Excerpts from
By St. Augustine of Hippo
CHAPTER II - The Creed and the Lord's Prayer as Guides to
the Interpretation of the Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope, and Love
7. Let us begin, for example, with
the Symbol[11] and the Lord's Prayer. What is shorter to hear or to read? What
is more easily memorized? Since through sin the human race stood grievously
burdened by great misery and in deep need of mercy, a prophet, preaching of the
time of God's grace, said, "And it shall be that all who invoke the Lord's
name will be saved."[12] Thus, we have the Lord's Prayer. Later, the
apostle, when he wished to commend this same grace, remembered this prophetic
testimony and promptly added, "But how shall they invoke him in whom they
have not believed?"[13] Thus, we have the Symbol. In these two we have the
three theological virtues working together: faith believes; hope and love pray.
Yet without faith nothing else is possible; thus faith prays too. This, then,
is the meaning of the saying, "How shall they invoke him in whom they have
not believed?"
8. Now, is it possible to hope for
what we do not believe in? We can, of course, believe in something that we do
not hope for. Who among the faithful does not believe in the punishment of the
impious? Yet he does not hope for it, and whoever believes that such a
punishment is threatening him and draws back in horror from it is more rightly
said to fear than to hope. A poet, distinguishing between these two feelings,
said,
"Let those who dread be allowed to
hope,"[14]
but another poet, and a
better one, did not put it rightly:
"Here, if I could have hoped for [i.e.,
foreseen] such a grievous blow..." [15]
Indeed, some grammarians
use this as an example of inaccurate language and comment, "He said 'to
hope' when he should have said 'to fear.'"
Therefore faith may refer to evil
things as well as to good, since we believe in both the good and evil. Yet
faith is good, not evil. Moreover, faith refers to things past and present and
future. For we believe that Christ died; this is a past event. We believe that
he sitteth at the Father's right hand; this is present. We believe that he will
come as our judge; this is future. Again, faith has to do with our own affairs
and with those of others. For everyone believes, both about himself and other
persons -- and about things as well -- that at some time he began to exist and
that he has not existed forever. Thus, not only about men, but even about
angels, we believe many things that have a bearing on religion.
But
hope deals only with good things, and only with those which lie in the future,
and which pertain to the man who cherishes the hope. Since this is so, faith
must be distinguished from hope: they are different terms and likewise different
concepts. Yet faith and hope have this in common: they refer to what is not
seen, whether this unseen is believed in or hoped for. Thus in the Epistle to
the Hebrews, which is used by the enlightened defenders of the catholic rule of
faith, faith is said to be "the conviction of things not seen."[16]
However, when a man maintains that neither words nor witnesses nor even
arguments, but only the evidence of present experience, determine his faith, he
still ought not to be called absurd or told, "You have seen; therefore you
have not believed." For it does not follow that unless a thing is not seen
it cannot be believed. Still it is better for us to use the term
"faith," as we are taught in "the sacred eloquence,"[17] to
refer to things not seen. And as for hope, the apostle says: "Hope that is
seen is not hope. For if a man sees a thing, why does he hope for it? If,
however, we hope for what we do not see, we then wait for it in
patience."[18] When, therefore, our good is believed to be future, this is
the same thing as hoping for it.
What,
then, shall I say of love, without which faith can do nothing? There can be no
true hope without love. Indeed, as the apostle James says, "Even the
demons believe and tremble."[19]
Yet
they neither hope nor love. Instead, believing as we do that what we hope for
and love is coming to pass, they tremble. Therefore, the apostle Paul approves
and commends the faith that works by love and that cannot exist without hope.
Thus it is that love is not without hope, hope is not without love, and neither
hope nor love are without faith.
[11] The Apostles' Creed.
Cf. Augustine's early essay On Faith and the Creed.
[12] Joel 2:32.
[13] Rom. 10:14.
[14] Lucan, Pharsalia,
II, 15.
[15] Virgil, Aeneid, IV,
419. The context of this quotation is Dido's lament over Aeneas' prospective
abandonment of her. She is saying that if she could have foreseen such a
disaster, she would have been able to bear it. Augustine's criticism here is a
literalistic quibble.
[16] Heb. 11:1.
[17] Sacra eloquia -- a
favorite phrase of Augustine's for the Bible.
[18] Rom. 8:24, 25 (Old
Latin).
[19] James 2:19.
12.
All of nature, therefore, is good, since the Creator of all nature is supremely
good. But nature is not supremely and immutably good as is the Creator of it.
Thus the good in created things can be diminished and augmented. For good to be
diminished is evil; still, however much it is diminished, something must remain
of its original nature as long as it exists at all. For no matter what kind or
however insignificant a thing may be, the good which is its "nature"
cannot be destroyed without the thing itself being destroyed. There is good
reason, therefore, to praise an uncorrupted thing, and if it were indeed an
incorruptible thing which could not be destroyed, it would doubtless be all the
more worthy of praise. When, however, a thing is corrupted, its corruption is
an evil because it is, by just so much, a privation of the good. Where there is
no privation of the good, there is no evil. Where there is evil, there is a
corresponding diminution of the good. As long, then, as a thing is being
corrupted, there is good in it of which it is being deprived; and in this
process, if something of its being remains that cannot be further corrupted,
this will then be an incorruptible entity [natura incorruptibilis], and to this
great good it will have come through the process of corruption. But even if the
corruption is not arrested, it still does not cease having some good of which
it cannot be further deprived. If, however, the corruption comes to be total
and entire, there is no good left either, because it is no longer an entity at
all. Wherefore corruption cannot consume the good without also consuming the
thing itself. Every actual entity [natura] is therefore good; a greater good if
it cannot be corrupted, a lesser good if it can be. Yet only the foolish and
unknowing can deny that it is still good even when corrupted. Whenever a thing
is consumed by corruption, not even the corruption remains, for it is nothing
in itself, having no subsistent being in which to exist.
13.
From this it follows that there is nothing to be called evil if there is
nothing good. A good that wholly lacks an evil aspect is entirely good. Where
there is some evil in a thing, its good is defective or defectible. Thus there
can be no evil where there is no good. This leads us to a surprising
conclusion: that, since every being, in so far as it is a being, is good, if we
then say that a defective thing is bad, it would seem to mean that we are
saying that what is evil is good, that only what is good is ever evil and that
there is no evil apart from something good. This is because every actual entity
is good [omnis natura bonum est]. Nothing evil exists in itself, but
only as an evil aspect of some actual entity. Therefore, there can be nothing
evil except something good. Absurd as this sounds, nevertheless the logical
connections of the argument compel us to it as inevitable. At the same time, we
must take warning lest we incur the prophetic judgment which reads: "Woe
to those who call evil good and good evil: who call darkness light and light
darkness; who call the bitter sweet and the sweet bitter."[23] Moreover
the Lord himself saith: "An evil man brings forth evil out of the evil
treasure of his heart."[24] What, then, is an evil man but an evil entity
[natura mala], since man is an entity? Now, if a man is something good because
he is an entity, what, then, is a bad man except an evil good? When, however,
we distinguish between these two concepts, we find that the bad man is not bad
because he is a man, nor is he good because he is wicked. Rather, he is a good
entity in so far as he is a man, evil in so far as he is wicked. Therefore, if
anyone says that simply to be a man is evil, or that to be a wicked man is
good, he rightly falls under the prophetic judgment: "Woe to him who calls
evil good and good evil." For this amounts to finding fault with God's
work, because man is an entity of God's creation. It also means that we are
praising the defects in this particular man because he is a wicked
person. Thus, every entity, even if it is a defective one, in so far as it is
an entity, is good. In so far as it is defective, it is evil.
14.
Actually, then, in these two contraries we call evil and good, the rule of the
logicians fails to apply.[25] No weather is both dark and bright at the same
time; no food or drink is both sweet and sour at the same time; no body is, at
the same time and place, both white and black, nor deformed and well-formed at
the same time. This principle is found to apply in almost all disjunctions: two
contraries cannot coexist in a single thing. Nevertheless, while no one
maintains that good and evil are not contraries, they can not only coexist, but
the evil cannot exist at all without the good, or in a thing that is not a
good. On the other hand, the good can exist without evil. For a man or an angel
could exist and yet not be wicked, whereas there cannot be wickedness except in
a man or an angel. It is good to be a man, good to be an angel; but evil to be
wicked. These two contraries are thus coexistent, so that if there were no good
in what is evil, then the evil simply could not be, since it can have no mode
in which to exist, nor any source from which corruption springs, unless it be
something corruptible. Unless this something is good, it cannot be corrupted,
because corruption is nothing more than the deprivation of the good. Evils,
therefore, have their source in the good, and unless they are parasitic on
something good, they are not anything at all. There is no other source whence
an evil thing can come to be. If this is the case, then, in so far as a thing
is an entity, it is unquestionably good. If it is an incorruptible entity, it
is a great good. But even if it is a corruptible entity, it still has no mode
of existence except as an aspect of something that is good. Only by corrupting
something good can corruption inflict injury.
15.
But when we say that evil has its source in the good, do not suppose that this
denies our Lord's judgment: "A good tree cannot bear evil fruit."[26]
This cannot be, even as the Truth himself declareth: "Men do not gather
grapes from thorns," since thorns cannot bear grapes. Nevertheless, from
good soil we can see both vines and thorns spring up. Likewise, just as a bad
tree does not grow good fruit, so also an evil will does not produce good
deeds. From a human nature, which is good in itself, there can spring forth
either a good or an evil will. There was no other place from whence evil could
have arisen in the first place except from the nature -- good in itself -- of
an angel or a man. This is what our Lord himself most clearly shows in the
passage about the trees and the fruits, for he said: "Make the tree good
and the fruits will be good, or make the tree bad and its fruits will be
bad."[27] This is warning enough that bad fruit cannot grow on a good tree
nor good fruit on a bad one. Yet from that same earth to which he was
referring, both sorts of trees can grow.
[23] Isa. 5:20.
[24] Matt. 12:35.
[25] This refers to
Aristotle's well-known principle of "the excluded middle."
[26] Matt. 7:18.
[27] Cf. Matt. 12:33.
67.
There are some, indeed, who believe that those who do not abandon the name of
Christ, and who are baptized in his laver in the Church, who are not cut off
from it by schism or heresy, who may then live in sins however great, not
washing them away by repentance, nor redeeming them by alms -- and who
obstinately persevere in them to life's last day -- even these will still be
saved, "though as by fire." They believe that such people will be
punished by fire, prolonged in proportion to their sins, but still not eternal.
But
those who believe thus, and still are Catholics, are deceived, as it seems to
me, by a kind of merely human benevolence. For the divine Scripture, when
consulted, answers differently. Moreover, I have written a book about this
question, entitled Faith and Works,[142] in which, with God's help, I have
shown as best I could that, according to Holy Scripture, the faith that saves
is the faith that the apostle Paul adequately describes when he says, "For
in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but
the faith which works through love."[143] But if faith works evil and not
good, then without doubt, according to the apostle James "it is dead in
itself."[144] He then goes on to say, "If a man says he has faith,
yet has not works, can his faith be enough to save him?"[145]
Now,
if the wicked man were to be saved by fire on account of his faith only, and if
this is the way the statement of the blessed Paul should be understood --
"But he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire"[146] -- then faith
without works would be sufficient to salvation. But then what the apostle James
said would be false. And also false would be another statement of the same Paul
himself: "Do not err," he says; "neither fornicators, nor
idolaters, nor adulterers, nor the unmanly, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor
the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the
Kingdom of God."[147] Now, if those who persist in such crimes as these
are nevertheless saved by their faith in Christ, would they not then be in the
Kingdom of God?
68.
But, since these fully plain and most pertinent apostolic testimonies cannot be
false, that one obscure saying about those who build on "the foundation,
which is Christ, not gold, silver, and precious stones, but wood, hay, and
stubble"[148] -- for it is about these it is said that they will be saved
as by fire, not perishing on account of the saving worth of their foundation --
such a statement must be interpreted so that it does not contradict these fully
plain testimonies.
In
fact, wood and hay and stubble may be understood, without absurdity, to signify
such an attachment to those worldly things -- albeit legitimate in themselves
-- that one cannot suffer their loss without anguish in the soul. Now, when
such anguish "burns," and Christ still holds his place as foundation
in the heart -- that is, if nothing is preferred to him and if the man whose
anguish "burns" would still prefer to suffer loss of the things he
greatly loves than to lose Christ -- then one is saved, "by fire."
But if, in time of testing, he should prefer to hold onto these temporal and
worldly goods rather than to Christ, he does not have him as foundation --
because he has put "things" in the first place -- whereas in a
building nothing comes before the foundations.
Now,
this fire, of which the apostle speaks, should be understood as one through
which both kinds of men must pass: that is, the man who builds with gold,
silver, and precious stones on this foundation and also the man who builds with
wood, hay, and stubble. For, when he had spoken of this, he added: "The
fire shall try every man's work, of what sort it is. If any man's work abides
which he has built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work
burns up, he shall suffer loss; but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by
fire."[149] Therefore the fire will test the work, not only of the one,
but of both.
The fire is a sort of
trial of affliction, concerning which it is clearly written elsewhere:
"The furnace tries the potter's vessels and the trial of affliction tests
righteous men."[150] This kind of fire works in the span of this life,
just as the apostle said, as it affects the two different kinds of faithful
men. There is, for example, the man who "thinks of the things of God, how
he may please God." Such a man builds on Christ the foundation, with gold,
silver, and precious stones. The other man "thinks about the things of the
world, how he may please his wife"[151]; that is, he builds upon the same
foundation with wood, hay, and stubble. The work of the former is not burned
up, since he has not loved those things whose loss brings anguish. But the work
of the latter is burned up, since things are not lost without anguish when they
have been loved with a possessive love. But because, in this second situation,
he prefers to suffer the loss of these things rather than losing Christ, and
does not desert Christ from fear of losing such things -- even though he may
grieve over his loss -- "he is saved," indeed, "yet so as by fire."
He "burns" with grief, for the things he has loved and lost, but this
does not subvert nor consume him, secured as he is by the stability and the
indestructibility of his foundation.
69.
It is not incredible that something like this should occur after this life,
whether or not it is a matter for fruitful inquiry. It may be discovered or
remain hidden whether some of the faithful are sooner or later to be saved by a
sort of purgatorial fire, in proportion as they have loved the goods that
perish, and in proportion to their attachment to them. However, this does not
apply to those of whom it was said, "They shall not possess the Kingdom of
God,"[152] unless their crimes are remitted through due repentance. I say
"due repentance" to signify that they must not be barren of
almsgiving, on which divine Scripture lays so much stress that our Lord tells
us in advance that, on the bare basis of fruitfulness in alms, he will impute
merit to those on his right hand; and, on the same basis of unfruitfulness,
demerit to those on his left -- when he shall say to the former, "Come,
blessed of my Father, receive the Kingdom," but to the latter,
"Depart into everlasting fire."[153]
[141]
This chapter supplies an important clue to the date of the Enchiridion and an
interesting side light on Augustine's inclination to re-use "good
material." In his treatise on The Eight Questions of Dulcitius (De octo
Dulcitii quaestionibus), 1: 10-13, Augustine quotes this entire chapter as a
part of his answer to the question whether those who sin after baptism are ever
delivered from hell. The date of the De octo is 422 or, possibly, 423; thus we
have a terminus ad quem for the date of the Enchiridion. Still the best text of
De octo is Migne, PL, 40, c. 147-170, and the best English translation is in Deferrari,
St. Augustine: Treatises on Various Subjects (The Fathers of the Church, New
York, 1952), pp. 427-466.
[142]
A short treatise, written in 413, in which Augustine seeks to combine the
Pauline and Jacobite emphases by analyzing what kind of faith and what kind of
works are both essential to salvation. The best text is that of Joseph
Zycha in CSEL, Vol. 41, pp. 35-97; but see also Migne, PL, 40, c. 197-230.
There is an English translation by C.L. Cornish in A Library of Fathers of the
Holy Catholic Church; Seventeen Short Treatises, pp. 37-84.
[143]
Gal. 5:6.
[144]
James 2:17.
[145]
James 2:14.
[146]
1 Cor. 3:15.
[147]
1 Cor. 6:9, 10.
[148]
1 Cor. 3:11, 12.
[149]
1 Cor. 3:11-15.
[150]
Ecclus. 27:5.
[151]
Cf. 1 Cor. 7:32, 33
[152]
See above, XVIII, 67.
[153]
Matt. 25:34, 41.
________________________________________________________________________
114.
Thus, from our confession of faith, briefly summarized in the Creed
(which is milk for babes when pondered at the carnal level but food for strong
men when it is considered and studied spiritually), there is born the good hope
of the faithful, accompanied by a holy love.[241] But of these
affirmations, all of which ought faithfully to be believed, only those
which have to do with hope are contained in the Lord's Prayer. For
"cursed is everyone," as the divine eloquence testified, "who
rests his hope in man."[242] Thus, he who rests his hope in himself is
bound by the bond of this curse. Therefore, we should seek from none other than
the Lord God whatever it is that we hope to do well, or hope to obtain as
reward for our good works.
115.
Accordingly, in the Evangelist Matthew, the Lord's Prayer may be seen to
contain seven petitions: three of them ask for eternal goods, the other four
for temporal goods, which are, however, necessary for obtaining the eternal
goods.
For
when we say: "Hallowed be thy name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done on
earth, as it is in heaven"[243] -- this last being wrongly interpreted by
some as meaning "in body and spirit" -- these blessings will be
retained forever. They begin in this life, of course; they are increased in us
as we make progress, but in their perfection -- which is to be hoped for in the
other life -- they will be possessed forever! But when we say: "Give us
this day our daily bread. And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil,"[244] who does
not see that all these pertain to our needs in the present life? In that life
eternal -- where we all hope to be -- the hallowing of God's name, his Kingdom,
and his will, in our spirit and body will abide perfectly and immortally. But
in this life we ask for "daily bread" because it is necessary, in the
measure required by soul and body, whether we take the term in a spiritual or
bodily sense, or both. And here too it is that we petition for forgiveness,
where the sins are committed; here too are the temptations that allure and
drive us to sinning; here, finally, the evil from which we wish to be freed.
But in that other world none of these things will be found.
116. However, the Evangelist Luke, in his version of the Lord's Prayer, has brought together, not seven, but five petitions. Yet, obviously, there is no discrepancy here, but rather, in his brief way, the Evangelist has shown us how the seven petitions should be understood. Actually, God's name is even now hallowed in the spirit, but the Kingdom of God is yet to come in the resurrection of the body. Therefore, Luke was seeking to show that the third petition ["Thy will be done"] is a repetition of the first two, and makes this better understood by omitting it. He then adds three other petitions, concerning daily bread, forgiveness of sins, and avoidance of temptation.[245] However, what Matthew puts in the last place, "But deliver us from evil," Luke leaves out, in order that we might understand that it was included in what was previously said about temptation. This is, indeed, why Matthew said, "But deliver us," instead of, "And deliver us," as if to indicate that there is only one petition -- "Will not this, but that" -- so that anyone would realize that he is being delivered from evil in that he is not being led into temptation.
[241] Note the artificial
return to the triadic scheme of the treatise: faith, hope, and love.
[242] Jer. 17:5.
[243] Matt. 6:9, 10.
[244] Matt. 6:11-13.
[245] Luke 11:2-4.
[246] Matt. 7:7.