DECLARATIONES NONNULLARUM DIFFICULTATUM SCRIPTURAE

• 255A

You ask why, since in the first creation all things are said to be good, of those to be brought into the ark some are called clean, but others unclean — since these, by the very fact that they are unclean, do not seem to be good. But in the consideration of things there is one judgment according to the first condition, another according to human custom, and yet another according to the divine law. According to the first condition all are judged good or clean; according to human custom some appear clean, others unclean. But from among the customarily clean, a certain divine sanction has made exception and decrees them unclean. The first judgment is according to the definition of reason, the second according to the experience of sensuality, the third according to the decree of the divine sanction. 255BReason judges according to the nature and property 256Aimplanted in things. Sensuality [judges] according to its own affection, and to the difference of its pleasure or its horror. The divine sanction [judges] according to some likeness, for the sake of signification. According to the judgment of reason, nothing is unclean but sin. Sensuality reckons unclean whatever the sense of the flesh shrinks from or is nauseated by. When the divine sanction decrees unclean something that is naturally clean, it does so for the grace of signification, and thereby intends something truly unclean to be blotted out from the morals of men. Many things, therefore, which according to custom or some institution are reckoned unclean, according to the reason of their own property are judged clean and good.

256BYou ask how those are called azymi by the Apostle who 257Anevertheless are commanded by the same [Apostle] to purge out the old leaven. For what azyma [is] among the Greeks, that same thing our word "leaven" (fermentum) expresses among us; but azyma [means] the same as "without leaven." If therefore they are not without leaven, how can they be called azymi? Or if they lack all leaven, how are they able to purge out what they do not have at all? Purge out, he says, the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are azymi (I Cor. V). In these words of the Apostle, if you consider well, you will find — so it seems to me — not one question only, but several. But while you propose one alone, in that very act you signify that you have no doubt about the others. Gladly, therefore, will I try to resolve your doubt, provided that afterward you too resolve my doubt — and not one only, but a twofold one — so that I may receive the talent entrusted 257Bback with interest. Behold, we confess that the same [persons], in the same respect, cannot both be azymi and have leaven; yet the same [persons], in one respect and another, can both be azymi and not lack leaven. There are those who think nothing wickedly of God, and are purged from every leaven of wickedness of that kind, but by living badly have not yet deserved to be purged of the leaven of malice. According to the rule of goodness they think true things of God, but according to the rule of goodness they will not live rightly. Such men lack the leaven of wickedness, but do not yet lack the leaven of malice: Think, says the Scripture, of the Lord in goodness (Sap. I). See the Jews, how wickedly they think of Christ. See the gentiles, that they cannot think true things of God: both, therefore, are full of the leaven of wickedness. See 257Cany heretic: in respect of something he thinks well of God, in respect of something he is now unable to think well of God. From the leaven of wickedness, therefore, he has not yet deserved to be fully purged. It is wickedness when one is now unable to perceive what he ought. It is wickedness when malice so inebriates the mind, and so far blinds it, that it can no longer perceive concerning God or neighbor according to what the rule of truth dictates. Attend now to Christians, and you will see how many there are who in all things believe truly, but in all things do not live sincerely. They have the azyma of truth, but they have not the azyma of sincerity. They are azymi according to faith, but they are not azymi according to work. Rightly, therefore, is it said to those who are of this kind: Purge out the old leaven, that 257Dye may be a new lump, even as ye are azymi, so that they who are now azymi by faith may with all zeal purge out whatever of impurity they have in work. Behold, now you have heard what you yourself asked. Hear now yourself what I desire to be expounded to me. Surely a new lump, unless it be first baked, cannot be eaten; but bread without leaven can be eaten. Why then are they not invited by the Apostle to that which is proved to be better and more perfect? Why are they not invited to be bread without leaven rather than a new lump? Behold my doubt; hear also another. What is unleavened bread (panis azymus) but food? If therefore they were azymi, are they not also to be taken as food? But they are also commanded to feast upon azyma. Are the same [persons] both to be feasted upon and about to feast? Are the same [persons] both the banquet 258Aand the guests, the feasters and the feast? If they themselves are azymi, if they are about to feast upon azyma, are they not to be devoured by their very selves? These two little questions I require for the debt owed at interest; a third, gratis. For according to the abundance of your generosity you ought to answer even one of them gratis. Since true faith is wont always to be — or ought to be — prior to sincere works, why are they commanded to feast first upon the azyma of sincerity, not upon the azyma of truth?

I confess, I can no longer bear with an even mind the importunity of your exaction, who compel me to resolve not only the questions proposed to me by you, but also those proposed to you by me. But if we wish to explain them fully, 258Bit will be necessary to expound that whole apostolic lesson of the paschal solemnity: Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are azymi. That we may be able more fully to understand this passage of the Apostle, there is need, as it seems to me, of a manifold inquiry: first, what leaven is, what "a little leaven" is, what "old leaven" is, what the manner of purging is, what azyma is, what "a new lump" is, and what the difference between bread and lump is; and lastly — as I have already said above — why we are admonished by the Apostle to be made a new lump, and not rather bread without leaven. What bodily leaven is, and of what efficacy it is, we know; and by that very thing we weigh what we ought to think of spiritual leaven. Spiritual leaven, then, seems to be that which corrupts 258Cthe integrity of a spiritual and rational substance. Spiritual leaven, therefore, we say to be every sin that corrupts it, whether in respect of sense or in respect of affection. In respect of sense it is corrupted by falsity; in respect of affection, by impurity. So long, then, as we can truly say — for if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us — rightly is it said to us, and deservedly ought it to be said: Purge out the old leaven. But if every sin is deservedly called leaven, it follows that by "a little leaven" is understood venial sin, which is both easily committed and easily remitted. And I say "a little," not that it is to be lightly esteemed, 258Dbut that it is little in comparison with criminal sins. But you say, perhaps: If, according to the Apostle, a little leaven can corrupt the whole mass of merits, we cannot understand by "a little leaven" anything but something criminal. And indeed that, you say, against which the Apostle disputed in what precedes — although a great sin — was nevertheless, according to the same [Apostle], a little leaven; otherwise, to what end does he consequently add: Know ye not that a little leaven corrupteth the whole mass? (I Cor. V.) So perhaps it seems to you. What then? Did he who had his father's wife contract but a little of leaven? If a little leaven works a little corruption, and much leaven a great corruption, shall we say that he was corrupted but a little, 259Aand not much, who committed such an outrage? I rather understand it to have been said by the Apostle — that a little leaven corrupteth the whole mass — so that those who heard might understand how great a corruption so great and so abominable an outrage brought in, [and] with how great zeal and haste it behoved to be purged out, since even a little leaven is wont to corrupt the whole mass. If, according to the apostle John, Every sin is iniquity (I Joan. III), what will criminal sin be but a great iniquity? We shall say, then, that a great iniquity is a little corruption; for this seems to follow, if a little leaven be called criminal sin. But how, you say, can venial sin corrupt the whole mass, according to the Apostle? 259BHear what another Scripture says, and from it weigh how this ought to be understood: He that neglecteth small things falleth away little by little (Eccli. XIX). And we know that from a little spark a fire blazes up. We often see, while the head of the household sleeps, how great [a fire] blazes up from a little one, and in a single night or hour consumes the whole substance of the possessor — and sometimes even the dweller himself together with his dwelling. So indeed concupiscence, little in the beginning of temptation, if it be despised, begins little by little to grow, and by degrees to soften the powers of the mind, and, its strength exhausted, to drive on to crime, and after this manner to corrupt the mass of our merits. So indeed, so — if it be neglected — from a little leaven no little mass is often corrupted; for if we do not in the least neglect [it], though however basely 259Cfallen, [but] strongly press on in purging out the leaven of whatever crime, we shall be able to preserve the mass of our goods from its corruption. Hence it is that, after his special admonition, taking occasion, he rises to general doctrine, when he says: Purge out the old leaven.

Do you suppose he teaches us to press on in purging out the little leaven alone, or the great alone, and not rather both the great and the little? Purge out, he says, the old leaven. That leaven is deservedly called "old" whereby the soul is infected and, in the infection, corrupted. For that leaven seems recent which as yet strikes the soul only through thought. What is in thought alone strikes, as it were, outwardly at the doors; what already holds the affection 259Doccupies and defiles the inward parts. The one, then, is to be repelled; the other, to be purged out. And the manner of purging is carried out in manifold ways: by reproving, by praying, by confessing. Of the first you have it in the psalm: The things which ye say in your hearts, be ye pricked with compunction upon your beds (Psal. IV). Of the second and third you have it in the apostle James: Confess your sins one to another, and pray for one another (Jac. V). Of the fourth there is that saying of John the Baptist: Bring forth, he says, fruits worthy of penance (Luc. III). In the purging of criminal [sins] there is need, assuredly, of confession and satisfaction; for compunction and prayer are sometimes wont to suffice for the purging of venial [sins]. Criminal [sins] must be purged out fully, both in respect of guilt and in respect of act. In respect of guilt, that you make satisfaction for things past, 260Aand for the rest presume nothing of the kind. But because we can never, so long as we live in this corruptible flesh, wholly root out venial [sins] from our life, we ought always to press on in the purging of them, and to renew our zeal toward daily increases of purity. That ye may be, he says, a new lump, even as ye are azymi. It seems, indeed, that azyma can be said both of bread without leaven and of a lump not yet leavened; for azyma sounds the same as "without leaven." Which of these, then, ought we to understand in that which he says, that they are azymi? But if they were already a new lump, there was no need to admonish that they be what they were. In that, then, which he says [they are] azymi, he wished — as it seems — bread without leaven to be understood. What then? Did he wish to admonish them of this, that they should 260Bcease to be bread without leaven and become a new lump? Who would say this? For neither is a lump wont to be made from bread, but rather bread from a lump. It is understood, then, that in respect of something they were azymi, and again in respect of something they were not azymi: in respect of that whereby they were not without leaven, he wished them to be made a new lump. For many are azymi according to faith who are not azymi according to work; and many seem to be azymi according to work who nevertheless are not azymi according to intention, as hypocrites. And there are those who have the azyma of sincerity in intention, who nevertheless do not fully lack leaven in affection. And therefore, without doubt, so long as we, consenting in mind indeed to the law of God, see another law in our members warring against the law of our mind, and [see] captivity 260Cinto the law of sin — so long, I say, as we see this in ourselves, beyond doubt we have need of the purging of leaven, [and] deservedly is it said to us: Purge out the old leaven, that ye may be a new lump, even as ye are azymi. That which he says, "a lump" — not any lump whatever, but "new" — seems to be worth as much as if he said "not leavened." For a lump, even when leaven has been cast in, is not leavened without an interval [of time]. After it has already been leavened, then, it ceases to be recent and loses its newness. As, then, in respect of something they had already been made as it were bread without leaven, so in respect of something he wished them to be made a lump without leaven. In both cases he did not wish them to have unleavened bread; in both, to be without corruption — both in that which they already were, and in that 260Dwhich they might yet be. Let us now see what there is between bread and lump. Bread, as has already been said, is made from a lump, but not a lump from bread. A lump is a matter tender and soft and capable of receiving diverse form. Bread is a thing already formed, and firm, and solidified by fire. Unleavened bread, then, is made by an affection firm and robust in the good. A new lump is made by the recent purpose of the soul, but as yet rude and little exercised. A lump is formed between the hands, afterward baked by fire and solidified, and thus is made bread. So indeed, so, the promotion of our merits, the renewal of our advances, is begun from deliberation, moderated through discretion, consummated in love.

When, therefore, to increase the soul's purity we determine something new, and press on in an intention of this kind 261Awith much deliberation, what else do we do, in purging out the leaven, than make a new lump? But because not all can do all things, nor do all things alike profit all, when we learn our measure and the good manner of acting in whatever purpose is to be carried out, and are trained through our own experience unto discretion, so that we accomplish all things with moderation, what else do we do than shape loaves to be baked? For then is the bread as it were baked at the fire, when the good purpose is turned through use into delight, and is solidified through love. It is one thing, then, [to have] the promotion of good, and another [to have] the confirmation of good. It is one thing, in fine, [to have] the beginning of good, and another the consummation of the same. The latter 261Bpertains to bread, the former to the new lump. Because, then, no one becomes perfect of a sudden, nor is at once confirmed in every beginning of good, the Apostle, speaking to men in human wise on account of their infirmity, admonishes that they be made a new lump, not bread without leaven — although without doubt he tended to this end, that, being made a new lump, from the new lump they might at some time become even azymi loaves. For no one makes a lump for any other cause than that from it bread may be made. Deservedly, therefore, does the Apostle admonish that they become that which they could meanwhile become, and by that very thing intimates to what end they ought to tend — that is, that at length, at some time, they may wholly become azymi, and advance to the consummation and confirmation of the true good. Behold, now you have why they are admonished to be made a new lump, 261Cnot bread without leaven. But this is a marvel, and no less to be investigated: why they who are called azymi are invited to the eating of the lamb. For to eat is not [proper] to azymus; but to eat or to be eaten is not [proper] to a lump. When, then, it has been said that they were azymi, [and] enjoined that they become a new lump, what consequence, I pray, is there that he should consequently add: For our pascha hath been sacrificed, even Christ; therefore let us keep the feast (I Cor. V.)

We know indeed that it was commanded in the Law that, when they sacrificed the lamb and celebrated the pasch, they should eat no bread at all but unleavened. If, then, the Apostle had said that they were indeed not azymi but had azyma, and had invited them to have it yet more abundantly, it would seem consequent enough that he should add: 261DFor our pascha hath been sacrificed, even Christ; therefore let us keep the feast. What we understand historically of the one, we ought to understand spiritually of the other; for whatever is said of the one seems said for the sake of the other. What is there said of bodily leaven is here understood of spiritual leaven. Those, then, who are said not to have azyma but to be [azyma] — it is a marvel by what reason they are invited to eat azyma or the lamb. But whoever would more fully understand the force of the apostolic sentence, it will behove him to search these things out more deeply. A twofold pasch, assuredly, it behoves us to celebrate; a twofold passage, without doubt, to make. For pascha, as we have often heard, is interpreted "a passing-over." And we must pass first from injustice to justice, secondly 262Afrom misery to glory. A good passage, to pass from iniquity to goodness; a good passage none the less, to pass from misery to blessedness. Both we ought to do solemnly; of both to rejoice inwardly. But as to the first, in the thing; as to the second, in hope. The first solemnity, then, we ought ourselves to make with his help; the second to await from his gift alone. In the one it behoves us to take the lamb for eating; in the other to show ourselves fit as food for him. In the one, then, it behoves us to have azyma, to eat azyma; in the other, it behoves us to be azyma, and to yield to the eating of the Lamb. Nor marvel that you hear it behoves us to be fed upon the Lamb, and to become the Lamb's food, since you likewise read (if you recall): That we have put on Christ, who nevertheless are Christ's garment 262B(Rom. XIII). And of both we have testimonies of the Scriptures. It behoves us, then, meanwhile to become azymi, and to be purged from every leaven of oldness, if we wish to be found worthy and acceptable in that future solemnity. But if we wish to be azymi, it behoves us to eat azyma. But, you say, if we eat unleavened bread, shall we therefore be bread? We know assuredly that bread is wont to be incorporated into him who eats, but not to incorporate the eater into itself. We know bread that is wont to nourish the flesh, to fatten the flesh, and to render it more robust. What is this bread which makes that which is of the flesh fail of itself, and makes the eater pass over into its own likeness? But, that you marvel not the more at this, hear what manner of bread, what manner of azyma, we set before you to eat: 262CI am the living bread which came down from heaven (Joan. VI). Beyond doubt, if you eat this bread, not it in you, but you shall be changed into it (lib. VII Confessionum D. August., cap. 10). If you will not believe me, hear him whom you dare not contradict: I am the food of the grown; grow, and thou shalt eat me. Nor shalt thou change me into thee, as the food of thy flesh, but thou shalt be changed into me. But perhaps you still ask that it be shown you more evidently in what way this can be done. If, then, you enjoy truth and are delighted with such food, do you suppose that, by hungering for truth and enjoying it, you can change truth into falsity? If you take Christ as your food, it is better for you that he make you truthful out of a liar, than that you make him a liar out of the truthful. Beyond doubt Christ is the highest truth; beyond doubt Christ is the highest purity 262D; the azyma of truth makes the truthful out of the liar; the azyma of sincerity makes the clean of heart out of the unclean. When you have been confirmed in truth and sincerity, beyond doubt you will be azymi, and worthy to be taken as food for the Lamb. But when he yields into your food, and when he takes you into his food, in both cases not he into you, but you are changed into him. In the first change he makes you like himself in justice; in the second he makes you like himself in glory. In the first, as has been said, he makes the truthful out of the liar, and the clean of heart out of the unclean; in the second, the immortal out of the mortal, and the incorruptible out of the corruptible, when he shall configure the body of our lowliness to the body of his brightness: For this corruptible, the Apostle witnessing, must 263Aput on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality (II Cor. XV). If, then, we wish to be like him in glory, it behoves us to be azymi; and if we wish to become azymi, it behoves us to eat the azyma of sincerity and of truth.

But it does not suffice to have azyma of this kind, and to grasp by understanding and hold in memory what sincerity is or what stands true, unless we add that we also eat [it], and, working — as it were, chewing — study to transfix it into our affection, and to fill our inmost parts with sweetness and satiety of this kind. You see assuredly that it is one thing to have azyma, and another to eat azyma, and yet another to be azyma. If, therefore, we cannot be azymi unless we eat the appointed azyma, what marvel if he 263Bwished those who already were in part azymi, and in part were not, [to become], through the mediating new lump, wholly azymi — what marvel, I say, if he invited them to eat azyma? But principally he invites them to the eating of the Lamb, without whose grace they could not persevere in that which they already were, [namely] azymi, nor in that which they yet were, [namely] azyma, nor [could there be] a new lump, nor from it could azymi be made. Now attend, I beseech you, to this — how consequent it is, and how fitting, that he who of himself made your food for you, you should of yourself make his food for him. You have sat at the table of a rich man; attend to what is set before you, and see that it behoves you to prepare such things. The Apostle wishes us to be made a new lump (I Cor. V), and from the lump bread without leaven — and deservedly. For our pascha hath been sacrificed, [even] 263CChrist. Let us, then, be made a new lump, that Christ may find in us whereof a feast may be made for him. For our pascha hath been sacrificed, even Christ, that we may find in him wherewith we may feast. And from this, that Christ hath been sacrificed, both are effected: that we both ought deservedly to do what the Apostle admonishes, and are able also to accomplish it. For from the immolation and eating of the Lamb (if only we eat him in the azyma of sincerity and of truth) we receive grace, that we may be able to fulfill the admonitions of the Apostle. Let him, then, eat the Lamb with azyma who [would be] a new lump, who desires to be pure of all leaven, who prepares himself apt and fit for the eating of Christ. Behold, now you have received why they who are called azyma, why they who are admonished to be made a new lump, are enjoined 263Dto feast on the Lamb with azyma. But it yet remains to inquire that which we set in the last place. For since Solomon says: Let thine eyelids go before thy steps (Prov. IV), and since it is prior to look forward than to proceed, to recognize than to do — why is the azyma of truth set after by the Apostle in admonishing, if it must be prior in eating? But that we may come the more conveniently to this point of the question, let us first diligently inspect what goes before. The Apostle, then, teaches how it is lawful to eat the Lamb, and how it is by no means lawful to eat him. It is not lawful to eat him in the leaven of malice and of wickedness; but, as you consequently hear, in the azyma of sincerity and of truth.

Hence it is permitted to observe what there is between the pasch 264Aof the Jews and the pasch of Christians. There, assuredly, bodily leaven is interdicted; here, however, spiritual leaven. There unleavened bread is enjoined; here, however, the azyma of sincerity and of truth. And deservedly indeed: for there is sacrificed the lamb of the Law, but a beast; here, however, the lamb spiritual and supercelestial. There a brute animal; here man, God, the Word of God. The immolation of each gives to pass over from servitude to liberty — but of the one, from bodily [servitude] to bodily [liberty]; of the other, from spiritual to spiritual. The one immolation gives to pass over from Egypt into the desert; the other gives to return from the world into paradise. The one, in fine, gives to pass over from the servitude of Pharaoh into an earthly kingdom; the other transmits from the servitude of the devil into the kingdom of heaven. From these things it is given to understand how incomparably greater, how 264Binestimably worthier this solemnity is than that; our pasch, in fine, than the Jews': For our pascha hath been sacrificed, even Christ. Therefore, he says, let us keep the feast (I Cor. V). You have heard what is the fruit of the immolation. Do you wish yet to hear what is the fruit of the feasting? Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, ye shall not have life in you (Joan. VI). But, lest it be thought said of any life whatever, let us hear yet what is said upon the same: He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath life everlasting (ibid.). Behold what fruit he finds from the eating of him — not every one, indeed, but he that approaches worthily: Otherwise, he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh judgment to himself (ibid.). Let us keep the feast, then, but not unworthily. This is what 264Cthe Apostle wished to teach you when he subjoins: Not in the leaven of malice and of wickedness, but in the azyma of sincerity and of truth. To eat in the leaven of malice and of wickedness is, beyond doubt, to eat unworthily. But that you may be made worthy, eat in the azyma of sincerity and of truth. Behold, two things are forbidden, two are enjoined. Behold, you have two against two: the azyma of sincerity against the leaven of malice, the azyma of truth against the leaven of wickedness. Now every spiritual corruption in men seems to arise either from concupiscence of the flesh or from ignorance of the mind, and every kind of spiritual leaven [seems] to be comprehended under these two. But by the name of malice and of wickedness the Apostle is not said to have comprehended every kind of leaven; for not all concupiscence pertains to 264Dmalice, just as not all ignorance is imputed to wickedness. It is one thing to feel concupiscence, and another to consent to concupiscence. It is imputed to infirmity that we feel concupiscence against the will; to malice, that we consent to concupiscence out of deliberation. For malice is to consent, out of purpose and deliberation, with a ready mind, to a known evil. What else, then, is malice than unbridled concupiscence? For concupiscence is either bridled or unbridled: the former venial, the latter damnable. Yet each infects, each corrupts, and each by that very thing shows itself to pertain to leaven. So likewise ignorance is either venial or damnable. Venial, indeed, 265Athat which descends from infirmity; damnable, that which rises from malice. The one beclouds the mind, for the other blinds it. For malice is wont so often to blind a man that it permits him not to think of his neighbor in simplicity and goodness, and sometimes not even of God. Malice, then, begets and nourishes the vice which the Apostle in this place names wickedness (nequitia), in that in its own judgment it can no longer (nequeat) keep the rule of truth and of goodness.

Let it not disturb you if you find this word set down under another acceptation: for the poverty of words compels [us] now to extend, now to restrict, the signification of expressions, or to vary it in whatever other way. But we ought always, in matters of this kind, from the circumstance of the letter to weigh and assign the sense of the author. If, therefore, we wish to follow the sense of the Apostle, thus, unless I am mistaken, ought we 265Bto interpret [it]: that, just as by way of opposition malice [answers] to sincerity, so also wickedness may answer to truth. It is proper to wickedness always to suspect the sinister, to interpret all things sinisterly, to be a slave to disparagement and detraction, to reprehend the divine judgments, to hesitate in the faith, and to murmur under the scourges of God. As, therefore, under the name of malice is understood not concupiscence of whatever kind, but the unbridled, so under the name of wickedness is understood not ignorance of whatever kind, but the malicious. And so, if it were said "not in the leaven of concupiscence and of ignorance," where it is put "not in the leaven of malice and of wickedness," the Apostle would seem to have prescribed something more perfect, and to answer, as by way of opposition, more fully 265Cto that which he subjoins, "in the azyma of sincerity and of truth." But the Apostle wished, as we have already said, to teach how it is lawful to approach the eating of the Lamb, or how it is not lawful to approach. Now it is venial to approach with venial concupiscence and venial ignorance; but it is damnable to draw near with damnable concupiscence or damnable ignorance. To malice pertains damnable concupiscence alone; to wickedness, damnable ignorance alone. Deservedly, then, the Apostle would not say 266A"not in the leaven of concupiscence and of ignorance," but something more temperate, "not in the leaven of malice and of wickedness," lest he should seem to debar every man from the eating of the Lamb. For who would suffice fully to purge, in this life, the leaven of concupiscence and of ignorance, where the flesh lusteth against the spirit, so long as we know not what we should pray for as we ought? Attend, then, how discreetly, how considerately, the Apostle would not prescribe that which was above human strength: he enjoins upon man that alone which he knew possible for man. He says, then: Not in the leaven of malice and of wickedness, but in the azyma of sincerity and of truth. Let us now inquire what this inversion of order is, that he should set the azyma of sincerity before that of truth, since right faith is always prior to good working. 266BFor it is impossible without faith to please God. But it stands [certain] that faith is a certain certitude set above opinion and below knowledge. There is, then, one cognition of truth which is through faith alone, and another which is through the understanding of truth. Each is designated by the prophet, when it is said: If ye will not believe, ye shall not understand (Isa. VII). But that which is in faith alone is wont always to precede good works; whereas that which is through understanding follows good works, since by working well we are illumined unto truth. Hence is that [saying] of the Wise Man: Son, thou hast desired wisdom; keep the commandments, and God will give it to thee (Eccli. VII). This same thing, in himself, through experience, does he say who said: From 266Cthy commandments I have gotten understanding (Psal. CXVIII). To that cognition of truth, then, which is through understanding, the Apostle calls us, when he invites us to the feast of sincerity and of truth. It ought not, therefore, to suffice us to believe truly and firmly the sacraments of our faith, unless we are busy, as far as we can, to grasp [them] also through understanding. From the azyma of sincerity let us satisfy our affection; from the azyma of truth let us refresh our intellect.