Sermons on Selected Lessons of the New Testament 67

sant'Agostino d'Ippona (354–430 d.C.) · Sermones de Scripturis · PL 38, 332–799

67.0 On the words of the Gospel, John i. 1, ‘In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God,’ etc. Against the Arians PL 38, 661

[CXVII. Ben.]

On the words of the Gospel, John i. 1, “In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God,” etc. Against the Arians.

67.1 On the words of the Gospel, John i. 1, ‘In the beginning was the word, and the word was with God, and the word was God,’ etc. Against the Arians PL 38, 661

1. The section of the Gospel which has been read, most dearly beloved brethren, looketh for the pure eye of the heart. For from John’s Gospel we have understood our Lord Jesus Christ according to His Divinity for the creating of the whole creation, and according to His Humanity for the recovery of the creature fallen. Now in this same Gospel we find what sort and how great a man was John, that from the dignity of the dispenser it may be understood of how great a price is the Word which could be announced by such a man; yea, rather how without price is That which surpasseth all things. For any purchasable thing is either equal to the price, or it is below it, or it exceeds it. When any one procures a thing for as much as it is worth, the price is equal to the thing which is procured; when for less, it is below it; when for more, it exceeds it. But to the Word of God nothing can either be equalled, or to exchange can anything be below It, or above It. For all things can be below the Word of God, for that “all things were made by Him;” yet are they not in such wise below, as if they were the price of the Word, that any one should give something to receive That. Yet if we may say so, and if any principle or custom of speaking admit this expression, the price for procuring the Word, is the procurer himself, who will have given himself for himself to This Word. Accordingly when we buy anything we look out for something to give, that for the price we give we may have the thing we wish to buy. And that which we give is without us; and if it was with us before, what we give becomes without us, that that which we procure may be with us. Whatever price the purchaser may find it, it must needs be such as that he gives what he has, and receives what he has not; yet so that he from whom the price goes himself remains, and that for which he gives the price is added to him. But whoso would procure this Word, whoso would have it, let him not seek for anything without himself to give, let him give himself. And when he shall have done this, he doth not lose himself, as he loseth the price when he buys anything.

Verbum Dei ut intelligatur, quo pretio comparandum. Capitulum Evangelii quod lectum est, fratres dilectissimi, purum oculum cordis inquirit. Dominum enim nostrum Jesum Christum accepimus secundum divinitatem ad condendam universam creaturam, secundum humanitatem ad reparandam lapsam creaturam, evangelizante Joanne. In ipso autem Evangelio qualis et quantus vir Joannes fuerit, invenimus, ut ex dignitate dispensatoris intelligatur quanti pretii sit Verbum, quod per talem dici potuit: imo quam nullius pretii sit quod superat omnia. Pretio enim aut comparatur res venalis, aut subjicitur, aut excedit eam. Quando tanto quisque comparat quanto valet, aequatur pretium rei quae comparatur: quando vilius, subjicitur ei: quando carius, superat eam. Verbo autem Dei nec aequari aliquid potest, nec ad mutationem subjici, nec superponi aliquid. Subjici enim omnia possunt Verbo Dei, quia omnia per ipsum facta sunt: non tamen subjiciuntur, quasi pretium sint Verbi, ut quisque det aliquid, ut illud accipiat. Tamen si dici potest, et admittit nomen hoc ratio aliqua vel loquendi consuetudo, pretium comparandi Verbi ipse comparator est, qui se ipsum pro se ipso dederit huic Verbo. Itaque quando aliquid emimus, quaerimus aliquid quod demus, ut habeamus rem dato pretio quam volumus emere. Et extra nos est quod damus; et si apud nos erat, fit extra nos illud quod damus, ut sit apud nos illud quod comparamus. Quidquid pretii invenerit qui emit aliquid, necesse est ut tale inveniat, ut det quod habet, et accipiat quod non habet; maneat tamen ille a quo abscedit pretium, et accedat illud pro quo dat pretium. Qui autem vult comparare Verbum hoc, qui vult habere, non quaerat extra se ipsum quod det, se ipsum det. Quod cum fecerit, non se amittit, sicut amittit pretium, quando aliquid emit.

67.2 PL 38, 662

2. The Word of God then is set forth before all men; let them who can, procure It, and they can who have a godly will. For in That Word is peace; and “peace on earth is to men of good will.” So then whoso will procure it, let him give himself. This is as it were the price of the Word, if so it may in any way be said, when he that giveth doth not lose himself, and gaineth the Word for which he giveth himself, and gaineth himself too in the Word to whom he giveth himself. And what giveth he to the Word? Not ought that is any other’s than His, for whom he giveth himself; but what by the Same Word was made, that is given back to Him to be remade; “All things were made by Him.” If all things, then of course man too. If the heaven, and earth, and sea, and all things that are therein, if the whole creation; of course more manifestly he, who being made after the image of God by the Word was made man.

Pretium Verbi ipse homo. Verbum ergo Dei propositum est omnibus: comparent qui possunt; possunt autem qui pie voluerint. In illo enim Verbo pax: et pax in terra hominibus bonae voluntatis . Ergo qui vult comparare, det se ipsum. Quasi pretium est hoc Verbi, si dici aliquo modo potest, quando nec se perdit qui dat, et acquirit Verbum pro quo se dat, et se ipsum in Verbo acquirit cui se dat. Et quid dat Verbo? Non aliquid ab ipso alienum, pro quo se dat; sed quod per ipsum Verbum factum est, hoc ei redditur ut reficiatur. Omnia per ipsum facta sunt. Si omnia, utique et homo. Si coelum, si terra, si mare, si omnia quae in ipsis sunt, si universa creatura; utique ille manifestius, qui ad imaginem Dei factus per Verbum factus est homo.

67.3 PL 38, 662

3. I am not now, brethren, discussing how the words, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” can be understood. After an ineffable sort it may be understood; it cannot by the words of man he made to be understood. I am treating of the Word of God, and telling you why It is not understood. I am not now speaking to make It understood, but I tell you what hinders It from being understood. For He is a certain Form, a Form not formed, but the Form of all things formed; a Form unchangeable, without failure, without decay, without thee, without place, surpassing all things, being in all things, as at once a kind of foundation in which they are, and a Head-stone under which they are. If you say that all things are in Him, you lie not. For This Word is called the Wisdom of God; and we have it written, “In Wisdom hast Thou made all things.” Lo, then in Him are all things: and yet in that He is God, under Him are all things. I am showing how incomprehensible is what has been read; yet it has been read, not that it should be comprehended by man, but that man should sorrow that he comprehends it not, and find out whereby he is hindered from comprehending, and remove those hindrances, and, himself changed from worse to better, aspire after the perception of the unchangeable Word. For the Word doth not advance or increase by the addition of those who know It; but is Entire, if thou abide; Entire, if thou depart; Entire, when thou dost return; abiding in Itself, and renewing all things. It is then the Form of all things, the Form unfashioned, without thee, as I have said, and without space. For whatsoever is contained in space, is circumscribed. Every form is circumscribed by bounds; it hath limits wherefrom and whereunto it reaches. Again, what is contained in place, and has extension in a sort of bulk and space, is less in its parts than in the whole. God grant that ye may understand.

Verbum Dei forma quaedam non formata. Forma sine tempore et loco. Non modo, fratres, tractamus, quomodo possit intelligi quod dictum est. In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum. Ineffabiliter potest intelligi: non verbis hominis fit ut intelligatur. Verbum Dei tractamus, et dicimus quare non intelligatur. Non nunc dicimus ut intelligatur, sed dicimus quid impediat ne intelligatur. Est enim forma quaedam, forma non formata, sed forma omnium formatorum: forma incommutabilis, sine lapsu, sine defectu, sine tempore, sine loco, superans omnia, existens omnibus et fundamentum quoddam in quo sint, et fastigium sub quo sint. Si dicis quia omnia in illo sunt, non mentiris. Dictum est enim ipsum Verbum Sapientia Dei: habemus autem scriptum, Omnia in Sapientia fecisti . Ergo in illo sunt omnia: et tamen quia Deus est, sub illo sunt omnia. Dicimus quam incomprehensibile sit quod lectum est: tamen lectum est, non ut comprehenderetur ab homine, sed ut doleret homo quia non comprehendit, et inveniret unde impeditur a comprehensione, et removeret ea, et inhiaret perceptioni incommutabilis Verbi, ipse ex deteriore in melius commutatus. Non enim Verbum proficit aut crescit accedente cognitore: sed integrum, si permanseris; integrum, si recesseris; integrum, cum redieris; manens in se, et innovans omnia. Ergo est forma omnium rerum, forma infabricata, sine tempore, ut diximus, et sine spatiis locorum. Quidquid enim loco capitur, circumscribitur. Forma circumscribitur finibus, habet metas unde et quousque sit. Deinde quod loco capitur et mole quadam et spatio distenditur, minus est in parte, quam in toto. Faciat Deus ut intelligatis.

67.4 PL 38, 663

4. Now from the bodies which are day by day before our eyes, which we see, which we touch, among which we live, we are able to judge how that every body hath a form in space. Now everything which occupies a certain space, is less in its parts than in its whole. The arm, for instance, is a part of the human body; of course the arm is less than the whole body. And if the arm be less, it occupies a smaller space. So again the head, in that it is a part of the body, is contained in less space, and is less than the whole body of which it is the head. So all things which are in space, are less in their several parts than in the whole. Let us entertain no such idea, no such thought concerning That Word. Let us not form our conceptions of spiritual things from the suggestion of the flesh. That Word, That God, is not less in part than in the whole.

Non minor in parte quam in toto. Quotidie autem de corporibus, quae ante oculos nostros sunt, quae videmus, quae tangimus, inter quae sumus, possumus judicare corpus quodlibet in loco habere formam. Omne autem quod spatium loci occupat, minus est in parte quam in toto. Pars corporis humani, verbi gratia, brachium: utique minus est brachium quam totum corpus. Et si minus est brachium, breviorem locum occupat. Item caput, quia pars est corporis, in minore loco est, et minus est quam totum corpus, cui caput est. Sic omnia quae sunt in loco, minora sunt in parte quam in toto. Nihil tale de illo Verbo sentiamus, nihil tale cogitemus. Non de suggestione carnis spiritualia imaginemur. Non est ille Sermo, non est ille Deus minor in parte quam in toto.

67.5 PL 38, 663

5. But thou art not able to conceive of any such thing. Such ignorance is more pious than presumptuous knowledge. For we are speaking of God. It is said, “And the Word was God.” We are speaking of God; what marvel, if thou do not comprehend? For if thou comprehend, He is not God. Be there a pious confession of ignorance, rather than a rash profession of knowledge. To reach to God in any measure by the mind, is a great blessedness; but to comprehend Him, is altogether impossible. God is an object for the mind, He is to be understood; a body is for the eyes, it is to be seen. But thinkest thou that thou comprehendest a body by the eye? Thou canst not at all. For whatever thou lookest at, thou dost not see the whole. If thou seest a man’s face, thou dost not see his back at the time thou seest the face; and when thou seest the back, thou dost not at that time see the face. Thou dost not then so see, as to comprehend; but when thou seest another part which thou hadst not seen before, unless memory aid thee to remember that thou hast seen that from which thou dost withdraw, thou couldest never say that thou hadst comprehended anything even on the surface. Thou handlest what thou seest, turnest it about on this side and that, or thyself dost go round it to see the whole. In one view then thou canst not see the whole. And as long as thou turnest it about to see it, thou art but seeing the parts; and by putting together that thou hast seen the other parts, thou dost fancy that thou seest the whole. But this must not be understood as the sight of the eyes, but the activity of the memory. What then can be said, Brethren, of that Word? Lo, of the bodies which are before our eyes we say they cannot comprehend them by a glance; what eye of the heart then comprehendeth God? Enough that it reach to Him if the eye be pure. But if it reach, it reacheth by a sort of incorporeal and spiritual touch, yet it doth not comprehend; and that, only if it be pure. And a man is made blessed by touching with the heart That which ever abideth Blessed; and that is this Very Everlasting Blessedness, and that Everlasting Life, whereby man is made to live; that Perfect Wisdom, whereby man is made wise; that Everlasting Light, whereby man becomes enlightened. And see how by this touch thou art made what thou wast not, thou dost not make that thou touchest be what it was not before. I repeat it, there grows no increase to God from them that know Him, but to them that know Him, from the knowledge of God. Let us not suppose, dearly beloved Brethren, that we confer any benefit on God, because I have said that we give Him in a manner a price. For we do not give Him aught whereby He can be increased, Who when thou fallest away, is Entire, and when thou returnest, abideth Entire, ready to make Himself seen that He may bless those who turn to Him, and punish those with blindness who turn away. For by this blindness, as the beginning of punishment, doth He first execute vengeance on the soul that turns away from Him. For whoso turns away from the True Light, that is from God, is at once made blind. He is not yet sensible of his punishment, but he hath it already.

In rebus divinis pia ignorantia melior quam praesumpta scientia. Oculo cordis Deus incomprehensibilis. Dei cognitione fit homo beatus. Deus ex notra cognitione non crescit. Sed non potes tale aliquid cogitare. Magis pia est talis ignorantia, quam praesumpta scientia. Loquimur enim de Deo. Dictum est, Et Deus erat Verbum. De Deo loquimur, quid mirum si non comprehendis? Si enim comprehendis, non est Deus. Sit pia confessio ignorantiae magis, quam temeraria professio scientiae. Attingere aliquantum mente Deum; magna beatitudo est: comprehendere autem, omnino impossibile. Ad mentem Deus pertinet, intelligendus est: ad oculos corpus, videndum est. Sed corpus oculo comprehendere te putas? Omnino non potes. Quidquid enim aspicis, non totum aspicis. Cujus hominis faciem vides, dorsum non vides eo tempore quo faciem vides: et quando dorsum vides, eo tempore faciem non vides. Non sic ergo vides, ut comprehendas: sed quando aspicis aliam partem, quam non videras, nisi memoria tecum faciat ut memineris te vidisse unde recedis, nunquam te dixeris aliquid vel in superficie comprehendisse. Tractas quod vides, versas huc atque illuc, vel ipse circuis ut totum videas. Uno ergo aspectu totum videre non potes. Et quamdiu versas ut videas, partes, vides: et contexendo quia vidisti alias partes, videris totum inspicere. Non autem hic oculorum visus, sed memoriae vivacitas intelligitur. Quid ergo de illo Verbo, fratres, dici potest? Ecce de corporibus dicimus subjacentibus oculis nostris, non illa possunt comprehendere aspectu: quis ergo oculus cordis comprehendit Deum? Sufficit ut attingat, si purus est oculus. Si autem attingit, tactu quodam attingit incorporeo et spirituali, non tamen comprehendit; et hoc, si purus est. Et homo fit beatus contingendo corde illud quod semper beatum manet: et est illud ipsa beatitudo perpetua, et unde fit homo vivus, vita perpetua; unde fit homo sapiens, sapientia perfecta; unde homo fit illuminatus, lumen sempiternum est. Et vide quemadmodum tu contingendo efficeris quod non eras, non illud quod contingis facis esse quod non erat. Hoc dico, Deus non crescit ex cognitore, sed cognitor ex cognitione Dei.

67.6 PL 38, 664

6. Accordingly, dearly beloved brethren, let us understand that the Word of God is incorporeally, inviolably, unchangeably, without temporal nativity, yet born of God. Do we think that we can any how persuade certain unbelievers that that is not it, consistent with the truth, which is said by us according to the Catholic faith, which is contrary to the Arians, by whom the Church of God hath been often tried, forasmuch as carnal men receive with greater ease what they have been accustomed to see? For some have dared to say, “The Father is greater than the Son, and precedes Him in thee;” that is, the Father is greater than the Son, and the Son is less than the Father, and is preceded by the Father in thee. And they argue thus; “If He was born, of course the Father was before His Son was born to Him.” Attend; may He be with me, whilst your prayers assist me, and with godly heed desire to receive what He may give, what He may suggest to me; may He be with me, that I may be able in some sort to explain what I have begun. Yet, brethren, I tell you before I begin, if I shall not be able to explain it, do not suppose that it is the failure of the proof, but of the man. Accordingly I exhort and entreat you to pray; that the mercy of God may be with me, and make the matter be so explained by me, as is meet for you to hear, and for me to speak. They then say thus; “If He be the Son of God, He was born.” This we confess. For He would not be a Son, if He were not born. It is plain, the faith admits it, the Catholic Church approves it, it is truth. They then go on; “If the Son was born to the Father, the Father was before the Son was born to Him.” This the faith rejects, Catholic ears reject it, it is anathematized, whoso entertains this conceit is without, he belongs not to the fellowship and society of the saints. Then says he, “Give me an explanation, how the Son could be born to the Father, and yet be coeval with Him of whom He was born?”

Verbum coaeternum Patri asseritur contra Arianos. Itaque Verbum Dei, fratres charissimi, incorporaliter, inviolabiliter, incommutabiliter, sine temporali nativitate, natum tamen intelligamus a Deo. Putamusne possumus aliquo modo persuadere quibusdam infidelibus non abhorrere a vero, quod dicitur a nobis fide catholica, quae contraria est Arianis, a quibus Ecclesia Dei saepe tentata est, cum carnales homines id facilius accipiunt quod videre consueverunt? Ausi sunt enim quidam dicere, Major est Pater Filio, et praecedit eum tempore: id est, major est Filio Pater, et minor est Patre Filius, et a Patre in tempore praeceditur. Et sic disputant: Si natus est, utique erat Pater antequam Filius illi esset natus. Attendite: adsit ipse nobis, adjuvantibus orationibus vestris, et pia intentione excipere cupientibus quod ipse donaverit, quod ipse suggesserit; adsit nobis, ut possimus quoquo modo explicare quod coepimus. Tamen, fratres, ante dico, si non potuero ego explicare, non rationem putetis, sed hominem defecisse. Itaque vos hortor et deprecor ut oretis: adsit misericordia Dei, et ita rem a nobis dici faciat, ut vos audire oportet, et nos dicere. Hoc ergo illi dicunt: Si Filius Dei est, natus est. Hoc fatemur. Non enim esset Filius, si natus non esset. Manifestum est, admittit fides, approbat Ecclesia catholica, verum est. Adjungunt deinde: Si natus est Patri Filius, erat Pater antequam ei Filius nasceretur. Hoc respuit fides, respuunt aures catholicae; anathematur, extra est qui hoc sapit, non pertinet ad participationem societatemque sanctorum. Ergo, ait, rationem mihi redde, quomodo et Filius potuit nasci Patri, et coaevus esse ei a quo natus est?

67.7 PL 38, 665

7. And what can we do, brethren, when we are conveying lessons of spiritual things to carnal men; even if so be we ourselves too are not carnal, when we intimate these spiritual truths to carnal men, to men accustomed to the idea of earthly nativities, and seeing the order of these creatures, where succession and departure separates off in age them that beget and them that are begotten? For after the father the son is born, to succeed the father, who in time of course must die. This do we find in men, this in other animals, that the parents are first, the children after them in time. Through this custom of observation they desire to transfer carnal things to spiritual, and by their intentness on carnal things are more easily led into error. For it is not the reason of the hearers which follows those who preach such things, but custom which even entangles themselves, that they do preach such things. And what shall we do? Shall we keep silence? Would that we might! For perchance by silence something might be thought of worthy of the unspeakable subject. For whatsoever cannot be spoken, is unspeakable. Now God is unspeakable. For if the Apostle Paul saith, that he “was caught up even unto the third heaven, and that he heard unspeakable words;” how much more unspeakable is He, who showed such things, which could not be spoken by him to whom they were shown? So then, brethren, it were better if we could keep silence, and say, “This the faith contains; so we believe; thou art not able to receive it, thou art but a babe; thou must patiently endure till thy wings be grown, lest when thou wouldest fly without wings, it should not be the free course of liberty, but the fall of temerity.” What do they say against this? “O if he had anything to say, he would say it to me. This is the mere excuse of one who is at fault. He is overcome by the truth, who does not choose to answer.” He to whom this is said, if he make no answer, though he be not conquered in himself is yet conquered in the wavering brethren. For the weak brethren hear it, and they think that there is really nothing to be said; and perhaps they think right that there is nothing to be said, yet not that there is nothing to be felt. For a man can express nothing which he cannot also feel; but he may feel something which he cannot express.

Divina carnalibus insinuare difficile. Et quid facimus, fratres, quando carnalibus spiritualia insinuamus: si tamen et nos ipsi non carnales sumus, quando carnalibus ista spiritualia intimamus, homini assuefacto nativitate terrena, et videnti istius creaturae ordinem, ubi successus et decessus, gignentes et genitos aetate distinguit? Post patrem enim nascitur filius, patri utique morituro successurus. Hoc in hominibus, hoc in aliis animantibus invenimus, parentes priores tempore, filios tempore posteriores. Hac consuetudine videndi, carnalia transferre illi ad spiritualia cupiunt, et intentione carnalium facilius seducuntur. Non enim ratio audientium sequitur talia praedicantes, sed consuetudo, quae etiam ipsos insolvit, ut talia praedicarent. Et quid facimus nos? Silebimus? Utinam liceret. Forsitan enim silendo aliquid dignum de re ineffabili cogitaretur. Nam quidquid potest fari, non est ineffabile. Ineffabilis est autem Deus. Si enim raptum se dicit usque in tertium coelum apostolus Paulus, et dicit se audisse ineffabilia verba ; quanto magis ipse ineffabilis, qui talia demonstravit, quae fari non possit cui demonstrata sunt? Itaque, fratres, melius erat si possemus tacere, et dicere: Hoc habet fides, sic credimus: non potes capere, parvulus es: patienter tolerandum, donec pennas nutrias; ne cum volare implumis volueris, non sit illa aura libertatis, sed casus temeritatis. Quid illi contra? O si haberet quod diceret, diceret mihi! Deficienti ista excusatio est. Victus est veris, qui respondere non vult. Ille cui hoc dicitur, si non respondeat, etsi in se ipso victus non est, vincitur tamen in titubantibus fratribus. Audiunt enim fratres infirmi, et putant revera non esse quod dicatur: et forsitan verum putant, non esse quod dicatur, non tamen non esse quod sentiatur. Homo enim nihil potest dicere, quod non etiam sentire possit: potest etiam aliquid sentire, quod dicere non possit.

67.8 PL 38, 665

8. Nevertheless, saving the unspeakableness of that Sovereign Majesty, lest when we shall have produced certain similitudes against them, any one should think that we have by them arrived at that which cannot be expressed or conceived by babes (and if it can be at all even by the more advanced, it can only be in part, only in a riddle, only “through a glass;” but not as yet, “face to face”), let us too produce certain similitudes against them, whereby they may be refuted, not “it” comprehended. For when we say that it may very possibly happen, that it may be understood, that He may both be born, and yet Coeternal with Him of whom He was born, in order to refute this, and prove it as it were to be false, they bring forth similitudes against us. From whence? From the creatures, and they say to us, “Every man of course was before he begat a son, he is greater in age than his son; and so a horse was before he begat his foal, and a sheep, and the other animals.” Thus do they bring similitudes from the creatures.

Similitudines ad refellendos Arianos adhibendae. Tamen servata illius majestatis ineffabilitate, ne cum aliquas similitudines contra illos dederimus, putet nos aliquis per istas similitudines jam pervenisse ad id quod nec dici nec cogitari a parvulis potest (certe et si potest ab aliquibus majoribus, potest ex parte, potest in aenigmate, potest per speculum; nondum autem facie ad faciem); demus et nos aliquas similitudines adversus illos, unde illi refellantur, non unde illud capiatur. Etenim cum dicimus valde posse fieri, posse intelligi, ut et natus sit et coaeternus sit ei a quo natus est, ut hoc refellant et quasi falsum esse demonstrent, similitudines nobis dant. Unde? De creatura: et dicunt nobis, Homo utique erat antequam generaret filium, major est filio suo: et equus erat antequam generaret filium, et ovis, et caetera animalia. Similitudines adhibent de creaturis.

67.9 PL 38, 666

9. What! must we labour too, that we may find resemblances of those things which we are establishing? And what if I should not find any, might I not rightly say, “The Nativity of the Creator hath, it may be, no resemblance of itself among the creatures? For as far as He surpasseth the things which are here, in that He is there, so far doth He surpass the things which are born here, in that He was born there. All things here have their being from God; and yet what is to be compared with God? So all things which are born here, are born by His agency. And so perhaps there is no resemblance of His Nativity found, as there is none found whether of His Substance, Unchangeableness, Divinity, Majesty. For what can be found here like these? If then it chance that no resemblance of His Nativity either be found, am I therefore overwhelmed, because I have not found resemblances to the Creator of all things, when desiring to find in the creature what is like the Creator?”

Similitudinibus tamen non nititur nostra fides de Verbo. Quid, nobis laborandum est, ut et nos inveniamus similitudines earum rerum quas astruimus? Quid? si non invenirem, non recte possem dicere, Nativitas Creatoris fortasse similitudinem in creatura non habet? Quanto enim superat ea quae hic sunt in eo quod ibi est, tanto superat ea quae hic nascuntur in eo quod ibi natus est. Omnia per Deum hic sunt: et quid tamen est comparandum Deo? Sic omnia quae hic nascuntur, illo efficiente nascuntur. Et sic forsitan non invenitur aliqua similitudo nativitatis ejus, quomodo non invenitur et substantiae ejus, et immutabilitatis, divinitatis, majestatis ejus. Quid enim simile hic inveniri potest? Si ergo forsitan nec nativitatis similitudo inveniatur, numquid inde oppressus sum, quia non inveni similitudines Creatori omnium, in creatura cupiens invenire quod esset simile Creatori?

67.10 PL 38, 666

10. And in very truth, Brethren, I am not likely to discover any temporal resemblances which I can compare to eternity. But as to those which thou hast discovered, what are they? What hast thou discovered? That a father is greater in time than his son; and therefore thou wouldest have the Son of God to be less in time than the Eternal Father, because thou hast found that a son is less than a father born in time. Find me an eternal father here, and thou hast found a resemblance. Thou findest a son less than a father in time, a temporal son less than a temporal father. Hast thou found me a temporal son younger than eternal father? Seeing then that in Eternity is stability, but in time variety; in Eternity all things stand still, in time one thing comes, another succeeds; thou canst find a son of lesser age succeeding his father in the variety of time, for that he himself succeeded to his father also, not a son born in time to a father eternal. How then, Brethren, can we find in the creature aught coeternal, when in the creature we find nothing eternal? Do thou find an eternal father in the creature, and I will find a coeternal son. But if thou find not an eternal father, and the one surpasses the other in thee; it is sufficient, that for a resemblance I find something coeval. For what is coeternal is one thing what is coeval another. Every day we call them coeval who have the same measure of times; the one is not preceded by the other in time, yet they both whom we call coeval once began to “be.” Now if I shall be able to discover something which is born coeval with that of which it is born; if two coeval things can be discovered, that which begets, and that which is begotten; we discover in this case things coeval, let us understand in the other things coeternal. If here I shall find that a thing begotten hath begun to be ever since that which begets began to be, we may understand at least that the Son of God did not begin to be, ever since He that begat Him did not begin to be. Lo, brethren, perhaps we may discover something in the creature, which is born of something else, and which yet began to be at the same time as that of which it is born began to be. In the latter case, the one began to be when the other began to be; in the former the one did not begin to be, ever since the other began not to be. The first then is coeval, the second coeternal.

Similitudines nativitatis Filii Dei imperfectae in creaturis. Coaevum et coaeternum. Et revera, fratres, non sum inventurus temporales similitudines, quas aeternitati possim comparare. Sed et tu quas invenisti, quid sunt? Quid enim invenisti? Quia pater major est tempore quam filius: et ideo vis ut Filius Dei tempore minor sit quam Pater aeternus, quia invenisti minorem filium patre temporali. Da mihi aeternum patrem hic, et invenisti similitudinem. Filium minorem invenis patre in tempore, filium temporalem minorem patre temporali. Numquid invenisti mihi filium temporalem minorem aeterno patre?

67.11 PL 38, 667

11. I suppose that your holiness has understood already what I am saying, that temporal things cannot be compared to eternal; but that by some slight and small resemblance, things coeval may be with things coeternal. Let us find accordingly two coeval things; and let us get our hints as to these resemblances from the Scriptures. We read in the Scriptures of Wisdom, “For she is the Brightness of the Everlasting Light.” Again we read, “The unspotted Mirror of the Majesty of God.” Wisdom Herself is called, “The Brightness of the Everlasting Light,” is called, “The Image of the Father;” from hence let us take a resemblance, that we may find two coeval things, from which we may understand things coeternal. O thou Arian, if I shall find that something that begets does not precede in time that which it begat, that a thing begotten is not less in time than that of which it is begotten; it is but just that thou concede to me, that these coeternals may be found in the Creator, when coevals can be found in the creature. I think that this indeed occurs already to some brethren. For some anticipated me as soon as I said, “For She is the Brightness of the Everlasting Light.” For the fire throws out light, light is thrown out from the fire. If we ask which comes from which, every day when we light a candle are we reminded of some invisible and indescribable thing, that the candle as it were of our understanding may be lighted in this night of the world. Observe him who lights a candle. While the candle is not lighted, there is as yet no fire, nor any brightness which proceedeth from the fire. But I ask, saying, “Does the brightness come from the fire, or the fire from the brightness?” Every soul answers me (for it has pleased God to sow the beginnings of understanding and wisdom in every soul); every soul answers me, and no one doubts, that that brightness comes from the fire, not the fire from the brightness. Let us then look at the fire as the father of that brightness; for I have said before that we are looking for things coeval, not coeternal. If I desire to light a candle, there is as yet no fire there, nor yet that brightness; but immediately that I have lighted it, together with the fire comes forth the brightness also. Give me then here a fire without brightness, and I believe you that the Father ever was without the Son.

In coaevis similitudo quaedam Verbi coaeterni Deo. Ignis et lux coaeva. Arbitror Sanctitatem vestram jam intellexisse quod dico, non posse comparari temporalia aeternis; sed posse ex aliqua tenui et parva similitudine coaeva coaeternis. Inveniamus itaque coaeva, et de Scripturis admoneamur ad has similitudines. Legimus in Scripturis de ipsa Sapientia, Candor est enim lucis aeternae. Item legimus, Speculum sine macula Dei majestatis . Ipsa Sapientia dicta est candor lucis aeternae, dicta est imago Patris: hinc capiamus similitudinem, ut inveniamus coaeva, ex quibus intelligamus coaeterna. O Ariane, si invenero genitorem non praecedere tempore illud quod genuit, si genitum non esse minorem tempore illo a quo generatus est; justum est ut concedas mihi posse ista coaeterna inveniri in Creatore, quando coaeva in creatura inveniri potuerunt. Jam quidem aliquibus fratribus hoc occurrere puto. Nam praevenerunt aliqui ex quo dixi, Candor est enim lucis aeternae. Ignis enim lucem fundit, lux ab igne funditur. Quid a quo existat, si quaeramus, quotidie cum lucernam accendimus, admonemur rei cujusdam invisibilis et inenarrabilis, ut lucerna aliqua intelligentiae nostrae in ista nocte saeculi possit accendi. Attende eum qui lucernam accendit. Non accensa lucerna, nondum est ignis, nondum est et fulgor qui ab igne exit. Interrogo autem ego, et dico: Fulgor ab igne existit, an ignis a fulgore? Omnis anima mihi respondet: voluit enim Deus inseminare omni animae initia intellectus, initia sapientiae: omnis mihi anima respondet, et nemo dubitat, quod splendor ille de igne existit, non ignis de splendore. Ponamus ergo ignem patrem illius splendoris: quia jam praelocuti sumus coaeva nos quaerere, non coaeterna. Si lucernam accendere cupio, nondum est ibi ignis, nondum et ille splendor: mox autem ut accendero, simul cum igne et splendor existit. Da hic mihi ignem sine splendore, et credo tibi Patrem fuisse sine Filio.

67.12 PL 38, 667

12. Attend; The matter has been explained by me as so great a matter could be, by the Lord helping the earnestness of your prayers, and the preparation of your heart, ye have taken in as much as ye were able to receive. Yet these things are ineffable. Do not suppose that anything worthy of the subject has been spoken, if it only be for that things carnal are compared with coeternal, things temporal with things abiding ever, things subject to extinction to things immortal. But inasmuch as the Son is said also to be the Image of the Father, let us take from this too a sort of resemblance, though in things very different, as I have said before. The image of a man looking into a glass is thrown out from the glass. But this cannot assist us for the clearing of that which we are endeavouring in some sort to explain. For it is said to me, “A man who looks into a glass of course, ‘was’ already, and was born before that. The image came out only as soon as he looked at himself. For a man who looks in a glass, ‘was’ before he came to the glass.” What then shall we find, from which we may be able to draw out such a resemblance, as we did from the fire and the brightness? Let us find one from a very little thing. You know without any difficulty how water often throws out the images of bodies. I mean, when any one is passing, or standing still along the water, he sees his own image there. Let us suppose then something born on the water’s side, as a shrub, or an herb, is it not born together with its image? As soon as ever it begins to be, its image begins to be with it, it does not precede in its birth its own image; it cannot be showed to me that anything is born upon the water’s side, and that its image has appeared afterwards, whereas it first appeared without its image; but it is born together with its image; and yet the image comes from it, not it from the image. It is born then together with its image, and the shrub and its image begin to be together. Dost thou not confess that the image is begotten of that shrub, not the shrub of the image? So then thou dost confess that the image is from that shrub. Accordingly that which begets and that which is begotten began to “be” together. Therefore they are coeval. If the shrub had been always, the image from the shrub would have been always too. Now that which has its being from something else, is of course born of it. It is possible then that one that begets might always be, and always be together with that which was born of him. For here it was that we were in perplexity and trouble, how the Eternal Nativity might be understood. So then the Son of God is so called on this principle, that there is the Father also, that He hath One from whom He derives His Being; not on this, that the Father is first in time, and the Son after. The Father always was, the Son always from the Father. And because whatever “is” from another thing, is born, therefore the Son was always born. The Father always was, the image from Him always was; as that image of the shrub was born of the shrub, and if the shrub had always been, the image would also have always been born from the shrub. Thou couldest not find things begotten coeternal with the eternal begetters, but thou hast found things born coeval with those that begat them in time. I understand the Son coeternal with the Eternal who begat Him. For what with regard to things of time is coeval, with regard to things eternal is coeternal.

Alia coaeva, imago et res unde nascitur. Attendite: dicta est ut potuit a nobis tanta res dici, Domino adjuvante intentionem orationis vestrae et praeparationem cordis vestri, excepistis quantum capere potuistis. Illa tamen ineffabilia sunt. Nihil dignum putetis dictum, vel eo ipso quo coaeva coaeternis comparantur, temporalia semper manentibus, exstinguibilia immortalibus. Sed quia dictus est Filius et imago Patris, accipiamus et hinc aliquam similitudinem in rebus longe differentibus, ut praelocuti sumus. Imago existit de speculo hominis intuentis speculum. Non nobis potest suffragari ad evidentiam rei hujus, quam explicare utcumque conamur. Etenim dicitur mihi: Ille qui attendit speculum, jam utique erat, et jam natus erat. Existit imago mox ut aspector exstiterit. Nam ille qui inspicit, erat et antequam accederet ad speculum. Quid ergo inveniemus, unde possimus eruere talem similitudinem, sicut eruimus de igne et splendore? Faciamus a minimo. Facile nostis quemadmodum aqua corporum saepe reddat imagines. Hoc dicimus; quando quisque vel transit super aquam vel stat, videt ibi imaginem suam. Ponamus ergo aliquid natum super aquam, velut virgultum aut herbam, nonne cum imagine sua nascitur? Mox ut incipit existere, incipit cum illo existere imago ejus, non praecedit nascendo imaginem suam: non mihi ostenditur natum esse aliquid super aquam, et postea apparuisse imaginem ejus, cum illud sine imagine prius appareret; sed nascitur cum imagine sua: et tamen imago ab illo, non illud ab imagine. Nascitur ergo cum imagine sua, et simul esse incipiunt virgultum et imago ejus. Numquid non fateris imaginem esse de illo virgulto, non virgultum de imagine genitum? Ergo de illo virgulto confiteris imaginem. Itaque et generans, et quod genitum est, simul esse coeperunt. Ergo coaeva sunt. Si semper virgultum, semper et imago de virgulto. Quod autem de alio est, utique natum est. Potest ergo semper esse generans, et semper cum illo quod de illo natum est. Ibi enim aestuabamus, ibi laborabamus, quomodo intelligeretur sempiterna nativitas. Ergo filius Dei secundum hoc dicitur, quod et Pater est, quod habet de quo sit: non secundum hoc, quod prior esset Pater, et postea Filius. Semper Pater, semper Filius de Patre. Et quia quidquid de aliquo est, natum est; semper igitur Filius natus. Semper Pater, semper de illo imago; quomodo imago illa virgulti de virgulto nata est, et si semper virgultum, semper nata esset et imago de virgulto. Non potuisti invenire coaeterna genita aeternis genitoribus, et invenisti coaeva nata temporalibus gignentibus. Intelligo coaeternum Filium natum aeterno gignenti. Quod enim est temporali coaevum, hoc est aeterno coaeternum.

67.13 PL 38, 668

13. Here there is somewhat for you to consider, Brethren, as a protection against blasphemies. For it is constantly said, “See thou hast produced certain resemblances; but the brightness which is thrown out from the fire, shines less brilliantly than the fire itself, and the image of the shrub has less proper subsistence, than that shrub of which it is the image. These instances have a resemblance, but they have not a thorough equality: wherefore they do not seem to be of the same substance.” What then shall we say, if any one say, “The Father then is to the Son, such as the brightness is to the fire, and the image to the shrub”? See I have understood the Father to be eternal; and the Son to be coeternal with Him; nevertheless say we that He is as the brightness which is thrown out from and is less brilliant than the fire, or as the image which is reflected from and has less real existence than the shrub? No, but there is a thorough equality. “I do not believe it,” he will say, “because thou hast not discovered a resemblance.” Well then, believe the Apostle, because he was able to see what I have said. For he says, “He thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Equality is perfect likeness in every way. And what said he? “Not robbery.” Why? Because that is robbery which belongs to another.

In similitudinibus allatis est inaequalitas. Hic jam modicum est quod advertatis, fratres, propter blasphemias. Semper enim dicitur, Ecce dedisti similitudines: sed splendor qui funditur de igne, minus lucet quam ipse ignis; et imago virgulti minus utique habet proprietatem, quam illud virgultum unde imago est. Habent ista similitudinem, sed non habent omnimodam aequalitatem: quare non videntur esse ejusdem substantiae. Quid ergo dicemus, si dicat aliquis: Talis est ergo Filius ad Patrem, qualis ad ignem splendor, et imago ad virgultum? Ecce intellexi aeternum Patrem, intellexi coaeternum Filium: tamen sicut effusum splendorem minus igne lucentem, aut sicut effusam imaginem minus quam virgultum existentem dicimus? Non: sed aequalitas omnimoda est. Non credo, ait, quia non invenisti similitudinem. Sed crede Apostolo, quia potuit videre quod dixi. Ait enim: Non rapinam arbitratus est esse aequalis Deo . Aequalitas omni modo conjungitur. Et quid dixit? Non rapinam. Quare? Quia illud est rapina, quod alienum est.

67.14 PL 38, 669

14. Yet from these two comparisons, these two kinds, we may perhaps find in the creature a resemblance whereby we may understand how the Son is both coeternal with the Father, and in no respect less than He. But this we cannot find in one kind of resemblances singly: let us join both kinds together. How both kinds? One, of which they themselves give instances of resemblances, and the other, of which we gave. For they gave instances of resemblances from those things which are born in time, and are preceded in time by them of whom they are born, as man of man. He that is born first is greater in time; but yet man and man, that is of the same substance. For man begets a man, and a horse a horse, and a sheep a sheep. These beget after the same substance, but not after the same time. They are diverse in time, but not in nature diverse. What then do we praise here in this nativity? The equality of nature surely. But what is wanting? The equality of time. Let us retain the one thing which is praised here, that is, the equality of nature. But in the other kind of resemblances, which we gave from the brightness of the fire and the image of the shrub, you find not an equality of nature, you do find an equality of time. What do we praise here? Equality of time. What is wanting? Equality of nature. Join the things which you praise together. For in the creatures there is wanting something which you praise, in the Creator nothing can be wanting: because what you find in the creature, came forth from the Hand of the Creator. What then is there in things coeval? Must not that be given to God which you praise here in? But what is wanting must not be attributed to that Sovereign Majesty, in the which there is no defect. See I offer to you things begetting coeval with things begotten: in these you praise the equality of time, but find fault with the inequality of nature. What you find fault with, do not attribute to God; what you praise, attribute to Him; so from this kind of resemblances you attribute to Him instead of a cotemporaneousness a coeternity, that the Son may be coeternal with Him of whom He was born. But from the other kind of resemblances, which itself too is a creature of God, and ought to praise the Creator, what do you praise in them? Equality of nature. You had before assigned coeternity by reason of the first distinction; by reason of this last, assign equality; and the nativity of the same substance is complete. For what is more mad, my brethren, than that I should praise the creature in anything which does not exist in the Creator? In man I praise equality of nature, shall I not believe it in Him who made man? That which is born of man is man; shall not that which is born of God, be That which He is of whom He was born? Converse have I none with works which God hath not made. Let then all the works of the Creator praise Him. I find in the one case a cotemporaneousness, I get at the knowledge of a coeternity in the other. In the first I find an equality of nature, I understand an equality of substance in the other. In this then that is “wholly,” which in the other case is found in the several parts, and several things. It is then “wholly” here altogether, and not only what is in the creature; I find it wholly here, but as being in the Creator, in so much higher a way, in that the one is visible, the Other Invisible; the one temporal, the Other Eternal; the one changeable, the Other Unchangeable; the one corruptible, the Other Incorruptible. Lastly, in the case of men themselves, what we find, man and man, are two men; here the Father and the Son are One God.

Filii Dei coaeternitas et aequalitas ex duobus collatis similitudinum generibus. Tamen ex duabus istis collationibus et generibus duobus, similitudinem fortassis invenimus in creatura, quomodo intelligamus Filium et coaeternum Patri et nequaquam minorem. Sed non illud possumus invenire in uno genere similitudinum: jungamus ambo genera. Quomodo ambo genera? Unum unde ipsi dant similitudines, et alterum unde nos dedimus. Dederunt enim illi similitudines ex his quae nascuntur in tempore, et praeceduntur tempore ab eis a quibus nascuntur, sicut homo de homine. Major ille tempore prior natus: sed tamen homo et homo, id est ejusdem substantiae. Homo enim hominem generat, et equus equum, et pecus pecudem. Ad eamdem substantiam generant ista; sed non ad idem tempus. Diversa sunt tempore; sed non sunt diversa natura. Quid ergo hic laudamus in ista nativitate? Certe aequalitatem naturae. Quid autem deest? Aequalitas temporis. Teneamus hic unum quod laudatur, id est, aequalitatem naturae. In illo autem genere similitudinum, quod nos dedimus de splendore ignis et de imagine virgulti, aequalitatem naturae non invenis, invenis coaevitatem. Quid hic laudamus? Coaevitatem. Quid deest? Aequalitas naturae. Conjunge quae laudas. In creaturis enim deest aliquid quod laudas, in Creatore deesse nihil potest: quia quod invenis in creatura, a Creatore artifice processit. Quid ergo in coaevis? nonne hoc Deo dandum quod ibi laudas? Quod autem deest non tribuendum majestati, in qua nullus defectus est. Ecce offero tibi genitis coaeva gignentia: laudas ibi coaevitatem, sed disparilitatem reprehendis. Quod reprehendis, noli tribuere Deo; quod laudas, tribue: et tribuis illi ex isto genere similitudinum pro coaevitate coaeternitatem, ut coaeternus sit natus cum eo a quo natus sit. De alio autem similitudinum genere, quae et ipsa creatura Dei est, et debet laudare Creatorem, quid ibi laudas? Aequalitatem naturae. Jam propter illam distinctionem dederas coaeternitatem; da propter istam, aequalitatem; et perfecta est nativitas ejusdem substantiae. Quid enim dementius, fratres mei, quam ut in aliquo laudem creaturam, quod non sit in Creatore? Laudo in homine aequalitatem naturae, et non credo in eo qui fecit hominem? Quod de homine natum est, homo est; et quod de Deo natum est, non id erit quod ille de quo natum est? Non versor in operibus quae Deus non fecit. Laudent ergo Creatorem omnia opera sua. Invenio hic coaevum, cognosco ibi coaeteruum. Hic aequalitatem invenio naturae, ibi intelligo aequalitatem substantiae. Totum ergo ibi quod hic ex partibus singulis et rebus singulis invenitur. Totum ergo ibi simul, et non hoc solum quod in creaturis: totum invenio ibi, sed tanquam in Creatore, tanto amplius, quod haec visibilia, illa invisibilia; haec temporalia, illa aeterna; haec commutabilia, illa incommutabilia; haec corruptibilia, illa incorruptibilia. Postremo in ipso homine ea quae invenimus homo et homo, duo homines sunt: ibi Pater et Filius unus Deus.

67.15 PL 38, 670

15. I render unspeakable thanks to our Lord God, that He hath vouchsafed, at your prayers, to deliver my infirmity from this most perplexed and difficult place. Yet above all things remember this, that the Creator transcends indescribably whatever we could gather from the creature, whether by the bodily senses, or the thought of the mind. But wouldest thou with the mind reach Him? Purify thy mind, purify thine heart. Make clean the eye whereby That, whatever It be, may be reached. For “blessed are the clean in heart, for they shall see God.” But whilst the heart was not cleansed, what could be provided and granted more mercifully by Him, than that That Word of whom we have spoken so great and so many things, and yet have spoken nothing worthy of Him; that That Word, “by whom all things were made,” should become that which we are, that we might be able to attain to That which we are not? For we are not God; but with the mind or the interior eye of the heart we can see God. Our eyes dulled by sins, blinded, enfeebled by infirmity, desire to see; but we are in hope, not yet in possession. We are the children of God. This saith John, who says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God;” he who lay on the Lord’s Breast, who drew in these secrets from the Bosom of His Heart; he says, “Dearly beloved, we are the children of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be; we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is.” This is promised us.

Cordis oculus mundandus ut videatur Deus. Domino Deo nostro gratias ago inenarrabiles, quod ex hoc loco scrupulosissimo et laboriosissimo infirmitatem meam liberare dignatus est, petentibus vobis. Ante omnia tamen servate hoc, quidquid de creatura potuimus colligere, aut sensu corporis, aut cogitatione animi, inenarrabiliter transcendere Creatorem. Sed vis illum mente contingere? Purga mentem, purga cor tuum. Mundum fac oculum, unde illud quidquid est, possit attingi. Mundum fac oculum cordis: Beati enim mundo corde, quoniam ipsi Deum videbunt . Non autem mundato corde, quid potuit misericordius procurari aut donari ab eo, nisi ut illud Verbum, de quo tanta et tam multa diximus, et nihil dignum diximus; nisi ut illud Verbum, per quod facta sunt omnia, fieret quod nos sumus, ut attingere possimus illud quod non sumus? Non enim Deus sumus: sed possumus mente vel cordis acie interiore videre Deum. Peccatis acies nostrae obtritae, obtusae, infirmitate dejectae cupiunt videre: sed in spe sumus, in re nondum sumus. Filii Dei sumus. Hoc ait Joannes, qui ait, In principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum: qui supra pectus Domini discumbebat, qui secreta ista de sinu illius cordis hauriebat: ipse ait, Dilectissimi, filii Dei sumus; et nondum apparuit quid erimus: scimus quia cum apparuerit, similes ei erimus, quoniam videbimus eum sicuti est . Hoc nobis promittitur.

67.16 PL 38, 670

16. But in order that we may attain, if we cannot yet see God the Word, let us hear the Word made Flesh; seeing we are carnal, let us hear the Word Incarnate. For for this cause came He, for this cause took upon Him our infirmity, that thou mightest be able to receive the strong words of a God bearing thy weakness. And He is truly called “milk.” For He giveth milk to infants, that He may give the meat of wisdom to them of riper years. Suck then now with patience, that thou mayest be fed to thy heart’s most eager wish. For how is even the milk, wherewith infants are suckled, made? Was it not solid meat on the table? But the infant is not strong enough to eat the meat which is on the table; what does the mother do? She turns the meat into the substance of her flesh, and makes milk of it. Makes for us what we may be able to take. So the Word was made Flesh, that we little ones, who were indeed as infants with respect to food, might be nourished by milk. But there is this difference; that when the mother makes the food turned into flesh milk, the food is turned into milk; whereas the Word abiding Itself unchangeably assumed Flesh, that there might be, as it were, a tissue of the two. What He is, He did not corrupt or change, that in thy fashion, He might speak to thee, not transformed and turned into man. For abiding unalterable, unchangeable, and altogether inviolable, He became what thou art in respect of thee, what He is in Himself in respect of the Father.

Verbum incarnatione quasi lac factum, ut a nobis caperetur. Sed ut perveniamus, si nondum possumus videre Verbum Deum, audiamus Verbum carnem: quia carnales facti sumus, audiamus Verbum carnem factum. Ideo enim venit, ideo suscepit infirmitatem nostram, ut possis firmam locutionem capere Dei portantis infirmitatem tuam. Et vere dictum est lac. Lac enim dat parvulis, ut cibum sapientiae det majoribus. Lactare patienter, ut avide pascaris. Quomodo enim fit etiam lac, quo lactantur infantes? Nonne esca erat in mensa? Sed invalidus est infans ad comedendam escam, quae in mensa est: quid facit mater? Incarnat escam, et conficit lac de ipsa. Conficit nobis quod capere possimus. Sic Verbum caro factum est, ut lacte parvuli nutriremur, qui ad cibum quidem eramus infantes. Verum hoc interest, quia quando cibum mater incarnatum lac facit, cibus in lac convertitur: incommutabiliter autem manens Verbum carnem assumpsit, ut esset quodam modo contextum. Quod est, non corrupit, non commutavit, ut per habitum tuum tibi loqueretur, non in hominem transmutatus atque conversus Inconvertibilis enim et incommutabilis, et omnino inviolabilis manens, factus est quod tu ad te, quod ipse ad Patrem.

67.17 PL 38, 671

17. For what doth He say Himself to the infirm, to the end that recovering that sight, they may be able in some measure to reach the Word by whom all things were made? “Come unto Me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you. Take My yoke upon you, and learn of Me, that I am meek and lowly in heart.” What doth the Master, the Son of God, the Wisdom of God, by whom all things were made, proclaim? He calleth the human race, and saith, “Come unto Me, all ye that labour, and learn of Me.” Thou wast thinking haply that the Wisdom of God would say, “Learn how I have made the heavens and the stars; how all things also were numbered in Me before they were made, how by virtue of unchangeable principles your very hairs were numbered.” Didst thou think that Wisdom would say these things, and such as these? No. But first that. “That I am meek and lowly in heart.” Lo, see here what ye can comprehend, brethren; it is surely a little thing. We are making our way to great things, let us receive the little things, and we shall be great. Wouldest thou comprehend the height of God? First comprehend the lowliness of God. Condescend to be humble for thine own sake, seeing that God condescended to be humble for thy sake too; for it was not for His own. Comprehend then the lowliness of Christ, learn to be humble, be loth to be proud. Confess thine infirmity, lie patiently before the Physician; when thou shalt have comprehended His lowliness, thou risest with Him; not as though He should rise Himself in that He is the Word; but thou rather, that He may be more and more comprehended by thee. At first thou didst understand falteringly and hesitatingly; afterwards thou wilt understand more surely and more clearly. He doth not increase, but thou makest progress, and He seemeth as it were to rise with thee. So it is, brethren. Believe the commandments of God, and do them, and He will give you the strength of understanding. Do not put the last first, and, as it were, prefer knowledge to the commandments of God; lest ye be only the lower, and none the more firmly rooted. Consider a tree; first it strikes downwards, that it may grow up on high; fixes its root low in the ground, that it may extend its top to heaven. Does it make an effort to grow except from humiliation? And wouldest thou without charity comprehend these transcendent matters, shoot toward the heaven without a root? This were a ruin, not a growing. With “Christ” then “dwelling in your hearts by faith, be ye rooted and grounded in charity, that ye may be filled with all the fulness of God.”

Humilitas a Verbo incarnato discenda. Ipse enim infirmis quid dicit, ut possint recuperato illo visu Verbum ex aliqua parte attingere, per quod facta sunt omnia? Venite ad me, omnes qui laboratis et onerati estis, et ego reficiam vos. Tollite jugum meum super vos, et discite a me quia mitis sum et humilis corde . Quid magister Filius Dei, Sapientia Dei, per quem facta sunt omnia, concionalur? Vocat humanum genus, et dicit, Venite ad me, omnes qui laboratis, et discite a me. Putabas forte dicturam Sapientiam Dei, Discite quomodo coelos feci et astra: omnia etiam in me, antequam fierent, numerata erant; quomodo in virtute rationum incommutabilium etiam capilli vestri numerati sunt . Haec putabas et talia esse dicturam? Non. Sed prius illud, Quoniam mitis sum et humilis corde. Ecce quod capiatis, videte, fratres, certe parvum est. Ad magna nos tendimus, parva capiamus, et magni erimus. Vis capere celsitudinem Dei? Cape prius humilitatem Dei. Dignare esse humilis propter te, quia Deus dignatus est humilis esse propter eumdem te: non enim propter se. Cape ergo humilitatem Christi, disce humilis esse, noli superbire. Confitere infirmitatem tuam, jace patienter ante medicum. Cum ceperis humilitatem ejus, surgis cum illo: non quasi et ipse surgat secundum quod Verbum est; sed tu potius, ut magis magisque a te capiatur. Intelligebas primo titubanter atque haesitanter; intelligis postea certius et clarius. Non ille crescit, sed tu proficis, et quasi tecum videtur surgere. Sic est, fratres. Credite praeceptis Dei, et facite illa, et donabit vobis robur intelligentiae. Non praesumatis, et quasi anteponatis scientiam praecepto Dei; ne inferiores, non solidiores remaneatis. Arborem attendite: ima petit prius, ut sursum excrescat; figit radicem in humili, ut verticem tendat ad coelum. Numquid nititur nisi ab humilitate? Tu autem sine charitate vis excelsa comprehendere; sine radice auras petis? Ruina est ista, non incrementum. Habitante Christo per fidem in cordibus vestris, in charitate radicamini atque fundamini, ut impleamini in omnem plenitudinem Dei .

Philip Schaff (ed.), Buffalo/New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1886-1889. Public domain: English translation first published 1885-1900 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series). Latin: Migne, Patrologia Latina (1844-1855), public domain; transcription from Corpus Corporum (University of Zurich).

Salva per dopo

Inserisci la tua email: ti invieremo un link per accedere. Nessuna password. Ciò che salvi (voci, versetti, capitoli, documenti) ti segue su ogni dispositivo.