UNSEARCHABLE TREASURE OF MEMORY; THE POWERS OF A man's UNDERSTANDING SUFFI- CIENTLY UNDERSTOOD BY NONE.
We often assume that we shall retain a thing in our memory; and so thinking, we do not wTite it down. But afterwards, when we wish to recall it, it refuses to come to mind; and we are then sorry that we thought it would return to memor}-, or that we did not secure it in writing so as to prevent its escape; and lo, on a sudden, without our seeking it, it occurs to us. Then does it follow that we were not ourselves when we thought this? And that we cease to be the same thing that we were, when we are no longer able to think it? Now how does it happen that I know not how we are abstracted from, and denied to, ourselves; and similarly am ignorant how we are restored and returned to ourselves? As if we are other persons, and elsewhere, when we seek, but fail to find, what we deposited in our memory; and are ourselves incapable of returning to ourselves, as if we were situated somewhere else; but afterwards return again, on finding ourselves out. For where do we make our quest, except in our own selves? And what is it we search for, except our own selves? As if we were not actually at home in our persons, but had gone somewhither. Do you not observe, even with alarm, so deep a mystery? And what is all this but our own nature — not what it has been, but such as it now is? And observe how much more we seek than we comprehend. I have often believed that I could understand a question which had been submitted to me, if I were to bestow thought upon it. Well, I have bestowed the thought, but have not been able to solve the question; and many a time I have not so believed, and yet have been able to determine the point. The powers, then, of my own understanding have not been really known to me; nor, I apprehend, have they been to you either.
chap. II. THE apostle PETER TOLD NO LIE, WHEN HE SAID HE WAS READY TO LAY DOWN HIS LIFE FOR THE LORD, BUT ONLY WAS IGNO- RANT OF HIS WILL.
But perhaps you despise me for confessing all this, and will in consequence compare me with " cattle." For myself, however, I will not cease to advise you, or (if you refuse to listen to me) at all events to w-arn you, to acknowledge rather this common infirmity, in which virtue is perfected; lest, by assuming unknown things to be known, you fail to attain to the truth. For I suppose that there is something wliich even you wish to understand, but are unable; which you would never seek to understand, unless you hoped some day to succeed in your research. Thus you also are ignorant of the powers of your own understanding, who profess to know all about your own nature, and decline to follow me in my confession of ignorance. Well, there is also the will; what am I to say about that, where ' certainly free choice is ostentatiously claimed by us? The blessed Apostle Peter, indeed, was willing to lay down his life for the Lord. He was no doubt sincere in his willingness; nor was he treacherous to the Lord when he made the j promise. But his will was entirely ignorant of I its own powers. Therefore the great apostle, 1 who had discovered his Master to be the Son ' of God, was unknown to himself. Thus we are quite aware respecting ourselves that we will a thing, or " nill " it; but although our will is a good one, we are ignorant, my dear son, unless we deceive ourselves, of its strength, of its re- Chap. 13.]
:59 Chap. 13.]
:59 sources, of what temptations it may yield to, or of what it may resist.
CHAP. 12 [VIII.] — THE APOSTLE PAUL COULD KNOW THE THIRD HEAVEN AND PARADISE, BUT NOT WHETHER HE WAS IN THE BODY OR NOT.
See therefore how many facts of our nature, not of the past but of the present time, and not pertaining to the body only, but also to our inner man. we know nothing about, without deserving to be compared with the brute beasts. And yet this is the opprobrious comparison which you have thought me worthy of, because I have not complete knowledge of the past origin of my soul — although I am not wholly ignorant of it, inasmuch as I know that it was given me by God, and yet that it is not out of God. But wlien can I enumerate all the particulars relating to the nature of our spirit and our soul of which we are ignorant? Whereas we ought rather to utter that exclamation before God, which the Psalmist uttered: " The knowledge of Thee is too wonderful for me; it is very difficult, I cannot attain to it." ' Now why did he add the words for me, except because he conjectured how incomprehensible was the knowledge of God for himself, inasmuch as he was unable to comprehend even his own self? The apostle was caught up into the third heaven, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter; and whether this had happened to him in the body or out of the body, he declares himself unable to say; ^ but yet he has no fear of encountering from you comparison with the cattle. His spirit knew that it was in the third heaven, in paradise; but knew not whether it was in the body. The third heaven, of course, and paradise were not the Apostle Paul himself; but his body and soul and spirit were himself. Behold, then, the curious fact: he knew the great things — lofty and divine — which were not himself; but that which appertained to his own nature he was ignorant of. Who in the vast knowledge of such occult things can help being astonished at his great ignorance of his own existence? Who, in short, would beheve it possible, if one who errs not had not told us, that " we know not what we should pray for as we ought "?^ Where, then, ought our bent and purpose mainly to be — to " reach forth to those things which are before "? And yet you compare me to cattle, if among the things which are behind I have forgotten anything concerning my own origin — although you hear the same apostle say: " Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark, for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus." 4 CHAP. 13 [iX.] IN WHAT SENSE THE HOLY GHOST IS SAID TO MAKE INTERCESSION FOR US.
Do you perhaps also think me ridiculous and like the irrational beasts, because I said, " We know not what we should pray for as we ought "? Perhaps this is not quite so intolerable. For since, in the dictates of a sound and righteous judgment, we prefer our future to our past; and since our prayer must have reference not to what we have been, but what we shall be, it is of course much more injurious not to know what we should pray for, than to be ignorant of the manner of our origin. But recollect whose words I repeated, or read them again for yourself, and reflect whence they come; and do not pelt me with your reproaches, lest the stone you throw should alight on a head you would not wish.
For it is the great teacher of the Gentiles, the Apostle Paul himself, who said, " For we know not what we should pray for as we ought." 3 And he not only taught this lesson by word, but also illustrated it by his example. For, contrary to his own advantage and the promotion of his own salvation, he once in his ignorance prayed that " the thorn in the flesh might depart from him," which he said had been given to him "lest he should be exalted above measure by the abundance of the revelations which were given him." 5 But the Lord loved him, and so did not do what he had requested Him to do. Nevertheless, when the apostle said, " We know not what we should pray for as we ought," he immediately added, " But the Spirit Himself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. And He that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because He maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God " ^ — that is to say, He makes the saints offer intercessions. He, of course, is that Spirit " whom God hath sent into our hearts, crying, Abba, Father;" 7 and "by whom we cry, Abba, Father; " ** for both expressions are used by the apostle — both that we have received the Spirit 7uho cries, Abba, Father; and also that it is through Him that we cry, Abba, Father. His object is to explain by these varied statements in what sense he used the word " crying: " he meant causing to cry; so that it is we who cry at His instance and impulse. Let Him therefore teach me this too, whenever He pleases, if He knows it to be expedient for me, that I should know whence I derive my origin as regards my soul. But let me be taught by that Sj^rit who searches the deep things of God; not by a ' Ps. cxxxix. 6.
2 2 Cor. xii. 4.
3 Rom. viii. 26.
36o [Book IV.
man who knows nothing of the breath which inflates a bag. However, be it far from me to compare you with brutes because of this piece of ignorance; because it arose not from incurable inabiUty, but from sheer inadvertence.
CHAP. 14 [X.] IT IS ]\IORE EXCELLENT TO KNOW THAT THE FLESH WILL RISE AGAIN AND LIVE FOR EVERMORE, THAN TO LEARN WHATEVER SCIENTIFIC MEN HAVE BEEN ABLE TO TEACH US CONCERNING ITS NATURE.
But although the questions which arise touching the origin of souls are " higher," no doubt, than that which treats of the source whence the breath comes which we inhale and exhale, you yet believe that those things are " higher " which you have learnt out of the Holy Scriptures, from which we derive what we learn by faith; and such as are not traceable by any human minds. Of course it is far more excellent to know that the flesh will rise again and will live for evermore, than any thing that scientific men have been able to discover in it by careful examination, which the soul perceives by no outward sense, although its presence quickens all the things of which it is ignorant. It is also far better to know that the soul, which has been born again and renewed in Christ, will be blessed for ever, than to discover all that we are ignorant of touching its memory, understanding, and will. Now these subjects, which I have designated as more excellent and as better, we could by no means find out, unless we believed them on the testimony of the inspired Scriptures. These Scriptures you perhaps think you so thoroughly believe, that you do not hesitate to draw out of them a definite theory about the origin of souls. Well, then, first of all, if it be as you suppose, you ought never to have attributed to human nature itself what man knows by discussion and inquiry about his own nature and quality, but to God's gift. Now you asked: " Wherein does a man differ from the cattle, if he is ignorant of this? " But why need we read any thing, in order to know this, if we ought already to know it by the very fact that we are different from cattle? For just as you do not read anything to me for the purpose of teaching me that I am alive (my own nature making it impossible that I should be ignorant of this fact), so if it is an attribute of nature to know this other matter, why do you produce passages of Scripture for me to believe concerning this subject? Is it then only those persons who read them that differ from the cattle? Are we not so created as to be different from brute animals, even before we can acquire the art of reading? Pray, tell me how it is that you put in so high a claim for our nature, that by the very circumstance of its differing from rattle it already knows how to discuss and inquire into the origin of souls; while at the same time you make it so inexpert in this knowledge, as to be unable by human endowment to know this without it believe the divine testimonies.
CH.AP. 15 [xl] WE MUST NOT BE WISE ABOVE WHAT IS WRITTEN.
But then, again, you are mistaken in this matter; for the passages of Scripture which yo;i chose to produce for the solution of this question of yours, do not prove the point. For it is another thing which they prove, without which we cannot really lead a pious life, namely, that we have in God the giver, creator, and fashioner of our souls. But how He does this for them, whether by inbreathing them as new, or by deriving them from the parents, they do not tell us — except in the instance of that one soul which He gave to the first man. Read attentively what I have written to that servant of God, our brother Renatus; ' for inasmuch as I have pointed it all out to him there, it is not necessary for me to repeat my proofs here. But you would like me to follow your example in definiteness of theory, and so thrust myself into such difficulties as you have surrounded yourself with. Invoh'ed in these, you have spoken many stout words against the catholic faith; if, however, you would faithfully and humbly bethink yourself and consider, you would assuredly see how greatly it would have profited you, if you had only known how to be natural and consistent in your ignorance; and how this advantage is still open to you, if you were even now able to maintain such propriety. Now, since understanding so pleases you in man's nature (for, truly enough, if our nature were without it, we should not be different from brute beasts, so far as our souls are concerned), understand, I beg of you, what it is that you do not understand, lest you should understand nothing: and do not despise any man who, in order that he may truly understand, understands that he does not understand that which he does not understand.^ With regard, however, to the passage in the inspired psalm, " Man, being in honour, understandeth not; he is compared to the senseless cattle, and is like unto them; " ^ read and understand these words, that you may rather with a humble spirit guard against the opprobrium yourself, than arrogantly throw it out against another person. The passage applies to those who regard only that as a life worth living which they live in the flesh — having no hope after death — just like " cattle; " it has no reference to those who never deny their ' See above, Book i. 17 [xiv.], and following.
2 This repetition of one word for rhttorical effect is characteristic of our author (as, before him, it was of tht- Apostle Paul): " Intcllige quid non inteiUgas, ne totum non intcliigas...qui ut veraciter intcliigat, quod non intcUigit hoc se non intelligere intelUgii."
3 Ps. xlix. 12, 13.
Chap. iS.]
o 6i knowledge of what they actually know, and always acknowledge their ignorance of what they really do not know; who, in point of fact, are aware of their weakness, rather than confident of their strength.
CHAP. 1 6. IGNORANCE IS BETTER THAN ERROR.
PREDESriNATION TO ETERNAL LIFE, AND PRE- DESTINATION TO ETERNAL DEATH.
Do not, my son, let senile timidity displease your youthful confidence. For my own part, indeed, if I proved unequal, either under the teaching of God or of some spiritual instructor, to the task of understanding the subject of our present inquiry on the origin of souls, I am more prepared to vindicate God's righteous will, that we should remain in ignorance on this point, as on many others, than to say in my rashness what either is so obscure that I can neither bring it home to the intelligence of other people, nor understand it myself; or certainly even to help the cause of the heretics who endeavour to persuade us that the souls of infants are entirely free from guilt, on the ground, forsooth, that such guilt would only recoil on God as its Author, for ha\^-ing compelled innocent souls (for the help of which He knew beforehand no laver of regeneration was prepared) to become sinful, by assigning them to sinful flesh without any provision for that grace of baptism which should prevent their incurring eternal damnation. For the fact undoubtedly is, that numberless souls of infants pass out of the body before they are baptized. God forbid that I should cast about for any futile effort to dilute this stern fact, and say what you have yourself said: " That the soul deserved to be polluted by the flesh, and to become sinful, though it previously had no sin, by reason of which it could be rightly said to have incurred this desert." And again: "That even without baptism original sms may be remitted." And once more: "That even the kingdom of heaven is at last bestowed on those who have not been baptized." Now, if I were not afraid to utter these and similar poisonous allegations against the faith, I should probably not be afraid to propound some definite theory on this subject. How much better, then, is it, that I should not separately dispute and aiifirm about the soul, what I am ignorant of; but simply hold what I see the apostle has most plainly taught us: That owing to one man all pass into condemnation who are born of Adam ' unless they are born again in Christ, even as He has appointed them to be regenerated, before they die in the body, whom He predestinated to everlasting life, as the most merciful bestower of grace; whilst to those whom He has predestinated to eternal death. He is ' See Rom. v. i8.
also the most righteous awarder of punishment, not only on account of the sins which they add in the indulgence of their own will, but also because of their original sin, even if, as in the case of infants, they add nothing thereto. Now this is my definite view on that question, so that the hidden things of God may keep their secret, without impairing my own faith.
CHAP. 17 [XII.] A TWOFOLD QUESTION TO BE TREATED CONCERNING THE SOUL; IS IT " BODY "? AND IS IT "spirit"? WHAT BODY IS.
And now, as far as the Lord vouchsafes to enable me, I must reply also to that allegation of yours, in which, speaking of the soul, you again mention my name, and say, " We do not, as the very able and learned bishop Augustin professes, allow it to be incorporeal and also a spirit." We have therefore, first, to discuss the question, whether the soul is to be deemed incorporeal, as I have said; or corporeal, as you hold. Then, secondly, whether in our Scriptures it is called a spirit — although not the whole but its own separate part is also properly called spirit.- Well, I should, to begin with^ like to know how you define body. For if that is not "body" which does not consist of limbs of flesh, then the earth cannot be a body, nor the sky, nor a stone, nor water, nor the stars, nor anything of the kind. If, however, a " body " is whatever consists of parts, whether greater or less, which occupy greater or smaller local spaces, then all the things which I have just mentioned are bodies; the air is a body; the visible light is a body; and so are all the things which the apostle has in view, when he says, " There are celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial." ^ CHAP. 18. THE FIRST QUESTION, WHETHER THE SOUL IS CORPOREAL; BREATH AND WIND, NOTH- ING ELSE THAN AIR IN MOTION.
Now whether the soul is such a substance, is an extremely nice and subtle question. You, indeed, with a promptitude for which I very greatly congratulate you, affirm that God is not a body. But then, again, you give me some anxiety when you say, " If the soul lacks body, so as to be (as some persons are pleased to suppose) of hollow emptiness, of airy and futile substance." Now, from these words you seem to believe, that everything which lacks body is of an empty substance. Well, if this is the case, how do you dare to say that God lacks body, without fearing the consequence that He is of an empty substance? If, however, God has not 2 [The author seems here to have such texts as i Thess. v. 23 in mind (see below, chs. 19 and 36), and to mean that sometimes the whole inner man is called "spirit," and sometimes "spirit" is distinguished fro[n " soul." — W.J 3 I Cor. XV. 40.
[Book IV.
a body, as you have just allowed; and if it be profane to say that He is of an empty substance; then not everything which lacks body is an empty substance. And therefore a person who contends that the soul is incorporeal does not necessarily mean, that it is of an empty and futile substance; for he allows that God, who is not an empty being, is at the same time incorporeal.
But observe what great difference there is between my actual assertion, and what you suppose me to say. I do not say that the soul is an airy substance; if I did, I should admit that it is a body. For air is a body; as all who understand what they say declare, whenever they speak concerning bodily substances. But you, because I called the soul incorporeal, supposed me not only to predicate mere emptiness of it, but, as the result of such predication, to say that it is " an airy substance; " whereas I must have said both that it has not corporeity, which air has, and that what is filled with air could not be empty. And your own bag similes failed to remind you of this. For when the bags are inflated, what is it but air that is pressed into them? And^ they are so far from being empty, that by reason of their distension they become even ponderous. But perhaps the breath seems to you to be a different thing from air; although your very breath is nothing else than air in motion; and what this is, can be seen from the shaking of a fan. With respect to any hollow vessels, which you may suppose to be empty, you may ascertain with certainty that they are really full, by lowering them straight into the water, with the mouth downwards. You see no water can get in, by reason of the air with which they are filled. If, however, they are lowered either in the opposite way, with mouth upward, or aslant, they then fill, as the water enters at the same opening where the air passes out and escapes. This could be, of course, more easily proved by performing the experiment, than by a description in writing. This, however, is not the time or place for longer delay on the subject; for whatever may be your perception of the nature of the air, as to whether it has corporeity or not, you certainly ought not to suppose me to have said that the soul is an aerial thing, but absolutely incorporeal. And this even you acknowledge God to be, whom you do not dare to describe as an empty substance, while you cannot but admit that He has an essence which is unchangeable and almighty. Now, why should we fear that the soul is an empty void, if it be incorporeal, when we confess that God is incorporeal, and at the same time deny Him to be an empty void? Thus it was within the competency of an Incorporeal Being to create an incoritoreal soul, even as the living God made living man; although, as the unchangeable and the almighty, He communicated not these attributes to the changeable and far inferior creature.
CHAP. 19 [XIII.] WHETHER THE SOUL IS A SPIRIT.