Letters 3.11–3.35

To Theoctistus. Examine it carefully, excellent friend, and you will find it full of justice. For he did not say, "Whoever simply and in passing sees a woman and desires her will be punished as an adulterer" (that would indeed be an impossible demand and an unreasonable threat), but "Whoever looks at a woman in order to desire her," that is, the one who draws the passion to himself by premeditation, who makes this his business, who keeps lying in wait and nurses the passion by continual, unceasing gazing, "has already committed adultery in his heart." For the word "already" shows, to those whose minds are not quite small, that it was said of those who attempt the impossible. For what if she is married and chaste and guarded by many? How could she be within reach of the one who loves her? It is fitting, then, that it was said, "has already committed adultery," of the man who would not have kept from the act if it were possible. Unless all the strength of his soul had yielded to his love, his body would not have been persuaded to go there continually and to feast the passion with unrestrained eyes, when many, even in love, blush to look at such women. And if love of glory bridles the eyes and masters love, much more will the fear of God do this. But if someone says, "What then if, when the act is possible, he abstains?", I would say that this is truly great and divine and a true proof of virginity. And such a man, even if he saw and was wounded in passing, would not be eager to gaze continually, but would remove himself far away, so that continual gazing might not supply fuel to the fire. But if he is eager to gaze, he convicts himself by the passion with which he gazes. And if, gazing continually, he says he suffers nothing terrible, he will be refuted by Job, who is above all praise, saying, "I made a covenant with my eyes, and I will not think upon a virgin." And if he thinks it a small thing to vie with the man who broke the devil's strength, he would rightly be disbelieved for that very reason when he says that he looks continually but is not affected. And even if we grant that he tells the truth, he is shown to misinterpret the divine oracle; for it did not say, "Look, but do not desire," or "Desire, but hold out." And if he is shameless even so, he ought to blush before the one who said, "It is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me." For the man who spoke these words, higher than all philosophy, who carried the wealth of gifts as in an earthen treasure-vessel, was anxious as he looked toward this war, and said, "I pummel my body and enslave it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified." If so great a man reined in the frenzy of the flesh, let each one be eager to provide safety for himself by not looking, lest the fuel, coming near the fire, kindle the flame.

To the same. I greatly admire your simplicity: you praised highly the interpretation of the Gospel oracle, but wrote back, "What then of the woman who was looked at, if the man who looked was wounded?" You should have realized that the woman who walks modestly and decently and does not hunt those she meets is not at all to blame; but the one who gives herself airs, spreads the nets of pleasure, and mixes the poison, very much so. I say this because you thought this oracle was spoken to men only, not knowing that it was spoken to women too. For the laws are common to both sexes, except only those laid down specifically for each sex. If, then, women do not fall in love, the oracle is not addressed to them; but since they too are caught by this passion, it looks to them as well. For just as "Blessed is the man who has not walked in the counsel of the ungodly," and "Blessed is the man who fears the Lord," and the like, were said not of men only but also of women, being spoken to the one who is ruled through the more governing creature, so too the command not to desire through continual gazing has been laid down for both sexes. For we must not think here what some try to establish on "Death is rest to a man," attempting to show that death is a respite for brave and noble men, not for the others who are called human beings. Indeed, that too seems to me stale. For even if death is truly rest for the brave and noble, being the end of the contests and the beginning of the prizes (which is why it is said even of a woman, "A brave woman, who will find?"; and lest anyone think this was said of something impossible, it was said elsewhere, "A brave woman is a crown to her husband"; and the word "man" often means the brave), yet the renowned Job was speaking here not of the noble but of every human being simply who has been pierced by inescapable misfortunes. If anyone doubts it, he may easily learn it from the context. For it runs: "Why is light given to those in bitterness, and life to souls in pain, who long for death and do not obtain it? They would be overjoyed if they obtained it. For death is rest to a man; for God has hemmed him in." When, he means, trials are sky-high on every side and cannot be guarded against (as he said elsewhere, "He raised his rampart against me"), then death is welcome and to be prayed for. And if, because "to a man" is said, they will not accept this interpretation, it is possible to refute them by showing that the word aner ("man") is used not only of a male but also of a woman. For one is called a man-slayer (androphonos) who kills not only a man but also a woman, and a statue (andrias) is not only of a man but also of a woman. But passing over these as not very forceful, I will try to reason with them from the divine oracles. What, then, would they say when they hear, "A lawless man will walk in ways that are not good"? What when it is said, "A senseless man will not know"? And what when, "He will be like a foolish man"? For if there "man" means not the human being but the brave and noble, how is a lawless and senseless and foolish man spoken of here? But leaving these, I will come to the matter before us. Since both the commandments of the law and the Gospel oracles, the former forbidding sins and the latter describing the beatitudes, were spoken to men and to women, let women too be on guard and bridle their eyes, so that they may not, through licentious gazing, incur the punishments of adulteresses. For even if the desire for intercourse be granted to be equal (some say the man's is more tyrannical, others the woman's), still he sows and she is sown; he begets and she gives birth; he holds the place of the farmer, she of the earth. In these very matters, then, in which a man cannot do what belongs to the woman nor the woman what belongs to the man, specific laws were laid down; but all the others are common to all and undivided. For just as it was legislated, "You shall not commit adultery," and not only the man, if he is caught, pays the penalty for it, but also the woman, so here too, especially since it is said, "Everyone who looks at a woman to desire her has already committed adultery with her in his heart," it is plain to all that every woman who looks at a man to desire him has already committed adultery with him in her heart.

To the same. [Why some things in the law are legislated for men and women in common, and some separately.] You ought to read the Scriptures and not ask about everything. For if you read them, you would know that certain things were legislated specifically for the man concerning emission of seed, and for the woman concerning menstruation; and for the man, that he should not overturn the ordinances of nature, rage after males, and lust fruitlessly; for the woman, concerning the water of conviction, if she were suspected of having committed adultery. And it calls the man who has had a nocturnal emission, and the woman who is being purified and has given birth, unclean, and it keeps them outside the sacred precincts until they are purified. And certain other things were legislated specifically, which there is no need to mention now, since you can learn from what will be said that specific laws were laid down only in matters in which a woman cannot do what belongs to a man, nor a man what belongs to a woman. All the others are common to both sexes, such as: "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and your neighbour as yourself"; "You shall not murder. You shall not commit adultery. You shall not steal. You shall not bear false witness. Honour your father and your mother. You shall not swear falsely. You shall not covet anything that is your neighbour's," and whatever is akin to these. And if you come to the Gospel oracles, again you will find the same: for blessed are the poor in spirit, the meek, the merciful, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the pure in heart, the peacemakers, and the like. And what was said about celibacy and chastity was said to both sexes, even if it was expressed in the masculine form, because this suits the oracular style and because the male is the more governing creature: "He who is able to receive it, let him receive it." And this is plain from the fact that many women have both received and achieved it.

To the same. This is why the law required purifications even for natural and involuntary emissions: so that we might all the more flee those that are voluntary and against nature. For by shutting entrance to the temple to those who incur what seem to be sins but are not, until they are purified, it creates greater fear in those who sin willingly and threatens a harsher punishment. For if the involuntary was not simply pardoned, the voluntary would plainly be unpardonable, unless it is healed by sincere repentance.

To Elisha the monk. To stumble while among those under authority is terrible; for one consecrated as priest, more terrible; and for one who has been allotted the high priesthood, most terrible of all. For the more they excel in honours, the greater the sin. Even if it is the same sin, it becomes more grievous, measured not by its nature but by the rank of the one who did it. And why do I compare the guide with the subject, when the lawgiver said that the high priest's fault weighs as much as that of the whole people, and ordained that he offer as great a sacrifice as the whole people is commanded to offer if it transgresses? If the wound were not equal and of equal weight, he would not have fixed a matching cure.

To the same. This law and ordinance about the divine nature has prevailed: that honours are not paid to it by the created race according to its worth (that is not even possible), but that piety is measured by the means of those who contribute. Let none, then, of those who wrestle with poverty be distressed; let him rather rejoice. For the one thing the divine nature seeks, namely virtue, he will be able to offer above all.

To Theodosius the bishop. That Eusebius, the teacher of non-possession and skilled expounder of heavenly doctrines, should wallow in earthly affairs and make money somehow no longer seems shocking. But what you have now reported, which is attested by many trustworthy men but will perhaps seem incredible to those who come after us, admits of nothing beyond it. For who will readily believe that he dishonours those who practise poverty and shine in the rest of the philosophic life, regarding them as useless because they cannot profit him for money-making, and does not judge them worthy of the priesthood, while he promotes the rich to the priesthood because he can harvest their wealth, even if they are full of every vice, thinking that the sacred ministry is owed not to virtue but to wealth? Those who are not caught by these passions ought indeed, as you said, to have devised the proper remedy. But since they are very few and are covered over by the multitude, and, fearing the hatred of the many, they weep but show nothing noble or vigorous, they are for that reason suspected of being sick with the same disease. For do not think, you sanctuary of hatred for evil, that all are such; there are some who keep the apostolic character, of whom you yourself are one, on whose account the sentence against the sinners has not yet been pronounced.

To Agathus the presbyter. The most divine Definition and Word of the Father, most wise friend (I shall come to the explanation without preface, for I am in labour to speak what I have understood), if he is later in origin, as they say, is not eternal; and if he is eternal, as we say, he is not later in origin. For nothing is so proper to and characteristic of the divine nature as eternity. "Radiance" shows the co-eternal; "the imprint of his hypostasis" shows that he subsists in himself; "Word" shows that he is impassible and incorporeal; "Son" shows what is proper to him and that he is of the same essence. From each we gather what is useful and leave aside the rest, whatever does not befit the divine nature. Among begotten things let "before" and "after" have their place; but in the venerable and most royal Trinity, "first" and "second" have no place. For the Godhead is above both number and times.

To Athanasius the presbyter. If the Jew who, as you said, argued with you thinks that the lawgiver said nothing more than the letter, say to him: "Your lack of learning is refuted by the two men who became writers among you after the coming of Christ: Philo, the most contemplative, and Josephus, the most learned in history. The one turns almost the whole Old Testament into allegory; the other writes explicitly that the lawgiver spoke some things in skilful riddles, others in allegory with dignity, and stated plainly whatever it was useful to say directly." For if we bring forward prophetic sayings that guarantee this, they will not hesitate to misinterpret and distort them; and if apostolic statements, proofs and interpretations, they will impiously dare to set them aside; but they could not rightly set aside the testimonies of those who were held wise among themselves.

To Hermogenes the bishop. The priesthood stands as it were midway between the divine and human natures, so that it may serve the one and work a change for the better in the other. Whoever, then, thinks himself greater than it does not seem to me to have any sense.

To the same. The saints, most wise friend, have the extremity of dangers undergone for virtue as provision for greater renown.

To Isidore the deacon. Just as (to use a vivid example) Jerusalem, when she was armed with divine alliance, stood upright and set up trophies without toil or bloodshed, but when she was deprived of it because she raged against it, the fire of war easily brought her down, so too the soul: when it is fenced about by help from above through steadiness of character, it will easily overcome its enemies; but when it sins, it will be captured here by the fire of the passions and punished there by the fire of the judgment.

To Asclepius the sophist. If Xerxes, O sophist (for I will argue with you from your own stock), after yoking the Hellespont, could not yoke the spirit of the Athenians with the yoke of slavery, but though he moved everything and made innovations in the law laid down for the elements, he did not move them from their convictions, you thought that by mere advice you would move our resolve and turn it to flattery. How is that not absurd? Stop, then, giving us advice of this sort; otherwise we shall exclude you from the company of our friends.

To Martyrius the reader. The terrible and all-daring passion for money, knowing no satiety, drives the soul it has captured to the extremity of evils. Let us, then, drive it away above all at its beginnings. For once it has prevailed, it will be unconquerable.

To Syrion. The noble Paul, the best of generals, who did not dishonour the King's appointment, who overlooked his own interests in order to set right those of others, since he regarded nothing more than the advantage of the church, cried out that all things must be done for the building up of the church. But we prefer what seems advantageous to us (for we look to our own glory) to what is advantageous to the church. Yet the glory of the church always redounds to us too; but our glory does not always pass to the common good. For if, in order to seem to commend ourselves, we neglect the building up of our neighbours, how will the loss not be greater than the gain?

To Cassius the presbyter. [Against those who say that there is a horoscope, that is, fate, or what is called fortune.] It is not terrible, excellent friend, that those who have done terrible things should suffer terrible things. But that those who have done nothing terrible should suffer terrible things is most terrible of all. How, then, shall we answer those who accuse us about this? In no other way, I think, than by saying of the first that they suffer justly, and of the second that they suffer to be proved. For justice punished the one and procured for the other an occasion for crowns. Those who posit a horoscope will be at a loss to answer about either. For it is not just that the man compelled to do something, or the man who has done nothing terrible, should suffer terrible things. But we who affirm that there is Providence both speak well and act piously, and give reasonable causes.

To Agathus the presbyter. [On the holy Trinity.] What in holy Scripture exceeds the singular number points to the distinction of the hypostases; what is expressed in the singular points to the identity of the nature. The former were said so that Sabellius and the Jews might be silenced; the latter so that Arius and Eunomius and the Greeks might be exposed. For those who expand the number of the properties into the holy Trinity, but contract them into one essence, teach most rightly and follow the teachings of the heavenly oracles, neither falling into polytheism through a difference of nature nor slipping into Judaism through the compression into one person.

To Aphthonius the bishop. Doubtful things should be judged from things agreed, not things agreed from doubtful ones. I mean something like this. When the dream of the image had flown from the Babylonian and he sought to learn not only the interpretation of what was shown but the vision itself, and all were at a loss, Daniel did not speak of what was sought before he had explained what was plain. By setting out what the king had been thinking in his mind, he made himself trustworthy and above suspicion about what was in dispute. For his teaching about the things agreed removed the charge that what he said was invented.

To Hermogenes the bishop. If the way of life of a man's companions is a clear sign of his character, do not be surprised that Eusebius holds in honour Martinianus, Zosimus and Maron and the others of like character with them. For just as, if he were a lover of virtue, he would not have preferred others to the lovers of virtue, so, since he has vice as his foster-sister and friend, he uses those of like character.

To Archontius the presbyter. The one who prevails not through the weakness of his opponents but by the greatness of his own strength, overcoming the strong, is renowned and worthy of proclamation. Do not, then, be puffed up if you have overcome one or two. If you prevail over the foremost in virtue, you will truly be proclaimed victor.

To Ophelius the grammarian. [How "Firstborn of all nature" is meant.] Passing over the beaten tracks, I will say plainly what I have understood, even if I seem to some to be cutting a new road of interpretation. Prototokos, if the second syllable is accented, denotes the one born first; if the penultimate, the one who first bore. And you who study Homer know this very well; for the poet calls a mother who has given birth for the first time prototokos. It is likely, or rather necessary, to understand that here too the divine Paul used some such sense, not teaching that he was created first of creation (far from it! for he calls him "the radiance of the glory" and "the imprint" of the Father's "hypostasis"), but that he first bore, that is, made, creation: so that, with the third syllable accented, he is the first begetter, not the first begotten; the first creator, not the first created. And if "bearing" is used here for creation, let no one be surprised, since elsewhere it is said, "You have forsaken God who begot you," and "I begot sons and raised them up," and "I said, You are gods and sons of the Most High, all of you." For since God, when he begot, begot without passion, and when he creates, fashions without passion, in a manner worthy of God and without toil, Scripture has used these names, not so that we should take begetting to be creation and creation begetting, as the heretics are seen to contrive with malice, but in order to show God's ease and freedom from passion. But if anyone, a slave only to prejudice and not looking to the truth, contradicts me, neither shall I cast the vote for myself, nor would he rightly do so for himself. Let us, then, entrust the matter to impartial judges, and let the hearers be the judges. If he can prove his case, let him prove it. But if he demands proof from me, I will bring forward as witness the one who said it. For after saying, "Firstborn of all creation," he added, "for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth." If he had said, "After him they were created," vote for the accuser. But if "in him" (for in the Creator is the making and continuance of all things, which he also made plain elsewhere, saying, "For in him we live and move and have our being"), our victory is, I think, beyond dispute. And if I state what follows, the trophy is more conspicuous still. For he says, "And he is before all things." He did not say, "He came to be before all things," but "He is before all things, and in him all things hold together." He did not say, "With him," or "After him they were created." And why do they reject those who say that he is only-begotten according to the Godhead and firstborn of the new creation according to the humanity? For if it is not understood in this way, and he is certainly not to be called first-created, "firstborn," if joined to "only-begotten," can show his nobility of birth; for someone can be both the firstborn and the only-begotten son; but joined to created things, it has no place. For either one is the only one created, or the first among others: the one cancels the other. What prevented him from saying plainly, "First-created of all creation"? And how, if he is thought of as first-created, is he only-begotten? For "only" admits no other, while "first" rules out "only." And in what does he differ from created things in this very respect, if he too was created? And how do they not blush, worshipping a creature and fighting their own votes? Forbidding the worship of creation as pagan, they do not notice that they themselves do it. One must also know this: the same names do not always mean the same things, nor does a shared name in every case show a shared meaning. Begetting is said of the Son properly, but of created things by extension: of him for the sake of truth and sameness of essence, of them for the sake of honour and adoption. "For of his own will he brought us forth by the word of truth." Let not, then, the shared name here beget equal honour, and let what is said by extension not be thought to have been said properly. For no one in his right mind would say that anger and wrath and all the other things unfitting to the divine nature, which are said by extension, were said properly. For it is plain that the fitting and suitable interpretation, brought to each passage and each word, brings forth the truth.

To Isaiah the soldier. I am greatly astonished that, though you know very well that the divine power is invincible and always the same and unchanging, while nothing human is firm or secure, but even if it seems very powerful it is uncertain (for it has an acknowledged tendency to change into its opposite, and when it lacks help from above it is in labour with a monstrous fall), you do not measure your pride but, swelling beyond measure, provoke the change to the opposite.

To Paul. [What is meant by the prophet Zechariah's seeing sin seated on a measure of lead.] Since you asked, "For what reason did Zechariah see sin seated on a measure of lead?", I say that the lead shows the weight of sin. For nothing is heavier or more burdensome than sin, which hurls those it has caught to the bottom of Hades. The measure shows the end of God's patience toward sinners and the beginning of punishment. For they will not be allowed to sin without measure or for ever; but very soon they will pay the bitterest penalties.

To Eutonius. The love of honour is terrible and powerful and rules the human race terribly; and the saving Word, restraining it wisely and skilfully and diverting it toward the better, says, "Take care not to do your righteousness before people in order to be seen by them; otherwise you have no reward from your Father who is in heaven." For since he knew, being its maker and fashioner, that the seeds of love of honour had been planted in human beings well from the beginning, not simply nor at random, but so that, ardent lovers of honour obtaining it, they might advance toward the better, possessing in the desire for glory a most excellent safeguard against being enslaved to servile passions; and since they diverted the innate gift to its opposite and turned to earthly honour, forgetting the heavenly, again, like an excellent farmer caring for the soul, he cuts away the shoots that grow toward the worse and checks the rush of the worst of them toward human glory-madness, which runs terribly wild; but whatever in it is tame and fruitful for bearing the fruit of honours above the world, he not only leaves but also kindles and makes more fruitful, tearing up by the root the display made by those who reach for human glory, but rightly allowing the desire for honour that looks to God alone to be pursued with all one's strength.

To Hierax the presbyter. We have taken care, more than or no less than your magnanimity, that, as far as our part goes, Chaeremon, Zosimus and Maron might change their minds, take up a better purpose, and be rid of their disgrace. But since, it seems, having fallen into a vice that has no rival, they have not yet been willing to recover, they are lamented by some as though they might recover in this way, and given up by others as having run aground on insensibility. Nevertheless we on our part shall leave nothing undone, in case perhaps, even late, they acknowledge defeat and make peace with virtue, or else are not ashamed to make war without truce. …