human deeds or words to irrationalanimals and things without sense, that by this sort of feigned narrationsbut true significations, they might in more winning manner intimate thethings which they wished. Nor is it only in authors of secular letters, asin Horace, [7] that mouse speaks to mouse, and weasel to fox, thatthrough a fictitious narration a true signification may be referred to thematter in hand; whence the like fables of Æsop being referred tothe same end, there is no man so untaught as to think they ought to becalled lies: but in Holy Writ also, as in the book of Judges, the trees seekthem a king, and speak to the olive, to the fig and to the vine and to thebramble. [8] Which, in any wise, is all feigned, with intent that one may get to thething which is intended, by a feigned narration indeed, yet not a lying one,but with a truthful signification. This I have said on account of that whichis written concerning Jesus, “And Hmself feigned to be goingfurther:” lest any from this word, like the Priscillianists,wishing to have license of lying, should contend that beside others evenChrist did lie. But whoso would understand what He by feigning that didprefigure, let him attend to that which He by acting did effect. For whenafterwards He did go further, above all heavens, yet deserted He not Hisdisciples. In order to signify this which in the future He did as God, atthe present He feigned to do that as Man. And therefore was a veritablesignification caused in that feigning to go before, because in thisdeparture the verity of that signification did follow after. Let himtherefore contend that Christ did lie by feigning, who denieth that Hefulfilled by doing that which He signified.

29. Because, therefore, lyingheretics find not in the books of the New Testament any precedents of lying which are meet to be imitated, they esteemthemselves to be most copious in their disputation wherein they opine thatit is right to lie, when from the old prophetical books, because it doth notappear therein, save to the few who understand, to what must be referred thesignificative sayings and doings which as such be true, they seem tothemselves to find out and allege many that be lies. But desiring to have,wherewith they may defend themselves, precedents of deceit seemingly meet tobe imitated, they deceive themselves, and “their iniquity liethunto itself. [1] Those persons, however, of whom it is not there to be believed that theywished to prophesy, if in doing or saying they feigned aught with will ofdeceiving, however it may be that from the very things also which they didor said somewhat prophetical may be shapen out, being by His omnipotenceafore deposited therein as a seed and pre-disposed, Who knoweth how to turnto good account even the ill-deeds of men, yet as far as regards the personsthemselves, without doubt they lied. But they ought not to be esteemed meetfor imitation simply for that they are found in those books which aredeservedly called holy and divine: for those books contain the record ofboth the ill deeds and the good deeds of men; the one to be eschewed, theother to be followed after: and some are so put, that upon them is alsosentence passed; some, with no judgment there expressed, are left permittedfor us to judge of: because it was meet that we should not only be nourishedby that which is plain, but exercised by that which is obscure.

30. But why do these persons thinkthey may imitate Tamar telling a lie, and not think they may imitate Judahcommitting fornication? [2] For there they have readboth, and nought of these hath that Scripture either blamed or praised, buthas merely narrated both, and to our judgment dismissed both: but it ismarvellous if it hath permitted aught of these to be imitated with impunity.For, that Tamar not through lust of playing the harlot, but through wish ofconceiving seed, did tell the lie, we know. But fornication also, howbeitJudah’s was not such, yet some man’s may be suchwhereby to procure that a man may be delivered, just as her lie was in orderthat a man might be conceived; is it right then to commit fornication onthis account, if on that account it is thought that it was right to lie? Nottherefore concerning lying only, but concerning all works of men in whichthere arise as it were compensative sins, must we consider what sentence weought to pass; lest we open a way not only to small sins whatsoever, buteven to all wickednesses, and there remain no outrageous, flagitious,sacrilegious deed, in which there may not arise a cause upon which it mayrightly seem a thing meet to be done, and so universal probity of life be bythat opinion subverted.

31. But he who says that some liesare just, must be judged to say no other than that some sins are just, andtherefore some things are just which are unjust: than which what can be moreabsurd? 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 saythat some sins are unjust, some just, what else is it than to say that therebe some unjust, some just iniquities? When the Apostle John saith,“Every man who doeth sin, doeth also iniquity, and sin isiniquity.” [3] It is impossible therefore that a sin shouldbe just, unless when we put the name of sin upon another thing in which onedoth not sin, but either doeth or suffereth aught for sin. Namely, bothsacrifices for sins are named “sins,” and thepunishments of sins are sometimes called sins. These doubtless can beunderstood to be just sins, when just sacrifices are spoken of, or justpunishments. But those things which are done against God’s lawcannot be just. It is said unto God, “Thy law istruth:” [4] and consequently, what isagainst truth cannot be just. Now who can doubt that every lie is againsttruth? Therefore there can be no just lie. Again, what man doth not seeclearly that every thing which is just is of the truth? And John crieth out,“No lie is of the truth.” [5] No lie therefore is just.Wherefore, when from holy Scriptures are proposed to us examples of lying,either they are not lies, but are thought to be so while they are notunderstood; or, if lies they be, they are not meet to be imitated, becausethey cannot be just.

32. But, as for that which iswritten, that God did good to the Hebrew midwives, and to Rahab the harlotof Jericho, [6] this was not because they lied, but becausethey were merciful to God’s people. That therefore which wasrewarded in them was, not their deceit, but their benevolence; benignity ofmind, not iniquity of lying. [7] For, as it would not be marvellous and absurd if God on account of good works after done by them should bewilling to forgive some evil works at another time before committed, so itis not to be marvelled at that God beholding at one time, in one cause, boththese, that is, the thing done of mercy and the thing done of deceit, didboth reward the good, and for the sake of this good forgive that evil. Forif sins which are done of carnal concupiscence, not of mercy, are for thesake of after works of mercy remitted, [1] why arenot those through merit of mercy remitted which of mercy itself arecommitted? For more grievous is a sin which with purpose of hurting, thanthat which with purpose of helping, is wrought. And consequently if that isblotted out by a work of mercy thereafter following, why is this, which isless heinous, not blotted out by the mercy itself of the man, both goingbefore that he may sin, and going along with him while he sins? So indeed itmay seem: but in truth it is one thing to say, “I ought not tohave sinned, but I will do works of mercy whereby I may blot out the sinwhich I did before;” and another to say, “I ought tosin, because I cannot else show mercy.” It is, I say, one thingto say, “Because we have already sinned, let us dogood,” and another to say, “Let us sin, that we may dogood.” There it is said, “Let us do good, because wehave done evil;” but here, “Let us do evil that goodmay come.” [2] And,consequently, there we have to drain off the sink of sin, here to beware ofa doctrine which teacheth to sin.

33. It remains then that weunderstand as concerning those women, whether in Egypt or in Jericho, thatfor their humanity and mercy they received a reward, in any wise temporal,which indeed itself, while they wist not of it, should by propheticalsignification prefigure somewhat eternal. But whether it be ever right, evenfor the saving of a man’s life, to tell a lie, as it is aquestion in resolving which even the most learned do weary themselves, itdid vastly surpass the capacity of those poor women, set in the midst ofthose nations, and accustomed to those manners. Therefore their ignorance inthis 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 thatwhich is to come, the patience of God did bear withal: Who yet, for theirhuman kindness which they had shown to His servants, rendered unto themrewards of an earthly sort, albeit signifying somewhat of an heavenly. AndRahab, indeed, delivered out of Jericho, made transition into the people ofGod, where, being proficient, she might attain to eternal and immortalprizes which are not to be sought by any lie. Yet at that time when she didfor the Israelite spies that good, and, for her condition of life, laudablework, she was not as yet such that it should be required of her,“In your mouth let Yea be yea, Nay nay.” [3] Butas for those midwives, albeit Hebrewesses, if they savored only after theflesh, what or how great is the good they got of their temporal reward inthat they made them houses, unless by making proficiency they attained untothat house of which is sung unto God, “Blessed are they thatdwell in thine house; for ever and ever they will praisethee?” [4] It must be confessed, however, that it approacheth much unto righteousness,and though not yet in reality, yet even now in respect of hopefulness anddisposition that mind is to be praised, which never lies except withintention and will to do good to some man, but to hurt no man. But as forus, when we ask whether it be the part of a good man sometimes to lie, weask not concerning a person pertaining to Egypt, or to Jericho, or toBabylon, or still to Jerusalem itself, the earthly, which is in bondage withher children; [5] but concerning a citizen of that city which is above and free, our mother,eternal in the heavens. And to our asking it is answered, “No lieis of the truth.” [6] The sons of that city, are sonsof the Truth. That city’s sons are they of whom it is written,“In their mouth was found no lie:” [7] son of that city is he of whom isalso written, “A son receiving the word shall be far fromdestruction: but receiving, he hath received that for himself, and nothingfalse proceedeth out of his mouth.” [8] Thesesons of Jerusalem on high, and of the holy city eternal, if ever, as they bemen, a lie of what kind soever doth worm itself into them, they ask humblyfor pardon, not therefrom seek moreover glory.

34. But some man will say, Wouldthen 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 asthat 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 thatfoul service of killing the babes. But, thou wilt say, themselves would die.Yea, but see what follows. They would die with an heavenly habitation fortheir incomparably more ample reward than those houses which they made themon earth could be: they would die, to be ineternal felicity, after enduring of death for most innocent truth. What ofher in Jericho? Could she do this? Would she not, if she did not by tellinga lie deceive the inquiring citizens, by speaking truth betray the lurkingguests? Or could she say [1] to theirquestionings, I know where they are; but I fear God, I will not betray them?She could indeed say this, were she already a true Israelitess in whom wasno guile: [2] whichthing she was about to be, when through the mercy of God passing over intothe city of God. But they, hearing this (thou wilt say), would slay her,would search the house. But did it follow that they would also find them,whom she had diligently concealed? For in the foresight of this, that mostcautious woman had placed them where they would have been able to remainundiscovered if she, telling a lie, should not be believed. So both she, ifafter all she had been slain by her countrymen for the work of mercy, wouldhave ended this life, which must needs come to an end, by a death preciousin the sight of the Lord, [3] and towards them her benefit hadnot been in vain. But, thou wilt say, “What if the men who soughtthem, in their thorough-going search, had come to the place where she hadconcealed them?” In this fashion it may be said: What if a mostvile and base woman, not only telling, but swearing a lie, had not got themto believe her? Of course even so would the things have been like to come topass, through fear of which she lied. And where do we put the will and powerof God? or haply was He not able to keep both her, neither telling a lie toher own townsmen, nor betraying men of God, and them, being His, safe fromall harm? For by Whom also after the woman’s lie they wereguarded, by Him could they, even if she had not lied, have in any wise beenguarded. Unless perchance we have forgotten that this did come to pass inSodom, where males burning towards males with hideous lust could not so muchas find the door of the house in which were the men they sought; when thatjust man, in a case altogether most similar, would not tell a lie for hisguests, whom he knew not to be Angels, and feared lest they should suffer aviolence worse than death. And doubtless, he might have given the seekersthe like answer as that woman gave in Jericho. For it was in precisely thelike manner that they sought by interrogating. But that just person was notwilling that for the bodies of his guests his soul should be spotted by hisown telling of a lie, for which bodies he was willing that the bodies of hisdaughters by iniquity of others’ lust should be deforced. [4] Let then a man do even for the temporal safety of men what he can; but whenit comes to that point that to consult for such saving of them except bysinning is not in his power, thenceforth let him esteem himself not to havewhat he may do, when he shall perceive that only to be left him which he maynot rightly do. Therefore, touching Rahab in Jericho, because sheentertained strangers, men of God, because in entertaining of them she putherself in peril, because she believed on their God, because she diligentlyhid them where she could, because she gave them most faithful counsel ofreturning by another way, let her be praised as meet to be imitated even bythe citizens of Jerusalem on high. But in that she lied, although somewhattherein as prophetical be intelligently expounded, yet not as meet to beimitated is it wisely propounded: albeit that God hath those good thingsmemorably honored, this evil thing mercifully overlooked.

35. Since these things are so,because it were too long to treat thoroughly of all that in that“Pound” [5] ofDictinius are set down as precedents of lying, meet to be imitated, itseemeth to me that this is the rule to which not only these, but whateversuch there be, must be reduced. Namely, either what is believed to be a liemust be shown not to be such; whether it be where a truth is left untold,and yet no falsehood told; or where a true signification willeth one thingto be understood of another, which kind of figurative either sayings ordoings abounds in the prophetical writings. Or, those which are convicted tobe lies, must be proved to be not meet to be imitated: and if any (as othersins) should stealthily creep in upon us, we are not to attributerighteousness to them, but to ask pardon for them. So indeed it seems to me,and to this sentence the things above disputed do compel me.

36. But for that we are men andamong men do live, and I confess that I am not yet in the number of themwhom compensative sins embarrass not, it oft befalleth me in human affairsto be overcome by human feeling, nor am I able to resist when it is said tome, “Lo, here is a sick man in peril of his life with a grievousdisease, whose strength will no more be able to bear it, if the death of hisonly and most dear son be announced to him; he asks of thee whether his sonliveth, and thou knowest that he is departed thislife; what wilt thou reply, when, whatever thou shalt say beside one ofthese three; either, He is dead; or, He liveth; or, I know not; he believesno other than that he is dead; which thing he perceives thee to be afraid totell, and unwilling to tell a lie?” It comes to the same thing,if thou altogether hold thy peace. But of those three, two are false, Heliveth, and, I know not; and they cannot be said by thee but by telling alie. Whereas if thou shalt say that one thing which is true, that is, thathe is dead, and the man be so perturbed that death follow, people will cryout that thou hast killed him. And who can bear men casting up to him what amischief it is to shun a lie that might save life, and to choose truth whichmurders a man? I am moved by these objections exceedingly, but it weremarvellous whether also wisely. For, when I shall set before the eyes of myheart (such as they be) the intellectual [1] beauty of Him out of Whose mouth nothing false proceedeth, albeit wheretruth in her radiance doth more and more brighten upon me, there my weak andthrobbing sense is beaten back: yet I am with love of that surpassingcomeliness so set on fire, that I despise all human regards which wouldthence recall me. But it is much that this affection persevere to thatdegree, that in temptation it lack not its effect. Nor doth it move me,while contemplating that luminous Good in which is no darkness of a lie,that, when we refuse to lie, and men through hearing of a truth do die,truth is called a murderer. For, if a lewd woman crave of thee thegratification of her lust, and, when thou consentest not, she perturbed withthe fierceness of her love should die, will chastity also be a murderer? Or,truly, because we read, “We are a sweet savor of Christ in everyplace, both in them which are saved and in them whichperish;” [2] to the one, indeed, a savor of life untolife, to others a savor of death unto death; shall we pronounce even thesavor of Christ to be a murderer? But, for that we, being men, are inquestions and contradictions of this sort for the most part overcome orwearied out by our feeling as men, for that very reason hath the Apostlealso presently subjoined, “And who is sufficient for thesethings?”

37. Add to this, (and here is causeto cry out more piteously,) that, if once we grant it to have been right forthe saving of that sick man’s life to tell him the lie, that hisson was alive, then, by little and little and by minute degrees, the evil sogrows 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 canever be any where found on which this huge mischief, by smallest additionsrising into boundless strength, might be resisted. Wherefore, mostprovidently is it written, “He that despiseth small things shallfall by little and little.” [3] Nay more: for these personswho are so enamored of this life, that they hesitate not to prefer it totruth, that a man may not die, say rather, that a man who must some time diemay die somewhat later, would have us not only to lie, but even to swearfasely; to wit, that, lest the vain health of man should somewhat morequickly pass away, we should take the name of the Lord our God in vain! Andthere are among them learned men who even fix rules, and set bounds when itis a duty, when not a duty, to commit perjury! O, where are ye, fountains oftears? And what shall we do? whither go? where hide us from the ire oftruth, if we not only neglect to shun lies, but dare moreover to teachperjuries? For look they well to it, who uphold and defend lying, what kind,or what kinds, of lying they shall delight to justify: at least in theworship of God let them grant that there must be no lying; at least let themkeep themselves from perjuries and blasphemies; at least there, whereGod’s name, where God as witness, where God’s oath [4] is interposed, whereGod’s religion is the matter of discourse or colloquy, let nonelie, none praise, none teach and enjoin, none justify a lie: of the otherkinds of lies let him choose him out that which he accounteth to be themildest and most innocent kind of lying, he who will have it to be right tolie. This I know, that even he who teaches that it is meet to tell lies,wishes to be thought to teach a truth. For if it be false which he teaches,who would care to give heed to false doctrine, in which both he deceivesthat teaches and he is deceived that learns? But if, in order that he may beable to find some disciple, he upholds that he teaches a truth when heteaches that it is meet to lie, how will that lie be of the truth, when theApostle John reclaimeth, “No lie is of the truth?” [5] Itis therefore not true, that it is sometimes right to lie; and that which isnot true to no man is at all to be persuaded.

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, whowithout doubt by being deceived are turned asidefrom a deadly harm to others or themselves, to succor men in peril, if ouraffection as men may not incline us to lie?” If it will hear mepatiently, this crowd of mortality, crowd of infirmity, I will say somewhatin answer on the behalf of truth. Surely at the least pious, true, holychastity is not otherwise than of the truth: and whoso acts against it, actsagainst truth. Why then, if otherwise it be not possible to succor men inperil, do I not also commit whoredom, which is therefore contrary to truth,for that it is contrary to chastity, and yet, to succor men in peril, dospeak a lie which most openly is contrary to truth itself? Wherein hathchastity so highly deserved at our hands, and truth offended us? When allchastity is of the truth, and not the body’s but themind’s chastity is truth, yea, in the mind dwelleth even thebody’s chastity. Lastly, as I shortly before said, and say again,whoever for the recommending and defending of any lie speaks against me,what speaks he, if he speaks not truth? Now if he is therefore to be heardbecause he speaks truth, how wishes he to make me, by speaking truth, aliar? How does lying take unto itself truth as its patroness? Or, is it forher own adversary that she conquers, that by herself she may be conquered?Who can bear this absurdity? In no wise therefore may we say, that they whoassert that it is sometimes right to lie, in asserting that are truthful;lest, what is most absurd and foolish to believe, truth should teach us tobe liars. For what sort of thing is it, that no man learns of chastity thatwe may commit adultery; that we may offend God none learns of piety; that wemay do any man-harm, none learns of kindness; and that we may tell lies, weare to learn of truth! But then if this thing truth teaches not, it is nottrue; if not true, it is not meet to be learned; if not meet to be learned,never therefore is it meet to tell a lie.

39. But, some man will say,“Strong meat is for them that are perfect.” [1] For inmany things a relaxation by way of indulgence is allowed to infirmity,although in her utmost sincerity the things be nowise pleasing to truth. Lethim say this, whoever dreads not the consequences which are to be dreaded,if once there shall be in any way any lies permitted. In nowise, however,must they be permitted to climb up to such a height as to reach to perjuriesand blasphemies: nor must any plea whatever be held out, for which it shouldbe right that perjury should be committed, or, what is more execrable, thatGod should be blasphemed. For it does not follow that because theblaspheming is only in pretence and a lie, therefore He is not blasphemed.For at this rate it might be said that perjury is not committed, because itis by a lie that it is committed: for who can be by truth a perjurer? Soalso by truth can no man be a blasphemer. Doubtless it is a milder kind offalse swearing, when a person does not know that thing to be false andbelieves it to be true, which he swears: like as also Saul blasphemed moreexcusably, because he did it ignorantly. [2] But the reason why it is worseto blaspheme than to perjure one’s self, is, that in falseswearing God is taken to witness a false thing, but in blaspheming falsethings are spoken of God Himself. Now by so much is a man more inexcusable,whether perjurer or blasphemer, by how much the more, while asserting thethings wherein they perjure or blaspheme, they know or believe them to befalse. Whoever therefore says that for an imperilled man’stemporal safety or life a lie may be told, doth too much himself swerve fromthe path of eternal safety and life, if he says that on that behalf one mayeven swear by God, or even blaspheme God.

40. But sometimes a peril to eternalsalvation itself is put forth against us; [3] whichperil, they cry out, we by telling a lie, if otherwise it cannot be, mustward off. As, for instance, if a person who is to be baptized be in thepower of impious and infidel men, and cannot be got at that he may be washedwith the laver of regeneration, but by deceiving his keepers with a lie.From this most invidious cry, by which we are compelled, not for aman’s wealth or honors in this world which are fleeting by, notfor the life itself of this present time, but for the eternal salvation of ahuman being, to tell a lie, whither shall I betake me for refuge but untothee, O truth? And by thee is put forth before me, [4] Chastity.For why, if those keepers may be enticed to admit us to baptize the man, byour committing lewdness, do we refuse to do things contrary to chastity, andyet, if by a lie they may be deceived, consent to do things contrary totruth? when without doubt no man would faithfully think chastity amiable,but because it is enjoined of truth? So then, to get at a man to baptizehim, let the keepers be deceived by lying, if truth bid it. But how cantruth bid in order that a man may be baptized, that we should tell a lie, ifchastity biddeth not, in order that a man be baptized, that we should commitwhoredom? Now why doth chastity not bid this, butbecause this truth teacheth not? If then, save what truth teacheth, we oughtnot to do, when truth teacheth not even for the sake of baptizing a man todo what is contrary to chastity, how shall she teach us to do for the sakeof baptizing a man what is contrary to herself, the truth? But like as eyesnot strong enough to look upon the sun yet do gladly look upon the objectswhich are by the sun enlightened, so, souls which have already strength todelight in the beauty of chastity are yet not straightway able to considerin her very self that truth whence chastity hath her light, insomuch thatwhen it cometh to the doing of somewhat that is adverse to truth, theyshould so start back in horror as they do start back in horror if aught beproposed to be done that is adverse to chastity. But that son, who,receiving the word shall be far from perdition, and nothing false comethforth of his mouth, [1] accounts it as much debarred from him if, to thesuccoring of his fellow man he be urged to pass through a lie, as if it werethrough the deed of lewdness. And the Father heareth and granteth his prayerthat he may avail without a lie to succor whom the Father Himself, Whosejudgments are unsearchable, willeth to be succored. Such a son therefore sokeeps watch against a lie, as he doth against sin. For indeed sometimes thename of lie is put for the name of sin: whence is that saying,“All men are liars.” [2] For it is so said, as if it were said,“All men are sinners.” And that: “But ifthe truth of God hath abounded through my lie.” [3] Andtherefore, when he lies as a man he sins as a man, and will be held by thatsentence in which it is said, “All men are liars;”and, “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, andthe truth is not in us.” [4] But when nothing false comethforth of his mouth, according to that grace will it so be, of which is said:“He that is born of God, sinneth not.” [5] Forwere this nativity by itself alone in us, no man would sin: and when itshall be alone, no man will sin. But now, we as yet drag on that which wewere born corruptible: although, according to that which we are new-born, ifwe walk aright, from day to day we are renewed inwardly. [6] But when this corruptible shallhave put on incorruption, life will swallow it up wholly, and not a sting ofdeath will remain. [7] Now this sting of deathis sin.

41. Either then we are to eschewlies by right doing, or to confess them by repenting: but not, while theyunhappily abound in our living, to make them more by teaching also. But lethim who thinks this, choose out whereby he may help his fellow man being inperil, to what safety he will, what kinds soever of lies; provided yet evenof such men we obtain our demand, that upon no cause must we be carried onto false-swearing and to blaspheming. These wickednesses at least let usjudge either greater than deeds of lewdness, or certainly not smaller. Forindeed it is worth thinking of, that very often men, where they suspect themof adultery, challenge their wives to an oath: which surely they would notdo, unless they believed that even they who were not afraid to perpetrateadultery, might be afraid of perjury. Because in fact also some lewd womenwho were not afraid by unlawful embraces to deceive their husbands, havebeen afraid to call God deceitfully to witness unto those same husbands whomthey had deceived. What cause then can there be, that a chaste and religiousperson should be unwilling by adultery to help a man to baptism, yet bewilling to help him by perjury, which even adulterers are wont to dread? Andthen, if it be shocking to do this by perjuring one’s self, howmuch rather by blaspheming? Far be it then from a Christian to deny andblaspheme Christ, that he may make another man a Christian; and by losinghimself seek to find one, whom, if he teach him such things, he may cause tobe lost when found. The book then which is called “thePound,” thou must in this method refute and destroy; namely, thathead of it in which they dogmatize that for the purpose of concealingreligion a lie may be told, this thou shalt understand must be the first tobe amputated; in such manner, that their testimonies by which they labor toadvance the Holy Books as patrons of their lies, thou must demonstratepartly not to be lies, partly, even those which are such, to be not meet tobe imitated: and if infirmity usurps to herself thus much, that somewhatshall be venially permitted unto her which truth approve not, yet that thouunshakenly hold and defend, that in divine religion it is at no timewhatever right to tell a lie. And, as for concealed heretics, that, as weare not to find out concealed adulterers by committing of adulteries, normurderers by committing of murders, nor practisers of black arts [8] by practising of black arts, soneither must we seek to find out liars by telling lies or blasphemers byblaspheming: according to the reasonings which we have in this volume socopiously set forth, that unto the goal of the same, which we fixed to be inthis place, we have with difficulty come at last.

ST. AUGUSTIN: OF THE WORK OF MONKS.

[DE OPERE MONACHORUM.]

TRANSLATED BY REV. H. BROWNE, M.A., OF CORPUS CHRISTICOLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE; LATE PRINCIPAL OF THE DIOCESAN COLLEGE,CHICHESTER.

From the Retractations, ii. 21.

To write the Book on the Work of Monks, the needwhich compelled me was this. When at Carthage there had begun to bemonasteries, some maintained themselves by their own hands, obeying theApostle; but others wished so to live on the oblations of the faithful,that doing no work whence they might either have or supply thenecessaries of life, they thought and boasted that they did ratherfulfill the precept of the Gospel, where the Lord saith, Behold the fowls of heaven, and the lilies of the field, (Matt. vi. 26). Whence also among laics of inferior purpose, but yetfervent in zeal, there had begun to arise tumultuous contests, wherebythe Church was troubled, some defending the one, others the other part.Add to this, that some of them who were for not working, wore their hairlong. Whence contentions between those who reprehended and those whojustified the practice, were, according to their party affections,increased. On these accounts the venerable old Aurelius, Bishop of theChurch of the same city, desired me to write somewhat of this matter;and I did so. This Book begins, “Jussioni tuæ,sancte frater Aureli.”

This work is placed in the Retractations next after that “On the Good of Marriage,” whichbelongs to the year 401.

1. THY bidding, holy brother Aurelius, it was meet that Ishould comply withal, with so much the more devotion, by how much the moreit became clear unto me Who, out of thee, did speak that bidding. For ourLord Jesus Christ, dwelling in thine inner part, and inspiring into thee asolicitude of fatherly and brotherly charity, whether our sons and brothersthe monks, who neglect to obey blessed Paul the Apostle, when he saith,“If any will not work, neither let him eat,” [1] are to have that licensepermitted unto them; He, assuming unto His work thy will and tongue, hathcommanded me out of thee, that I should hereof write somewhat unto thee. MayHe therefore Himself be present with me also, that I may obey in such sortthat from His gift, in the very usefulness of fruitful labor, I mayunderstand that I am indeed obeying Him.

2. First then, it is to be seen,what is said by persons of that profession, who will not work: then, if weshall find that they think not aright, what is meet to be said for theircorrection? “It is not,” say they, “of thiscorporal work in which either husbandmen or handicraftsmen labor, that theApostle gave precept, when he said, ‘If any will not work,neither let him eat.’ ” For he could not be contraryto the Gospel, where the Lord Himself saith,“Therefore I say unto you, be not solicitous for your life, whatye shall eat, neither for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the lifemore than meat, and the body than raiment? Consider the fowls of heaven,that they sow not, nor reap, nor gather into barns; and your heavenly Fatherfeedeth them. Are not ye rather of more worth than they? But who of you bytaking thought can add to his stature one cubit? And concerning raiment, whyare ye solicitous? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; theylabor not, neither spin; but I say unto you, that not even Solomon in allhis glory was arrayed like one of these. But if the grass of the field,which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, God so clotheth; howmuch more you, (O ye) of little faith! Be not therefore solicitous, saying,What shall we eat, or what shall we drink, or wherewithal shall we be clad?for all these things do the Gentiles seek. And your heavenly Father knoweththat ye need all these. But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and Hisrighteousness, and all these shall be added unto you. Be not thereforesolicitous for the morrow: for the morrow will be solicitous for itself.Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” [1] Lo, say they, where the Lordbiddeth us be without care concerning our food and clothing: how then couldthe Apostle think contrary to the Lord, that he should instruct us that weought to be in such sort solicitous, what we shall eat, or what we shalldrink, or wherewithal we shall be clothed, that he should even burden uswith the arts, cares, labors of handicraftsmen? Wherefore in that he saith,“If any will not work, neither let him eat;” worksspiritual, say they, are what we must understand: of which he saith inanother place, “To each one according as the Lord hath given: Ihave planted, Apollos hath watered; but God gave theincrease.” [2] And a little after,“Each one shall receive his reward according to his own labor. Weare God’s fellow-workers; God’s husbandry,God’s building are ye: according to the grace which is given untome, as a wise masterbuilder I have laid the foundation.” Astherefore the Apostle worketh in planting, watering, building, andfoundation-laying, in that way whoso will not work, let him not eat. Forwhat profiteth in eating spiritually to be fed with the word of God, if hedo not thence work others’ edification? As that slothful servant,what did it profit to receive a talent and to hide it, and not work for theLord’s gain? Was it that it should be taken from him at last, andhimself cast into outer darkness? So, say they, do we also. We read with thebrethren, who come to us fatigued from the turmoil of the world, that withus, in the word of God, and in prayers, psalms, hymns, and spiritual songs,they may find rest. We speak to them, console, exhort, building up in themwhatever unto their life, according to their degree, we perceive to belacking. Such works if we wrought not, with peril should we receive of theLord our spiritual sustenance itself. For this is it the Apostle said,“If any one will not work, neither let him eat.” Thusdo these men deem themselves to comply with the apostolic and evangelicsentence, when both the Gospel they believe to have given precept concerningthe not caring for the corporal and temporal indigence of this life, and theApostle concerning spiritual work and food to have said, “If anywill not work, neither let him eat.”

3. Nor do they attend to this, thatif another should say, that the Lord indeed, speaking in parables and insimilitudes concerning spiritual food and clothing, did warn that not onthese accounts should His servants be solicitous; (as He saith,“When they shall drag you to judgment-seats, take no thought whatye 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 inyou.” [3] For the discourse of spiritual wisdom is that for which He would not thatthey should take thought, promising that it should be given unto them,nothing solicitous thereof;) but the Apostle now, in manner Apostolical,more openly discoursing and more properly, than figuratively speaking, as isthe case with much, indeed well-nigh all, in his Apostolic Epistles, said itproperly of corporal work and food, “If any will not work,neither let him eat:” by those would their sentence be rendereddoubtful, unless, considering the other words of the Lord, they should findsomewhat whereby they might prove it to have been of not caring for corporalfood and raiment that He spake when He said, “Be not solicitouswhat ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink, or wherewithal ye shall beclothed.” As, if they should observe what He saith,“For all these things do the Gentiles seek;” for thereHe shows that it was of very corporal and temporal things that He spake. Sothen, were this the only thing that the Apostle has said on this subject,“If any will not work, neither let him eat;” thesewords might be drawn over to another meaning: butsince in many other places of his Epistles, what is his mind on this point,he most openly teaches, they superfluously essay to raise a mist beforethemselves and others, that what that charity adviseth they may not onlyrefuse to do, but even to understand it themselves, or let it be understoodby others; not fearing that which is written, “He would notunderstand that he might do good.” [1]

4. First then we ought todemonstrate that the blessed Apostle Paul willed the servants of God to workcorporal works which should have as their end a great spiritual reward, forthis purpose that they should need food and clothing of no man, but withtheir own hands should procure these for themselves: then, to show thatthose evangelical precepts from which some cherish not only their sloth buteven arrogance, are not contrary to the Apostolical precept and example. Letus see then whence the Apostle came to this, that he should say,“If any will not work, neither let him eat,” and whathe thereupon joineth on, that from the very context [2] of this lesson mayappear his declared sentence. “We command you, brethren, in thename of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from everybrother that walketh unquietly, and not according to the tradition whichthey have received [3] of us. For yourselvesknow how ye ought to imitate us; for we were not unquiet among you, neitherate we bread of any man for nought, but in labor and travail night and dayworking that we might not burden any of you: not for that we have not power,but that we might give ourselves as a pattern to you in which ye shouldimitate us. For also when we were with you, we gave you this charge, that ifany will not work, let him not eat. For we have heard that certain among youwalk unquietly, working not at all, but being busy-bodies. Now them that aresuch we charge and beseech in our Lord Jesus Christ, that with silence theywork, and eat their own bread.” [4] What can be said to thesethings, since, that none might thereafter have license to interpret thisaccording to his wish, not according to charity, he by his own example hathtaught what by precept he hath enjoined? To him, namely, as to an Apostle, apreacher of the Gospel, a soldier of Christ, a planter of the vineyard, ashepherd of the flock, had the Lord appointed that he should live by theGospel; and yet himself exacted not the pay which was his due, that he mightmake himself a pattern to them which desired what was not their due; as hesaith to the Corinthians, “Who goeth a warfare at any time at hisown charges? Who planteth a vineyard, and of its fruit eateth not? Whofeedeth a flock, and of the milk of the flock partaketh not?” [5] Therefore, what was due to him, he would not receive, that by his examplethey might be checked, who, although not so ordained in the Church, did deemthe like to be due to themselves. For what is it that he saith,“Neither ate we bread of any man for naught, but in labor andtravail night and day working that we might not burden any of you; not forthat we have not power, but that we might give ourselves as a pattern to youwherein ye should follow us?” Let them, therefore, hear to whomhe hath given this precept, that is, they which have not this power which hehad, to wit, that while only spiritually working they should eat bread bycorporal labor not earned: [6] and as hesays, “We charge and beseech in Christ that with silence theywork and eat their own bread,” let them not dispute against themost manifest words of the Apostle, because this also pertaineth to that“silence” with which they ought to work and eat theirown bread.

5. I would, however, proceed to amore searching [7] and diligent consideration andhandling of these words, had I not other places of his Epistles much moremanifest, by comparing which, both these are made more clearly manifest, andif these were not in existence, those others would suffice. To theCorinthians, namely, writing of this same thing, he saith thus,“Am I not free? am I not an Apostle? [8] Have I not seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Arenot ye my work in the Lord? If to others I am not an Apostle, to youassuredly I am. For the seal of mine Apostleship are ye in the Lord. Mydefense to them which interrogate me is this. Have we not power to eat andto drink? Have we not power to lead about a woman who is a sister, [9] as also the otherApostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?” See howfirst he shows what is lawful to him, and therefore lawful for that he is anApostle. For with that he began, “Am I not free? am I not anApostle?” and proves himself to be an Apostle, saying,“Have I not seen Christ Jesus our Lord? Are not ye my work in theLord?” Which being proved, he shows that to be lawful to himwhich was so to the other Apostles; that is, that he should not work withhis hands, but live by the Gospel, as the Lord appointed, which in whatfollows he has most openly demonstrated; for tothis end did also faithful women which had earthly substance go with them,and minister unto them of their substance, that they might lack none ofthose things which pertain to the necessaries of this life. Which thingblessed Paul demonstrates to be lawful indeed unto himself, as also theother Apostles did it, but that he had not chosen to use this power heafterwards mentions. This thing some not understanding, have interpreted not“a woman which is a sister,” when he said,“Have we not power to lead about a sister a woman;”but, “a sister a wife.” They were misled by theambiguity of the Greek word, because both “wife” and“woman” is expressed in Greek by the same word. Thoughindeed the Apostle has so put this that they ought not to have made thismistake; for that he neither says “a woman” merely,but “a sister woman;” nor “totake” (as in marriage), but “to take about”(as on a journey). Howbeit other interpreters have not been misled by thisambiguity, and they have interpreted “woman” not“wife.”

6. Which thing whoso thinks cannothave been done by the Apostles, that with them women of holy conversationshould go about wheresoever they preached the Gospel, that of theirsubstance 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. OurLord, 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 putthe money which was bestowed doubtless by good and believing persons, asnecessary for their living, (which bag He gave in charge to Judas, that eventhieves, if we could not keep clear of such, we might learn to tolerate inthe Church. He, namely, as is written of him, “stole [1] what was puttherein:”) and He willed that women should follow Him for thepreparing and ministering what was necessary, showing what was due toevangelists and ministers of God as soldiers, from the people of God as theprovincials; so that if any should not choose to use that which is due untohim, as Paul the Apostle did not choose, he might bestow the more upon theChurch, by not exacting the pay which was due to him, but by earning hisdaily living of his own labors. For it had been said to the inn-keeper towhom that wounded man was brought, “Whatever thou layest outmore, at my coming again I will repay thee.” [2] The Apostle Paul, then, did“lay out more,” [3] in that he,as himself witnesseth, did at his own charges go a warfare. In the Gospel,namely, it is written, “Thereafter also Himself was making ajourney through cities and villages preaching and evangelizing of thekingdom of God; and the twelve with Him, and certain women which had beenhealed of evil spirits and infirmities: Mary who is called Magdalene, out ofwhom seven devils had gone forth, and Joanna wife of ChuzaHerod’s steward, and Susanna, and many others, who ministeredunto Him of their substance.” [4] This example of the Lord the Apostles didimitate, to receive the meat which was due unto them; of which the same Lordmost openly speaketh: “As ye go,” saith He,“preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick,raise the dead, cleanse lepers, cast out devils. Freely have ye received,freely give. Possess not gold nor silver nor money in your purses, neitherscrip on your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, neither staff: forthe workman is worthy of his meat.” [5] Lo, where the Lord appointeththe very thing which the Apostle doth mention. For to this end He told themnot to carry all those things, namely, that where need should be, they mightreceive them of them unto whom they preached the kingdom of God.

7. But lest any should fancy thatthis was granted only to the twelve, see also what Luke relateth:“After these things,” saith he, “the Lordchose also other seventy and two, and sent them by two and two before Hisface into every city and place whither He was about to come. And He saidunto them, The harvest indeed is plentiful, but the laborers few: ask yetherefore the Lord of the harvest, that He would send forth laborers intoHis harvest. Go your ways: behold, I send you as lambs in the midst ofwolves. Carry neither purse nor scrip nor shoes, and salute no man by theway. Into whatsoever house ye shall enter, first say, Peace be to thishouse. And if the son of peace be there, your peace shall rest upon him: ifnot, it shall return to you. And in the same house remain, eating anddrinking such things as are with them: for the workman is worthy of hishire.” [6] Hereit appears that these things were not commanded, but permitted, that whososhould choose to use, might use that which was lawful unto him by theLord’s appointment; but if any should not choose to use it, hewould not do contrary to a thing commanded, but would be yielding up his ownright, by demeaning himself more mercifully andlaboriously in the Gospel in the which he would not accept even the hirewhich was his due. Otherwise the Apostle did contrary to a command of theLord: for, after he had shown it to be lawful unto him, he hath straightwaysubjoined, “But yet have I not used this power.”

8. But let us return to the order ofour discourse, and the whole of the passage itself of the Epistle let usdiligently consider. “Have we not,” saith he,“leave [1] to eat and to drink? have we notleave to lead about a woman, a sister?” What leave meant he, butwhat the Lord gave unto them whom He sent to preach the kingdom of heaven,saying, “Those things which are (given) of them, eat ye; [2] for the workman is worthy of hishire;” and proposing Himself as an example of the same power, toWhom most faithful women did of their means minister such necessaries? Butthe Apostle Paul hath done more, from his fellow-Apostles alleging a proofof this license permitted of the Lord. For not as finding fault hath hesubjoined, “As do also the other Apostles, and the brethren ofthe Lord, and Cephas;” but that hence he might show that thiswhich he would not accept was a thing which, that it was lawful for him toaccept was proved by the wont of the rest also his fellow-soldiers.“Or I only and Barnabas, have we not power to forbearworking?” Lo, he hath taken away all doubt even from the slowesthearts, that they may understand of what working he speaks. For to what endsaith he, “Or I only and Barnabas, have we not power to forbearworking?” but for that all evangelists and ministers ofGod’s word had power received of the Lord, not to work with theirhands, but to live by the Gospel, working only spiritual works in preachingof the kingdom of heaven and edifying of the peace of the Church? For no mancan say that it is of that very spiritual working that the Apostle said,“Or I only and Barnabas, have we not power to forbearworking?” For this power to forbear working all those had: lethim say then, who essays to deprave and pervert precepts Apostolical; lethim say, if he dares, that all evangelists received of the Lord power toforbear preaching the Gospel. But if this is most absurd and mad to say, whywill they not understand what is plain to all, that they did indeed receivepower not to work, but works bodily, whereby to get a living, because“the workman is worthy of his hire,” as the Gospelspeaks. It is not therefore that Paul and Barnabas only had not power toforbear working; but that all alike had this power, of which these availednot themselves in “laying out more” upon the Church;so as in those places where they preached the Gospel they judged to be meetfor the weak. And for this reason, that he might not seem to have foundfault with his fellow-Apostles, he goes on to say: “Who goeth awarfare at any time at his own charges? Who feedeth a flock, and of the milkof the flock partaketh not? Speak I these things as a man? Saith not the Lawthe same? For in the law of Moses it is written, Thou shalt not muzzle theox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God care for oxen? Or saith he it forour sake altogether? For our sakes truly is it written, because he thatplougheth ought to plough in hope, and he that thresheth in hope ofpartaking of the fruits.” [3] By these words the Apostle Paul sufficientlyindicates, that it was no usurping unto themselves of aught beyond their dueon the part of his fellow-Apostles, that they wrought not bodily, whencethey might have the things which to this life are necessary, but as the Lordordained, should, living by the Gospel, eat bread gratuitously given of themunto whom they were preaching a gratuitous grace. Their charges, namely,they did like soldiers receive, and of the fruit of the vineyard by themplanted, they did, as need was, freely gather; and of the milk of the flockwhich they fed, they drank; and of the threshing-floor on which theythreshed, they took their meat.

9. But he speaks more openly in therest which he subjoins, and altogether removes all causes of doubting.“If we unto you,” saith he, “have sownspiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnalthings?” What are the spiritual things which he sowed, but theword and mystery of the sacrament of the kingdom of heaven? And what thecarnal things which he saith he had a right to reap, but these temporalthings which are indulged to the life and indigency of the flesh? Thesehowever 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 workremaineth for us to understand him to have wrought, whereby he should gethis living, but bodily work, with his own bodily and visible hands? For iffrom spiritual work he sought food and clothing, that is, to receive theseof them whom he was edifying in the Gospel, he could not, as he does, go onto say, “If others be partakers of this power over you, are notwe rather? Nevertheless, we have not used thispower, but tolerate all things that we may not cause any hindrance to theGospel of Christ.” [1] What power doth he say he hadnot used, but that which he had over them, received of the Lord, the powerto reap their carnal things, in order to the sustenance of this life whichis lived in the flesh? Of which power were others also partakers, who didnot at the first announce the Gospel to them, but came thereafter to theirChurch preaching the self-same. Therefore, when he had said, “Ifwe have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shallreap your carnal things?” he subjoined, “If others bepartakers of this power over you, are not we rather?” And when hehad demonstrated what power they had: “Nevertheless we have notused,” saith he, “this power; but we put up with allthings, lest we should cause any impediment to the Gospel ofChrist.” Let therefore these persons say in what way fromspiritual work the Apostle had carnal food, when himself openly says that hehad not used this power. But if from spiritual work he had not carnal food,it remains that from bodily work he had it, and thereof saith,“Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; butwrought with labor and travail night and day, that we might not bechargeable to any of you: not because we have not power, but to makeourselves an example unto you to follow us. [2] All things,”saith he, “we suffer, lest we cause any hindrance to the Gospelof Christ.”

10. And he comes back again, and inall ways, over and over again, enforceth what he hath the right to do, yetdoeth not. “Do ye not know,” saith he,“that they which work in the temple, eat of the things which arein 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 theGospel. But I have used none of these things.” [3] What more open than this? what more clear? I fear lest haply, while Idiscourse wishing to expound this, that become obscure which in itself isbright and clear. For they who understand not these words, or feign not tounderstand, do much less understand mine, or profess to understand: unlessperchance they do therefore quickly understand ours, because it is allowedthem to deride them being understood; but concerning theApostle’s words this same is not allowed. For this reason, wherethey cannot interpret them otherwise according to their own sentence, be itever so clear and manifest, they answer that it is obscure and uncertain,because wrong and perverse they dare not call it. Cries the man of God,“The Lord hath ordained for them which preach the Gospel, of thisGospel to live; but I have used none of these things;” and fleshand blood essayeth to make crooked what is straight; what open, to shut;what serene, to cloud over. “It was,” saith it,“spiritual work that he was doing, and thereof did helive.” If it be so, of the Gospel did he live: why then doth hesay, “The Lord hath ordained for them which preach the Gospel, ofthe Gospel to live; but I have used none of these things?” Or ifthis very word, “to live,” which is here used, theywill needs also interpret in respect of spiritual life, then had the Apostleno hope towards God, in that he did not live by the Gospel, because he hathsaid, “I have used none of these things.” Wherefore,that he should have certain hope of life eternal, the Apostle did of theGospel in any wise spiritually live. What therefore he saith,“But I have used none of these things,” doth withoutdoubt make to be understood of this life which is in the flesh, that whichhe hath said of the Lord’s ordaining to them which preach theGospel, that of the Gospel they should live; that is, this life which hathneed of food and clothing, they by the Gospel shall sustain; as above hesaid of his fellow-apostles; of whom the Lord Himself saith, “Theworkman is worthy of his meat;” and, “The workman isworthy of his hire.” This meat, then, and this hire of thesustenance of this life, due to evangelists, this of them to whom heevangelized the Apostle accepted not, saying a true thing, “Ihave 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 thingsthat they may be so done unto me: good is it for me rather to die than thatany make void my glory.” [4] What glory, unless that whichhe wished to have with God, while in Christ suffering with the weak? As heis presently about to say most openly; “For if I shall havepreached the Gospel, there is not to me any glory: for necessity is laidupon me;” [5] that is, of sustainingthis life. “For woe will be to me,” he saith,“if I preach not the Gospel:” that is, to my own willshall I forbear to preach the Gospel, because I shall be tormented withhunger, and shall not have whereof to live. For he goes on, and says;“For if willingly I do this, I have a reward.” By hisdoing it willingly, he means, if he do ituncompelled by any necessity of supporting this present life; and for thishe hath reward, to wit, with God, of glory everlasting. “But ifunwilling,” saith he, “a dispensation is entrustedunto me:” [1] that is, if being unwilling, I am by necessity of passing through thispresent life, compelled to preach the Gospel, “a dispensation isentrusted unto me;” to wit, that by my dispensation as a steward,because Christ, because the truth, is that which I preach, howsoever becauseof occasion, howsoever seeking mine own, howsoever by necessity of earthlyemolument compelled so to do, other men do profit, but I have not thatglorious and everlasting reward with God. “What then,”saith he, “shall be my reward?” He saith it as askinga question: therefore the pronunciation must be suspended, until he give theanswer. Which the more easily to understand, let, as it were, us put thequestion to him, “What, then, will be thy reward, O Apostle, whenthat earthly reward due to good evangelists, not for its sake evangelizing,but yet taking it as the consequence and offered to them by theLord’s appointment, thou acceptest not? What shall be thy rewardthen?” See what he replies: “That, preaching theGospel, I may make the Gospel of Christ without charge;” that is,that the Gospel may not be to believers expensive, lest they account thatfor this end is the Gospel to be preached to them, that its preachers shouldseem as it were to sell it. And yet he comes back again and again, that hemay show what, by warrant of the Lord, he hath a right unto, yet doeth not:“that I abuse not,” saith he, “my power inthe Gospel.” [2]

12. But now, that as bearing withthe infirmity of men he did this, let us hear what follows: “Forthough I be free from all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, thatI might gain the more. To them that are under the law, I became as under thelaw, that I might gain them that are under the law; to them that are withoutlaw, as without law, (being not without law to God, but under the law toChrist,) that I might gain them that are without law.” [3] Which thing he did, not with craftiness of simulation, but with mercy ofcompassion with others; that is, not as if to feign himself a Jew, as somehave thought, in that he observed at Jerusalem the things prescribed by theold law. [4] For he did this in accordancewith his free and openly declared sentence, in which he says, “Isany called being circumcised? let him not become uncircumcised.”That is, let him not so live, as though he had become uncircumcised, andcovered, that which he had laid bare: as in another place he saith,“Thy circumcision is become uncircumcision.” [5] Itwas in accordance then with this his sentence, in which he saith,“Is any called being circumcised? let him not becomeuncircumcised. Is any called in uncircumcision? let him not becircumcised;” [6] that he did those things, inwhich, by persons not understanding and not enough attending, he has beenaccounted to have feigned. For he was a Jew, and was called beingcircumcised; therefore he would not become uncircumcised; that is, would notso live as if he had not been circumcised. For this he now had in his powerto do. And “under” the law, indeed, he was not as theywho servilely wrought it; but yet “in” the law of Godand of Christ. For that law was not one, and the law of God another, asaccursed Manicheans are wont to say. Otherwise, if when he did those thingshe is to be accounted to have feigned, then he feigned himself also a pagan,and sacrificed to idols, because he says that he became to those withoutlaw, as without law. By whom, doubtless, he would have us to understand noother than Gentiles whom we call Pagans. It is one thing therefore to beunder the law, another in the law, another without law. “Underthe law,” the carnal Jews; “in the law,”spiritual men, both Jews and Christians; (whence the former kept that customof their fathers, but did not impose unwonted burdens upon the believingGentiles; and therefore they also were circumcised;) but “withoutlaw,” are the Gentiles which have not yet believed, to whom yetthe Apostle testifieth himself to have become like, through sympathy of amerciful heart, not simulation of a changeable exterior; that is, that hemight in that way succor carnal Jew or Pagan, in which way himself, if hewere that, would have wished to be succored: bearing, to wit, theirinfirmity, in likeness of compassion, not deceiving in fiction of lying; ashe straightway goes on, and says, “I became to the weak as weak,that I might gain the weak.” [7] For it was from this point thathe was speaking, in saying all those other things. As then, that he becameto the weak as weak, was no lie; so all those other things above rehearsed.For what doth he mean his weakness towards the weak to have been, but thatof suffering with them, insomuch that, lest he should appear to be a sellerof the Gospel, and by falling into an ill suspicion with ignorant men, should hinder the course of God’sword, he would not accept what by warrant of the Lord was his due? Which ifhe were willing to accept, he would not in any wise lie, because it wastruly due to him; and for that he would not, he did not in any wise lie. Forhe did not say, it was not due; but he showed it to be due, and that beingdue he had not used it, and professed that he would not at all use it, inthat very thing becoming weak; namely, in that he would not use his power;being, to wit, with so merciful affection endued, that he thought in whatway he should wish to be dealt withal, if himself also were made so weak,that possibly, if he should see them by whom the Gospel was preached to him,accepting their charges, he might think it a bringing of wares to market,and hold them in suspicion accordingly.

13. Of this weakness of his, hesaith in another place, “We made ourselves small among you, evenas a nurse cherisheth her children.” [1] Forin that passage the context indicates this: “For neither at anytime,” saith he, “used we flattering words, as yeknow, nor an occasion of covetousness; God is witness: nor of men sought weglory, neither of you, nor yet of others when we might have been burdensometo you as the Apostles of Christ: but we made ourselves small among you,even as a nurse cherisheth her children.” What therefore he saithto the Corinthians, that he had power of his apostleship, as also the otherApostles, which power he testifieth that he had not used; this also he saithin that place to the Thessalonians, “When we might have beenburdensome to you as Christ’s Apostles:” according tothat the Lord saith, “The workman is worthy of hishire.” For that of this he speaks, is indicated by that which heabove set down, “Neither for occasion of coveteousness, God iswitness.” By reason, namely, of this which by right of theLord’s appointment was due to good evangelists, who not for itssake do evangelize but seek the kingdom of God, so that all these thingsshould be added unto them, others were taking advantage thereof, of whom healso saith, “For they that are such serve not God, but their ownbelly.” [2] From whom the Apostle wished soto cut off this occasion, that even what was justly due to him, he wouldforego. For this himself doth openly show in the second to the Corinthians,speaking of other Churches supplying his necessities: For he had come, as itappears, to so great indigence, that from distant Churches were sentsupplies for his necessities, while yet from them among whom he was, heaccepted nothing of that kind. “Have I committed asin,” saith he, “in humbling myself that ye might beexalted, because I have preached to you the Gospel of God freely? OtherChurches I despoiled, taking wages of them to minister unto you: and when Iwas present with you and wanted, to no man was I burdensome. For that whichwas lacking to me the brethren which came from Macedonia supplied, and inall things I have kept myself from being burdensome to you, and will keepmyself. It is the truth of Christ in me, that this glory shall not beinfringed in me in the regions of Achaia. Wherefore? because I love you not?God knoweth. But what I do, I also mean to do, that I may cut off occasionfrom them which seek occasion, that wherein they glory they may be found asalso we.” [3] Of this occasion,therefore, which he here saith that he cuts off, he would have thatunderstood which he saith in the former place, “Neither foroccasion of covetousness, God is witness.” And what he heresaith, “In humbling myself that ye might be exalted:”this in the first to the same Corinthians, “I became to the weakas weak;” this to the Thessalonians, “I became smallamong you, as a nurse cherisheth her children.” [4] Now then observe what follows: “So,” saith he,“being affectionately desirous of you, we are minded to impartunto you not alone the Gospel of God, but our own souls also; because ye arebecome most dear to us. For ye remember, brethren, our labor and toil, nightand day working, that we might not burden any of you.” For thishe said above, “When we might be burdensome to you, asChrist’s Apostles.” Because, then, the weak were inperil, lest, agitated by false suspicions, they should hate an, as it were,venal Gospel, for this cause, trembling for them as with afather’s and a mother’s bowels of compassion, did hethis thing. So too in the Acts of the Apostles he speaks the same thing,when, sending from Miletus to Ephesus, he had called thence the presbytersof the Church, to whom, among much else, “Silver,”saith he, “and gold, or apparel of no man have I coveted;yourselves know, that to my necessities and theirs who were with me thesehands have ministered. In all things have I shown you that so laboring itbehoveth to help the weak, mindful also of the words of the Lord Jesus, forthat He said, More blessed is it rather to give than toreceive.” [5]

14. Here peradventure some man maysay, “If it was bodily work thatthe Apostle wrought, whereby to sustain this life, what was that same work,and when did he find time for it, both to work and to preach theGospel?” To whom I answer: Suppose I do not know; neverthelessthat he did bodily work, and thereby lived in the flesh, and did not use thepower which the Lord had given to the Apostles, that preaching the Gospel heshould live by the Gospel, those things above-said do without all doubt bearwitness. For it is not either in one place or briefly said, that it shouldbe possible for any most astute arguer with all his tergiversation totraduce and pervert it to another meaning. Since then so great an authority,with so mighty and so frequent blows mauling the gainsayers, doth break inpieces their contrariness, why ask they of me either what sort of work hedid, or when he did it? One thing I know, that he neither did steal, nor wasa housebreaker or highwayman, nor chariot-driver or hunter or player, norgiven to filthy lucre: but innocently and honestly wrought things which arefitted for the uses of men; such as are the works of carpenters, builders,shoemakers, peasants, and such like. For honesty itself reprehends not whattheir pride doth reprehend, who love to be called, but love not to be,honest. The Apostle then would not disdain either to take in hand any workof peasants, or to be employed in the labor of craftsmen. For he who saith,“Be ye without offense to Jews and to Greeks and to the Church ofGod,” [1] before what men he could possibly stand abashed, I know not. If they shallsay, the Jews; the Patriarchs fed cattle: if the Greeks, whom we call alsoPagans; they have had philosophers, held in high honor, who were shoemakers:if the Church of God; that just man, elect to the testimony of a conjugaland ever-during virginity, to whom was betrothed the Virgin Mary who boreChrist, was a carpenter. [2] Whatever therefore of thesewith innocence and without fraud men do work, is good. For the Apostlehimself takes precaution of this, that no man through necessity ofsustaining life should turn aside to evil works. “Let him thatstole,” saith he, “steal no more; but rather let himlabor good with his hands, that he may have to impart to him thatneedeth.” [3] This then is enough to know, thatalso in the very work of the body the Apostle did work that which isgood.

15. But when he might use to work,that is, in what spaces of time, that he might not be hindered frompreaching the Gospel, who can make out? Though, truly, that he wrought athours of both day and night himself hath not left untold. [4] Yet these men truly, who as though very full ofbusiness and occupation inquire about the time of working, what do they?Have they from Jerusalem round about even to Illyricum filled the lands withthe Gospel? [5] orwhatever of barbarian nations hath remained yet to be gone unto, and to befilled of the peace of the Church, have they undertaken? We know them into acertain holy society most leisurely gathered together. A marvellous thingdid the Apostle, that in very deed amid his so great care of all theChurches, both planted and to be planted, to his care and laborappertaining, he did also with his hands work: yet on that account, when hewas with the Corinthians, and wanted, was burdensome to no man of thoseamong whom he was, but altogether that which was lacking to him the brethrenwhich came from Macedonia supplied. [6]

16. For he himself also, with an eyeto 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 tothe like sustenance, therefore, after he had thus said, teaching andpremonishing, “Now them which are such we command and beseech inour Lord Jesus Christ, that with silence they work and eat their ownbread;” [7] yet, lest they which hadwhereof they might supply the needs of the servants of God, should hencetake occasion to wax lazy, providing against this he hath straightway added,“But ye, brethren, become not weak in showingbeneficence.” [8] And when he was writing to Titus, saying,“Zenas the lawyer and Apollos do thou diligently send forward,that nothing may be wanting to them;” [9] that he might show from whatquarter nothing ought to be wanting to them, he straightway subjoined,“But let ours also learn to maintain good works [10] for necessary use, that they be notunfruitful.” In the case of Timothy also, [11] whom he calls his own mosttrue [12] son,because he knew him weak of body, (as he shows, in advising him not to drinkwater, but to use a little wine for his stomach’s sake and hisoften infirmities,) lest then haply, because in bodily work he could notlabor, he being unwilling to stand in need of daily food at their hands,unto whom he ministered the Gospel, should seeksome business in which the stress of his mind would become entangled; (forit is one thing to labor in body, with the mind free, as does ahandicraftsman, if he be not fraudulent and avaricious and greedy of his ownprivate gain; but another thing, to occupy the mind itself with cares ofcollecting money without the body’s labor, as do either dealers,or bailiffs, or undertakers, for these with care of the mind conduct theirbusiness, not with their hands do work, and in that regard occupy their minditself with solicitude of getting;) lest then Timothy should fall upon suchlike ways, because from weakness of body he could not work with his hands,he thus exhorts, admonishes, and comforts him:“Labor,” saith he, “as a good soldier ofJesus Christ. No man, going a warfare for God, entangleth himself withsecular business; that he may please Him to whom he hath proved himself. [1] For he that striveth for masteries, isnot crowned except he strive lawfully.” [2] Hereupon, lest the othershould be put to straits, saying, “Dig I cannot, to beg I amashamed,” [3] he adjoined, “The husbandman that laboreth must be first partakerof the fruits:” according to that which he had said to theCorinthians, “Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges?Who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Who feedeth aflock, and partaketh not of the milk of the flock?” [4] Thusdid he make to be without care a chaste evangelist, not to that end workingas an evangelist that he might sell the Gospel, but yet not having strengthto supply unto himself with his own hands the necessities of this life; forthat he should understand whatever being necessary for himself he was takingof them whom as provincials he as a soldier was serving, and whom as avineyard he was culturing, or as a flock was feeding, to be not matter ofmendicity, but of power.

[6] [8] 17. On accountthen of these either occupations of the servants of God, or bodilyinfirmities, which cannot be altogether wanting, not only doth the Apostlepermit the needs of saints to be supplied by good believers, but also mostwholesomely exhorteth. For, setting apart that power, which he saith himselfhad not used, which yet that the faithful must serve unto, he enjoins,saying, “Let him that is catechised in the word, communicate untohim that doth catechise him, in all good things:” [5] setting apart, then, this power, which that the preachers of the word haveover them to whom they preach, he often testifieth; speaking, moreover, ofthe saints who had sold all that they had and distributed the same, and weredwelling at Jerusalem in an holy communion of life, not saying that anything was their own, to whom all things were in common, and their soul andheart one in the Lord: that these by the Churches of the Gentiles shouldhave what they needed bestowed upon them, he chargeth and exhorteth. Thenceis also that to the Romans: “Now therefore I will go untoJerusalem, to minister unto the saints. For it hath pleased Macedonia andAchaia to make a certain contribution for the poor of the saints which areat Jerusalem. For it hath pleased them; and their debtors they are. For ifin their spiritual things the Gentiles have communicated, they ought also incarnal things to minister unto them.” [7] This is like that which hesays to the Corinthians: “If we have sown unto you spiritualthings, is it a great thing if we reap your carnal things?” Alsoto the Corinthians in the second Epistle: “Moreover, brethren, wedo you to wit of the grace of God bestowed on the Churches of Macedonia; howthat in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy and theirdeep poverty abounded in the riches of their liberality; for to their power,I bear record, yea, and beyond their power, they were willing of themselves;with many prayers beseeching of us the grace and the fellowship of theministering to the saints: and not as we hoped, but first they gave theirown selves to the Lord, and unto us by the will of God, insomuch, that wedesired Titus, that as he had begun, so he would also finish in you the samegrace also. But as ye abound in every thing, in faith, and utterance, andknowledge, and in all diligence, and in your love to us, see that ye aboundin this grace also. I speak not by commandment, but by occasion of theforwardness of others, and to prove the exceeding dearness of your love. Forye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though He was rich, yetfor your sakes He became poor, that ye through His poverty might be maderich. And herein I give advice: for this is expedient for you, who havebegun before, not only to do, but also to be willing a year ago; nowtherefore perfect it in the doing; that as there is a readiness to will, soof performance also out of that which each hath. For if there be first aready mind, it is acceptable according to that a man hath, not according tothat he hath not. Not, namely, that others may have ease, and ye straits:but by an equality, that now at this time yourabundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also maybecome a supply for your want: that there may be equality, as it is written,He that had gathered much had nothing over; and he that had gathered littlehad no lack. But thanks be to God, which put the same earnest care for youinto the heart of Titus: for indeed he accepted the exhortation; but beingmore forward, of his own accord he went forth unto you. And we have sentwith him the brother, whose praise is in the Gospel throughout all theChurches; and not that only, but he was also ordained of the Churches as acompanion of our travail, with this grace which is administered by us to theglory of the Lord, and our ready mind: avoiding this, that no man shouldblame us in this abundance which is administered by us. For we provide forhonest things, not only in the sight of the Lord, but also in the sight ofmen.” [1] In these words appeareth how much [2] the Apostle willed it notonly to be the care of the holy congregations [3] to ministernecessaries to the holy servants of God, giving counsel in this, becausethis was profitable more to the persons themselves who did this, than tothem towards whom they did it, (for to those another thing was profitable,that is, that they should make of this service of their brethren towardsthem an holy use, and not with an eye to this serve God, nor take thesethings but to supply necessity, not to feed laziness:) but likewise his owncare the blessed Apostle saith to be so great in this ministration which wasnow in transmitting through Titus, that a companion of his journey was onthis account, he tells us, ordained by the Churches, a man of God wellreported of, “whose praise,” says he, “isin the Gospel throughout all the Churches.” And to this end, hesays, was the same ordained to be his companion, that he might avoidmen’s reprehensions, lest, without witness of saints associatedwith him in this ministry, he should be thought by weak and impious men toreceive for himself and turn aside into his own bosom, what he was receivingfor supplying the necessities of the saints, by him to be brought anddistributed to the needy.

18. And a little after he saith,“For as touching the ministering to the saints, it is superfluousfor me to write to you. For I know the forwardness of your mind, for which Iboast of you to them of Macedonia, that Achaia was ready a year ago; andyour zeal hath provoked very many. Yet have we sent the brethren, lest ourboasting of you should be in vain in this behalf; that, as I said, ye may beready: lest haply if they of Macedonia come with me, and find youunprepared, we (that we say not, ye) should be ashamed in this substance.Therefore I thought it necessary to exhort the brethren, that they would gobefore unto you, and make up beforehand this your long promised benediction,that the same might be ready, as benediction, and not as covetousness. Butthis I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and hewhich soweth in benediction shall reap also in benediction. Every manaccording 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 inyou; that ye, always having all sufficiency in all things, may abound toevery good work: as it is written, He hath dispersed abroad; he hath givento the poor: his righteousness remaineth for ever. But He that ministerethseed to the sower will both minister bread for your food, and multiply yourseed sown, and increase the growing fruits of your righteousness; that yemay be enriched in every thing to all bountifulness, which causeth throughus thanksgiving to God: for the administration of this service not onlysupplieth the want of the saints, but makes them also to abound bythanksgiving unto God of many, while by the proof of this ministration theyglorify 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 thepraying for you of them which long after you for the excellent grace of Godin you. Thanks be unto God for His unspeakable gift.” [4] In whatrichness of holy gladness must the Apostle have been steeped, while hespeaks of the mutual supply of the need of Christ’s soldiers andHis other subjects, [5] on the one part of carnal thingsto those, on the other of spiritual things to these, to exclaim as he does,and as it were in repletion of holy joys to burst out [6] with, “Thanks beto God for His unspeakable gift!”

19. As therefore the Apostle, nayrather the Spirit of God possessing and filling and actuating his heart,ceased not to exhort the faithful who had such substance, that nothingshould be lacking to the necessities of the servants of God, who wished tohold a more lofty degree of sanctity in the Church, in cutting off all tiesof secular hope, and dedicating a mind at liberty to their godly service of warfare: likewise ought themselves also toobey his precepts, in sympathizing with the weak, and unshackled by love ofprivate wealth, to labor with their hands for the common good, and submit totheir superiors without a murmur; that there may be made up for them out ofthe oblations of good believers that which, while they labor and do somework whereby they may get their living, yet still by reason of bodilyinfirmities of some, and by reason of ecclesiastical occupations orerudition of the doctrine which bringeth salvation, they shall account to belacking.

20. For what these men are about,who will not do bodily work, to what thing they give up their time, I shouldlike to know. “To prayers,” say they, “andpsalms, and reading, and the word of God.” A holy life,unquestionably, and in sweetness of Christ worthy of praise; but then, iffrom these we are not to be called off, neither must we eat, nor our dailyviands themselves be prepared, that they may be put before us and taken. Nowif to find time for these things the servants of God at certain intervals oftimes by very infirmity are of necessity compelled, why do we not makeaccount of some portions of times to be allotted also to the observance ofApostolical precepts? For one single prayer of one who obeyeth is soonerheard than ten thousand of a despiser. As for divine songs, however, theycan easily, even while working with their hands, say them, and like asrowers with a boat-song, [1] so withgodly melody cheer up their very toil. Or are we ignorant how it is with allworkmen, to what vanities, and for the most part even filthinesses, oftheatrical fables they give their hearts and tongues, while their handsrecede not from their work? What then hinders a servant of God while workingwith his hands to meditate in the law of the Lord, and sing unto the Name ofthe Lord Most High? [2] provided, of course, that to learn what he may by memory rehearse, he havetimes set apart. For to this end also those good works of the faithful oughtnot to be lacking, for resource of making up what is necessary, that thehours which are so taken up in storing of the mind that those bodily workscannot be carried on, may not oppress with want. But they which say thatthey give up their time to reading, do they not there find that which theApostle enjoineth? Then what perversity is this, to refuse to be ruled byhis reading while he wishes to give up his time thereto; and that he mayspend more time in reading what is good, therefore to refuse to do what isread? For who knows not that each doth the more quickly profit when he readsgood things, the quicker he is in doing what he reads?

21. Moreover, if discourse must bebestowed upon any, and this so take up the speaker that he have not time towork with his hands, are all in the monastery able to hold discourse untobrethren which come unto them from another kind of life, whether it be toexpound the divine lessons, or concerning any questions which may be put, toreason in an wholesome manner? Then since not all have the ability, why uponthis pretext do all want to have nothing else to do? Although even if allwere able, they ought to do it by turns; not only that the rest might not betaken up from necessary works, but also because it sufficeth that to manyhearers there be one speaker. To come now to the Apostle; how could he findtime to work with his hands, unless for the bestowing of the word of God hehad certain set times? And indeed God hath not willed this either to behidden from us. For both of what craft he was a workman, and at what timeshe was taken up with dispensing the Gospel, holy Scripture has not leftuntold. 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 wereassembled to break bread, such was his earnestness, and so necessary thedisputation, that his discourse was prolonged even until midnight, [3] asthough it had slipped from their minds that on that day it was not afast: [4] but when he was making longer stay in any place anddisputing daily, who can doubt that he had certain hours set apart for thisoffice? For at Athens, because he had there found most studious inquirers ofthings, it is thus written of him: “He disputed therefore withthe Jews in the synagogue, and with the Gentile inhabitants [5] in the market every day to those whowere there.” [6] Not, namely, in thesynagogue every day, for there it was his custom to discourse on thesabbath; but “in the market,” saith he,“every day;” by reason, doubtless, of the studiousnessof the Athenians. For so it follows: “Certain however of theEpicurean and Stoic philosophers conferred with him.” And alittle after, it says: “Now the Athenians and strangers whichwere there spent their time in nothing else buteither to tell or to hear some new thing.” Let us suppose him allthose days that he was at Athens not to have worked: on this account,indeed, was his need supplied from Macedonia, as he says in the second tothe Corinthians: [1] though in fact he could work both at other hours and of nights, because hewas so strong in both mind and body. But when he had gone from Athens, letus see what says the Scripture: “He disputed,” saithit, “in the synagogue every sabbath;” [2] this at Corinth. In Troas, however, where through necessity of his departurebeing close at hand, his discourse was protracted until midnight, it was thefirst day of the week, which is called the Lord’s Day: whence weunderstand that he was not with Jews but with Christians; when also thenarrator himself saith they were gathered together to break bread. Andindeed this same is the best management, that all things be distributed totheir times and be done in order, lest becoming ravelled in perplexingentanglements, they throw our human mind into confusion.

22. There also is said at what workthe Apostle wrought. “After these things,” it says,“he departed from Athens and came to Corinth; and having found acertain Jew, by name Aquila, of Pontus by birth, lately come from Italy, andPriscilla his wife, because that Claudius had ordered all Jews to departfrom Rome, he came unto them, and because he was of the same craft he abodewith them, doing work: for they were tent-makers.” [3] This if they shall essay to interpret allegorically, they show whatproficients they be in ecclesiastical learning, on which they glory thatthey bestow all their time. And, at the least, touching those sayings aboverecited, “Or I only and Barnabas, have we not power to forbearworking?” and, “We have not used thispower;” [4] and, “When wemight be burdensome to you, as Apostles of Christ,” [5] and, “Night and day working that we might not burden any ofyou;” [6] and, “The Lord hath ordained for them which preach the Gospel, ofthe Gospel to live; but I have used none of these things:” [7] and the rest of this kind, let them either expound otherwise, or if by mostclear shining light of truth they be put to it, let them understand andobey; or if to obey they be either unwilling or unable, at least let themown them which be willing, to be better, and them which be also able, to behappier men than they. For it is one thing to plead infirmity of body,either truly alleged, or falsely pretended: but another so to be deceivedand so to deceive, that it shall even be thought a proof of righteousnessobtaining more mightily in servants of God, if laziness have gotten power toreign among a set of ignorant men. He, namely, who shows a true infirmity ofbody, must be humanely dealt withal; he who pretends a false one, and cannotbe convicted, must be left unto God: yet neither of them fixeth a perniciousrule; because a good servant of God both serves his manifestly infirmbrother; and, when the other deceives, if he believes him because he doesnot think him a bad man, he does not imitate him that he may be bad; and ifhe believe him not; he thinks him deceitful, and does, nevertheless, notimitate him. But when a man says, “This is true righteousness,that by doing no bodily work we imitate the birds of the air, because he whoshall do any such work, goes against the Gospel:” whoso beinginfirm in mind hears and believes this, that person, not for that he sobestows all his time, but for that he so erreth, must be mourned over.

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? Ordid they occasion an hindrance to the Gospel, because blessed Paul saiththat he had not used this power on purpose that he might not cause anyhindrance to the Gospel of Christ? For if they sinned because they wroughtnot, then had they not received power not to work, but to live instead bythe 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 Hissaying, “The workman is worthy of his meat;” whichpower Paul, laying out somewhat more, [8] would not use; then truly they sinned not. Ifthey sinned not, they caused no hindrance. For it is not to be thought nosin to hinder the Gospel. [9] If this be so, “tous also,” say they, “it is free either to use or notto use this power.”

24. This question I should brieflysolve, if I should say, because I should also justly say, that we mustbelieve the Apostle. For he himself knew why in the Churches of the Gentilesit was not meet that a venal Gospel were carried about; not finding faultwith his fellow-apostles, but distinguishing his own ministry; because they,without doubt by admonition of the Holy Ghost, had so distributed among themthe provinces of evangelizing, that Paul and Barnabas should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto theCircumcision. [1] But that he gave this precept to them who had not the likepower, those many things already said do make manifest. But these brethrenof ours rashly arrogate unto themselves, so far as I can judge, that theyhave this kind of power. For if they be evangelists, I confess, they haveit: if ministers of the altar, dispensers of sacraments, of course it is noarrogating to themselves, but a plain vindicating of a right.

25. If at the least they once had inthis world wherewithal they might easily without handiwork sustain thislife, which property, when they were converted unto God, they disparted tothe needy, then must we both believe their infirmity, and bear with it. Forusually such persons, having been, not better brought up, as many think, butwhat is the truth, more languidly brought up, are not able to bear the laborof bodily works. Such peradventure were many in Jerusalem. For it is alsowritten, that they sold their houses and lands, and laid the prices of themat the Apostles’ feet, that distribution might be made to everyone as he had need. [2] Because they were found, being near, and were useful tothe Gentiles, who, being afar off, [3] were thence called from theworship of idols, as it is said, “Out of Zion shall go forth thelaw, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,” [4] therefore hath the Apostle called the Christians of the Gentiles theirdebtors: “their debtors,” saith he, “theyare:” and hath added the reason why, “For if in theirspiritual things the Gentiles have communicated, they ought also in carnalthings to minister unto them.” [5] But now there come into thisprofession of the service of God, both persons from the condition of slaves,or also freed-men, or persons on this account freed by their masters orabout to be freed, likewise from the life of peasants, and from the exerciseand plebeian labor of handicraftsmen, persons whose bringing up doubtlesshas been all the better for them, the harder it has been: whom not to admit,is a heavy sin. For many of that sort have turned out truly great men andmeet to be imitated. For on this account also “hath God chosenthe weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty, andthe foolish things of the world hath He chosen to confound them who arewise; and ignoble things of the world, and things which are not, as thoughthey were, that the things that are may be brought to nought: that no fleshmay glory before God.” [6] This pious and holy thought,accordingly, causeth that even such be admitted as bring no proof of achange of life for the better. For it doth not appear whether they come ofpurpose for the service of God, or whether running away empty from a poorand laborious life they want to be fed and clothed; yea, moreover, to behonored by them of whom they were wont to be despised and trampled on. Suchpersons therefore because they cannot excuse themselves from working bypleading infirmity of body, seeing they are convicted by the custom of theirpast life, do therefore shelter themselves under the screen of an illscholarship, that from the Gospel badly understood they should essay topervert precepts apostolical: truly “fowls of theair,” but in lifting themselves on high through pride; and“grass of the field,” but in being carnallyminded.

26. That, namely, befalleth themwhich in undisciplined younger widows, the same Apostle saith must beavoided: “And withal they learn to be idle; and not only idle,but also busy bodies and full of words, speaking what they oughtnot.” [7] Thisvery thing said he concerning evil women, which we also in evil men do mournand bewail, who against him, the very man in whose Epistles we read thesethings, do, being idle and full of words, speak what they ought not. And ifthere be any among them who did with that purpose come to the holywarfare, [8] that they may please Him to whom theyhave proved themselves, these, when they be so vigorous in strength of body,and soundness of health, that they are able not only to be taught, but also,agreeably unto the Apostle, to work, do, by receiving of thesemen’s idle and corrupt discourses, which they are unable, byreason of their unskilled rawness, to judge of, become changed bypestiferous contagion into the same noisomeness: not only not imitating theobedience of saints which quietly work, and of other monasteries [9] which in most wholesome discipline do live after theapostolic rule; but also insulting better men than themselves, preaching uplaziness as the keeper of the Gospel, accusing mercy as the prevaricatortherefrom. For a much more merciful work is it to the souls of the weak, toconsult for the fair fame of the servants of God, than it is to the bodiesof men, to break bread to the hungry. Wherefore I would to God that these,which want to let their hands lie idle, would altogether let their tongueslie idle too. For they would not make so many willing to imitate them, ifthe examples they set were not merely lazy ones, but mute withal.

27. As it is, however, they, againstthe Apostle of Christ, recite a Gospel of Christ. For so marvellous are theworks of the sluggards, hindered that they want to have that very thing byGospel, which the Apostle enjoined and did on purpose that the Gospel itselfshould not be hindered. And yet, if from the very words of the Gospel weshould 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 beunderstood so as they do understand them. For certainly, they say that theytherefore ought not to work, for that the birds of the air neither sow norreap, of which the Lord hath given us a similitude that we should take nothought about such necessaries. Then why do they not attend to that whichfollows? For it is not only said, that “they sow not, neitherreap;” [1] butthere is added, “nor gather in apothecas.” Now“apothecæ” may be called either“barns,” or word for word,“repositories.” Then why do these persons want to haveidle hands and full repositories? Why do they lay by and keep what theyreceive of the labors of others, that thereof may be every day somewhatforthcoming? Why, in short, do they grind and cook? For the birds do notthis. Or, if they find some whom they may persuade to this work also,namely, to bring unto them day by day viands ready made; at least theirwater they either fetch them from springs, or from cisterns and wells drawand set it by: this the fowls do not. But if so please them, let it be thestudy of good believers and most devoted subjects of the Eternal King, tocarry their service to His most valiant soldiers even to that length, thatthey shall not be forced even to fill a vessel of water for themselves, ifnow-a-days people have surpassed even them which at that time were atJerusalem, in a new grade of righteousness, stepping out beyond them. Tothem, namely, by reason of famine being imminent, and foretold by theProphets which were at that time, [2] good believers sent out ofGreece supplies of corn; of which I suppose they made them bread, or atleast procured to be made; which thing the birds do not. But if now-a-daysthese persons, as I began to say, have surpassed these in some grade ofrighteousness, and do altogether in things pertaining to the maintenance ofthis life, as do the birds; let them show us men doing such service untobirds as they wish to be done unto them, except indeed birds caught andcaged because they are not trusted, lest if they fly they come not back: andyet these would rather enjoy liberty and receive from the fields what isenough, than take their food by men laid before them and made ready.

28. Here then shall these persons intheir turn be in another more sublime degree of righteousness outdone, bythem who shall so order themselves, that every day they shall betake theminto the fields as unto pasture, and at what time they shall find it, pickup their meal, and having allayed their hunger, return. But plainly, onaccount of the keepers of the fields, how good were it, if the Lord shoulddeign to bestow wings also, that the servants of God being found in othermen’s fields should not be taken up as thieves, but as starlingsbe scared off. As things are, however, such an one will do all he can to belike a bird, which the fowler shall not be able to catch. But, lo, let allmen allow this to the servants of God, that when they will they should goforth into their fields, and thence depart fearless and refreshed: as it wasordered to the people Israel by the law, that none should lay hands on athief in his fields, unless he wanted to carry any thing away with him fromthence; [3] for if he laid hands on nothing but what he had eaten,they would let him go away free and unpunished. Whence also when thedisciples of the Lord plucked the ears of corn, the Jews calumniated them onthe score of the sabbath [4] rather than of theft. But howis one to manage about those times of year, at which food that can be takenon the spot is not found in the fields? Whoso shall attempt to take homewith him any thing which by cooking he may prepare for himself, he shall,according to these persons’ understanding of it, be accosted fromthe Gospel with, “Put it down; for this the birds donot.”

29. But let us grant this also, thatthe whole year round there may in the fields be found either of tree or ofherbs 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 thingswhich require cooking, may be taken even raw without hurt, and people mayeven in winter weather, no matter how rough, go forth to their fodder; andso it shall be the case that nothing be taken away to be prepared, nothinglaid 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 noneaccess to them, do shut themselves up, living in great earnestness ofprayers. For these do use to shut up with themselves store of aliments, such indeed as are most easily and cheaply had,yet still a store which may suffice for those days during which they purposethat no man shall see them; which thing the birds do not. Now touching thesemen’s exercising of themselves in so marvellous continency,seeing that they have leisure for the doing of these things, and not inproud elation but in merciful sanctity do propose themselves formen’s imitation, I not only do not blame it, but know not how topraise it as much as it deserves. And yet what are we to say of such men,according to these persons’ understanding of the evangelicalwords? Or haply the holier they be, the more unlike are they to the fowls?because unless they lay by for themselves food for many days, to shutthemselves up as they do they will not have strength? Howbeit, to them aswell as us is it said, “Take therefore no thought for themorrow.” [1]

30. Wherefore, that I may brieflyembrace the whole matter, let these persons, who from perverse understandingof the Gospel labor to pervert apostolical precepts, either take no thoughtfor 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. Forthings contrary to his Lord, Paul the servant of Jesus Christ would neveradvise. [2] Thisthen we say openly to these persons; If the birds of the air ye in such wiseunderstand in the Gospel, that ye will not by working with your handsprocure food and clothing; then neither must ye put any thing by for themorrow, like as the birds of the air do put nothing by. But if to putsomewhat by for the morrow, is possibly not against the Gospel where it issaid, “Behold the birds of the air, for they neither sow nor reapnor gather into stores;” [3] then is it possibly not againstthe Gospel nor against similitude of the birds of the air, to maintain thislife of the flesh by labor of corporal working.

31. For if they be urged from theGospel that they should put nothing by for the morrow, they most rightlyanswer, “Why then had the Lord Himself a bag in which to put bythe money which was collected? [4] Why so long time beforehand, onoccasion of impending famine, were supplies of corn sent to the holyfathers? [5] Why did Apostles in such wise provide things necessary for the indigence ofsaints lest there should be lack thereafter, that most blessed Paul shouldthus write to the Corinthians in his Epistle: “Now concerning thecollection for the saints, as I have given order to the Churches of Galatia,even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay byhim in store, as God hath prospered him, that the gatherings be not thenfirst made when I come. And when I come, whomsoever ye shall approve by yourletters, them will I send to bring your liberality unto Jerusalem. And if itbe meet that I go also, they shall go with me?” [6] These and much else they most copiously and most truly bring forward. Towhom we answer: Ye see then, albeit the Lord said, “Take nothought for the morrow,” yet ye are not by these wordsconstrained to reserve nothing for the morrow: then why do ye say that bythe same words ye are constrained to do nothing? Why are the birds of theair not a pattern unto you for reserving nothing, and ye will have them tobe a pattern for working nothing?

32. Some man will say:“What then does it profit a servant of God, that, having left theformer doings which he had in the world he is converted unto the spirituallife and warfare, if it still behove him to do business as of a commonworkman?” As if truly it could be easily unfolded in words, howgreatly profiteth what the Lord, in answer to that rich man who was seekingcounsel of laying hold on eternal life, told him to do if he would fain beperfect: sell that he had, distribute all to the indigence of the poor, andfollow Him? [7] Orwho with so unimpeded course hath followed the Lord, as he who saith,“Not in vain have I run, nor in vain labored?” [8] whoyet both enjoined these works, and did them. This unto us, being by so greatauthority taught and informed, ought to suffice for a pattern ofrelinquishing our old resources, and of working with our hands. But we too,aided by the Lord Himself, are able perchance in some sort to apprehend whatit doth still profit the servants of God to have left their formerbusinesses, while they do yet thus work. For if a person from being rich isconverted to this mode of life, and is hindered by no infirmity of body, arewe so without taste of the savor of Christ, as not to understand what anhealing it is to the swelling of the old pride, when, having pared off thesuperfluities by which erewhile the mind was deadly inflamed, he refusesnot, for the procuring of that little which is still naturally necessary forthis present life, even a common workman’s lowly toil? If howeverhe be from a poor estate converted unto this manner of life, let him notaccount himself to be doing that which he wasdoing aforetime, if foregoing the love of even increasing his ever so smallmatter of private substance, and now no more seeking his own but the thingswhich be Jesu Christ’s, [1] he hath translated himself intothe charity of a life in common, to live in fellowship of them who have onesoul and one heart to Godward, so that no man saith that any thing is hisown, but they have all things common. [2] For if in this earthlycommonwealth its chief men in the old times did, as their own men of lettersare wont in their most glowing phrase to tell of them, to that degree preferthe common weal of the whole people of their city and country to their ownprivate affairs, that one of them, [3] for subduing of Africa honored with a triumph, would havehad nothing to give to his daughter on her marriage, unless by decree of thesenate she had been dowered from the public treasury: of what mind ought heto be towards his commonwealth, who is a citizen of that eternal City, theheavenly Jerusalem, but that even what with labor of his own hands he earns,he should have in common with his brother, and if the same lack any thing,supply it from the common store; saying with him whose precept and examplehe hath followed, “As having nothing, and possessing allthings?” [4]

33. Wherefore even they which havingrelinquished or distributed their former, whether ample or in any sortopulent, means, have chosen with pious and wholesome humility to be numberedamong the poor of Christ; if they be so strong in body and free fromecclesiastical occupations, (albeit, bringing as they do so great a proof oftheir purpose, and conferring from their former havings, either very much,or not a little, upon the indigence of the same society, the common funditself and brotherly charity owes them in return a sustenance of theirlife,) yet if they too work with their hands, that they may take away allexcuse from lazy brethren who come from a more humble condition in life, andtherefore one more used to toil; therein they act far more mercifully thanwhen they divided all their goods to the needy. If indeed they be unwillingto do this, who can venture to compel them? Yet then there ought to be foundfor them works in the monastery, which if more free from bodily exercise,require to be looked unto with vigilant administration, that not even theymay eat their bread for nought, because it is now become the commonproperty. 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. Forall Christians make one commonwealth. And for that cause whoso shall have,no matter in what place, expended upon Christians the things they needed, inwhat place soever he also receiveth what himself hath need of, fromChrist’s goods [5] he dothreceive it. Because in what place soever himself has given to such, who butChrist received it? But, as for them who before they entered this holysociety got their living by labor of the body, of which sort are the morepart of them which come into monasteries, because of mankind also the morepart are such; if they will not work, neither let them eat. For not to thatend are the rich, in this Christian warfare, brought low unto piety, thatthe poor may be lifted up unto pride. As indeed it is by no means seemlythat in that mode of life where senators become men of toil, there commonworkmen should become men of leisure; and whereunto there come,relinquishing their dainties, men who had been masters of houses and lands,there common peasants should be dainty.

34. But then the Lord saith,“Be not solicitous for your life what ye shall eat, nor for thebody, what ye shall put on.” Rightly: because He had said above,“Ye cannot serve God and mammon.” For he who preachesthe Gospel with an eye to this, that he may have whereof he may eat andwhereof be clothed, accounts that he at the same time both serves God,because he preaches the Gospel; and mammon, because he preaches with an eyeto these necessaries: which thing the Lord saith to be impossible. Andhereby he who doth for the sake of these things preach the Gospel isconvicted that he serves not God but mammon; however God may use him, heknows not how, to other men’s advancement. For to this sentencedoth He subjoin, saying “Therefore I say unto you, Be notsolicitous for your life what ye shall eat, nor for your body what ye shallput on:” not that they should not procure these things, as muchas is enough for necessity, by what means they honestly may; but that theyshould not look to these things, and for the sake of these do whatever inpreaching of the Gospel they are bidden to do. The intention, namely, forwhich a thing is done, He calls the eye: of which a little above He wasspeaking with purpose to come down to this, and saying, “Thelight of thy body is thine eye: if thine eye be single, thy whole body shallbe full of light; but if thine eye be evil, thywhole body shall be full of darkness;” that is, such will be thydeeds as shall be thine intention for which thou doest them. For indeed thatHe might come to this, He had before given precept concerning alms, saying,“Lay not up for yourselves treasures on earth where rust and mothdoth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up foryourselves treasure in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, andwhere thieves do not break through nor steal. For where thy treasure shallbe, there will thy heart be also. [1] ” Thereupon Hesubjoined, “The light of thy body is thine eye:” thatthey, to wit, which do alms, do them not with that intention that theyshould either wish to please men, or seek to have repayment on earth of thealms they do. Whence the Apostle, giving charge to Timothy for warning ofrich men, “Let them,” says he “readilygive, communicate, treasure up for themselves a good foundation for the timeto come, that they may lay hold on the true life.” [2] Since then the Lord hath to the future life directed the eye of them whichdo alms, and to an heavenly reward, in order that the deeds themselves maybe full of light when the eye shall be simple, (for of that last retributionis meant that which He says in another place, “He that receivethyou receiveth Me, and he that receiveth Me receiveth Him that sent Me. Hethat receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet shall receive aprophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in thename of a righteous man shall receive a righteous man’s reward.And whosoever shall give to drink unto one of these little ones a cup ofcold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, his rewardshall not be lost,” [3] ) lest haply after he hadreproved the eye [4] of them which bestow things needful uponthe indigent both prophets and just men and disciples of the Lord, the eyeof the persons to whom these things were done should become depraved, sothat for the sake of receiving these things they should wish to serve Christas His soldiers: “No man,” saith He, “canserve two masters.” And a little after: “Yecannot,” saith He, “serve God andmammon.” [5] And straightway He hathadded, “Therefore I say unto you, be not solicitous for your lifewhat ye shall eat, nor for the body what ye shall put on.”

35. And that which followsconcerning 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 governingthose. For it must not be deemed that it is not He that feeds and clothesthem also which work with their hands. But lest they turn aside theChristian service of warfare unto their purpose of getting these things, theLord in this premonisheth His servants that in this ministry which is due toHis Sacrament, we should take thought, not for these, but for His kingdomand righteousness: and all these things shall be added unto us, whetherworking 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 todo 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,” [6] therefore the Apostle ought not tohave fled, and to be let down by the wall in a basket that he might escapethe hands of a pursuer, [7] but should ratherhave waited to be taken, that, like the three children from the midst of thefires, the Lord might deliver him. Or for this reason ought not the Lordeither to have said this, “If they shall persecute you in onecity, flee ye to another,” [8] namely, because He hath said,“If ye shall ask of the Father any thing in My name, He will giveit you.” [9] Asthen whoever to Christ’s disciples when fleeing from persecutionshould cast up this sort of question, why they did not rather stand, and bycalling upon God obtain through His marvellous works in such wisedeliverance, as Daniel from the lions, as Peter from his chains, they wouldanswer that they ought not to tempt God, but He would then and then only dothe like for them, if it should please Him, when they had nothing that theycould do; but when He put flight in their power, although they were therebydelivered, yet were they not delivered but by Him: so likewise to servantsof God having time and strength after the example and precept of the Apostleto get their living by their own hands, if any from the Gospel shall raise aquestion concerning the birds of the air, which sow not nor reap nor gatherinto stores, and concerning lilies of the field that they toil not neitherdo they spin; they will easily answer, “If we also, by reason ofany either infirmity or occupation cannot work, He will so feed and clotheus, as He doth the birds and the lilies, which do no work of this kind: but when we are able, we ought not to tempt ourGod; because this very ability of ours, we have it by His gift, and inliving by it, we live by His bounty Who hath bounteously bestowed upon usthat we should have this ability. And therefore concerning these necessarythings we are not solicitous; because when we are able to do these things,He by Whom mankind are fed and clothed doth feed and clothe us: but when weare not able to do these things, He feeds and clothes us by Whom the birdsare fed and the lilies clothed, because we are more worth than they.Wherefore in this our warfare, neither for the morrow take we thought:because not for the sake of these temporal things, whereunto pertainethTo-morrow, but for the sake of those eternal things, where it is evermoreTo-day, have we proved ourselves unto Him, that, entangled in no secularbusiness, we may please Him. [1]

36. Since these things are so,suffer me awhile, holy brother, (for the Lord giveth me through thee greatboldness,) to address these same our sons and brethren whom I know with whatlove thou together with us dost travail in birth withal, until the Apostolicdiscipline be formed in them. O servants of God, soldiers of Christ, is itthus ye dissemble the plottings of our most crafty foe, who fearing yourgood fame, that so goodly odor of Christ, lest good souls should say,“We will run after the odor of thine ointments,” [2] andso should escape his snares, and in every way desiring to obscure it withhis own stenches, hath dispersed on every side so many hypocrites under thegarb of monks, strolling about the provinces, no where sent, no where fixed,no where standing, no where sitting. Some hawking about limbs of martyrs, ifindeed of martyrs; others magnifying their fringes and phylacteries; [3] others with a lying story, how they haveheard say that their parents or kinsmen are alive in this or that country,and therefore be they on their way to them: and all asking, all exacting,either the costs of their lucrative want, or the price of their pretendedsanctity. And in the meanwhile wheresoever they be found out in their evildeeds, or in whatever way they become notorious, under the general name ofmonks, your purpose is blasphemed, a purpose so good, so holy, that inChrist’s name we desire it, as through other lands so through allAfrica, to grow and flourish. Then are ye not inflamed with godly jealousy?Does not your heart wax hot within you, and in your meditation a firekindle, [4] that these men’s evil worksye should pursue with good works, that ye should cut off from them occasionof a foul trafficking, by which your estimation is hurt, and astumbling-block put before the weak? Have mercy then and have compassion,and show to mankind that ye are not seeking in ease a ready subsistence, butthrough the strait and narrow way of this purpose, are seeking the kingdomof God. Ye have the same cause which the Apostle had, to cut off occasionfrom them which seek occasion, that they who by their stinks are suffocated,by your good odor may be refreshed.

37. We are not binding heavy burdensand laying them upon your shoulders, while we with a finger will not touchthem. Seek out, and acknowledge the labor of our occupations, and in some ofus 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 ourselvesfor those works to which we exhort you. For though we might say,“Who goeth a warfare any time at his own charges? Who planteth avineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? Who feedeth a flock, andpartaketh not of the milk of the flock?” [5] yet I call our Lord Jesus, inWhose name I fearlessly say these things, for a witness upon my soul, thatso far as it concerns mine own convenience, I would much rather every day atcertain hours, as much as is appointed by rule in well-governed monasteries,do some work with my hands, and have the remaining hours free for readingand praying, or some work pertaining to Divine Letters, [6] than have to bearthese most annoying perplexities of other men’s causes aboutsecular matters, which we must either by adjudication bring to an end, or byintervention cut short. Which troubles the same Apostle hath fastened uswithal, (not by his own sentence, but by His who spake through him,) whileyet we do not read that he had to put up with them himself: indeed his wasnot the sort of work to admit of it, while running to and fro in hisApostleship. Nor hath he said, “If then ye have secularlaw-suits, bring them before us;” or, “Appoint us tojudge them;” but, “Them which are contemptible in theChurch, these,” saith he, “put ye in place. To yourabashment I say it: is it so that there is not among you any wise man whocan judge between his brother, but brother goeth to law with brother, andthat before infidels?” [1] Sothen wise believers and saints, having their stated abode in the differentplaces, not those who were running hither and hither on the business of theGospel, were the persons whom he willed to be charged with examination ofsuch affairs. Whence it is no where written of him that he on any occasiongave up his time to such matters; from which we are not able to excuseourselves, even though we be contemptible; because he willed even such to beput in place, in case there were lack of wise men, rather than have theaffairs of Christians to be brought into the public courts. Which labor,however, we not without consolation of the Lord take upon us, for hope ofeternal life, that we may bring forth fruit with patience. For we areservants unto His Church, and most of all to the weaker members, whatsoevermembers we in the same body may chance to be. I pass by other innumerableecclesiastical cares, which perchance no man credits but he who hathexperienced the same. Therefore we do not bind heavy burdens and place themon your shoulders, while we ourselves touch them not so much as with afinger; since indeed if with safety to our office we might, (He seeth it,Who tries our hearts!) we would rather do these things which we exhort youto do, than the things which we ourselves are forced to do. True it is, toall both us and you, while according to our degree and office we labor, boththe way is strait in labor and toil; and yet, while we rejoice in hope, Hisyoke is easy and His burden light, Who hath called us unto rest, Who passedforth before us from the vale of tears, where not Himself either was withoutpressure of griefs. If ye be our brethren, if our sons, if we be yourfellow-servants, or rather in Christ your servants, hear what we admonish,acknowledge what we enjoin, take what we dispense. But if we be Pharisees,binding heavy burdens and laying them on your shoulders; [2] yet do ye the things we say,even though ye disapprove the things we do. But to us it is a very smallthing that we be judged by you, [3] or of any human assize. [4] Of how near and dear [5] charity isour care on your behalf, let Him look into it Who hath given what we mayoffer to be looked into by His eyes. In fine: think what ye will of us: Paulthe Apostle enjoins and beseeches you in the Lord, that with silence, thatis, quietly and obediently ordered, ye do work and eat your own bread. [6] Of him, as I suppose, ye believe no evil, and He who by him doth speak, onHim have ye believed.

38. These things, my brotherAurelius, most dear unto me, and in the bowels of Christ to be venerated, sofar as He hath bestowed on me the ability Who through thee commanded me todo it, touching work of Monks, I have not delayed to write; making this mychief care, lest good brethren obeying apostolic precepts, should by lazyand disobedient be called even prevaricators from the Gospel: that theywhich work not, may at the least account them which do work to be betterthan themselves without doubt. But who can bear that contumacious personsresisting most wholesome admonitions of the Apostle, should, not as weakerbrethren be borne withal, but even be preached up as holier men; insomuchthat monasteries founded on sounder doctrine should be by this doubleenticement corrupted, the dissolute license of vacation from labor, and thefalse name of sanctity? Let it be known then to the rest, our brethren andsons, who are accustomed to favor such men, and through ignorance to defendthis kind of presumption, that they need themselves most chiefly to becorrected, in order that those may be corrected, nor that they become“weary in well-doing.” [7] Truly, in that they dopromptly and with alacrity minister unto the servants of God the things theyneed, not only we blame them not, but we most cordially embrace them: onlylet them not with perverse mercy more hurt these men’s futurelife, than to their present life they render aid.

39. For there is less sin, if peopledo not praise the sinner in the desires of his soul, and speak good of himwho practiseth iniquities. [8] Nowwhat is more an iniquity than to wish to be obeyed by inferiors, and torefuse to obey superiors? The Apostle, I mean, not us: insomuch that theyeven let their hair grow long: a matter, of which he would have no disputingat all, saying, “If any chooseth to be contentious, we have nosuch custom, neither the Church of God. [9] Now this Icommand;” [10] which gives us to understand that it is notcleverness of reasoning that we are to look for, but authority of one givingcommand to attend unto. For whereunto, I pray thee, pertaineth this also,that people so openly against the Apostle’s precepts wear longhair? Is it that there must be in such sort vacation, that not even thebarbers are to work? Or, because they say that they imitate the Gospel birds, do they fear to be, as it were, plucked, lestthey be not able to fly? I shrink from saying more against this fault, outof respect for certain long-haired brethren, in whom, except this, we findmuch, and well-nigh every thing, to venerate. But the more we love them inChrist, the more solicitously do we admonish them. Nor are we afraid indeed,lest their humility reject our admonition; seeing that we also desire to beadmonished by such as they, wherever we chance to stumble or to go aside.This then we admonish so holy men, not to be moved by foolish quibblings ofvain persons, and imitate in this perversity them whom in all else they arefar from resembling. For those persons, hawking about a venal hypocrisy,fear lest shorn sanctity be held cheaper than long-haired; because forsoothhe who sees them shall call to mind those ancients whom we read of, Samueland the rest who did not cut off their hair. [1] And they do not consider what isthe difference between that prophetic veil, and this unveiling which is inthe Gospel, of which the Apostle saith, “When thou shalt goover [2] unto Christ, the veil shall be takenaway.” [3] That, namely, which was signified in the veil interposed between the face ofMoses and the beholding of the people Israel, [4] that same was also signifiedin those times by the long hair of the Saints. For the same Apostle saith,that long hair is also instead of a veil: by whose authority these men arehard pressed. Seeing he saith openly, “If a man wear long hair,it is a disgrace to him.” “The verydisgrace,” say they, “we take upon us, for desert ofour sins:” holding out a screen of simulated humility, to the endthat under cover of it they may carry on their trade of self-importance. [5] Just as if the Apostle were teachingpride when he says, “Every man praying or prophesying with veiledhead shameth his head;” [6] and, “A man ought notto veil his head, forsomuch as he is the image and glory ofGod.” [7] Consequently he who says, “Ought not,” knows notperchance how to teach humility! However, if this same disgrace in time ofthe Gospel, which was a thing of a holy meaning [8] in timeof Prophecy, be by these people courted as matter of humility, then let thembe shorn, and veil their head with haircloth. Only then there will be noneof that attracting of people’s eyes in which they trade, [9] because Samson was veiled not withhaircloth, but with his long hair.

40. And then that further device oftheirs, (if words can express it), how painfully ridiculous is it, whichthey have invented for defense of their long locks! “Aman,” say they, “the Apostle hath forbidden to havelong hair: but then they who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom ofGod are no longer men.” O dotage unparalleled! Well may theperson who says this arm himself against Holy Scripture’s mostmanifest proclamations, with counsel of outrageous impiety, and persevere ina tortuous path, and essay to bring in a pestiferous doctrine that not“Blessed is the man who hath not walked in the counsel of theungodly, and in the way of sinners hath not stood, and in the chair ofnoisome wickedness [10] hath not sat. [11] For ifhe would meditate in God’s law day and night, there he shouldfind the Apostle Paul himself, who assuredly professing highest chastitysaith, “I would that all men were even as I:” and yetshows himself a man, not only in so being, but also in so speaking. For hesaith, “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as achild, I thought as a child; when I became a man, I put away childishthings.” [12] But why should I mention the Apostle, whenconcerning our Lord and Saviour Himself they know not what they think whosay these things. For of Whom but Him is it said, “Until we comeall to unity of faith and to knowledge of the Son of God, to the PerfectMan, to the measure of the age of the fullness of Christ; that we be nolonger babes, tossed and carried about with every wind of doctrine, insleight of men, in cunning craftiness for machination oferror.” [13] With which sleight thesepersons deceive ignorant people, with which cunning craftiness andmachinations of the enemy both they themselves are whirled round, and intheir whirling essay to make the minds of the weak which cohere unto them so(in a manner) to spin round with them, that they also may not know wherethey are. For they have heard or read that which is written,“Whosoever of you have been baptized in Christ, have put onChrist: where is no Jew nor Greek; no bond nor free; no male norfemale.” [14] And they do not understand that it is inreference to concupiscence of carnal sex [15] that this is said, because inthe inner man, wherein we are renewed in newness of our mind, no sex of thiskind exists. Then let them not deny themselves to be men, just because inrespect of their masculine sex they work not. For wedded Christians also whodo this work, are of course not Christians onthe score of that which they have in common with the rest who are notChristians and with the very cattle. For that is one thing that is either toinfirmity conceded or to mortal propagation paid as a debt, but another thatwhich for the laying hold of incorrupt and eternal life is by faithfulprofession signified. That then which concerning not veiling of the head isenjoined to men, in the body indeed it is set forth in a figure, but that itis enacted in the mind, wherein is the image and glory of God, the wordsthemselves do indicate: “A man indeed,” it saith,“ought not to veil his head, forsomuch as he is the image andglory of God.” For where this image is, he doth himself declare,where he saith, “Lie not one to another; but stripping off theold man with his deeds, put ye on the new, which is renewed to theacknowledging of God, according to the image of Him who createdhim.” [1] Who can doubt that this renewing takes place in the mind? But and if anydoubt, let him hear a more open sentence. For, giving the same admonition,he thus saith in another place: “As is the truth in Jesus, thatye put off concerning the former conversation the old man, him which iscorrupt according to the lust of deception; but be ye renewed in the spiritof your mind, and put on the new man, him which after God iscreated.” [2] What then? Have women not this renewal ofmind in which is the image of God? Who would say this? But in the sex oftheir body they do not signify this; therefore they are bidden to be veiled.The part, namely, which they signify in the very fact of their being women,is that which may be called the concupiscential part, over which themind [3] bears rule, itself also subjected to its God,when life is most rightly and orderly conducted. What, therefore, in asingle individual human being is the mind and the concupiscence, (thatruling, this ruled; that lord, this subject,) the same in two human beings,man and woman, is in regard of the sex of the body exhibited in a figure. Ofwhich sacred import [4] the Apostle speaks when he says,that the man ought not to be veiled, the women ought. For the mind doth themore gloriously advance to higher things, the more diligently theconcupiscence is curbed from lower things; until the whole man together witheven this now mortal and frail body in the last resurrection be clothed withincorruption and immortality, and death be swallowed up in victory. [5]

41. Wherefore, they which will notdo right things, let them give over at least to teach wrong things. Howbeitthey be others whom in this speech we reprove: but as for those who by thisone fault, of letting their hair contrary to apostolic precept grow long,offend and trouble the Church, because when some being unwilling to think ofthem any thing amiss are forced to twist the manifest words of the Apostleinto a wrong meaning, others choose to defend the sound understanding of theScriptures rather than fawn upon any men, there arise between the weaker andthe stronger brethren most bitter and perilous contentions: which thingsperchance if they knew, these would correct without hesitation this also, inwhom we admire and love all else. Those then we not reprove, but ask andsolemnly beseech by the Godhead and the Manhood of Christ and by the charityof the Holy Ghost, that they no more put this stumbling-block before theweak for whom Christ died, and aggravate the grief and torment of our heartwhen we bethink us how much more readily evil men can imitate this evilthing for deceiving of mankind, when they see this in them whom on the scoreof 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 butonly grieve and mourn. This let them know; it is enough. If they be servantsof God, they have pity. If they have not pity, I will not say any thingworse. All these things, therefore, in the which peradventure I have beenmore loquacious than the occupations both of thee and of me could wish, ifthou approve the same, make thou to be known to our brethren and sons, onwhose behalf thou hast deigned to put this burden upon me: but if aught seemto thee meet to be withdrawn or amended, by reply of your Blessedness Ishall know the same.

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON PATIENCE.

[DE PATIENTIA.]

TRANSLATED BY THE REV. H. BROWNE, M.A., OF CORPUS CHRISTICOLLEGE, CAMBRIDGE, LATE PRINCIPAL OF THE DIOCESAN COLLEGE,CHICHESTER.

Erasmus infers from the style and language of this piece, that it is notS. Augustin’s, putting it in the same category with thetreatises On Continence, On substance of Charity, OnFaith of things invisible. The Benedictine editors acknowledgethat it has peculiarities of style which are calculated to movesuspicion; (especially the studied assonances and rhyming endings, e. g.“ cautior fuit iste in doloribus quam illein nemoribus . . . consensit ille oblectamentis, non cessit illetormentis, ” chap. 12.); yet they feel themselvesbound to retain it among the genuine works by Augustin’s owntestimony, who mentions both this piece and that OnContinence in his Epistle to Darius, 231. chap. 7.[Vol. I. 584.] That it is not named in the Retractations is accounted for by the circumstancethat 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 afurther book of retractations on review of his popular discourses andletters. Ep. 224. chap. 2. In point of matter anddoctrine 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 sogreat 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 thename of Patience, [or long-suffering.] So, although inGod there can be no suffering, [1] and“patience” hath its name apatiendo, from suffering, yet a patient God we not only faithfullybelieve, but also wholesomely confess. But the patience of God, of what kindand how great it is, His, Whom we say to be impassible, [2] yetnot impatient, nay even most patient, in words to unfold this who can beable? Ineffable is therefore that patience, as is His jealousy, as Hiswrath, and whatever there is like to these. For if we conceive of these asthey be in us, in Him are there none. We, namely, can feel none of thesewithout molestation: but be it far from us to surmise that the impassiblenature of God is liable to any molestation. But like as He is jealouswithout any darkening of spirit, [3] wroth withoutany perturbation, pitiful without any pain, repenteth Him without anywrongness in Him to be set right; so is He patient without aught of passion.Now therefore as concerning human patience, which we are able to conceiveand beholden to have, of what sort it is, I will, as God granteth and thebrevity of the present discourse alloweth, essay to set forth.

2. The patience of man, which isright and laudable and worthy of the name of virtue, is understood to bethat by which we tolerate evil things with an even mind, that we may notwith a mind uneven desert good things, through which we may arrive atbetter. Wherefore the impatient, while they will not suffer ills, effect nota deliverance from ills, but only the suffering of heavier ills. Whereas thepatient who choose rather by not committing to bear, than by not bearing to commit, evil, both make lighter what throughpatience they suffer, and also escape worse ills in which through impatiencethey would be sunk. But those good things which are great and eternal theylose not, while to the evils which be temporal and brief they yield not:because “the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to becompared,” as the Apostle says, “with the future glorythat shall be revealed in us.” [1] And again he says,“This our temporal and light tribulation doth in inconceivablemanner work for us an eternal weight of glory.” [2]

3. Look we then, beloved, whathardships in labors and sorrows men endure, for things which they viciouslylove, and by how much they think to be made by them more happy, by so muchmore unhappily covet. How much for false riches, how much for vain honors,how much for affections of games and shows, is of exceeding peril andtrouble most patiently borne! We see men hankering after money, glory,lasciviousness, how, that they may arrive at their desires, and havinggotten not lose them, they endure sun, rain, icy cold, waves, and moststormy tempests, the roughnesses and uncertainties of wars, the strokes ofhuge blows, and dreadful wounds, not of inevitable necessity but of culpablewill. But these madnesses are thought, in a manner, permitted. Thus avarice,ambition, luxury, and the delights of all sorts of games and shows, unlessfor them some wicked deed be committed or outrage which is prohibited byhuman laws, are accounted to pertain to innocence: nay moreover, the man whowithout wrong to any shall, whether for getting or increasing of money,whether for obtaining or keeping of honors, whether in contending in thematch, or in hunting, or in exhibiting with applause some theatricalspectacle, have borne great labors and pains, it is not enough that throughpopular vanity he is checked by no reproofs, but he is moreover extolledwith praises: “Because,” as it is written,“the sinner is praised in the desires of hissoul.” [3] For theforce of desires makes endurance of labors and pains: and no man save forthat which he enjoyeth, freely takes on him to bear that which annoyeth. Butthese lusts, as I said, for the fulfilling of which they which are on firewith them most patiently endure much hardship and bitterness, are accountedto be permitted, and allowed by laws.

4. Nay more; for is it not so thateven for open wickednesses, not to punish but to perpetrate them, men put upwith many most grievous troubles? Do not authors of secular letters tell ofa 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 foodand warmth and sleep to a degree surpassing belief? [4] Why speak of highway robbers, all of whom while they liein wait for travellers endure whole nights without sleep, and that they maycatch, as they pass by, men who have no thought of harm, will, no matter howfoul the weather, plant in one spot their mind and body, which are full ofthoughts of harm? Nay it is said that some of them are wont to torture oneanother by turns, to that degree that this practice and training againstpains is not a whit short of pains. For, not so much perchance are theyexcruciated by the Judge, that through smart of pain the truth may be gotat, as they are by their own comrades, that through patience of pain truthmay not be betrayed. And yet in all these the patience is rather to bewondered at than praised: nay neither wondered at nor praised, seeing it isno patience; but we must wonder at the hardness, deny the patience: forthere is nothing in this rightly to be praised, nothing usefully to beimitated; and thou wilt rightly judge the mind to be all the more worthy ofgreater punishment, the more it yields up to vices the instruments ofvirtues. Patience is companion of wisdom, not handmaid of concupiscence:patience is the friend of a good conscience, not the foe of innocence.

5. When therefore thou shall see anyman suffer aught patiently, do not straightway praise it as patience; forthis is only shown by the cause of suffering. When it is a good cause, thenis it true patience: when that is not polluted by lust, then is thisdistinguished from falsity. But when that is placed in crime, then is thismuch misplaced in name. For not just as all who know are partakers ofknowledge, just so are all who suffer partakers of patience: but they whichrightly use the suffering, these in verity of patience are praised, thesewith the prize of patience are crowned.

6. But yet, seeing that forlusts’ sake, or even wickednesses, seeing, in a word, that forthis temporal life and weal men do wonderfully bear the brunt of manyhorrible sufferings, they much admonish us how great things ought to beborne for the sake of a good life, that it may also hereafter be eternallife, and without any bound of time, without waste or loss of any advantage,in true felicity secure. The Lord saith, “In your patience yeshall possess your souls:” [1] Hesaith not, your farms, your praises, your luxuries; but, “yoursouls.” If then the soul endures so great sufferings that it maypossess that whereby it may be lost, how great ought it to bear that it maynot be lost? And then, to mention a thing not culpable, if it bear so greatsufferings for saving of the flesh under the hands of chirurgeons cutting orburning the same, how great ought it to bear for saving of itself under thefury of any soever enemies? Seeing that leeches, that the body may not die,do by pains consult for the body’s good; but enemies bythreatening the body with pains and death, would urge us on to the slayingof soul and body in hell.

7. Though indeed the welfare even ofthe body is then more providently consulted for, if its temporal life andwelfare be disregarded for righteousness’ sake, and its pain ordeath most patiently for righteousness’ sake endured. Since it isof the body’s redemption which is to be in the end, that theApostle speaks, where he says, “Even we ourselves groan withinourselves, waiting the adoption of sons, the redemption of ourbody.” [2] Then he subjoins, “For in hope are we saved. But hope which isseen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he also hope for? But ifwhat we see not we hope for, we do by patience wait for it.” Whentherefore any ills do torture us indeed, yet not extort from us ill works,not only is the soul possessed through patience; but even when throughpatience the body itself for a time is afflicted or lost, it is unto eternalstability and salvation resumed, and hath through grief and death aninviolable health and happy immortality laid up for itself. Whence the LordJesus exhorting his Martyrs to patience, hath promised of the very body afuture perfect entireness, without loss, I say not of any limb, but of asingle hair. “Verily I say unto you,” saith He,“a hair of your head shall not perish.” [3] Thatso, because, as the Apostle says, “no man ever hated his ownflesh,” [4] a faithful man may more bypatience than by impatience take vigilant care for the state of his flesh,and find amends for its present losses, how great soever they may be, in theinestimable gain of future incorruption.

8. But although patience be a virtueof the mind, yet partly the mind exercises it in the mind itself, partly inthe body. In itself it exercises patience, when, the body remaining unhurtand untouched, the mind is goaded by any adversities or filthinesses ofthings or words, to do or to say something that is not expedient or notbecoming, and patiently bears all evils that it may not itself commit anyevil in work or word. By this patience we bear, even while we be sound inbody, that in the midst of the offenses of this world our blessedness isdeferred: of which is said what I cited a little before, “If whatwe see not we hope for, we do by patience wait for it.” By thispatience, holy David bore the revilings of a railer, [5] and, when he might easilyhave avenged himself, not only did it not, but even refrained another whowas vexed and moved for him; and more put forth his kingly power byprohibiting than by exercising vengeance. Nor at that time was his bodyafflicted with any disease or wound, but there was an acknowledging of atime of humility, and a bearing of the will of God, for the sake of whichthere was a drinking of the bitterness of contumely with most patient mind.This patience the Lord taught, when, the servants being moved at the mixingin of the tares and wishing to gather them up, He said that the householderanswered, “Leave both to grow until the harvest.” [6] That, namely, must be patience put up with, which must not be in haste putaway. Of this patience Himself afforded and showed an example, when, beforethe passion of His Body, He so bore with His disciple Judas, that ere Hepointed him out as the traitor, He endured him as a thief; [7] and before experience of bonds and cross and death, did,to those lips so full of guile, not deny the kiss of peace. [8] All these, and whatever else there be, which it were tedious to rehearse,belong to that manner of patience, by which the mind doth, not its own sinsbut any evils soever from without, patiently endure in itself, while thebody remains altogether unhurt. But the other manner of patience is that bywhich the same mind bears any troubles and grievances whatsoever in thesufferings of the body; not as do foolish or wicked men for the sake ofgetting vain things or perpetrating crimes; but as is defined by the Lord,“for righteousness’ sake.” [9] Inboth kinds, the holy Martyrs contended. For both with scornful reproofs ofthe ungodly were they filled, where, the body remaining intact, the mindhath its own (as it were) blows and wounds, and bears these unbroken: and intheir bodies they were bound, imprisoned, vexed with hunger and thirst,tortured, gashed, torn asunder, burned, butchered; and with piety immovablesubmitted unto God their mind, while they weresuffering in the flesh all that exquisite cruelty could devise in itsmind.

9. It is indeed a greater fight ofpatience, when it is not a visible enemy that by persecution and rage wouldurge us into crime, which enemy may openly and in broad day be by notconsenting overcome; but the devil himself, (he who doth likewise by meansof the children of infidelity, as by his vessels, persecute the children oflight) doth by himself hiddenly attack us, by his rage putting us on to door say something against God. As such had holy Job experience of him, byboth temptations vexed, but in both through steadfast strength of patienceand arms of piety unconquered. For first, his body being left unhurt, helost all that he had, in order that the mind, before excruciation of theflesh, might through withdrawal of the things which men are wont to prizehighly, be broken, and he might say something against God upon loss of thethings for the sake of which he was thought to worship Him. He was smittenalso with sudden bereavement of all his sons, so that whom he had begottenone by one he should lose all at once, as though their numerousness had beennot for the adorning of his felicity, but for the increasing of hiscalamity. But where, having endured these things, he remained immovable inhis God, he cleaved to His will, Whom it was not possible to lose but by hisown will; and in place of the things he had lost he held Him who took themaway, in Whom he should find what should never be lost. For He that tookthem away was not that enemy who had will of hurting, but He who had givento 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 manhimself, in whatever part he could, he smote. From the head to the feet wereburning pains, were crawling worms, were running sores; still in the rottingbody the mind remained entire, and horrid as were the tortures of theconsuming flesh, with inviolate piety and uncorrupted patience it enduredthem 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 thedevil, in leaving her when he took away the sons, went to work as oneunskilled in mischief: rather, how necessary she was to the tempter, he hadalready learned in Eve. But now he had not found a second Adam whom he mighttake 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 ofpleasant things, the other overcame in the midst of pains; the one consentedto that which seemed delightsome, this other quailed not in torments mostaffrightsome. 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, theybelieved him not innocent, nor did their tongue forbear to say that whichhis 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 inhis flesh his own pains, in his heart others’ errors, reprovedhis wife for her folly, taught his friends wisdom, preserved patience ineach and all.

10. To this man let them [1] look who put themselves to deathwhen they are sought for to have life put upon them; and by bereavingthemselves of the present, deny and refuse also that which is to come. Why,if people were driving them to deny Christ or to do any thing contrary torighteousness, like true Martyrs, they ought rather to bear all patientlythan to dare death impatiently. If it could be right to do this for the sakeof running away from evils, holy Job would have killed himself, that beingin so great evils, in his estate, in his sons, in his limbs, through thedevil’s cruelty, he might escape them all. But he did it not. Farbe it from him, a wise man, to commit upon himself what not even that unwisewoman suggested. And if she had suggested it, she would with good reasonhere also have had that answer which she had when suggesting blasphemy;“Thou hast spoken as one of the foolish women. If we havereceived good at the hand of the Lord, shall we not bearevil?” [2] Seeingeven he also would have lost patience, if either by blasphemy as she hadsuggested, or by killing himself which not even she had dared to speak of,he should die, and be among them of whom it is written, “Woe untothem that have lost patience!” [3] and rather increase thanescape pains, if after the death of his body he should be hurried off topunishment either of blasphemers, or of murderers, or of them which areworse even than parricides. For if a parricide be on that account morewicked than any homicide, because he kills not merely a man but a nearrelative; and among parricides too, the nearer the person killed, thegreater criminal he is judged to be: without doubt worse still is he whokills himself, because there is none nearer to a man than himself. What thendo these miserable persons mean, who, though both here they have inflicted pain upon themselves, and hereafter not onlyfor their impiety towards God but for the very cruelty which they haveexercised upon themselves will deservedly suffer pains of His inflicting, doyet seek moreover the glories of Martyrs? since, even if for the truetestimony of Christ they suffered persecution, and killed themselves, thatthey might not suffer any thing from their persecutors, it would be rightlysaid to them, “Woe unto them which have lostpatience!” For how hath patience her just reward, if even animpatient suffering receives the crown? or how shall that man be judgedinnocent, to whom is said, “Thou shalt love thy neighbor asthyself,” [1] if he commit murder uponhimself which he is forbidden to commit upon his neighbor?

11. Let then the Saints hear fromholy Scripture the precepts of patience: “My son, when thoucomest to the service of God, stand thou in righteousness and fear, andprepare thy soul for temptation: bring thine heart low, and bear up; that inthe last end thy life may increase. All that shall come upon thee receivethou, and in pain bear up, and in thy humility have patience. For in thefire gold and silver is proved, but acceptable men in the furnace [2] of humiliation.” [3] And in another place we read: “My son, faint not thou in thediscipline of the Lord, neither be wearied when thou art chidden of Him. Forwhom the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom Hereceiveth.” [4] What is here set down,“son whom He receiveth,” the same in the abovementioned testimony is, “acceptable men.” For this isjust, that we who from our first felicity of Paradise for contumaciousappetence of things to enjoy were dismissed, through humble patience ofthings that annoy may be received back: driven away for doing evil, broughtback by suffering evil: there against righteousness doing ill, here forrighteousness’ sake patient of ills.

12. But concerning true patience,worthy of the name of this virtue, whence it is to be had, must now beinquired. For there are some [5] whoattribute it to the strength of the human will, not which it hath by Divineassistance, but which it hath of free-will. Now this error is a proud one:for it is the error of them which abound, of whom it is said in the Psalm,“A scornful reproof to them which abound, and a despising to theproud.” [6] It is not therefore that“patience of the poor” which “perisheth notforever.” [7] For these poor receive it fromthat Rich One, to Whom is said, “My God art Thou, because mygoods Thou needest not:” [8] of Whom is “every goodgift, and every perfect gift;” [9] to Whom crieth the needy and thepoor, and in asking, seeking, knocking, saith, “My God, deliverme from the hand of the sinner, and from the hand of the lawless and unjust:because Thou art my patience, O Lord, my hope from my youthup.” [10] But these which abound, and disdain to be in want before God, lest theyreceive of Him true patience, they which glory in their own false patience,seek to “confound the counsel of the poor, because the Lord ishis hope.” [11] Nordo they regard, seeing they are men, and attribute so much to their own,that is, to the human will, that they run into that which is written,“Cursed is every one who putteth his hope in man.” [12] Whence even if it chance them that they do bear up under any hardships ordifficulties, either that they may not displease men, or that they may notsuffer worse, or in self-pleasing and love of their own presumption, do withmost proud will bear up under these same, it is meet that concerningpatience this be said unto them, which concerning wisdom the blessed ApostleJames saith, “This wisdom cometh not from above, but is earthly,animal, devilish.” [13] For why may there not be afalse patience of the proud, as there is a false wisdom of the proud? Butfrom Whom cometh true wisdom, from Him cometh also true patience. For to Himsingeth that poor in spirit, “Unto God is my soul subjected,because from Him is my patience.” [14]

13. But they answer and speak,saying, “If the will of man without any aid of God by strength offree choice [15] bears so many grievous and horribledistresses, whether in mind or body, that it may enjoy the delight of thismortal life and of sins, why may it not be that in the same manner theself-same will of man by the same strength of free-choice, not thereuntolooking to be aided of God, but unto itself by natural possibilitysufficing, doth, in all of labor or sorrow that is put upon it, forrighteousness and eternal life’s sake most patiently sustain thesame? Or is it so, say they, that the will of the unjust is sufficient,without aid of God, for them, yea even to exercise themselves in undergoingtorture for iniquity, and before they be tortured by others; sufficient thewill of them which love the respiting of this life that, without aid of God,they should in the midst of most atrocious andprotracted torments persevere in a lie, lest confessing their misdeeds theybe ordered to be put to death; and not sufficient the will of the just,unless strength be put into them from above, that whatever be their pains,they should, either for beauty’s sake of very righteousness orfor love of eternal life, bear the same?”

14. They which say these things, donot understand that as well each one of the wicked is in that measure forendurance of any ills more hard, in what measure the lust of the world ismightier in him; as also that each one of the just is in that measure forendurance of any ills more brave, in what measure in him the love of God ismightier. But lust of the world hath its beginning from choice of the will,its progress from enjoyableness of pleasure, its confirmation from the chainof custom, whereas “the love of God is shed abroad in ourhearts,” [1] not verily from ourselves, but“by the Holy Spirit which is given unto us.” Andtherefore from Him cometh the patience of the just, by Whom is shed abroadtheir love (of Him). Which love (of charity) the Apostle praising andsetting off, among its other good qualities, saith, that it“beareth all things.” [2] “Charity,” saith he, “ismagnanimous.” [3] And alittle after he saith, “endureth all things.” Thegreater then is in saints the charity (or love) of God, the more do theyendure all things for Him whom they love, and the greater in sinners thelust of the world, the more do they endure all things for that which theylust after. And consequently from that same source cometh true patience ofthe righteous, from which there is in them the love of God; and from thatsame source the false patience of the unrighteous, from which is in them thelust of the world. With regard to which the Apostle John saith;“Love not the world, neither the things that be in the world. Ifany man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him: because allthat is in the world, is lust of the flesh, and lust of the eyes, and prideof life; [4] which is not of the Father,but is of the world.” [5] This concupiscence, then,which is not of the Father, but is of the world, in what measure it shall inany man be more vehement and ardent, in that measure becometh each morepatient of all troubles and sorrows for that which he lusteth after.Therefore, as we said above, this is not the patience which descendeth fromabove, but the patience of the godly is from above, coming down from theFather of lights. And so that is earthly, this heavenly; that animal, thisspiritual; that devilish, this Godlike. [6] Becauseconcupiscence, whereof it cometh that persons sinning suffer all thingsstubbornly, is of the world; but charity, whereof cometh that persons livingaright suffer all things bravely, is of God. And therefore to that falsepatience it is possible that, without aid of God, the human will maysuffice; harder, in proportion as it is more eager of lust, and bearing illswith the more endurance the worse itself becometh: while to this, which istrue patience, the human will, unless aided and inflamed from above, dothnot suffice, for the very reason that the Holy Spirit is the fire thereof;by Whom unless it be kindled to love that impassible Good, it is not able tobear the ill which it suffereth.

15. For, as the Divine utterancestestify, “God is love, and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth inGod, and God dwelleth in him.” [7] Whoso therefore contends thatlove of God may be had without aid of God, what else does he contend, butthat God may be had without God? Now what Christian would say this, which nomadman would venture to say? Therefore in the Apostle, true, pious, faithfulpatience, saith exultingly, and by the mouth of the Saints; “Whoshall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress,or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it iswritten, For Thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted assheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more thanconquerors through Him that loved us:” not through ourselves,but, “through Him that loved us.” [8] And then he goes on andadds; “For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, norangels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things tocome, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able toseparate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus ourLord.” This is that “love of God” which“is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Spirit which is givenunto us.” But the concupiscence of the bad, by reason of whichthere is in them a false patience, “is not of theFather,” [9] as saith the Apostle John, butis of the world.

16. Here some man shall say;“If the concupiscence of the bad, whereby it comes that they bearall evils for that which they lust after, be of the world, how is it said tobe of their will?” As if, truly, they were not themselves also ofthe world, when they love the world, forsaking Him by Whom the world wasmade. For “they serve the creaturemore than the Creator, Who is blessed for ever.” [1] Whether then by the word “world,” the Apostle Johnsignifies lovers of the world, the will, as it is of themselves, istherefore of the world: or whether under the name of the world he comprisesheaven and earth, and all that is therein, that is the creature universally,it is plain that the will of the creature, not being that of the Creator, isof the world. For which cause to such the Lord saith, “Ye arefrom beneath, I am from above: ye are of this world, I am not of thisworld.” [2] And to the Apostle He saith,“If ye were of the world, the world would love hisown.” But lest they should arrogate more unto themselves thantheir measure craved, and when He said that they were not of the world,should imagine this to be of nature, not of grace, therefore He saith,“But because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you outof the world, therefore the world hateth you.” It follows, thatthey once were of the world: for, that they might not be of the world, theywere chosen out of the world.

17. Now this election the Apostledemonstrating to be, not of merits going before in good works, but electionof grace, saith thus: “And in this time a remnant by election ofgrace is saved. But if by grace, then is it no more of works, otherwisegrace is no more grace.” [3] This is election of grace; thatis, election in which through the grace of God men are elected: this, I say,is election of grace which goes before all good merits of men. For if it beto any good merits that it is given, then is it no more gratuitously given,but is paid as a debt, and consequently is not truly called grace; where“reward,” as the same Apostle saith, “isnot imputed as grace, but as debt.” [4] Whereas if, that it may be truegrace, that is, gratuitous, it find nothing in man to which it is due ofmerit, (which thing is well understood in that saying, “Thou wiltsave them for nothing,” [5] ) then assuredly itself gives themerits, not to merits is given. Consequently it goes before even faith, fromwhich it is that all good works begin. “For the just,”as is written, “shall live by faith.” [6] But,moreover, grace not only assists the just, but also justifies the ungodly.And therefore even when it does aid the just and seems to be rendered to hismerits, not even then does it cease to be grace, because that which it aidsit did itself bestow. With a view therefore to this grace, which precedesall good merits of man, not only was Christ put to death by the ungodly, but“died for the ungodly.” [7] And ere that He died, He electedthe Apostles, not of course then just, but to be justified: to whom Hesaith, “I have chosen you out of the world.” For towhom He said, “Ye are not of the world,” and then,lest they should account themselves never to have been of the world,presently added, “But I have chosen you out of theworld;” assuredly that they should not be of the world was by Hisown election of them conferred upon them. Wherefore, if it had been throughtheir own righteousness, not through His grace, that they were elected, theywould not have been chosen out of the world, because they would already notbe of the world if already they were just. And again, if the reason why theywere elected was, that they were already just, they had already first chosenthe Lord. For who can be righteous but by choosing righteousness?“But the end of the law is Christ, for righteousness is to everyone that believeth. [8] Who ismade unto us wisdom of God, and righteousness, and sanctification, andredemption: that, as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in theLord.” [9] He then is Himself our righteousness.

18. Whence also the just of old,before the Incarnation of the Word, in this faith of Christ, and in thistrue righteousness, (which thing Christ is unto us,) were justified;believing this to come which we believe come: and they themselves by gracewere saved through faith, not of themselves, but by the gift of God, not ofworks, lest haply they should be lifted up. [10] For their good works did notcome before God’s mercy, but followed it. For to them was itsaid, and by them written, long ere Christ was come in the flesh,“I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will showcompassion on whom I will have compassion.” [11] From whichwords of God the Apostle Paul, should so long after say; “It isnot therefore of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God thatshoweth mercy.” It is also their own voice, long ere Christ wascome in the flesh, “My God, His mercy shall preventme.” [12] Howindeed could they be aliens from the faith of Christ, by whose charity evenChrist was fore-announced unto us; without the faith of Whom, not any ofmortals either hath been, or is, or ever shall be able to be, righteous? Ifthen, being already just, the Apostles were elected by Christ, they wouldhave first chosen Him, that just men might be chosen, because without Himthey could not be just. But it was not so: asHimself saith to them, “Not ye have chosen Me, but I have chosenyou.” Of which the Apostle John speaks, “Not that weloved God, but that He loved us.” [1]

19. Since the case is so, what isman, while in this life he uses his own proper will, ere he choose and loveGod, but unrighteous and ungodly? “What,” I say,“is man,” a creature going astray from the Creator,unless his Creator “be mindful of him,” [2] andchoose [3] him freely, and love [4] him freely?Because he is himself not able to choose or love, unless being first chosenand loved he be healed, because by choosing blindness he perceiveth not, andby loving laziness is soon wearied. But perchance some man may say: In whatmanner is it that God first chooses and loves unjust men, that He mayjustify them, when it is written, “Thou hatest, Lord, all thatwork iniquity?” [5] In what way, think we, but in awonderful and ineffable manner? And yet even we are able to conceive, thatthe good Physician both hates and loves the sick man: hates him, because heis sick; loves him, that he may drive away his sickness.

20. Let thus much have been saidwith 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 inbad men the lust of the world. But this love is in us by the Holy Spiritwhich was given us. Whence, of Whom cometh in us love, of Him comethpatience. But the lust of the world, when it patiently bears the burdens ofany manner of calamity, boasts of the strength of its own will, like as ofthe stupor of disease, not robustness of health. This boasting is insane: itis not the language of patience, but of dotage. A will like this in thatdegree seems more patient of bitter ills, in which it is more greedy oftemporal good things, because more empty of eternal.

21. But if it be goaded on andinflamed with deceitful visions and unclean incentives by the devilishspirit, associated and conspiring therewith in malignant agreement, thisspirit makes the will of the man either frantic with error, or burning withappetite of some worldly delight; and hence, it seems to show a marvellousendurance of intolerable evils: but yet it does not follow from this that anevil will without instigation of another and unclean spirit, like as a goodwill without aid of the Holy Spirit, cannot exist. For that there may be anevil will even without any spirit either seducing or inciting, issufficiently clear in the instance of the devil himself, who is found tohave become a devil, not through some other devil, but of his own properwill. An evil will therefore, whether it be hurried on by lust, whethercalled back by fear, whether expanded by gladness, whether contracted bysadness, and in all these perturbations of mind enduring and making light ofwhatever are to others, or at another time, more grievous, this evil willmay, without another spirit to goad it on, seduce itself, and in lapsing bydefection from the higher to the lower, the more pleasant it shall accountthat thing to be which it seeks to get or fears to lose, or rejoices to havegotten, or grieves to have lost, the more tolerably for its sake bear whatis less for it to suffer than that is to be enjoyed. For whatever that thingbe, it is of the creature, of which one knows the pleasure. Because in somesort, the creature loved approaches itself to the creature loving in fondcontact 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 wiltThou give them to drink,” [6] is of far other kind, for it isnot, like us, a creature. Unless then its love be given to us from thence,there is no source whence it may be in us. And consequently, a good will, bywhich we love God, cannot be in man, save in whom God also worketh to will.This good will therefore, that is, a will faithfully subjected to God, [7] awill set on fire by sanctity of that ardor which is above, a will whichloves God and his neighbor for God’s sake; whether through love,of which the Apostle Peter makes answer, “Lord, Thou knowest thatI love Thee;” [8] whether through fear, of whichsays the Apostle Paul, “In fear and trembling work out your ownsalvation;” [9] whether through joy, of which hesays, “In hope rejoicing, in tribulation patient;” [10] whether through sorrow, with which he says he had great grief for hisbrethren; [11] inwhatever way it endure what bitterness and hardships soever, it is the loveof God which “endureth all things,” [12] and which is not shed abroad in our hearts but by the Holy Spirit given untous. [13] Whereof piety makes no manner of doubt, but, as the charity of them whichholily love, so the patience of them which piously endure, is the gift ofGod. For it cannot be that the divine Scripture deceiveth or is deceived,which not only in the Old Books hath testimonies of this thing, when it issaid unto God, “My Patience art Thou,” and,“From Him is mypatience;” [1] and where anotherprophet saith, that we receive the spirit of fortitude; [2] but also in the Apostolic writingswe read, “Because unto you is given on behalf of Christ, not onlyto believe on Him, but to suffer for Him.” [3] Therefore let not that make themind to be as of its own merit uplifted, wherewith he is told that he is ofAnother’s mercy gifted.

23. But if moreover any not havingcharity, which pertaineth to the unity of spirit and the bond of peacewhereby the Catholic Church is gathered and knit together, being involved inany schism, doth, that he may not deny Christ, suffer tribulations, straits,hunger, nakedness, persecution, perils, prisons, bonds, torments, swords, orflames, or wild beasts, or the very cross, through fear of hell andeverlasting fire; in nowise is all this to be blamed, nay rather this alsois a patience meet to be praised. For we cannot say that it would have beenbetter 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 willperhaps be more tolerable for him in the judgment, than if by denying Christhe should avoid all those things: so that what the Apostle saith,“If I shall give my body to be burned, but have not charity, itprofiteth me nothing,” [4] should be understood to profitnothing for obtaining the kingdom of heaven, but not for having moretolerable punishment to undergo in the last judgment.

24. [5] But it may well be asked, whether this patiencelikewise be the gift of God, or to be attributed to strength of the humanwill, by which patience, one who is separated from the Church doth, not forthe error which separated him but for the truth of the Sacrament or Wordwhich hath remained with him, for fear of pains eternal suffer painstemporal. For we must take heed lest haply, if we affirm that patience to bethe gift of God, they in whom it is should be thought to belong also to thekingdom of God; but if we deny it to be the gift of God, we should becompelled to allow that without aid and gift of God there can be in the willof man somewhat of good. Because it is not to be denied that it is a goodthing that a man believe he shall undergo pain of eternal punishment if heshall deny Christ, and for that faith endure and make light of any manner ofpunishment of man’s inflicting.

25. So then, as we are not to denythat this is the gift of God, we are thus to understand that there be somegifts of God possessed by the sons of that Jerusalem which is above, [6] andfree, and mother of us all, (for these are in some sort the hereditarypossessions in which we are “heirs of God and joint-heirs withChrist:”) but some other which may be received even by the sonsof concubines to whom carnal Jews and schismatics or heretics are compared.For though it be written, “Cast out the bondmaid and her son, forthe son of the bondmaid shall not be heir with my son Isaac:” [7] and though God said to Abraham, “In Isaacshall thy seed be called:” which the Apostle hath so interpretedas to say, “That is, not they which be sons of the flesh, thesebe the sons of God; but the sons of the promise are counted for theseed;” [8] that we might understand the seed of Abraham in regardof Christ to pertain by reason of Christ to the sons of God, who areChrist’s body and members, that is to say, the Church of God,one, true, very-begotten, catholic, holding the godly faith; not the faithwhich works through elation or fear, but “which worketh bylove;” [9] nevertheless, even the sons of the concubines, when Abraham sent them awayfrom his son Isaac, he did not omit to bestow upon them some gifts, thatthey might not be left in every way empty, but not that they should be heldas heirs. For so we read: “And Abraham gave all his estate untoIsaac; and to the sons of his concubines gave Abraham gifts, and sent themaway from his son Isaac.” [10] If then we be sons ofJerusalem the free, let us understand that other be the gifts of them whichare put out of the inheritance, other the gifts of them which be heirs. Forthese be the heirs, to whom is said, “Ye have not received thespirit of bondage again to fear, but ye have received the spirit of adoptionof sons, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” [11]

26. Cry we therefore with the spiritof charity, and until we come to the inheritance in which we are alway toremain, let us be, through love which becometh the free-born, not throughfear which becometh bondmen, patient of suffering. Cry we, so long as we arepoor, until we be with that inheritance made rich. Seeing how great earnestthereof 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 Whoshould breathe into our hearts holy longings, the Holy Spirit. Of thesepoor, 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 and thirsting, not yet satisfied: of these poor,then, “the patience shall not perish for ever:” [1] notthat there will be patience there also, where aught to endure shall not be;but “will not perish,” meaning that it will not beunfruitful. But its fruit it will have for ever, therefore it“shall not perish for ever.” For he who labors invain, when his hope fails for which he labored, says with good cause,“I have lost so much labor:” but he who comes to thepromise of his labor says, congratulating himself, I have not lost my labor.Labor then is said not to perish (or be lost), not because it lastsperpetually, but because it is not spent in vain. So also the patience ofthe poor of Christ (who yet are to be made rich as heirs of Christ) shallnot perish for ever: not because there also we shall be commanded patientlyto bear, but because for that which we have here patiently borne, we shallenjoy eternal bliss. He will put no end to everlasting felicity, Who givethtemporal patience unto the will: because both the one and the other is ofHim bestowed as a gift upon charity, Whose gift that charity is also.

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON CARE TO BE HAD FOR THE DEAD.

[DE CURA PRO MORTUIS.]

TRANSLATED BY REV. H. BROWNE. M. A., OF CORPUS CHRISTICOLLEGE, 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 deaththat his body shall be buried at the memorial of any Saint. [1] The book begins thus: Long time unto your Holiness, my venerablefellow-bishop Paulinus.

1. LONG time, my venerable fellow-bishop Paulinus, have Ibeen thy Holiness’s debtor for an answer; even since thou wrotestto me by them of the household [2] of our mostreligious daughter Flora, asking of me whether it profit any man after deaththat his body is buried at the memorial of some Saint. This, namely, had thesaid widow begged of thee for her son deceased in those parts, and thouhadst written her an answer, consoling her, and announcing to her concerningthe body of the faithful young man Cynegius, that the thing which she withmotherly and pious affection desired was done, to wit, by placing it in thebasilica of most blessed Felix the Confessor. Upon which occasion it came topass, that by the same bearers of thy letter thou didst write also to me,raising the like question, and craving that I would answer what I thought ofthis matter, at the same time not forbearing to say what are thine ownsentiments. For thou sayest that to thy thinking these be no empty motionsof religious and faithful minds, which take this care for their deceasedfriends. Thou addest, moreover, that it cannot be void of effect [3] that the whole Church is wont to supplicatefor the departed: so that hence it may be further conjectured that it dothprofit a person after death, if by the faith of his friends for theinterment of his body such a spot be provided wherein may be apparent theaid, likewise in this way sought, of the Saints.

2. But this being the case, how tothis opinion that should not be contrary which the Apostle says,“For we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, thateach may receive according to the things he hath done by the body, [4] whether good or bad;” [5] this, thou signifiest, thou dost not well see. For this apostolic sentencedoth before death admonish to be done, that which may profit after death;not then, first, when there is to be now a receiving of that which a personshall have done before death. True, but this question is thus solved,namely, that there is a certain kind of life by which is acquired, while onelives in this body, that it should be possible for these things to be ofsome help to the departed; and, consequently, it is “according tothe things done by the body,” that they are aided by the thingswhich shall, after they have left the body, be religiously done on theirbehalf. For there are whom these things aid nothing at all, namely, when they are done either for persons whose merits areso evil, that neither by such things are they worthy to be aided; or forpersons whose merits are so good, that of such things they have no need asaids. Of the kind of life, therefore, which each hath led by the body, dothit come, that these things profit or profit not, whatever are piously doneon his behalf when he has left the body. For touching merit whereby thesethings profit, if none have been gotten in this life, it is in vain soughtafter this life. So it comes to pass as well that not unmeaningly [1] doth the Church, or care of friends,bestow upon the departed whatever of religion it shall be able; as alsothat, nevertheless, each receiveth “according to the things whichhe hath done by the body, whether it be good or bad,” the Lordrendering unto each according to his works. For, that this which is bestowedshould be capable of profiting him after the body, this was acquired in thatlife which he hath led in the body.

3. Possibly thy inquiry is satisfiedby this my brief reply. But what other considerations move me, to which Ithink meet to answer, do thou for a short space attend. In the books of theMaccabees we read of sacrifice offered for the dead. [2] Howbeit, even if it were nowhere at all read in the Old Scriptures, not small is the authority, whichin this usage is clear, of the whole Church, namely, that in the prayers ofthe priest which are offered to the Lord God at His altar, the commendationof the dead hath also its place. But then, whether there be some profitaccruing unto the soul of the dead from the place of its body, requires amore careful inquiry. And first, whether it make any difference in causingor increasing of misery after this life to the spirits of men if theirbodies be not buried, this must be looked into, not in the light of opinionhowever commonly received, but rather of the holy writ of our religion. Forwe are not to credit that, as is read in Maro, the unburied are prohibitedfrom navigating and crossing the infernal stream: because forsooth

- “To none is giv’n to pass the hideous banks

- And waters hoarse, ere in their meet abode

- The bones have sunk to rest.” [3]

Who can incline a Christian heart to these poetical and fabulousfigments, when the Lord Jesus, to the intent that under the hands of theirenemies, who should have their bodies in their power, Christians might liedown 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 thebody have nothing more that they can do? [4] Of which in the first book“On the City of God,” I have methinks enough spoken,to break the teeth in their mouths who, in imputing to Christian times thebarbarous devastation, especially that which Rome has lately suffered, docast up to us this also, that Christ did not there come to the succor of Hisown. To whom when it is answered that the souls of the faithful were,according to the merits of their faith, by Him taken into protection, theyinsult over us with talking of their corpses left unburied. All this matter,then, concerning burial I have in such words as these expounded.

4. “But” (sayI) “in such a slaughter-heap of dead bodies, could they not evenbe buried? not this, either, doth pious faith too greatly dread, holdingthat which is foretold that not even consuming beasts will be an hindranceto the rising again of bodies of which not a hair of the head shallperish. [5] Nor in any wise would Truth say,“Fear not them which kill the body, but cannot kill thesoul;” if it could at all hinder the life to come whateverenemies might choose to do with the bodies of the slain. Unless haply any isso absurd as to contend that they ought not to be feared before death, lestthey kill the body, but ought to be feared after death, lest, having killedthe body, they suffer it not to be buried. Is that then false which Christsays, “Who kill the body, and afterwards have no more that theycan do,” if they have so great things that they can do on deadbodies? Far be the thought, that that should be false which Truth hath said.For the thing said is, that they do somewhat when they kill, because in thebody there is feeling while it is in killing, but afterward they havenothing more that they can do because there is no feeling in the body whenkilled. Many bodies, then, of Christians the earth hath not covered: butnone of them hath any separated from heaven and earth, the whole of which Hefilleth with presence of Himself, Who knoweth whence to resuscitate thatwhich He created. It is said indeed in the Psalm, “The deadbodies of thy servants have they given for meat unto the fowls of theheaven, the flesh of thy saints unto the beasts of the earth: they have shedtheir blood like water round about Jerusalem, and there was no man to burythem:” [6] but more to heighten the cruelty of them who did these things, not to theinfelicity of them who suffered them. For,however, in sight of men these things may seem hard and dire, yet“precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of Hissaints.” [1] So, then, all these things, careof funeral, bestowal in sepulture, pomp of obsequies, are more for comfortof the living, than for help to the dead. If it at all profit the ungodly tohave costly sepulture, it shall harm the godly to have vile sepulture ornone. Right handsome obsequies in sight of men did that rich man who wasclad in purple receive of the crowd of his housefolk; but far more handsomedid that poor man who was full of sores obtain of the ministry of Angels;who bore him not out into a marble tomb, but into Abraham’s bosombore him on high. [2] All this they laugh at, against whom we have undertaken to defend the Cityof God: but for all that their own philosophers, even, held care ofsepulture in contempt; and often whole armies, while dying for their earthlycountry, cared not where they should after lie, or to what beasts theyshould become meat; and the poets had leave to say of this matter withapplause

- “though all unurn’d he lie,

- His cov’ring is the overarching sky.” [3]

How much less ought they to make a vaunting about unburied bodiesof 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 theirmost secret windings, whereinto these evanished corpses have retired, isassured to be in an instant of time rendered back and made entire as at thefirst, according to His promise?

5. Yet it follows not that thebodies of the departed are to be despised and flung aside, and above all ofjust and faithful men, which bodies as organs and vessels to all good workstheir spirit hath holily used. For if a father’s garment andring, and whatever such like, is the more dear to those whom they leavebehind, the greater their affection is towards their parents, in no wise arethe bodies themselves to be spurned, which truly we wear in more familiarand close conjunction than any of our putting on. For these pertain not toornament or aid which is applied from without, but to the very nature ofman. Whence also the funerals of the just men of old were with dutiful pietycared for, and their obsequies celebrated, and sepulture provided: [4] and themselves while living did touchingburial or even translation of their bodies give charge to their sons. Tobiasalso, to have by burying of the dead obtained favor with God, is by witnessof an Angel commended. [5] The Lord Himself also,about to rise on the third day, both preaches, and commends to be preached,the good work of a religious woman, that she poured out a precious ointmentover His limbs, and did it for His burial: [6] and they are with praisecommemorated in the Gospel, who having received His Body from the cross didcarefully and with reverend honor see it wound and laid in thesepulchre. [7] These authorities however do not put us upon thinking that there is in deadbodies any feeling; but rather, that the Providence of God (Who is moreoverpleased with such offices of piety) doth charge itself with the bodies alsoof the dead, this they betoken, to the intent our faith of resurrectionmight be stayed up thereby. Where also is wholesomely learned, how great maybe the reward for alms which we do unto the living and feeling, if not eventhat be lost before God, whatever of duty and of diligence is paid to thelifeless members of men. There are indeed also other things, which inspeaking of the bestowal or removal of their bodies the holy Patriarchswilled to be understood as spoken by the prophetic Spirit: but this is notthe place to treat thoroughly of these things, seeing that sufficeth whichwe have said. But if the lack of those things which are necessary forsustentation of the living, as food and clothing, however heavy afflictionattend the lacking, do not break in good men the manly courage of bearingand enduring, nor eradicate piety from the mind, but by exercising make itmore fruitful; how much more doth lack of those things which are wont to beapplied for care of funerals and bestowal of bodies of the departed, notmake them wretched, now that in the hidden abodes of the pious they are atrest! And therefore, when these things have to dead bodies of Christians inthat devastation of the great City or of other towns also been lacking,there is neither fault of the living, who could not afford these things, norpain of the dead who could not feel the same. [8] This is my opinionconcerning the ground and reason of sepulture. Which I have therefore fromanother book of mine transferred to this, because it was easier to rehearsethis, than to express the same matter in another way.

6. If this be true, doubtless alsothe providing for the interment of bodies a place at the Memorials of Saints, is a mark of a good human affectiontowards the remains of one’s friends: since if there be religionin the burying, there cannot but be religion in taking thought where theburying shall be. But while it is desirable there should be such likesolaces of survivors, for the showing forth of their pious mind towardstheir beloved, I do not see what helps they be to the dead save in this way:that upon recollection of the place in which are deposited the bodies ofthose whom they love, they should by prayer commend them to those sameSaints, who have as patrons taken them into their charge to aid them beforethe Lord. Which indeed they would be still able to do, even though they werenot able to inter them in such places. But then the only reason why the nameMemorials or Monuments is given to those sepulchres of the dead which becomespecially distinguished, is that they recall to memory, and by putting inmind cause us to think of, them who by death are withdrawn from the eyes ofthe living, that they may not by forgetfulness be also withdrawn frommen’s hearts. For both the term Memorial [1] most plainlyshews this, and Monument is so named from monishing, that is, putting inmind. For which reason the Greeks also call thatμνημεῖονwhich we call a Memorial or Monument: because in their tongue the memoryitself, by which we remember, is calledμνήμη. When thereforethe mind recollects where the body of a very dear friend lies buried, andthereupon there occurs to the thoughts a place rendered venerable by thename of a Martyr, to that same Martyr doth it commend the soul in affectionof heartfelt recollection [2] andprayer. And when this affection is exhibited to the departed by faithful menwho were most dear to them, there is no doubt that it profits them who whileliving in the body merited that such things should profit them after thislife. But even if some necessity should through absence of all facility notallow bodies to be interred, or in such places interred, yet should there beno pretermitting of supplications for the spirits of the dead: whichsupplications, that they should be made for all in Christian and catholicfellowship departed, even without mentioning of their names, under a generalcommemoration, the Church hath charged herself withal; to the intent thatthey which lack, for these offices, parents or sons or whatever kindred orfriends, may have the same afforded unto them by the one pious mother whichis common to all. But if there were lack of these supplications, which aremade with right faith and piety for the dead, I account that it should not awhit profit their spirits, howsoever in holy places the lifeless bodiesshould be deposited.

7. When therefore the faithfulmother of a faithful son departed desired to have his body deposited in thebasilica of a Martyr, forasmuch as she believed that his soul would be aidedby the merits of the Martyr, the very believing of this was a sort ofsupplication, and this profited, if aught profited. And in that she recursin her thoughts to this same sepulchre, and in her prayers more and morecommends her son, the spirit of the departed is aided, not by the place ofits dead body, but by that which springs from memory of the place, theliving affection of the mother. For at once the thought, who is commendedand to whom, doth touch, and that with no unprofitable emotion, thereligious mind of her who prays. For also in prayer to God, [3] men do with the members of their bodiesthat which becometh suppliants, when they bend their knees, when theystretch forth their hands, or even prostrate themselves on the ground, andwhatever else they visibly do, albeit their invisible will andheart’s intention be known unto God, and He needs not thesetokens that any man’s mind should be opened unto Him: only herebyone more excites himself to pray and groan more humbly and more fervently.And I know not how it is, that, while these motions of the body cannot bemade but by a motion of the mind preceding, yet by the same being outwardlyin visible sort made, that inward invisible one which made them isincreased: and thereby the heart’s affection which preceded thatthey might be made, groweth because they are made. But still if any be inthat way held, or even bound, that he is not able to do these things withhis limbs, it does not follow that the inner man does not pray, and beforethe eyes of God in its most secret chamber, where it hath compunction, castitself on the ground. So likewise, while it makes very much difference,where a person deposits the body of his dead, while he supplicates for hisspirit unto God, because both the affection preceding chose a spot which washoly, and after the body is there deposited the recalling to mind of thatholy spot renews and increases the affection which had preceded; yet, thoughhe may not be able in that place which his religious mind did choose to layin the ground him whom he loves, in no wise ought he to cease from necessary supplications in commending of thesame. For wheresoever the flesh of the departed may lie or not lie, thespirit requires rest and must get it: for the spirit in its departing fromthence took with it the consciousness without which it could make no oddshow one exists, whether in a good estate or a bad: and it does not look foraiding of its life from that flesh to which it did itself afford the lifewhich it withdrew in its departing, and is to render back in its returning;since not flesh to spirit, but spirit unto flesh procureth merit even ofvery resurrection, whether it be unto punishment or unto glory that it is tocome to life again.

8. We read in the EcclesiasticalHistory which Eusebius wrote in Greek, and Ruffinus turned into the Latintongue, of Martyr’s bodies in Gaul exposed to dogs, and how theleavings of those dogs and bones of the dead were, even to uttermostconsumption, by fire burned up; and the ashes of the same scattered on theriver Rhone, lest any thing should be left for any sort whatever ofmemorial. [1] Which thing must be believed to have been to noother end divinely permitted, but that Christians should learn in confessingChrist, while they despise this life, much more to despise sepulture. Forthis thing, which with savage rage was done to the bodies of Martyrs, if itcould any whit hurt them, to impair the blessed resting of their mostvictorious spirits, would assuredly not have been suffered to be done. Invery deed therefore it was declared, that the Lord in saying,“Fear not them which kill the body, and afterward have no morethat they can do,” [2] did not mean that Hewould not permit them to do any thing to the bodies of His followers whendead; but that whatever they might be permitted to do, nothing should bedone that could lessen the Christian felicity of the departed, nothingthereof reach to their consciousness while yet living after death; nothingavail to the detriment, no, not even of the bodies themselves, to diminishaught of their integrity when they should rise again.

9. And yet, by reason of thataffection of the human heart, whereby “no man ever hateth his ownflesh,” [3] if men have reason to know thatafter their death their bodies will lack any thing which in eachman’s nation or country the wonted order of sepulture demandeth,it makes them sorrowful as men; and that which after death reacheth not untothem, they do before death fear for their bodies: so that we find in theBooks of Kings, God by one prophet threatening another prophet who hadtransgressed His word, that his carcase should not be brought into thesepulchre of his fathers. Which the Scripture hath on this wise:“Thus saith the Lord, Because thou hast been disobedient to themouth of the Lord, and hast not kept the charge which the Lord thy Godcommanded thee, and hast returned and eaten bread and drunk water in theplace in which He commanded thee not to eat bread, nor drink water, thycarcase shall not be brought into the sepulchre of thyfathers.” [4] Now if in consideringwhat account is to be made of this punishment, we go by the Gospel, where wehave learned that after the slaying of the body there is no cause to fearlest the lifeless members should suffer any thing, it is not even to becalled a punishment. But if we consider a man’s human affectiontowards his own flesh, it was possible for him to be frightened or saddened,while living, by that of which he would have no sense when dead: and thiswas a punishment, because the mind was pained by that thing about to happento its body, howsoever when it did happen it would feel no pain. To thisintent, namely, it pleased the Lord to punish His servant, who not of hisown contumacy had spurned to fulfill His command, but by deceit ofanother’s falsehood thought himself to be obeying when he obeyednot. For it is not to be thought that he was killed by the teeth of thebeast as one whose soul should be thence snatched away to the torments ofhell: seeing that over his very body the same lion which had killed it didkeep watch, while moreover the beast on which he rode was left unhurt, andalong with that fierce beast did with intrepid presence stand there besidehis master’s corpse. By which marvellous sign it appeareth, thatthe man of God was, say rather, checked temporally even unto death, thanpunished after death. Of which matter, the Apostle when on account ofcertain offenses he had mentioned the sicknesses and deaths of many, says,“For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged of theLord. But when we are judged we are chastened of the Lord, that we may notbe condemned with the world.” [5] That Prophet, truly, the very man who hadbeguiled him, did with much respect bury in his own tomb, and took order forhis own burying beside his bones: in hope that thereby his own bones mightbe spared, when, according to the prophecy of that man of God, Josiah king of Judah did in that land disinter thebones of many dead, and with the same bones defile the sacrilegious altarswhich had been set up for the graven images. For he spared that tomb inwhich lay the prophet who more than three hundred years before predictedthose things, and for his sake neither was the sepulture of him who hadseduced him violated. By that affection, namely, which causes that no manever hateth his own flesh, this man had taken forethought for his carcase,who had slain with a lie his own soul. By reason then of this, the naturallove which every man hath for his own flesh, it was both to the one apunishment to learn that he should not be in the sepulchre of his fathers,and to the other a care to take order beforehand that his own bones shouldbe spared, if he should lie beside him whose sepulchre no man shouldviolate.

10. This affection the Martyrs ofChrist contending for the truth did overcome: and it is no marvel that theydespised that whereof they should, when death was overpast, have no feeling,when they could not by those tortures, which while alive they did feel, beovercome. God was able, no doubt, (even as He permitted not the lion when ithad slain the Prophet, to touch his body further, and of a slayer made it tobe a keeper): He was able, I say, to have kept the slain bodies of His ownfrom the dogs to which they had been flung; He was able in innumerable waysto 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 thisexperience also should not be lacking to manifold variety of temptations,lest the fortitude of confession which would not for the saving of the lifeof the body give way to the savageness of persecution, should be tremblinglyanxious for the honor of a sepulchre: in a word, lest faith of resurrectionshould dread the consuming of the body. It was fit then, that even thesethings should be permitted, in order that, even after these examples of sogreat horror, the Martyrs, fervent in confession of Christ, should becomewitnesses of this truth also, in which they had learned that they by whomtheir bodies should be slain had after that no more that they could do. [1] Because, whatever they should do to dead bodies, they would after all donothing, seeing that in flesh devoid of all life, neither was it possiblefor him to feel aught who had thence departed, nor for Him to lose aughtthereof, Who created the same. But while these things were doing to thebodies of the slain, albeit the Martyrs, not frightened by them, did withgreat fortitude suffer, yet among the brethren was there exceeding sorrow,because there was given them no means of paying the last honors to theremains of the Saints, neither secretly to withdraw any part thereof, (asthe same history testifies,) did the watchings of cruel sentinels permit.So, while those which had been slain, in the tearing asunder of their limbs,in the burning up of their bones, in the dispersion of their ashes, couldfeel no misery; yet these who had nothing of them that they could bury, didsuffer torture of exceeding grief in pitying them; because what those did inno sort feel, these in some sort did feel for them, and where was henceforthfor those no more suffering, yet these did in woful compassion suffer forthem.

11. In regard to that wofulcompassion which I have mentioned, are those praised, and by king Davidblessed, who to the dry bones of Saul and Jonathan afforded mercy ofsepulture. [2] Butyet what mercy is that, which is afforded to them that have feeling ofnothing? Or haply is this to be challenged back to that conceit of aninfernal river which men unburied were not able to pass over? Far be thisfrom the faith of Christians: else hath it gone most ill with so great amultitude of Martyrs, for whom there could be no burying of their bodies,and Truth did cheat them when It said, “Fear not them which killthe body, and after that have no more that they can do,” [3] ifthese have been able to do to them so great evils, by which they werehindered to pass over to the places which they longed for. But, because thiswithout all doubt is most false, and it neither any whit hurts the faithfulto have their bodies denied sepulture, nor any whit the giving of sepultureunto infidels advantageth them; why then are those who buried Saul and hisson said to have done mercy, and for this are blessed by that godly king,but because it is a good affection with which the hearts of the pitiful aretouched, when they grieve for that in the dead bodies of other men, which,by that affection through which no man ever hateth his own flesh, they wouldnot have done after their own death to their own bodies; and what they wouldhave done by them when they shall have no more feeling, that they take careto do by others now having no feeling while themselves have yet feeling?

12. Stories are told of certainappearances or visions, [4] which may seemto bring into this discussion a question whichshould not be slighted. It is said, namely, that dead men have at timeseither in dreams or in some other way appeared to the living who knew notwhere their bodies lay unburied, and have pointed out to them the place, andadmonished that the sepulture which was lacking should be afforded them.These things if we shall answer to be false, we shall be thought impudentlyto contradict the writings of certain faithful men, and the senses of themwho assure us that such things have happened to themselves. But it is to beanswered, that it does not follow that we are to account the dead to havesense of these things, because they appear in dreams to say or indicate orask this. For living men do also appear ofttimes to the living as theysleep, while they themselves know not that they do appear; and they are toldby them, what they dreamed, namely, that in their dream the speakers sawthem doing or saying something. Then if it may be that a person in a dreamshould see me indicating to him something that has happened or evenforetelling something about to happen, while I am perfectly unwitting of thething and altogether regardless not only what he dreams, but whether he isawake while I am asleep, or he asleep while I am awake, or whether at oneand the same time we are both awake or asleep, at what time he has the dreamin which he sees me: what marvel if the dead be unconscious and insensibleof these things, and, for all that, are seen by the living in their dreams,and say something which those on awaking find to be true? By angelicaloperations, then, I should think it is effected, whether permitted fromabove, or commanded, that they seem in dreams to say something about buryingof their bodies, when they whose the bodies are are utterly unconscious ofit. Now this is sometimes serviceably done; whether for some sort of solaceto the survivors, to whom pertain those dead whose likenesses [1] appear to them as they dream; orwhether that by these admonitions the human race may be made to have regardto humanity of sepulture, which, allow that it be no help to the departed,yet is there culpable irreligiousness in slighting of it. Sometimes however,by fallacious visions, [2] men are castinto great errors, who deserve to suffer this. As, if one should see in adream, what Æneas by poetic falsity is told to have seen in theworld beneath: and there should appear to him the likeness of some unburiedman, which should speak such words as Palinurus is said to have spoken tohim; and when he awakes, he should find the body in that place where heheard say while dreaming, that it lay unburied, and was admonished and askedto bury it when found; and because he finds this to be true, should believethat the dead are buried on purpose that their souls may pass to places fromwhich he dreamed that the souls of men unburied are by an infernal lawprohibited: does he not, in believing all this, exceedingly swerve from thepath of truth?

13. Such, however, is humaninfirmity, that when in a dream a person shall see a dead man, he thinks itis the soul that he sees: but when he shall in like manner dream of a livingman, he has no doubt that it is not a soul nor a body, but the likeness of aman that has appeared to him: just as if it were not possible in regard ofdead men, in the same sort unconscious of it, that it should not be theirsouls, but their likenesses that appear to the sleepers. Of a surety, whenwe were at Milan, we heard tell of a certain person of whom was demandedpayment of a debt, with production of his deceased father’sacknowledgment, [3] which debt unknown to the son the fatherhad paid, whereupon the man began to be very sorrowful, and to marvel thathis father while dying did not tell him what he owed when he also made hiswill. Then in this exceeding anxiousness of his, his said father appeared tohim in a dream, and made known to him where was the counter [4] acknowledgment by which thatacknowledgment was cancelled. Which when the young man had found and showed,he not only rebutted the wrongful claim of a false debt, but also got backhis father’s note [5] of handwhich the father had not got back when the money was paid. Here then thesoul of a man is supposed to have had care for his son, and to have come tohim in his sleep, that, teaching him what he did not know, he might relievehim of a great trouble. But about the very same time as we heard this, itchanced at Carthage that the rhetorician Eulogius, who had been my disciplein that art, being (as he himself, after our return to Africa, told us thestory) in course of lecturing to his disciples on Cicero’srhetorical books, as he looked over the portion of reading which he was todeliver on the following day, fell upon a certain passage, and not beingable to understand it, was scarce able to sleep for the trouble of his mind:in which night, as he dreamed, I expounded to him that which he did notunderstand; nay, not I, but my likeness, while Iwas unconscious of the thing, and far away beyond the sea, it might be,doing, or it might be dreaming, some other thing, and not in the leastcaring for his cares. In what way these things come about, I know not: butin what way soever they come, why do we not believe it comes in the same wayfor a person in a dream to see a dead man, as it comes that he sees a livingman? both, no doubt, neither knowing nor caring who, or where, or when,dreams of their images.

14. Like dreams, moreover, are alsosome visions of persons awake, who have had their senses troubled, such asphrenetic persons, or those who are mad in any way: for they too talk tothemselves just as though they were speaking to people verily present, andas well with absent as with present, whose images they perceive, whetherpersons living or dead. But just as they which live, are unconscious thatthey are seen of them and talk with them; for indeed they are not reallythemselves present, or themselves make speeches, but through troubledsenses, these persons are wrought upon by such-like imaginary visions; justso they also who have departed this life, to persons thus affected appear aspresent, while they be absent, and whether any man sees them in regard oftheir image, [1] are themselves utterlyunconscious.

15. Similar to this is also thatcondition when persons, with their senses more profoundedly in abeyance thanis the case in sleep, are occupied with the like visions. For to them alsoappear 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 withthem: and they who hear these things pay no heed to the circumstance thatthere were seen in like manner the images of certain living persons, absentand unconscious. A certain man by name Curma, of the municipal town ofTullium, which is hard by Hippo, a poor member of the Curia, [2] scarcely competent to serve theoffice of a duumvir [3] of that place, and a mererustic, being ill, and all his senses entranced, lay all but dead forseveral days: a very slight breathing in his nostrils, which on applying thehand was just felt, and barely betokened that he lived, was all that kepthim from being buried for dead. Not a limb did he stir, nothing did he takein the way of sustenance, neither in the eyes nor in any other bodily sensewas he sensible of any annoyance that impinged upon them. Yet he was seeingmany things like as in a dream, which, when at last after a great many dayshe woke up, he told that he had seen. And first, presently after he openedhis eyes, Let some one go, said he, to the house of Curma the smith, and seewhat is doing there. And when some one had gone thither, the smith was foundto have died in that moment that the other had come back to his senses, and,it might almost be said, revived from death. Then, as those who stood byeagerly listened, he told them how the other had been ordered to be had up,when he himself was dismissed; and that he had heard it said in that placefrom which he had returned, that it was not Curma of the Curia, but Curmathe smith who had been ordered to be fetched to that place of the dead.Well, in these dream-like visions of his, among those deceased persons whomhe saw handled according to the diversity of their merits, he recognizedalso some whom he had known when alive. That they were the very personsthemselves I might perchance have believed, had he not in the course of thisseeming dream of his seen also some who are alive even to this present time,namely, some clerks of his district, by whose presbyter there he was told tobe baptized at Hippo by me, which thing he said had also taken place. Sothen he had seen a presbyter, clerks, myself, persons, to wit, not yet dead,in this vision in which he afterwards also saw dead persons. Why may he notbe thought to have seen these last in the same way as he saw us? that is,both the one sort, and the other, absent and unconscious, and consequentlynot the persons themselves, but similitudes of them just as of the places?He saw, namely, both a plot of ground where was that presbyter with theclerks, and Hippo where he was by me seemingly baptized: in which spotsassuredly he was not, when he seemed to himself to be there. For what was atthat time going on there, he knew not: which, without doubt, he would haveknown if he had verily been there. The sights beheld, therefore, were thosewhich are not presented in the things themselves as they are, but shadowedforth in a sort of images of the things. In fine, after much that he saw, henarrated how he had, moreover, been led into Paradise, and how it was theresaid to him, when he was thence dismissed to return to his own family,“Go, be baptized, if thou wilt be in this place of theblessed.” Thereupon, being admonished to be baptized by me, hesaid it was done already. He who was talking with him replied,“Go, be truly baptized; for that thou didst but see in thevision.” After this he recovered, wenthis way to Hippo. Easter was now approaching, he gave his name among theother Competents, alike with very many unknown to us; nor did he care tomake known the vision to me or to any of our people. He was baptized, at theclose of the holy days he returned to his own place. After the space of twoyears or more, I learned the whole matter; first, through a certain friendof mine and his at my own table, while we were talking about some suchmatters: then I took it up, and made the man in his own person tell me thestory, in the presence of some honest townsmen of his attesting the same,both concerning his marvellous illness, how he lay all but dead for manydays, and about that other Curma the smith, what I have mentioned above, andabout all these matters; which, while he was telling me, they recalled tomind, and assured me, that they had also at that time heard them from hislips. Wherefore, just as he saw his own baptism, and myself, and Hippo, andthe basilica, and the baptistery, not in the very realities, but in a sortof similitudes of the things; and so likewise certain other living persons,without consciousness on the part of the same living persons: then why notjust so those dead persons also, without consciousness on the part of thesame dead persons?

16. Why should we not believe theseto be angelic operations through dispensation of the providence of God, Whomaketh good use of both good things and evil, according to the unsearchabledepth of His judgments? whether thereby the minds of mortals be instructed,or whether deceived; whether consoled, or whether terrified: according asunto each one there is to be either a showing of mercy, or a taking ofvengeance, by Him to Whom, not without a meaning, the Church doth sing“of mercy and of judgment.” [1] Let each, as it shall please him,take what I say. If the souls of the dead took part in the affairs of theliving, and if it were their very selves that, when we see them, speak to usin sleep; to say nothing of others, there is my own self, whom my piousmother would no night fail to visit, that mother who by land and seafollowed me that she might live with me. Far be the thought that she should,by a life more happy, have been made cruel, to that degree that when anything vexes my heart she should not even console in his sadness the son whomshe loved with an only love, whom she never wished to see mournful. Butassuredly that which the sacred Psalm sings in our ears, is true;“Because my father and my mother have forsaken me, but the Lordhath taken me up.” [2] Then if our parents haveforsaken us, how take they part in our cares and affairs? But if parents donot, who else are there of the dead who should know what we are doing, orwhat we suffer? Isaiah the Prophet says, “For Thou art ourFather: because Abraham hath not known us, and Israel is not cognizant ofus.” [3] Ifso great Patriarchs were ignorant what was doing towards the People of thembegotten, they to whom, believing God, the People itself to spring fromtheir stock was promised; how are the dead mixed up with affairs and doingsof the living, either for cognizance or help? How say we that those werefavored who deceased ere the evils came which followed hard upon thedecease, if also after death they feel whatever things befall in thecalamitousness of human life? Or haply do we err in saying this, and inaccounting them to be quietly at rest whom the unquiet life of the livingmakes solicitous? What then is that which to the most godly king Josias Godpromised as a great benefit, that he should first die, that he might not seethe evils which He threatened should come to that place and People? Whichwords of god are these: “Thus saith the Lord God of Israel:concerning My words which thou hast heard, and didst fear before My facewhen thou didst hear what I have spoken concerning this place and them whichdwell therein, that it should be forsaken and under a curse; and hast rentthy garments, and wept before Me, and I have heard thee, saith the Lord ofSabaoth: not so; behold, I will add thee unto thy fathers, and thou shalt beadded unto them in peace; and thine eyes shall not see all the evils which Iam bringing upon this place and upon them that dwelltherein.” [4] He, frightened byGod’s comminations, had wept, and rent his garments, and is made,by hastening on of his death, to be without care of all future evils,because he should so rest in peace, that all those things he should not see.There then are the spirits of the departed, where they see not whateverthings are doing, or events happening, in this life to men. Then how do theysee their own graves, or their own bodies, whether they lie cast away, orburied? How do they take part in the misery of the living, when they areeither suffering their own evils, if they have contracted such merits; or dorest in peace, as was promised to this Josiah, where they undergo no evils,either by suffering themselves, or by compassionate suffering with others,freed from all evils which by sufferingthemselves or with others while they lived here they did undergo?

17. Some man may say: “Ifthere be not in the dead any care for the living, how is it that the richman, who was tormented in hell, asked father Abraham to send Lazarus to hisfive brothers not as yet dead, and to take course with them, that theyshould not come themselves also into the same place oftorments?” [1] But does it follow, thatbecause the rich man said this, he knew what his brethren were doing, orwhat they were suffering at that time? Just in that same way had he care forthe living, albeit what they were doing he wist not at all, as we have carefor the dead, albeit what they do we confessedly wot not. For if we carednot for the dead, we should not, as we do, supplicate God on their behalf.In fine, Abraham did not send Lazarus, and also answered, that they havehere Moses and the Prophets, whom they ought to hear that they might notcome to those torments. Where again it occurs to ask, how it was that whatwas doing here, father Abraham himself wist not, while he knew that Mosesand the Prophets are here, that is, their books, by obeying which men shouldescape the torments of hell: and knew, in short, that rich man to have livedin delights, but the poor man Lazarus to have lived in labors and sorrows?For this also he says to him; “Son, remember that thou in thylifetime hast received good things, but Lazarus evil things.” Heknew then these things which had taken place of course among the living, notamong the dead. True, but it may be that, not while the things were doing intheir lifetime, but after their death, he learned these things, byinformation of Lazarus: that it be not false which the Prophet saith,“Abraham hath not known us.” [2]

18. So then we must confess that thedead 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 attheir death; not indeed every thing, but what things those are allowed tomake known who are suffered also to remember these things; and which it ismeet for those to hear, whom they inform of the same. It may be also, thatfrom the Angels, who are present in the things which are doing here, thedead do hear somewhat, which for each one of them to hear He judgeth rightto Whom all things are subject. For were there not Angels, who could bepresent 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 bythe angels into Abraham’s bosom.” [3] Therefore, now here, now there,were they able to be, who from hence bore thither whom God willed. It may bealso, that the spirits of the dead do learn some things which are doinghere, what things it is necessary that they should know, and what persons itis necessary should know the same, not only things past or present, but evenfuture, by the Spirit of God revealing them: like as not all men, but theProphets while they lived here did know, nor even they all things, but onlywhat things to be revealed to them the providence of God judged meet.Moreover, that some from the dead are sent to the living, as, on the otherhand, Paul from the living was rapt into Paradise, divine Scripture dothtestify. [4] ForSamuel the Prophet, appearing to Saul when living, predicted even whatshould befall the king: [5] although some think itwas not Samuel himself, that could have been by magical arts evoked, butthat some spirit, meet for so evil works, did figure his semblance: [6] though the bookEcclesiasticus, which Jesus, son of Sirach, is reputed to have written, andwhich on account of some resemblance of style is pronounced to beSolomon’s, [7] contains in the praiseof the Fathers, that Samuel even when dead did prophesy. But if this book bespoken against from the canon of the Hebrews, [8] (because it is not containedtherein,) what shall we say of Moses, whom certainly we read both inDeuteronomy to have died, [9] and in the Gospel to have,together with Elias who died not, appeared unto the living? [10]

19. Hence too is solved thatquestion, how is it that the Martyrs, by the very benefits which are givento them that pray, indicate that they take an interest in the affairs ofmen, if the dead know not what the quick are doing. For not only by effectsof benefits, but in the very beholding of men, it is certain, [11] that the Confessor Felix (whosedenizenship among you thou piously lovest) appeared when the barbarians wereattacking Nola, as we have heard not by uncertain rumors, but by surewitnesses. But such things are of God exhibited, far otherwise than as theusual order hath itself, unto each kind of creatures apportioned. For itdoes not follow because water was, when it pleased the Lord, in a momentchanged into wine, that we are not to regard the worth and efficacy of waterin the proper order of the elements, as distinctfrom the rarity, or rather singularity, of that divine work: nor becauseLazarus rose again, therefore that every dead man rises when he will; orthat a lifeless man is raised up by a living, in the same way as a sleepingman by one who is awake. Other be the limits of human things, other thesigns of divine virtues: other they be that are naturally, other that bemiraculously done: albeit both unto nature God is present that it may be,and unto miracles nature is not lacking. We are not to think then, that tobe interested in the affairs of the living is in the power of any departedwho please, only because to some men’s healing or help theMartyrs be present: but rather we are to understand that it must needs be bya Divine power that the Martyrs are interested in affairs of the living,from the very fact that for the departed to be by their proper natureinterested in affairs of the living is impossible.

20. Howbeit it is a question whichsurpasses the strength of my understanding, after what manner the Martyrsaid them who by them, it is certain, are helped; whether themselves bythemselves be present at the same time in so different places, and by sogreat distance lying apart one from another, either where their Memorialsare, or beside their Memorials, wheresoever they are felt to be present: orwhether, while they themselves, in a place congruous with their merits, areremoved from all converse with mortals, and yet do in a general sort prayfor the needs of their suppliants, (like as we pray for the dead, to whomhowever we are not present, nor know where they be or what they be doing,)God Almighty, Who is every where present, neither bounded in [1] with us nor remote from us, hearingand granting the Martyrs’ prayers, doth by angelic ministriesevery where diffused afford to men those solaces, to whom in the misery ofthis life He seeth meet to afford the same, and, touching His Martyrs, dothwhere He will, when He will, how He will, and chiefest through theirMemorials, because this He knoweth to be expedient for us unto edifying ofthe faith of Christ for Whose confession they suffered, by marvellous andineffable power and goodness cause their merits to be had in honor. A matteris this, too high that I should have power to attain unto it, too abstrusethat I should be able to search it out; and therefore which of these two bethe case, or whether perchance both one and the other be the case, thatsometimes these things be done by very presence of the Martyrs, sometimes byAngels taking upon them the person of the Martyrs, I dare not define; ratherwould I seek this at them who know it. For it is not to be thought that noman knows these things: (not indeed he who thinks he knows, and knows not,)for there be gifts of God, Who bestows on these some one, on those someother, according to the Apostle who says, that “to each one isgiven the manifestation of the Spirit to profit withal; to one [2] indeed,” saith he, “is given by the Spirit discourseof wisdom; to another [2] discourse of science according to the same Spirit; while toanother [3] faith in the same Spirit; to another [3] the gift of healings in oneSpirit; to one [2] workings of miracles; to one [2] prophecy; to one [2] discerning ofspirits; to one [2] kinds of tongues; to one [2] interpretation of discourses. But all these worketh one and thesame spirit, dividing to every man severally as He will.” [4] Of all these spiritual gifts, which the Apostle hath rehearsed, towhomsoever is given discerning of spirits, the same knoweth these things asthey are meet to be known.

21. Such, we may believe, was thatJohn the Monk, whom the elder Theodosius, the Emperor, consulted concerningthe issue of the civil war: seeing he had also the gift of prophecy. Forthat not each several person has a several one of those gifts, but that oneman may have more gifts than one, I make no question. This John, then, whenonce a certain most religious woman desired to see him, and to obtain thisdid through her husband make vehement entreaty, refused indeed this requestbecause he had never allowed this to women, but “Go,”said he, “tell thy wife, she shall see me this night, but in hersleep.” And so it came to pass: and he gave her advice, whateverwas 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 knewhim to be, and what she had been told by him. The person who learned thisfrom them, reported it to me, a grave man and a noble, and most worthy to bebelieved. But if I myself had seen that holy monk, because (it is said) hewas most patient in hearing questions and most wise in answering, I wouldhave sought of him, as touching our question, whether he himself came tothat 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; orwhether, while he himself was doing something else, or, if asleep, wasdreaming of something else, it was either by anAngel or in some other way that such vision took place in thewoman’s dream; and that it would so be, as he promised, hehimself foreknew by the Spirit of prophecy revealing the same. For if he washimself present to her in her dream, of course it was by miraculous gracethat he was enabled so to do, not by nature; and by God’s gift,not by faculty of his own. But if, while he was doing some other thing orsleeping and occupied with other sights, the woman saw him in her sleep,then doubtless some such thing took place, as that is which we read in theActs of the Apostles, where the Lord Jesus speaks to Ananias concerningSaul, [1] andinforms him that Saul has seen Ananias coming unto him, while Ananiashimself wist not of it. The man of God would make answer to me of thesethings as the case might be, and then about the Martyrs I should go on toask of him, whether they be themselves present in dreams, or in whateverother way to those who see them, in what shape they will; and above all whenthe demons in men confess themselves tormented by the Martyrs, and ask themto spare them; or whether these things be wrought through angelic powers, tothe honor and commendation of the Saints for men’s profit, whilethose are in supreme rest, and wholly free for other far better sights,apart from us, and praying for us. For it chanced at Milan at (the tomb of)the holy Martyrs Protasius and Gervasius, that Ambrose the bishop, at thattime living, being expressly named, in like manner as were the dead whosenames they were rehearsing, the demons confessed him and besought him tospare them, he being the while otherwise engaged, and when this was takingplace, altogether unwitting of it. Or whether indeed these things arewrought, somewhiles by very presence of the Martyrs, otherwhiles by that ofAngels; and whether it be possible, or by what tokens possible, for us todiscriminate these two cases; or whether to perceive and to judge of thesethings none be able, but he which hath that gift through God’sSpirit, “dividing unto every man severally as Hewill:” [2] the same John, methinks, would discourse to me of all these matters, as Ishould wish; that either by his teaching I might learn, and what I should betold should know to be true and certain; or I should believe what I knewnot, upon his telling me what things he knew. But if peradventure he shouldmake answer out of holy Scripture, and say, “Things higher thanthou, seek thou not; and things stronger than thou, search thou not; butwhat the Lord hath commanded thee, of those things bethink theealway:” [3] this also I should thankfullyaccept. For it is no small gain if, when any things are obscure anduncertain to us, and we not able to comprehend them, it be at any rate clearand certain that we are not to seek them; and what thing each one wishes tolearn, accounting it to be profitable that he should know it, he shouldlearn that it is no harm that he know it not.

22. Which things being so, let usnot think that to the dead for whom we have a care, any thing reaches savewhat by sacrifices either of the altar, or of prayers, or of alms, wesolemnly supplicate: although not to all for whom they are done be theyprofitable, but to them only by whom while they live it is obtained thatthey should be profitable. But forasmuch as we discern not who these be, itis meet to do them for all regenerate persons, that none of them may bepassed by to whom these benefits may and ought to reach. For better it isthat these things shall be superfluously done to them whom they neitherhinder nor help, than lacking to them whom they help. More diligentlyhowever doth each man these things for his own near and dear friends, inorder that they may be likewise done unto him by his. But as for the buryingof the body, whatever is bestowed on that, is no aid of salvation, but anoffice of humanity, according to that affection by which “no manever hateth his own flesh.” [4] Whence it is fitting that hetake [5] what care he is able for the flesh of hisneighbor, when he is gone that bare [6] it. And ifthey do these things who believe not the resurrection of the flesh, how muchmore are they beholden to do the same who do believe; that so, an office ofthis kind bestowed upon a body, dead but yet to rise again and to remain toeternity, may also be in some sort a testimony of the same faith? But, thata person is buried at the memorials of the Martyrs, this, I think, so farprofits the departed, that while commending him also to theMartyrs’ patronage, the affection of supplication on his behalfis increased.

23. Here, to the things thou hastthought meet to inquire of me, thou hast such reply as I have been able torender: which if it be more than enough prolix, thou must excuse this, forit 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 asecond letter: though doubtless it will be morewelcome for its bearer’s sake, to wit our brother andfellow-presbyter Candidianus, whom, having been by thy letter madeacquainted with him, I have welcomed with all my heart, and am loath to lethim depart. For greatly in the charity of Christ hath he by his presenceconsoled us, and, to say truth, it was at his instance that I have done thybidding. For with so great businesses is my heart distraught, that had nothe by ever and anon putting me in mind not suffered me to forget it,assuredly to thy questioning reply of mind had not been forthcoming.

1

On the ascetic tendencies of the second and thirdcenturies, and the gradual introduction of clerical celibacy (whichbegan with a decree of Bishop Siricius of Rome, 385), see Schaff, Church Hist., vol. ii. 367-414, and vol.iii. 242-250.

1

Westminster Confession, II. iii.

2

That Augustin had considerable acquaintance withGreek is proved by his many references and citations throughouthis 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 a familiar with the Greek tongue( Græcælinguæ non sit nobis tantus habitus ), as tobe 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 distinctionwhich the Greek Trinitarians make betweenοὐσία andὑπόστασις;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 goodknowledge of a language for general purposes, and yet beunfamiliar with its philosophical nomenclature.

1

For an analysis ofAugustin’s Trinitarianism, see Bauv: Dreieinigkeitslehre I. 828-885; Gangauf: Des Augustinus speculative Lehre von Gott demDreieinigen; Schaff: History, iii.684 sq.

1

The Mohammedan conceptionof the Divine Unity, also, is deistic. In energeticallyrejecting the doctrine of the Trinity, the Mohammedan is theOriental Unitarian.

1

“That view ofthe divine nature which makes it inconsistent with theIncarnation and Trinity is philosophically imperfect, as well as scripturally incorrect.” H. B.Smith: Faith and Philosophy, p.191.

1

Upon the necessary conditions of self consciousnessin 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, withCandlish’s Introduction; Shedd: History of Doctrine, I.365-368.

1

[Augustin here puts generare for creare —which is rarely the case with him,since the distinction between generation and creation is ofthe highest importance in discussing the doctrine of theTrinity. His thought here is, that God does not bringhimself into being, because he always is. Some have definedGod as the Self-caused: causa sui. Butthe category of cause and effect is inapplicable to theInfinite Being.—W. G. T.S.]

2

Ps. xvii. 8.

3

Ex. xx. 5.

4

Gen. vi. 7.

5

Ex. iii.14.

6

1 Tim. vi.16.

7

[God’s being is necessary;that of the creature is contingent. Hence the name I Am, orJehovah,—which denotes this difference. God alonehas immortality a parte ante, as wellas a parte post. —W. G. T.S.]

8

Jas. i. 17.

9

Ps. cii. 26, 27.

10

Col. ii. 3.

11

1 Cor. ii. 2, 3.

12

[St. Paul, in this place, denominatesimperfect but true believers “carnal,”in a relative sense, only. They are comparatively carnal,when contrasted with the law of God, which is absolutely andperfectly spiritual. (Rom. vii. 14.) They do not, however,belong to the class of carnal ornatural men, in distinction from spiritual. The persons whomthe Apostle here denominates “carnal,”are “babes in Christ.”—W.G. T. S.]

13

1 Cor. iii. 1, 2.

1

Ps. cv. 4.

2

[This request of Augustin to hisreader, involves an admirable rule for authorshipgenerally—the desire, namely, that truth beattained, be it through himself or through others. Miltonteaches the same, when he says that the author must“study and love learning for itself, not forlucre, or any other end, but the service of God and oftruth, and perhaps that lasting fame and perpetuity ofpraise, which God and good men have consented shall be thereward of those whose published labors advance the good ofmankind.”—W. G. T.S.]

1

Ps. i. 2.

2

Phil. iii. 15.

3

[Augustin teaches the Nicene doctrineof a numerical unity of essence in distinction from aspecific unity. The latter is that of mankind. In this casethere is division ofsubstance—part after part of the specific naturebeing separated and formed, by propagation, intoindividuals. No human individual contains the whole specificnature. But in the case of the numerical unity of theTrinity, there is no division of essence. The whole divinenature is in each divine person. The three divine persons donot constitute a species—that is, three divineindividuals made by the division and distribution of onecommon divine nature—but are three modes or“forms” (Phil. ii. 6) of one undividedsubstance, numerically and identically the same ineach.—W. G. T. S.]

4

Matt. iii.16.

5

Acts. ii. 2, 4.

6

Mark i. 11.

7

Matt. xvii.5.

8

John xii. 28.

9

[The term Trinity denotes the Divineessence in all three modes. The term Father (or Son, orSpirit) denotes the essence in only one mode. Consequently,there is something in the Trinity that cannot be attributedto any one of the Persons, as such; and something in aPerson that cannot be attributed to the Trinity, as such.Trinality cannot be ascribed to the first Person; paternitycannot be ascribed to the Trinity.—W. G. T.S.]

1

Wisd. vi. 23.

2

Phil. iii. 12-14.

3

John i. 1, 14, 2, 3.

4

[Augustin here postulates the theisticdoctrines of two substances—infinite and finite;in contradiction to the postulate of pantheism, that thereis only one substance—the infinite.—W.G. T. S.]

1

1 John v. 20.

2

1 Cor. i.24.

3

Ecclus. xxiv. 5.

4

1 Tim. vi.14-16.

5

Ps. lxxii. 18.

6

John v. 19, 21.

7

[Nothing is more important, in orderto a correct interpretation of the New Testament, than acorrect explanation of the term God. Sometimes it denotesthe Trinity, and sometimes a person of the Trinity. Thecontext always shows which it is. The examples given here byAugustin are only a few out of many.—W. G. T.S.]

8

1 Cor. viii.6.

9

Rom. xi.36.

10

Ipsi.

1

Rom. xi. 33-36.

2

1 Cor. viii. 6.

3

Phil. ii.6.

4

[Itis not generally safe to differ from Augustin in trinitarianexegesis. But in Phil. ii. 6 “God”must surely denote the Divine Essence, not the first Personof the Essence. St. Paul describes “ChristJesus” as “subsisting”(ὑπάρχων)originally, that is prior to incarnation, “in aform of God” (ἐνμορϕῃ̑ϑεου̑), and because he sosubsisted, as being “equal with God.”The wordμορϕῃ̑ is anarthrous inthe text: a form, not the form; as the A.V. and R.V. render. St. Paulrefers to one of three “forms” ofGod—namely, that particular form of Sonship,which is peculiar to the second person of the Godhead. Hadthe apostle employed the article withμορϕή,the implication would be that there is only one“form of God”—that is, onlyone person in the Divine Essence.

If thenϑεου̑, in this place,denotes the Father, as Augustin says, St. Paul would teachthat the Logos subsisted “in a form of the Father, ” which would implythat the Father had more than one“form,” or else (ifμορϕήbe rendered with the article) that the Logos subsisted inthe “form” of the Father, neither ofwhich is true. But if “God,” in thisplace, denotes the Divine Essence, then St. Paul teachesthat the unincarnate Logos subsisted in a particular“form” of the Essence—theFather and Spirit subsisting in other“forms” of it.

The student willobserve that Augustin is careful to teach that the Logos,when he took on him “a form of aservant,” did not lay aside “a form of God.” He understands thekenosis(ἐκένωσε)to be, the humbling of the divinity by its union with the humanity; not the exinanition of itin the extremest sense of entirely divesting himself of thedivinity, nor the less extreme sense of a total non-use of it during thehumiliation.—W.G.T.S.].

5

1 Cor. xi. 3.

6

Ps. lxxxii.6.

7

Rom. i. 25.

8

Gal. v. 13.

9

Deut. vi. 13.

10

Phil. iii. 3 (Vulgate, etc.).

1

1 Cor. vi. 19, 15, 20.

2

1 Tim. ii. 5.

3

John xiv. 28.

4

Exinanivit.

5

Habitu.

6

Phil. ii. 6, 7.

7

Habitu.

8

John i. 3.

9

Gal. iv. 4, 5.

10

Gen. i. 26.

11

Habitum.

1

1 Cor. xv. 28, 24, 27.

2

Subjicere.

3

Phil. iii. 20, 21.

4

Evacuaverit.

5

1 Cor. xv. 24,25.

6

Ps. cxii. 8.

7

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

8

Matt. xi. 27.

9

Similitudines.

1

In recubitu. Cant. i.11; see LXX.

2

Vestra.

3

Col. iii. 3, 4.

4

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

5

1 John iii. 2.

6

Ex. iii. 14.

7

John xvii. 3.

8

1 Cor. iv. 5.

9

Ps. v. 5.

10

[The common explanation is better,which regards the “kingdom” that is tobe delivered up, to be the mediatorial commission. WhenChrist shall have finished his work of redeeming men, he nolonger discharges the office of a mediator. It seemsincongruous to denominate the beatific vision of God by theredeemed, a surrender of a kingdom. In I. x. 21, Augustinsays that when the Redeemer brings the redeemed from faithto sight, “He is said to ‘deliver upthe kingdom to God, even the Father.’”—W.G.T.S.]

11

Rom. viii. 24, 25.

12

Cant. i. 12.

13

Ps. xvi. 11.

14

John xiv. 8, 10.

15

2 Cor. v. 6, 7.

16

Acts xv. 9.

17

Matt. v. 8.

18

Ps. xci.16.

19

John x. 30.

20

John xiv.17.

1

John xiv. 15-17.

2

1 Cor. ii. 14.

3

John xvi. 13.

4

1 Cor. ii. 11.

5

John xvi. 6, 7.

6

Phil. ii. [Editor: illegible number].

7

John xiv. 28.

8

John xx. 17.

9

John xiv. 21.

10

John xiv. 22, 23.

1

John xiv. 16-23.

2

[An act belonging eminently andofficially to a particular trinitarian person is notperformed to the total exclusion of theother 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 theessence in its other modes or forms. Hence the interchangeof persons in Scripture. Though creation is officially theFather’s work, yet the Son creates (Col. i. 16;Heb. i. 3). The name Saviour is given to the Father (1 Tim.i. 1). Judgment belongs officially to the Son (John v. 22;Matt. xxv. 31); yet the Father judgeth (1 Pet. i. 17). TheFather raises Christ (Acts xiii. 30); yet Christ raiseshimself (John x. 18; Acts x. 41; Rom. xiv. 9).—W.G. T. S.]

3

John xvi. 22.

4

Luke x.30-42.

5

Rom. viii.26.

6

Ps. xxvii. 4.

7

[The redeemed must forever stand inthe relation of redeemed sinners to their Redeemer. Thusstanding, they will forever need Christ’ssacrifice and intercession in respect to their past sins in this earthly state. But asin the heavenly state they are sinless, and are incurring nonew guilt, it is true that they do not require the freshapplication of atoning blood for new sins, norChrist’s intercession for such. This is probablywhat Augustin means by saying that Christ “nolonger makes intercession for us,” when he hasdelivered up the kingdom to God. When the Mediator hassurrendered his commission, he ceases to redeem sinners fromdeath, while yet he continues forever to be the Head ofthose whom he has redeemed, and their High Priest forever,after the order of Melchizedek (Heb. vii. 17.)—W.G. T. S.]

8

1 Cor. xv. 24-28.

1

[The animal soul is different in kindfrom the rational soul, though both constitute one person;while the rational soul of a man is the same in kind withthat of another man. Similarly, says Augustin, there is adifference in kind between the human nature and the divinenature of Christ, though constituting one theanthropicperson, while the divine nature of the Son is the same insubstance with that of the Father, though constituting twodifferent persons, the Father and Son.—W. G. T.S.]

2

Proverbs—A.V.

3

Show—A.V.

4

John xvi. 25-28.

5

Rom. viii.32.

1

John xiv.28.

2

Phil. ii. 7.

3

Matt. xii. 32.

4

Matt. xii. 28.

5

Isa lxi. 1; Luke iv. 18, 19.

6

John i. 3.

7

Gal. iv. 4.

8

John. x. 30.

9

John vi.38.

10

John v. 26. [In communicating theDivine Essence to the Son, in eternal generation, theessence is communicated with all its attributes. Selfexistence is one of these attributes. In this way, theFather “gives to the Son to have life inhimself,” when he makes common(κοινωνει̑ν),between Himself and the Son, the one DivineEssence.—W. G. T. S.]

11

Matt. xxvi. 38, 39.

12

1 John v. 20.

13

Phil. ii. 8.

14

John xvii.15.

15

John xvii.10.

16

John vii. 16.

17

Mark xiii. 32.

18

[The morecommon explanation of this text in modern exegesis makes theignorance to be literal, and referable solely to the humannature of our Lord, not to his person as a whole.Augustin’s explanation, which Bengel, on Markxiii. 32, is inclined to favor, escapes the difficulty thatarises from a seeming division of the one theanthopic personinto two portions, one of which knows, and the other doesnot. Yet this same difficulty besets the fact of a growth in knowledge, which is plainlytaught in Luke i. 80. In this case, the increase in wisdommust relate to the humanityalone.—W.G.T.S.]

19

Gen. xxii. 12.

20

John xv.15.

21

John xvi.12.

22

1 Cor. ii. 2.

23

1 Cor. iii. 1.

24

1 Cor. ii. 6.

1

Prov. viii. 25.

2

Ps. cx. 3, Vulgate.

3

Prov. viii. 22.

4

John xiv. 6.

5

Apoc. i. 5.

6

John viii.25.

7

Gen. i.1.

8

Ps. xix. 5.

9

Col. i. 15, 17, 18.

10

1 Cor. ii.8.

11

Rom. viii. 30.

12

Rom. iv. 5.

13

Rom. iii. 26.

14

Matt. xx. 23.

15

John x. 30.

16

John xvi. 7.

17

John xiv. 25, 26.

18

John xvi 15.

19

John xii. 47-50.

1

Seipsumloquitur.

2

John v. 26.

3

1 John v. 20.

4

John xii. 48.

5

John vii. 16.

6

John xii. 44.

7

John xiv.1.

1

2 Tim. iv. 1.

2

1 Cor. ii. 8.

3

2 Cor. xiii.4.

4

Matt. xxv. 31, 32.

5

Zech. xii. 10.

6

Matt. v. 8.

7

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

8

1 Cor. xv. 24-28.

9

John xiv. 21.

10

[Augustin, in this discussion,sometimes employs the phrase “Son ofman” to denote the human nature of Christ, indistinction from the divine. But in Scripture and intrinitarian theology generally, this phrase properly denotesthe whole theanthropic person under ahuman title—just as “man,”(1 Tim. ii. 5), “last Adam” (1 Cor.xv. 45), and “second man” (1 Cor. xv.47), denote not the human nature, but the whole divine-humanperson under a human title. Strictly used, the phrase“Son of man” does not designate thedifference between the divine and human natures in thetheanthropos, but between the person of the un -incarnate and that of the incarnate Logos.Augustin’s meaning is, that the Son of God willjudge men at the last day, not in his original“form of God,” but as this is unitedwith human nature—as the Son ofman.—W. G. T. S.]

11

John xii. 47.

12

John viii. 50.

1

John v. 22,26.

2

Phil. ii. 8-11.

3

Transi it in Vulg.; and soin the Greek.

4

John v. 24,25.

5

John v. 25,26.

1

John v. 22-29.

2

John xvii. 3.

3

[Augustin here seems to teach that thephenomenal appearance of Christ to the redeemed in heavenwill be different from that to all men in the day ofjudgment. 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 Godman who sits on thejudgment throne, and the heavenly throne. His appearancemust be the same in both instances: namely, that of Godincarnate. The effect of his phenomenalappearance upon the believer will, indeed, be very differentfrom that upon the unbeliever. For the wicked, this visionof God incarnate will be one of terror; for the redeemed oneof joy.—W. G. T. S.]

4

Ps. lxxiii. 1.

5

Apoc. i. 7.

6

[Augustin’s reading of thistext is that of the uncials; and in that form which omitsthe article withἀγαϑοῦ.—W.G. T. S.]

7

Matt. xix. 17.

8

Matt. xii. 35.

9

[That is, amere man. Augustin here, as in some other places, employsthe phrase “Son of man” to denote thehuman nature by itself—not the divine and humannatures united in one person, and designated by this humantitle. The latter is the Scripture usage. As“Immanuel” does not properly denotethe divine nature, but the union of divinity and humanity,so “Son of man” does not properlydenote the human nature, but the union of divinity andhumanity.—W. G. T. S.]

10

Phil. ii. 6, 7.

11

Ps. xxvii. 4.

12

Zech. xii. 10.

13

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

14

1 John iii. 2.

15

John xiv. 21.

16

Matt. v. 8.

1

Matt. xxv. 37, 41,34.

2

John xvii. 3-5.

3

1 Cor. xv. 24.

4

Matt. xxv. 21, 23.

5

Ps. cxii. 7.

6

Ps. xxxi. 21.

1

Ps. v.12.

2

Ps. cxli. 5.

1

Phil. ii. 6,7.

2

[Augustin here brings to view both thetrinitarian and the theanthropic or mediatorialsubordination. The former is the status of Sonship. God theSon 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 thesame nature with his father. A human son and a human fatherare alike and equally human. And aDivine Son and a Divine Father are alike and equally divine. The theanthropic or mediatorialsubordination is the status of humiliation, by reason of theincarnation. In the words of Augustin, it is“that by which we understand the Son as less, inthat he has taken upon Him the creature.” Thesubordination in this case is that of voluntarycondescension, for the purpose of redeeming sinfulman.—W.G.T.S.]

3

John x. 30.

4

Phil. ii. 6.

5

John xiv. 28.

6

John v. 22, 27, 26, 19.

7

Matt. xiv. 26,and John ix. 6, 7.

8

John v. 19.

1

John vii.16.

2

See above, Book I. c.12.

3

John xvi. 13-15.

4

John xv.26.

5

Below, Bk. XV. c. 25.

1

John xvii. 1,4.

2

John xiv. 26.

3

John xvi. 7, 28.

4

John i. 10, 11.

5

Jer. xxiii. 24.

6

Wisd. viii. 1.

7

Ps. cxxxix. 8, 7.

8

Gal. iv. 4, 5.

9

Mulier.

1

Luke i. 34, 35.

2

Matt. i. 18.

3

Isa. xlviii. 16.

4

John x. 36.

5

John xvii. 19.

6

Rom. viii. 32.

7

Gal. ii. 20.

8

John i. 1, 2, 14.

9

Gal. iv. 4.

10

John viii. 42, 15.

1

Matt. iii.16.

2

Acts ii. 2-4.

3

Heb. i. 9.

4

John i. 14.

5

Luke iii.6.

6

[Thereference is toσχήμα,in Phil. ii. 8—the term chosen by St. Paul todescribe the “likeness of men,” whichthe second trinitarian person assumed. The variety in theterms by which St. Paul describes the incarnation is verystriking. The person incarnated subsists first in a“form of God;” he then takes alongwith this (still retaining this) a “form of aservant;” which form of a servant is a“likeness of men;” which likeness ofmen is a “scheme” (A.V.“fashion”) or external form of aman.—W.G.T.S.]

7

Matt. iii.16.

8

Acts ii. 3, 4.

9

John i. 29.

10

Apoc. v.6.

11

1 Cor. x.4.

1

Gen. xxviii.18.

2

Gen. xxii. 6.

3

Ex. iii. 2.

4

Ex. xiii. 21,22.

5

Ex. xix. 16.

6

[A theophany, though a harbinger ofthe incarnation, differs from it, by not effecting ahypostatical or personal union between God and the creature.When the Holy Spirit appeared in the form of a dove, he didnot unite himself with it. The dove did not constitute anintegral part of the divine person who employed it. Nor didthe illuminated vapor in the theophany of the Shekinah. Butwhen the Logos appeared in the form of a man, he unitedhimself with it, so that it became a constituent part of hisperson. A theophany, as Augustin notices, is temporary andtransient. The incarnation isperpetual.—W.G.T.S.]

7

Gal. iv. 4.

8

Wisd. vii. 27.

1

John i. 3.

2

1 Tim. i.17.

3

1 Tim. vi. 15,16.

4

[For an example of the manner in whichthe patristic writers present the doctrine of the divineinvisibility, see Irenæus, Adv.Hæreses, IV.xx.—W.G.T.S.]

5

Matt. x. 28.

1

Gen. iii.8-10.

2

Gen. iii.7.

3

Gen. iv. 14.

1

Matt. xvii. 5.

2

Matt. iii. 17.

3

John xii. 28.

4

Matt. iii.17.

5

Gen. xii. 1,7.

6

1 Cor. viii. 5, 6.

7

Ps. ii. 7.

8

Ps. cx. 1.

9

2 Cor. iii. 17.

10

Deut. vi. 13.

11

Gen.xviii.

1

1 Tim. i.17.

2

Phil. ii. 6, 7.

3

[The theophanies of the Pentateuch aretrinitarian in their implication. They involve distinctionsin God—God sending, and God sent; God speaking ofGod, and God speaking to God. The trinitarianism of the OldTestament has been lost sight of to some extent in themodern construction of the doctrine. The patristic,mediæval, and reformation theologies worked thisvein with thoroughness, and the analysis of Augustin in thisreference is worthy of carefulstudy.—W.G.T.S.]

4

Gen. xviii. 33.

5

This clause is not in the Hebrew.

6

Gen. xix. 1-19.

1

[It is difficult to determine thedetails of this theophany, beyond all doubt: namely, whetherthe “Jehovah” who “went hisway as soon as he had left communing withAbraham.” (Gen. xviii. 33) joins the“two angels” that “came toSodom at even” (Gen. xix. 1); or whether one ofthese “two angels” is Jehovah himself.One or the other supposition must be made; because a personis addressed by Lot as God (Gen. xix. 18-20), and speaks toLot as God (Gen. xix. 21, 22), and acts as God (Gen. xix.24). The Masorite marking of the word“lords” in Gen. xix. 2, as“profane,” i.e., to be taken in the human sense, would favor the firstsupposition. The interchange of the singular and plural, inthe whole narrative is very striking. “It came topass, when they had brought them forthabroad, that he said, escape for thylife. And Lot said unto them. Oh notso, my Lord: behold now, thy servanthath found grace in thy sight. And he said unto him, see I have accepted thee; I willnot overthrow the city of which thou hastspoken.” (Gen. xix.17-21.)—W.G.T.S.]

2

Ex. iii. 1-6.

3

Rom. ix. 5.

4

1 Cor. vi. 20, 19.

5

Annuntiabit.

6

John xvi. 13.

7

Nuntius.

1

Isa. ix. 6.

2

Ex. iii. 21, 22.

3

Ex. xvi. 10-12.

4

Ex. xix. 18, 19.

5

Nebulam.

6

Ex. xx. 18, 21.

7

Ex. xxiv. 10.

8

Wisd. viii. 1.

9

John i. 3.

10

Rom. xi. 36.

11

Rom. i. 20.

1

Ex. xxi. 18.

2

Luke xi. 20.

3

Acts. ii.1-4.

4

Ex. xxiv. 17.

5

John i. 1, 3.

6

Clift—A. V. Spelunca is one reading in S. Aug., but theBenedictines read specula =watch-tower, which the context proves to be certainlyright.

7

Ex. xxxiii.11-23.

1

Posteriora.

2

Posterius.

3

Phil. ii. 6.

4

2 Cor. v. 6.

5

Wisd. ix. 15.

6

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

7

Ps. xxxix. 5.

8

Ps. cxliii. 2.

9

1 John iii. 2.

10

Gal. vi.14.

11

Col. ii. 20. Viventes de hoc mundodecernitis.

12

Matt. xxii.37-40.

13

2 Cor. v. 6, 7.

14

[Augustin here gives the Protestantinterpretation of the word “rock,” inthe passage, “on this rock I will build mychurch.”—W.G.T.S.]

15

Matt. xvi. 18.

16

Rom. x. 9.

17

Rom. iv.25.

18

[The meaning seems to be, that thevivid realization that Christ’s body rose fromthe dead is the reward of a Christian’s faith.The unbeliever has no suchreward.—W.G.T.S.]

19

Rom. viii. 23.

20

Transitus =passing by.

21

John xiii. 1.

1

Wisd. viii. 1.

2

Isa. lxvi. 1, 2.

3

Transitus.

4

Matt. xxvi.70-74.

5

Isa. vi. 10; Matt.xiii. 15.

6

Acts ii. 37, 41.

7

Ps. xxxii. 4, 5.

8

[Thisexplanation of the “back parts” ofChrist to mean his resurrection, and of “theplace that is by him,” to mean the church, is anexample of the fanciful exegesis into which Augustin, withthe fathers generally, sometimes falls. The reasoning, here,unlike that in the preceding chapter, is not from theimmediate context, and hence extraneous matter is read intothe text.—W. G. T. S.]

9

1 Tim. i. 17.

1

1 Tim. vi. 16.

2

[Theoriginal has an awkward anacoluthon in the opening sentenceof this chapter, which has been removed by omitting“ quamquam, ”and substituting “ autem ” for “ ergo. ”—W. G. T.S.]

3

Ps. ii. 7, 8.

4

Ps. viii.8.

5

Cast down—A. V.

6

Dan. vii. 9-14.

7

Gen. xviii. 1.

8

See above, chap. vii.

1

[The English translator renders“ animalium ”by “psychical,” to agree withψυχικόςin 1 Cor. ii. 14. The rendering“natural” of the A. V. is morefamiliar.—W. G. T. S.]

2

[This is an important passage withreference to Augustin’s learning. From it, itwould appear that he had not read the Greek Trinitarians inthe original, and that only “a little”of these had been translated, at the time when he wascomposing this treatise. As this was from ad 400 to ad 416—, the treatises of Athanasius (d.373), Basil (d. 379), Gregory of Nyssa (d. 400?), andGregory of Nazianzum (d. 390?) had been composed and werecurrent in the Eastern church. That Augustin thought outthis profound scheme of the doctrine of the Trinity by theclose study of Scripture alone, and unassisted by theequally profound trinitarianism of the Greek church, is anevidence of the depth and strength of his remarkableintellect.—W. G. T. S.]

1

John i. 10.

2

Wisd. i. 7.

3

Matt. iii. 16.

4

Acts ii. 3.

5

Gal. iv. 4.

6

John i.14.

1

See above, Book ii. chap. vii. n.13.

2

John ii. 9.

3

Wisd. xvi. 24, 25.

4

Wisd. viii. 1.

5

[Theoriginal is: “ ut sit participatioejus in idipsum. ” The English translatorrenders: “So that it may partake thereof initself.” The thought of Augustin is, that thebelieving soul though mutable partakes of the immutable; andhe designates the immutable as the inidipsum: the self-existent. In that strikingpassage in the Confessions, in which he describes thespiritual and extatic meditations of himself and his mother,as they looked out upon the Mediterranean from the windowsat Ostia—a scene well known from ArySchefer’s painting—he denominates Godthe idipsum: the “selfsame” (Confessions IX. x). Augustin refers to thesame absolute immutability of God, in this place. By faith,man is “a partaker of a divinenature,” (2 Pet. i.4.)—W.G.T.S.]

1

Ps. cxxii. 3. Vulg.

2

Ps. cii. 26, 27.

3

Ps. civ. 4.

1

Col. i. 16.

2

Wisd. ix.15.

3

1 Cor. xiii.12.

4

Phil. i.23.

5

Rom. viii. 23.

6

1 Kings xviii.45.

7

Ex. xix. 6.

8

1 Cor. iii. 7.

9

John ii. 9.

10

Num. xvii. 8.

11

Gen. i.24.

1

Ex. iv.3.

2

[One chief reason why a miracle isincredible for the skeptic, is the difficulty of working it.If the miracle were easy of execution for man—whofor the skeptic is the measure of power—hisdisbelief of it would disappear. In reference to thisobjection, Augustin calls attention to the fact, that so faras difficulty of performance is concerned, the products ofnature are as impossible to man as supernatural products.Aaron could no more have made an almond rod blossom andfructuate on an almond tree, than off it. That a miracle isdifficult to be wrought is, consequently, no good reason fordisbelieving itsreality.—W.G.T.S.]

3

Ezek. xxxvii. 1-10.

4

Ex. vii. and viii.

5

Job i. and ii.

6

Gen. i.20-25.

1

[Augustin is not alone in his beliefthat the bee is an exception to the dictum; omne animal ex ovo. As late as 1744, Thorley, anEnglish “scientist,” said that“the manner in which bees propagate their speciesis entirely hid from the eyes of all men; and the moststrict, diligent, and curious observers and inquisitors havenot been able to discover it. It is a secret, and willremain a mystery. Dr. Butler says that they do not copulateas other living creatures do.” (Thorley:Melisselogia. Section viii.) The observations of Huber andothers have disproved this opinion. Some infer thatignorance of physics proves ignorance of philosophy andtheology. The difference between matter and mind is sogreat, that erroneous opinions in one province arecompatible with correct ones in the other. It does notfollow 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 amodernmaterialist.—W.G.T.S.]

2

[The English translator renders“ virtus ” inits secondary sense of “goodness.”Augustin employs it here, in its primary sense of“energy,”“force.”—W.G.T.S.]

3

1 Cor. iii.6.

4

Phil. i.18.

5

Gen. xxx. 41.

1

[This is the same as the theologicaldistinction between substances and their modifications.“The former,” says Howe,“are the proper object of creation strictlytaken; the modifications of things are not properly created,in the strictest sense of creation, but are educed andbrought forth out of those substantial things that werethemselves created, or made out ofnothing.”—Germs are originated ex nihilo, and fall under creationproper; their evolution and development takes placeaccording to the nature and inherent force of the germ, andfalls under providence, in distinction from creation. Seethe writer’s Theological Essays,133-137.—W. G. T. S.]

2

Wisd. xi.20.

1

Ex. vii. 12, and viii.7, 18, 19.

2

1 Cor. xii.10.

3

Ps. cxlviii. 8.

4

Jer. xxxi. 1, 2.

5

Ps. xxxii. 8.

6

1 Kings xi.30, 31.

7

Gen. xxviii. 18.

8

Num. xxi.9.

1

Ex. iii. 6, 2.

2

Ps. lxxxi. 8, 10.

3

Ex. vii.10.

4

Gen. xxviii.18.

5

Ps. xlv.7.

6

Phil. ii.9.

7

John iii. 14, 15.

8

Rom. vi. 6.

9

Gen. iii.

10

Col. i. 24.

11

Ex. iv. 4.

12

Ex. vii.12.

13

John xix.34.

14

Wisd. ix. 14-17.

1

[“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 latterterm to the former, though employing both to designate thedivine nature.—W. G. T. S.]

2

Rom. xii. 3.

3

2 Cor. iv. 13.

4

Heb. i. 13, 14.

5

1 Cor. x. 11.

6

Heb. ii.1-4.

1

Acts vii. 2.

2

Ex. ii. 15 and iii. 7, and Acts vii.29-33.

3

Gen. xii. 1.

4

Gen. xvii.1.

5

Gen. xviii. 1,2.

6

Propter me.

7

Dominus vidit.

8

Dominus visusest.

1

Gen. xxii.

2

Dan. ix. 21.

3

In edictis angelorum.

4

Acts vii. 51-53.

5

John v. 46.

6

Dispositum.

7

Gal. iii. 19.

8

1 Tim. ii. 5.

9

Ex. xii.

1

Matt. iii.16.

2

Acts ii. 1-4.

3

[The reference here is to thedifference between a theophany, and an incarnation; alreadyalluded to, in the note on p. 149.—W. G. T.S.]

1

1 Cor. viii. 1.

2

Eccles. i. 18.

3

Matt. v. 6.

1

Ps. xxxi. 22.

2

Ps. lxviii.9.— Pluviamvoluntariam.

3

Gratis.

4

2 Cor. xii. 9.

5

Rom. v. 8-10.— Donavit.

6

Rom. viii. 31,32.

1

Acts xvii. 27,28.

2

John i. 1,14.

3

[This singleness and doubleness isexplained in chapter 3.—W. G. T.S.]

1

Rom. iv.5.

2

2 Cor. iv.16.

3

1 John iii. 1.

4

Wisd. ix. 15.

5

Job. vii. 1.

6

Ps. cxliii. 2.

7

Matt. viii. 22.

8

Eph. v. 14.

9

1 Tim. v.6.

10

Rom. viii. 10.

11

Rom. i. 17.

12

Rom. viii. 10, 11.

13

Ps. xxii. 1, and Matt. xxvii. 46.

14

Rom. vi. 6, 13.

15

2 Cor. iv. 16.

16

Eph. iv. 22-25.

17

Ps. xv. 1, 3.

18

John xx. 17.

19

Sapite.

20

Col. iii. 1, 2.

21

Sapere.

1

Matt. x. 28.

2

Col. i. 24.

3

Luke xxiv. 39.

4

John xx. 28.

5

Luke xxi. 18.

6

John. xx. 17.

7

1 Cor. xv. 23.

8

Phil. iii.21.

9

Gen. i. 27.

10

Matt. i.17.

11

Ps. lvii.6.

12

Luke xiii. 6-17.

1

John ii. 20.

2

John xix. 41, 42.

3

John ii.19-21.

4

Matt. xii. 40.

5

Matt. xxvii. 23-50.

6

Mark xv. 42-46.

7

John xix.14.

1

2 Cor. iv. 6.

2

Eph. v. 8.

3

Gen. i. 4, 5.

4

1 Tim. ii. 5.

5

Rom. viii.34.

1

John xvii. 20-22.

2

Unum.

3

Eph. i. 22,23.

4

Unum.

5

Unus.

6

John x. 30; unum.

7

Unum.

8

Unum.

9

John xvii.23.

10

2 Cor. xi. 14.

1

Matt. ii.12.

2

Ps. xix. 1, 4.

3

Rom. v. 12— inquo.

4

Wisd. i. 13.

5

1 Cor. xv. 21,22.

6

John x. 17,18.

1

Mark xv. 37,39, 43, 44, and John xix. 30-34.

2

Matt. iv. 1-11.

3

Col. ii. 15.

4

Rom. viii. 30.

5

John xv. 13.

6

Ps. viii. 5.

7

Eph. iv. 8.

1

Wisd. viii. 1.

2

Wisd. vii. 24,25.

3

1 Cor. vi.20.

4

Heb. vii.

1

Ex. xvii. 8-16.

2

[The wood of the cross is meant. Oneof the ancient symbols of the church was aship.—W. G. T. S.

3

Rom. i. 20.]

1

John xi. 51.

2

Acts xvii. 28.

3

Rom. i. 21,22.

1

John xvii. 3.

2

Ps. lxxxv.11.

3

Ortus.

4

John viii. 31, 32.

5

Gal. iv. 4.

1

John xiv. 9, 21.

2

John i. 3, 18, 14.

3

Wisd. vii. 25-27.

4

Wisd. ix.10.

1

Wisd. vii. 27.

2

[The allusion is to the Wisdom ofProverbs, and of the Book of Wisdom, which Augustin regardsas canonical, as his frequent citations show.—W.G. T. S.]

3

Gal. iv. 4.

4

Quod,scil. sacramentum.

5

1 Tim. iii. 16.

6

John xvi.28.

7

Wisd. ix.10.

8

1 Cor. i.21.

9

John i. 5,14.

10

Ecclus. xxiv. 3.

11

John xv. 26.

12

John x.30.

13

[Augustin here, as in previousinstances, affirms the procession of the Spirit from theFather and Son.—W. G. T.S.]

14

John xx.22.

15

Acts ii.1-4.

16

1 Cor. xii.6.

1

John xv. 26.

2

John xiv. 26.

3

[The term“beginning” is employed“relatively, and not according tosubstance,” 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 theSpirit from Father and Son. The trinitarian relations ormodes of the essence, “begin” with thefirst 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 thatthe Father is the “beginning ( principium ) of the divine essence consideredabstractly, but only of the essence as trinal. In this sense, Trinitarian writersdenominate the Father “ fonstrinitatis, ” and sometimes“ fonsdeitatis. ” Turrettin employs this latterphraseology (iii. xxx. i. 8): so does Owen ( Communion with Trinity, Ch. iii.): and Hooker ( Polity, v. liv.) But in this case, theguarding clause of Turretin is to be subjoined:“ fons deitatis, si modussubsistendi spectatur. ” The phrase“ fonstrinitatis, ” or “ principium trinitatis, ” is less liableto be misconceived, and more accurate than “ fons deitatis, or “ principumdeitatis. ”—W. G. T.S.]

4

John vii.39.

5

Luke i. 15, 41-79.

6

Luke ii. 25-38.

7

Ps. xix. 3, 4.

8

Matt. iii. 16.

9

Acts ii.3.

10

John i. 14.

1

[Theoriginal is: “ propter principiicommendationem, ” which the Englishtranslator renders: “On account of commending toour thoughts the principle [of theGodhead].” The technical use of“principium” is missed. Augustin saysthat the phrases, “sending the Son,”and “sending the Spirit,” havereference to the “visible creature”through which in the theophanies each was manifested; butstill more, to the fact that the Father is the“beginning of the Son, and the Father and Son arethe “beginning” of the Spirit. Thisfact of a “beginning,” or emanation( manatio ) of one from another, iswhat is commended to our thoughts.—W. G. T.S.]

1

1 Cor. xiii.12.

2

Ps. xxxiv.1.

1

Esse.

2

Ex. iii. 14.

3

John x. 30.

4

Phil. ii. 6.

1

Habitus.

1

Habitus.

2

The terms “unbegotten” and“begotten” are interchangeable withthe terms Father and Son. This follows from the relation ofa substantive to its adjective. In whatever sense asubstantive is employed, in the same sense must theadjective formed from it be employed. Consequently, if thefirst person of the Trinity may be called Father in a sensethat implies deity, he may be called Unbegotten in the samesense. And if the second person may be called Son in a senseimplying deity, he may be called Begotten in the same sense.The Ancient church often employed the adjective, and spokeof God the Unbegotten and God the Begotten (Justin Martyr, Apol. i. 25, 53; ii. 12, 13. Clem.Alex. Stromata v. xii.). Thisphraseology sounds strange to the Modern church, yet thelatter really says the same thing when it speaks of God theFather, and God the Son.—W. G. T.S.]

3

Ps. lxxxvi. 10.

4

Luke xviii. 18, 19.

1

Ps. lxxx. 1.

2

Ps. civ.6.

3

Ps. cii.27.

4

Ps. cxxxix. 8.

5

[This phraseology appears in theanalytical statements of the so-called Athanasian creed(cap. 11-16), and affords ground for the opinion that thissymbol is a Western one, originating in the school ofAugustin.—W. G. T. S.]

6

Rom. xi.36.

7

[It is remarkable that Augustin,understanding thoroughly the distinction between essence andperson, should not have known the difference betweenοὐσίαandὑπόστασις.It would seem as if his only moderate acquaintance with theGreek language would have been more than compensated by hisprofound trinitarian knowledge.

In respect to the term“ substantia ”—when it wasdiscriminated from “ essentia, ” as it is here byAugustin—it corresponds toὑπόστασις,of which it is the translation. In this case, God is oneessence in three substances. But when “ substantia ” was identifiedwith “ essentia, ”then to say that God is one essence in three substanceswould be a self-contradiction. The identification of the twoterms led subsequently to the coinage, in themediæval Latin, of the term “ subsistantia, ” to denoteὑπόστασις.—W.G. T. S.]

8

John x. 30.

1

Deut. vi. 4.

2

John iv. 24.

3

Acts viii. 20.

4

John xv. 26.

5

Rom. viii.9.

6

[The reason which Augustin hereassigns, why the name Holy Spirit is given to the thirdperson—namely, because spirituality is acharacteristic of both the Father and Son, from both of whomhe proceeds—is not that assigned in the moredeveloped trinitarianism. The explanation in this latter is,that the third person is denominated the Spirit because ofthe peculiar manner in which the divine essence is communicated to him—namely,by spiration, or out-breathing: spiritus quia spiratus. This issupported by the etymological signification ofπνευ̑μα,which is breath; and by the symbolical action of Christ inJohn xx. 22, which suggests the eternal spiration, orout-breathing of the third person. The third trinitarianperson is no more spiritual, in the sense of immaterial,than the first and second persons, and if the term“Spirit” is to be taken in this theordinary signification, the “trinitarianrelation,” or personal peculiarity, as Augustinremarks, “is not itself apparent in thisname;” because it would mention nothingdistinctive of the third person, and not belonging to thefirst and second. But taken technically to denote thespiration or out-breathing by the Father and Son, thetrinitarian peculiarity is apparent in the name.

Andthe epithet “Holy” is similarlyexplained. The third person is the Holy Spirit, not because he is any more holy than the first andsecond, but because he is the source and author of holiness in all createdspirits. This is eminently and officially his work. In thisway also, the epithet“Holy”—which in itsordinary use would specify nothing peculiar to the thirdperson,—mentions a characteristic thatdifferentiates him from the Father and Son.—W. G.T. S.]

1

2 Cor. v. 5, and Eph.i. 14.

2

John viii. 25.

3

1 Cor. xii. 6-11.

4

John xv.26.

1

Ps. iii. 8.

2

Matt. vi.11.

3

1 Cor. iv. 7.

4

Luke i. 17.

5

Num. xi. 17.

6

[The term“beginning” ( principium ), when referring to the relation of theTrinity, or of any person of the Trinity, to the creature,denotes creative energy, whereby a newsubstance is originated from nothing. This is the referencein chapter 13. But when the term refers to the relations ofthe persons of the Trinity to each other, it denotes only a modifying energy, whereby anexisting uncreated substance is communicated by generationand spiration. This is the reference in chapter14.

When it is said that the Father is the“beginning” of the Son, and the Fatherand Son are the “beginning” of theSpirit, it is not meant that the substance of the Son iscreated ex nihilo by the Father, andthe substance of the Spirit is created by the Father andSon, but only that the Son by eternal generation receivesfrom the Father the one uncreated and undivided substance ofthe Godhead, and the Spirit by eternal spiration receivesthe same numerical substance from the Father and Son. Theterm “beginning” relates not to theessence, but to the personal peculiarity. Sonship originatesin fatherhood; but deity is unoriginated. The Son as thesecond person “begins” from theFather, because the Father communicates the essence to him.His sonship, not his deity or godhood,“begins” from the Father. And the sameholds true of the term “beginning” asapplied to the Holy Spirit. The“procession” of the Holy Spirit“begins” by spiration from the Fatherand Son, but not his deity or godhood.—W. G. T.S.]

1

[“Matter”denotes the material as created exnihilo: “nature” the materialas formed into individuals. In this reference, Augustinspeaks of “the nature of the soul” ofthe people of Israel as existing while “as yetthat people existed not”individually—having in mind their race-existencein Adam.—W. G. T. S.]

2

Ps. xc. 1.

3

John i.12.

1

1 Cor. i. 24.

1

[The term“God,” in the proposition,“the Word was with God,” must refer tothe Father, not to “the Father and Sontogether,” because the Son could not be said tobe “with” himself. St. John says that“the word was God”(θεὸς). Theabsence of the article withθεὸς denotes theabstract deity, or the divine nature without reference tothe persons in it. He also says that “the Wordwas with God”(τὸνθεὸν). Thepresence of the article in this instance denotes one of thedivine persons in the essence: namely, the Father, with whomthe Word was from eternity, and upon whose“bosom” he was from eternity. (John i.18).—W. G. T. S.]

2

John i. 1.

1

John x. 30.

2

John xvii. 11.

3

1 Cor. iii.8.

4

1 Cor. vi. 16,17.

5

John xvii.11.

6

Phil. ii. 6.

1

Eph. iv. 3.

2

Matt. xxii. 37-40.

3

Ps. lxxvii. 28,27.

4

1 John iv.16.

1

[The Divine Unity is trinal, nottriple. The triple is composed of three differentsubstances. It has parts, and is complex. The trinal iswithout parts, and is incomplex. It denotes one simplesubstance in three modes or forms. “We may speakof the trinal, but not of the triple deity.”Hollaz, in Hase’s Hutterus, 172.—W. G. T. S.]

2

[Each trinitarian person is as greatas the Trinity, if reference be had to the essence, but notif reference be had to the persons. Each person has theentire essence, and the Trinity has the entire essence. Buteach person has the essence with only one personalcharacteristic; while the Trinity has the essence with allthree personal characteristics. No trinitarian person is ascomprehensive as the triune Godhead, because he does notpossess the two personal characteristics belonging to theother two persons. The Father is God, but he is not God theSon and God the Holy Spirit.—W. G. T.S.]

3

[The addition of finite numbers,however great, to an infinite number, does not increase theinfinite. Similarly, any addition of finite being to theInfinite Being is no increase. God plus the universe is nolarger an infinite than God minus the universe. The creationof the universe adds nothing to the infinite being andattributes of God. To add contingent being to necessarybeing, does not make the latter any more necessary. To addimperfect being to perfect being, does not make the lattermore perfect. To add finite knowledge to infinite knowledge,does not produce a greater amount of knowledge. This truthhas been overlooked by Hamilton, Mansell, and others, in theargument against the personality of the Infinite, in whichthe Infinite is confounded with the All, and which assumesthat the All is greater than the Infinite—inother words, that God plus the universe is greater than Godminus the universe.—W. G. T.S.]

4

Cor. vi. 17.

1

John xvii. 3.

2

1 Cor. iii. 22, 23.

3

1 Cor. xi.3.

4

John xiv. 28.

5

1 Tim. ii. 5.

1

Rom. i.20.

2

1 Cor. xiii. 12.Darkly, A.V.

3

Rom. xi. 36, in A.V.

1

1 Cor. i. 24.

2

John i. 1, 3.

1

[Augustin sometimes denominates theSon “begotten” ( genitus ), and sometimes“born” ( natus ).Both terms signify that the Son is of the Father; God of God, Light of Light, Essence ofEssence.—W. G. T. S.]

2

John i. 14.

3

Matt. xi. 27.

1

Ps. xxxvi. 9.

2

John v. 2[Editor: illegible number].

3

John i. 9, 1.

4

1 John i.5.

5

Matt. v. 14.

6

1 Cor. i.30.

7

Phil. ii.7.

8

1 Tim. i. 15.

9

John i. 10.

10

Col. i. 18.

11

Rom. v. 5.

12

1 John iv. 8.

13

1 Cor. iii.16.

1

1 Cor. vi. 19, 20.

2

Bk. v. c. 28.

3

Gen. xlvi. 27,and Deut. x. 22.

1

Deut. vi. 4.

1

[Augustin’s meaning is,that the term “substance” is not anadequate one whereby to denote a trinitarian distinction,because in order to denote such a distinction it must beemployed relatively, while in itself it has an absolutesignification. In the next chapter he proceeds to showthis.—W. G. T. S.]

2

Ex. iii.14.

1

John x. 30.

2

Unum.

3

Sumus.

4

John xiv. 23.

5

Gen. i. 26.

6

1 Cor. xi. 7.

7

[Augustin would find this“image” in the ternaries of nature andthe human mind which illustrate the Divine trinality. Theremainder of the treatise is mainly devoted to this abstrusesubject; and is one of the most metaphysical pieces ofcomposition in patristic literature. The exegetical portionof the work ends substantially with the seventh chapter. Theremainder is ontological, yet growing out of, and foundedupon the biblical data and results of the firstpart.—W. G. T. S.]

1

Rom. xii.2.

2

Eph. v. 1.

3

Col. iii. 10.

4

Isa. vii. 9.

1

[In this and the following chapter,the meaning of Augustin will be clearer, if the Latin“ veritas, ”“ vera, ” and“ vere, ” arerendered, occasionally, by “reality,”“real,” and“really.” He is endeavoring to provethe equality of the three persons, by the fact that they areequally real (true), and the degree of their reality (truth)is the same. Real being is true being; reality is truth. Incommon phraseology, truth and reality aresynonymous.—W. G. T. S.]

2

Read si for sicut, if for as. Bened.ed.

3

Apoc. v. 11.

4

Wisd. ix. 15.

5

1 John i. 5.

1

Acts xvii. 27, 28.

2

2 Cor. v. 7.

3

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

4

Matt. v. 8.

5

1 Cor. xiii. 13.

6

1 Tim. i. 5.

1

[The “wish” and“love” which Augustin here attributesto the non-righteous man is not true and spiritual, butselfish. In chapter vii. 10, he speaks of true love asdistinct from that kind of desire which is a mere wish. Thelatter he calls cupiditas. “That is to be called love which is true,otherwise it is desire ( cupiditas ); andso those who desire ( cupidi ) areimproperly said to love ( diligere ),just as they who love ( diligunt ) aresaid improperly to desire ( cupere ).”—W. G. T.S.]

1

Rom. xiii.8.

1

Violence—A.V.

2

Ps. xi.6.

3

Matt. xxii. 37-40.

4

Rom. viii.28.

5

1 Cor. viii. 3.

6

Rom. v. 5.

7

Gal. vi. 2.

8

Gal. v. 14.

9

Matt. vii. 12.

10

1 John iv. 6.

1

Matt. xi. 28, 29.

2

Charity.—A.V.

3

1 Cor. xiii. 4.

4

1 John iv. 8.

5

Abide with.—A.V.

6

Wisd. iii. 9.

7

1 John iv.16.

8

1 John ii.10.

9

1 John iv. 7, 8, 20.

10

1 John i. 5.

1

2 Cor. vi.2-10.

1

Ps. lxix.32.

2

Ps. cv. 4.

3

1 Cor. viii.2.

4

Gal. iv.19.

5

In purpose, om. inA.V.

6

Phil. iii. 13-15.

7

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

8

Ecclus. xviii. 7.

1

1 John iv. 16.

2

[Augustin herebegins his discussion of some ternaries that are found in theFinite, that illustrate the trinality of the Infinite. Like allfinite analogies, they fail at certain points. In the casechosen—namely, the lover, the loved, andlove—the first two are substances, the last is not.The mind is a substance, but its activity in loving is not. Inchapter iv. 5, Augustin asserts that “love andknowledge exist substantially, as the mind itselfdoes.” But no psychology, ancient or modern, has evermaintained that the agencies of a spiritual entity or substanceare themselves spiritual entities or substances. The activitiesof the human mind in cognizing, loving, etc., are only itsenergizing, not its substance.

The ambiguity of the Latincontributes to this error. The mind and its loving, and also themind and its cognizing, are denominated “ duo quædam; ” themind, love, and knowledge, are denominated “ tria quædam. ” Bybringing the mind and its love and knowledge under the one term“ quædam, ” and then giving the meaningof “substance” to“thing,” in“something,” the result follows that allthree are alike and equally“substantial.”

This analogy takenfrom the mind and its activities illustrates the trinality ofthe Divine essence, but fails to illustrate the substantialityof the three persons. The three Divine persons are not theDivine essence together with two of its activities (such, e. g., as creation and redemption), but theessence in three modes, or “forms,” as St.Paul denominates them in Phil. iii. 6.

If Augustin couldprove his assertion that the activities of the human spirit inknowing and loving are strictly“substantial,” then this ternary wouldillustrate not only the trinality of the essence, but theessentiality and objectivity of the persons. The fact which hementions, that knowledge and love are inseparable from the knowing and loving mind, does notprove their equal substantiality with the mind.—W. G.T. S.]

1

[Augustin here illustrates, by theternary of mind, love, and knowledge, what the GreekTrinitarians denominate theπεριχώρησιςof the divine essence. By the figure of a circulation, theydescribe the eternal inbeing and indwelling of one person inanother. This is founded on John xiv. 10, 11; xvii. 21, 23.“Believest thou not that I am in the Father, andthe Father in Me? I pray that they all may be one, as thouFather art in Me, and I in Thee.” Athanasius ( Oratio, iii. 21) remarks that Christhere prays that the disciples “may imitate thetrinitarian unity of essence, in theirunity of affection. ” Had itbeen possible for the disciples to be in the essence of theFather as the Son is, he would have prayed that they all maybe “one in Thee, ”instead of “one in Us.”

ThePlatonists, also, employed this figure of circulatorymovement, to explain the self-reflecting and self-communingnature of the human mind. “It is not possible forus to know what our souls are, but only by theirκινήσειςκυκλικαὶ,their circular and reflex motions and converse withthemselves, which only can steal from them their ownsecrets.” J. Smith: Immortalityof the Soul, Ch. ii.

Augustin’sillustration, however, is imperfect, because “thethree things” which circulate are not “each of them severally asubstance.” Only one of them, namely, the mind,is a substance.—W. G. T.S.]

1

[Theinward production of a thought in the finite essence of thehuman spirit which is expressed outwardly in a spoken word,is analogous to the eternal generation of the Eternal Wisdomin the infinite essence of God expressed in the EternalWord. Both are alike, in that something spiritual issuesfrom something spiritual, without division or diminution ofsubstance. But a thought of the human mind is not anobjective thing or substance; while the Eternal Wordis.—W. G. T. S.]

1

John iv. 13.

2

Ps. vii. 14.

3

Partus.

4

Jas. i. 15.

5

Matt. xi. 28.

6

Matt. xxiv. 19.

7

Words.

8

Words.—A. V.

9

Matt. xii. 37.

10

1 Cor. xii. 3.

11

Matt. vii. 21.

1

[The meaning of this obscure chapterseems to be, that only what the mind is pleased with, is thereal expression and index of the mind—its true“word.” The true nature of the mind isrevealed in its sympathies. But this requires somequalification. For in the case of contrary qualities, likeright and wrong, beauty and ugliness, the real nature of themind is seen also in its antipathy as well as in itssympathy; in its hatred of wrong as well as in its love ofright. Each alike is a true index of the mind, because eachreally implies the other.—W. G. T.S.]

1

“ Partum ” or “ repertum. ”

2

“ Reperiendi. ”

3

[It is notthese three together that constitute the one substance. The mind alone is thesubstance—the knowledge and the love being onlytwo activities of it. When the mind is not cognizing orloving, it is still an entire mind. As previously remarkedin the annotation on IX. ii. this ternary will completelyillustrate a trinality of a certain kind, but not that ofthe Trinity; in which the “ triaquædam ” are threesubsistences, each of which is so substantial as to be thesubject of attributes, and to be able to employ them. Thehuman mind is substantial enough to possess and employ theattributes of knowledge and love. We say that the mind knowsand loves. But an activity of the mindis not substantial enough to possess and employ theattributes of knowledge and love. We cannot say that theloving loves; or the loving knows; or the knowing loves,etc.—W. G. T. S.]

1

Wine.

1

Ps. ix. cxi., andcxxxviii., Deut. vi. 5, and Matt. xxii. 37.

2

[Thedistinction between corporeal and incorporeal substance isone that Augustin often insists upon. See Confessions, VII.i-iii. The doctrine that all substance is extended body, andthat there is no such entity as spiritual unextendedsubstance, is combatted by Plato in the Theatetus. For ahistory of the contest, and an able defence of thesubstantiality of spirit, see Cudworth’s Intellectual System, III. 384 sq.Harrison’s Ed.—W. G. T.S.]

3

Invenire.

4

Inventa.

1

[This ternary of memory,understanding, and will, is a better analogue to the Trinitythan the preceding one in chapter IX—namely,mind, knowledge, and love. Memory, understanding, and willhave equal substantiality, while mind, knowledge, and lovehave not. The former are three faculties, in each of which is the whole mind orspirit. The memory is the whole mind as remembering; theunderstanding is the whole mind as cognizing; and the willis the whole mind as determining. The one essence of themind is in each of these three modes, each of which isdistinct from the others; and yet there are not threeessences 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 ofcognition is not the whole mind in the general mode of cognition. This would make it afaculty. A particular act of loving, or of willing, is notthe whole mind in the general mode ofloving, or of willing. This would make the momentary andtransient act a permanent faculty. This ternary fails, as wehave noticed in a previous annotation (IX. ii. 2), in thatonly the mind is a substance.

The ternary of memory,understanding, and will is an adequate analogue to theTrinity in respect to equal substantiality. But it failswhen the separate consciousness of theTrinitarian distinctions is brought into consideration. Thethree faculties of memory, understanding, and will, are notso objective to each other as to admit of three forms ofconsciousness, of the use of the personal pronouns, and ofthe 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. Thereare other faculties: e. g., theimagination. The whole essence of the mind is in thisalso.—W. G. T. S.]

1

Col. iii.10.

2

2 Cor. iv.16.

1

Gen. xxx.37-41.

2

Coactus.

3

Cogitatio.

1

Rom. xii.2.

2

Ecclus. xxxix.16.

3

Gen. iii. 5.

4

Vid. Retract. Bk. II. c.15, where Augustin adds that it is possible to love thebodily species to the praise of the Creator, in which casethere is no “estrangement.”

1

Matt. xxii.13.

2

Psalms cxx., and following.

3

Isa. v. 18.

1

[Augustin’s map ofconsciousness is as follows: (1). The corporealspecies=the external object (outward appearance).(2). The sensible species=the sensation(appearance for the sense). (3). The mental species in itsfirst form=present perception. (4). The mentalspecies in its second form=remembered perception.These three “species” or appearancesof the object: namely, corporeal, sensible, and mental,according to him, are combined in one synthesis with theobject by the operation of the will. By“will,” he does not mean distinct andseparate volitions: but the spontaneity of theego—what Kant denominates the mechanism of theunderstanding, seen in the spontaneous employment of thecategories of thought, as the mind ascends from empiricalsensation to rational conception.

The Englishtranslator has failed to make clear the sharply definedpsychology of these chapters, by loosely rendering“ sentire, ”“to perceive,” and “ cogitare ” tothink.—W.G.T.S.]

1

Vid. Retract. II. xv. 2.[Augustin here says that when he wrote the above,he forgot what is said in Leviticus xi. 20, of“fowls that creep, going upon all four, whichhave legs above their feet to leap withal upon theearth.”—W.G.T.S.]

2

Wisd. xi.21.

1

[The distinction drawn here is betweenthat low form of intelligence which exists in the brute, andthat high form characteristic of man. In the Kantiannomenclature, the brute has understanding, but unenlightenedby reason; either theoretical or practical. He hasintelligence, but not as modified by the forms of space andtime and the categories of quantity, quality, relation etc.;and still less as modified and exalted by the ideas ofreason—namely, the mathematical ideas, and themoral ideas of God, freedom, and immortality. The animal hasno rational intelligence. He has mereunderstanding without reason.—W. G. T.S.]

1

Gen. ii. 24.

2

Gen. ii.22.

3

John xv. 26.

1

Tit. i.15.

2

Gen. i. 26, 27.

3

Ps. iii. 8.

4

Ps. xviii. 29.

5

Ps. xlv. 5.

6

Rom. i. 3, 4.

1

Gen. i. 27, 28.

2

Gen. ii. 24, 22.

3

1 Cor. xi. 7,5.

1

1 Cor. xi.10.

2

1 Tim. v.5.

3

1 Tim. ii. 15.

4

Eph. iv. 23, 24.

5

Col. iii. 9, 10.

1

Gal. iii. 26-28.

2

Ps. vi. 7.

3

Ps. xxxviii.10.

4

Gen. iii.4.

5

Ecclus. x.15.

6

1 Tim. vi. 10.

1

1. Cor. x. 13.

2

1 Cor. vi.18.

3

Ecclus. xix.1.

4

Gen. iii. 21.

5

Ps. xlix. 12.

6

1 Cor. viii.1.

7

Rom. vii. 24, 25.

8

Gen. iii. 1-6.

1

Rom. vi. 13.

2

Matt. vi. 12.

3

[Augustin here teaches that the inwardlust is guilt as well as the outward action prompted by it.This is in accordance with Matt. v. 28; Acts viii. 21-22;Rom. vii. 7; James i.14.—W.G.T.S.]

4

[Augustin means, that while he hasgiven an allegorical and mystical interpretation to thenarrative of the fall, in Genesis, he also holds to itshistorical sense.—W. G. T.S.]

5

Gen. ii.20-22.

6

Gen. iii.1.

1

Heb. v. 14.

2

1 Cor. xi. 7.

3

Rom. xii. 2.

4

1 Cor. viii.1.

5

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

6

1 Cor. xii. 8.

7

Job xxviii.8.

8

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

9

1 John iii. 2.

1

[This fine specimen of the“obstetric method” of Socrates isgiven in Plato’s dialogue, Meno.—W. G.T. S.]

1

John i. 1-14.

1

Ps. xiv.1.

2

Heb. xi.1.

1

Gal. v. 6.

1

Acts. iv. 32.

2

Eph. iv.5.

3

Matt. xv.28.

4

Matt. xiv. 31.

1

Bks. viii. c. 4, etc., x. c. 1.

1

Ps. x. 3.

2

[Theprophet Nathan enunciates the same truth, in his words toDavid, “Go do all that is in thine heart; for theLord is with thee.” 2 Sam. vii. 3.—W.G. T. S.]

1

Andreia, Act ii. Scene 1, v. 5,6.

1

C. 20.

1

John i.12-14.

2

Gal. v.5.

3

Rom. v. 4,5.

4

John xx. 22, vii. 39, and xv. 26.

5

Eph. iv. 8 and Ps. lxviii. 18.

6

Rom. v.6-10.

1

Rom. viii. 31, 32.

2

Eph. i. 4.

3

Gal. ii. 20.

4

Gen. iii. 14-19.

5

Gen. vi. 3. “Strive withman,” A. V.

6

Eph. ii. 1-3.

1

Ps. lxxvii. 9.

2

Ps. xciv. 12-15.

3

Luke ii. 14.

4

Ressecundæ.

1

Rom. v.9.

2

Ps. lxxxviii. 5.

3

Ps. lxix. 4.

4

John xiv.30-31.

5

Rom. vi.9.

6

1 Cor. i. 25.

7

Mark iii. 27.

8

Rom. ix. 22, 23.

1

Acts xxvi. 16-18.

2

Col. i. 13, 14.

3

[In thisrepresentation of Augustin, the relics of that misconceptionwhich appears in the earlier soteriology, particularly thatof Irenaeus, are seen: namely, that the death of Christransoms the sinner from Satan. Certain texts which teachthat redemption delivers from the captivity to sin andSatan, were interpreted to teach deliverance from the claims of Satan. Augustin’ssoteriology is more free from this error than that ofIrenaeus, yet not entirely free from it. The doctrine ofjustification did not obtain its most consistent andcomplete statement in the Patristic church.—W. G.T. S.]

4

Apoc. xxi.8.

5

1 Pet. i.20.

6

1 Cor. x.13.

7

C. 2.

8

Rom. viii.28-32.

1

Wisd. xii. 18.

2

Rom. v. 8, 12.

3

John i. 14.

1

Phil. ii.8.

2

Luke i.26-32.

3

2 Cor. x. 17.

1

Col. ii. 1-3.

2

1 Cor. xii. 7, 8.

3

John i. 14.

4

Rom. i. 23; detinueru[editor:illegible letters].

5

Rom. i. 18,20.

1

Cc. 19-21.

2

Gal. iv.4.

3

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

4

Bk. viii. cc. 8 seqq., and Bk. x. c. 1,etc.

5

Rom. i.17.

6

Gal. v. 6.

7

[The ternary is this: 1. The idea of atruth or fact held in the memory. 2. The contemplation of itas thus recollected. 3. The love of it. This last is the“will” that“unites” the first two.—W.G. T. S.]

1

Ecclus. xxiv. 5 and 1 Cor. i. 24.

2

C. 14.

3

Job. xxviii. 28.

4

Disciplina,disco.

5

Disciplina.

6

Disciplina.

7

Heb. xii. 7, 11.

8

1 Cor. iii. 19.

9

Wisd. vi. 26.

1

Prov. ix. 8.

2

Bk. xiii. cc. 1,19.

3

1 Cor. xiii.12.

4

Bk. xiii. c. 7.

5

2 Cor. v. 6,7.

6

Rom. i.17.

7

1 Cor. xiii.12.

1

Gen. i. 27.

2

Cc. 2 sq.

1

Ps. xxxix. 7.

2

[This occurred in the case of EdwardIrving. Oliphant’s Life ofIrving. —W. G. T.S.]

3

Bk. x. c. 5.

1

Bk. x. c.3.

1

Supra, c. iv.

2

Cc. 2 sq.

1

Wisd. ix. 14.

2

Æneid, iii.628, 629.

3

Job. xxviii. 28.

4

Rom. x. 3.

1

Acts xvii. 27, 28.

2

Rom. xi. 36.

3

Ps. lxxiii. 23.

4

Ps. ix.17.

5

Ps. xxii. 27.

6

[Augustin here understands“Sheol,” to denote the place ofretribution for the wicked.—W. G. T.S.]

7

Ps. xciv. 8, 9.

8

Deut. vi. 5.

9

Ps. xi. 5.

1

Virg. Georg. iii.513-514.

2

Ps. lix. 9.

3

Ps. xxxiv.5.

4

Ps. xxxviii. 10.

5

C. 4.

6

Ps. xxxix. 6.

7

Luke xii. 20.

1

1 Cor. vi. 17.

2

Ps. ciii. 5.

3

Ps. xxxi. 20.

4

1 Cor. iv. 7.

5

[In the case of knowledge that isremembered, there is something latent andpotential—as when past acquisitions are recalledby a voluntary act of recollection. The same is true ofinnate ideas—these also are latent, and broughtinto consciousness by reflection. But no man can eitherremember, or elicit, his original holiness and blessedness,because this is not latent and potential, but wholly lost bythe fall.—W. G. T. S.]

6

Acts xvii.28.

1

Rom. xii. 2.

2

Eph. iv. 23, 24.

3

Gen. i.27.

4

John iv. 24.

5

1 Cor. xiv. 14.

6

John xix. 30.

7

Eccles. iii. 21.

8

Gen. vii.22.

9

Ps. cxlviii. 8.

10

Col. ii.11.

11

Col. iii. 9,10.

1

Ps. ciii. 3.

2

[Justification is instantaneous:sanctification is gradual. Baptism is the sign, not thecause, of the former. “As many of us as werebaptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized with reference to(εἰς) hisdeath;” and “are intombed with him bythe baptism that has reference to(εἰς) hisdeath.” Rom. vi. 3, 4. According to St. Paul,baptism supposes a trust in the atonement of Christ, and isa seal of it. In saying that “the forgiveness ofall thine iniquity takes place in baptism,”Augustin is liable to be understood as teaching theefficiency of baptism in producing forgiveness. This is the weak side of the Post Nicenesoteriology.—W. G. T. S.]

3

2 Cor. iv. 16.

4

John xv.5.

5

1 Cor. xiii.12.

6

2 Cor. iii. 18.

7

1 John iii. 2.

8

John i. 14.

9

Rom. viii.29.

10

Col. i. 18.

1

1 Cor. xv. 43, 49.

2

Gen. i. 26.

3

John iii. 2.

4

1 Cor. xv. 52.

5

1 Cor. xiii.12.

6

Matt. xxv. 34.

7

Isa. xxvi.10.

8

Matt. xxv.46.

9

John xvii. 3.

1

Mens or animus.

2

Anima.

3

Ps. cv. 3, 4.

4

Isa. lv. 6, 7.

1

Ecclus. xxiv. 29.

2

Isa. vii. 9.

3

Ps. xiv. 2.

4

Rom. i.20.

5

Wisd. xiii. 1-5.

1

Ps. xc. 1.

2

1 Cor. i. 24.

3

1 John iv.16.

1

Col. iii. 10.

2

Gen. i. 27.

3

John iv. 24.

4

1 Tim. vi. 16.

5

Wisd. viii. 1.

1

[In the Infinite Being, qualities areinseparable from essence; in the finite being, they areseparable. If man or angel ceases to be good, or wise, orrighteous, he does not thereby cease to be man or angel. Butif God should lose goodness, wisdom or righteousness, hewould no longer be God. This is the meaning of Augustin,when he says that “goodness” as wellas “spirit” must be predicated of God,“according tosubstance”—that is, that qualites inGod are essential qualities. They areso one with the essence, that they areinseparable.—W. G. T. S.]

2

Wisd. vi. 1.

3

1 Cor. i. 24.

1

1 John iv.16.

2

Gen. i. 27.

1

Ps. cxxxix. 6.

2

Ps. xxxix. 3.

3

Ps. cv. 4.

4

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

5

2 Cor. iii. 18.

6

Speculantes.

7

Speculum.

8

Specula.

9

1 Cor. xi. 7.

1

1 John iii. 2.

2

Gal. iv. 24.

3

1 Thess. v. 6-8.

4

Prov. xxx. 15.

1

Wisd. ii.1.

2

Matt. ix. 2-4.

3

Luke v. 21, 22.

4

Luke xii. 17.

5

Matt. xv. 10-20.

1

John i. 1.

2

John xiii. 21-24.

3

Acts vi. 7.

1

Rom. x.17.

2

1 Thess. ii.13.

3

Ecclus. i. 5.

4

Matt. v. 37.

5

Ecclus. xxxvii. 20.

6

2 Cor. iii. 17.

7

1 John iii. 4.

8

1 Cor. xiii.12.

1

[Not the Old Academy of Plato and hisimmediate disciples, who were anti-skeptical; but the NewAcademy, to which Augustin has previously referred (XIV.xix. 26). This was skeptical.—W. G. T.S.]

2

Libri Tres contraAcademicos.

1

Matt. vi. 8.

2

Ecclus. xxiii. 20.

1

Matt. v.37.

2

John v. 19.

1

2 Cor. i. 19.

2

Æn. x. 159,160.

1

1 John iii.2.

2

1 John iv. 16.

3

Ps. lxxi. 5.

4

Ps. lxii. 5.

5

Ps. xci. 9.

6

Ps. lix. 17.

7

John iv.24.

1

Isa. xxviii. 11 and 1 Cor. xiv. 21.

2

John xv. 25.

3

Ps. xxxv.19.

4

Matt. xi. 13.

5

Matt. xxii. 40.

6

Luke xxiv.44.

7

1 Cor. i. 24.

1

John iv. 10.

2

1 John iv. 7-19.

3

Rom. v.5.

4

1 Cor. xiii.1-3.

5

Gal. v. 6.

6

Jas. ii. 19.

7

Acts viii. 20.

8

John vii. 37-39.

9

1 Cor. xii. 13.

1

John iv. 7-14.

2

Eph. iv. 7, 8.

3

Ps. lxviii. 18.

4

Acts ix. 4.

5

Matt. xxv. 40.

6

1 Cor. xii.11.

7

Distributionibus.

8

Heb. ii. 4.

9

1 Cor. xii. 29.

10

Eph. iv. 7-12.

11

Ps. cxxvi.1.

1

Acts ii. 37, 38.

2

Acts viii. 18-20.

3

Acts x. 44, 46.

4

Acts xi.15-17.

5

Col. ii. 11.

6

John iii. 6.

1

Col. i.13.

2

Prov. xix. 21.

3

Rom. i. 20.

1

1 Cor. xiii.12.

1

[The reader will observe thatAugustin has employed the term“memory” in a wider sense than in themodern ordinary use. With him, it is the mind as includingall that is potential or latent in it. The innate ideas, inthis use, are laid up in the “memory,”and called into consciousness or“remembered” by reflection. The ideaof God, for example, is not in the“memory” when not elicited byreflection. The same is true of the ideas of space and time,etc.—W. G. T.S.]

1

Cor. xiii. 12.

2

1 Tim. i.5.

3

Wisd. ix. 15.

4

John i. 29.

5

1 Tim. ii.5.

6

Acts iv. 12.

7

C. 3.

1

Gal. iv.6.

2

Matt. x. 20.

3

John xv. 26.

4

John xiv.26.

5

John xx. 23.

6

Luke vi.19.

7

John xx.22.

8

Acts ii.4.

9

Rom. v. 5.

10

Matt. xxii. 37-40.

11

Acts viii. 18, 19.

12

John i.14.

13

Luke ii. 52 and iv. 1.

14

Acts x. 38.

15

Matt. iii.16.

16

John i. 14.

17

Luke iii. 21-23.

18

Luke i. 15.

19

Acts ii.33.

1

John v. 26.

2

[Says Turrettin, III. xxix. 21.“The Father does not generate the Son either aspreviously existing, for in this case there would be no needof generation; nor yet as not yet existing, for in this casethe Son would not be eternal; but as co-existing, because he is from eternity in theGod-head.”—W. G. T.S.]

3

[The term“unbegotten” is not found inScripture, but it is implied in the terms“begotten” and“only-begotten,” which are found. Theterm “unity” is not applied to God inScripture, but it is implied in the term“one” which is soapplied.—W. G. T. S.]

4

[The spiration and procession ofthe Holy Spirit is not by two separate acts, one of theFather, and one of the Son—as perhaps might beinferred from Augustin’s remark that“the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Fatherprincipally.” As Turrettin says: “TheFather and Son spirate the Spirit, not as two differentessences in each of which resides a spirative energy, but astwo personal subsistences of one essence, who concur in oneact of spiration.” Institutio III. xxxi. 6.—W. G. T.S.]

5

John xv. 26.

1

John vii. 16.

2

[Generation and procession are each anemanation of the essence by which it is modified. Neither ofthem is a creation ex nihilo. Theschool-men attempted to explain the difference between thetwo emanations, by saying that the generation of the Son isby the mode of the intellect—hence the Son iscalled Wisdom, or Word (Logos); but the procession of theSpirit is by the mode of the will—hence theSpirit is called Love. Turrettin distinguishes thedifference by the following particulars: 1. In respect tothe source. Generation is from the Father alone; processionis from Father and Son. 2. In respect to effects. Generationyields not only personality, but resemblance. The Son is the“image” of the Father; but the Spiritis not the image of the Father and Son. Generation isaccompanied 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 ofnature, not of time (for both generation and procession areeternal, therefore simultaneous), procession is aftergeneration. Institutio III. xxxi.3.—W. G. T. S.]

3

Serm. in Joh. Evang. tract. 99, n. 8,9.

4

John i. 5.

1

Ps. cxxxix. 5.

2

Ps. ciii. 3.

3

Luke x. 30, 34.

4

Ps. xvii. 2.

5

Gal. iv. 5 and John iii. 17.

6

John xiv.26.

7

John xv. 26.

8

Ps. cv. 4.

1

Prov. x. 19.

2

2 Tim. iv. 2.

3

Ps. xciv. 11.

4

Ecclus. xliii. 29.

5

1 Cor. xv. 28.

1

“ Scripsi etiam librum ‘ de Fide, Spe et Charitate ’ cum a me ad quem scriptus est postulasset utaliquod opusculum haberet meum de suis manibus nunquamrecessurum, quod genus Græci ENCHIRIDION vocant. Ubi satis diligenter mihi videor essecomplexus quomodo sit colendus Deus quam sapientiam essehominis utique veram Divina Scriptura definit. Hic liber sicincipit, ‘ Dici non potest,dilectissime fili Laurenti, quantum tuâcruditione delecter. ’”

1

1 Cor. i. 20.

2

Wisd. vi. 24. [Greek text, ver. 25:πλη̑δοςσοϕω̑νσωτηρίακόσμου.—P.S.]

3

Rom. xvi. 19.

4

Ecclus. i.1.

5

Job xxviii.28.

1

Gal. v. 6.

2

1 Cor. iii.11.

1

Joel. ii. 32.

2

Rom. x. 14.

3

Lucan, Phars. ii. 15.

4

Virgil, Æneid, iv.419.

5

Heb. xi. 1.

6

Rom. viii. 24,25.

7

Jas. ii. 19.

8

Gal. v. 6.

1

Isa. v. 20.

2

Luke vi. 45.

3

Matt. vii. 18.

4

Matt. vii. 16.

1

Matt. xii. 33.

2

Virgil, Georgics, ii.490.

3

Ibid.

4

Virgil, Eclog. viii.41.

1

Isa. v. 20.

1

Acts xii. 9.

2

Virgil, Æn. x.392.

3

Rom. i. 17.

1

Gal. v. 6.

2

Acts xii.9-11.

3

Gen. xxxvii.33.

4

Matt. v. 37.

5

Matt. vi.12.

1

Gen. ii. 17.

2

Rom. v. 12.

1

Luke xx. 36.

2

Rom. iv. 17.

3

Wisd. xi.20.

4

2 Pet. ii. 19.

5

John viii. 36.

6

Eph. ii. 8.

7

1 Cor. vii. 25.

1

Eph. ii. 8, 9.

2

Eph. ii. 10.

3

Ps. li. 10.

4

Phil. ii. 13.

5

Rom. ix. 16.

6

Prov. xvi. 1.

7

Ps. lix. 10.

8

Ps. xxiii. 6.

9

Matt. v. 44.

10

Matt. vii. 7.

11

Ps. xc. 9.

12

Job. xiv. 1.

13

John iii. 36. These words, attributed by the authorto Christ, were really spoken by John the Baptist.

14

Eph. ii. 3.

1

Rom. v. 10.

2

Rom. viii. 14.

3

John i. 14.

4

Rom. iii. 20.

5

Ep. 137.

6

John i. 1.

7

Phil. ii. 6.

1

Luke i. 28 (“Thou that are highly favored, ” A. V.).

2

Luke i. 30 (“Thou hast found favor with God,” A.V.).

3

John i. 14.

4

Luke i. 35.

5

Matt. i. 20.

6

A quotation from a form of the Apostles’Creed anciently in use in the Latin Church.

7

John i. 3.

8

Rom. i. 3.

1

Hos. iv. 8.

2

2 Cor. v. 20,21.

1

“Uterumque armato militecomplent.”.— VIRGIL, Æn. ii. 20.

2

Num. xxi. 7 (“serpents,” A. andR. V.).

3

Matt. ii. 20.

4

Ex. xxxii. 31.

5

Ex. xxxii.4.

6

Rom. v. 12.

7

Ex. xx. 5; Deut. v. 9.

8

Ezek. xviii. 2.

1

Ps. li. 5 (The A. V. has the singular,“iniquity” and“sin”).

2

Matt. iii.13-15.

3

Matt. iii. 3.

4

Matt. iii. 11.

5

Ps. ii. 7; Heb. i. 5, v. 5. It is by a mistake thatAugustin quotes these words as pronounced at ourLord’s baptism.

1

Rom. v. 16.

2

Rom. v. 18.

3

Rom. vi. 1.

4

Rom. v. 20.

5

Rom. vi. 1-11.

1

Gal. v. 24.

2

Rom. vi. 4.

3

Rom. vi. 5.

4

Col. iii. 1-3.

5

Col. iii. 4.

6

John v. 29 ( damnation, A.V.)

7

Ps. liv. 1.

8

Ps. xliii. 1 (“Plead my cause against anungodly nation,” A. V.)

9

Gal. iv. 26.

1

1 Cor. vi. 19.

2

1 Cor. vi. 15.

3

1 Cor. iii. 16.

4

1 Cor. iii. 16.

5

Col. i. 18.

6

John ii. 19.

7

2 Pet. ii.4.

8

Heb. i. 13.

9

Ps. cxlviii. 2,[“host,” R.V.]

10

Col. i. 16.

11

Zech. i. 9 (“The angel that talked with me,” A. V.)

12

Matt. i. 20.

13

Gen. xviii. 4, xix. 2.

14

Gen. xxxii. 24,25.

1

2 Cor. xi. 14.

2

Rom. viii. 31.

3

Eph. i. 10.

4

Col. i. 19, 20. [R. V. “summedup.”]

5

Phil. iv. 7.

6

1 Cor. xiii.12.

7

Luke xx. 36.

1

Rom. viii. 14.

2

Wisd. ix. 15.

3

1 John i. 8.

4

Ps. li. 17.

5

Ps. xxxviii.9.

6

Ecclus. xl. 1.

1

1 Cor. xi. 31,32.

2

Gal. v. 6.

3

Jas. ii. 17. [See R.V.]

4

Jas. ii. 14.

5

1 Cor. iii. 15.

6

1 Cor. vi. 9,10.

7

1 Cor. iii. 11-15.[The “fire” in ver. 15 is notthe purgatorial fire in the state between death andresurrection, but, as in ver. 14, the fire of the day ofjudgment.—P. S.]

8

1 Cor. iii.13-15.

9

Ecclus. xxvii. 5, ii. 5.

10

1 Cor. vii. 32.

11

1 Cor. vii. 33.[See R.V.]

1

1 Cor. vi. 10.

2

Matt. xxv. 31-46.

3

Ecclus. xv.20.

4

Matt. vi. 9.

5

John iii. 5.

6

Matt. vi. 12.

7

Luke xi. 41.

1

Rom. xii. 17; Matt. v.44.

2

Matt. v. 44.

3

John xiv. 6.

4

Matt. vi. 14, 15.

5

Luke xi. 41.

6

Luke xi. 37-41. [See R.V.]

7

Acts xv. 9.

8

Tit. i. 15.

1

Ecclus. xxx. 24.

2

Rom. v. 16.

3

Rom. v. 8.

4

Luke x. 27.

5

Luke xi. 42.

6

Matt. xxiii.26.

7

Ps. xi. 5 (“Him that loveth violence, His(God’s) soul hateth,” A. V.).

8

Ps. lix. 10.

1

1 Cor. vii. 5.

2

1 Cor. vii. 6.[“Concession,” R.V.]

3

1 Cor. vi. 1.

4

1 Cor. vi. 4-6.

5

1 Cor. vi. 7.

6

Matt. v. 40.

7

Luke vi. 30.

8

Jas. iii. 2. [See R.V.]

9

Matt. v. 22,23.

10

Gal. iv. 10, 11.

11

Ps. x. 3.

1

Isa. v. 7.

2

Gen. xviii. 20.

3

Ps. xxvii. 1.

4

2 Tim. ii. 25.

5

Luke xxii. 61.

6

Matt. xii. 32.

1

Jerome, in his Epistle to Vitalis: “Or becausein our times a man was born at Lydda with two heads, four hands,one belly, and two feet, does it necessarily follow that all menare so born?”

1

1 Cor. xv. 44.[See R. V.]

2

Wisd. ix. 15; Gal. v. 17.

3

1 Cor. xv. 50.

4

Luke xxiv. 39.

5

1 Cor. xv. 44.

1

Rev. ii.2.

2

Ps. ci. 1.

3

Matt. xi. 21.

4

Ps. cxv. 3.

5

1 Tim. ii. 4. [See R.V.]

1

Matt. xxiii.37.

2

Rom. ix. 18.

3

Rom. ix. 12.

4

Rom. ix. 13; Mal. i. 2, 3.

5

Rom. ix. 14.

6

Rom. ix. 15; Ex. xxxiii. 19.

7

Rom. ix. 16. [See R.V.]

8

Comp. 1 Cor. i.31.

1

Rom. ix. 17; Ex. ix.16.

2

Rom. ix. 18.

3

Rom. ix. 19.

4

Rom. ix. 20, 21.

5

Rom. iii. 19; 1 Cor. i. 31.

6

Ps. cxi. 2 (LXX.):“The works of the Lord are great, sought out of allthem that have pleasure therein.” (A. V.)

1

Matt. xvi.21-23.

2

Acts xxi.10-12.

3

1 Tim. ii. 4.

4

John i. 9.

5

1 Tim. ii. 1-4.

1

Luke xi. 42.[“All manner of herbs.” A.V.]

2

Ps. cxv. 3. [“Our God is in theheavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased.” A.V.]

3

Prov. xvi. 1.[“The preparation of the heart in man . .. is from the Lord.” A. V.]

1

Rom. vi. 23.

2

Comp. Rom. xi. 6.

3

Rom. ix. 21.

4

2 Cor. v. 10; comp. Rom. xiv. 10.

1

Ps. lxxvii. 9.

2

Rom. ix. 23.

3

Matt. xxv. 46.

4

John iii. 36.

5

Ps. lxxviii.

6

Ps. xxxi. 19.

1

Jer. xvii. 5.

2

Matt. vi. 9, 10.

3

Matt. vi.11-13.

4

[Thesepetitions are retained in the A. V., but omitted in the R. V.,according to the oldest authorities.—P.S.]

5

1 Cor. xiii.13.

1

Gal. v. 6.

2

Matt. vii. 7.

3

Rom. v. 5.

4

2 Pet. ii. 19.

5

Rom. v. 20.

6

Comp. Wisd. xi. 20.

7

John iii. 8.

8

Rom. xiv. 9.

9

1 Tim. i. 5.

1

Matt. xxii. 40; comp. Rom. v. 5.

2

1 Tim. i. 5; 1 John iv.16.

3

Comp. Matt. v. 27 andRom. xiii. 9.

4

1 Cor. vii. 1.

5

1 Cor. iv. 5.

6

John xv. 13.

1

[The Oxford Libraryand H. de Romestin translate the title: On Instructingthe Unlearned. —P. S.]

2

Reading et doctrina fidei etsuavitate sermonis, instead of which, however, et doctrinam . . . suavitatem, etc. alsooccurs, = possessing at once a rich gift incatechising, and an intimate acquaintance with the faith, and anattractive method of discourse, [or, sweetness oflanguage].

3

Reading retineri as in the MSS. Someeditions give retinere = knowhow to maintain the Christian life and profession.

4

PecuniamDominicam.

1

Verbissonantibus, —sounding words.

2

Perdurantilla cum syllabarum morulis.

3

Sonantiasigna, —vocal signs.

4

I am angry.

5

1 Cor. xiii.12.

1

Sinevolumine cæli.

2

1 Cor. ii. 9.

3

2 Cor. ix. 7.

4

Gen. i. 1.

5

In the MSS. we also find the reading Ezræ = Ezra.

6

In ipsis articulis = “among the very articles,” or“connecting links.” Reference is made tocertain great epochs or articles of time in sections 6 and39.

7

1 Tim. i. 5.

8

Reading movendus, for which monendus = to be admonished,also occurs in the editions.

1

Gen. xxv. 26.

2

1 Tim. ii. 5.

3

Rom. ix. 5.

4

Reading supplantavit. Some MSS. give supplantaret = wherewith also Hemight supplant, etc.

5

Temperumarticules.

6

Rom. x. 3.

7

Ps. xx. 8.

8

Col. i. 18.

9

Rom. xv. 4.

10

1 Cor. x.11.

11

Rom. v. 8, 10.

12

1 Tim. i. 5.

13

Rom. xiii. 10.

14

1 John iii.16.

15

1 John iv. 10, 19.

16

Rom. viii.32.

1

Reading quanto plus, for which some MSS. give plurius, while in a large number wefind purius = with how muchgreater purity should it hold good, etc.

2

Reading studioso . . . obsequio, for which studiose, etc., also occurs inthe editions = are earnestly gratified with theattention, etc.

3

Æstuat = burn, heave.

4

Ex miseria . . . exmisericordia.

5

Matt. xxii.40.

6

Reading conscripta, for which some MSS. have consecuta = have followed,and many give consecrata, dedicated.

1

De ipsa etiam severitate Dei . .. caritas ædificanda est.

2

Non fieri vult potius quamfingere.

3

Or = “signifying assent by itsmotions,” adopting the reading of the best MSS., viz. salutantiscorporis. Some editions give salvandi, while certain MSS. have salutis, and others saltantis.

4

Reading quando veniat animo, forwhich quo veniat animo alsooccurs=the mind in which a man comes . . . is amatter hidden from us.

1

Prærogatasit.

2

Gen. i. 31.

3

Reading ad voluptatem. But many MSS. give advoluntatem = according to the inclination,etc.

4

Avidam saginæsæcularis.

5

Reading veritas adhibitæ rationis, for which wealso find adhibita rationis =the applied truth, etc.; and adhibitarationi = the truth applied to ourexplanation.

6

Non tamenornamenti seriem ulla immoderationeperturbans.

7

Medicina.

1

Reading odiose, for whichseveral MSS. give otiose = idly.

2

Utiliumtractatorum.

3

Reading exponentium. Variouscodices give ad exponendum = inexpounding.

1

Reading quod, with Marriott. Butif we accept quod with the Benedictineeditors, the sense will = and in ignorance it may bethat the true faith condemns them, has retained them in hismind.

2

Aliorumque doctissimorum hominum et disputationibus etscriptionibus in ejus veritate florentium. It may alsobe = bringing before him the authority of the Churchuniversal, as well as both the disputations and the writings ofother most learned men well reputed in (the cause of) itstruth.

3

Idiota.

4

1 Cor. xii. 31. See also above, §9.

1

Carnalibus integumentis involutaatque operta.

2

Or = confusingthe sense by false pauses: perturbatequedistinguere.

3

Ut sonoin foro, sic voto in ecclesia benedici.

4

Bona dictio, nunquam tamenbenedictio.

1

The sentence,“either in that he is actually not stirred . . . bywhat is said,” is omitted in many MSS.

2

2 Cor. ix.7.

3

1 Pet. ii. 21.

4

Phil. ii. 17. The form in which the quotation isgiven above, with the omission of the intermediate clauses, isdue probably to the copyist, and not to Augustin himself. Thewords left out are given thus in the Serm. XLVII. on Ezekiel xxxiv.: “Being made inthe likeness of men, and being found in the fashion of a man: Hehumbled Himself, being made obedient unto death, even the deathof the cross.” [See R.V.]

5

Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 22.

6

2 Cor. v. 13,14.

7

Cf. 2 Cor. xii.15.

1

Cf. 1. Thess. ii. 7.

2

Illiusgallinæ, —in reference to Matt.xxiii. 37.

3

Cf. Rom. i. 30.

4

Rom. ii. 4. [See R.V.]

5

Rom. ii. 5.

6

John vi. 67.

1

2 Tim. ii. 19.

2

Acaritate jaculatur.

3

Concurrant in bonum. Rom.viii. 28.

4

Some editions read arcem = stronghold, instead of artem.

5

Or = wherein: ubi.

6

Instead of eam, the reading ea = those things, alsooccurs.

1

Or = by thereverence which he feels for the man: humanaverecundia.

2

The text gives simply Catholicæ. One MS. has Catholicæ fidei =the Catholic faith. But it is most natural to supply Ecclesiæ.

1

Instead of viros fratres, some MSS. read veros fratres = our genuinebrethren.

2

Luke x. 39.

3

Initiandi = initiated.

4

Prov. xix. 21.

1

Matt. xxiii.15.

2

Ps. li. 17.

3

Ecclus. iii. 30.

4

Hos. vi. 6.

5

Fæno =hay.

6

Reading istud edentis; for which some editions give studentis = of one who studiesit.

7

Matt. xxv. 26, 27.

8

Rom. v. 5.

1

Ps. lxxix. 11.

2

Cf. Ps. xxv.18.

3

Ut aliquam observationem sermonistui a nobis audire quæreres.

4

Idiotarum.

1

Isa. xl. 6, 8; 1 Pet. i. 24, 25.

2

Reading sive sintæ qui appellantur, for which thereoccur such varieties of reading as these: sintathletæ qui appellantur = thosewho are called athletes; or sint æquiappellantur: or simply sint quiappellantur = whatever name they bear,whether actors, etc. The term sintæ, borrowed from the GreekΣίνται= devourers, spoilers, may havebeen a word in common use among the Africans, as the Benedictineeditors suggest, for designating some sort of coarsecharacters.

3

Thymelici, strictly = the musiciansbelonging to the thymele, ororchestra.

4

Reading incitatis favent, forwhich some MSS. give incitati = excited themselves, they favorthem; and others have incitantes = exciting them, they favor them.

5

Compare a passage in the Confessions, vi. 13.

1

Cf. Matt. xxv. 34, 41.

2

1 Cor. ii.9.

3

Gen. ii. 1-3.

4

Ps. cxlviii. 5.

1

Humanitate, =humanity, also occurs instead of humilitate.

1

Rather“spirits.” See the correction made in the Retractations, ii. 14, as given abovein the Introductory Notice.

2

The beatitatem is omitted by several MSS.

3

Gen. vi. 7.

4

Jonah iii.

1

Instead of pascunt the reading miscent, = mix, is alsofound.

2

Gen. xxv. 26, xxxviii.27-30.

1

Isa. liii. 7.

2

Or = circumscribed, definitus.

3

Cf. Gal. iv.26.

4

Hominem.

5

1 Kings xi. 13.

6

Rom. ix. 5.

7

Or =community, civitas.

1

See Chapter xix.

2

Jer. xxv. 18, xxix. 1.

3

Dan. ii. 47, iii. 29, vi.26; 1 Esdr. ii. 7; Bel, 41.

4

Jer. xxix.4-7.

5

Jer. xxv. 12.

6

Rom. xiii. 1, 7.

7

Matt. xvii.27.

8

Procapite hominis, literally = on account ofthat head of man, etc.

9

Eph. vi. 5.

10

Instead of orationes; the better authenticated readingis adorationes.

11

1 Tim. ii. 1, 2.

12

1 Cor. iii. 9; cf. Jer.xxv. 12, xxix. 10.

1

Gen. vi. 22.

2

Instead of dictus est the MSS. give also electusest = was chosen to be.

3

Gen. xvii. 4.

4

articuli =articles.

5

Matt. i. 17.

6

Gratis.

7

Gen. i. 27.

8

Reading ab eo; for which someeditions give ab ea = from thathumility.

1

There is a play in thewords here: crucifixus est qui cruciatus nostrosfinivit.

2

Cf. Rom. v. 5.

3

Matt. xxii. 37-40.

4

In imagine.

5

Ex.xii.

6

Ex. xxxiv. 28.

7

Luke xi. 20.

8

Acts ii.

9

The reference evidentlyis to Acts v. 15, where, however, it is only thepeople’s intention that is noticed, and that only inthe instance of the sick, and not of any individual actuallydead.

10

Acts ii. 44, iv.34.

1

Adopting the Benedictine version, quieos mansuetus passus fuerat, and taking it as aparallel to Acts xiii. 18, Heb. xii. 3. There is, however, greatvariety of reading here. Thus we find qui anteeos, etc. = who had suffered in meeknessbefore them: qui pro eis, etc. =who had suffered in their stead: qui proptereos, etc. = who had suffered on theiraccount: and qui per eos, etc. =who had suffered through them, etc. But the reading in the textappears best authenticated.

2

Ps. cxviii. 22; Isa.xxviii. 16.

3

Matt. x. 16.

4

John xv. 2.

1

Sed ex teipso crede. It may also = but, on your side,do you believe.

2

Certisque ætatumincrementis, etc.

3

Reading sicut non erat; forwhich, however, cum non erat also occurs= seeing He was able to make it when it wasnot.

4

Corruptibilem corporis conditionem. But corruptibilis also occurs = thecondition of a corruptible body.

5

Satietas. Some editions,however, give societas = thesociety.

6

Luke xx. 36.

7

2 Cor. v. 7.

1

Adplacendum Deo miserati animas suas, etc. Instead of miserati the reading miseranti also occurs = to the doing of thegood pleasure of the God who takes pity on their souls. TheBenedictine editors suggest that the whole clause is inreference to Ecclesiasticus xxx. 24, (23), which in the Latinruns thus: miserere animætuæ placens Deo.

2

Rom. ii. 5.

3

Cf. Rom. ii.4.

4

Mathematicis.

5

Matt. vii. 21, 22.

6

Or = its ( i.e. the law’s)truth.

7

Adopting nam si in spectaculis cum illis esse cupiebas et eisinhærere. Another, but less weightilysupported reading, is, nam si in spectaculis etvanitatibus insanorum certaminum illis cupiebasinhærere = for if in the publicspectacles and vanities of mad struggles you wish to attachyourself closely to men, etc.

1

Bona via. Another and wellauthenticated rendering is, bona vita = the good life.

2

It has been supposed bythe Benedictine editors that sane may be amisreading for salis. Whether that be or benot the case, the sacramentum intended hereappears to be the sacramentum salis, inreference to which Neander ( Church History, iii. p. 458, Bohn’s Translation) states that“in the North African Church the bishop gave to thosewhom he received as competentes, whilesigning the cross over them as a symbol of consecration, aportion of salt over which a blessing had been pronounced. Thiswas to signify the divine word imparted to the candidates as thetrue salt for human nature.” There is an allusion tothe same in the Confessions (i. 11), whereAugustin says, “Even from my mother’s wombwho greatly hoped in thee, I was signed with the sign of Hiscross, and seasoned with His salt.”

3

Speciem = kind, in reference to the outwardand sensible sign of the salt.

4

Adopting condiat, which unquestionably is the reading mostaccordant with the figure of the sacramental salt here dealtwith. Some editions give condatur = what is hidden in it, i.e. inthe said form of words.

5

Rom. ii. 4.

6

Curiositas.

7

Hominem.

1

Luke xx. 36.

1

Remediorum aut divinationumdiabolicarum. Some editions insert sacrilegorum after remediorum = sacrilegious charms or divinations ofdevils.

2

Gratis.

3

Cf. Zech. ix.17.

4

Many MSS. omit the words: and holiness, and righteousness,and charity.

5

Matt. xxii. 37, 39.

6

One edition reads Dominum, the Lord, the Holy Spirit, etc.,instead of donum.

7

1 Cor. x. 13.

1

i.e. the third order ofcatechumens, embracing those thoroughly prepared forbaptism.

2

Chap. x. §24.

3

1 Cor. xv. 50.

1

Luke xxiv. 39.

2

City ofGod, Bk. xxii. Ch. 21.

1

Hab. ii. 4; Rom. i. 17;Gal. iii. 11; Heb. x. 38.

2

Rom. x. 10.

3

Isa. vii. 9, according to the rendering of theSeptuagint.

1

Naturam.

2

Reading pulchre ordinatum. Some editions give pulchre ornatum = beautifullyadorned.

3

Si mundumfabricare non posset. For si some MSS. give qui = inasmuch as He could not, etc.

4

Delimo =of mud.

5

Wisd. xi. 17.

6

Speciosissima species = the seemliest semblance.

7

John i. 3.

8

John xiv. 6; 1 Cor. 1.24.

9

For qui several MSS. give quibus here= under many other appellations is the Lord JesusChrist introduced to our mental apprehensions, by which He iscommended to our faith.

10

For Rector we also find Creator = Creator.

1

Wisd. vii. 27.

2

Adopting the Benedictine version, peripsam innotescit dignis animis secretissimus Pater. There is, however, great variety of reading here. Some MSS. give ignis for dignis = the most hidden fire ofthe Father is made known to minds. Others give signis = the most hidden Father is madeknown by signs to minds. Others have innotescitanimus secretissimus Patris, or innotescit signis secretissimus Pater = themost hidden mind of the Father is made known by the same, or= the most hidden Father is made known by the same insigns.

3

Sonantiaverba = sounding, vocal words.

4

Appetitum.

5

Nostranotitia = our knowledge.

6

Reading conantes et verbis, etc. Three good MSS. give conante fetu verbi = as the offspring of the word makes the attempt. TheBenedictine editors suggest conantes fetuverbi = making the attempt by the offspringof the word.

7

1 Cor. i. 24.

8

Wisd. viii. 1.

9

John i. 3.

10

According to the literal meaning of the phrase ex tempore. It may, however, here be usedas = under conditions of time, or in time.

11

Reading sempiterne; for which sempiternus = the eternalwise God, is also given.

12

Phil. ii. 6.

1

Condita et factaest.

2

Condere and creare.

3

John i. 14.

4

Adopting in hominibus creavi. One important MS. gives in omnibus = amongst all.

5

Prov. viii. 22, with creavit me instead of the possessed me of the Englishversion.

6

Various editions give principium etcaput Ecclesiæ est Christus =thebeginning of His ways and the Head of the Church isChrist.

7

For via certa others give via recta = a rightway.

8

Gen. iii. 5.

9

Phil. ii. 6, 7.

10

Per ejus primatum = by means of His standing as the First-born. Wefollow the Benedictine reading, qui post ejus etper ejus primatum in Dei gratiam renascuntur. But thereis another, although less authoritative, version, viz. qui post ejus primitias in Dei gratianascimur = all of us who, subsequently toHis first-fruits, are born in the grace of God.

11

Luke viii. 21; Rom. viii. 15-17; Gal. iv. 5; Eph. i.5; Heb. ii. 11.

12

Idexistens quod Pater est, etc. Another version is, idem existens quod Pater Deus =subsisting as the same that God the Father is.

13

John i. 9.

14

The term dispensatio occurs very frequently as the equivalentof the Greekοἰκονομία= economy, designating the Incarnation.

15

Ex. iii. 14.

1

Deserens. With less point, deferens has been suggested = bearing it,or delivering it.

2

Or it may = he should fail to have any relation tothe salvation.

3

Referring to theManicheans.

4

John ii. 4.

5

John xix. 26,27.

6

Matt. xii. 48.

7

Matt. xxiii. 9.

8

1 Cor. i. 25.

9

Tit. i. 15.

10

In reference to the Manicheans.

1

The Benedictine text gives, quibusintervenientibus habitat majestas Verbi ab humani corporisfragilitate secretius. Another well-supported versionis, ad humani corporis fragilitatem, etc.= more retired in relation to the frailty of thehuman body.

2

Phil. ii. 8.

3

For monumenti some editions give testamenti =testament.

4

John xix. 41.

5

Eph. i. 5.

6

Rom. viii. 17.

7

Matt. xxii. 30.

8

Gal. iv. 26.

9

1 Cor. xv. 44.

10

Adopting the Benedictine reading, quod ita spiritui subditum est. But several MSS. give quia ita coaptandumest =it is understood to be a spiritual body,in that it is to be so adapted as to suit a heavenlyhabitation.

11

1 Cor. xv. 51, accordingto the Vulgate’s transposition of thenegative.

12

1 Cor. xv. 52.

1

Rom. i. 23.

2

Matt. xxv. 33.

3

Reading propter iniquitates, laboresatque cruciatus. Several MSS. give propter iniquitatis labores, etc.= by reason of the labors and torments ofunrighteousness.

4

Reading futura sit: for which fulsura sit also occurs = is destined to shine much moremanifestly, etc.

5

The text gives simply ante mortem. Some editions insert nostram = previous to ourdeath.

6

Acts i. 11.

7

Rev. i. 8.

8

Instead of fideique commendata etdivina generatione, etc., another, but weaklysupported, version is, fide atque commendatadivina, etc., which makes the sense = Thefaith, therefore, having been systematically disposed, and ourLord’s divine generation and human dispensationhaving been commended to the understanding, etc.

9

Nonminore natura quam Pater. The Benedictine editorssuggest minor for minore = not inferior in nature,etc.

10

Deut. vi. 4.

11

Ps. lxxxii. 6.

12

Rom. xi. 36.

1

Corporeum =corporeal.

2

Many MSS., however, insert colamus after Deum inthe closing sentence, sed unum Deum unamquesubstantiam. The sense then will be = andthat nevertheless we should worship in that Trinity not threeGods, but one God and one substance.

3

Spiritales, for which religiosi = religious, is alsosometimes given.

4

Non unus esset Pater et Filius,sed unum essent = how the Father and the Sonwere not one in person, but were one in essence.

5

1 Cor. xi. 3.

6

In reference probably to John viii. 25, where theVulgate gives principium qui et loquorvobis as the literal equivalent for the Greekτὴνἀρχὴνὅ, τικαὶλαλῶὑηῖν.

7

Col. i. 15.

1

John xiv. 28.

2

1 Cor. xi. 3.

3

1 Cor. xv. 28.

4

John xx. 17.

5

John x. 30.

6

John xiv. 9.

7

John i. 1.

8

John i. 3.

9

Phil. ii. 9. [See R.V.]

10

Or it may be = that the Son owes it to theFather that He is.

11

In reference, again, to Manicheanerrorists.

12

Patri cohærendo = by close connection with theFather.

13

Rom. v. 5.

1

1 John iii. 1. The word Dei =of God, is sometimes added here.

2

Rom. viii. 15.

3

1 John iv. 18.

4

Rom. viii. 15.

5

John xvi. 13.

6

Acts ii. 4.

7

Eph. iii. 7,8.

8

Instead of sanciuntur, which is the reading of the MSS., some editions give sanctificantur = all things that aresanctified are sanctioned, etc.

9

John iii. 6.

10

John iv. 24.

11

Reading, with the MSS. and the Benedictine editors, Hic enim regenerationem nostram dicit. Someeditions give Hoc for Hic, and dicunt for dicit = for they say that thisexpresses our regeneration.

12

Quoniam Spiritus Deus est. But various editions and MSS. give Dei for Deus = for the Spirit is of God.

13

1 John iv.16.

14

Here again, instead of dilectio Deusest, we also find dilectio Dei est = love is of God.

15

1 Cor. iii. 22, 23.

16

1 Cor. xi. 3.

17

Rom. xi. 36.

1

1 Cor. xiii. 12.

2

Matt. v. 8.

3

Deut. vi. 5.

4

Luke x. 27.

5

Matt. vi. 15.

6

Rom. viii. 22.

7

Reading spiritûs. Taking spiritus, the sense might be= Nevertheless, the spirit hath imparted thefirst-fruits, in that it has believed God, and is now of a goodwill.

8

Rom. vii. 25.

9

Rom. i. 9.

10

Instead of caro nominatur. Pars enimejus quædam resistit, etc., some good MASS. read caro nominatur etresistit, etc. = is called the flesh, andresists, etc.

11

Eph. ii. 3.

12

Animalishomo, literally=the soulish man.

13

1 Cor. ii. 14.

1

1 Cor. xv. 52.

2

1 Cor. xv. 53.

3

The text gives, Mors quippeanimæ est apostatare a Deo. The reference,perhaps, is to Ecclus. x. 12, where the Vulgate has, initium superbiœ hominis, apostatarea Deo.

4

Augustin refers to thisstatement in the passage quoted from the Retractations in the Introductory Noticeabove.

5

1 Cor. xv. 39, 40.

6

1 Cor. xv. 50.

7

1 Cor. xv. 52.

1

Instead of a temporis conditione liberati,æterna vita ineffabili caritate atque stabilitatesine corruptione per fruemur, several MSS. read, corpus a temporisconditione liberatum æterna vita ineffabilicaritate per fruetur = the body, set freefrom the condition of time, shall fully enjoy eternal life inineffable love.

2

1 Cor. xv. 54, 55.

1

Mereamur.

1

Affectione.

2

The text seems corrupt. A MS. in Brasenose Library reads, “ si non vis rebus credere. ” If weread “ Si non vis rebus non visiscredere, ” the sense will be, “Forcertainly if you will not have us believe things unseen, we oughtnot (to believe this), since” etc.

3

Dilectio.

4

Ingeniosa.

1

“ Religio, ”(toward parents).

2

Gen. xxii. 18.

3

Is. vii. 14; Matt. i. 23.

4

MSS. “ si ”—“if.”

5

Semper.

6

Ps. xlv. 6-17.

1

Matt. vi. 9; 2 Cor. iv. 16.

2

Ben. conj. “ fulgente, ” for “ fulgentes. ”

3

Song of Sol. i. 3.

4

The Prophecy might be called an“effect” as well as its fulfillment; or read“ verbis, ” for“ vobis, ”“clear by words going before and effects followingafter.” For further illustration see St. Aug. on Ps.45.

5

Is. vii. 14.

6

Gen. xxii. 18.

7

Ps. xlvi. 8.

1

Ps. ii. 7, 8; Heb. i. 5; v. 5; Acts. xiii. 33.

2

Ps. xxii. 16, 17, 18; Johnxix. 23, 24.

3

Ps. xxii. 27, 28.

4

Ps. xli. 6-8.

5

Ps. xli. 9, 10.

6

Ps. iv. 8.

7

Jer. xvi. 19.

8

Jer. xvi. 19, 20.

9

Zeph. ii. 11.

10

Ps. cviii. 5.

1

Codices.

2

Luke xxiii. 34.

3

Ps. lxix. 21-23.

4

Ps. lix. 11.

5

Idiotas.

6

Lit. “when.”

1

Ps. xix. 3, 4.

2

Proxima.

3

Song of Sol. ii. 2.

4

Matt. xiii. 9.

5

Matt. xiii. 47-50.

6

Some MSS. “that they c. may find not punishment, butlife.”

1

Plagas.

1

Si.

2

Confess. b. i. c. 11; b. v.c. 14.

3

Cicero.

1

Quatenus.

2

Vagientium.

3

Famigerula.

4

Præsumo.

5

Matt. xii. 3, 4.

6

Mat. xix. 8.

1

Tergiversatio.

2

Humanior.

3

Cormediocre.

4

Ea.

5

Acts ii. 2, 3, 4.

6

Matt. xii. 39, 40.

7

Figuræ nostra τὐποιἠμω̑νGr. in figura facta sunt nostri. Vulg.

1

τύποι.

2

1 Cor. x. 1-11. (See R.R.)

3

ἀλληγοροὐμεναGr.

4

Confinis.

5

Gal. iv. 22-26.

6

Ventilant.

7

Gal. v. 4.

8

Beneficium.

9

Gal. iii. 24. in Christo.

10

Adverbum.

11

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, andas far a I can see, or rather as is apparent from the plain state ofthe case, much more suitably, in the book entitled De Spiritu et Literâ, though this sense too isnot to be utterly rejected.” 2 Cor. iii. 6.

12

2 Cor. iii. 14. quoniam,ὅτι Gr. “ which veil,” Eng. T.

13

2 Cor. iii. 16.

14

Apex.

1

Virg. Æn. vi.566-569.

2

Humanus.

1

Jacentibus.

2

Subtilia.

1

Mediocricorde.

2

Eliquare.

1

Continenti.

2

Virg. Ecl. ii.

1

i. e. Faustus. v. Conf. b. v. c. vi. §10.

2

i. e. S. Ambrose. v. Conf. b. v. c. xiii. xiv.§ 23, 24, 25.

1

Studentem.

1

Visdivina.

2

Antistites.

1

cf. Retract. b. i. ch. xiv. 2.“I also said, ‘For there are twoc.’ In these words of mine if “thosewho have already found” whom we have said to be‘now in possession,’ are in such sortunderstood to be ‘most happy,’ as that theyare so not in this life, but in that we hope for, and aim at by thepath of faith, the meaning is free from error: for they are to bejudged 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 offaith, do seek to come. But if they are thought to be or to havebeen such in this life, that seems to me not to be true: not that inthis life no truth at all can be found that can be discerned by themind, not believed on faith; but because it is but so much, whatthere is of it, as not to make men ‘mostblessed.’ For neither is that which the Apostle says, We see now through a glass in a riddle and now I know in part (1 Cor. xiii. 12), incapableof being discerned by the mind. It is discerned, clearly, but doesnot yet make us most blessed. For that makes men most blessed whichhe saith, but then face to face, and, then I shall know even as I am known. They thathave found this, they are to be said to stand in possession ofbliss, to which leads that path of faith which we keep, and whitherwe desire to arrive at by believing. But who are those most blessed,who are already in that possession whither this path leads, is agreat question. And for the holy Angels indeed, there is no questionbut they be there. But of holy men already departed, whether so muchmay yet be said of them as that they stand already in thatpossession, is fairly made a question. For they are already freedfrom the corruptible body that weigheth down the soul (Wisd. 9.),but they still wait for the redemption of their body (Rom. 8.), andtheir flesh resteth in hope, nor is yet glorified in theincorruption that is to come. (Ps. 16.) But whether for all thatthey are none the less qualified to contemplate the truth with theeyes of the heart, as it is said, Face to face, there is not space to discuss here.”

2

Opinantium.

3

cf. Retract. b. i. ch. 14. 2. “Also what I said,‘for to know great and noble and even divinethings,’ we should refer to the same blessedness. For inthis life whatsoever there be of it known amounts not to perfectbliss, because that part of it which remains unknown is far morewithout all comparison.”

4

cf. Retract. b. i. ch. xiv. 3. “And what I said,‘that there is a great difference whether anything begrasped by sure reason of mind, which we call knowing, or whetherfor practical purposes it be entrusted to common fame or writing,for posterity to believe it, and presently after, ‘whattherefore we know, we owe to reason; what we believe toauthority;’ is not to be so taken as that in conversationwe should fear to say we ‘know’ what webelieve of suitable witnesses. For when we speak strictly we aresaid to know that only which by the mind’s own firmreason we comprehend. But when we speak in words more suited tocommon use, as also Divine Scripture speaketh, we should nothesitate to say we know both what we have perceived with our bodilysenses, and what we believe of trustworthy witnesses, whilst howeverbetween one and the other we are aware what differenceexists.”

1

Probat.

2

Opinationis.

3

Tenere perceptum.

4

cf. Retract. b. i. ch. 14. 4.“Also what I said, ‘No one doubts that all menare either fools or wise,’ may seem contrary to what isread in my third book On Free Will, (c. 24.)‘as though human nature admitted of no middle statebetween folly and wisdom.’ But that is said when thequestion was about the first man, whether he was made wise, orfoolish, or neither: since we could in no wise call him foolish, whowas made without fault, since folly is a great fault; and how wecould call him wise, who was capable of being led astray, did notappear. So for shortness I thought well to say, ‘asthough human nature admitted of no middle state between folly andwisdom.’ I also had infants in view, whom though weconfess to bear with them original sin, yet we cannot properly calleither wise or foolish, not as yet using free will either well orill. But now I said that men were either wise or foolish, meaningthose to be understood who are already using reason, by which theyare distinguished from cattle, so as to be men; as we say that‘all men wish to be happy.’ For can we in sotrue and manifest a statement be in fear of being supposed to meaninfants, who have not yet the power of sowishing?”

5

Ministerium.

1

Or “ begetting, ”— suscipiendis.

2

Ben. ed.—a modo. Mss.admodum.

3

Matt. vii. 8.

1

Scripturæ.

1

John ii. 7-9.

2

John xiv. 1.

3

Matt. viii. 8, 9.

4

Meruit.

1

cf. Retract. b. i. c. 14. 5.“In another place, where I had made mention of themiracles, which our Lord Jesus did, while He was here in the Flesh,I added, saying, ‘Why, say you, do not those things takeplace now?’ and I answered, ‘Because theywould not move unless they were wonderful, and if they were usualthey would not be wonderful.’ But this I said because notso great miracles, nor all take place now, not because there arenone wrought even now.”

2

Quotidiana, i. e. each day till evening.

1

He clearly means the Apostolic office and presidency ingeneral. For illustration, see St. Cyprian on the Unity of theChurch, §. 3 and 4. vid. Oxf. Tr. p. 134, andnote.

2

The plural “ successiones. ” Compare Con. Faustus, b. xiii.§ 13, xxxii. §, 19, xxxiii. § 6,9.

3

Primas.

4

al. strength.

5

Sacramentorum.

1

cf. Retr. b. i. ch. 14. 6. “But in the end of thebook I say, ‘But since this discourse of ours,c.’ This I did not say in such sort as though Ihad not hitherto written anything against the Manichæans,or had not committed to writing anything at all about Catholicdoctrine, when so many volumes before published were witnesses thatI had not been silent on either subject; but in this book written tohim I had not yet begun to refute the Manichæans, and hadnot yet attacked those follies, nor had I as yet opened anythinggreat concerning the Catholic Church itself; because I hoped thatafter that beginning made, I should write to that same person what Ihad not yet here written.”

1

Symbolum.

2

2 Codex.

3

Rom. x. 10.

4

2 Tim. ii. 13.

5

Gen. i-iii.

6

Princeps.

1

Matt. vi. 24.

2

Acts iv. 32.

3

Charitas.

4

John v. 19.

1

John xvi. 15.

2

Ps. cxvi. 12.

3

Intendamus.

4

Intentos.

1

Is. liii. 8. [See R. V.]

2

Ut lateretDeus.

3

Susceptorsusceptus.

4

Rom. vi. 9.

5

James v. 11.

6

Querela.

7

Lat. from LXX.

8

Job i. 21.

9

Lat. from LXX.

10

Job ii. 9.

1

Ps. lxxv. 7.

2

Job i. xxi.

3

Job ii. 10.

4

Ps. xxii. 1.

5

Rom. vi. 9. The Article of the descent into Hell appearsnot to have been included in this Creed.

6

1 Kings ii. 38. LXX.

7

Cf. Serm. 214, n. 8. Ben.

1

Matt. xxv. 34.

2

Matt. xxv. 41.

3

Charitas.

4

1 Cor. vi. 19.

5

Acts vii. 47, 48.

6

1 Cor. xii. 24.

7

Matt. vi. 30.

8

1 Cor. xv. 36-38.

9

1 Cor. iii. 17.

10

Matt. xvi. 18.[See R.V.]

11

Inventus.

1

Matt. vi. 12. [See R.V.]

2

“ Agerepænitentiam. ”

3

“ Characterem. ”

1

Wis. viii. 21.

2

Matt. xix. 11.

3

1 Cor. vii. 7.

4

Ps. cxli. 3.

1

Ps. cxli. 4. [See R.V.]

2

Ecclus. xxxvii. 16. LXX.

3

Matt. xxiii. 26.

4

Matt. xv. 11.

5

Matt. xv. 17-20.

6

Ps. xiv. 1.

1

Rom. vi. 12, 13.

2

Gal. v. 17.

3

(Reading νει̑κος.)

4

1 Cor. xv. 55; ib.26.

5

Rom. vii. 18.

6

Rom. vii. 22,23.

7

Rom. iii. 20.

8

Rom. vii. 7. [See R.V.]

1

Rom. v. 20.

2

Rom. iv. 15.

3

1 Cor. xv. 56.

4

Rom. x. 3.

5

Ps. lxxxv. 12.

6

Rom. vi. 12, 13, 14.

7

Rom. viii. 12, 13, 14.

8

Mortificare.

9

Gal. v. 19-21.

10

Gal. v. 16-18.[See R. V.]

11

Gal. v. 22, 23.

1

Vulg. adds, “ patientia, modestia,castitas. ”

2

Gal. v. 24.

3

Jer. xvii. 5.

4

John i. 14.

5

Luke iii. 6.

6

Ps. lxv. 2.

7

John xvii. 2.

8

Rom. iii. 20.

9

Gal. ii. 16.

10

1 Cor. iii. 3.

11

Cor. iii. 5.

12

Rom. xiii. 1.

13

Gen. xlvi. 27.

14

Rom. viii. 13.

1

John viii. 44.

2

Rom. vi. 14.

3

Ps. cxix. 133.

4

Rom. viii. 13.

5

Rom. viii. 14.

6

Matt. vi. 12.

7

Ps. cxli. 3, 4.

1

Heb. v. 14.

2

Matt. vi. 12.

3

Cui adjaceret.

4

Justitiam.

1

Ps. xxxiv. 14.

2

Luke xii. 35.

3

Luke xii. 36.

4

Gal. v. 16, 17.

5

Ps. ciii. 2, 3.

6

Matt. vi. 12, 13.

7

James i. 14.

8

Ps. xli. 4.

9

Vitiasset.

10

1 Cor. xv. 44.

1

Rom. vii. 18.

2

Vitiata vel vitiosa.

3

Eph. v. 29.

4

Rom. vii. 25.

5

Rom. vii. 18.

6

Gal. v. 16.

7

Sæculo.

8

Indulgentiam.

1

Wisd. ix. 15.

2

Rom. viii. 10.

3

Eph. v. 29.

4

See De Ag.Christ. § 4.

5

Eph. v. 25-28.

6

Eph v. 29.

7

Gal. v. 17.

8

Rom. vii. 18.

9

Eph. v. 29.

10

Rom. vii. 23.

11

Eph. v. 22-28.

1

2 Tim. ii. 8.

2

Luke xxiv. 39.

3

1 Cor. vi. 15.

4

1 Cor. xi. 12.

5

1 Cor. xii. 12.

6

1 Cor. xii. 18.

7

1 Cor. xii. 24, 25,26.

8

Rom. xii. 1.

9

Eph. v. 24.

1

Gal. v. 16, 17.

2

1 Cor. i. 13.

3

1 Cor. iii. 1, 2,3.

4

Matt. vi. 12.

5

John xiii. 23.

6

1 John i. 8.

7

1 Cor. i. 30.

8

Ps. ciii. 3.

9

Eph. v. 29.

10

1 Cor. xi. 31, 3.

11

Ps. xciv. 19.

1

Rom. xiv. 23.

2

1 Cor. vii. 6.

3

Wisd. viii. 21.

4

Gal. v. 19, 20, 21.

5

Phil. ii. 13.

1

Rom. viii. 14.

2

Gal. ii. 20.

3

Rom. vii. 17.

4

Col. iii. 1-4.

5

Sapite.

6

Col. iii. 5.

7

Interpellatione.

8

Col. iii. 1, 2.

9

Col. iii. 6.

10

James ii. 14.

11

Col. iii. 7.

12

Ps. lxvi. 4.

13

Col. iii. 8.

1

Rom. vi. 12, 13.

2

Matt. xii. 45.

3

Matt. x. 22.

4

Ps. xxx. 6, 7.

5

“ Peste. ”

6

1 Cor. i. 31.

1

Gen. ii. 21, 22.

2

Gen. i. 28.

3

See De Civ. Dei, b. xiv.

4

Ps. cxxxviii. 3,LXX.

5

1 Thess. iv. 17.

1

Deut. xxix. 5.

2

Matt. xix. 9.

3

John ii. 2.

4

Perhaps“charity.”

5

1 Cor. vii. 4.

1

Nuptiæ.

2

Connubium.

3

Placuerit.

4

Excipiendæ.

5

1 Cor. vii. 4.

1

Matt. v. 32.

2

1 Cor. vii. 10,11.

3

Ps. xlviii. 1.

4

Deut. xxiv. 1.

5

Matt. xix. 8.

6

Heb. xiii. 4. [See R.V.]

7

Eph. v. 12.

1

1 Cor. xiii. 8.

2

Meditatio.

3

Hist. of Susanna, 22, 23.

4

Luke ii. 37.

5

Luke i. 27, 28.

6

1 Tim. v. 14.

1

1 Tim. i. 5.

2

1 Cor. vii. 7.

3

Ver. 29-34.

4

1 Cor. vii. 9.

5

1 Cor. vii. 36.

6

Ver. 28.

7

Veniam.

8

Rom. i. 26, 27.

1

1 Cor. vii. 28, 36.

2

1 Cor. vi. 19.

3

1 Cor. vii. 14.

4

1 Cor. vii. 34.

5

1 Tim. v. 6.

6

1 Tim. ii. 9, 10.

7

1 Peter iii. 1-7.

8

Eccles. iii. 5.

1

Matt. xix. 12.

2

1 Cor. vii. 6.

3

1 Thess. iv. 5.

4

Veniale.

1

Phil. i. 23.

2

Consulendi.

3

Retract. b. ii. c. xxii. 2, “it was meant that the good and rightuse of lust is not lust, for as it is evil will to use good things,so is it good will to use evil things.”

4

“ Vena. ”

5

1 Cor. vii.9.

1

Societas.

2

Acts iv. 32.

3

1 Tim. iii. 2.

4

Tit. i. 6.

5

Thus Ambrose, Verellæ, and ancient Jerome, Ep. ad Ocean, and harshly against Ep. to Ch. ofgeneral custom, speaks strongly this interpretation, and says, b. i.near the end, that Ruffinus had found fault with him for this. Ben.

6

1 Cor. vii. 28,36.

7

Normam.

8

Antistes.

9

1 Cor. iv. 5.

10

Cato minor, cf. Plutarch. p.771.

11

Gen. xxii. 12.

1

Gen. xxiv. 2-4.

2

Infirmitas.

3

Numb. xix. 11.

4

Job i. 8.

5

1 Tim. v. 23.

1

Or“work.”

2

1 Cor. vii. 9.

3

Matt. xix. 12.

4

Phil. iv. 12.

5

Matt. xi. 18-19.

6

Matt. xi. 19.

7

S. Jerome agt. Jovinianus.

8

Deut. xxv. 5, 10.

9

Gal. iv. 4.

10

Matt. xix. 12.

11

1 Cor. xv. 33.

1

2 Cor. xii. 6.

2

1 Cor. vii. 34.

1

Retract. b. ii. c. 22. 2. “I do not quite approve this; as oneshould rather believe that he believed his son would presently berestored to him by resurrection, as we read in the Epistle to theHebrews.”

2

Gen. xxi.12.

3

Rev. xiv. 4.

4

1 Cor. vii. 4.

5

1 Cor. vii. 10, 11.

6

1 Cor. vii. 32.

1

2 Cor. x. 12.

2

Ecclus. iii. 18.

3

Matt. viii. 11.

1

Rom. xi. 17, 18.

2

1 Cor. vii. 9.

3

Mat. xix. 12.

4

2 Cor. xi. 2.

1

Matt. xii. 46-50.

2

Luke xi. 27, 28.

3

Luke i. 34.

4

Gal. iv. 19.

1

Matt. ix. 15. [See R.V.]

2

1 Tim. i. 5.

3

Imbuti.

4

It has been proposed to omit“ que, ” making thesense, “wherein the virgins themselves also are mothersof Christ,” but the sense is good as itstands.

5

Gal. v. 6.

6

Matt. xix. 12; 1 Cor. vii.9.

1

Muneri.

2

Componit.

3

1 Cor. vii. 34.

4

Ps. xlv. 2.

5

2 Cor. xi. 2.

6

Meditatio.

7

1 Cor. vii. 25,26.

1

Dispensatio.

2

1 Cor. vii. 25.

3

1 Cor. vii. 26.

4

1 Cor. xv. 41, 42.

5

1 Cor. vii. 27.

6

Matt. xix. 9.

7

1 Cor. vii. 10, 11.

8

1 Cor. vii. 28.

1

Cor. vii. 38, 28, 40.

2

1 Cor. vii. 39.

1

1 Cor. vii. 26.

2

1 Cor. vii. 28.

3

Hist. of Sus. 23.

4

1 Cor. vii. 28.

5

1 Cor. vii. 38.

1

1 Cor. vii. 26.

2

1 Cor. vii. 28.

3

cf. de Bon.Conj. 10.

4

1 Cor. vii. 32, 33, 34.

5

1 Cor. xv. 19.

6

Matt. xix. 10, 11, 12.

1

Is. lvi. 4, 5. [SeeR.V.]

2

2 Cor. iv. 18; 1 Tim. iv.8.

3

Is. lvi. 4, 5. [SeeR.V.]

1

Matt. xx. 9, 10.

2

1 Cor. xv. 53.

3

1 Cor. xv. 41, 42.

4

1 Cor. xii. 18.

5

John xiv. 2.

6

Luke xii. 35, 36.

7

Ps. xcvi. 1.

8

Rev. xiv. 1-5.

9

“ Eructuabat. ” cf. Ps. xlv. 1. Vulg.

10

Merito.

11

1 Peter ii. 21.

12

Matt. v. 3-10.

13

2 Cor. viii. 9.

1

Matt. xi. 29.

2

Luke xix. 41.

3

John iv. 34.

4

Luke x. 30-35.

5

1 Peter ii. 22.

6

Luke xxiii. 34.

7

1 Peter ii. 21.

8

Forma.

9

1 Cor. xv. 28.

10

“ Præsumite. ”

11

Matt. xix. 12.

12

1 Cor. ix. 24.

13

Ps. xcvi. 8.

14

1 Cor. vii. 37.

15

Ex. xx. 14, 13.

16

“ Supererogaveritis. ”

17

Luke x. 35. See § 48.

18

Is. lvi. 5.

19

Muneris.

20

Ecclus. iii. 18.

1

1 Cor. xiii. 4.[See R. V.]

2

Phil. ii. 7, 8. [See R.V.]

3

Matt. v. 3.

4

Matt. viii. 5-10; Luke vii. 6, 7.

5

Ps. cxxxviii. 6.

6

Matt. xv. 22-28.

7

Promeruit.

8

Luke xviii. 11-14.

9

James i. 17.

10

Matt. xviii. 1-3.

11

Matt. xx. 21, 22.

12

Phil. ii. 8.

1

John xiii. 1-17.

2

Ecclus. iii. 18.

3

1 Tim. v. 11, 12, 13.[See R. V.]

4

1 Tim. v. 6.

5

James iv. 6.

6

Matt. xi. 29.

1

Matt. xi. 25-29.

2

Col. ii. 3.

3

Luke xviii. 13.

4

Matt. viii. 8.

5

Luke xix. 2-8.

6

Luke vii. 37, 38.

7

Matt. xxi. 31.

8

Matt. ix. 11-13.[See R.V.]

9

Rom. v. 20.

10

1 Tim. i. 13.

11

Matt. xix. 12.

12

Ps. li. 5.

13

John i. 14.

14

John i. 29.

1

Ps. xlv. 2.

2

1 Cor. xiii. 4, 5.

3

Rom. xv. 3.

4

John vi. 38.

5

John xiii. 5.

6

Luke xviii. 10-14.

7

Luke vii. 38, 47.

8

Is. xxvi. 18. see LXX.

9

1 John, iv. 18.[See R. V.]

10

Rom. xi. 20.

11

Ps. xix. 9.

12

1 Cor. vii. 32.

13

Rom. viii. 15.

14

Ps. cxxxix. 7.

15

Ps. xxvii. 4.

16

Ps. xxvii. 9.

17

Ps. lxxxiv. 2.

1

Rom. xi. 20.

2

Rom. viii. 15.

3

1 Cor. ii. 3.

4

Phil. ii. 12, 13. [See R.V.]

5

Ps. ii. 11.

6

Is. lxvi. 2.

7

Job. vii. 1. LXX.

8

Matt. xviii. 7. [See R.V.]

9

Matt. xxiv. 12.

10

1 Cor. x. 12.

11

Gal. ii. 20.

12

Luke vii. 36-47.

13

Rom. x. 3.

14

Eph. ii. 8-10.[See R. V.]

15

Ps. xxv. 15.

16

Ps. cxxvii. 1.

17

1 Cor. vii. 7.

18

1 Cor. xii. 11.

19

Rom. ix. 16.

1

1 Cor. iv. 7.

2

James i. 17. [See R. V.]

3

Ps. cxix. 4-6.

4

Ps. cxli. 3, 4.

5

Ps. xxxvii. 23.

6

2 Tim. ii. 25.

7

Wisd. viii. 21.

8

Ps. cxlvi. 8.

9

Ps. xix. 7.

10

James i. 5.

11

Matt. xxv. 4.

12

Rom. xii. 16.

13

Job xxviii. 28. LXX.

14

Rom. xi. 20.

1

Ecclus. iii. 18.

2

James iv. 6.

3

1 Cor. vii. 32.

4

Matt. xx. 22.

5

A married woman, who was beheaded in the persecutionunder 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 onlyAgnes the Virgin was crowned, but likewise Crispina, the wife; andperchance, as there is no doubt, some of the continent then failed,and many of the wedded fought and conquered.” Ben. ed.

6

St. Jerome mentions this interpretation; but b. 1. agt.Jovinian, and on Matt. 13, takes that which assigns the hundred-foldto virginity. Ben. ed.

7

Ser. 159, he says, “Martyrs are in such placerehearsed at the Altar of God as that prayer is not made for them;but for the other deceased that are mentioned prayer ismade.” Ben. ed.

8

1 Cor. xii. 31.

9

Matt. xix. 21.

10

Acts ii. 44, 4, 32.

1

Matt. xiii. 8.

2

Luke viii. 8.

3

1 Cor. x. 13.

4

Rom. xii. 10. [See R.V.]

5

Phil. ii. 3.

6

Prov. xx. 9.

7

Job xxv. 4.

8

Matt. xxiv. 31.[See R.V.]

9

Matt. vi. 12.

10

Job vii. 1.

11

Rev. xiv. 4, 5.

1

1 John i. 8-10. [SeeR.V.]

2

1 John ii. 1, 2.

3

2 Cor. x. 12.

4

John xiii. 16.

5

Matt. xi. 27, 28.

6

1 John iv. 8.

7

Is. lxvi. 2.

8

Matt. viii. 19,20.

9

Ps. xxxvi. 11.

1

Ps. lix. 9. [See R.V.]

2

1 Pet. iii. 9.[See R.V.]

3

1 John iii. 16.

4

John i. 12.

1

Song of Three Children65.

1

So V.

2

Rom. xii. 3.

3

τοι̑ς,ται̑ς:1 Cor. vii. 8.

4

ὴγυνὴκαὶ ὴπαρθένος.

5

1 Cor. vii. 34.

6

1 Cor. vii. 8.

7

1 Cor. vi. 15.

8

Rom. xii. 4-6.

9

1 Cor. vii. 6, 7.

1

1 Cor. vii. 39, 40.

2

“ Concidit. ”

3

“ Concedit. ”

4

1 Cor. vii. 35.

5

1 Cor. vii. 8.

6

1 Cor. vii. 38.

7

ver. 40.

8

1 Pet. iii. 5-7. [SeeR.V.]

9

1 Cor. vii. 34.

1

1 Cor. vi. 15.[See R.V.]

2

1 Cor. vi. 19, 20.

3

1 Cor. xv. 41.

4

Gen. i. 31.

5

1 Cor. x. 11.

6

Deut. xxv. 5-10.

1

Eccl. iii. 5.

2

1 Cor. vii. 29. [SeeR.V.]

3

1 Cor. vii. 8, 9.

4

1 Tim. v. 14, 15.

5

1 Tim. v. 11, 12.[See R.V.]

6

Matt. xix. 11.

7

Muneris.

8

1 Tim. v. 11, 12.

1

Rom. vi. 9.

2

2 Cor. xi. 2. [See R.V.]

1

Rom. xii. 3.

2

1 Cor. vii. 39, 40.

3

Al. “or any number.”

4

Septiviram.

5

Matt. xxii. 29, 30.

6

Luke xx. 35, 36.

7

Luke ii. 36, 37.

1

1 Tim. v. 5, 6.

2

Potestatis.

3

Demetrias, whose grandmotherwas Proba Faltonia, her mother, Juliana. See S. Aug. Ep. 130. and150. Vol. I. pp. 459, 503, sqq.

4

Phil. iii. 15, 16.

1

1 Cor. ii. 12.

3

1 Cor. iv. 7.

2

“ Intus qua sanctione, ” al. “ inter quas actiones, ”“amongst what actions;” there are othervarious readings besides.

4

Matt. xxvi. 41.

5

Matt. vi. 13.

6

1 Cor. x. 13.

1

Or “be sound.”

2

Wisd. viii. 21.

3

“ Integritas. ”

4

James i. 5.

5

1 Cor. iii. 7.

6

Merito.

7

Wisdom vii. 16.

1

1 Cor. vii. 34.

2

Most MSS. “but certainlythat divine holiness.”

3

Ps. xlv. 2.

4

Is. liii. 2. [See R.V.]

5

Ps. lxv. 13. [See R.V.]

6

John xiv. 6.

7

One MS “tosee.”

8

Rev. xiv. 3, 4. [SeeR.V.]

1

Olibrius, see S. Jerome to Demetr. Ben.ed.

2

Matt. x. 22.

3

James i. 17.

4

1 Tim. v. 6.

5

Intentione.

1

Cupa et sacculus.

2

al. “ impudenter, ” “with lack ofmodesty.”

3

2 Cor. viii. 21. [SeeR.V.]

4

1 Cor. x. 33.

5

Phil. iv. 8, 9.

6

1 Cor. iv. 3.

7

Gal. i. 10.

8

2 Cor. i. 12.

9

Matt. v. 11, 12.

10

2 Cor. vi. 7, 8.

11

Matt. xix. 11, 12.

1

Ep. 150, ad Probam. Vol. I. p.503.

1

Gen. xviii. 15.

2

Gen. xxvii. 19.

3

Exod. i. 19, 20.

4

Exod. xx. 16.

5

Wisdom i. 11. Os quod mentitur. “The mouth that belieth,” E. V.,στόμακαταψευδόμενον.

6

Psalm v. 6.

7

Matt. v. 37. [SeeR. V.]

8

Eph. iv. 25.

1

Gal. ii. 12-21.

2

S. Jerome Ep. interAugustinianas, 75, n. 9-11.

3

Sacramenta.

4

1 Cor. vii. 18-20.

5

Rom. ii. 25.

6

Signaculum.

7

Acts xvi. 1-3.

8

Gal. ii. 3, 4.

9

Gal. v. 2.

10

Gal. ii. 14.

1

Salutares.

2

Ps. v. 5, 6. [See R.V.]

3

Matt. x. 28.

4

Wisd. i. 11;“belieth,” E.V.

5

Levit. xix. 18; Matt. xxii. 39.

6

John xv. 12, 13.

1

Gen. xix. 8.

2

“ Utmereretur. ”

3

Officiosi.

1

Aptus.

2

Al. when they say suchthings.

1

Exodus xx. 15, 16.

2

1 Cor. xv. 15.

1

Exod. xx. 16.

2

Ps. v. 6.

3

Exod. xx. 13.

1

Gal. iv. 22-24.

2

1 Cor. x. 1-11.

3

Matt. v. 39.

4

John xviii. 22, 23.

5

Acts xxiii. 3.

6

Rom. ix. 1; Phil. i. 8; Gal. i. 20.

7

Matt. v. 34, 37.

8

Matt. vi. 34, 31.

9

John xii. 6. [SeeR. V.]

1

Acts xi. 28-30.

2

Luke ix. 3; x. 4, 7.

3

Matt. x. 10.

4

Gal. vi. 6.

5

1 Cor. ix. 12. [SeeR.V.]

6

Wisd. i. 11.

7

Conceptaculum.

8

Ps. xv. 2.

9

A Domino, “unto theLord.” E. V.

10

Obscurumresponsum in vacuum non ibit, “There is no wordso secret that shall go for nought.” E. V.

11

Wisd. i. 6-11.

1

Matt. xv. 16-20.

2

Ecclus. vii. 13.μὴθέλεψεύδεσθαιπα̑νΨαυ̑δος, noli velle mentiri omne mendacium. “Use not to make any manner of lie,” E. V.“Every” is used for“any.”

3

Abutendum.

1

Ps. v. 6.

2

Agerepœnitentiam.

3

Ps. v. 5.

4

John iii. 21.

5

Ps. v. 6, 7.

6

Exod. xx. 12.

7

Prov. xxix. 27. Lat. Not in the Hebrew, but LXX. xxiv.23. λόγονϕυλασσόμενοςυἱὸςἀπωλείαςἐκτὸςἔσταιδεχόμενοςδὰἀδάξατοαὐτόν.Μηδὲνψευ̑δοςἀπὸγλώσσηςβασιλέωςλεγέσθω,καὶοὐδὲνψευ̑δοςἀπογλώσσηςαὐτου̑ οὐμὴἐξέλθῃ.

1

Gal. vi. 4.

2

Matt. v. 34.

3

Or “of Him who isTruth itself.”

4

1 Cor. iii. 16,17.

1

Animæ.

2

Animi.

3

Animæ.

4

Mentis.

5

Animi.

6

Signaculis.

1

“ Fides, quia fit quod dicitur. ”

2

1 Cor. ix. 22.

3

2 Cor. ii. 16.

1

Gal. ii. 14.

2

Gal. i. 20.

3

1 Cor. x. 13.

1

i. e. ad 420, thework mentioned just before belonging to the early part of thatyear. Consentius is thought to be the writer of ep. 119, toAugustin, and ep. 120, and 205, are addressed to him. This isthe work referred to in the Enchiridion, ch. 18, p.243.

2

Rom. iii. 7, 8.

3

Psalm v. 6, 7.[See R.V.] “Thou wilt destroy themthat speak a lie,” Heb.πάνταςτοὺςλαλου̑νταςτὸ ψευ̑δος,LXX.

1

Ps. xv. 2.

2

Eph. iv. 25.

3

Commembres.

4

Rom. x. 10.

5

Rev. xiv. 5. ψευ̑δος,Griesbach;δόλος, textrec.; guile, E. V.

6

2 Kings x. 31.

1

1 Tim. i. 20.

2

1 Tim. i. 13.

3

Matt. x. 33.

1

“ Concorditer ”—“ Misericorditer. ”

2

Matt. x. 16.

3

Matt. vii. 15, 16.

4

Rom. x. 10.

5

Evanescat.

6

Ps. xv. 2.

7

Ps. xv. 2.

1

Eph. iv. 25.

2

Luke x. 30-37.

3

Phil. i. 15-18.

4

Ex animo.

1

Eph. iv. 28.

2

Rom. vi. 13.

1

Gen. xix. 8.

2

Ezek. xviii. 4.

1

1 Sam. xxv. 22-35.

2

Ps. lv. 5.

3

Ps. vi. 7, turbatus est præira, as in LXX. “Mine eye is consumed because ofgrief.” E. V.

4

Gal. vi. 1.

1

John xvi. 12.

2

Gen. xx. 2, 12.

3

Gen. xxvi. 7, andxxiv.

4

“ Gemmare. ”

5

1 Cor. x. 4; Ezek. xxxvi. 26;Rev. v. 5; 1 Pet. v. 8.

6

Job ii. 5, benedixerit: as LXX.εὐλογήσει:E. V. “curse.”

7

1 Kings xxi. 10, 13. LXX.εὐλόγηκας:E. V. “didst blaspheme.”

8

Gen. xlii.

9

1 Sam. xxi. 13.

1

Gen. xxvii. 16-19.

2

Luke xiii. 28-30.

3

Enucleate cunctarimari.

1

Gal. ii. 13, 14.

2

“ Sacramenta. ”

3

1 Cor. ix. 22.[See R.V.]

4

Gal. vi. 1.

5

1 Cor. ix. 20.

1

Luke viii. 45.

2

John xi. 34.

3

Ps. xviii. 44—“ Servivit. ”

4

Ps. xxxi. 22.

5

Luke xxiv. 28—“ Finxit. ”

6

Luke xv. 11-32.

7

Serm. ii. 6; Epist. i.7.

8

Judg. ix. 8-15.

1

Ps. 26 (Heb. xxvii), 12.“ Mentitur eorum iniquitassibi. ” LXX.ἐψεύσατοἡἀδικίαἑαυτῃ̑. Heb. and E. V.“And such as breathe out cruelty.”

2

Gen. xxxviii. 14-18.

3

1 John iii. 4. [See R.V.]

4

Ps. cxix. 142.

5

1 John. ii. 21.

6

Exod. i. 17-20; Josh. ii.,and vi. 25.

7

Mentis, mentientis.

1

Dimittuntur.

2

Rom. iii. 8.

3

Matt. v. 37.

4

5 Ps. lxxxiv. 4.

5

Gal. iv. 25, 26.

6

1 John ii. 21.

7

Rev. xiv. 5.

8

Prov. xxix. 27. Lat. (not in Hebrew).

1

MSS. and edd. “ An posset; ” but Ben. ed. propose“ an non posset, ”“Could she not?”

2

John i. 47.

3

Ps. cxvi. 15.

4

Gen. xix. 5-11.

5

Or “Balance.”

1

Intelligibilem.

2

2 Cor. ii. 15, 16. [SeeR.V.]

3

Ecclus. xix. 1.

4

“ Sacramentum. ”

5

1 John ii. 21.

1

Heb. v. 14.

2

1 Tim. i. 13.

3

Op ponitur.

4

Pro ponitur.

1

Prov. xxix. 27.Lat.

2

Ps. cxvi. 11. [See R.V.]

3

Rom. iii. 7.

4

1 John i. 8.

5

1 John iii. 9.

6

2 Cor. iv. 16.

7

1 Cor. xv. 53-56.[See R. V.]

8

Maleficos.

1

2 Thess. iii. 10.[See R.V.]

1

Matt. vi. 25-34.

2

1 Cor. iii. 5-10.

3

Matt. x. 19, 20.

1

Ps. xxxvi. 3, (35, 4.) “ noluitintelligere ut bene ageret. ”

2

“ Circumstantia. ”

3

“ Acceperunt. ”

4

2 Thess. iii. 6-12.

5

1 Cor. ix. 1-7.

6

Gratuitum.

7

Enucleatius.

8

So Griesbach and Lachmann. But text recept.“Am I not an Apostle? am I notfree?”

9

“ Sororem mulierem. ”

1

“ Auferebat. ”

2

Luke x. 35.

3

1 Cor. ix. 7-15; and 2 Cor. xi. 7.

4

Luke viii. 1-3. [SeeR.V.]

5

Matt. x. 7-10.

6

Luke x. 1-7.

1

Licentiam.

2

Luke x. 7. “ Ea quæ ab ipsissunt. ”

3

1 Cor. ix. 7-10. [SeeR.V.]

1

1 Cor. ix. 12.

2

2 Thess. iii. 8, 9.

3

1 Cor. ix. 13-15.

4

1 Cor. ix. 15.

5

1 Cor. ix. 16.[See R.V.]

1

1 Cor. ix. 17.

2

1 Cor. ix. 18.

3

1 Cor. ix. 19-21.

4

S. Jerome in Ep. interAugustinianas, 75, n. 9-11.

5

Rom. ii. 25.

6

1 Cor. vii. 18.

7

1 Cor. ix. 22.

1

“ Parvuli. ”1 Thess. ii. 5-7. [See R. V.]

2

Rom. xvi. 18.

3

2 Cor. xi. 7-12.[See R. V.]

4

1 Thess. ii. 7-9.

5

Acts xx. 33-35.

1

1 Cor. x. 32.

2

Matt. xiii. 55.

3

Eph. iv. 28.

4

1 Thess. ii. 9; 2 Thess. iii.8.

5

Rom. xv. 19.

6

2 Cor. xi. 9.

7

2 Thess. iii. 12, 13.

8

Infirmaribenefacientes.

9

Tit. iii. 13, 14.

10

Bonisoperibus præesse, καλω̑νἕργωνπροΐστασθαι.E. V. in margin, “profess honesttrades.”

11

1 Tim. i. 2.

12

“ Germanissimum. ” 1 Tim. v. 23.

1

Cui seprobavit.

2

2 Tim. ii. 3-6.

3

Luke xvi. 3. [See R.V.]

4

1 Cor. ix. 7.

6

Acts ii. 44; iv.32.

8

1 Cor. ix.11.

5

Gal. vi. 6.

7

Rom. xv. 25-27.

1

2 Cor. viii. 1-21.

2

Read perhaps “ quantam; ” “how great the Apostle willedto be the care.”

3

Plebium.

4

2 Cor. ix.

5

Provincialium.

6

“ Eructuare. ”

1

Celeumate.

2

Ps. i. 2; xiii. 6.

3

Acts xx. 7.

4

S. Augustin therefore assumesthat the Christians of the Apostolic age did not break their fastbefore receiving the Eucharist. See St. Chrys. on Stat. Hom. ix. § 2. Tr. p. 159, and noteg.

5

Τοι̑ςἸουδαίοιςκαὶτοι̑ςσεβομένοιςκαὶ ἐντῃ̑ἀγορ[Editor: illegiblecharacter] κατὰπα̑σανἡμέρανπρὸςτοὺςπαρατυγχάνοντας.For καὶτοι̑ςσεβομένοιςAug. has et Gentibus incolis: for which some MSS. have Gentibus inviculis.

6

Acts xvii. 17, 18, 21.

1

2 Cor. xi. 9.

2

Acts xviii. 4.

3

Acts xviii. 1-3.

4

1 Cor. ix. 6-12.

5

1 Thess. ii. 6.

6

2 Thess. iii. 8.

7

1 Cor. ix. 14, 15.

8

Amplius aliquiderogans.

9

1 Cor. ix. 12.

1

Acts xiii. 2; Gal. ii.9.

2

Acts ii. 45; iv.34.

3

Acts ii. 39.

4

Is. ii. 3.

5

Rom. xv. 27.

6

1 Cor. i. 27-29.

7

1 Tim. v. 13.

8

2 Tim. ii. 4. [SeeR.V.]

9

Cassian. de Inst. x.22.

1

Matt. vi. 26.

2

Acts xi. 28-30.

3

Deut. xxiii. 24,25.

4

Matt. xii. 1, 2.

1

Matt. vi. 34.

2

Rom. i. 1.

3

Matt. vi. 26.

4

John xii. 6.

5

Acts xi. 28-30.

6

1 Cor. xvi. 1-4.

7

Matt. xix. 21.

8

Phil. ii. 16.

1

Phil. ii. 21.

2

Acts iv. 32.

3

Scipio ap. Val. iv.4.

4

2 Cor. vi. 10.

5

De Christi.

1

Matt. vi. 19-22.

2

1 Tim. vi. 18, 19.

3

Matt. x. 40-42.

4

Correptooculo.

5

Matt. vi. 24, 25, 34.

6

Ps. l. 15.

7

Acts ix. 25; 2 Cor. xi. 33.

8

Matt. x. 23.

9

John xvi. 23.

1

2 Tim. ii. 4.

2

Cant. i. 3, 4.

3

Reg. S. Ben. c. l. Cass.Coll. xviii. 7.

4

Ps. xxxix. 3. [SeeR.V.]

5

1 Cor. ix. 7.

6

Reg. S. Ben. c. xlviii.

1

1 Cor. vi. 4-6.

2

Matt. xxiii. 3.

3

1 Cor. iv. 3.

4

Ab humanodie.

5

Germana.

6

2 Thess. iii. 12.

7

2 Thess. iii. 13.

8

Ps. x. 3 [ix. 24].

9

1 Cor. xi. 16, 17.

10

E. V. follows text rec. του̑τοδὲπαραγγελλωνουκἐπαινω̑, but good MSS. and Versions besides the Ital. and Vulg. haveτου̑τοδὲπαραγγελλωουκἐπαινω̑ν, hoc autem prœcipio nonlaudans.

1

Numb. vi. 5.

2

Cumtransieris. Gr.ἡνίκαδ’ ἃνἐπιστρέψη,sc. ὁἸσραὴλChrys. Theod. or τὶςOrigen.

3

2 Cor. iii. 16.

4

Exod. xxxiv. 33.

5

Venalemtyphum.

6

1 Cor. xi. 4.

7

1 Cor. xi. 14.

8

Sacramentum.

9

Species illavenalis.

10

Pestilentiæ.

11

Ps. i. 1.

12

1 Cor. xiii. 11. [SeeR.V.]

13

Eph. iv. 13, 14.

14

Gal. iii. 27, 28. [SeeR.V.]

15

2 Cor. iv. 16.

1

Col. iii. 9, 10.

2

Eph. iv. 21-24. [SeeR.V.]

3

Mens.

4

Sacramentum.

5

1 Cor. xv. 54.

1

Pati.

2

Nihil patientem.

3

Livore.

1

Rom. viii. 18.

2

2 Cor. iv. 17.

3

Ps. x. 3.

4

Sallust Catilin, c.v.

1

Luke xxi. 19.

2

Rom. viii. 23-25.

3

Luke xxi. 18.

4

Eph. v. 29.

5

2 Sam. xvi. 5-12.

6

Matt. xiii. 30.

7

John xii. 6; xiii.29.

8

Matt. xxvi. 49.

9

Matt. v. 10.

1

Donatists.

2

Job ii. 10.

3

Ecclus. ii. 14.

1

Matt. xix. 19.

2

Receptibiles.

3

Ecclus. ii. 1-5.

4

Prov. iii. 11, 12.

5

Pelagians.

6

Ps. cxxiii. 4.

7

Ps. ix. 18.

8

Ps. xvi. 2.

9

James i. 17.

10

Ps. lxxi. 4, 5.

11

Ps. xiv. 6.

12

Jer. xvii. 5.

13

James iii. 15.

14

Ps. lxii. 5.

15

Liberiarbitrii.

1

Rom. v. 5.

2

1 Cor. xiii. 4, 7.

3

Magnanima.

4

Ambitiosæculi.

5

1 John ii. 15, 16.

6

Deifica.

7

1 John iv. 16.

8

Rom. viii. 35-39.

9

1 John ii. 16.

1

Rom. i. 25.

2

John viii. 23.

3

Rom. xi. 5, 6.

4

Rom. iv. 4.

5

Psalm lvi. 7, Lat. and LXX.ὑπὲρτου̑μηθενὸςσὡσειςαὐτούς.But Heb. and E. V. “shall they escape byiniquity?”

6

Habak. ii. 4.

7

Rom. v. 6.

8

Rom. x. 4.

9

1 Cor. i. 30, 31.

10

Eph. ii. 8, 9.

11

Ex. xxxiii. 19; Rom. ix. 15, 16.

12

Ps. lix. 10.

1

1 John iv. 10.

2

Ps. viii. 4.

3

Eligere.

4

Diligere.

5

Ps. v. 5.

6

Ps. xxxvi. 9.

7

Phil. ii. 13.

8

John xxi. 15.

9

Phil. ii. 12.

10

Rom. xii. 12.

11

Rom. ix. 2.

12

1 Cor. xiii. 7.

13

Rom. v. 5.

1

Ps. lxxi. 5; and lxii. 5.

2

Is. xi. 2.

3

Phil. i. 29.

4

1 Cor. xiii. 3.

5

See on Profit of Believing, c. 1, p.347.

6

Gal. iv. 26.

7

Gal. iv. 30; and Gen. xxi.10.

8

Gen. xxi. 12; and Rom. ix. 7,8.

9

Gal. v. 6.

10

Gen. xxv. 5, 6.

11

Rom. viii. 15.

1

Ps. ix. 18.

1

The date may beconjectured from the order of the Retractations, where this book is mentioned next afterthe Enchiridion ad Laurentium, which wasnot finished earlier than ad 421. The first two paragraphsof 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 ofNolæ, and took great pains to honor the memory of St.Felix, who is mentioned in the beginning of it. Several poems ofhis on the subject are extant.

2

Homines.

3

Vacare.

4

Percorpus.

5

2 Cor. v. 10.

1

Inaniter.

2

2 Mac. xii. 43.

3

Æneid vi. 327,328.

4

Matt. x. 28.

5

Luke xxi. 18; xii. 4-7; Matt.x. 28-30.

6

Ps. lxxix. 2, 3.

1

Ps. cxvi. 15.

2

Luke xvi. 19-22.

3

Lucan vii. 819, speakingof the slain in the battle of Pharsalia, whose bodiesCæsar forbad to burn or inter.

4

Gen. xxiii.; xxv. 9, 10;xlvii. 30.

5

Tobit ii. 7; xii. 12.

6

Matt. xxvi. 7-13.

7

John xix. 38, 39.

8

On the City of God, book i.chap. xii. 13. Vol. ii. p. 10.

1

Memoria.

2

Recordationis.

3

Orantes.

1

Eusebius, H. E. book v. chap.i. relates, that the bodies of these martyrs of Lyons lay exposed inthe open air for six days successively, and were then burned andcast into the Rhone.— Ben.ed.

2

Matt. x. 28; Luke xii. 4.

3

Eph. v. 29.

4

1 Kings xiii. 21, 22.

5

1 Cor. xi. 31, 32. [See R.V.]

1

Matt. x. 28.

2

2 Sam. ii. 5.

3

Luke xii. 4.

4

Visa.

1

Imagines.

2

Visis.

3

Cautio.

4

Recautum.

5

Chirographum.

1

Imaginaliter.

2

Curialis.

3

Duumviralitius.

1

Ps. ci. 1.

2

Ps. xxvii. 10.

3

Is. lxiii. 16.

4

2 Kings xxii. 18-20.

1

Luke xvi. 24-29.

2

Is. lxiii. 16.

3

Luke xvi. 22.

4

2 Cor. xii. 4.

5

1 Sam. xxviii. 11-19.

6

Quæst. ad Simplicianum, lib. ii. qu. 4.

7

Retract. ii. 4, and“ On ChristianDoctrine, ” book ii. chap. viii., vol. ii. p. 539. Ben. ed.

8

Ecclus. xlvi. 20.

9

Deut. xxxiv. 5.

10

Matt. xvii.3.

11

Inquilinatum.

1

Concretus.

2

Alii, ἄλλῳ.

3

Alteri, ἐτέρῳ.

4

1 Cor. xii. 7-10.

1

Acts ix. 12.

2

1 Cor. xii. 11.

3

Ecclus. iii. 22.

4

Eph. v. 29.

5

Gerat.

6

Gerebat.

Table of Contents

About Liberty Fund

About The Online Library of Liberty

Copyright and Fair Use

I.: DOCTRINAL TREATISES OF ST. AUGUSTIN

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON THE TRINITY. [DE TRINITATE, LIBRI XV.]

INTRODUCTORY ESSAY.

TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE.

CONTENTS OF THE TRINITY.

BOOK I.

BOOK II.

BOOK III.

BOOK IV.

BOOK V.

BOOK VI.

BOOK VII.

BOOK VIII.

BOOK IX.

BOOK X.

BOOK XI.

BOOK XII.

BOOK XIII.

BOOK XIV.

BOOK XV.

ST. AUGUSTIN: THE ENCHIRIDION; OR ON FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE.

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE

CONTENTS OF THE ENCHIRIDION.

ARGUMENT.

CHAP. 1.—: THE AUTHOR DESIRES THE GIFT OF TRUE WISDOM FOR LAURENTIUS.

CHAP. 2.—: THE FEAR OF GOD IS MAN’S TRUE WISDOM.

CHAP. 3.—: GOD IS TO BE WORSHIPPED THROUGH FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE.

CHAP. 4.—: THE QUESTIONS PROPOUNDED BY LAURENTIUS.

CHAP. 5.—: BRIEF ANSWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS.

CHAP. 6.—: CONTROVERSY OUT OF PLACE IN A HANDBOOK LIKE THE PRESENT.

CHAP. 7.—: THE CREED AND THE LORD’S PRAYER DEMAND THE EXERCISE OF FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE.

CHAP. 8.—: THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN FAITH AND HOPE, AND THE MUTUAL DEPENDENCE OF FAITH, HOPE, AND LOVE.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 10.—: THE SUPREMELY GOOD CREATOR MADE ALL THINGS GOOD.

CHAP. 11.—: WHAT IS CALLED EVIL IN THE UNIVERSE IS BUT THE ABSENCE OF GOOD.

CHAP. 12.—: ALL BEINGS WERE MADE GOOD, BUT NOT BEING MADE PERFECTLY GOOD, ARE LIABLE TO CORRUPTION.

CHAP. 13.—: THERE CAN BE NO EVIL WHERE THERE IS NO GOOD; AND AN EVIL MAN IS AN EVIL GOOD.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 15.—: THE PRECEDING ARGUMENT IS IN NO WISE INCONSISTENT WITH THE SAYING OF OUR LORD: “A GOOD TREE CANNOT BRING FORTH EVIL FRUIT.”

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 17.—: THE NATURE OF ERROR. ALL ERROR IS NOT HURTFUL, THOUGH IT IS MAN’S DUTY AS FAR AS POSSIBLE TO AVOID IT.

CHAP. 18.—: IT IS NEVER ALLOWABLE TO TELL A LIE; BUT LIES DIFFER VERY MUCH IN GUILT, ACCORDING TO THE INTENTION AND THE SUBJECT.

CHAP. 19.—: MEN’S ERRORS VARY VERY MUCH IN THE MAGNITUDE OF THE EVILS THEY PRODUCE; BUT YET EVERY ERROR IS IN ITSELF AN EVIL.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 21.—: ERROR, THOUGH NOT ALWAYS A SIN, IS ALWAYS AN EVIL.

CHAP. 22.—: A LIE IS NOT ALLOWABLE, EVEN TO SAVE ANOTHER FROM INJURY.

CHAP. 23.—: SUMMARY OF THE RESULTS OF THE PRECEDING DISCUSSION.

CHAP. 24.—: THE SECONDARY CAUSES OF EVIL ARE IGNORANCE AND LUST.

CHAP. 25.—: GOD’S JUDGMENTS UPON FALLEN MEN AND ANGELS. THE DEATH OF THE BODY IS MAN’S PECULIAR PUNISHMENT.

CHAP. 26.—: THROUGH ADAM’S SIN HIS WHOLE POSTERITY WERE CORRUPTED, AND WERE BORN UNDER THE PENALTY OF DEATH, WHICH HE HAD INCURRED.

CHAP. 27.—: THE STATE OF MISERY TO WHICH ADAM’S SIN REDUCED MANKIND, AND THE RESTORATION EFFECTED THROUGH THE MERCY OF GOD.

CHAP. 28.—: WHEN THE REBELLIOUS ANGELS WERE CAST OUT, THE REST REMAINED IN THE ENJOYMENT OF ETERNAL HAPPINESS WITH GOD.

CHAP. 29.—: THE RESTORED PART OF HUMANITY SHALL, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROMISES OF GOD, SUCCEED TO THE PLACE WHICH THE REBELLIOUS ANGELS LOST.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 31.—: FAITH ITSELF IS THE GIFT OF GOD; AND GOOD WORKS WILL NOT BE WANTING IN THOSE WHO BELIEVE.

CHAP. 32.—: THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL IS ALSO THE GIFT OF GOD, FOR GOD WORKETH IN US BOTH TO WILL AND TO DO.

CHAP. 33.—: MEN, BEING BY NATURE THE CHILDREN OF WRATH, NEEDED A MEDIATOR. IN WHAT SENSE GOD IS SAID TO BE ANGRY.

CHAP. 34.—: THE INEFFABLE MYSTERY OF THE BIRTH OF CHRIST THE MEDIATOR THROUGH THE VIRGIN MARY.

CHAP. 35.—: JESUS CHRIST, BEING THE ONLY SON OF GOD, IS AT THE SAME TIME MAN.

CHAP. 36.—: THE GRACE OF GOD IS CLEARLY AND REMARKABLY DISPLAYED IN RAISING THE MAN CHRIST JESUS TO THE DIGNITY OF THE SON OF GOD.

CHAP. 37.—: THE SAME GRACE IS FURTHER CLEARLY MANIFESTED IN THIS, THAT THE BIRTH OF CHRIST ACCORDING TO THE FLESH IS OF THE HOLY GHOST.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 39.—: NOT EVERYTHING THAT IS BORN OF ANOTHER IS TO BE CALLED A SON OF THAT OTHER.

CHAP. 40.—: CHRIST’S BIRTH THROUGH THE HOLY SPIRIT MANIFESTS TO US THE GRACE OF GOD.

CHAP. 41.—: CHRIST, WHO WAS HIMSELF FREE FROM SIN, WAS MADE SIN FOR US, THAT WE MIGHT BE RECONCILED TO GOD.

CHAP. 42.—: THE SACRAMENT OF BAPTISM INDICATES OUR DEATH WITH CHRIST TO SIN, AND OUR RESURRECTION WITH HIM TO NEWNESS OF LIFE.

CHAP. 43.—: BAPTISM AND THE GRACE WHICH IT TYPIFIES ARE OPEN TO ALL, BOTH INFANTS AND ADULTS.

CHAP. 44.—: IN SPEAKING OF SIN, THE SINGULAR NUMBER IS OFTEN PUT FOR THE PLURAL, AND THE PLURAL FOR THE SINGULAR.

CHAP. 45.—: IN ADAM’S FIRST SIN, MANY KINDS OF SIN WERE INVOLVED.

CHAP. 46.—: IT IS PROBABLE THAT CHILDREN ARE INVOLVED IN THE GUILT NOT ONLY OF THE FIRST PAIR, BUT OF THEIR OWN IMMEDIATE PARENTS.

CHAP. 47.—: IT IS DIFFICULT TO DECIDE WHETHER THE SINS OF A MAN’S OTHER PROGENITORS ARE IMPUTED TO HIM.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 50.—: CHRIST TOOK AWAY NOT ONLY THE ONE ORIGINAL SIN, BUT ALL THE OTHER SINS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO IT.

CHAP. 51.—: ALL MEN BORN OF ADAM ARE UNDER CONDEMNATION, AND ONLY IF NEW BORN IN CHRIST ARE FREED FROM CONDEMNATION.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 53.—: CHRIST’S CROSS AND BURIAL, RESURRECTION, ASCENSION, AND SITTING DOWN AT THE RIGHT HAND OF GOD, ARE IMAGES OF THE CHRISTIAN LIFE.

CHAP. 54.—: CHRIST’S SECOND COMING DOES NOT BELONG TO THE PAST, BUT WILL TAKE PLACE AT THE END OF THE WORLD.

CHAP. 55.—: THE EXPRESSION, “CHRIST SHALL JUDGE THE QUICK AND THE DEAD,” MAY BE UNDERSTOOD IN EITHER OF TWO SENSES.

CHAP. 56.—: THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE CHURCH. THE CHURCH IS THE TEMPLE OF GOD.

CHAP. 57.—: THE CONDITION OF THE CHURCH IN HEAVEN.

CHAP. 58.—: WE HAVE NO CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE OF THE ORGANIZATION OF THE ANGELIC SOCIETY.

CHAP. 59.—: THE BODIES ASSUMED BY ANGELS RAISE A VERY DIFFICULT, AND NOT VERY USEFUL, SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION.

CHAP. 60.—: IT IS MORE NECESSARY TO BE ABLE TO DETECT THE WILES OF SATAN WHEN HE TRANSFORMS HIMSELF INTO AN ANGEL OF LIGHT.

CHAP. 61.—: THE CHURCH ON EARTH HAS BEEN REDEEMED FROM SIN BY THE BLOOD OF A MEDIATOR.

CHAP. 62.—: BY THE SACRIFICE OF CHRIST ALL THINGS ARE RESTORED, AND PEACE IS MADE BETWEEN EARTH AND HEAVEN.

CHAP. 63.—: THE PEACE OF GOD, WHICH REIGNETH IN HEAVEN, PASSETH ALL UNDERSTANDING.

CHAP. 64.—: PARDON OF SIN EXTENDS OVER THE WHOLE MORTAL LIFE OF THE SAINTS, WHICH, THOUGH FREE FROM CRIME, IS NOT FREE FROM SIN.

CHAP. 65.—: GOD PARDONS SINS, BUT ON CONDITION OF PENITENCE, CERTAIN TIMES FOR WHICH HAVE BEEN FIXED BY THE LAW OF THE CHURCH.

CHAP. 66.—: THE PARDON OF SIN HAS REFERENCE CHIEFLY TO THE FUTURE JUDGMENT.

CHAP. 67.—: FAITH WITHOUT WORKS IS DEAD, AND CANNOT SAVE A MAN.

CHAP. 68.—: THE TRUE SENSE OF THE PASSAGE (1 COR. III. 11-15) ABOUT THOSE WHO ARE SAVED, YET SO AS BY FIRE.

CHAP. 69.—: IT IS NOT IMPOSSIBLE THAT SOME BELIEVERS MAY PASS THROUGH A PURGATORIAL FIRE IN THE FUTURE LIFE.

CHAP. 70.—: ALMSGIVING WILL NOT ATONE FOR SIN UNLESS THE LIFE BE CHANGED.

CHAP. 71.—: THE DAILY PRAYER OF THE BELIEVER MAKES SATISFACTION FOR THE TRIVIAL SINS THAT DAILY STAIN HIS LIFE.

CHAP. 72.—: THERE ARE MANY KINDS OF ALMS, THE GIVING OF WHICH ASSISTS TO PROCURE PARDON FOR OUR SINS.

CHAP. 73.—: THE GREATEST OF ALL ALMS IS TO FORGIVE OUR DEBTORS AND TO LOVE OUR ENEMIES.

CHAP. 74.—: GOD DOES NOT PARDON THE SINS OF THOSE WHO DO NOT FROM THE HEART FORGIVE OTHERS.

CHAP. 75.—: THE WICKED AND THE UNBELIEVING ARE NOT MADE CLEAN BY THE GIVING OF ALMS, EXCEPT THEY BE BORN AGAIN.

CHAP. 76.—: TO GIVE ALMS ARIGHT, WE SHOULD BEGIN WITH OURSELVES, AND HAVE PITY UPON OUR OWN SOULS.

CHAP. 77.—: IF WE WOULD GIVE ALMS TO OURSELVES, WE MUST FLEE INIQUITY; FOR HE WHO LOVETH INIQUITY HATETH HIS SOUL.

CHAP. 78.—: WHAT SINS ARE TRIVIAL AND WHAT HEINOUS IS A MATTER FOR GOD’S JUDGMENT.

CHAP. 79.—: SINS WHICH APPEAR VERY TRIFLING, ARE SOMETIMES IN REALITY VERY SERIOUS.

CHAP. 80.—: SINS, HOWEVER GREAT AND DETESTABLE, SEEM TRIVIAL WHEN WE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO THEM.

CHAP. 81.—: THERE ARE TWO CAUSES OF SIN, IGNORANCE AND WEAKNESS; AND WE NEED DIVINE HELP TO OVERCOME BOTH.

CHAP. 82.—: THE MERCY OF GOD IS NECESSARY TO TRUE REPENTANCE.

CHAP. 83.—: THE MAN WHO DESPISES THE MERCY OF GOD IS GUILTY OF THE SIN AGAINST THE HOLY GHOST.

CHAP. 84.—: THE RESURRECTION OF THE BODY GIVES RISE TO NUMEROUS QUESTIONS.

CHAP. 85.—: THE CASE OF ABORTIVE CONCEPTIONS.

CHAP. 86.—: IF THEY HAVE EVER LIVED, THEY MUST OF COURSE HAVE DIED, AND THEREFORE SHALL HAVE A SHARE IN THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD.

CHAP. 87.—: THE CASE OF MONSTROUS BIRTHS.

CHAP. 88.—: THE MATERIAL OF THE BODY NEVER PERISHES.

CHAP. 89.—: BUT THIS MATERIAL MAY BE DIFFERENTLY ARRANGED IN THE RESURRECTION BODY.

CHAP. 90.—: IF THERE BE DIFFERENCES AND INEQUALITIES AMONG THE BODIES OF THOSE WHO RISE AGAIN, THERE SHALL BE NOTHING OFFENSIVE OR DISPROPORTIONATE IN ANY.

CHAP. 91.—: THE BODIES OF THE SAINTS SHALL AT THE RESURRECTION BE SPIRITUAL BODIES.

CHAP. 92.—: THE RESURRECTION OF THE LOST.

CHAP. 93.—: BOTH THE FIRST AND THE SECOND DEATHS ARE THE CONSEQUENCE OF SIN. PUNISHMENT IS PROPORTIONED TO GUILT.

CHAP. 94.—: THE SAINTS SHALL KNOW MORE FULLY IN THE NEXT WORLD THE BENEFITS THEY HAVE RECEIVED BY GRACE.

CHAP. 95.—: GOD’S JUDGMENTS SHALL THEN BE EXPLAINED.

CHAP. 96.—: THE OMNIPOTENT GOD DOES WELL EVEN IN THE PERMISSION OF EVIL.

CHAP. 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?

CHAP. 98.—: PREDESTINATION TO ETERNAL LIFE IS WHOLLY OF GOD’S FREE GRACE.

CHAP. 99.—: AS GOD’S MERCY IS FREE, SO HIS JUDGMENTS ARE JUST, AND CANNOT BE GAINSAID.

CHAP. 100.—: THE WILL OF GOD IS NEVER DEFEATED, THOUGH MUCH IS DONE THAT IS CONTRARY TO HIS WILL.

CHAP. 101.—: THE WILL OF GOD, WHICH IS ALWAYS GOOD, IS SOMETIMES FULFILLED THROUGH THE EVIL WILL OF MAN.

CHAP. 102.—: THE WILL OF THE OMNIPOTENT GOD IS NEVER DEFEATED, AND IS NEVER EVIL.

CHAP. 103.—: INTERPRETATION OF THE EXPRESSION IN 1 TIM. II. 4: “WHO WILL HAVE ALL MEN TO BE SAVED.”

CHAP. 104.—: GOD, FOREKNOWING THE SIN OF THE FIRST MAN, ORDERED HIS OWN PURPOSES ACCORDINGLY.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 106.—: THE GRACE OF GOD WAS NECESSARY TO MAN’S SALVATION BEFORE THE FALL AS WELL AS AFTER IT.

CHAP. 107.—: ETERNAL LIFE, THOUGH THE REWARD OF GOOD WORKS, IS ITSELF THE GIFT OF GOD.

CHAP. 108.—: A MEDIATOR WAS NECESSARY TO RECONCILE US TO GOD; AND UNLESS THIS MEDIATOR HAD BEEN GOD, HE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN OUR REDEEMER.

CHAP. 109.—: THE STATE OF THE SOUL DURING THE INTERVAL BETWEEN DEATH AND THE RESURRECTION.

CHAP. 110.—: THE BENEFIT TO THE SOULS OF THE DEAD FROM THE SACRAMENTS AND ALMS OF THEIR LIVING FRIENDS.

CHAP. 111.—: AFTER THE RESURRECTION THERE SHALL BE TWO DISTINCT KINGDOMS, ONE OF ETERNAL HAPPINESS, THE OTHER OF ETERNAL MISERY.

CHAP. 112.—: THERE IS NO GROUND IN SCRIPTURE FOR THE OPINION OF THOSE WHO DENY THE ETERNITY OF FUTURE PUNISHMENTS.

CHAP. 113.—: THE DEATH OF THE WICKED SHALL BE ETERNAL IN THE SAME SENSE AS THE LIFE OF THE SAINTS.

CHAP. 114.—: HAVING DEALT WITH FAITH, WE NOW COME TO SPEAK OF HOPE. EVERYTHING THAT PERTAINS TO HOPE IS EMBRACED IN THE LORD’S PRAYER.

CHAP. 115.—: THE SEVEN PETITIONS OF THE LORD’S PRAYER, ACCORDING TO MATTHEW.

CHAP. 116.—: LUKE EXPRESSES THE SUBSTANCE OF THESE SEVEN PETITIONS MORE BRIEFLY IN FIVE.

CHAP. 117.—: LOVE, WHICH IS GREATER THAN FAITH AND HOPE, IS SHED ABROAD IN OUR HEARTS BY THE HOLY GHOST.

CHAP. 118.—: THE FOUR STAGES OF THE CHRISTAIN’S LIFE, AND THE FOUR CORRESPONDING STAGES OF THE CHURCH’S HISTORY.

CHAP. 119.—: THE GRACE OF REGENERATION WASHES AWAY ALL PAST SIN AND ALL ORIGINAL GUILT.

CHAP. 120.—: DEATH CANNOT INJURE THOSE WHO HAVE RECEIVED THE GRACE OF REGENERATION.

CHAP. 121.—: LOVE IS THE END OF ALL THE COMMANDMENTS, AND GOD HIMSELF IS LOVE.

CHAP. 122.—: CONCLUSION.

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON THE CATECHISING OF THE UNINSTRUCTED.1 IN ONE BOOK.

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.

CONTENTS OF CATECHISING OF THE UNINSTRUCTED.

CHAP. 1.—: HOW AUGUSTIN WRITES IN ANSWER TO A FAVOR ASKED BY A DEACON OF CARTHAGE.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 3.—: OF THE FULL NARRATION TO BE EMPLOYED IN CATECHISING.

CHAP. 4.—: THAT THE GREAT REASON FOR THE ADVENT OF CHRIST WAS THE COMMENDATION OF LOVE.

CHAP. 5.—: THAT THE PERSON WHO COMES FOR CATECHETICAL INSTRUCTION IS TO BE EXAMINED WITH RESPECT TO HIS VIEWS, ON DESIRING TO BECOME A CHRISTIAN.

CHAP. 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.

CHAP. 7.—: OF THE EXPOSITION OF THE RESURRECTION, THE JUDGMENT, AND OTHER SUBJECTS, WHICH SHOULD FOLLOW THIS NARRATION.

CHAP. 8.—: OF THE METHOD TO BE PURSUED IN CATECHISING THOSE WHO HAVE HAD A LIBERAL EDUCATION.

CHAP. 9.—: OF THE METHOD IN WHICH GRAMMARIANS AND PROFESSIONAL SPEAKERS ARE TO BE DEALT WITH.

CHAP. 10.—: OF THE ATTAINMENT OF CHEERFULNESS IN THE DUTY OF CATECHISING, AND OF VARIOUS CAUSES PRODUCING WEARINESS IN THE CATECHUMEN.

CHAP. 11.—: OF THE REMEDY FOR THE SECOND SOURCE OF WEARINESS.

CHAP. 12.—: OF THE REMEDY FOR THE THIRD SOURCE OF WEARINESS.

CHAP. 13.—: OF THE REMEDY FOR THE FOURTH SOURCE OF WEARINESS.

CHAP. 14.—: OF THE REMEDY AGAINST THE FIFTH AND SIXTH SOURCES OF WEARINESS.

CHAP. 15.—: OF THE METHOD IN WHICH OUR ADDRESS SHOULD BE ADAPTED TO DIFFERENT CLASSES OF HEARERS.

CHAP. 16.—: A SPECIMEN OF A CATECHETICAL ADDRESS; AND FIRST, THE CASE OF A CATECHUMEN WITH WORTHY VIEWS.

CHAP. 17.—: THE SPECIMEN OF CATECHETICAL DISCOURSE CONTINUED, IN REFERENCE SPECIALLY TO THE REPROVAL OF FALSE AIMS ON THE CATECHUMEN’S PART.

CHAP. 18.—: OF WHAT IS TO BE BELIEVED ON THE SUBJECT OF THE CREATION OF MAN AND OTHER OBJECTS.

CHAP. 19.—: OF THE CO-EXISTENCE OF GOOD AND EVIL IN THE CHURCH, AND THEIR FINAL SEPARATION.

CHAP. 20.—: OF ISRAEL’S BONDAGE IN EGYPT, THEIR DELIVERANCE, AND THEIR PASSAGE THROUGH THE RED SEA.

CHAP. 21.—: OF THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY, AND THE THINGS SIGNIFIED THEREBY.

CHAP. 22.—: OF THE SIX AGES OF THE WORLD.

CHAP. 23.—: OF THE MISSION OF THE HOLY GHOST FIFTY DAYS AFTER CHRIST’S RESURRECTION.

CHAP. 24.—: OF THE CHURCH IN ITS LIKENESS TO A VINE SPROUTING AND SUFFERING PRUNING.

CHAP. 25.—: OF CONSTANCY IN THE FAITH OF THE RESURRECTION.

CHAP. 26.—: OF THE FORMAL ADMISSION OF THE CATECHUMEN, AND OF THE SIGNS THEREIN MADE USE OF.

CHAP. 27.—: OF THE PROPHECIES OF THE OLD TESTAMENT IN THEIR VISIBLE FULFILLMENT IN THE CHURCH.

ST. AUGUSTIN: TREATISE ON FAITH AND THE CREED. [DE FIDE ET SYMBOLO.] IN ONE BOOK.

INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.

CONTENTS OF FAITH AND THE CREED

CHAP. 1.—: OF THE ORIGIN AND OBJECT OF THE COMPOSITION.

CHAP. 2.—: OF GOD AND HIS EXCLUSIVE ETERNITY.

CHAP. 3.—: OF THE SON OF GOD, AND HIS PECULIAR DESIGNATION AS THE WORD.

CHAP. 4.—: OF THE SON OF GOD AS NEITHER MADE BY THE FATHER NOR LESS THAN THE FATHER, AND OF HIS INCARNATION.

CHAP. 5.—: OF CHRIST’S PASSION, BURIAL, AND RESURRECTION.

CHAP. 6.—: OF CHRIST’S ASCENSION INTO HEAVEN.

CHAP. 7.—: OF CHRIST’S SESSION AT THE FATHER’S RIGHT HAND.

CHAP. 8.—: OF CHRIST’S COMING TO JUDGMENT.

CHAP. 9.—: OF THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE MYSTERY OF THE TRINITY.

CHAP. 10.—: OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, THE REMISSION OF SINS, AND THE RESURRECTION OF THE FLESH.

ST. AUGUSTIN: CONCERNING FAITH OF THINGS NOT SEEN. [DE FIDE RERUM QUÆ NON VIDENTUR.]

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON THE PROFIT OF BELIEVING. [DE UTILITATE CREDENDI.]

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON THE CREED: A SERMON TO THE CATECHUMENS. [DE SYMBOLO AD CATECHUMENOS.]

II.: MORAL TREATISES OF ST. AUGUSTIN

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON CONTINENCE. [DE CONTINENTIA.]

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON THE GOOD OF MARRIAGE. [DE BONO CONJUGALI.]

NOTICE.

ST. AUGUSTIN: OF HOLY VIRGINITY. [DE VIRGINITATE.]

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON THE GOOD OF WIDOWHOOD. [DE BONO VIDUITATIS.]

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON LYING. [DE MENDACIO.]

ST. AUGUSTIN: TO CONSENTIUS: AGAINST LYING. [CONTRA MENDACIUM.]

ST. AUGUSTIN: OF THE WORK OF MONKS. [DE OPERE MONACHORUM.]

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON PATIENCE. [DE PATIENTIA.]

ST. AUGUSTIN: ON CARE TO BE HAD FOR THE DEAD. [DE CURA PRO MORTUIS.]