----------------------------------------
PATROLOGIA ORIENTALIS TOMUS DECIMUS QUARTUS
A COLLECTION OF LETTERS OF SEVERUS OF ANTIOCH FROM NUMEROUS SYRIAC MANUSCRIPTS
EDITED AND TRANSLATED
BY
E. W. BROOKS
----------------------------------------
|172MANUSCRIPTS
A = Brit. Mus. Add. 14601 (9th cent.). E = ---- ---- ---- 17214 (7th cent.), F = ---- ---- ---- 14538 (10th cent.). G = ---- ---- ---- 12155 (8th cent.). H = ---- ---- ---- 17193 (874). I = ---- ---- ---- 12144 (1081). J = ---- ---- ---- 12168 (8th or 9th cent.). K = ---- ---- ---- 17191 (9th or 10th cent.). L = ---- ---- ---- - 14532 (8th cent.). M = ---- ---- ---- 14533 (8th or 9th cent.) N = ---- ---- ---- 14613 (9th or 10th cent.). Q = ---- ---- ---- 12154 (circ. 800). T = ---- ---- ---- 14612 (6th or 7th cent.). U = ---- ---- ---- 12153 (845). V = Vat. Syr. 103 (841). W= ---- ---- 100 (9th or 10th cent.). X = ---- ---- 107 (7th cent.). Y = ---- ---- 108 (7th cent.). Z = Brit. Mus. Add. 7191 (7th cent.). C = ---- ---- ---- 7192 (7th cent.). FOR THE APPENDIX. Brit. Mus. Add. 14504 (9th cent.).
When the same passages occur in more than one place, in the same ms., the differentiation is marked by the addition of (1) (2) (3) or (4) after the letter indicating the ms.
----------------------------------------
|173
> > LXII. (XIX)469. ---- OUR GOD-INSPIRED FATHER SEVERUS SAYS IN THE LETTER TO ISIDORE THE COUNT, THE BEGINNING OF WHICH IS, «I rejoiced greatly when I received the letter of your Christ-loving illustriousness».
[508-511(?)] As regards these things therefore I think that we ought to avoid this composite term, that we should call the Holy Trinity or the Father uni-essential, both because it is not found among the accurate fathers, and470 it gives occasions for the evil deviations of the heretics: but they called the Trinity co-essential, in order that by means of this word so plainly and very excellently stated there might be expressed in the same phrase both the oneness of the essence 471 and the separation of the hypostases, and by means of this one word unity and division: for by being called co-essential with the Father and the Holy Spirit the Son claims to share essence3 with those who are reckoned with him, but to be distinct in hypostasis; for a man is not co-essential with himself, but one man with another. |174
> > LXIII. ---- OF THE HOLY 472 MAR SEVERUS FROM THE LETTER TO CAESARIA473.
|174
> > LXIII. ---- OF THE HOLY 472 MAR SEVERUS FROM THE LETTER TO CAESARIA473.
[519-33.] When474 therefore Adam was stripped of the blessedness of immortality, and was thereafter destined to be cast into the earth by means of death, then only there was introduced, as being necessary, the process of the generation of children, which preserves a succession to our race by means of the intercourse of copulation, and by means of the partnership of male and female, in the manner in which the quadrupeds also increase and multiply by generation. And for this reason also the flow comes from the very members which point downwards, and intercourse and birth do not take place from any other, in order that we may learn that it was from a high and heavenly position that we flowed down to this lowly state. |175
> > LXIV.475 ---- AND LET THE GOD-GLAD SEVERUS ALSO BEAR WITNESS, HE WHO IN ALL SUCH MATTERS HAS MORE KNOWLEDGE THAN MANY MEN. IN THE LETTER TO OECUMENIUS 476 OF WHICH THE BEGINNING IS, «Neither did I forget when I was writing the letter», IN SPEAKING ON THIS SUBJECT HE USES THE FOLLOWING WORDS.
[513-8.] For those therefore who wish to learn the purport of what has been written by me in brief and in few words it was right that these things should be put forward: but to those who desire to know the reasons and the argument 477 contained in this composition let the whole letter be given. But it is certain that even a man who has received summaries of what has been said will need the whole: for a summary is an epitome of many words; therefore he must first know those many words in order to know of what things it is an epitome. Otherwise the result will be that we shall be putting forward empty words devoid of sense, like those perhaps who desired to speak with tongues only, whom Paul reproves, saying, «For, if I prayed |176 in a tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful»: and afterwards he adds what he thinks right, saying, «I will pray with my spirit, but I will pray also with my understanding. I will sing with my spirit, but I will sing also with my understanding» 478. And I therefore, making a slight change, say: It is right to argue with words; but it is right to argue also with the understanding. I do not know if any of the God-clad fathers pronounced it right for us to speak in brief when giving teaching; for in these matters it is a welcome thing if even by expending the whole power of speech that is in us we utter a small portion and that in obscure form of what the intellect has gathered.
> > LXV. ---- FROM THE LETTER OF THE SAME HOLY SEVERUS TO EUPRAXIUS THE CHAMBERLAIN 479, AND ABOUT THE QUESTIONS WHICH HE ADDRESSED TO HIM.
[508-11. ] (And the first question is this, as to how we say that God the Word was begotten without beginning by the Father: and the beginning of the letter is this: «You, |177 God-loving Eupraxius, are smitten with divine love»: and a little farther on the defence). First therefore you seek to learn how we say that God the Word was begotten without beginning by the Father. But I from the very appellation 'Father' say that the generation of the Son is without beginning. If the Father was from eternity, the Son also, who shows forth the Father, existed from eternity: for, if there was a time when the Son did not exist, there was then a time when the Father was not a father. We, because we are a corruptible nature, come into being in time, and again pass away from being: therefore also the names applied to us vary; and at one time we are sons of certain persons, and after this we cease to be sons, and we become fathers, and we beget others. But God is in his nature invariable, and he is as he is from eternity, and he is a father from eternity. And the Son became such to eternity, and the Son is a son who is from eternity, and he was begotten everlastingly by the Father, and he did not acquire for the Father from outside the status of a father, because the Son was begotten by him without beginning and without time. If we say that the Son is the wisdom and the power of the Father in accordance with the wise Paul's |178 saying, «Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God»480, how is it not beyond all impiety for us to presume to say that the Father ever appeared without wisdom or without power? But, if he is wise from eternity, and he is powerful from eternity, then he has also wisdom and power from eternity, which is Christ: for he is the ray of the glory of the Father, and the impress of his hypostasis481. As the sun from which it. shines is the cause of the ray, and the sun is a circle and orb, and, so to speak, a composition, and the ray that comes from it is the light that is emitted and lightens everything under heaven, the land I mean and the sea at the same time, and one can never see the sun without the ray that comes from it, but, when you hear of the sun, then you also without separation think of and understand the light that comes from it, that which gives light and that which is lightened by it, for it is from it, and is not after it, so also from the everlasting and suprasensual light, which is the Father, the Son shone forth without beginning and everlastingly, who himself also is the suprasensual ray which proceeds from him by generation, and does not appear after him.
And, as when we hear the divine Scripture calling the Son a ray, |179 we think of the Father from whom, he radiated, so, when we hear that he is the Word of God, according to the passage, «In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God» 482, we regularly think of the Father who is the subject of the Word, who begot the Son from his own nature without passion, the Word so to speak of a great intellect, and the messenger in whom he displays and makes known and on whom he impresses the hypostasis of the Father, who is a great intellect, and a mind above all . things. And, as our mind begets the word without passion, and makes known the thought that is in the heart, and the word is a true image of the mind and an exact likeness, and in conjunction with the word, so to speak, there proceeds forth, also the emission of the breath of the mouth, in the same way from the essence 483 of the Father also the Son proceeds by way of birth, and the Holy Spirit by way of procession. And of the person of the Son who is the wisdom of the Father it is written, «I was born before all the mountains» 484, and about the Spirit it is said, «The Holy Spirit which proceedeth from the Father» 485. And the divine Scripture does not use such words at random, saying that the Son is begotten and the Spirit proceeds, |180 486 but that we may not confuse the hypostases, and that 487 we may know definitely that the Son is one in his hypostasis, and the Holy Spirit another, and that, though they are both from the same essence488, and from the same one Father, one is begotten and the other proceeds: whence it follows that the Holy Spirit is not the Son; for he is not begotten but proceeds. But, if anyone say, «How is the Son begotten, and how does the Spirit proceed? », we discreetly say that it is as the Father knows that he begot and the Son that he was begotten, and the Spirit that he is from the Father; but this even the very angels are not allowed to understand, and we too will not contuse ourselves by investigating it. But, inasmuch as we are variable, our mind, being subject to variations and changes, emits a word that proceeds and is dissolved in the air 489, and a breath in the same way that as soon as it proceeds is diffused over the same air3. But God and the Father, the living and |181 hypostatic mind, being incorruptible and invariable, and everlastingly the same, consequently begets a living and hypostatic Word, and emits a living and hypostatic Spirit. And, as the Father is the Creator, so the Son is the Creator, and the Holy Spirit: for 'by the word of the Lord were the heavens established, and by the spirit of his mouth all the strength of them'490: and, since they are of the same essence 491 of the Father, they are of necessity 492 of the same glory and kingship and eternity; for the fact that they are of the same essence 491 brings with it identity in every respect. And, when we hear of the Son, we immediately understand that he himself is of the same essence 491 as the Father; for every father certainly begets a son of the same essence 491 as himself.
Thus also from every appellation 493 we draw |182 God-befitting thoughts about the Son, from that of 'ray' the thought of co-eternity with the Father, from that of 'Word' impassibility of birth, from that of 'Son' the thought of co-essentiality. It is impossible for us in one appellation or illustration to comprehend all the attributes that exist in the divine nature, because it is without likeness and without peer: but, when we receive from each of the names that which is God-befitting, we dismiss all the other things and let them remain below. When we speak of the divine nature, we mean the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, separating the hypostases, but |183 uniting the Godhead. And, as the name 'Father' and the fact that he is not begotten by anything is the peculiar characteristic of the hypostasis of the Father, so also the name 'Son' and the fact that he is begotten by the Father is the peculiar characteristic of the hypostasis of the Son: similarly also the appellation 'Holy Spirit' and the fact that he is not begotten but proceeds from the Father is the peculiar characteristic of the hypostasis of the Holy Spirit. While therefore the hypostases or persons are recognised by the peculiar characteristics, and the Father is not converted into the Son or the Holy Spirit, nor does the Son pass into the Holy Spirit or the Father, nor yet is the Holy Spirit transformed so as to become the Father or the Son, the three are one, in that they are of the same essence of the Godhead; for the Father is God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit God, and, while |184 the hypostases remain unconfused, the Trinity is invariable in all points: for its essence 494 is one, its glory one, its everlastingness one, its kingship one, its power one, its will one, its operation one, and through it we hold that the Trinity is one God. And, though each appears by himself, yet there is one Godhead, in the same essence 495...... the Son the fact that he is begotten, and the Spirit the fact that he proceeds. And these are from the Father as from a root and we refer their Godhead eternally and timelessly to one first cause, to the Father, and so the principle of a single first cause is preserved. For we do not hold several first causes, but we reject the Jewish poverty also which sees little,, and do not confine the Godhead in one person, and at the same time we know and think of three hypostases in one essence1, and one identity of honour, and do not divide it into a trinity of first causes, and shun the polytheism of the pagans.
(Of Cyril, from the 12th chapter of the Treasure. «As the sun is in the ray that proceeds from it, and the ray in the sun from which it proceeded, |185 and in the word is the intellect which begot it, and in the river the fount that sent it forth, and in the image the original, so the Father is in the Son and the Son in the Father, as he says, 'He who hath seen me hath seen the Father', and, 'I and my Father are one', and, 'I am in my Father, and my Father in me', being numerically divided into a duality, and being so in hypostases, but in that they are one in nature restricted to one Godhead») 496. Next the second question, 'Why and in what way do we say that God the Word was humanized? '. The defence. But now it is reasonable to consider why and in what way we say that the only Word, the Son of God, was humanized; for this is the second question that you put. But we without going outside the divine Scriptures say that the reason for which he shone upon and gave light to this world by the coming of his Humanization in the flesh was that, as in Adam we die, so in Christ himself we might live 497, and, as it is said, «By man is death, so also by man is the resurrection of the dead» 498. Since Adam was condemned to death after the transgression which was committed through the deceitfulness of the serpent, and heard the words, |186 «Dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return», and, «Cursed is the ground in the work of thine hands», and, «In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread», and Eve too was also condemned with him by hearing the words, «In pains shalt thou bear children» 499, so with us also who are sprung from them the charges of disobedience have been confirmed, and we ourselves are dust and to dust we return, and we are condemned to the curse and are creatures born in pains: and from that time we have been in subjection, being subject to lust and to the varied pleasure of this, according to the saying of the blessed Paul 500. For it was right that against the cunning contriver of evil, the serpent and the destroyer of our life, we should contend with him with the same weapons (? ) 501 with which he deceived those founders of our race: and, since it was not the part of another power to annul the punishment fixed by our Lord himself, he did not send an envoy nor an angel, but, as Isaiah cries, the Lord himself saved us 502. The only God the Word who is before the ages, the power and wisdom of the Father, in whose image he created rational man, became flesh, I mean man according to the words of «John 503, not that he was changed into flesh (far be it! ), but, while he remained invariable as God, he himself assumed the whole of me by a true |187 and hypostatic union, but still without the sin which had come in upon us 504.
For, immediately after Gabriel had made announcement to the Virgin and said to her, «Rejoice greatly, thou that art made glad, the Lord is with thee»505, at the very moment of time, we believe that God the Word himself came to dwell in her womb, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit, and olthe very leaven of the holy Virgin, in flesh of our nature possessing an intelligent soul. For he says, «That which is born in thee is of the Holy Spirit» 506, since the Holy Spirit . operatively effected the fertilization of the conception, while Mary contributed the birth according to the natural manner of mothers. Wherefore also the period of conception was one of nine months (for he says, «But, when the days were accomplished that she should bring forth» 507), and all these things were devoid of phantasy 508, since he who was conceived took the seed of Abraham 509: for a descendant of Abraham is the Virgin, who also is of our nature, from whom the Lord took flesh and became a babe. For he himself became a babe, and the babe was not first formed separately, while he afterwards came to be with him by way of indwelling, as those who divide him into two natures say. This unsound opinion is |188 rejected by the blessed Paul when he says, «For, since the children partook of flesh and blood, he himself also similarly partook of the same, in order that through death he might destroy him who hath the power of death, who is the devil» 510. If then 511 he partook of flesh and blood similarly to the children and in the same way, it is plain that, as the soul of a man is born with its own body, though in its nature it is incorporeal, but is nevertheless reckoned to be one with it because of the union, so too he who was born is also said to be united to the body that was born that has a rational and intelligent soul. And, as you do not say that a man's soul passed into flesh, although it is united with the body by an original union, so also no one says that God the Word was changed into flesh and endured the process of mingling, because he is hypostatically united to a body. Wherefore, when he was born, he made the Virgin the God-bearer, but he did not receive the beginning of being God and being held as such from her, but in that he became man. he writes her as his mother. But he did not pass from being God, although he took that which he was not; but, as he remained that which he is, so also he became truly man. That the body which he united to |189 him was not without a soul is certain from the words of the angel: for he said, «Rise, take the boy and his mother, and go to the land of Israel, for they are dead who sought the boy's soul» 512: concerning which he also said, «I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again» 513. But it was not without intelligence and imperfect, according to the statement of the proverbs of Apollinaris, but was in fact intelligent, as indeed the very term 'boy' and the fact that he was named 'man' is enough to show this same thing: for a boy's soul is not without reason, but it is reasonable because it is human.
However this very same thing is also clearly shown even by the sacred writings of the gospel; for it said of him, «Then he began to be distressed and grieved, and to say, 'My soul is sorrowful, even unto death'» 514. But it is plain to everyone that distress and grief happen to a rational and intellectual soul. But, if they say that the Godhead of the Only one took the place of intellect, this is in truth a thing without intellect, for us to assign the passion of distress to the impassible nature of God. Accordingly the Only God the Word became perfectly man, that he might:bestow upon us perfect salvation: for, as soon as he was born, he did away |190 the punishment laid upon Eve, who was first led astray by the serpent. If Emmanuel had not been born, who is the Word of God who took flesh, who according to the saying of the prophet 'removed weeping from all faces' 515, the curse, «In pains shalt thou bear children» 516, would not have ceased: nevertheless it ceased because God was born. Further witness is borne to this by the actual unerring words of the gospel also: for it introduces to us the angel saying, «I announce unto you great joy, which belongeth to all the world, that to-day there hath been born to us a Saviour, who is the Lord Christ, in the city of David» 517. Mark clearly that, if it were not that hé who was born was the Lord, the joy that came to all the world, which is also the joy of the whole race of men, the curse, «In pains shalt thou bear children», would not have ceased. But, if the birth is the cause of the joy, she who bore is also free from the punishment; and thenceforth the joy necessarily passes to those who believe in him: for he said, «Those who received him he gave them power to become sons of God» 518, those who attained to the adoption through the Spirit, after he became man.
And next the third question, as to how we should, understand Paul's |191 saying, «In him all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth bodily» 519. The defence.
In the same God-befitting frame of mind let us also understand (and that is what in your third question you thought good to ask) the words which the wise Paul wrote and sent to the Golossians about Christ, how that in him all the fulness of the Godhead came to dwell bodily; for we do not understand the expression 'in him dwelleth' as the supporters of the impiety of Nestorius wish to understand it: for these say that the Word came to dwell in Christ by way of indwelling, as in one of the prophets. But, lest any man in consequence of the statement that he came to dwell decline from the proper opinion and reckon the Incarnation of the Word a mere indwelling, as happened in the case of a man, Paul is sufficient to meet this false tenet when he says that it came to dwell in him 'bodily', that is hypostatically and naturally, even as the statement that he similarly partook with us of flesh and blood 520 unconfusedly and immutably, in a Unity that is not dissipated, all mingling and phantasy 521 being far from it; for it is alien to a bodiless nature that in consequence of its union with a body it should be mingled or changed, a thing which in its nature does |192 not touch anything bodily. As to the fact that the word 'dwell' is also used of those who are hypostatically united, we have the testimony of the wise Paul himself; for in writing to the Corinthians he said, «We know that, even if this our house, our tent on earth, is dissolved, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, that abideth for ever in heaven»522. As we are said to dwell in a body as in a house, so too God the Word is said to dwell in a body, as being hypostatically united to a body that has a rational and intelligent soul. But he said that all the fulness of the Godhead dwells, that is, not one operation, nor yet a partial grace of the Word himself, as took place in the inspiration of the prophets, but the whole hypostasis of the Only one, although he is raised above all limitation, he who imparts tens of thousands of operations to others, and distributes graces by way of gifts as from a fountain.
And again the fourth question, as to how it is that, if we say that the Trinity is one nature, and also confess one incarnate nature of God the Word, we do not also say that the Father and the Holy Spirit became incarnate with the Son. The defence. |193
Since you have said that this also is impiously said by some men, that, inasmuch as we believe that God the Word was united to flesh, the Father also, inasmuch as he is named as being of the same nature, is necesarily said to have become incarnate, and the Holy Spirit also, we fitly say what we can and what we have believed, fixing our mind on the divine Scriptures, and not crying from the earth according to the prophet's saying 523, nor yet making up things that come from our heart 524. But this objection has occurred to them in this way. If so be that Christ cries in the gospel, «I am in my Father and my Father in me»525, and Paul again says that the Son is the image of the invisible God 526, and the Holy Spirit also the image of the Son, in that he said of those who had been admitted to the adoption as sons by the Spirit, «they became conformed to the image of his Son» 527, that it might be shown as following from this that the Holy Trinity is one essence 528, when it is said that the Son became incarnate, how can we not also allow that the Father and the Holy Spirit too became incarnate, inasmuch as they are in the Son and appear in him? This is what these say. But we say with intelligence: These, my good men, are the words of those who confuse the hypostases. But, if the Father is the Father, he never passes |194 into the Son, and the Holy Spirit also remains fixedly and without transformation in his own hypostasis, and does not pass into the hypostasis of the Son: but the divine Scriptures have said that the Son became incarnate and became man, and it is on account of the co-essentiality that, the Father and the Holy Spirit are said to be in him, not in order that we may dissolve and confound the hypostasis of the Father and of the Holy Spirit in the Son. But, if the Son is the image of the Father, the very name 'image' shows that it is understood to be the image of another hypostasis separate from itself: for, if it is an image, it is an image of some one, and, because it is an unvarying image in all points, it is not therefore the person himself of whom it is an image; for, if it were the person himself, it would fail to . be an image, for of whom would it be an image? Suppose a man delineates and copies a design and pattern from an original tablet on to another, and draws it correctly in all points, and makes the copy like the original, in no |195 point falling short of the pattern that was first designed, but makes the colour and form 529 and stature and size and pose of the limbs also alike, and those who see it for the first time do not know, if one may so say, which is the original from which it was drawn and designed, on account of the exact resemblance of the appearance in both, and after this he takes the copy and fixes it on a wall, then 530 will anyone of right understanding say that the original tablet has been fixed on the wall, because it is a copy of it and contains all that belongs to the original pattern?
So we say that the Son became incarnate, the true image of the Father, who has by nature everything that belongs to his begetter, and we do not on this account hold that the Father became incarnate, who appears in his own special hypostasis or person. |196 What has been said is intended as an indication of the subject, in order that the understanding may receive a defective and obscure example, because the whole force of the example does not follow in the footsteps of the truth, since here the image is without soul and immoveable, and is limited by the appearance of colours, but above there is a living and moveable image, suprasensual and unlimited and without appearance 531, and possessing immutability by nature. But, if we look into the divine Scriptures, we may through the mystery that has been richly revealed in them by another example also reçoive an illustration of what is stated. It is everywhere known that our speech 532 is the offspring of our mind, and not the offspring only, but also the clear image, which represents the disposition 533 that is in the depths of the mind, and with the speech comes forth also the |197 breath 534 of the mouth. The example is defective, and is a kind of similitude and shadow of the truth itself for those who are able to listen properly and intelligently. However, as our speech comes out through the organ 535 of the voice and moves the hearing and passes inside him who hears, and no one says that the speech which is begotten by the mind, exists hypostatically, the speech which enters into the hearing of him who hears, or says that the breath which comes out in the speech through the voice exists in hypostasis 536, but only calls it a help to the hearing, so understand also with regard to the mystery of God the Word, because he himself alone hypostatically and ineffably and as he himself only knows came to dwell in the Virgin's womb and became incarnate from her, and neither the Father his begetter nor the Spirit which proceeds shared in this, but according to the saying of John, «The Word became flesh, and he was God, and was with God» 537, as one with another, because the hypostases exist severally. Since then these things are so, that question of theirs which arises from ignorance |198 is superfluous and vain, a question that amounts to actual impiety. «If» (they say) «you say that the Trinity is one nature, and say that there is one nature of the incarnate Word, how are you not driven to saying that the whole Trinity became incarnate? » I am surprised at the cunning rusticity of those men, as shown by the way in which they display courage without consideration against the right opinion. We 538 use the name 'nature' sometimes generally of 'essence' 539, and sometimes specifically signifying the hypostasis of a man. We term all mankind one nature, as in the text «Every nature of beasts and of birds and of things that are in the water is subjected and made subject to human nature» 540: and again we call a man 'nature', Paul for instance or Peter or James. Where we name all mankind one nature, we use the name 'nature' generically in place of 'essence': but, where we speak of one nature of Paul, we employ the name 'nature' in place of 'individual hypostasis'.
So also, when we say that the Holy Trinity is one nature, as in the text, «In order that we may be sharers of the divine nature» 541, we use the name 'nature' in place of the general |199 designation 'essence' 542. And to say that the Holy Trinity is one nature is the same as to say that it is one Godhead, as we are in fact accustomed to call all mankind one nature. But, when we say 'one incarnate nature of God the Word', we say 'nature' in place of an individual designation, and thereby we denote the one actual hypostasis of the Word, like that of Paul or Peter or any single man. Therefore also, when we say one nature which became incarnate', we do not say so absolutely, but we say 'one nature of the Word himself, and clearly denote that it is one hypostasis. But again let no one stain the divine nature that is raised above all things with anything lowly taken from the example of Paul and Peter. For, although they are of the same essence, they differ not only in hypostases, but also in power and operation, and stature and shape, and in the various kinds of impulses that are in men's minds. The Holy Trinity however differs by the difference of hypostases only, and in every point is unvarying in equality, and in the fact that it is of the same essence. And avoid that poverty of the example which is not worthy of the Godhead, and do not conceive of the Word as without hypostasis, nor yet of the Spirit as being dissipated in the air 543. |200
Next the fifth question, as to how the Only one, who is a quickening blessing, was termed a curse 544. The defence.
And avoid that poverty of the example which is not worthy of the Godhead, and do not conceive of the Word as without hypostasis, nor yet of the Spirit as being dissipated in the air 543. |200
Next the fifth question, as to how the Only one, who is a quickening blessing, was termed a curse 544. The defence.
We will now go on to give you an answer with regard to the fifth question also, how the Only one, who is a quickening blessing, was termed a curse. If he became man to free our race from the bonds of former crimes, and took upon him the seed of Abraham, and flesh of our nature, and united a human soul to himself hypostatically, therefore he made all the debts of our race to which we were liable his own: for we are accursed, and we came under, the penalty of the curse, and heard the words, «Dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return», and, «Cursed is the earth in the work of thine hands», and, «In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread» 545; and he became the firstfruits of our nature. For in that he took upon him the seed of Abraham he is consequently said to have become 546 those things to which our nature was subject. Nor yet was he subject to these things for a moment of time, but rather after they had been vainly applied to him he destroyed them. Just as the sun when it shines in a gloomy and dark house, as soon as it puts forth its ray, dispels the darkness, since it itself is not affected |201 by darkness, in the same way also the Only God the Word, the Sun of righteousness, as soon as he approached our nature, also dispelled the curse. For the holy Virgin, who conceived with the divine and incorruptible conception, immediately heard from Elizabeth who had been divinely moved, that is the servant of the Baptist, the words, «Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb. And whence is this to me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me? » 547. If she had not known that it was the Lord who was conceived of the God-bearer Mary, she would not have cried, «Blessed is the fruit of thy womb». In agreement with this our Lord himself also in his words dispelled the curse, that the earth might no more be 'cursed in the work of thine hands', saying, «Work not the food that perisheth, but the food that abideth in eternal life, which the Son of man will give you», and not, «In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread», but, «I am the bread of life which came down from heaven, and if any man eat of this bread he shall live for ever», and no more, «Dust thou art and to dust shalt thou return», but, «This is the will of my Father, that everyone who seeth the Son and believeth on him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day» 548. You see that on all points by |202 being himself made a curse he becomes a dispeller of the curse, and this curse he takes up on to the cross, and thence puts it to flight: for it was overcome by the law which said, «Cursed of God is everyone who shall be hanged upon wood» 549.
And he himself underwent the accursed death that was for our sake, and thence blessed the whole human race; and the blessed Paul bears witness who writes to the Galatians and says, «Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, and became a curse for our sake, because it is written, 'Cursed is everyone who is hanged upon wood', in order that the blessing of Abraham might be among the nations in Jesus Christ» 550. So also he is said to have become sin 551, because he endured the death that was the due of sinners; for, while he is himself the pure justice of the Father, he is crucified between two robbers; but these on account of their offences, and in accordance with the passage in the Gospel of Mark who says, «And with him they crucified two robbers, one on the right hand and one on the left, and the Scripture was fulfilled which saith, 'He was numbered with the unjust'» 552. So he became sin to remit the sins of others: so also he paid the debt that was incurred for us, and we ourselves became righteousness in him; for those who have been freed from debts are righteous, and |203 are not termed liable. And, because during the time of his Humanization he did no sin, therefore also iniquity was not found in him, but he showed himself righteous, that is, he is righteousness; and, when he became flesh, all our nature again was justified in him as in firstfruits; and this is what the wise Paul said to the Corinthians about the Father, «He made him sin for our sake, who knew no sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him» 553. This too was carried out in the ritual of the law also; for the two goats on whom lots were laid were a type of Christ our Saviour, who is made up of two elements, the perfect Godhead I mean and the manhood: and the one, on whom the Lord's lot fell, was slaughtered, while the other was dismissed into the wilderness that is not passed,, who also was named 'the dismissible', who gained the appellation also from the fact itself; for he was dismissed, but was hot simply dismissed, but in the manner which Scripture mentioned; for it said as follows: «And thou shalt bring the living goat, and Aaron shall lay his two hands on the head of the living goat, and shall confess over him all the sin of the sons of Israel, and all their wickedness and their iniquity, and shall lay them on the head of the living goat, and shall dismiss him by means of a man who is ready into the wilderness; |204 and the goat shall take upon him all their iniquity» 554. This therefore was thus performed in the case of the two goats also, that the one was slaughtered and the other dismissed. We clearly see the hidden meaning which relates to the Cross: for the type denotes that the same one Christ suffered in the flesh, but remained without suffering in that he is considered to he true God.
For the same person both is separated by lots to the Lord and slaughtered (for 'he delivered himself for our sake as an offering and a sacrifice to God the Father for a sweet savour' 555), and goes away without suffering bearing the sins of all Israel, which in the type of Aaron were confessed over the head of the goat: for he clearly displays himself as being himself true God, over whom we confess our sins according to law; for «I will make confession», he saith, «unto thee, Lord, concerning my sins, and thou wilt forgive the wickedness of my heart» 556; for, though 'he was led as a lamb to the slaughter', yet, 'who shall tell his generation, because his life is taken away from the earth? ' 557, for he is without descent as God, and he is life in his nature, for he was taken away and lifted up from the earth. Truly is it said of him in reference to the type that he shall be dismissed into the wilderness that is not passed; for that country is impassable to all outside |205 nature, and is passable to him who became incarnate only, I mean the throne of the kingdom, on which he sits at the Father's right hand, bearing our sins; for so too John also the loud-voiced preacher and ambassador of the Word himself cried and said, «Behold! the Lamb of God who beareth the sin of the world» 558. For the same person is termed at one time a goat, at another a lamb; and he shows that he came to suffer not only for the sake of sinners, but also for the sake of the righteous; for death reigned 'even over those who had not sinned' also, as Paul also said 559. Accordingly the lamb is the type of the righteous, and the goat of sinners; for the righteous stand as lambs on the right hand, and the sinners as goats on the left. Let no one think- that through the symbol of the two goats he shows us two Christs, one passible and the other impassible, but one and the same, passible in the flesh, but impassible in his Godhead. For indeed one goat only was not sufficient to signify what was signified with two (how was it possible for the same to be slaughtered and not slaughtered? ), to show that Christ tasted death in the flesh, and in his Godhead is raised above suffering. Is it not plain therefore that another goat is necessarily taken, in order that the one fact may be perfectly revealed symbolically in |206 the two?
Just as a painter, when he depicts the story of Abraham, depicts him several times, now hearing God saying to him, «Offer thy son to me as a burnt-sacrifice», now cutting faggots, now again binding Isaac and laying him on the faggots, now with his hand armed with the knife and stretched out to slay and held back by the heavenly voice coming from above, and we do not think the one Abraham to be many because the same person was depicted many times, and indeed one picture was not sufficient to tell the whole story, so also for the shadowy representation of the symbol, for the sake of perfectly setting forth the fact, two goats were taken, and we do not divide the one Christ into two, but we declare him to be one out of two natures, the perfect Godhead and the manhood, according to the faith of the divine Scriptures, and the words of the fathers that are inspired by the Spirit, from which sources we also speak these things. That the two goats symbolized the one Christ is plain from the allegory of the lots; for the priest Aaron did not select one of the goats at haphazard to be slaughtered, but committed the matter to the uncertainty of lots, that by this he might show the primary unity of God the Word and his flesh. As he is himself God |207 impassible and free, but by reason of the union with a body possessing a rational soul was condemned to death, though in his nature he is immortal, so also the one goat who was to be dismissed to the wilderness symbolized the impassibility of the Godhead of the Only one, and was under the decree of slaughter; for the lot cast over him, whether he was to be slaughtered or dismissed, was uncertain. Accordingly it is plain that the two goats signify the one Christ, and that the same suffered in the flesh, and, in that he is God, remained raised above sufferings. Nor yet let anyone, imitating the madness of the heathen, imagine that the dismissed goat was set apart and dismissed to the wilderness for some demon; for this is a departure from the laws of Moses, inasmuch as he said, «Hear, Israel. The Lord thy God is one Lord», and again, «Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve, and to him shalt thou draw near, and in his name shalt thou swear», and, «Thou shalt not go after other gods» 560; and again in another place, «And ye shall not make mention of the name of other gods, and it shall not be heard from your mouth»; and again, «Thou shalt not worship their gods, nor serve them, nor do according to their deeds, but shalt utterly overturn them and destroy their pillars, and shalt serve the Lord |208 thy God only» 561. How then should he in the same mind break in pieces and overturn their pillars (and he did not allow the name of other gods to be mentioned at all beside the one Lord God), and on the other hand separate the goat to another beside him as to some evil fiend, and propitiate this fiend in this way?
But it is plain that the two goats were offered in order to honour one God only, and completed the symbolic allegory which we have already mentioned, and two lots were cast, and one was slaughtered to the Lord, and the other was dismissed after the manner of the separation of the lots, and therefore he was called 'the dismissible'. If he had said, «One goat to the Lord, and one goat to the dismissible», perhaps their charge would have derived some plausibility from the divine Scripture, because it said, «One lot to the Lord, and one to the dismissible»; for it is plain that the one was separated for the purpose of slaughter, and the other was dismissed to the Lord, not to another different from him; for this is what the divine Scripture said, «And he shall set' the living one before the Lord, in order to dismiss him in dismissal» 562. But some of the learned Hebrews, that is rather those who are earlier than those who are of the Hebrews, said |209 «One lot to the Lord, and one lot to him that was dismissed» 563, in order that in all points and that even from the very imagination of the heathen, or, to speak fittingly, from their lack of instruction, it might be seen that their charge against the holy laws of Moses is without plausibility. For those who after the Christian religion were lifted up in philosophy, and endeavoured to adorn demon-worship in a reverend fashion 564, as they themselves say on behalf of others, say of their god who is called 'mb1khywn, «We should not sacrifice to the gods, but by purity of mind propitiate and honour them» 563: but men who were fettered in the same chain as they said that men should sedulously offer sacrifices to the evil spirits who delight in blood, not that they may help, but that they may not injure 565. If then Moses separated and dismissed one of the goats to a demon, according to the madness of those men he ought to have ordered this goat to be slaughtered to the demon, and he who is pleased by blood ought to have rejoiced in his blood. But now the exact contrary is the case: the one who was set apart to God Most High was slaughtered, while the other, the dismissible, or, as they wish to say. the one who was separated to an evil |210 demon, was dismissed into the wilderness without blood and without sacrifice. By all these arguments the ingenious madness of the heathen has been refuted, who wished to stain the divine Scripture with the blame of their cults of many demons, men who did not shrink from calling the usual sacrifices to their idols 'dismissible', in order to substantiate their error by a plausible identity of name. These things we have stated shortly in the desire to show how Jesus became sin for us, that we might in him become the righteousness of God. He endured a death that was for our sake, he who for the sins of us all became one that is subject, he who knows not sin, for according to the prophet's saying, «He came to death for the sins of my people, and for our sake he suffered pain, and was smitten, and he endured sickness for our iniquity» 566.
So also Paul wrote to the Hebrews and said, "Christ was offered once, that he might bear the sins of many» , and he says that 'by his sacrifice he hath been revealed once for all at the last for the doing away of sin', and 'he offered one eternal offering for our sins' 567: and Peter the eminent among the apostles said, «The same carried up our sins in his body on to the cross, that we, being freed from sins, might live in righteousness»568.
And again the sixth question, as to how we say that the same suffered in |211 the flesh, and in his Godhead remained without suffering, and, while we do not make him alien to suffering, we keep him without suffering. The defence. Now we will give a sufficient answer to that question also, how we say that the same suffered in the flesh, and did not suffer in the Godhead, and, while we do not make him alien to suffering, we keep him without suffering. On the same subject we will lay before you an example which has come to us from our fathers. The force of examples is in truth small, and far removed from the truth; nevertheless, if only in some thin and shadowy phantasies 569, it offers to the understanding a beginning of conceptions. As, when iron or another similar substance 570 is abundantly warmed by fire, and is heated by flame, we know that, while the iron does not pass out of its own nature, the iron which has passed into a complete flame, and has been made to hiss and to glow by it, it appears to be all fire, and, while it is in this state, blows are applied to it, it being smitten by a hammer or by means of other kinds of strokes, but the iron is exposed to the blows themselves, being expanded and narrowed at the same time, while the nature of the fire is in no way injured by the smiter, so must we also understand the mystery |212 concerning Christ also, even although all the power of speech shrinks, from the glory of the fact. He was hypostatically united to a body with a rational and intelligent soul, but he permitted it to suffer naturally from the blows of pains, I mean on the cross, when he might have deadened these also as God, but he was not desirous of this, for it was not for himself, but for our race, that he was purchasing the successes of victory. Therefore he permitted his body to suffer, while even he himself also was not alien from suffering, for he was united to a suffering body, and, as it is his body, so also it is called his suffering; nevertheless as God he remained without suffering, for God is not touched by suffering. He is said also to have tasted death for us, in that his soul was separated from his body; not that his soul was cut away from his Godhead, or his body left without Godhead; but he showed that he was in both without separation, for neither was his soul left in Sheol, nor did his flesh see corruption 571, according to the saying of the Psalmist. For he was not separated from his body that was buried, and therefore he annihilated corruption; for, if it had been separated from him who is life and incorruption, perhaps it would have been constantly |213 attacked by corruption also. For he went down into Sheol with his soul also, the whole of him being in it, and the whole of him in his body without separation, as one that is incorporeal and is able to fill everything as one that is infinite. It was necessary for him to give light even to the lower regions also, and to have mercy on the souls there imprisoned, and, according to the saying of the prophet, «to say to those that are in bonds, 'Come forth', and to those also that are in darkness, 'Be revealed'» 572. This he accomplished in action.
The gates of Sheol which saw him trembled, and he broke the bars of iron and gates of bronze 573, and opened Paradise which was shut, and «many bodies of just men among those who had fallen asleep came out of their graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared to many» 574. Very properly the evangelist added, 'after his resurrection'; for it was necessary that he who is life in his nature should himself first begin the resurrection, and that the very one who was able to dissolve the power of death should himself tread the way for the rest who came after him. He did not deal arbitrarily with the devil, the same who led the first man astray, when he was defeated as by God, but, as one who is just and 'taketh the wise in their craftiness' 575, he brought the |214 crafty one into subjection by means of his devices. He who led Adam astray and said to him, «You will be a god, if you transgress the law», fell by the device of craft. He fought with the second Adam who is Christ, and found him to be God and man at the same time; and he won a just victory over him; and henceforth we confidently sing songs of praise for his victory over death and say, «Where is thy victory, death? and where is thy sting, Sheol? » For Paul says that 'the sting of death is sin' 576.
Next the seventh question, why the law was given to the fathers that they should circumcise their foreskin. The defence.
and where is thy sting, Sheol? » For Paul says that 'the sting of death is sin' 576. Next the seventh question, why the law was given to the fathers that they should circumcise their foreskin. The defence.
Now we pass on to discuss the subject of circumcision. This 577 is what you ask, "Why was the law given to the fathers that they should circumcise their foreskin? » Some have simply and easily handed down a reason like this. They say, «Because Abraham migrated from the land of the Chaldees, and the Chaldees were permitted (and the same was the case too with the Medes and Persians also) according to the custom of their fathers to have intercourse with their mothers and sisters, for this reason therefore he circumcised his foreskin, that he might shun kindred flesh, |215 and renounce marriage with those of his kin, and on this account God gave the law to the sons of Israel through Moses and said, 'A man shall not go in to any that is related to him in the flesh to uncover his shame' 578». And others say that the reason why Abraham was commanded to circumcise his progeny also besides was that it might be plain that Christ should come of them in the flesh who is God over all for ever and ever. But, if you please, we will pass from these reasons; for it is known that the Egyptians also as well and other nations circumcise their foreskin, even although they imitated the Hebrews; and we state that which is true and befits God the lawgiver, and that is very sublime and to which testimony is borne by the Scriptures, that circumcision promises renunciation of fleshly birth, and acquisition of the adoption of the Spirit, by which we are called sons of God; for it is written, «Thus saith the Lord, 'Israel is my son, my firstborn'» 579. After the fall from Paradise and the' destruction of immortality, Adam knew Eve, and she conceived and bare; and this unstable intercourse, intercourse befitting beasts, was given for the propagation of our race, it being a kind of healing of the sickness, that the race of men might |216 not be cut off through death. The woman was not at first given to Adam for the sake of the procreation of children, but that she might be a helper to him; for the Lord God said, «It is not good for Adam to be alone; let us make him a helper like to him» 580. He did not say from the beginning that he would make her be fruitful and multiply, in order that by means of fertility the race might go on to multiplication; for God might have done this even without the intercourse of marriage, and have made our race increase and multiply like the myriads of angels, as the Lord himself actually said in a place in the gospel, «In the resurrection there is no marriage, nor yet are they joined in marriage, but they will be as the angels in heaven» 581. If anyone says, «What is the help that the woman was to give the man? », we easily say: In the worship in Paradise and in the keeping of the law; as Solomon also said of a similar woman, «Who can find a manly woman?
» 582, and again another wise man says, «A manly woman gladdeneth her husband», and, «A good woman is a good portion 583»: and for this reason they also received the law in common, that through union and conjunction of breath 584 they might be cautious, and not liable to be overcome by the |217 deceit of the serpent; for he said to them, «Of the tree of knowledge of good and evil ye shall not eat of it; but in the day in which ye shall eat of it ye shall die» 585. For, as long as they kept the law, and rejoiced with one another without passion, and did not perceive one another's nakedness, and also did not think of their union in marriage, they enjoyed the blessed life in Paradise itself. But, when the woman gave up the duty of help, and like a weak person out of simplicity accepted the deceitful counsel of the serpent, then she herself also became an evil counsellor to the man, and immediately they were alien to God, and also to the life in Paradise, and by means of death were condemned; and Adam knew his wife, and she becomes a helper to him in the second line, through the procreation of children 586. And at first she was given him as a helper in the worship in Paradise; for such is God's care for us that, even when we change, he continues to help us: for he made man his own master, and to honour that which is good; and, having foreseen that he would change, he provided a helper for him beforehand. Therefore also Adam by the grace of God, as soon as the woman was created, foretold that a man should 'leave his father and his |218 mother, and cleave to his wife, and they two should be one flesh' 587. This bodily birth circumcision renounces, which was given after the fall from the life in Paradise in the character of a remedy, and causes us to approach to the impassibility which existed during the residence in Paradise; by which we are named sons of God, inasmuch as it slays our members upon the earth, and puts off from us the old man. The truth itself, of which circumcision is a type, testifies to us; for Paul wrote to the Colossians and said that circumcision in Christ is baptism, whereby we put away from us our old man, and the mortality wherein we died after our fall from Paradise, and we also cut away the bodily desire as it were a kind of foreskin, and bury it in the waters which slay sin, and in the same way we are buried with Christ, and rise as new men and born afresh, and hasten to the new and; passionless life; for this is what Paul wrote: «In whom ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, by stripping off the body of your flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, and were buried with him in baptism, and rose in him through faith in the operation of God who raised him from the place of the dead; and you also, who had died in your sins and in the foreskin of your flesh, he quickened |219 with him, and he forgave you all your sins» 588.
You see that circumcision is the destruction of the foreskin, and contains a renunciation of fleshly birth and of the body's pleasure in mortality; for it confesses the passionless and new-fashioned life, as the actual truth of baptism showed, of which circumcision is a type, which in a shadow cuts away the foreskin of the flesh, while baptism cuts away the foreskin of the soul, and, so to speak, destroys its excessive wickedness. Such was the legal ceremony, and the covenant with Abraham, and of 589 his descendants, which by the ancients was carried out in a bodily and sensual fashion, but signified beforehand the allegorical conceptions, which the spiritual and suprasensual ceremony in Christ revealed and brought to pass, for through baptism we are circumcised with a suprasensual circumcision, and receive in our mind the privilege of being no longer sons of the flesh, for we are named sons of God. Hear what John the thunder and trumpet of the divine words says, «For those who received him he gave them power to become sons of God, those who believed on his name, who were born not of blood, nor of the will of man, but of God» 590. Joshua 591 also the son of Nun, who typified Jesus who is God and our Saviour, shows this clearly, that circumcision is the baptism which is |220 perfected in Christ, and was given to the sons of Israel as to a kind of sons without passibility; but, because they had lived forty years in the wilderness, it happened that the sons who were begotten by them remained uncircumcised, though it was possible for them to circumcise. But this did not happen by chance, but because God was directing this matter in order to reveal the future mystery; and neither did Moses circumcise them, the exact observer of the fathers' customs, who ordered that anyone who collected sticks on the sabbath-day should die 592, who knew all things beforehand, and among them the threat pronounced by God who said, «Whoever is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin on the eighth day, that soul shall perish from among its people, because it hath set at naught my covenant» 593; nor yet did Joshua 594 again, who succeeded to the government after Moses, circumcise them before they crossed Jordan; but, after they had crossed Jordan, then he took knives of rock and cut away their foreskins from them. And this is plain, that he who has crossed Jordan and by the laver is admitted to regeneration is circumcised with a rock-knife, which is Christ: for «the |221 Word of God is living, and effectual and sharp beyond a two-edged knife»595; and according to Paul's saying Christ also is a rock 596. Let no one hold the unreasonable supposition that they had no iron-knives in the wilderness; for they were armed, and slew those who opposed them. Mark again the same type in other mysteries also; for the blessed Paul said, «Those who were baptized in Christ were baptized in his death» 597, and. Joshua 598 the son of Nun presents the same figure, for he provided that the knives with which he circumcised the sons 0f Israel should be buried with him, that thereby he might show that those who are baptized in the name of Jesus the true God with the baptism that is completed in his death are by it circumcised.
And, when we examine the sense of Scripture, we find an unlimited abundance of thoughts, and a primary union and agreement of the types with the truth, and praise the one God, the giver of the two covenants 599. And, as to the manner again in which we on being admitted to the divine laver and regeneration and putting off from us our old man are both invited by Christ to the mystic table and eat the angelic heavenly bread, Joshua the son of Nun himself again showed us this mystery. For, |222 after they had crossed the Jordan and been circumcised with knives of rock, then for the first time those who were circumcised ate of the wheat of the land of promise, and celebrated the Passover, not with the old leaven, but with the pure true leavens: and, as, when Jesus Christ ate the legal Passover with his disciples, and thereby fulfilled the law, and took the bread of thanksgiving in the midst, and blessed 600 the cup, and put an end to the legal Passover, the new 601 suprasensual sacrifice received a beginning and entrance, so also, when Joshua 602 the son of Nun as in a kind of prefigurement and type kneaded 603 unleavened loaves out of new wheat and kept the Passover, the old eating of manna ceased, and on that same day came to an end. Thus in every single point the type set forth the truth, It is proper also for us to hear the actual words of divine Scripture: |223 «And the sons of Israel celebrated the Passover on the fourteenth day from the evening, to the west of Jericho, beyond Jordan in the plain. And they ate of the produce of the land, and the next day they ate of the unleavened loaves of the Passover. And that same day the manna was taken away, after they had eaten of the wheat and the fruits of the land, and the sons of Israel had no longer manna» 604. The fact again that he who was bom was circumcised on the eighth day shows clearly that that circumcision is a type of the life of impassibility in which we truly live, not the life that is spent by those who are bom to destruction; «for in the resurrection there is no marriage, nor yet persons given in marriage, but they are as the angels in heaven» 605: for the eighth day itself is the beginning also on which our Lord rose, when he became firstfruits for our resurrection. He who is circumcised on the eighth day, which is the beginning of the future world 606, is raised above this world, for the rest of which the seventh day was appointed, the end of which brings us to that day which is the beginning and the eighth, on which is the impassible life, and he does not know the words, «Be fruitful and multiply» 607. These, we think, are the |224 things which through circumcision were given to the sons of Israel. But you perhaps, conversant as you are in divine things, can think of something else that is greater and more sublime.
And next the eighth question, how we ought to understand the saying of our Saviour in the gospel, «Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him» 608. The defence.
It agrees with the order of your questions that we should also shortly refer to your other question about the words spoken by our Saviour in the gospel by way of persuasion and advice, «Agree with thine adversary quickly, while thou art in the way with him, lest thine adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison, and thou shalt not come out thence till thou pay the last mite» 609. This commandment is almost the same which says, «He that will sue thee and take away thy tunic, let him have thy coat also» 610. However this needs a great effort in order that we may restrain and cut away the corruptions of sin. For what he said is like this. «If you are standing in the |225 court that is trying the case itself, and are prosecuting before the judge, and are altogether wrapt up in the court, rouse yourself on the way, and change from enmity towards your adversary to agreement, considering the uncertainty of the issue, lest you have to submit to an adverse verdict, and the adversary on the contrary part deliver you to the judge as one that is guilty, and you fall some time under sentence, and the judge deliver you to the officer, and so you be chastised until you pay the last mite» (it is the custom to term the bronze coin that is the smallest a mite). Luke also clearly confirms this sense, and for perfect understanding it seems to me sufficient to cite his actual words: «But why dost thou not of thyself judge righteously? But, when thou art going with thine adversary on the way to the judge, make it thy business to be quit of him, lest he deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the exactor, and the exactor cast thee into prison. And verily, verily I say unto thee that thou shalt not come out thence till thou pay the last mite» 611. To strip off your cloak also for the man who has a suit with you about your tunic and with great power overcome the rapacity of him who is contending with you is an act of sublime and exalted wisdom. Think only of getting rid of the running to, the judge |226 and duly preventing it during the time that is pressing upon you, when 612 you are not master of yourself, either to ruin your enemy or to reconcile him; and this needs the labour and toil of philosophy. For he commands us not only not to become adversaries, but to agree with our adversaries, and by watchfulness to keep guard over and restrain wrath, and quickly assuage the fire of enmity, and reconcile our present enemies by agreement. This is the simple conclusion of this in the form of exposition; for some have taken this saying in a higher sense. They say that a man's adversary is the reminder that comes from his conscience, and our Lord says this: «When you sin or wish to sin 613, agree with your adversary»; that is, accept the admonition that comes from your conscience, when it reminds you and blames you, if you have sinned or wished to sin; and, if you neglect the reminder from your conscience, and do not obey nor restrain yourself 614, you do not agree |227 with your adversary, but rather use force against your adversary.
So also is it written in the prophet Hosea: «Ephraim used force against his adversary and forgot judgment, because he began to go after vanity» 615. So also Paul wrote to the Romans and said: «Our conscience beareth witness, or maketh defence, on the day on which God shall judge the secrets of men» 616. The words, 'as long as thou art in the way with him', have this meanmg, 'as far as this world extends', and the way is trodden by all men: and this is what he said: «While you are walking in this world as on a way, 617 accept the reminder that comes from your conscience and do not refuse it. If you refuse it and pass out of this world without having agreed 617, the conscience will take the place of an adversary and accuse you before the judge and place you under his sentence, and the judge will deliver you to the torture 618; |228 and these things would not have befallen you if you had made union with your adversary in this way of the world, when admonition was offered to you, and you did not accept this in agreement. This John the Evangelist also wrote in an epistle and said: «If our conscience condemneth us not, we have confidence towards God» 619.
And next the ninth question, as to how we ought to understand the words used by Paul in the first epistle to the Corinthians, «Every sin that a man may sin is outside his body; but he who committeth fornication sinneth against his body» 620. The defence.
This John the Evangelist also wrote in an epistle and said: «If our conscience condemneth us not, we have confidence towards God» 619. And next the ninth question, as to how we ought to understand the words used by Paul in the first epistle to the Corinthians, «Every sin that a man may sin is outside his body; but he who committeth fornication sinneth against his body» 620. The defence.
Since you wished to have that other saying of the wise Paul also explained to you which is made in the first epistle to the Corinthians, «Every sin that a man may sin is outside his body, for he who committeth fornication sinneth against his own body», examine the explanatory and easy exposition of our holy fathers, who take this as a decree. Some say that Paul's |229 intention was this, to show the offence of fornication to be something greater than all other sins, and therefore he frightens those that are weak in order that they may rise to reformation, and by way of deterrent says that fornication is a sin of the body, and as if the other sins are outside the body, and, though a murderer defiles his hand with blood, and sins against his own body, and a slanderer immerses his tongue in calumny as in blood, yet he who commits fornication, he says, dips his whole body in the mire of sin, and lets it down as into a pot that is fall of putrid matter; therefore too he who commits fornication also, in that he thinks that the whole of him has been defiled and polluted, runs to the laver in order to wash off the stain itself of the pollution, which a slanderer or a robber or a thief never does, for they do not think that their body is polluted and defiled by the sin: for Paul, wishing to show that the offence of fornication is higher than the other sins, used this expression and said, «The other sins are outside the body; for he who commits fornication sins against his body». But certain others say that this is the meaning of the saying that he who commits fornication sins against his own body, that is, that he offends against the structure of the body, and, so to speak, against the very formation of man, |230 and the very mystery of the beginning of birth (for it is indeed an ineffable and all-glorious mystery and is known to God alone, how from the emission of a small seed this great and rational animal, that is to say man, takes a beginning); and this, they say, is the meaning of the words 'sins against his body': «and abstain, I pray you, so to speak, from doing despite to the formation of nature, from which your body too also sprang, by unlawful intercourse; for you forget that you are acting madly against yourself, for this act is in truth one of madness and drunkenness».
This is what these say. But others say better, as I also judge their interpretation to be the highest, that is the nearest to the apostle's meaning. Paul desired, so to speak, to show that the sin of fornication is beyond forgiveness; and above this he says, «Know ye not that your bodies are members of Christ? », and he turns reprovingly and says, «Shall I 621 then take a member of Christ and make it a member of a harlot 622? » 623: and by this he |231 showed that he who commits fornication offends against the members of Christ; and so he goes on to say, «Every sin that a man may sin is outside the hody, but he who commits fornication sins against his own body». A slanderer or a thief or a robber or a covetous man sins against a man by slandering him or by stealing his property or by desiring his goods; but he who commits fornication sins against his own body, that is against a member of Christ. Every sin distresses God, and men are reckoned to have sinned against him. These however are human sins, and have been committed as it were against men. But blasphemy or idolatry, and contempt and neglect of the sacred service, and things like these, are, we say, acts of impiety against God, and they are believed, so to speak, to be without |232 forgiveness, as also Eli the priest and old in days who was negligent concerning his sons, who were evil men as it is written and unlawfully offended against the divine service; for 624 he testified to them and said, «If a man sin against a man, they shall pray to the Lord for him: but, if he sin against the Lord, to whom shall they pray for him? » 625 So therefore Paul also wishes to make it appear that the sin of fornication is committed against Christ himself: and just as, if a man take a harlot and bring her into the holy temple of the Saviour of all, and there commit fornication, he will not merely be called to account for fornication, but also judged for impiety as having polluted the illustrious and holy place, so also he who commits fornication before believing: in Christ and writing him as his leader commits fornication |233 only; but, when he has through adoption been inserted in Christ's body, he is not only charged on account of fornication, but is also accused of impiety, as doing despite to the members of Christ 626. Therefore it is with this meaning that Paul says, «He who commits fornication sins against his own body». Immediately without any intervening words he went on to say, «Know ye not that your body is the temple of the Spirit that is in you, which ye have from God? And ye are not your own, for ye were bought with a price. Praise God therefore in your body» 627.
Accordingly it is plain that through the adoption of the Spirit, which is the Spirit of Christ, we both become a temple of God, and, as it is said, «Christ dwelleth in our hearts» 628; and let no one say that he who slanders and he who robs pollutes the one the tongue, the other the hand only; for the pollution is not the same, nor are the stain and the mire the same; and, even if we allow it to be the same, yet the pollution does not affect the whole body equally, nor is the whole temple of God so to speak defiled. For he who commits fornication with a woman who commits fornication intertwines his whole body. |234 This objection the blessed Paul demolished beforehand by having recourse to the divine Scriptures and saying, «They two shall be one flesh» 629. That the sin and pollution of the other sins and those of fornication are not the same, but that the sin that arises from fornication is far removed from these, because it renders the man who commits fornication with his body, or with the temple of God, suddenly void of divine grace, this is clearly signified by the story of Samson. He even before his conception received a commandment by the voice of an angel, his mother being barren and his father Manoah 630; and, when he had been conceived and grown up, his affairs were determined according to the commandment of the angel who appeared; for he said, «Thou shall observe and not drink either wine or strong drink, and thou shalt not eat aught that is defiled; for lo! thou shalt conceive and shalt bear a son, and iron shall not go up upon his head, because the boy is a Nazirite unto God from thy womb» 631. And he grew up and became very great, and he was blessed by the Lord, and the Spirit of God was upon the boy, through whom he wrought marvellous and glorious deeds. But, |235 when he began to transgress the law of the Lord, the other sins were worthy of forgiveness, and the grace of the Spirit did not yet depart from him; but the sin of fornication rendered him bereft of the grace of the Spirit. First he transgressed against the law which commands the sons of Israel that it is not right to take in marriage women alien to their tribes, who 632 were the peoples round them whose land they inherited. For Samson said, «I have seen a beautiful woman in Timnath, of the daughters of the Philistines: now, take her for me to wife». And his father said to him, «Is there not a woman in the house of thy brethren of thy people to take, that thou goest to the uncircumcised Philistines to take thee a wife? » 633: however, they did not persuade him, but on the contrary even went with him to make the unlawful betrothal. And God suffered this wickedness to be carried out, in order that he might requite the Philistines, even against the wish of the sons of Israel; for Samson's going down became an occasion for their destruction. But, as they were going along and were bent on making the betrothal, he turned a little out of the way, and he came upon a lion and killed him as a man might kill a little kid.