Sermons & Tracts 5 part 3/4

if any man enter in by me, he shall find pasture; but if any man wish to enter in some other way, he is a thief and a robber.' How does this pertain to the person of the Prophets? Did the Prophets, against the doctrine of Christ, say that God could be won by the righteousness of the Law without faith—they who knew that Christ would come in the flesh? This, therefore, he said of those present, so that whoever were before himself, standing or sitting, might be understood to be thieves and robbers. For calling away him who had been blind, they wished to turn him from faith in the Saviour, saying: 'Give glory to God; we know that this man is a sinner.' Whom he refuted, saying: 'Since the world began it was never heard that anyone opened the eyes of one born blind:

if this man were not from God, he could do nothing' (John 9:24, 32, 33). Concerning this man, then, because he persevered in faith; and concerning those who said, 'These are not the words of one that has a devil; can a devil open the eyes of the blind?'—the Saviour said, 'But the sheep did not hear them' (John 10:8, 9, 21): those, namely, whom he called thieves and robbers. For how did the sheep not hear the Prophets, when it is established from the Scriptures that all the good obeyed the Prophets, and the evil the false prophets? XXXV. — What is the reason that, when about to work a marvellous and unheard-of miracle—namely, to raise Lazarus from the dead—he wept, or, as if ignorant, sought the place where he was laid (John 11:34, 35)?

The Saviour is both God and man, and on this account he always performed two alternating roles: so that, because he has the affection of a man, he weeps; but because he was also God, he raised up the very one whom he had wept. From the least things, therefore, one always comes to the greater, so that, because he was seen to be a man, he might reprove the thought that he was only what he seemed; but by his works he asserted himself to be God. XXXVI. — Since the Saviour says, 'I pray for those whom thou hast given me; I pray not for the world' (John 17:9), while the apostle John, on the contrary, says, 'We have an advocate with the Father, an intercessor for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the whole world' (1 John 2:1-2): this seems contradictory.

Although the sense does not differ greatly, yet one thing is what the Saviour says, and another what the apostle John affirms. For the Saviour prays for the disciples, that they may be kept safe from the assault of the evil one: thus indeed he says, 'I pray not that thou shouldest take them out of the world, but that thou shouldest keep them from evil.' But the apostle John introduces another kind of prayer: for he says, 'We have an advocate, who intercedes for our sins, and for those of the whole world.' For Christians, therefore, it is asked in a twofold manner; because both prayer is made for their sins, and that they may be kept safe from the assault of the devil.

But for those others who do not believe, this alone is the prayer: that, whereas they deserved to be punished for their sins and their unbelief, God's goodness and patience should wait for them, in case they might perhaps be willing to be corrected. For it is not asked that sins be forgiven to those who are unbelieving, but that they may receive a long delay, so that, if they amend themselves, their offences may be remitted to them. This, therefore, the Saviour asks for them, as we have said. XXXVII. — What is the reason that the Saviour says to Mary, who wished to touch him out of joy, 'Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to the Father' (John 20:1-17), when he is touched and adored by the other women? These are the words of one indignant, saying, 'Touch me not.'

For although she longed for the Saviour, yet while the others believed in his resurrection, she stood at the tomb weeping—she who ought already to have rejoiced. For she had heard from the apostles John and Peter that the Lord had risen. For thus you have it: 'And he saw the linen cloths and the napkin in one place, and believed: for as yet he knew not the Scripture, that he must rise again from the dead.' But Mary, because she did not see him risen, did not believe. For too great a love made her doubt. Finally, those whom we love, if they suffer some misfortune, we do not believe that they escape it; but those whom we hate, if they be near death, it is incredible to us.

To Mary, therefore, because she was astounded and endured grief through love, when she ought rather to have followed the faith of the disciples, the Lord first showed himself, that she might cease from grief—yet not without indignation. Hence she hears, 'Touch me not': that is, 'Thou seekest a carnal understanding; hold back, and follow the spiritual things which are not seen. For I am not yet,' he says, 'ascended to the Father.' This is like that saying of the blessed John the Baptist, who sent his disciples to Jesus, saying: 'Go, say: John the Baptist has sent us to thee, saying, Art thou he that is to come, or do we look for another?' (Luke 7:19-20). Under his own person he pleads the cause of his disciples.

For John did not doubt, he who had said, 'Behold the Lamb of God, behold him that taketh away the sins of the world' (John 1:29): but in order to satisfy his disciples, he sends them with his own words, so that by the Saviour's mouth he might confirm what he himself had been teaching about him, that after his own departure his disciples might follow Christ without any doubt. So too the Saviour reproves Mary in himself, saying, 'I am not yet ascended to the Father': that is, 'Thy heart is still pressed to the ground, so that if thou seest not, thou believest not. For if thou hadst lifted up thy heart to God, thou wouldest have believed with the disciples that the Lord had risen.' XXXVIII. — How is it to be understood that, when Mary said to the angel, 'And how shall I know this, seeing I know not a man?'

the angel Gabriel answered, 'The Holy Spirit shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee'? To Mary, who was in doubt about the conception, the angel proclaims its possibility, saying, and so forth. XXXIX. — By what reasoning did the Chaldean Magi understand, through the appearing star, that Christ the king of the Jews had been born, when by a star an indication of a temporal king is designated? These Chaldean Magi observed the course of the stars, not out of malevolence, but out of curiosity about things, and so forth. XL. — What does it mean that the prophet Isaiah says of Christ, 'Who did no sin'; but on the other hand the Apostle says, 'Him who knew no sin he made to be sin for us'? As far as pertains to the subject, not only do the words differ, but the persons also are diverse, and so forth. XLI.

— Surely, whoever is not a son of God is of the devil: therefore one is always a son, but sometimes of God, sometimes of the devil. What, then, are we born? It must be inquired whether sons of God, or of the devil, or some third thing, if it can be admitted. The Lord, when the sons of Israel who had been led out of Egypt often transgressed, being angry, permitted none of them to enter the land of promise, and so forth. XLII. — It must be asked whether the Apostles had the Holy Spirit at that time when they were with the Lord, and so forth. In all these things which have been set forth, there is not one single cause. For the forms of the several causes have been briefly signified, and so forth. XLIII. — By what reasoning it may be possible to answer the Arian impiety simply from the Law.

If faith be accommodated to reason, the very reason of the names 'Father' and 'Son' will show their unity, and so forth. XLIV. — Since we profess the Saviour to have been born, what is it that the Apostle says he was 'made of the seed of David' (Romans 1:3), when to be made is one thing and to be born another? Although in this place the 'making' can be understood of the nativity: for 'making' does indeed differ from 'generation'; but in other cases, not where the reasoning of flesh and body is concerned. Yet the Apostle spoke thus in words not without cause; because in another place too he says, 'Made of a woman' (Galatians 4:4). He signified, therefore, something by this saying.

For since the flesh of the Lord in the womb of the Virgin was not formed of human seed so as to be made into a body, but by the working and power of the Holy Spirit, therefore the Apostle spoke thus. For it is one thing to coagulate blood by the admixture of seed, and to generate, and another to procreate not by intermixture, but by power. Therefore he said 'made' rather than 'begotten.' XLV. — If Christ was made the Son of God from the seed of David according to the flesh—that is, being born, he is already the Son of God in both respects, because he was born sanctified—how then, after he was baptized, was it said to him by God, 'Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee'? Christ is the Son of God according to the Spirit from eternity, but according to the flesh he is the Son of God from the seed of David by nativity, and so forth.

XLVI. The Apostle calls the Law given by Moses holy, and just, and good, and spiritual (Rom. 7:12,14). Elsewhere he says, 'For the Law works wrath'; and, 'Where there is no Law, neither is there transgression' (Rom. 4:15). For to be without these is security. By comparing his own statements, you ought to have satisfied yourself. For doubters are wont to frame their questions in this way: rather than reproaching the sayings of one and the same author, they seek out what is conflicting and hostile in them. For if the Apostle calls the Law holy, and just, and good, and spiritual—he being a man foremost in all praise and everywhere fortified by truth—this should suffice for faith; and what seems contrary in the words should be inquired into without obstinacy and envy. The proposition which…

…this interpretation wills impunity for sinning. For the Apostle, when among the Romans he preferred the law of faith on account of the merit of the time and of grace—those who under the faith of Christ had been brought into the Law. Into the Law, I say, not that which is natural: for indeed the Romans were under a law which the decemvirs, sent to Athens, and afterward two others, brought back, which was written on two tablets, which were buried in the Capitol; but rather that which is called the law of works—that they be circumcised, observe the sabbath and the new moons, distinguish foods, be anxious about the cleansing of vessels, and the rest that are contained in a Law of this kind. This Law, then, he says works wrath: for these things were added by an angry God, that they might be a burden to the perfidy of the Jews.

For among so many precepts it is necessary that something be transgressed. Whence the apostle Peter says: 'Why do you place a yoke upon the neck of the brethren, which neither we were able to bear?' (Acts 15:10). And God says through the prophet: 'I gave them precepts that were not good' (Ezek. 20:25). For after many offenses and temptings against God, and insults done to Moses, and disparagements of God, these things were given, which they should observe, so that their hard neck might be pressed down, and wherever they turned they would have the Law, so that there might be no relief for them. Therefore, that he might lift them from this Law, the Apostle says, 'Where there is no Law, neither is there transgression': that being secure, by a shortcut, they might be able to serve God spiritually.

'Because,' he says, 'in keeping the law of the Jews, you must necessarily transgress.' For so great are the precepts that it is impossible to fulfill them. For how could he say this of that law which is natural? For Moses wrote for this reason: to confirm its authority, not because it did not exist before—since we read that vengeance was taken before Moses—but to explain to the Romans that they ought no longer to live under the Law, those whom it was expedient to conduct under the Law. For otherwise they could not keep justice. Finally he says to them: 'Do you wish not to fear the power? Do good'; and, 'Those who despise it acquire damnation for themselves' (Rom. 13:3,2). This law, therefore, which he shows to be also holy, and just, and good, he calls spiritual.

This is what we have called natural, which forbids sinning: for it is the guide of a good life. To this, when the Law of faith is added, it makes a man perfect. For because this law which I have called natural, and that which is called the law of works, are named by a common name, the Apostle seems to speak against the Law. But lest he seem to empty out this one—without which this life cannot be governed—he says, 'We know that the Law is spiritual': so that it might be known which one he empties out, namely the law of the sabbath, and of circumcision, and of foods, and of new moons. For that natural law is called spiritual for this reason: because it punishes all sins. XLVII. In what way is the wisdom of the flesh an enemy to God; or what is that wisdom which is not subject to the law of God (Rom. 8:7)?

This question does not differ in sense from the previous one. For by saying 'flesh,' what it signifies has been declared; whence what its wisdom is can easily be discerned. We have said, then, that all the elements are called flesh, that is, the substances of visible things: whose reasoning is such that they judge nothing can come to be without a spiritual and simple mixture, dreading the account of power and declaring it foolish. For these, distrusting spiritual things and following carnal ones, know and reckon nothing else to be true than what the reason of the elements contains: so that they believe neither that a virgin gave birth, nor in the resurrection of the flesh; because the reason of the flesh, that is of the elements, does not admit this.

For all things that are begotten in time are generated by the working of mixture; and dead and dissolved bodies cannot be restored again to life, because each element, when the mixture is separated, returns to its own nature. Puffed up in these ways, they deny both what is to come and what was done, which we believe: and through this their assertion is an enemy to God, while it judges foolish and empty what God has done and has promised he will do. XLVIII. The Apostle says of the princes and powers of this world that, 'if they had known, they would never have crucified the Lord of majesty': on the contrary, the evangelist Mark says of the demons, 'For they knew him to be who he was.' If the demons knew, how did the powers not know?

To some it seems that by 'the princes and powers of this world' he meant the elders and chiefs of the Jews, etc. XLIX. What spirit does the Apostle assert is to be saved, when he says, 'I have handed over such a man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh,' etc. (1 Cor. 5:5)? The destruction of the flesh is when someone, given over to pleasures and carnal desires, procures Gehenna for himself: for he acquires destruction even by the work of the flesh. For from these he becomes wholly carnal; because just as a man living according to the law is made wholly spiritual, so that even the flesh is said to be what the soul is: so, if he lives according to the desire of the world and the pleasures of lusts, the whole man becomes flesh, advancing into the destruction of the flesh;

that is, so that, just as the flesh—because it is fleeting and corruptible and mortal—once the soul is lost is deformed, lacking shape, and flows away into destruction (for it perishes when it loses the vigor of all its members): so also the soul is deformed from such a body, and was the more despised of its vigor in punishment, in which it stained itself with vices. So that there is no profit to the flesh through the soul, but rather the soul has destruction through the flesh, because it did not govern the body spiritually—though it was given as queen to the flesh—but performed carnal works. When therefore the Church casts out such a man, it keeps its spirit safe, holy indeed, which is the guardian of the Church:

for if they should allow themselves to keep among them such a one who has defiled his father's wife with lust—instead of compelling him by law, lest he contaminate all and the Holy Spirit withdraw from the Church on account of the polluted one—the Church will not keep its spirit safe. For what is lost is not safe, and on the day of the Lord, being found naked of the Spirit, they will not be able to be counted among the sons of God. For the Spirit bears witness that we are sons of God (Rom. 8:16). These things the Apostle speaks to the people, because as yet bishops had not been ordained for the Churches in all places.

Therefore he orders the people to do what a bishop would do if one had been appointed there: that, conspiring together into one, they might cast him out of their assembly, lest they seem to consent to his works. Because whoever does not rebuke the one whom he can, but receives him as if he were not erring, furnishes him kindling for sinning; on which account he too is contaminated, driving the Holy Spirit from himself. For to the Thessalonians he says in like manner, among other things: 'May your whole spirit, and soul, and body be kept without complaint at the coming of our Lord' (1 Thess. 5:23). It is the very same sense: for this is to be safe, to be whole. For the king says to Daniel, 'Are the seals safe, Daniel?' and he replied, 'Safe, O king' (Dan. 14:16);

that is, whole: so that our spirit may be whole for us, so long as he does not desert us. For those whom the Spirit deserts will no longer be whole in the matter of regeneration; because they do not have him through whom they were called sons of God. Nor is it contrary to reason if we say that the Holy Spirit deserts us when we sin, and is not whole. For he is not whole in that he deserts us who was our guide and ruler; because if he is our head, we too are his members. But when we do something against him, it is not he who deserts us, but we who seem to desert him; and then he seems not to be whole, when he loses us. For this is true and manifest: that it is not he who turns himself away from us, but we from him when we sin. And to the Colossians he says, among other things:

'From whom the whole body, being supplied and knit together, grows into the increase of the Lord' (Col. 2:19). If we take this according to the mere sound of the words, it does not fit: for God lacks nothing, that he should make increase through us. But while we return to the author of our life, and confess him, gaining ourselves for salvation, the divinity makes increase in us: therefore in those who withdraw from him there is loss. This, then, is 'not to be whole,' which is also 'to suffer loss.' L. Since many sins seem to be committed against the body—for everyone who does violence to himself in any part of the body assuredly sins against his own body;

for there is one who castrates himself, one who ends his life by a noose, one who plunges the sword into himself: wherefore the Apostle says, 'Every sin whatsoever a man commits is outside the body; but he who fornicates sins against his own body' (1 Cor. 6:18). Do you think the Apostle was unskilled, or do you desire that the force of the saying be explained? For the Apostle, in saying 'body,' did not signify a single man, but comprehended the woman together with him; because the woman is a portion of the man. For all the above-mentioned crimes, which each violently commits against himself, do not stain the whole body; for the individual sins, and through this he alone becomes guilty. But in fornication the whole body is polluted; because the consent of contamination holds both the man and the woman:

therefore fornication is a grave offense. For one sins most grievously when one seeks a partner for one's crime unto perdition. For if, just as one living well will even receive a reward for the one whom he has won as gain; and the wicked man becomes guilty not only in himself but also in the other whom he willed to have as a sharer of his damnation: how much more he who fornicates, of whom it is clear that by one offense he in a certain manner contaminates himself twice? For if he sins against the flesh, which is of himself, he certainly adulterates himself twice. But if anyone thinks he can transform this question, so as to fit this saying either to the Church or to the body of Christ, it will not stand.

For it would be said improperly, and he will be like Novatian, who—in order to build up the cause of his fury—declares that he who fornicates does not sin against his own body but against Christ's, because Christians are members and the body of Christ; so that fornication would be the same as sacrilege; so that such a one would be said to sin against Christ, like one who denies Christ. This is indeed weak and fragile: because on every side it sticks fast in the snare and does not escape. For if he who fornicates sins against the body of Christ, then the other sins would not be committed against Christ: so that if a Christian kills a brother, or sacrifices to idols, or commits any other kind of sin—it would follow that every sin is outside the body, except fornication.

But if not every sin is outside the body, but whatever it be is committed against Christ; then he who steals, or perjures himself, or lies, or strikes a brother, or commits any such thing, would be said to sin against Christ or against the Holy Spirit—which is very absurd: and yet the Apostle calls the members of the Church the body of Christ, so that we are members of one another. How then does he who fornicates sin against his own body, and not rather against Christ's? Because according to the mystery of the Church we are said to be not our own body but Christ's; and this is far from the point, because he who fornicates therefore sins against his own body, since the whole Adam is contaminated. LI. Why did the Apostle say that he became all things to all men (1 Cor. 9:22):

which seems to be the act of a flatterer and a hypocrite? A flatterer is he who gives his consent for this reason: that he may not offend the one whom he wishes to keep favorable. For whoever does something on account of scandal—something not indeed dangerous but superfluous—is zealous for the salvation of the one whom he does not wish to suffer scandal. When the apostle Paul circumcised Timothy on account of the Jews, and, having been purified, entered the temple, he assuredly presented himself as such, lest those who were zealots for the ancestral tradition, having suffered scandal, either kill him or think our religion hostile to themselves. He willed therefore to concede the lesser, that he might gain the greater. For he could have sinned gravely, had he not, as a Jew, gone into the temple to pray:

he therefore subjected himself, that he might profit them. But to those who were under the Law, that is, the Samaritans, he consented for this reason: because it is established that they rightly confess the books of Moses to be from God, and circumcision and the sabbaths to have been given by God. From these he showed them that the Christ whom they hoped for was the one whom he preached. For thus you have the Samaritan woman saying to the Lord, 'I know that the Messiah comes: when therefore he comes, he will announce to us all things' (John 4:25). According, therefore, to this sense he pursued the words of the books of Moses, who said, 'For the Lord your God will raise up a Prophet for you from your brethren' (Deut. 18:15).

But to those who were without the Law, he also assented in this part: because they say the world was made by God, and the human race also. For he says: 'As certain ones of your own have said, For we too are his offspring' (Acts 17:28). Thus, therefore, he became all things to all men, that he might profit their salvation. LII. What is it that the Apostle says, 'Let no temptation take hold of you but what is human'—as if he wished this to happen? And what is this human temptation? For through it he shows that there is also a divine temptation. They must therefore be distinguished, and he shows which they are. Every question, that it may be elucidated, must be traced back to its origin. But the Apostle, when he was complaining about the perfidy of the Jews, etc. LIII.

What is it that the Apostle says, 'No one can say, The Lord Jesus, except in the Holy Spirit' (1 Cor. 12:3)? Can Photinus, then, who denies that Christ is God, confess our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit? And Marcion and the Manichean, who deny that Christ came in the flesh—can these say 'The Lord Jesus Christ' in the Holy Spirit? Or harlots and the filthy—since the Holy Spirit does not dwell in a body subject to sins, and wisdom does not enter into a malevolent soul (Wis. 1:4)? Truth is not proved or disproved from the person: for whatever is said well and truly is without doubt said in the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, even if someone is guilty in other matters, he ought not on this account to be denied what he rightly says: namely, that he speaks the truth. Nor yet is it he who is denied, but the Lord Christ who is contradicted. For whoever denies that this man speaks the truth does injury to Christ. But if the truth is spoken, and it is denied that what is true is said in the Holy Spirit—which Christ also admits (for no good person refutes one who says true things about himself, nor is that learned from revelation which is learned through tradition)—then no one speaking the truth can be disproved. LIV. The Apostle says that Christ died for all: for thus he says, 'Therefore all have died, and he died for all' (2 Cor. 5:14,15).

But the Lord himself says, 'The Son of man came to give his soul as a redemption for many' (Matt. 20:28). In this way it seems contrary. The words indeed are different, but the sense is one; just as, again, the same words may have a different sense—for instance, 'Everything that is not of faith is sin' (Rom. 14:23); and, 'The Law,' he says, 'is not of faith' (Gal. 3:12), and yet it is not sin. Those, therefore, whom the Savior called 'many,' these the Apostle signified by 'all.' For they are many, because the greatest part of every people and nation will believe in the Savior. These the Apostle called 'all believers.' For thus among other things he says, 'He died for all'; namely for those who have believed and will believe.

He also died even for those who refuse to believe; but while they do not receive the benefit, they do not want Christ to have died for them; and through this he does not seem to have died for those to whom he was of no profit, but rather did harm. But he is rightly said to have died for those for whom the victory has been won—those who, understanding the mystery, give thanks to God through Christ our Lord. LV. Why did the apostle Paul rebuke Peter his fellow-apostle, because, fearing those who were of the circumcision, he withdrew himself from the Gentiles (Gal. 2:11,14), when he himself also, fearing those of the circumcision, took and circumcised Timothy—which he forbade to be done (Acts 16:3)? Is he then himself also to be rebuked?

It is incredible that so great an apostle rebuked another in the very thing in which he knew he himself had succumbed. That this was done by so great a man it is not right to believe; because he rather constrained those who live carnally. And so the deed of the apostle Paul lacks any ground for rebuke. For when he was preaching that one should not be circumcised, but wished to take Timothy with him—who, since he was born of a Jewish mother but a Greek father, and this was a scandal to the Jews, that he should take one born of a Jewess uncircumcised—then he submitted himself to subjection for the hour, and, taking him, circumcised him. He did therefore a superfluous thing, with the permission of the one who underwent it.