Letter CII.

(a.d. 409.)

To Deogratias, My Brother in All Sincerity, and My Fellow-Presbyter, Augustin Sends Greeting in the Lord.

1. In choosing to refer to me questions which were submitted to yourself for solution, you have not done so, I suppose, from indolence, but because, loving me more than I deserve, you prefer to hear through me even those things which you already know quite well. I would rather, however, that the answers were given by yourself, because the friend who proposed the questions seems to be shy of following advice from me, if I may judge from the fact that he has written no reply to a letter of mine, for what reason he knows best. I suspect this, however, and there is neither ill-will nor absurdity in the suspicion; for you also know very well how much I love him, and how great is my grief that he is not yet a Christian; and it is not unreasonable to think that one whom I see unwilling to answer my letters is not willing to have anything written by me to him. I therefore implore you to comply with a request of mine, seeing that I have been obedient to you, and, notwithstanding most engrossing duties, have feared to disappoint the wish of one so dear to me by declining to comply with your request. What I ask is this, that you do not refuse yourself to give an answer to all his questions, seeing that, as you have told me, he begged this from you; and it is a task to which, even before receiving this letter, you were competent; for when you have read this letter, you will see that scarcely anything has been said by me which you did not already know, or which you could not have come to know though I had been silent. This work of mine, therefore, I beg you to keep for the use of yourself and of all other persons whose desire for instruction you deem it suited to satisfy. But as for the treatise of your own composition which I demand from you, give it to him to whom this treatise is most specially adapted, and not to him only, but also all others who find exceedingly acceptable such statements concerning these things as you are able to make, among whom I number myself. May you live always in Christ, and remember me.

2. Question I. Concerning the resurrection. This question perplexes some, and they ask, Which of two kinds of resurrection corresponds to that which is promised to us? is it that of Christ, or that of Lazarus? They say, “If the former, how can this correspond with the resurrection of those who have been born by ordinary generations, seeing that He was not thus born?899    Qui nullâ seminis conditione natus est. If, on the other hand, the resurrection of Lazarus is said to correspond to ours, here also there seems to be a discrepancy, since the resurrection of Lazarus was accomplished in the case of a body not yet dissolved, but the same body in which he was known by the name of Lazarus; whereas ours is to be rescued after many centuries from the mass in which it has ceased to be distinguishable from other things. Again, if our state after the resurrection is one of blessedness, in which the body shall be exempt from every kind of wound, and from the pain of hunger, what is meant by the statement that Christ took food, and showed his wounds after His resurrection? For if He did it to convince the doubting, when the wounds were not real, He practised on them a deception; whereas, if He showed them what was real, it follows that wounds received by the body shall remain in the state which is to ensue after resurrection.”

3. To this I answer, that the resurrection of Christ and not of Lazarus corresponds to that which is promised, because Lazarus was so raised that he died a second time, whereas of Christ it is written: “Christ, being raised from the dead, dieth no more; death hath no more dominion over Him.”900    Rom. vi. 9. The same is promised to those who shall rise at the end of the world, and shall reign for ever with Christ. As to the difference in the manner of Christ’s generation and that of other men, this has no bearing upon the nature of His resurrection, just as it had none upon the nature of His death, so as to make it different from ours. His death was not the less real because of His not having been begotten by an earthly father; just as the difference between the mode of the origination of the body of the first man, who was formed immediately from the dust of the earth, and of our bodies, which we derive from our parents, made no such difference as that his death should be of another kind than ours. As, therefore, difference in the mode of birth does not make any difference in the nature of death, neither does it make any difference in the nature of resurrection.

4. But lest the men who doubt this should, with similar scepticism, refuse to accept as true what is written concerning the first man’s creation, let them inquire or observe, if they can at least believe this, how numerous are the species of animals which are born from the earth without deriving their life from parents, but which by ordinary procreation reproduce offspring like themselves, and in which, notwithstanding the different mode of origination, the nature of the parents born from the earth and of the offspring born from them is the same; for they live alike and they die alike, although born in different ways. There is therefore no absurdity in the statement that bodies dissimilar in their origination are alike in their resurrection. But men of this kind, not being competent to discern in what respect any diversity between things affects or does not affect them, so soon as they discover any unlikeness between things in their original formation, contend that in all that follows the same unlikeness must still exist. Such men may as reasonably suppose that oil made from fat should not float on the surface in water as olive oil does, because the origin of the two oils is so different, the one being from the fruit of a tree, the other from the flesh of an animal.

5. Again, as to the alleged difference in regard to the resurrection of Christ’s body and of ours, that His was raised on the third day not dissolved by decay and corruption, whereas ours shall be fashioned again after a long time, and out of the mass into which undistinguished they shall have been resolved,—both of these things are impossible for man to do, but to divine power both are most easy. For as the glance of the eye does not come more quickly to objects which are at hand, and more slowly to objects more remote, but darts to either distance with equal swiftness, so, when the resurrection of the dead is accomplished “in the twinkling of an eye,”901    1 Cor. xv. 52. it is as easy for the omnipotence of God and for the ineffable expression of His will902    Ineffabili nutui. to raise again bodies which have by long lapse of time been dissolved, as to raise those which have recently fallen under the stroke of death. These things are to some men incredible because they transcend their experience, although all nature is full of wonders so numerous, that they do not seem to us to be wonderful, and are therefore accounted unworthy of attentive study or investigation, not because our faculties can easily comprehend them, but because we are so accustomed to see them. For myself, and for all who along with me labour to understand the invisible things of God by means of the things which are made,903    Rom. i. 20. I may say that we are filled not less, perhaps even more, with wonder by the fact, that in one grain of seed, so insignificant, there lies bound up as it were all that we praise in the stately tree, than by the fact that the bosom of this earth, so vast, shall restore entire and perfect to the future resurrection all those elements of human bodies which it is now receiving when they are dissolved.

6. Again, what contradiction is there between the fact that Christ partook of food after His resurrection, and the doctrine that in the promised resurrection-state there shall be no need of food, when we read that angels also have partaken of food of the same kind and in the same way, not in empty and illusive simulation, but in unquestionable reality; not, however, under the pressure of necessity, but in the free exercise of their power? For water is absorbed in one way by the thirsting earth, in another way by the glowing sunbeams; in the former we see the effect of poverty, in the latter of power. Now the body of that future resurrection-state shall be imperfect in its felicity if it be incapable of taking food; imperfect, also, if, on the other hand, it be dependent on food. I might here enter on a fuller discussion concerning the changes possible in the qualities of bodies, and the dominion which belongs to higher bodies over those which are of inferior nature; but I have resolved to make my reply short, and I write this for mind so endowed that the simple suggestion of the truth is enough for them.

7. Let him who proposed these questions know by all means that Christ did, after His resurrection, show the scars of His wounds, not the wounds themselves, to disciples who doubted; for whose sake, also, it pleased Him to take food and drink more than once, lest they should suppose that His body was not real, but that He was a spirit, appearing to them as a phantom, and not a substantial form. These scars would indeed have been mere illusive appearances if no wounds had gone before; yet even the scars would not have remained if He had willed it otherwise. But it pleased Him to retain them with a definite purpose, namely, that to those whom He was building up in faith unfeigned He might show that one body had not been substituted for another, but that the body which they had seen nailed to the cross had risen again. What reason is there, then, for saying, “If He did this to convince the doubting, He practised a deception”? Suppose that a brave man, who had received many wounds in confronting the enemy when fighting for his country, were to say to a physician of extraordinary skill, who was able so to heal these wounds as to leave not a scar visible, that he would prefer to be healed in such a way that the traces of the wounds should remain on his body as tokens of the honours he had won, would you, in such a case, say that the physician practised deception, because, though he might by his art make the scars wholly disappear, he did by the same art, for a definite reason, rather cause them to continue as they were? The only ground upon which the scars could be proved to be a deception would be, as I have already said, if no wounds had been healed in the places where they were seen.

8. Question II. Concerning the epoch of the Christian religion, they have advanced, moreover, some other things, which they might call a selection of the more weighty arguments of Porphyry against the Christians: “If Christ,” they say, “declares Himself to be the Way of salvation, the Grace and the Truth, and affirms that in Him alone, and only to souls believing in Him, is the way of return to God,904    John xiv. 6. what has become of men who lived in the many centuries before Christ came? To pass over the time,” he adds, “which preceded the founding of the kingdom of Latium, let us take the beginning of that power as if it were the beginning of the human race. In Latium itself gods were worshipped before Alba was built; in Alba, also, religious rites and forms of worship in the temples were maintained. Rome itself was for a period of not less duration, even for a long succession of centuries, unacquainted with Christian doctrine. What, then, has become of such an innumerable multitude of souls, who were in no wise blameworthy, seeing that He in whom alone saving faith can be exercised had not yet favoured men with His advent? The whole world, moreover, was not less zealous than Rome itself in the worship practised in the temples of the gods. Why, then,” he asks, “did He who is called the Saviour withhold Himself for so many centuries of the world? And let it not be said,” he adds, “that provision had been made for the human race by the old Jewish law. It was only after a long time that the Jewish law appeared and flourished within the narrow limits of Syria, and after that, it gradually crept onwards to the coasts of Italy; but this was not earlier than the end of the reign of Caius, or, at the earliest, while he was on the throne. What, then, became of the souls of men in Rome and Latium who lived before the time of the Cæsars, and were destitute of the grace of Christ, because He had not then come?”

9. To these statements we answer by requiring those who make them to tell us, in the first place, whether the sacred rites, which we know to have been introduced into the worship of their gods at times which can be ascertained, were or were not profitable to men. If they say that these were of no service for the salvation of men, they unite with us in putting them down, and confess that they were useless. We indeed prove that they were baneful; but it is an important concession that by them it is at least admitted that they were useless. If, on the other hand, they defend these rites, and maintain that they were wise and profitable institutions, what, I ask, has become of those who died before these were instituted? for they were defrauded of the saving and profitable efficacy which these possessed. If, however, it be said that they could be cleansed from guilt equally well in another way, why did not the same way continue in force for their posterity? What use was there for instituting novelties in worship.

10. If, in answer to this, they say that the gods themselves have indeed always existed, and were in all places alike powerful to give liberty to their worshippers, but were pleased to regulate the circumstances of time, place, and manner in which they were to be served, according to the variety found among things temporal and terrestrial, in such a way as they knew to be most suitable to certain ages and countries, why do they urge against the Christian religion this question, which, if it be asked in regard to their own gods, they either cannot themselves answer, or, if they can, must do so in such a way as to answer for our religion not less than their own? For what could they say but that the difference between sacraments which are adapted to different times and places is of no importance, if only that which is worshipped in them all be holy, just as the difference between sounds of words belonging to different languages and adapted to different hearers is of no importance, if only that which is spoken be true; although in this respect there is a difference, that men can, by agreement among themselves, arrange as to the sounds of language by which they may communicate their thoughts to one another, but that those who have discerned what is right have been guided only by the will of God in regard to the sacred rites which were agreeable to the Divine Being. This divine will has never been wanting to the justice and piety of mortals for their salvation; and whatever varieties of worship there may have been in different nations bound together by one and the same religion, the most important thing to observe was this how far, on the one hand, human infirmity was thereby encouraged to effort, or borne with while, on the other hand, the divine authority was not assailed.

11. Wherefore, since we affirm that Christ is the Word of God, by whom all things were made and is the Son, because He is the Word, not a word uttered and belonging to the past but abides unchangeably with the unchangeable Father, Himself unchangeable, under whose rule the whole universe, spiritual and material, is ordered in the way best adapted to different times and places, and that He has perfect wisdom and knowledge as to what should be done, and when and where everything should be done in the controlling and ordering of the universe,—most certainly, both before He gave being to the Hebrew nation, by which He was pleased, through sacraments suited to the time, to prefigure the manifestation of Himself in His advent, and during the time of the Jewish commonwealth, and, after that, when He manifested Himself in the likeness of mortals to mortal men in the body which He received from the Virgin, and thenceforward even to our day, in which He is fulfilling all which He predicted of old by the prophets, and from this present time on to the end of the world, when He shall separate the holy from the wicked, and give to every man his due recompense,—in all these successive ages He is the same Son of God, co-eternal with the Father, and the unchangeable Wisdom by whom universal nature was called into existence, and by participation in whom every rational soul is made blessed.

12. Therefore, from the beginning of the human race, whosoever believed in Him, and in any way knew Him, and lived in a pious and just manner according to His precepts, was undoubtedly saved by Him, in whatever time and place he may have lived. For as we believe in Him both as dwelling with the Father and as having come in the flesh, so the men of the former ages believed in Him both as dwelling with the Father and as destined to come in the flesh. And the nature of faith is not changed, nor is the salvation made different, in our age, by the fact that, in consequence of the difference between the two epochs, that which was then foretold as future is now proclaimed as past. Moreover, we are not under necessity to suppose different things and different kinds of salvation to be signified, when the self-same thing is by different sacred words and rites of worship announced in the one case as fulfilled, in the other as future. As to the manner and time, however, in which anything that pertains to the one salvation common to all believers and pious persons is brought to pass, let us ascribe wisdom to God, and for our part exercise submission to His will. Wherefore the true religion, although formerly set forth and practised under other names and with other symbolical rites than it now has, and formerly more obscurely revealed and known to fewer persons than now in the time of clearer light and wider diffusion, is one and the same in both periods.

13. Moreover, we do not raise any objection to their religion on the ground of the difference between the institutions appointed by Numa Pompilius for the worship of the gods by the Romans, and those which were up till that time practised in Rome or in other parts of Italy; nor on the fact that in the age of Pythagoras that system of philosophy became generally adopted which up to that time had no existence, or lay concealed, perhaps, among a very small number whose views were the same, but whose religious practice and worship was different: the question upon which we join issue with them is, whether these gods were true gods, or worthy of worship, and whether that philosophy was fitted to promote the salvation of the souls of men. This is what we insist upon discussing; and in discussing it we pluck up their sophistries by the root. Let them, therefore, desist from bringing against us objections which are of equal force against every sect, and against religion of every name. For since, as they admit, the ages of the world do not roll on under the dominion of chance, but are controlled by divine Providence, what may be fitting and expedient in each successive age transcends the range of human understanding, and is determined by the same wisdom by which Providence cares for the universe.

14. For if they assert that the reason why the doctrine of Pythagoras has not prevailed always and universally is, that Pythagoras was but a man, and had not power to secure this, can they also affirm that in the age and in the countries in which his philosophy flourished, all who had the opportunity of hearing him were found willing to believe and follow him? And therefore it is the more certain that, if Pythagoras had possessed the power of publishing his doctrines where he pleased and when he pleased, and if he had also possessed along with that power a perfect foreknowledge of events, he would have presented himself only at those places and times in which he foreknew that men would believe his teaching. Wherefore, since they do not object to Christ on the ground of His doctrine not being universally embraced,—for they feel that this would be a futile objection if alleged either against the teaching of philosophers or against the majesty of their own gods,—what answer, I ask, could they make, if, leaving out of view that depth of the wisdom and knowledge of God within which it may be that some other divine purpose lies much more deeply hidden, and without prejudging the other reasons possibly existing, which are fit subjects for patient study by the wise, we confine ourselves, for the sake of brevity in this discussion, to the statement of this one position, that it pleased Christ to appoint the time in which He would appear and the persons among whom His doctrine was to be proclaimed, according to His knowledge of the times and places in which men would believe on Him?905    Augustin, having been informed by Hilary (Ep. 219) that this passage was quoted by Semipelagians in defence of their error, made the following remark on it in his work De Prædestinatione Sanctorum, c. ix.: “Do you not observe that my design in this sentence was, without excluding the secret counsel of God and any other causes, to say, in reference to Christ’s foreknowledge, what seemed sufficient to reduce to silence the unbelief of the Pagans by whom the objection had been raised? For what is more certain than this, that Christ foreknew who would believe in Him, and in what time and place they would live? But I did not deem it necessary, in that connection, to investigate and discuss the question as to this faith in Christ preached to them, whether they would have it of themselves or would receive it from God—in other words, whether God merely foreknew, or also predestinated them. The sentence, therefore, ‘that it pleased Christ to appoint the time in which He would appear, and the persons among whom His doctrine was to be proclaimed, according to His knowledge of the times and places in which men would believe in Him,’ might have been put thus: that it pleased Christ to appoint the time in which He would appear, and the persons among whom His doctrine was to be proclaimed, according to His knowledge of the times and places in which those would be found who had been chosen in Him before the foundation of the world.” For He foreknew, regarding those ages and places in which His gospel has not been preached, that in them the gospel, if preached, would meet with such treatment from all, without exception, as it met with, not indeed from all, but from many, at the time of His personal presence on earth, who would not believe in Him, even though men were raised from the dead by Him; and such as we see it meet with in our day from many who, although the predictions of the prophets concerning Him are so manifestly fulfilled, still refuse to believe, and, misguided by the perverse subtlety of the human heart, rather resist than yield to divine authority, even when this is so clear and manifest, so glorious and so gloriously published abroad. So long as the mind of man is limited in capacity and in strength, it is his duty to yield to divine truth. Why, then, should we wonder if Christ knew that the world was so full of unbelievers in the former ages, that He righteously refused to manifest Himself or to be preached to those of whom He foreknew that they would not believe either His words or His miracles? For it is not incredible that all may have been then such as, to our amazement, so many have been from the time of His advent to the present time, and even now are.

15. And yet, from the beginning of the human race, He never ceased to speak by His prophets, at one time more obscurely, at another time more plainly, as seemed to divine wisdom best adapted to the time; nor were there ever wanting men who believed in Him, from Adam to Moses, and among the people of Israel itself, which was by a special mysterious appointment a prophetic nation, and among other nations before He came in the flesh. For seeing that in the sacred Hebrew books some are mentioned, even from Abraham’s time, not belonging to his natural posterity nor to the people of Israel, and not proselytes added to that people, who were nevertheless partakers of this holy mystery,906    Sacramenti. why may we not believe that in other nations also, here and there, some more were found, although we do not read their names in these authoritative records? Thus the salvation provided by this religion, by which alone, as alone true, true salvation is truly promised, was never wanting to any one who was worthy of it, and he to whom it was wanting was not worthy of it.907    On these words Augustin remarks in his Retractations, Book II. ch. xxxi.: “This I said, not meaning that any one could be worthy through his own merit, but in the same sense as the apostle said, ‘Not of works, but of Him that calleth; it was said unto her, “The elder shall serve the younger”’ (Rom. ix. 11, 12),—a calling which he affirms to pertain to the purpose of God. For which reason he says, ‘Not according to our works, but according to His own purpose and grace’ (2 Tim. i. 9); and again, ‘We know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them that are called according to His purpose’ (Rom. viii. 28). Of which calling he says, ‘That our God would count you worthy of this calling’ (2 Thess. i. 11).” And from the beginning of the human family, even to the end of time, it is preached, to some for their advantage, to some for their condemnation. Accordingly, those to whom it has not been preached at all are those who were foreknown as persons who would not believe; those to whom, notwithstanding the certainty that they would not believe, the salvation has been proclaimed are set forth as an example of the class of unbelievers; and those to whom, as persons who would believe, the truth is proclaimed are being prepared for the kingdom of heaven and for the society of the holy angels.

16. Question III. Let us now look to the question which comes next in order. “They find fault,” he says, “with the sacred ceremonies, the sacrificial victims, the burning of incense, and all the other parts of worship in our temples; and yet the same kind of worship had its origin in antiquity with themselves, or from the God whom they worship, for He is represented by them as having been in need of the first-fruits.”

17. This question is obviously founded upon the passage in our Scriptures in which it is written that Cain brought to God a gift from the fruits of the earth, but Abel brought a gift from the firstlings of the flock.908    Gen. iv. 3, 4. Our reply, therefore, is, that from this passage the more suitable inference to be drawn is, how ancient is the ordinance of sacrifice which the infallible and sacred writings declare to be due to no other than to the one true God; not because God needs our offerings, seeing that, in the same Scriptures, it is most clearly written, “I said unto the Lord, Thou art my Lord, for Thou hast no need of my good,”909    Ps. xvi. 2: ὅτι τῶν ἀγαθῶν μου οὐ χρειαν ἔχεις, LXX. but because, even in the acceptance or rejection or appropriation of these offerings, He considers the advantage of men, and of them alone. For in worshipping God we do good to ourselves, not to Him. When, therefore, He gives an inspired revelation, and teaches how He is to be worshipped, He does this not only from no sense of need on His part, but from a regard to our highest advantage. For all such sacrifices are significant, being symbols of certain things by which we ought to be roused to search or know or recollect the things which they symbolize. To discuss this subject satisfactorily would demand of us something more than the short discourse in which we have resolved to give our reply at this time, more particularly because in other treatises we have spoken of it fully.910    E.g., in the reply to Faustus, Book xxii. Those also who have before us expounded the divine oracles, have spoken largely of the symbols of the sacrifices of the Old Testament as shadows and figures of things then future.

18. With all our desire, however, to be brief, this one thing we must by no means omit to remark, that the false gods, that is to say, the demons, which are lying angels, would never have required a temple, priesthood, sacrifice, and the other things connected with these from their worshippers, whom they deceive, had they not known that these things were due to the one true God. When, therefore, these things are presented to God according to His inspiration and teaching, it is true religion; but when they are given to demons in compliance with their impious pride, it is baneful superstition. Accordingly, those who know the Christian Scriptures of both the Old and the New Testaments do not blame the profane rites of Pagans on the mere ground of their building temples, appointing priests, and offering sacrifices, but on the ground of their doing all this for idols and demons. As to idols, indeed, who entertains a doubt as to their being wholly devoid of perception? And yet, when they are placed in these temples and set on high upon thrones of honour, that they may be waited upon by suppliants and worshippers praying and offering sacrifices, even these idols, though devoid both of feeling and of life, do, by the mere image of the members and senses of beings endowed with life, so affect weak minds, that they appear to live and breathe, especially under the added influence of the profound veneration with which the multitude freely renders such costly service.

19. To these morbid and pernicious affections of the mind divine Scripture applies a remedy, by repeating, with the impressiveness of wholesome admonition, a familiar fact, in the words, “Eyes have they, but they see not; they have ears, but they hear not,”911    Ps. cxv. 5, 6. etc. For these words, by reason of their being so plain, and commending themselves to all people as true, are the more effective in striking salutary shame into those who, when they present divine worship before such images with religious fear, and look upon their likeness to living beings while they are venerating and worshipping them, and utter petitions, offer sacrifices, and perform vows before them as if present, are so completely overcome, that they do not presume to think of them as devoid of perception. Lest, moreover, these worshippers should think that our Scriptures intend only to declare that such affections of the human heart spring naturally from the worship of idols, it is written in the plainest terms, “All the gods of the nations are devils.”912    Ps. xcvi. 5: δαιμόνια, LXX. And therefore, also, the teaching of the apostles not only declares, as we read in John, “Little children, keep yourselves from idols,”913    1 John v. 21. but also, in the words of Paul, “What say I then? that the idol is anything, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils, and not to God; and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.”914    1 Cor. x. 19, 20. From which it may be clearly understood, that what is condemned in heathen superstitions by the true religion is not the mere offering of sacrifices (for the ancient saints offered these to the true God), but the offering of sacrifices to false gods and to impious demons. For as the truth counsels men to seek the fellowship of the holy angels, in like manner impiety turns men aside to the fellowship of the wicked angels, for whose associates everlasting fire is prepared, as the eternal kingdom is prepared for the associates of the holy angels.

20. The heathen find a plea for their profane rites and their idols in the fact that they interpret with ingenuity what is signified by each of them, but the plea is of no avail. For all this interpretation relates to the creature, not to the Creator, to whom alone is due that religious service which is in the Greek language distinguished by the word λατρεία. Neither do we say that the earth, the seas, the heaven, the sun, the moon, the stars, and any other celestial influences which may be beyond our ken are demons; but since all created things are divided into material and immaterial, the latter of which we also call spiritual, it is manifest that what is done by us under the power of piety and religion proceeds from the faculty of our souls known as the will, which belongs to the spiritual creation, and is therefore to be preferred to all that is material. Whence it is inferred that sacrifice must not be offered to anything material. There remains, therefore, the spiritual part of creation, which is either pious or impious,—the pious consisting of men and angels who are righteous, and who duly serve God; the impious consisting of wicked men and angels, whom we also call devils. Now, that sacrifice must not be offered to a spiritual creature, though righteous, is obvious from this consideration, that the more pious and submissive to God any creature is, the less does he presume to aspire to that honour which he knows to be due to God alone. How much worse, therefore, is it to sacrifice to devils, that is, to a wicked spiritual creature, which, dwelling in this comparatively dark heaven nearest to earth, as in the prison assigned to him in the air, is doomed to eternal punishment. Wherefore, even when men say that they are offering sacrifices to the higher celestial powers, which are not devils, and imagine that the only difference between us and them is in a name, because they call them gods and we call them angels, the only beings which really present themselves to these men, who are given over to be the sport of manifold deceptions, are the devils who find delight and, in a sense, nourishment in the errors of mankind. For the holy angels do not approve of any sacrifice except what is offered, agreeably to the teaching of true wisdom and true religion, unto the one true God, whom in holy fellowship they serve. Therefore, as impious presumption, whether in men or in angels, commands or covets the rendering to itself of those honours which belong to God, so, on the other hand, pious humility, whether in men or in holy angels, declines these honours when offered, and declares to whom alone they are due, of which most notable examples are conspicuously set forth in our sacred books.

21. In the sacrifices appointed by the divine oracles there has been a diversity of institution corresponding to the age in which they were observed. Some sacrifices were offered before the actual manifestation of that new covenant, the benefits of which are provided by the one true offering of the one Priest, namely, by the shed blood of Christ; and another sacrifice, adapted to this manifestation, and offered in the present age by us who are called Christians after the name of Him who has been revealed, is set before us not only in the gospels, but also in the prophetic books. For a change, not of the God, who is worshipped, nor of the religion itself, but of sacrifices and of sacraments, would seem to be proclaimed without warrant now, if it had not been foretold in the earlier dispensation. For just as when the same man brings to God in the morning one kind of offering, and in the evening another, according to the time of day, he does not thereby change either his God or his religion, any more than he changes the nature of a salutation who uses one form of salutation in the morning and another in the evening: so, in the complete cycle of the ages, when one kind of offering is known to have been made by the ancient saints, and another is presented by the saints in our time, this only shows that these sacred mysteries are celebrated not according to human presumption, but by divine authority, in the manner best adapted to the times. There is here no change either in the Deity or in the religion.

22. Question IV. Let us, in the next place, consider what he has laid down concerning the proportion between sin and punishment when, misrepresenting the gospel, he says: “Christ threatens eternal punishment to those who do not believe in Him;”915    John iii. 18. and yet He says in another place, “With what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.”916    Matt. vii. 2. “Here,” he remarks, “is something sufficiently absurd and contradictory; for if He is to award punishment according to measure, and all measure is limited by the end of time, what mean these threats of eternal punishment?”

23. It is difficult to believe that this question has been put in the form of objection by one claiming to be in any sense a philosopher; for he says, “All measure is limited by time,” as if men were accustomed to no other measures than measures of time, such as hours and days and years, or such as are referred to when we say that the time of a short syllable is one-half of that of a long syllable.917    “Longam syllabam esse duorum temporum brevem unius etiam pueri sciunt.”—Quintil. ix. 4, 47. For I suppose that bushels and firkins, urns and amphoræ, are not measures of time. How, then, is all measure limited by time? Do not the heathen themselves affirm that the sun is eternal? And yet they presume to calculate and pronounce on the basis of geometrical measurements what is the proportion between it and the earth. Whether this calculation be within or beyond their power, it is certain, notwithstanding, that it has a disc of definite dimensions. For if they do ascertain how large it is, they know its dimensions, and if they do not succeed in their investigation, they do not know these; but the fact that men cannot discover them is no proof that they do not exist. It is possible, therefore, for something to be eternal, and nevertheless to have a definite measure of its proportions. In this I have been speaking upon the assumption of their own view as to the eternal duration of the sun, in order that they may be convinced by one of their own tenets, and obliged to admit that something may be eternal and at the same time measurable. And therefore let them not think that the threatening of Christ concerning eternal punishment is not to be believed because of His also saying, “In what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you.”

24. For if He had said, “That which you have measured shall be measured unto you,” even in that case it would not have been necessary to take the clauses as referring to something which was in all respects the same. For we may correctly say, That which you have planted you shall reap, although men plant not fruit but trees, and reap not trees but fruit. We say it, however, with reference to the kind of tree; for a man does not plant a fig-tree, and expect to gather nuts from it. In like manner it might be said, What you have done you shall suffer; not meaning that if one has committed adultery, for example, he shall suffer the same, but that what he has in that crime done to the law, the law shall do unto him, i.e. forasmuch as he has removed from his life the law which prohibits such things, the law shall requite him by removing him from that human life over which it presides. Again, if He had said, “As much as ye shall have measured, so much shall be measured unto you,” even from this statement it would not necessarily follow that we must understand punishments to be in every particular equal to the sins punished. Barley and wheat, for example, are not equal in quality, and yet it might be said, “As much as ye shall have measured, so much shall be measured unto you,” meaning for so much wheat so much barley. Or if the matter in question were pain, it might be said, “As great pain shall be inflicted on you as you have inflicted on others;” this might mean that the pain should be in severity equal, but in time more protracted, and therefore by its continuance greater. For suppose I were to say of two lamps, “The flame of this one was as hot as the flame of the other,” this would not be false, although, perchance, one of them was earlier extinguished than the other. Wherefore, if things be equally great in one respect, but not in another, the fact that they are not alike in all respects does not invalidate the statement that in one respect, as admitted, they are equally great.

25. Seeing, however, that the words of Christ were these, “In what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you,” and that beyond all question the measure in which anything is measured is one thing, and that which is measured in it is another, it is obviously possible that with the same measure with which men have measured, say, a bushel of wheat, there may be measured to them thousands of bushels, so that with no difference in the measure there may be all that difference in the quantity, not to speak of the difference of quality which might be in the things measured; for it is not only possible that with the same measure with which one has measured barley to others, wheat may be measured to him, but, moreover, with the same measure with which he has measured grain, gold may be measured to him, and of the grain there may have been one bushel, while there may be very many of the gold. Thus, although there is a difference both in kind and quantity, it may be nevertheless truly said in reference to things which are thus unlike: “In the measure in which he measured to others it is measured unto him.”

The reason, moreover, why Christ uttered this saying is sufficiently plain from the immediately preceding context. “Judge not,” He said, “that ye be not judged; for in the judgment in which ye judge ye shall be judged.” Does this mean that if they have judged any one with injustice they shall themselves be unjustly judged? Of course not; for there is no unrighteousness with God. But it is thus expressed, “In the judgment in which ye judge ye shall be judged,” as if it were said, In the will in which ye have dealt kindly with others ye shall be set at liberty, or in the will in which ye have done evil to others ye shall be punished. As if any one, for example, using his eyes for the gratification of base desires, were ordered to be made blind, this would be a just sentence for him to hear, “In those eyes by which thou hast sinned, in them hast thou deserved to be punished.” For every one uses the judgment of his own mind, according as it is good or evil, for doing good or for doing evil. Wherefore it is not unjust that he be judged in that in which he judges, that is to say, that he suffer the penalty in the mind’s faculty of judgment when he is made to endure those evils which are the consequences of the sinful judgment of his mind.

26. For while other torments which are prepared to be hereafter inflicted are visible, torments occasioned by the same central cause, namely, a depraved will,—it is also the fact that within the mind itself, in which the appetite of the will is the measure of all human actions, sin is followed immediately by punishment, which is for the most part increased in proportion to the greater blindness of one by whom it is not felt. Therefore when He had said, “With [or rather, as Augustin renders it, In] what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged,” He went on to add, “And in what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you.” A good man, that is to say, will measure out good actions in his own will, and in the same shall blessedness be measured unto him; and in like manner, a bad man will measure out bad actions in his own will, and in the same shall misery be meted out to him; for in whatsoever any one is good when his will aims at what is good, in the same he is evil when his will aims at what is evil. And therefore it is also in this that he is made to experience bliss or misery, viz. in the feeling experienced by his own will, which is the measure both of all actions and of the recompenses of actions. For we measure actions, whether good or bad, by the quality of the volitions which produce them, not by the length of time which they occupy. Were it otherwise, it would be regarded a greater crime to fell a tree than to kill a man. For the former takes a long time and many strokes, the latter may be done with one blow in a moment of time; and yet, if a man were punished with no more than transportation for life for this great crime committed in a moment, it would be said that he had been treated with more clemency than he deserved, although, in regard to the duration of time, the protracted punishment is not in any way to be compared with the sudden act of murder. Where, then, is anything contradictory in the sentence objected to, if the punishments shall be equally protracted or even alike eternal, but differing in comparative gentleness and severity? The duration is the same; the pain inflicted is different in degree, because that which constitutes the measure of the sins themselves is found not in the length of time which they occupy, but in the will of those who commit them.

27. Certainly the will itself endures the punishment, whether pain be inflicted on the mind or on the body; so that the same thing which is gratified by the sin is smitten by the penalty, and so that he who judgeth without mercy is judged without mercy; for in this sentence also the standard of measure is the same only in this point, that what he did not give to others is denied to him, and therefore the judgment passed on him shall be eternal, although the judgment pronounced by him cannot be eternal. It is therefore in the sinner’s own measure that punishments which are eternal are measured out to him, though the sins thus punished were not eternal; for as his wish was to have an eternal enjoyment of sin, so the award which he finds is an eternal endurance of suffering.

The brevity which I study in this reply precludes me from collecting all, or at least as many as I could of the statements contained in our sacred books as to sin and the punishment of sin, and deducing from these one indisputable proposition on the subject; and perhaps, even if I obtained the necessary leisure, I might not possess abilities competent to the task. Nevertheless, I think that in the meantime I have proved that there is no contradiction between the eternity of punishment and the principle that sins shall be recompensed in the same measure in which men have committed them.

28. Question V. The objector who has brought forward these questions from Porphyry has added this one in the next place: Will you have the goodness to instruct me as to whether Solomon said truly or not that God has no Son?

29. The answer is brief: Solomon not only did not say this, but, on the contrary, expressly said that God hath a Son. For in one of his writings Wisdom saith: “Before the mountains were settled, before the hills was I brought forth.”918    Prov. viii. 25: πρὸ δὲ πάντων βουνῶν γεννᾷ με, LXX. And what is Christ but the Wisdom of God? Again, in another place in the book of Proverbs, he says: “God hath taught me wisdom, and I have learned the knowledge of the holy.919    According to LXX. Who hath ascended up into heaven and descended? who hath gathered the winds in His fists? who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son’s name?”920    Prov. xxx. 3, 4. Of the two questions concluding this quotation, the one referred to the Father, namely, “What is His name?”—with allusion to the foregoing words, “God hath taught me wisdom,”—the other evidently to the Son, since he says, “or what is His Son’s name?”—with allusion to the other statements, which are more properly understood as pertaining to the Son, viz. “Who hath ascended up into heaven and descended?”—a question brought to remembrance by the words of Paul: “He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens;”921    Eph. iv. 10.—“Who hath gathered the winds in His fists?” i.e. the souls of believers in a hidden and secret place, to whom, accordingly, it is said, “Ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God;”922    Col. iii. 3.—“Who hath bound the waters in a garment?”923    Augustin’s words are: quis convertit aquam in vestimento? from the LXX.: τίς συνέστρεψεν ὕδωρ ἐν ἰματίῳ. whence it could be said, “As many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ;”924    Gal. iii. 27.—“Who hath established all the ends of the earth?” the same who said to His disciples, “Ye shall be witnesses unto Me, both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.”925    Acts i. 8.

30. Question VI. The last question proposed is concerning Jonah, and it is put as if it were not from Porphyry, but as being a standing subject of ridicule among the Pagans; for his words are: “In the next place, what are we to believe concerning Jonah, who is said to have been three days in a whale’s belly? The thing is utterly improbable and incredible, that a man swallowed with his clothes on should have existed in the inside of a fish. If, however, the story is figurative, be pleased to explain it. Again, what is meant by the story that a gourd sprang up above the head of Jonah after he was vomited by the fish? What was the cause of this gourd’s growth?” Questions such as these I have seen discussed by Pagans amidst loud laughter, and with great scorn.

31. To this I reply, that either all the miracles wrought by divine power may be treated as incredible, or there is no reason why the story of this miracle should not be believed. The resurrection of Christ Himself upon the third day would not be believed by us, if the Christian faith was afraid to encounter Pagan ridicule. Since, however, our friend did not on this ground ask whether it is to be believed that Lazarus was raised on the fourth day, or that Christ rose on the third day, I am much surprised that he reckoned what was done with Jonah to be incredible; unless, perchance, he thinks it easier for a dead man to be raised in life from his sepulchre, than for a living man to be kept in life in the spacious belly of a sea monster. For without mentioning the great size of sea monsters which is reported to us by those who have knowledge of them, let me ask how many men could be contained in the belly which was fenced round with those huge ribs which are fixed in a public place in Carthage, and are well known to all men there? Who can be at a loss to conjecture how wide an entrance must have been given by the opening of the mouth which was the gateway of that vast cavern? unless, perchance, as our friend stated it, the clothing of Jonah stood in the way of his being swallowed without injury, as if he had required to squeeze himself through a narrow passage, instead of being, as was the case, thrown headlong through the air, and so caught by the sea monster as to be received into its belly before he was wounded by its teeth. At the same time, the Scripture does not say whether he had his clothes on or not when he was cast down into that cavern, so that it may without contradiction be understood that he made that swift descent unclothed, if perchance it was necessary that his garment should be taken from him, as the shell is taken from an egg, to make him more easily swallowed. For men are as much concerned about the raiment of this prophet as would be reasonable if it were stated that he had crept through a very small window, or had been going into a bath; and yet, even though it were necessary in such circumstances to enter without parting with one’s clothes, this would be only inconvenient, not miraculous.

32. But perhaps our objectors find it impossible to believe in regard to this divine miracle that the heated moist air of the belly, whereby food is dissolved, could be so moderated in temperature as to preserve the life of a man. If so, with how much greater force might they pronounce it incredible that the three young men cast into the furnace by the impious king walked unharmed in the midst of the flames! If, therefore, these objectors refuse to believe any narrative of a divine miracle, they must be refuted by another line of argument. For it is incumbent on them in that case not to single out some one to be objected to, and called in question as incredible, but to denounce as incredible all narratives in which miracles of the same kind or more remarkable are recorded. And yet, if this which is written concerning Jonah were said to have been done by Apuleius of Madaura or Apollonius of Tyana, by whom they boast, though unsupported by reliable testimony, that many wonders were performed (albeit even the devils do some works like those done by the holy angels, not in truth, but in appearance, not by wisdom, but manifestly by subtlety),—if, I say, any such event were narrated in connection with these men to whom they give the flattering name of magicians or philosophers, we should hear from their mouths sounds not of derision, but of triumph. Be it so, then; let them laugh at our Scriptures; let them laugh as much as they can, when they see themselves daily becoming fewer in number, while some are removed by death, and others by their embracing the Christian faith, and when all those things are being fulfilled which were predicted by the prophets who long ago laughed at them, and said that they would fight and bark against the truth in vain, and would gradually come over to our side; and who not only transmitted these statements to us, their descendants, for our learning, but promised that they should be fulfilled in our experience.

33. It is neither unreasonable nor unprofitable to inquire what these miracles signify, so that, after their significance has been explained, men may believe not only that they really occurred, but also that they have been recorded, because of their possessing symbolical meaning. Let him, therefore, who proposes to inquire why the prophet Jonah was three days in the capacious belly of a sea monster, begin by dismissing doubts as to the fact itself; for this did actually occur, and did not occur in vain. For if figures which are expressed in words only, and not in actions, aid our faith, how much more should our faith be helped by figures expressed not only in words, but also in actions! Now men are wont to speak by words; but divine power speaks by actions as well as by words. And as words which are new or somewhat unfamiliar lend brilliancy to a human discourse when they are scattered through it in a moderate and judicious manner, so the eloquence of divine revelation receives, so to speak, additional lustre from actions which are at once marvellous in themselves and skilfully designed to impart spiritual instruction.

34. As to the question, What was prefigured by the sea monster restoring alive on the third day the prophet whom it swallowed? why is this asked of us, when Christ Himself has given the answer, saying, “An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign, and there shall no sign be given it but the sign of the prophet Jonas: for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly, so must the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth”926    Matt. xii. 39, 40.? In regard to the three days in which the Lord Christ was under the power of death, it would take long to explain how they are reckoned to be three whole days, that is, days along with their nights, because of the whole of the first day and of the third day being understood as represented on the part of each; moreover, this has been already stated very often in other discourses. As, therefore, Jonah passed from the ship to the belly of the whale, so Christ passed from the cross to the sepulchre, or into the abyss of death. And as Jonah suffered this for the sake of those who were endangered by the storm, so Christ suffered for the sake of those who are tossed on the waves of this world. And as the command was given at first that the word of God should be preached to the Ninevites by Jonah, but the preaching of Jonah did not come to them until after the whale had vomited him forth, so prophetic teaching was addressed early to the Gentiles, but did not actually come to the Gentiles until after the resurrection of Christ from the grave.

35. In the next place, as to Jonah’s building for himself a booth, and sitting down over against Nineveh, waiting to see what would befall the city, the prophet was here in his own person the symbol of another fact. He prefigured the carnal people of Israel. For he also was grieved at the salvation of the Ninevites, that is, at the redemption and deliverance of the Gentiles, from among whom Christ came to call, not righteous men, but sinners to repentance.927    Luke v. 32. Wherefore the shadow of that gourd over his head prefigured the promises of the Old Testament, or rather the privileges already enjoyed in it, in which there was, as the apostle says, “a shadow of things to come,”928    Col. ii. 17. furnishing, as it were, a refuge from the heat of temporal calamities in the land of promise. Moreover, in that morning-worm,929    Vermis matutinus. which by its gnawing tooth made the gourd wither away, Christ Himself is again prefigured, forasmuch as, by the publication of the gospel from His mouth, all those things which flourished among the Israelites for a time, or with a shadowy symbolical meaning in that earlier dispensation, are now deprived of their significance, and have withered away. And now that nation, having lost the kingdom, the priesthood, and the sacrifices formerly established in Jerusalem, all which privileges were a shadow of things to come, is burned with grievous heat of tribulation in its condition of dispersion and captivity, as Jonah was, according to the history, scorched with the heat of the sun, and is overwhelmed with sorrow; and notwithstanding, the salvation of the Gentiles and of the penitent is of more importance in the sight of God than this sorrow of Israel and the “shadow” of which the Jewish nation was so glad.

36. Again, let the Pagans laugh, and let them treat with proud and senseless ridicule Christ the Worm and this interpretation of the prophetic symbol, provided that He gradually and surely, nevertheless, consume them. For concerning all such Isaiah prophesies, when by him God says to us, “Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings: for the moth shall eat them up as a garment, and the worm shall eat them like wool; but my righteousness shall be for ever.”930    Isa. li. 7, 8. Let us therefore acknowledge Christ to be the morning-worm, because, moreover, in that psalm which bears the title, “Upon the hind of the morning,”931    Ps. xxii. The title in the LXX. is, “ὑπὲρ τῆς ἀντιληψέως τῆς ἑωθινῆς,” which Augustin translates, “pro susceptione matutina.” He has been pleased to call Himself by this very name: “I am,” He says, “a worm, and no man, a reproach of men, and despised of the people.” This reproach is one of those reproaches which we are commanded not to fear in the words of Isaiah, “Fear ye not the reproach of men.” By that Worm, as by a moth, they are being consumed who under the tooth of His gospel are made to wonder daily at the diminution of their numbers, which is caused by desertion from their party. Let us therefore acknowledge this symbol of Christ; and because of the salvation of God, let us bear patiently the reproaches of men. He is a Worm because of the lowliness of the flesh which He assumed—perhaps, also, because of His being born of a virgin; for the worm is generally not begotten, but spontaneously originated in flesh or any vegetable product [sine concubitu nascitur]. He is the morning-worm, because He rose from the grave before the dawn of day. That gourd might, of course, have withered without any worm at its root; and finally, if God regarded the worm as necessary for this work, what need was there to add the epithet morning-worm, if not to secure that He should be recognised as the Worm who in the psalm, “pro susceptione matutina,” sings, “I am a worm, and no man”?

37. What, then, could be more palpable than the fulfilment of this prophecy in the accomplishment of the things foretold? That Worm was indeed despised when He hung upon the cross, as is written in the same psalm: “They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying, He trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him; let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him;”932    Ps. xxii. 7, 8. and again, when this was fulfilled which the psalm foretold, “They pierced my hands and my feet. They have told all my bones: they look and stare upon me. They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture,”933    Ps. xxii. 16–18.—circumstances which are in that ancient book described when future by the prophet with as great plainness as they are now recorded in the gospel history after their occurrence. But if in His humiliation that Worm was despised, is He to be still despised when we behold the accomplishment of those things which are predicted in the latter part of the same psalm: “All the ends of the world shall remember, and turn unto the Lord; and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship in His presence. For the kingdom is the Lord’s; and He shall govern among the nations”?934    Ps. xxii. 27, 28. Thus the Ninevites “remembered, and turned unto the Lord.” The salvation granted to the Gentiles on their repentance, which was thus so long before prefigured, Israel then, as represented by Jonah, regarded with grief, as now their nation grieves, bereft of their shadow, and vexed with the heat of their tribulations. Any one is at liberty to open up with a different interpretation, if only it be in harmony with the rule of faith, all the other particulars which are hidden in the symbolical history of the prophet Jonah; but it is obvious that it is not lawful to interpret the three days which he passed in the belly of the whale otherwise than as it has been revealed by the heavenly Master Himself in the gospel, as quoted above.

38. I have answered to the best of my power the questions proposed; but let him who proposed them become now a Christian at once, lest, if he delay until he has finished the discussion of all difficulties connected with the sacred books, he come to the end of this life before he pass from death to life. For it is reasonable that he inquire as to the resurrection of the dead before he is admitted to the Christian sacraments. Perhaps he ought also to be allowed to insist on preliminary discussion of the question proposed concerning Christ—why He came so late in the world’s history, and of a few great questions besides, to which all others are subordinate. But to think of finishing all such questions as those concerning the words, “In what measure ye mete, it shall be measured unto you,” and concerning Jonah, before he becomes a Christian, is to betray great unmindfulness of man’s limited capacities, and of the shortness of the life which remains to him. For there are innumerable questions the solution of which is not to be demanded before we believe, lest life be finished by us in unbelief. When, however, the Christian faith has been thoroughly received, these questions behove to be studied with the utmost diligence for the pious satisfaction of the minds of believers. Whatever is discovered by such study ought to be imparted to others without vain self-complacency; if anything still remain hidden, we must bear with patience an imperfection of knowledge which is not prejudicial to salvation.

SEX QUAESTIONES CONTRA PAGANOS EXPOSITAE, LIBER UNUS, SEU EPISTOLA CII .

Augustinus Deogratias presbytero mittens solutionem quaestionum sex propositarum a pagano quodam quas ipse Augustino exsolvendas transmiserat.

Sincerissimo fratri et compresbytero DEOGRATIAS, AUGUSTINUS, in Domino salutem.

1. Quaestiones tibi propositas mihi delegare maluisti, non, ut opinior, pigritia, sed quod ea quoque ipsa quae nosti, libentius per nos audis, dum nos nimis diligis. At ego propterea malebam a te illas aperiri, quod ille ipse amicus, qui eas proposuit, quantum ex hoc conjici datur, quod mihi ad quasdam epistolas non rescripsit, quasi nos verecundatur sequi: viderit quam ob causam. Hoc tamen suspicor, nec suspicio mea vel malevola est vel absurda, cum et optime noveris quantum eum diligam, quantoque mihi dolori sit, quod nondum christianus est; et utique non inconvenienter arbitror eum, quem video mihi rescribere noluisse, nihil sibi a me scribi voluisse. Proinde obsecro te, ut quemadmodum ego tibi parui, 0371 atque inter meas arctissimas occupationes, tuam sanctam mihique charissimam voluntatem offendere timui, si non facerem quod petisti, ita tu quoque facias quod peto. Hoc est autem, ut breviter quemadmodum a te, sicut mihi indicasti, postulavit, ad omnia illi respondere non graveris, quod et ante facere potuisti. Scies enim cum legeris, nihil pene a me dictum quod ipse non noveras, aut quod me tacente nosse non poteras. Sed hoc opus meum rogo habeas cum caeteris, quorum studio scis convenire. Tuum vero illud quod flagito, habeat ipse cui hoc potissimum congruit, et caeteri quos non parum ista delectant, quemadmodum dici possunt abs te, inter quos et ipse sum. Vivas semper in Christo nostri memor.

QUAESTIO PRIMA. De Resurrectione.

2. Movet quosdam, et requirunt de duabus resurrectionibus quae conveniat promissae resurrectioni, utrumnam Christi an Lazari? Si Christi, inquiunt, quomodo potest haec convenire resurrectioni natorum ex semine, ejus qui nulla seminis conditione natus est? Si autem Lazari resurrectio convenire asseritur, ne haec quidem congruere videtur: siquidem Lazari resurrectio facta sit de corpore nondum tabescente, de eo corpore, quo Lazarus dicebatur; nostra autem multis saeculis post ex confuso eruetur. Deinde si post resurrectionem status beatus futurus est, nulla corporis injuria, nulla necessitate famis, quid sibi vult cibatum Christum fuisse, et vulnera monstravisse? Sed si propter incredulum fecit, finxit: si autem verum ostendit, ergo in resurrectione accepta futura sunt vulnera.

3. Quibus respondetur, ideo non Lazari resurrectionem, sed potius Christi congruere promissae resurrectioni, quia Lazarus ita resurrexit ut iterum moreretur, Christus autem, sicut de illo scriptum est, surgens a mortuis, jam non moritur, et mors illi ultra non dominabitur (Rom. VI, 9). Quod etiam promissum est resurrecturis in fine saeculi, et cum illo regnaturis in aeternum. Sic autem non pertinet ad resurrectionem differentia nativitatis Christi et nostrae, quod ille sine virili semine, nos autem ex viro et femina creati sumus, sicut etiam non pertinet ad ipsius mortis differentiam. Non enim propterea illius non vera mors fuit, quia sine virili semine natus est; sicut nec ipsius primi hominis aliter exorta caro quam nostra (quandoquidem ille sine parentibus de terra creatus est, nos vero ex parentibus) aliquid attulit ad differentiam mortis, ut aliter ille moreretur, aliter nos. Sicut autem ad mortis sic nec ad resurrectionis differentiam valet diversa nativitas.

4. Sed ne hoc ipsum quod scriptum est de primo homine, similiter infideles homines nolint credere, quaerant vel animadvertant, si vel hoc possunt, quam muliorum animalium genera sine parentibus ex terra procreentur, quae tamen coeundo pariant etiam ipsa sui simile, nec propter diversitatem nativitatis intersit aliquid ad naturam eorum, quae procreata sunt ex terra, et eorum quae illis coeuntibus orta sunt. Similiter 0372 enim vivunt, similiterque moriuntur, quamvis dissimiliter nata sint. Ita non est absurdum, ut similiter resurgant corpora, quae dissimiliter orta sunt. Hujusmodi autem homines non valentes intueri ad quam rem intersit aliquid diversum, et ad quam non intersit, ubi adverterint aliquam distantiam primordiorum, etiam omnia consequent a distare oportere contendunt. Possunt tales putare oleum ex adipibus non debere natare super aquam, sicut illud quod ex oliva est, quoniam longe est utriusque origo dissimilis, quando illud ex ligno, hoc ex carne profluxerit.

5. Quantum autem attinet ad illam differentiam, quod Christi corpus, non dissolutum tabe atque putredine, die tertio resurrexit, nostra vero post longum tempus, ex quadam, quo soluta discesserant, confusione reparabuntur; humanae facultati utrumque impossibile est, divinae autem potestati utrumque facillimum. Ut enim radius oculi nostri, non citius pervenit ad propinquiora, tardius ad longinquiora, sed utraque intervalla parili celeritate contingit; ita cum in ictu oculi (I Cor. XV, 52), sicut Apostolus dicit, fit resurrectio mortuorum, omnipotentiae Dei et ineffabili nutui tam facile est quaeque recentia, quam diuturno tempore dilapsa cadavera suscitare. Incredibilia sunt haec quibusdam, quia inexperta; cum omnis natura rerum tam sit plena miraculis, ut non quasi facili pervestigatione rationis, sed videndi consuetudine, mira non sint, atque ob hoc, nec consideratione, nec inquisitione digna videantur. Nam ego, et mecum quicumque invisibilia Dei per ea quae facta sunt intelligere moliuntur (Rom. I, 20), aut non minus aut amplius admiramur, in uno seminis tam parvulo grano, omnia quae laudamus in arbore tanquam liciata latuisse, quam mundi hujus tam ingentem sinum, quae de corporibus humanis dum dilabuntur assumit, resurrectioni futurae tota et integra redditurum.

6. Quomodo autem contrarium est, et Christum post resurrectionem cibatum, et in resurrectione quae promittitur ciborum indigentiam non futuram; cum et Angelos legamus ejusdemmodi escas eodemque modo sumpsisse, non ficto et inani phantasmate, sed manifestissima veritate; nec tamen necessitate, sed potestate? Aliter enim absorbet terra aquam sitiens, aliter solis radius candens: illa indigentia, iste potentia. Futurae ergo resurrectionis corpus, imperfectae felicitatis erit, si cibos sumere non potuerit; imperfectae felicitatis, si cibis eguerit. Possem hic de commutationibus corporalium qualitatum, et de praepotenti valentia in inferiora corpora corporum superiorum latius disputare; sed breviter mihi respondere propositum est, et talibus ingeniis hoc scribitur, quae admonere suffecerit.

7. Sciat sane qui has proposuit quaestiones, Christum post resurrectionem cicatrices, non vulnera demonstrasse dubitantibus, propter quos etiam cibum ac potum sumere voluit, non semel, sed saepius, ne illud non corpus, sed spiritum esse arbitrarentur et sibi non solide, sed imaginaliter apparere. Tunc autem illae falsae cicatrices fuissent, si nulla vulnera 0373 praecessissent; et tamen nec ipsae essent, si eas esse noluisset. Voluit autem certae dispensationis gratia, ut eis quos aedificabat in fide non ficta, non aliud pro alio, sed hoc quod crucifixum viderant, resurrexisse monstraret. Quid est ergo quod dicitur. Si propter incredulum fecit, finxit? quasi vero si quisquam vir fortis pro patria dimicans, multa adversa vulnera exciperet, et peritissimo medico, qui haec ita curare valeret ut cicatrices nullae apparerent, ipse potius diceret sic se velle sanari ut magis essent in corpore suo vestigia vulnerum, tanquam tituli gloriarum, ideo ille medicus cicatrices finxisse diceretur, quia cum per artem efficere potuerit ut non essent, certa existente causa per artem effecit potius ut essent: quae uno solo modo, sicut superius dixi, falsae convincerentur, si nulla vulnera sanarentur.

QUAESTIO SECUNDA. De tempore christianae religionis.

8. Item alia proposuerunt, quae dicerent de Porphyrio contra Christianos tanquam validiora decerpta. Si Christus se, inquiunt, salutis viam dicit, gratiam, et veritatem, in seque solo ponit animis sibi credentibus reditum (Joan. XIV, 6); quid egerunt tot saeculorum homines ante Christum? Ut dimittam, inquit, tempora ante Latium regnatum, ab ipso Latio quasi principium humani nominis sumamus. In ipso Latio ante Albam dii culti sunt. In Alba aeque religiones ritusque valuere templorum. Non paucioribus saeculis ipsa Roma, longo saeculorum tractu sine christiana lege fuit. Quid, inquit, actum de tam innumeris animis, qui omnino in culpa nulla sunt; siquidem is cui credi posset, nondum adventum suum hominibus commodarat? Orbis quoque cum ipsa Roma in ritibus templorum caluit. Quare, inquit, Salvator qui dictus est, sese tot saeculis subduxit? Sed ne, inquit, dicant lege Judaica vetere hominum curatum genus, longo post tempore lex Judaeorum apparuit ac viguit angusta Syriae regione, postea vero prorepsit etiam in fines Italos; sed post Caesarem Caium, aut certe ipso imperante. Quid igitur actum de Romanis animabus vel Latinis, quae gratia nondum advenientis Christi viduatae sunt, usque in Caesarum tempus?

9. Huic propositioni respondetur, ut primo ipsi dicant utrum profuerint hominibus deorum suorum sacra, quae constat certis temporibus instituta. Quae si negant aliquid profuisse ad animarum salutem, nobiscum ea destruunt, et esse inania confitentur. Nos quidem etiam perniciosa monstramus; sed parum non est ut ipsi interim prius inania fateantur. Si vero ea defendunt, et sapienter atque utiliter asserunt instituta; quaero quid actum sit de his qui antequam haec instituta essent, morte obierunt: hac enim utique salute atque utilitate fraudati sunt. Si autem potuerunt alio modo purgari, cur non idem modus perseveravit in posteros? quid opus erat instituere novitias consecrationes, quae antiquitus non fuerunt?

10. Hic si dicunt deos quidem ipsos semper fuisse, et ad liberandos cultores suos pariter abique valuisse, sed pro varietate rerum temporalium ac terrenarum, 0374 quae scirent certis temporibus locisque congruere, in his alias atque alias, alibi atque alibi, aliter atque aliter sibi voluisse serviri; cur hanc quaestionem christianae religioni ingerunt, in qua nobis ipsi pro diis suis aut respondere non possunt, aut si possunt, in eo ipso sibi etiam pro nostra religione respondeant, ita nihil interesse pro diversa temporum locorumque congruentia, quam diversis sacramentis colatur, si quod colitur sanctum est, sicut nihil interest pro diversa linguarum auditorumque congruentia, quam diversis sonis dicatur, si quod dicitur verum est: dum hoc sane intersit, quod linguae sonos, quibus inter se sua sensa communicent, etiam homines pacto quodam societatis sibi instituere possunt; quibus autem sacris divinitati congruerent, voluntatem Dei secuti sunt qui recte sapuerunt. Quae omnino nunquam defuit ad salutem justitiae pietatique mortalium, et si qua in aliis atque in aliis populis, una eademque religione sociatis varie celebrantur, quatenus fiat plurimum refert, quo et humana exhortetur vel toleretur infirmitas, et divina non oppugnetur auctoritas.

11. Quamobrem cum Christum dicamus Verbum Dei per quod facta sunt omnia, et ideo Filium quia Verbum, nec Verbum dictum atque transactum, sed apud incommutabilem Patrem incommutabile ipsum atque incommutabiliter manens, sub cujus regimine universa creatura spiritualis et corporalis, pro congruentia temporum locorumque administratur, cui moderandae et gubernandae, quid, quando et ubi, circa eam fieri oporteat, sapientia et scientia penes ipsum est; profecto et antequam propagaret Hebraeorum gentem, per quam sui adventus manifestationem congruis sacramentis praefiguraret, et ipsis temporibus Israelitici regni, et deinde cum se in carne de virgine accepta mortalibus mortaliter demonstravit et deinceps usque nunc, cum implet omnia quae per Prophetas ante praedixit, et abhinc usque ad finem saeculi, quo sanctos ab impiis dirempturus est, et sua cuique retributurus, idem ipse est Filius Dei, Patri coaeternus, et incommutabilis Sapientia, per quam creata est universa natura, et cujus participatione omnis rationalis anima fit beata.

12. Itaque ab exordio generis humani, quicumque in eum crediderunt, eumque utcumque intellexerunt, et secundum ejus praecepta pie et juste vixerunt, quandolibet et ubilibet fuerint, per eum procul dubio salvi facti sunt. Sicut enim nos in eum credimus et apud Patrem manentem, et qui in carne jam venerit, sic credebant in eum antiqui, et apud Patrem manentem, et in carne venturum. Nec quia pro temporum varietate nunc factum annuntiatur, quod tunc futurum praenuntiabatur, ideo fides ipsa variata, vel salus ipsa diversa est. Nec quia una eademque res, aliis atque aliis sacris et sacramentis vel praedicatur aut prophetatur, ideo alias atque alias res vel alias atque alias salutes oportet intelligi. Quid autem quando fiat quod ad unam eamdemque fidelium et piorum liberationem pertineat, consilium Deo tribuamus nobis obedientiam teneamus. Proinde aliis tunc nominibus 0375 et signis, aliis autem nunc, et prius occultius, postea manifestius, et prius a paucioribus, postea a pluribus, una tamen eademque religio vera significatur et observatur.

13. Nec nos eis objicimus quod aliter Numa Pompilius deos colendos Romanis instituit, atque aliter ab eis vel Italis antea colebantur, nec quod Pythagoreis temporibus illa philosophia celebrata est, quae antea vel omnino non erat, vel in paucissimis eadem sentientibus, non tamen eodem ritu viventibus fortasse latitabat: sed utrum illi dii, veri, aut colendi sint, et utrum illa philosophia animarum saluti aliquid prosit; hoc cum eis agimus, hoc in quaestionem vocamus, hoc disputando convellimus. Desinant igitur objicere nobis quod omni sectae, et omni nomini religionis objici potest. Cum enim non fortuito labi, sed divina providentia tempora ordinari fateantur, quid cuique tempori aptum et opportunum sit, humanum consilium praetergreditur, et illinc dispertitur, unde ipsa providentia rebus consulit.

14. Si enim dixerint propterea non semper nec ubique fuisse Pythagoricam disciplinam, quia Pythagoras homo fuit, neque hoc in potestate habere potuit; numquid hoc etiam dicere possunt, eo ipso tempore quando fuit, et in his terrarum locis ubi illa philosophia viguit, omnes qui eum audire potuerunt, etiam credere sectarique voluisse? Ac per hoc magis si tantae potestatis fuisset Pythagoras, ut ubi vellet, et quando vellet, sua dogmata praedicaret, etsi haberet etiam cum ea potestate summam rerum praescientiam, nusquam et nunquam appareret, nisi ubi et quando sibi homines credituros esse praenosceret. Proinde, cum Christo non objiciant, quod ejus doctrinam non omnes sequuntur; sentiunt enim et ipsi nequaquam hoc recte objici posse, vel philosophorum sapientiae, vel etiam numini deorum suorum; quid respondebunt si excepta illa altitudine sapientiae et scientiae Dei, ubi fortassis aliud divinum consilium longe secretius latet, sine praejudicio etiam aliarum forte causarum, quae a prudentibus investigari queunt, hoc solum eis brevitatis gratia, in hujus quaestionis disputatione dicamus, tunc voluisse hominibus apparere Christum, et apud eos praedicari doctrinam suam, quando sciebat, et ubi sciebat esse qui in eum fuerant credituri ? His enim temporibus et his locis, quibus Evangelium ejus non est praedicatum, tales omnes in ejus praedicatione futuros esse praesciebat, quales 0376 non quidem omnes, sed tamen multi in ejus corporali praesentia fuerunt, qui in eum nec suscitatis ab eo mortuis credere voluerunt: quales etiam nunc multos videmus, cum tanta manifestatione de illo compleantur praeconia Prophetarum, nolle adhuc credere, et malle humana astutia resistere, quam tam clarae atque perspicuae tamque sublimi et sublimiter diffamatae divinae cedere auctoritati. Quandiu parvus et infirmus est intellectus hominis, divinae debet cedere veritati. Quid ergo mirum si tam infidelibus plenum orbem terrarum Christus prioribus saeculis noverat, ut eis apparere, vel praedicari merito nollet, quos nec verbis, nec miraculis suis credituros esse praesciebat? Neque enim incredibile est tales fuisse tunc omnes, quales ab ejus adventu usque ad hoc tempus, tam multos fuisse et esse miramur.

15. Et tamen ab initio generis humani, alias occultius, alias evidentius, sicut congruere temporibus divinitus visum est, nec prophetari destitit, nec qui in eum crederent defuerunt, ab Adam usque ad Moysen, et in ipso populo Israel, quae speciali quodam mysterio gens prophetica fuit, et in aliis gentibus antequam venisset in carne. Cum enim nonnulli commemorantur in sanctis hebraicis Libris jam ex tempore Abrahae, nec de stirpe carnis ejus, nec ex populo Israel, nec ex adventitia societate in populo Israel, qui tamen hujus sacramenti participes fuerunt; cur non credamus etiam in caeteris hac atque illac gentibus, alias alios fuisse, quamvis eos commemoratos in eisdem auctoritatibus non legamus? Ita salus religionis hujus, per quam solam veram salus vera veraciterque promittitur, nulli unquam defuit qui dignus fuit, et cui defuit, dignus non fuit . Et ab exordio propagationis humanae, usque in finem, quibusdam ad praemium, quibusdam ad judicium praedicatur. Ac per hoc et quibus omnino annuntiata non est, non credituri praesciebantur; et quibus non credituris tamen annuntiata est, in illorum exemplum demonstrantur: quibus autem credituris annuntiantur, hi regno coelorum et sanctorum Angelorum societati praeparantur.

QUAESTIO TERTIA. De sacrificiorum distinctione.

16. Jam videamus eam, quae sequitur, quaestionem. Accusant, inquit, ritus sacrorum, hostias, thura, et caetera, quae templorum cultus exercuit; cum idem cultus ab ipsis, inquit, vel a Deo quem colunt exorsus est temporibus priscis, cum inducitur Deus primitiis eguisse.

17. Huic respondetur, quoniam ex illo Scripturarum nostrarum loco haec quaestio proposita agnoscitur, 0377 ubi scriptum est Cain ex fructibus terrae. Abel autem ex primitivis ovium obtulisse munus Deo (Gen. IV, 3, 4), hinc potius esse intelligendum quam sit res antiqua sacrificium, quod non nisi uni Deo vero offerri oportere veraces et sacrae Litterae monent: non quod illo egeat Deus, cum in eisdem ipsis litteris apertissime sit scriptum, Dixi Domino, Deus meus es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges (Psal. XV, 2); sed quod etiam in his, vel acceptandis vel reprobandis vel percipiendis, non nisi hominibus consulat. Nobis enim prodest colere Deum, non ipsi Deo. Cum ergo inspirat et docet quomodo colendus sit, non solum sua nulla indigentia facit, sed nostra maxima utilitate. Significativa sunt autem omnia talia sacrificia, et quarumdam rerum similitudines, quibus admoneri nos oportet ad ea ipsa quorum similitudines sunt, sive scrutanda, sive noscenda, sive recolenda. De qua re, quantum satis est, disserenda, non brevis sermo flagitandus est, quo nunc respondere nobis propositum est: praesertim quia in aliis opusculis nostris , de hac re multa jam diximus. Et qui ante nos Dei eloquia tractaverunt, de similitudinibus sacrificiorum Veteris Testamenti, tanquam umbris figurisque futurorum copiose locuti sunt.

18. Hoc sane nec in ista brevitate praetereundum est, quod templum, sacerdotium, sacrificium, et alia quaecumque ad haec pertinentia, nisi uni vero Deo deberi nossent dii falsi, hoc est daemones, qui sunt praevaricatores angeli, nunquam haec sibi a cultoribus suis, quos decipiunt, expetissent. Verum haec cum exhibentur Deo, secundum ejus inspirationem atque doctrinam, vera religio est: cum autem daemonibus, secundum eorum impiam superbiam, noxia superstitio. Quapropter qui christianas Litteras utriusque Testamenti sciunt, non hoc culpant in sacrilegis ritibus Paganorum quod construant templa, et instituant sacerdotia, et faciant sacrificia; sed quod haec idolis et daemoniis exhibeant. Et idola quidem omni sensu carere, quis dubitet? Verumtamen cum his locantur sedibus, honorabili sublimitate, ut a precantibus atque immolantibus attendantur, ipsa similitudine animatorum membrorum atque sensuum, quamvis insensata et exanima, afficiunt infirmos animos, ut vivere ac spirare videantur; accedente praesertim veneratione multitudinis, qua tantus eis cultus impenditur.

19. Quibus morbidis et pestilentiosis affectibus medetur Scriptura divina, quae rem quidem notam, sed tamen salubri remedio admonitionis inculcat, dicens, Oculos habent et non vident, aures habent et non audiunt (Psal. CXIII, 5), et caetera talia. Haec enim verba, quo magis aperta et populariter vera sunt, eo magis incutiunt salubrem pudorem illis qui, cum talibus simulacris divinum cum timore cultum exhibent, eaque viventibus similia venerantes adorantesque contuentur, eisque velut praesentibus preces allegant, victimas immolant, vota persolvunt, sic afficiuntur omnino ut ea sensu carentia putare non audeant. Ne 0378 arbitrentur autem isti hoc solum nostros Libros velle sonare, quod hujuscemodi affectus humano cordi ex idolis innascitur, apertissime scriptum est, Quoniam omnes dii gentium daemonia (Psal. XCV, 5). Unde et apostolica disciplina non solum dicit, quod apud Joannem legitur, Fratres, cavete a simulacris (I Joan. V, 21); verum etiam quod apud Paulum: Quid ergo? dico quod idolis immolatum sit aliquid, aut idolum est aliquid? Sed quae immolant gentes, daemoniis et non Deo immolant: nolo autem vos socios fieri daemoniorum (I Cor. X, 19, 20). Unde satis intelligi potest, non tam ipsam immolationem (nam vero Deo prisci sancti immolaverunt), sed quod diis falsis et impiis daemoniis immolatur, reprehendi a vera religione in superstitionibus gentium. Sicut enim veritas hortatur homines fieri socios sanctorum Angelorum; ita seducit impietas ad societatem daemoniorum, cui praeparatur ignis aeternus, sicut regnum aeternum societati sanctorum.

20. Neque illinc excusant impii sua sacrilega sacra et simulacra, quod eleganter interpretantur quid quaeque significent. Omnis quippe illa interpretatio ad creaturam refertur, non ad Creatorem, cui uni debetur servitus religionis illa, quae uno nomine λατρεία graece appellatur. Nec nos dicimus terram, maria, coelum, solem, lunam, stellas, et quasdam non in promptu sitas coelites potestates esse daemonia: sed cum omnis creatura partim corporalis sit, partim vero incorporalis, quam etiam spiritualem vocamus, manifestum est, id quod a nobis pie ac religiose fit, a voluntate animi proficisci, quae creatura spiritualis est, et omni corporali praeponenda. Unde colligitur corporali creaturae non esse sacrificandum. Restat spiritualis, quae vel pia vel impia est: pia scilicet, in hominibus et Angelis justis, et Deo rite servientibus; impia vero in hominibus et angelis iniquis, quos etiam daemones dicimus. Ac per hoc nec spirituali, quamvis justae creaturae sacrificandum est. Quoniam quanto magis pia est et subdita Deo, tanto minus se tali honore dignatur, quem scit non deberi nisi Deo. Quanto ergo perniciosius est sacrificare daemoniis, hoc est iniquae spirituali creaturae, quae in hoc proximo et caliginoso coelo habitans, tanquam in aerio carcere suo, prae destinata est supplicio sempiterno! Quamobrem, etiam cum se homines superioribus coelestibus potestatibus, quae non sunt daemonia, sacrificare dicunt et solius nominis interesse arbitrantur, quod illi deos, nos eos Angelos appellamus, non se opponunt eis ludificandis multiplici fallacia, nisi daemones, qui errore delectantur et quodammodo pascuntur humano. Quoniam sancti Angeli non approbant sacrificium, nisi quod ex doctrina verae sapientiae, veraeque religionis offertur uni vero Deo, cui sancta societate deserviunt. Proinde, sicut impia superbia, sive hominum, sive daemonum, sibi hos divinos honores exhiberi vel jubet vel cupit; ita pia humilitas vel hominum, vel Angelorum sanctorum, haec sibi oblata recusavit, et cui deberentur ostendit. Cujus rei manifestissima in sacris Litteris nostris exempla monstrantur.

0379 21. Dispertita autem divinis eloquiis sacrificia pro temporum congruentia, ut alia fierent ante manifestationem Novi Testamenti, quod ex ipsa vera ut unius sacerdotis victima, hoc est, ex effuso Christi sanguine ministratur, et aliud nunc quod huic manifestationi congruum, qui jam declarato nomine christiani appellamur, offerimus, non solum evangelicis, verum etiam propheticis Litteris demonstratur. Mutatio quippe non Dei, non ipsius religionis, sed sacrificiorum et sacramentorum impudenter nunc videretur praedicata, nisi fuisset ante praedicta. Quemadmodum enim unus idemque homo, si Deo mane aliud offerat, aliud vespere, pro congruentia diurni temporis, non Deum mutat, nec religionem, sicut nec salutem qui alio modo mane, alio vespere salutat: ita in universo tractu saeculorum, cum aliud oblatum est ab antiquis sanctis, aliud ab eis qui nunc sunt offertur, non humana praesumptione, sed auctoritate divina, temporibus congrua sacra mysteria celebrantur, non Deus aut religio commutatur.

QUAESTIO QUARTA. De eo quod scriptum est: In qua mensura mensi fueritis, remetietur vobis (Matth. VII, 2).

22. Jam nunc deinde videamus quale sit quod de mensura peccati atque supplicii proposuit, sic Evangelio calumniatus: Minatur, inquit, Christus sibi non credentibus, aeterna suplicia (Joan III, 18); et alibi ait: «In qua mensura mensi fueritis, remetietur vobis.» Satis, inquit, ridicule atque contrarie: nam si ad mensuram redditurus est poenam, et omnis mensura circumscripta est fine temporis, quid sibi volunt minae infiniti supplicii?

23. Istam quaestionem a qualicumque philosopho esse objectam atque propositam, difficile est credere: quippe qui ait, Omnis mensura circumscribitur tempore, quasi non soleat nisi temporum esse mensura, sicut horarum et dierum et annorum; vel sicut dicimus brevem syllabam simplum habere temporis, ad syllabam longam. Puto enim modios et rabones, urnas et amphoras, non temporum esse mensuras. Quomodo ergo omnis mensura circumscribitur tempore? Nonne ipsi dicunt, solem istum sempiternum esse? qui tamen quantus sit ad terram, mensuris geometricis perscrutari audent et renuntiare. Quod sive possint, sive non possint, constat eum tamen propriam sui orbis habere mensuram. Quia et si comprehendunt quantus sit, mensuram ejus comprehendunt; et si hoc non assequuntur, mensuram ejus utique non comprehendunt: nec ideo nulla est, quia homines eam nosse non possunt. Potest igitur aliquid et sempiternum esse, et certam sui modi habere mensuram. Secundum ipsos enim de solis aeternitate locutus sum, ut sua sententia convincantur, atque concedant esse posse aliquid cum mensura sempiternum. Ac sic non ideo putent non esse credendum de supplicio sempiterno quod minatus est Christus, quia idem dixit: In qua mensura mensi fueritis, remetietur vobis.

24. Si enim dixisset, Quod mensi fueritis, hoc metietur 0380 vobis; etiam sic non omnino ad eamdem rem ex omni parte necesse esset referre sententiam. Possumus enim recte dicere, Quod plantaveris, hoc decerpes; quamvis nemo plantet pomum sed lignum, decerpat autem pomum magis quam lignum: sed illud dicimus secundum arboris genus, quia non ficum plantat unde nucem decerpat. Ita dici posset, Quod feceris patieris: non ut si stuprum fecerit, stuprum patiatur; sed quod peccato isto fecit legi, hoc ei lex faciat, id est, quia legem talia prohibentem de sua vita abstulit, auferat eum etiam ipsa lex de hominum vita quam regit. Item si dixisset, Quantum mensi fueritis, tantum remetietur vobis; nec sic esset consequens ut omni modo aequales peccatis poenas intelligere deberemus. Neque enim aequalia sunt, verbi gratia, triticum et hordeum; et profecto dici posset, Quantum mensi fueritis, tantum remetietur vobis, hoc est, quantum tritici, tantum hordei. Quod si de doloribus ageretur atque diceretur, Quantum dolorem ingesseritis, tantus ingeretur vobis; fieri posset ut tantus dolor esset, quamvis tempore diuturnior, hoc est mora major, vi par. Neque enim si de duabus lucernis dicamus, Tantum ignis iste caluit, quantum ille; ideo falsum erit, quia una earum forte citius exstincta est. Non itaque si aliquid secundum aliud tantum est, secundum aliud non est tantum, quia non omni modo tantum est, ideo falsus est modus in quo tantum est.

25. Cum vero dixerit, In qua mensura mensi fueritis, remetietur vobis, cumque manifestum sit, aliud esse mensuram in qua metitur aliquid, aliud ipsam rem quae metitur; jam fieri potest ut in qua mensura homines mensi essent, verbi gratia, modium tritici, in ea illis metirentur millia modiorum, ut et tam multum interesset in quantitate frumenti, et nihil in mensura: ut taceam de ipsarum rerum diversitate; quia non solum fieri potest ut in qua mensura quis mensus fuerit hordeum, in ea illi metiatur triticum, sed in qua mensura mensus fuerit frumentum, in ea illi metiatur aurum, et frumenti sit unus modius, auri autem, quamplurimi. Ita cum sine comparatione rerum ipsarum, et genus, et quantitas differat, dici tamen rectissime potest: In qua mensura mensus est, in ea illi metitum est. Unde autem hoc dixerit Christus, paulo superius satis elucet: Nolite, inquit, judicare, ut non judicemini: in quo enim judicio judicaveritis, judicabimini. Numquid si iniquo judicio judicabunt, iniquo judicabuntur? Absit. Nulla quippe iniquitas apud Deum. Sed ita dictum est, In quo judicio judicaveritis, in eo judicabimini, tanquam diceretur: In qua voluntate benefeceritis, in ipsa liberabimini; vel, in qua voluntate malefeceritis, in ipsa puniemini. Velut si quisquam ad turpem concupiscentiam oculis utens, excaecari juberetur, recte utique audiret: In quibus oculis peccasti, in eis supplicium meruisti. Judicio enim quisque animi sui, seu bono seu malo, utitur vel ad benefaciendum vel ad peccandum. Unde non iniquum est ut in quo judicat in eo judicetur, hoc est, ut in ipso animi sui judicio poenas luat, cum ea mala patitur quae male judicantem animum consequuntur.

0381 26. Alia namque sunt manifesta tormenta quae post futura praeparantur, etiam ipsa ex eodem malae voluntatis cardine attracta : in ipso autem animo, ubi appetitus voluntatis humanorum omnium est mensura factorum, continuo poena sequitur culpam, plerumque major non sentientis caecitate graviore. Ideo cum dixisset, In quo judicio judicaveritis, judicabimini, secutus adjunxit: Et qua mensura mensi fueritis, metietur vobis. In voluntate quippe propria metietur bonus homo bona facta, et in ea metietur ei beatitudo. Itemque in voluntate propria metietur malus homo mala opera, et in ea metietur ei miseria; quoniam ubi quisque bonus est, cum bene vult, ibi etiam malus cum male vult. Ac per hoc ibi etiam fit vel beatus vel miser, hoc est in ipso suae voluntatis affectu, quae omnium factorum meritorumque mensura est. Ex qualitatibus quippe voluntatum, non ex temporum spatiis, sive recte facta sive peccata metimur. Alioquin majus peccatum haberetur, arborem dejicere quam hominem occidere. Illud enim fit longa mora, ictibus multis; hoc uno ictu, brevissimo tempore: pro quo tamen exigui temporis tam grandi peccato, si perpetua deportatione homo puniretur, etiam mitius cum illo actum, quam dignus fuerat, diceretur; quamvis in spatio temporali longitudo poenae cum brevitate facinoris nullo modo sit comparanda. Quid ergo contrarium est, si erunt pariter longa, vel etiam pariter aeterna supplicia, sed aliis alia mitiora, vel acriora; ut quibus tempus aequale est, non sit aequalis asperitas, propter mensuram etiam peccatorum, non in productione temporum, sed in voluntate peccantum?

27. Voluntas quippe ipsa punitur, sive animi supplicio sive corporis; ut quae delectatur in peccatis, ipsa plectatur in poenis, et ut qui judicat sine misericordia, sine misericordia judicetur: et in hac quippe sententia, ad hoc solum eadem mensura est, ut quod non praestitit, non ei praestetur; atque ita quod ipse judicatur aeternum erit, quamvis quod judicavit, aeternum esse nequiverit. In eadem igitur mensura, quamvis non aeternorum malefactorum, aeterna supplicia remetiuntur; ut quia aeternam voluit habere peccati perfructionem , aeternam vindictae inveniat severitatem. Non autem sinit proposita brevitas responsionis meae, ut colligum omnia, vel certe quamplurima quae de peccatis et de peccatorum poenis sancti Libri habent, atque ex his unam eruam sine ulla ambiguitate sententiam, si tamen id valeam viribus mentis, etiamsi congruum nanciscar otium. Nunc tamen arbitror satis esse monstratum, non esse contrarium aeternitati suppliciorum, quod in eadem mensura redduntur, in qua peccata commissa sunt.

QUAESTIO QUINTA. De Filio Dei secundum Salomonem.

28. Post hanc quaestionem, qui eas ex Porphyrio proposuit, hoc adjunxit: Sane etiam de illo, inquit, 0382me dignaberis instruere, si vere dixit Salomon, Filium Deus non habet.

29. Cito respondetur: Non solum hoc non dixit, verum etiam dixit quod Deus habeat Filium. Apud eum enim Sapientia loquens ait: Ante omnes colles genuit me (Prov. VIII, 25). Et quid est Christus, nisi Dei Sapientia? Item quodam loco Proverbiorum: Deus, inquit, docuit me sapientiam, et scientiam sanctorum cognovi. Quis ascendit in coelum, et descendit? quis collegit ventos in sinum? quis convertit aquam in vestimento? quis tenuit fines terrae? quod nomen est ei, aut quod nomen est Filii ejus (Id. XXX, 4)? Horum duorum quae in extremo commemoravi, unum retulit ad Patrem, id est, Quod nomen est ei, propter quod dixerat, Deus docuit me sapientiam: et alterum evidenter ad Filium, cum ait, aut quod nomen est Filii ejus, propter caetera, quae de Filio magis intelliguntur, hoc est, Quis ascendit in coelum, et descendit; quod Paulus ita commemorat, Qui descendit, ipse est et qui ascendit super omnes coelos (Ephes. IV, 10): Quis collegit ventos in sinum? id est, animas credentium in occultum atque secretum; quibus dicitur, Mortui enim estis, et vita vestra abscondita est cum Christo in Deo (Coloss. III, 3): Quis convertit aquam in vestimento? ut dici posset, Quotquot in Christum baptizati estis, Christum induistis (Gal. III, 27): Quis tenuit fines terrae? qui dixit discipulis suis, Eritis mihi testes in Jerusalem, et in tota Judaea, et Samaria, et usque in fines terrae (Act. I. 8).

QUAESTIO SEXTA. De Jona propheta.

30. Postrema quaestio proposita est de Jona, nec ipsa quasi ex Porphyrio, sed tanquam ex irrisione Paganorum; sic enim posita est: Deinde quid sentire, inquit, debemus de Jona, qui dicitur in ventre ceti triduo fuisse; quod ἀπιθανὸν est et incredibile, transvoratum cum veste hominem, fuisse in corde piscis. Aut si figura est, hanc dignaberis pandere. Deinde quid sibi etiam illud vult supra evomitum Jonam cucurbitam natam (Jonae II, 1, et IV, 6): quid causae fuit, ut haec nasceretur? Hoc enim genus quaestionis, multo cachinno a Paganis graviter irrisum animadverti.

31. Ad hoc respondetur, quod aut omnia divina miracula credenda non sint; aut hoc cur non credatur, causa nulla sit. In ipsum autem Christum, quod tertio die resurrexerit, non crederemus, si fides Christianorum cachinnum metueret Paganorum. Cum autem hinc quaestionem non proposuerit amicus noster, Utrum credendum sit, vel Lazarum resuscitatum esse quarto die, vel ipsum Christum tertio die resurrexisse; multum miror hoc quod factum est de Jona, eum pro incredibili posuisse: nisi forte facilius putat mortuum de sepulcro resuscitari, quam vivum in tam vasto ventre belluae potuisse servari. Ut enim omittam commemorare quanta magnitudo belluarum marinarum ab eis qui experti sunt indicetur; venter quem costae illae muniebant, quae Carthagine in publico fixae populo notae sunt, quot homines in spatio suo capere 0383 posset, quis non conjiciat, quanto hiatu patebat os illud, quod velut janua speluncae illius fuit? Nisi forte, ut posuit, vestis esset impedimento ne Jonas vorari posset illaesus, quasi per angusta sese coarctaverit, qui per abruptum acris praecipitatus, sic exceptus est, ut prius reciperetur ventre bestiae quam dente laceraretur. Quanquam Scriptura neque nudum neque vestitum in illud antrum dejectum esse dixerit, ut possit intelligi illuc etiam nudus irruisse, si forte opus erat, tanquam ovo corium, ita illi vestem detrahi, quo facilius sorberetur. Sic enim sunt homines de prophetae hujus veste solliciti, quasi aut per fenestram parvam repsisse, aut in balneas intrasse dicatur; quo etiamsi necesse esset intrare vestitum, vix molestum esset, non tamen mirum.

32. Sed habent revera quod non credant in divino miraculo, vaporem ventris quo cibi malescunt, potuisse ita temperari ut vitam hominis conservaret. Quanto incredibilius ergo proponerent tres illos viros, ab impio rege in caminum missos, deambulasse in medio ignis illaesos? Quapropter si nulla isti divina miracula volunt credere, alia disputatione refellendi sunt. Neque enim debent unum aliquid tanquam incredibile proponere, et in quaestionem vocare, sed omnia quae vel talia, vel etiam mirabiliora narrantur. Et tamen si hoc quod de Jona scriptum est, Apuleius Madaurensis, vel Apollonius Tyaneus fecisse diceretur, quorum multa mira nullo fideli auctore jactitant, quamvis et daemones nonnulla faciant Angelis sanctis similia, non veritate sed specie, non sapientia sed plane fallacia: tamen, si de istis, ut dixi, quos magos vel philosophos laudabiliter nominant, tale aliquid narraretur, non jam in buccis creparet risus, sed typhus. Ita rideant Scripturas nostras: quantum possunt, rideant, dum per singulos dies rariores paucioresque se videant, vel moriendo, vel credendo; dum implentur omnia quae praedixerunt qui hos contra veritatem inaniter pugnaturos, vane latraturos, paulatim defecturos, tanto ante riserunt, nobisque posteris suis, non solum ea legenda dimiserunt, verum experienda promiserunt.

33. Non sane absurde, neque importune requiritur quid ista significent, ut cum hoc expositum fuerit, non tantum gesta, sed etiam propter aliquam significationem conscripta esse credantur. Prius ergo non dubitet Jonam prophetam in alvo ingenti marinae belluae triduo fuisse, qui vult scrutari cur hoc factum sit: non enim frustra factum est, sed tamen factum est. Si enim movent ad fidem quae figurate tantum dicta, non facta sunt; quanto magis movere debent quae figurate non tantum dicta, sed facta sunt? Nam sicut humana consuetudo verbis, ita divina potentia etiam factis loquitur. Et sicut sermoni humano verba nova, vel minus usitata, moderate ac decenter aspersa, splendorem addunt; ita in factis mirabilibus congruenter aliquid significantibus, quodammodo luculentior est divina eloquentia.

34. Proinde quid praefiguraverit quod prophetam bellumilla devoratum, tertio die vivum reddidit, cur 0384 a nobis quaeritur, cum hoc Christus exponat? Generatio, inquit, prava et adultera signum quaerit, et signum non dabitur ei, nisi signum Jonae prophetae: sicut enim Jonas fuit in ventre ceti tribus diebus et tribus noctibus; sic erit Filius hominis in corde terrae tribus diebus et tribus noctibus (Matth. XII, 39, 40). De ipso autem triduo mortis Domini Christi, quomodo ratio reddatur, cum a parte totum intelligitur, in die primo et novissimo, ut toti tres dies, id est cum suis noctibus computentur, longum est disserere, et in aliis sermonibus jam saepissime dictum est. Sicut ergo Jonas ex navi in alvum ceti, ita Christus ex ligno in sepulcrum vel in mortis profundum. Et sicut ille pro his qui tempestate periclitabantur, ita Christus pro his qui in hoc saeculo fluctuant. Et sicut primo jussum est ut praedicaretur Ninivitis a Jona, sed non ad eos pervenit praedicatio Jonae, nisi posteaquam eum cetus evomuit; ita prophetia praemissa est ad Gentes, sed nisi post resurrectionem Christi non pervenit ad Gentes.

35. Jamvero quod tabernaculum sibi constituit, et consedit ex adverso civitatis Ninive, quid ei futurum esset exspectans, alterius significationis personam Propheta gestabat. Praefigurabat enim carnalem populum Israel. Nam huic erat et tristitia de salute Ninivitarum, hoc est de redemptione et liberatione Gentium. Unde venit Christus vocare, non justos, sed peccatores in poenitentiam (Luc. V, 32). Umbraculum ergo cucurbitae super caput ejus, promissiones erant Veteris Testamenti, vel ipsa jam munera, in quibus erat utique, sicut dicit Apostolus, umbra futurorum (Coloss. II, 17), tanquam ab aestu temporalium malorum in terra promissionis defensaculum praebens. Vermis autem matutinus, quo rodente cucurbita exaruit, idem ipse rursus Christus occurrit, ex cujus ore Evangelio diffamato, cuncta illa quae temporaliter apud Israelitas vel ut umbratili prius significatione viguerunt, evacuata marcescunt. Et nunc ille populus amisso Jerosolymitano regno, et sacerdotio, et sacrificio, quod totum umbra erat futuri, in captiva dispersione magno aestu tribulationis aduritur, sicut Jonas, quod scriptum est, a solis ardore (Jonae IV, 8), et dolet graviter; et tamen dolori ejus atque umbrae quam diligebat, salus gentium poenitentiumque praeponitur.

36. Adhuc cachinnent Pagani, et jam vermem Christum, et hanc interpretationem prophetici sacramenti superbiore garrulitate derideant, dum tamen et ipsos sensim paulatimque consumat. Nam de omnibus talibus Isaias prophetat, per quem nobis dicit Deus: Audite me qui scitis judicium, populus meus, in quorum corde lex mea est: opprobria hominum nolite metuere, et detractione eorum ne superemini, nec quod vos spernant magni duxeritis. Sicut enim vestimentum, ita per tempus absumentur, et sicut lana a tinea comedentur; justitia autem mea in aeternum manes (Isai. LI, 7, 8). Nos ergo agnoscamus vermem matutinum, 0385 quia et in illo psalmo cujus titulus inscribitur, Pro susceptione matutina, hoc se ipse nomine appellare dignatus est: Ego, inquit, sum vermis, et non homo; opprobrium hominum, et abjectio plebis. Hoc opprobrium de illis opprobriis est quae jubemur non metuere per Isaiam dicentem: Opprobria hominum nolite metuere. Ab isto verme tanquam a tinea comeduntur, qui sub ejus dente evangelico per singulos dies paucitatem suam deficiendo mirantur. Nos hunc agnoscamus, et pro salute divina, humana opprobria sufferamus. Vermis est propter humilitatem carnis; fortassis etiam propter virginis partum. Nam hoc animal plerumque de carne, vel de quacumque re terrena, sine ullo concubitu nascitur. Matutinus est, quia diluculo resurrexit. Poterat utique illa cucurbita et sine ullo vermiculo arescere. Postremo si habebat Deus ad hoc vermem necessarium, quid opus erat addere matutinum, nisi ut ille vermis agnosceretur, qui cantat pro susceptione matutina: Ego autem sum vermis, et non homo?

37. Quid ista prophetia jam ipso rerum effectu et adimpletione lucidius ? Si irrisus est vermis iste cum penderet in cruce, sicut in eodem psalmo scriptum est, Locuti sunt labiis, et moverunt caput. Speravit in Deum, eruat eum; salvum faciat eum, quoniam vult eum, cum completa sunt quae ibi praedixit, Foderunt manus meas et pedes, dinumeraverunt omnia ossa mea. Ipsi vero consideraverunt, et conspexerunt me, diviserunt sibi vestimenta mea, et super vestem meam miserunt sortem; quod tanta manifestatione futurum in libro antiquo prophetatur, quanta manifestatione factum in novo Evangelio recitatur: sed si in hac humilitate, ut dicere coeperam, iste vermis irrisus est, numquid adhuc irridendus est cum ea compleri cernimus, quae consequentia psalmus ipse habet, Commemorabuntur et convertentur ad Dominum universi fines terrae, et adorabunt in conspectu ejus universae patriae gentium; quoniam Domini est regnum, et ipse dominabitur gentium (Psal. XXI, 7-29). Sic commemorati sunt Ninivitae, et conversi sunt ad Dominum. Hanc salutem poenitentiae Gentium tanto ante praefiguratam in Jona, dolebat Israel, sicut nunc dolet umbra nudatus, et aestu sauciatus. Liceat sane cuilibet quamlibet aliter, dum tamen secundum regulam fidei, caetera omnia quae de Jona propheta mysteriis operta sunt, aperire. Illud plane quod in ventre ceti triduo fuit, fas non est aliter intelligere, quam ab ipso coelesti magistro in Evangelio commemoravimus revelatum.

38. Proposita exposuimus ut potuimus: sed ille qui proposuit, jam sit christianus, ne forte cum exspectat ante Librorum sanctorum finire quaestiones, prius finiat vitam istam, quam transeat a morte ad vitam. Ferri enim potest, quod antequam christianis sacramentis imbuatur, quaerit de resurrectione mortuorum. Concedendum etiam fortassis quod de Christo quaesivit, cur tanto post venerit, vel si quae sunt aliae paucae et magnae quaestiones, quibus caetera inserviunt. Si 0386 autem qualis est illa, In qua mensura mensi fueritis, metietur vobis, vel qualis ista de Jona, etiam omnes tales antequam sit christianus finire cogitat, perparum cogitat vel conditionem humanam, vel aetatem jam suam. Sunt enim innumerabiles, quae non sunt finiendae ante fidem ne finiatur vita sine fide. Sed plane retenta jam fide, ad exercendam piam delectationem mentium fidelium studiosissime requirendae, et quod in eis eluxerit, sine typho arrogantiae communicandum: quod autem latuerit, sine salutis dispendio tolerandum.