Of the Perturbations of the Soul Which Appear as Right Affections in the Life of the Righteous.

Chapter 9.—Of the Perturbations of the Soul Which Appear as Right Affections in the Life of the Righteous.

Caput IX. De perturbationibus animi, quarum adfectus rectos habet uita iustorum.

But so far as regards this question of mental perturbations, we have answered these philosophers in the ninth book of this work, showing that it is rather a verbal than a real dispute, and that they seek contention rather than truth. Among ourselves, according to the sacred Scriptures and sound doctrine, the citizens of the holy city of God, who live according to God in the pilgrimage of this life, both fear and desire, and grieve and rejoice. And because their love is rightly placed, all these affections of theirs are right. They fear eternal punishment, they desire eternal life; they grieve because they themselves groan within themselves, waiting for the adoption, the redemption of their body; they rejoice in hope, because there “shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.” In like manner they fear to sin, they desire to persevere; they grieve in sin, they rejoice in good works. They fear to sin, because they hear that “because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold.” They desire to persevere, because they hear that it is written, “He that endureth to the end shall be saved.” They grieve for sin, hearing that “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” They rejoice in good works, because they hear that “the Lord loveth a cheerful giver.” In like manner, according as they are strong or weak, they fear or desire to be tempted, grieve or rejoice in temptation. They fear to be tempted, because they hear the injunction, “If a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.” They desire to be tempted, because they hear one of the heroes of the city of God saying, “Examine me, O Lord, and tempt me: try my reins and my heart.” They grieve in temptations, because they see Peter weeping; they rejoice in temptations, because they hear James saying, “My brethren, count it all joy when ye fall into divers temptations.”

Verum his philosophis, quod ad istam quaestionem de animi perturbationibus adtinet, iam respondimus in nono huius operis libro, ostendentes eos non tam de rebus, quam de uerbis cupidiores esse contentionis quam ueritatis. Aput nos autem iuxta scripturas sanctas sanamque doctrinam ciues sanctae ciuitatis Dei in huius uitae peregrinatione secundum Deum uiuentes metuunt cupiuntque, dolent gaudentque, et quia rectus est amor eorum, istas omnes adfectiones rectas habent. Metuunt poenam aeternam, cupiunt uitam aeternam; dolent in re, quia ipsi in semet ipsis adhuc ingemescunt adoptionem, expectantes redemtionem corporis sui; gaudent in spe, quia fiet sermo, qui scriptus est: Absorpta est mors in uictoriam. Item metuunt peccare, cupiunt perseuerare; dolent in peccatis, gaudent in operibus bonis. Ut enim metuant peccare, audiunt: Quoniam abundabit iniquitas, refrigescet caritas multorum; ut cupiant perseuerare, audiunt quod scriptum est: Qui perseuerauerit usque in finem, hic saluus erit; ut doleant in peccatis, audiunt: Si dixerimus quia peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus, et ueritas in nobis non est; ut gaudeant in operibus bonis, audiunt: Hilarem datorem diligit Deus. Item sicuti se infirmitas eorum firmitasque habuerit, metuunt tentari, cupiunt tentari; dolent in tentationibus, gaudent in tentationibus. Ut enim metuant tentari, audiunt: Si quis praeoccupatus fuerit in aliquo delicto, uos, qui spiritales estis, instruite huius modi in spiritu mansuetudinis, intendens te ipsum. ne et tu tenteris; ut autem cupiant tentari, audiunt quendam uirum fortem ciuitatis Dei dicentem: Proba me, Domine, et tenta me; ure renes meos et cor meum; ut doleant in tentationibus, uident Petrum flentem; ut gaudeant in tentationibus, audiunt Iacobum dicentem: Omne gaudium existimate, fratres mei, cum in tentationes uarias incideritis.

And not only on their own account do they experience these emotions, but also on account of those whose deliverance they desire and whose perdition they fear, and whose loss or salvation affects them with grief or with joy. For if we who have come into the Church from among the Gentiles may suitably instance that noble and mighty hero who glories in his infirmities, the teacher (doctor) of the nations in faith and truth, who also labored more than all his fellow-apostles, and instructed the tribes of God’s people by his epistles, which edified not only those of his own time, but all those who were to be gathered in,—that hero, I say, and athlete of Christ, instructed by Him, anointed of His Spirit, crucified with Him, glorious in Him, lawfully maintaining a great conflict on the theatre of this world, and being made a spectacle to angels and men, and pressing onwards for the prize of his high calling,—very joyfully do we with the eyes of faith behold him rejoicing with them that rejoice, and weeping with them that weep; though hampered by fightings without and fears within; desiring to depart and to be with Christ; longing to see the Romans, that he might have some fruit among them as among other Gentiles; being jealous over the Corinthians, and fearing in that jealousy lest their minds should be corrupted from the chastity that is in Christ; having great heaviness and continual sorrow of heart for the Israelites, because they, being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves unto the righteousness of God; and expressing not only his sorrow, but bitter lamentation over some who had formally sinned and had not repented of their uncleanness and fornications.

Non solum autem propter se ipsos his mouentur adfectibus, uerum etiam propter eos, quos liberari cupiunt et ne pereant metuunt, et dolent si pereunt et gaudent si liberantur. Illum quippe optimum et fortissimum uirum, qui in suis infirmitatibus gloriatur, ut eum potissimum commemoremus, qui in ecclesiam Christi ex gentibus uenimus, doctorem gentium in fide et ueritate, qui et plus omnibus suis coapostolis laborauit et pluribus epistulis populos Dei, non eos tantum, qui praesentes ab illo uidebantur, uerum etiam illos, qui futuri praeuidebantur, instruxit; illum, inquam, uirum, athletam Christi, doctum ab illo, unctum de illo, crucifixum cum illo, gloriosum in illo, in theatro huius mundi, cui spectaculum factus est et angelis et hominibus, legitime magnum agonem certantem et palmam supernae uocationis in anteriora sectantem, oculis fidei libentissime spectant gaudere cum gaudentibus, flere cum flentibus, foris habentem pugnas, intus timores, cupientem dissolui et esse cum Christo, desiderantem uidere Romanos, ut aliquem fructum habeat et in illis sicut et in ceteris gentibus, aemulantem Corinthios et ipsa aemulatione metuentem, ne seducantur eorum mentes a castitate, quae in Christo est, magnam tristitiam et continuum dolorem cordis de Israelitis habentem, quod ignorantes Dei iustitiam et suam uolentes constituere iustitiae Dei non essent subiecti; nec solum dolorem, uerum etiam luctum suum denuntiantem quibusdam, qui ante peccauerunt et non egerunt paenitentiam super inmunditia et fornicationibus suis.

If these emotions and affections, arising as they do from the love of what is good and from a holy charity, are to be called vices, then let us allow these emotions which are truly vices to pass under the name of virtues. But since these affections, when they are exercised in a becoming way, follow the guidance of right reason, who will dare to say that they are diseases or vicious passions? Wherefore even the Lord Himself, when He condescended to lead a human life in the form of a slave, had no sin whatever, and yet exercised these emotions where He judged they should be exercised. For as there was in Him a true human body and a true human soul, so was there also a true human emotion. When, therefore, we read in the Gospel that the hard-heartedness of the Jews moved Him to sorrowful indignation, that He said, “I am glad for your sakes, to the intent ye may believe,” that when about to raise Lazarus He even shed tears, that He earnestly desired to eat the passover with His disciples, that as His passion drew near His soul was sorrowful, these emotions are certainly not falsely ascribed to Him. But as He became man when it pleased Him, so, in the grace of His definite purpose, when it pleased Him He experienced those emotions in His human soul.

Hi motus, hi adfectus de amore boni et de sancta caritate uenientes si uitia uocanda sunt, sinamus, ut ea, quae uere uitia sunt, uirtutes uocentur. Sed cum rectam rationem sequantur istae adfectiones, quando ubi oportet adhibentur, quis eas tunc morbos seu uitiosas passiones audeat dicere? Quam ob rem etiam ipse Dominus in forma serui agere uitam dignatus humanam, sed nullum habens omnino peccatum adhibuit eas, ubi adhibendas esse iudicauit. Neque enim, in quo uerum erat hominis corpus et uerus hominis animus, falsus erat humanus adfectus. Cum ergo eius in euangelio ista referuntur, quod super duritia cordis Iudaeorum cum ira contristatus sit, quod dixerit: Gaudeo propter uos, ut credatis, quod Lazarum suscitaturus etiam lacrimas fuderit, quod concupiuerit cum discipulis suis manducare pascha, quod propinquante passione tristis fuerit anima eius: non falso utique referuntur. Verum ille hos motus certae dispensationis gratia ita cum uoluit suscepit animo humano, ut cum uoluit factus est homo.

But we must further make the admission, that even when these affections are well regulated, and according to God’s will, they are peculiar to this life, not to that future life we look for, and that often we yield to them against our will. And thus sometimes we weep in spite of ourselves, being carried beyond ourselves, not indeed by culpable desire; but by praiseworthy charity. In us, therefore, these affections arise from human infirmity; but it was not so with the Lord Jesus, for even His infirmity was the consequence of His power. But so long as we wear the infirmity of this life, we are rather worse men than better if we have none of these emotions at all. For the apostle vituperated and abominated some who, as he said, were “without natural affection.” The sacred Psalmist also found fault with those of whom he said, “I looked for some to lament with me, and there was none.” For to be quite free from pain while we are in this place of misery is only purchased, as one of this world’s literati perceived and remarked, at the price of blunted sensibilities both of mind and body. And therefore that which the Greeks call ἀπαθεια, and what the Latins would call, if their language would allow them, “impassibilitas,” if it be taken to mean an impassibility of spirit and not of body, or, in other words, a freedom from those emotions which are contrary to reason and disturb the mind, then it is obviously a good and most desirable quality, but it is not one which is attainable in this life. For the words of the apostle are the confession, not of the common herd, but of the eminently pious, just, and holy men: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” When there shall be no sin in a man, then there shall be this απάθεια. At present it is enough if we live without crime; and he who thinks he lives without sin puts aside not sin, but pardon. And if that is to be called apathy, where the mind is the subject of no emotion, then who would not consider this insensibility to be worse than all vices? It may, indeed, reasonably be maintained that the perfect blessedness we hope for shall be free from all sting of fear or sadness; but who that is not quite lost to truth would say that neither love nor joy shall be experienced there? But if by apathy a condition be meant in which no fear terrifies nor any pain annoys, we must in this life renounce such a state if we would live according to God’s will, but may hope to enjoy it in that blessedness which is promised as our eternal condition.

Proinde, quod fatendum est, etiam cum rectas et secundum Deum habemus has adfectiones, huius uitae sunt, non illius, quam futuram speramus, et saepe illis etiam inuiti cedimus. Itaque aliquando, quamuis non culpabili cupiditate, sed laudabili caritate moueamur, etiam dum nolumus flemus. Habemus ergo eas ex humanae condicionis infirmitate; non autem ita Dominus Iesus, cuius et infirmitas fuit ex potestate. Sed dum uitae huius infirmitatem gerimus, si eas omnino nullas habeamus, tunc potius non recte uiuimus. Vituperabat enim et detestabatur apostolus quosdam, quos etiam esse dixit sine adfectione. Culpauit etiam illos sacer psalmus, de quibus ait: Sustinui qui simul contristaretur, et non fuit. Nam omnino non dolere, dum sumus in hoc loco miseriae, profecto, sicut quidam etiam aput saeculi huius litteratos sensit et dixit, non sine magna mercede contingit inmanitatis in animo, stuporis in corpore. Quocirca illa, quae arcflKteia Graece dicitur (quae si Latine posset inpassibilitas diceretur), si ita intellegenda est (in animo quippe, non in corpore accipitur), ut sine his adfectionibus uiuatur, quae contra rationem accidunt mentemque perturbant, bona plane et maxime optanda est, sed nec ipsa huius est uitae. Non enim qualiumcumque hominum uox est, sed maxime piorum multumque iustorum adque sanctorum: Si dixerimus, quoniam peccatum non habemus, nos ipsos seducimus et ueritas in nobis non est. Tunc itaque andfeia. ista erit, quando peccatum in homine nullum erit. Nunc uero satis bene uiuitur, si sine crimine; sine peccato autem qui se uiuere existimat, non id agit, ut peccatum non habeat, sed ut ueniam non accipiat. Porro, si ajcofhta illa dicenda est, cum animum contingere omnino non potest ullus adfectus, quis hunc stuporem non omnibus uitiis iudicet esse peiorem? Potest ergo non absurde dici perfectam beatitudinem sine stimulo timoris et sine ulla tristitia futuram; non ibi autem futurum amorem gaudiumque quis dixerit, nisi omni modo a ueritate seclusus? Si autem ducadeux illa est, ubi nec metus ullus exterret nec angit dolor, auersanda est in hac uita, si recte, hoc est secundum Deum, uiuere uolumus; in illa uero beata, quae sempiterna promittitur, plane speranda est.

For that fear of which the Apostle John says, “There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear, because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love,”—that fear is not of the same kind as the Apostle Paul felt lest the Corinthians should be seduced by the subtlety of the serpent; for love is susceptible of this fear, yea, love alone is capable of it. But the fear which is not in love is of that kind of which Paul himself says, “For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear.” But as for that “clean fear which endureth for ever,” if it is to exist in the world to come (and how else can it be said to endure for ever?), it is not a fear deterring us from evil which may happen, but preserving us in the good which cannot be lost. For where the love of acquired good is unchangeable, there certainly the fear that avoids evil is, if I may say so, free from anxiety. For under the name of “clean fear” David signifies that will by which we shall necessarily shrink from sin, and guard against it, not with the anxiety of weakness, which fears that we may strongly sin, but with the tranquillity of perfect love. Or if no kind of fear at all shall exist in that most imperturbable security of perpetual and blissful delights, then the expression, “The fear of the Lord is clean, enduring for ever,” must be taken in the same sense as that other, “The patience of the poor shall not perish for ever.” For patience, which is necessary only where ills are to be borne, shall not be eternal, but that which patience leads us to will be eternal. So perhaps this “clean fear” is said to endure for ever, because that to which fear leads shall endure.

Timor namque ille, de quo dicit apostolus Iohannes: Timor non est in caritate, sed perfecta caritas foras mittit timorem, quia timor poenam habet; qui autem timet, non est perfectus in caritate, non est eius generis timor, cuius ille, quo timebat apostolus Paulus, ne Corinthii serpentina seducerentur astutia; hunc enim timorem habet caritas, immo non habet nisi caritas; sed illius generis est timor, qui non est in caritate, de quo ipse apostolus Paulus ait: Non enim accepistis spiritum seruitutis iterum in timore. Timor uero ille castus permanens in saeculum saeculi, si erit et in futuro saeculo, (nam quo alio modo potest intellegi permanere in saeculum saeculi?) non est timor exterrens a malo quod accidere potest, sed tenens in bono quod amitti non potest. Ubi enim boni adepti amor inmutabilis est, profecto, si dici potest, mali cauendi timor securus est. Timoris quippe casti nomine ea uoluntas significata est, qua nos necesse erit nolle peccare, et non sollicitudine infirmitatis, ne forte peccemus, sed tranquillitate caritatis cauere peccatum. Aut si nullius omnino generis timor esse poterit in illa certissima securitate perpetuorum feliciumque gaudiorum, sic est dictum: Timor Domini castus permanens in saeculum saeculi, quem ad modum dictum est: Patientia pauperum non peribit in aeternum. Neque enim aeterna erit ipsa patientia, quae necessaria non est, nisi ubi toleranda sunt mala; sed aeternum erit, quo per patientiam peruenitur. Ita fortasse timor castus in saeculum saeculi dictus est permanere, quia id permanebit, quo timor ipse perducit.

And since this is so,—since we must live a good life in order to attain to a blessed life, a good life has all these affections right, a bad life has them wrong. But in the blessed life eternal there will be love and joy, not only right, but also assured; but fear and grief there will be none. Whence it already appears in some sort what manner of persons the citizens of the city of God must be in this their pilgrimage, who live after the spirit, not after the flesh,—that is to say, according to God, not according to man,—and what manner of persons they shall be also in that immortality whither they are journeying. And the city or society of the wicked, who live not according to God, but according to man, and who accept the doctrines of men or devils in the worship of a false and contempt of the true divinity, is shaken with those wicked emotions as by diseases and disturbances. And if there be some of its citizens who seem to restrain and, as it were, temper those passions, they are so elated with ungodly pride, that their disease is as much greater as their pain is less. And if some, with a vanity monstrous in proportion to its rarity, have become enamored of themselves because they can be stimulated and excited by no emotion, moved or bent by no affection, such persons rather lose all humanity than obtain true tranquillity. For a thing is not necessarily right because it is inflexible, nor healthy because it is insensible.

Quae cum ita sint, quoniam recta uita ducenda est, qua perueniendum sit ad beatam, omnes adfectus istos uita recta rectos habet, peruersa peruersos. Beata uero eademque aeterna amorem habebit et gaudium non solum rectum, uerum etiam -certum; timorem autem ac dolorem nullum. Unde iam apparet utcumque, quales esse debeant in hac peregrinatione ciues ciuitatis Dei, uiuentes secundum spiritum, non secundum carnem, hoc est secundum Deum, non secundum hominem, et quales in illa, quo tendunt, inmortalitate futuri sint. Ciuitas porro, id est societas, inpiorum non secundum Deum, sed secundum hominem uiuentium et in ipso cultu falsae contemtuque uerae diuinitatis doctrinas hominum daemonumue sectantium his adfectibus prauis tamquam morbis et perturbationibus quatitur. Et si quos ciues habet, qui moderari talibus motibus et eos quasi temperare uideantur, sic inpietate superbi et elati sunt, ut hoc ipso sint in eis maiores tumores, quo minores dolores. Et si nonnulli tanto inmaniore, quanto rariore uanitate hoc in se ipsis adamauerint, ut nullo prorsus erigantur et excitentur, nullo flectantur adque inclinentur adfectu: humanitatem totam potius amittunt, quam ueram adsequuntur tranquillitatem. Non enim quia durum aliquid, ideo rectum, aut quia stupidum est, ideo sanum.

Chapter 10.—Whether It is to Be Believed that Our First Parents in Paradise, Before They Sinned, Were Free from All Perturbation.

Caput X. An primos homines in paradiso constitutos ullis perturbationibus, priusquam delinquerent, adfectos fuisse credendum sit.

But it is a fair question, whether our first parent or first parents (for there was a marriage of two), before they sinned, experienced in their animal body such emotions as we shall not experience in the spiritual body when sin has been purged and finally abolished. For if they did, then how were they blessed in that boasted place of bliss, Paradise? For who that is affected by fear or grief can be called absolutely blessed? And what could those persons fear or suffer in such affluence of blessings, where neither death nor ill-health was feared, and where nothing was wanting which a good will could desire, and nothing present which could interrupt man’s mental or bodily enjoyment? Their love to God was unclouded, and their mutual affection was that of faithful and sincere marriage; and from this love flowed a wonderful delight, because they always enjoyed what was loved. Their avoidance of sin was tranquil; and, so long as it was maintained, no other ill at all could invade them and bring sorrow. Or did they perhaps desire to touch and eat the forbidden fruit, yet feared to die; and thus both fear and desire already, even in that blissful place, preyed upon those first of mankind? Away with the thought that such could be the case where there was no sin! And, indeed, this is already sin, to desire those things which the law of God forbids, and to abstain from them through fear of punishment, not through love of righteousness. Away, I say, with the thought, that before there was any sin, there should already have been committed regarding that fruit the very sin which our Lord warns us against regarding a woman: “Whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her, hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” As happy, then, as were these our first parents, who were agitated by no mental perturbations, and annoyed by no bodily discomforts, so happy should the whole human race have been, had they not introduced that evil which they have transmitted to their posterity, and had none of their descendants committed iniquity worthy of damnation; but this original blessedness continuing until, in virtue of that benediction which said, “Increase and multiply,” the number of the predestined saints should have been completed, there would then have been bestowed that higher felicity which is enjoyed by the most blessed angels,—a blessedness in which there should have been a secure assurance that no one would sin, and no one die; and so should the saints have lived, after no taste of labor, pain, or death, as now they shall live in the resurrection, after they have endured all these things.

Sed utrum primus homo uel primi homines (duorum erat quippe coniugium) habebant istos adfectus in corpore animali ante peccatum, quales in corpore spiritali non habebimus omni purgato finitoque peccato, non inmerito quaeritur. Si enim habebant, quo modo erant beati in illo memorabili beatitudinis loco, id est paradiso? Quis tandem absolute dici beatus potest, qui timore adficitur uel dolore? Quid autem timere aut dolere poterant illi homines in tantorum tanta afluentia bonorum, ubi nec mors metuebatur nec ulla corporis mala ualetudo, nec aberat quicquam, quod bona uoluntas adipisceretur, nec inerat quod carnem animumue hominis feliciter uiuentis offenderet? Amor erat inperturbatus in Deum adque inter se coniugum fida et sincera societate uiuentium, et ex hoc amore grande gaudium, non desistente quod amabatur ad fruendum. Erat deuitatio tranquilla peccati, qua manente nullum omnino alicunde malum, quod contristaret, inruebat. An forte cupiebant prohibitum lignum ad uescendum contingere, sed mori metuebant, ac per hoc et cupiditas et metus iam tunc illos homines etiam in illo perturbabat loco? Absit ut hoc existimemus fuisse, ubi nullum erat omnino peccatum. Neque enim nullum peccatum est ea quae lex Dei prohibet concupiscere adque ab his abstinere timore poenae, non amore iustitiae. Absit, inquam, ut ante omne peccatum iam ibi fuerit tale peccatum, ut hoc de ligno admitterent, quod de muliere Dominus ait: Si quis uiderit mulierem ad concupiscendum eam, iam moechatus est eam in corde suo. Quam igitur felices erant et nullis agitabantur perturbationibus animorum, nullis corporum laedebantur incommodis: tam felix uniuersa societas esset humana, si nec illi malum, quod etiam in posteros traicerent, nec quisquam ex eorum stirpe iniquitate committeret, quod damnationem reciperet; adque ista permanente felicitate, donec per illam benedictionem, qua dictum est: Crescite et multiplicamini, praedestinatorum sanctorum numerus conpleretur, alia maior daretur, quae beatissimis angelis data est, ubi iam esset certa securitas peccaturum neminem neminemque moriturum, et talis esset uita sanctorum post nullum laboris doloris mortis experimentum, qualis erit post haec omnia in incorruptione corporum reddita resurrectione mortuorum.

Chapter 11.—Of the Fall of the First Man, in Whom Nature Was Created Good, and Can Be Restored Only by Its Author.

Caput XI. De lapsu primi hominis, in quo bene condita natura uitiata est, nec potest nisi a suo auctore reparari.

But because God foresaw all things, and was therefore not ignorant that man also would fall, we ought to consider this holy city in connection with what God foresaw and ordained, and not according to our own ideas, which do not embrace God’s ordination. For man, by his sin, could not disturb the divine counsel, nor compel God to change what He had decreed; for God’s foreknowledge had anticipated both,—that is to say, both how evil the man whom He had created good should become, and what good He Himself should even thus derive from him. For though God is said to change His determinations (so that in a tropical sense the Holy Scripture says even that God repented), this is said with reference to man’s expectation, or the order of natural causes, and not with reference to that which the Almighty had foreknown that He would do. Accordingly God, as it is written, made man upright, and consequently with a good will. For if he had not had a good will, he could not have been upright. The good will, then, is the work of God; for God created him with it. But the first evil will, which preceded all man’s evil acts, was rather a kind of falling away from the work of God to its own works than any positive work. And therefore the acts resulting were evil, not having God, but the will itself for their end; so that the will or the man himself, so far as his will is bad, was as it were the evil tree bringing forth evil fruit. Moreover, the bad will, though it be not in harmony with, but opposed to nature, inasmuch as it is a vice or blemish, yet it is true of it as of all vice, that it cannot exist except in a nature, and only in a nature created out of nothing, and not in that which the Creator has begotten of Himself, as He begot the Word, by whom all things were made. For though God formed man of the dust of the earth, yet the earth itself, and every earthly material, is absolutely created out of nothing; and man’s soul, too, God created out of nothing, and joined to the body, when He made man. But evils are so thoroughly overcome by good, that though they are permitted to exist, for the sake of demonstrating how the most righteous foresight of God can make a good use even of them, yet good can exist without evil, as in the true and supreme God Himself, and as in every invisible and visible celestial creature that exists above this murky atmosphere; but evil cannot exist without good, because the natures in which evil exists, in so far as they are natures, are good. And evil is removed, not by removing any nature, or part of a nature, which had been introduced by the evil, but by healing and correcting that which had been vitiated and depraved. The will, therefore, is then truly free, when it is not the slave of vices and sins. Such was it given us by God; and this being lost by its own fault, can only be restored by Him who was able at first to give it. And therefore the truth says, “If the Son shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed;” which is equivalent to saying, If the Son shall save you, ye shall be saved indeed. For He is our Liberator, inasmuch as He is our Saviour.

Sed quia Deus cuncta praesciuit et ideo quoque hominem peccaturum ignorare non potuit: secundum id, quod praesciuit adque disposuit, ciuitatem sanctam debemus adserere, non secundum illud, quod in nostram cognitionem peruenire non potuit, quia in Dei dispositione non fuit. Neque enim homo peccato suo diuinum potuit perturbare consilium, quasi Deum quod statuerat mutare conpulerit; cum Deus praesciendo utrumque praeuenerit, id est, et homo, quem bonum ipse creauit, quam malus esset futurus, et quid boni etiam sic de illo esset ipse facturus. Deus enim etsi dicitur statuta mutare (unde tropica locutione in scripturis etiam paenituisse legitur Deum), iuxta id dicitur, quod homo sperauerat uel naturalium causarum ordo gestabat, non iuxta id, quod se Omnipotens facturum esse praesciuerat. Fecit itaque Deus, sicut scriptum est, hominem rectum ac per hoc uoluntatis bonae. Non enim rectus esset bonam non habens uoluntatem. Bona igitur uoluntas opus est Dei; cum ea quippe ab illo factus est homo. Mala uero uoluntas prima, quoniam omnia opera mala praecessit in homine, defectus potius fuit quidam ab opere Dei ad sua opera quam opus ullum, et ideo mala opera, quia secundum se, non secundum Deum; ut eorum operum tamquam fructuum malorum uoluntas ipsa esset uelut arbor mala aut ipse homo in quantum malae uoluntatis. Porro mala uoluntas quamuis non sit secundum naturam, sed contra naturam, quia uitium est, tamen eius naturae est, cuius est uitium, quod nisi in natura non potest esse; sed in ea, quam creauit ex nihilo, non quam genuit Creator de semet ipso, sicut genuit Verbum, per quod facta sunt omnia; quia, etsi de terrae puluere Deus finxit hominem, eadem terra omnisque terrena materies omnino de nihilo est, animamque de nihilo factam dedit corpori, cum factus est homo. Usque adeo autem mala uincuntur a bonis, ut, quamuis sinantur esse ad demonstrandum quam possit et ipsis bene uti iustitia prouidentissima Creatoris, bona tamen sine malis esse possint, sicut Deus ipse uerus et summus, sicut omnis super istum caliginosum aerem caelestis inuisibilis uisibilisque creatura; mala uero sine bonis esse non possint, quoniam naturae, in quibus sunt, in quantum naturae sunt, utique bonae sunt. Detrahitur porro malum non aliqua natura, quae accesserat, uel ulla eius parte sublata, sed ea, quae uitiata ac deprauata fuerat, sanata adque correcta. Arbitrium igitur uoluntatis tunc est uere liberum, cum uitiis peccatisque non seruit. Tale datum est a Deo; quod amissum proprio uitio, nisi a quo dari potuit, reddi non potest. Unde Veritas dicit: Si uos Filius liberauerit, tunc uere liberi eritis.

Man then lived with God for his rule in a paradise at once physical and spiritual. For neither was it a paradise only physical for the advantage of the body, and not also spiritual for the advantage of the mind; nor was it only spiritual to afford enjoyment to man by his internal sensations, and not also physical to afford him enjoyment through his external senses. But obviously it was both for both ends. But after that proud and therefore envious angel (of whose fall I have said as much as I was able in the eleventh and twelfth books of this work, as well as that of his fellows, who, from being God’s angels, became his angels), preferring to rule with a kind of pomp of empire rather than to be another’s subject, fell from the spiritual Paradise, and essaying to insinuate his persuasive guile into the mind of man, whose unfallen condition provoked him to envy now that himself was fallen, he chose the serpent as his mouthpiece in that bodily Paradise in which it and all the other earthly animals were living with those two human beings, the man and his wife, subject to them, and harmless; and he chose the serpent because, being slippery, and moving in tortuous windings, it was suitable for his purpose. And this animal being subdued to his wicked ends by the presence and superior force of his angelic nature, he abused as his instrument, and first tried his deceit upon the woman, making his assault upon the weaker part of that human alliance, that he might gradually gain the whole, and not supposing that the man would readily give ear to him, or be deceived, but that he might yield to the error of the woman. For as Aaron was not induced to agree with the people when they blindly wished him to make an idol, and yet yielded to constraint; and as it is not credible that Solomon was so blind as to suppose that idols should be worshipped, but was drawn over to such sacrilege by the blandishments of women; so we cannot believe that Adam was deceived, and supposed the devil’s word to be truth, and therefore transgressed God’s law, but that he by the drawings of kindred yielded to the woman, the husband to the wife, the one human being to the only other human being. For not without significance did the apostle say, “And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression;” but he speaks thus, because the woman accepted as true what the serpent told her, but the man could not bear to be severed from his only companion, even though this involved a partnership in sin. He was not on this account less culpable, but sinned with his eyes open. And so the apostle does not say, “He did not sin,” but “He was not deceived.” For he shows that he sinned when he says, “By one man sin entered into the world,” and immediately after more distinctly, “In the likeness of Adam’s transgression.” But he meant that those are deceived who do not judge that which they do to be sin; but he knew. Otherwise how were it true “Adam was not deceived?” But having as yet no experience of the divine severity, he was possibly deceived in so far as he thought his sin venial. And consequently he was not deceived as the woman was deceived, but he was deceived as to the judgment which would be passed on his apology: “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me, and I did eat.” What need of saying more? Although they were not both deceived by credulity, yet both were entangled in the snares of the devil, and taken by sin.

Id ipsum est autem, ac si diceret: (Si uos Filius saluos fecerit, tunc uere salui eritis.’ Inde quippe liberator, unde saluator. Viuebat itaque homo secundum Deum in paradiso et corporali et spiritali. Neque enim erat paradisus corporalis propter corporis bona et propter mentis non erat spiritalis; aut uero erat spiritalis quo per interiores, et non erat corporalis quo per exteriores sensus homo frueretur. Erat plane utrumque propter utrumque. Postea uero quam superbus ille angelus ac per hoc inuidus per eandem superbiam a Deo ad semet ipsum conuersus et quodam quasi tyrannico fastu gaudere subditis quam esse subditus eligens de spiritali paradiso cecidit (de cuius lapsu sociorumque eius, qui ex angelis Dei angeli eius effecti sunt, in libris undecimo et duodecimo huius operis satis, quantum potui, disputaui), malesuada uersutia in hominis sensum serpere adfectans, cui utique stanti, quoniam ipse ceciderat, inuidebat, colubrum in paradiso corporali, ubi cum duobus illis hominibus, masculo et femina, animalia etiam terrestria cetera subdita et innoxia uersabantur, animal scilicet lubricum et tortuosis anfractibus mobile, operi suo congruum, per quem loqueretur, elegit; eoque per angelicam praesentiam praestantioremque naturam spiritali nequitia sibi subiecto et tamquam instrumento abutens fallacia sermocinatus est feminae, a parte scilicet inferiore illius humanae copulae incipiens, ut gradatim perueniret ad totum, non existimans uirum facile credulum nec errando posse decipi, sed dum alieno cedit errori. Sicut enim Aaron erranti populo ad idolum fabricandum non consensit inductus, sed cessit obstrictus, nec Salomonem credibile est errore putasse idolis esse seruiendum, sed blanditiis femineis ad illa sacrilegia fuisse conpulsum: ita credendum est illum uirum suae feminae, uni unum. hominem homini, coniugem coniugi, ad Dei legem transgrediendam non tamquam uerum loquenti credidisse seductum, sed sociali necessitudine paruisse. Non enim frustra dixit apostolus: Adam non est seductus, mulier autem seducta est, nisi quia illa quod ei serpens locutus est, tamquam uerum esset, accepit, ille autem ab unico noluit consortio dirimi nec in communione peccati; nec ideo minus reus, si sciens prudensque peccauit. Unde et apostolus non ait: ‘Non peccauit sed: Non est seductus; nam utique ipsum ostendit, ubi dicit: Per unum hominem peccatum intrauit in mundum, et paulo post apertius: In similitudine, inquit, praeuaricationis Adae. Hos autem seductos intellegi uoluit, qui id, quod faciunt, non putant esse peccatum; ille autem sciuit. Alioquin quo modo uerum erit: Adam non est seductus? Sed inexpertus diuinae seueritatis in eo falli potuit, ut ueniale crederet esse commissum. Ac per hoc in eo quidem, quo mulier seducta est, non est ille seductus, sed eum fefellit, quo modo fuerat iudicandum quod erat dicturus: Mulier. quam dedisti mecum, ipsa mihi dedit, et manducaui. Quid ergo pluribus? Etsi credendo non sunt ambo decepti, peccando tamen ambo sunt capti et diaboli laqueis inplicati.

Chapter 12.—Of the Nature of Man’s First Sin.

Caput XII. De qualitate peccati a primis hominibus admissi.

If any one finds a difficulty in understanding why other sins do not alter human nature as it was altered by the transgression of those first human beings, so that on account of it this nature is subject to the great corruption we feel and see, and to death, and is distracted and tossed with so many furious and contending emotions, and is certainly far different from what it was before sin, even though it were then lodged in an animal body,—if, I say, any one is moved by this, he ought not to think that that sin was a small and light one because it was committed about food, and that not bad nor noxious, except because it was forbidden; for in that spot of singular felicity God could not have created and planted any evil thing. But by the precept He gave, God commended obedience, which is, in a sort, the mother and guardian of all the virtues in the reasonable creature, which was so created that submission is advantageous to it, while the fulfillment of its own will in preference to the Creator’s is destruction. And as this commandment enjoining abstinence from one kind of food in the midst of great abundance of other kinds was so easy to keep,—so light a burden to the memory,—and, above all, found no resistance to its observance in lust, which only afterwards sprung up as the penal consequence of sin, the iniquity of violating it was all the greater in proportion to the ease with which it might have been kept.

Si quem uero mouet. quur aliis peccatis sic natura non mutetur humana. quem ad modum illa duorum primorum hominum praeuaricatione mutata est, ut tantae corruptioni, quantam uidemus adque sentimus, et per hanc subiaceret et morti ac tot et tantis tamque inter se contrariis perturbaretur et fluctuaret adfectibus, qualis in paradiso ante peccatum, licet in corpore animali esset, utique non fuit — si quis hoc mouetur, ut dixi, non ideo debet existimare leue ac paruum illud fuisse commissum, quia in esca factum est, non quidem mala nec noxia, nisi quia prohibita; neque enim quidquam mali Deus in illo tantae felicitatis loco crearet adque plantaret. Sed oboedientia commendata est in praecepto, quae uirtus in creatura rationali mater quodam modo est omnium custosque uirtutum; quando quidem ita facta est, ut ei subditam esse sit utile; perniciosum autem suam, non eius a quo creata est facere uoluntatem. Hoc itaque de uno cibi genere non edendo, ubi aliorum tanta copia subiacebat, tam leue praeceptum ad obseruandum, tam breue ad memoria retinendum, ubi praesertim nondum uoluntati cupiditas resistebat, quod de poena transgressionis postea subsecutum est, tanto maiore iniustitia uiolatum est, quanto faciliore posset obseruantia custodiri.

Chapter 13.—That in Adam’s Sin an Evil Will Preceded the Evil Act.

Caput XIII. Quod in praeuaricatione Adae opus malum uoluntas praecesserit mala.

Our first parents fell into open disobedience because already they were secretly corrupted; for the evil act had never been done had not an evil will preceded it. And what is the origin of our evil will but pride? For “pride is the beginning of sin.” And what is pride but the craving for undue exaltation? And this is undue exaltation, when the soul abandons Him to whom it ought to cleave as its end, and becomes a kind of end to itself. This happens when it becomes its own satisfaction. And it does so when it falls away from that unchangeable good which ought to satisfy it more than itself. This falling away is spontaneous; for if the will had remained steadfast in the love of that higher and changeless good by which it was illumined to intelligence and kindled into love, it would not have turned away to find satisfaction in itself, and so become frigid and benighted; the woman would not have believed the serpent spoke the truth, nor would the man have preferred the request of his wife to the command of God, nor have supposed that it was a venial trangression to cleave to the partner of his life even in a partnership of sin. The wicked deed, then,—that is to say, the trangression of eating the forbidden fruit,—was committed by persons who were already wicked. That “evil fruit” could be brought forth only by “a corrupt tree.” But that the tree was evil was not the result of nature; for certainly it could become so only by the vice of the will, and vice is contrary to nature. Now, nature could not have been depraved by vice had it not been made out of nothing. Consequently, that it is a nature, this is because it is made by God; but that it falls away from Him, this is because it is made out of nothing. But man did not so fall away as to become absolutely nothing; but being turned towards himself, his being became more contracted than it was when he clave to Him who supremely is. Accordingly, to exist in himself, that is, to be his own satisfaction after abandoning God, is not quite to become a nonentity, but to approximate to that. And therefore the holy Scriptures designate the proud by another name, “self-pleasers.” For it is good to have the heart lifted up, yet not to one’s self, for this is proud, but to the Lord, for this is obedient, and can be the act only of the humble. There is, therefore, something in humility which, strangely enough, exalts the heart, and something in pride which debases it. This seems, indeed, to be contradictory, that loftiness should debase and lowliness exalt. But pious humility enables us to submit to what is above us; and nothing is more exalted above us than God; and therefore humility, by making us subject to God, exalts us. But pride, being a defect of nature, by the very act of refusing subjection and revolting from Him who is supreme, falls to a low condition; and then comes to pass what is written: “Thou castedst them down when they lifted up themselves.” For he does not say, “when they had been lifted up,” as if first they were exalted, and then afterwards cast down; but “when they lifted up themselves” even then they were cast down,—that is to say, the very lifting up was already a fall. And therefore it is that humility is specially recommended to the city of God as it sojourns in this world, and is specially exhibited in the city of God, and in the person of Christ its King; while the contrary vice of pride, according to the testimony of the sacred writings, specially rules his adversary the devil. And certainly this is the great difference which distinguishes the two cities of which we speak, the one being the society of the godly men, the other of the ungodly, each associated with the angels that adhere to their party, and the one guided and fashioned by love of self, the other by love of God.

In occulto autem mali esse coeperunt, ut in apertam inoboedientiam laberentur. Non enim ad malum. opus perueniretur, nisi praecessisset uoluntas mala. Porro malae uoluntatis initium quae potuit esse nisi superbia? Initium enim omnis peccati superbia est. Quid est autem superbia nisi peruersae celsitudinis adpetitus? Peruersa enim est celsitudo deserto eo, cui debet animus inhaerere, principio sibi quodam modo fieri adque esse principium. Hoc fit, cum sibi nimis placet. Sibi uero ita placet, cum ab illo bono inmutabili deficit, quod ei magis placere debuit quam ipse sibi. Spontaneus est autem iste defectus, quoniam, si uoluntas in amore superioris inmutabilis boni, a quo inlustrabatur ut uideret et accendebatur ut amaret, stabilis permaneret, non inde ad sibi placendum auerteretur et ex hoc tenebresceret et frigesceret, ut uel illa crederet uerum dixisse serpentem, uel ille Dei mandato uxoris praeponeret uoluntatem putaretque se uenialiter transgressorem esse praecepti, si uitae suae sociam non desereret etiam in societate peccati. Non ergo malum opus factum est, id est illa transgressio ut cibo prohibito uescerentur, nisi ab eis qui iam mali erant. Neque enim fieret ille fructus malus nisi ab arbore mala. Ut autem esset arbor mala, centra naturam factum est, quia nisi uitio uoluntatis, quod contra naturam est, non utique fieret. Sed uitio deprauari nisi ex nihilo facta natura non posset. Ac per hoc ut natura sit, ex eo habet quod a Deo facta est; ut autem ab eo quod est deficiat, ex hoc quod de nihilo facta est. Nec sic defecit homo, ut omnino nihil esset, sed ut inclinatus ad se ipsum minus esset, quam erat, cum ei qui summe est inhaerebat. Relicto itaque Deo esse in semet ipso, hoc est sibi placere, non iam nihil esse est, sed nihilo propinquare. Unde superbi secundum scripturas sanctas alio nomine appellantur sibi placentes. Bonum est enim sursum habere cor; non tamen ad se ipsum, quod est superbiae, sed ad Dominum, quod est oboedientiae, quae nisi humilium non potest esse. Est igitur aliquid humilitatis miro modo quod sursum faciat cor, et est aliquid elationis quod deorsum faciat cor. Hoc quidem quasi contrarium uidetur, ut elatio sit deorsum et humilitas sursum. Sed pia humilitas facit subditum superiori; nihil est autem superius Deo; et ideo exaltat humilitas, quae facit subditum Deo. Elatio autem, quae in uitio est, eo ipso respuit subiectionem et cadit ab illo, quo non est quidquam superius, et ex hoc erit inferius et fit quod scriptum est: Deiecisti eos, cum extollerentur. Non enim ait: ‘Cum elati fuissent ut prius extollerentur et postea deicerentur; sed cum extollerentur, tunc deiecti sunt. Ipsum quippe extolli iam deici est. Quapropter quod nunc in ciuitate Dei et ciuitati Dei in hoc peregrinanti saeculo maxime commendatur humilitas et. in eius rege, qui est Christus, maxime praedicatur contrariumque huic uirtuti elationis uitium in eius aduersario, qui est diabolus, maxime dominari sacris litteris edocetur: profecto ista est magna differentia, qua ciuitas, unde loquimur, utraque discernitur, una scilicet societas piorum hominum, altera inpiorum, singula quaeque cum angelis ad se pertinentibus, in quibus praecessit hac amor Dei, hac amor sui.

The devil, then, would not have ensnared man in the open and manifest sin of doing what God had forbidden, had man not already begun to live for himself. It was this that made him listen with pleasure to the words, “Ye shall be as gods,” which they would much more readily have accomplished by obediently adhering to their supreme and true end than by proudly living to themselves. For created gods are gods not by virtue of what is in themselves, but by a participation of the true God. By craving to be more, man becomes less; and by aspiring to be self-sufficing, he fell away from Him who truly suffices him. Accordingly, this wicked desire which prompts man to please himself as if he were himself light, and which thus turns him away from that light by which, had he followed it, he would himself have become light,—this wicked desire, I say, already secretly existed in him, and the open sin was but its consequence. For that is true which is written, “Pride goeth before destruction, and before honor is humility;” that is to say, secret ruin precedes open ruin, while the former is not counted ruin. For who counts exaltation ruin, though no sooner is the Highest forsaken than a fall is begun? But who does not recognize it as ruin, when there occurs an evident and indubitable transgression of the commandment? And consequently, God’s prohibition had reference to such an act as, when committed, could not be defended on any pretense of doing what was righteous. And I make bold to say that it is useful for the proud to fall into an open and indisputable transgression, and so displease themselves, as already, by pleasing themselves, they had fallen. For Peter was in a healthier condition when he wept and was dissatisfied with himself, than when he boldly presumed and satisfied himself. And this is averred by the sacred Psalmist when he says, “Fill their faces with shame, that they may seek Thy name, O Lord;” that is, that they who have pleased themselves in seeking their own glory may be pleased and satisfied with Thee in seeking Thy glory.

Manifesto ergo apertoque peccato, ubi factum est quod Deus fieri prohibuerat, diabolus hominem non cepisset, nisi iam ille sibi ipsi placere coepisset. Hinc enim et delectauit quod dictum est: Eritis sicut di. Quod melius esse possent summo ueroque principio cohaerendo per oboedientiam, non suum sibi existendo principium per superbiam. Di enim creati non sua ueritate, sed Dei ueri participatione sunt di. Plus autem adpetendo minus est, qui, dum sibi sufficere deligit, ab illo, qui ei uere sufficit, deficit. Illud itaque malum, quo, cum sibi homo placet, tamquam sit et ipse lumen, auertitur ab eo lumine, quod ei si placeat et ipse fit lumen — illud, inquam, malum praecessit in abdito, ut sequeretur hoc malum quod perpetratum est in aperto. Verum est enim quod scriptum est: Ante ruinam exaltatur cor et ante gloriam humiliatur. Illa prorsus ruina, quae fit in occulto, praecedit ruinam, quae fit in manifesto, dum illa ruina esse non putatur. Quis enim exaltationem ruinam putat, cum iam ibi sit defectus, quo est relictus Excelsus? Quis autem ruinam esse non uideat, quando fit mandati euidens adque indubitata transgressio? Propter hoc Deus illud prohibuit, quod cum esset admissum, nulla defendi posset imaginatione iustitiae. Et audeo dicere superbis esse utile cadere in aliquod apertum manifestumque peccatum, unde sibi displiceant, qui iam sibi placendo ceciderant. Salubrius enim Petrus sibi displicuit, quando fleuit, quam sibi placuit, quando praesumsit. Hoc dicit et sacer psalmus: Inple facies eorum ignominia, et quaerent nomen tuum, Domine, id est, ut tu eis placeas quaerentibus nomen tuum, qui sibi placuerant quaerendo suum.

Chapter 14.—Of the Pride in the Sin, Which Was Worse Than the Sin Itself.

Caput XIV. De superbia transgressoris, quae ipsa fuit transgressione deterior,

But it is a worse and more damnable pride which casts about for the shelter of an excuse even in manifest sins, as these our first parents did, of whom the woman said, “The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat;” and the man said, “The woman whom Thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.” Here there is no word of begging pardon, no word of entreaty for healing. For though they do not, like Cain, deny that they have perpetrated the deed, yet their pride seeks to refer its wickedness to another,—the woman’s pride to the serpent, the man’s to the woman. But where there is a plain trangression of a divine commandment, this is rather to accuse than to excuse oneself. For the fact that the woman sinned on the serpent’s persuasion, and the man at the woman’s offer, did not make the transgression less, as if there were any one whom we ought rather to believe or yield to than God.

Sed est peior damnabiliorque superbia, qua etiam in peccatis manifestis suffugium excusationis inquiritur; sicut illi primi homines, quorum et illa dixit: Serpens seduxit me, et manducaui, et ille dixit: Mulier, quam dedisti mecum, haec mihi dedit a ligno, et edi. Nusquam hic sonat petitio ueniae, nusquam inploratio medicinae. Nam licet isti non sicut Cain quod commiserunt negent, adhuc tamen superbia in aliud quaerit referre quod perperam fecit: superbia mulieris in serpentem, superbia uiri in mulierem. Sed accusatio potius quam excusatio uera est, ubi mandati diuini est aperta transgressio. Neque enim hoc propterea non fecerunt, quia id mulier serpente suadente, uir muliere inpertiente commisit, quasi quidquam Deo, cui uel crederetur uel cederetur, anteponendam fuit.