(NOTE: The electronic text obtained from The Electronic Bible Society was
not completely corrected. EWTN has corrected all discovered errors.)
In this file, footnote numbers sometimes refer to following text instead of
to the preceeding.
ST. JEROME
TO PAMMACHIUS AGAINST JOHN OF JERUSALEM
[Translated by The Hon. W. H. Fremantle, M.A., Canon of Canterbury
Cathedral and Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Oxford, with the
assistance of the Rev. G. Lewis, M.A., of Balliol College, Oxford, Vicar of
Dodderhill near Droitwick, and the Rev. W. G. Martley, M.A., of Balliol
College, Oxford.]
1. If, according to the [1]Apostle Paul, we cannot pray as we feel, and
speech does not express the thoughts of our own minds, how much more
dangerous is it to judge of another man's heart, and to trace and explain
the meaning of the particular words and expressions which he uses? The
nature of man is prone to mercy, and in considering another's sin, every
one commiserates himself. Accordingly, if you blame one who offends in
word, a man will say it was only-simplicity; if you tax a man with craft,
he to whom you speak will not admit that there is anything more in it than
ignorance, so that he may avoid the suspicion of malice. And it will thus
come to pass that you, the accuser, are made a slanderer, and the censured
party is regarded, not as a heretic, but merely as a man without culture.
You know, Pammachius, you know that it is not enmity or the lust of glory
which leads me to engage in this work, but that I have been stimulated by
your letters and that I act out of the fervour of my faith; and, if
possible, I would have all understand that I cannot be blamed for
impatience and rashness, seeing that I speak only after the lapse of three
years. In fact, if you had not told me that the minds of many are troubled
at the "Apology" which I am about to discuss, and are tossing to and fro on
a sea of doubt, I had determined to persist in silence.
2. So away with[2] Novatus, who would not hold out a hand to the
erring! perish[3] Montanus and his mad women! Montanus, who would hurl the
fallen into the abyss that they may never rise again. Every, day we all sin
and make some slip or other. Being then merciful to ourselves, we are not
rigorous towards others; nay, rather, we pray and beseech[4] him either to
simply tell us our own faults, or to openly defend those of other men. I
dislike ambiguities; I dislike to be told what is capable of two meanings.
Let us contemplate with' unveiled face the glory of the Lord. Once upon a
thee the people of Israel halted[2] between two opinions. But, said Elias,
which is by interpretation the strong one of the Lord,[3] "How long halt ye
between two opinions? If the Lord be God, go after him; but if Baal, follow
him." And the Lord himself says concerning the Jews,' "the strange children
lied unto me; the strange children became feeble, and limped out of their
by-paths." If there really is no ground for suspecting him of heresy (as I
wish and believe), why does he not speak out my opinion in my own words? He
calls it simplicity; I interpret it as artfulness. He wishes to convince me
that his belief is sound; let his speech, then, also be sound. And, indeed,
if the ambiguity attached to a single word, or a single statement, or two
or three, I could be indulgent on the score of ignorance; nor would I judge
what is obscure or doubtful by the standard of what is certain and clear.
But, as things are, this "simplicity" is nothing but a platform trick, like
walking on tiptoe over eggs or standing corn; there is doubt and suspicion
everywhere. You might suppose he was not writing an exposition of the
faith, but was writing a disputation on some imaginary theme. What he is
now so keen upon, we learnt long ago in the schools. He puts on our own
armour to fight against us. Even if his faith be correct, and he speaks
with circumspection and reserve, his extreme care rouses my
suspicions.[5]"He that walketh uprightly, walketh boldly." It is folly to
bear a bad name for nothing. A charge is brought against him of which he is
not conscious. Let him confidently deny the charge which hangs upon a
single word, and freely turn the tables against his adversary. Let the one
exhibit the same boldness in repelling the charge which the other shows in
advancing it. And when he has said all that he wishes and purposes to say,
and such things as are above suspicion, if his opponent persists in
slander, let him try conclusions in open court. I wish no one to sit still
under an imputation of heresy, lest, if he say nothing, his want of
openness be interpreted, amongst those who are not aware of his innocence,
as the consciousness of guilt, although there is no need to demand the
presence of a man and to reduce him to silence when you have his letters in
your possession.
3. We all know what' he wrote to you, what charge he brought against
you, wherein (as you maintain) he has slandered you. Answer the points, one
by one; follow the footsteps of tiffs letter; leave not a single jot or
tittle of the slander unnoticed. For if you are careless, and accidentally
pass over any thing as I believe you on your oath to have done, he will
immediately cry out: "Now, now, you have got the worst of it, the whole
thing turns upon this." Words do not sound the same in the ears of friends
and enemies. An enemy looks for a knot even in a bulrush; a friend judges
even crooked to be straight. It is a saying of secular writers that lovers
are blind in their judgments, though, perhaps, you are too busy with the
sacred books to pay any attention to such literature. You should never
boast of what your friends think of you. That is true testimony which comes
from the lips of foes. On the contrary, if a friend speaks in your behalf
he will be considered not as a witness but a judge or a partisan. This is
the sort of thing your enemies will say, who perhaps give no credit to you,
and only wish to vex you. But I, whom you say you have never willingly
injured, yet whose name you are always bound to bandy about in your
letters, advise you either to openly proclaim the faith of the Church, or
to speak as you believe. For that cautious mincing and weighing of words
may, no doubt, deceive the unlearned; but a careful hearer and reader will
quickly detect the snare, and will show in open daylight the subterranean
mines by which truth is overthrown. The Arians (no one knows more about
them than you) for a long thee pretended that they condemned the[2]
Homoousion on account of the offence it gave, and they besmeared poisonous
error with honeyed words. But at last the snake uncoiled itself, and its
deadly head, which lay concealed under all its folds, was pierced by the
sword of the Spirit. The Church, as you know, welcomes penitents, and is so
overwhelmed by the multitude of sinners that it is forced, in the interests
of the misguided flocks, to be lenient to the wounds of the shepherds.'
Ancient and modern heresy observes the same rule--the people hear one
thing, the priests preach another.
4. And first, before I translate and insert in this book the letter
which you wrote to Bishop Theophilus, and show you that I understand your
excessive care and circumspection, I should like a word of expostulation
with you. What is the meaning of this towering arrogance which makes you
refuse to reply to those who question you respecting 'the faith? How is it
that you regard almost as public enemies the vast multitude of brethren,
and the bands of monks, who refuse to communicate with you in Palestine?
The Son of God, for the sake of one sick sheep, leaving the ninety and nine
on the mountains, endured the buffering, the cross, the scourge; He took up
the burden, and patiently carried on His shoulders to heaven the voluptuous
woman that was a sinner. Is it for you to act the "most reverend father in
God," the fastidious prelate; to stand apart in )'our wealth and wisdom, in
your grandeur and your learning; to frown superciliously upon your fellow
servants, and,. scarce vouchsafe a glance to those who have been redeemed
with the blood of your Lord? Is this what you have learnt from the
Apostles' precept to be "' "ready always to give answer to ever), man that
asketh you a reason concerning the hope that is in you "? Suppose we do, as
you pretend, seek occasion, and that, under the pretext of zeal for the
faith, we are sowing strife, framing a schism, and fomenting quarrels. Then
take away the occasion from those who wish for an occasion; so that having
given satisfaction on the point of faith, and solved all the difficulties
in which you are involved, you may show clearly to all that the dispute is
not one of doctrine, but of 'order. But perhaps when questioned concerning
the faith, you say that it is from wise forethought that you hold )'our
tongue, so that it may not be said that you have proved yourself a heretics
in as much as you make satisfaction to your accusers. If that be so, then
men ought not to refute any charges of which they are accused, lest, having
denied them, they may be held to be guilty. The accusations of the laity,
deacons, and presbyters, are, I suppose, beneath your notice. For yon can,
as you are perpetually boasting, make a thousand clerics in an hour. But
you have to answer Epiphanius, our father in God, who, in the letters which
he sent, openly calls you a heretic. Certainly you are not his superior in
respect of years, of learning, of his exemplary life, or of the judgment of
the whole world. If it is a question of age, you are a young man writing to
an old one. If it is one of knowledge, you are a person not so very
accomplished writing to a learned man, although your partisans maintain
that you are a more finished speaker than Demosthenes, more sharp-witted
than Chrysippus, wiser than Plato, and perhaps have persuaded you that they
are right. As regards his life and devotion to the faith, I will say no
more, that I may not seem to be seeking to wound you. At the time when the
whole East (except our fathers in God Athanasius and Paulinus) was overrun
by the Arian and Eunomian heresies; when you did not hold communion with
the Westerns; then, in the very worst of the exile which made them
confessors, he, though a simple convent priest, gained the ear of
Eutychius, and afterwards as bishop of Cyprus was unmolested by Valens. For
he was always so highly venerated that heretics on the throne thought it
would redound to their own disgrace if they persecuted such a man. Write
therefore to him. Answer his letter. So let the rest understand your
purpose and judge of your eloquence and wisdom; do not keep all your
accomplishments to yourself. Why, when you are challenged, in one quarter,
do you turn your arms towards another? A question is put to you in
Palestine, your answer is given in Egypt. When some are blear-eyed, you
anoint the eyes of others who are not affected. If you tell another what is
meant to give us satisfaction, such action springs entirely from pride; if
you tell him what we do not ask for, it is entirely uncalled for.
5. But you say "the bishop of Alexandria approved of my letter." What
did he approve of? Your correct utterances against Arius, Photinus, and
Manichaeus. For who, at this time of day, accuses you of being an Arian?
Who now fastens on you the guilt of Photinus and Manichaeus? Those faults
were one ago corrected, those enemies were shattered. You were not so
foolish as to openly defend a heresy which you knew was offensive to the
whole Church. You knew that if you had done this, you must have been
immediately removed, and your heart was upon the pleasures of your
episcopal throne. You so tuned your expressions as to neither displease the
simple, nor offend your own incontestably marked by deceit and
slipperiness; what, then, are we to do with the remaining five, with regard
to which, because no opportunity was afforded for ambiguity, supporters.
You wrote well, but nothing to the purpose. How was the bishop of
Alexandria to know of what you were accused, or what things they were of
which a confession was demanded from you? You ought to have set forth in
detail the charges brought against you, and then have met them one by one.
There is an old story which tells how a certain man, who, when he was
speaking fluently, was carried along by a torrent of words, without
touching the question before the court, and thus drew the wise remark from
the judge, "Excellent! excellent! but to what purpose is all this
excellence?" Quacks have but one lotion for all affections of the eyes. He
who is accused of many things, and in dissipating the charges passes over
some, confesses all that he omits to mention. Did you not reply to the
letter of Epiphanius, and yourself choose the points for refutation? No
doubt, in replying, you rested on the axiom, that no man is so brave as to
put the sword to his own throat. Choose which alternative you like. You
shall have your choice: you either replied to the letter of Epiphanius, or
you did not. If you did reply, why did you take no notice of the most
important, and the most numerous, of the charges brought against you? If
you did not reply, what becomes of your" Apology," of which you boast
amongst the simple, and which you are scattering broadcast amongst those
who do not understand the matter?
6. The questions for you to answer were arranged, as I shall presently
show. under eight heads. You touch only three, and pass on. As regards the
rest, you maintain a magnificent silence. If you had with perfect frankness
replied to seven, I should still cling to the charge which remained; and
what you said nothing about, that I should hold to be the truth. But as
things are, you have caught the wolf by the ears; you can neither hold
fast, nor dare let go. With a sort of careless security and an air of
abstraction, you skim over and touch the surface of three in which there is
nothing or but little of importance. And your procedure is so dark and
close that you confess more by your silence than you rebut by your
arguments. Every one has the right forthwith to say to you, [1] "If the
light that is in thee be darkness, how great is the darkness." Even in
answering three little questions, respecting which volt seemed to say
something, you are not clear from suspicion and from blame, but your
replies are and you were therefore unable to cheat your hearers, you
preferred to maintain unbroken silence rather than openly confess what had
been covered in obscurity?
7. The questions relate to the passages in the Peri` Archw^n. The first
is this, "for as it is unfitting to say that the Son can see the Father, so
neither is it meet to think that the Holy Spirit can see the Son." The
second point is the statement that souls are tied up in the body as in a
prison; and that before man was made in Paradise they dwelt amongst
rational creatures in the heavens. Wherefore, afterwards to console itself.
the soul says in the Psalms, [2] "Before I was humbled, I went wrong"; and
[3]"Return, my soul, to thy rest"; and [4]" Lead my soul out of prison";
and similarly elsewhere. Thirdly, he says that both the devil and demons
will some time or other repent, and ultimately reign with the saints.
Fourthly, be interprets the coats of skin, with which Adam and Eve were
clothed after their fall and ejection from Paradise, to be human bodies,
and we are to suppose of course that previously, in Paradise, they had
neither flesh, sinews, nor bones. Fifthly, he most openly denies the
resurrection of the flesh and the bodily structure, and the distinction of
senses, both in his explanation of the first Psalm, and in many other of
his treatises. Sixthly, he so allegorises Paradise as to destroy historical
truth, understanding angels instead of trees, heavenly virtues instead of
rivers, and he overthrows all that is contained in the history of Paradise
by his figurative interpretation. Seventhly, he thinks that the waters
which are said in Scripture to be above the heavens are holy and supernal
essences, while those which are above the earth and beneath the earth are,
on the contrary, demoniacal essences. The eighth is Origen's cavil that the
image and likeness of God, in which man was created, was lost, and was no
longer in man after he was expelled from Paradise.
8. These are the arrows with which you are pierced; these the weapons
with which throughout the whole letter you are wounded; or I should rather
say Epiphanius throws himself as a suppliant at your knees, and casts his
hoary locks beneath your feet, and, for a time laying aside his episcopal
dignity, prays for your salvation in words such as these: "Grant to me and
to yourself the favour of your salvation; save yourself, as it is written,
from this crooked generation, [5] and forsake the heresy of Origen, and all
heresies, dearly beloved." And lower down," In the defence of heresy you
kindle hatred against me, and destroy that love which I had towards you;
insomuch that you would make us even repent of holding communion with you
who so resolutely defend the errors and doctrines of Origen." Tell me,
prince of arguers, to which, out of the eight sections, you have replied.
For the present, I say nothing of the rest. Take the first blasphemy--that
the Son cannot see the Father, nor the Holy Spirit the Son. By what weapons
of yours has it been pierced? the answer we get is, "We believe that the
Holy and Adorable Trinity are of the same substance; that they are co-
eternal, and of the same glory and Godhead, and we anathematize those who
say that there is any greatness, smallness, inequality, or aught that is
visible in the Godhead of the Trinity. But as we say the Father is
incorporeal, invisible, and eternal; so we say the Son and Holy Spirit are
incorporeal, invisible, and eternal." If you did not say this, you would
not hold to the Church. I do not ask whether there was not a time when you
refused to say this. I will not discuss the question, whether you were fond
of those who preached such doctrines; on whose side you were when, for
expressing those sentiments, they underwent banishment; or who the man was
that, when the presbyter Theo preached in the Church that the Holy Spirit
is God, closed his ears, and excitedly rushed out of doors that he might
not so much as hear the impiety. I recognize a man, as one may say, as one
of the faithful, even though his repentance comes late. [1]That unhappy man
Praetextatus, who died after he had been chosen consul, a profane person
and an idolater, was wont in sport to say to blessed Pope Damascus, "Make
me bishop of Rome, and I will at once be a Christian." Why do you, with
many words and intricate periods, take the trouble to show me that you are
not an Arian? Either deny that the accused said what is imputed to him, or,
if he did give utterance to such sentiments, condemn him for so speaking.
You have still to learn how intense is the zeal of the orthodox. Listen to
the Apostle: [2] "If I or an angel from heaven bring you another gospel
than that we have declared, let him be anathema." You would extenuate the
fault and hide the name of the guilty party: as though everything were
right and no one were accused of blasphemy, you frame, in artificial
language, an uncalled-for profession of your faith. Speak out at once, and
let your letter thus begin: "Let him be accursed who has dared to write
such things." Pure faith is impatient of delay. As soon as the scorpion
appears, he must be crushed under foot. David, who was proved to be a man
after God's own heart, says: [1] "Do not I hate those that hate thee, O
Lord, and did not I pine away over thine enemies? I hated them with a
perfect hatred." Had I heard my father, or mother, or brother say such
things against my Master Christ, I would have broken their blasphemous jaws
like those of a mad dog, and my hand should have been amongst the first
lifted up against them. They who said to father and mother, [2] "We know
you not," these men fulfilled the will of the Lord. [3] He that loveth
father or mother more than Christ, is not worthy of Him.
9. It is alleged that your master, whom you call a Catholic, and whom
you resolutely defend, said, "the Son sees not the Father, and the Holy
Spirit sees not the Son." And you tell me that the Father is invisible, the
Son invisible, the Holy Ghost invisible, as though the angels, both
cherubim and seraphim, were not also, in accordance with their nature,
invisible to our eyes. David was certainly in doubt even as regards the
appearance of the heavens: [4] "I shall see," he says, "the heavens, the
works of Thy fingers." I shall see, not I see. I shall see when with
unveiled face I shall behold the glory of the Lord: but [5] now we see in
part, and we know in part. The question is whether the Son sees the Father,
and you say" The Father is invisible." It is disputed whether the Holy
Spirit sees the Son, and you answer" The Son is invisible." The point at
issue is, whether the Trinity have mutually the vision of one another;
human ears cannot endure such blasphemy, and you say the Trinity is
invisible. You wander in the realms of praise in all other directions; you
spend your eloquence on things which no one wants to hear about. You put
your hearer off the scent, to avoid telling us what we ask for. But granted
that all this is superfluous. We make you a present of the fact that you
are not an Arian; nay, even more, that you never have been. We allow that
in the explanation of the first section no suspicion rests upon you, and
that all that you said was frank and free from error. We speak to you with
equal frankness. Did our father in God, Epiphanius, accuse you of being an
Arian? Did he fasten upon you the heresy of [6] Eunomius, the Godless, or
that of [7] Aerius? The point of the whole letter is that you follow the
erroneous doctrines of Origen, and are associated with others in this
heresy. Why, when a question is put to you on one point, do you give an
answer about another; and, as if you were speaking to fools? hide the
charges contained in the letters, and tell us what you said in the church
in the presence of Epiphanius? A confession of faith is demanded of you,
and you inflict upon us your very eloquent dissertations. I beseech my
readers to remember the judgment seat of the Lord, and as you know that you
must be judged for the judgment you give, favour neither me nor my
opponent, and consider not the persons of the arguers, but the case itself.
Let us then continue what we began.
10. You write in your letter that, before Paulinianus was made a
presbyter, the pope Epiphanius never took you to task in connection with
Origen's errors. To begin with, this is doubtful, and I have to consider
which of the two men I should believe. He says that he did object, you deny
it; he brings forward witnesses, you will not listen to them when they are
produced; he even relates that [1] another besides yourself was arraigned
by him: you refuse to admit this in the case of either; be sends a letter
to you by one of his clergy, and demands an answer: you are silent, dare
not open your lips, and, challenged in Palestine, speak at Alexandria.
Which of you is to be believed is not for me to say. I suppose that you
yourself would not, in the face of so distinguished a man, venture to claim
truth for yourself, and impute falsehood to him. But it is possible that
each speaks from his own point of view. I will call a witness against you,
and that witness is yourself. For if there were no dispute about doctrines,
if you had not roused the anger of an old man, if he had given you no
reply, what need was there for you, who do not excel in gifts of speech, to
discuss in a single sermon in the church the whole circle of doctrine--the
Trinity, the assumption of our Lord's body, the cross, hell, the nature of
angels, the condition of souls, the Saviour's resurrection and our own, and
this as taking place on this earth (topics perhaps omitted in your
manuscript) in the presence of the masses, in the presence, too, of a man
of such distinction? and to speak with such perfect assurance and to gallop
through it all without stopping to draw breath? What shall we say of the
ancient writers of the Church, who were scarce able to explain single
difficulties in many volumes? What of the vessel of election, the Gospel
trumpet, the roaring of our lion, the thunderer of the Gentiles, the river
of Christian eloquence, who, when confronted by the [1] mystery concealed
from ages and generations, and by the depth of the riches of the wisdom and
knowledge of God, rather marvels at it than discusses it? What of Isaiah,
who pointed beforehand to the Virgin? That single thing was too much for
him, and he says, [3] "Who shall declare his generation? " In our age a
poor mannikin has been found, who, with one turn of the tongue, and a
brilliancy exceeding that of the sun, discourses on all ecclesiastical
questions. If no one asked you for the display, and everything was quiet,
you were foolish to enter voluntarily upon so hazardous a discussion. If,
on the other hand, the object of your speaking was the satisfaction you
owed to the faith, it follows that the cause of strife was not the
ordination of a [4] priest, who, it is certain, was ordained long after.
You have deceived only those who were not on the spot, and your letters
flatter the ears of strangers only.
11. We were present (we know the whole case) when the bishop Epiphanius
spoke against Origen in your church, and he was the ostensible, you the
real object of attack. You and your crew grinned like dogs, drew in your
nostrils, scratched your heads, nodded to one another, and talked of the
"silly old man." Did you not, in front of the Lord's tomb, send your
archdeacon to tell him to cease discussing such matters? What bishop ever
gave such a command to one of his own presbyters in the presence of the
people? When you were going from the Church of the Resurrection to the
Church of the Holy Cross, and a crowd of all ages, and both sexes, was
flowing to meet him, presenting to him their little ones, kissing his feet,
plucking the fringes of his garments, and when he could not stir a step
forward, and could hardly stand against the waves of the surging crowd,
were not you so tortured by envy as to exclaim against "the vainglorious
old man"? And you were not ashamed to tell him to his face that his
stopping was of set purpose and design. Pray recall that day when the
people who had been called together were kept waiting until the seventh
hour by the mere hope of hearing Epiphanius, and the subject of the
harangue you then delivered. Yon spoke, forsooth, with indignant rage
against the Anthropomorphites, who, with rustic simplicity, think that God
has actually the members of which we read in Scripture; and showed by your
eyes, hands, and every gesture that you had the old man in view, and wished
him to be suspected of that most foolish heresy. When through sheer
fatigue, with dry month, head thrown back, and quivering lips, to the
satisfaction of the whole people, who had longed for the end, yon at last
wound up, how did the crazy and "silly old man" treat you? He rose to
indicate that he would say a few words, and after saluting the assembly
with voice and hand proceeded thus: "All that has been said by one who is
my brother in the episcopate, but my son in point of years, against the
heresy of the Anthropomorphites, has been well and faithfully spoken, and
my voice, too, condemns that heresy. But it is fair that, as we condemn
this heresy so we should also condemn the perverse doctrines of Origen."
You cannot, I think, have forgotten what a burst of laughter, what shouts
of applause ensued. This is what you call in your letter his speaking to
the people anything he chose, no matter what it might be. He, forsooth, was
mad because he contradicted you in your own kingdom. "Anything he chose, no
matter what." Either give him praise, or blame. Why, here as well as
elsewhere, do you move with so uncertain a step? If what he said was good,
why not openly proclaim it? if evil, why not boldly censure it? And yet,
let us note with what wisdom, modesty, and humility this pillar of truth
and faith, who dares to say that so illustrious a man speaks to the people
what he chooses, alludes to himself. "One day I was speaking in his
presence; and, taking occasion from some words in the lesson for the day, I
expressed, in his hearing and in that of the whole Church, such views
respecting the faith and all the doctrines of the Church as by the grace of
God I unceasingly teach in the Church, and in my catechetical lectures."
12. What, I ask. is the meaning of this effrontery and bombast? All
philosophers and orators attack Gorgias of Leontini for daring openly to
pledge himself to answer any question which any person might choose to put
to him. If the honour of the priesthood and respect for your title did not
restrain me, and if I did not know what the Apostle says, [1] "I wist not,
brethren, that he was the high priest: for it is written, Thou shalt not
speak evil of the ruler of thy people," how loudly and indignantly might I
complain of what you relate! You, on the contrary, disparage the dignity of
your title by the contempt which you throw, both in word and deed, on one
who is almost the father of the whole episcopate, and a monument of the
sanctity of former days. You say that on a certain day, when something in
the lesson for the day stirred you up, you made a discourse in his hearing,
and in that of the whole Church, concerning the faith and all the doctrines
of the Church. After this we cannot but wonder at the weakness of
Demosthenes; for we are told that he spent a long tithe in elaborating his
splendid oration against Aeschines. We are quite mistaken in looking up to
Tully; for his merit, according to Cornelius Nepos, who was present, was
nothing but this, that he delivered his famous defence of the seditious
tribune Cornelius, almost word for word as it was published. Behold a
Lysias[1] and a Gracchus raised up for us! or, to name one of more modern
days, Quintus Aterius, [2] the man who had all his powers at hand like a
stock of ready money, so that he needed some one to tell him when to stop,
and of whom Caesar Augustus said very well, "Our friend Quintus must have
the break put on."
13. Is there any man in his right senses who would declare that in a
single sermon he had discussed the faith and all the doctrines of the
Church? Pray show me what that lesson is which is so seasoned with the
whole savour of Scripture that its occurrence in the service induced you to
enter the arena and put your wit to the hazard. And if you had not been
overwhelmed by the torrent of your eloquence, you might have been convinced
that it was impossible for you to speak upon the whole circle of doctrines
without any deliberation. But how stands the case? You promise one thing
and present another. Our custom is, for the space of forty days, to deliver
public lectures to those who are to be baptized on the doctrine of the Holy
and Adorable Trinity. If the lesson for the day stimulated you to discuss
all doctrines in a single hour, what necessity was there to repeat the
instruction of the previous forty days? But if you meant to recapitulate
what you had been saying during the whole of Lent, how could one lesson on
a certain day "stir you up" to speak of all these doctrines? But even here
his language is ambiguous; for possibly he took occasion, from the
particular lesson, to go over summarily what he was accustomed to deliver
in church to the candidates for baptism during the forty days of Lent. For
it is eloquence all the same whether few things are said in many words, or
many things in few words. There is another permissible meaning, that, as
soon as the one lesson gave him the spur, he was fired with such oratorical
zeal that for forty days he never ceased speaking. But, then, even the
easy-going old man, who was hanging upon his lips, and longing to know what
he had never heard before, must have almost fallen from his seat asleep.
However, we must put up with it; perhaps this, also, is a case of the
simplicity which we know to be his manner.
14. Let us quote the rest, in which, after the labyrinths of his
perplexing discussion, he expresses himself by no means ambiguously but
openly, and thus concludes his wonderful homilies: "When we had thus spoken
in his presence, and when out of the extreme honour which we paid him we
invited him to speak after us, he praised our preaching, and said that he
marvelled at it, and declared to all that it was the Catholic faith." The
extreme honour you paid him is evidenced by the extreme insults offered to
him, when through the archdeacon you bade him be silent, and loudly
proclaimed that it was the love of praise which made him linger among the
crowd. The present is the key to the past. For three whole years from that
time he has brooded in silence [1] over the wrongs he suffered, and,
spurning all personal strife, has only asked for a more correct expression
of your faith. You, with your endless resources, and making a profit out of
the religion of the whole world, have been sending those very dignified
envoys of yours hither and thither, and have been trying to awake the old
man out of his sleep that he might answer you. And in truth it was right
that as you had conferred such signal honour upon him he should praise your
utterances, particularly such as were ex tempore. But as men have a way of
sometimes praising what they do not approve, and of nourishing another's
folly by meaningless commendation, he not only praised your utterances, but
praised and marvelled at them as well; and what is more, to magnify the
marvel, he declared to the whole people that they were in harmony with the
Catholic faith. Whether he really said all this, we ourselves are
witnesses. The fact is, he came to us half dead with dismay at your words,
and saying that he had been too precipitate in communicating with you. And
further, when he was much entreated by the whole monastery to return to you
from Bethlehem, and was unable to resist the entreaties of so many, he did
indeed return in the evening, but only to escape again at midnight. His
letters to the pope Siricius prove the same thing, and if you read them you
will see clearly in what sense he marvelled at your utterances and
acknowledged them Catholic. But we are threshing chaff, and have spent many
words in refuting gratuitous nonsense and old wives' fables.
15. Let us pass on to the second point. Here, as though there were
nothing for his consideration, he vapours, and vents himself unconcernedly,
pretending to be asleep, so that he may lull his readers also into slumber.
"But we were speaking of the other matters pertaining to the faith, that is
to say, that all things visible and invisible, the heavenly powers and
terrestrial creatures have one and the same creator, even God, that is, the
Holy Trinity, as the blessed David says,(1) 'By the word of the Lord were
the heavens established, and all the host of them by the breath of His
mouth'; and the creation of man is a simple proof of the same; for it was
God Himself who took slime from the earth, and through the grace of His own
inspiration bestowed on it a reasonable soul, and one endowed with free
will; not a part of His own nature (as some impiously teach), but His own
workmanship. And concerning the holy angels, the belief of Christians
similarly follows Holy Scripture, which says of God,(2)"Who maketh His
angels spirits, and His ministers a flaming fire." Holy Scripture does not
allow us to believe that their nature is unchangeable, for it says,(3)"And
angels which kept not their own principality, but left their proper
habitation, He hath kept in everlasting bonds under darkness unto the
judgment of the great day"; we know, therefore, that they have changed, and
having lost their own dignity and glory have become more like demons. But
that the souls of men are caused by the fall of the angels, or by their
conversion, we never believed, nor have we so taught (God forbid!), and we
confess that the view is at variance with the teaching of the Church."
16. We want to know whether souls, before man was made in paradise, and
Adam was fashioned out of the earth, were among reasonable creatures;
whether they had their own rank, lived, continued, subsisted; and whether
the doctrine of Origen is true, who said that all reasonable creatures,
incorporeal and invisible, if they grow remiss, little by little sink to a
lower level, and, according to the character of the places to which they
descend, take to themselves bodies. (For instance, that they may be at
first ethereal, afterward aerial.) And that when they reach the
neighbourhood of earth they are invested with grosser bodies, and last of
all are tied to human flesh; and that the demons themselves who, of their
own choice, together with their leader the devil, have forsaken the service
of God, if they begin to amend a little, are clothed with human flesh, so
that, when they have undergone a process of repentance after the
resurrection, and after passing through the same circuit by which they
reached the flesh, they may return to proximity to God, being released even
from aerial and ethereal bodies; and that then every knee will bow to God,
of things in heaven, and things on earth, and things under the earth, and
that God may be all to all. When these are the real questions, why do you
pass over the points at issue, and, leaving the arena, fix yourself in the
region of remote and utterly irrelevant discussion?
17. You believe that one God made all creatures, visible and invisible.
Arius, who says that all things were created through the Son, would also
confess this. If you had been accused of holding Marcion's heresy, which
introduces two Gods, the one the God of goodness, the other of justice, and
asserts that the former is the Creator of things invisible, the latter of
things visible, your answer would have been well adapted to satisfy me on a
question of that sort. You believe it is the Trinity which creates the
universe. Arians and Semi-Arians deny that, blasphemously maintaining that
the Holy Spirit is not the Creator, but is Himself created. But who now
lays it to your charge that you are an Arian? You say that the souls of men
are not a part of the nature of God, as though you were now called a
Manichaean by Epiphanius. You protest against those who assert that souls
are made out of angels, and say that their nature, in its fall, becomes the
substance of humanity. Don't conceal what you know, nor feign a simplicity
which you do not possess. Origen never said that souls are made out of
angels, since he teaches that the term angels describes an office, not a
nature. For in his book Peri` Archw^n he says that angels, and thrones, and
dominions, powers and rulers of the world, and of darkness, and(1) every
name which is named, not only in this world, but in that which is to come,
become the souls of those bodies which they have taken on either through
their own desire or for the sake of their appointed duties; that the sun
also, himself, and the moon, and the company of all the stars, are the
souls of what were once reasonable and incorporeal creatures; and that
though now subject to vanity, that is to say, to fiery bodies which we, in
our ignorance and inexperience, call luminaries of the world, they shall be
delivered from the bondage of corruption and brought to the liberty of the
glory of the sons of God. Wherefore every creature groaneth and travaileth
in pain together. And the Apostle laments, saying,[1] "Wretched man that I
am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?" This is not the time
to controvert this doctrine, which is partly heathen, and partly Platonic.
About ten years ago in nay "Commentary" on Ecclesiastes, and in my
explanation of the Epistle to the Ephesians, I think my own views were
made clear to thoughtful men.
18. I now beg you, whose eloquence is so exuberant, and who expound the
truth concerning all topics in the course of one sermon, to give an answer
to your interrogators in concise and clear terms. When God formed man out
of slime, and through the grace of His own inspiration gave him a soul, had
that soul previously existed and subsisted which was afterwards bestowed by
the inspiration of God, and where was it? or did it gain its capacity both
to exist and to live from the power of God, on the sixth day, when the body
was formed out of the slime? You are silent regarding this, and pretend you
do not know what is wanted, and busy yourself with irrelevant questions.
You leave Origen untouched, and rave against the absurdities of Marcion
Apollinaris, Eunomius, Manichaeus, and the other heretics. You are asked
for a hand and you put out a foot, and all the while covertly insinuate the
doctrine to which you hold. You speak smooth things to plain men like us,
but in such a way as in no degree to displease those of your own party.
19. You say that demons rather than souls are made out of angels, as
though you did not know that, according to Origen, the demons themselves
are souls belonging to aerial bodies, and, after being demons, destined to
become human souls if they repent. You write that the angels are mutable;
and, under cover of a pious opinion, introduce an impiety by maintaining
that, after the lapse of many ages, souls are produced not from the angels,
but froth whatever it was into which the angels were first changed. I wish
to make my meaning clearer; suppose a person of the rank of tribune to be
degraded through his own misconduct, and to pass through the several steps
of the cavalry service until he becomes a private, does he all at once
cease to be a tribune[2] and become a recruit? No; but he is first colonel,
then, successively, major officer of two hundred, captain, commissary,
patrol, trooper, and, lastly, a recruit; and although our tribune
eventually becomes a common soldier, still he did not pass from the rank of
tribune to that of recruit, but to that of colonel. Origen uses Jacob's
ladder to teach that reasonable creatures by slow degrees sink to the
lowest step, that is to flesh and blood; and that it is impossible for any
one to be suddenly precipitated from number one hundred to number one
without reaching the last by passing through the successive numbers, as in
descending the rounds of a ladder; and that they change their bodies as
often as they change their resting-places in going from heaven to earth.
These are the tricks and artifices by which you make us out to be
[1]"Pelusiots" and "beasts of burden" and "animal men" who do "not receive
the things pertaining to the Spirit."[2] You are the" people of Jerusalem,"
and can make a mock even of the angels. But your mysteries are being
dragged into the light, and your doctrine, which is a mere conglomerate of
heathen fables, is publicly exposed in the ears of Christians. What you so
much admire we long ago despised when we found it in Plato. And we despised
it because we received the foolishness of Christ. And we received the
foolishness of Christ because[3] the weakness of God is wiser than men. And
is it not a shame for us, who are Christians and priests of God, to
entangle ourselves in words of doubtful meaning, as though we were merely
jesting; to keep our phrases balanced between two meanings, in a way which
deceives the speaker himself more than his hearers?
20. One of your company, when pressed by me to say what he thought
concerning the soul, whether it had existed before the flesh, or not,
replied that soul and body had existed together. I knew the man was a
heretic, and was seeking to entangle me in my speech. At last I caught him
saying that the soul gained that name from the time when it began to
animate a body, whereas it was formerly called a demon, or angel of Satan,
or spirit of fornication, or, on the other hand, dominion, power, agent of
the spirit, or messenger. Well, but if the soul existed before Adam was
made in Paradise (in any rank and condition), and lived and acted (for we
cannot think that what is incorporeal and eternal is dull and torpid like a
dormouse) there must have been some precedent cause to account for the
soul, which at first had no body, being afterwards invested with a body.
And if it is natural to the soul to be without a body, it must be contrary
to nature for it to be in a body. If it is contrary to nature to be in a
body, it follows that the resurrection of the body is contrary to nature.
But the resurrection will not be contrary to nature; therefore, according
to you, the body, which is contrary to nature, when it rises again will be
without a soul.
21. You say that the soul is not of the essence of God. Well! This is
what we might expect, for you condemn the impious Manichaeus, to make
mention of whose name is pollution. You say that angels are not turned into
souls. I agree to some extent, although I know what meaning you give to the
words. But, now that we have learnt what you deny, we wish to know what you
believe. "Having taken slime of the earth," you say, "God fashioned man,
and through the grace of His own inbreathing bestowed upon him a rational
soul, and through the grace of free will, not a portion of His own divine
nature (as some impiously maintain), but His own handiwork." See how he
goes out of his way to be eloquent about what we did not ask for. We know
that God fashioned man out of the earth; we are aware that He breathed into
his face, and man became a living soul; we are not ignorant that the soul
is characterized by reason and free choice, and we know that it is the
workmanship of God. No one doubts that Manichaeus errs in saying that the
soul is the essence of God. I now ask: When was that soul made, which is
the work of God, which is distinguished by free will and reason, and is not
of the essence of the Creator? Was it made at the same time that man was
made out of the slime, and the breath of life was breathed into his face?
Or, having previously existed, and having associated with reasonable and
incorporeal creatures as well as lived, was it afterwards gifted with the
inbreathing of God? Here you are silent; here you feign a rustic
simplicity, and make scriptural words a cloak for unscriptural tenets.
Where you affirm what no one wants to know, that the soul is not a part of
God's own nature (as some impiously maintain), you ought rather to have
declared (and this is what we all want to know) that it is not that which
previously existed, which He had before created, which had long dwelt among
rational, incorporeal, and invisible creatures. You say none of these
things; you bring forward Manichaeus, and keep Origen out of sight, and,
just as when children ask for something to eat their nursemaids put them
off with some little joke, so you direct the thoughts of us poor rustics to
other matters, so that we may be taken up with the fresh character on the
stage, and may not ask for what we want.
22. But suppose the fact to be that you merely omit this, and that your
simplicity does not mean something you are shrewd enough to conceal. Having
once begun to speak of the soul, and to deduce arguments on such an
important topic from man's first creation, why do you leave the discussion
in mid-air, and suddenly pass to the angels, and the conditions under which
the body of our Lord existed? Why do you pass by such a vast slough of
difficulty, and leave us to stick in the mire? If the inbreathing of God (a
view for which you have no liking, and a point which you now leave
unsettled) is the creating of the human soul; whence had Eve her soul,
seeing that God did not breathe into her face? But I will not dwell upon
Eve, since she, as a type of the Church, was made out of one of her
husband's ribs, and ought not, after so many ages, to be subjected to the
calumnies of her descendants. I ask whence Cain and Abel, who were the
first-born of our first parents, had their souls? And the whole human race
downwards, what, are we to think, was the origin of their souls? Did they
come by propagation, like brute beasts? So that, as body springs from body,
so soul from soul. Or is it the case that rational creatures, longing for
bodily existence, sink by degrees to earth, and at last are tied even to
human bodies? Surely (as the Church teaches in accordance with the
Saviour's words,[1] "My Father worketh hitherto and I work"; and the
passage in Isaiah,[2] "Who maketh the spirit of man in him"; and in the
Psalms,[3] "Who fashioneth one by one the hearts of them ") God is daily
making souls--He, with whom to will is to do, and who never ceases to be a
Creator. I know what you are accustomed to say in opposition to this, and
how you confront us with adultery and incest. But the dispute about these
is a tedious one, and would exceed the narrow limits of the time at our
disposal. The same argument may be retorted upon you, and whatever seems
unworthy in the Creator of the present dispensation is again not unworthy,
since it is His gift. Birth from adultery imputes no blame to the child,
but to the father. As in the case of seeds, the earth which cherishes does
not sin, nor the seed which is thrown into the furrows, nor the heat and
moisture, under whose influence the grain bursts into bud, but some man, as
for example, the thief and robber, who, by fraud and violence, plucks up
the seed: so in the begetting of men, the womb, which corresponds to the
earth, receives its own, and nourishes what it has received, and then gives
a body to that which it nourishes, and divides into the several members the
body it has formed. And among those secret recesses of the belly the hand
of God is always working, and there is the same Creator of body and soul.
Do not despise the goodness of your Maker, who fashioned you and made you
as He chose. He Himself is the virtue of God and the wisdom of God, who, in
the womb of the Virgin, built a house for Himself. Jephthah, who is
reckoned by the Apostle among the saints, is the son of a harlot. But
listen: Esau, born of Rebecca had Isaac, a "hairy man," both in mind and
body, like good wheat, degenerates into darnel and wild oats; because the
cause of vice and virtue does not lie in the seed, but in the will of him
who is born. If it is an offence to be born with a human body, how is it
that Isaac, Samson, John Baptist, are the children of promise? You see, I
trust, what it is to have the courage of one's convictions. Suppose I am
wrong, I openly say what I think. Do you, then, likewise either freely
profess our opinions, or firmly maintain your own. Do not set yourself in
my line of battle, so that, by feigning simplicity, you may be safe, and
may be able, when you choose, to stab your opponent in the back. It is
impossible for me, at the present moment, to write a book against the
opinions of Origen. If Christ gives us life, we will devote another work to
them. The point now is, whether the accused has answered the questions put
to him, and whether his reply be clear and open.
23. Let us pass from this to the most notorious point, that relating to
the resurrection of the flesh and of the body; and here, my reader, I would
admonish you that you may know I speak under a sense of fear and of the
judgment of God, and that you ought so to hear. For, if the pure faith is
to be found in his exposition, and there is no suspicion of unfaithfulness,
I am not so foolish as to seek an occasion of accusing him, and while I
wish to censure another for his fault be myself censured as a slanderer. I
will ask you, therefore, to read what follows on the resurrection of the
flesh; and, having read it, if it satisfies you (I know it is well
calculated to please the ignorant), suspend your judgment, wait a while,
refrain from expressing an opinion until I have finished my reply; and if
after that it satisfies you, then you shall fix on us the brand of slander.
"His passion also on the cross, His death and burial, which was the saving
of the world, and His resurrection in a true and not an imaginary sense, we
confess; and that[1] being the firstborn from the dead, He conveyed to
heaven the firstfruits of our bodily substance which, after being laid in
the tomb, He raised to life, thus giving us the hope of resurrection in the
resurrection of His own body; wherefore we all hope so to rise from the
dead, as He rose again; not in any foreign and strange bodies, which are
but phantom shapes assumed for the moment; but as He Himself rose again in
that body which was laid in the holy sepulchre at our very doors, so we, in
the very bodies with which we are now clothed, and in which we are now
buried, hope to rise again for the same reason and by the same[1] command.
For the bodies which, as the Apostle says, are sown in corruption, shall
rise in incorruption; being sown in dishonour, they shall rise in glory.[2]
'It is sown an animal body, it shall rise a spiritual body'; and of them
the Saviour said in his teaching: "For they who shall be worthy of that
world, and of the resurrection from the dead, shall neither marry nor be
given in marriage, for they can die no more, but shall be as the angels of
God, since they are the sons of the resurrection.'"
24. Again, in another part of his letter, that is, towards the end of
his own homilies, that he might cheat the ear of the ignorant, he makes a
grand parade and noise about the Resurrection, but in ambiguous and
balanced language. He says: "We have not omitted the second glorious advent
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall come in His own glory to judge the
quick and the dead; for He shall awake all the dead, and cause them to
stand before His own judgment-seat; and shall render to every one according
to what he has done in the body, whether it be good or bad; for every one
shall either be crowned in the body because he lived a pure and righteous
life, or be condemned, because he was the slave alike of pleasure and
iniquity." What we read in the Gospel, that at the end of the world,[4] if
it were possible, even the elect are to be seduced, we see verified in this
passage. The ignorant crowd hears of the dead and buried, hears of the
resurrection of the dead in a true and not an imaginary sense, hears that
the firstfruits of our bodily substance in our Lord's body have reached the
heavenly regions, hears that we shall rise again not in foreign and strange
bodies, which are mere phantom shapes, but, as our Lord rose in the body
which lay amongst us in the holy sepulchre, so we also in the very bodies
with which we are now clothed and buried shall rise again in the day of
judgment. And that no one might think this too little, he adds in the last
section: "And He shall render to every one according to what he did in the
body, whether it were good or bad: for every one shall either be crowned in
the body for his pure and righteous life, or shall be condemned, because he
was the slave of pleasure and iniquity." Hearing these things the ignorant
crowd suspects no artifice, no snares in all this noise about the dead, the
burial of the body, and the resurrection. It believes things are as they
are said to be. For there is more devotion in the ears of the people than
in the priest's heart.
55. Again and again, my reader, I admonish you to be patient, and to
learn what I also have learnt through patience; and yet, before I take the
veil off the dragon's face, and briefly explain Origen's views respecting
the resurrection (for you cannot know the efficacy of the antidote unless
you see clearly what the poison is), I beg you to read his statements with
caution, and to go over them again and again. Mark well that, though he
nine times speaks of the resurrection of the body, he has not once
introduced the resurrection of the flesh, and you may fairly suspect that
he left it out on purpose. Well, Origen says in several places, and
especially in his fourth book "Of the Resurrection," and in the "Exposition
of the First Psalm," and in the "Miscellanies," that there is a double
error common in the Church, in which both we and the heretics are
implicated: "We, in our simplicity and fondness for the flesh, say that the
same bones, and blood, and flesh, in a word, limbs and features, and the
whole bodily structure, rise again at the last day: so that, forsooth, we
shall walk with our feet, work with our hands, see with our eyes, hear with
our ears, and carry about with us a belly never satisfied, and a stomach
which digests our food. Consequently, believing this, we say that we must
eat, drink, perform the offices of nature, marry wives, beget children. For
what is the use of organs of generation, if there is to be no marriage? For
what purpose are teeth, if the food is not to be masticated? What is the
good of a belly and of meats, if, according to the Apostle, both it and
they are to be destroyed? And the same Apostle again exclaims,[1] 'Flesh
and blood shall not inherit the Kingdom of God, nor shall corruption
inherit incorruption.'" This, according to him, is what we in our rustic
innocence maintain. But as for the heretics, amongst whom are Marcion,
Apelies, Valentinus, Manes (a synonym for Mania), he says that they Utterly
deny the resurrection of the flesh and of the body, and allow salvation
only to the soul, and hold that it is futile for us to say that we shall
rise after the pattern of our Lord, since our Lord also Himself rose again
in a phantom body, and not only His resurrection, but His very nativity was
docetic or imaginary; that is, more apparent than real. Origen himself is
dissatisfied with both opinions. He says that he shuns both errors, that of
the flesh, which our party maintain, and that of the phantoms, maintained
by the heretics, because both sides go to the opposite extremes, some
wishing to be the same that they have been, others denying altogether the
resurrection of the body. "There are four elements," he says, "known to
philosophers and physicians: earth, water, air, and fire, and out of these
all things and human bodies are compacted. We find earth in flesh, air in
the breath, water in the moisture of the body, fire in its heat. When,
then, the soul, at the command of God, lets go this perishing and feeble
body, little by little all things return to their parent substances: flesh
is again absorbed into the earth, the breath is mingled with the air, the
moisture returns to the depths, the heat escapes to the ether. And as if
you throw into the sea a pint of milk and wine, and wish again to separate
what is mixed together, although the wine and milk which you threw in is
not lost, and yet it is impossible to keep separate what was poured out; so
the substance of flesh and blood does not perish, indeed, so far as
concerns the original matter, yet they cannot again become the former
structure, nor can they be altogether the same that they were." Observe
that when such things are said, the firmness of the flesh, the fluidity of
the blood, the density of the sinews, the interlacing of the veins, and the
hardness of the bones is denied.
26. "For another reason," he says, "we confess the resurrection of our
bodies, those which have been laid in the grave and have turned to dust;
Paul's body will be that of Paul, Peter's that of Peter, and each will have
his own; for it is not right that souls should sin in one body and be
tormented in another, nor is it worthy of the Righteous Judge that one body
should shed its blood for Christ and another be crowned." Who, hearing
this, would think he denied the resurrection of the flesh? "And," he says.
"every seed has its own law of being inherent in it by the gift of God, the
Creator, which law contains in embryonic form the future growth. The bulky
tree, with its trunk, boughs, fruit, leaves, is not seen in the seed, but
nevertheless exists in the seed by implication or, according to the Greek
expression, by the spermatikos logos.[1] There is within the grain of corn
a marrow, or vein, which, when it has been dissolved in the earth, attracts
to itself the surrounding materials, and rises again in the shape of stalk,
leaves, and ear; and thus, while it is one tiling when it dies, it is
another thing when it rises from the dead; for in the grain of wheat,
roots, stalk, leaves, ears, trunk are as yet unseparated. In the same
manner, in human bodies, according to the law of their being, certain
original principles remain which ensure their resurrection, and a sort of
marrow, that is a seed-plot of the dead, is fostered in the bosom of the
earth. But when the day of judgment shall have come, and at the voice of
the archangel, and the sound of the last trumpet, the earth shall totter,
immediately the seeds will be instinct with life, and in a moment of time
will cause the dead to burst into life; yet the flesh which they will
reconstitute will not be the same flesh, nor will it be in the old forms.
To give you the assurance that we speak the truth, let me quote the words
of the Apostle:[1] 'But some one says, How shall the dead rise? and with
what body will they come? Thou fool, that which thou sowest, thou sowest
not that body which shall be, but a bare grain, it may be of wheat, or the
seed of a vine and a tree.' And as we have already made the grain of wheat,
and to some extent the planting of trees, the subject of our reasoning, let
us now take the grape-stone as an example. It is a mere granule, so small
that you can scarcely hold it between your two fingers. Where are the
roots? where the tortuous interlacing of roots, of trunk and off-shoots?
where the shade of the leaves, and the lovely clusters teeming with coming
wine? What you have in your fingers is parched and scarcely discernible;
nevertheless, in that dry granule, by the power of God and the secret law
of propagation, the foaming new wine must have its origin. You will allow
all this in the case of a tree; will you not admit such things to be
possible in the case of a man? The plant which perishes is thus decked with
beauty, why should we think that man, who abides, will receive back his
former meanness? Do you demand that there should be flesh, bones, blood,
limbs, so that you must have the barber to cut your hair, that your nose
may run, your nails must be trimmed, your lower parts may gender filth or
minister to lust? If you introduce these foolish and gross notions, you
forget what is told us of the flesh, namely, that in it we cannot please
God, and that it is an enemy; you forget, also, what is told us of the
resurrection of the dead:[2] '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.' Now we see with our eyes, hear with our ears, act
with our hands, walk with our feet. But in that spiritual body we shall be
all sight, all hearing, all action, all movement. The Lord shall
transfigure: the body of our humiliation and fashion it according to His
own glorious body. In saying transfigure he affirms identity with the
members which we now have. But a different body, spiritual and ethereal, is
promised to us, which is neither tangible, nor perceptible to the eye, nor
ponderable; and the change it undergoes will be suitable to the difference
in its future abode. Otherwise, if there is to be the same flesh and if our
bodies are to be the same, there will again be males and females, there
will again be marriage; men will have the shaggy eyebrow and the flowing
beard; women will have their smooth cheeks and narrow chests, and their
bodies must adapt themselves to conception and parturition. Even tiny
infants will rise again; old men will also rise; the former to be nursed,
the latter to be supported by the staff. And, simple ones, be not deceived
by the resurrection of our Lord, because He showed His side anti His hands,
stood on the shore, went for a walk with Cleophas, and said that He had
flesh and bones. That body, because it was not born of the seed of man and
the pleasure of the flesh, has its peculiar prerogatives. He ate and drank
after His resurrection, and appeared in clothing, and allowed Himself to be
touched, that He might make His doubting Apostles believe in His
resurrection. But still He does not fail to manifest the nature of an
aerial and spiritual body. For He enters when the doors are shut, and in
the breaking of bread vanishes out of sight. Does it follow then that after
our resurrection we shall eat and drink, and perform the offices of nature?
If so, what becomes of the promise,[2] 'The mortal must put on
immortality.'"
27. Here we have the complete explanation, of the fact that in your
exposition of the faith, to deceive the ears of the ignorant, you nine
times make mention of the body, and not even once of the flesh, and all the
while men think that you confess the body of flesh, and that the flesh is
identical with the body. If it is the same as the body, it means nothing
different. I say this, for I know your answer: "I thought the body was the
same as the flesh; I spoke with all simplicity." Why do you not rather call
it flesh to signify the body, and speak indifferently at one time of the
flesh, at another of the body, that the body may be shown to consist of
flesh, and the flesh to be the body. But believe me, your silence is not
the silence of simplicity. For flesh is defined one way, the body another;
all flesh is body, but not every body is flesh. Flesh is properly what is
comprised in blood, veins, bones, and sinews. Although the body is also
called flesh, yet sometimes it is designated ethereal or aerial, because it
is not subject to touch and sight; and yet it is frequently both visible
and tangible. A wall is a body, but is not flesh; a stone is a body, but it
is not said to be flesh. Wherefore the Apostle calls some bodies celestial,
some terrestrial. A celestial body is that of the sun, moon, stars; a
terrestrial body is that of fire, air, water, and the rest, which bodies
being inanimate are known as consisting of material elements. You see we
understand your subtleties, and publish abroad the mysteries which you
utter in the bedchamber and amongst the perfect, mysteries which may not
reach the ears of outsiders. You smile, and with hand uplifted and a snap
of the fingers retort,[1] "All the glory of the king's daughter is within."
And,[2] "The king led me into his bedchamber." It is clear why you spoke of
the resurrection of the body and not of that of the flesh; of course it was
that we in our ignorance might think that when body was spoken of flesh was
meant; while yet the perfect would understand that, when body was spoken
of, flesh was denied. Lastly, the Apostle, in his Epistle to the
Colossians, wishing to show that the body of Christ was made of flesh, and
was not spiritual, aerial, attenuated, said significantly,[3] "And you,
when you were some time alienated from Christ and enemies of His spirit in
evil works, He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death." And
again in the same Epistle:[4] "In whom ye were circumcised with a
circumcision made without hands in the putting off of the body of the
flesh." If by body is meant flesh only, and the word is not ambiguous, nor
capable of diverse significations, it was quite superfluous to use both
expressions--bodily and of flesh--as though body did not imply flesh.
28. In the symbol of our faith and hope, which was delivered by the
Apostles, and is not written with paper and ink, but on fleshy tables of
the heart, after the confession of the Trinity and the unity of the Church,
the whole symbol of Christian dogma concludes with the resurrection of the
flesh. You dwell so exclusively upon the subject of the body, harping upon
it in your discourse, repeating first the body, and secondly the body, and
again the body. and nine times over the body, that you do not even once
name the flesh; whereas they always speak of the flesh, but say nothing of
the body. I would have you know that we see through what you craftily add,
and with wise precaution seek to conceal. For you make use of the same
passages to prove the reality of the resurrection by means of which Origen
denies it; you support questionable positions with doubtful arguments, and
thus raise a storm which in a moment overthrows the settled fabric of
faith. You quote the words,[1] "It is sown an animal body: it shall rise a
spiritual body." "For they shall neither marry, nor be given in marriage,
but shall be as the angels in heaven." What other instances would you take
if you were denying the resurrection? You intend to confess the
resurrection of the flesh, you say, in a real and not an imaginary sense.
After the remarks with which you smooth things over to the ears of the
ignorant, to the effect that we rise again with the very bodies with which
we died and were buried, why do you not go on and speak thus: "The Lord
after His resurrection showed the prints of the nails in His hands, pointed
to the wound of the spear in His side, and when the Apostles doubted
because they thought they saw a phantom, gave them reply,[2] 'Handle Me and
see, for a spirit hath not flesh and blood as ye see Me have'; and
specially to Thomas,[a] 'Put thy finger into My hands, and thy hand into My
side, and be not faithless, but believing.' Similarly after the
resurrection we shall have the same members which we now use, the same
flesh and blood and bones, for it is not the nature of these which is
condemned in Holy Scripture, but their works. Then again, it is written in
Genesis:[4] 'My Spirit shall not abide in those men, because they are
flesh.' And the Apostle Paul, speaking of the corrupt doctrine and works of
the Jews, says:[5] 'I rested not in flesh and blood.' And to the Saints,
who, of course, were in the flesh, he says :[6] 'But ye are not in the
flesh, but in the spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you.' For by
denying that they were in the flesh who clearly were in the flesh, he
condemned not the substance of the flesh but its sins."
29. The true confession of the resurrection declares that the flesh
will be glorious, but without destroying its reality. And when the Apostle
says,[7] "This is corruptible and mortal," his words denote this very body,
that is to say, the flesh which was then seen. But when he adds that it
puts on incorruption and immortality, he does not say that that which is
put on, that is the clothing, does away with the body which it adorns in
glory, but that it makes that body glorious, which before lacked glory; so
that the more worthless robe of mortality and weakness being laid aside, we
may be clothed with the gold of immortality, and, so to speak, with the
blessedness of strength as well as virtue; since we wish not to be stripped
of the flesh, but to put on over it the vesture of glory, and desire to be
clothed upon with our house, which is from heaven, that mortality may be
swallowed up by life. Certainly, no one is clothed upon who was not
previously clothed. Accordingly, our Lord was not so transfigured on the
mountain that He lost His hands and feet and other members, and suddenly
began to roll along in a round shape like that of the sun or a ball; but
the same members glowed with the brightness of the sun and blinded the eyes
of the Apostles. Hence, also, His garments were changed, but so as to
become white and glistening, not aerial, for I suppose you do not intend to
maintain that His clothes also were spiritual.[1] The Evangelist adds that
His face shone like the sun; but when mention is made of His face, I reckon
that His other members were beheld as well. Enoch was translated in the
flesh; Elias was carried up to heaven in the flesh. They are not dead, they
are inhabitants of Paradise, and even there retain the members with which
they were rapt away and translated. What we aim at in fasting, they have
through fellowship with God. They feed on heavenly bread, and are satisfied
with every word of God, having Him as their food who is also their Lord.
Listen to the Saviour saying:[3] "And my flesh rests in hope." And
elsewhere, "'His flesh saw not corruption." And again,' "All flesh shall
see the salvation of God." And must you be for ever making the body a
twofold thing? Rather quote the vision of[5] Ezekiel, who joins bones to
bones and brings them forth from their sepulchres, and then, making them to
stand on their feet binds them together with flesh and sinews and clothes
them with skin.
30. Listen to those words of thunder which fall from Job, the
vanquisher of torments, who, as he scrapes away the filth of his decaying
flesh with a potsherd, solaces his miseries with the hope and the reality
of the resurrection:[6] "Oh, that," he says, "my words were written! Oh,
that they were inscribed in a book with an iron pen, and on a sheet of
lead, that they were graven in the rock for ever! For I know that my
Redeemer liveth, and that in the last day I shall rise from the earth, and
again be clothed with my skin, and in my flesh shall see God, Whom I shall
see for myself, and my eyes shall behold, and not another. This my hope is
laid up in my bosom." What can be clearer than this prophecy? No one since
the days of Christ speaks so openly concerning the resurrection as he did
before Christ. He wishes his words to last for ever; and that they might
never be obliterated by age, he would have them inscribed on a sheet of
lead, and graven on the rock. He hopes for a resurrection; nay, rather he
knew and saw that Christ, his Redeemer, was alive, and at the last day
would rise again from the earth. The Lord had not yet died, and the athlete
of the Church saw his Redeemer rising from the grave. When he says, "And I
shall again be clothed with my skin, and in my flesh see God," I suppose he
does not speak as if he loved his flesh, for it was decaying and putrifying
before his eyes; but in the confidence of rising again, and through the
consolation of the future, he makes light of his present misery. Again he
says: "I shall be clothed with my skin." What mention do we find here of an
ethereal body? What of an aerial body, like to breath and wind? Where there
is skin and flesh, where there are bones and sinews, and blood and veins,
there assuredly is fleshy tissue and distinction of sex. "And in my flesh,"
he says, "I shall see God." When all flesh shall see the salvation of God,
and Jesus as God, then I, also, shall see the Redeemer and Saviour, and my
God. But I shall see him in that flesh which now tortures me, which now
melts away for pain. Therefore, in my flesh shall I behold God, because by
His own resurrection He has healed all my infirmities" Does it not seem to
you that Job was then writing against Origen, and was holding a controversy
similar to ours against the heretics, for the reality of the flesh in which
he underwent tortures? For he could not bear. to think that all his
sufferings would be in vain; while the flesh he actually bore was tortured
as flesh indeed, it would be some other and spiritual kind of flesh that
would rise again. Wherefore he presses home and emphasizes the truth, and
puts a stop to all that might lie hid in an artful confession, by speaking
out plainly: "Whom I shall see for myself and my eyes shall behold and not
another." If he is not to rise again in his own sex, if he is not to have
the same members which were then lying on the dunghill, if he does not open
the same eyes to see God with which he was then looking at the worms, where
will Job then be? You do away with what constituted Job, and give me the
hollow phrase, Job shall rise again; it is as if you were to order a ship
to be restored after shipwreck, and then were to refuse each particular
thing of which a ship is made.
31. I will speak freely, and although you screw your mouths, pull your
hair, stamp your feet, and take up stones like the Jews, I will openly
confess the faith of the Church. The reality of a resurrection without
flesh and bones, without blood and members, is unintelligible. Where there
are flesh and bones where there are blood and members, there must of
necessity be diversity of sex. Where there is diversity of sex, there John
is John, Mary is Mary. You need not fear the marriage of those who, even
before death, lived in their own sex without discharging the functions of
sex. When it is said, "In that day they shall neither marry, nor be given
in marriage," the words refer to those who can marry, and yet will not do
so. For no one says of the angels, "They shall not marry, nor be given in
marriage." I never heard of a marriage being celebrated among the spiritual
virtues in heaven: but where there is sex there you have man and woman.
Hence it is that, although you were reluctant, you were compelled by the
truth to confess that, "A man must either be crowned in the body because he
lived a pure and upright life, or be condemned in the body, because he was
the slave of pleasure and iniquity." Substitute flesh for body, and you
have not denied the existence of male and female. Who can have any glory
from a life of chastity if we have no sex which would make unchastity
possible? Who ever crowned a stone for continuing a virgin? Likeness to the
angels is promised us, that is, the blessedness of their angelic existence
without flesh and sex will be bestowed on us in our flesh and with our sex.
I am simple enough so to believe, and so know how to confess that sex can
exist without the functions of the Senses; that it is thus that men rise,
and that it is thus that they are made equal to the angels. Nor will the
resurrection of the members all at once seem superfluous, because they are
to have no office, since, while we are still in this life, we strive not to
perform the works of the members. Moreover, likeness to the angels does not
imply a changing of men into angels, but their growth in immortality and
glory.
32. But as for the arguments drawn from boys, and infants, and old men,
and meats, and excrements, which you employ against the Church, they are
not your own; they flow from a heathen source. For the heathen mock us with
the same. You say you are a Christian; lay aside the weapons of the
heathen. It is for them to learn from you to confess the resurrection of
the dead, not for you to learn from them to deny it. Or if you belong to
the enemy's camp, show yourself openly as an adversary, that you may share
the wounds we inflict on the heathen. I will allow you your jest about the
necessity of nursemaids to stop the infants from crying; of the decrepit
old men, who, you fear. would be shrivelled with winter's cold. I will
admit also that the barbers have learnt their craft for nothing, for do we
not know that the people of Israel for forty years experienced no growth of
either nails or hair; and, still more, their clothes were not worn out, nor
did their shoes wax old? Enoch and Elias, concerning whom we spoke a while
ago, abide all this time in the same state in which they were carried away.
They have teeth, belly, organs of generation, and yet have no need of
meats, or wives. Why do you slander the power of God, who can from that[1]
marrow and seed-plot of which you speak, not only produce flesh from flesh,
but also make one body from another; and change water, that is worthless
flesh, into the precious wine of an aerial body? the same power by which He
created all things out of nothing can give back what has existed, because
it is a much smaller thing to restore what has been, than to make what
never was. Do you wonder that there is a resurrection from the condition of
infancy and old age to that of mature manhood, seeing that a perfect man
was made out of the slime of the earth without having gone through
successive stages of growth? A rib is changed into a woman; and by the
third mode of creating man, the poor elements of our birth which put us to
the blush are changed into flesh, bound together by the members, run into
veins, harden into bones. There is a fourth sort of human generation of
which I can tell you. "The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power
of the Highest shall overshadow thee. Wherefore that[2] holy thing which
shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God." Adam was created one
way, Eve another, Abel another, the man Jesus Christ another. And yet,
different as are all these beginnings, the nature of man remains one and
the same.
33. If I wished to prove the resurrection of the flesh and of all the
members, and to give the meaning of the several passages, many books would
be, required; but the matter in hand does not call for this. For I purposed
not to reply to Origen in every detail, but to disclose the mysteries of
your insincere "Apology." I have, however, tarried long in maintaining the
opposite to your position, and am afraid that, in my eagerness to expose
fraud, I may leave a stumbling-block in the way of the reader. I will,
therefore, mass together the evidence, and glance at the proofs in passing,
so that we may bring all the weight of Scripture to bear upon your
poisonous argument. He who has not a wedding garment, and has not kept that
command,[1] "Let your garments be always white," is bound hand and foot
that he may not recline at the banquet, or sit on a throne, or stand at the
right hand of God;[3] he is sent to Gehenna, where there is weeping and
gnashing of teeth.[3] "The hairs of your head are numbered." If the hairs,
I suppose the teeth would be more easily numbered. But there is no object
in numbering them if they are some day to perish.[4] "The hour will come in
which all who are in the tombs shall hear the voice of the Son of God, and
shall come forth." They shall hear with ears, come forth with feet. This
Lazarus had already done. They shall, moreover, come forth from the tombs;
that is, they who had been laid in the tombs, the dead, shall come, and
shall rise again from their graves. For the dew which God gives is[5]
healing to their bones. Then shall be fulfilled what God says by the
prophet,[6] "Go, my people, into thy closets for a little while, until mine
anger pass." The closets signify the graves, out of which that, of course,
is brought forth which had been laid therein. And they shall come out of
the graves like young mules free from the halter. Their heart shall
rejoice, and their bones shall rise like the sun; all flesh shall come into
the presence of the Lord, and He shall command the fishes of the sea; and
they shall give up the bones which they had eaten; and He shall bring joint
to joint, and bone to bone; and[7] they who slept in the dust of the earth
shall arise, some to life eternal, others to shame and everlasting
confusion. Then shall the just see the punishment and tortures of the
wicked, for[8] their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be
extinguished, and they shall be beheld by all flesh. As many of us,
therefore, as have this hope, as we have yielded our members servants to
uncleanness, and to iniquity unto iniquity, so let us yield them servants
to righteousness unto holiness, that[9] we may rise from the dead and walk
in newness of life. As also the life of the Lord Jesus is manifested in our
mortal body. so[10] also He who raised up Jesus Christ from the dead shall
quicken our mortal bodies on account of His Spirit Who dwelleth in us. For
it is right that as we have always borne about the putting to death of
Christ in our body, so the life, also, of Jesus, should be manifested in
our mortal body, that is, in our flesh, which is mortal according to
nature, but eternal according to grace. Stephen also[1] saw Jesus standing
on the right hand of the Father, and the[2] hand of Moses became snowy
white, and was afterwards restored to its original colour. There was still
a hand, though the two states were different. The potter in[2] Jeremiah,
whose vessel, which he had made, was broken through the roughness of the
stone, restored from the same lump and from the same clay that which had
fallen to pieces; and, if we look at the word resurrection itself, it does
not mean that one thing is destroyed, another raised up; and the addition
of the word dead, points to our own flesh, for that which in man dies, that
is also brought to life.[4] The wounded man on the road to Jericho is taken
to the inn with all his limbs complete, and the stripes of his offences are
healed with immortality.
34. Even the graves were opened[5] at our Lord's passion when the sun
fled, the earth trembled, and many of the bodies of the saints arose, and
were seen in the holy city.[6] "Who is this," says Isaiah," that cometh up
from Edom, with shining raiment from Bozrah, so beautiful in his glistening
robe?" Edom is by interpretation either earthy or bloody; Bosor either
flesh, or in tribulation. In few words he shows the whole mystery of the
resurrection, that is, both the reality of the flesh and the growth in
glory. And the meaning is: Who is he that cometh up from the earth, cometh
up from blood? According to the[7] prophecy of Jacob, He has bound His foal
to the vine, and has trodden the wine-press alone, and His garments are red
with new wine from Bosor, that is from flesh, or from the tribulation of
the world: for He Himself[8] has conquered the world. And, therefore, His
garments are red and shining, because He is[9] beauteous in form more than
the sons of men, and on account of the glory of His triumph they have been
changed into a white robe; and then, in truth, as concerns Christ's flesh,
were fulfilled the words,[10] "Who is this that cometh up all in white,
leaning upon her beloved?" And that which is written in the same book:[11]
"My beloved is white and ruddy." These men are his true followers who have
not[12] defiled their garments with women, for they have continued virgins,
who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. And so
they shall be in white clothing. Then shall the saying of our Lord appear
perfectly realised: [1]"All that my Father has given me, I shall not lose
aught thereof, but I will raise it up again at the last day;" the whole of
His humanity, forsooth, which He had taken upon Him in its entirety at His
birth. Then shall the sheep which was[2] lost, and was wandering in the
lower world, be carried whole on the Saviour's shoulders, and the sheep
which was sick with sin shall be supported by the mercy of the Judge. Then
shall they see him who pierced Him, who shouted,[3] "Crucify Him, crucify
Him." Again and again shall they beat their breasts, they and their women,
those women to whom our Lord said, as He carried His cross,[4] "Ye
daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me but weep for yourselves, and for
your children." Then shall be fulfilled the prophecy of the angels, who
said to the stupefied Apostles, [6]"Ye men of Galilee, why stand ye looking
with astonishment into heaven? This Jesus who is taken from you into
heaven, shall come in like manner as ye have seen Him go into heaven." But
what are we to think of a man saying that our Lord[6] ate with the Apostles
for forty days after His resurrection in order that they might not think
Him to be a phantom, and then asserting that it was a phantom which did
this very thins which ate and which was seen by many in the flesh. That
which was seen is either real, or false. If it is real, it follows that He
really ate, and really had members. But if it is false, how could He be
willing to give false impressions in order to prove the truth of His
resurrection? For no one proves what is true by means of what is false. You
will say, are we then going to eat after our resurrection? I know not.
Scripture does not tell us; and yet, if the question be asked, I do not
think we shall eat. For I have read that the kingdom of God is not meat and
drink, while it promises[7] such things as eye hath not seen, nor ear
heard, nor have entered into the heart of man. Moses fasted forty days and
forty nights. Human nature does not allow of this, but what is impossible
with men is not impossible with God. Just as, in foretelling the future, it
matters not whether a person announces what will take place after ten years
or after a hundred, since the knowledge of futurity is all one; so he who
can fast for forty days and yet live,--not, indeed, that he can of himself
fast, but that he lives by the power of God,--will also be able to live for
ever without food and drink. Why did our Lord eat an honeycomb? To prove
the resurrection: not to give your palate the pleasure of tasting of honey.
He asked for a fish broiled on the coals that He might [1]confirm the
doubting Apostles, who did not dare approach Him because they thought they
saw not a body, but a spirit. [2]The daughter of the ruler of the synagogue
was raised to life and took food. [3]Lazarus, who had been four days dead,
rose again, and comes before us at a dinner; not because he was accustomed
to eat in the lower world, but because a case which presented such
difficulties challenged the believer's criticism. As He showed them real
hands and a real side, so He really ate with His disciples; really walked
with Cleophas; conversed with men with a real tongue; really reclined at
supper; with real hands took bread, blessed and brake it, and was offering
it to them. And as for His suddenly vanishing out of their sight, that is
the power of God, not of a shadowy phantom. Besides, even before His
resurrection, when they had led Him out from Nazareth that they might cast
Him down headlong from the brow of the hill, He passed through the midst of
them, that is, escaped out of their hands. Can we follow Marcion, and say
that because, when He was held fast, He escaped in a manner contrary to
nature, therefore His birth must have been only apparent? Has not the Lord
a privilege which is conceded to magicians? It is related of Apollonius of
Tyana that, when standing in court before Domitian, he all at once
disappeared. Do not put the power of the Lord on a level with the tricks of
magicians, so that He may appear to have been what He was not, and may be
thought to have eaten without teeth, walked without feet, broken bread
without hands, spoken without a tongue, and showed a side which had no
ribs.
35. And how was it, you will say, that they did not recognize Him on
the road if He had the same body which He had before? Let me recall what
Scripture says: [4]"Their eyes were holden, that they might not know Him."
And again, "Their eyes were opened, and they knew Him." Was He one person
when He was not known, and another when He was known? He was surely one and
the same. Whether, therefore, they knew Him, or not, depended on their
sight; it did not depend upon Him Who was seen; and yet it did depend on
Him in this sense, that He held their eyes that they might not know Him.
Lastly, that you may see that the mistake which held them was not to be
attributed to the Lord's body, but to the fact that their eyes were closed,
we are told: [1]"Their eyes were opened, and they knew Him." Wherefore,
also, Mary Magdalene so long as she did not recognize Jesus, and sought the
living among the dead, thought He was the gardener. Afterwards she
recognized Him and then she called Him Lord. After His resurrection Jesus
was standing on the shore, His disciples were in the ship. When the others
did not know Him, the disciple whom Jesus loved[2] said to Peter, "It is
the Lord." For virginity is the first to recognize a virgin body. He was
the same, yet was not seen alike by all as the same. And immediately it is
added,[3] "And no one durst ask Him, Who art Thou? for they knew that He
was the Lord." No one durst, because they knew that He was God. They ate
with Him at dinner because they saw He was a man and had flesh; not that He
was one person as God, another as man: but, being one and the same Son of
God, He was known as man, adored as God. I suppose I must now air my
philosophy, and say that our senses are not to be relied on, and especially
sight. A [4]Carneades must be awaked from the dead to tell us the truth--
that an oar seems broken in the water, porticos afar off look more
magnificent, the angles of towers seem rounded in the distance, that the
backs of pigeons change their colours with every movement. When Rhoda[5]
announced Peter, and told the Apostles, they did not believe that he had
escaped, on account of the greatness of the danger, but suspected it was a
phantom. Moreover, in passing through closed doors, He exhibited the same
power as in vanishing out of sight. [6]Lynceus, as fable relates, used to
see through a wall. Could not the Lord enter when the doors were shut,
unless He were a phantom? Eagles and vultures perceive dead bodies across
the sea. Shall not the Saviour see His Apostles without opening the door?
Tell me, sharpest of disputants, which is greater, to hang the vast weight
of the earth on nothing, and to balance it on the changing surface of the
waves; or that God should pass through a closed door, and the creature
yield to the Creator? You allow the greater; you object to the less.
Peter[7] walked upon the waters with his heavy and solid body. The soft
water does not yield: his faith doubts a little, and immediately his body
understands its own nature; that we may know that it was not his body that
walked on the water, but his faith.
36. I pray you, who use such elaborate arguments against the
resurrection, let us have some simple talk together. Do you believe that
our Lord really rose again in the same body in which He died and was
buried, or do you not believe it? If you believe it, why do you make
propositions which lead to the denial of the resurrection? If you do not
believe, you who thus try to deceive the minds of the ignorant, and parade
the word resurrection, though you mean nothing by it, listen to me. Not
long ago, a certain disciple of Marcion said: "Woe to him who rises again
with this flesh and these bones!" Our heart at once with joy replied,[1]
"We are buried together, and we shall rise together with Christ through
baptism." "Do you speak of the resurrection of the soul, or of the flesh?"
I answered, "Not that of the soul alone, but that of the flesh, which,
together with the soul, is born again in the layer. And how shall that
perish which has been born again in Christ?" "Because it is written," said
he,[2] " 'Flesh and blood shall not inherit the kingdom of God.'" "I
intreat you to mind what is said--'Flesh and blood shall not inherit the
kingdom of God.'" "It is said that they shall not rise again." "Not at all,
but only 'they shall not inherit the kingdom.'" "How so?" "'Because,' it
follows,[3] 'neither shall corruption inherit incorruption.' So long then
as they remain mere flesh and blood, they shall not inherit the kingdom of
God. But when the[4] corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and the
mortal shall have put on immortality, and the clay of the flesh shall have
been made into a vessel, then that flesh which was formerly kept down by a
heavy weight upon the earth, when once it has received the wings of the
spirit--wings which imply its change, not its destruction--shall fly with
fresh glory to heaven; and then shall be fulfilled that which is written,
[5]'Death is swallowed up in victory. Where, O death, is thy boasting? O
death, where is thy sting?' "
37. Reversing the order, we have given our answer respecting the state
of souls and the resurrection of the flesh; and, leaving out the opening
portions of the letter, we have confined ourselves to the refutation of
this most remarkable treatise. For we preferred to speak of the things of
God rather than of our own wrongs. [6]"If one man sin against another, they
shall pray for him to the Lord. But if he sin against God, who shall pray
for him?" In these days, on the contrary, we make it our first business to
pursue with undying hate those who have injured us--to those who blaspheme
God we indulgently hold out the hand. John writes to Bishop Theophilus an
apology, of which the introduction runs thus: "You, indeed, as a man of
God, adorned with apostolic grace, have upon you the care of all the
Churches, especially of that which is at Jerusalem, though you yourself are
distracted with countless anxieties for the Church of God, which is under
you." This is barefaced adulation, and an attempt to concentrate[1]
authority in the hands of an individual. You, who ask for ecclesiastical
rules, and make use of the[2] canons of the Council of Nicaea, and claim
authority over clerics who belong to another diocese and are[3] actually
living with their own bishop, answer my question, What has Palestine to do
with the bishop of Alexandria? Unless I am deceived, it is decreed in those
canons that Caesarea is the metropolis of Palestine, and Antioch of the
whole of the East. You ought therefore either to appeal to the bishop of
Caesarea, with whom you know that we have communion while we disdain to
communicate with you, or, if judgment were to be sought at a distance,
letters ought rather to be addressed to Antioch. But I know why you were
unwilling to send to Caesarea, or to Antioch. You knew what to flee from,
what to avoid. You preferred to assail with your complaints ears that were
preoccupied rather than pay due honour to your metropolitan. And I do not
say this because I have anything to blame in the mission itself, except
certain partialities which beget suspicion, but because you ought rather to
clear yourself in the actual presence of your questioners. You begin with
the words, "You have sent a most devoted servant of God, the presbyter
Isidore, a man of influence no less from the dignity of his very gait and
dress than from that of his divine understanding, to heal those whose souls
are grievously sick; would that they had any sense of their illness! A man
of God sends a man of God." No difference is made between a priest and a
bishop; the same dignity belongs to the sender and the sent; this is lame
enough; the ship, as the saying goes; is wrecked in harbour. That Isidore,
whom you extol to the sky by your praises, lies under the same imputation
of heresy[1] at Alexandria as you at Jerusalem; wherefore he appears to
have come to you not as an envoy, but as a confederate. Besides, the
letters in his own handwriting, which, three months before the sending of
the embassy, had been sent to us[2] through an error in the address, were
delivered to the presbyter Vincentius, and to this day they are in his
keeping. In these letters the writer encourages the leader of his army[3]
to plant his foot firmly upon the rock of the faith, and not to be
terrified by our Jeremiads. He promises, before we had any suspicion of his
mission. that he will come to Jerusalem, and that on his arrival the ranks
of his adversaries will be instantly crushed. And amongst the rest he uses
these words: "As smoke vanishes in the air, and wax melts beside the fire,
so shall they be scattered who are for ever resisting the faith of the
Church, and are now through simple men endeavouring to disturb that faith."
38. I ask you, my reader, what does a man, who writes these things
before he comes, appear to you to be? An adversary, or an envoy? This is
the man whom we may, indeed, call most pious, or most religious, and, to
give the exact equivalent of the word, one devoted to the worship of God.
This is the man of divine understanding, so influential, and of such
dignity in gait and dress, that, like a spiritual Hippocrates, he is able
by his presence to relieve the sickness of our souls, provided, however, we
are willing to submit to his treatment. If such is his medicine, let him
heal himself, since he is accustomed to heal others. To us, that divine
understanding of his is folly for the sake of Christ. We willingly remain
in the sickness of our simplicity, rather than, by using your eye-salve,
learn an impious abuse of sight. Next come the words: "The excellent
intentions of your Holiness compel our prayers to the Lord night and day;
and, as though those intentions were already perfectly realised, we offer
our prayers to Him in the holy places, that He may give you a perfect
reward, and bestow on you the crown of life." You do right in giving
thanks; for, if Isidore had not come you would not now have found in the
whole of Palestine such a faithful associate. If he had not brought you the
aid he had promised beforehand, you would find yourself surrounded by a
crowd of rustics incapable of understanding your wisdom. This very apology
of which we are now speaking was dictated in the presence and, to a great
extent, with the assistance of Isidore, so that the same person both
composed the letter and carried it to its destination.
39. Your letter goes on to relate that "though he had come hither and
had had three separate interviews with us, and had applied to the matter
the healing language no less of your divine wisdom than of his own
understanding, he found that he could be of no use to any one, nor could
any one be of use to him." The fact is that he who is said to have had
"three separate interviews with us," so that in his coming he might
maintain the mystic number, and who talked to us about the command issued
by Bishop Theophilus, did not choose to deliver the letters sent to us by
him. And when we said: If you are an envoy, produce your credentials; if
you have no letters, how can you prove to us that you are an envoy? he
replied that he had, indeed, letters to us but he had been adjured by the
bishop of Jerusalem not to give them to us. You see here the true envoy
consistent with his proper character; you see how impartial he shows
himself to both sides, that he may make peace, and exclude the suspicion of
favouring either party. At all events, he had come without a plaster, and
had not the physician's instruments at his command, and therefore his
medicine was of no avail. "Jerome and those associated with him," you
continue," both secretly, and in the presence of all, again and again and
with the attestation of an oath, satisfied him that they never had any
doubts of our orthodoxy, saying: We have now just the same feeling toward
him, as regards matters of faith, that we had when we used to communicate
with him." See what dogmatic agreement can do. Isidore, in order that he
might make such a report as this, is taken into close fellowship, and is
spoken of as a man of God, and a most devout priest, a man of influence, of
holy and venerable gait, and of divine understanding, the Hippocrates of
the Christians. I, a poor wretch, hiding away in solitude, suddenly cut off
by this mighty pontiff, have lost the name of priest. This "Jerome," then,
with his ragged herd and shabby following, did he dare to give any answer
to Isidore and his thunderbolts? Of course not; and doubtless for no other
motive than fear that the envoy would never yield, and might overwhelm them
by his presence and [1]gigantic stature. "Not once, nor thrice, but again
and again [2]they swore that they knew the individual in question to be
orthodox, and that they had never suspected him of heresy." What
undisguised and shameless lying! A witness borne by a man to himself! Such
witness as is not believed even in the mouth of a Cato, for[1] in the mouth
of two or three witnesses shall every word be established. Was there ever a
word said, or a message sent to you, to the effect that, without being
satisfied as to your orthodoxy, we would endure communion with you? When,
through the instrumentality of the Count Archelaus, a most accomplished as
well as a most Christian man, who tried to negotiate a peace between us, a
place had been appointed where we were to meet, was not one of the first
things postulated that the faith should form the basis of future agreement?
He promised to come. Easter was approaching; a great multitude of monks had
assembled; you were expected at the appointed place; what to do you did not
know. All at once you sent word that some one or other was sick, you could
not come that day. Is it a stage-player or a bishop who thus speaks?
Suppose what you said was true, to suit the pleasure of one feeble woman
who fears that she may have a headache, or may feel sick, or haste a pain
in the stomach, while you are away, do you neglect the interests of the
Church? Do you despise so many men, Christians and monks assembled
together? We were unwilling to give occasion for breaking off the
negotiation; we saw through the artifice of your procrastination, and
sought to overcome the wrong you did us by patience. Archelaus wrote again,
advising him that he was staying on for two days, in case he should be
willing to come. But be was busy; his dear little woman bad not ceased to
vomit, he could not bestow a thought upon us until she should have escaped
from her nausea. Well, after two months, at last the long-looked for
Isidore arrived, and what he heard from us was not as you pretend, a
testimony in your behalf, but the reason why we demanded satisfaction. For
when he raised the point, "Why, if be were a heretic, did you communicate
with him?" he was answered by us all that we communicated without any
suspicion of his heresy; but that, after he had been summoned by the Most
Reverend Epiphanius, both by word and by letter, and had disdained to
answer, documents were addressed to the monks by Epiphanius himself, to the
effect that, unless he gave satisfaction respecting the faith, no one
should rashly communicate with him. The letters are in our hands; there can
be no doubt about the matter. This, then, was the reply made by the whole
body of the brethren: not, as you maintain, that you were not an heretic,
because at a former time you were not said to be one. For upon that
showing, a man must be said not to be sick because previous to his sickness
he was in good health.
40. To proceed with the letter. "But when the ordination of
Paulinianus, and the others associated with him, was brought forward, they
began to feel that they themselves were in the wrong. For the sake of
charity and concord every concession was made to them, and the only point
insisted on was that, though they had been ordained contrary to the rules,
yet they should be subject to the authority of the Church of God, that they
should not rend it, and set up an authority of their own. But they, not
agreeing to this, began to raise questions concerning the faith; and thus
they made it evident to all that if the presbyter Jerome and his friends
were not accused, they had no charge to bring against us, but that they
only betook themselves to doctrinal questions because, when charges of
error and misconduct were brought against them, they were utterly unable to
reply to us on matters of that sort, or to give any satisfactory
explanation of their wrong-doing: not that they had any hope that we could
be convicted of heresy, but they were striving to injure our reputation."
41. No one must blame the translator for this verbiage: the Greek is
the same. Meanwhile I rejoice that whereas I thought I was beheaded I find
my presbyterial head on my shoulders again. He says that we are utterly
incapable of conviction, and he draws back from the encounter. If the cause
of discord is not due to discussions about the faith, but springs from the
ordination of Paulinianus, is it not the extreme of folly to give occasion
to those who seek occasion by refusing to answer? Confess the faith; but do
it so as to answer the question put to you, that it may be clear to all
that the dispute is not one of faith, but of order. For so long as you are
silent when questioned concerning the faith, your adversary has a right to
say to you: "The matter is not one of order but of faith." If it is a
question of order, you act foolishly in saying nothing when questioned
concerning the faith. If it is one of faith, it is foolish of you to make a
pretext of the question of order. Moreover, when you say your aim was that
they might be subject to the Church, that they might not rend it, nor set
up an authority of their own; who they are of whom you speak I do not well
understand. If you are speaking of me and the presbyter Vincentius, you
have been asleep long enough, if you only wake up now, after thirteen
years,[1] to say these things. For the reason why I forsook Antioch and he
Constantinople,[2] both famous cities, was, not that we might praise your
popular eloquence, but that, in the country and in solitude, we might weep
over the sins of our youth, and draw down upon us the mercy of Christ. But
if Paulinianus is the subject of your remarks, he, as you see, is subject
to his[3] bishop, and lives at Cyprus: he sometimes comes to visit us, not
as one of your clergy, but as another's, his, namely, by whom he was
ordained. But if he wished even to stay here, and to live a quiet, solitary
life sharing our exile, what does he owe you except the respect which we
owe to all bishops? Suppose that he had been ordained by you; he would only
tell you the same that I, a poor wretch of a man, told Bishop Paulinus of
blessed memory. "Did I ask to be ordained by you?" I said. "If in bestowing
the rank of presbyter you do not strip us of the monastic state, you can
bestow or withhold ordination as you think best. But if your intention in
giving the name presbyter was to take from me that for which I forsook the
world, I must still claim to be what I always was; you have suffered no
loss by ordaining me."[4]
42. "That they might not rend the Church," he says, "and set up an
authority of their own." Who rends the Church? Do we, who as a complete
household at Bethlehem communicate in the Church? Or is it you, who either
being orthodox refuse through pride to speak concerning the faith, or else
being heterodox are the real render of the Church? Do we rend the Church,
who, a few months ago, about the day of Pentecost, when the sun was
darkened and all the world dreaded the immediate coming of the Judge,
presented forty candidates of different ages and sexes to your presbyter
for baptism? There were certainly five presbyters in the monastery who had
the right to baptize; but they were unwilling to do anything to move you to
anger, for fear you might make this a pretext for reticence concerning the
faith. Is it not you, on the contrary, who rend the Church, you who
commanded your presbyters at Bethlehem not to give baptism to our
candidates at Easter, so that we sent them to [5]Diospolis to the Confessor
and Bishop Dionysius for baptism? Are we said to rend the Church, who,
outside our cells, hold no position in the Church? Or do not you rather
rend the Church, who issue an order to your clergy that if any one says
Paulinianus was consecrated presbyter by Epiphanius, he is to be forbidden
to enter the Church. Ever since that time to this day we can only look from
without on the cave of the Saviour, and, while heretics enter, we stand
afar off and sigh.
43. Are we schismatics? Is not he the schismatic who refuses a
habitation to the living, a grave to the dead, and demands the exile of his
brethren? Who was it that set at our throats, with special fury, that wild
beast who constantly menaced the throats of the whole world?[1] Who is it
that permits the rain to beat upon the bones of the saints, and their
harmless ashes, up to the present hour? These are the endearments with
which the good shepherd invites us to reconciliation, and at the same time
accuses us of setting up an authority of our own--us who are united in
communion and charity with all the bishops, so long, at least, as they are
orthodox. Do you yourself constitute the Church, and is whosoever offends
you shut out from Christ? If we defend our own authority-- prove that we
have a bishop in your diocese. The reason that we have not had communion
with you is the question of faith; answer our questions, and it will become
one of order.
44. "They," you go on, "also take advantage of other letters which they
say Epiphanius wrote to them. But he, too shall give account for all his
doings before the judgment seat of Christ, where great and small shall be
judged without respect of persons. Still, how can they rely on his letter
which he wrote only because we took him to task on the matter of the
unlawful ordination of Paulinianus and his associates; as in the opening of
that very letter he intimates?" What, I ask, is the meaning of this
blindness? how is it that he is immersed, as the saying goes, in Cimmerian
darkness? He says that we make a pretext, and that we have no letters from
Epiphanius against him, and he immediately adds, "How can they rely on his
letter, which he only wrote because he was taken to task by us, in the
matter of the unlawful ordination of Paulinianus and his associates; as in
the opening of that very letter he intimates?" We have no such letter! And
what letter then is that, which in its opening sentence speaks of
Paulinianus? There is something in the body of the letter of which you are
afraid to make mention. Well! He was taken to task, you say, by you because
of the age of Paulinianus. But you yourself ordain a man presbyter, and
send him out as an envoy and a colleague. You have the boldness falsely to
call Paulinianus a boy, and then to send out your own boy presbyter. You
likewise take Theoseca, a deacon of the church of Thiria, and make him
presbyter, and put weapons into his hands against us, and make a misuse of
his eloquence for our injury. You alone are at liberty to trample on the
rights of the Church; whatever you do, is the standard of teaching; and you
do not blush to challenge Epiphanius to stand with you before the judgment
seat of Christ. The sequel of this passage is to the following effect: he
throws it in the teeth of Epiphanius that he was the partner of his table
and an inmate of his house, and declares that they never had any talk
together concerning the views of Origen, and he supports what he says with
the attestation of an oath, saying: "He never showed, as God is witness,
that he had even the suspicion that our faith was not correct?" I am
unwilling to answer and argue acrimoniously, lest I seem to be convicting a
bishop of perjury. There are several letters of Epiphanius in our
possession. One to John himself, others to the bishops of Palestine, and
one of recent date to the pontiff of Rome; and in these he speaks of
himself as impugning his views in the presence of many, and says that he
was not thought worthy of a reply, "and the whole Monastery," he says, "is
witness to what we in our insignificance assert."
Taken from "The Early Church Fathers and Other Works" originally published
by Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co. in English in Edinburgh, Scotland, beginning in
1867. (LNPF II/VI, Schaff and Wace). The digital version is by The
Electronic Bible
Society, P.O. Box 701356, Dallas, TX 75370, 214-407-WORD.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
The electronic form of this document is copyrighted.
Copyright (c) Eternal Word Television Network 1996.
Provided courtesy of:
EWTN On-Line Services
PO Box 3610
Manassas, VA 22110
Voice: 703-791-2576
Fax: 703-791-4250
Data: 703-791-4336
FTP: ftp.ewtn.com
Telnet: ewtn.com
WWW:
http://www.ewtn.com.
Email address:
[email protected]
-------------------------------------------------------------------
