|
Distinguished Sir, -When I said in my former letter that we are
inexcusable, because we are in the power of
God, like
clay in the hands of the potter, I meant to be understood
in the sense, that no one can bring a complaint against
God
for having given him a weak nature, or infirm spirit.
A circle might as well complain to God of not being endowed
with the properties of a sphere, or a child who is tortured,
say, with stone, for not being given a healthy body, as a
man of feeble spirit, because God has
denied to him fortitude, and the true knowledge and love of the
Deity, or because he is endowed with so weak a
nature, that he cannot check or moderate his desires. For the
nature of each thing is only competent to do that
which follows necessarily from its given cause. That every man
cannot be brave, and that we can no more command
for ourselves a healthy body than a healthy mind, nobody can deny,
without giving the lie to experience, as well as
to reason. "But," you urge, "if men sin by nature, they are excusable;"
but you do not state the conclusion you draw,
whether that God
cannot be angry with them, or that they are
worthy of blessedness --that is, of the knowledge and
love of God. If you say the former, I fully admit that
God cannot be angry,
and that all things are done in accordance
with His will;
but I deny that all men ought, therefore, to be blessed
--men may be excusable, and, nevertheless, be
without blessedness and afflicted in many ways. A horse is excusable, for
being a horse and not a man; but,
nevertheless, he must needs be a horse and not a man. He who goes mad from
the bite of a dog is excusable, yet
he is rightly suffocated. Iastly, he who cannot govern his desires, and
keep them in check with the fear of the laws,
though his weakness may be excusable, yet he cannot enjoy with contentment
the knowledge and love of God, but
necessarily perishes. I do not think it necessary here to remind you,
that Scripture, when it says that God is angry
with sinners, and that He is a Judge who takes cognizance of human
actions, passes sentence on them, and judges
them, is speaking humanly, and in a way adapted to the received
opinion of the masses, inasmuch as its purpose is
not to teach philosophy, nor to render men wise, but to make them obedient.
How, by taking miracles and ignorance as equivalent terms, I reduce God's power and man's knowledge within the same limits, I am unable to discern. For the rest, I accept Christ's passion, death, and burial literally, as you do, but His resurrection I understand allegorically. I admit, that it is related by the Evangelists in such detail, that we cannot deny that they themselves believed Christ's body to have risen from the dead and ascended to heaven, in order to sit at the right hand of God, or that they believed that Christ might have been seen by unbelievers, if they had happened to be at hand, in the places where He appeared to His disciples; but in these matters they might, without injury to Gospel teaching, have been deceived, as was the case with other prophets mentioned in my last letter. But Paul, to whom Christ afterwards appeared, rejoices, that he knew Christ not after the flesh, but after the spirit. [N1] Farewell, honourable Sir, and believe me yours in all affection and zeal. [Note N1]: 2 Cor. 5:16. |
|
|
|
|
| Slack padding. |