On ConsiderationBook V

1. The former books, although they bear the title * On Consideration', have very much in them relating to action, inasmuch as they teach or admonish that some things should be not only considered, but also done. But the present book will treat of Consideration only. For the things which are above you—and that is our topic—-do not call for action, but for contemplation. It is impossible to take a part in those things which in one sense ever are, and ever will be: some of which, moreover, ever have been. And I would have you, my dear Eugenius, wisest of men, shrewdly observe what I am going to say, namely, that your consideration goes from home as often as it turns from the things above to the visible things below, whether these have to be studied with a view to knowledge, or sought for use, or administered and performed in the discharge of duty. Still, if your consideration so engages in the things below as to seek the things above, it is not banished far. Consideration thus employed is a returning home. That is a higher and worthier use of things present, when, according to the wisdom of Paul, ' the invisible things of God are clearly seen, being perceived through the things that are made.' The citizens, doubtless, have no need of the ladder; exiles have, as the author of the words I have quoted himself observed; for, although he said that things invisible are clearly seen through things visible, he significantly added, ' from the created world.' And, indeed, what need of steps for him who is already on the throne? Consideration is one of the ' creatures ' of heaven, and is equipped for deeper insight into the things of heaven. It sees the Word, and in the Word the things made through the Word. It has no need to beg the knowledge of the Maker from the things which have been made. For even to gain a knowledge of these things, it does not descend to them: it sees them where they are far better seen than in themselves. Hence it is that to reach them Consideration does not seek the medium of the senses: it perceives them immediately, and is self-percipient. That is the best sort of vision when you lack nothing, when you have your heart's desire, and find contentment in yourself. Otherwise, you run some risk of seeking satisfaction elsewhere, and this is to fall beneath the standard of perfection, and enjoy less freedom.

2. And why should you want the lower things? Is it not absurd and unworthy of you? Clearly, by longing for the things below, you do some wrong to the things above: though I admit that mortal man will never be guiltless of such wrongdoing until the time come when he will have escaped into the freedom of the sons of God. For they will all then be taught of God, and without the medium of any creature will be blessed in God alone. This will be a returning home, when we leave the country of our bodies and reach the realm of spirits—I mean our God, the Mighty Spirit, the great abiding place of the spirits of the blessed. There is no place here for the intrusion of sense or imagination; this realm is truth, it is wisdom, virtue, eternity, the highest good. For a while we are absent from it; our present abode is a valley, the vale of tears, where the senses have dominion, and Consideration is an exile: where the bodily sense freely and powerfully manifests itself, but the eye of the spirit is veiled in darkness. What wonder, then, if Consideration, being a foreigner, needs a native's help? And in passing through time to eternity the traveller is to be congratulated who has been able to win for himself the indispensable services of the citizens; using them, not delighting in them; compelling them, though not master of them; demanding them, not them.

1 St. John vi. 45.

3. He is a great man who makes it his concern to utilize the senses, spending, as it were, the wealth of the citizens in thus providing for his own salvation and the salvation of many. And he is no less a man who has made philosophy a steppingstone to the things invisible. The only difference is that there is more pleasure in the latter, more profit in the former: the one has more happiness, the other indicates more strength. But he is the greatest of all who, scorning the use of sensible things, so far as human frailty permits, has accustomed himself, not by gradual steps, but by sudden ecstatic flightsl to soar aloft to the glorious things on high. I suppose Paul's ecstasies were of this last description: they were departures [from the senses], not the ascent [of the senses]; for he himself relates that he did not ascend into Paradise, but was rather caught up thither. This is what he means by saying ' If we mentally depart, it is to the glory of God '. Moreover, when Consideration, even in the place of its sojourning, through the pursuit of virtue, and with the help of grace, has gained the upper hand, these three results follow :—it either checks the senses, lest they assert themselves too strongly: or draws them in, lest they go too far afield: or shuns them, lest they defile. In the first case the mark of Consideration is strength, in the second freedom, in the third purity. For such a flight of the spirit is only made with the wing of purity on the one side, and of rapture on the other.

4. You would like to know the distinguishing names of these various kinds of Consideration. Let us say, if you please, that the first is economical, the second estimative, the third speculative. The meaning will appear from the definitions. Consideration is ' economical'—that of the steward—when it makes systematic use of the senses and of sensible things in daily life so as to win the favour of God. It is * estimative'—that of the valuer—when it wisely and diligently searches everything, and weighs everything, to find God. It is ' speculative' when it retires within itself, and so far as Divine help is given, detaches itself from human affairs in order to contemplate God. I suppose you carefully observe that the last is the fruit of the others, and that the others, if they stand unrelated to it, may seem to be what they are called, but are not really so. And unless the first keeps the last in view, it sows much and reaps nothing; moreover, unless the second makes the last its goal, it walks, but does not walk forth. So then, what the first desires, the second scents,’ the third tastes. To this taste, however, the others also bring us, though more slowly; and there is a further difference—the first is the more toilsome road, the second the more peaceful.

5. Enough about the way up, you say; I have still to tell you whither you must ascend. You deceive yourself if you expect me to do that; it transcends the power of speech. Do you think that I can utter what eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, and has not entered into the heart of man P ' God', the apostle says, ' has revealed them to us by His Spirit.' So then the things which are above are not taught by words, they are revealed by the Spirit. But what speech does not explain let Consideration seek, prayer desire, the life merit, purity attain. At all events, when I admonish you to consider the things which are above you, do not think that I am sending you to gaze at the sun, moon, and stars; no, not the firmament itself, nor the waters which are above the heavens. For all these things, though locally ' above', are in point of value ' beneath ' you, even in dignity of nature, as they are material existences. Your portion is the spirit, whereby you in vain look for anything above you which is not spirit. Moreover, God is a Spirit, and so are the holy angels, and they are above you. But God is a Spirit in virtue of His nature, the angels are your superiors through grace. The special excellence both of yourself and of angelic beings is reason; but in God there is no peculiar excellence; He is altogether excellent. He, and the blessed spirits who are with Him, must in three ways, as it were along their several paths, be by our Consideration sought after—the paths of opinion, faith, and understanding. Of these, understanding depends on reason, faith on authority, while opinion 1 Isa. Ixiv. 4. 2 I Cor. ii. lo.

safeguards itself by probability only. Two of them attain to the certainty of truth, but faith possesses truth out of sight and implied, understanding has it naked and manifest; opinion, having no certainty, does not so much apprehend truth as seek it through probabilities.

6. The utmost caution must be exercised so as to avoid confusion, lest the uncertainties of opinion crystallize into articles of faith, or the foundation verities of faith become the questionable matter of opinion. And we should bear this in mind—that opinion venturing on assertion is rash; faith, if it hesitate, is weak; and understanding, if it try to break into the sealed mysteries of faith, is deemed a burglar, and a spy upon the secrets of the throne. Many have taken their own opinion for understanding, and have thus erred. And in truth opinion may be taken for understanding; understanding cannot be taken for opinion. How so? Surely because opinion may be deceived, understanding cannot be; if it could, it would not be understanding, but opinion. For true understanding has not only certain truth, but the knowledge of truth. We may thus define each of them. Faith is, by the exercise of the will, a sure foretaste of truth not yet manifested. Understanding is the sure and clear knowledge of some invisible thing. Opinion is the holding something provisionally true which you do not know to be false. So then, as I have said, faith is free from doubts; if it have doubts it is not faith, but opinion. How, then, does it differ from understanding? Inasmuch as, although there be no more uncertainty in it than there is in understanding, still it has a veil before its eyes, which is not the case with understanding. In short, if you understand a thing, further inquiry is needless; if further inquiry be necessary, you do not understand. But there is nothing we would rather know than what we already know by faith. When the veil shall have been utterly removed from the things of which we are now assured by faith, the cup of bliss will be full.

7. Well now, having thus cleared the way, let us turn our consideration to our mother, Jerusalem above, and with caution and close attention, by all three ways enumerated, search out the things unsearchable, so far, I mean, as may be lawful, or rather, so far as shall be given to us. And first let us remember that the citizens of that country are spirits, mighty, glorious, blessed, separate personalities, of graduated rank, from the beginning standing in their own order, perfect of their kind, having ethereal bodies, endowed with immortality, passionless; not so created, but so made—that is, through grace, not by nature; beings of pure mind, benignant affections, religious and devout; of unblemished morality; inseparably one in heart and mind, blessed with unbroken peace, God's building, dedicated to the divine praises and service. All this we ascertain by reading, and hold by faith. But as regards their bodies, some authorities hesitate to say not only whence they are derived, but whether in any real sense they exist at all. If any one is inclined to think the derivation of these bodies a matter of opinion, I do not dispute the point. Further, if we hold that the angelic beings are endowed with understanding, this is not of faith, nor is it mere opinion; it is a conclusion of our understanding; for if they had not understanding, they could not be partakers of the Divine nature. There are likewise certain names, known to us by the hearing of the ear, by means of which the duties, merits, ranks, orders, of these blessed ones, things only faintly heard by mortal ear, in one way or another may be conjectured and distinguished. But, in truth, what does not come by hearing is not of faith, for faith cometh by hearing. * And so we may speak conjecturally of these topics. For what is the good of our knowing the names of the celestial beings if we may not, without prejudice to faith, form some opinion as to the things the names denote? Angels, Archangels, Virtues, Powers, Principalities, Dominions, Thrones, Cherubim, and Seraphim—these are the names. What do they signify? Is there no difference between those spirits who are simply called Angels and those who are called Archangels?

8. What, then, is the meaning of this difference in degree? Let us suppose (unless your consideration has showed you something better) that they are called Angels who are believed to have been given as guardians of individual men, sent to minister, as Paul teaches, on behalf of those who are the heirs of salvation; it was of these the Saviour said, * Their angels do always behold the face of your Father/ 3 Let us suppose that over these are the Archangels, who, admitted to a knowledge of the Divine secrets, are not sent except for particular and very weighty reasons. From among these the great Archangel Gabriel was, as we read, sent to Mary, and for the greatest of all reasons. Let us suppose that above these are the Virtues, by whose command or operation signs and wonders wrought in the elements, or through the elements, appear for the warning of mortal men. Perhaps this explains why it is that after reading in the Gospels/' " There shall be signs in the sun, and the moon, and the stars,' a little farther on you have, ' for the Virtues of the heavens shall be moved': * the spirits, no doubt, through whom the signs are wrought. Let us suppose that the Powers are their superiors, and that by their vigour the power of darkness is checked, and the malignant spirits of this lower air are restrained, that they may not do harm to their full intent: that they may not be able to show their malignity, except for beneficial ends. Let us suppose that the Principalities are also preferred to these last, and that by their regulating wisdom all sovereignty upon earth is established, ruled, limited, transferred, curtailed, changed. Let us suppose that the Dominions tower above the aforesaid orders to such a height that in comparison of these all the rest appear to be administrative spirits, and that to the Dominions, as it were to their masters, the Principalities account for their commands, the Powers for their defences, the Virtues for their operations, the Archangels for their revelations, the Angels for their care and foresight. Let us suppose that the Thrones have winged their flight far away beyond even the Dominions, that they are called Thrones because they sit on thrones, and that they therefore sit because God is seated in them. For He could not be seated in those who were not themselves seated. Do you ask what I mean by that sitting? The deepest tranquillity, the utmost calm ness and serenity, the peace which passes all understanding. Such is the Lord of Hosts, who sitteth in the Thrones, tranquilly judging all things, perfectly calm, serene, peaceful. And such He made the Thrones, most like Himself. Let us suppose the Cherubim to drink at the very fount of wisdom, the mouth of the Most High, and in turn to pour forth the streams of knowledge for all their fellow citizens. May not this be the ' rushing river, the streams whereof make glad the city of God/ l of which the prophet spake? Let us suppose the Seraphim to be spirits inflamed with the Divine fire, kindling all things, so that the citizens may be each a burning and a shining lamp, burning with charity, shining with knowledge. 9. How good it is, Eugenius, for us to be here! But how much better will it be if we ever altogether follow on whither we have in part gone before! Our hearts lead the way, but not our whole hearts; only a part, and too often a small part. While our affections are weighed down by the bodily tabernacle, and our desires cleave to the mire, contemplation, thin and spiritless, is left to wing its flight all alone. And yet out of the depths of its poverty it will cry, 'O Lord, I have loved the beauty of Thine house, and the place where Thy glory dwelleth.' But suppose the soul were to collect itself, and the affections were brought back from all places wheresoever they are kept captive, through fearing what they ought not, loving what they should not, sorrowing in vain, rejoicing still more in vain. Suppose the soul, I say, accompanied by these affections and possessed of full freedom, were to wing its vigorous unimpeded flight, satisfied, as it were, with the marrow and fatness of grace; once it begins to travel round the abodes of light, and more intently gaze upon Abraham's dear bosom, and see beneath the altar', whatever that may mean, the souls of the martyrs with utmost patience waiting in their first robe to be clothed with the second, will it not then much more earnestly say with the prophet, * One thing have I asked of the Lord, 1 Ps. xlvi. 4. a Ps. xxvi. 8.

that will I seek after: that I may dwell in the house of the Lord all the days of my life, to behold the fair beauty of the Lord, and to visit His temple '?l What prevents the heart of God being there revealed? Why should it not there be proved what is * the will of God, the good, acceptable, and perfect will'?2—good in itself, pleasing in its effects, acceptable to those who have fruition of it, perfect to the perfect who seek nothing beyond it. Bowels of mercy are disclosed, thoughts of peace, the riches of salvation, the mysteries of the good will, secrets of loving-kindness, which, shut out from mortal ken, are only guessed at even by the elect. But even in this there is something salutary: men might otherwise cease to fear before they are found fit to worthily love.

10. In the heavenly beings who are called Seraphim we may discern how He loves who has no cause to love, and who also hates nothing that He has made; how He cherishes those whom He has made for salvation, teaches them to go, embraces them, how the fire of His love consumes the sins of His elect youth, and the chaff of their ignorances, throughly purifying them for Himself, and making them most worthy of His love. In the Cherubim, who have a name for fullness of knowledge, we may perceive that the Lord is a God of knowledge, who only knoweth all things, and in Him is no ignorance at all; who is altogether light, and in Him is no darkness at all; who is all eye, and who cannot possibly be deceived, because that eye is never closed; who seeks not outside Himself for light which He may approach that He may see, for He sees in the light of His own Being. In the Thrones we may behold how the Judge, trusted by all that is innocent, sits in them; He who will not deceive, and cannot be deceived, inasmuch as He loves, as has been said, and sees, as has been said. Nor is this His ' sitting' without significance; it indicates tranquillity. May my sentence go forth from such a presence where love is found, but no error, no confusion! In the Dominions we may see how majestic is the Lord, who at His pleasure establishes His empire, that empire which is as wide as the universe and shall endure for ever. In the Principalities we may perceive the fount of all things; as a door turns on its hinge, so the universe depends on the King Himself. In the Powers we may see how power fully the First Cause protects those over whom He rules, keeping off and driving back the hostile powers. In the Virtues we may see everywhere equally present that one Virtue through which are all things, life-giving, active, invisible, unmovable, yet moving all things for beneficial ends, and holding them in its grasp. When this Virtue breaks forth into effects less familiar amongst men, we hear of miracles or prodigies. Lastly, as we contemplate the Angels and Archangels, we may see, and marvel, how true it is in our experience that 'He careth for us'; He who never ceases to delight us with the visits of such glorious beings, to instruct us with their revelations, admonish us through their suggestions, solace us by their zealous attention.

11. All these gifts and graces were bestowed on these spirits by their Creator, one and the self-same Spirit dividing 1 Ps, xvii. 7. 2 i Pet. v. 7.

to them severally as He willed. It is He who worketh them in His creatures, it is He who has given to His creatures the power of working them, but in different ways. The Seraphim burn, but with the fire of God, or rather with fire for God. Their chief characteristic is their love, but they love not as much, nor in the same way, as God. The Cherubim shine, and excel in knowledge, but by participation in the truth; and accordingly they know not as the Truth knows, nor as much. The Thrones sit, but by the favour of Him who sitteth in them. They also tranquilly judge, but not so fully, nor in the same way, as the Peace that giveth peace, the Peace which passes all understanding. The Dominions rule, but they rule in subjection to a ruler, and serve Him as well. What is this in comparison with the supreme, everlasting, unparalleled dominion? The Principalities lead and govern; but they themselves are governed: so that they would no longer know how to govern, if they ceased to be governed. In the Powers there is surpassing strength; but He to whom they owe their strength has more strength, and of a different kind: He is not so much strong, as strength itself. The Virtues, in accordance with their ministry and their might, are busy rousing the sluggish hearts of men by the novelty of signs; but it is Virtue itself, immanent in them, that does the works. They also do them, but in comparison with that doing they do them not. In short, so great is the difference that the prophet says to Him, as standing apart from all others, 'Thou art God who doest wondrous things,' and also concerning Him, ' Who alone doeth great and marvellous things.' Angels and Archangels are with us, but He is more our own who is not only with us but in us.

12. But if you say that an Angel may also be in us, I do 1 Ps. Ixxvii. 14. 2 Ps. cxxxvi. 4.

not deny it. I remember that it is written, ' The Angel who spake in me.'l And yet there is a difference even here. The Angel is in us suggesting what is good, not bestowing it: stimulating us to goodness, not creating goodness. God is so in us as to give the grace, and infuse it into us; or rather, so in us that He Himself is infused and partaken of, so that one need not fear to say that He is one with our spirit, although He be not one with our person, nor one with our substance. For you know, * He that is joined unto God is one spirit.' The Angel, therefore, is with the soul, God is in the soul. The Angel is in the soul as a comrade, God as life. It follows that as the soul sees in the eyes, hears in the ears, smells in the nostrils, tastes in the palate, has the sense of touch in all the rest of the body, so God worketh different effects in different spirits: for instance, in some He manifests Himself as love, in others as perception, in others as action of various kinds, according as the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal. What are we to think of Him who is so common a topic of our speech, but who is so far removed from us in reality?

How is it that He whom we describe with mortal words hides Himself in the depths of His own Majesty, and altogether shuns our human formsl and affections? Hear what He says to men, ' As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts/ 2 We are said to love, so is God: we are said to know, so is God: and much to the same purpose. But God loves like Charity, knows like Truth, sits in judgement like Equity, rules like Majesty, governs like Authority, guards like Safety, works like Virtue, reveals like Light, stands by us like Affection. All these things the Angels also do, and so do we, but in a far inferior way, not, of course, by our native goodness, but by the goodness whereof we partake.

12. Now, then, let us pass from these spirits, if haply you too may be able to say with the spouse, ' It was but a little I passed from them when I found him whom my soul loveth.' Do you ask, ' What is His name?' That is surely not a better question than ' What is His character?' The answer which God wished to be given respecting Himself, the answer which He Himself taught Moses, and which Moses at God's command told the people was—' I am what I am; He who is hath sent me unto you'. Fitly was this answer given. Nothing could better describe eternity, and God is eternal. If you say that God is good, great, blessed, wise, or any such thing, the starting-point is this—God is. Of course, the very meaning of God's existing is that all these attributes constitute existence. If you add a hundred others you have not got away from the fact of His existence. Bynaming them you have not added anything; if you do not name them, you have not diminished aught. If you now perceive the nature of this unparalleled, unique, supreme existence, will you not agree that in comparison thereof whatever is not included therein may more accurately be said not to exist than to exist? Do we ask further, ' What is God? ' We reply, 4 That without which nothing is.' We say nothing can exist without Him, just as He Himself cannot exist without Himself. He is self-existent. He is existence to all else. And so, in a certain sense, He is alone, who is the source of His own existence, and of the existence of all beside. What is God? The Beginning, as He Himself replied concerning Himself. In the world of sense many things are called beginnings, but in respect of things that come after. If, instead of looking forwards you look backwards, you will allow Him to be the beginning of all. Wherefore, if you wish to find the true, unconditioned ' beginning ', you must discover that which has no beginning. That from which all began could not possibly have had a beginning. For if it had, there must of necessity have been some source from which it sprang, since nothing is self-originating. If it be imagined that the non-existent could give itself a beginning, or that something may be before it is, I reply that both these altcrnatives are contrary to reason, and it clearly follows that nothing was its own beginning. Moreover, whatever had not its beginning from itself was not the first beginning. The true beginning, therefore, by no means began, but was altogether the fount of its own being.

14. What is God? He for whom the ages have neither come nor gone, and yet with whom they are not co-eternal. What is God? He 'from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things V ' From whom', by creation, not by propagation. ' Through whom ', lest you should suppose there is some other author and some other maker. * In whom ', not locally, but potentially. ' From whom', as the one beginning, the one author of all. ' Through whom', lest some other beginning be brought in as the originator. ' In whom', lest a third term, place, be introduced. ' From whom', not as though God were the matter of which things are made; He is the efficient, not the material cause. In vain do philosophers look to matter to solve the difficulty; God has no need of matter. For He did not seek a workshop, nor an artificer. He, through Himself, in Himself, made all things. Whence? Out of nothing; for if He made them out of anything, He did not make that, and therefore did not make all things. God forbid that out of His own incorrupt and incorruptible substance He should be thought to have made so many things that are doubtless good, but are nevertheless corruptible. You ask, ' If all things are in God, where is God Himself?' Still, I find no place which can contain Him. You ask where He is not? I cannot tell this either. What place is without God? God is incomprehensible; but you have apprehended not a little if you have ascertained this much about Him, that He is nowhere who is not enclosed by space, and that He is everywhere who is not shut out by space. In His own sublime and incomprehensible way, as all things are in Him, so He is in all things. In a word, as the Evangelist says, ' He was in the world.' 2 But in a different way He is there, where He was before the world was made. You must not ask where He was; except Himself there was nothing. Therefore He was in Himself.

15. What is God? The best object of thought. If you approve, you ought not to countenance the belief that there is something which is the essence of Godhead, and yet is not God. If there were, it would doubtless be better than God. Must it not of necessity be better than God if it is not God, but constitutes His being? But it is wiser for us to confess that the divinity which men say is the essence of God is the same as God. Unless it be God it cannot be in God. ' What', say our opponents, ' do you deny that God has divinity?' No; but what God has, that He is. ' Do you deny that God exists in virtue of His divinity?' No; but we say that He exists in virtue of no other divinity than that which He Himself is. If you have discovered some other divinity, I fall back upon the doctrine of the Tri-une God, and stiffen my back against your new-found ' divinity '. You may divide the world into four quarters if you please: you must not so map out the Godhead. God is a Trinity: God is each of the three Persons. If you like to add a fourth divinity, I have already fully convinced myself that no divinity which is not God ought to be worshipped. I suppose you think so too: for * thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him only shalt thou serve '.l That is truly a glorious divinity which dare not claim for itself divine honours. But we do better in rejecting the fourth term altogether than in receiving it without due honour. We say that there are many things in God—it is sound Catholic doctrine—but the many are but one. Otherwise, if we regard them as individually distinct, we have God not only fourfold, but a hundredfold. For example, we speak of His greatness, goodness, justice, and innumerable other attributes; but unless you consider them all as one in God, and with God, you will have a manifold God. 16. It is not difficult for me to frame a better idea of God than this of yours. ' What is your view?' you say. I regard God as absolute simplicity. A sound judgement prefers simplicity of nature to that which is manifold. I know the usual answer to this. ' We maintain ', say they, 4 that the many attributes do not constitute the being of God, but only one divinity composed of them all.' You assert, then, that although God is not manifold, He is twofold, and you have not reached the highest conception of God as absolute simplicity. That is as far from being simple which involves even one form, as she is no longer a virgin who is known to even one man. I speak freely; even a twofold God shall not be my God: I have a better one. Suppose I do prefer a twofold Divine Being to a God multitudinous and manifold; I nevertheless utterly despise such a God in comparison with a God of a * simple' nature. My God is none other than what He is in the catholic sense. We must not institute a comparison between what He includes and excludes. He is what He is. We are not told all that He is. He is pure spirit, simple, complete in Himself, self-consistent, adding nothing to Himself from time, place, material things, losing nothing of Himself in them; incapable of numerical division, and not composed of several parts to make a collective whole. For He is a unit, not a union. He has no corporeal parts like our bodies; no different affections, like our souls; He is not susceptible of many * forms', like all creation; nor does He assume even one form, as our opponents conceive of * form'. Surely God is greatly to be praised for that He is content with one ' form', so that He may exempt Himself from all deformity. This is equivalent to saying that the nature of all else is conditioned in many ways, but that God's nature is absolute. What? Will He, through whose goodness all things exist, stoop for His being to the goodness of another? That praise, to use a common expression, means blasphemy. Is it not higher excellence to need nothing than to need one thing? Have reverence for God, so that you may give Him the best. If your heart has been able to rise to this level, how will you place your God lower down? He is His own ' form',* His own essence. For a while I look up to Him at this elevation; if a higher rank were revealed to me, I would rather give it to Him. We surely need not fear that thought will soar above Him. However high it may attain, He is still beyond. To look for the Most High beneath the summit of man's thought is absurd; to place Him there is impious. He must be sought beyond it, not on this side of it.

17. Ascend thus far if you can; lift up your heart, and God will be exalted. God is not dependent on form. He is pure form. God is not a feeling, He is a state of feeling; He is not compound, but absolute simplicity; and you know full well what I mean by ' simplicity': the word is synonymous with unity. In proportion as God is one, He is simple. Now He is one in such a sense as nothing else is. If the phrase be permissible, He is most of all one. There is one sun as no other can be; one moon also, as no other can be. So it is with God, but more so. How ' more so'? He is one even to Himself. Would you like a little light upon this? He is always the same, and never changes. It is not so with the one sun, or the one moon. Both proclaim that they are not one to themselves, the sun because of its movements, the moon on account of her phases. But God is not only one to Himself, He is also one in Himself. He has nothing in Himself but Himself. He knows no change through time, no difference in His substance. Hence the saying of Boethius concerning Him—' This is the true unity which is indivisible, and admits nothing foreign to itself. Nor can this unity be reduced to "forms", for it is pure form.' Compare with this unity all that can be called unity; God's unity will not be found there. Yet God is Three in One. What follows? Do we upset what has been said about the Unity by bringing in the thought of the Trinity? No; but we establish the Unity. We speak of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; still we maintain there are not three Gods, but one God. What, if I may so speak, is the meaning of this number which is not a number?

If there are three particulars, must there not be numerical distinction? If there is but one, what becomes of the enumeration? But I have, you say, something that can be numbered, and yet not numbered. There is one substance, there are if On Consideration three Persons. Is there anything strange or obscure in this? Nothing, if the persons are conceived of separately from the Substance. The truth is that, inasmuch as the three Persons are one Substance, and the one Substance is the three Persons, there is no denying that we do number them, for they are really three; yet on the other hand we do not number them, for they are really one. If, again, you think an easy explanation is found by calling them three, tell me what it is you have numbered. Natures? There is one nature. Essences? There is one essence. Substances? There is one substance. Godheads? There is one Godhead. ' I do not number these', you say, ' but the Persons, and they are not that one nature, that one essence, that one substance, that one divinity.' You are a Catholic; you are not in the least likely to make such a concession.

18. The Catholic Faith confesses that the ' properties ' of the Persons are identical with the Persons themselves; and that the Persons themselves are nothing else than one God, one Divine Substance, one Divine Nature, one Divine and Supreme Majesty. Number, therefore, if you can, either the Persons without the Substance, which they themselves are, or the characteristics without the Persons with whom they are identical. Or, if any one endeavour to separate the Persons from the Substance, or the characteristic attributes from the Persons, I am at a loss to understand how he can profess to be a worshipper of the Trinity after dividing the Godhead into such a vast multitude of particulars. Let us therefore maintain that there are three Persons, but not to the prejudice of the Unity: let us hold that there is one God, but not so as to confound the Trinity; for these are not mere names, nor idle words void of meaning. If any one asks how this can be, let him be content to hold that it is so, though I must add that if the doctrine be not clear to reason, it is no halting opinion, but the firm conviction of faith. This is a great mystery, worthy of all veneration, not to be keenly scrutinized. How can plurality consist with unity, or unity with plurality? To closely examine the fact is rashness, to believe it is piety, to know it is life, and eternal life. Wherefore, Eugenius, if you think it worth while, let me have your undivided consideration as I run through the many arguments which tend to show the greatness of this unique unity. There is a unity which we may call * collective', as, for example, when many stones make one heap. There is a * constitutive' unity, as when many members make one body, or many parts constitute one whole. There is a unity such as that of man and wife, whereby two are no longer two, but one flesh. And there is a ' natural' unity, whereby soul and body are one man. There is a * potential' unity, the realization of which is the constant endeavour of a virtuous man, so that he may not be unstable, nor unlike himself. There is the unity of agreement, when the love of many men leads to their being of one heart and one soul. There is also the unity of devotion, when the soul, cleaving to God with complete surrender, is one spirit. And there is the unity of condescension, whereby our poor nature was taken by the Word of God to make one person in Himself. 19. But what arc all these compared with that supreme, and, so to speak, unique unity which results from the consubstantiality of the three Persons? If you find a likeness between any one of the foregoing and this unity, the resemblance is but partial; if you compare them with it, there will be no true resemblance. Therefore, among all things which are rightly called ' One ', the unity of the Trinity, whereby three Persons are one Substance, is the highest. Next comes that surpassing unity, whereby, conversely, three substances are in Christ, one Person. Moreover, real sober consideration proves that the foregoing, and whatsoever else can be called ' One', have the title in virtue of their resemblance to that supreme Unity, not because they allow of comparison therewith. Nor do we forsake this profession of the Unity by our upholding of the doctrine of the three Persons, since, when we speak of the Trinity, we do not mean a multiplicity of gods any more than in speaking of unity we imply loneliness. Wherefore, when I speak of One I am not disturbed by the consideration of number, which does not multiply the essence, nor change it, nor divide it. Again, when I speak of three things, if I view them as one, whatever the three things may be, I am not proved wrong. Nor, if I speak of the three Persons of the Godhead, am I obliged to confound the Persons, or reduce the three to the One.

20. My views, I confess, are similar respecting the unity which I have ranked next in honour to that which is unique.

I say that in Christ the Word, the human soul and body, are without confusion of the essences one Person, and I further maintain that the human and divine remain numerically distinct without prejudice to the unity of person. Nor would I deny that this unity is of the same class as that unity whereby soul and body are one man. It was fitting that a mystery devised for man's welfare should have a more intimate relation to man's nature and more closely resemble it. It was fitting, too, that it should harmonize with that highest unity which is in God and is God, so that as three Persons in the Trinity are one Essence, so in the Incarnation, by a most appropriate contrast, the three Essences are one Person. Do you not see how beautifully the unity of Christ is set between the unity of God and the unity of man? I mean, of course, the unity of the Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Most beautiful, most appropriate, I say, that the mystery of salvation should so fitly correspond to both, to God our Saviour on the one side, to saved humanity on the other. Thus this unity of the two natures, standing between the other two unities, must be pronounced inferior to the one and superior to the other, being as much above the lower as it is below the higher.

21. In a word, so closely and so clearly are the natures united in the Person of the one Christ, who is God and Man, that you can without error in speaking of them use either mode of expression, and with the true Catholic Faith declare both that God was man and man was God. But you cannot, without sheer absurdity, similarly assert either that the soul is the body, or the body the soul, although in like manner soul and body is one man. And it is not surprising if the soul, with all its vital energy, considerable though it is, and notwithstanding its affections, cannot so closely bind the body to itself as the Divinity united to itself that man who was predestined to be the Son of God with power. The divine predestination is a long and strong chain for binding close: for it reaches from the Eternal. What is longer than eternity? What more mighty than Deity? Hence it is that this unity could not possibly be severed by death, although soul and body were separated from one another. And perhaps John felt this when he professed himself unworthy to undo the latchet of His shoe.

22. We remember the three measures in the Gospel, which were mixed and leavened to make one loaf. If any one were to apply the parable to the mystery of the Incarnation I should think he was not far wrong in so doing. How well the woman leavened them! And so, in the parallel, without dividing the body and soul, the Word was distinct from the body and sod, yet so that in the separation the inseparable union was maintained. For the partial separation is no objection against the unity which remained between all three. Whether two of the three were conjoined or dissevered, the personal unity none the less continued in all three. The one Christ and one Person, the Word, soul and body, remained just the same even after the death of the man Christ Jesus. In my opinion this mingling and leavening took place in the Virgin's womb; she was the woman who mixed and leavened the three measures. For I should not, perhaps, err greatly in saying that the leaven was Mary's faith. She was clearly blessed in believing, since the things which were told her by the Lord were accomplished in her. But they would not have been accomplished if anything had hindered the whole from being leavened, and continually leavened, according to the word of the Lord, so as to preserve for us, as well in His death as in His life, the one perfect Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus in union with His own Godhead. 23. In this admirable mystery, corresponding to the number of the measures, we may observe, most beautifully distinguished, the three steps of the new, the old, and the eternal. By the ' new' I mean the soul, which is believed to be created out of nothing when it is infused into the body; by the ' old ', the flesh, which we know to have been transmitted even from Adam, the first of human kind; by the ' eternal', I mean the Word, whom, as a certain truth, we assert to be co-eternal with the Father, and to be begotten of Him. And in the foregoing, if you carefully notice, there is a triple exhibition of Divine power, inasmuch as then.- was something made out of nothing, the new out of the old, the eternally blessed out of that which was sentenced to death. How docs this 1 St. Luke i. 45.

concern our salvation? Much every way. Firstly, because, reduced to nothing through sin, we are through the mystery as it were created anew, that we may be a sort of first fruits of His creatures. Secondly, because, translated from our old slavery into the liberty of the children of God, we walk in newness of the spirit. Lastly, because we have been called from the power of darkness to the kingdom of the eternal glory, wherein He has already made us to sit with Him in Christ. May they be no friends of ours who endeavour to estrange from us the flesh of Christ, impiously asserting that it was newly created in the Virgin, not taken from the Virgin. Well did the Spirit of Prophecy long before meet this opinion, or rather blasphemy of wicked men, when He said, 'A shoot shall spring from the root of Jesse, and a flower out of his root.' He might have said that the flower should come from the shoot, but He preferred to say ' from the root', that He might show the flower and the shoot to have the same origin. So we see that the flesh was taken thence whence the Virgin sprang; it was not newly created in the Virgin, but came from the root.

24. I suspect you are a little vexed at my again asking, What is God? The question has already been asked so often, and you are doubtful whether the answer will ever be found. Dear Eugenius, Father in God, what I say is this— He alone is God who never can be sought in vain, not even Book Chapter xi 15-9 when He cannot be found. Your experience may teach you this; or, if not, believe one who has had the experience; I do not mean myself, but the saint who says, ' Thou art good, O Lord, to them that hope in Thee, to the soul that seeketh Thee.' What, then, is God? As regards the universe, He is the final end; in respect of election, He is salvation; as regards Himself, He is self-knowledge. What is God? He is almighty will moved by loving-kindness, virtue, eternal light, incommunicable reason, highest blessedness; He is the creator of minds to enjoy Himself; He endows them with life to perceive Him, disposes them to long for Him, enlarges them to receive Him, justifies them to be worthy of Him, fires them with zeal, fertilizes them that they may bear fruit, guides them into sweet reasonableness, moulds them to loving-kindness, regulates them for wisdom, strengthens them for virtue, visits them for consolation, illuminates them for knowledge, preserves them for immortality, fills them for happiness, is about their path for safety.

25. What is God? No less the punishment of the perverse than the glory of the humble. We may say He is reason and sweet reasonableness directing itself with fixed unchanging aim, and everywhere operative. Any perversity in collision with that must of necessity be confounded. Of course, all swelling pride and unseemliness which dashes itself against that must be broken to shivers. Woe to all creation if it chance to get in the way of unbending righteousness for that righteousness is strength. There is no more deadly foe of wills wickedly disposed than to be for ever attempting, ever in conflict, and all in vain.

Woe to wills opposed! Surely they only bring upon themselves the penalty of their own reluctance. What penalty is so severe as to be ever choosing what shall never be, ever refusing what shall never cease to be? Is there any hell like a will under this necessity of choosing and refusing, so that whichever way it moves misery must be as constant an attendant as perversity? As long as eternity shall last it will not get its choice; and what it refuses it shall no less through eternity endure. And such a will meets with its due deserts; he who is never disposed for what becomes him, should never attain to what delights him. Who doth this? The righteous Lord our God, who with the perverse also shows Himself perverse. Straight and crooked can never agree, for these are contrary one to the other, though they do not injure one another. One of the two is injured; it cannot be God. ' It is hard for thee', He says, * to kick against the goad': * that is, not hard for the goad, but hard for him who kicks. God is also the punishment of the base, for He is light; and what is so hateful to filthy and degraded minds? Surely, ' Every one that doeth evil hateth the light.' But I say, will they not be able to shun the light? Not in the least. It shines everywhere, though not to all. In a word, it shineth in darkness, and the darkness comprehends it not. The light sees the darkness, for with it seeing and shining are the same thing; but it is not in turn seen by the darkness, because the darkness comprehends it not. They, then, are seen that they may be confounded; and they do not 1 Acts ix. 5. a St. John iii. 20. 3 St. Johu i. 5.

see that they may not be consoled. Nor are they seen only by the light; they are also seen in the light. By what person or persons? By every one who sees, so that the greater the number of beholders the greater may be their confusion. But out of the whole multitude of the spectators there is no eye more troublesome to a man than his own. There is no glance, whether in heaven or on earth, which a benighted conscience would rather escape, or is less capable of escaping. The darkness is not hidden even from itself; though it sees naught else, it sees itself. The works of darkness follow it, and there is no hiding-place from it, not even in the darkness. This is ' the worm that dieth not'l—the memory of the past. Once it gets within, or rather is born within through sin, there it stays, and never by any means can be plucked out. It never ceases to gnaw the conscience; feeding on it as on food that never can be consumed it prolongs the life of misery. I shudder as I contemplate this biting worm, this never-dying death. I shudder at the thought of being the victim of this living death, this dying life.

26. This is the second death, which never kills, but is always killing. Will no one grant them to die once for all that they may not evermore be dying? They who say to the mountains, * Fall on us, and to the hills, cover us,' what do they desire but to put an end to death by the kindness of death, or to escape from it? In short, they will call upon death, and death will not come. I would have you see this clearly. It is certain that the soul is immortal, and so long as it has life it must have memory; for otherwise it might some day cease to be the soul. So then, while the soul lasts, memory also lasts. But what is memory like? It is burdened with foul disgrace, horrid crimes, swelling vanity; through scorning (the better part) it is like a field rough and neglected. These former things have passed away, and have not passed away. They are out of hand, but not out of mind. What has been done cannot be undone; the doing was in time, but the effect of the doing will be eternal. That does not pass with time which passes all times. The wrong-doing that you remember for ever must therefore for ever be a torment. This will be to realize the truth of the words, ' I will reprove thee and set before thine eyes what thou hast done.'* It is the Lord who thus spoke; all that opposes Him must of necessity oppose itself; so that at last there will be the complaint, ' O thou watcher of men, why hast thou set me as a mark for thee, so that I am a burden to myself?' These are the facts, Eugenius. Nothing can contradict God and be consistent with itself; on the contrary, whosoever shall be reproved by God shall be reproved also by himself. When the soul is torn from the body, and stands self-centred, it will be no longer possible for reason to disguise the truth, or for the soul to shun the searching insight of reason. How can it do so when the senses, by means of which, as we know, it was wont to sally forth to gratify its curiosity, and, leaving itself, would find a home in that fashion of the world which passeth away, are sealed up in the slumber of death? Do you see that nothing is wanting to complete the confusion of the filthy whet they shall be brought forth as a spectacle to God, to angel to men, to themselves? How lamentable is the lot of bad men, who must undoubtedly face this torrent of simple equity, and stand exposed to the light of unveiled truth Is not this to be for ever beaten, and to be for ever con- 1 Ps. 1. 21. 2 Job vii. 20.

founded? ' Break them with a double breach, O Lord our God', saith the prophet.

27. What is God? Length, breadth, height, and depth. 'What?' you say. 'You do, after all, profess “to believe in the fourfold Godhead which was an abomination to you.' Not in the least. I abominated, and still abominate it. I may have seemed to express a number of things: I really indicated one. God is designated One to suit our comprehension, not to describe His character; His character is capable of division, He Himself is not. The words are different, the paths are many, but one thing is signified; the paths lead to one Person. No divisions of the Substance are expressed in that fourfold enumeration; no dimensions, such as we contemplate in bodily structures; no distinction of Persons, such as we adore in the Trinity; there is no enumeration of ' properties' such as we confess to be inherent in the Persons, though they are no way distinguishable from the Persons. Moreover, in God each of these is what the four are all together; and the four are just what each one is. We cannot attain to the full conception of the simplicity of God; hence it is that while we strive to apprehend the Unity, it presents itself to us as fourfold. This is the result of our seeing darkly as in a mirror, the only way for the present of seeing God at all. But when we shall see face to face, we shall see Him as He is. When that blessed time shall come, the poor, weak blade of our intellect, however hard it may strike, will not recoil, or be broken to shivers. It will rather concentrate itself, and will conform itself to His unity, or rather to that Unity, so that we shall have one face corresponding to His one face. For 'we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is '. Blessed Vision! well might he sigh for it who said, ' My face hath sought thee: thy face, O Lord, will I seek.’” And as our business is still to seek Him, let us for the present, inasmuch as we are weak and faint, and sorely need such a conveyance, let us mount this four-horse chariot, if haply we may thus lay hold of that for which we have been laid hold of, that is to say, the plan and working of the vehicle itself. For this admonition have we from the charioteer himself, who was the first to show us the chariot—that we strive to ' comprehend with all saints what is the length, and breadth, and height, and depth '. ' Comprehend', he says, not ' know': so that, not content with the curiosity of knowledge we may with all eagerness look for the fruit. The fruit is not to be found in knowledge, but in comprehension. Besides, ' to him who knoweth to do good, and doeth it not,’” as a certain one tells us, 'it is sin'; Paul also elsewhere says, ' So run that ye may comprehend/ * I will point out lower down the meaning of comprehending.

28. What then is God? He is length, I say; and what is length? It is eternity. This is so long that it has no end either in place or time. He is also breadth. And what is breadth? It is love. What bounds shall we set to the love of God, who hateth none of those things which He hath made? In fact, * He maketh his sun to rise upon the good and the bad, and sendeth rain upon the just and unjust.' So then there is room in the Divine bosom for God's enemies also. And not satisfied with this, God's love compasses the infinite. It exceeds not only affection, but knowledge as well, for the Apostle goes on to speak of * knowing the love of Christ which passeth knowledge '. What more shall I say? It is eternal; or, to go a step further, I may perhaps say that it is eternity, You see that the breadth is as great as the length. Would that you saw not only that they are equal, but that they are identical; that they are one and the same thing; no less one than two, no more two than one! God is eternity, God is love; He is length without extension, breadth without distension. In both cases alike He exceeds the narrow limits of space and time, but in virtue of His unfettered nature, not through the vastness of His substance. In such wise He is immeasurable who hath made all things by measure; and although He be immeasurable, His very immensity must be thus * measured '.

29. Once more, what is God? He is height and depth. In the one He is above all things, in the other He is below all things. It is clear that in the Godhead there is no halting inequality; the Godhead stands firmly fixed, immovably self-consistent. Consider 'height' as corresponding to the Divine power, ' depth' to the Divine wisdom. There is a correspondence no less between these two than between the former two, if we perceive that this ' height' is unapproachable, this depth ' unsearchable. Paul marvelled as he cried aloud, ' O the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out! '] We too, as we contemplate both these attributes in God, and their perfect unity with God; may with Paul exclaim, ' O powerful wisdom, reaching from one end of the world to the other with full strength! O wise power, ordering all things sweetly! ' The thing is one, the effect is manifold, the operations are diverse. And that one thing is ' length' because it is eternity; ' breadth ' because it is love; ' height' because it is majesty; ' depth' because it is wisdom.

30. We know these things. We surely do not suppose that we have therefore comprehended them. It is not argument that comprehends them, but holiness, if at least that can any way be comprehended which is incomprehensible. But unless its comprehension were possible, the Apostle would not have said, ' That we may comprehend with all Saints/1 The Saints, therefore, comprehend. Do you ask how? If you are holy you have comprehended, and know; if you are not, be holy and you shall know by your own experience. Holy affection makes a man holy, and that a twofold affection: the holy fear of the Lord, and holy love. When the soul is perfectly possessed by these, it comprehends' as it were with its two arms, embraces, draws close, holds tight, and says, ' I have held Him fast, and will not let Him go; ' * Fear corresponds to ' height' and ' depth ', love to ' breadth ' and ' length '. What is so much to be feared as irresistible power? as wisdom from which there is no hiding? God might have been feared less had He lacked either. But as things are, you must perfectly fear Him who neither wants an all-seeing eye, nor an all-powerful hand. Again, what is so lovable as love itself, whereby you love and are beloved? Yet eternity conjoined with love makes love more lovable; eternal love never fails, and it banishes the suspicion that it ever will. Love, therefore, with perseverance and long-suffering, and the * length ' is yours; extend your love even to your enemies, the ' breadth ' is yours. Fear God with utmost care, and you have laid hold upon the ' height' and ' depth '.

31. If, moreover, you prefer to respond to the four Divine attributes with four affections of your own, you may do so with wonder, fear, zeal, endurance. Most wonderful is the * height' of His Majesty, most worthy to be feared the abyss of His judgements. Divine love demands your zeal, the eternity ° of God portrays your constant endurance.

Who wonders, but he who contemplates the glory of God? Who fears, but he who searches the depth of His wisdom? Who glows with zeal, but he who meditates on the love of God? Who endures and perseveres in love, but he who aspires to copy eternal love? In truth, perseverance is a sort of likeness here to eternity hereafter. In fact it is perseverance alone on which eternity is bestowed; or rather, it is perseverance which bestows man on eternity; as the Lord says, ' He that shall persevere unto the end, the same shall be saved.' 32. And now observe how these four represent four kinds of contemplation. The first and highest form of contemplation is the admiration of the Divine Majesty. If the heart be cleansed, free from vice, and relieved of the burden of its sins, it may hereby be easily raised to things above; the admiring soul may sometimes also for brief intervals be even kept entranced with wonder and amazement. The second must attend the first, for it beholds the judgements of God. It may violently shock the beholder with the fearful vision, but it puts vice to flight, firmly bases virtue, initiates in wisdom, preserves humility. For humility is a good sound foundation of the virtues. If humility, forsooth, be insecure, the whole structure of the virtues is nothing but a ruin. The third kind of contemplation is busy with, or rather leisurely surveys, past benefits; it would not send a man away with ingratitude in his heart, and therefore asks for such an one as is mindful of the love of the benefactor. Concerning such the prophet says to the Lord, ' They shall utter the memory of thy great goodness.' * The fourth kind, forgetting the things that are behind, rests in the expectation of the promises alone; inasmuch as it is meditation on 1 St. Matt. xxiv. 13. 2 Ps. cxlv. 7. 3 Phil. iii. 13.

eternity, for the things promised are eternal, it fosters a spirit of long-suffering, and gives strength to perseverance. It is now easy, I suppose, to adapt these four to the four in the Apostle's list; meditation on the promises coincides with the length ', the remembrance of benefits with the ' breadth ', the contemplation of God's Majesty with the * height', the consideration of His judgements with the ' depth '. He should have been further sought who is not yet found to the satisfying of our souls, nor can be sought enough. But perhaps He is more worthily sought through prayer than through dialectics, and more easily found. With this let us end the book—but not our search for Him.