Augustine of Hippo

By this perversity of the soul, due to sin and punishment, the whole corporeal creation becomes, as Solomon says: “Vanity of them that are vain, all is vanity. What advantage has man in all his labor which he does under the sun?” Not for nothing does he say, “of them that are vain,” for if you take away vain persons who pursue that which is last as if it were first, matter will not be vanity but will show its own beauty in its own way, a low type of beauty, of course, but not deceptive. When man fell away from the unity of God the multitude of temporal forms was distributed among his carnal senses, and his sensibilities were multiplied by the changeful variety. So abundance became laborious, and his needs, if one may say so, became abundant, for he pursues one thing after another, and nothing remains permanently with him. So what with his corn and wine and oil, his needs are so multiplied that he cannot find the one thing needful, a single and unchangeable nature, seeking which he would not err and attaining which he would cease from grief and pain. For then he would have as a consequence the redemption of his body, which no longer would be corrupted. As it is, the corruption of the body burdens the soul, and its earthly habitation forces it to think of many things; for the humble beauty of material objects is hurried along in the order in which one thing succeeds another. The reason why corporeal beauty is the lowest beauty is that its parts cannot all exist simultaneously. Some things give place and others succeed them, and all together complete the number of temporal forms and make of them a single beauty.

So this is what the rich should do: not be haughty in their ideas, nor set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on the living God, who bestows all things on us abundantly for our enjoyment; that is what they must do. But what are they to do with what they have? Let me tell you what: “Let them be rich in good works, let them be easy givers.” After all, they have the wherewithal. Poverty is difficult and grim. “Let them be easy givers”; they have the wherewithal. Let them share, that is, take some notice of their fellow mortals. “Let them share, let them store up for themselves a good foundation for the future.” “You see,” he says, “just because I say ‘Let them be easy givers, let them share,’ it doesn’t mean I want them looted, want them stripped naked, want them left empty. I am teaching them how to make a profit, when I point out, ‘Let them store up for themselves.’ I’m not telling them to do this so that they can lose it; I’m showing them where to transfer the account. ‘Let them store up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they lay hold of true life.’ ” So this one is a false life; let them lay hold of true life. After all, “Vanity of vanities, and all is vanity. What is this great abundance for man in all his toil, at which he toils under the sun?” So true life is to be laid hold of, our investments are to be transferred to the place of true life, so that we may find there what we give here. The one who transforms us also transforms those investments.

There are some people who want to twist even a famous passage in the book of Solomon, called Ecclesiastes, into a defense of these recurring cycles of universal dissolution and re-evocation of the past: “What is it that has been? The same thing that shall be. What is it that has been done? The same that shall be done. Nothing under the sun is new, neither is anyone able to say, ‘Behold, this is new,’ for it has already gone before in the ages that were before us.” But here Solomon was speaking either of things he had just been discussing—the succession of generations, the revolution of the sun, the course of rivers—or, at any rate, of those creatures in general that come to life and die. For example, there were people before us, they are with us now, and they shall come after us. And the same is true of animals and plants. Even monstrosities that are abnormal at birth, different as they are among themselves and, in certain cases, unique, nevertheless, inasmuch as they come under the heading of prodigies and monsters, have existed before and will exist again. Consequently, it is nothing new or even of recent date that a monster should be born under the sun. However, there are some who interpret the words to mean that what Solomon had in mind was that, in the predestination of God, everything is already a fact and, in that sense, there is nothing new under the sun.Far be it from us Christians, however, to believe that these words of Solomon refer to those cycles by which, as these philosophers suppose, the same periods of time and sequence of events will be repeated. For example, the philosopher Plato having taught in a certain age at the school of Athens called the Academy, even so, through innumerable ages of the past at long but definite intervals, this same Plato and the same city, the same school and the same disciples all existed and will all exist again and again through innumerable ages of the future. Far be it from us, I say, to believe this.
For Christ died once for our sins; and “having risen from the dead, dies now no more, death shall no longer have dominion over him.” And we after the resurrection “shall ever be with the Lord,” to whom we say, as the holy psalmist reminds us, “You, Oh Lord, will preserve us: and keep us from this generation forever.” And the verse that follows, I think, may be suitably applied to these philosophers: “The wicked walk round about.” These words do not mean that their life will repeatedly recur in cycle after cycle as they think but that here and now the way of their errors, that is, their false doctrine, goes around in circles.

People are accustomed to set a high value on the knowledge of earthly and celestial things. But they are certainly better who prefer the knowledge of themselves to this knowledge. And a mind to which even its own weakness is known is more deserving of praise than one that … is ignorant of the course by which it must proceed to reach its own true health and strength. But one who has been aroused by the warmth of the Holy Spirit … has already awakened to God. In his love for [God, such a person] has already felt his own unworthiness and is willing but is not yet strong enough to come to him. And through the light received from [God, this person] takes heed to himself and finds that his own defilement cannot mingle with his purity. [This person] feels it sweet to weep and to beseech God that he may again and again have pity until he has cast off all his misery. [This person also prays] with confidence as having already received the free gift of salvation through his only Savior and enlightener of humankind. For one who so acts and laments, knowledge does not puff up because charity edifies. He has preferred the one knowledge to the other knowledge; he has preferred to know his own weakness more than to know the walls of the world, the foundations of the earth, and the heights of the heavens. And by acquiring this knowledge he has acquired sorrow, the sorrow arising from his wandering away from the desire of his own true country, and from its founder, his own blessed God.

I ask you, then, are we to suppose that the only decree of God that will not come to pass, the only decree of God, will be the one which we read in those same writings as being about to judge between believers and unbelievers, when everything else that we read has happened as it was foretold? On the contrary, it will come to pass as all those other prophecies came to pass. Then there will be no person of our times who will be able at that judgment to find an excuse for unbelief when everyone shall call on Christ: the upright for justice, the perjurer for deceit, the king for power and the soldier for battle, the husband to maintain his authority and the wife to show her submission, the father for command and the son for obedience, the master for his right to rule and the servant for his subjection, the humble for piety and the proud for ambition, the rich man to distribute and the poor to receive, the drunkard at his wine cups and the beggar at the gate, the good person that he may excel in virtue and the bad one that he may cheat, the Christian worshiper and the pagan sycophant. All have the name of Christ upon their lips, and, with whatever intention and formula they invoke him, without doubt they shall render an account of it to him whom they invoke.

In order, indeed, that you may have the fullest and clearest assurance that what is the soul is in the usage of the Holy Scriptures also called spirit, the soul of a brute animal has the designation of spirit. And of course cattle have not that spirit which you, my beloved brother, have defined as being distinct from the soul. It is therefore quite evident that the soul of a brute animal could be rightly called “spirit” in a general sense of the term; as we read in the book of Ecclesiastes, “Who knows the spirit of the sons of men, whether it goes upward; and the spirit of the beast, whether it goes downward into the earth?” In like manner, touching the devastation of the deluge, the Scripture testifies, “All flesh died that moved upon the earth, both of fowl, and of cattle, and of beast, and of every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth, and every man: and all things which have the spirit of life.” Here, if we remove all the windings of doubtful disputation, we understand the term spirit to be synonymous with soul in its general sense. Of so wide a signification is this term, that even God is called “a spirit”; and a stormy blast of the air, although it has material substance, is called by the psalmist the “spirit” of a tempest. For all these reasons, therefore, you will no longer deny that what is the soul is called also spirit. I have, I think, adduced enough from the pages of Holy Scripture to secure your assent in passages where the soul of the very brute beast, which has no understanding, is designated spirit.

The following is one of the many arguments that Pelagius uses in treating this subject: “Once more I repeat: I say that it is possible for a person to be without sin. And what do you say? That it is impossible for a person to be without sin? But I do not say,” he adds, “that there is a person without sin, nor do you say that there is not a person without sin. We are disputing about what is possible and impossible, not about what is and is not.” Next he notes that a number of the passages of Scripture which are usually invoked against them do not bear upon the question in dispute, namely, whether or not a person can be without sin: “For there is no one who is free from pollution,” and, “There is no one that does not sin,” and, “There is no just person on the earth,” and, “There is no one that does good.” “These and other similar texts,” he says, “apply to nonexistence, not to impossibility. By examples of this kind it is shown how some persons were at a given time, not that they could not have been something else. For this reason they are justly found to be guilty. For if they were as they were because they could not have been otherwise, then they are free from blame.”