A SELECT LIBRARY
OF THE
NICENE AND
POST-NICENE FATHERS
OF
THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
SECOND SERIES
Edited by
PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., LL.D.,
PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY IN THE UNION THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, NEW YORK.
AND
HENRY WACE, D.D.,
PRINCIPAL OF KING’S COLLEGE, LONDON.
VOLUME X
Ambrose: Select Works and Letters
T&T CLARK
EDINBURGH
__________________________________________________
WM. B. EERDMANS PUBLISHING COMPANY
GRAND RAPIDS, MICHIGAN
Some of
The Principal Works of St. Ambrose,
Translated
by
The Rev. H. De Romestin, M.A.
of St. John’s College, and Rector of Tiptree, Essex,
with the Assistance of
The Rev. E. De Romestin, M.A.
of New College, Oxford,
and
The Rev. H. T. F. Duckworth, M.A.
of Merton College, Oxford.
Although, according to the plan of this “Library,” Commentaries on Holy Scripture are omitted, and the field of selection is thus somewhat lessened, it has been no easy matter to decide which of St. Ambrose’s many treatises should be chosen and which omitted.
Obviously the great work on the Faith, De Fide, must be included, and this implied the addition of that on the Holy Spirit. Then the treatise on the Duties of the Clergy, as throwing much light on the ideas of the Fourth Century as to what was expected of ecclesiastics, seemed to claim a place. And after these the difficulty becomes very great. It is unfortunate that the limitations of space do not admit of the inclusion of all the dogmatic and ascetic treatises. Similarly, one would have been glad to insert the addresses on the deaths of the two Emperors Valentinian and Theodosius. More, also, of his letters might well have been added, though, as they have appeared in full in the Oxford “Library of the Fathers,” this is a matter for less regret.
As will be seen, I have availed myself of the assistance of my son, the Rev. E. de Romestin, of New College, and of the Rev. H. T. F. Duckworth, of Merton College, each of whom took high honours in the Theological School at Oxford.
The work has been carried out under some difficulties, and not the least has been the loss in travelling of a considerable portion of the manuscript, the whole of which had to be translated anew.
§1. Editions.
All the Editions of the works of St. Ambrose which preceded that of the Benedictines are very inadequate. Of these the chief are the following:
1. Venice, a.d. 1485.
2. Cribellius, a.d. 1490.
3. Auerbach, Basel, a.d. 1492, reprinted in 1506, with a full Index. These are very faulty Editions.
4. Erasmus, Basel, a.d. 1527, reprinted and re-edited by different persons, in various places [by Baronius amongst others, a.d. 1549].
5. Gillot Campanus, Paris, a.d. 1568.
6. Felix de Montalto [afterwards Pope Sixtus V.], Rome, a.d. 1580–1585, reprinted at Paris, a.d. 1603.
7. The Benedictines of St. Maur, Paris, a.d. 1686–1690, reprinted at Venice, a.d. 1748 and 1781, as well as with additions by Migne, Patres Latini, Vols. XIV.–XVII.
8. A new edition by Ballerini, Milan, a.d. 1875–1886, founded on that of the Benedictines, but by no means superior to it.
There is still room for a critical edition of the works of this great Father, which are unfortunately very corrupt, but in many points it is not likely that the work of the Benedictine editors can be improved upon.
9. There are separate editions of some of the treatises of St. Ambrose, as of the Hexaëmeron and De Officiis Clericorum, in the Bibliotheca Patrum Eccl. Latinæ Selecta, Leipzig, Tauchnitz. The De Officiis has also been edited, with considerable improvements in the text, by Krabinger, Tübingen, 1857, and the De Fide and De Pœnitentia, by Hurter in the Vienna selections from the Fathers.
§2. Translations.
There seems to have never been any attempt to translate the works of this great Christian Father and Doctor in full.
Some few treatises, De Officiis, De excessu fratris Satyri, De Virginitate, and several other short ones, appear in German, in the select writings of the Fathers, published by Kosel of Kempten. The Epistles have been translated into French by Bonrecueil, Paris, a.d. 1746; and the De Officiis and Epistles into English, the former by Humfrey, London, a.d. 1637; the latter in the Oxford “Library of the Fathers,” revised by E. Walford, London, 1881; whilst the De Mysteriis appears in a little volume of Sacramental Treatises, published by Messrs. J. Parker & Co., Oxford, under the supervision of the Editor of this volume. There is a very valuable little monograph entitled Studia Ambrosiana, chiefly critical, and unfortunately brief, by Maximilian Ihm. Leipzig, Teubner, 1889.
§3. Biographies and Authorities for the Life of St. Ambrose.
(a.) Ancient.
Many of his own writings.—Life of St.
Ambrose by Paulinus, Paulinus, who had been in
constant attendance on St. Ambrose, and was with him at his death,
wrote this life a few years after that event, at the request of St.
Augustine.
(b.) Modern.
Baronius, Annals, a.d. 397, n. 25–35; Life of St. Ambrose in the prolegomena to the Roman Edition of his works.—The Life of St. Ambrose gathered from his own writings, in the Benedictine Edition (excellent).—Hermant, Vie de St. Ambroise, Paris, 1678.—Tillemont, Mémoires, etc., Tome X. St. Ambroise [pp. 78–386], and notes, pp. 729–770.—Ceillier, Histoire générale des Auteurs sacrés, Tome V. pp. 328 ff. Ed. 2, Paris, 1860.—Dupin, Tome ii. pp. 438–515. [This writer says that the text of St. Ambrose is more corrupt than that of any other Father. See Alzog, Patrologie, p. 296. Ed. i.]—Cave, Hist. Lit. Vol. I. 262.—Schœneman, Biblíotheca historica PP. Lat. I. 388–419.—Silbert, Leben des heiligen Ambrosius, Vienna, 1841—Baunard, Histoire de St. Ambroise, Paris, 1872 [translated into German, Freiburg, 1873].—Life of St. Ambrose, by Archdeacon Thornton, London, and other shorter sketches.—Fessler [Jungmann], Institutiones Patrologiæ, I. 655 [also Patrologies of Mœhler, Alzog, etc.]. Articles in the Freiburg Kirchen-Lexikon, the Dictionary of Christian Biography, and other encyclopædias.
After the Council of Nicæa, a.d. 325, the faith of the Catholic Church was established, but a considerable time was to elapse, and the tide of heterodoxy was to ebb and flow many times before peace should finally ensue. The “conversion” of the Emperor Constantine, though not followed, till he was dying, by baptism, led not merely to the toleration but to the protection and, as it were, the “establishment” of the Christian religion. This very naturally was followed by a large influx of worldliness into the Church, and bishops began to be time-servers and courtiers. St. Ambrose, however, was not of this number, but whether in defence of the Catholic faith, of the property of the Church, or, as in his legations to Maximus, for the protection of those in peril or anxiety who sought his aid, he braved every danger, even that of death itself.
During the greater part of the life of St. Ambrose many of those in power, amongst others the empress mother Justina, were Arians. Julian, though too early to affect the actions of the bishop, apostatized to paganism, which also numbered many supporters of high station. On the other hand, the influence of St. Ambrose, exercised even with severe strictness, was all-powerful with Theodosius, known as the emperor who subdued the Arian heresy and abolished the worship of idols in the Roman Empire.
The various historical events during the lifetime of St. Ambrose will be found entered under the different years in the subjoined table; it remains only here to give some account of his burial-place.
St. Ambrose having discovered the bodies of SS. Cosmas and Damian, a.d. 389, placed them under the right side of the altar in his basilica, and desired that he should be himself buried near them to the left, which was done a.d. 397. In the year 835 the Archbishop of Milan, Angilbert II., caused a large porphyry sarcophagus to be made in which he laid the body of St. Ambrose between the other two under the altar. In 1864 some excavations and repairs revealed in situ a magnificent sarcophagus nearly four and a half feet in length, three in width, and nearly two in height, without the covering, placed lengthwise. Further excavations brought to view two other tombs, one to the right and one to the left, lined with marble and placed east and west, not as the sarcophagus, north and south. In the one to the left were a few pieces of money, one of Flavius Victor, one of Theodosius, with some fragments of cloth of gold and other things. These were evidently the original resting-places of St. Ambrose and of SS. Cosmas and Damian, and the sarcophagus that constructed under Lothair, a.d. 835, by Angilbert.
a.d.
340. Birth of St. Ambrose (probably at Trèves), youngest son of Ambrose, Prefect of the Gauls. Constantine II. killed at Aquileia. Death of Eusebius.
341. Seventh Council of Antioch. Second exile of St. Athanasius.
343. Photinus begins teaching his heresy.
347. Birth of St. John Chrysostom. Council of Sardica. St. Athanasius restored.
348. Birth of Prudentius the Christian poet.
349. Synod of Sirmium against Photinus.
350. Death of the Emperor Constans. St. Hilary, Bishop of Poitiers. Magnentius proclaimed Emperor of the West.
351. Photinus condemned by a semi-Arian synod.
352. Liberius, Pope in succession to Julius.
353–4. About this date St. Ambrose is taken by his mother to live at Rome, where his sister Marcellina received the veil at the hands of Liberius at Christmas, either a.d. 353, or more probably 354. Suicide of Magnentius the Emperor.
354. Birth of St. Augustine. Death of the Emperor Gallus.
355. Liberius the Pope, Dionysius, Bishop of Milan, and Lucifer, Bishop of Cagliari, banished by an Arian synod at Milan. Third exile of St. Athanasius.
356. Banishment of St. Hilary of Poitiers.
357. Liberius subscribes (as the Arians say) an Arian Creed, and returns to Rome a.d. 358.
359. Council of Ariminum. Macedonius of Constantinople deposed. Eudoxius consecrated Bishop.
361. Julian Emperor.
362. Fourth exile of St. Athanasius.
363. Death of the Emperor Julian. St. Athanasius restored. Felix Pope.
364. Death of the Emperor Jovian. Valentinian and Valens Emperors.
366. Death of Liberius in September. Damasus elected in his place, but the see is also claimed by Ursinus.
367. Gratian, though only a boy, declared Augustus by his father Valentinian.
368–74. Successful career of St. Ambrose in legal business and as “consular.”
370. St. Basil, Bishop of Cæsarea.
372. St. Gregory of Nazianzus, Bishop of Susium.
373. Death of St. Athanasius.
374. Death of Auxentius, the Arian Bishop of Milan, and election of St. Ambrose, though still only a catechumen, by acclamation. St. Martin Bishop of Tours.
374–5. St. Ambrose sends a deputation of clerics to St.
Basil to ask for the body of St. Dionysius, late Catholic Bishop of
Milan. [St. Basil,
375. Death of Valentinian in November. His son Valentinian is admitted by Gratian to be Emperor of the East, though only four years old.
377. St. Ambrose writes the three books, De Virginibus; one, De Viduis; which is followed by the book, De Virginitate.
378. The first two books, De Fide, written at the request of Gratian, who was setting out to the relief of Valens against the Goths. Valens is overcome and killed at Adrianople. Many Christians having been made captives, St. Ambrose sells Church plate to redeem them.
379. Theodosius is proclaimed Augustus. Death of St. Basil and of St. Ephrem Syrum. Gratian, on his way back from Thrace, requests St. Ambrose to come to meet him and receives the first two books of the treatise De Fide, and asks for a further one of the Holy Spirit; the latter was written two years later. Death of Satyrus, brother of St. Ambrose. The two treatises on his death written.
379–80. Famine in Rome.—See De Off. III. 46–48.
380. Baptism of Theodosius at Thessalonica. Books III.–V. of the De Fide written about this time. The basilica which had been sequestered by Gratian is restored to the Church.
380. Synod at Rome under Damasus at which St. Ambrose was present. Probably in the same year St. Ambrose consecrated Anemius Bishop of Sirmium in spite of Arian opposition.
381. Death at Constantinople of Athanaricus, leader of the Goths. The three books, De Spiritu Sancto, written. Death of Peter, Bishop of Alexandria. The Œcumenical Council of Constantinople commences under the presidency of Meletius of Antioch. Also at Aquileia a council, at which St. Ambrose took a leading part, was held against the heretics Palladius and Secundianus. An account is given of the proceedings in Epistles 9–12.
381–2. St. Ambrose presides over a council of Italian bishops to take into consideration the troubles at Antioch and Constantinople. Epistles 13, to Theodosius, and 14, his reply, state the proceedings. Theodosius summoned a council to consider the same matters at Constantinople.
382. Gratian orders the removal of the image of Victory from
the forum at Rome. [
383. The Priscillianists endeavour in vain to gain
Damasus and St. Ambrose to their side by means of a visit to Rome and
Milan. On the 25th of August Gratian is assassinated at Lyons by
the instigation of Maximus. A great dearth at Rome. [De
Off. III. 7, 49;
383–4. First legation of St. Ambrose to Maximus on behalf of Justina the Empress and her son Valentinian II.
384. The memorial of Symmachus the prefect of the city to
Valentinian, requesting the restoration of the Altar of Victory, and
the reply of St. Ambrose. [
385. Priscillian and his companions are condemned to
death at Trèves at the instigation of the Spanish Bishops Idacius
and Ithacius. The Ithacians consecrate Felix as Bishop.
[
386. Finding of the bodies of St. Gervasius and Protasius [
386–7. The exposition of the Gospel according to St. Luke written.
387. Baptism of St. Augustine at Milan by St. Ambrose at
Easter. Second mission of St. Ambrose to Maximus. [
388. At Constantinople the Arians destroy the residence of the
Catholic Bishop Nectarius. [
390. The excessive cruelty with which Theodosius punished a
sedition at Thessalonica brought on him exclusion from communion, and a
severe rebuke at the hands of St. Ambrose. The Emperor’s
penitence and readmission to communion. A synod is held at Milan
against the Ithacian heretics, and Felix, Bishop of Trèves.
[
391–2. The deputation of part of the Roman Senate
to Valentinian to request the restoration of the Altar of Victory in
the Forum. [
392. Valentinian II. killed at Vienne by Arbogastes [
393. On the arrival of Eugenius at Milan St. Ambrose leaves the city for Bononia Faventia and Florence. The letters to Eugenius and Sabinus written about this time.
393–4. At Florence St. Ambrose dedicates a
basilica, in which he deposits the bodies of the martyrs Vitalis and
Agricola, which he had brought from Bononia. His address on this
occasion was that which is inscribed, Exhortatio
Virginitatis. He writes
394. Theodosius sets out from Constantinople against
Eugenius. About the beginning of August St. Ambrose returns to
Milan. Eugenius defeated by Theodosius and slain, Sept. 6.
St. Ambrose intercedes and obtains pardon for the followers of
Eugenius. After this St. Ambrose writes the Enarrationes
on
395. Death of Theodosius at Milan. St. Ambrose’s oration De obitu Theodosii. Honorius and Arcadius Emperors. St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo. Death of Rufinus.
396. Dissensions at Vercellæ, the occasion of writing
397. St. Ambrose consecrates a bishop for Ticinum, and
shortly after falls ill. He commenced the Enarratio on
There is a very complete agreement on the part of
St. Ambrose with the Catholic teaching of the universal Church.
St. Augustine speaks of him as “a faithful teacher of the Church,
and even at the risk of his life a most strenuous defender of Catholic
truth,” Cont. Jul. Pelag.
II. 32. Cont. Jul. Pelag.
I. 40. Adv. Rufin. I.
2.
In his dogmatic treatises, more particularly in his books on the Faith, he shows great skill and penetration, and his reasoning is full and clear, meeting the most subtle objections with patient industry. Scarcely any ancient writer has treated the mystery of the Holy Trinity and the theological difficulties connected with it more clearly and convincingly than St. Ambrose in his De Fide and De Spiritu Sancto.
In his expositions of Holy Scripture he treats of the threefold sense, the literal, the moral, and the mystical, devoting more pains, however, and time to the latter than to the former. He gives special consideration to the mystical interpretation of such passages as may seem to contain in a literal sense anything diverging from sound morality. Many of his other mystical interpretations of plain, simple matters of fact have much beauty, as in his treatment of the story of the building of the ark, the marriage of Isaac, and the blessings of the Patriarchs. The literal sense is followed specially in the Hexaëmeron, the treatise on Paradise, Noah and the Ark, and the Exposition of the Gospel according to St. Luke. The moral sense, though referred to throughout his writings, is more particularly sought out in the Expositions of the Psalms.
St. Ambrose was a diligent student of the Greek writers, whom he often follows largely, especially Origen and Didymus, as also St. Basil the Great and St. Athanasius, and he has also adapted many points of allegorical interpretation from Philo. He is fond of alleging scriptural proofs, and when he argues from reason often confirms his argument by some quotation or reference, a task easy for him who, from his consecration, was so diligent a student of holy Scripture.
As to justification, St. Ambrose ascribes the
whole work to the Holy Spirit, Who seals us in our hearts, as we
receive the outward sign in our bodies. Through the Holy Spirit
we receive a share of the grace of adoption. Christ was perfect
according to the fulness of His Majesty; we are perfected by a
continual progress in virtue. De Sp. S. I.
79, 80; De Fide, V. 91.
With regard to baptism, he taught in accordance
with the received belief of his day that it is the sacrament of
adoption and regeneration, wherein sin is forgiven, De Pœn. I.
36. For the force of the
word transfigurantur in early ecclesiastical Latin, compare
Tertullian, adv. Praxeam, c. 27: “Transfiguratio
interremptio est pristini. Omne enim, quodcunque transfiguratur
in aliud desinit esse quod fuerat, et incipit esse quod non
erat.” De Fid. IV.
124. De Pœn. II. 12,
etc.
There was a Latin version made from the
Septuagint, including the Apocrypha, in Africa, and in use there at the
end of the second century, very barbarous, and copying even Greek
constructions. Of this text SS. Ambrose and Augustine used a
recension. But our author seems to have been very independent,
and to have made use of several different versions of holy Scripture,
translating, as it would seem, often for himself from the Septuagint,
referring also to Symmachus, Theodotion, and Aquila, though thinking
less of the latter. When the prophets, he says, were moved by the
Holy Spirit, they were troubled and darkened with their own
ignorance. De Abrah. II.
61. De Noe et Arca,
XII. 60. Hexaëm. V.
20.
The Arians are repeatedly charged by St. Ambrose
with falsifying and manipulating Scripture for their own ends, not
always, it would seem, very justly, but the same charge is a common one
against all heretical bodies in early days. As to the Canon, he
would seem to have no very definite rule. He admits Tobit as
prophetic, Judith as canonical, nor does he distinguish between
canonical and deuterocanonical, while the sapiential books are all
attributed to Solomon. He quotes Baruch as Jeremiah, and refers
to the History of Susanna, Bel and the Dragon, and other apocryphal
works as “Scripture.” Ezra, he says, re-established
holy Scripture by memory,
St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan, one of the four Latin doctors of the Church, was descended from a Roman family of some distinction, some time Christian, and counting martyrs as well as state officials amongst its members.
His father, likewise named Ambrosius, was prefect
of the Gauls, an office the jurisdiction of which extended over Spain,
Britain, Cis- and Trans-Alpine Gaul. His chief official residence
was Trèves, where probably St. Ambrose was born, as seems most
likely, a.d. 340. The exact date
depends upon whether the passage “barbaracis motibus et
bellorum procellis,” etc.,
After his father’s death, his mother and his elder brother, Satyrus, went with St. Ambrose to Rome, not earlier than 353, where his elder sister, Marcellina, received the veil at Christmas from Pope Liberius, the exact year being uncertain.
Here the future bishop devoted himself to legal
studies, in which he met with great success. His skill in law and
general reputation soon led to his advancement, and about a.d. 370 he was appointed by the Prætorian Prefect
Probus governor of Liguria and Æmilia, with the rank of
consular. Of the 116 provinces of
the empire 37 were governed by magistrates with the title of
consular. De Exc. Sat. I.
25, 49, 58.
After some few years Auxentius, Auxentius, a
Cappadocian, was ordained priest by Gregory, usurper of St. Athanasius,
see of Alexandria. He was much esteemed by the Arians; and when
after a synod at Milan, a.d. 355, the Catholic
Bishop Dionysius was banished with many others, Auxentius was intruded
in his stead, and, as St. Athanasius remarked, a Latin Church received
as its pastor one who was ignorant of the Latin tongue, St. Hilary and
others endeavoured to remove him, but in vain, and in 369 Auxentius was
excommunicated in a synod at Rome, but succeeded in maintaining his
post.
St. Ambrose did all in his power, even, if we accept the statements if his biographer Paulinus, probably a clerk of Milan, resorting to some questionable expedients, to escape from the dignity laid upon him, but when his election was ratified by the Emperor Valentinian, he recognized his appointment as being the will of God, and insisted on being baptized by a Catholic priest. Eight days later, December 7, a.d. 374, he was consecrated Bishop.
The first care of the new bishop was at once to divest himself of his worldly property, giving his silver and gold to the poor and the Church, and committing the management of his estates, except a life interest for his sister, to his brother Satyrus, who gave up his own office to come to his assistance, and enable him to devote himself wholly to theological study and his other episcopal duties.
His chief studies were holy Scripture and
ecclesiastical writers, especially St. Basil the Great and Didymus of
Alexandria, from whom no less a man than St. Jerome accused him of
plagiarizing. His natural abilities and thorough knowledge of
Greek stood him in good stead, when, as he says himself, De Off. lib. I. c.
i. 4.
The life of St. Ambrose was a pattern of the
discharge of episcopal duties. He spent much time daily in study
and devotion, besides the more public duties of his office.
But the zeal and courage of the new Bishop were soon tried. The Empress mother Justina was still an Arian, but had little influence during the life of the Emperor Gratian, who was much attached to St. Ambrose. After his murder, however, a.d. 383, his brother Valentinian II., a boy of only twelve years of age, ascended the throne and was naturally much under his mother’s influence. Justina led him to support a demand of the Arians for the use of the Portian basilica, situated outside the walls of Milan. This being refused, a second application was made for the large and newer basilica within the city. Ambrose replied, “The Emperor has his palaces, let him leave the churches to the Bishop.” Soldiers were sent to secure the delivery of the basilica, but St. Ambrose with the faithful occupied the building and remained within, singing psalms and hymns till the soldiers retired.
St. Ambrose was no less successful in his zeal
against the expiring heathenism of Italy than against Arianism.
One of the many remnants till recent times of heathen worship had been
the Altar of Victory in the Senate-house at Rome, which was removed
under Gratian; the prefect of Rome, Symmachus, himself a heathen but a
friend of St. Ambrose, appealed to Valentinan II. that it might be
restored, and Ambrose successfully opposed this appeal in two Epistles
(17, 18) addressed to the young Emperor. Yet again, when
Theodosius assumed the imperial power [a.d.
387], a renewed attempt was made and once more frustrated. Later
on, Eugenius the usurper judged it politic to take the heathen’s
side, St. Ambr.
The influence exercised by Ambrose upon the rulers of his day is sufficiently manifested by these facts, but he had the courage to use not only influence, but, when needed, rebuke and Church discipline.
Only a few months after his elevation to the see of
Milan, he remonstrated with Valentinian I. concerning the severity of
his rule and other abuses, and required amendment. The
Emperor’s reply did him honour: “Well, if I have
offended, prescribe for me the remedies which the law of God
requires.” Again, on another occasion, in 390, Theodosius
had put down a seditious movement in Thessalonica with great severity,
causing some 7,000 persons to be slain. St. Ambrose at once,
disregarding the possible consequences to himself, wrote him a letter
(
These acts of ecclesiastical discipline were also accompanied by others in which the great Bishop was able in temporal matters to assist the imperial family.
Twice on behalf of the young Emperor Valentinian II. he undertook a mission to Trèves, to see the usurper Maximus, and when Valentinian died, St. Ambrose delivered a striking oration at his funeral, recording his many virtues. Theodosius did not survive his victory over Eugenius for many months. In January of the following year [a.d. 395], he died at Milan, and the funeral oration which St. Ambrose pronounced over him is also extant.
Yet whilst thus devoting much time to weighty affairs of State, the Bishop never neglected the duties of his office. He preached every Sunday, at great festivals, once or more often, every day. He celebrated the Holy Mysteries daily. His life was marked by perfect purity, sympathy, energy, and devotion. He was always ready to help those requiring assistance, and so when Augustine came to Milan to teach rhetoric, a.d. 384, he was kindly received and fascinated. Probably he owed his conversion even more to the life and character than to the teaching of St. Ambrose.
One subject St. Ambrose never tired of recommending was Virginity; and such was the power of his exhortations that mothers used to forbid their daughters to attend his sermons and addresses.
The indefatigable zeal of the great Bishop further
exhibited itself in the number of his
But besides his writings and his resistance to the attacks of Arianism, heathenism, or the secular power, St. Ambrose devoted himself to actively defending the cause of the Church and of orthodoxy wherever he had the opportunity. Although the death of Satyrus, a.d. 379, must have greatly added to the troubles of St. Ambrose, he was as watchful as ever against all possibilities of heretical aggression. To his care and opposition to the party of the Empress Justina it was owing that the city of Sirmium was preserved in a.d. 381 from receiving an Arian bishop. And in the same year, when the Arians, hoping for large support from the East, had almost persuaded the Emperor to summon a general council at Aquileia, St. Ambrose prevailed upon him to summon only the neighbouring bishops, and what might have been a serious evil was avoided.
In such ways the holy man, embracing in his far-seeing care the interests of religion far and wide, spent his days in unceasing labour till his health failed in the year 397, when, as is related by Paulinus, Count Stilicho, saying that the loss of such a man threatened destruction to Italy, persuaded the nobles of the city to request St. Ambrose that he would pray for longer life. But the Saint replied: “I have not so lived amongst you as to be ashamed of living, and I do not fear to die, for we have a good Lord.” As some of the bystanders were discussing in whispers who would be St. Ambrose’s successor, and mentioned Simplicianus, he overheard them, and said, “An old man, but good.” For the last few hours of his life Ambrose lay with his arms extended in the form of a cross, praying. Honoratus, Bishop of Vercellæ, lying in another room, heard himself called thrice, and coming down, offered him the Body of the Lord, after receiving which St. Ambrose breathed his last, on Good Friday night, April 4–5, a.d. 397, and was laid to rest on Easter morning in the Ambrosian basilica at Milan, where he still is reverenced, and in which the Ambrosian liturgy and rites, differing considerably from the Roman use of the rest of the churches of Italy, continue to this day, though doubtless with many modifications subsequent to the time of St. Ambrose.
The extant writings of St. Ambrose may be divided under six heads. I. Dogmatic; II. Exegetic; III. Moral; IV. Sermons; V. Letters; VI. A few Hymns.
I. Dogmatic and Controversial Works.
1. De Fide. The chief of these are the Five Books on the Faith, of which the two first were written in compliance with a request of the Emperor Gratian, a.d. 378. Books III.–V. were written in 379 or 380, and seem to have been worked up from addresses delivered to the people [V. prol. 9, 11; III. 143; IV. 119]. This treatise vindicates the Divinity of Christ from the attacks of the Arians, and has always enjoyed the highest reputation, being quoted and referred to again and again.
2. De Spiritu Sancto. The three books on the Holy Spirit may be considered as a continuation of the above treatise, and were also addressed to Gratian in compliance with his request, a.d. 381. In this treatise St. Ambrose shows that the Holy Spirit is God, and of one nature and substance with the Father and the Son. He makes use of the Greek writers, SS. Didymus, Basil the Great, and Athanasius, and was on this ground attacked by St. Jerome. See Rufinus, Apol. adv. Hieron. II. 23–25.
3. De Incarnationis Dominicæ
Sacramento. The book on the Mystery of the Lord’s
Incarnation owed its origin to a challenge to dispute publicly given to
St. Ambrose by two Arian chamberlains of Gratian. On the day
appointed they were, as Paulinus relates in his life of St. Ambrose,
thrown out of the chariot which was conveying them and killed. On
the next day, that the people might not be disappointed, this discourse
was delivered, but the reference made to the absence of the challengers
hardly suits the story of Paulinus. The treatise is a very
valuable argument in defence of our Lord’s Divinity and Eternity,
and that He is perfect God and perfect Man. In rewriting the
address the Bishop added a refutation of the argument that the Begotten
and the Unbegotten could
4. De Mysteriis. A valuable treatise on the Mysteries, under which title St. Ambrose includes Baptism, with its complement, Confirmation, and the Eucharist. It is somewhat similar to the Catecheses Mystagogicæ of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, expounding the doctrine and ceremonies of these sacraments. On doctrinal grounds the authenticity of the work has been impugned by some modern writers, but there is no sufficient foundation for their arguments, as the teaching may be paralleled in many other passages of St. Ambrose. The date is not certain, but may be about a.d. 387.
5. Libri duo de
pœnitentia. These books on Penitence were written about
a.d. 384, against the Novatians. In the
first book the writer proves that the power of forgiving sins was left
by Christ to His Church. In the second book, insisting on the
necessity of repentance and confession, he also refutes the Novatian
interpretations of
These treatises are all translated in this volume.
II. Exegetical Works.
St. Ambrose was in the habit of explaining various books of holy Scripture in courses of lectures, which he subsequently worked up, often at the request of friends, into treatises in the shape in which they have come down to us. Of the class we have:
1. Hexaëmeron. This
treatise, expounding the literal and moral sense of the work of the six
days of creation [
2. De Paradiso. This is the earliest or one of the earliest of the extant writings of St. Ambrose, though the exact date is uncertain. In it he discusses what and where Paradise was, and the question of the life of our first parents there, the temptation, fall and its results, and answers certain cavils of the Gnostics and Manichees. He also enters into an allegorical exposition comparing Paradise with the human soul.
3. De Cain et Abel. The treatise is now divided into two books, but the division is too inartistic to have been made by the writer. As to the date, it was later than the last treatise, but probably not many months. The interpretations are very mystical, and touch upon moral and dogmatic questions.
4. De Noe et Arca. This treatise has reached us in a mutilated condition. It was written probably before the De Officiis and De Abraham, but after the works on Paradise and Cain and Abel, though the exact date cannot be determined. The exposition is literal and allegorical.
5. De Patriarchis. Seven books preached and written at various dates about 387 or 388. The same kind of interpretation is followed in these as in the former treatises.
6. De fuga sæculi. Written probably about a.d. 389–390. An instructive treatise setting forth the desirability of avoiding the dangers of the world, and for those who must live in the world, showing how to pass through them most safely.
7. De Elia et jejunio. A treatise composed from addresses delivered during Lent, certainly after a.d. 386, possibly 389.
8. De Tobia. A work quoted by St. Augustine (C. Jul. Pelag. I. 3, 10), consisting of sermons on the story of Tobias, and chiefly directed against the practice of usury.
9. De Nabuthe Jezraelita. One or two sermons against avarice, probably written about a.d. 395.
10. Libri iv. de interpellatione Job et David. The first and third books have Job, the second and fourth David, for their subject, and formed a course of sermons the date of which is uncertain.
11. Apologia prophetæ David ad Theodosium Augustum. A number of addresses delivered, it would seem, about a.d. 384, quoted also by St. Augustine.
12. Enarrationes in xii. Psalmos
Davidicos. Commentaries on
13. Expositio Psalmi cxviii.
This treatise is one of the most carefully worked out of
14. Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam. The ten books of this commentary consist likewise of sermons in which St. Ambrose explained the Gospel during a period of one or two years, in 386 and 387.
III. Ethical Writings.
Among the ethical or moral writings of St. Ambrose, the first place is deservedly assigned to:
1. De Officiis Ministrorum. In three books, which are translated in this series.
2. De Virginibus. Three books concerning Virgins, addressed to his sister Marcellina in the year 377, probably, like most of the treatises of St. Ambrose, revised from addresses, the first of which was delivered on the festival of St. Agnes, January 21. This would seem to have been perhaps the very earliest of the writings of St. Ambrose, judging from the opening chapter. The treatise is referred to by St. Jerome, St. Augustine, Cassian, and others.
3. De Viduis. This shorter work, concerning Widows, was probably written not very long after the last mentioned treatise.
4. De Virginitate. A treatise on Virginity, the date of which cannot certainly be fixed, but the writing De Viduis is referred to in chapter 9.
5. De Institutione Virginis. A treatise on the training and discipline of a Virgin, addressed to Eusebius, either bishop or a noble of Bologna, after St. Ambrose had admitted his niece to the rank of Virgins, probably about a.d. 391 or 392.
6. Exhortatio Virginitatis. A commendation of Virginity preached on the occasion of the consecration of a church at Florence by St. Ambrose, a.d. 393 or 394.
IV. Sermons and Addresses.
1. Contra Auxentium. A sermon against Auxentius, concerning giving up the basilicas to the Arians, usually inserted between the twenty-first and twenty-second of the letters of St. Ambrose.
2. De Excessu fratris Satyri. The two addresses on the occasion of the death of St. Ambrose’s brother Satyrus, translated in this volume.
3. De obitu Valentiniani Consolatio. The Emperor Valentinian having been murdered by Arbogastes, Count of Vienne, his body was brought to Milan, and remained two months unburied. At last Theodosius sent the necessary rescript, and at the funeral solemnities St. Ambrose delivered the address entitled the “Consolation.”
4. De obitu Theodosii oratio. A discourse delivered forty days after the death of the Emperor Theodosius before the Emperor Honorius at Milan.
V. The Letters of St. Ambrose.
The Benedictine Editors of St. Ambrose have divided his Epistles into two classes: the first comprising those to which they thought it possible to assign dates; the second those which afford no data for a conclusion. Probably in many cases the exact year is not so certain as the editors have made it appear, but they seem arranged in a fairly probable consecutive order.
The Letters
1. To the Emperor Gratian, in reply to his request for a treatise on the Faith. Written a.d. 379, before August, as Gratian came to Milan in that month.
2. To Constantius, a bishop, on episcopal duties, and commending to him the care of the vacant see of Forum Cornelii, or Imola. Probably written about a.d. 379.
3, 4. To Cornelius, Bishop of Comum, the first a friendly letter, the second containing also an invitation to the consecration of a church by Bassianus, Bishop of Laus Pompeia, now Lodi Vecchio, near Milan. Written probably after a.d. 381.
5, 6. To Syagrius, Bishop of Verona. On a charge falsely brought against the Virgin Indicia. They may have been written a.d. 380.
9–12. Letters concerning the Council of Aquileia, held a.d. 381, to the bishops of the provinces of Gaul, to the Emperor Gratian and his colleagues. Two men, Palladius and Secundianus, held Arian opinions, and the former appears to have asked Gratian to convoke a General Council, pleading that he was unjustly condemned. St. Ambrose pointed out to the Emperor that such a question as the orthodoxy of two persons could be settled by a local council in Italy; and as a result, by the Emperor’s mandate, a council of Italian bishops met at Aquileia, other bishops having also permission to attend. Palladius and Secundianus were condemned, and these letters have reference to the proceedings at the council. They were probably written by St. Ambrose in the name of the council, a.d. 381.
13, 14. Two letters addressed to Theodosius, the former relating the decisions of a council, probably held at Milan, on the Meletian schism at Antioch, and the latter further expressing the desire of the bishops for a council on this subject, and also on the opinions of Apollinaris. Written a.d. 381 or 382.
15. To the Bishops of Macedonia, in reply to their notification of the death of Acholius, Bishop of Thessalonica, who baptized Theodosius, and had met St. Ambrose at a council in Rome. Written a.d. 383.
16. To Anicius, on his election to succeed Acholius, whose labours and life are commended by St. Ambrose. Written a.d. 383.
17, 18. On the occasion of the attempt of Symmachus and the heathen senators to procure the restitution of the image and Altar of Victory in the Roman Senate-house, frustrated by St. Ambrose, a.d. 384.
19. To Vigilius, Bishop of Trent, subsequently martyred, written probably about a.d. 385.
20. To his sister, Marcellina, giving an account of the frustrated attempts of the Arian and imperial party to gain possession of a basilica at Milan, a.d. 385,
21. To the Emperor Valentinian II., declining the challenge to dispute with the Arian Auxentius before lay judges. a.d. 386.
22. To his sister Marcellina, giving an account of the finding of the bodies of SS. Gervasius and Protasius, and of the consequent miracles. Written a.d. 386.
23. To the bishops of the province of Æmilia, on the proper date for the observance of Easter, in 387. Written a.d. 386.
24. To Valentinian II., with an account of St. Ambrose’s second mission to Maximus on his behalf. Written probably a.d. 387.
25, 26. Inscribed the former to Studius, the second to Irenæus, but from internal evidence these appear to be the same person. It deals with the question, how far a judge being a Christian may lawfully sentence any one to death. Written probably about a.d. 388.
27–33. Addressed to Irenæus, on various questions. Written about a.d. 387.
34–36. To Orontianus, a cleric, on the soul and other questions. Written after 386.
37, 38. To Simplicianus, who became the successor of St. Ambrose in the see of Milan, setting forth that holiness is perfect freedom.
39. To Faustinus, on the occasion of the death of a sister. Written probably after a.d. 387.
40. To Theodosius. The Jewish synagogue at Callinicum in Mesopotamia having been destroyed by the Christians, and a meeting-house of the Valentinian heretics also burnt by the Catholics, Theodosius ordered that the bishop should rebuild the synagogue at his own expense, and the monks be punished. St. Ambrose remonstrates with the Emperor, and it would seem, from the following letter to his sister, at first unsuccessfully.
41. To his sister Marcellina, relating the circumstances alluded to above, and telling her of his sermon before the Emperor, and of his subsequent refusal to celebrate the Eucharist, until the Emperor had promised to rescind the order. The date of the two letters is a.d. 388.
42. Reply of St. Ambrose and a synod at Milan to the notification of Pope Siricius announcing the sentence of excommunication passed upon Jovinian and his followers.
43, 44. To Horontianus, in reply to his inquiries on some points connected with the Creation.
46. To the same, on the subject of an Apollinarian heretic.
47–49. To the same, with books and on private matters.
50. To Chromatius, probably Bishop of Aquileia, explaining how evil men may be used to utter true prophecies.
51. To Theodosius, after the massacre at Thessalonica. Written a.d. 390.
52. A private letter to Titianus.
53. To Theodosius, to express the sorrow of St. Ambrose at the death of Valentinian II., slain by Arbogastes.
54, 55. To Eusebius, not, it would seem, the Bishop of Bologna who was present at the Council of Aquileia, but rather a lay friend to whom St. Ambrose wrote his treatise on the training of a virgin. Probably written a.d. 392 or 393.
56. To Theophilus. The troubles of the church of Antioch through the Meletian schism might have terminated on the death of Paulinus, had he not on his deathbed consecrated Evagrius as his successor in violation of the canons. Theodosius, being pressed by the Western bishops, now summoned a council at Capua, commanding Flavian to attend, which command he however disobeyed. The council referred the matter to Theophilus of Alexandria and the bishops of Egypt. But Flavian, as Theophilus had informed St. Ambrose, refused to submit to their decision. This is the reply of St. Ambrose advising Theophilus to summon Flavian once more, and communicate the result to Pope Siricius. The letter must have been written quite at the end of a.d. 391, or the beginning of 392.
57. To Eugenius the usurper, to avoid whom St. Ambrose had left Milan, and to whose letters he had sent no reply. Written a.d. 393.
58. To Sabinus, Bishop, on the resolution of Paulinus and Therasia to forsake the world. Written probably a.d. 393.
59. To Severus, Bishop probably of Naples, telling him of James, a Persian priest, who had resolved to retire from the world into Campania, and contrasting this with his own troubles, owing to the invasion of Eugenius, a.d. 393 or 394.
60. To Paternus, against a proposed incestuous marriage.
61. To Theodosius, after his victory over Eugenius. Written a.d. 394.
62. To the same, urging him to be merciful to the followers of Eugenius. Written in the same year.
63. To the Church at Vercellæ.
The second division of the letters, being those which cannot be dated, begins here in the Benediction Edition.
64. To Irenæus, on the Manna.
65. To Simplicianus, on
66. To Romulus, on Aaron’s making the calf of the golden earrings.
67. To Simplicianus, showing how Moses yielded to Aaron in matters relating to his priestly character.
68. To Romulus. Explanation of the text
69. To Irenæus, answering a question as to the prohibition under severe penalties in the Mosaic law, of disguising the sex by dress.
70, 71. To Horontianus, on part of the prophecy of Micah.
72. To Constantius, on the rite of circumcision.
73–76. To Irenæus. Why the law was given, and the scope of the Epistle to the Ephesians. The letter numbered 75 is plainly a continuation of 74, although inscribed to Clementianus, a difficulty similar to that about letter 26.
77, 78. To Horontianus, contrasting the condition of the Jew and the Christian.
79, 80. To Bellicius, on recovery from sickness, and on the miracle of healing the man blind from his birth.
81. To certain clergy, against despondency.
82. To Marcellus, concerning a lawsuit.
83. To Sisinnius, commending him for forgiving his son, who had married without consulting him.
84. To Cynegius.
85, 86. To Siricius, with thanks for letters, and commending Priscus.
88. To Atticus. Commendation of Priscus.
89. To Alypius. Acknowledgment of letters.
90. To Antonius. On the mutual affection of himself and St. Ambrose.
91. To Candidianus, probably a fellow-bishop. A letter of affection.
VI. Hymns.
During the persecutions stirred up by the Arian Empress Justina, a.d. 385–6, referred to in his 20th letter, St. Ambrose and the faithful spent the whole night in the basilica, and the holy Bishop employed the people in singing psalms and hymns. A large number of hymns have been attributed to St. Ambrose, the number having by some editors been brought down to twelve, of which, however, only four are certainly his compositions.
1. Eterne rerum Conditor, referred to by St. Augustine, Retract. I. 21, and by St. Ambrose himself, Hexaëm. V. 24, 88. The hymn is still in use at Lauds on Sunday.
2. Deus Creator omnium. Quoted by St. Augustine, Conf. IX. 12, 32.
3. Jam surigit hora tertia. Also quoted by St. Augustine.
4. Veni Redemptor gentium. A Christmas hymn, quoted by Pope Celestine, a.d. 430, in a sermon against the Nestorians, preached before a synod at Rome, and also by other writers.
Of other hymns one commencing, Illuminans Altissimus, is quoted by Cassiodorus as an Epiphany hymn by St. Ambrose, and the same author refers to another, Orabo mente Dominum. The Benedictine Editors admit six other hymns, but they are supported by no authority anterior to Venerable Bede.
VII. Doubtful and Spurious Works.
This volume cannot of course comprehend the arguments and discussions necessary for any critical examination of certain works whether doubtful or certainly spurious, but their names may be given and certain conclusions stated.
1. Five books on the Jewish war, ordinarily attributed to Hegisippus. This is a translation into Latin and a condensation in part of the well-known work of Josephus. Ihm, a very thorough student of St. Ambrose, seems quite disposed to maintain after careful examination that this is the work of St. Ambrose.
2. De lege Dei. This treatise,
a sort of compendium of Roman law in the fourth century, and comparison
of it with the law of Moses, is ascribed, in a translation published by
Mai, Scriptorum veterum
nova Collectio, Vol. X.
3. Among works more or less doubtful are De Sacramentis, admitted by the Benedictines, but rejected, and apparently on sufficient grounds, by Ihm.
4. Apologia David altera. Suspected by Erasmus, Tillemont, and Ihm.
5. De lapsu Virginis consecratæ. A severe castigation of a fallen virgin and of her seducer. The treatise seems to have been written by a certain Bishop of Nicetas, and a ms. at speaks of it as having been revised by St. Ambrose.
6. There are further three brief addresses ascribed by some persons to St. Ambrose, touching on the question of selling all and giving to the poor. Some of the matter is like St. Ambrose, but the same cannot be said of the diction and style.
VIII. Lost Writings of St. Ambrose.
1. Expositio Isaiæ prophetiæ, referred to by St. Augustine as well as by St. Ambrose himself.
2. Liber de Sacramento regenerationis sive de philosophia, referred to by St. Augustine.
3. Libellus ad Pansophium puerum, written a.d. 393–4, according to Paulinus in his life of St. Ambrose.
4. Libri quatuor regnorum, referred to in the introduction to the work on the Jewish war.
5. Expositio fidei, quoted by Theodoret and others as a writing of St. Ambrose.
St. Ambrose, esteeming very highly the dignity of the ministerial office, was most desirous that the clergy of his diocese should live worthily of their high vocation, and be good and profitable examples to the people. Consequently he undertook the following treatise, setting forth the duties of the clergy, and taking as a model the treatise of Cicero, De Officiis.
The writer says that his object is to impress upon
those whom he has ordained the lessons which he had previously taught
them. II. 6, § 25. I. 9, § 28.
In the first book he divides duties into
“ordinary,” or the way of the commandments, binding upon
all alike; and “perfect,” which consist in following the
counsels. After treating then of some elementary duties, such as
those towards parents and elders, he touches upon the two principles
which lead the mind, reason and appetite, and shows that what is
becoming consists in thinking of good and right things, and in the
subjection of the appetite to reason, I. 24, § 106.
In the second book, passing from what is becoming to what is expedient, he points out that we can only measure what is really expedient by reference to eternal life, in contradiction to the errors of heathen philosophers, and shows that what is expedient consists in the knowledge of God and in good living. Incidentally he shows that what is becoming is really that which is expedient, and ends the book with several chapters of practical considerations.
In the third book he treats of duties of perfection, and lays down as a rule that in everything we must inquire what is expedient, not for individuals, but for many or for all. Nothing is to be striven after which is not becoming; to this everything must give place, not only expediency but even friendship and life itself. By many examples he then proves how holy men have sought after what was becoming, and have thereby secured what was expedient.
The object of St. Ambrose in basing his treatise on the lines of that of Cicero would seem to have been the confutation of some of the false principles of heathenism, and to show how much higher Christian morality is than that of the Gentiles. The treatise was probably composed about a.d. 391.
A Bishop’s special office is to teach; St. Ambrose himself, however, has to learn in order that he may teach; or rather has to teach what he has not learnt; at any rate learning and teaching with himself must go on together.
1. I think I shall
not seem to be taking too much on myself, if, in the midst of my
children, I yield to my desire to teach, seeing that the master of
humility himself has said: “Come, ye children, hearken unto
me: I will teach you the fear of the Lord.”
2. We therefore, being anxious to imitate
his reverence for God, and not without justification in dispensing
grace, deliver to you as to children those things which the Spirit of
Wisdom has imparted to him, and which have been made clear to us
through him, and learnt by sight and by example. For we can no
longer now escape from the duty of teaching which the needs of the
priesthood have laid upon us, though we tried to avoid it: Paulinus, in his
Life of St. Ambrose, relates various expedients that he tried,
to enable him to avoid the office to which he had been called; e.g. how
he caused torture to be applied to prisoners, contrary to his usual
practice, in the hope that this might lead to his rejection. More
than once, also, he endeavoured to escape the honour by
flight.
3. I do not therefore claim for myself the
glory of the apostles (for who can do this save those whom the Son of
God Himself has chosen?); nor the grace of the prophets, nor the virtue
of the evangelists, nor the cautious care of the pastors. I only
desire to attain to that care and diligence in the sacred writings,
which the Apostle has placed last amongst the duties of the
saints;
4. But not even this was the case with
me. For I was carried off from the judgment seat, and the garb
[infulis] of office, to enter on the priesthood, St. Ambrose, at
the time of his election to the episcopate, was a consular magistrate,
and was not even baptized. The infula was a flock of red
and white wool formed into a fillet, and worn on the head; from which
ribands hung down on either side. It was a mark of religious
consecration, and so worn by the priests and vestal virgins. In
later times it was adopted also by the emperors and magistrates as a
sign of their semi-sacred character. The following is
found in many mss., but not in the Benedictine
edition. “Et quantumlibet quisque profecerit nemo est
qui docere non egeat dum vivit.”
Manifold dangers are incurred by speaking; the remedy for which Scripture shows to consist in silence.
5. Now what ought
we to learn before everything else, but to be silent, that we may be
able to speak? lest my voice should condemn me, before that of another
acquit
S.
6. Therefore the saints of the Lord loved to
keep silence, because they knew that a man’s voice is often the
utterance of sin, and a man’s speech is the beginning of human
error. Lastly, the Saint of the Lord said: “I said, I
will take heed to my ways, that I offend not in my
tongue.”
7. Let us hearken, then, to the master of
precaution: “I said, I will take heed to my ways;”
that is, “I said to myself: in the silent biddings of my
thoughts, I have enjoined upon myself, that I should take heed to my
ways.” Some ways there are which we ought to follow; others
as to which we ought to take heed. We must follow the ways of the
Lord, and take heed to our own ways, lest they lead us into sin.
One can take heed if one is not hasty in speaking. The law
says: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God.”
8. It is a great evil that a man should be
condemned by his own mouth. Truly, if each one shall give account
for an idle word, S.
Silence should not remain unbroken, nor should it arise from idleness. How heart and mouth must be guarded against inordinate affections.
9. What then?
Ought we to be dumb? Certainly not. For: “there
is a time to keep silence and a time to speak.” S.
10. Let us then guard our hearts, let us
guard our mouths. Both have been written about. In this
place we are bidden to take heed to our mouth; in another place thou
art told: “Keep thy heart with all
diligence.”
11. But for whom was it written, unless it
was for each one of us: “Hedge thy possession about with
thorns, and bind up thy silver and gold, and make a door and a bar for
thy mouth, and a yoke and a balance for thy words”?
12. Bind up thy words that they run not
riot, and grow wanton, and gather up sins for themselves in too much
talking. Let them be rather confined, and held back within their
own banks. An overflowing river quickly gathers mud. Bind
up also thy meaning; let it not be left slack and unchecked, lest it be
said of thee: “There is no healing balsam, nor oil, nor
bandage to apply.”
13. Let there be a door to thy mouth, that
it may be shut when need arises, and let it be carefully barred, that
none may rouse thy voice to anger, and thou pay back abuse with
abuse. Thou hast heard it read to-day: “Be ye angry
and sin not.”
The same care must be taken that our speech proceed not from evil passions, but from good motives; for here it is that the devil is especially on the watch to catch us.
14. If any one takes heed to this, he will be mild, gentle, modest. For in guarding his mouth, and restraining his tongue, and in not speaking before examining, pondering, and weighing his words—as to whether this should be said, that should be answered, or whether it be a suitable time for this remark—he certainly is practising modesty, gentleness, patience. So he will not burst out into speech through displeasure or anger, nor give sign of any passion in his words, nor proclaim that the flames of lust are burning in his language, or that the incentives of wrath are present in what he says. Let him act thus for fear that his words, which ought to grace his inner life, should at the last plainly show and prove that there is some vice in his morals.
15. For then especially does the enemy lay
his plans, when he sees passions engendered in us; then he supplies
tinder; then he lays snares. Wherefore the prophet says not
without cause, as we heard read to-day: “Surely He hath
delivered me from the snare of the hunter and from the hard
word.” Symmachus, said to have
been an Ebionite, lived c. 193–211. He translated the Old
Testament into Greek. This was one of the versions Origen made
use of in his Hexapla edition of the Bible.
16. Accordingly the enemy tests our arms and
clashes together his weapons. If he sees that I am disturbed, he
implants the points of his darts, so as to raise a crop of
quarrels. If I utter an unseemly word, he sets his snare.
Then he puts before me the opportunity for revenge as a bait, so that
in desiring to be revenged, I may put myself in the snare, and draw the
death-knot tight for myself. If any one feels this enemy is
We must guard also against a visible enemy when he incites us by silence; by the help of which alone we can escape from those greater than ourselves, and maintain that humility which we must display towards all.
17. But we must also guard against him who can be seen, and who provokes us, and spurs us on, and exasperates us, and supplies what will excite us to licentiousness or lust. If, then, any one reviles us, irritates, stirs us up to violence, tries to make us quarrel; let us keep silence, let us not be ashamed to become dumb. For he who irritates us and does us an injury is committing sin, and wishes us to become like himself.
18. Certainly if thou art silent, and hidest
thy feelings, he is wont to say: “Why are you silent?
Speak if you dare; but you dare not, you are dumb, I have made you
speechless.” If thou art silent, he is the more
excited. He thinks himself beaten, laughed at, little thought of,
and ridiculed. If thou answerest, he thinks he has become the
victor, because he has found one like himself. For if thou art
silent, men will say: “That man has been abusive, but this
one held him in contempt.” If thou return the abuse, they
will say: “Both have been abusive.” Both will
be condemned, neither will be acquitted. Therefore it is his
object to irritate, so that I may speak and act as he does. But
it is the duty of a just man to hide his feelings and say nothing, to
preserve the fruit of a good conscience, to trust himself rather to the
judgment of good men than to the insolence of a calumniator, and to be
satisfied with the stability of his own character. For that
is: “To keep silence even from good words;”
19. So, then, let a man guard also his humility. If, however, he is unwilling to appear too humble, he thinks as follows, and says within himself: “Am I to allow this man to despise me, and say such things to my face against me, as though I could not open my mouth before him? Why should I not also say something whereby I can grieve him? Am I to let him do me wrong, as though I were not a man, and as though I could not avenge myself? Is he to bring charges against me as though I could not bring together worse ones against him?”
20. Whoever speaks like this is not gentle and humble, nor is he without temptation. The tempter stirs him up, and himself puts such thoughts in his heart. Often and often, too, the evil spirit employs another person, and gets him to say such things to him; but do thou set thy foot firm on the rock. Although a slave should abuse, let the just man be silent, and if a weak man utter insults, let him be silent, and if a poor man should make accusations, let him not answer. These are the weapons of the just man, so that he may conquer by giving way, as those skilled in throwing the javelin are wont to conquer by giving way, and in flight to wound their pursuers with severer blows.
In this matter we must imitate David’s silence and humility, so as not even to seem deserving of harm.
21. What need is
there to be troubled when we hear abuse? Why do we not imitate
him who says: “I was dumb and humbled myself, and kept
silence even from good words”?
22. He, then, who is quickly roused by wrong makes himself seem deserving of insult, even whilst he wishes to be shown not to deserve it. He who despises wrongs is better off than he who grieves over them. For he who despises them looks down on them, as though he feels them not; but he who grieves over them is tormented, just as though he actually felt them.
How admirably
23. Not without
thought did I make use of the beginning of this psalm, in writing to
you, my children. For this psalm which the Prophet David gave to
Jeduthun to sing, This psalm in the Hebrew
is inscribed to Jeduthun, one of the three leading musicians in the
temple services.
24. Although some philosophers have written
on this subject,—Panætius, A Stoic
philosopher who lived and taught at Athens, c. b.c. 120. His chief work was a treatise
περὶ
τοὺ
καθήκοντος, which Cicero himself afterward used as the groundwork of his own book
de Officiis. Cic. de Off.
I. 2.
The word “Duty” has been often used both by philosophers and in the holy Scriptures; from whence it is derived.
25. Since,
therefore, the person concerned is one fit to write on the Duties, let
us see whether the subject itself stands on the same ground, and
whether this word is suitable only to the schools of the philosophers,
or is also to be found in the sacred Scriptures. Beautifully has
the Holy Spirit, as it happens, brought before us a passage in reading
the Gospel to-day, as though He would urge us to write; whereby we are
confirmed in our view, that the word officium,
“duty,” may also be used with us. For when Zacharias
the priest was struck dumb in the temple, and could not speak, it is
said: “And it came to pass that as soon as the days of his
duty [officii] were accomplished, he departed to his own
house.”
26. In this section it
is impossible to give the point in a translation, but the passage does
not affect the argument. The text runs as follows:
“Nec ratio ipsa abhorret, quandoquidem officium ab efficiendo
dictum putamus, quasi efficium: sed propter decorem sermonis una
immutata litera, officium nuncupari, vel certe, ut ea agas quæ
nulli officiant, prosint omnibus.”
A duty is to be chosen from what is virtuous, and from what is useful, and also from the comparison of the two, one with the other; but nothing is recognized by Christians as virtuous or useful which is not helpful to the future life. This treatise on duty, therefore, will not be superfluous.
27. The
philosophers considered that duties Cic. de
Off. I. 3, § 9. Cic. de
Off. I. 3.
28. But we measure nothing at all but that which is fitting and virtuous, and that by the rule of things future rather than of things present; and we state nothing to be useful but what will help us to the blessing of eternal life; certainly not that which will help us enjoy merely the present time. Nor do we recognize any advantages in opportunities and in the wealth of earthly goods, but consider them as disadvantages if not put aside, and to be looked on as a burden, when we have them, rather than as a loss when expended.
29. This work of ours, therefore, is not
superfluous, seeing that we and they regard duty in quite different
ways. They reckon the advantages of this life among the good
things, we reckon them among the evil things; for he who receives good
things here, as the rich man in the parable, is tormented there; and
Lazarus, who endured evil things here, there found comfort. S.
What is seemly is often found in the sacred writings long before it appears in the books of the philosophers. Pythagoras borrowed the law of his silence from David. David’s rule, however, is the best, for our first duty is to have due measure in speaking.
30. We are
instructed and taught that “what is seemly” Cic. de Off.
I. 27.
31. Was Panætius or Aristotle, who also wrote on duty, earlier than David? Why, Pythagoras himself, who lived before the time of Socrates, followed the prophet David’s steps and gave his disciples a law of silence. He went so far as to restrain his disciples from the use of speech for five years. David, on the other hand, gave his law, not with a view to impair the gift of nature, but to teach us to take heed to the words we utter. Pythagoras again made his rule, that he might teach men to speak by not speaking. But David made his, so that by speaking we might learn the more how to speak. How can there be instruction without exercise, or advance without practice?
32. A man wishing to undergo a warlike training daily exercises himself with his weapons. As though ready for action he rehearses his part in the fight and stands forth just as if the enemy were in position before him. Or, with a view to acquiring skill and strength in throwing the javelin, he either puts his own arms to the proof, or avoids the blows of his foes, and escapes them by his watchful attention. The man that desires to navigate a ship on the sea, or to row, tries first on a river. They who wish to acquire an agreeable style of singing and a beautiful voice begin by bringing out their voice gradually by singing. And they who seek to win the crown of victory by strength of body and in a regular wrestling match, harden their limbs by daily practice in the wrestling school, foster their endurance, and accustom themselves to hard work.
33. Nature herself teaches us this in the case of infants. For they first exercise themselves in the sounds of speech and so learn to speak. Thus these sounds of speech are a kind of practice, and a school for the voice. Let those then who want to learn to take heed in speaking not refuse what is according to nature, but let them use all watchful care; just as those who are on a watch-tower keep on the alert by watching, and not by going to sleep. For everything is made more perfect and strong by exercises proper and suitable to itself.
34. David, therefore, was not always silent,
but only for a time; not perpetually nor to all did he refuse to speak;
but he used not to answer the enemy that provoked him, the sinner that
exasperated him. As he says elsewhere: “As though he
were deaf he heard not them that speak vanity and imagine deceit:
and as though he were dumb he opened not his mouth to
them.”
35. The first duty then is to have due measure in our speech. In this way a sacrifice of praise is offered up to God; thus a godly fear is shown when the sacred Scriptures are read; thus parents are honoured. I know well that many speak because they know not how to keep silence. But it is not often any one is silent when speaking does not profit him. A wise man, intending to speak, first carefully considers what he is to say, and to whom he is to say it; also where and at what time. There is therefore such a thing as due measure in keeping silence and also in speaking; there is also such a thing as a due measure in what we do. It is a glorious thing to maintain the right standard of duty.
It is proved by the witness of Scripture that all duty is either “ordinary” or “perfect.” To which is added a word in praise of mercy, and an exhortation to practise it.
36. Every duty is
either “ordinary” or “perfect,” Cic. de
Off. I. 3, § 8. S.
37. Upon this the young man says to
Him: “All these things have I kept from my youth up, what
lack I yet? Jesus said unto him: If thou wilt be perfect,
go and sell all thy goods and give to the poor, and thou shalt have
treasure in heaven; and come and follow Me.” S. S. S.
38. Mercy, also, is a good thing, for it makes men perfect, in that it imitates the perfect Father. Nothing graces the Christian soul so much as mercy; mercy as shown chiefly towards the poor, that thou mayest treat them as sharers in common with thee in the produce of nature, which brings forth the fruits of the earth for use to all. Thus thou mayest freely give to a poor man what thou hast, and in this way help him who is thy brother and companion. Thou bestowest silver; he receives life. Thou givest money; he considers it his fortune. Thy coin makes up all his property.
39. Further, he bestows more on thee than
thou on him, since he is thy debtor in regard to thy salvation.
If thou clothe the naked, thou clothest thyself with righteousness; if
thou bring the stranger under thy roof, if thou support the needy, he
procures for thee the friendship of the saints and eternal
habitations. That is no small recompense. Thou sowest
earthly things and receivest heavenly. Dost thou wonder at the
judgment of God in the case of holy Job? Wonder rather at his
virtue, in that he could say: “I was an eye to the blind,
and a foot to the lame. I was a father to the poor. Their
shoulders were made warm with the skins of my lambs. The stranger
dwelt not at my gates, but my door was open to every one that
came.”
To prevent any one from being checked in the exercise of mercy, he shows that God cares for human actions; and proves on the evidence of Job that all wicked men are unhappy in the very abundance of their wealth.
40. But many are
kept back from the duty of showing active mercy, because they suppose
that God does not care about the actions of men, or that He does not
know what we do in secret, and what our conscience has in view.
Some again think that His judgment
41. That is no small point. For those
three royal friends of Job declared him to be a sinner, because they
saw that he, after being rich, became poor; that after having many
children, he had lost them all, and that he was now covered with sores
and was full of weals, and was a mass of wounds from head to
foot. But holy Job made this declaration to them: “If
I suffer thus because of my sins, why do the wicked live? They
grow old also in riches, their seed is according to their pleasure,
their children are before their eyes, their houses are prosperous; but
they have no fear; there is no scourge from the Lord on
them.”
42. A faint-hearted man, seeing this, is
disturbed in mind, and turns his attention away from it. Holy
Job, when about to speak in the words of such a one, began thus,
saying: “Bear with me, I also will speak; then laugh at
me. For if I am found fault with, I am found fault with as a
man. Bear, therefore, the burden of my words.”
43. Plato has been greatly praised, because
in his book “on the State,” Plato, de
Repub. II. 2.
44. How many years before these did Job
live! He was the first to discover this, and to consider what
excuses had to be made for this, not for the sake of decking out his
eloquence, but for the sake of finding out the truth. At once he
made the matter plain, stating that the lamp of the wicked is put out,
that their destruction will come;
45. In thinking of this, deny if thou canst
that a recompense is paid by divine judgment. The former feels
happy in his heart, the latter wretched; that man on his own verdict is
guiltless, this one a criminal; that man again is happy in leaving the
world, this man grieves over it. Who can be pronounced guiltless
that is not innocent in the sight of his own conscience?
“Tell me,” he says, “where is the covering of his
tabernacle; his token will not be found.”
46. Thou seest the enjoyments of the sinner; but
question his conscience. Will he not be more foul than any
sepulchre? Thou beholdest his joy, thou admirest the bodily
health of his children, and the amount of his wealth; but look within
at the sores and wounds of his soul, the sadness of his heart.
And what shall I say of his wealth, when
S.
The ideas of those philosophers are refuted who deny to God the care of the whole world, or of any of its parts.
47. But let us return to our point, lest we seem to have lost sight of the break we made in answering the ideas of those who, seeing some wicked men, rich, joyous, full of honours, and powerful, whilst many upright men are in want and are weak,—suppose therefore that God either cares nothing about us (which is what the Epicureans say), or that He is ignorant of men’s actions as the wicked say—or that, if He knows all things, He is an unjust judge in allowing the good to be in want and the wicked to have abundance. But it did not seem out of place to make a digression to meet an idea of this kind and to contrast it with the feelings of those very persons whom they consider happy—for they think themselves wretched. I suppose they would believe themselves more readily than us.
48. After this digression I consider it an easy matter to refute the rest—above all the declaration of those who think that God has no care whatever for the world. For instance, Aristotle declares that His providence extends only to the moon. But what workman is there who gives no care to his work? Who would forsake and abandon what he believes himself to have produced? If it is derogatory to rule, is it not more so to have created? Though there is no wrong involved in not creating anything, it is surely the height of cruelty not to care for what one has created.
49. But if some deny God to be the Creator, and so count themselves amongst the beasts and irrational creatures, what shall we say of those who condemn themselves to such indignity? They themselves declare that God pervades all things, that all depend upon His power, that His might and majesty penetrate all the elements,—lands, heaven, and seas; yet they think it derogatory to Him to enter into man’s spirit, which is the noblest thing He has given us, and to be there with the full knowledge of the divine Majesty.
50. But philosophers who are held to be
reasonable laugh at the teacher It is only fair to
state that the character of Epicurus is mainly known in modern times
from opponents or persons who did not understand him. See the
account in Dict. of Gr. and Rom. Biography. Arist. Metaph. i.
2. An allusion to Aristotle’s saying that “the poets
lie much.”
Nothing escapes God’s knowledge. This is proved by the witness of the Scriptures and the analogy of the sun, which, although created, yet by its light or heat enters into all things.
51. Next comes the
answer to the question, whether God, not having failed to show care for
His work, now fails to have knowledge of it? Thus it is
written: “He that planted the ear, shall He not hear?
He that made the eye, shall He not regard?”
52. This false idea was not unknown to the holy
prophets. David himself introduces men to speak whom pride has
filled and claimed for its own. For what shows greater pride than
when men who are living in sin think it unfit that other sinners should
live, and say: “Lord, how long shall the ungodly, how long
shall the ungodly
53. But we are satisfied with the witness of
Him Who says: “I search out the heart and the
reins.” S. S.
54. The idea of these people will not
trouble us much if we look at their actions. They will not have
Him to be judge over them, Whom nothing deceives; they will not grant
to Him the knowledge of things hidden, for they are afraid their own
hidden things may be brought to light. But the Lord, also,
“knowing their works, has given them over unto darkness. In
the night,” he says, “he will be as a thief, and the eye of
the adulterer will watch for the darkness, saying, No eye shall see me;
he hath covered up his face.”
55. But what can be more foolish than to suppose that anything escapes God’s notice, when the sun which supplies the light enters even hidden spots, and the strength of its heat reaches to the foundations of a house and its inner chambers? Who can deny that the depths of the earth, which the winter’s ice has bound together, are warmed by the mildness of spring? Surely the very heart of a tree feels the force of heat or cold, to such an extent that its roots are either nipped with the cold or sprout forth in the warmth of the sun. In short, wherever the mildness of heaven smiles on the earth, there the earth produces in abundance fruits of different kinds.
56. If, then, the sun’s rays pour their light over all the earth and enter into its hidden spots; if they cannot be checked by iron bars or the barrier of heavy doors from getting within, how can it be impossible for the Glory of God, which is instinct with life, to enter into the thoughts and hearts of men that He Himself has created? And how shall it not see what He Himself has created? Did He make His works to be better and more powerful than He Himself is, Who made them (in this event) so as to escape the notice of their Creator whensoever they will? Did He implant such perfection and power in our mind that He Himself could not comprehend it when He wished?
Those who are dissatisfied with the fact that the good receive evil, and the evil good, are shown by the example of Lazarus, and on the authority of Paul, that punishments and rewards are reserved for a future life.
57. We have fully
discussed two questions; and this discussion, as we think, has not
turned out quite unfavourably for us. A third question yet
remains; it is this: Why do sinners have abundance of wealth and
riches, and fare sumptuously, and have no grief or sorrow; whilst the
upright are in want, and are punished by the loss of wives or
children? Now, that parable in the Gospel ought to satisfy
persons like these; S.
58. And surely this is but right. For
in a contest there is much labour needed—and after the contest
victory falls to some, to others disgrace. Is the palm ever given
or the crown granted before the course is finished? Paul writes
well; He says: “I have fought a good fight, I have finished
my course, I have kept the faith; henceforth there is laid up for me a
crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give
me at that day; and not to me only, but unto all them also that love
His appearing.”
To confirm what has been said above about rewards and punishments, he adds that it is not strange if there is no reward reserved for some in the future; for they do not labour here nor struggle. He goes on to say also that for this reason temporal goods are granted to these persons, so that they may have no excuse whatever.
59. Is not he
unjust who gives the reward before the end of the contest?
Therefore the Lord says in the Gospel: “Blessed are the
poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” S. S.
60. Perhaps thou sayest: Why are the wicked joyous? why do they live in luxury? why do they not toil with me? It is because they who have not put down their names to strive for the crown are not bound to undergo the labours of the contest. They who have not gone down into the race-course do not anoint themselves with oil nor get covered with dust. For those whom glory awaits trouble is at hand. The perfumed spectators are wont to look on, not to join in the struggle, nor to endure the sun, the heat, the dust, and the showers. Let the athletes say to them: Come, strive with us. The spectators will but answer: We sit here now to decide about you, but you, if you conquer, will gain the glory of the crown and we shall not.
61. They, then, who have devoted themselves
to pleasures, luxury, robbery, gain, or honours are spectators rather
than combatants. They have the profit of labour, but not the
fruits of virtue. They love their ease; by cunning and wickedness
they heap up riches; but they will pay the penalty of their iniquity,
though it be late. Their rest will be in hell, thine in heaven;
their home in the grave, thine in paradise. Whence Job said
beautifully that they watch in the tomb,
62. Do not, therefore, understand, or speak,
or think as a child; nor as a child claim those things now which belong
to a future time. The crown belongs to the perfect. Wait
till that which is perfect is come, when thou mayest know—not
through a glass as in a riddle, but face to face
63. Perhaps all this happens that the question may
be asked of the robber: Thou
64. We can gather the same from the example
of the traitor Judas. He was chosen among the Twelve Apostles,
and had charge of the money bag, to lay it out upon the poor, S.
The duties of youth, and examples suitable to that age, are next put forth.
65. Since it has
been made sufficiently plain that there will be punishment for
wickedness and reward for virtue, let us proceed to speak of the duties
which have to be borne in mind from our youth up, Cic. de
Off. I. 34. Thus the
Benedictine edition reads; most others have: “accrescant
simul studia bonorum actuum.”
66. Isaac feared the Lord, as was indeed but
natural in the son of Abraham; being subject also to his father to such
an extent that he would not avoid death in opposition to his
father’s will.
On the different functions of modesty. How it should qualify both speech and silence, accompany chastity, commend our prayers to God, govern our bodily motions; on which last point reference is made to two clerics in language by no means unsuited to its object. Further he proceeds to say that one’s gait should be in accordance with that same virtue, and how careful one must be that nothing immodest come forth from one’s mouth, or be noticed in one’s body. All these points are illustrated with very appropriate examples.
67. Lovely, then,
is the virtue of modesty, and sweet is its grace! It is seen not
only in actions, but even in our words, Cic. de
Off. I. 37, § 134.
68. Silence, again, wherein all the other
69. Let no one suppose that this praise
belongs to chastity alone. For modesty is the companion of
purity, in company with which chastity itself is safer. Shame,
again, is good as a companion and guide of chastity, inasmuch as it
does not suffer purity to be defiled in approaching even the outskirts
of danger. This it is that, at the very outset of her
recognition, commends the Mother of the Lord to those who read the
Scriptures, and, as a credible witness, declares her worthy to be
chosen to such an office. For when in her chamber, alone, she is
saluted by the angel, she is silent, and is disturbed at his
entrance, S.
70. In our very prayers, too, modesty is
most pleasing, and gains us much grace from our God. Was it not
this that exalted the publican, and commended him, when he dared not
raise even his eyes to heaven? S.
71. Modesty must further be guarded in our
very movements and gestures and gait. Cic. de
Off. I. 35.
72. Ye remember, my children, that a friend of ours who seemed to recommend himself by his assiduity in his duties, yet was not admitted by me into the number of the clergy, because his gestures were too unseemly. Also that I bade one, whom I found already among the clergy, never to go in front of me, because he actually pained me by the seeming arrogance of his gait. That is what I said when he returned to his duty after an offence committed. This alone I would not allow, nor did my mind deceive me. For both have left the Church. What their gait betrayed them to be, such were they proved to be by the faithlessness of their hearts. The one forsook his faith at the time of the Arian troubles; the other, through love of money, denied that he belonged to us, so that he might not have to undergo sentence at the hands of the Church. In their gait was discernible the semblance of fickleness, the appearance, as it were, of wandering buffoons.
73. Some there are who in walking
perceptibly copy the gestures of actors, Cic. de
Off. I. 36.
74. Nor do I think it becoming to walk hurriedly,
except when a case of some danger demands it, or a real
necessity. For we often see those who hurry come up panting, and
with features distorted. But if there is no reason for the need
of such hurry, it gives cause for just offence. I am not,
however,
75. A suitable gait is that wherein there is an appearance of authority and weight and dignity, and which has a calm collected bearing. But it must be of such a character that all effort and conceit may be wanting, and that it be simple and plain. Nothing counterfeit is pleasing. Let nature train our movements. If indeed there is any fault in our nature, let us mend it with diligence. And, that artifice may be wanting, let not amendment be wanting.
76. But if we pay so much attention to
things like these, how much more careful ought we to be to let nothing
shameful proceed out of our mouth, for that defiles a man
terribly. It is not food that defiles, but unjust disparagement
of others and foul words. Cic. de
Off. I. 35, § 127.
77. To have full knowledge of what is foul
is in the highest degree shameful. To see anything of this sort,
if by chance it should happen, how dreadful that is! What,
therefore, is displeasing to us in others, can that be pleasing in
ourselves? Is not nature herself our teacher, who has formed to
perfection every part of our body, so as to provide for what is
necessary and to beautify and grace its form? However she has
left plain and open to the sight those parts which are beautiful to
look upon; among which, the head, set as it were above all, and the
pleasant lines of the figure, and the appearance of the face are
prominent, whilst their usefulness for work is ready to hand. But
those parts in which there is a compliance with the necessities of
nature, she has partly put away and hidden in the body itself, lest
they should present a disgusting appearance, and partly, too, she has
taught and persuaded us to cover them. Cic. de
Off. I. 35.
78. Is not nature herself then a teacher of
modesty? Following her example, the modesty of men, which I
suppose Cic. de
Off. I. 40, § 142.
“modestia…quam a modo scientiæ, quid deceret,
appellatam arbitror.” Ambr. de Noe et
Arca. cap. viii.
79. And if these parts are exposed to view
by chance, modesty is violated; but if on purpose, it is reckoned as
utter shamelessness. Wherefore Ham, Noah’s son, brought
disgrace upon himself; for he laughed when he saw his father naked, but
they who covered their father received the gift of a blessing. Cic. de
Off. I. 35, § 129.
80. The priests, also, under the old law, as we
read in Exodus, wore breeches, as it was told Moses by the Lord:
“And thou shalt make them linen breeches to cover their
shame: from the loins even to the thighs they shall reach, and
Aaron and his sons shall wear them, when they enter into the tabernacle
of witness, and when they
How should seemliness be represented by a speaker? Does beauty add anything to virtue, and, if so, how much? Lastly, what care should we take that nothing conceited or effeminate be seen in us?
81. It has given me pleasure to dwell somewhat at length on the various functions of modesty; for I speak to you who either can recognize the good that is in it in your own cases, or at least do not know its loss. Fitted as it is for all ages, persons, times, and places, yet it most beseems youthful and childish years.
82. But at every age we must take care that
all we do is seemly and becoming, and that the course of our life forms
one harmonious and complete whole. Wherefore Cicero Cic. de
Off. I. 35, § 126.
83. Why Cicero should have introduced beauty, I do not quite understand; though it is true he also speaks in praise of the powers of the body. We certainly do not locate virtue in the beauty of the body, though, on the other hand, we do recognize a certain grace, as when modesty is wont to cover the face with a blush of shame, and to make it more pleasing. For as a workman is wont to work better the more suitable his materials are, so modesty is more conspicuous in the comeliness of the body. Only the comeliness of the body should not be assumed; it should be natural and artless, unstudied rather than elaborated, not heightened by costly and glistening garments, but just clad in ordinary clothing. One must see that nothing is wanting that one’s credit or necessity demands, whilst nothing must be added for the sake of splendour.
84. The voice, too, should not be languid, nor feeble, nor womanish in its tone,—such a tone of voice as many are in the habit of using, under the idea of seeming important. It should preserve a certain quality, and rhythm, and a manly vigour. For all to do what is best suited to their character and sex, that is to attain to beauty of life. This is the best order for movements, this the employment fitted for every action. But as I cannot approve of a soft or weak tone of voice, or an effeminate gesture of the body, so also I cannot approve of what is boorish and rustic. Let us follow nature. The imitation of her provides us with a principle of training, and gives us a pattern of virtue.
If we are to preserve our modesty we must avoid fellowship with profligate men, also the banquets of strangers, and intercourse with women; our leisure time at home should be spent in pious and virtuous pursuits.
85. Modesty has indeed its rocks—not any that she brings with her, but those, I mean, which she often runs against, as when we associate with profligate men, who, under the form of pleasantry, administer poison to the good. And the latter, if they are very constant in their attendance at banquets and games, and often join in jests, enervate that manly gravity of theirs. Let us then take heed that, in wishing to relax our minds, we do not destroy all harmony, the blending as it were of all good works. For habit quickly bends nature in another direction.
86. For this reason I think that what ye wisely do is befitting to the duties of clerics, and especially to those of the priesthood—namely, that ye avoid the banquets of strangers, but so that ye are still hospitable to travellers, and give no occasion for reproach by reason of your great care in the matter. Banquets with strangers engross one’s attention, and soon produce a love for feasting. Tales, also, of the world and its pleasures often creep in. One cannot shut one’s ears; and to forbid them is looked on as a sign of haughtiness. One’s glass, too, even against one’s will, is filled time after time. It is better surely to excuse oneself once for all at one’s own home, than often at another’s. When one rises sober, at any rate one’s presence need not be condemned by the insolence of another.
87. There is no need for the younger clergy to go
to the houses of widows or virgins, except for the sake of a definite
visit, and in that case only with the elder clergy, that is, with the
bishop, or, if the matter be somewhat important, with the
priests. Why
88. Why dost thou not spend the time which thou hast free from thy duties in the church in reading? Why dost thou not go back again to see Christ? Why dost thou not address Him, and hear His voice? We address Him when we pray, we hear Him when we read the sacred oracles of God. What have we to do with strange houses? There is one house which holds all. They who need us can come to us. What have we to do with tales and fables? An office to minister at the altar of Christ is what we have received; no duty to make ourselves agreeable to men has been laid upon us.
89. We ought to be humble, gentle, mild, serious, patient. We must keep the mean in all things, so that a calm countenance and quiet speech may show that there is no vice in our lives.
We must guard against anger, before it arises; if it has already arisen we must check and calm it, and if we cannot do this either, at least we should keep our tongue from abuse, so that our passions may be like boys’ quarrels. He relates what Archites said, and shows that David led the way in this matter, both in his actions and in his writings.
90. Let anger be
guarded against. Cic. de
Off. I. 25, § 89.
91. Jacob dutifully gave way to his brother
when angry, and to Rebecca; that is to say, taught by counsels of
patience, he preferred to go away and live in foreign lands, rather
than to arouse his brother’s anger; and then to return only when
he thought his brother was appeased.
92. If, then, anger has got the start, and
has already taken possession of thy mind, and mounted into thy heart,
forsake not thy ground. Thy ground is patience, it is wisdom, it
is reason, it is the allaying of indignation. And if the
stubbornness of thy opponent rouses thee, and his perverseness drives
thee to indignation: if thou canst not calm thy mind, check at
least thy tongue. For so it is written: “Keep thy
tongue from evil, and thy lips that they speak no guile. Seek
peace and pursue it.”
93. Let us then avoid or at any rate check
anger, so that we may not lose our share of praise, nor yet add to our
list of sins. It is no light thing to calm one’s
anger. It is no less difficult a thing than it is not to be
roused at all. The one is an act of our own will, the other is an
effect of nature. So quarrels among boys are harmless, and have
more of a pleasant than a bitter character about them. And if
boys quickly come to quarrel one with the other, they are easily calmed
down again, and quickly come together with even greater
friendliness. They do not know how to act deceitfully and
artfully. Do not condemn these children, of whom the Lord
says: “Except ye be converted and become as this child, ye
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.” S.
94. The heathen—(they are wont to
exaggerate everything in speaking)—make much of the saying of the
philosopher Archites lived c.
b.c. 400. A noted philosopher, and also
general.
95. Already before this he had said of his
enemies: “For they cast iniquity upon me, and in their
wrath they were grievous to me.”
96. He had also said: “Be ye
angry and sin not.” Cic. de
Off. I. 38, § 136.
97. We ought therefore to take care that we do not get into a flurry, before reason prepares our minds. For oftentimes anger or distress or fear of death almost deprives the soul of life, and beats it down by a sudden blow. It is therefore a good thing to anticipate this by reflection, and to exercise the mind by considering the matter. So the mind will not be roused by any sudden disturbance, but will grow calm, being held in by the yoke and reins of reason.
On reflection and passion, and on observing propriety of speech, both in ordinary conversation and in holding discussions.
98. There are two
kinds of mental motions Cic. de
Off. I. 36, § 132.
99. And since we have said that we must aim
at the observance of what is seemly, Cic. de Off.
I. 37.
100. Let our language be of this sort, more
especially when we are speaking of the holy Scriptures. For of
what ought we to speak more often than of the best subject of
conversation, of its exhortation to watchfulness, its care for good
instruction? Let us have a reason for beginning, and let our end
be within due limits. Cic. de
Off. I. 37, § 135.
101. The treatment also of such subjects as the teaching of faith, instruction on self-restraint, discussion on justice, exhortation to activity, must not be taken up by us and fully gone into all at one time, but must be carried on in course, so far as we can do it, and as the subject-matter of the passage allows. Our discourse must not be too lengthy, nor too soon cut short, for fear the former should leave behind it a feeling of aversion, and the latter produce carelessness and neglect. The address should be plain and simple, clear and evident, full of dignity and weight; it should not be studied or too refined, nor yet, on the other hand, be unpleasing and rough in style.
Jests, although at times they may be quite proper, should be altogether banished among clerics. The voice should be plain and frank.
102. Men of the
world give many further rules about the way to speak, Cic. de
Off. I. 37. Cic. de
Off. I. 29, § 103.
103. We must also take care that in relating
stories we do not alter the earnest purpose of the harder rule we have
set before us. “Woe unto you that laugh, for ye shall
weep,” S.
104. In speaking of the voice, I certainly
think it ought to be plain and clear. Cic. de
Off. I. 37, § 133.
There are three things to be noticed in the actions of our life. First, our passions are to be controlled by our reason; next, we ought to observe a suitable moderation in our desires; and, lastly, everything ought to be done at the right time and in the proper order. All these qualities shone forth so conspicuously in the holy men of Old Testament time, that it is evident they were well furnished with what men call the cardinal virtues.
105. I think I have
said enough on the art of speaking. Let us now consider what
beseems an active life. We note that there are three
things Cic. de
Off. I. 39, § 141.
106. But first comes that which I may call the
foundation of all, namely, that our passions should obey our
reason. The second
107. First there is our father
Abraham,
108. See here what passions are at work! He feared for the chastity of his wife, he feared for his own safety, he had his suspicions about the lust of the Egyptians, and yet the reasonableness of performing his duty to God prevailed with him. For he thought that by the favour of God he could be safe everywhere, but if he offended the Lord he could not abide unharmed even at home. Thus reason conquered passion, and brought it into subjection to itself.
109. When his nephew was taken
captive,
110. Note how everything meets together here. Passion was not wanting, but it was checked. Here was a mind equable in action, which neither treated great things as unimportant or little things as great. Here there was moderation in different affairs, order in things, fitness of occasion, due measure in words. He was foremost in faith, conspicuous in virtue, vigorous in battle, in victory not greedy, at home hospitable, and to his wife attentive.
111. Jacob also, his holy grandson, loved to
pass his time at home free from danger; but his mother wished him to
live in foreign parts, and so give place to his brother’s
anger.
112. What shall I say of Joseph?
113. Job also, both in prosperity and adversity, was blameless, patient, pleasing, and acceptable to God. He was harassed with pain, yet could find consolation.
114. David also was brave in war, patient in time
of adversity, peaceful at Jerusalem, in the hour of victory merciful,
on committing sin repentant, in his old age foreseeing. He
preserved due measure in his actions, and
115. What duty connected with the chief
virtues was wanting in these men? Cic. de
Off. I. 5.
A reason is given why this book did not open with a discussion of the above-mentioned virtues. It is also concisely pointed out that the same virtues existed in the ancient fathers.
116. Perhaps, as
the different classes of duties are derived from these four virtues,
some one may say that they ought to have been described first of
all. But it would have been artificial to have given a definition
of duty at the outset, Ib. I. 2, § 7.
117. Prudence held the first place in holy
Abraham. For of him the Scriptures say: “Abraham
believed God, and that was counted to him for
righteousness;” Manes, the
founder of Manicheism, living about a.d.
250. He taught that there were two original principles absolutely
opposed one to the other. On the one side God, from Whom nothing
but good can go forth; on the other original evil—the author of
all matter—which therefore is evil too. Man was formed by
this evil spirit. For, whilst man’s soul is an emanation
from the good God, man’s body in which the soul is imprisoned was
framed of material elements. Hence the Manichæan is here
represented addressing the devil as his father, the author of his
earthly existence. The father of
Arianism, born a.d. 256, was condemned at the
Council of Nicæa a.d. 325. He
denied that Christ was “of one substance with the Father;”
but held Him to be a kind of secondary God, created out of nothing
before the world. But he considered Him to be the creator of the
world. Marcion
flourished between the years a.d.
140–190. He also taught the existence of more than one
Principle, and held that man was created by an inferior
Being. Eunomius was
the leader of the extreme Arian party, flourishing c. a.d. 360. He maintained the absolute unlikeness of
the Son to the Father not only in substance but even in will.
Hence his party were called Anomœans (ανόμοιος,
unlike). In baptizing they also applied no water to the lower
part of the body, asserting that it was created by an evil spirit, thus
with Marcion recognizing the dual Principle. Theodoret, who is
the authority for this latter and some other charges against the
Eunomians, says, however, that he is speaking from hearsay, not of his
own knowledge. Hær. Fab. IV. 3.
118. The chief amongst ourselves have stated
that prudence lies in the knowledge of the truth. But who of them
all excelled Abraham, David, or Solomon in this? Then they go on
to say that justice has regard to the whole community of the human
race. So David said: “He hath dispersed abroad and
given to the poor, His righteousness remaineth for
ever.”
119. Note here all these four virtues in one
act. It was wise to believe God, and not to put love for his son
before the commands of his Creator. It was just to give back
120. Is there greater wisdom than holy
Jacob’s, who saw God face to face and won a blessing?
121. How wise also was Noah, who built the
whole of the ark!
In investigating the truth the philosophers have broken through their own rules. Moses, however, showed himself more wise than they. The greater the dignity of wisdom, the more earnestly must we strive to gain it. Nature herself urges us all to do this.
122. It is said, therefore, that in investigating the truth, we must observe what is seemly. We ought to look for what is true with the greatest care. We must not put forward falsehood for truth, nor hide the truth in darkness, nor fill the mind with idle, involved, or doubtful matters. What so unseemly as to worship a wooden thing, which men themselves have made? What shows such darkness as to discuss subjects connected with geometry and astronomy (which they approve of), to measure the depths of space, to shut up heaven and earth within the limits of fixed numbers, to leave aside the grounds of salvation and to seek for error?
123. Moses, learned as he was in all the
wisdom of the Egyptians,
124. The loftier the virtue of wisdom is, the more I say we ought to strive for it, so that we may be able to attain to it. And that we may have no ideas which are contrary to nature, or are disgraceful, or unfitting, we ought to give two things, that is, time and care, to considering matters for the sake of investigating them. For there is nothing in which man excels all other living creatures more than in the fact that he has reason, seeks out the origin of things, thinks that the Author of his being should be searched out. For in His hand is our life and death; He rules this world by His nod. And to Him we know that we must give a reason for our actions. For there is nothing which is more of a help to a good life than to believe that He will be our judge, Whom hidden things do not escape, and unseemly things offend, and good deeds delight.
125. In all men, then, there lies, in accordance
with human nature, a desire to search out the truth, which leads us on
to have a longing for knowledge and learning, and
S.
The first source of duty is prudence, from whence spring three other virtues; and they cannot be separated or torn asunder, since they are mutually connected one with the other.
126. The first
source of duty, then, is prudence. Cic. de
Off. I. 6. Some
mss. have
“injustitiæ,” others
“pecuniæ,” which seems to be a correction to
bring it into harmony with the LXX: “ἱνατί
ὑπῆρξε
χρήματα
ἄφρονι.”
127. But the piety of justice Cic. de
Off. I. 7. Summa Theol.
II. 2, q. 101. St. Thomas Aquinas agrees in making piety a part
of justice, and a gift of the Holy Spirit, but places parents before
instead of after our country.
128. It is ingrained in all living
creatures, Cic. de
Off. I. 4.
129. It is clear, then, that these and the remaining virtues are related to one another. For courage, which in war preserves one’s country from the barbarians, or at home defends the weak, or comrades from robbers, is full of justice; and to know on what plan to defend and to give help, how to make use of opportunities of time and place, is the part of prudence and moderation, and temperance itself cannot observe due measure without prudence. To know a fit opportunity, and to make return according to what is right, belongs to justice. In all these, too, large-heartedness is necessary, and fortitude of mind, and often of body, so that we may carry out what we wish.
A community rests upon justice and good-will. Two parts of the former, revenge and private possession, are not recognized by Christians. What the Stoics say about common property and mutual help has been borrowed from the sacred writings. The greatness of the glory of justice, and what hinders access to it.
130. Justice, Cic. de
Off. I. I. 7.
131. But that very thing is excluded with us which
philosophers think to be the office of justice. For they say that
the first expression of justice is, to hurt no one, except
S.
132. Next they considered it consonant with
justice that one should treat common, that is, public property as
public, and private as private. But this is not even in accord
with nature, for nature has poured forth all things for all men for
common use. God has ordered all things to be produced, so that
there should be food in common to all, and that the earth should be a
common possession for all. Nature, therefore, has produced a
common right for all, but greed has made it a right for a few.
Here, too, we are told that the Stoics taught that all things which are
produced on the earth are created for the use of men, but that men are
born for the sake of men, so that mutually one may be of advantage to
another. Cic. de
Off. I. 9.
133. But whence have they got such ideas but
out of the holy Scriptures? For Moses wrote that God said:
“Let us make man in our image, after our likeness, and let them
have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air,
and over the cattle, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon
the earth.”
134. That man was made for the sake of man
we find stated also in the books of Moses, when the Lord says:
“It is not good that man should be alone, let us make him an
helpmeet for him.”
135. Thus, in accordance with the will of
God and the union of nature, we ought to be of mutual help one to the
other, and to vie with each other in doing duties, to lay all our
advantages as it were before all, and (to use the words of Scripture)
to bring help one to the other from a feeling of devotion or of duty,
by giving money, or by doing something, at any rate in some way or
other; so that the charm of human fellowship may ever grow sweeter
amongst us, and none may ever be recalled from their duty by the fear
of danger, but rather account all things, whether good or evil, as
their own concern. Cic. de
Off. I. 9, § 30.
136. Great, then, is the glory of justice; for she, existing rather for the good of others than of self, is an aid to the bonds of union and fellowship amongst us. She holds so high a place that she has all things laid under her authority, and further can bring help to others and supply money; nor does she refuse her services, but even undergoes dangers for others.
137. Who would not gladly climb and hold the
heights of this virtue, were it not that greed weakens and lessens the
power of such a virtue? Cic. de
Off. I. 7, § 24.
138. The desire to gain power also
enervates Cic. de Off.
I. 8, § 26.
Justice should be observed even in war and with enemies. This is proved by the example of Moses and Elisha. The ancient writers learnt in turn from the Hebrews to call their enemies by a gentler term. Lastly, the foundation of justice rests on faith, and its symmetry is perfect in the Church.
139. How great a
thing justice is can be
Cic. de
Off. I. 11, § 34.
140. If, then, justice is binding, even in
war, how much more ought we to observe it in time of peace. Such
favour the prophet showed to those who came to seize him. We read
that the king of Syria had sent his army to lie in wait for him, for he
had learnt that it was Elisha who had made known to all his plans and
consultations. And Gehazi the prophet’s servant, seeing the
army, began to fear that his life was in danger. But the prophet
said to him: “Fear not, for they that be with us are more
than they that be with them.”
141. So also the ancients used to give their
foes a less harsh name, and called them strangers. Cic. de
Off. I. 12.
142. The foundation of justice therefore is
faith, Cic. de
Off. I. 7, § 23.
On kindness and its several parts, namely, good-will and liberality. How they are to be combined. What else is further needed for any one to show liberality in a praiseworthy manner.
143. Now we can go
on to speak of kindness, which breaks up into two parts, goodwill and
liberality. Kindness to exist in perfection must consist of these
two qualities. It is not enough just to wish well; we must
144. It is thus a glorious thing to wish well, and to give freely, with the one desire to do good and not to do harm. For if we were to think it our duty to give the means to an extravagant man to live extravagantly, or to an adulterer to pay for his adultery, it would not be an act of kindness, for there would be no good-will in it. We should be doing harm, not good, to another if we gave him money to aid him in plotting against his country, or in attempting to get together at our expense some abandoned men to attack the Church. Nor, again, does it look like liberality to help one who presses very hardly on widows and orphans, or attempts to seize on their property with any show of violence.
145. It is no sign of a liberal
spirit Cic. de
Off. I. 14, § 43. S.
146. The first thing necessary is to do
kindness in good faith, and not to act falsely when the offering is
made. Never let us say we are doing more, when we are really
doing less. What need is there to speak at all? In a
promise a cheat lies hid. It is in our power to give what we
like. Cheating shatters the foundation, and so destroys the
work. Did Peter grow angry only so far as to desire that Ananias
and his wife should be slain?
147. Nor is it a real act of liberality if
thou givest for the sake of boasting about it, rather than for
mercy’s sake. Thy inner feelings give the name to thy
acts. As it comes forth from thee, so will others regard
it. See what a true judge thou hast! He consults with thee
how to take up thy work, and first of all he questions thy mind.
“Let not,” he says, “thy left hand know what thy
right hand doth.” S.
148. Perfect liberality is proved by its
good faith, the case it helps, the time and place when and where it is
shown. But first we must always see that we help those of the
household of faith.
149. God, indeed, is not a respecter of
persons, for He knows all things. And we, indeed, ought to show
mercy to all. But as many try to get help on false pretences, and
make out that they are miserably off; therefore where the case is plain
and the person well known, and no time is to be lost, mercy ought to be
shown more readily. For the Lord is not exacting to demand the
utmost. Blessed, indeed, is he who forsakes all and follows Him,
but blessed also is he who does what he can to the best of his powers
with what he has. The Lord preferred the two mites of the widow
to all the gifts of the rich, for she gave all that she had, but they
only gave a small part out of all their abundance. S.
150. True liberality also must be tested in
this way: Cic. de
Off. I. 17, § 58. “Et se
juste facere putant.” These words are omitted in many
mss.
151. So far we have given our advice, now
let us look for our authority. First, then, no one ought to be
ashamed of becoming poor after being rich, if this happens because he
gives freely to the poor; for Christ became poor when He was rich, that
through His poverty He might enrich all.
152. We notice how the Apostle includes both
good-will and liberality, as well as the manner, the fruits of right
giving, and the persons concerned. The manner certainly, for he
gave advice to those not perfect: For only the imperfect suffer
anxiety. But if any priest or other cleric, being unwilling to
burden the Church, St. Ambrose,
allowing clergy to retain some of their patrimony so as not to burden
the Church, is less strict than St. Augustine, who would have them give
up everything and live in common. Serm. 355.
153. And I think it was with reference to the persons concerned that he said: “that your abundance might serve for their want, and their abundance for your want.” This means, that the abundance of the people might arouse them to good works, so as to supply the want of food of others; whilst the spiritual abundance of these latter might assist the want of spiritual merits among the people themselves, and so win them a blessing.
154. Wherefore he gave them an excellent example: “He that gathered much had nothing over, and he that gathered little had no lack.” That example is a great encouragement to all men to show mercy. For he that possesses much gold has nothing over, for all in this world is as nothing; and he that has little has no lack, for what he loses is nothing already. The whole matter is without loss, for the whole of it is lost already.
155. We can also rightly understand it thus.
He that has much, although he does not give away, has nothing
over. For however much he gets, he always is in want, because he
longs for more. And he who has little has no lack, for it does
not cost much to feed the poor. In like manner, too, the poor
person that gives spiritual blessings in return for money, although he
156. It can further be taken in this
way: Thou, O man, hast nothing over! For how much hast thou
really received, though it may seem much to thee? John, than whom
none was greater among those born of woman, yet was less than he who is
least in the kingdom of heaven. S.
157. Or once more. The grace of God is never superabundant, humanly speaking, for it is spiritual. Who can measure its greatness or its breadth, which one cannot see? Faith, if it were as a grain of mustard seed, can transplant mountains—and more than a grain is not granted thee. If grace dwelt fully in thee, wouldst thou not have to fear lest thy mind should begin to be elated at so great a gift? For there are many who have fallen more terribly, from spiritual heights, than if they had never received grace at all from the Lord. And he who has little has no lack, for it is not tangible so as to be divided; and what seems little to him that has is much to him that lacks.
158. In giving we must also take into consideration age and weakness; sometimes, also, that natural feeling of shame, which indicates good birth. One ought to give more to the old who can no longer supply themselves with food by labour. So, too, weakness of body must be assisted, and that readily. Again, if any one after being rich has fallen into want, we must assist, especially if he has lost what he had from no sin of his own, but owing to robbery or banishment or false accusation.
159. Perchance some one may say: A
blind man sits here in one place, and people pass him by, whilst a
strong young man often has something given him. That is true; for
he comes over people by his importunity. That is not because in
their judgment he deserves it, but because they are wearied by his
begging. For the Lord speaks in the Gospel of him who had already
closed his door; how that when one knocks at his door very violently,
he rises and gives what is wanted, because of his importunity. S.
A kindness received should be returned with a freer hand. This is shown by the example of the earth. A passage from Solomon about feasting is adduced to prove the same, and is expounded later in a spiritual sense.
160. It is also
right Cic. de
Off. I. 15, § 47.
161. Wherefore we must imitate the nature of
the earth Cic. de
Off. I. 15, § 48. Cic. de
Off. I. 15, § 48.
162. Therefore Solomon says well:
“When thou sittest to eat at the table of a ruler consider
diligently what is before thee, and put forth thine hand, knowing that
it behoves thee to make such preparations. But if thou art
insatiable, be not desirous of his dainties, for they have but a
deceptive life.” Allusion is made
to S.
163. But the feasting that Solomon speaks of
has not to do with common food only, but it is to be understood as
having to do with good works. For how can the soul be feasted in
better wise than on good works; or what can so easily fill the mind of
the just as the knowledge of a good work done? What pleasanter
food is there than to do the will of God? The Lord has told us
that He had this food alone in abundance, as it is written in the
Gospel, saying: “My food is to do the will of My Father
which is in heaven.” S.
164. In this food let us delight of which
the prophet says: “Delight thou in the
Lord.” S.
After saying what return must be made for the service of the above-mentioned feast, various reasons for repaying kindness are enumerated. Then he speaks in praise of good-will, on its results and its order.
165. It is
therefore a good thing for us to be bedewed with the exhortations of
the divine Scriptures, and that the word of God should come down upon
us like the dew. When, therefore, thou sittest at the table of
that great man, understand who that great man is. Set in the
paradise of delight and placed at the feast of wisdom, think of what is
put before thee! The divine Scriptures are the feast of wisdom,
and the single books the various dishes. Know, first, what dishes
the banquet offers, then stretch forth thy hand, that those things
which thou readest, or which thou receivest from the Lord thy God, thou
mayest carry out in action, and so by thy duties mayest show forth the
grace that was granted thee. Such was the case with Peter and
Paul, who in preaching the Gospel made some return to Him Who freely
gave them all things. So that each of them might say:
“By the grace of God I am what I am, and His grace in me was not
in vain, but I laboured more abundantly than they all.”
166. One repays the fruit of a service done
him, and repays it, gold with gold, silver with silver. Another
gives his labour. Another—and I do not know whether he does
not do it in fuller measure—gives but the best wishes of his
heart. Cic. de
Off. II. 20, § 69.
167. But good-will also goes in conjunction
with liberality, for liberality really starts from it, seeing that the
habit of giving comes after the desire to give. It exists,
however, also separate and distinct. For where liberality is
wanting, there good-will abides—the parent as it were of all in
common, uniting and binding friendships together. It is faithful
in counsel, joyful in times of prosperity, and in times of sorrow
sad. So it happens that any one trusts himself to the counsels of
a man of good-will rather than to those of a wise one, as David
did. For he, though he was the more farseeing, agreed to the
counsels of Jonathan, who was the younger. Cic. de
Amic. 13, § 47. Cic. de
Off. I. 16.
168. There is also liberality springing from
good-will, that makes one tear up the bond of a debtor which one holds,
without demanding any of the debt back from him. Holy Job bids us
act thus by his own example.
169. To go to the root of the
matter—good-will starts first with those at home, that is with
children, parents, brothers, and goes on from one step to another
throughout the world. Cic. de
Off. I. 16, 17.
Good-will exists especially in the Church, and nourishes kindred virtues.
170. Good-will
expands in the body of the Church, Cic. de
Off. I. 17, § 55.
171. The desire to attain to like virtues
also stands one in good stead; Cic de
Off. I. 17, § 55.
172. But nothing is so harmonious Cic. de
Off. I. 17, § 56.
Some other advantages of goodwill are here enumerated.
173. Good-will also is
wont to remove the sword of anger. It is also good-will that
makes the wounds of a friend to be better than the willing kisses of an
enemy. Cic. de
Off. I. 17, § 57.
174. To conclude, the same duties are not owed to
all. Nor is regard ever paid to persons, though the occasion and
the circumstances of the case are generally taken into consideration,
so that one may at times have to help a neighbour rather than
one’s brother. For Solomon also says: “Better
is a neighbour that is near than a brother far
On fortitude. This is divided into two parts: as it concerns matters of war and matters at home. The first cannot be a virtue unless combined with justice and prudence. The other depends to a large extent upon endurance.
175. We have
discussed fully enough the nature and force of what is virtuous from
the standpoint of justice. Cic. de
Off. I. 18, § 61.
176. Fortitude, therefore, is a loftier
virtue than the rest, but it is also one that never stands alone.
For it never depends on itself alone. Moreover, fortitude without
justice is the source of wickedness. Cic. de
Off. I. 19.
177. David never waged war unless he was
driven to it. Thus prudence was combined in him with fortitude in
the battle. For even when about to fight single-handed against
Goliath, the enormous giant, he rejected the armour with which he was
laden.
178. But this is not the only kind of
fortitude which is worthy of note. We consider their fortitude
glorious, who, with greatness of mind, “through faith stopped the
mouth of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the
sword, out of weakness were made strong.”
One of the duties of fortitude is to keep the weak from receiving injury; another, to check the wrong motions of our own souls; a third, both to disregard humiliations, and to do what is right with an even mind. All these clearly ought to be fulfilled by all Christians, and especially by the clergy.
179. The glory of
fortitude, therefore, does not rest only on the strength of one’s
body or of one’s arms, but rather on the courage of the
mind. Cic. de
Off. I. 23.
180. From whence, then, Cicero and
Panætius, or even Aristotle, got these ideas is perfectly
clear. For though living before these two, Job had said:
“I delivered the poor out of the hand of the strong, and I aided
the fatherless for whom there was no helper. Let the blessing of
him that was ready to perish come upon me.” Cf.
181. And in very truth, rightly is that
called fortitude, when a man conquers himself, restrains his anger,
yields and gives way to no allurements, is not put out by misfortunes,
nor gets elated by good success, and does not get carried away by every
varying change as by some chance wind. Cic. de
Off. I. 20, § 68.
182. This, then, is the first notion of
fortitude. For fortitude of the mind can be regarded in two
ways. Cic. de
Off. I. 20, § 66.
183. This is the true fortitude which
Christ’s warrior has, who receives not the crown unless he
strives lawfully.
184. Think, then, how he teaches those who
enter upon their duties in the Church, that they ought to have contempt
for all earthly things: “If, then, ye be dead with Christ
from the elements of this world, why do ye act as though living in the
world? Touch not, taste not, handle not, which all are to perish
with the using.”
185. Let, then, godliness exercise thee unto
justice, continence, gentleness, that thou mayest avoid childish acts,
and that rooted and grounded in grace thou mayest fight the good fight
of faith.
An even mind should be preserved in adversity as well as in prosperity. However, evil things must be avoided.
186. There is also
that true freedom of the mind from vexation which makes us neither give
way too much in our griefs, nor be too elated in prosperity. Cic. de
Off. I. 21, § 72.
187. These, then, are the services of
fortitude; and full they are of virtuous and seemly duties. But
in all that we do we must look to see, not only if it is virtuous, but
whether it is possible, so that we may not enter upon anything that we
cannot carry out. Cic. de
Off. I. 21, § 73. S.
We must strengthen the mind against troubles to come, and build it up by looking out for them beforehand. What difficulties there are in doing this.
188. But again, no one must retire through cowardice, or give up his faith from fear of danger. With what grace must the soul be equipped, and the mind trained and taught to stand firm, so as never to be disturbed by any fears, to be broken by any troubles, or to yield to any torments! With what difficulty indeed are they borne! But as all pains seem less in the fear of greater pains, so also, if thou dost build up thy soul by quiet counsel, and dost determine not to go from thy course, and layest before thee the fear of divine judgment and the torment of eternal punishment, canst thou gain endurance of mind.
189. If a man thus prepares himself, he gives signs of great diligence. On the other hand it is a sign of natural ability, if a man by the power of his mind can foresee the future, and put as it were before his eyes what may happen, and decide what he ought to do if it should take place. It may happen, too, that he will think over two or three things at once, which he supposes may come either singly or together, and that he settles what he will do with them as he thinks will be to the most advantage, in the event of their coming either singly or together.
200. Therefore it is the duty of a brave man not to shut his eyes when anything threatens, but to put it before him and to search it out as it were in the mirror of his mind, and to meet the future with foreseeing thought, for fear he might afterwards have to say: This has come to me because I thought it could not come about. If misfortunes are not looked for beforehand, they quickly get a hold over us. In war an unexpected enemy is with difficulty resisted, and if he finds the others unprepared, he easily overcomes them; so evils unthought of readily break down the soul.
200. In these two points, then, consists the
excellency of the soul: so that thy soul, trained in good
thoughts, and with a pure heart, first, may see what is true and
virtuous (for “blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see
God”), S.
201. Not that this is an easy thing for any
one. For what is so difficult as to discern, as though from some
watch-tower, the resources of wisdom and all those other things, which
to most seem so great and noble? Again, what so difficult as to
place one’s decision on fixed grounds, and to despise what one
has decided to be worthless, as of no good? Or, once more, what
so difficult, when some misfortune has happened, and it is looked on as
something serious and grieving, as to bear it in such a way that one
considers it nothing beyond what is natural, when one reads:
“Naked was I born, naked shall I go forth. What the Lord
gave, the Lord hath taken away”
One must show fortitude in fighting against all vices, especially against avarice. Holy Job teaches this lesson.
202. Fortitude of
soul, then, is not an unimportant thing, nor is it cut off from the
other virtues, for it wages war in conjunction with the virtues, and
alone defends the beauty of all the virtues, and guards their powers of
discernment, and fights against all vices with implacable hate.
It is unconquerable as regards labours, brave to endure dangers, stern
as against pleasures, hardened against allurements, to which it knows
not how to lend an ear, nor, so to speak, to give a greeting. It
cares not for money, and flies from avarice as from a plague that
destroys all virtue. Cic. de
Off. I. 20, § 68.
203. Fortitude, then, must repulse so foul a
plague and crush it down. It must not let itself be tempted by
desires, nor shaken by fear. Virtue stands true to itself and
bravely pursues all vices as though they were the poison of
virtue. It must repel anger as it were with arms, for it removes
counsel far off. It must avoid it as though it were some severe
sickness. There is a
considerable variation of text here. The original of the
translation is: “iracundiam velut quibusdam propulset
armis, quæ tollat consilium, et tanquam ægritudinem
vitet.” Cod. Dresd. reads:
“iracundiam…propulset arietibus armisque tollat et
convicia tanquam ægritudinem vitet.”
204. What of all this was wanting in holy Job, or in his virtue, or what came upon him in the way of vice? How did he bear the distress of sickness or cold or hunger? How did he look upon the dangers which menaced his safety? Were the riches from which so much went to the poor gathered together by plunder? Did he ever allow greed for wealth, or the desire for pleasures, or lusts to rise in his heart? Did ever the unkind disputes of the three princes, or the insults of the slaves, rouse him to anger? Did glory carry him away like some fickle person when he called down vengeance on himself if ever he had hidden even an involuntary fault, or had feared the multitude of the people so as not to confess it in the sight of all? His virtues had no point of contact with any vices, but stood firm on their own ground. Who, then, was so brave as holy Job? How can he be put second to any, on whose level hardly one like himself can be placed?
Courage in war was not wanting in our forefathers, as is shown by the example of the men of old, especially by the glorious deed of Eleazar.
205. But perhaps
renown in war keeps some so bound to itself Cic. de
Off. I. 22.
206. First, I will speak of the people of
our fathers. They were ready to fight for the temple of God and
for their rights, and when attacked on the Sabbath day by the craft of
the enemy, willingly allowed wounds to be inflicted on their
unprotected bodies, rather than to join in the fight, so that they
might not defile the Sabbath.
The Latin text
has: “utraque manu interficiebat, donec pervenit ad
bestiam.” Cod. Dresd., ed. Med. have:
“utraque manu interficiebat bestiam, atque intravit sab
eam.”
208. Nor was he deceived in his intention
though he was deceived by the royal ornaments. For the enemy,
startled at such an exhibition of valour, dared not rush upon this
single unarmed man, held fast though he was. They were so
terrified after the mischance of the slaughter of the beast, that they
considered themselves altogether unequal to the valour of one.
Nay, King Antiochus, son of Lysias, terrified at the fortitude of one,
asked for peace. He had come to the war with 120,000 armed men
and with 32 elephants, which glittered and gleamed with the sheen of
arms like a line of burning lamps, as the sun rose upon them, marching
along one by one, like very mountains for size. Ed. Bened. here
has: “ita ut ab ortu solis per singulas bestias velut
montes quidam splendor armorum corusco, tanquam lampadibus
ardentibus.” Cod. Dresd. and Goth.: “ita
ut…quidam armorum coruscorum…refulgerent.”
Other ancient editions: “ita ut…quidam armorum
corusco…refulgerent.”
After praising Judas’ and Jonathan’s loftiness of mind, the constancy of the martyrs in their endurance of tortures, which is no small part of fortitude, is next brought before us.
209. But as
fortitude is proved not only by prosperity but also in adversity, let
us now consider the death of Judas Maccabæus. For he, after
Nicanor, the general of King Demetrius, was defeated, boldly engaged
20,000 of the king’s army with 900 men who were anxious to retire
for fear of being overcome by so great a multitude, but whom he
persuaded to endure a glorious death rather than to retire in
disgraceful flight. “Let us not leave,” he says,
“any stain upon our glory.” Thus, then, engaging in
battle after having fought from sunrise till evening, he attacks and
quickly drives back the right wing, where he sees the strongest troop
of the enemy to be. But whilst pursuing the fugitives from the
rear he gave a chance for a wound to be inflicted.
210. Why need I further mention his brother
Jonathan, who fought against the king’s force, with but a small
troop.
211. Here, then, is fortitude in war, which
bears no light impress of what is virtuous and seemly upon it, for it
prefers death to slavery and disgrace. But what am I to say of
the sufferings of the martyrs? Not to go too far abroad, did not
the children of Maccabæus gain triumphs over the proud King
Antiochus, as great as those of their fathers? The latter in
truth were armed, but they conquered without arms. The company of
the seven brothers stood unconquered,
212. What shall I say of the mother
213. What shall I say of those two-year-old
children of Bethlehem, S.
214. And let us not pass by St. Lawrence,
who, seeing Xystus his bishop led to martyrdom, began to weep, not at
his sufferings but at the fact that he himself was to remain
behind. With these words he began to address him:
“Whither, father, goest thou without thy son? Whither, holy
priest, art thou hastening without thy deacon? Never wast thou
wont to offer sacrifice without an attendant. What are thou
displeased at in me, my father? Hast thou found me
unworthy? Prove, then, whether thou hast chosen a fitting
servant. To him to whom thou hast entrusted the
consecration
“Consecrationem.” So all mss. Ed. Rom. alone has
“dispensationem.” Consecration
seems a strange expression in the mouth of a deacon, but it may be
explained either by the intimate connection between the celebrant and
his deacon, as at the present day in the Liturgy of the Eastern Church;
or it may refer to the hallowing of the faithful in the partaking of
the Sacrament. The word consecratio is not always
restrained to the consecration properly so called, as may be seen by
the prayer in the Roman missal said by the priest when he drops a
consecrated particle into the chalice which has also been already
consecrated;—“Hæc commixtio et consecratio Corporis
et Sansguinis…fiat nobis in vitam
æternam.”
215. Then Xystus said: “I leave thee not nor forsake thee. Greater struggles yet await thee. We as old men have to undergo an easier fight; a more glorious triumph over the tyrant awaits thee, a young man. Soon shalt thou come. Cease weeping; after three days thou shalt follow me. This interval must come between the priest and his levite. It was not for thee to conquer under the eye of thy master, as though thou neededst a helper. Why dost thou seek to share in my death? I leave to thee its full inheritance. Why dost thou need my presence? Let the weak disciples go before their master, let the brave follow him, that they may conquer without him. For they no longer need his guidance. So Elijah left Elisha. To thee I entrust the full succession to my own courage.”
216. Such was their contention, and surely a worthy one, wherein priest and attendant strove as to who should be the first to suffer for the name of Christ. When that tragic piece is played, it is said there is great applause in the theatre as Pylades says he is Orestes, whilst Orestes declares that he is really himself. The former acted as he did, that he might die for Orestes, and Orestes, that he might not allow Pylades to be slain instead of himself. But it was not right that they should live, for each of them was guilty of parricide, the one because he had committed the crime, the other because he had helped in its commission. But here there was nothing to call holy Lawrence to act thus but his love and devotion. However, after three days he was placed upon the gridiron by the tyrant whom he mocked, and was burnt. He said: “The flesh is roasted, turn it and eat.” So by the courage of his mind he overcame the power of fire.
The powers that be are not needlessly to be irritated. One must not lend one’s ears to flattery.
217. I think we must take care, lest in being led on by too great a desire for glory, we should abuse the powers that be, and arouse the minds of the heathen, who are opposed to us, to desire persecution, and excite them to anger. How many do some cause to perish, that they themselves may continue to the end, and overcome their tortures!
218. We must also look to it that we do not open our ears to flatterers. To allow oneself to be smoothed down by flattery seems to be a sign not only of want of fortitude, but a sign of actual cowardice.
On temperance and its chief parts, especially tranquillity of mind and moderation, care for what is virtuous, and reflection on what is seemly.
219. As we have
spoken of three of the virtues, there remains but the fourth for us to
speak of. Cic. de
Off. I. 27.
220. We must keep to a certain order in life, so that a foundation may be laid with our first feelings of modesty, for that is the friend and ally of calmness of mind. Avoiding over-confidence, averse to all excess, it loves sobriety, guards what is honourable, and seeks only what is seemly.
221. Let choice of intercourse come next. Let us link ourselves with older men of approved goodness. For as the companionship of people of our own age is the pleasanter, so that of our elders is the safer. By their guidance and the conduct of their lives they give colour to the character of younger men, and tinge them as it were with the deep purple of probity. For if they who are ignorant of a locality are very glad to take a journey in the company of skilled guides, how much more ought young men to enter on the path of life, which is new to them, in the company of old men; so that they may not go wrong, and turn aside from the true path of virtue. For nothing is better than to have the same men both to direct us in life, and also to be witnesses of how we live.
222. One must also in every action consider what is suitable for different persons, times, and ages, and what will also be in accordance with the abilities of individuals. For often what befits one does not befit another; one thing suits a youth, another an old man; one thing does in danger, another in good fortune.
223. David danced before the ark of the
Lord.
Every one ought to apply himself to the duties suited to his character. Many, however, are hindered by following their fathers’ pursuits. Clerics act in a different way.
224. Each one knows his own powers. Therefore let each one apply himself to that which he has chosen as suitable to himself. But he must first consider what will be the consequences. He may know his good points, but he must know his faults also. He must also be a fair judge of himself, so as to aim at what is good and avoid what is bad.
225. One is more fitted for the post of reader, another does better for the singing, a third is more solicitous for exorcising those possessed with an evil spirit, another, again, is held to be more suited to have the charge of the sacred things. All these things a priest should look at. He should give each one that particular duty for which he is best fitted. For whither each one’s bent of mind leads him, or whatever duty befits him, that position or duty is filled with greater grace.
226. But as this is a difficult matter in
every state of life, so in our case it is most difficult. For
each one is wont to follow his parent’s choice in life. Cic. de
Off. I. 31, § 114.
227. In the clerical office, however,
nothing is more rare than to find a man to follow his father’s
footsteps, It has been
supposed that St. Ambrose in this passage by “father” means
“spiritual father,” in whose hands the teaching and
guidance of the young was put. But there is no reason why the
word should not be taken in its ordinary sense. If so, however,
the father must have been in one of the inferior orders only, or else
his children must have been born before he was admitted to the
priesthood. For elsewhere (I. 258), as here, St. Ambrose clearly
shows that absolute continence is required of priests, after entering
on their sacred office.
On what is noble and virtuous, and what the difference between them is, as stated both in the profane and sacred writers.
228. Let us then
hold fast modesty, and that moderation which adds to the beauty of the
whole of life. For it is no light thing in every matter to
preserve due measure
Cic. de
Off. I. 27.
229. To make an attempt to get some sort of a distinction between them, we may say that what is virtuous may be compared to the good health and soundness of the body, whilst what is seemly is, as it were, its comeliness and beauty. And as beauty seems to stand above soundness and health, and yet cannot exist without them, nor be separated from them in any way—for unless one has good health, one cannot have beauty and comeliness—so what is virtuous contains in itself also what is seemly, so as to seem to start with it, and to be unable to exist without it. What is virtuous, then, is like soundness in all our work and undertaking; what is seemly is, as it were, the outward appearance, which, when joined with what is virtuous, can only be known apart in our thoughts. For though in some cases it seems to stand out conspicuous, yet it has its root in what is virtuous, though the flower is its own. Rooted in this, it flourishes; otherwise it fails and droops. For what is virtue, but to avoid anything shameful as though it were death? And what is the opposite of virtue, except that which brings barrenness and death? If, then, the essence of virtue is strong and vigorous, seemliness will also quickly spring forth like a flower, for its root is sound. But if the root of its purpose is corrupt, nothing will grow out of it.
230. In our writings this is put somewhat
more plainly. For David says: “The Lord reigneth, He
is clothed with splendour.” The words
decorum and honestum being used in different senses, it
is not possible to give the points in a translation as in the
original.
A twofold division of what is seemly is given. Next it is shown that what is according to nature is virtuous, and what is otherwise must be looked on as shameful. This division is explained by examples.
231. Seemliness,
therefore, which stands conspicuous has a twofold division. Cic. de
Off. I. 27, § 96.
232. At the same time let us note that it is
seemly to live in accordance with nature, and to pass our time in
accordance with it, and that whatever is contrary to nature is
shameful. For the Apostle asks: “Is it comely that a
woman pray unto God uncovered; doth not nature itself teach you that if
a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? For it is contrary
to nature.” And again he says: “If a woman have
long hair, it is a glory unto her.”
233. We have that general seemliness; for
God made the beauty of this world. We have it also in its parts;
for when God made the light, and marked off the day from the night,
when He made heaven, and separated land and seas, when He set the sun
and moon and stars to shine on the earth, He approved of them all one
by one. Therefore this comeliness, which shone forth in each
single part of the world, was resplendent in the whole, as the Book of
Wisdom shows, saying: “I existed, in whom He rejoiced when
He was glad at the completion of the world.”
What is seemly should always shine forth in our life. What passions, then, ought we to allow to come to a head, and which should we restrain?
234. If any one preserves an even tenor in the whole of life, and method in all that he does, and sees there is order and consistency in his words and moderation in his deeds, then what is seemly stands forth conspicuous in his life and shines forth as in some mirror.
235. There should be besides a pleasant way of speaking, so that we may win the good-will of those who hear us, and make ourselves agreeable to all our friends and fellow-citizens, if possible. Let none show himself to be given to flattery, nor to be desirous of flattery from any one. The one is a mark of artfulness, the other of vanity.
236. Let no one ever look down on what another, least of all a good man, thinks of him, for thus he learns to give regard to the good. For to disregard the judgment of good men is a sign of conceitedness or of weakness. One of these arises from pride, the other from carelessness.
237. We must also guard against the motions of our soul. The soul must always watch and look after itself, so as to guard itself against itself. For there are motions in which there is a kind of passion that breaks forth as it were in a sort of rush. Wherefore in Greek it is called ὁρμή, because it comes out suddenly with some force. In these there lies no slight force of soul or of nature. Its force, however, is twofold: on the one side it rests on passion, on the other on reason, which checks passion, and makes it obedient to itself, and leads it whither it will; and trains it by careful teaching to know what ought to be done, and what ought to be avoided, so as to make it submit to its kind tamer.
238. For we ought to be careful never to do
anything rashly or carelessly, or anything at all for which we cannot
give a reasonable ground. For though a reason for our action is
not given to every one, yet everybody looks into it. Nor, indeed,
have we anything whereby we can excuse ourselves. For though
there is a sort of natural force in every passion of ours, yet that
same passion is subject to reason by the law of nature itself, and is
obedient to it. Cic. de
Off. I. 29, § 102.
239. When this happens, then that natural judgment and weight of character is cast aside, and that consistency which alone in deed and thought can keep up its own authority and what is seemly, can no longer be retained.
240. But fiercer passion springs from
excessive anger, Cic. de
Off. I. 38, § 137.
241. But since (as was but right) we there only
touched upon the matter, as to how
The argument for restraining anger is given again. Then the three classes of those who receive wrongs are set forth; to the most perfect of which the Apostle and David are said to have attained. He takes the opportunity to state the difference between this and the future life.
242. We wish if we
can to point out three classes of men who receive wrongs in holy
Scripture. One of these forms the class of those whom the sinner
reviles, abuses, rides over rough-shod.
“inequitat.” Ed. Med. has
“inquietat.”
243. If, however, I am one who is advancing, although not yet perfect, I do not return the reproaches; and if he breaks out into abuse, and fills my ears with reproaches, I am silent and do not answer.
244. But if I am perfect (I say this only by
way of example, for in truth I am weak), if, then, I am perfect, I
bless him that curses me, as Paul also blessed, for he says:
“Being reviled we bless.” S.
245. We call show, too, that holy David was
like to Paul in this same class of virtue. When the son of Shimei
cursed him, and charged him with heavy offences, at the first he was
silent and humbled himself, and was silent even about his good deeds,
that is, his knowledge of good works. Then he even asked to be
cursed; for when he was cursed he hoped to gain divine pity.
246. But see how he stored up humility and
justice and prudence so as to merit grace from the Lord! At first
he said: “Therefore he cursed me, because the Lord hath
said unto him that he should curse.”
247. I have written this to show that holy
David, in true evangelical spirit, was not only not offended, but was
even thankful to his abuser, and was delighted rather than angered by
his wrongs, for which he thought some return would be granted to
him. But, though perfect, he sought something still more
perfect. As a man he grew hot at the pain of his wrongs, but like
a good soldier he conquered, he endured like a brave wrestler.
The end and aim of his patience was the expectation of the fulfilment
of the promises, and therefore he said: “Lord, make me to
know mine end and the measure of my days, what it is: that I may
know what is wanting to me.”
248. We then must strive for that wherein is
perfection and wherein is truth. Here is the shadow, here the
image; Cf. St. Amb.
Enarr. in Ps. xxxix. [xxxviii.].
We must reserve the likeness of the virtues in ourselves. The likeness of the devil and of vice must be got rid of, and especially that of avarice; for this deprives us of liberty, and despoils those who are in the midst of vanities of the image of God.
249. Whilst, then, we are here let us preserve the likeness, that there we may attain to the truth. Let the likeness of justice exist in us, likewise that of wisdom, for we shall come to that day and shall be rewarded according to our likeness.
250. Let not the adversary find his image in
thee, let him not find fury nor rage; for in these exists the likeness
of wickedness. “Our adversary the devil as a roaring lion
seeketh whom he may kill, whom he may devour.” S.
251. If, then, wisdom, and faith, and contempt of the world, and spiritual grace, exclude all faithlessness, thou wilt be blessed; for thou regardest not vanity and folly and lying. Is it a light thing to take away from thy adversary the opportunity to speak, so that he can have no ground to make his complaint against thee? Thus he who looks not on vanity is not perturbed; but he who looks upon it is perturbed, and that, too, all to no purpose. Is it not a vain thing to heap up riches? for surely to seek for fleeting things is vain enough. And when thou hast gathered them, how dost thou know that thou shalt have them in possession?
252. Is it not vain for a merchant to journey by night and by day, that he may be able to heap up treasures? Is it not vain for him to gather merchandise, and to be much perturbed about its price, for fear he might sell it for less than he gave? that he should strive everywhere for high prices, and thus unexpectedly call up robbers against himself through their envy at his much-vaunted business; or that, without waiting for calmer winds, impatient of delays, he should meet with shipwreck whilst seeking for gain?
253. And is not he, too, perturbed in vain who with great toil amasses wealth, though he knows not what heir to leave it to? Often and often all that an avaricious man has got together with the greatest care, his spendthrift heir scatters abroad with headlong prodigality. The shameless prodigal, blind to the present, heedless of the future, swallows up as in an abyss what took so long to gather. Often, too, the desired successor gains but envy for his share of the inheritance, and by his sudden death hands over the whole amount of the succession, which he has hardly entered upon, to strangers.
254. Why, then, dost thou idly spin a web
which is worthless and fruitless? And why dost thou build up
useless heaps of treasures like spiders’ webs? For though
they overflow, they are no good; nay, they denude thee of the likeness
of God, and put on thee the likeness of the earthy. If any one
has the likeness of the tyrant, is he not liable to condemnation?
Thou layest aside the likeness of the Eternal King, and raisest in
thyself the image of death. Rather cast out of the kingdom of thy
soul the likeness of the devil, and raise up the likeness of
Christ. Let this shine forth in thee; let this glow brightly in
thy kingdom, that is, thy soul, for it destroys the likeness of all
vices. David says of this: “O Lord, in Thy kingdom
thou bringest their images to nothing.”
The Levites ought to be utterly free from all earthly desires. What their virtues should be on the Apostle’s own showing, and how great their purity must be. Also what their dignity and duty is, for the carrying out of which the chief virtues are necessary. He states that these were not unknown to the philosophers, but that they erred in their order. Some are by their nature in accordance with duty, which yet on account of what accompanies them become contrary to duty. From whence he gathers what gifts the office of the Levites demands. To conclude, he adds an exposition of Moses’ words when blessing the tribe of Levi.
255. If, then, in
the Gospel of the Lord the people themselves were taught and led to
despise riches, S. S.
256. We note how much is required of us. The minister of the Lord should abstain from wine, so that he may be upheld by the good witness not only of the faithful but also by those who are without. For it is right that the witness to our acts and works should be the opinion of the public at large, that the office be not disgraced. Thus he who sees the minister of the altar adorned with suitable virtues may praise their Author, and reverence the Lord Who has such servants. The praise of the Lord sounds forth where there is a pure possession and an innocent rule at home.
257. But what shall I say about chastity,
when only one and no second union is allowed? As regards
marriage, the law is, not to marry again, nor to seek union with
another wife. It seems strange to many why impediment should be
caused by a second marriage entered on before baptism, so as to prevent
election to the clerical office, and to the reception of the gift of
ordination; seeing that even crimes are not wont to stand in the way,
if they have been put away in the sacrament of baptism. The question
kept coming up from time to time: Did Baptism annul all previous
impedimenta ordinationis? Even in the fifth century, as
Pope Innocent I. (Ep. XXIX.) shows, some maintained that as Baptism
puts away all sins committed previous to its reception, so also it
removes all impediments to ordination. This same idea St. Ambrose
combats here.
258. But ye know that the ministerial office
must be kept pure and unspotted, and must not be defiled by conjugal
intercourse; ye know this, I say, who have received the gifts of the
sacred ministry, with pure bodies, and unspoilt modesty, and without
ever having enjoyed conjugal intercourse. I am mentioning this,
because in some out-of-the-way places, when they enter on the ministry,
or even when they become priests, they have begotten children.
They defend this on the ground of old custom, when, as it happened, the
sacrifice was offered up at long intervals. However, even the
people had to be purified two or three days beforehand, so as to come
clean to the sacrifice, as we read in the Old Testament.
260. Thou, then, art chosen out of the whole number of the children of Israel, regarded as the firstfruits of the sacred offerings, set over the tabernacle so as to keep guard in the camp of holiness and faith, to which if a stranger approach, he shall surely die. Thou art placed there to watch over the ark of the covenant. All do not see the depths of the mysteries, for they are hid from the Levites, lest they should see who ought not to see, and they who cannot serve should take it up. Moses, indeed, saw the circumcision of the Spirit, but veiled it, so as to give circumcision only in an outward sign. He saw the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth; he saw the sufferings of the Lord, but he veiled the unleavened bread of truth in the material unleavened bread, he veiled the sufferings of the Lord in the sacrifice of a lamb or a calf. Good Levites have ever preserved the mystery entrusted to them under the protection of their own faith, and yet dost thou think little of what is entrusted to thee? First, thou shalt see the deep things of God, which needs wisdom. Next, thou must keep watch for the people; this requires justice. Thou must defend the camp and guard the tabernacle, which needs fortitude. Thou must show thyself continent and sober, and this needs temperance.
261. These chief virtues, they who are
without have recognized, Cic. de
Off. I. 43.
262. First stands faith, which is a sign of
wisdom, as Solomon says, in following his father: “The fear
of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Cic. de
Off. I. 45.
263. It is a duty, then, to take care of and
to restore what has been entrusted to us. But meanwhile a change
comes, either in time or circumstances, Cic. de
Off. I. 10.
264. It is also sometimes contrary to duty
to fulfil a promise, Cic. de
Off. I. 10, § 32. S.
265. Ye are not ignorant how important it is
to look to this. And so a Levite is chosen to guard the
sanctuary, one who shall never fail in counsel, nor forsake the faith,
nor fear death, nor do anything extravagant, so that in his whole
appearance he may give proof of his earnestness. For he ought to
have not only his soul but even his eyes in restraint, so that no
chance mishap may bring a blush to his forehead. For
“whosoever looketh on a woman to desire her hath already
committed adultery with her in his heart.” S.
266. This seems high and somewhat severe,
but in a high office it is not out of place. For the grace of the
Levites is such that Moses spoke of them as follows in his
blessing: “Give to Levi his men, give Levi his trusted
ones, give Levi the lot of his inheritance, and his truth to the holy
men whom they tempted in temptation, and reviled at the waters of
contradiction. Who said to his father and mother, I know thee
not, and knew not his brethren, and renounced his children. He
guarded Thy word and kept Thy testimony.”
267. They, then, are His men, His trusty
ones, who have no deceit in their hearts, hide no treachery within
them, but guard His words and ponder them in their heart, as Mary
pondered them; S.
268. If any one makes known the just works
of the Lord, and offers Him incense, then: “Bless, O Lord,
his strength; accept the work of his hands,”
Happiness in life is to be gained by living virtuously, inasmuch as thus a Christian, whilst despising glory and the favour of men, desires to please God alone in what he does.
1. In the first
book we spoke of the duties Cic. de
Off. II. 1.
2. Blessed, plainly, is that life which is
not valued at the estimation of outsiders, but is known, as judge of
itself, by its own inner feelings. It needs no popular opinion as
its reward in any way; nor has it any fear of punishments. Thus
the less it strives for glory, the more it rises above it. For to
those who seek for glory, that reward in the shape of present things is
but a shadow of future ones, and is a hindrance to eternal life, as it
is written in the Scriptures: “Verily, I say unto you, they
have received their reward.” S.
3. It therefore belongs to a virtuous life
to show mercy and to fast in secret; that thou mayest seem to be
seeking a reward from thy God alone, and not from men. For he who
seeks it from man has his reward, but he who seeks it from God has
eternal life, which none can give but the Lord of Eternity, as it is
said: “Verily, I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with
Me in Paradise.” S.
The different ideas of philosophers on the subject of happiness. He proves, first, from the Gospel that it rests on the knowledge of God and the pursuit of good works; next, that it may not be thought that this idea was adopted from the philosophers, he adds proofs from the witness of the prophets.
4. The philosophers
have made a happy life to depend, either (as Hieronymus Hieronymus,
often mentioned by Cicero. Cf. Cic. de Finib. II.
3.—He lived about b.c. 300, at
Rhodes. He held that the highest good consisted in freedom from
pain and trouble.
Herillus. Cf. Cic. de Finib. V. 25. Of
Carthage; a Stoic. The chief good, according to him, consisted in
knowledge. Aristotle,
the famous philosopher and writer. Born b.c. 384. Taught chiefly at Athens, where
Theophrastus was his pupil. Theophrastus
of Eresus in Lesbos, also a voluminous writer. He is mentioned by
Cicero thus: “Sæpe ab Aristotele, a Theophrasto
mirabiliter caudatur scientia, hoc uno captus Herillus scientiam summum
bonum esse defendit.” (de Fin. V.
25.)
Epicurus. Cf. Cic. Tuscul. V. 30. Born
b.c. 342 in Samos. The founder of the
Epicurean School of Philosophy. With him pleasure constituted the
highest happiness, but probably not sensual pleasures. Cf. note
on I. 50.
Callipho. Cic. Acad. II. 42: A disciple of
Epicurus. The chief good of man he said consisted in the union of
a virtuous life with bodily pleasure, or, as Cicero puts it, in the
union of the man with the beast. (Cic. de Off. III.
33.) Diodorus
living about b.c. 110, at Tyre. His view
was as stated above by St. Ambrose, whereby an attempt was made to
reconcile the Stoics and Epicureans. Zeno of Citium, the
founder of the Stoic School.
5. But the sacred Scriptures say that
eternal life rests on a knowledge of divine things and on the fruit of
good works. The Gospel bears witness to both these
statements. For the Lord Jesus spoke thus of knowledge:
“This is eternal life, to know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus
Christ Whom Thou hast sent.” S. S.
6. Let no one think that this was but lately
said, and that it was spoken of by the philosophers before it was
mentioned in the Gospel. For the philosophers, that is to say,
Aristotle and Theophrastus, as also Zeno and Hieronymus, certainly
lived before the time of the Gospel; but they came after the
prophets. Let them rather think how long before even the names of
the philosophers were heard of, both of these seem to have found open
expression through the mouth of the holy David; for it is
written: “Blessed is the man whom Thou instructest, O Lord,
and teachest him out of Thy law.”
7. Faith, then, has [the promise of] eternal life,
for it is a good foundation. Good works, too, have the same, for
an upright man is tested by his words and acts. For
The definition of blessedness as drawn from the Scriptures is considered and proved. It cannot be enhanced by external good fortune, nor can it be weakened by misfortune.
8. As, then,
knowledge, so far as it stands alone, is put aside either as worthless,
according to the superfluous discussions of the philosophers, See St.
Augustine, De Civit. Dei. XIX. 1.
9. Innocence, then, and knowledge make a man
blessed. We have also noted already that the blessedness of
eternal life is the reward for good works. It remains, then, to
show that when the patronage of pleasure or the fear of pain is
despised (and the first of these one abhors as poor and effeminate, and
the other as unmanly and weak), that then a blessed life can rise up in
the midst of pain. This can easily be shown when we read:
“Blessed are ye when men shall revile you and persecute you and
shall say all manner of evil against you for righteousness’
sake. Rejoice and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in
heaven; for so persecuted they the prophets which were before
you.” S. S.
The same argument, namely, that blessedness is not lessened or added to by external matters, is illustrated by the example of men of old.
10. There is, then,
a blessedness even in pains and griefs. All which virtue with its
sweetness checks and restrains, abounding as it does in natural
resources for either soothing conscience or increasing grace. For
Moses was blessed in no small degree when, surrounded by the Egyptians
and shut in by the sea, he found by his merits a way for himself and
the people to go through the waters.
11. What of Aaron? When did he ever
think himself more blessed than when he stood between the living and
the dead, and by his presence stayed death from passing from the bodies
of the dead to the lines of the living?
12. There is, then, in pain a virtue that
can display the sweetness of a good conscience, and therefore it serves
as a proof that pain does not lessen the pleasure of virtue. As,
then, there is no loss of blessedness to virtue through pain, so also
the pleasures of the body and the enjoyment that benefits give add
nothing to it. On this the Apostle says well: “What
things to me were gain, those I counted loss for Christ,” and he
added: “Wherefore I count all things but loss, and do count
them but dung, that I may win Christ.”
14. Bread for food also failed Elijah, that
holy man, had he sought for it; but it seemed not to fail him because
he sought it not. Thus by the daily service of the ravens bread
was brought to him in the morning, meat in the evening. S.
15. Riches, then, give no assistance to
living a blessed life, a fact that the Lord clearly shows in the
Gospel, saying: “Blessed are ye poor, for yours is the
kingdom of God. Blessed are they that hunger and thirst now, for
they shall be filled. Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall
laugh.” S.
Those things which are generally looked on as good are mostly hindrances to a blessed life, and those which are looked on as evil are the materials out of which virtues grow. What belongs to blessedness is shown by other examples.
16. But those
things which seem to be good, as riches, abundance, joy without pain,
are a hindrance to the fruits of blessedness, as is clearly stated in
the Lord’s own words, when He said: “Woe to you rich,
for ye have received your consolation! Woe unto you that are
full, for ye shall hunger, and to those who laugh, for they shall
mourn!” S.
17. Wherefore Naboth was blessed, even
though he was stoned by the rich; weak and poor, as opposed to the
royal resources, he was rich in his aim and his religion; so rich,
indeed, that he would not exchange the inheritance of the vineyard
received from his father for the king’s money; and on this
account was he perfect, for he defended the rights of his forefathers
with his own blood. Thus, also, Ahab was wretched on his own
showing, for he caused the poor man to be put to death, so as to take
possession of his vineyard himself.
18. It is quite certain that virtue is the only and the highest good; that it alone richly abounds in the fruit of a blessed life; that a blessed life, by means of which eternal life is won, does not depend on external or corporal benefits, but on virtue only. A blessed life is the fruit of the present, and eternal life is the hope of the future.
19. Some, however, there are who think a blessed life is impossible in this body, weak and fragile as it is. For in it one must suffer pain and grief, one must weep, one must be ill. So I could also say that a blessed life rests on bodily rejoicing, but not on the heights of wisdom, on the sweetness of conscience, or on the loftiness of virtue. It is not a blessed thing to be in the midst of suffering; but it is blessed to be victorious over it, and not to be cowed by the power of temporal pain.
20. Suppose that things come which are
accounted terrible as regards the grief they cause, such as blindness,
exile, hunger, violation of a daughter, loss of children. Who
will deny that Isaac was blessed, who did not see in his old age, and
yet gave blessings with his benediction? S.
21. True it is that in these sufferings there is something bitter, and that strength of mind cannot hide this pain. I should not deny that the sea is deep because inshore it is shallow, nor that the sky is clear because sometimes it is covered with clouds, nor that the earth is fruitful because in some places there is but barren ground, nor that the crops are rich and full because they sometimes have wild oats mingled with them. So, too, count it as true that the harvest of a happy conscience may be mingled with some bitter feelings of grief. In the sheaves of the whole of a blessed life, if by chance any misfortune or bitterness has crept in, is it not as though the wild oats were hidden, or as though the bitterness of the tares was concealed by the sweet scent of the corn? But let us now proceed again with our subject.
On what is useful: not that which is advantageous, but that which is just and virtuous. It is to be found in losses, and is divided into what is useful for the body, and what is useful unto godliness.
22. In the first
book we made our division in such a way as to set in the first place
what is virtuous and what is seemly; for all duties are derived from
these. In the second place we set what is useful. But as at
the start we said that there was a difference between what is virtuous
and what is seemly—which one can comprehend more easily than one
can explain—so also when we are thinking of what is useful, we
have to give considerable thought to what is the more useful. Cic. de
Off. II. 3.
23. But we do not reckon usefulness by the
value of any gain in money, but in acquiring godliness, as the Apostle
says: “But godliness is profitable unto all things, having
promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to
come.”
24. Therefore, because what is useful is
also just, it is just to serve Christ, Who redeemed us. They too
are just who for His Name’s sake have given themselves up to
death, they are unjust who have avoided it. Of them it
says: What profit is there in my blood?
25. We have then to speak of that usefulness
which is full of what is virtuous, as the Apostle himself has laid it
down in so many words, saying: “And this I speak for your
own profit, not that I may cast a snare upon you, but for that which is
comely.”
26. Therefore as I am about to speak of what is
useful, I will take up those words of
27. There is therefore a usefulness
connected with the body, and also one that has to do with godliness,
according to the Apostle’s division: “Bodily exercise
profiteth a little, but godliness is profitable unto all
things.” S.
What is useful is the same as what is virtuous; nothing is more useful than love, which is gained by gentleness, courtesy, kindness, justice, and the other virtues, as we are given to understand from the histories of Moses and David. Lastly, confidence springs from love, and again love from confidence.
28. There is therefore not only a close intercourse between what is virtuous and what is useful, but the same thing is both useful and virtuous. Therefore He Who willed to open the kingdom of heaven to all sought not what was useful to Himself, but what was useful for all. Thus we must have a certain order and proceed step by step from habitual or common acts to those which are more excellent, so as to show by many examples the advancement of what is useful.
29. And first we may know there is nothing
so useful as to be loved, Cic. de
Off. II. 7. Cic. de
Off. II. 14.
30. We read, not only in the case of private individuals but even of kings, what is the effect of ready and willing courtesy, and what harm pride and great swelling words have done, so far as to make even kingdoms to totter and powers to be destroyed. If any one gains the people’s favour by advice or service, by fulfilling the duties of his ministry or office, or if he encounters danger for the sake of the whole nation, there is no doubt but that such love will be shown him by the people that they all will put his safety and welfare before their own.
31. What reproaches Moses had to bear from
his people! But when the Lord would have avenged him on those who
reviled him, he often used to offer himself for the people that he
might save them from the divine anger.
32. There is David too who followed his steps, who
was chosen from among all to rule the people. How gentle and
kindly he was, humble in spirit too, how diligent and ready to show
affection. Before he came to the throne he offered himself in the
stead of
33. He had bound the people to himself
freely in doing his duty; first, when he during the division among the
people preferred to live like an exile at Hebron
34. It is no small thing, especially in the
case of a king, so to perform humble duties as to make oneself like the
very lowest. It is noble not to seek for food at another’s
risk and to refuse a drink of water, to confess a sin, and to offer
oneself to death for one’s people. This latter David did,
so that the divine anger might be turned against himself, when he
offered himself to the destroying angel and said: “Lo I
have sinned: I the shepherd have done wickedly, but this flock,
what hath it done? Let Thy hand be against me.”
35. What further should I say? He
opened not his mouth to those planning deceit, and, as though hearing
not, he thought no word should be returned, nor did be answer their
reproaches. When he was evil spoken of, he prayed, when he was
cursed, he blessed. He walked in simplicity of heart, and fled
from the proud. He was a follower of those unspotted from the
world, one who mixed ashes with his food when bewailing his sins, and
mingled his drink with weeping.
36. Who would not have loved him, when they
saw how dear he was to his friends? For as he truly loved his
friends, so he thought that he was loved as much in return by his own
friends. Nay, parents put him even before their own children, and
children loved him more than their parents. Wherefore Saul was
very angry and strove to strike Jonathan his son with a spear because
he thought that David’s friendship held a higher place in his
esteem than either filial piety or a father’s authority.
37. It gives a very great impetus to mutual
love if one shows love in return to those who love us and proves that
one does not love them less than oneself is loved, especially if one
shows it by the proofs that a faithful friendship gives. What is
so likely to win favour as gratitude? What more natural than to
love one who loves us? What so implanted and so impressed on
men’s feelings as the wish to let another, by whom we want to be
loved, know that we love him? Well does the wise man say:
“Lose thy money for thy brother and thy friend.”
38. Thus David failed not, for he was
Cic. de
Off. II. 7, § 23.
39. Love, then, is the first thing to give
us a recommendation. It is a good thing therefore to have our
witness in the love of many. Cic. de
Off. II. 8, § 30.
Nothing has greater effect in gaining good-will than giving advice; but none can trust it unless it rests on justice and prudence. How conspicuous these two virtues were in Solomon is shown by his well-known judgment.
40. Two things,
therefore, love and confidence, are the most efficacious in commending
us to others; also this third quality if thou hast it, namely, what
many consider to be worthy of admiration in thee, and think to be
rightly worthy of honour Cic. de
Off. II. 9.
41. Since the giving of good advice is a great means of gaining men’s affections, prudence and justice are much needed in every case. These are looked for by most, so that confidence at once is placed in him in whom they exist, because he can give useful and trustworthy advice to whoever wants it. Who will put himself into the hands of a man whom he does not think to be more wise than himself who asks for advice? It is necessary therefore that he of whom advice is asked should be superior to him who asks it. For why should we consult a man when we do not think that he can make anything more plain than we ourselves see it?
42. But if we have found a man that by the
vigour of his character, by his strength of mind and influence, stands
forth above all others, and further, is better fitted by example and
experience than others; that can put an end to immediate dangers,
foresee future ones, point out those close at hand, can explain a
subject, bring relief in time, is ready not only to give advice but
also to give help,—in such a man confidence is placed, so that he
who seeks advice can say: “Though evil should happen to me
through him, I will bear it.”
43. To a man of this sort then we entrust
our safety and our reputation, for he is, as we said before, just and
prudent. Justice causes us to have no fear of deceit, and
prudence frees us from having any suspicions of error. However,
we trust ourselves more readily to a just than to a prudent man, to put
it in the way people generally do. But, according to the
definition of the philosophers, where there is one virtue, others exist
too, Cic. de
Off. II. 10.
44. Is not that noble judgment of Solomon
full of wisdom and justice? Let us see whether it is so.
45. This was their dispute, in which either tried
to claim the living child for herself, and denied that the dead one was
hers. Then the king commanded a sword to be brought and the
infant to be cut in half, and either piece to be given to one, one half
to the one, and one half to the other. Then the woman whose the
child really was, moved by her feelings, cried out: “Divide
not the child, my lord; let it rather be given to her and live, and do
not kill it.” But the other answered: “Let it
be neither mine nor hers, divide it.” Then the king ordered
that the
46. It is not wrong to suppose that the mind of God was in him; for what is hidden from God? What can be more hidden than the witness that lies deep within; into which the mind of the wise king entered as though to judge a mother’s feelings, and elicited as it were the voice of a mother’s heart. For a mother’s feelings were laid bare, when she chose that her son should live with another, rather than that he should be killed in his mother’s sight.
47. It was therefore a sign of wisdom to
distinguish between secret heart-thoughts, to draw the truth from
hidden springs, and to pierce as it were with the sword of the Spirit
not only the inward parts of the body, but even of the mind and
soul. It was the part of justice also that she who had killed her
own child should not take away another’s, but that the real
mother should have her own back again. Indeed the Scriptures have
declared this. “All Israel,” it says, “heard of
the judgment which the king had judged, and they feared the king, for
they saw that the wisdom of God was in him to do
judgment.”
Though justice and prudence are inseparable, we must have respect to the ideas of people in general, for they make a distinction between the different cardinal virtues.
48. It is clear
also, according to the sacred Scriptures, which are the older, that
wisdom cannot exist without justice, for where one of these two is,
there the other must be also. With what wisdom did Daniel expose
the lie in the false accusation brought against him by his thorough
examination, so that those false informers had no answer ready to
hand!
49. There is therefore an inseparable union
between wisdom and justice; but, generally speaking, Cic. de
Off. II. 10, § 35.
Men entrust their safety rather to a just than to a prudent man. But every one is wont to seek out the man who combines in himself the qualities of justice and prudence. Solomon gives us an example of this. (The words which the queen of Sheba spoke of him are explained.) Also Daniel and Joseph.
50. We entrust our
case to the most prudent man we can find, and ask advice from him more
readily than we do from others. However, the faithful counsel of
a just Cic. de
Off. II. 9, § 34.
51. And if one connects the two, there will
be great soundness in the advice given, which is regarded by all with
admiration for the wisdom shown, and with love for its justice.
And so all will desire to hear the wisdom of that man in whom those two
virtues are found together, as all the kings of the earth desired to
see the face of Solomon and to hear his wisdom. Nay, even the
queen of Sheba came to him and tried him with questions. She came
and spoke of all the things that were in her heart, and heard all the
wisdom of Solomon, nor did any word escape her.
52. Who she was whom nothing escaped, and that
there was nothing which the truth-loving Solomon did not tell her,
learn, O man, from this which thou hearest her saying: “It
was a true report that I heard in
53. What women are blessed but those of whom
it is said “that many hear the word of God and bring forth
fruit”? S. S. S.
54. Joseph also when in prison was not free
from being consulted about matters of uncertainty. His
counsel
55. Daniel, though one of the captives, was
made the head of the royal counsellors. By his counsels he
improved the present and foretold the future.
A third element which tends to gain any one’s confidence is shown to have been conspicuous in Moses, Daniel, and Joseph.
56. But a third
point seems also to have been noted in the case of those who were
thought worthy of admiration Cic. de
Off. II. 10, § 36.
57. Who would refuse the counsel of Daniel,
of whom God Himself said: “Who is wiser than
Daniel?”
58. How pure must have been the soul of
Daniel to soften the character of barbarians and to tame the
lions!
59. And what, again, shall I say of the
chastity and justice of Joseph, whom I had almost passed by, whereby on
the one hand he rejected the allurements of his mistress and refused
rewards, on the other he mocked at death, repressed his fear, and chose
a prison? Who would not consider him a fit person to give advice
in a private case, whose fruitful spirit and fertile mind enriched the
barrenness of the time with the wealth of his counsels and
heart?
No one asks counsel from a man tainted with vice, or from one who is morose or impracticable, but rather from one of whom we have a pattern in the Scriptures.
60. We note
therefore that in seeking for counsel, uprightness of life, excellence
in virtues, habits of benevolence, and the charm of good-nature have
very great weight. Who seeks for a spring in the mud? Who
wants to drink from muddy water? So
Cic. de
Off. II. 10, § 36.
61. And who will come to a man however well fitted to give the best of advice who is nevertheless hard to approach? It goes with him as with a fountain whose waters are shut off. What is the advantage of having wisdom, if one refuses to give advice? If one cuts off the opportunities of giving advice, the source is closed, so as no longer to flow for others or to be of any good to oneself.
62. Well can we refer this to him who,
possessing prudence, has defiled it with the foulness of a vicious life
and so pollutes the water at the source. His life is a proof of a
degenerate spirit. Vide Virg.
Æn.IV. 13: “degeneres animos timor
arguit.”
63. That man of counsel whom I must admire and look up to, whom the gracious Lord gave to our fathers, put aside all that was offensive. His follower he ought to be, who can give counsel and protect another’s prudence from vice; for nothing foul can mingle with that.
The beauty of wisdom is made plain by the divine testimony. From this he goes on to prove its connection with the other virtues.
64. Is there any
one who would like to be beautiful in face and at the same time to have
its charm spoilt by a beast-like body and fearful talons? Now the
form of virtues is so wonderful and glorious, and especially the beauty
of wisdom, as the whole of the Scriptures tell us. For it is more
brilliant than the sun, and when compared with the stars far outshines
any constellation. Night takes their light away in its train, but
wickedness cannot overcome wisdom.
65. We have spoken of its beauty, and proved
it by the witness of Scripture. It remains to show on the
authority of Scripture
Prudence is combined with all the virtues, especially with contempt of riches.
66. Prudence,
therefore, works through all things, she has fellowship with all that
is good. For how Cic. de
Off. II. 11.
67. The rule of economy and the authority of
self-restraint befits all, and most of all him who stands highest in
honour; so that no love for his treasures may seize upon such a man,
and that he who rules over free men may never become a slave to
money. It is more seemly that in soul he should be superior to
treasures, and in willing service be subject to his friends. For
humility in
Of liberality. To whom it must chiefly be shown, and how men of slender means may show it by giving their service and counsel.
68. But if it is praiseworthy to have one’s soul free from this failing, how much more glorious is it to gain the love of the people by liberality which is neither too freely shown to those who are unsuitable, nor too sparingly bestowed upon the needy.
69. There are many kinds of
liberality. Cic. de
Off. II. 9, § 32.
70. The highest kind of liberality is, to
redeem captives, to save them from the hands of their enemies, to
snatch men from death, and, most of all, women from shame, to restore
children to their parents, parents to their children, and, to give back
a citizen to his country. This was recognized when Thrace and
Illyria were so terribly devastated. This was in the year
378. These provinces were invaded by the Goths, who after the
defeat and death of Valens at Hadrianople ravaged the whole country,
and carried away with them a vast number of captives and afterwards
sold them into slavery. St. Ambrose busied himself in redeeming
all he could. He tells us himself how his efforts were met by the
Arian party.
71. It is then a special quality of
liberality to redeem captives, Cic. de
Off. II. 16.
72. There are others who place in marriage
maidens that have lost their parents, so as to preserve their chastity,
and who help them not only with good wishes but also by a sum of
money. There is also another kind of liberality which the Apostle
teaches: “If any that believeth hath widows let him relieve
them, that the Church be not burdened by supplying them, that it may
have enough for those that are widows indeed.”
73. Useful, then, is liberality of this
sort; but it is not common to all. For there are many good men
who have but slender means, and are content with little for their own
use, and are not able to give help to lighten the poverty of
others. However, another sort of kindness is ready to their hand,
whereby they can help those poorer still. For there is a twofold
liberality: Cic. de
Off. II. 15, § 52.
74. How much grander it was for Abraham to
have recovered his captured son-in-law by his victorious arms,
75. Money is easily spent; counsels can never be exhausted. They only grow the stronger by constant use. Money grows less and quickly comes to an end, and has failed even kindness itself; so that the more there are to whom one wants to give, the fewer one can help; and often one has not got what one thinks ought to be given to others. But as regards the offer of advice and active help, the more there are to spend it on, the more there seems to be, and the more it returns to its own source. The rich stream of prudence ever flows back upon itself, and the more it has reached out to, so much the more active becomes all that remains.
Due measure must be observed in liberality, that it may not be expended on worthless persons, when it is needed by worthier ones. However, alms are not to be given in too sparing and hesitating a way. One ought rather to follow the example of the blessed Joseph, whose prudence is commended at great length.
76. It is clear,
then, Cic. de
Off. II. 15, § 55.
77. Many pretend they have debts. Let the truth be looked into. They bemoan the fact that they have been stripped of everything by robbers. In such a case give credit only if the misfortune is apparent, or the person is well known; and then readily give help. To those rejected by the Church supplies must be granted if they are in want of food. He, then, that observes method in his giving is hard towards none, but is free towards all. We ought not only to lend our ears to hear the voices of those who plead, but also our eyes to look into their needs. Weakness calls more loudly to the good dispenser than the voice of the poor. It cannot always be that the cries of an importunate beggar will never extort more, but let us not always give way to impudence. He must be seen who does not see thee. He must be sought for who is ashamed to be seen. He also that is in prison must come to thy thoughts; another seized with sickness must present himself to thy mind, as he cannot reach thy ears.
78. The more people see thy zeal in showing
mercy, the more will they love thee. I know many priests who had
the more, the more they gave. For they who see a good dispenser
give him something to distribute in his round of duty, sure that the
act of mercy will reach the poor. If they see him giving away
either in excess or too sparingly, they contemn either of these; in the
one case because he wastes the fruits of another’s labours by
unnecessary payments, on the other hand because he hoards them in his
money bags. As, then, method Cic. de
Off. II. 15, § 54.
79. Joseph could have given away all the wealth of
Egypt, and have spent the royal treasures; but he would not even seem
to be wasteful of what was another’s. He preferred to sell
the corn rather than to give it to the hungry. For if he had
given it to a few there would have been none for most. He gave
good proof of that liberality whereby there was enough for all.
He opened the storehouses that all might buy their corn supply, lest if
they received it for nothing, they should give up cultivating the
80. First of all, then, he gathered up their
money, then their implements, last of all he acquired for the king all
their rights to the ground. Cic. de
Off. II. 21.
81. O noble man! Cic. de
Off. II. 23, 83.
82. How splendidly he inferred the
future. First, how acutely, when interpreting the royal dream, he
stated the truth. This was the king’s first dream.
83. This dream Joseph unfolded as follows: that the seven heifers were seven years, and the seven ears likewise were seven years,—interpreting the times by the produce of cattle and crops. For both the calving of a heifer takes a year, and the produce of a crop fills out a whole year. And they came up out of the river just as days, years, and times pass by and flow along swiftly like the rivers. He therefore states that the seven earlier years of a rich land will be fertile and fruitful but the latter seven years will be barren and unfruitful, whose barrenness will eat up the richness of the former time. Wherefore he warns them to see that supplies of corn are got together in the fruitful years that they may help out the needs of the coming scarcity.
84. What shall we admire first? His
powers of mind, with which he descended to the very resting-place of
truth? Or his counsel, whereby he foresaw so great and lasting a
need? Or his watchfulness or justice? By his watchfulness,
when so high an office was given him, he gathered together such vast
supplies; and through his justice he treated all alike. And what
am I to say of his greatness of mind? For though sold by his
brothers into slavery,
85. Whence it was deservedly said to him by
his father: “My son Joseph is enlarged, my son is enlarged,
my younger son, my beloved. My God hath helped thee and blessed
thee with the blessing of heaven above and the blessing of the earth,
the earth that hath all things, on account of the blessings of thy
father and thy mother. It hath prevailed over the blessings of
the everlasting hills and the desires of the eternal
hills.”
What virtues ought to exist in him whom we consult. How Joseph and Paul were equipped with them.
86. Such, then, ought he to be who gives counsel to another, in order that he may offer himself as a pattern in all good works, in teaching, in trueness of character, in seriousness. Thus his words will be wholesome and irreproachable, his counsel useful, his life virtuous, and his opinions seemly.
87. Such was Paul, who gave counsel to
virgins, “propter
me.” Cod. Dresd., Ed. Med. have “præter
me.”
“humilitatis, quia domino deferebat;
honorificentiæ, quia referebat gratiam.” Others
read: “humilitatis…deferebat honorificentiam,
quia,” etc.
88. Such, then, ought the man of counsel to
be. He must have nothing dark, or deceptive, or false about him,
to cast a shadow on his life and character, nothing wicked or evil to
keep back those who want advice. For there are some things which
one flies from, others which one despises. Cic. de
Off. II, 10, § 36.
89. Therefore the man of good counsel
says: “I have learnt in whatsoever state I am therewith to
be content.”
90. But he could have said these words about
everything, for all that he had at the moment contented him; that is,
he wanted no greater honour, he sought for no further services, he was
not desirous of vainglory, nor did he look for gratitude where it was
not due; but patient in labours, sure in his merits, he waited
for the end of the struggle that he must needs endure. “I
know,” he says, “how to be abased.” S.
91. Paul knew, too, how to abound, for he
had a rich soul, though he possessed not the treasure of a rich man.
He knew how to abound, for he sought no gift in money, but looked
for fruit in grace. We can understand his words that he knew how
to abound also in another way. For he could say again:
“O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is
enlarged.”
92. In all things he was accustomed both to be
full and to be hungry. Blessed is he that knows how to be full in
Christ. Not corporal, but spiritual, is that satiety which
knowledge brings about. And rightly is
S.
We learn from the fact of the separation of the ten tribes from King Rehoboam what harm bad counsellors can do.
93. Justice, then,
especially graces men that are set over any office; Cic. de
Off. II. 22, § 77.
94. Angered by this answer, the people
said: “We have no portion in David, nor inheritance in the
son of Jesse. Return to your tents, O Israel. For we will
not have this man for a prince or a leader over us.”
Many are won by justice and benevolence and courtesy, but all this must be sincere.
95. It is plain, then, that equity strengthens empires, and injustice destroys them. How could wickedness hold fast a kingdom when it cannot even rule over a single family? There is need, therefore, of the greatest kindness, so that we may preserve not only the government of affairs in general, but also the rights of individuals. Benevolence is of the greatest value; for it seeks to embrace all in its favours, to bind them to itself by fulfilling duties, and to pledge them to itself by its charm.
96. We have also said that courtesy of
speech has great effect in winning favour. But we want it to be
sincere and sensible, without flattery, lest flattery should disgrace
the simplicity and purity of our address. We ought to be a
pattern to others not only in act but also in word, in purity, and in
faith. What we wish to be thought, such let us be; Cic. de
Off. II. 12, § 43.
Familiarity with good men is very advantageous to all, especially to the young, as is shown by the example of Joshua and Moses and others. Further, those who are unlike in age are often alike in virtues, as Peter and John prove.
97. It is a very
good thing to unite oneself to a good man. It is also very useful
for the young Cic. de
Off. II. 13, § 46.
98. Joshua the son of Nun became so great,
because his union with Moses was the means not only of instructing him
in a knowledge of the law, but also of sanctifying him to receive
grace. When in His tabernacle the majesty of the Lord was seen to
shine forth in its divine Presence, Joshua alone was in the
tabernacle. When Moses spoke with God, Joshua too was covered by
the sacred cloud.
99. Everywhere, therefore, he alone kept
close to holy Moses amid all these wondrous works and dread
secrets. Wherefore it happens that he who had been his companion
in this intercourse with God succeeded to his power.
100. Beautiful, therefore, is the union
between old and young. The one to give witness, the other to give
comfort; the one to give guidance, the other to give pleasure. I
pass by Lot, who when young clung to Abraham, as he was setting
out.
101. We see also that duties were divided amongst them according to their superiority in anything. The elders took the lead in giving counsel, the younger in showing activity. Often, too, those who were alike in virtue but unlike in years were greatly rejoiced at their union, as Peter and John were. We read in the Gospel that John was a young man, even in his own words, though he was behind none of the elders in merits and wisdom. For in him there was a venerable ripeness of character and the prudence of the hoarhead. An unspotted life is the due of a good old age.
To defend the weak, or to help strangers, or to perform similar duties, greatly adds to one’s worth, especially in the case of tried men. Whilst one gets great blame for love of money; wastefulness, also, in the case of priests is very much condemned.
102. The regard in
which one is held is also very much enhanced when one rescues a poor
man out of the hands of a powerful one, or saves a condemned criminal
from death; so long as it can be done without disturbance, for fear
that we might seem to be doing it rather for the sake of showing off
than for pity’s sake, and so might inflict severer wounds whilst
desiring to heal slighter ones. But if one has freed a man who is
crushed down by the resources and faction of a powerful
person, Cic. de
Off. II. 14, § 51.
103. Hospitality also serves to recommend
many. Cic. de
Off. II. 18, § 64.
104. This especially was Abraham’s
praise,
105. Lot also, his nephew,
106. A man ought therefore to be hospitable, kind,
upright, not desirous of what belongs to another, willing to give up
some
107. In all the duties of hospitality kindly
feeling must be shown to all, but greater respect must be given to the
upright. Cic. de
Off. II. 20. S. S. S.
108. It is sweet, then, to seek not for
money but for grace. It is true Cic. de
Off. II. 20, § 69.
109. There are two kinds of free-giving, one
arising from liberality, the other from wasteful extravagance. Cic. de
Off. II. 16.
110. It is a right kind of liberality to keep due measure towards the poor themselves, that one may have enough for more; and not to go beyond the right limit for the sake of winning favour. Whatever comes forth out of a pure sincere disposition, that is seemly. It is also seemly not to enter on unnecessary undertakings, nor to omit those that are needed.
111. But it befits the priest especially to adorn the temple of God with fitting splendour, so that the court of the Lord may be made glorious by his endeavours. He ought always to spend money as mercy demands. It behoves him to give to strangers what is right. This must not be too much, but enough; not more than, but as much as, kindly feeling demands, so that he may never seek another’s favour at the expense of the poor, nor show himself as either too stingy or too free to the clergy. The one act is unkind, the other wasteful. It is unkind if money should be wanting for the necessities of those whom one ought to win back from their wretched employments. It is wasteful if there should be too much over for pleasure.
We must observe a right standard between too great mildness and excessive harshness. They who endeavour to creep into the hearts of others by a false show of mildness gain nothing substantial or lasting. This the example of Absalom plainly enough shows.
112. Moreover, due
measure befits even our words and instructions, that it may not seem as
though there was either too great mildness or too much harshness.
Many prefer to be too mild, so as to appear to be good. But it is
certain that nothing feigned or false can bear the form of true virtue;
nay, it cannot even last. At first it flour Cic. de
Off. II. 12, § 43.
113. To prove by examples our assertion that what is feigned cannot last, but flourishing just for a time quickly fails, we will take one example of pretence and falsehood from that family, from which we have already drawn so many examples to show their growth in virtue.
114. Absalom was King David’s son,
known for his beauty, of splendid appearance and in the heyday of
youth; so that no other such man as he was found in Israel.
115. Those spoilt and ambitious men chose
what for a time seemed an honour to them, and was pleasing and
enjoyable. But whilst that delay took place, which the
prophet, Hushai is probably
meant by this, who advised Absalom to delay his attack on the king.
116. It is clear, then, that those things are lasting and sound, which are true and grow out of a sincere and not a false heart. Those, however, which are brought about by pretence and adulation can never last for long.
The good faith of those who are easily bought over with money or flattery is a frail thing to trust to.
117. Who would
suppose that those who are bought over to obedience by money, Cic. de
Off. II. 6, § 21.
118. What man is there that thinks those will be faithful to himself, whom he believes he will have to bind to himself by money or flattery? For he who takes thy money supposes that he is cheaply held, and looked down upon, unless the money is paid again and again. So he frequently expects his price; whilst the other, who is met with prayer and flattery, is always wanting to be asked.
We must strive for preferment only by right means. An office undertaken must be carried out wisely and with moderation. The inferior clergy should not detract from the bishop’s reputation by feigned virtues; nor again, should the bishop be jealous of a cleric, but he should be just in all things and especially in giving judgment.
119. I think, then, that one should strive to win preferment, especially in the Church, only by good actions and with a right aim; so that there may be no proud conceit, no idle carelessness, no shameful disposition of mind, no unseemly ambition. A plain simplicity of mind is enough for everything, and commends itself quite sufficiently.
120. When in office, again, it is not right to be harsh and severe, nor may one be too easy; lest on the one hand we should seem to be exercising a despotic power, and on the other to be by no means filling the office we had taken up.
121. We must strive also to win many by kindnesses
and duties that we can do, and to preserve the favour already shown
us. For they will with good reason forget the
122. Those who once stood approved should not now become overbearing, but rather, as mindful of the grace they have received, stand firm in their humility. A priest ought not to be offended if either cleric or attendant or any ecclesiastic should win regard for himself, by showing mercy, or by fasting, or by uprightness of life, or by teaching and reading. For the grace of the Church is the praise of the teacher. It is a good thing that the work of another should be praised, if only it be done without any desire to boast. For each one should receive praise from the lips of his neighbour, and not from his own mouth, and each one should be commended by the work he has done, not merely by the wishes he had.
123. But if any one is disobedient to his bishop and wishes to exalt and upraise himself, and to overshadow his bishop’s merits by a feigned appearance of learning or humility or mercy, he is wandering from the truth in his pride; for the rule of truth is, to do nothing to advance one’s own cause whereby another loses ground, nor to use whatever good one has to the disgrace or blame of another.
124. Never protect a wicked man, nor allow the sacred things to be given over to an unworthy one; on the other hand, do not harass and press hard on a man whose fault is not clearly proved. Injustice quickly gives offence in every case, but especially in the Church, where equity ought to exist, where like treatment should be given to all, so that a powerful person may not claim the more, nor a rich man appropriate the more. For whether we be poor or rich, we are one in Christ. Let him that lives a holier life claim nothing more thereby for himself; for he ought rather to be the more humble for it.
125. In giving judgment let us have no respect of persons. Favour must be put out of sight, and the case be decided on its merits. Nothing is so great a strain on another’s good opinion or confidence, as the fact of our giving away the cause of the weaker to the more powerful in any case that comes before us. The same happens if we are hard on the poor, whilst we make excuses for the rich man when guilty. Men are ready enough to flatter those in high positions, so as not to let them think themselves injured, or to feel vexed as though overthrown. But if thou fearest to give offence then do not undertake to give judgment. If thou art a priest or some cleric do not urge it. It is allowable for thee to be silent in the matter, if it be a money affair, though it is always due to consistency to be on the side of equity. But in the cause of God, where there is danger to the whole Church, it is no small sin to act as though one saw nothing.
Benefits should be conferred on the poor rather than on the rich, for these latter either think a return is expected from them, or else they are angry at seeming to be indebted for such an action. But the poor man makes God the debtor in his place, and freely owns to the benefits he has received. To these remarks is added a warning to despise riches.
126. But what
advantage is it to thee to show favour to a rich man? Is it that
he is more ready to repay one who loves him? Cic. de Off.
II. 20, § 69. S.
127. In the ordinary course of things, too, the
conferring of a benefit on the poor is of more use than when it is
conferred on the rich. The rich man scorns the benefit and is
ashamed to feel indebted for a favour. Nay, moreover, whatever is
offered to him he takes as due to his merits, as though only a just
debt were paid him; or else he thinks it was but given because the
giver expected a still greater return to be made him by the rich
man. So, in accepting a kindness, the
128. Wherefore the Lord said to His
disciples: “Take neither gold nor silver nor
money.” S.
How long standing an evil love of money is, is plain from many examples in the Old Testament. And yet it is plain, too, how idle a thing the possession of money is.
129. But
man’s habits have so long applied themselves to this admiration
of money, that no one is thought worthy of honour unless he is
rich. Cic. de
Off. II. 20, § 71. “linguam
auream.” Other readings are: “lineam
auream,” or “regulam auream.”
130. Love of money, then, is an old, an
ancient vice, which showed itself even at the declaration of the divine
law; for a law was given to check it.
131. Why? Did not the woman
Delilah’s love of money deceive Samson, the bravest man of
all?
132. Love of money, then, is deadly. Seductive is money, whilst it also defiles those who have it, and helps not those who have it not. Supposing that money sometimes is a help, yet it is only a help to a poor man who makes his want known. What good is it to him who does not long for it, nor seek it; who does not need its help and is not turned aside by pursuit of it? What good is it to others, if he who has it is alone the richer for it? Is he therefore more honourable because he has that whereby honour is often lost, because he has what he must guard rather than possess? We possess what we use, but what is beyond our use brings us no fruit of possession, but only the danger of watching.
In contempt of money there is the pattern of justice, which virtue bishops and clerics ought to aim at together with some others. A few words are added on the duty of not bringing an excommunication too quickly into force.
133. To come to an end; we know that contempt of riches is a form of justice, therefore we ought to avoid love of money, and strive with all our powers never to do anything against justice, but to guard it in all our deeds and actions.
134. If we would please God, we must have love, we must be of one mind, we must follow humility, each one thinking the other higher than himself. This is true humility, when one never claims anything proudly for oneself, but thinks oneself to be the inferior. The bishop should treat the clerics and attendants, who are indeed his sons, as members of himself, and give to each one that duty for which he sees him to be fit.
135. Not without pain is a limb of the body
cut off which has become corrupt. It is treated for a long time,
to see if it can be cured with various remedies. If it cannot be
cured, then it is cut off by a good physician. Thus it is a good
bishop’s desire to wish to heal the weak, to remove the spreading
ulcers, to burn some parts and not to cut them off; and lastly, when
they cannot be healed, to cut them off with pain to himself.
Wherefore that beautiful rule of the Apostle stands forth brightly,
that we should look each one, not on his own things, but on the things
of others.
Mercy must be freely shown even though it brings an odium of its own. With regard to this, reference is made to the well-known story about the sacred vessels which were broken up by Ambrose to pay for the redemption of captives; and very beautiful advice is given about the right use of the gold and silver which the Church possesses. Next, after showing from the action of holy Lawrence what are the true treasures of the Church, certain rules are laid down which ought to be observed in melting down and employing for such uses the consecrated vessels of the Church.
136. It is a very great incentive to mercy to share in others’ misfortunes, to help the needs of others as far as our means allow, and sometimes even beyond them. For it is better for mercy’s sake to take up a case, or to suffer odium rather than to show hard feeling. So I once brought odium on myself because I broke up the sacred vessels to redeem captives—a fact that could displease the Arians. Not that it displeased them as an act, but as being a thing in which they could take hold of something for which to blame me. Who can be so hard, cruel, iron-hearted, as to be displeased because a man is redeemed from death, or a woman from barbarian impurities, things that are worse than death, or boys and girls and infants from the pollution of idols, whereby through fear of death they were defiled?
137. Although we did not act thus without
good reason, yet we have followed it up among the people so as to
confess and to add again and again that it was far better to preserve
souls than gold for the Lord. For He Who sent the apostles
without gold S.
138. To this no answer could be given. For
what wouldst thou say: I feared that the temple of God would need
its ornaments? He would answer: The sacraments need not
gold, nor are they proper to gold only—for they are not bought
with gold. The glory of the sacraments is the redemption of
captives. Truly they are precious vessels, for they redeem men
from death. That, indeed, is the true treasure of the Lord which
effects what His blood effected. Then, indeed, is the vessel of
the Lord’s blood recognized, when one sees in either redemption,
so that the chalice redeems from the enemy those whom His blood
redeemed from sin.
139. These, then, I preferred to hand over to you as free men, rather than to store up the gold. This crowd of captives, this company surely is more glorious than the sight of cups. The gold of the Redeemer ought to contribute to this work so as to redeem those in danger. I recognize the fact that the blood of Christ not only glows in cups of gold, but also by the office of redemption has impressed upon them the power of the divine operation.
140. Such gold the holy martyr Lawrence
preserved for the Lord. For when the treasures of the Church were
demanded from him, he promised that he would show them. On the
following day he brought the poor together. When asked where the
treasures were which he had promised, he pointed to the poor,
saying: “These are the treasures of the
Church.” And truly they were treasures, in whom Christ
lives, in whom there is faith in Him. So, too, the Apostle
says: “We have this treasure in earthen
vessels.” S. S.
141. These treasures Lawrence pointed out,
and prevailed, for the persecutors could not take them away.
Jehoiachim,
142. It is necessary that every one should fill this office, with genuine good faith and clear-sighted forethought. If any one derives profit from it for himself it is a crime, but if he spends the treasures on the poor, or redeems captives, he shows mercy. For no one can say: Why does the poor man live? None can complain that captives are redeemed, none can find fault because a temple of the Lord is built, none can be angry because a plot of ground has been enlarged for the burial of the bodies of the faithful, none can be vexed because in the tombs of the Christians there is rest for the dead. In these three ways it is allowable to break up, melt down, or sell even the sacred vessels of the Church.
143. It is necessary to see that the mystic cup does not go out of the Church, lest the service of the sacred chalice should be turned over to base uses. Therefore vessels were first sought for in the Church which had not been consecrated to such holy uses. Then broken up and afterwards melted down, they were given to the poor in small payments, and were also used for the ransom of captives. But if new vessels fail, or those which never seem to have been used for such a holy purpose, then, as I have already said, I think that all might be put to this use without irreverence.
The property of widows or of all the faithful, that has been entrusted to the Church, ought to be defended though it brings danger to oneself. This is illustrated by the example of Onias the priest, and of Ambrose, bishop of Ticinum.
144. Great care must be taken that the property entrusted by widows remains inviolate. It should be guarded without causing complaint, not only if it belongs to widows, but to any one at all. For good faith must be shown to all, though the cause of the widow and orphans comes first.
145. So everything entrusted to the temple
was preserved in the name of the widows alone, as we read in the book
of the Maccabees.
146. Then the priest said that only means for the
maintenance of the widows and orphans was laid up there. And when
Helio
147. But Heliodorus, undeterred by this, was eager to carry out his intention, and had already surrounded the treasury with his followers, when suddenly there appeared to him a dreadful horseman all glorious in golden armour, his horse also being adorned with costly ornaments. Two other youths also appeared in glorious might and wondrous beauty, in splendour and glory and beauteous array. They stood round him, and on either side beat the sacrilegious wretch, and gave him stroke after stroke without intermission. What more need I say? Shut in by darkness he fell to the ground, and lay there nearly dead with fear at this plain proof of divine power, nor had he any hope of safety left within him. Joy returned to those who were in fear, fear fell on those who were so proud before. And some of the friends of Heliodorus in their trouble besought Onias, asking life for him, since he was almost at his last breath.
148. When, therefore, the high priest asked for this, the same youths again appeared to Heliodorus, clad in the same garments, and said to him: Give thanks to Onias the high priest, for whose sake thy life is granted thee. But do thou, having experienced the scourge of God, go and tell thy friends how much thou hast learnt of the sanctity of the temple and the power of God. With these words they passed out of sight. Heliodorus then, his life having come back to him, offered a sacrifice to the Lord, gave thanks to the priest Onias, and returned with his army to the king, saying: “If thou hast an enemy or one who is plotting against thy power, send him thither and thou wilt receive him back well scourged.”
149. Therefore, my sons, good faith must be preserved in the case of trust-money, and care, too, must be shown. Your service will glow the brighter if the oppression of a powerful man, which some widow or orphan cannot withstand, is checked by the assistance of the Church, and if ye show that the command of the Lord has more weight with you than the favour of the rich.
150. Ye also remember how often we entered
on a contest against the royal attacks, on behalf of the trust-money
belonging to widows, yea, and to others as well. You and I shared
this in common. I will also mention the late case of the Church
at Ticinum, which was in danger of losing the widow’s trust-money
that it had received. This was attempted by
the Emperor Valentinian II., who was induced to act in this way by his
mother Justina. She being an Arian was only too ready to harass
in every possible way a Catholic bishop such as Ambrose of Ticinum
was.
151. However, after taking counsel with me, the holy bishop took possession of the rooms to which he knew that the widow’s property had been carried. As it could not be carried away, it was all set down in writing. Later on it was again demanded on proof of the document. The emperor repeated the order, and would meet us himself in his own person. We refused. And when the force of the divine law, and a long list of passages and the danger of Heliodorus was explained, at length the emperor became reasonable. Afterwards, again, an attempt was made to seize it, but the good bishop anticipated the attempt and restored to the widow all he had received. So faith was preserved, but the oppression was no longer a cause for fear; for now it is the matter itself, not good faith, that is in danger.
The ending of the book brings an exhortation to avoid ill-will, and to seek prudence, faith, and the other virtues.
152. My sons, avoid
wicked men, guard against the envious. There is this difference
between a wicked and an envious man: the wicked man is delighted
at his own good fortune, but the envious is tortured at the
153. My sons, think before you act, and when you have thought long then do what you consider right. When the opportunity of a praiseworthy death is given let it be seized at once. Glory that is put off flies away and is not easily laid hold of again.
154. Love faith. For by his devotion
and faith Josiah S. S.
155. Let there be peace among you, which passeth all understanding. Love one another. Nothing is sweeter than charity, nothing more blessed than peace. Ye yourselves know that I have ever loved you and do now love you above all others. As the children of one father ye have become united under the bond of brotherly affection.
156. Whatsoever is good, that hold fast; and the God of peace and love be with you in the Lord Jesus, to Whom be honour and glory, dominion and might, together with the Holy Spirit, for ever and ever. Amen.
We are taught by David and Solomon how to take counsel with our own heart. Scipio is not to be accounted prime author of the saying which is ascribed to him. The writer proves what glorious things the holy prophets accomplished in their time of quiet, and shows, by examples of their and others’ leisure moments, that a just man is never alone in trouble.
1. The prophet
David taught us that we should go about in our heart as though in a
large house; that we should hold converse with it as with some trusty
companion. He spoke to himself, and conversed with himself, as
these words show: “I said, I will take heed to my
ways.”
2. Scipio, Cic. de
Off. III. 1. Scipio, born b.c.
234. He was the greatest Roman of his time, a famous general and
the conqueror of Hannibal. His exploits in Africa won him the
surname of Africanus. Owing to jealous intrigues he in
b.c. 185 left Rome and retired to his estate,
where he passed the rest of his days in peaceful employments.
Cicero (de Off. III. 1) relates on Cato’s authority that
he used to say: “Nunquam se minus otiosum esse quam cum
otiosus, nec minsolum quam cum solus esset.”
3. The apostles passed by and their shadows
cured the sick.
5. But—as many delight in
warfare—which is the most glorious, to bring a battle to an end
by the strength of a great army, or, by merits before God alone?
Elisha rested in one place while the king of Syria waged a great war
against the people of our fathers, and was adding to its terrors by
various treacherous plans, and was endeavouring to catch them in an
ambush. But the prophet found out all their preparations, and
being by the grace of God present everywhere in mental vigour, he told
the thoughts of their enemies to his countrymen, and warned them of
what places to beware. And when this was known to the king of
Syria, he sent an army and shut in the prophet. Elisha prayed and
caused all of them to be struck with blindness, and made those who had
come to besiege him enter Samaria as captives.
6. Let us compare this leisure of his with
that of others. Cic. de
Off. III. 1, § 2.
7. When can the upright man be alone, since
he is always with God? When is he left forsaken who is never
separated from Christ? “Who,” it says, “shall
separate us from the love of Christ? I am confident that neither
death nor life nor angel shall do so.”
The discussions among philosophers about the comparison between what is virtuous and what is useful have nothing to do with Christians. For with them nothing is useful which is not just. What are the duties of perfection, and what are ordinary duties? The same words often suit different things in different ways. Lastly, a just man never seeks his own advantage at the cost of another’s disadvantage, but rather is always on the lookout for what is useful to others.
8. As we have
already spoken about the two former subjects, wherein we discussed what
is virtuous and what is useful, there follows now the question whether
we ought to compare what is virtuous and useful together, and to ask
which we must follow. For, as we have already discussed the
matter as to whether a thing is virtuous or wicked, and in another
place whether it is useful or useless, so here some think we ought to
find out whether a thing is virtuous or useful.
“utile.” Some read
“inutile.”
9. I am induced to do this, lest I should
seem to be allowing that these two are mutually opposed to one another,
when I have already shown them to be one. For I said that nothing
can be virtuous but what is useful, and nothing can be useful but what
is virtuous. Cic. de
Off. III. 3, § 11.
10. For this χατόρθωμα, which is duty carried out entirely
and in perfection, starts from the true source of virtue. Cic. de
Off. III. 3, § 13. Cic. de
Off. III. 3, § 14.
11. Again, the same words often have a
different meaning. For instance, we call God good and a man good;
but it bears in each case quite a different meaning. Cic. de
Off. III. 4, § 16. S.
12. There is also diversity even among men
themselves. Daniel, of whom it was said: “Who is
wiser than Daniel?”
13. Let this, then, be our rule, Cic. de
Off. III. 4, § 19.
14. And let no one seek his own favour or
his own praise, but another’s. This we can plainly see
declared in the book of Proverbs, where the Holy Spirit says through
Solomon: “My son, if thou be wise, be wise for thyself and
thy neighbours; but if thou turn out evil, thou alone shalt bear
it.”
The rule given about not seeking one’s own gain is established, first by the examples of Christ, next by the meaning of the word, and lastly by the very form and uses of our limbs. Wherefore the writer shows what a crime it is to deprive another of what is useful, since the law of nature as well as the divine law is broken by such wickedness. Further, by its means we also lose that gift which makes us superior to other living creatures; and lastly, through it civil laws are abused and treated with the greatest contempt.
15. If, then, any
one wishes to please all, he must strive in everything to do, not what
is useful for himself, but what is useful for many, as also Paul strove
to do. For this is “to be conformed to the image of
Christ,”
16. Think, O man, from whence thou hast
received thy name—even from the earth, The text here
runs as follows: “Considera, O homo, unde nomen
sumseris; ab humo utique.”
17. The very form of thy body and the uses of thy limbs teach thee this. Can one limb claim the duties of another? Can the eye claim for itself the duties of the ear; or the mouth the duties of the eye; or the hand the service of the feet; or the feet that of the hands? Nay, the hands themselves, both left and right, have different duties to do, so that if one were to change the use of either, one would act contrary to nature. We should have to lay aside the whole man before we could change the service of the various members: as if, for instance, we were to try to take food with the left hand, or to perform the duties of the left hand with the right, so as to remove the remains of food—unless, of course, need demanded it.
18. Imagine for a moment, and give to the
eye the power to withdraw the understanding from the head, the sense of
hearing from the ears, the power of thought from the mind, the sense of
smell from the nose, the sense of taste from the mouth, and then to
assume them itself, would it not at once destroy the whole order of
nature? Wherefore the Apostle says well: “If the
whole body were an eye, where were the hearing? If the whole were
hearing, where were the smelling?”
19. So we see how grave a matter it is to deprive another, with whom we ought rather to suffer, of anything, or to act unfairly or injuriously towards one to whom we ought to give a share in our services. This is a true law of nature, which binds us to show all kindly feeling, so that we should all of us in turn help one another, as parts of one body, and should never think of depriving another of anything, seeing it is against the law of nature even to abstain from giving help. We are born in such a way that limb combines with limb, and one works with another, and all assist each other in mutual service. But if one fails in its duty, the rest are hindered. If, for instance, the hand tears out the eye, has it not hindered the use of its work? If it were to wound the foot, how many actions would it not prevent? But how much worse is it for the whole man to be drawn aside from his duty than for one of the members only! If the whole body is injured in one member, so also is the whole community of the human race disturbed in one man. The nature of mankind is injured, as also is the society of the holy Church, which rises into one united body, bound together in oneness of faith and love. Christ the Lord, also, Who died for all, will grieve that the price of His blood was paid in vain.
20. Why, the very law of the Lord teaches us
that this rule must be observed, so that we may never deprive another
of anything for the sake of our own advantage. For it says:
“Remove not the bounds which thy fathers have
set.”
21. It is in this very matter that we stand before
all other living creatures, for they do not understand how to do
good. Wild beasts snatch away, men share with others.
Wherefore the Psalmist says: “The righteous
show
22. Suppose, however, that some one did not fear the penalty, or laughed at the fine, would that make it a worthy thing to deprive another of his own? That would be a mean vice and suited only to the lowest of the low. So contrary to nature is it, that while want might seem to drive one to it, yet nature could never urge it. And yet we find secret theft among slaves, open robbery among the rich.
23. But what so contrary to nature as to injure another for our own benefit? The natural feelings of our own hearts urge us to keep on the watch for all, to undergo trouble, to do work for all. It is considered also a glorious thing for each one at risk to himself to seek the quiet of all, and to think it far more thankworthy to have saved his country from destruction than to have kept danger from himself. We must think it a far more noble thing to labour for our country than to pass a quiet life at ease in the full enjoyment of leisure.
As it has been shown that he who injures another for the sake of his own advantage will undergo terrible punishment at the hand of his own conscience, it is referred that nothing is useful to one which is not in the same way useful to all. Thus there is no place among Christians for the question propounded by the philosophers about two shipwrecked persons, for they must show love and humility to all.
24. Hence we
infer Cic. de
Off. III. 5, § 25.
25. It is clear, then, Cic. de
Off. III. 6.
26. For if those who run in a race Cic. de
Off. III. 10, § 42.
27. Some ask Cic. de
Off. 23, § 89. S.
28. Why dost thou consider thyself greater than another, when a Christian man ought to put others before himself, to claim nothing for himself, usurp no honours, claim no reward for his merits? Why, next, art thou not wont to bear thy own troubles rather than to destroy another’s advantage? For what is so contrary to nature as not to be content with what one has or to seek what is another’s, and to try to get it in shameful ways. For if a virtuous life is in accordance with nature—for God made all things very good—then shameful living must be opposed to it. A virtuous and a shameful life cannot go together, since they are absolutely severed by the law of nature.
The upright does nothing that is contrary to duty, even though there is a hope of keeping it secret. To point this out the tale about the ring of Gyges was invented by the philosophers. Exposing this, he brings forward known and true examples from the life of David and John the Baptist.
29. To lay down
here already the result of our discussion, as though we had already
ended it, we declare it a fixed rule, that we must never aim at
anything but what is virtuous. Cic. de
Off. III. 7, § 33. Cic. de Off. III. 7,
§ 37.
30. I need not, therefore, imagine a great
chasm in the earth, which had been loosened by heavy rains, and had
afterwards burst asunder, as Plato does. Cic. de
Off. III. 9.
31. Give, says Plato, this ring to a wise
man, that when he commits a fault he may by its help remain unnoticed;
yet he will be none the more free from the stain of sin than if he
could not be hid. The hiding-place of the wise lies not in the
hope of impunity but in his own innocency. Lastly, the law is not
laid down for the just but for the unjust.
32. Therefore, to return to our subject, I will now bring forward, not false examples for true, but true examples in place of false. For why need I imagine a chasm in the earth, and an iron horse and a gold ring found on the fingers of a dead man; and say that such was the power of this ring, that he who wore it could appear at his own will, but if he did not wish to be seen, he could remove himself out of the sight of those who stood by, so as to seem to be away. This story, of course, is meant to answer the question whether a wise man, on getting the opportunity of using that ring so as to be able to hide his crimes, and to obtain a kingdom,—whether, I say, a wise man would be unwilling to sin and would consider the stain of sin far worse than the pains of punishment, or whether he would use it for doing wickedness in the hope of not being found out? Why, I say, should I need the pretence of a ring, when I can show from what has been done that a wise man, on seeing he would not only be undetected in his sin, but would also gain a kingdom if he gave way to it, and who, on the other hand, noted danger to his own safety if he did not commit the crime, yet chose to risk his own safety so as to be free from crime, rather than to commit the crime and so gain the kingdom.
33. When David fled from the face of King
Saul,
34. Therefore he did not suffer him to be
slain, but removed only his spear, which stood by his head, and his
cruse of water. Then, whilst all were sleeping, he left the camp
and went across to the top of the hill, and began to reproach the royal
attendants, and especially their general Abner, for not keeping
faithful watch over their lord and king. Next, he showed them
where the king’s spear and cruse were which had stood at his
head. And when the king called to him, he restored the spear, and
said: “The Lord render to every man his righteousness and
faithfulness, for the Lord delivered thee into my hand, but I would not
avenge myself on the Lord’s anointed.”
35. Where was the use of the ring in
John’s case, S.
36. But although that fable has not the
force of truth, yet it has this much to go upon, that if an upright man
could hide himself, yet he would avoid sin just as though he could not
conceal himself; and that he would not hide his person by putting on a
ring, but his life by putting on Christ. As the Apostle
says: “Our life is hid with Christ in God.”
We ought not to allow the idea of profit to get hold of us. What excuses they make who get their gains by selling corn, and what answer ought to be made to them. In connection with this certain parables from the Gospels and some of the sayings of Solomon are set before our eyes.
37. Let not,
therefore, expediency get the better of virtue, but virtue of
expediency. By expediency here I mean what is accounted so by
people generally. Let love of money be destroyed, let lust
die. The holy man says that he has never been engaged in
business.
38. Plain and definite is the statement, leaving no room for debate, such as a disputatious kind of speaking is wont to give, when one maintains that agriculture is considered praiseworthy by all; that the fruits of the earth are easily grown; that the more a man has sown, the greater will be his meed of praise; further, that the richer returns of his active labours are not gained by fraud, and that carelessness and disregard for an uncultivated soil are wont to be blamed.
39. I have ploughed, he says, carefully. I
have sown freely. I have tilled actively. I have gathered
good increase. I have stored it anxiously, saved it faithfully,
and guarded it with care. Now in a time of famine I
40. When this has been said, and one man’s ideas have carried him so far, another rises and says: Agriculture is good indeed, for it supplies fruits for all, and by simple industry adds to the richness of the earth without any cheating or fraud. If there is any error, the loss is the greater, for the better a man sows, the better he will reap. If he has sown the pure grain of wheat, he gathers a purer and cleaner harvest. The fruitful earth returns what she has received in manifold measure. A good field returns its produce with interest.
41. Thou must expect payment for thy labour from the crops of the fruitful land, and must hope for a just return from the fruitfulness of the rich earth. Why dost thou use the industry of nature and make a cheat of it? Why dost thou grudge for the use of men what is grown for all? Why lessen the abundance for the people? Why make want thy aim? Why make the poor long for a barren season? For when they do not feel the benefits of a fruitful season, because thou art putting up the price, and art storing up the corn, they would far rather that nothing should be produced, than that thou shouldst do business at the expense of other people’s hunger. Thou makest much of the want of corn, the small supply of food. Thou groanest over the rich crops of the soil; thou mournest the general plenty, and bewailest the garners full of corn; thou art on the lookout to see when the crop is poor and the harvest fails. Thou rejoicest that a curse has smiled upon thy wishes, so that none should have their produce. Then thou rejoicest that thy harvest has come. Then thou collectest wealth from the misery of all, and callest this industry and diligence, when it is but cunning shrewdness and an adroit trick of the trade. Thou callest it a remedy, when it is but a wicked contrivance. Shall I call this robbery or only gain? These opportunities are seized as though seasons for plunder, wherein, like some cruel waylayer, thou mayest fall upon the stomachs of men. The price rises higher as though by the mere addition of interest, but the danger to life is increased too. For then the interest of the stored-up crops grows higher. As a usurer thou hidest up thy corn, as a seller thou puttest it up for auction. Why dost thou wish evil to all, because the famine will grow worse, as though no corn should be left, as though a more unfruitful year should follow? Thy gain is the public loss.
42. Holy Joseph opened the garners to all; he did not shut them up. He did not try to get the full price of the year’s produce, but assigned it for a yearly payment. He took nothing for himself, but, so far as famine could be checked for the future, he made his arrangements with careful foresight.
43. Thou hast read how the Lord Jesus in the
Gospel speaks of that corn-dealer who was looking out for a high price,
whose possessions brought him in rich fruits, but who, as though still
in need, said: “What shall I do? I have no room where
to bestow my goods. I will pull down my barns and build
greater,” S.
44. Rightly, therefore, Solomon says:
“He that withholdeth corn shall leave it for the
nations,”
Strangers must never be expelled the city in a time of famine. In this matter the noble advice of a Christian sage is adduced, in contrast to which the shameful deed committed at Rome is given. By comparing the two it is shown that the former is combined with what is virtuous and useful, but the latter with neither.
45. But they, too,
who would forbid the city to strangers Cic. de
Off. III. 11, § 67.
46. How much better did he act who, having
already reached an advanced age, when the city was suffering from
famine, and, as is common in such cases, the people demanded that
strangers should be forbidden the city, having the office of the
prefectship It is not
certain to what date the famine mentioned by St. Ambrose is to be
referred, nor is the name of the prefect of the city certainly
known. The Præfectus Urbis was at this time the highest
officer of the city, directly representing the emperor, and except to
the latter there was no appeal from his decisions. Amongst other
duties he exercised a supervision over the importation, exportation,
and prices of provisions. As St. Ambrose, § 48, calls him
“sanctissimus senex,” he was probably a
Christian.
47. But perhaps we fear that want may increase. First of all, I answer, mercy never fails, but always finds means of help. Next, let us make up for the corn supplies which are to be granted to them, by a subscription. Let us put that right with our gold. And, again, must we not buy other cultivators of the soil if we lose these? How much cheaper is it to feed than to buy a working-man. Where, too, can one obtain, where find a man to take the place of the former? And suppose one finds him, do not forget that, with an ignorant man used to different ways, one may fill up the place in point of numbers, but not as regards the work to be done.
48. Why need I say more? When the
money was supplied corn was brought in. So the city’s
abundance was not diminished, and yet assistance was given to the
strangers. What praise this act won that holy man from God!
What glory among men! He, indeed, had won an honoured name, who,
pointing to the people of a whole province, could truly say to the
emperor: All these I have preserved for thee; these live owing to
the kindness of the senate; these thy council tua
curia. Ed. Med. has “tua
cura.”
49. How much more expedient was this than that
which was done lately at Rome. There from that widely extended
city were those expelled who had already passed most of their life in
it. In tears they went forth with their children, for whom as
being citizens they bewailed the exile, which, as they said, ought to
be averted; no less did they grieve over the broken bonds of union, the
severed ties of relationship. And yet a fruitful year had smiled
upon us. The city alone needed corn to be brought into it.
It could have got help, if it had sought corn from the Italians whose
children they were driving out. Nothing is more shameful than to
expel a man as a foreigner, and yet to claim his services as though he
belonged
50. How wretched this is, how useless! For how can that be expedient which is not seemly. Of what great supplies from her corporations has Rome at times been deprived, yet she could not dismiss them and yet escape a famine, while waiting for a favourable breeze, and the provisions in the hoped-for ships.
51. How far more virtuous and expedient was that first-mentioned management! For what is so seemly or virtuous as when the needy are assisted by the gifts of the rich, when food is supplied to the hungry, when daily bread fails none? What so advantageous as when the cultivators are kept for the land, and the country people do not perish?
52. What is virtuous, then, is also expedient, and what is expedient is virtuous. On the other hand, what is not expedient is unseemly, and what is unseemly is also not expedient.
That those who put what is virtuous before what is useful are acceptable to God is shown by the example of Joshua, Caleb, and the other spies.
53. When could our fathers ever have thrown off their servitude, unless they had believed that it was not only shameful but even useless to serve the king of Egypt?
54. Joshua, also, and Caleb, when sent to
spy out the land, brought back the news that the land was indeed rich,
but that it was inhabited by very fierce nations.
55. The anger of the Lord burst
forth,
56. The better part, therefore, preferred glory to safety; the worse part safety to virtue. But the divine judgment approved those who thought virtue was above what is useful, whilst it condemned those who preferred what seemed more in accordance with safety than with what is virtuous.
Cheating and dishonest ways of making money are utterly unfit for clerics whose duty is to serve all. They ought never to be involved in a money affair, unless it is one affecting a man’s life. For them the example of David is given, that they should injure none, even when provoked; also the death of Naboth, to keep them from preferring life to virtue.
57. Nothing is more odious than for a man to have no love for a virtuous life, but instead to be kept excited by an unworthy business in following out a low line of trade, or to be inflamed by an avaricious heart, and by day and by night to be eager to damage another’s property, not to raise the soul to the splendour of a virtuous life, and not to regard the beauty of true praise.
58. Hence rise inheritances sought by cunning
words and gained under pretence of being self-restrained and
serious. But this is absolutely abhorrent to the idea of a
Christian man. For everything gained by craft and got together by
cheating loses the merit of openness. Even amongst those
Cic. de
Off. III. 19, § 75.
59. If it is not possible to help one
without injuring another, it is better to help neither than to press
hard upon one. Therefore it is not a priest’s duty to
interfere in money affairs. For here it must often happen that he
who loses his case receives harm; and then he considers that he has
been worsted through the action of the intervener. It is a
priest’s duty to hurt no one, to be ready to help all. To
be able to do this is in God’s power alone. In a case of
life and death, without doubt it is a grave sin to injure him whom one
ought to help when in danger. But it is foolish to gain
others’ hate in taking up money matters, though for the sake of a
man’s safety great trouble and toil may often be
undertaken. It is glorious in such a case to run risks.
Let, then, this be firmly held to in the priestly duties, namely, to
injure none, not even when provoked and embittered by some
injury. Cic. de
Off. III. 15, § 64.
60. What a virtuous action was that, when
David wished rather to spare the king his enemy, though he could have
injured him!
61. But that he spared him was a small
matter; he also grieved for him when slain in war, and mourned for him
with tears, saying: “Ye mountains of Gilboa, let neither
dew nor rain fall upon you; ye mountains of death, for there the shield
of the mighty is cast away, the shield of Saul. It is not
anointed with oil, but with the blood of the wounded and the fat of the
warriors. The bow of Jonathan turned not back and the sword of
Saul returned not empty. Saul and Jonathan were lovely and very
dear, inseparable in life, and in death they were not divided.
They were swifter than eagles, they were stronger than lions. Ye
daughters of Israel, weep over Saul, who clothed you in scarlet with
your ornaments, who put on gold upon your apparel. How are the
mighty fallen in the midst of the battle! Jonathan was wounded
even to death. I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan;
very pleasant hast thou been unto me. Thy love came to me like
the love of women. How have the mighty fallen and the longed-for
weapons perished!
62. What mother could weep thus for her only son as he wept here for his enemy? Who could follow his benefactor with such praise as that with which he followed the man who plotted against his life? How affectionately he grieved, with what deep feeling he bewailed him! The mountains dried up at the prophet’s curse, and a divine power filled the judgment of him who spoke it. Therefore the elements themselves paid the penalty for witnessing the king’s death.
63. And what, in the case of holy Naboth,
was the cause of his death, except his regard for a virtuous
life? For when the king demanded the vineyard from him, promising
to give him money, he refused the price for his father’s heritage
as unseemly, and preferred to shun such shame by dying.
“The Lord forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my
fathers unto thee;”
64. The king could himself have taken it by
force, but that he thought too shameless; then when Naboth was dead he
grieved. This hardly agrees
with
65. Every kind of unfair action is
shameful. Even in common things, false weights and unjust
measures are accursed. And if fraud in the market or in business
is punished, can it seem free from reproach if found in the midst of
the performance of the duties of virtue? Solomon says:
“A great and a little weight and divers measures are an
abomination before the Lord.”
We are warned not only in civil law, but also in the holy Scriptures, to avoid fraud in every agreement, as is clear from the example of Joshua and the Gibeonites.
66. In everything,
therefore, good faith is seemly, justice is pleasing, due measure in
equity is delightful. But what shall I say about contracts, and
especially about the sale of land, or agreements, or covenants?
Are there not rules just for the purpose of shutting out all false
deceit, Cic. de
Off. III. 15, § 61.
67. The divine Scriptures have plainly
stated (not indeed a legal rule of the lawyers but) the ancient
judgment of the patriarchs on deceit, in that book of the Old Testament
which is ascribed to Joshua the son of Nun. When the report had
gone forth among the various peoples that the sea was dried up at the
crossing of the Hebrews; that water had flowed from the rock; that food
was supplied daily from heaven in quantities large enough for so many
thousands of the people; that the walls of Jericho had fallen at the
sound of the holy trumpets, being overthrown by the noise of the shouts
of the people; also, that the king of Ai was conquered and had been
hung on a tree until the evening; then the Gibeonites, fearing his
strong hand, came with guile, pretending that they were from a land
very far away, and by travelling so long had rent their shoes and worn
out their clothing, of which they showed proofs that it was growing
old. They said, too, that their reason for undergoing so much
labour was their desire to obtain peace and to form friendship with the
Hebrews, and began to ask Joshua to form an alliance with them.
And he, being as yet ignorant of localities, and not knowing anything
of the inhabitants, did not see through their deceit, nor did he
enquire of God, but readily believed them.
68. So sacred was one’s plighted word
held in those days that no one would believe that others could try to
deceive. Who could find fault with the saints in this, namely,
that they should consider others to have the same feelings as
themselves, and suppose no one would lie because truth was their own
companion? They know not what deceit is, they gladly believe of
others what they themselves are, whilst they cannot suspect others to
be what they themselves are not. Hence Solomon says:
“An innocent man believeth every word.”
69. Induced, therefore, by such considerations to
believe them, he made an agreement, he gave them peace, and formed a
union with them. But when he came to their country and the deceit
was found out,—for though they lived quite close they pretended
to be strangers,—the people of our fathers began to be angry at
having been deceived. Joshua, however, thought the peace they had
made could not be broken (for it had been confirmed by an oath), for
fear that, in punishing the treachery of others, he should be breaking
his own pledge. He made them pay the penalty, however, by forcing
them to undertake the lowest kind of work. The judgment was mild
indeed, but it was a lasting one, for in their duties there abides the
punishment of their ancient cunning,
Having adduced examples of certain frauds found in a few passages of the rhetoricians, he shows that these and all others are more fully and plainly condemned in Scripture.
70. I shall say
nothing of the snapping of fingers, or the naked dancing of the heir,
at entering on an inheritance. Cic. de
Off. III. 19.
71. What need is there for me to speak of
that well-known story of the pleasant and quiet retreat at Syracuse and
of the cunning of a Sicilian? Cic. de
Off. III. 14. This story is related by Cicero as a clear
example of downright fraud, against which in his time there was no
remedy at law.
72. On the next day the purchaser comes to the grounds with his friends, but finds no boat there. On asking whether perhaps the fishermen were observing a festival on that day, he is told that, with the exception of yesterday, they were never wont to fish there; but what power had he to proceed against such a fraud, who had so shamefully grasped at such luxuries? For he who convicts another of a fault ought himself to be free from it. I will not therefore include such trifles as these under the power of ecclesiastical censure, for that altogether condemns every desire for dishonourable gain, and briefly, with few words, forbids every sharp and cunning action.
73. And what shall I say of him who claims
to be the heir or legatee, on the proof of a will Cic. de
Off. III. 18.
74. What is clearer, however, on this point
than the case of Ananias? He acted falsely as regards the price
he got for his land, for he sold it and laid at the apostles’
feet part of the price, pretending it was the whole amount.
75. The Lord also in the Gospel rejected
those coming to Him with guile, saying: “The foxes have
holes,” S.
We may make no promise that is wrong, and if we have made an unjust oath, we may not keep it. It is shown that Herod sinned in this respect. The vow taken by Jephtha is condemned, and so are all others which God does not desire to have paid to Him. Lastly, the daughter of Jephtha is compared with the two Pythagoreans and is placed before them.
76. A man’s
disposition ought to be undefiled and sound, so that he may utter words
without dissimulation and possess his vessel in
sanctification; Cic. de
Off. III. 24, § 93.
77. Often people bind themselves by a solemn
oath, and, though they come to know that they ought not to have made
the promise, fulfil it in consideration of their oath. This is
what Herod did, as we mentioned before. c. 5, § 35. S.
78. Never shall I be led to believe that the
leader Jephtha made his vow otherwise than without thought, Cic. de
Off. III. 25.
79. It is better to make no vow than to vow
what God does not wish to be paid to Him to Whom the promise was
made. In the case of Isaac we have an example, for the Lord
appointed a ram to be offered up instead of him.
80. That example of Jephtha’s daughter
is far more glorious and ancient than that of the two
Pythagoreans, Cic. de
Off. III. 10, § 45.
81. What, then, in the case of esteemed and
learned men is full of marvel, that in the case of a virgin is found to
be far more splendid, far more glorious, as she says to her sorrowing
father: “Do to me according to that which hath proceeded
out of thy mouth.”
Judith, after enduring many dangers for virtue’s sake, gained very many and great benefits.
82. See!
Judith presents herself to thee as worthy of admiration. She
approaches Holophernes, a man feared by the people, and surrounded by
the victorious troops of the Assyrians. At first she makes an
impression on him by the grace of her form and the beauty of her
countenance. Then she entraps him by the refinement of her
speech. Her first triumph was that she returned from the tent of
the enemy with her purity unspotted.
83. The Persians were terrified at her
daring.
84. Judith then followed the call of virtue, and as she follows that, she wins great benefits. It was virtuous to prevent the people of the Lord from giving themselves up to the heathen; to prevent them from betraying their native rites and mysteries, or from yielding up their consecrated virgins, their venerable widows, and modest matrons to barbarian impurity, or from ending the siege by a surrender. It was virtuous for her to be willing to encounter danger on behalf of all, so as to deliver all from danger.
85. How great must have been the power of her virtue, that she, a woman, should claim to give counsel on the chiefest matters and not leave it in the hands of the leaders of the people! How great, again, the power of her virtue to reckon for certain upon God to help her! How great her grace to find His help!
How virtuous and useful was that which Elisha did. This is compared with that oft-recounted act of the Greeks. John gave up his life for virtue’s sake, and Susanna for the same reason exposed herself to the danger of death.
86. What did Elisha
follow but virtue, when he brought the army of Syria who had come to
take him as captive into Samaria, after having covered their eyes with
blindness? Then he said: “O Lord, open their eyes
that they may see.”
87. How much nobler was this than that which
the Greeks once did! Cic. de
Off. III. 11, § 49.
88. It is plain, then, that whatever is
89. And what else did John have in mind but
what is virtuous, so that he could not endure a wicked union even in
the king’s case, saying: “It is not lawful for thee
to have her to wife.” S.
90. Holy Susanna, too, when threatened with
the fear of false witness, seeing herself hard pressed on one side by
danger, on the other by disgrace, preferred to avoid disgrace by a
virtuous death rather than to endure and live a shameful life in the
desire to save herself.
After mentioning a noble action of the Romans, the writer shows from the deeds of Moses that he had the greatest regard for what is virtuous.
91. It is related
as a memorable deed of a Roman general, This affair happened
in the war which Pyrrhus waged against the Roman people. Caius
Fabricius was the general who refused to take advantage of the base
offer. Cic. de
Off. III. 22.
92. Let us return to our hero Moses, and to
loftier deeds, to show they were both superior as well as
earlier. The king of Egypt would not let the people of our
fathers go. Then Moses bade the priest Aaron to stretch his rod
over all the waters of Egypt. Aaron stretched it out, and the
water of the river was turned into blood.
93. Then, again, the land was covered with
thick darkness for the space of three days, because Moses had raised
his hand and spread out the darkness.
94. He cast down his rod and it became a
serpent which devoured the serpents of Egypt; S.
95. Again, another sign which Moses gave
points to our Lord Jesus Christ. He put his hand into his bosom,
and drew it out again, and his hand was become as snow. A second
time he put it in and drew it out, and it was again like the appearance
of human flesh.
After saying a few words about Tobit he demonstrates that Raguel surpassed the philosophers in virtue.
96. Tobit also
clearly portrayed in his life true virtue, when he left the feast and
buried the dead,
97. How simply he settled all the questions
of the philosophers! They talk about the defects of a house,
whether they ought to be concealed or made known by the
vendor. Cic. de
Off. III. 13.
With what virtuous feelings the fathers of old hid the sacred fires when on the point of going into captivity.
98. Let us consider, again, that deed done at the time of the captivity, which has attained the highest degree of virtue and glory. Virtue is checked by no adversities, for it rises up among them, and prevails here rather than in prosperity. ’Mid chains or arms, ’mid flames or slavery (which is harder for freemen to bear than any punishment), ’midst the pains of the dying, the destruction of their country, the fears of the living, or the blood of the slain,—amidst all this our forefathers failed not in their care and thought for what is virtuous. Amidst the ashes and dust of their fallen country it glowed and shone forth brightly in pious efforts.
99. For when our fathers were carried away
into Persia,
100. So they went to Persia, free only in
their religion; for that alone could not be torn from them by their
captivity. After a length of time,
101. When this sign became known, the king
of Persia ordered a temple to be built on that spot where the fire had
been hidden and the water afterwards found, to which many gifts were
made. They who were with holy Nehemiah called it
Naphthar,
101. Jeremiah coming to a spot found there a
house like a cave, and brought into it the tabernacle, the ark, and the
altar of incense, and closed up the entrance. And when those who
had come with him examined it rather closely to mark the spot, they
could not discover nor find it. When Jeremiah understood what
they wanted he said: “The spot will remain unknown until
God shall gather His people together and be gracious to them.
Then God shall reveal these things and the majesty of the Lord shall
appear.”
In the narration of that event already mentioned, and especially of the sacrifice offered by Nehemiah, is typified the Holy Spirit and Christian baptism. The sacrifice of Moses and Elijah and the history of Noah are also referred to the same.
102. We form the
congregation of the Lord. We recognize the propitiation of our
Lord God, which our Propitiator wrought in His passion. I think,
too, we cannot leave out of sight that fire when we read that the Lord
Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit and with fire, S.
103. What else can this mean—namely,
that fire became water and water called forth fire—but that
spiritual grace burns out our sins through fire, and through water
cleanses them? For sin is washed away and it is burnt away.
Wherefore the Apostle says: “The fire shall try every
man’s work of what sort it is.”
104. This, then, we have stated, so as to prove that sins are burnt out by means of fire. We know now that this is in truth the sacred fire which then, as a type of the future remission of sins, came down upon the sacrifice.
105. This fire is hidden in the time of captivity,
during which sin reigns, but in the time of liberty it is brought
forth. And though it is changed into the appearance of water, yet
it preserves its nature as fire so as to consume the sacrifice.
Do not wonder when thou readest that God the Father
S. S.
106. In the time of Elijah, also, fire came
down when he challenged the prophets of the heathen to light up the
altar without fire. When they could not do so, he poured water
thrice over his victim, so that the water ran round about the altar;
then he cried out and the fire fell from the Lord from heaven and
consumed the burnt-offering.
107. Thou art that victim. Contemplate
in silence each single point. The breath of the Holy Spirit
descends on thee, He seems to burn thee when He consumes thy
sins. The sacrifice which was consumed in the time of Moses was a
sacrifice for sin, wherefore Moses said, as is written in the book of
the Maccabees: “Because the sacrifice for sin was not to be
eaten, it was consumed.”
108. In the flood, too, in Noah’s time
all flesh died, though just Noah was preserved together with his
family.
109. We seem to have made a somewhat lengthy digression for the sake of regarding this wonderful mystery, in desiring to unfold more fully this sacrament which has been revealed to us, and which, indeed, is as full of virtue as it is full of religious awe.
The crime committed by the inhabitants of Gibeah against the wife of a certain Levite is related, and from the vengeance taken it is inferred how the idea of virtue must have filled the heart of those people of old.
110. What regard for virtue our forefathers had to avenge by a war the wrongs of one woman which had been brought on her by her violation at the hands of profligate men! Nay, when the people were conquered, they vowed that they would not give their daughters in marriage to the tribe of Benjamin! That tribe had remained without hope of posterity, had they not received leave of necessity to use deceit. And this permission does not seem to fail in giving fitting punishment for violation, since they were only allowed to enter on a union by a rape, and not through the sacrament of marriage. And indeed it was right that they who had broken another’s intercourse should themselves lose their marriage rites.
111. How full of pitiful traits is this
story! A man, it says,
112. The maiden’s
113. When some little progress
114. And when they were satisfied
115. When this became known
116. What great regard our forefathers had for virtue is shown by the fact that forty thousand men drew the sword against their brethren of the tribe of Benjamin in their desire to avenge the wrong done to modesty, for they would not endure the violation of chastity. And so in that war on both sides there fell sixty-five thousand warriors, whilst their cities were burnt. And when at first the people of Israel were defeated, yet unmoved by fear at the reverses of the war, they disregarded the sorrow the avenging of chastity cost them. They rushed into the battle ready to wash out with their own blood the stains of the crime that had been committed.
After the terrible siege of Samaria was ended in accordance with Elisha’s prophecy, he relates what regard the four lepers showed for what was virtuous.
117. Why need we wonder that the people of the Lord had regard for what was seemly and virtuous when even the lepers—as we read in the books of the Kings—showed concern for what is virtuous?
118. There was a great famine in
Samaria,
119. Elisha sat
120. And suddenly
121. But there were four lepers
122. At this information the people
Esther in danger of her life followed the grace of virtue; nay, even a heathen king did so, when death was threatened to a man most friendly to him. For friendship must ever be combined with virtue, as the examples of Jonathan and Ahimelech show.
123. Why did Queen
Esther
124. For that commendable friendship which
maintains virtue is to be preferred most certainly to wealth, or
honours, or power. It is not wont to be preferred to virtue
indeed, but to follow after it. Cic. de
Off. III. 10, § 43.
Virtue must never be given up for the sake of a friend. If, however, one has to bear witness against a friend, it must be done with caution. Between friends what candour is needed in opening the heart, what magnanimity in suffering, what freedom in finding fault! Friendship is the guardian of virtues, which are not to be found but in men of like character. It must be mild in rebuking and averse to seeking its own advantage; whence it happens that true friends are scarce among the rich. What is the dignity of friendship? The treachery of a friend, as it is worse, so it is also more hateful than another’s, as is recognized from the example of Judas and of Job’s friends.
125. Nothing, then,
must be set before
Cic. de
Off. III. 10.
126. And Scripture also says: “A
maul, and a sword, and a sharp arrow, so is a man that beareth false
witness against his friend.”
127. Certainly, if it is necessary to give
witness, then, when one knows of any fault in a friend, one ought to
rebuke him secretly—if he does not listen, one must do it
openly. For rebukes are good, Cic. de
Off. I. 17. Cic. de
Amic. 19, § 67.
128. Open thy breast to a friend that he may
be faithful to thee, and that thou mayest receive from him the delight
of thy life. “For a faithful friend is the medicine of life
and the grace of immortality.”
129. If necessary, let us endure for a
friend even hardship. Often enmity has to be borne for the sake
of a friend’s innocence; oftentimes revilings, if one defends and
answers for a friend who is found fault with and accused. Do not
be afraid of such displeasure, for the voice of the just says:
“Though evil come upon me, I will endure it for a friend’s
sake.”
130. How nobly Job when he was in adversity
said: “Pity me, my friends, pity me.”
131. Preserve, then, my sons, that
friendship ye have begun with your brethren, for nothing in the world
is more beautiful than that. It is indeed a comfort in this life
to have one to whom thou canst open thy heart, Cic. de
Amic. 6, § 22.
132. This is the fruit of friendship; and so
faith Cic. de
Off. III. 10, § 44. Cic. de
Amic. 19, § 69. Cic. de
Amic. 14, § 50.
134. Let not thy warning be harsh, nor thy
rebuke bitter, Cic. de
Off. I. 38, § 137. Cic. de
Amic. 21, § 80. Cic. de
Amic. 15, § 51.
134. Lastly, the friendships of the poor are
generally better than those of the rich, Cic.
Lact. 15, § 53.
135. What is more precious than friendship
which is shared alike by angels and by men? Wherefore the Lord
Jesus says: “Make to yourselves friends of the mammon of
unrighteousness, that they may receive you into eternal
habitations.” S. S. S.
136. So he who does the will of God is His
friend and is honoured with this name. He who is of one mind with
Him, he too is His friend. For there is unity of mind in friends,
and no one is more hateful than the man that injures friendship.
Hence in the traitor the Lord found this the worst point on which to
condemn his treachery, namely, that he gave no sign of gratitude and
had mingled the poison of malice at the table of friendship. So
He says: “It was thou, a man of like mind, My guide and
Mine acquaintance, who ever didst take pleasant meals with
Me.”
137. The Lord Himself, when He was
displeased with the three princes who had not deferred to holy Job,
wished to pardon them through their friend, so that the prayer of
friendship might win remission of sins. Therefore Job asked and
God pardoned. Friendship helped them whom arrogance had
harmed.
138. These things I have left with you, my children, that you may guard them in your minds—you yourselves will prove whether they will be of any advantage. Meanwhile they offer you a large number of examples, for almost all the examples drawn from our forefathers, and also many a word of theirs, are included within these three books; so that, although the language may not be graceful, yet a succession of old-time examples set down in such small compass may offer much instruction.
The three books on the Holy Spirit are, as St. Ambrose says himself, a sequel to those on the Faith, and the two treatises together have been sometimes quoted as if one, with the title, De Trinitate. But we see from Gratian’s letter to St. Ambrose, and from the reply, that each treatise is separate, and the De Spiritu Sancto was written some years later, a.d. 381.
In the first book St. Ambrose commences by allegorizing the history of Gideon and the fleece, seeing in the drying of the fleece and the moistening of the threshing-floor a type of the Holy Spirit leaving the Jews and being poured out on the Gentiles. Passing to his more immediate subject, he proves that the Holy Spirit is above the whole Creation and is truly God, alleging as a special argument that the sin against the Holy Spirit can never be forgiven, here or hereafter. He shows how the Holy Spirit is in Scripture called the Spirit of God; that He spake by the prophets and apostles; that He sanctifies men, and is typified by the mystical ointment spoken of in Scripture. Next, St. Ambrose treats of His oneness with the other two Persons of the Holy Trinity, and shows that His mission in no way detracts from this oneness, but that there is in all the Divine Persons a perfect unity of peace, love, and other virtues.
The second book commences with a treatment of the history of Samson in the same way as that of Gideon in Book I. Samson always succeeded so long as the Holy Spirit was with him, but fell into misfortune so soon as he was forsaken. It is shown that the power of the Holy Spirit is the same as that of the Father and the Son, and that there is an agreement in design and working, and in vivifying man. He is Creator and therefore to be worshipped, and He worked with the Father and the Son in founding the Church, and in conclusion is proved the unity of operation in the Three Persons.
The third book continues the same argument, showing that the mission of prophets and apostles, and even of the Son Himself, is to be referred to the Spirit, yet without any subjection on the part of the Son, seeing that the Spirit also receives His mission from the Father and the Son. The Godhead of the Holy Spirit is next taken up and proved, when occasion is taken also to show that there are not three Gods or three Lords, for the Three Divine Persons are one in holiness and nature; and the work is concluded with a summary of some of the principal arguments.
There can be but little doubt that this is the work, and St. Ambrose the author, bitterly attacked by St. Jerome; the whole passage may be read in the Apology of Rufinus, p. 470, in vol. iii. of this series. St. Ambrose is compared to a daw decked in another bird’s plumage, and charged with writing “bad things in Latin taken from good things in Greek,” and St. Jerome even took the trouble to translate a work of St. Didymus on the Holy Spirit (from the preface to which the above extracts are taken), in order that those who did not know Greek might, St. Jerome hoped, recognize the plagiarisms.
Rufinus vigorously defends St. Ambrose, and,
pointing out many inconsistencies in his opponent, says:
“The saintly Ambrose wrote his book on the Holy Spirit not in
words only but with his own blood, for he offered his life-blood to his
persecutors, and shed it within himself, though God preserved his life
for future labours.” See vol. iii. p.
471, of this series.
De doct.
Christ. IV. c. 21.
The choice of Gideon was a figure of our Lord’s Incarnation, the sacrifice of a kid, of the satisfaction for sins in the body of Christ; that of the bullock, of the abolition of profane rites; and in the three hundred soldiers was a type of the future redemption through the cross. The seeking of various signs by Gideon was also a mystery, for by the dryness and moistening of the fleece was signified the falling away of the Jews and the calling of the Gentiles, by the water received in a basin the washing of the apostles’ feet. St. Ambrose prays that his own pollution may be washed away, and praises the loving-kindness of Christ. The same water sent forth by the Son of God effects marvellous conversions; it cannot, however, be sent by any other, since it is the pouring forth of the Holy Spirit, Who is subject to no external power.
1. When Jerubbaal,
as we read, was beating out wheat
2. And Gideon, moved by that message, when
he heard that, though thousands of the people failed, God would deliver
His own from their enemies by means of one man,
3. Even at that time was it declared in a
mystery that the Lord Jesus in His Flesh would, when crucified, do away
the sins of the whole world, and not only the deeds of the body, but
the desires of the soul. For the flesh of the kid refers to sins
of deed, the broth to the enticements of desire as it is written:
“For the people lusted an evil lust, and said, Who shall give us
flesh to eat?” S.
4. Then the man, instructed and foreknowing what
was to be, observes the heavenly mysteries, and therefore, according to
the warning, slew the bullock de S.
5. Holy Gideon then saw the mystery
beforehand. Next he chose out three hundred for the battle, so as
to show that the world should be freed from the incursion of worse
enemies, not by the multitude of their number, but by the mystery of
the cross. And yet, though he was brave and faithful, he asked of
the Lord yet fuller proofs of future victory, saying: “If
Thou wilt save Israel by mine hand, O Lord, as Thou hast said, behold I
will put a fleece of wool on the threshing-floor, and if there shall be
dew on the fleece and dryness on all the ground, I shall know that Thou
wilt deliver the people by my hand according to Thy promise. And
it was so.”
6. Some one perhaps will enquire whether he does not seem to have been wanting in faith, seeing that after being instructed by many signs he asked still more. But how can he seem to have asked as if doubting or wanting in faith, who was speaking in mysteries? He was not then doubtful, but careful that we should not doubt. For how could he be doubtful whose prayer was effectual? And how could he have begun the battle without fear, unless he had understood the message of God? for the dew on the fleece signified the faith among the Jews, because the words of God come down like the dew.
7. So when the whole world was parched with
the drought of Gentile superstition, then came that dew of the heavenly
visits on the fleece. But after that the lost sheep of the house
of Israel S.
8. Nor is it strange that they should suffer
the drought of unbelief, whom the Lord deprived of the fertilising of
the shower of prophecy, saying: “I will command My clouds
that they rain not upon that vineyard.”
9. Holy Gideon, then, foresaw this, that the
nations of the Gentiles also would drink by the reception of faith, and
therefore he enquired more diligently, for the caution of the saints is
necessary. Insomuch that also Joshua the son of Nun, when he saw
the captain of the heavenly host, enquired: “Art thou for
us, or for our adversaries?”
10. Nor was it without a reason that he put
the fleece neither in a field nor in a meadow, but in a
threshing-floor, where is the harvest of the wheat: “For
the harvest is plenteous, but the labourers are few;” S.
11. Nor, again, was it without a reason that he
dried the fleece of the Jews, and put the dew from it into a basin, so
that it was filled with water, yet he did not himself wash his feet in
that dew. The prerogative of so great a mystery was to be given
to another. He was being waited for Who alone could wash away the
filth of all. Gideon was not great enough to claim this mystery
for himself, but “the Son of Man
S.
12. Let us come now to the Gospel of
God. I find the Lord stripping Himself of His garments, and
girding Himself with a towel, pouring water into a basin, and washing
the disciples’ feet. S. S.
13. Come, then, Lord Jesus, put off Thy
garments, which Thou didst put on for my sake; be Thou stripped that
Thou mayest clothe us with Thy mercy. Gird Thyself for our sakes
with a towel, that Thou mayest gird us with Thy gift of
immortality. Pour water into the basin, wash not only our feet
but also the head, and not only of the body, but also the footsteps of
the soul. I wish to put off all the filth of our frailty, so that
I also may say: “By night I have put off my coat, how shall
I put it on? I have washed my feet, how shall I defile
them?”
14. How great is that excellence! As a
servant, Thou dost wash the feet of Thy disciples; as God, Thou sendest
dew from heaven. Nor dost Thou wash the feet only, but also
invitest us to sit down with Thee, and by the example of Thy dignity
dost exhort us, saying: “Ye call Me Master and Lord, and ye
do well, for so I am. If, then, I the Lord and Master have washed
your feet, ye ought also to wash one another’s
feet.” S.
15. I, then, wish also myself to wash the
feet of my brethren, I wish to fulfil the commandment of my Lord, I
will not be ashamed in myself, nor disdain what He Himself did
first. Good is the mystery of humility, because while washing the
pollutions of others I wash away my own. But all were not able to
exhaust this mystery. Abraham was, indeed, willing to wash
feet, Whence this statement
is derived cannot be ascertained. Possibly it is merely an
assumption of St. Ambrose founded on his estimate of Gideon’s
character. S.
16. There is also a certain water which we
put into the basin of our soul, water from the fleece and from the Book
of Judges; water, too, from the Book of Psalms. “Alia
est iniquitas nostra, alia calcanei nostri, in quo Adam dente serpentis
est vulneratus et obnoxiam hereditatem successionis humanæ suo
vulnere dereliquit, ut omnes illo vulnere claudicemus.”
St. Aug. Exp. Psal. xlviii. 6, and St. Ambrose, Enar. in
Ps. xlviii. 9: “Unde reor uniquitatem calcanei magis
lubricum deliquendi quam reatum aliquem nostri esse
delicti.” This lubricum delinquendi, the wound
of Adam’s heel, seems to have been understood of concupiscence,
which has the nature of sin, and is called sin by St. Paul. S.
17. This is the special excellence of Thy
loving-kindness, wherewith Thou hast redeemed the whole world one by
one. Elijah was sent to one widow; Athanaricus,
king or judex of the West Goths in Dacia, defeated in 369 by the
Emperor Valens. Subsequently, in 380, being defeated by the Huns
and some Gothic chiefs, he was forced to take refuge in Constantinople,
when he was received with all the honour due to his rank. He died
the next year.
18. Damasus cleansed not, Peter cleansed
not, Ambrose cleansed not, Gregory cleansed not; Damasus of Rome,
Peter of Alexandria, Gregory of Constantinople, and St. Ambrose
himself. Peter had died by this time, but the fact was probably
not yet known at Milan.
St. Ambrose commences his argument by complimenting the Emperor, both for his faith and for the restitution of the Basilica to the Church; then having urged that his opponents, if they affirm that the Holy Spirit is not a servant, cannot deny Him to be above all, adds that the same Spirit, when He said, “All things serve Thee,” showed plainly that He was distinct from creatures; which point he also establishes by other evidence.
19. The Holy Spirit, then, is not amongst but above all things. For (since you, most merciful Emperor, are so fully instructed concerning the Son of God as to be able yourself to teach others) I will not detain you longer, as you desire and claim to be told something more exactly [concerning Him], especially since you lately showed yourself to be so pleased by an argument of this nature, as to command the Basilica to be restored to the Church without any one urging you.
20. So, then, we have received the grace of your faith and the reward of our own; for we cannot say otherwise than that it was of the grace of the Holy Spirit, that when all were unconscious of it, you suddenly restored the Basilica. This is the gift, I say, this the work of the Holy Spirit, Who indeed was at that time preached by us, but was working in you.
21. And I do not regret the losses of the previous time, since the sequestration of that Basilica resulted in the gain of a sort of usury. For you sequestrated the Basilica, that you might give proof of your faith. And so your piety fulfilled its intention, which had sequestered that it might give proof, and so gave proof as to restore. I did not lose the fruit, and I have your judgment, and it has been made clear to all that, with a certain diversity of action, there was in you no diversity of opinion. It was made clear, I say, to all, that it was not of yourself that you sequestrated, that it was of yourself when you restored it.
22. Now let us establish by evidence what we
have said. The first point in the discussion is that all things
serve. Now it is clear that all things serve, since it is
written: “All things serve Thee.”
23. For if we say that the Holy Spirit is
included amongst all things, certainly when we read that the Spirit
searches the deep things of God,
25. But lest the objectors should think that
the Apostle was in error, let them learn whom he followed as his
authority for his belief. The Lord said in the Gospel:
“When the Paraclete is come, Whom I will send to you from My
Father, even the Spirit of Truth which proceedeth from the Father, He
shall bear witness of Me.” S.
26. He excludes, then, the fellowship and number of creatures from the knowledge of God, but by not excluding the Holy Spirit, He shows that He is not of the fellowship of creatures. So that the passage which is read in the Gospel: “For no man hath seen God at any time, save the Only-begotten Son Who is in the bosom of the Father He hath declared Him,” also pertains to the exclusion of the Holy Spirit. For how has He not seen God Who searches even the deep things of God? How has He not seen God Who knows the things which are of God? How has He not seen God Who is of God? So, since it is laid down that no one has seen God at any time, whereas the Holy Spirit has seen Him, clearly the Holy Spirit is excepted. He, then, is above all Who is excluded from all.
The words, “All things were made by Him,” are not a proof that the Holy Spirit is included amongst all things, since He was not made. For otherwise it could be proved by other passages that the Son, and even the Father Himself, must be numbered amongst all things, which would be similar irreverence.
27. This seems,
gracious Emperor, to be a full account of our right feeling, but to the
impious it does not seem so. Observe what they are striving
after. For the heretics are wont to say that the Holy Spirit is
to be reckoned amongst all things, because it is written of God the
Son: “All things were made by Him.” S.
28. How utterly confused is a course of argument which does not hold to the truth, and is involved in an inverted order of statements. For this argument would be of value for the statement that the Holy Spirit is amongst all things, if they proved that He was made. For Scripture says that all things which were made were made by the Son; but since we are not taught that the Holy Spirit was made, He certainly cannot be proved to be amongst all things Who was neither made as all things are, nor created. To me this testimony is of use for establishing each point; firstly, that He is proved to be above all things, because He was not made; and secondly, that because He is above all things, He is seen not to have been made, and is not to be numbered amongst those things which were made.
29. But if any one, because the Evangelist
stated that all things were made by the Word, making no exception of
the Holy Spirit (although the Spirit of God speaking in John
said: “All things were made by Him,” and said not we
were all things which were made; whilst the Lord Himself distinctly
showed that the Spirit of God spoke in the Evangelists, saying,
“For it will not be you that speak, but the Spirit of your Father
that speaketh in you”), S.
30. But it is equal irreverence to detract from the dignity of the Father, or the Son, or the Holy Spirit. For he believes not in the Father who does not believe in the Son, nor does he believe in the Son of God who does not believe in the Spirit, nor can faith stand without the rule of truth. For he who has begun to deny the oneness of power in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit certainly cannot prove his divided faith in points where there is no division. So, then, since complete piety is to believe rightly, so complete impiety is to believe wrongly.
31. Therefore they who think that the Holy
Spirit ought to be numbered amongst all things, because they read that
all things were made by the Son, must needs also think that the Son is
to be numbered amongst all things, because they read: “All
things are of God.” S.
The statement of the Apostle, that all things are of the Father by the Son, does not separate the Spirit from Their company, since what is referred to one Person is also attributed to each. So those baptized in the Name of Christ are held to be baptized in the Name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit, if, that is, there is belief in the Three Persons, otherwise the baptism will be null. This also applies to baptism in the Name of the Holy Spirit. If because of one passage the Holy Spirit is separated from the Father and the Son, it will necessarily follow from other passages that the Father will be subordinated to the Son. The Son is worshipped by angels, not by the Spirit, for the latter is His witness, not His servant. Where the Son is spoken of as being before all, it is to be understood of creatures. The great dignity of the Holy Spirit is proved by the absence of forgiveness for the sin against Him. How it is that such sin cannot be forgiven, and how the Spirit is one.
32. But perhaps
some one may say that there was a reason why the writer said that all
things were of the Father, and all things through the Son,
40. Where, then, the grace of the Spirit is
asserted, is that of God the Father or of the Only-begotten Son
denied? By no means; for as the Father is in the Son, and the Son
in the Father, so, too, “the love of God is shed abroad in our
hearts by the Holy Spirit, Who hath been given us.”
41. Then, too, the Ethiopian eunuch of Queen
Candace, when baptized in Christ, obtained the fulness of the
sacrament. And they who said that they knew not of any Holy
Spirit, although they said that they had been baptized with
John’s baptism, were baptized afterwards, because John baptized
for the remission of sins in the Name of the coming Jesus, not in his
own. And so they knew not the Spirit, because in the form in
which John baptized they had not received baptism in the Name of
Christ. For John, though he did not baptize in the Spirit,
nevertheless preached Christ and the Spirit. And then, when he
was questioned whether he were perchance himself the Christ, he
answered: “I baptize you with water, but a stronger than I
shall come, Whose shoes I am not worthy to bear, He shall baptize you
with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” S.
42. So they were baptized in the Name of
Jesus Christ, This passage
has given rise to the question whether St. Ambrose taught, as some
others certainly did (probably on his authority), that baptism in the
Name of Christ alone, without mention of the other Persons, is
valid. But it is difficult to believe that St. Ambrose meant more
than to refer to the passage in the Acts as implying Christian
baptism. He says just below that baptism is not complete unless
one confess the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which would seem to imply
the full formula, and he would hardly dissent from St. Basil, who
distinctly asserts [De Sp. Sanct. XII.] that baptism without
mention of the Three Persons is invalid; and St. Augustine [De
Bapt. lib. vi. c. xxv. 47] says that it is more easy to find
heretics who reject baptism altogether, than such as omit the right
form. Compare also St. Ambrose on St.
43. Nor ought it to seem opposed to this, that
although subsequently mention is not made of the Spirit, He is yet
believed in, and what had not been mentioned in words is expressed in
belief. For when it is said, “In the Name of our Lord Jesus
Christ,” the mystery is complete through the oneness of the Name,
and the Spirit is not separated
44. Let us now consider whether as we read
that the sacrament of baptism in the Name of Christ was complete, so,
too, when the Holy Spirit alone is named, anything is wanting to the
completeness of the mystery. Let us follow out the argument that
he who has named One has signified the Trinity. If you name
Christ, you imply both God the Father by Whom the Son was anointed, and
the Son Himself Who was anointed, and the Holy Spirit with Whom He was
anointed. For it is written: “This Jesus of Nazareth,
Whom God anointed with the Holy Spirit.”
45. Wherefore that authority may also be
joined to reason Scripture indicates that we can also be rightly
baptized in the Spirit, when the Lord says: “But ye shall
be baptized in the Holy Spirit.”
46. But if in this place the Spirit be
separated from the operation of the Father and the Son, because it is
said, All things are of God, and all things are through the
Son,
47. Lastly, of the Son it is written:
“And let all the angels of God worship Him.”
48. But in truth the Holy Spirit is not a
minister but a witness of the Son, as the Son Himself said of
Him: “He shall bear witness of Me.” S.
49. If the Son is above all, through Whom
our salvation received its commencement, so that it might be preached,
certainly God the Father also, Who testifies and gives confirmation
concerning our salvation by signs and wonders, is excepted from
all. In like manner the Spirit, Who bears witness to our
salvation by His diversities of gifts, is not to be numbered with the
crowd of creatures, but to be reckoned with the Father and the Son;
Who, when He divides, is not Himself divided by cutting off Himself,
for being indivisible He loses nothing when He gives to all, as also
the Son, when the Father receives the kingdom, S.
50. In the meanwhile, since our intention is
to prove in due order that the Spirit is not to be reckoned amongst all
things, let us take the Apostle, whose words they call in question, as
an authority for this position. For what “all things”
would be, whether visible or invisible, he himself declared when he
said: “For in Him were all things created in the heavens
and in earth.”
51. But that no one should be ignorant of
this he added those of whom he was speaking: “Whether
thrones or dominions or principalities or powers, all things were
created by Him and in Him, and He is before all, and in Him all things
consist.”
52. If I were to say this at first it would be denied. But in the same manner as they deny the less that the greater may not be believed, so let us set forth lesser matters first that either they may show their perfidy in lesser matters, or, if they grant the lesser matters, we may infer greater from the lesser.
53. I think, most merciful Emperor, that
they are most fully confuted who dare to reckon the Holy Spirit amongst
all things. But that they may know that they are pressed not only
by the testimony of the apostles, but also by that of our Lord; how can
they dare to reckon the Holy Spirit amongst all things, since the Lord
Himself said: “He who shall blaspheme against the Son of
Man, it shall be forgiven him; but he who shall blaspheme against the
Holy Ghost shall never be forgiven, either here or
hereafter.” S.
54. But observe carefully why the Lord
said: “He who shall blaspheme against the Son of Man it
shall be forgiven him, but he who shall blaspheme against the Holy
Ghost shall never be forgiven, either here or
hereafter.” S.
The Holy Spirit is one and the same Who spake in the prophets and apostles, Who is the Spirit of God and of Christ; Whom, further, Scripture designates the Paraclete, and the Spirit of life and truth.
55. But no one will
doubt that the Spirit is one, although very many have doubted whether
God be one. For many heretics have said that the God of the Old
Testament is one, and the God of the New Testament is another.
But as the Father is one Who both spake of old, as we read, to the
fathers by the prophets, and to us in the last days by His
Son; S. S.
57. The same is also the Spirit of Life, as
the Apostle says: “For the law of the Spirit of Life in
Christ Jesus hath delivered me from the law of sin and
death.”
58. Him, then, Whom the Apostle called the
Spirit of Life, the Lord in the Gospel named the Paraclete, and the
Spirit of Truth, as you find: “And I will ask the Father,
and He will give you another Comforter [Paraclete], that He may be with
you for ever, even the Spirit of Truth, Whom this world cannot receive;
because it seeth Him not, neither knoweth Him.” S.
59. Receive now the saying of the Lord, that
the same is the Holy Spirit Who is the Spirit of Truth, for you read in
the end of this book: “Receive the Holy
Spirit.” S.
60. And the Lord Himself made clear that the
same Who is the Spirit of the Father is the Holy Spirit, when according
to Matthew He said that we ought not to take thought in persecution
what we should say: “For it is not ye that speak, but the
Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you.” S. S.
61. Both apostles and prophets received that
one Spirit, as the vessel of election, the Doctor of the Gentiles,
says: “For we have all drunk of one Spirit;”
The Holy Spirit, since He sanctifies creatures, is neither a creature nor subject to change. He is always good, since He is given by the Father and the Son; neither is He to be numbered amongst such things as are said to fail. He must be acknowledged as the source of goodness. The Spirit of God’s mouth, the amender of evils, and Himself good. Lastly, as He is said in Scripture to be good, and is joined to the Father and the Son in baptism, He cannot possibly be denied to be good. He is not, however, said to progress, but to be made perfect in goodness, which distinguishes Him from all creatures.
62. The Holy Spirit
is not, then, of the substance of things corporeal, for He sheds
incorporeal grace on corporeal things; nor, again, is He of the
substance of invisible creatures, for they receive His sanctification,
and through Him are superior to the other works of the universe.
Whether you speak of Angels, or Dominions, or Powers, every creature
waits for the grace of the Holy Spirit. For as we are children
through the Spirit, because “God sent the Spirit of His Son into
our hearts crying, Abba, Father; so that thou art now not a servant but
a son;”
63. Every creature, then, is subject to
change, not only such as has been changed by some sin or condition of
the outward elements, but also such as can be liable to corruption by a
fault of nature, though by careful discipline it be not yet so; for, as
we have shown in a former treatise, De Fid.
III. 3.
64. Every creature, therefore, is capable of change, but the Holy Spirit is good and not capable of change, nor can He be changed by any fault, Who does away the faults of all and pardons their sins. How, then, is He capable of change, Who by sanctifying works in others a change to grace, but is not changed Himself.
65. How is He capable of change Who is
always good? For the Holy Spirit, through Whom the things that
are good are ministered to us, is never evil. Whence two
evangelists in one and the same place, in words in differing from each
other, have made the same statement, for you read in Matthew:
“If you, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your
children; how much more shall your Father, Who is in heaven, give good
things to them that ask Him.” S. S.
66. Nor does it escape our notice that some
copies have likewise, according to St. Luke: “How much more
shall your heavenly Father give a good gift to them that ask
Him.” This good gift is the grace of the Spirit, which the
Lord Jesus shed forth from heaven, after having been fixed to the
gibbet of the cross, returning with the triumphal spoils of death
deprived of its power, as you find it written: “Ascending
up on high He led captivity captive, and gave good gifts to
men.”
67. And He said well “led captivity
captive.” For the victory of Christ is the victory of
liberty, which won grace for all, and inflicted wrong on none. So
in the setting free of all no one is captive. And because in the
time of the Lord’s passion wrong alone had no part, which had
made captive all of whom it had gained possession, captivity itself
turning back upon itself was made captive, not now attached to Belial
but to Christ, to serve Whom is liberty. “For he who is
called in the Lord as a servant is the Lord’s
freedman.”
68. But to return to the point.
“All,” says He, “have gone aside, all together are
become unprofitable. There is none that doeth good, not even
one.”
69. But let us consider whether He has
goodness in Himself, since He is the Source and Principle of
goodness. For as the Father and the Son have, so too the Holy
Spirit also has goodness. And the Apostle also taught this when
he said: “Now the fruit of the Spirit is peace, love, joy,
patience, goodness.” S.
70. And so if God be good, how shall He Who
is the Spirit of His mouth not be good, Who searcheth even the deep
things of God? Can the infection of evil enter into the deep
things of God? And from this it is seen how foolish they are who
deny that the Son of God is good, when they cannot deny that the Spirit
of Christ is good, of Whom the Son of God says: “Therefore
said I that He shall receive of Mine.” S.
71. Or is the Spirit not good, Who of the
worst makes good men, does away sin, destroys evil, shuts out crime,
pours in good gifts, makes apostles of persecutors, and priests of
sinners? “Ye were,” it is said, “sometime
darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord.”
72. But why do we put them off? And if
they ask for statements since they do not deny facts, let them hear
that the Holy Spirit is good, for David said: “Let Thy good
Spirit lead me forth in the right way.”
73. And with good cause did the Son of God
say: “Go and baptize all nations in the Name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” S.
74. Good, then, is the Spirit, but good, not
as though acquiring but as imparting goodness. For the Holy
Spirit does not receive from creatures but is received; as also He is
not sanctified but sanctifies; for the creature is sanctified, but the
Holy Spirit sanctifies. In which matter, though the word is used
in common, there is a difference in the nature. For both the man
who receives and God Who gives sanctity are called holy, as we
read: “Be ye holy, for I am holy.”
75. Since, then, the whole invisible creation (whose substance some rightly believe to be reasonable and incorporeal), with the exception of the Trinity, does not impart but acquires the grace of the Spirit, and does not share in it but receives it, the whole commonalty of creation is to be separated from association with the Holy Spirit. Let them then believe that the Holy Spirit is not a creature; or, if they think Him a creature, why do they associate Him with the Father? If they think Him a creature, why do they join Him with the Son of God? But if they do not think that He should be separated from the Father and the Son, they do not consider Him to be a creature, for where the sanctification is one the nature is one.
Although we are baptized with water and the Spirit, the latter is much superior to the former, and is not therefore to be separated from the Father and the Son.
76. There are, however, many who, because we are baptized with water and the Spirit, think that there is no difference in the offices of water and the Spirit, and therefore think that they do not differ in nature. Nor do they observe that we are buried in the element of water that we may rise again renewed by the Spirit. For in the water is the representation of death, in the Spirit is the pledge of life, that the body of sin may die through the water, which encloses the body as it were in a kind of tomb, that we, by the power of the Spirit, may be renewed from the death of sin, being born again in God.
77. And so these three witnesses are one, as
John said: “The water, the blood, and the
Spirit.”
78. Do we live in the water or in the
Spirit? Are we sealed in the water or in the Spirit. For in
Him we live and He Himself is the earnest of our inheritance, as the
Apostle says, writing to the Ephesians: “In Whom believing
ye were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, Who is an earnest of
our inheritance.”
79. We were then sealed with the Spirit by God. For as we die in Christ, in order to be born again, so, too, we are sealed with the Spirit, that we may possess His brightness and image and grace, which is undoubtedly our spiritual seal. For although we were visibly sealed in our bodies, we are in truth sealed in our hearts, that the Holy Spirit may portray in us the likeness of the heavenly image.
80. Who, then, can dare to say that the Holy
Spirit is separated from the Father and the Son, since through Him we
attain to the image and likeness of God, and through Him, as the
Apostle Peter says, are partakers of the divine nature? In which
there is certainly not the inheritance of carnal succession, but the
spiritual connection of the grace of adoption. And in order that
we may know that this seal is rather on our hearts than on our bodies,
the prophet says: “The light of Thy countenance has been
impressed upon us, O Lord, Thou hast put gladness in my
heart.”
The Holy Spirit is not a creature, seeing that He is infinite, and was shed upon the apostles dispersed through all countries, and moreover sanctifies the Angels also, to whom He makes us equal. Mary was full of the same likewise, so too, Christ the Lord, and so far all things high and low. And all benediction has its origin from His operation, as was signified in the moving of the water at Bethesda.
81. Since then,
every creature is confined within certain limits of its own nature, and
inasmuch as those invisible operations, which cannot be circumscribed
by place and bounds, yet are closed in by the property of their own
substance; how can any one dare to call the Holy Spirit a creature, Who
has not a limited and circumscribed power? because He is always in all
things and everywhere, which assuredly is the property of Divinity and
Lordship, for: “The earth is the Lord’s and the
fulness thereof.”
81. And so, when the Lord appointed His
servants the apostles, that we might recognize that the creature was
one thing and the grace of the Spirit another, He appointed them to
different places, because all could not be everywhere at once.
But He gave the Holy Spirit to all, to shed upon the apostles though
separated the gift of indivisible grace. The persons, then, were
different, but the accomplishment of the working was in all one,
because the Holy Spirit is one of Whom it is said: “Ye
shall receive power, even the Holy Spirit coming upon you, and ye shall
be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and unto
the ends of the earth.”
82. The Holy Spirit, then, is
uncircumscribed and infinite, Who infused Himself into the minds of the
disciples throughout the separate divisions of distant regions, and the
remote bounds of the whole world, Whom nothing is able to escape or to
deceive. And therefore holy David says: “Whither
shall I go from Thy Spirit, or whither shall I flee from Thy
face.”
83. But in like manner as the Spirit sanctifying the apostles is not a partaker of human nature; so, too, He sanctifying Angels, Dominions, and Powers, has no partnership with creatures. But if any think that the holiness of the Angels is not spiritual, but some other kind of grace belonging to the property of their nature, they will forsooth judge Angels to be inferior to men. For since themselves also confess that they would not dare to compare Angels to the Holy Spirit, and they cannot deny that the Holy Spirit is shed upon men; but the sanctification of the Spirit is a divine gift and favour, men who possess a better kind of sanctification will certainly be found to be preferred to the Angels. But since Angels come down to men to assist them, it must be understood that the nature of Angels is higher as it receives more of the grace of the Spirit, and that the favour awarded to us and to them comes from the same author.
84. But how great is that grace which makes even the lower nature of the lot of men equal to the gifts received by Angels, as the Lord Himself promised, saying: “Ye shall be as the Angels in heaven.” Nor is it difficult, for He Who made those Angels in the Spirit will by the same grace make men also equal to the Angels.
85. But of what creature can it be said that
it fills all things, as is written of the Holy Spirit: “I
will pour My Spirit upon all flesh.” S.
86. For it is of the Lord to fill all
things, Who says: “I fill heaven and earth.” S.
87. But lest they should object that this
was said according to the flesh, though He alone from Whose flesh went
forth virtue to heal all, was more than all; yet, as the Lord fills all
things, so, too, we read of the Spirit: “For the Spirit of
the Lord filled the whole world.” S.
88. You read, too, in the Gospel that the
Angel descended at the appointed time into the pool and troubled the
water, and he who first went down into the pool was made
whole. S.
89. What, then, is more divine than the
working of the Holy Spirit, since God Himself testifies that the Holy
Spirit presides over His blessings, saying: “I will put My
Spirit upon thy seed and My blessings upon thy
children.”
The Holy Spirit is given by God alone, yet not wholly to each person, since there is no one besides Christ capable of receiving Him wholly. Charity is shed abroad by the Holy Spirit, Who, prefigured by the mystical ointment, is shown to have nothing common with creatures; and He, inasmuch as He is said to proceed from the mouth of God, must not be classed with creatures, nor with things divisible, seeing He is eternal.
90. Observe at the
same time that God gives the Holy Spirit. For this is no work of
man, nor gift of man; but He Who is invoked by the priest is given by
God, wherein is the gift of God and the ministry of the priest.
For if the Apostle Paul judged that he was not able to give the Holy
Spirit himself by his own authority, and considered himself so far
unequal to this office that he wished us to be filled by God with the
Spirit,
91. But perchance they would not be moved by
the example of apostles, and so let us use divine utterances; for it is
written: “Jacob is My servant, I will uphold him; Israel is
My elect, My soul hath upheld him, I put My Spirit upon
him.”
92. Who, then, can dare to say that the
substance of the Holy Spirit is created, at Whose shining in our hearts
we behold the beauty of divine truth, and the distance between the
creature and the Godhead, that the work may be distinguished from its
Author? Or of what creature has God so spoken as to say:
“I will pour out of My Spirit”?
93. There was therefore a pouring out upon us of
the Spirit, but upon the Lord Jesus, when He was in the form of man,
the
S.
94. God, then, sheds forth of the Spirit,
and the love of God is also shed abroad through the Spirit; in which
point we ought to recognize the unity of the operation and of the
grace. For as God shed forth of the Holy Spirit, so also
“the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts through the Holy
Spirit;”
95. In like manner that you may believe that
that which is shed abroad cannot be common to the creatures but
peculiar to the Godhead, the name of the Son is also poured forth, as
you read: “Thy Name is as ointment poured
forth.”
96. Even then that Name was indeed great, when it remained in the narrow limits of the weak and few, but it had not yet poured forth its greatness throughout the hearts of the Gentiles, and to the ends of the whole world. But after that He by His coming had shone throughout the whole world, He spread abroad that divine Name of His throughout all creatures, not filled up by any addition (for fulness admits not of increase), but filling up the empty spaces, that His Name might be wonderful in all the world. The pouring forth, then, of His Name signifies a kind of abundant exuberance of graces and copiousness of heavenly goods, for whatever is poured forth flows over from abundance.
97. So as wisdom which proceeds from the mouth of God cannot be said to be created, nor the Word Which is uttered from His heart, nor the power in which is the fulness of the eternal Majesty; so, too, the Spirit which is poured forth from the mouth of God cannot be considered to be created, since God Himself has shown their unity to be such that He speaks of His pouring forth of His Spirit. By which we understand that the grace of God the Father is the same as that of the Holy Spirit, and that without any division or loss it is divided to the hearts of each. That, then, which is shed abroad of the Holy Spirit is neither severed, nor comprehended in any corporeal parts, nor divided.
98. For how can it be credible that the
Spirit should be divided by any parcelling out? John says of
God: “Hereby know we that He abides in us by the Spirit
which He hath given us.”
99. But the Apostle also shows that the Holy
Spirit is eternal, for: “If the blood of bulls and of
goats, and the sprinkling the ashes of an heifer sanctifieth to the
purifying of the flesh, how much more the blood of Christ, Who through
the eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God?”
The Holy Spirit is rightly called the ointment of Christ, and the oil of gladness; and why Christ Himself is not the ointment, since He was anointed with the Holy Spirit. It is not strange that the Spirit should be called Ointment, since the Father and the Son are also called Spirit. And there is no confusion between them, since Christ alone suffered death, Whose saving cross is then spoken of.
100. Now many have
thought that the
101. This is the oil of gladness, of which
the prophet says: “God, even Thy God, hath anointed Thee
with the oil of gladness above Thy fellows.”
102. And well did he say oil of gladness,
lest you should think Him a creature; for it is the nature of this sort
of oil that it will by no means mingle with moisture of another
kind. Gladness, too, does not anoint the body, but brightens the
inmost heart, as the prophet said: “Thou hast put gladness
in my heart.”
102. And well is that called oil of gladness wherewith Christ was anointed; for neither was usual nor common oil to be sought for Him, wherewith either wounds are dressed or heat assuaged; since the salvation of the world did not seek alleviation for His wounds, nor the eternal might of His wearied Body demand refreshment.
103. Nor is it wonderful if He have the oil
of gladness, Who made those about to die rejoice, put off sadness from
the world, destroyed the odour of sorrowful death. And so the
Apostle says: “For we are the good odour of Christ to
God;” S.
104. Or since the Name of Jesus is as ointment poured out, if they wish to understand Christ Himself, and not the Spirit of Christ to be expressed under the name of ointment, certainly when the Apostle Peter says that the Lord Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit, it is without doubt plain that the Spirit also is called ointment.
105. But what wonder, since both the Father
and the Son are said to be Spirit. Of which we shall speak more
fully when we begin to speak of the Unity of the Name. Yet since
most suitable place occurs here, that we may not seem to have passed on
without a conclusion, let them read that both the Father is called
Spirit, as the Lord said in the Gospel, “for God is
Spirit;” S.
106. So, then, both the Father is Spirit and Christ is Spirit, for that which is not a created body is spirit, but the Holy Spirit is not commingled with the Father and the Son, but is distinct from the Father and from the Son. For the Holy Spirit did not die, Who could not die because He had not taken flesh upon Him, and the eternal Godhead was incapable of dying, but Christ died according to the flesh.
107. For of a truth He died in that which He took of the Virgin, not in that which He had of the Father, for Christ died in that nature in which He was crucified. But the Holy Spirit could not be crucified, Who had not flesh and bones, but the Son of God was crucified, Who took flesh and bones, that on that cross the temptations of our flesh might die. For He took on Him that which He was not that He might hide that which He was; He hid that which He was that He might be tempted in it, and that which He was not might be redeemed, in order that He might call us by means of that which He was not to that which He was.
108. O the divine mystery of that cross, on
which weakness hangs, might is free, vices are nailed, and triumphal
trophies raised. So that a certain saint said:
“Pierce my flesh with nails for fear of Thee;”
109. Therefore do you also crucify sin, that
you may die to sin; he who dies to sin lives to God; do you live to Him
Who spared not His own Son, that in His body He might crucify our
passions. For Christ died for us, that we might live in His
revived Body. Therefore not our life but our guilt died in Him,
“Who,” it is said, “bare our sins in His own Body on
the tree; that being set free from our sins we might live in
righteousness, by the wound of Whose stripes we are
healed.”
110. That wood of the cross is, then, as it were a kind of ship of our salvation, our passage, not a punishment, for there is no other salvation but the passage of eternal salvation. Whilst expecting death I do not feel it; whilst thinking little of punishment I do not suffer; whilst careless of fear I know it not.
111. Who, then, is He by the wound of Whose
stripes we are healed but Christ the Lord? of Whom the same Isaiah
prophesied His stripes were our healing,
That the Spirit forgives sin is common to Him with the Father and the Son, but not with the Angels.
112. Tell me, then, whoever you are who deny the Godhead of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit could not be liable to sin, Who rather forgives sin. Does an Angel forgive? Does an Archangel? Certainly not, but the Father alone, the Son alone, and the Holy Spirit alone. Now no one is unable to avoid that which he has power to forgive.
113. But perhaps some one will say that the
Seraph said to Isaiah: “Behold, this hath touched thy lips,
and shall take away thine iniquities, and purge away thy
sins.”
114. Lastly, that we may know that this
mystery of the common redemption was most clearly revealed by the
prophets, you have also in this place: “Lo, it hath taken
away thy sins;”
115. But even if the Seraph had taken away
sin, it would have been as one of the ministers of God appointed to
this mystery. For thus said Isaiah: “For one of the
Seraphim was sent to me.”
The Spirit is sent to all, and passes not from place to place, for He is not limited either by time or space. He goes forth from the Son, as the Son from the Father, in Whom He ever abides: and also comes to us when we receive. He comes also after the same manner as the Father Himself, from Whom He can by no means be separated.
116. The Spirit,
also, is indeed said to be sent, but the Seraph to one, the Spirit to
all. The Seraph is sent to minister, the Spirit works a
mystery. The Seraph performs what is commanded, the Spirit
divides as He wills. The Seraph passes from place to place, for
he does not fill all things, but is himself filled by the Spirit.
The Seraph comes down with a certain mode of passage according to his
nature, but we cannot think this of the Spirit, of Whom the Son of God
says: “When the Paraclete shall come, even the Spirit of
Truth, Whom I send unto you, Who proceedeth from the
Father.” S.
117. For if the Spirit proceeds from a place and
passes to a place, both the Father Himself will be found in a place,
and the
118. I am saying this with reference to
those who say that the Spirit comes down by movement. But neither
the Father, Who is above all not only of corporeal nature, but also of
the invisible creation, is circumscribed in any place; nor is the Son,
Who, as the Worker of all creation, is above every creature, enclosed
by the places or times of His own works; nor is the Spirit of Truth as
being the Spirit of God, circumscribed by any corporeal limits, Who
since He is incorporeal is far above the whole rational creation
through the ineffable fulness of His Godhead, having over all things
the power of breathing where He wills, and of inspiring as He
wills. S.
119. The Spirit is not, then, sent as it
were from a place, nor does He proceed as from a place, when He
proceeds from the Son, as the Son Himself, when He says, “I came
forth from the Father, and am come into the world,”
120. Lastly, Wisdom so says that she came
forth from the mouth of the Most High, S.
121. He exists then, and abides always, Who
is the Spirit of His mouth, but He seems to come down when we receive
Him, that He may dwell in us, that we may not be alien from His
grace. To us He seems to come down, not that He does come down,
but that our mind ascends to Him. Of which we would speak more
fully did we not remember that in the former treatise De Fide, V.
7. S.
122. The Spirit, then, so comes as does the Father, for where the Father is there is also the Son, and where the Son is there is the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit, therefore, is not to be supposed to come separately. But He comes not from place to place, but from the disposition of the order to the safety of redemption, from the grace of giving life to that of sanctification, to translate us from earth to heaven, from wretchedness to glory, from slavery to a kingdom.
123. The Spirit comes, then, as the Father
comes. For the Son said, “I and the Father will come, and
will make Our abode with Him.” S.
124. But who can separate the Spirit from
the Father and the Son, since we cannot even name the Father and the
Son without the Spirit? “For no one saith Lord Jesus,
except in the Holy Spirit?”
125. We have proved, then, that the presence
and the grace of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one,
which is so heavenly and divine that the Son gives thanks therefore to
the Father, saying, “I give thanks to Thee, O Father, Lord of
heaven and earth, because Thou hast hidden these things from the wise
and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes.” S.
The peace and grace of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one, so also is Their charity one, which showed itself chiefly in the redemption of man. Their communion with man is also one.
126. Therefore
since the calling is one, the grace is also one. Lastly, it is
written: “Grace unto you and peace from God our Father, and
from the Lord Jesus Christ.”
127. As to peace we have proved the point;
but as to grace the prophet Zechariah says, that God promised to pour
upon Jerusalem the spirit of grace and mercy,
128. Nor do we read only of the peace and
grace of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but also, faithful
Emperor, of the love and communion. For of love it has been
said: “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of
God.” S. S.
129. So, then, the Father gave the Son, and
the Son gave Himself. Love is preserved and due affection is not
wronged, for affection is not wronged where there is no distress in the
giving up. He gave one Who was willing, He gave One Who offered
Himself, the Father did not give the Son to punishment but to
grace. If you enquire into the merit of the deed, enquire into
the description of the affection. The vessel of election shows
plainly the unity of this divine love, because both the Father gave the
Son and the Son gave Himself. The Father gave, Who “spared
not His own Son, but gave Him up for us all.”
130. But learn that in like manner as the
Father gave the Son, and the Son gave Himself, so, too, the Holy Spirit
gave Him. For it is written: “Then was Jesus led by
the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the
devil.” S.
131. And that there is communion between the
Father and the Son is plain, for it is written: “And our
communion is with the Father and with His Son Jesus
Christ.”
St. Ambrose shows from the Scriptures that the Name of the Three Divine Persons is one, and first the unity of the Name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, inasmuch as each is called Paraclete and Truth.
132. Who, then,
would dare to deny the oneness of Name, when he sees the oneness of the
working. But why should I maintain the unity of the Name by
arguments, when there is the plain testimony of the Divine Voice that
the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one? For
it is written: “Go, baptize all nations in the Name of the
Father, and of the Son, and of
S.
132. And that He might reveal that the
Godhead is one and the Majesty one, because the Name of the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit is one, and the Son did not come in one Name
and the Holy Spirit in another, the Lord Himself said: “I
am come in My Father’s Name, and ye did not receive Me, if
another shall come in his own name ye will receive him.” S.
133. And Scripture makes clear that that
which is the Father’s Name, the same is also that of the Son, for
the Lord said in Exodus: “I will go before thee in My Name,
and will call by My Name the Lord before thee.”
134. But since the Name of the Father and of
the Son is one, learn that the same is the Name of the Holy Spirit
also, since the Holy Spirit came in the Name of the Son, as it is
written: “But the Paraclete, even the Holy Spirit, Whom the
Father will send in My Name, He shall teach you all
things.” S.
155. At the same time He showed that the
oneness of the Divine Name must be taught, not the difference, since
Christ came in the oneness of the Name, but Antichrist will come in his
own name, as it is written: “I am come in My Father’s
Name, and ye did not receive Me, if another shall come in his own name,
ye will receive him.” S.
156. We are, then, clearly taught by these
passages that there is no difference of Name in the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Spirit; and that that which is the Name of the Father is
also the Name of the Son, and likewise that which is the Name of the
Son is also that of the Holy Spirit, when the Son also is called
Paraclete, as is the Holy Spirit. And therefore does the Lord
Jesus say in the Gospel: “I will ask My Father, and He
shall give you another Paraclete, to be with you for ever, even the
Spirit of Truth.” S. The
Sabellians, anxious to maintain the Unity of God, denied the
distinction of Persons, identifying the Father and the Son. See
D. Chr. B. III. 568, and Blunt, Dict. of Sects, etc., sub
voc.
157. So, then, the Son is one Paraclete, the
Holy Spirit another Paraclete; for John called the Son a Paraclete, as
you find: “If any man sin, we have a Paraclete [Advocate]
with the Father, Jesus Christ.”
158. For as the Lord says in this place that
the Spirit will be forever with the faithful, so, too, does He
elsewhere show that He will Himself be forever with the apostles,
saying: “Lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the
world.” S.
159. But as we show that the Son is called
the Paraclete, so, too, do we show that the Spirit is called the
Truth. Christ is the Truth, the Spirit is the Truth, for you find
in John’s epistle: “For the Spirit is
Truth.” S.
Each Person of the Trinity is said in the sacred writings to be Light. The Spirit is designated Fire by Isaiah, a figure of which Fire was seen in the bush by Moses, in the tongues of fire, and in Gideon’s pitchers. And the Godhead of the same Spirit cannot be denied, since His operation is the same as that of the Father and of the Son, and He is also called the light and fire of the Lord’s countenance.
160. But why should
I argue that as the Father is light, so, too, the Son is light, and the
Holy Spirit is light? Which certainly pertains to the power of
God. For God is Light, as John said: “For God is
Light, and in Him is no darkness.”
161. But the Son, too, is Light, because
S. S.
162. And you find elsewhere that the Son of
God is Light: “The people that sat in darkness and in the
shadow of death have seen a great light.” S. S.
163. But who can doubt that the Father is Light, when we read of His Son that He is the Brightness of eternal Light? For of Whom but of the Father is the Son the Brightness, Who both is always with the Father, and always shines, not with unlike but with the same radiance.
164. And Isaiah shows that the Holy Spirit
is not only Light but also Fire, saying: “And the light of
Israel shall be for a fire.”
165. For he himself saw the fire in the
bush, and had heard God when the voice from the flame of fire came to
him saying: “I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac,
and the God of Jacob.” S.
166. In the Acts of the Apostles, also, when
the Holy Spirit had descended upon the faithful, the appearance of fire
was seen, for you read thus: “And suddenly there was a
sound from heaven, as though the Spirit were borne with great
vehemence, and it filled all the house where they were sitting, and
there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of
fire.”
167. For the same reason was it that when Gideon was about to overcome the Midianites, he commanded three hundred men to take pitchers, and to hold lighted torches inside the pitchers, and trumpets in their right hands. Our predecessors have preserved the explanation received from the apostles, that the pitchers are our bodies, fashioned of clay, which know not fear if they burn with the fervour of the grace of the Spirit, and bear witness to the passion of the Lord Jesus with a loud confession of the Voice.
168. Who, then, can doubt of the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, since where the grace of the Spirit is, there the manifestation of the Godhead appears. By which evidence we infer not a diversity but the unity of the divine power. For how can there be a severance of power, where the effect of the working in all is one?
169. What, then, is that fire? Not
certainly one made up of common twigs, or roaring with the burning of
the reeds of the woods, but that fire which improves good deeds like
gold, and consumes sins like stubble. This is undoubtedly the
Holy Spirit, Who is called both the fire and light of the countenance
of God; light as we said above: “The light of Thy
countenance has been sealed upon us, O Lord.”
170. And as there is a light of the divine
countenance, so, too, does fire shine forth from the countenance of
God, for it is written: “A fire shall burn in His
sight.”
The Holy Spirit is Life equally with the Father and the Son, in truth whether the Father be mentioned, with Whom is the Fount of Life, or the Son, that Fount can be none other than the Holy Spirit.
171. We have said
that the Father is Light, the Son is Light, and the Holy Spirit is
Light; let us also learn that the Father is Life, the Son Life, and the
Holy Spirit Life. For John said: “That which was from
the beginning, that which we have heard, and which we have seen, and
have beheld with our eyes, and our hands have handled concerning the
Word of Life; and the Life appeared, and we saw and testify, and
declare to you of that Life which was with the Father.”
172. Learn now that as the Father is the
Fount of Life, so, too, many have stated that the Son is signified as
the Fount of Life; In these words St.
Ambrose appears plainly to set forth the procession of the Holy Spirit
from the Son, though he admits that some consider the Father to be the
Fount of Life, but he argues even in this case the Son was with
Him. S.
173. Many, however, consider that in this passage the Father only is signified by the Fount. Let them, however, notice what the Scripture relates: “With Thee is the Well of Life.” That is, the Son is with the Father; since the Word was with God, Who was in the beginning, and was with God.
174. But whether in this place one
understands the Fount to be the Father or the Son, we certainly do not
understand a fount of that water which is created, but the Fount of
that divine grace, that is, of the Holy Spirit, for He is the living
water. Wherefore the Lord said: “If thou knowest the
gift of God, and Who He is that saith to thee, Give me to drink, thou
wouldst have asked Him, and He would have given thee living
water.” S.
175. This was the water for which the soul
of David thirsted. The hart desires the fountain of these
waters,
The Holy Spirit is that large river by which the mystical Jerusalem is watered. It is equal to its Fount, that is, the Father and the Son, as is signified in holy Scripture. St. Ambrose himself thirsts for that water, and warns us that in order to preserve it within us, we must avoid the devil, lust, and heresy, since our vessels are frail, and that broken cisterns must be forsaken, that after the example of the Samaritan woman and of the patriarchs we may find the water of the Lord.
176. But lest
perchance any one should speak against as it were the littleness of the
Spirit, and from this should endeavour to establish a difference in
greatness, arguing that water seems to be but a small part of a Fount,
although examples taken from creatures seem by no means suitable for
application to the Godhead; yet lest they should judge anything
injuriously from this comparison taken from creatures, let them learn
that not only is the Holy Spirit called Water, but also a River, as we
read: “From his belly shall flow rivers of living
water. But this He said of the Spirit, Whom they were beginning
to receive, who were about to believe in Him.”
177. So, then, the Holy Spirit is the River,
and the abundant River, which according to the Hebrews flowed from
Jesus in the lands, as we have received it prophesied by the mouth of
Isaiah.
178. For neither is that city, the heavenly
Jerusalem, watered by the channel of any earthly river, but that Holy
Spirit, proceeding from the Fount of Life, by a short draught of Whom
we are satiated, seems to flow more abundantly among those celestial
Thrones, Dominions and Powers, Angels and Archangels, rushing in the
full course of the seven virtues of the Spirit. For if a river
rising above its banks overflows, how much more
179. And let it not trouble you that either
here it is said “rivers,” S.
180. And here, again, you must not turn
aside your thoughts to lower things, because there seems to be some
difference between a Fount and a River, and yet the divine Scripture
has provided that the weakness of human understanding should not be
injured by the lowliness of the language. Set before yourself any
river, it springs from its fount, but is of one nature, of one
brightness and beauty. And do you assert rightly that the Holy
Spirit is of one substance, brightness, and glory with the Son of God
and with God the Father. I will sum up all in the oneness of the
qualities, and shall not be afraid of any question as to difference of
greatness. For in this point also Scripture has provided for us;
for the Son of God says: “He that shall drink of the water
which I will give him, it shall become in him a well of water springing
up unto everlasting life.” S.
181. You observe, then, from His words that
the unity of the divine greatness is pointed out, and that Christ
cannot be denied to be a Fount even by heretics, since the Spirit, too,
is called a Fount. And as the Spirit is called a river, so, too,
the Father said: “Behold, I come down upon you like a river
of peace, and like a stream overflowing the glory of the
Gentiles.”
182. Good, then, is this water, even the
grace of the Spirit. Who will give this Fount to my breast?
Let it spring up in me, let that which gives eternal life flow upon
me. Let that Fount overflow upon us, and not flow away. For
Wisdom says: “Drink water out of thine own vessels, and
from the founts of thine own wells, and let thy waters flow abroad in
thy streets.” S.
182. For He intimates that the thief is the unclean spirit, who cannot find entrance into those who walk in the light of good works, but if he has caught any one in the darkness of earthly desires, and in the midst of the enjoyment of earthly pleasures, he spoils them of all the flower of eternal virtue. And therefore the Lord says: “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither rust nor moth destroy, and where thieves do not break through and steal. For where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.”
183. Our rust is wantonness, our rust is
lust, our rust is luxury, which dim the keen vision of the mind with
the filth of vices. Again, our moth is Arius, our moth is
Photinus, who rend the holy vesture of the Church with their impiety,
and desiring to separate the indivisible unity of the divine power,
gnaw the precious veil of faith with sacrilegious tooth. The
water is spilt if Arius has imprinted his tooth, it flows away if
Photinus has planted his sting in any one’s vessel. We are
but of common clay, we quickly feel vices. But no one says to the
potter, “Why hast Thou made me thus?”
184. If you seek Jesus, forsake the broken
cisterns, for Christ was wont to sit not by a pool but by a well.
There that Samaritan woman S.
185. So Abraham gained God after he had dug
the well.
The Three Persons of the Godhead were not unknown to the judges of old nor to Moses, for the equality of the Son with the Father, as well as of the Three Persons amongst Themselves, is laid down both elsewhere and by him. Samson also enjoyed the assistance of the Holy Spirit, his history is touched upon and shown to be in some points typical of the Church and her mysteries. When the Holy Spirit left Samson he fell into various calamities, and St. Ambrose explains the spiritual significance of his shorn locks.
1. Even in reading
the first book of the ancient history it is made clear both that the
sevenfold grace of the Spirit shone forth in the judges themselves of
the Jews, and that the mysteries of the heavenly sacraments were made
known by the Spirit, of Whose eternity Moses was not ignorant.
Then, too, at the very beginning of the world, and indeed before its
beginning, he conjoined Him with God, Whom he knew to be eternal before
the beginning of the world. For if any one takes good heed he
will recognize in the beginning both the Father, the Son, and the
Spirit. For of the Father it is written: “In the
beginning God created the heaven and the earth.”
2. But, again, that you may not think that
there was assumption in the bidding of Him Who spoke, or inferiority on
the part of Him Who carried out the bidding, the Father acknowledges
the Son as equal to Himself in the execution of the work, saying:
“Let Us make man after Our image and likeness.”
3. But that we may more fully recognize the
equality of the Father and the Son, as the Father spoke, the Son made,
so, too, the Father works and the Son speaks. The Father works,
as it is written: “My Father worketh
hitherto.” S. S. S.
4. But neither was Abraham ignorant of the Holy Spirit; he saw Three and worshipped One, for there is one God, one Lord, and one Spirit. And so there is a oneness of honour, because there is a oneness of power.
5. And why should I speak of all one by
one? Samson, born by the divine promise, had the Spirit
accompanying him, for we read: “The Lord blessed him, and
the Spirit of the Lord began to be with him in the
camp.”
7. Nor is the riddle without mystery, which
he set forth to his companions: “Out of the eater came
forth meat, and out of the strong came forth sweetness.” S.
8. “What,” answer they,
“is sweeter than honey, and what is stronger than a
lion?” To which he replied: “If ye had not
farmed with my heifer, you would not have found out my
riddle.”
9. There are, however, who think on the
other hand that the wedlock could not have been established unless the
lion of the tribe of Judah had been slain; and so in His body, that is,
the Church, bees were found who store up the honey of wisdom, because
after the Passion of the Lord the apostles believed more fully.
This lion, then, Samson as a Jew slew, but in it he found honey, as in
the figure of the heritage which was to be redeemed, that the remnant
might be saved according to the election of grace.
10. “And the Spirit of the
Lord,” it is said, “came upon him, and he went down to
Ascalon, and smote thirty men of them.”
11. Here, again, other mysteries come up, in
that his wife is taken away, and for this foxes set fire to the sheaves
of the aliens. For their own cunning often deceives those who
contend against divine mysteries. Wherefore it is said again in
the Song of Songs: “Take us the little foxes which destroy
the vineyards, that our vineyards may flourish.”
12. So, then, he (to sum up the story
briefly, for the consideration of the whole passage is reserved for its
own season) was unconquered so long as he kept the grace of the Spirit,
as was the people of God chosen by the Lord, that Nazarite under the
Law. Samson, then, was unconquered, and so invincible as to be able to
smite a thousand men with the jawbone of an ass; S.
13. Is that, then, Samson who broke ropes
twisted with thongs, and new cords like weak threads? Is that
Samson who did not feel the bonds of his hair fastened to the beam, so
long as he had the grace of the Spirit? He, I say, after the
Spirit of God departed from him, was greatly changed from that Samson
Who returned clothed in the spoils of the aliens, but fallen from his
greatness on the knees of a woman, caressed and deceived, is shorn of
his hair.
14. Was, then, the hair of his head of such
importance that, so long as it remained, his strength should endure
unconquered, but when his head was shorn the man should suddenly lose
all his strength? It is not so, nor may we think that the hair of
his head has such power. There is the hair of religion and faith;
the hair of the Nazarite
15. And so, also, in the Gospel our Lord,
pointing out that some hairs are seen and known, says: “But
even the hairs of your head are all numbered,” S.
16. But what does it profit me, if God
Himself knows all my hairs? That rather abounds and profits me,
if the watchful witness of good works reward me with the gift of
eternal life. And, in fine, Samson himself, declaring that these
hairs are not mystical, says: “If I be shorn my strength
will depart from me.”
The Spirit is the Lord and Power; and in this is not inferior to the Father and the Son.
17. Above, you read
that “the Lord blessed him, and the Spirit of the Lord began to
go with him.”
18. You see, then, that He Who went with him, Himself departed from him. The Same is, then, the Lord, Who is the Spirit of the Lord, that is, he called the Spirit of God, Lord, as also the Apostle says: “The Lord is the Spirit, now where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” You find, then, the Holy Spirit called the Lord; for the Holy Spirit and the Son are not one Person [unus] but one Substance [unum].
19. In this place he used the word Power,
and implied the Spirit. For as the Father is Power, so, too, the
Son is Power, and the Holy Spirit is Power. Of the Son you have
read that Christ is “the Power of God and the Wisdom of
God.” S.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are One in counsel.
20. For the Spirit
Himself is Power, as you read: “The Spirit of Counsel and
of Power (or might).”
21. But that the Spirit is the Arbiter of
the Divine Counsel, you may know even from this. For when
above Book I. vi. S.
22. And that we may know more completely
that the Spirit is Power, we ought to know that He was promised when
the Lord said: “I will pour out of My Spirit upon all
flesh.” S.
23. And the Evangelist so far shows that the
Spirit is Power, that St. Luke relates that He came down with great
power, when he says: “And suddenly there was a sound from
heaven, as though the Spirit were borne with great
power.”
S.
25. For how should not the power and might be one, when the work is one, the judgment one, the temple one, the life-giving one, the sanctification one, and the kingdom also of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit one?
As to know the Father and the Son is life, so is it life to know the Holy Spirit; and therefore in the Godhead He is not to be separated from the Father.
26. Let them say,
then, wherein they think that there is an unlikeness in the divine
operation. Since as to know the Father and the Son is life, as
the Lord Himself declared, saying: “This is life eternal to
know Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, Whom Thou hast
sent,” S. S.
27. So, then, the world had not eternal life, because it had not received the Spirit; for where the Spirit is, there is eternal life; for the Spirit Himself it is Who effects eternal life. Wherefore I wonder why the Arians stir the question as to the only true God. For as it is eternal life to know the only true God, so, too, is it eternal life to know Jesus Christ; so, again, it is eternal life to know the Holy Spirit, Whom, as also the Father, the world does not see, and, as also the Son, does not know. But he who is not of this world has eternal life, and the Spirit, Who is the Light of eternal life, remains with him for ever.
28. If the knowledge of the only true God confers the same benefit as the knowledge of the Son and of the Spirit, why do you sever the Son and the Spirit from the honour of the true God, when you do not sever Him from conferring the benefit? For of necessity you must either believe that this is the greatest gift of the only true Godhead, and will confess the only true Godhead as of the Father, so also of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; or if you say that he, too, can give life eternal who is not true God, it will happen that you derogate rather from the Father, Whose work you do not consider to be the chief work of the only true Godhead, but one to be compared to the work of a creature.
The Holy Spirit gives life, not in a different way from the Father and the Son, nor by a different working.
29. And what wonder
is it the Spirit works Life, Who quickens as does the Father and as
does the Son? And who can deny that quickening is the work of the
Eternal Majesty? For it is written: “Quicken Thy
servant.”
30. Let us then see whether the Spirit is
quickened, or Himself quickens. Now it is written:
“The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.”
31. But that you may understand that the quickening of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is no separate work, read how there is a oneness of quickening also, since God Himself quickens through the Spirit, for Paul said: “He Who raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies because of His Spirit Who dwelleth in you.”
The Holy Spirit, as well as the Father and the Son, is pointed out in holy Scripture as Creator, and the same truth was shadowed forth even by heathen writers, but it was shown most plainly in the Mystery of the Incarnation, after touching upon which, the writer maintains his argument from the fact that worship which is due to the Creator alone is paid to the Holy Spirit.
32. But who can doubt that the Holy Spirit gives life to all things; since both He, as the Father and the Son, is the Creator of all things; and the Almighty Father is understood to have done nothing without the Holy Spirit; and since also in the beginning of the creation the Spirit moved upon the water.
33. So when the Spirit was moving upon the water,
the creation was without grace;
34. And who can deny that the creation of
the earth is the work of the Holy Spirit, Whose work it is that it is
renewed? For if they desire to deny that it was created by the
Spirit, since they cannot deny that it must be renewed by the Spirit,
they who desire to sever the Persons must maintain that the operation
of the Holy Spirit is superior to that of the Father and the Son, which
is far from the truth; for there is no doubt that the restored earth is
better than it was created. Or if at first, without the operation
of the Holy Spirit, the Father and the Son made the earth, but the
operation of the Holy Spirit was joined on afterwards, it will seem
that that which was made required His aid, which was then added.
But far be it from any one to think this, namely, that the divine work
should be believed to have a change in the Creator, an error brought in
by Manicheus. Manes, or
Manicheus, born about a.d. 240, seems to have
desired to blend Christianity and Zoroastrianism. The fundamental
point of his teaching was the recognition of a good and an evil
creator. For a full account, see art. “Manicheans,”
in Dict. Ch. Biog.
35. But do we suppose that the substance of
the earth exists without the operation of the Holy Spirit, without
Whose work not even the expanse of the sky endures? For it is
written: “By the Word of the Lord were the heavens
established, and all the strength of them by the Spirit of His
Mouth.”
36. Gentile writers, following ours as it
were through shadows, because they could not imbibe the truth of the
Spirit, have pointed out in their verses that the Spirit within
nourishes heaven and earth, and the glittering orbs of moon and
stars. Virg.
Æn. VI. 724.
37. But why do I delay with matters not to
the purpose? Let them accept a plain proof that there can be
nothing which the Holy Spirit can be said not to have made; and that it
cannot be doubted that all subsists through His operation, whether
Angels, Archangels, Thrones, or Dominions; since the Lord Himself, Whom
the Angels serve, was begotten by the Holy Spirit coming upon the
Virgin, as, according to Matthew, the Angel said to Joseph:
“Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take Mary thy wife, for
that which shall be born of her is of the Holy Spirit.” S. S.
38. The birth from the Virgin was, then, the
work of the Spirit. The fruit of the womb is the work of the
Spirit, according to that which is written: “Blessed art
thou among women, and blessed is the Fruit of thy womb.” S.
39. The flower, when cut, keeps its odour, and when bruised increases it, nor if torn off does it lose it; so, too, the Lord Jesus, on the gibbet of the cross, neither failed when bruised, nor fainted when torn; and when He was cut by that piercing of the spear, being made more beautiful by the colour of the outpoured Blood, He, as it were, grew comely again, not able in Himself to die, and breathing forth upon the dead the gift of eternal life. On this flower, then, of the royal rod the Holy Spirit rested.
40. A good rod, as some think, is the Flesh of the Lord, which, raising itself from its earthly root to heaven, bore around the whole world the sweet-smelling fruits of religion, the mysteries of the divine generation, pouring grace on the altars of heaven.
S.
42. For although most authorities read “de
Spiritu,” yet the Greek from which the Latins translated have
“ἐχ
πνεύματος
ἁγίου,” that is,
“ex Spiritu Sancto.” For that which is
“of” [ex] any one is either of his substance or of
his power. Of his substance, as the Son, Who says: “I
came forth of the Mouth of the Most High;” S. S.
43. How, then, was Mary with child of the Holy Spirit? If as of her substance, was the Spirit, then, changed into flesh and bones? Certainly not. But if the Virgin conceived as of His operation and power, who can deny that the Holy Spirit is Creator?
44. How is it, too, that Job plainly set
forth the Spirit as his Creator, saying: “The Spirit of God
hath made me”?
45. He teaches that the Creator is to be
served by condemning those who serve the creature, whereas we owe our
service to the Creator. And since he knew the Spirit to be the
Creator, he teaches that we ought to serve Him, saying:
“Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the
concision, for we are the circumcision who serve the Spirit of
God.”
46. But if any one disputes because of the variations of the Latin codices, some of which heretics have falsified, let him look at the Greek codices, and observe that it is there written: “οἱ πνεύματι Θεοῦ λατρεύοντες,” which is, being translated, “who serve the Spirit of God.”
47. So, then, when the same Apostle says
that we ought to serve the Spirit, who asserts that we must not serve
the creature, but the Creator; without doubt he plainly shows that the
Holy Spirit is Creator, and is to be venerated with the honour due to
the eternal Godhead; for it is written: “Thou shalt worship
the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve.” S.
To those who object that according to the words of Amos the Spirit is created, the answer is made that the word is there understood of the wind, which is often created, which cannot be said of the Holy Spirit, since He is eternal, and cannot be dissolved in death, or by an heretical absorption into the Father. But if they pertinaciously contend that this passage was written of the Holy Spirit, St. Ambrose points out that recourse must be had to a spiritual Interpretation, for Christ by His coming established the thunder, that is, the force of the divine utterances, and by Spirit is signified the human soul as also the flesh assumed by Christ. And since this was created by each Person of the Trinity, it is thence argued that the Spirit, Who has before been affirmed to be the Creator of all things, was the Author of the Incarnation of the Lord.
48. Nor does it
escape my notice that heretics have been wont to object that the Holy
Spirit appears to be a creature, because many of them use as an
argument for establishing their impiety that passage of Amos, where he
spoke of the blowing of the wind, as the words of the prophet made
clear. For you read thus: “Behold, I am He that
establish the thunders, and create the wind [spirit], Spiritus is
Latin for wind and spirit. See note on § 63 of this
book.
49. If they make an argument of this, that
he said “spirit” was created, Esdras taught us that spirit
is created, saying in the fourth book: “And upon the second
day Thou madest the spirit of the firmament,”
50. He begins as follows: “I am the
Lord that establish the thunders and create the wind
[spirit].” The order of the words
51. And that you might know that he called
this “spirit,” he says: “establishing thunders
and creating the wind [spirit].” For these are often
created, when they take place. But the Holy Spirit is eternal,
and if any one dares to call Him a creature, still he cannot say that
He is daily created like the blast of the wind. Then, again,
Wisdom herself, speaking after the mystery of the assumed Body,
says: “The Lord created Me.”
52. And so, as to that which the prophet declared as it were of the daily working of God in the thunder and the creation of the wind, it would be impious to understand any such thing of the Holy Spirit, Whom the ungodly themselves cannot deny to exist from before the world. Whence with pious asseveration we testify that He always exists, and abides ever. For neither can He Who before the world was moving upon the waters begin to be visible after the world’s creation; or else it would be allowable to suppose that there are many Holy Spirits, Who come into being by as it were a daily production. Far be it from any one to pollute himself with such impiety as to say that the Holy Spirit is frequently or ever created. For I do not understand why He should be frequently created; unless perchance they believe that He dies frequently and so is frequently created. But how can the Spirit of life die? If, then, He cannot die, there is no reason why He should be often created.
53. But they who think otherwise fall into
this sacrilege, that they do not distinguish the Holy Spirit; who think
that the Word Which was sent forth returns to the Father, and the
Spirit Which was sent forth is reabsorbed into God, so that there
should be a reabsorption St. Ambrose
would seem to be alluding to a certain party amongst the Sabellians,
who, to avoid the charge of being Patripassians, maintained that Christ
before His Incarnation was one with the Father, from Whom He then
emanated, in Whom after His Passion He was again reabsorbed. Cf.
De Fide, V. 162.
54. But if any one thinks that the word of
the prophet is to be explained with reference to the Holy Spirit,
because it is said, “declaring unto men His
Christ,”
55. Lastly, in the Gospel the brothers of
the Lord were called Sons of Thunder; and when the voice was uttered of
the Father, saying, “I have both glorified it and will glorify it
again,” S.
56. Therefore he referred the thunders to
the words of the Lord, the sound of which went out into all the earth,
and we understand the word “spirit” in this place of the
soul, which He took endowed with reason and perfect; It has been
generally held that our Lord’s Soul was from the first endowed
with all the fulness of which a human soul is capable, having, for
instance, perfect knowledge of all things past, present, and to
come: the only limit being that a finite nature cannot possess
the infinite attributes of the Godhead. S.
57. And that you might know that he spoke of
the coming down of Jesus, he added that He declared His Christ to men,
for in His baptism He declared Him, saying: “Thou art My
beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased.” S. S. S.
58. We ought, then, to take this whole passage either to be simply to be understood of that state in which we here live and breathe, or of the mystery of the Lord’s Body; for if here it had been stated that the Holy Spirit was created, undoubtedly Scripture would elsewhere have declared the same, as we often read of the Son of God, Who according to the flesh was both made and created.
59. But it is fitting that we should
consider His Majesty in the very fact of His taking flesh for us, that
we may see His divine power in the very taking of the Body. For
as we read that the Father created the mystery of the Lord’s
Incarnation, the Spirit too created it; and so too we read that Christ
Himself created His own Body. For the Father created it, as it is
written: “The Lord created Me,” S.
60. You find, then, that the Father created
and the Spirit created; learn, too, that the Son of God also created,
when Solomon says: “Wisdom hath made herself a
house.”
61. As we have shown above Ch. V.
The Holy Spirit is no less the author of spiritual creation or regeneration than the Father and the Son. The excellence of that creation, and wherein it consists. How we are to understand holy Scripture, when it attributes a body or members to God.
62. So, then, the
Father creates in good works, and the Son also, for it is
written: “But as many as received Him, to them gave He
power to become the sons of God, even to them who believe on His Name;
who were born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the
will of man, but of God.” S.
63. In like manner the Lord Himself also
testifies that we are born again of the Spirit according to grace,
saying: “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, because
it is born of flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit,
because God is Spirit. Marvel not that I said unto you, Ye must
be born again. The Spirit breatheth It has been
thought well in translating this verse to keep the words
“spirit” and “breath” as suiting the argument
of St. Ambrose. But there can be little doubt that the ordinary
translation is the correct one. Bp. Westcott has the following
note: “In Hebrew, Syriac, and Latin the words [for spirit
and wind] are identical, and Wiclif and the Rhemish version keep
“spirit” in both cases, after the Latin. But at
present the retention of one word in both places could only create
confusion, since the separation between the material emblem and the
power which it was used to describe is complete. The use of the
correlative verb (πνεῖ,
64. It is then clear that the Holy Spirit is also
the Author of the grace of the Spirit, since we are created according
to God, that we may be made the sons of God. So when He has taken
us into His kingdom by the adoption of holy regeneration, do we deny
Him that which is His? He has made us heirs of the new birth from
above, do we claim the heritage and reject its Author? But the
benefit cannot remain
65. But we cannot deny Him. Far be it
from us to deny that which is so great, since the Apostle says:
“But ye brethren, like Isaac, are the children of promise, but as
then, he that is born after the flesh persecutes him that is after the
Spirit.”
66. That more excellent regeneration is then
the work of the Holy Spirit; and the Spirit is the Author of that new
man which is created after the image of God, which no one will doubt to
be better than this outer man of ours. Since the Apostle has
pointed out that the one is heavenly, the other earthly, when he
says: “As is the heavenly, such also are the
heavenly.”
67. Since, then, the grace of the Spirit
makes that to be heavenly which it can create earthy, we ought to
observe by reason though we be without instances. For in a
certain place holy Job says: “As the Lord liveth, Who thus
judgeth me, and the Almighty, Who hath brought my soul to bitterness
(for the Spirit of God which is in my nostrils).”
68. For there are spiritual nostrils, as we
read, which the spouse of the Word has, to whom it is said:
“And the smell of thy nostrils;”
69. And there are some who suppose that God
is fashioned after a bodily manner, when they read of His hand or
finger, and they do not observe that these things are written not
because of any fashion of a body, since in the Godhead are neither
members nor parts, but are expressions of the oneness of the Godhead,
that we may believe that it is impossible for either the Son or the
Holy Spirit to be separated from God the Father; since the fulness of
the Godhead dwells as it were bodily in the substance of the
Trinity. For this reason, then, is the Son also called the Right
Hand of the Father, as we read: “The Right Hand of the Lord
hath done mighty things, the Right Hand of the Lord hath exalted
me.”
St. Ambrose examines and refutes the heretical argument that because God is said to be glorified in the Spirit, and not with the Spirit, the Holy Spirit is therefore inferior to the Father. He shows that the particle in can be also used of the Son and even of the Father, and that on the other hand with may be said of creatures without any infringement on the prerogatives of the Godhead; and that in reality these prepositions simply imply the connection of the Three Divine Persons.
70. But what wonder is it if foolish men question about words, when they do so even about syllables? For some think that a distinction should be made and that God should be praised in the Spirit, but not with the Spirit, and consider that the greatness of the Godhead is to be estimated from one syllable or some custom, arguing that if they consider that God should be glorified in the Spirit, they point to some office of the Holy Spirit, but that if they say that God receives glory or power with the Spirit, they seem to imply some association and communion of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
71. But who can separate what is in S.
72. Consider, too, that this opinion of yours tends to the injury of the Father and the Son, for the latter did not say, “with the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit,” but in the Name, and yet not any office but the power of the Trinity is expressed in this syllable,
73. Lastly, that you may know that it is not
a syllable which prejudices faith, but faith which commends a syllable,
Paul also speaks in Christ. Christ is not less, because Paul
spoke in Christ, as you find: “We speak before God in
Christ.”
74. And that you may know that distinction
does not depend upon a syllable, he says also in another place:
“And these indeed were you, but ye are washed, but ye are
sanctified, but ye are justified in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ,
and in the Spirit of our God.”
75. But what am I doing? For while I say that like things are written of the Son as of the Spirit, I am rather leading on to this, not that because it is written of the Son, therefore it would appear to be reverently written of the Holy Spirit, but that because the same is written of the Spirit, therefore men allege that the Son’s honour is lessened because of the Spirit. For say they, Is it written of God the Father?
76. But let them learn that it is also said
of God the Father: “In the Lord I will praise the
word;” S. S. S.
77. So the Apostle thinks that it makes no difference which particle you use. For each is a conjunctive particle, and conjunction does not cause separation, for if it divided it would not be called a conjunction.
78. What, then, moves you to say that to God
the Father or to His Christ there is glory, life, greatness, or power,
in the Holy Spirit, and to refuse to say with the Holy
Spirit? Is it that you are afraid of seeming to join the Spirit
with the Father and the Son? But hear what is written of the
Spirit: “For the law of the Spirit is life in Christ
Jesus.”
80. What, then, is the reason that you
prefer saying that God or Christ is glorified in the Spirit rather than
with the Spirit? Is it because if you say in the Spirit, the
Spirit is declared to be less than Christ? Although your making
the Lord greater or less is a matter which can be refuted, yet since we
read, “For Christ was made sin for us, that we might be the
righteousness of God in Him,”
81. Do you then understand that God so
reigns in the Spirit that the power of the Spirit, as a kind of source
of substance, imparts to God the origin of His rule? But this is
impious. And so our predecessors See St. Basil,
De Sp. Sancto, III. 29.
82. For how is the Holy Spirit separated
from the Son, since “the Spirit Himself beareth witness with our
spirit that we are sons of God, and if sons, also heirs, heirs, indeed,
of God and joint-heirs with Christ.”
83. “If so be,” he says,
“we suffer with Him, that we may be also glorified
together.”
84. No division, then, is implied in those
particles, for each is a particle of conjunction. And lastly, we
often find in holy Scripture the one inserted and the other understood,
as it is written: “I will enter into Thy house in whole
burnt-offerings,”
A passage of St. Paul abused by heretics, to prove a distinction between the Divine Persons, is explained, and it is proved that the whole passage can be rightly said of each Person, though it refers specially to the Son. It is then proved that each member of the passage is applicable to each Person, and as to say, of Him are all things is applicable to the Father, so may all things are through Him and in Him also be said of Him.
85. Another similar
passage is that which they say implies difference, where it is
written: “But to us there is one Father, of Whom are all
things and we unto Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through Whom are all
things, and we through Him.”
86. So, then, their desire is to prove that there
is some difference of substance, being anxious to make a distinction
between as it were the instrument, and the proper worker or author, and
also between time or place and the instrument. But is the Son,
then, alien as regards His Nature from the Father, because an
instrument is alien from the
87. Compare now our assertions. They will have it that matter is of God as though of the nature of God, as when you say that a chest is made of wood or a statue of stone; that after this fashion matter has come forth from God, and that the same matter has been made by the Son as if by some sort of instrument; so that they declare that the Son is not so much the Artificer as the instrument of the work; and that all things have been made in the Spirit, as if in some place or time; they attribute each part severally to each Person severally and deny that all are in common.
88. But we show that all things are so of God the Father, that God the Father has suffered no loss because all things are either through Him or in Him, and yet all things are not of Him as if of matter; then, too, that all things are through the Lord the Son, so that He is not deprived of the attribute that all things are of the Son and in Him; and that all things are in the Spirit, so that we may teach that all things are through the Spirit, and all things from the Spirit.
89. For these particles, like those of which
we have spoken before, imply each other. For the Apostle did not
so say, All things are of God, and all things are through the Son, as
to signify that the substance of the Father and the Son could be
severed, but that he might teach that by a distinction without
confusion the Father is one, the Son another. Those particles,
then, are not as it were in opposition to each other, but are as it
were allied and agreed, so as often to suit even one Person, as it is
written: “For of Him, and through Him, and in Him are all
things.”
90. But if you really consider whence the
passage is taken you will have no doubt that it is said of the
Son. For the Apostle says, according to the prophecy of Isaiah,
“Who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His
counsellor?”
91. And the Apostle added: “For
of Him, and through Him, and in Him are all things.” What
is “of Him”? That the nature of everything is of His
will, and He is the Author of all things which have come into
being. “Through Him” means what? That the
establishment and continuance of all things is His gift. What is
“in Him”? That all things by a wonderful kind of
longing and unspeakable love look upon the Author of their life, and
the Giver of their graces and functions, according to that which is
written: “The eyes of all look unto Thee,” and
“Thou openest Thine hand and fillest every living creature with
Thy good pleasure.”
92. And of the Father, too, you may rightly say “of Him,” for of Him was the operative Wisdom, Which of His own and the Father’s will gave being to all things which were not. “Through Him,” because all things were made through His Wisdom. “In Him,” because He is the Fount of substantial Life, in Whom we live and move and have our being.
93. Of the Spirit also, as being formed by Him, strengthened by Him, established in Him, we receive the gift of eternal life.
94. Since, then, these expressions seem
suitable either to the Father or the Son or the Holy Spirit, it is
certain that nothing derogatory is spoken of in them, since we both say
that many things are of the Son, and many through the Father, as you
find it said of the Son: “That we may be increased through
all things in Him, Who is Christ the Head, from Whom,” says he,
“the whole body, framed and knit together through every joint of
the supply for the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body
unto the building up of itself in love.” S. S. S.
95. In like manner that you may recognize the
Unity, it is also said of the Spirit: “For he that soweth
in the Spirit shall of the Spirit
S. S.
96. So, then, as we read that all things are of the Father, so, too, that all things can be said to be of the Son, through Whom are all things; and we are taught by proof that all things are of the Spirit in Whom are all things.
97. Now let us consider whether we can teach
that anything is through the Father. But it is written:
“Paul the servant of Christ through the will of
God;”
98. You will find many other passages, if you look for things done through the Father. Is, then, the Father less because we read that many things are in the Son and of the Son, and find in the heavenly Scriptures very many things done or given through the Father?
99. But in like manner we also read of many
things done through the Spirit, as you find: “But God hath
revealed them to us through His Spirit;”
100. But perhaps some one may say, Show me
that we can read expressly that all things are of the Son, or that all
things are of the Spirit. But I reply, Let them also show that it
is written that all things are through the Father. But since we
have proved that these expressions suit either the Father or the Son or
the Holy Spirit, and that no distinction of the divine power can arise
from particles of this kind, there is no doubt but that all things are
of Him through Whom all things are; and that all things are through Him
through Whom all are; and that we must understand that all things are
through Him or of Him in Whom all are. For every creature exists
both of the will, and through the operation and in the power of the
Trinity, as it is written: “Let Us make man after Our image
and likeness;”
Being about to prove that the will, the calling, and the commandment of the Trinity is one, St. Ambrose shows that the Spirit called the Church exactly as the Father and the Son did, and proves this by the selection of SS. Paul and Barnabas, and especially by the mission of St. Peter to Cornelius. And by the way he points out how in the Apostle’s vision the calling of the Gentiles was shadowed forth, who having been before like wild beasts, now by the operation of the Spirit lay aside that wildness. Then having quoted other passages in support of this view, he shows that in the case of Jeremiah cast into a pit by Jews, and rescued by Abdemelech, is a type of the slighting of the Holy Spirit by the Jews, and of His being honoured by the Gentiles.
101. And not only
is the operation of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit everywhere one but
also there is one and the same will, calling, and giving of commands,
which one may see in the great and saving mystery of the Church.
For as the Father called the Gentiles to the Church, saying:
“I will call her My people which was not My people, and her
beloved who was not beloved;”
102. As, then, God the Father called the
Church, so, too, Christ called it, and so, too, the Spirit called it,
saying: “Separate Me Paul and Barnabas for the work to
which I have called them.” “So,” it is added,
“having fasted and prayed, they laid hands on them and sent them
forth. And they, being sent forth by the Holy Spirit, went down
to Seleucia.”
103. And not only Paul, but also, as we read
in the Acts of the Apostles, Peter. For when he had seen in his
prayer heaven opened and a certain vessel tied at the four corners, as
it were a sheet in which were all kinds of four-footed beasts and wild
beasts and fowls of the air, “a voice came to him saying, Arise,
Peter, kill and eat. And Peter said, Be it far from me, Lord, I
have never eaten anything common or unclean. And again a voice
came to him, saying, What God hath cleansed call not thou common.
And this was done three times, and the vessel was received back into
heaven.”
104. How clearly did the Holy Spirit express His own power! First of all in that He inspired him who was praying, and was present to him who was entreating; then when Peter, being called, answered, “Lord,” and so was found worthy of a second message, because he acknowledged the Lord. But the Scripture declares Who that Lord was, for He Whom he had answered spoke to him when he answered. And the following words show the Spirit clearly revealed, for He Who formed the mystery made known the mystery.
105. Notice, also, that the appearance of
the mystery three times repeated expressed the operation of the
Trinity. And so in the mysteries The
“mysteries” are the sacrament of baptism, and the
“three-fold question” those which preceded baptism,
viz.: Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty? Dost
thou believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His cross? and Dost thou
believe in the Holy Spirit? with the answer, “I believe,”
to each, as mentioned by the author of De Sacramentis, II. 7
(written probably in the 5th or 6th century).
106. Then, again, because the Angel is sent
to Cornelius, the Holy Spirit speaks to Peter: “For the
eyes of the Lord are over the faithful of the earth.”
107. It is, then, the Holy Spirit Who has
delivered us from that Gentile impurity. For in those kinds of
four-footed creatures and wild beasts and birds there was a figure of
the condition of man, which appears clothed with the bestial ferocity
of wild beasts unless it grows gentle by the sanctification of the
Spirit. Excellent, then, is that grace which changes the rage of
beasts into the simplicity of the Spirit: “For we also were
aforetime foolish, unbelieving, erring, serving divers lusts and
pleasures. But now by the renewing of the Spirit we begin to be
heirs of Christ, and joint-heirs with the Angels.”
108. Therefore the holy prophet David,
seeing in the Spirit that we should from wild beasts become like the
dwellers in heaven, says, “Rebuke the wild beasts of the
wood,”
109. We then were wild beasts, and therefore
the Lord said: “Beware of false prophets, which come in
sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravening
wolves.” S.
111. Do not, then, like a Jew, despise the
Son, Whom the prophets foretold; for you would despise also the Holy
Spirit, you would despise Isaiah, you would despise Jeremiah, whom he
who was chosen of the Lord raised with rags and cords from the pit of
that Jewish abode.
112. In which account is a very beautiful
figure, that is to say, that we, sinners of the Gentiles, black
beforehand through our transgressions, and aforetime fruitless, raised
from the depth the word of prophecy which the Jews had thrust down, as
it were, into the mire of their mind and carnality. And therefore
it is written: “Ethiopia shall stretch out her hand unto
God.”
113. And fittingly is the prophet raised by
cords, for the faithful writer said: “The lines are fallen
unto me in pleasant places.”
We shall follow the example of Abdemelech, if we believe that the Son and Holy Spirit know all things. This knowledge is attributed in Scripture to the Spirit, and also to the Son. The Son is glorified by the Spirit, as also the Spirit by the Son. Also, inasmuch as we read that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit say and reveal the same things, we must acknowledge in Them a oneness of nature and knowledge. Lastly, that the Spirit searcheth the deep things of God is not a mark of ignorance, since the Father and the Son are likewise said to search, and Paul, although chosen by Christ, yet was taught by the Spirit.
114. And you, too,
shall be Abdemelech, Ebedmelech
means “servant of the king.” S.
115. And that you may know that He both
knows all things, and foretells things to come, and that His knowledge
is one with that of the Father and the Son, hear what the Truth of God
says concerning Him: “For He shall not speak from Himself,
but what things He shall hear shall He speak, and He shall declare unto
you the things that are to come.” S.
116. Therefore, that you may observe that He
knows all things, when the Son said: “But of that day and
hour knoweth no one, not even the Angels of heaven,” S.
117. But you say that He numbered the Son of
God also with the Angels. He numbered the Son indeed, but He did
not number the Spirit also. Confess, then, either that the Holy
Spirit is greater than the Son of God, so as to speak now not only as
an Arian, but even as a Photinian, There is
some little difficulty in ascertaining exactly what were the tenets of
Photinus, but it would appear that St. Ambrose considered that he held
our Lord to be mere man, and so was worse than the Arians. See
Dict. Chr. Biog. art. “Photinus,” and Blunt,
Dict. of Sects and Heresies, art.
“Photinians.”
S.
119. Yet learn that the Son knows the day of
judgment. We read in Zechariah: “And the Lord my God
shall come, and all the saints with Him. In that day there shall
not be light, but cold and frost, and it shall be one day, and that day
is known unto the Lord.”
120. But let us continue the point which we have commenced concerning the Spirit. For in the passage we have brought forward you find that the Son says of the Spirit: “He shall glorify Me.” So, then, the Spirit glorifies the Son, as the Father also glorifies Him, but the Son of God also glorifies the Spirit, as we said above. He, then, is not weak who is the cause of the mutual glory through the Unity of the Eternal Light, nor is He inferior to the Spirit, of Whom this is true that He is glorified by the Spirit.
122. And you too shall be chosen, if you
believe that the Spirit spoke that which the Father spoke, and which
the Son spoke. Paul, in fine, was therefore chosen because he so
believed and so taught, since, as it is written, God “hath
revealed to us by His Spirit that which eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, nor hath entered into the heart of man, the things which God
hath prepared for them that love Him.”
123. There is, then, a Unity of knowledge,
since, as the Father, Who gives the Spirit of revelation, reveals, so
also the Son reveals, for it is written: “No one knoweth
the Son save the Father, neither doth any one know the Father save the
Son, and he to whom the Son shall will to reveal Him.” S.
124. Learn now that the Spirit too knows God
the Father, for it is written that, “As no one knoweth the things
of a man, save the spirit which is in him, so too the things of God no
one knoweth save the Spirit of God.” “No one,”
he says, “knoweth save the Spirit of God.”
125. Therefore the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one nature and of one knowledge. And the Spirit is not to be numbered with all things which were made by the Son, since He knew the Father, Whom (as it is written) who can know save the Son? But the Holy Spirit knows also. What then? When the totality of created things is spoken of, it follows that the Holy Spirit is not included.
126. Now I should like them to answer what
it is in man which knows the things of a man. Certainly that must
be reasonable which surpasses the other powers of the soul, and by
which the highest nature of man is estimated. What, then, is the
Spirit, Who knows the deep things of God, and through Whom Almighty God
is revealed? Is He inferior in the fulness of the Godhead Who is
proved even by this instance to be of one substance with the
Father? Or is He ignorant of anything Who knows the counsels of
God, and His mysteries which have been hidden
127. But lest you should think that He searches
things unknown, and so searches that He may learn that which He knows
not, it is stated first that God revealed them to us through His
Spirit, and at the same time in order that you may learn that the
Spirit knows the things which are revealed to us through the Spirit
Himself, it is said subsequently: “For who among men
knoweth the things of a man, save the
128. But if this moves you that He said
“searcheth,” learn that this is also said of God, inasmuch
as He is the searcher of hearts and reins. For Himself
said: “I am He that searcheth the heart and
reins.”
129. Lastly, he was chosen by Christ, and
taught by the Spirit. For as he himself witnesses, having
obtained through the Spirit knowledge of the divine secrets, he shows
both that the Holy Spirit knows God, and has revealed to us the things
which are of God, as the Son also has revealed them. And he
adds: “But we received, not the spirit of this world, but
the Spirit which is of God, that we might know the things that are
given to us by God, which we also speak, not in persuasive words of
man’s wisdom, but in manifestation of the Spirit and in the power
of God.”
After proof that the Spirit is the Giver of revelation equally with the Father and the Son, it is explained how the same Spirit does not speak of Himself; and it is shown that no bodily organs are to be thought of in Him, and that no inferiority is to be supposed from the fact of our reading that He hears, since the same would have to be attributed to the Son, and indeed even to the Father, since He hears the Son. The Spirit then hears and glorifies the Son in the sense that He revealed Him to the prophets and apostles, by which the Unity of operation of the Three Persons is inferred; and, since the Spirit does the same works as the Father, the substance of each is also declared to be the same.
130. It has then been proved that like as God has revealed to us the things which are His, so too the Son, and so too the Spirit, has revealed the things of God. For our knowledge proceeds from one Spirit, through one Son to one Father; and from one Father through one Son to one Holy Spirit is delivered goodness and sanctification and the sovereign right of eternal power. Where, then, there is a manifestation of the Spirit, there is the power of God, nor can there be any distinction where the work is one. And therefore that which the Son says the Father also says, and that which the Father says the Son also says, and that which the Father and the Son say the Holy Spirit also says.
131. Whence also the Son of God said
concerning the Holy Spirit: “He shall not speak from
Himself,” S.
132. Therefore if in men hearing is not always of the body, do you require in God the voices of man’s weakness, and certain organs of fleshly hearing, when He is said to hear in order that we may believe that He knows? For we know that which we have heard, and we hear beforehand that we may be able to know; but in God Who knows all things knowledge goes before hearing. So in order to state that the Son is not ignorant of what the Father wills, we say that He has heard; but in God there is no sound nor syllable, such as usually signify the indication of the will; but oneness of will is comprehended in hidden ways in God, but in us is shown by signs.
133. What means, then, “He shall not speak
from Himself”? This is, He shall not speak without Me; for
He speaks the
134. The Son received all things from the
Father, for He Himself said: “All things have been
delivered unto Me from My Father.” S. S. S.
135. But if you contend that this is an
argument for the weakness of the Holy Spirit, and for a kind of
likeness to the lowliness of the body, you will also make it an
argument to the injury of the Son, because the Son said of
Himself: “As I hear I judge,” S. S. S. Sabellianism
denied the doctrine of the Trinity, maintaining that God is One Person
only, manifesting Himself in three characters. See Dict. Chr.
Biog. art. “Sabellius,” and Blunt, Dict of Sects,
etc.
136. Lastly, that one may not think that
there is any difference of work either in time or in order between the
Father and the Son, but may believe the oneness of the same operation,
He says: “The works which I do He doeth.” Either S. S.
137. What if I demonstrate that the Father
also hears the Son, as the Son too hears the Father? For you have
it written in the Gospel that the Son says: “Father, I
thank Thee that Thou heardest Me.” S. S.
138. In like manner, then, the Spirit is
said to hear from the Father, and to glorify the Son. To glorify,
because the Holy Spirit taught us that the Son is the Image of the
invisible God,
139. Lastly, it is the same God Who worketh all in
all, that you may know that there is no diversity of operation between
God the Father and the Holy Spirit; since those things which the Spirit
works, God the Father also works, “Who worketh all in
all.” For while God the Father worketh all in all, yet
“to one is given through the Spirit the word of wisdom; to
another the word of knowledge, according to the same Spirit; to another
faith, in the same Spirit; to another the gift of healings, in the one
Spirit; to another the working of miracles; to another prophecy; to
another discerning of spirits; to another divers kinds of
140. There is then no doubt but that those things which the Father worketh, the Spirit worketh also. Nor does He work in accordance with a command, as he who hears in bodily fashion, but voluntarily, as being free in His own will, not the servant of the power of another. For He does not obey as being bidden, but as the giver He is the controller of His own gifts.
141. Consider meanwhile whether you can say that the Spirit effects all things which the Father effects; for you cannot deny that the Father effects those things which the Holy Spirit effects; otherwise the Father does not effect all things, if He effects not those things which the Spirit also effects. But if the Father also effects those things which the Spirit effects, since the Spirit divides His operations, according to His own will, you must of necessity say, either that what the Spirit divides He divides according to His own will, against the will of God the Father; or if you say that the Father wills the same that the Holy Spirit wills, you must of necessity confess the oneness of the divine will and operation, even if you do it unwillingly, and, if not with the heart, at least with the mouth.
142. But if the Holy Spirit is of one will
and operation with God the Father, He is also of one substance, since
the Creator is known by His works. So, then, it is the same
Spirit, he says, the same Lord, the same God.
Prophecy was not only from the Father and the Son but also from the Spirit; the authority and operation of the latter on the apostles is signified to be the same as Theirs; and so we are to understand that there is unity in the three points of authority, rule, and bounty; yet need no disadvantage be feared from that participation, since such does not arise in human friendship. Lastly, it is established that this is the inheritance of the apostolic faith from the fact that the apostles are described as having obeyed the Holy Spirit.
143. Take, O sacred
Emperor, another strong instance in this question, and one known to
you: “In many ways and in divers manners, God spake to the
fathers in the prophets.” S.
144. The apostles also said: “It
seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.”
145. And how should He not be a master Who
speaks what He wills, and commands what He wills, as the Father
commands and the Son commands? For as Paul heard the voice saying
to him, “I am Jesus, Whom thou persecutest,” S.
146. Lastly, Paul having been sent by the Spirit,
was both a vessel of election on
S.
147. The operation, then, of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is one, unless perchance you, who deny the oneness of the same operation upon the Apostle, think this; that the Father and the Spirit wrought in Peter, in whom the Son had wrought, as if the operation of the Son by no means sufficed for him to the attainment of the grace. And so the strength of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit being as it were joined and brought together, the work was manifold, lest the operation of Christ alone should be too weak to establish Peter.
148. And not only in Peter is there found to
be one operation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but also
in all the apostles the unity of the divine operation, and a certain
authority over the dispensations of heaven. For the divine
operation works by the power of a command, not in the execution of a
ministry; for God, when He works, does not fashion anything by toil or
art, but “He spake and they were made.”
149. We can, then, easily find, if we will
consider, that this royal power is by the witness of the Scriptures
attributed to the Holy Spirit; and it will be made clear that all the
apostles were not only disciples of Christ, but also ministers of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. As also the teacher of the
Gentiles tells us, when he says: “God hath set some in the
Church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers; then
miracles, the gift of healings, helps, governments, divers kinds of
tongues.”
150. See, God set apostles, and set prophets
and teachers, gave the gift of healings, which you find above to be
given by the Holy Spirit; gave divers kinds of tongues. But yet
all are not apostles, all are not prophets, all are not teachers.
Not all, says he, have the gift of healings, nor do all, says he, speak
with tongues.
151. Lastly, God set apostles. Those
whom God set in the Church, Christ chose and ordained to be apostles,
and sent them into the world, saying: “Go ye into all the
world, and preach the Gospel to the whole creation. He that shall
believe and be baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall
be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe.
In My Name shall they cast out devils, they shall speak with new
tongues, they shall take up serpents, and if they shall drink any
deadly thing, it shall not hurt them, they shall lay hands on the sick,
and they shall recover.” S.
152. In like manner we have heard also above
concerning the Holy Spirit, that He too grants the same kinds of
graces. For it is said: “To one is given through the
Spirit the gift of healings, to another divers kinds of tongues, to
another prophecy.”
153. There is, then, unity of authority, unity of
appointment, unity of giving. For if you separate appointment and
power, what cause was there [for maintaining] that those whom Christ
appointed as apostles, God the Father
154. These things are narrow and paltry, even between men, who for the most part, although they do not agree in action, yet agree in will. So that a certain person being asked what a friend is, answered, “A second self.” If, then, a man so defined a friend as to say, he was a second self, that is to say, through a oneness of love and good-will, how much more ought we to esteem the oneness of Majesty, in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, when by the same operation and divine power, either the unity, or certainly that which is more, the ταυτότης, as it is called in Greek, is expressed, for ταύτο signifies “the same,” so that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have the same; so that to have the same will and the same power does not arise from the affection of the will, but inheres in the substance of the Trinity.
155. This is the inheritance of apostolic
faith and devotion, which one may observe also in the Acts of the
Apostles. Therefore Paul and Barnabas obeyed the commands of the
Holy Spirit. And all the apostles obeyed, and forthwith ordained
those whom the Spirit had ordered to be separated:
“Separate Me,” said He, “Barnabas and
Saul.”
156. Paul believed, and because he believed
he cast off the zeal of a persecutor, and gained a crown of
righteousness. He believed who used to make havoc of the
Churches; but being converted to the faith, he preached in the Spirit
that which the Spirit commanded.
157. Barnabas also believed, and obeyed because he believed. Therefore, being chosen by the authority of the Holy Spirit, Which came on him abundantly, as a special sign of his merits, he was not unworthy of so great a fellowship. For one grace shone in these whom one Spirit had chosen.
158. Nor was Paul inferior to Peter, though the latter was the foundation of the Church, and the former a wise builder knowing how to make firm the footsteps of the nations who believed; Paul was not, I say, unworthy of the fellowship of the apostles, but is easily comparable with the first, and second to none. For he who knows not that he is inferior makes himself equal.
Not only were the prophets and apostles sent by the Spirit, but also the Son of God. This is proved from Isaiah and the evangelists, and it is explained why St. Luke wrote that the same Spirit descended like a dove upon Christ and abode upon Him. Next, after establishing this mission of Christ, the writer infers that the Son is sent by the Father and the Spirit, as the Spirit is by the Father and the Son.
1. In the former
book Bk. II. 12. S.
2. Can we, then, wonder if the Spirit sent both
the prophets and the apostles, since Christ said: “The
Spirit of the Lord is upon Me”? And rightly did He say
“upon Me,” because He was speaking as the Son of Man.
For as the Son of Man He
3. But if they believe not the Son, let them
hear the Father also saying that the Spirit of the Lord is upon
Christ. For He says to John: “Upon whomsoever thou
shalt see the Spirit descending from heaven and abiding upon Him, He it
is Who baptizeth with the Holy Spirit.” S. S.
4. As John says that he saw, so, too, wrote Mark; Luke, however, added that the Holy Spirit descended in a bodily form as a dove; you must not think that this was an incarnation, but an appearance. He, then, brought the appearance before him, that by means of the appearance he might believe who did not see the Spirit, and that by the appearance He might manifest that He had a share of the one honour in authority, the one operation in the mystery, the one gift in the bath, together with the Father and the Son; unless perchance we consider Him in Whom the Lord was baptized too weak for the servant to be baptized in Him.
5. And he said fittingly, “abiding
upon Him,” S.
6. Nor, again, let it move you that he said
“upon Him,” for he was speaking of the Son of Man, because
he was baptized as the Son of Man. For the Spirit is not upon
Christ, according to the Godhead, but in Christ; for, as the Father is
in the Son, and the Son in the Father, so the Spirit of God and the
Spirit of Christ is both in the Father and in the Son, for He is the
Spirit of His mouth. For He Who is of God abides in God, as it is
written: “But we received not the spirit of this world, but
the Spirit which is of God.” S.
7. Who, then, can doubt that the Spirit sent
the prophets and apostles, since the Son of God says: “The
Spirit of the Lord is upon Me.” S.
8. So both the Father and the Spirit sent
the Son; the Father sent Him, for it is written: “But the
Paraclete, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My
Name.” S. S.
The Son and the Spirit are alike given; whence not subjection but one Godhead is shown by Its working.
9. And not only did
the Father send the Son, but also gave Him, as the Son Himself gave
Himself. For we read: “Grace to you from God our
Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, Who gave Himself for our
sins.”
10. But the Holy Spirit also was given, for
it is written: “I will ask the Father, and He shall give
you another Paraclete.” S.
The same Unity may also be recognized from the fact that the Spirit is called Finger, and the Son Right Hand; for the understanding of divine things is assisted by the usage of human language. The tables of the law were written by this Finger, and they were afterwards broken, and the reason. Lastly, Christ wrote with the same Finger; yet we must not admit any inferiority in the Spirit from this bodily comparison.
11. So, too, the
Spirit is also called the Finger of God, because there is an
indivisible and inseparable communion between the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Spirit. For as the Scripture called the Son of God the
Right Hand of God, as it is said: “Thy Right Hand, O Lord,
is made glorious in power. Thy Right Hand, O Lord, hath dashed in
pieces the enemy;” S. S.
12. What, then, could have been said to signify more expressly the unity of the Godhead, or of Its working, which Unity is according to the Godhead of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Holy Spirit, than that we should understand that the fulness of the eternal Godhead would seem to be divided far more than this body of ours, if any one were to sever the unity of Substance, and multiply Its powers, whereas the eternity of the same Godhead is one?
13. For oftentimes it is convenient to
estimate from our own words those things which are above us, and
because we cannot see those things we draw inferences from those which
we can see. “For the invisible things of Him,” says
the Apostle, “from the creation of the world are clearly seen,
being understood by those things which are made.”
14. With this Finger, as we read, God wrote
on those tables of stone which Moses received. For God did not
with a finger of flesh write the forms and portions of those letters
which we read, but gave the law by His Spirit. And so the Apostle
says: “For the Law is spiritual, which, indeed, is written
not with ink, but with the Spirit of the living God; not in tables of
stone, but on fleshy tables of the heart.”
14. Now it was written on tables of stone, because
it was written in a type, but the tables were first broken and cast out
of the hands of Moses, because the Jews fell away from the works of the
prophet. And fitly were the tables broken, not the writing
erased. And do you see that your table be not broken, that your
mind and soul be not
15. With this Finger, also, the Lord Jesus, with bowed head, mystically wrote on the ground, when the adulteress was brought before Him by the Jews, signifying in a figure that, when we judge of the sins of another, we ought to remember our own.
16. And lest, again, because God wrote the
Law by His Spirit, we should believe any inferiority, as it were,
concerning the ministry of the Spirit, or from the consideration of our
own body should think the Spirit to be a small part of God, the Apostle
says, elsewhere, that he does not speak with words of human wisdom, but
in words taught by the Spirit, and that he compares spiritual things
with spiritual; but that the natural man receiveth not the things which
pertain to the Spirit of God.
To those who contend that the Spirit because He is called the Finger is less than the Father, St. Ambrose replies that this would also tend to the lessening of the Son, Who is called the Right Hand. That these names are to be referred only to the Unity, for which reason Moses proclaimed that the whole Trinity worked in the passage of the Red Sea. And, indeed, it is no wonder that the operation of the Spirit found place there, where there was a figure of baptism, since the Scripture teaches that the Three Persons equally sanctify and are operative in that sacrament.
17. But if any one is still entangled in carnal doubts, and hesitates because of bodily figures, let him consider that he cannot think rightly of the Son who can think wrongly of the Spirit. For if some think that the Spirit is a certain small portion of God, because He is called the Finger of God, the same persons must certainly maintain that a small portion only is in the Son of God, because He is called the Right Hand of God.
18. But the Son is called both the Right Hand and the Power of God; if, then, we consider our words, there can be no perfection without power; let them therefore take care lest they think that which it is impious to say, namely, that the Father being but half perfect in His own Substance received perfection through the Son, and let them cease to deny that the Son is co-eternal with the Father. For when did the Power of God not exist? But if they think that at any time the Power of God existed not, they will say that at some time Perfection existed not in God the Father, to Whom they think that Power was at some time wanting.
19. But, as I said, these things are written
that we may refer them to the Unity of the Godhead, and believe that
which the Apostle said, that the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodily
in Christ,
20. And this may also be gathered from the
Song of Moses, for he, after leading the people of the Jews through the
sea, acknowledged the operation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit, saying: “Thy Right Hand, O Lord, is glorious in
power, Thy Right Hand, O Lord, hath dashed in pieces the
enemy.”
21. You see, then, that the Holy Spirit also
co-operated with the Father and the Son, so that just as if the waves
were congealed in the midst of the sea, a wall as it were of water rose
up for the passage of the Jews, and then, poured back again by the
Spirit, overwhelmed the people of the Egyptians. And many think
that from the same origin the pillar of cloud went before the people of
the Jews by day, and the pillar of fire by
22. Now that this operation of God, which
the whole world rightly wonders at, did not take place without the work
of the Holy Spirit, the Apostle also declared when he said that the
truth of a spiritual mystery was prefigured in it, for we read as
follows: “For our fathers were all under the cloud, and all
passed through the sea, and were all baptized in Moses in the cloud and
in the sea, and did all eat the same spiritual meat, and did all drink
the same spiritual drink.”
23. For how without the operation of the
Holy Spirit could there be the type of a sacrament, the whole truth of
which is in the Spirit? As the Apostle also set forth,
saying: “But ye were washed, but ye were sanctified, but ye
were justified in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit
of our God.”
24. You see, then, that the Father works in the Son, and that the Son works in the Spirit. And therefore do not doubt that, according to the order of Scripture, there was in the figure that which the Truth Himself declared to be in the truth. For who can deny His operation in the Font, in which we feel His operation and grace?
25. For as the Father sanctifies, so, too,
the Son sanctifies, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies. The Father
sanctifies according to that which is written: “The God of
peace sanctify you, and may your spirit, soul, and body be preserved
entire without blame in the day of our Lord Jesus
Christ.” S.
26. But of the Son the same Apostle
said: “Who was made unto us wisdom from God, and
righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.”
27. And the Apostle also teaches that the
Holy Spirit sanctifies. For he speaks thus: “We are
bound to give thanks to God always for you, brethren dearly beloved of
the Lord; because God chose you as first-fruits unto salvation, in
sanctification of the Spirit, and belief of the truth.”
28. So, then, the Father sanctifies, the Son also sanctifies, and the Holy Spirit sanctifies; but the sanctification is one, for baptism is one, and the grace of the sacrament is one.
The writer sums up the argument he had commenced, and confirms the statement that unity is signified by the terms finger and right hand, from the fact that the works of God are the same as are the works of hands; and that those of hands are the same as those of fingers; and lastly, that the term hand applies equally to the Son and the Spirit, and that of finger applies to the Spirit and the Son.
29. But what wonder is it if He Who Himself needs no sanctification, but abounds therewith, sanctifies each man; since, as I said, we have been taught that His Majesty is so great, that the Holy Spirit seems to be as inseparable from God the Father as the finger is from the body?
30. But if any one thinks that this should be referred not to the oneness of power, but to its lessening, he indeed will fall into such madness as to appear to fashion the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as it were into one bodily form, and to picture to himself certain distinctions of its members.
31. But let them learn, as I have often
said, that not inequality but unity of power is signified by this
testimony; inasmuch as things which are the works of God are also the
works of hands, and we read that the same are the works of
fingers. For it is written: “The heavens declare the
glory of God, and the firmament showeth the work of His
hands;”
32. But those which are the works of the
hands are also the works of the fingers, for it is equally
written: “For I will behold Thy heavens, the works of Thy
fingers, the moon, and the stars, which Thou hast
established.”
33. And yet since we read that the Son is
the hand (for it is written: “Hath not My Hand made all
these things?”
34. And again, since we read that the Spirit
is the finger of God, we think that fingers [in the plural] are spoken
of to signify the Son and Spirit. Lastly, that he may state that
he received the sanctification both of the Son and of the Spirit, a
certain saint says: “Thy hands have made me and fashioned
me.”
The Spirit rebukes just as do the Father and the Son; and indeed judges could not judge without Him, as is shown by the judgments of Solomon and Daniel, which are explained in a few words, by the way; and no other than the Holy Spirit inspired Daniel.
35. Why do we
reject like words when we assert the oneness of power, since the
oneness of power extends so far that the Spirit rebukes, as the Father
rebukes, and as the Son rebukes. For so it is written:
“O Lord, rebuke me not in Thine anger, neither chasten me in Thy
displeasure.” S.
36. But whither is the madness of faithless
men leading us, so that we appear to be proving, as if it were a matter
of doubt, that the Holy Spirit rebukes, whereas judges themselves are
unable to judge, except through the Spirit. Lastly, that famous
judgment of Solomon, when, amongst the difficulties arising from those
who were contending, as one, having overlain the child which she had
borne, wished to claim the child of another, and the other was
protecting her own son, he both discovered deceit in the very hidden
thoughts, and affection in the mother’s heart, was certainly so
admirable only by the gift of the Holy Spirit. For no other sword
would have penetrated the hidden feeling of those women, except the
sword of the Spirit, of which the Lord says: “I am not come
to send peace but a sword.” S.
37. Consider what the prophet says, that He
oversees all things. And so Solomon also oversaw, so that he
ordered that sword to be brought, because while pretending that he
intended to divide the infant, he reflected that the true mother would
have more regard for her son than for her comfort, and would set
kindness before right, not right before kindness. But that she
who feigned the feelings of a mother, blinded by the desire of gaining
her end, would think little of the destruction of him in regard to whom
she felt no outgoing of tenderness. And so that spiritual man,
that he might judge all things (for he that is spiritual judgeth all
things),
38. He judges in a prophet, for the word of
wisdom is given by the Spirit;
39. Daniel also, unless he had received the
Spirit of God, would never have been able to discover that lustful
adultery, that fraudulent lie. For when Susanna, assailed by the
conspiracy of the elders, saw that the mind of the people was moved by
consideration for the old men, and destitute of all help, alone amongst
men, conscious of her chastity she prayed God to judge; it is
written: “The Lord heard her voice, when she was being led
to be put to death, and the Lord raised up the Holy Spirit of a young
youth, whose name was Daniel.”
41. Understand, then, the sacred and heavenly
miracle of the Holy Spirit. She who preferred to be chaste in
herself, rather than in the opinion of the people, she who preferred to
hazard [the reputation of] her innocence, rather than her modesty, who
42. Let the chaste learn not to dread
calumny. For she who preferred chastity to life did not suffer
the loss of life, and retained the glory of chastity. So, too,
Abraham, once bidden to go to foreign lands, and not being held back
either by the danger to his wife’s modesty, nor by the fear of
death before him, preserved both his own life and his wife’s
chastity.
43. And lest any one should perhaps think
that, as the Scripture says, “God raised up the Holy Spirit of a
young youth,” the Spirit in him was that of a man, not the Holy
Spirit, let him read farther on, and he will find that Daniel received
the Holy Spirit, and therefore prophesied. Lastly, too, the king
advanced him because he had the grace of the Spirit. For he
speaks thus: “Thou, O Daniel, art able, forasmuch as the
Holy Spirit of God is in thee.”
The Son Himself does not judge or punish without the Spirit, so that the same Spirit is called the Sword of the Word. But inasmuch as the Word is in turn called the Sword of the Spirit, the highest unity of power is thereby recognized in each.
44. But what should
we say of the other points? We have heard that the Lord Jesus not
only judges in the Spirit but punishes also. For neither would He
punish Antichrist, whom, as we read, “the Lord Jesus shall slay
with the Spirit of His mouth,”
45. And since that instance comes before us,
that the Lord Jesus shall slay with the Spirit of His mouth, the Spirit
is understood to be as it were the Sword of the Word. Lastly, in
the Gospel also the Lord Jesus Himself says: “I came not to
send peace but a sword.” S.
46. And that you may know that there is no
inequality but unity of nature, the Word also is the Sword of the Holy
Spirit, for it is written: “Taking the shield of faith,
wherewith ye may be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked
one. And take the helmet of Salvation, and the sword of the
Spirit, which is the Word of God.”
47. Since, then, the Sword of the Word is the Holy Spirit, and the Sword of the Holy Spirit is the Word of God, there is certainly in Them oneness of power.
The aforesaid unity is proved hereby, that as the Father is said to be grieved and tempted, so too the Son. The Son was also tempted in the wilderness, where a figure of the cross was set up in the brazen serpent: but the Apostle says that the Spirit also was there tempted. St. Ambrose infers from this that the Israelites were guided into the promised land by the same Spirit, and that His will and power are one with those of the Father and the Son.
48. And we may
behold this unity also in other passages of the Scriptures. For
whereas Ezekiel says to the people of the Jews: “And thou
hast grieved Me in all these things, saith the Lord;”
49. Understand also that whereas Scripture
in other places says that the Spirit was tempted, and that God was
tempted, it says also that Christ was tempted; for you have the Apostle
saying to the Corinthians: “Neither let us tempt Christ, as
some of them tempted, and perished by serpents.”
50. And well did the Lord ordain that by the
lifting up of the brazen serpent the wounds of those who were bitten
should be healed; for the brazen serpent is a type of the Cross; for
although in His flesh Christ was lifted up, yet in Him was the Apostle
crucified to the world and the world to him; for he says:
“The world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the
world.”
51. Therefore when you find in the book of
Moses, that the Lord being tempted sent serpents on the people of the
Jews, it is necessary that you either confess the Unity of the Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit in the Divine Majesty, or certainly when the
writing of the Apostle says that the Spirit was tempted, it undoubtedly
pointed out the Spirit by the name of Lord. But the Apostle
writing to the Hebrews says that the Spirit was tempted, for you find
this: “Wherefore the Holy Ghost saith this: Today if
ye shall hear His voice, harden not your hearts, like as in the
provocation in the day of temptation in the wilderness, where your
fathers tempted Me, proved Me, and saw My works. Forty years was
I near to this generation and said: They do alway err in their
heart; but they did not know My ways, as I sware in My wrath, If they
shall enter into My rest.”
52. Therefore, according to the Apostle, the
Spirit was tempted. If He was tempted, He also certainly was
guiding the people of the Jews into the land of promise, as it is
written: “For He led them through the deep, as a horse
through the wilderness, and they laboured not, and like the cattle
through the plain. The Spirit came down from the Lord and guided
them.”
53. Now let us look at these points one by one. God had promised rest to the Jews; the Spirit calls that rest His. God the Father relates that He was tempted by the unbelieving, and the Spirit says that He was tempted by the same, for the temptation is one wherewith the one Godhead of the Trinity was tempted by the unbelieving. God condemns the people of the Jews, so that they cannot attain to the land flowing with milk and honey, that is, to the rest of the resurrection; and the Spirit condemns them by the same decree: “If they shall enter into My rest.” It is, then, the decree of one Will, the excellency of one Power.
That the Holy Spirit is provoked is proved by the words of St. Peter, in which it is shown that the Spirit of God is one and the same as the Spirit of the Lord, both by other passages and by reference to the sentence of the same Apostle on Ananias and Sapphira, whence it is argued that the union of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son, as well as His own Godhead, is proved.
54. Perhaps,
however, some one might say that this passage cannot be specially
applied to the Holy Spirit, had not the same Apostle Peter taught us in
another place that the Holy Ghost can be tempted by our sins, for you
find that the wife of Ananias is thus addressed: “Why have
ye agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord?”
55. Then, in the same way as we here
understand that where the Spirit is there also is Christ; so also,
elsewhere, he shows that where Christ is, there also is the Holy
Spirit. For having said: “Do ye seek a proof of
Christ Who speaketh in me?”
56. But Peter himself in the instance we
have brought forward spoke first of the Holy Spirit, and then called
Him the Spirit of the Lord, for you read as follows:
“Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy
Spirit, and to deal fraudulently concerning the price of the
field? While it remained did it not continue thine own, and when
sold was it not in thy power? Why hast thou conceived this
wickedness in thy heart? Thou hast not lied unto men but unto
God.”
57. First, we understand that he called the Holy Spirit the Spirit of the Lord. Then, since he mentioned first the Holy Spirit and added: “Thou hast not lied unto men but unto God,” you must necessarily either understand the oneness of the Godhead in the Holy Spirit, since when the Holy Spirit is tempted a lie is told to God; or, if you endeavour to exclude the oneness of the Godhead, you yourself according to the words of Scripture certainly believe Him to be God.
58. For if we understand that these expressions are used both of the Spirit and of the Father, we certainly observe the unity of truth and knowledge in God the Father and the Holy Spirit, for falsehood is discovered alike by the Holy Spirit and by God the Father. But if we have received each truth concerning the Spirit, why do you, faithless man, attempt to deny what you read? Confess, then, either the oneness of the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, or the Godhead of the Holy Spirit. Whichever you say, you will have said each in God, for both the Unity upholds the Godhead and the Godhead the Unity
The Divinity of the Holy Spirit is supported by a passage of St. John. This passage was, indeed, erased by heretics, but it is a vain attempt, since their faithlessness could thereby more easily be convicted. The order of the context is considered in order that this passage may be shown to refer to the Spirit. He is born of the Spirit who is born again of the same Spirit, of Whom Christ Himself is believed to have been born and born again. Again, the Godhead of the Spirit is inferred from two testimonies of St. John; and lastly, it is explained how the Spirit, the water, and the blood are called witnesses.
59. Nor does the
Scripture in this place alone bear witness to the θεότης,
that is, the Godhead of the Holy Spirit; but also the Lord Himself said
in the Gospel: “The Spirit is God.” S. “The charge is
an admirable illustration of the groundlessness of such accusations of
wilful corruption of Scripture. The words in question have no
Greek authority at all, and are obviously a comment.”
Westcott on S. Auxentius, a
Cappadocian, was ordained priest a.d. 343 by
Gregory, the violent opponent of St. Athanasius. After the synod
of Milan a.d. 355, when the bishop of that
see, Dionysius, having refused to renounce Athanasius and the Nicene
faith, was banished, Auxentius was forcibly intruded as bishop, and, in
spite of the efforts of St. Hilary of Poitiers and other Catholics,
maintained his position till his death in 374. The
reference must be to the synods of Sirmium. In one held
a.d. 351, against Photinus, there was a great
attempt to make the semi-Arians appear orthodox, and St. Hilary
accepted, while St. Athanasius rejected, their formula. Another
synod was held a.d. 357, when the aged Hosius
was tormented into accepting a formula, called by St. Hilary the
“Sirmian blasphemy.” Another, no less injurious to
the faith, was held in 358, by the desire of Constantius. During
this time—but forgeries and the loss of some patristic writings
make the history of the whole period somewhat uncertain—dates the
weakness of Liberius, so that St. Ambrose may well speak of
nutantibus sacerdotibus. See Hefele, Conc.
Geschichte, I. on the Sirmian synods; Athanasius, Vol. IV. in this
series, p. 464 ff.; Dict. Chr. Biog. III. 171, art.
“Hosius;” Socrates, H. E., in this series, Vol. II.
pp. 56, 57, 58.
60. And you have indeed been able to blot out the letters, but could not remove the faith. That erasure betrayed you more, that erasure condemned you more; and you were not able to obliterate the truth, but that erasure blotted out your names from the book of life. Why was the passage removed, “For God is a Spirit,” if it did not pertain to the Spirit? For if you will have it that the expression is used of God the Father, you, who think it should be erased, deny, in consequence, God the Father. Choose which you will, in each the snare of your own impiety will bind you if you confess yourselves to be heathen by denying either the Father or the Spirit to be God. Therefore your confession wherein you have blotted out the Word of God remains, while you fear the original.
61. You have blotted it out, indeed, in your
breasts and minds, but the Word of
62. You are, then, convicted by your own confession that you cannot say it was done with wisdom but with cunning. For by cunning you know that you are convicted by the evidence of that passage, and that your arguments cannot apply against that testimony. For whence else could the meaning of that place be derived, since the whole tenour of the passage is concerning the Spirit?
63. Nicodemus enquires about regeneration,
and the Lord replies: “Verily, verily, I say unto thee,
except a man be born again by water and the Spirit, he cannot enter
into the kingdom of God.” S. S. S.
64. Who is he who is born of the Spirit, and
is made Spirit, but he who is renewed in the Spirit of his
mind?
65. I ask, however, why, if there be no
doubt that we are born again by the Holy Spirit, there should be any
doubt that we are born of the Holy Spirit, since the Lord Jesus Himself
was both born and born again of the Holy Spirit. And if you
confess that He was born of the Holy Spirit, because you are not able
to deny it, but deny that He was born again, it is great folly to
confess what is peculiar to God, and deny what is common to men.
And therefore that is well said to you which was said to the
Jews: “If I told you earthly things and ye believe not, how
shall ye believe if I tell you heavenly things?” S.
66. And yet we find each passage so written in Greek, that He said not, through the Spirit, but of the Spirit. For it stands thus: ἀμήν, ἀμήν, λέγω σοι, ἐὰν μή τις γεννηθῇ ἐξ ὓδατος και Πνεύματος, that is, of water and the Spirit. Therefore, since one ought not to doubt that “that which is born of the Spirit” is written of the Holy Spirit; there is no doubt but that the Holy Spirit also is God, according to that which is written, “the Spirit is God.”
67. But the same Evangelist, that he might
make it plain that he wrote this concerning the Holy Spirit, says
elsewhere: “Jesus Christ came by water and blood, not in
the water only, but by water and blood. And the Spirit beareth
witness, because the Spirit is truth; for there are three witnesses,
the Spirit, the water, and the blood; and these three are
one.”
68. Hear how they are witnesses: The
Spirit renews the mind, the water is serviceable for the laver, and the
blood refers to the price. For the Spirit made us children by
adoption, the water of the sacred Font washed us, the blood of the Lord
redeemed us. So we obtain one invisible and one visible testimony
in a spiritual sacrament, for “the Spirit Himself beareth witness
to our spirit.”
The objection has been made, that the words of St. John, “The Spirit is God,” are to be referred to God the Father; since Christ afterwards declares that God is to be worshipped in Spirit and in truth. The answer is, first, that by the word Spirit is sometimes meant spiritual grace; next, it is shown that, if they insist that the Person of the Holy Spirit is signified by the words “in Spirit,” and therefore deny that adoration is due to Him, the argument tells equally against the Son; and since numberless passages prove that He is to be worshipped, we understand from this that the same rule is to be laid down as regards the Spirit. Why are we commanded to fall down before His footstool? Because by this is signified the Lord’s Body, and as the Spirit was the Maker of this, it follows that He is to be worshipped, and yet it does not accordingly follow that Mary is to be worshipped. Therefore the worship of the Spirit is not done away with, but His union with the Father is expressed, when it is said that the Father is to be worshipped in Spirit, and this point is supported by similar expressions.
69. But perhaps
reference may be made to the fact that in a later passage of the same
book, the Lord again said that God is Spirit, but spoke of God the
Father. For you have this passage in the Gospel: “The
hour now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in
Spirit and truth, for such also doth the Father seek. God is
Spirit, and they that worship Him must worship in Spirit and
truth.” S.
70. To which point I will briefly answer
that Spirit is often put for the grace of the Spirit, as the Apostle
also said: “For the Spirit Himself intercedeth for us with
groanings which cannot be uttered;”
71. Now this cannot pertain to the fulness, nor to the dividing of the Spirit; for neither does the mind of man grasp His fulness, nor is He divided into any portions of Himself; but He pours into [the soul] the gift of spiritual grace, in which God is worshipped as He is also worshipped in truth, for no one worships Him except he who drinks in the truth of His Godhead with pious affection. And he certainly does not apprehend Christ as it were personally, nor the Holy Spirit personally.
72. Or if you think that this is said as it were personally of Christ and of the Spirit, then God is worshipped in truth in like manner as He is worshipped in Spirit. There is therefore either a like subjection, which God forbid that you should believe, and the Son is not worshipped; or, which is true, there is a like grace of Unity, and the Spirit is worshipped.
73. Let us then here draw our inferences and
put an end to the impious questionings of the Arians. For if they
say that the Spirit is therefore not to be worshipped because God is
worshipped in Spirit, let them then say that the Truth is not to be
worshipped, because God is worshipped in truth. For although
there be many truths, since it is written: “Truths are
minished from the sons of men;” S.
74. But they are refuted by the acts of the
pious, and by the course of the Scriptures. For Mary worshipped
Christ, and therefore is appointed to be the messenger of the
Resurrection to the apostles, S.
75. And the apostles worshipped; and
therefore they who bore the testimony of the faith received authority
as to the faith. And the angels worshipped, of whom it is
written: “And let all His angels worship
Him.”
76. But they worship not only His Godhead
but also His Footstool, as it is written: “And worship His
footstool, for it is holy.” S.
77. Therefore if it do not at all detract
from Christ, that God is worshipped in Christ, for Christ too is
worshipped; St. Ambrose here argues against
Apollinarianism, who separated the two natures in Christ and taught
that He should not be adored except in His Godhead, giving to the
orthodox the nickname of ἀνθρωπολάτραι.
The Apollinarians held that Christ was Θεὸς
σαρκοφόρος,
as Nestorians made Him ἄνθρωπος
Θεοφόρος, instead of
the proper Θεάνθρωπος.
Apollinaris said Christ is οὔτε
ἄνθρωπος
ἅπλος, οὔτε
Θεὸς, ἀλλὰ
Θεοῦ καὶ
ἀνθρώπου
μίξις. He denied the
complete human nature of our Lord, saying that the Logos supplied the
place of the anima rationalis. This stunted humanity could
not be accepted by the Church, as it would involve a merely partial
redemption. Christ must be a perfect man, in order to be a
perfect Redeemer. The heresy was opposed by St.
Athanasius, St. Basil, and others, condemned in synods at Alexandria
362, Rome 373 and probably 382, Antioch 378 or 379, and decisively at
Constantinople in the second œcumenical council. See
Dict. Chr. Biog.; Blunt, Dict. of Sects, etc.; Hefele on
Council of Constantinople; St. Gregory of Nazianzus’ Letters on
the Apollinarian controversy in this series, p. 437 ff.
78. But lest any one should perchance seem
to elude the instance we have adduced, let us consider in what manner
that which the prophet says, “Worship His Footstool,”
appears to refer to the mystery of the divine Incarnation, for we must
not estimate the footstool from the custom of men. For neither
has God a body, neither is He other than beyond measure, that we should
think a footstool was laid down as a support for His feet. And we
read that nothing besides God is to be worshipped, for it is written:
“Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt
thou serve.” How, then, should the prophet, brought up
under the Law, and instructed in the Law, give a precept against the
Law? The question, then, is not unimportant, and so let us more
diligently consider what the footstool is. For we read
elsewhere: “The heaven is My throne, and the earth the
footstool of My feet.”
79. Let us, however, see whether the prophet
does not say that that earth is to be worshipped which the Lord Jesus
took upon Him in assuming flesh. And so, by footstool is
understood earth, but by the earth the Flesh of Christ, which we this
day also adore There can
be no doubt that St. Ambrose held what is known as the Real Presence in
the Sacrament of the Eucharist, and is here asserting the custom of his
day, viz., that Christ was worshipped as indivisibly God and Man in
that Sacrament. Similar expressions are to be found in other
Fathers, and in St. Ambrose elsewhere; e.g. De Fide, V.
10; De Mysteriis, §§ 52–54, 58. Bishop
Andrewes, formerly of Winchester (ob. a.d.
1626), refers to St. Ambrose as follows: “Nos vero et in
Mysteriis Carnem Christi adoramus cum Ambrosio, et non id, sed eum qui
super altare colitur. Nec Carnem manducamus quin adoremus prius
cum Augustino.…El Sacramentum tamen nulli
adoremus.” Resp. ad Bellarmin, p.
195. S.
80. And let no one divert this to the Virgin Mary; Mary was the temple of God, not the God of the temple. And therefore He alone is to be worshipped Who was working in His temple.
81. It makes, then, nothing against our argument that God is worshipped in Spirit, for the Spirit also is worshipped. Although if we consider the words themselves, what else ought we to understand in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but the unity of the same power. For what is “must worship in Spirit and in truth”? If, however, you do not refer this to the grace of the Spirit, nor the true faith of conscience; but, as we said, personally (if indeed this word person is fit to express the Divine Majesty), you must take it of Christ and of the Spirit.
82. What means, then, the Father is
worshipped in Christ, except that the Father is in Christ, and the
Father speaks in Christ, and the Father abides in Christ. Not,
indeed, as a body in a body, for God is not a body; nor as a confused
mixture [confusus in confuso], but as the true in the true, God
in God, Light in Light; as the eternal Father in the co-eternal
Son. So not an ingrafting of a body is meant, but unity of
power. Therefore, by unity of power, Christ is jointly worshipped
in the Father when God the Father is worshipped in Christ. In
like manner, then, by unity of the same power
83. Let us investigate the force of that
word and expression more diligently, and deduce its proper meaning from
other passages. “Thou hast,” it is said, “made
them all in wisdom.” S.
84. Paul, too, says: “For in Him
were all things created in the heavens and in the earth, visible and
invisible.” Bk. II. 8, 9.
85. Learn also that the Father was with Him,
and He with the Father, when all things were being made. Wisdom
says: “When He was preparing the heavens I was with Him,
when He was making the fountains of waters.”
From the fact that St. Paul has shown that the light of the Godhead which the three apostles worshipped in Christ is in the Trinity, it is made clear that the Spirit also is to be worshipped. It is shown from the words themselves that the Spirit is intended by the apostles. The Godhead of the same Spirit is proved from the fact that He has a temple wherein He dwells not as a priest, but as God: and is worshipped with the Father and the Son; whence is understood the oneness of nature in Them.
86. But does any
one deny that the Godhead of the eternal Trinity is to be worshipped?
whereas the Scriptures also express the inexplicable Majesty of the
Divine Trinity, as the Apostle says elsewhere: “Since God,
Who said that light should shine out of darkness, shined in our hearts
to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of
Jesus Christ.”
87. The apostles truly saw this glory, when
the Lord Jesus on the mount shone with the light of His Godhead:
“The apostles,” it says, “saw it and fell on their
face.” S.
88. Who is He, then, Who shined that we might know God in the face of Jesus Christ? For he said, “God shined,” that the glory of God might be known in the face of Jesus Christ. Whom else do we think but the manifested Spirit? Or who else is there besides the Holy Spirit to Whom the power of the Godhead may be referred? For they who exclude the Spirit must necessarily bring in another, who may with the Father and the Son receive the glory of the Godhead.
89. Let us then go back to the same words:
“It is God Who shined in our hearts to give the light of the
knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ.”
You have Christ plainly set forth. For Whose glory is said to
give light but that of
90. But how shamelessly do you deny this,
since you have read that the Holy Spirit has a temple. For it is
written: “Ye are the temple of God, and the Holy Spirit
dwelleth in you.”
91. But He does not dwell in the temple as a
priest, nor as a minister, but as God, since the Lord Jesus Himself
said: “I will dwell in them, and will walk among them, and
will be their God, and they shall be My people.” S.
92. But the Father abides in us through the
Spirit, Whom He has given us. How, then, can different natures
abide together? Certainly it is impossible. But the Spirit
abides with the Father and the Son. Whence, too, the Apostle
joined the Communion of the Holy Spirit with the grace of Jesus Christ
and the love of God, saying: “The grace of our Lord Jesus
Christ, and the love of God, and the Communion of the Holy Spirit be
with you all.”
91. We observe, then, that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit abide in one and the same [subject] through the oneness of the same nature. Therefore, He Who dwells in the temple has divine power, for as of the Father and of the Son, so are we also the temple of the Holy Spirit; not many temples, but one temple, for it is the temple of one Power.
To those who object that Catholics, when they ascribe Godhead to the Holy Spirit, introduce three Gods, it is answered, that by the same argument they themselves bring in two Gods, unless they deny Godhead to the Son; after which the orthodox doctrine is set forth.
92. But what do you fear? Is it that which you have been accustomed to carp at? lest you should make three Gods. God forbid; for where the Godhead is understood as one, one God is spoken of. For neither when we call the Son God do we say there are two Gods. For if, when you confess the Godhead of the Spirit, you think that three Gods are spoken of, then, too, when you speak of the Godhead of the Son because you are not able to deny it, you bring in two Gods. For it is necessary according to your opinion, if you think that God is the name of one person, not of one nature, that you either say that there are two Gods, or deny that the Son is God.
93. But let us free you from the charge of ignorance, though we do not excuse you from fault. For according to our opinion, because there is one God, one Godhead and oneness of power is understood. For as we say that there is one God, confessing the Father, and not denying the Son under the true Name of the Godhead; so, too, we exclude not the Holy Spirit from the Unity of the Godhead, and do not assert but deny that there are three Gods, because it is not unity but a division of power which makes plurality. For how can the Unity of the Godhead admit of plurality, seeing that plurality is of numbers, but the Divine Nature does not admit numbers?
Besides the evidence adduced above, other passages can be brought to prove the sovereignty of the Three Persons. Two are quoted from the Epistles to the Thessalonians, and by collating other testimonies of the Scriptures it is shown that in them dominion is claimed for the Spirit as for the other Persons. Then, by quotation of another still more express passage in the second Epistle to the Corinthians, it is inferred both that the Spirit is Lord, and that where the Lord is, there is the Spirit.
94. God, then, is
One, without violation of the majesty of the eternal Trinity, as is
declared in the instance set before us. And not in that place
alone do we see the Trinity expressed in the Name of the Godhead; but
both in many places, as we have said also above, and especially in the
epistles which the Apostle wrote to the Thessalonians, he most clearly
set forth the Godhead and sovereignty of the Father, the Son, and the
Holy Spirit. For you read as follows:
95. Who, then, is the Lord Who makes us to
increase and abound before God and our Father at the coming of the Lord
Jesus? He has named the Father and has named the Son; Whom, then,
has he joined with the Father and the Son except the Spirit? Who
is the Lord Who establishes our hearts in holiness. For holiness
is a grace of the Spirit, as, too, is said farther on: “In
holiness of the Spirit and belief of the truth.”
96. Who, then, do you think is here named
Lord, except the Spirit? And has not God the Father been able to
teach you, Who says: “Upon Whomsoever thou shalt see the
Spirit descending and abiding upon Him, this is He Who baptizeth in the
Holy Spirit”? S. S.
97. And that you should not suppose that
anything had fallen from the Apostle by oversight, but that he
knowingly and designedly and inspired by the Spirit designated Him
Lord, Whom he felt to be God, he repeated the same in the second
Epistle to the Thessalonians, saying: “But the Lord direct
your hearts in the love of God and in the patience of
Christ.”
98. But we cannot deny it, since the Lord
said of Him: “I have yet many things to say unto you, but
ye cannot bear them now. But when He, the Spirit of Truth, shall
come, He will lead you into all truth.” S.
99. See what the voice of the Lord uttered concerning the Holy Spirit. The Son of God came, and because He had not yet shed forth the Spirit, He declared that we were living like little children without the Spirit. He said that the Spirit was to come Who should make of these little children stronger men, by an increase, namely, of spiritual age. And this He laid down not that He might set the power of the Spirit in the first place, but that He might show that the fulness of strength consists in the knowledge of the Trinity.
100. It is therefore necessary either that you mention some fourth person besides the Spirit of whom you ought to be conscious, or assuredly that you do not consider another to be Lord, except the Spirit Who has been pointed out.
101. But if you require the plain statement
of the words in which Scripture has spoken of the Spirit as Lord, it
cannot have escaped you that it is written: “Now the Lord
is the Spirit.”
102. So he not only called the Spirit Lord,
but also added: “But where the Spirit of the Lord is, there
is liberty. So we all with unveiled face, reflecting the glory of
the Lord, are formed anew into the same image from glory to glory, as
from the Lord the Spirit;”
103. Though why should we seek for the expression of words, where we see the expression of unity? For although you may distinguish between Lord and Spirit, you cannot deny that where the Lord is, there too is the Spirit, and he who has been converted to the Lord will have been converted to the Spirit. If you cavil at the letter, you cannot injure the Unity; if you wish to separate the Unity, you confess the Spirit Himself as the Lord of power.
Though the Spirit be called Lord, three Lords are not thereby implied; inasmuch as two Lords are not implied by the fact that the Son in the same manner as the Father is called Lord in many passages of Scripture; for Lordship exists in the Godhead, and the Godhead in Lordship, and these coincide without division in the Three Persons.
104. But perhaps,
again, you may say: If I call the Spirit Lord, I shall set forth
three Lords. Do you then when you call the Son Lord either deny
the Son or confess two Lords? God forbid, for the Son Himself
said: “Do not serve two lords.” S. S. S.
105. Such, too, was the teaching of the
Law: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one
Lord,”
106. In the Psalms, too, you find:
“The Lord said unto my Lord.” S.
107. So, as we do not say that there are two Lords, when we so style both the Father and the Son, so, too, we do not say that there are three Lords, when we confess the Spirit to be Lord. For as it is profane to say that there are three Lords or three Gods, so, too, is it utter profanity to speak of two Lords or two Gods; for there is one God, one Lord, one Holy Spirit; and He Who is God is Lord, and He Who is Lord is God, for the Godhead is in the Lordship, and the Lordship is in the Godhead.
108. Lastly, you have read that the Father
is both Lord and God: “O Lord my God, I will call upon
Thee, hear Thou me.” S.
The Father is holy, and likewise the Son and the Spirit, and so They are honoured in the same Trisagion: nor can we speak more worthily of God than by calling Him Holy; whence it is clear that we must not derogate from the dignity of the Holy Spirit. In Him is all which pertains to God, since in baptism He is named with the Father and the Son, and the Father has given to Him to be greater than all, nor can any one deprive Him of this. And so from the very passage of St. John which heretics used against His dignity, the equality of the Trinity and the Unity of the Godhead is established. Lastly, after explaining how the Son receives from the Father, St. Ambrose shows how various heresies are refuted by the passage cited.
109. So, then, the
Father is holy, the Son is holy, and the Spirit is holy, but they are
not three Holies; This is, of
course, to be understood as in the Athanasian Creed. The
attributes of eternity, omnipotence, etc., are ascribed to each of the
Three Persons, and we are then told that there are not three Eternals,
etc. Each Person of the Holy Trinity possesses each attribute,
but the attributes are all one and cannot be divided any more than the
Godhead. Each Person is holy, but there are not, so to say, three
separate Holinesses.
110. So everything which we esteem holy
proclaims that Sole Holiness. Cherubim and Seraphim with
unwearied voices praise Him and say: “Holy, Holy, Holy, is
the Lord God of Sabaoth.”
111. We too find nothing of more worth, whereby we are able to proclaim God, than the calling Him holy. Everything is too low for God, too low for the Lord. And therefore consider from this fact also whether one ought at all to derogate from the Holy Spirit, whose Name is the praise of God. For thus is the Father praised, thus is the Son also praised, in the same manner as the Spirit also is named and praised. The Seraphim utter praise, the whole company of the blessed utter praise, inasmuch as they call God holy, the Son holy, the Spirit holy.
112. How, then, does He not possess all that pertains to God, Who is named by priests in baptism with the Father and the Son, and is invoked in the oblations, is proclaimed by the Seraphim in heaven with the Father and the Son, dwells in the Saints with the Father and the Son, is poured upon the just, is given as the source of inspiration to the prophets? And for this reason in the divine Scripture all is called θεόπνευστος, because God inspires what the Spirit has spoken.
113. Or if they are unwilling to allow that
the Holy Spirit has all things which pertain to God, and can do all
things, let them say what He has not, and what He cannot do. For
like as the Son has all things, and the Father grudges not to give all
things to the Son according to His nature, having given to Him that
which is greater than all, as the Scripture bears witness,
saying: “That which My Father hath given unto Me is greater
than all.” S.
114. So, then, if we attend diligently, we
comprehend here also the oneness of the Divine Power. He
says: “That which My Father hath given unto Me is greater
than all, and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s
hand. I and the Father are One.” S.
115. Again, from the very fact that the
Father is said to have given to the Son, and the Spirit to have
received from the Son, as it is written: “He shall glorify
Me, for He shall take of Mine, and shall declare it unto
you” S.
116. The Father gave by begetting, not by adoption; He gave as it were that which was contained in the very prerogative of the Divine Nature, not what was lacking as it were by favour of His bounty. And so because the Son acquires persons to Himself as the Father does; so gives life as does the Father, He expressed His equality with the Father in the Unity of Power, saying: “I and the Father are One.” For when He says, “I and the Father,” equality is revealed; when He says, “are One,” Unity is asserted. Equality excludes confusion; Unity excludes separation. Equality distinguishes between the Father and the Son; Unity does not separate the Father and the Son.
117. Therefore, when He says, “I and the
Father,” He rejects the Sabellian, for He says that He is one,
the Father another; He rejects the Photinian, for He joins Himself with
God the Father. With the former words He rejects those, for He
said: “I and the Father;” with the latter words He
rejects the Arians, for He says: “are One.” Yet
in both the former and the latter words He refutes the heretical
violence (1) of the Sabellians, for He said: “We are One
[Substance],” not “We are One[Person].” And (2)
of the Arians, for He said: “I and the Father,” not
“the Father and I.” Which
St. Ambrose shows by instances that the places in which those words were spoken help to the understanding of the words of the Lord; he shows that Christ uttered the passage quoted from St. John in Solomon’s porch, by which is signified the mind of a wise man, for he says that Christ would not have uttered this saying in the heart of a foolish or contentious man. He goes on to say that Christ is stoned by those who believe not these words, and as the keys of heaven were given to Peter for his confession of them, so Iscariot, because he believed not the same, perished evilly. He takes this opportunity to inveigh against the Jews who bought the Son of God and sold Joseph. He explains the price paid for each mystically; and having in the same manner expounded the murmuring of the traitor concerning Magdalene’s ointment, he adds that Christ is bought in one way by heretics in another way by Catholics, and that those in vain take to themselves the name of Christians who sever the Spirit from the Father.
118. It is worth while to notice in what place the Lord held this discussion, for His utterances are often [better] estimated by the kind of places in which He conversed. When about to fast, He is led (as we read) into the wilderness to render vain the devil’s temptations. For although it deserves praise to have lived temperately in the midst of abundance, yet the enticements of temptation are more frequent amongst riches and pleasures. Then the tempter, in order to try Him, promises Him abundance, and the Lord in order to overcome cherishes hunger. Now I do not deny that temperance can exist in the midst of riches; but although he who navigates the sea often escapes, yet he is more exposed to peril than he who will not go to sea.
119. Let us consider some other
points. When about to promise the kingdom of heaven, Jesus went
up into a mountain. At another time He leads His disciples
through the corn-fields, when about to sow in their minds the crop of
heavenly precepts, so that a plentiful harvest of souls should
ripen. When about to consummate the work of the flesh which He
had taken, having now seen perfection in His disciples, whom He had
established upon the root of His words, He enters a garden, that He
might plant the young olive-trees
120. In this passage too He was walking, as
we read, in Solomon’s porch on the day of the dedication, that
is, Christ was walking in the breast of the wise and prudent, to
dedicate his good affection to Himself. What that porch was the
prophet teaches, saying: “I will walk in the midst of Thy
house in the innocency of my heart.”
121. Let us, therefore, hear what the Word
of God, walking in the heart of the wise and peaceful, says:
“I and My Father are One.” S. S.
122. He who cannot listen to this is a Jew;
he who cannot listen to this stones Christ with the stones of his
treachery, rougher than any rock, and if you believe me, he wounds
Christ. For although He cannot now feel a wound: “For
now henceforth we know not Christ after the flesh,”
123. “The law of Thy mouth, O Lord, is
good unto me, I keep Thy commandments.”
124. The Jews did violence to two things
which are chief of all, faith and duty, and in each to Christ the
Author of faith and duty. For both in the patriarch Joseph was
there a type of Christ, and Christ Himself came in the truth of His
Body, “Who counted it not robbery that He should be equal with
God, but took on Him the form of a servant,”
125. In one place the sale is for twenty pieces, in the other for thirty. For how could His true price be apprehended, Whose value cannot be limited? There is error in the price because there is error in the inquiry. The sale is for twenty pieces in the Old Testament, for thirty in the New; for the Truth is of more value than the type, Grace is more generous than training, the Presence is better than the Law, for the Law promised the Coming, the Coming fulfilled the Law.
126. The Ishmaelites made their purchase for twenty pieces, the Jews for thirty. And this is no trivial figure. The faithless are more lavish for iniquity than the faithful for salvation. It is, however, fitting to consider the quality of each agreement. Twenty pieces are the price of him sold to slavery, thirty pieces of Him delivered to the Cross. For although the Mysteries of the Incarnation and of the Passion must be in like manner matters of amazement, yet the fulfilment of faith is in the Mystery of the Passion. I do not indeed value less the birth from the holy Virgin, but I receive even more gratefully the Mystery of the sacred Body. What is more full of mercy than that He should forgive me the wrongs done to Himself? But it is even fuller measure that He gave us so great a gift, that He Who was not to die because He was God, should die by our death, that we might live by His Spirit.
127. Lastly, it was not without meaning that
Judas Iscariot valued that ointment at three hundred pence, which seems
certainly by the statement of the price itself to set forth the
Lord’s cross. Whence, too, the Lord says: “For
she, pouring this ointment on My body, did it for My
burial.” S. S.
128. Or because, “into a malicious
soul wisdom does not enter,” St. Ambrose
is not quite accurate here in his proportions, though the point is in
itself immaterial. The denarius, or “penny,”
was worth about ninepence, and was the day wage of a labourer; the
shekel or “piece of silver,” was worth more, being of the
value of four denarii. Thirty shekels was the price of a
slave.
129. So, then, all do not buy Christ at the
same price; Photinus, who buys Him for death, buys Him at one price;
the Arian, who buys Him to wrong Him, at another price; the Catholic,
who buys Him to glorify Him, at another. But he buys Him without
money according to that which is written: “He that hath no
money let him buy without price.”
130. “Not all,” says Christ,
“that say unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of
heaven!” S. S.
131. Let not, then, the Arians flatter themselves
with the employment of the name, because they call themselves
Christians. The Lord will answer them: You set forward My
Name, and deny My Substance, but I do not recognize My Name where My
eternal Godhead is not. That is not My Name which is divided from
the Father, and
Book I. 1.
As he purposes to establish the Godhead of the Holy Spirit by the points already discussed, St. Ambrose touches again on some of them; for instance, that He does not commit but forgives sin; that He is not a creature but the Creator; and lastly, that He does not offer but receives worship.
132. But to sum up, in order at the end more distinctly to gather up the arguments which have been used here and there, the evident glory of the Godhead is proved both by other arguments, and most especially by these four. God is known by these marks: either that He is without sin; or that He forgives sin; or that He is not a creature but the Creator; or that He does not give but receives worship.
133. So, then, no one is without sin except
God alone, for no one is without sin except God. S. S.
134. Let us therefore consider whether the Holy Spirit have any of these marks which may bear witness to His Godhead. And first let us treat of the point that none is without sin except God alone, and demand that they prove that the Holy Spirit has sin.
135. But they are unable to show us this,
and demand our authority from us, namely, that we should show by texts
that the Holy Spirit has not sinned, as it is said of the Son that He
did no sin.
136. But how can He be guilty of sin Who Himself forgives sins? Therefore He has not committed sin, and if He be without sin He is not a creature. For every creature is exposed to the capability of sin, and the eternal Godhead alone is free from sin and undefiled.
137. Let us now see whether the Spirit
forgives sins. But on this point there can be no doubt, since the
Lord Himself said: “Receive ye the Holy Spirit.
Whosesoever sins ye forgive they shall be forgiven.” S.
138. And it is not doubtful that sin is
forgiven by means of baptism, but in baptism the operation is that of
the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. If, therefore,
the Spirit forgives sin, since it is written, “Who can forgive
sins except God alone?” S.
139. Let us now see whether He be a creature
or the Creator. But since we have above Cp. B. II. 5, 6.
140. Therefore the Spirit is not a creature, but
the Creator, and He Who is Creator is certainly not a creature.
And because He is not a creature, without doubt He is the
141. The writer taught also that He was to
be worshipped, Whom he called Lord and God. For He Who is the God
and Lord of the Universe is certainly to be worshipped by all, for it
is thus written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and
Him only shalt thou serve.”
142. Or let them say where they have read
that the Spirit worships. For it is said of the Son of God:
“Let all the Angels of God worship Him;”
143. Although the Apostle has not omitted
even this point, so as to omit to teach us that the Spirit is to be
worshipped. For since we have demonstrated that the Spirit is in
the prophets, no one can doubt that prophecy is given by the Spirit,
and plainly when He Who is in the prophets is worshipped, the same
Spirit is worshipped. And so you find: “If the whole
Church be assembled together, and all speak with tongues, and there
come in one unlearned or unbelieving, will he not say that ye are
mad? But if all prophesy, and there come in one unlearned and
unbelieving, he is convicted by all, he is judged by all. For the
secrets of his heart are made manifest, and so falling down on his face
he will worship God, declaring that God is in truth among
you.”
Having proved above that the Spirit abides and speaks in the prophets, St. Ambrose infers that He knows all things which are of God, and therefore is One with the Father and the Son. This same point he establishes again from the fact that He possesses all that God possesses, namely, Godhead, knowledge of the heart, truth, a Name above every name, and power to raise the dead, as is proved from Ezekiel, and in this He is equal to the Son.
144. And so as the
Father and the Son are One, because the Son has all things which the
Father has, so too the Spirit is one with the Father and the Son,
because He too knows all the things of God. For He did not obtain
it by force, so that there should be any injury as of one who had
suffered loss; He did not seize it, lest the loss should be his from
whom it might seem to have been plundered. For neither did He
seize it through need, nor through superiority of greater power did He
take it by force, but He possesses it by unity of power.
Therefore, if He works all these things, for one and the same Spirit
worketh all,
145. Or let us consider what God may have
which the Holy Spirit has not. God the Father has Godhead, and
the Son, too, in Whom dwells the fulness of the Godhead, has it, and
the Spirit has it, for it is written: “The Spirit of God is
in my nostrils.”
146. God, again, searches the hearts and
reins, for it is written: “God searcheth the hearts and
reins.” S.
147. God has as an attribute that He is true
for it is written: “Let God be true and every man a
liar.” S.
148. God has a Name which is above every
name, and has given a name to the Son, as we read that in the Name of
Jesus knees should bow. Let us consider whether the Spirit has
this Name. But it is written “Go, baptize the nations in
the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit.” S.
149. It is a prerogative of God to raise the
dead. “For as the Father raiseth the dead and quickeneth
them, so the Son also quickeneth whom He will.” S.
150. When He spoke of His Spirit, did He mention any other besides the Holy Spirit? For He would neither have spoken of His Spirit as produced by blowing, nor could this Spirit come from the four quarters of the world, for the blowing of these winds, which we experience, is partial, not universal; and this spirit by which we live is also individual, not universal. But it is the nature of the Holy Spirit to be both over all and in all. Therefore from the words of the prophet we may see how (the frame-work of the members long since fallen asunder being scattered) the bones may come together again to the form of a revived body, when the Spirit quickens them; and the ashes may come together on the limbs belonging to them, animated by a disposition to come together before being formed anew in the appearance of living.
151. Do we not in the likeness of what is done recognize the oneness of the divine power? The Spirit raises after the same manner as the Lord raised at the time of His own Passion, when suddenly in the twinkling of an eye the graves of the dead were opened, and the bodies living again arose from the tombs, and the smell of death being removed, and the scent of life restored, the ashes of those who were dead took again the likeness of the living.
152. So, then, the Spirit has that which
Christ has, and therefore what God has, for all things which the Father
has the Son also has, and therefore He said: “All things
which the Father hath are Mine.” S.
The river flowing from the Throne of God is a figure of the Holy Spirit, but by the waters spoken of by David the powers of heaven are intended. The kingdom of God is the work of the Spirit; and it is no matter for wonder if He reigns in this together with the Son, since St. Paul promises that we too shall reign with the Son.
153. And this,
again, is not a trivial matter that we read that a river goes forth
from the throne of God. For you read the words of the Evangelist
John to this purport: “And He showed me a river of living
water, bright as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of
the Lamb. In the midst of the street thereof, and on either side,
was the tree of life, bearing twelve kinds of fruits, yielding its
fruit every month, and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of
all nations.”
154. This is certainly the River proceeding
from the throne of God, that is, the Holy Spirit, Whom he drinks who
believes in Christ, as He Himself says: “If any man thirst,
let him come to Me and drink. He that believeth on Me, as saith
the Scripture, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living
water. But this spoke He of the Spirit.” S.
155. This, then, is in the throne of God, for the
water washes not the throne of God. Then, whatever you may
understand by that water, David said not that it was above the throne
of God, but above the heavens,
156. And what wonder is it if the Holy
Spirit is in the throne of God, since the kingdom of God itself is the
work of the Holy Spirit, as it is written: “For the kingdom
of God is not meat and drink, but righteousness and peace and joy in
the Holy Spirit.” S. S.
157. But what is more foolish than for any
one to deny that the Holy Spirit reigns together with Christ when the
Apostle says that even we shall reign together with Christ in the
kingdom of Christ: “If we are dead with Him, we shall also
live with Him; if we endure, we shall also reign with
Him.”
158. The Holy Spirit, therefore, shares in the kingdom with the Father and the Son, and He is of one nature with Them, of one Lordship, and also of one power.
Isaiah was sent by the Spirit, and accordingly the same Spirit was seen by him. What is meant by the revolving wheels, and the divers wings, and how since the Spirit is proclaimed Lord of Sabaoth by the Seraphim, certainly none but impious men can deny Him this title.
159. Since, then,
He has a share in the kingdom, what hinders us from understanding that
it was the Holy Spirit by Whom Isaiah was sent? For on the
authority of Paul we cannot doubt, whose judgment the Evangelist Luke
so much approved in the Acts of the Apostles as to write as follows in
Paul’s words: “Well spake the Holy Spirit through
Isaiah the prophet to our fathers, saying: Go to this people and
say, Ye shall hear with the ear and shall not understand, and seeing ye
shall see and shall not perceive.”
160. It is, then, the Spirit Who sent
Isaiah. If the Spirit sent him, it is certainly the Spirit Whom,
after Uzziah’s death, Isaiah saw, when he said: “I
saw the Lord of Sabaoth sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and
the house was full of His majesty. And the Seraphim stood round
about Him, each one had six wings, and with two they were covering His
face, and with two they were covering His feet, and with two they were
flying; and they cried out one to the other, and said, Holy, holy, holy
is the Lord of Sabaoth, the whole earth is full of His
majesty.”
161. If the Seraphim were standing, how were they flying? If they were flying, how were they standing? If we cannot understand this, how is it that we want to understand God, Whom we have not seen?
162. But as the prophet saw a wheel running
within a wheel
163. In like manner, too, the Seraphim were veiling His face with two wings, and with two were veiling His feet, and with two were flying. For here also is a mystery of spiritual wisdom. Seasons stand, seasons fly; the past stand, the future are flying, and like the wings of the Seraphim, so they veil the face or the feet of God; inasmuch as in God, Who has neither beginning nor end, the whole course of times and seasons, from this knowledge of its beginning and its end, is at rest. So, then, times past and future stand, the present fly. Ask not after the secrets of His beginning or His end, for there is neither. You have the present, but you must praise Him, not question.
164. The Seraphim with unwearied voices praise,
and do you question? And certainly when they do this they show us
that we must not sometimes question about God,
In proof of the Unity in Trinity the passage of Isaiah which has been cited is considered, and it is shown that there is no difference as to its sense amongst those who expound it of the Father, or of the Son, or of the Spirit. If He Who was crucified was Lord of glory, so, too, is the Holy Spirit equal in all things to the Father and the Son, and the Arians will never be able to diminish His glory.
165. It is now
possible to recognize the oneness of the majesty and rule in the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. For many say that it was
God the Father Who was seen at that time by Isaiah. Paul says it
was the Spirit, and Luke supports him. John the Evangelist refers
it to the Son. For thus has he written of the Son:
“These things spake Jesus, and departed and hid Himself from
them. But though He had done so great signs before them, they did
not believe on Him, that the word of Isaiah might be fulfilled which he
spake, Lord, who hath believed our report, and to whom hath the Arm of
the Lord been revealed? S.
166. John says that Isaiah spoke these words, and revealed most clearly that the glory of the Son appeared to him. Paul, however, relates that the Spirit said these things. Whence, then, is this difference?
167. There is, indeed, a difference of
words, not of meaning. For though they said different things,
neither was in error, for both the Father is seen in the Son, Who said,
“He that seeth Me seeth the Father also,” S.
168. One, then, is the vision, one the right to command, one the glory. Do we deny that the Holy Spirit is also the Lord of glory when the Lord of glory was crucified who was born from the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary? For Christ is not one of two, but is one, and was born as Son of God of the Father before the world; and in the world born as man by taking flesh.
169. And why should I say that, as the Father and
the Son, so, too, the Spirit is free from stain and Almighty, for
Solomon called Him in Greek παντοδύναμον,
πᾶνέπίσχοπον
, because He is Almighty and beholds all things, B. III. 18.
170. Consider now lest perchance something
may not beseem Him, or if this displease thee, O Arian, drag Him down
from His fellowship with the Father and the Son. But if thou
choose to drag Him down thou wilt see the heavens reversed above thee,
for all their strength is from the Spirit.
Besides his elder sister Marcellina, who received the veil at the hands of Pope Liberius, at Christmas [perh. 353 a.d.], St. Ambrose had also a brother named Satyrus, to which name, in the epitaph on him ascribed to the bishop, is added Uranius. This is probably, however, merely in reference to his translation from earth to heaven.
Satyrus had in his earlier years, as well as St. Ambrose, practised as an advocate, and held office. But when his brother was appointed Bishop of Milan, Satyrus at once gave up his appointment, and devoted his life to managing St. Ambrose’s secular affairs, that nothing might distract him from his episcopal duties. After however, a few short years of devotion to this task, he succumbed to a severe illness October 17, a.d. 379.
The grief of St. Ambrose at the loss of his absolutely like-minded brother was intense, and to it we owe the exquisite discourse delivered at the funeral of Satyrus, and the second, on the resurrection, delivered a week later.
St. Ambrose subsequently revised these two addresses, and they have come down to us as the “two books of St. Ambrose on the decease of Satyrus,” some mss. adding, “and the resurrection of the dead.”
The epitaph on Satyrus, said to be by St. Ambrose, is as follows:
Uranio Satyro supremum frater honorem
Martyris i.e. St.
Victor.
Hæc meriti merces, ut sacri sanguinis humor
Finitimas penetrans adluat exuvias.
1. We have brought hither, dearest brethren, my sacrifice, a sacrifice undefiled, a sacrifice well pleasing to God, my lord and brother Satyrus. I did not forget that he was mortal, nor did my feelings deceive me, but grace abounded more exceedingly. And so I have nothing to complain of, but have cause for thankfulness to God, for I always desired that if any troubles should await either the Church or myself, they should rather fall on me and on my house. Thanks, therefore, be to God, that in this time of common fear, when everything is dreaded from the barbarian movements, I ended the trouble of all by my personal grief, and that I dreaded for all which was turned upon me. And may this be fully accomplished, so that my grief may be a ransom for the grief of all.
2. Nothing among things of earth, dearest brethren, was more precious to me, nothing more worthy of love, nothing more dear than such a brother, but public matters come before private. And should any one enquire what was his feeling; he would rather be slain for others than live for himself, because Christ died according to the flesh for all, that we might learn not to live for ourselves alone.
3. To this must be added that I cannot be ungrateful to God; for I must rather rejoice that I had such a brother than grieve that I had lost a brother, for the former is a gift, the latter a debt to be paid. And so, as long as I might, I enjoyed the loan entrusted to me, now He Who deposited the pledge has taken it back. There is no difference between denying that a pledge has been deposited and grieving at its being returned. In each there is untrustworthiness, and in each [eternal] life is risked. It is a fault if you refuse repayment, and piety if you refuse a sacrifice. Since, too, the lender of money can be made a fool of, but the Author of nature, the Lender of all that we need, cannot be cheated. And so the larger the amount of the loan, so much the more gratitude is due for the use of the capital.
4. Wherefore, I cannot be ungrateful
concerning my brother, for he has given back that which was common to
nature, and has gained what is peculiar to grace alone. For who
would refuse the common lot? Who would grieve that a pledge
specially entrusted to him is taken away, since the Father gave up His
only Son to death for us? Who would think that he ought to be
excepted from the lot of dying, who has not been excepted from the lot
of being born? It is a great mystery of divine love, that not
even in Christ was exception made of the death of the body; and
although He was the Lord of nature, He refused not the law of the flesh
which He had taken upon Him. It is necessary for me to die, for
Him it was not necessary. Could not He Who said of His servant,
“If I will that he tarry thus until I come, what is that to
thee?” S.
5. Why should I alone weep more than others for
him for whom you all weep? I have merged my personal grief in the
grief of all, especially because my tears are of no use, whereas yours
strengthen faith and bring consolation. You who are rich weep,
and by weeping prove that riches gathered together are of no avail for
safety, since death cannot be put off by a money payment, and the last
day carries off alike the
6. For why should I weep for thee, my most loving brother, who wast thus torn from me that thou mightest be the brother of all? For I have not lost but changed my intercourse with thee; before we were inseparable in the body, now we are undivided in affection; for thou remainest with me, and ever wilt remain. And, indeed, whilst thou wast living with me, our country never tore thee from me, nor didst thou thyself ever prefer our country to me; and now thou art become surety for that other country, for I begin to be no stranger there where the better portion of myself already is. I was never wholly engrossed in myself, but the greater part of each of us was in the other, yet we were each of us in Christ, in Whom is the whole sum of all, and the portion of each severally. This grave is more pleasing to me than thy natal soil, in which is the fruit not of nature but of grace, for in that body which now lies lifeless lies the better work of my life, since in this body, too, which I bear is the richer portion of thyself.
7. And would that, as memory and gratitude are devoted to thee, so, too, whatever time I have still to breathe this air, I could breathe it into thy life, and that half of my time might be struck off from me and be added to thine! For it had been just that for those, whose use of hereditary property was always undivided, the period of life should not have been divided, or at least that we, who always without difference shared everything in common during life, should not have a difference in our deaths.
8. But now, brother, whither shall I advance, or whither shall I turn? The ox seeks his fellow, and conceives itself incomplete, and by frequent lowing shows its tender longing, if perchance that one is wanting with whom it has been wont to draw the plough. And shall I, my brother, not long after thee? Or can I ever forget thee, with whom I always drew the plough of this life? In work I was inferior, but in love more closely bound; not so much fit through my strength, as endurable through thy patience, who with the care of anxious affection didst ever protect my side with thine, as a brother in thy love, as a father in thy care, as older in watchfulness, as younger in respect. So in the one degree of relationship thou didst expend on me the duties of many, so that I long after not one only but many lost in thee, in whom alone flattery was unknown, dutifulness was portrayed. For thou hadst nothing to which to add by pretence, inasmuch as all was comprised in thy dutifulness, so as neither to receive addition nor await a change.
9. But whither am I going, in my immoderate
grief, forgetful of my duty, mindful of kindness received? The
Apostle calls me back, and as it were puts a bit upon my sorrow,
saying, as you heard just now: “We would not that ye should
be ignorant, brethren, concerning them that sleep, that ye be not
sorrowful, as the rest which have no hope.”
10. But we have not incurred any grievous
sin by our tears. Not all weeping proceeds from unbelief or
weakness. Natural grief is one thing, distrustful sadness is
another, and there is a very great difference between longing for what
you have lost and lamenting that you have lost it. Not only grief
has tears, joy also has tears of its own. Both piety excites
weeping, and prayer waters the couch, and supplication, according to
the prophet’s saying, washes the bed. As in many
other passages, a play upon words cannot be translated. The Latin
is: Lacrymæ ergo pietatis indices, non illices sunt
doloris.
11. He wept for what affected us, not Himself; for
the Godhead sheds no tears;
12. But you read in another place:
“Unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given.”
13. Therefore it is no subject of wonder that God made Him to be both Lord and Christ. He made Him Jesus, Him, that is, Who received the name in His bodily nature; He made Him of Whom also the patriarch David writes: “Mother Sion shall say, A man, yea, a man is made in her.” But being made man He is unlike the Father, not in Godhead but in His body; not separated from the Father, but differing in office, abiding united in power, but separated in the mystery of the Passion.
14. The treatment of this topic demands more arguments, by which to demonstrate the authority of the Father, the special property of the Son, and the Unity of the whole Trinity; but to-day I have undertaken the office of consolation, not of discussion, although it is customary in consoling to draw away the mind from its grief by application to discussion. But I would rather moderate the grief than alter the affection, that the longing may rather be assuaged than lulled to sleep. For I have no wish to turn away too far from my brother, and to be led off by other thoughts, seeing that this discourse has been undertaken, as it were, for the sake of accompanying him, that I might follow in affection him departing, and embrace in mind him whom I see with my eyes. For it gives me pleasure to fix the whole gaze of my eyes on him, to encompass him with kindly endearments; whilst my mind is stupefied, and I feel as though he were not lost whom I am able still to see present; and I think him not dead, my services to whom I do not as yet perceive to be wanting, services to which I had devoted the whole of my life and the drawing of every breath.
15. What, then, can I pay back in return for such kindness and such pains? I had made thee, my brother, my heir; thou hast left me as the heir; I hoped to leave thee as survivor, and thou hast left me. I, in return for thy kindnesses, that I might repay thy benefits, gave wishes; now I have lost my wishes yet not thy benefits. What shall I, succeeding to my own heir, do? What shall I do who outlive my own life? What shall I do, no longer sharing this light which yet shines on me? What thanks, what good offices, can I repay to thee? Thou hast nothing from me but tears. And perchance, secure of thy reward, thou desirest not those tears which are all that I have left. For even when thou wast yet alive, thou didst forbid me to weep, and didst show that our grief was more pain to thee than thine own death. Tears are bidden to flow no longer, and weeping is repressed. And gratitude to thee forbids them too, lest whilst we weep for our loss we seem to despair concerning thy merits.
16. But for myself at least thou lessenest the bitterness of that grief; I have nothing to fear who used to fear for thee. I have nothing which the world can now snatch from me. Although our holy sister still survives, venerable for her blameless life, thy equal in character, and not falling short in kindly offices; yet we both used to fear more for thee, we felt that all the sweetness of this life was stored up in thee. To live for thy sake was a delight, to die for thee were no cause of sorrow, for we both used to pray that thou mightest survive, it was no pleasure that we should survive thee. When did not our very soul shudder when a dread of this kind touched us? How were our minds dismayed by the tidings of thy sickness!
17. Alas for our wretched hopes! We
On the
subject of vows to the martyrs, comp. Exhort. Virg. III. 15;
also see, De Viduis, ix. 55.
18. Now, I clearly have my pledge which no change can any more tear from me; I have the relics which I may embrace, I have the tomb which I may cover with my body, I have the grave on which I may lie, and I shall believe that I am more acceptable to God, because I shall rest upon the bones of that holy body. Would that I had been able in like manner to place my body in the way of thy death! Hadst thou been attacked with the sword, I would have rather offered myself to be pierced for thee; had I been able to recall thy life as it was passing away, I would have rather offered my own.
19. It profited me nothing to receive thy last breath, nor to have breathed into the mouth of thee dying, for I thought that either I myself should receive thy death, or should transfer my life to thee. O that sad, yet sweet pledge of the last kiss! O the misery of that embrace, in which the lifeless body began to stiffen, the last breath vanished! I tightened my arms indeed, but had already lost him whom I was holding; I drew in thy last breath with my mouth, that I might share thy death. But in some way that breath became lifegiving to me, and even in death diffused an odour of greater love. And if I was unable to lengthen thy life by my breath, would that at least the strength of thy last breath might have been transfused into my mind, and that our affection might have inspired me with that purity and innocence of thine. Thou wouldst have left me, dearest brother, this inheritance, which would not smite the affections with tears of grief, but commend thine heir by notable grace.
20. What, then, shall I now do, since all
the sweetness, all the solace, in fine, all the charms of that life are
lost to me? For thou wast alone my solace at home, my charm
abroad; thou, I say, my adviser in counsel, the sharer in my cares, the
averter of anxiety, the driver away of sorrow; thou wast the protector
of my acts and the defender of my thoughts; thou, lastly, the only one
on whom rested care of home and of public matters. I call thy
holy soul to witness that, in the building of the church, Probably the
Basilica built at Milan by St. Ambrose.
21. I feel, indeed, that my mind is touched by the repetition of thy services and the enumeration of thy virtues, and yet in being thus affected I find my rest, and although these memories renew my grief, they nevertheless bring pleasure. Am I able either not to think of thee, or ever to think of thee without tears? And shall I ever be able either not to remember such a brother, or to remember him without tearful gratitude? For what has ever been pleasant to me that has not had its source in thee? What, I say, has ever been a pleasure to me without thee, or to thee without me? Had we not every practice in common, almost to our very eyesight and our sleep? Were our wills ever at variance? And what step did we not take in common? So that we almost seemed in raising our feet to move each other’s body.
22. But if ever either had to go forth without the
other, one would think that his side was unprotected, one could see his
countenance troubled, one would suppose that his soul was sad, the
accustomed grace, the usual vigour did not shine forth, the loneliness
was a subject of dread to all, and made them fearful of some
sickness. Such a strange thing it seemed to all that we were
separated. I certainly, impatient at my brother’s absence,
and having it constantly in mind, kept on turning my head seeking him,
as it were, present, and seemed to myself then to see him and speak to
him. But if I
23. But when we both had to go forth, there were not more steps on the way than words, nor was our pace quicker than our talk, and it was less for the sake of walking than for the pleasure of conversing, for each of us hung on the lips of the other. We thought not of gazing intently on the view as we passed along, but listened to each other’s anxious talk, drank in the kindly expression of the eyes, and inhaled the delight of the brother’s appearance. How I used silently to admire within myself thy virtues, how I congratulated myself that God had given me such a brother, so modest, so capable, so innocent, so simple, so that when I thought of thy innocence I began to doubt thy capability, when I saw thy capability I could hardly imagine thy innocence! But thou didst combine both with wonderful perfection.
24. Lastly, what we both had been unable to effect, thou didst accomplish alone. Prosper, as I hear, congratulated himself because he thought that on account of my priesthood he need not restore what he had purloined, but he found thy power alone to be greater than that of us both together. And so he paid all, and was not ungrateful for thy moderation, and did not scoff at thy modesty. But for whom, brother, didst thou seek to gain that? We wished that should be the reward of thy labours which was the proof of them. Thou didst accomplish everything, and when having done all thou didst return, thou alone, who art to be preferred to all, art torn from us; as if thou hadst put off death for this end, that thou mightest fulfil the office of affection, and then carry off the palm for capability.
25. How little, dearest brother, did the honours of this world delight us, because they separated us from one another! And we accepted them, not because the acquisition of them was to be desired, but that there might be no appearance of paltry dissimulation. Or perhaps they were therefore granted to us, that, inasmuch as by thy early death thou wast about to shatter our pleasure, we might learn to live without each other.
26. And indeed I recognize the foreboding dread of my mind, when I often go again through what I have written. I endeavoured to restrain thee, brother, from visiting Africa thyself, and wished thee rather to send some one. I was afraid to let thee go that journey, to trust thee to the waves, and a greater fear than usual came over my mind; but thou didst arrange the journey, and order the business, and, as I hear, didst entrust thyself again to the waves in an old and leaky vessel. For since thou wast aiming at speed, thou didst set caution aside; eager to do me a kindness, thou madest nothing of thy danger.
27. O deceitful joy! O the uncertain course of earthly affairs! We thought that he who was returned from Africa, restored from the sea, preserved after shipwreck, could not now be snatched from us; but, though on land, we suffered a more grievous shipwreck, for the death of him whom shipwreck at sea owing to strong swimming could not kill is shipwreck to us. For what enjoyment remains to us, from whom so sweet an ornament has been taken, so bright a light in this world’s darkness has been extinguished? For in him an ornament not only of our family but of the whole fatherland has perished.
28. I feel, indeed, the deepest gratitude to you, dearest brethren, holy people, that you esteem my grief as no other than your own, that you feel this bereavement as having happened to yourselves, that you offer me the tears of the whole city, of every age, and the good wishes of every rank, with unusual affection. For this is not the grief of private sympathy, but as it were a service and offering of public good-will. And should any sympathy with me because of the loss of such a brother touch you, I have abundant fruit from it, I have the pledge of your affection. I might prefer that my brother were living, but yet public kindness is in prosperity very pleasant, and in adversity very grateful.
29. And, indeed, so great kindness seems to
me to merit no ordinary gratitude. For not without a purpose are
the widows in the Acts of the Apostles described as weeping when
Tabitha was dead, S.
30. He had no need of being raised again for
time, for whom the raising again for eternity is waiting. For why
should he fall back into this wretched and miserable state of
corruption, and return to this mournful life, for whose rescue from
such imminent evils and threatening dangers we ought rather to
rejoice? For if no one mourns for Enoch, who was
translated
31. So then, brother, I esteem thee happy both in the beauty of thy life and in the opportuneness of thy death. For thou wast snatched away not from us but from dangers; thou didst not lose life but didst escape the fear of threatening troubles. For with the pity of thy holy mind for those near to thee, if thou knewest that Italy was now oppressed by the nearness of the enemy, how wouldst thou groan, how wouldst thou grieve that our safety wholly depended on the barrier of the Alps, and that the protection of purity consisted in barricades of trees! With what sorrow wouldst thou mourn that thy friends were separated from the enemy by so slight a division, from an enemy, too, both impure and cruel, who spares neither chastity nor life.
32. How, I say, couldst thou bear these
things which we are compelled to endure, and perchance (which is more
grievous) to behold virgins ravished, little children torn from the
embrace of their parents and tossed on javelins, the bodies consecrated
to God defiled, and even aged widows polluted? How, I say,
couldst thou endure these things, who even with thy last breath,
forgetful of thyself, yet not without thought for us, didst warn us
concerning the invasion of the barbarians, saying that not in vain
hadst thou said that we ought to flee. Perchance was it because
thou didst see that we were left destitute by thy death, and thou didst
it, not out of weakness of spirit, but from affection, and wast weak
with respect to us, but strong with respect to thyself. For when
thou wast summoned home by the noble man Symmachus thy parent, Symmachus is
called parens of Satyrus here and elsewhere by St.
Ambrose. The title does not imply blood relationship, but
friendship and patronage.
33. Happy, then, was he in so opportune a
death, because he has not been preserved for this sorrow.
Certainly thou art happier than thy holy sister, deprived of thy
comfort, anxious for her own modesty, lately blessed with two brothers,
now wretched because of both, being able neither to follow the one nor
to leave the other; for whom thy tomb is a lodging, and the
burying-place of thy body a home. And would that even this
resting-place were safe! Our food is mingled with weeping and our
drink with tears, for thou hast given us the bread of tears as food,
and tears to drink in large measure,
34. What now shall I say of myself, who may not die lest I leave my sister, and desire not to live lest I be separated from thee? For what can ever be pleasant to me without thee, in whom was always my whole pleasure? or what satisfaction is it to remain longer in this life, and to linger on the earth where we lived with pleasure so long as we lived together? If there were anything which could delight us here, it could not delight without thee; and if ever we had earnestly desired to prolong our life, now at any rate we would not exist without thee.
35. This is indeed unendurable. For what can
be endured without thee, such a companion of my life, such a sharer of
my toil and partaker of my duties? And I could
36. And then lately, when I was oppressed by a severe attack (would that it had been fatal), I grieved only that thou wast not sitting by my couch, and sharing the kindly duty with my holy sister mightest with thy fingers close my eyes when dead. What had I wished? What am I now pondering? What vows are wanting? What services are to succeed? I was preparing one thing, I am compelled to set forth another; not being the subject of the funeral rites but the minister. O hard eyes, which could behold my brother dying! O cruel and unkind hands, which closed those eyes in which I used to see so much! O still harder neck, which could bear so sad a burden, though it were in a service full of consolation.
37. Thou, my brother, hadst more justly done these things for me. I used to expect these services at thy hands, I used to long for them. But now, having survived my own life, what comfort can I find without thee, who alone usedst to comfort me when mourning, to excite my happiness and drive away my sorrow? How do I now behold thee, my brother, who now addressest no words to me, offerest me no kiss? Though, indeed, our mutual love was so deeply seated in each of us, that it was cherished rather by inward affection than made public by open caresses, for we who professed such mutual trust and love did not seek the testimony of others. The strong spirit of our brotherhood had so infused itself into each of us, that there was no need to prove our love by caresses; but our minds being conscious of our affection, we, satisfied with our inward love, did not seem to require the show of caresses, whom the very appearance of each other fashioned for mutual love; for we seemed, I know not by what spiritual stamp or bodily likeness, to be the one in the other.
38. Who saw thee, and did not think that he had seen me? How often have I saluted those who, because they had previously saluted thee, said that they had been already saluted by me? How many said something to thee, and related that they had said it to me? What pleasure, what amusement often was given me by this, because I saw that they were mistaken in us? What an agreeable mistake, what a pleasant slip, how innocent a deceit, how sweet a trick! For there was nothing for me to fear in thy words or acts, and I rejoiced when they were ascribed to me.
39. But if they insisted all too vehemently that they had given me some information, I used to smile and answer with delight: Take care that it was not my brother whom you told. For since we had everything in common, one spirit and one disposition, yet the secrets of friends alone were not common property, not that we were afraid of danger in the communication, but that we might keep faith by withholding it. Yet if we had a matter to be consulted about, our counsel was always in common, though the secret was not always made common. For although our friends spoke to either of us, so that what they said might reach the other; yet I know that secrets were for the most part kept with such good faith that they were not imparted even to the other brother. For this is a convincing proof that was not betrayed without which had not been imparted to the brother.
40. I confess, then, that being raised by these so great and excellent benefits to a kind of mental ecstasy, I had ceased to fear that I might be the survivor, because I thought him more worthy to live, and therefore received the blow which I am unable to endure, for the wounds of such pain are more easily borne when dwelt upon beforehand than when unexpected. Who will now console me full of sorrows? Who will raise up him that is smitten down? With whom shall I share my cares? Who will set me free from the business of this world? For thou wast the manager of our affairs, the censor of the servants, the decider between brother and sister, the decider not in matters of strife but of affection.
41. For if at any time there was a discussion
between me and my holy sister on any matter, as to which was the
preferable opinion, we used to take thee as judge, who wouldst hurt no
one, and anxious to satisfy each, didst keep to thy loving affection
and the right measure in deciding, so as to let each depart satisfied,
and gain for thyself the thanks of each. Or if thou thyself
broughtest anything for discussion, how pleasantly didst thou argue!
and thy very indignation, how free from bitterness it was! how was thy
discipline not unpleasant to the servants themselves! since thou didst
42. That is, then, evidence of no ordinary prudence, which virtue is thus defined by the wise. The first of good things is to know God, and with a pious mind to reverence Him as true and divine, and to delight in that loveable and desirable beauty of the eternal Truth with the whole affection of the mind. And the second consists in deriving from that divine and heavenly source of nature, love towards our neighbours, since even the wise of this world have borrowed from our laws. For they never could have obtained those points for the discipline of men, except from that heavenly fount of the divine law.
43. What, then, shall I say of his reverence in regard to the worship of God? He, before being initiated in the more perfect mysteries, being in danger of shipwreck when the ship that bore him, dashed upon rocky shallows, was being broken up by the waves tossing it hither and thither, fearing not death but lest he should depart this life without the Mystery, asked of those whom he knew to be initiated the divine Sacrament of the faithful; not that he might gaze on secret things with curious eyes, but to obtain aid for his faith. For he caused it to be bound in a napkin, and the napkin round his neck, and so cast himself into the sea, not seeking a plank loosened from the framework of the ship, by floating on which he might be rescued, for he sought the means of faith alone. And so believing that he was sufficiently protected and defended by this, he sought no other aid.
44. One may consider his courage at the same time, for he, when the vessel was breaking up, did not as a shipwrecked man seize a plank, but as a brave man found in himself the support of his courage, nor did his hope fail nor his expectation deceive him. And then, when preserved from the waves and brought safe to land in the port, he first recognized his Leader, to Whom he had committed himself, and at once after either himself rescuing the servants, or seeing that they were rescued, disregarding his goods, and not longing for what was lost, he sought the Church of God, that he might return thanks for his deliverance, and acknowledge the eternal mysteries, declaring that there was no greater duty than thanksgiving. But if not to be grateful to man has been judged like to murder, how enormous a crime is it not to be grateful to God!
45. Now it is the mark of a prudent man to
know himself, and, as it has been defined by the wise, to live in
accordance with nature. What, then, is so much in accordance with
nature as to be grateful to the Creator? Behold this heaven, does
it not render thanks to its Creator when He is seen? For
“the heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament
proclaims His handywork.”
46. So he who by the guidance of nature had grasped the methods of the divine work in the ardent vigour of his mind, knew that thanks should be paid first of all to the Preserver of all; but inasmuch as he could not repay, he could at least feel grateful. For the essence of this thankfulness is that when it is offered it is felt, and by being felt is offered. So he offered thanks and brought away faith. For he who had felt such protection on the part of the heavenly Mystery wrapped in a napkin, how much did he expect if he received it with his mouth and drew it to the very depth of his bosom? How much more must he have been expecting of that, when received into his breast, which had so benefited him when covered with a napkin?
47. But he was not so eager as to lay aside
caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there
can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he
enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the
Roman Church? At this time there
was no doubt concerning the faith of the Roman Church, as there would
have been later under Liberius and Honorius. Consequently Satyrus
instances it, as being the chief and best known see. Lucifer was
Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia. At the synod of Arles,
a.d. 353, he had strenuously resisted the
condemnation of St. Athanasius, though it was urged by the Emperor
Constantius, maintaining that the Nicene faith was opposed in the
person of Athanasius. Against the synod of Milan, a.d. 355, he was equally resolute in defence of the belief
of Nicæa, for which the emperor banished him to Syria. But
when the synod of Alexandria, a.d. 362,
determined on the restoration of certain Arians after repentance, he
withdrew from Catholic Communion.
48. And so though he retained the deposit of
faith, and feared to voyage as debtor of so vast an amount, yet he
preferred to cross over to a place where he could make his payment in
safety, for he was convinced that the payment of thankfulness to God
consists in dispositions and faith, which payment, so soon as he had
free access to the Church, he delayed not to make. It is plain
from various passages that Satyrus, when he undertook his voyage to
Africa, was only a catechumen, i.e. not yet baptized. Many
holy men postponed baptism, not out of contempt or carelessness, but
through fear, in all the dangers of the period, of losing baptismal
grace, sin after baptism and grace received being then estimated at its
true awfulness. Satyrus having been, as he believed, saved from
death by the Holy Eucharist, determined to be at once baptized, so soon
as he could find a Catholic bishop. It must be noted that the
Fathers condemn nothing more severely than postponing baptism, in order
to continue in sin.
49. Why should I speak of his well-known eloquence in his forensic duties? What incredible admiration did he excite in the hall of justice of the high prefecture! But I prefer to speak of those things which he esteemed, through consideration of the mysteries of God, to be preferable to human matters.
50. And should any one wish more fully to regard his fortitude, let him consider how often after his shipwreck with invincible disregard of this life he crossed the sea and travelled through widespread regions in his journeys, and at last that at this very time he did not shrink from danger, but met it. Patient under injustice, regardless of cold, would that he had been equally thoughtful in taking precautions. But exactly herein was he blessed, that he, so long as his bodily strength allowed, spent his life fulfilling the work of youth, uninterruptedly carrying out what he wished to do, and paid no attention to his weakness.
51. But in what words can I set forth his simplicity? By this I mean a certain moderation of character and soberness of mind. Pardon me, I beseech you, and attribute it to my grief, if I allow myself to speak somewhat fully about him with whom I am no longer permitted to converse. And certainly it is an advantage for you to see that you have performed this kindly office not led by weak feelings, but by sound judgment; not as impelled by pity for his death, but moved by desire to do honour to his virtues; for every simple soul is blessed. And so great was his simplicity, that, converted as it were into a child, he was conspicuous for the simplicity belonging to that guileless age, for the likeness of perfect virtue, and for reflecting as in a mirror innocence of character. Therefore he entered into the kingdom of heaven, because he believed the word of God, because he, like a child, rejected the artifices of flattery, and chose rather to accept with gentleness the pain of injustice than to avenge himself sharply; he was more ready to listen to complaints than to guile, ready for conciliation, inaccessible to ambition, holy in modesty, so that in him one would rather speak of excess of bashfulness than have to seek for such as is needful.
52. But the foundations of virtue are never in excess, for modesty does not hinder but rather commends the discharge of duty. And so was his face suffused with a certain virginal modesty, showing forth his inward feeling in his countenance, if perchance he had, coming on a sudden, met some female relative, he was as it were bowed down and sunk to the earth, though he was not different in company with men, he seldom lifted up his face, raised his eyes, or spoke; when he did one of these things, it was with a kind of bashful modesty of heart, with which, too, the chastity of his body agreed. For he preserved the gifts of holy baptism inviolate, being pure in body and still more pure in heart; fearing not less the shame of impurity in conversation than in his body; and thinking that no less regard was to be paid to modesty in purity of words than in chastity of body.
53. In fine, he so loved chastity as never to seek
a wife, although in him it was not merely the desire of chastity, but
also the grace of his love for us. But in a wonderful manner he
concealed his feeling as to marriage, and avoided all boastfulness; and
so carefully did he conceal his feeling, that even
54. Who, then, could refrain from wondering that a man in age between a brother and a sister, the one a virgin, the other a priest, yet in greatness of soul not below either, should so excel in two great gifts, as to reflect the chastity of one vocation and the sanctity of the other, being bound not by profession but by the exercise of virtue. If, then, lust and anger bring forth other vices, I may rightly call chastity and gentleness as it were the parents of virtues; although, as it is the origin of all good things, so too is piety the seed-plot of other virtues.
55. What, then, shall I say of his economy,
a kind of continence regarding possessions? For he who takes care
of his own does not seek other men’s goods, nor is he puffed up
by abundance who is contented with his own. For he did not wish
to recover anything except his own, and that rather that he might not
be cheated than that he might be richer. For he rightly called
those who seek other men’s goods hawks of money. But if
avarice be the root of all evils,
56. Nor did he ever delight in more
carefully prepared feasts or many dishes, except when he invited
friends, wishing for what was sufficient for nature, not for
superabundance for pleasure’s sake. And, indeed, he was not
poor in means, but was so in spirit. S.
57. It remains that, to come to the end of the cardinal virtues, we should notice in him the constituents of justice. For although virtues are related to each other and connected, still as it were a more distinct sketch of each is wanted, and especially of justice. For it being somewhat niggardly towards itself is wholly devoted to what is without, and whatever it has through a certain rigour towards self, being carried away by love for all, it pours forth on its neighbours.
58. But there are many kinds of this virtue. One towards friends, another towards all men, another with respect to the worship of God or the relief of the poor. So what he was towards all, the affection of the people of the province over which he was set shows; who used to say that he was rather their parent than a judge, a kind umpire for loving clients, a steadfast awarder of just law.
59. But what he was with his brother and sister, though all men were embraced in his good-will, our undivided patrimony testifies, and the inheritance neither distributed nor diminished, but preserved. For he said that love was no reason for making a will. This, too, he signified with his last words, when commending those whom he had loved, saying that it was his choice never to marry a wife, that he might not be separated from his brother and sister, and that he would not make a will, lest our feelings should in any point be hurt. Lastly, though begged and entreated by us, he thought that nothing ought to be determined by himself, not, however, forgetting the poor, but only asking that so much should be given to them as should seem just to us.
60. By this alone he gave a sufficient proof
of his fear of God, and set an example of religious feeling as regards
men. For what he gave to the poor he offered to God, since
“he that distributeth to the poor lendeth unto
God;”
61. So that one may rightly say that the
Holy Spirit has this day told us by the voice of the boy reader:
“He that is innocent in his hands and of a clean heart, who hath
not lifted up his soul to vanity, nor used deceit unto his neighbour,
this is the generation of them that seek the Lord.”
62. Why should I relate that in his piety
63. These and other matters, which were then a pleasure to me, now sharpen the remembrance of my grief. They abide, however, and always will do so, nor do they ever pass away like a shadow; for the grace of virtue dies not with the body, nor do natural life and merits come to an end at the same time, although the use of natural life does not perish for ever, but rests in a kind of exemption for a time.
64. For one, then, who has performed such
good deeds, and is rescued from perils, I shall weep rather from
longing for him than for the loss. For the very opportuneness of
his death bids us bear in mind that we must follow him rather with
grateful veneration than grieve for him, for it is written that private
grief should cease in public sorrow. This is said in the
prophetical language,
65. To me, then, does this message come, and
Holy Scripture says: “Dost thou teach this, is it thus that
thou instructest the people of God? Knowest thou not that thy
example is a danger to others? save that perchance thou complainest
that thy prayer is not heard. First of all this is shameless
arrogance, to desire to obtain for thyself what thou knowest to have
been denied to many, even saints, when thou art aware that God is no
respecter of persons?”
66. “Thou fool,” it says,
“above all women, seest thou not our mourning, and what hath
happened to us, how that Sion our mother is saddened with all sadness,
and humbled with humbling. Mourn now also very sore, since we all
mourn, and be sad since we all are sad, and thou art grieved for a
brother. Ask the earth and she shall tell thee that it is she
which ought to mourn, outliving so many that grow upon her. And
out of her,” it says, “were all born in the beginning, and
out of her shall others come, and, behold, they walk almost all into
destruction, and a multitude of them is utterly rooted out. Who,
then, ought to make more mourning than she that hath lost so great a
multitude, and not thou, which art sorry but for one?”
67. Let, then, the common mourning swallow up ours and cut off the bitterness of our private sorrow. For we ought not to grieve for those whom we see to be set free, and we bear in mind that so many holy souls are not without a purpose at this time loosed from the chains of the body. For we see, as if by God’s decree, such reverend widows dying so closely at one time, that it seems to be a sort of setting out on a journey, not a sinking in death, lest their chastity in which they have served God their full time should be exposed to peril. What groans, what mourning, does so bitter a recollection stir up in me! And if I had no leisure for mourning, yet in my own personal grief, in the loss of the very flower of so much merit, the common lot of nature consoled me; and my grief in consideration of one alone veiled the bitterness of the public funeral by the show of piety at home.
68. I seek again, then, O sacred Scripture,
thy consolations, for it delights me to dwell on thy precepts and on
thy sentences. How far more easy is it for heaven and earth to
pass away, than for one tittle of the law to fail! But let us now
listen to what is written: “Now,” it says,
“keep thy sorrow to thyself, and bear with a good courage the
things which have befallen thee. For if thou shalt acknowledge
the determination of God to be just, thou shalt both receive thy son in
time, and shalt be praised among women.”
69. But, lo! I hear the Scripture
saying: “Do not continue this discourse, but allow thyself
to be persuaded. For how great are the misfortunes of Sion!
Be comforted in regard of the sorrow of Jerusalem. For thou seest
that our holy places are polluted and the name that was called upon us
is almost profaned, they that are ours have suffered shame, our priests
are burnt, our Levites gone into captivity, our wives are polluted, our
virgins suffer violence, our righteous men are carried away, our little
ones given up, our young men brought in bondage, and our strong men
become weak. And, which is the greatest of all, the seal of Sion
hast lost her glory, since now she is delivered into the hands of them
that hate us. Do thou, then, shake off thy great heaviness, and
put from thee the multitude of sorrows, that the Mighty may be merciful
to thee again, and the Highest shall give thee rest by easing thy
labours.”
70. So, then, my tears shall cease, for one must yield to healthful remedies, since there ought to be some difference between believers and unbelievers. Let them, therefore, weep who cannot have the hope of the resurrection, of which not the sentence of God but the strictness of the faith deprives them. Let there be this difference between the servants of Christ and the worshippers of idols, that the latter weep for their friends, whom they suppose to have perished for ever; that they should never cease from tears, and gain no rest from sorrow, who think that the dead have no rest. But from us, for whom death is the end not of our nature but of this life only, since our nature itself is restored to a better state, let the advent of death wipe away all tears.
71. And certainly if they have ever found any consolation who have thought that death is the end of sensation and the failing of our nature, how much more must we find it so to whom the consciousness of good done brings the promise of better rewards! The heathen have their consolation, because they think that death is a cessation of all evils, and as they are without the fruit of life, so, too, they think that they have escaped all the feeling and pain of those severe and constant sufferings which we have to endure in this life. We, however, as we are better supported by our rewards, so, too, ought we to be more patient through our consolation, for they seem to be not lost but sent before, whom death is not going to swallow up, but eternity to receive.
72. My tears shall therefore cease, or if they cannot cease, I will weep for thee, my brother, in the common sorrow, and will hide my private groaning in the public grief. For how can my tears wholly cease, since they break forth at every utterance of thy name, or when my very habitual actions arouse thy memory, or when my affection pictures thy likeness, or when recollection renews my grief. For how canst thou be absent who art again made present in so many occupations? Thou art present, I say, and art always brought before me, and with my whole mind and soul do I embrace thee, gaze upon thee, address thee, kiss thee; I grasp thee whether in the gloomy night or in the clear light, when thou vouch-safest to revisit and console me sorrowing. And now the very nights which used to seem irksome in thy lifetime, because they denied us the power of looking on each other; and sleep itself, lately, the odious interrupter of our converse, have commenced to be sweet, because they restore thee to me. They, then, are not wretched but blessed whose mutual presence fails not, whose care for each other is not lessened, whose mutual esteem is increased. For sleep is a likeness and image of death.
73. But if, in the quiet of night, our souls still
cleaving to the chains of the body, and as it were bound within the
prison bars of the limbs, yet are able to see higher and separate
things, how much more do they see these, when in their pure and
heavenly senses they suffer from no hindrances of bodily
weakness. And so when, as a certain evening was drawing on, I was
complaining that thou didst not revisit me when at rest, thou wast
wholly present always. So that, as I lay with my limbs bathed in
sleep, while I was [in mind] awake for thee, thou wast alive to me, I
could say, “What is death, my brother?” For certainly
thou wast not separated from me for a single moment, for thou wast so
present with me everywhere, that enjoyment of each other, which we were
unable to have in the intercourse of this life, is now always and
everywhere with us. For at that time certainly all things could
not be present, for neither did our physical constitution allow it, nor
could the sight of each other, nor the sweetness of our bodily embraces
at all times and in all places be enjoyed. But the pictures in
our souls were always present with us, even when we were not together,
and these have not come to an end, but
74. So, then, I hold thee, my brother, and neither death nor time shall tear thee from me. Tears themselves are sweet, and weeping itself a pleasure, for by these the eagerness of the soul is assuaged, and affection being eased is quieted. For neither can I be without thee, nor ever forget thee, or think of thee without tears. O bitter days, which show that our union is broken! O nights worthy of tears, which have lost for me so good a sharer of my rest, so inseparable a companion! What sufferings would ye cause me, unless the likeness of him present offered itself to me, unless the visions of my soul represented him whom my bodily sight shows me no more!
75. Now, now, O brother, dearest to my soul, although thou art gone by too early a death, happy at least art thou, who dost not endure these sorrows, and art not compelled to mourn the loss of a brother, separation from whom thou couldst not long endure, but didst quickly return and visit him again. But if then thou didst hasten to banish the weariness of my loneliness, to lighten the sadness of thy brother’s mind, how much more often oughtest thou now to revisit my afflicted soul, and thyself lighten the sorrow which has its origin from thee!
76. But the exercise of my office now bids me rest awhile, and attention to my priestly duties draws my mind away; but what will happen to my holy sister, who though she moderates her affection by the fear of God, yet again kindles the grief itself of the affection by the zeal of her devotion? Prostrate on the ground, embracing her brother’s tomb, wearied with toilsome walking, sad in spirit, day and night she renews her grief. For though she often breaks off her weeping by speech, she renews it in prayer; and although in her knowledge of her Scriptures she excels those who bring consolation, she makes up for her desire of weeping by the constancy of her prayers, renewing the abundance of her tears then chiefly, when no one can interrupt her. So thou hast that which thou mayest pity, not what thou mayest blame, for to weep in prayer is a sign of virtue. And although that be a common thing with virgins, whose softer sex and more tender affection abound in tears at the sight of the common weakness, even without the feeling of family grief, yet when there is a greater cause for sorrowing, no limit is set to that sorrow.
77. The means of consolation, then, are wanting since excuses abound. For thou canst not forbid that which thou teachest, especially when she attributes her tears to devotion, not to sorrow, and conceals the course of the common grief for fear of shame. Console her, therefore, thou who canst approach her soul, and penetrate her mind. Let her perceive that thou art present, feel that thou art not departed, that having enjoyed his consolation of whose merit she is assured, she may learn not to grieve heavily for him, who warned her that he was not to be mourned for.
78. But why should I delay thee, brother, why should I wait that my address should die and as it were be buried with thee? Although the sight and form of thy lifeless body, and its remaining comeliness and figure abiding here, comfort the eyes, I delay no longer, let us go on to the tomb. But first, before the people I utter the last farewell, declare peace to thee, and pay the last kiss. Go before us to that home, common and waiting for all, and certainly now longed for by me beyond others. Prepare a common dwelling for him with whom thou hast dwelt, and as here we have had all things in common, so there, too, let us know no divided rights.
79. Do not, I pray thee, long put off him who is desirous of thee, expect him who is hastening after thee, help him who is hurrying, and if I seem to thee to delay too long, summon me. For we have not ever been long separated from each other, but thou wast always wont to return. Nor since thou canst not return again, I will go to thee; it is just that I should repay the kindness and take my turn. Never was there much difference in the condition of our life; whether health or sickness, it was common to both, so that if one sickened the other fell ill, and when one began to recover, the other, too, was convalescent. How have we lost our rights? This time, too, we had our sickness in common, how is it that death was not ours in common?
80. And now to Thee, Almighty God, I commend this guileless soul, to Thee I offer my sacrifice; accept favourably and mercifully the gift of a brother, the offering of a priest. I offer beforehand these first libations of myself. I come to Thee with this pledge, a pledge not of money but of life, cause me not to remain too long a debtor of such an amount. It is not the ordinary interest of a brother’s love, nor the common course of nature, which is increased by such an amount of virtue. I can bear it, if I shall be soon compelled to pay it.
1. In the former book I indulged my longing to some extent, lest too sharp remedies applied to a burning wound might rather increase than assuage the pain. And as at the same time I often addressed my brother, and had him before my eyes, it was not out of place to let natural feelings have a little play, since they are somewhat satisfied by tears, soothed by weeping, and numbed by a shock. For the outward expression of affection is of a soft and tender nature, it loves nothing extravagant, nothing stern, nothing hard; and patience is proved by enduring rather than by resisting.
2. So, since the death-day might well, lately, by the sad spectacle draw aside the mind of a brother, because it occupied him wholly, now, inasmuch as on the seventh day, the symbol of the future rest, we return to the grave, it is profitable to turn our thoughts somewhat from my brother to a general exhortation addressed to all, and to give our attention to this; so as neither to cling to my brother with all our minds, lest our feelings overcome us, nor forgetting such devotion and desert, to turn wholly away from him; and in truth we should but increase the suffering of our intense grief, if his death were again the subject of to-day’s address.
3. Wherefore we propose, dearest brethren, to console ourselves with the common course of nature, and not to think anything hard which awaits all. And therefore we deem that death is not to be mourned over; firstly, because it is common and due to all; next, because it frees us from the miseries of this life and, lastly, because when in the likeness of sleep we are at rest from the toils of this world, a more lively vigour is shed upon us. What grief is there which the grace of the Resurrection does not console? What sorrow is not excluded by the belief that nothing perishes in death? nay, indeed, that by the hastening of death it comes to pass that much is preserved from perishing. So it will happen, dearest brethren, that in our general exhortation we shall turn our affections to my brother, and shall not seem to have wandered too far from him, if through hope of the Resurrection and the sweetness of future glory even in our discourse he should live again for us.
4. Let us then begin at this point, that we show that the departure of our loved ones should not be mourned by us. For what is more absurd than to deplore as though it were a special misfortune, what one knows is appointed unto all? This were to lift up the mind above the condition of men, not to accept the common law, to reject the fellowship of nature, to be puffed up in a fleshly mind, and not to recognize the measure of the flesh itself. What is more absurd than not to recognize what one is, to pretend to be what one is not? Or what can be a sign of less forethought than to be unable to bear, when it has happened, what one knew was going to happen? Nature herself calls us back, and draws us aside from sorrow of this sort by a kind of consolation of her own. For what so deep mourning is there, or so bitter grief, in which the mind is not at times relieved? For human nature has this peculiarity, that although men may be in sad circumstances, yet if only they be men, they sometimes turn their thoughts a little away from sadness.
5. It is said, indeed, that there have been
certain tribes who mourned at the birth of human beings, and kept
festival at their deaths, and this not without reason, for they thought
that those who had entered upon this ocean of life should be mourned
over, but that they who had escaped from the waves and storms of this
world should be accompanied by rejoicing not without good reason.
And we too forget the birthdays of the departed, and commemorate with
festal solemnity the day on which they died. Not only the
Martyrs and Saints, but ordinary Christians, are meant here, for these
used to be commemorated with special prayers and offerings of the Holy
Eucharist on their behalf, especially on the anniversaries of their
deaths.
6. Therefore, in accordance with nature, excessive
grief must not be yielded to, lest we should seem either to claim for
ourselves either an exceptional superiority of nature, or to reject the
common lot. For death is alike to all, without difference for the
poor, without exception for the rich. And so
S. S. Aug. De
Pec. Orig. c. 41.
7. It is now our purpose to demonstrate that death ought not to cause too heavy grief, because nature itself rejects this. And so they say that there was a law among the Lycians, commanding that men who gave way to grief should be clothed in female apparel, inasmuch as they judged mourning to be soft and effeminate in a man. And it is inconsistent that those who ought to offer their breast to death for the faith, for religion, for their country, for righteous judgment, and the endeavour after virtue, should grieve too bitterly for that in the case of others which, if a fitting cause required, they would seek for themselves. For how can one help shrinking from that in ourselves which one mourns with too little patience when it has happened to others? Put aside your grief, if you can; if you cannot, keep it to yourself.
8. Is, then, all sorrow to be kept within or repressed? Why should not reason rather than time lighten one’s sadness? Shall not wisdom better assuage that which the passage of time will obliterate? Further, it seems to me that it is a want of due feeling with regard to the memory of those whose loss we mourn, when we prefer to forget them rather than that our sorrow should be lessened by consolation; and to shrink from the recollection of them, rather than remember them with thankfulness; that we fear the calling to mind of those whose image in our hearts ought to be a delight; that we are rather distrustful than hopeful regarding the acceptance of the departed, and think of those we loved rather as liable to punishment than as heirs of immortality.
9. But you may say: We have lost those whom we used to love. Is not this the common lot of ourselves and the earth and elements, that we cannot keep for ever what has been entrusted to us for a time? The earth groans under the plough, is lashed by rains, struck by tempests, bound by cold, burnt by the sun, that it may bring forth its yearly fruits; and when it has clothed itself with a variety of flowers, it is stripped and spoiled of its own adornment. How many plunderers it has! And it does not complain of the loss of its fruits, to which it gave birth that it might lose them, nor thereafter does it refuse to produce what it remembers will be taken from it.
10. The heavens themselves do not always shine with the globes of twinkling stars, wherewith as with coronets they are adorned. They are not always growing bright with the dawn of light, or ruddy with the rays of the sun; but in constant succession that most pleasing appearance of the world grows dark with the damp chill of night. What is more grateful than the light? what more pleasant than the sun? each of which daily comes to an end; yet we do not take it ill that these have passed away from us, because we expect them to return. Thou art taught in these things what patience thou oughtest to manifest with regard to those who belong to thee. If things above pass away from thee, and cause no grief, why should the passing away of man be mourned?
11. Let, then, grief be patient, let there be that moderation in adversity which is required in prosperity. If it be not seemly to rejoice immoderately, is it seemly so to mourn? For want of moderation in grief or fear of death is no small evil. How many has it driven to the halter, in how many hands has it placed the sword, that they might by that very means demonstrate their madness in not enduring death, and yet seeking it; in adopting that as a remedy which they flee from as an evil. And because they were unable to endure and to suffer what is in agreement with their nature, they fall into that which is contrary to their desire, being separated for ever from those whom they desired to follow. But this is not common, since nature herself restrains although madness drives men on.
12. But it is common with women to make public
wailing, as though they feared that their misery might not be
known. They affect soiled clothing, as though the feeling of
sorrow consisted therein; they moisten their unkempt hair with filth;
and
13. She mourns for her husband with sufficient devotion who preserves her modesty and does not give up her constancy. The best duties to discharge to the departed are that they live in our memories and continue in our affection. She has not lost her husband who manifests her chastity, nor is she widowed as regards her union who has not changed her husband’s name. Nor hast thou lost the heir when thou assistest the joint-heir, but in exchange for a successor in perishable things thou hast a sharer in things eternal. Thou hast one to represent thine heir, pay to the poor what was due to the heir, that there may remain one to survive, not only the old age of father or mother, but thine own life. Thou leavest thy successor all the more, if his share conduce not to luxury in things present, but to the purchasing of things to come.
14. But we long for those whom we have lost. For two things specially pain us: either the longing for those we have lost, which I experience in my own case; or that we think them deprived of the sweetness of life, and snatched away from the fruits of their toil. For there is a tender movement of love, which suddenly kindles the affection, so as to have the effect rather of soothing than of hindering the pain; inasmuch as it seems a dutiful thing to long for what one has lost, and so under an appearance of virtue weakness increases.
15. But why dost thou think that she who has sent her beloved to foreign parts, and because of military service, or of undertaking some office, or has discovered that for the purpose of commerce he has crossed the sea, ought to be more patient than thou who art left, not because of some chance decision or desire of money, but by the law of nature? But, you say, the hope of regaining him is shut out. As though the return of any one were certain! And oftentimes doubt wearies the mind more where the fear of danger is strong; and it is more burdensome to fear lest something should happen than to bear what one already knows has happened. For the one increases the amount of fear, the other looks forward to the end of its grief.
16. But masters have the right to transfer their slaves whithersoever they determine. Has not God this right? It is not granted to us to look for their return, but it is granted us to follow those gone before. And certainly the usual shortness of life seems neither to have deprived them of much who have gone before, nor to delay very long him who remains.
17. But if one cannot mitigate one’s grief, does it not seem unbecoming to wish that because of our longing the whole course of things should be upset? The longings of lovers are certainly more intense, and yet they are tempered by regard to what is necessary; and though they grieve at being forsaken they are not wont to mourn, rather being deserted they blush at loving too hastily. And so patience in regret is all the more manifested.
18. But what shall I say of those who think that the departed are deprived of the sweetness of life? There can be no real sweetness in the midst of the bitternesses and pains of this life, which are caused either by the infirmity of the body itself, or by the discomfort of things happening from without. For we are always anxious and in suspense as to our wishes for happier circumstances; we waver in uncertainty, our hope setting before us doubtful things for certain, inconvenient for satisfactory, things that will fail for what is firm, and we have neither any strength in our will nor certainty in our wishes. But if anything happens against our wish, we think we are lost, and are rather broken down by pain at adversity than cheered by the enjoyment of prosperity. What good, then, are they deprived of who are rather freed from troubles?
19. Good health, I doubt not, is more beneficial
to us than bad health is hurtful. Riches bring more delights than
poverty annoyance, the satisfaction in children’s love is greater
than the sorrow at their loss, and youth is more pleasant than old age
is sad. How often is the attainment of one’s wishes a
weariness, and what one has longed for a regret; so that one grieves at
having obtained what one was not afraid of obtaining. But what
fatherland, what pleasures, can compensate for exile and the bitterness
of other penalties? For even when we have
20. But suppose that some one remains unharmed, free from grief, in uninterrupted enjoyment of the pleasures of the whole course of man’s life, what comfort can the soul attain to, enclosed in the bonds of a body of such a kind, and restrained by the narrow limits of the limbs? If our flesh shrinks from prison, if it abhors everything which denies it the power of roaming about; when it seems, indeed, to be always going forth, with its little powers of hearing or seeing what is beyond itself, how much more does our soul desire to escape from that prison-house of the body, which, being free with movement like the air, goes whither we know not, and comes whence we know not.
21. We know, however, that it survives the body, and that being set free from the bars of the body, it sees with clear gaze those things which before, dwelling in the body, it could not see. And we are able to judge of this by the instance of those who have visions of things absent and even heavenly in sleep (whose minds, when the body is as it were buried in sleep, rise to higher things and relate them to the body). So, then, if death frees us from the miseries of this world, it is certainly no evil, inasmuch as it restores liberty and excludes suffering.
22. At this point the right place occurs for arguing that death is not an evil, because it is the refuge from all miseries and all evils, a safe harbour of security, and a haven of rest. For what adversity is there which we do not experience in this life? What storms and tempests do we not suffer? by what discomforts are we not harassed? whose merits are spared?
23. The holy patriarch Israel fled from his
country, was exiled from his father, relatives, and home,
24. Holy Joseph experienced the hatred of
his brethren,
25. Holy David lost two sons; the one
incestuous,
26. O greatest consolation for him who
mourns! O true judgment of a wise man! O wonderful wisdom
of one who is a bond-man! that none should take it ill that anything
adverse has happened to him, or complain that he is afflicted contrary
to his deserts. For who art thou who beforehand proclaimest thy
deserts? Why desirest thou to anticipate Him Who takes cognizance
of all? Why dost thou snatch away the verdict from Him Who is
going to judge? This is permitted not even to the saints, nor has
it ever been done by the saints with impunity. David confesses
that he was scourged for this in his psalm: “Behold, these
are the ungodly, who prosper in the world, they have obtained
riches. Therefore I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my
hands among the innocent; and I was scourged all the day long, and my
accusation St. Ambrose
has index meus in matutinum; some mss.
vindex; the Roman Psalter, judex; the Vulgate, nearer the
Hebrew, Castigatio; LXX. ἔλεγχος.
27. Peter also, though full of faith and
devotion, yet because, not yet conscious of our common weakness, he had
presumptuously said to the Lord, “I will lay down my life for Thy
sake,” S. S. “Atque
haud dubie pro nobis tentatus est Petrus, ut in fortiore non esset
tentamenti periculum.” A difficult passage, and the
meaning of it seems to be, that had a stronger than St. Peter been
tried, and had overcome, we should not have had the warning against
presumption, and the help of the example of one like
ourselves.
28. But that same David, that the difference
of his actions may not perhaps disturb those who cling to the words of
Scripture; that same David, I say, who had not wept for the innocent
infant, wept for the parricide when dead. For at the last, when
he was wailing and mourning, he said, “O my son Absalom, my son
Absalom! Who will grant me to die for thee!”
29. But concerning the Resurrection more
will be said later on; let us now return to our immediate
subject. We have set forth that even holy men have without any
consideration for their merits, suffered many and heavy things in this
world, together with toil and misery. So David, entering into
himself, says: “Remember; Lord, that we are dust; as for
man, his days are but as grass;”
30. Not to be born is then by far the best,
according to Solomon’s sentence. For they also who have
seemed to themselves to excel most in philosophy have followed
him. For he, before these philosophers in time, but later than
many of our writers, spoke thus in Ecclesiastes: “And I
praised all the departed, which are already dead, more than the living,
who are yet alive. And better than both they is he who hath not
yet been born, and who hath not seen this evil work which hath been
done under the sun. And I saw all travail, and all the good of
this labour, that for this a man is envied of his neighbour. And,
indeed, this is vanity and vexation of spirit.”
31. And who said this but he who asked for
and obtained wisdom, to know how the world was made, and the power of
the elements, the course of the year, and the dispositions of stars, to
be acquainted with the natures of living creatures, the furies of wild
beasts, and the violence of winds, and to understand the thoughts of
man!
32. But Solomon was not the only person who
felt this, though he alone gave expression to it. He had read the
words of holy Job: “Let the day perish wherein I was
born.”
34. Jeremiah also bewails his birth in these
words: “Woe is me, my mother! Why hast thou borne me
a man of contention in all the earth? I have not benefited
others, nor has any one benefited me, my strength hath
failed.”
35. “I die daily,”
36. But according to the Scriptures we have
been taught that death is threefold. Cf.S.
Ambr. de Bono Mortis, c. 9, and In Luc. vii.
35. S.
37. Spiritual death, then, is one thing,
natural death another, a third the death of punishment. But that
which is natural is not also penal, for the Lord did not inflict death
as a penalty, but as a remedy. And to Adam when he sinned, one
thing was appointed as a penalty, another for a remedy, when it was
said: “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy
wife, and hast eaten of the tree of which I had commanded thee that of
it alone thou shouldst not eat, cursed is the ground in thy labor; in
sorrow shalt thou eat its fruit all the days of thy life. Thorns
and thistles shall it bring forth to thee, and thou shalt eat the herb
of the field. In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat thy bread,
till thou return to the earth from which thou wast
taken.”
38. Here you have the days of rest from penalties, for they contain the punishment decreed against the thorns of this life, the cares of the world, and the pleasures of riches which shut out the Word. Death is given for a remedy, because it is the end of evils. For God said not, “Because thou hast hearkened to the voice of the woman thou shalt return to the earth,” for this would have been a penal sentence, as this one is, “The earth under curse shall bring forth thorns and thistles to thee;” but He said: “In sweat shalt thou eat thy bread until thou return to the earth.” You see that death is rather the goal of our penalties, by which an end is put to the course of this life.
39. So, then, death is not only not an evil,
but is even a good thing. So that it is sought as a good, as it
is written: “Men shall seek death and shall not find
it.” S. S.
40. We see, then, that this death is a gain
and life a penalty, so that Paul says: “To me to live is
Christ and to die is gain.”
41. But what remedy? “Who shall
deliver me out of the body of this death? Thanks be to God
through Jesus Christ our Lord.”
42. But this need is not the case of all, Lord Jesus; it is not so with me, who am profitable to none; for to me death is a gain, that I may sin no more. To die is gain to me, who, in the very treatise in which I comfort others, am incited as it were by an intense impulse to the longing for my lost brother, since it suffers me not to forget him. Now I love him more, and long for him more intensely. I long for him when I speak, I long for him when I read again what I have written, and I think that I am more impelled to write this, that I may not ever be without the recollection of him. And in this I am not acting contrary to Scripture, but I am of the same mind with Scripture, that I may grieve with more patience, and long with greater intensity.
43. Thou hast caused me, my brother, not to
fear death, and I only would that my life might die with thine!
This Balaam wished for as the greatest good for himself, when, inspired
by the spirit of prophecy, he said: “Let my soul die in the
souls of the righteous, and let my seed be like the seed of
them.”
44. Death is not, then, an object of dread, nor bitter to those in need, nor too bitter to the rich, nor unkind to the old, nor a mark of cowardice to the brave, nor everlasting to the faithful nor unexpected to the wise. For how many have consecrated their life by the renown of their death alone, how many have been ashamed to live, and have found death a gain! We have read how often by the death of one great nations have been delivered; the armies of the enemy have been put to flight by the death of the general, who had been unable to conquer them when alive.
45. By the death of martyrs religion has
been defended, faith increased, the Church strengthened; the dead have
conquered, the persecutors have been overcome. And so we
celebrate the death of those of whose lives we are ignorant. So,
too, David rejoiced in prophecy at the departure of his own soul,
saying: “Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of
His saints.”
46. Why should more be said? By the
death of One the world was redeemed. For Christ, had He willed,
need not have died, but He neither thought that death should be shunned
as though there were any cowardice in it, nor could He have saved us
better than by dying. And so His death is the life of all.
We are signed with the sign The reference of
course is to the sign of the Cross, which, as we know from various
authorities, the early Christians constantly used, at rising, lying
down, going in or out, at prayers, etc., etc.
47. And, indeed, death was no part of
man’s nature, but became natural; for God did not institute death
at first, but gave it as a remedy. Let us then take heed that it
do not seem to be the opposite. For if death is a good, why is it
written that “God made not death,
48. And if one consider accurately, it is
not the death of our being, but of evil, for being continues, it is
evil that perishes. That which has been rises again; would that
as it is now free from sinning, so it were without former guilt!
But this very thing is a proof that it is not the death of being, that
we shall be the same persons as we were. And so we shall either
pay the penalty of our sins, or attain to the reward of our good
deeds. For the same being will rise again, now more honourable
for having paid the tax of death. And then “the dead who
are in Christ shall rise first; then, too, we who are alive,” it
is said, “shall together with them be caught up in the clouds
into the air to meet the Lord, and so we shall always be with the
Lord.”
49. There is, then, nothing for us to fear
in death, nothing for us to mourn, whether life which was received from
nature be rendered up to her again, or whether it be sacrificed to some
duty which claims it, and this will be either an act of religion or the
exercise of some virtue. And no one ever wished to remain as at
present. This has been supposed to have been promised to John,
but it is not the truth. We hold fast to the words, and deduce
the meaning from them. He himself in his own writing S.
50. The heathen mostly console themselves with the thought, either of the common misery, or of the law of nature, or of the immortality of the soul. And would that their utterances were consistent, and that they did not transmit the wretched soul into a number of ludicrous monstrosities and figures! But what ought we to do, whose reward is the resurrection, though many, not being able to deny the greatness of this gift, refuse to believe in it? And for this reason will we maintain it, not by one casual argument only, but by as many as we are able.
51. All things, indeed, are believed to be, either because of experience, or on grounds of reason, or from similar instances, or because it is fitting that they be, and each of these supports our belief. Experience teaches us that we are moved; reason, that which moves us must be considered the property of another power; similar instances show that the field has borne crops, and therefore we expect that it will continue to bear them. Fitness, because even where we do not think that there will be results, yet we believe that it is by no means fitting to give up the works of virtue.
52. Each, then, is supported by each. But
belief in the resurrection is inferred most clearly on three grounds,
in which all are included. These are reason, analogy from
universal example, and the evidence of what has happened, since many
have risen. Reason is clear. For since the whole course of
our life consists in the union of body and soul, and the resurrection
brings with it
53. Rising again is the lot of all, but there is a difficulty in believing this, because it is not due to our deserts, but is the gift of God. The first argument for the resurrection is the course of the world, and the condition of all things, the series of generations, the changes in the way of succession, the setting and rising of constellations, the ending of day and night, and their daily succession coming as it were again to life. And no other reason can exist for the fertile temperament of this earth, but that the divine order restores by the dews of night as much of that moisture from which all earthly things are produced, as the heat of the sun dries up by day. Why should I speak of the fruits of the earth? Do they not seem to die when they fall, to rise again when they grow green once more? That which is sown rises again, that which is dead rises again, and they are formed once more into the same classes and kinds as before. The earth first gave back these fruits, in these first our nature found the pattern of the resurrection.
54. Why doubt that body shall rise again
from body? Grain is sown, grain comes up again: fruit is
sown, fruit comes up again; but the grain is clothed with blossom and
husk. “And this mortal must put on immortality, and this
corruptible must put on incorruption.”
55. But you wonder how what has yielded to putrefaction can again become solid, how scattered particles can come together, those that are consumed be made good: you do not wonder how seeds broken up under the moist pressure of the earth grow green. For certainly they too, rotting under contact with the earth, are broken up, and when the fertilising moisture of the soil gives life to the dead and hidden seeds, and, by the vital warmth, as it were breathes out a kind of soul of the green herb. Then by little and little nature raises from the ground the tender stalk of the growing ear, and as a careful mother folds it in certain sheaths, lest the sharp ice should hurt it as it grows, and to protect it from too great heat of the sun; and lest after this the rain should break down the fruit itself escaping as it were from its first cradle and just grown up, or lest the wind should scatter it, or small birds destroy it, she usually hedges it around with a fence of bristling awn.
56. Why should one, then, be surprised if the earth give back those bodies of men which it has received, seeing that it gives life to, raises, clothes, protects, and defends whatsoever bodies of seeds it has received? Cease then to doubt that the trustworthy earth, which restores multiplied as it were by usury the seeds committed to it, will also restore the entrusted deposit of the race of man. And why should I speak of the kinds of trees, which spring up from seed sown, and with revivified fruitfulness bear again their opening fruits, and repeat the old shape and likeness, and certain trees being renewed continue through many generations, and in their endurance overpass the very centuries? We see the grape rot, and the vine come up again: a graft is inserted and the tree is born again. Is there this divine foresight for restoring trees, and no care for men? And He Who has not suffered to perish that which He gave for man’s use, shall He suffer man to perish, whom he made after His own image?
57. But it appears incredible to you that
the dead rise again? “Thou foolish one, that which thou
thyself sowest, does it not first die that it may be
quickened?”
58. We come now to a point which much troubles the heathen, how it can be that the earth should restore those whom the sea has swallowed up, wild beasts have torn to pieces or have devoured. So, then, at last we necessarily come to the conclusion that the doubt is not as to belief in resurrection in general, but as to a part. For, granted that the bodies of those torn in pieces do not rise again, the others do so, and the resurrection is not disproved, but a certain class is an exception. Yet I wonder why they think there is any doubt even concerning these, as though not all things which are of the earth return to the earth, and crumble again into earth. And the sea itself for the most part casts up on neighbouring shores whatever human bodies it has swallowed. And if this were not so, I suppose we are to believe that it would not be difficult for God to join together what was dispersed, to unite what was scattered; God, Whom the universe obeys, to Whom the dumb elements submit and nature serves; as though it were not a greater wonder to give life to clay than to join it together.
59. That bird in the country of Arabia,
which is called the Phoenix, restored by the renovating juices of its
flesh, after being dead comes to life again: shall we believe
that men alone are not raised up again? Yet we know this by
common report and the authority of writings,
Scripturarum. It is impossible to suppose that St. Ambrose
here means Holy Scripture, but is referring to such writers as
Herodotus, Tacitus, and Pliny. Other Fathers, Tertullian, St.
Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Basil, with several more, refer also to the
fable of the Phœnix in speaking of the Resurrection. St. Ambrose
may have believed that the world would end with a.d. 1000, or possibly a thousand is simply taken as a
number signifying completeness, as St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei,
XX. 7) explains the thousand years of
60. But perhaps nature if more deeply
investigated will seem to give a deeper reason for our belief:
let our thoughts turn back to the origin and commencement of the
creation of man. You are men and women, you are not ignorant of
the things which have to do with human nature, and if any of you have
not this knowledge, you know that we are born of nothing. But how
small an origin for being so great as we are! And if I do not
speak more plainly, yet you understand what I mean, or rather what I
will not say. Whence, then, is this head, and that wonderful
countenance, whose maker we see not? We see the work, it is
fashioned for various purposes and uses. Whence is this upright
figure, this lofty stature, this power of action, this quickness of
perception, this capacity for walking upright? Doubtless the
organs of nature are not known to us, but that which they effect is
known. Thou too wast once seed, and thy body is the seed of that
which shall rise again. Listen to Paul and learn that thou art
this seed: “It is sown in corruption, it shall rise in
incorruption; it is sown in dishonour, it shall rise in glory; it is
sown in weakness, it shall rise in power; it is sown a natural body, it
shall rise a spiritual body.” S.
61. However, before the season comes, those things
also are not believed, for every season is not suited for the raising
of seeds. Wheat is sown at one time, and comes up at another; at
one time the vine is planted, at another the budding twigs begin to
shoot, the foliage grows luxuriant, and the grape is formed; at one
time the olive is planted, at another time, as though pregnant and
loaded with its offspring of berries, it is bent down by the abundance
of its fruit. But before its own period arrives for each, the
produce is restricted, and that which bears has not the age of bearing
in its own power.
62. So, then, even if thou wilt not believe in our resurrection by faith nor by example, thou wilt believe by experience. For many products, as the vine, the olive, and different fruits, the end of the year is the fit time for ripening; and for us also the consummation of the world, as though the end of the year has set the fitting time for rising again. And fitly is the resurrection of the dead at the consummation of the world, lest after the resurrection we should have to fall back into this evil age. For this cause Christ suffered that He might deliver us from this evil world; lest the temptations of this world should overthrow us again, and it should be an injury to us to come again to life, if we came to life again for sin.
63. So then we have both a reason and a time
for the resurrection: a reason because nature in all its produce
remains consistent with itself, and does not fail in the generation of
men alone; a time because all things are produced at the end of the
year. For the seasons of the world consist of one year.
What wonder if the year be one since the day is one. For on one
day the Lord hired the labourers to work in the vineyard, when He said,
“Why stand ye here all the day idle?” S.
64. The causes of the beginnings of all
things are seeds. And the Apostle of the Gentiles has said that
the human body is a seed.
65. It is a cause for wonder that though
they do not believe in the resurrection, yet in their kindly care they
make provision that the human race should not perish, The immortality of
the soul may be believed by those who deny the resurrection of the
body, and was taught by many philosophers amongst the heathen.
The resurrection of the body is a matter of divine revelation, and the
very highest and best amongst the heathen seem not to have admitted it
even as a speculation.
66. But let those who have not been taught
doubt. For us who have read the Law, the Prophets, the Apostles,
and the Gospel it is not lawful to doubt. For who can doubt when
he reads: “And in that time shall all thy people be saved
which is written in the book; and many of them that sleep in the graves
of the earth shall arise with one opening, these to everlasting life,
and those to shame and everlasting confusion. And they that have
understanding shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and of
the just many shall be as the stars for ever.”
67. And why should I bring together what is
written elsewhere: “Thou shalt raise me up and I will
praise Thee.” Or that other passage in which holy Job,
after experiencing the miseries of this life, and overcoming all
adversity by his virtuous patience, promised himself a recompense for
present evils in the resurrection, saying: “Thou shalt
raise up this body of mine which has suffered many
evils.”
68. How well did he by the chambers point out the tombs of the dead, in which for a brief space we are hidden, that we may be better able to pass to the judgment of God, which shall try us with the indignation due for our wickednesses. He, then, is alive who is hidden and at rest, as though withdrawing himself from our midst and retiring, lest the misery of this world should entangle him with closer snares, for whom the heavenly oracles affirm by the voices of the prophets that the joy of the resurrection is reserved, and the soundness of their freed bodies procured by the divine deed. And dew is well used as a sign, since by it all vital seeds of the earth are raised to growth. What wonder is it, then, if the dust and ashes also of our failing body grow vigorous by the richness of the heavenly dew, and by the reception of this vital moistening the shapes of our limbs are refashioned and connected again with each other?
69. And the holy prophet Ezekiel teaches and describes with a full exposition how vigour is restored to the dry bones, the senses return, motion is added, and the sinews coming back, the joints of the human body grow strong; how the bones which were very dry are clothed with restored flesh, and the course of the veins and the flow of the blood is covered by the veil of the skin drawn over them. As we read, the reviving multitude of human bodies seems to spring up under the very words of the prophet, and one can see on the widespread plain the new seed shoot forth.
70. But if the wise men of old believed that a crop of armed men sprang up in the district of Thebes from the sowing of the hydra’s teeth, whereas it is certainly established that seeds of one kind cannot be changed into another kind of plant, nor bring forth produce differing from its own seeds, so that men should spring from serpents and flesh from teeth; how much more, indeed, is it to be believed that whatever has been sown rises again in its own nature, and that crops do not differ from their seed, that soft things do not spring from hard, nor hard from soft, nor is poison changed into blood; but that flesh is restored from flesh, bone from bone, blood from blood, the humours of the body from humours. Can ye then, ye heathen, who are able to assert a change, deny a restoration of the nature? Can you refuse to believe the oracles of God, the Gospel, and the prophets, who believe empty fables?
71. But let us now hear the prophet himself,
who speaks thus: “The hand of the Lord was upon me, and the
Lord led me forth in the Spirit, and placed me in the midst of the
plain, and it was full of men’s bones; and He led me through them
round about, and, lo, there were very many bones on the face of the
plain, and they were very dry. And He said unto me: Son of
man, can these bones live? And I said: Lord, Thou knowest;
and He said to me: Prophesy over these bones, and thou shalt say
unto them: O ye dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus
saith the Lord to these bones: Behold I bring upon you the Spirit
of life, and I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon
you, and will stretch skin over you, and will put My Spirit into you,
and ye shall live, and know that I am the Lord. And I prophesied
as He commanded me. And it came to pass when I was prophesying
all these things, lo, there was a great earthquake.”
72. Note how the prophet shows that there
was hearing and movement in the bones before the Spirit of life was
poured upon them. For, above, both the dry bones are bidden to
hear, as if they had the sense of hearing, and that upon this each of
them came to its own joint is pointed out by the words of the prophet,
for we read as follows: “And the bones came together, each
one to its joint. And I beheld, and, lo, sinews and flesh were
forming upon them, and skin came upon them from above, and there was no
Spirit in them.”
73. Great is the lovingkindness of the Lord, that the prophet is taken as a witness of the future resurrection, that we, too might see it with his eyes. For all could not be taken as witnesses, but in that one all we are witnesses, for neither does lying come upon a holy man, nor error upon so great a prophet.
74. Nor ought it to appear at all
impro
75. But let us go on with the other points,
that we may observe how by the Spirit of life the dead are quickened,
they that lie in the graves arise, and the tombs are opened:
“And He said unto me: Prophesy, son of man, and say to the
Spirit, Come from the four winds of heaven, O Spirit, and breathe upon
these dead, that they may live. And I prophesied as He commanded
me, and the Spirit of life entered into them, and they lived, and stood
up on their feet, an exceeding great company. And the Lord spake
unto me, saying: Son of man, these bones are the whole house of
Israel. For they say, Our bones are become dry, our hope is lost,
we shall perish. Therefore, prophesy and say: Thus saith
the Lord: Behold I will open your graves, and will bring you up
out of your graves into the land of Israel, and ye shall know that I am
the Lord, when I shall open your graves, and bring forth My people out
of the graves, and shall put My Spirit in you, and place you in your
own land, and ye shall know that I am the Lord; I have spoken, and I
will perform it, saith the Lord.”
76. We notice here how the operations of the
Spirit of life are again resumed; we know after what manner the dead
are raised from the opening tombs. And is it in truth a matter of
wonder that the sepulchres of the dead are unclosed at the bidding of
the Lord, when the whole earth from its utmost limits is shaken by one
thunderclap, the sea overflows its bounds, and again checks the course
of its waves? And finally, he who has believed that the dead
shall rise again “in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the
last trump (for the trumpet shall sound),”
77. The Lord also shows us in the Gospel, to
come now to instances, after what manner we shall rise again.
“For He raised not Lazarus alone, but the faith of all; and if
thou believest, as thou readest, thy spirit also, which was dead,
revives with Lazarus.” For what does it mean, that the Lord
went to the sepulchre and cried with a loud voice, “Lazarus, come
forth,” S.
78. So, then, the dead man heard, and came
forth from the tomb, bound hand and foot with grave cloths, and his
face was bound with a napkin. Conceive, if thou canst, how he
makes his way with closed eyes, directs his steps with bound feet, and
moves as though free with fastened limbs. inseparabili
gressu, separabilique progressu. A literal version is
impossible. His feet were bound, yet he as it were walked, the
usual mode of progress when the limbs are free. agebatur prius quam
parabatur incessus.
79. If thou marvellest at this, consider Who gave the command, that thou mayest cease to wonder; Jesus Christ. the Power of God, the Life, the Light, the Resurrection of the dead. The Power raised up him that was lying prostrate, the Life produced his steps, the Light drove away the darkness and restored his sight, the Resurrection renewed the gift of life.
80. Perchance it may trouble thee that the Jews took away the stone and loosened the grave cloths, and thou mayest haply be anxious as to who shall move the stone from thy tomb. As though He Who could restore the Spirit could not remove the stone; or He Who made the bound to walk could not burst the bonds; or He Who had shed light upon the covered eyes could not uncover the face; or He Who could renew the course of nature could not cleave the stone! But, in order that they may believe their eyes who will not believe with their heart, they remove the stone, they see the corpse, they smell the stench, they loose the grave cloths. They cannot deny that he is dead whom they behold rising again; they see the signs of death and the proofs of life. What if, whilst they are busied, they are converted by the very toil itself? What if, while they hear, they believe their own ears? What if, while they behold, they are instructed by their own eyes? What if, while they loose the bonds, they free their own minds? What if, while Lazarus is being unbound, the people is set free, while they let Lazarus go, themselves return to the Lord? For, lastly, many who had come to Mary, seeing what had taken place, believed.
81. And this was not the only instance which
our Lord Jesus Christ set forth, but He raised others also, that we
might at any rate believe more numerous instances. He raised the
young man again, moved by the tears of his widowed mother, when He came
and touched the bier, and said: “Young man, I say unto
thee, arise, and he that was dead sat up and began to
speak.” S.
82. And what shall I say of the daughter of
the ruler of the synagogue, at whose death multitudes were weeping and
the flute-players piping? For the funeral solemnities were being
performed because of the conviction of death. How quickly at the
word of the Lord does the spirit return, the reviving body rise up, and
food is taken, that the evidence of life may be believed! S.
83. And why should we wonder that the soul
is restored at the word of God, that flesh returns to the bones, when
we remember the dead raised by the touch of the prophet’s
body? S.
84. If these things happened when He gave up the ghost, why should we think them incredible when He shall return to judgment? especially since this earlier resurrection is a pledge of that future resurrection, and a pattern of that reality Which is to come; indeed, it is rather itself truth than a pattern. Who, then, at the Lord’s resurrection opened the graves, gave a hand to those who were rising, showed them the road to find the holy city? If there was no one, it was certainly the Divine Power which was working in the bodies of the dead. Shall one seek for the aid of man where one sees the work of God?
85. Divine action has no need of human
assistance. God commanded that the heavens should come into existence,
and it was done; He determined that the earth should be created, and it
was created. S.
86. Philosophers dispute about the course of
the sun and the system of the heavens, and there are those who think
that these should be believed when they are ignorant of what they are
talking about. For neither have they climbed up into the heavens,
nor measured the sky, nor examined the universe with their eyes; for
none of them was with God in the beginning, none of them has said of
God: “When He was preparing the heavens I was with Him, I
was with Him as a master workman, I was he in whom He
delighted.”
87. If the earth and heaven are renewed, why should we doubt that man, on account of whom heaven and earth were made, can be renewed? If the transgressor be reserved for punishment, why should not the just be kept for glory? If the worm of sins does not die, how shall the flesh of the just perish? For the resurrection, as the very form of the word shows, is this, that what has fallen should rise again, that which has died should come to life again.
88. And this is the course and ground of justice, that since the action of body and soul is common to both (for what the soul has conceived the body has carried out), each should come into judgment, and each should be either given over to punishment or reserved for glory. For it would seem almost inconsistent that, since the law of the mind fights against the law of the flesh, and the mind often, when sin dwelling in man acts, does that which it hates; the mind guilty of a fault shared by another should be subjected to penalty, and the flesh, the author of the evil, should enjoy rest: and that should alone suffer which had not sinned alone, or should alone attain to glory, not having fought alone with the help of grace.
89. The reason, unless I am mistaken, is
complete and just, but I do not require a reason from Christ. If
I am convinced by reason I reject faith. Abraham believed
God, S.
90. Who was He that said this? He in
truth Who when dead raised up many bodies of the departed. If we
believe not God, shall we not believe evidence? Do we not believe
what He promised, since He did even that which He did not
promise? And what reason would He have had for dying, had He not
also had a reason for rising again? For, seeing that God could
not die, Wisdom could not die; and inasmuch as that could not rise
again which had not died, flesh is assumed, which can die, that whilst
that, whose nature it is, dies, that which had died should rise
again. For the resurrection could not be effected except by man;
since, “as by man came death, so too by man came the resurrection
of the dead.”
91. So, then, man rose because man died; man was
raised again, but God raised him.
92. All men rise again, but let no one lose
heart, and let not the just grieve at the common lot of rising again,
since he awaits the chief fruit of his virtue. All indeed shall
rise again,
93. We are all born, and we shall all rise
again, but in each state, whether of living or of living again, grace
differs and the condition differs. For, “in a moment, in
the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump, the dead shall rise
incorruptible and we shall be changed.”
94. Paul certainly is dead, and by his
honourable passion exchanged the life of the body for everlasting
glory; did he then deceive himself when he wrote that he should be
caught up alive in the clouds to meet Christ? We read the same
too of Enoch S.
95. The patriarchs also live, for God could
not be called the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob, except the
dead were living; for He is not the God of the dead but of the
living. S.
96. Abraham, ready to receive strangers,
faithful towards God, devoted in ministering, quick in his service, saw
the Trinity in a type;
97. He believed that he when old could beget
a son,
98. The father offered indeed his son, but
God is appeased not by blood but by dutiful obedience. He showed
the ram in the thicket
99. Let us, then, imitate the devotion of Abraham, let us imitate the goodness of Isaac, let us imitate his purity. The man was plainly good and chaste, full of devotion towards God, chaste towards his wife. He returned not evil for evil, yielded to those who would thrust him out, received them again on their repentance, neither violent towards insolence, nor stubborn towards kindness. Fleeing from strife when he went away from others, ready to forgive when he received them again, and still more lavish of goodness when he forgave them. The fellowship of his company was sought, he gave in addition a feast of pleasure.
100. In Jacob, too, let us imitate the type
of Christ, let there be some likeness of his actions in
ourselves. We shall have our share with him, if we imitate
him. He was obedient to his mother, he yielded to his brother, he
served his father-in-law, he sought his wages from the increase, not
from a division of the flocks. There was no covetous division,
where his portion brought such gain. Nor was that sign without a
purpose, the ladder from earth to heaven,
101. We see, then, that heaven is open to
virtue, and that this is the privilege not only of a few:
“For many shall come from the east and from the west, and the
north and the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of
God,” S.
102. We have seen, then, how grave an
offence it is not to believe the resurrection; for if we rise not
again, then Christ died in vain, then Christ rose not again.
103. Wilt thou know how free? “I
am become as a man that hath no help, free among the
dead.” S. S.
104. And so He needed no helper. For
He needed none when He made the world, so as to need none when He would
redeem it. No legate, no messenger, but the Lord Himself made it
whole. “He spake and it was done.”
105. But it is now time, I think, to speak
of the trumpets since my discourse is nearing its end, that the trumpet
may also be the sign of the finishing of my address. We read of
seven trumpets in the Revelation of John, which seven angels
received.
106. Therefore we ought with all our power
to observe what is the signification of the trumpets, lest, accepting
them, like old women, as part of the story, we should be in danger if
we were to think things unworthy of spiritual teaching, or not
befitting the dignity of the Scriptures. For when we read that
our warfare is not against flesh and blood, but against spiritual hosts
of wickedness, which are in high places,
107. Let us, then, investigate what we read in the
Old Testament concerning the kinds of trumpets, considering that those
festivals which were enjoined on the Jews by the Law are the shadow of
joys above and of heavenly festivals. For here is the shadow,
there the truth. Let us endeavour to attain to the truth by means
of the shadow. Of which truth the figure is expressed in this
manner, where we read that the Lord said
St. Ambrose
translates the Septuagint as usual, but there are some
variations. Probably Libanus is a copyist’s mistake for
Liba [Λίβα] the W.S.W. wind.
So, too, Boream perhaps should be mare [παρὰθάλασσαν].
In ch. 115, St. Ambrose in explaining the third trumpet speaks of the
sea. The third and fourth trumpets are not mentioned except in
the Septuagint, and it may be noticed that St. Ambrose changes the
description of the positions of the camps [παρεμβάλλουσαι], consttuta, into a direction, constituentur.
108. What then? shall we esteem festival
days by eating and drinking? But let no man judge us in respect
of eating; “for we know that the Law is
spiritual.” S. S.
108. The seventh trumpet, then, seems to
signify the sabbath of the week, which is reckoned not only in days and
years and periods (for which reason the number of the jubilee is
sacred), but includes also the seventieth year, when the people
returned to Jerusalem, who had remained seventy years in
captivity. In hundreds also and in thousands the observation of
the sacred number is by no means passed over, for not without a meaning
did the Lord say: “I have left the seven thousand men, who
have not bent their knees before Baal.”
109. It was necessary, then, that spiritual
things should be made known as in a mirror and in a riddle; “For
now we see by means of a mirror, but then face to face.”
110. If, then, any one desires to see this
Image of God, he must love God, that he may be loved by God; and be no
longer a servant but a friend, because he has kept the commandments of
God, that he may enter into the cloud where God is.
111. Yet it is not every one’s
business to sound each trumpet, nor every one’s business to call
together the whole assembly, but that prerogative is granted to the
priests alone,
112. And these are salutary trumpets also,
if one believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth; “For
with the heart man believeth unto righteousness, and with the mouth
confession is made unto salvation.”
113. David was thinking of this purpose in
his breast when he said: “For I will pass into the place of
the marvellous tabernacle, even to the house of God, with the voice of
exultation and thanksgiving, the sound of one that
feasts.”
114. Let us therefore be preachers of the
Lord, and praise Him in the sound of the trumpet,
115. But those mysteries pertain not to
individuals only, but to the whole human race. For observe the
order of grace according to the type of the Law. When the first
trumpet sounds, it collects those towards the east, as the chief and
elect; when the second sounds, those nearly equal in merit, who, being
placed towards Libanus, have abandoned the follies of the nations; when
the third, those who as it were, tossed on the sea of this world, have
been driven hither and thither by the waves of this life; when the
fourth, those who have by no means been able sufficiently to soften the
hardness of their hearts by the commandments of spiritual utterance,
and therefore are said to be towards the north—for, according to
Solomon, the north is a hard wind.
116. And so although all are raised again in
a moment, yet all are raised in the order of their merits. And
therefore they rise first, who yielding early to the impulses of
devotion, and as it were going forth before the rising dawn of faith,
received the rays of the eternal Sun. This one may rightly say
either of the patriarchs in the course of the Old Testament, or of the
apostles under the Gospel. And the second are they who, forsaking
the rites of the Gentiles, passed from unholy error under the training
of the Church. So, then, those first were of the fathers, those
second of the Gentiles, for the light of faith took its beginning from
those, among these it will remain to the end of the world. In the
third place and in the fourth, those are raised who are in the south
and in the north. The earth is divided into these four, of these
four is the year made up, in these four is the earth completed, and
from these four is the Church collected. For all who are
considered to be joined to holy Church, by being called by the Divine
Name, shall obtain the privilege of the resurrection and the grace of
eternal bliss, for “they shall come from the east and west, and
from the north and south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of
God.” S.
117. For it is no small light wherewith
Christ encompasses His world: since “His going forth is
from the height of heaven, and His progress to the height thereof, nor
is there any who can hide himself from His heat.” S.
118. And you may recognize also the voice of
the invitation of the Church, for she says: “Awake, O north
wind, and come, thou south, blow upon my garden, and let my ointment
flow forth. Let my brother come down into his garden and eat the
fruit of his precious trees.”
119. And then, O Bride, thou art called to
come from Libanus, being in the Lord’s judgment all fair and
without fault. For thus it is written: “Thou art all
fair, my love, and there is no fault in thee. Come hither from
Libanus, my bride, come hither from Libanus.”
120. Afterwards, thou, fearing no rushing waters, no torrents coming down from Libanus, callest the north and south winds, wishing them to blow upon thy garden, that thy ointment may flow forth upon others, and that thou mayest offer to Christ in others the manifold fruits of thy productiveness.
121. And therefore “blessed is he who
keepeth the words of this prophecy,”
122. Hear also when the future grace of the just
is promised: “And I heard,” he says, “a great
voice from the throne saying: Behold, the tabernacle of God is
with men, and He shall dwell with them, and they
123. Compare now, if you will, and contrast this life with that; and choose, if you then can, unending bodily existence in toil, and in the wretched misery of such changes as we endure, in satiety when we have our wishes, in that disgust which attends our pleasures. If God were willing to let these last for ever, would you choose them? For if on its own account life is to be escaped from, that there may be an avoidance of troubles and rest from miseries, how much more is that rest to be sought for, which shall be followed by the eternal pleasure of the resurrection to come, where there is no succession of faults, no enticement to sin?
124. Who is so patient in suffering as not
to pray for death? who has such endurance in weakness as not to wish
rather to die than to live in debility? Who is so brave in sorrow
as not to desire to escape from it even by death? But if we
ourselves are dissatisfied while life lasts, although we know that a
limit is fixed for it, how much more weary should we become of this
life if we saw that the troubles of the body would be with us without
end! For who is there who would wish to be excepted from
death? Or what would be more unendurable than a miserable
immortality? “If in this life only,” he says,
“we hope in Christ, we are more miserable than all
men;”
124. And how much weariness do we find that the short stages of our lives bring us! The boy longs to be a young man; the youth counts the years leading to riper age; the young man, unthankful for the advantage of his vigorous time of life, desires the honour of old age. And so to all there comes naturally the desire of change, because we are dissatisfied with that which we now are. And lastly, even the things we have desired are wearisome to us; and what we have wished to obtain, when we have obtained it, we dislike.
125. Wherefore holy men have not without
reason often lamented their lengthy dwelling here: David
126. So be it, then. Granted that the
Resurrection is preferable to this life. What! have
philosophers Cicero, Tusc.
Disp. I.; Plato, Phædo.
127. But is their opinion preferable,
who From the Egyptians
this opinion seems to have passed on to Pythagoras and Plato. Ovid,
Metamorph. XIV. 1.
128. Poets say these things in sport, and
philosophers blame them and at the same time they imagine that those
very things are true of the dead which they consider fictitious as
regards the living. For they who invented such tales did not
intend to assert the truth of their own fable, but to deride the errors
of philosophers, who think that that same soul which was accustomed to
overcome anger by gentle and lowly purpose, can now, inflamed by the
raging impulses of a lion, impatient with anger and with unbridled
rage, thirst for blood and seek for slaughter. Or again, that
that soul, which as it were by royal counsel used to moderate the
various storms of the people, and to calm them with the voice of
reason, can now endure to howl in pathless and desert places after the
fashion of a wolf; or that that soul which, groaning under a heavy
burden, used to low in sad complaint over the labours of the plough,
now changed into the fashion of a man, seeks for horns on his smooth
brow; Verg.
Ecl. VI. 51. Ovid,
Metam. II. 4.
129. Perchance you destroyed Icarus Metam. VIII.
3.
130. How incredible are these things! how odious! How much more fitting is it to believe in accordance with nature, in accordance with what takes place in every kind of fruit; to believe in accordance with the pattern of what has happened, in accordance with the utterances of prophets, and the heavenly promise of Christ! For what is better than to be sure that the work of God does not perish, and that those who are made in the image and likeness of God cannot be transformed into the shapes of beasts; since in truth it is not the form of the body but of the spirit which is made after the likeness of God. For in what manner could man, to whom are subjected the other kinds of living creatures, migrate with the better part of himself into an animal subjected to himself? Nature does not suffer this, and if nature did grace would not.
131. But I have seen what you, Gentiles, think of each other, and indeed it ought not to seem strange that you who worship beasts should believe that you can be changed into beasts. But I had rather that you judged better concerning what is due to you, that you may believe that you will be not in the company of wild beasts, but in the companionship of angels.
132. The soul has to depart from the
surroundings of this life, and the pollutions of the earthly body, and
to press on to those heavenly companies, though it is for the saints
alone, to attain to them, and to sing praise to God (as in the
prophet’s words we hear of those who are harping
133. Holy David desired beyond all else for
himself that he might behold and gaze upon this, for he says:
“One thing have I asked of the Lord, that will I seek after; that
I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, and see
the pleasure of the Lord.”
134. It is a pleasure to believe this, a joy to hope for it; and certainly, not to have believed it is a pain, to have lived in this hope a grace. But if I am mistaken in this, that I prefer to be associated after death with angels rather than with beasts, I am gladly mistaken, and so long as I live will never suffer myself to be cheated of this hope.
135. For what comfort have I left but that I hope
to come quickly to thee, my brother,
On the eve of setting out for the East, to aid his uncle Valens in repelling a Gothic invasion, Gratian, the Emperor of the West, requested St. Ambrose to write him a treatise in proof of the Divinity of Jesus Christ. Gratian’s object in making this request was to secure some sort of preservative against the corrupting influence of Arianism, which at that time (a.d. 378) had gained the upper hand of Orthodoxy in the Eastern provinces of the Empire, owing to its establishment at the Imperial Court. In compliance with Gratian’s wish, the Bishop of Milan composed a treatise, which now forms the first two Books of the De Fide. With this work the Emperor was so much pleased that on his return from the East, after the death of Valens at Hadrianople, he wrote to St. Ambrose, begging for a fresh copy of the treatise, and further, for its enlargement by the addition of a discourse on the Divinity of the Holy Spirit. The original treatise was, indeed, enlarged by St. Ambrose in 379, but the additional Books dealt, not with the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, but rather with new objections raised by the Arian teachers, and points which had either been passed over or not fully discussed already. In this way St. Ambrose’s Exposition was brought into its present form.
The object of the Exposition is, as has already been indicated, to prove the Divinity of Jesus Christ, and His co-eternity, co-equality, and consubstantiality, as God the Son, with God the Father. This the author does by constant appeal to the Scriptures, both of the Old and of the New Testament, which the Arians had in many cases forced into the mould of false interpretation to make them fit their doctrine.
Besides the title of De Fide, that of De Trinitate was one by which this treatise was largely known in after ages; it is certain, though, that the former was that assigned by St. Ambrose himself.
The notes to the first four books of the De Fide have in some instances been taken over from those in Father Hurter’s Edition of the treatise (Innsbruck: Wagner), which has been used in preparing the translation of these books. These notes are distinguished by the letter "H." placed at the end.
The citations from Scripture embodied in the text have been translated as they stood in the original. This will account for any divergence from the renderings in the English Bible and Prayer-book, whilst any agreement may be set down to reminiscences of the more familiar versions. It was thought best to adopt this treatment of St. Ambrose’s citations, inasmuch as the divergences are worth noticing, and indeed, in some cases, the argument rather turns upon them. The references are, throughout, made to chapters and verses in the English Bible, and not to the Vulgate, unless especially stated so to be.
The Prefaces and Summaries of Contents are based on those in Father Hurter’s Edition.
The author praises Gratian’s zeal for instruction in the Faith, and speaks lowly of his own merits. Taught of God Himself, the Emperor stands in no need of human instruction; yet this his devoutness prepares the way to victory. The task appointed to the author is difficult: in the accomplishment whereof he will be guided not so much by reason and argument as by authority, especially that of the Nicene Council.
1. The Queen of the
South, as we read in the Book of the Kings, came to hear the wisdom of
Solomon.
2. For why, august Emperor, should your
Majesty learn that Faith which, from your earliest childhood, you have
ever devoutly and lovingly kept? “Before I formed thee in
thy mother’s belly I knew thee,” saith the Scripture,
“and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified
thee.” “By
sanctification is meant the grace of regeneration, which comprises
virtues inspired, including both the habit of faith and the gifts of
the Holy Spirit. Now these support especially the innocent soul,
so that with pious affection it nurses the doctrine revealed to it, is
inclined thereto, loves it, takes it to itself, and advances in
it.”—Hurter ad loc. The Emperor’s
constant zeal in defence of the Faith against the Arians is to be
regarded as due to his habit of faith and to the gifts of the
Spirit. The citation is from
3. Your sacred Majesty, being about to go
forth to war, requires of me a book, expounding the Faith, since your
Majesty knows that victories are gained more by faith in the commander,
than by valour in the soldiers. For Abraham led into battle three
hundred and eighteen men, The original form of
the Cross was that of the letter T. The numerical value of the
sign T (Tau), in Greek arithmetic was 300. Eighteen was
represented by ιη, the
first two letters of the name ᾽Ιησοὐς, Jesus. To
St. Ambrose, therefore, it seemed that there was some mysterious power
in the number 318, represented by the sign of the Cross and the first
two letters of the Saviour’s name, thus—TIH.
4. Truly, I would rather take upon me the
duty of exhortation to keep the Faith, than that of disputing thereon;
for the former means devout confession, whereas the latter is liable to
rash presumption. Howbeit, forasmuch as your Majesty has no need
of exhortation, whilst I may not pray to be excused from the duty of
loyalty, I will take in hand a bold enterprise, yet modestly withal,
not so much reasoning and disputing concerning the Faith as gathering
together a multitude of witness. sc. from
Scripture.
5. Of the Acts of Councils, I shall let that
one be my chief guide which three hundred and eighteen priests,
appointed, as it were, after the judgment of Abraham, See the note
2 on § 3. St. Ambrose is here speaking of the
Œcumenical Council held at Nicæa in Bithynia, a.d. 325. Different accounts are given of the
numbers present. Eusebius says there were 250 bishops in
the Council; Athanasius and Socrates, “more than
300;” Sozomen “about 320.” The number
318, however, is also given by Athanasius as well as by Theodoret and
Epiphanius. See Robertson’s History of the Church,
Bk. II. ch. i. The victory over the infidel is, of course, the
victory of the orthodox Catholics over Arius, and the Nicene Symbol may
be regarded as the “trophy” commemorating the victory, the
reality of which lay in getting the clause “of one substance with
the Father” (ὁμοούσιον τῷ
Πατρί) subscribed to. The
original Nicene Creed, it may be useful to observe, was not exactly the
same in form as the symbol which now is generally known by that name,
and which is part of the Eucharistic office of the English
Church. This latter is an enlargement of the original, and it
appears to have been in use for a considerable time (not less than
seventy years) before it was produced at the Council of Chalcedon in
451. It obtained general acceptance by the middle of the sixth
century. Towards the end of that century (589 a.d.) an additional clause, proclaiming the procession of
the Holy Ghost from the Son as well as the Father, was inserted at the
Council of Toledo. This insertion was repudiated by the Church in
the East, and became one of the causes of the separation of Eastern
from Western Christendom.
The author distinguishes the faith from the errors of
Pagans, Or
“Gentiles.” The Christians regarded themselves as
placed in the world much as the Hebrews had been planted in the midst
of the “nations round about.” The Latin
word is natura, which, at first sight, seems less abstruse and
metaphysical than the Greek οὐσία, or ὑπόστασις,
or the Latin essentia and substantia, though it is not
really so. A man’s natura, nature, is what he is at
and from the beginning; “change of nature” means not an
absolute change, but a reformation, a new guidance and treatment of
tendencies, passions, powers—some receiving a precedence denied
them before, others being suppressed and put in subjection. So
God’s “nature” is what He is from and to all
eternity, in Himself, unchangingly and unchangeably.
6. Now this is the
declaration of our Faith, that we say that God is One, neither dividing
His Son from Him, as do the heathen, Lit.
“the nations”—gentes, τὰ
ἔθνη. The Romans of the
Republic used to speak of foreign peoples—especially if subject
to kings—as gentes exteræ, in contradistinction to
the Populus Romanus. St. Ambrose of course means those who
still clung to the ancient religions, who were foreigners to the
commonwealth (res publica) of the Church. The
original is ante tempora—“before the
ages”—“before time was.” Cf.
Sabellius
was a presbyter in the Libyan Pentapolis (Barca), who came to Rome and
there ventilated his heretical teaching, early in the third century,
a.d. (about 210). He appears to have
maintained that there was no real distinction of Persons in the
Godhead. God, he said, was one individual Person: when
different divine Persons were spoken of, no more was meant than
different aspects of, or the assumption of different parts by, the same
subject. Sabellius thus started from the ordinary usages of the
term πρόσωπον
as denoting (1) a mask, (2) a character or part in a drama.
The Latin persona was used in the same way. Sabellianism
never counted many adherents; its professors were called Patripassians,
because their doctrine was tantamount to asserting that God the Father
was crucified. Photinus was a
Galatian, who became Bishop of Sirmium (Mitrovitz in Slavonia) in the
fourth century. He taught that Jesus Christ did not exist before
His mother Mary, but was begotten of her by Joseph. The man
Jesus, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting, was enlightened
and guided by the influence of the Logos, or Divine Reason, whereby He
became the Son of God, preeminent over all other prophets and
teachers. Arius was a presbyter of
Alexandria; the origin of his heresy, however, is, as Cardinal Newman
has shown, to be sought in Syria rather than in Egypt, in the sophistic
method of the Antiochene schools more than in the mysticism of the
Alexandrian. It was in the year 319 that Arius began to attract
attention by his heterodox teaching, which led eventually to his
excommunication. He found favour, however, with men of
considerable importance in the Church, such as Eusebius of Cæsarea
in Palestine, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Athanasius of Anazarbus, and
others. The question was finally discussed in a synod of bishops
convened, on the summons of the Emperor Constantine, at Nicæa in
Bithynia. The acts of that Council condemned
Arianism—notwithstanding which, the heresy prevailed in the East
till the reign of Theodosius the Great (379–395 a.d.); and having won the acceptance of the Goths, it was
predominant in Gaul and Italy during the fifth century, and in Spain
till the Council of Toledo (589 a.d.), and its
influence affected Christian thought for centuries
afterwards—possibly it is not even yet dead. Arius urged the following dilemma:
“Either the Son is an original Divine Essence; if so we must
acknowledge two Gods. Or He was created, formed, begotten; if so,
He is not God in the same sense as the Father is God.”
Arius himself chose the latter alternative, which St. Ambrose regarded
as a lapse into paganism, with its “gods many and lords
many,” dii majores and dii minores, and divinities
begotten of gods and goddesses. Arius’s errors are summarized in
the anathema appended to the original Nicene Creed. “But
those who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, or
that He had no existence before He was begotten, or that He was formed
of things non-existent, or who assert that the Son of God is of a
different substance or essence, or is created, mutable, or variable,
these men the Catholic and Apostolic Church of God holds
accursed.” Compare
The A.V. of 1611
runs thus: “Hear, O Israel: the Lord our God is one
Lord” (Jahveh our God is one Jahveh).
7. For God and Lord is a name of majesty, a
name of power, even as God Himself saith: “The Lord is My
name,” “Ego
Dominus; hoe est nomen meum.”—Vulg.,
The word
Θεός,
“God,” is derived by most authorities from θεᾶσθαι, which
means “to look upon.” Here we have another derivation
suggested, viz., from δέος, “fear,” on this
ground that God inspires fear.—H. Neither derivation is
correct. The best perhaps is given by Herodotus (II. 52), viz.,
from the verb τίθημι, to place, set,
array, the idea being that God is the principal of all order and
law.
8. If, then, God is One, one is the name,
S. A similar
argument in
9. Moreover, Christ Himself saith:
“I and the Father are One.” S. Cf. S.
Athanasian Creed,
clause 4.
10. We say, then, that there is one God, not
two or three Gods, this being the error into which the impious heresy
of the Arians doth run with its blasphemies. For it says that
there are three Gods, in that it divides the Godhead of the Trinity;
whereas the Lord, in saying, “Go, baptize the nations in the name
of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” hath shown
that the Trinity is of one power. We confess Father, Son, and
Spirit, understanding in a perfect Trinity both fulness of Divinity and
unity of power. Or
“perfect fulness of Divinity, and perfect unity of
power.”
11. “Every kingdom divided against
itself shall quickly be overthrown,” saith the Lord. Now
the kingdom of the Trinity is not divided. If, therefore, it is
not divided, it is one; for that which is not one is divided. The
Arians, however, would have the kingdom of the Trinity to be such as
may easily be overthrown, by division against itself. But truly,
seeing that it cannot be overthrown, it is plainly undivided. For
no unity is divided or rent asunder, and therefore neither age nor
corruption has any power over it. S.
The Emperor is exhorted to display zeal in the Faith. Christ’s perfect Godhead is shown from the unity of will and working which He has with the Father. The attributes of Divinity are shown to be proper to Christ, Whose various titles prove His essential unity, with distinction of Person. In no other way can the unity of God be maintained.
12. “Not
every one that saith unto Me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom
of heaven,” S.
13. The grace of His submission makes for
agreement [with our teaching], and the acts of His power are not at
variance therewith. For whatsoever things the Father doeth, the
same also doeth the Son, in like manner. S. S.
14. Therefore we ought to believe that God
is good, eternal, perfect, almighty, and true, such as we find Him in
the Law and the Prophets, and the rest of the holy Scriptures, Vide, e.g.,
See
15. Seeing, then, that Christ is God, He is, by consequence, good and almighty and eternal and perfect and true; for these attributes belong to the essential nature of the Godhead. Let our adversaries, therefore, deny the Divine Nature in Christ,—otherwise they cannot refuse to God what is proper to the Divine Nature.
16. Further, that none may fall into error,
let a man attend to those signs vouchsafed us by holy Scripture,
whereby we may know the Son. He is called the Word, the Son, the
Power of God, the Wisdom of God. Begetter and
begotten must be personally distinct.
17. Now these are not mere names, but signs of power manifesting itself in works, for while there is fulness of Godhead in the Father, there is also fulness of Godhead in the Son, not diverse, but one. The Godhead is nothing confused, for it is an unity: nothing manifold, for in it there is no difference.
18. Moreover, if in all them that believed
there was, as it is written, one soul and one heart:
19. For how else shall we say that God is One? Divinity maketh plurality, but unity of power debarreth quantity of number, seeing that unity is not number, but itself is the principle of all numbers.
By evidence gathered from Scripture the unity of Father and Son is proved, and firstly, a passage, taken from the Book of Isaiah, is compared with others and expounded in such sort as to show that in the Son there is no diversity from the Father’s nature, save only as regards the flesh; whence it follows that the Godhead of both Persons is One. This conclusion is confirmed by the authority of Baruch.
20. Now the
oracles Or “the Lord
of Hosts.” Cf.
21. Hear the voice of the prophet: “In Thee,” he saith, “is God, and there is no God beside Thee.” How agreeth this with the Arians’ teaching? They must deny either the Father’s or the Son’s Divinity, unless they believe, once for all, unity of the same Divinity.
22. “In Thee,” saith he,
“is God”—forasmuch as the Father is in the Son.
For it is written, “The Father, Who abideth in Me, Himself
speaketh,” and “The works that I do, He Himself also
doeth.” S. S. Latin
proprietas, Greek οικειότης.
23. There is, therefore, God in God, but not
two Gods; for it is written that there is one God, or “Jehovah
in Jehovah.” S. Nicene Creed.
24. Again, you may read in the forty-fourth
psalm
25. So again, when you read, “The Lord
rained from the Lord,” acknowledge the unity of Godhead, for
unity in operation doth not allow of more than one individual God, even
as the Lord Himself has shown, saying: “Believe Me, that I
am in the Father, and the Father in Me: or believe Me for the
very works’ sake.” S.
26. The Apostle, careful to prove that there
is one Godhead of both Father and Son, and one Lordship, lest we should
run into any error, whether of heathen or of Jewish ungodliness, showed
us the rule we ought to follow, saying: “One God, the
Father, from Whom are all things, and we in Him, and one Lord, Jesus
Christ, by Whom are all things, and we by Him.”
27. “In thee,” therefore,
“is God,” by unity of nature, and “there is no God
beside Thee,” by reason of personal possession of the Substance,
without any reserve or difference. The original
is “non est Deus præter te—per proprietatem
substantiæ.” It must be remembered St. Ambrose was
a civil magistrate before he was made bishop. His mind would be
disposed therefore to regard things under a legal aspect.
28. Again, Scripture speaks, in the Book of Jeremiah, of One God, and yet acknowledges both Father and Son. Thus we read: “He is our God, and in comparison with Him none other shall be accounted of. He hath discovered all the way of teaching, and given it to Jacob, His servant, and to Israel, His beloved. After these things He appeared upon earth, and conversed with men.”
29. The prophet speaks of the Son, for it was the Son Himself Who conversed with men, and this is what he says: “He is our God, and in comparison with Him none other shall be accounted of.” Why do we call Him in question, of Whom so great a prophet saith that no other can be compared with Him? What comparison of another can be made, when the Godhead is One? This was the confession of a people set in the midst of dangers; reverencing religion, and therefore unskilled in strife of argument.
30. Come, Holy Spirit, and help Thy
prophets, in whom Thou art wont to dwell, in whom we believe.
Shall we believe the wise of this world, if we believe not the
prophets? But where is the wise man, where is the scribe?
When our peasant planted figs, he found that whereof the philosopher
knew nothing, for God hath chosen the foolish things of this world to
confound the strong. “In Jewry
is God known.”—
The Unity of God is necessarily implied in the order of Nature, in the Faith, and in Baptism. The gifts of the Magi declare (1) the Unity of the Godhead; (2) Christ’s Godhead and Manhood. The truth of the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is shown in the Angel walking in the midst of the furnace with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
31. All nature
testifies to the Unity of God, inasmuch as the universe is one.
The Faith declares that there is one God, seeing that there is one
belief in both the Old and the New Testament. That there is one
Spirit, all holy, The Spirit here
spoken of is, according to Hurter’s interpretation, not the Third
Person of the Trinity, but the Triune God, Who is a Spirit
( Hymns A. and
M. 76, stanza 4.
33. This is our Faith. Thus did God
will that He should be known by all, thus believed the three
children, S.
The various blasphemies uttered by the Arians against
Christ are cited. Before these are replied to, the
orthodox In the
original Catholic, i.e. “Catholics.” Heresies
might become widespread—the Arian heresy, indeed, counted
numerous adherents in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries—but
they took their rise in some member or other of the ecclesiastical
body, in some one of the many local churches which together made up the
one œcumenical church. On the other hand, the primitive
teaching, received from the apostolic age, had been delivered without
difference in every place to which it had penetrated. It
was acknowledged and established before sects and heresies; its
original was divine, theirs only human; it rested on the rock of
Christ’s authority, speaking through His apostles, whilst they
were built on the sands of preeminence in sophistry and captious
interpretation; it was for all times and places, therefore, but they
were only for a season. In this belief those who clave to the
teaching of the apostles claimed for themselves the name of
“Catholics,” and for the œcumenical church of which
they were members that of “Catholic and Apostolic.”
To avoid any misunderstanding, I have used the term
“orthodox,” which will stand very well for
“Catholic,” inasmuch as “the right faith” is
for all, without difference, to hold—in a word, universal, or, as
it is in Greek, καθ᾽ ὅλου
(whence καθολικός, Catholicus, Catholic).
34. Now let us consider the disputings of the Arians concerning the Son of God.
35. They say that the Son of God is unlike
His Father. To say this of a man would be an insult. It would
constitute an insult, as suggesting that the man was a bastard, or
supposititious.
36. They say that the Son of God had a
beginning in time, Thus the Arians were
anathematized by the Nicene Council as “those who say that there
was a time when the Son of God was not.” The original
was: “Cum conditor ipse sit temporum,” which,
rendered more closely word for word, is, “whereas He Himself is
the ordainer of times,” or “ages.” The Latin
tempora is the equivalent of the Greek αἰῶνες,
which is commonly rendered “worlds” in the A.V. of the New
Testament, e.g.
37. They say that He was created. The Arians
asserted that the Son had no existence before He was begotten and that
He was “formed out of nothing” or “out of things
non-existent;” i.e. that He owed His existence to the
Father’s absolute fiat, just as much as the light
(
38. They deny His goodness. Arius’
arguments against believing in Christ as the Almighty Power of God were
based on the N.T. records of Christ’s agony and prayer in view of
death, which he thought must imply, not only changeableness of will,
but also limitation of power. Had Christ been omnipotent, like
the Father, He would have had no fears for Himself, but would rather
have imparted strength to others.
39. They deny that He is truly Son of God,
they deny His omnipotence, in that whilst they admit that all things
are made by the ministry of the Son, they attribute the original source
of their being to the power of God. But what is power, save
perfection of nature? Arius’
teaching on this head appears to be fairly enough represented by
Athanasius: “When God, being purposed to establish created
Nature, saw that it could not bear the immediate touch of the
Father’s hand, and His operation, He in the first place made and
created a single Being only, and called Him ‘Son’ and
‘Logos’ to the end that by His intermediate ministry all
things might henceforth be brought into existence.”
Contra Arianos, Oratio II. § 24.
40. Furthermore, the Arians deny that in
Christ, according
to the Arians, was not truly God, though He was called God.
Again, He was only so called in virtue of communication of grace from
the Father. Thus He obtained His title and dignity, though the
name of God was used, in speaking of Him in a transference, such as we
find in S.
41. Seeing, then, that the heretic says that
Christ is unlike His Father, and seeks to maintain this by force of
subtle disputation, we must cite the Scripture: “Take heed
that no man make spoil of you by philosophy and vain deceit, according
to the tradition of men, and after the rudiments of this world, not
according to Christ; for in Him dwelleth all the fulness of Godhead in
bodily shape.” It would, I
think, be unfair to construe this passage into an absolute condemnation
of all the results of human activity, arrived at without any conscious
dependence on what we mean by revelation. We must remember, too,
what “philosophy” was in the world into which St. Paul was
born. It was no longer the golden age of philosophic
activity—with the exception of Stoicism, there was hardly a
school which exerted any elevating moral influence. Besides, the
“philosophy” of which St. Paul was especially thinking when
he wrote the passage cited (
42. For they store up all the strength of
their poisons in dialetical disputation, which by the judgment of
philosophers is defined as having no power to establish aught, and
aiming only at destruction. The original
conception of Dialectic, as exhibited, for instance, in Plato’s
Republic, hardly answers to this. According to Plato, the
aim of Dialectic, so far from being destructive, was distinctly
edifying. The Dialectic method, as its name implies, was one
which took the external form of question and answer. It had a
definite, positive object, viz., the attainment by force of pure reason
to the clear vision of the Absolute Good, the ultimate cause of
knowledge and existence. The sphere of Dialectic was pure reason,
then, and its object the ultimate truth of things.
(Republic, VII. p. 532.) The method which St. Ambrose here
calls “Dialectic” would have been more correctly entitled
“Elenchus.”
By way of leading up to his proof that Christ is not different from the Father, St. Ambrose cites the more famous leaders of the Arian party, and explains how little their witness agrees, and shows what defence the Scriptures provide against them.
43. The Arians, then, say that Christ is unlike the Father; we deny it. Nay, indeed, we shrink in dread from the word. Nevertheless I would not that your sacred Majesty should trust to argument and our disputation. Let us enquire of the Scriptures, of apostles, of prophets, of Christ. In a word, let us enquire of the Father, Whose honour these men say they uphold, if the Son be judged inferior to Him. But insult to the Son brings no honour to the good Father. It cannot please the good Father, if the Son be judged inferior, rather than equal, to His Father.
44. I pray your sacred Majesty to suffer me,
if for a little while I address myself particularly to these men.
But whom shall I choose out to cite? Eunomius? Eunomius, at
one time Bishop of Cyzicus, came into prominence about 355 a.d. Like Arius, he taught that the Son was a
creature, though the first and most perfect of God’s creatures;
His office being to guide other creatures to knowledge of the source of
their existence. Religion then in his view consisted in a right
and complete intellectual apprehension of a metaphysical principle, and
no more. The generation of the Son he regarded as an event in
time, not supra-temporal. The point where Eunomius went beyond
Arius was the assertion of the comprehensibility for the human mind of
the Divine Essence. Those, he said, who declared God to be in His
Essence incomprehensible, who taught that He could only know in part
and by token, preached an unknown God, and denied all possible
knowledge of God, and therefore, since without knowledge of God there
could be no Christianity, did not even deserve the name of
Christians. Aëtius
was Eunomius’ teacher. He became Bishop of Antioch, the see
of which was secured for him by the Arian Eudoxius, who obtained
Cyzicus for Eunomius. Aëtius and Eunomius were, however,
deposed about a.d. 360.
45. The Arians reject the person of
Eunomius, but they maintain his unbelief and walk in the ways of his
iniquity. They say that he has too generously published the
writings of Arius. Truly, a plentiful lavishing of error!
They praise him who gave the command, and deny him who executed
it! Wherefore they have now fallen apart into several
sects. Some follow after Eunomius or Aëtius, others after
Palladius or Demophilus and Auxentius, or the inheritors of this form
of unbelief. Demophilus
was Bishop of Constantinople under Valens (d. 378 a.d.), but on the accession of Theodosius the Great he was
compelled to resign the see, which was given to Gregory of
Nazianzus.
Hercules found it
impossible to slay the Hydra (a monster water snake) of the Lernean
marshes by merely striking off its head, inasmuch as whenever one was
cut off, two immediately grew in its place. He was compelled to
sear the wound with fire. One of the heads was immortal, and
Hercules could only dispose of it by crushing it under a huge rock. For Scylla
and Charybdis, see Homer, Odyss. XI.; Virgil, Æn.
III. 424 f. The strait, bestrewed with wreckage of the faith
(
47. This monster’s cavern, your sacred
Majesty, thick laid, as seafaring men do say it is, with hidden lairs,
and all the neighbourhood thereof, where the rocks of unbelief echo to
the howling of her black dogs, we must pass by with ears in a manner
stopped. For it is written: “Hedge thine ears about
with thorns;” Virgil,
Æn. III. 692 f. (Æneas’ coast-voyage round
Sicily).
The likeness of Christ to the Father is asserted on the authority of St. Paul, the prophets, and the Gospel, and especially in reliance upon the creation of man in God’s image.
48. The Apostle
saith that Christ is the image of the Father—for he calls Him the
image of the invisible God, the first-begotten of all creation.
First-begotten, mark you, not first-created, in order that He may be
believed to be both begotten, in virtue of His nature, i. e., of
His Sonship. St. Ambrose refers to
49. The prophets say: “In Thy
light we shall see light;” Cf. S. The brightness or
effulgence of a body lasts as long as that body exists; seeing, then,
that the Father is eternal, the Son, Who is His brightness, must be
eternal also (H.).
50. By means of this image the Lord showed
Philip the Father, saying, “Philip, he that sees Me, sees the
Father also. How then dost thou say, Show us the Father?
Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in
Me?” S. Or “He who
beholds the Father in the Son, beholds Him in a portrait.” Christ the
Truth: S. Christ the
Word: S.
51. More might I set down from the
Son’s testimony; howbeit, lest He perchance appear to have
asserted Himself overmuch, let us enquire of the Father. For the
Father said, “Let us make man in Our image and
likeness.”
52. John saith, “Beloved, we are sons
of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: we know that
if He be revealed, we shall be like Him.”
53. Therefore the Father hath said:
“Let us make man in Our image and likeness.” At the
beginning of the universe itself, as I read, the Father and the Son
existed, and I see one creation. I hear Him that
speaketh. The Father. The Son.
The likeness of the Son to the Father being proved, it is not hard to prove the Son’s eternity, though, indeed, this may be established on the authority of the Prophet Isaiah and St. John the Evangelist, by which authority the heretical leaders are shown to be refuted.
54. It is plain, therefore, that the Son is not unlike the Father, and so we may confess the more readily that He is also eternal, seeing that He Who is like the Eternal must needs be eternal. But if we say that the Father is eternal, and yet deny this of the Son, we say that the Son is unlike the Father, for the temporal differeth from the eternal. The Prophet proclaims Him eternal, and the Apostle proclaims Him eternal; the Testaments, Old and New alike, are full of witness to the Son’s eternity.
55. Let us take them, then, in their
order. In the Old Testament—to cite one out of a multitude
of testimonies—it is written: “Before Me hath there
been no other God, and after Me shall there be none.” This holds good
also of human fatherhood and sonship. The terms of a relation
involve each the existence of the other—no father, no son, and
equally, no son, no father.
56. “In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in
the beginning with God.” S. Hurter cites similar passages
from the Fathers of the Church, proving the Son’s pre-existence
and eternity. “What is the force of those words ‘In
the beginning’? Centuries are o’erleaped, ages are
swallowed up. Take any beginning you will, yet you cannot include
it in time, for that, whence time is reckoned, already
was.”—Hilary. “Although the word ‘was’
contains the notion of time past, frequently with a beginning, here it
must be understood without the thought of a beginning, inasmuch as the
text runs ‘was in the
beginning.’”—Victorinus. If we render the Greek ἐν
ἀρχῇ and the Latin in
principio by “at the beginning,” in place of the
phrase used in the A.V. “in the beginning,” we shall
perhaps better apprehend its full force and understand these Patristic
interpretations. Other passages cited by Hurter are: “Thought cannot escape the dominion of the
word ‘was,’ nor can the imagination pass beyond the
‘beginning,’ for however far back you press in thought, you
find no point where the ‘was’ ceases to hold sway, and
however diligently you set yourself to see what is beyond the Son, you
will not any the more be able to get to aught above the
beginning.”—Basil. “For this which was, without any beginning
of existence, was truly at the beginning, for if it had begun to be, it
would not have been ‘at the beginning,’ whereas that in
which absolute existence without beginning is essential, is truly
spoken of as existing ‘at the beginning.’ And so the
Evangelist in saying ‘In the beginning was the Word’ said
much the same as if he had said ‘The Word was in
eternity.’”—Fulgentius. “If the Word was,
the Word was not made: if the Word was made, He was
not” [absolutely existent]. “But since He
‘was’ He was not made: for whatsoever already
is and subsists and so is ‘in the beginning’ cannot be said
to become or to have been made.”—Cyril. “Nothing before a beginning, so the beginning be
one really and truly, for of a beginning there can in no way be any
beginning, and if anything else before it is supposed or arises, it
ceases to be a true beginning.… “If the Word was ‘in
the beginning,’ what mind, I would ask, can prevail against the
power of that verb ‘was’? When, indeed, will that
verb find its limit, and there, as it were, come to a halt, seeing that
it even eludes the pursuit of thought and outstrips the fleetness of
the mind.”—Cyril.
The Arian teaching
concerning the Son was—ἦν
ποτε ὅτε οὐκ
ἦ “There was a time
when He was not.” This, St. Ambrose says, is irreconcilable
with St. John’s ἐν
ἀρχῆ ἦν ὁ
λόγος. “The Word was
‘in’ or ‘at the
beginning.’” Sabellianism
reduced the distinction of three Persons in the Godhead to a
distinction of several aspects of the same Person. They did not
“divide the substance,” but they “confounded the
Persons.” Non in prolatione sermonis hoc
Verbum est. That is to say, the Divine Word or Logos was not
such in the sense of λόγος
προφορικός—i.e. uttered spoken word, and so a creature, but rather
in the sense of λόγος
ἐνδιάθετος—the
inherent eternal object of the Divine Consciousness. Cf. Eunomius (v. s. § 44), was a
leading Arian teacher. The argument levelled against him here
would also have been fitly directed against Arius himself. The
heresy of Manes or Mani made its first appearance in Persia, in the
reign of Shapur I. (240–272 a.d.).
According to the Persian historian Mirkhond, Mani was a member of an
ancient priestly house which had preserved the holy fire and the
religion of Zoroaster during the dark age of Parthian domination.
He attracted the notice of Shapur by pretensions to visions and
prophetic powers, and sought to establish himself as another Daniel at
the Persian Court. When the king, however, discovered
Mani’s hostility to the established Zoroastrianism and the Magian
hierarchy, the prophet was obliged to flee. Northern India
appears to have been Mani’s refuge for a season, and thence,
after some years of retirement, he reappeared, with an illustrated
edition of his doctrines, composed and executed, as he said, by divine
hands. Shapur was now dead and his successor Hormuz
(272–274) was favourably disposed to Mani. But Hormuz only
reigned two years, and was succeeded by a king who was a sworn foe to
the new doctrine. Mani was challenged to a public disputation by
the Magi. The king presided, so that Mani doubtless knew from the
first what the issue would be. He was flayed alive, but he left
numerous converts, and his death, which cast a certain halo of
martyrdom around him, and their sufferings in persecution, really
proved—as in the case of Christianity—conducive to the
spread of Manichæan doctrine. The fundamental principle of
Mani’s system was Dualism—the opposition of mind and
matter, and the hypothesis of two co-eternal co-existent powers of good
and of evil. In opposition to the Divine Essence, the Good
Principle, was placed uncreated Evil, and thus the problem of sin and
evil was solved. The purposes of creation and redemption were, in
the Manichæan view, entirely self-seeking on the part of the
Deity. The world was created by God, not out of free love, but
out of the wish to protect Himself against evil, embodied in matter,
which in its essence is chaotic. Redemption was the rescue of
particles of the ethereal Light, buried amidst the gross darkness of
matter, and yet leavening and informing it. Christ was identified
with the Divine Principle and the sufferings of His members, the
particles of divine Light buried in matter, were the Crucifixion, thus
represented as an age-long agony. Jesus Christ was
“crucified in the whole world.” Mani adopted the
story of Eden, but he represented the eating of the fruit of the tree
of knowledge not as the cause of Man’s fall, but as the first
step in redemption, for Jehovah, the God of the Old Testament, was not
the true God, but the evil Demon, from whose tyranny man had to be
rescued. In order to attain salvation, the body, material and
therefore essentially evil, must be mortified and starved. Man
really fell when Eve tempted him to indulge fleshly lust, not when he
ate the forbidden fruit. The stricter sort of the Manichæans
practised a severe asceticism, abstaining from flesh meat and
marriage. They would not even grind corn or make bread, for in
grain there was life—i.e. an emanation of the Divine
Light—though they would eat bread, quieting their
conscience, however, by saying before they took it, “It was not I
who reaped or ground the corn to make this bread.” At the
end of time they held the world was to be destroyed by fire, but matter
being, on the Manichæan hypothesis, eternal, the proper inference
appears to be that the conflict of Light and Chaotic Darkness would
recommence, and proceed usque ad infinitum. The
Manichæan system was a strange eclectic farrago, embodying, in
chimerical monstrosity, features of Zoroastrianism, Judaism (in so far
as the story of Eden was taken over), Gnosticism (appearing in the
theory that Jehovah was the Demon and that the eating of forbidden
fruit did not cause the Fall), Christianity, and Pantheism (the last,
doubtless, an importation from Hindostan). The disciples of the
school made their way into the Roman Empire, and we find them, 150
years after the death of Mani, opposed by Augustine of Hippo, who
indeed had at one time actually numbered himself amongst
them.
St. Ambrose questions the heretics and exhibits their answer, which is, that the Son existed, indeed, before all time, yet was not co-eternal with the Father, whereat the Saint shows that they represent the Godhead as changeable, and further, that each Person must be believed to be eternal.
58. Tell me, thou
heretic,—for the surpassing clemency of the Emperor grants me
this indulgence of addressing thee for a short space, not that I desire
to confer with thee, or am greedy to hear thy arguments, but because I
am willing to exhibit them,—tell me, I say, whether there was
ever a time when God Almighty was not the Father, and yet was
God. “I say nothing about time,” is thy answer.
Well and subtly objected! For if thou bringest time into the
dispute, thou wilt condemn thyself, seeing that thou must acknowledge
that there was a time when the Son was not, whereas the Son is the
ruler and creator of time.
Time. We should take this term in its fullest meaning, as
signifying all that exists in time—the created universe, and all
that therein has been, and is, and is to come.
59. “I do not say,” answerest thou,
The Arians fell into the popular
error of supposing that a father, as a father, existed before
his son. They also required men to apply to Divine Persons, what
only holds good of human beings—to impose on the Being of God
those limits to which human existences (as objective facts) are
subjected. The existence of the Divine Father and the Divine Son
is without, beyond, above time—with the Godhead there is neither
past nor future, but an everlasting present. But with man,
time-categories are necessary forms of thought—everything is seen
as past, present, or to come—and to the human consciousness all
objects are presented in time, though the spiritual principle in man
which perceives objects as related in succession, is itself
supra-temporal, beholding succession, but not itself in
succession. Now it can hardly be denied with any show of
reason that a man is not a father until his son begins to exist,
is born, though the father, as a person distinct from his son, is in
existence before the latter. Again, father and son must be of the
same nature—they must both possess the elementary, essential
attributes of humanity. Otherwise there is no fatherhood, no
sonship, properly speaking. God has revealed Himself as a
Father—even in the pagan mythologies we see the idea of
Fatherhood implicit in Godhead. If the gods of the heathen did
not beget after their kind, they begat heroes and demigods. But
created existences cannot claim to be the first and proper object of
the Divine Father’s love. They are for a time only, and
with them Eternal Love could not be satisfied. If God be a true
Father, then, He must beget His Like—His Son must be equal to Him
in nature, that is, what is true of the Father, what is essential in
the Father, as God, must be true or essential in the Son also.
Therefore the son must be divine, eternal. But the generation
(γέννησις)
of the Son is not an event in time. It is a fact, a truth, out
of, beyond time, belonging to the divine and eternal and spiritual, not
to the temporal and created, order. “To whom amongst the
angels does He ever say, Thou art My Son; this day have I
begotten Thee? and again, I will be a Father to Him, and He shall be a
Son to Me? when, again, He brings His first-begotten into the
world” (i.e., reveals Him to the created universe as its
King), He says: “And let all God’s angels worship
Him” ( i.e., how
do you deal with such Scriptures as “Thou art the same, and thy
years shall not fail.”—“I am the Lord: I change
not, therefore ye sons of Jacob are not
consumed.”—“The Father of lights, with Whom is no
variableness, neither shadow of turning.”
60. But may God preserve us from this madness; for it was but to confute the impiety of the heretics that we brought in this question. The devout spirit affirms a generation that is not in time, and so declares Father and Son to be co-eternal, and does not maintain that God has ever suffered change.
61. Let Father and Son, therefore, be
associated in worship, even as They are associated in Godhead; let not
blasphemy put asunder those whom the close bond of generation hath
joined together. Let us honour the Son, that we may honour the
Father also, as it is written in the Gospel. S.
Christ’s eternity being proved from the Apostle’s teaching, St. Ambrose admonishes us that the Divine Generation is not to be thought of after the fashion of human procreation, nor to be too curiously pried into. With the difficulties thence arising he refuses to deal, saying that whatsoever terms, taken from our knowledge of body, are used in speaking of this Divine Generation, must be understood with a spiritual meaning.
62. Hear now
another argument, showing clearly the eternity of the Son. The
Apostle says that God’s Power and Godhead are eternal, and that
Christ is the Power of God—for it is written that Christ is
“the Power of God and the Wisdom of God.”
63. Thou canst not, then, heretic, build up
a false doctrine from the custom of human procreation, nor yet gather
the wherewithal for such work from our discourse, for we cannot compass
the greatness of infinite Godhead, “of Whose greatness there is
no end,” S.
64. Dost thou ask me how He is a Son, if He
have not a Father existing before Him? I ask of thee, in turn,
when, or how, thinkest thou that the Son was begotten. For me the
knowledge of the mystery of His generation is more than I can attain
to,
65. Do thou, then (like the angels), cover
thy face with thy hands, Cf.
66. But if you will constrain me to the rule
of human generation, that you may be allowed to say that the Father
existed before the Son, then consider whether instances, taken from the
generation of earthly creatures, are suitable to show forth the Divine
Generation. The analogy, as
made by the Arians, certainly was open to St. Ambrose’s
censure. We should remember, however, that a man is not properly
a father until his child is born. St. Ambrose
perhaps thought that the curse laid upon human conception and birth
(
67. Why take such delight in that rack of
questioning? Quæstionum
tormenta. The use of racks and such-like machines
(tormenta, fr. torqueo—wist) was resorted to, in
the old Roman practice, in the examination (quæstio) of
slaves. The ref. is perhaps
to Without suffering
any change in Himself. S. S. S.
It cannot be proved from Scripture that the Father existed before the Son, nor yet can arguments taken from human reproduction avail to this end, since they bring in absurdities without end. To dare to affirm that Christ began to exist in the course of time is the height of blasphemy.
68. You ask me
whether it is possible that He Who is the Father should not be prior in
existence. I ask you to tell me when the Father existed, the Son
as yet being not; prove this, gather it from argument or evidence of
Scripture. If you lean upon arguments, you have doubtless been
taught that God’s power is eternal. Again, you have read
the Scripture that saith: “O Israel, if thou wilt hearken
unto Me, there shall be no new God in thee, neither shalt thou worship
a strange God.”
69. But if the Arians believe Him to be a strange God, why do they worship Him, when it is written: “Thou shalt worship no strange God”? Else, if they do not worship the Son, let them confess thereto, and the case is at an end,—that they deceive no one by their professions of religion. This, then, we see, is the witness of the Scriptures. If you have any others to produce, it will be your business to do so.
70. Let us now go further, and gather the
truth in conclusion from arguments. For although arguments
usually give place, even to human evidence, i.e. à
priori determinations respecting any matter cannot be maintained if
they are traversed by the statements of eye-witnesses and participators
in the affair.
71. But perchance you run to such a pitch of folly as not to flinch from asserting these things of the Son of God, measuring Him, as you do, by the rule of human infirmity. What, then, if, while you cannot refuse Him the name of God, you are bent to prove Him, by reason of weakness, to be a man? What if, whilst you examine the Person of the Son, you are calling the Father in question, and whilst you hastily pass sentence upon the Former, you include the Latter in the same condemnation!
72. If the Divine Generation has been subject to the limits of time,—if we suppose this, borrowing from the custom of human generation, then it follows, further, that the Father bare the Son in a bodily womb, and laboured under the burden whilst ten months sped their courses. But how can generation, as it commonly takes place, be brought about without the help of the other sex? You see that the common order of generation was not the commencement, and you think that the courses of generation, which are ruled by certain necessities whereunto bodies are subject, have always prevailed. You require the customary course, I ask for difference of sex: you demand the supposition of time, I that of order: you enquire into the end, I into the beginning. Now surely it is the end that depends on the beginning, not the beginning on the end.
73. “Everything,” say you, “that is begotten has a beginning, and therefore because the Son is the Son, He has a beginning, and came first into existence within limits of time.” Let this be taken as the word of their own mouth; as for myself, I confess that the Son is begotten, but the rest of their declaration makes me shudder. Man, dost thou confess God, and diminish His honour by such slander? From this madness may God deliver us.
Further objections to the Godhead of the Son are met by the same answer—to wit, that they may equally be urged against the Father also. The Father, then, being in no way confined by time, place, or anything else created, no such limitation is to be imposed upon the Son, Whose marvellous generation is not only of the Father, but of the Virgin also, and therefore, since in His generation of the Father no distinction of sex, or the like, was involved, neither was it in His generation of the Virgin.
74. The next
objection is this: “If the Son has not those properties
which all sons have, He is no Son.” May Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit pardon me, for I would propound the question in all
devoutness. Surely the Father is, and abides for ever:
created things, too, are as God hath ordained them. Is there any
one, then, amongst these creatures which is not subject to the
limitations of place, time, or the fact of having been created, or to
some originating cause or creator. St. Ambrose
here uses causa in the sense of causa
efficiens—ἀρχὴ
τῆς
κινήσεως.
Cf. Nicene
Creed.
76. Seeing, then, that we find not the
customary order prevailing, be content, Arian, to believe in a
miraculous generation of the Son. Be content, I say, and if you
believe me not, at least have respect unto the voice of God saying,
“To whom have ye esteemed Me to be like?”
77. Not only Christ’s generation of the Father, but His birth also of the Virgin, demands our wonder. You say that the former is like unto the manner wherein we men are conceived. I will show—nay more, I will compel you yourself to confess, that the latter also hath no likeness to the manner of our birth. Tell me how it was that He was born of Mary, with what law did His conception in a Virgin’s womb agree, how there could be any birth without the seed of a man, how a maiden could become great with child, how she became a mother before experience of such intercourse as is between wives and husbands. There was no [visible] cause,—and yet a son was begotten. How, then, came about this birth, under a new law?
78. If, then, the common order of human
generation was not found in the case of the Virgin Mary, how can you
demand that God the Father should beget in such wise as you were
begotten in? Surely the common order is determined by difference
of sex; for this is implanted in the nature of our flesh, but where
flesh is not, how can you expect to find the infirmity of flesh?
No man calls in question one who is better than he is: to believe
is enjoined upon you, without permission to question. For it is
written, “Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for
righteousness.”
Discussion of the Divine Generation is continued. St. Ambrose illustrates its method by the same example as that employed by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. The duty of believing what is revealed is shown by the example of Nebuchadnezzar and St. Peter. By the vision granted to St. Peter was shown the Son’s Eternity and Godhead—the Apostle, then, must be believed in preference to the teachers of philosophy, whose authority was everywhere falling into discredit. The Arians, on the other hand, are shown to be like unto the heathen.
79. It will be
asked: “In what sort was the Son begotten?” As
one who is for ever, as the Word, as the brightness of eternal
light,
80. The heathen king saw in the fire,
together with the three Hebrew children, the form of a fourth, like as
of an angel,
81. Peter, when he saw Moses and Elias on
the mountain, with the Son of God, was not deceived as to their nature
and glory. For he enquired, not of them, but of Christ, what he
ought to do, inasmuch as though he prepared to do homage to all three,
yet he waited for the command of one. But since he ignorantly
thought that for three persons three tabernacles should be set up, he
was corrected by the sovereign voice of God the Father, saying,
“This is My dearly beloved Son: hear ye
Him.” S. S. S.
82. What, then, was the purpose of that vision, which signified not that Christ and His servants were equal, but betokened a mystery, save that it should be made plain to us that the Law and the Prophets, in agreement with the Gospel, revealed as eternal the Son of God, Whom they had heralded. When we, therefore, hear of the Son coming forth of the womb, the Word from the heart, let us believe that the Son was not fashioned with hands but begotten of the Father, not the work of a craftsman but the offspring of a parent.
83. He, therefore, Who said, “This is
My Son,” said not, “This is a creature of time,” nor
“This being is of My creation, My making, My servant,” but
“This is My Son, Whom ye see glorified.” This is the
God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, the God of Jacob, Who appeared to
Moses in the bush,
84. It is of the Son, therefore, that we read, thy mind understandeth the reading, let thy tongue make confession. Away with arguments, where faith is required; now let dialectic hold her peace, even in the midst of her schools. I ask not what it is that philosophers say, but I would know what they do. They sit desolate in their schools. See the victory of faith over argument. They who dispute subtly are forsaken daily by their fellows; they who with simplicity believe are daily increased. Not philosophers but fishermen, not masters of dialectic but tax-gatherers, now find credence. The one sort, through pleasures and luxuries, have bound the world’s burden upon themselves; the other, by fasting and mortification, have cast it off, and so doth sorrow now begin to win over more followers than pleasure.
85. Let us now see how far Arians and pagans
do differ. The latter call upon gods, who are different in sex
and unequal in power; the former affirm a Trinity where there is
likewise inequality of power and diversity of Godhead. The pagans
assert that their Gods began to exist once upon a time; the Arians
lyingly declare that Christ began to exist in the course of time.
Have they not all dyed their impiety in the vats of philosophy?
But indeed the pagans do extol that which they worship, i.e., the
pagans worship false gods, but they at least have the decency to regard
them as a higher order than human creatures, and not to wilfully
depreciate them.
That the Son of God is not a created being is proved by the following arguments: (1) That He commanded not that the Gospel should be preached to Himself; (2) that a created being is given over unto vanity; (3) that the Son has created all things; (4) that we read of Him as begotten; and (5) that the difference of generation and adoption has always been understood in those places where both natures—the divine and the human—are declared to co-exist in Him. All of which testimony is confirmed by the Apostle’s interpretation.
86. It is now made
plain, as I believe, your sacred Majesty, that the Lord Jesus is
neither unlike the Father, nor one that began to exist in course of
time. We have yet to confute another blasphemy, and to show that
the Son of God is not a created being. Herein is the
quickening
præsens. Cf. S.
87. Christ, then, is no created being; for
“created beings are,” as the Apostle hath said,
“given over to vanity.”
88. Who was it that led first into this
error, of declaring Him Who created and made all things to be a
creature? Did the Lord, I would ask, create Himself? We
read that “all things were made by Him, and without Him was
nothing made.” S.
89. We read that the Son is begotten,
inasmuch as the Father saith: “I brought thee forth from
the womb before the morning star.” S.
90. Moreover, God’s Son discovers the
difference between generation and grace when He says: “I go
up to My Father and your Father, to My God and your
God.” S.
91. Furthermore He said, “to My God and your God,” because although He and the Father are One, and the Father is His Father by possession of the same nature, whilst God began to be our Father through the office of the Son, not by virtue of nature, but of grace—still He seems to point us here to the existence in Christ of both natures, Godhead and Manhood,—Godhead of His Father, Manhood of His Mother, the former being before all things, the latter derived from the Virgin. For the first, speaking as the Son, He called God His Father, and afterward, speaking as man, named Him as God.
92. Everywhere, indeed, we have witness in
the Scriptures to show that Christ, in naming God as His God, does so
as man. “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken
Me?”
93. Seeing, then, that we read in the Gospel, in the Apostle, in the Prophets, of Christ as begotten, how dare the Arians to say that He was created or made? But, indeed, they ought to have bethought them, where they have read of Him as created, where as made. For it has been plainly shown that the Son of God is begotten of God, born of God—let them, then, consider with care where they have read that He was made, seeing that He was not made God, but born as God, the Son of God; afterward, however, He was, according to the flesh, made man of Mary.
94. “But when the fulness of time was
come, God sent His Son, made of a woman, made under the
Law.” Note on
An explanation of
95. To no purpose,
then, is the heretics’ customary citation of the Scripture, that
“God made Him both Lord and Christ.” Let these
ignorant persons read the whole passage, and understand it. For
thus it is written. “God made this Jesus, Whom ye crucified, both
Lord and Christ.”
96. Let us despatch, then, that passage
also, which they do use to misrepresent,—let them learn what is
the sense of the words, “The Lord created Me.” Note on
97. Furthermore, there is no doubt but that
the writer set down as past that which was to come; for this is the
usage of prophecy, that things to come are spoken of as though they
were already present or past. For example, in the
twenty-first The 22d in the
Prayer-Book and Bible. See
98. It is no wonder that He should declare
His place to have been set fast before all worlds, seeing that the
Scripture tells us that He was foreordained before the times and
ages. The following passage discovers how the words in question
present themselves as a true prophecy of the Incarnation:
“Wisdom hath built her an house, and set up seven pillars to
support it, and she hath slain her victims. She hath mingled her
wine in the bowl, and made ready her table, and sent her servants,
calling men together with a mighty voice of proclamation, saying:
‘He who is simple, let him turn in to me.’” S.
99. Many other passages might readily be seen to be prophecies of this sort concerning the Incarnation, but I will not delay over books, lest the treatise appear too wordy
The Arians blaspheme Christ, if by the words “created” and “begotten” they mean and understand one and the same thing. If, however, they regard the words as distinct in meaning, they must not speak of Him, of Whom they have read that He was begotten, as if He were a created being. This rule is upheld by the witness of St. Paul, who, professing himself a servant of Christ, forbade worship of a created being. God being a substance pure and uncompounded, there is no created nature in Him; furthermore, the Son is not to be degraded to the level of things created, seeing that in Him the Father is well pleased.
100. Now will I enquire particularly of the Arians, whether they think that begotten and created are one and the same. If they call them the same, then is there no difference betwixt generation and creation. It follows, then, that forasmuch as we also are created, there is between us and Christ and the elements no difference. Thus much, however, great as their madness is, they will not venture to say.
101. Furthermore—to concede that which
is no truth, to their folly—I ask them, if there is, as they
think, no difference in the words, why do they not call upon Him Whom
they worship by the better title? Why do they not avail
themselves of the Father’s word? or “of
the name of Father,” i.e., of all the consequences
of that Name.
102. If, however, there is—as I think there is—a distinction between “created” and “begotten,” then, when we have read that He is begotten, we shall surely not understand the same by the terms “begotten” and “created.” Let them therefore confess Him to be begotten of the Father, born of the Virgin, or let them say how the Son of God can be both begotten and created. A single nature, above all, the Divine Being, rejects strife (within itself).
103. But in any case let our private
judgment pass: let us enquire of Paul, who, filled with the
Spirit of God, and so foreseeing these questionings, hath given
sentence against pagans in general and Arians in particular, saying
that they were by God’s judgment condemned, who served the
creature rather than the Creator. Thus, in fact, you may
read: “God gave them over to the lusts of their own heart,
that they might one with another dishonour their bodies, they who
changed God’s truth into a lie, and worshipped and served the
thing created rather than the Creator, Who is God, blessed for
ever.”
104. Thus Paul forbids me to worship a
creature, and admonishes me of my duty to serve Christ. It
follows, then, that Christ is not a created being. The Apostle
calls himself “Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ,”
105. What better expounder of the Scriptures
do we indeed look for than that teacher of the Gentiles, that chosen
vessel—chosen from the number of the persecutors? He who
had been the persecutor of Christ confesses Him. He had read Solomon
more, in any case, than Arius hath, and he was well learned in the Law,
and so, because he had read, he said not that Christ was created, but
that He was begotten. For he had read, “He spake, and they
were made: He commanded, and they were created.”
106. Moreover, how can there be any
created nature in God? In truth, God is of an uncompounded
nature; nothing can be added to Him, and that alone which is Divine
hath He in His nature; filling all things,
107. Since, then, the Father is well pleased
in the Son; believe that the Son is worthy of the Father, that He came
out from God, as He Himself bears witness, saying: “I went
out from God, and am come;” S. S.
That Christ is very God is proved from the fact that He is God’s own Son, also from His having been begotten and having come forth from God, and further, from the unity of will and operation subsisting in Father and Son. The witness of the apostles and of the centurion—which St. Ambrose sets over against the Arian teaching—is adduced, together with that of Isaiah and St. John.
108. Hence it is
that Christ is not only God, but very God indeed—very God of very
God, insomuch that He Himself is the Truth. S.
109. Lest, however, men should wrest the
Scripture, that “God gave Him up,” the Apostle himself has
said in another place,
110. If, then, we enquire into His natural
pre-eminence, we find it to consist in being begotten. To deny
that the Son of God is begotten [of God] is to deny that He is
God’s own Son, and to deny Christ to be God’s own
Son is to class Him with the rest of mankind, as no more a Son than any
of the rest. If, however, we enquire into the distinctive
property of His generation, it is this, that He came forth from
God. For whilst, in our experience, to come out implies something
already existent, and that which is said to come out seems to proceed
forth from hidden and inward places, we, though it be presented but in
short passages, observe the peculiar attribute of the Divine
Generation, that the Son doth not seem to have come forth out of any
place, but as God from God, a Son from a Father, nor to have had a
beginning in the course of time, having come forth from the Father by
being born, as He Himself Who was born said: “I came forth
from the mouth of the Most High.”
111. But if the Arians acknowledge not the
Son’s nature, if they believe not the Scriptures, let them at
least believe the mighty works. To whom doth the Father say,
“Let us make man?” S.
112. But how, unless the Father knew Him to
be His true Son, should He commend to Him His will, for perfect
co-operation, and His works, for perfect bringing in out in
actuality? Seeing that the Son worketh the works which the Father
doeth, and that the Son quickens whom He will, S.
113. The apostles, being storm-tossed in the
sea, as soon as they saw the waters leaping up round their Lord’s
feet, and beheld His fearless footsteps on the water, as He walked amid
the raging waves of the sea, and the ship, which was beaten upon by the
waves, had rest as soon as Christ entered it, and they saw the waves
and the winds obeying Him,—then, though as yet they did not
believe in their hearts they believed Him to be God’s true Son,
saying, “Truly Thou art the Son of God.” S.
114. To the same effect the confession of
the centurion, and others who were with him, when the foundations of
the world were shaken at the Lord’s Passion,—and this,
heretic, thou deniest! The centurion said, “Truly this was
the Son of God.” S.
115. We cannot then doubt that He is very God, Whose true Godhead even executioners believed in and devils confessed. Their testimony we require not now, but it is withal greater than your blasphemies. We have called them in to witness, to put you to the blush, whilst we have also cited the oracles of God, to the end that you should believe.
116. The Lord proclaimeth by the mouth of
Isaiah: “In the mouth of them that serve Me shall a new
name be called upon, which shall be blessed over all the earth, and
they shall bless the true God, and they who swear upon earth shall
swear by the true God.” S.
117. But hear again what John the Evangelist
hath written in his Epistle, saying: “We know that the Son
of God hath appeared, and hath given us discernment, to know the
Father, and to be in His true Son Jesus Christ, our Lord. He is
very God, and Life Eternal.”
The errors of the Arians are mentioned in the Nicene Definition of the Faith, to prevent their deceiving anybody. These errors are recited, together with the anathema pronounced against them, which is said to have been not only pronounced at Nicæa, but also twice renewed at Ariminum.
118. Christ, therefore, is “God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God; begotten of the Father, not made; of one substance with the Father.”
119. So, indeed, following the guidance of
the Scriptures, our fathers declared, holding, moreover, that impious
doctrines should be included in the record of their decrees, in order
that the unbelief of Arius should discover itself, and not, as it were,
mask itself with dye or face-paint. Fucus, the
word used by St. Ambrose, denoted face-paint in general, but it seems
to have also had the especial meaning of a red pigment, or rouge for
the cheeks. The custom of face-painting was known of old in the
East ( An
allusion to the practice of the nota censoria. The
censors, under the Republic, were vested with the power of appointing
properly qualified citizens to vacancies in the Senate, and it was
their duty to make up the roll of senators for each lustrum, or
period of five years. Exclusion from the Senate was simply
effected by omitting a senator’s name from the new list, and
senators so “unseated” were called præteriti,
since their names had been passed over and not read out with the
rest. The decrees of the Fathers of the Church laid down, as it
were, the qualification for membership: all who came under the
description established by these decrees were regarded as
admitted—whilst those who, like the Arians, did not were tacitly
excluded. Or we might say that the Anathema, appended to the
Nicene symbol, excluded the Arians, not by name, but by
description. In either way, the exclusion was tacit, like the
censorial, in so far as no names were mentioned. In the
case of exclusion from the Senate by the censors, it was understood
that the reason for exclusion was grave immorality.
120. “Those,” runs the decree,
“who say that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and
that before He was born He was not, and who say that he was made out of
nothing, or is of another substance or οὐσια, St.
Ambrose has here rendered into Latin the anathema appended to the
original Nicene Creed of 325 a.d. Notice
“substance or οὐσία.” The
original is substantia vel οὐσίᾳ. The
closer Greek equivalent of substantia is ὑπόστασις (found
in
121. Your sacred Majesty has agreed that
they who utter such doctrines are rightly condemned. It was of no
determination by man, of no human counsel, that three hundred and
eighteen bishops met, as I showed above more at length, Cf.
§§ 3 and 5. S.
122. This also was the teaching of the First
Confession in the Council of Ariminum, and of the Second Correction,
after that Council. Of the Confession, the letter sent to the
Emperor Constantine beareth witness, and the Council that followed
declares the Correction. The
Council of Ariminum (Rimini on the Adriatic coast of Italy) was held in
359 a.d., Constantius being Emperor.
“The Bishops who attended the Council of Ariminum,”
observes Hurter, “to the number of more than 400, informed the
Emperor that they had resolved to allow no change in what had been
determined upon at Nicæa. This is the ‘first
confession.’ That great confession, however, was not
maintained for long. Partly overawed by the Emperor, partly
deceived by the Arians, the Bishops agreed to strike out the words
‘substance’ and ‘consubstantial.’ After
this came the ‘correction,’ which Ambrose calls the
‘second,’ being made either by those Bishops who,
recognizing their error, withdrew the decrees of the Council held at
Ariminum, or by the Councils that followed—namely, the Councils
of Alexandria (presided over by Athanasius), of Paris (362 a.d.), and of Rome (held under Pope Damasus, in
a.d. 369).”
Arius is charged with the first of the above-mentioned errors, and refuted by the testimony of St. John. The miserable death of the Heresiarch is described, and the rest of his blasphemous errors are one by one examined and disproved.
123. Arius, then,
says: “There was a time when the Son of God existed
not,” but Scripture saith: “He was,” not that
“He was not.” Furthermore, St. John has
written: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning
with God.” S.
124. For Arius’ bowels also gushed
out—decency forbids to say where—and so he burst asunder in
the midst, falling headlong, and besmirching those foul lips wherewith
he had denied Christ. He was rent, even as the Apostle Peter said
of Judas, because he “bought a field with the price of
evil-doing, and falling headlong he burst asunder in the midst, and all
his bowels gushed out.”
125. Let us pass on to further points. Arius says: “Before He was born, the Son of God was not,” but the Scripture saith that all things are maintained in existence by the Son’s office. How, then, could He, Who existed not, bestow existence upon others? Again, when the blasphemer uses the words “when” and “before,” he certainly uses words which are marks of time. How, then, do the Arians deny that time was ere the Son was, and yet will have things created in time to exist before the Son, seeing that the very words, “when,” “before,” and “did not exist once,” announce the idea of time?
126. Arius says that the Son of God came
into being out of nought. How, then, is He Son of God—how
was He begotten from the womb of the Father—how do we read of Him
as the Word spoken of the heart’s abundance, save to the end that
we should believe that He came forth, as it is written, from the
Father’s inmost, unapproachable sanctuary? Now a son is so
called either by means of adoption or by nature, as we are called sons
by means of adoption. (1) “the
word spoken,” etc.—
127. He who knows not whence the Son is hath
not the Son. The Jews therefore had not the Son, for they knew
not whence He was. Wherefore the Lord said to them:
“Ye know not whence I came;” S.
128. Arius says: “[The Son is] of another Substance.” But what other substance is exalted to equality with the Son of God, so that simply in virtue thereof He is Son of God? Or what right have the Arians for censuring us because we speak, in Greek, of the οὐσία, or in Latin, of the Substantia of God, when they themselves, in saying that the Son of God is of another “Substance,” assert a divine Substantia.
129. Howbeit, should they desire to dispute the
use of the words “divine Substance” or “divine
Nature,” they shall easily be refuted, for Holy Writ oft-times
hath spoken of οὐσία in Greek, or
Substantia
130. Arius calls the Son of God a creature, but “not as the rest of the creatures.” Yet what created being is not different from another? Man is not as angel, earth is not as heaven, the sun is not as water, nor light as darkness. Arius’ preference, therefore, is empty—he hath but disguised with a sorry dye his deceitful blasphemies, in order to take the foolish.
131. Arius declares that the Son of God may
change and swerve. How, then, is He God if He is changeable,
seeing that He Himself hath said: “I am, I am, and I change
not”? St.
Ambrose’ version differs in expression from the
Vulg.—Ego enim Dominus et non mutor (
St. Ambrose declares his desire that some angel would fly to him to purify him, as once the Seraph did to Isaiah—nay more, that Christ Himself would come to him, to the Emperor, and to his readers, and finally prays that Gratian and the rest of the faithful may be exalted by the power and spell of the Lord’s Cup, which he describes in mystic language.
132. Howbeit, now
must I needs confess the Prophet Isaiah’s confession, which he
makes before declaring the word of the Lord: “Woe is me, my
heart is smitten, for I, a man of unclean lips, and living in the midst
of a people of unclean lips, have seen the Lord of
Sabaoth.”
133. But forasmuch as then the Seraph came
down in a vision to the Prophet, whilst Thou, O Lord, in revelation of
the mystery hast come to us in the flesh, St. Ambrose
contrasts the appearance of the Seraph to Isaiah in a vision with our
Lord’s appearance to men in everyday life, in the flesh, see
134. And so, O Lord, leaving them that
slander and hate Thee, come unto us, sanctify the ears of our sovereign
ruler, Gratian, and all besides into whose hands this little book shall
come—and purge my ears, that no stains of the infidelity they
have heard remain anywhere. Cleanse thoroughly, then, our ears,
not with water of well, river, or rippling and purling brook, but with
words cleansing like water, clearer than any water, and purer than any
snow—even the words Thou hast spoken—“Though your
sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as snow.”
135. Moreover, there is a Cup, wherewith
Thou dost use to purify the hidden chambers of the soul, a Cup not of
the old order, i.e.,
not of the old Dispensation—not provided for in the Mosaic
ritual; also, not belonging to the old Creation, but a pledge and
premonition of the new ( Cf. S.
136. With this Wine, therefore, O Lord my
God, cleanse the spiritual ears of our sovereign Emperor, to the end
that, just as men, being uplifted with common wine, love rest and
quietness, cast out the fear of death, have no feeling of
injuries, St. Ambrose seems
to refer to the phenomena of narcosis rather than those of alcoholic
inebriation. Cf.
S.
137. With this Wine, also, Lord Jesus,
purify our senses, that we may adore Thee, and worship Thee, the
Creator of things visible and invisible. Truly, Thou canst not
fail of being Thyself invisible and good, Who hast given invisibility
and goodness to the works of Thy Hands. Cf.
Twelve names of the Son of God are recounted, being distributed into three classes. These names are so many proofs of the eternity not only of the Son, but of the Father also. Furthermore, they are compared with the twelve stones in the High Priest’s breastplate, and their inseparability is shown by a new distribution of them. Returning to the comparison with the High Priest’s breastplate, the writer sets forth the beauty of the woven-work and the precious stones of the mystic raiment, and the hidden meaning of that division into woven-work and precious stones, which being done, he expounds the comparison drawn by him, showing that faith must be woven in with works, and adds a short summary of the same faith, as concerning the Son.
1. Enough hath been
said, as I think, your sacred Majesty, in the book preceding to show
that the Son of God is an eternal being, not diverse from the Father,
begotten, not created: we have also proved, from passages of the
Scriptures, that God’s true Son is God, or “that
God’s Son is true God.” “very God.”
2. Wherefore, albeit what hath already been
set forth is plentiful even to overflowing for maintaining the
Faith—seeing that the greatness of a river is mostly judged of
from the manner in which its springs rise and flow forth—still,
to the end that our belief may be the plainer to sight, the waters of
our spring ought, methinks, to be parted off into three channels.
There are, then, firstly, plain tokens declaring essential inherence in
the Godhead; secondly, the expressions of the likeness of the Father
and the Son; and lastly, those of the undoubtable unity of the Divine
Majesty. Now of the first sort are the names
“begetting,” “God,” “Son,”
“The Word;”
3. These tokens so declare the nature of the
Son, that by them you may know both that the Father is eternal, and
that the Son is not diverse from Him; for the source of generation is
He Who is, i.e.,
ὁ ὤν. S.
“speculum Dei”—lit. “mirror of
God.”
4. Of these twelve, as of twelve precious
stones, is the pillar of our faith built up. For these are the
precious stones—sardius, jasper, smaragd, chrysolite, and the
rest,—woven into the robe of holy Aaron, See
Septuagint
Vulgate
A.V.
1611
R.V. 1881
text
margin i. σάρδιον
i. lapis sardius i. sardius (m.
ruby) i. sardius or ruby τοπάζιον
topazius
topaz
topaz σμάραγδος
smaragdus.
carbuncle
carbuncle or emerald ii. ἂνθραξ
ii. carbunculus ii.
emerald
ii. emerald or carbuncle σάπφειρος
sapphirus
sapphire
sapphire ἴασπις
jaspis
diamond
diamond or sardonyx iii. λιγύριον
iii. ligurius iii.
ligure
iii. jacinth or amber ἀχάτης
achates
agate
agate ἀμεθυστος
amethystus
amethyst
amethyst iv. χρυσόλιθος
iv. chrysolitus iv.
beryl
iv. beryl or chalcedony βηρύλλιον
β.
beryllus
onyx
onyx or beryl ὀνύχιον
α.
onychinus
jasper
jasper With the mystic jewel-work of the High Priest’s
breastplate—the λογεῖον
κρίσεως, rationale
judicii—compare the “covering of the King of
Tyrus.” —
Septuagint
Vulgate
A.V.
1611
R.V. 1881
text
margin
text margin 1. σάρδιον.
1.
sardius
1. sardius or
ruby
1. sardius or ruby 2. τοπάζιον
2. topazius 2.
topaz
2. topaz 3. σμάραγδος
6.
jaspis
?
diamond
? diamond 4. ἃνθραξ
10. chrysolitus 11. beryl or chrysolite
10 11. beryl 5. σάπφειρος
12.
onyx
12. onyx
12.
onyx 6. ἴασπις
11. berillus ?
jasper
? jasper 7. λιγύριος
5. sapphirus 5.
sapphire
5. sapphire 8. ἀχάτης
4. carbunculus 3. emerald or
chrysoprase 3. emerald or carbuncle
4 9. ἀμέθυστος
3. smaragdus 4.
carbuncle
4.
carbuncle or emerald 3 10. χρυσόλιθος 11. βηρύλλιον 12. ὀνύχιον Also the foundations of the Heavenly City.—
A.V. i. ἴασπις
jasper ii. σαπφειρος
sapphire iii. χαλκηδών
chalcedony iv. σμάραγδος
emerald v. σαρδόννξ
sardonyx vi. σάρδιον
sardius vii. χρυσόλιθος
chrysolyte viii. βήρυλλος
beryl ix. τοπάζιον
topaz x. χρυσόπρασος
chrysoprasus xi. ὐάκινθος
jacinth xii. ἀμέθυστος
amethyst The Heavenly City had 12 gates—each one a
pearl—inscribed with the names of the Twelve Tribes of
Israel. The foundations were inscribed with the names of the
Twelve Apostles. These precious stones have been identified as follows,
taking the High Priest’s breastplate: i. 1. Red carnelian 2.
Chrysolite (greenish-yellow) 3.
Emerald ii. 4.
Carbuncle
5. Lapis Lazuli
(blue)
6. Jasper (Greek chalcedony, dark green) iii. 7.
Jacinth
8. Agate (white, with red or green
grain) 9. Amethyst (blue transparent
quartz) iv. 10. Topaz (gold -brown) 11.
Aquamarine (dark blue) 12. Banded
Carnelian (black and white, or
brown and white ) Aaron the type of
Christ the Priest. See
5. This, then, is the foundation of our faith—to know that the Son of God is begotten; if He be not begotten, neither is He the Son. Nor yet is it sufficient to call Him Son, unless you shall also distinguish Him as the Only-begotten Son. If He is a creature, He is not God; if He is not God, He is not the Life; if He is not the Life, then is He not the Truth.
6. The first three tokens, therefore, that is to say, the names “generation,” “Son,” “Only-begotten,” do show that the Son is of God originally and by virtue of His own nature.
7. The three that follow—to wit, the
names “God,” “Life,” “Truth,”
reveal His Power, whereby He hath laid the foundations of, and upheld,
the created world. “For,” as Paul said, “in Him
we live and move and have our being;” sc. to the
name and title of God.
8. The Son of God is also called the
“image” and “effulgence” and
“expression” [of God], for these names have disclosed the
Father’s incomprehensible and unsearchable Majesty dwelling in
the Son, and the expression of His likeness in Him. These three
names, then, as we see, refer to [the Son’s] likeness [to the
Father]. See
9. We have yet the operations of Power,
Wisdom, and Justice left, wherewith, severally, to prove [the
Son’s] eternity. “The act
of knowing and comprehending all things necessarily includes the
expression of mind-work or wisdom, that is, the Word, and without this
it cannot even be conceived of. Rightly, then, did the Fathers
deduce the eternity of the Word from the eternity of the
Father.”—Hurter, ad loc.
10. This, then, is that robe, adorned with
precious stones; this is the amice of the true Priest; this the bridal
garment; here is the inspired weaver, who well knew how to weave that
work. No common woven work is it, whereof the Lord spake by His
Prophet: “Who gave to women their skill in
weaving?” St. Ambrose’s
rendering of this passage (
11. Let none suppose me to be misguided, in
that I made at first a threefold division, each part containing four,
and afterwards a fourfold division, each part containing three
terms. The beauty of a good thing pleases the more, if it be
shown under various aspects. For those are good things, whereof
the texture of the priestly robe was the token, that is to say, either
the Law, or the Church, which latter hath made two garments for her
spouse, as it is written
12. Moreover (to complete our interpretation
of these types), it is certain that by refined gold and silver are
designated the oracles of the Lord, whereby our faith stands
firm. “The oracles of the Lord are pure oracles, silver
tried in the fire, refined of dross, purified seven
times.” These colours
entered into the fashioning of the High Priest’s Ephod
( This was supposed by
some of the Ionic philosophers to be the explanation of
perception. We perceived earth, they supposed, by reason of the
earthly constituent of our organism.
13. Whether, then, you join to faith already present in the soul, bodily acts agreeing thereto; or acts come first, and faith be joined as their companion, presenting them to God—here is the robe of the minister of religion, here the priestly vestment.
14. Faith is profitable, therefore, when her
brow is bright with a fair crown of good works. S. i.e. if it
is possible for Him to ascend to a higher plane of existence. i.e. He is
a son “by adoption,” as one of ourselves. i.e.He
may not have as yet actually sinned, but it is within the range
of possibility for Him—He is, as Hurter expresses it in his note,
“auctor malitiæ si non actu, saltem
potentia.” S.
The Arian argument from S.
15. The objection I have now to face, your sacred Majesty, fills me with bewilderment, my soul and body faint at the thought that there should be men, or rather not men, but beings with the outward appearance of men, but inwardly full of brutish folly—who can, after receiving at the hands of the Lord benefits so many and so great, say that the Author of all good things is Himself not good.
16. It is written, say they, that
“There is none good but God alone.” I acknowledge the
Scripture—but there is no falsehood in the letter; would that
there were none in the Arians’ exposition thereof. The
written signs are guiltless, it is the meaning in which they are
taken
“Sensus in crimine.” The “sense of
a passage” is not something in the passage itself so much as our
understanding of it. In other words, the genitive after
“sense” is objective, not possessive.
17. The Son of God is certainly speaking as man, and speaking to a scribe,—to him, that is, who called the Son of God “Good Master,” but would not acknowledge Him as God. What he believes not, Christ further gives him to understand, to the end that he may believe in God’s Son not as a good master, but as the good God, for if, wheresoever the “One God” is named, the Son of God is never sundered from the fulness of that unity, how, when God alone is said to be good, can the Only-begotten be excluded from the fulness of Divine Goodness? The Arians must therefore either deny that the Son of God is God, or confess that God is good.
18. With divinely inspired comprehension,
then, our Lord said, not “There is none good but the
Father alone,” but “There is none good but God
alone,” and “Father” is the proper name of Him Who
begets. But the unity of God by no means excludes the Godhead of
the Three Persons, and therefore it is His Nature that is
extolled. Goodness, therefore, is of the nature of God, and in
the nature of God, again, exists the Son of God—wherefore that
which the predicate expresses belongs not to one single Person, but to
the [complete] unity [of the Godhead].
Lat.—“non quod singularitatis, sed quod unitatis
est, prædicatur.” The Son is “in the nature
of God” inasmuch as the eternal Fatherhood of God implies an
Eternal Son—His eternal Love an eternal object of that
Love.
19. The Lord, then, doth not deny His goodness—He rebukes this sort of disciple. For when the scribe said, “Good Master,” the Lord answered, “Why callest thou Me good?”—which is to say, “It is not enough to call Him good, Whom thou believest not to be God.” Not such do I seek to be My disciples—men who rather consider My manhood and reckon Me a good master, than look to My Godhead and believe Me to be the good God.
The goodness of the Son of God is proved from His works, namely, His benefits that He showed towards the people of Israel under the Old Covenant, and to Christians under the New. It is to one’s own interest to believe in the goodness of Him Who is one’s Lord and Judge. The Father’s testimony to the Son. No small number of the Jewish people bear witness to the Son; the Arians therefore are plainly worse than the Jews. The words of the Bride, declaring the same goodness of Christ.
20. Howbeit, I
would not that the Son should rely on the mere prerogative of His
nature and the claims of peculiar rights of His Majesty. Let us
not call Him good, if He merit not the title; and if He merit not this
by works, by acts of lovingkindness, let Him waive the right He enjoys
by virtue of His nature, and be submitted to our judgment. He Who
is to judge us disdains not to be brought to judgment, that He may be
“justified in His saying, and clear when He is
judged.”
21. Is He then not good, Who hath shown me
good things? Is He not good, Who when six hundred thousand of the
people of the Jews fled before their pursuers, suddenly opened the tide
of the Red Sea, an unbroken mass of waters?—so that the waves
flowed round the faithful, and were walls to them, but poured back and
overwhelmed the unbelievers. “Hath shown
me good things.”—
22. Is He not good, at Whose command the
seas became firm ground for the feet of them that fled, and the rocks
gave forth water for the thirsty?
23. Is He not good, Who in the wilderness
fed with bread from heaven such countless thousands of the people, lest
any famine should assail them, without need of toil, in the enjoyment
of rest?—so that, for the space of forty years, their raiment
grew not old, nor were their shoes worn,
24. Is He not good, Who exalted earth to
heaven, so that, just as the bright companies of stars reflect His
glory in the sky, as in a glass, so the choirs of apostles, martyrs,
and priests, shining like glorious stars, might give light throughout
the world. Cf. S.
25. Not only, then, is He good, but He is
more. He is a good Shepherd, not only for
S.
26. Thou seest His goodness, in that He laid
it down of His own accord: thou seest His power, in that He took
it again—dost thou deny His goodness, when He has said of Himself
in the Gospel, “If I am good, why is thine eye
evil”? S.
27. It concerns my interest to believe Him
to be good, for “It is a good thing to trust in the
Lord.”
28. It is to my interest to esteem my Judge
to be good, for the Lord is a righteous Judge to the house of
Israel. If, then, the Son of God is Judge, surely, seeing that
the Judge is the righteous God and the Son of God is Judge, [it follows
that] He who is Judge and Son of God is the righteous God. St.
Ambrose’s syllogism appears to be: The Judge is the
righteous God, the Son of God is the Judge; therefore, the Son
of God is the righteous God.
29. But perchance thou believest not others,
nor the Son. Hear, then, the Father saying: “My heart
hath brought forth out of its depth the good Word.” S.
30. The Jews used to say: “He is good.” Though some said: “He is not,” yet others said: “He is good,”—and ye do all deny His goodness.
31. He is good who forgives the sin of one
man; is He not good Who has taken away the sin of the world? For
it was of Him that it was said: “Behold the Lamb of God,
behold Him Who taketh away the sin of the world.” The reff. in
§§ 30 and 31 are to
32. But why do we doubt? The Church
hath believed in His goodness all these ages, and hath confessed its
faith in the saying: “Let Him kiss me with the kisses of
His mouth; for thy breasts are better than wine;”
Forasmuch as God is One, the Son of God is God, good and true.
33. Yet what think
ye, who deny the goodness and true Godhead of the Son of God, though it
is written that there is no God but One? S.
The omnipotence of the Son of God, demonstrated on the authority of the Old and the New Testament.
34. Seeing, then,
that the Son of God is true and good, surely He is Almighty God.
Can there be yet any doubt on this point? We have already cited
the place where it is read that “the Lord Almighty is His
Name.” Bk. I. ch. i.
35. But hear also such a passage as you
No doubts, because
(1) the meaning of the passage is plain; (2) it is taken from an
inspired Book.
36. Hear another passage, your sacred
Majesty,—hear the voice of Christ. “Thus saith the
Lord Almighty: After His glory The quotation is
from
37. Moreover, that your most excellent
Majesty may know that it is Christ which hath spoken as in the Gospel,
so also in the prophet, He saith by the mouth of Isaiah, as though
foreordaining the Gospel: “I Myself, Who spake, am
come,”
38. Elsewhere, again, He saith:
“All things that the Father hath are Mine.” S.
Certain passages from Scripture, urged against the Omnipotence of Christ, are resolved; the writer is also at especial pains to show that Christ not seldom spoke in accordance with the affections of human nature.
39. Although it is
written concerning God, “Blessed and only
Potentate,”
40. Aye, let some one show what there is
that the Son of God cannot do. Who was His helper, when He made
the heavens,—Who, when He laid the foundations of the
world? Cf. the Collect for
the Feast of St. Michael and all Angels.
41. “It is written,” say
they: “‘My Father, if it be possible, take away this
cup from Me.’
42. The words, you say, are the words of
Christ. True—consider, though, the occasion of His speaking
them, and in what character He speaks. He hath taken upon Him the
substance of man, i.e. human
nature. Cf. “Athanasian” Creed, clause 31.
43. Of Whom, howbeit, does He doubt—of
Himself, or of the Father? Of Him, surely, Who saith:
“Take away from Me,”—being moved as man is moved to
doubt. The prophet reckons nothing impossible with God. The
prophet doubts not; think you that the Son doubts? Wilt thou put
God lower than man? What—God hath doubts of His Father, and
is fearful at the thought of death! Christ, then, is
afraid—afraid, whilst Peter fears nothing. Peter
saith:
S. S.
44. Both records are true, and it is equally
natural that the person who is the less should not fear, as that He Who
is the greater should endure this feeling, for the one has all a
man’s ignorance of the might of death, whilst the other, as being
God inhabiting a body, displays the weakness of the flesh, that the
wickedness of those who deny the mystery of the Incarnation might have
no excuse. Thus, then, hath He spoken, yet the Manichæan
believed not; The principle
common to these and other like heretics (who ignored or misconstrued
many passages of Scripture which plainly declare the completeness and
truth of our Lord’s humanity) was that matter is inherently and
by its very nature evil. Mani, therefore, and the rest were
easily led to think shame of attributing to Christ a real, tangible,
visible body. For the doctrines of Mani, see note on I. 57.
Valentinus was a Gnostic, who lived at Rome (whither he came from
Alexandria) between 140 and 160 a.d.
Marcion became known as a heresiarch in the papacy of Eleutherius
(177–190 a.d.). For the doctrines
of Valentinus and Marcion, see Robertson’s Church History,
Bk. I. ch. iv.
45. But indeed He so far put Himself on a
level with man, such as He showed Himself to be in the reality of His
bodily frame, as to say, “Nevertheless, not as I will, but as
Thou wilt,” S.
46. Here, then, let there be an end of the
objection which it is your custom to oppose to us, on the ground that
the Lord said, “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt;” and
again, “For this cause I came down from heaven, not to do My own
will, but the will of Him that sent Me.” S.
The passages of Scripture above cited are taken as an occasion for a digression, wherein our Lord’s freedom of action is proved from the ascription to the Spirit of such freedom, and from places where it is attributed to the Son.
47. Let us now, for
the present, explain more fully why our Lord said, “If it be
possible,” and so call a truce, as it were, while we show that He
possessed freedom of will. Ye deny—so far are ye gone in
the way of iniquity—that the Son of God had a free will.
Moreover, it is your wont to detract from the Holy Spirit, though you
cannot deny that it is written: “The Spirit doth breathe,
where He will.” S.
48. The Apostle also saith that “all
is the work of one and the same Spirit, distributing to each according
to His will.”
49. The holy Apostle later knew that Jesus
had it in His power to do as He would, and therefore, seeing Him walk
upon the sea, said: “Lord, if it be Thou, bid me come to
Thee over the waters.” S.
50. What indeed is there that the Father
will have, but the Son will not, or that the Son will have, but the
Father will not? “The Father quickeneth whom He
will,” and the Son quickeneth whom He will, even as it is
written. S.
51. Again, what was the will of the Father, but
that Jesus should come into the world
S. S.
The resolution of the difficulty set forth for consideration is again taken in hand. Christ truly and really took upon Him a human will and affections, the source of whatsoever was not in agreement with His Godhead, and which must be therefore referred to the fact that He was at the same time both God and man.
52. There is,
therefore, unity of will where there is unity of working; for in God
His will issues straightway in actual effect. But the will of God
is one, and the human will another. Further, to show that life is
the object of human will, because we fear death, whilst the passion of
Christ depended on the Divine Will, that He should suffer for us, the
Lord said, when Peter would have detained Him from suffering:
“Thou savourest not of the things which be of God, but the things
which be of men.” S.
53. My will, therefore, He took to Himself, my grief. In confidence I call it grief, because I preach His Cross. Mine is the will which He called His own, for as man He bore my grief, as man He spake, and therefore said, “Not as I will, but as Thou wilt.” Mine was the grief, and mine the heaviness with which He bore it, for no man exults when at the point to die. With me and for me He suffers, for me He is sad, for me He is heavy. In my stead, therefore, and in me He grieved Who had no cause to grieve for Himself.
54. Not Thy wounds, but mine, hurt Thee,
Lord Jesus; not Thy death, but our weakness, even as the Prophet
saith: “For He is afflicted for our sakes”
55. And what wonder if He grieved for all,
Who wept for one? What wonder if, in the hour of death, He is
heavy for all, Who wept when at the point to raise Lazarus from the
dead? Then, indeed, He was moved by a loving
sister’s tears, for they touched His human heart,—here by
secret grief He brought it to pass that, even as His death made an end
of death, and His stripes healed our scars, so also His sorrow took
away our sorrow. It is a very
beautiful doctrine of the Fathers that Christ submitted to the
conditions and experiences of our life in order to restore and sanctify
and endue them with the virtue of His merits. Hence Thomassini,
after the Fathers, thus discourses in his treatise on the
Incarnation: “The Fathers have been careful to attribute to
the Word of God” (incarnate) “not only the physical
parts—body and soul—but even the smallest and most
particular things: grief, fear, tears; and all the
emotions: conception, birth, babyhood; all the stages of life and
growth: hunger, thirst, fatigue, and sadness, in order that a
remedy might be applied at every place where sin had crept in, and
that, as death had corrupted all, so upon all might the water of life
be sprinkled.” Gregory of Nazianzus strikingly observes
(Or. 37): “Perchance indeed He sleeps, in order to
bless sleep: perchance, again, He is weary, in order to sanctify
weariness: and perchance weeps, to give dignity to
tears.” Hurter ad loc., who also cites Cyril of
Alexandria on S.
56. As being man, therefore, He doubts; as
man He is amazed. Neither His power nor His Godhead is amazed,
but His soul; He is amazed by consequence of having taken human
infirmity upon Him. Seeing, then, that He took upon Himself a
soul He also took the affections of a soul, Such as
Aristotle enumerates in the Ethics, II. ch. 4 (5).
57. For so hath the Apostle Paul likewise
said: “Because they have crucified the flesh of
Christ.” S.
58. When we read, then, that the Lord of
glory was crucified, let us not suppose that He was crucified as in His
glory. S.
Christ’s saying, “The Father is greater than I,” is explained in accordance with the principle just established. Other like sayings are expounded in like fashion. Our Lord cannot, as touching His Godhead, be called inferior to the Father.
59. It was due to
His humanity, therefore, that our Lord doubted and was sore distressed,
and rose from the dead, for that which fell doth also rise again.
Again, it was by reason of His humanity that He said those words, which
our adversaries use to maliciously turn against Him:
“Because the Father is greater than I.” S.
60. But when in another passage we
read: “I came out from the Father, and am come into the
world; again, I leave the world, and go to the Father,” S. S. S.
61. How, indeed, can He be a lesser God when
He is perfect and true God? Yet in respect of His humanity He is
less—and still you wonder that speaking in the person of a man He
called the Father greater than Himself, when in the person of a man He
called Himself a worm, and not a man, saying: “But I am a
worm, and no man;”
62. If you pronounce Him less than the
Father in this respect, I cannot deny it; nevertheless, to speak in the
words of Scripture, He was not begotten inferior, but “made
lower,”
63. Moreover, to the end that we might know
Him to have been “made lower,” by taking upon Him a body,
David has shown that he is prophesying of a man, saying:
“What is man, that Thou art mindful of him, or the son of man,
but that Thou visitest him? Thou hast made him a little lower
than the angels.”
64. Thus, the Son of God was made lower
than, not only the Father, but angels also. And if you will turn
this to His dishonour; [I ask] is then the Son, in respect of His
Godhead, less than His angels who serve Him and minister to Him?
Thus, in your purpose to diminish His honour, you run into the
blasphemy of exalting the nature of angels above the Son of God.
But “the servant is not above his master.” S. For if that were
so, God might cease to be God.
65. He, therefore, possessing the fulness of
Divinity and glory,
66. If our opponents, then, have found no
means to prove [the Father] greater [than the Son], let them not
pervert words unto false reports, but seek out their meaning. I
ask them, therefore, as touching what do they esteem the Father the
greater? If it is because He is the Father, then [I answer] here
we have no question of age or of time—the Father is not
distinguished by white hairs, nor the Son by youthfulness—and it
is on these conditions that the greater dignity of a father
depends. “In
respect of age only does a father take precedence of his son amongst
men, for in regard to generic nature the father is on a level with the
son, and in other respects the son may even excel his father. But
where the Persons are eternal, there is no difference constituted by
age. Still, as St. Ambrose acutely remarks, the names
‘Father’ and ‘Son’ indicate indeed a
distinction of Persons and mutual relations of those Persons, yet not
diversity of nature—rather, in fact, suppose equality and unity
of nature.”—Hurter in loc.
67. If, then, they cannot make the order of
nature a support for any questioning, let them now believe the witness
[of Scripture]. Now the Evangelist testifies that the Son is not
lower [than the Father] by reason of being the Son; nay, he even
declares that, in being the Son, He is equal, saying, “For the
Jews sought to kill Him for this cause, that not only did He break the
Sabbath, but even called God His own Father, making Himself equal to
God.” S.
68. This is not what the Jews said—it
is the Evangelist who testifies that, in calling Himself God’s
own Son, He made Himself equal to God, for the Jews are not presented
as saying, “For this cause we sought to kill Him;” the
Evangelist, speaking for himself, says, “For the Jews sought to
kill Him for this cause.” loc.
cit.
69. Most fitting was the answer which the
Son of God made to these Jews, proving Himself the Son and equal of
God. “Whatsoever things,” He said, “the Father
hath done, the Son doeth also in like wise.” S.
70. Hence the Apostle, following this
revelation, hath said: “He thought it not a prey that He
should be equal with God.”
71. Admit, therefore, that Christ, as
touching His Godhead, cannot be called inferior [to the
Father]. “Surely it is
clear that the Son, in respect of His Godhead, is not inferior to the
Father, for there is, in the Father and the Son, one and the same
Godhead. Still, the Greek Fathers allow that the Father is not
only greater than the Son in respect of the latter’s human
nature, but also in regard to personal properties, or a certain
‘personal dignity’—(ἀξ
ωμα
ὑποστατικόν).”—Hurter in loc. Canon Mason, in his
Faith of the Gospel, remarks that whilst it is quite right to
speak of “God and His Son” or “God’s
Son,” the converse language, “God and His Father,”
“God’s Father,” is not right. Yet S.
Ambrose says, “Dubitat de Patre Deus.” See §
43.
72. Otherwise, if our adversaries will
understand this passage as referred to the Father, then the rest of the
record does not agree with it. For the Father did not appear to
Abraham, nor did Abraham wash the feet of God the Father, but the feet
of Him in Whom is the image of the man that shall be. S.
73. And how, indeed, hath He any greater
than Himself Who is one with the Father in Godhead? S.
The objection that the Son, being sent by the Father, is, in that regard at least, inferior, is met by the answer that He was also sent by the Spirit, Who is yet not considered greater than the Son. Furthermore, the Spirit, in His turn, is sent by the Father to the Son, in order that Their unity in action might be shown forth. It is our duty, therefore, carefully to distinguish what utterances are to be fitly ascribed to Christ as God, and what to be ascribed to Him as man.
74. I have no fears
in the matter of that commonly advanced objection, that Christ is
inferior because He was sent. For even if He be inferior, yet
this is not so proved; That is to say, it does
not follow, from the fact that the Son was sent, that He is inferior in
nature. S.
75. Regard not, therefore, the narrow bounds
of human language, but the plain meaning of the words, and believe
facts accomplished. Bethink you that our Lord Jesus Christ said
in Isaiah that He had been sent by the Spirit.
76. And that you may gather that there is no
separating difference of majesty, the Son in turn sends the Spirit,
even as He Himself hath said: “But when the Comforter is
come, whom I will send you from My Father—the Spirit of truth,
who cometh forth from My Father.” S. S.
77. A truce, then, to vain wranglings over words,
for the kingdom of God, as it is written, consisteth not in persuasive
words, but in power plainly shown forth. Let us take heed to the
distinction of the Godhead from the flesh. In each there speaks
one and the same Son of God, for each nature is present in Him; yet
while it is the same Person Who speaks, He speaks not always in the
same manner. Behold in Him, now the
78. “This is the living bread, which
came down from heaven.” S. S. S.
79. This is the same One Whom the Father
sent, but “born of a woman, born under the law,” S. S.
“regarding Him as man.” In the original
“secundum hominem,” lit. “after the way, or
manner, of man.” If the Jews had accepted Jesus
Christ’s teachings as divine, they would not have questioned
it. But they acted as though they were confronted with one who
was no more than man, and whose authority therefore was properly liable
to be called in question.
80. For He hath found and devised all the
way of discipline, as we read above, inasmuch as of the Son of God it
hath been said: “This is our God, and none other shall be
accounted of in comparison with Him, Who hath found all the way of
discipline. After these things He was seen on earth, and
conversed with men.”
81. Let us proceed with what follows.
“He who speaketh of himself, seeketh his own
glory.” S. “In these
words attention is called to the Unity of Nature (or Substance) in
distinct Persons, for in the very act of speaking and teaching, the Son
shows that He is a Person, but He Who speaks not of Himself, but as the
Father hath taught Him, shows that He is distinct from the Father, and
yet He has, with the Father, one and the same doctrine, and therefore
one and the same nature; for, in God, being and knowing are one and the
same.”—Hurter.
82. What now is the meaning of the words
“seeketh his own glory”? That is, not a glory in
which the Father has no part—for indeed the Word of God is His
glory. Again, our Lord saith: “that they may see My
glory.” S.
83. How, then, you ask, is it written,
“Father, the hour is come; glorify Thy Son?” S.
The objection taken on the ground of the Son’s obedience is disproved, and the unity of power, Godhead, and operation in the Trinity set forth, Christ’s obedience to His mother, to whom He certainly cannot be called inferior, is noticed.
84. In like manner
our adversaries commonly make a difficulty of the Son’s
obedience, forasmuch as it is written: “And
85. Thus we have learnt that the power of the Trinity is one, as we are taught both in and after the Passion itself: for the Son suffers through His body, which is the earnest of it; the Holy Spirit is poured upon the apostles: into the Father’s hands the spirit is commended; furthermore, God is with a mighty voice proclaimed the Father. We have learnt that there is one form, one likeness, one sanctification, of the Father and of the Son, one activity, one glory, finally, one Godhead.
86. There is, therefore, but one only God,
for it is written: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and Him only shalt thou serve.”
87. Again, that thou mayest know that the
Father is, and the Son is, and that the work of the Father and of the
Son is one, follow the saying of the Apostle: “Now may God
Himself, and our Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ direct our way unto
you.” The act of direction
is one and, correspondingly, the verb “direct” is, in the
Latin and the Greek, put in the singular number.
88. Let us call to mind how kindly our Lord
hath dealt with us, in that He taught us not only faith but manners
also. For, having taken His place in the form of man, He was
subject to Joseph and Mary. S.
The purpose and healing effects of the Incarnation. The profitableness of faith, whereby we know that Christ bore all infirmities for our sakes,—Christ, Whose Godhead revealed Itself in His Passion; whence we understand that the mission of the Son of God entailed no subservience, which belief we need not fear lest it displease the Father, Who declares Himself to be well pleased in His Son.
89. Let us likewise
deal kindly, let us persuade our adversaries of that which is to their
profit, “let us worship and lament before the Lord our
Maker.”
90. To Him, therefore, let all come who would be made whole. Let them receive the medicine which He hath brought down from His Father and made in heaven, preparing it of the juices of those celestial fruits that wither not. This is of no earthly growth, for nature nowhere possesseth this compound. Of wondrous purpose took He our flesh, to the end that He might show that the law of the flesh had been subjected to the law of the mind. He was incarnate, that He, the Teacher of men, might overcome as man.
91. Of what profit would it have been to me, had
He, as God, bared the arm of His power, and only displayed His Godhead
inviolate? Why should He take human nature upon Him, but to
suffer Himself to be tempted under the conditions of my nature and my
weakness? It was right that He should be tempted, that He should
suffer with me, to the end that I might know how to conquer when
tempted, how
92. This medicine Peter beheld, and left His nets, that is to say, the instruments and security of gain, renouncing the lust of the flesh as a leaky ship, that receives the bilge, as it were, of multitudinous passions. Truly a mighty remedy, that not only removed the scar of an old wound, but even cut the root and source of passion. O Faith, richer than all treasure-houses; O excellent remedy, healing our wounds and sins!
93. Let us bethink ourselves of the
profitableness of right belief. It is profitable to me to know
that for my sake Christ bore my infirmities, submitted to the
affections of my body, that for me, that is to say, for every man, He
was made sin, and a curse, S. S.
94. For how could He, Who hath made days and
times, be ignorant of the day? How could He not know the day, Who
hath declared both the season of Judgment to come, and the
cause? See S.
This it is that has
constituted the “offence of the Cross.”— i.e. the
sorrows met with during our passage through the world, by reason of
human unkindness. Or perhaps the possessive adjective may be
taken as equivalent to a subj. genitive, and we should render by
“the wrong that thou hast done.”
95. A glorious remedy—to have
consolation of Christ! For He bore these things with surpassing
patience for our sakes—and we forsooth cannot bear them with
common patience for the glory of His Name! Who may not learn to
forgive, when assailed, seeing that Christ, even on the Cross,
prayed,—yea, for them that persecuted Him? See you not that
those weaknesses, as you please to call them, of Christ’s are
your strength?
96. Even in the very hour of mockery and
insult, acknowledge His Godhead. He hung upon the Cross, and all
the elements did Him homage. S. S. S. S.
97. Thou shouldst hereby understand that His being “sent” means not that He was compelled, at the command of another, but that He acted, of free will, according to His own judgment, otherwise thou dost accuse Him of despising His Father. For if, according to thine expounding, Christ had come into Jewry, as one executing the Father’s commands, to relieve the inhabitants of Jewry, and none besides, and yet before that was accomplished, set free the Canaanitish woman’s daughter from her complaint, surely He was not only the executor of another’s instruction, but was free to exercise His own judgment. But where there is freedom to act as one will, there can be no transgressing the terms of one’s mission.
98. Fear not that the Son’s act displeased
the Father, seeing that the Son Himself
S.
99. Read all the Scriptures, mark all diligently, you will then find that Christ so manifested Himself that God might be discerned in man. Misunderstand not maliciously the Son’s exultation in the Father, when you hear the Father declaring His pleasure in the Son.
Do the Catholics or the Arians take the better course
to assure themselves of the favour of Christ as their Judge? An
objection grounded on
100. Howbeit, if
our adversaries cannot be turned by kindness, let us summon them before
the Judge. To what Judge, then, shall we go? Surely to Him
Who hath the Judgment. To the Father, then? Nay, but
“the Father judgeth no man, for He hath given all judgment to the
Son.” S.
101. Let us see, then, before the judgment which hath the better cause, thou or I? Surely it is the care of a prudent party to a suit to gain first the favourable regard of the judge. Thou dost honour man,—dost thou not honour God? Which of the two, I ask, wins the favour of the magistrate—respect or contempt? Suppose that I am in error—as I certainly am not: is Christ displeased with the honour shown Him? We are all sinners—who, then, will deserve forgiveness, he who renders worship, or he who displays insolence?
102. If reasoning move thee not, at least
let the plain aspect of the judgment move thee! Raise thine eyes
to the Judge, see Who it is that is seated, with Whom He is seated, and
where. Christ sitteth at the right hand of the Father. If
with thine eyes thou canst not perceive this, hear the words of the
prophet: “The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit Thou on My right
hand.”
103. “But,” you object,
“the Father said.” Good, hear now a passage
where the Father doth not speak, and the Son prophesies:
“Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand
of power.” S. i.e. to the
risen Christ. St.
Ambrose’s words are: “In hoc sum
natus.” It is possible that St. Ambrose understands
“in hoc” as meaning “ὧδε,” “here;”
sc. “at God’s right hand.”
104. If, again, you seek to pervert the
sense of these words, “I will make Thine enemies Thy
footstool,” I answer that the Father also bringeth to the Son
such as the Son raiseth up and quickeneth. For “No
man,” saith Christ, “can come to Me, except the Father,
Which hath sent Me, draw him, and I will raise him up at the last
day.” S. This
prerogative—viz. of sitting at the right hand of the
Father—in itself is sufficient to exclude any dishonourable
suspicion that the Son is a subject and servant. (Hurter.)
105. Moreover, the sitting at the right hand is no preferment, nor doth that at the left hand betoken dishonour, for there are no degrees in the Godhead, Which is bound by no limits of space or time, which are the weights and measures of our puny human minds. There is no difference of love, nothing that divideth the Unity.
106. But wherefore roam so far afield?
Thou hast looked upon all around thee, thou hast seen the Judge, thou
hast remarked the angels proclaiming Him. They praise, and
thou revilest Him! Dominations and powers fall down before
Him—thou speakest evil of His Name! All His Saints adore
Him, but the Son of God adores not, nor the Holy Spirit. The
seraphim say: “Holy, Holy, Holy!”
107. What meaneth this threefold utterance of the same name “Holy”? If thrice repeated, why is it but one act of praise? If one act of praise, why a threefold repetition? Why the threefold repetition, unless that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one in holiness? The seraph spake the name, not once, lest he should exclude the Son; not twice, lest he should pass by the Holy Spirit; not four times, lest he should conjoin created beings [in the praise of the Creator]. Furthermore, to show that the Godhead of the Trinity is One, he, after the threefold “Holy,” added in the singular number “the Lord God of Sabaoth.” Holy, therefore, is the Father, holy the Son, holy likewise the Spirit of God, and therefore is the Trinity adored, but adores not, and is praised, but praises not. As for me, I will rather believe as the seraphim, and adore after the manner of all the principalities and powers of heaven.
The wicked and dishonourable opinions held by Arians, Sabellians, and Manichæans as concerning their Judge are shortly refuted. Christ’s remonstrances regarding the rest of His adversaries being set forth, St. Ambrose expresses a hope of milder judgment for himself.
108. Let us proceed, then, with your accusations, and see how you gain the favour of your Judge. Speak now, speak, I say, and tell Him: “I consider Thee, O Christ, to be unlike Thy Father;” and He will answer: “Mark, if thou canst, mark, I say, and tell Me wherein thou holdest Me to differ.”
109. Say again: “I judge Thee to be a created being;” and Christ will reply: “If the witness of two men is true, oughtest thou not to have believed both Me and My Father, Who hath called Me His Son?”
110. Then you will say: “I deny Thy [perfect] goodness;” and He will answer: “Be it unto thee according to thy faith; so will I not be good to thee.”
111. “That Thou art Almighty, I hold not;” and He will answer, in turn: “Then can I not forgive thee thy sins.”
112. “Thou art a subject being.” Whereto He will reply: “Why, then, dost thou seek freedom and pardon of Him Whom thou thinkest to be subject as a slave?”
113. I see your accusation halt here. I press you not, forasmuch as I myself know my own sins. I grudge you not pardon, for I myself would obtain indulgence, but I would know the object of your prayers. Look, then, whilst I recite before the Judge your desires. I betray not your sins, but look to behold your prayers and wishes set forth in their order.
114. Speak, therefore, those desires, which all alike would have granted to them. “Lord, make me in the image of God.” Whereto He will answer: “In what image? The image which thou hast denied?”
115. “Make me incorruptible.” Surely His reply will be: “How can I make thee incorruptible, I, Whom thou callest a created being, and so wouldst make out to be corruptible? The dead shall rise purified from corruption—dost thou call Him corruptible Whom thou seest to be God?”
116. “Be good to me.”
“Why dost thou ask what thou hast denied [to Me]? I would
have had thee to be good, and I said ‘Be ye holy, for I Myself am
holy,’ S.
117. Thus let the followers of Arius and
Photinus speak. “I deny Thy Godhead.” To whom
the Lord will make answer: “‘The fool hath said in
his heart: There is no God’ The
“fool” (i.e. wicked man) has only said in his heart,
secretly, “No God”—he has not ventilated his
atheism.
118. Let the Sabellian speak in his
turn. “I consider Thee, by Thyself, to be at once Father
and Son and Holy Spirit.” To whom the Lord:
“Thou hearest neither the Father nor the Son. Is there any
doubt on this matter? The Scripture itself teaches thee that it
is the Father Who giveth over the judgment, and the Son Who
judges. S. S.
119. Now let the Manichæan have his
word. “I hold that the devil is the creator of our
flesh.” The Lord will answer him: “What, then,
doest thou in the heavenly places? Depart, go thy way to thy
creator. ‘My will is that they be with Me, whom my Father
hath given Me.’ S.
120. I set aside other heretical—not
persons, but portents. What manner of judgment awaits them, what
shall be the form of their sentence? To all these He will,
indeed, reply, rather in sorrow than in anger: “O My
people, what have I done unto thee, wherein have I vexed thee?
Did I not bring thee up out of Egypt, and lead thee out of the house of
bondage into liberty?”
121. But it is not enough to have brought us
out of Egypt into freedom, and to have saved us from the house of
bondage: a greater boon than this, Thou hast given Thyself for
us. Thou wilt say then: “Have I not borne all your
sufferings?
122. As for me, Lord Jesu, though I am
conscious within myself of great sin, yet will I say: “I
have not denied Thee; Thou mayest pardon the infirmity of my
flesh. My transgression I confess; my sin I deny not. S.
The sentence of the Judge is set forth, the counterpleas of the opposers are considered, and the finality of the sentence, from which there is no appeal, proved.
123. What verdict
do we look for from Christ? That do I know. Do I say, what
verdict will He give? Nay, He hath already pronounced
sentence. We have it in our hands. “Let all,”
saith He, “honour the Son, even as they honour the Father.
He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father, Who hath sent
Him.” S.
124. If the sentence please you not, appeal
to the Father, cancel the judgment that the Father hath given.
Say that He hath a Son Who is unlike Him. He will reply:
“Then have I lied, I, Who said to the Son, ‘Let us make man
in Our image and likeness.’”
125. Tell the Father that He hath created
126. Tell Him that He hath begotten a Son Who is inferior to Himself, and He will reply: “Compare Us, and let Us see.”
127. Tell Him that you owed no credence to
the Son, whereto He will answer: “Did I not say to thee,
‘This is My well-beloved Son, in Whom I am well pleased:
hear ye Him’?” S. S. S.
128. Let us look to it, then, forasmuch as whom the Son condemneth, the Father condemneth also, and therefore let us honour the Son, even as we honour the Father, that by the Son we may be able to come to the Father.
St. Ambrose deprecates any praise of his own merits: in any case, the Faith is sufficiently defended by the authoritative support of holy Scripture, to whose voice the Arians, stubborn as the Jews, are deaf. He prays that they may be moved to love the truth; meanwhile, they are to be avoided, as heretics and enemies of Christ.
129. These
arguments, your Majesty, I have set forth, briefly and summarily, in
the rough, rather than in any form of full explanation and exact
order. If indeed the Arians regard them as imperfect and
unfinished, I indeed confess that they are scarce even begun; if they
think that there be any still to be brought forward, I allow that there
be well-nigh all; for whereas the unbelievers are in uttermost need of
arguments, the faithful have enough and to spare. Indeed,
Peter’s single confession was abundant to warrant faith in
Christ: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living
God;” S.
“Without division or diminution,” i.e. the
generation of the Son entails no division or partition of the Godhead,
still less any diminution of it. The Father is none the less
God. His Godhead loses nothing by His begetting His
Eternal Son. Some manuscripts have “demutatam”
instead of “deminutam” here—i.e.
“changed” for “diminished.” Certainly the
begetting of the Son can make no change whatever in the Being of the
Father, for the Divine Generation is “from everlasting to
everlasting,” and is necessarily implied in the very Fatherhood,
the personal essence of the Father. Hurter quotes St. Hilary,
De Trin. 6, 10. “The Church knows of no
apportionment made to the Son, but knows Him as perfect God of perfect
God, as One begotten of One, not shorn off from Him, but born:
she knows the Nativity to entail no diminution of Him Who begets, nor
weakness in Him Who is born.” The fact is a spiritual
relation, metaphysical in the highest sense, transcending our
intelligence, and only to be apprehended by faith, simply as a
fact—as the ἀρχή, or principle, which is sufficient
for us. The “how” we must wait to have revealed to us
hereafter, if we shall ever be able to receive it.
130. This, indeed, is declared in the books
of Holy Writ, one and all, and yet is still doubted by
misbelievers: “For,” as it is written, “the
heart of this people is become gross, and with their ears they have
been dull of hearing, and their eyes have they darkened, lest ever they
should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand in
their heart.”
131. And what wonder, if unbelievers doubt
the word of man, when they refuse to believe the Word of God? The
Son of God, as you will find it written in the Gospel, said:
“Father, glorify Thy Name,” and from heaven was heard the
voice of the Father, saying: “I have both glorified it, and
again will glorify.” S. S.
132. Paul, moreover, as it is written in the
Acts of the Apostles,
133. As for me, indeed, would that they might have
a will to hear, that they might believe—to hear with true love
and meekness, as men seeking what is true, and not assailing all
truth. For it is written that we pay no heed to “endless
fables and genealogies, which do rather raise disputes than set forward
the godly edification, which is in faith. But the aim of the
charge is love from a pure heart, and a good conscience, and faith
unfeigned, whence some have erred and betaken themselves to empty
babbling, desirous of being teachers
134. Such men, who sow disputes—that
is to say, heretics—the Apostle bids us leave alone. Of
them he says in yet another place, that “certain shall depart
from the faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits, and the doctrines of
devils.”
135. John, likewise, saith that heretics are
Antichrists,
St. Ambrose assures Gratian of victory, declaring
that it has been foretold in the prophecies of Ezekiel. This hope
is further stayed upon the emperor’s piety, the former disasters
being the punishment of Eastern heresy. The
disasters here alluded to are the rout of the Roman army, in 378
a.d., at Hadrianople, and the miserable death
of the Emperor Valens, who took refuge in a hut, which was surrounded
and fired by the Goths, the emperor perishing in the flames. This
reverse was regarded by the orthodox as a judgment upon the Arianism of
Valens and others in high places.
136. I must no further detain your Majesty, in this season of preparation for war, and the achievement of victory over the Barbarians. Go forth, sheltered, indeed, under the shield of faith, and girt with the sword of the Spirit; go forth to the victory, promised of old time, and foretold in oracles given by God.
137. For Ezekiel, in those far-off days,
already prophesied the minishing of our people, and the Gothic wars,
saying: “Prophesy, therefore, Son of Man, and say: O
Gog, thus saith the Lord—Shalt thou not, in that day when My
people Israel shall be established to dwell in peace, rise up and come
forth from thy place, from the far north, and many nations with thee,
all riders upon horses, a great and mighty gathering, and the valour of
many hosts? Yea, go up against my people Israel, as clouds to
cover the land, in the last days.”
138. That Gog is the Goth, whose coming
forth we have already seen, and over whom victory in days to come is
promised, according to the word of the Lord: “And they
shall spoil them, who had been their despoilers, and plunder them, who
had carried off their goods for a prey, saith the Lord. And it
shall be in that day, that I will give to Gog”—that is, to
the Goths—“a place that is famous, for Israel an
high-heaped tomb of many men, of men who have made their way to the
sea, and it shall reach round about, and close the mouth of the valley,
and there [the house of Israel shall] overthrow Gog and all his
multitude, and it shall be called the valley of the multitude of
Gog: and the house of Israel shall overwhelm them, that the land
may be cleansed.”
139. Nor, furthermore, may we doubt, your
sacred Majesty, that we, who have undertaken the contest with alien
unbelief, shall enjoy the aid of the Catholic Faith that is strong in
you. Plainly indeed the reason of God’s wrath has been
already made manifest, so that belief in the Roman Empire was first
overthrown, where faith in God gave way. The success of the
Goths at Hadrianople encouraged the northern barbarians to fresh
invasions of the empire, within which they from now began to form
permanent lodgments, and it correspondingly discouraged the subjects of
the empire, and sapped the old belief—a legacy from
paganism—in the fortune of Rome.
140. No desire have I to recount the deaths,
tortures, and banishments of confessors, the offices of the faithful
made into presents for traitors. Orthodox
bishops and priests were expelled from their sees and offices to make
room for “betrayers of the faith,” i.e. men who had
apostatized to Arianism. The mingled tumult of blasphemy and
foreign onslaughts is a description of the condition of the eastern
provinces of the empire, where Arianism was rampant, and all was
overrun by the Goths. The latter was regarded by some as the
result of the former. Thus St. Jerome: “Our sins are
the strength of the barbarians, our vices bring defeat upon the arms of
Rome.”—H. The provinces here mentioned lay along the
right bank of the Danube, and took in what is now Lower Hungary,
Servia, and Bulgaria. The result of the disaster of Hadrianople
was to put all these countries in the power of the Goths. The Goths had
been driven in upon the Roman frontiers by the inroads of the Huns, who
expelled them from their former habitations in S. & S. W.
Russia. A treaty had been made between them and the Emperor
Valens, who agreed to take them under his protection, but the bad faith
with which the Goths soon found themselves treated led to hostilities,
and so to the great overthrow at Hadrianople in 378.
142. No military eagles, no flight of
birds, No
auguries—which were taken by observing the flight of birds, as
omens were by noting their voices. These observances of
course disappeared from the Roman army as soon as the empire became
Christian. In saying that the Name of the Saviour leads the
troops to war, St. Ambrose probably alludes to the Labarum or banner
emblazoned with the monogram Χρ, which is composed of the two first letters
of the Name Χριστός.
143. Show forth now a plain sign of Thy
Majesty, that he who believes Thee to be the true Lord of Hosts, and
Captain of the armies of heaven; he who believes that Thou art the true
Power and Wisdom of God, no being of time nor of creation, but even as
it is written, the eternal Power and Divinity of God,
Statement of the reasons wherefore the matters, treated of shortly in the two former, are dealt with more at length in the three later books. Defence of the employment of fables, which is supported by the example of Holy Writ, wherein are found various figures of poetic fable, in particular the Sirens, which are figures of sensual pleasures, and which Christians ought to be taught to avoid, by the words of Paul and the deeds of Christ.
1. Forasmuch as
your most gracious Majesty had laid command upon me to write for your
own instruction some treatise concerning the Faith, and had yourself
called me to your presence and encouraged my timidity, I, being as one
on the eve of battle, Lat.
“In procinctu,” which is primarily a military
phrase, procinctus meaning “girding up” or
“girdle,” the expression having reference to the girding on
of armour for the battle. “Testamentum facere in
procinctu” means “to make one’s will on the eve
of battle.” The expression passed into a proverb for
readiness in general. E.g. “clementiam in
procinctu habere,” “to be ready to show
mercy.” Here, however, St. Ambrose uses the phrase more in
its original sense, with reference to the impending conflict of the
Goths and Romans, in which Gratian was expecting to take part, though,
as a matter of fact, the battle of Hadrianople had been fought, and
Valens was dead, before he arrived on the scene of action.
2. Seeing, however, that certain malicious minds, bent on sowing disputes, have not yet exhausted the force of their assaults, whilst your gracious Majesty’s pious anxiety calls me to further labours, inasmuch as you desire to try in more things him whom you have proved in a few, I am resolved to deal somewhat more particularly with the matters whereof I have already treated in a few words, lest it should be thought, not that I have advanced those propositions in quietness and confidence, but that I, having asserted them, doubted and so abandoned their defence.
3. Again, seeing that we spoke of the Hydra and Scylla (I. vi. 46), and brought them in by way of comparison, to show how we must beware, whether of the ever-renewed outgrowths of infidelity, or the ill-omened shipwrecks made upon its shallows, if any one holds that such embellishments of an argument, borrowed from the romances of poets, are unlawful, and, from lack of opportunity to speak evil of my faith, assails something in my language, then let him know that not only phrases but complete verses of poetry have been woven into the text of Holy Writ.
4. Whence, for instance, came that verse,
“His offspring truly are we,” Meaning that Paul,
gifted with a prophet’s insight into divine truth, recognized in
these words of the heathen poet a testimony to God, and therefore had
no scruples about citing them to this Athenian audience. The Anakim, or
“sons of Anak.” Cf. The Valley of
Rephaim. Odyssey, XII.
178–180, 192–197.
5. But if the poet judged the enticement of
worldly pleasure and licence destructive of men’s minds and a
sure cause of shipwreck, what ought we to think, for whom it hath been
written: “Train not the flesh in
concupiscence”?
6. Truly, Christ won salvation for us, not
by luxury but by fasting. Moreover, it was not to obtain favour
for Himself, but to instruct us, that He fasted. Nor yet did He
hunger because He was overcome by the weakness of the body, but by His
hunger He proved that He had verily taken upon Himself a body; that so
He might teach us that He had taken not only our body, but also the
weaknesses of that body, even as it is written: “Surely He
hath taken our infirmities and borne our sicknesses.”
The incidents properly affecting the body which Christ for our sake took upon Him are not to be accounted to His Godhead, in respect whereof He is the Most Highest. To deny which is to say that the Father was incarnate. When we read that God is one, and that there is none other beside Him, or that He alone has immortality, this must be understood as true of Christ also, not only to avoid the sinful heresy above-mentioned (Patripassianism), but also because the activity of the Father and the Son is declared to be one and the same.
7. It was a bodily
weakness, then, that is to say, a weakness of ours, that He hungered;
when He wept, and was sorrowful even unto death, it was of our
nature. Why ascribe the properties and incidents of our nature to
the Godhead? That He was even, as we are told,
“made,” is a property of a body. Thus, indeed, we
read: “Sion our mother shall say: ‘He is a
man,’ and in her He was made man, and the Most High Himself laid
her foundations.” He could not
“be made” God if we use the Name “God” in its
proper sense, but St. Ambrose probably had in his mind the sense which
the Arians attached to the name, as applicable to the Son.
According to them, it was a sort of “courtesy-title.”
8. But what is He Who is at once the Most
High and man, what but “the Mediator between God and man, the man
Christ Jesus Who gave Himself as a ransom for us”? Cf.
Anselm. “Cur Deus Homo?” I. 5; II.
6.
9. Who indeed can deny that we have plain
evidence that Christ is the Most High? He who knows otherwise
makes the sacrament of Incarnation to be the work of God the
Father. The Incarnation was
a sacrament, being the outward visible sign of the divine love. S.
10. Again, whilst God is everywhere said to be One
God, the Son of God is not separated from this Unity. For He Who
is the
11. And so the adversaries’ injurious
conclusion is rejected with contempt and disgrace, which they drew from
the Scripture speaking of God: “Who alone hath immortality
and dwelleth in light unapproachable;”
12. If, indeed, wheresoever they read the
Name of God, they deny that there is any thought of the Son [as well as
the Father], they blaspheme, inasmuch as they deny the Son’s
Divine Sovereignty, and they shall appear as though they shared the
sinful error of the Sabellians in teaching the Incarnation of the
Father. Let them, indeed explain how they can fail to interpret
in a sense blasphemous to the Father the words of the Apostle:
“In Whom ye did also rise again, by faith in the working of God,
Who raised Him from the dead.”
13. We are not, then, to suppose that the
Father Who raised the flesh is alone [God]; nor, again, are we to
suppose the like of the Son, Whose Body
“Body”—in the orig.
“templum.” Cf. S.
14. We, however, can easily show that the
words treat of the Son’s action, for the Son Himself indeed
raised His own Body again, as He Himself said: “Destroy
this Temple, and in three days I will raise it again.” S. S. S.
That the Father and the Son must not be
divided That is, in
respect of substance or nature, though the Persons must be
distinguished.
15. When,
therefore, you read the Name “God,” separate neither Father
nor Son, for the Godhead of the Father and the Son is one and the same,
and therefore separate them not, when you read the words “blessed
and only Potentate,” That is to say,
God and Christ Jesus are united in the work of quickening.
16. The Word is in God, even as it is
written: “In God will I praise His Word.”
17. Furthermore, to show that he hath spoken of
the Incarnation of Christ, he added: “Who bore witness
under Pontius Pilate with the good confession,” [I charge thee]
“keep undefiled the commandment, until the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ,
18. Why, then, should there be no thought of
the Son in this place, seeing that all these things hold good of the
Son also? If they do not so, then deny His Godhead, and so mayest
thou deny what is proper to be said of God. His Blessedness
cannot be denied, Who bestows blessings, for “Blessed are they
whose iniquities are forgiven.”
19. But the immortality of His Nature is one
thing, that of ours is another. Things perishable are not to be
compared to things divine. The Godhead is the one only Substance
that death cannot touch, and therefore it is that the Apostle, though
knowing both the [human] soul and angels to be immortal, declared that
God only had immortality. In truth, even the soul may die:
“The soul that sinneth, it shall die,” “That is to
say, immortality is not of the essential nature of an angel as it is of
the essential Nature of God. For God’s existence is such
that He necessarily exists, He cannot but exist; His existence is not
derived from another, but is from the power of His essential Nature, or
rather is that very Nature. Not so with the angel, whose
existence is a gift of God, and so the angel’s existence is no
part of the idea of an angel, but is a property which is, so to speak,
added on from without and accessory to the conception of such a
being. Hence, in so far as an angel’s existence issues not
of the mere force of his essential properties, but only of the
Creator’s Will, we may say that by virtue of the said Will, not
by force of his own nature, he continues in existence, and so far is
immortal, although in another sense immortality may be called a natural
property of an angel, inasmuch as there is no created power whereby he
may be destroyed, and nothing in him that renders him liable to be
destroyed by God—nay rather, everything about him demands that,
once he is created, he should be for ever preserved in
being.”—H.
20. Do not hastily reject this, because
Gabriel dies not, nor Raphaël, nor Uriel. Hurter
observes that St. Ambrose understands mortality in a wide sense, as
including the capacity of any and every sort of change.
Immortality, then, in accordance with this definition, would connote
perfect absence of change. Hurter cites St. Bernard, § 81
in Cant.: “Omnis mutatio quædam mortis
imitatio…Si tot mortes quot mutationes, ubi
immortalitas?” and Plutarch, in Eusebius, Præpar.
Ev. XI. 12. Plutarch’s view perhaps owed something to
study of the reliques of Herachtus. Many fathers expounded
Angels
being by nature mutable, either for better or for worse, that is,
capable of good or evil, and so of death, are de facto sinless,
and hence need not, are not meet to be placed under, penal
discipline. Or the meaning may be that the angelic nature was not
created to be gradually taught in the way of holiness as human nature
was. The Arians
regarded the Son as immortal de gratia; the Orthodox esteem Him
immortal de jure, with true, absolute immortality.
21. Do we deny the immortality of
Christ’s Godhead, i.e. Is Christ
God in the true sense of the Name, or not? S.
22. And how is it that the Son dwelleth not
in light unapproachable, if He is in the bosom of the Father, if the
Father is Light, and the Son also is Light, because God is
Light? S. S.
23. On earth, the Son is not
without l.c. S.
S.
24. Lest you should regard this argument as
mere speculation take this sentence of authority. “No
man,” saith the Scripture, S. Greek ἐξηγήσατο,
“explained,” “expounded.” The Incarnation
has taught us something about God and about man that we never knew
before and never could have known by ourselves.
25. Observe now what the “solitude” of the Father and of the Son is. The Father is alone, because there is no other Father; the Son is alone, because there is no other Son; God is alone, because the Godhead of the Trinity is One.
We are told that Christ was only “made” so far as regards the flesh. For the redemption of mankind He needed no means of aid, even as He needed none in order to His Resurrection, whereas others, in order to raise the dead, had need of recourse to prayer. Even when Christ prayed, the prayer was offered by Him in His capacity as human; whilst He must be accounted divine from the fact that He commanded (that such and such things should be done). On this point the devil’s testimony is truer than the Arians’ arguments. The discussion concludes with an explanation of the reason why the title of “mighty” is given to the Son of Man.
26. It is now
sufficiently made plain that the Father is not God in solitude, without
the Son, and that the Son cannot be thought of as God alone, without
the Father, for it is in respect of His flesh
27. Indeed, in what sense He was
“made” He has declared by the mouth of the holy patriarch,
saying: “For My soul is filled with sorrow to overflowing,
and My life hath drawn near unto hell. I have been counted with
them that go down into the pit; I have been made as a man free, without
help, amongst the dead.” “Due” by
His own and the Father’s Will. Some reference also,
perhaps, to the preaching to the spirits in Hades, a necessary part of
our Lord’s work and ministry.
28. But how can the Son say here that He was
without help, when it has already been said: “I have laid
help upon One that is mighty”?
29. And though men also have raised the dead, still they did this not of their own power, but in the Name of Christ. To ask is one thing, to command is another; to obtain is different from bestowing.
30. Elijah, then, raised the dead, but he
prayed—he did not command.
See S.
32. We read, they objected, of His uttering
a prayer. S. S.
33. Let us not, then, be troubled if we find
the Son of Man entitled “mighty” in one place, and yet in
another, that the Lord of glory was crucified.
34. We have learnt, then, that He was made
man, and that His being made must be referred to His manhood.
Furthermore, in another passage of Scripture, you may read:
“Who was made for Him of the seed of David,”
Passages brought forward from Scripture to show that “made” does not always mean the same as “created;” whence it is concluded that the letter of Holy Writ should not be made the ground of captious arguments, after the manner of the Jews, who, however, are shown to be not so bad as the heretics, and thus the principle already set forth is confirmed anew.
35. At the same
time, becoming i.e.we
are not to infer from the fact that the Word became flesh, that
the Word is a created being. For that which becomes is already
existing—that which is created did not exist before it was
made. Lat.
“conversus ad salutem.” Note that it
is Christ Himself Who is our justification, etc., not a certain
course of life; in other words the saving power is not so much in the
mere example of Christ’s life on earth, but primarily and
necessarily in Himself, now seated in heaven at the Father’s
right hand, interceding for us, and communicating His grace, especially
through the sacraments. Cf.
36. The Lord’s Cross, then, is my
wisdom; the Lord’s Death my redemption; for we are redeemed with
His precious blood, as the Apostle Peter hath said. S.
38. And yet, of these two grievous
impieties, to ascribe to the Godhead what is true only of manhood is
perchance more detestable than to attribute to spirit what belongs only
to letter. The Jews feared to believe in manhood taken up into
God, and therefore have lost the grace of redemption, because they
reject that on which salvation depends; the Arians degrade the majesty
of Godhead to the weakness of humanity. Detestable as are the
Jews, who crucified the Lord’s flesh, more detestable still do I
hold them who have believed that the Godhead of Christ was nailed to
the Cross. So one who ofttimes had dealings with Jews said:
“An heretic avoid, after once reproving him”
39. Nor, again, are these men careful to
avoid doing dishonour to the Father, in their impious application of
the fact, that Christ was “made” Wisdom for us, to His
incomprehensible generation, that transcends all limits and divisions
of time; for, leaving it out of account that dishonour done to the Son
is an insult to the Father, they do even carry their blasphemy in
assault upon the Father, of Whom it is written: “Let God be
made truthful, but every man a liar.” Because generation
is quite distinct from absolute creation.
40. It would be a lengthy matter were I to
pass in review each several place where we read of His being
“made,” not indeed by nature, but by way of gracious
dispensation. Moses, for example, saith: “Thou art
made my Helper and Protector, to save me;”
In order to dispose of an objection grounded on a text in St. John, St. Ambrose first shows that the Arian interpretation lends countenance to the Manichæans; then, after setting forth the different ways of dividing the words in this same passage, he shows plainly that it cannot, without dishonour to the Father, be understood with such reference to the Godhead as the Arians give it, and expounds the true meaning thereon.
41. We have no
reason, therefore, to fear the argument which the Arians, in their
reckless manner of expounding, use to construct, showing that the Word
of God was “made,” for, say they, it is written:
“That which has been made in Him is life.” S.
42. First of all, let them understand that if they make the words “That which has been made” to refer to the Godhead, they entangle themselves in the difficulties raised by the Manichæans, for these people argue: “If that which has been made in Him is life, then there is something which has not been made in Him, and is death,” so that they may impiously bring in two principles. But this teaching the Church condemns.
43. Again, how can the Arians prove that the
Evangelist actually said this? The most part of those who are
learned in the Faith read the passage as follows: “All
things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that has
been made.” Others read thus: “All things were
made by Him, and without Him was nothing made.” Then they
proceed: “What has been made,” and to this they join
the words “in Him;” that is to say, “But whatsover is
has been made in Him.” But what mean the words “in
Him”? The Apostle tells us, when he says: “In
Him we have our being, and live, and move.”
44. Howbeit, let them read the passage as
they will, they cannot diminish the majesty of God the Word, in
referring to His Person, Latin
“substantia,” which here seems to be used in the
sense of the Greek “ὑποστασις.”
The distinction of Persons without division of the Godhead is
evidently what St. Ambrose here has in view. Loc.
cit. S. Or,
“which are done in,” i.e. “in accordance with,
under the impulse of, the Will of God.”
45. Just as the works, then, are the
expression of the will and power of God the Father, so are they of
Christ’s, even as we read: “Created in Christ in good
works;” A thing may
be said to be “created” relatively, as well as
absolutely—i.e. it may be “created” when newly
appointed for a certain purpose, as when men were “created”
consuls, which did not mean that before the convening of the centuries
they were absolutely non-existent.
Solomon’s words, “The Lord created Me,” etc., mean that Christ’s Incarnation was done for the redemption of the Father’s creation, as is shown by the Son’s own words. That He is the “beginning” may be understood from the visible proofs of His virtuousness, and it is shown how the Lord opened the ways of all virtues, and was their true beginning.
46. Hereby we are
brought to understand that the prophecy of the Incarnation, “The
Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His
works,”
47. His Godhead, then, is not by reason of
creation, but creation exists because of the Godhead; even as the
Apostle showed, saying that all things exist because of the Son of God,
for we read as follows: “But it was fitting that He,
through Whom and because of Whom are all things, after bringing many
sons to glory, should, as Captain of their salvation, be made perfect
through suffering.”
48. Now for the sake of what works the Lord
was “created” of a virgin, He Himself, whilst healing the
blind man, has shown, saying: “In Him must I work the works
of Him that sent Me.” S. S. S.
49. Nor is there any room for questioning
with respect to “the beginning,” seeing that when, during
His earthly life, He was asked, “Who art Thou?” He
answered: “The beginning, even as I tell
you.” S. Cf.
50. It is clear, then, that the words
“be S.
“secundum incarnationem,” “as a result
of the Incarnation.”
51. Now the ways of the Lord are, we may
say, certain courses taken in a good life, guided by Christ, Who says,
“I am the Way, and the Truth, and the Life.” S. Cf. the
“Te Deum,” ver. 17.
52. Christ, then, is the beginning of our
virtue. He is the beginning of purity, Who taught maidens not to
look for the embraces of men, Cf.
53. For this cause, then, that we might
learn these divers virtues, “a Son was given us, Whose beginning
was upon His shoulder.”
The prophecy of Christ’s Godhead and Manhood, contained in the verse of Isaiah just now cited, is unfolded, and its force in refuting various heresies demonstrated.
54. This beginning did Isaiah see, and therefore he says: “A Child is born, a Son is given to us,” as also did the Magi, and therefore worshipped they, when they saw the little One in the stable, and said: “A Child is born,” and, when they saw the star, declared, “A Son is given to us.” On the one hand, a gift from earth—on the other, a gift from heaven—and both are One Person, perfect in respect of each, without any changeableness in the Godhead, as without any taking away from the fulness of the Manhood. One Person did the Magi adore, to one and the same they offered their gifts, to show that He Who was seen in the stall was the very Lord of heaven.
55. Mark how the two verbs differ in their
import: “A Child is born, a Son is given.”
Though born of the Father, yet is He not born, but given to us,
forasmuch as the Son is not for our sakes, but we for the
Son’s. For indeed He was not born to us, being born before
us, and the maker of all things created: nor is He now brought to
life for the first time, Who was always, and was in the
beginning; S. S.
56. Some manuscripts read as follows:
“A Child is born to us a Son is given to us;” This is the
right rendering. See Driver’s Life and Times of
Isaiah, p. 30, note 2.
57. But note how this passage is as water upon fire to a crowd of heresies. “A Child is born to us,” not to the Jews; “to us,” not to the Manichæans; “to us,” not to the Marcionites. The prophet says “to us,” that is, to those who believe, not to unbelievers. And He indeed, in His pitifulness, was born for all, but it is the disloyalty of heretics that hath brought it to pass that the birth of Him Who was born for all should not profit all. For the sun is bidden to rise upon the good and the bad, but to them that see not there is no appearance of sunrise.
58. Even as the Child, then, is born not
unto all, but unto the faithful: so the Son is given to the
faithful and not to the unbelieving. He is given to us, not to
the Photinians; for they affirm that the Son of God was not given unto
us, but was born and first began to exist amongst us. To us is He
given, not to the Sabellians, who will not hear of a Son being given,
maintaining that Father and Son are one and the same. Unto us is
He given, not unto the Arians, in whose judgment the Son was not given
for salvation, but sent over subject and inferior, to whom, moreover,
He is no “Counsellor,” inasmuch as they hold that He knows
nought of the future, no Son, since they believe not in His eternity,
though of the Word of God it is written: “That which was in
the beginning;” and again: “In the beginning was the
Word.” S.
The preceding quotation from Solomon’s Proverbs receives further explanation.
59. Perchance you will ask how I came to cite, as referring to the Incarnation of Christ, the place, “The Lord created Me,” seeing that the creation of the universe took place before the Incarnation of Christ? But consider that the use of holy Scripture is to speak of things to come as though already past, and to make intimation of the union of two natures, Godhead and Manhood, in Christ, lest any should deny either His Godhead or His Manhood.
60. In Isaiah, for example, you may
read: “A Child is born unto us, and a Son is given unto
us;” so here also [in the Proverbs] the prophet sets forth first
the creation of the flesh, and joined thereto the declaration of the
Godhead, that you might know that Christ is not two, but One, being
both begotten of the Father before the worlds, and in the last
times
61. Again, immediately before the
declaration, “The Lord created Me,” He says, “I will
tell of the things which are from eternity,” and before saying,
“He begat,” He premised, “In the beginning, before He
made the earth, before all hills.” In its extent, the
preposition “before” reaches back into the past without end
or limit, and so “Before Abraham was, I am,” S.
62. Before all created things, then, is the
Son begotten; within all and for the good of all is He made; begotten
of the Father, above the Law, S.
Observations on the words of John the Baptist
(
63. But [say they]
it is written: “After me cometh a Man, Who is made before
me, because He was before me;” S.
64. I might argue: The Man [Christ Jesus] was in pre-existence so far as His body was foreknown, though His power is from everlasting—for both the Church and the Saints were foreordained before the worlds began. But here I lay aside this argument, and urge that the being made concerns not the Godhead, but the nature of the Incarnation, even as John himself said: “This is He of Whom I said: After me cometh a Man, Who was made before me.”
65. The Scripture, then, having, as I showed
above, discovered the twofold nature in Christ, that you might
understand the presence of both Godhead and Manhood, here begins with
the flesh; for it is the custom of Holy Writ to begin without fixed
rule sometimes with the Godhead of Christ, and descend to the visible
tokens of Incarnation; sometimes, on the other hand, to start from its
humility, and rise to the glory of the Godhead, as oftentimes in the
Prophets and Evangelists, and in St. Paul. Here, then, after this
use, the writer begins with the Incarnation of our Lord, and then
proclaims His Divinity, not to confound, but to distinguish, the human
and the divine. But Arians, like Jew vintners, Cf.
Athanasius, Third Oration Against the Arians, §
35—“But should any man, noticing the divinity revealed in
the action of the Word, deny the reality of the body, or marking the
things peculiar to the body, deny the presence of the Word in flesh or
judging from His human experiences and behaviour, conceive a low esteem
of the Word, such a person, like the Jew vintner, mixing water with his
wine, will hold the Cross a scandal, and, like a heathen philosopher,
regard the preaching as folly—which is just the state of the
ungodly followers of Arius.” Horace, Sat. I. v. 3,
4—“inde Forum Appî, Differtum nautis, cauponibus
atque malignis.”
66. I have no fears of a certain objection
they are likely to put forward, namely, that in the words cited we have
“a man”—for some have, “Who cometh after
me.” But here, too, let them observe what precedes.
“The Word,” it is said, “was made
flesh.” S.
67. Later on, St. John uses the lamb, that
“taketh away the sins of the world,” as an example; and to
teach you plainly the Incarnation of Him, of Whom he had spoken before,
he says: “This is He of Whom I said before: After me
cometh a Man, Who is made before me,” to wit, of Whom I said that
He was “made” as being man, not as being God.
However, to show that it was He Who was before the worlds, and none
other, that became flesh, lest we should suppose two Sons of God, he
adds: “because He was before me.” If the words
“was made” had referred to the divine generation, what need
was there that the writer should add this, and repeat himself?
But, having first said, with regard to the Incarnation only,
“After me cometh a Man, Who is made before me,” he
added: “because He was before me,” because it was
needful to teach the eternity of [Christ’s] Godhead; and this is
the reason why St. John acknowledged Christ’s priority, that He,
Who is His own Father’s eternal Power, may be presented as on
that account duly preferred. The explanation of
St. John Baptist’s words in the Fourth Gospel is to be found,
indeed, in the same Gospel (
68. But the abounding activity of the
spiritual understanding makes it a pleasing exercise to sally forth and
drive into a corner the Arians, who will understand the term
“made” in this passage, not of the manhood, but of the
Godhead [of Christ]. What ground, indeed, is left for them to
take their stand upon, when the Baptist has declared that “after
me cometh One Who is made before me,” that is, Who, though in the
course of earthly life He comes after me, yet is placed above the
degree of my worth and grace, and Who has title to be worshipped as
God. For the words “cometh after me” belong to an
event in time, but “was before me” signify Christ’s
eternity; and “is made before me” refer to His
pre-eminence, forasmuch as, indeed, the mystery of the Incarnation is
above human deserving. Or the meaning may
be understood by reference to the fact that in the Man Christ Jesus
there was seen, and felt, grace, authority, and power such as was more
than earthly, more than human. “Full of grace are Thy lips,
because God hath blessed thee for ever.” So it was that He
spake as never man spake, teaching with authority, and not as the
scribes.
70. The story is a simple one, but deep are its hidden meanings, for that which was done was the outward betokening of somewhat further. If indeed we should rack the sense so as to fit the letter exactly, we should almost find the words an occasion of a certain shame and horror, that we should regard them as intending and conveying the thought of common bodily intercourse; but it was the foreshadowing of One Who was to arise from Jewry—whence Christ was, after the flesh—Who should, with the seed of heavenly teaching, revive the seed of his dead kinsman, that is to say, the people, and to Whom the precepts of the Law, in their spiritual significance, assigned the sandal of marriage, for the espousals of the Church.
71. Moses was not the Bridegroom, for to him
cometh the word, “Loose thy shoe from off thy
foot,” S. S.
72. Christ alone, then, is the Bridegroom to Whom the Church, His bride, comes from the nations, and gives herself in wedlock; aforetime poor and starving, but now rich with Christ’s harvest; gathering in the hidden bosom of her mind handfuls of the rich crop and gleanings of the Word, that so she may nourish with fresh food her who is worn out, bereaved by the death of her son, and starving, even the mother of the dead people,—leaving not the widow and destitute, whilst she seeks new children.
73. Christ, then, alone is the Bridegroom,
grudging not even to the synagogue the sheaves of His harvest.
Would that the synagogue had not of her own will shut herself
out! She had sheaves that she might herself have gathered, but,
her people being dead, she, like one bereaved by the death of her son,
began to gather sheaves, whereby she might live, by the hand of the
Church—the which sheaves they who come in joyfulness shall carry,
even as it is written: “Yet surely shall they come with
joy, bringing their sheaves with them.”
74. Who, indeed, but Christ could dare to
claim the Church as His bride, whom He alone, and none other, hath
called from Libanus, saying: “Come hither from Libanus, my
bride; come hither from Libanus”?
75. Clearly we see, then, that both the man and the type point to the mystery of the Incarnation.
St. Ambrose returns to the main question, and shows that whenever Christ is said to have “been made” (or “become”), this must be understood with reference to His Incarnation, or to certain limitations. In this sense several passages of Scripture—especially of St. Paul—are expounded. The eternal Priesthood of Christ, prefigured in Melchizedek. Christ possesses not only likeness, but oneness with the Father.
76. When,
therefore, Christ is said to have been “made,” to have
“become,” the phrase relates, not to the substance of the
Godhead, but often to the Incarnation—sometimes indeed to a
particular office; for if you understand it of His Godhead, then God
was made into an object of insult and derision inasmuch as it is
written: “But thou hast rejected thy Christ, Or, as
E.V.—“Thine Anointed” (χριστὸς from
χρίω=anoint).
77. Mark how I repeat the phrase; so far am I from seeking to avoid it. Yet take notice in what sense He is “made.”
78. In the first place, “having made
purification, He sitteth on the right hand of Majesty on high, being
made so much better than the angels.”
79. In the next place, He is the Mediator of
a better covenant. But where there is testamentary disposition,
the death of the testator must first come to pass,
80. Furthermore, we are taught how He is
made “higher than the heavens.”
“Unspotted,” saith the Scripture,
81. Finally, the Apostle himself saith to
the Philippians, that “being made in the likeness of man, and
found in outward appearance as a man, He humbled Himself, being made
obedient even unto death.”
82. How many passages need we cite further
in evidence that His “being made” must be understood with
reference to His Incarnation, or to some particular dispensation?
Now whatsoever is made, the same is also created, for “He spake
and they were made; He gave also the word, and they were
created.”
83. Again, the Apostle himself, by declaring
that no worship is to be rendered to a created existence, has shown
that the Son has not been created, but begotten, of God.
84. Let us now review a whole
passage Viz.: the
complete section Particeps
noster—our partner, companion, sharing all our labours (and
taking the lion’s share, too).
85. Let us see what follows:
“For He did not indeed [straightway] put on Him the nature of
angels, but that of Abraham’s seed. And thus was He able to
be made like to His brethren in all things throughout, that He might
become a compassionate and faithful Prince, a Priest unto God, to make
propitiation for the sins of the people; for in that He Himself
suffered He is able also to help them that are tempted.
Wherefore, brethren most holy, ye who have each his share in a heavenly
calling, look upon the Apostle and High Priest of our confession,
Jesus, regard His faithfulness to His Creator, even as Moses was in his
house.”
86. You see what it is in respect whereof
the writer calls Him created: “In so far as He took upon
Him the seed of Abraham;” plainly asserting the begetting of a
body. How, indeed, but in His body did He expiate the sins of the
people? In what did He suffer, save in His body—even as we
said above: “Christ having suffered in the
flesh”? In what is He a priest, save in that which He took
to Himself from the priestly nation? “Priestly
nation.”—
87. It is a priest’s duty to offer
something, and, according to the Law, to enter into the holy places by
means of blood; seeing, then, that God had rejected the blood of bulls
and goats, this High Priest was indeed bound to make passage and entry
into the holy of holies in heaven through His own blood, in order that
He might be the everlasting propitiation for our sins. Priest and
victim, then, are one; the priesthood and sacrifice are, however,
exercised under the conditions of humanity, for He was led as a lamb to
the slaughter, and He is a priest after the order of
Melchizedek.
88. Let no man, therefore, when he beholds
an order of human establishment, contend that in it resides the claim
of Divinity; Orig.
“typum gerens Domini”—“bearing the stamp
of our Lord,” marked with His mark, as a coin is stamped with the
image and superscription of the king or other authority who issues
it.
89. This Melchizedek, then, have we received
as a priest of God made upon the model of Christ, but the one we regard
as the type, the other as the original. Now a type is a shadow of
the truth, and we have accepted the royalty of the one in the name of a
single city, but that of the other as shown in the reconciliation of
the whole world; for it is written: “God was in Christ,
reconciling the world to Himself;” Lat.
substantia.
90. But how, indeed, could our adversaries
justly deny this, even if they would, when the Scripture saith:
“But the Father, Who abideth in Me, even He doeth the
works;” and “The works that I do, He Himself
worketh”? S.
91. On the other hand, when He would have
similarity, not unity, of works, to be understood, He said:
“He that believeth in Me, the works which I do, shall he do
also.” S.
The kingdom of the Father and of the Son is one and undivided, so likewise is the Godhead of each.
92. I would now ask
how they suppose the kingdom of the Father and the Son to be divided,
when the Lord hath said, as we showed above: “Every kingdom
divided against itself shall be speedily overthrown.”
Orig.
“conservator.” This title must have reference
to the present work of Christ.
94. Now, if it be thought that Christ’s dominion alone is spoken of, and the place be therefore understood in such sense that the Father and the Son are regarded as divided in authority—yet it will be still acknowledged that it is the dominion of the Son, and that an eternal one, and thus not only will two kingdoms, separate, and so liable to fail, be brought in, but, furthermore, inasmuch as no kingdom is to be compared with God’s kingdom, which they cannot, however greatly they may desire to, deny to be the kingdom of the Son, they must either turn back upon their opinion, and acknowledge the kingdom of the Father and the Son to be one and the same; or they must ascribe to the Father the government of a lesser kingdom—which is blasphemy; or they must acknowledge Him, Whom they wickedly declare to be inferior in respect of Godhead, to possess an equal kingdom, which is inconsistent.
95. But this [their teaching] squares not, agrees not, holds not [with its premisses]. Let them confess, then, that the kingdom is one, even as we confess and prove, not indeed on our own evidence, but upon testimony vouchsafed from heaven.
96. To begin with, learn, from further
testimonies [of Scripture], how that the kingdom of heaven is also the
kingdom of the Son: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, that
there are some amongst those which stand here with us, who shall not
taste death, until they see the Son of Man coming into His
kingdom.” S.
97. Now learn that the kingdom of the Son is
the very same as the kingdom of the Father: “Verily, I say
unto you that there be some of those which stand around us, who shall
not taste death until they see the kingdom of God coming in
power.” S.
98. How can it but be one kingdom, above all
when the Son Himself hath said of Himself: “Then shall the
righteous shine like the sun in the kingdom of My
Father”? S. S.
99. Now learn that where the kingdom of God
is named, there is no putting aside of the authority either of the
Father or of the Son, because both the kingdom of the Father and the
kingdom of the Son is included under the single name of God,
saying: “When ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and
all the prophets, in the kingdom of God.” S. S.
100. How, then, can He not have in His power
that which He gives, saying: “To thee will I give the keys
of the kingdom of heaven”? S.
101. See now yet another proof that the
kingdom, the government, of the Father and the Son is one. It is
written in the Epistle to Timothy: “Paul, an apostle of
Jesus Christ, according to the government of God, our Saviour, and
Christ Jesus, our Hope.”
The majesty of the Son is His own, and equal to that of the Father, and the angels are not partakers, but beholders thereof.
103. Now, we having
already laid down that the Father and the Son are of one image and
likeness, Bk. I. vii. S. The
majesty of the Universal Judge cannot take its rise in or be derived
from any human or any created source—it must transcend all
created existences, even angels and archangels, cherubim and
seraphim—it must be eternal, divine.
104. Let our adversaries now hold it proved
beyond doubt that the majesty of the Father and of the Son is one,
forasmuch as the Lord Himself hath said: “For he who shall
be ashamed of Me and of My words, of Him shall the Son of Man be
ashamed, when He cometh in His majesty and His Father’s, and the
majesty of the holy angels.” S.
105. The Son, therefore, ascribed His majesty to His Father as well as to Himself, not, indeed, in such sort that the angels should share in that majesty on equal terms with the Father and the Son, but that they should behold the surpassing glory of God; for truly not even angels possess a majesty of their own, after the manner in which Scripture speaks of the Son: “When He shall sit upon the throne of His majesty,” but they stand in the presence, that they may see the glory of the Father and the Son, in such degrees of vision as they are either worthy of or able to bear.
106. Furthermore, the God-given words
themselves declare their own meaning, that you may understand that
glory of the Father and the Son not to be held in common with them by
angels, for thus they run: “But when the Son of Man shall
come in His majesty, and all the angels with Him.” Again,
to show that His Father’s majesty and glory and His own majesty
and glory are one and the same, our Lord Himself saith in another
book: “And the Son of Man shall confound him, when He shall
come in the glory of His Father, with the holy angels.” S. i.e. no
such gradation as will lead without a break from angels to the Father
through the Son, ignoring the difference of creature and Creator.
The Son is of one substance with the Father.
108. And now, your
Majesty, with regard to the question of the substance, why need I tell
you that the Son is of one substance
109. In virtue of this likeness Christ
said: “All things that the Father hath are
Mine.” S. Latin,
“subsistunt” subsist, persist, last through
changes. Even the ephemeris thus persists, subsists, or endures,
for its few hours of life.
110. And therefore, the Psalmist
saith: “My bones are not hidden, which Thou didst make in
secret, and my substance in the underworld.”
“Non est occultatum os meum quod fecisti in abscondito,
et substantia mea in inferioribus terræ.” The
Prayer-book version runs: “My bones are not hid from Thee,
though I be made secretly, and fashioned beneath in the
earth.”—
111. But it may be objected that the mention
of His substance is the consequence of His Incarnation. I have
shown that the word “substance” is used more than once, and
that not in the sense of inherited possessions, as you would construe
it. Now, if it please you, let us grant that, in accordance with
the mystic prophecy, the substance of Christ was present in the
underworld—for truly He did exert His power in the lower world to
set free, in the soul which animated His own body, the souls of the
dead, to loose the bands of death, to remit sins.
112. And, indeed, what hinders you from
understanding, by that substance, His divine substance, seeing that God
is everywhere, so that it hath been said to Him: “If I go
up into heaven, Thou art there; if I go down into hell, Thou art
present.”
113. Furthermore, the Psalmist hath in the
words following made it plain that we must understand the divine
substance to be mentioned when he saith: “Thine eyes did
see My being, [as] not the effect of working;”
114. Now I know that some assert that the mystic incarnate form was uncreated, forasmuch as nothing was done therein through intercourse with a man, because our Lord was the offspring of a virgin. If, then, many have, on the strength of this passage, asserted that neither that which was brought forth of Mary was produced by creative operation, dare you, disciple of Arius, think that the Word of God is something so produced?
115. But is this the only place where we
read of “substance”? Hath it not also been said in
another passage: “The gates of the cities are broken down,
the mountains are fallen, and His substance is
revealed”?
116. But let us remember what
mountains fell, those, namely, of which it hath been said:
“If ye shall have faith as a grain of mustard seed ye shall say
to this mountain: Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the
sea!” S.
117. Moreover, in the Greek, the rendering
is this: “The palaces are fallen.” What
palaces, save the palace of Satan, of whom the Lord said:
“How shall His kingdom stand?”
Regnumis used in Latin to denote a domain as well
as in the general sense of “kingdom.” Virg.,
Ecl. I. 70; S.
118. We behold that height, lifting up
itself against the knowledge of God, cast down by the word of the Lord,
when the Son of God said: “Hold thy peace, and come forth,
thou foul spirit.” S.
119. Those mountains, then, are
fallen, i.e. those
cities and nations and persons who have exalted themselves, lifted
themselves up as high mountains, challenging, as it were, the majesty
of heaven. Cf. S.
120. Nor has it escaped us, that in another
place also, setting forth the frailties of man’s estate, in order
to show that He had taken upon Himself the infirmity of the flesh, and
the affections of our minds, the Lord said, by the mouth of His
prophet: “Remember, O Lord, what My substance
is,” The text will then
be prophetic of the Agony in the Garden and upon the Cross.
121. Of Him the Scripture saith, in the
passage cited, Or, “thine
Anointed.” Cf.
“Holiness.” E.V.—“crown.”
122. Furthermore, what meaneth it that thou
readest: “Who hath stood in the truth
(substantia) of the Lord?” and again: “Now if
they had stood in My truth, and had given ear to My words, and
had taught My people, I would have turned them from their follies and
transgressions”? St.
Ambrose’s “substantia” is, in the LXX.,
ὑπόστημα—“standing-ground.”
R.V. “council.”—
The Arians, inasmuch as they assert the Son to be “of another substance,” plainly acknowledge substance in God. The only reason why they avoid the use of this term is that they will not, as Eusebius of Nicomedia has made it evident, confess Christ to be the true Son of God.
123. How can the
Arians deny the substance of God? i.e. how can
they say there is no Divine Substance, that the use of the term
“substance” is illegitimate?
124. It is not the term itself, then, but
its force and consequences, that they shun, because they will not
confess the Son of God to be true [God]. Or to be the
true Son of God, Son by nature, not by adoption.
125. What other reason can there be for their
unwillingness to have the Son spoken of as “ὁμοούσιος,”
of the same substance, with the Father, but that they are unwilling
Cf.
126. Vain, however, is their plea, that they
avoid the use of the term, because of the Sabellians; The Sabellians
reduced the distinction of Persons in the Trinity to a distinction of
three different self-manifestations of one and the same Person,
appearing at different times in different aspects or characters, as
“one man in his time plays many parts.” They,
therefore, would mean, if they said that the Son was ὁμοούσιος
with the Father, that He was identical with Him.
Another perverse use of the term supervened upon the argument that if
the Father and the Son were ὁμοοὐσιοι there
must be some οὐσία, identical with
neither, but in which both, so to speak, had a share, by virtue of
participation in which they existed and were what they were—a
theory which adapted the Platonic doctrine of Universal Ideas to
expound the mysteries of the Godhead. It was the perverse use of
the term by such persons as Paul of Samosata (condemned by the Synod of
Antioch, 269 a.d.) that caused it to be
received at first with suspicion even by the orthodox at the Nicene
Synod in 325 a.d. The true doctrine
would be to this effect, that in relation to the Persons, the Godhead
is not a separate, more comprehensive entity, existing independently,
and the fount of existence to each and all of the Persons—not as
the Platonic αὐτάνθρωπος
(ideal or archetypal man), for example, to the πολλοὶ
ἄνθρωποι (sundry
individuals), but is in each of the Persons fully and completely, yet
without destruction of its unity. The Godhead is a πρώτη
οὐσία, a single, individual
substance. So also is each One of the Three Persons—but
their inter-relation is such that neither is the Godhead anything apart
from them, nor they anything apart from the Godhead or from each
other. It is the Three together that constitute the
One Οὐσία or Essence, it is
the definition of this Essence that applies to Each of them equally,
without difference, whilst Each Person retains His Personal
characteristics and Personal (not natural or substantial)
“differentia.” Speaking logically, the Three
Persons are “of one definition;” speaking metaphysically,
they are “of one Essence.” Now both “of one
definition” and “of one essence” may be rendered
by ὁμοούσιοι.
127. Can they deny that the term
“οὐσία” is met with in
Scripture, when the Lord has spoken of bread, that is,
“ἐπιούσιος,” S. The derivation is
philologically incorrect, for οὐσία is formed upon the fem.
of the pres. part. of εἶναι, but for all that it
embodies a certain truth, inasmuch as οὐσία in its abstract use
denotes simple existence, without reference to conditions.
128. Let us, then, keep the precepts of our
forefathers, nor with rude and reckless daring profane the symbols
bequeathed to us. That sealed book of prophecy, whereof we have
heard, neither elders, nor powers, nor angels, nor archangels, ventured
to open; for Christ alone is reserved the peculiar right of opening
it. A reference to the
Synod of Ariminum. See Bk. I. xiii. 122.
In order to forearm the orthodox against the stratagems of the Arians, St. Ambrose discloses some of the deceitful confessions used by the latter, and shows by various arguments, that though they sometimes call the Son “God,” it is not enough, unless they also admit His equality with the Father.
129. Let none fear, let none tremble; he who threatens gives the advantage to the faithful. The soothing balms of deceitful men are poisoned—then must we be on our guard against them, when they pretend to preach that they do deny. Thus were those aforetime, who lightly trusted to them, deceived, so that they fell into the snares of treachery, when they thought all was good faith.
130. “Let him be accursed,” say
they, “who says that Christ is a creature, after the manner of
the rest of created beings.” Plain folks have heard this,
and put faith in it, for, as it is written, “the simple man
believes every word.” S.
131. For those are serpents, such as the
Gospel intends, who put off old habits, in order to put on new
manners: “Putting off the old man, together with his acts,
and putting on the new man, made in the image of Him Who created
him.”
132. It would have been sufficient to say, “Accursed be he who saith that Christ is a created being.” Why, then, Arian, dost thou mingle poison with the good that is in thy confession, and so defile the whole body of it? For by addition of “after the manner of the rest of created beings,” you deny not that Christ is a being created, but that He is a created being like [all] others—for created being you do entitle Him, albeit you assign to Him dignity transcending the rest of creation. Furthermore, Arius, the first teacher of this ungodly doctrine, said that the Son of God was a perfect created being, and not as the rest of created beings. See you, then, how that you have adopted language bequeathed you from your father. To deny that Christ is a being created is enough: why add “but not as the rest of beings created”? Cut away the gangrened part, lest the contagion spread—it is poisonous, deadly.
133. Again, you say sometimes that Christ is
God. Nay, but so call Him true God, as meaning, that you
acknowledge Him to possess the fulness of the Father’s
Godhead—for there are gods, so called, alike in heaven or upon
earth. The name “God,” then, is not to be used as a
mere manner of address and mention, but with the understanding that you
affirm, of the Son, that same Godhead which the Father hath, as it is
written: “For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath
He given to the Son also to have life in Himself;” S.
134. “And He hath given Him power to
execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.” S. S.
135. Why is it that you recount “with insistence” and in such sincere language, Christ’s raising the dead to life, walking upon the waters, healing the sicknesses of men? These powers, indeed, He has given to His bondmen to display as well as Himself. They do the more arouse my wonder when seen present in men, forasmuch as God hath given them power so great. I would hear somewhat concerning Christ that is His distinctly and peculiarly, and cannot be held in common with Him by created beings, now that He is begotten, the only Son of God, very God of very God, sitting at the Father’s right hand.
136. Wheresoever I read of the Father and Son sitting side by side, I find the Son always upon the right hand. Is that because the Son is above the Father? Nay, we say not so; but He Whom God’s love honours is dishonoured by man’s ungodliness. The Father knew that doubts as concerning the Son must needs be sown, and He hath given us an example of reverence for us to follow after, lest we dishonour the Son.
An objection based on St. Stephen’s vision of the Lord standing is disposed of, and from the prayers of the same saint, addressed to the Son of God, the equality of the Son with the Father is shown.
137. There is just
one place, in which Stephen hath said that he saw the Lord Jesus
standing at the right hand of God.
138. Receive thou also the Spirit of God,
that thou mayest discern those things, even as Stephen received the
Spirit; and thou mayest say, as the martyr said: “Behold, I
see the heavens opened, and the Son of Man standing at the right hand
of God.”
139. But if any urge in objection that the Son was standing, let them show upon this passage that the Father was seated, for though Stephen said that the Son of Man was standing, still he did not further say here that the Father was sitting.
140. Howbeit, to make it more abundantly
clear and known that the standing implied no dishonour, but rather
sovereignty, Stephen prayed to the Son, being desirous to commend
himself the more to the Father, saying: “Lord Jesu, receive
my spirit.”
141. Otherwise, if our opponents will have it that Stephen addressed himself to the Father, let them consider what, on their own showing, they affirm. We indeed are unmoved by their arguments; howbeit, let them, to whom the letter and sequence is all important, take notice that the first petition is addressed to the Son. Now we, even on their understanding of the passage, prove from it the unity of the Father’s and the Son’s majesty; for when the Son is addressed in prayer as well as the Father, the equality which the prayer assigns points to unity in action. But if they will not allow that the Son was addressed with the title “Lord,” we see that they do indeed seek to deny that He is Lord.
142. Seeing, however, that so great a martyr’s crown has been brought forth, let us abate the eagerness of disputation, and bring to-day’s discourse to a close. Let us sing the praises of the holy martyr, as is fitting always after a mighty conflict—the martyr bleeding indeed from the enemy’s blows, but rewarded with the crown bestowed by Christ.
The marvel is, not that men have failed to know Christ, but that they have not listened to the words of the Scriptures. Christ, indeed, was not known, even of angels, save by revelation, nor again, by His forerunner. Follows a description of Christ’s triumphal ascent into heaven, and the excellence of its glory over the assumption of certain prophets. Lastly, from exposition of the conversation with angels upon this occasion, the omnipotence of the Son is proved, as against the Arians.
1. On consideration, your Majesty, of the reason wherefore men have so far gone astray, or that many—alas!—should follow diverse ways of belief concerning the Son of God, the marvel seems to be, not at all that human knowledge has been baffled in dealing with superhuman things, but that it has not submitted to the authority of the Scriptures.
2. What reason, indeed, is there to wonder,
if by their worldly wisdom men failed to comprehend the mystery of God
the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, in Whom all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge are hidden,
4. Even Christ’s forerunner, though
only in so far as representing the synagogue, St. Ambrose
perhaps meant that John Baptist had, for a space, lost the prophetic
Light, when he doubted, and sent disciples to enquire of Jesus.
The darkness of the dungeon had drawn a cloud over the prisoner’s
soul, and for a time he was in the state described by S.
5. Angels, too, stood spellbound in wonder at the heavenly mystery. And so, when the Lord rose again, and the heights of heaven could not bear the glory of His rising from the dead, Who of late, so far as regarded His flesh, had been confined in the narrow bounds of a sepulchre, even the heavenly hosts doubted and were amazed.
6. For a Conqueror came, adorned with wondrous spoils, the Lord was in His holy Temple, before Him went angels and archangels, marvelling at the prey wrested from death, and though they knew that nothing can be added to God from the flesh, because all things are lower than God, nevertheless, beholding the trophy of the Cross, whereof “the government was upon His shoulder,” and the spoils borne by the everlasting Conqueror, they, as if the gates could not afford passage for Him Who had gone forth from them, though indeed they can never o’erspan His greatness—they sought some broader and more lofty passage for Him on His return—so entirely had He remained undiminished by His self-emptying.
7. However, it was meet that a new way should be prepared before the face of the new Conqueror—for a Conqueror is always, as it were, taller and greater in person than others; but, forasmuch as the Gates of Righteousness, which are the Gates of the Old and the New Testament, wherewith heaven is opened, are eternal, they are not indeed changed, but raised, for it was not merely one man but the whole world that entered, in the person of the All-Redeemer.
8. Enoch had been translated, Elias caught
up, but the servant is not above his Master. For “No man
hath ascended into heaven, but He Who came down from
heaven;” S.
9. And therefore [the angels] descrying the
approach of the Lord of all, first and only Vanquisher of Death, bade
their princes that the gates should be lifted up, saying in adoration,
“Lift up the gates, such as are princes amongst you, and be ye
lifted up, O everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come
in.”
10. Yet there were still, even amongst the
hosts of heaven, some that were amazed, overcome with astonishment at
such pomp and glory as they had never yet beheld, and therefore they
asked: “Who is the King of glory?”
11. Others, again,—those, to wit, who had been present at His rising again, those who had seen or who already recognized Him,—made reply: “It is the Lord, strong and mighty, the Lord mighty in battle.”
12. Then, again, sang the multitude of angels, in triumphal chorus: “Lift up the gates, O ye that are their princes, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall come in.”
13. And back again came the challenge of
them that stood astonished: “Who is that King of
glory? For we saw Him having neither form nor
comeliness;
14. Whereto answer they which know:
“The Lord of Hosts, He is the King of glory.”
Therefore, the Lord of Hosts, He is the Son. How then do the
Arians call Him fallible, Whom we believe to be Lord of Hosts, even as
we believe of the Father? How can they draw distinctions between
None can ascend to heaven without faith; in any case, he who hath so ascended thither will be cast out wherefore, faith must be zealously preserved. We ourselves each have a heaven within, the gates whereof must be opened and be raised by confession of the Godhead of Christ, which gates are not raised by Arians, nor by those who seek the Son amongst earthly things, and who must therefore, like the Magdalene, be sent back to the apostles, against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail. Scriptures are cited to show that the servant of the Lord must not diminish aught of his Master’s honour.
15. What shall we do, then? How shall we ascend unto heaven? There, powers are stationed, principalities drawn up in order, who keep the doors of heaven, and challenge him who ascends. Who shall give me passage, unless I proclaim that Christ is Almighty? The gates are shut,—they are not opened to any and every one; not every one who will shall enter, unless he also believes according to the true Faith. The Sovereign’s court is kept under guard.
16. Suppose, however, that one who is
unworthy hath crept up, hath stolen past the principalities who keep
the gates of heaven, hath sat down at the supper of the Lord; when the
Lord of the banquet enters, and sees one not clad in the wedding
garment of the Faith, He will cast him into outer darkness, where is
weeping and gnashing of teeth, S.
17. Let us, therefore, keep the wedding
garment which we have received, and not deny Christ that which is His
own, Whose omnipotence angels announce, prophets foretel, apostles
witness to, even as we have already shown above. Bk. II.
iv.
18. Perchance, indeed, the prophet hath
spoken of His entering in not only with regard to the gates of the
universal heaven; for there be other heavens also whereinto the Word of
God passeth, whereof it is said: “We have a great Priest, a
High Priest, Who hath passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of
God.”
19. For Christ standeth at the door of thy
soul. Hear Him speaking. “Behold, I stand at the
door, and knock: if any man open to Me, I will come in to him,
and I will sup with him, and he with Me.”
20. He stands, then—but not alone, for
before Him go angels, saying: “Lift up the gates, O ye the
princes.” What gates? Even those of the which the
Psalmist sings in another place also: “Open to me the gates
of righteousness.”
21. Believe the message of the angels:
“Be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the King of glory shall
come in, the Lord of Sabaoth.” Thy gate is the loud
confession made with faithful voice; it is the door of the Lord, which
the Apostle desires to have opened for him, as he says:
“That a door of the word may be opened for me, to proclaim the
mystery of Christ.”
22. Let thy gate, then, be opened to Christ, and let it be not only opened, but lifted up, if, indeed, it be eternal and not condemned to ruin; for it is written: “And be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors.” The lintel was lift up for Isaiah, when the seraph touched his lips and he saw the Lord of Sabaoth.
23. Thy gates shall be lifted up, then, if thou believest the Son of God to be eternal, omnipotent, above and beyond all praise and understanding, knowing all things, both past and to come, whilst if thou judgest Him to be of limited power and knowledge, and subordinate, thou liftest not up the everlasting doors.
24. Be thy gates lifted up, then, that Christ may
come in unto thee, not such a Christ as the Arians take Him to
be—petty, and weak, and menial—but Christ in the form of
God, Christ with the Father; that He may enter such as He is, exalted
above the heaven and all things; and that He may send forth upon thee
His Holy Spirit. It is expedient
S.
25. But if thou shouldst seek Him amongst
earthly beings, even as Mary of Magdala sought Him, take heed lest He
say to thee, as unto her: “Touch Me not, for I am not yet
ascended unto My Father.” S.
26. Go thy way, therefore, to my
brethren—that is, to those everlasting doors, which, as soon as
they see Jesus, are lifted up. Peter is an “everlasting
door,” against whom the gates of hell shall not prevail. S. S.
27. Great, therefore, is the mystery of
Christ, before which even angels stood amazed and bewildered. For
this cause, then, it is thy duty to worship Him, and, being a servant,
thou oughtest not to detract from thy Lord. Ignorance thou mayest
not plead, for to this end He came down, that thou mayest believe; if
thou believest not, He has not come down for thee, has not suffered for
thee. “If I had not come,” saith the Scripture,
“and spoken with them, they would have no sin: but now have
they no excuse for their sin. He that hateth Me, hateth My Father
also.” S. Orig.
“derogare.” Derogare was a Roman
law-term, meaning to repeal a law in part, to restrict or modify
it—hence it came to be used generally of diminishing or taking
away from anything already established.
The words, “The head of every man is Christ…and the head of Christ is God” misused by the Arians, are now turned back against them, to their confutation. Next, another passage of Scripture, commonly taken by the same heretics as a ground of objection, is called in to show that God is the Head of Christ, in so far as Christ is human, in regard of His Manhood, and the unwisdom of their opposition upon the text, “He who planteth and He who watereth are one,” is displayed. After which explanations, the meaning of the doctrine that the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father, and that the faithful are in Both, is expounded.
28. Now let us
examine some other objections raised by the Arians. It is
written, say they, that “the head of every man is Christ, and the
head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.”
29. But if this conclusion be not satisfactory, by reason of its impiety, let them divide, on what principle they will. Thus, if they will have it that Christ stands to God the Father in the same relation as woman to man, then surely they pronounce Christ and God to be of one substance, inasmuch as woman and man are of one nature in respect of the flesh, for their difference is in respect of sex. But, seeing that there is no difference of sex between Christ and His Father, they will acknowledge then that which is one, and common to the Son and the Father, in respect of nature, whereas they will deny the difference lying in sex.
30. Does this conclusion content them? Or
will they have woman, man, and Christ to be of one substance, and
distinguish the Father from them? Will this, then, serve their
turn? Suppose that it will, then observe what they are brought
to. They must either confess themselves not merely Arians, but
very Photinians, because they acknowledge only the Manhood of Christ,
Whom they judge fit only to be placed on the same scale with human
beings. Or else they must, however contrary to their leanings,
subscribe to our belief, by which we dutifully and in godly fashion
maintain that which they have come at by an im
“After” somewhat as in “Neither reward us
after our iniquities”—i.e. (1) according to,
and so (2) “by virtue of.” Here the second stage of
the metaphorical usage seems to be arrived at. Referring to
Christ’s sinlessness.
31. Let God, then, be the Head of Christ, with regard to the conditions of Manhood. Observe that the Scripture says not that the Father is the Head of Christ; but that God is the Head of Christ, because the Godhead, as the creating power, is the Head of the being created. And well said [the Apostle] “the Head of Christ is God;” to bring before our thoughts both the Godhead of Christ and His flesh, implying, that is to say, the Incarnation in the mention of the name of Christ, and, in that of the name of God, oneness of Godhead and grandeur of sovereignty.
32. But the saying, that in respect of the
Incarnation God is the Head of Christ, leads on to the principle that
Christ, as Incarnate, is the Head of man, as the Apostle has clearly
expressed in another passage, where he says: “Since man is
the head of woman, even as Christ is the Head of the
Church;”
33. The Head of Christ, then, is God, in so far as His form of a servant, that is, of man, not of God, is considered. But it is nothing against the Son of God, if, in accordance with the reality of His flesh, He is like unto men, whilst in regard of His Godhead He is one with the Father, for by this account of Him we do not take aught from His sovereignty, but attribute compassion to Him.
34. But who can with a good conscience deny
the one Godhead of the Father and the Son, when our Lord, to complete
His teaching for His disciples, said: “That they may be
one, even as we also are one.” S.
35. Thus with abundant clearness we disprove
the objection commonly raised by Arians, in order to loosen the Divine
Unity, on the ground that it is written: “But he who
planteth and he who watereth are one.” This passage the
Arians, if they were wise, would not quote against us; for how can they
deny that the Father and the Son are One, if Paul and Apollos are one,
both in nature and in faith? At the same time, we do grant that
these cannot be one throughout, in all relations, because things human
cannot bear comparison with things divine. The citation is
from
36. No separation, then, is to be made of the Word from God the Father, no separation in power, no separation in wisdom, by reason of the Unity of the Divine Substance. Again, God the Father is in the Son, as we ofttimes find it written, yet [He dwells in the Son] not as sanctifying one who lacks sanctification, nor as filling a void, for the power of God knows no void. Nor, again, is the power of the one increased by the power of the other, for there are not two powers, but one Power; nor does Godhead entertain Godhead, for there are not two Godheads, but one Godhead. We, contrariwise, shall be One in Christ through Power received [from another] and dwelling in us.
37. The letter [of the unity] is common, but
the Substance of God and the substance of man are different. We
shall be, the Father and the Son [already] are, one; we shall be one by
grace, the Son is so by substance. Again, unity by conjunction is
one thing, unity by nature another. Finally, observe what it is
that Scripture hath already recorded: “That they may all be
one, as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee.” S.
38. Mark now that He said not “Thou in us,
and we in Thee,” but “Thou in Me, and I in Thee,” to
place Himself apart from His creatures. Further He added:
“that they also may be in Us,” in order to separate here
His dignity and His Father’s from us,
The passage quoted adversely by heretics, namely, “The Son can do nothing of Himself,” is first explained from the words which follow; then, the text being examined, word by word, their acceptation in the Arian sense is shown to be impossible without incurring the charge of impiety or absurdity, the proof resting chiefly on the creation of the world and certain miracles of Christ.
39. Again, another
objection that the Arians bring up, denying that the Power of the
Father and the Son can be one and the same, is rested on His
saying: “Verily, verily, I say unto you; the Son can do
nothing of Himself, but what He hath seen the Father
doing.” S.
40. O wise foreknowledge of the arguments of
unbelievers, which made further provision of means whereby to answer
questions, by adding the words that follow: “For whatsoever
the Father doeth, the same doeth the Son also, in like
fashion,” S.
41. But to put their proofs in turn upon trial: I would have them answer the question, whether the Son sees the works of the Father. Does He see, I ask, or not? If He sees them, then He also does them; if He does them, let heretics cease to deny the omnipotence of Him Whom they confess able to do all things that He has seen the Father doing.
42. But what are we to understand by
“hath seen”? Has the Son any need of bodily
eyes? Nay, if they will affirm this of the Son, they will make
out in the Father also a need of bodily activity, i.e. that
the Father is not a Spirit (S.
43. Furthermore, what mean the words:
“The Son can do nothing of Himself”? Let us put this
question, and debate it. Now is there anything impossible to
God’s Power and Wisdom? These, observe, are names of the
Son of God, Whose Might is certainly not a gift received from another,
but just as He is the Life, S.
44. How, then, does Power assert, as it
were, under oath: “Verily, verily I say unto you,”
which means: “Of a truth, of a truth, I tell
you”? S. Namely, the
error of postulating two mutually exclusive infinites.
45. Tell me, Lord, when Thou sawest Thy
Father incarnate, and walking upon the sea, for I know not, I hold it
impious to believe this thing of the Father, knowing that Thou only
hast taken our flesh upon Thee. When sawest Thou the Father at a
marriage-feast, turning water into wine? S.
46. When they say, “The Son can do
nothing of Himself,” they indeed except nothing, so that one
blasphemer has even said: “He cannot make even a
gnat,” As a matter of
fact, gnats and insects generally are far from being the least
wonderful of God’s works. In them as much as, if not more
than, in anything we may recognize His eternal power and wisdom and
Godhead. Cf.
47. But neither did the Father make the
earth without Thee, for it is written: “All things were
made by Him, and without Him was not anything made.” S.
48. But if heretics deny that either the
heavens or the earth were made by Thee, let them take heed into what a
gulf they are by their own madness hurling themselves, seeing that it
is written: “Perish the gods, which have not made heaven
and earth.”
Continuing the exposition of the disputed passage, which he had begun, Ambrose brings forward four reasons why we affirm that something cannot be, and shows that the first three fail to apply to Christ, and infers that the only reason why the Son can do nothing of Himself is His Unity in Power with the Father.
49. In what sense can the Son do nothing of Himself? Let us ask what it is that He cannot do. There are many different sorts of impossibilities. One thing is naturally impossible, another is naturally possible, but impossible by reason of some weakness. Again, there are things which are rendered possible by strength, impossible by unskilfulness or weakness, of body and mind. Further, there are things which it is impossible to change, by reason of the law of an unchangeable purpose, the endurance of a firm will, and, again, faithfulness in friendship.
50. To make this clearer, let us consider the matter in the light of examples. It is impossible for a bird to pursue a course of learning in any science or become trained to any art: it is impossible for a stone to move in any direction, inasmuch as it can only be moved by the motion of another body. Of itself, then, a stone is incapable of moving, and passing from its place. Again, an eagle cannot be taught in the ways of human learning.
51. It is, to take another example,
impossible for a sick man to do a strong man’s work; but in this
case the reason of the impossibility is of a different kind, for the
man is rendered unable, by sickness, to do what he is naturally capable
of doing. In this case, then, the cause of the impossibility is
sickness, and this kind of impossibility is different from the first,
since the man is hindered by bodily weakness from the possibility of
doing. Cf.
Aristotle, Eth. Nic. I. viii. 15.
52. Again, there is a third cause of
impossibility. A man may be naturally capable, and his bodily
health may allow of his doing some work, which he is yet unable to do
by reason of want of skill, or because his rank in life disqualifies
him; because, that is, he lacks the required learning or is a
slave. Cf.
Aristotle, Eth. Nic. I. viii. 15.
53. Which of these three different causes of
impossibility, think you, which we have enumerated (setting aside the
fourth) can we meetly assign to the case of the Son of God? Is He
naturally insensible and immovable, like a stone? He is indeed a
stone of stumbling to the wicked, a cornerstone for the
faithful;
54. Perchance we may suppose some things were made
impossible for Him by reason of weakness. But He was not weakly
Who could heal the weaknesses of others by His word of authority.
Seemed
S. S.
S.
55. Unless, peradventure, you thought it was
weakness, you wretches, when you saw His wounds. Truly, they were
wounds piercing His Body, but there was no weakness betokened by that
wound, whence flowed the Life of all, and therefore was it that the
prophet said: “By His stripes we are
healed.” S.
56. Here, indeed, our adversaries may
perchance enquire: “How can the Father and the Son be One,
if the Son at one time commands, at another entreats?”
True, They are One; true also, He both commands and prays: yet
whilst in the hour when He commands He is not alone, so also in the
hour of prayer He is not weak. He is not alone, for whatsoever
things the Father doeth, the same things doeth the Son also, in like
manner. He is not weak, for though in the flesh He suffered
weakness for our sins yet that was the chastisement of our peace upon
Him,
57. Moreover, that thou mayest know that it
is after His Manhood that He entreats, and in virtue of His Godhead
that He commands, it is written for thee in the Gospel that He said to
Peter: “I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail
not.” S.
S.
58. We see, then, that two sorts of
impossibility furnish no explanation, i.e. we
are not to suppose that in S. S. S.
59. Yet if our enemies sunder Thee from the Creator, as being unskilled, let them see how they affirm that skill was lacking to Thee, that is to say, to the Divine Wisdom; for all that, however, they cannot divide the unity of substance that Thou hast with the Father. It is not, indeed, by nature, but by reason of ignorance, that the difference exists between the craftsman and the unskilled; but neither is handicraft attributable to the Father, nor ignorance to Thee, for there is no such thing as ignorant wisdom.
60. Therefore, if insensibility is no attribute of the Son, and if neither weakness, nor ignorance, nor servility, let unbelievers put it to their minds for meditation that both by nature and sovereignty the Son is One with the Father, and by its working His power is not at cross-purpose with the Father, inasmuch as “all things that the Father hath done, the Son doeth likewise,” for no one can do in like fashion the same work that another has done, unless he shares in the unity of the same nature, whilst he is also not inferior in method of working.
61. Yet I would still enquire what it
is that the Son cannot do, unless He see the Father doing it. I
will take the fool’s line, and propound some examples drawn from
things of a lower world. “I am become a fool; ye have
compelled me.”
62. How, then, does the Son see the Father? A horse sees a painting, which naturally it is unable to imitate. Not thus does the Son behold the Father. A child sees the work of a grown man, but he cannot reproduce it; certainly not thus, again, does the Son see the Father.
63. If, then, the Son can, by virtue of a
common hidden power of the same nature which He has with the Father,
both see and act in an invisible manner, and by the fulness of His
Godhead execute every decree of His Will, what remains for us but to
believe that the Son, by reason of indivisible unity of power, does
nothing, save what He has seen the Father doing, forasmuch as because
of His incomparable love the Son does nothing of Himself, since He
wills nothing that is against His Father’s Will? Which
truly is the proof not of weakness but of unity. Our Lord did not
simply assert that He and His Father are One, without revealing to
those, at least, who had faith to perceive it, what is one great bond
of that Unity, showing men, so far as man can comprehend the matter,
what that Unity consists in, viz., absolute and perfect harmony of
will.
The fourth kind of impossibility (§49) is now taken into consideration, and it is shown that the Son does nothing that the Father approves not, there being between Them perfect unity of will and power.
64. The Son,
moreover,—to consider now our fourth premiss,—is not
self-assertive, for He, the Divine Assessor, Lat.
“consiliarius.” Cf.
65. Now, did the Father say on that
occasion, “Let there be such light as I Myself have made,”
or “Let there be light”—light having as yet not
existed; or did the Son ask what sort of light the Father
made? Or “what
sort of thing He made it to be.” How could the Son ask such
a question, being Himself the true Light? S.
66. Again, if, as Arian, expositions of the Scriptures make out, it is a discredit to the Son to have made what He saw, whereas the Scriptures present Him as having made what He [before] saw not, and to have given being to things which as yet were not, what should they say of the Father, Who praised that He had seen, as though He could not have foreseen the things that were to be made?
67. The Son, therefore, sees the Father’s work in like manner as the Father sees the Son’s, and the Father praises not the work as one would praise work of another’s doing, but recognizes it as His own, for “whatsoever things the Father hath done, the same doeth the Son, in like manner.” [So was it written, that] you might understand one and the same work to be the work both of the Father and of the Son. And thus the Son does nothing save what is approved of by the Father, praised by the Father, willed by the Father, because His whole Being is of the Father; and He is not as the created being, which commits many faults, ofttimes offending the Will of its Creator, in lusting after and falling into sin. Nought, then, is of the Son’s doing, save what is pleasing to the Father, forasmuch as one Will, one Purpose, is Theirs, one true Love, one effect of action.
68. Furthermore, to prove to you that it comes of Love, that the Son can do nothing of Himself save what He hath seen the Father doing, the Apostle has added to the words, “Whatsoever the Father hath done, the same things doeth the Son also, in like manner,” this reason: “For the Father loveth the Son,” and thus Scripture refers the Son’s inability to do, whereof it testifies, to unity in Love that suffers no separation or disagreement.
69. But if the inseparableness of the
Persons in Love rest, as it truly does, upon [identity of] nature, then
surely they are also inseparable, for the same reason, in action, and
it is impossible that the work of the Son should not be in agreement
with the Father’s Will, when what the Son works, the Father works
also, and what the Father works, the Son works also, and what the Son
speaks, the Father speaks also, as it is written: “My
Father, Who dwelleth in Me, He it is that speaketh, and the works that
I do He Himself doeth.” S.
70. Not without the Father does He work; not
without His Father’s Will did He offer Himself for that most holy
Passion, the Victim slain for the salvation of the whole
world; S. Lat.
“ex personæ hominis incarnati
susceptione.” St. Ambrose does not mean that there were
two Persons in Christ—the Divine Logos or Word and the man
Jesus. “Persona” is here used in its dramatic
rather than its strict theological sense.
71. Again, we cannot suppose that the Father hears not all, whatsoever the Son’s will resolves; and to show that He is always heard by the Father, not as a servant, not as a prophet, but as Son, He said: “And I knew that Thou dost always hear Me, but for the sake of the multitude which standeth round I spake, that they may believe that Thou hast sent Me.”
72. It is for our sakes, therefore, that He renders thanks, lest we should suppose that the Father and the Son are one and the same Person, when we hear of one and the same work being wrought by the Father and the Son. Further, to show us that His rendering of thanks had not been the tribute due from one wanting in power, that, on the contrary, He, as Son of God, ever claimed for Himself the possession of divine authority, He cried, “Lazarus, come forth.” Here, surely, is the voice of command, not of prayer.
The doctrine had in view for enforcement is corroborated by the truth that the Son is the Word of the Father—the Word, not in the sense in which we understand the term, but a living and active Word. This being so, we cannot deny Him to be of the same Will, Power, and Substance with the Father.
73. To return, however, to what we had in hand before, and finish the task set before us. The Son, as the Word, carries out His Father’s Will. Now, a word, as we understand and use it, is an utterance. There are syllables and sounds, which, however, are not at variance with the thought of our mind, and what we apprehend and are affected by inwardly we give token of by the testimony of the spoken word, which, as it were, works [for us]. But the words we speak have no direct efficacy in themselves, it is the Word of God alone, which is neither an utterance, nor an “inward concept,” as they call it, but works efficaciously, is living, and has healing power.
74. Wouldst thou know what is the nature of
the Word—hear the Scriptures. “For the Word of God is
living and mighty, yea, working effectually, sharp and keener than any
the sharpest sword, piercing even to the sundering of soul and spirit,
of limbs and marrow.”
75. Hearest thou, then, the Word of God, and wilt separate Him from the Father’s Will and Power? Thou hearest Him called the living Word, the healing Word—seek not then to compare Him with the word of our mouth; for if the word we utter, though it have not eyes to see, nor ears to hear, yet speaks, and still the knowledge of what it speaks is wrought by virtue of hidden mysteries of man’s nature, how can he escape the charge of blasphemy, who requires that some sort of bodily vision and hearing shall go along with the Godhead in the Word of God, and thinks that the Son can do nothing of Himself, save what He shall have seen the Father doing, though (as we have said) there is in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit the same Will, both to do and not to do, and the same Power, by reason of unity in the same substance.
76. But if, though men are, as a rule, different in respect of their thoughts and feelings, they yet agree as to the meaning of a single proposition, what ought we to think as concerning the Father and the Son of God, seeing that in the Substance of the Godhead there is that is imitated by human love?
77. Let us, however, suppose—as our
adversaries would have it—that the Son does, as it were, copy the
pattern of that which He has seen His Father doing. But
The heretical objection, that the Son cannot be equal to the Father, because He cannot beget a Son, is turned back upon the authors of it. From the case of human nature it is shown that whether a person begets offspring or not, has nothing to do with his power. Most of all must this be true since, otherwise, the Father Himself would have to be pronounced wanting in power. Whence it follows that we have no right to judge of divine things by human, and must take our stand upon the authority of Holy Writ, otherwise we must deny all power either to the Father or to the Son.
78. There is a fool’s demurrer, your Majesty, which certain persons are given to raising, in order to show the Father and the Son to be not equal together, saying that the Father is Almighty, because He hath begotten the Son, but that the Son is not Almighty, because He hath not been able to beget.
79. But see how wild is their blasphemy, how their philosophers’ logic confutes itself. For the raising of this question must lead either to their confessing with their own mouths that the Son is co-eternal with the Father, or, if they impose a beginning upon the Son’s existence, to their assigning of necessity a beginning to the Father’s power. When, therefore, they deny that the Son is Almighty, they are on the road to assert—which is impious—that the Father began to be Almighty by help of the Son.
80. For if the Father is Almighty by reason
of begetting the Son, then, certainly, either the Son is co-eternal
with the Father, because if the Father is eternally Almighty, then the
Son also is eternal, or, if there was a time when there was not an
eternal Son, there was by consequence a time when there was not an
Almighty Father. For when they would make out that there was a
time when the Son began to be, they are sliding back into [the error
of] saying that the Father’s Power also has not been from
everlasting, but began to be in consequence of the generation of the
Son. So, in their desire to do dishonour to the Son of God, they
do so increase His honour as to seem to make Him, contrary to all right
belief, the source of His Father’s Power, though the Son saith,
“All things that the Father hath are Mine” S.
81. And therefore we do declare the Son to
be Eternal Power; Cf.
82. Let us, however, make answer to the
conclusion they strive to establish; but we seem to have sought, in
pursuit of a personal appeal, to escape from the difficulty of treating
the question before us. The Father, they say, has begotten a Son;
the Son has not. What proof is this that they are not
equal? To beget is the Father’s natural function, as a
Father, and no necessary outcome of His Sovereign Power.
i.e.,the Father begets quâ Father, not
quâ Almighty (ὁ Παντοκράτωρ).
83. But if our adversaries say that this too may be the result of infirmity, inasmuch as men may desire to beget children, but be unable to do so; then, though things divine are not to be judged of and determined by things human, yet let them understand that with men also, as with God, whether one has children or no, is not dependent upon or derived of his authoritative power, but upon the personal attributes of a father, and that begetting lies not in the power of our will, but is contingent upon our qualities of body; for if it were a matter of sovereign authority, then the mightier king would have the greater number of sons. To have sons, then, or to be childless, therefore, is not in necessary connection or relation to sovereign authority. Is it, then, so with nature?
84. If you [my Arian adversaries] regard what you
object as natural weakness, and rely upon examples taken from the
nature of mankind, remember that the Father’s nature is the same
as the Son’s, and therefore you
85. The conclusion we come at, therefore, on
the line of your persuasion, is that God the Father is not Almighty,
because He could not beget, if He did not beget the Son, but created
Him. But forasmuch as the Father is Almighty, He being, as you
hold, the Almighty in so far as He is the only Author of Being, then
surely He has begotten His Son, and not created Him. Howbeit, we
ought to believe His word before yours. He says: “I
have begotten,”
86. It is no sign, then, of infirmity,
whether of nature or authority, in Christ, that He has not begotten,
for to beget, as we have already said ofttimes, bears no relation to
supremacy of authority, but to a personal property in a
nature. See § 82.
87. Then is His power exhausted in the
begetting of One? Nay, but I will show that Christ also hath
sons, whom He begets every day, but with that generation, or rather
regeneration, which is related to personal authority rather than
nature, for adoption is the exercise and bestowal of authority, and
generation the manifestation of a property, as Scripture itself hath
taught us: for John saith that “He was in this world, and
the world was made by Him, and the world knew Him not. He came to
His own, and His own received Him not. But as many as received
Him, to them gave He power Or
“authority.” S.
88. We say, therefore, that it is the
function and exercise of His Authority that He has made us sons of God,
whereas the oracles of God discover that His generation is in relation
to personal attribute, for the Wisdom of God saith: “I came
forth out of the mouth of the Most High,”
89. Now this He said, not to make us think
of a bodily womb, The word
“womb” is used metaphorically in the original, from which
St. Ambrose (though inaccurately) quotes. See Or “to
show the distinctive character of true” or “perfect
generation”—as an absolute act, unconditioned of
time or space. Ath. Creed 4.
90. What room here, then, for one to sit in judgment upon the Godhead, to call in question the Father and the Son,—the One for begetting, the Other for not begetting. No man condemns his servant or handmaid for begetting (or bearing) offspring; but those Arians condemn Christ for not begetting—they do condemn Him, for they privately pass sentence of condemnation upon Him, when they take from His glory and dignity. The question, why they have not begotten offspring, does not lead those who are joined in marriage into loss of their love, or denial of each other’s merits, but the Arians, because Christ hath not begotten a Son, make light of His sovereignty.
91. Why, ask they, is the Son not a
Father? Because, on the other side, the Father is not a
Son. Why has not Christ begotten? Even because the Father
is not begotten. Yet the Son stands none the lower, because He is
not a Father; nor the Father, because He is not a Son, for the Son
said: “All things that the Father hath are
Mine” S.
92. The Substance of the Trinity is, so to
say, a common Essence in that which is distinct, sc.
internally.
i.e.without plurality of substance or essential
nature. There is one Godhead of the Father and the Son and
the Holy Ghost—not three Godheads.
93. O monstrous wickedness, that they who
have no power over their own procreation should claim and usurp power
to enquire into the Divine Generation! Let them deny, them, that
the Son is equal to the Father, forasmuch as He hath not begotten; let
them deny that the Son is equal to the Father, because He hath a
Father! But if they talked after this fashion about men, who
sometimes desire to beget sons, yet cannot, we should call it an
insult, just as we should so call it, if of two men, one having sons
and the other childless, the latter were said to be inferior to the
former on that ground. So monstrous also, I say, does it seem, in
regard simply to men, that one should therefore be esteemed the more
lightly because he hath a father. Peradventure, indeed, the
Arians suppose that Christ is in the position of one in a family, and
frets because He is not set free and independent of His Father’s
authority, and is not empowered to administer the estate. But
Christ is not under tutelage; nay, rather has He abolished all
tutelage. Cf.
94. How then, let them tell us, would they have these things to be?—a true generation, the true Son begotten of God the Father, that is, of the Substance of the Father, or of another substance? If they say “begotten of the Father, that is, of the Substance of God,” well and good, for then they acknowledge the Son as begotten of the Substance of the Father. If, then, they are of one Substance, surely they are also of one sovereign Power. Whereas, if the Son is begotten of another substance, how can the Father be Almighty, and the Son not Almighty? For what advantage hath God, if He have made His Son of another substance, when confessedly the Son, on His part, hath of another substance made us sons of God? The Son, therefore, is either of one Substance with the Father, or of one sovereign Power.
95. Our adversaries’ question, then,
falls flat, because they cannot judge Christ—or rather, because
He is clear, when He is judged. Or
“engage in discussions of this kind.”
Lat.—serunt hujusmodi quæstiones.
96. The objection, then, holds not together,
that the Son cannot be equal to the Father, by reason of the Father
having begotten the Son, whilst the Son has begotten no Son of Himself,
for the spring begets the stream, though the stream begets no spring
out of itself, and light begets radiance, and not radiance light, yet
the nature of radiance and light is one. Cf.
Various quibbling arguments, advanced by the Arians to show that the Son had a beginning of existence, are considered and refuted, on the ground that whilst the Arians plainly prove nothing, or if they prove anything, prove it against themselves, (inasmuch as He Who is the beginning of all cannot Himself have a beginning), their reasonings do not even hold true with regard to facts of human existence. Time could not be before He was, Who is the Author of time—if indeed at some time He was not in existence, then the Father was without His Power and Wisdom. Again, our own human experience shows that a person is said to exist before he is born.
97. Now that our
opponents have failed to maintain their objection against the truth
of
98. Accordingly, they demand our answer,
intending, if we say, “The Son existed before He was
begotten,” to meet us with a subtle retort, that “If so,
then, before He was begotten, He was created, and there is no
difference between Him and the rest of created beings, for He began to
be a creature before He began to be the Son.” To which they
add: “Why was He begotten, when He was already in
existence? Because He was imperfect, and in order that He might
afterwards be made more perfect?” Whilst if we reply that
the Son did not exist before He was begotten, they will immediately
reply: “Then by being begotten He was brought into
existence, not having existed before He was begotten,” so as to
lead on from this to the conclusion that “the Son existed, when
He did not exist.” St. Ambrose
exhibits the argument as a reductio ad absurdum.
99. But let those who propound this difficulty and endeavour to enwrap the truth in a cloud tell us themselves whether the Father exerts His power of begetting within or without limits of time. If they say “within limits of time,” then they will attribute to the Father what they object against the Son, so as to make the Father seem to have begun to be what He was not before. If their answer is “without such limits,” then what is left them but to resolve for themselves the problem they have propounded, and acknowledge that the Son is not begotten under limits and conditions of time, since they deny that the Father so begets?
100. If the Son, then, is not begotten
within limits of time, we are free to judge that nothing can have
existed before the Son, Whose being is not confined by time. If,
indeed, there was anything in being before the Son, then it instantly
follows that in Him were not created all things in heaven or in earth,
and the Apostle is shown to have erred in so setting it down in his
Epistle,
101. With the consideration whereof we must join another most blasphemous objection of theirs, which covers a subtle purpose to confuse the sense and understanding of simple folk. They ask whether everything that comes to an end had also at any time a beginning. If they are told that what has an end also had a beginning, then they return to the charge with the question whether the Father has ceased to beget His Son. This by our consent being granted them, they conclude that the generation of the Son had a beginning. The which if you allow, it seems to follow that if the Generation had a beginning, it appears to have begun in Him Who was begotten; so that one, who had not existed before, may be called “begotten”—their intent being to close the inquiry by laying down as conclusive that there was a time when the Son existed not.
102. Besides this, there are other vain
objections, such as persons of their glibness of tongue would readily
urge. If, say they, the Son is the Word of the Father, then He is
called “begotten,” inasmuch as He is the Word. But
then since He is the Word, He is not a work. Now the Father has
spoken “in divers manners,”
103. Follows another blasphemy, whereby they
enquire whether it was of His own free will, or on compulsion, that the
Father begat [His Son], intending, if we say, “Of His own free
will,” that we should appear as though we acknowledged that the
Father’s Will preceded the [Divine] Generation, and to answer
that there being something that preceded the existence of the Son, the
Son is not co-eternal with the Father, or that He, like the rest of the
world, is a being created, forasmuch as it is written, “He hath
made all things, as many as He would,”
104. But in the eternal Generation there is no foregoing condition, neither of will, nor of unwillingness, and therefore I can neither say that the Father begat of His free Will, nor yet that He begat on compulsion, for to beget depends not upon possibility as determined by will, but rather appears to stand in a certain right and property of the hidden being of the Father. For just as the Father is not good because He wills to be so, or is compelled to be so, but is above these conditions—is good, that is, by nature,—even so the putting forth of His generative power is neither of will nor of necessity.
105. Yet let us grant their proposal. Granted that the Generation depends on the Will of Him Who generates; when do they say that this act of will took place? If it was in the beginning, then, plainly, the Son was in the beginning. If the Will is eternal, then the Son also is eternal. If the Will began to exist, then God the Father, as He was, was so displeased with Himself, that He made a change in His condition, that is to say, without His Son He was displeasing to Himself; in His Son He began to be well pleased.
106. To follow out the consequences thereof. If the Father conceived, after the manner of human nature, a desire to beget, then did He also pass through all the experiences which befal men before the birth takes place—but we find that generation is not determined merely by will, but is an object of wish.
107. Thus do they betray their own ungodliness, who would have it that Christ’s generation had a beginning, in order that it may seem, not that true begetting of the Word abiding, but the utterance of words that pass and are forgotten, and that by intrusion of [the premiss of] a multitude of sons, they may [be warranted to] deny Christ’s personal possession of the divine attributes, to the end that He may be regarded as neither the only-begotten nor the first-begotten Son; and lastly, that given the belief that His existence had a beginning, it may also be deemed as appointed to have an end.
108. But neither had the Son of God any
beginning, seeing that He already was at the beginning, nor shall He
come to an end, Who is the Beginning and the End of the
Universe;
“And,” we may add; “already
was.”—St. Ambrose refers to St.
109. Again, their aimless and futile
question finds no loophole for entry, even when directed upon the
creation itself; On the analogy
of which, indeed, Arianism endeavoured to conceive of the Nature and
Activities of God. Or “a
shining body”—lumen, not lux, as in other
places of this passage. St. Ambrose probably was unaware that
“radiance” or “effulgence” from an incandescent
or otherwise shining body is clue to the presence of the atmosphere, so
that his analogy requires modification when bodies shining in
vacuo come into the account. But with regard to these it may
be urged that the shining of the body may be taken as the sole object
of consideration, whilst it is fully admitted that the brightness and
the body, though separated for purposes of mental treatment and
thought, are not so in fact and actual reality. In the Book of
Wisdom, vii. 26, the Divine Wisdom is called “the brightness of
everlasting Light” (ἀταύγασμα
φωτὸς
αϊδίου)—These texts would
naturally suggest the ‘Light of Light’ (φῶς ἐκ
φωτός,) of the Nicene Creed. The
analogy of light and radiance is employed by many of the Fathers in
maintaining the doctrine of the Church, see Alford’s note on
110. If then we can neither understand the mystery of, nor dissociate, these created objects in the sky above us, which we see, can we comprehend Him Whom we see not, Who is above every created existence, God, as He is in the very Holy of Holies of His own Generation? Can we make time a barrier between Him and the Son, when all time is the creation of the Son?
111. Let them cease therefore, and say no more
that before He was begotten the Son was not. For the word
“before” is a mark of time, whereas the Generation is
before
Or
“before all worlds.” Cf.
112. I would, therefore, further examine our opponents, who esteem themselves so cunning, and have them make good the application of their theory to human existence, seeing that they use it to disparage the glory of God’s Existence, and keep far away from any confession of an inscrutable mystery in the Divine Generation. I would have them find ground for their objection in the facts of human generation. Of God’s Son they assert that before He was begotten He was not,—that is to say, they say this of the Wisdom, the Power, the Word of God, Whose Generation knows nothing prior to itself. But if, as they would have us believe, there was a time when the Son existed not (the which it is blasphemy to affirm), then there was a time when God lacked the fulness of Divine Perfection, if afterwards He passed through a process of begetting a Son.
113. To show them, however, the weakness and
transparency of their objection, though it has no real relation to any
truth, divine or human, I will prove to them that men have existed
before they were born. Else, let them show that Jacob, who whilst
yet hidden in the secret chamber of his mother’s womb supplanted
his brother, had not been appointed and ordained, ere ever he was
born;
114. What, again, shall I say of John, of
whom his holy mother testifies that, whilst he yet lay in her womb, he
perceived in spirit Or
“by the Spirit,” i.e. by the help, power of the
Spirit, working indeed with his spirit. S. S.
115. Consider the proper force of each word. Elisabeth was indeed the first to hear the voice of Mary, but John was first to feel His Lord’s gracious Presence. Sweet is the harmony of prophecy with prophecy, of woman with woman, of babe with babe. The women speak words of grace, the babes move hiddenly, and as their mothers approach one another, so do they engage in mysterious converse of love; and in a twofold miracle, though in diverse degrees of honour, the mothers prophesy in the spirit of their little ones. Who, I ask, was it that performed this miracle? Was it not the Son of God, Who made the unborn to be?
116. Thus your objection fails of
reconcilement with the truths of human existence—can it attain
thereto with divine mysteries? What mean you by your principle
that “before He was begotten He was not”? Was the
Father engaged for some time in conception, so that certain epochs
passed away before the Son was begotten? Was He, like women, in
travail of birth, so that just this travail? What would
you? Why seek we to pry into divine mysteries? The
Scriptures tell me the necessary effects of the Divine
Generation, i.e. that
“such as the Father is, such is the Son.”
The objection that Christ, on the showing of St.
John, lives because of the Father, and therefore is not to be regarded
as equal with the Father, is met by the reply that for the Life of the
Son, in respect of His Godhead, there has never been a time when it
began; and that it is dependent upon none, whilst the passage in
question must be understood as referring to His human life, as is shown
by His speaking there of His body and blood. Two expositions of
the passage are given, the one of which is shown to refer to
Christ’s Manhood, whilst the second teaches His equality with the
Father, as also His likeness with men. Rebuke is administered to
the Arians for the insult which they are seeking to inflict upon the
Son, and the sense in which the Son can be said to live “because
of” the Father is explained, as also the
118. There are not
a few who raise this further objection, that it is written:
“As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father; so
he that eateth Me, liveth also by Me.” S.
119. Let those who oppose us on this ground
tell us first what the Life of the Son is. Is it a life bestowed
by the Father upon one lacking life? But how could the Son ever
fail to possess life, He Himself being the Life, as He says, “I
am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.”
120. Bethink you what is read this day
concerning the Lord Jesus, that “He died for our sakes, to the
end that whether we wake or whether we sleep, we may live with
Him.”
121. But is His Life truly in the
Father’s power? Why, He showed that even His bodily life
was not in the power of any other, as we have it on record:
“I lay down My life, that I may take it again. No man
taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to
lay it down, and again I have power to take it. This commandment
have I received of My Father.” S.
122. Is His divine Life then to be regarded as depending upon the power of another, when His bodily life was subject to no other power but His own? For it would have been the power of another, but for the Unity of power. But just as He gives us to understand that His laying down His life was done of His own power, and of His free Will, so also He teaches us, in laying it down in obedience to His Father’s command, the unity of His own with the Father’s Will.
123. If, then, there has neither been a time when the Life of the Son took a commencement, nor any power to which it has been subjected, let us consider what His meaning was when He said: “Even as the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father”? Let us expound His meaning as best we can; nay, rather let Him expound it Himself.
124. Take notice, then, what He said in an
earlier part of His discourse. “Verily, verily, I say unto
you.” He first teaches thee how thou oughtest to
listen. “Verily, verily, I say unto you, unless ye eat the
flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood, ye shall have no life in
you.” S.
125. Then He added: “For My
Flesh is meat indeed, and My Blood is drink [indeed].” S. S. S.
126. Then, after calling on us to take notice that He speaks as Son of Man, and frequent repeated mention of His Flesh and His Blood, He adds: “Even as the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so he that eateth Me, he also liveth by Me.” How then do they suppose that we are to understand these words?—for the comparison can be shown as a double one. The first comparison being after the following manner: “Even as the living Father hath sent Me, I live by the Father;” the second: “Even as the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father, so also he that eateth Me, he too liveth by Me.”
127. If our adversaries choose the former,
the meaning is this, that, “as I am sent by the Father and am
come down from the Father, so (in accordance therewith) I live by the
Father.” But in what character was He sent, and came down,
save as Son of Man, even as He Himself said before: “No man
hath ascended into heaven, save He that hath come down from heaven as
Son of Man.” S.
Or
“flesh.” S.
129. Thus the equality of the Son to the
Father is established simply upon unity in the action of quickening,
since the Son so quickeneth as the Father doth. Acknowledge
therefore the eternity of His Life and Sovereignty. Again, our
likeness with the Son is discovered, and a certain unity with Him in
the flesh, Or “is
discovered to be a certain unity, etc.” i.e. in
respect of His Body of flesh and blood.
130. According to this interpretation, then, immortality is not only applied to our condition by grace of bounty, but is also proclaimed as the property of Godhead—the latter, because it is the Godhead which quickeneth; the former, because manhood is quickened in Christ.
131. But if any would apply the force of either comparison to Christ’s Godhead, then the Son of God is put on one footing with men, so that the Son of God lives by the Father just as we live by the Son of God. But the Son of God bestows eternal life by free gift, we cannot so do. If then He be placed on a level with us, He too does not bestow this gift. Let Arius’ disciples then have the due reward of their faith—which is, not to obtain eternal life of the Son.
132. I would now go further. If our
opponents are pleased to apply the teaching of this passage to the
principle of the eternity of the Divine Substance, let them hear a
third exposition: Does not our Lord plainly appear to say that as
the Father is a living Father, so too the Son also lives?—and who
can but observe that here we must understand a reference to unity of
Life, forasmuch as the same Life is the Life of the Father and the Life
of the Son? “For as the Father hath Life in Himself, so
hath He given to the Son also to have Life in Himself.” S.
133. But the Arians think that they must
oppose hereto the fact that He had said, “I live by the
Father.” Of a certainty (suppose that they conceive the
words as referring to His Godhead) the Son lives by the Father, because
He is the Son begotten of the Father,—by the Father, because He
is of one Substance with the Father,—by the Father, because He is
the Word given forth from the heart of the Father,
134. But peradventure they may urge: “If you hold that the Son, in saying, ‘And I live by the Father,’ spoke of the unity of life subsisting between the Father and the Son, does it not follow that He discovered the unity of life between the Son and mankind in saying that ‘he that eateth Me, the same liveth by Me’?”
135. Even so. Just as I confess the
unity of celestial Life subsisting in Father and Son by reason of the
unity of the substance of the Godhead, so too, save as concerns the
prerogatives of the Divine Nature or those which are the effect of the
Incarnation of our Lord, I affirm of the Son a participation of
spiritual life with us by virtue of the unity of His Manhood with ours,
for “as is the heavenly, such are they also that are
heavenly.”
136. Not only, then, have I no fears of the
text, “I live by the Father,” but I should have none, even
though Christ had said, “I live by help of the
Father.” St. Ambrose quotes
the words from St.
137. Now another objection commonly urged by
them starts from the text: “This sickness is not unto
death, but for the glory of God, to the end that His Son may be
glorified by Him.” S. S. S. S.
138. Even as the Son, therefore, is glorified through the Father, so too He lives by the Father. There are some who have been led by consideration of these words to the supposition that [the Greek] “δόξα” means “opinion, belief,” rather than “glory,” and therefore have interpreted as follows: “I have given thee a δόξα upon earth, I have finished the work which Thou gavest Me to do, and now, O Father, give me a δόξα;” that is to say: “I have taught men so to believe concerning Thee, as to know that Thou art the true God; do Thou also establish in them, concerning Me, the belief that I am Thy Son, and very God.”
The particular distinction which the Arians endeavoured to prove upon the Apostle’s teaching that all things are “of” the Father and “through” the Son, is overthrown, it being shown that in the passage cited the same Omnipotence is ascribed both to Father and to Son, as is proved from various texts, especially from the words of St. Paul himself, in which heretics foolishly find a reference to the Father only, though indeed there is no diminution or inferiority of the Son’s sovereignty proved, even by such a reference. Finally, the three phrases, “of Whom,” “through Whom,” “in Whom,” are shown to suppose or imply no difference (of power), and each and all to hold true of the Three Persons.
139. Now we come to
that laughable method, attempted by some, of showing a difference of
Power to subsist between Father and Son, on the strength of apostolic
testimony, it being written: “But for us there is One God,
the Father, of Whom are all things, and we in Him, and One Lord, Jesus
Christ, through Whom are all things, and we through
Him.” Cf. Bk. I. iii.
26.
140. The Father is not “amongst”
all things, for to Him it is confessed that “all things serve
Thee.” S. Or
“consist;” Lat.—constant;
Greek—τὰ
πάντα ἐν
αὐτῳ
συνέστηκεν.
Lat.—familia. Cf. the expression “house
of Israel.”—
141. Certain it is, then, that between
Father and Son there can be no difference of Power. Nay, so far
is such difference from being present, that the same Apostle has said
that all things are “of” Him, by Whom are all things, as
followeth: “For of Him and through Him and in Him are all
things.”
142. Now if, as they suppose, it is the
Father alone Who is spoken of, it cannot be that He is at once
Omnipotent because all things are of Him, and not Omnipotent because
all things are through Him. “You think,
perhaps,” St. Ambrose might have said to his Arian opponents,
“that this text speaks of God the Father only, as it begins with
‘of Him.’ Very good. But whilst, in dealing
with
143. Howbeit, let them decide whether they will understand this affirmation as made concerning the Father. If they do so decide then all things are “through” Him also. If they decide that it is the Son Who is spoken of, then all things are “of” Him as well as “of” the Father. But if all things are “through” the Father also, then surely there is no argument for diminishing from the honour due to the Son; and if all things are “of” the Son, the Son must be honoured in like manner as the Father is.
144. In case our opponents should suspect
that we are taking advantage of some intrusion of a single spurious
verse into the text, let us review the whole passage. “O
depth of the riches of God’s wisdom and knowledge!”
exclaims the Apostle, “how unsearchable are His judgments, and
His ways past finding out! For Who hath known the mind of the
Lord, or who hath been His counsellor? Or who hath been first to
give unto Him, and shall be recompensed? For of Him and through
Him and in Him are all things. To Him be glory for
ever!”
145. Who, then, think they, is here spoken
of—the Father or the Son? If it be the Father—then we
answer that the Father is not the Wisdom of God, for the Son is.
But what is there that is impossible to Wisdom, of Whom it is
written: “Seeing that she is almighty and abiding, she
maketh all things new in herself”?
“Approaching”—Lat. accedentem. An
“accidentem” potius sit legendum?—ut Sapientia non
sit accidens, sed proprium, Substantiæ Divinæ.
146. But to purpose. “How
unsearchable,” saith the Apostle, “are His
judgments!” Now if “the Father hath given all
judgment to the Son,” S. Potest hic
manus incuriose transcribentis deprehendi, cum “Pauli” pro
“Patris” nomen potius legendum esse videatur. Nec
tamen prohibemur quin sic verba intelligamus, ut Pater Ipse in hoc
Epistolæ Romanæ loco, per calamum Apostoli sit
locutus.
147. But now, to show us that He is speaking
of the Son, not of the Father, St. Paul proceeds: “Who was
first in giving to Him?” For “the Father hath given
to the Son,” but it was as acknowledging the rights of Him Whom
He has begotten, not by way of largess. Therefore, it being
undeniable that the Son has received at the hands of the Father, as it
is written, “All things have been given unto Me of My
Father,” S.
148. If, however, we hold ourselves more bound to observe those Greek manuscripts which show “τίς προσέδωχεν αὐτῳ;” it is clear that He to Whom nothing can be added is not unequal to Him Who is perfect and complete. Therefore, if this passage from the Apostle, in its entirety, is better understood with reference to the Son, we see that we must also believe concerning the Son, that all things are of Him, even as it is written: “For of Him and through Him and in Him are all things.”
149. Be it so, nevertheless, that they
suppose the passage to be intended of the Father, then let us call to
mind that even as we read of all things being of Him, so too we
read of all things being through Him, that is to say, the
authority of the Father and of the Son is extended over the whole
created universe. And, though we have already proved the
Omnipotence of the Son by the Omnipotence of the Father, See § 140,
and comparison of
150. But to bring them to understand that
Or
“into fellowship with His Son.”
“Fellowship” in the orig. is communio
(κοινωνία).
Or “as an
inferior work.”
151. Again, to obtain fuller understanding
that, forasmuch as we are called through the Father into fellowship
with His Son, there is no difference of Power in the Father and the
Son, [note that] the fellowship itself has its beginning of the Son, as
it is written: “For from His fulness have we all
received,” though, if we follow the Greek text of the Gospel, we
ought to render “of His fulness.” S.
152. See, then, how there is fellowship both
through the Father and of the Son, and yet not a
different fellowship, but one and the same. “And that our
fellowship be with the Father and with His Son Jesus
Christ.”
153. Observe, further, that Scripture speaks
of our having one fellowship not only “of” the Father and
the Son, but also “of” the Holy Spirit. “The
grace of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” saith the Apostle, “and
the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you
all.”
154. Now, I ask, wherein does He, through
Whom are all things, appear less than He, of Whom are all things?
Is it because He is declared to be the Worker? But the Father
also works, for He is true who said, “My Father worketh hitherto,
and I work.” S.
155. Not to be passed over for silencing the
disputings of Arian misbelief are those words of the same Saint John,
which he set down in another Scripture: “If ye know that He
is just, know that he which doeth righteousness is born of
Him.”
156. Thou must therefore believe that all things are of the Son of God [even as of God the Father, for even as God is the Father of all, so likewise is the Son the Author and Creator of all. We see, then, the vanity of this their questioning, forasmuch as it holds good of the Son [as of the Father], that “of Him and through Him and in Him are all things.”
157. We have shown how all things are
“of” Him, and likewise how all things are also
“through” Him. Who then doubts that all things are
“in” Him, when another Scripture saith: “For in
Him are all things founded, that are in the heavens, and in Him they
were created, and He is before all things, and all things consist in
Him”? (
The comparison, found in the Gospel of St. John, of the Son to a Vine and the Father to a husbandman, must be understood with reference to the Incarnation. To understand it with reference to the Divine Generation is to doubly insult the Son, making Him inferior to St. Paul, and bringing Him down to the level of the rest of mankind, as well as in like manner the Father also, by making Him not merely to be on one footing with the same Apostle, but even of no account at all. The Son, indeed, in so far as being God, is also the husbandman, and, as regards His Manhood, a grape-cluster. True statement of the Father’s pre-eminence.
158. There is yet
another Scripture, which our opponents commonly object against us, in
order to prove their division of the Godhead of the Father from the
Godhead of the
159. Thus, then, ye would have us believe
that the Son, as touching His Godhead, is like to a vine, so that
without a vine-dresser He is nothing, and may be neglected or even
rooted up. Thus ye juggle up a lie from the letter of the
Scripture which sayeth that our Lord called Himself the Vine, intending
thereby the mystery of His Incarnation. Or
“intending an emblem” or “token (orig.
sacramentum) of His Incarnation.” Orig.
sacramentum.
160. How then do you purpose to understand
the truth that the Son of God called Himself the Vine? If you
interpret the saying with respect to the Substance of His Godhead, and
if you suppose such a diversity of Godhead between the Father and the
Son as there is of nature between a husbandman and a vine, you do
double insult both to Father and to Son—to the Son, because if,
as you affirm, He is, as touching His Godhead, beneath a husbandman,
then must He on the same showing be esteemed lower than the Apostle
Paul, forasmuch as Paul indeed called himself a husbandman, as we find
it written: “I have planted, Apollos hath watered: but God
hath given the increase.”
161. Thus far the one insult. As for
the other, it lies herein, that if the Son is the Vine in respect of
His eternally-begotten Person, then, He having said: “I am
the Vine, ye are the branches,” S.
162. Moreover, ye disparage not only the Son, but the Father also. For if the term “husbandman” is to comprehend in its designation all the prerogative of the Father’s Sovereignty, then, seeing that Paul too is a husbandman, you set the Apostle, to whom you deny that the Son is equal, on an even footing with the Father.
163. Again, it being written, “But
neither he which planteth is anything, nor he that watereth; but God,
Who giveth the increase,”
sc.is all. See Alford in loc.
164. Yet what wonder if, as ye heretics would have it, the Father is to be exalted above a Son Whose Godhead differs not a whit from the common condition of mankind? If ye suppose the Son to have been entitled the Vine with respect to His Godhead, then do ye esteem Him not only as liable to corruption and subject to changes of wind and weather, but even as partaking of manhood only, forasmuch as the Vine and its branches are of one nature, so that the Son of God appears, not to have taken upon Him our flesh, through the mystery of Incarnation, but to have altogether sprung into being from the flesh.
165. But I will indeed openly confess that His flesh, though born in a new and mysterious birth, was yet of the same nature with ours, and that this is the pledge of our salvation, not the source of the Divine Generation. He indeed is the Vine, for He bears my sufferings, whensoever manhood, hitherto frail, leans on Him and so matures with plenteous fruit of renewed devotion.
166. Yet if the husbandman’s power
allure thee, tell me, prithee, who it was that spake in the prophet,
saying: “O Lord, make it known to me, that I may know; then
saw I their thoughts. I was led as a harmless lamb to the
slaughter and knew it not: they took counsel together against me,
saying, Come, let us throw wood into his bread.”
168. But not only has our Lord called
Himself a Vine—He has also given Himself, by the voice of the
prophet, the title of a Grape-cluster—even when Moses, at the
command of the Lord, sent spies to the Valley of the Cluster.
169. But if there be now left no room for
doubt that the Son of God is called the Vine with respect and intention
to His Incarnation, i.e.the
Incarnate Son of God, not the Pre-existent Logos, is the
Vine. S. S.
Who is a faithful and wise servant? His reward is pointed out in the case of Peter, as also in the case of Paul. Ambrose, being anxious to follow Paul’s guidance, wished this book to be added to the others, for it could not be included in the preceding one. The subject for discussion is then stated, and the reason for such a discussion given. He must needs be pardoned, for usury is to be demanded from every servant for the money which has been entrusted to him. Their faithfulness is the usury desired in his own case. He will be happy if he may hope for a reward; but he does not look so much for the recompense of the saints, as for exemption from punishment. He urges all to seek to merit this.
1. “Who,
then, is a faithful and wise servant, whom his lord hath made ruler
over his household, to give them meat in due season? Blessed is
that servant, whom his lord when he cometh shall find so
doing.” S.
2. It is Peter, chosen by the Lord Himself
to feed His flock, who merits thrice to hear the words:
“Feed My little lambs; feed My lambs; feed My
sheep.” S. S.
3. Blessed also is that servant who can
say: “I have fed you with milk and not with meat; for
hitherto ye were not able to bear it.”
4. Yet he, being so great a man, and chosen
by Christ for the care of His flock, so as to strengthen the weak and
to heal the sick,—he, I say, rejects forthwith after one
admonition
5. How, then, shall we act, being but
ignorant dwellers set amongst these fresh tares in the old-standing
harvest field? S.
6. And so we prepare to commence this our Fifth Book, O Emperor Augustus. For it was but right that the Fourth Book should end with our discussion on the Vine, lest otherwise we should seem to have overloaded that book with a tumultuous mass of subjects, rather than to have filled it with the fruit of the spiritual vineyard. On the other hand, it was not seemly that the gathering of the vintage of the faith should be left unfinished, whilst there was still all abundance of such great matters for discussion.
7. In the Fifth Book, therefore, we speak of
the indivisible Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost
(omitting, however, a full discussion on the Holy Ghost), being urged
by the teaching of the Gospel to let out on interest to human minds the
five talents S. S. S.
8. I pray those to pardon me, whom the
boldness of such a lengthy address displeases. The thought of my
office compels me to entrust to others what I have received.
“We are stewards of the heavenly mysteries.”
9. Ye who hear or read these words are all
things to us. Ye are the usury of the money-lender,—the
usury on speech, not on money; ye are the return given to the
husbandman; ye are the gold, the silver, the precious stones of the
builder. In your merits lie the chief results of the labours of
the priest; in your souls shines forth the fruit of a bishop’s
work; in your progress glitters the gold of the Lord; the silver is
increased if ye hold fast the divine words. “The words of
the Lord are pure words, as silver tried in the fire; proved on the
earth, purified seven times.”
10. Oh that I might safely say of you at
that time: “Lord, Thou gavest me five talents, behold I
have gained five other talents;” S. S.
11. Neither do I, my brethren, with greedy
desires, long for this, so that I may be set over many things; the
recompense I get from the fact of your advance is enough for me.
Oh that I may not be found unworthy of that which I have
received! Let those things which are too great for me be assigned
to better men. I demand them not! Yet mayest Thou say, O
Lord: “I will give unto this last, even as unto
thee.” S. S.
12. Let him be such an one as was Moses, who wrote
the Ten Words of the Law. Let him be as Joshua, the son of Nun,
who subdued five kings, and brought the Gibeonites into subjection,
that he might be the figure of a Man of his own name Who was
13. It is enough for me, if I am not thrust
out into the outer darkness, as he was, who hid the talent entrusted to
him in the earth so to speak, of his own flesh. This the ruler of
the synagogue did, and the other rulers of the Jews; for they
employed S. i.e., either
‘used to their own earthly advantage’ or ‘explained
in a carnal earthly sense.’
14. Let us then not keep the Lord’s
money buried and hidden in the flesh; nor let us hide our one talent in
a napkin; S.
15. This is the word of the Lord, this is
the precious talent, whereby thou art redeemed. This money must
often be seen on the tables of souls, in order that by constant trading
the sound of the good coins may be able to go forth into every land, by
the means of which eternal life is purchased. “This is
eternal life,” which Thou, Almighty Father, givest freely, that
we may know “Thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou
hast sent.” S.
How impious the Arians are, in attacking that on which human happiness depends. John ever unites the Son with the Father, especially where he says: “That they may know Thee, the only true God, etc.” In that place, then, we must understand the words “true God” also of the Son; for it cannot be denied that He is God, and it cannot be said He is a false god, and least of all that He is God by appellation only. This last point being proved from the Apostle’s words, we rightly confess that Christ is true God.
16. Wherefore let the Arians observe, how impious they are in calling in question our hope and the object of our desires. And since they are wont to cry out on this point above all others, saying that Christ is distinct from the only and true God, let us confute their impious ideas so far as lies in our power.
17. For on this point they ought rather to understand, that this is the benefit, this the reward of perfect virtue, namely, this divine and incomparable gift, that we may know Christ together with the Father, and not separate the Son from the Father; as also the Scriptures do not separate them. For the following tells rather for the unity than for the diversity of the Divine Majesty, namely, that the knowledge of the Father and of the Son gives us the same recompense, and one and the same honour; which reward no man will have but he that has known both the Father and the Son. For as the knowledge of the Father procures eternal life, so also does the knowledge of the Son.
18. Therefore as the Evangelist forthwith at
the outset joined the Word with God the Father in his devout confession
of faith, saying: “And the Word was with
God;” S. S.
19. Therefore in saying, “That they may know Thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ Whom Thou hast sent,” he put an end to the Sabellians, and has also put the Jews out of court,—those at any rate who heard him speak; so that the former might not suppose the Same to be the Father as the Son, which they might have done if he had not added also Christ, and that the latter might not sever the Son from the Father.
20. But, I ask, why do they not think we ought to gather and understand this from what has been already said; that as he has declared the Father to be only, true God, so we may understand Jesus Christ also to be only, true God? For it could not be expressed in any other way, for fear he might seem to be speaking of two Gods. For neither do we speak of two Gods; and yet we confess the Son to be of the same Godhead with the Father.
21. May we ask, therefore, on what grounds they
think a distinction is made in the Godhead, and whether they deny
Christ to be God? But they cannot deny it. Do they deny Him
to be true God? But if they
22. I do not think they can say the name was
falsely assumed, and so involve themselves in the open wickedness of
blasphemy; lest they should betray themselves on the one hand to the
demons and idols, and on the other to Christ, by insinuating that the
name of God was falsely given to Him. But if they think He is
called God because He had an indwelling of the Godhead within
Him,—as many holy men were (for the Scripture calls them Gods to
whom the word of God came), S.
23. This idea of these blasphemers Paul puts
aside; for he said: “For though there be that are called
gods, whether in heaven or in earth.”
24. And well is it written: “He
is the same yesterday and to-day,” so that the impiety of Arius
might find no room to pile up its profanity. For he, in reading
in the second psalm of the Father saying to the Son, “Thou art My
Son, this day have I begotten Thee,”
25. Christ therefore is, and always is; for
He, Who is, always is. And Christ always is, of Whom Moses
says: “He that is hath sent me.”
26. Therefore if they dare not say He is God
by appellation, and it is a mark of deep impiety to say He is a false
god, it remains that He is true God, not unlike to the true Father, but
equal to Him. And as He sanctifies and justifies whom He
will,
Since it has been proved that the Son is true God, and in that is not inferior to the Father, it is shown that by the word solus (alone) when used of the Father in the Scriptures, the Son is not excluded; nay, that this expression befits Him above all, and Him alone. The Trinity is alone, not amongst all, but above all. The Son alone does what the Father does, and alone has immortality. But we must not for this reason separate Him from the Father in our controversies. We may, however, understand that passage of the Incarnation. Lastly the Father is shut out from a share in the redemption of men by those who would have the Son to be separated from Him.
27. We have fully demonstrated by passages of Scripture, in the earlier books, that Christ is true, yea, very true God. Therefore if Christ, as it has been taught, is true God, let us enquire why they desire to separate the Son from the Father, when they read that the Father is the only true God.
29. But that they may know, when they see
the word “alone,” that the Son is in no wise to be
separated from the Father, let them remember it was said by God in the
Prophets: “I stretched forth the heavens
alone.”
30. To show indeed how plainly we must
understand the expression “alone” of the Son (although we
may never believe that He did anything without the knowledge of the
Father), we have here also another passage, where it is written:
“Which alone spreadeth out the heavens, and walketh as it were on
a pavement over the sea.” S.
31. The Son therefore is only and true God for this also is assigned to the Son as His sole right. For of no created being can it be accurately said that he is alone. How can he to whom fellowship in creation belongs be separated from the rest, as though he were alone? Thus man is seen to be a rational being amongst all earthly creatures, yet he is not the only rational being; for we know that the heavenly works of God also are rational, we confess that angels and archangels are rational beings. If then the angels are rational, man cannot be said to be the only rational being.
32. But they say that the sun can be said to
be alone, because there is no second sun. But the sun himself has
many things in common with the stars, for he travels across the
heavens, he is of that ethereal and heavenly substance, he is a
creature, and is reckoned amongst all the works of God. He serves
God in union with all, blesses Him with all, praises Him with
all.
33. Wherefore since no created being can be compared with the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, Which is alone, not amongst all, but over all (our declaration concerning the Spirit being meanwhile held back); as the Father is said to be the only true God, because He has nothing in common with others; so also is the Son alone the Image of the true God, He alone is the Hand of the Father, He alone is the Virtue and Wisdom of God.
34. Thus the Son alone does what the Father
does; for it is written: “Whatsoever things I do, He
doth.” S.
35. And it does not seem out of agreement
with this that it is written: “Who alone hath
immortality.” S. De Fide, iv.
6.
36. Wherefore let them understand that in
this passage the Son is not to be separated from the Father, Who is the
only true God. For they cannot prove that the Son is not the only
and true God, especially as here also it may be gathered, as I have
said, that Christ too is true and only God; or the passage may at least
be understood partly in reference to the Godhead of the Father and the
Son, and partly to the Incarnation of Christ: for knowledge is
not perfect unless it confesses Jesus Christ from eternity to be
only-begotten God, true Son of God, and, according to the flesh,
begotten of a Virgin. Which also this very Evangelist has taught
us elsewhere, saying: “Every spirit that confesseth that
Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is of God.”
37. Lastly, the whole of our passage teaches
us that it is not improper in this verse to understand a reference to
the sacrament of the Incarnation. For thus it is written:
“Father, the hour is come, glorify Thy Son.” S.
38. But if they wish to separate the Son,
when they read that the Father is the only true God, I suppose that
when they read of the Incarnation of the Son: “This is the
stone which was set at naught of you builders, which is become the head
of the corner;” and further: “There is none other
name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be
saved;”
To the objection of the Arians, that two Gods are introduced by a unity of substance, the answer is that a plurality of Gods is more likely to be inferred from diversity of substance. Further, their charge recoils upon themselves. Manifold diversity is the reason why two men cannot be said to be one man, though all men are called individually man, where a unity of nature is referred to. There is one nature alone in them, but there is wholly a unity in the Divine Persons. Therefore the Son is not to be severed from the Father, especially as they dare not deny that worship is due to Him.
39. But the Arians maintain the following: If you say that, as the Father is the only true God, so also is the Son, and confess that the Father and the Son are both of one substance, you introduce not one God, but two. For they who are of one substance seem not to be one God but two Gods. Just as two men or two sheep or more are spoken of, but a man and a sheep are not spoken of as two men or two sheep, but as one man and one sheep.
40. This is what the Arians say; and by this
cunning argument they attempt to catch the more simple-minded.
However if we read the divine Scriptures we shall find that plurality
occurs rather amongst those things which are of a diverse and different
substance, that is, ἑτερούσια.
We have this set forth in the books of Solomon, in that passage in
which he said: “There are three things impossible to
understand, yea, a fourth which I know not, the track of an eagle in
the air, the way of a serpent upon a rock, the path of a ship in the
sea, and the way of a man in his youth.”
41. Therefore, in saying that the substance of the
Father and of the Son is diverse and their Godhead distinguishable,
they themselves assert there are two Gods.
42. Such, indeed, is the truth of unity
that, when the nature alone of human birth or of human flesh is
indicated, one man is the term used for the many, as it is
written: “The Lord is my helper, I will not fear what man
can do unto me;”
43. Amongst men, or in men, there exists a unity in some one thing, either in love, or desire, or flesh, or devotion, or faith. But a universal unity, that embraces within itself all things agreeably to the divine glory, is the property of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit alone.
44. Wherefore the Lord also, in pointing out
the diversity that exists among men, who have nothing in common that
can tend towards the unity of an indivisible substance, says:
“In your law it is written that the testimony of two men is
true.” S. S. S.
45. It is plain, then, that whatsoever is of one
substance cannot be severed, even though it be not single, but
one. By singleness I mean that which the Greeks call μονοτής.
Singleness has to do with a person; unity with a nature. That
those things which are of a different substance are wont to be called,
not one alone, but many, though already proved on the testimony of the
prophet, the Apostle himself has stated in so many words, saying:
“For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or
in earth.”
46. Plurality, therefore, is excluded, but the unity is not destroyed. But as, on the one hand, when we read of the Lord Jesus, we do not dissociate the Father, as I have already said, from the prerogative of ruling, because He has that in common with the Son; so, on the other hand, when we read of the only true God, the Father, we cannot sever the Son from the prerogative of the only true God, for He has that in common with the Father.
47. Let them say what they feel or what they
think, when we read: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God,
and Him only shalt thou serve.” S. S.
It is objected by heretics that Christ offered worship to His Father. But instead it is shown that this must be referred to His humanity, as is clear from an examination of the passage. However, it also offers fresh witness to His Godhead, as we often see it happening in other actions that Christ did.
48. But if any one
were to say that the Son worships God the Father, because it is
written, “Ye worship ye know not what, we know what we
worship,” S.
49. In the earlier verses of this chapter it
was stated, not without reason, that Jesus, being weary with the
journey, was sitting down, and that He asked a woman of Samaria to give
Him drink; S.
50. So when this woman addressed Him as a
Jew, and thought Him a prophet, He answers her, as a Jew who
spiritually taught the mysteries of the Law: “Ye worship ye
know not what, we know what we worship.” “We,”
He says; for He joined Himself with men. But how is He joined
with men, but according to the flesh? And to show that He
answered as being incarnate, He added: “for salvation is of
the Jews.” S.
51. But immediately after this He put aside
His human feelings, saying: “But the hour cometh, and now
is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father.” S.
52. And when we read that Mary worshipped
Him, S.
53. Many things therefore we read and believe, in the light of the sacrament of the Incarnation. But even in the very feelings of our human nature we may behold the Divine Majesty. Jesus is wearied with His journey, that He may refresh the weary; He desires to drink, when about to give spiritual drink to the thirsty; He was hungry, when about to supply the food of salvation to the hungry; He dies, to live again; He is buried, to rise again; He hangs upon the dreadful tree, to strengthen those in dread; He veils the heaven with thick darkness, that He may give light; He makes the earth to shake, that He may make it strong; He rouses the sea, that He may calm it; He opens the tombs of the dead, that He may show they are the homes of the living; He is made of a Virgin, that men may believe He is born of God; He feigns not to know, that He may make the ignorant to know; as a Jew He is said to worship, that the Son may be worshipped as true God.
Ambrose answers those who press the words of the Lord to the mother of Zebedee’s children, by saying that they were spoken out of kindness, because Christ was unwilling to cause her grief. Ample reason for such tenderness is brought forward. The Lord would rather leave the granting of that request to the Father, than declare it to be impossible. This answer of Christ’s, however, is not to His detriment, as is shown both by His very words, and also by comparing them with other passages.
54. “How,” they say, “can the Son of God be the
only true God, like to the Father, when He Himself said to the sons of
Zebedee: ‘Ye shall drink indeed of My cup; but to sit on My
right hand or on My left, is not Mine to give to you, but to those for
whom it has been prepared of My Father’?” S.
55. For think of her who, with and for her sons,
makes this request. It is a mother, who in her anxiety for the
honour of her sons, though somewhat unrestrained in the measure of her
desires, may for all that yet find pardon. It is a mother, old in
years, devout in her zeal, deprived of consolation; who at that time,
when she might have been helped and supported by the aid of her able
bodied offspring, suffered her children to leave her, and preferred the
reward her sons should receive in following
S.
56. She then, somewhat yielding to the
devotion of a mother’s zeal, besought the Saviour, saying:
“Grant that these my two sons may sit the one on Thy right hand,
the other on Thy left in Thy kingdom.” S.
57. But it is nothing wonderful if the feelings of parents for their children seem nothing to you, who think the love of the Almighty Father for His only-begotten Son a trifling matter. The Lord of heaven and earth was ashamed (to speak as accords with the assumption of our flesh and the virtues of the soul)—He was ashamed, I say, and, to use His own word, disturbed, to refuse a share even in His own seat to a mother making request for her sons. You maintain sometimes that the proper Son of the eternal God stands to give service, at other times you would have His co-session to be as that of an attendant, that is, not because there is a oneness of majesty, but because it is the order of the Father; and you deny to the Son of God, Who is true God, that which He plainly was unwilling to refuse to men.
58. For He thought of the mother’s love, who solaced her old age with the thought of her sons’ reward, and, though harassed with a mother’s longings, endured the absence of those dearest pledges of her love.
59. Think also of the woman, that is, the weaker sex, whom the Lord had not yet strengthened by His own Passion. Think, I say, of a descendant of Eve, the first woman, sinking under the inheritance of unrestrained passion, which had been passed on to all; one, too, whom the Lord had not yet redeemed with His own Blood, and from whom He had not yet washed out in His Blood the desire implanted in the hearts of all for unbounded honour even beyond what is right. Thus the woman offended owing to an inherited tendency to wrong.
60. And what wonder if a mother should
strive to win preference for her children (which is far better than if
she had done it for herself), when even the Apostles themselves, as we
read, strove amongst themselves, as to who should have the
preference? S.
61. The physician, therefore, ought not to wound a mother who has been deprived of all, nor a suffering mind, with shameful reproaches, lest when the request had been made and had been proudly denied, she should grieve over the condemnation of her petition as being unreasonable.
62. Lastly, the Lord, Who knew that a
mother’s affection is to be honoured, answered not the woman, but
her sons, saying: “Are ye able to drink of the cup that I
shall drink of?” When they say: “We are
able,” Jesus says to them: “Ye shall drink indeed of
My cup; but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give
to you, but to those for whom it is prepared of My
Father.” S.
63. How patient and kind the Lord is; how
deep is His wisdom and good His love! For wishing to show that
the disciples asked for no slight thing, but one they could not obtain,
He reserved His own peculiar rights for His Father’s honour, not
fearing to detract aught from His own rights: “Who thought
it not robbery to be equal with God;” S.
64. Lastly, that you may learn it was no
sign of weakness, but rather of tenderness, that He said:
“It is not Mine to give to you;” note that when the sons of
Zebedee make the request without their mother, He said nothing about
the Father; for thus it is written: “It is not Mine to give
to you, but those for whom it has been prepared.” S. S.
65. But if they think that by saying,
S.
66. But if we think it impious to believe
that the Father has handed over all judgment to the Son in such wise
that He has it not Himself,—for He has it, and cannot lose what
the Divine Majesty has by its very nature,—we ought to consider
it equally impious to suppose that the Son cannot give what either men
can merit, or any creature can receive; especially as He Himself has
said: “I go unto My Father, and whatsoever ye shall ask of
Him in My name, that will I do.” S.
Wishing to answer the above-stated objection somewhat more fully, he maintains that this request, had it not been impossible in itself, would have been possible for Christ to grant; especially as the Father has given all judgment to Him; which gift we must understand to have been given without any feature of imperfection. However, he proves that the request must be reckoned amongst the impossibilities. To make it really possible, he teaches that Christ’s answer must be taken in accordance with His human nature, and shows this next by an exposition of the passage. Lastly, he once more confirms the reply he has given on the impossibility of Christ’s session.
67. I ask now whether they think the request made by the wife and sons of Zebedee was possible or impossible to human circumstances, or to any created being? If it was possible, how is it that He Who made all things which were not had not the power of granting a seat to His apostles on His right hand and on His left? or how was it that He, to Whom the Father gave all judgment, could not judge of men’s merits?
68. We know well in what way He gave it; for
how did the Son, who created all things out of nothing, receive it as
though in want? Had He not the judgment of those whose natures He
had made? The Father gave all judgment to the Son, “that
all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the
Father.” S.
69. As, then, in our knowledge of the Son of
God His honour, but our profit, not His, is concerned; if any one
thinks that the power of God is augmented by that honour, He must also
believe that God the Father can receive augmentation; for He is
glorified by our knowledge of Him, as is the Son: as it is
written on the word of the Son: “I have glorified Thee upon
the earth.” S.
70. Let them show, if they consider it
possible, who of men or of other created beings sits either on the
right hand or the left of God. For the Father says to the
Son: “Sit Thou on My right hand.”
71. A thing impossible for man, then, was
asked of Him. But He was unwilling to say that men could not sit
with Him; seeing that He desired His divine glory should be veiled, and
not revealed before He rose again. S.
72. Therefore if it was not possible for men
or other created beings to merit this, the Son ought not to seem to
have less power because He gave not to His apostles, what the Father
has not given to men or other created beings. Or else let them
say to which of them He has given it. Certainly not to the
angels; of whom Scripture says that all the angels stood round about
the throne. S.
73. Not to the angels, then, has He given it, nor
to the elders who worship Him that sitteth; for they do not sit upon
the seat of
S.
74. Lastly, in the Book of the Kings,
Micaiah the prophet said: “I saw the Lord God of Israel
sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing around Him,
on His right hand and on His left.” S.
75. If, then, the Father has given nothing more than the Son, the Son certainly has given nothing less than the Father. Therefore the Son can in no wise be less than the Father.
76. Suppose, however, that it had been
possible for men to obtain what was desired; what does it mean when He
says: “But to sit on My right hand and on My left is not
Mine to give to you”? S.
77. For being asked by a woman as man to
allow her sons to sit on His right hand and His left, because she asked
Him as man, the Lord also as though only man answered concerning His
Passion: “Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall
drink of?” S.
78. Therefore because He spoke according to
the flesh of the Passion of His Body, He wished to show that according
to the flesh He left behind Him an example and pattern to us of the
endurance of suffering; but that according to His position as man He
could not grant them fellowship in the throne above. This is the
reason why He said: “It is not Mine;” as also in
another place He says: “My doctrine is not
Mine.” S.
79. But how plainly He showed His tenderness for His disciples, whom He loved, saying first: “Will ye drink of My cup?” For as He could not grant what they sought, He offered them something else, so that He might mention what He would assign to them, before He denied them anything; in order that they might understand that the failure lay more in the equity of their request to Him, than in the wish of their Lord to show kindness.
80. “Ye shall indeed drink of My cup,” He says; that is, “I will not refuse you the suffering, which My flesh will undergo. For all that I have taken on Myself as man, ye can imitate. I have granted you the victory of suffering, the inheritance of the cross. ‘But to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give to you.’” He did not say, “It is not Mine to give,” but: “It is not Mine to give to you;” meaning by this, not that He lacked the power, but that His creatures were wanting in merit.
81. Or take in another way the words: “It is not Mine to give to you,” that is, “It is not Mine, for I came to teach humility; it is not Mine, for I came, not to be ministered unto, but to minister; it is not Mine, for I show justice, not favour.”
82. Then, speaking of the Father, He
added: “For whom it has been prepared,” to show that
the Father also is not wont to give heed merely to requests, but to
merits; for God is not a respecter of persons.
83. Rightly then is the woman checked, who
demanded what was impossible, as a special kind of privilege from Him
the Lord, Who of His own free gift granted not only to two apostles,
but to all the disciples, those things which He had adjudged to be
given to the saints; and that too without a prayer from any one, as it
is written: “Ye shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the
twelve tribes of Israel.” S.
84. Therefore, although we may think the
85. And I do not come to this conclusion of
my own mind, but because of the utterances of our Lord’s own
mouth. For the Lord Himself later on, in commending the apostles
to the Father, says: “Father, I will that they also whom
Thou hast given Me be with Me where I am.” S.
86. Then follow the words: “That
they may see My glory.” Here too He did not say:
“that they may have My glory,” but “that they may
see” it. For the servant sees, the Lord possesses; as David
also has taught us, saying: “That I may see the delight of
the Lord.” S.
87. Let them therefore cease to think little of the Son of God according to His Godhead, lest they should think little also of the Father. For he who believes wrongly of the Son cannot think rightly of the Father; he who thinks wrongly of the Spirit cannot think rightly of the Son. For where there is one dignity, one glory, one love, one majesty, whatsoever thou thinkest is to be withdrawn in the case of any one of the Three Persons, is withdrawn from all alike. For that can never have completeness which thou canst separate and divide into various portions.
Objection is taken to the following passage: “Thou hast loved them, as Thou hast loved Me.” To remove it, he shows first the impiety of the Arian explanation; then compares these words with others; and lastly, takes the whole passage into consideration. Hence he gathers that the mission of Christ, although it is to be received according to the flesh, is not to His detriment. When this is proved he shows how the divine mission takes place.
88. There are some,
O Emperor Augustus, who in their desire to deny the unity of the divine
Substance, strive to make little of the love of the Father and the Son,
because it is written: “Thou hast loved them, as Thou hast
loved Me.” S.
89. Can men indeed be loved by God as the
Son is, in Whom the Father is well-pleased? S.
90. And if they start a debate on the words
that are written: “And Thou hast loved them, as Thou hast
loved Me,” and think a comparison is intended; they must think
that the following also was said by way of comparison: “Be
ye merciful, as your Father Which is in heaven is
merciful;” S. S.
91. Thou seest, then, how God has given grace to men, and dost thou wish to dissever the natural and indivisible love of the Father and the Son? And dost thou still strive to make nothing of words, where thou dost note the mention of a unity of majesty?
92. Consider the whole of this passage, and
see from what standpoint He speaks; for thou hearest Him saying:
“Father, glorify Thou Me with the glory which I had with Thee
before the world was.” S. S. S. S.
93. But that thou mightest know the great
God, even the life-giving and Almighty Son of God, He has added a proof
of His majesty by saying: “And all Mine are Thine, and
Thine are Mine.” S.
94. But if thou dost not accept the truth of
His mission according to the flesh, as the Apostle spoke of
it,
95. Or was the Son of God inferior to the
Jews to whom He was sent? For of Him it is written:
“Last of all He sent unto them His only Son, saying, They will
reverence My Son.” S.
96. And rightly did He add the word “My,” that we might believe He came, not as one of many, nor as one of a lower nature or of some inferior power, but as true from Him that is true, as the Image of the Father’s Substance.
97. Suppose, however, that he who is sent is inferior to him by whom he is sent. Christ then was inferior to Pilate; for Pilate sent Him to Herod. But a word does not prejudice His power. Scripture, which says that He was sent from the Father, says that He was sent from a ruler.
98. Wherefore, if we sensibly hold to those
things which be worthy of the Son of God, we ought to understand Him to
have been sent in such a way that the Word of God, out of the
incomprehensible and ineffable mystery of the depths of His majesty,
gave Himself for comprehension to our minds, so far as we could lay
hold of Him, not only when He “emptied” Himself, but also
when He dwelt in us, as it is written: “I will dwell in
them.” S.
Christ, so far as He is true Son of God, has no Lord, but only so far as He is Man; as is shown by His words in which He addressed at one time the Father, at another the Lord. How many heresies are silenced by one verse of Scripture! We must distinguish between the things that belong to Christ as Son of God or as Son of David. For under the latter title only must we ascribe it to Him that He was a servant. Lastly, he points out that many passages cannot be taken except as referring to the Incarnation.
99. Wherefore also
it is plain how He calls Him Lord, Whom He knew as Father. For He
says: “I confess to Thee, Father, Lord of heaven and
earth.” S. S.
100. With what care did the Lord provide for the
faith in this witness because of the Arians! For He did not
say: “The spirit calls Him Lord,” but that
“David spake in spirit;” in order that men might believe
that as He is his, that is, David’s son according to the flesh,
so also He is his Lord and God according to His Godhead. Thou
seest, then, that there is a distinction between the
101. And rightly did the Lord speak of His
own Father, but of the Lord of heaven and earth; so that thou, when
thou readest of the Father and the Lord, mayest understand it is the
Father of the Son, and the Lord of Creation. In the one title
rests the claim of nature, in the other the authority to rule.
For taking on Himself the form of a servant, He calls Him Lord, because
He has submitted to service; being equal to Him in the form of God, but
being a servant in the form of His body: for service is the due
of the flesh, but lordship is the due of the Godhead. Wherefore
also the Apostle says: “The God of our Lord Jesus Christ,
the Father of glory,”
102. If then the Son is glory, and the
Father is glory (for the Father of glory cannot be anything else than
glory), there is no separation of glories, but glory is one. Thus
glory is referred to its own proper nature, but lordship to the service
of the body that was assumed. For if the flesh is subject to the
soul of a just man as it is written: “I chastise my body
and bring it into subjection;”
103. By one question the Lord has shut out
both Sabellians and Photinians and Arians. For when He said that
the Lord spoke to the Lord, Sabellius is set aside, who will have it
that the same Person is both Father and Son. Photinus is set
aside, who thinks of Him merely as man; for none could be Lord of David
the King, but He Who is God, for it is written: “Thou shalt
worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou
serve.” S.
104. For “Son of God” is against
Ebion, Ebion recognized our
Lord absolutely as man and no more. I. 57
sc. I. 6
sc. II. 44. His error was much
the same as that of Ebion, except that he asserted that the Word
descended from heaven and dwelt in Jesus. II. 44.
105. But in the faith of the Church one and
the same is both Son of God the Father and Son of David. For the
mystery of the Incarnation of God is the salvation of the whole of
creation, according to that which is written: “That without
God He should taste death for every man;”
106. It is one thing to be named Son
according to the divine Substance, it is another thing to be so called
according to the adoption of human flesh. For, according to the
divine Generation, the Son is equal to God the Father; and, according
to the adoption of a body, He is a servant to God the Father.
“For,” it says, “He took upon Him the form of a
servant.”
107. Not only does He undergo service in the
character of man by reason of His descent from David, but also by
reason of His name, as it is written: “I have found David
My Servant;”
108. Learn, then, what this means:
“He took upon Him the form of a servant.” It
means that He took upon Him all the perfections of humanity in their
completeness, and obedience in its completeness. And so it says
in the thirtieth Psalm: “Thou hast set my feet in a large
room. I am made a reproach above all mine enemies. Make Thy
face to shine upon Thy servant.”
109. Who is sore humbled, but Christ, Who
came to free all through His obedience? “For as by one
man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of
one shall many be made righteous.”
110. But that is insufficient; take
again: “Preserve My soul, for I am holy.”
111. He has added further: “Save
Thy Servant;”
112. And so, also, when we read that the
Lord said: “My time is not yet full come;” S. S. S. S.
113. Next, to make clear the faith of the
Unity, and the Union of the Trinity, He also said that He would be
glorified by the Spirit, as it stands: “He shall receive of
Mine, and shall glorify Me.” S. S.
114. Let them cease from their wicked objections which are but thrown back upon their own falseness. For they say, it is written: “Now is the Son of Man glorified.” I do not deny that it is written: “The Son of Man is glorified.” But let them see what follows: “And God is glorified in Him.” I can plead some excuse for the Son of Man, but He has none for His Father; for the Father took not flesh upon Himself. I can plead an excuse, but do not use it. He has none, and is falsely attacked. I can either understand it in its plain sense, or I can apply to the flesh what concerns the flesh. A devout mind distinguishes between the things which are spoken after the flesh or after the Godhead. An impious mind turns aside to the dishonour of the Godhead, all that is said with regard to the littleness of the flesh.
The saint meets those who in Jewish wise object to the order of the words: “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost,” with the retort that the Son also is often placed before the Father; though he first points out that an answer to this objection has been already given by him.
115. Why is it that the Arians, after the Jewish fashion, are such false and shameless interpreters of the divine words, going indeed so far as to say that there is one power of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost, since it is written: “Go ye, teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost”? And why do they make a distinction of divine power owing to the mere order of words?
116. Though I have already given this very
witness for a unity of majesty and name in my former books, yet if they
make this the ground of debate, I can maintain on the testimony of the
Scriptures that the Son is mentioned first in many places, and that the
Father is spoken of after Him. Is it therefore a fact that,
because the name of the Son is placed first, by the mere accident of a
word, as the Arians would have it, the Father comes second to the
Son? God forbid, I say, God forbid. Faith knows nothing of
such order as this; it knows nothing of a divided honour of the Father
and the Son. I have not read of, nor heard of, nor found any
varying degree in God. Never have I read of a second, never of a
third God. I have read of a first God,
117. If we pay such excessive regard to
order, then the Son ought not to sit at the right hand of the Father,
nor ought He to call Himself the First and the Beginning. The
Evangelist was wrong in beginning with the Word and not with God, where
he says: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was
with God.” S.
The Arians openly take sides with the heathen in attacking the words: “He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me,” etc. The true meaning of the passage is unfolded; and to prevent us from believing that the Lord forbade us to have faith in Him, it is shown how He spoke at one time as God, at another as Man. After bringing forward examples of various results of that faith, he shows that certain other passages also must be taken in the same way.
118. Last of all,
to show that they are not Christians, they deny that we are to believe
on Christ, saying that it is written: “He that believeth on
Me, believeth not on Me, but on Him that sent Me.” S. It would seem
that the form of words was sometimes changed by Arians, in which case
there would be of course no valid baptism.
119. It is written, they say:
“He that believeth on Me, believeth not on Me, but on Him that
sent Me.” But see what follows, and see how the Son of God
wishes to be seen; for it continues: “And he that seeth Me,
seeth Him that sent Me,” S.
120. What, then, is the meaning of
“Believeth not on Me”? That is, not on that which you
can perceive in bodily form, nor merely on the man whom you see.
For He has stated that we are to believe not merely on a man, but that
thou mayest believe that Jesus Christ Himself is both God and
Man. Wherefore, for both reasons He says: “I came not
from Myself;” S. S.
121. Nor is it right to believe that He
denied we were to believe on Him, since He Himself said:
“That whosoever believeth on Me should not abide in
darkness;” S. S. S.
122. Let no one, therefore, receive the Son
without the Father, because we read of the Son. The Son hath the
Father, but not in a temporal sense, nor by reason of His passion, nor
owing to His conception, nor by grace. I have read of His
Generation, I have not read of His Conception. And the Father
says: “I have begotten;”
123. He represents Himself also now in the
character of man, now in the majesty of God; now claiming for Himself
oneness of Godhead with the Father, now taking upon Him all the frailty
of human flesh; now saying that He has not His own doctrine, and now
that He seeks not His own will; now pointing out that His testimony is
not true, and now that it is true. For He Himself has said:
“If I bear witness of Myself, My witness is not
true.” S. S.
124. And how is Thy testimony, Lord Jesus,
not true? Did not he who believed it, though he hung upon the
cross, and paid the penalty for the crime he owned to, cast aside the
deserts of the robber and gain the reward of the innocent? S.
125. Was Paul deceived, who received his
sight, because he believed;
126. And did Joshua, the son of Nun, err in
recognizing the leader of the heavenly host?
127. A harlot saw this; and she who in the
destruction of the city lost all hope of any means of safety, because
her faith had conquered, bound a scarlet thread in her window, and thus
uplifted a sign of her faith and the banner of the Lord’s
Passion;
128. How, then, is Thy testimony not true, O
Lord, except it be given in accordance with the frailty of man?
For “every man is a liar.”
129. Lastly, to prove that He spoke as man,
He says: “The Father that sent Me, He beareth witness of
Me.” S. S.
130. Therefore, when thou hearest:
“He that believeth, believeth not on Me;” or:
“The Father that sent Me, He gave Me a
commandment;” S. S. S.
131. Whether, then, a command, or, as some Latin manuscripts have it, a direction was given, it was certainly not given to Him as God, but as incarnate man, with reference to the victory He should gain in undergoing His Passion.
We must refer the fact that Christ is said to speak nothing of Himself, to His human nature. After explaining how it is right to say that He hears and sees the Father as being God, He shows conclusively, by a large number of proofs, that the Son of God is not a creature.
132. Are we indeed
to bring the Son of God to such a low estate that He may not know how
to act or speak, except as He hears, and are we to suppose that a fixed
measure of action or of speech is assigned to Him, because it is
written: “I speak not of Myself,” and, further
on: “As the Father hath said unto Me, even so I
speak”? S.
133. Whereby is meant no personal duty, but
an indivisible sentence of co-operation. For this does not
signify any actual hearing of words, but the unity of will and of
power, which exists both in the Father and in the Son. He has
stated that this exists also in the Holy Spirit, in another place,
saying, “For He shall not speak of Himself, but whatsoever He
shall hear, that shall He speak,” S. S. S.
134. This is what we understand according to
the whole course of the holy Scriptures; but the Arians, who will not
think of God the things that be right, may be put to silence by an
example just suited to their deserts; that they may not believe
everything in carnal fashion, since they themselves do not see the
works of their father the devil with bodily eyes. So the Lord has
declared of their fellows the Jews, saying: “Ye do what ye
have seen your father doing;” S.
135. But we have sufficiently proved by
examples from Scripture that it is a property of the unity of the
divine majesty that the Father should abide in the Son, and that the
Son should seem to have heard from the Father those things which He
speaks. How else can we understand the unity of majesty than by
the knowledge that the same deference is paid to the Father and the
Son? For what can be better put than the Apostle’s saying
that the Lord of glory was crucified?
136. The Son then is the God of glory and the Lord of glory, but glory is not subject to creatures; the Son therefore is not a creature.
137. The Son is the Image of the
Father’s Substance;
138. The Son thought it not robbery to be
equal with God;
139. Every creature is changeable; but the Son of God is not changeable; therefore the Son of God is not a creature.
140. Every creature meets with chance occurrences of good and evil after the powers of its nature, and also feels their passing away; but nothing can pass away from or bring addition to the Son of God in His Godhead; therefore the Son of God is not a creature.
141. Every work of His God will bring into
judgment;
142. Lastly, that thou mayest understand the
unity, the Saviour in speaking of His sheep says: “No man
is able to pluck them out of My hand. My Father Which gave them
to Me is greater than all, and no man is able to pluck them out of My
Father’s hand. I and My Father are one.” S.
143. So the Son gives life as does the
S.
144. It is not the same thing to rule as to serve; but Christ is both a King and the Son of a King. The Son of God therefore is not a servant. Every creature, however, gives service. But the Son of God, Who makes servants become the sons of God, does not give service. Therefore the Son of God is not a servant.
He confirms what has been already said, by the parable of the rich man who went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom; and shows that when the Son delivers up the kingdom to the Father, we must not regard the fact that the Father is said to put all things in subjection under Him, in a disparaging way. Here we are the kingdom of Christ, and in Christ’s kingdom. Hereafter we shall be in the kingdom of God, where the Trinity will reign together.
145. In divine
fashion has He represented that parable of the rich man, who went to a
far-off country to receive a kingdom, and to return, S.
146. Jesus therefore came to this earth to
receive for Himself a kingdom from us, to whom He says:
“The kingdom of God is within you.” S. S.
147. Let us follow the course of the
Scriptures. He Who came will deliver up the kingdom to God the
Father; and when He has delivered up the kingdom, then also shall He be
subject to Him, Who has put all things in subjection under Him, that
God may be all in all.
148. And dost thou make objections and
contemn Him, because God has put all things in subjection under Him,
when thou hearest that the Son of Man delivers up the kingdom to God,
and hast read, as we said in our earlier books: “No man can
come to Me, except the Father draw him; and I will raise him up at the
last day”? S.
149. Let the Son then deliver up His kingdom
to the Father. The kingdom which He delivers up is not lost to
Christ, but grows. We are the kingdom, for it was said to
us: “The kingdom of God is within you.” S. S.
150. It is a good thing to be in the kingdom
of Christ, so that Christ may be with us; as He Himself says:
“Lo I am with you always, even unto the end of the
world.” S. S. S.
151. Therefore we are now under
Christ’s rule, whilst we are in the body, and are not yet
stripped of the form of a servant, which He put upon Him, when He
“emptied Himself.” But when we shall see His glory,
which He had before the world was, we shall be in the kingdom of God,
in which are the patriarchs and prophets, of whom it is written:
“When ye shall see Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and all the
prophets in the kingdom of God;” S.
152. But in the kingdom of the Son the
Father also reigns; and in the kingdom of the Father the Son also
reigns: for the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father;
and in whomsoever the Son dwells, in him also the Father dwells; and in
whomsoever the Father dwells, in him also the Son dwells, as it is
written: “Both I and My Father will come to Him, and make
Our abode with Him.” S.
With the desire to learn what subjection to Christ means after putting forward and rejecting various ideas of subjection, he runs through the Apostle’s words; and so puts an end to the blasphemous opinions of the heretics on this matter. The subjection, which is shown to be future, cannot concern the Godhead, since there has always been the greatest harmony of wills between the Father and the Son. Also to that same Son in His Godhead all things have indeed been made subject; but they are said to be not yet subject to Him in this sense, because all men do not obey His commands. But after that they have been made subject, then shall Christ also be made subject in them, and the Father’s work be perfected.
153. But if the one name and right of God belong to both the Father and the Son, since the Son of God is also true God, and a King eternal, the Son of God is not made subject in His Godhead. Let us then, Emperor Augustus, think how we ought to regard His subjection.
154. How is the Son of God made subject? As the creature to vanity? But it is blasphemous to have any such idea of the Substance of the Godhead.
155. Or as every creature is to the Son of
God, for it is rightly written: “Thou hast put all things
in subjection under His feet”?
156. Or as a woman to a man, as we
read: “Let the wives be subject to their
husbands;”
157. Or as Peter said: “Submit
yourselves to every human creature”?
158. Or as Paul wrote:
“Submitting yourselves mutually to God and the Father in the fear
of Christ”?
159. How, then, do we understand His
subjection? Shall we review the whole chapter which the Apostle
wrote, so as to give no appearance of having falsely withheld anything,
or of having weakened its force with intention to deceive?
“If in this life only,” he says, “we have hope in
Christ, we are of all men most miserable. But if Christ is risen
from the dead, He is the first-fruits of them that
sleep.”
160. “For since by one man,” he says,
“came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made
alive. But each one in his own order: Christ the
firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ’s, who have believed
in His coming. Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered
up the kingdom to God, even the Father, when He shall have put down all
rule and authority and power. For He must reign until He hath put
all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be
destroyed is death; for He hath put all things under His
161. How, then, do we speak of His subjection? The Sabellians and Marcionites say that this subjection of Christ to God the Father will be in such wise that the Son will be re-absorbed into the Father. If, then, the subjection of the Word means that God the Word is to be absorbed into the Father; then whatsoever is made subject to the Father and the Son will be absorbed into the Father and the Son, that God may be all and in all His creatures. But it is foolish to say so. There is therefore no subjection through re-absorption. For there are other things which are made subject, those, that is to say, which are created, and there is Another, to Whom that subjection is made. Let the expounders of a cruel re-absorption keep silence.
162. Would that they too were silent, who,
as they cannot prove that the Word of God and Wisdom of God can be
re-absorbed, attribute the weakness of subjection to His Godhead,
saying that it is written: “But when all things shall be
subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto
Him.”
163. We see, then, that the Scripture states that He is not yet made subject, but that this is to come: Therefore now the Son is not made subject to God the Father. In what, then, do ye say that the Son will be made subject? If in His Godhead, He is not disobedient, for He is not at variance with the Father; nor is He made subject, for He is not a servant, but the only Son of His own proper Father. Lastly, when He created heaven, and formed the earth, He exercised both power and love. There is therefore no subjection as that of a servant in the Godhead of Christ. But if there is no subjection then the will is free.
164. But if they think of this as the subjection of the Son, namely, that the Father makes all things in union with His will, let them learn that this is really a proof of inseparable power. For the unity of Their will is one that began not in time, but ever existed. But where there is a constant unity of will, there can be no weakness of temporal subjection. For if He were made subject through His nature, He would always remain in subjection; but since He is said to be made subject in time, that subjection must be part of an assumed office and not of an everlasting weakness: especially as the eternal Power of God cannot change His state for a time, neither can the right of ruling fall to the Father in time. For if the Son ever will be changed in such wise as to be made subject in His Godhead, then also must God the Father, if ever He shall gain more power, and have the Son in subjection to Himself in His Godhead, be considered now in the meantime inferior according to your explanation.
165. But what fault has the Son been guilty
of, that we should believe that He could hereafter be made subject in
His Godhead? Has he as man seized for Himself the right to sit at
His Father’s side, or has He claimed for Himself the prerogative
of His Father’s throne, against His Father’s will?
But He Himself says: “For I do always those things that
please Him.” S.
166. Let us see then that there be not a
subjection of the Godhead, but rather of us in the fear of Christ, a
truth so full of grace, and so full of mystery. Wherefore, again,
let us weigh the Apostle’s words: “But when all
things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be
subject unto Him that put all things under Him: that God may be
all in all.” What then dost thou say? Are not all
things now subject unto Him? Are not the choirs of the saints
made subject? Are not the angels, who ministered to Him when on
the earth? S.
167. How, then, will they be brought into
subjection? In the way that the Lord Himself has said.
“Take My yoke upon you.” S. S.
168. Will any one say that Christ is now
made subject, because many have believed? Certainly not.
For Christ’s subjection lies not in a few but in all. For
just as I do not seem to be brought into subjection, if the flesh in me
as yet lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the
flesh,
169. But as Christ is not yet made subject,
so is the work of God not yet perfected; for the Son of God said:
“My meat is to do the will of My Father that sent Me, and to
finish His work.” S.
He continues the discussion of the difficulty he has entered upon, and teaches that Christ is not subject but only according to the flesh. Christ, however, whilst in subjection in the Flesh, still gave proofs of His Godhead. He combats the idea that Christ is made subject in This. The humanity indeed, which He adopted, has been so far made subject in us, as ours has been raised in that very humanity of His. Lastly, we are taught, when that same subjection of Christ will take place.
170. However, lest
anyone should cavil, see what care Scripture takes under divine
inspiration. For it shows to us in what Christ is made subject to
God, whilst it also teaches us in what He made the universe subject to
Himself. And so it says: “Now we see not yet all
things put under Him.”
171. Let us then think of His
subjection. “Father,” He says, “if Thou be
willing, remove this cup from Me; nevertheless not My will but Thine be
done.” S.
172. See how I do not fear their
intentions. They allege that He must be subject to God the
Father, I say He was subject to Mary His Mother. For it is
written of Joseph and Mary: “He was subject unto
them.” S.
173. Let not the fact that He is said to have been
made subject work against Him, Who receives no hurt from the fact that
He is called a servant, or is stated to have been crucified, or is
spoken of as dead. For when He died He lived; when He was made
subject He was reigning; when He was buried He revived again. He
offered Himself in subjection to human power, yet at another time He
declared He was the Lord of eternal glory. He was before the
judge, yet claimed for Himself a throne at the right hand of God, as
Judge forever. For thus it is written: “Hereafter ye
shall see the Son of Man sitting on the right hand of the power of God,
and coming in the
S.
174. But since the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are of one Nature, the Father certainly will not be in subjection to Himself. And therefore the Son will not be in subjection in that in which He is one with the Father; lest it should seem that through the unity of the Godhead the Father also is in subjection to the Son. Therefore, as upon that cross it was not the fulness of the Godhead, but our weakness that was brought into subjection, so also will the Son hereafter become subject to the Father in the participation of our nature, in order that when the lusts of the flesh are brought into subjection the heart may have no care for riches, or ambition, or pleasures; but that God may be all to us, if we live after His image and likeness, as far as we can attain to it, through all.
175. The benefit has passed, then, from the
individual to the community; for in His flesh He has tamed the nature
of all human flesh. Thus, according to the Apostle:
“As we have borne the image of the earthly, so also shall we bear
the image of the heavenly.”
176. And that thou mightest know that when
he says: “That God may be all in all,” he does not
separate Christ from God the Father, he also says to the
Colossians: “Where there is neither male nor female, Jew
nor Greek, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all and
in all.”
177. But if thou shouldst ask how He was
made subject in us, He Himself shows us, saying: “I was in
prison, and ye came unto Me; I was sick, and ye visited Me:
Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these ye have done
it unto Me.” S.
178. As, then, He was made sin and a curse
not on His own account but on ours, so He became subject in us not for
His own sake but for ours, being not in subjection in His eternal
Nature, nor accursed in His eternal Nature. “For cursed is
every one that hangeth on a tree.”
179. For who is so mad as to think, as we
have said already, Cf. ch. v.
180. It is written, thou sayest, that “when
we were dead in sins, He hath quickened us
181. As we then sit in Him by fellowship in
our fleshly nature, so also He, Who through the assumption of our flesh
was made a curse for us (seeing that a curse could not fall upon the
blessed Son of God), so, I say, He through the obedience of all will
become subject in us; when the Gentile has believed, and the Jew has
acknowledged Him Whom he crucified; when the Manichæan has
worshipped Him, Whom he has not believed to have come in the flesh;
when the Arian has confessed Him to be Almighty, Whom he has denied;
when, lastly, the wisdom of God, His justice, peace, love,
resurrection, is in all. Through His own works and through the
manifold forms of virtues Christ will be in us in subjection to the
Father. And when, with vice renounced and crime at an end, one
spirit in the heart of all peoples has begun to cleave to God in all
things, then will God be all and in all.
He briefly takes up again the same points of dispute, and shrewdly concludes from the unity of the divine power in the Father and the Son, that whatever is said of the subjection of the Son is to be referred to His humanity alone. He further confirms this on proof of the love, which exists alike in either.
182. Let us then shortly sum up our conclusion on the whole matter. A unity of power puts aside all idea of a degrading subjection. His giving up of power, and His victory as conqueror won over death, have not lessened His power. Obedience works out subjection. Christ has taken obedience upon Himself, obedience even to taking on Him our flesh, the cross even to gaining our salvation. Thus where the work lies, there too is the Author of the work. When therefore, all things have become subject to Christ, through Christ’s obedience, so that all bend their knees in His name, then He Himself will be all in all. For now, since all do not believe, all do not seem to be in subjection. But when all have believed and done the will of God, then Christ will be all and in all. And when Christ is all and in all, then will God be all and in all; for the Father abides ever in the Son. How, then, is He shown to be weak, Who redeemed the weak?
183. And lest thou shouldst by chance
attribute to the weakness of the Son, that it is written, that God hath
put all things in subjection under Him; learn that He has Himself
brought all things into subjection to Himself, for it is written:
“Our conversation is in heaven, from whence also we look for the
Saviour, the Lord Jesus, Who shall change our vile body that it may be
fashioned like unto His glorious body according to the working, whereby
He is able to subdue all things unto Himself.”
184. Learn now how He receives all things in
subjection according to the flesh, as it is written: “Who
wrought in Christ, raising Him from the dead, and setting Him at His
own right hand in the heavenly places, above principality and power and
might and dominion and every name that is named not only in this world,
but also in that which is to come; and hath put all things under His
feet.”
185. Many nobly interpret that which is
written: “Truly my soul will be in subjection to
God;” S. S.
186. This is the reverent interpretation of
subjection, for since this is the office of the
187. At the same time, we must also think of
the words which, after first saying “Who shall separate us from
the love of Christ?”
The Arians are condemned by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of David: for they dare to limit Christ’s knowledge. The passage cited by them in proof of this is by no means free from suspicion of having been corrupted. But to set this right, we must mark the word “Son.” For knowledge cannot fail Christ as Son of God, since He is Wisdom; nor the recognition of any part, for He created all things. It is not possible that He, who made the ages, cannot know the future, much less the day of judgment. Such knowledge, whether it concerns anything great or small, may not be denied to the Son, nor yet to the Holy Spirit. Lastly, various proofs are given from which we can gather that this knowledge exists in Christ.
188. Wherefore we
ought to know that they who make such statements are accursed and
condemned by the Holy Spirit. For whom else but the Arians in
chief does the prophet condemn, seeing that they say that the Son of
God knows neither times nor years. For there is nothing which God
is ignorant of; and Christ, yea the most high Christ, is God, for He is
“God over all.”
189. See how horrified holy David is at such
men, in limiting the knowledge of the Son of God. For thus it is
written: “They are not in the troubles of other men,
neither will they be scourged with men; therefore their pride has laid
hold on them; they are covered with their wickedness and blasphemy;
their iniquity hath stood forth as it were with fatness; they have
passed on to the thoughts of their heart.”
190. “They have thought,” he
says, “and have spoken wickedness. They have spoken
wickedness against the Most High. They have set their mouth
against heaven.”
191. And they have said: “How
hath God known? And is there knowledge in the Most
High?”
192. It is written, they say:
“But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels
which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father
only.” S.
193. Suppose however that the Evangelist wrote
thus. The name of “Son” embraces both natures.
For He is also called Son of Man, so that in the ignorance attached to
the assumption of our nature, He seems not to have known the day of the
judgment to come. For how could the Son
194. I ask then, whether He had this knowledge by reason of His Being, or by chance? For all knowledge comes to us either through nature, or by learning. It is supplied by nature, as for instance to a horse to enable it to run, or to a fish to enable it to swim. For they do this without learning. On the other hand, it is by learning that a man is enabled to swim. For he could not do so unless he had learnt. Since therefore nature enables dumb animals to do and to know what they have not learnt, why shouldst thou give an opinion on the Son of God, and say whether He has knowledge by instruction or by nature? If by instruction, then He was not begotten as Wisdom, and gradually began to be perfect, but was not always so. But if He has knowledge by nature, then He was perfect in the beginning, He came forth perfect from the Father; and so needed no foreknowledge of the future.
195. He therefore was not ignorant of the
days; for it does not fall to the lot of the Wisdom of God to know in
part and in part to be ignorant. For how can He who made all
things be ignorant of a part, since it is a less thing to know than to
make. For we know many things which we cannot make, neither do we
all know things in the same way but we know them in part. For a
countryman knows the force of the wind and the courses of the stars in
one way—the inhabitant of a city knows them in another
way—and a pilot in yet a third way. But although all do not
know all things, they are said to know them; but He alone knows all
things in full, Who made all things. The pilot knows for how many
watches Arcturus continues, what sort of a rising of Orion he will
discover, but he knows nothing of the connection of the Vergiliæ
and of the other stars, or of their number or names, as does He
“Who numbers the multitude of stars, and calleth them all by
their names;”
196. How then do you wish the Son of God to
have made these things? Like a signet ring which does not feel
the impression it makes? But the Father made all things in
wisdom,
197. But thou sayest that He knows the
present and does not know the future. Though this is a foolish
suggestion, yet that I may satisfy thee on Scriptural grounds, learn
that He made not only what is past, but also what is future, as it is
written: “Who made things to come.”
198. If we are to believe this about the
ages, much more must we believe it about the day of judgment, on the
ground that the Son of God has knowledge of it, as being already made
by Him. For it is written: “According to Thine
ordinance the day will continue.”
199. Let us however see if by chance there may be some great thing, which could be beyond the knowledge of its Creator; or at least let them choose whether they will think of something great and superior to other things, or something very little and mean. If it is very little and mean, it is no loss, to speak after our fashion, to know nothing of worthless and petty things. For as it is a sign of power to know the greatest things, it seems rather to be a sign of inferior work to look upon what is worth less. Thus He is freed from fastidiousness, yet is not deprived of His power.
200. But if they think it a great and
im S.
201. Next because you make certain grades,
so as to put the Father before the Son, and the Son before the Holy
Spirit, tell me whether the Holy Spirit knew the day of judgment.
For no thing is written of Him in this place. You deny it
entirely. But what if I show you He knew it? For it is
written: “But God hath revealed them to us by His Spirit,
for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of
God.”
202. Now consider how knowledge is acquired, and let us show that the Son Himself proved that He knew the day. For what we know we make clear either by mention of time or place or signs or persons, or by giving their order. How then did He not know the day of judgment Who described both the hour and the place of judgment, and the signs and the cases?
203. And so thou hast it: “In
that hour he which shall be on the housetop let him not come down to
take his goods out of his house, and he that is in the field, let him
likewise not return back.” S.
204. Could the Lord be ignorant of a day Who
Himself said of Himself that the Son of Man is Lord of the
Sabbath? S.
205. He has also elsewhere marked out a
place, when He said to His disciples who were showing Him the building
of the temple, “Do ye see all these things? Verily I say
unto you, there shall not be left one stone upon another which shall
not be thrown down.” S.
206. When questioned also about a sign by
His disciples, He answered: “Take heed that ye be not
deceived. For many shall come in My name, saying I am
Christ;” S. S.
207. In what manner He tells that the armies will surround Jerusalem, or that the times of the Gentiles are to be fulfilled, and in what order,—all this is disclosed to us by the witness of the Gospel words. Therefore He knew all things.
Christ acted for our advantage in being unwilling to reveal the day of judgment. This is made plain by other words of our Lord and by a not dissimilar passage from Paul’s writings. Other passages in which the same ignorance seems to be attributed to the Father are brought forward to meet those who are anxious to know why Christ answered His disciples, as though He did not know. From these Ambrose argues against them that if they admit ignorance and inability in the Father, they must admit that the same Substance exists in the Son as in the Father; unless they prefer to accuse the Son of falsehood; since it belongs neither to Him nor to the Father to deceive, but the unity of both is pointed out in the passage named.
208. But we ask for
what reason He was unwilling to state the time. If we ask it, we
shall not find it is owing to ignorance, but to wisdom. For it
was not to our advantage to know; in order that we being ignorant of
the actual moments of judgment to come, might ever be as it were on
guard, and set on the watch-tower of virtue, and so avoid the habits of
sin; lest the day of the Lord should come upon us in the midst of our
wickedness. For it is not to our advantage to know but rather to
fear the future; for it is written: “Be not high-minded but
fear.”
209. For if He had distinctly stated the day, he
would seem to have laid down a rule
210. Therefore I have said that it was not
to our advantage to know; nay, it is to our advantage to be ignorant,
that through ignorance we might fear, through watchfulness be
corrected, as He Himself said: “Be ye ready, for ye know
not at what hour the Son of Man cometh.” S.
211. Wherefore at another time also the Lord
Himself when asked by his Apostles (Yes, for they did not understand it
as Arius did, but believed that the Son of God knew the future.
For unless they had believed this, they would never have asked the
question.)—the Lord, I say, when asked when He would restore the
kingdom to Israel, did not say that He did not know, but says:
“It is not for you to know the times or years, which the Father
hath put in His own power.”
212. Which example the Apostle also
followed: “But of the times and seasons, brethren,”
he says, “ye have no need that I write unto you.”
213. But you ask, why did He not refuse His
disciples as one who knew, but would not say; and, why did He state
instead that neither the angels nor the Son knew? S.
214. But in the Gospel of Luke also thou
hast the same, for the Father says: “What shall I do?
I will send My beloved Son; it may be that they will reverence
Him.” S. S. S.
215. But God can neither be in doubt, nor
can He be deceived. For he only is in doubt, who is ignorant of
the future; and he is deceived, who has predicted one thing, whilst
another has happened. Yet what is plainer than the fact that
Scripture states the Father to have said one thing of the Son, and that
the same Scripture proves another think to have taken place? The
Son was beaten, He was mocked, was crucified, and died. S.
216. Yet if either He was ignorant, or had not
power (for you would sooner agree to say that the Father did not know
than own that the Son knows), you see from this very
217. But perhaps you say that the Father did not say so, but that the Son erred about the Father. So now you convict the Son not only of weakness, but also of blasphemy and lying. However if you do not believe the Son with regard to the Father, neither may you believe Him with regard to that. For if He wished to deceive us in saying that the Father was in doubt as though He knew not what would take place, He wished also to deceive us about Himself in saying that He did not know the future. It would be far more endurable for Him to stretch the veil of ignorance in front of that which He does of His own accord, than that He should seem to be deluded by a result contrary to what He had foretold in the things He had declared of His Father.
218. But neither is the Father deceived, not does the Son deceive. It is the custom of the holy Scriptures to speak thus, as the examples I have already given, and many others testify, so that God feigns not to know what He does know. In this then a unity of Godhead, and a unity of character is proved to exist in the Father and in the Son; seeing that, as God the Father hides what is known to Him, so also the Son, Who is the image of God in this respect, hides what is known to Him.
Wishing to give a reason for the Lord’s answer to the apostles, he assigns the one received to Christ’s tenderness. Then when another reason is supplied by others he confesses that it is true; for the Lord spoke it by reason of His human feelings. Hence he gathers that the knowledge of the Father and the Son is equal, and that the Son is not inferior to the Father. After having set beside the text, in which He is said to be inferior, another whereby He is declared to be equal, he censures the rashness of the Arians in judging about the Son, and shows that whilst they wickedly make Him to be inferior, He is rightly called a Stone by Himself.
219. We have been taught therefore that the Son of God is not ignorant of the future. If they confess this, I too—that I may now answer why He declared that neither angels, nor the Son, but only the Father knows—call to mind His wonted love for His disciples also in this passage, and His grace, which by its very frequency ought to have been known to all. For the Lord, filled with deep love for His disciples, when they asked from Him what He thought unprofitable for them to know, prefers to seem ignorant of what He knows, rather than to refuse an answer. He loves rather to provide what is useful for us, than to show His own power.
220. There are, however, some not so
faint-hearted as I. For I would rather fear the deep things of
God, than be wise. There are some, however, relying on the
words: “And Jesus increased in age and in wisdom and in
favour with God and man,” S. S. S.
221. This is what others say, but I—to
return to my former point, where I stated it was written of the
Father: “It may be they will reverence My
Son,”—I think indeed this was written in order that the
Father, as He was speaking of men, might also seem to have spoken with
human feelings. But still more am I inclined to think that the
Son Who went about with men, and lived the life of man, and took upon
Him our flesh, assumed also our feelings; so that after our ignorance
He might say He knew not, though there was not anything He did not
know. For though He seemed to be a man in the reality of His
body, yet was He Life, and Light, and virtue came out of Him, S.
222. Ye see then that this matter has been solved for you, since the saying of the Son is referred to the assumption of our state in its fulness, and it was thus written concerning the Father, in order that you might cease to cavil at the Son.
223. There was nothing then of which the Son
of God was ignorant, for there was nothing of which the Father was
ignorant. But if the Son was ignorant of nothing, as we now
conclude, let them say in what respect they wish Him to seem to be
inferior. If God has begotten a Son inferior to Himself, He has
granted Him less. If He has granted Him less, He either wished to
give less, or could only give less. But the Father is neither
weak nor envious, seeing that there was neither will nor power before
the Son. For wherein is He inferior, Who has all things even as
the Father has them? He has received all things from the Father
by right of His Generation, S.
224. It is written, they say:
“For the Father is greater than I.” S. S. S.
225. They say He is inferior: I ask
who has measured it, who is of so overweening a heart, as to place the
Father and the Son before his judgment seat to decide upon which is the
greater? “My heart is not haughty nor are mine eyes raised
unto vanity,” S.
226. But thou sayest that He said He was inferior, He said also He was a Stone. Thou sayest more and yet dost impiously attack Him. I say less and with reverence add to His honour. Thou sayest He is inferior and confessest Him to be above the angels. I say He is less than the angels, yet do not take from His honour; for I do not refute His Godhead, but I do proclaim His pity
The Saint having turned to God the Father, explains why he does not deride that the Son is inferior to the Father, then he declares it is not for him to measure the Son of God, since it was given to an angel—nay, perhaps even to Christ as man—to measure merely Jerusalem. Arius, he says, has shown himself to be an imitator of Satan. It is a rash thing to hold discussions on the divine Generation. Since so great a sign of human generation has been given by Isaiah, we ought not to make comparisons in divine things. Lastly he shows how carefully we ought to avoid the pride of Arius, by putting before us various examples of Scriptures.
227. To Thee now,
Almighty Father, do I direct my words with tears. I indeed have
readily called Thee inapproachable, incomprehensible, inestimable; but
I dared not say Thy Son was inferior to Thyself. For when I read
that He is the Brightness of Thy glory, and the Image of Thy
Person,
228. But be it so, that I desired with a daring
and rash spirit to measure Thee? From whence, I ask, shall I
measure Thee? The prophet saw a line of flax with which the angel
measured Jerusalem. An angel was measuring, not Arius. And
he was measuring Jerusalem, not God. And perchance even an angel
could not measure Jerusalem, for it was a man. Thus it is
written: “I raised mine eyes and saw and beheld a man, and
in his hand there was a
S.
229. Even Satan transforms himself into an
angel of light;
230. If, then, I cannot measure Thee,
Almighty Father, can I without blasphemy discuss the secrets of Thy
Generation? Can I say there is anything more or less between Thee
and Thy Son when He Himself Who was begotten of Thee, says:
“All things which the Father hath are Mine.” S. S.
231. “This generation,” it says,
“is an evil generation. It seeketh a sign, and there shall
no sign be given it, but the sign of Jonas the prophet.” S.
232. Let the Arians see to what they do. I have unlawfully compared Thee, O Father, with Thy works in saying that Thou art greater than all. If greater than Thy Son, as Arius maintains, I have judged wickedly. Concerning Thee first will that judgment be. For no choice can be made except by comparison, nor can anyone be put before another without a decision being first given on Himself.
233. It is not lawful for us to swear by heaven, but it is lawful to judge about God. Yet Thou hast given to Thy Son alone judgment over all.
234. John feared to baptize the flesh of the
Lord, John forbade Him, saying: “I have need to be baptized
of Thee, and comest Thou to me?” S.
235. Moses excuses himself from the
Priesthood, Peter is for avoiding the obedience demanded in the
Ministry; and does Arius examine even the deep things of God? But
Arius is not the Holy Spirit. Nay, it was said even to Arius and
to all men: “Seek not that which is too deep for
thee.”
236. Moses is prevented from seeing the face
of God;
237. Paul also speaks of inferior
beings: “We know in part and we prophesy in
part.”
238. But Arius was not caught up to heaven,
although he followed him who with accursed boastfulness presumed on
what was divine, saying: “I will set my throne upon the
clouds; I will be like the Most High.”
The writer explains in the commencement of this treatise that his object was to set forth, for the benefit of those about to be baptized, the rites and meaning of that Sacrament, as well as of Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist. For all these matters were treated with the greatest reserve in the Early Church, for fear of profanation by the heathen, and it was the custom, as in the case of the well-known Catechetical Lectures of St. Cyril of Jerusalem, to explain them to the catechumens during the latter part of Lent.
Treatises of this kind possess therefore a special interest, as in them we find clearly stated the full teaching of the Church at the time when those addresses which have come down to our times were drawn up.
St. Ambrose goes through and explains the greater part, first of the rites usual at the time of solemn baptism, pointing out the deep truths and mysteries underlying these outward things. He then treats Confirmation, referring to the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit; and lastly, speaks of the Holy Eucharist, especially setting forth the doctrine of the Real Presence.
Some writers in and since the sixteenth century have endeavoured to prove that this treatise has been falsely attributed to St. Ambrose, but there can be no real doubt on the matter, as is conclusively shown by the Benedictine Editors, and now universally admitted. The treatise was composed for use during Lent, but in what year cannot be fixed, possibly, from reference made to the treatise De Patriarchis, about a.d. 387.
It must be borne in mind that the name Mysteries was that by which the sacraments were commonly known in the Early Church, as it is at the present day in the Greek Church the equivalent of our word sacraments. Of course the word has also its usual wider signification.
St. Ambrose states that after the explanations he has already given of holy living, he will now explain the Mysteries. Then after giving his reasons for not having done so before, he explains the mystery of the opening of the ears, and shows how this was of old done by Christ Himself.
1. We have spoken daily upon subjects connected with morals, when the deeds of the Patriarchs or the precepts of the Proverbs were being read, in order that being taught and instructed by these you might grow accustomed to enter the ways of the ancients and to walk in their paths, and obey the divine commands; in order that being renewed by baptism you might hold to that manner of life which beseems those who are washed.
2. The season now warns us to speak of the Mysteries, and to set forth the purport of the sacraments, which if we had thought it well to teach before baptism to those who were not yet initiated, we should be considered rather to have betrayed than to have portrayed the Mysteries. And then, too, another reason is that the light itself of the Mysteries will shed itself with more effect upon those who are expecting they know not what, than if any discourse had come beforehand.
3. Open, then, your ears, inhale the good
savour of eternal life which has been breathed upon you by the grace of
the sacraments; which was signified to you by us, when, celebrating the
mystery of the opening, This
“opening” was a symbolical act, as is explained in the next
section. The celebrant moistened his finger with spittle,
wherewith he then touched the ear of the catechumen, saying,
“Epphatha.” S.
4. Christ made use of this mystery in the Gospel, as we read, when He healed him who was deaf and dumb. But He touched the mouth, because he who was healed was dumb and was a man, as regards one point that he might open his mouth with the sound of the voice given to him; as regards the other point because that touch was seemly towards a man, but would have been unseemly towards a woman.
What those who were to be initiated promised on entering the Church, of the witnesses to these promises, and wherefore they then turned themselves to the East.
5. After this the
Holy of holies
“Holy of holies,” a figurative name given to the
baptistery. Comp. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Cat. Lect. XIX.
11; and with this whole treatise the last four Catechetical Lectures of
St. Cyril of Jerusalem in this series, Vol. VII. p. 144 ff.
6. You saw there the deacon, you saw the
priest, you saw the chief priest [i.e. the bishop]. Consider not
the bodily forms, but the grace of the Mysteries. You spoke in
the presence of the angels, as it is written: “For the
priest’s lips keep knowledge, and they seek the law at his mouth,
for he is the angel of the Lord Almighty.”
7. You entered, then, that you might discern your adversary, whom you were to renounce as it were to his face, then you turned to the east; for he who renounces the devil turns to Christ, and beholds Him face to face.
St. Ambrose points out that we must consider the divine presence and working in the water and the sacred ministers, and then brings forward many Old Testament figures of baptism.
8. What did you
see? Water, certainly, but not water alone; you saw the deacons
ministering there, and the bishop asking questions and hallowing.
First of all, the Apostle taught you that those things are not to be
considered “which we see, but the things which are not seen, for
the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not
seen are eternal.” S.
9. Consider, however, how ancient is the
mystery prefigured even in the origin of the world itself. In the
very beginning, when God made the heaven and the earth, “the
Spirit,” it is said, “moved upon the
waters.”
10. Take another testimony. All flesh
was corrupt by its iniquities. “My Spirit,” says God,
“shall not remain among men, because they are
flesh.”
11. The water, then, is that in which the flesh is dipped, that all carnal sin may be washed away. All wickedness is there buried. The wood is that on which the Lord Jesus was fastened when He suffered for us. The dove is that in the form of which the Holy Spirit descended, as you have read in the New Testament, Who inspires in you peace of soul and tranquillity of mind. The raven is the figure of sin, which goes forth and does not return, if, in you, too, inwardly and outwardly righteousness be preserved.
12. There is also a third testimony, as the
Apostle teaches us: “For all our fathers were under the
cloud, and all passed through the sea, and were all baptized to Moses
in the cloud and in the sea.”
13. You hear that our fathers were under the
cloud, and that a kindly cloud, which cooled the heat of carnal
passions. That kindly cloud overshadows those whom the Holy
Spirit visits. At last it came upon the Virgin Mary, and the
Power of the Highest overshadowed her, S. S.
14. Marah was a fountain of most bitter
water: Moses cast wood into it and it became sweet.
15. You must not trust, then, wholly to your bodily eyes; that which is not seen is more really seen, for the object of sight is temporal, but that other eternal, which is not apprehended by the eye, but is discerned by the mind and spirit.
16. Lastly, let the lessons lately gone through from the Kings teach you. Naaman was a Syrian, and suffered from leprosy, nor could he be cleansed by any. Then a maiden from among the captives said that there was a prophet in Israel, who could cleanse him from the defilement of the leprosy. And it is said that, having taken silver and gold, he went to the king of Israel. And he, when he heard the cause of his coming, rent his clothes, saying, that occasion was rather being sought against him, since things were asked of him which pertained not to the power of kings. Elisha, however, sent word to the king, that he should send the Syrian to him, that he might know there was a God in Israel. And when he had come, he bade him dip himself seven times in the river Jordan.
17. Then he began to reason with himself
that he had better waters in his own country, in which he had often
bathed and never been cleansed of his leprosy; and so remembering this,
he did not obey the command of the prophet, yet on the advice and
persuasion of his servants he yielded and dipped himself. And
being forthwith cleansed, he understood that it is not of the waters
but of grace that a man is cleansed.
18. Understand now who is that young maid among the captives. She is the congregation gathered out of the Gentiles, that is, the Church of God held down of old by the captivity of sin, when as yet it possessed not the liberty of grace, by whose counsel that foolish people of the Gentiles heard the word of prophecy as to which it had before been in doubt. Afterwards, however, when they believed that it ought to be obeyed, they were washed from every defilement of sin. And he indeed doubted before he was healed; you are already healed, and therefore ought not to doubt.
That water does not cleanse without the Spirit is shown by the witness of John and by the very form of the administration of the sacrament. And this is also declared to be signified by the pool in the Gospel and the man who was there healed. In the same passage, too, is shown that the Holy Spirit truly descended on Christ at His baptism, and the meaning of this mystery is explained.
19. The reason why
you were told before not to believe only what you saw was that you
might not say perchance, This is that great mystery “which eye
hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither has it entered into the heart of
man.”
20. Therefore read that the three witnesses
in baptism, the water, the blood, and the Spirit, S.
21. So that Syrian dipped himself seven
times
22. Therefore it is said: “An
angel of the Lord went down according to the season into the pool, and
the water was troubled; and he who first after the troubling of the
water went down into the pool was healed of whatsoever disease he was
holden.” S.
23. Then one was healed, now all are made
whole; or more exactly, the Christian people alone, for in some even
the water is deceitful.
24. Lastly, that paralytic was waiting for a
man. And what man save the Lord Jesus, born of the Virgin, at
Whose coming no longer the shadow should heal men one by one, but the
truth should heal the whole. He it is, then, Whose coming down
was being waited for, of Whom the Father said to John the
Baptist: “Upon Whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending
and abiding upon Him, this is He Who baptizeth with the Holy
Spirit.” S. S.
25. Perhaps you may object: Since that
was a real dove which was sent forth, and the Spirit descended like a
dove, how is it that we say that the likeness was there and the reality
here, whereas in the Greek it is written that the Spirit descended in
the likeness of a dove? But what is so real as the Godhead which
abides for ever? Now the creature cannot be the reality, but only
a likeness, which is easily destroyed and changed. So, again,
because the simplicity of those who are baptized ought to be not in
appearance but in reality, and the Lord says: “Be ye wise
as serpents and simple as doves.” S. S.
Christ is Himself present in Baptism, so that we need not consider the person of His ministers. A brief explanation of the confession of the Trinity as usually uttered by those about to be baptized.
26. Is there, then,
here any room left for doubt, when the Father clearly calls from heaven
in the Gospel narrative, and says: “This is My beloved Son,
in Whom I am well pleased”? S.
27. Do not consider the merits of
individuals, but the office of the priests. Or, if you look at
the merits, consider the priest as Elijah. Look upon the merits
of Peter also, or of Paul, who handed down to us this mystery which
they had received of the Lord Jesus. To those [of old] a visible
fire was sent that they might believe; for us who believe, the Lord
works invisibly; for them that happened for a figure, for us for
warning. Believe, then, that the Lord Jesus is present at the
invocation of the priest, Who said: “Where two or three
are, there am I also.” S.
28. You went down, then (into the water), remember what you replied to the questions, that you believe in the Father, that you believe in the Son, that you believe in the Holy Spirit. The statement there is not: I believe in a greater and in a less and in a lowest person, but you are bound by the same guarantee of your own voice, to believe in the Son in like manner as you believe in the Father; and to believe in the Holy Spirit in like manner as you believe in the Son, with this one exception, that you confess that you must believe in the cross of the Lord Jesus alone.
Why they who come forth from the laver of baptism are anointed on the head; why, too, after baptism, their feet are washed, and what sins are remitted in each case.
29. After this, you
went up to the priest, consider what followed. Was it not that of
which David speaks: “Like the ointment upon the head, which
went down to the beard, even Aaron’s beard”?
30. Consider now why this is done, for
“the eyes of a wise man are in his head;”
31. You went up from the font; remember the
Gospel lesson. For our Lord Jesus Christ in the Gospel washed the
feet of His disciples. When He came to Simon Peter, Peter
said: “Thou shalt never wash my feet.” S. S.
32. Peter was clean, but he must wash his feet, for he had sin by succession from the first man, when the serpent overthrew him and persuaded him to sin. His feet were therefore washed, that hereditary sins might be done away, for our own sins are remitted through baptism.
33. Observe at the same time that the mystery consists in the very office of humility, for Christ says: “If I, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; how much more ought you to wash one another’s feet.” For, since the Author of Salvation Himself redeemed us through His obedience, how much more ought we His servants to offer the service of our humility and obedience.
The washing away of sins is indicated by the white robes of the catechumens, whence the Church speaks of herself as black and comely. Angels marvel at her brightness as at that of the flesh of the Lord. Moreover, Christ Himself commended His beauty to His Spouse under many figures. The mutual affection of the one for the other is described.
34. After this
white robes were given to you as a sign that you were putting off the
covering of sins, and putting on the chaste veil of innocence, of which
the prophet said: “Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop and I
shall be cleansed, Thou shalt wash me and I shall be made whiter than
snow.”
35. The Church, having put on these garments
through the laver of regeneration, says in the Song of Songs:
“I am black
36. The angels, too, were in doubt when
Christ arose; the powers of heaven were in doubt when they saw that
flesh was ascending into heaven. Then they said: “Who
is this King of glory?” And whilst some said “Lift up
your gates, O princes, and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors, and the
King of glory shall come in.”
37. But Christ, beholding His Church, for
whom He Himself, as you find in the book of the prophet Zechariah, had
put on filthy garments, now clothed in white raiment, seeing, that is,
a soul pure and washed in the laver of regeneration, says:
“Behold, thou art fair, My love, behold thou art fair, thy eyes
are like a dove’s,”
38. And farther on: “Thy teeth
are like a flock of sheep that are shorn, which are come up from the
pool, which all bear twins, and none is barren among them, thy lips are
as a cord of scarlet.”
39. The Church is beautiful in them.
So that God the Word says to her: “Thou art all fair, My
love, and there is no blemish in thee,” for guilt has been washed
away. “Come hither from Lebanon, My spouse, come hither
from Lebanon, from the beginning of faith wilt thou pass through and
pass on,”
40. And the Church answers Him, “Who
will give Thee to me, my Brother, that didst suck the breasts of my
mother? If I find Thee without, I will kiss Thee, and indeed they
will not despise me. I will take Thee, and bring Thee into the
house of my mother; and into the secret chamber of her that conceived
me. Thou shalt teach me.”
41. So that the Lord Jesus Himself, invited
by such eager love and by the beauty of comeliness and grace, since now
no offences pollute the baptized, says to the Church:
“Place Me as a seal upon thy heart, as a signet upon thine
arm;”
42. And then remember that you received the
seal of the Spirit; the spirit of wisdom and understanding, the spirit
of counsel and strength, the spirit of knowledge and godliness, and the
spirit of holy fear, This passage
evidently refers to confirmation, and to the seven gifts of the Holy
Spirit received therein. In the Early Church as in the Eastern
Church to the present day, confirmation was administered immediately
after baptism.
Of the mystical feast of the altar of the Lord. Lest any should think lightly of it, St. Ambrose shows that it is of higher antiquity than the sacred rites of the Jews, since it was foreshadowed in the sacrifice of Melchisedech, and far better than the manna, as being the Body of Christ.
43. The cleansed
people, rich with these adornments, hastens to the altar of Christ,
saying: “I will go to the altar of God, to God Who maketh
glad my youth;”
44. We must now pay attention, lest
perchance any one seeing that what is visible (for things which are
invisible cannot be seen nor comprehended by human eyes), should say,
“God rained down manna and rained down quails upon the
Jews,”
45. The lesson of Genesis just read shows that they are more ancient, for the synagogue took its origin from the law of Moses. But Abraham was far earlier, who, after conquering the enemy, and recovering his own nephew, as he was enjoying his victory, was met by Melchisedech, who brought forth those things which Abraham reverently received. It was not Abraham who brought them forth, but Melchisedech, who is introduced without father, without mother, having neither beginning of days, nor ending, but like the Son of God, of Whom Paul says to the Hebrews: “that He remaineth a priest for ever,” Who in the Latin version is called King of righteousness and King of peace.
46. Do you recognize Who that is? Can a man be king of righteousness, when himself he can hardly be righteous? Can he be king of peace, when he can hardly be peaceable? He it is Who is without mother according to His Godhead, for He was begotten of God the Father, of one substance with the Father; without a father according to His Incarnation, for He was born of a Virgin; having neither beginning nor end, for He is the beginning and end of all things, the first and the last. The sacrament, then, which you received is the gift not of man but of God, brought forth by Him Who blessed Abraham the father of faith, whose grace and deeds we admire.
47. We have proved the sacraments of the
Church to be the more ancient, now recognize that they are
superior. In very truth it is a marvellous thing that God rained
manna on the fathers, and fed them with daily food from heaven; so that
it is said, “So man did eat angels’ food.”
49. Now consider whether the bread of angels be more excellent or the Flesh of Christ, which is indeed the body of life. That manna came from heaven, this is above the heavens; that was of heaven, this is of the Lord of the heavens; that was liable to corruption, if kept a second day, this is far from all corruption, for whosoever shall taste it holily shall not be able to feel corruption. For them water flowed from the rock, for you Blood flowed from Christ; water satisfied them for a time, the Blood satiates you for eternity. The Jew drinks and thirsts again, you after drinking will be beyond the power of thirsting; that was in a shadow, this is in truth.
49. If that which you so wonder at is but shadow,
how great must that be whose very shadow you wonder at. See now
In order that no one through observing the outward part should waver in faith, many instances are brought forward wherein the outward nature has been changed, and so it is proved that bread is made the true body of Christ. The treatise then is brought to a termination with certain remarks as to the effects of the sacrament, the disposition of the recipients, and such like.
50. Perhaps you will say, “I see something else, how is it that you assert that I receive the Body of Christ?” And this is the point which remains for us to prove. And what evidence shall we make use of? Let us prove that this is not what nature made, but what the blessing consecrated, and the power of blessing is greater than that of nature, because by blessing nature itself is changed.
51. Moses was holding a rod, he cast it down
and it became a serpent.
52. We observe, then, that grace has more
power than nature, and yet so far we have only spoken of the grace of a
prophet’s blessing. But if the blessing of man had such
power as to change nature, what are we to say of that divine
consecration where the very words of the Lord and Saviour
operate? For that sacrament which you receive is made what it is
by the word of Christ. But if the word of Elijah had such power
as to bring down fire from heaven, shall not the word of Christ have
power to change the nature of the elements? You read concerning
the making of the whole world: “He spake and they were
made, He commanded and they were created.”
53. But why make use of arguments? Let us use the examples He gives, and by the example of the Incarnation prove the truth of the mystery. Did the course of nature proceed as usual when the Lord Jesus was born of Mary? If we look to the usual course, a woman ordinarily conceives after connection with a man. And this body which we make is that which was born of the Virgin. Why do you seek the order of nature in the Body of Christ, seeing that the Lord Jesus Himself was born of a Virgin, not according to nature? It is the true Flesh of Christ which crucified and buried, this is then truly the Sacrament of His Body.
54. The Lord Jesus Himself proclaims:
“This is My Body.” S.
55. Christ, then, feeds His Church with
these sacraments, by means of which the substance of the soul is
strengthened, and seeing the continual progress of her grace, He
rightly says to her: “How comely are thy breasts, my
sister, my spouse, how comely they are made by wine, and the smell of
thy garments is above all spices. A dropping honeycomb are thy
lips, my spouse, honey and milk are under thy tongue, and the smell of
thy garments is as the smell of Lebanon. A garden enclosed is my
sister, my spouse, a garden enclosed, a fountain
sealed.”
56. For which reason, too, the Church,
guarding the depth of the heavenly mysteries, repels the furious storms
of wind, and calls to her the sweetness of the grace of spring, and
knowing that her garden cannot displease Christ, invites the
Bridegroom, saying: “Arise, O north wind, and come, thou
south; blow upon my garden, and let my ointments flow down. Let
my Brother come down to His garden, and eat the fruit of His
trees.”
57. Lastly, the Lord also, delighted with
their fertility, answers: “I have entered into My garden,
My sister, My spouse; I have gathered My myrrh with My spices, I have
eaten My meat with My honey, I have drunk My drink with My
milk.” S.
58. Wherefore, too, the Church, beholding so
great grace, exhorts her sons and her friends to come together to the
sacraments, saying: “Eat, my friends, and drink and be
inebriated, my brother.”
59. So, then, having obtained everything,
let us know that we are born again, but let us not say, How are we born
again? Have we entered a second time into our mother’s womb
and been born again? I do not recognize here the course of
nature. But here there is no order of nature, where is the
excellence of grace. And again, it is not always the course of
nature which brings about conception, for we confess that Christ the
Lord was conceived of a Virgin, and reject the order of nature.
For Mary conceived not of man, but was with child of the Holy Spirit,
as Matthew says: “She was found with child of the Holy
Spirit.” S.
These two books were written against the Novatian heresy, which took its name, and to a considerable extent its form, from Novatus, a priest of the Church of Carthage, and Novatian, schismatically consecrated bishop at Rome. It was the outcome of a struggle which had long existed in the Church upon the question of the restitution to Church privileges of those who had fallen into grievous sin, and the possibility of their repentance.
The severest ground was taken by the Novatians, who were condemned successively by many councils, which maintained the power of the Church to admit those guilty of any sin whatsoever to repentance, and prescribed various rules and penalties applicable to different cases. The heresy, however, lasted for some time, becoming weaker in the fifth century, and gradually fading away as a separate body with a distinctive name. “Novatianism, in the tests which it used, its efforts after a perfectly pure communion, its crotchetty interpretations of Scripture, and many other features, presents a striking parallel to many modern sects.” [See Dict. Chr. Biog., Blunt, Sects and heresies, Ceillier, II. 427, etc.]
St. Ambrose, in writing against the Novatians, seems to
have had some recent publication of theirs in his mind, which is now
unknown. He begins by commending gentleness, a quality singularly
wanting in the sect; speaks of the power committed to the Church of
forgiving the greatest sins, and points out how God is more inclined to
mercy than to severity, and refutes the arguments of the Novatians
based on certain passages of holy Scripture. In the second book,
after urging the necessity of careful and speedy repentance, and the
necessity of confessing one’s sins, St. Ambrose meets the
Novatian arguments based on
As regards the date of this treatise, it must have
been somewhat before the exposition of
Some few persons, probably on doctrinal grounds, have been led to question the authorship of this treatise, but it is quoted by St. Augustine, and there has never been any real doubt on the subject.
St. Ambrose writes in praise of gentleness, pointing out how needful that grace is for the rulers of the Church, and commended to them by the meekness of Christ. As the Novatians have fallen away from this, they cannot be considered disciples of Christ. Their pride and harshness are inveighed against.
1. If the highest end of virtue is that which aims at the advancement of most, gentleness is the most lovely of all, which does not hurt even those whom it condemns, and usually renders those whom it condemns worthy of absolution. Moreover, it is the only virtue which has led to the increase of the Church which the Lord sought at the price of His own Blood, imitating the lovingkindness of heaven, and aiming at the redemption of all, seeks this end with a gentleness which the ears of men can endure, in presence of which their hearts do not sink, nor their spirits quail.
2. For he who endeavours to amend the faults
of human weakness ought to bear this very weakness on his own
shoulders, let it weigh upon himself, not cast it off. For we
read that the Shepherd in the Gospel S.
3. Therefore had the Lord Jesus compassion
upon us in order to call us to Himself, not frighten us away. He
came in meekness, He came in humility, and so He said:
“Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will
refresh you.” S. In order to
distinguish themselves from Catholics the Novatians assumed the name
καθαροί
“pure.”
4. What can show more pride than this, since
the Scripture says: “No one is free from sin, not even an
infant of a day old;” It is
necessary to vary the translation of the word pœnitentia in
this place, as it bears the meaning both of “penance,” the
temporal punishment inflicted on the sinner, and also of
“repentance.”
The assertion of the Novatians that they refuse
communion only to the lapsed agrees neither with the teaching of holy
Scripture nor with their own. And whereas they allege as a
pretext their reverence for
5. But they say
that those should not be restored to communion who have fallen into
denial
Prævaricatio. i.e. the
penalty of the one sin of denying the faith should be extended to all
sins.
6. They affirm that they are showing great
reverence for God, to Whom alone they reserve the power of forgiving
sins. But in truth none do Him greater injury than they who
choose to prune His commandments and reject the office entrusted to
them. For inasmuch as the Lord Jesus Himself said in the
Gospel: “Receive ye the Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins
ye forgive they are forgiven unto them, and whosesoever sins ye retain,
they are retained,” S.
7. The Church holds fast its obedience on
either side, by both retaining and remitting sin; heresy is on the one
side cruel, and on the other disobedient; wishes to bind what it will
not loosen, and will not loosen what it has bound, whereby it condemns
itself by its own sentence. For the Lord willed that the power of
binding and of loosing should be alike, and sanctioned each by a
similar condition. So he who has not the power to loose has not
the power to bind. For as, according to the Lord’s word, he
who has the power to bind has also the power to loose, their teaching
destroys itself, inasmuch as they who deny that they have the power of
loosing ought also to deny that of binding. For how can the one
be allowed and the other disallowed? It is plain and evident that
either each is allowed or each is disallowed in the case of those to
whom each has been given. Each is allowed to the Church, neither
to heresy, for this power has been entrusted to priests alone.
Rightly, therefore, does the Church claim it, which has true priests;
heresy, which has not the priests of God, This is not a denial
of the validity of Novatian ordinations, which were admitted by the 8th
Canon of the Council of Nicæa, but of their lawful
jurisdiction.
8. Consider, too, the point that he who has
received the Holy Ghost has also received the power of forgiving and of
retaining sin. For thus it is written: “Receive the
Holy Spirit: whosesoever sins ye forgive, they are forgiven unto
them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are
retained.” S.
9. And what is to be said of their excessive arrogance? For although the Spirit of God is more inclined to mercy than to severity, their will is opposed to that which He wills, and they do that which He wills not; whereas it is the office of a judge to punish, but of mercy to forgive. It would be more endurable, Novatian, that thou shouldst forgive than that thou shouldst bind. In the one case thou wouldst assume the right as one who rarely offended; in the other thou wouldst forgive as one who had fellow-feeling with the misery of sin.
To the argument of the Novatians, that they only deny forgiveness in the case of greater sins, St. Ambrose replies, that this is also an offence against God, Who gave the power to forgive all sins, but that of course a more severe penance must follow in case of graver sins. He points out likewise that this distinction as to the gravity of sins assigns, as it were, severity to God, Whose mercy in the Incarnation is overlooked by the Novatians.
10. But they say
that, with the exception of graver sins, they grant forgiveness to
those of less weight. This is not the teach Binding and
loosing here refer rather to the infliction of open penance, the
outward sign of repentance, than to absolution.
11. And what perversity it is to claim for
yourselves what can be forgiven, and, as you say, to reserve to God
what cannot be forgiven. This would be to reserve to oneself the
cases for mercy, to God those for severity. And what as to that
saying: “Let God be true but every man a liar, as it is
written, That Thou mightest be justified in Thy words, and overcome
when Thou art judged”?
12. Interpreting which truth, the Apostle
says: “For God, sending His own Son in the likeness of
sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin in the flesh, that the
righteousness of the Law might be fulfilled in us.”
13. For He was not begotten, as is every
man, by intercourse between male and female, but born of the Holy
Spirit and of the Virgin; He received a stainless body, which not only
no sins polluted, but which neither the generation nor the conception
had been stained by any admixture of defilement. For we men are
all born under sin, and our very origin is in evil, as we read in the
words of David: “For lo, I was conceived in wickedness, and
in sin did my mother bring me forth.”
14. What, then, shall we say to this, except
that which the Apostle said: “If God is for us, who is
against us? He who spared not His own Son, but gave Him up for us
all, how has He not with Him also given us all things? Who shall
lay a charge against the elect? It is God Who justifieth, who is
he that shall condemn? It is Christ Who died, yea, Who also rose
again, Who is at the right hand of God, Who also maketh intercession
for us.” S. S.
St. Ambrose proceeds with the proof of the divine mercy, and shows by the testimony of the Gospels that it prevails over severity, and he adduces the instance of athletes to show that of those who have denied Christ before men, all are not to be esteemed alike.
15. Although what
has been said sufficiently shows how inclined the Lord Jesus is to
mercy, let Him further instruct us with His own words, when He would
arm us against the assaults of persecution. “Fear
S. S.
16. Where He says that He will confess, He
will confess “every one.” Omnis.
17. And this is written not only in that
book of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus, which is written according to
Matthew, but it is also to be read in that which we have according to
Luke, S.
18. We have said that it is thus written. Let us now consider the meaning. “Every one,” He says, “who shall confess Me,” that is to say, of whatever age, of whatever condition he may be, who shall confess Me, he shall have Me as the Rewarder of his confession. Whereas the expression is, “every one,” no one who shall confess is excluded from the reward. But it is not said in like manner, “Every one who shall deny shall be denied,” for it is possible that a man overcome by torture may deny God in word, and yet worship Him in his heart.
19. Is the case the same with him who denies voluntarily, and with him whom torture, not his own will, has led to denial? How unfit were it, since with men credit is given for endurance in a struggle, that one should assert that it had no value with God! For often in this world’s athletic contests the public crown together with the victors even the vanquished whose conduct has been approved, especially if perchance they have seen that they lost the victory by some trick or fraud. And shall Christ suffer His athletes, whom He has seen to yield for a moment to severe torments, to remain without forgiveness?
20. Shall not He take account of their toil,
Who will not cast off for ever even those whom He casts off? For
David says: “God will not cast off for
ever,”
The objection from the unchangeableness of God is answered from several passages of Scripture, wherein God promises forgiveness to sinners on their repentance. St. Ambrose also shows that mercy will be more readily accorded to such as have sinned, as it were, against their will, which he illustrates by the case of prisoners taken in war, and by language put into the mouth of the devil.
21. But they say
that they make these assertions in order not to seem to make God liable
to change, as He would be if He forgave those with whom He was
angry. What then? Shall we reject the utterances of God and
follow their opinions? But God is not to be judged by the
statements of others, but by His own words. What mark of His
mercy have we more ready at hand than that He Himself, through the
prophet Hosea, is at once merciful as though reconciled to those whom
in His anger He had threatened? For He says: “O
Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee, or what shall I do unto thee, O
Judah? Your kindness,” etc.
23. Jeremiah, too, may certainly teach when
he says: “For the Lord will not cast off for ever; for
after He has humbled, He will have compassion according to the
multitude of His mercies, Who hath not humbled from His whole heart nor
cast off the children of men.”
24. But if He brings not down every sinner
with His whole heart, how much less does He bring down him with His
whole heart who has not sinned with his whole heart! For as He
said of the Jews: “This people honoureth Me with their
lips, but their heart is far from Me,” S.
25. Is not the case such as when any one carries away captive the people of a conquered city? The captive is led away, but against his will. He must of necessity go to foreign lands, does not willingly make the journey; he takes his native land with him in his heart, and seeks an opportunity to return. What then? When any such return, does any one urge that they should not be received; with less honour indeed, but with readier will, that the enemy may have nothing with which to reproach them? If you pardon an armed man who was able to fight, do you not pardon him in whom faith alone waged the battle?
26. If we were to enquire what is the opinion of the devil concerning those who have fallen after this sort, would he not probably reply: “This people honours me with their lips, but their heart is far from me? For how can he be with me who does not depart from Christ? Without any cause do they appear to honour me who keep the doctrine of Jesus, and I thought that they would teach mine. They condemn me all the more when they forsake me after trial. Indeed Jesus is more glorified in these, when He receives them on their return to Him. All the angels rejoice, for in heaven there is greater joy over one sinner that repents, than over ninety and nine just persons who need not repentance. I am triumphed over in heaven and on earth. Christ loses nothing when they who came to me with weeping return with longing to the Church, and I am in danger even as regards my own, who will learn that in reality there is nothing here where men are led on by present rewards, but that there must be very much there where groans and tears and fasts are preferred to my feasts.”
The Novatians, by excluding such from the banquet of Christ, imitate not indeed the good Samaritan, but the proud lawyer, the priest, and the Levite who are blamed in the Gospel, and are indeed worse than these.
27. Do you then, O
Novatians, shut out
28. But you say: “Touch me
not.” You who wish to justify yourselves say, “He is
not our neighbour,” being more proud than that lawyer who wished
to tempt Christ, for he said “Who is my neighbour?”
He asked, you deny, going on like that priest, like that Levite passing
by him whom you ought to have taken and tended, and not receiving them
into the inn for whom Christ paid the two pence, whose neighbour Christ
bids you to become that you might show mercy to him. For he is
our neighbour whom not only a similar condition has joined, but whom
mercy has bound to us. You make yourself strange to him through
pride, in vain puffing up yourself in your carnal mind, and not holding
the Head.
29. When, then, you take away all the fruits of repentance, what do you say but this: Let no one who is wounded enter our inn, let no one be healed in our Church? With us the sick are not cared for, we are whole, we have no need of a physician, for He Himself says: “They that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.”
St. Ambrose, addressing Christ, complains of the Novatians, and shows that they have no part with Christ, Who wishes all men to be saved.
30. So, then, Lord
Jesus, come wholly to Thy Church, since Novatian makes excuse.
Novatian says, “I have bought a yoke of oxen,” and he puts
not on the light yoke of Christ, but lays upon his shoulders a heavy
burden which he is not able to bear. Novatian held back Thy
servants by whom he was invited, treated them contemptuously and slew
them, polluting them with the stain of a reiterated baptism. Send
forth, therefore, into the highways, and gather together good and
bad, S.
31. Thy Church does not excuse herself from
Thy supper, Novatian makes excuse. Thy family says not, “I
am whole, I need not the physician,” but it says:
“Heal me, O Lord, and I shall be healed; save me, and I shall be
saved.” S.
32. And Thou indeed, O Lord, desirest that
all should be healed, but all do not wish to be healed. Novatian
wishes not, who thinks that he is whole. Thou, O Lord, sayest
that Thou art sick, and feelest our infirmity in the least of us,
saying: “I was sick and ye visited Me.” S. S.
33. And this confession is indeed rightly
made by them, for they have not the succession of Peter, who hold not
the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too,
they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church,
whereas it was said to Peter: “I will give unto thee the
keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth
shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
shall be loosed also in heaven.” S.
It was the Lord’s will to confer great gifts on His disciples. Further, the Novatians confute themselves by the practices of laying on of hands and of baptism, since it is by the same power that sins are remitted in penance and in baptism. Their conduct is then contrasted with that of our Lord.
34. It is the will
of the Lord that His disciples should possess great powers; it is His
will that the same things which He did when on earth should be done in
His Name by His servants. For He said: “Ye shall do
greater things than these.” S. S. S.
35. And in fine He gave all gifts to His
disciples, of whom He said: “In My Name they shalt cast out
devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they shall take up serpents;
and if they shall drink any deadly thing it shall not hurt them; they
shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall do well.” S.
36. Why, then, do you lay on hands, and believe it to be the effect of the blessing, if perchance some sick person recovers? Why do you assume that any can be cleansed by you from the pollution of the devil? Why do you baptize if sins cannot be remitted by man? If baptism is certainly the remission of all sins, what difference does it make whether priests claim that this power is given to them in penance or at the font? In each the mystery is one.
37. But you say that the grace of the mysteries works in the font. What works, then, in penance? Does not the Name of God do the work? What then? Do you, when you choose, claim for yourselves the grace of God, and when you choose reject it? But this is a mark of insolent presumption, not of holy fear, when those who wish to do penance are despised by you. You cannot, forsooth, endure the tears of the weepers; your eyes cannot bear the coarse clothing, the filth of the squalid; with proud eyes and puffed-up hearts you delicate ones say with angry tones, “Touch me not, for I am pure.”
38. The Lord said indeed to Mary Magdalene,
“Touch Me not,” S.
39. Then, too, the Lord Jesus when about to
consecrate
Celebraturus. S.
By collating similar passages with
40. But you say, It
is written: “If a man sin against the Lord, who shall
entreat for him?”
41. Then you have in the fifteenth
Psalm: “Lord, who shall dwell in Thy tabernacle, or who
shall rest upon Thy holy hill?” S. S.
42. We must then understand in the same
manner, “Who shall entreat for him?” as implying: It
must be some one of excellent life who shall entreat for him who has
sinned against the Lord. The greater the sin, the more worthy
must be the prayers that are sought. For it was not any one of
the common people who prayed for the Jewish people, but Moses,
43. Rightly, then, is it said:
“Who shall entreat for him?” It implies that it must
be such an one as Moses to offer himself for those who sin, or such as
Jeremiah, who, though the Lord said to him, “Pray not thou for
this people,”
St. John did not absolutely forbid that prayer should be made for those who “sin unto death,” since he knew that Moses, Jeremiah, and Stephen had so prayed, and he himself implies that forgiveness is not to be denied them.
44. Such intercessors, then, must be sought for after very grievous sins, for if any ordinary persons pray they are not heard.
45. So that point of yours will have no
46. How could John say that we should not
pray for the sin unto death, who himself in the Apocalypse wrote the
message to the angel of the Church of Pergamos? “Thou hast
there those that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to put a
stumbling-block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed
unto idols, and to commit fornication. So hast thou also them
that hold the doctrines of the Nicolaitans. Repent likewise, or
else I will come to thee quickly.”
47. Did not John himself know that Stephen
prayed for his persecutors, who had not been able even to listen to the
Name of Christ, when he said of those very men by whom he was being
stoned: “Lord, lay not this sin to their
charge”?
The passage quoted from St. John’s Epistle is confirmed by another in which salvation is promised to those who believe in Christ, which refutes the Novatians who try to induce the lapsed to believe, although denying them pardon. Furthermore, many who had lapsed have received the grace of martyrdom, whilst the example of the good Samaritan shows that we must not abandon those in whom even the faintest amount of faith is still alive.
48. Since, then, we
have spoken of the general Epistle of St. John, let us enquire whether
the writings of John in the Gospel agree with your
interpretation. For he writes that the Lord said:
“God so loved this world, that He gave His only-begotten Son,
that every one that believeth on Him should not perish but have
everlasting life.” S. S.
49. We find that many have at length
recovered themselves after a fall, and have suffered for the Name of
God. Can we deny fellowship with the martyrs to these to whom the
Lord Jesus has not denied it? Do we dare to say that life is not
restored to those to whom Christ has given a crown? As, then, a
crown is given to many after they have lapsed, so, too, if they
believe, their faith is restored, which faith is the gift of God, as
you read: “Because unto you it hath been granted by God not
only to believe in Him, but also to suffer in His
behalf.”
50. Now it is not a single but a twofold grace that every one who believes should also suffer for the Lord Jesus. He, then, who believes receives his grace, but he receives a second, if his faith be crowned by suffering. For neither was Peter without grace before he suffered, but when he suffered he received a second gift. And many who have not had the grace to suffer for Christ have nevertheless had the grace of believing on Him.
51. Therefore it is said: “That every
The Samaritans
took their name from the territory which they inhabited. But they
called themselves Hebrew [Shomrim], Guardians, that is, of the
Law. This idea is referred to here by St. Ambrose as elsewhere by
others of the Fathers. S.
52. Perchance He therefore passes him not
by, because He sees in him some signs of life, so that there is hope
that he may recover. Does it not seem to you that he who has
fallen is half alive if faith sustains any breath of life? For he
is dead who wholly casts God out of his heart. He, then, who does
not wholly cast Him out, but under pressure of torments has denied Him
for a time, is half dead. Or if he be dead, why do you bid him
repent, seeing he cannot now be healed? If he be half dead, pour
in oil and wine, not wine without oil, that may be the comfort and the
smart. Place him upon thy beast, give him over to the host, lay
out two pence for his cure, be to him a neighbour. But you cannot
be a neighbour unless you have compassion on him; for no one can be
called a neighbour unless he have healed, not killed, another.
But if you wish to be called a neighbour, Christ says to you:
“Go and do likewise.” S.
Another passage of St. John is considered. The necessity of keeping the commandments of God may be complied with by those who, having fallen, repent, as well as by those who have not fallen, as is shown in the case of David.
53. Let us consider
another similar passage: “He that believeth on the Son hath
eternal life, but he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but
the wrath of God abideth on him.” S. S.
54. But with reference to this passage they
allege that he who believes in Christ ought to keep His sayings, and
say that it is written in the Lord’s own words: “I am
come a light into this world, that whosoever believeth in Me may not
abide in darkness. And if any man hear My word and keep it, I
judge him not.” S. S. S. S.
55. And again further on He says:
“He that despiseth Me, and receiveth not My words, hath one that
judgeth him.” S.
56. It is also necessary that he who leaves off sinning must keep the commandments of God and renounce his sins. We ought not, then, to interpret this saying of him who has always kept the commandments, for if this had been His meaning He would have added the word always, but by not adding it He shows that He was speaking of him who has kept what he has heard, and what he heard has led him to correct his faults; he has then kept what he has heard.
57. But how hard it is to condemn to penance for
life one who even afterwards keeps the commandments of the Lord, let
Him teach us Himself Who has not refused forgiveness. Even to
those who do not keep His commandments, as you read in the
58. Yet that we may not think that this
mercy is without judgment, there is a distinction made between those
who have paid continual obedience to God’s commandments, and
those who at some time, either by error or by compulsion, have
fallen. And that you may not think that it is only our arguments
which press you, consider the decision of Christ, Who said:
“If the servant knew his Lord’s will and did it not, he
shall be beaten with many stripes, but if he knew it not, he shall be
beaten with few stripes.” S.
They who have committed a “sin unto death” are not to be abandoned, but subjected to penance, according to St. Paul. Explanation of the phrase “Deliver unto Satan.” Satan can afflict the body, but these afflictions bring spiritual profit, showing the power of God, Who thus turns Satan’s devices against himself.
59. Lastly, Paul
teaches us that we must not abandon those who have committed a sin unto
death, but that we must rather coerce them with the bread of tears and
tears to drink, yet so that their sorrow itself be moderated. For
this is the meaning of the passage: “Thou hast given them
to drink in large measure,”
60. What the Apostle means by the rod is
shown by his invective against fornication,
61. Let, then, our flesh die to lusts, let it be captive, let it be subdued, and not war against the law of our mind, but die in subjection to a good service, as in Paul, who buffeted his body that he might bring it into subjection, in order that his preaching might become more approved, if the law of his flesh agreed and was consonant with the law of his flesh. For the flesh dies when its wisdom passes over into the spirit, so that it no longer has a taste for the things of the flesh, but for the things of the spirit. Would that I might see my flesh growing weak, would that I were not dragged captive into the law of sin, would that I lived not in the flesh, but in the faith of Christ! And so there is greater grace in the infirmity of the body than in its soundness.
62. Having explained Paul’s meaning,
let us now consider the words themselves, in what sense he said that he
had delivered him to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, for the
devil it is who tries us. For he brings ailments on each of our
limbs, and sickness on our whole bodies. And then, too, he smote
holy Job with evil sores from the feet to the head, because he had
received the power of destroying his flesh, when God said:
“Behold, I give him up unto thee, only preserve his
life.”
63. Great is the power, great is the gift, which commands the devil to destroy himself. For he destroys himself when he makes the man whom he is seeking to overthrow by temptation stronger instead of weak, because whilst he is weakening the body he is strengthening his soul. For sickness of the body restrains sin, but luxury sets on fire the sin of the flesh.
64. The devil is then deceived so as to wound
himself with his own bite, and to arm against himself him whom he
thought to weaken. So he armed holy Job the more
65. You see how he is mocked by Paul, so that, like the child in prophecy, he lays his hand on the hole of the asp, and the serpent injures him not; he draws him out of his hiding-places, and makes of his venom a spiritual antidote, so that what is venom becomes a medicine, the venom serves to the destruction of the flesh, it becomes medicine to the healing of the spirit. For that which hurts the body benefits the spirit.
66. Let, then, the serpent bite the earthy part of me, let him drive his tooth into my flesh, and bruise my body; and may the Lord say of me: “I give him up unto thee, only preserve his life.” How great is the power of Christ, that the guardianship of man is made a charge even to the devil himself, who always desires to injure him. Let us then make the Lord Jesus favourable to ourselves. At the command of Christ the devil himself becomes the guardian of his prey. Even unwillingly he carries out the commands of heaven, and, though cruel, obeys the commands of gentleness.
67. But why do I commend his
obedience? Let him be ever evil that God may be ever good, Who
converts his ill-will into grace for us. He wishes to injure us,
but cannot if Christ resist him. He wounds the flesh but
preserves the life. And then it is written: “Then
shall the wolves and the lambs feed together, the lion and the ox shall
eat straw, and they shall not hurt nor destroy in My holy mountain,
saith the Lord.”
St. Ambrose explains that the flesh given to Satan for destruction is eaten by the serpent when the soul is set free from carnal desires. He gives, therefore, various rules for guarding the senses, points out the snares laid for us by means of pleasures, and exhorts his hearers not to fear the destruction of the flesh by the serpent.
68. The serpent
eats this dust, if the Lord Jesus is favourable to us, that our spirit
may not sympathize with the weakness of the flesh, nor be set on fire
by the vapours of the flesh and the heat of our members.
“It is better to marry than to burn,”
69. Let custom itself teach us. A woman covers her face with a veil for this reason, that in public her modesty may be safe. That her face may not easily meet the gaze of a youth, let her be covered with the nuptial veil, so that not even in chance meetings she might be exposed to the wounding of another or of herself, though the wound of either were indeed hers. But if she cover her head with a veil that she may not accidentally see or be seen (for when the head is veiled the face is hidden), how much more ought she to cover herself with the veil of modesty, so as even in public to have her own secret place.
70. But granted that the eye has fallen upon
another, at least let not the inward affection follow. For to
have seen is no sin, but one must be careful that it be not the source
of sin. The bodily eye sees, but let the eye of the heart be
closed; let modesty of mind remain. We have a Lord Who is both
strict and indulgent. The prophet indeed said: “Look
not upon the beauty of a woman that is all harlot.” Possibly from
S.
71. And if the flesh has seen the flame, let us not cherish that flame in our bosoms, that is, in the depths of the heart and the inward part of the mind. Let us not instil this fire into our bones, let us not bind bonds upon ourselves, let us not join in conversation with such as may be the cause to us of unholy fires. The speech of a maiden is a snare to a youth, the words of a youth are the bonds of love.
72. Joseph saw the fire when the woman eager
for adultery spoke to him.
73. You see, then, that our mind is the
cause of our guilt. And so the flesh is innocent, but is often
the minister of sin. Let not, then, desire of beauty overcome
you. Many nets and many snares are spread by the devil. The
look of a harlot is the snare of him who loves her. Our own eyes
are nets to us, wherefore it is written: “Be not taken with
thine eyes.”
74. Let us then pass through the fires of
youth and the glow of early years; let us pass through the waters, let
us not remain therein, lest the deep floods shut us in. Let us
rather pass over, that we too may say: “Our soul has passed
over the stream,”
75. Let us also pass over this fire of lust,
fearing which Paul—but fearing for us, inasmuch as by buffeting
his body he had come no longer to fear for himself—says to
us: “Flee fornication.”
76. This fire is dangerous, let us then not
feed it with the fuel of luxury. Lust is fed by feastings,
nourished by delicacies, kindled by wine, and inflamed by
drunkenness. Still more dangerous than these are the incentives
of words, which intoxicate the mind as it were with a kind of wine of
the vine of Sodom. Let us be on our guard against abundance of
this wine, for when the flesh is intoxicated the mind totters, the
heart wavers, the heart is carried to and fro. And so with regard
to each that precept is useful wherein Timothy is warned:
“Drink a little wine because of thy frequent
infirmities.”
77. Do not then fear if your flesh be eaten away,
the soul is not consumed. And so
Returning from this digression, St. Ambrose explains what is the meaning of St. Paul where he speaks of coming “with a rod or in the spirit of meekness.” One who has grievously fallen is to be separated, but to be again restored to religious privileges when he has sufficiently repented. The old leaven is purged out when the hardness of the letter is tempered by the meal of a milder interpretation. All should be sprinkled with the Church’s meal and fed with the food of charity, lest they become like that envious elder brother, whose example is followed by the Novatians.
78. That faithful teacher, having promised one of two things, gave each. He came with a rod, for he separated the guilty man from the holy fellowship. And well is he said to be delivered to Satan who is separated from the body of Christ. But he came in love and with the spirit of meekness, whether because he so delivered him up as to save his soul, or because he afterwards restored to the sacraments him whom he had before separated.
79. For it is needful to separate one who has grievously fallen, lest a little leaven corrupt the whole lump. And the old leaven must be purged out, or the old man in each person; that is, the outward man and his deeds, he who among the people has grown old in sin and hardened in vices. And well did he say purged, not cast forth, for what is purged is not considered wholly valueless, for to this end is it purged, that what is of value be separated from the worthless, but that which is cast forth is considered to have in itself nothing of value.
80. The Apostle then judged that the sinner should then at once be restored to the heavenly sacraments if he himself wished to be cleansed. And well is it said “Purge,” for he is purged as by certain things done by the whole people, and is washed in the tears of the multitude, and redeemed from sin by the weeping of the multitude, and is purged in the inner man. For Christ granted to His Church that one should be redeemed by means of all, as she herself was found worthy of the coming of the Lord Jesus, in order that through One all might be redeemed.
81. This is Paul’s meaning which the
words make more obscure. Let us consider the exact words of the
Apostle: “Purge out,” says he, “the old leaven,
that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened.” There is probably
here a reference to a generous custom of antiquity, whereby if any one
were visited by calamity and loss of goods, his friends contributed
according to their power to present him with a gift which should help
to re-establish him. St. Ambrose seems to apply this to the
bearing one another’s burdens by mourning, fasting, and praying
with the penitent, that God might be moved by the entreaties of all,
offered with great energy, and forgive what might be lacking in the
individual. It is an instructive commentary on the doctrine of
the communion of saints.
82. The Lord taught me in the Gospel what
leaven is when He said: “Do ye not understand that I said
not concerning bread, Beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and
Sadducees?” S.
83. Now this comparison seems to be not
unfitly brought forward in this place, since the kingdom of heaven is
redemption from sin, and therefore we all, both bad and good, are
mingled with the meal of the Church that we all may be a new
lump. But that no one may be afraid that an admixture of evil
leaven might injure the lump, the Apostle said: “That ye
may be a new lump, even as ye are unleavened;”
84. Let us then keep the feast on good food, doing penance yet joyful in our redemption, for no food is sweeter than kindness and gentleness. Let no envy towards the sinner who is saved be mingled with our feasts and joy, lest that envious brother, as is set forth in the Gospel, exclude himself from the house of his Father, because he grieved at the reception of his brother, at whose lasting exile he was wont to rejoice.
85. And you Novatians cannot deny that you are like him, who, as you say, do not come together to the Church because by penance a hope of return had been given to those who had lapsed. But this is only a pretence, for Novatian contrived his schism through grief at his loss of the episcopal office.
86. But do you not understand that the
Apostle also prophesied of you and says to you: “And ye are
puffed up and did not rather mourn, that he who did this deed might be
taken away from among you”?
Comparison between the apostles and Novatians. The fitness of the words, “Ye know not what spirit ye are of,” when applied to them. The desire of penance is extinguished by them when they take away its fruit. And thus are sinners deprived of the promises of Christ, though, indeed, they ought not to be too soon admitted to the mysteries. Some examples of repentance.
87. Inasmuch, then, as the Apostle forgave sins, by what authority do you say that they are not to be forgiven? Who has the most reverence for Christ, Paul or Novatian? But Paul knew that the Lord was merciful. He knew that the Lord Jesus was offended more by the harshness of the disciples than by their pitifulness.
88. Furthermore, Jesus rebuked James and
John when they spoke of bringing down fire from heaven to consume those
who refused to receive the Lord, and said to them: “Ye know
not whose spirit ye are of; for the Son of Man is not come to destroy
men’s lives but to save them.” S.
89. For it is in vain that you say that you
preach repentance who remove the fruits of repentance. For men
are led to the pursuit of anything either by rewards or results, and
every pursuit grows slack by delay. And for this reason the Lord,
in order that the devotion of His disciples might be increased, said
that every one who had left all that was his, and followed God, should
receive sevenfold more both here and hereafter. S.
90. If, then, any one, having committed
hidden sins, shall nevertheless diligently do penance, how shall he
receive those rewards if not restored to the communion of the
Church? I am willing, indeed, that the guilty man should hope for
pardon, should seek it with tears and groans, should seek it with the
aid of the tears of all the people, should implore forgiveness; and if
communion be postponed two or three times, that he should believe that
his entreaties have not been urgent enough, that he must increase his
tears, must come again even in greater trouble, clasp the feet of the
faithful with his arms, kiss them, wash them with tears, and not let
them go, so that the Lord Jesus may say of him too: “His
sins which are many are forgiven, for he loved much.” S.
That gentleness must be added to severity, as is shown in the case of St. Paul at Corinth. The man had been baptized, though the Novatians argue against it. And by the word “destruction” is not meant annihilation but severe chastening.
92. Why do we
postpone the time of pardon for those who have mortified themselves,
who during life have done themselves to death?
“Sufficient,” says St. Paul, “to such a one is this
punishment which is inflicted by the many; so that contrariwise, ye
should rather forgive him and comfort him, lest by any means he should
be swallowed up with overmuch sorrow.”
93. The Apostle then forgave him, and not
only forgave him, but desired that love to him should again grow
strong. He who is loved receives not harshness but mercy.
And not only did he himself forgive him only, but willed that all
should forgive him, and says that he forgave for the sake of others,
lest many should be longer saddened on account of one. “To
whom,” says he, “ye have forgiven anything, I forgive also,
for I also have forgiven for your sakes in the person of Christ, for we
are not ignorant of his devices.”
94. And that we may know that this person
was baptized, he added: “I wrote to you in my epistle to
have no company with fornicators, not altogether with fornicators of
this world.”
95. But lest any one be perplexed because it
is written: “I have delivered such an one unto Satan for
the destruction of the flesh,”
96. And what more suitable example can we take than one from our common mother? For the earth itself, from which we are all taken, when it is not worked and cultivated, seems to be desert; and the field dies to the vines or olive-trees with which it was planted, and yet it does not lose its own nutritive power, which is, as it were, its life. And then later, when cultivation begins once more, and the seed is sown for which the land seems suitable, it breaks forth again more fruitful than before with its products. It is not, then, anything so strange if our flesh is said to die, and yet is understood to be subdued rather than annihilated.
St. Ambrose gives additional rules concerning repentance, and shows that it must not be delayed.
1. Although in the former book we have written many things which may tend to the more perfect practice of repentance, yet inasmuch as a great deal more may be added, we will continue the repast so as not to seem to have relinquished the provisions of our teaching only half consumed.
2. For repentance must be taken in hand not
only anxiously, but also quickly, lest perchance that father of the
house in the Gospel who planted a fig-tree in his vineyard should come
and seek fruit on it, and finding none, say to the vine-dresser:
“Cut it down, why doth it cumber the ground?” S. S.
3. Let us then dung this field which we possess, and imitate those hard-working farmers, who are not ashamed to satiate the land with rich dung and to scatter the grimy ashes over the field, that they may gather more abundant crops.
4. And the Apostle teaches us how to dung
it, saying: “I count all things but dung, that I may gain
Christ,”
5. Let us then not be ashamed to confess our
sins unto the Lord. Shame indeed there is when each makes known
his sins, but that shame, as it were, ploughs his land, removes the
ever-recurring brambles, prunes the thorns, and gives life to the
fruits which he believed were dead. Follow him who, by diligently
ploughing his field, sought for eternal fruit: “Being
reviled we bless, being persecuted we endure, being defamed we entreat,
we are made as the offscouring of the world.”
A passage quoted by the heretics against repentance
is explained in two ways, the first being that
6. Being then
refuted by the clear example of the Apostle and by his writings, the
heretics yet endeavour to resist further, and say that their opinion is
supported by apostolic authority, bringing forward the passage in the
Epistle to the Hebrews: “For it is impossible that those
who were once enlightened, and have tasted the heavenly gift, and have
been made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the good word
of God, and the powers of the world to come, should if they fall away
be again renewed unto repentance, crucifying again the Son of God, and
put Him to open shame.”
7. Could Paul teach in opposition to his own
act? He had at Corinth forgiven sin through penance, how could he
himself speak against his own decision? Since, then, he could not
destroy what he had built, we must assume that what he says was
different from, but not contrary to, what had gone before. For
what is contrary is opposed to itself, what is different has ordinarily
another meaning. Things which are contrary are not such that one
can support the other. Inasmuch, then, as the Apostle spoke of
remitting penance, he could not be silent as to those who thought that
baptism was to be repeated. And it was right first of all to
remove our anxiety, and to let us know that even after baptism, if any
sinned their sins
8. And that the writer was speaking of
baptism is evident from the very words in which it is stated that it is
impossible to renew unto repentance those who were fallen, inasmuch as
we are renewed by means of the laver of baptism, whereby we are born
again, as Paul says himself: “For we are buried with Him
through baptism into death, that, like as Christ rose from the dead
through the glory of the Father, so we, too, should walk in newness of
life.”
9. This, too, is plain, that in him who is
baptized the Son of God is crucified, for our flesh could not do away
sin unless it were crucified in Jesus Christ. And then it is
written that: “All we who were baptized into Jesus Christ
were baptized into His death.”
10. So, then, that which he says in this Epistle to the Hebrews, that it is impossible for those who have fallen to be “renewed unto repentance, crucifying again the Son of God, and putting Him to open shame,” must be considered as having reference to baptism, wherein we crucify the Son of God in ourselves, that the world may be by Him crucified for us, who triumph, as it were, when we take to ourselves the likeness of His death, who put to open shame upon His cross principalities and powers, and triumphed over them, that in the likeness of His death we, too, might triumph over the principalities whose yoke we throw off. But Christ was crucified once, and died to sin once, and so there is but one, not several baptisms.
11. But what of the passage wherein the
doctrine of baptisms is spoken of? Because under the Law there
were many baptisms or washings, he rightly rebukes those who forsake
what is perfect and seek again the first principles of the word.
He teaches us that the whole of the washings under the Law are done
away with, and that there is one baptism in the sacraments of the
Church. But he exhorts us that leaving the first principles of
the word we should go on to perfection. “And this,”
he says, “we will do, if God permits,”
12. And indeed I might also say to any one
who thought that this passage spoke of repentance, that things which
are impossible with men are possible with God; and God is able
whensoever He wills to forgive us our sins, even those which we think
cannot be forgiven. And so it is possible for God to give us that
which it seems to us impossible to obtain. For it seemed
impossible that water should wash away sin, and Naaman the
Syrian
Explanation of the parable of the Prodigal Son, in which St. Ambrose applies it to refute the teaching of the Novatians, proving that reconciliation ought not to be refused to the greatest offender upon suitable proof of repentance.
13. And the Apostle
does not contradict
S.
14. Well is it said that he went into a
foreign country who is cut off from the sacred altar, for this is to be
separated from that Jerusalem which is in heaven, from the citizenship
and home of the saints. For which reason the Apostle says:
“Therefore now ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but
fellow-citizens with the saints and of the household of
God.”
15. “And,” it is said,
“wasted his substance.” Rightly, for he whose faith
halts in bringing forth good works does consume it. For,
“faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of
things not seen.”
16. And no wonder if he was perishing for hunger, who lacked the divine nourishment, impelled by the want of which he says: “I will arise and go to my father, and will say unto him: Father, I have sinned against heaven, and before thee.” Do you not see it plainly declared to us, that we are urged to prayer for the sake of gaining the sacrament? and do you wish to take away that for the sake of which penance is undertaken? Deprive the pilot of the hope of reaching port, and he will wander uncertainly here and there on the waves. Take away the crown from the athlete, and he will fail and lie on the course. Take from the fisher the power of catching his booty, and he will cease to cast the nets. How, then, can he, who suffers hunger in his soul, pray more earnestly to God, if he has no hope of the heavenly food?
17. “I have sinned,” he says,
“against heaven, and before thee.” He confesses what
is clearly a sin unto death, that you may not think that any one doing
penance Penitentiam
agere must here and elsewhere be translated thus, for it
implies not mere repentance, but the undergoing outward
discipline. The word penitentia means both repentance and
penance.
18. So quickly does he gain forgiveness,
that, as he is coming, and is still a great way off, his father meets
him, gives him a kiss, which is the sign of sacred peace; orders the
robe to be brought forth, which is the marriage garment, which if any
one have not, he is shut out from the marriage feast; places the ring
on his hand, which is the pledge of faith and the seal of the Holy
Spirit; orders the shoes to be brought out,
19. Therefore most evidently are we bidden by the teaching of the Lord to confer again the grace of the heavenly sacrament on those guilty even of the greatest sins, if they with open confession bear the penance due to their sin.
St. Ambrose turns against the Novatians themselves another objection concerning blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, showing that it consists in an erroneous belief, proving this by St. Peter’s words against Simon Magus, and other passages, exhorting the Novatians to return to the Church, affirming that such is our Lord’s mercy that even Judas would have found forgiveness had he repented.
20. But we have
heard that you are accustomed to bring forward as an objection that
which is written: “Every sin and blasphemy shall be
forgiven unto men, but blasphemies against the Spirit shall not be
forgiven unto men. And whosoever shall speak a word against the
Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but whosoever shall speak against
the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world,
nor in that which is to come.” S.
21. But let us consider the case of those
whom the Lord so binds, going back to the words before the passage
quoted, that we may understand it more clearly: The Jews were
saying: “This man doth not cast out devils, but by
Beelzebub, prince of the devils.” Jesus replied:
“Every kingdom divided against itself shall be destroyed, and
every city or house divided against itself shall not stand; for if
Satan casteth out Satan, he is divided against himself, how then shall
his kingdom stand? But if I cast out devils by Beelzebub, by whom
do your sons cast them out?” S.
22. Now we see plainly here that the words are expressly used of those who were saying that the Lord Jesus cast out devils through Beelzebub, to whom the Lord gave that answer, because they were of the heritage of Satan, who compared the Saviour of all to Satan, and attributed the grace of Christ to the kingdom of the devil. And that we might know that He was speaking of this blasphemy, He added: “O generation of vipers, how can ye speak good, being yourselves evil?” He says, then, that those who thus speak attain not to forgiveness.
23. Then, when Simon, depraved by long
practice of magic, had thought he could gain by money the power of
conferring the grace of Christ and the infusion of the Holy Spirit,
Peter said: “Thou hast neither part nor lot in this faith,
for thy heart is not right with God. Repent therefore of this thy
wickedness, and pray the Lord, if perchance this thought of thy heart
may be forgiven thee, for I see that thou art in the bond of iniquity
and in the bitterness of gall.”
24. The Lord then replies to the blasphemy of the Pharisees, and refuses to them the grace of His power, which consists in the remission of sins, because they asserted that His heavenly power rested on the help of the devil. And He affirms that they act with satanic spirit who divide the Church of God, so that He includes the heretics and schismatics of all times, to whom He denies forgiveness, for every other sin is concerned with single persons, this is a sin against all. For they alone wish to destroy the grace of Christ who rend asunder the members of the Church for which the Lord Jesus suffered, and the Holy Spirit was given us.
25. Lastly, that we may know that He is
speaking of those who destroy the unity of the Church, we find it
written: “He that is not with Me is against Me, and he that
gathered not with Me, scattereth.” S. S.
26. Return, then, to the Church, those of
you who have wickedly separated yourselves. For He promises
forgiveness to all who are converted, since it is written:
“Whosoever shall call on the Name of the Lord shall be
saved.” S.
27. But what wonder is it if you should deny
salvation to others, who reject your own, though they lose nothing who
seek for penance from you? For I suppose that even Judas might
through the exceeding mercy of God not have been shut out from
forgiveness, if he had expressed his sorrow not before the Jews but
before Christ. “I have sinned,” he said, “in
that I have betrayed righteous blood.” S.
28. But if they be not converted, do you at
least repent, who by many a slip have fallen from the lofty pinnacle of
innocence and faith. We have a good Lord, Whose will it is to
forgive all, Who called you by the prophet, and said: “I,
even I, am He that blotteth out transgressions, and I will not
remember, but do thou remember, and let us plead
together.”
As to the words of St. Peter to Simon Magus, from which the Novatians infer that there was no forgiveness for the latter, it is pointed out that St. Peter, knowing his evil heart, might well use words of doubt, and then by some Old Testament instances it is pointed out that “perchance” does not exclude forgiveness. The apostles transmitted to us that penitence, the fruits of which are shown in the case of David. St. Ambrose then adduces the example of the Ephraimites, whose penitence must be followed in order to gain the divine mercy and the sacraments.
29. The Novatians
bring up a question from the words of the Apostle Peter. Because
he said, “if perchance,” they think that he did not imply
that forgiveness would be granted on repentance. But let them
consider concerning whom the words were spoken: of Simon, who did
not believe through faith, but was meditating trickery. So too
the Lord to him who said, “Lord, I will follow Thee withersoever
Thou goest,” replied, “Foxes have holes.” S.
30. But let this be my answer to them.
As to myself, I say that Peter did not doubt, and I do not think that
so great a question can be burked by the questionable interpretation of
a single word. For if they think that Peter doubted, did God
doubt, Who said to the prophet Jeremiah: “Stand in the
court of the Lord’s house, and thou shalt give an answer to all
Judah, to those who come to worship in the Lord’s house, even all
the words which I have appointed for thee to answer them. Keep
not back a word, perchance they will hearken and be
converted.”
31. But ignorance is not implied in that
word, but the common custom of holy Scripture is observed, in order to
simplicity of utterance. Inasmuch as the Lord says also to
Ezekiel: “Son of man, I will send thee unto the house of
Israel, to those who have angered Me, both themselves and their
fathers, unto this day, and thou shalt say unto them, Thus saith the
Lord, if perchance they will hear and be afraid.”
32. Lastly, the wise men of this world, who stake all their reputation on expressions and words, do not everywhere use the Latin word forte, “perchance,” or its Greek equivalent τάχα, as an expression of doubt. And so they say that their earliest poet used the words,
…ἦ ῾ τάχα χήρη
…ἔσομαι,
which is, “I shall soon be a widow;” and the passage goes on:
… τάχα γάρ σε κατακνέουσιν ᾽Αχαιοὶ
πάντες
εφορμηθέντες. Hom.
Il. III. 408. St. Ambrose is hardly right in assuming that
Homer used τάχα with the sense of
“perchance,” though this is common in later Greek. In
Homer it means quickly.
But he had no doubt that when all were Joining in the attack one might well be laid low by all.
33. But let us use our own instances rather
than foreign ones. You find in the Gospel that the Son Himself
says of the Father (when He had sent His servants to His vineyard, and
they had been slain), that the Father said, “I will send My
well-beloved Son, perchance they will reverence Him.” S. S.
34. If, then, Peter used those words which were
used by God without any prejudice to His knowledge, why should we not
assume that Peter also used them without prejudice to his belief?
For he could not doubt concerning the gift of Christ, Who had given him
the power of forgiving sins; especially
35. But the apostles, having this baptism
according to the direction of Christ, taught repentance, promised
forgiveness, and remitted guilt, as David taught when he said:
“Blessed are they whose transgressions are forgiven, and whose
sins are covered. Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not
imputed sin.”
36. Let us, then, cover our falls by our
subsequent acts; let us purify ourselves by tears, that the Lord our
God may hear us when we lament, as He heard Ephraim when weeping, as it
is written: “I have surely heard Ephraim
weeping.”
37. We see how to repent, with what words and with what acts, that the days of sin are called “days of confusion;” for there is confusion when Christ is denied.
38. Let us, then, submit ourselves to God,
and not be subject to sin, and when we ponder the remembrance of our
offences, let us blush as though at some disgrace, and not speak of
them as a glory to us, as some boast of overcoming modesty, or putting
down the feeling of justice. Let our conversion be such, that we
who did not know God may now ourselves declare Him to others, that the
Lord, moved by such a conversion on our part, may answer to us:
“Ephraim is from youth a dear son, a pleasant child, for since My
words are concerning him, I will verily remember him, therefore have I
hastened to be over him; I will surely have mercy on him, saith the
Lord.”
39. And what mercy He promises us, the Lord
also shows, when He says further on: “I have satiated every
thirsty soul, and have satisfied every hungry soul. Therefore, I
awaked and beheld, and My sleep was sweet unto Me.”
St. Ambrose teaches out of the prophet Isaiah what they must do who have fallen. Then referring to our Lord’s proverbial expression respecting piping and dancing, he condemns dances. Next by the example of Jeremiah he sets forth the necessary accompaniments of repentance. And lastly, in order to show the efficacy of this medicine of penance, he enumerates the names of many who have used it for themselves or for others.
40. But if they be not converted, do you at least repent, who by many a slip have fallen from the lofty pinnacle of innocence and faith. We have a good Lord, Whose will it is to forgive all, Who called you by the prophet and said: “I, even I, am He that blotteth out thy transgressions, and I will not remember, but do thou remember that we may plead together.” “I,” He says, “will not remember, but do thou remember,” that is to say, “I do not recall those transgressions which I have forgiven thee, which are covered, as it were, with oblivion, but do thou remember them. I will not remember them because of My grace, do thou remember them in order to correction; remember, thou mayest know that the sin is forgiven, boast not as though innocent, that thou aggravate not the sin, but thou wilt be justified, confess thy sin.” For a shamefaced confession of sins looses the bands of transgression.
41. You see what God requires of you, that you
remember that grace which you have received, and boast not as though
you had not received it. You see by how complete a promise of
remission He draws you to confession. Take heed, lest by
resisting the commandments of God you fall into the
S.
42. The words are ordinary words, but the mystery is not ordinary. And so one must be on one’s guard, lest, deceived by any common interpretation of this saying, one should suppose that the movements of wanton dances and the madness of the stage were commended; for these are full of evil in youthful age. But the dancing is commended which David practised before the ark of God. For everything is seemly which is done for religion, so that we need be ashamed of no service which tends to the worship and honouring of Christ.
43. Dancing, then, which is an accompaniment
of pleasures and luxury, is not spoken of, but spiritually such as that
wherewith one raises the eager body, and suffers not the limbs to lie
slothfully on the ground, nor to grow stiff in their accustomed
tracks. Paul danced spiritually, when for us he stretched
forward, and forgetting the things which were behind, and aiming at
those which were before, he pressed on to the prize of Christ.
44. This, then, is the mystery. “We piped to you,” singing in truth the song of the New Testament, “and ye danced not.” That is, did not raise your souls to the spiritual grace. “We wailed, and ye wept not.” That is, ye did not repent. And therefore was the Jewish people forsaken, because it did not repent, and rejected grace. Repentance came by John, grace by Christ. He, as the Lord, gives the one; the other is proclaimed, as it were, by the servant. The Church, then, keeps both that it may both attain to grace and not cast away repentance, for grace is the gift of One Who confers it; repentance is the remedy of the sinner.
45. Jeremiah knew that penitence was a great
remedy, which he in his Lamentations took up for Jerusalem, and brings
forward Jerusalem itself as repenting, when he says: “She
wept sore in the night, and her tears are on her cheeks, nor is there
one to comfort her of all who love her. The ways of Sion do
mourn.”
46. But let those who repent learn how they
ought to carry it out, with what zeal, with what affection, with what
intention of mind, with what shaking of the inmost bowels, with what
conversion of heart: “Behold,” he says, “O
Lord, that I am in distress, my bowels are troubled by my weeping, my
heart is turned within me.”
47. Here you recognize the intention of the
soul, the faithfulness of the mind, the disposition of the body:
“The elders of the daughters of Sion sat,” he says,
“upon the ground, they put dust upon their heads, they girded
themselves with haircloth, the princes hung their heads to the ground,
the virgins of Jerusalem fainted with weeping, my eyes grew dim, my
bowels were troubled, my glory was poured on the earth.”
48. So, too, did the people of Nineveh
mourn, and escaped the destruction of their city.
49. The Lord Himself wept over Jerusalem,
that, inasmuch as it would not weep itself, it might obtain forgiveness
through the tears of the Lord. He wills that we should weep in
order that we may escape, as you find it in the Gospel:
“Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for
yourselves.” S.
50. David wept, and obtained of the divine mercy the removal of the death of the people who were perishing, when of the three things proposed for his choice he selected that in which he might have the most experience of the divine mercy. Why do you blush to weep for your sins, when God commanded even the prophets to weep for the people?
51. And, lastly, Ezekiel was bidden to weep for
Jerusalem, and he took the book,
S.
An exhortation to mourning and confession of sins for Christ is moved by these and the tears of the Church. Illustration from the story of Lazarus. After showing that the Novatians are the successors of those who planned to kill Lazarus, St. Ambrose argues that the full forgiveness of every sin is signified by the odour of the ointment poured by Mary on the feet of Christ; and further, that the Novatian heretics find their likeness in Judas, who grudged and envied when others rejoiced.
52. Let us, then,
mourn for a time, that we may rejoice for eternity. Let us fear
the Lord, let us anticipate Him with the confession of our sins, let us
correct our backslidings and amend our faults, lest of us too it be
said: “Woe is me, my soul, for the godly man is perished
from the earth, and there is none amongst men to correct
them.”
53. Why do you fear to confess your sins to
our good Lord? “Set them forth,” He says, “that
thou mayest be justified.” The rewards of justification are
set before him who is still guilty of sin, for he is justified who
voluntarily confesses his own sin; and lastly, “the just man is
his own accuser in the beginning of his speaking.”
54. Christ will come to your grave, and if
He finds there weeping for you Martha the woman of good service, and
Mary who carefully heard the Word of God, like holy Church which has
chosen the best part, He will be moved with compassion, when at your
death He shall see the tears of many and will say: “Where
have ye laid him?” S.
55. The people will say to Him, “Come
and see.” S.
56. He will come and will command that the stone be taken away which his fall has laid on the shoulders of the sinner. He could have removed the stone by a word of command, for even inanimate nature is wont to obey the bidding of Christ. He could by the silent power of His working have removed the stone of the sepulchre, at Whose Passion the stones being suddenly removed many sepulchres of the dead were opened, but He bade men remove the stone, in very truth indeed, that the unbelieving might believe what they saw, and see the dead rising again, but in a type that He might give us the power of lightening the burden of sins, the heavy pressure as it were upon the guilty. Ours it is to remove the burdens, His to raise again, His to bring forth from the tombs those set free from their bands.
57. So the Lord Jesus, seeing the heavy
burden of the sinner, weeps, for the Church alone He suffers not to
weep. He has compassion with His beloved, and says to him that is
dead, “Come forth,” S.
58. If you have confessed at the call of Christ
the bars will be broken, and every chain loosed, even the stench of the
bodily corruption be grievous. For he had been dead four days and
his flesh stank in the tomb; but He Whose flesh saw no corruption was
three days in the sepulchre, for He knew no evils of the flesh, which
consists of the substances of the four elements. However great,
then, the stench of the dead body may be, it is all done away so soon
as the sacred ointment has shed its odour; and the dead rises again,
and the command is given to loose his hands who till now was in sin;
the covering is taken from his face which veiled the truth of the grace
which he had received. But since he has received for
59. But in the presence of such grace given
by the Lord, of such a miracle of divine bounty, when all ought to have
rejoiced, the wicked were stirred up and gathered a council against
Christ, S. S.
60. But Jesus does not revoke His benefits, nay, rather He amplifies them by additions of His liberality, He anxiously revisits him who was raised again, and rejoicing in the gift of the restored life, He comes to the feast which His Church has prepared for Him, at which he who had been dead is found as one amongst those sitting down with Christ.
61. Then all wonder who look upon him with the pure gaze of the mind, who are free from envy, for such children the Church has. They wonder, as I said, how he who yesterday and the day before lay in the tomb is one of those sitting with the Lord Jesus.
62. Mary herself pours ointment on the feet
of the Lord Jesus. S.
63. What, then, we read concerning Lazarus we ought to believe of every sinner who is converted, who, though he may have been stinking, nevertheless is cleansed by the precious ointment of faith. For faith has such grace that there where the dead stank the day before, now the whole house is filled with good odour.
64. The house of Corinth stank, when it was
written concerning it: “It is reported that there is
fornication among you, and such fornication as is not even among the
Gentiles.”
65. At the pouring forth, then, of this
ointment all rejoice; Judas alone speaks against it. S. S. S.
In urging repentance St. Ambrose turns to his own case, expressing the wish that he could wash our Lord’s feet like the woman in the Gospel, which is a great pattern of penitence, though such as cannot attain to it find acceptance. He prays for himself, especially that he may sorrow with sinners, who are better than himself. Those for whom Christ died are not to be contemned.
66. Show, then,
your wound to the Physician that He may heal it. Though you show
it not, He knows it, but waits to hear your voice. Do away your
scars by tears. Thus did that woman in the Gospel, and wiped out
the stench of her sin; thus did she
67. Would that Thou, Lord Jesus, mightest reserve for me the washing off from Thy feet of the stains contracted since Thou walkest in me! O that Thou mightest offer to me to cleanse the pollution which I by my deeds have caused on Thy steps! But whence can I obtain living water, wherewith I may wash Thy feet? If I have no water I have tears, and whilst with them I wash Thy feet I trust to cleanse myself. Whence is it that Thou shouldst say to me: “His sins which are many are forgiven, because he loved much”? I confess that I owe more, and that more has been forgiven me who have been called to the priesthood from the tumult and strife of the law courts and the dread of public administration; and therefore I fear that I may be found ungrateful, if I, to whom more has been forgiven, love less.
68. But all are not able to equal that woman, who was deservedly preferred even to Simon, who was giving the feast to the Lord; who gave a lesson to all who desire to gain forgiveness, by kissing the feet of Christ, washing them with her tears, wiping them with her hair, and anointing them with ointment.
69. In a kiss is the sign of love, and
therefore the Lord Jesus says: “Let her kiss Me with the
kisses of her mouth.”
70. Nevertheless if we are unable to equal her, the Lord Jesus knows also how to aid the weak, when there is no one who can prepare the feast, or bring the ointment, or carry with her a spring of living water. He comes Himself to the sepulchre.
71. Would that Thou wouldst vouchsafe to come to this sepulchre of mine, O Lord Jesus, that Thou wouldst wash me with Thy tears, since in my hardened eyes I possess not such tears as to be able to wash away my offence. If Thou shalt weep for me I shall be saved; if I am worthy of Thy tears I shall cleanse the stench of all my offences; if I am worthy that Thou weep but a little, Thou wilt call me out of the tomb of this body and will say: “Come forth,” that my meditations may not be kept pent up in the narrow limits of this body, but may go forth to Christ, and move in the light, that I may think no more on works of darkness but on works of light. For he who thinks on sins endeavours to shut himself up within his own consciousness.
72. Call forth, then, Thy servant. Although bound with the chain of my sins I have my feet fastened and my hands tied; being now buried in dead thoughts and works, yet at Thy call I shall go forth free, and shall be found one of those sitting at Thy feast, and Thy house shall be filled with precious ointment. If Thou hast vouchsafed to redeem any one, Thou wilt preserve him. For it shall be said, “See, he was not brought up in the bosom of the Church, nor trained from childhood, but hurried from the judgment-seat, brought away from the vanities of this world, growing accustomed to the singing of the choir instead of the shout of the crier, but he continues in the priesthood not by his own strength, but by the grace of Christ, and sits among the guests at the heavenly table.
73. Preserve, O Lord, Thy work, guard the
gift which Thou hast given even to him who shrank from it. For I
knew that I was not worthy to be called a bishop, because I had devoted
myself to this world, but by Thy grace I am what I am. And I am
indeed the least of all bishops, and the lowest in merit; yet since I
too have undertaken some labour for Thy holy Church, watch over this
fruit, and let not him whom when lost Thou didst call to the
priesthood, to be lost when a priest. And first grant that I may
know how with inmost affection to mourn with those who sin; for this is
a very great virtue, since it is written: “And thou shalt
not rejoice over the children of Judah in the day of their destruction,
and speak not proudly in the day of their trouble.”
74. Perchance a maiden may have fallen, deceived
and hurried away by those occa
75. We inveigh against some one’s covetousness, let us call to mind whether we ourselves have never done anything covetously; and if we have, since covetousness is the root of all evils, and is working in our bodies like a serpent secretly under the earth, let each of us say: “Tamar hath been more righteous than I.”
76. If we have been seriously moved against
any one, a layman may act hastily for a smaller matter than a
bishop. Let us ponder that with ourselves and say, He who is
reproved for quick temper is more righteous than I. For if we
thus speak, we guard ourselves against this, that the Lord Jesus or one
of His disciples should say to us: “Thou beholdest the mote
in thy brother’s eye, but beholdest not the beam which is in
thine own eye. Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of
thine own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy
brother’s eye.” S.
77. Let us, then, not be ashamed to say that our fault is more serious than that of him whom we think we must reprove, for this is what Judah did who reprimanded Tamar, and remembering his own fault said: “Tamar is more righteous than I.” In which saying there is a deep mystery and a moral precept; and therefore is his offence not reckoned to him, because he accused himself before he was accused by others.
78. Let us, then, not rejoice over the sin
of any one, but rather let us mourn, for it is written:
“Rejoice not against me, O my enemy, because I have fallen, for I
shall arise; for if I sit in darkness the Lord shall be a light unto
me, I will bear the indignation of the Lord, because I have sinned
against Him, until He maintain my cause, and execute judgment for me,
and bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold His
righteousness. Mine enemy, too, shall see it and shall be covered
with confusion, which said unto me, Where is the Lord thy God?
Mine eyes shall behold her, and she shall be for treading down as the
mire in the streets.”
79. O that He may not cast away this straw
at His harvest, the empty stalks of my produce; but may He gather it
in, as is said by some one: “Woe is me, for I am become as
one that gathereth straw in harvest, and grape gleanings in the
vintage,”
In what way faith is necessary for repentance. Means for paying our debts, in which work, prayer, tears, and fasting are of more value than money. Some instances are adduced, and St. Ambrose declares that generosity is profitable, but only when joined with faith; it is, moreover, liable to certain defects. He goes on to speak of some defects in repentance, such as too great haste in seeking reconciliation, considering abstinence from sacraments all that is needed, of committing sin in hope of repenting later.
80. So, then, it is fitting for us to believe both that sinners must repent and that forgiveness is to be given on repentance, yet still as hoping for forgiveness as granted upon faith, not as a debt, for it is one thing to earn, and another presumptuously to claim a right. Faith asks for forgiveness, as it were, by covenant, but presumption is more akin to demand than to request. Pay first that which you owe, that you may be in a position to ask for what you have hoped. Come with the disposition of an honest debtor, that you may not contract a fresh liability, but may pay that which is due of the existing debt with the possessions of your faith.
81. He who owes a debt to God has more help towards payment than he who is indebted to man. Man requires money for money, and this is not always at the debtor’s command. God demands the affection of the heart, which is in our own power. No one who owes a debt to God is poor, except one who has made himself poor. And even if he have nothing to sell, yet has he wherewith to pay. Prayer, fasting, and tears are the resources of an honest debtor, and much more abundant than if one from the price of his estate offered money without faith.
82. Ananias was poor, when after selling his land
he brought the money to the
S.
83. And I do not deny that sins may be diminished by liberal gifts to the poor, but only if faith commend what is spent. For what would the giving of one’s whole property benefit without charity?
84. There are some who aim at the credit of generosity for pride alone, because they wish thereby to gain the good opinion of the multitude for leaving nothing to themselves; but whilst they are seeking rewards in this life, they are laying up none for the life to come, and having received their reward here they cannot hope for it there.
85. Some again, having, through impulsive excitement and not after long consideration, given their possessions to the Church, think that they can claim them back. These gain neither the first nor the second reward, for the gift was made thoughtlessly, its recall sacrilegiously.
86. Some repent of having distributed their property to the poor. But they who are doing penance must not repent of this, lest they repent of their own repentance. For many seek for penance through fear of future punishment, being conscious of their sins, and having received their penance are held back by fear of the public entreaties. These persons seem to have sought for repentance for their evil deeds, but to exercise it for their good ones.
87. Some seek penance because they wish to
be at once restored to communion. These wish not so much to loose
themselves as to bind the priest, for they do not put off the guilt
from their own conscience, but lay it on that of the priest, to whom
the command is given: “Give not that which is holy to the
dogs, neither cast your pearls before the swine;” S.
88. And so one may see those walking in other attire, who ought to be weeping and groaning because they had defiled the robe of sanctification and grace; and women loading their ears with pearls, and weighing down their necks, who had better have bent to Christ than to gold, and who ought to be weeping for themselves, because they have lost the pearl from heaven.
89. There are, again, some who think that it is penitence to abstain from the heavenly sacraments. These are too cruel judges of themselves, who prescribe a penalty for themselves but refuse the remedy, who ought to be mourning over their self-imposed penalty, because it deprives them of heavenly grace.
90. Others think that licence is granted them to sin, because the hope of penitence is before them, whereas penitence is the remedy, not an incentive to sin. For the salve is necessary for the wound, not the wound for the salve, since a salve is sought because of the wound, the wound is not wished for on account of the salve. The hope which is put off to a future season is but feeble, for every season is uncertain, and hope does not outlive all time.
In order to do away with the feeling of shame which holds back the guilty from public penance, St. Ambrose points out the advantage of prayers offered by the whole Church, and sets forth the example of saints who have sorrowed. Then, after reproving those who imagine that penance may be often repeated, he points out the difficulty of repentance, and how it is to be carried out.
91. Can any one
endure that you should blush to entreat God, when you do not blush to
entreat a man? That you should be ashamed to entreat Him Who
knows you fully, when you are not ashamed to confess your sins to a man
who knows you not? A good deal
of controversy has arisen about this passage, which certainly appears,
prima facie, to contrast confession to God and to a man
obviously priest or bishop. The Benedictine editors insist much
upon the use of the singular number, homini, a man. But
the word might conceivably be used in a general sense. There is
no real doubt as to the practice of the Early Church. See note at
the end of this treatise.
92. Let the Church, our Mother, weep for
93. Let, then, nothing call you away from
penitence, for this you have in common with the saints, and would that
such sorrowing for sin as that of the saints were copied by you.
David, as it were, “ate ashes for bread, and mingled his drink
with weeping,”
94. John wept sore,
95. Deservedly are they blamed who think that they often do penance, for they are wanton against Christ. For if they went through their penance in truth, they would not think that it could be repeated again; for as there is but one baptism, so there is but one course of penance, so far as the outward practice goes, for we must repent of our daily faults, but this latter has to do with lighter faults, the former with such as are graver.
96. But I have more easily found such as had preserved their innocence than such as had fittingly repented. Does any one think that that is penitence where there still exists the striving after earthly honours, where wine flows, and even conjugal connection takes place? The world must be renounced; less sleep must be indulged in than nature demands; it must be broken by groans, interrupted by sighs, put aside by prayers; the mode of life must be such that we die to the usual habits of life. Let the man deny himself and be wholly changed, as in the fable they relate of a certain youth, who left his home because of his love for a harlot, and, having subdued his love, returned; then one day meeting his old favourite and not speaking to her, she, being surprised and supposing that he had not recognized her, said, when they met again, “It is I.” “But,” was his answer, “I am not the former I.”
97. Well then did the Lord say:
“If any man will come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up
his cross and follow Me.” S.
The possibility of repentance is a reason why baptism should not be deferred to old age, a practice which is against the will of God in holy Scripture. But it is of no use to practise penance whilst still serving lusts. These must be first subdued.
98. Good, then, is penitence, and if there were no place for it, every one would defer the grace of cleansing by baptism to old age. And a sufficient reason is that it is better, to have a robe to mend, than none to put on; but as that which has been repaired once is restored, so that which is frequently mended is destroyed.
99. And the Lord has given a sufficient
warning to those who put off repentance, when He says:
“Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand.” S.
100. And what reason is there for putting
101. But of those who as exiles and banished
from their ancestral homes, which the holy law of Moses had assigned
them, will be entangled in the errors of the world, you hear him
saying: “By the waters of Babylon we sat down and wept,
when we remembered Zion.”
102. But nothing causes such exceeding grief as when any one, lying under the captivity of sin, calls to mind whence he has fallen, because he turned aside to carnal and earthly things, instead of directing his mind in the beautiful ways of the knowledge of God.
103. So you find Adam concealing himself,
when he knew that God was present, and wishing to be hidden when called
by God with that voice which wounded the soul of him who was
hiding: “Adam, where art thou?”
104. And so no one in a state of sin ought
to claim a right to or the use of the sacraments, for it is
written: “Thou hast sinned, be still.” I do not feel
sure of the meaning of this passage, but it appears to be as above,
that a person going through the outward exercises of penance without
inward repentance, gains no benefit, and as sinners were not admitted
to a second course of penance, does away with his chance for the
future. [Ed.]
105. When, then, the flesh resists, the soul
must be intent upon God, and if results do not follow, let not faith
fail. And if the enticements of the flesh come upon us, or the
powers of the enemy attack us, let the soul keep in submission to
God. For we are then specially oppressed when the flesh
yields. And some there are who trouble heavily the wretched soul,
seeking to deprive it of all protection. To which case the words
apply: “Rase it, rase it, even to the
foundations.”
106. And David, pitying her, says:
“O wretched daughter of Babylon.” This
passage is another instance of the way in which St. Ambrose, like many
other early writers, lost sight of the original meaning of the text in
drawing allegorical lessons from it. The “daughter of
Babylon,” i.e. the people, had never been a
“daughter of God,” nor was the dashing of the children
against the rock ever intended to bear the beautiful interpretation
given to it by our author.
107. We have then learned that we must do
penance, and this at a time when the heat of luxury and sin is giving
way; and that we, when under the dominion of sin, must show ourselves
Godfearing by refraining, rather than allowing ourselves in evil
practices. For if it is said to Moses when he was desiring to
draw nearer: “Put off thy shoes from off thy
feet,”
Note on the Penitential Discipline of the Early Church.
It was always believed in the Church that the power of binding and loosing had been entrusted by our Lord to His apostles, and by them handed on to their successors in the ministry. The earlier practice would seem to have been short and simple: exclusion from Communion, some outward discipline, not always continued for a long period, and reconciliation on true repentance, these matters being decided by the bishop at his discretion. Gradually the practice became more systematized, various periods of discipline were prescribed for various sins, and the time for this discipline was lengthened.
There were three parts in the discipline of Penitence as a whole:
1. Confession, ἐξομολόγησις, a term used frequently of the whole course.
2. Penance, properly so called, i.e. the mortifications, fasting, etc., prescribed.
3. Reconciliation, performed solemnly by the bishop, often at Easter.
The confession was probably in private to the bishop, who determined whether any public confession should be made or not. But as only great sins—at first, idolatry, adultery, and murder (peccata mortalia)—were punished by outward penance, it was clear that the sin must have been very grievous.
The Montanists taught that the Church had not power to forgive great sins, and this led to clearing the doctrine, and from the middle of the third century, even those who had lapsed into idolatry were admitted to penance.
Hermas already says: τοῖς δούλοις τοῦθεοῦ μέτανοιά ἐστι μία, Mand. iv. 1. And this rule seems to have been maintained as regards the formal penance and reconciliation, not as implying doubt of possible forgiveness, but as a matter of discipline, and this rule deprived those who fell a second time from communion at least till their deathbed.
For this public penance the Greek words are μετάνοια and ἐξομολόγησις; the Latin, penitentia and frequently exomologesis. As the word penitentia includes not merely sorrow for sin and change of heart, but also penance, or the penalty inflicted by authority, and is used in such phrases as penitentiam agere or facere, it has been necessary in the translation of the De Penitentia to vary the English terms, and to use sometimes repentance, sometimes penance.
For further information on this subject, the reader is referred specially to the Articles, Buss-Disciplin, in the Freiburg Kirchen-Lexikon, by Wetzer and Welte; and to those on Exomologesis, Penitence, and Reconciliation, in the Dict. of Christian Antiquities, where other authorities and references will be found.
The state of Virginity is undoubtedly commended in holy Scripture, both by our Lord and St. Paul, but learned men have differed in their opinions as to the original customs and rules observed by virgins in the earliest ages. Some suppose that from the very beginning it was the custom for them to make a solemn profession of the virgin life, and to live together in common. Others consider that their vows were private, and they lived sometimes together, sometimes in the homes of their parents. Others, again, believing that there was no more than a simple purpose on the part of the virgins signified by the veil, and the simplicity of their dress, attribute the first commencements of community life to St. Ambrose himself.
The first opinion is hardly tenable as regards any profession which was notorious. Statements in the earlier Acts of Martyrs are to be regarded with suspicion, as so much of this class of writings is spurious. The utterances also of Fathers and Councils hardly establish anything on this point more than on the second mentioned above.
There would seem to have been some who publicly, like Marcellina, the sister of St. Ambrose, made their profession, and formally received the veil at the hands of the Bishop; and others, equally steadfast in purpose, whose vow of virginity was made in private. Of the former, those living in Milan hardly seem to have led a life in common, but at Bologna [I. 60] they did. The terms, vow, taking the veil, and profession, were in use in St. Ambrose’s day, as at present.
It would appear, then, that from the days of the apostles there were some who devoted themselves to God in a life of chastity, and that later on the promise or vow was made in the presence of others—the bishop, clergy, and friends. These virgins lived at home with their parents, whilst the times of persecution endured, making it practically impossible for them to live elsewhere. Common life amongst them would seem to have commenced in the East, and St. Athanasius, when, seeking refuge from the Arians, he came to Rome, introduced the custom to the Western Church.
St. Ambrose worked vigorously in this direction, not only in his own diocese, but in neighbouring provinces, and even in Africa. Early in his episcopate he addressed his flock on the subject, and at the request of his sister, Marcellina, gathered up his teaching in the following three books.
In the first book he treats of the dignity of Virginity, and states his reason for writing. As he commences his addresses on the anniversary of the martyrdom of St. Agnes, he takes her story as the subject of the earlier part of the treatise, and shows how, amongst the Jews, and even amongst the heathen, the grace of virginity was shadowed forth, and eventually proclaimed by the corning of our Lord. He then warns parents, especially widows, not to prevent their daughters from hearing addresses on this subject, and touches on the number of those who came even from great distances to receive the veil at Milan.
In the second book, speaking of the character and manner of life of virgins, he does this, as he says, by adducing examples and instances, preferably to laying down a code of rules. He speaks of Thecla, patron saint of Milan, a disciple of St. Paul, and of other virgins.
In the third book he goes through a summary of the
address given by Pope Liberius, when Marcellina received the veil at
his hands, before a large congregation. Some
The writer himself states that this treatise was composed in the third year of his episcopate, a.d. 377, and it is quoted with approval by St. Jerome, Ep. XXII. 22 and XLVIII. 14 [Vol. VI., pp. 31 and 75, of this series, and St. Augustine, de doct. Christ. IV. 48, 50.
To Marcellina, His Sister.
St. Ambrose, reflecting upon the account he will have to give of his talents, determines to write, and consoles himself with certain examples of God’s mercy. Then recognizing his own deficiencies desires that he may be dealt with like the fig-tree in the Gospel, and expresses a hope that words will not fail him in his endeavour to preach Christ.
1. If, according to
the decree of heavenly truth, we have to give account of every idle
word which we have spoken, S.
2. And so distrusting indeed my own ability,
but encouraged by the instances of divine mercy, I venture to compose
an address, for when God willed even the ass spoke.
3. But these things are gained by holy
men. Would that Jesus would cast a glance upon me still lying
under that barren fig-tree, S. S.
4. And perhaps some one may wonder why I, who
cannot speak, venture to write. And yet if we consider what we
read in the writings of the Gospel, and the deeds of the priests, and
the holy prophet Zacharias is
S.
This treatise has a favourable beginning, since it is the birthday of the holy Virgin Agnes, of whose name, modesty, and martyrdom St. Ambrose speaks in commendation, but more especially of her age, seeing that she, being but twelve years old, was superior to terrors, promises, tortures, and death itself, with a courage wholly worthy of a man.
5. And my task begins favourably, that since to-day is the birthday of a virgin, I have to speak of virgins, and the treatise has its beginning from this discourse. It is the birthday of a martyr, let us offer the victim. It is the birthday of St. Agnes, let men admire, let children take courage, let the married be astounded, let the unmarried take an example. But what can I say worthy of her whose very name was not devoid of bright praise? In devotion beyond her age, in virtue above nature, she seems to me to have borne not so much a human name, as a token of martyrdom, whereby she showed what she was to be.
6. But I have that which may assist me. The name of virgin is a title of modesty. I will call upon the martyr, I will proclaim the virgin. That panegyric is long enough which needs no elaboration, but is within our grasp. Let then labour cease, eloquence be silent. One word is praise enough. This word old men and young and boys chant. No one is more praiseworthy than he who can be praised by all. There are as many heralds as there are men, who when they speak proclaim the martyr.
7. She is said to have suffered martyrdom
when twelve years old. The more hateful was the cruelty, which
spared not so tender an age, the greater in truth was the power of
faith which found evidence even in that age. Was there room for a
wound in that small body? And she who had no room for the blow of
the steel had that wherewith to conquer the steel. But maidens of
that age are unable to bear even the angry looks of parents, and are
wont to cry at the pricks of a needle as though they were wounds.
She was fearless under the cruel hands of the executioners, she was
unmoved by the heavy weight of the creaking chains, offering her whole
body to the sword of the raging soldier, as yet ignorant of death, but
ready for it. Or if she were unwillingly hurried to the altars,
she was ready to stretch forth her hands to Christ at the sacrificial
fires, and at the sacrilegious altars themselves, to make the sign of
the Lord the Conqueror, i.e. raise
her arms in the form of a cross.
8. A new kind of martyrdom! Not yet of fit age for punishment but already ripe for victory, difficult to contend with but easy to be crowned, she filled the office of teaching valour while having the disadvantage of youth. She would not as a bride so hasten to the couch, as being a virgin she joyfully went to the place of punishment with hurrying step, her head not adorned with plaited hair, but with Christ. All wept, she alone was without a tear. All wondered that she was so readily prodigal of her life, which she had not yet enjoyed, and now gave up as though she had gone through it. Every one was astounded that there was now one to bear witness to the Godhead, who as yet could not, because of her age, dispose of herself. And she brought it to pass that she should be believed concerning God, whose evidence concerning man would not be accepted. For that which is beyond nature is from the Author of nature.
9. What threats the executioner used to make her
fear him, what allurements to persuade her, how many desired that she
would come to them in marriage! But she answered: “It
would be an injury to my spouse to look on any one as likely to please
me. He who chose me first for Himself shall receive me. Why
are you delaying, executioner? Let this body perish which can be
loved by eyes which I would not.” She stood, she prayed,
she bent down her neck. You could see the executioner tremble, as
though he himself had been condemned, and his right hand shake, his
face grow pale, as he feared the peril of another, while the maiden
feared not for her own. You have then in one victim
Virginity is praised on many grounds, but chiefly because it brought down the Word from heaven, and hence its pursuit, which existed in but few under the old covenant, has spread to countless numbers.
10. And now the love of purity draws me on, and you, my holy sister, even though not speaking in your silent habit, to say something about virginity, lest that which is a principal virtue should seem to be passed by with only a slight reference. For virginity is not praiseworthy because it is found in martyrs, but because itself makes martyrs.
11. But who can comprehend that by human
understanding which not even nature has included in her laws? Or
who can explain in ordinary language that which is above the course of
nature? Virginity has brought from heaven that which it may
imitate on earth. And not unfittingly has she sought her manner
of life from heaven, who has found for herself a Spouse in
heaven. She, passing beyond the clouds, air, angels, and stars,
has found the Word of God in the very bosom of the Father, and has
drawn Him into herself with her whole heart. For who having found
so great a Good would forsake it? For “Thy Name is as
ointment poured out, therefore have the maidens loved Thee, and drawn
Thee.”
12. But some one will say: “But
Elijah is seen to have had nothing to do with the embraces of bodily
love.” And therefore was he carried by a chariot into
heaven, S.
13. But in truth after that the Lord, coming
in our flesh, joined together the Godhead and flesh without any
confusion or mixture, then the practice of the life of heaven spreading
throughout the whole world was implanted in human bodies. This is
that which angels ministering on earth signified should come to
pass, S. S.
The comeliness of virginity never existed amongst the heathen, neither with the vestal virgins, nor amongst philosophers, such as Pythagoras.
14. I certainly have not this in common with the heathen, nor in regard to it am I associated with barbarians, nor practise it with other animals, with whom, although we breathe one and the same vital air, and have a common condition of an earthly body, and from whom we differ not in the mode of generation, in this point alone we nevertheless avoid the reproach of likeness, that virginity is aimed at by the heathen, but when consecrated it is violated, it is attacked by barbarians, and is unknown to others.
15. Who will allege to me the virgins of Vesta,
and the priests of Pallas? What sort of chastity is that which is
not of morals, but of years, which is appointed not for ever, but for a
term! Such purity is all the more wanton of which the corruption
is put off for a later age. They teach their virgins ought not to
persevere, and are unable to do so, who have set a term to
virginity. What sort of a religion is that
16. What shall I say of the Phrygian rites, in which immodesty is the rule, and that too of the weaker sex? What of the orgies of Bacchus, where the mystery of the rites is an incentive to lust? Of what sort can the lives of priests be, then, where the adulteries of the gods are matters of religion. So then they have no sacred virgins.
17. Let us see whether perchance the precepts of philosophers have formed any, for they are wont to claim the teaching of all virtues. A certain Pythagorean virgin is spoken of in story, whom a tyrant was endeavouring to compel to reveal the secret, and lest it should be possible even in her torments for revelation to be extorted from her, she bit off her tongue and spat it in the tyrant’s face, that he who would not make an end of questioning might not have aught to question.
18. But that same virgin, so constant in mind, was overcome by lust, though she could not be overcome by torments. And so she who could keep the secret of her mind could not conceal the shame of her body. She overcame nature, but observed not discipline. How she would desire that her speech had existed as a defence of her chastity! So she was not unconquered on every side, for although the tyrant could not find out that which he sought, yet he did find what he sought not.
19. How much stronger are our virgins, who overcome even those powers which they do not see; whose victory is not only over flesh and blood, but also over the prince of this world, and ruler of this age! In age, Agnes indeed was less, but in virtue greater, triumphing over more, more constant in her confidence; she did not destroy her tongue through fear, but kept it for a trophy. For there was nothing in her which she feared to betray, since that which she acknowledged was holy, not sinful. And so the former merely concealed her secret, the latter bore witness to the Lord, and confessed Him in her body, Whom her age did not yet suffer to confess.
Heaven is the home of virginity, and the Son of God its Author, Who though He was a Virgin before the Virgin, yet being of the Virgin took the Virgin Church as His bride. Of her we have all been born. Some of her gifts are enumerated. Her daughters have a special excellence in that virginity is not a matter of precept, and that it is a most powerful help in the pursuit of piety.
20. It is the custom in encomiums to speak of country and parentage of the subject, that the greatness of the offspring may be enhanced by mention of the father. Now I, who have not undertaken to praise but to set forth virginity, yet think it to the purpose to make known its country and its parent. First, let us settle where is its country. Now, if one’s country be there where is the home of one’s birth, without doubt heaven is the native country of chastity. And so she is a stranger here, but a denizen there.
21. And what is virginal chastity but purity free from stain? And whom can we judge to be its author but the immaculate Son of God, Whose flesh saw no corruption, Whose Godhead experienced no infection? Consider, then, how great are the merits of virginity. Christ was before the Virgin, Christ was of the Virgin. Begotten indeed of the Father before the ages, but born of the Virgin for the ages. The former was of His own nature, the latter is for our benefit. The former always was, the latter He willed.
22. Consider, too, another merit of
virginity. Christ is the spouse of the Virgin, and if one may so
say of virginal chastity, for virginity is of Christ, not Christ of
virginity. He is, then, the Virgin Who was espoused, the Virgin
Who bare us, Who fed us with her own milk, of whom we read:
“How great things hath the virgin of Jerusalem done! The
teats shall not fail from the rock, nor snow from Lebanon, nor the
water which is borne by the strong wind.”
23. But let us now come down from the mother
to the daughters. “Concerning virgins,” says the
Apostle, “I have no commandment of the Lord.”
St. Ambrose explains that he is not speaking against marriage, and proceeds to compare the advantages and disadvantages of the single and married state.
24. I am not indeed
discouraging marriage, but am enlarging upon the benefits of
virginity. “He who is weak,” says the Apostle,
“eateth herbs.”
25. Let us compare, if it pleases you, the advantages of married women with that which awaits virgins. Though the noble woman boasts of her abundant offspring, yet the more she bears the more she endures. Let her count up the comforts of her children, but let her likewise count up the troubles. She marries and weeps. How many vows does she make with tears. She conceives, and her fruitfulness brings her trouble before offspring. She brings forth and is ill. How sweet a pledge which begins with danger and ends in danger, which will cause pain before pleasure! It is purchased by perils, and is not possessed at her own will.
26. Why speak of the troubles of nursing,
training, and marrying? These are the miseries of those who are
fortunate. A mother has heirs, but it increases her
sorrows. For we must not speak of adversity, lest the minds of
the holiest parents tremble. Consider, my sister, how hard it
must be to bear what one must not speak of. And this is in this
present age. But the days shall come when they shall say:
“Blessed are the barren, and the wombs that never
bare.” S.
27. Why should I further speak of the
painful ministrations and services due to their husbands from wives, to
whom before slaves God gave the command to serve?
28. And in this position spring up those incentives to vice, in that they paint their faces with various colours, fearing not to please their husbands; and from staining their faces, come to think of staining their chastity. What madness is here, to change the fashion of nature and seek a painting, and while fearing a husband’s judgment to give up their own. For she is the first to speak against herself who wishes to change that which is natural to her. So, while studying to please others, she displeases herself. What truer witness to thy unsightliness do we require, O woman, than thyself who art afraid to be seen? If thou art beautiful, why hidest thou thyself? If unsightly, why dost thou falsely pretend to beauty, so as to have neither the satisfaction of thy own conscience, nor of the error of another? For he loves another, thou desirest to please another. And art thou angry if he love another, who is taught to do so in thy own person? Thou art an evil teacher of thy own injury.
29. And next, what expense is necessary that even
a beautiful wife may not fail to please? Costly necklaces on the
one hand
30. But you, O happy virgins, who know not such torments, rather than ornaments, whose holy modesty, beaming in your bashful cheeks, and sweet chastity are a beauty, ye do not, intent upon the eyes of men, consider as merits what is gained by the errors of others. You, too, have indeed your own beauty, furnished by the comeliness of virtue, not of the body, to which age puts not an end, which death cannot take away, nor any sickness injure. Let God alone be sought as the judge of loveliness, Who loves even in less beautiful bodies the more beautiful souls. You know nothing of the burden and pain of childbearing, but more are the offspring of a pious soul, which esteems all as its children, which is rich in successors, barren of all bereavements, which knows no deaths, but has many heirs.
31. So the holy Church, ignorant of wedlock,
but fertile in bearing, is in chastity a virgin, yet a mother in
offspring. She, a virgin, bears us her children, not by a human
father, but by the Spirit. She bears us not with pain, but with
the rejoicings of the angels. She, a virgin, feeds us, not with
the milk of the body, but with that of the Apostle, wherewith he fed
the tender age of the people who were still children.
St. Ambrose exhorts parents to train their children to virginity, and sets before them the troubles arising from their desire to have grandchildren. He says however that he does not forbid marriage, but rather defends it against heretics who oppose it. Still setting virginity before marriage, he speaks of the beauty of their spouse, and of the gifts wherewith He adorns them, and applies to these points certain verses of the Song of Songs.
32. You have heard,
O parents, in what virtues and pursuits you ought to train your
daughters, that you may possess those by whose merits your faults may
be redeemed. The virgin is an offering for her mother, by whose
daily sacrifice the divine power is appeased. A virgin is the
inseparable pledge of her parents, who neither troubles them for a
dowry, nor forsakes them, nor injures them in word or deed. From this passage
it is clear that in the days of St. Ambrose it was not yet the rule at
Milan, though it was in other places, for the consecrated virgins to
live together, but the older custom still continued.
33. But some one perhaps wishes to have grandchildren, and to be called grandfather. In the first place, such a one gives up what is his own, while seeking what is another’s, and is already losing what is certain, while hoping to gain what is uncertain; he gives away his own riches, and still more is asked for; if he does not pay the dowry, it is exacted; if he lives long, he becomes a burden. This is to buy a son-in-law, not to gain one who would sell a sight of their daughter to her parents. Was she borne so long in her mother’s womb in order that she might pass under the power of another? And so the parents take the charge of setting off their virgin that she may so be the sooner removed from them.
34. Some one may say, Do you, then,
discourage marriage? Nay, I encourage it, and condemn those who
are wont to discourage it, so much so, that indeed I am wont to speak
of the marriages of Sarah, Rebecca, and Rachel, and other women of old
time, as instances of singular virtues. For he who condemns
marriage, condemns the birth of children, and condemns the fellowship
of the human race, continued by a series of successive
generations. For how could generation succeed generation in a
continual order, unless the gift of marriage stirred up the desire of
offspring? Or how could one set forth that Isaac went to the
altar of God as a victim of his father’s piety, or that Israel,
when yet in the body, saw God,
35. I do not then discourage marriage, but
recapitulate the advantages of holy virginity. This is the gift
of few only, that is of all. And virginity itself cannot exist,
unless it have some mode of coming into existence. I am comparing
good things with good things, that it may be clear which is the more
excellent. Nor do I allege any opinion of my own, but I repeat
that which the Holy Spirit spake by the prophet: “Blessed
is the barren that is undefiled.”
36. First of all, in that which those who
purpose to marry desire above all things, that they may boast of the
beauty of their husband, they must of necessity confess that they are
inferior to virgins, to Whom alone it is suitable to say:
“Thou art fairer than the children of men, grace is poured on Thy
lips.”
37. And observe what a kingdom the Holy Spirit by the witness of the divine Scriptures has assigned to thee—gold, and beauty; gold, either because thou art the bride of the Eternal King, or because having an unconquered mind, thou art not taken captive by the allurements of pleasures, but rulest over them like a queen. Gold again, because as that metal is more precious when tried by fire, so the appearance of the virginal body, consecrated to the Divine Spirit, gains an increase of its own comeliness, for who can imagine a loveliness greater than the beauty of her who is loved by the King, approved by the judge, dedicated to the Lord, consecrated to God; ever a bride, ever unmarried, so that neither does love suffer an ending, nor modesty loss.
38. This is indeed true beauty, to which
nothing is wanting, which alone is worthy to hear the Lord
saying: “Thou art all fair, My love, and no blemish is in
thee. Come hither from Lebanon, My spouse, come hither from
Lebanon. Thou shalt pass and pass through from the beginning of
faith, from the top of Sanir and Hermon, from the dens of the lions,
from the mountains of the leopards.”
39. “The smell of thy garments,”
says He, “is above all spices.” S.
Taking the passage concerning the honeycomb in the Song of Songs, he expounds it, comparing the sacred virgins to bees.
40. Let, then, your work be as it were a honeycomb, for virginity is fit to be compared to bees, so laborious is it, so modest, so continent. The bee feeds on dew, it knows no marriage couch, it makes honey. The virgin’s dew is the divine word, for the words of God descend like the dew. The virgin’s modesty is unstained nature. The virgin’s produce is the fruit of the lips, without bitterness, abounding in sweetness. They work in common, and their fruit is in common.
41. How I wish you, my daughter, to be an imitator of these bees, whose food is flowers, whose offspring is collected and brought together by the mouth. Do imitate her, my daughter. Let no veil of deceit be spread over your words; let them have no covering of guile, that they may be pure, and full of gravity.
42. And let an eternal succession of merits be
brought forth by your mouth. Gather not for yourself alone (for
how do you know when your soul shall be required of you?), lest leaving
your granaries heaped full with corn, which will be a help neither to
your life nor to your merits, you be hurried thither where you cannot
take your treasure with you. Be rich then, but towards the poor,
43. And I also point out to you what flower
is to be culled, that one it is Who said: “I am the Flower
of the field, and the Lily of the valleys, as a lily among
thorns,”
Other passages from the Song of Songs are considered with relation to the present subject, and St. Ambrose exhorting the virgin to seek for Christ, points out where He may be found. A description of His perfections follows, and a comparison is made between virgins and the angels.
44. Take, then, O
Virgin, the wings of the Spirit, that you may fly far above all vices,
if you wish to attain to Christ: “He dwelleth on high, but
beholdeth lowly things;”
45. It loves to grow in gardens, in which
Susanna, while walking, found it, and was ready to die rather than it
should be violated. But what is meant by the gardens He Himself
points out, saying: “A garden enclosed is My sister, My
spouse, a garden enclosed, a fountain sealed;”
46. To work, then, O Virgin, and if you wish
your garden to be sweet after this sort, enclose it with the precepts
of the prophets: “Set a watch before thy mouth, and a door
to thy lips,”
47. He Who was spoiled by the soldiers, Who
was wounded by the spear, that He might heal us by the blood of His
sacred wounds, will assuredly answer you (for He is meek and lowly of
heart, and gentle in aspect): “Arise, O north wind, and
come, O south, and blow upon My garden, that My spices may flow
out.”
48. And since you are worthy to be compared
not now with men but with heavenly beings, whose life you are living on
earth, receive from the Lord the precepts you are to observe:
“Set Me as a signet upon thine heart, and as a seal upon thine
arm;”
49. But let fear secure this for the holy
virgins, for whom the Church first provided such protection, who,
anxious for the prosperity of her tender offspring, herself as a wall
with breasts as many towers,
50. Then the Lord of peace Himself, after
having embraced in His strong arms the vineyards committed to Him, and
beholding their shoots putting forth buds, with glad looks, tempers the
breezes to the young fruits, as Himself testifies, saying:
“My vineyard is in My sight, a thousand for Solomon, and two
hundred who keep the fruit thereof.”
51. Above it is said: “Sixty
strong men round about its offspring, armed with drawn swords, and
expert in warlike discipline,”
52. Why should I continue the praise of
chastity in more words? For chastity has made even angels.
He who has preserved it is an angel; he who has lost it a devil.
And hence has religion also gained its name. She is a virgin who
is the bride of God, a harlot who makes gods for herself. What
shall I say of the resurrection of which you already hold the
rewards: “For in the resurrection they will neither be
given in marriage, nor marry, but shall be,” He says, “as
the angels in heaven.” S.
53. But what a great thing it is that angels
because of incontinence fell from heaven into this world, that virgins
because of chastity passed from the world into heaven. Blessed
virgins, whom the delights of the flesh do not allure, nor the
defilement of pleasures cast down. Sparing food and abstinence in
drink train them in ignorance of vices, seeing they keep them from
knowing the causes of vices. That which causes sin has often
deceived even the just. In this way the people of God after they
sat down to eat and drink denied God.
Finally, another glory of virginity is mentioned, that it is free from avarice. St. Ambrose, addressing his sister, reminds her of the great happiness of those who are free from those troubles as to luxury and vanity which come upon those who are about to marry.
What then? What happiness it is that no desire of possessions inflames you! The poor man demands what you have, he does not ask for what you have not. The fruit of your labour is a treasure for the needy, and two mites, if they be all one has, are wealth on the part of the giver.
54. Listen, then, my sister, from what you
escape. For it is not for me to teach nor for you to learn what
you ought to guard against, for the practice of perfect virtue does not
require teaching, but instructs others. You see how like she is
to the litters at processions, who lays herself out to please,
attracting to herself the look and gaze of
55. Look at the ears pierced with wounds, and pity the neck weighed down with burdens. That the metals are different does not lighten the suffering. In one case a chain binds the neck, in another a fetter encloses the foot. It makes no difference whether the body be loaded with gold or with iron. Thus the neck is weighed down and the steps are hindered. The price makes it no better, except that you women are afraid lest that which causes you suffering be lost. What is the difference whether the sentence of another or your own condemn you? Nay, you, even more wretched than those, are condemned by public justice, since they desire to be set free, you to be bound.
56. But how wretched a position, that she who is marriageable is in a species of sale put up as it were to auction to be bid for, so that he who offers the highest price purchases her. Slaves are sold on more tolerable conditions, for they often choose their masters; if a maiden chooses it is an offence, if not it is an insult. And she, though she be beautiful and comely, both fears and wishes to be seen; she wishes it that she may sell herself for a better price; she fears lest the fact of her being seen should itself be unbecoming. But what absurdities of wishes and fears and suspicions are there as to how the suitors will turn out, lest a poor man may beguile her, or a rich one contemn her, lest a handsome suitor mock her, lest a noble one despise her.
St. Ambrose answers objections made to the uselessness of his exhortations in favour of virginity, and brings forward instances of virgins especially in various places he mentions, and speaks of their zeal in the cause.
57. Some one may say, you are always singing the praises of virgins. What shall I do who am always singing them and have no success? But this is not my fault. Then, too, virgins come from Placentia to be consecrated, or from Bononia, and Mauritania, in order to receive the veil here. You see a striking thing here. I treat the matter here, and persuade those who are elsewhere. If this be so, let me treat the subject elsewhere, that I may persuade you.
58. What is it, then, that even they who hear me not follow my teaching, and those who hear me follow me not? For I have known many virgins who had the desire, but were prevented from going forward by their mothers, and, which is more serious, mothers who were widows, to whom I will now address myself. For if your daughters desired to love a man, they could, by law, choose whom they would. Are they, then, who are allowed to choose a man not allowed to choose God?
59. Behold how sweet is the fruit of modesty, which has sprung up even in the affections of barbarians. Virgins coming from the most distant on this and that side of Mauritania desire to be consecrated here; and though all the families be in bonds, yet modesty cannot be bound. She who mourns over the hardship of slavery avows an eternal kingdom.
60. And what shall I say of the virgins of
Bononia, a fertile band of chastity, who, forsaking worldly delights,
inhabit the sanctuary of virginity? It was very
unusual for women to live together alone at this period.
61. But if the attraction of searching for virgins has grown strong (for they beyond others follow up the search and watch for purity), they follow up their hidden prey with the greatest perseverance to its very chambers; or, if the flight of any one shall have seemed more free, one may see them rise on the wing, hear the rustling of their feathers, and the bursting of applause; so as to surround the one on wing with a chaste band of modesty, until rejoicing in that fair companionship, forgetful of her father’s house, she enters the regions of modesty and the fenced-in home of chastity.
It is very desirable that parents should encourage the desire for the virgin life, but more praiseworthy when the love of God draws a maiden even against their will. The violence of parents and the loss of property are not to be feared, and an instance of this is related by St. Ambrose.
62. It is a good
thing, then, that the zeal
63. And yet of whom have you heard as ever, because of her desire for chastity, having been deprived of her lawful inheritance? Parents speak against her, but are willing to be overcome. They resist at first because they are afraid to believe; they often are angry that one may learn to overcome; they threaten to disinherit to try whether one is able not to fear temporal loss; they caress with exquisite allurements to see if one cannot be softened by the inducement of various pleasures. You are being exercised, O virgin, whilst you are being urged. And the anxious entreaties of your parents are your first battles. Conquer your affection first, O maiden. If you conquer your home, you conquer the world.
64. But suppose that the loss of your
patrimony awaits you; are not the future realms of heaven a
compensation for perishable and frail possessions? For if we
believe the heavenly message, “there is no one who has forsaken
house, or parents, or brethren, or wife, or children, for the kingdom
of God’s sake, who shall not receive sevenfold more in this
present time, and in the world to come shall have everlasting
life.” S.
65. Within my memory a girl once noble in the world, now more noble in the sight of God, being urged to a marriage by her parents and kinsfolk, took refuge at the holy altar. Whither could a virgin better flee, than thither where the Virgin Sacrifice is offered? Nor was even that the limit of her boldness. She, the oblation of modesty, the victim of chastity, was standing at the altar of God, now placing upon her head the right hand of the priest, asking his prayers, and now impatient at the righteous delay, placing the top of her head under the altar. “Can any better veil,” she said, “cover me better than the altar which consecrates the veils themselves? Such a bridal veil is most suitable on which Christ, the Head of all, is daily consecrated. What are you doing, my kinsfolk? Why do you still trouble my mind with seeking marriage? I have long since provided for that. Do you offer me a bridegroom? I have found a better. Make the most you can of my wealth, boast of his nobility, extol his power, I have Him with Whom no one can compare himself, rich in the world, powerful in empire, noble in heaven. If you have such an one, I do not reject the choice; if you do not find such, you do me not a kindness, my relatives, but an injury.”
66. When the others were silent, one burst forth somewhat roughly: “If,” he said, “your father were alive, would he suffer you to remain unmarried?” Then she replied with more religion and more restrained piety: “And perchance he is gone that no one may be able to hinder me.” Which answer concerning her father, but warning as to himself, he made good by his own speedy death. So the others, each of them, fearing the same for himself, began to assist and not to hinder her as before, and her virginity involved not the loss of the property due to her, but also received the reward of her integrity. You see, maidens, the reward of devotion, and do you, parents, be warned by the example of transgression.
In this book St. Ambrose purposes to treat of the training of virgins, using examples rather than precepts, and explains why he does so in writing rather than by word of mouth.
1. In the former book I wished (though I was not able) to set forth how great is the gift of virginity, that the grace of the heavenly gift might of itself invite the reader. In the second book it is fitting that the virgin should be instructed and, as it were, be educated by the teaching of suitable precepts.
2. But, inasmuch as I am feeble in advising and unequal to teaching (for he who teaches ought to excel him who is taught), lest I should seem to have abandoned the task I have undertaken, or to have taken too much upon myself, I thought it better to instruct by examples than by precepts; for more progress may be made by means of an example, inasmuch as that which has been already done is considered to be not difficult, and that which has been tried to be expedient, and that which has been transmitted in succession to us by a kind of hereditary practice of ancestral virtue to be binding in religion.
3. But if any one rebukes me for presumption, let him rather rebuke me for zeal, because I thought that I ought not to refuse even this to the virgins who asked it of me. For I preferred rather to run the risk of perilling my own modesty, than not to fulfil the wish of those whose pursuits even our God favours with kindly approbation.
4. Nor can the mark of presumption be set on my task, since, when they had those from whom they could learn, they sought my good-will rather than my teaching, and my zeal may be excused, since when they had the guidance of a martyr for the observance of discipline, I did not think it superfluous if I could turn the persuasion of my discourse into an allurement to profession. He who teaches with facility restrains fault with severity; I, who cannot teach, entice.
5. And because many who were absent desired to have the use of my discourse, I compiled this book, in order that holding in their hands the substance of what my voice had uttered to them, they might not think that he whom they were holding failed them. But let us go on with our plan.
The life of Mary is set before virgins as an example, and her many virtues are dwelt upon, her chastity, humility, hard life, love of retirement, and the like; then her kindness to others, her zeal in learning, and love of frequenting the temple. St. Ambrose then sets forth how she, adorned with all these virtues, will come to meet the numberless bands of virgins and lead them with great triumph to the bridal chamber of the Spouse.
6. Let, then, the life of Mary be as it were virginity itself, set forth in a likeness, from which, as from a mirror, the appearance of chastity and the form of virtue is reflected. From this you may take your pattern of life, showing, as an example, the clear rules of virtue: what you have to correct, to effect, and to hold fast.
7. The first thing which kindles ardour in
learning is the greatness of the teacher. What is greater than
the Mother of God? What more glorious than she whom Glory Itself
chose? What more chaste than she who bore a body without contact
with another body? For why should I speak of her other
virtues? She was a virgin not only in body but also in mind, who
stained the sincerity of its disposition by no guile, who was humble in
heart, grave in speech, prudent in mind, sparing of words, studious in
reading, resting her hope not on uncertain riches, but on the prayer of
the poor, intent on work, modest in discourse; wont to seek not man but
God as the judge of her thoughts, to injure no one, to have goodwill
towards all, to rise up before her elders, not to envy her equals, to
avoid boastfulness, to follow reason, to love virtue. When did
she pain her parents even by a look? When did she disagree with
her neighbours? When did she despise the lowly? When did
she avoid the needy? Being wont only to go to such gatherings of
men as mercy would not blush at, nor modesty pass by. There was
nothing gloomy in her eyes, nothing forward in her words, nothing
unseemly in her acts, there was not a silly movement, nor unrestrained
step, nor was her voice petulant, that the very appearance
8. Why should I detail her spareness of food, her abundance of services—the one abounding beyond nature, the other almost insufficient for nature? And there were no seasons of slackness, but days of fasting, one upon the other. And if ever the desire for refreshment came, her food was generally what came to hand, taken to keep off death, not to minister to comfort. Necessity before inclination caused her to sleep, and yet when her body was sleeping her soul was awake, and often in sleep either went again through what had been read, or went on with what had been interrupted by sleep, or carried out what had been designed, or foresaw what was to be carried out.
9. She was unaccustomed to go from home, except for divine service, and this with parents or kinsfolk. Busy in private at home, accompanied by others abroad, yet with no better guardian than herself, as she, inspiring respect by her gait and address, progressed not so much by the motion of her feet as by step upon step of virtue. But though the Virgin had other persons who were protectors of her body, she alone guarded her character; she can learn many points if she be her own teacher, who possesses the perfection of all virtues, for whatever she did is a lesson. Mary attended to everything as though she were warned by many, and fulfilled every obligation of virtue as though she were teaching rather than learning.
10. Such has the Evangelist shown her, such did the angel find her, such did the Holy Spirit choose her. Why delay about details? How her parents loved her, strangers praised her, how worthy she was that the Son of God should be born of her. She, when the angel entered, was found at home in privacy, without a companion, that no one might interrupt her attention or disturb her; and she did not desire any women as companions, who had the companionship of good thoughts. Moreover, she seemed to herself to be less alone when she was alone. For how should she be alone, who had with her so many books, so many archangels, so many prophets?
11. And so, too, when Gabriel visited
her, S.
12. And holy Scripture points out how modest
she was towards her neighbours. For she became more humble when
she knew herself to be chosen of God, and went forthwith to her
kinswoman in the hill country, not in order to gain belief by anything
external, for she had believed the word of God.
“Blessed,” she said, “art thou who didst
believe.” S.
13. And then, in the many subsequent
wonders, when the barren bore a son, the virgin conceived, the dumb
spake, the wise men worshipped, Simeon waited, the stars gave
notice. Mary, who was moved by the angel’s entrance, was
unmoved by the miracles. “Mary,” it is said,
“kept all these things in her heart.” S.
14. And then, how she also went every year to Jerusalem at the solemn day of the passover, and went with Joseph. Everywhere is modesty the companion of her singular virtues in the Virgin. This, without which virginity cannot exist, must be the inseparable companion of virginity. And so Mary did not go even to the temple without the guardianship of her modesty.
15. This is the likeness of virginity. For Mary was such that her example alone is a lesson for all. If, then, the author displeases us not, let us make trial of the production, that whoever desires its reward for herself may imitate the pattern. How many kinds of virtues shine forth in one Virgin! The secret of modesty, the banner of faith, the service of devotion, the Virgin within the house, the companion for the ministry, the mother at the temple.
S. S.
17. What a procession shall that be, what
joy of applauding angels when she is found worthy of dwelling in heaven
who lived on earth a heavenly life! Then too Mary, Mary is the same
name as the Hebrew Miriam.
18. Nor would I hesitate to admit you to the altars of God, whose souls I would without hesitation call altars, on which Christ is daily offered for the redemption of the body. For if the virgin’s body be a temple of God, what is her soul, which, the ashes, as it were, of the body being shaken off, once more uncovered by the hand of the Eternal Priest, exhales the vapour of the divine fire. Blessed virgins, who emit a fragrance through divine grace as gardens do through flowers, temples through religion, altars through the priest.
St. Ambrose having set forth the Virgin Mary as a pattern for life, adduces Thecla as a model for learning how to die. Thecla suffered not from the beasts to whom she was condemned, but on the contrary received from them signs of reverence. He then proceeds to introduce a more recent example.
19. Let, then, holy Mary instruct you in the discipline of life, and Thecla teach you how to be offered, for she, avoiding nuptial intercourse, and condemned through her husband’s rage, changed even the disposition of wild beasts by their reverence for virginity. For being made ready for the wild beasts, when avoiding the gaze of men, she offered her vital parts to a fierce lion, caused those who had turned away their immodest looks to turn them back modestly.
20. The beast was to be seen lying on the ground, licking her feet, showing without a sound that it could not injure the sacred body of the virgin. So the beast reverenced his prey, and forgetful of his own nature, put on that nature which men had lost. One could see, as it were, by some transfusion of nature, men clothed with savageness, goading the beast to cruelty, and the beast kissing the feet of the virgin, teaching them what was due from men. Virginity has in itself so much that is admirable, that even lions admire it. Food did not induce them though kept without their meal; no impulse hurried them on when excited; anger did not exasperate them when stirred up, nor did their habits lead them blindly as they were wont, nor their own natural disposition possess them with fierceness. They set an example of piety when reverencing the martyr; and gave a lesson in favor of chastity when they did nothing but kiss the virgin’s feet, with their eyes turned to the ground, as though through modesty, fearing that any male, even a beast, should see the virgin naked.
21. Some one will say: “Why have you brought forward the example of Mary, as if any one could be found to imitate the Lord’s mother? And why that of Thecla, whom the Apostle of the Gentiles trained? Give us a teacher of our own sort if you wish for disciples.” I will, therefore, set before you a recent example of this sort, that you may understand that the Apostle is the teacher, not of one only, but of all.
A virgin at Antioch, having refused to sacrifice to idols, was condemned to a house of ill-fame, whence she escaped unharmed, having changed clothes with a Christian soldier. Then when he was condemned for this, she returned and the two contended for the prize of martyrdom, which was at last given to each.
22. There was
lately at Antioch a virgin who avoided being seen in public, but the
more she shrank from men’s eyes, the more they longed for
her. For beauty which is heard of but not seen is more desired,
there being two incentives to passion, love and knowledge—so long
as nothing is met with
23. So a persecution arose. The maiden, not knowing how to escape, and afraid lest she might fall into the hands of those who were plotting against her chastity, prepared her soul for heroic virtue, being so religious as not to fear death, so chaste as to expect it. The day of her crown arrived. The expectation of all was at its height. The maiden is brought forward, and makes her twofold profession, of religion and of chastity. But when they saw the constancy of her profession, her fear for her modesty, her readiness for tortures, and her blushes at being looked on, they began to consider how they might overcome her religion by setting chastity before her, so that, having deprived her of that which was the greatest, they might also deprive her of that which they had left. So the sentence was that she should either sacrifice, or be sent to a house of ill-fame. After what manner do they worship their gods who thus avenge them, or how do they live themselves who give sentence after this fashion?
24. And the virgin, not hesitating about her
religion, but fearful as to her chastity, began to reflect, What am I
to do? Each crown, that of martyrdom and that of virginity, is
grudged me to-day. But the name of virgin is not acknowledged
where the Author of virginity is denied. How can one be a virgin
who cherishes a harlot? How can one be a virgin who loves
adulterers? How a virgin if she seeks for a lover? It is
preferable to have a virgin mind than a virgin body. Each is good
if each be possible; if it be not possible, let me be chaste, not to
man but to God. Rahab, too, was a harlot, but after she believed
in God, she found salvation.
25. And so, instructed by such examples, and
at the same time bearing in mind the words of the Lord, where He
says: “Whosoever shall lose his life for My sake, shall
find it,” S.
26. For some time my words have been becoming bashful, and fear to laud on or describe the wicked series of what was done. Close your ears, ye virgins! The Virgin of God is taken to a house of shame. But now unclose your ears, ye virgins. The Virgin of Christ can be exposed to shame, but cannot be contaminated. Everywhere she is the Virgin of God, and the Temple of God, and houses of ill-fame cannot injure chastity, but chastity does away with the ill-fame of the place.
27. A great rush of wanton men is made to
the place. Listen, ye holy virgins, to the miracles of the
martyr, forget the name of the place. The door is shut within,
the hawks cry without; some are contending who shall first attack the
prey. But she, with her hands raised to heaven, as though she had
come to a house of prayer, not to a resort of lust, says:
“O Christ, Who didst tame the fierce lions for the virgin
Daniel,
28. Scarcely had she finished her prayer,
when, lo! a man with the aspect of a terrible warrior burst in.
How the virgin trembled before him to whom the trembling people gave
way. But she did not forget what she had read.
“Daniel,” said she, “had gone to see the punishment
of Susanna, and alone pronounced her guiltless, S.
29. And the soldier said to her:
“Fear not, sister, I pray you. I, a brother, am come hither
to save life, not to destroy it. Save me, that you yourself may
be saved. I came in like an adulterer, to go forth, if you will,
as a martyr. Let us change our attire, mine will fit you, and
yours will fit me, and each for Christ. Your robe will make me a
true soldier, mine will make you a virgin. You will be clothed
well, I shall be unclothed even better that the persecutor may
recognize me. Take the garment which will conceal the woman, give
me that which shall consecrate me a martyr. Put on the cloak
which will hide the limbs of a virgin, but preserve her modesty.
Take the cap which will cover your hair and conceal your
countenance. They who have entered houses of ill-fame are wont to
blush. When you have gone forth, take care not to look back,
remembering Lot’s wife,
30. Whilst saying this he put off his
cloak. This garment has been up to this time suspected of being
that of a persecutor and adulterer. The virgin offered her neck,
the soldier his cloak. What a spectacle that was, what a
manifestation of grace when they were contending for martyrdom in a
house of ill-fame! Let the characters be also considered, a
soldier and a virgin, that is, persons unlike in natural disposition,
but alike by the mercy of God, that the saying might be
fulfilled: “Then the wolves and the lambs shall feed
together.”
31. But they who were looking with their
eyes, yet saw not, raged like robbers for prey, or wolves for a
lamb. One who was more shameless went in. But when he took
in the state of the matter with his eyes, he said, What is this?
A maiden entered, now a man is to be seen here. This is not the
old fable of a hind instead of a maiden, but in truth a virgin become a
soldier. I had heard but believed not that Christ changed water
into wine; now He has begun also to change the sexes. Let us
depart hence whilst we still are what we were. Am I too changed
who see things differently from what I believe them to be? I came
to a house of ill-fame, and see a surety. The soldier who
remained in the place of the virgin is spoken of as being her
“surety.”
32. When the affair was known, because a crown was
due to such a conqueror, he was condemned for the virgin who was seized
for the virgin, and so not only a virgin but a martyr came forth from
the house of ill-fame. It is reported that the maiden ran to the
place of punishment, and that they both contended for death. He
said: “I am condemned to death, the sentence let you go
free when it retained me.” And she replied: “I
did not choose you as my surety on pain of death, but as a guarantee
for my chastity. If chastity be attacked, my sex remains; if
blood is sought, I desire none to give bail for me, I have the means to
pay. The sentence was pronounced on me, which was pronounced for
me. Undoubtedly, if I had offered you as security for my debt,
and in my absence the judge had assigned your property to the creditor,
you would share the sentence with me, and I should pay your obligations
with my patrimony. Were I to refuse, who would not judge me
worthy of a shameful death? How much more am I bound where there
is a question of death? Let me die innocent, that I may not die
guilty. In this matter there is no middle course; today I shall
either be guilty of your blood or a martyr in my own. If I came
back quickly, who dares to shut me out? If I delayed, who dares
acquit me? I owe a greater
33. What do you think was the end? The two contended, and both gained the victory, and the crown was not divided, but became two. So the holy martyrs, conferring benefits one on the other, gave the one the impulse and the other the result to their martyrdom.
The story of the two Pythagorean friends, Damon and Pythias, is related by St. Ambrose, who points out that the case mentioned in the last chapter is more praiseworthy. A comparison is instituted between the treatment of their gods by heathen without any punishment, and Jeroboam’s irreverence with its punishment.
34. And the schools of the philosophers laud Damon and Pythias—the Pythagoreans—to the skies, of whom one, when condemned to death, asked for time to set his affairs in order, whereupon, the tyrant, in his cunning, not supposing that such could be found, asked for a bondsman who should suffer the penalty if the other delayed his return. I do not know which act of the two was the more noble. The one found the bondsman, the other offered himself. And so while he who was condemned met with some delay, the bondsman with calm countenance did not refuse death. As he was being led forth his friend returned, and offered his neck to the axe. Then the tyrant, wondering that friendship was dearer to philosophers than life, asked himself to be received into friendship by those whom he had condemned. The grace of Virtue was so great that it moved even a tyrant.
35. These things are worthy of praise; but are inferior to our instance. For those two were men, with us one was a virgin, who had first to be superior to her sex; those were friends, these were unknown to each other; those offered themselves to one tyrant, these to many tyrants; and these more cruel, for in the former case the tyrant spared them, these slew them; with the former one was bound by necessity, with these the will of each was free. In this, too, the latter were the wiser, that with those the end of their zeal was the pleasure of friendship, with these the crown of martyrdom, for they strove for men, these for God.
36. And since we have mentioned that man who was condemned, it is fitting to add what he thought of his gods, that you may judge how weak they are whom their own followers deride. For he, having come into the temple of Jupiter, bade them take off the fillet of gold with which his image was crowned, and to put on one of wool instead, saying that the golden fillet was cold in winter and heavy in summer. So he derided his god as being unable to bear either a weight or cold. He, too, when he saw the golden beard of Æsculapius, bade them remove it, saying that it was not fit for the son to have a beard when the father had none. Again, he took away the golden bowls from the images which held them, saying that he ought to receive what the gods gave. For, said he, men make prayers to receive good things from the gods, and nothing is better than gold; if, however, gold be evil, the gods ought not to have it; if it be good, it is better that men should have it who know how to use it.
37. Such objects of ridicule were they, that neither could Jupiter defend his garment, nor Æsculapius his beard, for Apollo had not yet begun to grow one; nor could all those who are esteemed gods keep the golden bowls which they were holding, not fearing the charge of theft so much as not having any feeling. Who, then, would worship them, who can neither defend themselves as gods nor hide themselves as men?
38. But when in the temple of our God, that wicked
king Jeroboam took away the gifts which his father had laid up, and
offered to idols upon the holy altar, did not his right hand, which he
stretched out, wither, and his idols, which he called upon,
St. Ambrose, in concluding the second book, ascribes any good there may be in it to the merits of the virgins, and sets forth that it was right before laying down any severe precepts to encourage them by examples, as is done both in human teaching and in holy Scripture.
39. I, who have been not yet three years a bishop, have prepared this offering for you, holy virgins, although untaught by my own experience, yet having learnt much from your mode of life. For what experience could have grown up in so short a time of being initiated in religion? If you find any flowers herein, gather them together in the bosom of your lives. These are not precepts for virgins, but instances taken from virgins. My words have sketched the likeness of your virtue, you may see the reflection of your gravity, as it were, in the mirror of this discourse. If you have received any pleasure from my ability, all the fragrance of this book is yours. And since there are as many opinions as there are persons, if there be anything simple in my treatise let all read it; if anything stronger, let the more mature prove it; if anything modest, let it cleave to the breast and tinge the cheeks; if there be anything flowery, let the flowery age of youth not disdain it.
40. We ought to stir up the love of the
bride, for it is written: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy
God.”
41. Horses learn to love the sound of patting their necks, that they may not refuse the yoke, and are first trained with words of enticement before the stripe of discipline. But when the horse has submitted its neck to the yoke, the rein pulls in, and the spur urges on, and its companions draw it, and the driver bids it. So, too, our virgin ought first to play with pious love, and admire the golden supports of the heavenly marriage couch on the very threshold of marriage, and to see the door-posts adorned with wreaths of leaves, and to taste the delight of the musicians playing within; that she may not through fear withdraw herself from the Lord’s yoke, before she obeys His call.
42. “Come, then, hither from Lebanon,
My spouse, come hither from Lebanon, thou shalt pass and pass
through.”
43. She, now so patient of hard toil, and of
practised virtue, as to open the bars with her hand, go forth into the
field, and abide in strongholds, at the beginning ran after the odour
of the ointment; soon when she is come into the chamber the ointment is
changed. And see whither she goes: “If it be a
wall,” it is said, “we will build upon it towers of
silver.”
St. Ambrose now goes back to the address of Liberius when he gave the veil to Marcellina. Touching on the crowds pressing to the bridal feast of that Spouse Who feeds them all, he passes on to the fitness of her profession on the day on which Christ was born of a Virgin, and concludes with a fervent exhortation to love Him.
1. Inasmuch as I
have digressed in what I have said in the two former hooks, it is now
time, holy sister, to reconsider those precepts of Liberius This is
Liberius, Bishop of Rome a.d. 352–366,
who temporized with Arianism. [St. Hil. Pict. Fragm. VI.;
St. Athan. Apol. C. Arian. 89; Hist. Arian. 41; St.
Jerome, De Vir. Ill. 97, etc.] He subsequently returned to
the Catholic teaching and atoned by later acts for his temporary
weakness. Evidently a public
profession with receiving the veil, etc. S. S.
2. To-day, indeed, He was born after the
manner of men, of a Virgin, but was begotten of the Father before all
things, resembling His mother in body, His Father in power.
Only-begotten on earth, and Only-begotten in heaven. God of God,
born of a Virgin, Righteousness from the Father, Power from the Mighty
One, Light of Light, not unequal to His Father; nor separated in power,
not confused by extension of the Word or enlargement as though mingled
with the Father, but distinguished from the Father by virtue of His
generation. He is your Brother, S. S. S.
3. Love him, my daughter, for He is
good. For, “None is good save God only.” S. S.
4. If, then, Christ is the Power of God, was
God ever without power? Was the Father ever without the
Son? If the Father of a certainty always was, of a certainty the
Son always was. So He is the perfect Son of a perfect
Father. For he who derogates from the power, derogates from Him
Whose is the power. The Perfection of the Godhead does not admit
of inequality. Love, then, Him Whom the Father loves, honour Him
Whom the Father honours, for “he that honoureth not the Son,
honoureth not the Father,” S.
Touching next upon the training of a virgin, he speaks of moderation in food and drink, and of restraint upon the impulses of the mind, introducing some teaching upon the fable of the death and resurrection of Hippolytus, and advises the avoidance of certain meats.
5. But sometimes even when faith is to be relied upon, youth is not trusted. Use wine, therefore, sparingly, in order that the weakness of the body may not increase, not for pleasurable excitement, for each alike kindles a flame, both wine and youth. Let fasts also put a bridle on tender age, and spare diet restrain the unsubdued appetites with a kind of rein. Let reason check, hope subdue, and fear curb them. For he who knows not how to govern his desires, like a man run away with by wild horses, is overthrown, bruised, torn, and injured.
6. And this is said to have happened to a youth for his love of Diana. But the fable is coloured with poet’s tales, that Neptune, stirred with grief at his rival being preferred, sent madness upon his horses, whereby his great power might be set forth in that he overcame the youth, not by strength, but by fraud. And from this event a yearly sacrifice is celebrated for Diana, when a horse is offered at her altar. And they say that she was a virgin, and (of which even harlots would be ashamed) yet could love one who did not love her. But as far as I am concerned let their fables have authority, for though each be criminal, it is yet a less evil that a youth should have been so enamoured of an adulteress as to perish, than that two gods should, as they relate, contend for committing adultery, and that Jupiter avenged the grief of his daughter who played the harlot on the physician who cured the wound of him who had violated Diana in the woods, a most excellent huntress, no doubt, not of wild beasts, but of lust: yet also of wild beasts, so that she was worshipped naked.
7. Let them ascribe, then, to Neptune the mastery over madness, in order to fix on him the crime of unchaste love. Let them ascribe to Diana the rule over the woods, wherein she dwelt, so as to establish the adultery which she practised. Let them ascribe to Æsculapius the restoration of the dead so long as they confess that when struck by lightning he himself escaped not. Let them also ascribe to Jupiter the thunderbolts which he did not possess, so that they witness to the disgrace with which he was laden.
8. And I think that one should sparingly eat
all kinds of food which cause heat to the limbs, for flesh drags down
even eagles as they fly. But within you let that bird of which we
read, “Thy youth shall be renewed like the
eagle’s,”
Virgins are exhorted to avoid visits, to observe modesty, to be silent during the celebration of the Mysteries after the example of Mary. Then after narrating the story of a heathen youth, and saying of a poet, St. Ambrose relates a miracle wrought by a holy priest.
9. I will, too, that visits amongst the younger, except such as may be due to parents and those of like age, be few. For modesty is worn away by intercourse, and boldness breaks forth, laughter creeps in, and bashfulness is lessened, whilst politeness is studied. Not to answer one who asks a question is childishness, to answer is nonsense. I should prefer, therefore, that conversation should rather be wanting to a virgin, than abound. For if women are bidden to keep silence in churches, even about divine things, and to ask their husbands at home, what do we think should be the caution of virgins, in whom modesty adorns their age, and silence commends their modesty.
10. Was it a small sign of modesty that when
Rebecca came to wed Isaac, and saw her bridegroom, she took a
veil,
11. The virtue of silence, especially in Church,
is very great. Let no sentence of the divine lessons escape you;
if you give ear, restrain your voice, utter no word with your lips
which you would wish to recall,
S.
12. The Gentiles pay respect to their idols by silence, of which this instance is given: As Alexander, the king of the Macedonians, was sacrificing, the sleeve of a barbarian lad who was lighting the lamp for him caught fire and burnt his body, yet he remained without moving and neither betrayed the pain by a groan, nor showed his suffering by silent tears. Such was the discipline of reverence in a barbarian lad that nature was subdued. Yet he feared not the gods, who were no gods, but the king. For why should he fear those who if the same fire had caught them would have burnt?
13. How much better still is it where a youth at his father’s banquet is bidden not to betray by coarse gestures his unchaste loves. And do you, holy virgin, abstain from groans, cries, coughing, and laughter at the Mystery. Can you not at the Mystery do what he did at a banquet? Let virginity be first marked by the voice, let modesty close the mouth, let religion remove weakness, and habit instruct nature. Let her gravity first announce a virgin to me, a modest approach, a sober gait, a bashful countenance, and let the march of virtue be preceded by the evidence of integrity. That virgin is not sufficiently worthy of approval who has to be enquired about when she is seen.
14. There is common story how, when the excessive croaking of frogs was resounding in the ears of the faithful people, the priest of God bade them be silent, and show reverence to the sacred words, and then at once the noise was stilled. Shall then the marshes keep silence and not the frogs? And shall irrational animals re-acknowledge by reverence what they know not by nature? While the shamelessness of men is such, that many care not to pay that respect to the religious feelings of their minds, which they do to the pleasure of their ears.
Having summed up the address of Liberius, St. Ambrose passes on to the virtues of his sister, especially her fasts, which however he advises her to moderate to some extent, and to exercise herself in other matters, after the example which he adduces. Especially he recommends the Lord’s Prayer, and the repetition of Psalms by night, and the recitation of the Creed before daylight.
15. After such a
fashion did Liberius of holy memory address you, in words beyond the
reality of practice in most cases, but coming short of your
performance, who have not only attained to the whole of discipline by
your virtue, but have surpassed it in your zeal. For we are
bidden to practise fasting, but only for single days; but you,
multiplying nights and days, pass untold periods without food, and if
ever requested to partake of some, and to lay aside your book a little
while, you at once answer: “Man doth not live by bread
alone, but by every word of God.” S.
16. These kings were suited to younger years,
whilst he was ripening with the gray hairs of age; but when a virgin
has gained the triumph over her subdued body, she should lessen her
toil, that she may be preserved as teacher for a younger age. The
vine laden with the fruitful branches of full growth soon breaks unless
it be from time to time kept back. But whilst it is young let it
grow rank, and as it grows older be pruned, so as not to grow into a
forest of twigs, or die deprived of life by its exceptive
produce. A good husbandman by tending the soil keeps the vine in
excellent order, protects it from cold, and guards it from being
parched by the mid-day sun. And he works his land by turns, or if
he will not let it lie fallow, he alternates his crops, so that the
fields may rest through change of produce. Do you too, a veteran
in virginity, at least sow the fields of your breast with different
seeds, at one time with moderate sustenance, at another with sparing
fasts,
17. The whole land does not produce the same harvest. On one side vines grow on the hills, on another you can see the purple olives, elsewhere the scented roses. And after leaving the plough, the strong husbandman with his fingers scrapes the soil to plant the roots of flowers, and with the rough hands wherewith he turns the bullocks striving amongst the vines, he gently presses the udders of the sheep. The land is the better the more numerous are its fruits. So do you, following the example of a good husbandman, avoid cleaving your soil with perpetual fastings as if with deep ploughings. Let the rose of modesty bloom in your garden, and the lily of the mind, and let the violet beds drink from the source of sacred blood. There is a common saying, “What you wish to perform abundantly, sometimes do not do at all.” There ought to be something to add to the days of Lent, but so that nothing be done for the sake of ostentation, but of religion.
18. Frequent prayer also commends us to
God. For if the prophet says, “Seven times a day have I
praised Thee,” S. It is
doubtful whether incense was burnt as an adjunct of Christian worship
so early as the time of St. Ambrose, and the reference here may be to
the offering at evening in the Jewish temple. He speaks again of
incense in Expos. Ev. sec. Lucam. § 28, but again there is
no conclusive proof. It was certainly used as a
perfume.
19. And again in your bed-chamber itself, I
would have you join psalms in frequent interchange with the
Lord’s prayer, either when you wake up, or before sleep bedews
your body, so that at the very commencement of rest sleep may find you
free from the care of worldly matters, meditating upon the things of
God. And, indeed, he who first found out the name of Philosophy
itself,
Pythagoras.
20. We ought, also, specially to repeat the Creed, as a seal upon our hearts, daily, before light, and to recur to it in thought whenever we are in fear of anything. For when is the soldier in his tent or the warrior in battle without his military oath?
St. Ambrose, speaking of tears, explains David’s saying, “Every night wash l my couch with my tears,” and goes on to speak of Christ bearing our griefs and infirmities. Everything should be referred to His honour, and we ought to rejoice with spiritual joy, but not after a worldly fashion.
21. And who can now
fail to understand that the holy prophet said for our
instruction: “Every night will I wash my couch and water my
bed with my tears”? S.
22. And since I have inserted a clause in which
mention is made of the Lord’s Body, lest any one should be
troubled at reading that the Lord took a body of pain, let him remember
that the Lord grieved and wept
S. S.
23. And as He took a body of pain, so too He
turned His bed in His weakness,
24. But let him who desires to solve the
whole difficulty of this question have recourse to the same
Apostle. “Whatsoever ye do,” says he, “in word
or deed, do all in the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, giving thanks to
God the Father by Him.”
25. There ought then to be the joy of the
mind, conscious of right, not excited by unrestrained feasts, or
nuptial concerts, for in such modesty is not safe, and temptation may
be suspected where excessive dancing accompanies festivities. I
desire that the virgins of God should be far from this. For as a
certain teacher of this world has said: “No one dances when
sober unless he is mad.” Cicero,
p. Murena.
Having mentioned the Baptist, St. Ambrose enters into a description of the events concerning his death, and speaks against dancing and the festivities of the wicked.
26. And since we must not cursorily pass by the mention of so great a man, let us consider who he was, by whom, on what account, how, and at what time he was slain. A just man, he is put to death by adulterers, and the penalty of a capital crime is turned off by the guilty on to the judge. Again the reward of the dancer is the death of the prophet. Lastly (a matter of honour even to all barbarians), the cruel sentence is given in the midst of banqueting and festivities, and the news of the deadly crime is carried from the banquet to the prison, and then from the prison to the banquet. How many crimes are there in one wicked act!
27. A banquet of death is set out with royal
luxury, S.
28. “Then,” it is said,
“the king being pleased, said unto the damsel, that she should
ask of the king whatsoever she would. Then he swore that if she
asked he would give her even the half of his kingdom.” S. S. S.
29. Who would not think when he saw some one
running from the banquet to the prison, S.
30. Look, most savage king, at the sights worthy of thy feast. Stretch forth thy right hand, that nothing be wanting to thy cruelty, that streams of holy blood may pour down between thy fingers. And since the hunger for such unheard-of cruelty could not be satisfied by banquets, nor the thirst by goblets, drink the blood pouring from the still flowing veins of the cut-off head. Behold those eyes, even in death, the witnesses of thy crime, turning away from the sight of the delicacies. The eyes are closing, not so much owing to death, as to horror of luxury. That bloodless golden mouth, whose sentence thou couldst not endure, is silent, and yet thou fearest. Yet the tongue, which even after death is wont to observe its duty as when living, condemned, though with trembling motion, the incest. This head is borne to Herodias: she rejoices, she exults as though she had escaped from the crime, because she has slain her judge.
31. What say you, holy women? Do you see what you ought to teach, and what also to unteach your daughters? She dances, but she is the daughter of an adulteress. But she who is modest, she who is chaste, let her teach her daughter religion, not dancing. And do you, grave and prudent men, learn to avoid the banquets of hateful men. If such are the banquets, what will be the judgment of the impious?
In reply to Marcellina, who had asked what should be thought of those who to escape violence killed themselves, St. Ambrose replies by narrating the history of Pelagia, a virgin, with her mother and sister, and goes on to speak of the martyrdom of the blessed Sotheris, one of their own ancestors.
32. As I am drawing near the close of my address, you make a good suggestion, holy sister, that I should touch upon what we ought to think of the merits of those who have cast themselves down from a height, or have drowned themselves in a river, lest they should fall into the hands of persecutors, seeing that holy Scripture forbids a Christian to lay hands on himself. And indeed as regards virgins placed in the necessity of preserving their purity, we have a plain answer, seeing that there exists an instance of martyrdom.
33. Saint Pelagia Cf. Ep.
XXXVII. 38. St. Ambrose, being asked by his sister for his
opinion concerning such virgins as had committed suicide rather than
suffer themselves to be violated, would seem to say that in some cases
this was allowable. St. Augustine [de Civ. Dei, I. 19]
speaks with some hesitation on the same subject. There is some
doubt as to who this St. Pelagia mentioned below may be. St.
Chrysostom says she committed suicide by throwing herself from the
roof; see Pelagia (1) in Dict. Chr. Biog.
34. She is said to have adorned her head, and to have put on a bridal dress, so that one would say that she was going to a bridegroom, not to death. But when the hateful persecutors saw that they had lost the prey of her chastity, they began to seek her mother and sisters. But they, by a spiritual flight, already held the field of chastity, when, as on the one side, persecutors suddenly threatened them, and on the other, escape was shut off by an impetuous river, they said, what do we fear? See the water, what hinders us from being baptized? And this is the baptism whereby sins are forgiven, and kingdoms are sought. This is a baptism after which no one sins. Let the water receive us, which is wont to regenerate. Let the water receive us, which makes virgins. Let the water receive us, which opens heaven, protects the weak, hides death, makes martyrs. We pray Thee, God, Creator of all things, let not the water scatter our bodies, deprived of the breath of life; let not death separate our obsequies, whose lives affection has always conjoined; but let our constancy be one, our death one, and our burial also be one.
35. Having said these words, and having slightly girded up the bosom of their dress, to veil their modesty without impeding their steps, joining hands as though to lead a dance, they went forward to the middle of the river bed, directing their steps to where the stream was more violent, and the depth more abrupt. No one drew back, no one ceased to go on, no one tried where to place her steps, they were anxious only when they felt the ground, grieved when the water was shallow, and glad when it was deep. One could see the pious mother tightening her grasp, rejoicing in her pledges, afraid of a fall lest even the stream should carry off her daughters from her. “These victims, O Christ,” said she, “do I offer as leaders of chastity, guides on my journey, and companions of my sufferings.”
37. But who would have cause to wonder that they had such constancy whilst alive, seeing that even when dead they preserved the position of their bodies unmoved? The water did not lay bare their corpses, nor did the rapid course of the river roll them along. Moreover, the holy mother, though without sensation, still maintained her loving grasp, and held the sacred knot which she had tied, and loosed not her hold in death, that she who had paid her debt to religion might die leaving her piety as her heir. For those whom she had joined together with herself for martyrdom, she claimed even to the tomb.
38. But why use instances of people of another race to you, my sister, whom the inspiration of hereditary chastity has taught by descent from a martyred ancestor? For whence have you learnt who had no one from whom to learn, living in the country, with no virgin companion, instructed by no teacher? You have played the part then not of a disciple, for this cannot be done without teaching, but of an heir of virtue.
39. For how could it come to pass that holy Sotheris should not have been the originator of your purpose, who is an ancestor of your race? Who, in an age of persecution, borne to the heights of suffering by the insults of slaves, gave to the executioner even her face, which is usually free from injury when the whole body is tortured, and rather beholds than suffers torments; so brave and patient that when she offered her tender cheeks to punishment, the executioner failed in striking before the martyr yielded under the injuries. She moved not her face, she turned not away her countenance, she uttered not a groan or a tear. Lastly, when she had overcome other kinds of punishment, she found the sword which she desired.
The writer informs us himself at the beginning of his treatise that he felt moved by the example of St. Paul, after speaking about virgins, to continue with the subject of widows. But there was also another matter in his own diocese which touched him personally, and caused him at once to take up the matter. A certain widow who had several daughters, some married already and others of marriageable age, began to think of a second marriage for herself. St. Ambrose, partly for her own sake, partly that it might not be supposed that he had in any way advised the step, published the following treatise.
In the first place he affirms that the profession of widowhood comes very close to that of virginity, and is to be esteemed far above the married state. He proves this by the testimony of St. Paul and by his description of one who is a widow indeed; also by many examples taken both from the old and New Testament. Having mentioned St. Peter’s wife’s mother, he turns more particularly to the widow for whose sake he is writing, though he avoids mentioning her name, pointing out how really empty and insufficient are all the reasons she is setting before herself for marrying again. The marriage bond is, indeed, he says, holy and good, and the married and single are as various kinds of flowers in the field of the church. There is, however, more corn produced than lilies, more that is married than virgin. He points out that widowhood has been held in dishonour by idolaters alone, for which reason it may well be held in honour by Christians. St. Ambrose does not condemn a second marriage, though placing widowhood before it, as being bound to aim at leading those committed to his loving care to the highest possible degree of perfection.
The treatise was written not long after that
concerning Virgins, that is, soon after a.d.
377. It is interesting
to compare with this treatise the letter of St. Jerome to Furia on the
same subject, No. 54, Vol. VI. of this series.
After having written about virgins, it seemed needful to say something concerning widows, since the Apostle joins the two classes together, and the latter are as it were teachers of the former, and far superior to those who are married. Elijah was sent to a widow, a great mark of honour; yet widows are not honourable like her of Sarepta, unless they copy her virtues, notably hospitality. The avarice of men is rebuked, who forfeit the promises of God by their grasping.
1. Since I have
treated of the honour of virgins in three books, it is fitting now, my
brethren, that a treatise concerning widows should come in order; for I
ought not to leave them without honour, nor to separate them from the
commendation belonging to virgins, since the voice of the Apostle has
joined them to virgins, according to what is written: “The
unmarried woman and the virgin careth for the things of the Lord, that
she may be holy both in body and in spirit.”
2. But in this particular virtue is
contained also the prizes of liberty. For: “The wife
is bound as long as her husband liveth; but if her husband fall asleep
she is freed: let her marry whom she will, only in the
Lord. But she will be happier if she so abide, after my judgment,
for I think I also have the Spirit of God.”
3. And what is the teaching of the fact that
at that time when the whole human race was afflicted by famine and
Elias was sent to the widow? S.
4. What is said at first makes the ears
attentive, although the simplicity itself of the understanding has
weight to attract widows to the pattern of virtue; since each seems to
excel, not according to her profession, but her merit, and the grace of
hospitality is not lost sight of by God, Who, as He Himself related in
the Gospel, rewards a cup of cold water with the exceeding recompense
of eternity, and compensates the small measure of meal and oil by an
unfailing abundance of plenty ever coming in. For if one of the
heathen Pythagoras.
5. But we are not bound by any prescribed limit of
hospitality. For why do you think
S.
6. But how holy was that widow, who, when pinched by extreme hunger, observed the reverence due to God, and was not using the food for herself alone, but was dividing it with her son, that she might not outlive her dear offspring. Great is the duty of affection, but that of religion brings more return. For as no one ought to be set before her son, so the prophet of God ought to be set before her son and her preservation. For she is to be believed to have given to him not a little food, but the whole support of her life, who left nothing for herself. So hospitable was she that she gave the whole, so full of faith that she believed at once.
The precepts of the Apostle concerning a widow indeed are laid down, such as, that she bring up children, attend to her parents, desire to please God, show herself irreproachable, set forth a ripeness of merits, have been the wife of one man. St. Ambrose notes, however, that a second marriage was not condemned by St. Paul, and adds that widows must have a good report for virtue with all. The reasons why younger widows are to be avoided, and what is meant by its being better to marry than to burn. St. Ambrose then goes on to speak of the dignity of widows, shown by the fact that any injury done to them is visited by the anger of God.
7. So, then, a
widow is not only marked off by bodily abstinence, but is distinguished
by virtue, to whom I do not give commandments, but the Apostle. I
am not the only person to do them honour, but the Doctor of the
Gentiles did so first, when he said: “Honour widows that
are widows indeed. But if any widow have children or nephews, let
her first learn to govern her own house, and to requite her
parents.”
8. “For this,” says he,
“is acceptable with God.”
9. And of what kind she ought to be who is
chosen the description is given in the words of the teacher
himself: “Not less than threescore years old, having been
the wife of one man.” The rule of
St. Paul as to age was not always strictly observed after early days,
though probably so in the experience of St. Ambrose, though the
Benedictine Editors think that he did not uphold the restriction, but
it is spoken of in the Exhort. Virginitatis, § 25, where
Juliana of Bononia speaks of herself as “adhuc immaturam
viduitatis stipendiis,” not yet old enough to receive
widow’s pay. See Dict. Chr Antiq., art.
Widows.
10. Nor in truth is any one excluded from the
devotion of widowhood, if after entering upon a second marriage, which
the precepts of the Apostle certainly do not condemn as
11. Nor yet is bodily chastity alone the
strong purpose of the widow, but a large and most abundant exercise of
virtue. “Well reported of for good works, if she have
brought up children; if she have lodged strangers; if she have washed
the saints’ feet; if she have ministered to those suffering
tribulation; if, lastly, she have followed after every good
work.”
12. And he, therefore, that the younger
should be avoided,
13. And what shall I say of human judgments,
since in the judgments of God the Jews are set forth as having offended
the Lord in nothing more than violating what was due to the widow and
the rights of minors? This is proclaimed by the voices of the
prophets as the cause which brought upon the Jews the penalty of
rejection. This is mentioned as the only cause which will
mitigate the wrath of God against their sin, if they honour the widow,
and execute true judgment for minors, for thus we read:
“Judge the fatherless, deal justly with the widow, and come let
us reason together, saith the Lord.”
St. Ambrose returns to the story of the widow of Sarepta, and shows that she represented the Church, hence that she was an example to virgins, married women, and widows. Then he refers to the prophet as setting forth Christ, inasmuch as he foretold the mysteries and the rain which was to come. Next he touches upon and explains the twofold sign of Gideon, and points out that it is not in every one’s power to work miracles, and that the Incarnation of Christ and the rejection of the Jews were foreshadowed in that account.
14. To return to
what was treated of above, S. S.
15. This is assuredly that widow of whom it
was said: “Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not, break
forth and cry, thou that availest not with child; for many are the
children of the desolate, more than of her who hath an
husband.”
16. All, then, have an example to imitate, virgins, married women, and widows. And perchance is the Church therefore a virgin, married, and a widow, because they are one body in Christ. She is then that widow for Whose sake when there was a dearth of the heavenly Word on earth, the prophets were appointed, for there was a widow who was barren, yet reserved her bringing forth for its own time.
17. So that his person does not seem to us
of small account, who by his word moistened the dry earth with the dew
of heaven, and unlocked the closed heavens certainly not by human
power. For who is he who can open the heavens except Christ, for
Whom daily out of sinners’ food is gathered, an increase for the
Church? For it is not in the power of man to say:
“The barrel of meal shall not waste, and the cruse of oil shall
not fail, until the day on which the Lord shall send rain on the
earth.”
18. But what does this mean:
“Until the day on which the Lord shall send rain on the
earth”? except that He, too, “shall come down like rain
upon a fleece, and like the drops that water the earth.”
19. For the prescient man observed the sign
of the future growth of the Church. For first in Judæa the
dew of the divine utterance began to give moisture (for “in Jewry
is God known”),
20. By this example, then, it is shown that
not all can merit the miracles of divine power, but they who are aided
by the pursuits of religious devotion, and that they lose the fruits of
divine working who are devoid of reverence for heaven. It is also
shown in a mystery that the Son of God, in order to restore the Church,
took upon Himself the mystery of a human body, casting off the Jewish
people, from whom the counsellor and the prophet and the miracles of
the divine benefits were taken away,
By the example of Anna St. Ambrose shows what ought to be the life of widows, and shows that she was an example of chastity at every age. From this he argues that there are three degrees of the same virtue, all of which are included in the Church, and sets forth several examples in Mary, in Anna, and in Susanna. But, he adds, the state of virginity is superior to either of the others, but that a widow ought to take greater care for the preservation of her good name.
21. Scripture then
teaches as how much grace is conferred by unity, and how great is the
gift of divine blessing in widows. And since such honour is given
them by God, we must observe what mode of life corresponds thereto; for
Anna shows what widows ought to be, who, left destitute by the early
death of her husband, yet obtained the reward of full praise, being
intent not less on the duties of religion than on the pursuit of
chastity. A widow, it is said, of
S.
22. You see what sort of person a widow is said to be, the wife of one man, tested also by the progress of age, vigorous in religion, and worn out in body, whose resting-place is the temple, whose conversation is prayer, whose life is fasting, who in the times of day and night by a service of unwearied devotion, though the body acknowledge old age, yet knows no age in her piety. Thus is a widow trained from her youth, thus is she spoken of in her age, who has kept her widowhood not through the chance of time, nor through weakness of body, but by large-heartedness in virtue. For when it is said that she was for seven years from her virginity with her husband, it is a setting forth that the things which are the support of her old age began in the aims of her youth.
23. And so we are taught that the virtue of chastity is threefold, one kind that of married life, a second that of widowhood, and the third that of virginity, for we do not so set forth one as to exclude others. These result each in that which belongs to each. The training of the Church is rich in this, that it has those whom it may set before others, but has none whom it rejects, and would that it never could have any! We have so spoken of virginity as not to reject widowhood, we so reverence widows as to reserve its own honour for wedlock. It is not our precepts but the divine sayings which teach this.
24. Let us remember then how Mary, how Anna,
and how Susanna are spoken of. But since not only must we
celebrate their praises but also follow their manner of life, let us
remember where Susanna, S. S.
25. But in the former the fruit is later, in
virginity it is earlier; old age proves them, virginity is the praise
of youth, and does not need the help of years, being the fruit of every
age. It becomes early years, it adorns youth, it adds to the
dignity of age, and at all ages it has the gray hairs of its
righteousness, the ripeness of its gravity, the veil of modesty, which
does hinder devotion and increases religion. For we see by what
follows that holy Mary went every year with Joseph to Jerusalem on the
solemn day of the passover. S.
26. How much more then does it beseem you to be intent on the pursuit of chastity, lest you leave any place for unfavourable opinion who have the evidence of your modesty and your behaviour alone. For a virgin, though in her also character rather than the body has the first claim, puts away calumny by the integrity of her body, a widow who has lost the assistance of being able to prove her virginity undergoes the inquiry as to her chastity not according to the word of a midwife, but according to her own manner of life. Scripture, then, has shown how attentive and religious should be the disposition of a widow.
Liberality to the poor is recommended by the example of the widow the Gospel, whose two mites were preferred to the large gifts of the rich. The two mites are treated as mystically representing the two Testaments. What that treasure is for which we are taught to offer, after the example of the wise men, three gifts, or after that of the widow, two. St. Ambrose concludes the chapter by an exhortation to widows to be zealous in good works.
27. In the same
book, too, but in another place, we are taught how fitting it is to be
merciful and liberal towards the poor, and that this feeling should not
be checked by the consideration of our poverty, since liberality is
determined not by the amount of our possessions, but by the disposition
of giving. For by the voice of the Lord that widow is preferred
to all of whom it was said: “This widow hath cast in more
than all.” S.
28. Why do you, rich woman, boast yourself
by comparison with the poor, and when you are all loaded with gold, and
drag along the ground a costly robe, desire to be honoured as though
she were inferior and small in comparison with your riches, because you
have surpassed the needy with your gifts? Rivers too overflow,
when they are too full, but a draught from a brook is more
pleasant. New wine foams while fermenting, and the husbandman
does not consider as lost that which runs over. While the harvest
is being threshed out, grains of corn fall from the groaning floor; but
though the harvests fail, the barrel of meal wastes not, and the cruse
full of oil gives forth.
29. And considering the mystical sense, one must not despise this woman casting in two mites into the treasury. Plainly the woman was noble who in the divine judgment was found worthy to be preferred to all. Perchance it is she who of her faith has given two testaments for the help of man, and so no one has done more. Nor could any one equal the amount of her gift, who joined faith with mercy. Do you, then, whoever you are, who exercise your life the practice of widowhood, not hesitate to cast into the treasury the two mites, full of faith and grace.
30. Happy is she who out of her treasure
brings forth the perfect image of the King. Your treasure is
wisdom, your treasure is chastity and righteousness, your treasure is a
good understanding, such as was that treasure from which the Magi, when
they worshipped the Lord, brought forth gold, frankincense, and
myrrh; S.
31. From this treasure, then, not only the three gifts of the Magi but also the two mites of the widow are taken, on which the perfect image of the heavenly King shines forth, the brightness of His glory and the image of His substance. Precious, too, are those hardly earned gains of chastity which the widow gives of her labour and daily task, continually night and day working at her task, and by the wakeful labour of her profitable chastity gathering treasure; that she may preserve the couch of her deceased husband unviolated, be able to support her dear children, and to minister to the poor. She is to be preferred to the rich, she it is who shall not fear the judgment of Christ.
32. Strive to equal her, my daughters:
“It is good to be zealously affected in a good
thing.”
Naomi is an instance of a widow receiving back from her daughter-in-law the fruits of her own good training, and is a token that necessary support will never fail the good widow. And if her life appears sad, she is happy, since the promises of the Lord are made to her. St. Ambrose then touches upon the benefits of weeping.
33. Does the widow
Naomi seem to you of small account, who supported her widowhood on the
gleanings from another’s har
34. You see, then, holy women, how fruitful a widow is in the offspring of virtues, and the results of her own merits, which cannot come to an end. A good widow, then, knows no want, and if she be weary through age, in extreme poverty, yet she has as a rule the reward of the training she has given. Though the nearest to herself have failed, she finds those not so near akin to cherish their mother, revere their parent, and by the trifling gifts for her support desire to gain the fruit of their own kindness, for richly are gifts to a widow repaid. She asks food and pays back treasures.
35. But she seems to spend sad days, and to
pass her time in tears. And she is the more blessed in this, for
by a little weeping she purchases for herself everlasting joys, and at
the cost of a few moments gains eternity. To such it is well
said: “Blessed are ye that weep, for ye shall
laugh.” S.
36. The widow has, then, this excellent recommendation, that while she mourns her husband she also weeps for the world, and the redeeming tears are ready, which shed for the dead will benefit the living. The weeping of the eyes is fitted to the sadness of the mind, it arouses pity, lessens labour, relieves grief, and preserves modesty, and she no longer seems to herself so wretched, finding comfort in tears which are the pay of love and proofs of pious memory.
By the example of Judith is shown that courage is not wanting in widows; her preparation for her visit to Holofernes is dwelt upon, as also her chastity and her wisdom, her sobriety and moderation. Lastly, St. Ambrose, after demonstrating that she was no less brave than prudent, sets forth her modesty after her success.
37. But bravery
also is usually not wanting to a good widow. For this is true
bravery, which surpasses the usual nature and the weakness of the sex
by the devotion of the mind, such as was in her who was named
Judith,
38. But in order to learn the dispositions
of ripe widowhood, run through the course of the Scriptures. From
the time when her husband died she laid aside the garments of mirth,
and took those of mourning. Every day she was intent on fasting
except on the Sabbath and the Lord’s Day and the times of holy
days, not as yielding to desire of refreshment, but out of respect for
religion. For this is that which is said: “Whether ye
eat or drink, all is to be done in the name of Jesus
Christ,” S.
39. Why relate the sequel? How she amongst thousands of enemies, remained chaste. Why speak of her wisdom, in that she designed such a scheme? She chose out the commander, to ward off from herself the insolence of inferiors, and prepare an opportunity for victory. She reserved the merit of abstinence and the grace of chastity. For unpolluted, as we read, either by food or by adultery, she gained no less a triumph over the enemy by preserving her chastity than by delivering her country.
40. What shall I say of her sobriety? Temperance, indeed, is the virtue of women. When the men were intoxicated with wine and buried in sleep, the widow took the sword, put forth her hand, cut off the warrior’s head, and passed unharmed through the midst of the ranks of the enemy. You notice, then, how much drunkenness can injure a woman, seeing that wine so weakens men that they are overcome by women. Let a widow, then, be temperate, pure in the first place from wine, that she may be pure from adultery. He will tempt you in vain, if wine tempts you not. For if Judith had drunk she would have slept with the adulterer. But because she drank not, the sobriety of one without difficulty was able both to overcome and to escape from a drunken army.
41. And this was not so much a work of her hands, as much more a trophy of her wisdom. For having overcome Holofernes by her hand alone, she overcame the whole army of the enemies by her wisdom. For hanging up the head of Holofernes, a deed which the wisdom of the men had been unable to plan, she raised the courage of her countrymen, and broke down that of the enemy. She stirred up her own friends by her modesty, and struck terror into the enemy so that they were put to flight and slain. And so the temperance and sobriety of one widow not only subdued her own nature, but, which is far more, even made men more brave.
42. And yet she was not so elated by this success, though she might well rejoice and exult by right of her victory, as to give up the exercises of her widowhood, but refusing all who desired to wed her she laid aside her garments of mirth and took again those of her widowhood, not caring for the adornments of her triumph, thinking those things better whereby vices of the body are subdued than those whereby the weapons of an enemy are overcome.
Though many other widows came near to Judith in virtue, St. Ambrose proposes to speak of Deborah only. What a pattern of virtue she must have been for widows, who was chosen to govern and defend men. It was no small glory to her that when her son was over the host he refused to go forth to battle unless she would go also. So that she led the army and foretold the result. In this story the conflicts and triumphs of the Church, and her spiritual weapons, are set forth, and every excuse of weakness is taken from women.
43. And in order
that it may not seem as if only one widow had fulfilled this inimitable
work, it seems in no way doubtful that there were many others of equal
or almost equal virtue, for good seed corn usually bears many ears
filled with grains. Doubt not, then, that that ancient seed-time
was fruitful in the characters of many women. But as it would be
tedious to include all, consider some, and especially Deborah,
44. For she showed not only that widows have
no need of the help of a man, inasmuch as she, not at all restrained by
the weakness of her sex, undertook to perform the duties of a man, and
did even more than she had undertaken. And, at last, when the
Jews were being ruled under the leadership of the judges, because they
could not govern them with manly justice, or defend them with manly
strength, and so wars broke out on all sides, they chose
Deborah, St. Jerome
agrees with St. Ambrose in believing that Deborah literally was a
judge, as indeed seems conclusive from the Scriptural account, but
doubts whether she was a widow and mother of Barak, and is probably
right in the latter case. Whether Lapidoth, however, was still
alive is not so clear. St. Jerome, Ep. ad Furiam, §
17.
45. And in time of peace there is no complaint, and no fault is found in this woman whereas most of the judges were causes of no small sins to the people. But when the Canaanites, a people fierce in battle and rich in troops, successively joined them, showed a horrible disposition against the people of the Jews, this widow, before all others, made all the preparations for war. And to show that the needs of the household were not dependent on the public resources, but rather that public duties were guided by the discipline of home life, she brings forth from her home her son as leader of the army, that we may acknowledge that a widow can train a warrior; whom, as a mother, she taught, and, as judge, placed in command, as, being herself brave, she trained him, and, as a prophetess, sent to certain victory.
46. And lastly, her son Barak shows the
chief part of the victory was in the hands of a woman when he
said: “If thou wilt not go with me I will not go, for I
know not the day on which the Lord sendeth His angel with
me.”
47. So, then, Deborah foretold the event of the battle. Barak, as he was bidden, led forth the army; Jael carried off the triumph, for the prophecy of Deborah fought for her, who in a mystery revealed to us the rising of the Church from among the Gentiles, for whom should be found a triumph over Sisera, that is, over the powers opposed to her. For us, then, the oracles of the prophets fought, for us those judgments and arms of the prophets won the victory. And for this reason it was not the people of the Jews but Jael who gained the victory over the enemy. Unhappy, then, was that people which could not follow up by the virtue of faith the enemy, whom it had put to flight. And so by their fault salvation came to the Gentiles, by their sluggishness the victory was reserved for us.
48. Jael then destroyed Sisera, whom however
the band of Jewish veterans had put to flight under their
brilliant The word Barak
signifies lightning. It is probably the same as the Punic Barca,
the surname of Hamilcar, father of Hannibal, or possibly was a family
name. S.
49. But the Church does not overcome the
powers of the enemy with weapons of this world, but with spiritual
arms, “which are mighty through God to the destruction of
strongholds and the high places of spiritual
wickedness.”
50. And so according to this history a woman, that the minds of women might be stirred up, became a judge, a woman set all in order, a woman prophesied, a woman triumphed, and joining in the battle array taught men to war under a woman’s lead. But in a mystery it is the battle of faith and the victory of the Church.
51. You, then, who are women have no excuse
because of your nature. You who are widows have no excuse because
of the weakness of your sex, nor can you attribute your changeableness
to the loss of the support of a husband. Every one has sufficient
protection if courage is not wanting to the soul. And the very
advance of age is a common defence of chastity for widows; and grief
for the husband who is lost, regular work, the care of the house,
anxiety for children, frequently ward off wantonness hurtful to the
soul; while the very mourning attire, the funeral solemnities, the
constant weeping, and grief impressed on the sad brow in deep wrinkles,
restrains wanton
To an objection that the state of widowhood might indeed be endurable if circumstances were pleasant, St. Ambrose replies that pleasant surroundings are more dangerous than even trouble; and goes to show by examples taken from holy Scripture, that widows may find much happiness in their children and their sons-in-law. They should have recourse to the Apostles, who are able to help us, and should entreat for the intercessions of angels and martyrs. He touches then on certain complaints respecting loneliness, and care of property, and ends by pointing out the unseemliness of a widow marrying who has daughters either married already or of marriageable age.
52. You have learnt, then, you who are widows, that you are not destitute of the help of nature, and that you can maintain sound counsel. Nor, again, are you devoid of protection at home, who are able to claim even the highest point of public power.
53. But perhaps some one may say that
widowhood is more endurable for her who enjoys prosperity, but that
widows are soon broken down by adversity, and easily succumb. On
which point not only are we taught by experience that enjoyment is more
perilous for widows than difficulties, but by the examples in the
Scriptures that even in weakness widows are not usually without
aid, S.
54. “She was taken,” it is said,
“with a great fever, and they besought him for
her.” S. S.
55. So Peter and Andrew prayed for the widow. Would that there were some one who could so quickly pray for us, or better still, they who prayed for the mother-in-law, Peter and Andrew his brother. Then they could pray for one related to them, now they are able to pray for us and for all. For you see that one bound by great sin is less fit to pray for herself, certainly less likely to obtain for herself. Let her then make use of others to pray for her to the physician. For the sick, unless the physician be called to them by the prayers of others, cannot pray for themselves. The flesh is weak, the soul is sick and hindered by the chains of sins, and cannot direct its feeble steps to the throne of that physician. The angels must be entreated for us, who have been to us as guards; the martyrs must be entreated, whose patronage we seem to claim for ourselves by the pledge as it were of their bodily remains. They can entreat for our sins, who, if they had any sins, washed them in their own blood; for they are the martyrs of God, our leaders, the beholders of our life and of our actions. Let us not be ashamed to take them as intercessors for our weakness, for they themselves knew the weaknesses of the body, even when they overcame.
56. So, then, Peter’s mother-in-law
found some to pray for her. And you, O widow, find those who will
pray for you, if as a true widow and desolate you hope in God, continue
instant in supplications, persist in prayers,
57. You have no longer any reason for marrying,
you have some to intercede for you. Say not, “I am
desolate.” This is the complaint of one who wishes to
marry.
58. But you wish to take care of your inheritance. The inheritance of modesty is greater, and this a widow can guard better than one married. A slave has done wrong. Forgive him, for it is better that you should bear with another’s fault than expose it. But you wish to marry. Be it so. The simple desire is no crime. I do not ask the reason, why is one invented? If you think it good, say so; if unsuitable, be silent. Do not blame God, do not blame your relatives, saying that protection fails you. Would that the wish did not fail! And say not that you are consulting the interests of your children, whom you are depriving of their mother.
59. There are some things permissible in the abstract, but not permissible on account of age. Why is the bridal of the mother being prepared at the same time with that of the daughters, and often even afterwards? Why does the grown-up daughter learn to blush in the presence of her mother’s betrothed rather than her own? I confess that I advised you to change your dress, but not to put on a bridal veil; to go away from the tomb, not to prepare a bridal couch. What is the meaning of a newly-married woman who already has sons-in-law? How unseemly it is to have children younger than one’s grand-children!
St. Ambrose returns again to the subject of Christ, speaking of His goodness in all misery. The various ways in which the good Physician treats our diseases, and the quickness of the healing if only we do not neglect to call upon Him. He touches upon the moral meaning of the will, which he shows was manifested in Peter’s mother-in-law, and lastly points out what a minister of Christ and specially a bishop ought to be, and says that they specially must rise through grace.
60. But let us
return to the point, and not, while we are grieving over the wounds of
our sins, leave the physician, and whilst ministering to the sores of
others, let our own go on increasing. The Physician is then here
asked for. Do not fear, because the Lord is great, that perhaps
He will not condescend to come to one who is sick, for He often comes
to us from heaven; and is wont to visit not only the rich but also the
poor and the servants of the poor. S. S.
61. Thanks be to the Gospel, by means of which we also, who saw not Christ when He came into this world, seem to be with Him when we read His deeds, that as they, to whom He drew near, borrowed faith from Him, so may He, when we believe His deeds, draw near to us.
62. Do you see what kinds of healing are
with Him? He commands the fever, He commands the unclean spirits,
at another place He lays hands on them. He was wont then to heal
the sick, not only by word but also by touch. And do you then,
who burn with many desires, taken either by the beauty or by the
fortune of some one, implore Christ, call in the Physician, stretch
forth your right hand to Him, let the hand of God touch your inmost
being, and the grace of the heavenly Word enter the veins of your
inward desires, let God’s right hand strike the secrets of your
heart. He spreads clay on the eyes of some that they may
see, S.
S.
63. And be not afraid that there will be any delay
in healing. He who is healed by Christ has no hindrances.
You must
64. And in this place can be seen the
disposition of the will of Peter’s mother-in-law, from which she
received for herself, as it were, the seed corn of what was to come,
for to each his will is the cause of that which is to come. For
from the will springs wisdom, which the wise man takes in marriage to
himself, saying: “I desire to make her my
spouse.”
65. At the same time it is also shown what
he ought to be who ministers to Christ, for first he must be free from
the enticements of various pleasures, he must be free from inward
languor of body and soul, that he may minister the Body and Blood of
Christ. For no one who is sick with his own sins, and far from
being whole, can minister the remedies of the healing of
immortality. See what thou doest, O priest, and touch not the
Body of Christ with a fevered hand. First be healed that thou
mayest be able to minister. If Christ bids those who are now
cleansed, but were once leprous, to show themselves to the
priests, S.
66. Peter’s mother-in-law, it is
written, rose up and ministered to them. Well is it said, rose
up, for the grace of the apostleship was already furnishing a type of
the sacrament. It is proper to the ministers of Christ to rise,
according to that which is written: “Awake, thou that
sleepest, and arise from the dead.”
Having shown that the pretexts usually alleged for second marriages have no weight, St. Ambrose declares that he does not condemn them, though from the Apostle’s words he sets forth their inconveniences, though the state of those twice married is approved in the Church, and he takes occasion to advert to those heretics who forbid them. And he says that it is because the strength of different persons varies that chastity is not commanded, but only recommended.
67. I say, then, that widows who have been in the habit of giving neither are in want of their necessary expenses, nor of help, who in very great dangers have often guarded the resources of their husbands; and further, I think that the good offices of a husband are usually made up for to them by sons-in-law and other relatives, and that God’s mercy is more ready to help them, and therefore, when there is no special cause for marrying, the desire of so doing should not exist.
68. This, however, I say as a counsel, we do
not order it as a precept, stirring up the wills of widows rather than
binding them. For I do not forbid second marriages, only I do not
advise them. The consideration of human weakness is one thing,
the grace of chastity is another. I say more, I do not forbid
second, but do not approve of often repeated marriages, for not
everything is expedient which is lawful: “All things are
lawful to me,” says the Apostle, “but all things are not
expedient.”
69. It is then lawful to marry, but it is
more seemly to abstain, for there are bonds in marriage. Do you
ask what bonds? “The woman who is under a husband is bound
by the law so long as her husband liveth; but if her husband be dead
she is loosed from the law of her husband.”
70. But as I exhort widows to keep the grace of their gift, so, too, I incite women to observe ecclesiastical discipline, for the Church is made up of all. Though it be the flock of Christ, yet some are fed on strong food, others are still nourished with milk, who must be on their guard against those wolves who are hidden in sheep’s clothing, pretending to all appearance of continence, but inciting to the foulness of incontinence. For they know how severe are the burdens of chastity, since they cannot touch them with the tips of their fingers; they require of others that which is above measure, when they themselves cannot even observe any measure, but rather give way under the cruel weight. For the measure of the burden must always be according to the strength of him who has to bear it; otherwise, where the bearer is weak, he breaks down with the burden laid upon him; for too strong meat chokes the throats of infants.
71. And so as in a multitude of bearers their strength is not estimated by that of a few; nor do the stronger receive their tasks in accordance with the weakness of others, but each is allowed to bear as great a burden as he desires, the reward increasing with the increase of strength; so, too, a snare is not to be set for women, nor a burden of continence beyond their strength to be taken up, but it must be left to each to weigh the matter for herself, not compelled by the authority of any command, but incited by increase of grace. And so for different degrees of virtue a different reward is set forth, and one thing is not blamed that another may be praised; but all are spoken of, in order that what is best may be preferred.
The difference between matters of precept and of counsel is treated of, as shown in the case of the young man in the Gospel, and the difference of the rewards set forth both for counsels and precepts is spoken of.
72. Marriage, then,
is honourable, but chastity is more honourable, for “he that
giveth his virgin in marriage doeth well, but he that giveth her not in
marriage doeth better.”
73. You will see the difference between
precept and counsel, if you remember the case of him in the Gospel, to
whom it is first commanded to do no murder, not to commit adultery, not
to bear false witness; for that is a commandment which has a penalty
for its transgression. But when he said that he had fulfilled all
the commandments of the Law, there is given to him a counsel that he
should sell all that he had and follow the Lord, S.
74. And so they who have fulfilled the
commandments are able to say: “We are unprofitable
servants, we have done that which was our duty to do.” S.
S.
S. S.
St. Ambrose, treating of the words in the Gospel concerning eunuchs, condemns those who make themselves such. Those only deserve praise who have through continence gained the victory over themselves, but no one is to be compelled to live this life, as neither Christ nor the Apostle laid down such a law, so that the marriage vow is not to be blamed, though that of chastity is better.
75. So, then, a
commandment to this effect is not given, but a counsel is.
Chastity is commanded, entire continence counselled. “But
all men cannot receive this saying, but they to whom it is given.
For there are eunuchs which were so born from their mothers
womb,” S.
There would
seem to be a passage lost here.
76. The case is not the same of those who
mutilate themselves, and I touch upon this point advisedly, for there
are some who look upon it as a holy deed to check by the evil violence
of this sort. And though I am not willing to express my own
opinion concerning them, though decisions of our forefathers are in
existence; but then consider whether this tends not rather to a
declaration of weakness than to a reputation for strength. On
this principle no one should fight lest he be overcome, nor make use of
his feet, fearing the danger of stumbling, nor let his eyes do their
office because he fears a fall through lust. But what does it
profit to cut the flesh, when there may be guilt even in a look?
“For whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath
committed adultery already with her in his heart.” S.
77. No one, then, ought, as many suppose, to
mutilate himself, but rather gain the victory; for the Church gathers
in those who conquer, not those who are defeated. And why should
I use arguments when the words of the Apostle’s command are at
hand? For you find it thus written: “I would that
they were mutilated who desire that you should be
circumcised.” S.
78. This, however, is not a commandment
given to all, but a wish set before all. For he who commands must
always keep to the exact scope of the commandments, and he who
distributes tasks must observe equity in looking into them, for:
“A false balance is abomination to the Lord.” S.
79. For the Creator of all knows that the
dispositions of each are different, and therefore incited virtue by
rewards, instead of binding weakness by chains. And he, the
teacher of the Gentiles, the good guide of our conduct, and instructor
of our inmost affections, who had learnt in himself that the law of the
flesh resists the law of the mind, but yields to the grace of Christ,
he knows, I say, that various movements of the mind are opposed to each
other; and, therefore, so expresses his exhortations to chastity, as
not to do away with the grace of marriage, nor has he so exalted
marriage as to check the desire of chastity. But beginning with
the recommendation of chastity, he goes on to remedies against
incontinence, and having set before the stronger the prize of their
high calling, he suffers no one to faint by the way; approving those
who take the lead so as not to make little of those who follow.
For he, himself, had learnt that the Lord Jesus gave to some barley
bread S. S.
80. For the Lord Himself did not impose this
commandment, but invited the will, and the Apostle did not lay down a
rule, but gave a counsel.
81. The marriage bond is not then to be shunned as though it were sinful, but rather declined as being a galling burden. For the law binds the wife to bear children in labour and in sorrow, and is in subjection to her husband, for that he is lord over her. So, then, the married woman, but not the widow, is subject to labour and pain in bringing forth children, and she only that is married, not she that is a virgin, is under the power of her husband. The virgin is free from all these things, who has vowed her affection to the Word of God, who awaits the Spouse of blessing with her lamp burning with the light of a good will. And so she is moved by counsels, not bound by chains.
Though a widow may have received no commandment, yet she has received so many counsels that she ought not to think little of them. St. Ambrose would be sorry to lay any snare for her, seeing that the field of the Church grows richer as a result of wedlock, but it is absolutely impossible to deny that widowhood, which St. Paul praises, is profitable. Consequently, he speaks severely about those who have proscribed widowhood by law.
82. But neither has
the widow received any command, but a counsel; a counsel, however, not
given once only but often repeated. For, first, it is said:
“It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”
83. And this, I say, not in order to lay a snare for others, but that as a good husbandman of the land entrusted to me, I may see this field of the Church to be fruitful, at one time blossoming with the flowers of purity, at another time strong in the gravity of widowhood, and yet again abounding with the fruits of wedlock. For though they be diverse, yet they are the fruits of one field; there are not so many lilies in the gardens as ears of corn in the fields, and many more fields are prepared for receiving seed than lie fallow after the crops are gathered in.
84. Widowhood is, then, good, which is so often
praised by the judgment of the apostles, for it is a teacher of the
faith
The
reference would seem to be to the “Lex Julia et Papia
Poppæa,” but the object of this law was not, as St.
Ambrose seems to imply, to check celibacy, but to meet the growing
licentiousness of the age, which avoided the obligations of married
life while indulging in every kind of impure abominations.
85. In like manner the widow, as a veteran, having served her time, though she lays aside the arms of married life, yet orders the peace of the whole house: though now freed from carrying burdens, she is yet watchful for the younger who are to be married; and with the thoughtfulness of old age she arranges where more pains would be profitable, where produce would be more abundant, which is fitted for the marriage bond. And so, if the field is entrusted to the elder rather than to the younger, why should you think that it is more advantageous to be a married woman than a widow? But, if the persecutors of the faith have also been the persecutors of widowhood, most certainly by those who hold the faith, widowhood is not to be shunned as a penalty, but to be esteemed as a reward.
St. Ambrose meets the objection of those who make the desire of having children an excuse for second marriage, and especially in the case of those who have children of their former marriage; and points out the consequent troubles of disagreements amongst the children, and even between the married persons, and gives a warning against a wrong use of Scripture instances in this matter.
86. Perhaps, however, it may seem good to some that marriage should again be entered upon for the sake of having children. But if the desire of children be a reason for marrying, certainly where there are children, the reason does not exist. And is it wise to wish to have a second trial of that fruitfulness which has already been tried in vain, or to submit to the solitude which you have already borne? This is the case of those who have no children.
87. Then, too, she who has borne children, and has lost them (for she who has a hope of bearing children will have an intenser longing), does not she, I say, seem to herself to be covering over the deaths of her lost children by the celebration of a second marriage? Will she not again suffer what she is again seeking? and does she not shrink at the graves of her hopes, the memories of the bereavements she has suffered, the voices of the mourners? Or, when the torches are lit and night is coming on, does she not think rather that funeral rites are being prepared than a bridal chamber? Why, then, my daughter, do you seek again those sorrows which you dread, more than you look for children whom you no longer hope for? If sorrow is so grievous, one should rather avoid than seek that which causes it.
88. And what advice shall I give to you who have
children? What reason have you for marrying? Perhaps
foolish light-mindedness, or the habit of incontinence, or the
consciousness of a wounded spirit is urging you on. But counsel
is given to the sober, not to the drunken, and so my words are
addressed to the free conscience which is whole in each respect.
She that is wounded has a remedy, she that is upright a counsel.
What do you intend to do then, my daughter? Why do you seek for
heirs from without when you have your own? You are not desiring
of children, for you have them, but servitude from which you are
free. For this true servitude, in which love is exhausted, which
no longer the charm of virginity, and early youth, full of holy modesty
and grace, excites; when offences are more felt, and rudeness is more
suspected, and agreement less common, which is not bound fast by love
deeply rooted by time, or by beauty in its prime of youth. Duty
to a husband is burdensome, so that you are afraid to love your
children and blush to look at them; and a cause of disagreement arises
from that which ordinarily causes mutual love to increase the tender
affections of parents. You wish to give birth to offspring who
will be not the
89. The divine law has bound together
husband and wife by its authority, and yet mutual love remains a
difficult matter. For God took a rib from the man, and formed the
woman so as to join them one to the other, and said: “They
shall be one flesh.”
90. But in holy Rachel
Of the 91 Epistles considered
genuine by the Benedictine Editors, sixty-three are referred by them
to fairly certain dates, This is really in excess of the number which are now to
be considered as fixed in date.
Perhaps some others might have been better selected, but if they were to be so few, it seemed as if these would give the best general impression of the indomitable energy and fearless constancy of the great Bishop.
Symmachus in the name of the heathen members of the Senate asks that the Altar of Victory, which had been removed by Gratian, should be restored in the Senate House, and that oaths should be taken there as of old. He argues that the example of former Emperors should be followed as to the things which they retained, not which they abolished. Rome expects this of them, and no injury can accrue to the treasury in consequence, whereas it is unjust to confiscate legacies to the Vestal Virgins and ancient rites.
There was a determined move on the part of Symmachus, Prefect of the city, and other heathen to regain the observances of their religion. He was perhaps the leading man of the day at Rome, equally renowned as a statesman, a scholar, and an orator. In a.d. 382 he headed a deputation of the Senate to the Emperor Gratian to request the replacement of the Altar of Victory in the Senate House, and the restoration of their endowments to the Vestal Virgins and the colleges of priests. There was a counterpetition on the part of the Christian senators forwarded through Pope Damasus, and Gratian refused to receive the deputation. In 384 the attempt was repeated, and these letters or memorials have to do with this application to Valentinian II., the brother of Gratian, who was now Emperor of the West; this attempt was also foiled.
It would seem that he took part in missions for the same purpose to Theodosius after the defeat of Maximus, and to Valentinian II. in a.d. 392, and again unsuccessfully. In the next year, Eugenius, who had been made Emperor by Flavian and Arbogastes, restored the Altar of Victory, which however was finally removed by Theodosius after the defeat of Eugenius and Arbogastes. Probably Symmachus made a final attempt in 403 or 404, but fruitlessly. [See Dict. Christ. Biog. s.v. Symmachus.]
The statue and Altar of Victory in question had been first removed by Constantius, son of Constantine, when at Rome, a.d. 356, but were restored by Julian with other heathen symbols and rites. Valentinian I. tolerated them, but possibly (at any rate for some time), as St. Ambrose says, did so in ignorance [Ep. XVII. 16]. They were once more removed by Gratian, and then the action of Symmachus comes in. It may be mentioned that though a heathen he was on intimate terms with Damasus, St. Ambrose, and many leading Christians.
The three Epistles or rather “Memorials” which follow refer to this part of the death-struggle of paganism.
This Epistle was written when Symmachus sent his memorial to Valentinian II. St. Ambrose presses on the Emperor the consideration that it is his business to defend religion, and not superstition. The memorial was sent without the adhesion of the Christian senators, and therefore did not represent that body. He warns Valentinian that if he accedes to the request he will incur the censures of the Church, besides acting in a manner derogatory to the memory of his father and brother.
Ambrose, Bishop, to the most blessed Prince and most Christian Emperor Valentinian.
1. As all men who live under the Roman sway
engage in military service under you, the Emperors and Princes of the
world, so too do you yourselves owe service to Almighty God and our
holy faith. For salvation is not sure unless everyone worship in
truth the true God, that is the God of the Christians, under Whose sway
are all things; for He alone is the true God, Who is to be worshipped
from the bottom of the heart; for “the gods of the
heathen,” as Scripture says, “are devils.”
2. Now everyone is a soldier of this true God, and
he who receives and worships
3. Since, then, most Christian Emperor, there is due from you to the true God both faith and zeal, care and devotion for the faith, I wonder how the hope has risen up to some, that you would feel it a duty to restore by your command altars to the gods of the heathen, and furnish the funds requisite for profane sacrifices; for whatsoever has long been claimed by either the imperial or the city treasury you will seem to give rather from your own funds, than to be restoring what is theirs.
4. And they are complaining of their losses,
who never spared our blood, who destroyed the very buildings of the
churches. And they petition you to grant them privileges, who by
the last Julian law Julian’s
edict referred to here by St. Ambrose was doubtless intended to keep
the Christian children in ignorance. Christians were forbidden to
teach, and heathen teachers were directly bidden to teach heathenism,
so that Christians could not send their children to the schools.
5. Had these things not been abolished I
could prove that they ought to be done away by your authority; but
since they have been forbidden and prohibited by many princes
throughout nearly the whole world, and were abolished at Rome by
Gratian Constantius,
in a law de Paganis, closed the temples and abolished
sacrifices, but his work was undone by Julian, and again carried
farther by Valentinian, Valens, and Gratian.
6. Let no one take advantage of your youth; if he be a heathen who demands this, it is not right that he should bind your mind with the bonds of his own superstition; but by his zeal he ought to teach and admonish you how to be zealous for the true faith, since he defends vain things with all the passion of truth. I myself advise you to defer to the merits of illustrious men, but undoubtedly God must be preferred to all.
7. If we have to consult concerning military affairs, the opinion of a man experienced in warfare should be waited for, and his counsel be followed; when the question concerns religion, think upon God. No one is injured because God is set before him. He keeps his own opinion. You do not compel a man against his will to worship what he dislikes. Let the same liberty be given to you, O Emperor, and let every one bear it with patience, if he cannot extort from the Emperor what he would take it ill if the Emperor desired to extort from him. A shuffling spirit is displeasing to the heathen themselves, for everyone ought freely to defend and maintain the faith and purpose of his own mind.
8. But if any, Christians in name, think that any such decree should be made, let not bare words mislead your mind, let not empty words deceive you. Whoever advises this, and whoever decrees it, sacrifices. But that one should sacrifice is more tolerable than that all should fall. Here the whole Senate of Christians is in danger.
9. If to-day any heathen Emperor should build an
altar, which God forbid, to idols, and should compel Christians to come
together thither, in order to be amongst those who were sacrificing, so
that the smoke and ashes from the altar, the sparks from the sacrilege,
the smoke from the burning might choke the breath and throats of the
faithful; and should give judgment in that court where members were
compelled to vote after swearing at the altar of an idol (for they
explain that an altar is so placed for this purpose, that every
assembly should deliberate under its sanction, as they suppose, though
the Senate is now made up with a majority of Christians), a Christian
who was compelled with a choice such as this to come to the Senate,
would consider it to be persecution, which often happens, for they are
compelled to come together even by violence. Are these
Christians, when you are Emperor, compelled to swear at a heathen
altar? What is an oath, but a confession of the divine power of
Him Whom you invoke as watcher over your good faith? When you are
Emperor, this is sought and demanded, that you should command an
10. But this cannot be decreed without
sacrilege, wherefore I implore you not to decree or order it, nor to
subscribe to any decrees of that sort. I, as a priest of Christ,
call upon your faith, all of us bishops would have joined in calling
upon you, were not the report so sudden and incredible, that any such
thing had been either suggested in your council, or petitioned for by
the Senate. But far be it from the Senate to have petitioned
this, a few heathen are making use of the common name. For,
nearly two years ago, when the same attempt was being made, holy
Damasus, Bishop of the Roman Church, elected by the judgment of God,
sent to me a memorial, which the Christian senators in great numbers
put forth, protesting that they had given no such authority, that they
did not agree with such requests of the heathen, nor give consent to
them, and they declared publicly and privately that they would not come
to the Senate, if any such thing were decreed. Is it agreeable to
the dignity of your, that is Christian, times, that Christian senators
should be deprived of their dignity, in order that effect should be
given to the profane will of the heathen? This memorial I sent to
your Clemency’s brother, i.e.,
Gratian.
11. But perhaps it may be said, why were they not before present in the Senate when those petitions were made? By not being present they sufficiently say what they wish, they said enough in what they said to the Emperor. And do we wonder if those persons deprive private persons at Rome of the liberty of resisting, who are unwilling that you should be free not to command what you do not approve, or to maintain your own opinion?
12. And so, remembering the
legation The legation
referred to above, when Damasus requested him to present the memorial
of the Christian senators to Gratian. The “again”
does not refer to a previous mission to Valentinian, but to the one he
himself had undertaken to the then emperor, and his similar task at
present.
13. If it were a civil cause the right of reply would be reserved for the opposing party; it is a religious cause, and I the bishop make a claim. Let a copy of the memorial which has been sent be given me, that I may answer more fully, and then let your Clemency’s father be consulted on the whole subject, and vouchsafe an answer. Certainly if anything else is decreed, we bishops cannot contentedly suffer it and take no notice; you indeed may come to the church, but will find either no priest there, or one who will resist you.
14. What will you answer a priest who says
to you, “The church does not seek your gifts, because you have
adorned the heathen temples with gifts. The Altar of Christ
rejects your gifts, because you have made an altar for idols, for the
voice is yours, the hand is yours, the subscription is yours, the deed
is yours. The Lord Jesus refuses and rejects your service,
because you have served idols, for He said to you: ‘Ye
cannot serve two masters.’ S.
15. What will you answer to these words? That you who have fallen are but a boy? Every age is perfect in Christ, every age is full of God. No childhood is allowed in faith, for even children have confessed Christ against their persecutors with fearless mouth.
16. What will you answer your brother?
Will he not say to you, “I did not feel that I was overcome,
because I left you as Emperor; I did not grieve at dying, because I had
you as my heir; I did not mourn at leaving my imperial command, because
I believed that my commands, especially those concerning divine
religion, would endure through all ages. I had set up these
memorials of piety and virtue, I offered up these spoils gained from
the world, these trophies of victory over the devil, these I offered up
as gained from the enemy of all, and in them is eternal victory.
What more could my enemy take away from me? You have abrogated my
decrees, which so far he who took up arms Maximus.
16. What will you answer your father also? who with greater grief will address you, saying, “You judged very ill of me, my son, when you supposed that I could have connived at the heathen. No one ever told me that there was an altar in the Roman Senate House, I never believed such wickedness as that the heathen sacrificed in the common assembly of Christians and heathen, that is to say that the Gentiles should insult the Christians who were present, and that Christians should be compelled against their will to be present at the sacrifices. Many and various crimes were committed whilst I was Emperor. I punished such as were detected; if any one then escaped notice, ought one to say that I approved of that of which no one informed me? You have judged very ill of me, if a foreign superstition and not my own faith preserved the empire.”
17. Wherefore, O Emperor, since you see that if you decree anything of that kind, injury will be done, first to God, and then to your father and brother, I implore you to do that which you know will be profitable to your salvation before God.
Symmachus addresses his memorial in the name of the Senate, nominally to the three Emperors, Valentinian, Theodosius, and Arcadius, though really to the first of these alone, who was sole Emperor of the West. The memorial sets forth a request that the old religion should be restored, and the Altar of Victory again erected in the Senate House, that the ancient customs might be observed. The example of the late emperors should be followed in what they maintained, not in what they did away. The treasury would suffer no loss, whilst it is unjust that the Vestal Virgins and priests should be deprived of ancient legacies, a sacrilege which the gods punished by a famine. The memorial is drawn up with consummate skill, both in what is brought forward and in what is left unsaid.
1. As soon as the most honourable Senate,
always devoted to you, knew that crimes were made amenable to law, and
that the reputation of late times was being purified by pious princes,
it, following the example of a more favourable time, gave utterance to
its long suppressed grief, and bade me be once again the delegate to
utter its complaints. This is the
legation to Gratian referred to in § 10 of the preceding letter;
Symmachus fared ill, being ordered from the imperial presence, and
forbidden to come within a hundred miles of Rome. i e.
deceased.
2. In the exercise, therefore, of a twofold office, as your Prefect I attend to public business, and as delegate I recommend to your notice the charge laid on me by the citizens. Here is no disagreement of wills, for men have now ceased to believe that they excel in courtly zeal, if they disagree. To be loved, to be reverenced, to be esteemed is more than imperial sway. Who could endure that private disagreement should injure the state? Rightly does the Senate censure those who have preferred their own power to the reputation of the prince.
3. But it is our task to watch on behalf of
your Graces. For to what is it more suitable that we defend the
institutions of our ancestors, and the rights and destiny of our
country, than to the glory of these times, which is all the greater
when you understand that you may not do anything contrary to the custom
of your ancestors? We demand then the restoration of that
condition of religious affairs which was so long advantageous to the
state. Let the rulers of each sect and of each opinion be counted
up; a late one Julian. Valentinian I. Valentinian and
Valens.
4. Who is so friendly with the barbarians as
not to require an Altar of Victory? We will be careful
henceforth, and avoid a show of such things. But at least let
that honour be paid to the name The play
upon the words nomen (name) and numen (divinity) cannot
be reproduced in English.
The evil omen
resulting from destroying the image and altar of Victory.
6. Where shall we swear to obey your laws and commands? by what religious sanction shall the false mind be terrified, so as not to lie in bearing witness? All things are indeed filled with God, and no place is safe for the perjured, but to be urged in the very presence of religious forms has great power in producing a fear of sinning. That altar preserves the concord of all, that altar appeals to the good faith of each, and nothing gives more authority to our decrees than that the whole of our order issues every decree as it were under the sanction of an oath. So that a place will be opened to perjury, and this will be determined by my illustrious Princes, whose honour is defended by a public oath.
7. But the divine Constantius is said to have done the same. Let us rather imitate the other actions of that Prince, who would have undertaken nothing of the kind, if any one else had committed such an error before him. For the fall of the earlier sets his successor right, and amendment results from the censure of a previous example. It was pardonable for your Grace’s ancestor in so novel a matter to fail in guarding against blame. Can the same excuse avail us if we imitate what we know to have been disapproved?
8. Will your Majesties listen to other actions of this same Prince, which you may more worthily imitate? He diminished none of the privileges of the sacred virgins, he filled the priestly offices with nobles, he did not refuse the cost of the Roman ceremonies, and following the rejoicing Senate through all the streets of the eternal city, he contentedly beheld the shrines with unmoved countenance, he read the names of the gods inscribed on the pediments, he enquired about the origin of the temples, and expressed admiration for their builders. Although he himself followed another religion, he maintained its own for the empire, for everyone has his own customs, everyone his own rites. The divine Mind has distributed different guardians and different cults to different cities. As souls are separately given to infants as they are born, so to peoples the genius of their destiny. Here comes in the proof from advantage, which most of all vouches to man for the gods. For, since our reason is wholly clouded, whence does the knowledge of the gods more rightly come to us, than from the memory and evidence of prosperity? Now if a long period gives authority to religious customs, we ought to keep faith with so many centuries, and to follow our ancestors, as they happily followed theirs.
9. Let us now suppose that Rome is present and addresses you in these words: “Excellent princes, fathers of your country, respect my years to which pious rites have brought me. Let me use the ancestral ceremonies, for I do not repent of them. Let me live after my own fashion, for I am free. This worship subdued the world to my laws, these sacred rites repelled Hannibal from the walls, and the Senones from the capitol. Have I been reserved for this, that in my old age I should be blamed? I will consider what it is thought should be set in order, but tardy and discreditable is the reformation of old age.”
10. We ask, then, for peace for the gods of our fathers and of our country. It is just that all worship should be considered as one. We look on the same stars, the sky is common, the same world surrounds us. What difference does it make by what pains each seeks the truth? We cannot attain to so great a secret by one road; but this discussion is rather for persons at ease, we offer now prayers, not conflict.
11. With what advantage to your treasury are the prerogatives of the Vestal Virgins diminished? Is that refused under the most bountiful emperors which the most parsimonious have granted? Their sole honour consists in that, so to call it, wage of chastity. As fillets are the ornament of their heads, so is their distinction drawn from their leisure to attend to the offices of sacrifice. They seek for in a measure the empty name of immunity, since by their poverty they are exempt from payment. And so they who diminish anything of their substance increase their praise, inasmuch as virginity dedicated to the public good increases in merit when it is without reward.
13. The treasury also retains lands bequeathed to virgins and ministers by the will of dying persons. I entreat you, priests of justice, let the lost right of succession be restored to the sacred persons and places of your city. Let men dictate their wills without anxiety, and know that what has been written will be undisturbed under princes who are not avaricious. Let the happiness in this point of all men give pleasure to you, for precedents in this matter have begun to trouble the dying. Does not then the religion of Rome appertain to Roman law? What name shall be given to the taking away of property which no law nor accident has made to fail. Freedmen take legacies, slaves are not denied the just privilege of making wills; only noble virgins and the ministers of sacred rites are excluded from property sought by inheritance. What does it profit the public safety to dedicate the body to chastity, and to support the duration of the empire with heavenly guardianship, to attach the friendly powers to your arms and to your eagles, to take upon oneself vows efficacious for all, and not to have common rights with all? So, then, slavery is a better condition, which is a service rendered to men. We injure the State, whose interest it never is to be ungrateful.
14. And let no one think that I am defending the cause of religion only, for from deeds of this kind have arisen all the misfortunes of the Roman race. The law of our ancestors honoured the Vestal Virgins and the ministers of the gods with a moderate maintenance and just privileges. This grant remained unassailed till the time of the degenerate money-changers, who turned the fund for the support of sacred chastity into hire for common porters. A general famine followed upon this, and a poor harvest disappointed the hopes of all the provinces. This was not the fault of the earth, we impute no evil influence to the stars. Mildew did not injure the crops, nor wild oats destroy the corn; the year failed through the sacrilege, for it was necessary that what was refused to religion should be denied to all.
15. Certainly, if there be any instance of
this evil, let us impute such a famine to the power of the
season. A deadly wind has been the cause of this barrenness, life
is sustained by trees and shrubs, and the need of the country folk has
betaken itself once more to the oaks of Dodona. i.e. to
acorns for food.
16. But some one will say that public support is only refused to the cost of foreign religions. Far be it from good princes to suppose that what has been given to certain persons from the common property can be in the power of the treasury. For as the State consists of individuals, that which goes out from it becomes again the property of individuals. You rule over all; but you preserve his own for each individual; and justice has more weight with you than arbitrary will. Take counsel with your own liberality whether that which you have conferred on others ought to be considered public property. Sums once given to the honour of the city cease to be the property of those who have given them, and that which at the commencement was a gift, by custom and time becomes a debt. Any one is therefore endeavouring to impress upon your minds a vain fear, who asserts that you share the responsibility of the givers unless you incur the odium of withdrawing the gifts.
17. May the unseen guardians of all sects be
favourable to your Graces, and may they especially, who in old time
assisted your ancestors, defend you and be worshipped by us. We
ask for that state of religious matters which preserved the empire for
the divine parent Valentinian
I., who, as Symmachus said above, did not destroy idol worship, though
he did not practise it, so that St. Ambrose says in his funeral oration
on Valentinian II.: “Quod patri defuerat adjunxit; quod
frater constituit, custodivit.”
18. Amend also for your divine brother that which he did by the counsel of others, cover over the deed which he knew not to be displeasing to the Senate. For it is allowed that that legation was denied access to him, lest public opinion should reach him. It is for the credit of former times, that you should not hesitate to abolish that which is proved not to have been the doing of the prince.
Reply of St. Ambrose to the Memorial of Symmachus, in which after complimenting Valentinian he deals with three points of the Memorial. He replies to his opponent’s personification of Rome in a singularly telling manner, and proves that the famine spoken of by Symmachus had nothing to do with the cessation of heathen rites.
Ambrose, Bishop, to the most blessed prince and most gracious Emperor Valentianus, the august.
1. Since the illustrious Symmachus, Prefect of the city, has sent petition to your Grace that the altar, which was taken away from the Senate House of the city of Rome, should be restored to its place; and you, O Emperor, although still young in years and experience, yet a veteran in the power of faith, did not approve the prayer of the heathen, I presented a request the moment I heard of it, in which, though I stated such things as it seemed necessary to suggest, I requested that a copy of the Memorial might be given to me.
2. So, then, not being in doubt as to your faith, but anxiously considering the risk, and sure of a kindly consideration, I am replying in this document to the assertions of the Memorial, making this sole request, that you will not expect elegance of language but the force of facts. For, as the divine Scripture teaches, the tongue of wise and studious men is golden, which, gifted with glittering words and shining with the brilliancy of splendid utterance as if of some rich colour, captivates the eyes of the mind with the appearance of beauty and dazzles with the sight. But this gold, if you consider it carefully, is of value outwardly but within is base metal. Ponder well, I pray you, and examine the sect of the heathen, their utterances, sound, weighty, and grand, but defend what is without capacity for truth. They speak of God and worship idols.
3. The illustrious Prefect of the city has in his Memorial set forth three propositions which he considers of force: that Rome, as he says, asks for her rites again, that pay be given to her priests and Vestal Virgins, and that a general famine followed upon the refusal of the priests’ stipends.
4. In his first proposition Rome complains with sad and tearful words, asking, as he says, for the restoration of the rites of her ancient ceremonies. These sacred rites, he says, repulsed Hannibal from the walls, and the Senones from the Capitol. And so at the same time that the power of the sacred rites is proclaimed, their weakness is betrayed. So that Hannibal long insulted the Roman rites, and while the gods were fighting against him, arrived a conqueror at the very walls of the city. Why did they suffer themselves to be besieged, for whom their gods were fighting in arms?
5. And why should I say anything of the Senones, whose entrance into the inmost Capitol the remnant of the Romans could not have prevented, had not a goose by its frightened cackling betrayed them? See what sort of protectors the Roman temples have. Where was Jupiter at that time? Was he speaking in the goose?
6. But why should I deny that their sacred rites fought for the Romans? For Hannibal also worshipped the same gods. Let them choose then which they will. If these sacred rites conquered in the Romans, then they were overcome in the Carthaginians; if they triumphed in the Carthaginians, they certainly did not benefit the Romans.
7. Let, then, that invidious complaint of the
Roman people come to an end. Rome has given no such charge.
She speaks with other words. “Why do you daily stain me
with the useless blood of the harmless herd? Trophies of victory
depend not on the entrails of the flocks, but on the strength of those
who fight. I subdued the world by a different discipline.
Camillus was my soldier, who slew those who had taken the Tarpeian
rock, and brought back the standards taken from the Capitol; valour
laid those low whom religion had not driven off. What shall I say
of Attilius [Regulus], who gave the service of his death?
Africanus found his triumphs not amongst the altars of the Capitol, but
amongst the lines of Hannibal. Why do you bring forward the rites
of our ancestors? I hate the rites of Neros. Why should I
speak of the Em Perhaps by a
rhetorical exaggeration reference is made to Galba, Otho, and
Vitellius, who reigned less than three years between them; or else to
Pertinax and his successor Julian, each of whom was murdered under
three months. These
emperors were Valerian, taken prisoner by Sapor and treated with great
indignity by the Persians, a.d. 260; and his
son Gallienus, under whom a number of generals, nicknamed the
“Thirty Tyrants,” claimed and exercised independent
authority. “Gallienus made but feeble and desultory
attempts to put any of them down, turning into wretched jests each new
humiliation, and taking refuge in sensuality from the hopeless task of
state reorganization.”—Dict. Chr. Biog. s.
voc.
8. By one road, says he, one cannot attain to so great a secret. What you know not, that we know by the voice of God. And what you seek by fancies, we have found out from the very Wisdom and Truth of God. Your ways, therefore, do not agree with ours. You implore peace for your gods from the Emperors, we ask for peace for the Emperors themselves from Christ. You worship the works of your own hands, we think it an offence that anything which can be made should be esteemed God. God wills not that He should be worshipped in stones. And, in fine, your philosophers themselves have ridiculed these things.
9. But if you deny Christ to be God, because you believe not that He died (for you are ignorant that death was of the body not of the Godhead, which has brought it to pass that now no one of those who believe dies), what is more thoughtless than you who honour with insult, and disparage with honour, for you consider a piece of wood to be your god. O worship full of insult! You believe not that Christ could die, O perversity founded on respect!
10. But, says he, let the altars be restored
to the images, and their ornaments to the shrines. Let this
demand be made of one who shares in their superstitions; a Christian
Emperor has learnt to honour the altar of Christ alone. Why do
they exact of pious hands and faithful lips the ministry to their
sacrilege? Let the voice of our Emperor utter the Name of Christ
alone, and speak of Him only, Whom he is conscious of, for, “the
King’s heart is in the hand of the Lord.”
11a. We began long since, and now they follow those whom they excluded. We glory in yielding our blood, an expense moves them. We consider these things in the place of victories, they think them loss. Never did they confer on us a greater benefit than when they ordered Christians to be beaten and proscribed and slain. Religion made a reward of that which unbelief thought to be a punishment. See their greatness of soul! We have increased through loss, through want, through punishment; they do not believe that their rites can continue without contributions.
11. Let the Vestal Virgins, he says, retain their privileges. Let those speak thus, who are unable to believe that virginity can exist without reward, let those who do not trust virtue, encourage by gain. But how many virgins have the promised rewards gained for them? Hardly are seven Vestal Virgins received. See the whole number whom the fillets and chaplets for the head, the dye of the purple robes, the pomp of the litter surrounded by a company of attendants, the greatest privileges, immense profits, and a prescribed time of virginity have gathered together.
12. Let them lift up the eyes of soul and body,
let them look upon a people of modesty, a people of purity, an assembly
of virginity. Not fillets are the ornament
13. They complain, also, that public support
is not considered due to their priests and ministers. What a
storm of words has resounded on this point! But on the other hand
even the inheritance of private property is denied us by recent
laws, The law of
Valentinian, de Episcopis, of which St. Jerome says [Ep. LII.
ad Nepotianum, vol. 6, p. 92, of this series]: “I do
not complain of the law, but I grieve that we have deserved a statute
so harsh”…“yet even so,” he adds,
“rapacity goes on unchecked.” With the conversion of
Constantine the world entered into the Church, and bishops becoming
great personages, ambition and worldly passions gained a hold on many,
and the scandals and evil of succeeding centuries seem likely to last,
till the world once more turns against the Church of God. (Comp.
Fr. Puller, Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, chap.
iv.) Exemption had been
granted to the clergy from municipal offices by Constantine, but in
consequence of abuse the privilege had been restrained. (See note
on Ep. XL. § 29.)
14. Compare the cases. You wish to excuse a decurio, when it is not allowed the Church to excuse a priest. Wills are written on behalf of ministers of the temples, no profane person is excepted, no one of the lowest condition, no one shamelessly immodest, the clergy alone are excluded from the common right, by whom alone common prayer is offered for all, and common service rendered, no legacies even of grave widows, no gifts are permitted. And where no fault can be found in the character, a penalty is notwithstanding imposed on the office. That which a Christian widow has bequeathed to the priests of a temple is valid, her legacy to the ministers of God is invalid. And I have related this not in order to complain, but that they may know what I do not complain of; for I prefer that we should be poorer in money than in grace.
15. But they say that what has been given or
left to the Church has not been touched. Let them also state who
has taken away gifts from the temples, which has been done to
Christians. See
Sozomen, Eccl. Hist. V. 5; Theodoret, Eccl. Hist. III.
8.
16. No one, however, has denied gifts to the
shrines, and legacies to the soothsayers, their land alone has been
taken away, because they did not use religiously that which they
claimed in right of religion. Why did they not practise what we
did if they allege our example? The Church has no possessions of
her own except the Faith. Hence are her returns, her
increase. The possessions of the Church are the maintenance of
the poor. Cf. de
Off. Min. II. 78, 137, 138.
18. And from what did the Greeks derive the oracles of their oaks except from their thinking that the support of their sylvan food was the gift of heavenly religion? For such do they believe to be the gifts of their gods. Who but heathen people worshipped the trees of Dodona, when they gave honour to the sorry food of the woodland? It is not likely that their gods in anger inflicted on them as a punishment that which they used when appeased to confer as a gift. And what justice would there be if, being grieved that support was refused to a few priests, they denied it to all, since the vengeance would be more unbearable than the fault? The cause, then, is not adequate to bring such suffering on a failing world, as that the full-grown hope of the year should perish suddenly while the crops were green.
19. And, certainly, many years ago the lights of the temples were taken away throughout the world; has it only now at length come into the mind of the gods of the heathen to avenge the injury? And did the Nile fail to overflow in its accustomed course, in order to avenge the losses of the priests of the city, whilst it did not avenge its own?
20. But let it be that they suppose that the injuries done to their gods were avenged in the past year. Why have they been unnoticed in the present year? For now neither do the country people feed upon torn up roots, nor seek refreshment from the berries of the wood, nor pluck its food from thorns, but joyful in their prosperous labours, while wondering at their harvest, made up for their fasting by the full accomplishment of their wishes; for the earth rendered her produce with interest.
21. Who, then, is so unused to human matters as to be astonished at the differences of years? And yet even last year we know that many provinces abounded with produce. What shall I say of the Gauls which were more productive than usual? The Pannonias sold corn which they had not sown, and Phætia Secunda experienced harm of her own fertility, for she who was wont to be safe in her scarcity, stirred up an enemy against herself by her fertility. The fruits of the autumn fed Liguria and the Venetias. So, then, the former year did not wither because of sacrilege, and the latter flourished with the fruits of faith. Let them too deny if they can that the vineyards abounded with an immense produce. And so we have both received a harvest with interest and possess the benefit of a more abundant vintage.
22. The last and most important point remains, whether, O Emperors, you ought to restore those helps which have profited you; for he says: ‘Let them defend you, and be worshipped by us.’ This it is, most faithful princes, which we cannot endure, that they should taunt us that they supplicate their gods in your names, and without your commands, commit an immense sacrilege, interpreting your shutting your eyes as consent. Let them have their guardians to themselves, let these, if they can, protect their worshippers. For, if they are not able to help those by whom they are worshipped, how can they protect you by whom they are not worshipped?
23. But, he says, the rites of our ancestors ought to be retained. But what, seeing that all things have made progress towards what is better? The world itself, which at first was compacted of the germs of the elements throughout the void, in a yielding sphere, or was dark with the shapeless confusion of the work as yet without order, did it not afterwards receive (the distinction between sky, sea, and earth being established), the forms of things whereby it appears beautiful? The lands freed from the misty darkness wondered at the new sun. The day does not shine in the beginning, but as time proceeds, it is bright with increase of light, and grows warm with increase of heat.
24. The moon herself, by which in the prophetic
oracles the Church is represented, when first rising again, she waxes
to her monthly age, is hidden from us in darkness, and filling up her
horns little by little, so
25. The earth in former times was without experience of being worked for fruits; afterwards when the careful husbandman began to lord it over the fields, and to clothe the shapeless soil with vines, it put off its wild disposition, being softened by domestic cultivation.
26. The first age of the year itself, which has tinged us with a likeness to itself as things begin to grow, as it goes on becomes springlike with flowers soon about to fall, and grows up to full age in fruits at the end.
27. We too, inexperienced in age, have an infancy of our senses, but changing as years go on, lay aside the rudiments of our faculties.
28. Let them say, then, that all things ought to have remained in their first beginnings, that the world covered with darkness is now displeasing, because it has brightened with the shining of the sun. And how much more pleasant is it to have dispelled the darkness of the mind than that of the body, and that the ray of faith should have shone than that of the sun. So, then, the primeval state of the world as of all things has passed away, that the venerable old age of hoary faith might follow. Let those whom this touches find fault with the harvest, because its abundance comes late; let them find fault with the vintage, because it is at the close of the year; let them find fault with the olive, because it is the latest of fruits.
29. So, then, our harvest is the faith of souls; the grace of the Church is the vintage of merits, which from the beginning of the world flourished in the Saints, but in the last age has spread itself over the people, that all might notice that the faith of Christ has entered minds which were not rude (for there is no crown of victory without an adversary), but the opinion being exploded which before prevailed, that which was true is rightly preferred.
30. If the old rites pleased, why did Rome also take up foreign ones? I pass over the ground hidden by costly building, and shepherds’ cottages glittering with degenerate gold. Why, that I may reply to the very matter which they complain of, have they eagerly received the images of captured cities, and conquered gods, and the foreign rites of alien superstition? Whence is the pattern for Cybele washing her chariots in a stream counterfeiting the Almo? Whence were the Phrygian bards, and the deities of unjust Carthage always hateful to the Romans? And her whom the Africans worship as Celestis, the Persians as Nitra, and the greater number as Venus, according to a difference of name, not a variety of deities. So they believed that Victory was a goddess, which is certainly a gift, not a power; is granted and does not rule, results from the aid of legions not the power of religions. Is that goddess then great whom the number of soldiers claims, or the event of battle gives?
31. They ask to have her altar erected in the Senate House of the city of Rome, that is where the majority who meet together are Christians! There are altars in all the temples, and an altar also in the temple of Victories. Since they take pleasure in numbers they celebrate their sacrifices everywhere. To claim a sacrifice on this one altar, what is it but to insult the Faith? Is it to be borne that a heathen should sacrifice and a Christian be present? Let them imbibe, he says, let them imbibe, even against their will, the smoke with their eyes, the music with their ears, the ashes with their throats, the incense with their nostrils, and let the dust stirred up from our hearths cover their faces though they detest it. Are not the baths, the colonnades, the streets filled with images sufficient for them? Shall there not be a common lot in that common assembly? The faithful portion of the senate will be bound by the voices of those that call upon the gods, by the oaths of those that swear by them. If they oppose they will seem to exhibit their falsehood, if they acquiesce, to acknowledge what is sacrilege.
32. Where, says he, shall we swear obedience to your Grace’s laws and decrees? Does then your mind, which is contained in the laws, gain assent and bind to faithfulness by heathen ceremonies? The faith is attacked, not only of those who are present but also of those who are absent, and what is more, O Emperors, your faith, too, is attacked, for you compel if you command. Constantius of august memory, though not yet initiated in the sacred Mysteries, thought that he would be polluted if he saw that altar. He commanded it to be removed, he did not command it to be replaced. The removal has the authority of an act, the restoration has not that of a command.
33. Let no one flatter himself because he is
absent. He who joins himself to others in mind is more present
than he whose assent is given by bodily presence. For it is more
to be united in mind than to be joined in body. The Senate has
you as the presidents who convene the assembly, it
34. But perhaps it may move some that if
this be so, a most faithful Emperor Gratian,
murdered a.d. 383. St. Ambrose on
35. Whom have the Roman temples sent out more prosperous than Cneius Pompeius? Yet, when he had encompassed the earth with three triumphs, defeated in battle, a fugitive from war, and an exile beyond the bounds of his own empire, he fell by the hand of an eunuch of Canopus.
36. Whom has the whole land of the East
given to the world more noble than Cyrus, king of the Persians?
He too, after conquering the most powerful princes who opposed him, and
retaining them, when conquered, as prisoners, perished, overthrown by
the arms of a woman. Tomyris, queen
of the Massagetæ.—Herodot. I. 214.
37. And whom do we find more devoted to
sacrificing than Hamilcar, leader of the Carthaginians? Herod. VII.
167.
38. What, then, shall I say of Julian?
Who, having credulously trusted the answers of the soothsayers,
destroyed his own means of retreat. Sozomen,
H.E. VI. 1. Cf. St. Aug. de Civ. Dei, IV. 29; V.
21.
39. I have answered those who provoked me as though I had not been provoked, for my object was to refute the Memorial, not to expose superstition. But let their very memorial make you, O Emperor, more careful. For after narrating of former princes, that the earlier of them practised the ceremonies of their fathers, and the later did not abolish them; and saying in addition that, if the religious practice of the older did not make a precedent, the connivance of the later ones did; it plainly showed what you owe, both to your faith, viz., that you should not follow the example of heathen rites, and to your affection, that you should not abolish the decrees of your brother. For if for their own side alone they have praised the connivance of those princes, who, though Christians, yet in no way abolished the heathen decrees, how much more ought you to defer to brotherly love, so that you, who ought to overlook some things even if you did not approve them in order not to detract from your brother’s statutes, should now maintain what you judge to be in agreement both with your own faith, and the bond of brotherhood.
St. Ambrose relates to his sister the events at Milan connected with the demand of the Arians for a basilica, and how the people rose up in opposition. Then that on the second day the basilica had been occupied by soldiers, who however fraternized with the Catholics. He gives a sketch of his address, comparing their trials to those of Job, more particularly those caused by his wife, and other cases owing to women. Though the basilica was surrendered, he himself had been threatened by a notary, but this did not trouble him. He adapts the story of Jonah to the present circumstances, relates the joy of the people at recovering their church, Valentinian’s words to his courtiers, and the behaviour of Calligonus to himself. The date of the letter is Easter, a.d. 385.
1. Since in almost all your letters you enquire anxiously about the Church, you shall hear what is taking place. The day after I received your letter, in which you said you were troubled by dreams, the pressure of heavy troubles began to be felt. And this time it was not the Portian basilica, that is the one outside the walls, which was demanded, but the new basilica, that is the one within the walls, which is larger.
2. First of all some great men, counsellors of state, begged of me to give up the basilica, and to manage that the people should make no disturbance. I replied, of course, that the temple of God could not be surrendered by a Bishop.
3. On the following day this answer was approved
by the people in the Church; and
The
Prætorian Prefect, one of the four great officers of the Empire,
their power extending over all departments of state, except the
army. See Dict. Gr. and Rom. Ant.
4. The day after, which was Sunday, after
the lessons and the sermon, when the Catechumens were dismissed, I was
teaching the creed to certain candidates The
Competentes, those of the Catechumens who having requested to be
baptized were admitted to be instructed in the Creed and the
Lord’s Prayer in preparation. This was usually done in
Lent. Officials
probably of the same kind as lictors. The officials
were fixing outside the basilica certain vela or hangings, the
effect of which was to mark the building as Imperial
property. Missam
facere. This is the earliest extant instance of the use of
this subsequently almost universal name for the Holy Eucharist, the
meaning of which is uncertain.
5. Whilst offering the oblation, I heard that a certain Castulus, who, the Arians said, was a priest, had been seized by the people. Passers-by had come upon him in the streets. I began to weep bitterly, and to implore God in the oblation that He would come to our aid, and that no one’s blood be shed in the Church’s cause, or at least that it might be my blood shed for the benefit not of my people only, but also for the unbelievers themselves. Not to say more, I sent priests and deacons and rescued the man from violence.
6. Thereupon the heaviest sentences were decreed, first upon the whole body of merchants. And so during the holy days of the last week of Lent, when usually the bonds of debtors are loosed, chains were heard grating, were being placed on the necks of innocent persons, and two hundred pounds’ weight of gold was required within three days’ time. They replied that they would give as much or twice as much, if demanded, so that only they might preserve their faith. The prisons were full of trades-people.
7. All the officials of the palace, that is the recorders, the commissioners, the apparitors of the different magistrates, were commanded to keep away from what was going on, on the pretence that they were forbidden to take part in any sedition; many very heavy penalties were threatened against men of position, if they did not surrender the basilica. Persecution was raging, and had they but opened the floodgates, they seemed likely to break out into every kind of violence.
8. The Counts and Tribunes came and urged me to cause the basilica to be quickly surrendered, saying that the Emperor was exercising his rights since everything was under his power. I answered that if he asked of me what was mine, that is, my land, my money, or whatever of this kind was my own, I would not refuse it, although all that I have belonged to the poor, but that those things which are God’s are not subject to the imperial power. “If my patrimony is required, enter upon it, if my body, I will go at once. Do you wish to cast me into chains, or to give me to death? it will be a pleasure to me. I will not defend myself with throngs of people, nor will I cling to the altars and entreat for my life, but will more gladly be slain myself for the altars.”
9. I was indeed struck with horror when I learnt that armed men had been sent to take possession of the basilica, lest while the people were defending the basilica, there might be some slaughter which would tend to the injury of the whole city. I prayed that I might not survive the destruction of so great a city, or it might be of the whole of Italy. I feared the odium of shedding blood, I offered my own neck. Some Gothic tribunes were present, whom I accosted, and said, “Have you received the gift of Roman rights in order to make yourselves disturbers of the public peace? Whither will you go, if things here are destroyed?”
10. Then I was desired to restrain the people; I answered that it was in my power not to excite them; but in God’s hands to quiet them. And that if they thought that I was urging them on, they ought at once to punish me, or that I ought to be sent to any desert part of the earth they chose. After I had said this, they departed, and I spent the whole day in the old basilica, and thence went home to sleep, that if any one wanted to carry me off he might find me ready.
11. Before day when I left the house the basilica was surrounded by soldiers. It is said that the soldiers had intimated to the Emperor that if he wished to go forth he could do so; that they would be in attendance, if they saw him go to join the Catholics; if not that they would go to the assembly which Ambrose had convened.
12. None of the Arians dared to go forth, for
there was not one among the citizens, only a few of the royal family,
and some of the Goths. And they as of old they made
13. I heard that the Basilica was surrounded by the groaning of the people, but whilst the lessons were being read, I was informed that the new Basilica also was full of people, that the crowd seemed greater than when they were all free, and that a Reader was being called for. In short, the soldiers themselves who seemed to have occupied the Basilica, when they knew that I had ordered that the people should abstain from communion with them, began to come to our assembly. When they saw this, the minds of the women were troubled, and one rushed forth. But the soldiers themselves said that they had come for prayer not for fighting. The people uttered some cries. With great moderation, with great instancy, with great faithfulness they begged that we would go to that Basilica. It was said, too, that the people in that Basilica were demanding my presence.
14. I then commenced the following
address. You have heard, my children, the reading of the book of
Job, which, according to the appointed order and season, The Book of Job
is still read in the evenings of Holy Week in the Eastern Church.
15. But let us come to the lessons before us. You see that permission is given to the devil, that the good may be tested. The evil one envies all progress in good, he tempts us in divers way. He tried holy Job in his possessions, in his children, in pain of body. The stronger is tried in his own person, the weaker in that of another. And he was desirous of carrying off my riches which I possess in you, and wished to dissipate this patrimony of your tranquillity. And he strove to deprive me of yourselves also, my good children, for whom I daily renew the Sacrifice, you he endeavoured to involve in the ruin as it were of a public disturbance. I have then already been assailed by two kinds of temptation. And perhaps because the Lord our God knows me to be too weak, He has not yet given him power over my body. Though myself may desire it, though I offer myself, He deems me yet it may be unequal to this conflict, and exercises me with divers labours. And Job did not begin with that conflict but finished with it.
16. But Job was tried by accumulated tidings
of evils, he was also tried by his wife, who said, “Speak a word
against God and die.”
17. So, then, we are prepared by the
imperial commands, but are strengthened by the words of Scripture,
which replies: “Thou hast spoken as one of the
foolish.” That temptation then is no light one, for, we
know that those temptations are more severe which arise through
women. For even Adam
18. Why should I relate that
Jezebel, S.
19. At last the command was given:
Surrender the Basilica. My reply was, it is not lawful for me to
surrender it, nor advantageous for you, O Emperor, to receive it.
By no right can you violate the house of a private person, and do you
think that the House of God may be taken away? It is asserted
that everything is lawful for the Emperor, that all things are
his. My answer is: Do not, O Emperor, lay on yourself the
burden of such a thought as that you have any imperial power over those
things which belong to God. St. Ambrose is
here repeating in plain words what he has also said before, that the
secular power has no authority over the Church, and what belongs to
God. S.
20. Whilst I was treating on this matter,
tidings were brought me that the royal hangings were taken down, and
the Basilica filled with people, who were calling for my presence, so I
at once turned my discourse to this, and said: How high and how
deep are the oracles of the Holy Spirit! We said at Matins, as
you, brethren, remember, and made the response with the greatest grief
of mind: “O God, the heathen are come into Thine
inheritance.” The Goths were
mostly Arians, and so worse than heathen.
21. The heathen are come, and in very truth
are come into Thine inheritance, for they who came as heathen have
become Christians. Those who came to invade Thine inheritance,
have been made coheirs with God. I have those as protectors whom
I considered to be adversaries. That is fulfilled which the
Prophet sang of the Lord Jesus that “His dwelling is in
peace,” and “There brake He the horns of the bows, the
shield, the sword and the battle.”
22. I said these things, wondering that the
Emperor’s mind could be softened by the zeal of the soldiers, the
entreaties of the Counts, and the supplication of the people.
Meanwhile I was told that a notary had been sent to me, to bring me
orders. I retired a little, and he intimated the order to
me. What were you thinking of, he said, in acting against the
Emperor’s decree? I replied: I do not know what has
been decreed, and I have not been informed of what has been unadvisedly
done. He asked: Why did you send priests to the
Basilica? If you are a tyrant I wish to know it, that I may know
how to prepare against you. I replied by saying that I had done
nothing hastily regarding the Church. That at the time when I
heard that the Basilica was occupied by soldiers,
23. If these acts looked like tyranny, that
I had arms, but only in the Name of Christ, that I had the power of
offering my own body. Why, I said, did he delay to strike, if he
thought me a tyrant? That by ancient right imperial power had
been given by bishops, never assumed, and it was commonly said that
emperors had desired the priesthood, rather than priests the imperial
power. That Christ withdrew lest He should be made a king.
That we had our own power; for the power of a bishop was his
weakness. “When I am weak,” says the Apostle,
“then I become strong.” The first
legation, a.d. 383 or 384.
24. We passed that whole day in sadness, but the imperial hangings were cut by boys in derision. I could not return home, because the soldiers who were guarding the basilica were all around. We repeated Psalms with the brethren in the smaller basilica of the Church.
25. On the following day the Book of
Jonah Read now in the
West on Holy Saturday.
26. And without further delay, tidings are brought that the Emperor had commanded the soldiers to retire from the basilica, and that the sums which had been exacted of the merchants should be restored. How great then was the joy of the whole people! how just their applause! and how abundant their thanks! And it was the day on which the Lord was delivered up for us, on which penance is relaxed in the Church. The soldiers vied with each other in bringing in these tidings, rushing to the altars, giving kisses, the mark of peace. Then I recognized that God had smitten the early worm that the whole city might be preserved.
27. These things were done, and would that all was at an end! but the Emperor’s words full of excitement foreshadow future and worse troubles. I am called a tyrant, and even more than a tyrant. For when the Counts were entreating the Emperor to go to the Church, and said that they were doing this at the request of the soldiers, he answered: If Ambrose bade you, you would deliver me up to him in chains. You can think what may be coming after these words. All shuddered when they heard them, but he has some by whom he is exasperated.
28. Lastly, too, Calligonus, the chief chamberlain, ventured to address me in peculiar language. Do you, said he, whilst I am alive treat Valentinian with contempt? I will take your head from you. My reply was, God grant you to fulfil your threat; for then I shall suffer as bishops do, you will act as do eunuchs. Would that God might turn them away from the Church, let them direct all their weapons against me, let them satisfy their thirst with my blood.
St. Ambrose excuses himself for not having gone to the consistory when summoned, on the ground that in matters of faith no one but bishops could rightly judge, and that he was not contumacious because he would not suffer wrong to be done to his own order. And he adds that Auxentius would perhaps choose as judges either Jews or unbelievers, that is, persons hostile to Christ. He says further that he is willing to discuss the matters in dispute at a synod, and that he would have told the Emperor by word of mouth what he is now writing, but that his fellow bishops and the people would not suffer him to do so.
Ambrose, Bishop, to the most gracious Emperor and blessed Augustus, Valentinian.
1. Dalmatius, the tribune and notary, summoned me by the orders of your Clemency, as he asserted, demanding that I should also choose judges, as Auxentius had done. He did not mention the names of those who had been asked for, but he added that there was to be a discussion in the consistory, and that the judgment of your piety would give the decision.
2. To this I make, as I think, a suitable
answer. No one ought to consider me contumacious when I affirm
what your father of august memory not only replied by word of
mouth, “When
Valentinian was journeying from Constantinople to Rome…some
bishops despatched Hypatian…to request permission to assemble
themselves together for deliberation on questions of
doctrine.…Valentinian made the following reply: ‘I am
but one of the laity, and have therefore no right to interfere in these
transactions; let the priests, to whom such matters appertain, assemble
where they please.’” Sozomen, Eccl. Hist. VI.
7 [Vol. II. of this series]. The law referred to is not
extant.
3. Who, then, has answered your Clemency
contumaciously? He who desires that you should be like your
father, or he that wishes you to be unlike him? Unless, perhaps,
the judgment of so great an Emperor seems to any persons of small
account, whose faith has been proved by the constancy of his
profession, Allusion is
here made to a celebrated act of Valentinian, when attending on the
Emperor Julian at the temple of Fortune. One of the attendants
sprinkled him with lustral water, and Valentinian struck him with his
fist, saying that this water defiled rather than purified those whom it
touched. Comp. Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. VI. 6.
4. When have you heard, most gracious Emperor, that laymen gave judgment concerning a bishop in a matter of faith? Are we so prostrate through the flattery of some as to be unmindful of the rights of the priesthood, and do I think that I can entrust to others what God has given me? If a bishop is to be taught by a layman, what will follow? Let the layman argue, and the bishop listen, let the bishop learn of the layman. But undoubtedly, whether we go through the series of the holy Scriptures, or the times of old, who is there who can deny that, in a matter of faith,—in a matter I say of faith,—bishops are wont to judge of Christian emperors, not emperors of bishops.
5. You will, by the favour of God, attain to a riper age, and then you will judge what kind of bishop he is who subjects the rights of the priesthood to laymen. Your father, by the favour of God a man of riper age, used to say: It is not my business to judge between bishops. Your Clemency now says: I ought to judge. And he, though baptized in Christ, thought himself unequal to the burden of such a judgment, does your Clemency, who have yet to earn for yourself the sacrament of baptism, arrogate to yourself a judgment concerning the faith, though ignorant of the sacrament of that faith?
6. I can leave it to be imagined what sort of judges he will have chosen, since he is afraid to publish their names. Let them simply come to the Church, if there are any to come; let them listen with the people, not for every one to sit as judge, but that each may examine his own disposition, and choose whom to follow. The matter is concerning the bishop of that Church: if the people hear him and think that he has the best of the argument, let them follow him, I shall not be jealous.
7. I omit to mention that the people have
themselves already given their judgment. I am silent as to the
fact that they demanded of your father him whom they now have. St. Ambrose is
alluding to the circumstances of his own election.
8. But if he boasts himself of the approval of some foreigners, let him be bishop there from whence they are who think that he ought to receive the name of bishop. For I neither recognize him as a bishop, nor know I whence he comes.
A law in
favour of the Arians, allowing them to meet together freely, passed
through the influence of Justina. See Sozomen, Hist. Eccl.
VII. 13.
10. But this would be the act of one contumacious, not of one who knew his position. See, O Emperor, you are already yourself partially rescinding your law, would that it were not partially but altogether! for I would not that your law should be set above the law of God. The law of God has taught us what to follow; human laws cannot teach us this. They usually extort a change from the fearful, but they cannot inspire faith.
11. Who, then, will there be, who when he reads that at one instant through so many provinces the order was given, that whoever acts against the Emperor shall be beheaded, that whoever does not give up the temple of God shall at once be put to death; who, say, is there who will be able either alone or with a few others to say to the Emperor: I do not approve of your law? Priests are not allowed to say this, are then laymen allowed? And shall he judge concerning the faith who either hopes for favour or is afraid of giving offence?
12. Lastly, shall I myself choose laymen for judges, who, if they upheld the truth of their faith, would be either proscribed or put to death, as that law passed concerning the faith decrees? Shall I then expose these men either to denial of the truth or to punishment?
13. Ambrose is not of sufficient importance to degrade the priesthood on his own account. The life of one is not of so much value as the dignity of all priests, by whose advice I gave those directions, when they intimated that there might perchance be some heathen or Jew chosen by Auxentius, to whom I should give a triumph over Christ, if I entrusted to him a judgment concerning Christ. What else pleases them but to hear of some insult to Christ? What else can please them unless (which God forbid) the Godhead of Christ should be denied? Plainly they agree well with the Arian who says that Christ is a creature, which also heathen and Jews most readily acknowledge.
14. This was decreed at the Synod of Ariminum, and rightly do I detest that council, following the rule of the Nicene Council, from which neither death nor the sword can detach me, which faith the father of your Clemency also, Theodosius, the most blessed Emperor, both approved and follows. The Gauls hold this faith, and Spain, and keep it with the pious confession of the Divine Spirit.
15. If anything has to be discussed I have learnt to discuss it in church as those before me did. If a conference is to be held concerning the faith, there ought to be a gathering of Bishops, as was done under Constantine, the Prince of august memory, who did not promulgate any laws beforehand, but left the decision to the Bishops. This was done also under Constantius, Emperor of august memory, the heir of his father’s dignity. But what began well ended otherwise, for the Bishops had at first subscribed an unadulterated confession of faith, but since some were desirous of deciding concerning the faith inside the palace, they managed that those decisions of the Bishops should be altered by fraud. But they immediately recalled this perverted decision, and certainly the larger number at Ariminum approved the faith of the Nicene Council and condemned the Arian propositions.
16. If Auxentius appeals to a synod, in order to discuss points concerning the faith (although it is not necessary that so many Bishops should be troubled for the sake of one man, who, even if he were an angel from heaven, ought not to be preferred to the peace of the Church), when I hear that a synod is gathering, I, too, will not be wanting. Repeal, then, the law if you wish for a disputation.
17. I would have come, O Emperor, to your consistory, and have made these remarks in your presence, if either the Bishops or the people had allowed me, but they said that matters concerning the faith ought to be treated in the church, in presence of the people.
18. And I wish, O Emperor, that you had not given
sentence that I should go into banishment whither I would. I went
out daily. No one guarded me. You ought to have appointed
me a place wherever you would, for I offered myself for anything.
But now the clergy say to me, “There is not much difference
whether you voluntarily
19. And I wish it were clearly certain to me that the Church would by no means be given over to the Arians. I would then willingly offer myself to the will of your piety. But if I only am guilty of disturbance, why is there a command to invade all other churches? I would it were established that no one should trouble the churches, and then I could wish that whatever sentence seems good should be pronounced concerning me.
20. Vouchsafe, then, O Emperor, to accept
the reason for which I could not come to the consistory. I have
never learned to appear in the consistory except on your
behalf, This refers
modestly to the legations undertaken by St. Ambrose on two separate
occasions to Maximus, when the Empress Justina feared for the safety of
herself and Valentinian. In his first mission, a.d. 383, he had at great personal risk induced Maximus
not to invade Italy, but to leave Valentinian in peaceful possession of
a share of the empire. In his second embassy, a.d. 387, he was less successful, as Maximus had
determined on invading Italy; so that Justina and Valentinian escaped
to the East, seeking the protection of Theodosius, who took their part,
and defeated Maximus and put him to death at Aquileia, a.d. 388.
21. I, Ambrose, Bishop, offer this memorial to the most gracious Emperor, and most blessed Augustus Valentinian.
To calm the anxiety of the people over the imperial decree, he lays his answer before them, and adds that he did not go to the consistory, because he was afraid of losing the basilica. Then, first challenging his opponents to a discussion in the church, he says that he is not terrified at their weapons; and also, after recalling his answer on the subject of the sacred vessels, declares that he is ready for the contest. The will of God, he maintains, cannot be frustrated, nor can His protection be overcome, yet He is ready too to suffer in His servants. Since he has not already been taken before this, it is plain that the heretics are causing this disturbance for no reason whatever. Next, after applying Naboth’s history and Christ’s entry into Jerusalem to the present state of affairs, he censures Auxentius’ cruel law, answers the Arians’ objections, and states that he will gladly discuss the matter in the presence of the people. Auxentius, he adds, has been already condemned by the pagans, whom he had chosen to sit as judges, as he had been condemned by Paul and by Christ. The heretic had forgotten the year before, when he had made the same appeal to Cæsar; and the Arians, in stirring up ill-will against the servants of Christ, are much worse than the Jews: for the Church does not belong to Cæsar, but displays the image of Christ. Then adding to these a few more words on his answer and his hymns, he declares that he is not disobedient, that the Emperor is a son of the Church, and that Auxentius is worse than a Jew.
1. I see that you are unusually disturbed, and that you are closely watching me. I wonder what the reason is? Is it that you saw or heard that I had received an imperial order at the hands of the tribunes, to the effect that I was to go hence, whither I would, and that all who wished might follow me? Were you afraid that I should desert the Church and forsake you in fear for my own safety? But you could note the message I sent, that the wish to desert the Church had never entered my mind; for I feared the Lord of the universe more than an earthly emperor; and if force were to drag me from the Church, my body indeed could be driven out, but not my mind. I was ready, if he were to do what royal power is wont to do, to undergo the fate a priest has to bear.
2. Why, then, are you disturbed? I will never willingly desert you, though if force is used, I cannot meet it. I shall be able to grieve, to weep, to groan; against weapons, soldiers, Goths, my tears are my weapons, for these are a priest’s defence. I ought not, I cannot resist in any other way; but to fly and forsake the Church is not my way; lest any one should suppose I did so from fear of some heavier punishment. You yourselves know that I am wont to show respect to our emperors, but not to yield to them, to offer myself freely to punishment, and not to fear what is prepared for me.
3. Would that I were sure the Church would never be given over to heretics. Gladly would I go to the Emperor’s palace, if this but fitted the office of a priest, and so hold our discussion in the palace rather than the church. But in the consistory Christ is not wont to be the accused but the judge. Who will deny that the cause of faith should be pleaded in the church? If any one has confidence let him come hither; let him not seek the judgment of the Emperor, which already shows its bias, which clearly proves by the law that is passed that he is against the faith; neither let him seek the expected goodwill of certain people who want to stand well with both sides. I will not act in such a way as to give any one the chance of making money out of a wrong to Christ.
4. The soldiers around, the clash of the
arms wherewith the church is surrounded, do not alarm my faith, but
they disquiet me from fear that in keeping me here you might meet with
some danger to your lives. For I have learnt by now not to be
afraid, but I do begin to have more fear for you. Allow, I beg
you, your bishop to meet his foes. We have an adversary who
assails us, for our adversary “the devil goeth about, as a
roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour,”
5. When it was suggested that I should give up the vessels of the Church, I gave the following answer: I will willingly give up whatever of my own property is demanded, whether it is estates, or house, or gold, or silver—anything, in fact, which is in my power. But I cannot take aught away from the temple of God; nor can I give up what I have received to guard and not to give up. In doing this I am acting for the Emperor’s good, for it would neither be right for me to give it up, nor for him to receive it. Let him listen to the words of a free-spoken bishop, and if he wishes to do what is best for himself, let him cease to do wrong to Christ.
7. And indeed if the Lord has appointed me for this struggle, in vain have you kept sleepless watch so many nights and days. The will of Christ will be fulfilled. For our Lord Jesus is almighty, this is our faith: and so what He wills to be done will be fulfilled, and it is not for us to thwart the divine purpose.
8. You heard what was read to-day: The
Saviour ordered that the foal of an ass should be brought to Him by the
apostles, and bade them say, if any one withstood them:
“The Lord hath need of him.” S. S. S. S.
9. Wherefore if the Lord wills, surely no one will resist. And if as yet He delay my struggle, what do you fear? It is not bodily guardianship but the Lord’s providence that is wont to fence in the servant of Christ.
10. You are troubled because you have found
the double doors open, which a blind man in seeking his chamber is said
to have unfastened. In this you learn that human watchfulness is
no defence. Behold! one who has lost the gift of sight has broken
through all our defences, and escaped the notice of the guards.
But the Lord has not lost The words
amisit (lost) and custodiam (guard) are repeated by St.
Ambrose from the earlier part of the sentence. Such play upon
words is not uncommon in his writings.
11. And now I will put before you examples
from the Law. Eliseus was sought by the king of Syria; an army
had been sent to capture him; and he was surrounded on all sides.
His servant began to fear, for he was a servant, that is, he had not a
free mind, nor had he free powers of action. The holy prophet
sought to open his eyes, and said: “Look and see how many
more are on our side than there are against us.”
13. And Peter again afterwards, when he had
overcome Simon, in sowing the doctrine of God among the people, and in
teaching chastity, stirred up the minds of the Gentiles. And when
these sought him, the Christians begged that he would withdraw himself
for a little while. And although he was desirous to suffer, yet
was he moved at the sight of the people praying, for they asked him to
save himself for the instruction and strengthening of his people.
Need I say more? At night he begins to leave the town, and seeing
Christ coming to meet him at the gate, and entering the city,
says: Lord, whither goest Thou? Christ answers: I am
coming to be crucified again. Peter understood the divine answer
to refer to his own cross, for Christ could not be crucified a second
time, for He had put off the flesh by the passion of the death which He
had undergone; since: “In that He died, He died unto sin
once, but in that He liveth, He liveth unto God.”
14. You see, then, that Christ wills to
suffer in His servants. And what if He says to this servant,
“I will that he tarry, follow thou Me,” S. S.
S.
15. And did not I myself go forth daily to
pay visits, or go to the tombs of the martyrs? Did I not pass by
the royal palace both in going and returning? Yet no one laid
hands on me, though they had the intention of driving me out, as they
afterwards gave out, saying, Leave the city, and go where you
will. I was, I own, looking for some great thing, either sword or
fire for the Name of Christ, yet they offered me pleasant things
instead of sufferings; but Christ’s athlete needs not pleasant
things but sufferings. Let no one, then, disturb you, because
they have provided a carriage, The story
is related at length by Paulinus in his Life of St. Ambrose, ch.
12. He tells us that whilst many tried to drive the saint into
exile, one named Euterymius went the greatest lengths to accomplish
this purpose. He hired a house near the church and kept a
carriage there, so as to be able the more readily to carry off St.
Ambrose into exile, if he could once but seize him. But that very
day year he was himself put into the same carriage, and from the same
house was carried into exile. For “his wickedness fell on
his own pate.” (
16. Many stated that assassins had been
despatched, that the penalty of death had been decreed against
me. I do not fear all that, nor am I going to desert my position
here. Whither shall I go, when there is no spirit that is not
filled with groans and tears; when throughout the Churches Catholic
bishops are being expelled, or if they resist, are put to the sword,
and every senator who does not obey the decree is proscribed. And
these things were written by the hand and spoken by the mouth of a
bishop who, that he might show himself to be most learned, omitted not
an ancient warning. For we read in the prophet that he saw a
flying sickle.
17. Thou, Lord Jesus, hast redeemed the
world in one moment of time: shall Auxentius in one moment slay,
as far as he can, so many peoples, some by the sword, others by
sacrilege? He seeks my basilica with bloody lips and gory
hands. Him to-day’s chapter answers well: “But
unto the wicked said God: Wherefore dost thou declare My
righteousness?”
18. Was the answer that I gave then contumacious? For when summoned I said: God forbid that I should give up the inheritance of Christ. If Naboth gave not up the inheritance of his fathers, shall I give up the inheritance of Christ? And I added further: God forbid that I shall give up the inheritance of my fathers, that is, the inheritance of Dionysius, who died in exile in the cause of the faith; the inheritance of the Confessor Eustorgius, the inheritance of Mysocles and of all the faithful bishops of bygone days. I answered as a bishop ought to answer: Let the Emperor act as an emperor ought to. He must take away my life rather than my faith.
19. But to whom shall I give it up?
Today’s lesson from the Gospel ought to teach us what is asked
for and by whom it is asked. You have heard read that when
Christ S. S.
20. The Gerasenes could not bear the
presence of Christ; S.
S.
21. Invited, then, by these praises, Christ
enters His temple, S.
22. Therefore, Auxentius is cast out. Mercurius is shut out. The portent is one, the names are two! That no one might know who he was, he changed his name so as to call himself Auxentius, because there had been here an Arian bishop, named Auxentius. He did this to deceive the people over whom the other had had power. He changed his name, but he did not change his falseness. He puts off the wolf, yet puts on the wolf again. It is no help to him that he has changed his name; whatever happens he is known. He is called by one name in the parts of Scythia, he is called by another here. He has a name for each country he lives in. He has two names already, and if he were to go elsewhere from here, he will have yet a third. For how will he endure to keep a name as a proof of such wickedness? He did less in Scythia, and was so ashamed that he changed his name. Here he has dared to do worse things, and will he be ready to be betrayed by his name wherever he goes? Shall he write the death warrant of so many people with his own hand, and yet be able to be unshaken in mind?
23. The Lord Jesus shut a few out of His temple,
but Auxentius left none. Jesus with a scourge drove them out of
His temple,
24. Does he, a man full of blood and full of
murder, dare to make mention to me of a discussion? He who thinks
that they whom he could not mislead by his words are to be slain with
the sword, giving bloody laws with his mouth, writing them with his
hand, and thinking that the law can order a faith for man to
hold. He has not heard what was read to-day: “That a
man is not justified by the works of the law,”
25. Shall any one, then, follow this law,
whereby the Council of Ariminum is confirmed, wherein Christ was said
to be a creature. But say they: “God sent forth His
Son, made of a woman, made under the law.”
26. These matters, my brethren, I would discuss more fully with him in your presence; but knowing that you are not ignorant of the faith, he has avoided a trial before yon, and has chosen some four or five heathen to represent him, if that is he has chosen any, whom I should like to be present in our company, not to judge concerning Christ, but to hear the majesty of Christ. They, however, have already given their decision concerning Auxentius, to whom they gave no credence as he pleaded before them day by day. What can be more of a condemnation of him than the fact, that without an adversary he was defeated before his own judges? So now we also have their opinion against Auxentius.
27. And that he has chosen heathen is
rightly to be condemned; for he has disregarded the Apostle’s
command, where he says: “Dare any of you, having a matter
against another, go to law before the unjust and not before the
saints? Do ye not know the saints shall judge the
world?”
28. But why speak of the Apostle, when the
Lord Himself cries through the prophet: “Hearken unto Me,
My people, ye who know judgment, in whose heart is My
law.”
29. Hemmed in on all sides, he betakes himself to the wiles of his fathers. He wants to stir up ill-will on the Emperor’s side, saying that a youth, a catechumen ignorant of the sacred writings, ought to judge, and to judge in the consistory. As though last year when I was sent for to go to the palace, when in the presence of the chief men the matter was discussed before the consistory, when the Emperor wished to seize the basilica, I was cowed then at the sight of the royal court, and did not show the firmness a bishop should, or departed with diminished claims. Do they not remember that the people, when they knew I had gone to the palace, made such a rush that they could not resist its force; and all offered themselves to death for the faith of Christ as a military officer came out with some light troops to disperse the crowd? Was not I asked to calm the people with a long speech? Did I not pledge my word that no one should invade the basilica of the church? And though my services were asked for to do an act of kindness, yet the fact that the people came to the palace was used to bring ill-will upon me. They wish to bring me to this now again.
30. I recalled the people, and yet I did not
escape their ill-will, which ill-will, however, I think we ought rather
to tempt than fear. For why should we fear for the Name of
Christ? Unless perchance I ought to be troubled because they
say: “Ought not the Emperor to have one basilica, to which
to go, and Ambrose wants to have more power than the Emperor, and so
refuses to the Emperor the opportunity of going forth to
church?” When they say this, they desire to lay hold of my
words, as did the Jews who tried Christ with cunning words,
saying: “Master, is it lawful to give tribute to Cæsar
or not?” S.
31. See how much worse than the Jews the
Arians are. They asked whether He thought that the right of
tribute should be given to Cæsar; these want to give to Cæsar
the right of the Church. But as these faithless ones follow their
author, so also let us answer as our Lord and Author has taught
us. For Jesus seeing the wickedness of the Jews said to
them: Why tempt ye Me? show Me a penny. When they had given
it, He said: “Whose image and superscription hath
it?” S. S.
32. But in the church I only know of one
Image, that is the Image of the unseen God, of Which God has
said: “Let us make man in Our image and Our
likeness;” S. S. S. S.
33. How, then, did we not answer humbly
enough? If he demand tribute, we do not refuse it. The
lands of the Church pay tribute. If the Emperor wants the lands,
he has the power to claim them, none of us will interfere. The
contributions of the people are amply sufficient for the poor. Do
not stir up ill-will in the matter of the lands. Let them take
them if it is the Emperor’s will. I do not give them, but I
do not refuse them. They ask for gold. I can say:
Silver and gold I do not ask for. But they stir up ill-will
because gold is spent. I am not afraid of such ill-will as
this. I have dependents. My dependents are Christ’s
poor. I know how to collect this treasure.
34. They declare also that the people have
been led astray by the strains of my hymns. St. Augustine
speaks of this introduction of hymns into the services of the Church at
Milan (Confess. IX. 7): “Then was it first
instituted that after the manner of the Eastern Churches, hymns and
psalms should be sung, lest the people should wax faint through the
tediousness of sorrow.”—Eng. Trans. Such a hymn as
“The eternal gifts of Christ the king,” etc., written by
St. Ambrose, was perhaps first sung there.
35. What could show greater obedience than
that we should follow Christ’s example, “Who, being found
in fashion as a man, humbled Himself and became obedient even unto
death?”
36. That this is said with respectful
feeling for the Emperor, no one can deny. For what is more full
of respect than that the Emperor should be called the son of the
Church. As it is said, it is said without sin, since it is said
with the divine favour. For the Emperor is within the Church, not
above it. For a good emperor seeks the aid of the Church and does
not refuse it. As I say this with all humility, so also I state
it with firmness. Some threaten us with fire, sword, exile; we
have learnt as servants of Christ not to fear. To those who have
no fear, nothing is ever a serious cause of dread. Thus too is it
written: “Arrows of infants their blows have
become.”
37. A sufficient answer, then, seems to have
been given to their suggestion. Now I ask them, what the Saviour
asked: “The baptism of John, was it from heaven or
men?” S.
St. Ambrose in a letter to his sister gives an account
of the finding of the bodies of SS. Gervasius and Protasius, and of his
addresses to the people on that occasion. Preaching from
To the lady, his sister, dearer to him than his eyes and life, Ambrose Bishop.
1. As I do not wish anything which takes
place here in your absence to escape the knowledge of your holiness,
you must know that we have found some bodies of holy martyrs. For
after I had dedicated the basilica, This was probably
the church now known as Sant Ambrogio, at Milan, where St. Ambrose and
his brother, together with SS. Gervasius and Protasius, now rest.
Of course the church has been rebuilt, though in ancient times.
The church of SS. Nabor and Felix is that now called San Francisco.
2. Why should I use many words? God
favoured us, for even the clergy were afraid who were bidden to clear
away the earth from the spot before the chancel screen of SS. Felix and
Nabor. I found the fitting signs, and on bringing in some on whom
hands were to be laid, This laying
on of hands was not confirmation, but for the exorcising of those
possessed of evil spirits, the energameni. See Dict.
Chr. Ant. s.v. “Exorcism.”
[Urna.] But it would seem, though all ms. authority supports this reading, as though una,
“a woman,” must be the true one. For from the context
it would seem plain that one of those brought in was thrown prostrate,
and there is no connection in which an “urn” could be
brought into the narrative. See Fleury, XVIII. 47. Now SS. Vitalis and
Agricola. This
statement is corroborated by St. Augustine, Conf. IX. 7; De
Civ. Dei. XXII. 8, 2; and Sermo de Diversis, CCLXXVI.
5.
3. When I considered the immense and unprecedented numbers of you who are here gathered together, and the gifts of divine grace which have shone forth in the holy martyrs, I must confess that I felt myself unequal to this task, and that I could not express in words what we can scarcely conceive in our minds or take in with our eyes. But when the course of holy Scripture began to be read, the Holy Spirit Who spake in the prophets granted me to utter something worthy of so great a gathering, of your expectations, and of the merits of the holy martyrs.
4. “The heavens,” it is said,
“declare the glory of God.”
5. Paul was a heaven, when he said:
“Our conversation is in heaven.” S. S. S.
6. “Day,” it is said,
“unto day uttereth speech.”
7. Another Psalm which was read says:
“Who is like unto the Lord our God, Who dwelleth on high, and
regardeth lowly things in heaven and in the earth?”
9. For not without reason do many call this the resurrection of the martyrs. I do not say whether they have risen for themselves, for us certainly the martyrs have risen. You know—nay, you have yourselves seen—that many are cleansed from evil spirits, that very many also, having touched with their hands the robe of the saints, are freed from those ailments which oppressed them; you see that the miracles of old time are renewed, when through the coming of the Lord Jesus grace was more largely shed forth upon the earth, and that many bodies are healed as it were by the shadow of the holy bodies. How many napkins are passed about! how many garments, laid upon the holy relics and endowed with healing power, are claimed! All are glad to touch even the outside thread, and whosoever touches will be made whole.
10. Thanks be to Thee, Lord Jesus, that at
this time Thou hast stirred up for us the spirits of the holy martyrs,
when Thy Church needs greater protection. This would
seem to refer to the persecution stirred up by Justina, in order to
gain one of the churches for Arian use. The following
sentence: “Tales ego ambio defensores,” was
inscribed by St. Charles Borromeo on a banner of SS. Gervasius and
Protasius, which he caused to be made and carried in procession through
Milan at the time of the great plague.
11. The course of divine Scripture relates
that Elisha, when surrounded by the army of the Syrians, told his
servant, who was afraid, not to fear; “for,” said he,
“they that be for us are more than those against
us;”
12. The glorious relics are taken out of an ignoble burying-place, the trophies are displayed under heaven. The tomb is wet with blood. The marks of the bloody triumph are present, the relics are found undisturbed in their order, the head separated from the body. Old men now repeat that they once heard the names of these martyrs and read their titles. The city which had carried off the martyrs of other places had lost her own. Though this be the gift of God, yet I cannot deny the favour which the Lord Jesus has granted to the time of my priesthood, and since I myself am not worthy to be a martyr, I have obtained these martyrs for you.
13. Let these triumphant victims be brought to the place where Christ is the victim. But He upon the altar, Who suffered for all; they beneath the altar, who were redeemed by His Passion. I had destined this place for myself, for it is fitting that the priest should rest there where he has been wont to offer, but I yield the right hand portion to the sacred victims; that place was due to the martyrs. Let us, then, deposit the sacred relics, and lay them up in a worthy resting-place, and let us celebrate the whole day with faithful devotion.
14. The people called out and demanded that the
deposition of the martyrs should be postponed until the Lord’s
day, but at length it was agreed that it should take place the
following day. On the following
15. Yesterday I handled the verse,
“Day unto day uttereth speech,”
16. And they who usually do so have a grudge
against this solemnity of yours; and since because of their envious
disposition they cannot endure this solemnity, they hate the cause of
it, and go so far in their madness as to deny the merits of the
martyrs, whose deeds even the evil spirits confess. But this is
not to be wondered at since such is the faithlessness of unbelievers
that the confession of the devil is often more easy to endure.
For the devil said: “Jesus, Son of the living God, why art
Thou come to torment us before the time?” S.
17. They deny that the blind man received
sight, but he denies not that he is healed. He says: I who
could not see now see. He says: I ceased to be blind, and
proves it by the fact. They deny the benefit, who are unable to
deny the fact. The truth of
this miracle, of which, unless it took place, St. Ambrose could not
have spoken in a public address, is also supported by St. Augustine,
who was at this time in Milan, and if not himself on the spot, as he
may well have been, would at least know whether such an event had taken
place. See St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei. XXII. 8, and
specially, Sermo in natali Martyrum Gervasii et
Protasii.
18. Is not this like that which we read in
the Gospel? For we praise the power of the same Author in each
case, nor does it be a work or a gift, since He confers a gift in His
works, and works in His gift. For that which He gave to others to
be done, this His Name effects in the work of others. So we read
in the Gospel, that the Jews, when they saw the gift of healing in the
blind man, called for the testimony of his parents, and asked:
“How doth your son see?” when he said: “Whereas
I was blind, now I see.” S.
19. But I ask what it is that they do not
believe; is it whether any one can be aided by the martyrs? This
is the same thing as not to believe Christ, for He Himself said:
“Ye shall do greater things than these.” S.
21. We have to-day heard those on whom hands were
laid say, that no one can be
22. I do not accept the devil’s
testimony but his confession. The devil spoke unwillingly, being
compelled and tormented. That which wickedness suppresses,
torture extracts. The devil yields to blows, and the Arians have
not yet learned to yield. How great have been their sufferings,
and yet, like Pharaoh, they are hardened by their calamities! The
devil said, as we find it written: “I know Thee Who Thou
art, Thou art the Son of the living God.” S. S.
23. But I will not make use of the voice of
evil spirits in support of the martyrs. Their holy sufferings are
proved by the benefits they confer. These have persons to judge
of them, namely, those who are cleansed, and witnesses, namely, those
who are set free. That voice is better than that of devils, which
the soundness of those utters who came infirm; better is the voice
which blood sends forth, for blood has a loud voice reaching from earth
to heaven. You have read how God said: “Thy
brother’s blood crieth unto Me.”
St. Ambrose begs Theodosius to listen to him, as he cannot be silent without great risk to both. He points out that Theodosius though God-fearing may be led astray, and points out that his decision respecting the restoration of the Jewish synagogue is full of peril, exposing the bishop to the danger of either acting against the truth or of death. The case of Julian is referred to, and the reasons given for the imperial rescript are met, especially by the plea that the Jews had burnt many churches. St. Ambrose touches on the temple of the Valentinians, whom he declares to be worse than heathen, and points out what a door would be opened to the calumnies of the Jews and a triumph over Christ Himself. The Emperor is lastly warned by the example of Maximus not to take the part of Jews or heretics, and is urged to clemency.
Ambrose, Bishop, to the most clement prince, and blessed Emperor, Theodosius the Augustus.
1. I am continually harassed by almost incessant cares, most blessed Emperor, but I have never been in such anxiety as at present, since I see that I must take heed that there be nothing which may be ascribed to me savouring even of sacrilege. And so I entreat you to listen with patience to what I say. For, if I am unworthy to be heard by you, I am unworthy to offer for you, who have been entrusted by you with your vows and prayers. Will you not yourself hear him whom you wish to be heard for you? Will you not hear him pleading his own cause whom you have heard for others? And do you not fear for your own decision, lest by thinking him unworthy to be heard by you, you make him unworthy to be heard for you?
2. But it is neither the part of an emperor
to refuse liberty of speech, nor of a priest not to say what he
thinks. For there is nothing in you emperors so popular and so
estimable as to appreciate freedom in those even who are in subjection
to you by military obedience. For this is the difference between
good and bad princes, that the good love liberty, the bad
slavery. And there is nothing in a priest so full of peril as
regards God, or so base in the opinion of men, as not freely to declare
what he thinks. For it is written: “I spoke of Thy
testimonies before kings, and was not ashamed;”
3. I had rather then, O Emperor, have fellowship
with you in good than in evil, and therefore the silence of the priest
ought to displease your Clemency, and his freedom to please you.
For you are involved in the risk of my silence, but are aided by the
benefit of my freedom. I am not, then, officiously intruding in
things where I ought not, nor interfering in the affairs of
others. I am obeying the commands of God. And I do this
first of all out of love for you, good-will toward you, and desire of
preserving your well-doing. If I am not believed in this, or am
forbidden to act on this feeling, I speak in very truth for fear of
offending God. For if my peril would set you free, I would
patiently offer myself for you, though not willingly, for I had rather
that without my peril you might be acceptable to God and
glorious. But if the guilt of silence and dissimulation on my
part would both weigh me down and not set you free, I had
4. We, then, also have One Whom it is even
more perilous to displease, especially since even emperors are not
displeased when every one discharges his own office, and you patiently
listen to every one making suggestions in his own sphere, nay, you
rebuke him if he act not according to the order of his service.
Can this, then, seem to you offensive in priests, which you willingly
accept from those who serve you; since we speak not what we wish, but
what we are bidden? For you know the passage: “When
ye shall stand before kings and rulers, take no thought what ye shall
speak, for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak; for
it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father Who speaketh in
you.” S.
5. I know that you are Godfearing, merciful,
gentle, and calm, having the faith and fear of God at heart, but often
some things escape our notice. “Some have a zeal of God,
but not according to knowledge.” S.
6. A report was made by the military Count of the East that a synagogue had been burnt, and that this was done at the instigation of the Bishop. You gave command that the others should be punished, and the synagogue be rebuilt by the Bishop himself. I do not urge that the Bishop’s account ought to have been waited for, for priests are the calmers of disturbances, and anxious for peace, except when even they are moved by some offence against God, or insult to the Church. Let us suppose that that Bishop was too eager in the matter of burning the synagogue, and too timid at the judgment-seat, are not you afraid, O Emperor, lest he comply with your sentence, lest he fail in his faith?
7. Are you not also afraid, lest, which will
happen, he oppose your Count with a refusal? He will then be
obliged to make him either an apostate
Prævaricator, in a civil case, one who acts collusively
with the defendant, and betrays the other side. Hence in
ecclesiastical Latin the word came to mean Apostate.
8. Having, then, thus stated the two sides
of the matter, suppose that the said Bishop says that he himself
kindled the fire, A Canon [60]
of the Council of Elvira, a.d. 305 or 6, lays
down that if any one is killed for breaking idols, he is not to be
reckoned as a martyr, but perhaps St. Ambrose here considers the
burning of the synagogue as a retaliation for the destruction of
churches.
9. But let it be granted that no one will cite the Bishop to the performance of this task, for I have asked this of your Clemency, and although I have not yet read that this edict is revoked, let us notwithstanding assume that it is revoked. What if others more timid offer that the synagogue be restored at their cost; or that the Count, having found this previously determined, himself orders it to be rebuilt out of the funds of Christians? You, O Emperor, will have an apostate Count, and to him will you entrust the victorious standards? Will you entrust the labarum, consecrated as it is by the Name of Christ, to one who restores the synagogue which knows not Christ? Order the labarum to be carried into the synagogue, and let us see if they do not resist.
10. Shall, then, a place be made for the unbelief of the Jews out of the spoils of the Church, and shall the patrimony, which by the favour of Christ has been gained for Christians, be transferred to the treasuries of unbelievers? We read that of old temples were built for idols of the plunder taken from Cimbri, and the spoils of other enemies. Shall the Jews write this inscription on the front of their synagogue: “The temple of impiety, erected from the plunder of Christians”?
11. But, perhaps, the cause of discipline moves you, O Emperor. Which, then, is of greater importance, the show of discipline or the cause of religion? It is needful that judgment should yield to religion.
12. Have you not heard, O Emperor, how, when
Julian had commanded that the temple of Jerusalem should be restored,
those who were clearing the rubbish were consumed by fire? The miracles of
this nature which prevented the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple are
mentioned by the usual ecclesiastical historians, and confirmed by the
heathen Ammianus Marcellinus, XXIII. I.
13. But what is your motive? Is it because a public building of whatever kind has been burnt, or because it was a synagogue? If you are moved by the burning of a building of no importance (for what could there be in so mean a town?), do you not remember, O Emperor, how many prefects’ houses have been burnt at Rome, and no one inflicted punishment for it? And, in truth, if any emperor had desired to punish the deed sharply, he would have injured the cause of him who had suffered so great a loss. Which, then, is more fitting, that a fire in some part of the buildings of Callinicum, or of the city of Rome, should be punished, if indeed it were right at all? At Constantinople lately, the house of the bishop was burnt and your Clemency’s son interceded with his father, praying that you would not avenge the insult offered to him, that is, to the son of the emperor, and the burning of the episcopal house. Do you not consider, O Emperor, that if you were to order this deed to be punished, he would again intervene against the punishment? That favour was, however, fittingly obtained by the son from the father, for it was worthy of him first to forgive the injury done to himself. That was a good division in the distribution of favour, that the son should be entreated for his own loss, the father for that of the son. Here there is nothing for you to keep back for your son. Take heed, then, lest you derogate aught from God.
14. There is, then, no adequate cause for
such a commotion, that the people should be so severely punished for
the burning of a building, and much less since it is the burning of a
synagogue, a home of unbelief, a house of impiety, a receptacle of
folly, which God Himself has condemned. For thus we read, where
the Lord our God speaks by the mouth of the prophet Jeremiah:
“And I will do to this house, which is called by My Name, wherein
ye trust, and to the place which I gave to you and to your fathers, as
I have done to Shiloh, and I will cast you forth from My sight, as I
cast forth your brethren, the whole seed of Ephraim. And do not
thou pray for that people, and do not thou ask mercy for them, and do
not come near Me on their behalf, for I will not hear thee. Or
seest thou not what they do in the cities of Judah?”
15. And certainly, if I were pleading according to
the law of nations, I could tell how many of the Church’s
basilicas the Jews burnt in the time of the Emperor Julian: two
at Damascus, one of which is scarcely now repaired, and this at the
cost of the Church, not of the Synagogue; the other basilica still is a
rough mass of shapeless ruins. Basilicas were burnt at Gaza,
Ascalon, Berytus, and in almost every place in those parts, and no one
demanded
16. Shall, then, the burning of the temple of the Valentinians be also avenged? But what is but a temple in which is a gathering of heathen? Although the heathen invoke twelve gods, the Valentinians worship thirty-two Æons whom they call gods. And I have found out concerning these also that it is reported and ordered that some monks should be punished, who, when the Valentinians were stopping the road on which, according to custom and ancient use, they were singing psalms as they went to celebrate the festival of the Maccabees, enraged by their insolence, burnt their hurriedly-built temple in some country village.
17. How many have to offer themselves to such a choice, when they remember that in the time of Julian, he who threw down an altar, and disturbed a sacrifice, was condemned by the judge and suffered martyrdom? And so the judge who heard him was never esteemed other than a prosecutor, for no one thought him worthy of being associated with, or of a kiss. And if he were not now dead, I should fear, O Emperor, that you would take vengeance on him, although he escaped not the vengeance of heaven, outliving his own heir.
18. But it is related that the judge was ordered to take cognizance of the matter, and that it was written that he ought not to have reported the deed, but to have punished it, and that the money chests which had been taken away should be demanded. I will omit other matters. The buildings of our churches were burnt by the Jews, and nothing was restored, nothing was asked back, nothing demanded. But what could the Synagogue have possessed in a far distant town, when the whole of what there is there is not much; there is nothing of value, and no abundance? And what then could the scheming Jews lose by the fire? These are artifices of the Jews who wish to calumniate us, that because of their complaints, an extraordinary military inquiry may be ordered, and a soldier sent, who will, perhaps, say what one said once here, O Emperor, before your accession: “How will Christ be able to help us who fight for the Jews against Christ, who are sent to avenge the Jews? They have destroyed their own armies, and wish to destroy ours.”
19. Further, into what calumnies will they not break out, who by false witness calumniated even Christ? Into what calumnies will not men break out who are liars, even in things belonging to God? Whom will they not say to have been the instigators of that sedition? Whom will they not assail, even of those whom they recognize not, that may gaze upon the numberless ranks of Christians in chains, that they may see the necks of the faithful people bowed in captivity, that the servants of God may be concealed in darkness, may be beheaded, given over to the fire, delivered to the mines, that their sufferings may not quickly pass away?
20. Will you give this triumph over the Church of God to the Jews? this trophy over Christ’s people, this exultation, O Emperor, to the unbelievers? this rejoicing to the Synagogue, this sorrow to the Church? The people of the Jews will set this solemnity amongst their feast-days, and will doubtless number it amongst those on which they triumphed either over the Amorites, or the Canaanites, or were delivered from the hand of Pharaoh, King of Egypt, or of Nebuchodonosor, King of Babylon. They will add this solemnity, in memory of their having triumphed over the people of Christ.
21. And whereas they deny that they themselves are bound by the Roman laws, and repute those laws as criminal, yet now they think that they ought to be avenged, as it were, by the Roman laws. Where were those laws when they themselves set fire to the roofs of the sacred basilicas? If Julian did not avenge the Church because he was an apostate, will you, O Emperor, avenge the injury done to the Synagogue, because you are a Christian?
22. And what will Christ say to you
afterwards? Do you not remember what He said by the prophet
Nathan to holy David? Referring to the
fleet under Andragathius, which Maximus had prepared expecting that
Theodosius would come by sea.
23. Is it not on this account that Maximus was forsaken, who, before the days of the expedition, hearing that a synagogue had been burnt in Rome, had sent an edict to Rome, as if he were the upholder of public order? Wherefore the Christian people said, No good is in store for him. That king has become a Jew, we have heard of him as a defender of order, and Christ, Who died for sinners, soon tested him. If this was said of words, what will be said of punishment? And then at once he was overcome by the Franks and the Saxons, in Sicily, at Siscia, at Petavio, in a word everywhere. What has the believer in common with the unbeliever? The instances of his unbelief ought to be done away with together with the unbeliever himself. That which injured him, that wherein he who was conquered offended, the conqueror ought not to follow but to condemn.
24. I have, then, recounted these things not
as to one who is ungrateful, but have enumerated them as rightly
bestowed, in order that, warned by them, you, to whom more has been
given, may love more. When Simon answered in these words the Lord
Jesus said: “Thou hast judged rightly.” S. S.
25. I have brought these matters together in this address, O Emperor, out of love and zeal for you. For I owe it to your kindnesses (whereby, at my request, you have liberated many from exile, from prison, from the extreme penalty of death) that I should not fear even offending your feelings for the sake of your own salvation (no one has greater confidence than he who loves from his heart, certainly no one ought to injure him who takes thought for him); that I may not lose in one moment that favour granted to every priest and received by me for so many years; and yet it is not the loss of favour which I deprecate but the peril to salvation.
26. And yet how great a thing it is, O
Emperor, that you should not think it necessary to enquire or to punish
in regard to a matter as to which up to this day no one has enquired,
no one has ever inflicted punishment. It is a serious matter to
endanger your salvation for the Jews. When Gideon
27. But at any rate if too little confidence is placed in me, command the presence of those bishops whom you think fit, let it be discussed, O Emperor, what ought to be done without injury to the faith. If you consult your officers concerning pecuniary causes, how much more just is it that you should consult the priests of God in the cause of religion.
28. Let your Clemency consider from how many
plotters, how many spies the Church suffers. If they come upon a
slight crack, they plant a dart in it. I speak after the manner
of men, but God is feared more than men, Who is rightly set before even
emperors. If any one thinks it right that deference should be
paid to a friend, a parent, or a neighbour, I am right in judging that
deference should be paid to God,
29. What shall I answer hereafter, if it be
discovered that, by authority given from this place, Christians have
been slain by the sword, or by clubs, or thongs knotted with
lead? How shall I explain such a fact? How shall I excuse
it to those bishops, who now mourn bitterly because some, who have
discharged the office of the priesthood for thirty and many more years,
or other ministers of the Church, are withdrawn from their sacred
office, and set to discharge municipal duties? Cf.
Ep. XVIII. 13, 14.
30. I was desirous that this should come to the knowledge of your Clemency. You will, when it pleases you, vouchsafe to consider and give order according to your will, but exclude and cast out that which troubles me, and troubles me rightly. You do yourself whatever you order to be done, even if he, your officer, do not do it. I much prefer that you should be merciful, than that he should not do what he has been ordered.
31. You have those i.e. his
children. It is
possible that keeping an oath may be contrary to duty. Cf.
Off. Min. I. 264.
32. You forgave the Antiochians the insult
offered to you; In the year
before this the people of Antioch, enraged at new taxation, rose and
destroyed the statues of the Emperor and Empress. This was the
occasion on which St. Chrysostom preached the Homilies on the
Statues. Theodosius, at first greatly enraged, subsequently
pardoned the people. Cf. St. Chrys. Hom. 20 ad
Antioch.
33. And now, O Emperor, I beg you not to
disdain to hear me who am in fear both for yourself and for myself, for
it is the voice of a Saint which says: “Wherefore was I
made to see the misery of my people?”
St. Ambrose in this letter to his sister continues the account of the matters contained in his letter to Theodosius, and of a sermon which he subsequently delivered before the Emperor, with the result that the Emperor, when St. Ambrose refused to offer the Sacrifice before receiving a promise that the objectionable order should be revoked, yielded.
The Brother to His Sister.
1. You were good enough to write me word that your holiness was still anxious, because I had written that I was so, so that I am surprised that you did not receive my letter in which I wrote word that satisfaction had been granted me. For when it was reported that a synagogue of the Jews and a conventicle of the Valentinians had been burnt by Christians at the instigation of the bishop, an order was made while I was at Aquileia, that the synagogue should be rebuilt, and the monks punished who had burnt the Valentinian building. Then since I gained little by frequent endeavours, I wrote and sent a letter to the Emperor, and when he went to church I delivered this discourse.
2. In the book of the prophet it is
written: “Take to thyself the rod of an almond
tree.”
3. And so the prophet is bidden to take an almond rod, because the fruit of this tree is bitter in its rind, hard in its shell, and inside it is pleasant, that after its likeness the prophet should set forth things bitter and hard, and should not fear to proclaim harsh things. Likewise also the priest; for his teaching, though for a time it may seem bitter to some, and like Aaron’s rod be long laid up in the ears of dissemblers, yet after a time, when it is thought to have dried up, it blossoms.
4. Wherefore also the Apostle says:
“What will ye, shall I come to you with a rod, or in love and in
the spirit of gentleness?”
5. Let thus much be gathered from the
passage of the prophet, and let us now consider what the lesson from
the Gospel contains: “One of the Pharisees invited the Lord
Jesus to eat with him, and He entered into the Pharisee’s house
and sat down. And behold a woman, who was a sinner in the city,
when she knew that Jesus sat at meat in the Pharisee’s house,
brought an alabaster box of ointment, and standing behind at His feet,
began to wash His feet with her tears.” And then he read as
far as this place: “Thy faith hath saved thee, go in
peace.” S.
6. Our Lord Jesus Christ judged that men could more readily be bound and led on to do the things that are right by kindness than by fear, and that love avails more than dread for correction. And so, when He came, being born of a Virgin, He sent forth His grace, that sin might be forgiven in baptism in order to make us more grateful to Himself. Then if we repay Him by services befitting men who are grateful, He has declared in this woman that there will be a reward for this grace itself to all men. For if He had forgiven only our original debt, He would have seemed more cautious than merciful, and more careful for our correction than magnificent in His rewards. It is only the cunning of a narrow mind that tries to entice, but it is fitting for God that those whom He has invited by grace He should lead on by increase of that grace. And so He first bestows on us a gift by baptism, and afterwards gives more abundantly to those who serve Him faithfully. So, then, the benefits of Christ are both incentives and rewards of virtue.
7. And let no one be startled at the word
“creditor.” S.
8. So, then, we have changed our creditor,
not escaped wholly, or rather we have escaped, for the debt remains but
the interest is cancelled, for the Lord Jesus said, “To those who
are in bonds, Come out, and to those who are in prison, Go
forth;”
9. Take care that you do not begin to be in
a worse case as creditor than as debtor, like the man in the
Gospel, S. S.
10. And, finally, the Pharisee, when the
Lord asked him, “which of them loved him most,” S. S.
11. And, therefore, He said to Simon:
“Thou seest this woman. I entered into thine house, and thou
gavest Me no water for My feet, but she hath washed My feet with her
tears.” S.
12. And he pours water upon the feet of Christ, who purifies his conscience from the defilement of sin, for Christ walks in the breast of each. Take heed, then, not to have your conscience polluted, and so to begin to defile the feet of Christ. Take heed lest He encounter a thorn of wickedness in you, whereby as He walks in you His heel may be wounded. For this was why the Pharisee gave no water for the feet of Christ, that he had not a soul pure from the filth of unbelief. For how could he cleanse his conscience who had not received the water of Christ? But the Church both has this water and has tears. For faith which mourns over former sins is wont to guard against fresh ones. Therefore, Simon the Pharisee, who had no water, had also, of course, no tears. For how should he have tears who had no penitence? For since he believed not in Christ he had no tears. For if he had had them he would have washed his eyes, that he might see Christ, Whom, though he sat at meat with Him, he saw not. For had he seen Him, he would not have doubted of His power.
13. The Pharisee had no hair, inasmuch as he could
not recognize the Nazarite; the Church had hair, and she sought the
Nazarite. Hairs are counted as amongst the superfluities of the
body, but if they be anointed, they give forth a good odour, and are an
ornament to the head; if they be not anointed with oil, are a
burden. So, too, riches are a burden if you know not how to use
them, and sprinkle them not with the odour of Christ. But if you
nourish the poor,
14. “Thou gavest Me no kiss, but she
from the time she came in hath not ceased to kiss My
feet.” S. S.
15. And the same Scripture teaches you
concerning the infusion of special grace, that he kisses Christ who
receives the Spirit, where the holy prophet says: “I opened
my mouth and drew in the Spirit.” S.
16. Whence should the Jew have this
kiss? For he who believed in His coming, believed not in His
Passion. For how can he believe that He has suffered Whom he
believes not to have come? The Pharisee, then, had no kiss except
perchance that of the traitor Judas. But neither had Judas the
kiss; and so when he wished to show to the Jews that kiss which he had
promised as the sign of betrayal, the Lord said to him:
“Judas, betrayest thou the Son of Man with a
kiss?” S.
17. But you say, he kissed the Lord.
Yes, he kissed Him indeed with his lips. The Jewish people has
this kiss, and therefore it is said: “This people honoureth
Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me.” S.
18. But the Church ceases not to kiss the
feet of Christ, and therefore in the Song of Songs she desires not one
but many kisses, S.
19. And not only has he no kisses, but neither has he oil wherewith to anoint the feet of Christ, for if he had oil he would certainly, before now, soften his own neck.
Moses says: “This people is
stiff-necked,” S.
20. But the Church has oil wherewith she
dresses the wounds of her children, lest the hardness of the wound
spread deeply; she has oil which she has received secretly. With
this oil Asher washed his feet as it is written: “A blessed
son is Asher, and he shall be acceptable to his brothers, and shall dip
his feet in oil.”
21. The Synagogue has not this oil, inasmuch
as she has not the olive, and understood not that dove which brought
back the olive branch after the deluge. S.
22. The Church, then, both washes the feet of Christ and wipes them with her hair, and anoints them with oil, and pours ointment upon them, because not only does she care for the wounded and cherish the weary, but also sprinkles them with the sweet odour of grace; and pours forth the same grace not only on the rich and powerful, but also on men of lowly estate. She weighs all with equal balance, gathers all in the same bosom, and cherishes them in the same lap.
23. Christ died once, and was buried once,
and nevertheless He wills that ointment should daily be poured on His
feet. What, then, are those feet of Christ on which we pour
ointment? The feet of Christ are they of whom He Himself
says: “What ye have done to one of the least of these ye
have done to Me.” S.
24. You see how ready to teach the Lord is,
that He may by His own example provoke you to piety, for He is ready to
teach when He rebukes. So when accusing the Jews, He says:
“O My people, what have I done to thee, or wherein have I
troubled thee, or wherein have I wearied thee? Answer Me.
Is it because I brought thee out of the land of Egypt, and delivered
thee from the house of bondage?” adding: “And I sent
before thy face Moses and Aaron and Miriam.”
25. And what was His expostulation by Nathan
the prophet to King David himself, that pious and gentle man? I,
He said, chose thee the youngest of thy brethren, I filled thee with
the spirit of meekness, I anointed thee king by the hand of
Samuel,
26. Wherefore, O Emperor, that I may now address
my words not only about you, but to you, since you observe how severely
the Lord is wont to censure, see that the more glorious you are become,
the more utterly you submit to your Maker. For it is
written: “When the Lord thy God shall
S.
27. When I came down from the pulpit, he said to me: “You spoke about me.” I replied: “I dealt with matters intended for your benefit.” Then he said: “I had indeed decided too harshly about the repairing of the synagogue by the bishop, but that has been rectified. The monks commit many crimes.” Then Timasius the general began to be over-vehement against the monks, and I answered him: “With the Emperor I deal as is fitting, because I know that he has the fear of God, but with you, who speak so roughly, one must deal otherwise.”
28. Then, after standing for some time, I said to the Emperor: “Let me offer for you without anxiety, set my mind at ease.” As he continued sitting and nodded, but did not give an open promise, and I remained standing, he said that he would amend the edict. I went on at once to say that he must end the whole investigation, lest the Count should use the opportunity of the investigation to do any injury to the Christians. He promised that it should be so. I said to him, “I act on your promise,” and repeated, “I act on your promise.” “Act,” he said, “on my promise.” And so I went to the altar, whither I should not have gone unless he had given me a distinct promise. And indeed so great was the grace attending the offering, that I felt myself that that favour granted by the Emperor was very acceptable to our God, and that the divine presence was not wanting. And so everything was done as I wished.
Addressed to the Emperor Theodosius after the
massacre at Thessalonica. The mob at
Thessalonica had barbarously murdered a number of the officers of the
garrison of that city. The Emperor, being exceedingly angry, sent
orders in obedience to which over seven thousand of the inhabitants
were cruelly put to death. This act of vengeance shocked the
public conscience, and St. Ambrose felt it his duty to speak out in the
name of the Church.
1. The memory of your old friendship is pleasant to me, and I gratefully call to mind the kindnesses which, in reply to my frequent intercessions, you have most graciously conferred on others. Whence it may be inferred that I did not from any ungrateful feeling avoid meeting you on your arrival, which I had always before earnestly desired. And I will now briefly set forth the reason for my acting as I did.
2. I saw that from me alone in your court
the natural right of hearing was withdrawn, so that I was deprived also
of the office of speaking; for you were frequently troubled because
certain matters which had been decided in your consistory had come to
my knowledge. I, therefore, am without a part in the common
privilege, since the Lord Jesus says: “That nothing is
hidden, which shall not be made known.” S.
3. What, then, could I do? Should I not
hear? But I could not close my ears with the wax of the old
fables. Should I utter what I heard? But I was bound to be
on my guard in my words against that which I
4. Listen, august Emperor. I cannot deny that you have a zeal for the faith; I do confess that you have the fear of God. But you have a natural vehemence, which, if any one endeavours to soothe, you quickly turn to mercy; if any one stirs it up, you rouse it so much more that you can scarcely restrain it. Would that if no one soothe it, at least no one may inflame it! To yourself I willingly entrust it, you restrain yourself, and overcome your natural vehemence by the love of piety.
5. This vehemence of yours I preferred to commend privately to your own consideration, rather than possibly raise it by any action of mine in public. And so I have preferred to be somewhat wanting in duty rather than in humility, and that other, should rather think me wanting in priestly authority than that you should find me lacking in most loving reverence, that having restrained your vehemence your power of deciding on your counsel should not be weakened. I excuse myself by bodily sickness, which was in truth severe, and scarcely to be lightened but by great care. Yet I would rather have died than not wait two or three days for your arrival. But it was not possible for me to do so.
6. There was that done in the city of the
Thessalonians of which no similar record exists, which I was not able
to prevent happening; which, indeed, I had before said would be most
atrocious when I so often petitioned against it, and that which you
yourself show by revoking it too late you consider to be
grave, Theodosius had
promised to forgive the Thessalonians, but was again stirred up by his
courtiers, as Paulinus relates in his life of St. Ambrose.
7. Are you ashamed, O Emperor, to do that
which the royal prophet David, the forefather of Christ, according to
the flesh, did? To him it was told how the rich man who had many
flocks seized and killed the poor man’s one lamb, because of the
arrival of his guest, and recognizing that he himself was being
condemned in the tale, for that he himself had done it, he said:
“I have sinned against the Lord.”
8. And again, David, after he had commanded
the people to be numbered, was smitten in heart, and said to the
Lord: “I have sinned exceedingly, because I have commanded
this, and now, O Lord, take away the iniquity of Thy servant, for I
have transgressed exceedingly.”
9. And, we are told, when death came upon
the people, on the very first day at dinner time, when David saw the
angel smiting the people, he said: “I have sinned, and I,
the shepherd, have done wickedly, and this flock, what hath it
done? Let Thine hand be upon me, and upon my father’s
house.”
10. Holy Job, himself also powerful in this
world, says: “I hid not my sin, but declared it before all
the people.”
11. I have written this, not in order to
confound you, but that the examples of these kings may stir you up to
put away this sin from your kingdom, for you will do it away by
humbling your soul before God. You are a man, and it has come
upon you, conquer it. Sin is not done away but by tears and
penitence. Neither angel can do it, nor archangel. The Lord
Himself, Who alone can say, “I am with you,” S.
12. I urge, I beg, I exhort, I warn, for it is a grief to me, that you who were an example of unusual piety, who were conspicuous for clemency, who would not suffer single offenders to be put in peril, should not mourn that so many have perished. Though you have waged battle most successfully, though in other matters, too, you are worthy of praise, yet piety was ever the crown of your actions. The devil envied that which was your most excellent possession. Conquer him whilst you still possess that wherewith you may conquer. Do not add another sin to your sin by a course of action which has injured many.
13. I, indeed, though a debtor to your kindness, for which I cannot be ungrateful, that kindness which has surpassed that of many emperors, and has been equalled by one only; I, I say, have no cause for a charge of contumacy against you, but have cause for fear; I dare not offer the sacrifice if you intend to be present. Is that which is not allowed after shedding the blood of one innocent person, allowed after shedding the blood of many? I do not think so.
14. Lastly, I am writing with my own hand that which you alone may read. As I hope that the Lord will deliver me from all troubles, I have been warned, not by man, nor through man, but plainly by Himself that this is forbidden me. For when I was anxious, in the very night in which I was preparing to set out, you appeared to me in a dream to have come into the Church, and I was not permitted to offer the sacrifice. I pass over other things, which I could have avoided, but I bore them for love of you, as I believe. May the Lord cause all things to pass peaceably. Our God gives warnings in many ways, by heavenly signs, by the precepts of the prophets; by the visions even of sinners He wills that we should understand, that we should entreat Him to take away all disturbances, to preserve peace for you emperors, that the faith and peace of the Church, whose advantage it is that emperors should be Christians and devout, may continue.
15. You certainly desire to be approved by
God. “To everything there is a time,” S.
16. I wish, O Emperor, that before this I
17. Shall I not value the father of Gratian more than my very eyes? Your other holy pledges also claim pardon. I conferred beforehand a dear name on those to whom I bore a common love. I follow you with my love, my affection, and my prayers. If you believe me, be guided by me; if, I say, you believe me, acknowledge what I say; if you believe me not, pardon that which I do, in that I set God before you. May you, most august Emperor, with your holy offspring, enjoy perpetual peace with perfect happiness and prosperity.
St. Ambrose informs the Emperor Eugenius why he was absent from Milan. He then proceeds to reprove him for his conduct with regard to heathen worship. This was, he says, the reason why he did not write sooner, and he promises that for the future he will treat him with the same freedom as the other emperors.
Ambrose, Bishop, to the most gracious Emperor Eugenius.
1. The cause of my departure was the fear of the Lord, to Whom, so far as I am able, I am accustomed to refer all my acts, and never to turn away my mind from Him, nor to make more of any man than of the grace of Christ. For I do no one an injury, if I set God before all, and, trusting in Him, I am not afraid to tell you emperors my thoughts, such as they are. And so I will not keep silence before you, O Emperor, as to things respecting which I have not kept silence before other emperors. And that I may keep the order of the matters, I will go through, one by one, the things which have to do with this matter.
2. The illustrious Symmachus, when prefect
of the city, had memorialized The memorial
is given on p. Letters 17 and
18, pp.
3. My letters were read in the consistory. Count Bauto, a man of the highest rank of military authority was present, and Rumoridus, himself also of the same dignity, addicted to the worship of the gentile nations from the first years of his boyhood. Valentinian at that time listened to my suggestion, and did nothing but what the rule of our faith required. And they yielded to his officer.
4. Afterwards I plainly addressed the most
clement Emperor Theodosius, and hesitated not to speak to his
face. And he, having received a similar message from the Senate,
though it was not the request of the whole Senate, at length assented
to my recommendation, and so I did not go near him for some days, nor
did he take it ill, for he knew that I was not acting for my own
advantage, but was not ashamed to say in the sight of the king that
which was for the profit of himself and of my own soul.
5. Again a legation sent into Gaul from the Senate to the Emperor Valentinian of august memory could procure nothing; and then I was certainly absent, and had not written anything at that time to him.
6. But when your Clemency took up the reins of
government it was afterwards discovered that favours of this kind had
been granted to men, excellent indeed in matters of state but in
religion heathens. And it may, perhaps, be said, august Emperor,
that you did not make any restitution to temples, but presented gifts
to men who had deserved well of you. But you know that we must
constantly act in the cause of God,
7. Though the imperial power be great, yet consider, O Emperor, how great God is. He sees the hearts of all, He questions the inmost conscience, He knows all things before they happen, He knows the inmost things of your breast. You do not suffer yourselves to be deceived, and do you desire to conceal anything from God? Has not this come into your mind? For although they acted with such perseverance, was it not your duty, O Emperor, to resist with still greater perseverance because of the reverence due to the most high and true and living God, and to refuse what was an offence against His holy law?
8. Who grudges your having given what you would to others? We are not scrutinizers of your liberality, nor envious of the advantages of others, but are interpreters of the faith. How will you offer your gifts to Christ? Not many but will put their own estimate on what you have done, all will do so on your intentions. Whatever they do will be ascribed to you; whatever they do not do, to themselves. Although you are Emperor, you ought to be all the more subject to God. How shall the ministers of Christ dispense your gifts?
9. There was a question of this sort in
former times, and yet persecution itself yielded to the faith of our
fathers, and heathendom gave way. For when in the city of Tyre
the quinquennial game was being kept, and the intensely wicked King of
Antioch had come to witness it, Jason appointed officers of sacred
rites, who were Antiochians, to carry three hundred didrachms of silver
from Jerusalem, and give them to the sacrifice of Hercules.
10. Now they who had brought the money might, no doubt, have kept silence, but would have done violence to their faith, because they knew whither the money was being carried, and therefore they sent men who feared God to contrive that what was sent should be assigned, not to the temple, but to the cost of ships. For they entrusted the money to those who should plead the cause of the sacred Law, and He Who absolves the conscience was made judge of the matter. If they when in the power of another were so careful, there can be no doubt what you, O Emperor, ought to have done. You, at any rate, whom no one compelled, whom no one had in his power, ought to have sought counsel from the priest.
11. And I certainly when I then resisted, although I was alone in resistance, was not alone in what I wished, and was not alone in what I advised. Since, then, I am bound by my own words both before God and before all men, I felt that nothing else was allowable or needful for me but to act for myself, because I could not well trust you. I kept back and concealed my grief for a long time; I thought it not right to intimate anything to anybody, now I may no longer dissemble, nor is it open to me to keep silence. For this reason also at the commencement of your reign I did not reply when you wrote to me, because I foresaw that this would happen. Then at last, when you required a letter, because I had not written a reply, I said: This is the reason that I think this will be extorted from him.
12. But when a reason for exercising my
office arose, I both wrote and petitioned for those who were in anxiety
about themselves, that I might show that in the canse of God I felt a
righteous fear, and that I did not value flattery above my own soul;
but in those matters in which it is fitting that petitions should be
addressed to you. I also pay the deference due to authority, as
it is written: “Honour to whom honour is due, tribute to
whom tribute.”
St. Ambrose explains his absence from Milan on the
arrival of the Emperor Theodosius after his victory over
Eugenius, Arbogastes, a
Frankish general, had been set by Theodosius over the troops in Gaul,
and determined to gain supreme power in the West. Having removed
all who were faithful from the person of the Emperor Valentinian II.,
he caused him to be murdered, and then to conceal his own purposes
caused the rhetorician Eugenius, his private secretary, to be
acknowledged Emperor. Ambassadors were sent to Theodosius begging
him to acknowledge the new Emperor as his colleague, but he saw through
the design, and after two years’ preparation marched into Italy,
and defeated the usurper’s troops. Eugenius was beheaded,
and Arbogastes killed himself.
Ambrose, to the Emperor Theodosius.
1. You thought, most blessed Emperor, so far as I gathered from your letter, that I kept away from the city of Milan, because I believed that your cause was forsaken by God. But I was not so wanting in foresight, nor so unmindful in my absence of your virtue and merits, as not to anticipate that the aid of Heaven would be with your piety, with which you would rescue the Roman Empire from the cruelty of a barbarian robber, and the dominion of an unworthy usurper.
2. I therefore made haste to return thither,
as soon as I knew that he, whom I thought it right to avoid, i.e.
Eugenius, whom St. Ambrose avoided, because he had permitted the
restoration of heathen ceremonies. See also
3. Thanks be to our Lord God, Who responded
to your faith and piety, and has restored the form of ancient sanctity,
suffering us to see in our time that which we wonder at in reading the
Scriptures, namely, such a presence of the divine assistance Theodoret,
Hist. Eccl. V. 24, relates certain prophecies and several
prodigies connected with this victory, to which there seems to be some
allusion here.
4. For these mercies you think that I ought to render thanks to the Lord our God, and being conscious of your merits, I will do so willingly. Certainly that offering will be acceptable to God which is offered in your name, and what a mark of faith and devotion is this! Other emperors, immediately upon a victory, order the erection of triumphal arches, or other monuments of their triumphs; your Clemency prepares an offering for God, and desires that oblation and thanksgiving should be presented by the priests to the Lord.
5. Though I be unworthy and unequal to such an office and the offering of such acknowledgments, yet will I describe what I have done. I took the letter of your Piety with me to the altar. I laid it upon the altar. I held it in my hand whilst I offered the Sacrifice; so that your faith might speak by my voice, and the Emperor’s letter discharge the function of the priestly oblation.
6. In truth, the Lord is propitious to the Roman Empire, since He has chosen such a prince and father of princes, whose virtue and power, established on such a triumphant height of dominion, rests on such humility, that in valour he has surpassed emperors and priests in humility. What can I wish? What can I desire? You have everything, and therefore I will endeavour to gain the sum of my desires. You, O Emperor, are pitiful, and of the greatest clemency.
7. And for yourself, I desire again and again an increase of piety, than which God has given nothing more excellent, that by your clemency the Church of God, as it delights in the peace and tranquillity of the innocent, so, too, may rejoice in the pardon of the guilty. Pardon especially those who have not offended before. May the Lord preserve your Clemency. Amen.
St. Ambrose excuses himself for having omitted an opportunity of writing to the Emperor, but is now sending a letter by the hands of a deacon, requesting forgiveness for some of Eugenius’ followers who had sought the protection of the Church, especially in consideration of the miraculous aid which had been vouchsafed to the Emperor.
Ambrose, to the Emperor Theodosius.
1. Although I lately wrote to your Clemency even a second time, it did not seem to me that I had responded sufficiently to the duty of intercourse by answering as it were in turn, for I have been so bound by frequent benefits from your Clemency, that I cannot repay what I owe by any services, most blessed and august Emperor.
2. And so just as the first opportunity was not to
be lost by me, when, through your chamberlain, I was able to thank your
Clemency and to pay the duty of an address,
3. And rightly do I send my son, the deacon Felix, to bear my letter, and, at the same time, to present to you my duty, in my place, and also a memorial on behalf of those who have fled to the Church, the Mother of your Piety, seeking mercy. I have been unable to endure their tears without anticipating by my entreaty the coming of your Clemency.
4. It is a great boon that I ask, but I ask it from him to whom the Lord has granted great and unheard-of things, from him whose clemency I know, and whose piety I have as a pledge. For your victory is considered to have been granted to you after the ancient manner, and with the old miracles, a victory such as was granted to holy Moses, and holy Joshua, son of Nave, and Samuel, and David, not by human calculations, but by the outpouring of heavenly grace. Now we expect an equal amount of gentleness with that by virtue of which so great a victory has been gained.
Limenius, Bishop of Vercellæ, having died, the see remained long vacant owing to domestic factions. St. Ambrose, therefore, as Exarch, writes to the Christians at Vercellæ, and commences by reference to the speedy and unanimous election of Eusebius, a former Bishop, and reminds them of the presence of Christ as a reason for concord. He refers next to two apostate monks, Sarmatio and Barbatianus, and inveighs against sensuality, which degrades men below the beasts. Thence he passes to the virtues required in a bishop, referring again to Eusebius, and to Dionysius, Bishop of Milan, comparing the clerical and monastic lives, and ends with exhortations to Christian virtue. The letter seems to have been written a.d. 396.
Ambrose, a servant of Christ, called to be a Bishop, to the Church of Vercellæ, and to those who call on the Name of our Lord Jesus Christ, Grace be fulfilled unto you in the Holy Spirit from God the Father and His only-begotten Son.
1. I am spent with grief that the Church of God which is among you is still without a bishop, and now alone of all the regions of Liguria and Æmilia, and of the Venetiæ and other neighbouring parts of Italy needs that care which other churches were wont to ask for themselves from it; and what is a greater source of shame to myself, the tension amongst you which causes the obstacle is laid to my charge. Now since there are dissensions among you, how can we decree anything, or you elect, or anyone agree to undertake this office amongst those who are at variance which he could hardly sustain amongst those who are at unity.
2. Is this the training of a confessor, are
these the offspring of those righteous fathers who, as soon as they
saw, approved of holy Eusebius, whom they had never known before,
preferring him to their fellow-citizens, and he was no sooner amongst
them than he was approved, and much more when they had observed
him. Justly did he turn out so great a man, whom the whole Church
elected, justly was it believed that he whom all had demanded was
elected by the judgment of God. It is fitting then that you
follow the example of your parents, especially since you who have been
instructed by a holy confessor ought to be so much better than your
fathers, as a better teacher has taught and instructed you, and to
manifest a sign of your moderation and concord by agreeing in your
request The people
demanded, requested, or acclaimed some one as bishop
[postulavit], and he was then elected, if they thought well, by
the clergy. St. Ambrose makes this clear [Ep. XV. 12], saying of
Acholius, “Ad summum sacerdotium a Macedonicis obsecratus
populis, electus a sacerdotibus.”
3. For if according to the Lord’s
saying, that which two shall have agreed upon on earth concerning
anything which they shall ask, shall be done for them, as He says, by
My Father, Who is in heaven, for: “Where two or three are
gathered together in My Name, there am I in the midst of
them,” S.
4. Make yourselves then to appear worthy
that Christ should be in your midst. For where peace is, there is
Christ, for Christ is Peace; and where righteousness is, there is
Christ, for Christ is Righteousness. Let Him be in the midst of
you, that you may see Him, lest it be said to you also:
“There standeth One in the midst of you, Whom ye see
not.” S.
5. Let Him therefore stand in your midst,
that the heavens, which declare the glory of God,
6. Let Him then be standing for you, that
you may not be afraid of Him sitting; for when sitting He judges, as
Daniel says: “The thrones were placed, and the books were
opened, and the Ancient of days did sit.”
7. And not in vain is my warning turned to
this point; for I hear that Sarmatio and Barbatianus There were
two apostate monks, followers apparently of Jovinian, who was condemned
by synods at Rome and Milan a.d.
390.
8. For is there anything so reprobate as
that which excites to luxury, to corruption, to wantonness, as the
incentive to lust, the enticer to pleasure, the fuel of incontinence,
the firebrand of desire? What new school has sent out these
Epicureans? Not a school of philosophers, as they themselves say,
but of unlearned men who preach pleasure, persuade to luxury, esteem
chastity to be of no use. They were with us, but they were not of
us, S.
9. This these dainty men could not endure. They went abroad, then when they desired to return they were not received; for I had heard many things which necessitated my being cautious; I admonished them, but effected nothing. And so boiling over they began to disseminate such things as made them the miserable enticers to all vices. They utterly lost the benefit of having fasted; they lost the fruits of their temporary continence. And so now they with Satanic eagerness envy the good works of others, the fruit of which themselves have failed to keep.
10. What virgin can hear that there is no reward for her chastity and not groan? Far be it from her to believe this easily, and still more to lay aside her zeal, or change the intention of her mind. What widow, when she learnt that there was no profit in her widowhood, would choose to preserve her marriage faith and live in sorrow, rather than give herself up to a happier condition? Who, bound by the marriage-bond, if she hear that there is no honour in chastity, might not be tempted by careless levity of body or mind? And for this reason the Church in the holy lessons, and in the addresses of her priests, proclaims the praise of chastity and the glory of virginity.
11. In vain, then, does the Apostle
say: “I wrote to you, in an Epistle, not to mingle with
fornicators;” This was one of
the errors of Jovinian.
12. These then ought to take heed to
themselves who have that which they may lose, rather than they who have
it not. These ought to act with greater care, these ought to
guard against the allurements of vice, or incentives to error, which
arise chiefly from food and drink. For “the people sat down
to eat and drink, and rose up to play.”
13. Epicurus See de
Off. i. 50. Who this may be is
unknown, and the name, even, owing to various readings, is
uncertain.
14. But Holy Scripture refutes this, for it teaches us that pleasure was suggested to Adam and Eve by the craft and enticements of the serpent. Since, indeed, the serpent itself is pleasure, and therefore the passions of pleasure are various and slippery, and as it were infected with the poison of corruptions, it is certain then that Adam, being deceived by the desire of pleasure, fell away from the commandment of God and from the enjoyment of grace. How then can pleasure recall us to paradise, seeing that it alone deprived us of it?
15. Wherefore also the Lord Jesus, wishing
to make us more strong against the temptations of the devil, fasted
when about to contend with him, that we might know that we can in no
other way overcome the enticements of evil. Further, the devil
himself hurled the first dart of his temptations from the quiver of
pleasure, saying: “If Thou be the Son of God, command that
these stones become bread.” S. S. S.
16. And what is the intention of the
Scripture which teaches us that Peter fasted, and that the revelation
concerning the baptism of Gentiles was made to him when fasting and
praying,
17. Who then are these new teachers who
reject the merit of fasting? Is it not the voice of heathen who
say, “Let us eat and drink?” whom the Apostle well
ridicules, when he says: “If after the manner of men I have
fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me if the dead rise
not? Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.”
18. Rightly then does the Apostle, arguing
against these men, warn us that we be not shaken by such opinions,
saying: “Be not deceived, evil communications corrupt good
manners. Be ye righteously sober and sin not, for some have no
knowledge of God.”
19. But as to that Epicurus himself, the
defender of pleasure, of whom, therefore, we have made frequent mention
in order to prove that these men are either disciples of the heathen
and followers of the Epicurean sect or himself, whom the very
philosophers exclude from their company as the patron of luxury, what
if we prove him to be more tolerable than these men? He declares,
as Demarchus Demarchus is
mentioned by no writer besides St. Ambrose. The Benedictine
editors suggest that Hermachus is meant, who succeeded Epicurus as
leader of his school.
20. Since, then, philosophy has disowned those
men, is the Church not to exclude them? Seeing, too, that they,
because they
21. Do not they by these various arguments
show themselves to us as differing and disagreeing one with the
other? And Scripture too condemns them, not passing over those
whom the Apostle refuted, as Luke, who wrote the book as a history,
tells us in the Acts of the Apostles, “And certain also of the
Epicurean and Stoic philosophers disputed with him. And some
said, What does this babbler mean? And others said, He seemeth to
be a setter forth of new gods.”
22. Yet from this hand too the Apostle did not go forth without success, since even Dionysius the Areopagite together with his wife Damaris and many others believed. And so that company of most learned and eloquent men showed themselves overcome in a simple discussion by the example of those who believed. What then do those men mean, who endeavour to prevent those whom the Apostle has gained, and whom Christ has redeemed with His own blood? asserting that the baptized ought not to give themselves to the discipline of the virtues, that revellings injure them not, nor abundance of pleasures; that they are foolish who go without them, that virgins ought to marry, bear children, and likewise widows to repeat that converse with man which they have once experienced with ill results; and that even if they can contain, they are in error who will not again enter the marriage bond.
23. What then? Would you have us put off the man in order to put on the beast, and stripping ourselves of Christ, clothe ourselves or be superclothed with the garments of the devil? But since the very teachers of the heathen did not think that honour and pleasure could be joined together, because they would seem thus to class beasts with men, shall we as it were infuse the habits of beasts into the human breast, and inscribe on the reasonable mind the unreasoning ways of wild beasts?
24. And yet there are many kinds of animals, which, when they have lost their fellow, will not mate again, and spend their time as it were in solitary life; many too live on simple herbs, and will not quench their thirst except at a pure stream; one can also often see dogs refrain from food forbidden them, so that they close their famishing mouths if restraint is bidden them. Must men then be warned against that wherein brutes have learned not to transgress?
26. But what is more admirable than abstinence, which makes even the years of youth to ripen, so that there is an old age of character? For as by excess of food and by drunkenness even mature age is excited, so the wildness of youth is lessened by scanty feasts and by the running stream. An external fire is extinguished by pouring on water, it is then no wonder if the inward heat of the body is cooled by draughts from the stream, for the flame is fed or fails according to the fuel. As hay, straw, wood, oil, and such like things are the nourishment which feeds fire, if you take them away, or do not supply them, the fire is extinguished. In like manner then the heat of the body is supported or lessened by food, it is excited by food and lessened by food. Luxury then is the mother of lust.
27. And is not temperance agreeable to
nature, and to that divine law, which in the very beginning of all
created things gave the springs for drink and the fruits of the trees
for food? After the Flood the just man found wine a source of
temptation to him.
28. Lastly, Elijah, whom the Lord was
training to the perfection of virtue, found at his head a cake and a
cruse of water; and then fasted in the strength of that food forty days
and forty nights.
29. And why should I speak of men?
Judith, in no way moved by the luxurious banquet of Holophernes,
carried off the triumph of which men’s arms despaired, solely in
right of her temperance; delivered her country from occupation and slew
the leader of the expedition with her own hands. S.
30. O foolish Elisha, for feeding the
prophets with wild and bitter gourds!
31. But how should that not be profitable by
which our sins are purged? And if you offer this with humility
and with mercy, your bones, as Isaiah said, shall be fat, and you shall
be like a well-watered garden.
32. But not only is that temperance worthy
of praise which moderates food, but also that which moderates
lust. Since it is written: “Go not after thy lusts,
and deny thy appetite. If thou givest her desires to thy soul,
thou wilt be a joy to thine enemies;”
33. And why should I tell how great is the
grace of virginity, which was found worthy to be chosen by Christ, that
it might be even the bodily temple of God, in which as we read the
fulness of the Godhead dwelt bodily.
34. What shall I say concerning the other
Mary, i.e.
Miriam, the Hebrew form of the name.
35. Again, with what reverence for virginity
has the holy Apostle spoken: “Concerning virgins I have no
commandment of the Lord, but I give my counsel, as having obtained
mercy of the Lord.”
36. And we ought to recognize what
commendation of it the prophet, or rather Christ in the prophet, has
uttered in a short verse; “A garden enclosed,” says He,
“is My sister, My spouse, a garden enclosed, a sealed
fountain.”
38. Answer me now, O Paul, in what way thou
givest counsel for the present distress.
39. And so like a good physician, desiring
to preserve the stability of virtue in the strong, and to give health
to the weak, he gives counsel to the one, and points out the remedy to
the others: “He that is weak eateth herbs,”
40. A careful guide points out many paths, that each may walk along the one which he prefers and considers suitable to himself, so long as he comes upon one by which he can reach the camp. The path of virginity is good, but being high and steep requires the stronger wayfarers. Good also is that of widowhood, not so difficult as the former, but being rocky and rough, it requires more cautious travellers. Good too is that of marriage; being smooth and even it reaches the camp of the saints by a longer circuit. This way is taken by most. There are then the rewards of virginity, there are the merits of widowhood, there is also a place for conjugal modesty. There are steps and advances in each and every virtue.
41. Stand therefore firm in your hearts,
that no one overthrow you, that no one be able to make you fall.
The Apostle has taught us what it is “to stand,” that is
what was said to Moses: “The place whereon thou standest is
holy ground;”
42. Stand then in the Church, stand where I appeared to thee, where I am with thee. Where the Church is, there is the most solid resting place for thy mind, there the support of thy soul, where I appeared to thee in the bush. Thou art the bush, I am the fire; the fire in the bush, I in the flesh. Therefore am I the fire, that I may give light to thee, that I may consume thy thorns, that is, thy sins, and show thee My grace.
43. Standing firm then in your hearts, drive
away from the Church the wolves which seek to carry off prey. Let
there be no sloth in you, let not your mouth be evil nor your tongue
bitter. Do not sit in the council of vanity; for it is written,
“I have not sat in the council of vanity.”
44. Men sit when speaking against others,
they stand when they praise the Lord, to whom it is said:
“Behold now, praise the Lord, all ye servants of the Lord, ye
that stand in the house of the Lord.”
45. “Let him that standeth take heed
lest he fall.”
46. And so both in every action, and
especially in the demand for a bishop, by whom [as a pattern] the life
of all is formed; malignity ought to be absent; so that the man who is
to be elected out of all, and to heal all, may be preferred to all by a
calm and peaceful decision. For “the meek man is the
physician of the heart.” S.
47. He is the good Physician, Who has taken
upon Him our infirmities, has healed our sicknesses, and yet He, as it
is written, honoured not Himself to be made a High Priest, but He Who
spake to Him. The Father said: “Thou art My Son, this
day have I begotten Thee.”
48. And so He Himself also chose Aaron as
priest, that not the will of man but the grace of God should have the
chief part in the election of the priest;
49. Lastly, when the succession derived
through family descent from Aaron, contained rather heirs of the family
than sharers in his righteousness, there came, after the likeness of
that Melchisedech, of whom we read in the Old Testament, the true
Melchisedech, the true King of peace, the true King of righteousness,
for this is the interpretation of the Name, “without father,
without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor
end of life,” S.
50. Let there be in him faith and ripeness
of character, not one without the other, but let both meet together in
one with good works and deeds. For which reason the Apostle Paul
wishes that we should be imitators of them, who, as he says, “by
faith and patience”
51. A man clearly worthy to be proposed that
all should follow him was he, for when a terrible death on account of
the rebels was spreading over the people, he offered himself between
the dead and the living, that he might arrest death, and that no more
should perish.
52. Let those then who dissent learn to fear
to rouse up the Lord, and to appease His priests. What! did not
the earthquake swallow up Dathan, Abiron, and Korah because of their
dissension?
53. Whereupon the Lord was angry and spoke
to the whole congregation. The Lord considered and knew those
that were His, and drew His saints to Himself; and those whom He chose
not, He did not draw to Himself. And the Lord commanded that
Korah and all those who had risen up with him against Moses and Aaron
the priests of the Lord should take to themselves censers, and put on
incense,
54. And Moses said to Korah:
“Hear me, ye sons of Levi: Is this a small thing unto you,
that God hath separated you from the congregation of Israel, and
brought you near to Himself, to minister the service of the Tabernacle
of the Lord.”
55. Considering, then, what causes of offence existed, that unworthy persons desired to discharge the offices of the priesthood, and therefore were causing dissensions; and were murmuring in censure of the judgment of God in the choice of His priest, the whole people were seized with a great fear, and dread of punishment came upon them all. But when all implore that all perish not for the insolence of few, those guilty of the wickedness are marked out; and two hundred and fifty men with their leaders are separated from the whole body of the people; and then the earth with a groan cleaves asunder in the midst of the people, a deep gulf opens, the offenders are swallowed up, and are so removed from all the elements of this world, as neither to pollute the air by breathing it, nor the heavens by beholding them, nor the sea by their touch, nor the earth by their sepulchres.
56. The punishment ceased, but the wickedness ceased not; for from this very thing a murmuring rose among them that the people had perished through the priests. In His wrath at this, the Lord would have destroyed them all, had He not been moved first by the prayers of Moses and Aaron, and afterwards also at the intervention of His priest Aaron (the humiliation of their forgiveness being thereby greater), He willed to give their lives to those whose privilege they had repudiated.
57. Miriam the prophetess herself, who with
her brothers had crossed the straits of the sea on foot, because, being
still ignorant of the mystery of the Ethiopian woman, she had murmured
against her brother Moses, broke out with leprous spots,
58. And that we may observe that divine grace rather than human works in priests, of the many rods which Moses had received according to the Tribes, and had laid up, that of Aaron alone blossomed. And so the people saw that the gift of the Divine vocation is to be looked for in a priest, and ceased from claiming equal grace for a human choice though they had before thought that a similar prerogative belonged to themselves. But what else does that rod show, but that priestly grace never decays, and in the deepest lowliness has in its office the flower of the power committed to it, or that this also is refered to in mystery? Nor do we think that it was without a purpose that this took place near the end of the life of Aaron the priest. It seems to be shown that the ancient people, full of decay through the oldness of the long-continued unfaithfulness of the priests, being fashioned again in the last times to zeal in faith and devotion by the example of the Church, will again send forth with revived grace its flowers dead through so many ages.
59. But what does this signify, that after Aaron was dead, the Lord commanded, not the whole people, but Moses alone, who is amongst the priests, to clothe Aaron’s son Eleazar with the priest’s garments, except that we should understand that priest must consecrate priest, and himself clothe him with the vestments, that is, with priestly virtues; and then, if he has seen that nothing is wanting to him of the priestly garments, and that all things are perfect, should admit him to the sacred altars. For he who is to supplicate for the people ought to be chosen of God and approved by the priests, lest there be anything which might give serious offence in him whose office it is to intercede for the offences of others. For the virtue of a priest must be of no ordinary kind, since he has to guard not only from nearness to greater faults, but even the very least. He must also be prompt to have pity, not recall a promise, restore the fallen, have sympathy with pain, preserve meekness, love piety, repel or keep down anger, must be as it were a trumpet to excite the people to devotion, or to soothe them to tranquillity.
60. It is an old saying: Accustom
yourself to be consistent, that your life may set forth as it were a
picture, always preserving the same representation which it has
received. How can he be consistent who at one time is inflamed by
anger, at another blazes up with fierce indignation, whose face now
burns, and now again is changed to paleness, varying and changing
colour every moment? But let it be so, let it be natural for one
to be angry, or that there is generally a cause, it is a man’s
duty to restrain anger, and not to be carried away like a lion by fury,
so as not to know to be quieted, not to spread tales, nor to embitter
family quarrels; for it is written: “A wrathful man diggeth
up sin.”
61. And so the Apostle has given a pattern,
saying that a bishop must be blameless,
62. I have set down these things which I
have been told are to be avoided, but the Apostle is the Master of
virtues, and he teaches that gainsayers are to be convicted with
patience,
63. And I have thought it well not to pass by this
point, because many contend that having one wife is said of the time
after Baptism; so that the fault whereby any
64. We have stated what is according to the
law, let us state in addition what is according to reason. But
first we must notice that not only has the Apostle laid down this rule
concerning a bishop or priest, but that the Fathers in the Nicene
Council In concilio
Nicœni tractatus—“the Council of the Nicene
tractate or creed,” possibly. The reference is plain,
though there are various readings, and tractatus may not mean
the creed. The real difficulty is that in the 20 extant Canons of
Nicæa, there is no reference of the kind, and there is no evidence
that any are missing. Perhaps St. Ambrose is quoting from memory,
or some faulty collection, and so other canons are wrongly spoken of as
Nicene. On the subject comp. St. Ambr. de Off. I. 257, and
Dict. Chr. Ant. art. “Digamy.”
65. How I resisted my ordination, and
lastly, when I was compelled, endeavoured that it might at least be
deferred, but the prescribed rule did not prevail against the popular
eagerness. Yet the Western Bishops approved of my ordination by
their decision, the Eastern by an example of the same kind. Nectarius,
unbaptized and holding a civil office, was appointed to the see of
Constantinople, on the resignation of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, during
the sitting of the second œcumenical council at
Constantinople.
66. But if so much consideration is needed in other churches for the ordination of a bishop, how much care is required in the Church of Vercellæ, where two things seem to be equally required of the bishop, monastic rule and church discipline? For Eusebius of holy memory was the first in Western lands to bring together these differing matters, both while living in the city observing the rules of the monks, and ruling the Church with fasting and temperance. For the grace of the priesthood is much increased if the bishop constrain young men to the practice of abstinence, and to the rule of purity; and forbid them though living in the city, the manners and mode of life of the city.
67. From such a rule sprang those great men,
Elijah, Elisha, John the son of Elizabeth, who clothed in sheepskins,
poor and needy, and afflicted with pain, wandered in deserts,
68. Following these, holy Eusebius went
forth out of his country, and from his own relatives, and preferred a
foreign wandering to ease at home. For the faith also he
preferred and chose the hardships of exile, in conjunction with
Dionysius The two
Bishops, Eusebius of Vercellæ and Dionysius of Milan, were
banished by Valens, because in a council at Milan a.d. 355.
69. He confessed that he was overcome when
he asked them to change their determination, but they thought their pen
stronger than swords of iron. Then it was unbelief which was
wounded so that it fell, not the faith of the saints; they did not
desire a tomb in their own country, for whom was reserved a home in the
heavens. They wandered over the whole earth, “having
nothing and yet possessing all things.”
70. And at last holy Dionysius requested in his prayers, that he might end his life in exile, for fear that he might, if he returned home, find the minds of the people or the clergy disturbed through the teaching or practice of the unbelievers, and he obtained this favour, so that he bore with him the peace of the Lord with a quiet mind. Thus as holy Eusebius first raised the standard of confessorship, so blessed Dionysius in his exile gave up his life with honour higher even than martyrs.
71. Now this patience in holy Eusebius grew
strong by the discipline of the monastery, and from the custom of hard
endurance he derived the power of enduring hardships. For who
doubts that in stricter Christian devotion these two things are the
most excellent, the offices of the clergy and the rule of the
monks? The former is a discipline which accustoms to
courteousness and good morals, the latter to abstinence and patience;
the former as it were on an open stage, the latter in secret; the one
is visible, the other hidden. And so he who was a good athlete
said: “We are made a spectacle to this world and to
Angels.”
72. The one life, then, is on the open
arena, the other hidden as in a cave; the one is opposed to the
confusion of the world, the other to the desires of the flesh; the one
subdues, the other shuns the pleasures of the body; the one was more
agreeable, the other more safe; the one ruling, the other restraining
itself, in order to be wholly Christ’s, for to the perfect it is
said: “He who will come after Me, let him deny himself, and
take up his cross and follow Me.” S.
73. Paul denied himself, when, knowing that
chains and tribulations awaited him in Jerusalem, he willingly offered
himself to danger, saying: “Nor do I count my life dear to
myself, if only I can accomplish my course, and the ministry of the
Word, which I have received of the Lord Jesus.”
74. The one then contends, the other
retires; the one overcomes incitements, the other flees from them; by
the one the world is triumphed over, the other rejoices over it; to the
one the world is crucified, or itself is crucified to the
world,
75. Elijah himself too, that the word spoken
by his mouth might be confirmed, was sent by the Lord to hide himself
by the brook Cherith.
76. John, too, grew up in the desert, and baptized the Lord, and there first practised constancy, that afterwards he might rebuke kings.
77. And since in speaking of holy
Elijah’s dwelling in the desert, we have passed by without notice
the names of places which were not given without a purpose, it seems
well to go back to what they signify. Elijah was sent to the
brook Cherith, and there the ravens nourished him, bringing him bread
in the morning, for it “strengthens man’s
heart.”
78. Elijah went first to Beersheba, to the
mysteries and sacraments of the divine and holy Law, next he is sent to
the brook, to the stream of the river which makes glad the City of
God. S. S.
79. At that place the ravens recognized the
Prophet of the Lord, whom the Jews did not recognize. The ravens
fed him, whom that royal and noble race were persecuting. What is
Jezebel, who persecuted him but the Synagogue, vainly fluent, vainly
abounding in the Scriptures, which it neither keeps nor
understands? What ravens fed him but those whose young call upon
Him, to whose cattle He gives food as we read; “to the young
ravens that call upon Him.”
80. He feeds the prophet, who understands and keeps the things that are written. Our faith gives him sustenance, our progress gives him nourishment; he feeds upon our minds and senses, his discourse is nourished by our understanding. In the morning we give him bread, who, being placed in the light of the Gospel, bestow on him the settled strength of our hearts. By these things he is nourished, by these he is strong, with these he fills the mouths of those who fast, to whom the unbelief of the Jews supplied no food of faith. To them every prophetic utterance is but fasting diet, the interior richness of which they do not see; empty and thin, such as cannot fatten their jaws.
81. Perhaps they brought him flesh in the
evening, as it were stronger food, such as the Corinthians, whose minds
were weak, could not take, and were therefore fed by the Apostle with
milk.
82. But I think that enough has been said of the Master, let us now go on to the lives of the disciples, who have given themselves to His praise and celebrate it with hymns day and night. For this is the service of the Angels, to be always occupied in the praises of God, to propitiate and entreat the Lord with frequent prayers. They attend to reading, or occupy their minds with continual labours, and separated from the companionship of women, afford safe protection to each other. What a life is this, in which is nothing to fear, much to imitate! The pain of fasting is compensated by tranquillity of mind, is lightened by practice, aided by leisure, or beguiled by occupation; is not burdened with worldly cares, nor occupied with uncongenial troubles, nor weighed down with the distractions of the city.
83. You perceive what kind of teacher must be
found for the preservation or teaching of this gift, and we can find
him, if you assist by unanimity, if you forgive one
84. But what better pattern can there be
than that of Divine justice? For the Son of God says:
“Love your enemies;” S. S.
85. And since no one can be without some
adversities, let us take care that they do not happen to us through our
own fault. For no one is more severely condemned by the judgment
of others, than a foolish man, who is the cause of his misfortunes, is
condemned by his own. For which reason we should decline matters
which are full of trouble and contention, which have no advantage, but
cause hindrances. Although we ought to take care not to have to
repent our decisions or acts. For it is the part of a prudent man
to look forward, so as not often to have to repent, for never to repent
belongs to God alone. But what is the fruit of righteousness, but
tranquillity of mind? Or what is to live righteously but to live
with tranquility? Such as is the pattern of the master, such is
the condition of the whole house. But if these things are
requisite in a house, how much more in the Church, “where we,
both rich and poor, bond and free, Greek and Scythian, noble and
common, are all one in Christ Jesus.”
86. Let no man suppose that because he is
rich, more deference is to be paid him. In the Church he is rich
who is rich in faith, for the faithful has a whole world of
riches. What wonder is it if the faithful possesses the world,
who possesses the inheritance of Christ, which is of more value than
the world? “Ye were redeemed with the Precious
Blood,”
87. Do not trust in riches; for all such
things are left here, faith alone will accompany you. And
righteousness indeed will go with you if faith has led the way.
Why do riches entice you? “Ye were not redeemed with gold
and silver,” with possessions, or silk garments, “from your
vain conversation, but with the precious Blood of
Christ.”
88. And the first of them said:
“Silver and gold have I none.”
89. But if you will be rich, you must be poor. Then shall you in all things be rich, if you are poor in spirit. It is not property which makes rich, but the spirit.
90. There are those who humble themselves in abundance of riches, and they act rightly and prudently, for the law of nature is sufficiently rich for all, according to which one may soon find what is more than enough; but for lust any abundance of riches is still penury. Again, no one is born poor but becomes so. Poverty then is not in nature but in our own feelings, and so to find oneself rich is easy for nature, but hard for lust. For the more a man has gained the more he thirsts for gain, and burns as it were with a kind of intoxication from his lusts.
91. Why do you seek for a heap of riches as though it were necessary? Nothing is so necessary as to know that this is not necessary. Why do you throw the blame on the flesh? It is not the belly in the body but avarice in the mind which makes a man insatiable. Does the flesh take away the hope of the future? Does the flesh destroy the sweetness of spiritual grace? Does the flesh hinder faith? Is it the flesh which attributes any weight to vain opinions as it were to insane masters? The flesh prefers frugal moderation, by which it is freed from burdens, is clothed with health, because it has laid aside its care and has obtained tranquillity.
92. But riches themselves are not
blameable. For “the ransom of a man’s life are his
riches,” Probably a
reference to
93. And what is that city but Jerusalem
which is in heaven, in which is the kingdom of God? This is a
good possession which brings eternal fruit. A good possession
which is not left here, but is possessed there. He who possesses
this says: “The Lord is my portion.”
94. It is not then everyone who can say,
“The Lord is my portion.” The covetous man cannot,
for covetousness draws near and says: Thou art my portion, I have
thee in subjection, thou hast served me, thou hast sold thyself to me
with that gold, by that possession thou hast adjudged thyself to
me. The luxurious man says not: Christ is my portion, for
luxury comes and says: Thou art my portion, I made thee mine in
that banquet, I caught thee in the net of that feast, I hold thee by
the bond of thy gluttony. Dost thou not know that thy table was
more valued by thee than thy life? I refute thee by thine own
judgment, deny if thou canst, but thou canst not. And in fine
thou hast reserved nothing for thy life, thou hast spent it all for thy
table. The adulterer cannot say: “The Lord is my
portion;” for lust comes and says: I am
95. We have an example of this, for when Judas had received the bread from Christ the devil entered into his heart, as though claiming his own property, as though retaining his right to his own portion, as though saying: He is not Thine but mine; clearly he is my servant, Thy betrayer, plainly he is mine. He sits at table with Thee, and serves me; with Thee he feasts, but is fed by me; from Thee he receives bread, from me money; with Thee he drinks, and has sold Thy Blood to me. And he proved how truly he spoke. Then Christ departed from him, Judas also himself left Jesus and followed the devil.
96. How many masters has he who has forsaken
the One! But let us not forsake Him. Who would forsake Him
Whom they follow bound with chains indeed, but chains of love, which
set free and do not bind, those chains in which they who are bound
boast, saying: “Paul the bondservant of Jesus Christ, and
Timothy.”
97. You see, my sons, what has been the end
of those who followed these things, how being dead they yet work.
Let us study to gain the diligence of those the glory of whose virtues
we admire, and what we praise in others, let us silently recognize in
ourselves. Nothing effeminate, nothing feeble attains to
praise. “The kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the
violent take it by force.” S.
98. There are young persons who desire quickly to attain to old age, so as no longer to be subject to the will of their elders; and there are also old men who would wish if they could to return again to youth. And I approve of neither desire, for the young, disdainful of things present, as it were ungratefully desire a change in their way of living, the old wish for its lengthening, whereas youth can grow old in character, and old age grow green with action. For it is discipline as much as age which brings amendment of character. How much the more then ought we to raise our hopes to the kingdom of God, where will be newness of life, and where will be a change of grace not of age!
99. Reward is not obtained by ease or by sleep. The sleeper does no work, ease brings no profit, but rather loss. Esau by taking his ease lost the blessing of the first-born, for he preferred to have food given to him rather than to seek it. Industrious Jacob found favour with each parent.
100. And yet although Jacob was superior in
virtue and favour, he yielded to his brother’s anger, who grieved
that his younger brother was preferred to him. And so it is
written: “Give place to wrath,”
101. And so since he was separated from his
parents through piety not on account of impiety, he talked with God, he
increased in riches, in children, and in favour. Nor was he
elated by these things when he met his brother; but humbly bowed down
to him, not indeed considering him the pitiless, the furious, the
degenerate, but Him Whom he reverenced in him. And so he bowed
down seven times, which is the number of remission, for he was not
bowing down to man, but to Him Whom he foresaw in the Spirit, as
hereafter to come in human flesh to take away the sins of the
world. S. S.
102. But what is the meaning of his having
arranged his wives and children and all his servants, and ordered that
they should bow down to the earth? It was certainly not to the
element of earth, which is often filled with blood, in which is the
workshop of all crimes, which often is rough with huge rocks, or broken
cliffs, or barren and hungry soil, but as to that Flesh which is to be
for our salvation. And perchance this is that mystery which the
Lord taught, when He said: “Not only seven times, but even
seventy times seven.” S.
103. Do you then forgive injuries done to
you that you may be children of Jacob. Be not provoked as was
Esau. Imitate holy David, who as a good master left us what we
should follow, saying: “Instead of loving me they spake
against me, but I prayed,”
104. And for the rest, most dear brethren,
consider that Jesus suffered without the gate, and do you go forth out
of this earthly city, for your city is Jerusalem which is above.
Let your conversation be there, that you may say: “But our
conversation is in heaven.”
105. Love hospitality, whereby holy Abraham found favour, and received Christ as his guest, and Sarah already worn with age gained a son; Lot also escaped the fire of the destruction of Sodom. You too can receive Angels if you offer hospitality to strangers. What shall I say of Rahab who by this means found safety?
106. Compassionate those who are bound with
chains, as though bound with them. Comfort those in sorrow; for,
“It is better to go into the house of mourning than into the
house of rejoicing.”
107. Let a wife show deference, not be a slave to her husband; let her show herself ready to be ruled not coerced. She is not worthy of wedlock who deserves chiding. Let a husband also guide his wife like a steersman, honour her as the partner of his life, share with her as a joint heir of grace.
108. Mothers, wean your children, love them, but pray for them that they may long live above this earth, not on the earth but above it, for there is nothing long-lived on this earth, and that which lasts long is but short and very frail. Warn them rather to take up the Cross of the Lord than to love this life.
109. Mary, the mother of the Lord stood by
her Son’s Cross; no one has taught me this but the holy
Evangelist St. John. S. S. S. S.
110. Nor was Mary below what was becoming
the mother of Christ. When the apostles fled, she stood at the
Cross, and with pious eyes beheld her Son’s wounds, for she did
not look for the death of her Offspring, but the salvation of the
world. Or perchance, because that “royal
hall” The
expression “Aula regalisi” applied to the Blessed
Virgin is also used by St. Ambrose, de Inst. Virg. XII. 79, and
in the Hymn for the Nativity of our Lord—“Veni Redemptor
gentium,” verse 4—“Procedit e thalamo Suo,
Pudoris aula Regia.” The force is lost in the
translation adopted in Hymns Ancient and Modern, No. 57, but is
preserved in Dr. Neale’s version, “Proceeding from His
chamber free, The royal hall of chastity.”—Hymnal
Noted, No. 31.
111. Imitate her, holy mothers, who in her only dearly beloved Son set forth so great an example of maternal virtue; for neither have you sweeter children, nor did the Virgin seek the consolation of being able to bear another son.
112. Masters, command your servants not as
being below you in rank, but as remembering that they are sharers of
the same nature as yourselves.
113. In fine, turn all to the Lord Jesus. Let your enjoyment of this life be with a good conscience, your endurance of death with the hope of immortality, your assurance of the resurrection through the grace of Christ; let truth be with simplicity, faith with confidence, abstinence with holiness, industry with soberness, conversation with modesty, learning without vanity; let there be soberness of doctrine, faith without the intoxication of heresy. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you all. Amen.
Genesis
1:1 1:1 1:1-26 1:2 1:3 1:3 1:3-4 1:4 1:6 1:6-7 1:11 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26 1:26-27 1:29-30 2:18 2:20 2:24 2:24 2:24 3:6 3:9 3:9 3:14 3:15 3:16 3:16 3:17 3:17 3:19 3:21 3:24 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:10 5:24 5:24 6:3 6:14 6:16 7:1 7:23 8:11 8:21 9:20 9:22 9:22 11:5 11:7 11:7 12:1 12:5 14 14:14 14:14 14:16 14:18 15:4 15:5 15:6 15:6 15:6 15:6 15:6 17:15 18:1 18:1 18:1-3 18:2 18:3 18:4 18:4 18:21 18:22-23 18:27 19:3 19:20 19:24 19:24 19:26 19:32-33 20:1 21:30 22:3 22:9 22:11 22:13 22:13 22:16 24:62 24:65 24:67 25:10 25:23 25:34 27:27 27:28 27:42 27:42 28:5 28:12 28:17 29:11 29:28 31:32 31:41 32:3 32:24-26 32:25 32:28 32:29-30 33:4 33:8 34:2 34:5 34:5 37:4 37:9 37:28 38:26 39 39:7 39:7 39:8-9 39:12 39:12 39:12 41:9 41:17 41:22 41:33 41:53-57 42:2 44:2 47:14-20 47:25 49:11 49:12 49:22 49:25 49:26 49:29
Exodus
2:11 3:3 3:4 3:4 3:5 3:5 3:5 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:14 3:15 4:3 4:3-4 4:6-7 4:10 7:1 7:12 7:19 7:20 9:10 9:23 9:29 10:22 12:11 12:22 12:29 14 14 14:16 14:21 14:21 14:22 14:22 14:29 15:2 15:6 15:6 15:10 15:10 15:11 15:20 15:20 15:20 15:23 15:25 16:12 16:13 16:13 16:18 17:6 17:6 17:11 18:13 19:5 19:6 19:10 20:2 20:17 22:2 23:4 24:6 24:12 24:15 24:17 28:5 28:5-6 28:6 28:15-21 28:33 28:34 28:42-43 29:12-13 31 32:5 32:31 32:32 32:32 32:32 32:32 33:7 33:19 33:20 33:22 33:23 34:6 34:9 34:20 34:28 34:30 35:27
Leviticus
9:24 10:2 19:2 19:2 19:13 23:24-25 26:12
Numbers
1:49-51 3:12-13 10:1-10 10:8 11:4 11:25 12:3 12:10 13:24 13:24 13:27-28 14:3 14:11 14:12 14:21 14:29 14:37 16:3 16:8-9 16:9-11 16:17 16:21 16:32 16:40 16:48 16:48 17:8 18:23 20:11 21:24 22:17 22:22 22:28 23:2 23:10 23:19 23:19 24:17 31
Deuteronomy
4:24 4:24 5:26 5:31 6:4 6:4 6:4 6:4 6:5 6:5 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 6:13 7 8:3 8:3 8:3-4 9:2 21:23 23:19 25:5-10 28:23 29:5 30:14 32:35 33:8-9 33:11 33:16-17 33:24 34:6 34:9
Joshua
2:9 2:18 3:15 3:16 5:13 5:13 5:16 6:6 6:13 7:21 8:23 9 9:3 9:27 10 10:12 10:12 10:12-13 10:19 11:21-22 14:6
Judges
4 4:4 4:8 6:11 6:14 6:19-21 6:21 6:21 6:26 6:31 6:36 6:37 7 9:13 11:30 11:35 11:36 11:40 13:25 13:25 14:6 14:6 14:14 14:18 14:19 15:14-15 15:15 16:6 16:7 16:11 16:17 16:17 16:19 16:20 16:20 19:1-3 19:10-21 19:22-26 20:1 20:48 21:1
Ruth
1 Samuel
2:25 3:25 4:1 13:14 14:1 17:32 17:39 17:51 18:7 19:4 19:5 19:24 20:11 20:27 20:34 21:13 22:9 22:17 24:10 25 26:2 26:8-10 26:23 28
2 Samuel
1:21-27 1:23 2:3 3:20 3:28 5:1-2 5:18 5:19 6:14 7:8 7:21 12:7 12:13 12:13 12:16 12:18 13:21 13:29 13:31 14:25 15:1-6 16:6 16:10 16:11 16:11-12 16:12 18:5 18:14 18:33 18:33 18:33 21:15 24:10 24:14 24:17 24:17
1 Kings
2:5 3:9 3:26 3:26 3:28 5:1 10:1 10:2-3 10:6-8 11:34 12:4 12:13-16 12:16 13:4 13:4 17:1 17:3 17:6 17:9 17:9 17:14 17:14 17:14 17:14 17:16 17:16 17:20 17:22 18:30 18:38 18:45 19:1 19:4 19:6 19:8 19:11 19:18 19:20 19:21 21:3 21:3 21:16 21:23 22:19 22:36 29 30
2 Kings
2:11 2:11 3:17 3:17 4:16 4:34 4:34 4:34 4:39 4:41 4:44 5:1 5:10 5:11 5:14 5:14 6:6 6:8 6:8-23 6:16 6:16 6:16 6:20 6:22 6:22 6:23 6:25-31 6:32 7:1 7:1-2 7:3-4 7:6-7 7:8-9 7:16-20 9:30 13:21 13:21 22:1 23:21 23:35 24:13
Ezra
Esther
Job
1:12 1:14 1:21 1:21 1:22 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:8 2:9 2:10 2:10 3:3 5:21 9:8 14:4 14:4 19:21 19:26 21 21:2-4 21:7-9 21:14 21:17 21:24 21:28 21:32 22:17 24:14-15 26:14 27:2-3 27:3 29:12-13 29:13 29:15-16 29:23 31:26-28 31:32 31:34 31:35 33:4 33:4 33:4 38:4-6 38:36 40:2 40:4 40:5 40:6 41:1 41:5 41:8 41:8 42:7-8 42:10
Psalms
1 1:1-2 2:7 2:7 2:25-27 3 3:5 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:6 4:6-7 4:7 4:15 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:24 6:1 6:1 6:6 6:6 6:7 7:1 7:4 7:7 7:9 7:15 8:2 8:3 8:5-6 8:6 8:6 8:7-8 8:8 9:14 10 10:1 10:1 10:1 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:3 10:4 11:4 11:6 11:8 12:1 12:6 12:6 12:6-7 13:5-6 13:6 14:1 14:1 14:3 15:1 15:2-3 15:3 15:3 15:9 16:5 16:6 16:10 16:11 16:13 16:16 16:17 17:7 18:1 18:6 18:7 18:8 18:8 18:9 18:14 18:14 18:19 18:26 18:59 19 19:1 19:1 19:1 19:1 19:1 19:1 19:2 19:2 19:2 19:4 19:6 19:89 19:91 19:91 20:8 21:91 22:1 22:1 22:1 22:6 22:7 22:11 22:13 22:19 23:1-5 23:2 23:5 24:1 24:3 24:4 24:4 24:6 24:7 24:8 24:8-9 25:4 25:8 26:4 26:5 26:5 26:7 27:2 27:4 27:4 27:9 29:3 30:2 30:9 30:9 30:9 30:11 30:15 31:1 31:3 31:3 31:11 31:16 32:1 32:1-2 32:5 33:4 33:6 33:6 33:6 33:6 33:6 33:6 33:6 33:6 33:9 33:9 33:9 33:9 33:9 33:17 34:6 34:9 34:11 34:13-14 34:18 35 35 36:1 36:9 36:9 36:9 37 37:1 37:1 37:4 37:21 37:21 37:25 38:8 38:13 39 39:1 39:1 39:1-2 39:2 39:2 39:4 39:4 39:5 39:5 39:7 39:7-10 39:14 39:15 39:24 40:10 41:3 41:3 41:3-4 42:3 42:4 43 43:2 43:3 43:4 43:4 44:10 45 45:1 45:1 45:1 45:1 45:1 45:2 45:3 45:6 45:7 45:8 45:8 45:9-11 46:4 46:4 47:4 48:3 48:4 48:5 48:5 48:5 50:3 50:3 50:3 50:14 50:16 50:20 50:21 51:2 51:2 51:3 51:4 51:4 51:4 51:5 51:9 51:11 51:17 52:2 53:1 53:2 54:8 54:12 54:13-14 55:3 55:6 56:4 56:10 60:12 62 62:1 62:3 62:4 64:7 65:1 65:1 65:3 65:8 65:9 66:13 68:9 68:16 68:18 68:30 68:31 69:9 69:9 69:13 71:6 71:8 71:15 71:15 71:19 71:22-23 72:6 72:6 72:8-9 72:19 72:20 73:5-7 73:11 73:12 73:26 75:11 76:1 76:1 76:1 76:1 76:2-3 77:7 77:8-9 78:17-18 78:24-25 79:1 80:1 80:5 80:5 81:3 81:9-10 81:10 82:1 82:4 82:6 82:6 82:6 83:18 85 85:8 86:2 86:2 86:16 86:16 87:4 87:5 87:5 87:5 88:4 88:4-5 88:4-5 88:25 88:31-32 89:6 89:6 89:16 89:19 89:20 89:20 89:20 89:20 89:37 89:37-38 89:40 89:46 90:1 90:2 90:2-4 90:3 92:4 92:12 92:12 93:1 93:1 94:3 94:7 94:8-11 94:9 94:9 94:12 95:6 95:6 95:6 95:6 96:5 96:13 98:2 98:10 99:1 99:5 101:2 101:6 102:9 102:9 102:9 102:25 102:26 103:5 103:15 104:5 104:15 104:15 104:15 104:24 104:29-30 104:29-30 105:37 105:40 109:4 109:28 110:1 110:1 110:3 110:4 111:10 111:10 112:1 112:1 112:3 112:5 112:5-6 112:9 112:9 112:9 113:5-6 113:6 113:7 113:7 113:8 114:3 116:10 116:10 116:14 116:15 118:16 118:18 118:22 119:9 119:17 119:36 119:46 119:46 119:72-73 119:89 119:91 119:91 119:120 119:126 119:131 119:136 119:164 120:5 120:5 122:7 124:4 128:3 132:6 132:6 132:15 133:2 134:1-2 137:1 137:2 137:4 137:7 137:8 137:9 139:7 139:7 141:3 143:10 143:10 144:4 145:15-16 146:9 147:9 148:5 199:73
Proverbs
3:19 4:23 5 5:15 5:15-16 5:16 5:17-19 6:2 6:6-8 6:25 6:27 6:27 6:28 8:12 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:22 8:23 8:27 8:27 8:27 8:29-30 8:30 8:30-31 9:1 9:1 9:10 9:12 10:15 10:19 11:1 11:1 11:26 11:26 13:8 14:3 14:15 14:15 14:30 15:17 15:18 16:32 17:1 17:15 18:17 18:17 19:12 19:17 19:17 20:1 20:5 20:10 20:10 21:1 22:28 23:1 23:13 24:7 24:11 24:30 25:18 26:4 27:6 27:6 27:6 27:10 27:16 30:5 30:18-19 31:21-22
Ecclesiastes
2:14 3:1 3:7 4:2 7:2 7:4 7:17 12:14 12:14 24:5
Song of Solomon
1:1 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2-3 1:2-3 1:3 1:3 1:3-4 1:4 1:5 2:1 2:1-2 2:3 2:15 3:4 3:6 3:7-8 3:16 4:1 4:1 4:2-3 4:7-8 4:7-8 4:7-8 4:8 4:8 4:10 4:10 4:10 4:11 4:12 4:12 4:15 4:16 4:16 5:1 5:1 5:1 5:1 5:2 5:3 5:11 5:15 5:26 6:4 7:6-7 7:8 7:9 7:11 8:1-2 8:5 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:9 8:10 8:12
Isaiah
1:3 1:6 1:6 1:17 1:17 1:18 1:18 3:2 3:10 5:6 6:1-3 6:2 6:2 6:3 6:3 6:3 6:3 6:5 6:5 6:5 6:6 6:6 6:7 6:7 6:10 6:10 7:11 9:1 9:2 9:6 9:6 9:6 9:6 9:6 9:6 10:17 11:1 11:2 11:2 11:2 11:2 11:6 11:8 11:9 13:1 13:22 14:6 14:14 25:4 25:8-9 26:18-21 27:1 28:16 28:16 29:13 35:3 40:3 40:12 40:12-17 40:13 41:4 42:1 42:5 42:6-7 42:8 42:12 43:2 43:2 43:10 43:25 43:25 44:3 44:6 44:6 44:24 45:11 45:11 45:14 45:14 45:18 46:5 47:13 48:12 48:12 48:15-16 49:5 49:5-6 49:9 50:4 50:11 51:7 52:6 53:1 53:2 53:4 53:4 53:4 53:4 53:5 53:5 53:5 53:7 53:7 53:8 53:8 53:8 54:1 54:1 54:4 54:7 54:15 55:1 55:1-2 56:7 58:11 61:1 61:1 61:1 61:1 63:1 63:10 63:13-14 64:4 64:4 65:16 65:25 66:1 66:2 66:12 66:12 66:22-24
Jeremiah
1:5 1:5 1:6 1:11 2:13 2:13 2:21 2:27 7:14 7:16 9:10 10:10 10:10 10:11 11:18 15:10 15:18 17:1 17:1 17:9 17:10 17:10 17:14 18:13 20:9 20:18 23:6 23:18 23:18-22 23:24 23:24 24 26:2-3 27:39 31:18 31:18 31:19 31:20 31:25-26 33:16 38:11 50:39 51:25
Lamentations
1:2 1:4 1:16 1:20 2:10-11 3:31-32 3:34 4:20 4:20
Ezekiel
1:16 2:4-5 2:9 3:17 3:18 3:20 3:21 5:7 16:43 18:4 18:20 18:32 21:14 23:11 23:40 28:3 28:3 28:13 34:23-24 37:1-7 37:9-10 37:9-14 37:13-14 38:14 39:10 40:3
Daniel
1:8 1:16 2 3:16 3:25 3:27 3:27 4:3 4:17 4:22 4:25 4:27 4:28 5:14 6 6:3 6:22 6:22 7:9 9:7 9:9-10 12:1-3 12:3
Hosea
2:23 6:4 6:6 6:6 11:8 11:8 14:5 14:10
Joel
Amos
Obadiah
Jonah
Micah
6:3 6:3-5 6:8 7:1 7:2 7:8-10 7:17
Nahum
Zechariah
2:8 3:2-3 3:4 3:7 3:8 5:1 6:1 12:1 12:10 14:5-7 14:9
Malachi
Matthew
1:18 1:18 1:18 1:20 1:20 2 2:11 2:16 3:4 3:11 3:11 3:11 3:11 3:14-15 3:17 3:17 3:17 3:17 4:1 4:3 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:10 4:10 4:11 4:11 4:12-16 4:17 4:22 5:3 5:3 5:4 5:6 5:8 5:8 5:11-12 5:14 5:17 5:28 5:28 5:28 5:34 5:39 5:44 5:44 5:44 5:44 5:45 5:48 5:48 5:48 6:2 6:3 6:11 6:19 6:24 6:24 6:24 6:26 7:4-5 7:6 7:7-8 7:11 7:15 7:17 7:17 7:21 7:21 7:21 7:25 7:27 8:2 8:2 8:8 8:11 8:17 8:19-20 8:20 8:22 8:29 9:4 9:4 9:4 9:11-12 9:12 9:13 9:13 9:21 10:8 10:8 10:9 10:9 10:16 10:16 10:19-20 10:20 10:20 10:23 10:24 10:24 10:28 10:28 10:28 10:30 10:32-33 10:34 10:34 10:39 10:39 10:41 10:42 11:3 11:5 11:11 11:12 11:25 11:25 11:25 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:27 11:28 11:28 11:29 11:29 11:30 12:8 12:24 12:25 12:25 12:25 12:26 12:27 12:28 12:28-29 12:30 12:31-32 12:31-32 12:31-32 12:32 12:32 12:36 12:36 12:37 12:50 13:25 13:43 13:43 14:3 14:3 14:4 14:6 14:28 14:28 14:31 14:33 14:35 15:8 15:8 15:24 15:24 15:25 16:11 16:16 16:18 16:18 16:19 16:19 16:23 16:24 16:24 16:28 16:28 17:3 17:3 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:6 17:6 17:6-8 17:8 17:9 17:19 17:21 17:24 17:27 18:3 18:15 18:20 18:20 18:21 18:21 18:22 18:23 18:35 19:12 19:12 19:12 19:17 19:17-19 19:18-21 19:20-21 19:21 19:27 19:28 19:28 19:28 19:29 19:29 20:6 20:14 20:15 20:21 20:22 20:22-23 20:23 20:23 20:23 20:28 20:30 21:37 21:37 21:37 22:11 22:17 22:18 22:21 22:21 22:30 22:30 22:42-46 22:43 22:45 23:14 24:2 24:15 24:22 24:29 24:30 24:36 24:44 24:45-46 25:11-12 25:15 25:20 25:21 25:26-27 25:31 25:34 25:35 25:36 25:36 25:36 25:36 25:40 25:40 25:40 25:40 26:12 26:26 26:26 26:39 26:39 26:39 26:41 26:52 26:53 26:63 26:64 26:64 26:64 26:70 27:4 27:5 27:29 27:35 27:36 27:45 27:46 27:46 27:50-53 27:51 27:54 28:9 28:17 28:18 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:19 28:20 28:20 28:20 28:20 28:46
Mark
1:7 1:11 1:13 1:24 1:25 2:7 2:7 2:8-12 2:11 2:28 3:17 3:17 4:37 5:38-43 6:21 6:22-23 6:25 6:27 6:28 6:48 6:56 7:34 8:30 8:38 8:39 9:7 9:7 10:18 10:18 10:23 10:40 10:45 11:24 12:6 12:25 13:32 13:32 13:32 14:35 15:24 15:24 15:34 15:39 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:17-18 16:17-18
Luke
1:19 1:23 1:26-27 1:28 1:28 1:28 1:29 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:37 1:38 1:41 1:42 1:44 1:56 1:63-64 1:76 2 2:11 2:13-14 2:19 2:19 2:19 2:25 2:36-37 2:37 2:37 2:41 2:51 2:51 2:51 2:52 3:16 3:22 3:22 4:1 4:3 4:3 4:16 4:18 4:18 4:18 4:18 4:21 4:25 4:38 4:38 4:39 4:41 5:14 5:20 5:20 5:21 6:8 6:8 6:15 6:19 6:19 6:20-21 6:21 6:21 6:21 6:24-25 6:25 6:36 6:37-38 6:67 7:12 7:30 7:32 7:36 7:41 7:42 7:43 7:43 7:44 7:45 7:47 7:47 7:47 8:17 8:37 8:46 9:13 9:26 9:35 9:55-56 9:56 10:2 10:19 10:31-32 10:33 10:35 10:37 11:8 11:9-10 11:13 11:20 11:28 11:29 11:49 12:8-9 12:11-12 12:14 12:15 12:17 12:42 12:43 12:47-48 12:49 12:49 12:55 13:6 13:7 13:7 13:8-9 13:26 13:28 13:28 14:7-8 14:12-13 14:21 15:5 15:10 15:13 15:24 16:9 16:19 16:24 16:25 17:5 17:10 17:14 17:21 17:31 17:37 18:11 18:13-14 18:19 18:27 18:29-30 19:8 19:10 19:12 19:17 19:20 19:23 19:27 19:35 19:35 19:40 19:40 20:4 20:13 20:38 21:3 21:3 21:3-4 21:8 21:11 22:24 22:32 22:41 22:42 22:43 22:48 22:48 22:60-61 23:28 23:29 23:30 23:34 23:35 23:36-37 23:41 23:42-43 23:43 23:43 23:43 23:43 23:46 24:39 24:49
John
1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1-2 1:1-2 1:1-3 1:1-3 1:1-3 1:1-18 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:4 1:4 1:8 1:9 1:9 1:9 1:10 1:12 1:12-13 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:14 1:16 1:16 1:17 1:17 1:17-18 1:18 1:18 1:18 1:26 1:26-27 1:27 1:27 1:27 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:29 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:32 1:32 1:32 1:33 1:33 1:33 1:33 1:33 1:33 1:36 1:48 2:4 2:9 2:15 2:17 2:17 2:19 2:19 2:19 3:5 3:5 3:6 3:6 3:6 3:7-8 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:8 3:12 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:14 3:16 3:16 3:16-17 3:17 3:18 3:21 3:21 3:29 3:35 3:36 4:6 4:6-7 4:10 4:14 4:22 4:22 4:23 4:23-24 4:24 4:24 4:24 4:34 4:34 4:34 5:4 5:4 5:6 5:10 5:17 5:17 5:17 5:18 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:20 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:22 5:22 5:22 5:22 5:22-23 5:23 5:23 5:23 5:23 5:23 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:26 5:27 5:30 5:30 5:31 5:37 5:43 5:43 6:9 6:18 6:31 6:32 6:38 6:39 6:39 6:40 6:44 6:44 6:50-51 6:51 6:52 6:54 6:56 6:58 6:58 6:64 6:69 7:8 7:12 7:14 7:16 7:16 7:18 7:28 7:30 7:33 7:37 7:37-38 7:37-38 7:38 7:38 7:38-39 7:39 7:52 8:12 8:14 8:14-15 8:16 8:16 8:16 8:17 8:18 8:18 8:19 8:25 8:25 8:25 8:29 8:29 8:38 8:40 8:42 8:42 8:43 8:54 8:56 8:56 8:58 8:58 9:4 9:5 9:6 9:25 9:30 10:11 10:17 10:17 10:17 10:18 10:18 10:28-30 10:29 10:29 10:29-30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:30 10:31 10:34 10:35 10:38 10:38 11:4 11:25 11:25 11:25 11:25 11:27 11:34 11:34 11:35 11:40 11:41 11:41 11:42 11:43 11:43 11:47 12:3 12:4 12:6 12:10 12:19 12:27 12:27 12:28 12:28 12:29 12:29 12:36-41 12:41 12:44 12:45 12:45 12:46 12:46 12:47 12:48 12:49 12:50 13:1 13:4 13:4-5 13:7 13:8 13:8 13:8 13:9-10 13:13 13:13 13:13-14 13:31 13:31 13:31-32 13:37 13:37 14:1 14:3 14:3 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:6 14:9 14:9 14:9 14:9-10 14:10 14:10 14:10 14:10 14:10 14:10 14:10 14:11 14:12 14:12 14:12 14:12 14:12-13 14:13 14:16 14:16 14:16-17 14:17 14:20 14:21 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:23 14:26 14:26 14:26 14:27 14:28 14:28 14:28 14:30 14:31 15:1 15:5 15:14 15:14-15 15:15 15:15 15:15 15:16 15:20 15:22-23 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 15:26 16:7 16:7-8 16:12-13 16:13 16:13 16:13 16:13 16:13 16:14 16:14 16:14 16:14 16:14 16:14 16:14-15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:15 16:23-24 16:25 16:27 16:27-8 16:28 16:28 16:32 16:32 17:1 17:1 17:1-2 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:3 17:4 17:4 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:5 17:10 17:10 17:11 17:14-15 17:17 17:19 17:21 17:21 17:21 17:21 17:22-23 17:23 17:24 17:24 17:24 17:24 17:24 17:24 17:25 18:6 19:23-24 19:25 19:27 19:34 19:39 20:11-12 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17 20:17-18 20:22 20:22 20:22 20:22 20:22-23 20:22-23 20:28 20:29 20:29 20:31 21:15 21:15 21:22 21:22 21:23
Acts
1:5 1:7 1:7 1:8 1:8 1:18 2:2 2:2-3 2:3 2:13 2:24 2:36 2:36 2:38 3:6 3:6 3:6 4:11-12 4:12 4:31 4:32 5:1-2 5:2 5:3 5:3-4 5:5 5:9 5:9 5:11 5:15-16 7:22 7:38 7:38 7:38 7:51 7:55 7:55 7:56 7:58 7:60 8:21 9:5 9:8 9:12 9:15 9:17 9:20 9:34 9:39 9:40 10:10 10:11 10:15 10:19-20 10:34 10:34 10:37-38 10:38 11:16 11:17 12:4 13:2 13:2 13:2 13:32-33 14:22 15:8-9 15:28 15:39-40 16:3 17:18 17:26 17:28 17:28 17:28 19:5 19:23 20:24 20:28 21:11 22:9 26:16 26:22 27:40 28:25-26
Romans
1:1 1:1 1:3 1:3 1:3-4 1:4 1:4 1:7 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:20 1:24-25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 1:25 2:4 3:2 3:4 3:4 3:4 3:30 4:17 4:24 5:3-4 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:12 5:19 5:19 5:19 5:20 6:3 6:3 6:4 6:4 6:5-6 6:6 6:10 7:2 7:14 7:23 7:23 7:24 7:24 7:24-25 8:2 8:2 8:2 8:3 8:3 8:3-4 8:7 8:9 8:9 8:10 8:11 8:11 8:11 8:11 8:13 8:16 8:16-17 8:16-17 8:17 8:19 8:20 8:21 8:21 8:21-22 8:26 8:29 8:29 8:31-35 8:32 8:32 8:32 8:35 8:35 8:38 8:38-39 9:5 9:5 9:5 9:5 9:5 9:18 9:20 9:21 10:2 10:10 10:10 10:10 11:5 11:20 11:25 11:33-36 11:36 11:36 11:36 11:36 11:36 12:2 12:15 12:19 12:19 13:7 13:13 13:14 14:2 14:2 14:9 14:11 14:17
1 Corinthians
1:1 1:2 1:9 1:13 1:20 1:22 1:23 1:23-24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:24 1:27 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 1:30 2:4-5 2:6 2:6 2:7 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9-10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:11 2:11 2:11 2:12 2:12-13 2:13-14 2:13-14 2:15 2:16 3:2 3:2 3:2 3:5-6 3:6 3:7 3:8 3:9 3:11 3:11 3:12 3:13 3:15 3:16 4:1 4:12 4:12-13 4:16 4:20 4:21 4:21 5:1 5:1 5:2 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:5 5:5 5:7 5:7 5:7 5:7 5:9 5:9 5:10-11 5:11 5:11 5:18 6:1-2 6:5 6:9 6:11 6:11 6:12 6:12 6:17 6:17 6:18 6:19 6:19 7:1 7:4 7:7 7:8 7:9 7:9 7:14 7:15 7:22 7:23 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:25 7:26 7:26 7:26 7:27 7:28 7:29 7:32 7:32 7:34 7:34 7:34 7:34 7:35 7:37-40 7:38 7:39-40 7:40 8:4 8:4 8:4 8:5 8:5 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:6 8:9 9:17 9:22 9:27 9:27 9:27 10:1-2 10:1-2 10:1-3 10:3 10:3 10:4 10:4 10:4 10:4 10:4 10:4 10:4 10:7 10:9 10:11 10:12 10:23-24 10:31 11:3 11:3 11:13-14 11:16 11:26 11:26 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:3 12:4 12:4-6 12:5 12:8 12:8 12:8 12:8-9 12:8-10 12:9 12:10 12:11 12:11 12:11 12:11 12:13 12:13 12:17 12:21 12:22-23 12:26 12:27 12:28 12:30 12:31 13:4 13:7-8 13:9 13:12 13:12 13:12 14:2 14:8 14:15 14:23-25 14:40 15:10 15:13 15:19 15:19-20 15:21 15:21-28 15:22 15:23 15:23 15:23 15:24 15:24-28 15:28 15:28 15:28 15:31 15:32 15:33 15:36 15:40 15:41 15:42 15:43 15:48 15:49 15:52 15:52 15:52 15:52 15:53 15:53 15:54-55
2 Corinthians
1:3 1:19 2:6 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:10 2:14 2:15 2:15 2:17 3:3 3:3 3:6 3:15-17 3:17 3:17 3:17 3:17-18 4:4 4:6 4:6 4:7 4:7 4:7 4:14 4:18 5:5 5:16 5:16 5:16 5:18 5:19 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 5:21 6:9 6:10 6:10 6:14 6:15 6:16 7:5 8:9 8:9 8:10 8:10 8:11-15 9:7 10:4 10:4 10:5 10:17 11:2 11:2 11:3 11:14 11:14 11:24 11:27 12:2-5 12:7 12:9 12:10 12:11 13:3 13:3 13:3-4 13:4 13:13 13:14 13:14 13:14 13:14
Galatians
1:1 1:3-4 1:3-4 1:4 2:8 2:16 2:19 2:20 2:20 3:11 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:13 3:16 3:23 3:28 3:28 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4 4:4-5 4:6-7 4:7 4:8 4:18 4:27 4:28-29 5:11 5:12 5:17 5:22 5:22 5:22 5:24 6:2 6:7 6:8 6:10 6:14 6:14
Ephesians
1:4 1:13 1:13 1:13-14 1:20 1:20-21 1:20-22 1:21 1:21 2:2 2:5-6 2:6 2:8 2:10 2:15 2:19 3:9 3:16 4:5 4:5 4:11 4:15-16 4:15-16 4:23 4:23 4:23-24 4:30 5:2 5:2 5:3 5:5 5:5 5:8 5:14 5:14 5:14 5:18 5:21 5:22 5:23 5:23 5:25 5:32 6:12 6:12 6:12 6:14-17 6:16-17
Philippians
1:1 1:21 1:23 1:23 1:23 1:23-24 1:29 2:3-4 2:4 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:6-7 2:6-8 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7 2:7-8 2:7-8 2:7-8 2:7-8 2:8 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:10 2:11 2:13-14 3:2 3:2-3 3:3 3:3 3:7-8 3:8 3:8 3:12 3:15 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20 3:20-21 4:7 4:11 4:12
Colossians
1:9 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15 1:15-16 1:15-16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16 1:16-17 1:16-18 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:17 1:18 1:18 1:19 1:19 1:19 1:26-27 2:3 2:3 2:3 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:12 2:12 2:13-14 2:13-14 2:14 2:15 2:16 2:18 2:19 2:19 2:20-22 2:21 3:1-2 3:2 3:3 3:3 3:4 3:4 3:5 3:8 3:8-9 3:9-10 3:9-10 3:11 3:11 3:17 4:3
1 Thessalonians
3:11 3:12-13 4:6 4:8 4:14 4:14 4:16 4:16-17 4:17 4:17 5:1 5:10 5:23
2 Thessalonians
1 Timothy
1:1 1:4 1:4 1:9 1:11 1:19 2:5 2:9 2:9-10 2:11 3:2 3:2 3:2-10 3:6 3:16 4:1 4:8 4:8 4:8 4:12 5:3-4 5:3-4 5:5 5:5 5:6 5:9 5:10 5:11 5:15 5:16 5:16 5:22 5:23 5:23 6:6 6:10 6:10 6:12 6:13 6:13-16 6:15 6:16 6:16 6:16 6:20 6:20-21
2 Timothy
1:9 1:18 2:4 2:5 2:11-12 2:11-12 2:23 2:24-25 3:9 4:2 4:7-8 4:10
Titus
1:2 1:5 1:6 1:7 1:9 2:1 3:3-7 3:5 3:9 3:10 3:10 3:10-11
Hebrews
1:1 1:1 1:1-2 1:1-2 1:1-12 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2 1:2-3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:3-4 1:5 1:5-6 1:6 1:6 1:6 1:10 1:14 2:3-4 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:8 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:9 2:10 2:10 2:14 3:4 3:7-11 4:12 4:12 4:14 4:15 5:1-5 5:2 5:3 5:4 5:5 5:5 5:7-10 6:3 6:4 6:4-6 6:4-6 6:4-6 6:12 6:13-14 6:18 7 7:1 7:22 7:26-27 7:28 8:7 9:13-14 10:1 10:10-12 11:1 11:16 11:33-34 11:33-34 11:37 12:6 13:8
James
1 Peter
1:15 1:17 1:18 1:18-19 1:19 1:19-21 1:21 2:7 2:9 2:10-11 2:13 2:18 2:21 2:22 2:23 2:23 2:24 2:24 3:4 3:19 3:19 3:19 4:1 4:13 5:8 5:8
2 Peter
1 John
1:1 1:1-2 1:2 1:3 1:3 1:3 1:5 1:5 2:1 2:18 2:23 2:23 2:23 2:29 3:2-3 3:24 4:2 4:3 4:13 5:6-8 5:7 5:7 5:8 5:16 5:20 5:20 5:20
2 John
Revelation
1:4 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:8 1:16 1:17 1:18 1:18 2:8 2:14-16 2:17 3:14 3:20 4:1 4:4 4:8 5:4 5:5 5:6 7:1 7:11 8:2 9:6 11:15 13:6 14:2 15:3-4 17:4 19:15 20:1 20:12-13 21:1 21:3 21:5 21:7 21:19 21:23 22:1-2 22:5 22:13 22:16
Tobit
Judith
Wisdom of Solomon
1:4 1:4 1:7 1:13 3:13 4:11 7:7 7:17 7:22 7:22 7:22-23 7:22-23 7:26 7:27 7:29-30 7:30 8:2 8:7 8:13 24:3
Baruch
Susanna
Bel and the Dragon
1 Maccabees
2 Maccabees
1:19 1:20 1:36 2:1 2:5 2:11 3 4:18 7:1 7:20
2 Esdras
6:41 10:6 10:6-11 10:15-16 10:20-24
Sirach
3:22 3:31 4:9 6:16 6:16 9:5 18:30-31 19:2 20:7 22:25 22:26 22:31 22:31 23:18 23:31 23:31 24:3 24:3 24:5 28:24-25 28:28 29:10 31:9 47:23
iii v vii ix xi xii xiii xiv xv xvi xvii xviii xix xx xxi xxii xxiii 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 327 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 389 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 409 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473