Institutes & Conferences 1 part 39/44

But when the teaching of these spiritual physicians was examining the first cause of this malady — which is wont to arise from an excessive taking of food — and they found that this was not present in the aforesaid brother, and it was established that this delusion in no way sprang from the fault of satiety (since neither the brother's noted strictness, nor the special exception of the solemn days on which that pollution occurred, allowed them to suppose this), they immediately transferred the investigation's inquiry to the second cause of this condition, examining whether perhaps the flesh, exhausted by fasting, was being driven to impure delusions by the fault of the soul — by which even the strictest men, when they have been a little lifted up over the purity of their body, are polluted through the vice of pride, namely because they believed that they had obtained by human virtues that chief gift of God, that is, the chastity of the body.

When therefore he was asked whether he believed himself so capable of this virtue by his own industry that he had no need of daily help from above, he, detesting this impious notion with the utmost execration, humbly declared that he could not have retained the purity of his body even on other days, unless he had been aided in all things by divine grace. Thereupon they immediately had recourse to the third cause, and perceived the hidden snares of the diabolical machination; and, proving that it was neither the fault of the soul nor of the flesh, they most confidently judged that he ought not to keep himself from the most sacred banquets — lest, namely, if he persisted in this obstinacy, being bound by the crafty nooses of the malignant enemy, he might not be able to be a partaker of the sanctification and body of Christ, and through this fraud might be defrauded of the medicine of the saving remedy forever.

This being done, the whole scene of the diabolical machination was so uncovered that soon, with the power of the Lord's body protecting him, that customary former delusion ceased. In this the enemy's deceit clearly appeared, and the opinion of the elders was set forth and likewise proved — which taught that this most impure flux is very often compelled not by the fault of the flesh nor of the soul, but by the crafty mockery of the adversary. Therefore, that the deceitful imagination of dreams, the enticer of impure discharge, may be unknown either forever, or at least (to speak according to the humbler or more common state) for certain months, after that faith by which it becomes us continually to hope for the gift of purity especially from the grace of God, the excess of food and drink is to be chastised.

For from an excess of these things it is inevitable that humors of this kind are more readily generated; and since, once congealed, they cannot but be discharged and driven out by the very law of nature itself, they emerge under the occasion of any irritation or delusion. But when the satiety of food is withdrawn, it follows that those unclean discharges too are generated more slowly. And so it comes about that, just as their flux, so also the delusion disturbs sleepers either more rarely or more subtly; because it is not so much that the discharge comes from the imagination as that the imagination comes from the excess of discharge.

Wherefore, if we wish to be freed from the allurements of these delusions, we must strive with all our strength: first, that, the passion of fornication being vanquished, according to the blessed Apostle, sin may not reign in our mortal body, so as to obey its lusts; secondly, that, the enticing motion of the body itself being wholly quieted and lulled to rest, we may in no way present our members as weapons of iniquity unto sin; thirdly, that, our inner man also being in every way and to the very marrow mortified from that titillation of lust, we may present ourselves to God as those alive from the dead; and so, arriving through this progress at the perpetual rest of our body, we may present our members also as weapons now not of lust, but of righteousness unto God.

Being founded in this purity of chastity, sin shall not have dominion over us. For we are not under the law, which, while it commends the lawful rights of marriage, yet nourishes and keeps within our marrow that ardor by whose ministry the work even of unlawful fornication is accomplished; but under grace, which, while it instills the incorruption of virginity, extinguishes even that harmless and simple motion of the body and the pleasure of lawful intercourse itself. And thus, all the humors of that most impure defilement being dried up, having been made those excellent and praiseworthy eunuchs who are proclaimed through Isaiah, we shall merit to possess that blessedness which is promised to them: for thus saith the Lord to the eunuchs:

those who keep my sabbaths, and choose the things that I willed, and hold fast my covenant: I will give them in my house, and within my walls, a place and a name better than sons and daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, which shall not perish. Who are these sons and daughters, above whom these eunuchs are so preferred that they are even said to be about to receive a better place and name, if not those holy ones who, remaining under the Old Testament in the bond of marriage, through the observance of the commandments came, not undeservedly, into the adoption of the sons of God? And what too is that name which is promised to them, as it were something chief, in place of the supreme reward, if not this, that we are counted worthy to be called by the name of Christ?

Concerning which name the same prophet says elsewhere: and he shall call his servants by another name, in which whosoever is blessed upon the earth shall be blessed in the God Amen; and whosoever sweareth in the earth shall swear in the God Amen. And again he says: and there shall be called to thee a new name, which the mouth of the Lord shall name. And these, for this purity of heart and body, shall enjoy also that chief and singular blessedness, that they may continually sing that song which no other of the saints can sing except these alone, who follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth: for they are virgins, and with women they have not defiled themselves.

Accordingly, if we wish to arrive at this most sublime glory of virgins, let us cultivate with all our strength the incorruption of mind and spirit, lest we collapse into the number of those foolish virgins to whom, for this reason, virginity was not reckoned, because they kept themselves free only from carnal intercourse and are for this cause called virgins indeed, but foolish — because, the oil of inner purity failing in their vessels, the brightness and splendor of bodily virginity is extinguished. For by the fostering and nourishment of inner purity it is necessary that chastity be supplied even to the outer man, and be continually quickened toward perseverance in perpetual incorruption.

And therefore the foolish, though virgins, do not merit to enter the glorious bridal chamber of the Bridegroom with those wise ones, who preserved their whole spirit and soul and body without complaint in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ. For those are the true and incorrupt virgins of Christ, those are reckoned the admirable and excellent eunuchs — not who are afraid, and to whom it is not pleasing to fornicate, nor who curb the reins of unchastity, but who have conquered even the least titillation of the mind and the slightest incitements of lust, and have so far worn away that carnal sense (so to speak) that they are touched not only by no delight from its motion, but not even by the slightest titillation.

Now we ought to fortify our heart with so great a guard of humility that we hold this determination with perpetual stability of the senses: that we can in no way arrive at so great a merit of purification that, although we should have done all these things which I have said above through the grace of God, we should nevertheless believe ourselves unworthy of the communion of the sacred body:

first, because so great is the majesty of that heavenly manna, that no one encompassed by this clay-like flesh receives its food by his own merit and not from the free bounty of the Lord; secondly, because no one can be so circumspect in the conflict of this world that at least rare or light darts of sins do not strike him — for it is impossible that one should not sin either through ignorance, or negligence, or by surprise, or by thought, or by necessity, or by forgetfulness, or in sleep. For even if a man should ascend so illustrious a summit of virtues that he cry out, not boastingly, that apostolic saying: but to me it is a very small thing that I should be judged by you, or by man's day; but neither do I judge my own self:

for I am conscious of nothing in myself — yet let him know that he cannot be without sin. For not in vain did the same teacher add: but I am not hereby justified — that is, not if I have believed myself to be righteous shall I straightway possess the true glory of righteousness; nor, because my conscience convicts me with the reproach of no sin, am I therefore stained by the contagion of no defilement: for many things lie hidden even from my own conscience which, though they be unknown or obscure to me, are known and manifest to God. And therefore adding, he says: but he that judgeth me is the Lord — that is, by him alone, from whom the secrets of hearts are not hidden, is the examination of true judgment brought forth concerning me. GERMANUS:

It was said above that none but the holy ought to be partakers of the heavenly sacraments; now it is added that it is impossible for a man to be entirely free from fault. If therefore no one is free from guilt, no one is holy; if no one is holy, it follows that a man, who lacks holiness, cannot be a partaker of the mysteries of Christ, and ought not even to hope for the kingdom of heaven, which the Lord promises to the holy alone. THEONAS: We cannot deny that there are indeed many holy and righteous men, but between the holy and the spotless there is a great distance. For it is one thing for someone to be holy, that is, consecrated to divine worship:

for this name, as Scripture attests, is common not only to men, but also to places and to the vessels of the temple and to the cauldrons. But it is another thing to be without sin, which belongs singularly to the majesty of our one Lord Jesus Christ alone, concerning whom the Apostle too pronounces something as it were chief and special, saying: who did no sin. For he assigned to him a very cheap and unworthy praise for his glories — as though something incomparable and divine — if we too can demand a life untouched by all sin. Again the Apostle to the Hebrews says: for we have not a high priest who cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin.

If therefore there could be this fellowship of our earthly lowliness with that lofty and divine high priest, that we too might be tempted without any offense of sin, why does the Apostle, looking up to this in him as something unique and singular, distinguish his merit from all men by so great a division? By this one exception, then, is he distinguished from us all: that we were tempted not without sin, whereas he, it is established, was tempted without sin. For since a man, however brave and warlike he be, is nevertheless for the most part not safe from hostile darts, who — as though encompassed by impenetrable flesh — could be engaged in such great dangers of battles without danger?

But he alone, fairer in form than the sons of men, taking upon himself the condition of human death with all the frailty of the flesh, was never stained by the touch of any defilement. For he was tempted after our likeness first with the vice of gluttony, so that that cunning serpent might attempt to mock him — hungering with the desire of food — in the same order by which he had before deceived Adam, saying: if thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread. But receiving no sin from this temptation, though undoubted opportunity was at hand for him, he rejected the food which the artificer of deceptions was pressing upon him, saying: man liveth not by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

He was tempted also with vainglory after our likeness, when it was said to him: if thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down. But he was not caught by the treacherous suggestion of the devil, and, confuting the most vain seducer even by the objection of the Scriptures, he says: thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God. He was tempted also with the swelling of pride after our likeness, when all the kingdoms of the world and their glory were promised him by the devil: but the vanity of the tempter was derided and rebuked. For he answered him: get thee behind me, Satan: it is written, thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. By these testimonies we are taught that we too ought likewise to resist the fraudulent suggestions of the enemy by the memory of the Scriptures.

Again he was tempted with pride after our likeness, so that that same artificer of snares strove to press upon him, through men, the kingdom which he had before rejected when offered by himself. But without sin he derided the snares of the tempter: for when Jesus knew that they would come to take him by force and make him a king, he fled again into the mountain himself alone. He was tempted after our likeness when he was beaten with scourges, when he was struck with blows, when he was bespattered with the horror of spittings, when at the last he endured all exquisite torments. But by no insults — I will not say ever — indeed not even by torments, was he impelled to the swelling of even the slightest indignation, who, set upon the gibbet, mercifully cried out:

Father, forgive them: for they know not what they do. But how is that also to be understood, which the Apostle records — that he came in the likeness of sinful flesh — if we too can have flesh polluted by the stain of no sin? For this too is recorded of him who alone is without sin, as something singular: God sent his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh; because, taking on the true and entire substance of human flesh, he is to be believed to have taken upon himself in it not sin itself, but the likeness of sin. For the likeness is to be referred not to the truth of the flesh, according to the depraved sense of certain heretics, but to the image of sin.

For in him there was indeed true flesh, but without sin — like, that is, to sinful flesh. For the former pertains to the truth of human substance, but the latter is referred to vices and morals. He had the likeness of sinful flesh when, as though a man ignorant and anxious about food, he asked: how many loaves have ye? But just as his flesh was in no way subject to sin, so neither was his soul subject to ignorance. Indeed, immediately the evangelist adds: but this Jesus said, tempting them: for he himself knew what he would do. He had flesh like sinful flesh when, as though thirsting, he asked the Samaritan woman for a drink.

But it was not polluted by the filth of sin, because on the contrary the woman was provoked to ask for living water, which would never permit her to thirst, but would become in her a fountain of water springing up unto life eternal. He had the truth of this flesh when he slept in the boat. But lest at the same time those sailing should be deceived by the likeness of sin, rising, he rebuked the winds and the sea, and there was made a great calm. He seemed subject to sin by a common lot with all, when it was said of him: this man, if he were a prophet, would surely know what and what manner of woman toucheth his feet. But he had not the truth of sin, because, rebuking the blasphemous thought of the Pharisee, he immediately forgave the woman's sins.

He was thought to bear sinful flesh with the rest, when, as though a man set in the peril of death and struck with terror of the imminent torments, he prayed: Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me, and: my soul is sorrowful even unto death. But that sorrow knew no contagion of sin, because the author of life could not dread death. For he says: no man taketh my soul from me, but I lay it down of myself: I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again.

In this, therefore, that man who was born of a virgin is separated by a great distance from all who are produced from the intercourse of both sexes: that whereas all of us bear in our flesh not the likeness but the truth of sin, he took on, not the truth, but the likeness of sin in the assumption of true flesh. In short, though the Pharisees most plainly remembered what was written of him in the prophet Isaiah — who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth — yet they were so deceived by the likeness of sinful flesh that they said: behold a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners; and to him who had been enlightened from blindness: give glory to God: for we know that this man is a sinner; and to Pilate:

if this man were not a sinner, we would not have delivered him up to thee. Therefore whosoever shall dare to profess himself to be without sin, will by the crime of blasphemous pride claim for himself an equality with him in this matter, which is singular and proper to him alone. For it follows that he says he has the likeness of sinful flesh and not the truth of sin. Moreover, that righteous and holy men are not free from fault, Scripture plainly declares, saying: for the righteous man falleth seven times, and riseth again. For what else is it to fall, than to sin? And yet, though he is said to fall seven times, he is nonetheless pronounced righteous, nor does the lapse of human frailty prejudice his righteousness; because there is a great difference between the fall of a holy man and of a sinner.

For it is one thing to commit a mortal sin, and another to be forestalled by a thought which is not free from sin, or to offend through the error of ignorance or forgetfulness or the readiness of idle speech, or to hesitate for a moment in inner contemplation by the vice of unbelief, or to be assailed by some subtle titillation of vainglory, or to fall back a little from the highest perfection by the necessity of nature. For these are the seven kinds of lapses, in which, although the holy man sometimes falls, yet he does not cease to be righteous: which, though they may seem light and small, nevertheless cause him not to be able to be without sin.

For he has things for which, bearing daily penitence, he ought truly to ask pardon, and to pray unceasingly for his sins, saying: forgive us our debts. And that we may prove by the most evident examples both that some of the saints have erred, and yet have not departed from their righteousness — surely that most blessed Peter, chief of the apostles, what else is he to be believed to have been than holy, especially at that time when it was said to him by the Lord: blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, for flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven; and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed also in heaven.

What can be more illustrious than this praise of the Lord, what more sublime than this power and blessedness? And yet a little after, when, ignorant of the mystery of the passion and unaware of so great a benefit to the human race, he opposed it, saying: be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee, he deserves to hear: get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me, for thou savorest not the things that are of God, but the things that are of men. Was he then, when equity itself rebuked him with these words, to be believed either not to have fallen, or not to have remained in holiness and righteousness? What too of that time — is he manifestly to be denied to have suffered a fall, when, with the fear of the persecutors imminent, he was compelled to deny the Lord three times?

But with penitence immediately following, by washing away the stain of so great a crime with the most bitter tears, he did not lose the merits of holiness and righteousness. Concerning him, therefore, and concerning saints like him, we ought to receive also that which is sung through David: the steps of a man are directed by the Lord, and he shall greatly desire his way. When the righteous shall fall, he shall not be cast down, for the Lord upholdeth him with his hand. For whose steps are directed by the Lord, what else can he be than righteous? And yet of this very one it is said: when he shall fall, he shall not be bruised. What is that:

when he shall fall — that is, when he incurs the lapse of some sin — he shall not be bruised, it says; that is, he shall in no way be long oppressed by the assault of sin, but although for the present he may seem struck down, yet, raised by the divine help which he implores, he shall not lose the stability of righteousness by a swift resurrection; or even if for the present he lose it through the frailty of the flesh, he shall repair it by the upholding of the Lord's hand. For he does not cease to be holy after his fall, who, since he knows that he cannot be justified by confidence in his own works, and believes that he is to be freed from so great bonds of sins by the grace of the Lord alone, does not cease to cry out with the Apostle: O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death? The grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord.

For when the Apostle Paul, recognizing that the inestimable abyss of purity cannot be penetrated by man while the surges of thoughts resist, and having long been as it were tossed through the deeps, had first said: for the good that I would I do not, but the evil which I hate, that I do; and again: now if I do that which I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me; and:

I delight in the law of God after the inner man, but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members — having thoroughly perceived the frailty either of himself or of nature itself, terrified by the vastness of so immense a height, he took refuge in the safest harbor of divine help; and, as though despairing over the cargoes of his vessel, oppressed by the natural infirmity of mortality, he entreats remedies for his shipwrecks from him to whom nothing is impossible, crying out with a certain wretched wailing: O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

And immediately he confidently added the absolution which he despaired of from the weakness of nature, but presumed from the kindness of God: the grace of God through Jesus Christ our Lord. GERMANUS: Many define that this passage of the Apostle ought to be so understood that they affirm he said this not in his own person, but in the person of sinners — namely of those who, wishing to abstain from bodily allurements and pleasures, being bound by their former vices and captivated by the delight of carnal passions, cannot restrain themselves, while, oppressed as by some harsh tyranny of dominion through the ingrained habit of vices, they cannot breathe again to the liberty of chastity. For how

how could that saying fit the blessed Apostle, who it is certain arrived at the highest summit of all perfection: for the good that I would I do not, but the evil which I hate, that I do; and also that which he adds: now if I do that which I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me; and also this: for I delight in the law of God after the inner man, but I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me captive to the law of sin which is in my members? In what way, therefore, can these things be fitted to the person of the Apostle?

For what good is there which he could not have fulfilled, and on the contrary what evil is that which, unwilling and hating it, he nevertheless admitted against his will, nature compelling him? And to what law of sin could the vessel of election, in whom Christ the Lord was speaking, have been led captive? He who, when he had taken captive every disobedience and every height exalting itself against God, proclaimed of himself with confidence: I have fought the good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall render to me in that day. THEONAS: You strive to recall me, as I enter the safest harbor of silence, once more to the immense sea of the most profound question.

But having seized the opportunity of a faithful anchorage, here for the moment, now that the course of so long a conference has been traversed, we will cast the anchor of silence, so that tomorrow, if indeed no force of storm should hinder us, once a favourable breath of the Spirit has been tested, we may spread the sails of discussion. ON THE SINLESS ONE. THE CHAPTERS. The discourse of Abbot Theonas concerning that which the Apostle says: 'For the good that I would, I do not.' That the Apostle accomplished many good things. What that truly is which is good, which the Apostle testifies that he himself cannot bring to perfection. That human goodness and righteousness is not good, if it be compared to the divine goodness and righteousness. That no one can be continuously intent upon that highest good. That those are like the bleary-eyed who believe themselves to be without sin.

That those who declare that a man can be without sin are driven in this by a twofold error. That it belongs to few to understand their sins. With what watchfulness a monk ought to guard the memory of God. That those who strive toward perfection are in truth humbled and always feel themselves to be in need of the grace of God. The exposition of that sentence: 'For I delight in the law of God after the inward man,' and the rest. Likewise of that: 'For we know that the law is spiritual,' and the rest. Likewise of that: 'But I know that in me, that is, in my flesh, dwelleth no good thing.' The objection, that what he says—'For the good that I would, I do not,' and the rest—befits neither the persons of unbelievers nor of saints. The reply to the objection set forth.

What the body of sin is. That all the saints have truly confessed themselves to be unclean and sinners. That even the righteous and the saints are not without sin. That even in the very hour of prayer sin can scarcely be avoided. From whom the emptying-out of sin and the perfection of virtues is to be learned. That although we acknowledge ourselves not to be without sin, we ought not nevertheless to suspend ourselves from the Lord's communion. When therefore the light had returned, and the old man was being compelled by our utmost insistence to search out the depth of the apostolic question, he spoke thus: The testimonies by which you try to prove that the Apostle Paul spoke not from his own person but on behalf of sinners—'For the good that I would, I do not, but the evil which I hate, that I do,' or this: