Pseudo-Augustini Quaestiones Veteris et Novi Testamenti CXXVII

But lest for this reason they have wanted law to be fate, so that those whom fate makes evil at birth are condemned by law, so that fate and law may agree for the punishment of these persons? What will be said to this, except that both laws and fate deserve to be condemned by their own judgment, if with equal injustice they strive that those who did evil not of their own will but by the agency of fate be put to death? To this, law speaks against it, because fate is to be condemned by its own profession. For they do not deny that those who are evil are evil by fate. But law is so opposed to fate that it denies that the evil are evil by fate, but by their own will; for which reason it rightly holds them guilty. Therefore, there is nothing in common between law and fate, since what is asserted by fate is denied by law. But by what reasoning will those who banished astrologers from the city of Rome be said to be born, whose preserved right is not unknown, and they were certainly pagans? How do things happen by fate which are against fate? But if fate exists, it does not act against itself: these men do not have fate, who act against fate, and if these men do not have fate, fate does not exist.

But," they say, "fate determines for each person by what death he dies." If this is so, the murderer is not to be accused. For he will defend himself on two grounds: because he did this under the compulsion of fate, and the slain man was also killed under the compulsion of fate. But in the midst of this, the law is assailed, because it punishes the murderer who is brought before it. In a similar way, a man is born who is to be an adulterer, and a woman who is to be an adulteress, and a person with whom adultery is to be committed. If this is also the case, then again the law is affected, which punishes adulterers. But if it were truly a matter of fate, then that person who has such a fate as to suffer adultery ought also to be punished. For he too is found to be a participant, because his fate allowed adultery to occur. It would therefore be fair either that they be condemned together or acquitted together; in the midst of this, the law seems unjust. Therefore, if fate comes from God, the law will not be from God, because it is fitting neither for God nor for a prudent man to condemn what he himself has made. But since no one has ever dared to speak against the law or to deny that it is from God, fate cannot be said to be from God, because God punishes these things through the law. For when what is done under the compulsion of fate is condemned, without doubt fate itself is condemned.

But souls," they say, "are born evil in order to do evil." Granted. But then innocent people ought not to be born under such a fate that they could be killed by them. For if those souls were evil, they ought not to be born, but to be punished, so that they would not kill the innocent. But it is not the souls, which they imagine as evil, that kill the innocent, but the fates, which cause people to be born in such a way that they are killed. And through this, it is not the souls, but the fates that are unjust; and if they are unjust, they are not from God: therefore they are from the devil and are to be condemned along with him. And since they are said to decree for each individual how they die, whether by the sword or the noose or a fall or shipwreck or otherwise, they provide the same for many. For no one can differ from the fates of all. But if someone is found to differ, it is no longer a matter of fate, but of chance; and if in one person's death there is chance, there will also be chance in the deaths of many, and then there will be no fate. Anaxagoras, thrown into a ball by order of the king, was crushed and died, which happened to no other man. And Sisara, king of the Philistines, had a woman drive a stake into his temples, and thus he gave up his spirit. No one has died in this way. And previously men were crucified, which afterward remained prohibited by edict. If it was a matter of fate, how did it cease? For when what is fated is prohibited and does not happen, fate is overcome. Or if it was not a matter of fate, men were not crucified by fate, but by judgment of the law. And so it is that men are not condemned by fate, but convicted by their own evil deeds.

Among the Etruscans, a certain man is said to have been born so beautiful of face as had never been seen before; and because he was a good man, lest he come under suspicion from anyone—since he also enticed the eyes of respectable women—he wounded his face with seven blows, so as to condemn the beauty that is desired by all. Behold how, if there are fates, they have been overcome! But perhaps it will be said: "It was of nature that he was born beautiful, but of fate that his appearance was wounded." If that is so, then fate is not born, but an accident is the cause; and if it is a matter of accident, it will not be of fate, but of choice or certainly of outcome, as far as the remaining parts are concerned. For what else is it to overcome fate, if not to change nature? But if it were from God, it could neither be changed nor overcome. For it is read that it was recorded in some legal document that a woman once gave birth to five children: how was it stolen from the fates that nature should decree for this woman alone what was not of fate? If it had been of fate for her, some others would have been burdened with this same lot. And when a certain man was setting out for foreign places, he entrusted his wife to a friend whom he knew to be faithful—not a boy, but a man of mature age—who, in order to be a more careful guardian of her, castrated himself, so that he might sleep cautiously with her without anyone's suspicion. What do we think: was this of fate or of choice? But how was it of fate, when it is contrary? For he who overcomes what is born in him renders fate empty.

And in the studies of the fates, the matter is certainly turned so that someone either knows something or cannot grasp it. Therefore, all senators have one fate—for no senator is without letters—and the peoples who are without letters have one fate, and all slaves are of one fate; for no slave is a senator. But if you say that what is born is fate, then whatever comes afterward will be outside fate. Or if what comes about comes from fate, why does it come through labor? For it would be called fate only if it happened to a man unwillingly. For what befalls without providence is said to be of the fates; but what is thought out, long pondered, and acquired through intermediate exertions, why should it be said to be of fate? A eunuch is born; others are made: where will fate be? In the one, I believe, who is born; as for those who are made, what is to be said of them? For it is different. Or if these are made eunuchs by fate, then that one was born a eunuch contrary to fate. And why is a eunuch so rarely born that it seems unbelievable? There was a certain woman in the city of Rome who is known to have had eleven husbands, and another man who had twelve wives: what fates were these that decreed this for them? For in the time of the Emperor Constantius, it is evident that a girl in the region of Campania was changed into a male and brought to Rome: what fates did this? Others, I think, which you do not know.

If you were silent about this name and attributed something to outcome and chance, you would be conceding something to providence! For the power of virtue and industry of minds is so great that it not only resists nature, but even corrects or fails to correct itself, because it possesses judgment of itself. For the women of the Scythians, who are called Amazons, are reported to have, when their husbands were occupied in a long war and were absent for a long time, for the sake of offspring mingled with slaves and killed every male born, sparing the females, so that none of them gave attention to wool-working, but from an early age were trained in the wrestling-ground and in arms. Their virtue and industry in their achievements was so great that, ruling for a long series of years, they subdued several nations and placed all Asia under tribute. What can be said to this? Were these things of fate, which were done over so many years, so that everything that is thought to be of fate would be emptied? First, that contrary to nature women, spurning men, ruled; next, that they mingled with their own slaves; third, that all males born were killed, females were given life, and such great prosperity followed them that, without men, they extended the kingdom they had begun with great forces and over long periods. Certainly this deed has never happened since the foundation of the world, except in Scythia only: lest they should say that, since the world is renewed after one thousand four hundred and sixty years, these things come thus, especially since the world is now in its six-thousandth year.

as long as one does what one has imitated. For Marcus Crassus was called Agelatus because it is recorded that he laughed only once in his life; and Gaius Junius was surnamed Brutus because with shrewd counsel he pretended to be stupid, lest he be killed by the proud king on account of the size of his wealth; and in the time of Constantine, a man who was called Samsucius pretended to be a fool for thirty years, in order to divert the emperor, as he himself later said, from his own weariness. Where is the principle of fate, when each person does what he wishes? It is excluded. But what of this, that the advocates of fate are devoted to supplications, when these are opposed to fate? For they commend their years and inquire about marriages and journeys and purchases and offices. But if it is a matter of fate, why do you pray, why do you supplicate, when that which is to come will happen even against your will? 'But I ask,' he says, 'whether I ought to buy.' Therefore it does not depend on fate that you say you ought to do something then, if you have learned that it is expedient. For if it is a matter of fate, you seek in vain what, whether you wish it or not, whether you seek it or not, you are going to do.

But because even among them this assertion is not fixed, they therefore make uncertain attempts, lest they find something true other than what they have treated. But those who seem wiser among them say: 'We do not supplicate on account of the fates, since we know they can least of all be changed, but for the sake of those things which are near the fates, lest they do something adverse to us.' But truly, if someone has a good fate and near him there is something which seems contrary, what will be possible, since the good fate is denied to be changeable, just as the evil one? Certainly this, that which is near the fate, is supplicated lest it harm—for it will harm unless supplication is made—: how then is that fate denied to be changeable, when this, which is near, is feared? For this would not be feared unless that were believed able to be changed. But because the cause lies more in this, that you say fate cannot be changed, you supplicate without doubt without cause. But see whether this too is of fate, that you supplicate, because whatever you assign to fate is usually without salt. Certainly it is not a bad thing to supplicate: why then is it not said to be of fate? If therefore it will be of fate that one supplicates, whose will it be to supplicate and not to obtain? Because, if it were of fate, one ought to obtain what one supplicates. But if it is of fate to supplicate and not to obtain, fate is foolish, because it makes a man supplicate, whom it knows will not obtain.

If he does not know whether he can obtain what makes him supplicate, then fate will be improvident and lacking in reason, because all ignorance is folly, and folly is stupidity. Into this category falls the entire discourse of the pagans. Let the pagans see to it, who, surrounded by darkness, do not see the light. For, ensnared by ancient error, they refuse to lend an ear to the truth, which formerly lay hidden. What shall we say about certain Christians, who, changed in name only, defend the vanity of their former error, having become so dull that they contend that the Lord Himself acted under fate, saying: 'He Himself said: "My hour has not yet come,"' so that this hour was not a matter of will, but a necessity of fatal condition, whereas He signified the hour of His own will, in which He permitted Himself to suffer. Finally, He says: 'I have the power to lay down my soul, and I have the power to take it up again.' Therefore, fatal necessity ceases where there is the power of will.

And how is the Savior invoked by us, if the things we do or that happen to us are from fate? For he is called Savior because he shows us the way of salvation. Thus, if this way was shown by him, it was not from fate, because it was previously hidden, and what is said to be from fate is claimed to happen unexpectedly. Here, indeed, lies the merit of faith, which cannot be said to come from fate, because what is believed was unheard of in other ages; for fates are said to provide what occurs in human affairs. But by what reasoning are they said to be able to provide what they are found to be ignorant of? This is why the apostle says: "Whom none of the princes of this age knew." These are the princes and powers having under them evil angels, who under the name of fates bring about their own pleasures, as they please, just as sorcerers are accustomed to confess. For there are some they love, others they do not love, and some they hate. And to each one, each of them suggests what he loves, because they themselves have diverse pleasures: some procure lust for various kinds of debauchery, others for a single kind, some procure wantonness of pleasures, others anger, some avarice, others gains, others losses, some charisma, others hatreds, and also hindrances. And sometimes, when sated at certain times, they rest in idleness; at other times, when the mind is occupied with some reason, they do not intrude, because they do not dominate, but creep in, seeking an opportunity by which they may ensnare.

Therefore the will's choice is free, but when through some negligence we become careless about ourselves, those who tempt us urge adversities upon us; especially if they find us thinking something that is not of the law, they come in that very matter to assist us so that we fulfill what the law forbids. For if the fear of God is in the mind, neither flesh nor blood nor princes and powers prevail, because they are restrained by God's aids, so that they are overcome without effort. But if we were not in our own power, how would the Lord say: "Ask, and it will be given to you"; for everyone who asks will receive? Therefore, if he who wishes to ask will receive, then that which is commonly said—"not what we wish, but what is given"—no longer holds, because the will is incited by the Savior to ask and to receive what it has asked. But they say that this is of fate, so that whether one asks or does not ask, nevertheless what is either evil or good from fate follows. The Lord, however, excludes this by saying: "Daughter, your faith has saved you," so that it is no longer of fate when faith receives the benefit. And again: "If you believe," he says, "all things are possible for the believer": he placed the merit in the will, of course, because it is a good of faith, not of nature. Faith, however, is an adventitious thing, which stirs the will to exercise, so that, because it is not in nature, the will, which is in nature, having taken up faith, establishes merit for it with God.

For the nature of human beings is like a stone, which, though it does not have fire in its substance, nevertheless has it in potentiality, so that by operation it creates what it does not appear to have, because it does not exist, but is as if in a seed. Thus it is in potentiality, so that through exercise it is generated, and if exercise is lacking, it is not, because even a seed, unless it is exercised, does not generate, but remains alone. Therefore, an addition causes it to generate. So too, a human being does not have faith in his nature, but the seed of faith, which, unless it has been provoked and exercised, will not give fruit, that is, he will not have faith. For those who believe in the fables of the mathematicians destroy the seed of faith, which bears witness both to the creator and to his justice. For the work acknowledges the craftsman and testifies that he loves what he has made with equal right. Therefore, we warn that this art is to be fled by all means. For those who are curious about it are both enemies of God and are never without anxiety; for they are always in suspense, waiting for what they know to be uncertain. But we, who believe that all things are prosperous from God and that, if any adversities arise, they are suppressed by his will, let us live simply, secure in his protection, yet not unaware that, even if something adverse happens to us while we are acting well, it will, when endured, contribute to a crown.

CXVI. THE RATIONALE OF PASCHA. Pascha, most beloved brothers, is named from the passion, as the prefiguration of this tradition teaches us, which was made in Egypt through the servant of God Moses, the scripture saying: “The sacrifice of this pascha is the Lord’s.” What, then, is the rationale that the sacred mystery was celebrated through blood and the restoration of life through death, so that, when death thought it would make an increase, it was diminished and flowed away upon receiving the Savior’s blood, and when it judged itself to have acted with power, it perished enfeebled? For death’s death was found through its own work by divine providence, so that, because it always wills evil, it was yielded to for a time, so that, destroyed by its own work in justice, it could not complain that the kingdom had been taken from it. For although God can do all things, He does nothing that is absurd to reason. For the justice which He demands, He also performs, not presuming upon His power. Great, therefore, is the providence toward the human race, that, preserving justice, He might thus release those who had been justly condemned and rescue man from death, although he was held not undeservedly. But because he had been deceived by the envy of the devil, it was just that he be aided. For he was held by God’s sentence, but Satan had wrought this. Hence, just as it seemed just to rescue him, so it was unjust to do this through power, neglecting justice. For man, conquered by the persuading devil, was receiving mercy, as though the accuser devil were contradicting.

Therefore it came about that he who gloried in man's sin was caught sinning, so that at last, having been made guilty, he would not dare to contradict. Thus it happened that the Son of God was born a man and, by preaching justice, provoked the devil, because he was turning men away from his vices, so that he even killed him who knew no sin. Then he was found to have sinned, and more gravely indeed, than the man he was accusing. For when, by God's decree, he claimed man for himself because of sin—since he who sins is partly of the devil—he was found to have sinned more, when he killed the one who had not sinned, so that he might usurp him for himself through death. Therefore, into death came destruction, and so that blood might be recovered, blood was shed, because, as I said, death, which is the devil, since he was found to have sinned in the death of the Savior, lost his blood along with that of all of us. For just as through one sinning Adam he held all in death, so through one not sinning he lost all. Therefore, the blood of the Savior, unjustly shed, obtained this as the reward of its price: that, recovering the blood of its origin with triumph, it recalled it to its former state, with its substance improved. For death, having been conquered, could not contradict the one who had conquered it. So blessed is the mystery of Pascha, which redeemed our blood through death, death having been vanquished by death, just as poison is customarily overcome by poison.

CXVII. ON ABRAHAM. The faith of this patriarch was so exceptional and admirable that all other righteous men acknowledge him, by God’s judgment, as the father of this belief, and there is no one worthy and dear to God unless he has been called his son. For the prerogative of his honor and merit is faith, which, when he does not hesitate to give it to unbelievable things, he among other things also proved worthy to see the Savior in the form of the future incarnation at that time, as the Lord says and proves to the Jews: “Your father Abraham desired to see my day, and he saw it and rejoiced.” For he who by merit became the father of faith, it was fitting that he should foresee the hope of his future sons, which, by the grace of a propitious and provident God, would flow down as an inheritance from a humane and pious father to obedient sons. Let us now see what this faith believed, so that it might attain such honor and glory by divine judgment. For we have praised the faith, but what it believed we have not yet said. For the Lord, leading him out, showed him the stars of the sky and said: “If you can count them, so will your seed be.” And Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him for righteousness; it would not be a great thing to have believed God, except that what he believed the world judges as not to be believed and foolish, because this is not in the hope of nature. Hence Abraham, one from the world, because he believed this, was separated from worldly men and justified.

Therefore, having believed this makes the wisdom of the world seem great in its faithlessness, but against its hope, having believed this is of the greatest merit. For the despair of worldly things is the merit and hope of Christians. For the cause of good things makes the reward of evil things; for faith is stronger and fuller when it entrusts itself more to unbelievable things. For a man already withered and with an elderly wife believed he would have offspring, which could not be counted due to abundance, not so much looking at what was shown, but deeming that the one who showed it could not lie. And therefore it was assigned to him as righteousness. For it is foolish to believe an absurd thing and one known to be impossible, unless there is a person who persuades one to believe it. Hence Abraham is of both admirable faith and skilled judgment, while he believes what is unbelievable and entrusts himself to one whom it is both foolish and dangerous not to believe. For this proves our faith reasonable, because it believes not about another but about God that he can do what he promises. Therefore this is the bulwark of faith, this is the triumph. Indeed, perceiving this, the wise men of the world, because the nature of things cannot do this, say it is foolish to believe, not knowing that according to the apostle, what is foolish of God is wiser than men. For they would justly judge us foolish if we believed this about the nature of things, which is proven impossible. Moreover, however, those things which the nature of things cannot do, we believe God can do and will do, if he has promised. What foolishness can be detected in this matter?

But if the work is unworthy of God, which is believed to be possible, then faith is rightly compared to dullness; but if it is worthy, by reason of what is impossible for creation, why should faith not be praised, which attributes as much to the Creator as creation is denied the power to do? Great and admirable, therefore, is Abraham, who did not hesitate to believe God against the judgment of the world, because He is able to do what He promises. A Chaldean by birth, he appeared as a teacher of credulity: although skilled in astrology, he nevertheless placed God above human counsel, deeming it worthy that this be believed of God, which cannot be investigated as to how it comes about. For he confirmed his own weakness by the power of God, because He intended to do, in order to attest to the unique greatness of His majesty, those things which are impossible and unheard of in the world, by which act He would show Himself to be the lord of creation, and creation would subject itself to Him, whose work would seem impossible to all others, by whose unbelief the most faithful Abraham is all the more exalted. For his faith is the punishment of unbelievers, and the perfidy of unbelievers is his glory; for he is the father of the faithful and the judge of the unfaithful. By his example, indeed, the good are granted eternal life, and the evil will be given eternal punishments. For at that time, when the world was still small in knowledge and not yet illuminated by signs and wonders which would draw to faith, he did not deny faith to God against his own knowledge.

Therefore, the holy Abraham was given as the most faithful example to the human race. For in him all nations were prefigured as coming to salvation through faith. So that the superabundant growth of his faith might be known, he is tested and ordered to sacrifice his own son to God—something that had never been done—and he is neither disturbed by the novelty of the matter nor does he argue whether a parricide ought to be committed at God's command, when God had commanded that homicide not be committed. Thus, fearless and secure in God's will, he does not hesitate that what God commands is provident—even this son, whom two elders had received by promise, the reward of faith, the sign of merits, and in whom all hope of future offspring by promise was held. To fulfill this with complete devotion, he did not inform the boy's mother, lest she cause any hindrance to his dedication, knowing that mothers are more prone to affection for their children; therefore he concealed it from her, not doubting that what God commands must be fulfilled, so that by this example we might be taught to carry out God's commands with all care.

If indeed the most faithful Abraham is found obedient in such a grave and harsh matter, how much more so we, to whom those things are commanded which can be borne! O faith dedicated to God and hope firm in the Lord, which is so dear and sweet that it is set above the affections for parents and children, as Scripture says: taste and see how sweet the Lord is! Our patriarch, however, the most faithful Abraham, because he was a prophet, knew what he ought to follow. Therefore, according to what the Lord now said, he then did, so that he might prefer God in love to his son, however beloved, as the Lord says: if anyone loves father or mother or children more than me, he is not worthy of me. Hence the patriarch, in order to be worthy of the Lord above all others, did not even refuse to kill his son. CXVIII. ON JOB. Great is the love, most beloved brothers, of almighty God toward the human race, which, when understood, indeed leads to the heavenly kingdoms, but when not understood, leads down to the underworld. For God wishes his benefit to be welcome and fruitful, so that it may profit us and that it may delight him to show mercy.

Therefore, because He is good and wishes all men to be saved, He demonstrated to us an example of justice in His servant Job, as the present reading attests, so that by following it we may be able both to lack evil and to attain good, not only free from punishment but also rewarded. How admirable, then, is the most holy Job, who before the law was published in writing showed by his works the pattern of the law, learning no documents in this matter, but with nature itself as guide—to which God decreed that the seeds of justice should be innately present—he preserved reverence for the Creator with pious devotion! How worthy of praise, then, is he, and with what words ought his deeds to be extolled, since we can find no one equal to him either before the law or after the law? Although if anyone could marvel at his deeds, he would not be comparable to him nor rightly be called his like. For it was not his own that he had so excelled, because he had followed another's example. But holy Job, since he had seen nothing of the sort nor read it in books, presented himself in such a way that he had nothing of another's conferred upon himself, but rather conferred form upon others, providing a pattern of marvelous deeds for meriting the Lord. Wherefore he is also commended by the Lord's testimony, saying: "Have you taken note of my servant Job? There is no one like him on earth, a true worshiper of God.

He who was able to merit so much, to whom the Lord bears such testimony, unless it be this man, who is found not as an imitator but as the author of those things which he did? Hence he is also declared a true worshiper of God. For no simulation of feigned truth can be seen in him who has no such predecessor. For everyone who feigns, feigns that which is observed to be imitated. And yet, beyond all these things, still greater are the things which are said. For in these praises there were no proofs of tribulations, but a purpose dedicated to God, established in exercise and observances. And because this did not seem sufficient to the tempter for a crown of merits, he asked that he be permitted to test his righteousness through various temptations, so that, constrained in many ways, he might somewhere become entangled and be able to exceed the limit, since diverse punishments are customarily inflicted upon sinners for this reason: that, because no one can bear all torments, some one of them might draw forth from him a confession of the truth.

Therefore it was permitted to the tempter to destroy and lay waste everything of his, even to the death of his children, so that if he bore the loss of cattle, he would not bear the loss of sheep; or if he bore the loss of sheep as well, he would not bear the loss of camels, nor of slaves, nor of his entire substance; or if, because he was of great spirit and of sufficiently pure devotion, he were not overcome by all these things, then surely, compelled by the force of affection and love, he would be broken by the simultaneous death of all his children. But because, before the law was given, he had the law written in his heart, no losses nor bereavements diminished him in his devotion to God, so that he might give an example that God is to be loved with one's whole heart above all things. How great a glory, then, does he deserve, who kept the law before the law, so that he might demonstrate, not in words but as an agent in deeds, how the law, which was to come, was to be observed! And because the tempter is irreverent, and this glory did not seem sufficient to him for testing the just man, unless he should contrive something else against him which he knew could not be borne by a man, he asks again that he himself might strike him with a savage wound from head to foot. And when this was permitted, because faith ought not to be given to him, it was commanded to him that he should preserve his soul for the sake of free will, lest he dare to do anything violent against him whom he could not overcome by the right of reason.

Having thus received the power, the cruelty of his savagery, growing fierce again within him, struck the just man with a very great plague, so that there was nothing in his body that was immune from a wound—something no man could endure except Job alone, who was able to overcome Satan. And when even thus the devil’s wickedness could elicit nothing from the just man against God, he remembered his former cunning, by which he deceived Adam, to see if he could also deceive this man through his wife, because a person is easily deceived through a member of his own household. And in all these things, making no progress—indeed, suffering loss—the utterly shameless Satan found the servant of God not only unmoved, but also a teacher. For placed in such necessity, he not only persisted in his fear of God, but also, rebuking his wife who was suggesting the contrary, taught that all things that happen by God’s permission must be endured bravely. This redounds to the double punishment of the improvident Satan, because he neither persuaded this man of what he wished, and while envying him, he caused others to learn what he did not even want this man to know.

How much, therefore, temptation by God benefits his servants and harms the devil, we are more fully taught by this reading. For when he thinks he is harming them, he advances them, and when he persecutes one, he provokes many. For seeing that this man is protected by God’s help, many become his imitators. Thus, wishing to make a gain, he lost; for his fury is always damaging to him. For while he does not allow the just to exist lest they be rewarded, he makes them more worthy, and when he envies the holy Job, he doubled his merit in heaven and on earth, because he was both increased here and received into the heavens with the Savior, so that all these things redound to the glory of the saints, but to the punishment of the devil. CXVIIII. ON TOBIAS. So great is the providence of the Lord God concerning us, that, not wishing us to err, he gave both the law and examples of good works, by which a modest and tranquil life can be conducted with fear of God. For he who is the author of life certainly does not wish his own work to be subject to death. Although nature itself is not without the law, yet because the Lord is good and merciful, so that there might be greater knowledge of those things which are to be followed and of those which are to be avoided, he shows them by writings and examples, as the present reading attests.

Therefore, the holy servant of God Tobias is given to us as an example after the Law, so that we may know how what we read is to be carried out, and if temptations arise, we do not withdraw from the fear of God nor hope for help from elsewhere than from Him, mindful that it is written: I was small and I grew old, and I never saw a righteous man abandoned nor his seed seeking bread. Therefore, he who hopes with his whole mind in God can never be deceived. Although tribulations may arise for a time through the snares of Satan, the examples of holy men teach us that these are not permitted by God except for the increase of our merits, because, if they are borne with an even mind, consolation with effect will be given to us here, and in the future, eternal life with glory. For our God, because He is just, and there is no favoritism with Him, permits us to be tempted, because He loves us, so that after the labor He can give us the most ample rewards. Finally, when the Apostle was praying that temptations cease from him, the Lord said: My grace is sufficient for you; for virtue is perfected in weakness. Hence he added: When I am weak, then I am stronger, and: I rejoice, he says, in my tribulations, so that the virtue of Christ may dwell in me.

How praiseworthy the holy Tobias is, we are taught by Scripture, whose devotion neither captivity diminished nor the loss of his eyes persuaded him to bless God any the less, nor did his exhausted substance turn him from the path of righteousness and truth. For necessity tests the just man, and to preserve equity in poverty is true and perfect justice. For where the devotion of some is diminished, there the praiseworthy Tobias made increase. For poverty, it says, humbles a man; and one who is humbled cannot preserve justice. But the mind of the holy Tobias, raised up to God, was neither broken by captivity nor humbled by poverty, because even against the prohibition he gave burial to the bodies of the slain, and, secure in God’s bounty, he was merciful even from his own meager store, knowing that mercy pleases God more when it is made from little, just as that widow did whom the Lord praised in the Gospel. For this man is truly faithful, this man does not doubt God’s promises, who gives generously from little.

Therefore, consoling his spirit with hope for the future, Tobias, devoted to God, was found robust and strong in temptation, showing that in necessity one must be more vigilant in the fear of God, because if necessity does not impel one to seek God’s help, how much more does security! Therefore, certain holy men, because God has reserved for Himself the judgment of all those things that happen in this world, bore tribulations, losses, and other calamities or insults not with difficulty, but even received them gratefully, just as our apostles did, who rejoiced when beaten, because they were deemed worthy to suffer insult for the name of God. For the calamities that unjustly befall the faithful, whether in tribulations or in insults, are signs of future merits. Thus, the just Tobias pleased God so much that he obtained a reward for his merits in a twofold manner. For in the present, through the ministry of an angel, he recovered the eyesight he had lost and was also enriched with resources that pertain to the present life, and in the future he was made an heir of the kingdom of heaven, so that we might be taught by this that whoever obeys God’s law with his whole heart and does not doubt the promises, God both takes care of him in this world and grants him eternal life in the future.

There is also another thing which invites us to divine observances. For the holy Tobias not only attained the merits of his own righteousness, because there is added to the summit of his glory also that which comes from the good of those who exist as his imitators. In imitators, indeed, examples are praised, which may also come to us, if we have lived in such a way that it is worthy for us also to have imitators. CXX. ON FASTING. It is fitting, dearest brothers, that the most devoted priest of God and overseer of the people of Christ should exhort the people placed under his care in sound doctrine, as the apostle commands, so that we may perform the work of faith for the observance of the season with all care and diligence, with a cheerful and devoted spirit. For the fasts which are now to be celebrated as the feast of Easter draws near—what they profit, although it is not hidden, still ought not to be passed over in silence. For devotion is stirred up when those things which, though not unknown, are nevertheless reviewed. For such is the nature of our character, that it grows sluggish if the practice of reading ceases, because just as iron, unless it has been used, generates rust, so also the soul, unless it has more frequently exercised itself in divine readings, sins arise in it. Hence it is that in the psalm it calls blessed the one who meditates on the law of the Lord day and night.

Finally, although the divine utterances are known, yet when they are recalled in the sacred volumes, the devout heart receives them as if new. For the soul's desire for salutary works is aroused. Hence the Apostle, among other things, says to Timothy: "to rekindle," he says, "the grace of God which is in you." Therefore, fasts are necessary for us, just as medicine is for wounds. For they confer the remedy of eternal life, yet in such a way that they are commended by the testimony of two things, namely prayer and mercy. Fasts, therefore, mitigate the intemperance of the body, repress adverse motions, and remove the oppression of the soul, just as the Lord says: "Do not be given over to food and gluttony, lest your hearts be weighed down." For when the soul has been freed from food and drink, then it recognizes itself better. For just as in a dirty mirror a man does not see himself as he is, so also, if he has been weighed down by food and gluttony, he feels himself other than he is. Then lust is aroused, anger is kindled, pride is inflamed, and luxury is generated. Hence the Apostle says: "Do not," he says, "get drunk on wine, in which there is luxury." But if the body has been disciplined by the interposition of a fast, the soul, having recovered self-knowledge, understands with what devotion it ought to obey the Redeemer.

Fasts are therefore for the most part necessary. For under Queen Esther, when the Jewish people were placed in danger, they were delivered by the support of fasts. And the Ninevites, when they heard from the prophet the prescribed day of their destruction, merited escape by imposing a fast. And our righteous men and prophets, when they wished to obtain something from God, humbled themselves by fasting, as David says: "I humbled my soul by fasting." For even the Savior, who had no need, fasted in order to give us an example. Thus there is no doubt that fasts are beneficial. For in this way a person shows that he wishes to obtain what he requests, when he afflicts himself by fasting. Whence it is said: "Prayer with fasting is good." So that prayer may be acceptable, it desires the support of fasting; and because none of these things is firm without piety, it added: "and almsgiving," it says, "with justice," so that almsgiving, preserving justice, commends prayer with fasting. Finally, the mercy of Cornelius commended prayer and fasting. For he himself, abounding in resources, fasted, but also fed those who had nothing, so that their fullness made his fast acceptable. Therefore, some need fasting, and some must lack it, so that it may merit what it requests.

O holy and salutary day of Pascha, to be proclaimed with every praise, on which death was conquered, the kingdom taken from the devil; the sacrament of God was made manifest, the decree that was against us was annulled; the gates of Tartarus were broken, the bound were freed, the confined were released, the blind were enlightened, the ignorant were granted knowledge, the impious were made merciful, the unjust just; remission was given to sinners, reconciliation of enemies, correction of error, declaration of truth; sons of God were acquired from the lost; pride was cast down, humility exalted; the poor were enriched, the rich drained; mountains were leveled, valleys filled, hills laid low; shamelessness was trampled, modesty fostered; the faculty for souls to go to heaven was given, liberty restored, captivity broken and dissolved; darkness grew numb, malice was confounded, squalor purified; Satan was cast down, hell emptied, our Lord Christ Jesus, true Son of God, approved, flesh, to the confusion of the wise of the world, borne up into the heavens, the celestial, terrestrial, and infernal realms shown to belong to one God and Lord!

Therefore, dearest brothers, we ought to celebrate and venerate this festal day, devoted to God, with modesty of life and joy of spirit, avoiding shameful and dishonorable things, so that we may merit to attain the fruit of Pascha through Christ our Lord, to whom is honor and glory forever and ever. Amen. CXXII. ON THE BEGINNING. In the beginning was the Word. What is "in the beginning"? Because we read also in the old books: "In the beginning God made heaven and earth," and in the epistle of him whose gospel it is, concerning whose beginning we attempt to say something, it is signified in the same sense; for he says: "that which was from the beginning." Therefore the epistle and the gospel have one sense. For it is one thing that it says in the Old: "In the beginning God made heaven and earth," and another when it says: "In the beginning was the Word," and: "that which was from the beginning." For "in the beginning" to be and "from the beginning" to be signify one thing, because that which was from the beginning did not begin to be. For that which begins to be was not from the beginning and therefore is subject to "beginning," so that it is said: "it began to be in the beginning," that is, so that among other things it is first in order, because it itself, made in the beginning, began to have others after itself, which were made after it, as we read, because in the beginning God made heaven and earth.

He did not say: "In the beginning were heaven and earth," because, when they were not and God was planning to make the world, "in the beginning," that is, among the other things which contributed to the construction of the world, he first made "heaven and earth," since a beginning is the start of something that is beginning, which is first in order. But that which is said, that in the beginning was, that is, the Word, is signified to have existed before the commencement of supernal and infernal creation, so that it would not be understood as having been made first among those things which were created, because it was in the beginning, when God was planning to make creation. Therefore, if it was in the beginning, that is, before all things, it always was, and therefore it was also the Word. "It was with God," he says, so that it might not be unworthily considered subject to a beginning, since it always was with God. For it is fitting that what was with God before all things be subject to no beginning. Hence he also added: "And the Word was God." Now he shows clearly that what was said above pertains to the Word, because "the Word is God," he says, and concerning God one ought not to think otherwise than that he is said to have always existed. For if he began, he is a creature; if he is a creature, he is not God. For whatever exists is either God or a creature, and for this reason the name of God does not befit a creature. But because he did not begin to exist—for he was—he is rightly called God.

Now, as for God, it is said to have always existed because it is not from itself, but from God it is God. For this reason its name is said to be 'Word of God,' as the faith of the same evangelist demonstrates in his Revelation; for he says among other things: "and his name is the Word of God." For, so that not He Himself, from whom all things are, might be signified, but He through whom all things are—that is, not the Father but the Son—He was called 'Word of God,' so that, because God cannot be without the Word, this one, who is called 'Word of God,' might be believed to have always been with God, and, because the Word is not outside the one whose Word it is, this Word, which was with God, might be understood to be signified as not from elsewhere but from God, and, because it is from God, it is not absurdly called God. Thus, it does not make two gods that God was with God. For if there were two, they would be different in nature and not of one will. For if we humans, though we are of one nature, are nevertheless of different wills, how much more so where the nature is also different! And not even would God be said to be with God. For God, who was and is with God, does not have from itself that it is God; if it were otherwise, it would neither be said to be God with God nor would 'Word of God' be called God the Word, but because what is from God signifies nothing other than being what God is, the 'Word of God' has been named God, so that, because it is called 'Word of God,' it might not be referred to another God, but that it is called God, lest it redound to the injury of God if what was from God were not at all called God.

Therefore, both the unity of God is preserved and due honor is rendered, when the one who is God from God is received not in his own glory, but in the glory of the one from whom he is God. For this reason, the Gospel begins to speak of the Word before it speaks of God the Father, because the questions arise not concerning God, but concerning the Word of God. For no one doubts God, but rather doubts the one who is God from God. Every tongue of heavenly and earthly beings confesses one God, but is troubled in the mystery of the one God. For it trembles upon hearing that the Word of God is called 'God'; it is assailed by corporeal modes of thinking, because a human word cannot be called a human. Since God is by nature simple, not composed of parts, nor having an inside and outside, nor before and after, nor top and bottom, but—if it can be said—entirely the same through all things, never varying or dissimilar—and his one glory is immense; for if fire has no front and back or inside and outside, how much more so its creator!—therefore, because everything that is God is wholly one, it is not inconsistent when that which is from God is called God.

In part, therefore, by human example, and in part not by human example, the Son of God, who is the Word of God, is God. For by that reasoning by which the sons of men are men, the Son of God is God. But because the sons of men are men through mixture, the Son of God is not God by this example, because he was born simply from the simple God. And just as our word is from us, by this example it is understood that the Word of God is from God, but because our word is not what we are, the Word of God is not from God by this reasoning, because the Word of God is a thing, not a sound that perishes. For it is not because the words are common to us and to God that there will be one and the same reasoning for us and for God in the effect of things. For we read: "In the beginning God made heaven and earth." How did he make? Surely not as we make, by manual work? And in the following: "And God said," it says, "Let there be light; and light was made." How do we think God spoke, since he certainly did not speak to a man, but to one who was able to make, who was also going to make man, as he did? As we speak, by a bodily organ? Far from it. You see, therefore, that the words are indeed common to us and to God, but they differ in effect; for God makes otherwise than we make, and he is said to speak, but not in our manner.

And the Word of God is not such a word as ours, which after it is spoken is no more; that one endures, because it is a word which both hears and speaks and works. Moreover, it is not only the 'Word of God,' but also the 'power and wisdom of God.' This is the Son of God, who, as far as effect is concerned, is called the Son of God; but as far as the address by which God addresses us through him, he is called the Word of God; but as far as wisdom, by which God teaches us his mystery through him, he is called the wisdom of God; but as far as operation, because through him God has made and makes all things, he is called the power of God. These could belong to none other than the Son of God. For because he is God from God, he is called all things of God. For by being born, he has obtained all things of God. Nor was it fitting that the Word of God and the power and wisdom of God be called degenerate; for this is God: word, power, wisdom. Christ, however, because he is wholly from the whole God, God from God, is also called the wisdom of God and the power and the Word of God, that is, to be God from God and with God.

Therefore it says: "This was in the beginning with God." For the Scripture was compelled to break forth in order to refute the minds of unbelievers, so as to show that Christ is God. Although in every place, on account of the unity of God, it intends Christ to be understood as God, now, however, it has declared with an open voice that He is God and was always with God, revealing the mystery of God, lest He be thought to be utterly solitary. It declared that God is not called one for the reason that He is considered solitary, but that although there are two or three, yet from one, they do not prejudice unity, because what is from one is referred back to that same one, since He is one. Although all things are said to be from God, yet it is one thing that properly came forth from God, and another that was created by God's command from outside. That is, it is one thing that proceeded from His substance, and another that, when it was in no way at all, was created by His will. For what proceeded from the substance of God never was not through substance; but what was created then began to be in substance when it was created. And by this, the Trinity alone has no beginning.

Therefore, the disclosure of the mystery diminished the merit of faith, because the more hidden what is believed, the greater the reward of the believer and the lesser the penalty of the unbeliever. But the disclosure of the mystery, just as it made believers merit less, so it stirred up greater penalties for unbelievers. For a more manifest law makes one more guilty. For the testimony of the Savior had sufficed, by which he had called God his own father. For who among the believers would doubt that the Son differs in no way in substance from the Father? But because the perversity of heretics, through the fabrications of their unbelief, had begun to assail the laws of faith by understanding the Son of God otherwise than as he is proclaimed, it was added, to make a clear demonstration, that he was with God before all things and is God, so that it might declare what the true nature of the Son mystically contained, by which divine clemency seems to have provided for human weakness, so as to open what it had reserved, closed, for the merits of a stronger faith.

Hence he added, saying: all things were made through him. So that if anyone from the preceding might doubt in some respect, because human understanding is narrow for grasping divine matters, he would become capable from these things, when he hears: all things were made through him, so that he would not at all think him a creature, because he hears that all things were made through him by God. But if he himself were also a creature, he would not have said that all things were made through him by God; for he himself was not made through himself. That he might convey this even more clearly, he added: and without him, he says, nothing was made. By saying this he excluded all controversy and earthly arguments. Although there are those who distrust, nevertheless, when he shows that nothing was made without him, he taught that one should by no means suspect him to be a creature. For how can it be said that he himself is a creature, when it is said that God made nothing without him? For if he made, the Scripture lies. But far be it, because the Scripture is faithful, which, to cut off error, uses as much clarity as it can for the redemption of human salvation.

Then he added: “What was made,” he says, “in him is life.” (“In him,” that is, in the Word, indicates that what was made is life. Just as the Lord himself says: “As the Father has life in himself, so he gave also to the Son to have life in himself,” not because the Word was without life and later life was either given or made in him, but because the Word itself is to be understood as life. If it can be said of God the Father that he himself is one thing and has another in himself, so also of his Son, because “as the Father has life in himself, so he gave also to the Son to have life in himself.”) Human speech is not adequate for explaining divine matters; therefore what is said seems defective, so that, although the Son of God is not a creature, it is said that “what was made” is in him. And if it had said “what was begotten in him,” that too would have seemed defective. But in order to show his substantial generation, he demonstrated that a work was made in it, using whatever speech he could, through which it came into existence, because his generation has life in itself.

We indeed live, but we cannot give life to others, since that life is not even in our power; but He is said to have life in Himself because He is able to vivify and create what He wills, so that they may exist and live. For He is said to have been born for this purpose: that He might be able to do everything that the Father does, because He has life in Himself just as the Father has, that is, that the Father made everything through Him and in Him, and begot Him in such a way that He would have life in Himself, through which He could do everything. Not because He Himself is something other than life, but because His life has this power, that it both lives and can create other things that live, He is said to have life in Himself. For we live, but we do not have life in ourselves in such a way that we can give life to others. The Apostle Paul also recalls this meaning among other things, saying: "Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn before every creature, because in Him all things were founded in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or powers; all things were created through Him and in Him.

The Gospels of the two apostles John and Paul agree; for they say the same thing, that the Son of God was begotten before every creature, so that he might create spiritual powers and the world and the visible things in it. For what John said, that in that which was made, life is in him, Paul also signified the same thing, saying that in him all things in the heavens and on earth were established. And in the following: all things were created through him and in him. 'Through him' he created, because in substance he is the same God, that is, the Father in the Son; 'in him' indeed, because he so begot the Son that he would have the power to make all visible and invisible things. This was to have placed life in him, so that he might both live and provide life to others for living, acting, understanding, and to other living beings, according to what he willed, as the image of God. For when he is called the image of God, this refers to both, because both through an expressed nativity he has in himself the full likeness of the Father, and he can do whatever the Father can do, so that it is true that the Father is seen in the Son, who is the image of the invisible God.

Did he, because he called the Father invisible, make the Son visible, when indeed the Son is by nature what the Father is? And if the heavenly creature is invisible, how much more so their creator! But he meant that he is in the heavens, not on earth, because, although the Son is also invisible, yet there, that is in the heavens, he is seen by the apostles—or by others of that kind, concerning whom he said: "Father, I wish that where I am, these also may be with me and see my glory"; and in another place: "Blessed," he says, "are the pure in heart, for they will see God," that is, the Father in the Son, God in the image, which is God in God. Just as a bodily image is of a body, so also God's image is of God, because the Father is the exemplar, but the Son is the exemplar from the exemplar, which he communicates to the Holy Spirit: for he says, "He will receive from mine." And therefore God is seen in the Son as if in his own image. For just as no one was found worthy to open the book and its seals except the Word of God, so no one is worthy to see God the Father, neither by nature nor by merits, except his true Son. For there is nothing intermediate that stands in the way between Father and Son, with him himself as our witness who says: "For no one has seen the Father, except he who is from God; he has seen God.

But if the Father is seen in the Son, why is no one said to be worthy to see God, when He is seen in the Son, since the Son differs in nothing from the Father? He differs in nothing at all in substance, because He is a true Son; He differs, however, in cause or rank, because all power from the Father is in the Son, and, if the Son is not lesser in substance, yet the Father is greater in authority, as the Lord Himself testifies and says: “If you loved me, you would rejoice that I am going to the Father, because the Father is greater than I am.” Keeping this manner, the Apostle Paul says: “There is one God the Father, from whom are all things and we in Him, and one Lord Jesus, through whom are all things and we through Him,” so that the first rank is that from which all things are, the second that through which all things are, the third that in which all things are. And because none of these is degenerate, they are signified in the unity of God, the Apostle saying: “Since from Him and through Him and in Him are all things, glory to Him.” CXXIII. DID ADAM HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT?

I have found that some of our brethren do not fully understand the Scriptures, but with simplicity of mind assert that Adam received the Holy Spirit when he was made, which he lost when he sinned, just as it is now given to believers, led by this reasoning, which is commonly asserted by many, that through faith man is restored in such a way that, having been returned to his former state, he would receive all that Adam had obtained in the beginning, and because a perfect man ought to be said to be made, they say, 'If he did not have the Holy Spirit, he was imperfect.' I, however, say that not only man, but also all things that God made, which cannot be said to have received the Holy Spirit, are perfect. For all kinds of animals are perfect in their own kind, so that they fulfill what they were made for; so also man is perfect in his own kind, so that he is able to discern evil from good, and depraved from right. For he is an intelligible animal, perfect for what he was made; for he is capable of learning, thinking, and acting, so that what he cannot accomplish by strength he may fulfill by understanding.

And how have they dared to say that a human is born perfect and knows everything, when they see that he knows nothing beyond what is learned here? For what he does not learn here, he does not know. Indeed, since he does not learn here what he is like, he does not know. Therefore, one who does not know what he himself is like, how does he know everything, when knowing oneself is less than knowing other things? But because he learns about other things, but does not learn about himself, he knows about other things, but does not know about himself—neither what he is like, nor whether he exists before the body or after the body. For if he had been made so perfect that he needed nothing, he would not have been a human, but a god, nor would he have been deceived and transgressed. Moreover, having the Holy Spirit is beyond the nature and perfection of a human, so that he can do what pertains to God. Is it not the case that, because a donkey spoke to Balaam, that is beyond its perfection? For it received the ability to do what was not of its own nature, but of ours. Therefore, because a human is superior to other animals, are those animals to be called imperfect? Or because the holy angels are not what God is, are they imperfect? Or because the lights and stars are inferior to the higher angels, or because clouds with their covering obscure the sun and moon, are they less perfect? And because the limbs need each other, because the feet cannot do what the hands can, will they be called imperfect? Far from it. For all things, according to their places and ranks, are firm and perfect, so that they fulfill what they were made for.

Therefore all things are perfect, because their creator is perfect, but in comparison to him they are imperfect. For God is perfect in all things, as the fount and origin of all things. For things that are made are indeed perfect, but with respect to that for which they were made, so that in another respect they are not perfect, because one thing needs another, so that in that which it does not need it is perfect, not in that which it needs; and for this reason all things are both perfect and imperfect. Hands need feet, because unless they walk, hands will be idle. Again, feet need hands; for they cannot put on shoes nor tend to themselves. Therefore, although the body is perfect in its limbs, it nevertheless cannot fly, nor can it carry as much as a mule can. Although they are perfect in these respects, they nevertheless do not know how to govern themselves, nor can they apply medicine to themselves. Whence it is said: "Do not become like a horse and a mule, which have no understanding." And water and fire, although they oppose each other, are perfect in their own nature; for they fulfill that for which they were made. For fire cooks and consumes, purifies and warms; water, however, washes, cools, irrigates, and refreshes the thirsty.

Therefore, since all things are perfect in their own kind, yet without man they can do nothing, nor can man, although he is more perfect, do anything without them. Hence the apostle calls us both imperfect and perfect. For in comparison with unbelievers we are perfect, because we have come to know God; but because we know less of what is promised than we ought, and because in this life we cannot comprehend as much as that which is believed, we are imperfect. Therefore, since they think that the perfection of Adam is restored to believers, let us see whether this restoration has any more of the divine gift than Adam had obtained. For Adam was made and placed in paradise, to work there and to guard it. That is, to cultivate the earth and to keep the commandments of God, through which he would know that he had received dominion over all things, yet he himself would live under the law of the creator, lest dominion exalt him and, puffed up with pride, he become forgetful of his maker. He was placed, therefore, so that his life might be sustained by foods; but through Christ it has been granted that, when we rise again, we will not need food or drink, because what is mortal in man will be transformed into life. Adam was made to dwell on earth; but faith has deigned to grant that our dwelling is in the heavens.

The Scripture itself bears witness, for it says: the first man, Adam, was made into a living soul, but the second man into a life-giving spirit. The first, it says, man from the earth, earthly; the second man from heaven, heavenly: as the earthly is, so also are the earthly; as the heavenly is, so also are the heavenly. What is so clear as that Adam did not have the Holy Spirit? For he was made into a living soul, but through Christ into a life-giving spirit, so that man might be in some part like the creator and be what he believes. For because the mystery of faith, which is given for salvation, is threefold, man is made threefold: body, soul, and Holy Spirit, through which we are called sons of God, which Adam is shown not to have been called; for he was made earthly. But the sons of God, not carnally but spiritually born, are called heavenly. Behold, it is settled that the gift of God granted much more grace at the time of the Savior than Adam had received, because he was not only restored but also improved: restored in that he was washed clean of sins, improved in all other respects.

For both justice and reason demanded that God’s mercy be more abundant in bestowing benefits at the time when He wished to make the mystery of His divinity known to creation, so that those who recognize—what had been unknown through the ages and generations—that the sacrament of the one God consists in a Trinity, might, as it were, by way of a dedication of this novelty, be washed clean of sins, and moreover be justified and, adopted by God, receive the Holy Spirit, through whom they may appear to bear the sign of adoption. For those adopted by God ought to bear the sign of God the Father, so that they may not undeservedly be called sons of God. This gift was promised through the prophets, that it would be given when the mystery of God was to be declared in the triumph over conquered death, so that creation might know that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God. Hence the Evangelist also says: “The Spirit,” he says, “was not given, because Jesus had not yet been glorified.” For this glorification is when, through His own power, He is recognized to be what He testified about Himself; and this glorification gave the gift that had been promised through the prophet Joel. For God says: “In the last days I will pour out my Spirit upon all flesh,” and so forth.

And the apostle, among other things: "But when," he says, "the kindness and humanity of our saving God appeared, He saved us not by works of righteousness which we performed, but according to His mercy, through the bath of regeneration and renewal, through the Holy Spirit, whom He poured out abundantly upon us through Christ Jesus our Savior, so that, justified by His grace, we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life." The apostle confirmed what had been promised through the prophet Joel, because after Jesus was glorified, God fulfilled this, that He would pour out the Holy Spirit upon those who believe in Christ, and that to "become an heir of eternal life" is to receive the Holy Spirit, so that, because the Spirit is eternal, he who has received it may have eternal life; for it is a pledge of immortality. For he who has received it and remains in its love, after this life is ended, passes into the heavens to Him whose Spirit he has. For it is incongruous that he who departs from here having the Holy Spirit should be held among the dead. For the Spirit of Christ is a sign in man of Christ's victory, by which He conquered death, so that he in whom His Spirit is cannot be held among the dead.

And so in the ancient saints the Holy Spirit was not present as it now is in the faithful, because when they departed from this world they were among the dead, and it cannot be said that the Holy Spirit, on account of the sin of Adam—which through the transmission of the race made all his offspring subject to the dead—was at the same time held by the sentence given to Adam. Therefore, that the Holy Spirit was with the prophets and righteous men is not in doubt: with the prophets on account of the dispensation, with the righteous, however, by reason of their sanctity, as is read concerning Saint Symeon, because the Spirit, it says, was with him, not as a sign of adoption in him, but by grace of his merits; for the faithful began to be sons of God only when the Son of God was manifested, death having been conquered for all creation. But if it is said that the Holy Spirit was in Adam or the others as it now is in the faithful, what new gifts did God give when He dedicated the kingdom of His Son in us? And how is the time of the Savior’s advent called happy and blessed above others, if it provided what had already been provided? And where is that which the Savior says to the disciples: "Many," he says, "prophets and righteous men desired to see what you see and to hear what you hear, and they did not hear"?

By what reasoning, then, can it be said that the blessedness of this time contributed no greater gift than was contributed to the ancients? This indeed redounds to the injury of the Savior, as if he had nothing new which, at the beginning of his reign, he might bestow upon those who receive him, when even the wealthy are accustomed to strive to give choice gifts to those invited on the festive day of their birth. How great, then, is the injury to the Lord, that he, who invited men to a new and unheard-of festival, worthy of all praise, should be said to have had no novel gifts to bestow! And what of that saying of the evangelist John: He came into his own, and his own did not receive him; but as many as did receive him, he gave them the power to become sons of God, to those who believe in his name, who are born not from blood nor from the will of the flesh nor from the will of a husband, but from God? Therefore, how is it not unusual what God gave to those believing in Christ, when he gave them the power to become sons of God, that is, brothers of his own proper Son, not from the will of flesh and blood or of a husband, but from God, so that they might be born spiritually? Or if this grace is proven to have been granted before, then let it be said that the coming of Christ contributed nothing new.

Adam was certainly a carnal and earthly creation, not a spiritual one. For he was not born from God without flesh and blood, but was made by God from the earth. And therefore he could not receive the Holy Spirit, since he was not spiritual and was not granted the ability to call God the Father in prayer. For those who receive the Holy Spirit are given the power, by virtue of having the Spirit of God, to address the Father of Christians in prayer. Because this was not granted before, they cannot be said to have possessed the Holy Spirit earlier. Therefore, those who think that Adam or the others had the Holy Spirit do not know what a gift of God they have, nor can they give fitting thanks to Him, since those who receive more than others claim they have obtained nothing additional. CXXIIII. THE SAME WORK IS JUDGED DIFFERENTLY ACCORDING TO PERSONS, EITHER IN PRAISE OR IN CONDEMNATION. Mercy is one and the same in the rich and in the poor, but it is accounted differently to the rich and to the poor, because it is more praiseworthy in the poor than in the rich. For the poor man, from his meager resources, did not fear to give, hoping for a reward from God both in the present and in the future. For he believes the Scripture which says that he who gives to the poor will not be in need. Hence that poor woman, while the rich were sending many gifts, alone merited praise from the Lord, because she did not fear to give from her poverty. The rich, however, give confidently from their wealth, but the poor man is confident in the Lord.

The rich therefore do well when they give to the needy, but the poor do much better, and accordingly the reward of the poor is one thing and that of the rich another. For the rich, if they do not do this, will be beaten; from the poor, however, so much is not demanded, and therefore a poor person who is merciful is praiseworthy. Theft in a poor person and a rich person is one sin, but it makes the rich person more guilty, because the poor person commits theft out of need, whereas the rich person, though having abundance, not content with his own, takes what belongs to another. And, what is worse, they are accustomed to despoil the poor: and accordingly the punishment of each differs. The justice of a poor person and a rich person is one, but it is more praiseworthy in a poor person. For preserving justice in need is a magnificent thing; the rich person, however, seems to preserve justice because he is free from want. Therefore both are just, but it is greater to preserve justice in necessity. Pride is one, but it is more to be condemned in a poor person than in a rich person, because the rich person is puffed up by wealth, whereas a poor person proud in need is a matter of madness, and accordingly the poor person is more guilty.

Humility is one, but it is more praiseworthy in the rich. For what great thing is it if a poor man appears humble, whom poverty itself makes humble? But it is magnificent if he who is commended by rank and wealth bows himself, not claiming for himself what he knows he does not merit. Therefore, in all things humility is good, but much more so in the rich. Learning and study have one cause, but they are more praiseworthy in the rich. For the poor man, when commended by no prerogative, applied himself so that he might have something by which he could be sought out; but the rich man, when he was not lacking in something by which he might be commended, by applying effort increased himself, so that he might be necessary in a twofold manner; for he was not called away by his resources, nor did he withdraw his mind, so that he might flourish less on his own account; therefore he is more worthy of praise than the poor man, who, if he had given no attention to studies, would have remained worthless in all respects. In the one, then, will made him eager for study; in the other, necessity. Lust in the poor and the rich is the same, but it is more damnable in the poor than in the rich. For poverty itself ought to recall the poor man from the desire of luxury; for he ought to think that he does not have the means to fulfill it, and, while he hastens to fulfill it, he must necessarily commit many other evils, by which perhaps he will not even escape in the present, or certainly, consuming even what he has, he will remain a beggar with disgrace. But the abundance of pleasures provokes the rich man to the voluptuousness of lust; moreover, because they are secure about impunity, knowing that judgments are venal, and that they are not reproved by anyone.

For who would dare to reproach a man supported by rank and wealth? Hence they are more inflamed, so that they act even more violently. For they are not only not reproached at all, but are held in great honor, so that they can even boast because they are such. 8. But if both, that is, the poor man and the rich man, are chaste, the chastity of the rich man differs greatly from the chastity of the poor man. For humility can restrain the poor man from being able to fulfill what he desires, or fear of the laws; but the rich man, when he can be lured to pleasure by many supporting causes, is praiseworthy if he turns his mind away from this. Therefore the chaste rich man is worthy of one reward, and the chaste poor man of another. But if a king is chaste, it is very glorious, so that, having everything in his power, he does not touch what he knows can be done by him with impunity. This man truly fears God, this man truly keeps his precepts, who, having the laws in his power, contemplates the future judgment of God. Thus it is a great thing that, when in the present he has no one to fear, he overcomes what pleases him, since pleasure can do so much that it fears not only future things but even present ones not at all. Hence those who overcome it deserve much, but more so this man, who in the present rules over laws and men. For the rest fear both men and laws, and therefore they keep their resolve.

For they do not blush before men; they preserve what they have long held, and, lest they be condemned, they abstain from forbidden things. But this man, who through his domination fears neither laws nor blushes before men, it is a great glory if he abstains. CXXV. Against Eusebius. I recall having read in a certain booklet of Eusebius, once an outstanding man in other respects, that not even the Holy Spirit knows the mystery of the nativity of the Lord Jesus Christ, and I marvel that a man of such great learning inflicted this stain upon the Holy Spirit. For in saying this, he signified that the Spirit is degenerate. For it cannot be said of God that He does not know what belongs to God, because an inferior nature does not know what exists in a superior one. But if He is of the same substance and divinity, how can He be ignorant of what is His own? Finally, the Son of God says, "For I and the Father are one," on account of the unity of substance; not undeservedly he added, saying: "All that is the Father's is mine, and all that is mine is the Father's.

Therefore, if the Holy Spirit is of the same divinity, on what principle is he separated, so that he is not of the same knowledge, when it is not denied that he is of the same substance? You grant what is greater and withhold what is lesser. For a creature learns and begins to know something about its author, and the things it has learned are common with its author; but substance or divinity cannot be common to God and a creature. For the substance of God has nothing to learn, because there is nothing it does not know; but the substance of men does not have knowledge by nature, but learns. Thus knowledge comes to human nature, yet the substance is not changed, because human nature lacks knowledge; for substance was so constituted that it acquires knowledge through practice. Therefore substance is greater than knowledge, because knowledge does not acquire substance, but substance acquires knowledge; and substance exists without knowledge, yet knowledge cannot exist without substance. In God, however, just as there is substance, so also there is knowledge; for substance, which has nothing to learn, is itself knowledge to itself. Hence all things in God are called substantial. For substance, which lacks nothing, possesses everything substantially, because nothing has come to it through study.

How, then, can it be said of the Holy Spirit that he does not know the birth of the Son of God, if he is consubstantial with him? Can one and the same substance both know and not know? Certainly the Son of God did not learn the mystery of his own birth; he knows it substantially, not through teaching. By what reasoning, then, is the Holy Spirit said not to know, when likewise he himself has nothing to learn, because he knows all things through substance? For just as the Son of God, so also the Holy Spirit is the substance of God, as the Lord says: "All things that are the Father's are mine," by which he signified that the substance of God the Father is his own substance; and he says that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and receives from his own: "And therefore," he says, "I said: 'He will receive from mine,' because all things that are the Father's are mine." If he proceeds from the Father and receives from the Son, how does he not know the Son's birth, when his substance is the Son's substance? For all things that are the Father's are the Son's. Without doubt, therefore, the Father's substance is in the Holy Spirit. For the Son added, saying: "And all things that are mine are the Father's.

Why, then, is there doubt about the Holy Spirit, whether he is of the same divinity, when he is of the same substance? For just as the Lord said of himself that he proceeded from God, so also he testifies concerning the Holy Spirit. And lest this be interpreted otherwise: "He proceeds from the Father," he says, and "He will receive from me," so that proceeding from the Father is the same as receiving from Christ. For when it is said that he receives from the Son of God, it is not doubted that he himself is also from God, so that in the Holy Spirit the substance and divinity of the Father are not doubted. Therefore, whoever says that this one does not know the birth of the Son of God detracts from the one from whom he is said to have received. For he received nothing other than what he himself is, from whom he received, because having received from Christ signifies having proceeded from God, and therefore he cannot be ignorant of what the one from whom he received knows, nor should he be said to be ignorant of God, because he proceeded from God. Certainly the Son of God, because he is from God the Father, knows all things of God: why, then, is the Holy Spirit denied knowledge of those things which are Christ's, since he received from him? Therefore, if the Son of God knows what is in God, there is no doubt that the Holy Spirit also does not ignore what is in the Son of God, and, by virtue of knowing what is in the Son, he should not be said to be ignorant of what is in God. For from the one from whom he received, he has knowledge of God.

And why do we labor, when there is a witness in this matter, the apostle saying: No one knows what is in God except the Spirit of God? Behold, in what we have long sweated, we have fulfilled with the apostle’s help. And did this prejudice the Son of God, because he said that no one knows what is in God except the Spirit of God? Far from it. Thus neither did the Son prejudice the Holy Spirit, when he said: No one knows the Father except the Son. For he said that no one knows what is in God except him who is from God, because everything that is from God knows God and what is in God. For the nature of God itself knows itself; and when you understand that this nature is also in the Holy Spirit, by reason of the fact that he proceeded from the Father and received from the Son, it is not safe to say that he does not know the Father God, whose nature you recognize in him. And yet the Savior said that no one knows God except the Son in such a way that he reserved knowledge of this for another person. For he immediately added, saying: And to whom the Son wishes to reveal. To whom, do you think, does the Son wish to reveal? For no one can be dearer to him than his own Spirit, because if anyone, he says, does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not his. Therefore, how do you think the Father God was revealed by the Son to the Holy Spirit, except in the way that the Lord himself said: He will receive from me? For the Father God cannot be revealed to a creature, because it cannot bear the nature of God unless it is of the same substance; for he dwells in inaccessible light, at least for a creature.

But to some it seems that the Holy Spirit is rightly said not to know the mystery of the Son of God’s birth, because he is said to search all things, and “he who searches,” they say, “certainly does not know.” This must be understood from another passage; for these are the words of God, among other things, saying: “I am God, who searches reins and hearts,” and in the Psalm: “Searching,” it says, “hearts and reins, God,” and the Apostle: “He who searches,” he says, “hearts, knows what the Spirit desires,” because he petitions according to God’s will for the saints. By these examples, when the Spirit of God is said to search, it signifies not ignorance. He is even said to search “the deep things of God”: and what are the deep things of God, which he is said to see through? For “to search” signifies to penetrate hidden things, so that through this nothing is believed to be hidden from him. For the deep mysteries of God are the inner things of God, which cannot be searched by a creature. For he is also read to petition according to God’s will for the saints, which the saints certainly do not know, as the Apostle says: “For what we should pray, as we ought, we do not know.” Therefore, to know the deep things of God and not to be ignorant of God’s will mean the same thing. For what mystery is so deep as the will of God, which is known to the Holy Spirit, but unknown to all others?

It must be observed, however, in what manner it is said that no one knows what is in a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him. He signified the spirit as the mind, because no one knows what is in a man's mind except his own mind, which is the spirit. So also in God, no one knows what things are except the Spirit of God, that is, God Himself. For that which is from God is understood to be nothing other than what God is. Therefore, the Spirit of God knows what is in God, because it is from God. For if no one knows the thoughts of men except God, how much more can no one know the secrets and will of God unless he is from God, that is, the same God Himself! For He alone is known to Himself. For assuredly, in God there are no thoughts. He does not deliberate within Himself what He should do or what He should not do, considering whether it is expedient, because all things that are in God are without doubt, not by accident but by substance, not by effort but by nature, because He does not change. And through this, the Holy Spirit knows the mysteries of God in no other way than through substance; for one substance has one sense and will.

He speaks of God, who is always one and immutable, both in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. For what the Father wills, the Son also wills, and what the Son wills, the Holy Spirit also wills. For this reason, it is sometimes called the Spirit of God, sometimes the Spirit of Christ, because, it says, it proceeds from God, and: it will receive from me. Hence it is that the apostle John says: from this we know that God abides in us, from his Spirit, which he gave to us. Therefore, if by the Spirit of God abiding in us, God is said to abide in us, God is signified to be the Spirit of God. Finally, this is the sign of believers, that they are sons of God, so that, when they receive this, they dare to call themselves sons of God. For unless they have the sign of divinity, they cannot be called sons of God; because one is not a true son of God, so as to be whole from whole, as Christ is, but they become sons of God by adoption, so that, receiving the Spirit of Christ, they are called sons of God through him, by that which is from God, the Spirit whom they have in themselves. For in sons, although they are adoptive, the substance of the father must be seen in some part.

In the world, because things are imperfect, sons adopted by men receive no pledge, but only the name; God, however, because he is perfect, does more, so that he gives his Spirit to those adopted, through whom those adopted by him may seem to have some truth, because names without realities are empty. Our Apostle supports this assertion of ours, saying: O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and unsearchable his ways! What is it that, although elsewhere he says that the deep things of God, that is, his secrets, are searchable, in this place he denies it, saying they are inscrutable? But in this place he spoke concerning the creature, because the secrets or judgments of God are inscrutable to it; concerning the Holy Spirit, however, because it knows all things of God, he said that all things which are in God are searchable, so that what is unknown to the creature, he asserts that the Spirit of God does not ignore. Therefore, the nature of God cannot be denied to exist, which has knowledge of that which cannot be comprehended by the creature.

Those who call the Holy Spirit degenerate assail God’s design, who declared that the salvation of the whole creation consists in the divinity of the Trinity, because, if He is not consubstantial with God and Christ, it is unfitting to place Him in the number of the Father and the Son, so that without Him there is neither salvation nor dignity for anyone. For if He is not of the same divinity, it was done either foolishly or as a favor, which is unthinkable. For what prudent person would deny that the creator cannot be numbered with the creature, nor the eternal compared with that which has a beginning, nor the lord equated with a slave, nor the powerful set alongside the powerless, nor the wise classed with the ignorant? But let the slander cease now. For He is third in order, not in nature; in rank, not in divinity; in person, not in ignorance. For just as the Son of God is second from the Father and is not lesser in divinity, so also the Holy Spirit, following from the Son, is not unequal but equal in the divinity of substance.

Finally, what we read about the Son of God, we also read about the Holy Spirit, with the Spirit Himself as our witness. For He says: "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Paraclete, the Spirit of truth." When He said "another," He signified Himself as Paraclete. The apostle John declares this, saying that the Son of God intercedes for our sins, and the apostle Paul says: "The Spirit of God Himself intercedes for us." Behold, Scripture shows both to be advocates. And when He called that Spirit the Spirit of truth, He showed that He differs in nothing from Himself, because He said: "I am the truth." He said that He was sent by the Father, and He Himself promised to send the Holy Spirit. If He is not unequal to the one who sends, neither is the Holy Spirit unequal to Him. For it is not because they are three that each is a member of the other, so that they might have different powers. For the power of the three is one, so that nothing is lacking to any of them. Let this be the end; for already in the booklet composed against the impiety of Arius, the remaining matters are fully treated, which encompass the undivided unity of the Trinity.

126. ON THE ONE WHO RECEIVES. It is written that a just man’s justice will profit him nothing on the day he goes astray, and that an unjust man’s injustice will harm him nothing when he has turned back. And the Lord says in the Gospel: “He who has not believed,” he says, “is already judged,” so that by this he might indicate that the one who has believed is not subject to judgment for receiving sentence, but will be worthy of reward by the merit of his faith. Therefore, knowledge of God has this prerogative, that remission of sins follows. For one who believes that Jesus is the Son of God becomes worthy of being freed from all sins. For a man long led astray by error, when he had been tossed about by the various waves of ignorance, once illuminated by the flash of truth, has taken up a station where, after excessive storms, he may rest secure. It is fitting for him that, after gaining knowledge, he should refrain from those things which he formerly did while placed in ignorance. For what use is knowledge if the former manner of life and conduct remains? For it is by this that a person is seen to have known God: if he changes his life and his conduct.

For God, once known, must be feared, because He is proclaimed as the one who will judge, so that the faithful may receive the fruit of their justice, and the impious—that is, the unbelieving—may pay the fitting penalties for their faithlessness. For it is fitting that the just rejoice in the future, where Christ will reign with his own, so that those who in this age are held in contempt and subject to injuries—in which the prince is the devil—may appear glorious in the kingdom of Christ, for whose sake they were judged contemptible by worldly people; and that the unjust, because they seem to flourish falsely, resisting the truth through falsehood, may be afflicted in punishment, so that those who seemed glorious through pretense may appear utterly despised and humiliated through the truth. For then the just will rejoice that they believed, when they see the faithless tormented, and the faithless will not repent of not having believed, unless they see the glory of the former and their own punishment—those whom, because they believed, they considered foolish and contemptible.

Therefore, from the fact that someone professes to be a Christian, he ought to strive not to sin. For he must arm himself against vices and—since it is impossible always to conquer—if he is overcome, he should grieve, lest he be overcome again, because he who grieves over being overcome restores himself. Therefore, he who resists has grounds for excuse, if he is overcome. For he shows that he had the intention of conquering, but was least able to prevail. There is hope for him because he can restore himself, so that by constant practice he may be found more skilled and stronger in the contest. For he who rises up in order to sin is inexcusable and has a very serious case. For it is worse to live under the profession of God and have the will to sin, than if someone were ignorant of God and lived shamefully and impurely. For the latter does not know whom he ought to fear; the former, knowing, despises. Believers, therefore, receive remission of sins; yet they will not be glorious unless after receiving the faith they have lived under the fear of God, so that, having struggled against the enemies of the Christian name, they achieve victory, so that they can earn the reward, while they conquer more than they are conquered.

For he who understands God and does not approach his faith, so that he does not live as a Christian, but wishes to receive faith at the end, so that he dies a Christian—either he is ashamed to live as a Christian, or he devotes himself to sins which he thinks can be remitted for him once he has believed—such a man, I think, has no good case, because, as long as he is in the world, he sins; he does not wish to become and live as a Christian, or he is ashamed to be called a Christian. What sort of God does he hope for, for whose service he is ashamed, yet from whom he wishes to receive a reward? Such a man is a mocker. For knowing that he no longer has time to sin, with death impending, he then wishes to become a Christian, so that, because he can no longer sin, he may claim to believe in Christ, who abhors sinning, so that he no longer wishes not to sin, but cannot, because death intervenes. Such men ought to be read the law, because God is not mocked. And such men are accustomed to give commands of this kind, that faith be given to those already failing and estranged, merely gasping, fearing that they might escape and be put to shame because they have become Christians. To them the words of the Gospel are to be recited, saying: "For he who is ashamed of me," he says, "and of my words in this generation, the Son of Man will confound him when he comes in the kingdom of his Father.

But perhaps they say: "Knowing that the human race is fragile, we therefore wish to receive faith at the end of life, so that we no longer sin." But faith ought to be received in such a way that what is received is understood. For it will have its benefit only if one knows and professes it—for faith is believed in the heart for righteousness, but confession is made by the mouth for salvation—and on this account, one who no longer knows where he is, how can he be said to receive? For he receives who professes that he has received, knowing that he has received. For if they believe that remission of sins is given to believers, they ought to know that he believes who believes with his own heart as witness, because God, who promised, is an inspector of the heart; for He receives him whom He sees believing in his heart. Therefore, how will one whose heart does not attend to the words of faith have its benefit? Therefore, he can be seen to fear becoming a Christian upon receiving faith, who is observed to act so that he does not easily sin. For he who hastens to sin does not wish to receive faith for this reason, lest he be compelled to live well, which he seems unwilling to do; but in death he wishes to obtain impunity, hoping for remission of past evils, so that he may be secure both about the past and about the future, because, being about to die, he will certainly no longer be able to sin.

But this is done with neither good counsel nor a clear conscience, to wish to receive faith at a time when one cannot sin, not when one is unwilling to sin. To these people that saying applies: "Let us do evil, so that good may come," that is, "Let us sin now and believe at the very end, and it will be forgiven us." And therefore he added: "Whose condemnation," he says, "is just." For it is not fitting that remission of sins be given to those who, already knowing God—who is unwilling that sin be committed and who hates sinners—eagerly desire to sin, unwilling to notice that the gift of God benefits those who, being ignorant of God, sin in such a way that they do not know that God will judge. But one who has heard and deliberated within himself and has a desire to sin—not that he is overcome by some compelling cause, but that he wishes to sin—it is harsh for him to be forgiven. For there are two causes that have remission of sins: one is the gift, the other is penance, so that one who has sinned after the gift may reform through penance. For because he did not remain in the grace received, so as to persist in freedom, but again subjected himself to sin, he obtains the obliteration of the sin by lamentation and groaning. For he sinned knowingly and deliberately: not that anyone is ignorant of sin, but one who does not know that God will judge thinks that what he sins will go unpunished.

And so, if a gentile begins to fall ill and, in the despair of life itself, deliberates within himself about faith and the promised hope, he has a complete case, so that for this believer sins are remitted and he is not held in the underworld, bearing with him the sign of death conquered and despoiled, although he does not have dignity or reward, because there ought to be some difference between him who, provoked by love of his lord, did not fear to fight against his enemies, arming himself with continence and the observance of all vices, so that he might be able to resist evil, always anxious as to how he might defend the command of his lord, and him who, having come to an agreement with his lord's enemies and standing by them, returned to his lord at the end of his life, not to vindicate his lord's kingdom, but to be of benefit to himself alone, a deserter before being a soldier. For he who prefers to live as a Christian so that he may be rewarded after death knows that the sufferings of this time are not worthy of comparison to the future glory which will be revealed in us, and therefore, having taken up the arms of faith, he does not hesitate to engage against princes and powers, so that, being victorious in the world, he may be crowned after the world.

For it is fitting that one who, among the faithless and rebellious, now bears witness to the kingdom of his lord should receive the reward of this matter in the future, so that the enemies of God, seeing the witness of Christ exalted in the kingdom of God because of the truth of his confession, may grieve, confounded that they judged as false what has been declared true; and also that those who believed late, confessing God not in life but in death, seeing how great is the glory of those who, serving under the arms of Christ, loyally and faithfully wage the wars of their emperor, may repent that they were not Christians in life, but only in death. For one who had no intention of living as a Christian can seem hardly fit to die a Christian. For perhaps the dying man wished to be called a Christian for this reason, because there was no longer time for sinning. ('Lest perhaps,' he says, 'what is believed be true, I wish to become a Christian, losing nothing if what is believed is false.') Because in death not the will to sin, but sin itself ceases, he tries whether faith after death might be of use, when surely it would have been useful for vices and sins to be corrected here, where they were committed.

For then a person proves that he has condemned his past when, following the line of faith, he appears to change his conduct and his life. For if he sinned before because he did not know God, when he comes to know Him, he ought not to sin any longer, lest his having known Him be in vain; for there ought to be some progress from the knowledge of God. For a Christian ought to be understood before his profession: they are proven more by works than by name. For this reason, commandments were given, purer than other laws and pertaining to holiness, so that the worship of God might be evident from them; if not, they will hear: "Why do you call me 'Lord, Lord,' and not do what I say?" By which He then signified that it profits to call the Lord 'Lord' only if His commandments are kept; for one who calls 'Lord' the one whose precepts he scorns seems a mocker. The words of the law, which say that God is not mocked, are to be recited to such a one. And so he will be condemned by his own words who calls 'Lord' the one whom he shows by his works that he does not fear at all.

127. On the Sin of Adam and Eve. I think it is beyond doubt that this world was made for the sake of man, and that, although it consists of diverse substances, it is nevertheless one, fitted together with many members, so that from these, by their mutual operations, those things which would be necessary for man might be generated. For a house was made for man, complete with provisions, so that each of these things, according to their kind, would come into being upon the earth—that is, so that, once made, they would have this inherent power, that the offspring of each of their kinds would be created on the earth. For origins were established, whose seed would advance to the procreation of multiplying kinds upon the earth. Whence Scripture bears witness, saying, "And God blessed them, saying, 'Increase and multiply upon the earth.'" In a similar way, the human race also was blessed, a sense of which we contemplate in the Law; for we see it written: "The people grew and multiplied in Egypt." For by that blessing with which those things created for the use of man were blessed, by that same blessing man also was blessed, so that likewise, from male and female, the offspring of the human race would increase and multiply upon the earth, and so that, just as seeds were to be improved through cultivation, so also the human race, with due care applied, would strive, by gaining knowledge of the creator, to restrain its life in order to merit him, so that all things together might advance to the praise and glory of the creator.

And since these words signify nothing else, the things themselves bear witness. For all things that have been made have been multiplied and improved upon the earth by God's will. For they could not increase otherwise than as God's will and blessing decreed for the seeds. How, then, can it be said that it is done wrongly or is not permitted, which makes increase by God's blessing and with His favor? The tradition of this matter remained in the synagogue and is now celebrated in the Church, that God's creature is joined under God's blessing, not indeed by presumption, because the form was given thus by the Author Himself. But if it is thought that it ought to cease, then it will have to cease when those things also cease which are likewise blessed to be multiplied, because, if the generation of men ceases, for what use are those things born which are blessed upon the earth? For the world cannot partly act and partly cease. For either it operates entirely or it rests entirely in idleness. Is a body useful whose some members are vigorous and some are sluggish?

Therefore, why is a work blessed by God considered sordid and contaminated by some, unless they are in some way laying hands on God himself? For they would not reproach this unless they thought ill of God, the author of this work. Because they fear to openly disparage God, they accuse him through the work he devised. For when the work displeases, the author is reproached. But if such men would read—or rather accept—the Scriptures, they would remember Balaam saying: "Why should I curse," he says, "whom God blesses?" For it is futile to accuse one whom the judge praises; indeed, the accuser himself is the accuser who declares guilty one whom the laws defend. Who then are you, to judge as worthy of condemnation what you read is blessed by God, unless you either deny that this is God or accuse the Scripture of falsehood? For there are those who, receiving the new as if it were something novel, think the old should be rejected. But the new precepts imparted to the peoples through Christ do not disagree with these. For he himself, when invited, did not disdain to go to weddings, and not only did he grace them with his presence, but he also contributed what was lacking for joy. For it is written that wine gladdens the human heart. And to show that he did this according to the will of his Father God, when the Jews asked whether it was lawful for a man to divorce his wife, he replied among other things, saying: "Since from the beginning God made male and female and said: 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they will be two in one flesh.'

Thus they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined, man should not separate. This is the reason why, when asked, he willingly went to weddings, lest he seem to weaken the work of God and his own father; rather, by showing that the teaching of the Old and New Law agrees, he not only did not forbid marriages, but even deigned to attend them, bearing witness to them, since God is their author, and he showed by a salutary precept that what is joined by God ought neither to be forbidden nor separated. And because birth is beneficial, when he was already leaving the world, he commended his mother to his disciple John. For this reason we are also taught by all the commandments of the Old and New Law to honor our parents, and it is provided by law that if we do not do so, we will incur a curse. Therefore, what presumption is this, or from what law does it derive, to block access to marriage, when both the New and the Old Law seem to favor them in every respect? But this is what we read: that which is outside is from evil. Hence the apostle says that such men have a cauterized conscience, who forbid marrying and teach abstaining from foods which God created for consumption. For they are noted to do this in hypocrisy for the sake of enmity, so as to accuse the law handed down by God.

Others, while professing to follow the salutary precepts, stretch out their hands in opposition, so as to commend the mandates of a corrupt teaching, and because of this they are said to have a cauterized conscience. For with a corrupted mind, knowing one thing, they profess another, just as the Jews, who, not ignorant that the deeds of the Savior were works of the Holy Spirit, said out of envy that he cast out demons by Beelzebul, in order to turn the people away from faith in him. Such also is the cunning of those mentioned above, because, in order to pretend to be lovers of chastity and sanctity, they even say that marriage is to be condemned, so that through this they may be commended and turn the people away from the truth; and, in order to feign devotion to abstinence, they teach that one should refrain from foods, so that through these things they may show themselves to be detached from the world and hastening to the celestial realms. By this means, ensnaring the minds of men, they then teach that unlawful things are permitted and lawful things are to be condemned as if they were not allowed. These are the deceptions of Satan, so that he may invert causes, as if introducing something new, and exclude the truth, in which there is nothing new, because it is entirely eternal. Who does not perceive that this sense has been fitted by the adversary? For who would dare to reprove God’s invention and that which has never harmed anyone, except the adversary of the truth, who, in order to conceal his own impurity, preaches sanctity, which he does not love, and, while through this he shows himself as if of good will, he persuades unlawful things as if they were lawful?

For it commends itself, so as to deceive more readily, and through this, having caught the imprudent, it suggests means by which it makes them greater sinners, because, in order to bring some remedy to its own cause, it strongly urges men to sin greatly, seeking from that a great solace, while it shows many companions in its own crime, deeming the penalty light, as if it were heavy, if it sees many with itself in Gehenna. Let men see to other sins, while they are overcome by vices, or through ignorance they defend that these things are not to be punished here. What contrary desire deceives, or what darkness obstructs, so that what is true is not seen! For letters are accustomed to seem to signify something else, while either they are not pronounced well or are improperly punctuated. But when it is read: 'God made,' and: 'He blessed what he made,' who would dispute this? Who would doubt? Because what one hears as blessed, would one think it accursed, unless animated by another spirit? Which indeed, if it were said to be the voice of a man, perhaps some deception might be believed: God is said to speak, and do you doubt? God blesses, and is he reprobate?

But perhaps under the name of God, Moses introduced error! Let the signs and wonders performed through Moses in Egypt satisfy you; let the marvels that took place in the Red Sea for the liberation of the children of Israel persuade you; hear the magicians confessing that this is the finger of God; agree with the apostle saying: "For I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that all our fathers were under the cloud and all crossed through the sea and all were baptized in Moses in the cloud and in the sea and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink." For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed; and the rock was Christ. And from where did this apostle speak? The scripture is at hand, in which we read our Lord Christ saying to the Jews: "If you believed Moses, you would also believe me, because Moses wrote about me." Who would deny faith to this harmony? Who would dare to say that what is one is discordant? Who is of such evil mind as to contend that indivisible love appears as enmity? Behold, you have both the testimonies of words and the examples of deeds, which subjugate your mind to the truth, so that you think nothing else true than what the books of the Catholic Church contain.

Since it has been proven that the same God existed in the Old Testament who is now ours, and that this God is true through many signs of His powers, His authority ought to be so greatly preferred that even what we consider harsh and perhaps absurd should be accepted and understood differently than we suppose, if it is commended by God’s judgment, because we ought to believe God more than ourselves. For our weakness and inexperience often judge useful things to be harmful and estimate false things as true—which it is impious even to suspect of God, for He is not a nature that can be deceived. How much more, then, ought there to be no doubt about marriages when God speaks! For it is an open and simple matter. Certainly, every man rejoices when he has obtained God’s favor, and believes himself to be improved while he learns the sacrament of the Creator, which he would certainly not attain unless he were born. Why, then, does he lament what he rejoices in, and condemn what he glories in having learned? For if he rejoices because he has learned, but would not have learned unless he had been born, then without doubt it is good to be born, because the fruit of birth is the knowledge of truth. But if it is evil to be born, then knowledge will not be good; for to what purpose will knowledge serve, if birth is condemned, since, if it is not expedient to be born and ought not to be, it is vain for one who is to be condemned to learn? But because no one is so dull as to deny that the knowledge of God is beneficial to men, it is both good and useful.

For through it birth is improved, so that one may merit more than was conferred upon Adam, because believers will reign in heaven, not on earth—in the paradise of God the Father, not in that in which Adam was corporally commanded to work. For if the Encenia were celebrated at Jerusalem—that is, the festival of the dedication of the Lord’s temple was observed—how much more ought the birthday of man himself to be celebrated, who is more truly a temple of God, for whose sake even a temple built by hands was constructed to give thanks to God! For our body is a better temple, because this is built by the work of God, whereas that is constructed by human labor; and this is under the hope of eternity, that of destruction. Therefore, one who knows that he was born by God’s institution, so that, having understood His mystery, he may give thanks to God, ought to rejoice on his birthday, seeing that his birth has made progress. But truly, those should not have been born who, abandoning their Creator, attribute His glory to others. For such persons, their birth leads to punishment; but it is not birth that incurs the crime, but the will.

But who are you, who forbid marriage? Perhaps you are Marcion, because you think the body was not made by God, but by the devil, and you contend that the soul, through some error, has suffered a fall, so that it came into the regions of darkness, in which the world now is. How then could it be freed from here, if generation were forbidden? For by being born, you recognized your fall and deliberately strove to return to your ancestral seat, restored to your source. Finally, you say you give thanks to Christ, through whom you congratulate yourself for having attained this knowledge. But truly, if you had not been born, the knowledge would cease, nor would liberation follow. Therefore, if you rejoice that the soul is liberated, favor birth; for if you resist birth, you are an enemy of souls. Or if you are a Manichee, who reject marriage as something contrary, I ask you this: because, if bodies were not generated at all, how would the soul, which you assert is poured into the region of darkness and clings to hylic things, be snatched away from here? For by being born, it is liberated—this is written in your books, so that souls received from the moon, departing from bodies, are handed over to the sun, whom you declare to be the god of your souls. For you rejoice when you are called Manichees. By this name you demand your liberation, which you would certainly not know unless you had been born. Thus it is clear that you condemn marriage through hypocrisy. For professing sanctity, you secretly pursue impurity, which has not only been revealed privately but also by the edicts of the emperors.

Hear now, O Catholic, with the Gospel as witness, that the birth of a man is beneficial. For when Symeon, a just man, wished to depart from the world, thinking that the knowledge of the Creator without the understanding of His mystery was sufficient for him, he was not permitted to do so unless he made progress in the perception of God, so that he might have the full reward of his faith. Finally, taking the newborn Savior in his hands, he blessed God and said: "Lord, now dismiss your servant according to your word in peace, because my eyes have seen your salvation." It is clearly shown that the birth of a man is a benefit of God, when a just man, contemplating death, was answered that he would not die before he had seen the Lord's Christ. For he advanced so much in life that he became worthy even in the present to see the one whom he hoped for as a liberator after death. Therefore, how can it be said that this birth did not benefit him, who was kept alive and not permitted to die until he had seen the fruit of his hope, so that he might be certain that he was passing from life to life?

For if it is an evil that we are born, then paradise would not be promised, nor eternal life, nor the kingdom of heaven, but rather the punishment of gehenna and perdition, so that one who knew himself born to perdition would fear to beget another, so that one who was unlawfully born would not be permitted to beget. But perhaps it may be said: 'The kingdom of heaven is indeed promised, but to the faithful and to those who act well.' Correctly. You see, therefore, that men do not become guilty because they are born, but because they have conducted themselves badly. For the kingdom of heaven is not promised to those not yet born, so that those to whom it will not be given might impute it to their birth; rather, it is promised to those born who act well, so that birth may neither benefit the one who acts badly nor be able to harm the one who acts well. For among the faithful and those who act well, birth is improved; among the unfaithful and those who act badly, it is worsened. For birth is like a tree that is grafted: if it is grafted with a good shoot, it will become better and be called good; but if it is grafted with a bad shoot, it will be worse and will be called not good, but bad. So too with birth: if good teaching comes to it, it will produce good fruits; if bad teaching, it will produce bad fruits. Thus, just as a tree is necessary so that there is something into which to graft, so too is birth necessary so that there is something in which to make progress.

But it is answered on the contrary: 'If birth is useful, why are we reborn?' We would not be reborn unless birth were useful. For to be reborn is to be renewed, and one who is renewed is restored. Therefore, rebirth does not accuse birth, but reforms it, and what is reformed is proven to have been well instituted from the beginning. Thus, that we are reborn changes us by design, through the received expiation of the body, so that we may be restored to the original state of Adam. But the body was stained by the sin of the soul, and when the design is repaired and improved through faith, it is washed away, so that, just as it was polluted through contempt for God, it is washed clean through obedience, so that it may escape the sentence given to Adam and be able to rise again. Therefore, if sin began from the soul, why is the nature of the body accused, since in the cause of Adam's sin there was no bodily desire, but the soul, enticed by the hope of divinity, transgressed God's command, so that it subjugated its own body to sin and men are born under sin? This indeed does no harm to a man, if he nevertheless obeys God's law, except that he dies, for which thing the benevolence of God has promised a reward, so that, since the faithful are found devoted to the creator, but through Adam's transgression they are subject to corruption and death, for this reason they receive from the judge God more than had been granted to Adam, so that in the future they may be glorious and have eternal life and be called adopted sons of God, so that it is a gain that they were born.

From this point I will return to the remaining part of the reading. When man was placed in paradise, he received these commandments: 'From every tree,' it says, 'which is in paradise for food, you shall eat; but from the tree by which good and evil are discerned, you shall not eat from it.' All the trees it mentions are of fruits created for eating. Indeed, they are called by the single name 'trees,' but they are understood to be various in their fruits; nevertheless, all are trees, and eating is one kind of act, although the things that are eaten are diverse. For when the Creator had created many fruit-bearing trees for man to eat, as I have said, He forbade eating from one tree, so that they might have reverence for the Creator in some respect, they who had received all things into their power, while one tree was reserved, of which they would not have license, so that they might be mindful of the law of their condition. In what way was the kind of sin understood from the sentence? For this sentence is fitting for a murderer, a malefactor, an adulterer, and a disreputable person. Also Achar, son of Charmi, when he had sinned, was adjudged to be consumed together with all his possessions. In what way can the kind of sin be understood from the sentence? It can be known that it was a great offense, but the kind of offense cannot be understood. For we know that others also have been condemned by this sentence, although they are known to have offended in a different way. For both Haman and the Sodomites are known to have perished together with all their possessions. Thus it happens that both those guilty of a single sin are struck by different sentences, and sinners of different crimes are punished by one and the same kind of sentence.

Therefore, from Adam and Eve, the race of sin cannot be understood as arising from a sentence already given. For although the sin of one of them is at issue, yet according to their own persons, the man and the woman received sentence, and likewise the serpent, so that not only would they not remain in the state in which they were made, but also labor would be added to them as punishment. For since all cattle and living creatures had been, as we read, subjected to man, the serpent, contrary to this established order, raised itself up and, by deceit through guile, had subjugated the deceived man to itself. For without doubt, whoever captures someone makes him subject to himself. On account of this, the serpent, lest it have the effect of its cunning, is recalled and restrained by the sentence of God beyond what it had been made, so that it would not be above man, and so that it would grieve that by its craftiness it had not only gained nothing but had even worsened its condition. For although it is recorded that it was more prudent than the other beasts, after it deceived man, it was made accursed by all the beasts of the earth.

After the sentence was given against the serpent, it follows that the woman also, whom he had associated with himself for the purpose of despising God’s law, receives the sentence. For it says: “I will fill, I will fill your sorrows and your groaning: in sadness you will bear children, and your turning will be to your husband, and he will rule over you.” No one should confirm what he himself condemns. If children were granted for this reason, because she had usurped intercourse, then the usurpation granted more. If, because it says: “in sadness you will bear children,” you think that generation took its beginning from that point, where then will what was said: “increase and multiply” be? Understand, therefore, that this was added only as a punishment, so that, whereas it had previously been granted through joy, sadness would be imposed as a penalty. And so that a harsher and multiplied condition would always press upon the woman, the turning to her husband is added, so that there would be a means by which it might be renewed for her again. If the Lord was condemning intercourse in his servants, why did he add: “your turning to your husband”? No one establishes as a punishment what he condemns, since punishment is certainly contrary to what is condemned and never arises from the same thing, but from its opposite. If they were one and the same, no one would fear condemnation. Moreover, would anyone add this as a penalty, from which he saw that the law had been transgressed? This would be to confirm, not to punish, the sin. If the woman’s turning to her husband is for this reason, and because she had intercourse, and not because it is true, the turning simply granted before, together with ultimate servitude, is believed to have been imposed upon her as a punishment.

Because through the woman the man had been made subject, and he seemed without doubt the superior, whose counsel he had used, thinking that what he had persuaded would benefit him, so that the work of God might seem to be undone by the serpent’s cunning, the established order is restored through God’s sentence, so that the woman returns, humbled before the man, to the subjection of her condition, as had been ordained, and what is added to her is added as a penalty, when she hears: “I will fill, I will fill your sorrows and your groaning; in sadness you will bear children, and your turning will be to your husband, and he will rule over you.” Had it been decreed otherwise than that the woman would be subject to the man’s dominion? Hence, therefore, it appears that the woman was recalled to what she had been made, with an addition. Whence it says: “I will fill, I will fill your sorrows and your groaning.” What does it fill? It adds to what is less, it does not seem to operate on what does not exist. Here, therefore, the sentence which had previously gone forth: “Increase and multiply,” does not begin for the purpose of creating, but for the destruction of the creature which had been granted. To the woman, pain is added for bearing children, difficulty is imposed; a new form of procreation is not composed. For if from this generation is rightly hoped for, it can be understood that generation arose more by the will of the serpent than by the Lord’s, and it is truly, as he says, a brood of vipers.

If, however, anyone thinks himself so born, let him note what he deserves, that on account of sin the pain of childbirth was increased for her, so that she, who was to have had little pain in bearing children, would have the cause of her fault increased, because children are born with groaning and sorrow, and once born, they are not had without sadness. Now for the third time a sentence of this kind is brought forth against the man: "Because," it says, "you listened to the voice of your wife and ate from the tree from which I had commanded you not to eat, from that you have eaten; the earth is cursed in your works, and in your sorrows you will eat from it all the days of your life: it will produce thorns and thistles for you," and so on. Here too, that is, Adam, he is recalled to that for which he had been made, but with detriment. For before, he had been placed to work the earth simply, so that the result of his labor would follow him; but when he spurned the command of God, believing that he was procuring better for himself by the counsel of the serpent than God had made, he was recalled to his original state with the loss of his labors, so that the earth would not respond to him according to his labor—cursed not to itself, but to his works—and it would be shown that the plan of God cannot be overturned, nor can anyone provide for himself better than God. For no one can love another's work more than the one who made it, as the apostle says: "Because no one," he says, "hates his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the Church.

Let us now examine the subsequent parts of the law, whether they agree with its beginnings. When Abraham had pleased God, among other things pertaining to the reward of his faith, although he was advanced in age, he was judged worthy even to beget a son. How, then, can it be accused of something that seems to have yielded as a reward, so that, because he himself had done God’s will, God would fulfill his will? This would by no means have been fulfilled unless it were blameless, nor would God fulfill it if he saw that what was asked was evil or foolish, especially by one who pleased him; for this would not befit even a man. And Anna, when she was barren and loved God, asked to have a son and received him. But if this were contrary, she could have been warned by the one she loved not to request an adverse thing. And the most holy Samuel, born of her, begot sons and yet did not diminish the merits of his righteousness. For from his earliest age he always increased, so that in his more advanced old age he is commended by the testimony of God. And Zacharias the priest, a just man, in his old age begot a son by God’s will, and by his birth he merited to prophesy. By what reasoning, then, is something accused that is proven to do no harm? And who would deny that what harms no one should be called good?

And so that something may be said here about the apostles, it pertains to the strength of the case. Certainly, the holy John was a guardian of chastity; but his fellow disciple, the equally holy Peter, is known to have had a wife and children, and when he was to receive the primacy among the apostles, the begetting of children did not hinder him. How, then, is what did not impede merits thought to be condemned? Hence the apostle shows that one who has a wife, if he keeps the commandments in other respects, can and ought to become a priest. For if it were unlawful, he certainly could not say that a sinner ought to become a priest. And what is so clear? For it is the voice of the same apostle saying: "I have no command from the Lord concerning virgins." For when the Corinthians were being agitated by heretics who taught in hypocrisy that marriage was to be condemned, they consulted the apostle by letter, asking whether it was lawful to marry or to dismiss a wife. Then the apostle commanded that a wife should not leave her husband, when he had the opportunity to say, if he knew that such teaching was to be given, that it was not lawful for a man to marry in any way. He shows that he cannot teach what he knows was not handed down to him. Who, then, among the disciples dares to teach what was not handed down by the master, and whom does he hear preaching: "I want young women to marry, to bear children"?

But perhaps it will be said: 'If it is permitted and good to marry, why is it not permitted for priests to have wives, that is, that it is no longer permitted for those who have been ordained to have intercourse?' Who does not know that each one, according to his person and dignity, has a law? For there is that which is not permitted to all generally at all; there is again that which is permitted to some and not permitted to others; and there is that which is permitted at one time, but at another time is not permitted. To fornicate is never permitted to all; but to engage in business is sometimes permitted and sometimes not. For before one becomes a cleric, it is permitted to him to engage in business; once he has become one, it is no longer permitted. And for a Christian to have intercourse with his wife is sometimes permitted, but at other times it is not permitted. For on account of the days of procession, it is sometimes not permitted to have intercourse, because one must also abstain from lawful things, so that what is sought may be more easily obtained. Hence the Apostle says: by mutual consent, one should abstain for a time, so that you may be free for prayer. For also according to the law, on a fast day it is not permitted to strike or quarrel; afterwards it is permitted, because greater reverence is owed to the causes of God.

Is everything that is permitted among others permitted before the emperor? How much more so in matters concerning God! And for this reason, his representative ought to be purer than the rest; for he seems to hold his person. For he is his vicar, so that what is permitted to others is not permitted to him, because he has the necessity daily to act in Christ’s stead, either to pray for the people, or to offer, or to baptize. And not only is this not permitted to him, but also to his minister, because he too ought to be purer, since the things he administers are holy. For just as, in comparison to a lamp, shadows are not only dark but also foul, but in comparison to the stars, a lamp is gloom, and in comparison to the sun, the stars are cloudy, and in comparison to the brightness of God, the sun is night, so those things which are permitted and pure for us are, in relation to the dignity of God, as it were unlawful and impure; for although they are good, they are not fitting for the person of God. Is not a common man’s tunic, though clean, nevertheless foul and unlawful for the emperor? Similarly, a Saxon garment for a senator. And for this reason, the representatives of God ought to be purer than the rest, because they hold the person of Christ, and the ministers of God ought to be purer. For no one ministers to the emperor who is not well-groomed; therefore they minister clothed in bright, clean garments. But God, because he is brightest by nature, his ministers ought to be pure by nature rather than by garments.