Letters & Polemics (CSEL) 5 part 65/118

In fine, in all these things which I have recalled from the works of the saints and doctors — of Ambrose, Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory, and whatever of the like from others I was able to read, which I thought it too long to recall — that God is not a body, nor has members of human form, nor is divisible through spaces of places, and is by nature immutably invisible, and appeared not through that same nature and substance but by an assumed visible appearance, as he willed, to those to whom he appeared, when he is related in the Holy Scriptures to have been seen through the eyes of the body: this, by the help of the Lord, I believe unshaken, and, so far as he himself grants, I understand.

But concerning the spiritual body which we shall have in the resurrection — how great a change for the better it may admit; whether it passes into the simplicity of spirit, so that the whole man may now be spirit; or, as I rather think, though I do not yet confirm it with full confidence, whether the body will be so spiritual that, on account of a certain ineffable facility, it is called spiritual, yet keeps its corporeal substance, which cannot live and feel of itself but through that which uses it —

the spirit, that is — for not even now, because the body is called animal, is the nature of the soul the same as that of the body — and whether, if the nature of the body, though now immortal and incorruptible, is preserved, it will then aid the spirit at all for seeing those very visible, that is, corporeal things, just as now we cannot see anything of the kind except through the body; or whether, even without the organ of the body, our spirit will then be able to know corporeal things — for not even God knows such things through bodily senses — and many other matters which can be raised in this question: I confess that I have not yet read anywhere anything which I might reckon sufficient for me either for learning or for teaching.

And on this account, if my caution of whatever kind does not displease this brother, meanwhile, on account of that which is written — 'For we shall see him as he is' — let us, as far as we can, prepare a pure heart for that vision, with him himself aiding us. But concerning the spiritual body let us inquire more peaceably and more diligently, lest perchance God may deign, according to his Scriptures, to show us something certain and clear, if he knows this to be useful for us.

For if a more diligent inquiry should find that the change of the body will be so great that it can see invisible things, not, as I think, will such a power of the body take away from the mind its vision, so that the outer man could then see God, and the inner man could not — as though God were only outside in relation to man, and were not within in man — since it is most openly written: 'That God may be all in all'; nor let him who, without any spaces of places, is wholly everywhere, be so within that he can be seen only outside by the outer man, but cannot within be seen by the inner man.

But if these things are perceived most absurdly — for the saints will rather be full of God; nor, being empty within, will they be surrounded by him from without; nor, being blind within to him with whom they will be full, will they fail to see him, and only, being furnished with eyes on the outside, see him by whom they will be surrounded — it remains that meanwhile we be most certain concerning the vision of God according to the inner man. But if the body too, by a wondrous change, shall have availed for this, something will be added, not that former thing taken away. It is better, then, that we affirm that of which we least doubt — that the inner man will see God, who alone can now see charity, of which, when it was praised, it was said: 'God is charity'; who alone can see the peace and sanctification without which no man shall be able to see God.

For no eye of flesh now sees charity, peace, sanctification, and whatever things are like them; yet all these the eye of the mind already sees, as far as it can, and the purer it is, the more purely it sees — so that we may believe without doubt that we shall see God, whether or not we find that which we seek concerning the quality of the future body, while yet we do not doubt that the body will rise again and be immortal and incorruptible, since concerning this we hold the most manifest and most firm sentences of the Holy Scriptures. But if this brother already establishes for himself as most certain that which I still inquire concerning the spiritual body, unless I hear him teaching peaceably, so that he too may peaceably hear me inquiring, he will have grounds for being justly angry.

Now, however, I beseech you through Christ that concerning that harshness of my letter, by which I have learned he was not undeservedly offended, you would obtain pardon for me from him, and gladden me by a reply, with the Lord's help. CXLIX. To the most blessed and reverently to be longed for, and longingly to be revered, holy and holily most dear brother and fellow-bishop Paulinus, Augustine sends greeting in the Lord.

That the Lord quickly gladdened us — by the letters of your holiness announcing the so prosperous arrival of our brother and fellow-presbyter Quintus and of those who sailed with him — I now render a reply by way of thanks to him who refreshes the afflicted and consoles the humble, and to the sincerity of your heart, on the occasion of our son and fellow-deacon Rufinus, which has just presented itself; for he has set out from the shore of Hippo. And I approve the counsel of mercy which the Lord inspired in you and deigned to intimate to me. May he himself also aid this, may he himself prosper it, who has already, in great part, relieved our care, since that most dear man has been brought over and commended not only by good works but also by your holy prayers.

The letter of your veneration, indeed, in which you asked many things, and admonished what ought to be asked, and by asking taught, has reached me. But those things which I myself immediately wrote back by the men of those same holy comforts of ours were not delivered to your veneration, as I have learned from these more recent letters of yours. In these I could not indeed recall to what extent I answered your questions, nor did I find a copy of them, when I had sought one, where I might be able to review this. Yet I am altogether certain that I answered some points, and therefore not all — because, that I might finish quickly, the haste of the bearer was pressing me.

At the same time I have also sent, as you commanded, a copy of that letter which I had written back to your Charity at Carthage concerning the resurrection of bodies, where a question had arisen about the use of the members. Now therefore I have sent both this one and the one to the other; for I have surmised that it too did not reach your hands from the fact that you again asked certain things to which I read and recognize that I had already replied in it. But through whom I directed that letter, I do not know. For the writings of your Charity, by which I answered it, as it itself also indicates, were sent to me from Hippo by our people, when I was with our holy brother and fellow-bishop Boniface — for I did not see the one who brought them — and I did not put off answering at once.

Therefore, because at that time, as I wrote, I had been unable to inspect the Greek codices concerning certain words of the sixteenth psalm, I inspected afterward those which I found. And one had what our Latin texts also have: «Lord, destroying them from the earth, scatter them»; another, just as you yourself set it down: «From the few of the earth.» And the former indeed has a plain sense: destroying them from the earth which you gave them, scatter them among the nations — which was also done to them when they were vanquished and overthrown in a grievous war. But how the other reading is to be taken does not occur to me, except that, by comparison with the destroyed multitude, their remnants were saved, being indeed but few, from whom Scripture foretold that they were to be scattered, that is, divided and separated, saying:

«Lord, from the few» — that is, from the remnant which you saved out of that nation — «scatter them from the earth,» so that we understand the earth to be the Church and the inheritance of the faithful and of the saints, which is called both «the land of the living» and that which can rightly be understood also in that place: «Blessed are the meek, for they shall possess the earth for an inheritance.» But when it had been said, «From the few of the earth divide them,» there was added «in their life,» so that it might be understood to happen manifestly, while they live here. For many are separated from the Church, yet when they die; those, however, who while they live seem, through the communion of the sacraments and of Catholic unity, to be joined to the Church.

These, then, were divided from the few who out of them believed, from the earth which the Father, the husbandman, cultivates as his own field; and they were divided in their life, that is, here in the open, as we see. And there follows: «And their belly was filled with your hidden things» — that is, besides the fact that they were divided openly, also of your hidden things, which you secretly render to the conscience of the wicked, their belly was filled; he set «belly» for the secrets of things inward and concealed. But as for what follows, «They were filled with swine's flesh,» I have already disclosed what this seemed to me to mean.

But the reading which other codices have, and are reported to have more truly — because the more careful copies resolve, by the mark of the accent, that same ambiguity of the Greek word according to the Greek manner of writing — is indeed more obscure, yet seems to fit better with the more elegant meaning. For since he had said, «And their belly was filled with your hidden things,» by which words the hidden judgments of God are signified — for hidden indeed they are to the wretched, even to those who rejoice in evils, whom God has handed over to the desires of their heart — as though it were asked whence they can be recognized who in secret have been filled with the wrath of God, and it were answered, as is said in the Gospel, «By their fruits you shall know them,» there is immediately subjoined:

«They were filled with sons» — that is, with fruits, which is more evidently expressed as «with their own works.» Whence elsewhere it is read: «Behold, he has travailed with injustice; he has conceived sorrow and brought forth iniquity»; and elsewhere: «Then desire, when it has conceived, brings forth sin.» The evil sons, then, are evil works, by which are recognized also those who from the hidden judgments of God have been filled, as it were into the belly, with the inward things of their own thoughts. Good works are good sons, whence it is said to the bride, the Church: «Your teeth are like a flock of shorn ewes coming up from the washing, which all bear twins, and there is not a barren one among them.» In which twin offspring is recognized the twofold work of love, namely of the Lord God and of the neighbor, on which two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

But this sense, by which what is written, «They were filled with sons,» is thus expounded, had not occurred to me when I wrote back before; but I reviewed a certain very brief exposition of that same psalm which I had long ago dictated, and I found this set down by me sufficiently briefly. I also inspected the Greek codices, whether it was a dative case in what is said «with sons,» or a genitive, which that language uses in place of the ablative, and I found the genitive. And if it were rendered word for word, it would be written «They were filled of sons»; but rightly the translator followed the meaning and said, in the Latin manner, «They were filled with sons.» But as for what follows, «And they left their remnants to their little ones,» I judge that the little ones are to be understood as the manifest children of the flesh.

Whence also, according to this exposition — not of swine's flesh but of sons — that saying remains, by which they said: «His blood be upon us and upon our children»; for so they left the remnants of their works to their little ones. But in the fifteenth psalm, as to what is written, «He has made marvelous» or «Let him make marvelous all his wills among them,» nothing forbids us to understand — nay rather it seems more fitting — not «among them» but «in them.» For thus the Greek codices also have it; and often what that language has as «in them,» our translators render «among them,» where it seems to fit the meaning. Let us take it, then, as:

«To the saints who are in his land, he made marvelous all his wills in them» — which most codices have — and let us understand his wills to be the gifts of grace, which was given freely, that is, because he willed it, not because it was owed. Whence it is: «With the shield of good will you have crowned us»; and: «In your good will you have led us»; and: «Of his own will he begot us by the word of truth»; and: «Setting apart a voluntary rain, O God, for your inheritance»; and: «Dividing to each his own as he wills»; and countless others. Accordingly: «He made marvelous all his wills in them» — in whom, if not in the saints who are in his land? For if the earth, as we showed above, can be taken in a good sense even where «his» is not added, how much more where it is said «his land»!

He made marvelous, then, all his wills in them — he made them wholly marvelous, because he wondrously delivered them out of despair. Out of this wonder the Apostle exclaims: «O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God!» For above he had said: «For God has shut up all in unbelief, that he may have mercy on all.» For this too follows here: «Their infirmities were multiplied; afterward they made haste.» He set «infirmities» for sins, just as the Apostle says to the Romans: «For if Christ, when we were yet weak, in due time died for the ungodly» — those whom he called ungodly he called weak. Then a little after, repeating the same thought:

«God commends,» he says, «his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us»; those whom above he called weak, these here he named sinners. Likewise in what follows, treating this same thought in other words: «For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son.» And by this, in what is said, «Their infirmities were multiplied,» are understood their multiplied sins. «For the Law entered in, that the offense might abound; but where the offense abounded, grace superabounded» — therefore «afterward they made haste.»

For he came not to call the righteous, but sinners, because they that are whole need not a physician, but they that are sick — those, namely, whose infirmities were multiplied, so that for their healing the medicine of so great a grace was necessary, and he to whom many sins are forgiven loves much. This the ashes of the heifer and the sprinkling of blood and the multiplication of bloody victims signified, but did not effect. Therefore he says next: «I will not gather their assemblies of bloods» — that is, of those sacrifices which were offered in figure of the blood of Christ — «nor will I be mindful of their names through my lips.»

For their names, in the multiplication of infirmities, were: fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, abusers of themselves with men, thieves, covetous, extortioners, drunkards, revilers, and whatever others shall not possess the kingdom of God. But where, with sin abounding, grace superabounded, and afterward they made haste, these things indeed they were, but they were washed, but they were sanctified, but they were justified in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God; therefore he will not be mindful of their names through his lips. Indeed, the more corrected codices and those of choicer authority do not have «his wills» but «my wills,» which comes to the same thing, since it is spoken in the person of the Son of God.

For he himself speaks, whom those words evidently point out, which the apostles also used: «You will not leave my soul in hell, nor will you give your holy one to see corruption.» The gifts of grace of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit are surely the same, and therefore most rightly the Son too can call them his wills. But as for what is understood of the Jews in the fifty-eighth psalm, where he says: «Slay them not, lest at any time they forget your law,» it seems to me fittingly understood to have been thus foretold:

that that same nation, even when subdued and overthrown, would not yield to the superstitions of the victorious people, but would remain under the old Law, so that in it there might be the testimony of the Scriptures throughout the whole world, from which the Church was to be called forth. For by no more evident document is it shown to the nations — a thing that is most wholesomely observed — that no unexpected and sudden thing was instituted by a spirit of human presumption, so that the name of Christ should prevail with such great authority in the hope of eternal salvation, but that it was long ago prophesied and written down. For that very prophecy — what else would it be thought but forged by us, if it were not proved from the codices of our enemies? Therefore:

«Slay them not» — do not extinguish the name of that very nation — «lest at any time they forget your law,» which would surely happen if, compelled to observe the rites and sacred things of the nations, they were to retain no name at all of their own religion. This was written in figure of them also concerning Cain, that the Lord set a sign upon him, lest anyone should slay him. Finally, when he had said, «Slay them not, lest at any time they forget your law,» as though it were asked what was to be done with them, so that for certain uses of the testimony of truth they should not be slain — that is, not consumed nor forget the law of God — he immediately subjoined: «Scatter them in your power.»

For if they were in one place of the earth, they would not aid by their testimony the preaching of the Gospel, which bears fruit throughout the whole world. Therefore: «Scatter them in your power,» so that everywhere they may be witnesses — of that very one whose deniers, persecutors, and slayers they were — through the very Law which they do not forget, in which is prophesied that one whom they do not follow. For it profits them nothing that they do not forget it; for it is one thing to have the Law of God in memory, another to have it in understanding and effect. But in the sixty-seventh psalm, as to what you ask what it means: «Nevertheless God shall shatter the heads of his enemies, the crown of the hair of those who walk about

in their transgressions» — it seems to me nothing else is said than: God shall shatter the heads of his enemies who are exceedingly proud, exceedingly exalting themselves in their transgressions. For by hyperbole he signified a pride exalting itself so greatly and advancing with such loftiness, as if by walking about they were treading upon the crown of the hair. Likewise in the same psalm, as to what is written: «The tongue of your dogs is from your enemies, from him,» dogs are not always to be taken in a bad sense. Otherwise the dogs would not be reproached in the prophet as «not knowing how to bark and loving to slumber»; for surely they would be praiseworthy dogs, if they both knew how to bark and loved to keep watch.

And surely those three hundred in number, marked most sacredly by the letter of the cross, would not have been chosen to gain the victory — those who lapped water like dogs — unless they signified something great. For good dogs keep watch and bark, both for the house and for the master and for the flock and for the shepherd. Finally, here too, in the praises of the Church, when the prophecy was being set forth, the tongue of the dogs is mentioned, not the teeth. «Of your dogs,» he says, «from your enemies» — that is, so that those who were your enemies might become your dogs and bark for you, who used to rage against you. And he added «from him,» so that they might understand this to have been done not by themselves but by him — that is, by his mercy and grace. Concerning the prophets, as to what the Apostle says:

«God has set some in the Church, first apostles, secondly prophets» — this I understand as you yourself wrote, that they are called prophets in this place, of whom Agabus was one, not those who prophesied the Lord who was to come in the flesh. Evangelists, however, we find to have been such as we do not read to have been apostles, as were Mark and Luke. But as for pastors and teachers, whom you especially wished me to distinguish, I think them to be the same, as it also seemed to you, so that we understand not some to be pastors and others teachers; but for this reason, having said «pastors,» he subjoined «teachers,» that they might understand that teaching pertains to the office of pastors. For he does not say:

«Some indeed pastors, but others teachers»; but whereas he distinguished the foregoing by the very form of speech, saying, «some indeed apostles, some indeed prophets, some indeed evangelists,» yet this he embraced as one single thing under two names: «some indeed pastors and teachers.» Those things plainly are most difficult to distinguish, where, writing to Timothy, he says: «I exhort therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings be made.» For according to the Greek discourse they must be distinguished; for our translators are scarcely to be found who have taken care to render these diligently and knowledgeably. For behold, just as you yourself set them down:

«I exhort that supplications be made» — the Apostle did not express both by the same word, he who surely wrote that epistle in Greek; but for that which in Latin is «I exhort» (obsecro), he in Greek said parakalō; and for that which your Latin has «supplications» (obsecrationes), he set deēseis. Accordingly other codices, among which are ours also, do not have «obsecrationes» but «deprecationes» (entreaties). Now as for the three that follow: «prayers, intercessions, thanksgivings,» most Latin codices have it thus. Whence, if we should wish to distinguish these according to the properties of the Latin language by the manner of speaking, perhaps we shall hold to our own or to some kind of knowledge; but it would be a wonder if we should attain the meaning of the Greek speech or usage.

«Precatio» (petition) and «deprecatio» (entreaty) many of our people think to be the same thing, and this has now altogether prevailed by everyday use. But those who spoke Latin more distinctly used «precationes» in wishing for good things, but «deprecationes» in warding off evils. For they said that «to pray» (precari) is to wish for good things by praying, «to imprecate» (imprecari) evil things — which is now commonly called «to curse»; but «to deprecate» (deprecari) is to drive off evils by praying. But let us rather follow the now customary manner of speaking, and whether we find «precationes» or «deprecationes,» which the Greeks call deēseis, let us not think they need correction. But «prayers» (orationes), which the Greek has as proseuchas, it is altogether difficult to distinguish from «prayers» (preces) or «petitions» (precationes).

But as for the fact that certain codices do not have «orationes» (prayers) but «adorationes» (adorations), because it is not said in the Greek euchas but proseuchas, I judge it to have been rendered knowingly; for that proseuchas is called «prayers» by the Greeks is most well known. And surely it is one thing to pray (orare), another to adore (adorare). Finally, it is read in the Greek not by this word but by another: «You shall adore the Lord your God»; and: «I will adore toward your holy temple»; and any similar passages. But for «interpellationes» (intercessions), which our people have, according to your codices, I believe, you set «postulationes» (requests). These two, then — that is, that some rendered «postulationes,» others «interpellationes» — meant to translate one word which the Greek has, enteuxeis.

And surely you observe and know that it is one thing to intercede (interpellare), another to request (postulare). For we are not accustomed to say «they request, about to intercede,» but «they intercede, about to request»; yet, since the word is borrowed from proximity, and this very nearness obtains its meaning, it is not to be censured as with a censor's mark. For of the Lord Jesus Christ himself it is said that he «intercedes for us.» Does he perchance intercede and not also request? Nay rather, because he requests, «intercedes» is set in place of it. For evidently elsewhere it is said of him: «And if anyone sins, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins.»

Although perhaps the codices among you, even in that place concerning the Lord Jesus, do not have «intercedes for us» but «requests for us»; for in the Greek, the word by which the «intercessions» here are set — which you yourself set as «requests» — that same word is also there, where it is written: «He intercedes for us.» Since therefore both he who prays (precatur) and he who prays (orat) prays, and he who intercedes with God intercedes to this end, that he may pray and entreat, what does the Apostle mean, in that he set these things thus, so that the distinction of them is not to be neglected?

Therefore, apart from the general name and saving the custom of speaking — according to which, whether you say «precatio» or «oratio» or «interpellatio» or «postulatio,» one and the same thing is understood — some proper meaning of each of these is also to be sought out, but it is difficult to arrive at it clearly; for many things can be said on this point which are not to be disapproved. But I choose to understand in these words that which the whole, or almost the whole, Church observes: that we take «precationes» (supplications) to be said of those which we make in the celebration of the sacraments, before that which is on the Lord's table begins to be blessed; «orationes» (prayers),

when it is blessed and sanctified and broken for distribution — which whole petition almost the entire Church concludes with the Lord's Prayer. To this understanding the very origin of the Greek word also aids us; for that which they call euchē Scripture rarely sets down so that «prayer» is understood; but for the most part, and much more usually, euchē is called «a vow,» while proseuchē — the word which is so set down here, of which we are treating — always calls it «prayer.» Whence certain persons, less learnedly observing this origin of the word, as I said above, wished proseuchē to mean not «prayer» but «adoration,» which is rather called proskynēsis; but because prayer (oratio) is sometimes called euchē, proseuchē was thought to be «adoration.»

Moreover, if, as I said, in the Scriptures euchē is more usually called «a vow,» then, apart from the general name of prayer, that is properly to be understood as prayer (oratio) which we make in relation to a vow, that is, pros euchēn. Now all things which are offered to God are vowed, especially the oblation of the holy altar, by which sacrament is proclaimed that greatest vow of ours, whereby we have vowed to remain in Christ, namely in the frame of the body of Christ. The sacrament of this thing is that «we, being many, are one bread, one body.» Therefore, in the sanctification of this and in the preparation for its distribution, I think the Apostle bade proseuchai properly to be made —