LETTERS OF ST. AUGUSTIN: LETTERS CXXXVIII TO CL (INCLUDING LETTERS TO
MARCELLINUS & COMMONITORIUM TO FORTUNATIANUS)
LETTER CXXXVIII. (A.D. 412.)
TO MARCELLINUS, MY NOBLE AND JUSTLY FAMOUS LORD, MY SON MOST BELOVED AND
LONGED FOR, AUGUSTIN SENDS GREETING IN THE LORD.
CHAP. I. -- 1. In writing to the illustrious and most eloquent Volusianus, whom we
both sincerely love, I thought it right to confine myself to answering the
questions which he thought proper himself to state; but as to the questions which you
have submitted to me in your letter for discussion and solution, as suggested
or proposed either by Volusianus himself or by others, it is fitting that such
reply to these as I may be able to give should be addressed to you. I shall
attempt this, not in the manner in which it would require to be done in a formal
treatise, but in the manner which is suitable to the conversational familiarity
of a letter, in order that, if you, who know their state of mind by daily
discussions, think it expedient, this letter also may be read to your friends. But if
this communication be not adapted to them, because of their not being prepared
by the piety of faith to give ear to it, let what you consider adapted to them
be in the first place prepared between ourselves, and afterwards let what may
have been thus prepared be communicated to them. For there are many things from
which their minds may in the meantime shrink and recoil, which they may
perhaps by and by be persuaded to accept as true, either by the use of more copious
and skilful arguments, or by an appeal to authority which, in their opinion, may
not without impropriety be resisted.
2. In your letter you state that some are perplexed by the question, "Why
this God, who is proved to be the God also of the Old Testament, is pleased
with new sacrifices after having rejected the ancient ones. For they allege that
nothing can be corrected but that which is proved to have been previously not
rightly done, or that what has once been done rightly ought not to be altered in
the very least: that which has been rightly done, they say, cannot be changed
without wrong."' I quote these words from your letter. Were I disposed to give a
copious reply to this objection, time would fail me long before I had
exhausted the instances in which the processes of nature itself and the works of men
undergo changes according to the circumstances of, the time, while, at the same
time, there is nothing mutable in the plan or principle by which these changes
are regulated. Of these I may mention a few, that, stimulated by them, your
wakeful observation may run, as it were, from them to many more of the same kind.
Does not summer follow winter, the temperature gradually increasing in warmth?
Do not night and day in turn succeed each other? How often do our own lives
experience changes! Boyhood departing, never to return, gives place to youth;
manhood, destined itself to continue only for a season, takes in turn the place of
youth; and old age, closing the term of manhood, is itself closed by death? All
these things are changed, but the plan of Divine Providence which appoints
these successive changes is not changed. I suppose, also, that the principles of
agriculture are not changed when the farmer appoints a different work to be done
in summer from that which he had ordered in winter. He who rises in the
morning, after resting by night, is not supposed to have changed the plan of his life.
The schoolmaster gives to the adult different tasks from those which he was
accustomed to prescribe to the scholar in his boyhood his teaching, consistent
throughout, changes the instruction when the lesson is changed, without itself
being changed.
3. The eminent physician of our own times, Vindicianus, being consulted by
an invalid, prescribed for his disease what seemed to him a suitable remedy at
that time; health was restored by its use. Some years afterwards, finding
himself troubled again with the same disorder, the patient supposed that the same
remedy should be applied; but its application made his illness worse. In
astonishment, he again returns to the physician, and tells him what had happened;
whereupon he, being a man of very quick penetration, answered: "The reason of your
having been harmed by this application is, that I did not order it;" upon which
all who heard the remark and did not know the man supposed that he was
trusting not in the art of medicine, but in some forbidden supernatural power. When he
was afterwards questioned by some who were amazed at his words, he explained
what they had not understood, namely, that he would not have prescribed the same
remedy to the patient at t. he age which he had now attained. While,
therefore, the principle J and methods of art remain unchanged, the change which, in
accordance with them, may be made necessary by the difference of times is: very
great.
4. To say then, that what has once been done rightly must in no respect
whatever be changed, is to affirm what is not true. For if the circumstances of
time which occasioned anything be changed, true reason in almost all cases
demands that what had been in the former circumstances rightly done, be now so
altered that, although they say that it is not rightly done if it be changed, truth,
on the contrary, protests that it is not rightly done unless it be changed;
because, at both times, it will be rightly done if the difference be regulated
according to the difference in the times. For just as in the cases of different
persons it may happen that, at the same moment, one man may do with impunity
what another man may not, because of a difference not in the thing done but in the
person who does it, so in the case of one and the same person at different
times, that which was duty formerly is not duty now, not because the person is
different from his former self, but because the time at which he does it is
different.
5. The wide range opened up by this question may be seen by any one who is
competent and careful to observe the contrast between the beautiful and the
suitable, examples of which are i scattered, we may say, throughout the universe.
For the beautiful, to which the ugly and deformed is opposed, is estimated and
praised according to what it is in itself. But the suitable, to which the
incongruous is opposed, depends on something else to which it is bound, and is
estimated not according to what it is in itself, but according to that with which
it is connected: the contrast, also, between becoming and unbecoming is either
the same, or at least regarded as the same. Now apply what we have said to the
subject in hand. The divine institution of sacrifice was suitable in the former
dispensation, but is not suitable now. For the change suitable to the present
age has been enjoined by God, who knows infinitely better than man what is
fitting for every age, and who is, whether He give or add, abolish or curtail,
increase or diminish, the unchangeable Governor as He is the uncHangeable Creator of
mutable things, ordering all events in His providence until the beauty of the
completed course of time, the component parts of which are the dispensations
adapted to each successive age, shall be finished, like the grand melody of some
ineffably wise master of song, and those pass into the eternal immediate
contemplation of God who here, though it is a time of faith, not of sight, are
acceptably worshipping Him.
6. They are mistaken, moreover, who think that God appoints these
ordinances for His own advantage or pleasure; and no wonder that, being thus mistaken,
they are perplexed, as if it was from a changing mood that He ordered one thing
to be offered to Him in a former age, and something else now. But this is not
the case. God enjoins nothing for His own advantage, but for the benefit of
those to whom the injunction is given. Therefore He is truly Lord, for He does not
need His servants, but His servants stand in need of Him. In those same Old
Testament Scriptures, and in the age in which sacrifices were still being offered
that are now abrogated, it is said: "I said unto the Lord, Thou art my God,
for Thou dost not need my good things."' therefore God did not stand in need of
those sacrifices, nor does He ever need anything; but there are certain acts,
symbolical of these divine gifts, whereby the soul receives either present grace
or eternal glory, in the celebration and practice of which, pious exercises,
serviceable not to God but to ourselves, are performed.
7. It would, however, take too long to discuss with adequate fulness the
differences between the symbolical actions of former and present times, which,
because of their pertaining to divine things, are called sacraments.' For as the
man is not fickle who does one thing in the morning and another in the
evening, one thing this month and another in the next, one thing this year and another
next year, so there is no variableness with God, though in the former period
of the world's history He enjoined one kind of offerings, and in the latter
period another, therein ordering the symbolical actions pertaining to the blessed
doctrine of true religion in harmony with the changes of successive epochs.
without any change in Himself. For in order to let those whom these things perplex
understand that tim change was already in the divine counsel, and that, when
the new ordinances were ! appointed, it was not because the old had suddenly lost
the divine approbation through inconstancy in His will, but that this had been
already fixed and determined by the wisdom of that God to whom, in reference
to much greater changes, these words are spoken in Scripture :l Thou shalt
change them, and they shall be changed; but Thou art the same, it is necessary to
convince them that this exchange of the sacraments of the Old Testament for those
of the New had been predicted by the voices of the prophets. For thus they
will see, if they can see anything, that what is new in time is not new in
relation to Him who has appointed the tithes, and who possesses, without succession of
time, all those things which He assigns according to their variety to the
several ages. For in the psalm from which I have quoted above the words: "I said
unto the Lord, Thou art my God, for Thou dost not need my good things," in proof
that God does not need our sacrifices, it is added shortly after by the
Psalmist in Christ's name: "I will not gather their assemblies of blood;"s that is,
for tile offering of animals from their flocks, for which the Jewish assemblies
were wont to be gathered together; and in another place he says: "I will take no
bullock out of thy house, nor he-goat from thy folds; "4 and another prophet
says: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that I will make a new covenant
with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: not according to the
covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to
bring them out 'of the land of Egypt." s There are, besides these, many other
testimonies on this subject in which it was foretold that God would do as He has
done; but it would take too long to mention them.
8. If it is now established that that which was for one age rightly
ordained may be in another age rightly changed,--the alteration indicating a change
in the work, not in tile plan, of Him who makes the change, the plan being
framed by His reasoning faculty, to which, unconditioned by succession in time,
those things are simultaneously present which cannot be actually done at the same
time because the ages succeed each other,--one might perhaps at this point
expect to hear from me the causes of the change in question. You know how long it
would take to discuss these fully. The matter may be stated summarily, but
sufficiently for a man of shrewd judgment, in these words: It was fitting that
Christ's future coming should be foretold by some sacraments, and that after His
coming other sacraments should proclaim this; just as i the difference in the facts
has compelled us to change the words .used by us in speaking of the advent as
future or past: to be foretold is one thing, to be proclaimed is another, and
to be about to come is one thing, to have come is another.
CHAP. II. -- 9. Let us now observed in the second place, what follows in your letter.6
You have added that they said that the Christian doctrine and preaching were
in no way consistent with the duties and rights of citizens, because among its
precepts we find: "Recompense to no man evil for evil," r and, "Whosoever shall
smite thee on one cheek, turn to him the other also; and if any man take away
thy coat, let him have thy cloak also; and whosoever will compel thee to go a
mile with him, go with him twain,'' s- all which are affirmed to be contrary to
the duties and rights of citizens; for who would submit to have anything taken
from him by an enemy, or forbear from retaliating the evils of war upon an
invader who ravaged a Roman province? To these and similar statements of persons
speaking slightingly, or perhaps I should rather say speaking as inquirers
regarding the truth, I might have given a more elaborate answer, were it not that the
persons with whom the discussion is carried on are men of liberal education. In
addressing such, why should we prolong the debate, and not rather begin by
inquiring for ourselves how it was possible that the Republic of Rome was governed
and aggrandized from insignificance and poverty to greatness and opulence by
men who, when they had suffered wrong, would rather pardon than punish the
offender; 9 or how Cicero, addressing Caesar, the greatest statesman of his time,
said, in praising his character, that he was wont to forget nothing but the
wrongs which were done to him ?' For in this Cicero spoke either praise or flattery:
if he spoke praise, it was because he knew Caesar to be such as he affirmed;
if he spoke flattery, he showed that the chief magistrate of a commonwealth
ought to do such things as he falsely commended in Caesar. But what is "not
rendering' evil for evil," but refraining from the passion of revenge-in other words,
choosing, when one has suffered wrong, to pardon rather than to punish the
offender, and to forget nothing but the wrongs done to us?
10. When these things are read in their own authors, they are received
with loud applause; they are regarded as the record and recommendation of virtues
in the practice of which the Republic deserved to hold sway over so many
nations, because its citizens preferred to pardon rather than punish those who
wronged them. But when the precept, "Render to no man evil for evil," is read as
given by divine authority, and when, from the pulpits in our churches, this
wholesome counsel is published in the midst of our congregations, or, as we might say,
in places of instruction open to all, of both sexes and of all ages and ranks,
our religion is accused as an enemy to the Republic ! Yet, were our religion
listened to as it deserves, it would establish, consecrate, strengthen, and
enlarge the commonwealth in a way beyond all that Romulus, Numa, Brutus, and all
the other men of renown in Roman history achieved. For what' is a republic but a
commonwealth? Therefore its interests are common to all; they are the interests
of the State. Now what is a State but a multitude of men bound together by
some bond of concord ? In one of their own authors we read: "What was a scattered
and unsettled multitude had by concord become in a short time a State." But
what exhortations to concord have they ever appointed to be read in their temples
? So far from this, they were unhappily compelled to devise how they might
worship without giving offence to any of their gods, who were all at such variance
among themselves, that, had their worshippers imitated their quarrelling, the
State must have fallen to pieces for want of the bond of concord, as it soon
afterwards began to do through civil wars, when the morals of the people were
changed and corrupted.
11. But who, even though he be a stranger to our religion, is so deaf as
not to know how many precepts enjoining concord, not invented by the discussions
of men, but written with the authority of God, are continually read in the
churches of Christ? For this is tim tendency even of those precepts which they are
much more willing to debate than to follow: "That to him who smites us on one
cheek we should offer the other to be smitten; to him who would take away our
coat we should give our cloak also; and that with him who' compels us to go one
mile we should go twain." For these things are done only that a wicked man may
be overcome by kindness, or rather that the evil which is in the wicked man may
be overcome by good, and that the man may be delivered from the evil-not from
any evil that is external and foreign to himself, but from that which is within
and is his own, under which he suffers loss more severe and fatal than could
be inflicted by the cruelty of any enemy from without. He, therefore, who is
overcoming evil by good, submits patiently to the loss of temporal advantages,
that he may show how those things, through excessive love of which the other is
made wicked, deserve to be despised when compared with faith and righteousness;
in order that so the injurious person may learn from him whom he wronged what is
the true nature of the things for the sake of which he committed the wrong,
and may be won back with sorrow for his sin to that concord, than which nothing
is more serviceable to the State, being overcome not by the strength of one
passionately resenting, but by the good-nature of one patiently bearing wrong. For
then it is rightly done when it seems that it will benefit him for whose sake
it is done, by producing in him amendment of his ways and concord with others.
At all events, it is to be done with this intention, even though the result may
be different from what was expected, and the man, with a view to whose
correction and conciliation this healing and salutary medicine, so to speak, was
employed, refuses to be corrected and reconciled.
12. Moreover, if we pay attention to the words of the precept, and
consider ourselves under bondage to the literal interpretation, the right cheek is not
to be presented by us if the left has been smitten. "Whosoever," it is said,
"shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also; "' but the
left cheek is more liable to be smitten, because it is easier for the right hand
of the assailant to smite it than the other. But the words are commonly
understood as if our Lord had said: If any one has acted injuriously to thee in respect
of the higher possessions which thou hast, offer to him also the inferior
possessions, lest, being more concerned about revenge than about forbearance, thou
shouldst despise eternal things in comparison with temporal things, whereas
temporal things ought to be despised in comparison with eternal things, as the
left is in comparison with the right. This has been always the aim of the holy
martyrs; for final vengeance is righteously! demanded only when there remains no
room for amendment, namely, in the last great judgment. Rut meanwhile we must be
on our guard, lest, through desire for revenge, we lose patience itself, -- a
virtue which is of more value than all which an enemy can, in spite of our
resistance, take away from us. For another evangelist, in recording the same
precept, makes no mention of the right cheek, but names .merely the one and the
other; ' so that, while the duty may be somewhat more distinctly learned from
Matthew's gospel, he simply commends the same exercise of patience. Wherefore a
righteous and pious man ought to be prepared to endure with patience injury from
those whom he desires to make good, so that the number of good men may be
increased, instead of himself being added, by retaliation of injury, to the number of
wicked men.
13. In fine, that these precepts pertain rather to the inward disposition
of the heart than to the actions which ate done in the sight of men, requiring
us, in the inmost heart, to cherish patience along with benevolence, but in the
outward action to do that which seems most likely to benefit those whose good
we ought to seek, is manifest from the fact that our Lord Jesus Himself, our
perfect example of patience, when He was smitten on the face, answered: "If I
have spoken evil, bear witness of the evil, but if not, why smitest thou me? "$ If
we look only to the words, He did not in this obey His own precept, for He did
not present the other side of his face to him who had smitten Him but, on the
contrary, prevented him who hac . done the wrong from adding thereto; and yet
He had come prepared not only to be smitten on the face, but even to be slain
upon the cross for those at whose hands He suffered crucifixion, and for whom,
when hanging on the cross, He prayed, "Father, forgive them, they know not what
they do ! "3 In like manner, the Apostle Paul seems to have failed to obey the
precept of his Lord and Master, when he, being smitten on the face as He had
been, said to the chief priest: "God shall smite thee, thou whited wall, for
sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to
the! law? ," And when it was said by them that stood near, "Revilest thou God's
high priest?" he took pains sarcastically to indicate what his words meant,
that those of them who were discerning might understand that now the whited wall,
i.e. the hypocrisy of the Jewish priesthood, was appointed to be thrown down
by the coming of Christ; for He said: "I wist not, brethren, that he was the
high priest, for it is written, Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy
people;"4 although it is perfectly certain that he who had grown up in that nation
and bad been in that place trained in the law, could not but know that his
judge was the chief priest, and could not, by professing ignorance on this point,
impose upon those to whom he was so well known.
14. These precepts concerning patience ought to be always retained in the
habitual discipline of the heart, and the benevolence which prevents the
recompensing of evil for evil must be always fully cherished in the disposition. At
the same time, many things must be done in correcting with a certain benevolent
severity, even against their own wishes, men whose welfare rather than their
wishes it is our duty to consult and the Christian Scriptures have most
unambiguously commended this virtue in a magistrate.' For in the correction of a so,
even with some sternness, there is assuredly no diminution of a father's love;
yet, in the correction, that is done which is received with reluctance and pain by
one whom it seems necessary to heal by pain. And on this principle, if the
commonwealth observe the precepts of the Christian religion, even its wars
themselves will not be carried on without the benevolent design that, after the
resisting nations have been conquered, provision may be more easily made for enjoying
in peace the mutual bond of piety and justice. For the person from whom is
taken away the freedom which he abuses in doing i wrong is vanquished with benefit
to himself; since nothing is more truly a misfortune than that good fortune of
offenders, by which pernicious impunity is maintained, and the evil
disposition, like an enemy within the man, is strengthened. But the perverse and froward
. hearts of men think human affairs are prosperous when men are concerned about
magnificent mansions, and indifferent to the ruin of souls; when mighty
theatres are built up, and the foundations of virtue are undermined; when the madness
of extravagance is highly esteemed, and works of mercy are scorned; when, out
of , the wealth and affluence of rich men, luxurious provision is made for
actors, and the poor are . grudged the necessaries of life; when that God !who, by
the public declarations of His doctrine, protests against public vice, is
blasphemer by impious communities, which demand gods of such character that even
those theatrical representations which bring disgrace to both body and soul are
fitly performed in honour of them. If God permit these things to prevail, He is
in that permission showing more grievous displeasure: if He leave these crimes
unpunished, such impunity is a more terrible judgment. When, on the other hand,
He overthrows the props of vice, and reduces to poverty those lusts which were
nursed by plenty, He afflicts in mercy. And in mercy, also, if such a thing
were possible, even wars might be waged by the good, in order that, by bringing
under the yoke the unbridled lusts of men, those vices might be abolished which
ought, under a just government, to be either extirpated or suppressed.
15. For if the Christian religion condemned wars of every kind, the
command given in the gospel to soldiers asking counsel as to salvation would rather
be to cast away their arms, and withdraw themselves wholly from military
service; whereas the word spoken to such was, "Do violence to no man, neither accuse
any falsely, and be content with your wages," 'the command to be content with
their wages! manifestly implying no prohibition to continue m the service.
Wherefore, let those who say that the doctrine of Christ is incompatible with the
State's well-being, give us an army composed of soldiers such as the doctrine of
Christ requires them to be; let them give us such subjects, such husbands and
wives, such parents! and children, such masters and servants, such! kings, such
judges--in fine, even such taxpayers and tax-gatherers, as the Christian
religion has taught that men should be, and then let them dare to say that it is
adverse to the State's well-being; yea, rather, let them no longer hesitate to
confess that this doctrine, if it were obeyed, would be the salvation of the
commonwealth.
CHAP. III. -- 16. But what am I to answer to the assertion made that many calamities
have befallen the Roman Empire through some Christian emperors? This sweeping
accusation is a calumny. For if they would more clearly quote some indisputable
facts in support of it from the history of past emperors, I also could mention
similar, perhaps even greater calamities in the reigns of other emperors who were
not Christians; so that men may understand that these were either faults in the
men, not in their religion, or were due not to the emperors themselves, but to
others without whom emperors can do nothing. As to the date of the
commencement of the downfall of the Roman Republic, there is ample evidence; their own
literature speaks plainly as to this. Long before the name of Christ had shone
abroad on the earth, this was said of Rome: "0 venal city, and doomed to perish
speedily, if only it could find a purchaser!"2 In his book on the Catilinarian
conspiracy, which was before the coming of Christ, the same most illustrious
Roman historian declares plainly the time when the army of the Roman people began
to be wanton and drunken; to set a high value on statues, paintings, and
embossed vases; to take these by violence both from individuals and from the State; to
rob temples and pollute everything, sacred and profane. When, therefore, the
avarice and grasping violence of the corrupt and abandoned manners of the time
spared neither men nor those whom they esteemed as gods, the famous honour and
safety of the commonwealth began to decline. What progress the worst vices made
from that time forward, and with how great mischief to the interests of mankind
the wickedness of the Empire went on, it would take too long to rehearse. Let
them hear their own satirist speaking playfully yet truly thus: --
Once poor, and therefore chaste, in former times
Our matrons were no luxury found room
In low-roofed houses and bare walls of loam;
Their hands with labour burdened while 'tis light,
A frugal sleep supplied the quiet night;
While, pinched with want, their hunger held them strait, When Hannibal was
hovering at the gate; But wanton now, and lolling at our ease, We suffer all the
inveterate ills of peace And wasteful riot, whose destructive charms Revenge the
vanquished world of our victorious arms. No crime, no lustful postures are
unknown, Since poverty, our guardian-god, is gone." s Why, then, do you expect me
to multiply examples of the evils which were brought in by wickedness uplifted
by prosperity, seeing that among themselves, those who observed events with
somewhat' closer attention discerned that Rome had more reason to regret the
departure of its poverty than of its opulence; because in its poverty the integrity
of its virtue was secured, but through its opulence, dire corruption, more
terrible than any invader, had taken violent possession not of the walls of the
city, but of the mind of the State?
17. Thanks be unto the Lord our God, who has sent unto us unprecedented
help in resisting these evils. For whither might not men have been carried away
by that flood of the appalling wickedness of the human race, whom would it have
spared, and in what depths would it not have engulfed its victims, had not the
cross of Christ, resting on such a solid rock of authority (so to speak), been
planted too high add too strong for the flood to sweep it away ? so that by
laying hold of its strength we may become stedfast, and not be carried off our
feet and overwhelmed in the mighty whirlpool of the evil counsels and evil
impulses of this world. For when the empire was sinking in the vile abyss of utterly
depraved manners, and of the effete ancient religion, it was signally important
that heavenly authority should come to the rescue, persuading men to the
practice of voluntary poverty, continence, benevolence, justice, and concord among
themselves, as well as true piety towards God, and all the other bright and
sterling virtues of life, -- not only with a view to the I spending of this present
life in the most honourable way, nor only with a view to secure the most t
perfect bond of concord m the earthly common wealth, but also in order to the
obtaining of eternal salvation, and a place in the divine and! celestial republic of
a people which shall endure for ever--a republic to the citizenship of which
faith, hope, and charity admit us; so that, while absent from it on our
pilgrimage here, we may patiently tolerate, if we cannot correct, those who desire, by
leaving vices unpunished, to give stability to that republic which the early
Romans founded and enlarged by their virtues, when, though they had not the true
piety towards the true God which could bring them, by a religion of saving
power, to the commonwealth which ii eternal, they did nevertheless observe a
certain integrity of its' own kind, which might suffice for founding, enlarging, and
preserving an earthly commonwealth. For m the most opulent and illustrious'
Empire of Rome, God has shown how great is the influence of even civil virtues
without true religion, in order that it might be understood that, when this is
added to such virtues, men are made citizens of another commonwealth, of which the
king is Truth, the law is Love, and the duration is Eternity.
CHAP. IV. -- 18. Who can help feeling that there is something simply ridiculous in
their attempt to compare with Christ, or rather to put in a higher place,
Apollonius and Apuleius, and others who were most skilful in magical arts? Yet this is
to be tolerated with less impatience, because they bring into comparison with
Him these men rather than their own gods; for Apollonius was, as we must admit, a
much worthier character than that author and perpetrator of innumerable gross
acts of immorality whom they call Jupiter. "These legends about our gods," they
reply, "are fables." Why, then, do they go on praising that luxurious,
licentious, and manifestly profane prosperity of the Republic, which invented these
infamous crimes of the gods, and not only left them to reach the ears of men as
fables, but also exhibited them to the eyes of men in the theatres; in which,
more numerous than their deities were the crimes which the gods themselves were
well pleased to see openly perpetrated in their honour, whereas they should have
punished their worshippers for even tolerating such spectacles? "But," they
reply, "those are not the gods themselves whose worship is celebrated according
to the lying invention of such fables." Who, then, are they who are propitiated
by the practising in worship of such abominations? Because, forsooth,
Christianity has exposed the perversity and chicanery of those devils, by whose power
also magical arts deceive the minds of men, and because it has made this patent
to the world, and, having brought out the distinction between the holy angels
and these malignant adversaries, has warned men to be on their guard against
them, showing them also how this may be done, -- it is called an enemy to the
Republic, as if, even though temporal prosperity could be secured by their aid, and,
amount of adversity would not be preferable to the prosperity obtained through
such means. And yet it pleased God to prevent men from being perplexed in this
matter; for in the age of the comparative darkness of the Old Testament, in
which is the covering of the New Testament, He distinguished the first nation
which worshiped the true God and despised false gods by such remarkable prosperity
in this world, that any. ode may perceive from l. heir case that prosperity is
not at the disposal of devils, but only of Him whom angels serve and devils
fear.
19. Apuleius (of whom I choose rather to speak, because, as our own
countryman, he is better known to us Africans), though born in a place of some note,'
and a man of superior education and great eloquence, never succeeded, with all
his magical arts, in reaching, I do not say the supreme power, but even any
subordinate office as a magistrate in the Empire. Does it seem probable that he,
as a philosopher, voluntarily despised these things, who, being the priest of a
province, was so ambitious of greatness that he gave spectacles of
gladiatorial combats, provided the dresses worn by those who fought with wild beasts in
the circus, and, in order to get a statue of himself erected in the town of Coea,
the birthplace of his wife, appealed to law against the opposition made by
some of the citizens to the proposal, and then, to prevent this from being
forgotten by posterity, published the speech delivered by him on that occasion? I So
far, therefore, as concerns worldly prosperity, I that magician did his utmost
in order to success; 'whence it is manifest that he failed not because he was
not wishful, but because he was not able I to do more. At the same time we admit
that the defended himself with brilliant eloquence against some who imputed to
him the crime of practising magical arts which makes me wonder at his
panegyrists, who, in affirming that by these arts he wrought some miracles, attempt to
bring evidence contradicting his own defence of himself from the charge. Let
them, however, examine whether, indeed, they are bringing true testimony, and he
was guilty of pleading what he knew to be false. Those who pursue magical arts
only with a view to worldly prosperity or from an accursed curiosity, and those
also who, though innocent of such arts, nevertheless praise them with a
dangerous admiration, I would exhort to give heed, if they be wise, and to observe
how, without any such arts, the position of a shepherd was exchanged for the
dignity of the kingly office by David, of whom Scripture has faithfully recorded
both the sinful and the meritorious actions, in order that we might know both how
to avoid offending God, and how, when He has been offended, His wrath may be
appeased.
20. As to those miracles, however, which are performed in order to excite
the wonder of men, they do greatly err who compare heathen magicians with the
holy prophets, who completely eclipse them by the fame of their great miracles.
How much more do they err if they compare them with Christ, of whom the
prophets, so incomparably superior to magicians of every name, foretold that He would
come both in the human nature, which he took in being born of the Virgin, and
in the divine nature, in which He is never separated from the Father!
I see that I have written a very long letter, and yet have not said all
concerning Christ which might meet the case either of those who from sluggishness
of intellect are unable to comprehend divine things, or of those who, though
endowed with acuteness, are kept back from discerning truth through their love
of contradiction and the prepossession of their minds in favour of
long-cherished error. Howbeit, take note of anything which influences them against our
doctrine, and write to me again, so that, if the Lord help us, we may, by letters or
by treatises, furnish an answer to all their objections. May you, by the grace
and mercy of the Lord, be happy in Him;my noble and justly distinguished lord,
my son dearly beloved and longed for!
LETTER CXXXIX. (A.D. 412.)
TO MARCELLINUS, MY LORD JUSTLY DISTINGUISHED MY SON VERY MUCH BELOVED AND
LONGED FOR AUGUSTIN SENDS GREETING IN THE LORD.
1. The Acts1 which your Excellency promised to send I am eagerly
expecting, and I am longing to have them read as soon as possible in the church at
Hippo, and also, if it can be done, in all the churches established within the
diocese, that all may hear and become thoroughly familiar with the men who have
confessed their crimes, not because the fear of God subdued them to repentance, but
because the rigour of their judges broke through the hardness of their most
cruel hearts, -- some of them confessing to the murder of one presbyter
[Restitutus], and the blinding and maiming of another [Innocentius]; others not daring
to deny that they might have known of these outrages, although they say that
they disapproved of them, and persisting in the impiety of schism in fellowship
with such a multitude of atrocious villains, while deserting the I peace of the
Catholic Church on the pretext of unwillingness to be polluted by other men's i
crimes; others declaring that they will not forsake the schismatics, even
though the certainty of Catholic truth and the perversity of the Donatists have been
demonstrated to them. The work, which it has pleased God to entrust to your
diligence, is of great importance. My heart's desire is, that many similar
Donatist cases may be tried and decided by you as these have been, and that in this
way the crimes and the insane obstinacy of these men may be often brought to
light; and that the Acts recording : these proceedings may be published, and
brought !to the knowledge of all men.
As to the statement in your Excellency's letter, that you are uncertain
whether you ought to command the said Acts to be published in Theoprepia,2 my
reply is, Let this be done, if a large multitude of hearers can be gathered there;
if this be not the case, some other place of more general resort must be
provided; it must not, however, be omitted on any account.
2. As to the punishment of these men, I beseech you to make it something
less severe than sentence of death, although they have, by their own confession,
been guilty of such grievous crimes. I ask this out of a regard both for our
own consciences and for the testimony thereby given to Catholic clemency. For
this is the special advantage secured to us by their confession, that the
Catholic Church has found an opportunity of maintaining and exhibiting forbearance
towards her most violent enemies; since in a case where such cruelty was
practised, any punishment short of death will be seen by all men to proceed from great
leniency. And although such treatment appears to some of our communion, whose
minds are agitated by these atrocities, to be less than the crimes deserve, and
to have somewhat the aspect of weakness and dereliction of duty, nevertheless,
when the feelings, which are wont to be immoderately excited while such events
are recent, have subsided after a time, the kindness shown to the guilty will
shine with most conspicuous brightness, and men will take much more pleasure in
reading these Acts and showing them to others, my lord justly distinguished, and
son very much beloved and longed for.
My holy brother and co-bishop Boniface is on the spot, and I have
forwarded by the deacon Peregrinus, who travelled along with him, a letter of
instructions; accept these as representing me. And whatever may seem in your joint
opinion to be for the Church's interest, let it be done with the help of the Lord,
who is able in the midst of so great evils graciously to succour you. One of
their bishops, Macrobius, is at present going round in all directions, followed by
bands of wretched men and women, and has opened for himself the [Donatist]
churches which fear, however slight, had moved their owners to close for a time.
By the presence, however, of one whom I have commended and again heartily
commend to your love, namely, Spondeus, the deputy of the illustrious Celer, their
presumption was indeed somewhat checked; but now, since his departure to
Carthage, Macrobius has opened the Donatist churches ever within his property, and is
gathering congregations for worship in them. In his company',' moreover, is
Donatus, a deacon, rebaptized by them even when he was a tenant of lands belonging
to the Church, who was implicated as a ringleader in the outrage Ion
Innocentius]. When this man is his associate, who can tell what kind of followers may be
in his retinue ? If the sentence on these men is to be pronounced by the
Proconsul,' or by both of you together, and if he perchance insist upon inflicting
capital punishment, although he is a Christian and, so far as we have had
opportunity of observing, not disposed to such severity -- if, I say, his
determination make it necessary, order those letters of mine, which I deemed it my duty to
address to you severally on this subject,2 to be brought before you while the
trial is still going on; for I am accustomed to hear that it is in the power of
the judge to mitigate the sentence, and inflict a milder penalty than the law
prescribes. If, however, notwithstanding these letters from me, he refuse to
grant this request, let him at least allow that the men be remanded for a time;
and we will endeavour to obtain this concession from the clemency of the
Emperors, so that the sufferings of the martyrs, which ought to shed bright glory on
the Church, may not be tarnished by the blood of their enemies; for I know that
in the case of the clergy in the valley of Anaunia,3 who were slain by the
Pagans, and are now honoured as martyrs, the Emperor granted readily a petition that
the murderers, who had been discovered and imprisoned, might not be visited
with a capital punishment.
3. As to the books concerning the baptism of infants, of which I had sent
the original manuscript to your Excellency, I have forgotten for what reason I
received them again from you; unless, perhaps, it was that, 'after examining
them, I found them faulty, and wished to make some corrections, which, by reason
of extraordinary hindrances, I have not yet been able to overtake. I must also
confess that the letter intended to be addressed to you and added to these
books, and which I had begun to dictate when I was with you, is still unfinished,
little having been added to it since that time. If, however, I could set before
you a statement of the toil which it is absolutely necessary for me to devote,
both by day and by night, to other duties, you would deeply sympathize with me,
and would be astonished at the amount of business not admitting of delay which
distracts my mind and hinders me from accomplishing those .things to which you
urge me in entreaties and admonitions, addressed to one most willing to oblige
you, and inexpressibly grieved that it is beyond his power; for when I obtain
a little leisure from the urgent necessary business of those men, who so press
me into their service 4 that I am neither able to escape them nor at liberty to
neglect them, there are always subjects to which I must, in dictating to my
amanuenses, give the first place, because they are so connected with the present
hour as not to admit of being postponed. Of such things one instance was the
abridgement of the proceedings at our Conference,s a work involving much labour,
but necessary, because I saw that no one would attempt the perusal of such a
mass of writing; another was a letter to the Donatist laity 6 concerning the said
Conference, a document which I have just completed, after labouring at it for
several nights; another was the composition of two long letters? one addressed
to yourself, my beloved friend, the other to the illustrious Volusianus, which
I suppose you both have received; another is a book, with which I am occupied
at present, addressed to our friend Honoratus,8 in regard to five questions
proposed by him in a letter to me, and you see that to him I was unquestionably in
duty bound to send a prompt reply. For love deals with her sons as a nurse does
with children, devoting her attention to them not in the order of the love
felt for each, but according to the urgency of each case; she gives a preference
to the weaker, because she -desires to impart to them such strength as is
possessed by the stronger, whom she passes by meanwhile not because of her slighting
them, but because her mind is at rest in regard to them. Emergencies of this
kind, compelling me to employ my amanuenses in writing on subjects which prevent
me from using their pens in: work much more congenial to tile ardent desires l
of my heart, can never fail to occur, because I have difficulty in obtaining
even a very little leisure, amidst the accumulation of business into which, in
spite of my own inclinations, I am dragged by other men's wishes or necessities;
and what I am to do, I really do not know.
4. You have heard the burdens, for my deliverance from which I wish you to
join your prayers with mine; but at the same time I do not wish you to desist
from admonishing me, as you do, with such importunity and frequency; your words
are not without some effect. I commend at the same time to your Excellency a
church planted in Numidia, on behalf of which, in its present necessities, my
holy brother and co-bishop Delphinus has been sent by my brethren and co-bishops
who share the toils and the dangers of their work in that region. I no more on
this matter, because you will hear all from his own lips when he comes to you.
All other necessary particulars you will find in the letters of instruction,
which are sent by me to the presbyter either now or by the deacon Peregrinus, so
that I need not again repeat them.
May your heart be ever strong in Christ, my lord justly distinguished, and
son very much beloved and longed for!
I commend to your Excellency our son Ruffinus, the Provost. of Cirta.
LETTER CXLIII. (A.D. 412.)
TO MARCELLINUS, MY NOBLE LORD, JUSTLY DISTINGUISHED, MY SON VERY MUCH BELOVED,
AUGUSTIN SENDS GREETING IN THE LORD.
1. Desiring to reply to the letter which I received from you through our
holy brother, my co-bishop Boniface, I have sought for it, but have not found
it. I have recalled to mind, however, that you asked me in that letter how the
magicians of Pharaoh could, after all the water of Egypt had been turned into
blood, find any with which to imitate the miracle. There are two ways in which the
question is commonly answered: either that it was possible for water to have
been brought from the sea, or, which is more credible, that these plagues were
not inflicted on the district in which the children of Israel were; for the
clear, express statements to this effect in some parts of that scriptural narrative
entitle us to assume this in places where the statement is omitted.
2. In your other letter, brought to me by the presbyter Urbanus, a
question is proposed, taken from a passage not in the Divine Scriptures, but in one of
my own books, namely, that which I wrote on Free Will. On questions of this
kind, however, I do not bestow much labour; because. even if the statement
objected to does not admit of unanswerable vindication, it is mine only; it is not an
utterance of that Author whose words it is impiety to reject, even when,
through our misapprehension of their meaning, the interpretation which we put on
them deserves to be rejected. I freely confess, accordingly, that I endeavour to
be one of those who write because they have made some progress, and who,
by-means of writing, make further progress. If, therefore, through inadvertence or
want of knowledge, anything has been stated by me which may with good reason be
condemned, not only by others who are able to discover this, but also by myself
(for if I am making progress, I ought, at least after it has been pointed out,
to see it), such a mistake is not to be regarded with surprise or grief, but
rather forgiven, and made the occasion of congratulating me, not, of course, on
having erred, but on having renounced an error. For there is an extravagant
perversity in the self-love of the man who desires other men to be in error, that
the fact of his having erred may not be discovered. How much better and more
profitable is it that in the points in which he has erred others should not err, so
that he may be delivered from his error by their advice, or, if he refuse
this, may at least have no followers in his error. For, if God permit me, as I
desire, to gather together and point out, in a work devoted to this express
purpose, all the things which most justly displease me in my books, men will then see
how far I am from being a partial judge in my own case.
3. As for you, however, who love me warmly, if, in opposing those by whom,
whether through malice or ignorance or superior intelligence, I am censured,
you maintain the position that I have nowhere in my writings made a mistake, you
labour in a hopeless enterprise- you have undertaken a bad cause, in which,
even if myself were judge, you must be easily worsted; for it is no pleasure to
me that my dearest friends should think me to be such as I am not, since
assuredly they love not me, but instead of me another under my name, if they love not
what I am, but what I am not; for in so far as they know me, or believe what is
true concerning me, I am loved by them; but in so far as they ascribe to me
what they do not know to be in me, they love another person, such as they suppose
me to be. Cicero, the prince of Roman orators, says of some one, "He never
uttered a word which he would wish to recall." This commendation, though it seems
to be the highest possible, is nevertheless more likely to be true of a
consummate fool than of a man perfectly wise; for it is true of idiots,' that the more
absurd and foolish they are, and the more their opinions diverge from those
universally held, the more likely are they to utter no word which they will wish
to recall; for to regret an evil, or foolish, or ill-timed word is
characteristic of a wise man. If, however, the words quoted are taken in a good sense, as
intended to make us believe that some one was such that, by reason of his
speaking all things wisely, he never uttered any word which he would wish to recall,-
this we are, in accordance with sound piety, to believe rather concerning men
of God, who spoke as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, than concerning the man
whom Cicero commends. For my part, so far am I from this excellence, that if I
have uttered no word which I would wish to recall, it must be because I
resemble more the idiot than the wise man. The man whose writings are most worthy of
the highest authority is he who has uttered no word, I do not say which it
would: be his desire, but which it would be his duty to i recall. Let him that has
not attained to this! occupy the second rank through his humility, I since he
cannot take the first rank through his wisdom. Since he has been unable, with
all his: care, to exclude every. expression whose use may i be justly regretted,
let him acknowledge his regret for anything which, as he may now have
discovered, ought not to have been said.
4. Since, therefore, the words spoken by me which I would if I could
recall, are not, as my very dear friends suppose, few or none, but perhaps even more
than my enemies imagine, I am not gratified by such commendation as Cicero's
sentence, "He never uttered a word which he would wish to recall," but I am
deeply distressed by the saying of Horace, "The word once uttered cannot be
recalled."2 This is the reason why I keep beside me, longer than you wish or patiently
bear, the books which I have written on difficult and important questions on
the book of Genesis and the doctrine of the Trinity, hoping that, if it be
impossible to avoid having some things which may deservedly be found fault with, the
number of these may at least be smaller than it might have been, if, through
impatient haste, the works had been published without due deliberation; for you,
as your letters indicate (our holy brother and co-bishop Florentius having
written me to this effect), are urgent for the publication of these works now, in
order that they may be defended in my own lifetime by myself, when, perhaps,
they may begin to be assailed in some particulars, either through the cavilling
of enemies or the misapprehensions of friends. You say this doubtless because
you think there is nothing in them which might with justice be censured,
otherwise you would not exhort me to publish the books, but rather to revise them more
carefully. But I fix my eye rather on those who are true judges, sternly
impartial, between whom and myself I wish, in the first place, to make sure of my
ground, so that the only faults coming to be censured by them may be those which
it was impossible for me to observe, though using the most diligent scrutiny.
5. Notwithstanding what I have just said, I am prepared to defend the
sentence in the third book of my treatise on Free Will, in which, discoursing on
the rational substance, I have expressed my opinion in these words: "The soul,
appointed to occupy a body inferior in nature to itself after the entrance of
sin, governs its own body, not absolutely according to its free will, but only in
so far as the laws of the universe permit." I bespeak the particular attention
of those who think that I have here fixed and defined, as ascertained
concerning the human soul, either that it comes by propagation from the parents, or that
it has, through sins committed in a higher celestial life, incurred the
penalty of being shut up in a corruptible body. Let them, I say, observe that the
words in question have been so carefully weighed by me, that while they hold fast
what I regard as certain, namely, that after the sin of the first man, all
other men. have been born and continue to be born in that sinful flesh, for the
healing of which "the likeness of sinful flesh "s came in the person of the Lord,
they are also so chosen as not to pronounce upon' any one of those four
opinions which I have in the sequel expounded and distinguished--not attempting to
establish any one of them as preferable to the others, but disposing in the
meantime of the matter under discussion, and reserving the consideration of these
opinions, so that whichever of them may be true, praise should unhesitatingly be
given to God.
6. For whether all souls are derived by propagation from the first, or are
in the case of each individual specially created, or being created apart from
the body are sent into it, or introduce themselves into it of their own accord,
without doubt this creature endowed with reason, namely, the human soul-
appointed to occupy an inferior, that is, an earthly body- after the entrance of
sin, does not govern its own body absolutely according to its free will.' For I
did not say, "after his sin," or "after he sinned," but after the entrance of
sin, that whatever might afterwards, if possible, be determined by reason as to
the question whether the sin was his own or the sin of the first parent of
mankind, it might be perceived that in saying that "the soul, appointed, after the
entrance of sin, to occupy an inferior body, does not govern its body absolutely
according to its own free will," I stated what is true; for "the flesh lusteth
against the spirit,' and in this we groan, being burdened," 3 and "the
corruptible body weighs down the soul,': 4_ in short, who can enumerate all the evils
arising from the infirmity of the flesh, which shall assuredly cease when "this
corruptible shall have put on incorruption," so that "that which is mortal
shall be swallowed up of life" ?s In that future condition, therefore, the soul
shall govern its spiritual body with absolute freedom of will; but in the meantime
its freedom is not absolute, but conditioned by the laws of the universe,
according to which -it is fixed, that bodies having experienced birth experience
death, and having grown to maturity decline in old age. For the soul of the first
man did, before the entrance of sin, govern his body with perfect freedom of
will, although that body was not yet spiritual, but animal; but after the
entrance of sin, that is, after sin had been committed in that flesh from which
sinful flesh was thenceforward to be propagated, the reasonable soul is so appointed
to occupy an inferior body, that it does not govern its body with absolute
freedom of will. That infant children, even before they have committed any sin of
their own, are partakers of sinful flesh, is, in my opinion, proved by their
requiring to have it healed in them also, by the application in their baptism of
the remedy provided in Him who came in the likeness of sinful flesh. But even
those who do not acquiesce in this view have no just ground for taking offence
at the sentence quoted from my book; for it is certain, if I am not mistaken.
that even if the infirmity be the consequence not of sin, but of nature, it was
at all events only after the entrance of sin that bodies having this infirmity
began to be produced; for Adam was not created thus, and he did not beget any
offspring before he sinned.
7. Let my critics, therefore, seek other passages to censure, not only in
my other more hastily published works, but also in these books of mine on Free
Will. For I by no means deny that they may in this search discover
opportunities of conferring a benefit on me; for if the books, having passed into so many
hands, cannot now be corrected, I myself may, being still alive. Those words,
however, so carefully selected by me to avoid committing myself to any one of the
four opinions or theories regarding the soul's origin, are liable to censure
only from those who think that my hesitation as to any definite view in a matter
so obscure is blameworthy; against whom I do not defend myself by saying that
I think it right to pronounce no opinion whatever on the subject, seeing that I
have no doubt either that the soul is immortal -- not in the same sense in
which God is immortal, who alone hath immortality,6 but in a certain way peculiar
to itself--or that the soul is a creature and not ' a part of the substance of
the Creator, or as to any other thing which I regard as most certain '
concerning its nature. But seeing that the obscurity of this most mysterious subject,
the origin of the soul, compels me to do as I have done, let them rather stretch
out a friendly hand to me, confessing my ignorance, and desiring to know
whatever is the truth on the subject; and let them, if they can, teach or
demonstrate to me what they may either have learned by the exercise of sound reason, or
have believed on indisputably plain testimony of the divine oracles. For if
reason be found contradicting the authority of Divine Scriptures, it only deceives
by a semblance of truth, however acute it be, for its deductions cannot in that
case be true. On the other hand, if, against the most manifest and reliable
testimony of reason, anything be set up claiming to have the authority of the
Holy Scriptures, he who does this does it through a misapprehension of what he has
read, and is setting up against the truth not the real meaning of Scripture,
which he has failed to discover, but an opinion of his own; he alleges not what
he has found in the Scriptures, but what he has found in himself as their
interpreter.
8. Let me give an example, to which I solicit l your earnest attention. In
a passage near the end of Ecclesiastes, where the author is speak-ling of
man's dissolution through death separating the soul from the body, it is written,
"Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was, and the spirit shall return
unto God who gave it." 7 A statement having the authority on which this one is
based is true beyond all dispute, and is not intended to deceive any one; yet
if any one wishes to put upon it such an interpretation as may help him in
attempting to support the theory of the propagation of souls, according to which all
other souls are derived from that one which God gave to the first man, what is
there said concerning the body under the name of "dust" (for obviously nothing
else than body and soul are to be understood by "dust" and "spirit" in this
passage) seems to favour his view; for he may affirm that the soul is said to
return to God because of its being derived from the original stock of that soul
which God gave to the first man, in the same way as the body is said to return to
the dust because of its being derived from the original stock of that body
which was made of dust in the first man and therefore may argue that, from what we
know perfectly as to the body, we ought to believe what is hidden from our
observation as to the soul; for there is no difference of opinion as to the
original stock of the body, but there is as to the original stock of the soul. In the
text thus brought forward as a proof, statements are made concerning both, as
if the manner of the return of each to its original was precisely similar in
both,- the body, on the one hand, returning to the earth as it was, for thence
was it taken when the first man was formed; the soul, on the other hand,
returning to God, for He gave it when He breathed into the nostrils of the man whom He
had formed the breath of life, and he became a living soul,' so that
thenceforward the propagation of each part should go on from the corresponding part in
the parent.
9. If, however, the true account of the soul's origin be, that God gives
to each individual man a soul, not propagated from that first soul, but created
in some other way, the statement that the "spirit returns to God who gave it,"
is equally consistent with this view. The two other opinions regarding the
soul's origin are, then, the only ones which seem to be excluded by this text. For
in the first place, as to the opinion that every man's soul is made separately
within him at the time of his creation, it is supposed that, if this were the
case, the soul should have been spoken of as returning, not to God who gave it,
but to God who made it; for the word "gave" seems to imply that that which
could be given had already a separate existence. The words "returneth to God" are
further insisted upon by some, who say, How could it return to a place where it
had never been before ? Accordingly they maintain that, if the soul is to be
believed to have never been with God before, the words should have been "it
goes," or "goes on," or "goes away," rather than it" returns" to God. In like
manner, as to the opinion that each soul glides of its own accord into its body, it
is not easy to explain how this theory is reconcilable with the statement that
God gave it. The words of this scriptural passage are consequently somewhat
adverse to these two opinions, namely, the one which supposes each soul to be
created in its own body, and the one which supposes each soul to introduce itself
into its own body spontaneously. But there is no difficulty in showing that the
words are consistent with either of the other two opinions, namely, that all
souls are derived by propagation from the one first created, or that, having been
created and kept in readiness with God, they are given to each body as required.
10. Nevertheless, even if the theory that each soul is created in its own
body may not be wholly excluded by this text, -- for if its advocates affirm
that God is here said to have given the spirit (or the soul) in the same way as
He is said to have given us eyes, ears, hands, or other such members, which were
not made elsewhere by Him, and kept in store that He might give them, i.e. add
and join them to our bodies, but are made by Him in that body to which He is
said to have given them,- I do not see what could be said in reply, unless,
perchance, the opinion could be refuted, either by other passages of Scripture, or
by valid reasoning. In like manner, those who think that each soul flows of its
own accord into its body take the words"' God gave it" in the sense in which
it is said, "He gave them up to uncleanness, through the lusts of their own
hearts."a Only one word, therefore, remains apparently irreconcilable with the
theory that each soul is made in its own . body, namely, the word "returneth," in
the expression "returneth to God;" for in what sense can the soul return to Him
with whom it has not formerly been ? By this one word alone are the supporters
of this one of the four opinions embarrassed. And yet I do not think that this
opinion ought to be held as refuted by this one word, for it may be possible to
show that in the ordinary style of scriptural language it may be quite correct
to use the word "return," as signifying the spirit created by God returns to
Him not because of its having been with Him before its union with the body, but
because of its having received being from His creative power.
11. I have written these things in order to show that whoever is disposed
to maintain and vindicate any one of these four theories of the soul's origin,
must bring forward, either from the Scriptures received into ecclesiastical
authority, passages which do not admit of any other interpretation,- as the
statement that God made · man,- or reasonings founded on premises so obviously true
that to call them in question would be madness, such as the statement that none
but the living are capable of knowledge or of error; for a statement like this
does not require the authority of Scripture to prove its truth, as if the
common sense of mankind did not of itself announce its truth with such transparent
cogency of reason, that whoever contradicts it must be held to be hopelessly
mad. If any one .is able to produce such arguments in discussing _the very obscure
question of the soul's origin, let him help me in my ignorance; but if he
cannot do this, let him forbear from blaming my hesitation on the question.
12. As to the virginity of the Holy Mary, if what I have written on this
subject does not suffice to prove that it was possible, we must refuse to
believe every record of anything miraculous having taken place in the body of any.
If, .however, the objection to believing this miracle is, that it happened only
once, ask the friend who is still perplexed by this, whether instances may not
be quoted from secular literature of events which were, like this one, unique,
and which, nevertheless, are believed, not merely as fables are believed by the
simple, but with that faith with which the history of facts is received --ask
him, I beseech you, this question. For if he says that nothing of this kind is
to be found in these writings, he ought to have such instances pointed out to
him; if he admits this, the question is decided by his admission.
LETTER CXLIV. (A.D. 412.)
TO MY HONOURABLE AND JUSTLY ESTEEMED LORDS, THE, INHABITANTS OF CIRTA, OF ALL
RANKS, BRETHREN DEARLY BELOVED AND LONGED FOR, BISHOP AUGUSTIN SENDS GREETING.
1. If that which greatly distressed me in your town has now been removed;
if the obduracy of hearts which resisted most evident and, as we might call it,
notorious truth, has by the force of truth been overcome; if the sweetness of
peace is relished, and the love which tends to unity is the occasion no longer
of pain to eyes diseased, but of light and vigour to eyes restored to
health,--this is God's work, not ours; on no account would I ascribe these results to
human efforts, even had such a remarkable conversion of your whole community
taken place when I was with you, and in connection with my own preaching and
exhortations. The operation and the success are His who, by His servants, calls men's
attention outwardly by the signs of things, and Himself teaches men inwardly
by the things themselves. The fact, however, that whatever praiseworthy change
has been wrought among you is to be ascribed not to us, but to Him who alone
doeth wonderful works? is no reason for our being more reluctant to be persuaded
to visit you. For we ought to hasten much more readily to see the works of God
than our own works, for we ourselves also, if we be of service in any work, owe
this not to men but to Him; wherefore the apostle says, "Neither is he that
planteth anything, neither he that watereth: but God that giveth the increase." 2
2. You allude in your letter to a fact which I also remember from classic
literature, that by discoursing on the benefits of temperance, Xenocrates
suddenly converted Polemo from a dissipated to a sober life, though this man was not
only habitually intemperate, but was actually intoxicated at the time. Now
although this was, as you have wisely and truthfully apprehended, a case not of
conversion to God, but of emancipation from the thraldom of self-indulgence, I
would not ascribe even the amount of improvement wrought in him to the work of
man, but to the work of God. For even in the body, the lowest part of our nature,
all excellent things, such as beauty, vigour, health, and so on, are the work
of God, to whom nature owes its creation and perfection; how much more certain,
therefore, must it be that no other can impart excellent properties to the
soul! For what imagination of human folly could be more full of pride and
ingratitude than the notion that, although God alone can give comeliness to the body,
it belongs to man to give purity to the soul? It is written in the book of
Christian Wisdom, "I perceived that no one can have self-restraint unless God give
it to him, and that this is a part of true wisdom to know whose gift it is." 3
If, therefore, Polemo, when he exchanged a life of dissipation for a life of
sobriety, had so understood whence the gift came, that, renouncing the
superstitions of the heathen, he had rendered worship to the Divine Giver, he would then
have become not only temperate, but truly wise and savingly religious, which
would have secured to him not merely the practice of virtue in this life, but also
the possession of immortality in the life to come. How much less, then, should
I presume to take to myself the honour of your conversion, or of that of your
people which you have now reported to me, which, when I was neither speaking to
you nor even present with you, was accomplished unquestionably by divine power
in all in whom it has really taken place. This, therefore, know above all
things, meditate on this with devout humility. To God, my brethren, to God give
thanks. Fear Him, that ye may not go backward: love Him, that ye may go forward.4
3. If, however, love of men still keeps some secretly alienated from the
flock of Christ, while fear of other men constrains them to a feigned
reconciliation, I charge all such to consider that before God the conscience of man has
no covering, and that they can neither impose on Him as a Witness, nor escape
from Him as a Judge. But if, by reason of anxiety as to their own salvation,
anything as to the question of the unity of Christ's flock perplex them, let them
make this demand upon themselves,- and it seems to me a most just demand, --that
in regard to the Catholic Church, i.e. the Church spread abroad over the whole
world, they believe rather the words of Divine Scripture than the calumnies of
human tongues. Moreover, with respect to the schism which has arisen among men
(who assuredly, whatsoever they may be, do not frustrate the promises of God
to Abraham, "In thy seed shall all the nations of the earth be blessed,"1 --
promises believed when brought to their ears as a prophecy, but denied, forsooth,
when set before their eyes as an accomplished fact), let them meanwhile ponder
this one very brief, but, if I mistake not, unanswerable argument: the question
out of which the dispute arose either has or has not been tried before
ecclesiastical tribunals beyond the sea; if it has not been tried before these, then
no guilt in this matter is chargeable on the whole flock of Christ in the
nations beyond the sea, in communion with which we rejoice, and therefore their
separation from these guiltless communities is an act of impious schism; if, on the
other hand, the question has been tried before the tribunal of these churches,
who does not understand and feel, nay, who does not see, that those whose
communion is now separated from these churches were the party defeated in the trial
? Let them therefore choose to whom they should prefer to give credence,
whether to the ecclesiastical judges who decided the question, or to the complaints
of the vanquished litigants. Observe wisely how impossible it is for them
reasonably to answer this brief and most intelligible dilemma; nevertheless, it were
easier to turn Polemo from a life of intemperance, than to drive them out of
the madness of inveterate error.
Pardon me, my noble and worthy lords, brethren most dearly beloved and
longed for, for writing you a letter more prolix than agreeable, but fitted, as I
think, to benefit rather than to flatter you. As to my coming to you, may God
fulfil the desire which we both equally cherish ! For I cannot express in words,
but I am sure you will gladly believe, with what fervour of love I burn to see
you.
LETTER CXLV. (A.D. 412 or 413.)
TO ANASTASIUS, MY HOLY AND BELOVED LORD AND BROTHER, AUGUSTIN SENDS GREETING
IN THE LORD.
1. A most satisfactory opportunity of saluting your genuine worth is
furnished by our brethren Lupicinus and Concordialis, honourable servants of God,
from whom, even without my writing, you might learn all that is going on among us
here. But knowing, as I do, how much you love us in Christ, because of your
knowing how warmly your love is reciprocated by us in Him, I was sure that it
might have disappointed you if you had seen them, and could not but know that they
had come directly from us, and were most intimately united in friendship with
us, and yet had received with them no letter from me. Besides this, I am owing
you a reply, for I am not aware of having written to you since I received your
last letter; so great are the cares by which I am encumbered and distracted,
that know not whether I have written or not before now.
2. We desire eagerly to know how you are, and whether the Lord has given
you some rest, so far as in this world He can bestow it; for "if one member be
honoured, all the members rejoice with it;''2 and so it is almost always our
experience, that when, in the midst of our anxieties, we turn our thoughts to some
of our brethren placed in a condition of comparative rest, we are in no small
measure revived, as if in them we ourselves enjoyed a more peaceful and
tranquil life. At the same time, when vexatious cares are multiplied in this uncertain
life, they compel us to long for the everlasting rest. For this world is more
dangerous to us in pleasant than in painful hours, and is to be guarded against
more when it allures us to love it than when it warns and constrains us to
despise it. For although "all that is in the world" is "the lust of the flesh, and
the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life,"3 nevertheless, even in the case
of men who prefer to these the things which are spiritual, unseen, and eternal,
the sweetness of earthly things insinuates itself into our affections, and
accompanies our steps on the path of duty with its seductive allurements. For the
violence with which present things acquire sway over our weakness is exactly
proportioned to the superior value by which future things command our love. And
oh that those who have learned to observe and bewail this may succeed in
overcoming and escaping from this power of terrestrial things! Such victory and
emancipation cannot, without God's grace, be achieved by the human will, which is by
no means to be called free so long as it is subject to prevailing and enslaving
lusts; "For of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage."'
And the Son of God has Himself said, "If the Son shall make you free, ye shall
be free indeed."2
3. The law, therefore, by teaching and commanding what cannot be fulfilled
without grace, demonstrates to man his weakness, in order that the weakness
thus proved may resort to the Saviour, by whose healing the will may be able to
do what in its feebleness it found impossible. So, then, the law brings us to
faith, faith obtains the Spirit in fuller measure, the Spirit sheds love abroad
in us, and love fulfils the law. For this reason the law is called a
"schoolmaster," 3 under whose threatenings and severity "whosoever shall call upon the
name of the Lord shall be delivered." 4 But how shall they call on Him in whom
they have not believed?" s Wherefore unto them that believe and call on Him the
quickening Spirit is given, lest the letter without the Spirit should kill them.6
But by the Holy Ghost, which is given unto us, the love of God is shed abroad
in our hearts? so that the words of the same apostle, "Love is the fulfilling
of the law," s are realized. So the law is good to the man who uses it
lawfully;9 and he uses it lawfully who, understanding wherefore it was given, betakes
himself, under the pressure of its threatenings, to grace, which sets him free.
Whoever unthankfully despises this grace, by which the ungodly are justified,
and trusts in his own strength, as if he thereby could fulfil the law, being
ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish his own
righteousness, is not submitting himself to the righteousness of God; ,o and thus the law
becomes to him not a help to pardon, but the bond fastening his guilt to him. Not
that the law is evil, but because sin worketh death in such persons by that
which is good.11 For by occasion of the commandment he sins more grievously who,
by the commandment, knows how evil are the sins which he commits.
4. In vain, however, does any one think himself to have gained the victory
over sin, if, through nothing but fear of punishment, he refrains from sin;
because, although the outward action to which an evil desire prompts him is not
performed, the evil desire itself within the man is an enemy unsubdued. And who
is found innocent in God's sight who is willing to do the sin which is
forbidden if you only remove the punishment which is feared ? And consequently, even in
the volition itself, he is guilty of sin who wishes to do what is unlawful,
but refrains from doing it because it cannot be done with impunity; for, so far
as he is concerned, he would prefer that there were no righteousness forbidding
and punishing sins. And assuredly, if he would prefer that there should be no
righteousness, who can doubt that he would if he could abolish it altogether?
How, then, can that man be called righteous who is such an enemy to righteousness
that, if he had the power, he would abolish its authority, that he might not
be subject to its threatenings or its penalties ? He, then, is an enemy to
righteousness who refrains from sin only through fear of punishment; but he will
become the friend of righteousness if through love of it he sin not, for then he
will be really afraid to sin. For the man who only fears the flames of hell is
afraid not of sinning, but of being burned; but the man who hates sin as much as
he hates hell is afraid to sin. This is the "fear of the Lord," which "is
pure, enduring for ever." ,2 For the fear of punishment has torment, and is not in
love; and love, when it is perfect, casts it out. 13
5. Moreover, every one hates sin just in proportion as he loves
righteousness; which he will be enabled to do not through the law putting him in fear by
the letter of its prohibitions, but by the Spirit healing him by grace. Then
that is done which the apostle enjoins in the admonition," I speak after the
manner of men because of the infirmity of your flesh: for as ye have yielded your
members servants to uncleanness and to iniquity unto iniquity, even so now yield
your members servants to righteousness unto holiness." ,4 For what is the
force of the conjunctions "as" and "even so," if it be not this: "As no fear
compelled you to sin, but the desire for it, and the pleasure taken in sin, even so
let not the fear of punishment drive you to a life of righteousness; but let the
pleasure found in righteousness and the love you bear to it draw you to
practise it "? And even this is, as it seems to me, a righteousness, so to speak,
somewhat mature, but not perfect. For he would not have prefaced the admonition
with the words, "I speak after the manner of men because of the infirmity of your
flesh," had there not been something else that ought to have been said if they
had been by that time able to bear it. For surely more devoted service is due
to righteousness than men are wont to yield to sin. For pain of body restrains
men, if not from the desire of sin, at least from the commission of sinful
actions; and we should not easily find any one who would openly commit a sin
procuring to him an impure and unlawful gratification, if it was certain that the
penalty of torture would immediately follow the crime. But righteousness ought to
be so loved that not even bodily sufferings should hinder us from doing its
works, but that, even when we are in the hands of cruel enemies, our good works
should so shine before men that those who are capable of taking pleasure therein
may glorify our Father who is in heaven.1
6. Hence it comes that that most devoted lover of righteousness exclaims,"
Who shall separate us from the love of Christ ? shall tribulation, or
distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? (As it is
written, For Thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for
the slaughter.) Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him
that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels,
nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor
height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the
love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord."2 Observe how he does not say
simply, "Who shall separate us from Christ?" but, indicating that by which we
cling to Christ, he says, "Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?" We cling
to Christ, then, by love, not by fear of punishment. Again, after having
enumerated those things which seem to be sufficiently fierce, but have not
sufficient force to effect a separation, he has, in the conclusion, called that the love
of God which he had previously spoken of as the love of Christ. And what is
this "love of Christ" but love of righteousness? for it is said of Him that He
"is made of God unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and
redemption: that, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory in the
Lord." 3 As, therefore he is superlatively wicked who is not deterred even by
the penalty of bodily sufferings from the vile works of sordid pleasure, so is
he superlatively righteous who is not restrained even by the fear of bodily
sufferings from the holy works of most glorious love.
7. This love of God, which must be maintained by unremitting, devout
meditation, "is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us,"
4 so that he who glories in it must glory in the Lord. Forasmuch, therefore, as
we feel ourselves to be poor and destitute of that love by which the law is
most truly fulfilled, we ought not to expect and demand its riches from our own
indigence, but to ask, seek, and knock in prayer, that He with whom is" the
fountain of life" "may satisfy us abundantly with the fatness of His house, and
make us drink of the river of His pleasures," 5 so that, watered and revived by
its full flood, we may not only escape from being swallowed up by sorrow, but may
even "glory in tribulations: knowing that tribulation worketh patience; and
patience, experience; and experience, hope: and hope maketh not ashamed; "-- not
that we can do this of ourselves, but "because the love of God is shed abroad
in our hearts by the Holy Ghost, which is given to us." 6
8. It has been a pleasure to me to say, at least by a letter, these things
which I could not say when you were present. I write them, not in reference to
yourself, for you do not affect high things, but are contented with that which
is lowly? but in reference to some who arrogate too much to the human will,
imagining that, the law being given, the will is of its own strength sufficient
to fulfil that law, though not assisted by any grace imparted by the Holy
Spirit, in addition to instruction in the law; and by their reasonings they persuade
the wretched and impoverished weakness of man to believe that it is not our
duty to pray that we may not enter into temptation. Not that they dare openly to
say this; but this is, whether they acknowledge it or not, an inevitable
consequence of their doctrine.s For wherefore is it said to us, "Watch and pray, that
ye enter not into temptation; "9 and wherefore was it that, when He was
teaching us to pray, He prescribed, in accordance with this injunction, the use of the
petition "lead us not into temptation," '° if this be wholly in the power of
the will of man, an& does not require the help of divine grace in. order to its
accomplishment?
Why should I say more? Salute the brethren, who are with you, and pray for
us, that we may be saved with that salvation of which it is said,. "They that
are whole need not a physician, but: they that are sick: I came not to call the
righteous, but sinners."" Pray, therefore, for us that we may be righteous,-
an attainment wholly beyond a man's reach, unless he know righteousness and be
willing to practise it, but one which is immediately realized when he is
perfectly willing; but this full consent of his will can never be in him unless he is
healed and assisted by the grace of the Spirit.
LETTER CXLVI. (A.D. 413.)
TO PELAGIUS, MY LORD GREATLY BELOVED, AND BROTHER GREATLY LONGED FOR, AUGUSTIN
SENDS GREETING IN THE LORD.
I thank you very much for your consideration in making me glad by a letter
from you, and informing me of your welfare. May the Lord recompense you with
those blessings by the possession of which you may be good for ever, and may
live eternally with Him who is eternal, my lord greatly beloved, and brother
greatly longed for. Although I do not acknowledge that anything in me deserves tile
eulogies which the letter of your Benevolence contains concerning me,
nevertheless I cannot but be grateful for the goodwill therein manifested towards one so
insignificant, while suggesting at the same time that you should rather pray
for me that I may be made by the Lord such as you suppose me already to be.
(In another hand) May you enjoy safety and the Lord's favour, and be
mindful of us! '
LETTER CXLVIII. (A.D. 413.)
A LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS (COMMONITORIUM) TO THE HOLY BROTHER FORTUNATIANUS.2
CHAP. I. -- 1. I write this to remind you of the 'request which I made when I was with
you, that you would do me the kindness of visiting our brother, whom we
mentioned in conversation, in order to ask him to forgive me, if he has construed as
a harsh and unfriendly attack upon himself any statement made by me in a recent
letter (which I do not regret having written), affirming that the eyes of this
body cannot see God, and never shall see Him. I added immediately the reason
wily I made this statement. namely, to prevent men from believing that God
Himself is corporeal and visible, as occupying a place determined by size and by
distance from us (for the eye of this body can see nothing except under these
conditions), and to prevent men from understanding the expression "face to face "3
as if God were limited within the members of a body. Therefore I do not regret
having made this statement, as a protest against our forming such unworthy and
profane ideas concerning God as to think that He is not everywhere in His
totality, but susceptible of division, and distributed through localities in space;
for such are the only objects cognizable through these eyes of ours.
2. But if, while holding no such opinion as this concerning God, but
believing Him to be a Spirit, unchangeable, incorporeal, present in His whole Being
everywhere, any one thinks that the change on this body of ours (when from
being a natural body it shall become a spiritual body) will be so great that in
such a body it will be possible for us to see a spiritual substance not
susceptible of division according to local distance or dimension, or even confined within
the limits of bodily members, but everywhere present in its totality, I wish
him to instruct me in 'i this matter, if what he has discovered is true; but if
in this opinion he is mistaken, it is far less objectionable to ascribe to the
body something that does not belong to it, than to take away from God that
which belongs to Him. And even if that opinion be correct, it will not contradict
my words in that letter; for I said that the eyes of this body shall not see
God, meaning that the eyes of this body of ours can see nothing but bodies which
are separated from them by some interval of space, for if there be no interval,
even bodies themselves cannot through the eyes be seen by us.
3. Moreover, if our bodies shall be changed into something so different
from what they now are as to have eyes by means of which a substance shall be
seen which is not diffused through space or confined within limits, having one
part in one place, another in another, a smaller in a less space, a greater in a
larger, but in its totality spiritually present everywhere,- these bodies shall
be something very different from what they are at present, and shall no longer
be themselves, and shall be not only freed from mortality, and corruption, and
weight, but somehow or other shall be changed into the quality of the mind
itself, if they shall be able to see in a manner which shall be then granted to the
mind, but which is meanwhile' not granted even to the mind itself. For if,
when a man's habits are changed, we say he is not the man he was, -- if, when our
age is changed, we say that the body is not what it was, how much more may we
say that the body shall not be the same when it shall have undergone so great a
change as not only to have immortal life, but also to have power to see Him who
is invisible ? Wherefore, if they shall thus see God, it is not with the eyes
of this body that He shall be seen, because in this also it shall not be the
same body, since it has been changed to so great an extent in capacity and power;
and this opinion is, therefore, not contrary to the words of my letter. If,
however; the body shall be changed only to this extent, that whereas now it is
mortal, then it shall be immortal, and whereas now it weighs down the soul, then,
devoid of weight, it shall be most ready for every motion, but unchanged in
the faculty of seeing objects which are discerned by their dimensions and
distances, it will still be utterly impossible for it to see a substance that is
incorporeal and is in its totality present everywhere. Whether, therefore, the
former or the latter supposition be correct, in both cases it remains true that the
eyes of this body shall not see God; or if they are to see Him, they shall not
be the eyes of this body, since after so great a change they shall be the eyes
of a body very different from this.
4. But if this brother is able to propound anything better on this
subject, I am ready to learn either from himself or from his instructor. If I were
saying this ironically, I would also say that I am prepared to learn concerning
God that He has a body having members, and is divisible in different localities
in space; which I do not say, because I am not speaking ironically, and I am
perfectly certain that God is not in any respect of such a nature; and I wrote
that letter to prevent men from believing Him to be such. In that letter, being
carried away by my zeal to warn against error, and writing more freely because I
did not name the person whose views I assailed, I was too vehement and not
sufficiently guarded,and did not consider as I ought to have done the respect which
was due by one brother and bishop to the office of another: this I do not
defend, but blame; this I condemn rather than excuse, and beg that it may be
forgiven. I entreat him to remember our old friendship, and forget my recent offence.
Let him do that which he is displeased with me for not having done; let him
exhibit in granting pardon the gentleness which I have failed to show in writing
that letter. I thus ask, through your kindly mediation, what I had resolved to
ask of him in person if I had had an opportunity. I indeed made an effort to
obtain an interview with him (a venerable man, worthy of being honoured by us
all, writing to request it in my name), but he declined to come, suspecting, I
suppose, that, as very often happens among men, some plot was prepared against
him. Of my absolute innocence of such guile, I beg you to do your utmost to assure
him, which by seeing him personally you can more easily do. State to him with
what deep and genuine grief I conversed with you about my having hurt his
feelings. Let him know how far I am from slighting him, how much in him I fear God,
and am mindful of our Head in whose body we are brethren. My reason for
thinking it better not to go to the place in which he resides was, that we might not
make ourselves a laughing-stock to those without the pale of the Church, thereby
bringing grief to our friends and shame to ourselves. All this may be
satisfactorily arranged through the good offices of your Holiness and Charity; nay,
rather, the satisfactory issue is in the hands of Him who, by the faith which is
His gift, dwells in your heart, whom I am confident that our brother does not
refuse to honour in you, since he knows Christ experimentally as dwelling in
himself.
5. I, at all events, do not know what I could do better in this case than
ask pardon from the brother who has complained that he was wounded by the
harshness of my letter. He will, I hope, do what he knows to be enjoined on him by
Him who, speaking through the apostle, says: "Forgiving one another, if any man
have a quarrel against any: even as God in Christ has forgiven you;"1 "Be ye
therefore followers of God, as dear children; and walk in love, as Christ also
hath loved us." 2 Walking in this love, let us inquire with oneness of heart,
and, if possible, with yet greater diligence than hitherto, into the nature of the
spiritual body which we shall have after our resurrection. "And if in anything
we be diversely minded, God shall reveal even this unto us," 3 if we abide in
Him. Now he who dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, for "God is love," 4
--whether as the fountain of love in its ineffable essence, or as the fountain whence
He freely gives it to us by His Spirit. If, then, it can be shown that love can
at any time become visible to our bodily eyes, then we grant that possibly God
shall be so too; but if love never can become visible, much less can He who is
Himself its Fountain or whatever other figurative name more excellent or more
appropriate can be employed in speaking of One so great.
CHAP. II.- 6. Some men of great gifts, and very learned in the Holy Scriptures, who
have, when an opportunity presented itself, done much by their writings to benefit
the Church and promote the instruction of believers, have said that the
invisible God is seen in an invisible manner, that is, by that nature which in us
also is invisible, namely, a pure mind or heart. The holy Ambrose, when speaking
of Christ as the Word, says: "Jesus is seen not by the bodily, but by the
spiritual eyes;" and shortly after he adds: "The Jews saw Him not, for their foolish
heart was blinded," s showing in this way how Christ is seen. Also, when he was
speaking of the Holy Spirit, he introduced the words of the Lord, saying: "I
will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide
with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive,
because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him;" ' and adds: "With good reason,
therefore, did He show Himself in the body, since in the substance of His Godhead
He is not seen. We have seen the Spirit, but in a bodily form: let us see the
Father also; but since we cannot see Him, let us hear Him." A little after he
says: "Let us hear the Father, then, for the Father is invisible; but the Son
also is invisible as regards His Godhead, for ' no man hath seen God at any time;
' 2 and since the Son is God, He is certainly not seen in that in which He is
God." 3
7. The holy Jerome also says: "The eye of man cannot see God as He is in
His own nature; and this is true not of man only; neither angels, nor thrones,
nor powers, nor principalities, nor any name which is named can see God, for no
creature can see its Creator." By these words this very learned man
sufficiently shows what his opinion was on this subject in regard not only to the present
life, but also to that which is to come. For however much the eyes of our body
may be changed for the better, they shall only be made equal to the eyes of the
angels. Here, however, Jerome has affirmed that the nature of the Creator is
invisible even to the angels, and to every creature without exception in heaven.
If, however, a question arise on this point, and a doubt is expressed whether
we shall not be superior to the angels, the mind of the Lord Himself is plain
from the words which He uses in speaking of those who shall rise again to the
kingdom: "They shall be equal unto the angels." 4 Whence the same holy Jerome
thus expresses himself in another passage: "Man, therefore, cannot see the face of
God but the angels of the least in the Church do always behold the face of
God.s And now we see as in a mirror darkly, in a riddle, but then face to face;6
when from being men we shall advance to the rank of angels, and shall be able to
say with the apostle, 'We all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror
the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even
as by the Spirit of the Lord; ' 7 although no creature can see the face of
God, according to the essential properties of His nature, and He is, in these
cases, seen by the mind, since He is believed to be invisible."8
8. In these words of this man of God there are many things deserving our
consideration: first, that in accordance with the very clear declaration of the
Lord, he also is of opinion that we shall then see the face of God when we
shall have advanced to the rank of angels, that ,is, shall be made equal to the
angels, which doubtless shall be at the resurrection of the dead. Next, he has
sufficiently explained by the testimony of the apostle, that the face is to be
understood not of the outward but of the inward man, when it is said we shall "see
face to face;" for the apostle was speaking of the face of the heart when he
used the words quoted in this connection by Jerome: "We, with unveiled face,
beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image."
9 If any one doubt this, let him examine the passage again, and notice of what
the apostle was speaking, namely, of the veil, which remains on the heart of
every one in reading the Old Testament, until he pass over to Christ, that the
veil may be removed. For he there says: "We also, with unveiled face, beholding
as in a mirror the glory of the Lord,'' m which face had not been unveiled in
the Jews, of whom he says, "the veil is upon their heart," --in order to show
that the face unveiled in us when the veil is taken away is the face of the heart.
In fine, lest any one, looking on these things with too little care and
therefore failing to discern their meaning, should believe that God now is or shall
hereafter be visible either to angels or to men, when they shall have been made
equal to the angels, he has most plainly expressed his opinion by affirming
that "no creature can see the face of God according to the essential properties of
His nature," and that "He is, in these cases, seen by the mind, since He is
believed to be invisible." From these statements he sufficiently showed that when
God has been seen by men through the eyes of the body as if He had a body, He
has not been seen as to the essential properties of his nature, in which He is
seen by the mind, since He is believed to be invisible-invisible, that is to
say, to the bodily perception even of celestial beings, as Jerome had said above,
of angels, and powers, and principalities. How much more, then, is 'He
invisible to terrestrial beings!
9. Wherefore, in another place, Jerome says in i still plainer terms, it
is true not only of the divinity of the Father but equally of that of the Son md
of that of the Holy Spirit, forming one nature in the Trinity, that it cannot
be seen by the eyes of the flesh, but by the eyes of the mind, of which the
Saviour Himself says: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." 10
What could be more clear than this statement ? For if he had merely said that
it is impossible for the divinity of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy
Spirit, to be seen by the eyes of the flesh, and had not added the words, "but
only by the eyes of the mind," it might perhaps have been said, that when the
body shall have become spiritual it can no longer be called "flesh;" but by
adding the words, "but only by the eyes of the mind," he has excluded the vision of
God from every sort of body. Lest, however, any one should suppose that he was
speaking only of the present state of being, observe that he has subjoined also
a testimony of the Lord, quoted with the design of defining the eyes of the
mind of which he had spoken; in which testimony a promise is given not of
present, but of future vision: "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."
10. The very blessed Athanasius, also, Bishop of Alexandria, when
contending against tile Arians, who affirm that the Father alone is invisible, but
suppose the Son and the Holy Spirit to be visible, asserted the equal invisibility
of all the Persons of the Trinity, proving it by testimonies from Holy
Scripture, and arguing with all his wonted care in controversy, labouring earnestly to
convince his opponents that God has never been seen, except through His
assuming the form of a creature; and that in His essential Deity God is invisible,
that is, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are invisible, except in so
far as the Divine Persons can be known by the mind and the spirit. Gregory,
also, a holy Eastern bishop, very plainly says that God, by nature invisible,
had, on those occasions on which He was seen by the fathers (as by Moses, with
whom He talked face to face), made it possible for Himself to be seen by assuming
the form of something material and discernible.' Our Ambrose says the same:
"That the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, when visible, are seen under
forms assumed by choice, not prescribed by the nature of Deity; ": thus clearing
the truth of the saying, "No man hath seen God at any time," s which is the
word of the Lord Christ Himself, and of that other saying, "Whom no man hath
seen, nor can see," 4 which is the word of the apostle, yea, rather, of Christ by
His apostle; as well as! vindicating the consistency of those passages of'
Scripture in which God is related to have been seen, because He is both invisible in
the essential nature of His Deity, and able to become visible when He pleases,
by assuming such created form as shall seem good to Him.
CHAP. III. 11. Moreover, if invisibility is a property of the divine nature, as
incorruptibility is, that nature shall assuredly not undergo such a change in the
future world as to cease to be invisible and become visible; because it shall never
be possible for it to cease to be incorruptible and become corruptible, for it
is in both attributes alike immutable. The apostle assuredly declared the
excellence of the divine nature when he placed these two together, saying, "Now,
unto the King of ages, invisible, incorruptible, the only God, be honour and glory
for ever and ever." s Wherefore I dare not make such a distinction as to say
incorruptible, indeed, for ever and ever, but invisible- not for ever and ever,
but only in this world. At the same time, since the testimonies which we are
next to quote cannot be false,-" Blessed are the pure m heart, for they shall see
God,"6 and, "We know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him · for we
shall see Him as He is "7 --we cannot deny that the sons of God shall see God;
but they shall see Him as invisible things are seen, in the manner in which He
who appeared in the flesh, visible to men, promised that He would manifest
Himself to men, when, speaking in tile presence of the disciples and seen by their
eyes, He said: "I will love him, and will manifest myself to him." In what
other manner are invisible things seen than by the eyes of the mind, concerning
which, as the instruments of our vision of God, I have shortly before quoted the
opinion of Jerome?
12. Hence, also, the statement of the Bishop of Milan, whom I have quoted
before, who says that even in the resurrection it is not easy for any but
those who have a pure heart to see God, and therefore it is written, "Blessed are
the pure in heart, for they shall see God." "How many," he says, "had He already
enumerated as blessed, and yet to them He had not promised the power of seeing
God;" and he adds this inference, "If, therefore, the pure in heart shall see
God, it is obvious that others shall not see Him;" and to prevent our
understanding him to refer to those others of whom the Lord had said, "Blessed are the
poor, blessed are the meek," he immediately subjoined, "For those that are
unworthy shall not see God," intending it to be understood that the unworthy are
those who, although they shall rise again, shall not be able to see God, since
they shall rise to condemnation, because they refused to purify their hearts
through that true faith which "worketh by love."s For this reason he goes on to say,
"Whosoever has been unwilling to see God cannot see Him." Then, since it
occurred to him that, in a sense, even all wicked men have a desire to see God, he
immediately explains that he used the words, "Whosoever has been unwilling to
see God," because the fact that the wicked do not desire to purify the heart, by
which alone God can be seen, shows that they do not desire to see God, and
follows up this statement with the words: "God is not seen in space, but in the
pure heart; nor is He sought out by the eyes of the body; nor is He defined in
form by our faculty of sight; nor grasped by the touch; His voice does not fall on
the ear; nor are His goings perceived by the senses."1 By these words the
blessed Ambrose desired to teach the preparation which men ought to make if they
wish to see God, viz. to purify the heart by the faith which worketh by love,
through the gift of the Holy Spirit, from whom we have received the earnest by
which we are taught to desire that vision.2
CHAP. IV. -- 13. For as to the members of God which the Scripture frequently mentions,
lest any one should suppose that we resemble God as to the form and figure of
the body, the same] Scripture speaks of God as having also wings, ] which we
certainly have not. As then, when we hear of the "wings" of God, we understand the
divine protection, so by the "hands" of God we ought to understand His
working, -- by His "feet," His. presence, --.by His "eyes," His power of seeing and
knowing all things, -- by His face, that whereby He reveals Himself to our
knowledge; and I believe that any other such expression used in Scripture is to be
spiritually understood. In this opinion I am not singular, nor am I the first who
has stated it, It is the opinion of all who by any spiritual interpretation of
such language in Scripture resist those who are called Anthropomorphites. Not
to occupy too much time by quoting largely from the writings of these men, I
introduce here one extract from the pious Jerome, in order that our brother may
know that, if anything moves him to maintain an opposite opinion, he is bound to
carry on the debate with those who preceded me not less than with myself.
14. In the exposition which that most learned student of Scripture has
given of the psalm in which occur the words, "Understand, ye brutish among the
people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise ? He that planted the ear, shall he not
hear? or He that formed the eye, doth He not behold?" 3 he says, among other
things: "This passage furnishes a strong argument against those who are
Anthropomorphites, and say that God has members such as we have. For example, God is
said by them to have eyes, because ' the eyes of the Lord behold all things :' in
the same , literal manner they take the statements that the i hand of the Lord
doeth all things, and that n Adam ' heard the sound of the feet of the Lord
walking in the garden,' and thus they ascribe the ' infirmities of men to the
majesty of God. But I affirm that God is all eye, all hand, all foot: alI eye,
because He sees all things; all hand, because He worketh all things; all foot,
because He is everywhere present. See, therefore, what the Psalmist saith: ' He
that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, doth He not
behold ?' He doth not say: ' He that planted the ear, has He not an ear? and He
that formed the eye, has He not an eye ?' But what does he say? ' He that planted
the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, doth He not behold ?' The
Psalmist has ascribed to God the powers of seeing and hearing, but has not
assigned members to Him." 4
15. I have thought it my duty to quote all these passages from the
writings of both Latin and Greek authors who, being in the Catholic Church before our
time, have written commentaries on the divine oracles, in order that our
brother, if he hold any different opinion from theirs, may know that it becomes him,
laying aside all bitterness of controversy, and preserving or reviving fully
the gentleness of brotherly love, to investigate with diligent and calm
consideration either what he must learn from others, or what others must learn from him.
For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and
of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical
Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the
respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their
writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing
from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be
the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent
readers to deal thus with mine. In fine, I do by the help of the Lord most
stedfastly believe, and, in so far as He enables me, I understand what is taught in
all the statements which I have now quoted from the works of the holy and
learned Ambrose, Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory, and in any other similar statements in
other writers which I have read, but have for the sake of brevity forborne
from quoting, namely, that God is not a body, that He has not the members of the
human frame, that He is not divisible through space, and that He is unchangeably
invisible, and appeared not in His essential nature and substance, but in such
visible form as He pleased to those to whom he appeared on the occasions on
which Scripture records that He was seen by holy persons with the eyes of the
body.
CHAP. V. -- 16. As to the spiritual body which we shall have in the resurrection, how
great a change for the better it is to undergo, -- whether it shall become pure
spirit, so that the whole man shall then be a spirit, or shall (as I rather
think, but do not yet confidently maintain) become a spiritual body in such a way
as to be called spiritual because of a certain ineffable facility in its
movements, but at the same time to retain its material substance, which cannot live
and feel by itself, but only through the spirit which uses it (for in our
present state, in like manner, although the body is spoken of as animated [animal],
the nature of the animating principle is different from that of the body),and
whether, if the properties of the body then immortal and incorruptible shall
remain unchanged, it shall then in some degree aid the spirit to see visible, i,e.
material things, as at present we are unable to see anything of that kind
except through the eyes of the body, or our spirit shall then be able, even in its
higher state, to know material things without the instrumentality of the body
(for God Himself does not know these things through bodily senses),on these and
on many other things which may perplex us in the discussion of this subject, I
confess that I have not yet read anywhere anything which I would esteem
sufficiently established to deserve to be either learned or taught by men.
17. And for this reason, if our brother will J bear patiently any degree
whatever of hesitation I on my part, let us in the meantime, because of] that
which is written, "We shall see Him as, He is," prepare, so far as with the help
of God, Himself we are enabled, hearts purified for that vision. Let us at the
same time inquire more calmly and carefully concerning the spiritual body, for
it may be that God, if He know this to be useful to us, may condescend to show
us some definite and clear view on the subject, in accordance with His written
word. For if a more careful investigation shall result in the discovery that
the change on the body shall be so great that it shall be able to see things that
are invisible, such power imparted to the body will not, I think, deprive the
mind of the power of seeing, and thus give the outward man a vision of God
which is denied to the inward man; as if, in contradiction of the plain words of'
Scripture, "that God may be all and in all,"' God were only beside the man
--without him, and not in the man, in his inner being; or as if He, who is
everywhere present in his entirety, unlimited in space, is so within man that He can be
seen outside only by the outward man, but cannot be seen inside by the inward
man. If such opinions are palpably absurd,- for, on the contrary, the saints
shall be full of God; they shall not, remaining empty within, be surrounded
outside by Him; nor shall they, through being blind within, fail to see Him of whom
they are full, and, having eyes only for that which is outside of themselves,
behold Him by whom they shall be surrounded,--if, I say, these things are absurd,
it remains for us to rest meanwhile certainly assured as to the vision of God
by the inward man. But if, by some wondrous change, the. body shall be endowed
with this power, another new faculty shall be added; the faculty formerly
possessed shall not be taken away.
18. It is better, then, that we affirm that concerning which we have no
doubt,--that God shall be seen by the inward man, which alone is able, in our
present state, to see that love in commendation of which the apostle says, "God is
love ;" 2 the inward man, which alone is able to see "peace and holiness,
without which no man shall see the Lord."3 For no fleshly eye now sees love, peace,
and holiness, and such things; yet all of them are seen, so far as they can be
seen, by the eye of the mind, and the purer it is the more clearly it sees; so
that we may, without hesitation, believe that we shall see God, whether we
succeed or fail in our investigations as to the nature of our future
body--although, at the same time, we hold it to be certain that the body shall rise again,
immortal and incorruptible, because on this we have the plainest and strongest
testimony of Holy Scripture: If, however, our brother affirm now that he has
arrived at certain knowledge as to that spiritual body, in regard to which I am
only inquiring, he will have just cause to be displeased with me if I shall
refuse to listen calmly to his instructions, provided only that he also listen
calmly to my questions. Now, however, I entreat you, for Christ's sake, to obtain
his forgiveness for me for that harshness in my letter, by which, as I have
learned, he was, not without cause, offended; and may you, by God's help, cheer my
spirit by your answer.
LETTER CL. (A.D. 413.)
TO PROBA 4 AND JULIANA, LADLES MOST WORTHY OF HONOUR, DAUGHTERS JUSTLY FAMOUS
AND MOST DISTINGUISHED, AUGUSTIN SENDS GREETING IN THE LORD.
You have filled our heart with a joy singularly pleasant, because of the
love we bear to you, and singularly acceptable, because of the promptitude with
which the tidings came to us. For while the consecration of the daughter of
your house to a life of virginity is being published by most busy fame in all
places where you are known, and that is everywhere, you have outstripped its flight
by more sure and reliable information in a letter from yourselves, and have
made us rejoice' in certain knowledge before we had time to be questioning the
truth of any report concerning an event so blessed and remarkable. Who can
declare in words, or expound with adequate praises, how incomparably greater is the
glory and advantage gained by your family in giving to Christ women consecrated
to His service, than in giving to the world men called to the honours of the
consulship? For if it be a great and noble thing to leave the mark of an honoured
name upon the revolving ages of this world, how much greater and nobler is it
to rise above it by unsullied chastity both of heart and of body! Let this
maiden, therefore, illustrious in her pedigree, yet more illustrious in her piety,
find greater joy in obtaining, through espousals to her divine Lord, a
pre-eminent glory in heaven, than she could have had in becoming, through espousal to a
human consort, the mother of a line of illustrious men. This daughter of the
house of Anicius has acted the more magnanimous part, in choosing rather to
bring a blessing on that noble family by forbearing from marriage, than to increase
the number of its descendants, preferring to be already, in the purity of her
body, I like unto the angels, rather than to increase by the fruit of her body
the number of mortals. For this is a richer and more fruitful condition of
blessedness, not to have a pregnant womb' but to develop the soul's lofty
capacities; not to have the breasts flowing with milk, but to have the heart pure as
snow; to travail not with the earthly in the pangs of labour, but with the
heavenly in persevering prayer. May it be yours, my daughters, most worthy of the
honour due to your rank, to enjoy in her that which was lacking to yourselves; may
she be stedfast to the end, abiding in the conjugal union that has no end. May
many handmaidens follow the example of their mistress; may those who are of
humble rank imitate this high-born lady, and may those who possess eminence in
this uncertain world aspire to that worthier eminence which humility has given to
her. Let the virgins who covet the glory of the Anician family be ambitious
rather to emulate its piety; for the former lies beyond their reach, however
eagerly they may desire it, but the latter shall be at once in their possession if
they seek it with full desire. May the right hand of the Most High protect you,
giving you safety and greater happiness, ladies most worthy of honour, and most
excellent daughters! In the love of the Lord, and with all becoming respect,
we salute the children of your Holiness, and above all the one who is above the
rest in holiness. We have received with very great pleasure the gift sent as a
souvenir of her taking the veil.'