Letter CXLVIII.

(a.d. 413.)

A Letter of Instructions (Commonitorium) to the Holy Brother Fortunatianus.1178    Fortunatianus, Bishop of Sicqua, was one of the seven bishop selected to represent the Catholics in the Conference of Carthage with the Donatists in 411. He was probably a neighbour of the bishop who had regarded himself as aggrieved by the arguments with which Augustin confuted some extravagant speculations of his.

Chap. I.

1. I write this to remind you of the request which I made when I was with you, that you would do me the kindness of visiting our brother, whom we mentioned in conversation, in order to ask him to forgive me, if he has construed as a harsh and unfriendly attack upon himself any statement made by me in a recent letter (which I do not regret having written), affirming that the eyes of this body cannot see God, and never shall see Him. I added immediately the reason why I made this statement, namely, to prevent men from believing that God Himself is corporeal and visible, as occupying a place determined by size and by distance from us (for the eye of this body can see nothing except under these conditions), and to prevent men from understanding the expression “face to face”1179    1 Cor. xiii. 12. as if God were limited within the members of a body. Therefore I do not regret having made this statement, as a protest against our forming such unworthy and profane ideas concerning God as to think that He is not everywhere in His totality, but susceptible of division, and distributed through localities in space; for such are the only objects cognizable through these eyes of ours.

2. But if, while holding no such opinion as this concerning God, but believing Him to be a Spirit, unchangeable, incorporeal, present in His whole Being everywhere, any one thinks that the change on this body of ours (when from being a natural body it shall become a spiritual body) will be so great that in such a body it will be possible for us to see a spiritual substance not susceptible of division according to local distance or dimension, or even confined within the limits of bodily members, but everywhere present in its totality, I wish him to instruct me in this matter, if what he has discovered is true; but if in this opinion he is mistaken, it is far less objectionable to ascribe to the body something that does not belong to it, than to take away from God that which belongs to Him. And even if that opinion be correct, it will not contradict my words in that letter; for I said that the eyes of this body shall not see God, meaning that the eyes of this body of ours can see nothing but bodies which are separated from them by some interval of space, for if there be no interval, even bodies themselves cannot through the eyes be seen by us.

3. Moreover, if our bodies shall be changed into something so different from what they now are as to have eyes by means of which a substance shall be seen which is not diffused through space or confined within limits, having one part in one place, another in another, a smaller in a less space, a greater in a larger, but in its totality spiritually present everywhere,—these bodies shall be something very different from what they are at present, and shall no longer be themselves, and shall be not only freed from mortality, and corruption, and weight, but somehow or other shall be changed into the quality of the mind itself, if they shall be able to see in a manner which shall be then granted to the mind, but which is meanwhile not granted even to the mind itself. For if, when a man’s habits are changed, we say he is not the man he was,—if, when our age is changed, we say that the body is not what it was, how much more may we say that the body shall not be the same when it shall have undergone so great a change as not only to have immortal life, but also to have power to see Him who is invisible? Wherefore, if they shall thus see God, it is not with the eyes of this body that He shall be seen, because in this also it shall not be the same body, since it has been changed to so great an extent in capacity and power; and this opinion is, therefore, not contrary to the words of my letter. If, however, the body shall be changed only to this extent, that whereas now it is mortal, then it shall be immortal, and whereas now it weighs down the soul, then, devoid of weight, it shall be most ready for every motion, but unchanged in the faculty of seeing objects which are discerned by their dimensions and distances, it will still be utterly impossible for it to see a substance that is incorporeal and is in its totality present everywhere. Whether, therefore, the former or the latter supposition be correct, in both cases it remains true that the eyes of this body shall not see God; or if they are to see Him, they shall not be the eyes of this body, since after so great a change they shall be the eyes of a body very different from this.

4. But if this brother is able to propound anything better on this subject, I am ready to learn either from himself or from his instructor. If I were saying this ironically, I would also say that I am prepared to learn concerning God that He has a body having members, and is divisible in different localities in space; which I do not say, because I am not speaking ironically, and I am perfectly certain that God is not in any respect of such a nature; and I wrote that letter to prevent men from believing Him to be such. In that letter, being carried away by my zeal to warn against error, and writing more freely because I did not name the person whose views I assailed, I was too vehement and not sufficiently guarded, and did not consider as I ought to have done the respect which was due by one brother and bishop to the office of another: this I do not defend, but blame; this I condemn rather than excuse, and beg that it may be forgiven. I entreat him to remember our old friendship, and forget my recent offence. Let him do that which he is displeased with me for not having done; let him exhibit in granting pardon the gentleness which I have failed to show in writing that letter. I thus ask, through your kindly mediation, what I had resolved to ask of him in person if I had had an opportunity. I indeed made an effort to obtain an interview with him (a venerable man, worthy of being honoured by us all, writing to request it in my name), but he declined to come, suspecting, I suppose, that, as very often happens among men, some plot was prepared against him. Of my absolute innocence of such guile, I beg you to do your utmost to assure him, which by seeing him personally you can more easily do. State to him with what deep and genuine grief I conversed with you about my having hurt his feelings. Let him know how far I am from slighting him, how much in him I fear God, and am mindful of our Head in whose body we are brethren. My reason for thinking it better not to go to the place in which he resides was, that we might not make ourselves a laughing-stock to those without the pale of the Church, thereby bringing grief to our friends and shame to ourselves. All this may be satisfactorily arranged through the good offices of your Holiness and Charity; nay, rather, the satisfactory issue is in the hands of Him who, by the faith which is His gift, dwells in your heart, whom I am confident that our brother does not refuse to honour in you, since he knows Christ experimentally as dwelling in himself.

5. I, at all events, do not know what I could do better in this case than ask pardon from the brother who has complained that he was wounded by the harshness of my letter. He will, I hope, do what he knows to be enjoined on him by Him who, speaking through the apostle, says: “Forgiving one another, if any man have a quarrel against any: even as God in Christ has forgiven you;”1180    Col. iii. 13. “Be ye therefore followers of God, as dear children; and walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us.”1181    Eph. v. 1, 2. Walking in this love, let us inquire with oneness of heart, and, if possible, with yet greater diligence than hitherto, into the nature of the spiritual body which we shall have after our resurrection. “And if in anything we be diversely minded, God shall reveal even this unto us,”1182    Phil. iii. 15, 16. if we abide in Him. Now he who dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, for “God is love,”1183    1 John iv. 16.—whether as the fountain of love in its ineffable essence, or as the fountain whence He freely gives it to us by His Spirit. If, then, it can be shown that love can at any time become visible to our bodily eyes, then we grant that possibly God shall be so too; but if love never can become visible, much less can He who is Himself its Fountain or whatever other figurative name more excellent or more appropriate can be employed in speaking of One so great.

Chap. II.

6. Some men of great gifts, and very learned in the Holy Scriptures, who have, when an opportunity presented itself, done much by their writings to benefit the Church and promote the instruction of believers, have said that the invisible God is seen in an invisible manner, that is, by that nature which in us also is invisible, namely, a pure mind or heart. The holy Ambrose, when speaking of Christ as the Word, says: “Jesus is seen not by the bodily, but by the spiritual eyes;” and shortly after he adds: “The Jews saw Him not, for their foolish heart was blinded,”1184    Ambrosius, Lib. i. in Luc. c. i. showing in this way how Christ is seen. Also, when he was speaking of the Holy Spirit, he introduced the words of the Lord, saying: “I will pray the Father, and He shall give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you for ever, even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him;”1185    John xiv. 16, 17. and adds: “With good reason, therefore, did He show Himself in the body, since in the substance of His Godhead He is not seen. We have seen the Spirit, but in a bodily form: let us see the Father also; but since we cannot see Him, let us hear Him.” A little after he says: “Let us hear the Father, then, for the Father is invisible; but the Son also is invisible as regards His Godhead, for ‘no man hath seen God at any time;’1186    1 John iv. 12. and since the Son is God, He is certainly not seen in that in which He is God.”1187    Ambrosius, Lib. ii. in Luc. c. iii. v. 22.

7. The holy Jerome also says: “The eye of man cannot see God as He is in His own nature; and this is true not of man only; neither angels, nor thrones, nor powers, nor principalities, nor any name which is named can see God, for no creature can see its Creator.” By these words this very learned man sufficiently shows what his opinion was on this subject in regard not only to the present life, but also to that which is to come. For however much the eyes of our body may be changed for the better, they shall only be made equal to the eyes of the angels. Here, however, Jerome has affirmed that the nature of the Creator is invisible even to the angels, and to every creature without exception in heaven. If, however, a question arise on this point, and a doubt is expressed whether we shall not be superior to the angels, the mind of the Lord Himself is plain from the words which He uses in speaking of those who shall rise again to the kingdom: “They shall be equal unto the angels.”1188    Luke xx. 36. Whence the same holy Jerome thus expresses himself in another passage: “Man, therefore, cannot see the face of God but the angels of the least in the Church do always behold the face of God.1189    Matt. xviii. 10. And now we see as in a mirror darkly, in a riddle, but then face to face;1190    1 Cor. xiii. 12. when from being men we shall advance to the rank of angels, and shall be able to say with the apostle, ‘We all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image, from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord;’1191    2 Cor. iii. 18. although no creature can see the face of God, according to the essential properties of His nature, and He is, in these cases, seen by the mind, since He is believed to be invisible.”1192    Hieron, lib. i. in Isai, i.

8. In these words of this man of God there are many things deserving our consideration: first, that in accordance with the very clear declaration of the Lord, he also is of opinion that we shall then see the face of God when we shall have advanced to the rank of angels, that is, shall be made equal to the angels, which doubtless shall be at the resurrection of the dead. Next, he has sufficiently explained by the testimony of the apostle, that the face is to be understood not of the outward but of the inward man, when it is said we shall “see face to face;” for the apostle was speaking of the face of the heart when he used the words quoted in this connection by Jerome: “We, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image.”1193    2 Cor. iii. 18. If any one doubt this, let him examine the passage again, and notice of what the apostle was speaking, namely, of the veil, which remains on the heart of every one in reading the Old Testament, until he pass over to Christ, that the veil may be removed. For he there says: “We also, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord,”—which face had not been unveiled in the Jews, of whom he says, “the veil is upon their heart,”—in order to show that the face unveiled in us when the veil is taken away is the face of the heart. In fine, lest any one, looking on these things with too little care and therefore failing to discern their meaning, should believe that God now is or shall hereafter be visible either to angels or to men, when they shall have been made equal to the angels, he has most plainly expressed his opinion by affirming that “no creature can see the face of God according to the essential properties of His nature,” and that “He is, in these cases, seen by the mind, since He is believed to be invisible.” From these statements he sufficiently showed that when God has been seen by men through the eyes of the body as if He had a body, He has not been seen as to the essential properties of his nature, in which He is seen by the mind, since He is believed to be invisible—invisible, that is to say, to the bodily perception even of celestial beings, as Jerome had said above, of angels, and powers, and principalities. How much more, then, is He invisible to terrestrial beings!

9. Wherefore, in another place, Jerome says in still plainer terms, it is true not only of the divinity of the Father but equally of that of the Son and of that of the Holy Spirit, forming one nature in the Trinity, that it cannot be seen by the eyes of the flesh, but by the eyes of the mind, of which the Saviour Himself says: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”1194    Hieron. lib. iii. in Isa, i.What could be more clear than this statement? For if he had merely said that it is impossible for the divinity of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, to be seen by the eyes of the flesh, and had not added the words, “but only by the eyes of the mind,” it might perhaps have been said, that when the body shall have become spiritual it can no longer be called “flesh;” but by adding the words, “but only by the eyes of the mind,” he has excluded the vision of God from every sort of body. Lest, however, any one should suppose that he was speaking only of the present state of being, observe that he has subjoined also a testimony of the Lord, quoted with the design of defining the eyes of the mind of which he had spoken; in which testimony a promise is given not of present, but of future vision: “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.”

10. The very blessed Athanasius, also, Bishop of Alexandria, when contending against the Arians, who affirm that the Father alone is invisible, but suppose the Son and the Holy Spirit to be visible, asserted the equal invisibility of all the Persons of the Trinity, proving it by testimonies from Holy Scripture, and arguing with all his wonted care in controversy, labouring earnestly to convince his opponents that God has never been seen, except through His assuming the form of a creature; and that in His essential Deity God is invisible, that is, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are invisible, except in so far as the Divine Persons can be known by the mind and the spirit. Gregory, also, a holy Eastern bishop, very plainly says that God, by nature invisible, had, on those occasions on which He was seen by the fathers (as by Moses, with whom He talked face to face), made it possible for Himself to be seen by assuming the form of something material and discernible.1195    See the 49th of the discourses published under the name of Gregory of Nazianzum. M. Dupin has shown that the discourse in question must have been the work of some Latin author. Our Ambrose says the same: “That the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, when visible, are seen under forms assumed by choice, not prescribed by the nature of Deity;”1196    Ambrose on Luke, c. i. 11. thus clearing the truth of the saying, “No man hath seen God at any time,”1197    John i. 18. which is the word of the Lord Christ Himself, and of that other saying, “Whom no man hath seen, nor can see,”1198    1 Tim. vi. 16. which is the word of the apostle, yea, rather, of Christ by His apostle; as well as vindicating the consistency of those passages of Scripture in which God is related to have been seen, because He is both invisible in the essential nature of His Deity, and able to become visible when He pleases, by assuming such created form as shall seem good to Him.

Chap. III.

11. Moreover, if invisibility is a property of the divine nature, as incorruptibility is, that nature shall assuredly not undergo such a change in the future world as to cease to be invisible and become visible; because it shall never be possible for it to cease to be incorruptible and become corruptible, for it is in both attributes alike immutable. The apostle assuredly declared the excellence of the divine nature when he placed these two together, saying, “Now, unto the King of ages, invisible, incorruptible, the only God, be honour and glory for ever and ever.”1199    1 Tim. i. 17. Wherefore I dare not make such a distinction as to say incorruptible, indeed, for ever and ever, but invisible—not for ever and ever, but only in this world. At the same time, since the testimonies which we are next to quote cannot be false,—”Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God,”1200    Matt. v. 8. and, “We know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is,”1201    1 John iii. 2.—we cannot deny that the sons of God shall see God; but they shall see Him as invisible things are seen, in the manner in which He who appeared in the flesh, visible to men, promised that He would manifest Himself to men, when, speaking in the presence of the disciples and seen by their eyes, He said: “I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.” In what other manner are invisible things seen than by the eyes of the mind, concerning which, as the instruments of our vision of God, I have shortly before quoted the opinion of Jerome?

12. Hence, also, the statement of the Bishop of Milan, whom I have quoted before, who says that even in the resurrection it is not easy for any but those who have a pure heart to see God, and therefore it is written, “Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God.” “How many,” he says, “had He already enumerated as blessed, and yet to them He had not promised the power of seeing God;” and he adds this inference, “If, therefore, the pure in heart shall see God, it is obvious that others shall not see Him;” and to prevent our understanding him to refer to those others of whom the Lord had said, “Blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek,” he immediately subjoined, “For those that are unworthy shall not see God,” intending it to be understood that the unworthy are those who, although they shall rise again, shall not be able to see God, since they shall rise to condemnation, because they refused to purify their hearts through that true faith which “worketh by love.”1202    Gal. v. 6. For this reason he goes on to say, “Whosoever has been unwilling to see God cannot see Him.” Then, since it occurred to him that, in a sense, even all wicked men have a desire to see God, he immediately explains that he used the words, “Whosoever has been unwilling to see God,” because the fact that the wicked do not desire to purify the heart, by which alone God can be seen, shows that they do not desire to see God, and follows up this statement with the words: “God is not seen in space, but in the pure heart; nor is He sought out by the eyes of the body; nor is He defined in form by our faculty of sight; nor grasped by the touch; His voice does not fall on the ear; nor are His goings perceived by the senses.”1203    Ambrose on Luke, i. 11. By these words the blessed Ambrose desired to teach the preparation which men ought to make if they wish to see God, viz. to purify the heart by the faith which worketh by love, through the gift of the Holy Spirit, from whom we have received the earnest by which we are taught to desire that vision.1204    2 Cor. v. 4–8.

Chap. IV.

13. For as to the members of God which the Scripture frequently mentions, lest any one should suppose that we resemble God as to the form and figure of the body, the same Scripture speaks of God as having also wings, which we certainly have not. As then, when we hear of the “wings” of God, we understand the divine protection, so by the “hands” of God we ought to understand His working,—by His “feet,” His presence,—by His “eyes,” His power of seeing and knowing all things,—by His face, that whereby He reveals Himself to our knowledge; and I believe that any other such expression used in Scripture is to be spiritually understood. In this opinion I am not singular, nor am I the first who has stated it. It is the opinion of all who by any spiritual interpretation of such language in Scripture resist those who are called Anthropomorphites. Not to occupy too much time by quoting largely from the writings of these men, I introduce here one extract from the pious Jerome, in order that our brother may know that, if anything moves him to maintain an opposite opinion, he is bound to carry on the debate with those who preceded me not less than with myself.

14. In the exposition which that most learned student of Scripture has given of the psalm in which occur the words, “Understand, ye brutish among the people: and ye fools, when will ye be wise? He that planted the ear, shall he not hear? or He that formed the eye, doth He not behold?”1205    Ps. xciv. 8, 9. he says, among other things: “This passage furnishes a strong argument against those who are Anthropomorphites, and say that God has members such as we have. For example, God is said by them to have eyes, because ‘the eyes of the Lord behold all things:’ in the same, literal manner they take the statements that the hand of the Lord doeth all things, and that Adam ‘heard the sound of the feet of the Lord walking in the garden,’ and thus they ascribe the infirmities of men to the majesty of God. But I affirm that God is all eye, all hand, all foot: all eye, because He sees all things; all hand, because He worketh all things; all foot, because He is everywhere present. See, therefore, what the Psalmist saith: ‘He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, doth He not behold?’ He doth not say: ‘He that planted the ear, has He not an ear? and He that formed the eye, has He not an eye?’ But what does he say? ‘He that planted the ear, shall He not hear? He that formed the eye, doth He not behold?’ The Psalmist has ascribed to God the powers of seeing and hearing, but has not assigned members to Him.”1206    Jerome, in loc.

15. I have thought it my duty to quote all these passages from the writings of both Latin and Greek authors who, being in the Catholic Church before our time, have written commentaries on the divine oracles, in order that our brother, if he hold any different opinion from theirs, may know that it becomes him, laying aside all bitterness of controversy, and preserving or reviving fully the gentleness of brotherly love, to investigate with diligent and calm consideration either what he must learn from others, or what others must learn from him. For the reasonings of any men whatsoever, even though they be Catholics, and of high reputation, are not to be treated by us in the same way as the canonical Scriptures are treated. We are at liberty, without doing any violence to the respect which these men deserve, to condemn and reject anything in their writings, if perchance we shall find that they have entertained opinions differing from that which others or we ourselves have, by the divine help, discovered to be the truth. I deal thus with the writings of others, and I wish my intelligent readers to deal thus with mine. In fine, I do by the help of the Lord most stedfastly believe, and, in so far as He enables me, I understand what is taught in all the statements which I have now quoted from the works of the holy and learned Ambrose, Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory, and in any other similar statements in other writers which I have read, but have for the sake of brevity forborne from quoting, namely, that God is not a body, that He has not the members of the human frame, that He is not divisible through space, and that He is unchangeably invisible, and appeared not in His essential nature and substance, but in such visible form as He pleased to those to whom he appeared on the occasions on which Scripture records that He was seen by holy persons with the eyes of the body.

Chap. V.

16. As to the spiritual body which we shall have in the resurrection, how great a change for the better it is to undergo,—whether it shall become pure spirit, so that the whole man shall then be a spirit, or shall (as I rather think, but do not yet confidently maintain) become a spiritual body in such a way as to be called spiritual because of a certain ineffable facility in its movements, but at the same time to retain its material substance, which cannot live and feel by itself, but only through the spirit which uses it (for in our present state, in like manner, although the body is spoken of as animated [animal], the nature of the animating principle is different from that of the body), and whether, if the properties of the body then immortal and incorruptible shall remain unchanged, it shall then in some degree aid the spirit to see visible, i.e. material things, as at present we are unable to see anything of that kind except through the eyes of the body, or our spirit shall then be able, even in its higher state, to know material things without the instrumentality of the body (for God Himself does not know these things through bodily senses), on these and on many other things which may perplex us in the discussion of this subject, I confess that I have not yet read anywhere anything which I would esteem sufficiently established to deserve to be either learned or taught by men.

17. And for this reason, if our brother will bear patiently any degree whatever of hesitation on my part, let us in the meantime, because of that which is written, “We shall see Him as He is,” prepare, so far as with the help of God Himself we are enabled, hearts purified for that vision. Let us at the same time inquire more calmly and carefully concerning the spiritual body, for it may be that God, if He know this to be useful to us, may condescend to show us some definite and clear view on the subject, in accordance with His written word. For if a more careful investigation shall result in the discovery that the change on the body shall be so great that it shall be able to see things that are invisible, such power imparted to the body will not, I think, deprive the mind of the power of seeing, and thus give the outward man a vision of God which is denied to the inward man; as if, in contradiction of the plain words of Scripture, “that God may be all and in all,”1207    1 Cor. xv. 28. God were only beside the man—without him, and not in the man, in his inner being; or as if He, who is everywhere present in his entirety, unlimited in space, is so within man that He can be seen outside only by the outward man, but cannot be seen inside by the inward man. If such opinions are palpably absurd,—for, on the contrary, the saints shall be full of God; they shall not, remaining empty within, be surrounded outside by Him; nor shall they, through being blind within, fail to see Him of whom they are full, and, having eyes only for that which is outside of themselves, behold Him by whom they shall be surrounded,—if, I say, these things are absurd, it remains for us to rest meanwhile certainly assured as to the vision of God by the inward man. But if, by some wondrous change, the body shall be endowed with this power, another new faculty shall be added; the faculty formerly possessed shall not be taken away.

18. It is better, then, that we affirm that concerning which we have no doubt,—that God shall be seen by the inward man, which alone is able, in our present state, to see that love in commendation of which the apostle says, “God is love;”1208    1 John iv. 8. the inward man, which alone is able to see “peace and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.”1209    Heb. xii. 14. For no fleshly eye now sees love, peace, and holiness, and such things; yet all of them are seen, so far as they can be seen, by the eye of the mind, and the purer it is the more clearly it sees; so that we may, without hesitation, believe that we shall see God, whether we succeed or fail in our investigations as to the nature of our future body—although, at the same time, we hold it to be certain that the body shall rise again, immortal and incorruptible, because on this we have the plainest and strongest testimony of Holy Scripture. If, however, our brother affirm now that he has arrived at certain knowledge as to that spiritual body, in regard to which I am only inquiring, he will have just cause to be displeased with me if I shall refuse to listen calmly to his instructions, provided only that he also listen calmly to my questions. Now, however, I entreat you, for Christ’s sake, to obtain his forgiveness for me for that harshness in my letter, by which, as I have learned, he was, not without cause, offended; and may you, by God’s help, cheer my spirit by your answer.

EPISTOLA CXLVIII . Augustinus Fortunatiano episcopo Siccensi, ut episcopum quemdam ipsi reconciliet, quem litteris asperioribus offenderat, praesertim hoc dicto quod scripserat, nos his corporeis oculis non visuros Deum: diligenter interim explicans quomodo Deus videatur, et quatenus. Apparet autem illum episcopum, quem non nominat, Anthropomorphitis favisse.

Commonitorium sancto fratri FORTUNATIANO .

CAPUT PRIMUM.

1. Sicut praesens rogavi, et nunc commoneo ut fratrem nostrum de quo collocuti sumus, videre et rogare digneris, ut ignoscat mihi si quid durius et asperius in se dictum accepit in ea epistola, quam me modo scripsisse non poenitet, quia dixi istius corporis oculos nec videre Deum, nec esse visuros. Causam quippe adjunxi cur hoc dixerim, ne scilicet Deus ipse corporeus esse credatur, et in loci spatio intervalloque visibilis; nihil enim videre aliter istius corporis oculus potest; et ne illud quod dictum est, Facie ad faciem (I Cor. XIII, 12), sic accipiatur, tanquam membris corporis terminatus sit Deus. Ideo me ergo dixisse illud non poenitet, ne de ipso Deo tam impie sentiamus, ut eum non ubique totum, sed per localia spatia divisibilem existimemus: talia quippe his oculis novimus.

2. Caeterum nihil tale de Deo sentiens, sed eum incommutabilem 0623 et incorporalem spiritum ubique totum esse credens, si tantam quisquam mutationem hujus corporis futuram putat, cum ex animali fuerit spirituale, ut etiam substantiam incorporalem, non locorum intervallis vel spatiis divisibilem, vel etiam membrorum lineamentis ac finibus terminatam, sed ubique totam, per tale corpus videre possimus; volo ut me doceat, si verum sapit: si autem in hoc falsum sentit, longe tolerabilius est corpori aliquid arrogare, quam Deo derogare. Et si vera est ista sententia, non erit contraria verbis meis, quae in illa epistola posui. Istius namque corporis oculos dixi non visuros Deum; hoc intuens, quod istius corporis oculi omnino non possunt cernere nisi corpora quae ab eis aliquo loci intervallo separata sunt: nam si nullum intervallum sit, nec ipsa corpora per eos videmus.

3. Porro autem si in tantam sui dissimilitudinem nostra corpora mutabuntur, ut oculos habeant, per quos videatur illa substantia quae non per locorum spatia vel diffunditur vel finitur, alibi habens aliam partem, alibi aliam, in minore loco minorem, in majore majorem, sed ubique incorporaliter tota est; longe aliud erunt haec corpora, et non erunt ipsa; nec sola detracta mortalitate atque corruptione et ponderis gravitate aliud erunt, sed in virtutem ipsius mentis quodammodo convertentur, si videre poterunt quomodo tunc menti, nunc autem nec ipsi menti videre concessum est. Si enim mutatis moribus dicimus hominem non esse qui fuit, si denique mutatis aetatibus ipsum corpus dicimus non esse quod fuit: quanto magis ipsum non erit, tanta conversione mutatum, ut non solum immortaliter vivat, verum etiam invisibilem videat? Quapropter si videbunt Deum, non istius corporis oculi videbunt; quia et in hoc non erit ipsum corpus usque in illam vim potentiamque mutatum: et non est contraria ista opinio illis verbis epistolae meae. Si autem hactenus non erit ipsum, quia nunc mortale, tunc immortale; nunc aggravans animam, tunc nullo pondere ad omnem motum erit facillimum: ad videnda vero ea quae locorum spatiis intervallisque cernuntur, si non aliud quam ipsum erit, substantiam incorporalem et ubique totam nullo modo videbit. Sive ergo hoc, sive illud verum sit, secundum utrumque verum est quod istius corporis oculi Deum non videbunt. Aut enim istius erunt, et non videbunt: aut non erunt istius, si videbunt; quoniam tanta commutatione longe alterius corporis erunt.

4. Sed paratus sum, si quid de hac re melius novit hic frater, vel ab ipso, vel ab illo a quo didicit, discere. Quod si irridenter dicerem, etiam illud de Deo corporali membrisque per loca divisibili, dicerem paratum me esse discere: quod non dico, quia non irridenter loquor, et talem Deum non esse omnino non ambigo, et ne talis esse crederetur, illam epistolam scripsi. In qua dum essem in admonendo sollicitus, quam nominibus tacitis conscripsi, in corripiendo nimius atque improvidus fui, nec fraternam et episcopalem personam sicut frater et episcopus, quemadmodum fuerat dignum, cogitavi: hoc non defendo, 0624 sed reprehendo; hoc non excuso, sed accuso. Ignoscatur, peto; recordetur nostram dilectionem pristinam, et obliviscatur offensionem novam. Faciat certe quod me non fecisse succensuit; habeat lenitatem in danda venia, quam ego non habui in illa epistola conscribenda. Hoc per tuam charitatem rogo, quod praesens praesentem rogare volueram, si ejus haberem copiam. Quod cum conatus essem, scribente ad eum viro venerabili, nobisque omnibus honore praeferendo, venire noluit, dolum forsitan in eum, sicut pleraque humana sunt, quantum existimo, suspicatus; a quo me longe abesse, tu illi fac fidem quantum potes, qui praesens facilius potes. Indica ei cum quanto et quam vero dolore de offensione animi ejus tecum fuerim collocutus. Noverit quam non eum contemnam, et quantum in illo Deum timeam, et cogitem caput nostrum in cujus corpore fratres sumus. Ad locum in quo habitat, ideo mihi putavi non esse veniendum, ne spectaculum faceremus ridendum alienis, nostris dolendum, nobis pudendum. Per tuam sanctitatem et charitatem totum recte agi potest: ab illo quippe agitur, qui per fidem suam habitat in corde tuo; quem credo quod non spernit in te, cum agnoscit in se.

5. Ego certe in hac causa quid melius facerem non inveni, quam ut veniam peterem a fratre, qui laesum se litterarum mearum asperitate conquestus est. Faciet et ipse, ut spero, quod sibi imperari novit ab eo qui per Apostolum loquens ait: Donantes vobismetipsis, si quis adversus aliquem habet querelam, sicut et Deus in Christo donavit vobis (Coloss. III, 13). Estote ergo imitatores Dei, sicut filii dilectissimi, et ambulate in charitate, sicut et Christus dilexit nos (Eph. V, 1, 2). In hac charitate ambulantes, si quid diligentius possumus, de spirituali corpore quod in resurrectione habebimus, concorditer inquiramus: quia et si quid aliter sapimus, hoc quoque nobis Deus revelabit, si in illo maneamus (Philipp. III, 15, 16). Qui autem manet in charitate, in Deo manet, et Deus in illo manet: quia Deus charitas est (I Joan. IV, 16); sive tanquam ejus fons ineffabiliter existendo, sive illam nobis per Spiritum suum largiendo. Si ergo doceri potest quod charitas corporalibus oculis aliquando videbitur; poterit fortassis et Deus: si autem ista nunquam poterit; multo minus ipse fons ejus, vel si quid dici excellentius et convenientius de tanta re potest.

CAPUT II.

6. Magni quidam viri et in Scripturis sanctis doctissimi, qui plurimum Ecclesiam et bona studia fidelium suis litteris adjuverunt, ubi eis occasio data est, dixerunt invisibilem Deum invisibiliter videri; hoc est per eam naturam quae in nobis quoque invisibilis est, munda scilicet mente vel corde. Beatus Ambrosius de Christo cum ageret, secundum id quod Verbum est, Non enim corporalibus, inquit, sed spiritualibus oculis Jesus videtur. Et paulo post, Non eum viderunt, inquit, Judaei; obcaecalum enim erat insipien: cor eorum (Lib. I in Luc. 1): hunc ostendens unde videatur. Item cum de sancto Spiritu loqueretur, interposuit verba Domini dicentis: Rogabo Patrem, et 0625alium Paracletum dabit vobis, qui vobiscum sit in aeternum; Spiritum veritatis, quem hic mundus non potest accipere, quia non videt eum, nec cognoscit eum (Joan. XIV, 16, 17). Merito ergo se, inquit, in corpore demonstravit, quoniam in divinitatis substantia non videtur. Vidimus Spiritum, sed in specie corporali: videamus et Patrem; sed quia videre non possumus, audiamus. Et paulo post, Audiamus ergo inquit, Patrem; invisibilis enim Pater; sed et Filius invisibilis secundum divinitatem; Deum enim nemo vidit unquam (I Joan. IV, 12): cum ergo Filius sit Deus, in eo utique quod Deus est Filius, non videtur (Lib. 2 in Luc. III, 22).

7. Sanctus autem Hieronymus ait: Videre Deum sicuti est in natura sua, oculus hominis non potest: non solum homo, nec Angeli, nec Throni, nec Potestates, nec Dominationes, nec omne nomen quod nominatur; neque enim creatura potest aspicere Creatorem suum. His verbis vir doctissimus satis ostendit quid etiam de futuro saeculo senserit, quod ad hanc rem attinet. Quantumlibet enim oculi corporis nostri mutentur in melius, Angelorum oculis aequabuntur. Hic autem et ipsis, et universae omnino coelesti creaturae invisibilem naturam dixit esse Creatoris. Aut si et hinc fit quaestio, et infertur ulla dubitatio, utrum non simus futuri Angelis potiores; ipsius Domini est hinc aperta sententia, ubi ait de resurrecturis in regnum: Erunt aequales Angelis Dei (Luc. XX, 36). Unde idem ipse sanctus Hieronymus alibi sic dicit: Homo igitur Dei faciem videre non potest; Angeli autem etiam minimorum in Ecclesia semper vident faciem Dei (Matth. XVIII, 10). Et nunc in speculo videmus, in aenigmate; tunc autem facie ad faciem (I Cor. XIII, 12), quando de hominibus in Angelos profecerimus, et potuerimus cum Apostolo dicere, «Nos autem omnes revelata facie gloriam Domini speculantes, in eamdem imaginem transformamur a gloria in gloriam, tanquam a Domini Spiritu» (II Cor. III, 18); licet faciem Dei juxta naturae suae proprietatem nulla videat creatura, et tunc mente cernatur, quando invisibilis creditur (Lib. 1 in Isai. 1).

8. In his verbis hominis Dei, multa consideranda sunt. Primum, quia secundum apertissimam Domini sententiam etiam ipse sentit tunc nos visuros faciem Dei, cum in Angelos profecerimus, id est, aequales Angelis facti fuerimus; quod erit utique in resurrectione mortuorum. Deinde apostolico testimonio satis aperuit non exterioris sed interioris hominis faciem intelligendam, cum videbimus facie ad faciem: de facie quippe cordis loquebatur Apostolus, cum diceret quod hinc commemoravit, Nos autem revelata facie gloriam Domini speculantes, in eamdem imaginem transformamur. Quod si quisquam dubitat, recenseat eumdem locum, et attendat unde Apostolus loquebatur; de velamine scilicet quod manet in lectione Veteris Testamenti, donec quisque transeat ad Christum, ut auferatur velamen. Ibi quippe dicit, Nos autem revelata facie gloriam Domini speculantes; quae facies in Judaeis non erat revelata: de quibus dicit, Velamen super cor eorum positum est, ut ostendat cordis faciem nobis esse revelatam, velamine ablato. 0626 Postremo, ne quisquam ista minus intuens, minusque discernens, visibilem Deum vel Angelis vel hominibus, cum aequales Angelis facti fuerimus, sive nunc esse, sive futurum esse crederet, evidentissime quid sentiret expressit, dicens quod faciem Dei juxta naturae suae proprietatem nulla videat creatura, et tunc mente cernatur, quando invisibilis creditur. Unde sufficienter significavit, quando visus est ab hominibus per oculos corporis, tanquam ipse corporeus, non eum secundum naturae suae proprietatem fuisse visum, in qua tunc mente cernitur, quando invisibilis creditur. Quibus invisibilis, nisi aspectibus corporalibus etiam coelestibus, sicut supra de Angelis et Potestatibus et Dominationibus dixit? quanto magis terrestribus!

9. Unde alio loco evidentius dicit, Non solum Patris divinitatem, sed nec Filii quidem et Spiritus sancti, quae una in Trinitate natura est, posse oculos carnis aspicere, sed oculos mentis: de quibus ipse Salvator ait, «Beati mundo corde; quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt» (Lib. 3 in Isai. 1). Quid hac manifestatione lucidius? Si enim tantummodo dixisset, Nec Patris, nec Filii, nec Spiritus sancti divinitatem posse oculos carnis aspicere, nec deinceps addidisset, sed oculos mentis; forte diceretur carnem jam non esse appellandum, cum corpus fuerit spirituale: addendo ergo, et dicendo, sed oculos mentis, ab omni genere corporis alienavit hujusmodi visionem. Ne quis autem putaret eum tantum de praesenti tempore locutum, subjecit etiam Domini testimonium, volens ostendere quos dixerat oculos mentis; quo testimonio non praesentis sed futurae visionis promissio declaratur: Beati mundo corde; quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt (Matth. V, 8).

10. Beatissimus quoque Athanasius, Alexandrinus episcopus, cum ageret adversus Arianos, qui tantummodo Deum Patrem invisibilem dicunt, Filium vero et Spiritum sanctum visibiles putant, aequalem Trinitatis invisibilitatem Scripturarum sanctarum testimoniis, et diligentia suae disputationis asseruit, instantissime suadens Deum non esse visum nisi assumptione creaturae: secundum Deitatis autem suae proprietatem omnino Deum esse invisibilem, id est Patrem, et Filium, et Spiritum sanctum, nisi quantum mente ac spiritu nosci potest. Gregorius etiam, sanctus episcopus Orientalis , apertissime dicit Deum natura invisibilem, quando patribus visus est, sicut Moysi, cum quo facie ad faciem loquebatur, alicujus conspicabilis materiae dispositione assumpta, salva sua invisibilitate videri potuisse. Hoc est quod etiam noster dicit Ambrosius, et Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanctum ea specie videri quam voluntas elegerit, non natura formaverit (In Luc. c. I, 11): ut et illud verum sit, quod Deum nemo vidit unquam (Joan. I, 18), quae vox ipsius Domini Christi est; et, 0627Quem nemo hominum vidit, nec videre potest (I Tim. VI, 16), quae vox Apostoli, imo ejus per Apostolum Christi est; et illa non repudientur testimonia Scripturarum quibus Deus visus esse narratur, quia et invisibilis est per propriam Deitatis naturam, et cum vult videri potest per assumptam, sicut ei placuerit, creaturam.

CAPUT III.

11. Porro si naturae ipsius est invisibilitas sicut incorruptibilitas, non mutabitur utique in futuro saeculo illa natura, ut de invisibili visibilis fiat; quia neque poterit de incorruptibili corruptibilis fieri: simul enim et incommutabilis est. Et utique naturam ejus commendavit Apostolus, cum duo ista simul poneret, dicens: Regi autem saeculorum invisibili, incorruptibili, soli Deo honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum (I Tim. I, 17). Unde non audeo ego ita distinguere, ut dicam: Incorruptibili quidem in saecula saeculorum; invisibili autem non in saecula saeculorum, sed tantum in hoc saeculo. Verum quia nec ista testimonia falsa esse possunt, Beati mundo corde; quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt; et, Scimus quia cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus; quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est (I Joan. III, 2): negare non possumus filios Dei visuros Deum, sed sicut videntur invisibilia, sicut seipsum ostensurum promittebat qui hominibus apparebat in carne visibilis, quando dicebat, Et ego diligam eum, et ostendam meipsum illi (Joan. XIV, 21), cum ante oculos hominum conspicuus loqueretur. Unde autem invisibilia videntur, nisi oculis cordis? de quibus paulo ante dixi quid Hieronymus senserit ad videndum Deum.

12. Hinc est etiam quod memoratus Mediolanensis episcopus in ipsa resurrectione dixit non facile esse videre Deum, nisi iis qui mundo corde sint; et ideo scriptum esse: Beati mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt. Quantos beatos, inquit, jam numeraverat, et tamen eis videndi Deum non promiserat facultatem! Deinde adjungit et dicit: Si ergo ii qui mundo sunt corde, Deum videbunt, utique alii non videbunt. Et ne alios illos acciperemus, de quibus dictum est, Beati pauperes, Beati mites, continuo subjunxit: Neque enim indigni Deum videbunt. Indignos utique illos volens intelligi, qui licet resurgant, Deum videre non poterunt; quoniam ad damnationem resurgent, quia per fidem veram quae per dilectionem operatur (Galat. V, 6), cor mundare noluerunt. Et ideo sequitur et dicit: Neque is qui Deum videre noluerit, potest Deum videre. Deinde quia occurrebat etiam impios omnes velle videre Deum, statim ut ostenderet quare dixerit, qui Deum videre noluerit, quia utique illo modo non vult Deum videre impius, quia cor mundare non vult, quo ille videri poterit, secutus adjunxit et ait: Nec in loco Deus videtur, sed mundo corde; nec corporalibus oculis Deus quaeritur, nec circumscribitur visu, nec tactu tenetur, nec auditur affatu, nec sentitur incessu (In Luc. c. I, 11). Quibus verbis beatus Ambrosius voluit admonere quid debeant homines praeparare qui volunt Deum videre; hoc est, cor mundare per fidem quae per dilectionem operatur, 0628 dono Spiritus sancti, unde pignus accepimus, quo illam visionem desiderare noverimus (II Cor. V, 4-8).

CAPUT IV.

13. Nam de membris Dei, quae assidue Scriptura commemorat, ne quisquam secundum carnis hujus formam et figuram nos esse crederet similes Deo, propterea eadem Scriptura et alas habere Deum dixit (Psal. XVI, 8), quas nos utique non habemus. Sicut ergo alas cum audimus, protectionem intelligimus: sic et cum audimus manus, operationem intelligere debemus; et cum audimus pedes, praesentationem; et cum audimus oculos, visionem qua cognoscit; et cum audimus faciem, notitiam qua innotescit; et si quid aliud eadem Scriptura tale commemorat, puto spiritualiter intelligendum. Neque hoc ego tantum, aut ego prior, sed omnes qui qualicumque spirituali intelligentia resistunt eis qui ob hoc Anthropomorphitae nominantur. Ex quorum litteris ne multa commemorando majores moras faciam, hoc unum sancti Hieronymi interpono, ut noverit iste frater, non se de hac re mecum magis quam cum prioribus agere debere, si quid eum contra permovet.

14. Cum ergo ille vir in Scripturis doctissimus, psalmum exponeret ubi dictum est, Intelligite ergo qui insipientes estis in populo, et stulti aliquando sapite. Qui plantavit aurem, non audiet? aut qui finxit oculum, non considerat? inter caetera, Iste locus, inquit, adversus eos maxime facit, qui Anthropomorphitae sunt, qui dicunt Deum habere membra quae etiam nos habemus. Verbi causa, dicitur Deus habere oculos, quia oculi Domini respiciunt omnia; manus Domini facit omnia: «Et audivit,» inquit, «Adam sonum pedum Domini deambulantis in paradiso» (Gen. III, 8): haec simpliciter audiunt, et humanas imbecillitates ad Dei magnificentiam referunt. Ego autem dico quod Deus totus oculus est, totus manus est, totus pes est. Totus oculus est, quia omnia videt. Totus manus est, quia omnia operatur. Totus pes est, quia ubique est. Ergo videte quid dicat. «Qui plantavit aurem, non audiet? aut qui finxit oculos, non considerat?» Et non dixit, Qui plantavit aurem, ergo ipse aurem non habet; non dixit, Ergo ipse oculos non habet: sed quid dixit? «Qui plantavit aurem, non audiet? qui finxit oculos, non considerat?» membra tulit, efficientias dedit (In Psal. XCIII, 8, 9).

15. Haec omnia de litteris eorum et Latinorum et Graecorum, qui priores nobis in catholica Ecclesia viventes divina eloquia tractaverunt, ideo commemoranda arbitratus sum, ut sciat iste frater, si quid aliter quam isti sentit, deposita dissensionis amaritudine, et fraternae charitatis suavitate servata atque in integrum restituta, diligenti et tranquilla consideratione quaerendum vel discendum vel docendum. Neque enim quorumlibet disputationes, quamvis catholicorum et laudatorum hominum, velut Scripturas canonicas habere debemus, ut nobis non liceat salva honorificentia quae illis debetur hominibus, aliquid in eorum scriptis improbare atque respuere, si forte invenerimus quod aliter senserint quam veritas habet, divino adjutorio vel ab aliis intellecta, vel a nobis. 0629 Talis ego sum in scriptis aliorum; tales volo esse intellectores meorum. Denique in iis omnibus quae de opusculis sanctorum atque doctorum commemoravi, Ambrosii, Hieronymi, Athanasii, Gregorii, et si qua aliorum talia legere potui quae commemorare longum putavi, Deum non esse corpus, nec formae humanae habere membra, nec eum esse per locorum spatia divisibilem, et esse natura incommutabiliter invisibilem, nec per eamdem naturam atque substantiam, sed assumpta visibili specie sicut voluit apparuisse iis quibus apparuit, quando per corporis oculos in Scripturis sanctis visus esse narratur, in adjutorio Domini inconcusse credo, et quantum ipse donat intelligo.

CAPUT V.

16. De spirituali autem corpore, quod in resurrectione habebimus, quantam capiat in melius commutationem: utrum in simplicitatem spiritus cedat, ut totus homo jam spiritus sit; an quod magis puto, sed nondum plena fiducia confirmo, ita futurum sit spirituale corpus, ut propter ineffabilem quamdam facilitatem spirituale dicatur, servet tamen substantiam corporalem, quae per seipsam vivere ac sentire non possit, sed per illum qui ea utitur spiritum; neque enim et nunc, quia corpus dicitur animale, eadem est animae natura quae corporis: et utrum si corporis, quamvis jam immortalis atque incorruptibilis, natura servabitur, adjuvet tunc aliquid spiritum ad videndum ipsa visibilia, id est corporalia, sicut nunc tale aliquid nisi per corpus videre non possumus; an vero etiam tunc sine organo corporis valeat spiritus noster nosse corporalia (neque enim et Deus talia per sensus corporis novit); et multa alia quae in hac quaestione movere possunt, fateor me nondum alicubi legisse, quod mihi sufficere existimarem sive ad discendum sive ad docendum.

17. Ac per hoc si non displicet huic fratri mea qualiscumque cautela, interim propter quod scriptum est, Quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est (I Joan. III, 2), quantum possumus, cor mundum ad illam visionem ipso adjuvante praeparemus. De corpore autem spirituali pacatius et diligentius inquiramus, ne forte aliquid certum ac liquidum, si nobis hoc utile esse novit, secundum Scripturas suas Deus dignetur demonstrare. Si enim hoc invenerit inquisitio diligentior, tantam corporis futuram mutationem, ut possit videre invisibilia; non, ut opinor, talis potentia corporis menti auferet visionem, ut exterior homo videre Deum tunc possit, non possit interior: quasi tantum foris sit Deus ad hominem, et intus non sit in homine, cum apertissime scriptum sit, ut sit Deus omnia in omnibus (I Cor. XV, 28); aut ita sit intus ille qui sine ullis locorum spatiis ubique totus est, ut foris tantum videri ab exteriori homine possit, intus autem ab interiori non possit. Quae si absurdissime sentiuntur: magis enim sancti pleni erunt Deo; non inanes intrinsecus ab illo circumdabuntur extrinsecus; nec eaesi intrinsecus eum quo pleni erunt, non videbunt, et tantum forinsecus oculati eum quo circumdabuntur, videbunt: restat ut interim de visione Dei secundum 0630 interiorem hominem certissimi simus. Si autem etiam corpus mira commutatione hoc valuerit, aliud accedet, non illud abscedet.

18. Melius ergo illud affirmamus unde minime dubitamus, quod homo interior videbit Deum, qui modo solus potest videre charitatem, quae cum laudaretur dictum est, Deus charitas est (I Joan. IV, 8): solus potest videre pacem et sanctificationem, sine qua nemo potest videre Deum (Hebr. XII, 14). Neque enim charitatem, pacem, sanctificationem, et si qua sunt similia, videt modo ullus oculus carnis; quae tamen omnia jam videt, quantum potest, mentis oculus, tanto purius quanto purior: ut sine dubitatione Deum nos visuros esse credamus, sive inveniamus, sive non inveniamus quod de qualitate futuri corporis quaerimus; cum tamen corpus resurrecturum et immortale atque incorruptibile futurum non ambigamus, quoniam hinc sanctarum Scripturarum sententias apertissimas firmissimasque retinemus. Si autem iste frater quod de spirituali corpore adhuc requiro, jam sibi firmat esse certissimum, nisi placidus audiero docentem, ita ut ille quoque placidus me audiat inquirentem, habebit unde jure succenseat. Nunc tamen per Christum obsecro ut de illa asperitate litterarum mearum, qua eum non immerito offensum esse didici, veniam mihi ab illo impetres, et me rescriptis Domino adjuvante Iaetifices.