 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
Augustine again treats of the sin of the first man, and teaches that it is the cause of the carnal life and vicious affections of man. Especially he proves that the shame which accompanies lust is the just punishment of that disobedience, and inquires how man, if he had not sinned, would have been able without lust to propagate his kind.
We have already stated in the preceding books thatGod, desiring not only that thehuman race might be able by their similarity of nature to associate with one another, but also that they might be bound together in harmony and peace by the ties of relationship, was pleased to derive allmen from one individual, and created man with such a nature that the members of the race should not have died, had not the two first (of whom the one was created out of nothing, and the other out of him) merited this by their disobedience; for by them so great asin was committed, that by it thehumannature was altered for the worse, and was transmitted also to their posterity, liable tosin and subject to death. And the kingdom of death so reigned over men, that the deserved penalty ofsin would have hurled all headlong even into the second death, of which there is no end, had not the undeservedgrace of God saved some therefrom. And thus it has come to pass, that though there are very many and great nations all over the earth, whoserites and customs, speech, arms, and dress, are distinguished by marked differences, yet there are no more than two kinds ofhuman society, which we mayjustly call two cities, according to the language of our Scriptures. The one consists of those who wish to live after the flesh, the other of those who wish to live after the spirit; and when they severally achieve what they wish, they live in peace, each after their kind.
First, we must see what it is to live after the flesh, and what to live after the spirit. For any one who either does not recollect, or does not sufficiently weigh, the language of sacred Scripture, may, on first hearing what we have said, suppose that the Epicureanphilosophers live after the flesh, because they place man's highest good in bodily pleasure; and that those others do so who have been of opinion that in some form or other bodily good is man's supreme good; and that the mass of men do so who, without dogmatizing orphilosophizing on the subject, are so prone tolust that they cannot delight in any pleasure save such as they receive from bodily sensations: and he may suppose that theStoics, who place the supreme good of men in thesoul, live after the spirit; for what is man'ssoul, if not spirit? But in the sense of thedivine Scripture both areproved to live after the flesh. For by flesh it means not only the body of a terrestrial and mortal animal, as when it says,All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh ofmen, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, another of birds,
1 Corinthians 15:39 but it uses this word in many other significations; and among these various usages, a frequent one is to use flesh for man himself, thenature of man taking the part for the whole, as in the words,By thedeeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified;
Romans 3:20 for what does he mean here byno flesh
butno man?
And this, indeed, he shortly after says more plainly:No man shall be justified by the law;
Galatians 3:11 and in the Epistle to the Galatians,Knowing that man is not justified by the works of the law.
And so we understand the words,And theWord wasmade flesh,
John 1:14 — that is, man, which some not accepting in its right sense, have supposed that Christ had not ahumansoul. For as the whole is used for the part in the words of Mary Magdalene in theGospel,They have taken away my Lord, and Iknow not where they have laid Him,
John 20:13 by which she meant only the flesh ofChrist, which she supposed had been taken from the tomb where it had been buried, so the part is used for the whole, flesh being named, while man is referred to, as in the quotations above cited.
Since, then, Scripture uses the word flesh in many ways, which there is not time to collect and investigate, if we are to ascertain what it is to live after the flesh (which is certainlyevil, though thenature of flesh is not itselfevil), we must carefully examine that passage of the epistle which theApostle Paul wrote to the Galatians, in which he says,Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these:adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,idolatry,witchcraft,hatred, variance, emulations,wrath, strife, seditions,heresies, envyings, murders,drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit thekingdom of God.
Galatians 5:19-21 This whole passage of the apostolic epistle being considered, so far as it bears on the matter in hand, will be sufficient to answer the question, what it is to live after the flesh. For among the works of the flesh which he said were manifest, and which he cited for condemnation, we find not only those which concern the pleasure of the flesh, as fornications, uncleanness, lasciviousness,drunkenness, revellings, but also those which, though they be remote from fleshly pleasure, reveal thevices of thesoul. For who does not see that idolatries, witchcrafts, hatreds, variance, emulations,wrath, strife,heresies, envyings, arevices rather of thesoul than of the flesh? For it is quite possible for a man to abstain from fleshly pleasures for the sake ofidolatry or somehereticalerror; and yet, even when he does so, he isproved by this apostolic authority to be living after the flesh; and in abstaining from fleshly pleasure, he isproved to be practising damnable works of the flesh. Who that has enmity has it not in hissoul? Or who would say to his enemy, or to the man he thinks his enemy, You have a bad flesh towards me, and not rather, You have a bad spirit towards me? In fine, if any one heard of what I may callcarnalities,
he would not fail to attribute them to the carnal part of man; so no one doubts thatanimosities
belong to thesoul of man. Why then does the doctor of theGentiles infaith and verity call all these and similar things works of the flesh, unless because, by that mode of speech whereby the part is used for the whole, he means us to understand by the word flesh the man himself?
But if any one says that the flesh is thecause of allvices and ill conduct, inasmuch as thesoul lives wickedly only because it is moved by the flesh, it is certain he has not carefully considered the whole nature of man. Forthe corruptible body, indeed, weighs down thesoul.
Wisdom 9:15 Whence, too, the apostle, speaking of this corruptible body, of which he had shortly before said,though our outward man perish,
2 Corinthians 4:16 says,Weknow that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building ofGod, a house not made with hands,eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up in life.
2 Corinthians 5:1-4 We are then burdened with this corruptible body; butknowing that thecause of this burdensomeness is not the nature and substance of the body, but its corruption, we do not desire to be deprived of the body, but to be clothed with itsimmortality. For then, also, there will be a body, but it shall no longer be a burden, being no longer corruptible. At present, then,the corruptible body presses down thesoul, and the earthly tabernacle weighs down the mind that muses upon many things,
nevertheless they are inerror who suppose that all theevils of thesoul proceed from the body.
Virgil, indeed, seems to express the sentiments ofPlato in the beautiful lines, where he says —
A fiery strength inspires their lives,
Anessence that from heaven derives,
Though clogged in part by limbs of clay
And the dull 'vesture of decay;'
but though he goes on to mention the four most common mental emotions — desire,fear,joy, sorrow — with the intention of showing that the body is the origin of allsins andvices, saying —Hence wild desires and grovelling fears,
Andhuman laughter,human tears,
Immured in dungeon-seeming nights
They look abroad, yet see no light,
yet webelieve quite otherwise. For the corruption of the body, which weighs down thesoul, is not thecause but the punishment of the firstsin; and it was not the corruptible flesh that made thesoulsinful, but thesinfulsoul that made the flesh corruptible. And though from this corruption of the flesh there arise certain incitements tovice, and indeed vicious desires, yet we must not attribute to the flesh all thevices of awicked life, in case we thereby clear thedevil of all these, for he has no flesh. For though we cannot call thedevil a fornicator or drunkard, or ascribe to him any sensual indulgence (though he is the secret instigator and prompter of those whosin in these ways), yet he is exceedinglyproud andenvious. And this viciousness has so possessed him, that on account of it he is reserved in chains of darkness to everlasting punishment. Now thesevices, which have dominion over thedevil, the apostle attributes to the flesh, which certainly thedevil has not. For he sayshatred, variance, emulations, strife, envying
are the works of the flesh; and of all theseevilspride is the origin and head, and it rules in thedevil though he has no flesh. For who shows morehatred to thesaints? Who is more at variance with them? Who moreenvious, bitter, and jealous? And since he exhibits all these works, though he has no flesh, how are they works of the flesh, unless because they are the works ofman, who is, as I said, spoken of under the name of flesh? For it is not by having flesh, which thedevil has not, but by living according to himself — that is, according toman — that man became like thedevil. For thedevil too, wished to live according to himself when he did not abide in thetruth; so that when he lied, this was not ofGod, but of himself, who is not only a liar, but the father of lies, he being the first who lied, and the originator of lying as ofsin.
When, therefore, man lives according toman, not according toGod, he is like thedevil. Because not even anangel might live according to anangel, but only according toGod, if he was to abide in thetruth, and speak God'struth and not his own lie. And ofman, too, the same apostle says in another place,If thetruth of God has more abounded through my lie;
Romans 3:7 —my lie,
he said, andGod'struth.
When, then, a man lives according to thetruth, he lives not according to himself, but according toGod; for He was God who said,I am thetruth.
John 14:6 When, therefore, man lives according to himself — that is, according toman, not according toGod — assuredly he lives according to alie; not that man himself is alie, for God is his author and creator, who is certainly not the author and creator of alie, but because man was made upright, that he might not live according to himself, but according to Him that made him — in other words, that he might do Hiswill and not his own; and not to live as he was made to live, that is alie. For he certainly desires to be blessed even by not living so that he may be blessed. And what is alie if this desire be not? Wherefore it is not without meaning said that allsin is alie. For nosin is committed save by that desire or will by which we desire that it be well with us, and shrink from it being ill with us. That, therefore, is alie which we do in order that it may be well with us, but which makes us more miserable than we were. And why is this, but because the source ofman'shappiness lies only inGod, whom he abandons when hesins, and not in himself, by living according to whom hesins?
In enunciating this proposition of ours, then, that because some live according to the flesh and others according to the spirit, there have arisen two diverse and conflicting cities, we might equally well have said,because some live according toman, others according toGod.
ForPaul says very plainly to the Corinthians,For whereas there is among you envying and strife, are you not carnal, and walk according to man?
1 Corinthians 3:3 So that to walk according to man and to be carnal are the same; for byflesh, that is, by a part ofman, man is meant. For before he said that those samepersons were animal whom afterwards he calls carnal, saying,For what manknows the things of aman, save the spirit of man which is in him? Even so the things of Godknows no man, but theSpirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of this world, but the Spirit which is ofGod; that we mightknow the things which are freely given to us ofGod. Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teaches, but which theHoly Ghost teaches; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the animal man perceives not the things of theSpirit of God; for they are foolishness unto him.
1 Corinthians 2:11-14 It is to men of this kind, then, that is, to animal men, he shortly after says,And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal.
1 Corinthians 3:1 And this is to be interpreted by the same usage, a part being taken for the whole. For both thesoul and the flesh, the component parts ofman, can be used to signify the whole man; and so the animal man and the carnal man are not two different things, but one and the same thing, viz., man living according to man. In the same way it is nothing else than men that are meant either in the words,By thedeeds of the law there shall noflesh be justified;
Romans 3:20 or in the words,Seventy-fivesouls went down intoEgypt with Jacob.
Genesis 46:27 In the one passage,no flesh
signifiesno man;
and in the other, byseventy-fivesouls
seventy-five men are meant. And the expression,not in words which man's wisdom teaches
might equally benot in words which fleshly wisdom teaches;
and the expression,you walk according toman,
might beaccording to the flesh.
And this is still more apparent in the words which followed:For while one says, I am ofPaul, and another, I am of Apollos, are you not men?
The same thing which he had before expressed byyou are animal,
you are carnal, he now expresses byyou are men;
that is, you live according toman, not according toGod, for if you lived according to Him, you should be gods.
There is no need, therefore, that in oursins andvices we accuse thenature of the flesh to the injury of the Creator, for in its own kind and degree the flesh isgood; but to desert the Creator good, and live according to the created good, is not good, whether a man choose to live according to the flesh, or according to thesoul, or according to the wholehumannature, which is composed of flesh andsoul, and which is therefore spoken of either by the name flesh alone, or by the namesoul alone. For he who extols thenature of thesoul as the chief good, and condemns thenature of the flesh as if it wereevil, assuredly is fleshly both in hislove of thesoul andhatred of the flesh; for these his feelings arise fromhuman fancy, not from divinetruth. The Platonists, indeed, are not so foolish as, with theManichæans, to detest our present bodies as anevil nature; for they attribute all the elements of which this visible and tangible world is compacted, with all their qualities, to God their Creator. Nevertheless, from the death-infected members and earthly construction of the body theybelieve thesoul is so affected, that there are thus originated in it the diseases of desires, and fears, andjoy, and sorrow, under which four perturbations, as Cicero calls them, orpassions, as most prefer to name them with the Greeks, is included the whole viciousness ofhuman life. But if this be so, how is it that Æneas in Virgil, when he had heard from his father in Hades that thesouls should return to bodies, expresses surprise at this declaration, and exclaims:
O father! And can thought conceive
Thathappysouls this realm would leave,
And seek the upper sky,
With sluggish clay to reunite?
This direful longing for the light,
Whence comes it, say, and why?
This direful longing, then, does it still exist even in that boasted purity of the disembodied spirits, and does it still proceed from the death-infected members and earthly limbs? Does he not assert that, when they begin to long to return to the body, they have already been delivered from all these so-called pestilences of the body? From which we gather that, were this endlessly alternating purification and defilement of departing and returningsouls astrue as it is most certainly false, yet it could not be averred that all culpable and vicious motions of thesoul originate in the earthly body; for, on their own showing,this direful longing,
to use the words of their noble exponent, is so extraneous to the body, that it moves thesoul that is purged of all bodily taint, and is existing apart from any body whatever, and moves it, moreover, to be embodied again. So that even they themselves acknowledge that thesoul is not only moved to desire,fear,joy, sorrow, by the flesh, but that it can also be agitated with these emotions at its own instance.
But the character of thehuman will is of moment; because, if it is wrong, these motions of thesoul will be wrong, but if it is right, they will be not merely blameless, but even praiseworthy. For the will is in them all; yea, none of them is anything else than will. For what are desire andjoy but a volition of consent to the things we wish? And what arefear and sadness but a volition of aversion from the things which we do not wish? But when consent takes the form of seeking to possess the things we wish, this is called desire; and when consent takes the form of enjoying the things we wish, this is calledjoy. In like manner, when we turn with aversion from that which we do not wish to happen, this volition is termedfear; and when we turn away from that which has happened against ourwill, this act of will is called sorrow. And generally in respect of all that we seek or shun, as a man's will is attracted or repelled, so it is changed and turned into these different affections. Wherefore the man who lives according toGod, and not according toman, ought to be a lover of good, and therefore a hater ofevil. And since no one isevil by nature, but whoever isevil isevil byvice, he who lives according to God ought to cherish towardsevil men a perfecthatred, so that he shall neitherhate the man because of hisvice, norlove thevice because of the man, buthate thevice andlove the man. For thevice being cursed, all that ought to be loved, and nothing that ought to behated, will remain.
He who resolves toloveGod, and tolove his neighbor as himself, not according to man but according toGod, is on account of thislove said to be of a good will; and this is in Scripture more commonly called charity, but it is also, even in the same books, calledlove. For the apostle says that the man to be elected as a ruler of the people must be a lover of good. And when the Lord Himself had asked Peter,Have you a regard for me (diligis) more than these?
Peter replied,Lord, Youknow that Ilove (amo) You.
And again a second time the Lord asked not whether Peter loved (amaret) Him, but whether he had a regard (diligeret)for Him, and, he again answered,Lord, Youknow that Ilove (amo) You.
But on the third interrogation the Lord Himself no longer says,Have you a regard (diligis) for me,
butDo you love (amas) me?
And then theevangelist adds, Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time,Do you love (amas) me?
though the Lord had not said three times but only once,Do you love (amas) me?
and twiceDiligis me?
from which we gather that, even when the Lord saiddiligis,
He used an equivalent foramas.
Peter, too, throughout used one word for the one thing, and the third time also replied,Lord, Youknow all things, Youknow that Ilove (amo) You.
I have judged it right to mention this, because some are of opinion that charity or regard (dilectio) is one thing,love (amor) another. They say thatdilectio is used of a good affection,amor of anevillove. But it is very certain that even secular literatureknows no such distinction. However, it is for thephilosophers to determine whether and how they differ, though their own writings sufficiently testify that they make great account oflove (amor) placed on good objects, and even on God Himself. But we wished to show that theScriptures of our religion, whose authority we prefer to all writings whatsoever, make no distinction betweenamor,dilectio, and caritas; and we have already shown thatamor is used in a good connection. And if any one fancy thatamor is nodoubt used both of good and bad loves, but thatdilectio is reserved for the good only, let him remember what the psalm says,He that loves (diligit) iniquityhates his ownsoul;
and the words of the Apostle John,If any manlove (diligere) the world, thelove (dilectio) of the Father is not in him.
1 John 2:15 Here you have in one passagedilectio used both in a good and a bad sense. And if any one demands an instance ofamor being used in a bad sense (for we have already shown its use in a good sense), let him read the words,For men shall be lovers (amantes) of their own selves, lovers (amatores) of money.
2 Timothy 3:2
The right will is, therefore, well-directedlove, and the wrong will is ill-directedlove. Love, then, yearning to have what is loved, is desire; and having and enjoying it, isjoy; fleeing what is opposed to it, it isfear; and feeling what is opposed to it, when it has befallen it, it is sadness. Now these motions areevil if thelove isevil; good if thelove isgood. What we assert let us prove from Scripture. The apostledesires to depart, and to be with Christ.
Philippians 1:23 And,Mysoul desired to long for Your judgments;
or if it is more appropriate to say,Mysoul longed to desire Your judgments.
And,The desire of wisdom brings to a kingdom.
Wisdom 6:20 Yet there has always obtained the usage of understanding desire and concupiscence in a bad sense if the object be not defined. Butjoy is used in a good sense:Be glad in theLord, andrejoice, you righteous.
And,You have putgladness in my heart.
And,You will fill me withjoy with Your countenance.
Fear is used in a good sense by the apostle when he says,Work out yoursalvation withfear and trembling.
Philippians 2:12 And,Be not high-minded, butfear.
Romans 11:20 And,Ifear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtlety, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is inChrist.
2 Corinthians 11:3 But with respect to sadness, which Cicero prefer to calls sickness (œgritudo), and Virgil pain (dolor) (as he says,Dolent gaudentque
), but which I prefer to call sorrow, because sickness and pain are more commonly used to express bodily suffering — with respect to this emotion, I say, the question whether it can be used in a good sense is more difficult.
Those emotions which the Greeks callεὐπαθείαι, and which Cicero callsconstantiœ, theStoics would restrict to three; and, instead of threeperturbations
in thesoul of the wise man, they substituted severally, in place of desire, will; in place ofjoy, contentment; and forfear, caution; and as to sickness or pain, which we, to avoid ambiguity, preferred to call sorrow, they denied that it could exist in themind of a wise man. Will, they say, seeks thegood, for this the wise man does. Contentment has its object in good that is possessed, and this the wise man continually possesses. Caution avoidsevil, and this the wise man ought to avoid. But sorrow arises fromevil that has already happened; and as they suppose that noevil can happen to the wise man, there can be no representative of sorrow in hismind. According to them, therefore, none but the wise man wills, is contented, uses caution; and that the fool can do no more than desire,rejoice,fear, be sad. The former three affections Cicero callsconstantiœ, the last fourperturbationes. Many, however, calls these lastpassions; and, as I have said, the Greeks call the formerεὐπαθείαι, and the latterπάθη . And when I made a careful examination of Scripture to find whether this terminology was sanctioned by it, I came upon this saying of theprophet:There is no contentment to thewicked, says the Lord;
Isaiah 57:21 as if thewicked might more properlyrejoice than be contented regardingevils, for contentment is the property of the good and godly. I found also that verse in theGospel:Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them?
Matthew 7:12 which seems to imply thatevil or shameful things may be the object of desire, but not of will. Indeed, some interpreters have addedgood things,
to make the expression more in conformity with customary usage, and have given this meaning,Whatsoever gooddeeds that you would that men should do unto you.
For they thought that this would prevent any one from wishing other men to provide him with unseemly, not to say shameful gratifications — luxurious banquets, for example — on the supposition that if he returned the like to them he would be fulfilling this precept. In the GreekGospel, however, from which the Latin is translated,good
does not occur, but only,All things whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them,
and, as Ibelieve, becausegood
is already included in the wordwould;
for He does not saydesire.
Yet though we may sometimes avail ourselves of these precise proprieties of language, we are not to be always bridled by them; and when we read those writers against whose authority it is unlawful to reclaim, we must accept the meanings above mentioned in passages where a right sense can be educed by no other interpretation, as in those instances we adduced partly from theprophet, partly from theGospel. For who does notknow that thewicked exult withjoy? Yetthere is no contentment for thewicked, says the Lord.
And how so, unless because contentment, when the word is used in its proper and distinctive significance, means something different fromjoy? In like manner, who would deny that it were wrong to enjoin upon men that whatever they desire others to do to them they should themselves do to others, lest they should mutually please one another by shameful and illicit pleasure? And yet the precept,Whatsoever yewould that men should do unto you, do ye even so to them,
is very wholesome and just. And how is this, unless because the will is in this place used strictly, and signifies that will which cannot haveevil for its object? But ordinary phraseology would not have allowed the saying,Be unwilling to make any manner of lie,
Sirach 7:13 had there not been also anevil will, whosewickedness separates if from that which theangels celebrated,Peace on earth, of good will to men.
Luke 2:14 Forgood
is superfluous if there is no other kind of will but good will. And why should the apostle have mentioned it among the praises of charity as a great thing, thatit rejoices not in iniquity,
unless becausewickedness does sorejoice? For even with secular writers these words are used indifferently. For Cicero, that most fertile of orators, says,I desire, conscript fathers, to be merciful.
And who would be so pedantic as to say that he should have saidI will
rather thanI desire,
because the word is used in a good connection? Again, in Terence, the profligate youth, burning with wildlust, says,I will nothing else than Philumena.
That thiswill
waslust is sufficiently indicated by the answer of his old servant which is there introduced:How much better were it to try and banish thatlove from your heart, than to speak so as uselessly to inflame your passion still more!
And that contentment was used by secular writers in a bad sense that verse of Virgil testifies, in which he most succinctly comprehends these four perturbations —
Hence theyfear and desire, grieve and are content
The same author had also used the expression,theevil contentments of the mind.
So that good and bad men alike will, are cautious, and contented; or, to say the same thing in other words, good and bad men alike desire,fear,rejoice, but the former in a good, the latter in a bad fashion, according as the will is right or wrong. Sorrow itself, too, which theStoics would not allow to be represented in themind of the wise man, is used in a good sense, and especially in our writings. For the apostle praises the Corinthians because they had a godly sorrow. But possibly some one may say that the apostle congratulated them because they were penitently sorry, and that such sorrow can exist only in those who havesinned. For these are his words:For I perceive that the same epistle has made you sorry, though it were but for a season. Now Irejoice, not that you were made sorry, but that you sorrowed to repentance; for you were made sorry after a godly manner, that you might receive damage by us in nothing. For godly sorrow works repentance tosalvation not to be repented of, but the sorrow of the world works death. For, behold, this selfsame thing that you sorrowed after a godly sort, what carefulness it wrought in you!
2 Corinthians 7:8-11 Consequently theStoics may defend themselves by replying, that sorrow is indeed useful for repentance ofsin, but that this can have no place in themind of the wise man, inasmuch as nosin attaches to him of which he could sorrowfully repent, nor any otherevil the endurance or experience of which could make him sorrowful. For they say that Alcibiades (if my memory does not deceive me), whobelieved himselfhappy, shed tears when Socrates argued with him, and demonstrated that he was miserable because he was foolish. In his case, therefore, folly was thecause of this useful and desirable sorrow, wherewith a man mourns that he is what he ought not to be. But theStoics maintain not that the fool, but that the wise man, cannot be sorrowful.
But so far as regards this question of mental perturbations, we have answered thesephilosophers in the ninth book of this work, showing that it is rather a verbal than a real dispute, and that they seek contention rather thantruth. Among ourselves, according to the sacred Scriptures and sound doctrine, the citizens of theholy city ofGod, who live according toGod in the pilgrimage of this life, bothfear and desire, and grieve andrejoice. And because theirlove is rightly placed, all these affections of theirs are right. Theyfeareternal punishment, they desireeternal life; they grieve because they themselves groan within themselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of their body;Romans 8:23 theyrejoice in hope, because thereshall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.
1 Corinthians 15:54 In like manner theyfear tosin, they desire to persevere; they grieve insin, theyrejoice in good works. Theyfear tosin, because they hear thatbecause iniquity shall abound, thelove of many shall wax cold.
Matthew 24:12 They desire to persevere, because they hear that it is written,He that endures to the end shall be saved.
Matthew 10:22 They grieve forsin, hearing thatIf we say that we have nosin, we deceive ourselves, and thetruth is not in us.
1 John 1:8 Theyrejoice in good works, because they hear thatthe Lord loves a cheerful giver.
2 Corinthians 9:7 In like manner, according as they are strong or weak, theyfear or desire to be tempted, grieve orrejoice intemptation. Theyfear to be tempted, because they hear the injunction,If a man be overtaken in a fault, you which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering yourself, lest you also be tempted.
Galatians 6:l They desire to be tempted, because they hear one of the heroes of the city ofGod saying,Examine me, O Lord, and tempt me: try my reins and my heart.
They grieve intemptations, because they see Peter weeping;Matthew 26:75 theyrejoice intemptations, because they hear James saying,My brethren, count it alljoy when you fall into varioustemptations.
James 1:2
And not only on their own account do they experience these emotions, but also on account of those whose deliverance they desire and whose perdition theyfear, and whose loss orsalvation affects them with grief or withjoy. For if we who have come into theChurch from among theGentiles may suitably instance that noble and mighty hero who glories in his infirmities, the teacher (doctor) of the nations infaith andtruth, who also labored more than all his fellowapostles, and instructed the tribes of God's people by his epistles, which edified not only those of his own time, but all those who were to be gathered in — that hero, I say, and athlete ofChrist, instructed by Him, anointed of His Spirit, crucified with Him,glorious in Him, lawfully maintaining a great conflict on the theatre of this world, and being made a spectacle toangels and men,1 Corinthians 4:9 and pressing onwards for the prize of his high calling,Philippians 3:14 — very joyfully do we with the eyes offaith behold him rejoicing with them thatrejoice, and weeping with them that weep;Romans 12:15 though hampered by fightings without and fears within;2 Corinthians 7:5 desiring to depart and to be with Christ;Philippians 1:23 longing to see the Romans, that he might have some fruit among them as among otherGentiles;Romans 1:11-13 being jealous over the Corinthians, and fearing in that jealousy lest their minds should be corrupted from thechastity that is in Christ;2 Corinthians 11:1-3 having great heaviness and continual sorrow of heart for theIsraelites,Romans 9:2 because they, beingignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness ofGod;Romans 10:3 and expressing not only his sorrow, but bitter lamentation over some who had formallysinned and had not repented of their uncleanness and fornications.2 Corinthians 12:21
If these emotions and affections, arising as they do from thelove of what isgood and from aholy charity, are to be calledvices, then let us allow these emotions which aretrulyvices to pass under the name ofvirtues. But since these affections, when they are exercised in a becoming way, follow the guidance of right reason, who will dare to say that they are diseases or viciouspassions? Wherefore even the Lord Himself, when He condescended to lead ahuman life in the form of a slave, had nosin whatever, and yet exercised these emotions where He judged they should be exercised. For as there was in Him atruehuman body and atruehumansoul, so was there also atruehuman emotion. When, therefore, we read in theGospel that the hard-heartedness of theJews moved Him to sorrowful indignation,Mark 3:5 that He said,I am glad for your sakes, to the intent you maybelieve,
John 11:15 that when about to raise Lazarus He even shed tears,John 11:35 that He earnestly desired to eat the passover with Hisdisciples,Luke 22:15 that as Hispassion drew near Hissoul was sorrowful,Matthew 26:38 these emotions are certainly notfalsely ascribed to Him. But as He became man when it pleased Him, so, in thegrace of His definite purpose, when it pleased Him He experienced those emotions in Hishumansoul.
But we must further make the admission, that even when these affections are well regulated, and according toGod'swill, they are peculiar to this life, not to that future life we look for, and that often we yield to them against ourwill. And thus sometimes we weep in spite of ourselves, being carried beyond ourselves, not indeed by culpable desire; but by praiseworthy charity. In us, therefore, these affections arise fromhuman infirmity; but it was not so with theLord Jesus, for even His infirmity was the consequence of His power. But so long as we wear the infirmity of this life, we are rather worse men than better if we have none of these emotions at all. For the apostle vituperated and abominated some who, as he said, werewithout natural affection.
Romans 1:31 The sacred Psalmist also found fault with those of whom he said,I looked for some to lament with me, and there was none.
For to be quite free from pain while we are in this place of misery is only purchased, as one of this world's literati perceived and remarked, at the price of blunted sensibilities both of mind and body. And therefore that which the Greeks callἀπαθεια, and what the Latins would call, if their language would allow them,impassibilitas,
if it be taken to mean an impassibility of spirit and not of body, or, in other words, a freedom from those emotions which are contrary to reason and disturb themind, then it is obviously a good and most desirable quality, but it is not one which is attainable in this life. For the words of the apostle are the confession, not of the common herd, but of the eminentlypious, just, andholy men:If we say we have nosin, we deceive ourselves, and thetruth is not in us.
1 John 1:8 When there shall be nosin in aman, then there shall be thisαπάθεια . At present it is enough if we live without crime; and he who thinks he lives withoutsin puts aside notsin, but pardon. And if that is to be called apathy, where the mind is the subject of no emotion, then who would not consider this insensibility to be worse than allvices? It may, indeed, reasonably be maintained that the perfect blessedness we hope for shall be free from all sting offear or sadness; but who that is not quite lost totruth would say that neitherlove norjoy shall be experienced there? But if by apathy a condition be meant in which nofear terrifies nor any pain annoys, we must in this life renounce such a state if we would live according toGod'swill, but may hope to enjoy it in that blessedness which is promised as oureternal condition.
For thatfear of which the Apostle John says,There is nofear inlove; but perfectlove casts outfear, becausefear has torment. He that fears is not made perfect inlove,
1 John 4:18 — thatfear is not of the same kind as theApostle Paul felt lest the Corinthians should be seduced by the subtlety of the serpent; forlove is susceptible of thisfear, yea,love alone is capable of it. But thefear which is not inlove is of that kind of whichPaul himself says,For you have not received the spirit of bondage again tofear.
Romans 8:15 But as for thatcleanfear which endures for ever,
if it is to exist in the world to come (and how else can it be said to endure for ever?), it is not afear deterring us fromevil which may happen, but preserving us in the good which cannot be lost. For where thelove of acquired good is unchangeable, there certainly thefear that avoidsevil is, if I may say so, free from anxiety. For under the name ofcleanfear
David signifies that will by which we shall necessarily shrink fromsin, and guard against it, not with the anxiety of weakness, which fears that we may stronglysin, but with the tranquillity of perfectlove. Or if no kind offear at all shall exist in that most imperturbable security of perpetual and blissful delights, then the expression,Thefear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever,
must be taken in the same sense as that other,The patience of the poor shall not perish forever.
For patience, which is necessary only where ills are to be borne, shall not beeternal, but that which patience leads us to will beeternal. So perhaps thiscleanfear
is said to endure for ever, because that to whichfear leads shall endure.
And since this is so — since we must live a good life in order to attain to a blessed life, a good life has all these affections right, a bad life has them wrong. But in the blessed lifeeternal there will belove andjoy, not only right, but also assured; butfear and grief there will be none. Whence it already appears in some sort what manner ofpersons the citizens of the city ofGod must be in this their pilgrimage, who live after the spirit, not after the flesh — that is to say, according toGod, not according toman — and what manner ofpersons they shall be also in thatimmortality whither they are journeying. And the city or society of thewicked, who live not according toGod, but according toman, and who accept the doctrines of men or devils in the worship of a false and contempt of thetrue divinity, is shaken with thosewicked emotions as by diseases and disturbances. And if there be some of its citizens who seem to restrain and, as it were, temper thosepassions, they are so elated with ungodlypride, that their disease is as much greater as their pain is less. And if some, with a vanity monstrous in proportion to its rarity, have become enamored of themselves because they can be stimulated and excited by no emotion, moved or bent by no affection, suchpersons rather lose all humanity than obtaintrue tranquillity. For a thing is not necessarily right because it is inflexible, nor healthy because it is insensible.
But it is a fair question, whether our first parent or firstparents (for there was a marriage of two), before theysinned, experienced in their animal body such emotions as we shall not experience in the spiritual body whensin has been purged and finally abolished. For if they did, then how were theyblessed in that boasted place of bliss, Paradise? For who that is affected byfear or grief can be called absolutely blessed? And what could thosepersonsfear or suffer in such affluence of blessings, where neither death nor ill-health was feared, and where nothing was wanting which a good will could desire, and nothing present which could interrupt man's mental or bodily enjoyment? Theirlove to God was unclouded, and their mutual affection was that of faithful and sincere marriage; and from thislove flowed a wonderful delight, because they always enjoyed what was loved. Their avoidance ofsin was tranquil; and, so long as it was maintained, no other ill at all could invade them and bring sorrow. Or did they perhaps desire to touch and eat the forbidden fruit, yet feared to die; and thus bothfear and desire already, even in that blissful place, preyed upon those first ofmankind? Away with the thought that such could be the case where there was nosin! And, indeed, this is alreadysin, to desire those things which the law of God forbids, and to abstain from them throughfear of punishment, not throughlove of righteousness. Away, I say, with the thought, that before there was anysin, there should already have been committed regarding that fruit the verysin which our Lord warns us against regarding awoman:Whosoever looks on awoman tolust after her, has committedadultery with her already in his heart.
Matthew 5:28 Ashappy, then, as were these our firstparents, who were agitated by no mental perturbations, and annoyed by no bodily discomforts, sohappy should the wholehuman race have been, had they not introduced thatevil which they have transmitted to their posterity, and had none of their descendants committed iniquity worthy of damnation; but this original blessedness continuing until, in virtue of that benediction which said,Increase and multiply,
Genesis 1:28 the number of thepredestinedsaints should have been completed, there would then have been bestowed that higher felicity which is enjoyed by the most blessedangels — a blessedness in which there should have been a secure assurance that no one wouldsin, and no one die; and so should thesaints have lived, after no taste of labor, pain, or death, as now they shall live in the resurrection, after they have endured all these things.
But because God foresaw all things, and was therefore notignorant that man also would fall, we ought to consider thisholy city in connection with what God foresaw and ordained, and not according to our own ideas, which do not embrace God's ordination. For man, by hissin, could not disturb the divine counsel, nor compel God to change what He had decreed; for God's foreknowledge had anticipated both — that is to say, both howevil the man whom He had created good should become, and what good He Himself should even thus derive from him. For though God is said to change His determinations (so that in a tropical sense theHoly Scripture says even that God repented ), this is said with reference to man's expectation, or the order of natural causes, and not with reference to that which the Almighty had foreknown that He would do. AccordinglyGod, as it is written, made man upright,Ecclesiastes 7:29 and consequently with a good will. For if he had not had a good will, he could not have been upright. The good will, then, is the work ofGod; for God created him with it. But the firstevil will, which preceded all man'sevil acts, was rather a kind of falling away from the work of God to its own works than any positive work. And therefore the acts resulting wereevil, not havingGod, but the will itself for their end; so that the will or the man himself, so far as his will is bad, was as it were theevil tree bringing forthevil fruit. Moreover, the bad will, though it be not in harmony with, but opposed to nature, inasmuch as it is avice or blemish, yet it istrue of it as of allvice, that it cannot exist except in a nature, and only in a nature created out of nothing, and not in that which the Creator has begotten of Himself, as He begot the Word, by whom all things were made. For though God formed man of the dust of the earth, yet the earth itself, and every earthly material, is absolutely created out of nothing; and man'ssoul, too, God created out of nothing, and joined to the body, when He made man. Butevils are so thoroughly overcome by good, that though they are permitted to exist, for the sake of demonstrating how the most righteous foresight of God can make a good use even of them, yet good can exist withoutevil, as in thetrue and supreme God Himself, and as in every invisible and visible celestial creature that exists above this murky atmosphere; butevil cannot exist without good, because the natures in whichevil exists, in so far as they are natures, are good. Andevil is removed, not by removing any nature, or part of a nature, which had been introduced by theevil, but by healing and correcting that which had been vitiated and depraved. The will, therefore, is thentruly free, when it is not the slave ofvices andsins. Such was it given us byGod; and this being lost by its own fault, can only be restored by Him who was able at first to give it. And therefore thetruth says,If the Son shall make you free, you shall be free indeed;
1 John 8:36 which is equivalent to saying, If the Son shall save you, you shall be saved indeed. For He is our Liberator, inasmuch as He is our Saviour.
Man then lived with God for his rule in a paradise at once physical and spiritual. For neither was it a paradise only physical for the advantage of the body, and not also spiritual for the advantage of the mind; nor was it only spiritual to afford enjoyment to man by his internal sensations, and not also physical to afford him enjoyment through his external senses. But obviously it was both for both ends. But after thatproud and thereforeenviousangel (of whose fall I have said as much as I was able in the eleventh and twelfth books of this work, as well as that of his fellows, who, from being God'sangels, became hisangels), preferring to rule with a kind of pomp of empire rather than to be another's subject, fell from the spiritual Paradise, and essaying to insinuate his persuasive guile into the mind ofman, whose unfallen condition provoked him toenvy now that himself was fallen, he chose the serpent as his mouthpiece in that bodily Paradise in which it and all the other earthly animals were living with those twohuman beings, the man and his wife, subject to them, and harmless; and he chose the serpent because, being slippery, and moving in tortuous windings, it was suitable for his purpose. And this animal being subdued to hiswicked ends by the presence and superior force of his angelic nature, he abused as his instrument, and first tried his deceit upon thewoman, making his assault upon the weaker part of thathuman alliance, that he might gradually gain the whole, and not supposing that the man would readily give ear to him, or be deceived, but that he might yield to theerror of thewoman. For asAaron was not induced to agree with the people when they blindly wished him to make an idol, and yet yielded to constraint; and as it is not credible that Solomon was so blind as to suppose thatidols should be worshipped, but was drawn over to such sacrilege by the blandishments ofwomen; so we cannotbelieve thatAdam was deceived, and supposed thedevil's word to betruth, and therefore transgressed God's law, but that he by the drawings of kindred yielded to thewoman, the husband to the wife, the onehuman being to the only otherhuman being. For not without significance did the apostle say,AndAdam was not deceived, but thewoman being deceived was in the transgression;
1 Timothy 2:14 but he speaks thus, because thewoman accepted astrue what the serpent told her, but the man could not bear to be severed from his only companion, even though this involved a partnership insin. He was not on this account less culpable, butsinned with his eyes open. And so the apostle does not say,He did notsin,
butHe was not deceived.
For he shows that hesinned when he says,By one mansin entered into the world,
Romans 5:12 and immediately after more distinctly,In the likeness of Adam's transgression.
But he meant that those are deceived who do not judge that which they do to besin; but heknew. Otherwise how were ittrueAdam was not deceived?
But having as yet no experience of the divine severity, he was possibly deceived in so far as he thought hissin venial. And consequently he was not deceived as thewoman was deceived, but he was deceived as to the judgment which would be passed on his apology:Thewoman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me, and I did eat.
Genesis 3:12 What need of saying more? Although they were not both deceived by credulity, yet both were entangled in the snares of thedevil, and taken bysin.
If any one finds a difficulty in understanding why othersins do not alterhumannature as it was altered by the transgression of those firsthuman beings, so that on account of it this nature is subject to the great corruption we feel and see, and to death, and is distracted and tossed with so manyfurious and contending emotions, and is certainly far different from what it was beforesin, even though it were then lodged in an animal body — if, I say, any one is moved by this, he ought not to think that thatsin was a small and light one because it was committed about food, and that not bad nor noxious, except because it was forbidden; for in that spot of singular felicity God could not have created and planted anyevil thing. But by the precept He gave, God commendedobedience, which is, in a sort, the mother and guardian of all thevirtues in the reasonable creature, which was so created that submission is advantageous to it, while the fulfillment of its own will in preference to the Creator's is destruction. And as this commandment enjoining abstinence from one kind of food in the midst of great abundance of other kinds was so easy to keep — so light a burden to the memory, — and, above all, found no resistance to its observance inlust, which only afterwards sprung up as the penal consequence ofsin, the iniquity of violating it was all the greater in proportion to the ease with which it might have been kept.
Our firstparents fell into open disobedience because already they were secretly corrupted; for theevil act had never been done had not anevil will preceded it. And what is the origin of ourevil will butpride? Forpride is the beginning ofsin.
Sirach 10:13 And what ispride but the craving for undue exaltation? And this is undue exaltation, when thesoul abandons Him to whom it ought to cleave as its end, and becomes a kind of end to itself. This happens when it becomes its own satisfaction. And it does so when it falls away from that unchangeable good which ought to satisfy it more than itself. This falling away is spontaneous; for if the will had remained steadfast in thelove of that higher and changeless good by which it was illumined to intelligence and kindled intolove, it would not have turned away to find satisfaction in itself, and so become frigid and benighted; thewoman would not havebelieved the serpent spoke thetruth, nor would the man have preferred the request of his wife to the command ofGod, nor have supposed that it was a venial trangression to cleave to the partner of his life even in a partnership ofsin. Thewicked deed, then — that is to say, the trangression of eating the forbidden fruit — was committed bypersons who were alreadywicked. Thatevil fruit
Matthew 7:18 could be brought forth only bya corrupt tree.
But that the tree wasevil was not the result of nature; for certainly it could become so only by thevice of the will, andvice is contrary to nature. Now, nature could not have been depraved byvice had it not been made out of nothing. Consequently, that it is a nature, this is because it is made byGod; but that it falls away from Him, this is because it is made out of nothing. But man did not so fall away as to become absolutely nothing; but being turned towards himself, his being became more contracted than it was when he clave to Him who supremely is. Accordingly, to exist in himself, that is, to be his own satisfaction after abandoningGod, is not quite to become a nonentity, but to approximate to that. And therefore theholy Scriptures designate theproud by another name,self-pleasers.
For it isgood to have the heart lifted up, yet not to one's self, for this isproud, but to the Lord, for this isobedient, and can be the act only of thehumble. There is, therefore, something in humility which, strangely enough, exalts the heart, and something inpride which debases it. This seems, indeed, to be contradictory, that loftiness should debase and lowliness exalt. Butpious humility enables us to submit to what is above us; and nothing is more exalted above us thanGod; and therefore humility, by making us subject toGod, exalts us. Butpride, being a defect of nature, by the very act of refusing subjection and revolting from Him who is supreme, falls to a low condition; and then comes to pass what is written:You cast them down when they lifted up themselves.
For he does not say,when they had been lifted up,
as if first they were exalted, and then afterwards cast down; butwhen they lifted up themselves
even then they were cast down — that is to say, the very lifting up was already a fall. And therefore it is that humility is specially recommended to the city ofGod as it sojourns in this world, and is specially exhibited in the city ofGod, and in the person of Christ its King; while the contraryvice ofpride, according to the testimony of the sacred writings, specially rules his adversary thedevil. And certainly this is the great difference which distinguishes the two cities of which we speak, the one being the society of the godly men, the other of the ungodly, each associated with theangels that adhere to their party, and the one guided and fashioned bylove of self, the other bylove ofGod.
Thedevil, then, would not have ensnared man in the open and manifestsin of doing what God had forbidden, had man not already begun to live for himself. It was this that made him listen with pleasure to the words,You shall be as gods,
Genesis 3:5 which they would much more readily have accomplished by obediently adhering to their supreme andtrue end than by proudly living to themselves. For created gods are gods not by virtue of what is in themselves, but by a participation of thetrue God. By craving to be more, man becomes less; and by aspiring to be self-sufficing, he fell away from Him whotruly suffices him. Accordingly, thiswicked desire which prompts man to please himself as if he were himself light, and which thus turns him away from that light by which, had he followed it, he would himself have become light — thiswicked desire, I say, already secretlyexisted in him, and the opensin was but its consequence. For that istrue which is written,Pride goes before destruction, and beforehonor is humility;
Proverbs 18:12 that is to say, secret ruin precedes open ruin, while the former is not counted ruin. For who counts exaltation ruin, though no sooner is the Highest forsaken than a fall is begun? But who does not recognize it as ruin, when there occurs an evident and indubitable transgression of the commandment? And consequently, God's prohibition had reference to such an act as, when committed, could not be defended on any pretense of doing what was righteous. And I make bold to say that it is useful for theproud to fall into an open and indisputable transgression, and so displease themselves, as already, by pleasing themselves, they had fallen. For Peter was in a healthier condition when he wept and was dissatisfied with himself, than when he boldly presumed and satisfied himself. And this is averred by the sacred Psalmist when he says,Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek Your name, O Lord;
that is, that they who have pleased themselves in seeking their ownglory may be pleased and satisfied with You in seeking Yourglory.
But it is a worse and more damnablepride which casts about for the shelter of an excuse even in manifestsins, as these our firstparents did, of whom thewoman said,The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat;
and the man said,Thewoman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
Genesis 3:12-13 Here there is no word of begging pardon, no word of entreaty for healing. For though they do not, like Cain, deny that they have perpetrated the deed, yet theirpride seeks to refer itswickedness to another — thewoman'spride to the serpent, the man's to thewoman. But where there is a plain trangression of a divine commandment, this is rather to accuse than to excuse oneself. For the fact that thewomansinned on the serpent's persuasion, and the man at thewoman's offer, did not make the transgression less, as if there were any one whom we ought rather tobelieve or yield to than God.
Therefore, because thesin was a despising of the authority ofGod — who had created man; who had made him in His own image; who had set him above the other animals; who had placed him in Paradise; who had enriched him with abundance of every kind and of safety; who had laid upon him neither many, nor great, nor difficult commandments, but, in order to make a wholesomeobedience easy to him, had given him a single very brief and very light precept by which He reminded that creature whose service was to be free that He was Lord, — it was just that condemnation followed, and condemnation such that man, who by keeping the commandments should have been spiritual even in his flesh, became fleshly even in his spirit; and as in hispride he had sought to be his own satisfaction, God in Hisjustice abandoned him to himself, not to live in the absolute independence he affected, but instead of the liberty he desired, to live dissatisfied with himself in a hard and miserable bondage to him to whom by sinning he had yielded himself, doomed in spite of himself to die in body as he had willingly become dead in spirit, condemned even toeternal death (had not thegrace of God delivered him) because he had forsakeneternal life. Whoever thinks such punishment either excessive orunjust shows his inability to measure the great iniquity of sinning wheresin might so easily have been avoided. For asAbraham'sobedience is withjustice pronounced to be great, because the thing commanded, to kill his son, was very difficult, so in Paradise the disobedience was the greater, because the difficulty of that which was commanded was imperceptible. And as theobedience of the second Man was the more laudable because He becameobedient evenunto death,
Philippians 2:8 so the disobedience of the first man was the more detestable because he became disobedient even unto death. For where the penalty annexed to disobedience is great, and the thing commanded by the Creator is easy, who can sufficiently estimate how great awickedness it is, in a matter so easy, not toobey the authority of so great a power, even when that power deters with so terrible a penalty?
In short, to say all in a word, what but disobedience was the punishment of disobedience in thatsin? For what else is man's misery but his own disobedience to himself, so that in consequence of his not being willing to do what he could do, he now wills to do what he cannot? For though he could not do all things in Paradise before hesinned, yet he wished to do only what he could do, and therefore he could do all things he wished. But now, as we recognize in his offspring, and asdivine Scripture testifies,Man is like to vanity.
For who can count how many things he wishes which he cannot do, so long as he is disobedient to himself, that is, so long as his mind and his flesh do notobey his will? For in spite of himself his mind is both frequently disturbed, and his flesh suffers, and grows old, and dies; and in spite of ourselves we suffer whatever else we suffer, and which we would not suffer if our nature absolutely and in all its partsobeyed ourwill. But is it not the infirmities of the flesh which hamper it in its service? Yet what does it matterhow its service is hampered, so long as the fact remains, that by the just retribution of the sovereign God whom we refused to be subject to and serve, our flesh, which was subjected to us, now torments us by insubordination, although our disobedience brought trouble on ourselves, not upon God? For He is not in need of our service as we of our body's; and therefore what we did was no punishment to Him, but what we receive is so to us. And the pains which are called bodily are pains of thesoul in and from the body. For what pain or desire can the flesh feel by itself and without thesoul? But when the flesh is said to desire or to suffer, it is meant, as we have explained, that the man does so, or some part of thesoul which is affected by the sensation of the flesh, whether a harsh sensation causing pain, or gentle, causing pleasure. But pain in the flesh is only a discomfort of thesoul arising from the flesh, and a kind of shrinking from its suffering, as the pain of thesoul which is called sadness is a shrinking from those things which have happened to us in spite of ourselves. But sadness is frequently preceded byfear, which is itself in thesoul, not in the flesh; while bodily pain is not preceded by any kind offear of the flesh, which can be felt in the flesh before the pain. But pleasure is preceded by a certain appetite which is felt in the flesh like a craving, as hunger and thirst and that generative appetite which is most commonly identified with the namelust, though this is the generic word for all desires. Foranger itself was defined by the ancients as nothing else than thelust of revenge; although sometimes a man isangry even at inanimate objects which cannot feel his vengeance, as when one breaks a pen, or crushes a quill that writes badly. Yet even this, though less reasonable, is in its way alust of revenge, and is, so to speak, amysterious kind of shadow of [the great law of] retribution, that they who doevil should sufferevil. There is therefore alust for revenge, which is calledanger; there is alust of money, which goes by the name ofavarice; there is alust of conquering, no matter by what means, which is called opinionativeness; there is alust of applause, which is named boasting. There are many and variouslusts, of which some have names of their own, while others have not. For who could readily give a name to thelust of ruling, which yet has a powerful influence in thesoul of tyrants, as civilwars bearwitness?
Although, therefore,lust may have many objects, yet when no object is specified, the wordlust usually suggests to the mind the lustful excitement of the organs of generation. And thislust not only takes possession of the whole body and outward members, but also makes itself felt within, and moves the whole man with a passion in which mental emotion is mingled with bodily appetite, so that the pleasure which results is the greatest of all bodily pleasures. So possessing indeed is this pleasure, that at the moment of time in which it is consummated, all mental activity is suspended. What friend of wisdom andholy joys, who, being married, butknowing, as the apostle says,how to possess his vessel in santification andhonor, not in the disease of desire, as theGentiles whoknow notGod,
1 Thessalonians 4:4 would not prefer, if this were possible , to beget children without thislust, so that in this function of begetting offspring the members created for this purpose should not be stimulated by the heat oflust, but should be actuated by his volition, in the same way as his other members serve him for their respective ends? But even those who delight in this pleasure are not moved to it at their own will, whether they confine themselves to lawful or transgress to unlawful pleasures; but sometimes thislust importunes them in spite of themselves, and sometimes fails them when they desire to feel it, so that thoughlust rages in themind, it stirs not in the body. Thus, strangely enough, this emotion not only fails toobey the legitimate desire to beget offspring, but also refuses to serve lasciviouslust; and though it often opposes its whole combined energy to thesoul that resists it, sometimes also it is divided against itself, and while it moves thesoul, leaves the body unmoved.
Justly is shame very specially connected with thislust;justly, too, these members themselves, being moved and restrained not at ourwill, but by a certain independent autocracy, so to speak, are calledshameful.
Their condition was different beforesin. For as it is written,They were naked and were not ashamed,
Genesis 2:25 — not that their nakedness was unknown to them, but because nakedness was not yet shameful, because not yet didlust move those members without the will's consent; not yet did the flesh by its disobedience testify against the disobedience of man. For they were not created blind, as the unenlightened vulgar fancy; forAdam saw the animals to whom he gave names, and of Eve we read,Thewoman saw that the tree wasgood for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes.
Genesis 3:6 Their eyes, therefore were open, but were not open to this, that is to say, were not observant so as to recognize what was conferred upon them by the garment ofgrace, for they had no consciousness of their members warring against their will. But when they were stripped of thisgrace, that their disobedience might be punished by fit retribution, there began in the movement of their bodily members a shameless novelty which made nakedness indecent: it at once made them observant and made them ashamed. And therefore, after they violated God's command by open transgression, it is written:And the eyes of them both were opened, and theyknew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons.
Genesis 3:7The eyes of them both were opened,
not to see, for already they saw, but to discern between the good they had lost and theevil into which they had fallen. And therefore also the tree itself which they were forbidden to touch was called the tree of theknowledge of good andevil from this circumstance, that if they ate of it it would impart to them thisknowledge. For the discomfort of sickness reveals the pleasure of health.Theyknew,
therefore,that they were naked,
— naked of thatgrace which prevented them from being ashamed of bodily nakedness while the law ofsin offered no resistance to their mind. And thus they obtained aknowledge which they would have lived in blissfulignorance of, had they, in trustfulobedience toGod, declined to commit that offense which involved them in the experience of the hurtful effects of unfaithfulness and disobedience. And therefore, being ashamed of the disobedience of their own flesh, which witnessed to their disobedience while it punished it,they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons,
that is, cinctures for their privy parts; for some interpreters have rendered the word bysuccinctoria.Campestria is, indeed, a Latin word, but it is used of the drawers or aprons used for a similar purpose by the young men who stripped for exercise in thecampus; hence those who were so girt were commonly called campestrati. Shame modestly covered that whichlust disobediently moved in opposition to the will, which was thus punished for its own disobedience. Consequently all nations, being propagated from that one stock, have so strong an instinct to cover the shameful parts, that some barbarians do not uncover them even in the bath, but wash with their drawers on. In the dark solitudes of India also, though somephilosophers go naked, and are therefore called gymnosophists, yet they make an exception in the case of these members and cover them.
Lust requires for its consummation darkness and secrecy; and this not only when un lawful intercourse is desired, but even such fornication as the earthly city has legalized. Where there is nofear of punishment, these permitted pleasures still shrink from the public eye. Even where provision is made for thislust, secrecy also is provided; and whilelust found it easy to remove the prohibitions of law, shamelessness found it impossible to lay aside the veil of retirement. For even shameless men call this shameful; and though theylove the pleasure, dare not display it. What! Does not even conjugal intercourse, sanctioned as it is by law for the propagation of children, legitimate andhonorable though it be, does it not seek retirement from every eye? Before the bridegroom fondles his bride, does he not exclude the attendants, and even the paranymphs, and such friends as the closest ties have admitted to the bridal chamber? The greatest master of Roman eloquence says, that all right actions wish to be set in the light,i.e., desire to beknown. This right action, however, has such a desire to beknown, that yet it blushes to be seen. Who does notknow what passes between husband and wife that children may be born? Is it not for this purpose that wives are married with such ceremony? And yet, when this well-understood act is gone about for the procreation of children, not even the children themselves, who may already have been born to them, are suffered to be witnesses. This right action seeks the light, in so far as it seeks to beknown, but yet dreads being seen. And why so, if not because that which is by nature fitting and decent is so done as to be accompanied with a shame-begetting penalty ofsin?
Hence it is that even thephilosophers who have approximated to thetruth have avowed thatanger andlust are vicious mental emotions, because, even when exercised towards objects which wisdom does not prohibit, they are moved in an ungoverned and inordinate manner, and consequently need the regulation of mind and reason. And they assert that this third part of the mind is posted as it were in a kind of citadel, to give rule to these other parts, so that, while it rules and they serve, man's righteousness is preserved without a breach. These parts, then, which they acknowledge to be vicious even in a wise and temperate man, so that themind, by its composing and restraining influence, must bridle and recall them from those objects towards which they are unlawfully moved, and give them access to those which the law of wisdom sanctions — thatanger,e.g., may be allowed for the enforcement of ajust authority, andlust for the duty of propagating offspring — these parts, I say, were not vicious in Paradise beforesin, for they were never moved in opposition to aholy will towards any object from which it was necessary that they should be withheld by the restraining bridle of reason. For though now they are moved in this way, and are regulated by a bridling and restraining power, which those who live temperately,justly, and godly exercise, sometimes with ease, and sometimes with greater difficulty, this is not the sound health of nature, but the weakness which results fromsin. And how is it that shame does not hide the acts and words dictated byanger or other emotions, as it covers the motions oflust, unless because the members of the body which we employ for accomplishing them are moved, not by the emotions themselves, but by the authority of the consenting will? For he who in hisanger rails at or even strikes some one, could not do so were not his tongue and hand moved by the authority of the will, as also they are moved when there is noanger. But the organs of generation are so subjected to the rule oflust, that they have no motion but what it communicates. It is this we are ashamed of; it is this which blushingly hides from the eyes of onlookers. And rather will a man endure a crowd of witnesses when he isunjustly venting hisanger on some one, than the eye of one man when he innocently copulates with his wife.
It is this which those canine or cynicphilosophers have overlooked, when they have, in violation of the modest instincts ofmen, boastfully proclaimed their unclean and shameless opinion, worthy indeed of dogs, viz., that as the matrimonial act is legitimate, no one should be ashamed to perform it openly, in the street or in any public place. Instinctive shame has overborne this wild fancy. For though it is related that Diogenes once dared to put his opinion in practice, under the impression that hissect would be all the more famous if his egregious shamelessness were deeply graven in the memory ofmankind, yet this example was not afterwards followed. Shame had more influence with them, to make them blush before men, thanerror to make them affect a resemblance to dogs. And possibly, even in the case of Diogenes, and those who did imitate him, there was but an appearance and pretence of copulation, and not the reality. Even at this day there are still Cynicphilosophers to be seen; for these areCynics who are not content with being clad in thepallium, but also carry a club; yet no one of them dares to do this that we speak of. If they did, they would be spat upon, not to saystoned, by the mob. Human nature, then, is withoutdoubt ashamed of thislust; andjustly so, for the insubordination of these members, and their defiance of the will, are the clear testimony of the punishment ofman's firstsin. And it was fitting that this should appear specially in those parts by which is generated that nature which has been altered for the worse by that first and greatsin — thatsin from whoseevil connection no one can escape, unless God'sgrace expiate in him individually that which was perpetrated to the destruction of all in common, when all were in one man, and which was avenged by God'sjustice.
Far be it, then, from us to suppose that our firstparents in Paradise felt thatlust which caused them afterwards to blush and hide their nakedness, or that by its means they should have fulfilled the benediction ofGod,Increase and multiply and replenish the earth;
Genesis 1:28 for it was aftersin thatlust began. It was aftersin that our nature, having lost the power it had over the whole body, but not having lost all shame, perceived, noticed, blushed at, and covered it. But that blessing upon marriage, which encouraged them to increase and multiply and replenish the earth, though it continued even after they hadsinned, was yet given before theysinned, in order that the procreation of children might be recognized as part of theglory of marriage, and not of the punishment ofsin. But now, men beingignorant of the blessedness of Paradise, suppose that children could not have been begotten there in any other way than theyknow them to be begotten now,i.e., bylust, at which evenhonorable marriage blushes; some not simply rejecting, but sceptically deriding thedivine Scriptures, in which we read that our firstparents, after theysinned, were ashamed of their nakedness, and covered it; while others, though they accept andhonor Scripture, yet conceive that this expression,Increase and multiply,
refers not to carnal fecundity, because a similar expression is used of thesoul in the words,You will multiply me with strength in mysoul;
and so, too, in the words which follow in Genesis,And replenish the earth, and subdue it,
they understand by the earth the body which thesoul fills with its presence, and which it rules over when it is multiplied in strength. And they hold that children could no more then than now be begotten withoutlust, which, aftersin, was kindled, observed, blushed for, and covered; and even that children would not have been born in Paradise, but only outside of it, as in fact it turned out. For it was after they were expelled from it that they came together to beget children, and begot them.
But we, for our part, have no manner ofdoubt that to increase and multiply and replenish the earth in virtue of the blessing ofGod, is a gift of marriage as God instituted it from the beginning before mansinned, when He created them male and female — in other words, two sexes manifestly distinct. And it was this work of God on which His blessing was pronounced. For no sooner had Scripture said,Male and female created He them,
Genesis 1:27-28 than it immediately continues,And God blessed them, and God said to them, Increase, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it,
etc. And though all these things may not unsuitably be interpreted in a spiritual sense, yetmale and female
cannot be understood of two things in one man, as if there were in him one thing which rules, another which is ruled; but it is quite clear that they were created male and female, with bodies of different sexes, for the very purpose of begetting offspring, and so increasing, multiplying, and replenishing the earth; and it is great folly to oppose so plain a fact. It was not of the spirit which commands and the body which obeys, nor of the rationalsoul which rules and the irrational desire which is ruled, nor of the contemplativevirtue which is supreme and the active which is subject, nor of the understanding of the mind and the sense of the body, but plainly of the matrimonial union by which the sexes are mutually bound together, that our Lord, when asked whether it were lawful for anycause to put away one's wife (for on account of the hardness of the hearts of theIsraelitesMoses permitted a bill of divorcement to be given), answered and said,Have you not read that He which made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, For thiscause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh? Wherefore they are no more two, but one flesh. What, therefore, God has joined together, let not man put asunder.
Matthew 19:4-5 It is certain, then, that from the first men were created, as we see andknow them to be now, of two sexes, male and female, and that they are called one, either on account of the matrimonial union, or on account of the origin of thewoman, who was created from the side of the man. And it is by this original example, whichGod Himself instituted, that the apostle admonishes all husbands tolove their own wives in particular.Ephesians 5:25
But he who says that there should have been neither copulation nor generation but forsin, virtually says that man'ssin was necessary to complete the number of thesaints. For if these two by not sinning should have continued to live alone, because, as is supposed, they could not have begotten children had they notsinned, then certainlysin was necessary in order that there might be not only two but many righteous men. And if this cannot be maintained without absurdity, we must ratherbelieve that the number of thesaints fit to complete this most blessed city would have been as great though no one hadsinned, as it is now that thegrace of God gathers its citizens out of the multitude of sinners, so long as the children of this world generate and are generated.Luke 20:34
And therefore that marriage, worthy of thehappiness of Paradise, should have had desirable fruit without the shame oflust, had there been nosin. But how that could be, there is now no example to teach us. Nevertheless, it ought not to seem incredible that one member might serve the will withoutlust then, since so many serve it now. Do we now move our feet and hands when we will to do the things we would by means of these members? Do we meet with no resistance in them, but perceive that they are ready servants of the will, both in our own case and in that of others, and especially of artisans employed in mechanical operations, by which the weakness and clumsiness of nature become, through industrious exercise, wonderfully dexterous? And shall we notbelieve that, like as all those members obediently serve the will, so also should the members have discharged the function of generation, thoughlust, the award of disobedience, had been awanting? Did not Cicero, in discussing the difference of governments in hisDe Republica, adopt a simile fromhumannature, and say that we command our bodily members as children, they are soobedient; but that the vicious parts of thesoul must be treated as slaves, and be coerced with a more stringent authority? And nodoubt, in the order of nature, thesoul is more excellent than the body; and yet thesoul commands the body more easily than itself. Nevertheless thislust, of which we at present speak, is the more shameful on this account, because thesoul is therein neither master of itself, so as not tolust at all, nor of the body, so as to keep the members under the control of the will; for if they were thus ruled, there should be no shame. But now thesoul is ashamed that the body, which by nature is inferior and subject to it, should resist its authority. For in the resistance experienced by thesoul in the other emotions there is less shame, because the resistance is from itself, and thus, when it is conquered by itself, itself is the conqueror, although the conquest is inordinate and vicious, because accomplished by those parts of thesoul which ought to be subject to reason, yet, being accomplished by its own parts and energies, the conquest is, as I say, its own. For when thesoul conquers itself to a due subordination, so that its unreasonable motions are controlled by reason, while it again is subject toGod, this is a conquestvirtuous and praiseworthy. Yet there is less shame when thesoul is resisted by its own vicious parts than when its will and order are resisted by the body, which is distinct from and inferior to it, and dependent on it for life itself.
But so long as the will retains under its authority the other members, without which the members excited bylust to resist the will cannot accomplish what they seek,chastity is preserved, and the delight ofsin foregone. And certainly, had not culpable disobedience been visited with penal disobedience, the marriage of Paradise should have beenignorant of this struggle and rebellion, this quarrel between will andlust, that the will may be satisfied andlust restrained, but those members, like all the rest, should haveobeyed the will. The field of generation should have been sown by the organ created for this purpose, as the earth is sown by the hand. And whereas now, as we essay to investigate this subject more exactly, modesty hinders us, and compels us to ask pardon of chaste ears, there would have been nocause to do so, but we could have discoursed freely, and withoutfear of seeming obscene, upon all those points which occur to one who meditates on the subject. There would not have been even words which could be called obscene, but all that might be said of these members would have been as pure as what is said of the other parts of the body. Whoever, then, comes to the perusal of these pages with unchastemind, let him blame his disposition, not his nature; let him brand the actings of his own impurity, not the words which necessity forces us to use, and for which every pure andpious reader or hearer will very readily pardon me, while I expose the folly of that scepticism which argues solely on the ground of its own experience, and has nofaith in anything beyond. He who is not scandalized at the apostle's censure of the horriblewickedness of thewomen whochanged the natural use into that which is against nature,
Romans 1:26 will read all this without being shocked, especially as we are not, likePaul, citing and censuring a damnable uncleanness, but are explaining, so far as we can,human generation, while withPaul we avoid all obscenity of language.
The man, then, would have sown the seed, and thewoman received it, as need required, the generative organs being moved by the will, not excited bylust. For we move at will not only those members which are furnished with joints of solid bone, as the hands, feet, and fingers, but we move also at will those which are composed of slack and soft nerves: we can put them in motion, or stretch them out, or bend and twist them, or contract and stiffen them, as we do with the muscles of the mouth and face. The lungs, which are the very tenderest of the viscera except the brain, and are therefore carefully sheltered in the cavity of the chest, yet for all purposes of inhaling and exhaling the breath, and of uttering and modulating the voice, areobedient to the will when we breathe, exhale, speak, shout, or sing, just as the bellowsobey the smith or the organist. I will not press the fact that some animals have a natural power to move a single spot of the skin with which their whole body is covered, if they have felt on it anything they wish to drive off — a power so great, that by this shivering tremor of the skin they can not only shake off flies that have settled on them, but even spears that have fixed in their flesh. Man, it istrue, has not this power; but is this any reason for supposing that God could not give it to such creatures as He wished to possess it? And therefore man himself also might very well have enjoyed absolute power over his members had he not forfeited it by his disobedience; for it was not difficult forGod to form him so that what is now moved in his body only bylust should have been moved only at will.
Weknow, too, that some men are differently constituted from others, and have some rare and remarkable faculty of doing with their body what other men can by no effort do, and, indeed, scarcelybelieve when they hear of others doing. There arepersons who can move their ears, either one at a time, or both together. There are some who, without moving the head, can bring the hair down upon the forehead, and move the whole scalp backwards and forwards at pleasure. Some, by lightly pressing their stomach, bring up an incrediblequantity and variety of things they have swallowed, and produce whatever they please, quite whole, as if out of a bag. Some so accurately mimic the voices of birds and beasts and other men, that, unless they are seen, the difference cannot be told. Some have such command of their bowels, that they can break wind continuously at pleasure, so as to produce the effect of singing. I myself haveknown a man who was accustomed to sweat whenever he wished. It is well known that some weep when they please, and shed a flood of tears. But far more incredible is that which some of our brethren saw quite recently. There was apresbyter called Restitutus, in the parish of the Calamensian Church, who, as often as he pleased (and he was asked to do this by those who desired towitness so remarkable a phenomenon), on some one imitating the wailings of mourners, became so insensible, and lay in a state so like death, that not only had he no feeling when they pinched and pricked him, but even when fire was applied to him, and he was burned by it, he had no sense of pain except afterwards from the wound. And that his body remained motionless, not by reason of his self-command, but because he was insensible, wasproved by the fact that he breathed no more than a dead man; and yet he said that, when any one spoke with more than ordinary distinctness, he heard the voice, but as if it were a long way off. Seeing, then, that even in this mortal and miserable life the body serves some men by many remarkable movements and moods beyond the ordinary course of nature, what reason is there for doubting that, before man was involved by hissin in this weak and corruptible condition, his members might have served his will for the propagation of offspring withoutlust? Man has been given over to himself because he abandonedGod, while he sought to be self-satisfying; and disobeyingGod, he could notobey even himself. Hence it is that he is involved in the obvious misery of being unable to live as he wishes. For if he lived as he wished, he would think himself blessed; but he could not be so if he lived wickedly.
However, if we look at this a little more closely, we see that no one lives as he wishes but the blessed, and that no one is blessed but the righteous. But even the righteous himself does not live as he wishes, until he has arrived where he cannot die, be deceived, or injured, and until he is assured that this shall be hiseternal condition. For this nature demands; and nature is not fully and perfectly blessed till it attains what it seeks. But what man is at present able to live as he wishes, when it is not in his power so much as to live? He wishes to live, he is compelled to die. How, then, does he live as he wishes who does not live as long as he wishes? Or if he wishes to die, how can he live as he wishes, since he does not wish even to live? Or if he wishes to die, not because he dislikes life, but that after death he may live better, still he is not yet living as he wishes, but only has the prospect of so living when, through death, he reaches that which he wishes. But admit that he lives as he wishes, because he has doneviolence to himself, and forced himself not to wish what he cannot obtain, and to wish only what he can (as Terence has it,Since you cannot do what you will, will what you can
), is he therefore blessed because he is patiently wretched? For a blessed life is possessed only by the man who loves it. If it is loved and possessed, it must necessarily be more ardently loved than all besides; for whatever else is loved must be loved for the sake of the blessed life. And if it is loved as it deserves to be — and the man is not blessed who does notlove the blessed life as it deserves — then he who so loves it cannot but wish it to beeternal. Therefore it shall then only be blessed when it iseternal.
In Paradise, then, man lived as he desired so long as he desired what God had commanded. He lived in the enjoyment ofGod, and wasgood by God's goodness; he lived without any want, and had it in his power so to liveeternally. He had food that he might not hunger, drink that he might not thirst, the tree of life that old age might not waste him. There was in his body no corruption, nor seed of corruption, which could produce in him any unpleasant sensation. He feared no inward disease, no outward accident. Soundest health blessed his body, absolute tranquillity hissoul. As in Paradise there was no excessive heat or cold, so its inhabitants were exempt from the vicissitudes offear and desire. No sadness of any kind was there, nor any foolishjoy;truegladness ceaselessly flowed from the presence ofGod, who was lovedout of a pure heart, and a goodconscience, andfaith unfeigned.
1 Timothy 1:5 The honestlove of husband and wife made a sure harmony between them. Body and spirit worked harmoniously together, and the commandment was kept without labor. No languor made their leisure wearisome; no sleepiness interrupted their desire to labor.In tanta facilitate rerum et felicitate hominum, absit ut suspicemur, non potuisse prolem seri sine libidinis morbo: sed eo voluntatis nutu moverentur illa membra qua cætera, et sine ardoris illecebroso stimulo cum tranquillitate animi et corporis nulla corruptione integritatis infunderetur gremio maritus uxoris. Neque enim quia experientia probari non potest, ideo credendum non est; quando illas corporis partes non ageret turbidus calor, sed spontanea potestas, sicut opus esset, adhiberet; ita tunc potuisse utero conjugis salva integritate feminei genitalis virile semen immitti, sicut nunc potest eadem integritate salva ex utero virginis fluxus menstrui cruoris emitti. Eadem quippe via posset illud injici, qua hoc potest ejici. Ut enim ad pariendum non doloris gemitus, sed maturitatis impulsus feminea viscera relaxaret: sic adfœtandum et concipiendum non libidinis appetitus, sed voluntarius usus naturam utramque conjungeret. We speak of things which are now shameful, and although we try, as well as we are able, to conceive them as they were before they became shameful, yet necessity compels us rather to limit our discussion to the bounds set by modesty than to extend it as our moderate faculty of discourse might suggest. For since that which I have been speaking of was not experienced even by those who might have experienced it — I mean our firstparents (forsin and its merited banishment from Paradise anticipated this passionless generation on their part) — when sexual intercourse is spoken of now, it suggests to men's thoughts not such a placidobedience to the will as is conceivable in our firstparents, but such violent acting oflust as they themselves have experienced. And therefore modesty shuts my mouth, although my mind conceives the matter clearly. ButAlmighty God, the supreme and supremely good Creator of all natures, who aids and rewards good wills, while He abandons and condemns the bad, and rules both, was not destitute of a plan by which He might people His city with the fixed number of citizens which His wisdom had foreordained even out of the condemnedhuman race, discriminating them not now by merits, since the whole mass was condemned as if in a vitiated root, but bygrace, and showing, not only in the case of the redeemed, but also in those who were not delivered, how muchgrace He has bestowed upon them. For every one acknowledges that he has been rescued fromevil, not by deserved, but by gratuitous goodness, when he is singled out from the company of those with whom he mightjustly have borne a common punishment, and is allowed to go scathless. Why, then, should God not have created those whom He foresaw wouldsin, since He was able to show in and by them both what their guilt merited, and what Hisgrace bestowed, and since, under His creating and disposing hand, even the perverse disorder of thewicked could not pervert the right order of things?
Thesins ofmen andangels do nothing to impede thegreat works of the Lord which accomplish Hiswill.
For He who by Hisprovidence and omnipotence distributes to every one his own portion, is able to make good use not only of thegood, but also of thewicked. And thus making a good use of thewickedangel, who, in punishment of his firstwicked volition, was doomed to an obduracy that prevents him now from willing any good, why should not God have permitted him to tempt the first man, who had been created upright, that is to say, with a good will? For he had been so constituted, that if he looked to God for help, man's goodness should defeat theangel'swickedness; but if byproud self-pleasing he abandonedGod, his Creator and Sustainer, he should be conquered. If his will remained upright, through leaning on God's help, he should be rewarded; if it becamewicked, by forsakingGod, he should be punished. But even this trusting in God's help could not itself be accomplished without God's help, although man had it in his own power to relinquish the benefits ofdivine grace by pleasing himself. For as it is not in our power to live in this world without sustaining ourselves by food, while it is in our power to refuse this nourishment and cease to live, as those do who kill themselves, so it was not in man's power, even in Paradise, to live as he ought without God's help; but it was in his power to live wickedly, though thus he should cut short hishappiness, and incur veryjust punishment. Since, then, God was notignorant that man would fall, why should He not have suffered him to be tempted by anangel whohated and envied him? It was not, indeed, that He was unaware that he should be conquered, but because He foresaw that by the man's seed, aided bydivine grace, this samedevil himself should be conquered, to the greaterglory of thesaints. All was brought about in such a manner, that neither did any future event escape God's foreknowledge, nor did His foreknowledge compel any one tosin, and so as to demonstrate in the experience of the intelligent creation,human and angelic, how great a difference there is between the private presumption of the creature and the Creator's protection. For who will dare tobelieve or say that it was not in God's power to prevent bothangels and men from sinning? But God preferred to leave this in their power, and thus to show both whatevil could be wrought by theirpride, and what good by Hisgrace.
Accordingly, two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by thelove of self, even to the contempt ofGod; the heavenly by thelove ofGod, even to the contempt of self. The former, in a word, glories in itself, the latter in the Lord. For the one seeksglory from men; but the greatestglory of the other isGod, thewitness ofconscience. The one lifts up its head in its ownglory; the other says to itsGod,You are myglory, and the lifter up of mine head.
In the one, the princes and the nations it subdues are ruled by thelove of ruling; in the other, the princes and the subjects serve one another inlove, the latterobeying, while the former take thought for all. The one delights in its own strength, represented in thepersons of its rulers; the other says to itsGod,I willlove You, O Lord, my strength.
And therefore the wise men of the one city, living according toman, have sought for profit to their own bodies orsouls, or both, and those who haveknown Godglorified Him not asGod, neither were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened; professing themselves to be wise,
— that is, glorying in their own wisdom, and being possessed bypride —they became fools, and changed theglory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.
For they were either leaders or followers of the people in adoring images,and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever.
Romans 1:21-25 But in the other city there is nohuman wisdom, but only godliness, which offers due worship to thetrueGod, and looks for its reward in the society of thesaints, ofholyangels as well asholy men,that God may be all in all.
1 Corinthians 15:28
Source.Translated by Marcus Dods. FromNicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series,Vol. 2.Edited by Philip Schaff. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co.,1887.)Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.<http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/120114.htm>.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is feedback732at newadvent.org. (To help fight spam, this address might change occasionally.) Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.