Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| On Human Temptations.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter
IV.—On Human Temptations.
1. And now the subject of human temptations must
not, in my opinion, be passed over in silence, which take their rise
sometimes from flesh and blood, or from the wisdom of flesh and blood,
which is said to be hostile to God. And whether the statement be
true which certain allege, viz., that each individual has as it were
two souls, we shall determine after we have explained the nature of
those temptations, which are said to be more powerful than any of human
origin, i.e., which we sustain from principalities and powers, and from
the rulers of the darkness of this world, and from spiritual wickedness
in high places, or to which we are subjected from wicked spirits and
unclean demons. Now, in the investigation of this subject, we
must, I think, inquire according to a logical method whether there be
in us human beings, who are composed of soul and body and vital spirit,
some other element, possessing an incitement of its own, and evoking a
movement towards evil. For a question of this kind is wont to be
discussed by some in this way: whether, viz., as two souls are
said to co-exist within us, the one is more divine and heavenly and the
other inferior; or whether, from the very fact that we inhere in bodily
structures which according to their own proper nature are dead, and
altogether devoid of life (seeing it is from us, i.e., from our souls,
that the material body derives its life, it being contrary and hostile
to the spirit), we are drawn on and enticed to the practice of those
evils which are agreeable to the body; or whether, thirdly (which was
the opinion of some of the Greek philosophers), although our soul is
one in substance, it nevertheless consists of several elements, and one
portion of it is called rational and another irrational, and that which
is termed the irrational part is again separated into two
affections—those of covetousness and passion. These three
opinions, then, regarding the soul, which we have stated above, we have
found to be entertained by some, but that one of them, which we have
mentioned as being adopted by certain Grecian philosophers, viz., that
the soul is tripartite, I do not observe to be greatly confirmed by the
authority of holy Scripture; while with respect to the remaining two
there is found a considerable number of passages in the holy Scriptures
which seem capable of application to them.
2. Now,
of these opinions, let us first discuss that which is maintained by
some, that there is in us a good and heavenly soul, and another earthly
and inferior; and that the better soul is implanted within us from
heaven, such as was that which, while Jacob was still in the womb, gave
him the prize of victory in supplanting his brother Esau, and which in
the case of Jeremiah was sanctified from his birth, and in that of John
was filled by the Holy Spirit from the womb. Now, that which they
term the inferior soul is produced, they allege, along with the body
itself out of the seed of the body, whence they say it cannot live or
subsist beyond the body, on which account also they say it is
frequently termed flesh. For the expression, “The flesh
lusteth against the Spirit,”2620
they take to
be applicable not to the flesh, but to this soul, which is properly the
soul of the flesh. From these words, moreover, they endeavour
notwithstanding to make good the declaration in Leviticus:
“The life of all flesh is the blood thereof.”2621
For, from the circumstance that it is
the diffusion of the blood throughout the whole flesh which produces
life in the flesh, they assert that this soul, which is said to be the
life of all flesh, is contained in the blood. This statement,
moreover, that the flesh struggles against the spirit, and the spirit
against the flesh; and the further statement, that “the life of
all flesh is the blood thereof,” is, according to these writers,
simply calling the wisdom of the flesh by another name, because it is a
kind of material spirit, which is not subject to the law of God, nor
can be so, because it has earthly wishes and bodily desires. And
it is with respect to this that they think the apostle uttered the
words: “I see another law in my members, warring against
the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin
which is in my members.”2622
And if one
were to object to them that these words were spoken of the nature of
the body, which indeed, agreeably to the peculiarity of its nature, is
dead, but is said to have sensibility, or wisdom2623
| 2623 Sensum vel
sapientiam. | which is hostile to God, or which struggles
against the spirit; or if one were to say that, in a certain degree,
the flesh itself was possessed of a voice, which should cry out against
the endurance of hunger, or thirst, or cold, or of any discomfort
arising either from abundance or poverty,—they would endeavour to
weaken and impair the force of such (arguments), by showing that there
were many other mental perturbations2624
which derive
their origin in no respect from the flesh, and yet against which the
spirit struggles, such as ambition, avarice, emulation, envy, pride,
and others like these; and seeing that with these the human mind or
spirit wages a kind of contest, they lay down as the cause of all these
evils, nothing else than this corporal soul, as it were, of which we
have spoken above, and which is generated from the seed by a process of
traducianism. They are accustomed also to adduce, in support of
their assertion, the declaration of the apostle, “Now the works
of the flesh are manifest, which are these, fornication, uncleanness,
lasciviousness, idolatry, poisonings,2625
| 2625 Veneficia.
Φαρμακεία.
“Witchcraft” (Auth. Version). |
hatred, contentions, emulations, wrath, quarrelling, dissensions,
heresies, sects, envyings, drunkenness, revellings, and the
like;”2626
asserting that all
these do not derive their origin from the habits or pleasures of the
flesh, so that all such movements are to be regarded as inherent in
that substance which has not a soul, i.e., the flesh. The
declaration, moreover, “For ye see your calling, brethren, how
that not many wise men among you according to the flesh are
called,”2627
would seem to
require to be understood as if there were one kind of wisdom, carnal
and material, and another according to the spirit, the former of which
cannot indeed be called wisdom, unless there be a soul of the flesh,
which is wise in respect of what is called carnal wisdom. And in
addition to these passages they adduce the following:
“Since the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit
against the flesh, so that we cannot do the things that we
would.”2628
What are
these things now respecting which he says, “that we cannot do the
things that we would?” It is certain, they reply, that the
spirit cannot be intended; for the will of the spirit suffers no
hindrance. But neither can the flesh be meant, because if it has
not a soul of its own, neither can it assuredly possess a will.
It remains, then, that the will of this soul be intended which is
capable of having a will of its own, and which certainly is opposed to
the will of the spirit. And if this be the case, it is
established that the will of the soul is something intermediate between
the flesh and the spirit, undoubtedly obeying and serving that one of
the two which it has elected to obey. And if it yield itself up
to the pleasures of the flesh, it renders men carnal; but when it
unites itself with the spirit, it produces men of the Spirit, and who
on that account are termed spiritual. And this seems to be the
meaning of the apostle in the words, “But ye are not in the
flesh, but in the Spirit.”2629
We have accordingly to ascertain what is this very will
(intermediate) between flesh and spirit, besides that will which is
said to belong to the flesh or the spirit. For it is held as
certain, that everything
which is said to be a work of the spirit is (a product of) the will of
the spirit, and everything that is called a work of the flesh (proceeds
from) the will of the flesh. What else then, besides these, is
that will of the soul which receives a separate name,2630
| 2630 The text here is very
obscure, and has given some trouble to commentators. The words
are: “Quæ ergo ista est præter hæc voluntas
animæ quæ extrinsecus nominatur,” etc.
Redepenning understands “extrinsecus” as meaning
“seorsim,” “insuper,” and refers to a note of
Origen upon the Epistle to the Romans (tom. i. p. 466):
“Et idcirco extrinsecus eam (animam, corporis et
spiritus mentione factâ, Rom. i. 3, 4) apostolus non nominat, sed carnem
tantum vel spiritum,” etc. Schnitzer supposes that in the
Greek the words were, Τῆς
ἔξω
καλουμένης,
where ἔξω is to be taken in the sense of κάτω, so that the
expression would mean “anima inferior.” | and which will, the apostle being opposed to
our executing, says: “Ye cannot do the things that ye
would?” By this it would seem to be intended, that it ought
to adhere to neither of these two, i.e., to neither flesh nor
spirit. But some one will say, that as it is better for the soul
to execute its own will than that of the flesh; so, on the other hand,
it is better to do the will of the spirit than its own will. How,
then, does the apostle say, “that ye cannot do the things that ye
would?” Because in that contest which is waged between
flesh and spirit, the spirit is by no means certain of victory, it
being manifest that in very many individuals the flesh has the
mastery.
3. But since the subject of discussion on
which we have entered is one of great profundity, which it is necessary
to consider in all its bearings,2631
| 2631 In quâ necesse
est ex singulis quibusque partibus quæ possunt moveri
discutere. | let us see
whether some such point as this may not be determined: that as it
is better for the soul to follow the spirit when the latter has
overcome the flesh, so also, if it seem to be a worse course for the
former to follow the flesh in its struggles against the spirit, when
the latter would recall the soul to its influence, it may nevertheless
appear a more advantageous procedure for the soul to be under the
mastery of the flesh than to remain under the power of its own
will. For, since it is said to be neither hot nor cold, but to
continue in a sort of tepid condition, it will find conversion a slow
and somewhat difficult undertaking. If indeed it clung to the
flesh, then, satiated at length, and filled with those very evils which
it suffers from the vices of the flesh, and wearied as it were by the
heavy burdens of luxury and lust, it may sometimes be converted with
greater ease and rapidity from the filthiness of matter to a desire for
heavenly things, and (to a taste for) spiritual graces. And the
apostle must be supposed to have said, that “the Spirit contends
against the flesh, and the flesh against the Spirit, so that we cannot
do the things that we would” (those things, undoubtedly, which
are designated as being beyond the will of the spirit, and the will of
the flesh), meaning (as if we were to express it in other words) that
it is better for a man to be either in a state of virtue or in one of
wickedness, than in neither of these; but that the soul, before its
conversion to the spirit, and its union with it,2632
| 2632 Priusquam—unum
efficiatur cum eo. | appears during its adherence to the body,
and its meditation of carnal things, to be neither in a good condition
nor in a manifestly bad one, but resembles, so to speak, an
animal. It is better, however, for it, if possible, to be
rendered spiritual through adherence to the spirit; but if that cannot
be done, it is more expedient for it to follow even the wickedness of
the flesh, than, placed under the influence of its own will, to retain
the position of an irrational animal.
These points we have now discussed, in our desire to
consider each individual opinion, at greater length than we intended,
that those views might not be supposed to have escaped our notice which
are generally brought forward by those who inquire whether there is
within us any other soul than this heavenly and rational one, which is
naturally opposed to the latter, and is called either the flesh, or the
wisdom of the flesh, or the soul of the flesh.
4. Let us now see what answer is usually
returned to these statements by those who maintain that there is in us
one movement, and one life, proceeding from one and the same soul, both
the salvation and the destruction of which are ascribed to itself as a
result of its own actions. And, in the first place, let us notice
of what nature those commotions2633
of the soul
are which we suffer, when we feel ourselves inwardly drawn in different
directions; when there arises a kind of contest of thoughts in our
hearts, and certain probabilities are suggested us, agreeably to which
we lean now to this side, now to that, and by which we are sometimes
convicted of error, and sometimes approve of our acts.2634
| 2634 Quibus nunc quidem
arguimur, nunc vero nosmet ipsos amplectimur. | It is nothing remarkable, however, to
say of wicked spirits, that they have a varying and conflicting
judgment, and one out of harmony with itself, since such is found to be
the case in all men, whenever, in deliberating upon an uncertain event,
council is taken, and men consider and consult what is to be chosen as
the better and more useful course. It is not therefore surprising
that, if two probabilities meet, and suggest opposite views, they
should drag the mind in contrary directions. For example, if a
man be led by reflection to believe and to fear God, it cannot then be
said that the flesh contends against the Spirit; but, amidst the
uncertainty of what may be true and advantageous, the mind is drawn in
opposite directions. So, also, when it is supposed that the flesh
provokes to the indulgence of lust, but better counsels oppose allurements of
that kind, we are not to suppose that it is one life which is resisting
another, but that it is the tendency of the nature of the body, which
is eager to empty out and cleanse the places filled with seminal
moisture; as, in like manner, it is not to be supposed that it is any
opposing power, or the life of another soul, which excites within us
the appetite of thirst, and impels us to drink, or which causes us to
feel hunger, and drives us to satisfy it. But as it is by the
natural movements of the body that food and drink are either desired or
rejected,2635
so also the natural
seed, collected together in course of time in the various vessels, has
an eager desire to be expelled and thrown away, and is so far from
never being removed, save by the impulse of some exciting cause, that
it is even sometimes spontaneously emitted. When, therefore, it
is said that “the flesh struggles against the Spirit,”
these persons understand the expression to mean that habit or
necessity, or the delights of the flesh, arouse a man, and withdraw him
from divine and spiritual things. For, owing to the necessity of
the body being drawn away, we are not allowed to have leisure for
divine things, which are to be eternally advantageous. So again,
the soul, devoting itself to divine and spiritual pursuits, and being
united to the spirit, is said to fight against the flesh, by not
permitting it to be relaxed by indulgence, and to become unsteady
through the influence of those pleasures for which it feels a natural
delight. In this way, also, they claim to understand the words,
“The wisdom of the flesh is hostile to God,”2636
not that the flesh really has a soul, or a
wisdom of its own. But as we are accustomed to say, by an
abuse2637
| 2637 Abusive = improperly
used. | of language, that the earth is thirsty, and
wishes to drink in water, this use of the word “wishes” is
not proper, but catachrestic,—as if we were to say again, that
this house wants to be rebuilt,2638
and many other
similar expressions; so also is the wisdom of the flesh to be
understood, or the expression, that “the flesh lusteth against
the Spirit.” They generally connect with these the
expression, “The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto
Me from the ground.”2639
For what
cries unto the Lord is not properly the blood which was shed; but the
blood is said improperly to cry out, vengeance being demanded upon him
who had shed it. The declaration also of the apostle, “I
see another law in my members, warring against the law of my
mind,”2640
they so understand
as if he had said, That he who wishes to devote himself to the word of
God is, on account of his bodily necessities and habits, which like a
sort of law are ingrained in the body, distracted, and divided, and
impeded, lest, by devoting himself vigorously to the study of wisdom,
he should be enabled to behold the divine mysteries.
5. With respect, however, to the following
being ranked among the works of the flesh, viz., heresies, and
envyings, and contentions, or other (vices), they so understand the
passage, that the mind, being rendered grosser in feeling, from its
yielding itself to the passions of the body, and being oppressed by the
mass of its vices, and having no refined or spiritual feelings, is said
to be made flesh, and derives its name from that in which it exhibits
more vigour and force of will.2641
| 2641 Plus studii vel
propositi. | They also
make this further inquiry, “Who will be found, or who will be
said to be, the creator of this evil sense, called the sense of the
flesh?” Because they defend the opinion that there is no
other creator of soul and flesh than God. And if we were to
assert that the good God created anything in His own creation that was
hostile to Himself, it would appear to be a manifest absurdity.
If, then, it is written, that “carnal wisdom is enmity against
God,”2642
and if this be
declared to be a result of creation, God Himself will appear to have
formed a nature hostile to Himself, which cannot be subject to Him nor
to His law, as if it were (supposed to be) an animal of which such
qualities are predicated. And if this view be admitted, in what
respect will it appear to differ from that of those who maintain that
souls of different natures are created, which, according to their
natures,2643
are destined either
to be lost or saved? But this is an opinion of the heretics
alone, who, not being able to maintain the justice of God on grounds of
piety, compose impious inventions of this kind. And now we have
brought forward to the best of our ability, in the person of each of
the parties, what might be advanced by way of argument regarding the
several views, and let the reader choose out of them for himself that
which he thinks ought to be preferred.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
