Letters 4.99–4.114

To Eudaemon the presbyter. Since, as you have written, some men say that God does not even exist (these have carried off the prizes for impiety); others that he exists but does not exercise providence; others that he does, but only over the heavenly things; others that he does over earthly things as well, yet not over all, but only over kings and rulers; others that he does over all (for his providence reaches even to the ants), yet they do not worship the consubstantial Trinity; and some define chance as ruling, others fate; some think that God gave the law through Moses alone, others that an opposing power gave it; some that the Word born of God did not come to dwell among us, others that he came only in appearance; some taught a confusion, mixing, and disappearance of the natures, others that he came to be in a man; some defined him as less than the Father, others as a creature; some do not confess the divine Spirit to be God, others call him a ministering and sanctifying power: we must not follow the votes of the sick, but take our proofs from the judgment of the healthy, and follow the holy synod that was assembled at Nicaea, neither adding nor taking away. For it, inspired by God, taught the truth.

To Isidore the deacon. [What is meant by "for a demonstration of his righteousness."] Since you have written asking what "for a demonstration of his righteousness" means, I say this. When human nature went mad, and the tyranny of sins was unbearable, and it was the time for sentence, with total destruction condemning the race (for every way of healing had been tested and found wanting, and neither the law nor the prophetic word could drive off the plague that had spread), then he brought in the Only-begotten as a ransom, so that grace might have its reason. That is why the Apostle said, "for a demonstration of his righteousness." One victim was offered for all, and above the worth of all. Then the wrath was dissolved, the reconciliation came about, the enmity was changed into friendship, and instead of the sentence the extraordinary gift of adoption was given, and countless gifts came dancing in to adorn the Church, so that his righteousness might be shown and the abundance of his goodness made plain together. [Letter 4.101] [On "God gave them a spirit of stupor."] Since you asked that "God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes not to see and ears not to hear, to this very day" be made clear to you, listen. "Gave" and "gave up," by the laws and idioms of the holy Scripture, mean "let go" and "permitted." If you do not accept this, the argument will proceed by proof. Paul says of those who ascribed the worship of God to idols, "He gave them up to dishonourable passions," that is, he let them go, he abandoned them. For how could they fail to be ignorant even of nature and to wallow in outlandish faults, when they worshipped the creature rather than the Creator? And again, "He gave them up to a debased mind, to do what is not fitting." Then, interpreting himself, he said, "filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, covetousness." If, then, they were already filled, how did he give them up? See the precision. He did not say, "He gave them up to be filled," but that he let them go when they were filled; just as a good shepherd might drive sheep caught by a pestilential disease out of the flock and in a way hand them over to the wolves, not by throwing them into the wolves' mouths, but by stripping them of his own care and protection. That is the sense of "gave." And the spirit of stupor is a spirit of being struck down and pierced through. For "to prick" is to wound and strike, as in "They pierced the side of Christ with the spear." Since, then, to prick is to strike, "being pierced through" and "being stunned" are fittingly said. Then, explaining "he stunned" as "he struck down," he himself said, "eyes not to see and ears not to hear." For this usually happens to those who are struck dumb: since the mind is troubled, the senses refuse their proper work. That this is what it indicates, hear the Scripture saying, "Blessed is he who was not stunned in the grief of sin." And yet godly grief produces a repentance that leads to salvation and brings no regret. What, then, does it mean? If we were to say, as some think, that it is one who has never sinned at all who is called blessed here, perhaps no one would enjoy this blessing; for we are all under penalties. "For who will boast of having a pure heart? Or who will speak boldly, saying he is clean from sin?" But if we say that it calls blessed not the one who has not grieved, but the one who was not crushed by grief and did not betray his own salvation, as Judas did when he killed himself by hanging (which the divine Paul also feared the man who had committed sexual immorality at Corinth might suffer, and so told them to receive him when he repented, "lest such a one be swallowed up by excessive grief"), perhaps we shall touch the truth of the saying. If compunction also occurs in a good sense, let no one wonder; for there too being wounded is used of good things, as the soul in love with divine love cried, "For I am wounded with love." One must know that the same names or words do not always present the same meaning. For David also said, "That my glory may sing to you, and I may not be stunned," which I think means, "that I may not be struck down or change so as no longer to sing hymns"; for he added, "O Lord my God, I will give thanks to you forever." And Simeon and Levi, after their sister was outraged in her very chastity, were "stung," that is, struck and wounded by zeal; and they fell into such unchangeable anger that by deceit they slaughtered not only the man who had outraged her, but his whole city, every grown man. [Letter 4.102] Since you have written, "If Paul advised, 'Would you have no fear of the authority? Then do what is good, and you will have praise from it,' how does he say shortly after, 'Pay fear to whom fear is due'?", I think that, unless some wish this to be said of God (for it is written, "Honour the Lord and you will be strong; and besides him fear no other"), he said the first because the lover of virtue escapes the fear that hangs from the sword over offenders and receives praise from the ruler; and the second because he owes the fear that comes from meeting rulers, and from the respect and honour owed to those who govern. He is not exempt from this, which does him no harm but makes him more respected and illustrious. For one must yield with all one's strength in matters where neither piety nor virtue is harmed, but rather appears more royal and more conspicuous through the reasonableness of those who practise it. [Letter 4.103] To Epimachus the reader. [On "You are the body of Christ."] Since you have written asking what "You are the body of Christ, and members in part" means, I think that since the Church everywhere under the sun is the body of Christ, and the Corinthians were a part of this body, he therefore said "in part"; that is, "The church among you is a member of the Church everywhere." So you ought to be of one mind not only among yourselves (for they were divided into factions), but with all those of the same faith throughout the world, putting every dissension out of the way.

To Hierax the deacon. [On "To you it has been granted by God, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him."] Great achievements are naturally accomplished by great labours, and the greatest by the greatest. So do not imagine that, while doing small and paltry things, you will obtain the greatest prizes; nor, having chosen a soft life without danger, hope to shine in the front of the battle line. Being proclaimed victor belongs to the one who has run the risk and set up trophies. And if he dies in the battle, he remains undying in memory and will have prizes greater than any human reward. The noble general of Christ rightly considers even sufferings for him to be crowns, saying, "To you it has been granted by God, not only to believe in him, but also to suffer for him." For, to pass over the goods to come, he says, the very sufferings through which we share with the Master are the greatest prizes and the fairest crowns.

To Ophelius the grammarian. [On demons.] Since you said you wondered how some of the accursed demons required their worshipper to be just, while others submitted to being made to do unjust things, I think that they required the worshipper to be just because they pretended to be gods, but served unjust ends because they had become wicked by choice. Since they knew that many people honour virtue, they pretended to love the lovers of virtue so as to be thought good; but before long they exposed by their accursed deeds their own mind, which leans toward evil. [Letter 4.106] To Epimachus the reader. [On the one entrusted with five talents and the one entrusted with two.] Since you asked why the one who received five talents and doubled them, and the one who received two, met with the same approval, I say that it was right. For since it was not the slackness of the one or the zeal of the other, but the size of the deposit, which the master gave according to the ability of those who worked with it, that made the difference, the praise is rightly the same, even if the return is not the same. [Letter 4.107] [Why it is written of the earth, "It shall not be moved forever and ever."] Since, comparing the saying about the earth, "It shall not be moved forever and ever," with "Who looks on the earth and makes it tremble," you thought it indicated something contrary, know that it will be shaken but will not be moved. It will be shaken, to show its fear; it will not be moved, to show its boundary. By its trembling it confesses its servitude; by not departing from its own position it shows the boundary God set. [Letter 4.108] [On "Having stripped off the principalities and the powers, he made a public example of them, triumphing over them in him."] It shows an athlete to be stronger and more skilful when, held fast in his opponents' grips, he strips them off and dashes them to the ground of the arena. That is why Christ too accepted the battle against the demons through the cross, so that he might triumph over them the more conspicuously with his trophies. And this is what you wished to learn: "Having stripped off the principalities and the powers, he made a public example of them, triumphing over them openly in him." For truly the demons were led in triumph, defeated by an athlete nailed hand and foot. Truly the devil was pilloried, defeated by one flesh hanging on a cross, and gave way.

To Pistus the deacon. [From Proverbs. What is meant by "He who goes in to a married woman shall not be held innocent"?] Since you have written asking why, after it is written, "He who goes in to a married woman shall not be held innocent," it was said, "nor anyone who touches her," I say that "going in" was used for sexual union, as in what Sarah said to Abraham, "Go in to my maidservant and have children by her"; and "touching" for kissing or handling. For even if, compared with intercourse, these do not seem to be sins, yet when truth is the judge they too would rightly be faults. For if the curious look has been judged to be adultery, the touch will be judged so much more. Just as in paintings colour is more stirring than line, so with bodies touch is more stirring than sight. If, then, sight, which is subtler, has been condemned, touch, which is a grosser enjoyment, has not unreasonably been forbidden.

To Leontius the bishop. [What is meant by "And they shall be on the mountains like moaning doves"?] Since you have written asking what is meant by Ezekiel's words, "And they shall be on the mountains like moaning doves," I say that the interpretation needs many words; yet, as far as I can, I shall put it briefly. The prophet was speaking of those who escaped to the mountains during the Babylonian's attack: even if they seem to have escaped the enemy, they will not escape justice. For when they have taken refuge in the wilderness and think they are out of danger, then they will keep lamenting the destruction of their wives, children, and other relatives; and by the example of the doves he presented the anguish of their souls. Those who cry aloud and pour out their suffering to their neighbours receive no small consolation for it; for sufferings are in a way lightened by being told. But those who, from fear or some other cause, hide their misfortunes in silence and show their pain only by groaning, find the onset of the evil unbearable, since it does not turn toward healing but grows more intense. Wishing, then, to show the greatness of the punishment and also the excess of fear, when people do not even dare to cry out, since suspicion is always dreaming of the enemy's attack, he used such an image. [Letter 4.111] [On "If you are offering your gift at the altar."] For God the Word, the word about reconciliation with one another is of the greatest importance. He who reconciled heavenly things with earthly also dissolves enmities, neither allowing them to grow nor failing to shake them out by the roots when they sprout. For he says, "Do not be angry with your brother without cause." But since he knows that human weakness slips, he dissolves the roots even after it has happened, and allows his own gift to remain unfinished until we make peace with one another. The saying has the highest love for humankind; but it does not lack just reasoning either. "You," he says, "seek kindness, but the one you wronged seeks vindication. You call on the Merciful, but he calls on the Just. You ask for pardon, but he, finding no help, cries out against you. Stop him from crying out justly, and you will not lack my favour; reconcile the one you wronged to yourself, and then entreat me to be reconciled to you. I do not sell for a gift what is just in another's vindication. I do not corrupt the incorruptible court. I do not give you, the wrongdoer, a share in my favour while the one you wronged is lamenting. This I give you, which is not small but very great: I postpone the trial; I do not at once bring a final sentence. I give you time to make amends to the one you wronged." [Letter 4.112] [On the construction of the Apostle's saying, where he says, "forbidding to marry."] Since you wished to learn what Paul's saying, "forbidding to marry and to abstain from foods," means, know that some, pretending not to know that he received the gift of knowledge and wisdom and was thought to be Hermes, say that the Apostle did not master his phrasing but was carried round to the opposite meaning. For by setting "forbidding" in common with "to abstain" he gave it the opposite sense: they did not forbid abstaining; he ought to have said, "forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods." If, then, that wonderful man suffered this elsewhere as well, let this be granted too; one must not be contentious. But see whether the error is not perhaps a matter of one letter or one stroke: "forbidding to marry, and to hold to foods," or "forbidding to marry, and holding to foods." The Church, just as it regards marriage as honourable, does not abhor foods either; but neither does it command clinging to them; it assigns a middle place to marriage and to foods alike. One who rises above enjoying them is better; one who enjoys them moderately is not to be blamed; but one who slanders them has pitched his tent outside the sacred precincts. That one letter changed, left out, or added often confuses the sense of what is said is clear from what is found in the Acts of the Apostles: "If a spirit or an angel spoke to him." And in the Letter to the Hebrews: "If, then, perfection were through the Levitical priesthood": if it is read "since," the thought is cut short and the opposite of the Apostle's meaning is produced. And "true yokefellow" becomes feminine, "true" (γνησία), when the letter iota is either added, or written but not pronounced. And the saying in Proverbs, "Afterwards he will walk about more naked than a pestle," if "pestle" is the noun: for he did not say "naked" or "most naked" as a pestle is, which ought to have been said whether it means a pestle or an upper room, but "more naked." And what was said in the psalm, "It will be for a breeze," that is, it was changed into a gentle and springlike state, was altered to "It stood for a breeze." And again: "The Lord will settle the flood, and it will be put down," that is, he will calm it, and the flood will be calmed. He did not say "he will found," as some think, but "he will settle"; as in "He settles the barren woman in a house," and "The Lord settles the solitary in a house," and "You, Lord, alone have made me dwell in hope"; for "to found" is something else. Some, perhaps not understanding, wrote, "And the Lord will sit as king forever." But they are refuted by the beginnings of the lines, which start with "Lord": "The Lord is king forever," and "The Lord will give strength to his people; the Lord will bless his people with peace." And in the Song of Songs: "I have adjured you, daughters of Jerusalem: let it rouse and awaken love until it please," in place of "Allow love to fly up to whatever height it may wish." But not understanding that "let" here means "allow," they changed it to "If you rouse and awaken love." Then something should have been added: "If you rouse it, this will happen," and the sentence should not have been left hanging. But so as not to lengthen the letter beyond what is needed, having said these things, which not only do not spoil the sense of the Scriptures but even establish it, show it firm and fixed, and dissolve the apparent obscurity, I shall stop, urging those who read it to consider it without contentiousness; and if it is rightly said, to give thanks to God; if not, to pardon the writer, who did not pronounce a verdict but left the vote to his readers.

To Uranius the deacon. [On "For a will is valid at death."] Since you have written, as though Paul had been turned round to the opposite of what he had said before, asking what "For a will is valid at death, since it is never in force while the testator lives" means, I write back that "never" (μή ποτε) is "not then" (μὴ τότε), one stroke having been added to one letter, perhaps through ignorance, by some; for so I found it also in ancient copies. For a man adorned with the divine Spirit, and thought to be Hermes, would not have been turned round to the opposite meaning: "Since it is not then in force, while the testator lives, it is confirmed after death." But if "μή ποτε" stands, the accent should not be thrown back on "μή" (as in "lest perhaps"), but it should be read "μὴ ποτέ," meaning "not at all."

To Heron the presbyter. [On what is written: "As faces are not like faces, so neither are the hearts of men."] Even if all the virtues are lovely to those who are not without love for what is good, still some people are more drawn to some of them. Some have honoured temperance above all, others justice, others prudence, others courage, others other virtues; they fell short in the rest but became better known for these. For example (to bring one, or a second, or a third of them into the open), Joseph is called most chaste, though he practised many other virtues; Abraham hospitable and faithful, though he was rich in many other good things; Job courageous, though he went through every virtue; for each one's name won out from what was strongest in him. That this is so, let us look into the rule of truth, I mean the divine Scriptures. What does it say? "As faces are not like faces, so neither are the hearts of men." O the wonder! The same features are in all, and yet in so great a multitude there is always a difference of faces, so that those who see them can know them without confusion. Even if a likeness sometimes seems to be in some, something will always be found that distinguishes them. Though many have fine eyes, there is difference among them too: some are found grey-eyed, some wine-dark, some black-eyed, some light. There is individuality in the hair too; and if some are snub-nosed, still not all alike; one has this feature finer, another that; one is fair, another dark; and there is always something that distinguishes. So too the hearts of men: not the same things please everyone, but these please some and those others. And even those who love the same things are not alike in their love for them, but some aim at greater things, others at moderate ones. How many are chaste! But not alike: some have embraced virginity, others continence, others honourable marriage. How many are merciful! But they differ from one another. How many are just! But they vary. Not only with the virtues but also with the vices one can see the same. How many are very wicked! But they are known by their distinguishing marks. How many are lustful! But not all have been caught by the same things. And even if they are caught by the same, not all are alike disposed: some delight in pleasures according to nature, others in pleasures beyond its bounds; some outrage the nature that the law allows, others outrage even the body's seat. Some are timid, others reckless. Some are stingy, others prodigal. Some cannot bear even to hear a word of reproof, others do not even shudder at punishments. Some are flatterers, others want to be flattered. Some delight in drunkenness, others in shows. Some in songs, others in laments; some rob in the deserts, others in the cities. Some commit murder, others cannot bear to see even an animal slaughtered. Some are cowardly, others bold. But if I tried to count up all the sins, I could not stop even if I wished to. So, having marvelled at the sacred and divine Scriptures, I shall stop. [Letter 4.115] [On the comparison written about adultery and theft: "If anyone is caught stealing."] You seem not to know that the comparative form is used of things of the same kind, not of different kinds; it does not push the things compared into opposite classes, but shows a lesser and a greater degree. Just as among faults one thing is bad, another worse, another worst (theft is bad, sexual immorality worse, adultery worst), so among good deeds one thing is good, another better, another best: marriage is good, continence better, virginity best. What is less than the best, then, is not pushed into the opposite class, but into a lesser place within the same class. For no one in his right mind would compare virginity with sexual immorality, but with continence and honourable marriage. And Scripture, when it compares theft and adultery, says: "It is no wonder if anyone is caught stealing; for he steals to fill his hungry soul. But the adulterer, through lack of sense, procures destruction for his own soul." It did not say this to grant pardon to the thief and release him from the charges, but, comparing theft with adultery, which is the worst, it said that theft is milder and lighter, especially when it is born of poverty. [Letter 4.116] [On Lazarus and the rich man.] You seem to have been troubled by hearing that here Lazarus received his faults and the rich man his good deeds; but if you had paid attention to what was said, you would not have been. For his not saying "you received" but "you received back" (the one indicates a favour, the other a recompense) makes clear and guarantees the whole meaning we have stated. That not only those who have reached the height of virtue have some human fault (for God alone is sinless), but also those who have fallen to the bottom of vice have some good deed, the holy Scripture proclaims. Of the former it says, "Who will boast of having a pure heart? Or who will speak boldly, saying he is clean from sins?"; and of the latter, that the unjust judge, who neither feared God nor respected man, did something good, when he took pity on the widow who kept coming to him and proceeded against those who wronged her. If, then, some blame is found even in the very best, and some virtue in the very worst, why do you wonder if both, having settled their accounts here, were carried off there, the one stripped of sins, the other bereft of good deeds? So the one gathered pure joy, while the other endured a punishment without consolation. [Letter 4.117] [Why the law ordered lepers, or others suffering from involuntary diseases, to be outside the sacred precincts.] You seem not to approve of those who urge readers on to spiritual contemplation. For, as you said, they think themselves wiser than the Scriptures and carry the divine oracles over to whatever they wish, and so they mislead their hearers greatly. I would neither blame them, if they profess to find something wise, nor force you to allegorize against your will, but I would make the defence directly. For you asked, "Why did the lawgiver decree that lepers, and those suffering from other involuntary diseases, should be outside the sacred precincts?" Listen briefly, then, gathering your mind (for it is not right to publish the mysteries of nature plainly). He commanded this to check the incontinence of parents, to put a bridle on pleasures, and to set limits to intercourse. For since many come together when it is not lawful, and from untimely intercourse impure and loathsome bodies are born, he took care that this should not happen. That it brings the greatest punishment not on those who are born but rather on those who begot them, no one, I think, is unaware. The children perhaps do not even regard the matter as a punishment, since habit relaxes the chastisement; but the parents endure an incurable punishment, seeing those whom they prayed would be better than themselves excluded from the sacred assemblies. For the children, the fact that the affliction is involuntary eases the misfortune; for the parents, the awareness that it is a token of their own voluntary incontinence makes the pain unbearable. [Letter 4.118] [On "and to give a cup of cold water."] You seem both to deceive yourself and to misinterpret the divine Scriptures. For "to give a cup of cold water" looks to those who have only this, not to those who abound in wealth, who can also hold out clothing to those besieged by hunger, disease, and nakedness. And do not wonder that one who provides water does not do it without reward. For almsgiving is judged not by the gift but by the intention; since even a word is thought worthy of acceptance: "For behold," it says, "a word is better than a good gift." But if it is also said, "Both are found with a gracious man," that is, of course, the one who is also able to give. For the gift is required to be as great as the means and the intention of the giver. Many give little out of much, and many give much out of little. It is not the measure of what is given that is judged, but the means of those who give. That is why the woman who put in two lepta surpassed all who offered much: they offered a part, but she dedicated her whole livelihood.