Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadChurch Fathers: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 04: 24.03.11 Book III Part 3
TOPIC: Post-Nicene Fathers Vol 04 (Other Topics in this Collection)
SUBJECT: 24.03.11 Book III Part 3
Other Subjects in this Topic:
18. Let us look next at the passage: "So, then, it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."hyperlink For they who find fault say: If "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy," salvation does not depend upon ourselves, but upon the arrangementhyperlink made by Him who has formedhyperlink us such as we are, or on the purposehyperlink of Him who showeth mercy when he pleases. Now we must ask these persons the following questions: Whether to desire what is good is virtuous or vicious; and whether the desire to run in order to reach the goal in the pursuit of what is good be worthy of praise or censure? And if they shall say that it is worthy of censure, they will return an absurd answer;hyperlink since the saints desire and run, and manifestly in so acting do nothing that is blameworthy. But if they shall say that it is virtuous to desire what is good, and to run after what is good, we shall ask them how a perishing nature desires better things;hyperlink for it is like an evil tree producing good fruit, since it is a virtuous act to desire better things. They will give (perhaps) a third answer, that to desire and run after what is good is one of those things that are indifferent,hyperlink and neither beautifulhyperlink nor wicked. Now to this we must say, that if to desire and to run after what is good be a thing of indifference, then the opposite also is a thing of indifference, viz., to desire what is evil, and to run after it. But it is not a thing of indifference to desire what is evil, and to run after it. And therefore also, to desire what is good, and to run after it, is not a thing of indifference. Such, then, is the defence which I think we can offer to the statement, that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy."hyperlink Solomon says in the book of Psalms (for the Song of Degreeshyperlink is his, from which we shall quote the words): "Unless the Lord build the house, they labour in vain that build it; except the Lord keep the city, the watchman waketh in vain: "hyperlink not dissuading us from building, nor teaching us not to keep watch in order to guard the city in our soul, but showing that what is built without God, and does not receive a guard from Him, is built in vain and watched to no purpose, because God might reasonably be entitled the Lord of the building; and the Governor of all things, the Ruler of the guard of the city. As, then, if we were to say that such a building is not the work of the builder, but of God, and that it was not owing to the successful effort of the watcher, but of the God who is over all, that such a city suffered no injury from its enemies, we should not be wrong,hyperlink it being understood that something also had been done by human means, but the benefit being gratefully referred to God who brought it to pass; so, seeing that the (mere) human desire is not sufficient to attain the end, and that the running of those who are, as it were, athletes, does not enable them to gain the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus-for these things are accomplished with the assistance of God-it is well said that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." As if also it were said with regard to husbandry what also is actually recorded: "I planted, Apollos watered; and God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase."hyperlink Now we could not piously assert that the production of full crops was the work of the husbandman, or of him that watered, but the work of God. So also our own perfection is brought about, not as if we ourselves did nothing;hyperlink for it is not completedhyperlink by us, but God produces the greater part of it. And that this assertion may be more clearly believed, we shall take an illustration from the art of navigation. For in comparison with the effect of the winds,hyperlink and the mildness of the air,hyperlink and the light of the stars, all co-operating in the preservation of the crew, what proportionhyperlink could the art of navigation be said to bear in the bringing of the ship into harbour?-since even the sailors themselves, from piety, do not venture to assert often that they had saved the ship, but refer all to God; not as if they had done nothing, but because what had been done by Providence was infinitelyhyperlink greater than what had been effected by their art. And in the matter of our salvation, what is done by God is infinitely greater than what is done by ourselves; and therefore, I think, is it said that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." For if in the manner which they imagine we must explain the statement,hyperlink that "it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy," the commandments are superfluous; and it is in vain that Paul himself blames some for having fallen away, and approves of others as having remained upright, and enacts laws for the Churches: it is in vain also that we give ourselves up to desire better things, and in vain also (to attempt) to run. But it is not in vain that Paul gives such advice, censuring some and approving of others; nor in vain that we give ourselves up to the desire of better things, and to the chase after things that are pre-eminent. They have accordingly not well explained the meaning of the passage.hyperlink
19. After this there followed this point, that "to will and to do are of God."hyperlink Our opponents maintain that if to will be of God, and if to do be of Him, or if, whether we act or desire well or ill, it be of God, then in that case we are not possessed of free-will. Now to this we have to answer, that the words of the apostle do not say that to will evil is of God, or that to will good is of Him; nor that to do good or evil is of God; but his statement is a general one, that to will and to do are of God. For as we have from God this very quality, that we are menhyperlink that we breathe, that we move; so also we have from God (the faculty) by which we will, as if we were to say that our power of motion is from God,hyperlink or that the performing of these duties by the individual members, and their movements, are from God. From which, certainly, I do not understand this, that because the hand moves, e.g., to punish unjustly, or to commit an act of theft, the act is of God, but only that the power of motionhyperlink is from God; while it is our duty to turn those movements, the power of executing which we have from God, either to purposes of good or evil. And so what the apostle says is, that we receive indeed the power of volition, but that we misuse the will either to good or evil desires. In a similar way, also, we must judge of results.
19. Besides these, there is the passage, "Both to will and to do are of God."hyperlink And some assert that, if to will be of God, and to do be of God, and if, whether we will evil or do evil, these (movements) come to us from God, then, if so, we are not possessed of free-will. But again, on the other hand, when we will better things, and do things that are more excellent,hyperlink seeing that willing and doing are from God, it is not we who have done the more excellent things, but we only appeared (to perform them), while it was God that bestowed them;hyperlink so that even in this respect we do not possess free-will. Now to this we have to answer, that the language of the apostle does not assert that to will evil is of God, or to will good is of Him (and similarly with respect to doing better and worse); but that to will in a generalhyperlink way, and to run in a general way, (are from Him). For as we have from God (the property) of being living things and human beings, so also have we that of willing generally, and, so to speak, of motion in general. And as, possessing (the property) of life and of motion, and of moving, e.g., these members, the hands or the feet, we could not rightly sayhyperlink that we had from God this species of motion,hyperlink whereby we moved to strike, or destroy, or take away another's goods, but that we had received from Him simply the generichyperlink power of motion, which we employed to better or worse purposes; so we have obtained from God (the power) of acting, in respect of our being living things, and (the power) to will from the Creatorhyperlink while we employ the power of will, as well as that of action, for the noblest objects, or the opposite.
20. But with respect to the declaration of the apostle, "Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? "hyperlink Some one will perhaps say, that as the potter out of the same lump makes some vessels to honour, and others to dishonour, so God creates some men for perdition, and others for salvation; and that it is not therefore in our own power either to be saved or to perish; by which reasoning we appear not to be possessed of free-will. We must answer those who are of this opinion with the question, Whether it is possible for the apostle to contradict himself? And if this cannot be imagined of an apostle, how shall he appear, according to them, to be just in blaming those who committed fornication in Corinth, or those who sinned, and did not repent of their unchastity, and fornication, and uncleanness, which they had committed? How, also, does he greatly praise those who acted rightly, like the house of Onesiphorus, saying, "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he had come to Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant unto him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day."hyperlink Now it is not consistent with apostolic gravity to blame him who is worthy of blame, i.e., who has sinned, and greatly to praise him who is deserving of praise for his good works; and again, as if it were in no one's power to do any good or evil, to say that it was the Creator's doing that every one should act virtuously or wickedly, seeing He makes one vessel to honour, and another to dishonour. And how can he add that statement, "We must all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ, that every one of us may receive in his body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad? "hyperlink For what reward of good will be conferred on him who could not commit evil, being formed by the Creator to that very end? or what punishment will deservedly be inflicted on him who was unable to do good in consequence of the creative act of his Maker?hyperlink Then, again, how is not this opposed to that other declaration elsewhere, that "in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth, and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work."hyperlink He, accordingly, who purges himself, is made a vessel unto honour, while he who has disdained to cleanse himself from his impurity is made a vessel unto dishonour. From such declarations, in my opinion, the cause of our actions can in no degree be referred to the Creator. For God the Creator makes a certain vessel unto honour, and other vessels to dishonour; but that vessel which has cleansed itself from all impurity He makes a vessel unto honour, while that which has stained itself with the filth of vice He makes a vessel unto dishonour. The conclusion from which, accordingly, is this, that the cause of each one's actions is a pre-existing one; and then every one, according to his deserts, is made by God either a vessel unto honour or dishonour. Therefore every individual vessel has furnished to its Creator out of itself the causes and occasions of its being formed by Him to be either a vessel unto honour or one unto dishonour. And if the assertion appear correct, as it certainly is, and in harmony with all piety, that it is due to previous causes that every vessel be prepared by God either to honour or to dishonour, it does not appear absurd that, in discussing remoter causes in the same order, and in the same method, we should come to the same conclusion respecting the nature of souls, and (believe) that this was the reason why Jacob was beloved before he was born into this world, and Esau hated, while he still was contained in the womb of his mother.
20. Still the declaration of the apostle will appear to drag us to the conclusion that we are not possessed of freedom of will, in which, objecting against himself, he says, "Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth He yet find fault? For who hath resisted His will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? "hyperlink For it will be said: If the potter of the same lump make some vessels to hon-our and others to dishonour, and God thus form some men for salvation and others for ruin, then salvation or ruin does not depend upon ourselves, nor are we possessed of free-will. Now we must ask him who deals so with these passages, whether it is possible to conceive of the apostle as contradicting himself. I presume, however, that no one will venture to say so. If, then, the apostle does not utter contradictions, how can he, according to him who so understands him, reasonably find fault, censuring the individual at Corinth who had committed fornication, or those who had fallen away, and had not repented of the licentiousness and impurity of which they had been guilty? And how can he bless those whom he praises as having done well, as he does the house of Onesiphorus in these words: "The Lord give mercy to the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: but, when he was in Rome, he sought me out very diligently, and found me. The Lord grant to him that he may find mercy of the Lord in that day."hyperlink It is not consistent for the same apostlehyperlink to blame the sinner as worthy of censure, and to praise him who had done well as deserving of approval; and again, on the other hand, to say, as if nothing depended on ourselves, that the cause was in the Creatorhyperlink why the one vessel was formed to honour, and the other to dishonour. And how is this statement correct:hyperlink "For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad,"hyperlink since they who have done evil have advanced to this pitch of wickednesshyperlink because they were created vessels unto dishonour, while they that have lived virtuously have done good because they were created from the beginning for this purpose, and became vessels unto honour? And again, how does not the statement made elsewhere conflict with the view which these persons draw from the words which we have quoted (that it is the fault of the Creator that one vessel is in honour and another in dishonour), viz., "that in a great house there are not only vessels of gold and silver, but also of wood and of earth; and some to honour, and some to dishonour. If a man therefore purge himself, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, and meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work; "hyperlink for if he who purges himself becomes a vessel unto honour, and he who allows himself to remain unpurgedhyperlink becomes a vessel unto dishonour, then, so far as these words are concerned, the Creator is not at all to blame. For the Creator makes vessels of honour and vessels of dishonour, not from the beginning according to His foreknowledge,hyperlink since He does not condemn or justify beforehandhyperlink according to it; but (He makes) those into vessels of honour who purged themselves, and those into vessels of dishonour who allowed themselves to remain unpurged: so that it results from older causeshyperlink (which operated) in the formation of the vessels unto honour and dishonour, that one was created for the former condition, and another for the latter. But if we once admit that there were certain older causes (at work) in the forming of a vessel unto honour, and of one unto dishonour, what absurdity is there in going back to the subject of the soul, and (in supposing) that a more ancient cause for Jacob being loved and for Esau being hated existed with respect to Jacob before his assumption of a body, and with regard to Esau before he was conceived in the womb of Rebecca?
21. Nay, that very declaration, that from the same lump a vessel is formed both to honour and to dishonour, will not push us hard; for we assert that the nature of all rational souls is the same, as one lump of clay is described as being under the treatment of the potter. Seeing, then, the nature of rational creatures is one, God, according to the previous grounds of merit,hyperlink created and formed out of it, as the potter out of the one lump, some persons to honour and others to dishonour. Now, as regards the language of the apostle, which he utters as if in a tone of censure, "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? "he means, I think, to point out that such a censure does not refer to any believer who lives tightly and justly, and who has confidence in God, i.e., to such an one as Moses was, of whom Scripture says that "Moses spake, and God answered him by a voice; "hyperlink and as God answered Moses, so also does every saint answer God. But he who is an unbeliever, and loses confidence in answering before God owing to the unworthiness of his life and conversation, and who, in relation to these matters, does not seek to learn and make progress, but to oppose and resist, and who, to speak more plainly, is such an one as to be able to say those words which the apostle indicates, when he says, "Why, then, does He yet find fault? for who will resist His will? "-to such an one may the censure of the apostle rightly be directed, "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? "This censure accordingly applies not to believers and saints, but to unbelievers and wicked men.Now, to those who introduce souls of different natures,hyperlink and who turn this declaration of the apostle to the support of their own opinion, we have to reply as follows: If even they are agreed as to what the apostle says, that out of the one lump are formed both those who are made to honour and those who are made to dishonour, whom they term of a nature that is to be saved and destroyed, there will then be no longer souls of different natures, but one nature for all. And if they admit that one and the same potter may undoubtedly denote one Creator, there will not be different creators either of those who are saved, or of those who perish. Now, truly, let them choose whether the), will have a good Creator to be intended who creates had and ruined men, or one who is not good, who creates good men and those who are prepared to honour. For the necessity of returning an answer will extort from them one of these two alternatives. But according to our declaration, whereby we say that it is owing to preceding causes that God makes vessels either to honour or to dishonour, the approval of God's justice is in no respect limited. For it is possible that this vessel, which owing to previous causes was made in this world to honour, may, if it behave negligently, be converted in another world, according to the deserts of its conduct, into a vessel unto dishonour: as again, if any one, owing to preceding causes, was formed by his Creator in this life a vessel unto dishonour, and shall mend his ways and cleanse himself from all filth and vice, he may, in the new world, be made a vessel to honour, sanctified and useful, and prepared unto every good work. Finally, those who were formed by God in this world to be Israelites, and who have lived a life unworthy of the nobility of their race, and have fallen away from the grandeur of their descent, will, in the world to come, in a certain degreehyperlink be converted, on account of their unbelief, from vessels of honour into vessels of dishonour; while, on the other hand, many who in this life were reckoned among Egyptian or Idumean vessels, having adopted the faith and practice of Israelites, when they shall have done the works of Israelites, and shall have entered the Church of the Lord, will exist as vessels of honour in the revelation of the sons of God. From which it is more agreeable to the rule of piety to believe that every rational being, according to his purpose and manner of life, is converted, sometimes from had to good, and falls away sometimes from good to bad: that some abide in good, and others advance to a better condition, and always ascend to higher things, until they reach the highest grade of all; while others, again, remain in evil, or, if the wickedness within them begin to spread itself further, they descend to a worse condition, and sink into the lowest depth of wickedness. Whence also we must suppose that it is possible there may be some who began at first indeed with small offences, but who have poured out wickedness to such a degree, and attained such proficiency in evil, that in the measure of their wickedness they are equal even to the opposing powers: and again, if, by means of many severe administrations of punishment, they are able at some future time to recover their senses, and gradually attempt to find healing for their wounds, they may, on ceasing from their wickedness, be restored to a state of goodness. Whence we are of opinion that, seeing the soul, as we have frequently said, is immortal and eternal, it is possible that, in the many and endless periods of duration in the immeasurable and different worlds, it may descend from the highest good to the lowest evil, or be restored from the lowest evil to the highest good.
21. And at the same time, it is clearly shown that, as far as regards the underlying nature,hyperlink as there is one (piece of) clay which is under the hands of the potter, from which piece vessels are formed unto honour and dishonour; so the one nature of every soul being in the hands of God, and, so to speak, there being (only) one lump of reasonable beings,hyperlink certain causes of more ancient date led to some being created vessels unto hon-our, and others vessels unto dishonour. But if the language of the apostle convey a censure when he says, "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? "it teaches us that he who has confidence before God, and is faithful, and has lived virtuously, would not hear the words, "Who art thou that repliest against God? "Such an one, e.g., as Moses was, "For Moses spake, and God answered him with a voice; "hyperlink and as God answers Moses, so does a saint also answer God. But he who does not possess this confidence, manifestly, either because he has lost it, or because he investigates these matters not from a love of knowledge, but from a desire to find fault,hyperlink and who therefore says, "Why does He yet find fault? for who hath resisted His will? "would merit the language of censure, which says, "Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? "Now to those who introduce different natures, and who make use of the declaration of the apostle (to support their view), the following must be our answer. If they maintainhyperlink that those who perish and those who are saved are formed of one lump, and that the Creator of those who are saved is the Creator also of them who are lost, and if He is good who creates not only spiritual but also earthy (natures) (for this follows from their view), it is nevertheless possible that be who, in consequence of certain former acts of righteousness,hyperlink had now been made a vessel of honour, but who had not (afterwards) acted in a similar manner, nor done things befitting a vessel of honour, was converted in another world into a vessel of dishonour; as, on the other hand, it is possible that he who, owing to causes more ancient than the present life, was here a vessel of dishonour, may after reformation become in the new creation "a vessel of honour, sanctified and meet for the Master's use, prepared unto every good work." And perhaps those who are now Israelites, not having lived worthily of their descent, will be deprived of their rank, being changed, as it were, from vessels of honour into those of dishonour; and many of the present Egyptians and Idumeans who came near to Israel, when they shall have borne fruit to a larger extent, shall enter into the Church of the Lord, being no longer accounted Egyptians and Idumeans, but becoming Israelites: so that, according to this view, it is owing to their (varying) purposes that some advance from a worse to a better condition, and others fall from better to worse; while others, again, are preserved in a virtuous course, or ascend from good to better; and others, on the contrary, remain in a course of evil, or from bad become worse, as their wickedness flows on.
22. But since the words of the apostle, in what he says regarding vessels of honour or dishonour, that "if a man therefore purge himself, he will be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and meet for the Master's service, and prepared unto every good work," appear to place nothing in the power of God, but all in ourselves; while in those in which he declares that "the potter hath power over the clay, to make of the same lump one vessel to honour, another to dishonour," he seems to refer the whole to God,-it is not to be understood that those statements are contradictory, but the two meanings are to be reduced to agreement, and one signification must be drawn from both, viz., that we are not to suppose either that those things which are in our own power can be done without the help of God, or that those which are in God's hand can be brought to completion without the intervention of our acts, and desires, and intention; because we have it not in our own power so to will or do anything, as not to know that this very faculty, by which we are able to will or to do, was bestowed on us by God, according to the distinction which we indicated above. Or again, when God forms vessels, some to honour and others to dishonour, we are to suppose that He does not regard either our wills, or our purposes, or our deserts, to be the causes of the honour or dishonour, as if they were a sort of matter from which He may form the vessel of each one of us either to honour or to dishonour; whereas the very movement of the soul itself, or the purpose of the understanding, may of itself suggest to him, who is not unaware of his heart and the thoughts of his mind, whether his vessel ought to be formed to honour or to dishonour. But let these points suffice, which we have discussed as we best could, regarding the questions connected with the freedom of the will.hyperlink
22. But since the apostle in one place does not pretend that the becoming of a vessel unto honour or dishonour depends upon God, but refers back the whole to ourselves, saying, "If, then, a man purge himself, he will be a vessel unto honour, sanctified, meet for the Master's use, and prepared unto every good work; "and elsewhere does not even pretend that it is dependent upon ourselves, but appears to attribute the whole to God, saying, "The potter hath power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another to dishonour; "and as his statements are not contradictory, we must reconcile them, and extract one complete statement from both. Neither does our own power,hyperlink apart from the knowledgehyperlink of God, compel us to make progress; nor does the knowledge of God (do so), unless we ourselves also contribute something to the good result; nor does our own power, apart from the knowledge of God, and the use of the power that worthily belongs to us,hyperlink make a man become (a vessel) unto honour or dishonour; nor does the will of God alonehyperlink form a man to honour or to dishonour, unless He hold our will to be a kind of matter that admits of variation,hyperlink and that inclines to a better or worse course of conduct. And these observations are sufficient to have been made by us on the subject of free-will.
Chapter II.-On the Opposing Powers.
1. We have now to notice, agreeably to the statements of Scripture, how the opposing powers, or the devil himself, contends with the human; race, inciting and instigating men to sin. And in the first place, in the book of Genesis,hyperlink the serpent is described as having seduced Eve; regarding whom, in the work entitled The Ascension of Moseshyperlink (a little treatise, of which the Apostle Jude makes mention in his Epistle), the archangel Michael, when disputing with the devil regarding the body of Moses, says that the serpent, being inspired by the devil, was the cause of Adam and Eve's transgression. This also is made a subject of inquiry by some, viz., who the angel was that, speaking from heaven to Abraham, said, "Now I know that thou fearest God, and on my account hast not spared thy beloved son, whom thou lovedst."hyperlink For he is manifestly described as an angel who said that he knew then that Abraham feared God, and had not spared his beloved son, as the Scripture declares, although he did not say that it was on account of God that Abraham had done this, but on his, that is, the speaker's account. We must also ascertain who that is of whom it is stated in the book of Exodus that he wished to slay Moses, because he was taking his departure for Egypt;hyperlink and afterwards, also, who he is that is called the destroyinghyperlink angel, as well as he who in the book of Leviticus is called Apopompaeus, i.e., Averter, regarding whom Scripture says, "One lot for the Lord, and one lot for Apopompaeus, i.e., the Averter."hyperlink In the first book of Kings, also, an evil spirit is said to stranglehyperlink Saul; and in the third book, Micaiah the prophet says, "I saw the Lord of Israel sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing by Him, on His right hand and on His left. And the Lord said, Who will deceive Achab king of Israel, that he may go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead? And one said on this manner, and another said on that manner. And there came forth a spirit, and stood before the Lord, and said, I will deceive him. And the Lord said to him, Wherewith? And he said, I will go forth, and I will be a lying spirit in the mouth of all his prophets. And He said, Thou shalt deceive him, and prevail also: go forth, and do so quickly. And now therefore the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all thy prophets: the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee."hyperlink Now by this last quotation it is clearly shown that a certain spirit, from his own (free) will and choice, elected to deceive (Achab), and to work a lie, in order that the Lord might mislead the king to his death, for he deserved to suffer. In the first book of Chronicles also it is said, "The devil, Satan, stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number the people."hyperlink In the Psalms, moreover, an evil angel is said to harasshyperlink certain persons. In the book of Ecclesiastes, too, Solomon says, "If the spirit of the ruler rise up against thee, leave not thy place; for soundness will restrain many transgressions."hyperlink In Zechariahhyperlink we read that the devil stood on the right hand of Joshua, and resisted him. Isaiah says that the sword of the Lord arises against the dragon, the crookedhyperlink serpent.hyperlink And what shall I say of Ezekiel, who in his second vision prophesies most unmistakeably to the prince of Tyre regarding an opposing power, and who says also that the dragon dwells in the rivers of Egypt?hyperlink Nay, with what else are the contents of the whole work which is written regarding Job occupied, save with the (doings) of the devil, who asks that power may be given him over all that Job possesses, and over his sons, and even over his person? And yet the devil is defeated through the patience of Job. In that book the Lord has by His answers imparted much information regarding the power of that dragon which opposes us. Such, meanwhile, are tree statements made in the Old Testament, so far as we can at present recall them, on the subject of hostile powers being either named in Scripture, or being said to oppose the human race, and to be afterwards subjected to punishment.
Let us now look also to the New Testament, where Satan approaches the Saviour, and tempts Him: wherein also it is stated that evil spirits and unclean demons, which had taken possession of very many, were expelled by the Saviour from the bodies of the sufferers, who are said also to be made free by Him. Even Judas, too, when the devil had already put it in his heart to betray Christ, afterwards received Satan wholly into him; for it is written, that after the sop "Satan entered into him."hyperlink And the Apostle Paul teaches us that we ought not to give place to the devil; but "put on," he says, "the armour of God, that ye may be able to resist the wiles of the devil: "hyperlink pointing out that the saints have to "wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places."hyperlink Nay, he says that the Saviour even was crucified by the princes of this world, who shall come to nought,hyperlink whose wisdom also, he says, he does not speak. By all this, therefore, holy Scripture teaches us that there are certain invisible enemies that fight against us, and against whom it commands us to arm ourselves. Whence, also, the more simple among the believers in the Lord Christ are of opinion, that all the sins which men have committed are caused by the persistent efforts of these opposing powers exerted upon the minds of sinners, because in that invisible struggle these powers are found to be superior (to man). For if, for example, there were no devil, no single human beinghyperlink would go astray.
2. We, however, who see the reason (of the thing) more clearly, do not hold this opinion, taking into account those (sins) which manifestly originate as a necessary consequence of our bodily constitution.hyperlink Must we indeed suppose that the devil is the cause of our feeling hunger or thirst? Nobody, I think, will venture to maintain that. If, then, he is not the cause of our feeling hunger and thirst, wherein lies the difference when each individual has attained the age of puberty, and that period has called forth the incentives of the natural heat? It will undoubtedly follow, that as the devil is not the cause of our feeling hunger and thirst, so neither is he the cause of that appetency which naturally arises at the time of maturity, viz., the desire of sexual intercourse. Now it is certain that this cause is not always so set in motion by the devil that we should be obliged to suppose that bodies would nor possess a desire for intercourse of that kind if the devil did not exist. Let us consider, in the next place, if, as we have already shown, food is desired by human beings, not from a suggestion of the devil, but by a kind of natural instinct, whether, if there were no devil, it were possible for human experience to exhibit such restraint in partaking of food as never to exceed the proper limits; i.e., that no one would either take otherwise than the case required, or more than reason would allow; and so it would result that men, observing due measure and moderation in the matter of eating, would never go wrong. I do not think, indeed, that so great moderation could be observed by men (even if there were no instigation by the devil inciting thereto), as that no individual, in partaking of food, would go beyond due limits and restraint, until he had learned to do so from long usage and experience. What, then, is the state of the case? In the matter of eating and drinking it was possible for us to go wrong, even without any incitement from the devil, if we should happen to be either less temperate or less careful (than we ought); and are we to suppose, then, in our appetite for sexual intercourse, or in the restraint of our natural desires, our condition is not something similar?hyperlink I am of opinion, indeed, that the same course of reasoning must be understood to apply to other natural movements as those of covetousness, or of anger, or of sorrow, or of all those generally which through the vice of intemperance exceed the natural bounds of moderation. There are therefore manifest reasons for holding the opinion, that as in good things the human willhyperlink is of itself weak to accomplish any good (for it is by divine help that it is brought to perfection in everything); so also, in things of an opposite nature we receive certain initial elements, and, as it were, seeds of sins, from those things which we use agreeably to nature;hyperlink but when we have indulged them beyond what is proper, and have not resisted the first movements to intemperance, then the hostile power, seizing the occasion of this first transgression, incites and presses us hard in every way, seeking to extend our sins over a wider field, and furnishing us human beings with occasions and beginnings of sins, which these hostile powers spread far and wide, and, if possible, beyond all limits. Thus, when men at first for a little desire money, covetousness begins to grow as the passion increases, and finally the fall into avarice takes place. And after this, when blindness of mind has succeeded passion, and the hostile powers, by their suggestions, hurry on the mind, money is now no longer desired, but stolen, and acquired by force, or even by shedding human blood. Finally, a confirmatory evidence Of the fact that vices of such enormity proceed from demons, may be easily seen in this, that those individuals who are oppressed either by immoderate love, or incontrollable anger, or excessive sorrow, do not suffer less than those who are bodily vexed by devils. For it is recorded in certain histories, that some have fallen into madness from a state of love, others from a state of anger, not a few from a state of sorrow, and even from one of excessive joy; which results, I think, from this, that those opposing powers, i.e., those demons, having gained a lodgment in their minds which has been already laid open to them by intemperance, have taken complete possession of their sensitive nature,hyperlink especially when no feeling of the glory of virtue has aroused them to resistance.
Footnotes
186 Rom. ix. 16.
187 kataskeuhj.
188 kataskeuasantoj.
189 proairesewj.
190 para thn enargeian.
191 ta kreittona.
192 twn meswn esti.
193 asteion.
194 Rom. ix. 16.
195 wdh twn anabaqmwn.
196 Ps. cxxvii. 1.
197 ouk an ptaioimen.
198 1 Cor. iii. 6, 7.
199 h hmetera teleiwsij ouxi mhden hmwn pracantwn hinetai.
200 apartizetai.
201 pnohn.
202 eukrasian.
203 ariqmon.
204 eij uperbolhn pollaplasion.
205 eklambanein.
206 eceilhfasi ta kata ton topon.
207 Cf. Phil. ii. 13.
208 Hoc ipsum, quod homines sumus.
209 Sicut dicamus, quod movemur, ex Deo est.
210 Hoc ipsum, quod movetur.
211 Cf. Phil. ii. 13.
212 ta diaferonta.
213 hmeij men edocamen, o de Qeoj tauta edwrhsato.
214 to kaqolou qelein.
215 eulogwj.
216 to eidikon tode.
217 to men genidon, to kineisqai.
218 dhmiourgou.
219 Rom. ix. 18-21.
220 2 Tim. i. 16-18.
221 2 Cor. v. 10.
222 Ex ipsâ conditoris creatione.
223 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21.
224 Rom. ix. 18-21.
225 2 Tim. i. 16-18.
226 ou kata ton auton dh apostolon esti.
227 para thn aitian tou dhmiourgou.
228 ugiej.
229 2 Cor. v. 10.
230 epi touto pracewj.
231 2 Tim. ii. 20, 21.
232 aperikaqarton eauton periidwn.
233 prognwsin.
234 prokatakrinei h prodikaioi.
235 ek presbuterwn aitiwn.
236 Secundum praecedentes meritorum causas.
237 Ex. xix. 19.
238 Diversas animarum naturas.
239 Quodammodo.
240 oson epi th upokeimenh fusei.
241 enoj furamatoj twn logikwn upostasewn.
242 Cf. Ex. xix. 19.
243 kata filoneikian.
244 swzousi.
245 ekproterwn tinwn katorqwmatwn.
246 [Elucidation II.]
247 to ef hmin.
248 episthmh: probably in the sense of prognwsij.
249 thj kataxrhsewj tou kat acian tou ef hmin. "Nec sine usu liberi nostri arbitrii, quod peculiare nobis et meriti nostri est" (Redepenning).
250 oute tou epi tw Qew monon.
251 ulhn tina diaforaj.
252 Gen. iii.
253 This apocryphal work, entitled in Hebrew hm try+p
, and in Greek Analhyij, or Anabasij Mwusewj, is mentioned by several ancient writers; e.g., by Athanasius, in his Synopsis Sacrae Scripturae; Nicephorus Constantinopolitanus in his Stichometria, appended to the Chronicon of Eusebius (where he says the Analhyij contained 1400 verses), in the Acts of the Council of Nice, etc., etc. (Ruaeus).
254 Gen. xxii. 12. The reading in the text is according to the Septuagint and Vulgate, with the exception of the words "quem dilexisyi," which are an insertion.
255 Cf. Ex. iv. 24-26.
256 Ex. xii. 23, exterminator. Percussor, Vulgate; oloqreuwn, Sept.
257 Lev. xvi. 8. Apopompaioj is the reading of the Sept., "Caper emissarius" of the Vulgate, lz)z(
of the Masoretic text. Cf. Fürst and Gesenius S. V. Rufinus translates Apopompaeus by "transmissor."
258 1 Sam. xviii. 10, effocare. Septuagint has epese: Vulgate, "invasit;" the Masoretic text xlct
259 1 Kings xxii. 19-23.
260 1 Chron. xxi. 1.
261 Atterere.
262 Eccles. x. 4. "For yielding pacifieth great offences." The words in the text are, "Quniam sanitas compescet multa peccata." The Vulgate has, "Curatio faciet cessare peccata maxima." The Septuagint reads, Iama katapausei amartiaj megalaj: while the Masoretic text has )brm
(curatio).
263 Zech. iii. 1.
264 Isa. xxvii. 1.
265 Isa. xxvii. 1.
266 Ezek. xxviii. 12 sq.
267 Cf. John xiii. 27.
268 Eph. vi. 13.
269 Eph. vi. 12.
270 Cf. 1 Cor. ii. 6.
271 Nemo hominum omnino.
272 Ex corporali necessitate descendunt.
273 Quod non simile aliquid pateremur?
274 Propositum.
275 Quae in usu naturaliter habentur.
276 Sensum eorum penitus possederint.