The Project Gutenberg eBook of The writings of Origen, Vol. I (of 2),
by Origen
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before
using this eBook.
Title: The writings of Origen, Vol. I (of 2)
Author: Origen
Translator: Frederick Crombie
Release Date: April 15, 2023 [eBook #70561]
Language: English
Produced by: Wouter Franssen, David King, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net. (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN, VOL.
I (OF 2) ***
The Writings of Origen, Vol. 1 of 2
MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH,
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY OFFICE.
THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN.
TRANSLATED BY
REV. FREDERICK CROMBIE, M.A.,
PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM, ST. MARY’S COLLEGE, ST. ANDREWS.
VOL. I.
EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
LONDON: HAMILTON & CO. DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON & CO.
MDCCCLXIX.
CONTENTS.
Introductory Notice, vii
Prologue of Rufinus to the De Principiis, xi
ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS.
Preface, 1
BOOK I.
Chap. I. On God, 8
Chap. II. On Christ, 18
Chap. III. On the Holy Spirit, 33
Chap. IV. On Defection, or Falling Away, 43
Chap. V. On Rational Natures, 44
Chap. VI. On the End or Consummation, 53
Chap. VII. On Incorporeal and Corporeal Beings, 59
Chap. VIII. On the Angels, 65
Fragments from the First Book, 71
BOOK II.
Chap. I. On the World, 72
Chap. II. On the Perpetuity of Bodily Nature, 77
Chap. III. On the Beginning of the World, and its Causes, 79
Chap. IV. The God of the Law and the Prophets, and the Father of our
Lord Jesus Christ, is the same God, 91
Chap. V. On Justice and Goodness, 97
Chap. VI. On the Incarnation of Christ, 105
Chap. VII. On the Holy Spirit, 113
Chap. VIII. On the Soul (_Anima_), 118
Chap. IX. On the World, and the Movements of Rational Creatures, whether
good or bad; and on the Causes of them, 126
Chap. X. On the Resurrection, and the Judgment, the Fire of Hell, and
Punishments, 136
Chap. XI. On Counter Promises, 145
BOOK III.
Preface of Rufinus, 154
Chap. I. On the Freedom of the Will, 156
Chap. II. On the Opposing Powers, 222
Chap. III. On Threefold Wisdom, 237
Chap. IV. On Human Temptations, 244
Chap. V. That the World took its Beginning in Time, 253
Chap. VI. On the End of the World, 262
BOOK IV.
Chap. I. That the Scriptures are divinely inspired, 274
INDEX, 357
Letter to Origen from Africanus about the History of Susanna, 369
Letter from Origen to Africanus, 371
Letter from Origen to Gregory, 388
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS—
Book I., 393
INTRODUCTORY NOTICE.
The name of the illustrious Origen comes before us in this volume in
connection with his works _De Principiis_, _Epistola ad Africanum_, and
_Contra Celsum_. Of these, the first two have been given entire, while
of the third we have been able at present only to give the first book. A
full account of the life and writings of the author will be prefixed to
our next volume of his works. Meanwhile, we restrict ourselves to a
brief notice of the three which have been mentioned.
It is in his treatise Περὶ Ἀρχῶν, or, as it is commonly known under the
Latin title, _De Principiis_, that Origen most fully develops his
system, and brings out his peculiar principles. None of his works
exposed him to so much animadversion in the ancient church as this. On
it chiefly was based the charge of heresy which some vehemently pressed
against him,—a charge from which even his firmest friends felt it no
easy matter absolutely to defend him. The points on which it was held
that he had plainly departed from the orthodox faith, were the four
following:—_First_, That the souls of men had existed in a previous
state, and that their imprisonment in material bodies was a punishment
for sins which they had then committed. _Second_, That the human soul of
Christ had also previously existed, and been united to the Divine nature
before that incarnation of the Son of God which is related in the
Gospels. _Third_, That our material bodies shall be transformed into
absolutely ethereal ones at the resurrection; and _fourth_, That all
men, and even devils, shall be finally restored through the mediation of
Christ. His principles of interpreting Scripture are also brought out in
this treatise; and while not a little ingenuity is displayed in
illustrating and maintaining them, the serious errors into which they
might too easily lead will be at once perceived by the reader.
It is much to be regretted that the original Greek of the _De
Principiis_ has for the most part perished. We possess it chiefly in a
Latin translation by Rufinus. And there can be no doubt that he often
took great liberties with his author. So much was this felt to be the
case, that Jerome undertook a new translation of the work; but only
small portions of his version have reached our day. He strongly accuses
Rufinus of unfaithfulness as an interpreter, while he also inveighs
bitterly against Origen himself, as having departed from the catholic
faith, specially in regard to the doctrine of the Trinity. There seems,
however, after all, no adequate reason to doubt the substantial
orthodoxy of our author, although the bent of his mind and the nature of
his studies led him to indulge in many vain and unauthorized
speculations.
The _Epistle to Africanus_ was drawn forth by a letter which that
learned writer had addressed to Origen respecting the story of Susanna
appended to the book of Daniel. Africanus had grave doubts as to the
canonical authority of the account. Origen replies to his objections,
and seeks to uphold the story as both useful in itself, and a genuine
portion of the ancient prophetical writings.
The treatise of Origen _Against Celsus_ is, of all his works, the most
interesting to the modern reader. It is a defence of Christianity in
opposition to a Greek philosopher named Celsus, who had attacked it in a
work entitled Ἀληθὴς Λόγος, that is, _The True Word_, or _The True
Discourse_. Of this work we know nothing, except from the quotations
contained in the answer given to it by Origen. Nor has anything very
certain been ascertained respecting its author. According to Origen, he
was a follower of Epicurus, but others have regarded him as a Platonist.
If we may judge of the work by those specimens of it preserved in the
reply of Origen, it was little better than a compound of sophistry and
slander. But there is reason to be grateful for it, as having called
forth the admirable answer of Origen. This work was written in the old
age of our author, and is composed with great care; while it abounds
with proofs of the widest erudition. It is also perfectly orthodox; and,
as Bishop Bull has remarked, it is only fair that we should judge from a
work written with the view of being considered by the world at large,
and with the most elaborate care, as to the mature and finally accepted
views of the author.
The best edition of Origen’s works is that superintended by Charles and
Charles Vincent de la Rue, Paris 1783, 4 vols. fol., which is reprinted
by Migne. There is also an edition in 25 volumes, based upon that of De
la Rue, but without the Latin translation, by Lommatzsch, Berlin
1831-1848. The _De Principiis_ has been separately edited by
Redepenning, Leipzig 1836. Spencer edited the _Contra Celsum_, Cambridge
1677.
PROLOGUE OF RUFINUS TO THE DE PRINCIPIIS.
I know that very many of the brethren, induced by their thirst for a
knowledge of the Scriptures, have requested some distinguished men, well
versed in Greek learning, to translate Origen into Latin, and so make
him accessible to Roman readers. Among these, when our brother and
colleague[1] had, at the earnest entreaty of Bishop Damasus, translated
two of the Homilies on the Song of Songs out of Greek into Latin, he
prefixed so elegant and noble a preface to that work, as to inspire
every one with a most eager desire to read and study Origen, saying that
the expression, “The King hath brought me into his chamber,”[2] was
appropriate to his feelings, and declaring that while Origen in his
other works surpassed all writers, he in the Song of Songs surpassed
even himself. He promises, indeed, in that very preface, that he will
present the books on the Song of Songs, and numerous others of the works
of Origen, in a Latin translation, to Roman readers. But he, finding
greater pleasure in compositions of his own, pursues an end that is
attended with greater fame, viz. in being the author rather than the
translator of works. Accordingly we enter upon the undertaking, which
was thus begun and approved of by him, although we cannot compose in a
style of elegance equal to that of a man of such distinguished
eloquence; and therefore I am afraid lest, through my fault, the result
should follow, that that man, whom he deservedly esteems as the second
teacher of knowledge and wisdom in the church after the apostles,
should, through the poverty of my language, appear far inferior to what
he is. And this consideration, which frequently recurred to my mind,
kept me silent, and prevented me from yielding to the numerous
entreaties of my brethren, until your influence, my very faithful
brother Macarius, which is so great, rendered it impossible for my
unskilfulness any longer to offer resistance. And therefore, that I
might not find you too grievous an exactor, I gave way, even contrary to
my resolution; on the condition and arrangement, however, that in my
translation I should follow as far as possible the rule observed by my
predecessors, and especially by that distinguished man whom I have
mentioned above, who, after translating into Latin more than seventy of
those treatises of Origen which are styled _Homilies_, and a
considerable number also of his writings on the apostles, in which a
good many “stumbling-blocks” are found in the original Greek, so
smoothed and corrected them in his translation, that a Latin reader
would meet with nothing which could appear discordant with our belief.
His example, therefore, we follow, to the best of our ability; if not
with equal power of eloquence, yet at least with the same strictness of
rule, taking care not to reproduce those expressions occurring in the
works of Origen which are inconsistent with and opposed to each other.
The cause of these variations we have explained more freely in the
_Apologeticus_, which Pamphilus wrote in defence of the works of Origen,
where we added a brief tract, in which we showed, I think, by
unmistakeable proofs, that his books had been corrupted in numerous
places by heretics and malevolent persons, and especially those books of
which you now require me to undertake the translation, _i.e._ the books
which may be entitled _De Principiis_ or _De Principatibus_, and which
are indeed in other respects full of obscurities and difficulties. For
he there discusses those subjects with respect to which philosophers,
after spending all their lives upon them, have been unable to discover
anything. But here our author strove, as much as in him lay, to turn to
the service of religion the belief in a Creator, and the rational nature
of created beings, which the latter had degraded to purposes of
wickedness. If, therefore, we have found anywhere in his writings, any
statement opposed to that view, which elsewhere in his works he had
himself piously laid down regarding the Trinity, we have either omitted
it, as being corrupt, and not the composition of Origen, or we have
brought it forward, agreeably to the rule which we frequently find
affirmed by himself. If, indeed, in his desire to pass rapidly on, he
has, as speaking to persons of skill and knowledge, sometimes expressed
himself obscurely, we have, in order that the passage might be clearer,
added what we had read more fully stated on the same subject in his
other works, keeping explanation in view, but adding nothing of our own,
but simply restoring to him what was his, although occurring in other
portions of his writings.
These remarks, therefore, by way of admonition, I have made in the
preface, lest slanderous individuals perhaps should think that they had
a second time discovered matter of accusation. But let perverse and
disputatious men have a care what they are about. For we have in the
meantime undertaken this heavy labour, if God should aid your prayers,
not to shut the mouths of slanderers (which is impossible, although God
perhaps will do it), but to afford material to those who desire to
advance in the knowledge of these things. And, verily, in the presence
of God the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, I adjure and
beseech every one, who may either transcribe or read these books, by his
belief in the kingdom to come, by the mystery of the resurrection from
the dead, and by that everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his
angels, that, as he would not possess for an eternal inheritance that
place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth, and where their fire
is not quenched and their worm dieth not, he add nothing to Scripture,
and take nothing away from it, and make no insertion or alteration, but
that he compare his transcript with the copies from which he made it,
and make the emendations and distinctions according to the letter, and
not have his manuscript incorrect or indistinct, lest the difficulty of
ascertaining the sense, from the indistinctness of the copy, should
cause greater difficulties to the readers.
Footnote 1:
Jerome is the person alluded to.
Footnote 2:
Cant. i. 4.
ORIGEN DE PRINCIPIIS.
PREFACE.
1. All who believe and are assured that grace and truth were obtained
through Jesus Christ, and who know Christ to be the truth, agreeably to
His own declaration, “I am the truth,”[3] derive the knowledge which
incites men to a good and happy life from no other source than from the
very words and teaching of Christ. And by the words of Christ we do not
mean those only which He spake when He became man and tabernacled in the
flesh; for before that time, Christ, the Word of God, was in Moses and
the prophets. For without the Word of God, how could they have been able
to prophesy of Christ? And were it not our purpose to confine the
present treatise within the limits of all attainable brevity, it would
not be difficult to show, in proof of this statement, out of the Holy
Scriptures, how Moses or the prophets both spake and performed all they
did through being filled with the Spirit of Christ. And therefore I
think it sufficient to quote this one testimony of Paul from the Epistle
to the Hebrews, in which he says: “By faith Moses, when he was come to
years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter; choosing
rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the
pleasures of sin for a season; esteeming the reproach of Christ greater
riches than the treasures of the Egyptians.”[4] Moreover, that after His
ascension into heaven He spake in His apostles, is shown by Paul in
these words: “Or do you seek a proof of Christ, who speaketh in me?”[5]
2. Since many, however, of those who profess to believe in Christ differ
from each other, not only in small and trifling matters, but also on
subjects of the highest importance, as _e.g._ regarding God, or the Lord
Jesus Christ, or the Holy Spirit; and not only regarding these, but also
regarding others which are created existences, viz. the powers[6] and
the holy virtues;[7] it seems on that account necessary first of all to
fix a definite limit and to lay down an unmistakeable rule regarding
each one of these, and then to pass to the investigation of other
points. For as we ceased to seek for truth (notwithstanding the
professions of many among Greeks and Barbarians to make it known) among
all who claimed it for erroneous opinions, after we had come to believe
that Christ was the Son of God, and were persuaded that we must learn it
from Himself; so, seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions
of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their
predecessors, yet as the teaching of the church, transmitted in orderly
succession from the apostles, and remaining in the churches to the
present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth
which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolical
tradition.
3. Now it ought to be known that the holy apostles, in preaching the
faith of Christ, delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on
certain points which they believed to be necessary to every one, even to
those who seemed somewhat dull in the investigation of divine knowledge;
leaving, however, the grounds of their statements to be examined into by
those who should deserve the excellent gifts of the Spirit, and who,
especially by means of the Holy Spirit Himself, should obtain the gift
of language, of wisdom, and of knowledge: while on other subjects they
merely stated the fact that things were so, keeping silence as to the
manner or origin of their existence; clearly in order that the more
zealous of their successors, who should be lovers of wisdom, might have
a subject of exercise on which to display the fruit of their
talents,—those persons, I mean, who should prepare themselves to be fit
and worthy receivers of wisdom.
4. The particular points[8] clearly delivered in the teaching of the
apostles are as follow:
_First_, That there is one God, who created and arranged all things, and
who, when nothing existed, called all things into being—God from the
first creation and foundation of the world—the God of all just men, of
Adam, Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noe, Sem, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, the
twelve patriarchs, Moses, and the prophets; and that this God in the
last days, as He had announced beforehand by His prophets, sent our Lord
Jesus Christ to call in the first place Israel to Himself, and in the
second place the Gentiles, after the unfaithfulness of the people of
Israel. This just and good God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Himself gave the law, and the prophets, and the gospels, being also the
God of the apostles and of the Old and New Testaments.
_Secondly_, That Jesus Christ Himself, who came [into the world], was
born of the Father before all creatures; that, after He had been the
servant of the Father in the creation of all things—“For by Him were all
things made”[9]—He in the last times, divesting Himself [of His glory],
became a man, and was incarnate although God, and while made a man
remained the God which He was; that He assumed a body like to our own,
differing in this respect only, that it was born of a virgin and of the
Holy Spirit: that this Jesus Christ was truly born, and did truly
suffer, and did not endure this death common [to man] in appearance
only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and that
after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up
[into heaven].
Then, _thirdly_, the apostles related that the Holy Spirit was
associated in honour and dignity with the Father and the Son. But in His
case it is not clearly distinguished whether He is to be regarded as
born or innate,[10] or also as a Son of God or not: for these are points
which have to be inquired into out of sacred Scripture according to the
best of our ability, and which demand careful investigation. And that
this Spirit inspired each one of the saints, whether prophets or
apostles; and that there was not one Spirit in the men of the old
dispensation, and another in those who were inspired at the advent of
Christ, is most clearly taught throughout the churches.
5. After these points, also, the apostolic teaching is that the soul,
having a substance[11] and life of its own, shall, after its departure
from the world, be rewarded according to its deserts, being destined to
obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its
actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to
eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have
brought it down to this: and also, that there is to be a time of
resurrection from the dead, when this body, which now “is sown in
corruption, shall rise in incorruption,” and that which “is sown in
dishonour will rise in glory.”[12] This also is clearly defined in the
teaching of the church, that every rational soul is possessed of
free-will and volition; that it has a struggle to maintain with the
devil and his angels, and opposing influences,[13] because they strive
to burden it with sins; but if we live rightly and wisely, we should
endeavour to shake ourselves free of a burden of that kind. From which
it follows, also, that we understand ourselves not to be subject to
necessity, so as to be compelled by all means, even against our will, to
do either good or evil. For if we are our own masters, some influences
perhaps may impel us to sin, and others help us to salvation; we are not
forced, however, by any necessity either to act rightly or wrongly,
which those persons think is the case who say that the courses and
movements of the stars are the cause of human actions, not only of those
which take place beyond the influence of the freedom of the will, but
also of those which are placed within our own power. But with respect to
the soul, whether it is derived from the seed by a process of
traducianism, so that the reason or substance of it may be considered as
placed in the seminal particles of the body themselves, or whether it
has any other beginning; and this beginning itself, whether it be by
birth or not, or whether bestowed upon the body from without or no, is
not distinguished with sufficient clearness in the teaching of the
church.
6. Regarding the devil and his angels, and the opposing influences, the
teaching of the church has laid down that these beings exist indeed; but
what they are, or how they exist, it has not explained with sufficient
clearness. This opinion, however, is held by most, that the devil was an
angel, and that, having become an apostate, he induced as many of the
angels as possible to fall away with himself, and these up to the
present time are called his angels.
7. This also is a part of the church’s teaching, that the world was made
and took its beginning at a certain time, and is to be destroyed on
account of its wickedness. But what existed before this world, or what
will exist after it, has not become certainly known to the many, for
there is no clear statement regarding it in the teaching of the church.
8. Then, finally, that the Scriptures were written by the Spirit of God,
and have a meaning, not such only as is apparent at first sight, but
also another, which escapes the notice of most. For those [words] which
are written are the forms of certain mysteries,[14] and the images of
divine things. Respecting which there is one opinion throughout the
whole church, that the whole law is indeed spiritual; but that the
spiritual meaning which the law conveys is not known to all, but to
those only on whom the grace of the Holy Spirit is bestowed in the word
of wisdom and knowledge.
The term ἀσώματον, _i.e._ incorporeal, is disused and unknown, not only
in many other writings, but also in our own Scriptures. And if any one
should quote it to us out of the little treatise entitled _The Doctrine
of Peter_,[15] in which the Saviour seems to say to His disciples, “I am
not an incorporeal demon,”[16] I have to reply, in the first place, that
that work is not included among ecclesiastical books; for we can show
that it was not composed either by Peter or by any other person inspired
by the Spirit of God. But even if the point were to be conceded, the
word ἀσώματον there does not convey the same meaning as is intended by
Greek and Gentile authors when incorporeal nature is discussed by
philosophers. For in the little treatise referred to he used the phrase
“incorporeal demon” to denote that that form or outline of demoniacal
body, whatever it is, does not resemble this gross and visible body of
ours; but, agreeably to the intention of the author of the treatise, it
must be understood to mean that He had not such a body as demons have,
which is naturally fine,[17] and thin as if formed of air (and for this
reason is either considered or called by many incorporeal), but that He
had a solid and palpable body. Now, according to human custom,
everything which is not of that nature is called by the simple or
ignorant incorporeal; as if one were to say that the air which we
breathe was incorporeal, because it is not a body of such a nature as
can be grasped and held, or can offer resistance to pressure.
9. We shall inquire, however, whether the thing which Greek philosophers
call ἀσώματον, or “incorporeal,” is found in holy Scripture under
another name. For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God
Himself is to be understood,—whether as corporeal, and formed according
to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies,—a point which is
not clearly indicated in our teaching. And the same inquiries have to be
made regarding Christ and the Holy Spirit, as well as respecting every
soul, and everything possessed of a rational nature.
10. This also is a part of the teaching of the church, that there are
certain angels of God, and certain good influences, which are His
servants in accomplishing the salvation of men. When these, however,
were created, or of what nature they are, or how they exist, is not
clearly stated. Regarding the sun, moon, and stars, whether they are
living beings or without life, there is no distinct deliverance.
Every one, therefore, must make use of elements and foundations of this
sort, according to the precept, “Enlighten yourselves with the light of
knowledge,”[18] if he would desire to form a connected series and body
of truths agreeably to the reason of all these things, that by clear and
necessary statements he may ascertain the truth regarding each
individual topic, and form, as we have said, one body of doctrine, by
means of illustrations and arguments,—either those which he has
discovered in holy Scripture, or which he has deduced by closely tracing
out the consequences and following a correct method.
Footnote 3:
John xiv. 6.
Footnote 4:
Heb. xi. 24-26.
Footnote 5:
2 Cor. xiii. 3.
Footnote 6:
Dominationes.
Footnote 7:
Virtutes.
Footnote 8:
Species.
Footnote 9:
John i. 3.
Footnote 10:
Innatus. The words which Rufinus has rendered “natus an innatus” are
rendered by Jerome in his Epistle to Avitus (94 _alias_ 59), “factus
an infectus.” Criticising the errors in the first book of the
_Principles_, he says: “Origen declares the Holy Spirit to be third in
dignity and honour after the Father and the Son; and although
professing ignorance whether he were created or not (factus an
infectus), he indicated afterwards his opinion regarding him,
maintaining that nothing was uncreated except God the Father.” Jerome,
no doubt, read γενητὸς ἢ ἀγένητος, and Rufinus γεννητὸς ἢ
ἀγέννητος.—R.
Footnote 11:
Substantia.
Footnote 12:
1 Cor. xv. 42.
Footnote 13:
Virtutes.
Footnote 14:
Sacramentorum.
Footnote 15:
Eusebius (_Eccles. Hist._ iii. c. 36), treating of Ignatius, quotes
from his Epistle to the Church of Smyrna as follows: “Writing to the
Smyrnæans, he (Ignatius) has also employed words respecting Jesus, I
know not whence they are taken, to the following effect: ‘But I know
and believe that He was seen after the resurrection; and when He came
to Peter and his companions, He said to them, Take and handle me, and
see that I am not an incorporeal spirit.’” Jerome, in his catalogue of
ecclesiastical writers, says the words are a quotation from the Gospel
of the Nazarenes, a work which he had recently translated. Origen here
quotes them, however, from _The Doctrine of Peter_, on which Ruæus
remarks that the words might be contained in both of these apocryphal
works.
Footnote 16:
Dæmonium.
Footnote 17:
Subtile.
Footnote 18:
Hos. x. 12. The words in the text are not the rendering of the
authorized version, but that of the Septuagint, which has φωτίσατε
ἑαυτοῖς φῶς γνώσεως. Where the Masoretic text has וְעֵת (_et tempus_)
Origen evidently read דַּעַת (_scientia_), the similarity of _Vau_ and
_Daleth_ accounting for the error of the transcriber.
BOOK I.
CHAPTER I.
ON GOD.
1. I know that some will attempt to say that, even according to the
declarations of our own Scriptures, God is a body, because in the
writings of Moses they find it said, that “our God is a consuming
fire;”[19] and in the Gospel according to John, that “God is a Spirit,
and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth.”[20]
Fire and spirit, according to them, are to be regarded as nothing else
than a body. Now, I should like to ask these persons what they have to
say respecting that passage where it is declared that God is light; as
John writes in his epistle, “God is light, and in Him there is no
darkness at all.”[21] Truly He is that light which illuminates the whole
understanding of those who are capable of receiving truth, as is said in
the thirty-sixth Psalm, “In Thy light we shall see light.”[22] For what
other light of God can be named, “in which any one sees light,” save an
influence of God, by which a man, being enlightened, either thoroughly
sees the truth of all things, or comes to know God Himself, who is
called the truth? Such is the meaning of the expression, “In Thy light
we shall see light;” _i.e._ in Thy word and wisdom, which is Thy Son, in
Himself we shall see Thee the Father. Because He is called light, shall
He be supposed to have any resemblance to the light of the sun? Or how
should there be the slightest ground for imagining, that from that
corporeal light any one could derive the cause of knowledge, and come to
the understanding of the truth?
2. If, then, they acquiesce in our assertion, which reason itself has
demonstrated, regarding the nature of light, and acknowledge that God
cannot be understood to be a body in the sense that light is, similar
reasoning will hold true of the expression “a consuming fire.” For what
will God consume in respect of His being fire? Shall He be thought to
consume material substance, as wood, or hay, or stubble? And what in
this view can be called worthy of the glory of God, if He be a fire,
consuming materials of that kind? But let us reflect that God does
indeed consume and utterly destroy; that He consumes evil thoughts,
wicked actions, and sinful desires, when they find their way into the
minds of believers; and that, inhabiting along with His Son those souls
which are rendered capable of receiving His word and wisdom, according
to His own declaration, “I and the Father shall come, and we shall make
our abode with him,”[23] He makes them, after all their vices and
passions have been consumed, a holy temple, worthy of Himself. Those,
moreover, who, on account of the expression “God is a Spirit,” think
that He is a body, are to be answered, I think, in the following manner.
It is the custom of sacred Scripture, when it wishes to designate
anything opposed to this gross and solid body, to call it spirit, as in
the expression, “The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life,”[24]
where there can be no doubt that by “letter” are meant bodily things,
and by “spirit” intellectual things, which we also term “spiritual.” The
apostle, moreover, says, “Even unto this day, when Moses is read, the
veil is upon their heart: nevertheless, when it shall turn to the Lord,
the veil shall be taken away: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there
is liberty.”[25] For so long as any one is not converted to a spiritual
understanding, a veil is placed over his heart, with which veil, _i.e._
a gross understanding, Scripture itself is said or thought to be
covered: and this is the meaning of the statement that a veil was placed
over the countenance of Moses when he spoke to the people, _i.e._ when
the law was publicly read aloud. But if we turn to the Lord, where also
is the word of God, and where the Holy Spirit reveals spiritual
knowledge, then the veil is taken away, and with unveiled face we shall
behold the glory of the Lord in the holy Scriptures.
3. And since many saints participate in the Holy Spirit, He cannot
therefore be understood to be a body, which being divided into corporeal
parts, is partaken of by each one of the saints; but He is manifestly a
sanctifying power, in which all are said to have a share who have
deserved to be sanctified by His grace. And in order that what we say
may be more easily understood, let us take an illustration from things
very dissimilar. There are many persons who take a part in the
science[26] or art of medicine: are we therefore to suppose that those
who do so take to themselves the particles of some body called medicine,
which is placed before them, and in this way participate in the same? Or
must we not rather understand that all who with quick and trained minds
come to understand the art and discipline itself, may be said to be
partakers of the art of healing? But these are not to be deemed
altogether parallel instances in a comparison of medicine to the Holy
Spirit, as they have been adduced only to establish that that is not
necessarily to be considered a body, a share in which is possessed by
many individuals. For the Holy Spirit differs widely from the method or
science of medicine, in respect that the Holy Spirit is an intellectual
existence,[27] and subsists and exists in a peculiar manner, whereas
medicine is not at all of that nature.
4. But we must pass on to the language of the Gospel itself, in which it
is declared that “God is a Spirit,” and where we have to show how that
is to be understood agreeably to what we have stated. For let us inquire
on what occasion these words were spoken by the Saviour, before whom He
uttered them, and what was the subject of investigation. We find,
without any doubt, that He spoke these words to the Samaritan woman,
saying to her, who thought, agreeably to the Samaritan view, that God
ought to be worshipped on Mount Gerizim, that “God is a Spirit.” For the
Samaritan woman, believing Him to be a Jew, was inquiring of Him whether
God ought to be worshipped in Jerusalem or on this mountain; and her
words were, “All our fathers worshipped on this mountain, and ye say
that in Jerusalem is the place where we ought to worship.”[28] To this
opinion of the Samaritan woman, therefore, who imagined that God was
less rightly or duly worshipped, according to the privileges of the
different localities, either by the Jews in Jerusalem or by the
Samaritans on Mount Gerizim, the Saviour answered that he who would
follow the Lord must lay aside all preference for particular places, and
thus expressed Himself: “The hour is coming when neither in Jerusalem
nor on this mountain shall the true worshippers worship the Father. God
is a Spirit, and they who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in
truth.”[29] And observe how logically He has joined together the spirit
and the truth: He called God a Spirit, that He might distinguish Him
from bodies; and He named Him the truth, to distinguish Him from a
shadow or an image. For they who worshipped in Jerusalem worshipped God
neither in truth nor in spirit, being in subjection to the shadow or
image of heavenly things; and such also was the case with those who
worshipped on Mount Gerizim.
5. Having refuted, then, as well as we could, every notion which might
suggest that we were to think of God as in any degree corporeal, we go
on to say that, according to strict truth, God is incomprehensible, and
incapable of being measured.[30] For whatever be the knowledge which we
are able to obtain of God, either by perception or reflection, we must
of necessity believe that He is by many degrees far better than what we
perceive Him to be. For, as if we were to see any one unable to bear a
spark of light, or the flame of a very small lamp, and were desirous to
acquaint such a one, whose vision could not admit a greater degree of
light than what we have stated, with the brightness and splendour of the
sun, would it not be necessary to tell him that the splendour of the sun
was unspeakably and incalculably better and more glorious than all this
light which he saw? So our understanding, when shut in by the fetters of
flesh and blood, and rendered, on account of its participation in such
material substances, duller and more obtuse, although, in comparison
with our bodily nature, it is esteemed to be far superior, yet, in its
efforts to examine and behold incorporeal things, scarcely holds the
place of a spark or lamp. But among all intelligent, that is,
incorporeal beings, what is so superior to all others—so unspeakably and
incalculably superior—as God, whose nature cannot be grasped or seen by
the power of any human understanding, even the purest and brightest?
6. But it will not appear absurd if we employ another similitude to make
the matter clearer. Our eyes frequently cannot look upon the nature of
the light itself—that is, upon the substance of the sun; but when we
behold his splendour or his rays pouring in, perhaps, through windows or
some small openings to admit the light, we can reflect how great is the
supply and source of the light of the body. So, in like manner, the
works of Divine Providence and the plan of this whole world are a sort
of rays, as it were, of the nature of God, in comparison with His real
substance and being. As, therefore, our understanding is unable of
itself to behold God Himself as He is, it knows the Father of the world
from the beauty of His works and the comeliness of His creatures. God,
therefore, is not to be thought of as being either a body or as existing
in a body, but as an uncompounded intellectual nature,[31] admitting
within Himself no addition of any kind; so that He cannot be believed to
have within Him a greater and a less, but is such that He is in all
parts Μονάς, and, so to speak, Ἑνάς, and is the mind and source from
which all intellectual nature or mind takes its beginning. But mind, for
its movements or operations, needs no physical space, nor sensible
magnitude, nor bodily shape, nor colour, nor any other of those adjuncts
which are the properties of body or matter. Wherefore that simple and
wholly intellectual nature[32] can admit of no delay or hesitation in
its movements or operations, lest the simplicity of the divine nature
should appear to be circumscribed or in some degree hampered by such
adjuncts, and lest that which is the beginning of all things should be
found composite and differing, and that which ought to be free from all
bodily intermixture, in virtue of being the one sole species of Deity,
so to speak, should prove, instead of being one, to consist of many
things. That mind, moreover, does not require space in order to carry on
its movements agreeably to its nature, is certain from observation of
our own mind. For if the mind abide within its own limits, and sustain
no injury from any cause, it will never, from diversity of situation, be
retarded in the discharge of its functions; nor, on the other hand, does
it gain any addition or increase of mobility from the nature of
particular places. And here, if any one were to object, for example,
that among those who are at sea, and tossed by its waves, the mind is
considerably less vigorous than it is wont to be on land, we are to
believe that it is in this state, not from diversity of situation, but
from the commotion or disturbance of the body to which the mind is
joined or attached. For it seems to be contrary to nature, as it were,
for a human body to live at sea; and for that reason it appears, by a
sort of inequality of its own, to enter upon its mental operations in a
slovenly and irregular manner, and to perform the acts of the intellect
with a duller sense, in as great degree as those who on land are
prostrated with fever; with respect to whom it is certain, that if the
mind do not discharge its functions as well as before, in consequence of
the attack of disease, the blame is to be laid not upon the place, but
upon the bodily malady, by which the body, being disturbed and
disordered, renders to the mind its customary services under by no means
the well-known and natural conditions: for we human beings are animals
composed of a union of body and soul, and in this way [only] was it
possible for us to live upon the earth. But God, who is the beginning of
all things, is not to be regarded as a composite being, lest perchance
there should be found to exist elements prior to the beginning itself,
out of which everything is composed, whatever that be which is called
composite. Neither does the mind require bodily magnitude in order to
perform any act or movement; as when the eye by gazing upon bodies of
larger size is dilated, but is compressed and contracted in order to see
smaller objects. The mind, indeed, requires magnitude of an intellectual
kind, because it grows, not after the fashion of a body, but after that
of intelligence. For the mind is not enlarged, together with the body,
by means of corporal additions, up to the twentieth or thirtieth year of
life; but the intellect is sharpened by exercises of learning, and the
powers implanted within it for intelligent purposes are called forth;
and it is rendered capable of greater intellectual efforts, not being
increased by bodily additions, but carefully polished by learned
exercises. But these it cannot receive immediately from boyhood, or from
birth, because the framework of limbs which the mind employs as organs
for exercising itself is weak and feeble; and it is unable to bear the
weight of its own operations, or to exhibit a capacity for receiving
training.
7. If there are any now who think that the mind itself and the soul is a
body, I wish they would tell me by way of answer how it receives reasons
and assertions on subjects of such importance—of such difficulty and
such subtlety? Whence does it derive the power of memory? and whence
comes the contemplation of invisible[33] things? How does the body
possess the faculty of understanding incorporeal existences? How does a
bodily nature investigate the processes of the various arts, and
contemplate the reasons of things? How, also, is it able to perceive and
understand divine truths, which are manifestly incorporeal? Unless,
indeed, some should happen to be of opinion, that as the very bodily
shape and form of the ears or eyes contributes something to hearing and
to sight, and as the individual members, formed by God, have some
adaptation, even from the very quality of their form, to the end for
which they were naturally appointed; so also he may think that the shape
of the soul or mind is to be understood as if created purposely and
designedly for perceiving and understanding individual things, and for
being set in motion by vital movements. I do not perceive, however, who
shall be able to describe or state what is the colour of the mind, in
respect of its being mind, and acting as an intelligent existence.
Moreover, in confirmation and explanation of what we have already
advanced regarding the mind or soul—to the effect that it is better than
the whole bodily nature—the following remarks may be added. There
underlies every bodily sense a certain peculiar sensible substance,[34]
on which the bodily sense exerts itself. For example, colours, form,
size, underlie vision; voices and sound, the sense of hearing; odours,
good or bad, that of smell; savours, that of taste; heat or cold,
hardness or softness, roughness or smoothness, that of touch. Now, of
those senses enumerated above, it is manifest to all that the sense of
mind is much the best. How, then, should it not appear absurd, that
under those senses which are inferior, substances should have been
placed on which to exert their powers, but that under this power, which
is far better than any other, _i.e._ the sense of mind, nothing at all
of the nature of a substance should be placed, but that a power of an
intellectual nature should be an accident, or consequent upon bodies?
Those who assert this, doubtless do so to the disparagement of that
better substance which is within them; nay, by so doing, they even do
wrong to God Himself, when they imagine He may be understood by means of
a bodily nature, so that according to their view He is a body, and that
which may be understood or perceived by means of a body; and they are
unwilling to have it understood that the mind bears a certain
relationship to God, of whom the mind itself is an intellectual image,
and that by means of this it may come to some knowledge of the nature of
divinity, especially if it be purified and separated from bodily matter.
8. But perhaps these declarations may seem to have less weight with
those who wish to be instructed in divine things out of the holy
Scriptures, and who seek to have it proved to them from that source how
the nature of God surpasses the nature of bodies. See, therefore, if the
apostle does not say the same thing, when, speaking of Christ, he
declares, that “He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of
every creature.”[35] Not, as some suppose, that the nature of God is
visible to some and invisible to others: for the apostle does not say
“the image of God invisible” to men or “invisible” to sinners, but with
unvarying constancy pronounces on the nature of God in these words: “the
image of the invisible God.” Moreover, John in his Gospel, when
asserting that “no one hath seen God at any time,”[36] manifestly
declares to all who are capable of understanding, that there is no
nature to which God is visible: not as if He were a being who was
visible by nature, and merely escaped or baffled the view of a frailer
creature, but because by the _nature_ of His being it is impossible for
Him to be seen. And if you should ask of me what is my opinion regarding
the Only-begotten Himself, whether the nature of God, which is naturally
invisible, be not visible even to Him, let not such a question appear to
you at once to be either absurd or impious, because we shall give you a
logical reason. It is one thing to see, and another to know: to see and
to be seen is a property of bodies; to know and to be known, an
attribute of intellectual being. Whatever, therefore, is a property of
bodies, cannot be predicated either of the Father or of the Son; but
what belongs to the nature of deity is common to the Father and the
Son.[37] Finally, even He Himself, in the Gospel, did not say that no
one has _seen_ the Father, save the Son, nor any one the Son, save the
Father; but His words are: “No one _knoweth_ the Son, save the Father;
nor any one the Father, save the Son.”[38] By which it is clearly shown,
that whatever among bodily natures is called seeing and being seen, is
termed, between the Father and the Son, a knowing and being known, by
means of the power of knowledge, not by the frailness of the sense of
sight. Because, then, neither seeing nor being seen can be properly
applied to an incorporeal and invisible nature, neither is the Father,
in the Gospel, said to be seen by the Son, nor the Son by the Father,
but the one is said to be known by the other.
9. Here, if any one lay before us the passage where it is said, “Blessed
are the pure in heart, for they shall see God,”[39] from that very
passage, in my opinion, will our position derive additional strength;
for what else is seeing God in heart, but, according to our exposition
as above, understanding and knowing Him with the mind? For the names of
the organs of sense are frequently applied to the soul, so that it may
be said to see with the eyes of the heart, _i.e._ to perform an
intellectual act by means of the power of intelligence. So also it is
said to hear with the ears when it perceives the deeper meaning of a
statement. So also we say that it makes use of teeth, when it chews and
eats the bread of life which cometh down from heaven. In like manner,
also, it is said to employ the services of other members, which are
transferred from their bodily appellations, and applied to the powers of
the soul, according to the words of Solomon, “You will find a divine
sense.”[40] For he knew that there were within us two kinds of senses:
the one mortal, corruptible, human; the other immortal and intellectual,
which he now termed divine. By this divine sense, therefore, not of the
eyes, but of a pure heart, which is the mind, God may be seen by those
who are worthy. For you will certainly find in all the Scriptures, both
old and new, the term “heart” repeatedly used instead of “mind,” _i.e._
intellectual power. In this manner, therefore, although far below the
dignity of the subject, have we spoken of the nature of God, as those
who understand it under the limitation of the human understanding. In
the next place, let us see what is meant by the name of Christ.
Footnote 19:
Deut. iv. 24.
Footnote 20:
John iv. 24.
Footnote 21:
1 John i. 5.
Footnote 22:
Ps. xxxvi. 9.
Footnote 23:
John xiv. 23.
Footnote 24:
2 Cor. iii. 6.
Footnote 25:
2 Cor. iii. 15-17.
Footnote 26:
Disciplina.
Footnote 27:
Subsistentia.
Footnote 28:
John iv. 20.
Footnote 29:
John iv. 23, 24.
Footnote 30:
“Inæstimabilem.”
Footnote 31:
“Simplex intellectualis natura.”
Footnote 32:
“Natura illa simplex et tota mens.”
Footnote 33:
Some read “visible.”
Footnote 34:
“Substantia quædam sensibilis propria.”
Footnote 35:
Col. i. 15.
Footnote 36:
John i. 18.
Footnote 37:
“Constat inter Patrem et Filium.”
Footnote 38:
Matt. xi. 27.
Footnote 39:
Matt. v. 8.
Footnote 40:
Cf. Prov. ii. 5.
CHAPTER II.
ON CHRIST.
1. In the first place, we must note that the nature of that deity which
is in Christ in respect of His being the only-begotten Son of God is one
thing, and that human nature which He assumed in these last times for
the purposes of the dispensation [of grace] is another. And therefore we
have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He
is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and
views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the
expression of Solomon: “The Lord created me—the beginning of His ways,
and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me
before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth, before He
brought forth the fountains of waters, before the mountains were made
strong, before all the hills, He brought me forth.”[41] He is also
styled First-born, as the apostle has declared: “who is the first-born
of every creature.”[42] The first-born, however, is not by nature a
different person from the Wisdom, but one and the same. Finally, the
Apostle Paul says that “Christ [is] the power of God and the wisdom of
God.”[43]
2. Let no one, however, imagine that we mean anything impersonal[44]
when we call Him the wisdom of God; or suppose, for example, that we
understand Him to be, not a living being endowed with wisdom, but
something which makes men wise, giving itself to, and implanting itself
in, the minds of those who are made capable of receiving His virtues and
intelligence. If, then, it is once rightly understood that the
only-begotten Son of God is His wisdom hypostatically[45] existing, I
know not whether our curiosity ought to advance beyond this, or
entertain any suspicion that that ὑπόστασις or _substantia_ contains
anything of a bodily nature, since everything that is corporeal is
distinguished either by form, or colour, or magnitude. And who in his
sound senses ever sought for form, or colour, or size, in wisdom, in
respect of its being wisdom? And who that is capable of entertaining
reverential thoughts or feelings regarding God, can suppose or believe
that God the Father ever existed, even for a moment of time,[46] without
having generated this Wisdom? For in that case he must say either that
God was unable to generate Wisdom before He produced her, so that He
afterwards called into being her who formerly did not exist, or that He
possessed the power indeed, but—what cannot be said of God without
impiety—was unwilling to use it; both of which suppositions, it is
patent to all, are alike absurd and impious: for they amount to this,
either that God advanced from a condition of inability to one of
ability, or that, although possessed of the power, He concealed it, and
delayed the generation of Wisdom. Wherefore we have always held that God
is the Father of His only-begotten Son, who was born indeed of Him, and
derives from Him what He is, but without any beginning, not only such as
may be measured by any divisions of time, but even that which the mind
alone can contemplate within itself, or behold, so to speak, with the
naked powers of the understanding. And therefore we must believe that
Wisdom was generated before any beginning that can be either
comprehended or expressed. And since all the creative power of the
coming creation[47] was included in this very existence of Wisdom
(whether of those things which have an original or of those which have a
derived existence), having been formed beforehand and arranged by the
power of foreknowledge; on account of these very creatures which had
been described, as it were, and prefigured in Wisdom herself, does
Wisdom say, in the words of Solomon, that she was created the beginning
of the ways of God, inasmuch as she contained within herself either the
beginnings, or forms, or species of all creation.
3. Now, in the same way in which we have understood that Wisdom was the
beginning of the ways of God, and is said to be created, forming
beforehand and containing within herself the species and beginnings of
all creatures, must we understand her to be the Word of God, because of
her disclosing to all other beings, _i.e._ to universal creation, the
nature of the mysteries and secrets which are contained within the
divine wisdom; and on this account she is called the Word, because she
is, as it were, the interpreter of the secrets of the mind. And
therefore that language which is found in the _Acts of Paul_,[48] where
it is said that “here is the Word a living being,” appears to me to be
rightly used. John, however, with more sublimity and propriety, says in
the beginning of his Gospel, when defining God by a special definition
to be the Word, “And God was the Word,[49] and this was in the beginning
with God.” Let him, then, who assigns a beginning to the Word or Wisdom
of God, take care that he be not guilty of impiety against the
unbegotten Father Himself, seeing he denies that He had always been a
Father, and had generated the Word, and had possessed wisdom in all
preceding periods, whether they be called times or ages, or anything
else that can be so entitled.
4. This Son, accordingly, is also the truth and life of all things which
exist. And with reason. For how could those things which were created
live, unless they derived their being from life? or how could those
things which are, truly exist, unless they came down from the truth? or
how could rational beings exist, unless the Word or reason had
previously existed? or how could they be wise, unless there were wisdom?
But since it was to come to pass that some also should fall away from
life, and bring death upon themselves by their declension—for death is
nothing else than a departure from life—and as it was not to follow that
those beings which had once been created by God for the enjoyment of
life should utterly perish, it was necessary that, before death, there
should be in existence such a power as would destroy the coming death,
and that there should be a resurrection, the type of which was in our
Lord and Saviour, and that this resurrection should have its ground in
the wisdom and word and life of God. And then, in the next place, since
some of those who were created were not to be always willing to remain
unchangeable and unalterable in the calm and moderate enjoyment of the
blessings which they possessed, but, in consequence of the good which
was in them being theirs not by nature or essence, but by accident, were
to be perverted and changed, and to fall away from their position,
therefore was the Word and Wisdom of God made the Way. And it was so
termed because it leads to the Father those who walk along it.
Whatever, therefore, we have predicated of the wisdom of God, will be
appropriately applied and understood of the Son of God, in virtue of His
being the Life, and the Word, and the Truth, and the Resurrection: for
all these titles are derived from His power and operations, and in none
of them is there the slightest ground for understanding anything of a
corporeal nature which might seem to denote either size, or form, or
colour; for those children of men which appear among us, or those
descendants of other living beings, correspond to the seed of those by
whom they were begotten, or derive from those mothers, in whose wombs
they are formed and nourished, whatever that is, which they bring into
this life, and carry with them when they are born.[50] But it is
monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of
His only-begotten Son, and in the substance[51] of the same, to any man
or other living thing engaged in such an act; for we must of necessity
hold that there is something exceptional and worthy of God which does
not admit of any comparison at all, not merely in things, but which
cannot even be conceived by thought or discovered by perception, so that
a human mind should be able to apprehend how the unbegotten God is made
the Father of the only-begotten Son. Because His generation is as
eternal and everlasting as the brilliancy which is produced from the
sun. For it is not by receiving the[52] breath of life that He is made a
Son, by _any outward act_, but by His own nature.
5. Let us now ascertain how those statements which we have advanced are
supported by the authority of holy Scripture. The Apostle Paul says,
that the only-begotten Son is the “image of the invisible God,” and “the
first-born of every creature.”[53] And when writing to the Hebrews, he
says of Him that He is “the brightness of His glory, and the express
image of His person.”[54] Now, we find in the treatise called the Wisdom
of Solomon the following description of the wisdom of God: “For she is
the breath of the power of God, and the purest efflux[55] of the glory
of the Almighty.”[56] Nothing that is polluted can therefore come upon
her. For she is the splendour of the eternal light, and the stainless
mirror of God’s working, and the image of His goodness. Now we say, as
before, that Wisdom has her existence nowhere else save in Him who is
the beginning of all things: from whom also is derived everything that
is wise, because He Himself is the only one who is by nature a Son, and
is therefore termed the Only-begotten.
6. Let us now see how we are to understand the expression “invisible
image,” that we may in this way perceive how God is rightly called the
Father of His Son; and let us, in the first place, draw our conclusions
from what are customarily called images among men. That is sometimes
called an image which is painted or sculptured on some material
substance, such as wood or stone; and sometimes a child is called the
image of his parent, when the features of the child in no respect belie
their resemblance to the father. I think, therefore, that that man who
was formed after the image and likeness of God may be fittingly compared
to the first illustration. Respecting him, however, we shall see more
precisely, God willing, when we come to expound the passage in Genesis.
But the image of the Son of God, of whom we are now speaking, may be
compared to the second of the above examples, even in respect of this,
that He is the invisible image of the invisible God, in the same manner
as we say, according to the sacred history, that the image of Adam is
his son Seth. The words are, “And Adam begat Seth in his own likeness,
and after his own image.”[57] Now this image contains the unity of
nature and substance belonging to Father and Son. For if the Son do, in
like manner, all those things which the Father doth, then, in virtue of
the Son doing all things like the Father, is the image of the Father
formed in the Son, who is born of Him, like an act of His will
proceeding from the mind. And I am therefore of opinion that the will of
the Father ought alone to be sufficient for the existence of that which
He wishes to exist. For in the exercise of His will He employs no other
way than that which is made known by the counsel of His will. And thus
also the existence[58] of the Son is generated by Him. For this point
must above all others be maintained by those who allow nothing to be
unbegotten, _i.e._ unborn, save God the Father only. And we must be
careful not to fall into the absurdities of those who picture to
themselves certain emanations, so as to divide the divine nature into
parts, and who divide God the Father as far as they can, since even to
entertain the remotest suspicion of such a thing regarding an
incorporeal being is not only the height of impiety, but a mark of the
greatest folly, it being most remote from any intelligent conception
that there should be any physical division of any incorporeal nature.
Rather, therefore, as an act of the will proceeds from the
understanding, and neither cuts off any part nor is separated or divided
from it, so after some such fashion is the Father to be supposed as
having begotten the Son, His own image; namely, so that, as He is
Himself invisible by nature, He also begat an image that was invisible.
For the Son is the Word, and therefore we are not to understand that
anything in Him is cognisable by the senses. He is wisdom, and in wisdom
there can be no suspicion of anything corporeal. He is the true light,
which enlightens every man that cometh into this world; but He has
nothing in common with the light of this sun. Our Saviour, therefore, is
the image of the invisible God, inasmuch as compared with the Father
Himself He is the truth: and as compared with us, to whom He reveals the
Father, He is the image by which we come to the knowledge of the Father,
whom no one knows save the Son, and he to whom the Son is pleased to
reveal Him. And the method of revealing Him is through the
understanding. For He by whom the Son Himself is understood,
understands, as a consequence, the Father also, according to His own
words: “He that hath seen me, hath seen the Father also.”[59]
7. But since we quoted the language of Paul regarding Christ, where he
says of Him that He is “the brightness of the glory of God, and the
express figure of his person,”[60] let us see what idea we are to form
of this. According to John, “God is light.” The only-begotten Son,
therefore, is the glory of this light, proceeding inseparably from [God]
Himself, as brightness does from light, and illuminating the whole of
creation. For, agreeably to what we have already explained as to the
manner in which He is the Way, and conducts to the Father; and in which
He is the Word, interpreting the secrets of wisdom, and the mysteries of
knowledge, making them known to the rational creation; and is also the
Truth, and the Life, and the Resurrection,—in the same way ought we to
understand also the meaning of His being the brightness: for it is by
its splendour that we understand and feel what light itself is. And this
splendour, presenting itself gently and softly to the frail and weak
eyes of mortals, and gradually training, as it were, and accustoming
them to bear the brightness of the light, when it has put away from them
every hindrance and obstruction to vision, according to the Lord’s own
precept, “Cast forth the beam out of thine eye,”[61] renders them
capable of enduring the splendour of the light, being made in this
respect also a sort of mediator between men and the light.
8. But since He is called by the apostle not only the brightness of His
glory, but also the express figure of His person or _subsistence_,[62]
it does not seem idle to inquire how there can be said to be another
figure of that person besides the person of God Himself, whatever be the
meaning of person and subsistence. Consider, then, whether the Son of
God, seeing He is His Word and Wisdom, and alone knows the Father, and
reveals Him to whom He will (_i.e._ to those who are capable of
receiving His word and wisdom), may not, in regard of this very point of
making God to be understood and acknowledged, be called the figure of
His person and subsistence; that is, when that Wisdom, which desires to
make known to others the means by which God is acknowledged and
understood by them, describes Himself first of all, it may by so doing
be called the express figure of the person of God. In order, however, to
arrive at a fuller understanding of the manner in which the Saviour is
the figure of the person or subsistence of God, let us take an instance,
which, although it does not describe the subject of which we are
treating either fully or appropriately, may nevertheless be seen to be
employed for this purpose only, to show that the Son of God, who was in
the form of God, divesting Himself [of His glory], makes it His object,
by this very divesting of Himself, to demonstrate to us the fulness of
His deity. For instance, suppose that there were a statue of so enormous
a size as to fill the whole world, and which on that account could be
seen by no one; and that another statue were formed altogether
resembling it in the shape of the limbs, and in the features of the
countenance, and in form and material, but without the same immensity of
size, so that those who were unable to behold the one of enormous
proportions, should, on seeing the latter, acknowledge that they had
seen the former, because it preserved all the features of its limbs and
countenance, and even the very form and material, so closely, as to be
altogether undistinguishable from it; by some such similitude, the Son
of God, divesting Himself of His equality with the Father, and showing
to us the way to the knowledge of Him, is made the express image of His
person: so that we, who were unable to look upon the glory of that
marvellous light when placed in the greatness of His Godhead, may, by
His being made to us brightness, obtain the means of beholding the
divine light by looking upon the brightness. This comparison, of course,
of statues, as belonging to material things, is employed for no other
purpose than to show that the Son of God, though placed in the very
insignificant form of a human body, in consequence of the resemblance of
His works and power to the Father, showed that there was in Him an
immense and invisible greatness, inasmuch as He said to His disciples,
“He who sees me, sees the Father also;” and, “I and the Father are one.”
And to these belong also the similar expression, “The Father is in me,
and I in the Father.”
9. Let us see now what is the meaning of the expression which is found
in the Wisdom of Solomon, where it is said of Wisdom that “it is a kind
of breath of the power of God, and the purest efflux of the glory of the
Omnipotent, and the splendour of eternal light, and the spotless mirror
of the working or power of God, and the image of His goodness.”[63]
These, then, are the definitions which He gives of God, pointing out by
each one of them certain attributes which belong to the Wisdom of God,
calling wisdom the power, and the glory, and the everlasting light, and
the working, and the goodness of God. He does not say, however, that
wisdom is the breath of the glory of the Almighty, nor of the
everlasting light, nor of the working of the Father, nor of His
goodness, for it was not appropriate that breath should be ascribed to
any one of these; but, with all propriety, he says that wisdom is the
breath of the power of God. Now, by the power of God is to be understood
that by which He is strong; by which He appoints, restrains, and governs
all things visible and invisible; which is sufficient for all those
things which He rules over in His providence; among all which He is
present, as if one individual. And although the breath of all this
mighty and immeasurable power, and the vigour itself produced, so to
speak, by its own existence, proceed from the power itself, as the will
does from the mind, yet even this will of God is nevertheless made to
become the power of God.[64]
Another power accordingly is produced, which exists with properties of
its own,—a kind of breath, as Scripture says, of the primal and
unbegotten power of God, deriving from Him its being, and never at any
time non-existent. For if any one were to assert that it did not
formerly exist, but came afterwards into existence, let him explain the
reason why the Father, who gave it being, did not do so before. And if
he shall grant that there was once a beginning, when that breath
proceeded from the power of God, we shall ask him again, why not even
before the beginning, which he has allowed; and in this way, ever
demanding an earlier date, and going upwards with our interrogations, we
shall arrive at this conclusion, that as God was always possessed of
power and will, there never was any reason of propriety or otherwise,
why He may not have always possessed that blessing which He desired. By
which it is shown that that breath of God’s power always existed, having
no beginning save God Himself. Nor was it fitting that there should be
any other beginning save God Himself, from whom it derives its birth.
And according to the expression of the apostle, that Christ “is the
power of God,”[65] it ought to be termed not only the breath of the
power of God, but power out of power.
10. Let us now examine the expression, “Wisdom is the purest efflux of
the glory of the Almighty;” and let us first consider what the glory of
the omnipotent God is, and then we shall also understand what is its
efflux. As no one can be a father without having a son, nor a master
without possessing a servant, so even God cannot be called omnipotent
unless there exist those over whom He may exercise His power; and
therefore, that God may be shown to be almighty, it is necessary that
all things should exist. For if any one would have some ages or portions
of time, or whatever else he likes to call them, to have passed away,
while those things which were afterwards made did not yet exist, he
would undoubtedly show that during those ages or periods God was not
omnipotent, but became so afterwards, viz. from the time that He began
to have persons over whom to exercise power; and in this way He will
appear to have received a certain increase, and to have risen from a
lower to a higher condition; since there can be no doubt that it is
better for Him to be omnipotent than not to be so. And now how can it
appear otherwise than absurd, that when God possessed none of those
things which it was befitting for Him to possess, He should afterwards,
by a kind of progress, come into the possession of them? But if there
never was a time when He was not omnipotent, of necessity those things
by which He receives that title must also exist; and He must always have
had those over whom He exercised power, and which were governed by Him
either as king or prince, of which we shall speak more fully in the
proper place, when we come to discuss the subject of the creatures. But
even now I think it necessary to drop a word, although cursorily, of
warning, since the question before us is, how wisdom is the purest
efflux of the glory of the Almighty, lest any one should think that the
title of Omnipotent was anterior in God to the birth of Wisdom, through
whom He is called Father, seeing that Wisdom, which is the Son of God,
is the purest efflux of the glory of the Almighty. Let him who is
inclined to entertain this suspicion hear the undoubted declaration of
Scripture pronouncing, “In wisdom hast Thou made them all,”[66] and the
teaching of the gospel, that “by Him were all things made, and without
Him nothing was made;”[67] and let him understand from this that the
title of Omnipotent in God cannot be older than that of Father; for it
is through the Son that the Father is almighty. But from the expression
“glory of the Almighty,” of which glory Wisdom is the efflux, this is to
be understood, that Wisdom, through which God is called Omnipotent, has
a share in the glory of the Almighty. For through Wisdom, which is
Christ, God has power over all things, not only by the authority of a
ruler, but also by the voluntary obedience of subjects. And that you may
understand that the omnipotence of Father and Son is one and the same,
as God and the Lord are one and the same with the Father, listen to the
manner in which John speaks in the Apocalypse: “Thus saith the Lord God,
which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.”[68] For
who else was “He which is to come” than Christ? And as no one ought to
be offended, seeing God is the Father, that the Saviour is also God; so
also, since the Father is called omnipotent, no one ought to be offended
that the Son of God is also called omnipotent. For in this way will that
saying be true which He utters to the Father, “All mine are Thine, and
Thine are mine, and I am glorified in them.”[69] Now, if all things
which are the Father’s are also Christ’s, certainly among those things
which exist is the omnipotence of the Father; and doubtless the
only-begotten Son ought to be omnipotent, that the Son also may have all
things which the Father possesses. “And I am glorified in them,” He
declares. For “at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, of things in
heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; and every
tongue shall confess that the Lord Jesus is in the glory of God the
Father.”[70] Therefore He is the efflux of the glory of God in this
respect, that He is omnipotent—the pure and limpid Wisdom
herself—glorified as the efflux of omnipotence or of glory. And that it
may be more clearly understood what the glory of omnipotence is, we
shall add the following. God the Father is omnipotent, because He has
power over all things, _i.e._ over heaven and earth, sun, moon, and
stars, and all things in them. And He exercises His power over them by
means of His Word, because at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow,
both of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the
earth. And if every knee is bent to Jesus, then, without doubt, it is
Jesus to whom all things are subject, and He it is who exercises power
over all things, and through whom all things are subject to the Father;
for through wisdom, _i.e._ by word and reason, not by force and
necessity, are all things subject. And therefore His glory consists in
this very thing, that He possesses all things, and this is the purest
and most limpid glory of omnipotence, that by reason and wisdom, not by
force and necessity, all things are subject. Now the purest and most
limpid glory of wisdom is a convenient expression to distinguish it from
that glory which cannot be called pure and sincere. But every nature
which is convertible and changeable, although glorified in the works of
righteousness or wisdom, yet by the fact that righteousness or wisdom
are accidental qualities, and because that which is accidental, may also
fall away, its glory cannot be called sincere and pure. But the Wisdom
of God, which is His only-begotten Son, being in all respects incapable
of change or alteration, and every good quality in Him being essential,
and such as cannot be changed and converted, His glory is therefore
declared to be pure and sincere.
11. In the third place, wisdom is called the splendour of eternal light.
The force of this expression we have explained in the preceding pages,
when we introduced the similitude of the sun and the splendour of its
rays, and showed to the best of our power how this should be understood.
To what we then said we shall add only the following remark. That is
properly termed everlasting or eternal which neither had a beginning of
existence, nor can ever cease to be what it is. And this is the idea
conveyed by John when he says that “God is Light.” Now His wisdom is the
splendour of that light, not only in respect of its being light, but
also of being everlasting light, so that His wisdom is eternal and
everlasting splendour. If this be fully understood, it clearly shows
that the existence of the Son is derived from the Father, but not in
time, nor from any other beginning, except, as we have said, from God
Himself.
12. But wisdom is also called the stainless mirror of the ἐνέργεια or
working of God. We must first understand, then, what the working of the
power of God is. It is a sort of vigour, so to speak, by which God
operates either in creation, or in providence, or in judgment, or in the
disposal and arrangement of individual things, each in its season. For
as the image formed in a mirror unerringly reflects all the acts and
movements of him who gazes on it, so would Wisdom have herself to be
understood when she is called the stainless mirror of the power and
working of the Father: as the Lord Jesus Christ also, who is the Wisdom
of God, declares of Himself when He says, “The works which the Father
doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.”[71] And again He says, that
the Son cannot do anything of Himself, save what He sees the Father do.
As therefore the Son in no respect differs from the Father in the power
of His works, and the work of the Son is not a different thing from that
of the Father, but one and the same movement, so to speak, is in all
things, He therefore named Him a stainless mirror, that by such an
expression it might be understood that there is no dissimilarity
whatever between the Son and the Father. How, indeed, can those things
which are said by some to be done after the manner in which a disciple
resembles or imitates his master, or according to the view that those
things are made by the Son in bodily material which were first formed by
the Father in their spiritual essence, agree with the declarations of
Scripture, seeing in the Gospel the Son is said to do not similar
things, but the _same_ things in a similar manner?
13. It remains that we inquire what is the “image of His goodness;” and
here, I think, we must understand the same thing which we expressed a
little ago, in speaking of the image formed by the mirror. For He is the
primal goodness, doubtless, out of which the Son is born, who, being in
all respects the image of the Father, may certainly also be called with
propriety the image of His goodness. For there is no other second
goodness existing in the Son, save that which is in the Father. And
therefore also the Saviour Himself rightly says in the Gospel, “There is
none good save one only, God the Father,” that by such an expression it
may be understood that the Son is not of a different goodness, but of
that only which exists in the Father, of whom He is rightly termed the
image, because He proceeds from no other source but from that primal
goodness, lest there might appear to be in the Son a different goodness
from that which is in the Father. Nor is there any dissimilarity or
difference of goodness in the Son. And therefore it is not to be
imagined that there is a kind of blasphemy, as it were, in the words,
“There is none good save one only, God the Father,” as if thereby it may
be supposed to be denied that either Christ or the Holy Spirit was good.
But, as we have already said, the primal goodness is to be understood as
residing in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy
Spirit proceeds, retaining within them, without any doubt, the nature of
that goodness which is in the source whence they are derived. And if
there be any other things which in Scripture are called good, whether
angel, or man, or servant, or treasure, or a good heart, or a good tree,
all these are so termed catachrestically,[72] having in them an
accidental, not an essential goodness. But it would require both much
time and labour to collect together all the titles of the Son of God,
such _e.g._ as the true light, or the door, or the righteousness, or the
sanctification, or the redemption, and countless others; and to show for
what reasons each one of them is so given. Satisfied, therefore, with
what we have already advanced, we go on with our inquiries into those
other matters which follow.
Footnote 41:
Prov. viii. 22-25. The reading in the text differs considerably from
that of the Vulgate.
Footnote 42:
Col. i. 15.
Footnote 43:
1 Cor. i. 24.
Footnote 44:
Aliquid insubstantivum.
Footnote 45:
Substantialiter.
Footnote 46:
Ad punctum alicujus momenti.
Footnote 47:
Omnis virtus ac deformatio futuræ creaturæ.
Footnote 48:
This work is mentioned by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. B. iii. ch. iii. and
xxv., as among the spurious writings current in the church. The _Acts
of Paul and Thecla_ was a different work from the _Acts of Paul_. The
words quoted, “Hic est verbum animal vivens,” seem to be a corruption
from Heb. iv. 12, ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ.
Footnote 49:
Or, “and the Word was God.”
Footnote 50:
“Quoniam hi qui videntur apud nos hominum filii, vel ceterorum
animalium, semini eorum a quibus seminati sunt respondent, vel carum
quarum in utero formantur ac nutriuntur, habent ex his quidquid illud
est quod in lucem hanc assumunt, ac deferunt processuri.” Probably the
last two words should be “deferunt processuris”—“and hand it over to
those who are destined to come forth from them,” _i.e._ to their
descendants.
Footnote 51:
Subsistentia. Some would read here, “substantia.”
Footnote 52:
Per adoptionem Spiritus. The original words here were probably
εἰσποίησις τοῦ πνεύματος, and Rufinus seems to have mistaken the
allusion to Gen. ii. 7. To “adoption,” in the technical theological
sense, the words in the text cannot have any reference.—SCHNITZER.
Footnote 53:
Col. i. 15.
Footnote 54:
Heb. i. 3.
Footnote 55:
ἀπόῤῥοια.
Footnote 56:
Wisd. vii. 25.
Footnote 57:
Gen. v. 3.
Footnote 58:
Subsistentia.
Footnote 59:
John xiv. 9.
Footnote 60:
Heb. i. 3.
Footnote 61:
Luke vi. 42.
Footnote 62:
Heb. i. 3. Substantiæ vel subsistentiæ.
Footnote 63:
Wisd. vii. 25, 26.
Footnote 64:
“Hujus ergo totius virtutis tantæ et tam immensæ vapor, et, ut ita
dicam, vigor ipse in propriâ subsistentiâ effectus, quamvis ex ipsa
virtute velut voluntas ex mente procedat, tamen et ipsa voluntas Dei
nihilominus Dei virtus efficitur.”
Footnote 65:
1 Cor. i. 24.
Footnote 66:
Ps. civ. 24.
Footnote 67:
John i. 3.
Footnote 68:
Rev. i. 8.
Footnote 69:
John xvii. 10.
Footnote 70:
Phil. ii. 10, 11.
Footnote 71:
John v. 19.
Footnote 72:
Abusive.
CHAPTER III.
ON THE HOLY SPIRIT.
1. The next point is to investigate as briefly as possible the subject
of the Holy Spirit. All who perceive, in whatever manner, the existence
of Providence, confess that God, who created and disposed all things, is
unbegotten, and recognise Him as the parent of the universe. Now, that
to Him belongs a Son, is a statement not made by us only; although it
may seem a sufficiently marvellous and incredible assertion to those who
have a reputation as philosophers among Greeks and Barbarians, by some
of whom, however, an idea of His existence seems to have been
entertained, in their acknowledging that all things were created by the
word or reason of God. We, however, in conformity with our belief in
that doctrine, which we assuredly hold to be divinely inspired, believe
that it is possible in no other way to explain and bring within the
reach of human knowledge this higher and diviner reason as the Son of
God, than by means of those Scriptures alone which were inspired by the
Holy Spirit, _i.e._ the gospels and epistles, and the law and the
prophets, according to the declaration of Christ Himself. Of the
existence of the Holy Spirit no one indeed could entertain any
suspicion, save those who were familiar with the law and the prophets,
or those who profess a belief in Christ. For although no one is able to
speak with certainty of God the Father, it is nevertheless possible for
some knowledge of Him to be gained by means of the visible creation and
the natural feelings of the human mind; and it is possible, moreover,
for such knowledge to be confirmed from the sacred Scriptures. But with
respect to the Son of God, although no one knoweth the Son save the
Father, yet it is from sacred Scripture also that the human mind is
taught how to think of the Son; and that not only from the New, but also
from the Old Testament, by means of those things which, although done by
the saints, are figuratively referred to Christ, and from which both His
divine nature, and that human nature which was assumed by Him, may be
discovered.
2. Now, what the Holy Spirit is, we are taught in many passages of
Scripture, as by David in the fifty-first Psalm, when he says, “And take
not Thy Holy Spirit from me;”[73] and by Daniel, where it is said, “The
Holy Spirit which is in thee.”[74] And in the New Testament we have
abundant testimonies, as when the Holy Spirit is described as having
descended upon Christ, and when the Lord breathed upon His apostles
after His resurrection, saying, “Receive the Holy Spirit;”[75] and the
saying of the angel to Mary, “The Holy Spirit will come upon thee;”[76]
the declaration by Paul, that no one can call Jesus Lord, save by the
Holy Spirit.[77] In the Acts of the Apostles, the Holy Spirit was given
by the imposition of the apostles’ hands in baptism.[78] From all which
we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and
dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of
the most excellent Trinity of them all, _i.e._ by the naming of Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father,
and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit. Who,
then, is not amazed at the exceeding majesty of the Holy Spirit, when he
hears that he who speaks a word against the Son of man may hope for
forgiveness; but that he who is guilty of blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit has not forgiveness, either in the present world or in that which
is to come![79]
3. That all things were created by God, and that there is no creature
which exists but has derived from Him its being, is established from
many declarations of Scripture; those assertions being refuted and
rejected which are falsely alleged by some respecting the existence
either of a matter co-eternal with God, or of unbegotten souls, in which
they would have it that God implanted not so much the power of
existence, as equality and order. For even in that little treatise
called _The Pastor or Angel of Repentance_, composed by Hermas, we have
the following: “First of all, believe that there is one God who created
and arranged all things; who, when nothing formerly existed, caused all
things to be; who Himself contains all things, but Himself is contained
by none.”[80] And in the book of Enoch also we have similar
descriptions. But up to the present time we have been able to find no
statement in holy Scripture in which the Holy Spirit could be said to be
made or created,[81] not even in the way in which we have shown above
that the divine wisdom is spoken of by Solomon, or in which those
expressions which we have discussed are to be understood of the life, or
the word, or the other appellations of the Son of God. The Spirit of
God, therefore, which was borne upon the waters, as is written in the
beginning of the creation of the world, is, I am of opinion, no other
than the Holy Spirit, so far as I can understand; as indeed we have
shown in our exposition of the passages themselves, not according to the
historical, but according to the spiritual method of interpretation.
4. Some indeed of our predecessors have observed, that in the New
Testament, whenever the Spirit is named without that adjunct which
denotes quality, the Holy Spirit is to be understood; as _e.g._ in the
expression, “Now the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and peace;”[82]
and, “Seeing ye began in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect in the
flesh?”[83] We are of opinion that this distinction may be observed in
the Old Testament also, as when it is said, “He that giveth His Spirit
to the people who are upon the earth, and Spirit to them who walk
thereon.”[84] For, without doubt, every one who walks upon the earth
(_i.e._ earthly and corporeal beings) is a partaker also of the Holy
Spirit, receiving it from God. My Hebrew master also used to say that
those two seraphim in Isaiah, which are described as having each six
wings, and calling to one another, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the
Lord God of hosts,”[85] were to be understood of the only-begotten Son
of God and of the Holy Spirit. And we think that that expression also
which occurs in the hymn of Habakkuk, “In the midst either of the two
living things, or of the two lives, Thou wilt be known,”[86] ought to be
understood of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. For all knowledge of the
Father is obtained by revelation of the Son through the Holy Spirit, so
that both of these beings which, according to the prophet, are called
either “living things” or “lives,” exist as the ground of the knowledge
of God the Father. For as it is said of the Son, that “no one knoweth
the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal Him,”[87] the
same also is said by the apostle of the Holy Spirit, when he declares,
“God hath revealed them to us by His Holy Spirit; for the Spirit
searcheth all things, even the deep things of God;”[88] and again in the
Gospel, when the Saviour, speaking of the divine and profounder parts of
His teaching, which His disciples were not yet able to receive, thus
addresses them: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot
bear them now; but when the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, is come, He will
teach you all things, and will bring all things to your remembrance,
whatsoever I have said unto you.”[89] We must understand, therefore,
that as the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals Him to whom He
will, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of God,
reveals God to whom He will: “For the Spirit bloweth where He
listeth.”[90] We are not, however, to suppose that the Spirit derives
His knowledge through revelation from the Son. For if the Holy Spirit
knows the Father through the Son’s revelation, He passes from a state of
ignorance into one of knowledge; but it is alike impious and foolish to
confess the Holy Spirit, and yet to ascribe to Him ignorance. For even
although something else existed before the Holy Spirit, it was not by
progressive advancement that He came to be the Holy Spirit; as if any
one should venture to say, that at the time when He was not yet the Holy
Spirit He was ignorant of the Father, but that after He had received
knowledge He was made the Holy Spirit. For if this were the case, the
Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, _i.e._
along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always
been the Holy Spirit. When we use, indeed, such terms as “always” or
“was,” or any other designation of time, they are not to be taken
absolutely, but with due allowance; for while the significations of
these words relate to time, and those subjects of which we speak are
spoken of by a stretch of language as existing in time, they
nevertheless surpass in their real nature all conception of the finite
understanding.
5. Nevertheless it seems proper to inquire what is the reason why he who
is regenerated by God unto salvation has to do both with Father and Son
and Holy Spirit, and does not obtain salvation unless with the
co-operation of the entire Trinity; and why it is impossible to become
partaker of the Father or the Son without the Holy Spirit. And in
discussing these subjects, it will undoubtedly be necessary to describe
the special working of the Holy Spirit, and of the Father and the Son. I
am of opinion, then, that the working of the Father and of the Son takes
place as well in saints as in sinners, in rational beings and in dumb
animals; nay, even in those things which are without life, and in all
things universally which exist; but that the operation of the Holy
Spirit does not take place at all in those things which are without
life, or in those which, although living, are yet dumb; nay, is not
found even in those who are endued indeed with reason, but are engaged
in evil courses, and not at all converted to a better life. In those
persons alone do I think that the operation of the Holy Spirit takes
place, who are already turning to a better life, and walking along the
way which leads to Jesus Christ, _i.e._ who are engaged in the
performance of good actions, and who abide in God.
6. That the working of the Father and the Son operates both in saints
and in sinners, is manifest from this, that all who are rational beings
are partakers of the word, _i.e._ of reason, and by this means bear
certain seeds, implanted within them, of wisdom and justice, which is
Christ. Now, in Him who truly exists, and who said by Moses, “I am what
I am,”[91] all things, whatever they are, participate; which
participation in God the Father is shared both by just men and sinners,
by rational and irrational beings, and by all things universally which
exist. The Apostle Paul also shows truly that all have a share in
Christ, when he says, “Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into
heaven? (_i.e._ to bring Christ down from above;) or who shall descend
into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But
what saith the Scripture? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and
in thy heart.”[92] By which he means that Christ is in the heart of all,
in respect of His being the word or reason, by participating in which
they are rational beings. That declaration also in the Gospel, “If I had
not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have
no excuse for their sin,”[93] renders it manifest and patent to all who
have a rational knowledge of how long a time man is without sin, and
from what period he is liable to it, how, by participating in the word
or reason, men are said to have sinned, viz. from the time they are made
capable of understanding and knowledge, when the reason implanted within
has suggested to them the difference between good and evil; and after
they have already begun to know what evil is, they are made liable to
sin, if they commit it. And this is the meaning of the expression, that
“men have no excuse for their sin,” viz. that, from the time the divine
word or reason has begun to show them internally the difference between
good and evil, they ought to avoid and guard against that which is
wicked: “For to him who knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it
is sin.”[94] Moreover, that all men are not without communion with God,
is taught in the Gospel thus, by the Saviour’s words: “The kingdom of
God cometh not with observation; neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo
there! but the kingdom of God is within you.”[95] But here we must see
whether this does not bear the same meaning with the expression in
Genesis: “And He breathed into his face the breath of life, and man
became a living soul.”[96] For if this be understood as applying
generally to all men, then all men have a share in God.
7. But if this is to be understood as spoken of the Spirit of God, since
Adam also is found to have prophesied of some things, it may be taken
not as of general application, but as confined to those who are saints.
Finally, also, at the time of the flood, when all flesh had corrupted
their way before God, it is recorded that God spoke thus, as of
undeserving men and sinners: “My Spirit shall not abide with those men
for ever, because they are flesh.”[97] By which it is clearly shown that
the Spirit of God is taken away from all who are unworthy. In the Psalms
also it is written: “Thou wilt take away their spirit, and they will
die, and return to their earth. Thou wilt send forth Thy Spirit, and
they shall be created, and Thou wilt renew the face of the earth;”[98]
which is manifestly intended of the Holy Spirit, who, after sinners and
unworthy persons have been taken away and destroyed, creates for Himself
a new people, and renews the face of the earth, when, laying aside,
through the grace of the Spirit, the old man with his deeds, they begin
to walk in newness of life. And therefore the expression is competently
applied to the Holy Spirit, because He will take up His dwelling, not in
all men, nor in those who are flesh, but in those whose land[99] has
been renewed. Lastly, for this reason was the grace and revelation of
the Holy Spirit bestowed by the imposition of the apostles’ hands after
baptism. Our Saviour also, after the resurrection, when old things had
already passed away, and all things had become new, Himself a new man,
and the first-born from the dead, His apostles also being renewed by
faith in His resurrection, says, “Receive the Holy Spirit.”[100] This is
doubtless what the Lord the Saviour meant to convey in the Gospel, when
He said that new wine cannot be put into old bottles, but commanded that
the bottles should be made new, _i.e._ that men should walk in newness
of life, that they might receive the new wine, _i.e._ the newness of
grace of the Holy Spirit. In this manner, then, is the working of the
power of God the Father and of the Son extended without distinction to
every creature; but a share in the Holy Spirit we find possessed only by
the saints. And therefore it is said, “No man can say that Jesus is
Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.”[101] And on one occasion, scarcely even
the apostles themselves are deemed worthy to hear the words, “Ye shall
receive the power of the Holy Ghost coming upon you.”[102] For this
reason, also, I think it follows that he who has committed a sin against
the Son of man is deserving of forgiveness; because if he who is a
participator of the word or reason of God cease to live agreeably to
reason, he seems to have fallen into a state of ignorance or folly, and
therefore to deserve forgiveness; whereas he who has been deemed worthy
to have a portion of the Holy Spirit, and who has relapsed, is, by this
very act and work, said to be guilty of blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit. Let no one indeed suppose that we, from having said that the
Holy Spirit is conferred upon the saints alone, but that the benefits or
operations of the Father and of the Son extend to good and bad, to just
and unjust, by so doing give a preference to the Holy Spirit over the
Father and the Son, or assert that His dignity is greater, which
certainly would be a very illogical conclusion. For it is the
peculiarity of His grace and operations that we have been describing.
Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since
the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and
reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are
worthy of sanctification, as it is written in the Psalm: “By the word of
the Lord were the heavens strengthened, and all their power by the
Spirit of His mouth.”[103] There is also a special working of God the
Father, besides that by which He bestowed upon all things the gift of
natural life. There is also a special ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ
to those upon whom He confers by nature the gift of reason, by means of
which they are enabled to be rightly what they are. There is also
another grace of the Holy Spirit, which is bestowed upon the deserving,
through the ministry of Christ and the working of the Father, in
proportion to the merits of those who are rendered capable of receiving
it. This is most clearly pointed out by the Apostle Paul, when
demonstrating that the power of the Trinity is one and the same, in the
words, “There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit; there are
diversities of administrations, but the same Lord; and there are
diversities of operations, but it is the same God who worketh all in
all. But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit
withal.”[104] From which it most clearly follows that there is no
difference in the Trinity, but that which is called the gift of the
Spirit is made known through the Son, and operated by God the Father.
“But all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit, dividing to
every one severally as He will.”[105]
8. Having made these declarations regarding the unity of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, let us return to the order in which
we began the discussion. God the Father bestows upon all, existence; and
participation in Christ, in respect of His being the word of reason,
renders them rational beings. From which it follows that they are
deserving either of praise or blame, because capable of virtue and vice.
On this account, therefore, is the grace of the Holy Ghost present, that
those beings which are not holy in their essence may be rendered holy by
participating in it. Seeing, then, that firstly, they derive their
existence from God the Father; secondly, their rational nature from the
Word; thirdly, their holiness from the Holy Spirit,—those who have been
previously sanctified by the Holy Spirit are again made capable of
receiving Christ, in respect that He is the righteousness of God; and
those who have earned advancement to this grade by the sanctification of
the Holy Spirit, will nevertheless obtain the gift of wisdom according
to the power and working of the Spirit of God. And this I consider is
Paul’s meaning, when he says that to “some is given the word of wisdom,
to others the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit.” And
while pointing out the individual distinction of gifts, he refers the
whole of them to the source of all things in the words, “There are
diversities of operations, but one God who worketh all in all.”[106]
Whence also the working of the Father, which confers existence upon all
things, is found to be more glorious and magnificent, while each one, by
participation in Christ, as being wisdom, and knowledge, and
sanctification, makes progress, and advances to higher degrees of
perfection; and seeing it is by partaking of the Holy Spirit that any
one is made purer and holier, he obtains, when he is made worthy, the
grace of wisdom and knowledge, in order that, after all stains of
pollution and ignorance are cleansed and taken away, he may make so
great an advance in holiness and purity, that the nature which he
received from God may become such as is worthy of Him who gave it to be
pure and perfect, so that the being which exists may be as worthy as He
who called it into existence. For, in this way, he who is such as his
Creator wished him to be, will receive from God power always to exist,
and to abide for ever. That this may be the case, and that those whom He
has created may be unceasingly and inseparably present with Him, who IS,
it is the business of wisdom to instruct and train them, and to bring
them to perfection by confirmation of His Holy Spirit and unceasing
sanctification, by which alone are they capable of receiving God. In
this way, then, by the renewal of the ceaseless working of Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit in us, in its various stages of progress, shall we be
able at some future time perhaps, although with difficulty, to behold
the holy and the blessed life, in which (as it is only after many
struggles that we are able to reach it) we ought so to continue, that no
satiety of that blessedness should ever seize us; but the more we
perceive its blessedness, the more should be increased and intensified
within us the longing for the same, while we ever more eagerly and
freely receive and hold fast the Father, and the Son, and the Holy
Spirit. But if satiety should ever take hold of any one of those who
stand on the highest and perfect summit of attainment, I do not think
that such an one would suddenly be deposed from his position and fall
away, but that he must decline gradually and little by little, so that
it may sometimes happen that if a brief lapsus take place, and the
individual quickly repent and return to himself, he may not utterly fall
away, but may retrace his steps, and return to his former place, and
again make good that which had been lost by his negligence.
Footnote 73:
Ps. li. 11.
Footnote 74:
Dan. iv. 8.
Footnote 75:
John xx. 22.
Footnote 76:
Luke i. 35.
Footnote 77:
1 Cor. xii. 3.
Footnote 78:
Acts viii. 18.
Footnote 79:
Cf. Matt. xii. 32 and Luke xii. 10.
Footnote 80:
Cf. _Hermæ Past._ Vis. v. Mandat. 12.
Footnote 81:
Per quem Spiritus Sanctus factura esse vel creatura diceretur.
Footnote 82:
Gal. v. 22.
Footnote 83:
Gal. iii. 3.
Footnote 84:
Isa. xlii. 5.
Footnote 85:
Isa. vi. 3.
Footnote 86:
Hab. iii. 2.
Footnote 87:
Luke x. 22.
Footnote 88:
1 Cor. ii. 10.
Footnote 89:
Cf. John xvi. 12, 13, and xiv. 26.
Footnote 90:
John iii. 8.
Footnote 91:
Ex. iii. 14.
Footnote 92:
Rom. x. 6-8.
Footnote 93:
John xv. 22.
Footnote 94:
Jas. iv. 17.
Footnote 95:
Luke xvii. 20, 21.
Footnote 96:
Gen. ii. 7.
Footnote 97:
Gen. vi. 3.
Footnote 98:
Ps. civ. 29, 30.
Footnote 99:
Terra.
Footnote 100:
John xx. 22.
Footnote 101:
1 Cor. xii. 3.
Footnote 102:
Acts i. 8.
Footnote 103:
Ps. xxxiii. 6.
Footnote 104:
1 Cor. xii. 4-7.
Footnote 105:
1 Cor. xii. 11.
Footnote 106:
1 Cor. xii. 6.
CHAPTER IV.
ON DEFECTION, OR FALLING AWAY.
1. To exhibit the nature of defection or falling away, on the part of
those who conduct themselves carelessly, it will not appear out of place
to employ a similitude by way of illustration. Suppose, then, the case
of one who had become gradually acquainted with the art or science, say
of geometry or medicine, until he had reached perfection, having trained
himself for a lengthened time in its principles and practice, so as to
attain a complete mastery over the art: to such an one it could never
happen, that, when he lay down to sleep in the possession of his skill,
he should awake in a state of ignorance. It is not our purpose to adduce
or to notice here those accidents which are occasioned by any injury or
weakness, for they do not apply to our present illustration. According
to our point of view, then, so long as that geometer or physician
continues to exercise himself in the study of his art and in the
practice of its principles, the knowledge of his profession abides with
him; but if he withdraw from its practice, and lay aside his habits of
industry, then, by his neglect, at first a few things will gradually
escape him, then by and by more and more, until in course of time
everything will be forgotten, and be completely effaced from the memory.
It is possible, indeed, that when he has first begun to fall away, and
to yield to the corrupting influence of a negligence which is small as
yet, he may, if he be aroused and return speedily to his senses, repair
those losses which up to that time are only recent, and recover that
knowledge which hitherto had been only slightly obliterated from his
mind. Let us apply this now to the case of those who have devoted
themselves to the knowledge and wisdom of God, whose learning and
diligence incomparably surpass all other training; and let us
contemplate, according to the form of the similitude employed, what is
the acquisition of knowledge, or what is its disappearance, especially
when we hear from the apostle what is said of those who are perfect,
that they shall behold face to face the glory of the Lord in the
revelation of His mysteries.
2. But in our desire to show the divine benefits bestowed upon us by
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Trinity is the fountain of all
holiness, we have fallen, in what we have said, into a digression,
having considered that the subject of the soul, which accidentally came
before us, should be touched on, although cursorily, seeing we were
discussing a cognate topic relating to our rational nature. We shall,
however, with the permission of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy
Spirit, more conveniently consider in the proper place the subject of
all rational beings, which are distinguished into three genera and
species.
CHAPTER V.
ON RATIONAL NATURES.
1. After the dissertation, which we have briefly conducted to the best
of our ability, regarding the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, it follows
that we offer a few remarks upon the subject of rational natures, and on
their species and orders, or on the offices as well of holy as of
malignant powers, and also on those which occupy an intermediate
position between these good and evil powers, and as yet are placed in a
state of struggle and trial. For we find in holy Scripture numerous
names of certain orders and offices, not only of holy beings, but also
of those of an opposite description, which we shall bring before us, in
the first place; and the meaning of which we shall endeavour, in the
second place, to the best of our ability, to ascertain. There are
certain holy angels of God whom Paul terms “ministering spirits, sent
forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation.”[107] In the
writings also of St. Paul himself we find him designating them, from
some unknown source, as thrones, and dominions, and principalities, and
powers; and after this enumeration, as if knowing that there were still
other rational offices[108] and orders besides those which he had named,
he says of the Saviour: “Who is above all principality, and power, and
might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this
world, but also in that which is to come.”[109] From which he shows that
there were certain beings besides those which he had mentioned, which
may be named indeed in this world, but were not now enumerated by him,
and perhaps were not known by any other individual; and that there were
others which may not be named in this world, but will be named in the
world to come.
2. Then, in the next place, we must know that every being which is
endowed with reason, and transgresses its statutes and limitations, is
undoubtedly involved in sin by swerving from rectitude and justice.
Every rational creature, therefore, is capable of earning praise and
censure: of praise, if, in conformity to that reason which he possesses,
he advance to better things; of censure, if he fall away from the plan
and course of rectitude, for which reason he is justly liable to pains
and penalties. And this also is to be held as applying to the devil
himself, and those who are with him, and are called his angels. Now the
titles of these beings have to be explained, that we may know what they
are of whom we have to speak. The name, then, of Devil, and Satan, and
Wicked One, who is also described as Enemy of God, is mentioned in many
passages of Scripture. Moreover, certain angels of the devil are
mentioned, and also a prince of this world, who, whether the devil
himself or some one else, is not yet clearly manifest. There are also
certain princes of this world spoken of as possessing a kind of wisdom
which will come to nought; but whether these are those princes who are
also the principalities with whom we have to wrestle, or other beings,
seems to me a point on which it is not easy for any one to pronounce.
After the principalities, certain powers also are named with whom we
have to wrestle, and carry on a struggle even against the princes of
this world and the rulers of this darkness. Certain spiritual powers of
wickedness also, in heavenly places, are spoken of by Paul himself.
What, moreover, are we to say of those wicked and unclean spirits
mentioned in the gospel? Then we have certain heavenly beings called by
a similar name, but which are said to bend the knee, or to be about to
bend the knee, at the name of Jesus; nay, even things on earth and
things under the earth, which Paul enumerates in order. And certainly,
in a place where we have been discussing the subject of rational
natures, it is not proper to be silent regarding ourselves, who are
human beings, and are called rational animals; nay, even this point is
not to be idly passed over, that even of us human beings certain
different orders are mentioned in the words, “The portion of the Lord is
His people Jacob; Israel is the cord of His inheritance.”[110] Other
nations, moreover, are called a part of the angels; since “when the Most
High divided the nations, and dispersed the sons of Adam, He fixed the
boundaries of the nations according to the number of the angels of
God.”[111] And therefore, with other rational natures, we must also
thoroughly examine the reason of the human soul.
3. After the enumeration, then, of so many and so important names of
orders and offices, underlying which it is certain that there are
personal existences, let us inquire whether God, the creator and founder
of all things, created certain of them holy and happy, so that they
could admit no element at all of an opposite kind, and certain others so
that they were made capable both of virtue and vice; or whether we are
to suppose that He created some so as to be altogether incapable of
virtue, and others again altogether incapable of wickedness, but with
the power of abiding only in a state of happiness, and others again such
as to be capable of either condition. In order, now, that our first
inquiry may begin with the names themselves, let us consider whether the
holy angels, from the period of their first existence, have always been
holy, and are holy still, and will be holy, and have never either
admitted or had the power to admit any occasion of sin. Then in the next
place, let us consider whether those who are called holy principalities
began from the moment of their creation by God to exercise power over
some who were made subject to them, and whether these latter were
created of such a nature, and formed for the very purpose of being
subject and subordinate. In like manner, also, whether those which are
called powers were created of such a nature and for the express purpose
of exercising power, or whether their arriving at that power and dignity
is a reward and desert of their virtue. Moreover, also, whether those
which are called thrones or seats gained that stability of happiness at
the same time with their coming forth into being,[112] so as to have
that possession from the will of the Creator alone; or whether those
which are called dominions had their dominion conferred on them, not as
a reward for their proficiency, but as the peculiar privilege of their
creation,[113] so that it is something which is in a certain degree
inseparable from them, and natural. Now, if we adopt the view that the
holy angels, and the holy powers, and the blessed seats, and the
glorious virtues, and the magnificent dominions, are to be regarded as
possessing those powers and dignities and glories in virtue of their
nature,[114] it will doubtless appear to follow that those beings which
have been mentioned as holding offices of an opposite kind must be
regarded in the same manner; so that those principalities with whom we
have to struggle are to be viewed, not as having received that spirit of
opposition and resistance to all good at a later period, or as falling
away from good through the freedom of the will, but as having had it in
themselves as the essence of their being from the beginning of their
existence. In like manner also will it be the case with the powers and
virtues, in none of which was wickedness subsequent or posterior to
their first existence. Those also whom the apostle termed rulers and
princes of the darkness of this world, are said, with respect to their
rule and occupation of darkness, to fall not from perversity of
intention, but from the necessity of their creation. Logical reasoning
will compel us to take the same view with regard to wicked and malignant
spirits and unclean demons. But if to entertain this view regarding
malignant and opposing powers seem to be absurd, as it is certainly
absurd that the cause of their wickedness should be removed from the
purpose of their own will, and ascribed of necessity to their Creator,
why should we not also be obliged to make a similar confession regarding
the good and holy powers, that, viz., the good which is in them is not
theirs by essential being, which we have manifestly shown to be the case
with Christ and the Holy Spirit alone, as undoubtedly with the Father
also? For it was proved that there was nothing compound in the nature of
the Trinity, so that these qualities might seem to belong to it as
accidental consequences. From which it follows, that in the case of
every creature it is a result of his own works and movements, that those
powers which appear either to hold sway over others or to exercise power
or dominion, have been preferred to and placed over those whom they are
said to govern or exercise power over, and not in consequence of a
peculiar privilege inherent in their constitutions, but on account of
merit.
4. But that we may not appear to build our assertions on subjects of
such importance and difficulty on the ground of inference alone, or to
require the assent of our hearers to what is only conjectural, let us
see whether we can obtain any declarations from holy Scripture, by the
authority of which these positions may be more credibly maintained. And,
firstly, we shall adduce what holy Scripture contains regarding wicked
powers; we shall next continue our investigation with regard to the
others, as the Lord shall be pleased to enlighten us, that in matters of
such difficulty we may ascertain what is nearest to the truth, or what
ought to be our opinions agreeably to the standard of religion. Now we
find in the prophet Ezekiel two prophecies written to the prince of
Tyre, the former of which might appear to any one, before he heard the
second also, to be spoken of some man who was prince of the Tyrians. In
the meantime, therefore, we shall take nothing from that first prophecy;
but as the second is manifestly of such a kind as cannot be at all
understood of a man, but of some superior power which had fallen away
from a higher position, and had been reduced to a lower and worse
condition, we shall from it take an illustration, by which it may be
demonstrated with the utmost clearness, that those opposing and
malignant powers were not formed or created so by nature, but fell from
a better to a worse position, and were converted into wicked beings;
that those blessed powers also were not of such a nature as to be unable
to admit what was opposed to them if they were so inclined and became
negligent, and did not guard most carefully the blessedness of their
condition. For if it is related that he who is called the prince of Tyre
was amongst the saints, and was without stain, and was placed in the
paradise of God, and adorned also with a crown of comeliness and beauty,
is it to be supposed that such an one could be in any degree inferior to
any of the saints? For he is described as having been adorned with a
crown of comeliness and beauty, and as having walked stainless in the
paradise of God: and how can any one suppose that such a being was not
one of those holy and blessed powers which, as being placed in a state
of happiness, we must believe to be endowed with no other honour than
this? But let us see what we are taught by the words of the prophecy
themselves. “The word of the Lord,” says the prophet, “came to me,
saying, Son of man, take up a lamentation over the prince of Tyre, and
say to him, Thus saith the Lord God, Thou hast been the seal of a
similitude, and a crown of comeliness among the delights of paradise;
thou wert adorned with every good stone or gem, and wert clothed with
sardonyx, and topaz, and emerald, and carbuncle, and sapphire, and
jasper, set in gold and silver, and with agate, amethyst, and
chrysolite, and beryl, and onyx: with gold also didst thou fill thy
treasures, and thy storehouses within thee. From the day when thou wert
created along with the cherubim, I placed thee in the holy mount of God.
Thou wert in the midst of the fiery stones: thou wert stainless in thy
days, from the day when thou wert created, until iniquities were found
in thee: from the greatness of thy trade, thou didst fill thy
storehouses with iniquity, and didst sin, and wert wounded from the
mount of God. And a cherub drove thee forth from the midst of the
burning stones; and thy heart was elated because of thy comeliness, thy
discipline was corrupted along with thy beauty: on account of the
multitude of thy sins, I cast thee forth to the earth before kings; I
gave thee for a show and a mockery on account of the multitude of thy
sins, and of thine iniquities: because of thy trade thou hast polluted
thy holy places. And I shall bring forth fire from the midst of thee,
and it shall devour thee, and I shall give thee for ashes and cinders on
the earth in the sight of all who see thee: and all who know thee among
the nations shall mourn over thee. Thou hast been made destruction, and
thou shalt exist no longer for ever.”[115] Seeing, then, that such are
the words of the prophet, who is there that on hearing, “Thou wert a
seal of a similitude, and a crown of comeliness among the delights of
paradise,” or that “From the day when thou wert created with the
cherubim, I placed thee in the holy mount of God,” can so enfeeble the
meaning as to suppose that this language is used of some man or saint,
not to say the prince of Tyre? Or what fiery stones can he imagine in
the midst of which any man could live? Or who could be supposed to be
stainless from the very day of his creation, and wickedness being
afterwards discovered in him, it be said of him then that he was cast
forth upon the earth? For the meaning of this is, that He who was not
yet on the earth is said to be cast forth upon it: whose holy places
also are said to be polluted. We have shown, then, that what we have
quoted regarding the prince of Tyre from the prophet Ezekiel refers to
an adverse power, and by it it is most clearly proved that that power
was formerly holy and happy; from which state of happiness it fell from
the time that iniquity was found in it, and was hurled to the earth, and
was not such by nature and creation. We are of opinion, therefore, that
these words are spoken of a certain angel who had received the office of
governing the nation of the Tyrians, and to whom also their souls had
been entrusted to be taken care of. But what Tyre, or what souls of
Tyrians, we ought to understand, whether that Tyre which is situated
within the boundaries of the province of Phœnicia, or some other of
which this one which we know on earth is the model; and the souls of the
Tyrians, whether they are those of the former or those which belong to
that Tyre which is spiritually understood, does not seem to be a matter
requiring examination in this place; lest perhaps we should appear to
investigate subjects of so much mystery and importance in a cursory
manner, whereas they demand a labour and work of their own.
5. Again, we are taught as follows by the prophet Isaiah regarding
another opposing power. The prophet says, “How is Lucifer, who used to
arise in the morning, fallen from heaven! He who assailed all nations is
broken and beaten to the ground. Thou indeed saidst in thy heart, I
shall ascend into heaven; above the stars of heaven shall I place my
throne; I shall sit upon a lofty mountain, above the lofty mountains
which are towards the north; I shall ascend above the clouds; I shall be
like the Most High. Now shalt thou be brought down to the lower world,
and to the foundations of the earth. They who see thee shall be amazed
at thee, and shall say, This is the man who harassed the whole earth,
who moved kings, who made the whole world a desert, who destroyed
cities, and did not unloose those who were in chains. All the kings of
the nations have slept in honour, every one in his own house; but thou
shalt be cast forth on the mountains, accursed with the many dead who
have been pierced through with swords, and have descended to the lower
world. As a garment clotted with blood, and stained, will not be clean;
neither shalt thou be clean, because thou hast destroyed my land and
slain my people: thou shalt not remain for ever, most wicked seed.
Prepare thy sons for death on account of the sins of thy father, lest
they rise again and inherit the earth, and fill the earth with wars. And
I shall rise against them, saith the Lord of hosts, and I shall cause
their name to perish, and their remains, and their seed.”[116] Most
evidently by these words is he shown to have fallen from heaven, who
formerly was Lucifer, and who used to arise in the morning. For if, as
some think, he was a nature of darkness, how is Lucifer said to have
existed before? Or how could he arise in the morning, who had in himself
nothing of the light? Nay, even the Saviour Himself teaches us, saying
of the devil, “Behold, I see Satan fallen from heaven like
lightning.”[117] For at one time he was light. Moreover our Lord, who is
the truth, compared the power of His own glorious advent to lightning,
in the words, “For as the lightning shineth from the height of heaven
even to its height again, so will the coming of the Son of man be.”[118]
And notwithstanding He compares him to lightning, and says that he fell
from heaven, that He might show by this that he had been at one time in
heaven, and had had a place among the saints, and had enjoyed a share in
that light in which all the saints participate, by which they are made
angels of light, and by which the apostles are termed by the Lord the
light of the world. In this manner, then, did that being once exist as
light before he went astray, and fell to this place, and had his glory
turned into dust, which is peculiarly the mark of the wicked, as the
prophet also says; whence, too, he was called the prince of this world,
_i.e._ of an earthly habitation: for he exercised power over those who
were obedient to his wickedness, since “the whole of this world”—for I
term this place of earth, world—“lieth in the wicked one,”[119] and in
this apostate. That he is an apostate, _i.e._ a fugitive, even the Lord
in the book of Job says, “Thou wilt take with a hook the apostate
dragon,” _i.e._ a fugitive.[120] Now it is certain that by the dragon is
understood the devil himself. If then they are called opposing powers,
and are said to have been once without stain, while spotless purity
exists in the essential being of none save the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit, but is an accidental quality in every created thing; and since
that which is accidental may also fall away, and since those opposite
powers once were spotless, and were once among those which still remain
unstained, it is evident from all this that no one is pure either by
essence or nature, and that no one was by nature polluted. And the
consequence of this is, that it lies within ourselves and in our own
actions to possess either happiness or holiness; or by sloth and
negligence to fall from happiness into wickedness and ruin, to such a
degree that, through too great proficiency, so to speak, in wickedness
(if a man be guilty of so great neglect), he may descend even to that
state in which he will be changed into what is called an “opposing
power.”
Footnote 107:
Heb. i. 14.
Footnote 108:
Officia.
Footnote 109:
Eph. i. 21.
Footnote 110:
Deut. xxxii. 9.
Footnote 111:
Deut. xxxii. 8. The Septuagint here differs from the Masoretic text.
Footnote 112:
Simul cum substantiæ suæ prolatione—at the same time with the
emanation of their substance.
Footnote 113:
Conditionis prærogativa.
Footnote 114:
Substantialiter.
Footnote 115:
Ezek. xxviii. 11-19.
Footnote 116:
Isa. xiv. 12-22.
Footnote 117:
Luke x. 18.
Footnote 118:
Matt. xxiv. 27.
Footnote 119:
1 John v. 19.
Footnote 120:
Job xl. 20.
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE END OR CONSUMMATION.
1. An end or consummation would seem to be an indication of the
perfection and completion of things. And this reminds us here, that if
there be any one imbued with a desire of reading and understanding
subjects of such difficulty and importance, he ought to bring to the
effort a perfect and instructed understanding, lest perhaps, if he has
had no experience in questions of this kind, they may appear to him as
vain and superfluous; or if his mind be full of preconceptions and
prejudices on other points, he may judge these to be heretical and
opposed to the faith of the church, yielding in so doing not so much to
the convictions of reason as to the dogmatism of prejudice. These
subjects, indeed, are treated by us with great solicitude and caution,
in the manner rather of an investigation and discussion, than in that of
fixed and certain decision. For we have pointed out in the preceding
pages those questions which must be set forth in clear dogmatic
propositions, as I think has been done to the best of my ability when
speaking of the Trinity. But on the present occasion our exercise is to
be conducted, as we best may, in the style of a disputation rather than
of strict definition.
The end of the world, then, and the final consummation, will take place
when every one shall be subjected to punishment for his sins; a time
which God alone knows, when He will bestow on each one what he deserves.
We think, indeed, that the goodness of God, through His Christ, may
recall all His creatures to one end, even His enemies being conquered
and subdued. For thus says holy Scripture, “The Lord said to my Lord,
Sit Thou at my right hand, until I make Thine enemies Thy
footstool.”[121] And if the meaning of the prophet’s language here be
less clear, we may ascertain it from the Apostle Paul, who speaks more
openly, thus: “For Christ must reign until He has put all enemies under
His feet.”[122] But if even that unreserved declaration of the apostle
do not sufficiently inform us what is meant by “enemies being placed
under His feet,” listen to what he says in the following words, “For all
things must be put under Him.” What, then, is this “putting under” by
which all things must be made subject to Christ? I am of opinion that it
is this very subjection by which we also wish to be subject to Him, by
which the apostles also were subject, and all the saints who have been
followers of Christ. For the name “subjection,” by which we are subject
to Christ, indicates that the salvation which proceeds from Him belongs
to His subjects, agreeably to the declaration of David, “Shall not my
soul be subject unto God? From Him cometh my salvation.”[123]
2. Seeing, then, that such is the end, when all enemies will be subdued
to Christ, when death—the last enemy—shall be destroyed, and when the
kingdom shall be delivered up by Christ (to whom all things are subject)
to God the Father; let us, I say, from such an end as this, contemplate
the beginnings of things. For the end is always like the beginning: and,
therefore, as there is one end to all things, so ought we to understand
that there was one beginning; and as there is one end to many things, so
there spring from one beginning many differences and varieties, which
again, through the goodness of God, and by subjection to Christ, and
through the unity of the Holy Spirit, are recalled to one end, which is
like unto the beginning: all those, viz., who, bending the knee at the
name of Jesus, make known by so doing their subjection to Him: and these
are they who are in heaven, on earth, and under the earth: by which
three classes the whole universe of things is pointed out, those, viz.,
who from that one beginning were arranged, each according to the
diversity of his conduct, among the different orders, in accordance with
their desert; for there was no goodness in them by essential being, as
in God and His Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. For in the Trinity alone,
which is the author of all things, does goodness exist in virtue of
essential being; while others possess it as an accidental and perishable
quality, and only then enjoy blessedness, when they participate in
holiness and wisdom, and in divinity itself. But if they neglect and
despise such participation, then is each one, by fault of his own
slothfulness, made, one more rapidly, another more slowly, one in a
greater, another in a less degree, the cause of his own downfall. And
since, as we have remarked, the lapse by which an individual falls away
from his position is characterized by great diversity, according to the
movements of the mind and will, one man falling with greater ease,
another with more difficulty, into a lower condition; in this is to be
seen the just judgment of the providence of God, that it should happen
to every one according to the diversity of his conduct, in proportion to
the desert of his declension and defection. Certain of those, indeed,
who remained in that beginning which we have described as resembling the
end which is to come, obtained, in the ordering and arrangement of the
world, the rank of angels; others that of influences, others of
principalities, others of powers, that they may exercise power over
those who need to have power upon their head. Others, again, received
the rank of thrones, having the office of judging or ruling those who
require this; others dominion, doubtless, over slaves; all of which are
conferred by Divine Providence in just and impartial judgment according
to their merits, and to the progress which they had made in the
participation and imitation of God. But those who have been removed from
their primal state of blessedness have not been removed irrecoverably,
but have been placed under the rule of those holy and blessed orders
which we have described; and by availing themselves of the aid of these,
and being remoulded by salutary principles and discipline, they may
recover themselves, and be restored to their condition of happiness.
From all which I am of opinion, so far as I can see, that this order of
the human race has been appointed in order that in the future world, or
in ages to come, when there shall be the new heavens and new earth,
spoken of by Isaiah, it may be restored to that unity promised by the
Lord Jesus in His prayer to God the Father on behalf of His disciples:
“I do not pray for these alone, but for all who shall believe on me
through their word: that they all may be one, as Thou, Father, art in
me, and I in Thee, that they also may be one in us;”[124] and again,
when He says: “That they may be one, even as we are one; I in them, and
Thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.”[125] And this is
further confirmed by the language of the Apostle Paul: “Until we all
come in the unity of the faith to a perfect man, to the measure of the
stature of the fulness of Christ.”[126] And in keeping with this is the
declaration of the same apostle, when he exhorts us, who even in the
present life are placed in the church, in which is the form of that
kingdom which is to come, to this same similitude of unity: “That ye all
speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that
ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same
judgment.”[127]
3. It is to be borne in mind, however, that certain beings who fell away
from that one beginning of which we have spoken, have sunk to such a
depth of unworthiness and wickedness as to be deemed altogether
undeserving of that training and instruction by which the human race,
while in the flesh, are trained and instructed with the assistance of
the heavenly powers; and continue, on the contrary, in a state of enmity
and opposition to those who are receiving this instruction and teaching.
And hence it is that the whole of this mortal life is full of struggles
and trials, caused by the opposition and enmity of those who fell from a
better condition without at all looking back, and who are called the
devil and his angels, and the other orders of evil, which the apostle
classed among the opposing powers. But whether any of these orders who
act under the government of the devil, and obey his wicked commands,
will in a future world be converted to righteousness because of their
possessing the faculty of freedom of will, or whether persistent and
inveterate wickedness may be changed by the power of habit into nature,
is a result which you yourself, reader, may approve of, if neither in
these present worlds which are seen and temporal, nor in those which are
unseen and are eternal, that portion is to differ wholly from the final
unity and fitness of things. But in the meantime, both in those temporal
worlds which are seen, as well as in those eternal worlds which are
invisible, all those beings are arranged, according to a regular plan,
in the order and degree of their merits; so that some of them in the
first, others in the second, some even in the last times, after having
undergone heavier and severer punishments, endured for a lengthened
period, and for many ages, so to speak, improved by this stern method of
training, and restored at first by the instruction of the angels, and
subsequently by the powers of a higher grade, and thus advancing through
each stage to a better condition, reach even to that which is invisible
and eternal, having travelled through, by a kind of training, every
single office of the heavenly powers. From which, I think, this will
appear to follow as an inference, that every rational nature may, in
passing from one order to another, go through each to all, and advance
from all to each, while made the subject of various degrees of
proficiency and failure according to its own actions and endeavours, put
forth in the enjoyment of its power of freedom of will.
4. But since Paul says that certain things are visible and temporal, and
others besides these invisible and eternal, we proceed to inquire how
those things which are seen are temporal—whether because there will be
nothing at all after them in all those periods of the coming world, in
which that dispersion and separation from the one beginning is
undergoing a process of restoration to one and the same end and
likeness; or because, while the form of those things which are seen
passes away, their essential nature is subject to no corruption. And
Paul seems to confirm the latter view, when he says, “For the fashion of
this world passeth away.”[128] David also appears to assert the same in
the words, “The heavens shall perish, but Thou shalt endure; and they
all shall wax old as a garment, and Thou shalt change them like a
vesture, and like a vestment they shall be changed.”[129] For if the
heavens are to be changed, assuredly that which is changed does not
perish, and if the fashion of the world passes away, it is by no means
an annihilation or destruction of their material substance that is shown
to take place, but a kind of change of quality and transformation of
appearance. Isaiah also, in declaring prophetically that there will be a
new heaven and a new earth, undoubtedly suggests a similar view. For
this renewal of heaven and earth, and this transmutation of the form of
the present world, and this changing of the heavens, will undoubtedly be
prepared for those who are walking along that way which we have pointed
out above, and are tending to that goal of happiness to which, it is
said, even enemies themselves are to be subjected, and in which God is
said to be “all and in all.” And if any one imagine that at the end
material, _i.e._ bodily, nature will be entirely destroyed, he cannot in
any respect meet my view, how beings so numerous and powerful are able
to live and to exist without bodies, since it is an attribute of the
divine nature alone—_i.e._ of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—to exist
without any material substance, and without partaking in any degree of a
bodily adjunct. Another, perhaps, may say that in the end every bodily
substance will be so pure and refined as to be like the æther, and of a
celestial purity and clearness. How things will be, however, is known
with certainty to God alone, and to those who are His friends through
Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Footnote 121:
Ps. cx. 1.
Footnote 122:
1 Cor. xv. 25.
Footnote 123:
Ps. lxii. 1.
Footnote 124:
John xvii. 20, 21.
Footnote 125:
John xvii. 22, 23.
Footnote 126:
Eph. iv. 13.
Footnote 127:
1 Cor. i. 10.
Footnote 128:
1 Cor. vii. 31.
Footnote 129:
Ps. cii. 26.
CHAPTER VII.
ON INCORPOREAL AND CORPOREAL BEINGS.
1. The subjects considered in the previous chapter have been spoken of
in general language, the nature of rational beings being discussed more
by way of intelligent inference than strict dogmatic definition, with
the exception of the place where we treated, to the best of our ability,
of the persons of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. We have now to ascertain
what those matters are which it is proper to treat in the following
pages according to our dogmatic belief, _i.e._ in agreement with the
creed of the church. All souls and all rational natures, whether holy or
wicked, were formed or created, and all these, according to their proper
nature, are incorporeal; but although incorporeal, they were
nevertheless created, because all things were made by God through
Christ, as John teaches in a general way in his Gospel, saying, “In the
beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and
without Him was nothing made.”[130] The Apostle Paul, moreover,
describing created things by species and numbers and orders, speaks as
follows, when showing that all things were made through Christ: “And in
Him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth,
visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or
principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him, and in Him:
and He is before all, and He is the head.”[131] He therefore manifestly
declares that in Christ and through Christ were all things made and
created, whether things visible, which are corporeal, or things
invisible, which I regard as none other than incorporeal and spiritual
powers. But of those things which he had termed generally corporeal or
incorporeal, he seems to me, in the words that follow, to enumerate the
various kinds, viz. thrones, dominions, principalities, powers,
influences.
These matters now have been previously mentioned by us, as we are
desirous to come in an orderly manner to the investigation of the sun,
and moon, and stars by way of logical inference, and to ascertain
whether they also ought properly to be reckoned among the principalities
on account of their being said to be created in Ἀρχὰς, _i.e._ for the
government of day and night; or whether they are to be regarded as
having only that government of day and night which they discharge by
performing the office of illuminating them, and are not in reality chief
of that order of principalities.
2. Now, when it is said that all things were made by Him, and that in
Him were all things created, both things in heaven and things on earth,
there can be no doubt that also those things which are in the firmament,
which is called heaven, and in which those luminaries are said to be
placed, are included amongst the number of heavenly things. And
secondly, seeing that the course of the discussion has manifestly
discovered that all things were made or created, and that amongst
created things there is nothing which may not admit of good and evil,
and be capable of either, what are we to think of the following opinion
which certain of our friends entertain regarding sun, moon, and stars,
viz. that they are unchangeable, and incapable of becoming the opposite
of what they are? Not a few have held that view even regarding the holy
angels, and certain heretics also regarding souls, which they call
spiritual natures.
In the first place, then, let us see what reason itself can discover
respecting sun, moon, and stars,—whether the opinion, entertained by
some, of their unchangeableness be correct,—and let the declarations of
holy Scripture, as far as possible, be first adduced. For Job appears to
assert that not only may the stars be subject to sin, but even that they
are actually not clean from the contagion of it. The following are his
words: “The stars also are not clean in Thy sight.”[132] Nor is this to
be understood of the splendour of their physical substance, as if one
were to say, for example, of a garment, that it is not clean; for if
such were the meaning, then the accusation of a want of cleanness in the
splendour of their bodily substance would imply an injurious reflection
upon their Creator. For if they are unable, through their own diligent
efforts, either to acquire for themselves a body of greater brightness,
or through their sloth to make the one they have less pure, how should
they incur censure for being stars that are not clean, if they receive
no praise because they are so?
3. But to arrive at a clearer understanding on these matters, we ought
first to inquire after this point, whether it is allowable to suppose
that they are living and rational beings; then, in the next place,
whether their souls came into existence at the same time with their
bodies, or seem to be anterior to them; and also whether, after the end
of the world, we are to understand that they are to be released from
their bodies; and whether, as we cease to live, so they also will cease
from illuminating the world. Although this inquiry may seem to be
somewhat bold, yet, as we are incited by the desire of ascertaining the
truth as far as possible, there seems no absurdity in attempting an
investigation of the subject agreeably to the grace of the Holy Spirit.
We think, then, that they may be designated as living beings, for this
reason, that they are said to receive commandments from God, which is
ordinarily the case only with rational beings. “I have given a
commandment to all the stars,”[133] says the Lord. What, now, are these
commandments? Those, namely, that each star, in its order and course,
should bestow upon the world the amount of splendour which has been
entrusted to it. For those which are called “planets” move in orbits of
one kind, and those which are termed ἀπλανεῖς are different. Now it
manifestly follows from this, that neither can the movement of that body
take place without a soul, nor can living things be at any time without
motion. And seeing that the stars move with such order and regularity,
that their movements never appear to be at any time subject to
derangement, would it not be the height of folly to say that so orderly
an observance of method and plan could be carried out or accomplished by
irrational beings? In the writings of Jeremiah, indeed, the moon is
called the queen of heaven.[134] Yet if the stars are living and
rational beings, there will undoubtedly appear among them both an
advance and a falling back. For the language of Job, “the stars are not
clean in His sight,” seems to me to convey some such idea.
4. And now we have to ascertain whether those beings which in the course
of the discussion we have discovered to possess life and reason, were
endowed with a soul along with their bodies at the time mentioned in
Scripture, when “God made two great lights, the greater light to rule
the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars
also,”[135] or whether their spirit was implanted in them, not at the
creation of their bodies, but from without, after they had been already
made. I, for my part, suspect that the spirit was implanted in them from
without; but it will be worth while to prove this from Scripture: for it
will seem an easy matter to make the assertion on conjectural grounds,
while it is more difficult to establish it by the testimony of
Scripture. Now it may be established conjecturally as follows. If the
soul of a man, which is certainly inferior while it remains the soul of
a man, was not formed along with his body, but is proved to have been
implanted strictly from without, much more must this be the case with
those living beings which are called heavenly. For, as regards man, how
could the soul of him, viz. Jacob, who supplanted his brother in the
womb, appear to be formed along with his body? Or how could his soul, or
its images, be formed along with his body, who, while lying in his
mother’s womb, was filled with the Holy Ghost? I refer to John leaping
in his mother’s womb, and exulting because the voice of the salutation
of Mary had come to the ears of his mother Elisabeth. How could his soul
and its images be formed along with his body, who, before he was created
in the womb, is said to be known to God, and was sanctified by Him
before his birth? Some, perhaps, may think that God fills individuals
with His Holy Spirit, and bestows upon them sanctification, not on
grounds of justice and according to their deserts, but undeservedly. And
how shall we escape that declaration: “Is there unrighteousness with
God? God forbid!”[136] or this: “Is there respect of persons with
God?”[137] For such is the defence of those who maintain that souls come
into existence with bodies. So far, then, as we can form an opinion from
a comparison with the condition of man, I think it follows that we must
hold the same to hold good with heavenly beings, which reason itself and
scriptural authority show us to be the case with men.
5. But let us see whether we can find in holy Scripture any indications
properly applicable to these heavenly existences. The following is the
statement of the Apostle Paul: “The creature was made subject to vanity,
not willingly, but by reason of Him who subjected the same in hope,
because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of
corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.”[138] To
what vanity, pray, was the creature made subject, or what creature is
referred to, or how is it said “not willingly,” or “in hope of what?”
And in what way is the creature itself to be delivered from the bondage
of corruption? Elsewhere, also, the same apostle says: “For the
expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of
God.”[139] And again in another passage, “And not only we, but the
creation itself groaneth together, and is in pain until now.”[140] And
hence we have to inquire what are the groanings, and what are the pains.
Let us see then, in the first place, what is the vanity to which the
creature is subject. I apprehend that it is nothing else than the body;
for although the body of the stars is ethereal, it is nevertheless
material. Whence also Solomon appears to characterize the whole of
corporeal nature as a kind of burden which enfeebles the vigour of the
soul in the following language: “Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher;
all is vanity. I have looked, and seen all the works that are done under
the sun; and, behold, all is vanity.”[141] To this vanity, then, is the
creature subject, that creature especially which, being assuredly the
greatest in this world, holds also a distinguished principality of
labour, _i.e._ the sun, and moon, and stars, are said to be subject to
vanity, because they are clothed with bodies, and set apart to the
office of giving light to the human race. “And this creature,” he
remarks, “was subjected to vanity not willingly.” For it did not
undertake a voluntary service to vanity, but because it was the will of
Him who made it subject, and because of the promise of the Subjector to
those who were reduced to this unwilling obedience, that when the
ministry of their great work was performed, they were to be freed from
this bondage of corruption and vanity when the time of the glorious
redemption of God’s children should have arrived. And the whole of
creation, receiving this hope, and looking for the fulfilment of this
promise now, in the meantime, as having an affection for those whom it
serves, groans along with them, and patiently suffers with them, hoping
for the fulfilment of the promises. See also whether the following words
of Paul can apply to those who, although not willingly, yet in
accordance with the will of Him who subjected them, and in hope of the
promises, were made subject to vanity, when he says, “For I could wish
to be dissolved,” or “to return and be with Christ, which is far
better.”[142] For I think that the sun might say in like manner, “I
would desire to be dissolved,” or “to return and be with Christ, which
is far better.” Paul indeed adds, “Nevertheless, to abide in the flesh
is more needful for you;” while the sun may say, “To abide in this
bright and heavenly body is more necessary, on account of the
manifestation of the sons of God.” The same views are to be believed and
expressed regarding the moon and stars.
Let us see now what is the freedom of the creature, or the termination
of its bondage. When Christ shall have delivered up the kingdom to God
even the Father, then also those living things, when they shall have
first been made the kingdom of Christ, shall be delivered, along with
the whole of that kingdom, to the rule of the Father, that when God
shall be all in all, they also, since they are a part of all things, may
have God in themselves, as He is in all things.
Footnote 130:
John i. 1-3.
Footnote 131:
Col. i. 16-18.
Footnote 132:
Job xxv. 5.
Footnote 133:
Isa. xlv. 12.
Footnote 134:
Jer. vii. 18.
Footnote 135:
Gen. i. 16.
Footnote 136:
Rom. ix. 14.
Footnote 137:
Rom. ii. 11.
Footnote 138:
Cf. Rom. viii. 20, 21.
Footnote 139:
Rom. viii. 19.
Footnote 140:
Rom. viii. 22, cf. 23.
Footnote 141:
Eccles. i. 1, 14.
Footnote 142:
Phil. i. 23.
CHAPTER VIII.
ON THE ANGELS.
1. A similar method must be followed in treating of the angels; nor are
we to suppose that it is the result of accident that a particular office
is assigned to a particular angel: as to Raphael, _e.g._, the work of
curing and healing; to Gabriel, the conduct of wars; to Michael, the
duty of attending to the prayers and supplications of mortals. For we
are not to imagine that they obtained these offices otherwise than by
their own merits, and by the zeal and excellent qualities which they
severally displayed before this world was formed; so that afterwards, in
the order of archangels, this or that office was assigned to each one,
while others deserved to be enrolled in the order of angels, and to act
under this or that archangel, or that leader or head of an order. All of
which things were disposed, as I have said, not indiscriminately and
fortuitously, but by a most appropriate and just decision of God, who
arranged them according to deserts, in accordance with His own approval
and judgment: so that to one angel the church of the Ephesians was to be
entrusted; to another, that of the Smyrnæans; one angel was to be
Peter’s, another Paul’s; and so on through every one of the little ones
that are in the church, for such and such angels as even daily behold
the face of God must be assigned to each one of them;[143] and there
must also be some angel that encampeth round about them that fear
God.[144] All of which things, assuredly, it is to be believed, are not
performed by accident or chance, or because they [the angels] were so
created, lest on that view the Creator should be accused of partiality;
but it is to be believed that they were conferred by God, the just and
impartial Ruler of all things, agreeably to the merits and good
qualities and mental vigour of each individual spirit.
2. And now let us say something regarding those who maintain the
existence of a diversity of spiritual natures, that we may avoid falling
into the silly and impious fables of such as pretend that there is a
diversity of spiritual natures both among heavenly existences and human
souls, and for that reason allege that they were called into being by
different creators; for while it seems, and is really, absurd that to
one and the same creator should be ascribed the creation of different
natures of rational beings, they are nevertheless ignorant of the cause
of that diversity. For they say that it seems inconsistent for one and
the same creator, without any existing ground of merit, to confer upon
some beings the power of dominion, and to subject others again to
authority; to bestow a principality upon some, and to render others
subordinate to rulers. Which opinions indeed, in my judgment, are
completely rejected by following out the reasoning explained above, and
by which it was shown that the cause of the diversity and variety among
these beings is due to their conduct, which has been marked either with
greater earnestness or indifference, according to the goodness or
badness of their nature, and not to any partiality on the part of the
Disposer. But that this may more easily be shown to be the case with
heavenly beings, let us borrow an illustration from what either has been
done or is done among men, in order that from visible things we may, by
way of consequence, behold also things invisible.
Paul and Peter are undoubtedly proved to have been men of a spiritual
nature. When, therefore, Paul is found to have acted contrary to
religion, in having persecuted the church of God, and Peter to have
committed so grave a sin as, when questioned by the maid-servant, to
have asserted with an oath that he did not know who Christ was, how is
it possible that these—who, according to those persons of whom we speak,
were spiritual beings—should fall into sins of such a nature, especially
as they are frequently in the habit of saying that a good tree cannot
bring forth evil fruits? And if a good tree cannot produce evil fruit,
and as, according to them, Peter and Paul were sprung from the root of a
good tree, how should they be deemed to have brought forth fruits so
wicked? And if they should return the answer which is generally
invented, that it was not Paul who persecuted, but some other person, I
know not whom, who was in Paul; and that it was not Peter who uttered
the denial, but some other individual in him; how should Paul say, if he
had not sinned, that “I am not worthy to be called an apostle, because I
persecuted the church of God?”[145] Or why did Peter weep most bitterly,
if it were another than he who sinned? From which all their silly
assertions will be proved to be baseless.
3. According to our view, there is no rational creature which is not
capable both of good and evil. But it does not follow, that because we
say there is no nature which may not admit evil, we therefore maintain
that every nature has admitted evil, _i.e._ has become wicked. As we may
say that the nature of every man admits of his being a sailor, but it
does not follow from that, that every man will become so; or, again, it
is possible for every one to learn grammar or medicine, but it is not
therefore proved that every man is either a physician or a grammarian;
so, if we say that there is no nature which may not admit evil, it is
not necessarily indicated that it has done so. For, in our view, not
even the devil himself was incapable of good; but although capable of
admitting good, he did not therefore also desire it, or make any effort
after virtue. For, as we are taught by those quotations which we adduced
from the prophets, there was once a time when he was good, when he
walked in the paradise of God between the cherubim. As he, then,
possessed the power either of receiving good or evil, but fell away from
a virtuous course, and turned to evil with all the powers of his mind,
so also other creatures, as having a capacity for either condition, in
the exercise of the freedom of their will, flee from evil, and cleave to
good. There is no nature, then, which may not admit of good or evil,
except the nature of God—the fountain of all good things—and of Christ;
for it is wisdom, and wisdom assuredly cannot admit folly; and it is
righteousness, and righteousness will never certainly admit of
unrighteousness; and it is the Word, or Reason, which certainly cannot
be made irrational; nay, it is also the light, and it is certain that
the darkness does not receive the light. In like manner, also, the
nature of the Holy Spirit, being holy, does not admit of pollution; for
it is holy by nature, or essential being. If there is any other nature
which is holy, it possesses this property of being made holy by the
reception or inspiration of the Holy Spirit, not having it by nature,
but as an accidental quality, for which reason it may be lost, in
consequence of being accidental. So also a man may possess an accidental
righteousness, from which it is possible for him to fall away. Even the
wisdom which a man has is still accidental, although it be within our
own power to become wise, if we devote ourselves to wisdom with the zeal
and effort of our life; and if we always pursue the study of it, we may
always be participators of wisdom: and that result will follow either in
a greater or less degree, according to the desert of our life or the
amount of our zeal. For the goodness of God, as is worthy of Him,
incites and attracts all to that blissful end, where all pain, and
sadness, and sorrow fall away and disappear.
4. I am of opinion, then, so far as appears to me, that the preceding
discussion has sufficiently proved that it is neither from want of
discrimination, nor from any accidental cause, either that the
“principalities” hold their dominion, or the other orders of spirits
have obtained their respective offices; but that they have received the
steps of their rank on account of their merits, although it is not our
privilege to know or inquire what those acts of theirs were, by which
they earned a place in any particular order. It is sufficient only to
know this much, in order to demonstrate the impartiality and
righteousness of God, that, conformably with the declaration of the
Apostle Paul, “there is no acceptance of persons with Him,”[146] who
rather disposes everything according to the deserts and moral progress
of each individual. So, then, the angelic office does not exist except
as a consequence of their desert; nor do “powers” exercise power except
in virtue of their moral progress; nor do those which are called
“seats,” _i.e._ the powers of judging and ruling, administer their
powers unless by merit; nor do “dominions” rule undeservedly, for that
great and distinguished order of rational creatures among celestial
existences is arranged in a glorious variety of offices. And the same
view is to be entertained of those opposing influences which have given
themselves up to such places and offices, that they derive the property
by which they are made “principalities,” or “powers,” or rulers of the
darkness of the world, or spirits of wickedness, or malignant spirits,
or unclean demons, not from their essential nature, nor from their being
so created, but have obtained these degrees in evil in proportion to
their conduct, and the progress which they made in wickedness. And that
is a second order of rational creatures, who have devoted themselves to
wickedness in so headlong a course, that they are unwilling rather than
unable to recall themselves; the thirst for evil being already a
passion, and imparting to them pleasure. But the third order of rational
creatures is that of those who are judged fit by God to replenish the
human race, _i.e._ the souls of men, assumed in consequence of their
moral progress into the order of angels; of whom we see some assumed
into the number: those, viz., who have been made the sons of God, or the
children of the resurrection, or who have abandoned the darkness, and
have loved the light, and have been made children of the light; or those
who, proving victorious in every struggle, and being made men of peace,
have been the sons of peace, and the sons of God; or those who,
mortifying their members on the earth, and, rising above not only their
corporeal nature, but even the uncertain and fragile movements of the
soul itself, have united themselves to the Lord, being made altogether
spiritual, that they may be for ever one spirit with Him, discerning
along with Him each individual thing, until they arrive at a condition
of perfect spirituality, and discern all things by their perfect
illumination in all holiness through the word and wisdom of God, and are
themselves altogether undistinguishable by any one.
We think that those views are by no means to be admitted, which some are
wont unnecessarily to advance and maintain, viz. that souls descend to
such a pitch of abasement that they forget their rational nature and
dignity, and sink into the condition of irrational animals, either large
or small; and in support of these assertions they generally quote some
pretended statements of Scripture, such as, that a beast, to which a
woman has unnaturally prostituted herself, shall be deemed equally
guilty with the woman, and shall be ordered to be stoned; or that a bull
which strikes with its horns, shall be put to death in the same way; or
even the speaking of Balaam’s ass, when God opened its mouth, and the
dumb beast of burden, answering with human voice, reproved the madness
of the prophet. All of which assertions we not only do not receive, but,
as being contrary to our belief, we refute and reject. After the
refutation and rejection of such perverse opinions, we shall show, at
the proper time and place, how those passages which they quote from the
sacred Scriptures ought to be understood.
FRAGMENT FROM THE FIRST BOOK OF THE DE PRINCIPIIS.
Translated by Jerome in his Epistle to Avitus.
“It is an evidence of great negligence and sloth, that each one should
fall down to such (a pitch of degradation), and be so emptied, as that,
in coming to evil, he may be fastened to the gross body of irrational
beasts of burden.”
ANOTHER FRAGMENT FROM THE SAME.
Translated in the same Epistle to Avitus.
“At the end and consummation of the world, when souls and rational
creatures shall have been sent forth as from bolts and barriers,[147]
some of them walk slowly on account of their slothful habits, others fly
with rapid flight on account of their diligence. And since all are
possessed of free-will, and may of their own accord admit either of good
or evil, the former will be in a worse condition than they are at
present, while the latter will advance to a better state of things;
because different conduct and varying wills will admit of a different
condition in either direction, _i.e._ angels may become men or demons,
and again from the latter they may rise to be men or angels.”
Footnote 143:
Matt. xviii. 10.
Footnote 144:
Ps. xxxiv. 7. Tum demum per singulos minimorum, qui sunt in ecclesiâ,
qui vel qui adscribi singulis debeant angeli, qui etiam quotidie
videant faciem Dei; sed et quis debeat esse angelus, qui circumdet in
circuitu timentium Deum.
Footnote 145:
1 Cor. xv. 9.
Footnote 146:
Cf. Rom. ii. 11.
Footnote 147:
De quibusdam repagulis atque carceribus. There is an allusion here to
the race-course and the mode of starting the chariots.
BOOK II.
CHAPTER I.
ON THE WORLD.
1. Although all the discussions in the preceding book have had reference
to the world and its arrangements, it now seems to follow that we should
specially re-discuss a few points respecting the world itself, _i.e._
its beginning and end, or those dispensations of Divine Providence which
have taken place between the beginning and the end, or those events
which are supposed to have occurred before the creation of the world, or
are to take place after the end.
In this investigation, the first point which clearly appears is, that
the world in all its diversified and varying conditions is composed not
only of rational and diviner natures, and of a diversity of bodies, but
of dumb animals, wild and tame beasts, of birds, and of all things which
live in the waters;[148] then, secondly, of places, _i.e._ of the heaven
or heavens, and of the earth or water, as well as of the air, which is
intermediate, and which they term æther, and of everything which
proceeds from the earth or is born in it. Seeing, then,[149] there is so
great a variety in the world, and so great a diversity among rational
beings themselves, on account of which every other variety and diversity
also is supposed to have come into existence, what other cause than this
ought to be assigned for the existence of the world, especially if we
have regard to that end by means of which it was shown in the preceding
book that all things are to be restored to their original condition? And
if this should seem to be logically stated, what other cause, as we have
already said, are we to imagine for so great a diversity in the world,
save the diversity and variety in the movements and declensions of those
who fell from that primeval unity and harmony in which they were at
first created by God, and who, being driven from that state of goodness,
and drawn in various directions by the harassing influence of different
motives and desires, have changed, according to their different
tendencies, the single and undivided goodness of their nature into minds
of various sorts?[150]
2. But God, by the ineffable skill of His wisdom, transforming and
restoring all things, in whatever manner they are made, to some useful
aim, and to the common advantage of all, recalls those very creatures
which differed so much from each other in mental conformation to one
agreement of labour and purpose; so that, although they are under the
influence of different motives, they nevertheless complete the fulness
and perfection of one world, and the very variety of minds tends to one
end of perfection. For it is one power which grasps and holds together
all the diversity of the world, and leads the different movements
towards one work, lest so immense an undertaking as that of the world
should be dissolved by the dissensions of souls. And for this reason we
think that God, the Father of all things, in order to ensure the
salvation of all His creatures through the ineffable plan of His word
and wisdom, so arranged each of these, that every spirit, whether soul
or rational existence, however called, should not be compelled by force,
against the liberty of his own will, to any other course than that to
which the motives of his own mind led him (lest by so doing the power of
exercising free-will should seem to be taken away, which certainly would
produce a change in the nature of the being itself); and that the
varying purposes of these would be suitably and usefully adapted to the
harmony of one world, by some of them requiring help, and others being
able to give it, and others again being the cause of struggle and
contest to those who are making progress, amongst whom their diligence
would be deemed more worthy of approval, and the place of rank obtained
after victory be held with greater certainty, which should be
established by the difficulties of the contest.[151]
3. Although the whole world is arranged into offices of different kinds,
its condition, nevertheless, is not to be supposed as one of internal
discrepancies and discordances; but as our one body is provided with
many members, and is held together by one soul, so I am of opinion that
the whole world also ought to be regarded as some huge and immense
animal, which is kept together by the power and reason of God as by one
soul. This also, I think, is indicated in sacred Scripture by the
declaration of the prophet, “Do not I fill heaven and earth? saith the
Lord;”[152] and again, “The heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
footstool;”[153] and by the Saviour’s words, when He says that we are to
swear “neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for
it is His footstool.”[154] To the same effect also are the words of
Paul, in his address to the Athenians, when he says, “In Him we live,
and move, and have our being.”[155] For how do we live, and move, and
have our being in God, except by His comprehending and holding together
the whole world by His power? And how is heaven the throne of God, and
the earth His footstool, as the Saviour Himself declares, save by His
power filling all things both in heaven and earth, according to the
Lord’s own words? And that God, the Father of all things, fills and
holds together the world with the fulness of His power, according to
those passages which we have quoted, no one, I think, will have any
difficulty in admitting. And now, since the course of the preceding
discussion has shown that the different movements of rational beings,
and their varying opinions, have brought about the diversity that is in
the world, we must see whether it may not be appropriate that this world
should have a termination like its beginning. For there is no doubt that
its end must be sought amid much diversity and variety; which variety,
being found to exist in the termination of the world, will again furnish
ground and occasion for the diversities of the other world which is to
succeed the present.
4. If now, in the course of our discussion, it has been ascertained that
these things are so, it seems to follow that we next consider the nature
of corporeal being, seeing the diversity in the world cannot exist
without bodies. It is evident from the nature of things themselves, that
bodily nature admits of diversity and variety of change, so that it is
capable of undergoing all possible transformations, as _e.g._ the
conversion of wood into fire, of fire into smoke, of smoke into air, of
oil into fire. Does not food itself, whether of man or of animals,
exhibit the same ground of change? For whatever we take as food, is
converted into the substance of our body. But how water is changed into
earth or into air, and air again into fire, or fire into air, or air
into water, although not difficult to explain, yet on the present
occasion it is enough merely to mention them, as our object is to
discuss the nature of bodily matter. By matter, therefore, we understand
that which is placed under bodies, viz. that by which, through the
bestowing and implanting of qualities, bodies exist; and we mention four
qualities—heat, cold, dryness, humidity. These four qualities being
implanted in the ὕλη, or matter (for matter is found to exist in its own
nature without those qualities before mentioned), produce the different
kinds of bodies. Although this matter is, as we have said above,
according to its own proper nature without qualities, it is never found
to exist without a quality. And I cannot understand how so many
distinguished men have been of opinion that this matter, which is so
great, and possesses such properties as to enable it to be sufficient
for all the bodies in the world which God willed to exist, and to be the
attendant and slave of the Creator for whatever forms and species He
wished in all things, receiving into itself whatever qualities He
desired to bestow upon it, was uncreated, _i.e._ not formed by God
Himself, who is the creator of all things, but that its nature and power
were the result of chance. And I am astonished that they should find
fault with those who deny either God’s creative power or His
providential administration of the world, and accuse them of impiety for
thinking that so great a work as the world could exist without an
architect or overseer; while they themselves incur a similar charge of
impiety in saying that matter is uncreated, and co-eternal with the
uncreated God. According to this view, then, if we suppose for the sake
of argument that matter did not exist, as these maintain, saying that
God could not create anything when nothing existed, without doubt He
would have been idle, not having matter on which to operate, which
matter they say was furnished Him not by His own arrangement, but by
accident; and they think that this, which was discovered by chance, was
able to suffice Him for an undertaking of so vast an extent, and for the
manifestation of the power of His might, and by admitting the plan of
all His wisdom, might be distinguished and formed into a world. Now this
appears to me to be very absurd, and to be the opinion of those men who
are altogether ignorant of the power and intelligence of uncreated
nature. But that we may see the nature of things a little more clearly,
let it be granted that for a little time matter did not exist, and that
God, when nothing formerly existed, caused those things to come into
existence which He desired, why are we to suppose that God would create
matter either better or greater, or of another kind, than that which He
did produce from His own power and wisdom, in order that that might
exist which formerly did not? Would He create a worse and inferior
matter, or one the same as that which they call uncreated? Now I think
it will very easily appear to any one, that neither a better nor
inferior matter could have assumed the forms and species of the world,
if it had not been such as that which actually did assume them. And does
it not then seem impious to call that uncreated, which, if believed to
be formed by God, would doubtless be found to be such as that which they
call uncreated?
5. But that we may believe on the authority of holy Scripture that such
is the case, hear how in the book of Maccabees, where the mother of
seven martyrs exhorts her son to endure torture, this truth is
confirmed; for she says, “I ask of thee, my son, to look at the heaven
and the earth, and at all things which are in them, and beholding these,
to know that God made all these things when they did not exist.”[156] In
the book of the Shepherd also, in the first commandment, he speaks as
follows: “First of all believe that there is one God who created and
arranged all things, and made all things to come into existence, and out
of a state of nothingness.”[157] Perhaps also the expression in the
Psalms has reference to this: “He spake, and they were made; He
commanded, and they were created.”[158] For the words, “He spake, and
they were made,” appear to show that the substance of those things which
exist is meant; while the others, “He commanded, and they were created,”
seem spoken of the qualities by which the substance itself has been
moulded.
Footnote 148:
The words “in aquis” are omitted in Redepenning’s edition.
Footnote 149:
The original of this sentence is found at the close of the Emperor
Justinian’s epistle to Menas, patriarch of Constantinople, and,
literally translated, is as follows: “The world being so very varied,
and containing so many different rational beings, what else ought we
to say was the cause of its existence than the diversity of the
falling away of those who decline from unity (τῆς ἑνάδος) in different
ways?”—RUÆUS. Lommatzsch adds a clause not contained in the note of
the Benedictine editor: “and sometimes the soul selects the life that
is in water” (ἔνυδρον).
Footnote 150:
Lit. “into various qualities of minds.”
Footnote 151:
“Et diversi motus propositi earum (rationabilium subsistentiarum) ad
unius mundi consonantiam competenter atque utiliter aptarentur, dum
aliæ juvari indigent, aliæ juvare possunt, aliæ vero proficientibus
certamina atque agones movent, in quibus eorum probabilior haberetur
industria, et certior post victoriam reparati gradus statio teneretur,
quæ per difficultates laborantium constitisset.”
Footnote 152:
Jer. xxiii. 24.
Footnote 153:
Isa. lxvi. 1.
Footnote 154:
Matt. v. 34.
Footnote 155:
Acts xvii. 28.
Footnote 156:
2 Mac. vii. 28.
Footnote 157:
_Hermæ Past._ B. ii.; cf. Apostolic Fathers (Ante-Nicene Library), p.
349.
Footnote 158:
Ps. cxlviii. 5.
CHAPTER II.
ON THE PERPETUITY OF BODILY NATURE.
1. On this topic some are wont to inquire whether, as the Father
generates an uncreated Son, and brings forth a Holy Spirit, not as if He
had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and
source of the Son or Holy Spirit, and no anteriority or posteriority can
be understood as existing in them; so also a similar kind of union or
relationship can be understood as subsisting between rational natures
and bodily matter. And that this point may be more fully and thoroughly
examined, the commencement of the discussion is generally directed to
the inquiry whether this very bodily nature, which bears the lives and
contains the movements of spiritual and rational minds, will be equally
eternal with them, or will altogether perish and be destroyed. And that
the question may be determined with greater precision, we have, in the
first place, to inquire if it is possible for rational natures to remain
altogether incorporeal after they have reached the summit of holiness
and happiness (which seems to me a most difficult and almost impossible
attainment), or whether they must always of necessity be united to
bodies. If, then, any one could show a reason why it was possible for
them to dispense wholly with bodies, it will appear to follow, that as a
bodily nature, created out of nothing after intervals of time, was
produced when it did not exist, so also it must cease to be when the
purposes which it served had no longer an existence.
2. If, however, it is impossible for this point to be at all maintained,
viz. that any other nature than the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can
live without a body, the necessity of logical reasoning compels us to
understand that rational natures were indeed created at the beginning,
but that material substance was separated from them only in thought and
understanding, and appears to have been formed for them, or after them,
and that they never have lived nor do live without it; for an
incorporeal life will rightly be considered a prerogative of the Trinity
alone. As we have remarked above, therefore, that material substance of
this world, possessing a nature admitting of all possible
transformations, is, when dragged down to beings of a lower order,
moulded into the crasser and more solid condition of a body, so as to
distinguish those visible and varying forms of the world; but when it
becomes the servant of more perfect and more blessed beings, it shines
in the splendour of celestial bodies, and adorns either the angels of
God or the sons of the resurrection with the clothing of a spiritual
body, out of all which will be filled up the diverse and varying state
of the one world. But if any one should desire to discuss these matters
more fully, it will be necessary, with all reverence and fear of God, to
examine the sacred Scriptures with greater attention and diligence, to
ascertain whether the secret and hidden sense within them may perhaps
reveal anything regarding these matters; and something may be discovered
in their abstruse and mysterious language, through the demonstration of
the Holy Spirit to those who are worthy, after many testimonies have
been collected on this very point.
CHAPTER III.
ON THE BEGINNING OF THE WORLD, AND ITS CAUSES.
1. The next subject of inquiry is, whether there was any other world
before the one which now exists; and if so, whether it was such as the
present, or somewhat different, or inferior; or whether there was no
world at all, but something like that which we understand will be after
the end of all things, when the kingdom shall be delivered up to God,
even the Father; which nevertheless may have been the end of another
world,—of that, namely, after which this world took its beginning; and
whether the various lapses of intellectual natures provoked God to
produce this diverse and varying condition of the world. This point
also, I think, must be investigated in a similar way, viz. whether after
this world there will be any [system of] preservation and amendment,
severe indeed, and attended with much pain to those who were unwilling
to obey the word of God, but a process through which, by means of
instruction and rational training, those may arrive at a fuller
understanding of the truth who have devoted themselves in the present
life to these pursuits, and who, after having had their minds purified,
have advanced onwards so as to become capable of attaining divine
wisdom; and after this the end of all things will immediately follow,
and there will be again, for the correction and improvement of those who
stand in need of it, another world, either resembling that which now
exists, or better than it, or greatly inferior; and how long that world,
whatever it be that is to come after this, shall continue; and if there
will be a time when no world shall anywhere exist, or if there has been
a time when there was no world at all; or if there have been, or will be
several; or if it shall ever come to pass that there will be one
resembling another, like it in every respect, and indistinguishable from
it.
2. That it may appear more clearly, then, whether bodily matter can
exist during intervals of time, and whether, as it did not exist before
it was made, so it may again be resolved into non-existence, let us see,
first of all, whether it is possible for any one to live without a body.
For if one person can live without a body, all things also may dispense
with them; seeing our former treatise has shown that all things tend
towards one end. Now, if all things may exist without bodies, there will
undoubtedly be no bodily substance, seeing there will be no use for it.
But how shall we understand the words of the apostle in those passages,
in which, discussing the resurrection of the dead, he says, “This
corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on
immortality. When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and
this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass
the saying which is written, Death is swallowed up in victory! Where, O
death, is thy victory? O death, thy sting has been swallowed up: the
sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law.”[159] Some
such meaning, then, as this seems to be suggested by the apostle. For
can the expression which he employs, “this corruptible,” and “this
mortal,” with the gesture, as it were, of one who touches or points out,
apply to anything else than to bodily matter? This matter of the body,
then, which is now corruptible shall put on incorruption when a perfect
soul, and one furnished with the marks[160] of incorruption, shall have
begun to inhabit it. And do not be surprised if we speak of a perfect
soul as the clothing of the body (which, on account of the Word of God
and His wisdom, is now named incorruption), when Jesus Christ Himself,
who is the Lord and Creator of the soul, is said to be the clothing of
the saints, according to the language of the apostle, “Put ye on the
Lord Jesus Christ.”[161] As Christ, then, is the clothing of the soul,
so for a kind of reason sufficiently intelligible is the soul said to be
the clothing of the body, seeing it is an ornament to it, covering and
concealing its mortal nature. The expression, then, “This corruptible
must put on incorruption,” is as if the apostle had said, “This
corruptible nature of the body must receive the clothing of
incorruption—a soul possessing in itself incorruptibility,” because it
has been clothed with Christ, who is the Wisdom and Word of God. But
when this body, which at some future period we shall possess in a more
glorious state, shall have become a partaker of life, it will then, in
addition to being immortal, become also incorruptible. For whatever is
mortal is necessarily also corruptible; but whatever is corruptible
cannot also be said to be mortal. We say of a stone or a piece of wood
that it is corruptible, but we do not say that it follows that it is
also mortal. But as the body partakes of life, then because life may be,
and is, separated from it, we consequently name it mortal, and according
to another sense also we speak of it as corruptible. The holy apostle
therefore, with remarkable insight, referring to the general first cause
of bodily matter, of which [matter], whatever be the qualities with
which it is endowed (now indeed carnal, but by and by more refined and
pure, which are termed spiritual), the soul makes constant use, says,
“This corruptible must put on incorruption.” And in the second place,
looking to the special cause of the body, he says, “This mortal must put
on immortality.” Now, what else will incorruption and immortality be,
save the wisdom, and the word, and the righteousness of God, which
mould, and clothe, and adorn the soul? And hence it happens that it is
said, “The corruptible will put on incorruption, and the mortal
immortality.” For although we may now make great proficiency, yet as we
only know in part, and prophesy in part, and see through a glass,
darkly, those very things which we seem to understand, this corruptible
does not yet put on incorruption, nor is this mortal yet clothed with
immortality; and as this training of ours in the body is protracted
doubtless to a longer period, up to the time, viz., when those very
bodies of ours with which we are enveloped may, on account of the word
of God, and His wisdom and perfect righteousness, earn incorruptibility
and immortality, therefore is it said, “This corruptible must put on
incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.”
3. But, nevertheless, those who think that rational creatures can at any
time lead an existence out of the body, may here raise such questions as
the following. If it is true that this corruptible shall put on
incorruption, and this mortal put on immortality, and that death is
swallowed up at the end; this shows that nothing else than a material
nature is to be destroyed, on which death could operate, while the
mental acumen of those who are in the body seems to be blunted by the
nature of corporeal matter. If, however, they are out of the body, then
they will altogether escape the annoyance arising from a disturbance of
that kind. But as they will not be able immediately to escape all bodily
clothing, they are just to be considered as inhabiting more refined and
purer bodies, which possess the property of being no longer overcome by
death, or of being wounded by its sting; so that at last, by the gradual
disappearance of the material nature, death is both swallowed up, and
even at the end exterminated, and all its sting completely blunted by
the divine grace which the soul has been rendered capable of receiving,
and has thus deserved to obtain incorruptibility and immortality. And
then it will be deservedly said by all, “O death, where is thy victory?
O death, where is thy sting? The sting of death is sin.” If these
conclusions, then, seem to hold good, it follows that we must believe
our condition at some future time to be incorporeal; and if this is
admitted, and all are said to be subjected to Christ, this
[incorporeity] also must necessarily be bestowed on all to whom the
subjection to Christ extends; since all who are subject to Christ will
be in the end subject to God the Father, to whom Christ is said to
deliver up the kingdom; and thus it appears that then also the need of
bodies will cease.[162] And if it ceases, bodily matter returns to
nothing, as formerly also it did not exist.
Now let us see what can be said in answer to those who make these
assertions. For it will appear to be a necessary consequence that, if
bodily nature be annihilated, it must be again restored and created;
since it seems a possible thing that rational natures, from whom the
faculty of free-will is never taken away, may be again subjected to
movements of some kind, through the special act of the Lord Himself,
lest perhaps, if they were always to occupy a condition that was
unchangeable, they should be ignorant that it is by the grace of God and
not by their own merit that they have been placed in that final state of
happiness; and these movements will undoubtedly again be attended by
variety and diversity of bodies, by which the world is always adorned;
nor will it ever be composed [of anything] save of variety and
diversity,—an effect which cannot be produced without a bodily matter.
4. And now I do not understand by what proofs they can maintain their
position, who assert that worlds sometimes come into existence which are
not dissimilar to each other, but in all respects equal. For if there is
said to be a world similar in all respects [to the present], then it
will come to pass that Adam and Eve will do the same things which they
did before: there will be a second time the same deluge, and the same
Moses will again lead a nation numbering nearly six hundred thousand out
of Egypt; Judas will also a second time betray the Lord; Paul will a
second time keep the garments of those who stoned Stephen; and
everything which has been done in this life will be said to be
repeated,—a state of things which I think cannot be established by any
reasoning, if souls are actuated by freedom of will, and maintain either
their advance or retrogression according to the power of their will. For
souls are not driven on in a cycle which returns after many ages to the
same round, so as either to do or desire this or that; but at whatever
point the freedom of their own will aims, thither do they direct the
course of their actions. For what these persons say is much the same as
if one were to assert that if a medimnus of grain were to be poured out
on the ground, the fall of the grain would be on the second occasion
identically the same as on the first, so that every individual grain
would lie for the second time close beside that grain where it had been
thrown before, and so the medimnus would be scattered in the same order,
and with the same marks as formerly; which certainly is an impossible
result with the countless grains of a medimnus, even if they were to be
poured out without ceasing for many ages. So therefore it seems to me
impossible for a world to be restored for the second time, with the same
order and with the same amount of births, and deaths, and actions; but
that a diversity of worlds may exist with changes of no unimportant
kind, so that the state of another world may be for some unmistakeable
reasons better [than this], and for others worse, and for others again
intermediate. But what may be the number or measure of this I confess
myself ignorant, although, if any one can tell it, I would gladly learn.
5. But this world, which is itself called an age, is said to be the
conclusion of many ages. Now the holy apostle teaches that in that age
which preceded this, Christ did not suffer, nor even in the age which
preceded that again; and I know not that I am able to enumerate the
number of anterior ages in which He did not suffer. I will show,
however, from what statements of Paul I have arrived at this
understanding. He says, “But now once in the consummation of ages, He
was manifested to take away sin by the sacrifice of Himself.”[163] For
he says that He was once made a victim, and in the consummation of ages
was manifested to take away sin. Now that after this age, which is said
to be formed for the consummation of other ages, there will be other
ages again to follow, we have clearly learned from Paul himself, who
says, “That in the ages to come He might show the exceeding riches of
His grace in His kindness towards us.”[164] He has not said, “in the age
to come,” nor “in the two ages to come,” whence I infer that by his
language many ages are indicated. Now if there is something greater than
ages, so that among created beings certain ages may be understood, but
among other beings which exceed and surpass visible creatures, [ages
still greater] (which perhaps will be the case at the restitution of all
things, when the whole universe will come to a perfect termination),
perhaps that period in which the consummation of all things will take
place is to be understood as something more than an age. But here the
authority of holy Scripture moves me, which says, “For an age and
more.”[165] Now this word “more” undoubtedly means something greater
than an age; and see if that expression of the Saviour, “I will that
where I am, these also may be with me; and as I and Thou are one, these
also may be one in us,”[166] may not seem to convey something more than
an age and ages, perhaps even more than ages of ages,—that period, viz.,
when all things are now no longer in an age, but when God is in all.
6. Having discussed these points regarding the nature of the world to
the best of our ability, it does not seem out of place to inquire what
is the meaning of the term world, which in holy Scripture is shown
frequently to have different significations. For what we call in Latin
_mundus_, is termed in Greek κόσμος, and κόσμος signifies not only a
world, but also an ornament. Finally, in Isaiah, where the language of
reproof is directed to the chief daughters of Sion, and where he says,
“Instead of an ornament of a golden head, thou wilt have baldness on
account of thy works,”[167] he employs the same term to denote ornament
as to denote the world, viz. κόσμος. For the plan of the world is said
to be contained in the clothing of the high priest, as we find in the
Wisdom of Solomon, where he says, “For in the long garment was the whole
world.”[168] That earth of ours, with its inhabitants, is also termed
the world, as when Scripture says, “The whole world lieth in
wickedness.”[169] Clement indeed, a disciple of the apostles, makes
mention of those whom the Greeks called Ἀντίχθονες, and other parts of
the earth, to which no one of our people can approach, nor can any one
of those who are there cross over to us, which he also termed worlds,
saying, “The ocean is impassable to men; and those are worlds which are
on the other side of it, which are governed by these same arrangements
of the ruling God.”[170] That universe which is bounded by heaven and
earth is also called a world, as Paul declares: “For the fashion of this
world will pass away.”[171] Our Lord and Saviour also points out a
certain other world besides this visible one, which it would indeed be
difficult to describe and make known. He says, “I am not of this
world.”[172] For, as if He were of a certain other world, He says, “I am
not of this world.” Now, of this world we have said beforehand, that the
explanation was difficult; and for this reason, that there might not be
afforded to any an occasion of entertaining the supposition that we
maintain the existence of certain images which the Greeks call “ideas:”
for it is certainly alien to our [writers] to speak of an incorporeal
world existing in the imagination alone, or in the fleeting world of
thoughts; and how they can assert either that the Saviour comes from
thence, or that the saints will go thither, I do not see. There is no
doubt, however, that something more illustrious and excellent than this
present world is pointed out by the Saviour, at which He incites and
encourages believers to aim. But whether that world to which He desires
to allude be far separated and divided from this, either by situation,
or nature, or glory; or whether it be superior in glory and quality, but
confined within the limits of this world (which seems to me more
probable), is nevertheless uncertain, and in my opinion an unsuitable
subject for human thought. But from what Clement seems to indicate when
he says, “The ocean is impassable to men, and those worlds which are
behind it,” speaking in the plural number of the worlds which are behind
it, which he intimates are administered and governed by the same
providence of the Most High God, he appears to throw out to us some
germs of that view by which the whole universe of existing things,
celestial and super-celestial, earthly and infernal, is generally called
one perfect world, within which, or by which, other worlds, if any there
are, must be supposed to be contained. For which reason he wished the
globe of the sun or moon, and of the other bodies called planets, to be
each termed worlds. Nay, even that pre-eminent globe itself which they
call the non-wandering (ἀπλανῆ), they nevertheless desire to have
properly called world. Finally, they summon the book of Baruch the
prophet to bear witness to this assertion, because in it the seven
worlds or heavens are more clearly pointed out. Nevertheless, above that
sphere which they call non-wandering (ἀπλανῆ), they will have another
sphere to exist, which they say, exactly as our heaven contains all
things which are under it, comprehends by its immense size and
indescribable extent the spaces of all the spheres together within its
more magnificent circumference; so that all things are within it, as
this earth of ours is under heaven. And this also is believed to be
called in the holy Scriptures the good land, and the land of the living,
having its own heaven, which is higher, and in which the names of the
saints are said to be written, or to have been written, by the Saviour;
by which heaven that earth is confined and shut in, which the Saviour in
the Gospel promises to the meek and merciful. For they would have this
earth of ours, which formerly was named “Dry,” to have derived its
appellation from the name of that earth, as this heaven also was named
firmament from the title of that heaven. But we have treated at greater
length of such opinions in the place where we had to inquire into the
meaning of the declaration, that in the beginning “God made the heavens
and the earth.” For another heaven and another earth are shown to exist
besides that “firmament” which is said to have been made after the
second day, or that “dry land” which was afterwards called “earth.”
Certainly, what some say of this world, that it is corruptible because
it was made, and yet is not corrupted, because the will of God, who made
it and holds it together lest corruption should rule over it, is
stronger and more powerful than corruption, may more correctly be
supposed of that world which we have called above a “non-wandering”
sphere, since by the will of God it is not at all subject to corruption,
for the reason that it has not admitted any causes of corruption, seeing
it is the world of the saints and of the thoroughly purified, and not of
the wicked, like that world of ours. We must see, moreover, lest perhaps
it is with reference to this that the apostle says, “While we look not
at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for
the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are unseen
are eternal. For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle
were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens.”[173] And when he says elsewhere, “Because I
shall see the heavens, the works of Thy fingers,”[174] and when God
said, regarding all things visible, by the mouth of His prophet, “My
hand has formed all these things,”[175] He declares that that eternal
house in the heavens which He promises to His saints was not made with
hands, pointing out, doubtless, the difference of creation in things
which are seen and in those which are not seen. For the same thing is
not to be understood by the expressions, “those things which are not
seen,” and “those things which are invisible.” For those things which
are invisible are not only not seen, but do not even possess the
property of visibility, being what the Greeks call ἀσώματα, _i.e._
incorporeal; whereas those of which Paul says, “They are not seen,”
possess indeed the property of being seen, but, as he explains, are not
yet beheld by those to whom they are promised.
7. Having sketched, then, so far as we could understand, these three
opinions regarding the end of all things, and the supreme blessedness,
let each one of our readers determine for himself, with care and
diligence, whether any one of them can be approved and adopted.[176] For
it has been said that we must suppose either that an incorporeal
existence is possible, after all things have become subject to Christ,
and through Christ to God the Father, when God will be all and in all;
or that when, notwithstanding all things have been made subject to
Christ, and through Christ to God (with whom they formed also one
spirit, in respect of spirits being rational natures), then the bodily
substance itself also being united to most pure and excellent spirits,
and being changed into an ethereal condition in proportion to the
quality or merits of those who assume it (according to the apostle’s
words, “We also shall be changed”), will shine forth in splendour; or at
least that when the fashion of those things which are seen passes away,
and all corruption has been shaken off and cleansed away, and when the
whole of the space occupied by this world, in which the spheres of the
planets are said to be, has been left behind and beneath,[177] then is
reached the fixed abode of the pious and the good situated above that
sphere, which is called non-wandering (ἀπλανής), as in a good land, in a
land of the living, which will be inherited by the meek and gentle; to
which land belongs that heaven (which, with its more magnificent extent,
surrounds and contains that land itself) which is called truly and
chiefly heaven, in which heaven and earth, the end and perfection of all
things, may be safely and most confidently placed,—where, viz., these,
after their apprehension and their chastisement for the offences which
they have undergone by way of purgation, may, after having fulfilled and
discharged every obligation, deserve a habitation in that land; while
those who have been obedient to the word of God, and have henceforth by
their obedience shown themselves capable of wisdom, are said to deserve
the kingdom of that heaven or heavens; and thus the prediction is more
worthily fulfilled, “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the
earth;”[178] and, “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for they shall
inherit the kingdom of heaven;”[179] and the declaration in the Psalm,
“He shall exalt thee, and thou shalt inherit the land.”[180] For it is
called a descent to this earth, but an exaltation to that which is on
high. In this way, therefore, does a sort of road seem to be opened up
by the departure of the saints from that earth to those heavens; so that
they do not so much appear to abide in that land, as to inhabit it with
an intention, viz., to pass on to the inheritance of the kingdom of
heaven, when they have reached that degree of perfection also.
Footnote 159:
1 Cor. xv. 53-56; cf. Hos. xiii. 14 and Isa. xxv. 8.
Footnote 160:
Dogmatibus. Schnitzer says that “dogmatibus” here yields no sense. He
conjectures δειγμασι, and renders “proofs,” “marks.”
Footnote 161:
Rom. xiii. 14.
Footnote 162:
This passage is found in Jerome’s epistle to Avitus; and, literally
translated, his rendering is as follows: “If these (views) are not
contrary to the faith, we shall perhaps at some future time live
without bodies. But if he who is perfectly subject to Christ is
understood to be without a body, and all are to be subjected to
Christ, we also shall be without bodies when we have been completely
subjected to Him. If all have been subjected to God, all will lay
aside their bodies, and the whole nature of bodily things will be
dissolved into nothing; but if, in the second place, necessity shall
demand, it will again come into existence on account of the fall of
rational creatures. For God has abandoned souls to struggle and
wrestling, that they may understand that they have obtained a full and
perfect victory, not by their own bravery, but by the grace of God.
And therefore I think that for a variety of causes are different
worlds created, and the errors of those refuted who contend that
worlds resemble each other.” A fragment of the Greek original of the
above is found in the epistle of Justinian to the patriarch of
Constantinople. “If the things subject to Christ shall at the end be
subjected also to God, all will lay aside their bodies; and then, I
think, there will be a dissolution (ἀνάλυσις) of the nature of bodies
into non-existence (εἰς τὸ μὴ ὄν), to come a second time into
existence, if rational (beings) should again gradually come down
(ὑποκαταβῇ).”
Footnote 163:
Heb. ix. 26.
Footnote 164:
Eph. ii. 7.
Footnote 165:
In sæculum et adhuc.
Footnote 166:
Cf. John xvii. 24, 21, 22.
Footnote 167:
Cf. Isa. iii. 24. Origen here quotes the Septuagint, which differs
both from the Hebrew and the Vulgate: καὶ ἀντὶ τοῦ κόσμου τῆς κεφαλῆς
τοῦ χρυσίου φαλάκρωμα ἕξεις διὰ τὰ ἔργα.
Footnote 168:
Wisd. xviii. 24. Poderis, lit. “reaching to the feet.”
Footnote 169:
1 John v. 19.
Footnote 170:
Clemens Rom. i. Ep. ad Cor. c. 20.
Footnote 171:
1 Cor. vii. 31.
Footnote 172:
John xvii. 16.
Footnote 173:
2 Cor. iv. 18-v. 1.
Footnote 174:
Ps. viii. 3.
Footnote 175:
Isa. lxvi. 2.
Footnote 176:
This passage is found in Jerome’s letter to Avitus, and, literally
translated, is as follows: “A threefold suspicion, therefore, is
suggested to us regarding the end, of which the reader may examine
which is the true and the better one. For we shall either live without
a body, when, being subject to Christ, we shall be subject to God, and
God shall be all in all; or, as things subject to Christ will be
subject along with Christ Himself to God, and enclosed in one
covenant, so all substance will be reduced to the best quality and
dissolved into an ether, which is of a purer and simpler nature; or at
least that sphere which we have called above ἀπλανῆ, and whatever is
contained within its circumference (_circulo_), will be dissolved into
nothing, but that one by which the anti-zone (ἀντιζώνη) itself is held
together and surrounded will be called a good land; and, moreover,
another sphere which surrounds this very earth itself with its
revolution, and is called heaven, will be preserved for a habitation
of the saints.”
Footnote 177:
Omnique hoc mundi statu, in quo planetarum dicuntur sphæræ,
supergresso atque superato.
Footnote 178:
Matt. v. 5.
Footnote 179:
Matt. v. 3.
Footnote 180:
Ps. xxxvii. 34.
CHAPTER IV.
THE GOD OF THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS, AND THE FATHER OF OUR LORD JESUS
CHRIST, IS THE SAME GOD.
1. Having now briefly arranged these points in order as we best could,
it follows that, agreeably to our intention from the first, we refute
those who think that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is a different
God from Him who gave the answers of the law to Moses, or commissioned
the prophets, who is the God of our fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.
For in this article of faith, first of all, we must be firmly grounded.
We have to consider, then, the expression of frequent recurrence in the
Gospels, and subjoined to all the acts of our Lord and Saviour, “that it
might be fulfilled which was spoken by this or that prophet,” it being
manifest that the prophets are the prophets of that God who made the
world. From this therefore we draw the conclusion, that He who sent the
prophets, Himself predicted what was to be foretold of Christ. And there
is no doubt that the Father Himself, and not another different from Him,
uttered these predictions. The practice, moreover, of the Saviour or His
apostles, frequently quoting illustrations from the Old Testament, shows
that they attribute authority to the ancients. The injunction also of
the Saviour, when exhorting His disciples to the exercise of kindness,
“Be ye perfect, even as your Father who is in heaven is perfect; for He
commands His sun to rise upon the evil and the good, and sendeth rain on
the just and on the unjust,”[181] most evidently suggests even to a
person of feeble understanding, that He is proposing to the imitation of
His disciples no other God than the maker of heaven and the bestower of
the rain. Again, what else does the expression, which ought to be used
by those who pray, “Our Father who art in heaven,”[182] appear to
indicate, save that God is to be sought in the better parts of the
world, _i.e._ of His creation? Further, do not those admirable
principles which He lays down respecting oaths, saying that we ought not
to “swear either by heaven, because it is the throne of God; nor by the
earth, because it is His footstool,”[183] harmonize most clearly with
the words of the prophet, “Heaven is my throne, and the earth is my
footstool?”[184] And also when casting out of the temple those who sold
sheep, and oxen, and doves, and pouring out the tables of the
money-changers, and saying, “Take these things hence, and do not make my
Father’s house a house of merchandise,”[185] He undoubtedly called Him
his Father, to whose name Solomon had raised a magnificent temple. The
words, moreover, “Have ye not read what was spoken by God to Moses: I am
the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; He is
not a God of the dead, but of the living,”[186] most clearly teach us,
that He called the God of the patriarchs (because they were holy, and
were alive) the God of the living, the same, viz., who had said in the
prophets, “I am God, and besides me there is no God.”[187] For if the
Saviour, knowing that He who is written in the law is the God of
Abraham, and that it is the same who says, “I am God, and besides me
there is no God,” acknowledges that very one to be His Father who is
ignorant of the existence of any other God above Himself, as the
heretics suppose, He absurdly declares Him to be His Father who does not
know of a greater God. But if it is not from ignorance, but from deceit,
that He says there is no other God than Himself, then it is a much
greater absurdity to confess that His Father is guilty of falsehood.
From all which this conclusion is arrived at, that He knows of no other
Father than God, the Founder and Creator of all things.
2. It would be tedious to collect out of all the passages in the Gospels
the proofs by which the God of the law and of the Gospels is shown to be
one and the same. Let us touch briefly upon the Acts of the
Apostles,[188] where Stephen and the other apostles address their
prayers to that God who made heaven and earth, and who spoke by the
mouth of His holy prophets, calling Him the “God of Abraham, of Isaac,
and of Jacob;” the God who “brought forth His people out of the land of
Egypt.” Which expressions undoubtedly clearly direct our understandings
to faith in the Creator, and implant an affection for Him in those who
have learned piously and faithfully thus to think of Him; according to
the words of the Saviour Himself, who, when He was asked which was the
greatest commandment in the law, replied, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as
thyself.” And to these He added: “On these two commandments hang all the
law and the prophets.”[189] How is it, then, that He commends to him
whom He was instructing, and was leading to enter on the office of a
disciple, this commandment above all others, by which undoubtedly love
was to be kindled in him towards the God of that law, inasmuch as such
had been declared by the law in these very words? But let it be granted,
notwithstanding all these most evident proofs, that it is of some other
unknown God that the Saviour says, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God
with all thy heart,” etc. etc. How, in that case, if the law and the
prophets are, as they say, from the Creator, _i.e._ from another God
than He whom He calls good, shall that appear to be logically said which
He subjoins, viz. that “on these two commandments hang the law and the
prophets?” For how shall that which is strange and foreign to God depend
upon Him? And when Paul says, “I thank my God, whom I serve in my spirit
from my forefathers with pure conscience,”[190] he clearly shows that he
came not to some new God, but to Christ. For what other forefathers of
Paul can be intended, except those of whom he says, “Are they Hebrews?
so am I: are they Israelites? so am I.”[191] Nay, will not the very
preface of his Epistle to the Romans clearly show the same thing to
those who know how to understand the letters of Paul, viz. what God he
preaches? For his words are: “Paul, the servant of Jesus Christ, called
to be an apostle, set apart to the gospel of God, which He had promised
afore by His prophets in the holy Scriptures concerning His Son, who was
made of the seed of David according to the flesh, and who was declared
to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by
the resurrection from the dead of Christ Jesus our Lord,”[192] etc.
Moreover, also the following, “Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox
that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? or saith he it
altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that
he that plougheth should plough in hope, and he that thresheth in hope
of partaking of the fruits.”[193] By which he manifestly shows that God,
who gave the law on our account, _i.e._ on account of the apostles,
says, “Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the
corn;” whose care was not for oxen, but for the apostles, who were
preaching the gospel of Christ. In other passages also, Paul, embracing
the promises of the law, says, “Honour thy father and thy mother, which
is the first commandment with promise; that it may be well with thee,
and that thy days may be long upon the land, the good land, which the
Lord thy God will give thee.”[194] By which he undoubtedly makes known
that the law, and the God of the law, and His promises, are pleasing to
him.
3. But as those who uphold this heresy are sometimes accustomed to
mislead the hearts of the simple by certain deceptive sophisms, I do not
consider it improper to bring forward the assertions which they are in
the habit of making, and to refute their deceit and falsehood. The
following, then, are their declarations. It is written, that “no man
hath seen God at any time.”[195] But that God whom Moses preaches was
both seen by Moses himself, and by his fathers before him; whereas He
who is announced by the Saviour has never been seen at all by any one.
Let us therefore ask them and ourselves whether they maintain that he
whom they acknowledge to be God, and allege to be a different God from
the Creator, is visible or invisible. And if they shall say that he is
visible, besides being proved to go against the declaration of
Scripture, which says of the Saviour, “He is the image of the invisible
God, the first-born of every creature,”[196] they will fall also into
the absurdity of asserting that God is corporeal. For nothing can be
seen except by help of form, and size, and colour, which are special
properties of bodies. And if God is declared to be a body, then He will
also be found to be material, since every body is composed of matter.
But if He be composed of matter, and matter is undoubtedly corruptible,
then, according to them, God is liable to corruption! We shall put to
them a second question. Is matter made, or is it uncreated, _i.e._ not
made? And if they shall answer that it is not made, _i.e._ uncreated, we
shall ask them if one portion of matter is God, and the other part the
world? But if they shall say of matter that it is made, it will
undoubtedly follow that they confess Him whom they declare to be God to
have been made!—a result which certainly neither their reason nor ours
can admit. But they will say, God is invisible. And what will you do? If
you say that He is invisible by nature, then neither ought He to be
visible to the Saviour. Whereas, on the contrary, God, the Father of
Christ, is said to be seen, because “he who sees the Son,” he says,
“sees also the Father.”[197] This certainly would press us very hard,
were the expression not understood by us more correctly of
understanding, and not of seeing. For he who has understood the Son will
understand the Father also. In this way, then, Moses too must be
supposed to have seen God, not beholding Him with the bodily eye, but
understanding Him with the vision of the heart and the perception of the
mind, and that only in some degree. For it is manifest that He, viz.,
who gave answers to Moses, said, “You shall not see my face, but my
hinder parts.”[198] These words are, of course, to be understood in that
mystical sense which is befitting divine words, those old wives’ fables
being rejected and despised which are invented by ignorant persons
respecting the anterior and posterior parts of God. Let no one indeed
suppose that we have indulged any feeling of impiety in saying that even
to the Saviour the Father is not visible. Let him consider the
distinction which we employ in dealing with heretics. For we have
explained that it is one thing to see and to be seen, and another to
know and to be known, or to understand and to be understood.[199] To
see, then, and to be seen, is a property of bodies, which certainly will
not be appropriately applied either to the Father, or to the Son, or to
the Holy Spirit, in their mutual relations with one another. For the
nature of the Trinity surpasses the measure of vision, granting to those
who are in the body, _i.e._ to all other creatures, the property of
vision in reference to one another. But to a nature that is incorporeal
and for the most part intellectual, no other attribute is appropriate
save that of knowing or being known, as the Saviour Himself declares
when He says, “No man knoweth the Son, save the Father; nor does any one
know the Father, save the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal
Him.”[200] It is clear, then, that He has not said, “No one has seen the
Father, save the Son;” but, “No one knoweth the Father, save the Son.”
4. And now, if, on account of those expressions which occur in the Old
Testament, as when God is said to be angry or to repent, or when any
other human affection or passion is described, [our opponents] think
that they are furnished with grounds for refuting us, who maintain that
God is altogether impassible, and is to be regarded as wholly free from
all affections of that kind, we have to show them that similar
statements are found even in the parables of the Gospel; as when it is
said, that he who planted a vineyard, and let it out to husbandmen, who
slew the servants that were sent to them, and at last put to death even
the son, is said in anger to have taken away the vineyard from them, and
to have delivered over the wicked husbandmen to destruction, and to have
handed over the vineyard to others, who would yield him the fruit in its
season. And so also with regard to those citizens who, when the head of
the household had set out to receive for himself a kingdom, sent
messengers after him, saying, “We will not have this man to reign over
us;”[201] for the head of the household having obtained the kingdom,
returned, and in anger commanded them to be put to death before him, and
burned their city with fire. But when we read either in the Old
Testament or in the New of the anger of God, we do not take such
expressions literally, but seek in them a spiritual meaning, that we may
think of God as He deserves to be thought of. And on these points, when
expounding the verse in the second Psalm, “Then shall He speak to them
in His anger, and trouble them in His fury,”[202] we showed, to the best
of our poor ability, how such an expression ought to be understood.
Footnote 181:
Matt. v. 48, 49.
Footnote 182:
Matt. vi. 9.
Footnote 183:
Matt. v. 34, 35.
Footnote 184:
Isa. lxvi. 1.
Footnote 185:
John ii. 16.
Footnote 186:
Matt. xxii. 32; cf. Ex. iii. 6.
Footnote 187:
Isa. xlv. 6.
Footnote 188:
Acts vii.
Footnote 189:
Matt. xxii. 37, 39, 40.
Footnote 190:
2 Tim. i. 3.
Footnote 191:
2 Cor. xi. 22.
Footnote 192:
Rom. i. 1-4.
Footnote 193:
1 Cor. ix. 9, 10; cf. Deut. xxv. 4.
Footnote 194:
Eph. vi. 2, 3; cf. Ex. xx. 12.
Footnote 195:
John i. 18.
Footnote 196:
Col. i. 15.
Footnote 197:
John xiv. 9.
Footnote 198:
Ex. xxxiii. 20, cf. 23.
Footnote 199:
Aliud sit videre et videri, et aliud nôsse et nosci, vel cognoscere
atque cognosci.
Footnote 200:
Matt. xi. 27.
Footnote 201:
Luke xix. 14.
Footnote 202:
Ps. ii. 5.
CHAPTER V.
ON JUSTICE AND GOODNESS.
1. Now, since this consideration has weight with some, that the leaders
of that heresy (of which we have been speaking) think they have
established a kind of division, according to which they have declared
that justice is one thing and goodness another, and have applied this
division even to divine things, maintaining that the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ is indeed a good God, but not a just one, whereas the God
of the law and the prophets is just, but not good; I think it necessary
to return, with as much brevity as possible, an answer to these
statements. These persons, then, consider goodness to be some such
affection as would have benefits conferred on all, although the
recipient of them be unworthy and undeserving of any kindness; but here,
in my opinion, they have not rightly applied their definition, inasmuch
as they think that no benefit is conferred on him who is visited with
any suffering or calamity. Justice, on the other hand, they view as that
quality which rewards every one according to his deserts. But here,
again, they do not rightly interpret the meaning of their own
definition. For they think that it is just to send evils upon the wicked
and benefits upon the good; _i.e._ so that, according to their view, the
just God does not appear to wish well to the bad, but to be animated by
a kind of hatred against them. And they gather together instances of
this, wherever they find a history in the Scriptures of the Old
Testament, relating, _e.g._, the punishment of the deluge, or the fate
of those who are described as perishing in it, or the destruction of
Sodom and Gomorrha by a shower of fire and brimstone, or the falling of
all the people in the wilderness on account of their sins, so that none
of those who had left Egypt were found to have entered the promised
land, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb. Whereas from the New
Testament they gather together words of compassion and piety, through
which the disciples are trained by the Saviour, and by which it seems to
be declared that no one is good save God the Father only; and by this
means they have ventured to style the Father of the Saviour Jesus Christ
a good God, but to say that the God of the world is a different one,
whom they are pleased to term just, but not also good.
2. Now I think they must, in the first place, be required to show, if
they can, agreeably to their own definition, that the Creator is just in
punishing according to their deserts, either those who perished at the
time of the deluge, or the inhabitants of Sodom, or those who had
quitted Egypt, seeing we sometimes behold committed crimes more wicked
and detestable than those for which the above-mentioned persons were
destroyed, while we do not yet see every sinner paying the penalty of
his misdeeds. Will they say that He who at one time was just has been
made good? Or will they rather be of opinion that He is even now just,
but is patiently enduring human offences, while that then He was not
even just, inasmuch as He exterminated innocent and sucking children
along with cruel and ungodly giants? Now, such are their opinions,
because they know not how to understand anything beyond the letter;
otherwise they would show how it is literal justice for sins to be
visited upon the heads of children to the third and fourth generation,
and on children’s children after them. By us, however, such things are
not understood literally; but, as Ezekiel taught[203] when relating the
parable, we inquire what is the inner meaning contained in the parable
itself. Moreover, they ought to explain this also, how He is just, and
rewards every one according to his merits, who punishes earthly-minded
persons and the devil, seeing they have done nothing worthy of
punishment. For they could not do any good if, according to them, they
were of a wicked and ruined nature. For as they style Him a judge, He
appears to be a judge not so much of actions as of natures; and if a bad
nature cannot do good, neither can a good nature do evil. Then, in the
next place, if He whom they call good is good to all, He is undoubtedly
good also to those who are destined to perish. And why does He not save
them? If He does not desire to do so, He will be no longer good; if He
does desire it, and cannot effect it, He will not be omnipotent. Why do
they not rather hear the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospels,
preparing fire for the devil and his angels? And how shall that
proceeding, as penal as it is sad, appear to be, according to their
view, the work of the good God? Even the Saviour Himself, the Son of the
good God, protests in the Gospels, and declares that “if signs and
wonders had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented[204]
long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes.” And when He had come near to
those very cities, and had entered their territory, why, pray, does He
avoid entering those cities, and exhibiting to them abundance of signs
and wonders, if it were certain that they would have repented, after
they had been performed, in sackcloth and ashes? But as He does not do
this, He undoubtedly abandons to destruction those whom the language of
the Gospel shows not to have been of a wicked or ruined nature, inasmuch
as it declares they were capable of repentance. Again, in a certain
parable of the Gospel, where the king enters in to see the guests
reclining at the banquet, he beheld a certain individual not clothed
with wedding raiment, and said to him, “Friend, how camest thou in
hither, not having a wedding garment?” and then ordered his servants,
“Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there will be
weeping and gnashing of teeth.”[205] Let them tell us who is that king
who entered in to see the guests, and finding one amongst them with
unclean garments, commanded him to be bound by his servants, and thrust
out into outer darkness. Is he the same whom they call just? How then
had he commanded good and bad alike to be invited, without directing
their merits to be inquired into by his servants? By such procedure
would be indicated, not the character of a just God who rewards
according to men’s deserts, as they assert, but of one who displays
undiscriminating goodness towards all. Now, if this must necessarily be
understood of the good God, _i.e._ either of Christ or of the Father of
Christ, what other objection can they bring against the justice of God’s
judgment? Nay, what else is there so unjust charged by them against the
God of the law as to order him who had been invited by His servants,
whom He had sent to call good and bad alike, to be bound hand and foot,
and to be thrown into outer darkness, because he had on unclean
garments?
3. And now, what we have drawn from the authority of Scripture ought to
be sufficient to refute the arguments of the heretics. It will not,
however, appear improper if we discuss the matter with them shortly, on
the grounds of reason itself. We ask them, then, if they know what is
regarded among men as the ground of virtue and wickedness, and if it
appears to follow that we can speak of virtues in God, or, as they
think, in these two Gods. Let them give an answer also to the question,
whether they consider goodness to be a virtue; and as they will
undoubtedly admit it to be so, what will they say of injustice? They
will never certainly, in my opinion, be so foolish as to deny that
justice is a virtue. Accordingly, if virtue is a blessing, and justice
is a virtue, then without doubt justice is goodness. But if they say
that justice is not a blessing, it must either be an evil or an
indifferent thing. Now I think it folly to return any answer to those
who say that justice is an evil, for I shall have the appearance of
replying either to senseless words, or to men out of their minds. How
can that appear an evil which is able to reward the good with blessings,
as they themselves also admit? But if they say that it is a thing of
indifference, it follows that since justice is so, sobriety also, and
prudence, and all the other virtues, are things of indifference. And
what answer shall we make to Paul, when he says, “If there be any
virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things, which ye have
learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me?”[206] Let them learn,
therefore, by searching the holy Scriptures, what are the individual
virtues, and not deceive themselves by saying that that God who rewards
every one according to his merits, does, through hatred of evil,
recompense the wicked with evil, and not because those who have sinned
need to be treated with severer remedies, and because He applies to them
those measures which, with the prospect of improvement, seem
nevertheless, for the present, to produce a feeling of pain. They do not
read what is written respecting the hope of those who were destroyed in
the deluge; of which hope Peter himself thus speaks in his first
epistle: “That Christ, indeed, was put to death in the flesh, but
quickened by the Spirit, by which He went and preached to the spirits
who were kept in prison, who once were unbelievers, when they awaited
the long-suffering of God in the days of Noah, when the ark was
preparing, in which a few, _i.e._ eight souls, were saved by water.
Whereunto also baptism by a like figure now saves you.”[207] And with
regard to Sodom and Gomorrha, let them tell us whether they believe the
prophetic words to be those of the Creator God—of Him, viz., who is
related to have rained upon them a shower of fire and brimstone. What
does Ezekiel the prophet say of them? “Sodom,” he says, “shall be
restored to her former condition.”[208] But why, in afflicting those who
are deserving of punishment, does He not afflict them for their
good?—who also says to Chaldea, “Thou hast coals of fire, sit upon them;
they will be a help to thee.”[209] And of those also who fell in the
desert, let them hear what is related in the seventy-eighth Psalm, which
bears the superscription of Asaph; for he says, “When He slew them, then
they sought Him.”[210] He does not say that some sought Him after others
had been slain, but he says that the destruction of those who were
killed was of such a nature that, when put to death, they sought God. By
all which it is established, that the God of the law and the Gospels is
one and the same, a just and good God, and that He confers benefits
justly, and punishes with kindness; since neither goodness without
justice, nor justice without goodness, can display the [real] dignity of
the divine nature.
We shall add the following remarks, to which we are driven by their
subtleties. If justice is a different thing from goodness, then, since
evil is the opposite of good, and injustice of justice, injustice will
doubtless be something else than an evil; and as, in your opinion, the
just man is not good, so neither will the unjust man be wicked; and
again, as the good man is not just, so the wicked man also will not be
unjust. But who does not see the absurdity, that to a good God one
should be opposed that is evil; while to a just God, whom they allege to
be inferior to the good, no one should be opposed! For there is none who
can be called unjust, as there is a Satan who is called wicked. What,
then, are we to do? Let us give up the position which we defend, for
they will not be able to maintain that a bad man is not also unjust, and
an unjust man wicked. And if these qualities be indissolubly inherent in
these opposites, viz. injustice in wickedness, or wickedness in
injustice, then unquestionably the good man will be inseparable from the
just man, and the just from the good; so that, as we speak of one and
the same wickedness in malice and injustice, we may also hold the virtue
of goodness and justice to be one and the same.
4. They again recall us, however, to the words of Scripture, by bringing
forward that celebrated question of theirs, affirming that it is
written, “A bad tree cannot produce good fruits; for a tree is known by
its fruit.”[211] What, then, is their position? What sort of tree the
law is, is shown by its fruits, _i.e._ by the language of its precepts.
For if the law be found to be good, then undoubtedly He who gave it is
believed to be a good God. But if it be just rather than good, then God
also will be considered a just legislator. The Apostle Paul makes use of
no circumlocution, when he says, “The law is good; and the commandment
is holy, and just, and good.”[212] From which it is clear that Paul had
not learned the language of those who separate justice from goodness,
but had been instructed by that God, and illuminated by His Spirit, who
is at the same time both holy, and good, and just; and speaking by whose
Spirit he declared that the commandment of the law was holy, and just,
and good. And that he might show more clearly that goodness was in the
commandment to a greater degree than justice and holiness, repeating his
words, he used, instead of these three epithets, that of goodness alone,
saying, “Was then that which is good made death unto me? God
forbid.”[213] As he knew that goodness was the _genus_ of the virtues,
and that justice and holiness were _species_ belonging to the _genus_,
and having in the former verses named _genus_ and _species_ together, he
fell back, when repeating his words, on the _genus_ alone. But in those
which follow he says, “Sin wrought death in me by that which is good,”
where he sums up generically what he had beforehand explained
specifically. And in this way also is to be understood the declaration,
“A good man, out of the good treasure of his heart, bringeth forth good
things; and an evil man, out of the evil treasure, bringeth forth evil
things.”[214] For here also he assumed that there was a _genus_ in good
or evil, pointing out unquestionably that in a good man there were both
justice, and temperance, and prudence, and piety, and everything that
can be either called or understood to be good. In like manner also he
said that a man was wicked who should without any doubt be unjust, and
impure, and unholy, and everything which singly makes a bad man. For as
no one considers a man to be wicked without these marks of wickedness
(nor indeed can he be so), so also it is certain that without these
virtues no one will be deemed to be good. There still remains to them,
however, that saying of the Lord in the Gospel, which they think is
given them in a special manner as a shield, viz. “There is none good but
one, God the Father.”[215] This word they declare is peculiar to the
Father of Christ, who, however, is different from the God who is Creator
of all things, to which Creator he gave no appellation of goodness. Let
us see now if, in the Old Testament, the God of the prophets and the
Creator and Legislator of the world is not called good. What are the
expressions which occur in the Psalms? “How good is God to Israel, to
the upright in heart!”[216] and, “Let Israel now say that He is good,
that His mercy endureth for ever;”[217] the language in the Lamentations
of Jeremiah, “The Lord is good to them that wait for Him, to the soul
that seeketh Him.”[218] As therefore God is frequently called good in
the Old Testament, so also the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is styled
just in the Gospels. Finally, in the Gospel according to John, our Lord
Himself, when praying to the Father, says, “O just Father, the world
hath not known Thee.”[219] And lest perhaps they should say that it was
owing to His having assumed human flesh that He called the Creator of
the world “Father,” and styled Him “Just,” they are excluded from such a
refuge by the words that immediately follow, “The world hath not known
Thee.” But, according to them, the world is ignorant of the good God
alone. For the world unquestionably recognises its Creator, the Lord
Himself saying that the world loveth what is its own. Clearly, then, He
whom they consider to be the good God, is called just in the Gospels.
Any one may at leisure gather together a greater number of proofs,
consisting of those passages, where in the New Testament the Father of
our Lord Jesus Christ is called just, and in the Old also, where the
Creator of heaven and earth is called good; so that the heretics, being
convicted by numerous testimonies, may perhaps some time be put to the
blush.
Footnote 203:
Ezek. xviii. 3.
Footnote 204:
Pœnitentiam egissent.
Footnote 205:
Matt. xxii. 12, 13.
Footnote 206:
Phil. iv. 8, 9.
Footnote 207:
1 Pet. iii. 18-21.
Footnote 208:
Ezek. xvi. 55, cf. 53.
Footnote 209:
Isa. xlvii. 14, 15. The Septuagint here differs from the Hebrew: ἔχεις
ἄνθρακας πυρός, κάθισαι ἐπ’ αὐτούς, οὗτοι ἔσονται σοι βοήθεια.
Footnote 210:
Ps. lxxviii. 34.
Footnote 211:
Matt. vii. 18, cf. xii. 33.
Footnote 212:
Rom. vii. 12.
Footnote 213:
Rom. vii. 13.
Footnote 214:
Matt. xii. 35.
Footnote 215:
Matt. xix. 17.
Footnote 216:
Ps. lxxiii. 1.
Footnote 217:
Ps. cxviii. 2.
Footnote 218:
Lam. iii. 25.
Footnote 219:
John xvii. 25: Juste Pater.
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE INCARNATION OF CHRIST.
1. It is now time, after this cursory notice of these points, to resume
our investigation of the incarnation of our Lord and Saviour, viz. how
or why He became man. Having therefore, to the best of our feeble
ability, considered His divine nature from the contemplation of His own
works rather than from our own feelings, and having nevertheless beheld
(with the eye) His visible creation while the invisible creation is seen
by faith, because human frailty can neither see all things with the
bodily eye nor comprehend them by reason, seeing we men are weaker and
frailer than any other rational beings (for those which are in heaven,
or are supposed to exist above the heaven, are superior), it remains
that we seek a being intermediate between all created things and God,
_i.e._ a Mediator, whom the Apostle Paul styles the “first-born of every
creature.”[220] Seeing, moreover, those declarations regarding His
majesty which are contained in holy Scripture, that He is called the
“image of the invisible God, and the first-born of every creature,” and
that “in Him were all things created, visible and invisible, whether
they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers, all things
were created by Him, and in Him: and He is before all things, and by Him
all things consist,”[221] who is the head of all things, alone having as
head God the Father; for it is written, “The head of Christ is
God;”[222] seeing clearly also that it is written, “No one knoweth the
Father, save the Son, nor doth any one know the Son, save the
Father”[223] (for who can know what wisdom is, save He who called it
into being? Or who can understand clearly what truth is, save the Father
of truth? Who can investigate with certainty the universal nature of His
Word, and of God Himself, which nature proceeds from God, except God
alone, with whom the Word was), we ought to regard it as certain that
this Word, or Reason (if it is to be so termed), this Wisdom, this
Truth, is known to no other than the Father only; and of Him it is
written, that “I do not think that the world itself could contain the
books which might be written,”[224] regarding, viz., the glory and
majesty of the Son of God. For it is impossible to commit to writing
[all] those particulars which belong to the glory of the Saviour. After
the consideration of questions of such importance concerning the being
of the Son of God, we are lost in the deepest amazement that such a
nature, pre-eminent above all others, should have divested itself of its
condition of majesty and become man, and tabernacled amongst men, as the
grace that was poured upon His lips testifies, and as His heavenly
Father bore Him witness, and as is confessed by the various signs and
wonders and miracles[225] that were performed by Him; who also, before
that appearance of His which He manifested in the body, sent the
prophets as His forerunners, and the messengers of His advent; and after
His ascension into heaven, made His holy apostles, men ignorant and
unlearned, taken from the ranks of tax-gatherers or fishermen, but who
were filled with the power of His divinity, to itinerate throughout the
world, that they might gather together out of every race and every
nation a multitude of devout believers in Himself.
2. But of all the marvellous and mighty acts related of Him, this
altogether surpasses human admiration, and is beyond the power of mortal
frailness to understand or feel, how that mighty power of divine
majesty, that very Word of the Father, and that very wisdom of God, in
which were created all things, visible and invisible, can be believed to
have existed within the limits of that man who appeared in Judea; nay,
that the Wisdom of God can have entered the womb of a woman, and have
been born an infant, and have uttered wailings like the cries of little
children! And that afterwards it should be related that He was greatly
troubled in death, saying, as He Himself declared, “My soul is
sorrowful, even unto death;”[226] and that at the last He was brought to
that death which is accounted the most shameful among men, although He
rose again on the third day. Since, then, we see in Him some things so
human that they appear to differ in no respect from the common frailty
of mortals, and some things so divine that they can appropriately belong
to nothing else than to the primal and ineffable nature of Deity, the
narrowness of human understanding can find no outlet; but, overcome with
the amazement of a mighty admiration, knows not whither to withdraw, or
what to take hold of, or whither to turn. If it think of a God, it sees
a mortal; if it think of a man, it beholds Him returning from the grave,
after overthrowing the empire of death, laden with its spoils. And
therefore the spectacle is to be contemplated with all fear and
reverence, that the truth of both natures may be clearly shown to exist
in one and the same Being; so that nothing unworthy or unbecoming may be
perceived in that divine and ineffable substance, nor yet those things
which were done be supposed to be the illusions of imaginary
appearances. To utter these things in human ears, and to explain them in
words, far surpasses the powers either of our rank, or of our intellect
and language. I think that it surpasses the power even of the holy
apostles; nay, the explanation of that mystery may perhaps be beyond the
grasp of the entire creation of celestial powers. Regarding Him, then,
we shall state, in the fewest possible words, the contents of our creed
rather than the assertions which human reason is wont to advance; and
this from no spirit of rashness, but as called for by the nature of our
arrangement, laying before you rather [what may be termed] our
suspicions than any clear affirmations.
3. The Only-begotten of God, therefore, through whom, as the previous
course of the discussion has shown, all things were made, visible and
invisible, according to the view of Scripture, both made all things, and
loves what He made. For since He is Himself the invisible image of the
invisible God, He conveyed invisibly a share in Himself to all His
rational creatures, so that each one obtained a part of Him exactly
proportioned to the amount of affection with which he regarded Him. But
since, agreeably to the faculty of free-will, variety and diversity
characterized the individual souls, so that one was attached with a
warmer love to the Author of its being, and another with a feebler and
weaker regard, that soul (_anima_) regarding which Jesus said, “No one
shall take my life (_animam_) from me,”[227] inhering, from the
beginning of the creation, and afterwards, inseparably and indissolubly
in Him, as being the Wisdom and Word of God, and the Truth and the true
Light, and receiving Him wholly, and passing into His light and
splendour, was made with Him in a pre-eminent degree[228] one spirit,
according to the promise of the apostle to those who ought to imitate
it, that “he who is joined in the Lord is one spirit.”[229] This
substance of a soul, then, being intermediate between God and the
flesh—it being impossible for the nature of God to intermingle with a
body without an intermediate instrument—the God-man is born, as we have
said, that substance being the intermediary to whose nature it was not
contrary to assume a body. But neither, on the other hand, was it
opposed to the nature of that soul, as a rational existence, to receive
God, into whom, as stated above, as into the Word, and the Wisdom, and
the Truth, it had already wholly entered. And therefore deservedly is it
also called, along with the flesh which it had assumed, the Son of God,
and the Power of God, the Christ, and the Wisdom of God, either because
it was wholly in the Son of God, or because it received the Son of God
wholly into itself. And again, the Son of God, through whom all things
were created, is named Jesus Christ and the Son of man. For the Son of
God also is said to have died—in reference, viz., to that nature which
could admit of death; and He is called the Son of man, who is announced
as about to come in the glory of God the Father, with the holy angels.
And for this reason, throughout the whole of Scripture, not only is the
divine nature spoken of in human words, but the human nature is adorned
by appellations of divine dignity. More truly indeed of this than of any
other can the statement be affirmed, “They shall both be in one flesh,
and are no longer two, but one flesh.”[230] For the Word of God is to be
considered as being more in one flesh with the soul than a man with his
wife. But to whom is it more becoming to be also one spirit with God,
than to this soul which has so joined itself to God by love as that it
may justly be said to be one spirit with Him?
4. That the perfection of his love and the sincerity of his deserved
affection[231] formed for it this inseparable union with God, so that
the assumption of that soul was not accidental, or the result of a
personal preference, but was conferred as the reward of its virtues,
listen to the prophet addressing it thus: “Thou hast loved
righteousness, and hated wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath
anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.”[232] As a
reward for its love, then, it is anointed with the oil of gladness;
_i.e._ the soul of Christ along with the Word of God is made Christ.
Because to be anointed with the oil of gladness means nothing else than
to be filled with the Holy Spirit. And when it is said “above thy
fellows,” it is meant that the grace of the Spirit was not given to it
as to the prophets, but that the essential fulness of the Word of God
Himself was in it, according to the saying of the apostle, “In whom
dwelt all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.”[233] Finally, on this
account he has not only said, “Thou hast loved righteousness;” but he
adds, “and Thou hast hated wickedness.” For to have hated wickedness is
what the Scripture says of Him, that “He did no sin, neither was any
guile found in His mouth,”[234] and that “He was tempted in all things
like as we are, without sin.”[235] Nay, the Lord Himself also said,
“Which of you will convince me of sin?”[236] And again He says with
reference to Himself, “Behold, the prince of this world cometh, and
findeth nothing in me.”[237] All which [passages] show that in Him there
was no sense of sin; and that the prophet might show more clearly that
no sense of sin had ever entered into Him, he says, “Before the boy
could have knowledge to call upon father or mother, He turned away from
wickedness.”[238]
5. Now, if our having shown above that Christ possessed a rational soul
should cause a difficulty to any one, seeing we have frequently proved
throughout all our discussions that the nature of souls is capable both
of good and evil, the difficulty will be explained in the following way.
That the nature, indeed, of His soul was the same as that of all others
cannot be doubted, otherwise it could not be called a soul were it not
truly one. But since the power of choosing good and evil is within the
reach of all, this soul which belonged to Christ elected to love
righteousness, so that in proportion to the immensity of its love it
clung to it unchangeably and inseparably, so that firmness of purpose,
and immensity of affection, and an inextinguishable warmth of love,
destroyed all susceptibility (_sensum_) for alteration and change; and
that which formerly depended upon the will was changed by the power of
long custom into nature; and so we must believe that there existed in
Christ a human and rational soul, without supposing that it had any
feeling or possibility of sin.
6. To explain the matter more fully, it will not appear absurd to make
use of an illustration, although on a subject of so much difficulty it
is not easy to obtain suitable illustrations. However, if we may speak
without offence, the metal iron is capable of cold and heat. If, then, a
mass of iron be kept constantly in the fire, receiving the heat through
all its pores and veins, and the fire being continuous and the iron
never removed from it, it become wholly converted into the latter; could
we at all say of this, which is by nature a mass of iron, that when
placed in the fire, and incessantly burning, it was at any time capable
of admitting cold? On the contrary, because it is more consistent with
truth, do we not rather say, what we often see happening in furnaces,
that it has become wholly fire, seeing nothing but fire is visible in
it? And if any one were to attempt to touch or handle it, he would
experience the action not of iron, but of fire. In this way, then, that
soul which, like an iron in the fire, has been perpetually placed in the
Word, and perpetually in the Wisdom, and perpetually in God,[239] is God
in all that it does, feels, and understands, and therefore can be called
neither convertible nor mutable, inasmuch as, being incessantly heated,
it possessed immutability from its union with the Word of God. To all
the saints, finally, some warmth from the Word of God must be supposed
to have passed; and in this soul the divine fire itself must be believed
to have rested, from which some warmth may have passed to others.
Lastly, the expression, “God, thy God, anointed thee with the oil of
gladness above thy fellows,”[240] shows that that soul is anointed in
one way with the oil of gladness, _i.e._ with the word of God and
wisdom; and his fellows, _i.e._ the holy prophets and apostles, in
another. For they are said to have “run in the odour of his
ointments;”[241] and that soul was the vessel which contained that very
ointment of whose fragrance all the worthy prophets and apostles were
made partakers. As, then, the substance of an ointment is one thing and
its odour another, so also Christ is one thing and His fellows another.
And as the vessel itself, which contains the substance of the ointment,
can by no means admit any foul smell; whereas it is possible that those
who enjoy its odour may, if they remove a little way from its fragrance,
receive any foul odour which comes upon them: so, in the same way, was
it impossible that Christ, being as it were the vessel itself, in which
was the substance of the ointment, should receive an odour of an
opposite kind, while they who are His “fellows” will be partakers and
receivers of His odour, in proportion to their nearness to the vessel.
7. I think, indeed, that Jeremiah the prophet, also, understanding what
was the nature of the wisdom of God in him, which was the same also
which he had assumed for the salvation of the world, said, “The breath
of our countenance is Christ the Lord, to whom we said, that under His
shadow we shall live among the nations.”[242] And inasmuch as the shadow
of our body is inseparable from the body, and unavoidably performs and
repeats its movements and gestures, I think that he, wishing to point
out the work of Christ’s soul, and the movements inseparably belonging
to it, and which accomplished everything according to His movements and
will, called this the shadow of Christ the Lord, under which shadow we
were to live among the nations. For in the mystery of this assumption
the nations live, who, imitating it through faith, come to salvation.
David also, when saying, “Be mindful of my reproach, O Lord, with which
they reproached me in exchange for Thy Christ,”[243] seems to me to
indicate the same. And what else does Paul mean when he says, “Your life
is hid with Christ in God;”[244] and again in another passage, “Do you
seek a proof of Christ, who speaketh in me?”[245] And now he says that
Christ was hid in God. The meaning of which expression, unless it be
shown to be something such as we have pointed out above as intended by
the prophet in the words “shadow of Christ,” exceeds, perhaps, the
apprehension of the human mind. But we see also very many other
statements in holy Scripture respecting the meaning of the word
“shadow,” as that well-known one in the Gospel according to Luke, where
Gabriel says to Mary, “The Spirit of the Lord shall come upon thee, and
the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee.”[246] And the apostle
says with reference to the law, that they who have circumcision in the
flesh, “serve for the similitude and shadow of heavenly things.”[247]
And elsewhere, “Is not our life upon the earth a shadow?”[248] If, then,
not only the law which is upon the earth is a shadow, but also all our
life which is upon the earth is the same, and we live among the nations
under the shadow of Christ, we must see whether the truth of all these
shadows may not come to be known in that revelation, when no longer
through a glass, and darkly, but face to face, all the saints shall
deserve to behold the glory of God, and the causes and truth of things.
And the pledge of this truth being already received through the Holy
Spirit, the apostle said, “Yea, though we have known Christ after the
flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more.”[249]
The above, meanwhile, are the thoughts which have occurred to us, when
treating of subjects of such difficulty as the incarnation and deity of
Christ. If there be any one, indeed, who can discover something better,
and who can establish his assertions by clearer proofs from holy
Scriptures, let his opinion be received in preference to mine.
Footnote 220:
Col. i. 15.
Footnote 221:
Col. i. 16, 17.
Footnote 222:
1 Cor. xi. 3.
Footnote 223:
Matt. xi. 27.
Footnote 224:
John xxi. 25.
Footnote 225:
Virtutibus, probably for δυνάμεσιν.
Footnote 226:
Matt. xxvi. 38.
Footnote 227:
John x. 18. “No other soul which descended into a human body has
stamped on itself a pure and unstained resemblance of its former
stamp, save that one of which the Saviour says, ‘No one will take my
soul from me, but I lay it down of myself.’”—Jerome, _Epistle to
Avitus_, p. 763.
Footnote 228:
Principaliter.
Footnote 229:
1 Cor. vi. 17.
Footnote 230:
Gen. ii. 24; cf. Mark x. 8.
Footnote 231:
Meriti affectus.
Footnote 232:
Ps. xlv. 7.
Footnote 233:
Col. ii. 9.
Footnote 234:
Isa. liii. 9.
Footnote 235:
Heb. iv. 15.
Footnote 236:
John viii. 46.
Footnote 237:
John xiv. 30.
Footnote 238:
This quotation is made up of two different parts of Isaiah: chap.
viii. 4, “Before the child shall have knowledge to cry, My father and
my mother;” and chap. vii. 16, “Before the child shall know to refuse
the evil, and choose the good.”
Footnote 239:
Semper in verbo, semper in sapientia, semper in Deo.
Footnote 240:
Ps. xlv. 7.
Footnote 241:
Illi enim in odore unguentorum ejus circumire dicuntur; perhaps an
allusion to Song of Sol. i. 3 or to Ps. xlv. 8.
Footnote 242:
Lam. iv. 20.
Footnote 243:
Ps. lxxxix. 50, 51.
Footnote 244:
Col. iii. 3.
Footnote 245:
2 Cor. xiii. 3.
Footnote 246:
Luke i. 35.
Footnote 247:
Heb. viii. 5.
Footnote 248:
Job viii. 9.
Footnote 249:
2 Cor. v. 16.
CHAPTER VII.
ON THE HOLY SPIRIT.
1. As, then, after those first discussions which, according to the
requirements of the case, we held at the beginning regarding the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, it seemed right that we should retrace our steps,
and show that the same God was the creator and founder of the world, and
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, _i.e._ that the God of the law and
of the prophets and of the gospel was one and the same; and that, in the
next place, it ought to be shown, with respect to Christ, in what manner
He who had formerly been demonstrated to be the Word and Wisdom of God
became man; it remains that we now return with all possible brevity to
the subject of the Holy Spirit.
It is time, then, that we say a few words to the best of our ability
regarding the Holy Spirit, whom our Lord and Saviour in the Gospel
according to John has named the Paraclete. For as it is the same God
Himself, and the same Christ, so also is it the same Holy Spirit who was
in the prophets and apostles, _i.e._ either in those who believed in God
before the advent of Christ, or in those who by means of Christ have
sought refuge in God. We have heard, indeed, that certain heretics have
dared to say that there are two Gods and two Christs, but we have never
known of the doctrine of two Holy Spirits being preached by any
one.[250] For how could they maintain this out of Scripture, or what
distinction could they lay down between Holy Spirit and Holy Spirit, if
indeed any definition or description of Holy Spirit can be discovered?
For although we should concede to Marcion or to Valentinus that it is
possible to draw distinctions in the question of Deity, and to describe
the nature of the good God as one, and that of the just God as another,
what will he devise, or what will he discover, to enable him to
introduce a distinction in the Holy Spirit? I consider, then, that they
are able to discover nothing which may indicate a distinction of any
kind whatever.
2. Now we are of opinion that every rational creature, without any
distinction, receives a share of Him in the same way as of the Wisdom
and of the Word of God. I observe, however, that the chief advent of the
Holy Spirit is declared to men, after the ascension of Christ to heaven,
rather than before His coming into the world. For, before that, it was
upon the prophets alone, and upon a few individuals—if there happened to
be any among the people deserving of it—that the gift of the Holy Spirit
was conferred; but after the advent of the Saviour, it is written that
the prediction of the prophet Joel was fulfilled, “In the last days it
shall come to pass, and I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh, and
they shall prophesy,”[251] which is similar to the well-known statement,
“All nations shall serve Him.”[252] By the grace, then, of the Holy
Spirit, along with numerous other results, this most glorious
consequence is clearly demonstrated, that with regard to those things
which were written in the prophets or in the law of Moses, it was only a
few persons at that time, viz. the prophets themselves, and scarcely
another individual out of the whole nation, who were able to look beyond
the mere corporeal meaning and discover something greater, _i.e._
something spiritual, in the law or in the prophets; but now there are
countless multitudes of believers who, although unable to unfold
methodically and clearly the results of their spiritual
understanding,[253] are nevertheless most firmly persuaded that neither
ought circumcision to be understood literally, nor the rest of the
Sabbath, nor the pouring out of the blood of an animal, nor that answers
were given by God to Moses on these points. And this method of
apprehension is undoubtedly suggested to the minds of all by the power
of the Holy Spirit.
3. And as there are many ways of apprehending Christ, who, although He
is wisdom, does not act the part or possess the power of wisdom in all
men, but only in those who give themselves to the study of wisdom in
Him; and who, although called a physician, does not act as one towards
all, but only towards those who understand their feeble and sickly
condition, and flee to His compassion that they may obtain health; so
also I think is it with the Holy Spirit, in whom is contained every kind
of gifts. For on some is bestowed by the Spirit the word of wisdom, on
others the word of knowledge, on others faith; and so to each individual
of those who are capable of receiving Him, is the Spirit Himself made to
be that quality, or understood to be that which is needed by the
individual who has deserved to participate.[254] These divisions and
differences not being perceived by those who hear Him called Paraclete
in the Gospel, and not duly considering in consequence of what work or
act He is named the Paraclete, they have compared Him to some common
spirits or other, and by this means have tried to disturb the churches
of Christ, and so excite dissensions of no small extent among brethren;
whereas the Gospel shows Him to be of such power and majesty, that it
says the apostles could not yet receive those things which the Saviour
wished to teach them until the advent of the Holy Spirit, who, pouring
Himself into their souls, might enlighten them regarding the nature and
faith of the Trinity. But these persons, because of the ignorance of
their understandings, are not only unable themselves logically to state
the truth, but cannot even give their attention to what is advanced by
us; and entertaining unworthy ideas of His divinity, have delivered
themselves over to errors and deceits, being depraved by a spirit of
error, rather than instructed by the teaching of the Holy Spirit,
according to the declaration of the apostle, “Following the doctrine of
devils, forbidding to marry, to the destruction and ruin of many, and to
abstain from meats, that by an ostentatious exhibition of stricter
observance they may seduce the souls of the innocent.”[255]
4. We must therefore know that the Paraclete is the Holy Spirit, who
teaches truths which cannot be uttered in words, and which are, so to
speak, unutterable, and “which it is not lawful for a man to
utter,”[256] _i.e._ which cannot be indicated by human language. The
phrase “it is not lawful” is, we think, used by the apostle instead of
“it is not possible;” as also is the case in the passage where he says,
“All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all
things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.”[257] For those
things which are in our power because we may have them, he says are
lawful for us. But the Paraclete, who is called the Holy Spirit, is so
called from His work of consolation, _paraclesis_ being termed in Latin
_consolatio_. For if any one has deserved to participate in the Holy
Spirit by the knowledge of His ineffable mysteries, he undoubtedly
obtains comfort and joy of heart. For since he comes by the teaching of
the Spirit to the knowledge of the reasons of all things which
happen—how or why they occur—his soul can in no respect be troubled, or
admit any feeling of sorrow; nor is he alarmed by anything, since,
clinging to the Word of God and His wisdom, he through the Holy Spirit
calls Jesus Lord. And since we have made mention of the Paraclete, and
have explained as we were able what sentiments ought to be entertained
regarding Him; and since our Saviour also is called the Paraclete in the
Epistle of John, when he says, “If any of us sin, we have a Paraclete
with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is the propitiation
for our sins;”[258] let us consider whether this term Paraclete should
happen to have one meaning when applied to the Saviour, and another when
applied to the Holy Spirit. Now Paraclete, when spoken of the Saviour,
seems to mean intercessor. For in Greek, Paraclete has both
significations—that of intercessor and comforter. On account, then, of
the phrase which follows, when he says, “And He is the propitiation for
our sins,” the name Paraclete seems to be understood in the case of our
Saviour as meaning intercessor; for He is said to intercede with the
Father because of our sins. In the case of the Holy Spirit, the
Paraclete must be understood in the sense of comforter, inasmuch as He
bestows consolation upon the souls to whom He openly reveals the
apprehension of spiritual knowledge.
Footnote 250:
According to Pamphilus in his _Apology_, Origen, in a note on Tit.
iii. 10, has made a statement the opposite of this. His words are:
“But there are some also who say, that it was one Holy Spirit who was
in the prophets, and another who was in the apostles of our Lord Jesus
Christ.”—RUÆUS.
Footnote 251:
Joel ii. 28.
Footnote 252:
Ps. lxxii. 11.
Footnote 253:
Qui licet non omnes possint per ordinem atque ad liquidum spiritualis
intelligentiæ explanare consequentiam.
Footnote 254:
Ita per singulos, qui eum capere possunt, hoc efficitur, vel hoc
intelligitur ipse Spiritus, quo indiget ille, qui eum participare
meruerit. Schnitzer renders, “And so, in every one who is susceptible
of them, the Spirit is exactly that which the receiver chiefly needs.”
Footnote 255:
1 Tim. iv. 1-3.
Footnote 256:
2 Cor. xii. 4.
Footnote 257:
1 Cor. x. 23.
Footnote 258:
1 John ii. 1, 2.
CHAPTER VIII.
ON THE SOUL (ANIMA).
1. The order of our arrangement now requires us, after the discussion of
the preceding subjects, to institute a general inquiry regarding the
soul;[259] and, beginning with points of inferior importance, to ascend
to those that are of greater. Now, that there are souls[260] in all
living things, even in those which live in the waters, is, I suppose,
doubted by no one. For the general opinion of all men maintains this;
and confirmation from the authority of holy Scripture is added, when it
is said that “God made great whales, and every living creature[261] that
moveth which the waters brought forth after their kind.”[262] It is
confirmed also from the common intelligence of reason, by those who lay
down in certain words a definition of soul. For soul is defined as
follows: a substance φανταστικὴ and ὁρμητικὴ, which may be rendered into
Latin, although not so appropriately, _sensibilis et mobilis_.[263] This
certainly may be said appropriately of all living beings, even of those
which abide in the waters; and of winged creatures too, this same
definition of _anima_ may be shown to hold good. Scripture also has
added its authority to a second opinion, when it says, “Ye shall not eat
the blood, because the life[264] of all flesh is its blood; and ye shall
not eat the life with the flesh;”[265] in which it intimates most
clearly that the blood of every animal is its life. And if any one now
were to ask how it can be said with respect to bees, wasps, and ants,
and those other things which are in the waters, oysters and cockles, and
all others which are without blood, and are most clearly shown to be
living things, that the “life of all flesh is the blood,” we must
answer, that in living things of that sort the force which is exerted in
other animals by the power of red blood is exerted in them by that
liquid which is within them, although it be of a different colour; for
colour is a thing of no importance, provided the substance be endowed
with life.[266] That beasts of burden or cattle of smaller size are
endowed with souls,[267] there is, by general assent, no doubt whatever.
The opinion of holy Scripture, however, is manifest, when God says, “Let
the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, four-footed
beasts, and creeping things, and beasts of the earth after their
kind.”[268] And now with respect to man, although no one entertains any
doubt, or needs to inquire, yet holy Scripture declares that “God
breathed into his countenance the breath of life, and man became a
living soul.”[269] It remains that we inquire respecting the angelic
order whether they also have souls, or are souls; and also respecting
the other divine and celestial powers, as well as those of an opposite
kind. We nowhere, indeed, find any authority in holy Scripture for
asserting that either the angels, or any other divine spirits that are
ministers of God, either possess souls or are called souls, and yet they
are felt by very many persons to be endowed with life. But with regard
to God, we find it written as follows: “And I will put my soul upon that
soul which has eaten blood, and I will root him out from among his
people;”[270] and also in another passage, “Your new moons, and
sabbaths, and great days, I will not accept; your fasts, and holidays,
and festal days, my soul hateth.”[271] And in the twenty-second Psalm,
regarding Christ—for it is certain, as the Gospel bears witness, that
this Psalm is spoken of Him—the following words occur: “O Lord, be not
far from helping me; look to my defence: O God, deliver my soul from the
sword, and my beloved one from the hand of the dog;”[272] although there
are also many other testimonies respecting the soul of Christ when He
tabernacled in the flesh.
2. But the nature of the incarnation will render unnecessary any inquiry
into the soul of Christ. For as He truly possessed flesh, so also He
truly possessed a soul. It is difficult indeed both to feel and to state
how that which is called in Scripture the soul of God is to be
understood; for we acknowledge that nature to be simple, and without any
intermixture or addition. In whatever way, however, it is to be
understood, it seems, meanwhile, to be named the soul of God; whereas
regarding Christ there is no doubt. And therefore there seems to me no
absurdity in either understanding or asserting some such thing regarding
the holy angels and the other heavenly powers, since that definition of
soul appears applicable also to them. For who can rationally deny that
they are “sensible and moveable?” But if that definition appear to be
correct, according to which a soul is said to be a substance rationally
“sensible and moveable,” the same definition would seem also to apply to
angels. For what else is in them than rational feeling and motion? Now
those beings who are comprehended under the same definition have
undoubtedly the same substance. Paul indeed intimates that there is a
kind of animal-man[273] who, he says, cannot receive the things of the
Spirit of God, but declares that the doctrine of the Holy Spirit seems
to him foolish, and that he cannot understand what is to be spiritually
discerned. In another passage he says it is sown an animal body, and
arises a spiritual body, pointing out that in the resurrection of the
just there will be nothing of an animal nature. And therefore we inquire
whether there happen to be any substance which, in respect of its being
_anima_, is imperfect. But whether it be imperfect because it falls away
from perfection, or because it was so created by God, will form the
subject of inquiry when each individual topic shall begin to be
discussed in order. For if the animal man receive not the things of the
Spirit of God, and because he is animal, is unable to admit the
understanding of a better, _i.e._ of a divine nature, it is for this
reason perhaps that Paul, wishing to teach us more plainly what that is
by means of which we are able to comprehend those things which are of
the Spirit, _i.e._ spiritual things, conjoins and associates with the
Holy Spirit an understanding[274] rather than a soul.[275] For this, I
think, he indicates when he says, “I will pray with the spirit, I will
pray with the understanding also; I will sing with the spirit, I will
sing with the understanding also.”[276] And he does not say that “I will
pray with the soul,” but with the spirit and the understanding. Nor does
he say, “I will sing with the soul,” but with the spirit and the
understanding.
3. But perhaps this question is asked, If it be the understanding which
prays and sings with the spirit, and if it be the same which receives
both perfection and salvation, how is it that Peter says, “Receiving the
end of your faith, even the salvation of your souls?”[277] If the soul
neither prays nor sings with the spirit, how shall it hope for
salvation? or when it attains to blessedness, shall it be no longer
called a soul?[278] Let us see if perhaps an answer may be given in this
way, that as the Saviour came to save what was lost, that which formerly
was said to be lost is not lost when it is saved; so also, perhaps, this
which is saved is called a soul, and when it has been placed in a state
of salvation will receive a name from the Word that denotes its more
perfect condition. But it appears to some that this also may be added,
that as the thing which was lost undoubtedly existed before it was lost,
at which time it was something else than destroyed, so also will be the
case when it is no longer in a ruined condition. In like manner also,
the soul which is said to have perished will appear to have been
something at one time, when as yet it had not perished, and on that
account would be termed soul, and being again freed from destruction, it
may become a second time what it was before it perished, and be called a
soul. But from the very signification of the name soul which the Greek
word conveys, it has appeared to a few curious inquirers that a meaning
of no small importance may be suggested. For in sacred language God is
called a fire, as when Scripture says, “Our God is a consuming
fire.”[279] Respecting the substance of the angels also it speaks as
follows: “Who maketh His angels spirits, and His ministers a burning
fire;”[280] and in another place, “The angel of the Lord appeared in a
flame of fire in the bush.”[281] We have, moreover, received a
commandment to be “fervent in spirit;”[282] by which expression
undoubtedly the Word of God is shown to be hot and fiery. The prophet
Jeremiah also hears from Him, who gave him his answers, “Behold, I have
given my words into thy mouth a fire.”[283] As God, then, is a fire, and
the angels a flame of fire, and all the saints are fervent in spirit,
so, on the contrary, those who have fallen away from the love of God are
undoubtedly said to have cooled in their affection for Him, and to have
become cold. For the Lord also says, that, “because iniquity has
abounded, the love of many will grow cold.”[284] Nay, all things,
whatever they are, which in holy Scripture are compared with the hostile
power, the devil is said to be perpetually finding cold; and what is
found to be colder than he? In the sea also the dragon is said to reign.
For the prophet[285] intimates that the serpent and dragon, which
certainly is referred to one of the wicked spirits, is also in the sea.
And elsewhere the prophet says, “I will draw out my holy sword upon the
dragon the flying serpent, upon the dragon the crooked serpent, and will
slay him.”[286] And again he says: “Even though they hide from my eyes,
and descend into the depths of the sea, there will I command the
serpent, and it shall bite them.”[287] In the book of Job also, he is
said to be the king of all things in the waters.[288] The prophet[289]
threatens that evils will be kindled by the north wind upon all who
inhabit the earth. Now the north wind is described in holy Scripture as
cold, according to the statement in the book of Wisdom, “That cold north
wind;”[290] which same thing also must undoubtedly be understood of the
devil. If, then, those things which are holy are named fire, and light,
and fervent, while those which are of an opposite nature are said to be
cold; and if the love of many is said to wax cold; we have to inquire
whether perhaps the name soul, which in Greek is termed ψυχή, be so
termed from growing cold[291] out of a better and more divine condition,
and be thence derived, because it seems to have cooled from that natural
and divine warmth, and therefore has been placed in its present
position, and called by its present name. Finally, see if you can easily
find a place in holy Scripture where the soul is properly mentioned in
terms of praise: it frequently occurs, on the contrary, accompanied with
expressions of censure, as in the passage, “An evil soul ruins him who
possesses it;”[292] and, “The soul which sinneth, it shall die.”[293]
For after it has been said, “All souls are mine; as the soul of the
father, so also the soul of the son is mine,”[294] it seemed to follow
that He would say, “The soul that doeth righteousness, it shall be
saved,” and “The soul which sinneth, it shall die.” But now we see that
He has associated with the soul what is censurable, and has been silent
as to that which was deserving of praise. We have therefore to see if,
perchance, as we have said is declared by the name itself, it was called
ψυχή, _i.e._ _anima_, because it has waxed cold from the fervour of just
things,[295] and from participation in the divine fire, and yet has not
lost the power of restoring itself to that condition of fervour in which
it was at the beginning. Whence the prophet also appears to point out
some such state of things by the words, “Return, O my soul, unto thy
rest.”[296] From all which this appears to be made out, that the
understanding, falling away from its status and dignity, was made or
named soul; and that, if repaired and corrected, it returns to the
condition of the understanding.[297]
4. Now, if this be the case, it seems to me that this very decay and
falling away of the understanding is not the same in all, but that this
conversion into a soul is carried to a greater or less degree in
different instances, and that certain understandings retain something
even of their former vigour, and others again either nothing or a very
small amount. Whence some are found from the very commencement of their
lives to be of more active intellect, others again of a slower habit of
mind, and some are born wholly obtuse, and altogether incapable of
instruction. Our statement, however, that the understanding is converted
into a soul, or whatever else seems to have such a meaning, the reader
must carefully consider and settle for himself, as these views are not
to be regarded as advanced by us in a dogmatic manner, but simply as
opinions, treated in the style of investigation and discussion. Let the
reader take this also into consideration, that it is observed with
regard to the soul of the Saviour, that of those things which are
written in the Gospel, some are ascribed to it under the name of soul,
and others under that of spirit. For when it wishes to indicate any
suffering or perturbation affecting Him, it indicates it under the name
of soul; as when it says, “Now is my soul troubled;”[298] and, “My soul
is sorrowful, even unto death;”[299] and, “No man taketh my soul[300]
from me, but I lay it down of myself.”[301] Into the hands of His Father
He commends not His soul, but His spirit; and when He says that the
flesh is weak, He does not say that the soul is willing, but the spirit:
whence it appears that the soul is something intermediate between the
weak flesh and the willing spirit.
5. But perhaps some one may meet us with one of those objections which
we have ourselves warned you of in our statements, and say, “How then is
there said to be also a soul of God?” To which we answer as follows:
That as with respect to everything corporeal which is spoken of God,
such as fingers, or hands, or arms, or eyes, or feet, or mouth, we say
that these are not to be understood as human members, but that certain
of his powers are indicated by these names of members of the body; so
also we are to suppose that it is something else which is pointed out by
this title—soul of God. And if it is allowable for us to venture to say
anything more on such a subject, the soul of God may perhaps be
understood to mean the only-begotten Son of God. For as the soul, when
implanted in the body, moves all things in it, and exerts its force over
everything on which it operates; so also the only-begotten Son of God,
who is His Word and Wisdom, stretches and extends to every power of God,
being implanted in it; and perhaps to indicate this mystery is God
either called or described in Scripture as a body. We must, indeed, take
into consideration whether it is not perhaps on this account that the
soul of God may be understood to mean His only-begotten Son, because He
Himself came into this world of affliction, and descended into this
valley of tears, and into this place of our humiliation; as He says in
the Psalm, “Because Thou hast humiliated us in the place of
affliction.”[302] Finally, I am aware that certain critics, in
explaining the words used in the Gospel by the Saviour, “My soul is
sorrowful, even unto death,” have interpreted them of the apostles, whom
He termed His soul, as being better than the rest of His body. For as
the multitude of believers is called His body, they say that the
apostles, as being better than the rest of the body, ought to be
understood to mean His soul.
We have brought forward as we best could these points regarding the
rational soul, as topics of discussion for our readers, rather than as
dogmatic and well-defined propositions. And with respect to the souls of
animals and other dumb creatures, let that suffice which we have stated
above in general terms.
Footnote 259:
Anima.
Footnote 260:
Animæ.
Footnote 261:
Animam animantium.
Footnote 262:
Gen. i. 21: πᾶσαν ψυχὴν ζώων, Sept.
Footnote 263:
Erasmus remarks, that φανταστική may be rendered _imaginitiva_, which
is the understanding: ὁρμητική, _impulsiva_, which refers to the
affections (Schnitzer).
Footnote 264:
Animam.
Footnote 265:
Lev. xvii. 14: ψυχὴ πάσης σαρκὶς αἶμα αὐτοῦ ἔστι, Sept.
Footnote 266:
Vitalis.
Footnote 267:
Animantia.
Footnote 268:
Gen. i. 24, living creature, _animam_.
Footnote 269:
Gen. ii. 7, _animam viventem_.
Footnote 270:
Lev. xvii. 10. It is clear that in the text which Origen or his
translator had before him he must have read ψυχή instead of πρόσωπον:
otherwise the quotation would be inappropriate (Schnitzer).
Footnote 271:
Isa. i. 13, 14.
Footnote 272:
Ps. xxii. 20, 21, unicam meam, μονογενῆ μου.
Footnote 273:
Animalem.
Footnote 274:
Mens.
Footnote 275:
Anima.
Footnote 276:
1 Cor. xiv. 15.
Footnote 277:
1 Pet. i. 9.
Footnote 278:
These words are found in Jerome’s Epistle to Avitus, and, literally
translated, are as follow: “Whence infinite caution is to be employed,
lest perchance, after souls have obtained salvation and come to the
blessed life, they should cease to be souls. For as our Lord and
Saviour came to seek and to save what was lost, that it might cease to
be lost; so the soul which was lost, and for whose salvation the Lord
came, shall, when it has been saved, cease to be a soul. This point in
like manner must be examined, whether, as that which has been lost was
at one time not lost, and a time will come when it will be no longer
lost; so also at some time a soul may not have been a soul, and a time
may be when it will by no means continue to be a soul.” A portion of
the above is also found, in the original Greek, in the Emperor
Justinian’s letter to Menas, Patriarch of Constantinople.
Footnote 279:
Deut. iv. 24.
Footnote 280:
Ps. civ. 4; cf. Heb. i. 7.
Footnote 281:
Ex. iii. 2.
Footnote 282:
Rom. xii. 11.
Footnote 283:
Cf. Jer. i. 9. The word “fire” is found neither in the Hebrew nor in
the Septuagint.
Footnote 284:
Matt. xxiv. 12.
Footnote 285:
Cf. Ezek. xxxii. 2 seqq.
Footnote 286:
Isa. xxvii. 1.
Footnote 287:
Amos ix. 3.
Footnote 288:
Job xli. 34.
Footnote 289:
Jer. i. 14.
Footnote 290:
Ecclus. xliii. 20.
Footnote 291:
ψυχή from ψύχεσθαι.
Footnote 292:
Ecclus. vi. 4.
Footnote 293:
Ezek. xviii. 4, cf. 20.
Footnote 294:
Ezek. xviii. 4, 19.
Footnote 295:
“By falling away and growing cold from a spiritual life, the soul has
become what it now is, but is capable also of returning to what it was
at the beginning, which I think is intimated by the prophet in the
words, ‘Return, O my soul, unto thy rest,’ so as to be wholly
this.”—_Epistle of Justinian to Patriarch of Constantinople_.
Footnote 296:
Ps. cxvi. 7.
Footnote 297:
“The understanding (Νοὺς) somehow, then, has become a soul, and the
soul, being restored, becomes an understanding. The understanding
falling away, was made a soul, and the soul, again, when furnished
with virtues, will become an understanding. For if we examine the case
of Esau, we may find that he was condemned because of his ancient sins
in a worse course of life. And respecting the heavenly bodies we must
inquire, that not at the time when the world was created did the soul
of the sun, or whatever else it ought to be called, begin to exist,
but before that it entered that shining and burning body. We may hold
similar opinions regarding the moon and stars, that, for the foregoing
reasons, they were compelled, unwillingly, to subject themselves to
vanity on account of the rewards of the future; and to do, not their
own will, but the will of their Creator, by whom they were arranged
among their different offices.”—_Jerome’s Letter to Avitus._ From
these, as well as other passages, it may be seen how widely Rufinus
departed in his translation from the original.
Footnote 298:
John xii. 27.
Footnote 299:
Matt. xxvi. 38.
Footnote 300:
Animam.
Footnote 301:
John x. 18.
Footnote 302:
Ps. xliv. 19.
CHAPTER IX.
ON THE WORLD AND THE MOVEMENTS OF RATIONAL CREATURES, WHETHER GOOD OR
BAD; AND ON THE CAUSES OF THEM.
1. But let us now return to the order of our proposed discussion, and
behold the commencement of creation, so far as the understanding can
behold the beginning of the creation of God. In that commencement,[303]
then, we are to suppose that God created so great a number of rational
or intellectual creatures (or by whatever name they are to be called),
which we have formerly termed understandings, as He foresaw would be
sufficient. It is certain that He made them according to some definite
number, predetermined by Himself: for it is not to be imagined, as some
would have it, that creatures have not a limit, because where there is
no limit there can neither be any comprehension nor any limitation. Now
if this were the case, then certainly created things could neither be
restrained nor administered by God. For, naturally, whatever is infinite
will also be incomprehensible. Moreover, as Scripture says, “God has
arranged all things in number and measure;”[304] and therefore number
will be correctly applied to rational creatures or understandings, that
they may be so numerous as to admit of being arranged, governed, and
controlled by God. But measure will be appropriately applied to a
material body; and this measure, we are to believe, was created by God
such as He knew would be sufficient for the adorning of the world.
These, then, are the things which we are to believe were created by God
in the beginning, _i.e._ before all things. And this, we think, is
indicated even in that beginning which Moses has introduced in terms
somewhat ambiguous, when he says, “In the beginning God made the heaven
and the earth.”[305] For it is certain that the firmament is not spoken
of, nor the dry land, but that heaven and earth from which this present
heaven and earth which we now see afterwards borrowed their names.
2. But since those rational natures, which we have said above were made
in the beginning, were created when they did not previously exist, in
consequence of this very fact of their non-existence and commencement of
being, are they necessarily changeable and mutable; since whatever power
was in their substance was not in it by nature, but was the result of
the goodness of their Maker. What they are, therefore, is neither their
own nor endures for ever, but is bestowed by God. For it did not always
exist; and everything which is a gift may also be taken away, and
disappear. And a reason for removal will consist in the movements of
souls not being conducted according to right and propriety. For the
Creator gave, as an indulgence to the understandings created by Him, the
power of free and voluntary action, by which the good that was in them
might become their own, being preserved by the exertion of their own
will; but slothfulness, and a dislike of labour in preserving what is
good, and an aversion to and a neglect of better things, furnished the
beginning of a departure from goodness. But to depart from good is
nothing else than to be made bad. For it is certain that to want
goodness is to be wicked. Whence it happens that, in proportion as one
falls away from goodness, in the same proportion does he become involved
in wickedness. In which condition, according to its actions, each
understanding, neglecting goodness either to a greater or more limited
extent, was dragged into the opposite of good, which undoubtedly is
evil. From which it appears that the Creator of all things admitted
certain seeds and causes of variety and diversity, that He might create
variety and diversity in proportion to the diversity of understandings,
_i.e._ of rational creatures, which diversity they must be supposed to
have conceived from that cause which we have mentioned above. And what
we mean by variety and diversity is what we now wish to explain.
3. Now we term world everything which is above the heavens, or in the
heavens, or upon the earth, or in those places which are called the
lower regions, or all places whatever that anywhere exist, together with
their inhabitants. This whole, then, is called world. In which world
certain beings are said to be super-celestial, _i.e._ placed in happier
abodes, and clothed with heavenly and resplendent bodies; and among
these many distinctions are shown to exist, the apostle, _e.g._, saying,
“That one is the glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon,
another the glory of the stars; for one star differeth from another star
in glory.”[306] Certain beings are called earthly, and among them,
_i.e._ among men, there is no small difference; for some of them are
Barbarians, others Greeks; and of the Barbarians some are savage and
fierce, and others of a milder disposition. And certain of them live
under laws that have been thoroughly approved; others, again, under laws
of a more common or severe kind;[307] while some, again, possess customs
of an inhuman and savage character, rather than laws. And certain of
them, from the hour of their birth, are reduced to humiliation and
subjection, and brought up as slaves, being placed under the dominion
either of masters, or princes, or tyrants. Others, again, are brought up
in a manner more consonant with freedom and reason: some with sound
bodies, some with bodies diseased from their early years; some defective
in vision, others in hearing and speech; some born in that condition,
others deprived of the use of their senses immediately after birth, or
at least undergoing such misfortune on reaching manhood. And why should
I repeat and enumerate all the horrors of human misery, from which some
have been free, and in which others have been involved, when each one
can weigh and consider them for himself? There are also certain
invisible powers to which earthly things have been entrusted for
administration; and amongst them no small difference must be believed to
exist, as is also found to be the case among men. The Apostle Paul
indeed intimates that there are certain lower powers,[308] and that
among them, in like manner, must undoubtedly be sought a ground of
diversity. Regarding dumb animals, and birds, and those creatures which
live in the waters, it seems superfluous to inquire; since it is certain
that these ought to be regarded not as of primary, but of subordinate
rank.
4. Seeing, then, that all things which have been created are said to
have been made through Christ, and in Christ, as the Apostle Paul most
clearly indicates, when he says, “For in Him and by Him were all things
created, whether things in heaven or things on earth, visible and
invisible, whether they be thrones, or powers, or principalities, or
dominions; all things were created by Him, and in Him;”[309] and as in
his Gospel John indicates the same thing, saying, “In the beginning was
the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God: the same was
in the beginning with God: all things were made by Him; and without Him
was not anything made;”[310] and as in the Psalm also it is written, “In
wisdom hast Thou made them all;”[311]—seeing, then, Christ is, as it
were, the Word and Wisdom, and so also the Righteousness, it will
undoubtedly follow that those things which were created in the Word and
Wisdom are said to be created also in that righteousness which is
Christ; that in created things there may appear to be nothing
unrighteous or accidental, but that all things may be shown to be in
conformity with the law of equity and righteousness. How, then, so great
a variety of things, and so great a diversity, can be understood to be
altogether just and righteous, I am sure no human power or language can
explain, unless as prostrate suppliants we pray to the Word, and Wisdom,
and Righteousness Himself, who is the only-begotten Son of God, and who,
pouring Himself by His graces into our senses, may deign to illuminate
what is dark, to lay open what is concealed, and to reveal what is
secret; if, indeed, we should be found either to seek, or ask, or knock
so worthily as to deserve to receive when we ask, or to find when we
seek, or to have it opened to us when we knock. Not relying, then, on
our own powers, but on the help of that Wisdom which made all things,
and of that Righteousness which we believe to be in all His creatures,
although we are in the meantime unable to declare it, yet, trusting in
His mercy, we shall endeavour to examine and inquire how that great
variety and diversity in the world may appear to be consistent with all
righteousness and reason. I mean, of course, merely reason in general;
for it would be a mark of ignorance either to seek, or of folly to give,
a special reason for each individual case.
5. Now, when we say that this world was established in the variety in
which we have above explained that it was created by God, and when we
say that this God is good, and righteous, and most just, there are
numerous individuals, especially those who, coming from the school of
Marcion, and Valentinus, and Basilides, have heard that there are
souls of different natures, who object to us, that it cannot consist
with the justice of God in creating the world to assign to some of His
creatures an abode in the heavens, and not only to give such a better
habitation, but also to grant them a higher and more honourable
position; to favour others with the grant of principalities; to bestow
powers upon some, dominions on others; to confer upon some the most
honourable seats in the celestial tribunals; to enable some to shine
with more resplendent glory, and to glitter with a starry splendour;
to give to some the glory of the sun, to others the glory of the moon,
to others the glory of the stars; to cause one star to differ from
another star in glory. And, to speak once for all, and briefly, if the
Creator God wants neither the will to undertake nor the power to
complete a good and perfect work, what reason can there be that, in
the creation of rational natures, _i.e._ of beings of whose existence
He Himself is the cause, He should make some of higher rank, and
others of second, or third, or of many lower and inferior degrees? In
the next place, they object to us, with regard to terrestrial beings,
that a happier lot by birth is the case with some rather than with
others; as one man, _e.g._, is begotten of Abraham, and born of the
promise; another, too, of Isaac and Rebekah, and who, while still in
the womb, supplants his brother, and is said to be loved by God before
he is born. Nay, this very circumstance,—especially that one man is
born among the Hebrews, with whom he finds instruction in the divine
law; another among the Greeks, themselves also wise, and men of no
small learning; and then another amongst the Ethiopians, who are
accustomed to feed on human flesh; or amongst the Scythians, with whom
parricide is an act sanctioned by law; or amongst the people of
Taurus, where strangers are offered in sacrifice,—is a ground of
strong objection. Their argument accordingly is this: If there be this
great diversity of circumstances, and this diverse and varying
condition by birth, in which the faculty of free-will has no scope
(for no one chooses for himself either where, or with whom, or in what
condition he is born); if, then, this is not caused by the difference
in the nature of souls, _i.e._ that a soul of an evil nature is
destined for a wicked nation, and a good soul for a righteous nation,
what other conclusion remains than that these things must be supposed
to be regulated by accident and chance? And if that be admitted, then
it will be no longer believed that the world was made by God, or
administered by His providence; and as a consequence, a judgment of
God upon the deeds of each individual will appear a thing not to be
looked for. In which matter, indeed, what is clearly the truth of
things is the privilege of Him alone to know who searches all things,
even the deep things of God.
6. We, however, although but men, not to nourish the insolence of the
heretics by our silence, will return to their objections such answers as
occur to us, so far as our abilities enable us. We have frequently
shown, by those declarations which we were able to produce from the holy
Scriptures, that God, the Creator of all things, is good, and just, and
all-powerful. When He in the beginning created those beings which He
desired to create, _i.e._ rational natures, He had no other reason for
creating them than on account of Himself, _i.e._ His own goodness. As He
Himself, then, was the cause of the existence of those things which were
to be created, in whom there was neither any variation nor change, nor
want of power, He created all whom He made equal and alike, because
there was in Himself no reason for producing variety and diversity. But
since those rational creatures themselves, as we have frequently shown,
and will yet show in the proper place, were endowed with the power of
free-will, this freedom of will incited each one either to progress by
imitation of God, or reduced him to failure through negligence. And
this, as we have already stated, is the cause of the diversity among
rational creatures, deriving its origin not from the will or judgment of
the Creator, but from the freedom of the individual will. Now God, who
deemed it just to arrange His creatures according to their merit,
brought down these different understandings into the harmony of one
world, that He might adorn, as it were, one dwelling, in which there
ought to be not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and
clay (and some indeed to honour, and others to dishonour), with those
different vessels, or souls, or understandings. And these are the
causes, in my opinion, why that world presents the aspect of diversity,
while Divine Providence continues to regulate each individual according
to the variety of his movements, or of his feelings and purpose. On
which account the Creator will neither appear to be unjust in
distributing (for the causes already mentioned) to every one according
to his merits; nor will the happiness or unhappiness of each one’s
birth, or whatever be the condition that falls to his lot, be deemed
accidental; nor will different creators, or souls of different natures,
be believed to exist.
7. But even holy Scripture does not appear to me to be altogether silent
on the nature of this secret, as when the Apostle Paul, in discussing
the case of Jacob and Esau, says: “For the children being not yet born,
neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according
to election might stand, not of works, but of Him who calleth, it was
said, The elder shall serve the younger, as it is written, Jacob have I
loved, but Esau have I hated.”[312] And after that, he answers himself,
and says, “What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God?”
And that he might furnish us with an opportunity of inquiring into these
matters, and of ascertaining how these things do not happen without a
reason, he answers himself, and says, “God forbid.”[313] For the same
question, as it seems to me, which is raised concerning Jacob and Esau,
may be raised regarding all celestial and terrestrial creatures, and
even those of the lower world as well. And in like manner it seems to
me, that as he there says, “The children being not yet born, neither
having done any good or evil,” so it might also be said of all other
things, “When they were not yet” created, “neither had yet done any good
or evil, that the decree of God according to election may stand,” that
(as certain think) some things on the one hand were created heavenly,
some on the other earthly, and others, again, beneath the earth, “not of
works” (as they think), “but of Him who calleth,” what shall we say
then, if these things are so? “Is there unrighteousness with God? God
forbid.” As, therefore, when the Scriptures are carefully examined
regarding Jacob and Esau, it is not found to be unrighteousness with God
that it should be said, before they were born, or had done anything in
this life, “the elder shall serve the younger;” and as it is found not
to be unrighteousness that even in the womb Jacob supplanted his
brother, if we feel that he was worthily beloved by God, according to
the deserts of his previous life, so as to deserve to be preferred
before his brother; so also is it with regard to heavenly creatures, if
we notice that diversity was not the original condition of the creature,
but that, owing to causes that have previously existed, a different
office is prepared by the Creator for each one in proportion to the
degree of his merit, on this ground, indeed, that each one, in respect
of having been created by God an understanding, or a rational spirit,
has, according to the movements of his mind and the feelings of his
soul, gained for himself a greater or less amount of merit, and has
become either an object of love to God, or else one of dislike to Him;
while, nevertheless, some of those who are possessed of greater merit
are ordained to suffer with others for the adorning of the state of the
world, and for the discharge of duty to creatures of a lower grade, in
order that by this means they themselves may be participators in the
endurance of the Creator, according to the words of the apostle: “For
the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of
him who hath subjected the same in hope.”[314] Keeping in view, then,
the sentiment expressed by the apostle, when, speaking of the birth of
Esau and Jacob, he says, “Is there unrighteousness with God? God
forbid,” I think it right that this same sentiment should be carefully
applied to the case of all other creatures, because, as we formerly
remarked, the righteousness of the Creator ought to appear in
everything. And this, it appears to me, will be seen more clearly at
last, if each one, whether of celestial or terrestrial or infernal
beings, be said to have the causes of his diversity in himself, and
antecedent to his bodily birth. For all things were created by the Word
of God, and by His Wisdom, and were set in order by His Justice. And by
the grace of His compassion He provides for all men, and encourages all
to the use of whatever remedies may lead to their cure, and incites them
to salvation.
8. As, then, there is no doubt that at the day of judgment the good will
be separated from the bad, and the just from the unjust, and all by the
sentence of God will be distributed according to their deserts
throughout those places of which they are worthy, so I am of opinion
some such state of things was formerly the case, as, God willing, we
shall show in what follows. For God must be believed to do and order all
things and at all times according to His judgment. For the words which
the apostle uses when he says, “In a great house there are not only
vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some to
honour and some to dishonour;”[315] and those which he adds, saying, “If
a man purge himself, he will be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and
meet for the Master’s use, unto every good work,”[316] undoubtedly point
out this, that he who shall purge himself when he is in this life, will
be prepared for every good work in that which is to come; while he who
does not purge himself will be, according to the amount of his impurity,
a vessel unto dishonour, _i.e._ unworthy. It is therefore possible to
understand that there have been also formerly rational vessels, whether
purged or not, _i.e._ which either purged themselves or did not do so,
and that consequently every vessel, according to the measure of its
purity or impurity, received a place, or region, or condition by birth,
or an office to discharge, in this world. All of which, down to the
humblest, God providing for and distinguishing by the power of His
wisdom, arranges all things by His controlling judgment, according to a
most impartial retribution, so far as each one ought to be assisted or
cared for in conformity with his deserts. In which certainly every
principle of equity is shown, while the inequality of circumstances
preserves the justice of a retribution according to merit. But the
grounds of the merits in each individual case are only recognised truly
and clearly by God Himself, along with His only-begotten Word, and His
Wisdom, and the Holy Spirit.
Footnote 303:
The original of this passage is found in Justinian’s Epistle to Menas,
Patriarch of Constantinople, _apud finem_. “In that beginning which is
cognisable by the understanding, God, by His own will, caused to exist
as great a number of intelligent beings as was sufficient; for we must
say that the power of God is finite, and not, under pretence of
praising Him, take away His limitation. For if the divine power be
infinite, it must of necessity be unable to understand even itself,
since that which is naturally illimitable is incapable of being
comprehended. He made things therefore so great as to be able to
apprehend and keep them under His power, and control them by His
providence; so also He prepared matter of such a size (τοσαύτην ὕλην)
as He had the power to ornament.”
Footnote 304:
Wisd. xi. 20: “Thou hast ordered all things in measure, and number,
and weight.”
Footnote 305:
Gen. i. 1.
Footnote 306:
1 Cor. xv. 41.
Footnote 307:
Vilioribus et asperioribus.
Footnote 308:
Inferna.
Footnote 309:
Col. i. 16.
Footnote 310:
John i. 1, 2.
Footnote 311:
Ps. civ. 24.
Footnote 312:
Rom. ix. 11, 12.
Footnote 313:
The text runs, “Respondet sibi ipse, et ait,” on which Ruæus remarks
that the sentence is incomplete, and that “absit” probably should be
supplied. This conjecture has been adopted in the translation.
Footnote 314:
Rom. viii. 20, 21.
Footnote 315:
2 Tim. ii. 20.
Footnote 316:
2 Tim. ii. 21.
CHAPTER X.
ON THE RESURRECTION, AND THE JUDGMENT, THE FIRE OF HELL, AND
PUNISHMENTS.
1. But since the discourse has reminded us of the subjects of a future
judgment and of retribution, and of the punishments of sinners,
according to the threatenings of holy Scripture and the contents of the
church’s teaching—viz., that when the time of judgment comes,
everlasting fire, and outer darkness, and a prison, and a furnace, and
other punishments of like nature, have been prepared for sinners—let us
see what our opinions on these points ought to be. But that these
subjects may be arrived at in proper order, it seems to me that we ought
first to consider the nature of the resurrection, that we may know what
that [body] is which shall come either to punishment, or to rest, or to
happiness; which question in other treatises which we have composed
regarding the resurrection we have discussed at greater length, and have
shown what our opinions were regarding it. But now, also, for the sake
of logical order in our treatise, there will be no absurdity in
re-stating a few points from such works, especially since some take
offence at the creed of the church, as if our belief in the resurrection
were foolish, and altogether devoid of sense; and these are principally
heretics, who, I think, are to be answered in the following manner. If
they also admit that there is a resurrection of the dead, let them
answer us this, What is that which died? Was it not a body? It is of the
body, then, that there will be a resurrection. Let them next tell us if
they think that we are to make use of bodies or not. I think that when
the Apostle Paul says, that “it is sown a natural body, it will arise a
spiritual body,”[317] they cannot deny that it is a body which arises,
or that in the resurrection we are to make use of bodies. What then? If
it is certain that we are to make use of bodies, and if the bodies which
have fallen are declared to rise again (for only that which before has
fallen can be properly said to rise again), it can be a matter of doubt
to no one that they rise again, in order that we may be clothed with
them a second time at the resurrection. The one thing is closely
connected with the other. For if bodies rise again, they undoubtedly
rise to be coverings for us; and if it is necessary for us to be
invested with bodies, as it is certainly necessary, we ought to be
invested with no other than our own. But if it is true that these rise
again, and that they arise “spiritual” bodies, there can be no doubt
that they are said to rise from the dead, after casting away corruption
and laying aside mortality; otherwise it will appear vain and
superfluous for any one to arise from the dead in order to die a second
time. And this, finally, may be more distinctly comprehended thus, if
one carefully consider what are the qualities of an animal body, which,
when sown into the earth, recovers the qualities of a spiritual body.
For it is out of the animal body that the very power and grace of the
resurrection educe the spiritual body, when it transmutes it from a
condition of indignity to one of glory.
2. Since the heretics, however, think themselves persons of great
learning and wisdom, we shall ask them if every body has a form of some
kind, _i.e._ is fashioned according to some shape. And if they shall say
that a body is that which is fashioned according to no shape, they will
show themselves to be the most ignorant and foolish of mankind. For no
one will deny this, save him who is altogether without any learning. But
if, as a matter of course, they say that every body is certainly
fashioned according to some definite shape, we shall ask them if they
can point out and describe to us the shape of a spiritual body; a thing
which they can by no means do. We shall ask them, moreover, about the
differences of those who rise again. How will they show that statement
to be true, that there is “one flesh of birds, another of fishes; bodies
celestial, and bodies terrestrial; that the glory of the celestial is
one, and the glory of the terrestrial another; that one is the glory of
the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of the stars;
that one star differeth from another star in glory, and that so is the
resurrection of the dead?”[318] According to that gradation, then, which
exists among heavenly bodies, let them show to us the differences in the
glory of those who rise again; and if they have endeavoured by any means
to devise a principle that may be in accordance with the differences in
heavenly bodies, we shall ask them to assign the differences in the
resurrection by a comparison of earthly bodies. Our understanding of the
passage indeed is, that the apostle, wishing to describe the great
difference among those who rise again in glory, _i.e._ of the saints,
borrowed a comparison from the heavenly bodies, saying, “One is the
glory of the sun, another the glory of the moon, another the glory of
the stars.” And wishing again to teach us the differences among those
who shall come to the resurrection, without having purged themselves in
this life, _i.e._ sinners, he borrowed an illustration from earthly
things, saying, “There is one flesh of birds, another of fishes.” For
heavenly things are worthily compared to the saints, and earthly things
to sinners. These statements are made in reply to those who deny the
resurrection of the dead, _i.e._ the resurrection of bodies.
3. We now turn our attention to some of our own [believers], who, either
from feebleness of intellect or want of proper instruction, adopt a very
low and abject view of the resurrection of the body. We ask these
persons in what manner they understand that an animal body is to be
changed by the grace of the resurrection, and to become a spiritual one;
and how that which is sown in weakness will arise in power; how that
which is planted in dishonour will arise in glory; and that which was
sown in corruption, will be changed to a state of incorruption. Because
if they believe the apostle, that a body which arises in glory, and
power, and incorruptibility, has already become spiritual, it appears
absurd and contrary to his meaning to say that it can again be entangled
with the passions of flesh and blood, seeing the apostle manifestly
declares that “flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God, nor
shall corruption inherit incorruption.” But how do they understand the
declaration of the apostle, “We shall all be changed?” This
transformation certainly is to be looked for, according to the order
which we have taught above; and in it, undoubtedly, it becomes us to
hope for something worthy of divine grace; and this we believe will take
place in the order in which the apostle describes the sowing in the
ground of a “bare grain of corn, or of any other fruit,” to which “God
gives a body as it pleases Him,” as soon as the grain of corn is dead.
For in the same way also our bodies are to be supposed to fall into the
earth like a grain; and (that germ being implanted in them which
contains the bodily substance) although the bodies die, and become
corrupted, and are scattered abroad, yet by the word of God, that very
germ which is always safe in the substance of the body, raises them from
the earth, and restores and repairs them, as the power which is in the
grain of wheat, after its corruption and death, repairs and restores the
grain into a body having stalk and ear. And so also to those who shall
deserve to obtain an inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, that germ of
the body’s restoration, which we have before mentioned, by God’s command
restores out of the earthly and animal body a spiritual one, capable of
inhabiting the heavens; while to each one of those who may be of
inferior merit, or of more abject condition, or even the lowest in the
scale, and altogether thrust aside, there is yet given, in proportion to
the dignity of his life and soul, a glory and dignity of
body,—nevertheless in such a way, that even the body which rises again
of those who are to be destined to everlasting fire or to severe
punishments, is by the very change of the resurrection so incorruptible,
that it cannot be corrupted and dissolved even by severe punishments.
If, then, such be the qualities of that body which will arise from the
dead, let us now see what is the meaning of the threatening of eternal
fire.
4. We find in the prophet Isaiah, that the fire with which each one is
punished is described as his own; for he says, “Walk in the light of
your own fire, and in the flame which ye have kindled.”[319] By these
words it seems to be indicated that every sinner kindles for himself the
flame of his own fire, and is not plunged into some fire which has been
already kindled by another, or was in existence before himself. Of this
fire the fuel and food are our sins, which are called by the Apostle
Paul wood, and hay, and stubble.[320] And I think that, as abundance of
food, and provisions of a contrary kind and amount, breed fevers in the
body, and fevers, too, of different sorts and duration, according to the
proportion in which the collected poison[321] supplies material and fuel
for disease (the quality of this material, gathered together from
different poisons, proving the causes either of a more acute or more
lingering disease); so, when the soul has gathered together a multitude
of evil works, and an abundance of sins against itself, at a suitable
time all that assembly of evils boils up to punishment, and is set on
fire to chastisements; when the mind itself, or conscience, receiving by
divine power into the memory all those things of which it had stamped on
itself certain signs and forms at the moment of sinning, will see a kind
of history, as it were, of all the foul, and shameful, and unholy deeds
which it has done, exposed before its eyes: then is the conscience
itself harassed, and, pierced by its own goads, becomes an accuser and a
witness against itself. And this, I think, was the opinion of the
Apostle Paul himself, when he said, “Their thoughts mutually accusing or
excusing them in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus
Christ, according to my gospel.”[322] From which it is understood that
around the substance of the soul certain tortures are produced by the
hurtful affections of sins themselves.
5. And that the understanding of this matter may not appear very
difficult, we may draw some considerations from the evil effects of
those passions which are wont to befall some souls, as when a soul is
consumed by the fire of love, or wasted away by zeal or envy, or when
the passion of anger is kindled, or one is consumed by the greatness of
his madness or his sorrow; on which occasions some, finding the excess
of these evils unbearable, have deemed it more tolerable to submit to
death than to endure perpetually torture of such a kind. You will ask
indeed whether, in the case of those who have been entangled in the
evils arising from those vices above enumerated, and who, while existing
in this life, have been unable to procure any amelioration for
themselves, and have in this condition departed from the world, it be
sufficient in the way of punishment that they be tortured by the
remaining in them of these hurtful affections, _i.e._ of the anger, or
of the fury, or of the madness, or of the sorrow, whose fatal poison was
in this life lessened by no healing medicine; or whether, these
affections being changed, they will be subjected to the pains of a
general punishment. Now I am of opinion that another species of
punishment may be understood to exist; because, as we feel that when the
limbs of the body are loosened and torn away from their mutual supports,
there is produced pain of a most excruciating kind, so, when the soul
shall be found to be beyond the order, and connection, and harmony in
which it was created by God for the purposes of good and useful action
and observation, and not to harmonize with itself in the connection of
its rational movements, it must be deemed to bear the chastisement and
torture of its own dissension, and to feel the punishments of its own
disordered condition. And when this dissolution and rending asunder of
soul shall have been tested by the application of fire, a solidification
undoubtedly into a firmer structure will take place, and a restoration
be effected.
6. There are also many other things which escape our notice, and are
known to Him alone who is the physician of our souls. For if, on account
of those bad effects which we bring upon ourselves by eating and
drinking, we deem it necessary for the health of the body to make use of
some unpleasant and painful drug, sometimes even, if the nature of the
disease demand, requiring the severe process of the amputating knife;
and if the virulence of the disease shall transcend even these remedies,
the evil has at last to be burned out by fire; how much more is it to be
understood that God our Physician, desiring to remove the defects of our
souls, which they had contracted from their different sins and crimes,
should employ penal measures of this sort, and should apply even, in
addition, the punishment of fire to those who have lost their soundness
of mind! Pictures of this method of procedure are found also in the holy
Scriptures. In the book of Deuteronomy, the divine word threatens
sinners with the punishments of fevers, and colds, and jaundice,[323]
and with the pains of feebleness of vision, and alienation of mind, and
paralysis, and blindness, and weakness of the reins. If any one, then,
at his leisure gather together out of the whole of Scripture all the
enumerations of diseases which in the threatenings addressed to sinners
are called by the names of bodily maladies, he will find that either the
vices of souls, or their punishments, are figuratively indicated by
them. To understand now, that in the same way in which physicians apply
remedies to the sick, in order that by careful treatment they may
recover their health, God so deals towards those who have lapsed and
fallen into sin, is proved by this, that the cup of God’s fury is
ordered, through the agency of the prophet Jeremiah,[324] to be offered
to all nations, that they may drink it, and be in a state of madness,
and vomit it forth. In doing which, He threatens them, saying, That if
any one refuse to drink, he shall not be cleansed.[325] By which
certainly it is understood that the fury of God’s vengeance is
profitable for the purgation of souls. That the punishment, also, which
is said to be applied by fire, is understood to be applied with the
object of healing, is taught by Isaiah, who speaks thus of Israel: “The
Lord will wash away the filth of the sons or daughters of Zion, and
shall purge away the blood from the midst of them by the spirit of
judgment, and the spirit of burning.”[326] Of the Chaldeans he thus
speaks: “Thou hast the coals of fire; sit upon them: they will be to
thee a help.”[327] And in other passages he says, “The Lord will
sanctify in a burning fire;”[328] and in the prophecies of Malachi he
says, “The Lord sitting will blow, and purify, and will pour forth the
cleansed sons of Judah.”[329]
7. But that fate also which is mentioned in the Gospels as overtaking
unfaithful stewards, who, it is said, are to be divided, and a portion
of them placed along with unbelievers, as if that portion which is not
their own were to be sent elsewhere, undoubtedly indicates some kind of
punishment on those whose spirit, as it seems to me, is shown to be
separated from the soul. For if this Spirit is of divine nature, _i.e._
is understood to be a Holy Spirit, we shall understand this to be said
of the gift of the Holy Spirit: that when, whether by baptism, or by the
grace of the Spirit, the word of wisdom, or the word of knowledge, or of
any other gift, has been bestowed upon a man, and not rightly
administered, _i.e._ either buried in the earth or tied up in a napkin,
the gift of the Spirit will certainly be withdrawn from his soul, and
the other portion which remains, that is, the substance of the soul,
will be assigned its place with unbelievers, being divided and separated
from that Spirit with whom, by joining itself to the Lord, it ought to
have been one spirit. Now, if this is not to be understood of the Spirit
of God, but of the nature of the soul itself, that will be called its
better part which was made in the image and likeness of God; whereas the
other part, that which afterwards, through its fall by the exercise of
free-will, was assumed contrary to the nature of its original condition
of purity,—this part, as being the friend and beloved of matter, is
punished with the fate of unbelievers. There is also a third sense in
which that separation may be understood, this viz., that as each
believer, although the humblest in the church, is said to be attended by
an angel, who is declared by the Saviour always to behold the face of
God the Father, and as this angel was certainly one with the object of
his guardianship; so, if the latter is rendered unworthy by his want of
obedience, the angel of God is said to be taken from him, and then that
part of him—the part, viz., which belongs to his human nature—being rent
away from the divine part, is assigned a place along with unbelievers,
because it has not faithfully observed the admonitions of the angel
allotted it by God.
8. But the outer darkness, in my judgment, is to be understood not so
much of some dark atmosphere without any light, as of those persons who,
being plunged in the darkness of profound ignorance, have been placed
beyond the reach of any light of the understanding. We must see, also,
lest this perhaps should be the meaning of the expression, that as the
saints will receive those bodies in which they have lived in holiness
and purity in the habitations of this life, bright and glorious after
the resurrection, so the wicked also, who in this life have loved the
darkness of error and the night of ignorance, may be clothed with dark
and black bodies after the resurrection, that the very mist of ignorance
which had in this life taken possession of their minds within them, may
appear in the future as the external covering of the body. Similar is
the view to be entertained regarding the prison. Let these remarks,
which have been made as brief as possible, that the order of our
discourse in the meantime might be preserved, suffice for the present
occasion.
Footnote 317:
1 Cor. xv. 44: natural, animale.
Footnote 318:
1 Cor. xv. 39-42.
Footnote 319:
Isa. i. 11.
Footnote 320:
1 Cor. iii. 12.
Footnote 321:
Intemperies.
Footnote 322:
Rom. ii. 13, 16.
Footnote 323:
Aurigine. Deut. xxviii.
Footnote 324:
Cf. Jer. xxv. 15, 16.
Footnote 325:
Cf. Jer. xxv. 28, 29.
Footnote 326:
Isa. iv. 4.
Footnote 327:
Isa. xlvii. 14, 15; _vid._ note, chap. v. § 3.
Footnote 328:
Isa. x. 17, cf. lxvi. 16.
Footnote 329:
Cf. Mal. iii. 3.
CHAPTER XI.
ON COUNTER PROMISES.[330]
1. Let us now briefly see what views we are to form regarding promises.
It is certain that there is no living thing which can be altogether
inactive and immoveable, but delights in motion of every kind, and in
perpetual activity and volition; and this nature, I think it evident, is
in all living things. Much more, then, must a rational animal, _i.e._
the nature of man, be in perpetual movement and activity. If, indeed, he
is forgetful of himself, and ignorant of what becomes him, all his
efforts are directed to serve the uses of the body, and in all his
movements he is occupied with his own pleasures and bodily lusts; but if
he be one who studies to care or provide for the general good, then,
either by consulting for the benefit of the state or by obeying the
magistrates, he exerts himself for that, whatever it is, which may seem
certainly to promote the public advantage. And if now any one be of such
a nature as to understand that there is something better than those
things which seem to be corporeal, and so bestow his labour upon wisdom
and science, then he will undoubtedly direct all his attention towards
pursuits of that kind, that he may, by inquiring into the truth,
ascertain the causes and reason of things. As therefore, in this life,
one man deems it the highest good to enjoy bodily pleasures, another to
consult for the benefit of the community, a third to devote attention to
study and learning; so let us inquire whether in that life which is the
true one (which is said to be hidden with Christ in God, _i.e._ in that
eternal life), there will be for us some such order and condition of
existence.
2. Certain persons, then, refusing the labour of thinking, and adopting
a superficial view of the letter of the law, and yielding rather in some
measure to the indulgence of their own desires and lusts, being
disciples of the letter alone, are of opinion that the fulfilment of the
promises of the future are to be looked for in bodily pleasure and
luxury; and therefore they especially desire to have again, after the
resurrection, such bodily structures[331] as may never be without the
power of eating, and drinking, and performing all the functions of flesh
and blood, not following the opinion of the Apostle Paul regarding the
resurrection of a spiritual body. And consequently they say, that after
the resurrection there will be marriages, and the begetting of children,
imagining to themselves that the earthly city of Jerusalem is to be
rebuilt, its foundations laid in precious stones, and its walls
constructed of jasper, and its battlements of crystal; that it is to
have a wall composed of many precious stones, as jasper, and sapphire,
and chalcedony, and emerald, and sardonyx, and onyx, and chrysolite, and
chrysoprase, and jacinth, and amethyst. Moreover, they think that the
natives of other countries are to be given them as the ministers of
their pleasures, whom they are to employ either as tillers of the field
or builders of walls, and by whom their ruined and fallen city is again
to be raised up; and they think that they are to receive the wealth of
the nations to live on, and that they will have control over their
riches; that even the camels of Midian and Kedar will come, and bring to
them gold, and incense, and precious stones. And these views they think
to establish on the authority of the prophets by those promises which
are written regarding Jerusalem; and by those passages also where it is
said, that they who serve the Lord shall eat and drink, but that sinners
shall hunger and thirst; that the righteous shall be joyful, but that
sorrow shall possess the wicked. And from the New Testament also they
quote the saying of the Saviour, in which He makes a promise to His
disciples concerning the joy of wine, saying, “Henceforth I shall not
drink of this cup, until I drink it with you new in my Father’s
kingdom.”[332] They add, moreover, that declaration, in which the
Saviour calls those blessed who now hunger and thirst,[333] promising
them that they shall be satisfied; and many other scriptural
illustrations are adduced by them, the meaning of which they do not
perceive is to be taken figuratively. Then, again, agreeably to the form
of things in this life, and according to the gradations of the dignities
or ranks in this world, or the greatness of their powers, they think
they are to be kings and princes, like those earthly monarchs who now
exist; chiefly, as it appears, on account of that expression in the
Gospel: “Have thou power over five cities.”[334] And to speak shortly,
according to the manner of things in this life in all similar matters,
do they desire the fulfilment of all things looked for in the promises,
viz. that what now is should exist again. Such are the views of those
who, while believing in Christ, understand the divine Scriptures in a
sort of Jewish sense, drawing from them nothing worthy of the divine
promises.
3. Those, however, who receive the representations of Scripture
according to the understanding of the apostles, entertain the hope that
the saints will eat indeed, but that it will be the bread of life, which
may nourish the soul with the food of truth and wisdom, and enlighten
the mind, and cause it to drink from the cup of divine wisdom, according
to the declaration of holy Scripture: “Wisdom has prepared her table,
she has killed her beasts, she has mingled her wine in her cup, and she
cries with a loud voice, Come to me, eat the bread which I have prepared
for you, and drink the wine which I have mingled.”[335] By this food of
wisdom, the understanding, being nourished to an entire and perfect
condition like that in which man was made at the beginning, is restored
to the image and likeness of God; so that, although an individual may
depart from this life less perfectly instructed, but who has done works
that are approved of,[336] he will be capable of receiving instruction
in that Jerusalem, the city of the saints, _i.e._ he will be educated
and moulded, and made a living stone, a stone elect and precious,
because he has undergone with firmness and constancy the struggles of
life and the trials of piety; and will there come to a truer and clearer
knowledge of that which here has been already predicted, viz. that “man
shall not live by bread alone, but by every word which proceedeth from
the mouth of God.”[337] And they also are to be understood to be the
princes and rulers who both govern those of lower rank, and instruct
them, and teach them, and train them to divine things.
4. But if these views should not appear to fill the minds of those who
hope for such results with a becoming desire, let us go back a little,
and, irrespective of the natural and innate longing of the mind for the
thing itself, let us make inquiry so that we may be able at last to
describe, as it were, the very forms of the bread of life, and the
quality of that wine, and the peculiar nature of the principalities, all
in conformity with the spiritual view of things.[338] Now, as in those
arts which are usually performed by means of manual labour, the reason
why a thing is done, or why it is of a special quality, or for a special
purpose, is an object of investigation to the mind,[339] while the
actual work itself is unfolded to view by the agency of the hands; so,
in those works of God which were created by Him, it is to be observed
that the reason and understanding of those things which we see done by
Him remains undisclosed. And as, when our eye beholds the products of an
artist’s labour, the mind, immediately on perceiving anything of unusual
artistic excellence, burns to know of what nature it is, or how it was
formed, or to what purposes it was fashioned; so, in a much greater
degree, and in one that is beyond all comparison, does the mind burn
with an inexpressible desire to know the reason of those things which we
see done by God. This desire, this longing, we believe to be
unquestionably implanted within us by God; and as the eye naturally
seeks the light and vision, and our body naturally desires food and
drink, so our mind is possessed with a becoming and natural desire to
become acquainted with the truth of God and the causes of things. Now we
have received this desire from God, not in order that it should never be
gratified or be _capable_ of gratification; otherwise the love of truth
would appear to have been implanted by God into our minds to no purpose,
if it were never to have an opportunity of satisfaction. Whence also,
even in this life, those who devote themselves with great labour to the
pursuits of piety and religion, although obtaining only some small
fragments from the numerous and immense treasures of divine knowledge,
yet, by the very circumstance that their mind and soul is engaged in
these pursuits, and that in the eagerness of their desire they outstrip
themselves, do they derive much advantage; and, because their minds are
directed to the study and love of the investigation of truth, are they
made fitter for receiving the instruction that is to come; as if, when
one would paint an image, he were first with a light pencil to trace out
the outlines of the coming picture, and prepare marks for the reception
of the features that are to be afterwards added, this preliminary sketch
in outline is found to prepare the way for the laying on of the true
colours of the painting; so, in a measure, an outline and sketch may be
traced on the tablets of our heart by the pencil of our Lord Jesus
Christ. And therefore perhaps is it said, “Unto every one that hath
shall be given, and be added.”[340] By which it is established, that to
those who possess in this life a kind of outline of truth and knowledge,
shall be added the beauty of a perfect image in the future.
5. Some such desire, I apprehend, was indicated by him who said, “I am
in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with
Christ, which is far better;”[341] knowing that when he should have
returned to Christ he would then know more clearly the reasons of all
things which are done on earth, either respecting man, or the soul of
man, or the mind; or regarding any other subject, such as, for instance,
what is the Spirit that operates, what also is the vital spirit, or what
is the grace of the Holy Spirit that is given to believers. Then also
will he understand what Israel appears to be, or what is meant by the
diversity of nations; what the twelve tribes of Israel mean, and what
the individual people of each tribe. Then, too, will he understand the
reason of the priests and Levites, and of the different priestly orders,
the type of which was in Moses, and also what is the true meaning of the
jubilees, and of the weeks of years with God. He will see also the
reasons for the festival days, and holy days, and for all the sacrifices
and purifications. He will perceive also the reason of the purgation
from leprosy, and what the different kinds of leprosy are, and the
reason of the purgation of those who lose their seed. He will come to
know, moreover, what are the good influences,[342] and their greatness,
and their qualities; and those too which are of a contrary kind, and
what the affection of the former, and what the strife-causing emulation
of the latter is towards men. He will behold also the nature of the
soul, and the diversity of animals (whether of those which live in the
water, or of birds, or of wild beasts), and why each of the genera is
subdivided into so many species; and what intention of the Creator, or
what purpose of His wisdom, is concealed in each individual thing. He
will become acquainted, too, with the reason why certain properties are
found associated with certain roots or herbs, and why, on the other
hand, evil effects are averted by other herbs and roots. He will know,
moreover, the nature of the apostate angels, and the reason why they
have power to flatter in some things those who do not despise them with
the whole power of faith, and why they exist for the purpose of
deceiving and leading men astray. He will learn, too, the judgment of
Divine Providence on each individual thing; and that, of those events
which happen to men, none occur by accident or chance, but in accordance
with a plan so carefully considered, and so stupendous, that it does not
overlook even the number of the hairs of the heads, not merely of the
saints, but perhaps of all human beings, and the plan of which
providential government extends even to caring for the sale of two
sparrows for a denarius, whether sparrows there be understood
figuratively or literally. Now indeed this providential government is
still a subject of investigation, but then it will be fully manifested.
From all which we are to suppose, that meanwhile not a little time may
pass by until the reason of those things only which are upon the earth
be pointed out to the worthy and deserving after their departure from
life, that by the knowledge of all these things, and by the grace of
full knowledge, they may enjoy an unspeakable joy. Then, if that
atmosphere which is between heaven and earth is not devoid of
inhabitants, and those of a rational kind, as the apostle says, “Wherein
in times past ye walked according to the course of this world, according
to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit who now worketh in the
children of disobedience.”[343] And again he says, “We shall be caught
up in the clouds to meet Christ in the air, and so shall we ever be with
the Lord.”[344]
6. We are therefore to suppose that the saints will remain there until
they recognise the twofold mode of government in those things which are
performed in the air. And when I say “twofold mode,” I mean this: When
we were upon earth, we saw either animals or trees, and beheld the
differences among them, and also the very great diversity among men; but
although we saw these things, we did not understand the reason of them;
and this only was suggested to us from the visible diversity, that we
should examine and inquire upon what principle these things were either
created or diversely arranged. And a zeal or desire for knowledge of
this kind being conceived by us on earth, the full understanding and
comprehension of it will be granted after death, if indeed the result
should follow according to our expectations. When, therefore, we shall
have fully comprehended its nature, we shall understand in a twofold
manner what we saw on earth. Some such view, then, must we hold
regarding this abode in the air. I think, therefore, that all the saints
who depart from this life will remain in some place situated on the
earth, which holy Scripture calls paradise, as in some place of
instruction, and, so to speak, class-room or school of souls, in which
they are to be instructed regarding all the things which they had seen
on earth, and are to receive also some information respecting things
that are to follow in the future, as even when in this life they had
obtained in some degree indications of future events, although “through
a glass darkly,” all of which are revealed more clearly and distinctly
to the saints in their proper time and place. If any one indeed be pure
in heart, and holy in mind, and more practised in perception, he will,
by making more rapid progress, quickly ascend to a place in the air, and
reach the kingdom of heaven, through those mansions, so to speak, in the
various places which the Greeks have termed spheres, _i.e._ globes, but
which holy Scripture has called heavens; in each of which he will first
see clearly what is done there, and in the second place, will discover
the reason why things are so done: and thus he will in order pass
through all gradations, following Him who hath passed into the heavens,
Jesus the Son of God, who said, “I will that where I am, these may be
also.”[345] And of this diversity of places He speaks, when He says, “In
my Father’s house are many mansions.” He Himself is everywhere, and
passes swiftly through all things; nor are we any longer to understand
Him as existing in those narrow limits in which He was once confined for
our sakes, _i.e._ not in that circumscribed body which He occupied on
earth, when dwelling among men, according to which He might be
considered as enclosed in some one place.
7. When, then, the saints shall have reached the celestial abodes, they
will clearly see the nature of the stars one by one, and will understand
whether they are endued with life, or their condition, whatever it is.
And they will comprehend also the other reasons for the works of God,
which He Himself will reveal to them. For He will show to them, as to
children, the causes of things and the power of His creation,[346] and
will explain why that star was placed in that particular quarter of the
sky, and why it was separated from another by so great an intervening
space; what, _e.g._, would have been the consequence if it had been
nearer or more remote; or if that star had been larger than this, how
the totality of things would not have remained the same, but all would
have been transformed into a different condition of being. And so, when
they have finished all those matters which are connected with the stars,
and with the heavenly revolutions, they will come to those which are not
seen, or to those whose names only we have heard, and to things which
are invisible, which the Apostle Paul has informed us are numerous,
although what they are, or what difference may exist among them, we
cannot even conjecture by our feeble intellect. And thus the rational
nature, growing by each individual step, not as it grew in this life in
flesh, and body, and soul, but enlarged in understanding and in power of
perception, is raised as a mind already perfect to perfect knowledge, no
longer at all impeded by those carnal senses, but increased in
intellectual growth; and ever gazing purely, and, so to speak, face to
face, on the causes of things, it attains perfection, firstly, viz. that
by which it ascends to [the truth],[347] and secondly, that by which it
abides in it, having problems and the understanding of things, and the
causes of events, as the food on which it may feast. For as in this life
our bodies grow physically to what they are, through a sufficiency of
food in early life supplying the means of increase, but after the due
height has been attained we use food no longer to grow, but to live, and
to be preserved in life by it; so also I think that the mind, when it
has attained perfection, eats and avails itself of suitable and
appropriate food in such a degree, that nothing ought to be either
deficient or superfluous. And in all things this food is to be
understood as the contemplation and understanding of God, which is of a
measure appropriate and suitable to this nature, which was made and
created; and this measure it is proper should be observed by every one
of those who are beginning to see God, _i.e._ to understand Him through
purity of heart.
Footnote 330:
Repromissionibus.
Footnote 331:
Carnes.
Footnote 332:
Matt. xxvi. 29.
Footnote 333:
Matt. v. 6.
Footnote 334:
Cf. Luke xix. 19 and 17.
Footnote 335:
Cf. Prov. ix. 1-5.
Footnote 336:
Opera probabilia.
Footnote 337:
Deut. viii. 3.
Footnote 338:
The passage is somewhat obscure, but the rendering in the text seems
to convey the meaning intended.
Footnote 339:
Versatur in sensu.
Footnote 340:
Luke xix. 26; cf. Matt. xxv. 29.
Footnote 341:
Phil. i. 23.
Footnote 342:
Virtutes.
Footnote 343:
Eph. ii. 2. There is an evident omission of some words in the text,
such as, “They will enter into it,” etc.
Footnote 344:
1 Thess. iv. 17.
Footnote 345:
John xiv. 2.
Footnote 346:
Virtutem suæ conditionis. Seine Schöpferkraft (Schnitzer).
Footnote 347:
In id: To that state of the soul in which it gazes purely on the
causes of things.
BOOK III.
PREFACE OF RUFINUS.
Reader, remember me in your prayers, that we too may deserve to be made
emulators of the spirit. The two former books on _The Principles_ I
translated not only at your instance, but even under pressure from you
during the days of Lent;[348] but as you, my devout brother Macarius,
were not only living near me during that time, but had more leisure at
your command than now, so I also worked the harder; whereas I have been
longer in explaining these two latter books, seeing you came less
frequently from a distant extremity of the city to urge on my labour.
Now if you remember what I warned you of in my former preface,—that
certain persons would be indignant, if they did not hear that we spoke
some evil of Origen,—that, I imagine, you have forthwith experienced,
has come to pass. But if those demons[349] who excite the tongues of men
to slander were so infuriated by that work, in which he had not as yet
fully unveiled their secret proceedings, what, think you, will be the
case in this, in which he will expose all those dark and hidden ways, by
which they creep into the hearts of men, and deceive weak and unstable
souls? You will immediately see all things thrown into confusion,
seditions stirred up, clamours raised throughout the whole city, and
that individual summoned to receive sentence of condemnation who
endeavoured to dispel the diabolical darkness of ignorance by means of
the light of the gospel lamp.[350] Let such things, however, be lightly
esteemed by him who is desirous of being trained in divine learning,
while retaining in its integrity the rule of the Catholic faith.[351] I
think it necessary, however, to remind you that the principle observed
in the former books has been observed also in these, viz. not to
translate what appeared contrary to Origen’s other opinions, and to our
own belief, but to pass by such passages as being interpolated and
forged by others. But if he has appeared to give expression to any
novelties regarding rational creatures (on which subject the essence of
our faith does not depend), for the sake of discussion and of adding to
our knowledge, when perhaps it was necessary for us to answer in such an
order some heretical opinions, I have not omitted to mention these
either in the present or preceding books, unless when he wished to
repeat in the following books what he had already stated in the previous
ones, when I have thought it convenient, for the sake of brevity, to
curtail some of these repetitions. Should any one, however, peruse these
passages from a desire to enlarge his knowledge, and not to raise
captious objections, he will do better to have them expounded by persons
of skill. For it is an absurdity to have the fictions of poetry and the
ridiculous plays of comedy[352] interpreted by grammarians, and to
suppose that without a master and an interpreter any one is able to
learn those things which are spoken either of God or of the heavenly
virtues, and of the whole universe of things, in which some deplorable
error either of pagan philosophers or of heretics is confuted; and the
result of which is, that men would rather rashly and ignorantly condemn
things that are difficult and obscure, than ascertain their meaning by
diligence and study.
Footnote 348:
Diebus quadragesimæ.
Footnote 349:
Dæmones.
Footnote 350:
Evangelicæ lucernæ lumine diabolicas ignorantiæ tenebras.
Footnote 351:
Salvâ fidei Catholicæ regula.
Footnote 352:
Comœdiarum ridiculas fabulas.
CHAPTER I.
[Transcriber’s Note: As described in the following footnote, the
original book printed the translations from both the Latin and Greek
originals. In the original book, the top of each page printed lines from
the translation from the Latin, and the bottom of the page printed lines
from the translation from the Greek, and the reader would be able to
compare them, with the text for the numbered sections running over
multiple printed pages. In this e-book, instead, the Latin translation
for an entire numbered section will be printed, followed by that
paragraph’s Greek translation, and then the next section.]
TRANSLATED FROM LATIN OF RUFINUS.
CHAPTER I.
ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL.[353]
1. Some such opinions, we believe, ought to be entertained regarding the
divine promises, when we direct our understanding to the contemplation
of that eternal and infinite world, and gaze on its ineffable joy and
blessedness. But as the preaching of the church includes a belief in a
future and just judgment of God, which belief incites and persuades men
to a good and virtuous life, and to an avoidance of sin by all possible
means; and as by this it is undoubtedly indicated that it is within our
own power to devote ourselves either to a life that is worthy of praise,
or to one that is worthy of censure, I therefore deem it necessary to
say a few words regarding the freedom of the will, seeing that this
topic has been treated by very many writers in no mean style. And that
we may ascertain more easily what is the freedom of the will, let us
inquire into the nature of will and of desire.[354]
TRANSLATION FROM THE GREEK.
CHAPTER I.
ON THE FREEDOM OF THE WILL[355], WITH AN EXPLANATION AND INTERPRETATION
OF THOSE STATEMENTS OF SCRIPTURE WHICH APPEAR TO NULLIFY IT.
1. Since in the preaching of the church there is included the doctrine
respecting a just judgment of God, which, when believed to be true,
incites those who hear it to live virtuously, and to shun sin by all
means, inasmuch as they manifestly acknowledge that things worthy of
praise and blame are within our own power, come and let us discuss by
themselves a few points regarding the freedom of the will—a question of
all others most necessary. And that we may understand what the freedom
of the will is, it is necessary to unfold the conception of it,[356]
that this being declared with precision, the subject may be placed
before us.
FROM THE LATIN.
2. Of all things which move, some have the cause of their motion within
themselves, others receive it from without: and all those things only
are moved from without which are without life, as stones, and pieces of
wood, and whatever things are of such a nature as to be held together by
the constitution of their matter alone, or of their bodily
substance.[357] That view must indeed be dismissed which would regard
the dissolution of bodies by corruption as motion, for it has no bearing
upon our present purpose. Others, again, have the cause of motion in
themselves, as animals, or trees, and all things which are held together
by natural life or soul; among which some think ought to be classed the
veins of metals. Fire, also, is supposed to be the cause of its own
motion, and perhaps also springs of water. And of those things which
have the causes of their motion in themselves, some are said to be moved
out of themselves, others by themselves. And they so distinguish them,
because those things are moved out of themselves which are alive indeed,
but have no soul;[358] whereas those things which have a soul are moved
by themselves, when a phantasy,[359] _i.e._ a desire or incitement, is
presented to them, which excites them to move towards something.
Finally, in certain things endowed with a soul, there is such a
phantasy, _i.e._ a will or feeling,[360] as by a kind of natural
instinct calls them forth, and arouses them to orderly and regular
motion; as we see to be the case with spiders, which are stirred up in a
most orderly manner by a phantasy, _i.e._ a sort of wish and desire for
weaving, to undertake the production of a web, some natural movement
undoubtedly calling forth the effort to work of this kind. Nor is this
very insect found to possess any other feeling than the natural desire
of weaving; as in like manner bees also exhibit a desire to form
honeycombs, and to collect, as they say, aerial honey.[361]
FROM THE GREEK.
2. Of things that move, some have the cause of their motion within
themselves; others, again, are moved only from without. Now only
portable things are moved from without, such as pieces of wood, and
stones, and all matter that is held together by their constitution
alone.[362] And let that view be removed from consideration which calls
the flux of bodies motion, since it is not needed for our present
purpose. But animals and plants have the cause of their motion within
themselves, and in general whatever is held together by nature and a
soul, to which class of things they say that metals also belong. And
besides these, fire too is self-moved, and perhaps also fountains of
water. Now, of those things which have the cause of their movement
within themselves, some, they say, are moved out of themselves, others
from themselves: things without life, out of themselves; animate things,
from themselves. For animate things are moved from themselves, a
phantasy[363] springing up in them which incites to effort. And again,
in certain animals phantasies are formed which call forth an effort, the
nature of the phantasy[364] stirring up the effort in an orderly manner,
as in the spider is formed the phantasy of weaving; and the attempt to
weave follows, the nature of its phantasy inciting the insect in an
orderly manner to this alone. And besides its phantasial nature, nothing
else is believed to belong to the insect.[365] And in the bee there is
formed the phantasy to produce wax.
FROM THE LATIN.
3. But since a rational animal not only has within itself these natural
movements, but has moreover, to a greater extent than other animals, the
power of reason, by which it can judge and determine regarding natural
movements, and disapprove and reject some, while approving and adopting
others, so by the judgment of this reason may the movements of men be
governed and directed towards a commendable life. And from this it
follows that, since the nature of this reason which is in man has within
itself the power of distinguishing between good and evil, and while
distinguishing possesses the faculty of selecting what it has approved,
it may justly be deemed worthy of praise in choosing what is good, and
deserving of censure in following that which is base or wicked. This
indeed must by no means escape our notice, that in some dumb animals
there is found a more regular movement[366] than in others, as in
hunting-dogs or war-horses, so that they may appear to some to be moved
by a kind of rational sense. But we must believe this to be the result
not so much of reason as of some natural instinct,[367] largely bestowed
for purposes of that kind. Now, as we had begun to remark, seeing that
such is the nature of a rational animal, some things may happen to us
human beings from without; and these, coming in contact with our sense
of sight, or hearing, or any other of our senses, may incite and arouse
us to good movements, or the contrary; and seeing they come to us from
an external source, it is not within our own power to prevent their
coming. But to determine and approve what use we ought to make of those
things which thus happen, is the duty of no other than of that reason
within us, _i.e._ of our own judgment; by the decision of which reason
we use the incitement, which comes to us from without for that purpose,
which reason approves, our natural movements being determined by its
authority either to good actions or the reverse.
FROM THE GREEK.
3. The rational animal, however, has, in addition to its phantasial
nature, also reason, which judges the phantasies, and disapproves of
some and accepts others, in order that the animal may be led according
to them. Therefore, since there are in the nature of reason aids towards
the contemplation of virtue and vice, by following which, after
beholding good and evil, we select the one and avoid the other, we are
deserving of praise when we give ourselves to the practice of virtue,
and censurable when we do the reverse. We must not, however, be ignorant
that the greater part of the nature assigned to all things is a varying
quantity[368] among animals, both in a greater and a less degree; so
that the instinct in hunting-dogs and in war-horses approaches somehow,
so to speak, to the faculty of reason. Now, to fall under some one of
those external causes which stir up within us this phantasy or that, is
confessedly not one of those things that are dependent upon ourselves;
but to determine that we shall use the occurrence in this way or
differently, is the prerogative of nothing else than of the reason
within us, which, as occasion offers,[369] arouses us towards efforts
inciting to what is virtuous and becoming, or turns us aside to what is
the reverse.
FROM THE LATIN.
4. If any one now were to say that those things which happen to us from
an external cause, and call forth our movements, are of such a nature
that it is impossible to resist them, whether they incite us to good or
evil, let the holder of this opinion turn his attention for a little
upon himself, and carefully inspect the movements of his own mind,
unless he has discovered already, that when an enticement to any desire
arises, nothing is accomplished until the assent of the soul is gained,
and the authority of the mind has granted indulgence to the wicked
suggestion; so that a claim might seem to be made by two parties on
certain probable grounds as to a judge residing within the tribunals of
our heart, in order that, after the statement of reasons, the decree of
execution may proceed from the judgment of reason.[370] For, to take an
illustration: if, to a man who has determined to live continently and
chastely, and to keep himself free from all pollution with women, a
woman should happen to present herself, inciting and alluring him to act
contrary to his purpose, that woman is not a complete and absolute cause
or necessity of his transgressing,[371] since it is in his power, by
remembering his resolution, to bridle the incitements to lust, and by
the stern admonitions of virtue to restrain the pleasure of the
allurement that solicits him; so that, all feeling of indulgence being
driven away, his determination may remain firm and enduring. Finally, if
to any men of learning, strengthened by divine training, allurements of
that kind present themselves, remembering forthwith what they are, and
calling to mind what has long been the subject of their meditation and
instruction, and fortifying themselves by the support of a holier
doctrine, they reject and repel all incitement to pleasure, and drive
away opposing lusts by the interposition of the reason implanted within
them.
FROM THE GREEK.
4. But if any one maintain that this very external cause is of such a
nature that it is impossible to resist it when it comes in such a way,
let him turn his attention to his own feelings and movements, [and see]
whether there is not an approval, and assent, and inclination of the
controlling principle towards some object on account of some specious
arguments.[372] For, to take an instance, a woman who has appeared
before a man that has determined to be chaste, and to refrain from
carnal intercourse, and who has incited him to act contrary to his
purpose, is not a perfect[373] cause of annulling his determination.
For, being altogether pleased with the luxury and allurement of the
pleasure, and not wishing to resist it, or to keep his purpose, he
commits an act of licentiousness. Another man, again (when the same
things have happened to him who has received more instruction, and has
disciplined himself[374]), encounters, indeed, allurements and
enticements; but his reason, as being strengthened to a higher point,
and carefully trained, and confirmed in its views towards a virtuous
course, or being near to confirmation,[375] repels the incitement, and
extinguishes the desire.
FROM THE LATIN.
5. Seeing, then, that these positions are thus established by a sort of
natural evidence, is it not superfluous to throw back the causes of our
actions on those things which happen to us from without, and thus
transfer the blame from ourselves, on whom it wholly lies? For this is
to say that we are like pieces of wood, or stones, which have no motion
in themselves, but receive the causes of their motion from without. Now
such an assertion is neither true nor becoming, and is invented only
that the freedom of the will may be denied; unless, indeed, we are to
suppose that the freedom of the will consists in this, that nothing
which happens to us from without can incite us to good or evil. And if
any one were to refer the causes of our faults to the natural
disorder[376] of the body, such a theory is proved to be contrary to the
reason of all teaching.[377] For, as we see in very many individuals,
that after living unchastely and intemperately, and after being the
captives of luxury and lust, if they should happen to be aroused by the
word of teaching and instruction to enter upon a better course of life,
there takes place so great a change, that from being luxurious and
wicked men, they are converted into those who are sober, and most chaste
and gentle; so, again, we see in the case of those who are quiet and
honest, that after associating with restless and shameless individuals,
their good morals are corrupted by evil conversation, and they become
like those whose wickedness is complete.[378] And this is the case
sometimes with men of mature age, so that such have lived more chastely
in youth than when more advanced years have enabled them to indulge in a
freer mode of life. The result of our reasoning, therefore, is to show
that those things which happen to us from without are not in our own
power; but that to make a good or bad use of those things which do so
happen, by help of that reason which is within us, and which
distinguishes and determines how these things ought to be used, _is_
within our power.
FROM THE GREEK.
5. Such being the case, to say that we are moved from without, and to
put away the blame from ourselves, by declaring that we are like to
pieces of wood and stones, which are dragged about by those causes that
act upon them from without, is neither true nor in conformity with
reason, but is the statement of him who wishes to destroy[379] the
conception of free-will. For if we were to ask such an one what was
free-will, he would say that it consisted in this, that when purposing
to do some thing, no external cause came inciting to the reverse. But to
blame, on the other hand, the mere constitution of the body,[380] is
absurd; for the disciplinary reason,[381] taking hold of those who are
most intemperate and savage (if they will follow her exhortation),
effects a transformation, so that the alteration and change for the
better is most extensive,—the most licentious men frequently becoming
better than those who formerly did not seem to be such by nature; and
the most savage men passing into such a state of mildness,[382] that
those persons who never at any time were so savage as they were, appear
savage in comparison, so great a degree of gentleness having been
produced within them. And we see other men, most steady and respectable,
driven from their state of respectability and steadiness by intercourse
with evil customs, so as to fall into habits of licentiousness, often
beginning their wickedness in middle age, and plunging into disorder
after the period of youth has passed, which, so far as its nature is
concerned, is unstable. Reason, therefore, demonstrates that external
events do not depend on us, but that it is our own business to use them
in this way or the opposite, having received reason as a judge and an
investigator[383] of the manner in which we ought to meet those events
that come from without.
FROM THE LATIN.
6. And now, to confirm the deductions of reason by the authority of
Scripture—viz. that it is our own doing whether we live rightly or not,
and that we are not compelled, either by those causes which come to us
from without, or, as some think, by the presence of fate—we adduce the
testimony of the prophet Micah, in these words: “If it has been
announced to thee, O man, what is good, or what the Lord requires of
thee, except that thou shouldst do justice, and love mercy, and be ready
to walk with the Lord thy God.”[384] Moses also speaks as follows: “I
have placed before thy face the way of life and the way of death: choose
what is good, and walk in it.”[385] Isaiah, moreover, makes this
declaration: “If you are willing, and hear me, ye shall eat the good of
the land. But if you be unwilling, and will not hear me, the sword shall
consume you; for the mouth of the Lord has spoken this.”[386] In the
psalm, too, it is written: “If my people had heard me, if Israel had
walked in my ways, I would have humbled her enemies to nothing;”[387] by
which he shows that it was in the power of the people to hear, and to
walk in the ways of God. The Saviour also saying, “I say unto you,
Resist not evil;”[388] and, “Whoever shall be angry with his brother,
shall be in danger of the judgment;”[389] and, “Whosoever shall look
upon a woman to lust after her, hath already committed adultery with her
in his heart;”[390] and in issuing certain other commands,—conveys no
other meaning than this, that it is in our own power to observe what is
commanded. And therefore we are rightly rendered liable to condemnation
if we transgress those commandments which we are able to keep. And hence
He Himself also declares: “Every one who hears my words, and doeth them,
I will show to whom he is like: he is like a wise man who built his
house upon a rock,” etc.[391] So also the declaration: “Whoso heareth
these things, and doeth them not, is like a foolish man, who built his
house upon the sand,” etc.[392] Even the words addressed to those who
are on His right hand, “Come unto me, all ye blessed of my Father,”
etc.; “for I was an hungered, and ye gave me to eat; I was thirsty, and
ye gave me drink,”[393] manifestly show that it depended upon
themselves, that either these should be deserving of praise for doing
what was commanded and receiving what was promised, or those deserving
of censure who either heard or received the contrary, and to whom it was
said, “Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire.” Let us observe also,
that the Apostle Paul addresses us as having power over our own will,
and as possessing in ourselves the causes either of our salvation or of
our ruin: “Dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and of His
patience, and of His long-suffering, not knowing that the goodness of
God leadeth thee to repentance? But, according to thy hardness and
impenitent heart, thou art treasuring up for thyself wrath on the day of
judgment and of the revelation of the just judgment of God, who will
render to every one according to his work: to those who by patient
continuance in well-doing seek for glory and immortality, eternal
life;[394] while to those who are contentious, and believe not the
truth, but who believe iniquity, anger, indignation, tribulation, and
distress, on every soul of man that worketh evil, on the Jew first, and
[afterwards] on the Greek; but glory, and honour, and peace to every one
that doeth good, to the Jew first, and [afterwards] to the Greek.”[395]
You will find also innumerable other passages in Holy Scripture, which
manifestly show that we possess freedom of will. Otherwise there would
be a contrariety in commandments being given us, by observing which we
may be saved, or by transgressing which we may be condemned, if the
power of keeping them were not implanted in us.
FROM THE GREEK.
6. Now, that it is our business to live virtuously, and that God asks
this of us, as not being dependent on Him nor on any other, nor, as some
think, upon fate, but as being our own doing, the prophet Micah will
prove when he says: “If it has been announced to thee, O man, what is
good, or what does the Lord require of thee, except to do justice and to
love mercy?”[396] Moses also: “I have placed before thy face the way of
life, and the way of death: choose what is good, and walk in it.”[397]
Isaiah too: “If you are willing, and hear me, ye shall eat the good of
the land; but if ye be unwilling, and will not hear me, the sword will
consume you: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”[398] And in the
Psalms: “If my people had heard me, and Israel had walked in my ways, I
would have humbled their enemies to nothing, and laid my hand upon those
that afflicted them;”[399] showing that it was in the power of His
people to hear and to walk in the ways of God. And the Saviour also,
when He commands, “But I say unto you, Resist not evil;”[400] and,
“Whosoever shall be angry with his brother, shall be in danger of the
judgment;”[401] and, “Whosoever shall look upon a woman to lust after
her, hath already committed adultery with her in his heart;”[402] and by
any other commandment which He gives, declares that it lies with
ourselves to keep what is enjoined, and that we shall reasonably[403] be
liable to condemnation if we transgress. And therefore He says in
addition: “He that heareth my words, and doeth them, shall be likened to
a prudent man, who built his house upon a rock,” etc. etc.; “while he
that heareth them, but doeth them not, is like a foolish man, who built
his house upon the sand,” etc.[404] And when He says to those on His
right hand, “Come, ye blessed of my Father,” etc.; “for I was an
hungered, and ye gave me to eat; I was athirst, and ye gave me to
drink,”[405] it is exceedingly manifest that He gives the promises to
these as being deserving of praise. But, on the contrary, to the others,
as being censurable in comparison with them, He says, “Depart, ye
cursed, into everlasting fire!”[406] And let us observe how Paul also
converses[407] with us as having freedom of will, and as being ourselves
the cause of ruin or salvation, when he says, “Dost thou despise the
riches of His goodness, and of His patience, and of His long-suffering;
not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But,
according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou art treasuring up
for thyself wrath on the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous
judgment of God; who will render to every one according to his works: to
those who, by patient continuance in well-doing, seek for glory and
immortality, eternal life; while to those who are contentious, and
believe not the truth, but who believe iniquity, anger, wrath,
tribulation, and distress, on every soul of man that worketh evil; on
the Jew first, and on the Greek: but glory, and honour, and peace to
every one that worketh good; to the Jew first, and to the Greek.”[408]
There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures which
establish with exceeding clearness the existence of freedom of will.
FROM THE LATIN.
7. But, seeing there are found in the sacred Scriptures themselves
certain expressions occurring in such a connection, that the opposite of
this may appear capable of being understood from them, let us bring them
forth before us, and, discussing them according to the rule of
piety,[409] let us furnish an explanation of them, in order that from
those few passages which we now expound, the solution of those others
which resemble them, and by which any power over the will seems to be
excluded, may become clear. Those expressions, accordingly, make an
impression on very many, which are used by God in speaking of Pharaoh,
as when He frequently says, “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart.”[410] For if
he is hardened by God, and commits sin in consequence of being so
hardened, the cause of his sin is not himself. And if so, it will appear
that Pharaoh does not possess freedom of will; and it will be
maintained, as a consequence, that, agreeably to this illustration,
neither do others who perish owe the cause of their destruction to the
freedom of their own will. That expression, also, in Ezekiel, when he
says, “I will take away their stony hearts, and will give them hearts of
flesh, that they may walk in my precepts, and keep my ways,”[411] may
impress some, inasmuch as it seems to be a gift of God, either to walk
in His ways or to keep His precepts,[412] if He take away that stony
heart which is an obstacle to the keeping of His commandments, and
bestow and implant a better and more impressible heart, which is called
now[413] a heart of flesh. Consider also the nature of the answer given
in the Gospel by our Lord and Saviour to those who inquired of Him why
He spoke to the multitude in parables. His words are: “That seeing they
may not see; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest they
should be converted, and their sins be forgiven them.”[414] The words,
moreover, used by the Apostle Paul, that “it is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy;”[415] in another
passage also, “that to will and to do are of God;”[416] and again,
elsewhere, “Therefore hath He mercy upon whom He will, and whom He will
He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault?
For who shall resist His will? O man, who art thou that repliest against
God? Shall the thing formed say to him who hath formed it, Why hast thou
made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump
to make one vessel unto honour, and another to dishonour?”[417]—these
and similar declarations seem to have no small influence in preventing
very many from believing that every one is to be considered as having
freedom over his own will, and in making it appear to be a consequence
of the will of God whether a man is either saved or lost.
FROM THE GREEK.
7. But since certain declarations of the Old Testament and of the New
lead to the opposite conclusion—namely, that it does not depend on
ourselves to keep the commandments and to be saved, or to transgress
them and to be lost—let us adduce them one by one, and see the
explanations of them, in order that from those which we adduce, any one
selecting in a similar way all the passages that seem to nullify
free-will, may consider what is said about them by way of explanation.
And now, the statements regarding Pharaoh have troubled many, respecting
whom God declared several times, “I will harden Pharaoh’s heart.”[418]
For if he is hardened by God, and commits sin in consequence of being
hardened, he is not the cause of sin to himself; and if so, then neither
does Pharaoh possess free-will. And some one will say that, in a similar
way, they who perish have not free-will, and will not perish of
themselves. The declaration also in Ezekiel, “I will take away their
stony hearts, and will put in them hearts of flesh, that they may walk
in my precepts, and keep my commandments,”[419] might lead one to think
that it was God who gave the power to walk in His commandments, and to
keep His precepts, by His withdrawing the hindrance—the stony heart, and
implanting a better—a heart of flesh. And let us look also at the
passage in the Gospel—the answer which the Saviour returns to those who
inquired why He spake to the multitude in parables. His words are: “That
seeing they might not see; and hearing they may hear, and not
understand; lest they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven
them.”[420] The passage also in Paul: “It is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”[421] The
declarations, too, in other places, that “both to will and to do are of
God;”[422] “that God hath mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and whom
He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then, Why doth He yet find fault?
For who hath resisted His will?” ”The persuasion is of Him that calleth,
and not of us.”[423] “Nay, O man, who art thou that repliest against
God? Shall the thing formed say to him that hath formed it, Why hast
thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same
lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”[424]
Now these passages are sufficient of themselves to trouble the
multitude, as if man were not possessed of free-will, but as if it were
God who saves and destroys whom He will.
FROM THE LATIN.
8. Let us begin, then, with those words which were spoken to Pharaoh,
who is said to have been hardened by God, in order that he might not let
the people go; and, along with his case, the language of the apostle
also will be considered, where he says, “Therefore He hath mercy on whom
He will, and whom He will He hardeneth.”[425] For it is on these
passages chiefly that the heretics rely, asserting that salvation is not
in our own power, but that souls are of such a nature as must by all
means be either lost or saved; and that in no way can a soul which is of
an evil nature become good, or one which is of a virtuous nature be made
bad. And hence they maintain that Pharaoh, too, being of a ruined
nature, was on that account hardened by God, who hardens those that are
of an earthly nature, but has compassion on those who are of a spiritual
nature. Let us see, then, what is the meaning of their assertion; and
let us, in the first place, request them to tell us whether they
maintain that the soul of Pharaoh was of an earthly nature, such as they
term lost. They will undoubtedly answer that it was of an earthly
nature. If so, then to believe God, or to obey Him, when his nature
opposed his so doing, was an impossibility. And if this were his
condition by nature, what further need was there for his heart to be
hardened, and this not once, but several times, unless indeed because it
was possible for him to yield to persuasion? Nor could any one be said
to be hardened by another, save him who of himself was not obdurate. And
if he were not obdurate of himself, it follows that neither was he of an
earthly nature, but such an one as might give way when overpowered[426]
by signs and wonders. But he was necessary for God’s purpose, in order
that, for the saving of the multitude, He might manifest in him His
power by his offering resistance to numerous miracles, and struggling
against the will of God, and his heart being by this means said to be
hardened. Such are our answers, in the first place, to these persons;
and by these their assertion may be overturned, according to which they
think that Pharaoh was destroyed in consequence of his evil nature.[427]
And with regard to the language of the Apostle Paul, we must answer them
in a similar way. For who are they whom God hardens, according to your
view? Those, namely, whom you term of a ruined nature, and who, I am to
suppose, would have done something else had they not been hardened. If,
indeed, they come to destruction in consequence of being hardened, they
no longer perish naturally, but in virtue of what befalls them. Then, in
the next place, upon whom does God show mercy? On those, namely, who are
to be saved. And in what respect do those persons stand in need of a
second compassion, who are to be saved once by their nature, and so come
naturally to blessedness, except that it is shown even from their case,
that, because it was possible for them to perish, they therefore obtain
mercy, that so they may not perish, but come to salvation, and possess
the kingdom of the good. And let this be our answer to those who devise
and invent the fable[428] of good or bad natures, _i.e._ of earthly or
spiritual souls, in consequence of which, as they say, each one is
either saved or lost.
FROM THE GREEK.
8. Let us begin, then, with what is said about Pharaoh—that he was
hardened by God, that he might not send away the people; along with
which will be examined also the statement of the apostle, “Therefore
hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He
hardeneth.”[429] And certain of those who hold different opinions misuse
these passages, themselves also almost destroying free-will by
introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation, and others saved
which it is impossible can be lost; and Pharaoh, they say, as being of a
ruined nature, is therefore hardened by God, who has mercy upon the
spiritual, but hardens the earthly. Let us see now what they mean. For
we shall ask them if Pharaoh was of an earthy nature; and when they
answer, we shall say that he who is of an earthy nature is altogether
disobedient to God: but if disobedient, what need is there of his heart
being hardened, and that not once, but frequently? Unless perhaps, since
it was possible for him to obey (in which case he would certainly have
obeyed, as not being earthy, when hard pressed by the signs and
wonders), God needs him to be disobedient to a greater degree,[430] in
order that He may manifest His mighty deeds for the salvation of the
multitude, and therefore hardens his heart. This will be our answer to
them in the first place, in order to overturn their supposition that
Pharaoh was of a ruined nature. And the same reply must be given to them
with respect to the statement of the apostle. For whom does God harden?
Those who perish, as if they would obey unless they were hardened, or
manifestly those who would be saved because they are not of a ruined
nature. And on whom has He mercy? Is it on those who are to be saved?
And how is there need of a second mercy for those who have been prepared
once for salvation, and who will by all means become blessed on account
of their nature? Unless perhaps, since they are capable of incurring
destruction, if they did not receive mercy, they will obtain mercy, in
order that they may not incur that destruction of which they are
capable, but may be in the condition of those who are saved. And this is
our answer to such persons.
FROM THE LATIN.
9. And now we must return an answer also to those who would have the God
of the law to be just only, and not also good; and let us ask such in
what manner they consider the heart of Pharaoh to have been hardened by
God—by what acts or by what prospective arrangements.[431] For we must
observe the conception of a God[432] who in our opinion is both just and
good, but according to them only just. And let them show us how a God
whom they also acknowledge to be just, can with justice cause the heart
of a man to be hardened, that, in consequence of that very hardening, he
may sin and be ruined. And how shall the justice of God be defended, if
He Himself is the cause of the destruction of those whom, owing to their
unbelief (through their being hardened), He has afterwards condemned by
the authority of a judge? For why does He blame him, saying, “But since
thou wilt not let my people go, lo, I will smite all the first-born in
Egypt, even thy first-born,”[433] and whatever else was spoken through
Moses by God to Pharaoh? For it behoves every one who maintains the
truth of what is recorded in Scripture, and who desires to show that the
God of the law and the prophets is just, to render a reason for all
these things, and to show how there is in them nothing at all derogatory
to the justice of God, since, although they deny His goodness, they
admit that He is a just judge, and creator of the world. Different,
however, is the method of our reply to those who assert that the creator
of this world is a malignant being, _i.e._ a devil.
FROM THE GREEK.
9. But to those who think they understand the term “hardened,” we must
address the inquiry, What do they mean by saying that God, by His
working, hardens the heart, and with what purpose does He do this? For
let them observe the conception[434] of a God who is in reality just and
good; but if they will not allow this, let it be conceded to them for
the present that He is just; and let them show how the good and just
God, or the just God only, appears to be just, in hardening the heart of
him who perishes because of his being hardened: and how the just God
becomes the cause of destruction and disobedience, when men are
chastened by Him on account of their hardness and disobedience. And why
does He find fault with him, saying, “Thou wilt not let my people
go;”[435] “Lo, I will smite all the first-born in Egypt, even thy
first-born;”[436] and whatever else is recorded as spoken from God to
Pharaoh through the intervention of Moses? For he who believes that the
Scriptures are true, and that God is just, must necessarily endeavour,
if he be honest,[437] to show how God, in using such expressions, may be
distinctly[438] understood to be just. But if any one should stand,
declaring with uncovered head that the Creator of the world was inclined
to wickedness,[439] we should need other words to answer them.
FROM THE LATIN.
10. But since we acknowledge the God who spoke by Moses to be not only
just, but also good, let us carefully inquire how it is in keeping with
the character of a just and good Deity to have hardened the heart of
Pharaoh. And let us see whether, following the example of the Apostle
Paul, we are able to solve the difficulty by help of some parallel
instances: if we can show, _e.g._, that by one and the same act God has
pity upon one individual, but hardens another; not purposing or desiring
that he who is hardened should be so, but because, in the manifestation
of His goodness and patience, the heart of those who treat His kindness
and forbearance with contempt and insolence is hardened by the
punishment of their crimes being delayed; while those, on the other
hand, who make His goodness and patience the occasion of their
repentance and reformation, obtain compassion. To show more clearly,
however, what we mean, let us take the illustration employed by the
Apostle Paul in the Epistle to the Hebrews, where he says, “For the
earth, which drinketh in the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth
forth herbs meet for them by whom it is dressed, will receive blessing
from God; but that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is
nigh unto cursing, whose end is to be burned.”[440] Now from those words
of Paul which we have quoted, it is clearly shown that by one and the
same act on the part of God—that, viz. by which He sends rain upon the
earth—one portion of the ground, when carefully cultivated, brings forth
good fruits; while another, neglected and uncared for, produces thorns
and thistles. And if one, speaking as it were in the person of the
rain,[441] were to say, “It is I, the rain, that have made the good
fruits, and it is I that have caused the thorns and thistles to grow,”
however hard[442] the statement might appear, it would nevertheless be
true; for unless the rain had fallen, neither fruits, nor thorns, nor
thistles would have sprung up, whereas by the coming of the rain the
earth gave birth to both. Now, although it is due to the beneficial
action of the rain that the earth has produced herbs of both kinds, it
is not to the rain that the diversity of the herbs is properly to be
ascribed; but on those will justly rest the blame for the bad seed, who,
although they might have turned up the ground by frequent ploughing, and
have broken the clods by repeated harrowing, and have extirpated all
useless and noxious weeds, and have cleared and prepared the fields for
the coming showers by all the labour and toil which cultivation demands,
have nevertheless neglected to do this, and who will accordingly reap
briers and thorns, the most appropriate fruit of their sloth. And the
consequence therefore is, that while the rain falls in kindness and
impartiality[443] equally upon the whole earth, yet, by one and the same
operation of the rain, that soil which is cultivated yields with a
blessing useful fruits to the diligent and careful cultivators, while
that which has become hardened through the neglect of the husbandman
brings forth only thorns and thistles. Let us therefore view those signs
and miracles which were done by God, as the showers furnished by Him
from above; and the purpose and desires of men, as the cultivated and
uncultivated soil, which is of one and the same nature indeed, as is
every soil compared with another, but not in one and the same state of
cultivation. From which it follows that every one’s will,[444] if
untrained, and fierce, and barbarous, is either hardened by the miracles
and wonders of God, growing more savage and thorny than ever, or it
becomes more pliant, and yields itself up with the whole mind to
obedience, if it be cleared from vice and subjected to training.
FROM THE GREEK.
10. But since they say that they regard Him as a just God, and we as one
who is at the same time good and just, let us consider how the good and
just God could harden the heart of Pharaoh. See, then, whether, by an
illustration used by the apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, we are
able to prove that by one operation[445] God has mercy upon one man
while He hardens another, although not intending to harden; but,
[although] having a good purpose, hardening follows as a result of the
inherent principle of wickedness in such persons,[446] and so He is said
to harden him who is hardened. “The earth,” he says, “which drinketh in
the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them
for whom it is dressed, receiveth blessing from God; but that which
beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is nigh to cursing, whose end
is to be burned.”[447] As respects the rain, then, there is one
operation; and there being one operation as regards the rain, the ground
which is cultivated produces fruit, while that which is neglected and is
barren produces thorns. Now, it might seem profane[448] for Him who
rains to say, “I produced the fruits, and the thorns that are in the
earth;” and yet, although profane, it is true. For, had rain not fallen,
there would have been neither fruits nor thorns; but, having fallen at
the proper time and in moderation, both were produced. The ground, now,
which drank in the rain which often fell upon it, and yet produced
thorns and briers, is rejected and nigh to cursing. The blessing, then,
of the rain descended even upon the inferior land; but it, being
neglected and uncultivated, yielded thorns and thistles. In the same
way, therefore, the wonderful works also done by God are, as it were,
the rain; while the differing purposes are, as it were, the cultivated
and neglected land, being [yet], like earth, of one nature.
FROM THE LATIN.
11. But, to establish the point more clearly, it will not be superfluous
to employ another illustration, as if, _e.g._, one were to say that it
is the sun which hardens and liquefies, although liquefying and
hardening are things of an opposite nature. Now it is not incorrect to
say that the sun, by one and the same power of its heat, melts wax
indeed, but dries up and hardens mud:[449] not that its power operates
one way upon mud, and in another way upon wax; but that the qualities of
mud and wax are different, although according to nature they are one
thing,[450] both being from the earth. In this way, then, one and the
same working upon the part of God, which was administered by Moses in
signs and wonders, made manifest the hardness of Pharaoh, which he had
conceived in the intensity of his wickedness[451], but exhibited the
obedience of those other Egyptians who were intermingled with the
Israelites, and who are recorded to have quitted Egypt at the same time
with the Hebrews. With respect to the statement that the heart of
Pharaoh was subdued by degrees, so that on one occasion he said, “Go not
far away; ye shall go a three days’ journey, but leave your wives, and
your children, and your cattle,”[452] and as regards any other
statements, according to which he appears to yield gradually to the
signs and wonders, what else is shown, save that the power of the signs
and miracles was making some impression on him, but not so much as it
ought to have done? For if the hardening were of such a nature as many
take it to be, he would not indeed have given way even in a few
instances. But I think there is no absurdity in explaining the tropical
or figurative[453] nature of that language employed in speaking of
“hardening,” according to common usage. For those masters who are
remarkable for kindness to their slaves, are frequently accustomed to
say to the latter, when, through much patience and indulgence on their
part, they have become insolent and worthless: “It is I that have made
you what you are; I have spoiled you; it is my endurance that has made
you good for nothing: I am to blame for your perverse and wicked habits,
because I do not have you immediately punished for every delinquency
according to your deserts.” For we must first attend to the tropical or
figurative meaning of the language, and so come to see the force of the
expression, and not find fault with the word, whose inner meaning we do
not ascertain. Finally, the Apostle Paul, evidently treating of such,
says to him who remained in his sins: “Despisest thou the riches of His
goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering; not knowing that the
goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? but, after thy hardness and
impenitent heart, treasurest up unto thyself wrath on the day of wrath
and revelation of the righteous judgment of God.”[454] Such are the
words of the apostle to him who is in his sins. Let us apply these very
expressions to Pharaoh, and see if they also are not spoken of him with
propriety, since, according to his hardness and impenitent heart, he
treasured and stored up for himself wrath on the day of wrath, inasmuch
as his hardness could never have been declared and manifested, unless
signs and wonders of such number and magnificence had been performed.
FROM THE GREEK.
11. And as if the sun, uttering a voice, were to say, “I liquefy and dry
up,” liquefaction and drying up being opposite things, he would not
speak falsely as regards the point in question;[455] wax being melted
and mud being dried by the same heat; so the same operation, which was
performed through the instrumentality of Moses, proved the hardness of
Pharaoh on the one hand, the result of his wickedness, and the yielding
of the mixed Egyptian multitude who took their departure with the
Hebrews. And the brief statement[456] that the heart of Pharaoh was
softened, as it were, when he said, “But ye shall not go far: ye will go
a three days’ journey, and leave your wives,”[457] and anything else
which he said, yielding little by little before the signs, proves that
the wonders made some impression even upon him, but did not accomplish
all [that they might]. Yet even this would not have happened, if that
which is supposed by the many—the hardening of Pharaoh’s heart—had been
produced by God Himself. And it is not absurd to soften down such
expressions agreeably to common usage:[458] for good masters often say
to their slaves, when spoiled by their kindness and forbearance, “I have
made you bad, and I am to blame for offences of such enormity.” For we
must attend to the character and force of the phrase, and not argue
sophistically,[459] disregarding the meaning of the expression. Paul
accordingly, having examined these points clearly, says to the sinner:
“Or despisest thou the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and
long-suffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to
repentance? but, after thy hardness and impenitent heart, treasurest up
unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the
righteous judgment of God.”[460] Now, let what the apostle says to the
sinner be addressed to Pharaoh, and then the announcements made to him
will be understood to have been made with peculiar fitness, as to one
who, according to his hardness and unrepentant heart, was treasuring up
to himself wrath; seeing that his hardness would not have been proved
nor made manifest unless miracles had been performed, and miracles, too,
of such magnitude and importance.
FROM THE LATIN.
12. But if the proofs which we have adduced do not appear full enough,
and the similitude of the apostle seem wanting in applicability,[461]
let us add the voice of prophetic authority, and see what the prophets
declare regarding those who at first, indeed, leading a righteous life,
have deserved to receive numerous proofs of the goodness of God, but
afterwards, as being human beings, have fallen astray, with whom the
prophet, making himself also one, says: “Why, O Lord, hast Thou made us
to err from Thy way? and hardened our heart, that we should not fear Thy
name? Return, for Thy servants’ sake, for the tribes of Thine
inheritance, that we also for a little may obtain some inheritance from
Thy holy hill.”[462] Jeremiah also employs similar language: “O Lord,
Thou hast deceived us, and we were deceived; Thou hast held [us], and
Thou hast prevailed.”[463] The expression, then, “Why, O Lord, hast Thou
hardened our heart, that we should not fear Thy name?” used by those who
prayed for mercy, is to be taken in a figurative, moral
acceptation,[464] as if one were to say, “Why hast Thou spared us so
long, and didst not requite us when we sinned, but didst abandon us,
that so our wickedness might increase, and our liberty of sinning be
extended when punishment ceased?” In like manner, unless a horse
continually feel the spur[465] of his rider, and have his mouth abraded
by a bit,[466] he becomes hardened. And a boy also, unless constantly
disciplined by chastisement, will grow up to be an insolent youth, and
one ready to fall headlong into vice. God accordingly abandons and
neglects those whom He has judged undeserving of chastisement: “For whom
the Lord loveth He chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom He
receiveth.”[467] From which we are to suppose that those are to be
received into the rank and affection of sons, who have deserved to be
scourged and chastened by the Lord, in order that they also, through
endurance of trials and tribulations, may be able to say, “Who shall
separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus? shall
tribulation, or anguish, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or
sword?”[468] For by all these is each one’s resolution manifested and
displayed, and the firmness of his perseverance made known, not so much
to God, who knows all things before they happen, as to the rational and
heavenly virtues,[469] who have obtained a part in the work of procuring
human salvation, as being a sort of assistants and ministers to God.
Those, on the other hand, who do not yet offer themselves to God with
such constancy and affection, and are not ready to come into His
service, and to prepare their souls for trial, are said to be abandoned
by God, _i.e._ not to be instructed, inasmuch as they are not prepared
for instruction, their training or care being undoubtedly postponed to a
later time. These certainly do not know what they will obtain from God,
unless they first entertain the desire of being benefited; and this
finally will be the case, if a man come first to a knowledge of himself,
and feel what are his defects, and understand from whom he either ought
or can seek the supply of his deficiencies. For he who does not know
beforehand of his weakness or his sickness, cannot seek a physician; or
at least, after recovering his health, that man will not be grateful to
his physician who did not first recognise the dangerous nature of his
ailment. And so, unless a man has first ascertained the defects of his
life, and the evil nature of his sins, and made this known by confession
from his own lips, he cannot be cleansed or acquitted, lest he should be
ignorant that what he possesses has been bestowed on him by favour, but
should consider as his own property what flows from the divine
liberality, which idea undoubtedly generates arrogance of mind and
pride, and finally becomes the cause of the individual’s ruin. And this,
we must believe, was the case with the devil, who viewed as his own, and
not as given him by God, the primacy[470] which he held at the time when
he was unstained;[471] and thus was fulfilled in him the declaration,
that “every one who exalteth himself shall be abased.”[472] From which
it appears to me that the divine mysteries were concealed from the wise
and prudent, according to the statement of Scripture, that “no flesh
should glory before God,”[473] and revealed to children—to those,
namely, who, after they have become infants and little children, _i.e._
have returned to the humility and simplicity of children, then make
progress; and on arriving at perfection, remember that they have
obtained their state of happiness, not by their own merits, but by the
grace and compassion of God.
FROM THE GREEK.
12. But since such narratives are slow to secure assent,[474] and are
considered to be forced,[475] let us see from the prophetical
declarations also, what those persons say, who, although they have
experienced the great kindness of God, have not lived virtuously, but
have afterwards sinned. “Why, O Lord, hast Thou made us to err from Thy
ways? Why hast Thou hardened our heart, so as not to fear Thy name?
Return for Thy servants’ sake, for the tribes of Thine inheritance, that
we may inherit a small portion of Thy holy mountain.”[476] And in
Jeremiah: “Thou hast deceived me, O Lord, and I was deceived; Thou wert
strong, and Thou didst prevail.”[477] For the expression, “Why hast Thou
hardened our heart, so as not to fear Thy name?” uttered by those who
are begging to receive mercy, is in its nature as follows: “Why hast
Thou spared us so long, not visiting us because of our sins, but
deserting us, until our transgressions come to a height?” Now He leaves
the greater part of men unpunished, both in order that the habits of
each one may be examined, so far as it depends upon ourselves, and that
the virtuous may be made manifest in consequence of the test applied;
while the others, not escaping notice from God—for He knows all things
before they exist—but from the rational creation and themselves, may
afterwards obtain the means of cure, seeing they would not have known
the benefit had they not condemned themselves. It is of advantage to
each one, that he perceive his own peculiar nature[478] and the grace of
God. For he who does not perceive his own weakness and the divine
favour, although he receive a benefit, yet, not having made trial of
himself, nor having condemned himself, will imagine that the benefit
conferred upon him by the grace of Heaven is his own doing. And this
imagination, producing also vanity,[479] will be the cause of a
downfall: which, we conceive, was the case with the devil, who
attributed to himself the priority which he possessed when in a state of
sinlessness.[480] “For every one that exalteth himself shall be abased,”
and “every one that humbleth himself shall be exalted.”[481] And
observe, that for this reason divine things have been concealed from the
wise and prudent, in order, as says the apostle, that “no flesh should
glory in the presence of God;”[482] and they have been revealed to
babes, to those who after childhood have come to better things, and who
remember that it is not so much from their own effort, as by the
unspeakable goodness [of God], that they have reached the greatest
possible extent of blessedness.
FROM THE LATIN.
13. It is therefore by the sentence of God that he is abandoned who
deserves to be so, while over some sinners God exercises forbearance;
not, however, without a definite principle of action.[483] Nay, the very
fact that He is long-suffering conduces to the advantage of those very
persons, since the soul over which He exercises this providential care
is immortal; and, as being immortal and everlasting, it is not, although
not immediately cared for, excluded from salvation, which is postponed
to a more convenient time. For perhaps it is expedient for those who
have been more deeply imbued with the poison of wickedness to obtain
this salvation at a later period. For as medical men sometimes, although
they could quickly cover over the scars of wounds, keep back and delay
the cure for the present, in the expectation of a better and more
perfect recovery, knowing that it is more salutary to retard the
treatment in the cases of swellings caused by wounds, and to allow the
malignant humours to flow off for a while, rather than to hasten a
superficial cure, by shutting up in the veins the poison of a morbid
humour, which, excluded from its customary outlets, will undoubtedly
creep into the inner parts of the limbs, and penetrate to the very
vitals of the viscera, producing no longer mere disease in the body, but
causing destruction to life; so, in like manner, God also, who knows the
secret things of the heart, and foreknows the future, in much
forbearance allows certain events to happen, which, coming from without
upon men, cause to come forth into the light the passions and vices
which are concealed within, that by their means those may be cleansed
and cured who, through great negligence and carelessness, have admitted
within themselves the roots and seeds of sins, so that, when driven
outwards and brought to the surface, they may in a certain degree be
cast forth and dispersed.[484] And thus, although a man may appear to be
afflicted with evils of a serious kind, suffering convulsions in all his
limbs, he may nevertheless, at some future time, obtain relief and a
cessation from his trouble; and, after enduring his afflictions to
satiety, may, after many sufferings, be restored again to his [proper]
condition. For God deals with souls not merely with a view to the short
space of our present life, included within sixty years[485] or more, but
with reference to a perpetual and never-ending period, exercising His
providential care over souls that are immortal, even as He Himself is
eternal and immortal. For He made the rational nature, which He formed
in His own image and likeness, incorruptible; and therefore the soul,
which is immortal, is not excluded by the shortness of the present life
from the divine remedies and cures.
FROM THE GREEK.
13. It is not without reason, then, that he who is abandoned, is
abandoned to the divine judgment, and that God is long-suffering with
certain sinners; but because it will be for their advantage, with
respect to the immortality of the soul and the unending world,[486] that
they be not quickly brought[487] into a state of salvation, but be
conducted to it more slowly, after having experienced many evils. For as
physicians, who are able to cure a man quickly, when they suspect that a
hidden poison exists in the body, do the reverse of healing, making this
more certain through their very desire to heal, deeming it better for a
considerable time to retain the patient under inflammation and sickness,
in order that he may recover his health more surely, than to appear to
produce a rapid recovery, and afterwards to cause a relapse, and [thus]
that hasty cure last only for a time; in the same way, God also, who
knows the secret things of the heart, and foresees future events, in His
long-suffering, permits [certain events to occur], and by means of those
things which happen from without extracts the secret evil, in order to
cleanse him who through carelessness has received the seeds of sin, that
having vomited them forth when they come to the surface, although he may
have been deeply involved in evils, he may afterwards obtain healing
after his wickedness, and be renewed.[488] For God governs souls not
with reference, let me say, to the fifty[489] years of the present life,
but with reference to an illimitable[490] age: for He made the thinking
principle immortal in its nature, and kindred to Himself; and the
rational soul is not, as in this life, excluded from cure.
FROM THE LATIN.
14. But let us take from the Gospels also the similitudes of those
things which we have mentioned, in which is described a certain rock,
having on it a little superficial earth, on which, when a seed falls, it
is said quickly to spring up; but when sprung up, it withers as the sun
ascends in the heavens, and dies away, because it did not cast its root
deeply into the ground.[491] Now this rock undoubtedly represents the
human soul, hardened on account of its own negligence, and converted
into stone because of its wickedness. For God gave no one a stony heart
by a creative act; but each individual’s heart is said to become stony
through his own wickedness and disobedience. As, therefore, if one were
to blame a husbandman for not casting his seed more quickly upon rocky
ground, because seed cast upon other rocky soil was seen to spring up
speedily, the husbandman would certainly say in reply: “I sow this soil
more slowly, for this reason, that it may retain the seed which it has
received; for it suits this ground to be sown somewhat slowly, lest
perhaps the crop, having sprouted too rapidly, and coming forth from the
mere surface of a shallow soil, should be unable to withstand the rays
of the sun.” Would not he who formerly found fault acquiesce in the
reasons and superior knowledge of the husbandman, and approve as done on
rational grounds what formerly appeared to him as founded on no reason?
And in the same way, God, the thoroughly skilled husbandman of all His
creation, undoubtedly conceals and delays to another time those[492]
things which we think ought to have obtained health sooner, in order
that not the outside of things, rather than the inside, may be cured.
But if any one now were to object to us that certain seeds do even fall
upon rocky ground, _i.e._ on a hard and stony heart, we should answer
that even this does not happen without the arrangement of Divine
Providence; inasmuch as, but for this, it would not be known what
condemnation was incurred by rashness in hearing and indifference in
investigation,[493] nor, certainly, what benefit was derived from being
trained in an orderly manner. And hence it happens that the soul comes
to know its defects, and to cast the blame upon itself, and,
consistently with this, to reserve and submit itself to training, _i.e._
in order that it may see that its faults must first be removed, and that
then it must come to receive the instruction of wisdom. As, therefore,
souls are innumerable, so also are their manners, and purposes, and
movements, and appetencies, and incitements different, the variety of
which can by no means be grasped by the human mind; and therefore to God
alone must be left the art, and the knowledge, and the power of an
arrangement of this kind, as He alone can know both the remedies for
each individual soul, and measure out the time of its cure. It is He
alone then who, as we said, recognises the ways of individual men, and
determines by what way He ought to lead Pharaoh, that through him His
name might be named in all the earth, having previously chastised him by
many blows, and finally drowning him in the sea. By this drowning,
however, it is not to be supposed that God’s providence as regards
Pharaoh was terminated; for we must not imagine, because he was drowned,
that therefore he had forthwith completely[494] perished: “for in the
hand of God are both we and our words; all wisdom, also, and knowledge
of workmanship,”[495] as Scripture declares. But these points we have
discussed according to our ability, treating of that chapter[496] of
Scripture in which it is said that God hardened the heart of Pharaoh,
and agreeably to the statement, “He hath mercy on whom He will have
mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth.”[497]
FROM THE GREEK.
14. Come now, and let us use the following image[498] from the Gospel.
There is a certain rock, with a little surface-soil, on which, if seeds
fall, they quickly spring up; but when sprung up, as not having root,
they are burned and withered when the sun has arisen. Now this rock is a
human soul, hardened on account of its negligence, and converted to
stone because of its wickedness; for no one receives from God a heart
created of stone, but it becomes such in consequence of wickedness. If
one, then, were to find fault with the husbandman for not sowing his
seed sooner upon the rocky soil, when he saw other rocky ground which
had received seed flourishing, the husbandman would reply, “I shall sow
this ground more slowly, casting in seeds that will be able to retain
their hold, this slower method being better for the ground, and more
secure than that which receives the seed in a more rapid manner, and
more upon the surface.” [The person finding fault] would yield his
assent to the husbandman, as one who spoke with sound reason, and who
acted with skill: so also the great Husbandman of all nature postpones
that benefit which might be deemed premature,[499] that it may not prove
superficial. But it is probable that here some one may object to us with
reference to this: “Why do some of the seeds fall upon the earth that
has superficial soil, the soul being, as it were, a rock?” Now we must
say, in answer to this, that it was better for this soul, which desired
better things precipitately,[500] and not by a way which led to them, to
obtain its desire, in order that, condemning itself on this account, it
may, after a long time, endure to receive the husbandry which is
according to nature. For souls are, as one may say, innumerable; and
their habits are innumerable, and their movements, and their purposes,
and their assaults, and their efforts, of which there is only one
admirable administrator, who knows both the seasons, and the fitting
helps, and the avenues, and the ways, viz. the God and Father of all
things, who knows how He conducts even Pharaoh by so great events, and
by drowning in the sea, with which latter occurrence His superintendence
of Pharaoh does not cease. For he was not annihilated when drowned: “For
in the hand of God are both we and our words; all wisdom also, and
knowledge of workmanship.”[501] And such is a moderate defence with
regard to the statements that “Pharaoh’s heart was hardened,” and that
“God hath mercy upon whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He
hardeneth.”
FROM THE LATIN.
15. Let us now look at those passages of Ezekiel where he says, “I will
take away from them their stony heart, and I will put in them a heart of
flesh, that they may walk in my statutes, and keep mine
ordinances.”[502] For if God, when He pleases, takes away a heart of
stone and bestows a heart of flesh, that His ordinances may be observed
and His commandments may be obeyed, it will then appear that it is not
in our power to put away wickedness. For the taking away of a stony
heart seems to be nothing else than the removal of the wickedness by
which one is hardened, from whomsoever God pleases to remove it. Nor is
the bestowal of a heart of flesh, that the precepts of God may be
observed and His commandments obeyed, any other thing than a man
becoming obedient, and no longer resisting the truth, but performing
works of virtue. If, then, God promises to do this, and if, before He
takes away the stony heart, we are unable to remove it from ourselves,
it follows that it is not in our power, but in God’s only, to cast away
wickedness. And again, if it is not our doing to form within us a heart
of flesh, but the work of God alone, it will not be in our power to live
virtuously, but it will in everything appear to be a work of divine
grace. Such are the assertions of those who wish to prove from the
authority of Holy Scripture that nothing lies in our own power. Now to
these we answer, that these passages are not to be so understood, but in
the following manner. Take the case of one who was ignorant and
untaught, and who, feeling the disgrace of his ignorance, should, driven
either by an exhortation from some person, or incited by a desire to
emulate other wise men, hand himself over to one by whom he is assured
that he will be carefully trained and competently instructed. If he,
then, who had formerly hardened himself in ignorance, yield himself, as
we have said, with full purpose of mind to a master, and promise to obey
him in all things, the master, on seeing clearly the resolute nature of
his determination, will appropriately promise to take away all
ignorance, and to implant knowledge within his mind; not that he
undertakes to do this if the disciple refuse or resist his efforts, but
only on his offering and binding himself to obedience in all things. So
also the word of God promises to those who draw near to Him, that He
will take away their stony heart, not indeed from those who do not
listen to His word, but from those who receive the precepts of His
teaching; as in the Gospels we find the sick approaching the Saviour,
asking to receive health, and thus at last be cured. And in order that
the blind might be healed and regain their sight, their part consisted
in making supplication to the Saviour, and in believing that their cure
could be effected by Him; while His part, on the other hand, lay in
restoring to them the power of vision. And in this way also does the
Word of God promise to bestow instruction by taking away the stony
heart, _i.e._ by the removal of wickedness, that so men may be able to
walk in the divine precepts, and observe the commandments of the law.
FROM THE GREEK.
15. Let us look also at the declaration in Ezekiel, which says, “I shall
take away their stony hearts, and will put in them hearts of flesh, that
they may walk in my statutes and keep my precepts.”[503] For if God,
when He wills, takes away the stony hearts, and implants hearts of
flesh, so that His precepts are obeyed and His commandments are
observed, it is not in our power to put away wickedness. For the taking
away of the stony hearts is nothing else than the taking away of the
wickedness, according to which one is hardened, from him from whom God
wills to take it; and the implanting of a heart of flesh, so that a man
may walk in the precepts of God and keep His commandments, what else is
it than to become somewhat yielding and unresistent to the truth, and to
be capable of practising virtues? And if God promises to do this, and
if, before He takes away the stony hearts, we do not lay them aside, it
is manifest that it does not depend upon ourselves to put away
wickedness; and if it is not we who do anything towards the production
within us of the heart of flesh, but if it is God’s doing, it will not
be our own act to live agreeably to virtue, but altogether [the result
of] divine grace. Such will be the statements of him who, from the mere
words [of Scripture], annihilates free-will.[504] But we shall answer,
saying, that we ought to understand these passages thus: That as a man,
_e.g._, who happened to be ignorant and uneducated, on perceiving his
own defects, either in consequence of an exhortation from his teacher,
or in some other way, should spontaneously give himself up to him whom
he considers able to introduce[505] him to education and virtue; and, on
his yielding himself up, his instructor promises that he will take away
his ignorance, and implant instruction, not as if it contributed nothing
to his training, and to the avoiding of ignorance, that he brought
himself to be healed, but because the instructor promised to improve him
who desired improvement; so, in the same way, the word of God promises
to take away wickedness, which it calls a stony heart, from those who
come to it, not if they are unwilling, but [only] if they submit
themselves to the Physician of the sick, as in the Gospels the sick are
found coming to the Saviour, and asking to obtain healing, and so are
cured. And, let me say, the recovery of sight by the blind is, so far as
their request goes, the act of those who believe that they are capable
of being healed; but as respects the restoration of sight, it is the
work of our Saviour. Thus, then, does the word of God promise to implant
knowledge in those who come to it, by taking away the stony and hard
heart, which is wickedness, in order that one may walk in the divine
commandments, and keep the divine injunctions.
FROM THE LATIN.
16. There is next brought before us that declaration uttered by the
Saviour in the Gospel: “That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and
hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest they should happen to be
converted, and their sins be forgiven them.”[506] On which our opponent
will remark: “If those who shall hear more distinctly are by all means
to be corrected and converted, and converted in such a manner as to be
worthy of receiving the remission of sins, and if it be not in their own
power to hear the word distinctly, but if it depend on the Instructor to
teach more openly and distinctly, while he declares that he does not
proclaim to them the word with clearness, lest they should perhaps hear
and understand, and be converted, and be saved, it will follow,
certainly, that their salvation is not dependent upon themselves. And if
this be so, then we have no free-will either as regards salvation or
destruction.” Now were it not for the words that are added, “Lest
perhaps they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven them,” we
might be more inclined to return the answer, that the Saviour was
unwilling that those individuals whom He foresaw would not become good,
should understand the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, and that
therefore He spoke to them in parables; but as that addition follows,
“Lest perhaps they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven
them,” the explanation is rendered more difficult. And, in the first
place, we have to notice what defence this passage furnishes against
those heretics who are accustomed to hunt out of the Old Testament any
expressions which seem, according to their view, to predicate severity
and cruelty of God the Creator, as when He is described as being
affected with the feeling of vengeance or punishment, or by any of those
emotions, however named, from which they deny the existence of goodness
in the Creator; for they do not judge of the Gospels with the same mind
and feelings, and do not observe whether any such statements are found
in them as they condemn and censure in the Old Testament. For
manifestly, in the passage referred to, the Saviour is shown, as they
themselves admit, not to speak distinctly, for this very reason, that
men may not be converted, and when converted, receive the remission of
sins. Now, if the words be understood according to the letter merely,
nothing less, certainly, will be contained in them than in those
passages which they find fault with in the Old Testament. And if they
are of opinion that any expressions occurring in such a connection in
the New Testament stand in need of explanation, it will necessarily
follow that those also occurring in the Old Testament, which are the
subject of censure, may be freed from aspersion by an explanation of a
similar kind, so that by such means the passages found in both
Testaments may be shown to proceed from one and the same God. But let us
return, as we best may, to the question proposed.
FROM THE GREEK.
16. There was after this the passage from the Gospel, where the Saviour
said, that for this reason did He speak to those without in parables,
that “seeing they may not see, and hearing they may not understand; lest
they should be converted, and their sins be forgiven them.”[507] Now,
our opponent will say, “If some persons are assuredly converted on
hearing words of greater clearness, so that they become worthy of the
remission of sins, and if it does not depend upon themselves to hear
these words of greater clearness, but upon him who teaches, and he for
this reason does not announce them to them more distinctly, lest they
should see and understand, it is not within the power of such to be
saved; and if so, we are not possessed of free-will as regards salvation
and destruction.” Effectual, indeed, would be the reply to such
arguments, were it not for the addition, “Lest they should be converted,
and their sins be forgiven them,”—namely, that the Saviour did not wish
those who were not to become good and virtuous to understand the more
mystical [parts of His teaching], and for this reason spake to them in
parables; but now, on account of the words, “Lest they should be
converted, and their sins be forgiven them,” the defence is more
difficult. In the first place, then, we must notice the passage in its
bearing on the heretics, who hunt out those portions from the Old
Testament where is exhibited, as they themselves daringly assert, the
cruelty[508] of the Creator of the world[509] in His purpose of avenging
and punishing the wicked,[510] or by whatever other name they wish to
designate such a quality, so speaking only that they may say that
goodness does not exist in the Creator; and who do not deal with the New
Testament in a similar manner, nor in a spirit of candour,[511] but pass
by places similar to those which they consider censurable in the Old
Testament. For manifestly, and according to the Gospel, is the Saviour
shown, as they assert, by His former words, not to speak distinctly for
this reason, that men might not be converted, and, being converted,
might become deserving of the remission of sins: which statement of
itself is nothing inferior[512] to those passages from the Old Testament
which are objected to. And if they seek to defend the Gospel, we must
ask them whether they are not acting in a blameworthy manner in dealing
differently with the same questions; and, while not stumbling against
the New Testament, but seeking to defend it, they nevertheless bring a
charge against the Old regarding similar points, whereas they ought to
offer a defence in the same way of the passages from the New. And
therefore we shall force them, on account of the resemblances, to regard
all as the writings of one God. Come, then, and let us, to the best of
our ability, furnish an answer to the question submitted to us.
FROM THE LATIN.
17. We said formerly, when discussing the case of Pharaoh, that
sometimes it does not lead to good results for a man to be cured too
quickly, especially if the disease, being shut up within the inner parts
of the body, rage with greater fierceness. Whence God, who is acquainted
with secret things, and knows all things before they happen, in His
great goodness delays the cure of such, and postpones their recovery to
a remoter period, and, so to speak, cures them by not curing them, lest
a too favourable state of health[513] should render them incurable. It
is therefore possible that, in the case of those to whom, as being
“without,” the words of our Lord and Saviour were addressed, He, seeing
from His scrutiny of the hearts and reins that they were not yet able to
receive teaching of a clearer type, veiled by the covering of language
the meaning of the profounder mysteries, lest perhaps, being rapidly
converted and healed, _i.e._ having quickly obtained the remission of
their sins, they should again easily slide back into the same disease
which they had found could be healed without any difficulty. For if this
be the case, no one can doubt that the punishment is doubled, and the
amount of wickedness increased; since not only are the sins which had
appeared to be forgiven repeated, but the court[514] of virtue also is
desecrated when trodden by deceitful and polluted beings,[515] filled
within with hidden wickedness. And what remedy can there ever be for
those who, after eating the impure and filthy food of wickedness, have
tasted the pleasantness of virtue, and received its sweetness into their
mouths, and yet have again betaken themselves to the deadly and
poisonous provision of sin? And who doubts that it is better for delay
and a temporary abandonment to occur, in order that if, at some future
time, they should happen to be satiated with wickedness, and the filth
with which they are now delighted should become loathsome, the word of
God may at last be appropriately made clear to them, and that which is
holy be not given to the dogs, nor pearls be cast before swine, which
will trample them under foot, and turn, moreover, and rend and assault
those who have proclaimed to them the word of God? These, then, are they
who are said to be “without,” undoubtedly by way of contrast with those
who are said to be “within,” and to hear the word of God with greater
clearness. And yet those who are “without” do hear the word, although it
is covered by parables, and overshadowed by proverbs. There are others,
also, besides those who are without, who are called Tyrians, and who do
not hear at all, respecting whom the Saviour knew that they would have
repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes, if the miracles
performed among others had been done amongst them, and yet these do not
hear those things which are heard even by those who are “without:” and I
believe, for this reason, that the rank of such in wickedness was far
lower and worse than that of those who are said to be “without,” _i.e._
who are not far from those who are within, and who have deserved to hear
the word, although in parables; and because, perhaps, their cure was
delayed to that time when it will be more tolerable for them on the day
of judgment, than for those before whom those miracles which are
recorded were performed, that so at last, being then relieved from the
weight of their sins, they may enter with more ease and power of
endurance upon the way of safety. And this is a point which I wish
impressed upon those who peruse these pages, that with respect to topics
of such difficulty and obscurity we use our utmost endeavour, not so
much to ascertain clearly the solutions of the questions (for every one
will do this as the Spirit gives him utterance), as to maintain the rule
of faith in the most unmistakeable manner,[516] by striving to show that
the providence of God, which equitably administers all things, governs
also immortal souls on the justest principles, [conferring rewards]
according to the merits and motives of each individual; the present
economy of things[517] not being confined within the life of this world,
but the pre-existing state of merit always furnishing the ground for the
state that is to follow,[518] and thus by an eternal and immutable law
of equity, and by the controlling influence of Divine Providence, the
immortal soul is brought to the summit of perfection. If one, however,
were to object to our statement, that the word of preaching was
purposely put aside by certain men of wicked and worthless character,
and [were to inquire] why the word was preached to those over whom the
Tyrians, who were certainly despised, are preferred in comparison (by
which proceeding, certainly, their wickedness was increased, and their
condemnation rendered more severe, that they should hear the word who
were not to believe it), they must be answered in the following manner:
God, who is the Creator of the minds of all men, foreseeing complaints
against His providence, especially on the part of those who say, “How
could we believe when we neither beheld those things which others saw,
nor heard those words which were preached to others? in so far is the
blame removed from us, since they to whom the word was announced, and
the signs manifested, made no delay whatever, but became believers,
overpowered by the very force of the miracles;” wishing to destroy the
grounds for complaints of this kind, and to show that it was no
concealment of Divine Providence, but the determination of the human
mind which was the cause of their ruin, bestowed the grace of His
benefits even upon the unworthy and the unbelieving, that every mouth
might indeed be shut, and that the mind of man might know that all the
deficiency was on its own part, and none on that of God; and that it
may, at the same time, be understood and recognised that he receives a
heavier sentence of condemnation who has despised the divine benefits
conferred upon him than he who has not deserved to obtain or hear them,
and that it is a peculiarity of divine compassion, and a mark of the
extreme justice of its administration, that it sometimes conceals from
certain individuals the opportunity of either seeing or hearing the
mysteries of divine power, lest, after beholding the power of the
miracles, and recognising and hearing the mysteries of its wisdom, they
should, on treating them with contempt and indifference, be punished
with greater severity for their impiety.
FROM THE GREEK.
17. We asserted also, when investigating the subject of Pharaoh, that
sometimes a rapid cure is not for the advantage of those who are healed,
if, after being seized by troublesome diseases, they should easily get
rid of those by which they had been entangled. For, despising the evil
as one that is easy of cure, and not being on their guard a second time
against falling into it, they will be involved in it [again]. Wherefore,
in the case of such persons, the everlasting God, the Knower of secrets,
who knows all things before they exist, in conformity with His goodness,
delays sending them more rapid assistance, and, so to speak, in helping
them does not help, the latter course being to their advantage. It is
probable, then, that those “without,” of whom we are speaking, having
been foreseen by the Saviour, according to our supposition, as not
[likely] to prove steady in their conversion,[519] if they should hear
more clearly the words that were spoken, were [so] treated by the
Saviour as not to hear distinctly the deeper [things of His
teaching],[520] lest, after a rapid conversion, and after being healed
by obtaining remission of sins, they should despise the wounds of their
wickedness, as being slight and easy of healing, and should again
speedily relapse into them. And perhaps also, suffering punishment for
their former transgressions against virtue, which they had committed
when they had forsaken her, they had not yet filled up the [full] time;
in order that, being abandoned by the divine superintendence, and being
filled[521] to a greater degree by their own evils which they had sown,
they may afterwards be called to a more stable repentance; so as not to
be quickly entangled again in those evils in which they had formerly
been involved when they treated with insolence the requirements of
virtue, and devoted themselves to worse things. Those, then, who are
said to be “without” (manifestly by comparison with those “within”), not
being very far from those “within,” while those “within” hear clearly,
do themselves hear indistinctly, because they are addressed in parables;
but nevertheless they do hear. Others, again, of those “without,” who
are called Tyrians, although it was foreknown that they would have
repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes, had the Saviour come
near their borders, do not hear even those words which are heard by
those “without” (being, as is probable, very far inferior in merit to
those “without”[522]), in order that at another season, after it has
been more tolerable for them than for those who did not receive the word
(among whom he mentioned also the Tyrians), they may, on hearing the
word at a more appropriate time, obtain a more lasting repentance. But
observe whether, besides our desire to investigate [the truth], we do
not rather strive to maintain an attitude of piety in everything
regarding God and His Christ,[523] seeing we endeavour by every means to
prove that, in matters so great and so peculiar regarding the varied
providence of God, He takes an oversight of the immortal soul. If,
indeed, one were to inquire regarding those things that are objected to,
why those who saw wonders and who heard divine words are not benefited,
while the Tyrians would have repented if such had been performed and
spoken amongst them; and should ask, and say, Why did the Saviour
proclaim such to these persons, to their own hurt, that their sin might
be reckoned to them as heavier? we must say, in answer to such an one,
that He who understands the dispositions[524] of all those who find
fault with His providence—[alleging] that it is owing to it that they
have not believed, because it did not permit them to see what it enabled
others to behold, and did not arrange for them to hear those words by
which others, on hearing them, were benefited—wishing to prove that
their defence is not founded on reason, He grants those advantages which
those who blame His administration asked; in order that, after obtaining
them, they may notwithstanding be convicted of the greatest impiety in
not having even then yielded themselves to be benefited, and may cease
from such audacity; and having been made free in respect to this very
point, may learn that God occasionally, in conferring benefits upon
certain persons, delays and procrastinates, not conferring the favour of
seeing and hearing those things which, when seen and heard, would render
the sin of those who did not believe, after acts so great and peculiar,
heavier and more serious.
FROM THE LATIN.
18. Let us now look to the expression, “It is not of him that willeth,
nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”[525] For our
opponents assert, that if it does not depend upon him that willeth, nor
on him that runneth, but on God that showeth mercy, that a man be saved,
our salvation is not in our own power. For our nature is such as to
admit of our either being saved or not, or else our salvation rests
solely on the will of Him who, if He wills it, shows mercy, and confers
salvation. Now let us inquire, in the first place, of such persons,
whether to desire blessings be a good or evil act; and whether to hasten
after good as a final aim[526] be worthy of praise. If they were to
answer that such a procedure was deserving of censure, they would
evidently be mad; for all holy men both desire blessings and run after
them, and certainly are not blameworthy. How, then, is it that he who is
not saved, if he be of an evil nature, desires blessings, and runs after
them, but does not find them? For they say that a bad tree does not
bring forth good fruits, whereas it is a good fruit to desire blessings.
And how is the fruit of a bad tree good? And if they assert that to
desire blessings, and to run after them, is an act of indifference,[527]
_i.e._ neither good nor bad, we shall reply, that if it be an
indifferent act to desire blessings, and to run after them, then the
opposite of that will also be an indifferent act, viz. to desire evils,
and to run after them; whereas it is certain that it is not an
indifferent act to desire evils, and to run after them, but one that is
manifestly wicked. It is established, then, that to desire and follow
after blessings is not an indifferent, but a virtuous proceeding.
Having now repelled these objections by the answer which we have given,
let us hasten on to the discussion of the subject itself, in which it is
said, “It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of
God that showeth mercy.”[528] In the book of Psalms—in the songs of
Degrees, which are ascribed to Solomon—the following statement occurs:
“Except the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it;
except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh but in vain.”[529] By
which words he does not indeed indicate that we should cease from
building or watching over the safe keeping of that city which is within
us; but what he points out is this, that whatever is built without God,
and whatever is guarded without Him, is built in vain, and guarded to no
purpose. For in all things that are well built and well protected, the
Lord is held to be the cause either of the building or of its
protection. As if, _e.g._, we were to behold some magnificent structure
and mass of splendid building reared with beauteous architectural skill,
would we not justly and deservedly say that such was built not by human
power, but by divine help and might? And yet from such a statement it
will not be meant that the labour and industry of human effort were
inactive, and effected nothing at all. Or again, if we were to see some
city surrounded by a severe blockade of the enemy, in which threatening
engines were brought against the walls, and the place hard pressed by a
vallum, and weapons, and fire, and all the instruments of war, by which
destruction is prepared, would we not rightly and deservedly say, if the
enemy were repelled and put to flight, that the deliverance had been
wrought for the liberated city by God? And yet we would not mean, by so
speaking, that either the vigilance of the sentinels, or the alertness
of the young men,[530] or the protection of the guards, had been
wanting. And the apostle also must be understood in a similar manner,
because the human will alone is not sufficient to obtain salvation; nor
is any mortal running able to win the heavenly [rewards], and to obtain
the prize of our high calling[531] of God in Christ Jesus, unless this
very good will of ours, and ready purpose, and whatever that diligence
within us may be, be aided or furnished with divine help. And therefore
most logically[532] did the apostle say, that “it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy;” in the
same manner as if we were to say of agriculture what is actually
written: “I planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then
neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God
that giveth the increase.”[533] As, therefore, when a field has brought
good and rich crops to perfect maturity, no one would piously and
logically assert that the husbandman had made those fruits, but would
acknowledge that they had been produced by God; so also is our own
perfection brought about, not indeed by our remaining inactive and
idle,[534] [but by some activity on our part]: and yet the consummation
of it will not be ascribed to us, but to God, who is the first and chief
cause of the work. So, when a ship has overcome the dangers of the sea,
although the result be accomplished by great labour on the part of the
sailors, and by the aid of all the art of navigation, and by the zeal
and carefulness of the pilot, and by the favouring influence of the
breezes, and the careful observation of the signs of the stars, no one
in his sound senses would ascribe the safety of the vessel, when, after
being tossed by the waves, and wearied by the billows, it has at last
reached the harbour in safety, to anything else than to the mercy of
God. Not even the sailors or pilot venture to say, “I have saved the
ship,” but they refer all to the mercy of God; not that they feel that
they have contributed no skill or labour to save the ship, but because
they know that while they contributed the labour, the safety of the
vessel was ensured by God. So also in the race of our life we ourselves
must expend labour, and bring diligence and zeal to bear; but it is from
God that salvation is to be hoped for as the fruit of our labour.
Otherwise, if God demand none of our labour, His commandments will
appear to be superfluous. In vain, also, does Paul blame some for having
fallen from the truth, and praise others for abiding in the faith; and
to no purpose does he deliver certain precepts and institutions to the
churches: in vain, also, do we ourselves either desire or run after what
is good. But it is certain that these things are not done in vain; and
it is certain that neither do the apostles give instructions in vain,
nor the Lord enact laws without a reason. It follows, therefore, that we
declare it to be in vain, rather, for the heretics to speak evil of
these good declarations.
FROM THE GREEK.
18. Let us look next at the passage: “So, then, it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.”[535]
For they who find fault say: If “it is not of him that willeth, nor of
him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,” salvation does not
depend upon ourselves, but upon the arrangement[536] made by Him who has
formed[537] us such as we are, or on the purpose[538] of Him who showeth
mercy when He pleases. Now we must ask these persons the following
questions: Whether to desire what is good is virtuous or vicious; and
whether the desire to run in order to reach the goal in the pursuit of
what is good be worthy of praise or censure? And if they shall say that
it is worthy of censure, they will return an absurd answer;[539] since
the saints desire and run, and manifestly in so acting do nothing that
is blameworthy. But if they shall say that it is virtuous to desire what
is good, and to run after what is good, we shall ask them how a
perishing nature desires better things;[540] for it is like an evil tree
producing good fruit, since it is a virtuous act to desire better
things. They will give [perhaps] a third answer, that to desire and run
after what is good is one of those things that are indifferent,[541] and
neither beautiful[542] nor wicked. Now to this we must say, that if to
desire and to run after what is good be a thing of indifference, then
the opposite also is a thing of indifference, viz. to desire what is
evil, and to run after it. But it is not a thing of indifference to
desire what is evil, and to run after it. And therefore also, to desire
what is good, and to run after it, is not a thing of indifference. Such,
then, is the defence which I think we can offer to the statement, that
“it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that
showeth mercy.”[543] Solomon says in the book of Psalms (for the song of
Degrees[544] is his, from which we shall quote the words): “Unless the
Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it; except the Lord
keep the city, the watchman waketh in vain:”[545] not dissuading us from
building, nor teaching us not to keep watch in order to guard the city
in our soul, but showing that what is built without God, and does not
receive a guard from Him, is built in vain and watched to no purpose,
because God might reasonably be entitled the Lord of the building; and
the Governor of all things, the Ruler of the guard of the city. As,
then, if we were to say that such a building is not the work of the
builder, but of God, and that it was not owing to the successful effort
of the watcher, but of the God who is over all, that such a city
suffered no injury from its enemies, we should not be wrong,[546] it
being understood that something also had been done by human means, but
the benefit being gratefully referred to God who brought it to pass; so,
seeing that the [mere] human desire is not sufficient to attain the end,
and that the running of those who are, as it were, athletes, does not
enable them to gain the prize of the high calling of God in Christ
Jesus—for these things are accomplished with the assistance of God—it is
well said that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth,
but of God that showeth mercy.” As if also it were said with regard to
husbandry what also is actually recorded: “I planted, Apollos watered;
and God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything,
neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.”[547] Now we
could not piously assert that the production of full crops was the work
of the husbandman, or of him that watered, but the work of God. So also
our own perfection is brought about, not as if we ourselves did
nothing;[548] for it is not completed[549] by us, but God produces the
greater part of it. And that this assertion may be more clearly
believed, we shall take an illustration from the art of navigation. For
in comparison with the effect of the winds,[550] and the mildness of the
air,[551] and the light of the stars, all co-operating in the
preservation of the crew, what proportion[552] could the art of
navigation be said to bear in the bringing of the ship into
harbour?—since even the sailors themselves, from piety, do not venture
to assert often that they had saved the ship, but refer all to God; not
as if they had done nothing, but because what had been done by
Providence was infinitely[553] greater than what had been effected by
their art. And in the matter of our salvation, what is done by God is
infinitely greater than what is done by ourselves; and therefore, I
think, is it said that “it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that
runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.” For if in the manner which they
imagine we must explain the statement,[554] that “it is not of him that
willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy,” the
commandments are superfluous; and it is in vain that Paul himself blames
some for having fallen away, and approves of others as having remained
upright, and enacts laws for the churches: it is in vain also that we
give ourselves up to desire better things, and in vain also [to attempt]
to run. But it is not in vain that Paul gives such advice, censuring
some and approving of others; nor in vain that we give ourselves up to
the desire of better things, and to the chase after things that are
pre-eminent. They have accordingly not well explained the meaning of the
passage.[555]
FROM THE LATIN.
19. After this there followed this point, that “to will and to do are of
God.”[556] Our opponents maintain that if to will be of God, and if to
do be of Him, or if, whether we act or desire well or ill, it be of God,
then in that case we are not possessed of free-will. Now to this we have
to answer, that the words of the apostle do not say that to will evil is
of God, or that to will good is of Him; nor that to do good or evil is
of God; but his statement is a general one, that to will and to do are
of God. For as we have from God this very quality, that we are men,[557]
that we breathe, that we move; so also we have from God [the faculty] by
which we will, as if we were to say that our power of motion is from
God,[558] or that the performing of these duties by the individual
members, and their movements, are from God. From which, certainly, I do
not understand this, that because the hand moves, _e.g._ to punish
unjustly, or to commit an act of theft, the act is of God, but only that
the power of motion[559] is from God; while it is our duty to turn those
movements, the power of executing which we have from God, either to
purposes of good or evil. And so what the apostle says is, that we
receive indeed the power of volition, but that we misuse the will either
to good or evil desires. In a similar way, also, we must judge of
results.
FROM THE GREEK.
19. Besides these, there is the passage, “Both to will and to do are of
God.”[560] And some assert that, if to will be of God, and to do be of
God, and if, whether we will evil or do evil, these [movements] come to
us from God, then, if so, we are not possessed of free-will. But again,
on the other hand, when we will better things, and do things that are
more excellent,[561] seeing that willing and doing are from God, it is
not we who have done the more excellent things, but we only appeared [to
perform them], while it was God that bestowed them;[562] so that even in
this respect we do not possess free-will. Now to this we have to answer,
that the language of the apostle does not assert that to will evil is of
God, or to will good is of Him (and similarly with respect to doing
better and worse); but that to will in a general[563] way, and to run in
a general way, [are from Him]. For as we have from God [the property] of
being living things and human beings, so also have we that of willing
generally, and, so to speak, of motion in general. And as, possessing
[the property] of life and of motion, and of moving, _e.g._ these
members, the hands or the feet, we could not rightly say[564] that we
had from God this species of motion,[565] whereby we moved to strike, or
destroy, or take away another’s goods, but that we had received from Him
simply the generic[566] power of motion, which we employed to better or
worse purposes; so we have obtained from God [the power] of acting, in
respect of our being living things, and [the power] to will from the
Creator,[567] while we employ the power of will, as well as that of
action, for the noblest objects, or the opposite.
FROM THE LATIN.
20. But with respect to the declaration of the apostle, “Therefore hath
He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou
wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted
His will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall
the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one
vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour?”[568] Some one will
perhaps say, that as the potter out of the same lump makes some vessels
to honour, and others to dishonour, so God creates some men for
perdition, and others for salvation; and that it is not therefore in our
own power either to be saved or to perish; by which reasoning we appear
not to be possessed of free-will. We must answer those who are of this
opinion with the question, Whether it is possible for the apostle to
contradict himself? And if this cannot be imagined of an apostle, how
shall he appear, according to them, to be just in blaming those who
committed fornication in Corinth, or those who sinned, and did not
repent of their unchastity, and fornication, and uncleanness, which they
had committed? How, also, does he greatly praise those who acted
rightly, like the house of Onesiphorus, saying, “The Lord give mercy to
the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed
of my chain: but, when he had come to Rome, he sought me out very
diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy
of the Lord in that day.”[569] Now it is not consistent with apostolic
gravity to blame him who is worthy of blame, _i.e._ who has sinned, and
greatly to praise him who is deserving of praise for his good works; and
again, as if it were in no one’s power to do any good or evil, to say
that it was the Creator’s doing that every one should act virtuously or
wickedly, seeing He makes one vessel to honour, and another to
dishonour. And how can he add that statement, “We must all stand before
the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one of us may receive in his
body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad?”[570]
For what reward of good will be conferred on him who could not commit
evil, being formed by the Creator to that very end? or what punishment
will deservedly be inflicted on him who was unable to do good in
consequence of the creative act of his Maker?[571] Then, again, how is
not this opposed to that other declaration elsewhere, that “in a great
house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood
and of earth, and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man
therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour,
sanctified, and meet for the Master’s use, prepared unto every good
work.”[572] He, accordingly, who purges himself, is made a vessel unto
honour, while he who has disdained to cleanse himself from his impurity
is made a vessel unto dishonour. From such declarations, in my opinion,
the cause of our actions can in no degree be referred to the Creator.
For God the Creator makes a certain vessel unto honour, and other
vessels to dishonour; but that vessel which has cleansed itself from all
impurity He makes a vessel unto honour, while that which has stained
itself with the filth of vice He makes a vessel unto dishonour. The
conclusion from which, accordingly, is this, that the cause of each
one’s actions is a pre-existing one; and then every one, according to
his deserts, is made by God either a vessel unto honour or dishonour.
Therefore every individual vessel has furnished to its Creator out of
itself the causes and occasions of its being formed by Him to be either
a vessel unto honour or one unto dishonour. And if the assertion appear
correct, as it certainly is, and in harmony with all piety, that it is
due to previous causes that every vessel be prepared by God either to
honour or to dishonour, it does not appear absurd that, in discussing
remoter causes in the same order, and in the same method, we should come
to the same conclusion respecting the nature of souls, and [believe]
that this was the reason why Jacob was beloved before he was born into
this world, and Esau hated, while he still was contained in the womb of
his mother.
FROM THE GREEK.
20. Still the declaration of the apostle will appear to drag us to the
conclusion that we are not possessed of freedom of will, in which,
objecting against himself, he says, “Therefore hath He mercy on whom He
will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto
me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but,
O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed
say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the
potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto
honour, and another unto dishonour?”[573] For it will be said: If the
potter of the same lump make some vessels to honour and others to
dishonour, and God thus form some men for salvation and others for ruin,
then salvation or ruin does not depend upon ourselves, nor are we
possessed of free-will. Now we must ask him who deals so with these
passages, whether it is possible to conceive of the apostle as
contradicting himself. I presume, however, that no one will venture to
say so. If, then, the apostle does not utter contradictions, how can he,
according to him who so understands him, reasonably find fault,
censuring the individual at Corinth who had committed fornication, or
those who had fallen away, and had not repented of the licentiousness
and impurity of which they had been guilty? And how can he bless those
whom he praises as having done well, as he does the house of Onesiphorus
in these words: “The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus; for he
oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in
Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant to
him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day.”[574] It is not
consistent for the same apostle[575] to blame the sinner as worthy of
censure, and to praise him who had done well as deserving of approval;
and again, on the other hand, to say, as if nothing depended on
ourselves, that the cause was in the Creator[576] why the one vessel was
formed to honour, and the other to dishonour. And how is this statement
correct:[577] “For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of
Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body,
according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad,”[578] since
they who have done evil have advanced to this pitch of wickedness[579]
because they were created vessels unto dishonour, while they that have
lived virtuously have done good because they were created from the
beginning for this purpose, and became vessels unto honour? And again,
how does not the statement made elsewhere conflict with the view which
these persons draw from the words which we have quoted (that it is the
fault of the Creator that one vessel is in honour and another in
dishonour), viz. “that in a great house there are not only vessels of
gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and
some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself, he shall be a
vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master’s use, and
prepared unto every good work;”[580] for if he who purges himself
becomes a vessel unto honour, and he who allows himself to remain
unpurged[581] becomes a vessel unto dishonour, then, so far as these
words are concerned, the Creator is not at all to blame. For the Creator
makes vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour, not from the beginning
according to His foreknowledge,[582] since He does not condemn or
justify beforehand[583] according to it; but [He makes] those into
vessels of honour who purged themselves, and those into vessels of
dishonour who allowed themselves to remain unpurged: so that it results
from older causes[584] [which operated] in the formation of the vessels
unto honour and dishonour, that one was created for the former
condition, and another for the latter. But if we once admit that there
were certain older causes [at work] in the forming of a vessel unto
honour, and of one unto dishonour, what absurdity is there in going back
to the subject of the soul, and [in supposing] that a more ancient cause
for Jacob being loved and for Esau being hated existed with respect to
Jacob before his assumption of a body, and with regard to Esau before he
was conceived in the womb of Rebecca?
FROM THE LATIN.
21. Nay, that very declaration, that from the same lump a vessel is
formed both to honour and to dishonour, will not push us hard; for we
assert that the nature of all rational souls is the same, as one lump of
clay is described as being under the treatment of the potter. Seeing,
then, the nature of rational creatures is one, God, according to the
previous grounds of merit,[585] created and formed out of it, as the
potter out of the one lump, some persons to honour and others to
dishonour. Now, as regards the language of the apostle, which he utters
as if in a tone of censure, “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest
against God?” he means, I think, to point out that such a censure does
not refer to any believer who lives rightly and justly, and who has
confidence in God, _i.e._ to such an one as Moses was, of whom Scripture
says that “Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice;”[586] and as
God answered Moses, so also does every saint answer God. But he who is
an unbeliever, and loses confidence in answering before God owing to the
unworthiness of his life and conversation, and who, in relation to these
matters, does not seek to learn and make progress, but to oppose and
resist, and who, to speak more plainly, is such an one as to be able to
say those words which the apostle indicates, when he says, “Why, then,
does He yet find fault? for who will resist His will?”—to such an one
may the censure of the apostle rightly be directed, “Nay but, O man, who
art thou that repliest against God?” This censure accordingly applies
not to believers and saints, but to unbelievers and wicked men.
Now, to those who introduce souls of different natures,[587] and who
turn this declaration of the apostle to the support of their own
opinion, we have to reply as follows: If even they are agreed as to what
the apostle says, that out of the one lump are formed both those who are
made to honour and those who are made to dishonour, whom they term of a
nature that is to be saved and destroyed, there will then be no longer
souls of different natures, but one nature for all. And if they admit
that one and the same potter may undoubtedly denote one Creator, there
will not be different creators either of those who are saved, or of
those who perish. Now, truly, let them choose whether they will have a
good Creator to be intended who creates bad and ruined men, or one who
is not good, who creates good men and those who are prepared to honour.
For the necessity of returning an answer will extort from them one of
these two alternatives. But according to our declaration, whereby we say
that it is owing to preceding causes that God makes vessels either to
honour or to dishonour, the approval of God’s justice is in no respect
limited. For it is possible that this vessel, which owing to previous
causes was made in this world to honour, may, if it behave negligently,
be converted in another world, according to the deserts of its conduct,
into a vessel unto dishonour: as again, if any one, owing to preceding
causes, was formed by his Creator in this life a vessel unto dishonour,
and shall mend his ways and cleanse himself from all filth and vice, he
may, in the new world, be made a vessel to honour, sanctified and
useful, and prepared unto every good work. Finally, those who were
formed by God in this world to be Israelites, and who have lived a life
unworthy of the nobility of their race, and have fallen away from the
grandeur of their descent, will, in the world to come, in a certain
degree[588] be converted, on account of their unbelief, from vessels of
honour into vessels of dishonour; while, on the other hand, many who in
this life were reckoned among Egyptian or Idumean vessels, having
adopted the faith and practice of Israelites, when they shall have done
the works of Israelites, and shall have entered the church of the Lord,
will exist as vessels of honour in the revelation of the sons of God.
From which it is more agreeable to the rule of piety to believe that
every rational being, according to his purpose and manner of life, is
converted, sometimes from bad to good, and falls away sometimes from
good to bad: that some abide in good, and others advance to a better
condition, and always ascend to higher things, until they reach the
highest grade of all; while others, again, remain in evil, or, if the
wickedness within them begin to spread itself further, they descend to a
worse condition, and sink into the lowest depth of wickedness. Whence
also we must suppose that it is possible there may be some who began at
first indeed with small offences, but who have poured out wickedness to
such a degree, and attained such proficiency in evil, that in the
measure of their wickedness they are equal even to the opposing powers:
and again, if, by means of many severe administrations of punishment,
they are able at some future time to recover their senses, and gradually
attempt to find healing for their wounds, they may, on ceasing from
their wickedness, be restored to a state of goodness. Whence we are of
opinion that, seeing the soul, as we have frequently said, is immortal
and eternal, it is possible that, in the many and endless periods of
duration in the immeasurable and different worlds, it may descend from
the highest good to the lowest evil, or be restored from the lowest evil
to the highest good.
FROM THE GREEK.
21. And at the same time, it is clearly shown that, as far as regards
the underlying nature,[589] as there is one [piece of] clay which is
under the hands of the potter, from which piece vessels are formed unto
honour and dishonour; so the one nature of every soul being in the hands
of God, and, so to speak, there being [only] one lump of reasonable
beings,[590] certain causes of more ancient date led to some being
created vessels unto honour, and others vessels unto dishonour. But if
the language of the apostle convey a censure when he says, “Nay but, O
man, who art thou that repliest against God?” it teaches us that he who
has confidence before God, and is faithful, and has lived virtuously,
would not hear the words, “Who art thou that repliest against God?” Such
an one, _e.g._, as Moses was, “For Moses spake, and God answered him
with a voice;”[591] and as God answers Moses, so does a saint also
answer God. But he who does not possess this confidence, manifestly,
either because he has lost it, or because he investigates these matters
not from a love of knowledge, but from a desire to find fault,[592] and
who therefore says, “Why does He yet find fault? for who hath resisted
His will?” would merit the language of censure, which says, “Nay but, O
man, who art thou that repliest against God?” Now to those who introduce
different natures, and who make use of the declaration of the apostle
[to support their view], the following must be our answer. If they
maintain[593] that those who perish and those who are saved are formed
of one lump, and that the Creator of those who are saved is the Creator
also of them who are lost, and if He is good who creates not only
spiritual but also earthy [natures] (for this follows from their view),
it is nevertheless possible that he who, in consequence of certain
former acts of righteousness,[594] had now been made a vessel of honour,
but who had not [afterwards] acted in a similar manner, nor done things
befitting a vessel of honour, was converted in another world into a
vessel of dishonour; as, on the other hand, it is possible that he who,
owing to causes more ancient than the present life, was here a vessel of
dishonour, may after reformation become in the new creation “a vessel of
honour, sanctified and meet for the Master’s use, prepared unto every
good work.” And perhaps those who are now Israelites, not having lived
worthily of their descent, will be deprived of their rank, being
changed, as it were, from vessels of honour into those of dishonour; and
many of the present Egyptians and Idumeans who came near to Israel, when
they shall have borne fruit to a larger extent, shall enter into the
church of the Lord, being no longer accounted Egyptians and Idumeans,
but becoming Israelites: so that, according to this view, it is owing to
their [varying] purposes that some advance from a worse to a better
condition, and others fall from better to worse; while others, again,
are preserved in a virtuous course, or ascend from good to better; and
others, on the contrary, remain in a course of evil, or from bad become
worse, as their wickedness flows on.
FROM THE LATIN.
22. But since the words of the apostle, in what he says regarding
vessels of honour or dishonour, that “if a man therefore purge himself,
he will be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the Master’s
service, and prepared unto every good work,” appear to place nothing in
the power of God, but all in ourselves; while in those in which he
declares that “the potter hath power over the clay, to make of the same
lump one vessel to honour, another to dishonour,” he seems to refer the
whole to God,—it is not to be understood that those statements are
contradictory, but the two meanings are to be reduced to agreement, and
one signification must be drawn from both, viz. that we are not to
suppose either that those things which are in our own power can be done
without the help of God, or that those which are in God’s hand can be
brought to completion without the intervention of our acts, and desires,
and intention; because we have it not in our own power so to will or do
anything, as not to know that this very faculty, by which we are able to
will or to do, was bestowed on us by God, according to the distinction
which we indicated above. Or again, when God forms vessels, some to
honour and others to dishonour, we are to suppose that He does not
regard either our wills, or our purposes, or our deserts, to be the
causes of the honour or dishonour, as if they were a sort of matter from
which He may form the vessel of each one of us either to honour or to
dishonour; whereas the very movement of the soul itself, or the purpose
of the understanding, may of itself suggest to him, who is not unaware
of his heart and the thoughts of his mind, whether his vessel ought to
be formed to honour or to dishonour. But let these points suffice, which
we have discussed as we best could, regarding the questions connected
with the freedom of the will.
FROM THE GREEK.
22. But since the apostle in one place does not pretend that the
becoming of a vessel unto honour or dishonour depends upon God, but
refers back the whole to ourselves, saying, “If, then, a man purge
himself, he will be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, meet for the
Master’s use, and prepared unto every good work;” and elsewhere does not
even pretend that it is dependent upon ourselves, but appears to
attribute the whole to God, saying, “The potter hath power over the
clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another to
dishonour;” and as his statements are not contradictory, we must
reconcile them, and extract one complete statement from both. Neither
does our own power,[595] apart from the knowledge[596] of God, compel us
to make progress; nor does the knowledge of God [do so], unless we
ourselves also contribute something to the good result; nor does our own
power, apart from the knowledge of God, and the use of the power that
worthily belongs to us,[597] make a man become [a vessel] unto honour or
dishonour; nor does the will of God alone[598] form a man to honour or
dishonour, unless He hold our will to be a kind of matter that admits of
variation,[599] and that inclines to a better or worse course of
conduct. And these observations are sufficient to have been made by us
on the subject of free-will.
Footnote 353:
The whole of this chapter has been preserved in the original Greek,
which is _literally_ translated in corresponding portions on each
page, so that the differences between Origen’s own words and the
amplifications and alterations of the paraphrase of Rufinus may be at
once patent to the reader.
Footnote 354:
Natura ipsius arbitrii voluntatisque.
Footnote 355:
περὶ τοῦ αὐτεξουσίου.
Footnote 356:
τὴν ἔννοιαν αὐτοῦ ἀναπτύξαι.
Footnote 357:
Quæcunque hujusmodi sunt, quæ solo habitu materiæ suæ vel corporum
constant.
Footnote 358:
Non tamen animantia sunt.
Footnote 359:
Phantasia.
Footnote 360:
Voluntas vel sensus.
Footnote 361:
Mella, ut aiunt, aeria congregandi. Rufinus seems to have read, in the
original, ἀεροπλαστεῖν instead of κηροπλαστεῖν,—an evidence that he
followed in general the worst readings (Redepenning).
Footnote 362:
ὑπὸ ἕξεως μόνης.
Footnote 363:
φαντασίας.
Footnote 364:
φύσεως φανταστικῆς.
Footnote 365:
καὶ οὐδενὸς ἄλλου μετὰ τὴν φανταστικὴν αὐτοῦ φύσιν πεπιστευμένου τοῦ
ζώου.
Footnote 366:
Ordinatior quidem motus.
Footnote 367:
Incentivo quodam et naturali motu.
Footnote 368:
ποσῶς.
Footnote 369:
παρὰ τὰς ἀφορμὰς.
Footnote 370:
Ita ut etiam verisimilibus quibusdam causis intra cordis nostri
tribunalia velut judici residenti ex utrâque parte adhiberi videatur
assertio, ut causis prius expositis gerendi sententia de rationis
judicio proferatur.
Footnote 371:
Causa ei perfecta et absoluta vel necessitas prævaricandi.
Footnote 372:
διὰ τάσδε τὰς πιθανότητας.
Footnote 373:
αὐτοτελής.
Footnote 374:
ἠσκηκότι.
Footnote 375:
ἐγγύς γε τοῦ βεβαιωθῆναι γεγενημένος.
Footnote 376:
Naturalem corporis intemperiem; ψιλὴν τὴν κατασκευήν.
Footnote 377:
Contra rationem totius eruditionis. In the Greek, “contra rationem” is
expressed by παρὰ τὸ ἐναργές ἐστι; and the words λόγου παιδευτικοῦ
(rendered by Rufinus “totius eruditionis,” and connected with “contra
rationem”) belong to the following clause.
Footnote 378:
Quibus nihil ad turpitudinem deest.
Footnote 379:
παραχαράττειν.
Footnote 380:
ψιλὴν τὴν κατασκευήν.
Footnote 381:
λόγου παιδευτικοῦ.
Footnote 382:
ἡμερότητος.
Footnote 383:
ἐξεταστήν.
Footnote 384:
Mic. vi. 8.
Footnote 385:
Deut. xxx. 15.
Footnote 386:
Isa. i. 19, 20.
Footnote 387:
Ps. lxxxi. 13, 14.
Footnote 388:
Matt. v. 39.
Footnote 389:
Matt. v. 22.
Footnote 390:
Matt. v. 28.
Footnote 391:
Matt. vii. 24.
Footnote 392:
Matt. vii. 26.
Footnote 393:
Matt. xxv. 34 sq.
Footnote 394:
The words in the text are: His qui secundum patientiam boni operis,
gloria et incorruptio, qui quærunt vitam eternam.
Footnote 395:
Rom. ii. 4-10.
Footnote 396:
Mic. vi. 8.
Footnote 397:
Cf. Deut. xxx. 15, 16, cf. 19.
Footnote 398:
Isa. i. 19, 20.
Footnote 399:
Ps. lxxx. 13, 14.
Footnote 400:
Matt. v. 39.
Footnote 401:
Matt. v. 22.
Footnote 402:
Matt. vii. 24.
Footnote 403:
εὐλόγως.
Footnote 404:
Cf. Matt. vii. 26.
Footnote 405:
Matt. xxv. 34.
Footnote 406:
Matt. xxv. 35.
Footnote 407:
διαλέγεται.
Footnote 408:
Rom. ii. 4-10.
Footnote 409:
Secundum pietatis regulam.
Footnote 410:
Ex. iv. 21, etc.
Footnote 411:
Ezek. xi. 19, 20.
Footnote 412:
Justificationes.
Footnote 413:
The word “now” is added, as the term “flesh” is frequently used in the
New Testament in a bad sense (Redepenning).
Footnote 414:
Mark iv. 12.
Footnote 415:
Rom. ix. 16.
Footnote 416:
Phil. ii. 13.
Footnote 417:
Rom. ix. 18 sq.
Footnote 418:
Ex. iv. 21, cf. vii. 3.
Footnote 419:
Ezek. xi. 19, 20.
Footnote 420:
Cf. Matt. iv. 12 and Luke viii. 10.
Footnote 421:
Rom. ix. 16.
Footnote 422:
Cf. Phil. ii. 13.
Footnote 423:
Gal. v. 8.
Footnote 424:
Rom. ix. 20, 21.
Footnote 425:
Rom. ix. 18.
Footnote 426:
Obstupefactus.
Footnote 427:
Naturaliter.
Footnote 428:
Commentitias fabulas introducunt.
Footnote 429:
Cf. Rom. ix. 18.
Footnote 430:
χρῄζει δὲ αὐτοῦ ὁ Θεὸς ... ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἀπειθοῦντος.
Footnote 431:
Quid faciente vel quid prospiciente.
Footnote 432:
Prospectus et intuitus Dei. Such is the rendering of ἔννοια by
Rufinus.
Footnote 433:
Ex. ix. 17, cf. xi. 5 and xii. 12.
Footnote 434:
ἐννοίαν.
Footnote 435:
Cf. Ex. iv. 23 and ix. 17.
Footnote 436:
Cf. Ex. xii. 12.
Footnote 437:
εὐγνωμονῇ.
Footnote 438:
τρανῶς.
Footnote 439:
ἀπογραψάμενός τις γυμνῇ τῇ κεφαλῇ ἵστατο πρὸς τὸ πονηρὸν εἶναι τὸν
δημιουργόν.
Footnote 440:
Heb. vi. 7, 8.
Footnote 441:
Ex personâ imbrium.
Footnote 442:
Dure.
Footnote 443:
Bonitas et æquitas imbrium.
Footnote 444:
Propositum.
Footnote 445:
ἐνεργείᾳ.
Footnote 446:
διὰ τὸ τῆς κακίας ὑποκείμενον τοῦ παρ’ ἑαυτοῖς κακοῦ.
Footnote 447:
Heb. vi. 7, 8.
Footnote 448:
δύσφημον.
Footnote 449:
Limum.
Footnote 450:
Cum utique secundum naturam unum sit.
Footnote 451:
Malitiæ suæ intentione conceperat.
Footnote 452:
Cf. Ex. viii. 27-29.
Footnote 453:
Tropum vel figuram sermonis.
Footnote 454:
Rom. ii. 4, 5.
Footnote 455:
παρὰ τὸ ὑποκείμενον.
Footnote 456:
καὶ τὸ κατὰ τὸ βραχὺ δὲ ἀναγεγράφθαι.
Footnote 457:
Cf. Ex. viii. 28, 29.
Footnote 458:
οὐκ ἄτοπον δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ συνηθείας τὰ τοιαῦτα παραμυθήσασθαι.
Footnote 459:
συκοφαντεῖν.
Footnote 460:
Rom. ii. 4, 5.
Footnote 461:
Et apostolicæ similitudinis parum munimenti habere adhuc videtur
assertio.
Footnote 462:
Isa. lxiii. 17, 18. Here the Septuagint differs from the Masoretic
text.
Footnote 463:
Jer. xx. 7.
Footnote 464:
Morali utique tropo accipiendum.
Footnote 465:
Ferratum calcem.
Footnote 466:
Frenis ferratis.
Footnote 467:
Heb. xii. 6.
Footnote 468:
Rom. viii. 35.
Footnote 469:
Rationabilibus cœlestibusque virtutibus.
Footnote 470:
Primatus.
Footnote 471:
Immaculatus.
Footnote 472:
Luke xviii. 14.
Footnote 473:
1 Cor. i. 29.
Footnote 474:
δυσπειθεῖς.
Footnote 475:
βίαιοι.
Footnote 476:
Isa. lxiii. 17, 18.
Footnote 477:
Jer. xx. 7.
Footnote 478:
ἰδιότητος.
Footnote 479:
φυσίωσιν.
Footnote 480:
ἄμωμος.
Footnote 481:
Cf. Luke xiv. 11.
Footnote 482:
Cf. 1 Cor. i. 29.
Footnote 483:
Non tamen sine certâ ratione.
Footnote 484:
Digeri. The rendering “dispersed” seems to agree best with the meaning
intended to be conveyed.
Footnote 485:
In the Greek the term is πεντηκονταετίαν.
Footnote 486:
τὸν ἄπειρον αἰῶνα.
Footnote 487:
συνεργηθῆναι.
Footnote 488:
ἀναστοιχειωθῆναι.
Footnote 489:
πεντηκονταετίαν. Rufinus has “_sexaginta_ annos.”
Footnote 490:
ἀπέραντον αἰῶνα.
Footnote 491:
Cf. Matt. xiii. 5, 6.
Footnote 492:
Hæc.
Footnote 493:
Perscrutationis improbitas.
Footnote 494:
Substantialiter.
Footnote 495:
Wisd. vii. 16.
Footnote 496:
Capitulum.
Footnote 497:
Rom. ix. 18.
Footnote 498:
εἰκόνι.
Footnote 499:
τάχιον.
Footnote 500:
προπετέστερον, καὶ οὐχὶ ὁῷω ἐπ’ αὐτὰ ὁδευσάσῃ.
Footnote 501:
Cf. Wisd. vii. 16.
Footnote 502:
Ezek. xi. 19, 20.
Footnote 503:
Ezek. xi. 19, 20.
Footnote 504:
ἀπὸ τῶν ψιλῶν ῥητῶν τὸ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν ἀναιρῶν.
Footnote 505:
χειραγωγήσειν.
Footnote 506:
Mark iv. 12.
Footnote 507:
Mark iv. 12.
Footnote 508:
ὠμότης.
Footnote 509:
δημιουργοῦ.
Footnote 510:
ἡ ἀμυντικὴ καὶ ἀνταποδοτικὴ τῶν χειρόνων προαίρεσις.
Footnote 511:
εὐγνωμόνως.
Footnote 512:
οὐδενὸς ἔλαττον.
Footnote 513:
Prospera sanitas.
Footnote 514:
Aula.
Footnote 515:
Mentes.
Footnote 516:
Evidentissimâ assertione pietatis regulam teneamus.
Footnote 517:
Dispensatio humana.
Footnote 518:
Futuri status causam præstat semper anterior meritorum status.
Footnote 519:
ἑωραμένους οὐ βεβαίους ἔσεσθαι ἐν τῇ ἐπιστροφῇ.
Footnote 520:
τῶν βαθυτέρων.
Footnote 521:
ἐπὶ πλεῖον ἐμφορηθέντας.
Footnote 522:
ὡς εἰκὸς μᾶλλον πόρρω ὄντες τῆς ἀξίας τῶν ἔξω.
Footnote 523:
εἰ μὴ μᾶλλον ἡμεῖς πρὸς τῷ ἐξεταστικῷ καὶ τὸ εὐσεβὲς πάντη ἀγωνιζόμεθα
τηρεῖν περὶ Θεοῦ, etc.
Footnote 524:
διαθέσεις.
Footnote 525:
Rom. ix. 16.
Footnote 526:
Ad finem boni.
Footnote 527:
Medium est velle bona.
Footnote 528:
Rom. ix. 16.
Footnote 529:
Ps. cxxvi. 1.
Footnote 530:
Procinctum juvenum.
Footnote 531:
Supernæ vocationis.
Footnote 532:
Valde consequenter.
Footnote 533:
1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.
Footnote 534:
“Nostra perfectio non quidem nobis cessantibus et otiosis efficitur.”
There is an ellipsis of some such words as, “but by activity on our
part.”
Footnote 535:
Rom. ix. 16.
Footnote 536:
κατασκευῆς.
Footnote 537:
κατασκευάσαντος.
Footnote 538:
προαιρέσεως.
Footnote 539:
παρὰ τὴν ἐνάργειαν.
Footnote 540:
τὰ κρείττονα.
Footnote 541:
τῶν μέσων ἐστί.
Footnote 542:
ἀστεῖον.
Footnote 543:
Rom. ix. 16.
Footnote 544:
ᾠδὴ τῶν ἀναβαθμῶν.
Footnote 545:
Ps. cxxvi. 1.
Footnote 546:
οὐκ ἄν πταίοιμεν.
Footnote 547:
1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.
Footnote 548:
ἡ ἡμετέρα τελείωσις οὐχὶ μηδὲν ἡμῶν πραξάντων γίνεται.
Footnote 549:
ἀπαρτίζεται.
Footnote 550:
πνοήν.
Footnote 551:
εὐκρασίαν.
Footnote 552:
ἀριθμόν.
Footnote 553:
εἰς ὑπερβολὴν πολλαπλάσιον.
Footnote 554:
ἐκλαμβάνειν.
Footnote 555:
ἐξειληφάσι τὰ κατὰ τὸν τόπον.
Footnote 556:
Cf. Phil. ii. 13.
Footnote 557:
Hoc ipsum, quod homines sumus.
Footnote 558:
Sicut dicamus, quod movemur, ex Deo est.
Footnote 559:
Hoc ipsum, quod movetur.
Footnote 560:
Cf. Phil. ii. 13.
Footnote 561:
τὰ διαφέροντα.
Footnote 562:
ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐδόξαμεν, ὁ δὲ Θεὸς ταῦτα ἐδωρήσατο.
Footnote 563:
τὸ καθόλου θέλειν.
Footnote 564:
εὐλόγως.
Footnote 565:
τὸ εἰδικὸν τόδε.
Footnote 566:
τὸ μὲν γενικὸν, τὸ κινεῖσθαι.
Footnote 567:
δημιουργοῦ.
Footnote 568:
Rom. ix. 18-21.
Footnote 569:
2 Tim. i. 16-18.
Footnote 570:
2 Cor. v. 10.
Footnote 571:
Ex ipsâ conditoris creatione.
Footnote 572:
2 Tim. ii. 20, 21.
Footnote 573:
Rom. ix. 18-21.
Footnote 574:
2 Tim. i. 16-18.
Footnote 575:
οὐ κατὰ τὸν αὐτὸν δὴ ἀπόστολόν ἐστι.
Footnote 576:
παρὰ τὴν αἰτίαν τοὺ δεμιουργοῦ.
Footnote 577:
ὑγιές.
Footnote 578:
2 Cor. v. 10.
Footnote 579:
ἐπὶ τοῦτο πράξεως.
Footnote 580:
2 Tim. ii. 20, 21.
Footnote 581:
ἀπερικάθαρτον ἑαυτὸν περιϊδών.
Footnote 582:
πρόγνωσιν.
Footnote 583:
προκατακρίνει ἤ προδικαιοῖ.
Footnote 584:
ἐκ πρεσβυτέρων αἰτιῶν.
Footnote 585:
Secundum præcedentes meritorum causas.
Footnote 586:
Ex. xix. 19.
Footnote 587:
Diversas animarum naturas.
Footnote 588:
Quodammodo.
Footnote 589:
ὁσον ἐπὶ τῇ ὑποκειμενῃ φύσει.
Footnote 590:
ἑνὸς φυραμάτος τῶν λογικῶν ὑποστάσεων.
Footnote 591:
Cf. Ex. xix. 19.
Footnote 592:
κατὰ φιλονεικίαν.
Footnote 593:
σώζουσι.
Footnote 594:
ἐκ προτέρων τινῶν κατορθωμάτων.
Footnote 595:
τὸ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν.
Footnote 596:
ἐπιστήμη; probably in the sense of πρόγνωσις.
Footnote 597:
τῆς καταχρήσεως τοῦ κατ’ ἀξίαν τοῦ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν. “Nec sine usu liberi
nostri arbitrii, quod peculiare nobis et meriti nostri est”
(Redepenning).
Footnote 598:
οὔτε τοῦ ἐπὶ τῷ Θεῷ μόνον.
Footnote 599:
ὕλην τινὰ διαφορᾶς.
CHAPTER II.
ON THE OPPOSING POWERS.
1. We have now to notice, agreeably to the statements of Scripture, how
the opposing powers, or the devil himself, contends with the human race,
inciting and instigating men to sin. And in the first place, in the book
of Genesis,[600] the serpent is described as having seduced Eve;
regarding whom, in the work entitled _The Ascension of Moses_[601] (a
little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his
epistle), the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil regarding
the body of Moses, says that the serpent, being inspired by the devil,
was the cause of Adam and Eve’s transgression. This also is made a
subject of inquiry by some, viz. who the angel was that, speaking from
heaven to Abraham, said, “Now I know that thou fearest God, and on my
account hast not spared thy beloved son, whom thou lovedst.”[602] For he
is manifestly described as an angel who said that he knew then that
Abraham feared God, and had not spared his beloved son, as the Scripture
declares, although he did not say that it was on account of God that
Abraham had done this, but on his, that is, the speaker’s account. We
must also ascertain who that is of whom it is stated in the book of
Exodus that he wished to slay Moses, because he was taking his departure
for Egypt;[603] and afterwards, also, who he is that is called the
destroying[604] angel, as well as he who in the book of Leviticus is
called Apopompæus, _i.e._ Averter, regarding whom Scripture says, “One
lot for the Lord, and one lot for Apopompæus, _i.e._ the Averter.”[605]
In the first book of Kings, also, an evil spirit is said to
strangle[606] Saul; and in the third book, Micaiah the prophet says, “I
saw the Lord of Israel sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven
standing by Him, on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said,
Who will deceive Achab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at
Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that
manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and
said, I will deceive him. And the Lord said to him, Wherewith? And he
said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all
his prophets. And he said, Thou shalt deceive him, and prevail also: go
forth, and do so quickly. And now therefore the Lord hath put a lying
spirit in the mouth of all thy prophets: the Lord hath spoken evil
concerning thee.”[607] Now by this last quotation it is clearly shown
that a certain spirit, from his own [free] will and choice, elected to
deceive [Achab], and to work a lie, in order that the Lord might mislead
the king to his death, for he deserved to suffer. In the first book of
Chronicles also it is said, “The devil, Satan, stood up against Israel,
and provoked David to number the people.”[608] In the Psalms, moreover,
an evil angel is said to harass[609] certain persons. In the book of
Ecclesiastes, too, Solomon says, “If the spirit of the ruler rise up
against thee, leave not thy place; for soundness will restrain many
transgressions.”[610] In Zechariah[611] we read that the devil stood on
the right hand of Joshua, and resisted him. Isaiah says that the sword
of the Lord arises against the dragon, the crooked[612] serpent.[613]
And what shall I say of Ezekiel, who in his second vision prophesies
most unmistakeably to the prince of Tyre regarding an opposing power,
and who says also that the dragon dwells in the rivers of Egypt?[614]
Nay, with what else are the contents of the whole work which is written
regarding Job occupied, save with the [doings] of the devil, who asks
that power may be given him over all that Job possesses, and over his
sons, and even over his person? And yet the devil is defeated through
the patience of Job. In that book the Lord has by His answers imparted
much information regarding the power of that dragon which opposes us.
Such, meanwhile, are the statements made in the Old Testament, so far as
we can at present recall them, on the subject of hostile powers being
either named in Scripture, or being said to oppose the human race, and
to be afterwards subjected to punishment.
Let us now look also to the New Testament, where Satan approaches the
Saviour, and tempts Him: wherein also it is stated that evil spirits and
unclean demons, which had taken possession of very many, were expelled
by the Saviour from the bodies of the sufferers, who are said also to be
made free by Him. Even Judas, too, when the devil had already put it in
his heart to betray Christ, afterwards received Satan wholly into him;
for it is written, that after the sop “Satan entered into him.”[615] And
the Apostle Paul teaches us that we ought not to give place to the
devil; but “put on,” he says, “the armour of God, that ye may be able to
resist the wiles of the devil:”[616] pointing out that the saints have
to “_wrestle_ not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world,
against spiritual wickedness in high places.”[617] Nay, he says that the
Saviour even was crucified by the princes of this world, who shall come
to nought,[618] whose wisdom also, he says, he does not speak. By all
this, therefore, holy Scripture teaches us that there are certain
invisible enemies that fight against us, and against whom it commands us
to arm ourselves. Whence, also, the more simple among the believers in
the Lord Christ are of opinion, that all the sins which men have
committed are caused by the persistent efforts of these opposing powers
exerted upon the minds of sinners, because in that invisible struggle
these powers are found to be superior [to man]. For if, for example,
there were no devil, no single human being[619] would go astray.
2. We, however, who see the reason [of the thing] more clearly, do not
hold this opinion, taking into account those [sins] which manifestly
originate as a necessary consequence of our bodily constitution.[620]
Must we indeed suppose that the devil is the cause of our feeling hunger
or thirst? Nobody, I think, will venture to maintain that. If, then, he
is not the cause of our feeling hunger and thirst, wherein lies the
difference when each individual has attained the age of puberty, and
that period has called forth the incentives of the natural heat? It will
undoubtedly follow, that as the devil is not the cause of our feeling
hunger and thirst, so neither is he the cause of that appetency which
naturally arises at the time of maturity, viz. the desire of sexual
intercourse. Now it is certain that this cause is not always so set in
motion by the devil that we should be obliged to suppose that bodies
would not possess a desire for intercourse of that kind if the devil did
not exist. Let us consider, in the next place, if, as we have already
shown, food is desired by human beings, not from a suggestion of the
devil, but by a kind of natural instinct, whether, if there were no
devil, it were possible for human experience to exhibit such restraint
in partaking of food as never to exceed the proper limits; _i.e._ that
no one would either take otherwise than the case required, or more than
reason would allow; and so it would result that men, observing due
measure and moderation in the matter of eating, would never go wrong. I
do not think, indeed, that so great moderation could be observed by men
(even if there were no instigation by the devil inciting thereto), as
that no individual, in partaking of food, would go beyond due limits and
restraint, until he had learned to do so from long usage and experience.
What, then, is the state of the case? In the matter of eating and
drinking it was possible for us to go wrong, even without any incitement
from the devil, if we should happen to be either less temperate or less
careful [than we ought]; and are we to suppose, then, in our appetite
for sexual intercourse, or in the restraint of our natural desires, our
condition is not something similar?[621] I am of opinion, indeed, that
the same course of reasoning must be understood to apply to other
natural movements, as those of covetousness, or of anger, or of sorrow,
or of all those generally which through the vice of intemperance exceed
the natural bounds of moderation. There are therefore manifest reasons
for holding the opinion, that as in good things the human will[622] is
of itself weak to accomplish any good (for it is by divine help that it
is brought to perfection in everything); so also, in things of an
opposite nature we receive certain initial elements, and, as it were,
seeds of sins, from those things which we use agreeably to nature;[623]
but when we have indulged them beyond what is proper, and have not
resisted the first movements to intemperance, then the hostile power,
seizing the occasion of this first transgression, incites and presses us
hard in every way, seeking to extend our sins over a wider field, and
furnishing us human beings with occasions and beginnings of sins, which
these hostile powers spread far and wide, and, if possible, beyond all
limits. Thus, when men at first for a little desire money, covetousness
begins to grow as the passion increases, and finally the fall into
avarice takes place. And after this, when blindness of mind has
succeeded passion, and the hostile powers, by their suggestions, hurry
on the mind, money is now no longer desired, but stolen, and acquired by
force, or even by shedding human blood. Finally, a confirmatory evidence
of the fact that vices of such enormity proceed from demons, may be
easily seen in this, that those individuals who are oppressed either by
immoderate love, or incontrollable anger, or excessive sorrow, do not
suffer less than those who are bodily vexed by devils. For it is
recorded in certain histories, that some have fallen into madness from a
state of love, others from a state of anger, not a few from a state of
sorrow, and even from one of excessive joy; which results, I think, from
this, that those opposing powers, _i.e._ those demons, having gained a
lodgment in their minds which has been already laid open to them by
intemperance, have taken complete possession of their sensitive
nature,[624] especially when no feeling of the glory of virtue has
aroused them to resistance.
3. That there are certain sins, however, which do not proceed from the
opposing powers, but take their beginnings from the natural movements of
the body, is manifestly declared by the Apostle Paul in the passage:
“The flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh:
and these are contrary the one to the other; so that ye cannot do the
things that ye would.”[625] If, then, the flesh lust against the Spirit,
and the Spirit against the flesh, we have occasionally to wrestle
against flesh and blood, _i.e._ as being men, and walking according to
the flesh, and not capable of being tempted by greater than human
temptations; since it is said of us, “There hath no temptation taken
you, but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not
suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able.”[626] For as the
presidents of the public games do not allow the competitors to enter the
lists indiscriminately or fortuitously, but after a careful examination,
pairing in a most impartial consideration either of size or age, this
individual with that—boys, _e.g._, with boys, men with men, who are
nearly related to each other either in age or strength; so also must we
understand the procedure of divine providence, which arranges on most
impartial principles all who descend into the struggles of this human
life, according to the nature of each individual’s power, which is known
only to Him who alone beholds the hearts of men: so that one individual
fights against one temptation of the flesh,[627] another against a
second; one is exposed to its influence for so long a period of time,
another only for so long; one is tempted by the flesh to this or that
indulgence, another to one of a different kind; one has to resist this
or that hostile power, another has to combat two or three at the same
time; or at one time this hostile influence, at another that; at some
particular date having to resist one enemy, and at another a different
one; being, after the performance of certain acts, exposed to one set of
enemies, after others to a second. And observe whether some such state
of things be not indicated by the language of the apostle: “God is
faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above what ye are
able,”[628] _i.e._ each one is tempted in proportion to the amount of
his strength or power of resistance.[629] Now, although we have said
that it is by the just judgment of God that every one is tempted
according to the amount of his strength, we are not therefore to suppose
that he who is tempted ought by all means to prove victorious in the
struggle; in like manner as he who contends in the lists, although
paired with his adversary on a just principle of arrangement, will
nevertheless not necessarily prove conqueror. But unless the powers of
the combatants are equal, the prize of the victor will not be justly
won; nor will blame justly attach to the vanquished, because He allows
us indeed to be tempted, but not “beyond what we are able:” for it is in
proportion to our strength that we are tempted; and it is not written
that, in temptation, He will make also a way to escape so as that we
should bear it, but a way to escape so as that we should be able to bear
it.[630] But it depends upon ourselves to use either with energy or
feebleness this power which He has given us. For there is no doubt that
under every temptation we have a power of endurance, if we employ
properly the strength that is granted us. But it is not the same thing
to possess the _power_ of conquering and to be victorious, as the
apostle himself has shown in very cautious language, saying, “God will
make a way to escape, that you may be _able_ to bear it,”[631] not that
you _will_ bear it. For many do not sustain temptation, but are overcome
by it. Now God enables us not to sustain [temptation], [otherwise there
would appear to be no struggle], but to have the _power_ of sustaining
it.[632] But this power which is given us to enable us to conquer may be
used, according to our faculty of free-will, either in a diligent
manner, and then we prove victorious, or in a slothful manner, and then
we are defeated. For if such a power were wholly given us as that we
must by all means prove victorious, and never be defeated, what further
reason for a struggle could remain to him who cannot be overcome? Or
what merit is there in a victory, where the power of successful
resistance[633] is taken away? But if the possibility of conquering be
equally conferred on us all, and if it be in our own power how to use
this possibility, _i.e._ either diligently or slothfully, then will the
vanquished be justly censured, and the victor be deservedly lauded. Now
from these points which we have discussed to the best of our power, it
is, I think, clearly evident that there are certain transgressions which
we by no means commit under the pressure of malignant powers; while
there are others, again, to which we are incited by instigation on their
part to excessive and immoderate indulgence. Whence it follows that we
have to inquire how those opposing powers produce these incitements
within us.
4. With respect to the thoughts which proceed from our heart, or the
recollection of things which we have done, or the contemplation of any
things or causes whatever, we find that they sometimes proceed from
ourselves, and sometimes are originated by the opposing powers; not
seldom also are they suggested by God, or by the holy angels. Now such a
statement will perhaps appear incredible,[634] unless it be confirmed by
the testimony of holy Scripture. That, then, thoughts arise within
ourselves, David testifies in the Psalms, saying, “The thought of a man
will make confession to Thee, and the rest of the thought shall observe
to Thee a festival day.”[635] That this, however, is also brought about
by the opposing powers, is shown by Solomon in the book of Ecclesiastes
in the following manner: “If the spirit of the ruler rise up against
thee, leave not thy place; for soundness restrains great offences.”[636]
The Apostle Paul also will bear testimony to the same point in the
words: “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth
itself against the knowledge of Christ.”[637] That it is an effect due
to God, nevertheless, is declared by David, when he says in the Psalms,
“Blessed is the man whose help is in Thee, O Lord, Thy ascents (are) in
his heart.”[638] And the apostle says that “God put it into the heart of
Titus.”[639] That certain thoughts are suggested to men’s hearts either
by good or evil angels, is shown both by the angel that accompanied
Tobias, and by the language of the prophet, where he says, “And the
angel who spoke in me answered.”[640] The book of the Shepherd[641]
declares the same, saying that each individual is attended by two
angels; that whenever good thoughts arise in our hearts, they are
suggested by the good angel; but when of a contrary kind, they are the
instigation of the evil angel. The same is declared by Barnabas in his
epistle,[642] where he says there are two ways, one of light and one of
darkness, over which he asserts that certain angels are placed,—the
angels of God over the way of light, the angels of Satan over the way of
darkness. We are not, however, to imagine that any other result follows
from what is suggested to our heart, whether good or bad, save a
[mental] commotion only, and an incitement instigating us either to good
or evil. For it is quite within our reach, when a malignant power has
begun to incite us to evil, to cast away from us the wicked suggestions,
and to resist the vile inducements, and to do nothing that is at all
deserving of blame. And, on the other hand, it is possible, when a
divine power calls us to better things, not to obey the call; our
freedom of will being preserved to us in either case. We said, indeed,
in the foregoing pages, that certain recollections of good or evil
actions were suggested to us either by the act of divine providence or
by the opposing powers, as is shown in the book of Esther, when
Artaxerxes had not remembered the services of that just man Mordecai,
but, when wearied out with his nightly vigils, had it put into his mind
by God to require that the annals of his great deeds should be read to
him; whereon, being reminded of the benefits received from Mordecai, he
ordered his enemy Haman to be hanged, but splendid honours to be
conferred on him, and impunity from the threatened danger to be granted
to the whole of the holy nation. On the other hand, however, we must
suppose that it was through the hostile influence of the devil that the
suggestion was introduced into the minds of the high priests and the
scribes which they made to Pilate, when they came and said, “Sir, we
remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three
days I will rise again.”[643] The design of Judas, also, respecting the
betrayal of our Lord and Saviour, did not originate in the wickedness of
his mind alone. For Scripture testifies that the “devil had already put
it into his heart to betray Him.”[644] And therefore Solomon rightly
commanded, saying, “Keep thy heart with all diligence.”[645] And the
Apostle Paul warns us: “Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed
to the things which we have heard, lest perhaps we should let them
slip.”[646] And when he says, “Neither give place to the devil,”[647] he
shows by that injunction that it is through certain acts, or a kind of
mental slothfulness, that room is made for the devil, so that, if he
once enter our heart, he will either gain possession of us, or at least
will pollute the soul, if he has not obtained the entire mastery over
it, by casting on us his fiery darts; and by these we are sometimes
deeply wounded, and sometimes only set on fire. Seldom indeed, and only
in a few instances, are these fiery darts quenched, so as not to find a
place where they may wound, _i.e._ when one is covered by the strong and
mighty shield of faith. The declaration, indeed, in the Epistle to the
Ephesians, “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against
principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of
this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places,”[648] must be
so understood as if “we” meant, “I Paul, and you Ephesians, and all who
have not to wrestle against flesh and blood:” for such have to struggle
against principalities and powers, against the rulers of the darkness of
this world, not like the Corinthians, whose struggle was as yet against
flesh and blood, and who had been overtaken by no temptation but such as
is common to man.
5. We are not, however, to suppose that each individual has to contend
against all these [adversaries]. For it is impossible for any man,
although he were a saint, to carry on a contest against all of them at
the same time. If that indeed were by any means to be the case, as it is
certainly impossible it should be so, human nature could not possibly
bear it without undergoing entire destruction.[649] But as, for example,
if fifty soldiers were to say that they were about to engage with fifty
others, they would not be understood to mean that one of them had to
contend against the whole fifty, but each one would rightly say that
“our battle was against fifty,” all against all; so also this is to be
understood as the apostle’s meaning, that all the athletes and soldiers
of Christ have to wrestle and struggle against all the adversaries
enumerated,—the struggle having, indeed, to be maintained against all,
but by single individuals either with individual powers, or at least in
such manner as shall be determined by God, who is the just president of
the struggle. For I am of opinion that there is a certain limit to the
powers of human nature, although there may be a Paul, of whom it is
said, “He is a chosen vessel unto me;”[650] or a Peter, against whom the
gates of hell do not prevail; or a Moses, the friend of God: yet not one
of them could sustain, without destruction to himself,[651] the whole
simultaneous assault of these opposing powers, unless indeed the might
of Him alone were to work in him, who said, “Be of good cheer, I have
overcome the world.”[652] And therefore Paul exclaims with confidence,
“I can do all things through Christ, who strengtheneth me;”[653] and
again, “I laboured more abundantly than they all; yet not I, but the
grace of God which was with me.”[654] On account, then, of this power,
which certainly is not of human origin, operating and speaking in him,
Paul could say, “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 power, nor any other creature, shall
be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus
our Lord.”[655] For I do not think that human nature can alone of itself
maintain a contest with angels, and with the powers of the height and of
the abyss,[656] and with any other creature; but when it feels the
presence of the Lord dwelling within it, confidence in the divine help
will lead it to say, “The Lord is my light, and my salvation; whom shall
I fear? The Lord is the protector of my life; of whom shall I be afraid?
When the enemies draw near to me, to eat my flesh, my enemies who
trouble me, they stumbled and fell. Though an host encamp against me, my
heart shall not fear; though war should rise against me, in Him shall I
be confident.”[657] From which I infer that a man perhaps would never be
able of himself to vanquish an opposing power, unless he had the benefit
of divine assistance. Hence, also, the angel is said to have wrestled
with Jacob. Here, however, I understand the writer to mean, that it was
not the same thing for the angel to have wrestled _with_ Jacob, and to
have wrestled _against_ him; but the angel that wrestles with him is he
who was present with him in order to secure his safety, who, after
knowing also his moral progress, gave him in addition the name of
Israel, _i.e._ he is _with_ him in the struggle, and assists him in the
contest; seeing there was undoubtedly another angel against whom he
contended, and against whom he had to carry on a contest. Finally, Paul
has not said that we wrestle _with_ princes, or _with_ powers, but
_against_ principalities and powers. And hence, although Jacob wrestled,
it was unquestionably _against_ some one of those powers which, Paul
declares, resist and contend with the human race, and especially with
the saints. And therefore at last the Scripture says of him that “he
wrestled with the angel, and had power with God,” so that the struggle
is supported by help of the angel, but the prize of success conducts the
conqueror to God.
6. Nor are we, indeed, to suppose that struggles of this kind are
carried on by the exercise of bodily strength, and of the arts of the
wrestling school;[658] but spirit contends with spirit, according to the
declaration of Paul, that our struggle is against principalities, and
powers, and the rulers of the darkness of this world. Nay, the following
is to be understood as the nature of the struggles; when, _e.g._, losses
and dangers befall us, or calumnies and false accusations are brought
against us, it not being the object of the hostile powers that we should
suffer these [trials] only, but that by means of them we should be
driven either to excess of anger or sorrow, or to the last pitch of
despair; or at least, which is a greater sin, should be forced, when
fatigued and overcome by any annoyances, to make complaints against God,
as one who does not administer human life justly and equitably; the
consequence of which is, that our faith may be weakened, or our hopes
disappointed, or we may be compelled to give up the truth of our
opinions, or be led to entertain irreligious sentiments regarding God.
For some such things are written regarding Job, after the devil had
requested God that power should be given him over his goods. By which
also we are taught, that it is not by any accidental attacks that we are
assailed, whenever we are visited with any such loss of property, nor
that it is owing to chance when one of us is taken prisoner, or when the
dwellings in which those who are dear to us are crushed to death, fall
in ruins; for, with respect to all these occurrences, every believer
ought to say, “Thou couldst have no power at all against me, except it
were given thee from above.”[659] For observe that the house of Job did
not fall upon his sons until the devil had first received power against
them; nor would the horsemen have made an irruption in three bands,[660]
to carry away his camels or his oxen, and other cattle, unless they had
been instigated by that spirit to whom they had delivered themselves up
as the servants of his will. Nor would that fire, as it seemed to be, or
thunderbolt, as it has been considered, have fallen upon the sheep of
the patriarch, until the devil had said to God, “Hast Thou not made a
hedge about all that is without and within his house, and around all the
rest of his property? But now put forth Thy hand, and touch all that he
hath, [and see] if he do not renounce Thee to Thy face.”[661]
7. The result of all the foregoing remarks is to show, that all the
occurrences in the world which are considered to be of an intermediate
kind, whether they be mournful or otherwise, are brought about, not
indeed by God, and yet not without Him; while He not only does not
prevent those wicked and opposing powers that are desirous to bring
about these things [from accomplishing their purpose], but even permits
them to do so, although only on certain occasions and to certain
individuals, as is said with respect to Job himself, that for a certain
time he was made to fall under the power of others, and to have his
house plundered by unjust persons. And therefore holy Scripture teaches
us to receive all that happens as sent by God, knowing that without Him
no event occurs. For how can we doubt that such is the case, viz. that
nothing comes to man without [the will of] God, when our Lord and
Saviour declares, “Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of
them shall not fall on the ground without your Father who is in
heaven.”[662] But the necessity of the case has drawn us away in a
lengthened digression on the subject of the struggle waged by the
hostile powers against men, and of those sadder events which happen to
human life, _i.e._ its temptations—according to the declaration of Job,
“Is not the whole life of man upon the earth a temptation?”[663]—in
order that the manner of their occurrence, and the spirit in which we
should regard them, might be clearly shown. Let us notice next, how men
fall away into the sin of false knowledge, or with what object the
opposing powers are wont to stir up conflict with us regarding such
things.
Footnote 600:
Gen. iii.
Footnote 601:
This apocryphal work, entitled in Hebrew פטירת משה, and in Greek
ἀνάληψις, or ἀνάβασις Μωυσέως, is mentioned by several ancient
writers; _e.g._ by Athanasius, in his _Synopsis Sacræ Scripturæ_;
Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus in his _Stichometria_, appended to the
_Chronicon_ of Eusebius (where he says the Ἀνάληψις contained 1400
verses), in the Acts of the Council of Nice, etc. etc. (Ruæus).
Footnote 602:
Gen. xxii. 12. The reading in the text is according to the Septuagint
and Vulgate, with the exception of the words “quem dilexisti,” which
are an insertion.
Footnote 603:
Cf. Ex. iv. 24-26.
Footnote 604:
Ex. xii. 23, exterminator. _Percussor_, Vulgate; ὀλοθρεύων, Sept.
Footnote 605:
Lev. xvi. 8. Ἀποπομπαῖος is the reading of the Sept., “Caper
emissarius” of the Vulgate, עְַזָאזֵֽל of the Masoretic text. Cf.
Fürst and Gesenius _s.v._ Rufinus translates Apopompæus by
“transmissor.”
Footnote 606:
1 Sam. xviii. 10, effocare. Septuagint has ἔπεσε; Vulgate, “invasit;”
the Masoretic text תִּצְלַח, fell on.
Footnote 607:
1 Kings xxii. 19-23.
Footnote 608:
1 Chron. i. 1.
Footnote 609:
Atterere.
Footnote 610:
Eccles. x. 4, “For yielding pacifieth great offences.” The words in
the text are, “Quoniam sanitas compescet multa peccata.” The Vulgate
has, “Curatio faciet cessare peccata maxima.” The Septuagint reads,
Ἴαμα καταπαύσει ἁμαρτίας μεγάλας; while the Masoretic text has
מַרְפֵּא (curatio).
Footnote 611:
Zech. iii. 1.
Footnote 612:
Perversum.
Footnote 613:
Isa. xxvii. 1.
Footnote 614:
Ezek. xxviii. 12 sq.
Footnote 615:
Cf. John xiii. 27.
Footnote 616:
Eph. vi. 13.
Footnote 617:
Eph. vi. 12.
Footnote 618:
Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 6.
Footnote 619:
Nemo hominum omnino.
Footnote 620:
Ex corporali necessitate descendunt.
Footnote 621:
Quod non simile aliquid pateremur?
Footnote 622:
Propositum.
Footnote 623:
Quæ in usu naturaliter habentur.
Footnote 624:
Sensum eorum penitus possederint.
Footnote 625:
Gal. v. 17.
Footnote 626:
1 Cor. x. 13.
Footnote 627:
Carnem talem.
Footnote 628:
1 Cor. x. 13.
Footnote 629:
Pro virtutis suæ quantitate, vel possibilitate.
Footnote 630:
Nec tamen scriptum est, quia faciet in tentatione etiam exitum
sustinendi, sed exitum ut sustinere possimus.
Footnote 631:
1 Cor. x. 13.
Footnote 632:
Ut sustinere possimus.
Footnote 633:
Repugnandi vincendique.
Footnote 634:
Fabulosum.
Footnote 635:
Ps. lxxvi. 10. Such is the reading of the Vulgate and of the
Septuagint. The authorized version follows the Masoretic text.
Footnote 636:
Eccles. x. 4; cf. note 7, p. 223.
Footnote 637:
2 Cor. x. 5.
Footnote 638:
Ps. lxxxiv. 5. The words in the text are: Beatus vir, cujus est
susceptio apud te, Domine, adscensus in corde ejus. The Vulgate reads:
Beatus vir, cujus est auxilium abs te: ascensiones in corde suo
disposuit. The Septuagint the same. The Masoretic text has מְסִלּוֹת
(“festival march or procession:” Fürst). Probably the Septuagint and
Vulgate had מַעְַלוֹת before them, the similarity between Samech and
Ayin accounting for the error in transcription.
Footnote 639:
2 Cor. viii. 16.
Footnote 640:
Zech. i. 14. The Vulgate, Septuagint, and Masoretic text all have “in
me,” although the authorized version reads “with me.”
Footnote 641:
_Shepherd of Hermas_, Command. vi. 2. See Ante-Nicene Library, vol.
_Apostolic Fathers_, p. 359.
Footnote 642:
_Epistle of Barnabas_, Ante-Nicene Library, vol. _Apostolic Fathers_,
p. 131, etc.
Footnote 643:
Matt. xxvii. 63.
Footnote 644:
John xiii. 2.
Footnote 645:
Prov. iv. 23.
Footnote 646:
Heb. ii. 1.
Footnote 647:
Eph. iv. 27.
Footnote 648:
Eph. vi. 12.
Footnote 649:
Sine maxima subversione sui.
Footnote 650:
Acts ix. 15.
Footnote 651:
Sine aliquâ pernicie sui.
Footnote 652:
John xvi. 33.
Footnote 653:
Phil. iv. 13.
Footnote 654:
1 Cor. xv. 10.
Footnote 655:
Rom. viii. 38, 39. The word “virtus,” δύναμις, occurring in the text,
is not found in the _text. recept._ Tischendorf reads Δύναμεις _in
loco_ (edit. 7). So also Codex Sinaiticus.
Footnote 656:
Excelsa et profunda.
Footnote 657:
Ps. xxvii. 1-3.
Footnote 658:
Palæstricæ artis exercitiis.
Footnote 659:
John xix. 11.
Footnote 660:
Tribus ordinibus.
Footnote 661:
Cf. Job i. 10, 11. “Nisi in faciem benedixerit tibi.” The Hebrew verb
בָּרַךִּ has the double signification of “blessing” and “cursing.” Cf.
Davidson’s _Commentary on Job_, p. 7. Septuag. εὐλογήσει.
Footnote 662:
Matt. x. 29.
Footnote 663:
Cf. Job vii. 1. The Septuagint reads, πότερον οὐχὶ πειρατήριον, etc.;
the Vulgate, “militia;” the Masoretic text has צָבָא. Cf. Davidson’s
_Commentary on Job_, _in loc._
CHAPTER III.
ON THREEFOLD WISDOM.
1. The holy apostle, wishing to teach us some great and hidden truth
respecting science and wisdom, says, in the first Epistle to the
Corinthians: “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect; yet not the
wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of the world, that come to
nought: but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden
wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: which none
of the princes of the world knew: for had they known it, they would not
have crucified the Lord of glory.”[664] In this passage, wishing to
describe the different kinds of wisdom, he points out that there is a
wisdom of this world, and a wisdom of the princes of this world, and
another wisdom of God. But when he uses the expression “wisdom of the
princes of this world,” I do not think that he means a wisdom common to
all the princes of this world, but one rather that is peculiar to
certain individuals among them. And again, when he says, “We speak the
wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained
before the world unto our glory,”[665] we must inquire whether his
meaning be, that this is the same wisdom of God which was hidden from
other times and generations, and was not made known to the sons of men,
as it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets, and which
was also that wisdom of God before the advent of the Saviour, by means
of which Solomon obtained his wisdom, and in reference to which the
language of the Saviour Himself declared, that what He taught was
greater than Solomon, in these words, “Behold, a greater than Solomon is
here,”[666]—words which show, that those who were instructed by the
Saviour were instructed in something higher than the knowledge of
Solomon. For if one were to assert that the Saviour did indeed Himself
possess greater knowledge, but did not communicate more to others than
Solomon did, how will that agree with the statement which follows: “The
queen of the south shall rise up in the judgment, and condemn the men of
this generation, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the
wisdom of Solomon; and, behold, a greater than Solomon is here?”[667]
There is therefore a wisdom of this world, and also probably a wisdom
belonging to each individual prince of this world. But with respect to
the wisdom of God alone, we perceive that this is indicated, that it
operated to a less degree in ancient and former times, and was
[afterwards] more fully revealed and manifested through Christ. We shall
inquire, however, regarding the wisdom of God in the proper place.
2. But now, since we are treating of the manner in which the opposing
powers stir up those contests, by means of which false knowledge is
introduced into the minds of men, and human souls led astray, while they
imagine that they have discovered wisdom, I think it necessary to name
and distinguish the wisdom of this world, and of the princes of this
world, that by so doing we may discover who are the fathers of this
wisdom, nay, even of these kinds of wisdom.[668] I am of opinion,
therefore, as I have stated above, that there is another wisdom of this
world besides those [different kinds of] wisdom[669] which belong to the
princes of this world, by which wisdom those things seem to be
understood and comprehended which belong to this world. This wisdom,
however, possesses in itself no fitness for forming any opinion either
respecting divine things,[670] or the plan of the world’s government, or
any other subjects of importance, or regarding the training for a good
or happy life; but is such as deals wholly with the art of poetry,
_e.g._, or that of grammar, or rhetoric, or geometry, or music, with
which also, perhaps, medicine should be classed. In all these subjects
we are to suppose that the wisdom of this world is included. The wisdom
of the princes of this world, on the other hand, we understand to be
such as the secret and occult philosophy, as they call it, of the
Egyptians, and the astrology of the Chaldeans and Indians, who make
profession of the knowledge of high things,[671] and also that manifold
variety of opinion which prevails among the Greeks regarding divine
things. Accordingly, in the holy Scriptures we find that there are
princes over individual nations; as in Daniel[672] we read that there
was a prince of the kingdom of Persia, and another prince of the kingdom
of Græcia, who are clearly shown, by the nature of the passage, to be
not human beings, but certain powers. In the prophecies of Ezekiel,[673]
also, the prince of Tyre is unmistakeably shown to be a kind of
spiritual power. When these, then, and others of the same kind,
possessing each his own wisdom, and building up his own opinions and
sentiments, beheld our Lord and Saviour professing and declaring that He
had for this purpose come into the world, that all the opinions of
science, falsely so called, might be destroyed, not knowing what was
concealed within Him, they forthwith laid a snare for Him: for “the
kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers assembled together,
against the Lord and His Christ.”[674] But their snares being
discovered, and the plans which they had attempted to carry out being
made manifest when they crucified the Lord of glory, therefore the
apostle says, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but not the
wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, who are brought
to nought, which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they
known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.”[675]
3. We must, indeed, endeavour to ascertain whether that wisdom[676] of
the princes of this world, with which they endeavour to imbue men, is
introduced into their minds by the opposing powers, with the purpose of
ensnaring and injuring them, or only for the purpose of deceiving them,
_i.e._ not with the object of doing any hurt to man; but, as these
princes of this world esteem such opinions to be true, they desire to
impart to others what they themselves believe to be the truth: and this
is the view which I am inclined to adopt. For as, to take an
illustration, certain Greek authors, or the leaders of some heretical
sect, after having imbibed an error in doctrine instead of the truth,
and having come to the conclusion in their own minds that such is the
truth, proceed, in the next place, to endeavour to persuade others of
the correctness of their opinions; so, in like manner, are we to suppose
is the procedure of the princes of this world, in which to certain
spiritual powers has been assigned the rule over certain nations, and
who are termed on that account the princes of this world. There are
besides, in addition to these princes, certain special energies[677] of
this world, _i.e._ spiritual powers, which bring about certain effects,
which they have themselves, in virtue of their freedom of will, chosen
to produce, and to these belong those princes who practise the wisdom of
this world: there being, for example, a peculiar energy and power, which
is the inspirer of poetry; another, of geometry; and so a separate
power, to remind us of each of the arts and professions of this kind.
Lastly, many Greek writers have been of opinion that the art of poetry
cannot exist without madness;[678] whence also it is several times
related in their histories, that those whom they call poets[679] were
suddenly filled with a kind of spirit of madness. And what are we to say
also of those whom they call diviners,[680] from whom, by the working of
those demons who have the mastery over them, answers are given in
carefully constructed verses? Those persons, too, whom they term Magi or
Malevolent,[681] frequently, by invoking demons over boys of tender
years, have made them repeat poetical compositions which were the
admiration and amazement of all. Now these effects we are to suppose are
brought about in the following manner: As holy and immaculate souls,
after devoting themselves to God with all affection and purity, and
after preserving themselves free from all contagion of evil
spirits,[682] and after being purified by lengthened abstinence, and
imbued with holy and religious training, assume by this means a portion
of divinity, and earn the grace of prophecy, and other divine gifts; so
also are we to suppose that those who place themselves in the way of the
opposing powers, _i.e._ who purposely admire and adopt their manner of
life and habits,[683] receive their inspiration, and become partakers of
their wisdom and doctrine. And the result of this is, that they are
filled with the working of those spirits to whose service they have
subjected themselves.
4, With respect to those, indeed, who teach differently regarding Christ
from what the rule of Scripture allows, it is no idle task to ascertain
whether it is from a treacherous purpose that these opposing powers, in
their struggles to prevent a belief in Christ, have devised certain
fabulous and impious doctrines; or whether, on hearing the word of
Christ, and not being able to cast it forth from the secrecy of their
conscience, nor yet to retain it pure and holy, they have, by means of
vessels that were convenient to their use,[684] and, so to speak,
through their prophets, introduced various errors contrary to the rule
of Christian truth. Now we are to suppose rather that apostate and
refugee powers,[685] which have departed from God out of the very
wickedness of their mind and will,[686] or from envy of those for whom
there is prepared (on their becoming acquainted with the truth) an
ascent to the same rank, whence they themselves had fallen, did, in
order to prevent any progress of that kind, invent these errors and
delusions of false doctrine. It is then clearly established, by many
proofs, that while the soul of man exists in this body, it may admit
different energies, _i.e._ operations, from a diversity of good and evil
spirits. Now, of wicked spirits there is a twofold mode of operation:
_i.e._ when they either take complete and entire possession of the
mind,[687] so as to allow their captives[688] the power neither of
understanding nor feeling; as, for instance, is the case with those
commonly called possessed,[689] whom we see to be deprived of reason,
and insane (such as those were who are related in the Gospel to have
been cured by the Saviour); or when by their wicked suggestions they
deprave a sentient and intelligent soul with thoughts of various kinds,
persuading it to evil, of which Judas is an illustration, who was
induced at the suggestion of the devil to commit the crime of treason,
according to the declaration of Scripture, that “the devil had already
put it into the heart of Judas Iscariot to betray Him.”[690]
But a man receives the energy, _i.e._ the working, of a good spirit,
when he is stirred and incited to good, and is inspired to heavenly or
divine things; as the holy angels and God Himself wrought in the
prophets, arousing and exhorting them by their holy suggestions to a
better course of life, yet so, indeed, that it remained within the will
and judgment of the individual, either to be willing or unwilling to
follow the call to divine and heavenly things. And from this manifest
distinction, it is seen how the soul is moved by the presence of a
better spirit, _i.e._ if it encounter no perturbation or alienation of
mind whatever from the impending inspiration, nor lose the free control
of its will; as, for instance, is the case with all, whether prophets or
apostles, who ministered to the divine responses without any
perturbation of mind. Now, that by the suggestions of a good spirit the
memory of man is aroused to the recollection of better things, we have
already shown by previous instances, when we mentioned the cases of
Mordecai and Artaxerxes.
5. This too, I think, should next be inquired into, viz. what are the
reasons why a human soul is acted on at one time by good [spirits], and
at another by bad: the grounds of which I suspect to be older than the
bodily birth of the individual, as John [the Baptist] showed by his
leaping and exulting in his mother’s womb, when the voice of the
salutation of Mary reached the ears of his mother Elisabeth; and as
Jeremiah the prophet declares, who was known to God before he was formed
in his mother’s womb, and before he was born was sanctified by Him, and
while yet a boy received the grace of prophecy.[691] And again, on the
other hand, it is shown beyond a doubt, that some have been possessed by
hostile spirits from the very beginning of their lives: _i.e._, some
were born with an evil spirit; and others, according to credible
histories, have practised divination[692] from childhood. Others have
been under the influence of the demon called Python, _i.e._ the
ventriloquial spirit, from the commencement of their existence. To all
which instances, those who maintain that everything in the world is
under the administration of divine providence (as is also our own
belief), can, as it appears to me, give no other answer, so as to show
that no shadow of injustice rests upon the divine government, than by
holding that there were certain causes of prior existence, in
consequence of which the souls, before their birth in the body,
contracted a certain amount of guilt in their sensitive nature, or in
their movements, on account of which they have been judged worthy by
Divine Providence of being placed in this condition. For a soul is
always in possession of free-will, as well when it is in the body as
when it is without it; and freedom of will is always directed either to
good or evil. Nor can any rational and sentient being, _i.e._ a mind or
soul, exist without some movement either good or bad. And it is probable
that these movements furnish grounds for merit even before they do
anything in this world; so that on account of these merits or grounds
they are, immediately on their birth, and even before it, so to speak,
assorted by Divine Providence for the endurance either of good or evil.
Let such, then, be our views respecting those events which appear to
befall men, either immediately after birth, or even before they enter
upon the light. But as regards the suggestions which are made to the
soul, _i.e._ to the faculty of human thought, by different spirits, and
which arouse men to good actions or the contrary, even in such a case we
must suppose that there sometimes existed certain causes anterior to
bodily birth. For occasionally the mind, when watchful, and casting away
from it what is evil, calls to itself the aid of the good; or if it be,
on the contrary, negligent and slothful, it makes room through
insufficient caution for these spirits, which, lying in wait secretly
like robbers, contrive to rush into the minds of men when they see a
lodgment made for them by sloth; as the Apostle Peter says, “that our
adversary the devil goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may
devour.”[693] On which account our heart must be kept with all
carefulness both by day and night, and no place be given to the devil;
but every effort must be used that the ministers of God—those spirits,
viz., who were sent to minister to them who are called to be heirs of
salvation[694]—may find a place within us, and be delighted to enter
into the guest-chamber[695] of our soul, and dwelling within us may
guide us by their counsels; if, indeed, they shall find the habitation
of our heart adorned by the practice of virtue and holiness. But let
that be sufficient which we have said, as we best could, regarding those
powers which are hostile to the human race.
Footnote 664:
1 Cor. ii. 6-8.
Footnote 665:
1 Cor. ii. 7.
Footnote 666:
Matt. xii. 42.
Footnote 667:
Matt. xii. 42.
Footnote 668:
Sapientiarum harum.
Footnote 669:
Sapientias illas.
Footnote 670:
De divinitate.
Footnote 671:
De scientiâ excelsi pollicentium.
Footnote 672:
Cf. Dan. x.
Footnote 673:
Cf. Ezek. xxvi.
Footnote 674:
Ps. ii. 2.
Footnote 675:
1 Cor. ii. 6-8.
Footnote 676:
Istæ sapientiæ.
Footnote 677:
Energiæ.
Footnote 678:
Insania.
Footnote 679:
Vates.
Footnote 680:
Divinos.
Footnote 681:
Magi vel malefici.
Footnote 682:
Dæmonum.
Footnote 683:
Id est, industria vita, vel studio amico illis et accepto.
Footnote 684:
Per vasa opportuna sibi.
Footnote 685:
Apostatæ et refugæ virtutes.
Footnote 686:
Propositi.
Footnote 687:
Penitus ex integro.
Footnote 688:
Eos quos obsederint.
Footnote 689:
Energumenos.
Footnote 690:
John xix. 2.
Footnote 691:
Jer. i. 5, 6.
Footnote 692:
Divinasse.
Footnote 693:
1 Pet. v. 8.
Footnote 694:
Heb. i. 14.
Footnote 695:
Hospitium.
CHAPTER IV.
ON HUMAN TEMPTATIONS.
1. And now the subject of human temptations must not, in my opinion, be
passed over in silence, which take their rise sometimes from flesh and
blood, or from the wisdom of flesh and blood, which is said to be
hostile to God. And whether the statement be true which certain allege,
viz. that each individual has as it were two souls, we shall determine
after we have explained the nature of those temptations, which are said
to be more powerful than any of human origin, _i.e._ which we sustain
from principalities and powers, and from the rulers of the darkness of
this world, and from spiritual wickedness in high places, or to which we
are subjected from wicked spirits and unclean demons. Now, in the
investigation of this subject, we must, I think, inquire according to a
logical method whether there be in us human beings, who are composed of
soul and body and vital spirit, some other element, possessing an
incitement of its own, and evoking a movement towards evil. For a
question of this kind is wont to be discussed by some in this way:
whether, viz., as two souls are said to co-exist within us, the one is
more divine and heavenly and the other inferior; or whether, from the
very fact that we inhere in bodily structures which according to their
own proper nature are dead, and altogether devoid of life (seeing it is
from us, _i.e._ from our souls, that the material body derives its life,
it being contrary and hostile to the spirit), we are drawn on and
enticed to the practice of those evils which are agreeable to the body;
or whether, thirdly (which was the opinion of some of the Greek
philosophers), although our soul is one in substance, it nevertheless
consists of several elements, and one portion of it is called rational
and another irrational, and that which is termed the irrational part is
again separated into two affections—those of covetousness and passion.
These three opinions, then, regarding the soul, which we have stated
above, we have found to be entertained by some, but that one of them,
which we have mentioned as being adopted by certain Grecian
philosophers, viz. that the soul is tripartite, I do not observe to be
greatly confirmed by the authority of holy Scripture; while with respect
to the remaining two there is found a considerable number of passages in
the holy Scriptures which seem capable of application to them.
2. Now, of these opinions, let us first discuss that which is maintained
by some, that there is in us a good and heavenly soul, and another
earthly and inferior; and that the better soul is implanted within us
from heaven, such as was that which, while Jacob was still in the womb,
gave him the prize of victory in supplanting his brother Esau, and which
in the case of Jeremiah was sanctified from his birth, and in that of
John was filled by the Holy Spirit from the womb. Now, that which they
term the inferior soul is produced, they allege, along with the body
itself out of the seed of the body, whence they say it cannot live or
subsist beyond the body, on which account also they say it is frequently
termed flesh. For the expression, “The flesh lusteth against the
spirit,”[696] they take to be applicable not to the flesh, but to this
soul, which is properly the soul of the flesh. From these words,
moreover, they endeavour notwithstanding to make good the declaration in
Leviticus: “The life of all flesh is the blood thereof.”[697] For, from
the circumstance that it is the diffusion of the blood throughout the
whole flesh which produces life in the flesh, they assert that this
soul, which is said to be the life of all flesh, is contained in the
blood. This statement, moreover, that the flesh struggles against the
spirit, and the spirit against the flesh; and the further statement,
that “the life of all flesh is the blood thereof,” is, according to
these writers, simply calling the wisdom of the flesh by another name,
because it is a kind of material spirit, which is not subject to the law
of God, nor can be so, because it has earthly wishes and bodily desires.
And it is with respect to this that they think the apostle uttered the
words: “I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my
mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my
members.”[698] And if one were to object to them that these words were
spoken of the nature of the body, which indeed, agreeably to the
peculiarity of its nature, is dead, but is said to have sensibility, or
wisdom,[699] which is hostile to God, or which struggles against the
spirit; or if one were to say that, in a certain degree, the flesh
itself was possessed of a voice, which should cry out against the
endurance of hunger, or thirst, or cold, or of any discomfort arising
either from abundance or poverty,—they would endeavour to weaken and
impair the force of such [arguments], by showing that there were many
other mental perturbations[700] which derive their origin in no respect
from the flesh, and yet against which the spirit struggles, such as
ambition, avarice, emulation, envy, pride, and others like these; and
seeing that with these the human mind or spirit wages a kind of contest,
they lay down as the cause of all these evils, nothing else than this
corporal soul, as it were, of which we have spoken above, and which is
generated from the seed by a process of traducianism. They are
accustomed also to adduce, in support of their assertion, the
declaration of the apostle, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest,
which are these, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry,
poisonings,[701] hatred, contentions, emulations, wrath, quarrelling,
dissensions, heresies, sects, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and the
like;”[702] asserting that all these do not derive their origin from the
habits or pleasures of the flesh, so that all such movements are to be
regarded as inherent in that substance which has not a soul, _i.e._ the
flesh. The declaration, moreover, “For ye see your calling, brethren,
how that not many wise men among you according to the flesh are
called,”[703] would seem to require to be understood as if there were
one kind of wisdom, carnal and material, and another according to the
spirit, the former of which cannot indeed be called wisdom, unless there
be a soul of the flesh, which is wise in respect of what is called
carnal wisdom. And in addition to these passages they adduce the
following: “Since the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and the spirit
against the flesh, so that we cannot do the things that we would.”[704]
What are these things now respecting which he says, “that we cannot do
the things that we would?” It is certain, they reply, that the spirit
cannot be intended; for the will of the spirit suffers no hindrance. But
neither can the flesh be meant, because if it has not a soul of its own,
neither can it assuredly possess a will. It remains, then, that the will
of this soul be intended which is capable of having a will of its own,
and which certainly is opposed to the will of the spirit. And if this be
the case, it is established that the will of the soul is something
intermediate between the flesh and the spirit, undoubtedly obeying and
serving that one of the two which it has elected to obey. And if it
yield itself up to the pleasures of the flesh, it renders men carnal;
but when it unites itself with the spirit, it produces men of the
spirit, and who on that account are termed spiritual. And this seems to
be the meaning of the apostle in the words, “But ye are not in the
flesh, but in the spirit.”[705]
We have accordingly to ascertain what is this very will [intermediate]
between flesh and spirit, besides that will which is said to belong to
the flesh or the spirit. For it is held as certain, that everything
which is said to be a work of the spirit is [a product of] the will of
the spirit, and everything that is called a work of the flesh [proceeds
from] the will of the flesh. What else then, besides these, is that will
of the soul which receives a separate name,[706] and which will, the
apostle being opposed to our executing, says: “Ye cannot do the things
that ye would?” By this it would seem to be intended, that it ought to
adhere to neither of these two, _i.e._ to neither flesh nor spirit. But
some one will say, that as it is better for the soul to execute its own
will than that of the flesh; so, on the other hand, it is better to do
the will of the spirit than its own will. How, then, does the apostle
say, “that ye cannot do the things that ye would?” Because in that
contest which is waged between flesh and spirit, the spirit is by no
means certain of victory, it being manifest that in very many
individuals the flesh has the mastery.
But since the subject of discussion on which we have entered is one of
great profundity, which it is necessary to consider in all its
bearings,[707] let us see whether some such point as this may not be
determined: that as it is better for the soul to follow the spirit when
the latter has overcome the flesh, so also, if it seem to be a worse
course for the former to follow the flesh in its struggles against the
spirit, when the latter would recall the soul to its influence, it may
nevertheless appear a more advantageous procedure for the soul to be
under the mastery of the flesh than to remain under the power of its own
will. For, since it is said to be neither hot nor cold, but to continue
in a sort of tepid condition, it will find conversion a slow and
somewhat difficult undertaking. If indeed it clung to the flesh, then,
satiated at length, and filled with those very evils which it suffers
from the vices of the flesh, and wearied as it were by the heavy burdens
of luxury and lust, it may sometimes be converted with greater ease and
rapidity from the filthiness of matter to a desire for heavenly things,
and [to a taste for] spiritual graces. And the apostle must be supposed
to have said, that “the spirit contends against the flesh, and the flesh
against the spirit, so that we cannot do the things that we would”
(those things, undoubtedly, which are designated as being beyond the
will of the spirit, and the will of the flesh), meaning (as if we were
to express it in other words) that it is better for a man to be either
in a state of virtue or in one of wickedness, than in neither of these;
but that the soul, before its conversion to the spirit, and its union
with it,[708] appears during its adherence to the body, and its
meditation of carnal things, to be neither in a good condition nor in a
manifestly bad one, but resembles, so to speak, an animal. It is better,
however, for it, if possible, to be rendered spiritual through adherence
to the spirit; but if that cannot be done, it is more expedient for it
to follow even the wickedness of the flesh, than, placed under the
influence of its own will, to retain the position of an irrational
animal.
These points we have now discussed, in our desire to consider each
individual opinion, at greater length than we intended, that those views
might not be supposed to have escaped our notice which are generally
brought forward by those who inquire whether there is within us any
other soul than this heavenly and rational one, which is naturally
opposed to the latter, and is called either the flesh, or the wisdom of
the flesh, or the soul of the flesh.
4. Let us now see what answer is usually returned to these statements by
those who maintain that there is in us one movement, and one life,
proceeding from one and the same soul, both the salvation and the
destruction of which are ascribed to itself as a result of its own
actions. And, in the first place, let us notice of what nature those
commotions[709] of the soul are which we suffer, when we feel ourselves
inwardly drawn in different directions; when there arises a kind of
contest of thoughts in our hearts, and certain probabilities are
suggested us, agreeably to which we lean now to this side, now to that,
and by which we are sometimes convicted of error, and sometimes approve
of our acts.[710] It is nothing remarkable, however, to say of wicked
spirits, that they have a varying and conflicting judgment, and one out
of harmony with itself, since such is found to be the case in all men,
whenever, in deliberating upon an uncertain event, counsel is taken, and
men consider and consult what is to be chosen as the better and more
useful course. It is not therefore surprising that, if two probabilities
meet, and suggest opposite views, they should drag the mind in contrary
directions. For example, if a man be led by reflection to believe and to
fear God, it cannot then be said that the flesh contends against the
spirit; but, amidst the uncertainty of what may be true and
advantageous, the mind is drawn in opposite directions. So, also, when
it is supposed that the flesh provokes to the indulgence of lust, but
better counsels oppose allurements of that kind, we are not to suppose
that it is one life which is resisting another, but that it is the
tendency of the nature of the body, which is eager to empty out and
cleanse the places filled with seminal moisture; as, in like manner, it
is not to be supposed that it is any opposing power, or the life of
another soul, which excites within us the appetite of thirst, and impels
us to drink, or which causes us to feel hunger, and drives us to satisfy
it. But as it is by the natural movements of the body that food and
drink are either desired or rejected,[711] so also the natural seed,
collected together in course of time in the various vessels, has an
eager desire to be expelled and thrown away, and is so far from never
being removed, save by the impulse of some exciting cause, that it is
even sometimes spontaneously emitted. When, therefore, it is said that
“the flesh struggles against the spirit,” these persons understand the
expression to mean that habit or necessity, or the delights of the
flesh, arouse a man, and withdraw him from divine and spiritual things.
For, owing to the necessity of the body being drawn away, we are not
allowed to have leisure for divine things, which are to be eternally
advantageous. So again, the soul, devoting itself to divine and
spiritual pursuits, and being united to the spirit, is said to fight
against the flesh, by not permitting it to be relaxed by indulgence, and
to become unsteady through the influence of those pleasures for which it
feels a natural delight. In this way, also, they claim to understand the
words, “The wisdom of the flesh is hostile to God,”[712] not that the
flesh really has a soul, or a wisdom of its own. But as we are
accustomed to say, by an abuse[713] of language, that the earth is
thirsty, and wishes to drink in water, this use of the word “wishes” is
not proper, but catachrestic,—as if we were to say again, that this
house wants to be rebuilt,[714] and many other similar expressions; so
also is the wisdom of the flesh to be understood, or the expression,
that “the flesh lusteth against the spirit.” They generally connect with
these the expression, “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto me
from the ground.”[715] For what cries unto the Lord is not properly the
blood which was shed; but the blood is said improperly to cry out,
vengeance being demanded upon him who had shed it. The declaration also
of the apostle, “I see another law in my members, warring against the
law of my mind,”[716] they so understand as if he had said, That he who
wishes to devote himself to the word of God is, on account of his bodily
necessities and habits, which like a sort of law are ingrained in the
body, distracted, and divided, and impeded, lest, by devoting himself
vigorously to the study of wisdom, he should be enabled to behold the
divine mysteries.
5. With respect, however, to the following being ranked among the works
of the flesh, viz. heresies, and envyings, and contentions, or other
[vices], they so understand the passage, that the mind, being rendered
grosser in feeling, from its yielding itself to the passions of the
body, and being oppressed by the mass of its vices, and having no
refined or spiritual feelings, is said to be made flesh, and derives its
name from that in which it exhibits more vigour and force of will.[717]
They also make this further inquiry, “Who will be found, or who will be
said to be, the creator of this evil sense, called the sense of the
flesh?” Because they defend the opinion that there is no other creator
of soul and flesh than God. And if we were to assert that the good God
created anything in His own creation that was hostile to Himself, it
would appear to be a manifest absurdity. If, then, it is written, that
“carnal wisdom is enmity against God,”[718] and if this be declared to
be a result of creation, God Himself will appear to have formed a nature
hostile to Himself, which cannot be subject to Him nor to His law, as if
it were [supposed to be] an animal of which such qualities are
predicated. And if this view be admitted, in what respect will it appear
to differ from that of those who maintain that souls of different
natures are created, which, according to their natures,[719] are
destined either to be lost or saved? But this is an opinion of the
heretics alone, who, not being able to maintain the justice of God on
grounds of piety, compose impious inventions of this kind. And now we
have brought forward to the best of our ability, in the person of each
of the parties, what might be advanced by way of argument regarding the
several views, and let the reader choose out of them for himself that
which he thinks ought to be preferred.
Footnote 696:
Gal. v. 17.
Footnote 697:
Lev. xvii. 14.
Footnote 698:
Rom. vii. 23.
Footnote 699:
Sensum vel sapientiam.
Footnote 700:
Passiones animæ.
Footnote 701:
Veneficia. Φαρμακεία. “Witchcraft,” auth. version.
Footnote 702:
Gal. v. 19-21.
Footnote 703:
1 Cor. i. 26.
Footnote 704:
Gal. v. 17.
Footnote 705:
Rom. viii. 9.
Footnote 706:
The text here is very obscure, and has given some trouble to
commentators. The words are: “Quæ ergo ista est præter hæc voluntas
animæ quæ extrinsecus nominatur,” etc. Redepenning understands
“extrinsecus” as meaning “seorsim,” “insuper,” and refers to a note of
Origen upon the Epistle to the Romans (tom. i. p. 466): “Et idcirco
_extrinsecus_ eam (animam, corporis et spiritus mentione factâ, Rom.
i. 3, 4) apostolus non nominat, sed carnem tantum vel spiritum,” etc.
Schnitzer supposes that in the Greek the words were, Τῆς ἔξω
καλουμένης, where ἔξω is to be taken in the sense of κάτω, so that the
expression would mean “anima inferior.”
Footnote 707:
In quâ necesse est ex singulis quibusque partibus quæ possunt moveri
discutere.
Footnote 708:
Priusquam—unum efficiatur cum eo.
Footnote 709:
Passiones.
Footnote 710:
Quibus nunc quidem arguimur, nunc vero nosmet ipsos amplectimur.
Footnote 711:
Evacuantur.
Footnote 712:
Cf. Rom. viii. 2.
Footnote 713:
Abusive.
Footnote 714:
Recomponi vult.
Footnote 715:
Gen. iv. 10.
Footnote 716:
Rom. vii. 23.
Footnote 717:
Plus studii vel propositi.
Footnote 718:
Rom. viii. 7.
Footnote 719:
Naturaliter.
CHAPTER V.
THAT THE WORLD TOOK ITS BEGINNING IN TIME.
1. And now, since there is one of the articles of the church[720] which
is held principally in consequence of our belief in the truth of our
sacred history, viz. that this world was created and took its beginning
at a certain time, and, in conformity to the cycle of time[721] decreed
to all things, is to be destroyed on account of its corruption, there
seems no absurdity in re-discussing a few points connected with this
subject. And so far, indeed, as the credibility of Scripture is
concerned, the declarations on such a matter seem easy of proof. Even
the heretics, although widely opposed on many other things, yet on this
appear to be at one, yielding to the authority of Scripture.
Concerning, then, the creation of the world, what portion of Scripture
can give us more information regarding it, than the account which Moses
has transmitted respecting its origin? And although it comprehends
matters of profounder significance than the mere historical narrative
appears to indicate, and contains very many things that are to be
spiritually understood, and employs the letter, as a kind of veil, in
treating of profound and mystical subjects; nevertheless the language of
the narrator shows that all visible things were created at a certain
time. But with regard to the consummation of the world, Jacob is the
first who gives any information, in addressing his children in the
words: “Gather yourselves together unto me, ye sons of Jacob, that I may
tell you what shall be in the last days,” or “after the last days.”[722]
If, then, there be “last days,” or a period “succeeding the last days,”
the days which had a beginning must necessarily come to an end. David,
too, declares: “The heavens shall perish, but Thou shalt endure; yea,
all of them shall wax old as doth a garment: as a vesture shalt Thou
change them, and they shall be changed: but Thou art the same, and Thy
years shall have no end.”[723] Our Lord and Saviour, indeed, in the
words, “He who made them at the beginning, made them male and
female,”[724] Himself bears witness that the world was created; and
again, when He says, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words
shall not pass away,”[725] He points out that they are perishable, and
must come to an end. The apostle, moreover, in declaring that “the
creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him
who hath subjected the same in hope, because the creature itself also
shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious
liberty of the children of God,”[726] manifestly announces the end of
the world; as he does also when he again says, “The fashion of this
world passeth away.”[727] Now, by the expression which he employs, “that
the creature was made subject to vanity,” he shows that there was a
beginning to this world: for if the creature were made subject to vanity
on account of some hope, it was certainly made subject from a cause; and
seeing it was from a cause, it must necessarily have had a beginning:
for, without some beginning, the creature could not be subject to
vanity, nor could that [creature] hope to be freed from the bondage of
corruption, which had not begun to serve. But any one who chooses to
search at his leisure, will find numerous other passages in holy
Scripture in which the world is both said to have a beginning and to
hope for an end.
2. Now, if there be any one who would here oppose either the authority
or credibility of our Scriptures,[728] we would ask of him whether he
asserts that God can, or cannot, comprehend all things? To assert that
He cannot, would manifestly be an act of impiety. If then he answer, as
he must, that God comprehends all things, it follows from the very fact
of their being capable of comprehension, that they are understood to
have a beginning and an end, seeing that which is altogether without any
beginning cannot be at all comprehended. For however far understanding
may extend, so far is the faculty of comprehending illimitably withdrawn
and removed when there is held to be no beginning.
3. But this is the objection which they generally raise: they say, “If
the world had its beginning in time, what was God doing before the world
began? For it is at once impious and absurd to say that the nature of
God is inactive and immoveable, or to suppose that goodness at one time
did not do good, and omnipotence at one time did not exercise its
power.” Such is the objection which they are accustomed to make to our
statement that this world had its beginning at a certain time, and that,
agreeably to our belief in Scripture, we can calculate the years of its
past duration. To these propositions I consider that none of the
heretics can easily return an answer that will be in conformity with the
nature of their opinions. But we can give a logical answer in accordance
with the standard of religion,[729] when we say that not then for the
first time did God begin to work when He made this visible world; but
as, after its destruction, there will be another world, so also we
believe that others existed before the present came into being. And both
of these positions will be confirmed by the authority of holy Scripture.
For that there will be another world after this, is taught by Isaiah,
who says, “There will be a new heavens, and a new earth, which I shall
make to abide in my sight, saith the Lord;”[730] and that before this
world others also existed is shown by Ecclesiastes, in the words: “What
is that which hath been? Even that which shall be. And what is that
which has been created? Even this which is to be created: and there is
nothing altogether new under the sun. Who shall speak and declare, Lo,
this is new? It hath already been in the ages which have been before
us.”[731] By these testimonies it is established both that there were
ages[732] before our own, and that there will be others after it. It is
not, however, to be supposed that several worlds existed at once, but
that, after the end of this present world, others will take their
beginning; respecting which it is unnecessary to repeat each particular
statement, seeing we have already done so in the preceding pages.
4. This point, indeed, is not to be idly passed by, that the holy
Scriptures have called the creation of the world by a new and peculiar
name, terming it καταβολή, which has been very improperly translated
into Latin by “constitutio;” for in Greek καταβολή signifies rather
“dejicere,” _i.e._ to cast downwards,—a word which has been, as we have
already remarked, improperly translated into Latin by the phrase
“constitutio mundi,” as in the Gospel according to John, where the
Saviour says, “And there will be tribulation in those days, such as was
not since the beginning of the world;”[733] in which passage καταβολή is
rendered by beginning (_constitutio_), which is to be understood as
above explained. The apostle also, in the Epistle to the Ephesians, has
employed the same language, saying, “Who hath chosen us before the
foundation of the world;”[734] and this foundation he calls καταβολή, to
be understood in the same sense as before. It seems worth while, then,
to inquire what is meant by this new term; and I am, indeed, of
opinion[735] that, as the end and consummation of the saints will be in
those [ages] which are not seen, and are eternal, we must conclude (as
frequently pointed out in the preceding pages), from a contemplation of
that very end, that rational creatures had also a similar beginning. And
if they had a beginning such as the end for which they hope, they
existed undoubtedly from the very beginning in those [ages] which are
not seen, and are eternal. And if this is so, then there has been a
descent from a higher to a lower condition, on the part not only of
those souls who have deserved the change by the variety of their
movements, but also on that of those who, in order to serve the whole
world, were brought down from those higher and invisible spheres to
these lower and visible ones, although against their will—“Because the
creature was subjected to vanity, not willingly, but because of him who
subjected the same in hope;”[736] so that both sun, and moon, and stars,
and angels might discharge their duty to the world, and to those souls
which, on account of their excessive mental defects, stood in need of
bodies of a grosser and more solid nature; and for the sake of those for
whom this arrangement was necessary, this visible world was also called
into being. From this it follows, that by the use of the word καταβολή,
a descent from a higher to a lower condition, shared by all in common,
would seem to be pointed out. The hope indeed of freedom is entertained
by the whole of creation—of being liberated from the corruption of
slavery—when the sons of God, who either fell away or were scattered
abroad,[737] shall be gathered together into one, or when they shall
have fulfilled their other duties in this world, which are known to God
alone, the Disposer of all things. We are, indeed, to suppose that the
world was created of such quality and capacity as to contain not only
all those souls which it was determined should be trained in this world,
but also all those powers which were prepared to attend, and serve, and
assist them. For it is established by many declarations that all
rational creatures are of one nature: on which ground alone could the
justice of God in all His dealings with them be defended, seeing every
one has the reason in himself, why he has been placed in this or that
rank in life.
5. This arrangement of things, then, which God afterwards appointed (for
He had, from the very origin of the world, clearly perceived the reasons
and causes affecting those who, either owing to mental deficiencies,
deserved to enter into bodies, or those who were carried away by their
desire for visible things, and those also who, either willingly or
unwillingly, were compelled, [by Him who subjected the same in hope], to
perform certain services to such as had fallen into that condition), not
being understood by some, who failed to perceive that it was owing to
preceding causes, originating in free-will, that this variety of
arrangement had been instituted by God, they have concluded that all
things in this world are directed either by fortuitous movements or by a
necessary fate, and that nothing is within the power of our own will.
And, therefore, also they were unable to show that the providence of God
was beyond the reach of censure.
6. But as we have said that all the souls who lived in this world stood
in need of many ministers, or rulers, or assistants; so, in the last
times, when the end of the world is already imminent and near, and the
whole human race is verging upon the last destruction, and when not only
those who were governed by others have been reduced to weakness, but
those also to whom had been committed the cares of government, it was no
longer such help nor such defenders that were needed, but the help of
the Author and Creator Himself was required to restore to the one the
discipline of obedience, which had been corrupted and profaned, and to
the other the discipline of rule. And hence the only-begotten Son of
God, who was the Word and the Wisdom of the Father, when He was in the
possession of that glory with the Father, which He had before the world
was, divested Himself[738] of it, and, taking the form of a servant, was
made obedient unto death, that He might teach obedience to those who
could not otherwise than by obedience obtain salvation. He restored also
the laws of rule and government[739] which had been corrupted, by
subduing all enemies under His feet, that by this means (for it was
necessary that He should reign until He had put all enemies under His
feet, and destroyed the last enemy—death) He might teach rulers
themselves moderation in their government. As He had come, then, to
restore the discipline, not only of government, but of obedience, as we
have said, accomplishing in Himself first what He desired to be
accomplished by others, He became obedient to the Father, not only to
the death of the cross, but also, in the end of the world, embracing in
Himself all whom He subjects to the Father, and who by Him come to
salvation, He Himself, along with them, and in them, is said also to be
subject to the Father; all things subsisting in Him, and He Himself
being the Head of all things, and in Him being the salvation and the
fulness of those who obtain salvation. And this consequently is what the
apostle says of Him: “And when all things shall be subjected to Him,
then shall the Son also Himself be subject to Him that put all things
under Him, that God may be all in all.”
7. I know not, indeed, how the heretics, not understanding the meaning
of the apostle in these words, consider the term “subjection” degrading
as applied to the Son; for if the propriety of the title be called in
question, it may easily be ascertained from making a contrary
supposition. Because if it be not good to be in subjection, it follows
that the opposite will be good, viz. not to be in subjection. Now the
language of the apostle, according to their view, appears to indicate by
these words, “And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall
the Son also Himself be subject unto Him that put all things under
Him,”[740] that He, who is not now in subjection to the Father, will
become subject to Him when the Father shall have first subdued all
things unto Him. But I am astonished how it can be conceived to be the
meaning, that He who, while all things are not yet subdued to Him, is
not Himself in subjection, should—at a time when all things have been
subdued to Him, and when He has become King of all men, and holds sway
over all things—be supposed then to be made subject, seeing He was not
formerly in subjection; for such do not understand that the subjection
of Christ to the Father indicates that our happiness has attained to
perfection, and that the work undertaken by Him has been brought to a
victorious termination, seeing He has not only purified the power of
supreme government over the whole of creation, but presents to the
Father the principles of the obedience and subjection of the human race
in a corrected and improved condition.[741] If, then, that subjection be
held to be good and salutary by which the Son is said to be subject to
the Father, it is an extremely rational and logical inference to deduce
that the subjection also of enemies, which is said to be made to the Son
of God, should be understood as being also salutary and useful; as if,
when the Son is said to be subject to the Father, the perfect
restoration of the whole of creation is signified, so also, when enemies
are said to be subjected to the Son of God, the salvation of the
conquered and the restoration of the lost is in that understood to
consist.
8. This subjection, however, will be accomplished in certain ways, and
after certain training, and at certain times; for it is not to be
imagined that the subjection is to be brought about by the pressure of
necessity (lest the whole world should then appear to be subdued to God
by force), but by word, reason, and doctrine; by a call to a better
course of things, by the best systems of training, by the employment
also of suitable and appropriate threatenings, which will justly impend
over those who despise any care or attention to their salvation and
usefulness. In a word, we men also, in training either our slaves or
children, restrain them by threats and fear while they are, by reason of
their tender age, incapable of using their reason; but when they have
begun to understand what is good, and useful, and honourable, the fear
of the lash being over, they acquiesce through the suasion of words and
reason in all that is good. But how, consistently with the preservation
of freedom of will in all rational creatures, each one ought to be
regulated, _i.e._ who they are whom the word of God finds and trains, as
if they were already prepared and capable of it; who they are whom it
puts off to a later time; who these are from whom it is altogether
concealed, and who are so situated as to be far from hearing it; who
those, again, are who despise the word of God when made known and
preached to them, and who are driven by a kind of correction and
chastisement to salvation, and whose conversion is in a certain degree
demanded and extorted; who those are to whom certain opportunities of
salvation are afforded, so that sometimes, their faith being proved by
an answer alone,[742] they have unquestionably obtained
salvation;[743]—from what causes or on what occasions these results take
place, or what the divine wisdom sees within them, or what movements of
their will leads God so to arrange all these things, is known to Him
alone, and to His only-begotten Son, through whom all things were
created and restored, and to the Holy Spirit, through whom all things
are sanctified, who proceedeth from the Father,[744] to whom be glory
for ever and ever. Amen.
Footnote 720:
De ecclesiasticis definitionibus unum.
Footnote 721:
Consummationem sæculi.
Footnote 722:
Gen. xlix. 1. The Vulgate has, “In diebus novissimis;” the Septuag.
Ἐπ’ ἐσχάτων τῶν ἡμερῶν;” the Masoretic text, בְּאַחֲרִ֥ית.
Footnote 723:
Ps. cii. 26, 27.
Footnote 724:
Matt. xix. 4.
Footnote 725:
Matt. xxiv. 35.
Footnote 726:
Rom. viii. 20, 21.
Footnote 727:
1 Cor. vii. 31.
Footnote 728:
Auctoritate Scripturæ nostræ, vel fidei.
Footnote 729:
Regulam pietatis.
Footnote 730:
Cf. Isa. lxvi. 22.
Footnote 731:
Cf. Eccles. i. 9. The text is in conformity with the Septuag.: Τί τὸ
γεγονός; Αὐτὸ τὸ γενησόμενον. Καὶ τί τὸ πεποιημένον; Αὐτὸ τὸ
ποιηθησόμενον. Καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν πᾶν πρόσφατον ὑπὸ τὸν ἥλιον. Ὃς λαλήσει
καὶ ἐρεῖ· Ἴδε τοῦτο καινόν ἐστιν, ἤδη γέγονεν ἐν τοῖς αἰῶσιν τοῖς
γενομένοις ἀπὸ ἔμπροσθεν ἡμῶν.
Footnote 732:
Sæcula.
Footnote 733:
Matt. xxiv. 21.
Footnote 734:
Eph. i. 4.
Footnote 735:
The following is Jerome’s version of this passage (Epistle to Avitus):
“A divine habitation, and a true rest above (_apud superos_), I think
is to be understood, where rational creatures dwelt, and where, before
their descent to a lower position, and removal from invisible to
visible [worlds], and fall to earth, and need of gross bodies, they
enjoyed a former blessedness. Whence God the Creator made for them
bodies suitable to their humble position, and created this visible
world, and sent into the world ministers for the salvation and
correction of those who had fallen: of whom some were to obtain
certain localities, and be subject to the necessities of the world;
others were to discharge with care and attention the duties enjoined
upon them at all times, and which were known to God, the Arranger [of
all things]. And of these, the sun, moon, and stars, which are called
‘creature’ by the apostle, received the more elevated places of the
world. Which ‘creature’ was made subject to vanity, in that it was
clothed with gross bodies, and was open to view; and yet was subject
to vanity, not voluntarily, but because of the will of Him who
subjected the same in hope.” And again: “While others, whom we believe
to be angels, at different places and times, which the Arranger alone
knows, serve the government of the world.” And a little further on:
“Which order of things is regulated by the providential government of
the whole world; some powers falling down from a loftier position,
others gradually sinking to earth: some falling voluntarily, others
being cast down against their will: some undertaking, of their own
accord, the service of stretching out the hand to those who fall;
others being compelled to persevere for so long a time in the duty
which they have undertaken.” And again: “Whence it follows that, on
account of the various movements, various worlds also are created; and
after this world which we now inhabit, there will be another greatly
dissimilar. But no other being save God alone, the Creator of all
things, can arrange the deserts [of all], both to the time to come and
to that which preceded, suitably to the differing lapses and advances
[of individuals], and to the rewards of virtues or the punishment of
vices, both in the present and in the future, and in all [times], and
to conduct them all again to one end: for He knows the causes why He
allows some to enjoy their own will, and to fall from a higher rank to
the lowest condition; and why He begins to visit others, and bring
them back gradually, as if by giving them His hand, to their pristine
state, and placing them in a lofty position” (Ruæus).
Footnote 736:
Cf. Rom. viii. 20, 21.
Footnote 737:
Dispersi.
Footnote 738:
Exinanivit semet ipsum.
Footnote 739:
Regendi regnandique.
Footnote 740:
1 Cor. xv. 28.
Footnote 741:
Cum non solum regendi ac regnandi summam, quam in universam
emendaverit creaturam, verum etiam obedientiæ et subjectione correcta
reparataque humani generis Patri offerat instituta.
Footnote 742:
By a profession of faith in baptism.
Footnote 743:
Indubitatam ceperit salutem.
Footnote 744:
It was not until the third Synod of Toledo, A.D. 589, that the
“Filioque” clause was added to the Creed of Constantinople,—this
difference forming, as is well known, one of the dogmatic grounds for
the disunion between the Western and Eastern Churches down to the
present day, the latter church denying that the Spirit proceedeth from
the Father _and_ the Son.
CHAPTER VI.
ON THE END OF THE WORLD.
1. Now, respecting the end of the world and the consummation of all
things, we have stated in the preceding pages, to the best of our
ability, so far as the authority of Holy Scripture enabled us, what we
deem sufficient for purposes of instruction; and we shall here only
add a few admonitory remarks, since the order of investigation has
brought us back to the subject. The highest good, then, after the
attainment of which the whole of rational nature is seeking, which is
also called the end of all blessings,[745] is defined by many
philosophers as follows: The highest good, they say, is to become as
like to God as possible. But this definition I regard not so much as a
discovery of theirs, as a view derived from holy Scripture. For this
is pointed out by Moses, before all other philosophers, when he
describes the first creation of man in these words: “And God said, Let
us make man in our own image, and after our likeness;”[746] and then
he adds the words: “So God created man in His own image: in the image
of God created He him; male and female created He them, and He blessed
them.”[747] Now the expression, “In the image[748] of God created He
him,” without any mention of the word “likeness,”[749] conveys no
other meaning than this, that man received the dignity of God’s image
at his first creation; but that the perfection of his likeness has
been reserved for the consummation,—namely, that he might acquire it
for himself by the exercise of his own diligence in the imitation of
God, the possibility of attaining to perfection being granted him at
the beginning through the dignity of the divine image, and the perfect
realization of the divine likeness being reached in the end by the
fulfilment of the [necessary] works. Now, that such is the case, the
Apostle John points out more clearly and unmistakeably, when he makes
this declaration: “Little children, we do not yet know what we shall
be; but if a revelation be made to us from the Saviour, ye will say,
without any doubt, we shall be like Him.”[750] By which expression he
points out with the utmost certainty, that not only was the end of all
things to be hoped for, which he says was still unknown to him, but
also the likeness to God, which will be conferred in proportion to the
completeness of our deserts. The Lord Himself, in the Gospel, not only
declares that these same results are future, but that they are to be
brought about by His own intercession, He Himself deigning to obtain
them from the Father for His disciples, saying, “Father, I will that
where I am, these also may be with me; and as Thou and I are one, they
also may be one in us.”[751] In which the divine likeness itself
already appears to advance, if we may so express ourselves, and from
being merely similar, to become the same,[752] because undoubtedly in
the consummation or end God is “all and in all.” And with reference to
this, it is made a question by some[753] whether the nature of bodily
matter, although cleansed and purified, and rendered altogether
spiritual, does not seem either to offer an obstruction towards
attaining the dignity of the [divine] likeness, or to the property of
unity,[754] because neither can a corporeal nature appear capable of
any resemblance to a divine nature, which is certainly incorporeal;
nor can it be truly and deservedly designated one with it, especially
since we are taught by the truths of our religion that that which
alone is one, viz. the Son with the Father, must be referred to a
peculiarity of the [divine] nature.
2. Since, then, it is promised that in the end God will be all and in
all, we are not, as is fitting, to suppose that animals, either sheep or
other cattle, come to that end, lest it should be implied that God dwelt
even in animals, whether sheep or other cattle; and so, too, with pieces
of wood or stones, lest it should be said that God is in these also. So,
again, nothing that is wicked must be supposed to attain to that end,
lest, while God is said to be in all things, He may also be said to be
in a vessel of wickedness. For if we now assert that God is everywhere
and in all things, on the ground that nothing can be empty of God, we
nevertheless do not say that He is now “all things” in those in whom He
is. And hence we must look more carefully as to what that is which
denotes the perfection of blessedness and the end of things, which is
not only said to be God in all things, but also “all in all.” Let us
then inquire what all those things are which God is to become in all.
3. I am of opinion that the expression, by which God is said to be “all
in all,” means that He is “all” in each individual person. Now He will
be “all” in each individual in this way: when all which any rational
understanding, cleansed from the dregs of every sort of vice, and with
every cloud of wickedness completely swept away, can either feel, or
understand, or think, will be wholly God; and when it will no longer
behold or retain anything else than God, but when God will be the
measure and standard of all its movements; and thus God will be “all,”
for there will no longer be any distinction of good and evil, seeing
evil nowhere exists; for God is all things, and to Him no evil is near:
nor will there be any longer a desire to eat from the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil, on the part of him who is always in the
possession of good, and to whom God is all. So then, when the end has
been restored to the beginning, and the termination of things compared
with their commencement, that condition of things will be re-established
in which rational nature was placed, when it had no need to eat of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil; so that when all feeling of
wickedness has been removed, and the individual has been purified and
cleansed, He who alone is the one good God becomes to him “all,” and
that not in the case of a few individuals, or of a considerable number,
but He Himself is “all in all.” And when death shall no longer anywhere
exist, nor the sting of death, nor any evil at all, then verily God will
be “all in all.” But some are of opinion that that perfection and
blessedness of rational creatures, or natures, can only remain in that
same condition of which we have spoken above, _i.e._ that all things
should possess God, and God should be to them all things, if they are in
no degree prevented by their union with a bodily nature. Otherwise they
think that the glory of the highest blessedness is impeded by the
intermixture of any material substance.[755] But this subject we have
discussed at greater length, as may be seen in the preceding pages.
4. And now, as we find the apostle making mention of a spiritual body,
let us inquire, to the best of our ability, what idea we are to form of
such a thing. So far, then, as our understanding can grasp it, we
consider a spiritual body to be of such a nature as ought to be
inhabited not only by all holy and perfect souls, but also by all those
creatures which will be liberated from the slavery of corruption.
Respecting the body also, the apostle has said, “We have a house not
made with hands, eternal in the heavens,”[756] _i.e._ in the mansions of
the blessed. And from this statement we may form a conjecture, how pure,
how refined, and how glorious are the qualities of that body, if we
compare it with those which, although they are celestial bodies, and of
most brilliant splendour, were nevertheless made with hands, and are
visible to our sight. But of that body it is said, that it is a house
not made with hands, but eternal in the heavens. Since, then, those
things “which are seen are temporal, but those things which are not seen
are eternal,”[757] all those bodies which we see either on earth or in
heaven, and which are capable of being seen, and have been made with
hands, but are not eternal, are far excelled in glory by that which is
not visible, nor made with hands, but is eternal. From which comparison
it may be conceived how great are the comeliness, and splendour, and
brilliancy of a spiritual body; and how true it is, that “eye hath not
seen, nor ear heard, nor hath it entered into the heart of man to
conceive, what God hath prepared for them that love Him.”[758] We ought
not, however, to doubt that the nature of this present body of ours may,
by the will of God, who made it what it is, be raised to those qualities
of refinement, and purity, and splendour [which characterize the body
referred to], according as the condition of things requires, and the
deserts of our rational nature shall demand. Finally, when the world
required variety and diversity, matter yielded itself with all docility
throughout the diverse appearances and species of things to the Creator,
as to its Lord and Maker, that He might educe from it the various forms
of celestial and terrestrial beings. But when things have begun to
hasten to that consummation that all may be one, as the Father is one
with the Son, it may be understood as a rational inference, that where
all are one, there will no longer be any diversity.
5. The last enemy, moreover, who is called death, is said on this
account to be destroyed, that there may not be anything left of a
mournful kind when death does not exist, nor anything that is adverse
when there is no enemy. The destruction of the last enemy, indeed, is to
be understood, not as if its substance, which was formed by God, is to
perish, but because its mind and hostile will, which came not from God,
but from itself, are to be destroyed. Its destruction, therefore, will
not be its non-existence, but its ceasing to be an enemy, and [to be]
death. For nothing is impossible to the Omnipotent, nor is anything
incapable of restoration[759] to its Creator: for He made all things
that they might exist, and those things which were made for existence
cannot cease to be. For this reason also will they admit of change and
variety, so as to be placed, according to their merits, either in a
better or worse position; but no destruction of substance can befall
those things which were created by God for the purpose of permanent
existence.[760] For those things which agreeably to the common opinion
are believed to perish, the nature either of our faith or of the truth
will not permit us to suppose to be destroyed. Finally, our flesh is
supposed by ignorant men and unbelievers to be destroyed after death, in
such a degree that it retains no relic at all of its former substance.
We, however, who believe in its resurrection, understand that a change
only has been produced by death, but that its substance certainly
remains; and that by the will of its Creator, and at the time appointed,
it will be restored to life; and that a second time a change will take
place in it, so that what at first was flesh [formed] out of earthly
soil, and was afterwards dissolved by death, and again reduced to dust
and ashes (“For dust thou art,”[761] it is said, “and to dust shalt thou
return”), will be again raised from the earth, and shall after this,
according to the merits of the indwelling soul, advance to the glory of
a spiritual body.
6. Into this condition, then, we are to suppose that all this bodily
substance of ours will be brought, when all things shall be
re-established in a state of unity, and when God shall be all in all.
And this result must be understood as being brought about, not suddenly,
but slowly and gradually, seeing that the process of amendment and
correction will take place imperceptibly in the individual instances
during the lapse of countless and unmeasured ages, some outstripping
others, and tending by a swifter course towards perfection,[762] while
others again follow close at hand, and some again a long way behind; and
thus, through the numerous and uncounted orders of progressive beings
who are being reconciled to God from a state of enmity, the last enemy
is finally reached, who is called death, so that he also may be
destroyed, and no longer be an enemy. When, therefore, all rational
souls shall have been restored to a condition of this kind, then the
nature of this body of ours will undergo a change into the glory of a
spiritual body. For as we see it not to be the case with rational
natures, that some of them have lived in a condition of degradation
owing to their sins, while others have been called to a state of
happiness on account of their merits; but as we see those same souls who
had formerly been sinful, assisted, after their conversion and
reconciliation to God, to a state of happiness; so also are we to
consider, with respect to the nature of the body, that the one which we
now make use of in a state of meanness, and corruption, and weakness, is
not a different body from that which we shall possess in incorruption,
and in power, and in glory; but that the same body, when it has cast
away the infirmities in which it is now entangled, shall be transmuted
into a condition of glory, being rendered spiritual, so that what was a
vessel of dishonour may, when cleansed, become a vessel unto honour, and
an abode of blessedness. And in this condition, also, we are to believe,
that by the will of the Creator it will abide for ever without any
change, as is confirmed by the declaration of the apostle, when he says,
“We have a house, not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.” For the
faith of the church does not admit the view of certain Grecian
philosophers, that there is besides the body, composed of four elements,
another fifth body, which is different in all its parts, and diverse
from this our present body; since neither out of sacred Scripture can
any produce the slightest suspicion of evidence for such an opinion, nor
can any rational inference from things allow the reception of it,
especially when the holy apostle manifestly declares, that it is not new
bodies which are given to those who rise from the dead, but that they
receive those identical ones which they had possessed when living,
transformed from an inferior into a better condition. For his words are:
“It is sown an animal body, it will rise a spiritual body: it is sown in
corruption, it will arise in incorruption: it is sown in weakness, it
will arise in power: it is sown in dishonour, it will arise in
glory.”[763] As, therefore, there is a kind of advance in man, so that
from being first an animal being, and not understanding what belongs to
the Spirit of God, he reaches by means of instruction the stage of being
made a spiritual being, and of judging all things, while he himself is
judged by no one; so also, with respect to the state of the body, we are
to hold that this very body which now, on account of its service to the
soul, is styled an animal body, will, by means of a certain progress,
when the soul, united to God, shall have been made one spirit with Him
(the body even then ministering, as it were, to the spirit), attain to a
spiritual condition and quality, especially since, as we have often
pointed out, bodily nature was so formed by the Creator, as to pass
easily into whatever condition He should wish, or the nature of the case
demand.
7. The whole of this reasoning, then, amounts to this: that God created
two general natures,—a visible, _i.e._ a corporeal nature; and an
invisible nature, which is incorporeal. Now these two natures admit of
two different permutations. That invisible and rational nature changes
in mind and purpose, because it is endowed with freedom of will, and is
on this account found sometimes to be engaged in the practice of good,
and sometimes in that of the opposite. But this corporeal nature admits
of a change in substance; whence also God, the arranger of all things,
has the service of this matter at His command in the moulding, or
fabrication, or re-touching of whatever He wishes, so that corporeal
nature may be transmuted, and transformed into any forms or species
whatever, according as the deserts of things may demand; which the
prophet evidently has in view when he says, “It is God who makes and
transforms all things.”[764]
8. And now the point for investigation is, whether, when God shall be
all in all, the whole of bodily nature will, in the consummation of all
things, consist of one species, and the sole quality of body be that
which shall shine in the indescribable glory which is to be regarded as
the future possession of the spiritual body. For if we rightly
understand the matter, this is the statement of Moses in the beginning
of his book, when he says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and
the earth.”[765] For this is the beginning of all creation: to this
beginning the end and consummation of all things must be recalled,
_i.e._ in order that that heaven and that earth may be the habitation
and resting-place of the pious; so that all the holy ones, and the meek,
may first obtain an inheritance in that land, since this is the teaching
of the law, and of the prophets, and of the gospel. In which land I
believe there exist the true and living forms of that worship which
Moses handed down under the shadow of the law; of which it is said, that
“they serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things”[766]—those,
viz., who were in subjection in the law. To Moses himself also was the
injunction given, “Look that thou make them after the form and pattern
which were showed thee on the mount.”[767] From which it appears to me,
that as on this earth the law was a sort of schoolmaster to those who by
it were to be conducted to Christ, in order that, being instructed and
trained by it, they might more easily, after the training of the law,
receive the more perfect principles of Christ; so also another earth,
which receives into it all the saints, may first imbue and mould them by
the institutions of the true and everlasting law, that they may more
easily gain possession of those perfect institutions of heaven, to which
nothing can be added; in which there will be, of a truth, that gospel
which is called everlasting, and that Testament, ever new, which shall
never grow old.
9. In this way, accordingly, we are to suppose that at the consummation
and restoration of all things, those who make a gradual advance, and who
ascend [in the scale of improvement], will arrive in due measure and
order at that land, and at that training which is contained in it, where
they may be prepared for those better institutions to which no addition
can be made. For, after His agents and servants, the Lord Christ, who is
King of all, will Himself assume the kingdom; _i.e._, after instruction
in the holy virtues, He will Himself instruct those who are capable of
receiving Him in respect of His being wisdom, reigning in them until He
has subjected them to the Father, who has subdued all things to Himself,
_i.e._ that when they shall have been made capable of receiving God, God
may be to them all in all. Then accordingly, as a necessary consequence,
bodily nature will obtain that highest condition[768] to which nothing
more can be added. Having discussed, up to this point, the quality of
bodily nature, or of spiritual body, we leave it to the choice of the
reader to determine what he shall consider best. And here we may bring
the third book to a conclusion.
Footnote 745:
Finis omnium: “bonorum” understood.
Footnote 746:
Gen. i. 26.
Footnote 747:
Gen. i. 27, 28.
Footnote 748:
Imago.
Footnote 749:
Similitudo.
Footnote 750:
Cf. 1 John iii. 2.
Footnote 751:
Cf. John xvii. 24, cf. 21.
Footnote 752:
Ex simili unum fieri.
Footnote 753:
Jerome, in his Epistle to Avitus, No. 94, has the passage thus:
“Since, as we have already frequently observed, the beginning is
generated again from the end, it is a question whether then also there
will be bodies, or whether existence will be maintained at some time
without them when they shall have been annihilated, and thus the life
of incorporeal beings must be believed to be incorporeal, as we know
is the case with God. And there is no doubt that if all the bodies
which are termed visible by the apostle, belong to that sensible
world, the life of incorporeal beings will be incorporeal.” And a
little after: “That expression, also, used by the apostle, ‘The whole
creation will be freed from the bondage of corruption into the
glorious liberty of the children of God’ (Rom. viii. 21), we so
understand, that we say it was the first creation of rational and
incorporeal beings which is not subject to corruption, because it was
not clothed with bodies; for wherever bodies are, corruption
immediately follows. But afterwards it will be freed from the bondage
of corruption, when they shall have received the glory of the sons of
God, and God shall be all in all.” And in the same place: “That we
must believe the end of all things to be incorporeal, the language of
the Saviour Himself leads us to think, when He says, ‘As I and Thou
are one, so may they also be one in us’ (John xvii. 21). For we ought
to know what God is, and what the Saviour will be in the end, and how
the likeness of the Father and the Son has been promised to the
saints; for as they are one in Him, so they also are one in them. For
we must adopt the view, either that the God of all things is clothed
with a body, and as we are enveloped with flesh, so He also with some
material covering, that the likeness of the life of God may be in the
end produced also in the saints; or if this hypothesis is unbecoming,
especially in the judgment of those who desire, even in the smallest
degree, to feel the majesty of God, and to look upon the glory of His
uncreated and all-surpassing nature, we are forced to adopt the other
alternative, and despair either of attaining any likeness to God, if
we are to inhabit for ever the same bodies, or if the blessedness of
the same life with God is promised to us, we must live in the same
state as that in which God lives.” All these points have been omitted
by Rufinus as erroneous, and statements of a different kind here and
there inserted instead (Ruæus).
Footnote 754:
Ad unitatis proprietatem.
Footnote 755:
“Here the honesty of Rufinus in his translation seems very suspicious;
for Origen’s well-known opinion regarding the sins and lapses of
blessed spirits he here attributes to others. Nay, even the opinion
which he introduces Origen as ascribing to others, he exhibits him as
refuting a little further on, sec. 6, in these words: ‘And in this
condition [of blessedness] we are to believe that, by the will of the
Creator, it will abide for ever without any change,’ etc. I suspect,
therefore, that all this is due to Rufinus himself, and that he has
inserted it, instead of what is found in the beginning of the chapter,
sec. 1, and which in Jerome’s Epistle to Avitus stands as follows:
‘Nor is there any doubt that, after certain intervals of time, matter
will again exist, and bodies be formed, and a diversity be established
in the world, on account of the varying wills of rational creatures,
who, after [enjoying] perfect blessedness down to the end of all
things, have gradually fallen away to a lower condition, and received
into them so much wickedness, that they are converted into an opposite
condition, by their unwillingness to retain their original state, and
to preserve their blessedness uncorrupted. Nor is this point to be
suppressed, that many rational creatures retain their first condition
(_principium_) even to the second and third and fourth worlds, and
allow no room for any change within them; while others, again, will
lose so little of their pristine state, that they will appear to have
lost almost nothing, and some are to be precipitated with great
destruction into the lowest pit. And God, the disposer of all things,
when creating His worlds, knows how to treat each individual agreeably
to his merits, and He is acquainted with the occasions and causes by
which the government (_gubernacla_) of the world is sustained and
commenced; so that he who surpassed all others in wickedness, and
brought himself completely down to the earth, is made in another
world, which is afterwards to be formed, a devil, the beginning of the
creation of the Lord (Job xl. 19), to be mocked by the angels who have
lost the virtue of their original condition’ (_exordii
virtutem_).”—RUÆUS.
Footnote 756:
1 Cor. v. 1.
Footnote 757:
2 Cor. iv. 18.
Footnote 758:
1 Cor. ii. 9; cf. Isa. lxiv. 4.
Footnote 759:
Insanabile.
Footnote 760:
Ut essent et permanerent.
Footnote 761:
Gen. iii. 19.
Footnote 762:
Ad summa.
Footnote 763:
1 Cor. xv. 28.
Footnote 764:
Cf. Ps. cii. 25, 26.
Footnote 765:
Gen. i. 1.
Footnote 766:
Heb. viii. 5.
Footnote 767:
Ex. xxv. 40.
Footnote 768:
Jerome (Epistle to Avitus, No. 94) says that Origen, “after a most
lengthened discussion, in which he asserts that all bodily nature is
to be changed into attenuated and spiritual bodies, and that all
substance is to be converted into one body of perfect purity, and more
brilliant than any splendour (_mundissimum et omni splendore purius_),
and such as the human mind cannot now conceive,” adds at the last,
“And God will be ‘all in all,’ so that the whole of bodily nature may
be reduced into that substance which is better than all others, into
the divine, viz., than which none is better.” From which, since it
seems to follow that God possesses a body, although of extreme tenuity
(_licet tenuissimum_), Rufinus has either suppressed this view, or
altered the meaning of Origen’s words (Ruæus).
BOOK IV.
[Transcriber’s Note: The following chapter was printed in the original
book with the translation from the Latin on the top of the page, and the
translation from the Greek on the bottom. In this e-book, instead, the
Latin translation for an entire numbered section will be printed,
followed by that section’s Greek translation.]
CHAPTER I.
THAT THE SCRIPTURES ARE DIVINELY INSPIRED.
TRANSLATED FROM THE LATIN OF RUFINUS.
1. But as it is not sufficient, in the discussion of matters of such
importance, to entrust the decision to the human senses and to the human
understanding, and to pronounce on things invisible as if they were seen
by us,[769] we must, in order to establish the positions which we have
laid down, adduce the testimony of Holy Scripture. And that this
testimony may produce a sure and unhesitating belief, either with regard
to what we have still to advance, or to what has been already stated, it
seems necessary to show, in the first place, that the Scriptures
themselves are divine, _i.e._ were inspired by the Spirit of God. We
shall therefore with all possible brevity draw forth from the Holy
Scriptures themselves, such evidence on this point as may produce upon
us a suitable impression, [making our quotations] from Moses, the first
legislator of the Hebrew nation, and from the words of Jesus Christ, the
Author and Chief of the Christian religious system.[770] For although
there have been numerous legislators among the Greeks and Barbarians,
and also countless teachers and philosophers who professed to declare
the truth, we do not remember any legislator who was able to produce in
the minds of foreign nations an affection and a zeal [for him] such as
led them either voluntarily to adopt his laws, or to defend them with
all the efforts of their mind. No one, then, has been able to introduce
and make known what seemed to himself the truth, among, I do not say
many foreign nations, but even amongst the individuals of one single
nation, in such a manner that a knowledge and belief of the same should
extend to all. And yet there can be no doubt that it was the wish of the
legislators that their laws should be observed by all men, if possible;
and of the teachers, that what appeared to themselves to be truth,
should become known to all. But knowing that they could by no means
succeed in producing any such mighty power within them as would lead
foreign nations to obey their laws, or have regard to their statements,
they did not venture even to essay the attempt, lest the failure of the
undertaking should stamp their conduct with the mark of imprudence. And
yet there are throughout the whole world—throughout all Greece, and all
foreign countries—countless individuals who have abandoned the laws of
their country, and those whom they had believed to be gods, and have
yielded themselves up to the obedience of the law of Moses, and to the
discipleship and worship of Christ; and have done this, not without
exciting against themselves the intense hatred of the worshippers of
images, so as frequently to be exposed to cruel tortures from the
latter, and sometimes even to be put to death. And yet they embrace, and
with all affection preserve, the words and teaching of Christ.
CHAPTER I.
ON THE INSPIRATION OF HOLY SCRIPTURE, AND HOW THE SAME IS TO BE READ
AND UNDERSTOOD, AND WHAT IS THE REASON OF THE UNCERTAINTY IN IT; AND
OF THE IMPOSSIBILITY OR IRRATIONALITY OF CERTAIN THINGS IN IT, TAKEN
ACCORDING TO THE LETTER.
TRANSLATION FROM THE GREEK.
[The translation from the Greek is designedly literal, that the
difference between the original and the paraphrase of Rufinus may be
more clearly seen.]
1. Since, in our investigation of matters of such importance, not
satisfied with the common opinions, and with the clear evidence of
visible things,[771] we take in addition, for the proof of our
statements, testimonies from what are believed by us to be divine
writings, viz. from that which is called the Old Testament, and that
which is styled the New, and endeavour by reason to confirm our faith;
and as we have not yet spoken of the Scriptures as divine, come and let
us, as if by way of an epitome, treat of a few points respecting them,
laying down those reasons which lead us to regard them as divine
writings. And before making use of the words of the writings themselves,
and of the things which are exhibited in them, we must make the
following statement regarding Moses and Jesus Christ,—the lawgiver of
the Hebrews, and the Introducer of the saving doctrines according to
Christianity. For, although there have been very many legislators among
the Greeks and Barbarians, and teachers who announced opinions which
professed to be the truth, we have heard of no legislator who was able
to imbue other nations with a zeal for the reception of his words; and
although those who professed to philosophize about truth brought forward
a great apparatus of apparent logical demonstration, no one has been
able to impress what was deemed by him the truth upon other nations, or
even on any number of persons worth mentioning in a single nation. And
yet not only would the legislators have liked to enforce those laws
which appeared to be good, if possible, upon the whole human race, but
the teachers also to have spread what they imagined to be truth
everywhere throughout the world. But as they were unable to call men of
other languages and from many nations to observe their laws, and accept
their teaching, they did not at all attempt to do this, considering not
unwisely the impossibility of such a result happening to them. Whereas
all Greece, and the barbarous part of our world, contains innumerable
zealots, who have deserted the laws of their fathers and the established
gods, for the observance of the laws of Moses and the discipleship of
the words of Jesus Christ; although those who clave to the law of Moses
were hated by the worshippers of images, and those who accepted the
words of Jesus Christ were exposed, in addition, to the danger of death.
FROM THE LATIN.
2. And we may see, moreover, how that religion itself grew up in a short
time, making progress by the punishment and death of its worshippers, by
the plundering of their goods, and by the tortures of every kind which
they endured; and this result is the more surprising, that even the
teachers of it themselves neither were men of skill,[772] nor very
numerous; and yet these words are preached throughout the whole world,
so that Greeks and Barbarians, wise and foolish, adopt the doctrines of
the Christian religion.[773] From which it is no doubtful inference,
that it is not by human power or might that the words of Jesus Christ
come to prevail with all faith and power over the understandings and
souls of all men. For, that these results were both predicted by Him,
and established by divine answers proceeding from Him, is clear from His
own words: “Ye shall be brought before governors and kings for my sake,
for a testimony against them and the Gentiles.”[774] And again: “This
gospel of the kingdom shall be preached among all nations.”[775] And
again: “Many shall say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not eaten
and drunk in Thy name, and in Thy name cast out devils? And I will say
unto them, Depart from me, ye workers of iniquity, I never knew
you.”[776] If these sayings, indeed, had been so uttered by Him, and yet
if these predictions had not been fulfilled, they might perhaps appear
to be untrue,[777] and not to possess any authority. But now, when His
declarations do pass into fulfilment, seeing they were predicted with
such power and authority, it is most clearly shown to be true that He,
when He was made man, delivered to men the precepts of salvation.[778]
FROM THE GREEK.
2. And if we observe how powerful the word has become in a very few
years, notwithstanding that against those who acknowledged Christianity
conspiracies were formed, and some of them on its account put to death,
and others of them lost their property, and that, notwithstanding the
small number of its teachers,[779] it was preached everywhere throughout
the world, so that Greeks and Barbarians, wise and foolish, gave
themselves up to the worship that is through Jesus,[780] we have no
difficulty in saying that the result is beyond any human power,[781]
Jesus having taught with all authority and persuasiveness that His word
should not be overcome; so that we may rightly regard as oracular
responses[782] those utterances of His, such as, “Ye shall be brought
before governors and kings for my sake, for a testimony against them and
the Gentiles;”[783] and, “Many shall say unto me in that day, Lord,
Lord, have we not eaten in Thy name, and drunk in Thy name, and in Thy
name cast out devils? And I shall say unto them, Depart from me, ye
workers of iniquity, I never knew you.”[784] Now it was perhaps [once]
probable that, in uttering these words, He spoke them in vain, so that
they were not true; but when that which was delivered with so much
authority _has_ come to pass, it shows that God, having really become
man, delivered to men the doctrines of salvation.[785]
FROM THE LATIN.
3. What, then, are we to say of this, which the prophets had beforehand
foretold of Him, that princes would not cease from Judah, nor leaders
from between his thighs, until He should come for whom it has been
reserved (viz. the kingdom), and until the expectation of the Gentiles
should come? For it is most distinctly evident from the history itself,
from what is clearly seen at the present day, that from the times of
Christ onwards there were no kings amongst the Jews. Nay, even all those
objects of Jewish pride,[786] of which they vaunted so much, and in
which they exulted, whether regarding the beauty of the temple or the
ornaments of the altar, and all those sacerdotal fillets and robes of
the high priests, were all destroyed together. For the prophecy was
fulfilled which had declared, “For the children of Israel shall abide
many days without king and prince: there shall be no victim, nor altar,
nor priesthood, nor answers.”[787] These testimonies, accordingly, we
employ against those who seem to assert that what is spoken in Genesis
by Jacob refers to Judah; and who say that there still remains a prince
of the race of Judah—he, viz., who is the prince of their nation, whom
they style Patriarch[788]—and that there cannot fail [a ruler] of his
seed, who will remain until the advent of that Christ whom they picture
to themselves. But if the prophet’s words be true, when he says, “The
children of Israel shall abide many days without king, without prince;
and there shall be no victim, nor altar, nor priesthood;”[789] and if,
certainly, since the overthrow of the temple, victims are neither
offered, nor any altar found, nor any priesthood exists, it is most
certain that, as it is written, princes have departed from Judah, and a
leader from between his thighs, until the coming of him for whom it has
been reserved. It is established, then, that he is come for whom it has
been reserved, and in whom is the expectation of the Gentiles. And this
manifestly seems to be fulfilled in the multitude of those who have
believed on God through Christ out of the different nations.
FROM THE GREEK.
3. And what need is there to mention also that it was predicted of
Christ[790] that then would the rulers fail from Judah, and the leaders
from his thighs,[791] when He came for whom it is reserved (the kingdom,
namely); and that the expectation of the Gentiles should dwell in the
land?[792] For it is clearly manifest from the history, and from what is
seen at the present day, that from the times of Jesus there were no
longer any who were called kings of the Jews;[793] all those Jewish
institutions on which they prided themselves—I mean those arrangements
relating to the temple and the altar, and the offering of the service,
and the robes of the high priest—having been destroyed. For the prophecy
was fulfilled which said, “The children of Israel shall sit many days,
there being no king, nor ruler, nor sacrifice, nor altar, nor
priesthood, nor responses.”[794] And these predictions we employ to
answer those who, in their perplexity as to the words spoken in Genesis
by Jacob to Judah, assert that the Ethnarch,[795] being of the race of
Judah, is the ruler of the people, and that there will not fail some of
his seed, until the advent of that Christ whom they figure to their
imagination. But if “the children of Israel are to sit many days without
a king, or ruler, or altar, or priesthood, or responses;” and if, since
the temple was destroyed, there exists no longer sacrifice, nor altar,
nor priesthood, it is manifest that the ruler _has_ failed out of Judah,
and the leader from between his thighs. And since the prediction
declares that “the ruler shall not fail from Judah, and the leader from
between his thighs, until what is reserved for him shall come,” it is
manifest that He is come to whom [belongs] what is reserved—the
expectation of the Gentiles. And this is clear from the multitude of the
heathen who have believed on God through Jesus Christ.
FROM THE LATIN.
4. In the song of Deuteronomy,[796] also, it is prophetically declared
that, on account of the sins of the former people, there was to be an
election of a foolish nation,—no other, certainly, than that which was
brought about by Christ; for thus the words run: “They have moved me to
anger with their images, and I will stir them up to jealousy; I will
arouse them to anger against a foolish nation.”[797] We may therefore
evidently see how the Hebrews, who are said to have excited God’s anger
by means of those [idols], which are no gods, and to have aroused His
wrath by their images, were themselves also excited to jealousy by means
of a foolish nation, which God hath chosen by the advent of Jesus Christ
and His disciples. For the following is the language of the apostle:
“For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men among you
after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble (are called): but God
has chosen the foolish things of the world, and the things which are
not, to destroy the things which formerly existed.”[798] Carnal Israel,
therefore, should not boast; for such is the term used by the apostle:
“No flesh, I say, should glory in the presence of God.”[799]
FROM THE GREEK.
4. And in the song in Deuteronomy,[800] also, it is prophetically made
known that, on account of the sins of the former people,[801] there was
to be an election of foolish nations, which has been brought to pass by
no other than by Jesus. “For they,” He says, “moved me to jealousy with
that which is not God, they have provoked me to anger with their idols;
and I will move them to jealousy with those which are not a people, and
will provoke them to anger with a foolish nation.”[802] Now it is
possible to understand with all clearness how the Hebrews, who are said
to have moved God to jealousy by that which is not God, and to have
provoked Him to anger by their idols, were [themselves] aroused to
jealousy by that which was not a people—the foolish nation, namely,
which God chose by the advent of Jesus Christ and His disciples. We see,
indeed, “our calling, that not many wise men after the flesh, not many
mighty, not many noble (are called); but God hath chosen the foolish
things of the world to confound the wise; and base things, and things
that are despised, hath God chosen, and things that are not, to bring to
nought the things which formerly existed;”[803] and let not the Israel
according to the flesh, which is called by the apostle “flesh,” boast in
the presence of God.
FROM THE LATIN.
5. What are we to say, moreover, regarding those prophecies of Christ
contained in the Psalms, especially the one with the superscription, “A
song for the Beloved;”[804] in which it is stated that “His tongue is
the pen of a ready writer; fairer than the children of men;” that “grace
is poured into His lips?” Now, the indication that grace has been poured
upon His lips is this, that, after a short period had elapsed—for He
taught only during a year and some months—the whole world, nevertheless,
became filled with His doctrine, and with faith in His religion. There
arose, then, “in His days righteous men, and abundance of peace,”[805]
abiding even to the end, which end is entitled “the taking away of the
moon;” and “His dominion shall extend from sea to sea, and from the
river to the ends of the earth.”[806] There was a sign also given to the
house of David. For a virgin conceived, and bare Emmanuel, which, when
interpreted, signifies, “God with us: know it, O nations, and be
overcome.”[807] For we are conquered and overcome, who are of the
Gentiles, and remain as a kind of spoils of His victory, who have
subjected our necks to His grace. Even the place of His birth was
predicted in the prophecies of Micah, who said, “And thou, Bethlehem,
land of Judah, art by no means small among the leaders of Judah: for out
of thee shall come forth a Leader, who shall rule my people
Israel.”[808] The weeks of years, also, which the prophet Daniel had
predicted, extending to the leadership of Christ,[809] have been
fulfilled. Moreover, He is at hand, who in the book of Job[810] is said
to be about to destroy the huge beast, who also gave power to His own
disciples to tread on serpents and scorpions, and on all the power of
the enemy, without being injured by him. But if any one will consider
the journeys of Christ’s apostles throughout the different places, in
which as His messengers they preached the gospel, he will find that both
what they ventured to undertake is beyond the power of man, and what
they were enabled to accomplish is from God alone. If we consider how
men, on hearing that a new doctrine was introduced by these, were able
to receive them; or rather, when desiring often to destroy them, they
were prevented by a divine power which was in them, we shall find that
in this nothing was effected by human strength, but that the whole was
the result of the divine power and providence,—signs and wonders,
manifest beyond all doubt, bearing testimony to their word and doctrine.
FROM THE GREEK.
5. And what are we to say regarding the prophecies of Christ in the
Psalms, there being a certain ode with the superscription “For the
Beloved,”[811] whose “tongue” is said to be the “pen of a ready writer,
who is fairer than the sons of men,” since “grace was poured on His
lips?” For a proof that grace was poured on His lips is this, that
although the period of His teaching was short—for He taught somewhere
about a year and a few months—the world has been filled with His
teaching, and with the worship of God [established] through Him. For
there arose “in His days righteousness and abundance of peace,”[812]
which abides until the consummation, which has been called the taking
away of the moon; and He continues “ruling from sea to sea, and from the
rivers to the ends of the earth.”[813] And to the house of David has
been given a sign: for the Virgin bore, and was pregnant,[814] and
brought forth a son, and His name is Emmanuel, which is, “God with us;”
and as the same prophet says, the prediction has been fulfilled, “God
[is] with us; know it, O nations, and be overcome; ye who are strong, be
vanquished:”[815] for we of the heathen have been overcome and
vanquished, we who have been taken by the grace of His teaching. The
place also of His birth has been foretold in [the prophecies of] Micah:
“For thou, Bethlehem,” he says, “land of Judah, art by no means the
least among the rulers of Judah; for out of thee shall come forth a
Ruler, who shall rule my people Israel.”[816] And according to Daniel,
seventy weeks were fulfilled until [the coming of] Christ the
Ruler.[817] And He came, who, according to Job,[818] has subdued the
great fish,[819] and has given power to His true disciples to tread upon
serpents and scorpions, and all the power of the enemy,[820] without
sustaining any injury from them. And let one notice also the universal
advent of the apostles sent by Jesus to announce the gospel, and he will
see both that the undertaking was beyond human power, and that the
commandment came from God. And if we examine how men, on hearing new
doctrines, and strange words, yielded themselves up to these teachers,
being overcome, amid the very desire to plot against them, by a divine
power that watched over these [teachers], we shall not be incredulous as
to whether they also wrought miracles, God bearing witness to their
words both by signs, and wonders, and divers miracles.
FROM THE LATIN.
6. These points now being briefly established, viz. regarding the deity
of Christ, and the fulfilment of all that was prophesied respecting Him,
I think that this position also has been made good, viz. that the
Scriptures themselves, which contained these predictions, were divinely
inspired,—those, namely, which had either foretold His advent, or the
power of His doctrine, or the bringing over of all nations [to His
obedience]. To which this remark must be added, that the divinity and
inspiration both of the predictions of the prophets and of the law of
Moses have been clearly revealed and confirmed, especially since the
advent of Christ into the world. For before the fulfilment of those
events which were predicted by them, they could not, although true and
inspired by God, be shown to be so, because they were as yet
unfulfilled. But the coming of Christ was a declaration that their
statements were true and divinely inspired, although it was certainly
doubtful before that whether there would be an accomplishment of those
things which had been foretold.
If any one, moreover, consider the words of the prophets with all the
zeal and reverence which they deserve, it is certain that, in the
perusal and careful examination thus given them, he will feel his mind
and senses touched by a divine breath, and will acknowledge that the
words which he reads were no human utterances, but the language of God;
and from his own emotions he will feel that these books were the
composition of no human skill, nor of any mortal eloquence, but, so to
speak, of a style that is divine.[821] The splendour of Christ’s advent,
therefore, illuminating the law of Moses by the light of truth, has
taken away that veil which had been placed over the letter [of the law],
and has unsealed, for every one who believes upon Him, all the blessings
which were concealed by the covering of the word.
FROM THE GREEK.
6. And while we thus briefly[822] demonstrate the deity of Christ, and
[in so doing] make use of the prophetic declarations regarding Him, we
demonstrate at the same time that the writings which prophesied of Him
were divinely inspired; and that those documents which announced His
coming and His doctrine were given forth with all power and authority,
and that on this account they obtained the election from the
Gentiles.[823], We must say, also, that the divinity of the prophetic
declarations, and the spiritual nature of the law of Moses, shone forth
after the advent of Christ. For before the advent of Christ it was not
altogether possible to exhibit manifest proofs of the divine inspiration
of the ancient Scriptures; whereas His coming led those who might
suspect the law and the prophets not to be divine, to the clear
conviction that they were composed by [the aid of] heavenly grace. And
he who reads the words of the prophets with care and attention, feeling
by the very perusal the traces of the divinity[824] that is in them,
will be led by his own emotions to believe that those words which have
been deemed to be the words of God are not the compositions of men. The
light, moreover, which was contained in the law of Moses, but which had
been concealed by a veil, shone forth at the advent of Jesus, the veil
being taken away, and those blessings, the shadow of which was contained
in the letter, coming forth gradually to the knowledge [of men].
FROM THE LATIN.
7. It is, however, a matter attended with considerable labour, to point
out, in every instance, how and when the predictions of the prophets
were fulfilled, so as to appear to confirm those who are in doubt,
seeing it is possible for every one who wishes to become more thoroughly
acquainted with these things, to gather abundant proofs from the records
of the truth themselves. But if the sense of the letter, which is beyond
man, does not appear to present itself at once, on the first glance, to
those who are less versed in divine discipline, it is not at all to be
wondered at, because divine things are brought down somewhat slowly to
[the comprehension of] men, and elude the view in proportion as one is
either sceptical or unworthy. For although it is certain that all things
which exist in this world, or take place in it, are ordered by the
providence of God, and certain events indeed do appear with sufficient
clearness to be under the disposal of His providential government, yet
others again unfold themselves so mysteriously and incomprehensibly,
that the plan of Divine Providence with regard to them is completely
concealed; so that it is occasionally believed by some that particular
occurrences do not belong to [the plan of] Providence, because the
principle eludes their grasp, according to which the works of Divine
Providence are administered with indescribable skill; which principle of
administration, however, is not equally concealed from all. For even
among men themselves, one individual devotes less consideration to it,
another more; while by every man, He who is on earth, whoever is the
inhabitant of heaven, is more acknowledged.[825] And the nature of
bodies is clear to us in one way, that of trees in another, that of
animals in a third; the nature of souls, again, is concealed in a
different way; and the manner in which the diverse movements of rational
understandings are ordered by Providence, eludes the view of men in a
greater degree, and even, in my opinion, in no small degree that of the
angels also. But as the existence of divine providence is not refuted by
those especially who are certain of its existence, but who do not
comprehend its workings or arrangements by the powers of the human mind;
so neither will the divine inspiration of holy Scripture, which extends
throughout its body, be believed to be non-existent, because the
weakness of our understanding is unable to trace out the hidden and
secret meaning in each individual word, the treasure of divine wisdom
being hid in the vulgar and unpolished vessels of words,[826] as the
apostle also points out when he says, “We have this treasure in earthen
vessels,”[827] that the virtue of the divine power may shine out the
more brightly, no colouring of human eloquence being intermingled with
the truth of the doctrines. For if our books induced men to believe
because they were composed either by rhetorical arts or by the wisdom of
philosophy, then undoubtedly our faith would be considered to be based
on the art of words, and on human wisdom, and not upon the power of God;
whereas it is now known to all that the word of this preaching has been
so accepted by numbers throughout almost the whole world, because they
understood their belief to rest not on the persuasive words of human
wisdom, but on the manifestation of the Spirit and of power. On which
account, being led by a heavenly, nay, by a more than heavenly power, to
faith and acceptance,[828] that we may worship the sole Creator of all
things as our God, let us also do our utmost endeavour, by abandoning
the language of the elements of Christ, which are but the first
beginnings of wisdom, to go on to perfection, in order that that wisdom
which is given to them who are perfect, may be given to us also. For
such is the promise of him to whom was entrusted the preaching of this
wisdom, in the words: “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are
perfect; yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this
world, who will be brought to nought;”[829] by which he shows that this
wisdom of ours has nothing in common, so far as regards the beauty of
language, with the wisdom of this world. This wisdom, then, will be
inscribed more clearly and perfectly on our hearts, if it be made known
to us according to the revelation of the mystery which has been hid from
eternity,[830] but now is manifest through the Scriptures of prophecy,
and the advent of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom be glory
for ever. Amen. Many, not understanding the Scriptures in a spiritual
sense, but incorrectly,[831] have fallen into heresies.
FROM THE GREEK.
7. It would be tedious now to enumerate the most ancient prophecies
respecting each future event, in order that the doubter, being impressed
by their divinity, may lay aside all hesitation and distraction, and
devote himself with his whole soul to the words of God. But if in every
part of the Scriptures the superhuman element of thought[832] does not
seem to present itself to the uninstructed, that is not at all
wonderful; for, with respect to the works of that providence which
embraces the whole world, some show with the utmost clearness that they
are works of providence, while others are so concealed as to seem to
furnish ground for unbelief with respect to that God who orders all
things with unspeakable skill and power. For the artistic plan[833] of a
providential Ruler is not so evident in those matters belonging to the
earth, as in the case of the sun, and moon, and stars; and not so clear
in what relates to human occurrences, as it is in the souls and bodies
of animals,—the object and reason of the impulses, and phantasies and
natures of animals, and the structure of their bodies, being carefully
ascertained by those who attend to these things.[834] But as [the
doctrine of] providence is not at all weakened[835] (on account of those
things which are not understood) in the eyes of those who have once
honestly accepted it, so neither is the divinity of Scripture, which
extends to the whole of it, [lost] on account of the inability of our
weakness to discover in every expression the hidden splendour of the
doctrines veiled in common and unattractive phraseology.[836] For we
have the treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power
of God may shine forth, and that it may not be deemed to proceed from us
[who are but] human beings. For if the hackneyed[837] methods of
demonstration [common] among men, contained in the books [of the Bible],
had been successful in producing conviction, then our faith would
rightly have been supposed to rest on the wisdom of men, and not on the
power of God; but now it is manifest to every one who lifts up his eyes,
that the word and preaching have not prevailed among the multitude “by
persuasive words of wisdom, but by demonstration of the Spirit and of
power.”[838] Wherefore, since a celestial or even a super-celestial
power compels us to worship the only Creator, let us leave the doctrine
of the beginning of Christ, _i.e._ the elements,[839] and endeavour to
go on to perfection, in order that the wisdom spoken to the perfect may
be spoken to us also. For he who possesses it promises to speak wisdom
among them that are perfect, but another wisdom than that of this world,
and of the rulers of this world, which is brought to nought. And this
wisdom will be distinctly stamped[840] upon us, and will produce a
revelation of the mystery that was kept silent in the eternal ages,[841]
but now has been manifested through the prophetic Scriptures, and the
appearance of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for
ever and ever. Amen.
FROM THE LATIN.
8. These particulars, then, being briefly stated regarding the
inspiration of the sacred Scriptures by the Holy Spirit, it seems
necessary to explain this point also, viz. how certain persons, not
reading them correctly, have given themselves over to erroneous
opinions, inasmuch as the procedure to be followed, in order to attain
an understanding of the holy writings, is unknown to many. The Jews, in
fine, owing to the hardness of their heart, and from a desire to appear
wise in their own eyes, have not believed in our Lord and Saviour,
judging that those statements which were uttered respecting Him ought to
be understood literally, _i.e._ that He ought in a sensible and visible
manner to preach deliverance to the captives, and first build a city
which they truly deem the city of God, and cut off at the same time the
chariots of Ephraim,[842] and the horse from Jerusalem; that He ought
also to eat butter and honey,[843] in order to choose the good before He
should come to know how to bring forth evil.[844] They think, also, that
it has been predicted that the wolf—that four-footed animal—is, at the
coming of Christ, to feed with the lambs, and the leopard to lie down
with kids, and the calf and the bull to pasture with lions, and that
they are to be led by a little child to the pasture; that the ox and the
bear are to lie down together in the green fields, and that their young
ones are to be fed together; that lions also will frequent stalls with
the oxen, and feed on straw. And seeing that, according to history,
there was no accomplishment of any of those things predicted of Him, in
which they believed the signs of Christ’s advent were especially to be
observed, they refused to acknowledge the presence of our Lord Jesus
Christ; nay, contrary to all the principles of human and divine
law,[845] _i.e._ contrary to the faith of prophecy, they crucified Him
for assuming to Himself the name of Christ. Thereupon the heretics,
reading that it is written in the law, “A fire has been kindled in mine
anger;”[846] and that “I the Lord am a jealous [God], visiting the sins
of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth
generation;”[847] and that “it repenteth me that I anointed Saul to be
king;”[848] and, “I am the Lord, who make peace and create evil;”[849]
and again, “There is not evil in a city which the Lord hath not
done;”[850] and, “Evils came down from the Lord upon the gates of
Jerusalem;”[851] and, “An evil spirit from the Lord plagued Saul;”[852]
and reading many other passages similar to these, which are found in
Scripture, they did not venture to assert that these were not the
Scriptures of God, but they considered them to be the words of that
creator God whom the Jews worshipped, and who, they judged, ought to be
regarded as just only, and not also as good; but that the Saviour had
come to announce to us a more perfect God, who, they allege, is not the
creator of the world,—there being different and discordant opinions
among them even on this very point, because, when they once depart from
a belief in God the Creator, who is Lord of all, they have given
themselves over to various inventions and fables, devising certain
[fictions], and asserting that some things were visible, and made by one
[God], and that certain other things were invisible, and were created by
another, according to the vain and fanciful suggestions of their own
minds. But not a few also of the more simple of those, who appear to be
restrained within the faith of the church, are of opinion that there is
no greater God than the Creator, holding in this a correct and sound
opinion; and yet they entertain regarding Him such views as would not be
entertained regarding the most unjust and cruel of men.
FROM THE GREEK.
8. Having spoken thus briefly[853] on the subject of the divine
inspiration of the holy Scriptures, it is necessary to proceed to the
[consideration of the] manner in which they are to be read and
understood, seeing numerous errors have been committed in consequence of
the method in which the holy documents[854] ought to be examined,[855]
not having been discovered by the multitude. For both the hardened in
heart, and the ignorant persons[856] belonging to the circumcision, have
not believed on our Saviour, thinking that they are following the
language of the prophecies respecting Him, and not perceiving in a
manner palpable to their senses[857] that He had proclaimed liberty to
the captives, nor that He had built up what they truly consider the city
of God, nor cut off “the chariots of Ephraim, and the horse from
Jerusalem,”[858] nor eaten butter and honey, and, before knowing or
preferring the evil, had selected the good.[859] And thinking, moreover,
that it was prophesied that the wolf—the four-footed animal—was to feed
with the lamb, and the leopard to lie down with the kid, and the calf
and bull and lion to feed together, being led by a little child, and
that the ox and bear were to pasture together, their young ones growing
up together, and that the lion was to eat straw like the ox:[860] seeing
none of these things visibly accomplished during the advent of Him who
is believed by us to be Christ, they did not accept our Lord Jesus; but,
as having called Himself Christ improperly,[861] they crucified Him. And
those belonging to heretical sects reading this [statement], “A fire has
been kindled in mine anger;”[862] and this, “I am a jealous God,
visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third
and fourth generation;”[863] and this, “I repent of having anointed Saul
to be king;”[864] and this, “I am a God that maketh peace, and createth
evil;”[865] and, among others, this, “There is not wickedness in the
city which the Lord hath not done;”[866] and again this, “Evils came
down from the Lord upon the gates of Jerusalem;”[867] and, “An evil
spirit from the Lord plagued Saul;”[868] and countless other passages
like these—they have not ventured to disbelieve these as the Scriptures
of God; but believing them to be the [words] of the Demiurge, whom the
Jews worship, they thought that as the Demiurge was an imperfect and
unbenevolent God, the Saviour had come to announce a more perfect Deity,
who, they say, is not the Demiurge, being of different opinions
regarding Him; and having once departed from the Demiurge, who is the
only uncreated God, they have given themselves up to fictions, inventing
to themselves hypotheses, according to which they imagine that there are
some things which are visible, and certain other things which are not
visible, all which are the fancies of their own minds. And yet, indeed,
the more simple among those who profess to belong to the church have
supposed that there is no deity greater than the Demiurge, being right
in so thinking, while they imagine regarding Him such things as would
not be believed of the most savage and unjust of mankind.
FROM THE LATIN.
9. Now the reason of the erroneous apprehension of all these points on
the part of those whom we have mentioned above, is no other than this,
that holy Scripture is not understood by them according to its
spiritual, but according to its literal meaning. And therefore we shall
endeavour, so far as our moderate capacity will permit, to point out to
those who believe the holy Scriptures to be no human compositions, but
to be written by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, and to be transmitted
and entrusted to us by the will of God the Father, through His
only-begotten Son Jesus Christ, what appears to us, who observe things
by a right way of understanding,[869] to be the standard and discipline
delivered to the apostles by Jesus Christ, and which they handed down in
succession to their posterity, the teachers of the holy church. Now,
that there are certain mystical economies[870] indicated in holy
Scripture, is admitted by all, I think, even the simplest of believers.
But what these are, or of what kind they are, he who is rightly minded,
and not overcome with the vice of boasting, will scrupulously[871]
acknowledge himself to be ignorant. For if any one, _e.g._, were to
adduce the case of the daughters of Lot, who seem, contrary to the law
of God,[872] to have had intercourse with their father, or that of the
two wives of Abraham, or of the two sisters who were married to Jacob,
or of the two handmaids who increased the number of his sons, what other
answer could be returned than that these were certain mysteries,[873]
and forms of spiritual things, but that we are ignorant of what nature
they are? Nay, even when we read of the construction of the tabernacle,
we deem it certain that the written descriptions are the figures of
certain hidden things; but to adapt these to their appropriate
standards, and to open up and discuss every individual point, I consider
to be exceedingly difficult, not to say impossible. That that
description, however, is, as I have said, full of mysteries, does not
escape even the common understanding. But all the narrative portion,
relating either to the marriages, or to the begetting of the children,
or to battles of different kinds, or to any other histories whatever,
what else can they be supposed to be, save the forms and figures of
hidden and sacred things? As men, however, make little effort to
exercise their intellect, or imagine that they possess knowledge before
they really learn, the consequence is that they never begin to have
knowledge; or if there be no want of a desire, at least, nor of an
instructor, and if divine knowledge be sought after, as it ought to be,
in a religious and holy spirit, and in the hope that many points will be
opened up by the revelation of God—since to human sense they are
exceedingly difficult and obscure—then, perhaps, he who seeks in such a
manner will find what it is lawful[874] to discover.
FROM THE GREEK.
9. Now the cause, in all the points previously enumerated, of the false
opinions, and of the impious statements or ignorant assertions[875]
about God, appears to be nothing else than the not understanding the
Scripture according to its spiritual meaning, but the interpretation of
it agreeably to the mere letter. And therefore, to those who believe
that the sacred books are not the compositions of men, but that they
were composed by inspiration[876] of the Holy Spirit, agreeably to the
will of the Father of all things through Jesus Christ, and that they
have come down to us, we must point out the ways [of interpreting them]
which appear [correct] to us, who cling to the standard[877] of the
heavenly church of Jesus Christ according to the succession of the
apostles. Now, that there are certain mystical economies made known by
the holy Scriptures, all—even the most simple of those who adhere to the
word—have believed; but what these are, candid and modest individuals
confess that they know not. If, then, one were to be perplexed about the
intercourse of Lot with his daughters, and about the two wives of
Abraham, and the two sisters married to Jacob, and the two handmaids who
bore him children, they can return no other answer than this, that these
are mysteries not understood by us. Nay, also, when the [description of
the] fitting out of the tabernacle is read, believing that what is
written is a type,[878] they seek to adapt what they can to each
particular related about the tabernacle,—not being wrong so far as
regards their belief that the tabernacle is a type of _something_, but
erring sometimes in adapting the description of that of which the
tabernacle is a type, to some special thing in a manner worthy of
Scripture. And all the history that is considered to tell of marriages,
or the begetting of children, or of wars, or any histories whatever that
are in circulation among the multitude, they declare to be types; but of
what in each individual instance, partly owing to their habits
not being thoroughly exercised—partly, too, owing to their
precipitation—sometimes, even when an individual does happen to be well
trained and clear-sighted, owing to the excessive difficulty of
discovering things on the part of men,—the nature of each particular
regarding these [types] is not clearly ascertained.
FROM THE LATIN.
10. But lest this difficulty perhaps should be supposed to exist only in
the language of the prophets, seeing the prophetic style is allowed by
all to abound in figures and enigmas, what do we find when we come to
the Gospels? Is there not hidden there also an inner, namely a divine
sense, which is revealed by that grace alone which he had received who
said, “But we have the mind of Christ, that we might know the things
freely given to us by God. Which things also we speak, not in the words
which man’s wisdom teaches, but which the Spirit teacheth?”[879] And if
one now were to read the revelations which were made to John, how amazed
would he not be that there should be contained within them so great an
amount of hidden, ineffable mysteries,[880] in which it is clearly
understood, even by those who cannot comprehend _what_ is concealed,
that _something_ certainly _is_ concealed. And yet are not the epistles
of the apostles, which seem to some to be plainer, filled with meanings
so profound, that by means of them, as by some small receptacle,[881]
the clearness of incalculable light[882] appears to be poured into those
who are capable of understanding the meaning of divine wisdom? And
therefore, because this is the case, and because there are many who go
wrong in this life, I do not consider that it is easy to pronounce,
without danger, that any one knows or understands those things, which,
in order to be opened up, need the key of knowledge; which key, the
Saviour declared, lay with those who were skilled in the law. And here,
although it is a digression, I think we should inquire of those who
assert that before the advent of the Saviour there was no truth among
those who were engaged in the study of the law, how it could be said by
our Lord Jesus Christ that the keys of knowledge were with them, who had
the books of the prophets and of the law in their hands. For thus did He
speak: “Woe unto you, ye teachers of the law, who have taken away the
key of knowledge: ye entered not in yourselves, and them who wished to
enter in ye hindered.”[883]
FROM THE GREEK.
10. And what need is there to speak of the prophecies, which we all know
to be filled with enigmas and dark sayings? And if we come to the
Gospels, the exact understanding of these also, as being the mind of
Christ, requires the grace that was given to him who said, “But we have
the mind of Christ, that we might know the things freely given to us by
God. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man’s wisdom
teacheth, but which the Spirit teacheth.”[884] And who, on reading the
revelations made to John, would not be amazed at the unspeakable
mysteries therein concealed, and which are evident [even] to him who
does not comprehend what is written? And to what person, skilful in
investigating words, would the epistles of the apostles seem to be clear
and easy of understanding, since even in them there are countless
numbers of most profound ideas, which, [issuing forth] as by an
aperture, admit of no rapid comprehension?[885] And therefore, since
these things are so, and since innumerable individuals fall into
mistakes, it is not safe in reading [the Scriptures] to declare that one
easily understands what needs the key of knowledge, which the Saviour
declares is with the lawyers. And let those answer who will not allow
that the truth was with these before the advent of Christ, how the key
of knowledge is said by our Lord Jesus Christ to be with those who, as
they allege, had not the books which contain the secrets[886] of
knowledge, and perfect mysteries.[887] For His words run thus: “Woe unto
you, ye lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye have
not entered in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye
hindered.”[888]
FROM THE LATIN.
11. But, as we had begun to observe, the way which seems to us the
correct one for the understanding of the Scriptures, and for the
investigation of their meaning, we consider to be of the following kind:
for we are instructed by Scripture itself in regard to the ideas which
we ought to form of it. In the Proverbs of Solomon we find some such
rule as the following laid down, respecting the consideration of holy
Scripture: “And do thou,” he says, “describe these things to thyself in
a threefold manner, in counsel and knowledge, and that thou mayest
answer the words of truth to those who have proposed them to thee.”[889]
Each one, then, ought to describe in his own mind, in a threefold
manner, the understanding of the divine letters,—that is, in order that
all the more simple individuals may be edified, so to speak, by the very
body of Scripture; for such we term that common and historical sense:
while, if some have commenced to make considerable progress, and are
able to see something more [than that], _they_ may be edified by the
very soul of Scripture. Those, again, who are perfect, and who resemble
those of whom the apostle says, “We speak wisdom among them that are
perfect, but not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this
world, who will be brought to nought; but we speak the wisdom of God,
hidden in a mystery, which God hath decreed before the ages unto our
glory;”[890]—all such as these may be edified by the spiritual law
itself (which has a shadow of good things to come), as if by the Spirit.
For as man is said to consist of body, and soul, and spirit, so also
does sacred Scripture, which has been granted by the divine bounty[891]
for the salvation of man; which we see pointed out, moreover, in the
little book of _The Shepherd_, which seems to be despised by some, where
Hermas is commanded to write two little books, and afterwards to
announce to the presbyters of the church what he learned from the
Spirit. For these are the words that are written: “And you will write,”
he says, “two books; and you will give the one to Clement, and the other
to Grapte.[892] And let Grapte admonish the widows and orphans, and let
Clement send through all the cities which are abroad, while you will
announce to the presbyters of the church.” Grapte, accordingly, who is
commanded to admonish the orphans and widows, is the pure understanding
of the letter itself; by which those youthful minds are admonished, who
have not yet deserved to have God as their Father, and are on that
account styled orphans. They, again, are the widows, who have withdrawn
themselves from the unjust man, to whom they had been united contrary to
law; but who have remained widows, because they have not yet advanced to
the stage of being joined to a heavenly Bridegroom. Clement, moreover,
is ordered to send into those cities which are abroad what is written to
those individuals who already are withdrawing from the letter,—as if the
meaning were to those souls who, being built up by this means, have
begun to rise above the cares of the body and the desires of the flesh;
while he himself, who had learned from the Holy Spirit, is commanded to
announce, not by letter nor by book, but by the living voice, to the
presbyters of the church of Christ, _i.e._ to those who possess a mature
faculty of wisdom, capable of receiving spiritual teaching.
FROM THE GREEK.
11. The way, then, as it appears to us, in which we ought to deal with
the Scriptures, and extract from them their meaning, is the following,
which has been ascertained from the Scriptures themselves. By Solomon in
the Proverbs we find some such rule as this enjoined respecting the
divine doctrines of Scripture:[893] “And do thou portray them in a
threefold manner, in counsel and knowledge, to answer words of truth to
them who propose them to thee.”[894] The individual ought, then, to
portray the ideas of holy Scripture in a threefold manner upon his own
soul; in order that the simple man may be edified by the “flesh,” as it
were, of the Scripture, for so we name the obvious sense; while he who
has ascended a certain way [may be edified] by the “soul,” as it were.
The perfect man, again, and he who resembles those spoken of by the
apostle, when he says, “We speak wisdom among them that are perfect, but
not the wisdom of the world, nor of the rulers of this world, who come
to nought; but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden
wisdom, which God hath ordained before the ages, unto our glory,”[895]
[may receive edification] from the spiritual law, which has a shadow of
good things to come. For as man consists of body, and soul, and spirit,
so in the same way does Scripture, which has been arranged to be given
by God for the salvation of men. And therefore we deduce this also from
a book which is despised by some—_The Shepherd_—in respect of the
command given to Hermas to write two books, and after so doing to
announce to the presbyters of the church what he had learned from the
Spirit. The words are as follow: “You will write two books, and give one
to Clement, and one to Grapte. And Grapte shall admonish the widows and
the orphans, and Clement will send to the cities abroad, while you will
announce to the presbyters of the church.”[896] Now Grapte, who
admonishes the widows and the orphans, is the mere letter [of
Scripture], which admonishes those who are yet children in soul, and not
able to call God their Father, and who are on that account styled
orphans,—admonishing, moreover, those who no longer have an unlawful
bridegroom,[897] but who remain widows, because they have not yet become
worthy of the [heavenly] Bridegroom; while Clement, who is already
beyond the letter, is said to send what is written to the cities abroad,
as if we were to call these the “souls,” who are above [the influence
of] bodily [affections] and degraded[898] ideas,—the disciple of the
Spirit himself being enjoined to make known, no longer by letters, but
by living words, to the presbyters of the whole church of God, who have
become grey[899] through wisdom.
FROM THE LATIN.
12. This point, indeed, is not to be passed by without notice, viz. that
there are certain passages of Scripture where this “body,” as we termed
it, _i.e._ this inferential historical sense,[900] is not always found,
as we shall prove to be the case in the following pages, but where that
which we termed “soul” or “spirit” can only be understood. And this, I
think, is indicated in the Gospels, where there are said to be placed,
according to the manner of purification among the Jews, six
water-vessels, containing two or three firkins[901] a-piece; by which,
as I have said, the language of the Gospel seems to indicate, with
respect to those who are secretly called by the apostle “Jews,” that
they are purified by the word of Scripture,—receiving indeed sometimes
two firkins, _i.e._ the understanding of the “soul” or “spirit,”
according to our statement as above; sometimes even three [firkins],
when in the reading [of Scripture] the “bodily” sense, which is the
“historical,” may be preserved for the edification of the people. Now
six water-vessels are appropriately spoken of, with regard to those
persons who are purified by being placed in the world; for we read that
in six days—which is the perfect number—this world and all things in it
were finished. How great, then, is the utility of this first
“historical” sense which we have mentioned, is attested by the multitude
of all believers, who believe with adequate faith and simplicity, and
does not need much argument, because it is openly manifest to all;
whereas of that sense which we have called above the “soul,” as it were,
of Scripture, the Apostle Paul has given us numerous examples in the
first Epistle to the Corinthians. For we find the expression, “Thou
shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn.”[902]
And afterwards, when explaining what precept ought to be understood by
this, he adds the words: “Doth God take care for oxen? or saith He it
altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written; that
he who plougheth should plough in hope, and he that thresheth, in hope
of partaking.”[903] Very many other passages also of this nature, which
are in this way explained of the law, contribute extensive information
to the hearers.
FROM THE GREEK.
12. But as there are certain passages of Scripture which do not at all
contain the “corporeal” sense, as we shall show in the following
[paragraphs], there are also places where we must seek only for the
“soul,” as it were, and “spirit” of Scripture. And perhaps on this
account the water-vessels containing two or three firkins a-piece are
said to lie for the purification of the Jews, as we read in the Gospel
according to John: the expression darkly intimating, with respect to
those who [are called] by the apostle “Jews” secretly, that they are
purified by the word of Scripture, receiving sometimes two firkins,
_i.e._, so to speak, the “psychical” and “spiritual” sense; and
sometimes three firkins, since some have, in addition to those already
mentioned, also the “corporeal” sense, which is capable of [producing]
edification. And six water-vessels are reasonably [appropriate] to those
who are purified in the world, which was made in six days—the perfect
number. That the first “sense,” then, is profitable in this respect,
that it is capable of imparting edification, is testified by the
multitudes of genuine and simple believers; while of that interpretation
which is referred back to the “soul,” there is an illustration in Paul’s
first Epistle to the Corinthians. The expression is, “Thou shalt not
muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn;”[904] to which he
adds, “Doth God take care of oxen? or saith He it altogether for our
sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this was written: that he that plougheth
should plough in hope, and that he who thresheth, in hope of
partaking.”[905] And there are numerous interpretations adapted to the
multitude which are in circulation, and which edify those who are unable
to understand profounder meanings, and which have somewhat the same
character.
FROM THE LATIN.
13. Now a “spiritual” interpretation is of this nature: when one is able
to point out what are the heavenly things of which these serve as the
patterns and shadow, who are Jews “according to the flesh,” and of what
things future the law contains a shadow, and any other expressions of
this kind that may be found in holy Scripture; or when it is a subject
of inquiry, what is that wisdom hidden in a mystery which “God ordained
before the world for our glory, which none of the princes of this world
knew;”[906] or the meaning of the apostle’s language, when, employing
certain illustrations from Exodus or Numbers, he says: “These things
happened to them in a figure,[907] and they are written on our account,
on whom the ends of the ages have come.”[908] Now, an opportunity is
afforded us of understanding of what those things which happened to them
were figures, when he adds: “And they drank of that spiritual rock which
followed them, and that rock was Christ.”[909] In another epistle also,
when referring to the tabernacle, he mentions the direction which was
given to Moses: “Thou shalt make [all things] according to the pattern
which was showed thee in the mount.”[910] And writing to the Galatians,
and upbraiding certain individuals who seem to themselves to read the
law, and yet without understanding it, because of their ignorance of the
fact that an allegorical meaning underlies what is written, he says to
them in a certain tone of rebuke: “Tell me, ye who desire to be under
the law, do ye not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two
sons; the one by a bond maid, the other by a free woman. But he who was
of the bond woman was born according to the flesh; but he of the free
woman was by promise. Which things are an allegory: for these are the
two covenants.”[911] And here this point is to be attended to, viz. the
caution with which the apostle employs the expression, “Ye who are under
the law, do ye not hear the law?” Do ye not _hear_, _i.e._ do ye not
understand and know? In the Epistle to the Colossians, again, briefly
summing up and condensing the meaning of the whole law, he says: “Let no
man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of holy
days, or of the new moon, or of the Sabbath, which are a shadow of
things to come.”[912] Writing to the Hebrews also, and treating of those
who belong to the circumcision, he says: “Those who serve to the example
and shadow of heavenly things.”[913] Now perhaps, through these
illustrations, no doubt will be entertained regarding the five books of
Moses, by those who hold the writings of the apostle, as divinely
inspired. And if they require, with respect to the rest of the history,
that those events which are contained in it should be considered as
having happened for an ensample to those of whom they are written, we
have observed that this also has been stated in the Epistle to the
Romans, where the apostle adduces an instance from the third book of
Kings, saying, “I have left me seven thousand men who have not bowed the
knee to Baal;”[914] which expression Paul understood as figuratively
spoken of those who are called Israelites according to the election, in
order to show that the advent of Christ had not only now been of
advantage to the Gentiles, but that very many even of the race of Israel
had been called to salvation.
FROM THE GREEK.
13. But the interpretation is “spiritual,” when one is able to show of
what heavenly things the Jews “according to the flesh” served as an
example and a shadow, and of what future blessings the law contains a
shadow. And, generally, we must investigate, according to the apostolic
promise, “the wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained
before the world for the glory” of the just, which “none of the princes
of this world knew.”[915] And the same apostle says somewhere, after
referring to certain events mentioned as occurring in Exodus and
Numbers, “that these things happened to them figuratively, but that they
were written on our account, on whom the ends of the world are
come.”[916] And he gives an opportunity for ascertaining of what things
these were patterns, when he says: “For they drank of the spiritual rock
that followed them, and that rock was Christ.”[917] And in another
epistle, when sketching the various matters relating to the tabernacle,
he used the words: “Thou shalt make everything according to the pattern
showed thee in the mount.”[918] Moreover, in the Epistle to the
Galatians, as if upbraiding those who think that they read the law, and
yet do not understand it, judging that those do not understand it who do
not reflect that allegories are contained under what is written, he
says: “Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the
law? For it is written, Abraham had two sons; the one by the bond maid,
the other by the free woman. But he who was by the bond maid was born
according to the flesh; but he of the free woman was by promise. Which
things are an allegory:[919] for these are the two covenants,” and so
on. Now we must carefully observe each word employed by him. He says:
“Ye who desire to be under the law,” not “Ye that are under the law;”
and, “Do ye not _hear_ the law?”—“hearing” being understood to mean
“_comprehending_” and “_knowing_.” And in the Epistle to the Colossians,
briefly abridging the meaning of the whole legislation, he says: “Let no
man therefore judge you in meat, and in drink, or in respect of a
festival, or of a new moon, or of Sabbaths, which are a shadow of things
to come.”[920] Moreover, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, discoursing of
those who belong to the circumcision, he writes: “who serve for an
ensample and shadow of heavenly things.”[921] Now it is probable that,
from these illustrations, those will entertain no doubt with respect to
the five books of Moses, who have once given in their adhesion to the
apostle, as divinely inspired;[922] but do you wish to know, with regard
to the rest of the history, if it also happened as a pattern? We must
note, then, the expression in the Epistle to the Romans, “I have left to
myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to Baal,”[923]
quoted from the third book of Kings, which Paul has understood as
equivalent [in meaning] to those who are Israelites according to
election, because not only were the Gentiles benefited by the advent of
Christ, but also certain of the race of God.[924]
FROM THE LATIN.
14. This being the state of the case, we shall sketch out, as if by way
of illustration and pattern, what may occur to us with regard to the
manner in which Holy Scripture is to be understood on these several
points, repeating in the first instance, and pointing out this fact,
that the Holy Spirit, by the providence and will of God, through the
power of His only-begotten Word, who was in the beginning God with God,
enlightened the ministers of truth, the prophets and apostles, to
understand the mysteries of those things or causes which take place
among men, or with respect to men.[925] And by “men,” I now mean souls
that are placed in bodies, who, relating those mysteries that are known
to them, and revealed through Christ, as if they were a kind of human
transactions, or handing down certain legal observances and injunctions,
described them figuratively;[926] not that any one who pleased might
view these expositions as deserving to be trampled under foot, but that
he who should devote himself with all chastity, and sobriety, and
watchfulness, to studies of this kind, might be able by this means to
trace out the meaning of the Spirit of God, which is perhaps lying
profoundly buried, and the context, which may be pointing again in
another direction than the ordinary usage of speech would indicate. And
in this way he might become a sharer in the knowledge of the Spirit, and
a partaker in the divine counsel, because the soul cannot come to the
perfection of knowledge otherwise than by inspiration of the truth of
the divine wisdom. Accordingly, it is of God, _i.e._ of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, that these men, filled with the
Divine Spirit, chiefly treat; then the mysteries relating to the Son of
God—how the Word became flesh, and why He descended even to the
assumption of the form of a servant—are the subject, as I have said, of
explanation by those persons who are filled with the Divine Spirit. It
next followed, necessarily, that they should instruct mortals by divine
teaching, regarding rational creatures, both those of heaven and the
happier ones of earth; and also [should explain] the differences among
souls, and the origin of these differences; and then should tell what
this world is, and why it was created; whence also sprung the great and
terrible wickedness which extends over the earth. And whether that
wickedness is found on this earth only, or in other places, is a point
which it was necessary for us to learn from divine teaching. Since,
then, it was the intention of the Holy Spirit to enlighten with respect
to these and similar subjects, those holy souls who had devoted
themselves to the service of the truth, this object was kept in view, in
the second place, viz. for the sake of those who either could not or
would not give themselves to this labour and toil by which they might
deserve to be instructed in or to recognise things of such value and
importance, to wrap up and conceal, as we said before, in ordinary
language, under the covering of some history and narrative of visible
things, hidden mysteries. There is therefore introduced the narrative of
the visible creation, and the creation and formation of the first man;
then the offspring which followed from him in succession, and some of
the actions which were done by the good among his posterity, are
related, and occasionally certain crimes also, which are stated to have
been committed by them as being human; and afterwards certain unchaste
or wicked deeds also are narrated as being the acts of the wicked. The
description of battles, moreover, is given in a wonderful manner, and
the alternations of victors and vanquished, by which certain ineffable
mysteries are made known to those who know how to investigate statements
of that kind. By an admirable discipline of wisdom, too, the law of
truth, even of the prophets, is implanted in the Scriptures of the law,
each of which is woven by a divine art of wisdom, as a kind of covering
and veil of spiritual truths; and this is what we have called the “body”
of Scripture, so that also, in this way, what we have called the
covering of the letter, woven by the art of wisdom, might be capable of
edifying and profiting many, when others would derive no benefit.
FROM THE GREEK.
14. This being the state of the case, we have to sketch what seem to us
to be the marks of the [true] understanding of Scriptures. And, in the
first place, this must be pointed out, that the object of the Spirit,
which by the providence of God, through the Word who was in the
beginning with God, illuminated the ministers of truth, the prophets and
apostles, was especially [the communication] of ineffable mysteries
regarding the affairs of men (now by men I mean those souls that make
use of bodies), in order that he who is capable of instruction may by
investigation, and by devoting himself to the study of the profundities
of meaning contained in the words, become a participator of all the
doctrines of his counsel. And among those matters which relate to souls
(who cannot otherwise obtain perfection apart from the rich and wise
truth of God), the [doctrines] belonging to God and His only-begotten
Son are necessarily laid down as primary, viz. of what nature He is, and
in what manner He is the Son of God, and what are the causes of His
descending even to [the assumption of] human flesh, and of complete
humanity; and what, also, is the operation of this [Son], and upon whom
and when exercised. And it was necessary also that the subject of
kindred beings, and other rational creatures, both those who are divine
and those who have fallen from blessedness, together with the reasons of
their fall, should be contained in the divine teaching; and also that of
the diversities of souls, and of the origin of these diversities, and of
the nature of the world, and the cause of its existence. We must learn
also the origin of the great and terrible wickedness which overspreads
the earth, and whether it is confined to this earth only, or prevails
elsewhere. Now, while these and similar objects were present to the
Spirit, who enlightened the souls of the holy ministers of the truth,
there was a second object, for the sake of those who were unable to
endure the fatigue of investigating matters so important, viz. to
conceal the doctrine relating to the previously mentioned subjects, in
expressions containing a narrative which conveyed an announcement
regarding the things of the visible creation,[927] the creation of man,
and the successive descendants of the first men until they became
numerous; and other histories relating the acts of just men, and the
sins occasionally committed by these same men as being human beings, and
the wicked deeds, both of unchastity and vice, committed by sinful and
ungodly men. And what is most remarkable, by the history of wars, and of
the victors, and the vanquished, certain mysteries are indicated to
those who are able to test these statements. And more wonderful still,
the laws of truth are predicted by the written legislation;—all these
being described in a connected series, with a power which is truly in
keeping with the wisdom of God. For it was intended that the covering
also of the spiritual truths—I mean the “bodily” part of
Scripture—should not be without profit in many cases, but should be
capable of improving the multitude, according to their capacity.
FROM THE LATIN.
15. But as if, in all the instances of this covering (_i.e._ of this
history), the logical connection and order of the law had been
preserved, we would not certainly believe, when thus possessing the
meaning of Scripture in a continuous series, that anything else was
contained in it save what was indicated on the surface; so for that
reason divine wisdom took care that certain stumbling-blocks, or
interruptions,[928] to the historical meaning should take place, by the
introduction into the midst [of the narrative] of certain
impossibilities and incongruities; that in this way the very
interruption of the narrative might, as by the interposition of a bolt,
present an obstacle to the reader, whereby he might refuse to
acknowledge the way which conducts to the ordinary meaning; and being
thus excluded and debarred from it, we might be recalled to the
beginning of another way, in order that, by entering upon a narrow path,
and passing to a loftier and more sublime road, he might lay open the
immense breadth of divine wisdom.[929] This, however, must not be
unnoted by us, that as the chief object of the Holy Spirit is to
preserve the coherence of the spiritual meaning, either in those things
which ought to be done or which have been already performed, if He
anywhere finds that those events which, according to the history, took
place, can be adapted to a spiritual meaning, He composed a texture of
both kinds in one style of narration, always concealing the hidden
meaning more deeply; but where the historical narrative could not be
made appropriate to the spiritual coherence of the occurrences, He
inserted sometimes certain things which either did not take place or
could not take place; sometimes also what might happen, but what did
not: and He does this at one time in a few words, which, taken in their
“bodily” meaning, seem incapable of containing truth, and at another by
the insertion of many. And this we find frequently to be the case in the
legislative portions, where there are many things manifestly useful
among the “bodily” precepts, but a very great number also in which no
principle of utility is at all discernible, and sometimes even things
which are judged to be impossibilities. Now all this, as we have
remarked, was done by the Holy Spirit in order that, seeing those events
which lie on the surface can be neither true nor useful, we may be led
to the investigation of that truth which is more deeply concealed, and
to the ascertaining of a meaning worthy of God in those Scriptures which
we believe to be inspired by Him.
FROM THE GREEK.
15. But since, if the usefulness of the legislation, and the sequence
and beauty[930] of the history, were universally evident of itself,[931]
we should not believe that any other thing could be understood in the
Scriptures save what was obvious, the word of God has arranged that
certain stumbling-blocks, as it were, and offences, and impossibilities,
should be introduced into the midst of the law and the history, in order
that we may not, through being drawn away in all directions by the
merely attractive nature of the language,[932] either altogether fall
away from the [true] doctrines, as learning nothing worthy of God, or,
by not departing from the letter, come to the knowledge of nothing more
divine. And this also we must know, that the principal aim being to
announce the “spiritual” connection in those things that are done, and
that ought to be done, where the Word found that things done according
to the history could be adapted to these mystical senses, He made use of
them, concealing from the multitude the deeper meaning; but where, in
the narrative of the development of super-sensual things,[933] there did
not follow the performance of those certain events, which was already
indicated by the mystical meaning, the Scripture interwove in the
history [the account of] some event that did not take place, sometimes
what could not have happened; sometimes what could, but did not. And
sometimes a few words are interpolated which are not true in their
literal acceptation,[934] and sometimes a larger number. And a similar
practice also is to be noticed with regard to the legislation, in which
is often to be found what is useful in itself, and appropriate to the
times of the legislation; and sometimes also what does not appear to be
of utility; and at other times impossibilities are recorded for the sake
of the more skilful and inquisitive, in order that they may give
themselves to the toil of investigating what is written, and thus attain
to a becoming conviction of the manner in which a meaning worthy of God
must be sought out in such subjects.
FROM THE LATIN.
16. Nor was it only with regard to those Scriptures which were composed
down to the advent of Christ that the Holy Spirit thus dealt; but as
being one and the same Spirit, and proceeding from one God, He dealt in
the same way with the evangelists and apostles. For even those
narratives which He inspired them to write were not composed without the
aid of that wisdom of His, the nature of which we have above explained.
Whence also in them were intermingled not a few things by which, the
historical order of the narrative being interrupted and broken up, the
attention of the reader might be recalled, by the impossibility of the
case, to an examination of the inner meaning. But, that our meaning may
be ascertained by the facts themselves, let us examine the passages of
Scripture. Now who is there, pray, possessed of understanding, that will
regard the statement as appropriate,[935] that the first day, and the
second, and the third, in which also both evening and morning are
mentioned, existed without sun, and moon, and stars—the first day even
without a sky? And who is found so ignorant as to suppose that God, as
if He had been a husbandman, planted trees in paradise, in Eden towards
the east, and a tree of life in it, _i.e._ a visible and palpable tree
of wood,[936] so that any one eating of it with bodily teeth should
obtain life, and, eating again of another tree, should come to the
knowledge of good and evil? No one, I think, can doubt that the
statement that God walked in the afternoon in paradise, and that Adam
lay hid under a tree, is related figuratively in Scripture, that some
mystical meaning may be indicated by it. The departure of Cain from the
presence of the Lord will manifestly cause a careful reader to inquire
what is the presence of God, and how any one can go out from it. But not
to extend the task which we have before us beyond its due limits, it is
very easy for any one who pleases to gather out of holy Scripture what
is recorded indeed as having been done, but what nevertheless cannot be
believed as having reasonably and appropriately occurred according to
the historical account. The same style of scriptural narrative occurs
abundantly in the Gospels, as when the devil is said to have placed
Jesus on a lofty mountain, that he might show Him from thence all the
kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them. How could it literally
come to pass, either that Jesus should be led up by the devil into a
high mountain, or that the latter should show Him all the kingdoms of
the world (as if they were lying beneath his bodily eyes, and adjacent
to one mountain), _i.e._ the kingdom of the Persians, and Scythians, and
Indians? or how could he show in what manner the kings of these kingdoms
are glorified by men? And many other instances similar to this will be
found in the Gospels by any one who will read them with attention, and
will observe that in those narratives which appear to be literally
recorded, there are inserted and interwoven things which cannot be
admitted historically, but which may be accepted in a spiritual
signification.
FROM THE GREEK.
16. It was not only, however, with the [Scriptures composed] before the
advent [of Christ] that the Spirit thus dealt; but as being the same
Spirit, and [proceeding] from the one God, He did the same thing both
with the evangelists and the apostles,—as even these do not contain
throughout a pure history of events, which are interwoven indeed
according to the letter, but which did not actually occur.[937] Nor even
do the law and the commandments wholly convey what is agreeable to
reason. For who that has understanding will suppose that the first, and
second, and third day, and the evening and the morning, existed without
a sun, and moon, and stars? and that the first day was, as it were, also
without a sky? And who is so foolish as to suppose that God, after the
manner of a husbandman, planted a paradise in Eden, towards the east,
and placed in it a tree of life, visible and palpable, so that one
tasting of the fruit by the bodily teeth obtained life? and again, that
one was a partaker of good and evil by masticating what was taken from
the tree? And if God is said to walk in the paradise in the evening, and
Adam to hide himself under a tree, I do not suppose that any one doubts
that these things figuratively indicate certain mysteries, the history
having taken place in appearance, and not literally.[938] Cain also,
when going forth from the presence of God, certainly appears to
thoughtful men as likely to lead the reader to inquire what is the
presence of God, and what is the meaning of going out from Him. And what
need is there to say more, since those who are not altogether blind can
collect countless instances of a similar kind recorded as having
occurred, but which did not literally[939] take place? Nay, the Gospels
themselves are filled with the same kind of narratives; _e.g._ the devil
leading Jesus up into a high mountain, in order to show Him from thence
the kingdoms of the whole world, and the glory of them. For who is there
among those who do not read such accounts carelessly, that would not
condemn those who think that with the eye of the body—which requires a
lofty height in order that the parts lying [immediately] under and
adjacent may be seen—the kingdoms of the Persians, and Scythians, and
Indians, and Parthians, were beheld, and the manner in which their
princes are glorified among men? And the attentive reader may notice in
the Gospels innumerable other passages like these, so that he will be
convinced that in the histories that are literally recorded,
circumstances that did not occur are inserted.
FROM THE LATIN.
17. In the passages containing the commandments also, similar things are
found. For in the law Moses is commanded to destroy every male that is
not circumcised on the eighth day, which is exceedingly
incongruous,[940] since it would be necessary, if it were related that
the law was executed according to the history, to command those parents
to be punished who did not circumcise their children, and also those who
were the nurses of little children. The declaration of Scripture now is,
“The uncircumcised male, _i.e._ who shall not have been circumcised,
shall be cut off from his people.”[941] And if we are to inquire
regarding the impossibilities of the law, we find an animal called the
goat-stag,[942] which cannot possibly exist, but which, as being in the
number of clean beasts, Moses commands to be eaten; and a griffin,[943]
which no one ever remembers or heard of as yielding to human power, but
which the legislator forbids to be used for food. Respecting the
celebrated[944] observance of the Sabbath also he thus speaks: “Ye shall
sit, every one in your dwellings; no one shall move from his place on
the Sabbath-day.”[945] Which precept it is impossible to observe
literally; for no man can sit a whole day so as not to move from the
place where he sat down. With respect to each one of these points now,
those who belong to the circumcision, and all who would have no more
meaning to be found in sacred Scripture than what is indicated by the
letter, consider that there should be no investigation regarding the
goat-stag, and the griffin, and the vulture; and they invent some empty
and trifling tales about the Sabbath, drawn from some traditional
sources or other, alleging that every one’s place is computed to him
within two thousand cubits.[946] Others, again, among whom is Dositheus
the Samaritan, censure indeed expositions of this kind, but themselves
lay down something more ridiculous, viz. that each one must remain until
the evening in the posture, place, or position in which he found himself
on the Sabbath-day; _i.e._ if found sitting, he is to sit the whole day,
or if reclining, he is to recline the whole day. Moreover, the
injunction which runs, “Bear no burden on the Sabbath-day,”[947] seems
to me an impossibility. For the Jewish doctors, in consequence of these
[prescriptions], have betaken themselves, as the holy apostle says, to
innumerable fables, saying that it is not accounted a burden if a man
wear shoes without nails, but that it is a burden if shoes with nails be
worn; and that if it be carried on one shoulder, they consider it a
burden; but if on both, they declare it to be none.
FROM THE GREEK.
17. And if we come to the legislation of Moses, many of the laws
manifest the irrationality, and others the impossibility, of their
literal[948] observance. The irrationality [in this], that the people
are forbidden to eat vultures, although no one even in the direst
famines was [ever] driven by want to have recourse to this bird; and
that children eight days old, which are uncircumcised, are ordered to be
exterminated from among their people, it being necessary, if the law
were to be carried out at all literally with regard to these, that their
fathers, or those with whom they are brought up, should be commanded to
be put to death. Now the Scripture says: “Every male that is
uncircumcised, who shall not be circumcised on the eighth day, shall be
cut off from among his people.”[949] And if you wish to see
impossibilities contained in the legislation, let us observe that the
goat-stag is one of those animals that cannot exist, and yet Moses
commands us to offer it as being a clean beast; whereas a griffin, which
is not recorded ever to have been subdued by man, the lawgiver forbids
to be eaten. Nay, he who carefully considers [the famous injunction
relating to] the Sabbath, “Ye shall sit each one in your dwellings; let
no one go out from his place on the seventh day,”[950] will deem it
impossible to be literally observed: for no living being is able to sit
throughout a whole day, and remain without moving from a sitting
position. And therefore those who belong to the circumcision, and all
who desire that no meaning should be exhibited, save the literal one, do
not investigate at all such subjects as those of the goat-stag and
griffin and vulture, but indulge in foolish talk on certain points,
multiplying words and adducing tasteless[951] traditions; as, for
example, with regard to the Sabbath, saying that two thousand cubits is
each one’s limit.[952] Others, again, among whom is Dositheus the
Samaritan, condemning such an interpretation, think that in the position
in which a man is found on the Sabbath-day, he is to remain until
evening. Moreover, the not carrying of a burden on the Sabbath-day is an
impossibility; and therefore the Jewish teachers have fallen into
countless absurdities,[953] saying that a shoe of such a kind was a
burden, but not one of another kind; and that a sandal which had nails
was a burden, but not one that was without them; and in like manner what
was borne on one shoulder [was a load], but not that which was carried
on both.
FROM THE LATIN.
18. And now, if we institute a similar examination with regard to the
Gospels, how shall it appear otherwise than absurd to take the
injunction literally, “Salute no man by the way?”[954] And yet there are
simple individuals, who think that our Saviour gave this command to His
apostles! How, also, can it appear possible for such an order as this to
be observed, especially in those countries where there is a rigorous
winter, attended by frost and ice, viz. that one should possess “neither
two coats, nor shoes?”[955] And this, that when one is smitten on the
right cheek, he is ordered to present the left also, since every one who
strikes with the _right_ hand smites the _left_ cheek? This precept also
in the Gospels must be accounted among impossibilities, viz. that if the
right eye “offend” thee, it is to be plucked out; for even if we were to
suppose that bodily eyes were spoken of, how shall it appear
appropriate, that when both eyes have the property of sight, the
responsibility of the “offence” should be transferred to one eye, and
that the right one? Or who shall be considered free of a crime of the
greatest enormity, that lays hands upon himself? But perhaps the
epistles of the Apostle Paul will appear to be beyond this. For what is
his meaning, when he says, “Is any man called, being circumcised? Let
him not become uncircumcised.”[956] This expression indeed, in the first
place, does not on careful consideration seem to be spoken with
reference to the subject of which he was treating at the time, for this
discourse consisted of injunctions relating to marriage and to chastity;
and these words, therefore, will have the appearance of an unnecessary
addition to such a subject. In the second place, however, what objection
would there be, if, for the sake of avoiding that unseemliness which is
caused by circumcision, a man were able to become uncircumcised?[957]
And, in the third place, that is altogether impossible.
The object of all these statements on our part, is to show that it was
the design of the Holy Spirit, who deigned to bestow upon us the sacred
Scriptures, to show that we were not to be edified by the letter alone,
or by everything in it,—a thing which we see to be frequently impossible
and inconsistent; for in that way not only absurdities, but
impossibilities, would be the result; but that we are to understand that
certain occurrences were interwoven in this “visible” history, which,
when considered and understood in their inner meaning, give forth a law
which is advantageous to men and worthy of God.
FROM THE GREEK.
18. And if we go to the Gospel and institute a similar examination, what
would be more irrational than [to take literally the injunction],
“Salute no man by the way,”[958] which simple persons think the Saviour
enjoined on the apostles? The command, moreover, that the right cheek
should be smitten, is most incredible, since every one who strikes,
unless he happen to have some bodily defect,[959] smites the _left_
cheek with his _right_ hand. And it is impossible to take [literally,
the statement] in the Gospel about the “offending” of the right eye.
For, to grant the possibility of one being “offended” by the sense of
sight, how, when there are two eyes that see, should the blame be laid
upon the right eye? And who is there that, condemning himself for having
looked upon a woman to lust after her, would rationally transfer the
blame to the right eye alone, and throw _it_ away? The apostle,
moreover, lays down the law, saying, “Is any man called, being
circumcised? Let him not become uncircumcised.”[960] In the first place,
any one will see that he does not utter these words in connection with
the subject before him. For, when laying down precepts on marriage and
purity, how will it not appear that he has introduced these words at
random?[961] But, in the second place, who will say that a man does
wrong who endeavours to become uncircumcised, if that be possible, on
account of the disgrace that is considered by the multitude to attach to
circumcision?
All these statements have been made by us, in order to show that the
design of that divine power which gave us the sacred Scriptures is, that
we should not receive what is presented by the letter alone (such things
being sometimes not true in their literal acceptation, but absurd and
impossible), but that certain things have been introduced into the
actual history and into the legislation that are useful in their literal
sense.[962]
FROM THE LATIN.
19. Let no one, however, entertain the suspicion that we do not believe
any history in Scripture to be real, because we suspect certain events
related in it not to have taken place; or that no precepts of the law
are to be taken literally, because we consider certain of them, in which
either the nature or possibility of the case so requires, incapable of
being observed; or that we do not believe those predictions which were
written of the Saviour to have been fulfilled in a manner palpable to
the senses; or that His commandments are not to be literally obeyed. We
have therefore to state in answer, since we are manifestly so of
opinion, that the truth of the history may and ought to be preserved in
the majority of instances. For who can deny that Abraham was buried in
the double cave[963] at Hebron, as well as Isaac and Jacob, and each of
their wives? Or who doubts that Shechem was given as a portion to
Joseph?[964] or that Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, on which the
temple of God was built by Solomon?—and countless other statements. For
the passages which hold good in their historical acceptation are much
more numerous than those which contain a purely spiritual meaning. Then,
again, who would not maintain that the command to “honour thy father and
thy mother, that it may be well with thee,”[965] is sufficient of itself
without any spiritual meaning, and necessary for those who observe it?
especially when Paul also has confirmed the command by repeating it in
the same words. And what need is there to speak of the prohibitions,
“Thou shalt not commit adultery,” “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt
not bear false witness,”[966] and others of the same kind? And with
respect to the precepts enjoined in the Gospels, no doubt can be
entertained that very many of these are to be literally observed, as
_e.g._ when our Lord says, “But I say unto you, Swear not at all;”[967]
and when He says, “Whosoever looketh upon a woman to lust after her,
hath committed adultery with her already in his heart;”[968] the
admonitions also which are found in the writings of the Apostle Paul,
“Warn them that are unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak,
be patient towards all men,”[969] and very many others. And yet I have
no doubt that an attentive reader will, in numerous instances, hesitate
whether this or that history can be considered to be literally true or
not; or whether this or that precept ought to be observed according to
the letter or no. And therefore great pains and labour are to be
employed, until every reader reverentially understand that he is dealing
with divine and not human words inserted in the sacred books.
FROM THE GREEK.
19. But that no one may suppose that we assert respecting the whole that
no history is real[970] because a certain one is not; and that no law is
to be literally observed, because a certain one, [understood] according
to the letter, is absurd or impossible; or that the statements regarding
the Saviour are not true in a manner perceptible to the senses;[971] or
that no commandment and precept of his ought to be obeyed;—we have to
answer that, with regard to certain things, it is perfectly clear to us
that the historical account is true; as that Abraham was buried in the
double cave at Hebron, as also Isaac and Jacob, and the wives of each of
them; and that Shechem was given as a portion to Joseph;[972] and that
Jerusalem is the metropolis of Judea, in which the temple of God was
built by Solomon; and innumerable other statements. For the passages
that are true in their historical meaning are much more numerous than
those which are interspersed with a purely spiritual signification. And
again, who would not say that the command which enjoins to “honour thy
father and thy mother, that it may be well with thee,”[973] is useful,
apart from all allegorical meaning,[974] and ought to be observed, the
Apostle Paul also having employed these very same words? And what need
is there to speak of the [prohibitions], “Thou shalt not commit
adultery,” “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not steal,” “Thou shalt
not bear false witness?”[975] And again, there are commandments
contained in the Gospel which admit of no doubt whether they are to be
observed according to the letter or not; _e.g._ that which says, “But I
say unto you, Whoever is angry with his brother,”[976] and so on. And
again, “But I say unto you, Swear not at all.”[977] And in the writings
of the apostle the literal sense is to be retained: “Warn them that are
unruly, comfort the feeble-minded, support the weak, be patient towards
all men;”[978] although it is possible for those ambitious of a deeper
meaning to retain the profundities of the wisdom of God, without setting
aside the commandment in its literal meaning.[979] The careful [reader],
however, will be in doubt[980] as to certain points, being unable to
show without long investigation whether this history so deemed literally
occurred or not, and whether the literal meaning of this law is to be
observed or not. And therefore the exact reader must, in obedience to
the Saviour’s injunction to “search the Scriptures,”[981] carefully
ascertain in how far the literal meaning is true, and in how far
impossible; and so far as he can, trace out, by means of similar
statements, the meaning everywhere scattered through Scripture of that
which cannot be understood in a literal signification.
FROM THE LATIN.
20. The understanding, therefore, of holy Scripture which we consider
ought to be deservedly and consistently maintained, is of the following
kind. A certain nation is declared by holy Scripture to have been chosen
by God upon the earth, which nation has received several names: for
sometimes the whole of it is termed Israel, and sometimes Jacob; and it
was divided by Jeroboam son of Nebat into two portions; and the ten
tribes which were formed under him were called Israel, while the two
remaining ones (with which were united the tribe of Levi, and that which
was descended from the royal race of David) was named Judah. Now the
whole of the country possessed by that nation, which it had received
from God, was called Judea, in which was situated the metropolis,
Jerusalem; and it is called metropolis, being as it were the mother of
many cities, the names of which you will frequently find mentioned here
and there in the other books of Scripture, but which are collected
together into one catalogue in the book of Joshua the son of Nun.[982]
FROM THE GREEK.
20. Since, therefore, as will be clear to those who read, the connection
taken literally is impossible, while the sense preferred[983] is not
impossible, but even the true one, it must be our object to grasp the
whole meaning, which connects the account of what is literally
impossible in an intelligible manner with what is not only not
impossible, but also historically true, and which is allegorically
understood, in respect of its not having literally occurred.[984] For,
with respect to holy Scripture, our opinion is that the whole of it has
a “spiritual,” but not the whole a “bodily” meaning, because the bodily
meaning is in many places proved to be impossible. And therefore great
attention must be bestowed by the cautious reader on the divine books,
as being divine writings; the manner of understanding which appears to
us to be as follows:—The Scriptures relate that God chose a certain
nation upon the earth, which they call by several names. For the whole
of this nation is termed Israel, and also Jacob. And when it was divided
in the times of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, the ten tribes related as
being subject to him were called Israel; and the remaining two, along
with the tribe of Levi, being ruled over by the descendants of David,
were named Judah. And the whole of the territory which the people of
this nation inhabited, being given them by God, receives the name of
Judah, the metropolis of which is Jerusalem,—a metropolis, namely, of
numerous cities, the names of which lie scattered about in many other
passages [of Scripture], but are enumerated together in the book of
Joshua the son of Nun.[985]
FROM THE LATIN.
21. This, then, being the state of the case, the holy apostle desiring
to elevate in some degree, and to raise our understanding above the
earth, says in a certain place, “Behold Israel after the flesh;”[986] by
which he certainly means that there is another Israel which is not
according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit. And again in
another passage, “For they are not all Israelites who are of
Israel.”[987]
FROM THE GREEK.
21. Such, then, being the state of the case, the apostle, elevating our
power of discernment [above the letter], says somewhere, “Behold Israel
after the flesh,”[988] as if there were an Israel “according to the
Spirit.” And in another place he says, “For they who are the children of
the flesh are not the children of God;” nor are “they all Israel who are
of Israel;”[989] nor is “he a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is that
‘circumcision’ which is outward in the flesh: but he is a Jew who is one
‘inwardly;’ and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and
not in the letter.”[990] For if the judgment respecting the “Jew
inwardly” be adopted, we must understand that, as there is a “bodily”
race of Jews, so also is there a race of “Jews inwardly,” the soul
having acquired this nobility for certain mysterious reasons. Moreover,
there are many prophecies which predict regarding Israel and Judah what
is about to befall them. And do not such promises as are written
concerning them, in respect of their being mean in expression, and
manifesting no elevation [of thought], nor anything worthy of the
promise of God, need a mystical interpretation? And if the “spiritual”
promises are announced by visible signs, then they to whom the promises
are made are not “corporeal.” And not to linger over the point of the
Jew who is a Jew “inwardly,” nor over that of the Israelite according to
the “inner man”—these statements being sufficient for those who are not
devoid of understanding—we return to our subject, and say that Jacob is
the father of the twelve patriarchs, and they of the rulers of the
people; and these, again, of the other Israelites. Do not, then, the
“corporeal” Israelites refer their descent to the rulers of the people,
and the rulers of the people to the patriarchs, and the patriarchs to
Jacob, and those still higher up; while are not the “spiritual”
Israelites, of whom the “corporeal” Israelites were the type, sprung
from the families, and the families from the tribes, and the tribes from
some one individual whose descent is not of a “corporeal” but of a
better kind,—he, too, being born of Isaac, and he of Abraham,—all going
back to Adam, whom the apostle declares to be Christ? For every
beginning of those families which have relation to God as to the Father
of all, took its commencement lower down with Christ, who is next to the
God and Father of all,[991] being thus the Father of every soul, as Adam
is the father of all men. And if Eve also is intended by the apostle to
refer to the church, it is not surprising that Cain, who was born of
Eve, and all after him, whose descent goes back to Eve, should be types
of the church, inasmuch as in a pre-eminent sense they are all descended
from the church.
FROM THE LATIN.
22. Being taught, then, by him that there is one Israel according to the
flesh, and another according to the Spirit, when the Saviour says, “I am
not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,”[992] we do not
understand these words as those do who savour of earthly things, _i.e._
the Ebionites, who derive the appellation of “poor” from their very name
(for “Ebion” means “poor” in Hebrew[993]); but we understand that there
exists a race of souls which is termed “Israel,” as is indicated by the
interpretation of the name itself: for Israel is interpreted to mean a
“mind,” or “man seeing God.” The apostle, again, makes a similar
revelation respecting Jerusalem, saying, “The Jerusalem which is above
is free, which is the mother of us all.”[994] And in another of his
epistles he says: “But ye are come unto mount Zion, and to the city of
the living God, and to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable
company of angels, and to the church of the first-born which is written
in heaven.”[995] If, then, there are certain souls in this world who are
called Israel, and a city in heaven which is called Jerusalem, it
follows that those cities which are said to belong to the nation of
Israel have the heavenly Jerusalem as their metropolis; and that,
agreeably to this, we understand as referring to the whole of Judah (of
which also we are of opinion that the prophets have spoken in certain
mystical narratives), any predictions delivered either regarding Judea
or Jerusalem, or invasions of any kind, which the sacred histories
declare to have happened to Judea or Jerusalem. Whatever, then, is
either narrated or predicted of Jerusalem, must, if we accept the words
of Paul as those of Christ speaking in him, be understood as spoken in
conformity with his opinion regarding that city which he calls the
heavenly Jerusalem, and all those places or cities which are said to be
cities of the holy land, of which Jerusalem is the metropolis. For we
are to suppose that it is from these very cities that the Saviour,
wishing to raise us to a higher grade of intelligence, promises to those
who have well managed the money entrusted to them by Himself, that they
are to have power over ten or five cities. If, then, the prophecies
delivered concerning Judea, and Jerusalem, and Judah, and Israel, and
Jacob, not being understood by us in a carnal sense, signify certain
divine mysteries, it certainly follows that those prophecies also which
were delivered either concerning Egypt, or the Egyptians, or Babylonia
and the Babylonians, and Sidon and the Sidonians, are not to be
understood as spoken of that Egypt which is situated on the earth, or of
the earthly Babylon, Tyre, or Sidon. Nor can those predictions which the
prophet Ezekiel delivered concerning Pharaoh king of Egypt, apply to any
man who may seem to have reigned over Egypt, as the nature of the
passage itself declares. In a similar manner also, what is spoken of the
prince of Tyre cannot be understood of any man or king of Tyre. And how
could we possibly accept, as spoken of a man, what is related in many
passages of Scripture, and especially in Isaiah, regarding
Nebuchadnezzar? For he is not a man who is said to have “fallen from
heaven,” or who was “Lucifer,” or who “arose in the morning.” But with
respect to those predictions which are found in Ezekiel concerning
Egypt, such as that it is to be destroyed in forty years, so that the
foot of man should not be found within it, and that it should suffer
such devastation, that throughout the whole land the blood of men should
rise to the knees, I do not know that any one possessed of understanding
could refer this to that earthly Egypt which adjoins Ethiopia. But let
us see whether it may not be understood more fittingly in the following
manner: viz. that as there is a heavenly Jerusalem and Judea, and a
nation undoubtedly which inhabits it, and is named Israel; so also it is
possible that there are certain localities near to these which may seem
to be called either Egypt, or Babylon, or Tyre, or Sidon, and that the
princes of these places, and the souls, if there be any, that inhabit
them, are called Egyptians, Babylonians, Tyrians, and Sidonians. From
whom also, according to the mode of life which they lead there, a sort
of captivity would seem to result, in consequence of which they are said
to have fallen from Judea into Babylonia or Egypt, from a higher and
better condition, or to have been scattered into other countries.
FROM THE GREEK.
22. Now, if the statements made to us regarding Israel, and its tribes
and its families, are calculated to impress us, when the Saviour says,
“I was not sent but to the lost sheep of the house of Israel,”[996] we
do not understand the expression as the Ebionites do, who are poor in
understanding (deriving their name from the poverty of their
intellect—Ebion signifying “poor” in Hebrew), so as to suppose that the
Saviour came specially to the “carnal” Israelites; for “they who are the
children of the flesh are not the children of God.”[997] Again, the
apostle teaches regarding Jerusalem as follows: “The Jerusalem which is
above is free, which is the mother of us all.”[998] And in another
epistle: “But ye are come unto mount Zion, and to the city of the living
God, to the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
to the general assembly and to the church of the first-born which are
written in heaven.”[999] If, then, Israel is among the race of
souls,[1000] and if there is in heaven a city of Jerusalem, it follows
that the cities of Israel have for their metropolis the heavenly
Jerusalem, and it consequently is the metropolis of all Judea. Whatever,
therefore, is predicted of Jerusalem, and spoken of it, if we listen to
the words of Paul as those of God, and of one who utters wisdom, we must
understand the Scriptures as speaking of the heavenly city, and of the
whole territory included within the cities of the holy land. For perhaps
it is to these cities that the Saviour refers us, when to those who have
gained credit by having managed their “pounds” well, He assigns the
presidency over five or ten cities. If, therefore, the prophecies
relating to Judea, and Jerusalem, and Israel, and Judah, and Jacob, not
being understood by us in a “carnal” sense, indicate some such mysteries
[as already mentioned], it will follow also that the predictions
concerning Egypt and the Egyptians, Babylon and the Babylonians, Tyre
and the Tyrians, Sidon and the Sidonians, or the other nations, are
spoken not only of these “bodily” Egyptians, and Babylonians, and
Tyrians, and Sidonians, but also of their “spiritual” [counterparts].
For if there be “spiritual” Israelites, it follows that there are also
“spiritual” Egyptians and Babylonians. For what is related in Ezekiel
concerning Pharaoh king of Egypt does not at all apply to the case of a
certain man who ruled or was said to rule over Egypt, as will be evident
to those who give it careful consideration. Similarly, what is said
about the ruler of Tyre cannot be understood of a certain man who ruled
over Tyre. And what is said in many places, and especially in Isaiah, of
Nebuchadnezzar, cannot be explained of that individual. For the man
Nebuchadnezzar neither fell from heaven, nor was he the morning star,
nor did he arise upon the earth in the morning. Nor would any man of
understanding interpret what is said in Ezekiel about Egypt—viz. that in
forty years it should be laid desolate, so that the footstep of man
should not be found thereon, and that the ravages of war should be so
great that the blood should run throughout the whole of it, and rise to
the knees—of that Egypt which is situated beside the Ethiopians whose
bodies are blackened by the sun.
FROM THE LATIN.
23. For perhaps as those who, departing this world in virtue of that
death which is common to all, are arranged, in conformity with their
actions and deserts—according as they shall be deemed worthy—some in the
place which is called “hell,”[1001] others in the bosom of Abraham, and
in different localities or mansions; so also from those places, as if
dying there, if the expression can be used,[1002] do they come down from
the “upper world”[1003] to this “hell.” For that “hell” to which the
souls of the dead are conducted from this world, is, I believe, on
account of this distinction, called the “lower hell” by Scripture, as is
said in the book of Psalms: “Thou hast delivered my soul from the lowest
hell.”[1004] Every one, accordingly, of those who descend to the earth
is, according to his deserts, or agreeably to the position which he
occupied there, ordained to be born in this world, in a different
country, or among a different nation, or in a different mode of life, or
surrounded by infirmities of a different kind, or to be descended from
religious parents, or parents who are not religious; so that it may
sometimes happen that an Israelite descends among the Scythians, and a
poor Egyptian is brought down to Judea. And yet our Saviour came to
gather together the lost sheep of the house of Israel; and as many of
the Israelites did not accept His teaching, those who belonged to the
Gentiles were called. From which it will appear to follow, that those
prophecies which are delivered to the individual nations ought to be
referred rather to the souls, and to their different heavenly mansions.
Nay, the narratives of the events which are said to have happened either
to the nation of Israel, or to Jerusalem, or to Judea, when assailed by
this or that nation, cannot in many instances be understood as having
actually[1005] occurred, and are much more appropriate to those nations
of souls who inhabit that heaven which is said to pass away, or who even
now are supposed to be inhabitants of it.
If now any one demand of us clear and distinct declarations on these
points out of holy Scripture, we must answer that it was the design of
the Holy Spirit, in those portions which appear to relate the history of
events, rather to cover and conceal the meaning: in those passages,
_e.g._, where they are said to go down into Egypt, or to be carried
captive to Babylonia, or when in these very countries some are said to
be brought to excessive humiliation, and to be placed under bondage to
their masters; while others, again, in these very countries of their
captivity, were held in honour and esteem, so as to occupy positions of
rank and power, and were appointed to the government of provinces;—all
which things, as we have said, are kept hidden and covered in the
narratives of holy Scripture, because “the kingdom of heaven is like a
treasure hid in a field; which when a man findeth, he hideth it, and for
joy thereof goeth away and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that
field.”[1006] By which similitude, consider whether it be not pointed
out that the very soil and surface, so to speak, of Scripture—that is,
the literal meaning—is the field, filled with plants and flowers of all
kinds; while that deeper and profounder “spiritual” meaning are the very
hidden treasures of wisdom and knowledge which the Holy Spirit by Isaiah
calls the dark and invisible and hidden treasures, for the finding out
of which the divine help is required: for God alone can burst the brazen
gates by which they are enclosed and concealed, and break in pieces the
iron bolts and levers by which access is prevented to all those things
which are written and concealed in Genesis respecting the different
kinds of souls, and of those seeds and generations which either have a
close connection with Israel[1007] or are widely separated from his
descendants; as well as what is that descent of seventy souls into
Egypt, which seventy souls became in that land as the stars of heaven in
multitude. But as not all of them were the light of this world—“for all
who are of Israel are not Israel”[1008]—they grow from being seventy
souls to be an important people,[1009] and as the “sand by the sea-shore
innumerable.”
FROM THE GREEK.
23. And perhaps as those here, dying according to the death common to
all, are, in consequence of the deeds done here, so arranged as to
obtain different places according to the proportion of their sins, if
they should be deemed worthy of the place called Hades;[1010] so those
there dying, so to speak, descend into this Hades, being judged
deserving of different abodes—better or worse—throughout all this space
of earth, and [of being descended] from parents of different
kinds,[1011] so that an Israelite may sometimes fall among Scythians,
and an Egyptian descend into Judea. And yet the Saviour came to gather
together the lost sheep of the house of Israel; but many of the
Israelites not having yielded to His teaching, those from the Gentiles
were called.... And these points, as we suppose, have been concealed in
the histories. For “the kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hid in a
field; the which when a man hath found, he hideth, and for joy thereof
goeth and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field.”[1012] Let us
notice, then, whether the apparent and superficial and obvious meaning
of Scripture does not resemble a field filled with plants of every kind,
while the things lying in it, and not visible to all, but buried, as it
were, under the plants that are seen, are the hidden treasures of wisdom
and knowledge; which the Spirit through Isaiah[1013] calls dark and
invisible and concealed, God alone being able to break the brazen gates
that conceal them, and to burst the iron bars that are upon the gates,
in order that all the statements in the book of Genesis may be
discovered which refer to the various genuine kinds, and seeds, as it
were, of souls, which stand nearly related to Israel, or at a distance
from it; and the descent into Egypt of the seventy souls, that they may
there become as the “stars of heaven in multitude.” But since not all
who are of them are the light of the world—“for not all who are of
Israel are Israel”[1014]—they become from seventy souls as the “sand
that is beside the sea-shore innumerable.”
[Transcriber’s Note: This is the end of the Greek section in the
original book.]
FROM THE LATIN.
24. This descent of the holy fathers into Egypt will appear as granted
to this world by the providence of God for the illumination of others,
and for the instruction of the human race, that so by this means the
souls of others might be assisted in the work of enlightenment. For to
them was first granted the privilege of converse with God, because
theirs is the only race which is said to see God; this being the
meaning, by interpretation, of the word “Israel.”[1015] And now it
follows that, agreeably to this view, ought the statement to be accepted
and explained that Egypt was scourged with ten plagues, to allow the
people of God to depart, or the account of what was done with the people
in the wilderness, or of the building of the tabernacle by means of
contributions from all the people, or of the wearing of the priestly
robes, or of the vessels of the public service, because, as it is
written, they truly contain within them the “shadow and form of heavenly
things.” For Paul openly says of them, that “they serve unto the example
and shadow of heavenly things.”[1016] There are, moreover, contained in
this same law the precepts and institutions, according to which men are
to live in the holy land. Threatenings also are held out as impending
over those who shall transgress the law; different kinds of
purifications are moreover prescribed for those who required
purification, as being persons who were liable to frequent pollution,
that by means of these they may arrive at last at that one purification
after which no further pollution is permitted. The very people are
numbered, though not all; for the souls of children are not yet old
enough to be numbered according to the divine command: nor are those
souls who cannot become the head of another, but are themselves
subordinated to others as to a head, who are called “women,” who
certainly are not included in that numbering which is enjoined by God;
but they alone are numbered who are called “men,” by which it might be
shown that the women could not be counted separately,[1017] but were
included in those called men. Those, however, especially belong to the
sacred number, who are prepared to go forth to the battles of the
Israelites, and are able to fight against those public and private
enemies[1018] whom the Father subjects to the Son, who sits on His right
hand that He may destroy all principality and power, and by means of
these bands of His soldiery, who, being engaged in a warfare for God, do
not entangle themselves in secular business, He may overturn the kingdom
of His adversary; by whom the shields of faith are borne, and the
weapons of wisdom brandished; among whom also the helmet of hope and
salvation gleams forth, and the breastplate of brightness fortifies the
breast that is filled with God. Such soldiers appear to me to be
indicated, and to be prepared for wars of this kind, in those persons
who in the sacred books are ordered by God’s command to be numbered. But
of these, by far the more perfect and distinguished are shown to be
those of whom the very hairs of the head are said to be numbered. Such,
indeed, as were punished for their sins, whose bodies fell in the
wilderness, appear to possess a resemblance to those who had made indeed
no little progress, but who could not at all, for various reasons,
attain to the end of perfection; because they are reported either to
have murmured, or to have worshipped idols, or to have committed
fornication, or to have done some evil work which the mind ought not
even to conceive. I do not consider the following even to be without
some mystical meaning,[1019] viz. that certain [of the Israelites],
possessing many flocks and animals, take possession by anticipation of a
country adapted for pasture and the feeding of cattle, which was the
very first that the right hand of the Hebrews had secured in war.[1020]
For, making a request of Moses to receive this region, they are divided
off by the waters of the Jordan, and set apart from any possession in
the holy land. And this Jordan, according to the form of heavenly
things, may appear to water and irrigate thirsty souls, and the senses
that are adjacent to it.[1021] In connection with which, even this
statement does not appear superfluous, that Moses indeed hears from God
what is described in the book of Leviticus, while in Deuteronomy it is
the people that are the auditors of Moses, and who learn from him what
they could not hear from God. For as Deuteronomy is called, as it were,
the second law, which to some will appear to convey this signification,
that when the first law which was given through Moses had come to an
end, so a second legislation seems to have been enacted, which was
specially transmitted by Moses to his successor Joshua, who is certainly
believed to embody a type[1022] of our Saviour, by whose second law—that
is, the precepts of the Gospel—all things are brought to perfection.
25. We have to see, however, whether this deeper meaning may not perhaps
be indicated, viz. that as in Deuteronomy the legislation is made known
with greater clearness and distinctness than in those books which were
first written, so also by that advent of the Saviour which He
accomplished in His state of humiliation, when He assumed the form of a
servant, that more celebrated and renowned second advent in the glory of
His Father may not be pointed out, and in it the types of Deuteronomy
may be fulfilled, when in the kingdom of heaven all the saints shall
live according to the laws of the everlasting gospel; and as in His
coming now He fulfilled that law which has a shadow of good things to
come, so also by that [future] glorious advent will be fulfilled and
brought to perfection the shadows of the present advent. For thus spake
the prophet regarding it: “The breath of our countenance, Christ the
Lord, to whom we said, that under Thy shadow we shall live among the
nations;”[1023] at the time, viz., when He will more worthily transfer
all the saints from a temporal to an everlasting gospel, according to
the designation, employed by John in the Apocalypse, of “an everlasting
gospel.”[1024]
26. But let it be sufficient for us in all these matters to adapt our
understanding to the rule of religion, and so to think of the words of
the Holy Spirit as not to deem the language the ornate composition of
feeble human eloquence, but to hold, according to the scriptural
statement, that “all the glory of the King is within,”[1025] and that
the treasure of divine meaning is enclosed within the frail vessel of
the common letter. And if any curious reader were still to ask an
explanation of individual points, let him come and hear, along with
ourselves, how the Apostle Paul, seeking to penetrate by help of the
Holy Spirit, who searches even the “deep things” of God, into the depths
of divine wisdom and knowledge, and yet, unable to reach the end, so to
speak, and to come to a thorough knowledge, exclaims in despair and
amazement, “Oh the depth of the riches of the knowledge and wisdom of
God!”[1026] Now, that it was from despair of attaining a perfect
understanding that he uttered this exclamation, listen to his own words:
“How unsearchable are God’s judgments! and His ways, how past finding
out!”[1027] For he did not say that God’s judgments were difficult to
discover, but that they were altogether inscrutable; nor that it was
[simply] difficult to trace out His ways, but that they were altogether
past finding out. For however far a man may advance in his
investigations, and how great soever the progress that he may make by
unremitting study, assisted even by the grace of God, and with his mind
enlightened, he will not be able to attain to the end of those things
which are the object of his inquiries. Nor can any created mind deem it
possible in any way to attain a full comprehension [of things]; but
after having discovered certain of the objects of its research, it sees
again others which have still to be sought out. And even if it should
succeed in mastering these, it will see again many others succeeding
them which must form the subject of investigation. And on this account,
therefore, Solomon, the wisest of men, beholding by his wisdom the
nature of things, says, “I said, I will become wise; and wisdom herself
was made far from me, far further than it was; and a profound depth who
shall find?”[1028] Isaiah also, knowing that the beginnings of things
could not be discovered by a mortal nature, and not even by those
natures which, although more divine than human, were nevertheless
themselves created or formed; knowing then, that by none of these could
either the beginning or the end be discovered, says, “Tell the former
things which have been, and we know that ye are gods; or announce what
are the last things, and then we shall see that ye are gods.”[1029] For
my Hebrew teacher also used thus to teach, that as the beginning or end
of all things could be comprehended by no one, save only our Lord Jesus
Christ and the Holy Spirit, so under the form of a vision Isaiah spake
of two seraphim alone, who with two wings cover the countenance of God,
and with two His feet, and with two do fly, calling to each other
alternately, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord God of Sabaoth;
the whole earth is full of Thy glory.”[1030] That the seraphim alone
have both their wings over the face of God, and over His feet, we
venture to declare as meaning that neither the hosts of holy angels, nor
the “holy seats,” nor the “dominions,” nor the “principalities,” nor the
“powers,” can fully understand the beginning of all things, and the
limits of the universe. But we are to understand that those “saints”
whom the Spirit has enrolled, and the “virtues,” approach very closely
to those very beginnings, and attain to a height which the others cannot
reach; and yet whatever it be that these “virtues” have learned through
revelation from the Son of God and from the Holy Spirit—and they will
certainly be able to learn very much, and those of higher rank much more
than those of a lower—nevertheless it is impossible for them to
comprehend all things, according to the statement, “The most part of the
works of God are hid.”[1031] And therefore also it is to be desired that
every one, according to his strength, should ever stretch out to those
things that are before, “forgetting the things that are behind,” both to
better works and to a clearer apprehension and understanding, through
Jesus Christ our Saviour, to whom be glory for ever!
27. Let every one, then, who cares for truth, be little concerned about
words and language, seeing that in every nation there prevails a
different usage of speech; but let him rather direct his attention to
the meaning conveyed by the words, than to the nature of the words that
convey the meaning, especially in matters of such importance and
difficulty: as, _e.g._, when it is an object of investigation whether
there is any “substance” in which neither colour, nor form, nor touch,
nor magnitude is to be understood as existing visible to the mind alone,
which any one names as he pleases; for the Greeks call such ἀσώματον,
_i.e._ “incorporeal,” while holy Scripture declares it to be
“invisible,” for Paul calls Christ the “image of the invisible God,” and
says again, that by Christ were created all things “visible and
invisible.” And by this it is declared that there are, among created
things, certain “substances” that are, according to their peculiar
nature, invisible. But although these are not themselves “corporeal,”
they nevertheless make use of bodies, while they are themselves better
than any bodily substances. But that “substance” of the Trinity which is
the beginning and cause of all things, “from which are all things, and
through which are all things, and in which are all things,” cannot be
believed to be either a body or in a body, but is altogether
incorporeal. And now let it suffice to have spoken briefly on these
points (although in a digression, caused by the nature of the subject),
in order to show that there are certain things, the meaning of which
cannot be unfolded at all by any words of human language, but which are
made known more through simple apprehension than by any properties of
words. And under this rule must be brought also the understanding of the
sacred Scripture, in order that its statements may be judged not
according to the worthlessness of the letter, but according to the
divinity of the Holy Spirit, by whose inspiration they were caused to be
written.
SUMMARY [OF DOCTRINE] REGARDING THE FATHER, THE SON, AND THE HOLY
SPIRIT, AND THE OTHER TOPICS DISCUSSED IN THE PRECEDING PAGES.
28. It is now time, after the rapid consideration which to the best of
our ability we have given to the topics discussed, to recapitulate, by
way of summing up what we have said in different places, the individual
points, and first of all to restate our conclusions regarding the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Seeing God the Father is invisible and inseparable from the Son, the Son
is not generated from Him by “prolation,” as some suppose. For if the
Son be a “prolation” of the Father (the term “prolation” being used to
signify such a generation as that of animals or men usually is), then,
of necessity, both He who “prolated” and He who _was_ “prolated” are
corporeal. For we do not say, as the heretics suppose, that some part of
the substance of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was
procreated by the Father out of things non-existent,[1032] _i.e._ beyond
His own substance, so that there once was a time when He did not exist;
but, putting away all corporeal conceptions, we say that the Word and
Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal without any
corporeal feeling, as if it were an act of the will proceeding from the
understanding. Nor, seeing He is called the Son of [His] love, will it
appear absurd if in this way He be called also the Son of [His] will.
Nay, John also indicates that “God is Light,”[1033] and Paul also
declares that the Son is the splendour of everlasting light.[1034] As
light, accordingly, could never exist without splendour, so neither can
the Son be understood to exist without the Father; for He is called the
“express image of His person,” and the Word and Wisdom. How, then, can
it be asserted that there once was a time when He was not the Son? For
that is nothing else than to say that there was once a time when He was
not the Truth, nor the Wisdom, nor the Life, although in all these He is
judged to be the perfect essence of God the Father; for these things
cannot be severed from Him, or even be separated from His essence. And
although these qualities are said to be many in understanding,[1035] yet
in their nature and essence they are one, and in them is the fulness of
divinity. Now this expression which we employ—“that there never was a
time when He did not exist”—is to be understood with an allowance. For
these very words “when” or “never” have a meaning that relates to time,
whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are
to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity.
For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of
temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are
not included in it[1036] are to be measured by times and ages. This Son
of God, then, in respect of the Word being God, which was in the
beginning with God, no one will logically suppose to be contained in any
place; nor yet in respect of His being “Wisdom,” or “Truth,” or the
“Life,” or “Righteousness,” or “Sanctification,” or “Redemption:” for
all these properties do not require space to be able to act or to
operate, but each one of them is to be understood as meaning those
individuals who participate in His virtue and working.
29. Now, if any one were to say that, through those who are partakers of
the “Word” of God, or of His “Wisdom,” or His “Truth,” or His “Life,”
the Word and Wisdom itself appeared to be contained in a place, we
should have to say to him in answer, that there is no doubt that Christ,
in respect of being the “Word” or “Wisdom,” or all other things, was in
Paul, and that he therefore said, “Do you seek a proof of Christ
speaking in me?”[1037] and again, “I live, yet not I, but Christ liveth
in me.”[1038] Seeing, then, He was in Paul, who will doubt that He was
in a similar manner in Peter and in John, and in each one of the saints;
and not only in those who are upon the earth, but in those also who are
in heaven? For it is absurd to say that Christ was in Peter and in Paul,
but not in Michael the archangel, nor in Gabriel. And from this it is
distinctly shown that the divinity of the Son of God was not shut up in
some place; otherwise it would have been in it only, and not in another.
But since, in conformity with the majesty of its incorporeal nature, it
is confined to no place; so, again, it cannot be understood to be
wanting in any. But this is understood to be the sole difference, that
although He is in different individuals as we have said—as Peter, or
Paul, or Michael, or Gabriel—He is not in a similar way in all beings
whatever. For He is more fully and clearly, and, so to speak, more
openly in archangels than in other holy men.[1039] And this is evident
from the statement, that when all who are saints have arrived at the
summit of perfection, they are said to be made like, or equal to, the
angels, agreeably to the declaration in the Gospels.[1040] Whence it is
clear that Christ is in each individual in as great a degree as the
amount of his deserts allows.[1041]
30. Having, then, briefly restated these points regarding the nature of
the Trinity, it follows that we notice shortly this statement also, that
“by the Son” are said to be created “all things that are in heaven, and
that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or
dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by Him,
and for Him; and He is before all, and all things consist by Him, who is
the head.”[1042] In conformity with which John also in his Gospel says:
“All things were created by Him; and without Him was not anything
made.”[1043] And David, intimating that the mystery of the entire
Trinity was [concerned] in the creation of all things, says: “By the
Word of the Lord were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the
Spirit of His mouth.”[1044]
After these points we shall appropriately remind [the reader] of the
bodily advent and incarnation of the only-begotten Son of God, with
respect to whom we are not to suppose that all the majesty of His
divinity is confined within the limits of His slender body, so that all
the “word” of God, and His “wisdom,” and “essential truth,” and “life,”
was either rent asunder from the Father, or restrained and confined
within the narrowness of His bodily person, and is not to be considered
to have operated anywhere besides; but the cautious acknowledgment of a
religious man ought to be between the two, so that it ought neither to
be believed that anything of divinity was wanting in Christ, nor that
any separation at all was made from the essence of the Father, which is
everywhere. For some such meaning seems to be indicated by John the
Baptist, when he said to the multitude in the bodily absence of Jesus,
“There standeth one among you whom ye know not: He it is who cometh
after me, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose.”[1045]
For it certainly could not be said of Him, who was absent, so far as His
bodily presence is concerned, that He was standing in the midst of those
among whom the Son of God was not bodily present.
31. Let no one, however, suppose that by this we affirm that some
portion of the divinity of the Son of God was in Christ, and that the
remaining portion was elsewhere or everywhere, which may be the opinion
of those who are ignorant of the nature of an incorporeal and invisible
essence. For it is impossible to speak of the parts of an incorporeal
being, or to make any division of them; but He is in all things, and
through all things, and above all things, in the manner in which we have
spoken above, _i.e._ in the manner in which He is understood to be
either “wisdom,” or the “word,” or the “life,” or the “truth,” by which
method of understanding all confinement of a local kind is undoubtedly
excluded. The Son of God, then, desiring for the salvation of the human
race to appear unto men, and to sojourn among them, assumed not only a
human body, as some suppose, but also a soul resembling our souls indeed
in nature, but in will and power[1046] resembling Himself, and such as
might unfailingly accomplish all the desires and arrangements of the
“word” and “wisdom.” Now, that He had a soul,[1047] is most clearly
shown by the Saviour in the Gospels, when He said, “No man taketh my
life from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay down my
life, and I have power to take it again.”[1048] And again, “My soul is
sorrowful even unto death.”[1049] And again, “Now is my soul
troubled.”[1050] For the “Word” of God is not to be understood to be a
“sorrowful and troubled” soul, because with the authority of divinity He
says, “I have power to lay down my life.” Nor yet do we assert that the
Son of God was in that soul as He was in the soul of Paul or Peter and
the other saints, in whom Christ is believed to speak as He does in
Paul. But regarding all these we are to hold, as Scripture declares, “No
one is clean from filthiness, not even if his life lasted but a single
day.”[1051] But this soul which was in Jesus, before it knew the evil,
selected the good; and because He loved righteousness, and hated
iniquity, therefore God “anointed Him with the oil of gladness above His
fellows.”[1052] He is anointed, then, with the oil of gladness when He
is united to the “word” of God in a stainless union, and by this means
alone of all souls was incapable of sin, because it was capable of
[receiving] well and fully the Son of God; and therefore also it is one
with Him, and is named by His titles, and is called Jesus Christ, by
whom all things are said to be made. Of which soul, seeing it had
received into itself the whole wisdom of God, and the truth, and the
life, I think that the apostle also said this: “Our life is hidden with
Christ in God; but when Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then
shall we also appear with Him in glory.”[1053] For what other Christ can
be here understood, who is said to be hidden in God, and who is
afterwards to appear, except Him who is related to have been anointed
with the oil of gladness, _i.e._ to have been filled with God
essentially,[1054] in whom He is now said to be hidden? For on this
account is Christ proposed as an example to all believers, because as He
always, even before He knew evil at all, selected the good, and loved
righteousness, and hated iniquity, and therefore God anointed Him with
the oil of gladness; so also ought each one, after a lapse or sin, to
cleanse himself from his stains, making Him his example, and, taking Him
as the guide of his journey, enter upon the steep way of virtue, that so
perchance by this means, as far as possible we may, by imitating Him, be
made partakers of the divine nature, according to the words of
Scripture: “He that saith that he believeth in Christ, ought so to walk,
as He also walked.”[1055]
This “word,” then, and this “wisdom,” by the imitation of which we are
said to be either wise or rational [beings], becomes “all things to all
men, that it may gain all;” and because it is made weak, it is therefore
said of it, “Though He was crucified through weakness, yet He liveth by
the power of God.”[1056] Finally, to the Corinthians who were weak, Paul
declares that he “knew nothing, save Jesus Christ, and Him
crucified.”[1057]
32. Some, indeed, would have the following language of the apostle
applied to the soul itself, as soon as it had assumed flesh from
Mary,[1058] viz., “Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery
to be equal with God, but divested Himself [of His glory],[1059] taking
upon Himself the form of a servant;”[1060] since He undoubtedly restored
it to the form of God by means of better examples and training, and
recalled it to that fulness of which He had divested Himself.
As now by participation in the Son of God one is adopted as a son,[1061]
and by participating in that wisdom which is in God is rendered wise, so
also by participation in the Holy Spirit is a man rendered holy and
spiritual. For it is one and the same thing to have a share in the Holy
Spirit, which is [the Spirit] of the Father and the Son, since the
nature of the Trinity is one and incorporeal. And what we have said
regarding the participation of the soul is to be understood of angels
and heavenly powers in a similar way as of souls, because every rational
creature needs a participation in the Trinity.
Respecting also the plan of this visible world—seeing one of the most
important questions usually raised is as to the manner of its
existence—we have spoken to the best of our ability in the preceding
pages, for the sake of those who are accustomed to seek the grounds of
their belief in our religion, and also for those who stir against us
heretical questions, and who are accustomed to bandy about[1062] the
word “matter,” which they have not yet been able to understand; of which
subject I now deem it necessary briefly to remind [the reader].
33. And, in the first place, it is to be noted that we have nowhere
found in the canonical Scriptures,[1063] up to the present time, the
word “matter” used for that substance which is said to underlie bodies.
For in the expression of Isaiah, “And he shall devour ὕλη,” _i.e._
matter, “like hay,”[1064] when speaking of those who were appointed to
undergo their punishments, the word “matter” was used instead of “sins.”
And if this word “matter” should happen to occur in any other passage,
it will never be found, in my opinion, to have the signification of
which we are now in quest, unless perhaps in the book which is called
the Wisdom of Solomon, a work which is certainly not esteemed
authoritative by all. In that book, however, we find written as follows:
“For Thy almighty hand, that made the world out of shapeless matter,
wanted not means to send among them a multitude of bears and fierce
lions.”[1065] Very many, indeed, are of opinion that the matter of which
things are made is itself signified in the language used by Moses in the
beginning of Genesis: “In the beginning God made heaven and earth; and
the earth was invisible, and not arranged:”[1066] for by the words
“invisible and not arranged” Moses would seem to mean nothing else than
shapeless matter. But if this be truly matter, it is clear then that the
original elements of bodies[1067] are not incapable of change. For those
who posited “atoms”—either those particles which are incapable of
subdivision, or those which are subdivided into equal parts—or any one
element, as the principles of bodily things, could not posit the word
“matter” in the proper sense of the term among the first principles of
things. For if they will have it that matter underlies every body—a
substance convertible or changeable, or divisible in all its parts—they
will not, as is proper, assert that it exists without qualities. And
with them we agree, for we altogether deny that matter ought to be
spoken of as “unbegotten” or “uncreated,” agreeably to our former
statements, when we pointed out that from water, and earth, and air or
heat, different kinds of fruits were produced by different kinds of
trees; or when we showed that fire, and air, and water, and earth were
alternately converted into each other, and that one element was resolved
into another by a kind of mutual consanguinity; and also when we proved
that from the food either of men or animals the substance of the flesh
was derived, or that the moisture of the natural seed was converted into
solid flesh and bones;—all which go to prove that the substance of the
body is changeable, and may pass from one quality into all others.
34. Nevertheless we must not forget that a substance never exists
without a quality, and that it is by an act of the understanding alone
that this [substance] which underlies bodies, and which is capable of
quality, is discovered to be matter. Some indeed, in their desire to
investigate these subjects more profoundly, have ventured to assert that
bodily nature[1068] is nothing else than qualities. For if hardness and
softness, heat and cold, moisture and aridity, be qualities; and if,
when these or other [qualities] of this sort be cut away, nothing else
is understood to remain, then all things will appear to be “qualities.”
And therefore also those persons who make these assertions have
endeavoured to maintain, that since all who say that matter was
uncreated will admit that qualities were created by God, it may be in
this way shown that even according to them matter was not uncreated;
since qualities constitute everything, and these are declared by all
without contradiction to have been made by God. Those, again, who would
make out that qualities are superimposed from without upon a certain
underlying matter, make use of illustrations of this kind: _e.g._ Paul
undoubtedly is either silent, or speaks, or watches, or sleeps, or
maintains a certain attitude of body; for he is either in a sitting, or
standing, or recumbent position. For these are “accidents” belonging to
men, without which they are almost never found. And yet our conception
of man does not lay down any of these things as a definition of him; but
we so understand and regard him by their means, that we do not at all
take into account the reason of his [particular] condition either in
watching, or in sleeping, or in speaking, or in keeping silence, or in
any other action that must necessarily happen to men.[1069] If any one,
then, can regard Paul as being without all these things which are
capable of happening, he will in the same way also be able to understand
this underlying [substance] without qualities. When, then, our mind puts
away all qualities from its conception, and gazes, so to speak, upon the
underlying element alone, and keeps its attention closely upon it,
without any reference to the softness or hardness, or heat or cold, or
humidity or aridity of the substance, then by means of this somewhat
simulated process of thought[1070] it will appear to behold matter clear
from qualities of every kind.
35. But some one will perhaps inquire whether we can obtain out of
Scripture any grounds for such an understanding of the subject. Now I
think some such view is indicated in the Psalms, when the prophet
says, “Mine eyes have seen thine imperfection;”[1071] by which the
mind of the prophet, examining with keener glance the first principles
of things, and separating in thought and imagination only between
matter and its qualities, perceived the imperfection of God, which
certainly is understood to be perfected by the addition of qualities.
Enoch also, in his book, speaks as follows: “I have walked on even to
imperfection;”[1072] which expression I consider may be understood in
a similar manner, viz. that the mind of the prophet proceeded in its
scrutiny and investigation of all visible things, until it arrived at
that first beginning in which it beheld imperfect matter [existing]
without “qualities.” For it is written in the same book of Enoch, “I
beheld the whole of matter;”[1073] which is so understood as if he had
said: “I have clearly seen all the divisions of matter which are
broken up from one into each individual species either of men, or
animals, or of the sky, or of the sun, or of all other things in this
world.” After these points, now, we proved to the best of our power in
the preceding pages that all things which exist were made by God, and
that there was nothing which was not made, save the nature of the
Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and that God, who is by
nature good, desiring to have those upon whom He might confer
benefits, and who might rejoice in receiving His benefits, created
creatures worthy [of this], _i.e._ who were capable of receiving Him
in a worthy manner, who, He says, are also begotten by Him as his
sons. He made all things, moreover, by number and measure. For there
is nothing before God without either limit or measure. For by His
power He comprehends all things, and He Himself is comprehended by the
strength of no created thing, because that nature is known to itself
alone. For the Father alone knoweth the Son, and the Son alone knoweth
the Father, and the Holy Spirit alone searcheth even the deep things
of God. All created things, therefore, _i.e._ either the number of
rational beings or the measure of bodily matter, are distinguished by
Him as being within a certain number or measurement; since, as it was
necessary for an intellectual nature to employ bodies, and this nature
is shown to be changeable and convertible by the very condition of its
being created (for what did not exist, but began to exist, is said by
this very circumstance to be of mutable nature), it can have neither
goodness nor wickedness as an essential, but only as an accidental
attribute of its being. Seeing, then, as we have said, that rational
nature was mutable and changeable, so that it made use of a different
bodily covering of this or that sort of quality, according to its
merits, it was necessary, as God foreknew there would be diversities
in souls or spiritual powers, that He should create also a bodily
nature the qualities of which might be changed at the will of the
Creator into all that was required. And this bodily nature must last
as long as those things which require it as a covering: for there will
be always rational natures which need a bodily covering; and there
will therefore always be a bodily nature whose coverings must
necessarily be used by rational creatures, unless some one be able to
demonstrate by arguments that a rational nature can live without a
body. But how difficult—nay, how almost impossible—this is for our
understanding, we have shown in the preceding pages, in our discussion
of the individual topics.
36. It will not, I consider, be opposed to the nature of our
undertaking, if we restate with all possible brevity our opinions on the
immortality of rational natures. Every one who participates in anything,
is unquestionably of one essence and nature with him who is partaker of
the same thing. For example, as all eyes participate in the light, so
accordingly all eyes which partake of the light are of one nature; but
although every eye partakes of the light, yet, inasmuch as one sees more
clearly, and another more obscurely, every eye does not equally share in
the light. And again, all hearing receives voice or sound, and therefore
all hearing is of one nature; but each one hears more rapidly or more
slowly, according as the quality of his hearing is clear and sound. Let
us pass now from these sensuous illustrations to the consideration of
intellectual things. Every mind which partakes of intellectual light
ought undoubtedly to be of one nature with every mind which partakes in
a similar manner of intellectual light. If the heavenly virtues, then,
partake of intellectual light, _i.e._ of divine nature, because they
participate in wisdom and holiness, and if human souls have partaken of
the same light and wisdom, and thus are mutually of one nature and of
one essence,—then, since the heavenly virtues are incorruptible and
immortal, the essence of the human soul will also be immortal and
incorruptible. And not only so, but because the nature of Father, and
Son, and Holy Spirit, of whose intellectual light alone all created
things have a share, is incorruptible and eternal, it is altogether
consistent and necessary that every substance which partakes of that
eternal nature should last for ever, and be incorruptible and eternal,
so that the eternity of divine goodness may be understood also in this
respect, that they who obtain its benefits are also eternal. But as, in
the instances referred to, a diversity in the participation of the light
was observed, when the glance of the beholder was described as being
duller or more acute, so also a diversity is to be noted in the
participation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, varying with the degree
of zeal or capacity of mind. If such were not the case,[1074] we have to
consider whether it would not seem to be an act of impiety to say that
the mind which is capable of [receiving] God should admit of a
destruction of its essence;[1075] as if the very fact that it is able to
feel and understand God could not suffice for its perpetual existence,
especially since, if even through neglect the mind fall away from a pure
and complete reception of God, it nevertheless contains within it
certain seeds of restoration and renewal to a better understanding,
seeing the “inner,” which is also called the “rational” man, is renewed
after “the image and likeness of God, who created him.” And therefore
the prophet says, “All the ends of the earth shall remember, and turn
unto the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before
Thee.”[1076]
37. If any one, indeed, venture to ascribe essential corruption to him
who was made after the image and likeness of God, then, in my opinion,
this impious charge extends even to the Son of God Himself, for He is
called in Scripture the image of God.[1077] Or he who holds this opinion
would certainly impugn the authority of Scripture, which says that man
was made in the image of God; and in him are manifestly to be discovered
traces of the divine image, not by any appearance of the bodily frame,
which is corruptible, but by mental wisdom, by justice, moderation,
virtue, wisdom, discipline; in fine, by the whole band of virtues, which
are innate in the essence of God, and which may enter into man by
diligence and imitation of God; as the Lord also intimates in the
Gospel, when He says, “Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is
merciful;”[1078] and, “Be ye perfect, even as your Father also is
perfect.”[1079] From which it is clearly shown that all these virtues
are perpetually in God, and that they can never approach to or depart
from Him, whereas by men they are acquired only slowly, and one by one.
And hence also by these means they seem to have a kind of relationship
with God; and since God knows all things, and none of things
intellectual in themselves can elude His notice[1080] (for God the
Father alone, and His only-begotten Son, and the Holy Spirit, not only
possess a knowledge of those things which they have created, but also of
themselves), a rational understanding also, advancing from small things
to great, and from things visible to things invisible, may attain to a
more perfect knowledge. For it is placed in the body, and advances from
sensible things themselves, which are corporeal, to things that are
intellectual. But lest our statement that things intellectual are not
cognisable by the senses should appear unbecoming, we shall employ the
instance of Solomon, who says, “You will find also a divine
sense;”[1081] by which he shows that those things which are intellectual
are to be sought out not by means of a bodily sense, but by a certain
other which he calls “divine.” And with this sense must we look on each
of those rational beings which we have enumerated above; and with this
sense are to be understood those words which we speak, and those
statements to be weighed which we commit to writing. For the divine
nature knows even those thoughts which we revolve within us in silence.
And on those matters of which we have spoken, or on the others which
follow from them, according to the rule above laid down, are our
opinions to be formed.
Footnote 769:
Visibiliter de invisibilibus pronunciare.
Footnote 770:
Principis Christianorum religionis et dogmatis.
Footnote 771:
τῇ ἐναργείᾳ τῶν βλεπομένων.
Footnote 772:
Satis idonei.
Footnote 773:
Religionem Christianæ doctrinæ.
Footnote 774:
Matt. x. 18.
Footnote 775:
Cf. Matt. xxiv. 14.
Footnote 776:
Cf. Matt. vii. 22, 23.
Footnote 777:
Fortasse minus vera esse viderentur.
Footnote 778:
Salutaria præcepta.
Footnote 779:
οὐδὲ τῶν διδασκάλων πλεοναζόντων.
Footnote 780:
τῇ διὰ Ἰησοῦ θεοσεβείᾳ.
Footnote 781:
μεῖζον ἤ κατὰ ἄνθρωπον τὸ πρᾶγμα εἴναι.
Footnote 782:
χρησμοὺς.
Footnote 783:
Matt. x. 18.
Footnote 784:
Cf. Matt. vii. 22, 23.
Footnote 785:
σωτήρια δόγματα.
Footnote 786:
Illæ omnes ambitiones Judaicæ.
Footnote 787:
Cf. Hos. iii. 4.
Footnote 788:
On the Patriarch of the Jews, cf. Milman’s _History of the Jews_, vol.
ii. p. 399 sq., and vol. iii. p. 7 sq.
Footnote 789:
Deut. xxxii.
Footnote 790:
προεφητύθη ὁ Χριστός.
Footnote 791:
ἐκ τῶν μηρῶν.
Footnote 792:
ἐπιδημησῇ.
Footnote 793:
οὔκ ἔτι βασιλεῖς Ἰουδαίαν ἐχρηματίσαν.
Footnote 794:
Cf. Hos. iii. 4. Quoted from the Septuagint.
Footnote 795:
Termed by Rufinus “Patriarch.”
Footnote 796:
Deut. xxxii.
Footnote 797:
Deut. xxxii. 21.
Footnote 798:
1 Cor. i. 26-28. Quæ erant prius.
Footnote 799:
1 Cor. i. 29.
Footnote 800:
Deut. xxxii.
Footnote 801:
τοῦ προτέρου λαοῦ.
Footnote 802:
Deut. xxxii. 21.
Footnote 803:
Cf. 1 Cor. i. 26-28. “The things which formerly existed, τὰ πρότερον
ὄντα.”
Footnote 804:
Ps. xliv. 2, 3.
Footnote 805:
Cf. Ps. lxxii. 7.
Footnote 806:
Ps. lxxii. 8.
Footnote 807:
Cf. Isa. viii. 8, 9. Quoted from the Septuagint.
Footnote 808:
Cf. Mic. v. 2 and Matt. ii. 6.
Footnote 809:
Cf. Dan. ix. 4. Ad ducem Christum; “To Messiah the Prince,” auth.
vers.
Footnote 810:
The allusion is perhaps to Job xli. 1.
Footnote 811:
Ps. xlv. 42.
Footnote 812:
Ps. lxxii. 7.
Footnote 813:
Ps. lxxii. 8.
Footnote 814:
ἔτεκε καὶ ἐν γαστρὶ ἔσχε, καὶ ἔτεκεν υἱόν.
Footnote 815:
Cf. Isa. viii. 8, 9. Quoted from the Septuagint.
Footnote 816:
Cf. Mic. v. 2 with Matt. ii. 6.
Footnote 817:
Cf. Dan. ix. 24.
Footnote 818:
Cf. Job xl. and xli.
Footnote 819:
τὸ μέγα κῆτος.
Footnote 820:
Cf. Luke x. 19.
Footnote 821:
Divino, ut ita dixerim, cothurno.
Footnote 822:
ὡς ἐν ἐπιτομῇ.
Footnote 823:
διὰ τοῦτο τῆς ἀπὸ τῶν ἐθνῶν ἐκλογῆς κεκρατηκότα.
Footnote 824:
ἴχνος ἐνθουσιασμοῦ.
Footnote 825:
“Nam et inter ipsos homines ab alio minus, ab alio amplius
consideratur: plus vero ab omni homine, qui in terris est, quis-quis
ille est cœli habitator, agnoscitur.” The translation of Rufinus, as
Redepenning remarks, seems very confused. Probably also the text is
corrupt. The Greek without doubt gives the genuine thought of Origen.
By omitting the _ab_ we approximate to the Greek, and get: “but he,
whoever he be, who is inhabitant of heaven, is better known than any
man who is on the earth;” or according to the punctuation in the old
editions, “but he who is inhabitant of heaven is better known than any
man on earth, whoever he be.”
Footnote 826:
In vilioribus et incomptis verborum vasculis.
Footnote 827:
Cf. 2 Cor. iv. 7.
Footnote 828:
Ad fidem credulitatemque.
Footnote 829:
1 Cor. ii. 6.
Footnote 830:
Temporibus eternis.
Footnote 831:
Male.
Footnote 832:
τὸ ὑπὲρ ἄνθρωπον τῶν νοημάτων.
Footnote 833:
ὁ τεχνικὸς λόγος.
Footnote 834:
Σφόδρα τοῦ πρὸς τί καὶ ἕνεκα τίνος εὑρισκομένου τοῖς τούτων
ἐπιμελομένοις, περὶ τὰς ὁρμὰς, καὶ τὰς φαντασίας, καὶ φύσεις τῶν ζώων,
καὶ τὰς κατασκευὰς τῶν σωμάτων.
Footnote 835:
χρεοκοπεῖται.
Footnote 836:
ἐν εὐτελεῖ καὶ εὐκαταφρονήτῳ λέξει.
Footnote 837:
καθημαξευμέναι.
Footnote 838:
2 Cor. ii. 4.
Footnote 839:
τῆς στοιχειώσεως.
Footnote 840:
ἐντυπωθήσεται.
Footnote 841:
χρόνοις αἰωνίοις.
Footnote 842:
Cf. Zech. ix. 10.
Footnote 843:
Cf. Isa. vii. 15.
Footnote 844:
Ut priusquam cognosceret proferre malum, eligeret bonum.
Footnote 845:
Contra jus fasque.
Footnote 846:
Cf. Jer. xv. 14.
Footnote 847:
Cf. Ex. xxv. 5.
Footnote 848:
Cf. 1 Sam. xv. 11.
Footnote 849:
Cf. Isa. xlv. 7.
Footnote 850:
Cf. Amos iii. 16.
Footnote 851:
Cf. Mic. i. 12.
Footnote 852:
Cf. 1 Sam. xviii. 10.
Footnote 853:
ὡς ἐν ἐπιδρομῇ.
Footnote 854:
τὰ ἅγια ἀναγνώσματα.
Footnote 855:
πῶς δεῖ ἐφοδεύειν.
Footnote 856:
οἱ ἰδιῶται τῶν ἐκ τῆς περιτομῆς.
Footnote 857:
αἰσθητῶς.
Footnote 858:
Cf. Zech. ix. 10.
Footnote 859:
Cf. Isa. vii. 15.
Footnote 860:
Cf. Isa. xi. 6, 7.
Footnote 861:
παρὰ τὸ δέον.
Footnote 862:
Cf. Jer. xv. 14.
Footnote 863:
Cf. Ex. xxv. 5.
Footnote 864:
Cf. 1 Sam. xv. 11.
Footnote 865:
Cf. Isa. xlv. 7.
Footnote 866:
Cf. Amos iii. 6.
Footnote 867:
Cf. Mic. i. 12.
Footnote 868:
Cf. 1 Sam. xvi. 15.
Footnote 869:
The text, as it stands, is probably corrupt: “Propter quod conabimur
pro mediocritate sensus nostri his, qui credunt Scripturas sanctas non
humana verba aliqua esse composita, sed sancti Spiritus inspiratione
conscripta, et voluntate Dei patris per unigenitum filium suum Jesum
Christum nobis quoque esse tradita et commissa, quæ nobis videntur,
recta via intelligentiæ observantibus, demonstrare illam regulam et
disciplinam, quam ab Jesu Christo traditam sibi apostoli per
successionem posteris quoque suis, sanctam ecclesiam docentibus,
tradiderunt.”
Footnote 870:
Dispensationes.
Footnote 871:
Religiosius.
Footnote 872:
Contra fas.
Footnote 873:
Sacramenta quædam.
Footnote 874:
Fas.
Footnote 875:
ἰδιωτικῶν.
Footnote 876:
ἐπιπνοίας.
Footnote 877:
κανόνος.
Footnote 878:
τύπους εἶναι τὰ γεγραμμένα.
Footnote 879:
Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 16 and 12, 11.
Footnote 880:
Tantam occultationem ineffabilium sacramentorum.
Footnote 881:
Per breve quoddam receptaculum.
Footnote 882:
Immensæ lucis claritas.
Footnote 883:
Luke xi. 52.
Footnote 884:
1 Cor. ii. 12, 13, and 16 ad fin.
Footnote 885:
Μυρίων ὅσων κἀκεῖ, ὡς δι’ ὀπῆς, μεγίστων καὶ πλείστων νοημάτων οὐ
βραχεῖαν ἀφορμὴν παρεχόντων.
Footnote 886:
ἀπόῤῥητα.
Footnote 887:
παντελῆ μυστήρια.
Footnote 888:
Luke xi. 52.
Footnote 889:
Cf. Prov. xxii. 20, 21. The Masoretic text reads, הֲלֹ֤א כָתַ֣בְתִּי
לְ֭ךָ שָׁלִישִׁ֑ים (שלשום) בְּמ֖וֹעֵצֹ֣ת וָדָֽעַת ׃ לְהוֹדִֽיעֲךָ֗
קֹ֭שְׁטְ אֱמֶ֑ת לְהָשִׁ֥יב אֲמָרִ֥ים אֱ֝מֶ֗ת לְשֹׁלְחֶֽיךָ .
Footnote 890:
1 Cor. ii. 6, 7.
Footnote 891:
Largitione.
Footnote 892:
Cf. Ante-Nicene Library, vol. containing “Apostolic Fathers,” p. 331
and note.
Footnote 893:
The Septuagint: Καὶ σὺ δὲ ἀπόγραψαι αὐτὰ σεαυτῷ τρισσῶς εἰς βουλὴν καὶ
γνῶσιν ἐπὶ τὸ πλάτος τῆς καρδίας σου· διδάσκω οὖν σε ἀληθῆ λόγον καὶ
γνῶσιν ἀληθῆ ὑπακούειν, τοῦ ἀποκρίνεσθαί σε λόγους ἀληθείας τοῖς
προβαλλομένοις σοι. The Vulgate reads: Ecce, descripsi eam tibi
tripliciter in cogitationibus et scientia, ut ostenderem tibi
firmitatem et eloquia veritatis, respondere ex his illis, qui miserunt
te.
Footnote 894:
Cf. note 1, _ut supra_.
Footnote 895:
1 Cor. ii. 6, 7.
Footnote 896:
Cf. Ante-Nicene Library, vol. “Apostolic Fathers,” p. 331 and note.
Footnote 897:
παρανόμῳ νυμφίῳ.
Footnote 898:
τῶν κάτω νοημάτων.
Footnote 899:
πεπολιωμένοις.
Footnote 900:
Consequentia historialis intelligentiæ.
Footnote 901:
Metretes.
Footnote 902:
Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 9 and Deut. xxv. 4.
Footnote 903:
Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 9, 10.
Footnote 904:
Cf. 1 Cor. ix. 9 and Deut. xxv. 4.
Footnote 905:
1 Cor. ix. 9, 10.
Footnote 906:
Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 7.
Footnote 907:
In figurâ. Greek (_text. recept._) τύποι. Lachmann reads τυπικῶς.
Footnote 908:
1 Cor. x. 11.
Footnote 909:
1 Cor. x. 4.
Footnote 910:
Cf. Ex. xxv. 40 and Heb. viii. 5.
Footnote 911:
Gal. iv. 21-24.
Footnote 912:
Col. ii. 16.
Footnote 913:
Heb. viii. 5.
Footnote 914:
Rom. xi. 4; cf. 1 Kings xix. 18.
Footnote 915:
Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7, 8.
Footnote 916:
1 Cor. x. 11.
Footnote 917:
1 Cor. x. 4.
Footnote 918:
Cf. Ex. xxv. 40 and Heb. viii. 5.
Footnote 919:
ἀλληγορούμενα.
Footnote 920:
Col. ii. 16.
Footnote 921:
Heb. viii. 5.
Footnote 922:
ὡς θεῖον ἄνδρα.
Footnote 923:
Rom. xi. 4; cf. 1 Kings xix. 18.
Footnote 924:
τινὰς ἀπὸ τοῦ θεῖου γένους, _i.e._ Israelites.
Footnote 925:
Quæ inter homines, vel de hominibus geruntur.
Footnote 926:
Figuraliter describebant.
Footnote 927:
περὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν δημιουργημάτων.
Footnote 928:
Intercapedines.
Footnote 929:
Ut ita celsioris cujusdam et eminentioris tramitis per angusti callis
ingressum immensam divinæ scientiæ latitudinem pandat.
Footnote 930:
γλαφυρόν.
Footnote 931:
αὐτόθεν.
Footnote 932:
ὑπὸ τῆς λέξεως ἑλκόμενοι τὸ ἀγωγὸν ἄκρατον ἐχούσης.
Footnote 933:
ἐν τῇ διηγήσει τῆς περὶ τῶν νοητῶν ἀκολουθίας.
Footnote 934:
κατὰ τὸ σῶμα.
Footnote 935:
Consequenter, alii “convenienter.”
Footnote 936:
Lignum.
Footnote 937:
Οὐδὲ τούτων πάντη ἄκρατον τὴν ἱστορίαν τῶν προσυφασμένων κατὰ τὸ
σωματικὸν ἐχόντων, μὴ γεγενημένων οὐδὲ τὴν νομοθεσίαν καὶ τὰς ἐντολὰς
πάντως τὸ εὔλογον ἐμφαίνοντα. One MS. reads γεγενημένην, referring to
ἱστορίαν, on which one editor remarks, “Hic et in sequentibus imploro
fidem codicum!”
Footnote 938:
διὰ δοκούσης ἱστορίας καὶ οὐ σωματικῶς γεγενημένης.
Footnote 939:
κατὰ τὴν λέξιν.
Footnote 940:
Inconsequens.
Footnote 941:
Cf. Gen. xvii. 14.
Footnote 942:
Tragelaphus; “wild goat,” auth. vers. Deut. xiv. 5; Heb. אַקּ֥וֹ, ἅπαξ
λεγ.
Footnote 943:
Gryphus; “ossifrage,” auth. vers. Lev. xi. 13; Heb. פֶּ֔רֶס.
Footnote 944:
Opinatissimâ.
Footnote 945:
Cf. Ex. xvi. 29.
Footnote 946:
Ulnas.
Footnote 947:
Jer. xvii. 21.
Footnote 948:
ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς τηρεῖσθαι.
Footnote 949:
Gen. xvii. 14.
Footnote 950:
Ex. xvi. 29.
Footnote 951:
ψυχρὰς παραδόσεις.
Footnote 952:
τόπον ἑκάστῳ εἶναι δισχιλίους πήχεις.
Footnote 953:
Εἰς ἀπεραντολογίαν ἐληλύθασι.
Footnote 954:
Luke x. 4.
Footnote 955:
Luke x. 4.
Footnote 956:
1 Cor. vii. 18.
Footnote 957:
Secundo vero, quid obesset, si obscœnitatis vitandæ causa ejus, quæ ex
circumcisione est, posset aliquis revocare præputium?
Footnote 958:
Luke x. 4.
Footnote 959:
εἰ μὴ ἄρα πεπονθώς τι παρὰ φύσιν τυγχάνοι.
Footnote 960:
1 Cor. vii. 18.
Footnote 961:
εἰκῆ.
Footnote 962:
καὶ τῇ κατὰ τὸ ῥητὸν χρησίμων νομοθεσίᾳ.
Footnote 963:
Duplici spelunca.
Footnote 964:
Cf. Gen. xlviii. 22 and Josh. xxiv. 32.
Footnote 965:
Cf. Ex. xx. 12 and Eph. vi. 2, 3.
Footnote 966:
Cf. Ex. xx. 13.
Footnote 967:
Cf. Matt. v. 22.
Footnote 968:
Matt. v. 28.
Footnote 969:
1 Thess. v. 14.
Footnote 970:
γέγονεν.
Footnote 971:
κατὰ τὸ αἰσθητόν.
Footnote 972:
Cf. Gen. xlviii. 22 and Josh. xxiv. 32.
Footnote 973:
Ex. xx. 12 and Eph. vi. 2, 3.
Footnote 974:
χωρὶς πάσης ἀναγωγῆς.
Footnote 975:
Cf. Ex. xx. 12 and Eph. vi. 2, 3.
Footnote 976:
Cf. Ex. xx. 13.
Footnote 977:
Matt. v. 22.
Footnote 978:
1 Thess. v. 14.
Footnote 979:
Εἰ καὶ παρὰ τοὶς φιλοτιμοτέροις δύναται σώζειν ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, μετὰ τοῦ
μὴ ἀθετεῖσθαι τὴν κατὰ τὸ ῥητὸν ἐντολὴν, βάθη Θεοῦ σοφίας.
Footnote 980:
περιελκυσθήσεται.
Footnote 981:
John v. 39.
Footnote 982:
In libro Jesu Naue.
Footnote 983:
ὁ προηγούμενος.
Footnote 984:
Ὅλον τὸν νοῦν φιλοτιμητέον καταλαμβάνειν, συνείροντα τὸν περὶ τῶν κατὰ
τὴν λέξιν ἀδυνάτων λόγον νοητῶς τοῖς οὐ μόνον οὐκ ἀδυνάτοις, ἀλλὰ καὶ
ἀληθέσι κατὰ τὴν ἱστορίαν, συναλληγορουμένοις τοῖς ὅσον ἐπὶ τῇ λέξει,
μὴ γεγενημένοις.
Footnote 985:
ἐν Ἰησοῦ τῷ τοῦ Ναυῆ.
Footnote 986:
1 Cor. x. 18.
Footnote 987:
Rom. ix. 6.
Footnote 988:
1 Cor. x. 18.
Footnote 989:
Rom. ix. 6, 8.
Footnote 990:
Rom. ii. 28.
Footnote 991:
Πᾶσα γὰρ ἀρχὴ πατριῶν τῶν ὡς πρὸς τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν, κατωτέρω ἀπὸ τοῦ
Χριστοῦ ἤρξατο τοῦ μετὰ τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν καὶ πατέρα.
Footnote 992:
Matt. xv. 24.
Footnote 993:
Ebion, Heb. אֶבְיוֹן, (from אָבָה , to desire), lit. “wishing,”
“desiring;” secondarily, “poor.”
Footnote 994:
Gal. iv. 26.
Footnote 995:
Cf. Heb. xii. 22, 23.
Footnote 996:
Matt. xv. 24.
Footnote 997:
Rom. ix. 8.
Footnote 998:
Gal. iv. 26.
Footnote 999:
Heb. xii. 22, 23.
Footnote 1000:
ἐν ψυχῶν γένει.
Footnote 1001:
Infernus.
Footnote 1002:
Velut illic, si dici potest, morientes.
Footnote 1003:
A superis.
Footnote 1004:
Cf. Ps. xxx. 4 and Deut. xxxii. 22.
Footnote 1005:
Corporaliter.
Footnote 1006:
Matt. xiii. 44.
Footnote 1007:
Ad propinquitatem pertinent Israel.
Footnote 1008:
Rom. ix. 6.
Footnote 1009:
Ex ipsis Septuaginta animabus fiunt aliqui.
Footnote 1010:
τοῦ καλουμένου χωρίου ᾅδου.
Footnote 1011:
καὶ παρὰ τοῖσδε, ἤ τοῖσδε τοῖς πατράσι.
Footnote 1012:
Matt. xii. 44.
Footnote 1013:
Cf. Isa. xlv. 3.
Footnote 1014:
Rom. ix. 6.
Footnote 1015:
Cf. Gen. xxxii. 29.
Footnote 1016:
Heb. viii. 5.
Footnote 1017:
Extrinsecus.
Footnote 1018:
Hostes inimicosque.
Footnote 1019:
Ne illud quidem sacramento aliquo vacuum puto.
Footnote 1020:
Quem primum omnium Israelitici belli dextra defenderat.
Footnote 1021:
Rigare et inundare animas sitientes, et sensus adjacentes sibi.
Footnote 1022:
Formam.
Footnote 1023:
Lam. iv. 20.
Footnote 1024:
Cf. Rev. xiv. 6.
Footnote 1025:
Omnis gloria regis intrinsecus est. Heb., Sept., and Vulgate all read,
“daughter of the king.” Probably the omission of “filiæ” in the text
may be due to an error of the copyists.
Footnote 1026:
Rom. xi. 33.
Footnote 1027:
Rom. xi. 33.
Footnote 1028:
The Septuagint reads: Εἶπα Σοφισθήσομαι· καὶ αὕτη ἐμακρύνθη ἀπ’ ἐμοῦ·
μακρὰν ὑπὲρ δ’ ἦν, καὶ βαθὺ βάθος· τίς εὑρήσει αὐτό. The Vulgate
translates this literally.
Footnote 1029:
Cf. Isa. xli. 22, 23.
Footnote 1030:
Isa. vi. 3.
Footnote 1031:
Cf. Ecclus. xvi. 21.
Footnote 1032:
Ex nullis substantibus.
Footnote 1033:
1 John i. 5.
Footnote 1034:
Cf. Heb. i. 3.
Footnote 1035:
Quæ quidem quamvis intellectu multa esse dicantur.
Footnote 1036:
Quæ sunt extra Trinitatem.
Footnote 1037:
Cf. 2 Cor. xiii. 3.
Footnote 1038:
Gal. ii. 20.
Footnote 1039:
Quam in aliis sanctis viris. “Aliis” is found in the MSS., but is
wanting in many editions.
Footnote 1040:
Cf. Matt. xxii. 30 and Luke xx. 36.
Footnote 1041:
Unde constat in singulis quibusque tantum effici Christum, quantum
ratio indulserit meritorum.
Footnote 1042:
Cf. Col. i. 16-18.
Footnote 1043:
John i. 3.
Footnote 1044:
Ps. xxxiii. 6.
Footnote 1045:
Cf. John i. 26, 27.
Footnote 1046:
Proposito vero et virtute similem sibi.
Footnote 1047:
Animam.
Footnote 1048:
John x. 18.
Footnote 1049:
Matt. xxvi. 38.
Footnote 1050:
John xii. 27.
Footnote 1051:
Cf. Job xv. 14.
Footnote 1052:
Ps. xlv. 7.
Footnote 1053:
Cf. Col. iii. 3.
Footnote 1054:
Substantialiter.
Footnote 1055:
Cf. 1 John ii. 6.
Footnote 1056:
2 Cor. xiii. 4.
Footnote 1057:
1 Cor. ii. 2.
Footnote 1058:
De Maria corpus assumsit.
Footnote 1059:
Semet ipsum exinanivit.
Footnote 1060:
Phil. ii. 6, 7.
Footnote 1061:
In filium adoptatur.
Footnote 1062:
Ventilare.
Footnote 1063:
In Scripturis canonicis.
Footnote 1064:
Isa. x. 17, καὶ φάγεται ὡσεὶ χόρτον τὴν ὕλην, Sept. The Vulgate
follows the Masoretic text.
Footnote 1065:
Wisd. xi. 17.
Footnote 1066:
Gen. i. 2, “invisibilis et incomposita;” “inanes et vacua,” Vulg.
Footnote 1067:
Initia corporum.
Footnote 1068:
Naturam corpoream.
Footnote 1069:
Nec tamen sensus noster manifeste de eo aliquid horum definit, sed ita
eum per hæc intelligimus, vel consideramus, ut non omnino rationem
status ejus comprehendamus, vel in eo, quod vigilat, vel in eo, quod
dormit, aut in quo loquitur, vel tacet, et si qua alia sunt, quæ
accidere necesse est hominibus.
Footnote 1070:
Tunc simulatâ quodammodo cogitatione.
Footnote 1071:
Ps. cxxxix. 16, τὸ ἀκατέργαστον μου εἴδοσαν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί σου, Sept.;
“Imperfectum tuum viderunt oculi tui,” Vulg. (same as in the text.)
גָּלְמִ֤י רָ֘א֤וּ עֵינֶ֗יךָ—“Thine eyes did see my substance, yet
being imperfect,” auth. vers. Cf. Gesenius and Fürst, _s.v._ נּלֶם.
Footnote 1072:
Ambulavi usque ad imperfectum; cf. Book of Enoch, chap. xvii.
Footnote 1073:
Universas materias perspexi; cf. Book of Enoch, chap. xvii.
Footnote 1074:
Alioquin.
Footnote 1075:
Substantialem interitum.
Footnote 1076:
Ps. xxii. 27.
Footnote 1077:
Cf. Col. i. 15 and 2 Cor. iv. 4.
Footnote 1078:
Luke vi. 36.
Footnote 1079:
Matt. v. 48.
Footnote 1080:
Nihil eum rerum intellectualium ex se lateat.
Footnote 1081:
Cf. Prov. ii. 5, ἐπίγνωσιν Θεοῦ εὑρήσεις, Sept. Scientiam Dei
invenies, Vulg. דַ֖עַת אֱלֹהִ֣ים תִּמְצָֽא.
I.—INDEX OF SUBJECTS.
_Acts of Paul, The_, quoted, 20.
Ages, the, 85.
Angels, the doctrine of the church respecting, 7;
how referred to by Paul, 45;
inquiries respecting, 47;
a particular office assigned to each, 65;
diversities among, the results of merit, 66;
capable of good or evil, 67, 69;
the substance of, 122, 123.
Annihilation of material substances not possible, 58.
Animal man, the, 120, 121.
Ἀντίχθονες, 86.
Apopompæus, 223.
Apostles, the, the subjects of their preaching, 3, etc.
Artaxerxes and Mordecai, 231.
_Ascension of Moses, The_, quoted, 222.
Ἀσώματον, 5.
_Barnabas, The Epistle of_, quoted, 231.
Blessedness, the future, of the saints, not carnal, 145, 146;
but spiritual, 147-153.
Body, the, can rational creatures live without, 80, 82;
to be made incorruptible and immortal, resurrection of the, 137;
varieties in the resurrection body, 138;
a word to weak believers about the resurrection body, 139, etc.
Bodily nature, its perpetuity, 77-79.
Breath of the power of God, the, 26-28.
Brightness of the Father’s glory, Christ the, 24.
Christ, the words of, 1;
apostolical doctrine respecting, 3;
the only-begotten Son of God, 18;
the wisdom of God, 18, 19, 20;
the eternal generation of, 19, 22;
generated by the divine will, 23;
the image of the invisible God, 23, 24;
the brightness of the glory of God, 24, 25;
the figure of God’s person or subsistence, 25;
the breath of the power of God, 26;
the efflux of God’s glory, 28;
the splendour of eternal light, 30;
the stainless mirror of God’s ἐνέργεια, 31;
the image of God’s goodness, 31, 32;
the incarnation of, 105-112;
the wonder of the incarnation of, 106, 107;
His union with God, 108;
His union with God the reward of His love, 109;
possessed a human and rational soul, 110, 111;
anointed with the oil of joy, 111, 112;
and Moses as lawgivers, 275, etc.;
predicted, 279, etc., 285, etc.;
all the majesty of His divinity not confined within the limits of His
body, 345-347.
Christianity, the power of, 277, etc.
Clement of Rome, quoted, 86, 87.
Clothing, the, of the soul and of the body, 81.
Conflict, the, with the powers of evil, 232, etc.
Consummation, the, 53-59.
Corporeal and incorporeal beings, 59-65.
Corporeity, will it ever be destroyed? 82, etc.
Corruptible, the, putting on incorruption, 80, 81.
Creation, the, of the world in time, 253, etc.;
objection to the creation of the world in time answered, 255;
the peculiar term used in Scripture to express, 256-258.
Creatures, the, subjected to vanity, 63-65, 257, 258.
Creatures made by God in the beginning, 126;
changeable and mutable, 128;
varieties of, 129, 130.
Darkness, outer, 144.
Darkness, the rulers and powers of, have obtained their degrees of evil
through their own conduct, 69.
Death, the last enemy, destroyed, 268, 269.
Defection, the, of men, 43.
Desire of knowledge to be satisfied in a future state, 146-151.
Deuteronomy, 338, 339.
Devil, the, and his angels, the doctrine of the church respecting, 5;
the titles of, 45;
not incapable of goodness, 68;
the agency of, as set forth in the Old Testament, 222;
as revealed in the New Testament, 224;
not the prompter to all sins—man would go astray if there were no
devil, 227-229;
how he and his allied powers tempt, 229;
the contest against, 232, etc.
_Doctrine of Peter, The_, the apocryphal work so named, quoted, 6.
Ebionite, meaning of the name, 329.
Efflux of the glory of God, Christ the, 28.
End, the, 53;
when it will come, 54;
and the beginning, 55;
what shall be after, 58;
admonitory remarks respecting, 262-273.
Enemy, the last, destroyed, 268, 269.
_Enoch, The Book of_, quoted, 352.
Eternal generation, the, of Christ, 19, 23.
Evil or good, every rational nature except God’s capable of either, 68.
Evil beings made such by themselves, in their respective degrees, 69.
Fallen spirits, 57;
the restoration of, 57, 58.
Falling away described, 43, etc.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a summary of doctrine concerning, 342,
etc.
Figure of the Father’s person, Christ the, 25.
Fire, eternal, the threatening of, 40-43.
Fire, God a consuming, 9.
Flesh and spirit, 245-248.
Food, spiritual, 147.
Foundation of the world, the, 256.
Free-will, 4, 132, 133;
asserted fully, 157, etc.;
able to resist external causes, 161;
proved from Scripture, 165, etc.;
passages of Scripture apparently opposed to, explained, 168-221.
Generation, eternal, the, of Christ, 19, 22;
effected by the divine will, 23.
God, apostolic doctrine respecting, 3;
a Spirit, 8-11;
light, _ibid._;
fire, 9;
incomprehensible, 11;
revealed in His works, 12, 13;
simple and uncompounded in His nature, 12, 15;
His nature surpasses natural bodies,—this proved from Scripture, 15,
16;
invisible—how said to be seen, 16, 17;
omnipotent, 28, 30;
nature of His power, 31;
created all things, 34;
the, of the law and the prophets the same as the Father of Jesus
Christ, 91-97;
not a body, 91;
anthropopathic expressions respecting, in the Old Testament
explained, 96, 97;
the justice and goodness of, 97-105;
the soul of, 125, 126;
nothing happens without, 235;
what was He doing before He created the world? 256;
the image of, 23, 24, 262, 263;
in the end, all in all, 264, 265.
Goodness, divine, 32;
and justice, 97, etc.;
consistent with the infliction of punishment, 98, etc.
Gospels, the, not all pure history, 315, 317, 320.
Hardening, the, of Pharaoh’s heart, 171, etc., 176-191.
Heaven, 88, 89, 90.
Heavenly bodies, the, animated and endowed with souls, 59-65.
Heavens, the, 152.
Hebrew master, the, of Origen, cited, 35.
_Hermas, The Pastor of_, quoted, 34, 35, 230, 301.
Holy Spirit, the, the apostolic doctrine of, 3;
what, 10;
the existence of, 33;
what He has taught in Scripture, 34;
not created, 35;
one of the two seraphim of Isaiah, 34;
reveals God, 36;
the nature of His working as distinguished from that of the Father
and the Son, 37-40, 41, 43;
taken from the unworthy, 39;
dwells in the renewed, 39, 40;
bestowed on the saints, 40;
one, 114;
every rational creature receives a share of, 114, 115;
the advent of, after the ascension of Christ, 115;
gifts of, 116;
the Paraclete, 116, 117.
Image, the, of God, man made in, 262-264.
Image of God’s goodness, Christ the, 32.
Image of the invisible God, Christ the, 23, 24.
Immortality, the, of rational natures, 353.
Incarnation, the, of Christ, 105;
the wonder of, 106, 107;
the intermediacy of Christ’s soul between the flesh and God in, 108,
109;
the assumption of that soul in the, the reward of its virtues, 109;
difficulty of Christ possessing a human soul removed, 110;
the subject illustrated, 111, 112.
Incorporeal, meaning of the term, 5, 6.
Inspiration, the, of the Scriptures, 274, 285.
Interpretation of the promises, the, not literal, but spiritual,
143-148.
Interpretation of the Scriptures, the true method, 291-323.
Israel, the carnal and spiritual, 327.
Jacob, and Esau, 133, 134;
wrestles with an angel, 234.
Jesus, His conversation with the Samaritan woman, 11.
Justice and goodness, their harmony and consistency, 97-105.
Καταβολή, 256, 258.
Knowledge, the increase of, in the future state, 148-151.
Κόσμος, 86.
Law, the, of Moses, the irrationality and impossibility of some of its
precepts taken literally, 317-320.
Light, God is, 8, 31.
Literal interpretation, the, of the promises condemned, 143-145;
of some of the laws of Moses impossible, 317, etc.
Lucifer, his fall from heaven, 51-53.
New heavens and new earth, 56, 58.
Only-begotten Son of God, Christ the, 18;
His self-abasement, 259.
Opposing powers, or powers of darkness, the, 222, etc.;
our conflict with, 232, etc.
Parables, why Jesus spake in, 195-202.
Paraclete, the, 114, 116.
Paradise, the, prepared for departed saints, 151.
Passions, the, which affect the soul, 141.
_Pastor_, or _Angel of Repentance_, of Hermas, quoted, 34, 35.
Paul, his desire to depart, 149, 150.
Pharaoh, the hardening of the heart of, 171-191.
Planets, the, 87.
Potter, the, his power over the clay, 211, etc.
Predictions respecting India, Egypt, and Babylon, etc., 331, 332.
Pre-existence, the, of rational creatures, 256-258.
Principalities and powers of darkness, 68-70.
Promises, the, of future good, not to be interpreted literally and
carnally, 145-153.
Ψυχή, 123.
Punishment, future, 140, etc.
Qualities always belong to substances, not substance, 350, 351.
Rational natures, various, 44, 45;
capable of sin, 45;
evil, 45, 46;
whether any were created so as to be incapable of sin, or incapable
of virtue, 46, 47;
the glory of some and the wickedness of others, not original and
essential to their being, but the result of desert, 48, 69;
this proved from Scripture, 48-53;
never sink into the condition of irrational animals, 70;
can they lead an existence out of the body, 82;
the immortality of, 353, etc.
Restoration, the, of fallen beings, 56, 57.
Resurrection, the, of the body, 136;
weak believers instructed on the subject, 139.
Samaritan woman, the, Jesus converses with, 11.
Scriptures, the, the teaching of the church respecting, 5;
the inspiration of, 274, etc., 285, etc;
the superhuman element in, does not present itself to the
uninstructed, 287-290;
how to be regarded and understood, 291, 294, 299;
a three-fold sense in, 300;
the soul of, 303-308;
the mysteries contained in, 308, etc.;
stumbling-blocks in, 212;
all not pure history, but some to be mystically understood, 313-322;
in regard to many things the historical and literal sense the true
one, 323;
passages true in their historical meaning more numerous than those
which are to be spiritually understood, 324;
the need of careful search to distinguish what is literal and what is
not, 325;
our duty to grasp the whole meaning of, 326.
Seeing God, how to be understood, 16, 17.
Sense, and the senses, 15.
Seraphim, the, 340, 341.
Seraphim, the two, of Isaiah, 35.
_Shepherd of Hermas, The_, quoted, 34, 35, 230, 301.
Sin, incentives to, 226.
Son, the only-begotten, of God, Christ the, 18;
self-abasement of, 257;
subjection of, to the Father, 260-262;
the generation of, 342, 343;
the advent and incarnation of, 345-347.
Soul, the, apostolic teaching respecting, 4;
various sorts of, 118, 119;
of angels, 119;
of God, 119, 120;
a lost, 121, 122;
and spirit of Christ, 125;
why acted on sometimes by evil and sometimes by good spirits, 242,
etc.;
has man two souls, 244, etc.;
three theories discussed, 247-252.
Soul, meaning of the word, 123, 124.
Spirit, what, 9.
Spirits, wicked, their mode of operation, 241;
good, their agency, 242.
Spiritual body, the, what, 266, 267.
Splendour of the eternal light, Christ the, 30.
Stony heart, the, how taken away, 191, etc.
Stumbling-blocks designedly placed in the Scriptures, 312.
Subjection, the, of the Son to the Father, 260, etc.
Substance, 350.
Sun, the, and other planets endowed with life and souls, 59-65.
Temptations proportioned to the strength of the tempted, 227-229;
human, treated of at large, 244, etc.
Things in heaven, earth, and the under world, 57.
Thoughts, how suggested, 229, 230.
Threefold sense of Scripture, the, 300, etc.
Thrones, dominions, etc., 56.
Trinity, the, the unity and operations of the persons of, 37-41;
the sum of the doctrine concerning, 342, etc.
Typical interpretations, 306.
Tyre, the prince of, 49-51.
Vanity, the creature made subject to, 63-65, 257, 258.
Variety of creatures in the world, 128;
accordance of this variety with righteousness and reason, 131, etc.;
this variety brought to pass by the free-will of individuals,
132-136.
Veil on the heart, the, what, 9.
Vessels to honour and to dishonour, 213.
Will, the, free, 4, 132, 133;
asserted fully, 157, etc.;
able to resist external causes, 161;
its freedom proved from Scripture, 165, etc.
Wisdom, threefold, 237;
of the world, 238;
of the princes of the world, 239.
Wisdom of God, Christ the, 19, 20, 26, 28.
Words not to be specially considered by searchers after truth, but the
meaning of, 339, 341.
Words of Christ, the, 1.
Working, the, of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit respectively, 37-43.
World, the, church doctrine respecting, 5;
the great variety in, 72;
cause of the variety in, 72, 73;
unity of, in diversity, 73, 74;
the oneness of, proved from Scripture, 75;
the matter of, its transformations and qualities, 75;
the matter of, not uncreated, 76, 77;
the beginning of, was there one before, and shall there be one after,
79;
this, the conclusion of many ages, 85;
different meanings of the word in Scripture, 86;
the end of, three opinions concerning, 89, 90;
comprehensiveness of, and variety of creatures in, 128-130;
the accordance of this variety in, with righteousness and reason,
131, etc.;
the cause of the variety in, 134-136;
had its beginning in time, 253;
shall come to an end, 255, etc.;
another shall exist after this, 255;
end of, 262.
Worlds, the, not similar, but dissimilar, 84.
II.—INDEX OF TEXTS.
Gen. i. 1, 127, 271
i. 2, 349
i. 16, 62
i. 24, 110
i. 26, 262
i. 27, 28, 263
ii. 7, 39
ii. 24, 109
iii., 222
iii. 19, 269
iv. 10, 251
v. 3, 23, 119
vi. 3, 39
xvii. 14, 318
xlviii. 22, 323
xlix. 1, 253
Ex. iii. 2, 122
iii. 6, 92
iii. 14, 38
iv. 21, 169
iv. 23, 175
iv. 24-26, 222
vii. 3, 169
viii. 28, 29, 179
ix. 12, 175
ix. 17, 175
xii. 23, 223
xvi. 29, 319
xix. 19, 216
xx. 12, 94, 324 _bis._
xx. 13, 324
xxiii. 20, 96
xxv. 5, 293
xxv. 40, 272
xxxii., 281
xxxii. 21, 281
xxxv. 40, 306
Lev. xvi. 18, 223
xvii. 10, 119
xvii. 14, 118, 246
Deut. iv. 24, 8, 122
viii. 3, 148
xxv. 4, 94, 304
xxviii., 142, 304
xxx. 15, 16, 19, 165
xxxii. 8, 46
xxxii. 9, 46
Josh. xxiv. 32, 323
1 Sam. xv. 11, 293
xvi. 15, 293
xviii. 10, 293
1 Kings xix. 18, 308
xxii. 19-23, 223
Job i. 10,11, 235
vii. 1, 236
viii. 12, 113
xv. 14, 347
xxv. 5, 61
xl., 284
xl. 20, 53
xli., 284
xli. 34, 123
Ps. ii. 2, 239
ii. 5, 97
viii. 3, 89
xxii. 20, 21, 120
xxvii. 1-3, 234
xxxiii. 6, 40, 345
xxxiv. 7, 66
xxxvi. 9, 8
xxxvii. 34, 90
xliv. 19, 126
xlv. 1, 2, 282
xlv. 7, 109, 111, 347
xlv. 8, 111
li. 11, 34
lxii. 1, 54
lxxii. 7, 283
lxxii. 8, 283
lxxii. 11, 115
lxxiii. 1, 104
lxxvi. 10, 230
lxxviii. 34, 102
lxxx. 13, 14, 166
lxxxiv. 5, 230
lxxxix. 50, 51, 112
xcvii. 6, 124
cii. 26, 27, 254, 271
cii. 46, 58
civ. 4, 122
civ. 24, 29, 130
civ. 29, 30, 39
cx. 1, 54
cxviii. 2, 104
cxxvi. 1, 205
cxxxix. 16, 351
cxlviii. 5, 77
Prov. ii. 5, 17, 355
iv. 23, 232
viii. 22-25, 18
ix. 1-5, 255
xxii. 20, 21, 300
Eccles. i. 1-14, 64
i. 9, 255
x. 4, 223, 230
Song i. 3, 11
Isa. i. 11, 140
i. 13, 14, 119
i. 19, 20, 165
iii. 24, 86
iv. 4, 143
vi. 3, 25, 340
vii. 15, 292
vii. 16, 110
viii. 4, 110
viii. 8, 9, 283
x. 17, 143, 349
xi. 6, 7, 292
xiv. 12-22, 52
xxv. 8, 80
xxvii. 1, 123, 224
xli. 22, 23, 340
xlii. 5, 35
xlv. 3, 335
xlv. 6, 92
xlv. 7, 293
xlv. 12, 61
xlvii. 14, 15, 102, 143
liii. 9, 110
lxiii. 17, 18, 182
lxiv. 8, 267
lxvi. 1, 74, 92
lxvi. 2, 89
lxvi. 16, 143
lxvi. 22, 255
Jer. i. 5, 6, 242
i. 9, 122
i. 14, 123
vii. 18, 62
xv. 14, 293
xx. 7, 182
xxiii. 24, 74
xxv. 15, 16, 143
xxv. 28, 29, 143
Lam. iii. 25, 104
iv. 20, 112, 339
Ezek. i. 19, 20, 169
xi. 19, 20, 191
xvi. 55, 102
xviii. 3, 99
xviii. 4, 123
xviii. 4, 19, 123
xxvi., 239
xxviii. 11-19, 50
xxviii. 12, 224
xxxii. 2, 123
Dan. iv. 8, 34
ix. 24, 284
x., 239
Hos. iii. 4, 279
x. 12, 7
xiii. 14, 80
Joel ii. 28, 115
Amos iii. 6, 293
ix. 3, 123
Mic. i. 12, 293
v. 2, 284
vi. 8, 165
Hab. iii. 2, 36
Zech. i. 14, 230
iii. 1, 224
ix. 10, 292
Mal. iii. 3, 143
APOCRYPHA.
Wisd. vii. 16, 191
vii. 25, 22
vii. 25, 26, 26
xi. 17, 349
xi. 20, 127
xviii. 24, 86
Ecclus. vi. 4, 123
xvi. 21, 341
xliii. 20, 77
2 Macc. vii. 28, 77
Matt. ii. 6, 284
iv. 12, 170
v. 3, 90
v. 5, 90
v. 6, 146
v. 8, 17
v. 22, 166, 325
v. 28, 325
v. 34, 74
v. 34, 35, 92
v. 39, 166
v. 48, 355
v. 48, 49, 91
vi. 9, 92
vii. 18, 103
vii. 22, 23, 278
vii. 24, 166
vii. 26, 167
x. 18, 278
x. 29, 236
xi. 27, 16, 96, 106
xii. 32, 34
xii. 33, 103
xii. 35, 104
xii. 42, 237, 238
xii. 44, 334
xv. 24, 329
xviii. 10, 66
xix. 14, 254
xix. 17, 104
xxii. 12, 13, 100
xxii. 30, 345
xxii. 32, 92
xxii. 37, 39, 40, 93
xxiv. 12, 122
xxiv. 14, 278
xxiv. 21, 256
xxiv. 27, 52
xxiv. 35, 254
xxv. 29, 149
xxv. 34, 167
xxv. 35, 167
xxvi. 3, 105
xxvi. 29, 146
xxvi. 38, 125, 346
xxvii. 63, 235
Mark iv. 12, 194
x. 8, 109
Luke i. 35, 34, 113
vi. 36, 355
vi. 42, 25
viii. 10, 170
x. 4, 320
x. 18, 52
x. 19, 284
x. 22, 36
xi. 52, 299
xii. 10, 34
xiv. 11, 185
xvii. 20, 21, 38
xix. 14, 97
xix. 17, 19, 147
xix. 26, 149
xx. 36, 345
John i. 1, 2, 130
i. 1-3, 59
i. 3, 3, 29, 345
i. 18, 16, 95
i. 26, 27, 346
ii. 16, 92
iii. 8, 36
iv. 19, 31
iv. 20, 10
iv. 21, 8
iv. 23, 24, 10
v. 39, 325
viii. 46, 110
x. 18, 108, 125, 346
xii. 27, 125, 346
xiii. 2, 232
xiii. 27, 224
xiv. 2, 152
xiv. 6, 1
xiv. 9, 24, 93
xiv. 23, 9
xiv. 26, 35
xiv. 30, 110
xv. 22, 38
xvi. 12, 13, 36
xvi. 33, 233
xvii. 10, 29
xvii. 16, 87
xvii. 20, 21, 56
xvii. 22, 23, 56
xvii. 24 (21, 22), 85, 263
xvii. 25, 104
xix. 2, 242
xix. 11, 235
xx. 22, 34, 39
Acts i. 8, 40
vii., 98
viii. 18, 34
ix. 15, 233
xvii. 28, 74
Rom. i. 1-4, 94
i. 3, 4, 248
ii. 4, 5, 181
ii. 4-10, 168
ii. 11, 63, 69
ii. 13-16, 141
ii. 28, 327
vii. 12, 103
vii. 13, 103
vii. 23, 246, 251
viii. 2, 251
viii. 7, 252
viii. 9, 247
viii. 19, 63
viii. 20, 21, 63, 135, 254, 258, 264
viii. 22, 63
viii. 38, 39, 233
ix. 6, 336
ix. 6-8, 327
ix. 8, 329
ix. 11, 12, 133
ix. 14, 63
ix. 16, 170, 203
ix. 18, 171
ix. 20, 21, 171
x. 6-8, 38
xi. 4, 308
xi. 33, 339 _bis._
xii. 11, 122
xiii. 14, 81
1 Cor. i. 15, 18
i. 24, 18, 28
i. 26, 247
i. 26-28, 282
i. 29, 185
ii. 2, 348
ii. 6, 225
ii. 6, 7, 301
ii. 6-8, 237, 239, 304
ii. 7, 237
ii. 9, 267
ii. 10, 36
ii. 11, 12, 13, 298
iii. 6, 7, 207
iii. 12, 146
v. 1, 267
vi. 17, 108
vii. 18, 321
vii. 31, 58, 86
ix. 9, 304
ix. 9, 10, 305
x. 4, 306
x. 11, 306
x. 13, 227, 228, 229
x. 18, 327
x. 23, 117
xi. 3, 106
xii. 3, 34, 40
xii. 4-7, 41
xii. 6, 42
xii. 11, 41
xiv. 15, 121
xv. 9, 67
xv. 10, 233
xv. 25, 54
xv. 28, 260, 270
xv. 39-42, 138
xv. 41, 129
xv. 42, 4
xv. 44, 137
xv. 53-56, 80
2 Cor. i. 10, 56
ii. 4, 116, 289
iii. 6, 9
iii. 15-17, 9
iv. 4, 355
iv. 18, 89, 267
v. 1, 89
v. 10, 213
v. 13, 113
viii. 16, 230
ix. 9, 10, 94
x. 5, 230
xi. 22, 94
xiii. 3, 3, 112, 344
xiii. 4, 348
Gal. ii. 20, 344
iii. 3, 35
iv. 26, 329
v. 8, 171
v. 17, 227, 245, 247
v. 19-21, 247
v. 22, 35
Eph. i. 4, 256
i. 21, 45
ii. 2, 151
iv. 7, 85
iv. 13, 56
iv. 27, 232
vi. 2, 3, 94, 324
vi. 12, 225, 232
vi. 13, 224
Phil. i. 23, 64, 129
ii. 6, 7, 348
ii. 10, 11, 29
ii. 13, 170, 209
iv. 8, 9, 101
iv. 13, 233
Col. i. 15, 22, 95, 105, 355
i. 16, 130
i. 16, 17, 106
i. 16-18, 59
ii. 9, 110
ii. 16, 307
iii. 3, 112, 347
1 Thess. iv. 17, 151
v. 14, 325
1 Tim. iv. 1-3, 116
2 Tim. i. 3, 93
i. 16-18, 212
ii. 20, 135
ii. 20, 21, 214
ii. 21, 135
Heb. i. 3, 22, 24, 25, 343
i. 7, 122
i. 14, 45, 244
ii. 1, 232
iv. 12, 20
iv. 15, 110
vi. 7, 8, 177
viii. 5, 113, 271, 306, 307
ix. 26, 85
xi. 24-26, 1
xii. 22, 23, 330
Jas. iv. 17, 38
1 Pet. i. 9, 121
iii. 18-21, 102
v. 8, 244
1 John i. 5, 8, 343
ii. 1, 2, 117
ii. 6, 347
iii. 2, 263
v. 19, 52, 86
Rev. i. 8, 29
xiv. 6, 339
LETTERS.
A LETTER TO ORIGEN FROM AFRICANUS ABOUT THE HISTORY OF SUSANNA.
Greeting, my lord and son, most worthy Origen, from Africanus. In your
sacred discussion with Agnomon you referred to that prophecy of Daniel
which is related of his youth. This at that time, as was meet, I
accepted as genuine. Now, however, I cannot understand how it escaped
you that this part of the book is spurious. For, in sooth, this section,
although apart from this it is elegantly written, is plainly a more
modern forgery. There are many proofs of this. When Susanna is condemned
to die, the prophet is seized by the Spirit, and cries out that the
sentence is unjust. Now, in the first place, it is always in some other
way that Daniel prophesies—by visions, and dreams, and an angel
appearing to him, never by prophetic inspiration. Then, after crying out
in this extraordinary fashion, he detects them in a way no less
incredible, which not even Philistion the play-writer would have
resorted to. For, not satisfied with rebuking them through the Spirit,
he placed them apart, and asked them severally where they saw her
committing adultery. And when the one said, “Under a holm-tree”
(_prinos_), he answered that the angel would saw him asunder
(_prisein_); and in a similar fashion menaced the other who said, “Under
a mastich-tree” (_schinos_), with being rent asunder (_schisthenai_).
Now, in Greek, it happens that “holm-tree” and “saw asunder,” and “rend”
and “mastich-tree” sound alike; but in Hebrew they are quite distinct.
But all the books of the Old Testament have been translated from Hebrew
into Greek.
2. Moreover, how is it that they who were captives among the Chaldæans,
lost and won at play,[1082] thrown out unburied on the streets, as was
prophesied of the former captivity, their sons torn from them to be
eunuchs, and their daughters to be concubines, as had been prophesied;
how is it that such could pass sentence of death, and that on the wife
of their king Joakim, whom the king of the Babylonians had made partner
of his throne? Then if it was not this Joakim, but some other from the
common people, whence had a captive such a mansion and spacious garden?
But a more fatal objection is, that this section, along with the other
two at the end of it, is not contained in the Daniel received among the
Jews. And add that, among all the many prophets who had been before,
there is no one who has quoted from another word for word. For they had
no need to go a-begging for words, since their own were true; but this
one, in rebuking one of those men, quotes the words of the Lord: “The
innocent and righteous shalt thou not slay.” From all this I infer that
this section is a later addition. Moreover, the style is different. I
have struck the blow; do you give the echo; answer, and instruct me.
Salute all my masters. The learned all salute thee. With all my heart I
pray for your and your circle’s health.
Footnote 1082:
Nolte would change ἠστραγαλωμένοι (or ἀστραγαλώμενοι, as Wetsten. has
it), which is a ἅπαξ εἰρημενον, into στραγγαλώμενοι or
ἐστραγγαλωμένοι, “strangled.” He compares Tob. ii. 3.
A LETTER FROM ORIGEN TO AFRICANUS.
Origen to Africanus, a beloved brother in God the Father, through Jesus
Christ, His holy child, greeting. Your letter, from which I learn what
you think of the Susanna in the book of Daniel, which is used in the
churches, although apparently somewhat short, presents in its few words
many problems, each of which demands no common treatment, but such as
oversteps the character of a letter, and reaches the limits of a
discourse. And I, when I consider, as best I can, the measure of my
intellect, that I may know myself, am aware that I am wanting in the
accuracy necessary to reply to your letter; and that the more, that the
few days I have spent in Nicomedia have been far from sufficient to send
you an answer to all your demands and queries even after the fashion of
the present epistle. Wherefore pardon my little ability, and the little
time I had, and read this letter with all indulgence, supplying anything
I may omit.
2. You begin by saying, that when, in my discussion with our friend
Bassus, I used the Scripture which contains the prophecy of Daniel when
yet a young man in the affair of Susanna, I did this as if it had
escaped me that this part of the book was spurious. You say that you
praise this passage as elegantly written, but find fault with it as a
more modern composition, and a forgery; and you add that the forger has
had recourse to something which not even Philistion the play-writer
would have used in his puns between _prinos_ and _prisein_, _schinos_
and _schisis_, which words as they sound in Greek can be used in this
way, but not in Hebrew. In answer to this, I have to tell you what it
behoves us to do in the cases not only of the History of Susanna, which
is found in every church of Christ in that Greek copy which the Greeks
use, but is not in the Hebrew, or of the two other passages you mention
at the end of the book containing the history of Bel and the Dragon,
which likewise are not in the Hebrew copy of Daniel; but of thousands of
other passages also which I found in many places when with my little
strength I was collating the Hebrew copies with ours. For in Daniel
itself I found the word “bound” followed in our versions by very many
verses which are not in the Hebrew at all, beginning (according to one
of the copies which circulate in the churches) thus: “Ananias, and
Azarias, and Misael prayed and sang unto God,” down to “O, all ye that
worship the Lord, bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His
mercy endureth for ever and ever. And it came to pass, when the king
heard them singing, and saw them that they were alive.” Or, as in
another copy, from “And they walked in the midst of the fire, praising
God and blessing the Lord,” down to “O, all ye that worship the Lord,
bless ye the God of gods. Praise Him, and say that His mercy endureth to
all generations.”[1083] But in the Hebrew copies the words, “And these
three men, Sedrach, Misach, and Abdenego fell down bound into the midst
of the fire,” are immediately followed by the verse, “Nabouchodonosor
the king was astonished, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto
his counsellors.” For so Aquila, following the Hebrew reading, gives it,
who has obtained the credit among the Jews of having interpreted the
Scriptures with no ordinary care, and whose version is most commonly
used by those who do not know Hebrew, as the one which has been most
successful. Of the copies in my possession whose readings I gave, one
follows the Seventy, and the other Theodotion; and just as the History
of Susanna which you call a forgery is found in both, together with the
passages at the end of Daniel, so they give also these passages,
amounting, to make a rough guess, to more than two hundred verses.
3. And in many other of the sacred books I found sometimes more in our
copies than in the Hebrew, sometimes less. I shall adduce a few
examples, since it is impossible to give them all. Of the book of Esther
neither the prayer of Mardochaios nor that of Esther, both fitted to
edify the reader, is found in the Hebrew. Neither are the letters;[1084]
nor the one written to Amman about the rooting up of the Jewish nation,
nor that of Mardochaios in the name of Artaxerxes delivering the nation
from death. Then in Job, the words from “It is written, that he shall
rise again with those whom the Lord raises,” to the end, are not in the
Hebrew, and so not in Aquila’s edition; while they are found in the
Septuagint and in Theodotion’s version, agreeing with each other at
least in sense. And many other places I found in Job where our copies
have more than the Hebrew ones, sometimes a little more, and sometimes a
great deal more: a little more, as when to the words, “Rising up in the
morning, he offered burnt-offerings for them according to their number,”
they add, “one heifer for the sin of their soul;” and to the words, “The
angels of God came to present themselves before God, and the devil came
with them,” “from going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and
down in it.” Again, after “The Lord gave, the Lord has taken away,” the
Hebrew has not, “It was so, as seemed good to the Lord.” Then our copies
are very much fuller than the Hebrew, when Job’s wife speaks to him,
from “How long wilt thou hold out? And he said, Lo, I wait yet a little
while, looking for the hope of my salvation,” down to “that I may cease
from my troubles, and my sorrows which compass me.” For they have only
these words of the woman, “But say a word against God, and die.”
4. Again, through the whole of Job there are many passages in the Hebrew
which are wanting in our copies, generally four or five verses, but
sometimes, however, even fourteen, and nineteen, and sixteen. But why
should I enumerate all the instances I collected with so much labour, to
prove that the difference between our copies and those of the Jews did
not escape me? In Jeremiah I noticed many instances, and indeed in that
book I found much transposition and variation in the readings of the
prophecies. Again, in Genesis, the words, “God saw that it was good,”
when the firmament was made, are not found in the Hebrew, and there is
no small dispute among them about this; and other instances are to be
found in Genesis, which I marked, for the sake of distinction, with the
sign the Greeks call an obelisk, as on the other hand I marked with an
asterisk those passages in our copies which are not found in the Hebrew.
What needs there speak of Exodus, where there is such diversity in what
is said about the tabernacle and its court, and the ark, and the
garments of the high priest and the priests, that sometimes the meaning
even does not seem to be akin? And, forsooth, when we notice such
things, we are forthwith to reject as spurious the copies in use in our
churches, and enjoin the brotherhood to put away the sacred books
current among them, and to coax the Jews, and persuade them to give us
copies which shall be untampered with, and free from forgery! Are we to
suppose that that Providence which in the sacred Scriptures has
ministered to the edification of all the churches of Christ, had no
thought for those bought with a price,[1085] for whom Christ died; whom,
although his Son, God who is love spared not, but gave Him up for us
all, that with Him He might freely give us all things?[1086]
5. In all these cases consider whether it would not be well to remember
the words, “Thou shalt not remove the ancient landmarks which thy
fathers have set.”[1087] Nor do I say this because I shun the labour of
investigating the Jewish Scriptures, and comparing them with ours, and
noticing their various readings. This, if it be not arrogant to say it,
I have already to a great extent done to the best of my ability,
labouring hard to get at the meaning in all the editions and various
readings;[1088] while I paid particular attention to the interpretation
of the Seventy, lest I might be found to accredit any forgery to the
churches which are under heaven, and give an occasion to those who seek
such a starting-point for gratifying their desire to slander the common
brethren, and to bring some accusation against those who shine forth in
our community. And I make it my endeavour not to be ignorant of their
various readings, lest in my controversies with the Jews I should quote
to them what is not found in their copies, and that I may make some use
of what is found there, even although it should not be in our
Scriptures. For if we are so prepared for them in our discussions, they
will not, as is their manner, scornfully laugh at Gentile believers for
their ignorance of the true reading as they have them. So far as to the
History of Susanna not being found in the Hebrew.
6. Let us now look at the things you find fault with in the story
itself. And here let us begin with what would probably make any one
averse to receiving the history: I mean the play of words between
_prinos_ and _prisis_, _schinos_ and _schisis_. You say that you can see
how this can be in Greek, but that in Hebrew the words are altogether
distinct. On this point, however, I am still in doubt; because, when I
was considering this passage (for I myself saw this difficulty), I
consulted not a few Jews about it, asking them the Hebrew words for
_prinos_ and _prisein_, and how they would translate _schinos_ the tree,
and how _schisis_. And they said that they did not know these Greek
words _prinos_ and _schinos_, and asked me to show them the trees, that
they might see what they called them. And I at once (for the truth’s
dear sake) put before them pieces of the different trees. One of them
then said, that he could not with any certainty give the Hebrew name of
anything not mentioned in Scripture, since, if one was at a loss, he was
prone to use the Syriac word instead of the Hebrew one; and he went on
to say, that some words the very wisest could not translate. “If, then,”
said he, “you can adduce a passage in any Scripture where the _schinos_
is mentioned, or the _prinos_, you will find there the words you seek,
together with the words which have the same sound; but if it is nowhere
mentioned, we also do not know it.” This, then, being what the Hebrews
said to whom I had recourse, and who were acquainted with the history, I
am cautious of affirming whether or not there is any correspondence to
this play of words in the Hebrew. Your reason for affirming that there
is not, you yourself probably know.
7. Moreover, I remember hearing from a learned Hebrew, said among
themselves to be the son of a wise man, and to have been specially
trained to succeed his father, with whom I had intercourse on many
subjects, the names of these elders, just as if he did not reject the
History of Susanna, as they occur in Jeremia as follows: “The Lord make
thee like Zedekias and Achiab, whom the king of Babylon roasted in the
fire, for the iniquity they did in Israel.”[1089] How, then, could the
one be sawn asunder by an angel, and the other rent in pieces? The
answer is, that these things were prophesied not of this world, but of
the judgment of God, after the departure from this world. For as the
lord of that wicked servant who says, “My lord delayeth his coming,” and
so gives himself up to drunkenness, eating and drinking with drunkards,
and smiting his fellow-servants, shall at his coming “cut him asunder,
and appoint him his portion with the unbelievers,”[1090] even so the
angels appointed to punish will accomplish these things (just as they
will cut asunder the wicked steward of that passage) on these men, who
were called indeed elders, but who administered their stewardship
wickedly. One will saw asunder him who was waxen old in wicked days, who
had pronounced false judgment, condemning the innocent, and letting the
guilty go free;[1091] and another will rend in pieces him of the seed of
Chanaan, and not of Judah, whom beauty had deceived, and whose heart
lust had perverted.[1092]
8. And I knew another Hebrew, who told about these elders such
traditions as the following: that they pretended to the Jews in
captivity, who were hoping by the coming of Christ to be freed from the
yoke of their enemies, that they could explain clearly the things
concerning Christ, ... and that they so deceived the wives of their
countrymen.[1093] Wherefore it is that the prophet Daniel calls the one
“waxen old in wicked days,” and says to the other, “Thus have ye dealt
with the children of Israel; but the daughters of Juda would not abide
your wickedness.”
9. But probably to this you will say, Why then is the “History” not in
their Daniel, if, as you say, their wise men hand down by tradition such
stories? The answer is, that they hid from the knowledge of the people
as many of the passages which contained any scandal against the elders,
rulers, and judges, as they could, some of which have been preserved in
uncanonical writings (Apocrypha). As an example, take the story told
about Esaias, and guaranteed by the Epistle to the Hebrews, which is
found in none of their public books. For the author of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, in speaking of the prophets, and what they suffered, says,
“They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, they were slain with the
sword.”[1094] To whom, I ask, does the “sawn asunder” refer (for by an
old idiom, not peculiar to Hebrew, but found also in Greek, this is said
in the plural, although it refers to but one person)? Now we know very
well that tradition says that Esaias the prophet was sawn asunder; and
this is found in some apocryphal work, which probably the Jews have
purposely tampered with, introducing some phrases manifestly incorrect,
that discredit might be thrown on the whole.
However, some one hard pressed by this argument may have recourse to the
opinion of those who reject this epistle as not being Paul’s; against
whom I must at some other time use other arguments to prove that it is
Paul’s. At present I shall adduce from the Gospel what Jesus Christ
testifies concerning the prophets, together with a story which He refers
to, but which is not found in the Old Testament, since in it also there
is a scandal against unjust judges in Israel. The words of our Saviour
run thus: “Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye
build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the
righteous, and say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would
not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of
them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your
fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the
damnation of Gehenna? Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and
wise men, and scribes; and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and
some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them
from city to city: that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed
upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of
Zacharias, son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the
altar. Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this
generation.” And what follows is of the same tenor: “O Jerusalem,
Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are
sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together,
even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Behold, your house is left unto you desolate.”[1095]
Let us see now if in these cases we are not forced to the conclusion,
that while the Saviour gives a true account of them, none of the
Scriptures which could prove what He tells are to be found. For they who
build the tombs of the prophets and garnish the sepulchres of the
righteous, condemning the crimes their fathers committed against the
righteous and the prophets, say, “If we had been in the days of our
fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the
prophets.”[1096] In the blood of what prophets, can any one tell me? For
where do we find anything like this written of Esaias, or Jeremias, or
any of the twelve, or Daniel? Then about Zacharias the son of Barachias,
who was slain between the temple and the altar, we learn from Jesus
only, not knowing it otherwise from any Scripture. Wherefore I think no
other supposition is possible, than that they who had the reputation of
wisdom, and the rulers and elders, took away from the people every
passage which might bring them into discredit among the people. We need
not wonder, then, if this history of the evil device of the licentious
elders against Susanna is true, but was concealed and removed from the
Scriptures by men themselves not very far removed from the counsel of
these elders.
In the Acts of the Apostles also, Stephen, in his other testimony, says,
“Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? And they have
slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye
have been now the betrayers and murderers.”[1097] That Stephen speaks
the truth, every one will admit who receives the Acts of the Apostles;
but it is impossible to show from the extant books of the Old Testament
how with any justice he throws the blame of having persecuted and slain
the prophets on the fathers of those who believed not in Christ. And
Paul, in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians, testifies this
concerning the Jews: “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches
of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered
like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews; who
both killed the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and have persecuted
us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men.”[1098] What I
have said is, I think, sufficient to prove that it would be nothing
wonderful if this history were true, and the licentious and cruel attack
was actually made on Susanna by those who were at that time elders, and
written down by the wisdom of the Spirit, but removed by these rulers of
Sodom,[1099] as the Spirit would call them.
10. Your next objection is, that in this writing Daniel is said to have
been seized by the Spirit, and to have cried out that the sentence was
unjust; while in that writing of his which is universally received he is
represented as prophesying in quite another manner, by visions and
dreams, and an angel appearing to him, but never by prophetic
inspiration. You seem to me to pay too little heed to the words, “At
sundry times, and in divers manners, God spake in time past unto the
fathers by the prophets.”[1100] This is true not only in the general,
but also of individuals. For if you notice, you will find that the same
saints have been favoured with divine dreams and angelic appearances and
[direct] inspirations. For the present it will suffice to instance what
is testified concerning Jacob. Of dreams from God he speaks thus: “And
it came to pass, at the time that the cattle conceived, that I saw them
before my eyes in a dream, and, behold, the rams and he-goats which
leaped upon the sheep and the goats, white-spotted, and speckled, and
grisled. And the angel of God spake unto me in a dream, saying, Jacob.
And I said, What is it? And he said, Lift up thine eyes and see, the
goats and rams leaping on the goats and sheep, white-spotted, and
speckled, and grisled: for I have seen all that Laban doeth unto thee. I
am God, who appeared unto thee in the place of God, where thou
anointedst to me there a pillar, and vowed a vow there to me: now arise,
get thee out from this land, and return unto the land of thy
kindred.”[1101]
And as to an appearance (which is better than a dream), he speaks as
follows about himself: “And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a
man with him until the breaking of the day. And he saw that he prevailed
not against him, and he touched the breadth of his thigh; and the
breadth of Jacob’s thigh grew stiff while he was wrestling with him. And
he said to him, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not
let thee go, except thou bless me. And he said unto him, What is thy
name? And he said, Jacob. And he said to him, Thy name shall be called
no more Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: for thou hast prevailed
with God, and art powerful with men. And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell
me thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my
name? And he blessed him there. And Jacob called the name of the place
Vision of God: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is
preserved. And the sun rose, when the vision of God passed by.”[1102]
And that he also prophesied by inspiration, is evident from this
passage: “And Jacob called unto his sons, and said, Gather yourselves
together, that I may tell you what shall befall you in the last days.
Gather yourselves together, and hear, ye sons of Jacob; and hearken unto
Israel your father. Reuben, my first-born, my might, and the beginning
of my children, hard to be born, hard and stubborn. Thou wert wanton,
boil not over like water; because thou wentest up to thy father’s bed;
then defiledst thou the couch to which thou wentest up.”[1103] And so
with the rest: it was by inspiration that the prophetic blessings were
pronounced. We need not wonder, then, that Daniel sometimes prophesied
by inspiration, as when he rebuked the elders sometimes, as you say, by
dreams and visions, and at other times by an angel appearing unto him.
11. Your other objections are stated, as it appears to me, somewhat
irreverently, and without the becoming spirit of piety. I cannot do
better than quote your very words: “Then, after crying out in this
extraordinary fashion, he detects them in a way no less incredible,
which not even Philistion the play-writer would have resorted to. For,
not satisfied with rebuking them through the Spirit, he placed them
apart, and asked them severally where they saw her committing adultery;
and when the one said, ‘Under a holm-tree’ (_prinos_), he answered that
the angel would saw him asunder (_prisein_); and in a similar fashion
threatened the other, who said, ‘Under a mastich-tree’ (_schinos_), with
being rent asunder.”
You might as reasonably compare to Philistion the play-writer, a story
somewhat like this one, which is found in the third book of Kings, which
you yourself will admit to be well written. Here is what we read in
Kings:
“Then there appeared two women that were harlots before the king, and
stood before him. And the one woman said, To me, my lord, I and this
woman dwell in one house; and we were delivered in the house. And it
came to pass, the third day after that I was delivered, that this woman
was delivered also: and we were together; there is no one in our house
except us two. And this woman’s child died in the night; because she
overlaid it. And she arose at midnight, and took my son from my arms.
And thine handmaid slept. And she laid it in her bosom, and laid her
dead child in my bosom. And I arose in the morning to give my child
suck, and he was dead; but when I had considered it in the morning,
behold, it was not my son which I did bear. And the other woman said,
Nay; the dead is thy son, but the living is my son. And the other said,
No; the living is my son, but the dead is thy son. Thus they spake
before the king. Then said the king, Thou sayest, This is my son that
liveth, and thy son is the dead: and thou sayest, Nay; but thy son is
the dead, and my son is the living. And the king said, Bring me a sword.
And they brought a sword before the king. And the king said, Divide the
living child in two, and give half to the one, and half to the other.
Then spake the woman whose the living child was unto the king (for her
bowels yearned after her son), and she said, To me, my lord, give her
the living child, and in no wise slay it. But the other said, Let it be
neither mine nor thine, but divide it. Then the king answered and said,
Give the child to her which said, Give her the living child, and in no
wise slay it: for she is the mother of it. And all Israel heard of the
judgment which the king had judged; and they feared the face of the
king: for they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to do
judgment.”[1104]
For if we were at liberty to speak in this scoffing way of the
Scriptures in use in the churches, we should rather compare this story
of the two harlots to the play of Philistion than that of the chaste
Susanna. And just as the people would not have been persuaded if Solomon
had merely said, “Give this one the living child, for she is the mother
of it;” so Daniel’s attack on the elders would not have been sufficient
had there not been added the condemnation from their own mouth, when
both said that they had seen her lying with the young man under a tree,
but did not agree as to what kind of tree it was. And since you have
asserted, as if you knew for certain, that Daniel in this matter judged
by inspiration (which may or may not have been the case), I would have
you notice that there seem to me to be some analogies in the story of
Daniel to the judgment of Solomon, concerning whom the Scripture
testifies that the people saw that the wisdom of God was in him to do
judgment.[1105] This might be said also of Daniel, for it was because
wisdom was in him to do judgment that the elders were judged in the
manner described.
12. I had nearly forgotten an additional remark I have to make about the
_prino-prisein_ and _schino-schisein_ difficulty; that is, that in our
Scriptures there are many etymological fancies, so to call them, which
in the Hebrew are perfectly suitable, but not in the Greek. It need not
surprise us, then, if the translators of the History of Susanna
contrived it so that they found out some Greek words, derived from the
same root, which either corresponded exactly to the Hebrew form (though
this I hardly think possible), or presented some analogy to it. Here is
an instance of this in our Scripture. When the woman was made by God
from the rib of the man, Adam says, “She shall be called woman, because
she was taken out of her husband.” Now the Jews say that the woman was
called “_Essa_,” and that “taken” is a translation of this word, as is
evident from “_chos isouoth essa_,” which means, “I have taken the cup
of salvation;”[1106] and that “_is_” means “man,” as we see from “_Hesre
aïs_,” which is, “Blessed is the man.”[1107] According to the Jews,
then, “_is_” is “man,” and “_essa_” “woman,” because she was taken out
of her husband (_is_). It need not then surprise us if some interpreters
of the Hebrew “Susanna,” which had been concealed among them at a very
remote date, and had been preserved only by the more learned and honest,
should have either given the Hebrew word for word, or hit upon some
analogy to the Hebrew forms, that the Greeks might be able to follow
them. For in many other passages we can find traces of this kind of
contrivance on the part of the translators, which I noticed when I was
collating the various editions.
13. You raise another objection, which I give in your own words:
“Moreover, how is it that they, who were captives among the Chaldæans,
lost and won at play, thrown out unburied on the streets, as was
prophesied of the former captivity, their sons torn from them to be
eunuchs, and their daughters to be concubines, as had been prophesied;
how is it that such could pass sentence of death, and that on the wife
of their king Joakim, whom the king of the Babylonians had made partner
of his throne? Then, if it was not this Joakim, but some other from the
common people, whence had a captive such a mansion and spacious garden?”
Where you get your “lost and won at play, and thrown out unburied on the
streets,” I know not, unless it is from Tobias; and Tobias (as also
Judith), we ought to notice, the Jews do not use. They are not even
found in the Hebrew Apocrypha, as I learned from the Jews themselves.
However, since the churches use Tobias, you must know that even in the
captivity some of the captives were rich and well to do. Tobias himself
says, “Because I remembered God with all my heart; and the Most High
gave me grace and beauty in the eyes of Nemessarus, and I was his
purveyor; and I went into Media, and left in trust with Gabael, the
brother of Gabrias at Ragi, a city of Media, ten talents of
silver.”[1108] And he adds, as he were a rich man, “In the days of
Nemessarus I gave many alms to my brethren. I gave my bread to the
hungry, and my clothes to the naked: and if I saw any of my nation dead,
and cast outside the walls of Nineve, I buried him; and if king
Senachereim had slain any when he came fleeing from Judea, I buried them
privily (for in his wrath he killed many).” Think whether this great
catalogue of Tobias’ good deeds does not betoken great wealth and much
property, especially when he adds, “Understanding that I was sought for
to be put to death, I withdrew myself for fear, and all my goods were
forcibly taken away.”[1109]
And another captive, Dachiacharus, the son of Ananiel, the brother of
Tobias, was set over all the exchequer of the kingdom of king Acherdon;
and we read, “Now Achiacharus was cup-bearer and keeper of the signet,
and steward and overseer of the accounts.”[1110]
Mardochaios, too, frequented the court of the king, and had such
boldness before him, that he was inscribed among the benefactors of
Artaxerxes.
Again we read in Esdras, that Neemias, a cup-bearer and eunuch of the
king, of Hebrew race, made a request about the rebuilding of the temple,
and obtained it; so that it was granted to him, with many more, to
return and build the temple again. Why then should we wonder that one
Joakim had garden, and house, and property, whether these were very
expensive or only moderate, for this is not clearly told us in the
writing?
14. But you say, “How could they who were in captivity pass sentence of
death?” asserting, I know not on what grounds, that Susanna was the wife
of a king, because of the name Joakim. The answer is, that it is no
uncommon thing, when great nations become subject, that the king should
allow the captives to use their own laws and courts of justice. Now, for
instance, that the Romans rule, and the Jews pay the half-shekel to
them, how great power by the concession of Cæsar the ethnarch has; so
that we, who have had experience of it, know that he differs in little
from a true king! Private trials are held according to the law, and some
are condemned to death. And though there is not full licence for this,
still it is not done without the knowledge of the ruler, as we learned
and were convinced of when we spent much time in the country of that
people. And yet the Romans only take account of two tribes, while at
that time besides Juda there were the ten tribes of Israel. Probably the
Assyrians contented themselves with holding them in subjection, and
conceded to them their own judicial processes.
15. I find in your letter yet another objection in these words: “And
add, that among all the many prophets who had been before, there is no
one who has quoted from another word for word. For they had no need to
go a-begging for words, since their own were true. But this one, in
rebuking one of these men, quotes the words of the Lord, ‘The innocent
and righteous shalt thou not slay.’” I cannot understand how, with all
your exercise in investigating and meditating on the Scriptures, you
have not noticed that the prophets continually quote each other almost
word for word. For who of all believers does not know the words in
Esaias? “And in the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be
manifest, and the house of the Lord on the top of the mountains, and it
shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall come unto it.
And many people shall go and say, Come ye, and let us go up to the
mountain of the Lord, unto the house of the God of Jacob; and He will
teach us His way, and we will walk in it: for out of Zion shall go forth
a law, and a word of the Lord from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among
the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their
swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning-hooks: nation
shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any
more.”[1111]
But in Micah we find a parallel passage, which is almost word for word:
“And in the last days the mountain of the Lord shall be manifest,
established on the top of the mountains, and it shall be exalted above
the hills; and people shall hasten unto it. And many nations shall come,
and say, Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of
the God of Jacob; and they will teach us His way, and we will walk in
His paths: for a law shall go forth from Zion, and a word of the Lord
from Jerusalem. And He shall judge among many people, and rebuke strong
nations; and they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their
spears into pruning-hooks: nation shall not lift up a sword against
nation, neither shall they learn war any more.”[1112]
Again, in First Chronicles, the psalm which is put in the hands of Asaph
and his brethren to praise the Lord, beginning, “Give thanks unto the
Lord, call upon His name,”[1113] is in the beginning almost identical
with Ps. civ., down to “and do my prophets no harm;” and after that it
is the same as Ps. xcv., from the beginning of that psalm, which is
something like this, “Praise the Lord all the earth,” down to “For He
cometh to judge the earth.” (It would have taken up too much time to
quote more fully; so I have given these short references, which are
sufficient for the matter before us.) And you will find the law about
not bearing a burden on the Sabbath-day in Jeremia, as well as in
Moses.[1114] And the rules about the passover, and the rules for the
priests, are not only in Moses, but also at the end of Ezekiel.[1115] I
would have quoted these, and many more, had I not found that from the
shortness of my stay in Nicomedia my time for writing you was already
too much restricted.
Your last objection is, that the style is different. This I cannot see.
This, then, is my defence. I might, especially after all these
accusations, speak in praise of this history of Susanna, dwelling on it
word by word, and expounding the exquisite nature of the thoughts. Such
an encomium, perhaps, some of the learned and able students of divine
things may at some other time compose. This, however, is my answer to
your strokes, as you call them. Would that I could instruct you! But I
do not now arrogate that to myself. My lord and dear brother Ambrosius,
who has written this at my dictation, and has, in looking over it,
corrected as he pleased, salutes you. His faithful spouse, Marcella, and
her children, also salute you. Also Anicetus. Do you salute our dear
father Apollinarius, and all our friends.
Footnote 1083:
The Song of the Three Holy Children in the Apocrypha.
Footnote 1084:
This should probably be corrected, with Pat. Jun., into, “Nor are the
letters, _neither_,” etc.
Footnote 1085:
1 Cor. vi. 20; Rom. xiv. 15.
Footnote 1086:
Rom. viii. 32.
Footnote 1087:
Prov. xxii. 28.
Footnote 1088:
Origen’s most important contribution to biblical literature was his
elaborate attempt to rectify the text of the Septuagint by collating
it with the Hebrew original and other Greek versions. On this he spent
twenty-eight years, during which he travelled through the East
collecting materials. The form in which he first issued the result of
his labours was that of the _Tetrapla_, which presented in four
columns the texts of the LXX., Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. He
next issued the _Hexapla_, in which the Hebrew text was given, first
in Hebrew and then in Greek letters. Of some books he gave two
additional Greek versions, whence the title _Octapla_; and there was
even a seventh Greek version added for some books. Unhappily this
great work, which extended to nearly fifty volumes, was never
transcribed, and so perished (Kitto, _Cycl._).
Footnote 1089:
Jer. xxix. 22.
Footnote 1090:
Luke xii. 45, 46.
Footnote 1091:
Susanna 52, 53.
Footnote 1092:
Susanna 56.
Footnote 1093:
Et utrumque sigillatim in quamcunque mulierem incidebat, et cui vitium
afferre cupiebat, ei secreto affirmasse sibi a Deo datum gignere
Christum. Hinc spe gignendi Christum decepta mulier, sui copiam
decipienti faciebat, et sic civium uxores stuprabant seniores Achib et
Sedekias.
Footnote 1094:
Heb. xi. 38.
Footnote 1095:
Matt. xxiii. 29-36.
Footnote 1096:
Matt. xxiii. 30.
Footnote 1097:
Acts vii. 52.
Footnote 1098:
1 Thess. ii. 14-16.
Footnote 1099:
Isa. i. 10.
Footnote 1100:
Heb. i. 1.
Footnote 1101:
Gen. xxxi. 10.
Footnote 1102:
Gen. xxxii. 24.
Footnote 1103:
Gen. xlix. 1.
Footnote 1104:
1 Kings iii. 16-28.
Footnote 1105:
1 Kings iii. 28.
Footnote 1106:
Ps. cxv. 13.
Footnote 1107:
Ps. i. 1.
Footnote 1108:
Tob. i. 12.
Footnote 1109:
Tob. i. 19.
Footnote 1110:
Tob. i. 22.
Footnote 1111:
Isa. ii. 2.
Footnote 1112:
Mic. iv. 1.
Footnote 1113:
1 Chron. xvi. 8.
Footnote 1114:
Ex. xxxv. 2; Num. xv. 32; Jer. xvii. 21-24.
Footnote 1115:
In Levit. _passim_; Ezek. xliii. xliv. xlv. xlvi.
A LETTER FROM ORIGEN TO GREGORY.[1116]
Greeting in God, my most excellent sir, and venerable son Gregory, from
Origen. A natural readiness of comprehension, as you well know, may, if
practice be added, contribute somewhat to the contingent end, if I may
so call it, of that which any one wishes to practise. Thus, your natural
good parts might make of you a finished Roman lawyer or a Greek
philosopher, so to speak, of one of the schools in high reputation. But
I am anxious that you should devote all the strength of your natural
good parts to Christianity for your end; and in order to this, I wish to
ask you to extract from the philosophy of the Greeks what may serve as a
course of study or a preparation for Christianity, and from geometry and
astronomy what will serve to explain the sacred Scriptures, in order
that all that the sons of the philosophers are wont to say about
geometry and music, grammar, rhetoric, and astronomy, as fellow-helpers
to philosophy, we may say about philosophy itself, in relation to
Christianity.
2. Perhaps something of this kind is shadowed forth in what is written
in Exodus from the mouth of God, that the children of Israel were
commanded to ask from their neighbours, and those who dwelt with them,
vessels of silver and gold, and raiment, in order that, by spoiling the
Egyptians, they might have material for the preparation of the things
which pertained to the service of God. For from the things which the
children of Israel took from the Egyptians the vessels in the holy of
holies were made,—the ark with its lid, and the cherubim, and the
mercy-seat, and the golden coffer, where was the manna, the angels’
bread. These things were probably made from the best of the Egyptian
gold. An inferior kind would be used for the solid golden candlestick
near the inner veil, and its branches, and the golden table on which
were the pieces of shewbread, and the golden censer between them. And if
there was a third and fourth quality of gold, from it would be made the
holy vessels; and the other things would be made of Egyptian silver. For
when the children of Israel dwelt in Egypt, they gained this from their
dwelling there, that they had no lack of such precious material for the
utensils of the service of God. And of the Egyptian raiment were
probably made all those things which, as the Scripture mentions, needed
sewed and embroidered work, sewed with the wisdom of God, the one to the
other, that the veils might be made, and the inner and the outer courts.
And why should I go on, in this untimely digression, to set forth how
useful to the children of Israel were the things brought from Egypt,
which the Egyptians had not put to a proper use, but which the Hebrews,
guided by the wisdom of God, used for God’s service? Now the sacred
Scripture is wont to represent as an evil the going down from the land
of the children of Israel into Egypt, indicating that certain persons
get harm from sojourning among the Egyptians, that is to say, from
meddling with the knowledge of this world, after they have subscribed to
the law of God, and the Israelitish service of Him. Ader[1117] at least,
the Idumæan, so long as he was in the land of Israel, and had not tasted
the bread of the Egyptians, made no idols. It was when he fled from the
wise Solomon, and went down into Egypt, as it were flying from the
wisdom of God, and was made a kinsman of Pharaoh by marrying his wife’s
sister, and begetting a child, who was brought up with the children of
Pharaoh, that he did this. Wherefore, although he did return to the land
of Israel, he returned only to divide the people of God, and to make
them say to the golden calf, “These be thy gods, O Israel, which brought
thee up from the land of Egypt.” And I may tell you from my experience,
that not many take from Egypt only the useful, and go away and use it
for the service of God; while Ader the Idumæan has many brethren. These
are they who, from their Greek studies, produce heretical notions, and
set them up, like the golden calf, in Bethel, which signifies “God’s
house.” In these words also there seems to me an indication that they
have set up their own imaginations in the Scriptures, where the word of
God dwells, which is called in a figure Bethel. The other figure, the
word says, was set up in Dan. Now the borders of Dan are the most
extreme, and nearest the borders of the Gentiles, as is clear from what
is written in Joshua, the son of Nun. Now some of the devices of these
brethren of Ader, as we call them, are also very near the borders of the
Gentiles.
3. Do you then, my son, diligently apply yourself to the reading of the
sacred Scriptures. Apply yourself, I say. For we who read the things of
God need much application, lest we should say or think anything too
rashly about them. And applying yourself thus to the study of the things
of God, with faithful prejudgments such as are well pleasing to God,
knock at its locked door, and it will be opened to you by the porter, of
whom Jesus says, “To him the porter opens.”[1118] And applying yourself
thus to the divine study, seek aright, and with unwavering trust in God,
the meaning of the holy Scriptures, which so many have missed. Be not
satisfied with knocking and seeking; for prayer is of all things
indispensable to the knowledge of the things of God. For to this the
Saviour exhorted, and said not only, “Knock, and it shall be opened to
you; and seek, and ye shall find,”[1119] but also, “Ask, and it shall be
given unto you.”[1120] My fatherly love to you has made me thus bold;
but whether my boldness be good, God will know, and His Christ, and all
partakers of the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ. May you also be
a partaker, and be ever increasing your inheritance, that you may say
not only, “We are become partakers of Christ,”[1121] but also partakers
of God.
Footnote 1116:
This Gregory, styled the Wonder-worker, was afterwards bishop of
Neo-Cæsarea.
Footnote 1117:
Origen evidently confounds Hadad the Edomite, of 1 Kings xii. 14, with
Jeroboam.
Footnote 1118:
John x. 3.
Footnote 1119:
Matt. vii. 7.
Footnote 1120:
Luke xi. 9.
Footnote 1121:
Heb. iii. 14.
ORIGEN CONTRA CELSUM.
ORIGEN AGAINST CELSUS.
BOOK I.
PREFACE.
1. When false witnesses testified against our Lord and Saviour Jesus
Christ, He remained silent; and when unfounded charges were brought
against Him, He returned no answer, believing that His whole life and
conduct among the Jews were a better refutation than any answer to the
false testimony, or than any formal defence against the accusations. And
I know not, my pious Ambrosius,[1122] why you wished me to write a reply
to the false charges brought by Celsus against the Christians, and to
his accusations directed against the faith of the churches in his
treatise; as if the facts themselves did not furnish a manifest
refutation, and the doctrine a better answer than any writing, seeing it
both disposes of the false statements, and does not leave to the
accusations any credibility or validity. Now, with respect to our Lord’s
silence when false witness was borne against Him, it is sufficient at
present to quote the words of Matthew, for the testimony of Mark is to
the same effect. And the words of Matthew are as follow: “And the high
priest and the council sought false witness against Jesus to put Him to
death, but found none, although many false witnesses came forward. At
last two false witnesses came and said, This fellow said, I am able to
destroy the temple of God, and after three days to build it up. And the
high priest arose, and said to Him, Answerest thou nothing to what these
witness against thee? But Jesus held His peace.”[1123] And that He
returned no answer when falsely accused, the following is the statement:
“And Jesus stood before the governor; and he asked Him, saying, Art thou
the king of the Jews? And Jesus said to him, Thou sayest. And when He
was accused of the chief priests and elders, He answered nothing. Then
said Pilate unto Him, Hearest thou not how many things they witness
against thee? And He answered him to never a word, insomuch that the
governor marvelled greatly.”[1124]
2. It was, indeed, matter of surprise to men even of ordinary
intelligence, that one who was accused and assailed by false testimony,
but who was able to defend Himself, and to show that He was guilty of
none of the charges [alleged], and who might have enumerated the
praiseworthy deeds of His own life, and His miracles wrought by divine
power, so as to give the judge an opportunity of delivering a more
honourable judgment regarding Him, should not have done this, but should
have disdained such a procedure, and in the nobleness of His nature have
contemned His accusers.[1125] That the judge would, without any
hesitation, have set Him at liberty if He had offered a defence, is
clear from what is related of him when he said, “Which of the two do ye
wish that I should release unto you, Barabbas or Jesus, who is called
Christ?”[1126] and from what the Scripture adds, “For he knew that for
envy they had delivered Him.”[1127] Jesus, however, is at all times
assailed by false witnesses, and, while wickedness remains in the world,
is ever exposed to accusation. And yet even now He continues silent
before these things, and makes no audible answer, but places His defence
in the lives of His genuine disciples, which are a pre-eminent
testimony, and one that rises superior to all false witness, and refutes
and overthrows all unfounded accusations and charges.
3. I venture, then, to say that this “apology” which you require me to
compose will somewhat weaken that defence [of Christianity] which rests
on facts, and that power of Jesus which is manifest to those who are not
altogether devoid of perception. Notwithstanding, that we may not have
the appearance of being reluctant to undertake the task which you have
enjoined, we have endeavoured, to the best of our ability, to suggest,
by way of answer to each of the statements advanced by Celsus, what
seemed to us adapted to refute them, although his arguments have no
power to shake the faith of any [true] believer. And forbid, indeed,
that any one should be found who, after having been a partaker in such a
love of God as was [displayed] in Christ Jesus, could be shaken in his
purpose by the arguments of Celsus, or of any such as he. For Paul, when
enumerating the innumerable causes which generally separate men from the
love of Christ and from the love of God in Christ Jesus (to all of
which, the love that was in himself rose superior), did not set down
argument among the grounds of separation. For observe that he says,
firstly: “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.”[1128] And secondly, when laying down another series of causes which
naturally tend to separate those who are not firmly grounded in their
religion, he says: “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.”[1129]
4. Now, truly, it is proper that _we_ should feel elated because
afflictions, or those other causes enumerated by Paul, do not separate
us [from Christ]; but not that Paul and the other apostles, and any
other resembling them, [should entertain that feeling], because they
were far exalted above such things when they said, “In all these things
we are _more_ than conquerors through Him that loved us,”[1130] which is
a stronger statement than that they are simply “conquerors.” But if it
be proper for apostles to entertain a feeling of elation in not being
separated from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord, that
feeling will be entertained by them because neither death, nor life, nor
angels, nor principalities, nor any of the things that follow, can
separate them from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
And therefore I do not congratulate that believer in Christ whose faith
can be shaken by Celsus—who no longer shares the common life of men, but
has long since departed—or by any apparent plausibility of
argument.[1131] For I do not know in what rank to place him who has need
of arguments written in books in answer to the charges of Celsus against
the Christians, in order to prevent him from being shaken in his faith,
and confirm him in it. But nevertheless, since in the multitude of those
who are considered believers some such persons might be found as would
have their faith shaken and overthrown by the writings of Celsus, but
who might be preserved by a reply to them of such a nature as to refute
his statements and to exhibit the truth, we have deemed it right to
yield to your injunction, and to furnish an answer to the treatise which
you sent us, but which I do not think that any one, although only a
short way advanced in philosophy, will allow to be a “True Discourse,”
as Celsus has entitled it.
5. Paul, indeed, observing that there are in Greek philosophy certain
things not to be lightly esteemed, which are plausible in the eyes of
the many, but which represent falsehood as truth, says with regard to
such: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not
after Christ.”[1132] And seeing that there was a kind of greatness
manifest in the words of the world’s wisdom, he said that the words of
the philosophers were “according to the rudiments of the world.” No man
of sense, however, would say that those of Celsus were “according to the
rudiments of the world.” Now those words, which contained some element
of deceitfulness, the apostle named “vain deceit,” probably by way of
distinction from a deceit that was not “vain;” and the prophet Jeremiah
observing this, ventured to say to God, “O Lord, Thou hast deceived me,
and I was deceived; Thou art stronger than I, and hast prevailed.”[1133]
But in the language of Celsus there seems to me to be no deceitfulness
at all, not even that which is “vain;” such deceitfulness, viz., as is
found in the language of those who have founded philosophical sects, and
who have been endowed with no ordinary talent for such pursuits. And as
no one would say that any ordinary error in geometrical demonstrations
was intended to deceive, or would describe it for the sake of exercise
in such matters;[1134] so those opinions which are to be styled “vain
deceit,” and the “tradition of men,” and “according to the rudiments of
the world,” must have some resemblance to the views of those who have
been the founders of philosophical sects, [if such titles are to be
appropriately applied to them].
6. After proceeding with this work as far as the place where Celsus
introduces the Jew disputing with Jesus, I resolved to prefix this
preface to the beginning [of the treatise], in order that the reader of
our reply to Celsus might fall in with it first, and see that this book
has been composed not for those who are thorough believers, but for such
as are either wholly unacquainted with the Christian faith, or for those
who, as the apostle terms them, are “weak in the faith;” regarding whom
he says, “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye.”[1135] And this
preface must be my apology for beginning my answer to Celsus on one
plan, and carrying it on on another. For my first intention was to
indicate his principal objections, and then briefly the answers that
were returned to them, and subsequently to make a systematic treatise of
the whole discourse.[1136] But afterwards, circumstances themselves
suggested to me that I should be economical of my time, and that,
satisfied with what I had already stated at the commencement, I should
in the following part grapple closely, to the best of my ability, with
the charges of Celsus. I have therefore to ask indulgence for those
portions which follow the preface towards the beginning of the book. And
if you are not impressed by the powerful arguments which succeed, then,
asking similar indulgence also with respect to them, I refer you, if you
still desire an argumentative solution of the objections of Celsus, to
those men who are wiser than myself, and who are able by words and
treatises to overthrow the charges which he brings against us. But
better is the man who, although meeting with the work of Celsus, needs
no answer to it at all, but who despises all its contents, since they
are contemned, and with good reason, by every believer in Christ,
through the Spirit that is in him.
Footnote 1122:
This individual is mentioned by Eusebius (_Eccles. Hist._ b. vi. c.
18) as having been converted from the heresy of Valentinus to the
faith of the church by the efforts of Origen.
Footnote 1123:
Cf. Matt. xxvi. 59-62.
Footnote 1124:
Cf. Matt. xxvii. 11-14.
Footnote 1125:
Μεγαλοφυῶς ὑπερεωρακέναι τοὺς κατηγόρους.
Footnote 1126:
Cf. Matt. xxvii. 17.
Footnote 1127:
Cf. Matt. xxvii. 18.
Footnote 1128:
Rom. viii. 35-37.
Footnote 1129:
Rom. viii. 38, 39.
Footnote 1130:
Rom. viii. 37, ὑπερνικῶμεν.
Footnote 1131:
ἠ τινος πιθανότητος λόγου.
Footnote 1132:
Col. ii. 8.
Footnote 1133:
Cf. Jer. xx. 7.
Footnote 1134:
Καὶ ὥσπερ οὐ τὸ τυχὸν τῶν ψευδομένων ἐν γεωμετρικοῖς θεωρήμασι
ψευδογραφούμενον τις ἄν λέγοι, ἢ καὶ ἀναγράφοι γυμνασίου ἕνεκεν τοῦ
ἀπὸ τοιούτων. Cf. note of Ruæus _in loc._
Footnote 1135:
Rom. xiv. 1.
Footnote 1136:
σωματοποιῆσαι.
Chapter I.
The first point which Celsus brings forward, in his desire to throw
discredit upon Christianity, is, that the Christians entered into secret
associations with each other contrary to law, saying, that “of
associations some are public, and that these are in accordance with the
laws; others, again, secret, and maintained in violation of the laws.”
And his wish is to bring into disrepute what are termed the
“love-feasts”[1137] of the Christians, as if they had their origin in
the common danger, and were more binding than any oaths. Since, then, he
babbles about the public law, alleging that the associations of the
Christians are in violation of it, we have to reply, that if a man were
placed among Scythians, whose laws were unholy,[1138] and having no
opportunity of escape, were compelled to live among them, such an one
would with good reason, for the sake of the law of truth, which the
Scythians would regard as wickedness,[1139] enter into associations
contrary to their laws, with those like-minded with himself; so, if
truth is to decide, the laws of the heathens which relate to images, and
an atheistical polytheism, are “Scythian” laws, or more impious even
than these, if there be any such. It is not irrational, then, to form
associations in opposition to existing laws, if done for the sake of the
truth. For as those persons would do well who should enter into a secret
association in order to put to death a tyrant who had seized upon the
liberties of a state, so Christians also, when tyrannized over by him
who is called the devil, and by falsehood, form leagues contrary to the
laws of the devil, against his power, and for the safety of those others
whom they may succeed in persuading to revolt from a government which
is, as it were, “Scythian,” and despotic.
Footnote 1137:
τὴν καλουμένην ἀγάπην.
Footnote 1138:
ἀθέσμους.
Footnote 1139:
παρανομίαν.
Chapter II.
Celsus next proceeds to say, that the system of doctrine, viz. Judaism,
upon which Christianity depends, was barbarous in its origin. And with
an appearance of fairness, he does not reproach Christianity[1140]
because of its origin among barbarians, but gives the latter credit for
their ability in discovering [such] doctrines. To this, however, he adds
the statement, that the Greeks are more skilful than any others in
judging, establishing, and reducing to practice the discoveries of
barbarous nations. Now this is our answer to his allegations, and our
defence of the truths contained in Christianity, that if any one were to
come from the study of Grecian opinions and usages to the gospel, he
would not only decide that its doctrines were true, but would by
practice establish their truth, and supply whatever seemed wanting, from
a Grecian point of view, to their demonstration, and thus confirm the
truth of Christianity. We have to say, moreover, that the gospel has a
demonstration of its own, more divine than any established by Grecian
dialectics. And this diviner method is called by the apostle the
“manifestation of the Spirit and of power:” of “the Spirit,” on account
of the prophecies, which are sufficient to produce faith in any one who
reads them, especially in those things which relate to Christ; and of
“power,” because of the signs and wonders which we must believe to have
been performed, both on many other grounds, and on this, that traces of
them are still preserved among those who regulate their lives by the
precepts of the gospel.
Footnote 1140:
τῷ λόγῳ.
Chapter III.
After this, Celsus proceeding to speak of the Christians teaching and
practising their favourite doctrines in secret, and saying that they do
this to some purpose, seeing they escape the penalty of death which is
imminent, he compares their dangers with those which were encountered by
such men as Socrates for the sake of philosophy; and here he might have
mentioned Pythagoras as well, and other philosophers. But our answer to
this is, that in the case of Socrates the Athenians immediately
afterwards repented; and no feeling of bitterness remained in their
minds regarding him, as also happened in the history of Pythagoras. The
followers of the latter, indeed, for a considerable time established
their schools in that part of Italy called Magna Græcia; but in the case
of the Christians, the Roman Senate, and the princes of the time, and
the soldiery, and the people, and the relatives of those who had become
converts to the faith, made war upon their doctrine, and would have
prevented [its progress], overcoming it by a confederacy of so powerful
a nature, had it not, by the help of God, escaped the danger, and risen
above it, so as [finally] to defeat the whole world in its conspiracy
against it.
Chapter IV.
Let us notice also how he thinks to cast discredit upon our system of
morals,[1141] alleging that it is only common to us with other
philosophers, and no venerable or new branch of instruction. In reply to
which we have to say, that unless all men had naturally impressed upon
their minds sound ideas of morality, the doctrine of the punishment of
sinners would have been excluded by those who bring upon themselves the
righteous judgments of God. It is not therefore matter of surprise that
the same God should have sown in the hearts of all men those truths
which He taught by the prophets and the Saviour, in order that at the
divine judgment every man may be without excuse, having the
“requirements[1142] of the law written upon his heart,”—a truth
obscurely alluded to by the Bible[1143] in what the Greeks regard as a
myth, where it represents God as having with His own finger written down
the commandments, and given them to Moses, and which the wickedness of
the worshippers of the calf made him break in pieces, as if the flood of
wickedness, so to speak, had swept them away. But Moses having again
hewn tables of stone, God wrote the commandments a second time, and gave
them to him; the prophetic word preparing the soul, as it were, after
the first transgression, for the writing of God a second time.
Footnote 1141:
τὸν ἠθικὸν τόπον.
Footnote 1142:
τὸ βούλημα τοῦ νόμου.
Footnote 1143:
ὁ λόγος.
Chapter V.
Treating of the regulations respecting idolatry as being peculiar to
Christianity, Celsus establishes their correctness, saying that the
Christians do not consider those to be gods that are made with hands, on
the ground that it is not in conformity with right reason [to suppose]
that images, fashioned by the most worthless and depraved of workmen,
and in many instances also provided by wicked men, can be [regarded as]
gods. In what follows, however, wishing to show that this is a common
opinion, and one not first discovered by Christianity, he quotes a
saying of Heraclitus to this effect: “That those who draw near to
lifeless images, as if they were gods, act in a similar manner to those
who would enter into conversation with houses.” Respecting this, then,
we have to say, that ideas were implanted in the minds of men like the
principles of morality, from which not only Heraclitus, but any other
Greek or barbarian, might by reflection have deduced the same
conclusion; for he states that the Persians also were of the same
opinion, quoting Herodotus as his authority. We also can add to these
Zeno of Citium, who in his _Polity_ says: “And there will be no need to
build temples, for nothing ought to be regarded as sacred, or of much
value, or holy, which is the work of builders and of mean men.” It is
evident, then, with respect to this opinion [as well as others], that
there has been engraven upon the hearts of men by the finger of God a
sense of the duty that is required.
Chapter VI.
After this, through the influence of some motive which is unknown to me,
Celsus asserts that it is by the names of certain demons, and by the use
of incantations, that the Christians appear to be possessed of
[miraculous] power; hinting, I suppose, at the practices of those who
expel evil spirits by incantations. And here he manifestly appears to
malign the gospel. For it is not by incantations that Christians seem to
prevail [over evil spirits], but by the name of Jesus, accompanied by
the announcement of the narratives which relate to Him; for the
repetition of these has frequently been the means of driving demons out
of men, especially when those who repeated them did so in a sound and
genuinely believing spirit. Such power, indeed, does the name of Jesus
possess over evil spirits, that there have been instances where it was
effectual, when it was pronounced even by bad men, which Jesus Himself
taught [would be the case], when He said: “Many shall say to me in that
day, In Thy name we have cast out devils, and done many wonderful
works.”[1144] Whether Celsus omitted this from intentional malignity, or
from ignorance, I do not know. And he next proceeds to bring a charge
against the Saviour Himself, alleging that it was by means of sorcery
that He was able to accomplish the wonders which He performed; and that
foreseeing that others would attain the same knowledge, and do the same
things, making a boast of doing them by help of the power of God, He
excludes such from His kingdom. And his accusation is, that if they are
justly excluded, while He Himself is guilty of the same practices, He is
a wicked man; but if He is not guilty of wickedness in doing such
things, neither are they who do the same as He. But even if it be
impossible to show by what power Jesus wrought these miracles, it is
clear that Christians employ no spells or incantations, but the simple
name of Jesus, and certain other words in which they repose faith,
according to the Holy Scriptures.
Footnote 1144:
Cf. Matt. vii. 22.
Chapter VII.
Moreover, since he frequently calls the Christian doctrine a secret
system [of belief], we must confute him on this point also, since almost
the entire world is better acquainted with what Christians preach than
with the favourite opinions of philosophers. For who is ignorant of the
statement that Jesus was born of a virgin, and that He was crucified,
and that His resurrection is an article of faith among many, and that a
general judgment is announced to come, in which the wicked are to be
punished according to their deserts, and the righteous to be duly
rewarded? And yet the mystery of the resurrection, not being
understood,[1145] is made a subject of ridicule among unbelievers. In
these circumstances, to speak of the Christian doctrine as a _secret_
system, is altogether absurd. But that there should be certain
doctrines, not made known to the multitude, which are [revealed] after
the exoteric ones have been taught, is not a peculiarity of Christianity
alone, but also of philosophic systems, in which certain truths are
exoteric and others esoteric. Some of the hearers of Pythagoras were
content with his _ipse dixit_; while others were taught in secret those
doctrines which were not deemed fit to be communicated to profane and
insufficiently prepared ears. Moreover, all the mysteries that are
celebrated everywhere throughout Greece and barbarous countries,
although held in secret, have no discredit thrown upon them, so that it
is in vain that he endeavours to calumniate the secret doctrines of
Christianity, seeing he does not correctly understand its nature.
Footnote 1145:
The words, as they stand in the text of Lommatzsch, are, ἀλλὰ καὶ μὴν
νοηθὲν τὸ περὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως μυστήριον. Ruæus would read μὴ instead
of μήν. This emendation has been adopted in the translation.
Chapter VIII.
It is with a certain eloquence,[1146] indeed, that he appears to
advocate the cause of those who bear witness to the truth of
Christianity by their death, in the following words: “And I do not
maintain that if a man, who has adopted a system of good doctrine, is to
incur danger from men on that account, he should either apostatize, or
feign apostasy, or openly deny his opinions.” And he condemns those who,
while holding the Christian views, either pretend that they do not, or
deny them, saying that “he who holds a certain opinion ought not to
feign recantation, or publicly disown it.” And here Celsus must be
convicted of self-contradiction. For from other treatises of his it is
ascertained that he was an Epicurean; but here, because he thought that
he could assail Christianity with better effect by not professing the
opinions of Epicurus, he pretends that there is a something better in
man than the earthly part of his nature, which is akin to God, and says
that “they in whom this element, viz. the soul, is in a healthy
condition, are ever seeking after their kindred nature, meaning God, and
are ever desiring to hear something about Him, and to call it to
remembrance.” Observe now the insincerity of his character! Having said
a little before, that “the man who had embraced a system of good
doctrine ought not, even if exposed to danger on that account from men,
to disavow it, or pretend that he had done so, nor yet openly disown
it,” he now involves himself in all manner of contradictions. For he
knew that if he acknowledged himself an Epicurean, he would not obtain
any credit when accusing those who, in any degree, introduce the
doctrine of Providence, and who place a God over the world. And we have
heard that there were two individuals of the name of Celsus, both of
whom were Epicureans; the earlier of the two having lived in the time of
Nero, but this one in that of Adrian, and later.
Footnote 1146:
δεινότητος.
Chapter IX.
He next proceeds to recommend, that in adopting opinions we should
follow reason and a rational guide,[1147] since he who assents to
opinions without following this course is very liable to be deceived.
And he compares inconsiderate believers to Metragyrtæ, and soothsayers,
and Mithræ, and Sabbadians, and to anything else that one may fall in
with, and to the phantoms of Hecate, or any other demon or demons. For
as amongst such persons are frequently to be found wicked men, who,
taking advantage of the ignorance of those who are easily deceived, lead
them away whither they will, so also, he says, is the case among
Christians. And he asserts that certain persons who do not wish either
to give or receive a reason for their belief, keep repeating, “Do not
examine, but believe!” and, “Your faith will save you!” And he alleges
that such also say, “The wisdom of this life is bad, but that
foolishness is a good thing!” To which we have to answer, that if it
were possible for all to leave the business of life, and devote
themselves to philosophy, no other method ought to be adopted by any
one, but this alone. For in the Christian system also it will be found
that there is, not to speak at all arrogantly, at least as much of
investigation into articles of belief, and of explanation of dark
sayings, occurring in the prophetical writings, and of the parables in
the Gospels, and of countless other things, which either were narrated
or enacted with a symbolical signification,[1148] [as is the case with
other systems]. But since the course alluded to is impossible, partly on
account of the necessities of life, partly on account of the weakness of
men, as only a very few individuals devote themselves earnestly to
study,[1149] what better method could be devised with a view of
assisting the multitude, than that which was delivered by Jesus to the
heathen? And let us inquire, with respect to the great multitude of
believers, who have washed away the mire of wickedness in which they
formerly wallowed, whether it were better for them to believe without a
reason, and [so] to have become reformed and improved in their habits,
through the belief that men are chastised for sins, and honoured for
good works; or not to have allowed themselves to be converted on the
strength of mere faith, but [to have waited] until they could give
themselves to a thorough examination of the [necessary] reasons. For it
is manifest that, [on such a plan], all men, with very few exceptions,
would not obtain this [amelioration of conduct] which they have obtained
through a simple faith, but would continue to remain in the practice of
a wicked life. Now, whatever other evidence can be furnished of the
fact, that it was not without divine intervention that the philanthropic
scheme of Christianity was introduced among men, this also must be
added. For a pious man will not believe that even a physician of the
body, who restores the sick to better health, could take up his abode in
any city or country without divine permission, since no good happens to
men without the help of God. And if he who has cured the _bodies_ of
many, or restored them to better health, does not effect his cures
without the help of God, how much more He who has healed the _souls_ of
many, and has turned them [to virtue], and improved their nature, and
attached them to God who is over all things, and taught them to refer
every action to His good pleasure, and to shun all that is displeasing
to Him, even to the least of their words or deeds, or even of the
thoughts of their hearts?
Footnote 1147:
λόγῳ καὶ λογικῷ ὁδηγῷ.
Footnote 1148:
συμβολικῶς γεγενημένων, ἢ νενομοθετημένων.
Footnote 1149:
σφόδρα ὀλίγων ἐπὶ τὸν λόγον ᾀττόντων.
Chapter X.
In the next place, since our opponents keep repeating those statements
about faith, we must say that, considering it as a useful thing for the
multitude, we admit that we teach those men to believe without reasons,
who are unable to abandon all other employments, and give themselves to
an examination of arguments; and our opponents, although they do not
acknowledge it, yet practically do the same. For who is there that, on
betaking himself to the study of philosophy, and throwing himself into
the ranks of some sect, either by chance,[1150] or because he is
provided with a teacher of that school, adopts such a course for any
other reason, except that he _believes_ his particular sect to be
superior to any other? For, not waiting to hear the arguments of all the
other philosophers, and of all the different sects, and the reasons for
condemning one system and for supporting another, he in this way elects
to become a Stoic, _e.g._, or a Platonist, or a Peripatetic, or an
Epicurean, or a follower of some other school, and is thus borne,
although they will not admit it, by a kind of irrational impulse to the
practice, say of Stoicism, to the disregard of the others; despising
either Platonism, as being marked by greater humility than the others;
or Peripateticism, as more human, and as admitting with more
fairness[1151] than other systems the blessings of human life. And some
also, alarmed at first sight[1152] about the doctrine of providence,
from seeing what happens in the world to the vicious and to the
virtuous, have rashly concluded that there is no divine providence at
all, and have adopted the views of Epicurus and Celsus.
Footnote 1150:
ἀποκληρωτικῶς.
Footnote 1151:
μᾶλλον εὐγνωμόνως.
Footnote 1152:
ἀπὸ πρώτης προσβολῆς.
Chapter XI.
Since, then, as reason teaches, we must repose faith in some one of
those who have been the introducers of sects among the Greeks or
barbarians, why should we not rather believe in God who is over all
things, and in Him who teaches that worship is due to God alone, and
that other things are to be passed by, either as non-existent, or as
existing indeed, and worthy of honour, but not of worship and reverence?
And respecting these things, he who not only believes, but who
contemplates things with the eye of reason, will state the
demonstrations that occur to him, and which are the result of careful
investigation. And why should it not be more reasonable, seeing all
human things are dependent upon faith, to believe God rather than them?
For who enters on a voyage, or contracts a marriage, or becomes the
father of children, or casts seed into the ground, without believing
that better things will result from so doing, although the contrary
might and sometimes does happen? And yet the belief that better things,
even agreeably to their wishes, will follow, makes all men venture upon
uncertain enterprises, which may turn out differently from what they
expect. And if the hope and belief of a better future be the support of
life in every uncertain enterprise, why shall not this faith rather be
rationally accepted by him who believes on better grounds than he who
sails the sea, or tills the ground, or marries a wife, or engages in any
other human pursuit, in the existence of a God who was the Creator of
all these things, and in Him who with surpassing wisdom and divine
greatness of mind dared to make known this doctrine to men in every part
of the world, at the cost of great danger, and of a death considered
infamous, which He underwent for the sake of the human race; having also
taught those who were persuaded to embrace His doctrine at the first, to
proceed, under the peril of every danger, and of ever impending death,
to all quarters of the world to ensure the salvation of men?
Chapter XII.
In the next place, when Celsus says in express words, “If they would
answer me, not as if I were asking for information, for I am acquainted
with all their opinions, but because I take an equal interest in them
all, it would be well. And if they will not, but will keep reiterating,
as they generally do, ‘Do not investigate,’ etc., they must, he
continues, explain to me at least of what nature these things are of
which they speak, and whence they are derived,” etc. Now, with regard to
his statement that he “is acquainted with all our doctrines,” we have to
say that this is a boastful and daring assertion; for if he had read the
prophets in particular, which are full of acknowledged difficulties, and
of declarations that are obscure to the multitude, and if he had perused
the parables of the Gospels, and the other writings of the law and of
the Jewish history, and the utterances of the apostles, and had read
them candidly, with a desire to enter into their meaning, he would not
have expressed himself with such boldness, nor said that he “was
acquainted with all their doctrines.” Even we ourselves, who have
devoted much study to these writings, would not say that “we were
acquainted with everything,” for we have a regard for truth. Not one of
us will assert, “I know all the doctrines of Epicurus,” or will be
confident that he knows all those of Plato, in the knowledge of the fact
that so many differences of opinion exist among the expositors of these
systems. For who is so daring as to say that he knows all the opinions
of the Stoics or of the Peripatetics? Unless, indeed, it should be the
case that he has heard this boast, “I know them all,” from some ignorant
and senseless individuals, who do not perceive their own ignorance, and
should thus imagine, from having had such persons as his teachers, that
he was acquainted with them all. Such an one appears to me to act very
much as a person would do who had visited Egypt (where the Egyptian
_savans_, learned in their country’s literature, are greatly given to
philosophizing about those things which are regarded among them as
divine, but where the vulgar, hearing certain myths, the reasons of
which they do not understand, are greatly elated because of their
fancied knowledge), and who should imagine that he is acquainted with
the whole circle of Egyptian knowledge, after having been a disciple of
the ignorant alone, and without having associated with any of the
priests, or having learned the mysteries of the Egyptians from any other
source. And what I have said regarding the learned and ignorant among
the Egyptians, I might have said also of the Persians; among whom there
are mysteries, conducted on rational principles by the learned among
them, but understood in a symbolical sense by the more superficial of
the multitude.[1153] And the same remark applies to the Syrians, and
Indians, and to all those who have a literature and a mythology.
Footnote 1153:
Παρ’ οἷς εἰσι τελεταὶ, πρεσβευόμεναι μὲν λογικῶς ὑπὸ τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς
λογίων, συμβολικῶς δὲ γινόμεναι ὑπὸ τῶν παρ’ αὐτοῖς πολλῶν καὶ
ἐπιπολαιοτέρων. For γινόμεναι Ruæus prefers γινωσκόμεναι, which is
adopted in the translation.
Chapter XIII.
But since Celsus has declared it to be a saying of many Christians, that
“the wisdom of this life is a bad thing, but that foolishness is good,”
we have to answer that he slanders the gospel, not giving the words as
they actually occur in the writings of Paul, where they run as follow:
“If any one among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a
fool, that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is
foolishness with God.”[1154] The apostle, therefore, does not say simply
that “wisdom is foolishness with God,” but “the wisdom of _this world_.”
And again, not, “If any one among you seemeth to be wise, let him become
a fool universally;” but, “let him become a fool _in this world_, that
he may become wise.” We term, then, “the wisdom of this world,” every
false system of philosophy, which, according to the Scriptures, is
brought to nought; and we call foolishness good, not without
restriction, but when a man becomes foolish as to _this world_. As if we
were to say that the Platonist, who believes in the immortality of the
soul, and in the doctrine of its metempsychosis,[1155] incurs the charge
of folly with the Stoics, who discard this opinion; and with the
Peripatetics, who babble about the subtleties of Plato; and with the
Epicureans, who call it superstition to introduce a providence, and to
place a God over all things. Moreover, that it is in agreement with the
spirit of Christianity, of much more importance to give our assent to
doctrines upon grounds of reason and wisdom than on that of faith
merely, and that it was only in certain circumstances that the latter
course was desired by Christianity, in order not to leave men altogether
without help, is shown by that genuine disciple of Jesus, Paul, when he
says: “For after that, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom knew
not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
that believe.”[1156] Now by these words it is clearly shown that it is
by the wisdom of God that God ought to be known. But as this result did
not follow, it pleased God a second time to save them that believe, not
by “folly” _universally_, but by such foolishness as depended on
preaching. For the preaching of Jesus Christ as crucified is the
“foolishness” of preaching, as Paul also perceived, when he said, “But
we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the
Greeks foolishness; but to them who are called, both Jews and Greeks,
Christ the power of God, and wisdom of God.”[1157]
Footnote 1154:
1 Cor. iii. 18, 19.
Footnote 1155:
μετενσωματώσεως.
Footnote 1156:
Ἔτι δὲ ὅτι καὶ κατὰ τὸ τῷ λόγῳ ἀρέσκον, πολλῷ διαφέρει μετὰ λόγου καὶ
σοφίας συγκατατίθεσθαι τοῖς δόγμασιν, ἤπερ μετὰ ψιλῆς τῆς πίστεως· καὶ
ὅτι κατὰ περίστασιν καὶ τοῦτ’ ἐβουλήθη ὁ λόγος, ἵνα μὴ πάντη ἀνωφελεῖς
ἐάσῃ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους· δηλοῖ ὁ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ γνήσιος μαθητὴς, etc.
Footnote 1157:
1 Cor. i. 23, 24.
Chapter XIV.
Celsus, being of opinion that there is to be found among many nations a
general relationship of doctrine, enumerates all the nations which gave
rise to such and such opinions; but for some reason, unknown to me, he
casts a slight upon the Jews, not including them amongst the others, as
having either laboured along with them, and arrived at the same
conclusions, or as having entertained similar opinions on many subjects.
It is proper, therefore, to ask him why he gives credence to the
histories of barbarians and Greeks respecting the antiquity of those
nations of whom he speaks, but stamps the histories of this nation alone
as false. For if the respective writers related the events which are
found in these works in the spirit of truth, why should we distrust the
prophets of the Jews alone? And if Moses and the prophets have recorded
many things in their history from a desire to favour their own system,
why should we not say the same of the historians of other countries? Or,
when the Egyptians or their histories speak evil of the Jews, are they
to be believed on that point; but the Jews, when saying the same things
of the Egyptians, and declaring that they had suffered great injustice
at their hands, and that on this account they had been persecuted by
God, are to be charged with falsehood? And this applies not to the
Egyptians alone, but to others; for we shall find that there was a
connection between the Assyrians and the Jews, and that this is recorded
in the ancient histories of the Assyrians. And so also the Jewish
historians (I avoid using the word “prophets,” that I may not appear to
prejudge the case) have related that the Assyrians were enemies of the
Jews. Observe at once, then, the arbitrary procedure of this individual,
who believes the histories of these nations on the ground of their being
learned, and condemns others as being wholly ignorant. For listen to the
statement of Celsus: “There is,” he says, “an authoritative account from
the very beginning, respecting which there is a constant agreement among
all the most learned nations, and cities, and men.” And yet will not
call the Jews a learned nation in the same way in which he does the
Egyptians, and Assyrians, and Indians, and Persians, and Odrysians, and
Samothracians, and Eleusinians.
Chapter XV.
How much more impartial than Celsus is Numenius the Pythagorean, who has
given many proofs of being a very eloquent man, and who has carefully
tested many opinions, and collected together from many sources what had
the appearance of truth; for, in the first book of his treatise _On the
Good_, speaking of those nations who have adopted the opinion that God
is incorporeal, he enumerates the Jews also among those who hold this
view; not showing any reluctance to use even the language of their
prophets in his treatise, and to give it a metaphorical signification.
It is said, moreover, that Hermippus has recorded in his first book, _On
Lawgivers_, that it was from the Jewish people that Pythagoras derived
the philosophy which he introduced among the Greeks. And there is extant
a work by the historian Hecatæus, treating of the Jews, in which so high
a character is bestowed upon that nation for its learning, that
Herennius Philo, in his treatise on the Jews, has doubts, in the first
place, whether it is really the composition of the historian; and says,
in the second place, that if really his, it is probable that he was
carried away by the plausible nature of the Jewish history, and so
yielded his assent to their system.
Chapter XVI.
I must express my surprise that Celsus should class the Odrysians, and
Samothracians, and Eleusinians, and Hyperboreans among the most ancient
and learned nations, and should not deem the Jews worthy of a place
among such, either for their learning or their antiquity, although there
are many treatises in circulation among the Egyptians, and Phœnicians,
and Greeks, which testify to their existence as an ancient people, but
which I have considered it unnecessary to quote. For any one who chooses
may read what Flavius Josephus has recorded in his two books, _On the
Antiquity of the Jews_, where he brings together a great collection of
writers, who bear witness to the antiquity of the Jewish people; and
there exists the _Discourse to the Greeks_ of Tatian the younger, in
which with very great learning he enumerates those historians who have
treated of the antiquity of the Jewish nation and of Moses. It seems,
then, to be not from a love of truth, but from a spirit of hatred, that
Celsus makes these statements, his object being to asperse the origin of
Christianity, which is connected with Judaism. Nay, he styles the
Galactophagi of Homer, and the Druids of the Gauls, and the Getæ, most
learned and ancient tribes, on account of the resemblance between their
traditions and those of the Jews, although I know not whether any of
their histories survive; but the Hebrews alone, as far as in him lies,
he deprives of the honour both of antiquity and learning. And again,
when making a list of ancient and learned men who have conferred
benefits upon their contemporaries [by their deeds], and upon posterity
by their writings, he excluded Moses from the number; while of Linus, to
whom Celsus assigns a foremost place in his list, there exist neither
laws nor discourses which produced a change for the better among any
tribes; whereas a whole nation, dispersed throughout the entire world,
obey the laws of Moses. Consider, then, whether it is not from open
malevolence that he has expelled Moses from his catalogue of learned
men, while asserting that Linus, and Musæus, and Orpheus, and
Pherecydes, and the Persian Zoroaster, and Pythagoras, discussed these
topics, and that their opinions were deposited in books, and have thus
been preserved down to the present time. And it is intentionally also
that he has omitted to take notice of the myth, embellished chiefly by
Orpheus, in which the gods are described as affected by human weaknesses
and passions.
Chapter XVII.
In what follows, Celsus, assailing the Mosaic history, finds fault with
those who give it a tropical and allegorical signification. And here one
might say to this great man, who inscribed upon his own work the title
of a _True Discourse_, “Why, good sir, do you make it a boast to have it
recorded that the gods should engage in such adventures as are described
by your learned poets and philosophers, and be guilty of abominable
intrigues, and of engaging in wars against their own fathers, and of
cutting off their secret parts, and should dare to commit and to suffer
such enormities; while Moses, who gives no such accounts respecting God,
nor even regarding the holy angels, and who relates deeds of far less
atrocity regarding men (for in his writings no one ever ventured to
commit such crimes as Kronos did against Uranus, or Zeus against his
father, or that of the father of men and gods, who had intercourse with
his own daughter), should be considered as having deceived those who
were placed under his laws, and to have led them into error?” And here
Celsus seems to me to act somewhat as Thrasymachus the Platonic
philosopher did, when he would not allow Socrates to answer regarding
justice, as he wished, but said, “Take care not to say that utility is
justice, or duty, or anything of that kind.” For in like manner Celsus
assails (as he thinks) the Mosaic histories, and finds fault with those
who understand them allegorically, at the same time bestowing also some
praise upon those who do so, to the effect that they are more impartial
[than those who do not]; and thus, as it were, he prevents by his cavils
those who are able to show the true state of the case from offering such
a defence as they would wish to offer.[1158]
Footnote 1158:
Οἱονεὶ κωλύεται κατηγορήσας, ὡς βούλεται, ἀπολογεῖσθαι τοὺς δυναμένους
ὡς πέφυκεν ἔχειν τὰ πράγματα. We have taken κωλύεται as middle. Some
propose κωλύει. And we have read βούλονται, a lection which is given
by a second hand in one MS.
Chapter XVIII.
And challenging a comparison of book with book, I would say, “Come now,
good sir, take down the poems of Linus, and of Musæus, and of Orpheus,
and the writings of Pherecydes, and carefully compare these with the
laws of Moses—histories with histories, and ethical discourses with laws
and commandments—and see which of the two are the better fitted to
change the character of the hearer on the very spot, and which to
harden[1159] him in his wickedness; and observe that your series of
writers display little concern for those readers who are to peruse them
at once unaided,[1160] but have composed their philosophy (as you term
it) for those who are able to comprehend its metaphorical and
allegorical signification; whereas Moses, like a distinguished orator
who meditates some figure of Rhetoric, and who carefully introduces in
every part language of twofold meaning, has done this in his five books:
neither affording, in the portion which relates to morals, any handle to
his Jewish subjects for committing evil; nor yet giving to the few
individuals who were endowed with greater wisdom, and who were capable
of investigating his meaning, a treatise devoid of material for
speculation. But of your learned poets the very writings would seem no
longer to be preserved, although they would have been carefully
treasured up if the readers had perceived any benefit [likely to be
derived from them]; whereas the works of Moses have stirred up many, who
were even aliens to the manners of the Jews, to the belief that, as
these writings testify, the first who enacted these laws and delivered
them to Moses, was the God who was the Creator of the world. For it
became the Creator of the universe, after laying down laws for its
government, to confer upon His words a power which might subdue all men
in every part of the earth. And this I maintain, having as yet entered
into no investigation regarding Jesus, but still demonstrating that
Moses, who is far inferior to the Lord, is, as the _Discourse_ will
show, greatly superior to your wise poets and philosophers.”
Footnote 1159:
Ἐπιτρίψαι. Other readings are ἐπιστρέψαι and ἀποστρέψαι, which convey
the opposite meaning.
Footnote 1160:
αὐτόθεν.
Chapter XIX.
After these statements, Celsus, from a secret desire to cast discredit
upon the Mosaic account of the creation, which teaches that the world is
not yet ten thousand years old, but very much under that, while
concealing his wish, intimates his agreement with those who hold that
the world is uncreated. For, maintaining that there have been, from all
eternity, many conflagrations and many deluges, and that the flood which
lately took place in the time of Deucalion is comparatively modern, he
clearly demonstrates to those who are able to understand him, that, in
his opinion, the world was uncreated. But let this assailant of the
Christian faith tell us by what arguments he was compelled to accept the
statement that there have been many conflagrations and many cataclysms,
and that the flood which occurred in the time of Deucalion, and the
conflagration in that of Phæthon, were more recent than any others. And
if he should put forward the dialogues of Plato [as evidence] on these
subjects, we shall say to him that it is allowable for us also to
believe that there resided in the pure and pious soul of Moses, who
ascended above all created things, and united himself to the Creator of
the universe, and who made known divine things with far greater
clearness than Plato, or those other wise men [who lived] among the
Greeks and Romans, a spirit which was divine. And if he demand of us our
reasons for such a belief, let him first give grounds for his own
unsupported assertions, and then we shall show that this view of ours is
the correct one.
Chapter XX.
And yet, against his will, Celsus is entangled into testifying that the
world is comparatively modern, and not yet ten thousand years old, when
he says that the Greeks consider those things as ancient, because, owing
to the deluges and conflagrations, they have not beheld or received any
memorials of older events. But let Celsus have, as his authorities for
the myth regarding the conflagrations and inundations, those persons
who, in his opinion, are the most learned of the Egyptians, traces of
whose wisdom are to be found in the worship of irrational animals, and
in arguments which prove that such a worship of God is in conformity
with reason, and of a secret and mysterious character. The Egyptians,
then, when they boastfully give their own account of the divinity of
animals, are to be considered wise; but if any Jew, who has signified
his adherence to the law and the lawgiver, refer everything to the
Creator of the universe, and the only God, he is, in the opinion of
Celsus and those like him, deemed inferior to him who degrades the
Divinity not only to the level of rational and mortal animals, but even
to that of irrational also!—a view which goes far beyond the mythical
doctrine of transmigration, according to which the soul falls down from
the summit of heaven, and enters into the body of brute beasts, both
tame and savage! And if the Egyptians related fables of this kind, they
are believed to convey a philosophical meaning by their enigmas and
mysteries; but if Moses compose and leave behind him histories and laws
for an entire nation, they are to be considered as empty fables, the
language of which admits of no allegorical meaning!
Chapter XXI.
The following is the view of Celsus and the Epicureans: “Moses having,”
he says, “learned the doctrine which is to be found existing among wise
nations and eloquent men, obtained the reputation of divinity.” Now, in
answer to this we have to say, that it may be allowed him that Moses did
indeed hear a somewhat ancient doctrine, and transmitted the same to the
Hebrews; that if the doctrine which he heard was false, and neither
pious nor venerable, and if notwithstanding, he received it and handed
it down to those under his authority, he is liable to censure; but if,
as you assert, he gave his adherence to opinions that were wise and
true, and educated his people by means of them, what, pray, has he done
deserving of condemnation? Would, indeed, that not only Epicurus, but
Aristotle, whose sentiments regarding providence are not so impious [as
those of the former], and the Stoics, who assert that God is a body, had
heard such a doctrine! Then the world would not have been filled with
opinions which either disallow or enfeeble the action of providence, or
introduce a corrupt corporeal principle, according to which the god of
the Stoics is a body, with respect to whom they are not afraid to say
that he is capable of change, and may be altered and transformed in all
his parts, and, generally, that he is capable of corruption, if there be
any one to corrupt him, but that he has the good fortune to escape
corruption, because there is none to corrupt. Whereas the doctrine of
the Jews and Christians, which preserves the immutability and
unalterableness of the divine nature, is stigmatized as impious, because
it does not partake of the profanity of those whose notions of God are
marked by impiety, but because it says in the supplication addressed to
the Divinity, “Thou art the same,”[1161] it being, moreover, an article
of faith that God has said, “I change not.”[1162]
Footnote 1161:
Ps. cii. 27.
Footnote 1162:
Mal. iii. 6.
Chapter XXII.
After this, Celsus, without condemning circumcision as practised by the
Jews, asserts that this usage was derived from the Egyptians; thus
believing the Egyptians rather than Moses, who says that Abraham was the
first among men who practised the rite. And it is not Moses alone who
mentions the name of Abraham, assigning to him great intimacy with God;
but many also of those who give themselves to the practice of the
conjuration of evil spirits, employ in their spells the expression “God
of Abraham,” pointing out by the very name the friendship [that existed]
between that just man and God. And yet, while making use of the phrase
“God of Abraham,” they do not know who Abraham is! And the same remark
applies to Isaac, and Jacob, and Israel; which names, although
confessedly Hebrew, are frequently introduced by those Egyptians who
profess to produce some wonderful result by means of their knowledge.
The rite of circumcision, however, which began with Abraham, and was
discontinued by Jesus, who desired that His disciples should not
practise it, is not before us for explanation; for the present occasion
does not lead us to speak of such things, but to make an effort to
refute the charges brought against the doctrine of the Jews by Celsus,
who thinks that he will be able the more easily to establish the falsity
of Christianity, if, by assailing its origin in Judaism, he can show
that the latter also is untrue.
Chapter XXIII.
After this, Celsus next asserts that “Those herdsmen and shepherds who
followed Moses as their leader, had their minds deluded by vulgar
deceits, and so supposed that there was one God.” Let him show, then,
how, after this irrational departure, as he regards it, of the herdsmen
and shepherds from the worship of many gods, he himself is able to
establish the multiplicity of deities that are found amongst the Greeks,
or among those other nations that are called Barbarian. Let him
establish, therefore, the existence of Mnemosyne, the mother of the
Muses by Zeus; or of Themis, the parent of the Hours; or let him prove
that the ever naked Graces can have a real, substantial existence. But
he will not be able to show, from any actions of theirs, that these
fictitious representations[1163] of the Greeks, which have the
appearance of being invested with bodies, are [really] gods. And why
should the fables of the Greeks regarding the gods be true, any more
than those of the Egyptians for example, who in their language know
nothing of a Mnemosyne, mother of the nine Muses; nor of a Themis,
parent of the Hours; nor of a Euphrosyne, one of the Graces; nor of any
other of these names? How much more manifest (and how much better than
all these inventions!) is it that, convinced by what we see, in the
admirable order of the world, we should worship the Maker of it as the
one Author of one effect, and which, as being wholly in harmony with
itself, cannot on that account have been the work of many makers; and
that we should believe that the whole heaven is not held together by the
movements of many souls, for one is enough, which bears the whole of the
non-wandering[1164] sphere from east to west, and embraces within it all
things which the world requires, and which are not self-existing! For
all are parts of the world, while God is no part of the whole. But God
cannot be imperfect, as a part is imperfect. And perhaps profounder
consideration will show, that as God is not a part, so neither is He
properly the whole, since the whole is composed of parts; and reason
will not allow us to believe that the God who is over all is composed of
parts, each one of which cannot do what all the other parts can.
Footnote 1163:
ἀναπλάσματα.
Footnote 1164:
τὴν ἀπλανῆ.
Chapter XXIV.
After this he continues: “These herdsmen and shepherds concluded that
there was but one God, named either the Highest, or Adonai, or the
Heavenly, or Sabaoth, or called by some other of those names which they
delight to give this world; and they knew nothing beyond that.” And in a
subsequent part of his work he says, that “It makes no difference
whether the God who is over all things be called by the name of Zeus,
which is current among the Greeks, or by that, _e.g._, which is in use
among the Indians or Egyptians.” Now, in answer to this, we have to
remark that this involves a deep and mysterious subject—that, viz.,
respecting the nature of names: it being a question whether, as
Aristotle thinks, names were bestowed by arrangement, or, as the Stoics
hold, by nature; the first words being imitations of things, agreeably
to which the names were formed, and in conformity with which they
introduce certain principles of etymology; or whether, as Epicurus
teaches (differing in this from the Stoics), names were given by
nature,—the first men having uttered certain words varying with the
circumstances in which they found themselves. If, then, we shall be able
to establish, in reference to the preceding statement, the nature of
powerful names, some of which are used by the learned amongst the
Egyptians, or by the Magi among the Persians, and by the Indian
philosophers called Brahmans, or by the Samanæans, and others in
different countries; and shall be able to make out that the so-called
magic is not, as the followers of Epicurus and Aristotle suppose, an
altogether uncertain thing, but is, as those skilled in it prove, a
consistent system, having words which are known to exceedingly few; then
we say that the name Sabaoth, and Adonai, and the other names treated
with so much reverence among the Hebrews, are not applicable to any
ordinary created things, but belong to a secret theology which refers to
the Framer of all things. These names, accordingly, when pronounced with
that attendant train of circumstances which is appropriate to their
nature, are possessed of great power; and other names, again, current in
the Egyptian tongue, are efficacious against certain demons who can only
do certain things; and other names in the Persian language have
corresponding power over other spirits; and so on in every individual
nation, for different purposes. And thus it will be found that, of the
various demons upon the earth, to whom different localities have been
assigned, each one bears a name appropriate to the several dialects of
place and country. He, therefore, who has a nobler idea, however small,
of these matters, will be careful not to apply differing names to
different things; lest he should resemble those who mistakenly apply the
name of God to lifeless matter, or who drag down the title of “the Good”
from the First Cause, or from virtue and excellence, and apply it to
blind Plutus, and to a healthy and well-proportioned mixture of flesh
and blood and bones, or to what is considered to be noble birth.[1165]
Footnote 1165:
Ἐπὶ τὸν τυφλὸν πλοῦτον, καὶ ἐπὶ τὴν σαρκῶν καὶ αἱμάτων καὶ ὀστέων
συμμετρίαν ἐν ὑγείᾳ καὶ εὐεξίᾳ, ἤ τὴν νομιζομένην εὐγένειαν.
Chapter XXV.
And perhaps there is a danger as great as that which degrades the name
of “God,” or of “the Good,” to improper objects, in changing the name of
God according to a secret system, and applying those which belong to
inferior beings to greater, and _vice versa_. And I do not dwell on
this, that when the name of Zeus is uttered, there is heard at the same
time that of the son of Kronos and Rhea, and the husband of Hera, and
brother of Poseidon, and father of Athene, and Artemis, who was guilty
of incest with his own daughter Persephone; or that Apollo immediately
suggests the son of Leto and Zeus, and the brother of Artemis, and
half-brother of Hermes; and so with all the other names invented by
these wise men of Celsus, who are the parents of these opinions, and the
ancient theologians of the Greeks. For what are the grounds for deciding
that he should on the one hand be properly called Zeus, and yet on the
other should not have Kronos for his father and Rhea for his mother? And
the same argument applies to all the others that are called gods. But
this charge does not at all apply to those who, for some mysterious
reason, refer the word Sabaoth, or Adonai, or any of the other names to
the [true] God. And when one is able to philosophize about the mystery
of names, he will find much to say respecting the titles of the angels
of God, of whom one is called Michael, and another Gabriel, and another
Raphael, appropriately to the duties which they discharge in the world,
according to the will of the God of all things. And a similar philosophy
of names applies also to our Jesus, whose name has already been seen, in
an unmistakeable manner, to have expelled myriads of evil spirits from
the souls and bodies [of men], so great was the power which it exerted
upon those from whom the spirits were driven out. And while still upon
the subject of names, we have to mention that those who are skilled in
the use of incantations, relate that the utterance of the same
incantation in its proper language can accomplish what the spell
professes to do; but when translated into any other tongue, it is
observed to become inefficacious and feeble. And thus it is not the
things signified, but the qualities and peculiarities of words, which
possess a certain power for this or that purpose. And so on such grounds
as these we defend the conduct of the Christians, when they struggle
even to death to avoid calling God by the name of Zeus, or to give Him a
name from any other language. For they either use the common
name—God—indefinitely, or with some such addition as that of the “Maker
of all things,” “the Creator of heaven and earth”—He who sent down to
the human race those good men, to whose names that of God being added,
certain mighty works are wrought among men. And much more besides might
be said on the subject of names, against those who think that we ought
to be indifferent as to our use of them. And if the remark of Plato in
the _Philebus_ should surprise us, when he says, “My fear, O Protagoras,
about the names of the gods is no small one,” seeing Philebus in his
discussion with Socrates had called pleasure a “god,” how shall we not
rather approve the piety of the Christians, who apply none of the names
used in the mythologies to the Creator of the world? And now enough on
this subject for the present.
Chapter XXVI.
But let us see the manner in which this Celsus, who professes to know
everything, brings a false accusation against the Jews, when he alleges
that “they worship angels, and are addicted to sorcery, in which Moses
was their instructor.” Now, in what part of the writings of Moses he
found the lawgiver laying down the worship of angels, let him tell, who
professes to know all about Christianity and Judaism; and let him show
also how sorcery can exist among those who have accepted the Mosaic law,
and read the injunction, “Neither seek after wizards, to be defiled by
them.”[1166] Moreover, he promises to show afterwards “how it was
through ignorance that the Jews were deceived and led into error.” Now,
if he had discovered that the ignorance of the Jews regarding Christ was
the effect of their not having heard the prophecies about Him, he would
show with truth how the Jews fell into error. But without any wish
whatever that this should appear, he views as Jewish errors what are no
errors at all. And Celsus having promised to make us acquainted, in a
subsequent part of his work, with the doctrines of Judaism, proceeds in
the first place to speak of our Saviour as having been the leader of our
generation, in so far as we are Christians,[1167] and says that “a few
years ago he began to teach this doctrine, being regarded by Christians
as the Son of God.” Now, with respect to this point—His prior existence
a few years ago—we have to remark as follows. Could it have come to pass
without divine assistance, that Jesus, desiring during these years to
spread abroad His words and teaching, should have been so successful,
that everywhere throughout the world, not a few persons, Greeks as well
as Barbarians, learned as well as ignorant, adopted His doctrine, so
that they struggled even to death in its defence, rather than deny it,
which no one is ever related to have done for any other system? I
indeed, from no wish to flatter[1168] Christianity, but from a desire
thoroughly to examine the facts, would say that even those who are
engaged in the healing of numbers of sick persons, do not attain their
object—the cure of the body—without divine help; and if one were to
succeed in delivering souls from a flood of wickedness, and excesses,
and acts of injustice, and from a contempt of God, and were to show, as
evidence of such a result, one hundred persons improved in their natures
(let us suppose the number to be so large), no one would reasonably say
that it was without divine assistance that he had implanted in those
hundred individuals a doctrine capable of removing so many evils. And if
any one, on a candid consideration of these things, shall admit that no
improvement ever takes place among men without divine help, how much
more confidently shall he make the same assertion regarding Jesus, when
he compares the former lives of many converts to His doctrine with their
after conduct, and reflects in what acts of licentiousness and injustice
and covetousness they formerly indulged, until, as Celsus, and they who
think with him, allege, “they were deceived,” and accepted a doctrine
which, as these individuals assert, is destructive of the life of men;
but who, from the time that they adopted it, have become in some way
meeker, and more religious, and more consistent, so that certain among
them, from a desire of exceeding chastity, and a wish to worship God
with greater purity, abstain even from the permitted indulgences of
[lawful] love.
Footnote 1166:
Lev. xix. 31.
Footnote 1167:
Ὡς γενομένου ἡγεμόνος τῇ καθὸ Χριστιανοί ἐσμεν γενέσει ἡμῶν.
Footnote 1168:
οὐ κολακεύων.
Chapter XXVII.
Any one who examines the subject will see that Jesus attempted and
successfully accomplished works beyond the reach of human power. For
although, from the very beginning, all things opposed the spread of His
doctrine in the world,—both the princes of the times, and their chief
captains and generals, and all, to speak generally, who were possessed
of the smallest influence, and in addition to these, the rulers of the
different cities, and the soldiers, and the people,—yet it proved
victorious, as being the Word of God, the nature of which is such that
it cannot be hindered; and becoming more powerful than all such
adversaries, it made itself master of the whole of Greece, and a
considerable portion of barbarian lands, and converted countless numbers
of souls to His religion. And although, among the multitude of converts
to Christianity, the simple and ignorant necessarily outnumbered the
more intelligent, as the former class always does the latter, yet
Celsus, unwilling to take note of this, thinks that this philanthropic
doctrine, which reaches to every soul under the sun, is vulgar,[1169]
and on account of its vulgarity and its want of reasoning power,
obtained a hold only over the ignorant. And yet he himself admits that
it was not the simple alone who were led by the doctrine of Jesus to
adopt His religion; for he acknowledges that there were amongst them
some persons of moderate intelligence, and gentle disposition, and
possessed of understanding, and capable of comprehending allegories.
Footnote 1169:
ἰδιωτικήν.
Chapter XXVIII.
And since, in imitation of a rhetorician training a pupil, he introduces
a Jew, who enters into a personal discussion with Jesus, and speaks in a
very childish manner, altogether unworthy of the grey hairs of a
philosopher, let me endeavour, to the best of my ability, to examine his
statements, and show that he does not maintain, throughout the
discussion, the consistency due to the character of a Jew. For he
represents him disputing with Jesus, and confuting Him, as he thinks, on
many points; and in the first place, he accuses Him of having “invented
his birth from a virgin,” and upbraids Him with being “born in a certain
Jewish village, of a poor woman of the country, who gained her
subsistence by spinning, and who was turned out of doors by her husband,
a carpenter by trade, because she was convicted of adultery; that after
being driven away by her husband, and wandering about for a time, she
disgracefully gave birth to Jesus, an illegitimate child, who having
hired himself out as a servant in Egypt on account of his poverty, and
having there acquired some miraculous powers, on which the Egyptians
greatly pride themselves, returned to his own country, highly elated on
account of them, and by means of these proclaimed himself a God.” Now,
as I cannot allow anything said by unbelievers to remain unexamined, but
must investigate everything from the beginning, I give it as my opinion
that all these things worthily harmonize with the predictions that Jesus
is the Son of God.
Chapter XXIX.
For birth is an aid towards an individual’s becoming famous, and
distinguished, and talked about; viz., when a man’s parents happen to be
in a position of rank and influence, and are possessed of wealth, and
are able to spend it upon the education of their son, and when the
country of one’s birth is great and illustrious; but when a man having
all these things against him is able, notwithstanding these hindrances,
to make himself known, and to produce an impression on those who hear of
him, and to become distinguished and visible to the whole world, which
speaks of him as it did not do before, how can we help admiring such a
nature as being both noble in itself, and devoting itself to great
deeds, and possessing a courage which is not by any means to be
despised? And if one were to examine more fully the history of such an
individual, why should he not seek to know in what manner, after being
reared up in frugality and poverty, and without receiving any complete
education, and without having studied systems and opinions by means of
which he might have acquired confidence to associate with multitudes,
and play the demagogue, and attract to himself many hearers, he
nevertheless devoted himself to the teaching of new opinions,
introducing among men a doctrine which not only subverted the customs of
the Jews, while preserving due respect for their prophets, but which
especially overturned the established observances of the Greeks
regarding the Divinity? And how could such a person—one who had been so
brought up, and who, as his calumniators admit, had learned nothing
great from men—have been able to teach, in a manner not at all to be
despised, such doctrines as he did regarding the divine judgment, and
the punishments that are to overtake wickedness, and the rewards that
are to be conferred upon virtue; so that not only rustic and ignorant
individuals were won by his words, but also not a few of those who were
distinguished by their wisdom, and who were able to discern the hidden
meaning in those more common doctrines, as they were considered, which
were in circulation, and which secret meaning enwrapped, so to speak,
some more recondite signification still? The Seriphian, in Plato, who
reproaches Themistocles after he had become celebrated for his military
skill, saying that his reputation was due not to his own merits, but to
his good fortune in having been born in the most illustrious country in
Greece, received from the good-natured Athenian, who saw that his native
country did contribute to his renown, the following reply: “Neither
would I, had I been a Seriphian, have been so distinguished as I am, nor
would you have been a Themistocles, even if you had had the good fortune
to be an Athenian!” And now, our Jesus, who is reproached with being
born in a village, and that not a Greek one, nor belonging to any nation
widely esteemed, and being despised as the son of a poor labouring
woman, and as having on account of his poverty left his native country
and hired himself out in Egypt, and being, to use the instance already
quoted, not only a Seriphian, as it were, a native of a very small and
undistinguished island, but even, so to speak, the meanest of the
Seriphians, has yet been able to shake[1170] the whole inhabited world
not only to a degree far above what Themistocles the Athenian ever did,
but beyond what even Pythagoras or Plato, or any other wise man in any
part of the world whatever, or any prince or general, ever succeeded in
doing.
Footnote 1170:
σεῖσαι.
Chapter XXX.
Now, would not any one who investigated with ordinary care the nature of
these facts, be struck with amazement at this man’s victory?—with his
complete success in surmounting by his reputation all causes that tended
to bring him into disrepute, and with his superiority over all other
illustrious individuals in the world? And yet it is a rare thing for
distinguished men to succeed in acquiring a reputation for several
things at once. For one man is admired on account of his wisdom, another
for his military skill, and some of the barbarians for their marvellous
powers of incantation, and some for one quality, and others for another;
but not many have been admired and acquired a reputation for many things
at the same time; whereas this man, in addition to his other merits, is
an object of admiration both for his wisdom, and for his miracles, and
for his power of government. For he persuaded some to withdraw
themselves from their laws, and to secede to him, not as a tyrant would
do, nor as a robber, who arms[1171] his followers against men; nor as a
rich man, who bestows help upon those who come to him; nor as one of
those who confessedly are deserving of censure; but as a teacher of the
doctrine regarding the God of all things, and of the worship which
belongs to Him, and of all moral precepts which are able to secure the
favour of the Supreme God to him who orders his life in conformity
therewith. Now, to Themistocles, or to any other man of distinction,
nothing happened to prove a hindrance to their reputation; whereas to
this man, besides what we have already enumerated, and which are enough
to cover with dishonour the soul of a man even of the most noble nature,
there was that apparently infamous death of crucifixion, which was
enough to efface his previously acquired glory, and to lead those who,
as they who disavow his doctrine assert, were formerly deluded by him to
abandon their delusion, and to pass condemnation upon their deceiver.
Footnote 1171:
Gelenius reads ὁπλίζων (instead of ἀλείφων), which has been adopted in
the translation.
Chapter XXXI.
And besides this, one may well wonder how it happened that the
disciples—if, as the calumniators of Jesus say, they did not see him
after his resurrection from the dead, and were not persuaded of his
divinity—were not afraid to endure the same sufferings with their
master, and to expose themselves to danger, and to leave their native
country to teach, according to the desire of Jesus, the doctrine
delivered to them by him. For I think that no one who candidly examines
the facts would say that these men devoted themselves to a life of
danger for the sake of the doctrine of Jesus, without a profound belief
which he had wrought in their minds of its truth, not only teaching them
to conform to his precepts, but others also, and to conform, moreover,
when manifest destruction to life impended over him who ventured to
introduce these new opinions into all places and before all audiences,
and who could retain as his friend no human being who adhered to the
former opinions and usages. For did not the disciples of Jesus see, when
they ventured to prove not only to the Jews from their prophetic
Scriptures that this is he who was spoken of by the prophets, but also
to the other heathen nations, that he who was crucified yesterday or the
day before underwent this death voluntarily on behalf of the human
race,—that this was analogous to the case of those who have died for
their country in order to remove pestilence, or barrenness, or tempests?
For it is probable that there is in the nature of things, for certain
mysterious reasons which are difficult to be understood by the
multitude, such a virtue that one just man, dying a voluntary death for
the common good, might be the means of removing wicked spirits, which
are the cause of plagues, or barrenness, or tempests, or similar
calamities. Let those, therefore, who would disbelieve the statement
that Jesus died on the cross on behalf of men, say whether they also
refuse to accept the many accounts current both among Greeks and
Barbarians, of persons who have laid down their lives for the public
advantage, in order to remove those evils which had fallen upon cities
and countries? Or will they say that such events actually happened, but
that no credit is to be attached to that account which makes this
so-called man to have died to ensure the destruction of a mighty evil
spirit, the ruler of evil spirits, who had held in subjection the souls
of all men upon earth? And the disciples of Jesus, seeing this and much
more (which, it is probable, they learned from Jesus in private), and
being filled, moreover, with a divine power (since it was no mere
poetical virgin that endowed them with strength and courage, but the
true wisdom and understanding of God), exerted all their efforts “to
become distinguished among all men,” not only among the Argives, but
among all the Greeks and Barbarians alike, and “so bear away for
themselves a glorious renown.”[1172]
Footnote 1172:
Cf. Homer’s _Iliad_, book v. 2, 3.
Chapter XXXII.
But let us now return to where the Jew is introduced, speaking of the
mother of Jesus, and saying that “when she was pregnant she was turned
out of doors by the carpenter to whom she had been betrothed, as having
been guilty of adultery, and that she bore a child to a certain soldier
named Panthera;” and let us see whether those who have blindly concocted
these fables about the adultery of the virgin with Panthera, and her
rejection by the carpenter, did not invent these stories to overturn His
miraculous conception by the Holy Ghost: for they could have falsified
the history in a different manner, on account of its extremely
miraculous character, and not have admitted, as it were against their
will, that Jesus was born of no ordinary human marriage. It was to be
expected, indeed, that those who would not believe the miraculous birth
of Jesus would invent some falsehood. And their not doing this in a
credible manner, but [their] preserving the fact that it was not by
Joseph that the Virgin conceived Jesus, rendered the falsehood very
palpable to those who can understand and detect such inventions. Is it
at all agreeable to reason, that he who dared to do so much for the
human race, in order that, as far as in him lay, all the Greeks and
Barbarians, who were looking for divine condemnation, might depart from
evil, and regulate their entire conduct in a manner pleasing to the
Creator of the world, should not have had a miraculous birth, but one
the vilest and most disgraceful of all? And I will ask of them as
Greeks, and particularly of Celsus, who either holds or not the
sentiments of Plato, and at any rate quotes them, whether He who sends
souls down into the bodies of men, degraded Him who was to dare such
mighty acts, and to teach so many men, and to reform so many from the
mass of wickedness in the world, to a birth more disgraceful than any
other, and did not rather introduce Him into the world through a lawful
marriage? Or is it not more in conformity with reason, that every soul,
for certain mysterious reasons (I speak now according to the opinion of
Pythagoras, and Plato, and Empedocles, whom Celsus frequently names), is
introduced into a body, and introduced according to its deserts and
former actions? It is probable, therefore, that this soul also which
conferred more benefit by its residence in the flesh than that of many
men (to avoid prejudice, I do not say “all”), stood in need of a body
not only superior to others, but invested with all excellent qualities.
Chapter XXXIII.
Now if a particular soul, for certain mysterious reasons, is not
deserving of being placed in the body of a wholly irrational being, nor
yet in that of one purely rational, but is clothed with a monstrous
body, so that reason cannot discharge its functions in one so fashioned,
which has the head disproportioned to the other parts, and altogether
too short; and another receives such a body that the soul is a little
more rational than the other; and another still more so, the nature of
the body counteracting to a greater or less degree the reception of the
reasoning principle; why should there not be also some soul which
receives an altogether miraculous body, possessing some qualities common
to those of other men, so that it may be able to pass through life with
them, but possessing also some quality of superiority, so that the soul
may be able to remain untainted by sin? And if there be any truth in the
doctrine of the physiognomists, whether Zopyrus, or Loxus, or Polemon,
or any other who wrote on such a subject, and who profess to know in
some wonderful way that all bodies are adapted to the habits of the
souls, must there have been for that soul which was to dwell with
miraculous power among men, and work mighty deeds, a body produced, as
Celsus thinks, by an act of adultery between Panthera and the Virgin?!
Why, from such unhallowed intercourse there must rather have been
brought forth some fool to do injury to mankind,—a teacher of
licentiousness and wickedness, and other evils; and not of temperance,
and righteousness, and the other virtues.
Chapter XXXIV.
But it was, as the prophets also predicted, from a virgin that there was
to be born, according to the promised sign, one who was to give His name
to the fact, showing that at His birth God was to be with man. Now it
seems to me appropriate to the character of a Jew to have quoted the
prophecy of Isaiah, which says that Emmanuel was to be born of a virgin.
This, however, Celsus, who professes to know everything, has not done,
either from ignorance or from an unwillingness (if he had read it and
voluntarily passed it by in silence) to furnish an argument which might
defeat his purpose. And the prediction runs thus: “And the Lord spake
again unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it
either in the depth or in the height above. But Ahaz said, I will not
ask, neither will I tempt the Lord. And he said, Hear ye now, O house of
David; is it a small thing for you to weary men, but will ye weary my
God also? Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign. Behold, a
virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call His name Immanuel,
which is, being interpreted, God with us.”[1173] And that it was from
intentional malice that Celsus did not quote this prophecy, is clear to
me from this, that although he makes numerous quotations from the Gospel
according to Matthew, as of the star that appeared at the birth of
Christ, and other miraculous occurrences, he has made no mention at all
of this. Now, if a Jew should split words, and say that the words are
not, “Lo, a virgin,” but, “Lo, a young woman,”[1174] we reply that the
word “Olmah”—which the Septuagint have rendered by “a virgin,” and
others by “a young woman”—occurs, as they say, in Deuteronomy, as
applied to a “virgin,” in the following connection: “If a damsel that is
a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city,
and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of
that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the
damsel,[1175] because she cried not, being in the city; and the man,
because he humbled his neighbour’s wife.”[1176] And again: “But if a man
find a betrothed damsel in a field, and the man force her, and lie with
her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: but unto the
damsel[1177] ye shall do nothing; there is in her no sin worthy of
death.”
Footnote 1173:
Cf. Isa. vii. 10-14 with Matt. i. 23.
Footnote 1174:
νεᾶνις.
Footnote 1175:
νεᾶνιν.
Footnote 1176:
Cf. Deut. xxii. 23, 24.
Footnote 1177:
τῇ νεάνιδι.
Chapter XXXV.
But that we may not seem, because of a Hebrew word, to endeavour to
persuade those who are unable to determine whether they ought to believe
it or not, that the prophet spoke of this man being born of a virgin,
because at his birth these words, “God with us,” were uttered, let us
make good our point from the words themselves. The Lord is related to
have spoken to Ahaz thus: “Ask a sign for thyself from the Lord thy God,
either in the depth or height above;”[1178] and afterwards the sign is
given, “Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son.”[1179] What
kind of sign, then, would that have been—a young woman who was not a
virgin giving birth to a child? And which of the two is the more
appropriate as the mother of Immanuel (_i.e._ “God with us”),—whether a
woman who has had intercourse with a man, and who has conceived after
the manner of women, or one who is still a pure and holy virgin? Surely
it is appropriate only to the latter to produce a being at whose birth
it is said, “God with us.” And should he be so captious as to say that
it is to Ahaz that the command is addressed, “Ask for thyself a sign
from the Lord thy God,” we shall ask in return, who in the times of Ahaz
bore a son at whose birth the expression is made use of, “Immanuel,”
_i.e._ “God with us?” And if no one can be found, then manifestly what
was said to Ahaz was said to the house of David, because it is written
that the Saviour was born of the house of David according to the flesh;
and this sign is said to be “in the depth or in the height,” since “He
that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens,
that He might fill all things.”[1180] And these arguments I employ as
against a Jew who believes in prophecy. Let Celsus now tell me, or any
of those who think with him, with what meaning the prophet utters either
these statements about the future, or the others which are contained in
the prophecies? Is it with any foresight of the future or not? If with a
foresight of the future, then the prophets were divinely inspired; if
with no foresight of the future, let him explain the meaning of one who
speaks thus boldly regarding the future, and who is an object of
admiration among the Jews because of his prophetic powers.
Footnote 1178:
Cf. Isa. vii. 11.
Footnote 1179:
Isa. vii. 14.
Footnote 1180:
Cf. Eph. iv. 10.
Chapter XXXVI.
And now, since we have touched upon the subject of the prophets, what we
are about to advance will be useful not only to the Jews, who believe
that they spake by divine inspiration, but also to the more candid among
the Greeks. To these we say that we must necessarily admit that the Jews
had prophets, if they were to be kept together under that system of law
which had been given them, and were to believe in the Creator of the
world, as they had learned, and to be without pretexts, so far as the
law was concerned, for apostatizing to the polytheism of the heathen.
And we establish this necessity in the following manner. “For the
nations,” as it is written in the law of the Jews itself, “shall hearken
unto observers of times, and diviners;”[1181] but to that people it is
said: “But as for thee, the Lord thy God hath not suffered thee so to
do.”[1182] And to this is subjoined the promise: “A prophet shall the
Lord thy God raise up unto thee from among thy brethren.”[1183] Since,
therefore, the heathen employ modes of divination either by oracles or
by omens, or by birds, or by ventriloquists, or by those who profess the
art of sacrifice, or by Chaldean genealogists—all which practices were
forbidden to the Jews—this people, if they had no means of attaining a
knowledge of futurity, being led by the passion common to humanity of
ascertaining the future, would have despised their own prophets, as not
having in them any particle of divinity; and would not have accepted any
prophet after Moses, nor committed their words to writing, but would
have spontaneously betaken themselves to the divining usages of the
heathen, or attempted to establish some such practices amongst
themselves. There is therefore no absurdity in their prophets having
uttered predictions even about events of no importance, to soothe those
who desire such things, as when Samuel prophesies regarding three
she-asses which were lost,[1184] or when mention is made in the third
book of Kings respecting the sickness of a king’s son.[1185] And why
should not those who desired to obtain auguries from idols be severely
rebuked by the administrators of the law among the Jews?—as Elijah is
found rebuking Ahaziah, and saying, “Is it because there is not a God in
Israel that ye go to inquire of Baalzebub, god of Ekron?[1186]”
Footnote 1181:
Cf. Deut. xviii. 14.
Footnote 1182:
Cf. Deut. xviii. 14.
Footnote 1183:
Cf. Deut. xviii. 15.
Footnote 1184:
Cf. 1 Sam. ix. 10.
Footnote 1185:
Cf. 1 Kings xiv. 12.
Footnote 1186:
Cf. 2 Kings i. 3.
Chapter XXXVII.
I think, then, that it has been pretty well established not only that
our Saviour was to be born of a virgin, but also that there were
prophets among the Jews who uttered not merely general predictions about
the future,—as _e.g._ regarding Christ and the kingdoms of the world,
and the events that were to happen to Israel, and those nations which
were to believe on the Saviour, and many other things concerning
Him,—but also prophecies respecting particular events; as, for instance,
how the asses of Kish, which were lost, were to be discovered, and
regarding the sickness which had fallen upon the son of the king of
Israel, and any other recorded circumstance of a similar kind. But as a
further answer to the Greeks, who do not believe in the birth of Jesus
from a virgin, we have to say that the Creator has shown, by the
generation of several kinds of animals, that what He has done in the
instance of one animal, He could do, if it pleased Him, in that of
others, and also of man himself. For it is ascertained that there is a
certain female animal which has no intercourse with the male (as writers
on animals say is the case with vultures), and that this animal, without
sexual intercourse, preserves the succession of race. What
incredibility, therefore, is there in supposing that, if God wished to
send a divine teacher to the human race, He caused Him to be born in
some manner different from the common?[1187] Nay, according to the
Greeks themselves, all men were not born of a man and woman. For if the
world has been created, as many even of the Greeks are pleased to admit,
then the first men must have been produced not from sexual intercourse,
but from the earth, in which spermatic elements existed; which, however,
I consider more incredible than that Jesus was born like other men, so
far as regards the half of his birth. And there is no absurdity in
employing Grecian histories to answer Greeks, with the view of showing
that we are not the only persons who have recourse to miraculous
narratives of this kind. For some have thought fit, not in regard to
ancient and heroic narratives, but in regard to events of very recent
occurrence, to relate as a possible thing that Plato was the son of
Amphictione, Ariston being prevented from having marital intercourse
with his wife until she had given birth to him with whom she was
pregnant by Apollo. And yet these are veritable fables, which have led
to the invention of such stories concerning a man whom they regarded as
possessing greater wisdom and power than the multitude, and as having
received the beginning of his corporeal substance from better and
diviner elements than others, because they thought that this was
appropriate to persons who were too great to be human beings. And since
Celsus has introduced the Jew disputing with Jesus, and tearing in
pieces, as he imagines, the fiction of His birth from a virgin,
comparing the Greek fables about Danae, and Melanippe, and Auge, and
Antiope, our answer is, that such language becomes a buffoon, and not
one who is writing in a serious tone.
Footnote 1187:
Πεποίηκεν ἀντὶ σπερματικοῦ λόγου, τοῦ ἐκ μίξεως τῶν ἀῤῥένων ταῖς
γυναιξὶ, ἄλλῳ τρόπῳ γενέσθαι τὸν λόγον τοῦ τεχθησομένου.
Chapter XXXVIII.
But, moreover, taking the history, contained in the Gospel according to
Matthew, of our Lord’s descent into Egypt, he refuses to believe the
miraculous circumstances attending it, viz. either that the angel gave
the divine intimation, or that our Lord’s quitting Judea and residing in
Egypt was an event of any significance; but he invents something
altogether different, admitting somehow the miraculous works done by
Jesus, by means of which He induced the multitude to follow Him as the
Christ. And yet he desires to throw discredit on them, as being done by
help of magic and not by divine power; for he asserts “that he (Jesus),
having been brought up as an illegitimate child, and having served for
hire in Egypt, and then coming to the knowledge of certain miraculous
powers, returned from thence to his own country, and by means of those
powers proclaimed himself a God.” Now I do not understand how a magician
should exert himself to teach a doctrine which persuades us always to
act as if God were to judge every man for his deeds; and should have
trained his disciples, whom he was to employ as the ministers of his
doctrine, in the same belief. For did the latter make an impression upon
their hearers, after they had been so taught to work miracles; or was it
without the aid of these? The assertion, therefore, that they did no
miracles at all, but that, after yielding their belief to arguments
which were not at all convincing, like the wisdom of Grecian
dialectics,[1188] they gave themselves up to the task of teaching the
new doctrine to those persons among whom they happened to take up their
abode, is altogether absurd. For in what did they place their confidence
when they taught the doctrine and disseminated the new opinions? But if
they indeed wrought miracles, then how can it be believed that magicians
exposed themselves to such hazards to introduce a doctrine which forbade
the practice of magic?
Footnote 1188:
This difficult passage is rendered in the Latin translation: “but
that, after they had believed [in Christ], they with no adequate
supply of arguments, such as is furnished by the Greek dialectics,
gave themselves up,” etc.
Chapter XXXIX.
I do not think it necessary to grapple with an argument advanced not in
a serious but in a scoffing spirit, such as the following: “If the
mother of Jesus was beautiful, then the God whose nature is not to love
a corruptible body, had intercourse with her because she was beautiful;”
or, “It was improbable that the God would entertain a passion for her,
because she was neither rich nor of royal rank, seeing no one, even of
her neighbours, knew her.” And it is in the same scoffing spirit that he
adds: “When hated by her husband, and turned out of doors, she was not
saved by divine power, nor was her story believed. Such things, he says,
have no connection with the kingdom of heaven.” In what respect does
such language differ from that of those who pour abuse on others on the
public streets, and whose words are unworthy of any serious attention?
Chapter XL.
After these assertions, he takes from the Gospel of Matthew, and perhaps
also from the other Gospels, the account of the dove alighting upon our
Saviour at His baptism by John, and desires to throw discredit upon the
statement, alleging that the narrative is a fiction. Having completely
disposed, as he imagined, of the story of our Lord’s birth from a
virgin, he does not proceed to deal in an orderly manner with the
accounts that follow it; since passion and hatred observe no order, but
angry and vindictive men slander those whom they hate, as the feeling
comes upon them, being prevented by their passion from arranging their
accusations on a careful and orderly plan. For if he had observed a
proper arrangement, he would have taken up the Gospel, and, with the
view of assailing it, would have objected to the first narrative, then
passed on to the second, and so on to the others. But now, after the
birth from a virgin, this Celsus, who professes to be acquainted with
all our history, attacks the account of the appearance of the Holy
Spirit in the form of a dove at the baptism. He then, after that, tries
to throw discredit upon the prediction that our Lord was to come into
the world. In the next place, he runs away to what immediately follows
the narrative of the birth of Jesus—the account of the star, and of the
wise men who came from the east to worship the child. And you yourself
may find, if you take the trouble, many confused statements made by
Celsus throughout his whole book; so that even in this account he may,
by those who know how to observe and require an orderly method of
arrangement, be convicted of great rashness and boasting, in having
inscribed upon his work the title of _A True Discourse_,—a thing which
is never done by a learned philosopher. For Plato says, that it is not
an indication of an intelligent man to make strong assertions respecting
those matters which are somewhat uncertain; and the celebrated
Chrysippus even, who frequently states the reasons by which he is
decided, refers us to those whom we shall find to be abler speakers than
himself. This man, however, who is wiser than those already named, and
than all the other Greeks, agreeably to his assertion of being
acquainted with everything, inscribed upon his book the words, _A True
Discourse_!
Chapter XLI.
But, that we may not have the appearance of intentionally passing by his
charges through inability to refute them, we have resolved to answer
each one of them separately according to our ability, attending not to
the connection and sequence of the nature of the things themselves, but
to the arrangement of the subjects as they occur in his book. Let us
therefore notice what he has to say by way of impugning the bodily
appearance of the Holy Spirit to our Saviour in the form of a dove. And
it is a Jew who addresses the following language to Him whom we
acknowledge to be our Lord Jesus: “When you were bathing,” says the Jew,
“beside John, you say that what had the appearance of a bird from the
air alighted upon you.” And then this same Jew of his, continuing his
interrogations, asks, “What credible witness beheld this appearance? or
who heard a voice from heaven declaring you to be the Son of God? What
proof is there of it, save your own assertion, and the statement of
another of those individuals who have been punished along with you?”
Chapter XLII.
Before we begin our reply, we have to remark that the endeavour to show,
with regard to almost any history, however true, that it actually
occurred, and to produce an intelligent conception regarding it, is one
of the most difficult undertakings that can be attempted, and is in some
instances an impossibility. For suppose that some one were to assert
that there never had been any Trojan war, chiefly on account of the
impossible narrative interwoven therewith, about a certain Achilles
being the son of a sea-goddess Thetis and of a man Peleus, or Sarpedon
being the son of Zeus, or Ascalaphus and Ialmenus the sons of Ares, or
Æneas that of Aphrodite, how should we prove that such was the case,
especially under the weight of the fiction attached, I know not how, to
the universally prevalent opinion that there was really a war in Ilium
between Greeks and Trojans? And suppose, also, that some one disbelieved
the story of Œdipus and Jocasta, and of their two sons Eteocles and
Polynices, because the sphinx, a kind of half-virgin, was introduced
into the narrative, how should we demonstrate the reality of such a
thing? And in like manner also with the history of the Epigoni, although
there is no such marvellous event interwoven with it, or with the return
of the Heracleidæ, or countless other historical events. But he who
deals candidly with histories, and would wish to keep himself also from
being imposed upon by them, will exercise his judgment as to what
statements he will give his assent to, and what he will accept
figuratively, seeking to discover the meaning of the authors of such
inventions, and from what statements he will withhold his belief, as
having been written for the gratification of certain individuals. And we
have said this by way of anticipation respecting the whole history
related in the Gospels concerning Jesus, not as inviting men of
acuteness to a simple and unreasoning faith, but wishing to show that
there is need of candour in those who are to read, and of much
investigation, and, so to speak, of insight into the meaning of the
writers, that the object with which each event has been recorded may be
discovered.
Chapter XLIII.
We shall therefore say, in the first place, that if he who disbelieves
the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove had been
described as an Epicurean, or a follower of Democritus, or a
Peripatetic, the statement would have been in keeping with the character
of such an objector. But now even this Celsus, wisest of all men, did
not perceive that it is to a Jew, who believes more incredible things
contained in the writings of the prophets than the narrative of the
appearance of the dove, that he attributes such an objection! For one
might say to the Jew, when expressing his disbelief of the appearance,
and thinking to assail it as a fiction, “How are you able to prove, sir,
that the Lord spake to Adam, or to Eve, or to Cain, or to Noah, or to
Abraham, or to Isaac, or to Jacob, those words which He is recorded to
have spoken to these men?” And, to compare history with history, I would
say to the Jew, “Even your own Ezekiel writes, saying, ‘The heavens were
opened, and I saw a vision of God.’[1189] After relating which, he adds,
‘This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord; and
He said to me,’”[1190] etc. Now, if what is related of Jesus be false,
since we cannot, as you suppose, clearly prove it to be true, it being
seen or heard by himself alone, and, as you appear to have observed,
also by one of those who were punished, why should we not rather say
that Ezekiel also was dealing in the marvellous when he said, “The
heavens were opened,” etc.? Nay, even Isaiah asserts, “I saw the Lord of
hosts sitting on a throne, high and lifted up; and the seraphim stood
round about it: the one had six wings, and the other had six
wings.”[1191] How can we tell whether he really saw them or not? Now, O
Jew, you have believed these visions to be true, and to have been not
only shown to the prophet by a diviner Spirit, but also to have been
both spoken and recorded by the same. And who is the more worthy of
belief, when declaring that the heavens were opened before him, and that
he heard a voice, or beheld the Lord of Sabaoth sitting upon a throne
high and lifted up,—whether Isaiah and Ezekiel or Jesus? Of the former,
indeed, no work has been found equal to those of the latter; whereas the
good deeds of Jesus have not been confined solely to the period of His
tabernacling in the flesh, but up to the present time His power still
produces conversion and amelioration of life in those who believe in God
through Him. And a manifest proof that these things are done by His
power, is the fact that, although, as He Himself said, and as is
admitted, there are not labourers enough to gather in the harvest of
souls, there really is nevertheless such a great harvest of those who
are gathered together and conveyed into the everywhere existing
threshing-floors and churches of God.
Footnote 1189:
Cf. Ezek. i. 1.
Footnote 1190:
Cf. Ezek. i. 28 and ii. 1.
Footnote 1191:
Cf. Isa. vi. 1, 2.
Chapter XLIV.
And with these arguments I answer the Jew, not disbelieving, I who am a
Christian, Ezekiel and Isaiah, but being very desirous to show, on the
footing of our common belief, that this man is far more worthy of credit
than they are when He says that He beheld such a sight, and, as is
probable, related to His disciples the vision which He saw, and told
them of the voice which He heard. But another party might object, that
not all those who have narrated the appearance of the dove and the voice
from heaven heard the accounts of these things from Jesus, but that that
Spirit which taught Moses the history of events before his own time,
beginning with the creation, and descending down to Abraham his father,
taught also the writers of the Gospel the miraculous occurrence which
took place at the time of Jesus’ baptism. And he who is adorned with the
spiritual gift,[1192] called the “word of wisdom,” will explain also the
reason of the heavens opening, and the dove appearing, and why the Holy
Spirit appeared to Jesus in the form of no other living thing than that
of a dove. But our present subject does not require us to explain this,
our purpose being to show that Celsus displayed no sound judgment in
representing a Jew as disbelieving, on such grounds, a fact which has
greater probability in its favour than many events in which he firmly
reposes confidence.
Footnote 1192:
χαρίσματι.
Chapter XLV.
And I remember on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain Jews
who were reputed learned men, having employed the following argument in
the presence of many judges: “Tell me, sirs,” I said, “since there are
two individuals who have visited the human race, regarding whom are
related marvellous works surpassing human power—Moses, viz., your own
legislator, who wrote about himself, and Jesus our teacher, who has left
no writings regarding Himself, but to whom testimony is borne by the
disciples in the Gospels—what are the grounds for deciding that Moses is
to be believed as speaking the truth, although the Egyptians slander him
as a sorcerer, and as appearing to have wrought his mighty works by
jugglery, while Jesus is not to be believed because you are His
accusers? And yet there are nations which bear testimony in favour of
both: the Jews to Moses; and the Christians, who do not deny the
prophetic mission of Moses, but proving from that very source the truth
of the statement regarding Jesus, accept as true the miraculous
circumstances related of Him by His disciples. Now, if ye ask us for the
reasons of our faith in Jesus, give yours first for believing in Moses,
who lived before Him, and then we shall give you ours for accepting the
latter. But if you draw back, and shirk a demonstration, then we,
following your own example, decline for the present to offer any
demonstration likewise. Nevertheless, admit that ye have no proof to
offer for Moses, and then listen to our defence of Jesus derived from
the law and the prophets. And now observe what is almost incredible! It
is shown from the declarations concerning Jesus, contained in the law
and the prophets, that both Moses and the prophets were truly prophets
of God.”
Chapter XLVI.
For the law and the prophets are full of marvels similar to those
recorded of Jesus at His baptism, viz. regarding the dove and the voice
from heaven. And I think the wonders wrought by Jesus are a proof of the
Holy Spirit’s having then appeared in the form of a dove, although
Celsus, from a desire to cast discredit upon them, alleges that He
performed only what He had learned among the Egyptians. And I shall
refer not only to His miracles, but, as is proper, to those also of the
apostles of Jesus. For they could not without the help of miracles and
wonders have prevailed on those who heard their new doctrines and new
teachings to abandon their national usages, and to accept their
instructions at the danger to themselves even of death. And there are
still preserved among Christians traces of that Holy Spirit which
appeared in the form of a dove. They expel evil spirits, and perform
many cures, and foresee certain events, according to the will of the
Logos. And although Celsus, or the Jew whom he has introduced, may treat
with mockery what I am going to say, I shall say it nevertheless,—that
many have been converted to Christianity as if against their will, some
sort of spirit having suddenly transformed their minds from a hatred of
the doctrine to a readiness to die in its defence, and having appeared
to them either in a waking vision or a dream of the night. Many such
instances have we known, which, if we were to commit to writing,
although they were seen and witnessed by ourselves, we should afford
great occasion for ridicule to unbelievers, who would imagine that we,
like those whom they suppose to have invented such things, had ourselves
also done the same. But God is witness of our conscientious desire, not
by false statements, but by testimonies of different kinds, to establish
the divinity of the doctrine of Jesus. And as it is a Jew who is
perplexed about the account of the Holy Spirit having descended upon
Jesus in the form of a dove, we would say to him, “Sir, who is it that
says in Isaiah, ‘And now the Lord hath sent me and His Spirit?’”[1193]
In which sentence, as the meaning is doubtful—viz. whether the Father
and the Holy Spirit sent Jesus, or the Father sent both Christ and the
Holy Spirit—the latter is correct. For, because the Saviour was sent,
afterwards the Holy Spirit was sent also, that the prediction of the
prophet might be fulfilled; and as it was necessary that the fulfilment
of the prophecy should be known to posterity, the disciples of Jesus for
that reason committed the result to writing.
Footnote 1193:
Cf. Isa. xlviii. 16.
Chapter XLVII.
I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting
somehow John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of
John the Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one
who lived no great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th
book of his _Antiquities of the Jews_, Josephus bears witness to John as
having been a Baptist, and as promising purification to those who
underwent the rite.[1194] Now this writer, although not believing in
Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after the cause of the fall of Jerusalem
and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that
the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling
the people, since they put to death Christ, who was a prophet, says
nevertheless—being, although against his will, not far from the
truth—that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the
death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ),—the
Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished
for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he
regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of
their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as
because of his virtue and doctrine.[1195] If, then, he says that it was
on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to
overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason
to say that it happened on account [of the death] of Jesus Christ, of
whose divinity so many churches are witnesses, composed of those who
have been converted from a flood of sins, and who have joined themselves
to the Creator, and who refer all their actions to His good pleasure?
Footnote 1194:
Cf. Joseph. _Antiq._ book xviii. c. x. sec. 2.
Footnote 1195:
Cf. Gal. i. 19.
Chapter XLVIII.
Although the Jew, then, may offer no defence for himself in the
instances of Ezekiel and Isaiah, when we compare the opening of the
heavens to Jesus, and the voice that was heard by Him, to the similar
cases which we find recorded in Ezekiel and Isaiah, or any other of the
prophets, we nevertheless, so far as we can, shall support our position,
maintaining that, as it is a matter of belief that in a _dream_
impressions have been brought before the minds of many, some relating to
divine things, and others to future events of this life, and this either
with clearness or in an enigmatic manner,—a fact which is manifest to
all who accept the doctrine of providence; so how is it absurd to say
that the mind which could receive impressions in a _dream_ should be
impressed also in a waking vision, for the benefit either of him on whom
the impressions are made, or of those who are to hear the account of
them from him? And as in a dream we fancy that we hear, and that the
organs of hearing are actually impressed, and that we see with our
eyes—although neither the bodily organs of sight nor hearing are
affected, but it is the mind alone which has these sensations—so there
is no absurdity in believing that similar things occurred to the
prophets, when it is recorded that they witnessed occurrences of a
rather wonderful kind, as when they either heard the words of the Lord
or beheld the heavens opened. For I do not suppose that the visible
heaven was actually opened, and its physical structure divided, in order
that Ezekiel might be able to record such an occurrence. Should not,
therefore, the same be believed of the Saviour by every intelligent
hearer of the Gospels?—although such an occurrence may be a
stumbling-block to the simple, who in their simplicity would set the
whole world in movement, and split in sunder the compact and mighty body
of the whole heavens. But he who examines such matters more profoundly
will say, that there being, as the Scripture calls it, a kind of general
divine perception which the blessed man alone knows how to discover,
according to the saying of Solomon, “Thou shalt find the knowledge of
God;”[1196] and as there are various forms of this perceptive power,
such as a faculty of vision which can naturally see things that are
better than bodies, among which are ranked the cherubim and seraphim;
and a faculty of hearing which can perceive voices which have not their
being in the air; and a sense of taste which can make use of living
bread that has come down from heaven, and that giveth life unto the
world; and so also a sense of smelling, which scents such things as
leads Paul to say that he is a sweet savour of Christ unto God;[1197]
and a sense of touch, by which John says that he “handled with his hands
of the Word of life;”[1198]—the blessed prophets having discovered this
divine perception, and seeing and hearing in this divine manner, and
tasting likewise, and smelling, so to speak, with no sensible organs of
perception, and laying hold on the Logos by faith, so that a healing
effluence from it comes upon them, saw in this manner what they record
as having seen, and heard what they say they heard, and were affected in
a similar manner to what they describe when eating the roll of a book
that was given them.[1199] And so also Isaac smelled the savour of his
son’s divine garments,[1200] and added to the spiritual blessing these
words: “See, the savour of my son is as the savour of a full field which
the Lord blessed.”[1201] And similarly to this, and more as a matter to
be understood by the mind than to be perceived by the senses, Jesus
touched the leper,[1202] to cleanse him, as I think, in a two-fold
sense,—freeing him not only, as the multitude heard, from the visible
leprosy by visible contact, but also from that other leprosy, by His
truly divine touch. It is in this way, accordingly, that John testifies
when he says, “I beheld the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove,
and it abode upon Him. And I knew Him not; but He that sent me to
baptize with water, the same said to me, Upon whom you will see the
Spirit descending, and abiding on Him, the same is He that baptizeth
with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bear witness, that this is the Son
of God.”[1203] Now it was to Jesus that the heavens were opened; and on
that occasion no one except John is recorded to have seen them opened.
But with respect to this opening of the heavens, the Saviour,
foretelling to His disciples that it would happen, and that they would
see it, says, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, Ye shall see the heavens
opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of
man.”[1204] And so Paul was carried away into the third heaven, having
previously seen it opened, since he was a disciple of Jesus. It does
not, however, belong to our present object to explain why Paul says,
“Whether in the body, I know not; or whether out of the body, I know
not: God knoweth.”[1205] But I shall add to my argument even those very
points which Celsus imagines, viz. that Jesus Himself related the
account of the opening of the heavens, and the descent of the Holy
Spirit upon Him at the Jordan in the form of a dove, although the
Scripture does not assert that He said that He saw it. For this great
man did not perceive that it was not in keeping with Him who commanded
His disciples on the occasion of the vision on the mount, “Tell what ye
have seen to no man, until the Son of man be risen from the dead,”[1206]
to have related to His disciples what was seen and heard by John at the
Jordan. For it may be observed as a trait of the character of Jesus,
that He on all occasions avoided unnecessary talk about Himself; and on
that account said, “If I speak of myself, my witness is not true.”[1207]
And since He avoided unnecessary talk about Himself, and preferred to
show by acts rather than words that He was the Christ, the Jews for that
reason said to Him, “If thou art the Christ, tell us plainly.”[1208] And
as it is a Jew who, in the work of Celsus, uses the language to Jesus
regarding the appearance of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, “This
is your own testimony, unsupported save by one of those who were sharers
of your punishment, whom you adduce,” it is necessary for us to show him
that such a statement is not appropriately placed in the mouth of a Jew.
For the Jews do not connect John with Jesus, nor the punishment of John
with that of Christ. And by this instance, this man who boasts of
universal knowledge is convicted of not knowing what words he ought to
ascribe to a Jew engaged in a disputation with Jesus.
Footnote 1196:
Cf. Prov. ii. 5.
Footnote 1197:
Cf. 2 Cor. ii. 15.
Footnote 1198:
Cf. 1 John i. 1.
Footnote 1199:
Cf. Ezek. iii. 2, 3.
Footnote 1200:
Ὠσφράνθη τῆς ὀσμῆς τῶν τοῦ υἱοῦ θειοτέρων ἱματίων.
Footnote 1201:
Cf. Gen. xxvii. 27.
Footnote 1202:
Cf. Matt. viii. 3.
Footnote 1203:
Cf. John i. 32-34.
Footnote 1204:
Cf. John i. 52.
Footnote 1205:
Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2.
Footnote 1206:
Cf. Matt. xvii. 9.
Footnote 1207:
John v. 31.
Footnote 1208:
John x. 24.
Chapter XLIX.
After this he wilfully sets aside, I know not why, the strongest
evidence in confirmation of the claims of Jesus, viz. that His coming
was predicted by the Jewish prophets—Moses, and those who succeeded as
well as preceded that legislator—from inability, as I think, to meet the
argument that neither the Jews nor any other heretical sect refuse to
believe that Christ was the subject of prophecy. But perhaps he was
unacquainted with the prophecies relating to Christ. For no one who was
acquainted with the statements of the Christians, that many prophets
foretold the advent of the Saviour, would have ascribed to a Jew
sentiments which it would have better befitted a Samaritan or a Sadducee
to utter; nor would the Jew in the dialogue have expressed himself in
language like the following: “But my prophet once declared in Jerusalem,
that the Son of God will come as the Judge of the righteous and the
Punisher of the wicked.” Now it is not one of the prophets merely who
predicted the advent of Christ. But although the Samaritans and
Sadducees, who receive the books of Moses alone, would say that there
were contained in them predictions regarding Christ, yet certainly not
in Jerusalem, which is not even mentioned in the times of Moses, was the
prophecy uttered. It were indeed to be desired, that all the accusers of
Christianity were equally ignorant with Celsus, not only of the facts,
but of the bare letter of Scripture, and would so direct their assaults
against it, that their arguments might not have the least available
influence in shaking, I do not say the faith, but the little faith of
unstable and temporary believers. A Jew, however, would not admit that
any prophet used the expression, “The ‘Son of God’ will come;” for the
term which they employ is, “The ‘Christ of God’ will come.” And many a
time indeed do they directly interrogate us about the “Son of God,”
saying that no such being exists, or was made the subject of prophecy.
We do not of course assert that the “Son of God” is not the subject of
prophecy; but we assert that he most inappropriately attributes to the
Jewish disputant, who would not allow that He was, such language as, “My
prophet once declared in Jerusalem that the ‘Son of God’ will come.”
Chapter L.
In the next place, as if the only event predicted were this, that He was
to be “the Judge of the righteous and the Punisher of the wicked,” and
as if neither the place of His birth, nor the sufferings which He was to
endure at the hands of the Jews, nor His resurrection, nor the wonderful
works which He was to perform, had been made the subject of prophecy, he
continues: “Why should it be you alone, rather than innumerable others,
who existed after the prophecies were published, to whom these
predictions are applicable?” And desiring, I know not how, to suggest to
others the possibility of the notion that they themselves were the
persons referred to by the prophets, he says that “some, carried away by
enthusiasm, and others having gathered a multitude of followers, give
out that the Son of God is come down from heaven.” Now we have not
ascertained that such occurrences are admitted to have taken place among
the Jews. We have to remark then, in the first place, that many of the
prophets have uttered predictions in all kinds of ways[1209] regarding
Christ; some by means of dark sayings, others in allegories or in some
other manner, and some also in express words. And as in what follows he
says, in the character of the Jew addressing the converts from his own
nation, and repeating emphatically and malevolently, that “the
prophecies referred to the events of his life may also suit other events
as well,” we shall state a few of them out of a greater number; and with
respect to these, any one who chooses may say what he thinks fitted to
ensure a refutation of them, and which may turn away intelligent
believers from the faith.
Footnote 1209:
παντοδαπῶς προεῖπον.
Chapter LI.
Now the Scripture speaks, respecting the place of the Saviour’s
birth—that the Ruler was to come forth from Bethlehem—in the following
manner: “And thou Bethlehem, house of Ephrata, art not the least among
the thousands of Judah: for out of thee shall He come forth unto me who
is to be Ruler in Israel; and His goings forth have been of old, from
everlasting.”[1210] Now this prophecy could not suit any one of those
who, as Celsus’ Jew says, were fanatics and mob-leaders, and who gave
out that they had come from heaven, unless it were clearly shown that He
had been born in Bethlehem, or, as another might say, had come forth
from Bethlehem to be the leader of the people. With respect to the birth
of Jesus in Bethlehem, if any one desires, after the prophecy of Micah
and after the history recorded in the Gospels by the disciples of Jesus,
to have additional evidence from other sources, let him know that, in
conformity with the narrative in the Gospel regarding His birth, there
is shown at Bethlehem the cave where He was born, and the manger in the
cave where He was wrapped in swaddling-clothes. And this sight is
greatly talked of in surrounding places, even among the enemies of the
faith, it being said that in this cave was born that Jesus who is
worshipped and reverenced by the Christians. Moreover, I am of opinion
that, before the advent of Christ, the chief priests and scribes of the
people, on account of the distinctness and clearness of this prophecy,
taught that in Bethlehem the Christ was to be born. And this opinion had
prevailed also extensively among the Jews; for which reason it is
related that Herod, on inquiring at the chief priests and scribes of the
people, heard from them that the Christ was to be born in Bethlehem of
Judea, “whence David was.” It is stated also in the Gospel according to
John, that the Jews declared that the Christ was to be born in
Bethlehem, “whence David was.”[1211] But after our Lord’s coming, those
who busied themselves with overthrowing the belief that the place of His
birth had been the subject of prophecy from the beginning, withheld such
teaching from the people; acting in a similar manner to those
individuals who won over those soldiers of the guard stationed around
the tomb who had seen Him arise from the dead, and who instructed these
eye-witnesses to report as follows: “Say that his disciples, while we
slept, came and stole him away. And if this come to the governor’s ears,
we shall persuade him, and secure you.”[1212]
Footnote 1210:
Cf. Mic. v. 2 and Matt. ii. 6.
Footnote 1211:
Cf. John vii. 42.
Footnote 1212:
Cf. Matt. xxviii. 13, 14.
Chapter LII.
Strife and prejudice are powerful instruments in leading men to
disregard even those things which are abundantly clear; so that they who
have somehow become familiar with certain opinions, which have deeply
imbued their minds, and stamped them with a certain character, will not
give them up. For a man will abandon his habits in respect to other
things, although it may be difficult for him to tear himself from them,
more easily than he will surrender his opinions. Nay, even the former
are not easily put aside by those who have become accustomed to them;
and so neither houses, nor cities, nor villages, nor intimate
acquaintances, are willingly forsaken when we are prejudiced in their
favour. This, therefore, was a reason why many of the Jews at that time
disregarded the clear testimony of the prophecies, and miracles which
Jesus wrought, and of the sufferings which He is related to have
endured. And that human nature is thus affected, will be manifest to
those who observe that those who have once been prejudiced in favour of
the most contemptible and paltry traditions of their ancestors and
fellow-citizens, with difficulty lay them aside. For example, no one
could easily persuade an Egyptian to despise what he had learned from
his fathers, so as no longer to consider this or that irrational animal
as a god, or not to guard against eating, even under the penalty of
death, of the flesh of such an animal. Now, if in carrying our
examination of this subject to a considerable length, we have enumerated
the points respecting Bethlehem, and the prophecy regarding it, we
consider that we were obliged to do this, by way of defence against
those who would assert that if the prophecies current among the Jews
regarding Jesus were so clear as we represent them, why did they not at
His coming give in their adhesion to His doctrine, and betake themselves
to the better life pointed out by Him? Let no one, however, bring such a
reproach against believers, since he may see that reasons of no light
weight are assigned by those who have learned to state them, for their
faith in Jesus.
Chapter LIII.
And if we should ask for a second prophecy, which may appear to us to
have a clear reference to Jesus, we would quote that which was written
by Moses very many years before the advent of Christ, when he makes
Jacob, on his departure from this life, to have uttered predictions
regarding each of his sons, and to have said of Judah along with the
others: “The ruler will not fail from Judah, and the governor from his
loins, until that which is reserved for him come.”[1213] Now, any one
meeting with this prophecy, which is in reality much older than Moses,
so that one who was not a believer might suspect that it was not written
by him, would be surprised that Moses should be able to predict that the
princes of the Jews, seeing there are among them twelve tribes, should
be born of the tribe of Judah, and should be the rulers of the people;
for which reason also the whole nation are called Jews, deriving their
name from the ruling tribe. And, in the second place, one who candidly
considers the prophecy, would be surprised how, after declaring that the
rulers and governors of the people were to proceed from the tribe of
Judah, he should determine also the limit of their rule, saying that
“the ruler should not fail from Judah, nor the governor from his loins,
until there should come that which was reserved for him, and that He is
the expectation of the Gentiles.”[1214] For He came for whom these
things were reserved, viz. the Christ of God, the ruler of the promises
of God. And manifestly He is the only one among those who preceded, and,
I might make bold to say, among those also who followed Him, who was the
expectation of the Gentiles; for converts from among all the Gentile
nations have believed on God through Him, and that in conformity with
the prediction of Isaiah, that in His name the Gentiles had hoped: “In
Thy name shall the Gentiles hope.”[1215] And this man said also to those
who are in prison, as every man is a captive to the chains of his sins,
“Come forth;” and to the ignorant, “Come into the light:” these things
also having been thus foretold: “I have given Thee for a covenant of the
people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate
heritage; saying to the prisoners, Go forth; and to them that are in
darkness, Show yourselves.”[1216] And we may see at the appearing of
this man, by means of those who everywhere throughout the world have
reposed a simple faith in Him, the fulfilment of this prediction: “They
shall feed in the ways, and their pastures shall be in all the beaten
tracks.”[1217]
Footnote 1213:
Cf. Gen. xlix. 10, ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ τὰ ἀποκείμενα αὐτῷ. This is one of the
passages of the Septuagint which Justin Martyr charges the Jews with
corrupting; the true reading, according to him, being ἕως ἂν ἔλθῃ ᾧ
ἀπόκειται. Cf. Justin Martyr, _Dialogue with Trypho_, Ante-Nicene Lib.
p. 251.
Footnote 1214:
Cf. Gen. xlix. 10.
Footnote 1215:
Isa. xlii. 4.
Footnote 1216:
Cf. Isa. xlix. 8, 9.
Footnote 1217:
Isa. xlix. 9.
Chapter LIV.
And since Celsus, although professing to know all about the Gospel,
reproaches the Saviour because of His sufferings, saying that He
received no assistance from the Father, or was unable to aid Himself; we
have to state that His sufferings were the subject of prophecy, along
with the cause of them; because it was for the benefit of mankind that
He should die on their account,[1218] and should suffer stripes because
of His condemnation. It was predicted, moreover, that some from among
the Gentiles would come to the knowledge of Him (among whom the prophets
are not included); and it had been declared that He would be seen in a
form which is deemed dishonourable among men. The words of prophecy run
thus: “Lo, my Servant shall have understanding, and shall be exalted and
glorified, and raised exceedingly high. In like manner, many shall be
astonished at Thee; so Thy form shall be in no reputation among men, and
Thy glory among the sons of men. Lo, many nations shall marvel because
of Him; and kings shall close their mouths: because they, to whom no
message about Him was sent, shall see Him; and they who have not heard
of Him, shall have knowledge of Him.”[1219] “Lord, who hath believed our
report? and to whom was the arm of the Lord revealed? We have reported,
as a child before Him, as a root in a thirsty ground. He has no form nor
glory; and we beheld Him, and He had not any form nor beauty: but His
appearance was without honour, and deficient more than that of all men.
He was a man under suffering, and who knew how to bear sickness: because
His countenance was averted, He was treated with disrespect, and was
made of no account. This man bears our sins, and suffers pain on our
behalf; and we regarded Him as in trouble, and in suffering, and as
ill-treated. But He was wounded for our sins, and bruised for our
iniquities. The chastisement of our peace was upon Him; by His stripes
we were healed. We all, like sheep, wandered from the way. A man
wandered in his way, and the Lord delivered Him on account of our sins;
and He, because of His evil treatment, opens not His mouth. As a sheep
was He led to slaughter; and as a lamb before her shearer is dumb, so He
opens not His mouth. In His humiliation His judgment was taken away. And
who shall describe His generation? because His life is taken away from
the earth; because of the iniquities of my people was He led unto
death.”[1220]
Footnote 1218:
ὑπὲρ αὐτῶν.
Footnote 1219:
Cf. Isa. lii. 13-15 in the Septuagint version (Roman text).
Footnote 1220:
Cf. Isa. liii. 1-8 in the Septuagint version (Roman text).
Chapter LV.
Now I remember that, on one occasion, at a disputation held with certain
Jews, who were reckoned wise men, I quoted these prophecies; to which my
Jewish opponent replied, that these predictions bore reference to the
whole people, regarded as _one individual_, and as being in a state of
dispersion and suffering, in order that many proselytes might be gained,
on account of the dispersion of the Jews among numerous heathen nations.
And in this way he explained the words, “Thy form shall be of no
reputation among men;” and then, “They to whom no message was sent
respecting him shall see;” and the expression, “A man under suffering.”
Many arguments were employed on that occasion during the discussion to
prove that these predictions regarding one particular person were not
rightly applied by them to the whole nation. And I asked to what
character the expression would be appropriate, “This man bears our sins,
and suffers pain on our behalf;” and this, “But he was wounded for our
sins, and bruised for our iniquities;” and to whom the expression
properly belonged, “By his stripes were we healed.” For it is manifest
that it is they who had been sinners, and had been healed by the
Saviour’s sufferings (whether belonging to the Jewish nation or converts
from the Gentiles), who use such language in the writings of the prophet
who foresaw these events, and who, under the influence of the Holy
Spirit, applied these words to a person. But we seemed to press them
hardest with the expression, “Because of the iniquities of my people was
he led away unto death.” For if the people, according to them, are the
subject of the prophecy, how is the man said to be led away to death
because of the iniquities of the people of God, unless he be a different
person from that people of God? And who is this person save Jesus
Christ, by whose stripes they who believe on Him are healed, when “He
had spoiled the principalities and powers (that were over us), and had
made a show of them openly on His cross?” At another time we may explain
the several parts of the prophecy, leaving none of them unexamined. But
these matters have been treated at greater length, necessarily as I
think, on account of the language of the Jew, as quoted in the work of
Celsus.
Chapter LVI.
Now it escaped the notice of Celsus, and of the Jew whom he has
introduced, and of all who are not believers in Jesus, that the
prophecies speak of two advents of Christ: the former characterized by
human suffering and humility, in order that Christ, being with men,
might make known the way that leads to God, and might leave no man in
this life a ground of excuse, in saying that he knew not of the judgment
to come; and the latter, distinguished only by glory and divinity,
having no element of human infirmity intermingled with its divine
greatness. To quote the prophecies at length would be tedious; and I
deem it sufficient for the present to quote a part of the forty-fifth
Psalm, which has this inscription, in addition to others, “A Psalm for
the Beloved,” where God is evidently addressed in these words: “Grace is
poured into Thy lips: therefore God will bless Thee for ever and ever.
Gird Thy sword on Thy thigh, O mighty One, with Thy beauty and Thy
majesty. And stretch forth, and ride prosperously, and reign, because of
Thy truth, and meekness, and righteousness; and Thy right hand shall
lead Thee marvellously. Thine arrows are pointed, O mighty One; the
people will fall under Thee in the heart of the enemies of the
King.”[1221] But attend carefully to what follows, where He is called
God: “For Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of
righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom. Thou hast loved
righteousness, and hated iniquity: therefore God, even Thy God, hath
anointed Thee with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.”[1222] And
observe that the prophet, speaking familiarly to God, whose “throne is
for ever and ever,” and “a sceptre of righteousness the sceptre of His
kingdom,” says that this God has been anointed by a God who was His God,
and anointed, because more than His fellows He had loved righteousness
and hated iniquity. And I remember that I pressed the Jew, who was
deemed a learned man, very hard with this passage; and he, being
perplexed about it, gave such an answer as was in keeping with his
Judaistic views, saying that the words, “Thy throne, O God, is for ever
and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of Thy kingdom,” are
spoken of the God of all things; and these, “Thou hast loved
righteousness and hated iniquity, therefore Thy God hath anointed Thee,”
etc., refer to the Messiah.[1223]
Footnote 1221:
Ps. xlv. 2-5.
Footnote 1222:
Ps. xlv. 6, 7.
Footnote 1223:
πρὸς τὸν Χριστόν.
Chapter LVII.
The Jew, moreover, in the treatise, addresses the Saviour thus: “If you
say that every man, born according to the decree of Divine Providence,
is a son of God, in what respect should you differ from another?” In
reply to whom we say, that every man who, as Paul expresses it, is no
longer under fear, as a schoolmaster, but who chooses good for its own
sake, is “a son of God;” but this man is distinguished far and wide
above every man who is called, on account of his virtues, a son of God,
seeing He is, as it were, a kind of source and beginning of all such.
The words of Paul are as follow: “For ye have not received the spirit of
bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption,
whereby we cry, Abba, Father.”[1224] But, according to the Jew of
Celsus, “countless individuals will convict Jesus of falsehood, alleging
that those predictions which were spoken of him were intended of them.”
We are not aware, indeed, whether Celsus knew of any who, after coming
into this world, and having desired to act as Jesus did, declared
themselves to be also the “sons of God,” or the “power” of God. But
since it is in the spirit of truth that we examine each passage, we
shall mention that there was a certain Theudas among the Jews before the
birth of Christ, who gave himself out as some great one, after whose
death his deluded followers were completely dispersed. And after him, in
the days of the census, when Jesus appears to have been born, one Judas,
a Galilean, gathered around him many of the Jewish people, saying he was
a wise man, and a teacher of certain new doctrines. And when he also had
paid the penalty of his rebellion, his doctrine was overturned, having
taken hold of very few persons indeed, and these of the very humblest
condition. And after the times of Jesus, Dositheus the Samaritan also
wished to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Christ predicted by
Moses; and he appears to have gained over some to his views. But it is
not absurd, in quoting the extremely wise observation of that Gamaliel
named in the book of Acts, to show how those persons above mentioned
were strangers to the promise, being neither “sons of God” nor “powers”
of God, whereas Christ Jesus was truly the Son of God. Now Gamaliel, in
the passage referred to, said: “If this counsel or this work be of men,
it will come to nought” (as also did the designs of those men already
mentioned after their death); “but if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow
this doctrine, lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.”[1225]
There was also Simon the Samaritan magician, who wished to draw away
certain by his magical arts. And on that occasion he was successful; but
now-a-days it is impossible to find, I suppose, thirty of his followers
in the entire world, and probably I have even overstated the number.
There are exceedingly few in Palestine; while in the rest of the world,
through which he desired to spread the glory of his name, you find it
nowhere mentioned. And where it is found, it is found quoted from the
Acts of the Apostles; so that it is to Christians that he owes this
mention of himself, the unmistakeable result having proved that Simon
was in no respect divine.
Footnote 1224:
Rom. viii. 16.
Footnote 1225:
Cf. Acts v. 38, 39.
Chapter LVIII.
After these matters this Jew of Celsus, instead of the Magi mentioned in
the Gospel, says that “Chaldeans are spoken of by Jesus as having been
induced to come to him at his birth, and to worship him while yet an
infant as a God, and to have made this known to Herod the tetrarch; and
that the latter sent and slew all the infants that had been born about
the same time, thinking that in this way he would ensure his death among
the others; and that he was led to do this through fear that, if Jesus
lived to a sufficient age, he would obtain the throne.” See now in this
instance the blunder of one who cannot distinguish between Magi and
Chaldeans, nor perceive that what they profess is different, and so has
falsified the Gospel narrative. I know not, moreover, why he has passed
by in silence the cause which led the Magi to come, and why he has not
stated, according to the scriptural account, that it was a star seen by
them in the east. Let us see now what answer we have to make to these
statements. The star that was seen in the east we consider to have been
a new star, unlike any of the other well-known planetary bodies, either
those in the firmament above or those among the lower orbs, but
partaking of the nature of those celestial bodies which appear at times,
such as comets, or those meteors which resemble beams of wood, or
beards, or wine jars, or any of those other names by which the Greeks
are accustomed to describe their varying appearances. And we establish
our position in the following manner.
Chapter LIX.
It has been observed that, on the occurrence of great events, and of
mighty changes in terrestrial things, such stars are wont to appear,
indicating either the removal of dynasties or the breaking out of wars,
or the happening of such circumstances as may cause commotions upon the
earth. But we have read in the _Treatise on Comets_ by Chaeremon the
Stoic, that on some occasions also, when _good_ was to happen, comets
made their appearance; and he gives an account of such instances. If,
then, at the commencement of new dynasties, or on the occasion of other
important events, there arises a comet so called, or any similar
celestial body, why should it be matter of wonder that at the birth of
Him who was to introduce a new doctrine to the human race, and to make
known His teaching not only to Jews, but also to Greeks, and to many of
the barbarous nations besides, a star should have arisen? Now I would
say, that with respect to comets there is no prophecy in circulation to
the effect that such and such a comet was to arise in connection with a
particular kingdom or a particular time; but with respect to the
appearance of a star at the birth of Jesus there is a prophecy of Balaam
recorded by Moses to this effect: “There shall arise a star out of
Jacob, and a man shall rise up out of Israel.”[1226] And now, if it
shall be deemed necessary to examine the narrative about the Magi, and
the appearance of the star at the birth of Jesus, the following is what
we have to say, partly in answer to the Greeks, and partly to the Jews.
Footnote 1226:
Cf. Num. xxiv. 17 (Septuag.).
Chapter LX.
To the Greeks, then, I have to say that the Magi, being on familiar
terms with evil spirits, and invoking them for such purposes as their
knowledge and wishes extend to, bring about such results only as do not
appear to exceed the superhuman power and strength of the evil spirits,
and of the spells which invoke them, to accomplish; but should some
greater manifestation of divinity be made, then the powers of the evil
spirits are overthrown, being unable to resist the light of divinity. It
is probable, therefore, that since at the birth of Jesus “a multitude of
the heavenly host,” as Luke records, and as I believe, “praised God,
saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good-will
towards men,” the evil spirits on that account became feeble, and lost
their strength, the falsity of their sorcery being manifested, and their
power being broken; this overthrow being brought about not only by the
angels having visited the terrestrial regions on account of the birth of
Jesus, but also by the power of Jesus Himself, and His innate divinity.
The Magi, accordingly, wishing to produce the customary results, which
formerly they used to perform by means of certain spells and sorceries,
sought to know the reason of their failure, conjecturing the cause to be
a great one; and beholding a divine sign in the heaven, they desired to
learn its signification. I am therefore of opinion that, possessing as
they did the prophecies of Balaam, which Moses also records, inasmuch as
Balaam was celebrated for such predictions, and finding among them the
prophecy about the star, and the words, “I shall show him to him, but
not now; I deem him happy, although he will not be near,”[1227] they
conjectured that the man whose appearance had been foretold along with
that of the star, had actually come into the world; and having
predetermined that he was superior in power to all demons, and to all
common appearances and powers, they resolved to offer him homage. They
came, accordingly, to Judea, persuaded that some king had been born; but
not knowing over what kingdom he was to reign, and being ignorant also
of the place of his birth, bringing gifts, which they offered to him as
one whose nature partook, if I may so speak, both of God and of a mortal
man,—gold, viz., as to a king; myrrh, as to one who was mortal; and
incense, as to a God; and they brought these offerings after they had
learned the place of His birth. But since He was a God, the Saviour of
the human race, raised far above all those angels which minister to men,
an angel rewarded the piety of the Magi for their worship of Him, by
making known to them that they were not to go back to Herod, but to
return to their own homes by another way.
Footnote 1227:
Cf. Num. xxiv. 17 (Septuag.).
Chapter LXI.
That Herod conspired against the child (although the Jew of Celsus does
not believe that this really happened), is not to be wondered at. For
wickedness is in a certain sense blind, and would desire to defeat fate,
as if it were stronger than it. And this being Herod’s condition, he
both believed that a king of the Jews had been born, and yet cherished a
purpose contradictory of such a belief; not seeing that the child is
assuredly either a king and will come to the throne, or that he is not
to be a king, and that his death, therefore, will be to no purpose. He
desired accordingly to kill Him, his mind being agitated by contending
passions on account of his wickedness, and being instigated by the blind
and wicked devil who from the very beginning plotted against the
Saviour, imagining that He was and would become some mighty one. An
angel, however, perceiving the course of events, intimated to Joseph,
although Celsus may not believe it, that he was to withdraw with the
child and His mother into Egypt, while Herod slew all the infants that
were in Bethlehem and the surrounding borders, in the hope that he would
thus destroy Him also who had been born King of the Jews. For he saw not
the sleepless guardian power that is around those who deserve to be
protected and preserved for the salvation of men, of whom Jesus is the
first, superior to all others in honour and excellence, who was to be a
King indeed, but not in the sense that Herod supposed, but in that in
which it became God to bestow a kingdom,—for the benefit, viz., of those
who were to be under His sway, who was to confer no ordinary and
unimportant blessings, so to speak, upon His subjects, but who was to
train them and to subject them to laws that were truly from God. And
Jesus, knowing this well, and denying that He was a king in the sense
that the multitude expected, but declaring the superiority of His
kingdom, says: “If my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants
fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom
not of this world.”[1228] Now, if Celsus had seen this, he would not
have said: “But if, then, this was done in order that you might not
reign in his stead when you had grown to man’s estate; why, after you
did reach that estate, do you not become a king, instead of you, the Son
of God, wandering about in so mean a condition, hiding yourself through
fear, and leading a miserable life up and down?” Now, it is not
dishonourable to avoid exposing one’s self to dangers, but to guard
carefully against them, when this is done, not through fear of death,
but from a desire to benefit others by remaining in life, until the
proper time come for one who has assumed human nature to die a death
that will be useful to mankind. And this is plain to him who reflects
that Jesus died for the sake of men,—a point of which we have spoken to
the best of our ability in the preceding pages.
Footnote 1228:
Cf. John xviii. 36.
Chapter LXII.
And after such statements, showing his ignorance even of the number of
the apostles, he proceeds thus: “Jesus having gathered around him ten or
eleven persons of notorious character, the very wickedest of
tax-gatherers and sailors, fled in company with them from place to
place, and obtained his living in a shameful and importunate manner.”
Let us to the best of our power see what truth there is in such a
statement. It is manifest to us all who possess the Gospel narratives,
which Celsus does not appear even to have read, that Jesus selected
twelve apostles, and that of these Matthew alone was a tax-gatherer;
that when he calls them indiscriminately sailors, he probably means
James and John, because they left their ship and their father Zebedee,
and followed Jesus; for Peter and his brother Andrew, who employed a net
to gain their necessary subsistence, must be classed not as sailors, but
as the Scripture describes them, as fishermen. The Lebes[1229] also, who
was a follower of Jesus, may have been a tax-gatherer; but he was not of
the number of the apostles, except according to a statement in one of
the copies of Mark’s Gospel.[1230] And we have not ascertained the
employments of the remaining disciples, by which they earned their
livelihood before becoming disciples of Jesus. I assert, therefore, in
answer to such statements as the above, that it is clear to all who are
able to institute an intelligent and candid examination into the history
of the apostles of Jesus, that it was by help of a divine power that
these men taught Christianity, and succeeded in leading others to
embrace the word of God. For it was not any power of speaking, or any
orderly arrangement of their message, according to the arts of Grecian
dialectics or rhetoric, which was in them the effective cause of
converting their hearers. Nay, I am of opinion that if Jesus had
selected some individuals who were wise according to the apprehension of
the multitude, and who were fitted both to think and speak so as to
please them, and had used such as the ministers of His doctrine, He
would most justly have been suspected of employing artifices, like those
philosophers who are the leaders of certain sects, and consequently the
promise respecting the divinity of His doctrine would not have
manifested itself; for had the doctrine and the preaching consisted in
the persuasive utterance and arrangement of words, then faith also, like
that of the philosophers of the world in their opinions, would have been
through the wisdom of men, and not through the power of God. Now, who is
there, on seeing fishermen and tax-gatherers, who had not acquired even
the merest elements of learning (as the Gospel relates of them, and in
respect to which Celsus believes that they speak the truth, inasmuch as
it is their own ignorance which they record), discoursing boldly not
only among the Jews of faith in Jesus, but also preaching Him with
success among other nations, would not inquire whence they derived this
power of persuasion, as theirs was certainly not the common method
followed by the multitude? And who would not say that the promise,
“Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men,”[1231] had been
accomplished by Jesus in the history of His apostles by a sort of divine
power? And to this also, Paul, referring in terms of commendation, as we
have stated a little above, says: “And my speech and my preaching was
not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the
Spirit and of power; that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of
men, but in the power of God.”[1232] For, according to the predictions
in the prophets, foretelling the preaching of the gospel, “the Lord gave
the word in great power to them who preached it, even the King of the
powers of the Beloved,”[1233] in order that the prophecy might be
fulfilled which said, “His word shall run very swiftly.”[1234] And we
see that “the voice of the apostles of Jesus has gone forth into all the
earth, and their words to the end of the world.”[1235] On this account
are they who hear the word powerfully proclaimed filled with power,
which they manifest both by their dispositions and their lives, and by
struggling even to death on behalf of the truth; while some are
altogether empty, although they profess to believe in God through Jesus,
inasmuch as, not possessing any divine power, they have the appearance
only of being converted to the word of God. And although I have
previously mentioned a Gospel declaration uttered by the Saviour, I
shall nevertheless quote it again, as appropriate to the present
occasion, as it confirms both the divine manifestation of our Saviour’s
foreknowledge regarding the preaching of His gospel, and the power of
His word, which without the aid of teachers gains the mastery over those
who yield their assent to persuasion accompanied with divine power; and
the words of Jesus referred to are, “The harvest is plenteous, but the
labourers are few; pray ye therefore the Lord of the harvest, that He
will send forth labourers into His harvest.”[1236]
Footnote 1229:
Λεβης.
Footnote 1230:
Cf. Mark iii. 18 with Matt. x. 3.
Footnote 1231:
Matt. iv. 19.
Footnote 1232:
Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 4, 5.
Footnote 1233:
Cf. Ps. lxviii. 11 (Septuag.).
Footnote 1234:
Ps. cxlvii. 15.
Footnote 1235:
Ps. xix. 4.
Footnote 1236:
Matt. ix. 37, 38.
Chapter LXIII.
And since Celsus has termed the apostles of Jesus men of infamous
notoriety, saying that they were tax-gatherers and sailors of the vilest
character, we have to remark, with respect to this charge, that he
seems, in order to bring an accusation against Christianity, to believe
the Gospel accounts only where he pleases, and to express his disbelief
of them, in order that he may not be forced to admit the manifestations
of Divinity related in these same books; whereas one who sees the spirit
of truth by which the writers are influenced, ought, from their
narration of things of inferior importance, to believe also the account
of divine things. Now in the general Epistle of Barnabas, from which
perhaps Celsus took the statement that the apostles were notoriously
wicked men, it is recorded that “Jesus selected His own apostles, as
persons who were more guilty of sin than all other evil-doers.”[1237]
And in the Gospel according to Luke, Peter says to Jesus, “Depart from
me, O Lord, for I am a sinful man.”[1238] Moreover, Paul, who himself
also at a later time became an apostle of Jesus, says in his Epistle to
Timothy, “This is a faithful saying, that Jesus Christ came into the
world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief.”[1239] And I do not know
how Celsus should have forgotten or not have thought of saying something
about Paul, the founder, after Jesus, of the churches that are in
Christ. He saw, probably, that anything he might say about that apostle
would require to be explained, in consistency with the fact that, after
being a persecutor of the church of God, and a bitter opponent of
believers, who went so far even as to deliver over the disciples of
Jesus to death, so great a change afterwards passed over him, that he
preached the gospel of Jesus from Jerusalem round about to Illyricum,
and was ambitious to carry the glad tidings where he needed not to build
upon another man’s foundation, but to places where the gospel of God in
Christ had not been proclaimed at all. What absurdity, therefore, is
there, if Jesus, desiring to manifest to the human race the power which
He possesses to heal souls, should have selected notorious and wicked
men, and should have raised them to such a degree of moral excellence,
that they became a pattern of the purest virtue to all who were
converted by their instrumentality to the gospel of Christ?
Footnote 1237:
Epistle of Barnabas, chap. v. (Cf. Ante-Nicene Library, vol. Apostolic
Fathers, p. 108.)
Footnote 1238:
Luke v. 8.
Footnote 1239:
Cf. 1 Tim. i. 15.
Chapter LXIV.
But if we were to reproach those who have been converted with their
former lives, then we would have occasion to accuse Phædo also, even
after he became a philosopher; since, as the history relates, he was
drawn away by Socrates from a house of bad fame[1240] to the pursuits of
philosophy. Nay, even the licentious life of Polemo, the successor of
Xenocrates, will be a subject of reproach to philosophy; whereas even in
these instances we ought to regard it as a ground of praise, that
reasoning was enabled, by the persuasive power of these men, to convert
from the practice of such vices those who had been formerly entangled by
them. Now among the Greeks there was only one Phædo, I know not if there
were a second, and one Polemo, who betook themselves to philosophy,
after a licentious and most wicked life; while with Jesus there were not
only at the time we speak of, the twelve disciples, but many more at all
times, who, becoming a band of temperate men, speak in the following
terms of their former lives: “For we ourselves also were sometimes
foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures,
living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But after
that the kindness and love of God our Saviour towards man appeared, by
the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost, which He
shed upon us richly,”[1241] we became such as we are. For “God sent
forth His Word and healed them, and delivered them from their
destructions,”[1242] as the prophet taught in the book of Psalms. And in
addition to what has been already said, I would add the following: that
Chrysippus, in his treatise on the _Cure of the Passions_, in his
endeavours to restrain the passions of the human soul, not pretending to
determine what opinions are the true ones, says that according to the
principles of the different sects are those to be cured who have been
brought under the dominion of the passions, and continues: “And if
pleasure be an end, then by it must the passions be healed; and if there
be three kinds of chief blessings, still, according to this doctrine, it
is in the same way that those are to be freed from their passions who
are under their dominion;” whereas the assailants of Christianity do not
see in how many persons the passions have been brought under restraint,
and the flood of wickedness checked, and savage manners softened by
means of the gospel. So that it well became those who are ever boasting
of their zeal for the public good, to make a public acknowledgment of
their thanks to that doctrine which by a new method led men to abandon
many vices, and to bear their testimony at least to it, that even though
not the truth, it has at all events been productive of benefit to the
human race.
Footnote 1240:
ἀπὸ οἰκήματος. Such is the reading in the text of Lommatzsch. Hœschel
and Spencer read ἀπὸ οἰκήματος ἐτείου, and Ruæus proposes ἑταιρίου.
Footnote 1241:
Cf. Tit. iii. 3-6.
Footnote 1242:
Cf. Ps. cvii. 20.
Chapter LXV.
And since Jesus, in teaching His disciples not to be guilty of rashness,
gave them the precept, “If they persecute you in this city, flee ye into
another; and if they persecute you in the other, flee again into a
third,”[1243] to which teaching He added the example of a consistent
life, acting so as not to expose Himself to danger rashly, or
unseasonably, or without good grounds; from this Celsus takes occasion
to bring a malicious and slanderous accusation,—the Jew whom he brings
forward saying to Jesus, “In company with your disciples you go and hide
yourself in different places.” Now similar to what has thus been made
the ground of a slanderous charge against Jesus and His disciples, do we
say was the conduct recorded of Aristotle. This philosopher, seeing that
a court was about to be summoned to try him, on the ground of his being
guilty of impiety on account of certain of his philosophical tenets
which the Athenians regarded as impious, withdrew from Athens, and fixed
his school in Chalcis, defending his course of procedure to his friends
by saying, “Let us depart from Athens, that we may not give the
Athenians a handle for incurring guilt a second time, as formerly in the
case of Socrates, and so prevent them from committing a second act of
impiety against philosophy.” He further says, “that Jesus went about
with his disciples, and obtained his livelihood in a disgraceful and
importunate manner.” Let him show wherein lay the disgraceful and
importunate element in their manner of subsistence. For it is related in
the Gospels, that there were certain women who had been healed of their
diseases, among whom also was Susanna, who from their own possessions
afforded the disciples the means of support. And who is there among
philosophers, that, when devoting himself to the service of his
acquaintances, is not in the habit of receiving from them what is
needful for his wants? Or is it only in them that such acts are proper
and becoming; but when the disciples of Jesus do the same, they are
accused by Celsus of obtaining their livelihood by disgraceful
importunity?
Footnote 1243:
Cf. Matt. x. 23.
Chapter LXVI.
And in addition to the above, this Jew of Celsus afterwards addresses
Jesus: “What need, moreover, was there that you, while still an infant,
should be conveyed into Egypt? Was it to escape being murdered? But then
it was not likely that a God should be afraid of death; and yet an angel
came down from heaven, commanding you and your friends to flee, lest ye
should be captured and put to death! And was not the great God, who had
already sent two angels on your account, able to keep you, His only Son,
there in safety?” From these words Celsus seems to think that there was
no element of divinity in the human body and soul of Jesus, but that His
body was not even such as is described in the fables of Homer; and with
a taunt also at the blood of Jesus which was shed upon the cross, he
adds that it was not
“Ichor, such as flows in the veins of the blessed gods.”[1244]
We now, believing Jesus Himself, when He says respecting His divinity,
“I am the way, and the truth, and the life,”[1245] and employs other
terms of similar import; and when He says respecting His being clothed
with a human body, “And now ye seek to kill me, a man that hath told you
the truth,”[1246] conclude that He was a kind of compound being. And so
it became Him who was making provision for His sojourning in the world
as a human being, not to expose Himself unseasonably to the danger of
death. And in like manner it was necessary that He should be taken away
by His parents, acting under the instructions of an angel from heaven,
who communicated to them the divine will, saying on the first occasion,
“Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife;
for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost;”[1247] and on
the second, “Arise, and take the young child, and His mother, and flee
into Egypt; and be thou there until I bring thee word: for Herod will
seek the young child to destroy Him.”[1248] Now, what is recorded in
these words appears to me to be not at all marvellous. For in either
passage of Scripture it is stated that it was in a dream that the angel
spoke these words; and that in a dream certain persons may have certain
things pointed out to them to do, is an event of frequent occurrence to
many individuals,—the impression on the mind being produced either by an
angel or by some other thing. Where, then, is the absurdity in believing
that He who had once become incarnate, should be led also by human
guidance to keep out of the way of dangers? Not indeed from any
impossibility that it should be otherwise, but from the moral fitness
that ways and means should be made use of to ensure the safety of Jesus.
And it was certainly better that the child Jesus should escape the snare
of Herod, and should reside with His parents in Egypt until the death of
the conspirator, than that Divine Providence should hinder the free will
of Herod in his wish to put the child to death, or that the fabled
poetic helmet of Hades should have been employed, or anything of a
similar kind done with respect to Jesus, or that they who came to
destroy Him should have been smitten with blindness like the people of
Sodom. For the sending of help to Him in a very miraculous and
unnecessarily public manner, would not have been of any service to Him
who wished to show that as a man, to whom witness was borne by God, He
possessed within that form which was seen by the eyes of men some higher
element of divinity,—that which was properly the Son of God—God the
Word—the power of God, and the wisdom of God—He who is called the
Christ. But this is not a suitable occasion for discussing the composite
nature of the incarnate Jesus; the investigation into such a subject
being for believers, so to speak, a sort of private question.
Footnote 1244:
Cf. _Iliad_, v. 340.
Footnote 1245:
John xiv. 6.
Footnote 1246:
Cf. John viii. 40.
Footnote 1247:
Cf. Matt. i. 20.
Footnote 1248:
Cf. Matt. ii. 13.
Chapter LXVII.
After the above, this Jew of Celsus, as if he were a Greek who loved
learning, and were well instructed in Greek literature, continues: “The
old mythological fables, which attributed a divine origin to Perseus,
and Amphion, and Æacus, and Minos, were not believed by us.
Nevertheless, that they might not appear unworthy of credit, they
represented the deeds of these personages as great and wonderful, and
truly beyond the power of man; but what hast thou done that is noble or
wonderful either in deed or in word? Thou hast made no manifestation to
us, although they challenged you in the temple to exhibit some
unmistakeable sign that you were the Son of God.” In reply to which we
have to say: Let the Greeks show to us, among those who have been
enumerated, any one whose deeds have been marked by a utility and
splendour extending to after generations, and which have been so great
as to produce a belief in the fables which represented them as of divine
descent. But these Greeks can show us nothing regarding those men of
whom they speak, which is even inferior by a great degree to what Jesus
did; unless they take us back to their fables and histories, wishing us
to believe them without any reasonable grounds, and to discredit the
Gospel accounts even after the clearest evidence. For we assert that the
whole habitable world contains evidence of the works of Jesus, in the
existence of those churches of God which have been founded through Him
by those who have been converted from the practice of innumerable sins.
And the name of Jesus can still remove distractions from the minds of
men, and expel demons, and also take away diseases; and produce a
marvellous meekness of spirit and complete change of character, and a
humanity, and goodness, and gentleness in those individuals who do not
feign themselves to be Christians for the sake of subsistence or the
supply of any mortal wants, but who have honestly accepted the doctrine
concerning God and Christ, and the judgment to come.
Chapter LXVIII.
But after this, Celsus, having a suspicion that the great works
performed by Jesus, of which we have named a few out of a great number,
would be brought forward to view, affects to grant that those statements
may be true which are made regarding His cures, or His resurrection, or
the feeding of a multitude with a few loaves, from which many fragments
remained over, or those other stories which Celsus thinks the disciples
have recorded as of a marvellous nature; and he adds: “Well, let us
believe that these were actually wrought by you.” But then he
immediately compares them to the tricks of jugglers, who profess to do
more wonderful things, and to the feats performed by those who have been
taught by Egyptians, who in the middle of the market-place, in return
for a few obols, will impart the knowledge of their most venerated arts,
and will expel demons from men, and dispel diseases, and invoke the
souls of heroes, and exhibit expensive banquets, and tables, and dishes,
and dainties having no real existence, and who will put in motion, as if
alive, what are not really living animals, but which have only the
appearance of life. And he asks, “Since, then, these persons can perform
such feats, shall we of necessity conclude that they are ‘sons of God,’
or must we admit that they are the proceedings of wicked men under the
influence of an evil spirit?” You see that by these expressions he
allows, as it were, the existence of magic. I do not know, however, if
he is the same who wrote several books against it. But, as it helped his
purpose, he compares the [miracles] related of Jesus to the results
produced by magic. There would indeed be a resemblance between them, if
Jesus, like the dealers in magical arts, had performed His works only
for show; but now there is not a single juggler who, by means of his
proceedings, invites his spectators to reform their manners, or trains
those to the fear of God who are amazed at what they see, nor who tries
to persuade them so to live as men who are to be justified[1249] by God.
And jugglers do none of these things, because they have neither the
power nor the will, nor any desire to busy themselves about the
reformation of men, inasmuch as their own lives are full of the grossest
and most notorious sins. But how should not He who, by the miracles
which He did, induced those who beheld the excellent results to
undertake the reformation of their characters, manifest Himself not only
to His genuine disciples, but also to others as a pattern of most
virtuous life, in order that His disciples might devote themselves to
the work of instructing men in the will of God, and that the others,
after being more fully instructed by His word and character than by His
miracles, as to how they were to direct their lives, might in all their
conduct have a constant reference to the good pleasure of the universal
God? And if such were the life of Jesus, how could any one with reason
compare Him with the sect of impostors, and not, on the contrary,
believe, according to the promise, that He was God, who appeared in
human form to do good to our race?
Footnote 1249:
ὡς δικαιωθησομένους.
Chapter LXIX.
After this, Celsus, confusing together the Christian doctrine and the
opinions of some heretical sect, and bringing them forward as charges
that were applicable to all who believe in the divine word, says: “Such
a body as yours could not have belonged to God.” Now, in answer to this,
we have to say that Jesus, on entering into the world, assumed, as one
born of a woman, a human body, and one which was capable of suffering a
natural death. For which reason, in addition to others, we say that He
was also a great wrestler;[1250] having, on account of His human body,
been tempted in all respects like other men, but no longer as men, with
sin as a consequence, but being altogether without sin. For it is
distinctly clear to us that “He did no sin, neither was guile found in
His mouth; and as one who knew no sin,” God delivered Him up as pure for
all who had sinned. Then Celsus says: “The body of God would not have
been so generated as you, O Jesus, were.” He saw, besides, that if, as
it is written, it had been born, His body somehow might be even more
divine than that of the multitude, and in a certain sense a body of God.
But he disbelieves the accounts of His conception by the Holy Ghost, and
believes that He was begotten by one Panthera, who corrupted the Virgin,
“because a God’s body would not have been so generated as you were.” But
we have spoken of these matters at greater length in the preceding
pages.
Footnote 1250:
μέγαν ἀγωνιστήν.
Chapter LXX.
He asserts, moreover, that “the body of a god is not nourished with such
food [as was that of Jesus],” since he is able to prove from the Gospel
narratives both that He partook of food, and food of a particular kind.
Well, be it so. Let him assert that He ate the passover with His
disciples, when He not only used the words, “With desire have I desired
to eat this passover with you,” but also actually partook of the same.
And let him say also, that He experienced the sensation of thirst beside
the well of Jacob, and drank of the water of the well. In what respect
do these facts militate against what we have said respecting the nature
of His body? Moreover, it appears indubitable that after His
resurrection He ate a piece of fish; for, according to our view, He
assumed a [true] body, as one born of a woman. “But,” objects Celsus,
“the body of a god does not make use of such a voice as that of Jesus,
nor employ such a method of persuasion as he.” These are, indeed,
trifling and altogether contemptible objections. For our reply to him
will be, that he who is believed among the Greeks to be a god, viz. the
Pythian and Didymean Apollo, makes use of such a voice for his Pythian
priestess at Delphi, and for his prophetess at Miletus; and yet neither
the Pythian nor Didymean is charged by the Greeks with not being a god,
nor any other Grecian deity whose worship is established in one place.
And it was far better, surely, that a god should employ a voice which,
on account of its being uttered with power, should produce an
indescribable sort of persuasion in the minds of the hearers.
Chapter LXXI.
Continuing to pour abuse upon Jesus as one who, on account of his
impiety and wicked opinions, was, so to speak, hated by God, he asserts
that “these tenets of his were those of a wicked and God-hated
sorcerer.” And yet, if the name and the thing be properly examined, it
will be found an impossibility that man should be hated by God, seeing
God loves all existing things, and “hateth nothing of what He has made,”
for He created nothing in a spirit of hatred. And if certain expressions
in the prophets convey such an impression, they are to be interpreted in
accordance with the general principle by which Scripture employs such
language with regard to God as if He were subject to human affections.
But what reply need be made to him who, while professing to bring
forward credible statements, thinks himself bound to make use of
calumnies and slanders against Jesus, as if He were a wicked sorcerer?
Such is not the procedure of one who seeks to make good his case, but of
one who is in an ignorant and unphilosophic state of mind, inasmuch as
the proper course is to state the case, and candidly to investigate it;
and, according to the best of his ability, to bring forward what occurs
to him with regard to it. But as the Jew of Celsus has, with the above
remarks, brought to a close his charges against Jesus, so we also shall
here bring to a termination the contents of our first book in reply to
him. And if God bestow the gift of that truth which destroys all
falsehood, agreeably to the words of the prayer, “Cut them off in thy
truth,”[1251] we shall begin, in what follows, the consideration of the
second appearance of the Jew, in which he is represented by Celsus as
addressing those who have become converts to Jesus.
Footnote 1251:
Ps. liv. 5.
MURRAY AND GIBB, EDINBURGH, PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY’S STATIONERY
OFFICE.
● Transcriber’s Notes:
○ Text that was in italics is enclosed by underscores (_italics_).
○ Footnotes have been moved to follow the chapters in which they are
referenced.
*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE WRITINGS OF ORIGEN, VOL. I
(OF 2) ***
Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will
be renamed.
Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright
law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works,
so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the
United States without permission and without paying copyright
royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part
of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™
concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark,
and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following
the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use
of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for
copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very
easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation
of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project
Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may
do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected
by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark
license, especially commercial redistribution.
START: FULL LICENSE
THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE
PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK
To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free
distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work
(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full
Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at
www.gutenberg.org/license.
Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works
1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™
electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to
and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property
(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all
the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or
destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your
possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a
Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound
by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the
person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph
1.E.8.
1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be
used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who
agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few
things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See
paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this
agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™
electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below.
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual
works in the collection are in the public domain in the United
States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the
United States and you are located in the United States, we do not
claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing,
displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as
all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope
that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting
free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™
works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the
Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily
comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the
same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when
you share it without charge with others.
1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern
what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are
in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States,
check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this
agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing,
distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any
other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no
representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any
country other than the United States.
1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:
1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other
immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear
prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work
on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the
phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed,
performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no
restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it
under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this
eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the
United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where
you are located before using this eBook.
1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is
derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not
contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the
copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in
the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply
either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or
obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™
trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted
with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works
posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the
beginning of this work.
1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™
License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this
work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™.
1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this
electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including
any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access
to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format
other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official
version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.
1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,
performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.
1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing
access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:
• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method
you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed
to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has
agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid
within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are
legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty
payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in
Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation.”
• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies
you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he
does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue
all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™
works.
• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of
any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the
electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of
receipt of the work.
• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.
1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than
are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing
from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.
1.F.
1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable
effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread
works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project
Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may
contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate
or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other
intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or
other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or
cannot be read by your equipment.
1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right
of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project
Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all
liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal
fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT
LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE
TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR
INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
DAMAGE.
1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a
defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can
receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a
written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you
received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium
with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you
with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in
lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person
or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second
opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If
the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing
without further opportunities to fix the problem.
1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth
in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you “AS-IS”, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT
LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.
1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied
warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of
damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement
violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the
agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or
limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or
unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the
remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the
trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone
providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in
accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the
production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses,
including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of
the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this
or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or
additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any
Defect you cause.
Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It
exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations
from people in all walks of life.
Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the
assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™'s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure
and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see
Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org
Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by
U.S. federal laws and your state's laws.
The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,
Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact
Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be
freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest
array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations
($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt
status with the IRS.
The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating
charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up
with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations
where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND
DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular
state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate
While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we
have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition
against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who
approach us with offers to donate.
International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make
any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.
Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other
ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To
donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate
Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.
Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed
editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.
Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org
This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,
including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to
subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.
